Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: David1819 on November 07, 2019, 02:23:PM
-
Key inconsistencies and lies made by prosecution witnesses that went unchallenged before the Jury.
Claims Jeremy said he could kill anybody and his parents.
Robert Boutflour told the Jury this when the prosecution brought the subject up.
"A: Yes, he stated: "Oh no, uncle Bobbie, I could kill anybody. I could even kill my parents" or words to that effect. The important thing was he said "I could easily kill my parents"
In this answer alone he has already changed "even" to "easily". The prosecutor then asks how RWB reacted to this and he said he was "Shocked".
While going through Barlow's note book, reading all the pointless things RWB was reporting to Barlow, it occured to me that this "Shocking" conversation with Jeremy is never brought up. Barlow also goes on to say that nothing AE and RWB said to him made him anymore suspicious of Jeremy.
The only record I know of when RWB informs the police of this alleged conversation. Is in this typed letter he made on the 7th of September then sent it to ACC Simpson. If this is the first time the Police heard about it, then it is almost certainly a lie.
Lying about the silencers significance.
Ann Eaton told the Jury this in regards to her understanding of the silencer.
"At the time I did not know whether it was rabbit blood or what. and I thought the jewellery was the most important thing, turns out I was wrong."
This is a lie. Because the previous year her account on the same subject was as follows.
"We discussed the implication of how this silencer could be in the gun cupboard with blood and paint on it. Obviously if it was being alleged that somebody had had a brainstorm and shot dead four people they would surely not have stopped to remove the silencer, put it back in the gun cupboard, go back upstairs and shoot herself dead. Contact was made with the police about the discovery of the blood and paint stained silencer."
Ann Eaton told the court she thought it was rabbits blood.
RIVLIN: How could you imagine that the blood at the end of the silencer might be a rabbits blood?
ANN EATON: I don't know.
RIVLIN: That is what you told the court. How could you imagine that it might be a rabbits blood?
ANN EATON: Jeremy said he had been shooting rabbits the night before.
However Jeremy said he did not get a chance to shoot them. . Ann Eaton knew Jeremy said this and wrote this in her notes. Hence her answer "Jeremy said he had been shooting rabbits the night before." as for why she thought rabbit blood was on the silencer is clearly a lie.
Furthermore if she did indeed think it was rabbit blood and had no importance why did she report it to the police in the first place?
ARLIDGE: As a result of that being found, were police contacted?
ANN EATON: Yes, Witham Police
ARLIDGE: Do you know the date on which that took place?
ANN EATON: Saturday night.
ARLIDGE: That very evening?
ANN EATON: Yes.
MR. Justice Drake: (To the witness): Q: Who actually contacted them?
ANN EATON: It was probably me, but I cannot remember, but Witham Police were contacted.
The full story of Shelia's bloody underwear
ARLIDGE: What did you do with them in the end? Do they still exist?
ANN EATON: No we decided to put them in the rubbish bin in the kitchen.
This is called lying by omission. In 1991 Ann Eaton admits taking the bloody knickers back to Oak Farm.
Sheila firing a gun
At trial David Boutflour denied having any memory of seeing Sheila firing a gun. Yet according to David James Smith, David Boutflour later admitted that Sheila had used his shotgun.
And so, if a fair trial transpired the judges summing up should be along the lines of : Do you believe Jeremy or do you believe his relatives?
-
Key inconsistencies and lies made by prosecution witnesses that went unchallenged before the Jury.
Claims Jeremy said he could kill anybody and his parents.
Robert Boutflour told the Jury this when the prosecution brought the subject up.
"A: Yes, he stated: "Oh no, uncle Bobbie, I could kill anybody. I could even kill my parents" or words to that effect. The important thing was he said "I could easily kill my parents"
In this answer alone he has already changed "even" to "easily". The prosecutor then asks how RWB reacted to this and he said he was "Shocked".
While going through Barlow's note book, reading all the pointless things RWB was reporting to Barlow, it occured to me that this "Shocking" conversation with Jeremy is never brought up. Barlow also goes on to say that nothing AE and RWB said to him made him anymore suspicious of Jeremy.
The only record I know of when RWB informs the police of this alleged conversation. Is in this typed letter he made on the 7th of September then sent it to ACC Simpson. If this is the first time the Police heard about it, then it is almost certainly a lie.
Lying about the silencers significance.
Ann Eaton told the Jury this in regards to her understanding of the silencer.
"At the time I did not know whether it was rabbit blood or what. and I thought the jewellery was the most important thing, turns out I was wrong."
This is a lie. Because the previous year her account on the same subject was as follows.
"We discussed the implication of how this silencer could be in the gun cupboard with blood and paint on it. Obviously if it was being alleged that somebody had had a brainstorm and shot dead four people they would surely not have stopped to remove the silencer, put it back in the gun cupboard, go back upstairs and shoot herself dead. Contact was made with the police about the discovery of the blood and paint stained silencer."
Ann Eaton told the court she thought it was rabbits blood.
RIVLIN: How could you imagine that the blood at the end of the silencer might be a rabbits blood?
ANN EATON: I don't know.
RIVLIN: That is what you told the court. How could you imagine that it might be a rabbits blood?
ANN EATON: Jeremy said he had been shooting rabbits the night before.
However Jeremy said he did not get a chance to shoot them. . Ann Eaton knew Jeremy said this and wrote this in her notes. Hence her answer "Jeremy said he had been shooting rabbits the night before." as for why she thought rabbit blood was on the silencer is clearly a lie.
Furthermore if she did indeed think it was rabbit blood and had no importance why did she report it to the police in the first place?
ARLIDGE: As a result of that being found, were police contacted?
ANN EATON: Yes, Witham Police
ARLIDGE: Do you know the date on which that took place?
ANN EATON: Saturday night.
ARLIDGE: That very evening?
ANN EATON: Yes.
MR. Justice Drake: (To the witness): Q: Who actually contacted them?
ANN EATON: It was probably me, but I cannot remember, but Witham Police were contacted.
The full story of Shelia's bloody underwear
ARLIDGE: What did you do with them in the end? Do they still exist?
ANN EATON: No we decided to put them in the rubbish bin in the kitchen.
This is called lying by omission. In 1991 Ann Eaton admits taking the bloody knickers back to Oak Farm.
Sheila firing a gun
At trial David Boutflour denied having any memory of seeing Sheila firing a gun. Yet according to David James Smith, David Boutflour later admitted that Sheila had used his shotgun.
And so, if a fair trial transpired the judges summing up should be along the lines of : Do you believe Jeremy or do you believe his relatives?
AE did take the knickers back to Oak farm, because they were in the rubbish bag. She took the rubbish to go through the contents.
-
I do admire David's tenacity. Although not as much as Mike's. Who created the forum & has been campaigning for decades.
Jeremy, Trudie, Poppy & the rest of the CT are also very determined.
Keep digging.
-
I do admire David's tenacity. Although not as much as Mike's. Who created the forum & has been campaigning for decades.
Jeremy, Trudie, Poppy & the rest of the CT are also very determined.
Keep digging.
Can I politely ask what your agenda here is Adam??
-
Can I politely ask what your agenda here is Adam??
Well, I think you need to reveal yours first and introduce yourself in the foyer!
-
Well, I think you need to reveal yours first and introduce yourself in the foyer!
I'm taken unfortunately. And for clarification my question was for Adam not you.
-
I'm taken unfortunately. And for clarification my question was for Adam not you.
Taken? Not far enough! I don't care who it was aimed at - for a newby, you have a bad attitude. The rules are that you introduce yourself in the foyer. Not sure why you have a problem with that, but clearly you do!
-
Taken? Not far enough! I don't care who it was aimed at - for a newby, you have a bad attitude. The rules are that you introduce yourself in the foyer. Not sure why you have a problem with that, but clearly you do!
can I just await Adams response please and not speak to you. Thank you
-
can I just await Adams response please and not speak to you. Thank you
Yes love!
-
can I just await Adams response please and not speak to you. Thank you
You do need to introduce yourself in the foyer, as has been pointed out to you several times. Please do that before posting further. Please also treat other forum members with respect and courtesy. Thank you.
-
You do need to introduce yourself in the foyer, as has been pointed out to you several times. Please do that before posting further. Please also treat other forum members with respect and courtesy. Thank you.
I have just done so. No problem
-
Judging by your ID I hope you're not tanked-up on here as it never makes for pleasant reading---just sayin'
-
Judging by your ID I hope you're not tanked-up on here as it never makes for pleasant reading---just sayin'
Sometimes it might be helpful ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Sometimes it might be helpful ;D ;D ;D ;D
I'd hardly think so somehow.
-
I'd hardly think so somehow.
I was joking Lookout.
-
I was joking Lookout.
Yes I thought you were. We'll see how it goes ???
-
Yes I thought you were. We'll see how it goes ???
I get ya! ;)
-
Regardless of what the outcome is it's very clear in my opinion the boutflour, Eaton contingent were not very close to Jeremy Bamber and neither did they think very highly of him pre 1985 why can this be???
-
Regardless of what the outcome is it's very clear in my opinion the boutflour, Eaton contingent were not very close to Jeremy Bamber and neither did they think very highly of him pre 1985 why can this be???
Robert Boutflour blamed both Sheila and Jeremy for June's 1982 breakdown. Ann Eaton was older than Sheila and Jeremy and made her own way in the world initially as a secretary so maybe the family felt the Bambers were spoiled and pampered in comparison.
-
Robert Boutflour blamed both Sheila and Jeremy for June's 1982 breakdown. Ann Eaton was older than Sheila and Jeremy and made her own way in the world initially as a secretary so maybe the family felt the Bambers were spoiled and pampered in comparison.
do you believe that Robert boutflour had an axe to grind with Jeremy??
-
do you believe that Robert boutflour had an axe to grind with Jeremy??
The Boutflours certainly had a lot to lose from Jeremy essentially acquiring everything and selling it to the highest bidder. There's a video on YouTube, the Money Trail, which goes into it from one perspective.https://youtu.be/7YppVCocVbI
-
The Boutflours certainly had a lot to lose from Jeremy essentially acquiring everything and selling it to the highest bidder. There's a video on YouTube, the Money Trail, which goes into it from one perspective.https://youtu.be/7YppVCocVbI
I've seen it Steve. Put out of the equation for the moment Jeremy Bambers innocence or guilt. And the theory that the relatives framed Jeremy to be benerficaries. This is just my opinion, I believe that RB was jealous of nevill and over the years Jeremy,( in naturally piss taking form ) often reminded him about it and reminded him what eventually was coming his way ( talking a legitimate left over inheritance scenario)
-
Regardless of what the outcome is it's very clear in my opinion the boutflour, Eaton contingent were not very close to Jeremy Bamber and neither did they think very highly of him pre 1985 why can this be???
Personally, I'm inclined to think it had to do with Sheila and Jeremy being adopted. When property, land, and family money are part of the equation, often adopted children aren't -rightly of wrongly- seen as being as deserving as biological offspring. I believe there may have been some friction between Robert Boutflour and Nevill Bamber, POSSIBLY over money? and it may have been that until the Bambers adopted, he'd hoped that his own children would be their heirs. I think the fact that the Bamber children had it all handed to them on a plate would have been a bone of contention. They had the benefit of boarding schools, finishing schools, modelling courses, trips abroad, without contributing anything towards the running of the business, whilst his own children, after school, went to state college and then work.
-
Personally, I'm inclined to think it had to do with Sheila and Jeremy being adopted. When property, land, and family money are part of the equation, often adopted children aren't -rightly of wrongly- seen as being as deserving as biological offspring. I believe there may have been some friction between Robert Boutflour and Nevill Bamber, POSSIBLY over money? and it may have been that until the Bambers adopted, he'd hoped that his own children would be their heirs. I think the fact that the Bamber children had it all handed to them on a plate would have been a bone of contention. They had the benefit of boarding schools, finishing schools, modelling courses, trips abroad, without contributing anything towards the running of the business, whilst his own children, after school, went to state college and then work.
In other words rank jealousy.
-
I've seen it Steve. Put out of the equation for the moment Jeremy Bambers innocence or guilt. And the theory that the relatives framed Jeremy to be benerficaries. This is just my opinion, I believe that RB was jealous of nevill and over the years Jeremy,( in naturally piss taking form ) often reminded him about it and reminded him what eventually was coming his way ( talking a legitimate left over inheritance scenario)
I will go so far as to say I doubt there would have been a case without Robert Boutflour's willpower and tenacity. DCI Taff Jones said " that Julie is full of sh**" and he had more or less thrown Ann Eaton and her brother out of his office at Witham Police Station.
I happen to believe the scenario the relatives described in statements and in court so I don't really have a problem with his influence.
-
Personally, I'm inclined to think it had to do with Sheila and Jeremy being adopted. When property, land, and family money are part of the equation, often adopted children aren't -rightly of wrongly- seen as being as deserving as biological offspring. I believe there may have been some friction between Robert Boutflour and Nevill Bamber, POSSIBLY over money? and it may have been that until the Bambers adopted, he'd hoped that his own children would be their heirs. I think the fact that the Bamber children had it all handed to them on a plate would have been a bone of contention. They had the benefit of boarding schools, finishing schools, modelling courses, trips abroad, without contributing anything towards the running of the business, whilst his own children, after school, went to state college and then work.
i agree Jane. I also believe as I just stated that privately Jeremy Bamber. Being confident, strong minded never failed to remind Robert boutflour about it
-
I will go so far as to say I doubt there would have been a case without Robert Boutflour's willpower and tenacity. DCI Taff Jones said " that Julie is full of sh**" and he had more or less thrown Ann Eaton and her brother out of his office at Witham Police Station.
I happen to believe the scenario the relatives described in statements and in court so I don't really have a problem with his influence.
it's on the record that Robert boutflour claimed that Jeremy Bamber remarked to him " oh I could easily kill my parents" with what you have just said about the tenacity of rb why wasn't he screaming the guilt of his nephew to the nearest police officer. Or dialling 999, or even driving down to the cop shop about this remark, when he first was aware of the massacre??
-
i agree Jane. I also believe as I just stated that privately Jeremy Bamber. Being confident, strong minded never failed to remind Robert boutflour about it
I can't erase the feeling that RB took a dislike to Jeremy from the moment he saw him. I imagine, as an uncle, he may have left much to be desired -much spiteful taunting/teasing?- which to a small child would have been unfathomable, especially as RB knew of his adoption before Jeremy did. I think, as Jeremy reached adulthood, Jeremy retaliated and the goading and sparring probably became darker.
-
I've got to add this as well. This was a man of the world genteel farmer. Not a 21 year old " in denial girlfriend"
-
In other words rank jealousy.
Undoubtedly. However, much of it was on behalf of his own children who worked their socks off whilst the Bamber pair only played at it.
-
I've got to add this as well. This was a man of the world genteel farmer. Not a 21 year old " in denial girlfriend"
Mmm. Because he was at a remove and saw him in a different light, he wasn't as ready to overlook Jeremy's behaviours in the way that Nevill and June were. I think he had Jeremy's measure.
-
I will go so far as to say I doubt there would have been a case without Robert Boutflour's willpower and tenacity. DCI Taff Jones said " that Julie is full of sh**" and he had more or less thrown Ann Eaton and her brother out of his office at Witham Police Station.
I happen to believe the scenario the relatives described in statements and in court so I don't really have a problem with his influence.
the frightening aspect Steve it may not be so much his influence more his " agenda"
-
Mmm. Because he was at a remove and saw him in a different light, he wasn't as ready to overlook Jeremy's behaviours in the way that Nevill and June were. I think he had Jeremy's measure.
Thats my point Jane. So why didnt he share his suspicions with police asap?? It's a bleak area the taff Jones relative scenario. Jones died in early 86 so he's never had a proper chance to respond to the allegations. I cannot imagine even by 80s standards that a senior officer would more or less be telling bereaved relatives to ultimately " fuck off and don't come back " to the police station
-
it's on the record that Robert boutflour claimed that Jeremy Bamber remarked to him " oh I could easily kill my parents" with what you have just said about the tenacity of rb why wasn't he screaming the guilt of his nephew to the nearest police officer. Or dialling 999, or even driving down to the cop shop about this remark, when he first was aware of the massacre??
He did type his suspicions and his children saw DCI Taff Jones but to no avail. It was only when RB wrote to ACC Simpson that a review of the case was ordered.
-
Thats my point Jane. So why didnt he share his suspicions with police asap?? It's a bleak area the taff Jones relative scenario. Jones died in early 86 so he's never had a proper chance to respond to the allegations. I cannot imagine even by 80s standards that a senior officer would more or less be telling bereaved relatives to ultimately " fuck off and don't come back " from the police station
However much he may have disliked Jeremy, it would have been a huge leap to accuse him of slaughtering the entire family without something to back it up. Saying he'd never liked him really wouldn't have been enough.
-
He did type his suspicions and his children saw DCI Taff Jones but to no avail. It was only when RB wrote to ACC Simpson that a review of the case was ordered.
we need to look at the whf farm massacre more from a normal every day personal viewpoint common sense aspect and less as if it's a Hamlet play. I respect we only have knowledge as it from a third party. What is fed by the media to us, personal interactions with Jeremy, etc etc look at it from this view. Why would he need to jot it down his suspicions boutflour senior didn't like Jeremy and believed him to be a nasty piece of work. By his own account Jeremy had told him that " how easy it would be to kill his own parents" why didn't boutflour go to the police with this straight away?? Why write in his diary ?? He was sure it couldn't have been Shelia wasn't he???
-
However much he may have disliked Jeremy, it would have been a huge leap to accuse him of slaughtering the entire family without something to back it up. Saying he'd never liked him really wouldn't have been enough.
I respectfully don't buy it. RB is one of those ex servicemen strong personality type of people. He wouldn't jot things in his diary. He'd alert his suspicions. Added he didn't like Bamber junior
-
we need to look at the whf farm massacre more from a normal every day personal viewpoint common sense aspect and less as if it's a Hamlet play. I respect we only have knowledge as it from a third party. What is fed by the media to us, personal interactions with Jeremy, etc etc look at it from this view. Why would he need to jot it down his suspicions boutflour senior didn't like Jeremy and believed him to be a nasty piece of work. By his own account Jeremy had told him that " how easy it would be to kill his own parents" why didn't boutflour go to the police with this straight away?? Why write in his diary ?? He was sure it couldn't have been Shelia wasn't he???
Well I'm sure the relatives were in shock, unlike the perpetrator.
-
Well I'm sure the relatives were in shock, unlike the perpetrator.
we can't account for the exact way RB reacted upon hearing the news, having said that knowing what he said do you think he would have been able to say at some point " i think you need to take a closer look at my nephew""
-
we can't account for the exact way RB reacted upon hearing the news, having said that knowing what he said do you think he would have been able to say at some point " i think you need to take a closer look at my nephew""
Well that's what the letter to ACC Simpson was all about.
-
I respectfully don't buy it. RB is one of those ex servicemen strong personality type of people. He wouldn't jot things in his diary. He'd alert his suspicions. Added he didn't like Bamber junior
He was also an academic. Academics make notes. His father was Chair of Cheltenham Ag college. Wrote a widely referred to book on crop rotation? He was actually far more of a farmer than his younger, but much wealthier bro in law, Nevill. He was actually the one who got Nevill a job on his in laws farm.
-
He was also an academic. Academics make notes. His father was Chair of Cheltenham Ag college. Wrote a widely referred to book on crop rotation? He was actually far more of a farmer than his younger, but much wealthier bro in law, Nevill. He was actually the one who got Nevill a job on his in laws farm.
Jane this man had no personal effection or attatchement to Jeremy Bamber. He didn't like him him. He nicknamed him if I recall correctly " the cuckoo" I have no idea whether this is reference to Jeremy's parentage or mannerisms. He also on record stated Jeremy told him he could " easily kill my parents" come on, even if he wasn't believed why did he not report Bamber from the get go???
-
Jane this man had no personal effection or attatchement to Jeremy Bamber. He didn't like him him. He nicknamed him if I recall correctly " the cuckoo" I have no idea whether this is reference to Jeremy's parentage or mannerisms. He also on record stated Jeremy told him he could " easily kill my parents" come on, even if he wasn't believed why did he not report Bamber from the get go???
"Cuckoo", a cruel, though possibly apt, nickname to give an adopted child is said, as is "easily kill my parents", by Jeremy's supporters, to be erroneous. There's no way to prove it one way or another. SO! let's look at why he didn't hot-foot it to the police with his suspicions from "the get go"? I can only suggest it was because he wanted to feel he was certain in what he believed. Jeremy's own behaviours over the following days, his 'inaccuracies' when he was talking to the police would all have helped him to build up a picture and provide something concrete.
-
Hasten to add. This was a circumstantial case. No direct evidence proved Jeremy Bambers guilt
In my opinion if it was not for the silencer evidence Jeremy would be sat in front of the TV right now eating pot noodle as a free man. I am not a Jeremy Bamber supporter. Nor am I convinced of his guilt but I believe to create a clearer picture, the notion must be if we are going to apply common sense logic to Jeremy Bamber. We must also do to the witnesses and relatives
-
Hasten to add. This was a circumstantial case. No direct evidence proved Jeremy Bambers guilt
In my opinion if it was not for the silencer evidence Jeremy would be sat in front of the TV right now eating pot noodle. I am not a Jeremy Bamber supporter. Not am I convinced of his guilt but I believe to create a clearer picture the notion must be if we are going to apply common sense logic to Jeremy Bamber. We must also do to the witnesses and relatives
This is by no means the only case which has been proved on circumstantial evidence. There appear to be very few that are proved on forensics alone. Before we condemn the family out of hand, I think we must bear in mind that they were only looking for justice. Much has been made -mostly by Jeremy and his supporters- of Sheila's alleged violent outbursts. Whilst they didn't know her well, they probably knew her well enough to know that the description didn't sit right.
