Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?

[Adam]

If JB is guilty JM could properly in law be regarded as an accessory.  You are right in saying that it is not a criminal offence to fail to report a crime (with some exceptions such as in terrorist cases).  However, when originally interviewed by police on her account she gave a false account of her conversation with JB during the night in order to protect him.  That is a criminal offence (in fact it is several).  JM potentially faced a lot of problems.  We have covered this in detail a few years back - you may recall I had some heated exchanges with Steve-UK on the subject.____

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1932.msg59867.html#msg59867

Her 2 page WS on the 8/8/85 seems all correct.

[Caroline]

If JB is guilty JM could properly in law be regarded as an accessory.  You are right in saying that it is not a criminal offence to fail to report a crime (with some exceptions such as in terrorist cases).  However, when originally interviewed by police on her account she gave a false account of her conversation with JB during the night in order to protect him.  That is a criminal offence (in fact it is several).  JM potentially faced a lot of problems.  We have covered this in detail a few years back - you may recall I had some heated exchanges with Steve-UK on the subject.____

So if she lied, he's guilty.

[lookout]

So if she lied, he's guilty.

So is she, by association.

[Adam]

'There is something wrong at home'. 'Bye honey'. 'Go back to bed'.

These are all things she also included in her later WS.

She did not include 'everything is going well' & 'I have not slept all night'. Probably on instruction from Bamber.

The rest of the WS is factually correct. Confirming who she is etc.

[lookout]

BTW, what's a testimony as opposed to a statement, or are they one and the same ?

[ngb1066]

So if she felt the need to protect him, could that not mean she was convinced he'd committed murder? Doesn't it also mean that she didn't deliberately lie to get him convicted of something he was entirely innocent of?

If she told the truth at trial JB is guilty, but she is also guilty of serious criminal offences.  If she lied at trial JB is not guilty and she is guilty of (different) serious criminal offences.

[Adam]

Sorry Julie did not mention the 'it's now or never' & 'tonights the night' in her 9.50pm phone call. In her 8/8/85 WS.

[Adam]

Julie's 8/8/85 WS does say Bamber took her to Chelmsford train station on the 3/8/85.

Julie did not use June's bike Jeremy had just brought over.

[Adam]

Jeremy dropped Julie off at Chelmsford police station at 7.50pm on the 3rd August 1985.

There was then no contact until 9.50pm on the 6th August 1985, when Jeremy phoned her.

A long gap. There was no other way to communicate in those days.

Jeremy obviously fancied a catch up.

[Caroline]

If JB is guilty JM could properly in law be regarded as an accessory.  You are right in saying that it is not a criminal offence to fail to report a crime (with some exceptions such as in terrorist cases).  However, when originally interviewed by police on her account she gave a false account of her conversation with JB during the night in order to protect him.  That is a criminal offence (in fact it is several).  JM potentially faced a lot of problems.  We have covered this in detail a few years back - you may recall I had some heated exchanges with Steve-UK on the subject.____

Thinking about it, how can she be prosecuted as an accessory given that she did come forward of her own accord just a few weeks later and told the truth about what was said in the phone call?

[Adam]

Jeremy will regret phoning Julie at 9.50pm & 3am.

Gave Julie two open goals.

Bamber can't claim he did not phone her. Obviously he phoned her as he wanted to speak to her. Julie has said about what.

[Adam]

Bamber has always been very vague about what was spoken about at the 9.50pm phone call. Although he phoned Julie & the call lasted 20 minutes!

He just denies saying 'tonights the night' etc. Although can't remember what he did say. 

Very dissappointing from a man protesting innocence.

[Adam]

Possible  reasons for the 9.50pm phone call -

Bamber phoned Julie every night - No. There had been a 3 day gap between contact.

Bamber had rang Julie to break up with her - No. He rang her again at 3am.

Bamber had an exciting day or had exciting news - No. He worked all day.

Bamber wanted to arrange there next meeting - No. Julie did not mention this.

Bamber wanted to find out about Julie's day - No. Julie had no big events planned for that day.

------------

So a big coincidence that he phoned Julie around 5 hours before the massacre.

[lookout]

Anyway, why worry if you knew she was telling the truth ? That's all I can say.

[Caroline]

Anyway, why worry if you knew she was telling the truth ? That's all I can say.

Worry about what?