Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?

[ngb1066]

As soon as the jury foreman said gulity at Jeremy nevill Bamber. Julie felt secured...

She certainly did.  I imagine she was very relieved. 

[lookout]

I don't know how she could concentrate.

Me neither. So much for the vulnerable 20 year old.

[Caroline]

Me neither. So much for the vulnerable 20 year old.

She did her part (eventually) in bringing a 5 times murderer to justice.

[lookout]

She did her part (eventually) in bringing a 5 times murderer to justice.

Not in the fairest way I imagine.

[Kaldin]

She said she bought a flat with the money from the NOTW, so how did she afford to travel around the world?

[ngb1066]

She did her part (eventually) in bringing a 5 times murderer to justice.

if you are convinced JB is guilty, I understand that is a view that can be taken off her.  If you have doubts about his guilt a different view is likely.  I still say whatever your view on the case it is difficult to have a positive attitude towards JM.  I do know that some of those closely involved on the anti JB side have a very negative view of her.  I know Steve_UK is very protective, and he may have good reasons for that, but he is almost a lone voice of support.

 

[Caroline]

if you are convinced JB is guilty, I understand that is a view that can be taken off her.  If you have doubts about his guilt a different view is likely.  I still say whatever your view on the case it is difficult to have a positive attitude towards JM.  I do know that some of those closely involved on the anti JB side have a very negative view of her.  I know Steve_UK is very protective, and he may have good reasons for that, but he is almost a lone voice of support.

I don't support her staying quiet for so long and as I have said, there are things I think he didn't/couldn't say. However, as a FIRM guilty supporter, I have to give her credit for the part she played in his conviction. If it ever turned out that he could PROVE his innocence, I think you know that I would be one of the first to admit I was wrong.

[Adam]

 

if you are convinced JB is guilty, I understand that is a view that can be taken off her.  If you have doubts about his guilt a different view is likely.  I still say whatever your view on the case it is difficult to have a positive attitude towards JM.  I do know that some of those closely involved on the anti JB side have a very negative view of her.  I know Steve_UK is very protective, and he may have good reasons for that, but he is almost a lone voice of support.

Do you agree that Julie should have started telling the police within the first few hours.

[ngb1066]

Do you agree that Julie should have started telling the police within the first few hours.

If she told the truth at trial she should certainly have told the truth to police much earlier than she did, ideally when first questioned.  On the other hand if she lied in evidence at trial her initial answers to police were correct.

[lookout]

Is this " leaked " news, because there's nothing on Bambertweets which I watch regularly for updates ?

[Caroline]

Is this " leaked " news, because there's nothing on Bambertweets which I watch regularly for updates ?

Is what leaked news? If you mean about her having signed a deal - no it's not.

[ngb1066]

Is this " leaked " news, because there's nothing on Bambertweets which I watch regularly for updates ?

No, it is not something leaked by the Campaign Team or JB's current legal team.  It is something I became aware of when I was directly involved in relation to the 2012 submissions by Simon McKay and the subsequent Judicial Review.  I discussed it with JB at the time.  It was an issue which SM wanted to return to and investigate further.   Coupled with additional solid information obtained about the News of the World deal there were good grounds to believe that JM's credibility could be seriously undermined.

 

[Caroline]

No, it is not something leaked by the Campaign Team or JB's current legal team.  It is something I became aware of when I was directly involved in relation to the 2012 submissions by Simon McKay and the subsequent Judicial Review.  I discussed it with JB at the time.  It was an issue which SM wanted to return to and investigate further.   Coupled with additional solid information obtained about the News of the World deal there were good grounds to believe that JM's credibility could be seriously undermined.

 

I remember that we debated this a long time ago but I don't understand how this could undermine her testimony because she had already made her statements long before any deal was made. In other words, she couldn't be accused of going to the police and making her statements in order to obtain money from the NOTW.

[ngb1066]

I remember that we debated this a long time ago but I don't understand how this could undermine her testimony because she had already made her statements long before any deal was made. In other words, she couldn't be accused of going to the police and making her statements in order to obtain money from the NOTW.

There are several strands to this issue, only two of which has been extensively discussed here.  The credibility of JM as a witness was a very important aspect of the case.  The way she was presented to the jury in my view gave a seriously misleading view.  First, in relation to the circumstances in which she "came forward" and changed her account to implicate JB.  Second, in relation to the circumstances in which the cheque book frauds were resolved with the bank.  Third, the improper NOW deal which had been concluded before JM gave evidence and about which she lied in answering questions administered at the instigation of the trial judge.  The defence at trial were seriously hampered in their cross examination of JM as a result of the failure to disclose the full and correct facts about each of these issues.  Remember that this was a bare majority verdict.  JM's evidence was crucial and her credibilty was something the jury had to assess.  They were denied the ability to do that properly in the circumstances.

 

[lookout]

No, it is not something leaked by the Campaign Team or JB's current legal team.  It is something I became aware of when I was directly involved in relation to the 2012 submissions by Simon McKay and the subsequent Judicial Review.  I discussed it with JB at the time.  It was an issue which SM wanted to return to and investigate further.   Coupled with additional solid information obtained about the News of the World deal there were good grounds to believe that JM's credibility could be seriously undermined.

 

I see. I seem to recollect a spattering of something concerning her testimony some years ago as I possibly or most likely remarked on it then but it fizzled out and I thought no more about it though I wasn't aware of what the testimony contained only that it wasn't altogether Kosher.
Thankyou for the reminder anyway.