-
Going off topic slightly,Have you read mugfords diarie enteries jane
-
Going off topic slightly,Have you read mugfords diarie enteries jane
Yes I have, but you mustn't believe that they're diary entries in the strictest sense of the term. She was told to keep notes and started writing on the first page of a notebook which just happened to be a diary, ergo notes written about occurrences much later in the year are attributed to January.
-
I do hope Jane. Regardless, that Jeremy Bamber does have a retrial
-
Yes I have, but you mustn't believe that they're diary entries in the strictest sense of the term. She was told to keep notes and started writing on the first page of a notebook which just happened to be a diary, ergo notes written about occurrences much later in the year are attributed to January.
well they are either diaries notes of a soon to be 22 year old student teacher. Or they are a diary notes of a soon to be 22 year old teacher whilst in essex police guidance,guide capacity? Which are they? Because to me, both seem suspect
-
I do hope Jane. Regardless, that Jeremy Bamber does have a retrial
It would certainly generate some interest. His supporters believe it will happen but these things can take years, I believe, primarily because so many guilty convicts are busy making erroneous claims of their innocence!!!!
-
well they are either diaries notes of a soon to be 22 year old student teacher. Or they are a diary notes of a soon to be 22 year old teacher whilst in essex police guidance,guide capacity? Which are they? Because to me, both seem suspect
Well, I don't think there was any secret about what she was doing, ie she probably mentions it in her statements. It was certainly not an academic year diary. Just a regular calendar year variety used for jottings.
-
It would certainly generate some interest. His supporters believe it will happen but these things can take years, I believe, primarily because so many guilty convicts are busy making erroneous claims of their innocence!!!!
I disagree, I have always felt that that in 34 years of being in prison some red top paper would have stated " Bambers cell secrets" or any other salacious tabloid article in view of making a quick buck. As far as I know, no prisoner has approached tabloids commenting on how " Jeremy admitted it to me"
-
Well, I don't think there was any secret about what she was doing, ie she probably mentions it in her statements. It was certainly not an academic year diary. Just a regular calendar year variety used for jottings.
just my opinion jane, but read them again sounds more like a authoritarian figure doing a daily report than a everyday young woman's diarie??
-
just my opinion jane, but read them again sounds more like a authoritarian figure doing a daily report than a everyday young woman's diarie??
Given her current position, I've very willing to bet she was an authority figure in the making.
-
Hasten to add. This was a circumstantial case. No direct evidence proved Jeremy Bambers guilt
In my opinion if it was not for the silencer evidence Jeremy would be sat in front of the TV right now eating pot noodle as a free man. I am not a Jeremy Bamber supporter. Nor am I convinced of his guilt but I believe to create a clearer picture, the notion must be if we are going to apply common sense logic to Jeremy Bamber. We must also do to the witnesses and relatives
There is a mountain of forensic evidence against Jeremy.
Everything that shows Sheila could not have done it, incriminates Jeremy.
-
There is a mountain of forensic evidence against Jeremy.
Everything that shows Sheila could not have done it, incriminates Jeremy.
what is the strongest piece of forensic evidence?
-
Given her current position, I've very willing to bet she was an authority figure in the making.
but to you does it seem the diary of an average soon to be 22 year old women? Or does it seem much more a scripted account? Armed with this knowledge what she eventually came forward about. Why was she even with Bamber??
-
what is the strongest piece of forensic evidence?
Here is some evidence. Sources in capitals. Most not disputed by the CT.
1. Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
2. One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
3. Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER'S DEFENCE.
4. Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
5. No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
6. Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
7. No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
8. No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
9. No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
10. No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
11. Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER.
12. No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
13. No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
14. Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
15. Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
16. Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - BAMBER
17. No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
18. No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST.
19. Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
20. No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
21. No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
22. No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
23. No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST.
24. Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries with no body or face protection - Not disputed - FORUM.
25. Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - ACCEPTED FACT.
26. Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
27. Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
28. Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
29. Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
30. Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES. .
31. Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
32. Blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
33. No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
34. Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
35. Blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
36. A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
37. Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - INTERNET ARTICLES, YOUTUBE.
38. Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
39. Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE.
40. Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
41. Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER.
42. Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed in 2017 but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - 20 SOURCES IN THE LIBRARY.
43. No better massacre weapon options for Bamber - Not disputed - FORUM.
44. Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.
45. Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
46. Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS.
47. June not waking or getting woken by Nevill - Not disputed - COA.
48. Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER, TONIGHT PROGRAMME.
49. 2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.
50. The twins not waking - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
51. Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
52. Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COURT OF APPEAL.
53. Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
54. No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.
55. Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - BAMBER.
56. Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER.
57. Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.
58. Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - BAMBER.
59. Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.
60. Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.
61. Bamber's found hacksaw - Not disputed - BAMBER.
62. Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
63. Only execution period available to Bamber, 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER
64. Housekeeper evidence of items around the sink being moved - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK
65. Only Sheila receiving a contact shot in a location that produces back splatter- Not disputed, COA.
66. Bloodied plam print on Sheila's nightdress - Not disputed. COA.
67. Nevill being lifted onto a coal scuttle - Not disputed. CRIME SCENE PICTURES.
68. Dried blood on Sheila - PATHOLOGIST
-
Here is some evidence. Sources in capitals. Most not disputed by the CT.
1. Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
2. One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
3. Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER'S DEFENCE.
4. Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
5. No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
6. Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
7. No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
8. No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
9. No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
10. No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
11. Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER.
12. No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
13. No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
14. Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
15. Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
16. Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - BAMBER
17. No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
18. No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST.
19. Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
20. No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
21. No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
22. No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
23. No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST.
24. Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries with no body or face protection - Not disputed - FORUM.
25. Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - ACCEPTED FACT.
26. Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
27. Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
28. Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
29. Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
30. Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES. .
31. Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
32. Blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
33. No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
34. Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
35. Blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
36. A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
37. Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - INTERNET ARTICLES, YOUTUBE.
38. Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
39. Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE.
40. Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
41. Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER.
42. Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed in 2017 but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - 20 SOURCES IN THE LIBRARY.
43. No better massacre weapon options for Bamber - Not disputed - FORUM.
44. Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.
45. Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
46. Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS.
47. June not waking or getting woken by Nevill - Not disputed - COA.
48. Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER, TONIGHT PROGRAMME.
49. 2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.
50. The twins not waking - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
51. Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
52. Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COURT OF APPEAL.
53. Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
54. No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.
55. Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - BAMBER.
56. Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER.
57. Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.
58. Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - BAMBER.
59. Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.
60. Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.
61. Bamber's found hacksaw - Not disputed - BAMBER.
62. Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
63. Only execution period available to Bamber, 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER
64. Housekeeper evidence of items around the sink being moved - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK
65. Only Sheila receiving a contact shot in a location that produces back splatter- Not disputed, COA.
66. Bloodied plam print on Sheila's nightdress - Not disputed. COA.
67. Nevill being lifted onto a coal scuttle - CRIME SCENE PICTURES.
68. Dried blood on Sheila - PATHOLOGIST
il ask again, what forensically links Jeremy nevill Bamber to the massacre
-
il ask again, what forensically links Jeremy nevill Bamber to the massacre
The evidence shows it was not Sheila.
Jeremy is the only possible alive suspect. As he phoned Chelmsford Police station insinuating Sheila.
-
Adam, regarding shelias nightdress. You might be able to answer me this. Is it still kept in storage or was it destroyed sometime after October 1986..
-
Here is some evidence. Sources in capitals. Most not disputed by the CT.
1. Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
2. One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
3. Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER'S DEFENCE.
4. Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
5. No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
6. Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
7. No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
8. No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
9. No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
10. No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
11. Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER.
12. No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
13. No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
14. Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
15. Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
16. Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - BAMBER
17. No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
18. No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST.
19. Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
20. No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
21. No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
22. No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
23. No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST.
24. Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries with no body or face protection - Not disputed - FORUM.
25. Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - ACCEPTED FACT.
26. Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
27. Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
28. Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
29. Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
30. Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES. .
31. Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
32. Blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
33. No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
34. Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
35. Blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
36. A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
37. Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - INTERNET ARTICLES, YOUTUBE.
38. Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
39. Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE.
40. Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
41. Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER.
42. Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed in 2017 but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - 20 SOURCES IN THE LIBRARY.
43. No better massacre weapon options for Bamber - Not disputed - FORUM.
44. Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.
45. Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
46. Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS.
47. June not waking or getting woken by Nevill - Not disputed - COA.
48. Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER, TONIGHT PROGRAMME.
49. 2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.
50. The twins not waking - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
51. Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
52. Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COURT OF APPEAL.
53. Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
54. No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.
55. Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - BAMBER.
56. Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER.
57. Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.
58. Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - BAMBER.
59. Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.
60. Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.
61. Bamber's found hacksaw - Not disputed - BAMBER.
62. Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
63. Only execution period available to Bamber, 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER
64. Housekeeper evidence of items around the sink being moved - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK
65. Only Sheila receiving a contact shot in a location that produces back splatter- Not disputed, COA.
66. Bloodied plam print on Sheila's nightdress - Not disputed. COA.
67. Nevill being lifted onto a coal scuttle - CRIME SCENE PICTURES.
68. Dried blood on Sheila - PATHOLOGIST
Ah the old gish gallop when times get hard.
"The Gish gallop is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
-
Adam, regarding shelias nightdress. You might be able to answer me this. Is it still kept in storage or was it destroyed sometime after October 1986..
I do not know.
-
but to you does it seem the diary of an average soon to be 22 year old women? Or does it seem much more a scripted account? Armed with this knowledge what she eventually came forward about. Why was she even with Bamber??
They seem very like the notes I took. You forget that Julie wasn't just "an average soon to be 22 year old woman". She was highly intelligent. She'd been to some of the best girls' schools before going to university and was currently doing a second degree.
-
Adam, regarding shelias nightdress. You might be able to answer me this. Is it still kept in storage or was it destroyed sometime after October 1986..
The prosecutions firearm "expert" already admitted that his comments on the nightdress was meaningless.
"Mr M.D Fletcher Cross Examined
Q: You postulated Mr. Fletcher, didn't you, that if the wounds were self-inflicted, the wounds to Mrs. Caffell, you would have expected to find traces of oil and firearms discharge on the front of her nightdress?
A: I did qualify that by saying if the wounds were self-inflicted, using a rifle held close to the body.
Q: You obviously worked out the approximate angles of fire, as explored?
A: I had looked at some possible angles of fire yes.
Q: You had seen the X-rays.
A: I am sorry I misunderstood. I thought you meant the ways of holding the gun rather than the track of the bullet. I beg your pardon, I see now yes.
Q: I think you have seen the sketches that we have put forward, which are agreed, yes?
A: Yes I have.
Q: Number 1 on the sketch is the contact wound.
A: Yes sir.
Q: With the gun held pointing at that angle would you expect residue on the nightdress.
A: You could certainly position the head and gun so that it would be possible to get residue on the nightdress.
Q: The point is surely Mr. Fletcher that it doesn't make any difference whatsoever whether the wound is self-inflicted or inflicted by anybody else, if the gun is held at a particular angle you might get residue on the nightdress?
A: If held in the correct position certainly. Close to the body at the correct angle for the projection of the bullet in the head.
Q: Why is that correct?
A: To fulfil the requirements for the residue to get on to the nightdress.
Q: It doesn't help us to be certain whether they were self-inflicted or inflicted by another person, does it?
A: It does give a particular set of circumstances. I am trying to tell you what I would expect to find. If some of those circumstances don't occur or were incorrect then my finding, are, as you say, not valid.
Q: Forgive me, I am probably being extremely stupid. Does it help at all? What I am suggesting to you is that it didn't help us at all in deciding whether the wounds were self-inflicted or not self-inflicted. The gun would have had to be in a particular angle to the body in order to deliver the wound in the direction it is in,in either case.
A: Yes. "
-
I do not know.
ok thank you. So this garment was tested in 85,86 when both you and I know that DNA, forensic testing was in its infancy stages???
-
ok thank you. So this garment was tested in 85,86 when both you and I know that DNA, forensic testing was in its infancy stages???
DNA is nothing to do with firearm residue. Sheila fired 27 shots. So would have a lot.
-
Obviously there is too much circumstantial evidence to list.
The main things being Jeremy is the only alive suspect with several motives, an opportunity and no alibi. His closest friend, Julie Mugford testified against him.
-
DNA is nothing to do with firearm residue. Sheila fired 27 shots. So would have a lot.
that is not what I asked. Was it still in its infancy?
-
Obviously there is too much circumstantial evidence to list.
The main things being Jeremy is the only alive suspect with several motives, an opportunity and no alibi. His closest friend, Julie Mugford testified against him.
how credible is mugford to you adam.?
-
Obviously there is too much circumstantial evidence to list.
Adam 95% of what you have listed is nothing but crap.
For example.
- You list Herbert leon Mcdonell despite him now saying he thinks Sheila could have shot herself.
- You mention a youtube clip of a guy carrying a woman. lol
- You list blood by Nevills bed and omit the fact that it was Junes blood.
-
how credible is mugford to you adam.?
100%. She would not dare perjure herself on something so serious.
-
100%. She would not dare perjure herself on something so serious.
why does she not voice her concerns from the outset ?
-
why does she not voice her concerns from the outset ?
The question is rhetoric. No one here, unless they were privy to her thoughts at the time, is capable of giving other than their opinion, which from memory, you've usually chosen to deride.
-
Adam 95% of what you have listed is nothing but crap.
For example.
- You list Herbert leon Mcdonell despite him now saying he thinks Sheila could have shot herself.
- You mention a youtube clip of a guy carrying a woman. lol
- You list blood by Nevills bed and omit the fact that it was Junes blood.
All points have been discussed before. Most have there own threads.
You changed stance from hardcore guilter to passionate supporter. Based on your theory that the relatives used wet period blood on the silencer.
-
The question is rhetoric. No one here, unless they were privy to her thoughts at the time, is capable of giving other than their opinion, which from memory, you've usually chosen to deride.
I simply asked Adam here a question
-
Disadvantages of Julie lying about Bamber (because he jilted her).
There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.
She would be charged by the police. When caught lying. Bamber was innocent.
Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.
To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?
Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?
There was no financial reward in approaching the police.
It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.
She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims. Bamber was innocent.
Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.
She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.
It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.
She may quickly wilt under pressure. This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?
It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.
It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.
It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.
An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.
It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.
She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.
It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.
She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?
She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.
She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.
Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.
If an unsuccessful police approach became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.
-
They seem very like the notes I took. You forget that Julie wasn't just "an average soon to be 22 year old woman". She was highly intelligent. She'd been to some of the best girls' schools before going to university and was currently doing a second degree.
she was from a working class family and she was a student teacher she wasn't exactly " setting the world on fire" stop trying to paint a picture that wasn't the case
-
Disadvantages of Julie lying about Bamber (because he jilted her).
There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.
She would be charged by the police. When caught lying.
Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.
To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?
Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?
There was no financial reward in approaching the police.
It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.
She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims.
Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.
She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.
It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.
She may quickly wilt under pressure. This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?
It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.
It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.
It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.
An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.
It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.
She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.
It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.
She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?
She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.
She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.
Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.
If an unsuccessful police approach became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.
how would Julie be charged? Your theory holds no merit. She wasn't an accomplice, she hadn't influenced Jeremy Bamber in any shape or form. There was no evidence of a conspiracy. ( Speaking from a Jeremy Bamber is guilty of sin scenario they'd be nothing to suggest Jeremy and Julie were a part of a joint enterprise
-
why does she not voice her concerns from the outset ?
Outset? You mean when the police car picked her up at Lewisham?
-
Disadvantages of Julie lying about Bamber (because he jilted her).
There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.
She would be charged by the police. When caught lying. Bamber was innocent.
Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.
To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?
Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?
There was no financial reward in approaching the police.
It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.
She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims. Bamber was innocent.
Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.
She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.
It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.
She may quickly wilt under pressure. This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?
It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.
It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.
It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.
An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.
It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.
She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.
It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.
She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?
She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.
She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.
Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.
If an unsuccessful police approach became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.
"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a conveyor belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop"
"Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
-
she was from a working class family and she was a student teacher she wasn't exactly " setting the world on fire" stop trying to paint a picture that wasn't the case
She was from a middle-class family -the middle being a broad spectrum- and was very well educated. These are facts. Unless one's name is Kardashian, at nearly 22, as an academic, one is hardly likely to be "setting the world on fire".
-
how would Julie be charged? Your theory holds no merit. She wasn't an accomplice, she hadn't influenced Jeremy Bamber in any shape or form. There was no evidence of a conspiracy. ( Speaking from a Jeremy Bamber is guilty of sin scenario they'd be nothing to suggest Jeremy and Julie were a part of a joint enterprise
She was an accomplice to the caravan break in.
She would be charged with wasting police time. Once quickly exposed by the police. Bamber was innocent.
-
Outset? You mean when the police car picked her up at Lewisham?
if you armed with the information that Julie says she was armed with. As early as 1984. And then you include the phrase that supposably Jeremy Bamber told her on the phone. On the day of the massacre " I have been thinking on the tractor all day, tonight is the night " on a probability scale. Giving that the massacre did occur that very night would you not think that Julie had at least some grounds to suspect Jeremy of being gulity
-
NGB, kindly step in. David has started his 'gish gash' crap again.
He does it when frustrated & has no answers.
He has been told before not to do it as it ruins the forum for everyone.
Thank you.
-
if you are armed with the information that Julie says she was armed with. As early as 1984. And then you include the phrase that supposably Jeremy Bamber told her on the phone. On the day of the massacre " I have been thinking on the tractor all day, tonight is the night " on a probability scale. Giving that the massacre did occur that very night would you not think that Julie had at least some grounds to suspect Jeremy of being gulity
-
if you armed with the information that Julie says she was armed with. As early as 1984. And then you include the phrase that supposably Jeremy Bamber told her on the phone. On the day of the massacre " I have been thinking on the tractor all day, tonight is the night " on a probability scale. Giving that the massacre did occur that very night would you not think that Julie had at least some grounds to suspect Jeremy of being gulity
When should Julie have approached the police. Prior to when she did. Day 1, day 7?
-
She was from a middle-class family -the middle being a broad spectrum- and was very well educated. These are facts. Unless one's name is Kardashian, at nearly 22, as an academic, one is hardly likely to be "setting the world on fire".
does that not allow her to let her hair down? Why does the diary sound more reminscene of a soldier commanding a battle than what's in the top ten?
-
A 21 year old woman accusing an innocent man of killing his own family. A month aftet the massacre :))
-
She was an accomplice to the caravan break in.
She would be charged with wasting police time. Once quickly exposed by the police. Bamber was innocent.
grapple with reality Adam. If your beloved tells you that he is intending to murder five members of his family and then it does subsequently occur. Then A) why does a caravan break in that happened five months previously matter ( which you can argue in mitigation you were cocered by Jeremy Bamber ) and B) more importantly, why don't you alert authorities straight away about the information Jeremy has told you regarding his family
-
does that not allow her to let her hair down? Why does the diary sound more reminscene of a soldier commanding a battle than what's in the top ten?
How does letting her hair down equate with her diary entries sounding "more reminiscent of a soldier commanding a battle than what's in the top ten"?
-
grapple with reality Adam. If your beloved tells you that he is intending to murder five members of his family and then it does subsequently occur. Then A) why does a caravan break in that happened five months previously matter ( which you can argue in mitigation you were cocered by Jeremy Bamber ) and B) more importantly, why don't you alert authorities straight away about the information Jeremy has told you regarding his family
Straight away. Do you mean within 24 hours of the massacre?
-
Has as been pointed Julie was a intelligent well rounded women. Not some naive scared teenager. Answer me this his much of a threat could Jeremy Bamber be to her If she had broke down and said " he's done this he's been planning it for ages" in the close vicinity of police officers??
-
Julies testimony goes against the established facts of the crime. Hence it proves nothing and therefore there is nothing to disprove.
-
Has as been pointed Julie was a intelligent well rounded women. Not some naive scared teenager. Answer me this his much of a threat could Jeremy Bamber be to her If she had broke down and said " he's done this he's been planning it for ages" in the close vicinity of police officers??
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=922.msg27459#msg27459
Here is a link which includes Julie.
-
Straight away. Do you mean within 24 hours of the massacre?
I mean within an acceptable period before continuing a relationship , Amsterdam, going to Eastbourne, supporting someone at a funeral, sharing the same bed, being intimate enjoying chinese meals,,enjoying indians. I've not listed these in chronological order and I apologise for getting the sequence wrong
-
Has as been pointed Julie was a intelligent well rounded women. Not some naive scared teenager. Answer me this his much of a threat could Jeremy Bamber be to her If she had broke down and said " he's done this he's been planning it for ages" in the close vicinity of police officers??
"Answer me this" sounds rather like a threat in it's own right. It's not so much about what I/we may think about what sort of threat Jeremy may have posed to her, it's more about what sort of threat Julie believed he may have been to her. Maybe -I said MAYBE- it's why she stayed and went along with his plans for the future?
-
I mean within an acceptable period before continuing a relationship , Amsterdam, going to Eastbourne, supporting someone at a funeral, sharing the same bed, being intimate enjoying chinese meals,,enjoying indians. I've not listed these in chronological order and I apologise for getting the sequence wrong
Perhaps you could offer some clarification on her enjoyment? We're aware that she DID these things, but I've not read anywhere about the scale of her enjoyment of them.
-
Julies testimony goes against the established facts of the crime. Hence it proves nothing and therefore there is nothing to disprove.
if Julie's testimony is to be believed it's strong circumstantial evidence. So it's an aspect to be disproved even though for my part. I can't believe it was accepted in the first instance
-
Perhaps you could offer some clarification on her enjoyment? We're aware that she DID these things, but I've not read anywhere about the scale of her enjoyment of them.
would you accompany a child killer on a Beano to Amsterdam Jane ?
-
"Answer me this" sounds rather like a threat in it's own right. It's not so much about what I/we may think about what sort of threat Jeremy may have posed to her, it's more about what sort of threat Julie believed he may have been to her. Maybe -I said MAYBE- it's why she stayed and went along with his plans for the future?
if Julie thought he was a threat why didn't she tell on him. After all the only " domestic " of any relevance was a squabble over what bar of soap to buy in a supermarket in Colchester
-
I mean within an acceptable period before continuing a relationship , Amsterdam, going to Eastbourne, supporting someone at a funeral, sharing the same bed, being intimate enjoying chinese meals,,enjoying indians. I've not listed these in chronological order and I apologise for getting the sequence wrong
Well she approached the police around 1 month later.
Obviously she would only do so to tell the truth. For the reasons in post 76.
-
would you accompany a child killer on a Beano to Amsterdam Jane ?
What I'd do is neither here nor there. This isn't about me.
-
"Answer me this" sounds rather like a threat in it's own right. It's not so much about what I/we may think about what sort of threat Jeremy may have posed to her, it's more about what sort of threat Julie believed he may have been to her. Maybe -I said MAYBE- it's why she stayed and went along with his plans for the future?
it doesn't
-
Well she approached the police around 1 month later.
Obviously she would only do so to tell the truth. For the reasons in post 76.
a month is a long time Adam. Why not at the first opportunity?
-
What I'd do is neither here nor there. This isn't about me.
going to ask again. Would you accompany a child killer on a Beano to Amsterdam jane???
-
No one knows what they would have done in her situation. At the age of 21. As no one has ever been in that situation.
Put 20 people in that situation. You would get 20 different times when the police would be approached. Maybe some would not approach the police at all.
-
a month is a long time Adam. Why not at the first opportunity?
What first opportunity?
-
No one knows what they would have done in her situation. At the age of 21. As no one has ever been in that situation.
Put 20 people in that situation. You would get 20 different times when the police would be approached. Maybe some would not approach the police at all.
they would have informed the police. Please stop wearing blinkers
-
if Julie's testimony is to be believed it's strong circumstantial evidence. So it's an aspect to be disproved even though for my part. I can't believe it was accepted in the first instance
It does not corroborate the facts of the crime. How can it be believed?
-
What first opportunity?
as soon as she had heard five members of Jeremy Bambers family had been found killed. Couple with what Jeremy had told her that very day " I've been thinking on the tractor, tonight is the night and furthered more by her own knowledge that Jeremy Bamber had been planning to annihilate his family members for some period of time.......
-
It does not corroborate the facts of the crime. How can it be believed?
if no relevance is held in regards to it. Why was it called at Chelmsford in October 86 as evidence?
-
they would have informed the police. Please stop wearing blinkers
Some people may be scared & not think they will be believed. The police & media had the killer -"Sheila. Bamber was saying it was 'an open & shut' case.
-
Some people may be scared & not think they will be believed. The police & media had the killer -"Sheila. Bamber was saying it was 'an open & shut' case.
why didn't she tell the driver of the panda car on the way from lewishsam Adam ?
-
if no relevance is held in regards to it. Why was it called at Chelmsford in October 86 as evidence?
Because she was claiming that Jeremy confessed to the killing and swore under oath that she would tell the truth.
-
as soon as she had heard five members of Jeremy Bambers family had been found killed. Couple with what Jeremy had told her that very day " I've been thinking on the tractor, tonight is the night and furthered more by her own knowledge that Jeremy Bamber had been planning to annihilate his family members for some period of time.......
Ok. You believe she should have told the police what she knew within the first few hours.
-
why didn't she tell the driver of the panda car on the way from lewishsam Adam ?
Are you serious?
-
Are you serious?
yes, lets role play for the sake of argument. My boyfriend has telephoned me hours previously that he is planning to do away with his family. He has also told me on countless occasions his desire to do away with them to get his money, going back to the beginning for empthasis. My boyfriend tells me he has been on his tractor all day thinking " tonights the night " and thenl lo and behold they are found murdered. Yeah I am being serious. I would think I would have my suspicions
-
It does not corroborate the facts of the crime. How can it be believed?
I ask again. If it holds no relevance than why was it forwarded ?
-
Ok. You believe she should have told the police what she knew within the first few hours.
you are trying to create an atmosphere Adam
-
I ask again. If it holds no relevance than why was it forwarded ?
Again. Because she was claiming that Jeremy confessed to the killing and swore under oath that she would tell the truth.
-
Whether people believe Julie should have told the police what she knew in the Panda car 3/4 hours after the massacre, or after she had digested everything & recovered from the shock, is irrelevent.
The important thing is she engaged with the police, compiled a WS & testified. She would not dare accuse him of murdering his family unless he had said those things.
-
A 21 year old woman accusing an innocent man of killing his own family. A month aftet the massacre :))
an innocent man, who by her own admission had telephoned her informing her that he was going to annihilate his family later that night??......
-
an innocent man, who by her own admission had telephoned her informing her that he was going to annihilate his family later that night??......
This has become boring. You're trying to personalize a situation, the likes of which NONE of us, hopefully, have ever, or will ever experience. Most can't possibly say what they'd do in a given situation until/unless they're in it and even then, it's THEIR psychology which will influence what they do, not someone else's, ergo, what WE think we would/wouldn't do, is totally irrelevant.
-
This has become boring. You're trying to personalize a situation, the likes of which NONE of us, hopefully, have ever, or will ever experience. Most can't possibly say what they'd do in a given situation until/unless they're in it and even then, it's THEIR psychology which will influence what they do, not someone else's, ergo, what WE think we would/wouldn't do, is totally irrelevant.
it hasn't become boring. You just can't give an answer jane. The same logic you are offering can also relate to why Jeremy didn't phone 999, yet in that instance you are quick to condemn him for not doing so. You cant have it both ways.
-
Again. Because she was claiming that Jeremy confessed to the killing and swore under oath that she would tell the truth.
so evidently is was considered relevant then....
-
it hasn't become boring. You just can't give an answer jane. The same logic you are offering can also relate to why Jeremy didn't phone 999, yet in that instance you are quick to condemn him for not doing so. You cant have it both ways.
Actually, the reason I CAN answer that is because, in this instance, I've been in a similar position in that there was the possibility that someone might die if I didn't get help to them.
-
Actually, the reason I CAN answer that is because, in this instance, I've been in a similar position in that there was the possibility that someone might die if I didn't get help to them.
There is also a a rule to follow in an emergency situation, it's a rule that takes the pressure off the individual leaving 'experts' to deal with it and everyone knows it - you call 999 - it's simple, easy and requires very little thought. However, someone who you are close to and thought you might spend the rest of your life with - being responsible for murdering their family, has no rules. You might know what you're supposed to do, but doing so will rip your life apart and nothing will be the same again. Personally, I would have told the police at the earliest opportunity - but the decision to do so, is bigger than calling 999 to help someone - this call is going to destroy someone.
-
going to ask again. Would you accompany a child killer on a Beano to Amsterdam jane???
I get where your coming from ilikebooze, the Physical and psychological effects are different from person to person, some people develop a refusal to accept the reality of events, it’s only years gone by that they come forward, some are brave enough to come forward straight away. I know a woman that goes on holiday with a sex offender, even though he pleaded guilty in a court of law, she refuses to accept this and believes his watered down version, it’s like Grooming which happens in adults as well as children. They are very clever at it building that trust.
-
so evidently is was considered relevant then....
Relevant to the case yes. But no so relevant when it comes to establishing the facts of the events that took place on the night of the killings.
-
It does not corroborate the facts of the crime. How can it be believed?
Because he was distancing himself from the crime as much as possible to keep Julie onside.
-
There is also a a rule to follow in an emergency situation, it's a rule that takes the pressure off the individual leaving 'experts' to deal with it and everyone knows it - you call 999 - it's simple, easy and requires very little thought. However, someone who you are close to and thought you might spend the rest of your life with - being responsible for murdering their family, has no rules. You might know what you're supposed to do, but doing so will rip your life apart and nothing will be the same again. Personally, I would have told the police at the earliest opportunity - but the decision to do so, is bigger than calling 999 to help someone - this call is going to destroy someone.
No one can complain about when Julie approached the police. Because no on has been in her situation.
Guilters can highlight Bamber not dialling 999. Because most people have dialled 999 & never considered looking up the number of a police station over 17 miles away.
-
No one can complain about when Julie approached the police. Because no on has been in her situation.
Guilters can highlight Bamber not dialling 999. Because most people have dialled 999 & never considered looking up the number of a police station over 17 miles away.
then no one can complain about Jeremy Bamber not phoning 999...
-
I get where your coming from ilikebooze, the Physical and psychological effects are different from person to person, some people develop a refusal to accept the reality of events, it’s only years gone by that they come forward, some are brave enough to come forward straight away. I know a woman that goes on holiday with a sex offender, even though he pleaded guilty in a court of law, she refuses to accept this and believes his watered down version, it’s like Grooming which happens in adults as well as children. They are very clever at it building that trust.
there was absolutely nothing Jeremy Bamber could do to harm Julie mugford
-
This has become boring. You're trying to personalize a situation, the likes of which NONE of us, hopefully, have ever, or will ever experience. Most can't possibly say what they'd do in a given situation until/unless they're in it and even then, it's THEIR psychology which will influence what they do, not someone else's, ergo, what WE think we would/wouldn't do, is totally irrelevant.
go and take a survey, female respondees only and ask the following question. " "Would you stay with a man if you knew he had killed five people including two little lads asleep in their beds," and then please share your responses. Stop trying to sugar coat it
-
then no one can complain about Jeremy Bamber not phoning 999...
Yes they can because he had killed five people in cold blood, attempting to rope Julie in as an accessory before the fact, spoiling whatever relationship they may once have had, destroying her career in England, spooking her for many years afterwards, ruining Colin's life..
-
there was absolutely nothing Jeremy Bamber could do to harm Julie mugford
Since when was Julie a female Edward Marshall Hall..
-
Since when was Julie a female Edward Marshall Hall..
what do you think Jeremy Bamber was going to do to julie mugford ?
-
Yes they can because he had killed five people in cold blood, attempting to rope Julie in as an accessory before the fact, spoiling whatever relationship they may once have had, destroying her career in England, spooking her for many years afterwards, ruining Colin's life..
there's another point there. Why would Jeremy Bamber be stupid enough to tell Julie mugford what he planned to do??
-
go and take a survey, female respondees only and ask the following question. " "Would you stay with a man if you knew he had killed five people including two little lads asleep in their beds," and then please share your responses. Stop trying to sugar coat it
Perhaps you'll point me to where you think I've sugar coated anything. I don't have to approve of what someone does. I don't need to condone what Julie did -in fact, I never have- I only need to understand.
-
what do you think Jeremy Bamber was going to do to julie mugford ?
The threat of implicating her as an accessory to murder was enough to frighten a 20-year-old girl. Why do you think he took her sleeping pills instead of requesting his own from the doctor, why do you think he telephoned her three times within the space of a few hours..
-
Perhaps you'll point me to where you think I've sugar coated anything. I don't have to approve of what someone does. I don't need to condone what Julie did -in fact, I never have- I only need to understand.
if Julie was in such turmoil, why did she feel strong enough to formally identify the bodies jane,?
-
there's another point there. Why would Jeremy Bamber be stupid enough to tell Julie mugford what he planned to do??
I'm not sure that Jeremy thought it was entirely wrong. He thought the twins were a mill-stone around Colin's neck and his parents were old -I think there may have been something about it being a kindness? Oh, and he said his mother was a religious maniac.
-
there's another point there. Why would Jeremy Bamber be stupid enough to tell Julie mugford what he planned to do??
Because never before had he been in the company of sane, intelligent women.
-
Steve, JB had Valium so I doubt he'd have been prescribed sleeping pills in addition. There were probably hundreds of sleeping pills at WHF before June's medication was removed.
-
if Julie was in such turmoil, why did she feel strong enough to formally identify the bodies jane,?
You haven't answered my question. In fact, I don't think you've answered ANY questions. You just move goal-posts. I don't believe you have interest in anything here other than trolling.
-
The threat of implicating her as an accessory to murder was enough to frighten a 20-year-old girl. Why do you think he took her sleeping pills instead of requesting his own from the doctor, why do you think he telephoned her three times within the space of a few hours..
how would Julie be in any way implicated...
-
Steve, JB had Valium so I doubt he'd have been prescribed sleeping pills in addition. There were probably hundreds of sleeping pills at WHF before June's medication was removed.
So how did Julie's prescribed medication come into play at all..
-
how would Julie be in any way implicated...
He could have told Police it was all her idea..
-
there's another point there. Why would Jeremy Bamber be stupid enough to tell Julie mugford what he planned to do??
Some killers are AN EGOTISTICAL BRAGGER whether it’s aimed at their accomplices, the next victim, or police.
-
You haven't answered my question. In fact, I don't think you've answered ANY questions. You just move goal-posts. I don't believe you have interest in anything here other than trolling.
you are totally wrong. But I'm willing to answer your question what is it?
-
Steve, JB had Valium so I doubt he'd have been prescribed sleeping pills in addition. There were probably hundreds of sleeping pills at WHF before June's medication was removed.
Why would Jeremy have needed to take Valium prior to the murders? Whilst I'm not sure about the "probably hundreds of sleeping pills at WHF........." there would have been some but I can't see June leaving them laying around, and Jeremy hadn't lived at WHF for several years so it's unlikely he'd have gone hunting for them, besides which, June would probably have missed them.
-
I'm not sure that Jeremy thought it was entirely wrong. He thought the twins were a mill-stone around Colin's neck and his parents were old -I think there may have been something about it being a kindness? Oh, and he said his mother was a religious maniac.
interesting... Why would Jeremy Bamber be stupid enough to tell Julie mugford of what he intended to do??
-
Why would Jeremy have needed to take Valium prior to the murders? Whilst I'm not sure about the "probably hundreds of sleeping pills at WHF........." there would have been some but I can't see June leaving them laying around, and Jeremy hadn't lived at WHF for several years so it's unlikely he'd have gone hunting for them, besides which, June would probably have missed them.
I didn't say he took Valium prior to the murders ::)
-
What's the relevance of someone taking valium...
-
You haven't answered my question. In fact, I don't think you've answered ANY questions. You just move goal-posts. I don't believe you have interest in anything here other than trolling.
I'll reserve judgement for the moment but ilovebooze please direct your questions to the members as a whole and not to one particular individual.
-
Steve, JB had Valium so I doubt he'd have been prescribed sleeping pills in addition. There were probably hundreds of sleeping pills at WHF before June's medication was removed.
Lookout, this is what you said. "He had Valium so I doubt he'd have been prescribed sleeping pills in addition" He wasn't taking Valium at the time he wanted sleeping pills to drug his father, ergo, there was nothing to stop him requesting them from his doctor.......................other than if it had worked, the trail would have led back to him.
-
I'll reserve judgement for the moment but ilovebooze please direct your questions to the members as a whole and not to one particular individual.
no problem , you are wrong
-
Lookout, this is what you said. "He had Valium so I doubt he'd have been prescribed sleeping pills in addition" He wasn't taking Valium at the time he wanted sleeping pills to drug his father, ergo, there was nothing to stop him requesting them from his doctor.......................other than if it had worked, the trail would have led back to him.
You know as well as I do that he took the Valium after the tragedy, so therefore there was no need for him to have taken sleeping pills as well. It was JM who needed the sleeping pills.
-
You know as well as I do that he took the Valium after the tragedy, so therefore there was no need for him to have taken sleeping pills as well. It was JM who needed the sleeping pills.
Well, of course I know, but it seems that you're implying that he may have had them prior to the murders. He experimented with Julie's sleeping pills before the murders. To the best of my knowledge the two medications are entirely separate.
-
Well, of course I know, but it seems that you're implying that he may have had them prior to the murders. He experimented with Julie's sleeping pills before the murders. To the best of my knowledge the two medications are entirely separate.
Experimented on who ?
-
Experimented on who ?
Experimented with crushing them into Nevill's nightcap, after which it had been his intention to burn the house. He gave up on that plan because of the valuable objets d'art/family heirlooms which would be ruined.
-
Experimented with crushing them into Nevill's nightcap, after which it had been his intention to burn the house. He gave up on that plan because of the valuable objets d'art/family heirlooms which would be ruined.
Oh dear, he " gave up on the plan " because it wasn't there in the first place.
-
Oh dear, he " gave up on the plan " because it wasn't there in the first place.
If it wasn't there there'd have to be collusion between Michael Deckers and Julie. I'm sorry but this is what I mean by jumping through hoops: every way you turn the circumstantial evidence is damning against Jeremy.
-
If it wasn't there there'd have to be collusion between Michael Deckers and Julie. I'm sorry but this is what I mean by jumping through hoops: every way you turn the circumstantial evidence is damning against Jeremy.
Circumstantial evidence isn't always enough though in such a case as it was.
-
If it wasn't there there'd have to be collusion between Michael Deckers and Julie. I'm sorry but this is what I mean by jumping through hoops: every way you turn the circumstantial evidence is damning against Jeremy.
And that collusion suggests the list of those who lied for the sake of it, and having no reason to do so, grows ever longer.
-
And that collusion suggests the list of those who lied for the sake of it, and having no reason to do so, grows ever longer.
Not once to my knowledge has anyone amongst Julie's coterie badmouthed her in all this time.
-
Not once to my knowledge has anyone amongst Julie's coterie badmouthed her in all this time.
And not once to my knowledge has anyone amongst those who knew Jeremy prior to the murders said anything positive/supportive about him in all this time.
-
And not once to my knowledge has anyone amongst those who knew Jeremy prior to the murders said anything positive/supportive about him in all this time.
There are a few whose protestations are genuine enough if you bother to look online.
-
And not once to my knowledge has anyone amongst those who knew Jeremy prior to the murders said anything positive/supportive about him in all this time.
this is all very interesting. How does it make Jeremy Bamber guilty?
-
There are a few whose protestations are genuine enough if you bother to look online.
I've yet to see any such in all the time since the murders. Certainly there doesn't appear to have been any local support.
-
Some killers are AN EGOTISTICAL BRAGGER whether it’s aimed at their accomplices, the next victim, or police.
yes, lowly educated types from council estates and usually under the influence. Not an intelligent, privately educated man like Jeremy bamber. Again, talking from a Jeremy is guilty stance, why would he jepordise it all??
-
yes, lowly educated types from council estates and usually under the influence. Not an intelligent, privately educated man like Jeremy bamber. Again, talking from a Jeremy is guilty stance, why would he jepordise it all??
That has to take first prize for being the most sweeping statement made here today!!! So only "lowly, educated(?) types from council estates and usually under the influence" are the only ones who are egotistical braggers? Really? How very illuminating.
-
That has to take first prize for being the most sweeping statement made here today!!! So only "lowly, educated(?) types from council estates and usually under the influence" are the only ones who are egotistical braggers? Really? How very illuminating.
Harold Shipman, Lord Lucan, Ted Bundy .....
-
yes, lowly educated types from council estates and usually under the influence. Not an intelligent, privately educated man like Jeremy bamber. Again, talking from a Jeremy is guilty stance, why would he jepordise it all??
If we go on the guilty stance, most killers have different psychiatric traits, some like to brag (social media now days plays a big part in catching criminals) some are manipulative, some like control etc, I don’t think Jeremy bragged in the way of boasting, I think it was more justifying why it had to be done. Sheila was a nutcase, June was old and devoted to church etc. We already know from Brett Collins he didn’t get on with Neville and hardly conversed with him, he didn’t like the fact June was giving money to church according to Brett. So all the time he’s sowing seeds in Julies head why it had to be done then leaves her with the token, I didn’t do it but My mate did.
If Brett knew all this about Jeremy’s dislikes regarding family, what did he tell a Julie?
I’m not sticking up for Julie in anyway, she probably was on the gravy train with lots of promises. She would most certainly be confused and not want to believe it, but eventually it got the better of her?
-
If we go on the guilty stance, most killers have different psychiatric traits, some like to brag (social media now days plays a big part in catching criminals) some are manipulative, some like control etc, I don’t think Jeremy bragged in the way of boasting, I think it was more justifying why it had to be done. Sheila was a nutcase, June was old and devoted to church etc. We already know from Brett Collins he didn’t get on with Neville and hardly conversed with him, he didn’t like the fact June was giving money to church according to Brett. So all the time he’s sowing seeds in Julies head why it had to be done then leaves her with the token, I didn’t do it but My mate did.
If Brett knew all this about Jeremy’s dislikes regarding family, what did he tell a Julie?
I’m not sticking up for Julie in anyway, she probably was on the gravy train with lots of promises. She would most certainly be confused and not want to believe it, but eventually it got the better of her?
it's all very interesting. Why was Jeremy Bamber stupid enough to tell Julie of his intentions?
-
it's all very interesting. Why was Jeremy Bamber stupid enough to tell Julie of his intentions?
I don’t know their relationship that much other than what’s out here ilikebooze (can I shorten your name lol) I can only relate it to a sex crime I know of, the perpetrator showed his mate the Facebook photo of a young 13 year old girl he’d been charged with abusing, then said “She’s pretty though” why tell his mate and why show the photo and say that. Basically he’s trivialising the offence and trying to gain his mates support? He got 8 months prison by the way.
-
it's all very interesting. Why was Jeremy Bamber stupid enough to tell Julie of his intentions?
How many times in the heat of the moment have we said things we regret saying, a phrase springs to mind, Loose Tongue, you then play it down or cover it up, in Bambers case he went for the McDonald story?
-
I don’t know their relationship that much other than what’s out here ilikebooze (can I shorten your name lol) I can only relate it to a sex crime I know of, the perpetrator showed his mate the Facebook photo of a young 13 year old girl he’d been charged with abusing, then said “She’s pretty though” why tell his mate and why show the photo and say that. Basically he’s trivialising the offence and trying to gain his mates support? He got 8 months prison by the way.
There's also the point that abuse comes in many guises, RJ. Like you, I have no idea about what went on in their relationship, other than what's been said. One of those things -said by Julie- was that she'd experienced abuse during her childhood? Now, I can already hear the unenlightened saying that she'd run a mile from it as an adult. Sadly, that's not how it works, especially when it's unresolved. Rightly or wrongly, we have a tendency to go for what we understand, although it's a decision which is entirely unconscious. So an adult who has suffered some sort of unresolved abuse in childhood, because of feelings of worthlessness, will be more likely, than others, to find themselves in abusive relationships as adults.
Psychological abuse is insidious -snide- it creates a bond which the victim finds difficult to break away from. They believe they're so worthless that they should be grateful that this particular person loves them. Psychological abuse is no respecter of intellect or IQ. It takes pleasure in breaking these down to the point where the victim is totally reliant on the perpetrator.
Looking at Julie's behaviours -for the duration of her relationship with Jeremy- with this in mind, I have to wonder if there was something of this going on. Enough digging has been done, on Julie, to have found any skeletons which may have been lurking. None have appeared prior to the murders -in fact, she appears to have had an exemplary record- and nothing, despite the best efforts, to destroy the life she's made for herself, of some here, I believe, has been found since. It begs the question, for me, given that her behaviours, during that dreadful interlude, appear to have been totally out of character, did Jeremy wield a Machiavellian influence over her?
-
There's also the point that abuse comes in many guises, RJ. Like you, I have no idea about what went on in their relationship, other than what's been said. One of those things -said by Julie- was that she'd experienced abuse during her childhood? Now, I can already hear the unenlightened saying that she'd run a mile from it as an adult. Sadly, that's not how it works, especially when it's unresolved. Rightly or wrongly, we have a tendency to go for what we understand, although it's a decision which is entirely unconscious. So an adult who has suffered some sort of unresolved abuse in childhood, because of feelings of worthlessness, will be more likely, than others, to find themselves in abusive relationships as adults.
Psychological abuse is insidious -snide- it creates a bond which the victim finds difficult to break away from. They believe they're so worthless that they should be grateful that this particular person loves them. Psychological abuse is no respecter of intellect or IQ. It takes pleasure in breaking these down to the point where the victim is totally reliant on the perpetrator.
Looking at Julie's behaviours -for the duration of her relationship with Jeremy- with this in mind, I have to wonder if there was something of this going on. Enough digging has been done, on Julie, to have found any skeletons which may have been lurking. None have appeared prior to the murders -in fact, she appears to have had an exemplary record- and nothing, despite the best efforts, to destroy the life she's made for herself, of some here, I believe, has been found since. It begs the question, for me, given that her behaviours, during that dreadful interlude, appear to have been totally out of character, did Jeremy wield a Machiavellian influence over her?
What a brilliant post Jane, Julie would have poured her life out to Jeremy, Psychopaths are quick to hone in on women who are vulnerable. The lambs on whom the Wolves focus their attention.
-
JB can't be blamed for coercive/controlled behaviour towards JM as he was too busy flitting about from one woman to another so was never the " steady boyfriend ". It was when Sheila had moved to London that JB was beginning to feel his feet and the grass was looking a lot greener there than in the insular environment of where he was.
He'd obviously enjoyed the party atmosphere that was London and probably what went on in his mind was the continuing boredom of a relationship that was going stale.
Because of the more or less sheltered lives that both he and Sheila had led at WHF the thought of them both spreading their wings felt like a different way of life altogether which both enjoyed.
During this new found life, it was JB who'd looked after his sister, driving her home from clubs/parties. I don't know many brothers who'd look out for their sisters in this way while enjoying themselves ?
A psychopath would just let them get on with it----being void of any feelings etc and would continue to do what they wanted as is a psychopath's nature, selfish and uncaring.
We don't know the enjoyment that JB had while JM was out of sight ! if JB had had eyes for JM I'm almost certain that he would have got engaged to her, but he wasn't interested and apart from the fact that June never got on with her that relationship was fizzling out before the murders ever took place and JB was looking for a way out.
His chance came when he got that phone-call while JM was in his presence and that pretty well marked the end of the relationship.
At 24 it's not a hanging offence to end a relationship. If JB was as bad as he's been painted why was JM hanging on to him for grim death ? Why was she so furious with him and wanting to suffocate him ?
Girls/young women are renowned for throwing all kinds of " tantrums " and acts of revenge after a split, you read about these things every day and this is exactly what JM did during her stand as a prosecution witness-----which she did very well until it came to her being questioned about the man she'd once loved and she couldn't speak through the tears after realising what she'd done !
-
JB can't be blamed for coercive/controlled behaviour towards JM as he was too busy flitting about from one woman to another so was never the " steady boyfriend ". It was when Sheila had moved to London that JB was beginning to feel his feet and the grass was looking a lot greener there than in the insular environment of where he was.
He'd obviously enjoyed the party atmosphere that was London and probably what went on in his mind was the continuing boredom of a relationship that was going stale.
Because of the more or less sheltered lives that both he and Sheila had led at WHF the thought of them both spreading their wings felt like a different way of life altogether which both enjoyed.
During this new found life, it was JB who'd looked after his sister, driving her home from clubs/parties. I don't know many brothers who'd look out for their sisters in this way while enjoying themselves ?
A psychopath would just let them get on with it----being void of any feelings etc and would continue to do what they wanted as is a psychopath's nature, selfish and uncaring.
We don't know the enjoyment that JB had while JM was out of sight ! if JB had had eyes for JM I'm almost certain that he would have got engaged to her, but he wasn't interested and apart from the fact that June never got on with her that relationship was fizzling out before the murders ever took place and JB was looking for a way out.
His chance came when he got that phone-call while JM was in his presence and that pretty well marked the end of the relationship.
At 24 it's not a hanging offence to end a relationship. If JB was as bad as he's been painted why was JM hanging on to him for grim death ? Why was she so furious with him and wanting to suffocate him ?
Girls/young women are renowned for throwing all kinds of " tantrums " and acts of revenge after a split, you read about these things every day and this is exactly what JM did during her stand as a prosecution witness-----which she did very well until it came to her being questioned about the man she'd once loved and she couldn't speak through the tears after realising what she'd done !
Very good post Lookout.
I was replying to the fact Jeremy being guilty from ilovebooze posts, I suppose we have to flip it round now?
-
JB can't be blamed for coercive/controlled behaviour towards JM as he was too busy flitting about from one woman to another so was never the " steady boyfriend ". It was when Sheila had moved to London that JB was beginning to feel his feet and the grass was looking a lot greener there than in the insular environment of where he was.
He'd obviously enjoyed the party atmosphere that was London and probably what went on in his mind was the continuing boredom of a relationship that was going stale.
Because of the more or less sheltered lives that both he and Sheila had led at WHF the thought of them both spreading their wings felt like a different way of life altogether which both enjoyed.
During this new found life, it was JB who'd looked after his sister, driving her home from clubs/parties. I don't know many brothers who'd look out for their sisters in this way while enjoying themselves ?
A psychopath would just let them get on with it----being void of any feelings etc and would continue to do what they wanted as is a psychopath's nature, selfish and uncaring.
We don't know the enjoyment that JB had while JM was out of sight ! if JB had had eyes for JM I'm almost certain that he would have got engaged to her, but he wasn't interested and apart from the fact that June never got on with her that relationship was fizzling out before the murders ever took place and JB was looking for a way out.
His chance came when he got that phone-call while JM was in his presence and that pretty well marked the end of the relationship.
At 24 it's not a hanging offence to end a relationship. If JB was as bad as he's been painted why was JM hanging on to him for grim death ? Why was she so furious with him and wanting to suffocate him ?
Girls/young women are renowned for throwing all kinds of " tantrums " and acts of revenge after a split, you read about these things every day and this is exactly what JM did during her stand as a prosecution witness-----which she did very well until it came to her being questioned about the man she'd once loved and she couldn't speak through the tears after realising what she'd done !
I suppose we could argue, if the relationship had fizzled out, why he chose to ring Julie at daft o’clock in the morning on the day of the massacre instead of the police first, the thing that’s strange about this call, in her statement dated 8th of August (this is before Julie came forward) she never mentions Neville, Bamber didn’t say to Julie my Dad’s rang something’s wrong, he just said there’s something wrong?
If I rang my wife to tell her something was wrong at my dad’s house I would tell her Dad’s rang, somethings not right etc, Bamber didn’t mention Neville to Julie, because she knows the relationship between Bamber and his father wasn’t that close.
-
I suppose we could argue, if the relationship had fizzled out, why he chose to ring Julie at daft o’clock in the morning on the day of the massacre instead of the police first, the thing that’s strange about this call, in her statement dated 8th of August (this is before Julie came forward) she never mentions Neville, Bamber didn’t say to Julie my Dad’s rang something’s wrong, he just said there’s something wrong?
If I rang my wife to tell her something was wrong at my dad’s house I would tell her Dad’s rang, somethings not right etc, Bamber didn’t mention Neville to Julie, because she knows the relationship between Bamber and his father wasn’t that close.
In JB's defence I can only suppose that it didn't enter his head to have mentioned his father, taking it for granted that JM would " know " that Nevill had rang anyway. JB's reason for ringing JM in the first place would have come naturally to him regardless of the time of night/morning as again, he'd have taken it for granted that she'd have acknowledged his call anyway------rather than ring the relatives who hadn't really known about Sheila's " episodes " , that in case it had been a false alarm as had been in past events, he'd felt that JM would have been the one to have understood more.
JM herself had obviously been aware of the times that JB had been called by his father to assist with Sheila because of her answer to him " to go back to bed " so she herself hadn't felt that it was urgent either. Anything involving Sheila it seems that Nevill was the one who rang or I'm sure if it had been June that had rang then he'd definitely have said " his mother ".
-
In JB's defence I can only suppose that it didn't enter his head to have mentioned his father, taking it for granted that JM would " know " that Nevill had rang anyway. JB's reason for ringing JM in the first place would have come naturally to him regardless of the time of night/morning as again, he'd have taken it for granted that she'd have acknowledged his call anyway------rather than ring the relatives who hadn't really known about Sheila's " episodes " , that in case it had been a false alarm as had been in past events, he'd felt that JM would have been the one to have understood more.
JM herself had obviously been aware of the times that JB had been called by his father to assist with Sheila because of her answer to him " to go back to bed " so she herself hadn't felt that it was urgent either. Anything involving Sheila it seems that Nevill was the one who rang or I'm sure if it had been June that had rang then he'd definitely have said " his mother ".
Its just strange he never mentioned Dad’s just rang. Julie isn’t making this part up because her statement was 8th of August. He finds the trouble to ring her up at that time in a morning, it’s not as though it’s a direct line to JM, it woke the flat up? As well as not mentioning Neville, he never mentioned Sheila. I never knew Neville had called Jeremy lots of times before to assist with Sheila?
-
Its just strange he never mentioned Dad’s just rang. Julie isn’t making this part up because her statement was 8th of August. He finds the trouble to ring her up at that time in a morning, it’s not as though it’s a direct line to JM, it woke the flat up? As well as not mentioning Neville, he never mentioned Sheila. I never knew Neville had called Jeremy lots of times before to assist with Sheila?
That is because there is no evidence to support it, just claims here.
-
That is because there is no evidence to support it, just claims here.
We know he did ring on occasion, but the problem here is that there's only JB who knows that and nobody here believes him anyway ? This is the downside when you have a family that keep to themselves. Nobody believed JB when he mentioned fostering but gradually it came to light that he hadn't been lying.
Very difficult when you're not believed.
-
In JB's defence I can only suppose that it didn't enter his head to have mentioned his father, taking it for granted that JM would " know " that Nevill had rang anyway. JB's reason for ringing JM in the first place would have come naturally to him regardless of the time of night/morning as again, he'd have taken it for granted that she'd have acknowledged his call anyway------rather than ring the relatives who hadn't really known about Sheila's " episodes " , that in case it had been a false alarm as had been in past events, he'd felt that JM would have been the one to have understood more.
JM herself had obviously been aware of the times that JB had been called by his father to assist with Sheila because of her answer to him " to go back to bed " so she herself hadn't felt that it was urgent either. Anything involving Sheila it seems that Nevill was the one who rang or I'm sure if it had been June that had rang then he'd definitely have said " his mother ".
I can understand someone panicking and wanting advice, I would do the same, but he’s rang someone up in the early hours of the morning for advice, but not told them what’s wrong or who the call was from? Why ring in the first place. When Julie said go back to bed he just replied “bye honey” or words to that effect.
-
That is because there is no evidence to support it, just claims here.
Oh right, I thought I’d missed something.
-
I can understand someone panicking and wanting advice, I would do the same, but he’s rang someone up in the early hours of the morning for advice, but not told them what’s wrong or who the call was from? Why ring in the first place. When Julie said go back to bed he just replied “bye honey” or words to that effect.
JB hadn't known what was going on at the time. Not being " a man of the world " he wanted reassurance because JM had been aware that a phone-call from Nevill had occurred before. I'm sure JB would have mentioned it to JM during their courtship which is why she showed no surprise.
-
JB can't be blamed for coercive/controlled behaviour towards JM as he was too busy flitting about from one woman to another so was never the " steady boyfriend ". It was when Sheila had moved to London that JB was beginning to feel his feet and the grass was looking a lot greener there than in the insular environment of where he was.
He'd obviously enjoyed the party atmosphere that was London and probably what went on in his mind was the continuing boredom of a relationship that was going stale.
Because of the more or less sheltered lives that both he and Sheila had led at WHF the thought of them both spreading their wings felt like a different way of life altogether which both enjoyed.
During this new found life, it was JB who'd looked after his sister, driving her home from clubs/parties. I don't know many brothers who'd look out for their sisters in this way while enjoying themselves ?
A psychopath would just let them get on with it----being void of any feelings etc and would continue to do what they wanted as is a psychopath's nature, selfish and uncaring.
We don't know the enjoyment that JB had while JM was out of sight ! if JB had had eyes for JM I'm almost certain that he would have got engaged to her, but he wasn't interested and apart from the fact that June never got on with her that relationship was fizzling out before the murders ever took place and JB was looking for a way out.
His chance came when he got that phone-call while JM was in his presence and that pretty well marked the end of the relationship.
At 24 it's not a hanging offence to end a relationship. If JB was as bad as he's been painted why was JM hanging on to him for grim death ? Why was she so furious with him and wanting to suffocate him ?
Girls/young women are renowned for throwing all kinds of " tantrums " and acts of revenge after a split, you read about these things every day and this is exactly what JM did during her stand as a prosecution witness-----which she did very well until it came to her being questioned about the man she'd once loved and she couldn't speak through the tears after realising what she'd done !
But Lookout, a controller doesn't have to be with someone 24/7 to exert control. As for your grasp on what constitutes a psychopath? They're chameleons. They play at having empathy, at being caring and concerned, but, like the actor doing a cold read through, they don't feel it. Whether or not he played away when Julie wasn't around is irrelevant. It seems to have slipped your memory that he asked Julie to marry him but quickly reneged after an alleged conversation with his parents.
-
JB hadn't known what was going on at the time. Not being " a man of the world " he wanted reassurance because JM had been aware that a phone-call from Nevill had occurred before. I'm sure JB would have mentioned it to JM during their courtship which is why she showed no surprise.
He knew Sheila was going crazy with a gun and he knew the call was from Neville. Wonder why Bamber never told police or Julie or Brett he’d received calls about Sheila from his father before? Really important information like that, even at trial he never brought it up. He would have started off by saying, “Dad’s called again, he wants help with Sheila”. It’s natural to phrase it like that if it’s an occurrence.
-
In JB's defence I can only suppose that it didn't enter his head to have mentioned his father, taking it for granted that JM would " know " that Nevill had rang anyway. JB's reason for ringing JM in the first place would have come naturally to him regardless of the time of night/morning as again, he'd have taken it for granted that she'd have acknowledged his call anyway------rather than ring the relatives who hadn't really known about Sheila's " episodes " , that in case it had been a false alarm as had been in past events, he'd felt that JM would have been the one to have understood more.
JM herself had obviously been aware of the times that JB had been called by his father to assist with Sheila because of her answer to him " to go back to bed " so she herself hadn't felt that it was urgent either. Anything involving Sheila it seems that Nevill was the one who rang or I'm sure if it had been June that had rang then he'd definitely have said " his mother ".
WHY would JM have "been aware of......................."? Jeremy hadn't lived at WHF for years, and he wasn't close to either parent, yet you appear, with no knowledge of whether or not it's true, to be implying that Nevill rang Jeremy every time Sheila called him. Like Caroline and RJ, I think it's extremely odd that he made no mention, to Julie, of his father's call and his terror. "Go back to bed" suggests, to me, she wanted to distance herself from what he might be trying to tell her.
-
JB hadn't known what was going on at the time. Not being " a man of the world " he wanted reassurance because JM had been aware that a phone-call from Nevill had occurred before. I'm sure JB would have mentioned it to JM during their courtship which is why she showed no surprise.
When was this other phone call from Nevill, Lookout? What was it pertaining to? Given how much intimacy was lacking in their relationship, I can't imagine it would have occurred to him to have told Jeremy. If you'd said Barbara Wilson I'd have been inclined to agree.
-
But Lookout, a controller doesn't have to be with someone 24/7 to exert control. As for your grasp on what constitutes a psychopath? They're chameleons. They play at having empathy, at being caring and concerned, but, like the actor doing a cold read through, they don't feel it. Whether or not he played away when Julie wasn't around is irrelevant. It seems to have slipped your memory that he asked Julie to marry him but quickly reneged after an alleged conversation with his parents.
That " alleged conversation " with his parents was June controlling JB's future, the same as she did with Sheila's and both followed her instructions by parting company with their chosen ones as June was never enamoured with Colin either.
-
We know he did ring on occasion, but the problem here is that there's only JB who knows that and nobody here believes him anyway ? This is the downside when you have a family that keep to themselves. Nobody believed JB when he mentioned fostering but gradually it came to light that he hadn't been lying.
Very difficult when you're not believed.
Sorry Lookout, how do we know? I've never seen Jeremy claim that he'd been called in the past to help with Sheila?
-
JB hadn't known what was going on at the time. Not being " a man of the world " he wanted reassurance because JM had been aware that a phone-call from Nevill had occurred before. I'm sure JB would have mentioned it to JM during their courtship which is why she showed no surprise.
What's not to know? Sister has a gun and gone crazy - seems pretty straight forward to me. He told West that his dad sounded 'terrified' and 'wasn't messing about'.
I don't think you can rewrite history Lookout - Jeremy wasn't a man of the world? By 25, he had travelled half way around the world on his own twice, lived in another country on his own and fended (for the most part) on his own and he had lived with an older women and her children. He was an adult, a man - not a boy. Plus, there is nothing to say that he had received such a call previously, I don't know where you are getting that from, unless you can point it out?
-
That " alleged conversation " with his parents was June controlling JB's future, the same as she did with Sheila's and both followed her instructions by parting company with their chosen ones as June was never enamoured with Colin either.
But there's no proof of A) any conversation, B) that particular conversation. Had there been one, there's no reason why June shouldn't have condoned the marriage rather than have him living close to WHF, in sin.
-
That " alleged conversation " with his parents was June controlling JB's future, the same as she did with Sheila's and both followed her instructions by parting company with their chosen ones as June was never enamoured with Colin either.
June wanted them to get married, which given her prim and proper habits, isn't surprising. It was because June had wanted them to get married, that Jeremy decided he wouldn't. June had nothing to do with Sheila and Colin's break-up. Sheila's illness and I think Colin's immaturity (at that time) were the cause.
-
But there's no proof of A) any conversation, B) that particular conversation. Had there been one, there's no reason why June shouldn't have condoned the marriage rather than have him living close to WHF, in sin.
She did condone it, that's why he chose to go the other way.
-
She did condone it, that's why he chose to go the other way.
Figures ::)
-
Figures ::)
June and Nevill told Jeremy that they though it was time he got married at a Boxing day gathering. Jeremy had previously proposed to Julie but when he parents said that - he decided not to bother because he said that he felt like it was no longer his decision.
-
June and Nevill told Jeremy that they though it was time he got married at a Boxing day gathering. Jeremy had previously proposed to Julie but when he parents said that - he decided not to bother because he said that he felt like it was no longer his decision.
I can actually see that within a very small space of time, June had probably organized the venue, the reception, and written a guest list......................and probably Jeremy had only sought to irritate them!!!
-
June and Nevill told Jeremy that they though it was time he got married at a Boxing day gathering. Jeremy had previously proposed to Julie but when he parents said that - he decided not to bother because he said that he felt like it was no longer his decision.
Psychopaths like to be in charge Caroline, they like to have power and control but lack understanding of emotions. To me that’s a classic when he said “it was no longer his decision”
-
Sorry Lookout, how do we know? I've never seen Jeremy claim that he'd been called in the past to help with Sheila?
Sheila had been unwell and having meltdowns in 1978 which is on this forum somewhere along with the fact that Jeremy had either been there at hand to help or called from wherever he was at the time.
-
What's not to know? Sister has a gun and gone crazy - seems pretty straight forward to me. He told West that his dad sounded 'terrified' and 'wasn't messing about'.
I don't think you can rewrite history Lookout - Jeremy wasn't a man of the world? By 25, he had travelled half way around the world on his own twice, lived in another country on his own and fended (for the most part) on his own and he had lived with an older women and her children. He was an adult, a man - not a boy. Plus, there is nothing to say that he had received such a call previously, I don't know where you are getting that from, unless you can point it out?
Prior to his travelling he saw little of the outside world.
-
I can actually see that within a very small space of time, June had probably organized the venue, the reception, and written a guest list......................and probably Jeremy had only sought to irritate them!!!
June refused them to get married in " her " church where Sheila had wanted to attend-----because she'd been pregnant.
-
Prior to his travelling he saw little of the outside world.
Eh? How do you make that out? I really don't think he would agree with your perception of him Lookout.
-
June refused them to get married in " her " church where Sheila had wanted to attend-----because she'd been pregnant.
What does that have to do with Jeremy and Julie?
-
June refused them to get married in " her " church where Sheila had wanted to attend-----because she'd been pregnant.
I'm talking about Jeremy's proposed nuptials! Keep up, please, Lookout!!!
-
What does that have to do with Jeremy and Julie?
I was answering Jane's post------do keep up.
-
I'm talking about Jeremy's proposed nuptials! Keep up, please, Lookout!!!
Yeah, right. :o
-
That " alleged conversation " with his parents was June controlling JB's future, the same as she did with Sheila's and both followed her instructions by parting company with their chosen ones as June was never enamoured with Colin either.
As you say, Lookout "Yeah, right". I WAS talking about Jeremy's proposed nuptials. YOU introduced Sheila and her pregnancy -some 8 years prior?- into the conversation.
-
I was answering Jane's post------do keep up.
Jane was also talking about Jeremy and Julie - nothing to do with Sheila - Do keep up!
-
Jane was also talking about Jeremy and Julie - nothing to do with Sheila - Do keep up!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
How many times in the heat of the moment have we said things we regret saying, a phrase springs to mind, Loose Tongue, you then play it down or cover it up, in Bambers case he went for the McDonald story?
to be fair though this is not a heat of moment scenario is it. Look at it from a Jeremy Bamber is gulity perspective. He has been planning the massacre and has been gearing himself up for it. He is ready for his money. And he wants to have everything. Why would he jepordise is by even telling someone, even if it were his girlfriend. Even if she never went to the police, and he got away with it. He would never have a decent night's sleep again. Forever scared, that should he step a foot wrong, Julie mugford would drop him in it. I believe if Bamber is guilty he would have never told a soul. He isn't that stupid.
-
You can argue that Jeremy would know he would be believed, after all he had the perfect fall person. His sister, who was mentally ill. Had been having treatment, why from his perspective would he fuck it all up by bragging about it? When all he had to do is remain quiet and then everything would fall into place for him? This is why I decline to believe Julie mugford. Coupled with her own actions post the massacre in the early stages. I know people have said to me that people react differently but I just don't buy it. Especially when it involves something of this horrific magnitude
-
to be fair though this is not a heat of moment scenario is it. Look at it from a Jeremy Bamber is gulity perspective. He has been planning the massacre and has been gearing himself up for it. He is ready for his money. And he wants to have everything. Why would he jepordise is by even telling someone, even if it were his girlfriend. Even if she never went to the police, and he got away with it. He would never have a decent night's sleep again. Forever scared, that should he step a foot wrong, Julie mugford would drop him in it. I believe if Bamber is guilty he would have never told a soul. He isn't that stupid.
He may have initially just stated his thoughts out loud, with no real intention It was quite some time before mentioning it and carrying it out.
-
He may have initially just stated his thoughts out loud, with no real intention It was quite some time before mentioning it and carrying it out.
Caroline. By Julie's own account he had told her he had been on the tractor all day, thinking and planning about killing his family that very night, to quote Julie he said " tonight's the night" if we are to go by what Julie says is true, he was singing like a canary hours before committing the dreadful act.... Jeremy isn't an idiot, why cockily do something like this knowing it could fall back upon him...
-
You can argue that Jeremy would know he would be believed, after all he had the perfect fall person. His sister, who was mentally ill. Had been having treatment, why from his perspective would he fuck it all up by bragging about it? When all he had to do is remain quiet and then everything would fall into place for him? This is why I decline to believe Julie mugford. Coupled with her own actions post the massacre in the early stages. I know people have said to me that people react differently but I just don't buy it. Especially when it involves something of this horrific magnitude
to be fair though this is not a heat of moment scenario is it. Look at it from a Jeremy Bamber is gulity perspective. He has been planning the massacre and has been gearing himself up for it. He is ready for his money. And he wants to have everything. Why would he jepordise is by even telling someone, even if it were his girlfriend. Even if she never went to the police, and he got away with it. He would never have a decent night's sleep again. Forever scared, that should he step a foot wrong, Julie mugford would drop him in it. I believe if Bamber is guilty he would have never told a soul. He isn't that stupid.
I think you're missing the entire point. I believe Jeremy believed himself to be untouchable. He probably thought he had a great enough hold on Julie for her to keep her mouth shut. What he told her pulled her still further into his world. If she HAD said anything, she risked her entire future. After all, SHE'D been on a fraudulent spending spree. SHE'D provided him with sleeping pills to sedate his father. SHE'D kept lookout when he robbed family property. SHE was privy to a dreadful secret.
-
I think you're missing the entire point. I believe Jeremy believed himself to be untouchable. He probably thought he had a great enough hold on Julie for her to keep her mouth shut. What he told her pulled her still further into his world. If she HAD said anything, she risked her entire future. After all, SHE'D been on a fraudulent spending spree. SHE'D provided him with sleeping pills to sedate his father. SHE'D kept lookout when he robbed family property. SHE was privy to a dreadful secret.
entire future? Why would she want to spend her entire future with a psychopath and a child killer, by painting Julie in this light you are painting her as being as financially ruthless as Bamber himself and do no favour for her moral high ground " respectable caught up innocent girl scenario" and as for referencing the caravan Park break in and cheque fraud. It is laughable, respectfully. How important are those incidents, parallaed with five counts of murder ( including two innocent little boys asleep in their beds) there was no way whatsoever and further more for to Julie to even fear that she would be implicated with Bamber in these five murders. She was not a part of any conspiracy with him. There isn't an excuse.
-
Caroline. By Julie's own account he had told her he had been on the tractor all day, thinking and planning about killing his family that very night, to quote Julie he said " tonight's the night" if we are to go by what Julie says is true, he was singing like a canary hours before committing the dreadful act.... Jeremy isn't an idiot, why cockily do something like this knowing it could fall back upon him...
He talked about killing them long before that and no, he's not an idiot, but he is arrogant. I doubt he thought Julie would betray him and that his plan was air tight.
-
JB can't be blamed for coercive/controlled behaviour towards JM as he was too busy flitting about from one woman to another so was never the " steady boyfriend ". It was when Sheila had moved to London that JB was beginning to feel his feet and the grass was looking a lot greener there than in the insular environment of where he was.
He'd obviously enjoyed the party atmosphere that was London and probably what went on in his mind was the continuing boredom of a relationship that was going stale.
Because of the more or less sheltered lives that both he and Sheila had led at WHF the thought of them both spreading their wings felt like a different way of life altogether which both enjoyed.
During this new found life, it was JB who'd looked after his sister, driving her home from clubs/parties. I don't know many brothers who'd look out for their sisters in this way while enjoying themselves ?
A psychopath would just let them get on with it----being void of any feelings etc and would continue to do what they wanted as is a psychopath's nature, selfish and uncaring.
We don't know the enjoyment that JB had while JM was out of sight ! if JB had had eyes for JM I'm almost certain that he would have got engaged to her, but he wasn't interested and apart from the fact that June never got on with her that relationship was fizzling out before the murders ever took place and JB was looking for a way out.
His chance came when he got that phone-call while JM was in his presence and that pretty well marked the end of the relationship.
At 24 it's not a hanging offence to end a relationship. If JB was as bad as he's been painted why was JM hanging on to him for grim death ? Why was she so furious with him and wanting to suffocate him ?
Girls/young women are renowned for throwing all kinds of " tantrums " and acts of revenge after a split, you read about these things every day and this is exactly what JM did during her stand as a prosecution witness-----which she did very well until it came to her being questioned about the man she'd once loved and she couldn't speak through the tears after realising what she'd done !
This is well-written lookout but inaccurate. It's true Jeremy was the one with the car and Sheila couldn't drive, and maybe he did take her home on occasions when his judgement wasn't affected by cannabis or alcohol. But after her illness in 1983 I think he began to see his sister as a liability, someone whom he didn't want to be seen with at parties, and whom he began to pity. Remember in his mind these were mercy killings, as well as justifying to himself that Colin would be able to obtain full-time work once the twins were out of the way. These thought processes really are the product of a diseased mind.
As for Julie, why did she stick with him for so long, listening to his insane rantings on the subject of killing five people, by his side at the funerals, and as you say only when it was clear Jeremy was going to date other women did she snap? Did she think she was entitled to some reward for her silence, did she turn down the offer of manageress of a wine bar in a fashionable area of town, why had she not become pregnant by him if she really wanted to hook him or was otherwise purely interested in the material aspect of their relationship?
I think that she did love him, she was a martyr to his every wish, she was available for him at all times sexually, she did his washing, decorated Bourtree Cottage. She wanted desperately to believe he wasn't behind the murders, that somehow Matthew had misunderstood instructions, that it was all a ghastly mistake, until she saw the carcasses themselves laid out on the slab and the curtain descended, until the admission at Blazer's restaurant, Blackheath that there was something wrong with him, that she realized she had to get away from Bourtree Cottage and its associations, that after the murders there really was no future for them, because powerful an emotion as love is, it just wasn't enough..
-
entire future? Why would she want to spend her entire future with a psychopath and a child killer, by painting Julie in this light you are painting her as being as financially ruthless as Bamber himself and do no favour for her moral high ground " respectable caught up innocent girl scenario" and as for referencing the caravan Park break in and cheque fraud. It is laughable, respectfully. How important are those incidents, parallaed with five counts of murder ( including two innocent little boys asleep in their beds) there was no way whatsoever and further more for to Julie to even fear that she would be implicated with Bamber in these five murders. She was not a part of any conspiracy with him. There isn't an excuse.
I agree, it would be impossible to live your life with that hanging over you head. However, she didn't - she came forward. In another case Lesley Stewart kept quiet for nearly 10 years armed with the knowledge that he partner, Robert Temple, killed his wife.
http://www.lifedaily.com/story/10-years-later-florida-woman-sheds-new-light-on-unsolved-cold-case/
-
to be fair though this is not a heat of moment scenario is it. Look at it from a Jeremy Bamber is gulity perspective. He has been planning the massacre and has been gearing himself up for it. He is ready for his money. And he wants to have everything. Why would he jepordise is by even telling someone, even if it were his girlfriend. Even if she never went to the police, and he got away with it. He would never have a decent night's sleep again. Forever scared, that should he step a foot wrong, Julie mugford would drop him in it. I believe if Bamber is guilty he would have never told a soul. He isn't that stupid.
Because she'd been a doormat for almost two years and he thought he had her under his thumb.
-
entire future? Why would she want to spend her entire future with a psychopath and a child killer, by painting Julie in this light you are painting her as being as financially ruthless as Bamber himself and do no favour for her moral high ground " respectable caught up innocent girl scenario" and as for referencing the caravan Park break in and cheque fraud. It is laughable, respectfully. How important are those incidents, parallaed with five counts of murder ( including two innocent little boys asleep in their beds) there was no way whatsoever and further more for to Julie to even fear that she would be implicated with Bamber in these five murders. She was not a part of any conspiracy with him. There isn't an excuse.
Well those were her thought processes, which is why she told her friends and Stan Jones became involved.
-
Well those were her thought processes, which is why she told her friends and Stan Jones became involved.
after continuing a relationship, and more disturbingly continually to be being in the same vicinity as Jeremy Bamber , who had told her he had killed five members of his family, but at the same time worried about her financial future?
-
entire future? Why would she want to spend her entire future with a psychopath and a child killer, by painting Julie in this light you are painting her as being as financially ruthless as Bamber himself and do no favour for her moral high ground " respectable caught up innocent girl scenario" and as for referencing the caravan Park break in and cheque fraud. It is laughable, respectfully. How important are those incidents, parallaed with five counts of murder ( including two innocent little boys asleep in their beds) there was no way whatsoever and further more for to Julie to even fear that she would be implicated with Bamber in these five murders. She was not a part of any conspiracy with him. There isn't an excuse.
On the contrary. However, I do believe you're twisting this for twisting's sake. Still, looking at which way you've chosen to twist it, you're correct in that those crimes she was a part of pale into insignificance when compared with what Jeremy did. Trouble is, I think he'd made her believe she was as big a part of it as he. SO, if she believes that she'll end up with a criminal record, that all the hard work she'd put into her education will be thrown away, the career she wants has gone, and so, too, are her hopes of a future with Jeremy. As I've said, previously, NONE of this is about what you think now, it's about what was going on for Julie at the time. I don't think Jeremy cared. His entire focus was one the money and the new life he could lead. I think Julie must have felt as if she was up to her neck in it.
-
after continuing a relationship, and more disturbingly continually to be being in the same vicinity as Jeremy Bamber , who had told her he had killed five members of his family, but at the same time worried about her financial future?
Well there was the hitman story, she didn't want to believe. As I say had she harboured no ambition at all she could have done what some girls did in 1980s Salford, Liverpool, Blackburn, Burnley and got pregnant.
-
This is well-written lookout but inaccurate. It's true Jeremy was the one with the car and Sheila couldn't drive, and maybe he did take her home on occasions when his judgement wasn't affected by cannabis or alcohol. But after her illness in 1983 I think he began to see his sister as a liability, someone whom he didn't want to be seen with at parties, and whom he began to pity. Remember in his mind these were mercy killings, as well as justifying to himself that Colin would be able to obtain full-time work once the twins were out of the way. These thought processes really are the product of a diseased mind.
As for Julie, why did she stick with him for so long, listening to his insane rantings on the subject of killing five people, by his side at the funerals, and as you say only when it was clear Jeremy was going to date other women did she snap? Did she think she was entitled to some reward for her silence, did she turn down the offer of manageress of a wine bar in a fashionable area of town, why had she not become pregnant by him if she really wanted to hook him or was otherwise purely interested in the material aspect of their relationship?
I think that she did love him, she was a martyr to his every wish, she was available for him at all times sexually, she did his washing, decorated Bourtree Cottage. She wanted desperately to believe he wasn't behind the murders, that somehow Matthew had misunderstood instructions, that it was all a ghastly mistake, until she saw the carcasses themselves laid out on the slab and the curtain descended, until the admission at Blazer's restaurant, Blackheath that there was something wrong with him, that she realized she had to get away from Bourtree Cottage and its associations, that after the murders there really was no future for them, because powerful an emotion as love is, it just wasn't enough..
Steve, your theory about her desperately wanting to believe about him not committing the murders would be viable in a scenario where for example if the police were accusing Bamber from the outset and he was saying to her" look honey , it's not me they've got the wrong end of the stick entirely" and there was a mountain of evidence against him from the outset, but it's not the case mate. Julie can be in ABSOLUTELY no denial if Jeremy had told her THE SAME DAY of the massacre his evil intentions to kill his family.which did occur THAT VERY NIGHT , it doesn't ring true mate
-
On the contrary. However, I do believe you're twisting this for twisting's sake. Still, looking at which way you've chosen to twist it, you're correct in that those crimes she was a part of pale into insignificance when compared with what Jeremy did. Trouble is, I think he'd made her believe she was as big a part of it as he. SO, if she believes that she'll end up with a criminal record, that all the hard work she'd put into her education will be thrown away, the career she wants has gone, and so, too, are her hopes of a future with Jeremy. As I've said, previously, NONE of this is about what you think now, it's about what was going on for Julie at the time. I don't think Jeremy cared. His entire focus was one the money and the new life he could lead. I think Julie must have felt as if she was up to her neck in it.
please give me a detailed explanation how I am twisting things , instead of looking at the facts presented before me logically and sensibly
-
Steve, your theory about her desperately wanting to believe about him not committing the murders would be viable in a scenario where for example if the police were accusing Bamber from the outset and he was saying to her" look honey , it's not me they've got the wrong end of the stick entirely" and there was a mountain of evidence against him from the outset, but it's not the case mate. Julie can be in ABSOLUTELY no denial if Jeremy had told her THE SAME DAY of the massacre his evil intentions to kill his family.which did occur THAT VERY NIGHT , it doesn't ring true mate
Well she challenged him on the Wednesday evening and this is when he came up with the hitman story. I don't know why she stuck with him for those few weeks. She claimed still to love him, that he said he needed her and that she didn't want him to go to prison. I suppose after the telephone call at Moreshead Mansions lookout mentioned she realized this wasn't true.
-
please give me a detailed explanation how I am twisting things , instead of looking at the facts presented before me logically and sensibly
But you're not looking at ALL the facts. You're cherry picking and closing your eyes to the bigger picture. Probably along the same lines that Julie took.
-
Well she challenged him on the Wednesday evening and this is when he came up with the hitman story. I don't know why she stuck with him for those few weeks. She claimed still to love him, that he said he needed her and that she didn't want him to go to prison. I suppose after the telephone call at Moreshead Mansions lookout mentioned she realized this wasn't true.
whether the MacDonald story, of whether Bamber acted alone , she still has information he was involved
-
But you're not looking at ALL the facts. You're cherry picking and closing your eyes to the bigger picture. Probably along the same lines that Julie took.
how is using logic cherry picking ?
-
whether the MacDonald story, of whether Bamber acted alone , she still has information he was involved
She isn't unique. However, she didn't in the end keep his secret.
-
how is using logic cherry picking ?
Have you never been in love..
-
whether the MacDonald story, of whether Bamber acted alone , she still has information he was involved
Cant argue with that
-
She isn't unique. However, she didn't in the end keep his secret.
but was there a secret to be kept in the first place caroline?
-
how is using logic cherry picking ?
Using logic is avoiding trying to get into the mind of a "soon to be 22 year old girl". Nothing happens for nothing. It's all about cause and effect. You choose to ignore THIS fact.
-
Have you never been in love..
yes, and I still am and if my beloved told me they had killed five members of their family, I wouldn't be accompanying them on holiday or enjoying chinese banquets with them steve
-
yes, and I still am and if my beloved told me they had killed five members of their family, I wouldn't be accompanying them on holiday or enjoying chinese banquets with them steve
But you're not 20 years old and infatuated..
-
but was there a secret to be kept in the first place caroline?
I believe there was.
-
But you're not 20 years old and infatuated..
I could be 15 year old wearing braces, and have acne and still speak to a police officer at the first available opportunity
-
yes, and I still am and if my beloved told me they had killed five members of their family, I wouldn't be accompanying them on holiday or enjoying chinese banquets with them steve
Me either but like I said, she isn't unique.
-
Me either but like I said, she isn't unique.
she isn't, but she is still a human being, with a brain and a consience. It can't be excused Caroline...
-
she isn't, but she is still a human being, with a brain and a consience. It can't be excused Caroline...
Of course it shouldn't and had she told someone what Jeremy was saying to her before the murders, they might never have happened. I don't think anyone condones her initial silence but she did eventually come clean - even if part of her reasons were selfish.
-
she isn't, but she is still a human being, with a brain and a consience. It can't be excused Caroline...
No it can't, and I don't think anyone here has tried -my guess is that it's something which will haunt her for the rest of her life- but trying to explain and understand why anyone does what they do, isn't condoning it.
-
Of course it shouldn't and had she told someone what Jeremy was saying to her before the murders, they might never have happened. I don't think anyone condones her initial silence but she did eventually come clean - even if part of her reasons were selfish.
from my stance im not looking at it from what Jeremy Bamber may have remarked to her months before. If I was to jump to Julie's defence I could dismiss Jeremy's remarks to her back in 1984 as little more than " temper tantrums or hissy fits" " spoilt son scenario," but if I go by what Julie says what Jeremy Bamber told her on the day of the massacre, then I find it very hard of what we know in the aftermath to believe a word she says, and I'm shocked the jury did
-
No it can't, and I don't think anyone here has tried -my guess is that it's something which will haunt her for the rest of her life- but trying to explain and understand why anyone does what they do, isn't condoning it.
it would more haunt you if you didn't alert authorities on the police journey from lewishsam to tollenshunt Darcy Jane
-
it would more haunt you if you didn't alert authorities on the police journey from lewishsam to tollenshunt Darcy Jane
That's not OUR problem, though, is it? It's Julie who has to cope with whatever fallout she experiences from it. WE don't need to lose sleep over it.
-
from my stance im not looking at it from what Jeremy Bamber may have remarked to her months before. If I was to jump to Julie's defence I could dismiss Jeremy's remarks to her back in 1984 as little more than " temper tantrums or hissy fits" " spoilt son scenario," but if I go by what Julie says what Jeremy Bamber told her on the day of the massacre, then I find it very hard of what we know in the aftermath to believe a word she says, and I'm shocked the jury did
Well, hissy fits or not, it's really not usual to plan your families demise, talking about it regularly. I've probably said I hated my mum and dad at some point, but never pictured how I might do'em in. Even if he had mentioned nothing the previous night, I think she would still have wondered if it was him. If someone talked about killing their family and they ended up dead - I know which suspect I'd bet on.
-
Well, hissy fits or not, it's really not usual to plan your families demise, talking about it regularly. I've probably said I hated my mum and dad at some point, but never pictured how I might do'em in. Even if he had mentioned nothing the previous night, I think she would still have wondered if it was him. If someone talked about killing their family and they ended up dead - I know which suspect I'd bet on.
I wouldn't suspect the person who'd said it but the person who didn't !!
-
I wouldn't suspect the person who'd said it but the person who didn't !!
What? So you would suspect everyone but not the person making the confession? OK, really good thing you didn't go down the police officer route!
-
Well, hissy fits or not, it's really not usual to plan your families demise, talking about it regularly. I've probably said I hated my mum and dad at some point, but never pictured how I might do'em in. Even if he had mentioned nothing the previous night, I think she would still have wondered if it was him. If someone talked about killing their family and they ended up dead - I know which suspect I'd bet on.
exactly which makes all themore telling that she dident come forward straight away.
-
exactly which makes all themore telling that she dident come forward straight away.
Telling what? All it tells you is that she didn't come forward for selfish reasons. I doubt she's pround of herself but as previously stated, she's not unique.
-
That's not OUR problem, though, is it? It's Julie who has to cope with whatever fallout she experiences from it. WE don't need to lose sleep over it.
I never claimed it was. Just 34 years on myself and others are still trying to find out why it never happened. As I have already pointed out on many occasions i am not a champion of Jeremy Bambers innocence. Nor am I convinced of his guilt. But the Julie mugford aspect of the case is very questionable
-
I never claimed it was. Just 34 years on myself and others are still trying to find out why it never happened
Actually, the "WHY" part appears to be of very little interest to you. You've been given a plethora of different/possible reasons for her behaviour, all of which you've chosen to ignore, preferring to throw in negative comments.
-
Because she'd been a doormat for almost two years and he thought he had her under his thumb.
I've never bought the controlling boyfriend scenario. I always feel if that was the case Jeremy would not even allow Julie to be studying at Goldsmith's college and would have her chained to the sink at his cottage in goldhanger instead. I do believe he probably was unfaithful to her on many occasions, as being a good looking bloke he would find it easy to chat girls up. But I don't fully buy the controlling boyfriend scenario. I feel it was more him keeping her at arm's length
-
Actually, the "WHY" part appears to be of very little interest to you. You've been given a plethora of different/possible reasons for her behaviour, all of which you've chosen to ignore, preferring to throw in negative comments.
I have not ignored it. I just find it hard to believe it
-
I've never bought the controlling boyfriend scenario. I always feel if that was the case Jeremy would not even allow Julie to be studying at Goldsmith's college and would have her chained to the sink at his cottage in goldhanger instead. I do believe he probably was unfaithful to her on many occasions, as being a good looking bloke he would find it easy to chat girls up. But I don't fully buy the controlling boyfriend scenario. I feel it was more him keeping her at arm's length
You appear to have very little idea about how controllers work. Overt controlling DOESN'T work. It's all about subtlety under the guise of caring. Insidious. If he did appear to keep her at arm's length, he'd done a very good job on her because he knew she'd come back.
-
I have not ignored it. I just find it hard to believe it
So what, exactly, DO you believe? Instead of just slating everything that's been said isn't it time you offered an opinion that looks a little deeper than saying she was just greedy. None of us is JUST anything.
-
I have not ignored it. I just find it hard to believe it
I find a lot of things hard to believe what others do in this world, but we are not them. What I do find hard to believe, the thought of killing my parents and sister/self and two little boys, whether it being Jeremy or Sheila.
I’m no fan of JM, we can only draw on life experiences when we judge others, which can be wrong, I was in Rotherham on Tuesday listening to a harrowing tale about a sex abused woman and a killing, yet it took her twenty years to come forward. I know this is not the same, but you would have done different maybe?
-
I find a lot of things hard to believe what others do in this world, but we are not them. What I do find hard to believe, the thought of killing my parents and sister/self and two little boys, whether it being Jeremy or Sheila.
I’m no fan of JM, we can only draw on life experiences when we judge others, which can be wrong, I was in Rotherham on Tuesday listening to a harrowing tale about a sex abused woman and a killing, yet it took her twenty years to come forward. I know this is not the same, but you would have done different maybe?
I can give instance of a woman who only recognized, in her mid 40's, the abuse she'd suffered as a child, and the subsequent effect it had had on her as an adult. Most of us are too busy trying to make the best of the cards we've been dealt to look at what's going on. As you say, RJ, we can only draw on our own experiences. I find ilb's stance to be particularly judgemental but it MAY be that he/she has had a very sheltered life, or has had one devoid of the traumas many have faced.
-
You appear to have very little idea about how controllers work. Overt controlling DOESN'T work. It's all about subtlety under the guise of caring. Insidious. If he did appear to keep her at arm's length, he'd done a very good job on her because he knew she'd come back.
are you stating a fact, or an opinion?
-
None of us can give an accurate reason why Julie stayed quiet - just a best guess. Personally I think even if Bamber hadn't dumped her, she would have eventually cracked one way or another. The point is though, that unlike some, she did come forward. If what she told the police was made up - where would that come from, there has to be a basis for such a lie. She couldn't know that the investigation was uncovering a different picture of who was actually responsible and as Jeremy's girlfriend, the relatives wouldn't risk recruiting her in case she told him. I personally don't think she told the whole truth, I think there is stuff she left out or which the police thought would be unhelpful in the doc. Julie isn't unique - I think she was immature and didn't realise the full impact of what she was mixed up in.
-
are you stating a fact, or an opinion?
Neither. It's an observation.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=284.0
Julie's reasons for approaching the police after a month will be partially explained indirectly in her substantial WS. Something she defended and elaborated on when testifying.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=284.0
Julie's reasons for not approaching the police will be partially explained indirectly in her substantial WS. Something she defended and elaborated on when testifying.
I did suggest reading this last week, only Julie knows her motivations.
-
A month seems about right to me -
Week 1:
Coming to terms with what happened. The police , relatives & media around. A funeral to attend. Bamber getting lots of support & sympathy.
Week 2:
Jeremy starts taking Julie on his jolly ups & keeping a close eye on her. Spending money & telling her he is water tight.
Week 3:
Julie is uncomfortable & starts confiding to friends.
Week 4:
Julie & Bamber split up. He claims he jilted her although it seems she wanted out. Bamber tries to taunt her by asking another girl out while Julie is near. She approaches the police.
------------
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=284.0
Julie's reasons for not approaching the police will be partially explained indirectly in her substantial WS. Something she defended and elaborated on when testifying.
The statement’s not coming up Adam? Is it the same one that’s available on here?
-
I certainly don't believe Julie should have started telling the police everything she knew while in the Panda Car on the way to WHF. A few hours after the massacre!
As suggested earlier this week.
-
The statement’s not coming up Adam? Is it the same one that’s available on here?
It came up for me. I got it from the red forum.
-
Hopefully one day JM will give a deathbed confession like this woman.
https://streamable.com/97oli (https://streamable.com/97oli)
-
It came up for me. I got it from the red forum.
Must be me then?
-
'Crimes, hearts & Coronets' says Stan Jones was going to approach Julie. He & his collegues were building a very strong case. If anyone had further dynamite information, it would be Julie.
If that had happened & Julie still refused to betray Bamber, then she would be vilified. It's doubtful Julie would have lasted very long before cracking & telling the police everything she knew.
As it happens, she approached the police.
-
'Crimes, hearts & Coronets' says Stan Jones was going to approach Julie. He & his collegues were building a very strong case. If anyone had further dynamite information, it would be Julie.
If that had happened & Julie still refused to betray Bamber, then she would be vilified. It's doubtful Julie would have lasted very long before cracking & telling the police everything she knew.
As it happens, she approached the police.
Ive been looking for that, I can remember that Stan Jones was going to have her in, mainly due to the silencer evidence coming back I think?
-
Ive been looking for that, I can remember that Stan Jones was going to have her in, mainly due to the silencer evidence coming back I think?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=922.msg27459#msg27459
That is also on the red forum. The original blog is no longer in circulation.
-
Going by Julie's WS, it seems she was not happy with the situation after the massacre & wanted to break away. Only for Bamber to coax/charm her into staying.
After a month he probably felt he didn't need to do that anymore & Julie would have become irritating. Bamber had Brett, his other friends & money to spend.
-
Julie did not wait a month before saying what she knew. She told several friends beforehand. Obviously not in as much detail as her WS.
Not sure anyone would have been much quicker in her situation. But supporters have to say she should have left the man she loved & told the police on the 6th August 1985.
-
Julie did not wait a month before saying what she knew. She told several friends beforehand. Obviously not in as much detail as her WS.
Not sure anyone would have been much quicker in her situation. But supporters have to say she should have left the man she loved & told the police on the 6th August 1985.
It all started as malicious gossip in a pizza hut after they split up. ;D
-
Going by Julie's WS, it seems she was not happy with the situation after the massacre & wanted to break away. Only for Bamber to coax/charm her into staying.
After a month he probably felt he didn't need to do that anymore & Julie would have become irritating. Bamber had Brett, his other friends & money to spend.
Your right Adam, I think Julie would have come forward sooner or later?
Surprising you mention Brett, but in the time Jeremy knew him, Brett noted Jeremy didn’t get on with Neville, didn’t seem to be any Love between them and they wasn’t close. Jeremy also discussed his mother as having depression, gives her money away to Church out of her own income, it concerned Jeremy but he couldn’t do anything about it, not so much that it went to church, but, Jeremy liked to be comfortable. He also told Brett he HATED his mother. He mentioned he never had a brotherly relationship with his sister.
So in the times he met up with Brett, he’s told all this to Brett and it must have been consistent because Brett never says on occasions, Jeremy seems to have a very loose and uncontrollable tongue wonder what he’s fed into Julie’s head, was the writing on the wall when Brett heard Julie say to Jeremy “Go on hit me and I will go to the police” when Jeremy assaulted her?
-
It all started as malicious gossip in a pizza hut after they split up. ;D
Its a Binary proposition.
Either A
Jeremy confesses to the crime with the same false details either published in the papers or told to Ann Eaton. He also implicates another man that Julie happens to know and dislike. Jeremy then dumps her despite her knowing all. She then reveals the truth for the first time in Lewisham Pizza Hut.
Or B
After getting dumped. Julie meets a friend in Lewishan Pizza Hut. Julie then makes up this story out of spite, with the details she either got from the papers or Ann Eaton. She also implicates Mathew Mcdonald because like Jeremy she dislikes him also.
::)
-
I did notice that in all that JM wrote she never said outright that JB had committed the murders ?
Would that have been pushing it do you think ? Plenty of repetitive threats mentioned by her.
-
If JM had been as sure as her written statement then she'd have been doubly sure to admit to him being the killer. Well you would wouldn't you ? Afterall she knew him well enough to know.
In RWB's words " there's enough information to hang him !"
-
I did notice that in all that JM wrote she never said outright that JB had committed the murders ?
Would that have been pushing it do you think ? Plenty of repetitive threats mentioned by her.
Thats right Lookout, JM was under the impression McDonald had done it? She seems to confirm what Brett says about his hatred for his family.
-
I've never bought the controlling boyfriend scenario. I always feel if that was the case Jeremy would not even allow Julie to be studying at Goldsmith's college and would have her chained to the sink at his cottage in goldhanger instead. I do believe he probably was unfaithful to her on many occasions, as being a good looking bloke he would find it easy to chat girls up. But I don't fully buy the controlling boyfriend scenario. I feel it was more him keeping her at arm's length
What for almost two years?
-
Hopefully one day JM will give a deathbed confession like this woman.
https://streamable.com/97oli (https://streamable.com/97oli)
Yes: there does seem a certain similitude..
-
I did notice that in all that JM wrote she never said outright that JB had committed the murders ?
Would that have been pushing it do you think ? Plenty of repetitive threats mentioned by her.
Jeremy told her MM had killed the family and he never admitted it was actually him. However, even if MM had pulled the trigger (although he didn't), Jeremy would still have been guilty of murder, because he would have organised it.
-
Jeremy told her MM had killed the family and he never admitted it was actually him. However, even if MM had pulled the trigger (although he didn't), Jeremy would still have been guilty of murder, because he would have organised it.
whether Matthew or Jeremy killed the family. Julie would have known Bamber was involved.
-
whether Matthew or Jeremy killed the family. Julie would have known Bamber was involved.
Obviouisly, because it was Jeremy who told her and that he paid him.
-
What for almost two years?
I get the feeling Jeremy was getting fed up with Julie. And was most probably shagging about all over.
-
Obviouisly, because it was Jeremy who told her and that he paid him.
you missed my point, people have been claiming that just because Jeremy didn't pull the trigger Julie would have no need to suspect he hadnt done nothing wrong. When she had direct knowledge he was a part of a joint enterprise. Go to post 233
-
I get the feeling Jeremy was getting fed up with Julie. And was most probably shagging about all over.
Then why telephone her at all in the wee hours of Wednesday 7th August 1985..
-
Then why telephone her at all in the wee hours of Wednesday 7th August 1985..
because she was his girlfriend ....
-
whether the MacDonald story, of whether Bamber acted alone , she still has information he was involved
Yes but she felt she had to protect him somehow. He played on her vulnerabilities, he evoked pity, she was wrong..
-
Yes but she felt she had to protect him somehow. He played on her vulnerabilities, he evoked pity, she was wrong..
by telling her he was party to death of five people , including two innocent kids?? Why didn't she shop the " evil bastard"?
-
by telling her he was party to death of five people , including two innocent kids?? Why didn't she shop the " evil bastard"?
She did, and has been vilified for it in certain quarters ever since.
-
She did, and has been vilified for it in certain quarters ever since.
after shagging him, embracing him at a funeral ( of people she knew he had killed ) going to Eastbourne, going to Amsterdam Chinese meals, indians. Etc etc
-
after shagging him, embracing him at a funeral ( of people she knew he had killed ) going to Eastbourne, going to Amsterdam Chinese meals, indians. Etc etc
You don't know the first, they went to Amsterdam for Jeremy's cannabis, they were no longer close in a meaningful sense.
-
Course they were Steve, it's not the point though Julie should have not been his vicinity. She should have shopped him in lewishsam...
-
Jeremy told her MM had killed the family and he never admitted it was actually him. However, even if MM had pulled the trigger (although he didn't), Jeremy would still have been guilty of murder, because he would have organised it.
How do you know that MM didn't pull the trigger ? His alibi was dodgy.
I'd have given the lot of them " by association ".
-
How do you know that MM didn't pull the trigger ? His alibi was dodgy.
I'd have given the lot of them " by association ".
let's not get ludicrous
-
How do you know that MM didn't pull the trigger ? His alibi was dodgy.
I'd have given the lot of them " by association ".
Same as I really don't know that pigs can't fly when I'm not looking, but I'm still pretty confident that they can't ;D. Of course you do realise if they were true (which it isn't), then Jeremy is still guilty of murder.
-
Same as I really don't know that pigs can't fly when I'm not looking, but I'm still pretty confident that they can't ;D. Of course you do realise if they were true (which it isn't), then Jeremy is still guilty of murder.
Guilty by association IF he had been guilty. He wouldn't have been on his own.
-
let's not get ludicrous
Why not ? The trial was !
-
Guilty by association IF he had been guilty. He wouldn't have been on his own.
What do you mean 'guilty by association'? He's have been guilty of murder having hired the guy to kill his family.
-
What do you mean 'guilty by association'? He's have been guilty of murder having hired the guy to kill his family.
spot on
-
What do you mean 'guilty by association'? He's have been guilty of murder having hired the guy to kill his family.
Well of course-----silly me ::)
-
'Crimes, hearts & Coronets' says Stan Jones was going to approach Julie. He & his collegues were building a very strong case. If anyone had further dynamite information, it would be Julie.
If that had happened & Julie still refused to betray Bamber, then she would be vilified. It's doubtful Julie would have lasted very long before cracking & telling the police everything she knew.
As it happens, she approached the police.
after shagging Bamber, him and Virginia Amsterdam Eastbourne,Chinese meals indians, ( not in chronological order) ( the poor mare) do continue,,
-
After asking the same said bloke ( Jeremy Bamber) who she knew from her own words what Jeremy Bamber had told her. Was a CHILD killer , " did he still love her "
-
after shagging Bamber, him and Virginia getting it on, Amsterdam Eastbourne,Chinese meals indians, ( not in chronological order) ( the poor mare) do continue,,
-
A month seems about right to me -
Week 1:
Coming to terms with what happened. The police , relatives & media around. A funeral to attend. Bamber getting lots of support & sympathy.
Week 2:
Jeremy starts taking Julie on his jolly ups & keeping a close eye on her. Spending money & telling her he is water tight.
Week 3:
Julie is uncomfortable & starts confiding to friends.
Week 4:
Julie & Bamber split up. He claims he jilted her although it seems she wanted out. Bamber tries to taunt her by asking another girl out while Julie is near. She approaches the police.
------------
absolute bollocks, by her OWN words she knew what Bamber was going to do. " Sympathy for Bamber " from whom? His immediate family were cold and distant to him. Stop trying to get a ride, and create sensible debate. And acknowledge I will always have the answer for any question you have
-
Well of course-----silly me ::)
Must admit I’m getting confused Lookout, I’ve been trying to catch up for the last two days.
-
absolute bollocks, by her OWN words she knew what Bamber was going to do. " Sympathy for Bamber " from whom? His immediate family were cold and distant to him. Stop trying to get a ride, and create sensible debate. And acknowledge I will always have the answer for any question you have
Can you not be rude. Otherwise I will have to report you. Being a working class Northener who likes alcohol is no excuse.
If you are threatened by my posts because you know they are good points, you need to find counter points, rather than use aggression.
Why is it 'absolute bollocks'?
She said herself she did not believe his plans. I thought you read her WS.
Anyway you believe Julie should have started talking in the Panda car on the way to WHF. Although she wasn't even sure what had happened.
-
This always intrigued me about Jeremys and Julie’s relationship, In Julie’s statement, she refers to Jeremy at one time was going to kill his family by setting the house on fire, he later told Julie he wouldn’t do it this way because the insurance contents in WHF were low. Julie hadn’t made up the fact the value of contents insurance was low, because he mentions it in his statement to police.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10043.0;attach=55441
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5846
Think of your reaction, one month after your family has been killed by your sister, your being interviewed and all of a sudden the police say, “it’s been proved that Sheila your sister did not kill herself in fact she was MURDERED along with the rest of your family” Look at Jeremy’s reaction, regardless of what his solicitor tells him, how would someone innocent react to that news?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5830
-
Can you not be rude. Otherwise I will have to report you. Being a working class Northener who likes alcohol is no excuse.
If you are threatened by my posts because you know they are good points, you need to find counter points, rather than use aggression.
Why is it 'absolute bollocks'?
She said herself she did not believe his plans. I thought you read her WS.
Anyway you believe Julie should have started talking in the Panda car on the way to WHF. Although she wasn't even sure what had happened.
I'm pretty sure she had all the intelligence to decipher the problem. Seeing as though Jeremy had been giving her a an inkling hours previously. You are clutching at straws my friend
-
Can you not be rude. Otherwise I will have to report you. Being a working class Northener who likes alcohol is no excuse.
If you are threatened by my posts because you know they are good points, you need to find counter points, rather than use aggression.
Why is it 'absolute bollocks'?
She said herself she did not believe his plans. I thought you read her WS.
Anyway you believe Julie should have started talking in the Panda car on the way to WHF. Although she wasn't even sure what had happened.
" she did not believe his plans" come on Adam as soon has she heard they'd been five murders she would have damn well known Jeremy is responsible, after all what's the chances if your boyfriend tells you earlier in the day he's planning to kill his family, and they are killed, and that some other person was involved instead of him? And in regards to the macdonald scenario, she would still have direct knowledge that Bamber was involved. Even if he didn't pull the trigger. There can be no excuse
-
By the way. Reference " being a working class northerner who likes alcohol" there is no need to compliment me at such an early stage
-
I wonder now, if the reason Julie was having problems sleeping during their relationship, was a mixture of Jeremy’s constant reference to him wanting to kill his family, I know she gives the reason being her work, but subconsciously this would also have an effect? She was prescribed tranquillisers but in the end only took one.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10043.0;attach=55435
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10043.0;attach=55437
-
By the way. Reference " being a working class northerner who likes alcohol" there is no need to compliment me at such an early stage
Quite right, better to debate the case and not get personal.
-
I'm pretty sure she had all the intelligence to decipher the problem. Seeing as though Jeremy had been giving her a an inkling hours previously. You are clutching at straws my friend
Do not need to cluthch at straws. Bamber has been in prison for over 30 years.
Anyway this is going around in circles. Julie started telling friends after 3 weeks & approached the police after 4. Giving a detailed WS, testifying & never retracting a word.
Your opinion is she should have left Bamber & started telling the police everything from day one. Although you have never been in that situation.
Time to move on. How do you believe Sheila committed the massacre? I trust you know where the shots were fired, there were 3 rifle loads, a brutal kitchen fight & 1/2 phone calls from Nevill.
-
There is no question that Julie Mugford told a pack of lies.
We know she lied about Jeremy's confessions to her because they contain the same false details either published in the newspapers or told to Ann Eaton.
We know she lied about Mathew McDonald's involvement because she let slip that she didn't know if Mathew McDonald had ever been to the scene of the crime in the first place.
We know she lied about how she paid back the money she stole from the back because the bank manger and police records contradict her version of the event.
Hence its not even worth debating.
-
Taken from another thread.
Bamber's highly paid defence went through Julie's WS brick by brick. Looking for a brick they could pull out to bring everything crashing down.
However they could not find anything. Admitting to each other her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.
Out of desperation, at trial the defence focused on the 1984 minor cheque book fraud. To try to show her as a dishonest person. The judge rightly poured scorn on this saying both Bamber & Julie had committed previous crime, but that does not mean either had lied at trial. He also said Julie had paid back the money ( Bamber had not).
The judge also said Bamber had also trusted Julie enough to tell her about the caravan break in, so may have trusted her enough to tell her about the massacre.
Julies WS is in different parts -
What happened after the massacre:
The eating out, hotels, trips around the country and abroad. There is no point in Julie lying here. A lot of other people joined them for some of these. Hotel bookings can be checked and relatives asked. So there was no reason to lie as everything can be easily checked.
What Bamber did does not highlight guilt or innocence anyway. Although Bamber's callous actions have come back to haunt him
Bamber's hatred and resentment :
This could be her word against Bamber's. But was not.
Bamber himself testified he had a very poor/non existent relationship with June.
He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' on the massacre night. Saying they did not like each other and she had committed child abuse on the twins. Decades later saying he did not understand her illness.
There are also a lot of other people who said Bamber did not like his family or the raw deal he had. The facts back this up, Sheila living rent free in London, Bamber working long hours after reluctantly starting to work on the farm as a last resort.
The massacre plans:
This is again Julies word against Bamber's. However some of the things Julie said are backed up.
She said he planned to ride to WHF. This is backed up by the fact that the bike was brought over just before the massacre.
Julie also knew about the bible and kitchen fight. Which was not reported in the papers. And knew about the lockable from outside window.
The judge and appeal courts found it hard to understand Bamber's 3am call to Julie. Julie saying Bamber said 'he had not slept all night' and 'everything is going well'. When the police asked him about the call, he just said 'no comment'.
Julie also knew about the under insurance of WHF and the items inside. Michael Deckers also supports the suggestion that he considered burning down WHF.
Julies feelings :
Her feelings while things were evolving can only be changed by Julie herself, and cannot be disputed.
___________________
Overall Julie's statement does have a 'ring of truth' to it. She approached the police and was not forced to say anything.
Her reason to lie was also very weak. Bamber allegedly jilting her, after he said their relationship had been in decline/coming to a close for six months. Her WS states she wanted out after the massacre but stayed for a short period.
It is outrageous that people accuse her saying an innocent man murdered his family.
-
Taken from another thread.
Bamber's highly paid defence went through Julie's WS brick by brick. Looking for a brick they could pull out to bring everything crashing down.
However they could not find anything. Admitting to each other her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.
Out of desperation, at trial the defence focused on the 1984 minor cheque book fraud. To try to show her as a dishonest person. The judge rightly poured scorn on this saying both Bamber & Julie had committed previous crime, but that does not mean either had lied at trial. He also said Julie had paid back the money ( Bamber had not).
The judge also said Bamber had also trusted Julie enough to tell her about the caravan break in, so may have trusted her enough to tell her about the massacre.
Julies WS is in different parts -
What happened after the massacre:
The eating out, hotels, trips around the country and abroad. There is no point in Julie lying here. A lot of other people joined them for some of these. Hotel bookings can be checked and relatives asked. So there was no reason to lie as everything can be easily checked.
What Bamber did does not highlight guilt or innocence anyway. Although Bamber's callous actions have come back to haunt him
Bamber's hatred and resentment :
This could be her word against Bamber's. But was not.
Bamber himself testified he had a very poor/non existent relationship with June.
He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' on the massacre night. Saying they did not like each other and she had committed child abuse on the twins. Decades later saying he did not understand her illness.
There are also a lot of other people who said Bamber did not like his family or the raw deal he had. The facts back this up, Sheila living rent free in London, Bamber working long hours after reluctantly starting to work on the farm as a last resort.
The massacre plans:
This is again Julies word against Bamber's. However some of the things Julie said are backed up.
She said he planned to ride to WHF. This is backed up by the fact that the bike was brought over just before the massacre.
Julie also knew about the bible and kitchen fight. Which was not reported in the papers. And knew about the lockable from outside window.
The judge and appeal courts found it hard to understand Bamber's 3am call to Julie. Julie saying Bamber said 'he had not slept all night' and 'everything is going well'. When the police asked him about the call, he just said 'no comment'.
Julie also knew about the under insurance of WHF and the items inside. Michael Deckers also supports the suggestion that he considered burning down WHF.
Julies feelings :
Her feelings while things were evolving can only be changed by Julie herself, and cannot be disputed.
___________________
Overall Julie's statement does have a 'ring of truth' to it. She approached the police and was not forced to say anything.
Her reason to lie was also very weak. Bamber allegedly jilting her, after he said their relationship had been in decline/coming to a close for six months. Her WS states she wanted out after the massacre but stayed for a short period.
It is outrageous that people accuse her saying an innocent man murdered his family.
how is it outrageous, because from what I've read above you don't attribute nothing to support her.
-
how is it outrageous, because from what I've read above you don't attribute nothing to support her.
What Adam does attribute to support her is in-fact more lies on his part. For example
Bamber's highly paid defence went through Julie's WS brick by brick. Looking for a brick they could pull out to bring everything crashing down.
However they could not find anything. Admitting to each other her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.
This is a lie. Here is the conclusion that Jeremy's defence voiced in court
"The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
The phrase "ring of truth" actually comes from the judges summing in following passage
"Approach the evidence of Julie Mugford with a great degree of caution. Ask yourselves whether her evidence generally had the ring of truth about it."
Adam has also claimed Jeremy's defence was "highly paid" to give the impression he had a more effective counsel. That however is another distortion. Jeremy's legal team was funded entirely by legal aid.
A hodgepodge of lies, distortion and splicing is all it is. ;D
-
This is a lie. Here is the conclusion that Jeremy's defence voiced in court
"The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
Where is the quote from?
-
What Adam does attribute to support her is in-fact more lies on his part. For example
This is a lie. Here is the conclusion that Jeremy's defence voiced in court
"The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
The phrase "ring of truth" actually comes from the judges summing in following passage
"Approach the evidence of Julie Mugford with a great degree of caution. Ask yourselves whether her evidence generally had the ring of truth about it."
Adam has also claimed Jeremy's defence was "highly paid" to give the impression he had a more effective counsel. That however is another distortion. Jeremy's legal team was funded entirely by legal aid.
A hodgepodge of lies, distortion and splicing is all it is. ;D
The 'ring of truth' on Julie's WS is said in Wilkes book.
Bamber had the top lawyers available. He needed them.
Agree Julie would have had a very convoluted mind to have made it all up. Also agree she was wrong about Matthew Macdonald. He had no involvement although Bamber told her he did to make him seem less of a monster.
-
Where is the quote from?
Good question.
I do not recall the defence saying Julie got information on her WS from the police or AE.
David often writes things in red or bold. However when reading them, they are often rubbish.
-
...........................................We know she lied about Mathew McDonald's involvement because she let slip that she didn't know if Mathew McDonald had ever been to the scene of the crime in the first place....................................
I can't see how the above claim follows. JULIE didn't say that MM was involved. Jeremy TOLD her that MM was involved. How can the lie be Julie's when she was only repeating what she'd been told?
-
There is no question that Julie Mugford told a pack of lies.
We know she lied about Jeremy's confessions to her because they contain the same false details either published in the newspapers or told to Ann Eaton.
We know she lied about Mathew McDonald's involvement because she let slip that she didn't know if Mathew McDonald had ever been to the scene of the crime in the first place.
We know she lied about how she paid back the money she stole from the back because the bank manger and police records contradict her version of the event.
Hence its not even worth debating.
This is nonsense as usual. If there are inaccuracies in Julie's statement its because she is remembering whatever Jeremy chose to tell her. Do you think she had a ringside seat at the killings and took notes?
-
A murder trial can never be built on hearsay alone. The whole thing's farcical.
-
A murder trial can never be built on hearsay alone. The whole thing's farcical.
That isn't hearsay.
-
That isn't hearsay.
What isn't ?
-
What isn't ?
Julie's testimony. Hearsay isn't allowed.
-
Julie's testimony. Hearsay isn't allowed.
We'll see.
-
We'll see.
I wonder how many times you've used "We'll see" when you have no answer?
-
I wonder how many times you've used "We'll see" when you have no answer?
Why not go through the threads and find out.
-
This is nonsense as usual. If there are inaccuracies in Julie's statement its because she is remembering whatever Jeremy chose to tell her. Do you think she had a ringside seat at the killings and took notes?
did she have laryngitis on the journey from lewishsam?
-
The judge does make a good point. Bamber didn't just tell Julie about his caravan break in, he involved her in it!
While Julie told him about the minor cheque book fraud.
He may have considered using Julie as an alibi. Having her stay the night at his cottage & say he was there all night. However Julie may have cracked under pressure. He also would not be able to use Matthew Macdonald as a proxy.
-
Julie was with him anyway---she could have ran the other way during the break-in ?
Wasn't it JM that used the MM notion when she'd repeated to the police what JB had told her, knowing it wasn't true ?
-
Yes, I don't agree that Jeremy "involved" Julie in the burglary. She involved herself quite willingly. A small point but I think there's too much emphasis on her being a "victim" or being "groomed" or whatever.
-
Yes, I don't agree that Jeremy "involved" Julie in the burglary. She involved herself quite willingly. A small point but I think there's too much emphasis on her being a "victim" or being "groomed" or whatever.
We all have a choice...................and possibly alternatives. However, when variables are taken into consideration, these often become limited and restrictive.
-
This is the woman who was well into obtaining drugs before she met Jeremy. Her Canada flights ?
-
This is the woman who was well into obtaining drugs before she met Jeremy. Her Canada flights ?
WHAT Canada flights would those be, Lookout? I'm SICK of you trolling out this cant about "Canada flights"! PROVE IT!!! . She'd been at school until she was nearly 18 and had been at university ever since, having to work at the sort of menial jobs Sheila resorted to, to fund herself. She'd been with Jeremy 20 months and there's been no mention of her taking Canadian trips during that time. I can't think of many 19 year olds who could fund Canadian trips, whilst funding there education, but it seems you think you know differently.
-
The judge does make a good point. Bamber didn't just tell Julie about his caravan break in, he involved her in it!
While Julie told him about the minor cheque book fraud.
He may have considered using Julie as an alibi. Having her stay the night at his cottage & say he was there all night. However Julie may have cracked under pressure. He also would not be able to use Matthew Macdonald as a proxy.
did Julie ever think of saying the magic words " fuck off Jeremy Im not getting involved" in reference to the break in. Putting the " helpless battered girlfriend aside " scenario for the moment
-
WHAT Canada flights would those be, Lookout? I'm SICK of you trolling out this cant about "Canada flights"! PROVE IT!!! . She'd been at school until she was nearly 18 and had been at university ever since, having to work at the sort of menial jobs Sheila resorted to, to fund herself. She'd been with Jeremy 20 months and there's been no mention of her taking Canadian trips during that time. I can't think of many 19 year olds who could fund Canadian trips, whilst funding there education, but it seems you think you know differently.
I'm also sick of failing memories when it doesn't suit !!
-
I'm also sick of failing memories when it doesn't suit !!
Well take a good, hard look at your own, then. You've bought this up previously and were told, back then, it wasn't true. Unfortunately, it appears that if YOU want something -however erroneous- to be true, it is so. There has never been mention of a Canadian branch of the family. She had no connection with Canada until she met her Canadian husband when she was traveling AFTER the trial.
-
We all have a choice...................and possibly alternatives. However, when variables are taken into consideration, these often become limited and restrictive.
What variables? Julie had already broken the law without Jeremy. It's been called a "minor" chequebook fraud but it was a planned shoplifting spree. She also sold cannabis - ie, dealt in drugs.
-
did Julie ever think of saying the magic words " fuck off Jeremy Im not getting involved" in reference to the break in. Putting the " helpless battered girlfriend aside " scenario for the moment
Oh, but she was a poor downtrodden victim who didn't have a mind of her own, according to some posters.
-
The controlling boyfriend scenario is just not viable. If anything I believe Bamber was just a good looking bloke who could have any girl he more of less wanted, and was probably putting it about all over. Julie was madly in love with him and " looked over it," Bamber didn't have her chained to his kitchen sink in goldhanger. And when they were apart they could go a day or two without speaking to one another ( Julie's own words) and yes Jane abuse come is many shapes of forms. But there's nothing to say Bamber was controlling because he wasn't
-
What variables? Julie had already broken the law without Jeremy. It's been called a "minor" checkbook fraud but it was a planned shoplifting spree. She also sold cannabis - ie, dealt in drugs.
Who grew the cannabis? He wasn't growing it for fun or there'd only have been a pot on his windowsill. I agree that the checkbook fraud wasn't quite as "minor" as Adam would like us to believe, but from what she said, it sounds as if Jeremy taunted her about being a "goody goody" and she wanted to prove to him that she wasn't. Skewed thinking, but that's the effect control can have.
-
Who grew the cannabis? He wasn't growing it for fun or there'd only have been a pot on his windowsill. I agree that the checkbook fraud wasn't quite as "minor" as Adam would like us to believe, but from what she said, it sounds as if Jeremy taunted her about being a "goody goody" and she wanted to prove to him that she wasn't. Skewed thinking, but that's the effect control can have.
" fuck off Jeremy, I'm having no involvement in this"
-
Well take a good, hard look at your own, then. You've bought this up previously and were told, back then, it wasn't true. Unfortunately, it appears that if YOU want something -however erroneous- to be true, it is so. There has never been mention of a Canadian branch of the family. She had no connection with Canada until she met her Canadian husband when she was traveling AFTER the trial.
JM must have had relatives in Canada to have returned with cannabis----before she'd met up with JB.
Blimey, you were the first person to say that JM should look to her own criminal record before casting aspersions. Remember the bank debacle which JB knew nothing about ? JM even lied then when she said she wasn't accompanied to the bank to explain her fraud.
-
The controlling boyfriend scenario is just not viable. If anything I believe Bamber was just a good looking bloke who could have any girl he more of less wanted, and was probably putting it about all over. Julie was madly in love with him and " looked over it," Bamber didn't have her chained to his kitchen sink in goldhanger. And when they were apart they could go a day or two without speaking to one another ( Julie's own words) and yes Jane abuse come is many shapes of forms. But there's nothing to say Bamber was controlling because he wasn't
Well, when control has been effective there's no longer the need for the controller to keep tabs 24/7. We'd need to know what the beginning of the relationship was like. I reiterate, If Julie had been in a controlling/abusive relationship during her childhood, there is cause to believe she'd have gone for a similar personality type as an adult. I'm not arrogant enough to declare, as do you, that Jeremy definitely WASN'T/was anything. I can only say what is possible.
-
Oh, but she was a poor downtrodden victim who didn't have a mind of her own, according to some posters.
I personally have no time for her, I try to look into why she did what she did, at the end of the day there is only she can answer this? The police have and always will have an habit of bringing on board Grasses, then looking after them, is it right “I don’t know”
-
JM must have had relatives in Canada to have returned with cannabis----before she'd met up with JB.
Blimey, you were the first person to say that JM should look to her own criminal record before casting aspersions. Remember the bank debacle which JB knew nothing about ? JM even lied then when she said she wasn't accompanied to the bank to explain her fraud.
Just how skewed can you possibly make this, Lookout?!!! You appear to be claiming that -beyond any shadow NUMEROUS things about JM back then -and risked falling fowl of close friends of her family. My friend worked with her mother and my friend's son is in business with her brother- I believed it was she who had the hold on Jeremy!!! and simply didn't like her. I don't know that I'd like her now, but it doesn't mean she's guilty of what you insist she is with nothing to back it up, and you may be absolutely certain sure that her past would have been gone into with a fine tooth comb and if there's been a hint of anything untoward it would have been used against her. Even Jeremy is said to have called her a "goody goody" who'd be to scared to commit a crime. It's why the bank fraud happened. A 'surprise' for Jeremy.
-
Who grew the cannabis? He wasn't growing it for fun or there'd only have been a pot on his windowsill. I agree that the checkbook fraud wasn't quite as "minor" as Adam would like us to believe, but from what she said, it sounds as if Jeremy taunted her about being a "goody goody" and she wanted to prove to him that she wasn't. Skewed thinking, but that's the effect control can have.
So what? She sold it at the college. He didn't force her to do that - he wasn't there. So what if Jeremy taunted her? She had the idea and suggested it to Susan. She went on a fraudulent shopping trip and stole goods - a coffee machine, clothes, shoes. She signed the cheques - nobody forced her. She stole the equivalent of £800.
I have no idea why you see Julie as this kind of victim who just did what others wanted.
-
I'm also sick of failing memories when it doesn't suit !!
Stop doing it then.
-
I personally have no time for her, I try to look into why she did what she did, at the end of the day there is only she can answer this? The police have and always will have an habit of bringing on board Grasses, then looking after them, is it right “I don’t know”
If the prosecution hadn't needed her to testify, she could have been charged with a number of crimes - all of which she undertook willingly. She was no victim.
-
We'll see.
What will we see Lookout? Julie's testimony isn't hearsay - so we won't see anything.
-
Julie was with him anyway---she could have ran the other way during the break-in ?
Wasn't it JM that used the MM notion when she'd repeated to the police what JB had told her, knowing it wasn't true ?
If she 'repeated it, you're admitting Bamber told her ;D ;D ;D
-
Just how skewed can you possibly make this, Lookout?!!! You appear to be claiming that -beyond any shadow NUMEROUS things about JM back then -and risked falling fowl of close friends of her family. My friend worked with her mother and my friend's son is in business with her brother- I believed it was she who had the hold on Jeremy!!! and simply didn't like her. I don't know that I'd like her now, but it doesn't mean she's guilty of what you insist she is with nothing to back it up, and you may be absolutely certain sure that her past would have been gone into with a fine tooth comb and if there's been a hint of anything untoward it would have been used against her. Even Jeremy is said to have called her a "goody goody" who'd be to scared to commit a crime. It's why the bank fraud happened. A 'surprise' for Jeremy.
Was Susan Battersby "groomed" by Jeremy as well? She was Julie's partner in the cheque book crime. Julie got the idea from another student, not from Jeremy. She thought it up - Jeremy didn't suggest it to her. That wasn't a "spur of the moment" crime.
None of it was used against her because the prosecution thought they needed her in order to convict Jeremy.
-
Was Susan Battersby "groomed" by Jeremy as well? She was Julie's partner in the cheque book crime. Julie got the idea from another student, not from Jeremy. She thought it up - Jeremy didn't suggest it to her. That wasn't a "spur of the moment" crime.
None of it was used against her because the prosecution thought they needed her in order to convict Jeremy.
It's pretty insignificant when compared with 5 murders.
-
It's pretty insignificant when compared with 5 murders.
Eh? It was a crime which most people would be prosecuted for. It's not relevant to compare it to murder. The point is that Julie was not encouraged or coerced into committing the cheque book crime.
-
Was Susan Battersby "groomed" by Jeremy as well? She was Julie's partner in the cheque book crime. Julie got the idea from another student, not from Jeremy. She thought it up - Jeremy didn't suggest it to her. That wasn't a "spur of the moment" crime.
None of it was used against her because the prosecution thought they needed her in order to convict Jeremy.
Where did I say that Jeremy suggested it. All I said was that Jeremy had called her a goody goody and would be afraid of doing anything wrong.
I get that nothing was used against her prior to the case, but there was nothing to stop them arresting her afterwards had there been a case to answer. Such is known to have been done.
-
Where did I say that Jeremy suggested it. All I said was that Jeremy had called her a goody goody and would be afraid of doing anything wrong.
I get that nothing was used against her prior to the case, but there was nothing to stop them arresting her afterwards had there been a case to answer. Such is known to have been done.
So what? Why would that "make" her go and commit the crime? She did it of her own accord.
They wouldn't prosecute her afterwards because they did a deal. Of course there was a case to answer - she admitted the whole thing!
-
Where did I say that Jeremy suggested it. All I said was that Jeremy had called her a goody goody and would be afraid of doing anything wrong. Jane have you seen the article with Julie mugford, NOTW October 86
I get that nothing was used against her prior to the case, but there was nothing to stop them arresting her afterwards had there been a case to answer. Such is known to have been done.
-
So what? Why would that "make" her go and commit the crime? She did it of her own accord.
They wouldn't prosecute her afterwards because they did a deal. Of course there was a case to answer - she admitted the whole thing!
And I believe every last penny was repaid. Seems restitution had been made and there was NO case to answer.
-
And I believe every last penny was repaid. Seems restitution had been made and there was NO case to answer.
Of course there was a case to answer, regardless of whether the money was repaid or not. lMy oh my, you sure like making excuses for Julie don't you?
-
Of course there was a case to answer, regardless of whether the money was repaid or not. lMy oh my, you sure like making excuses for Julie don't you?
No more so than the excuses you're making for Jeremy.
-
No more so than the excuses you're making for Jeremy.
Memories, tra la la la la.
-
No more so than the excuses you're making for Jeremy.
Eh? I'm not.
-
Eh? I'm not.
So what is it you think you're doing?
-
Memories, tra la la la la.
Lookout, I don't need reminding. I fully aware of how much I wanted him to be innocent.
-
So what is it you think you're doing?
Looking at both sides. Julie has admitted her crimes, but Jeremy has not. If I was convinced he was guilty and made excuses for what he did, you might have a point, but I'm not. You, however, are convinced that Julie was a victim of some kind, even though she has confessed to committing some crimes.
-
Looking at both sides. Julie has admitted her crimes, but Jeremy has not. If I was convinced he was guilty and made excuses for what he did, you might have a point, but I'm not. You, however, are convinced that Julie was a victim of some kind, even though she has confessed to committing some crimes.
I do wish you stop using "convinced" as an attachment to what I say. WHEN I'm convinced, I'll have NO hesitation in say so. I don't believe I've claimed to be "convinced" that Julie was some sort of victim, but I AM convinced of the possibility that she MAY have been. Deconstruct it. Make of it what you will, but the two things are entirely other. I'm equally convinced that you won't want to be told that it's perfectly possible for someone to be a victim AND commit a crime.
-
Eh? It was a crime which most people would be prosecuted for. It's not relevant to compare it to murder. The point is that Julie was not encouraged or coerced into committing the cheque book crime.
What difference would it make to the Bamber case if she had been prosecuted? How is it even relevant?
-
I do wish you stop using "convinced" as an attachment to what I say. WHEN I'm convinced, I'll have NO hesitation in say so. I don't believe I've claimed to be "convinced" that Julie was some sort of victim, but I AM convinced of the possibility that she MAY have been. Deconstruct it. Make of it what you will, but the two things are entirely other. I'm equally convinced that you won't want to be told that it's perfectly possible for someone to be a victim AND commit a crime.
You seem pretty convinced to me. You're making excuses for her over and over again. I don't know why you want her to be a victim, or to convince anyone else that she "might" be a victim.
-
You seem pretty convinced to me. You're making excuses for her over and over again. I don't know why you want her to be a victim, or to convince anyone else that she "might" be a victim.
By the same token, people seem to want her to be the fountain of all blame. I don't think she was a victim except of herself, but measured against Jeremy - there's really no competition.
-
What difference would it make to the Bamber case if she had been prosecuted? How is it even relevant?
It could be relevant to the trial for obvious reasons. However, my point is that she wasn't a victim, and IMO she wasn't abused or "groomed" by Jeremy. This is what the discussion has been about. This then begs the question of why she stayed with him, why she told no one when he kept talking about killing his family, or why she did nothing to dissuade him, other than to say she didn't like him talking about it.
-
It could be relevant to the trial for obvious reasons. However, my point is that she wasn't a victim, and IMO she wasn't abused or "groomed" by Jeremy. This is what the discussion has been about. This then begs the question of why she stayed with him, why she told no one when he kept talking about killing his family, or why she did nothing to dissuade him, other than to say she didn't like him talking about it.
My own personal opinion, I think she stayed with him for what she could or would get out of him, hoping things would change?
-
It could be relevant to the trial for obvious reasons. However, my point is that she wasn't a victim, and IMO she wasn't abused or "groomed" by Jeremy. This is what the discussion has been about. This then begs the question of why she stayed with him, why she told no one when he kept talking about killing his family, or why she did nothing to dissuade him, other than to say she didn't like him talking about it.
OK, I guess people have their own interpretation. Looking from a guilty perspective, why do you think she didn't say anything?
-
OK, I guess people have their own interpretation. Looking from a guilty perspective, why do you think she didn't say anything?
i know the question wasn't aimed at me. And I'm not being rude. Just my two cents. But I strongly feel that her not coming forward is a strong indication that what occurred never happened ( dialogue between her and Bamber) having said that it does not prove his innocence
-
You seem pretty convinced to me. You're making excuses for her over and over again. I don't know why you want her to be a victim, or to convince anyone else that she "might" be a victim.
How strange. You claim to be open minded yet you come across as being incapable of being any more PRO Jeremy if you tried, making excuses for him "over and over again". I'm You appear to be using this thread as a vendetta against Julie. I don't "want" her to be a victim, but I accept that she might be one. I can't make sweeping claims. I'm only making observations. It's up to others what they make of them.
-
OK, I guess people have their own interpretation. Looking from a guilty perspective, why do you think she didn't say anything?
There are various possibilities. Perhaps she didn't much care that his family was dead. Perhaps she wanted to be with him because of the money he would inherit. It's difficult for me to understand why she stayed, which is why I query her story.
-
How strange. You claim to be open minded yet you come across as being incapable of being any more PRO Jeremy if you tried, making excuses for him "over and over again". I'm You appear to be using this thread as a vendetta against Julie. I don't "want" her to be a victim, but I accept that she might be one. I can't make sweeping claims. I'm only making observations. It's up to others what they make of them.
There's no vendetta, I just don't like to see her portrayed as a victim, and I don't like to see the excuses made for her attitude and actions.
-
Well, when control has been effective there's no longer the need for the controller to keep tabs 24/7. We'd need to know what the beginning of the relationship was like. I reiterate, If Julie had been in a controlling/abusive relationship during her childhood, there is cause to believe she'd have gone for a similar personality type as an adult. I'm not arrogant enough to declare, as do you, that Jeremy definitely WASN'T/was anything. I can only say what is possible.
which means throw your toys out of the pram when an opinion is delivered before you that differs from your own......
-
From all the statements I've read from Julie, she cared only about one thing - her own feelings. She appeared to have no feelings at all for the dead people, no empathy, no feelings of horror, no sense of injustice.
-
She said she didn't sell her story to make money, she did it to get the press off her back. However, she bought a flat with the money rather than give it to charity ...
-
which means throw your toys out of the pram when an opinion is delivered before you that differs from your own......
That would be like yourself who comes perilously close to taking the xxxx out of, and deriding everything said that you disagree with, which, thus far has been most things.
-
Nothing will ever change my mind that Julie shopped Jeremy for nothing other than spite. If we go by what she alleges what Jeremy Bamber had told her just before commencing the killings. She knew what the crack was. The mmacdonald saga does nothing to strengthen her credibility. As she still had direct knowledge of Bambers involvement. I don't believe this was a woman in shock. She was strong enough to attend the funerals and be at the side of Jeremy Bamber for a significant period when any other sane person would have told the authorities straight away. No amount of moddycoddlyin, sugar coating, damsel in distress yada yada can change that. I can only come to two conclusions. A) Jeremy Bamber is guilty and she wanted her share of the spoils ( financial) b) Jeremy never said these things and she wanted to fuck him over because of his infidelities and him leaving her. And to retierate I'm not even pro Jeremy Bamber
-
Nothing will ever change my mind that Julie shopped Jeremy for nothing other than spite. If we go by what she alleges what Jeremy Bamber had told her just before commencing the killings. She knew what the crack was. The mmacdonald saga does nothing to strengthen her credibility. As she still had direct knowledge of Bambers involvement. I don't believe this was a woman in shock. She was strong enough to attend the funerals and be at the side of Jeremy Bamber for a significant period when any other sane person would have told the authorities straight away. No amount of moddycoddlyin, sugar coating, damsel in distress yada yada can change that. I can only come to two conclusions. A) Jeremy Bamber is guilty and she wanted her share of the spoils ( financial) b) Jeremy never said these things and she wanted to fuck him over because of his infidelities and him leaving her. And to retierate I'm not even pro Jeremy Bamber
Everything I've read about her, or from her, tells me that she wasn't a caring person, and that she was very self centred. Her presence at the funeral is just despicable. I agree with your two conclusions.
However, the real question is - was she capable of inventing the story about Jeremy planning the murders? Did she know enough detail before she went to the police to be able to tell them certain things? Where could she have got the info from - Jeremy, the relatives, the papers? Was she capable of keeping up the story throughout the trial and when she was paid for her story?
-
Nothing will ever change my mind that Julie shopped Jeremy for nothing other than spite. If we go by what she alleges what Jeremy Bamber had told her just before commencing the killings. She knew what the crack was. The mmacdonald saga does nothing to strengthen her credibility. As she still had direct knowledge of Bambers involvement. I don't believe this was a woman in shock. She was strong enough to attend the funerals and be at the side of Jeremy Bamber for a significant period when any other sane person would have told the authorities straight away. No amount of moddycoddlyin, sugar coating, damsel in distress yada yada can change that. I can only come to two conclusions. A) Jeremy Bamber is guilty and she wanted her share of the spoils ( financial) b) Jeremy never said these things and she wanted to fuck him over because of his infidelities and him leaving her. And to retierate I'm not even pro Jeremy Bamber
That's what I once believed. You say nothing of her that I haven't previously said. I can go with A) Wanting one's "share of the spoils" -for whatever reason- happens all the time. Women have ended up dead for it.
That's what I once believed. You say nothing of her I haven't previously said. I can accept A) Wanting one's "share of the spoils" -for whatever reason- happens all the time. Women have ended up dead for it.
-
Kaldin JM's downfall would have been Jeremy's defence questioning her but as " the tears flowed "? the court didn't allow it to continue. She was alright at the mud-slinging end ( prosecution ) where the jackpot was waiting. I think it's truly disgusting. The more I think about it the worse it is. EP had nothing on him but they wanted to secure a conviction and JM was the one to do it with her reams of scorn and poison.
-
Kaldin JM's downfall would have been Jeremy's defence questioning her but as " the tears flowed "? the court didn't allow it to continue. She was alright at the mud-slinging end ( prosecution ) where the jackpot was waiting. I think it's truly disgusting. The more I think about it the worse it is. EP had nothing on him but they wanted to secure a conviction and JM was the one to do it with her reams of scorn and poison.
I'd like to see a transcript of her testimony, and cross examination. It doesn't appear to be available though.
-
I'd like to see a transcript of her testimony, and cross examination. It doesn't appear to be available though.
Neither is a full version of Jeremy's
-
Neither is a full version of Jeremy's
No. I'd like to see that too, but hey ...
-
Kaldin JM's downfall would have been Jeremy's defence questioning her but as " the tears flowed "? the court didn't allow it to continue. She was alright at the mud-slinging end ( prosecution ) where the jackpot was waiting. I think it's truly disgusting. The more I think about it the worse it is. EP had nothing on him but they wanted to secure a conviction and JM was the one to do it with her reams of scorn and poison.
D'ya know, I'm willing to bet that most, in her position -witness for prosecution- are relatively at ease when being questioned by "their" side, who'll take a softly softly approach. They're probably shaking in their shoes at the thought of being questioned by the "other" side, who won't.
-
I'd like to see a transcript of her testimony, and cross examination. It doesn't appear to be available though.
No, it won't be.
-
No. I'd like to see that too, but hey ...
It would be really, REALLY good to see both.
-
It would be really, REALLY good to see both.
I'd love to see both. After 34 years you'd think they be released ?
-
I'd love to see both. After 34 years you'd think they be released ?
Isn't it a 50 year thing?
-
Everything I've read about her, or from her, tells me that she wasn't a caring person, and that she was very self centred. Her presence at the funeral is just despicable. I agree with your two conclusions.
However, the real question is - was she capable of inventing the story about Jeremy planning the murders? Did she know enough detail before she went to the police to be able to tell them certain things? Where could she have got the info from - Jeremy, the relatives, the papers? Was she capable of keeping up the story throughout the trial and when she was paid for her story?
the notw article to me is completely bizarre. Including the pin up picture of julie smiling. It's like something like today's z listers. Not at the conclude of a murder trial. I know the article is in the archives but has anyone got an enhanced copy so it can be clearly read word for word
-
Isn't it a 50 year thing?
Something like that. This is what happens to the poor sods who get their posthumous pardons.
I don't want to be waiting too long for results either ! Tough I'll take my chances on buying an LP. ;D
-
Something like that. This is what happens to the poor sods who get their posthumous pardons.
I don't want to be waiting too long for results either ! Tough I'll take my chances on buying an LP. ;D
In another 16 years, I may have forgotten who I am, let alone who was Jeremy Bamber!!! :)) :)) :)) :))
-
In another 16 years, I may have forgotten who I am, let alone who was Jeremy Bamber!!! :)) :)) :)) :))
I could have expired by then, but you never know. 2020 marks my 80th ! How lucky will that be ?
-
I could have expired by then, but you never know. 2020 marks my 80th ! How lucky will that be ?
I hope it will be. 80 in 2020. That has a nicely rounded flow to it.
-
I'd love to see both. After 34 years you'd think they be released ?
What do you mean 'released' - it's a trial transcript, trials are held in public!
-
What do you mean 'released' - it's a trial transcript, trials are held in public!
Whatever it is that's hidden.
-
Whatever it is that's hidden.
They were on about the trial transcripts - both Bamber and his legal team will have a copy. You can buy them but they are expensive and given the age of this case, if you could buy one, you would need a second mortgage.
-
They were on about the trial transcripts - both Bamber and his legal team will have a copy. You can buy them but they are expensive and given the age of this case, if you could buy one, you would need a second mortgage.
I was about to ask how much until you mentioned mortgage. Oh dear.
-
I was about to ask how much until you mentioned mortgage. Oh dear.
I'm not sure Lookout, I suspect it would depend on the trial - ie. like how long it last etc. New cases are probably stored electronically but old cases would have to be copied and I certainly wouldn't like that job.
-
"The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
I haven't seen the above quote anywhere - can you please provide an independent source for it. I'm not asking to be difficult, I would just like to confirm where it comes from?
-
In the 2002 appeal document it says that Jeremy's trial transcript didn't survive, but the cross examination is available.
The Appellant's Evidence at Trial 137. No transcript has survived as to the appellant's evidence in chief, although it seems clear from the summing up that it was entirely consistent with that which he had told the police. A transcript of his cross-examination is available. In cross-examination the appellant said Sheila Caffell had frequent delusions and had spoken to him of suicide.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
I haven't seen the above quote anywhere - can you please provide an independent source for it. I'm not asking to be difficult, I would just like to confirm where it comes from?
Yes that was first brought up earlier this week.
David does write a lot of things in bold or red. To try to give his posts more gravitas. However what is actually written is often rubbish.
Either that or he is putting up offensive images or 'gish gash' quotes when frustrated. Ignoring moderator instructions.
Hopefully David will improve as a poster.
-
Yes that was first brought up earlier this week.
David does write a lot of things in bold or red. To try to give his posts more gravitas. However what is actually written is often rubbish.
Either that or he is putting up offensive images or 'gish gash' quotes when frustrated. Ignoring moderator instructions.
Hopefully David will improve as a poster.
I have searched for it but the only reference to it, is from David. Perhaps he had Rivlin's summing up but without an independent source, it doesn't mean anything.
-
Nugs used to create threads on his visions. Treating them as fact & asking questions.
When discussions started it would validate Nugs's vision. Nugs would at first stonewall source requests, which is what David is currently doing.
-
Nugs used to create threads on his visions. Treating them as fact & asking questions.
When discussions started it would validate Nugs's vision. Nugs would at first stonewall source requests, which is what David is currently doing.
That's why it's always best to provide a link or post the original source.
-
That's why it's always best to provide a link or post the original source.
David does provide sources sometimes. Goodness knows where he finds them.
When he has no source he will write in red or bold as if what is being posted has gravitas. Nugs would just create a thread.
-
I haven't seen the above quote anywhere - can you please provide an independent source for it. I'm not asking to be difficult, I would just like to confirm where it comes from?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7303.msg346366.html#msg346366 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7303.msg346366.html#msg346366)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7303.0;attach=43124)
-
Yes that was first brought up earlier this week.
David does write a lot of things in bold or red. To try to give his posts more gravitas. However what is actually written is often rubbish.
Either that or he is putting up offensive images or 'gish gash' quotes when frustrated. Ignoring moderator instructions.
Hopefully David will improve as a poster.
Everything I post in bold,italics and colour is text quoted from elsewhere. Its serves to differentiate between my claims and evidence I use to support those claims. It makes my posts easier read/understand plus I am a bit OCD on how I present stuff. No harm done.
There is nothing wrong about posting images or exposing the dishonest and fallacious debate tactic you use.
For example
(https://i1.wp.com/78.media.tumblr.com/63118432712032837cfa34bf16c74dd3/tumblr_p7ca334HVE1szqwnwo1_1280.jpg?w=605)
-
I can give instance of a woman who only recognized, in her mid 40's, the abuse she'd suffered as a child, and the subsequent effect it had had on her as an adult. Most of us are too busy trying to make the best of the cards we've been dealt to look at what's going on. As you say, RJ, we can only draw on our own experiences. I find ilb's stance to be particularly judgemental but it MAY be that he/she has had a very sheltered life, or has had one devoid of the traumas many have faced.
just seen this. If you haven't already gathered it's a He. And I haven't had a sheltered life, and i have faced traumas. Who hasn't at some stage?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7303.msg346366.html#msg346366 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7303.msg346366.html#msg346366)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7303.0;attach=43124)
Cheers, do you know what newspaper it was from?
-
Everything I post in bold,italics and colour is text quoted from elsewhere. Its serves to differentiate between my claims and evidence I use to support those claims. It makes my posts easier read/understand plus I am a bit OCD on how I present stuff. No harm done.
There is nothing wrong about posting images or exposing the dishonest and fallacious debate tactic you use.
For example
(https://i1.wp.com/78.media.tumblr.com/63118432712032837cfa34bf16c74dd3/tumblr_p7ca334HVE1szqwnwo1_1280.jpg?w=605)
I understand that you post quotes in red etc. it would be just helpful if you said where it was quoted from.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7303.msg346366.html#msg346366 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7303.msg346366.html#msg346366)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7303.0;attach=43124)
A glove came off in the fight with Nevill. NOT released to the press.
-
The defence are suggesting Julie got the information not in the press from the police. This must be prior to her approach to SJ. Otherwise they are saying the police were corrupt.
They are also suggesting AE somehow found this out. Then somehow passed it onto Julie. Did she do it by email or text?
-
I understand that you post quotes in red etc. it would be just helpful if you said where it was quoted from.
Everyone can read everyones posts. Not sure why David wants to post in red or bold so much.
But he does need to provide sources. No matter how strange.
-
There should be more discussion on this old thread re perjury and the money trail video
Old post of David’s
Key inconsistencies and lies made by prosecution witnesses that went unchallenged before the Jury.
Claims Jeremy said he could kill anybody and his parents.
Robert Boutflour told the Jury this when the prosecution brought the subject up.
"A: Yes, he stated: "Oh no, uncle Bobbie, I could kill anybody. I could even kill my parents" or words to that effect. The important thing was he said "I could easily kill my parents"
In this answer alone he has already changed "even" to "easily". The prosecutor then asks how RWB reacted to this and he said he was "Shocked".
While going through Barlow's note book, reading all the pointless things RWB was reporting to Barlow, it occured to me that this "Shocking" conversation with Jeremy is never brought up. Barlow also goes on to say that nothing AE and RWB said to him made him anymore suspicious of Jeremy.
The only record I know of when RWB informs the police of this alleged conversation. Is in this typed letter he made on the 7th of September then sent it to ACC Simpson. If this is the first time the Police heard about it, then it is almost certainly a lie.
Lying about the silencers significance.
Ann Eaton told the Jury this in regards to her understanding of the silencer.
"At the time I did not know whether it was rabbit blood or what. and I thought the jewellery was the most important thing, turns out I was wrong."
This is a lie. Because the previous year her account on the same subject was as follows.
"We discussed the implication of how this silencer could be in the gun cupboard with blood and paint on it. Obviously if it was being alleged that somebody had had a brainstorm and shot dead four people they would surely not have stopped to remove the silencer, put it back in the gun cupboard, go back upstairs and shoot herself dead. Contact was made with the police about the discovery of the blood and paint stained silencer."
Ann Eaton told the court she thought it was rabbits blood.
RIVLIN: How could you imagine that the blood at the end of the silencer might be a rabbits blood?
ANN EATON: I don't know.
RIVLIN: That is what you told the court. How could you imagine that it might be a rabbits blood?
ANN EATON: Jeremy said he had been shooting rabbits the night before.
However Jeremy said he did not get a chance to shoot them. . Ann Eaton knew Jeremy said this and wrote this in her notes. Hence her answer "Jeremy said he had been shooting rabbits the night before." as for why she thought rabbit blood was on the silencer is clearly a lie.
Furthermore if she did indeed think it was rabbit blood and had no importance why did she report it to the police in the first place?
ARLIDGE: As a result of that being found, were police contacted?
ANN EATON: Yes, Witham Police
ARLIDGE: Do you know the date on which that took place?
ANN EATON: Saturday night.
ARLIDGE: That very evening?
ANN EATON: Yes.
MR. Justice Drake: (To the witness): Q: Who actually contacted them?
ANN EATON: It was probably me, but I cannot remember, but Witham Police were contacted.
The full story of Shelia's bloody underwear
ARLIDGE: What did you do with them in the end? Do they still exist?
ANN EATON: No we decided to put them in the rubbish bin in the kitchen.
This is called lying by omission. In 1991 Ann Eaton admits taking the bloody knickers back to Oak Farm.
Sheila firing a gun
At trial David Boutflour denied having any memory of seeing Sheila firing a gun. Yet according to David James Smith, David Boutflour later admitted that Sheila had used his shotgun.
And so, if a fair trial transpired the judges summing up should be along the lines of : Do you believe Jeremy or do you believe his relatives?
-
There were no witnesses to acknowledge what JB had said to RWB. That gem appeared a month later !!