Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?

[Adam]

Julie did say Bamber had said he had been in his tractor all day thinking about it (the massacre).

Bamber eventually confirmed to police he had been in his tractor that day.

[Adam]

Obviously the 9.50pm phone call from Bamber was extremley damaging. Nearly as damaging as the 3am call.

Julie has gone into detail about what was said. Which added together will make up the 20 minute duration.

Bamber & the CT refuse to discuss it.

[ngb1066]

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?

The crime was committed (if she told the truth at trial) when she assisted JB by giving a false account to police about the conversation she had with JB the night of the murders. She reinforced that by supporting JB including at the funeral when she knew (if her trial evidence is true) that his expressed grief was fake, thus further protecting him from scrutiny.  The fact that she repented later and cooperated with police does not alter the fact that serious offences had been committed by her.

[Caroline]

The crime was committed (if she told the truth at trial) when she assisted JB by giving a false account to police about the conversation she had with JB the night of the murders. She reinforced that by supporting JB including at the funeral when she knew (if her trial evidence is true) that his expressed grief was fake, thus further protecting him from scrutiny.  The fact that she repented later and cooperated with police does not alter the fact that serious offences had been committed by her.

If there is a potential for being charged/prosecuted for coming forward and changing an original statements, it would prevent people coming forward at all. Technically, if not telling the truth from day one is classed as an offence, I doubt it would be one where are charges are brought if the individual comes clean (of their own accord) and helps with the prosecution of a murderer?

[ngb1066]

If there is a potential for being charged/prosecuted for coming forward and changing an original statements, it would prevent people coming forward at all. Technically, if not telling the truth from day one is classed as an offence, I doubt it would be one where are charges are brought if the individual comes clean (of their own accord) and helps with the prosecution of a murderer?

It will depend upon the circumstances.  In this case I believe there is a lot more to it than has been made public.  I do not believe that JM did come forward voluntarily.  Stan Jones believed in JB's guilt as we know, and he therefore believed JM had covered for him.  JM's friend rather than JM herself made contact with police, Stan Jones then charged round to see her.  What I believe has been concealed and is recorded in non disclosed documents is that JM was in fact arrested at that stage.  I think she was put under intense pressure with threats of being treated as an accomplice and/or being charged with perverting the course of justice.  She was offered the alternative of being treated as a prosecution witness and given immunity from prosecution.  They persuaded her that they had strong evidence against JB so she had limited time to make a decision.  Under that pressure she cracked.  From then on she was kept in a safe house, ostensibly for her own protection but in fact so that police could keep close contact with her until trial.   

 

[Jane]

It will depend upon the circumstances.  In this case I believe there is a lot more to it than has been made public.  I do not believe that JM did come forward voluntarily.  Stan Jones believed in JB's guilt as we know, and he therefore believed JM had covered for him.  JM's friend rather than JM herself made contact with police, Stan Jones then charged round to see her.  What I believe has been concealed and is recorded in non disclosed documents is that JM was in fact arrested at that stage.  I think she was put under intense pressure with threats of being treated as an accomplice and/or being charged with perverting the course of justice.  She was offered the alternative of being treated as a prosecution witness and given immunity from prosecution.  They persuaded her that they had strong evidence against JB so she had limited time to make a decision.  Under that pressure she cracked.  From then on she was kept in a safe house, ostensibly for her own protection but in fact so that police could keep close contact with her until trial.   

It's hardly a surprise to learn that such may be the case, but unless it's ever confirmed it remains speculation. I understand that police rely quite heavily on witnesses coming forward voluntarily so I don't suppose they'd want that particular applecart upset. There was huge anti-Julie feeling at the time, from parents who were demanding that she was removed from the school where she taught -which subsequently happened- to those who thought she was a scheming bitch out to destroy lovely Jeremy. All were baying for her blood. That she was kept in a safe house for her own protection isn't unreasonable.

[Caroline]

It will depend upon the circumstances.  In this case I believe there is a lot more to it than has been made public.  I do not believe that JM did come forward voluntarily.  Stan Jones believed in JB's guilt as we know, and he therefore believed JM had covered for him.  JM's friend rather than JM herself made contact with police, Stan Jones then charged round to see her.  What I believe has been concealed and is recorded in non disclosed documents is that JM was in fact arrested at that stage.  I think she was put under intense pressure with threats of being treated as an accomplice and/or being charged with perverting the course of justice.  She was offered the alternative of being treated as a prosecution witness and given immunity from prosecution.  They persuaded her that they had strong evidence against JB so she had limited time to make a decision.  Under that pressure she cracked.  From then on she was kept in a safe house, ostensibly for her own protection but in fact so that police could keep close contact with her until trial.   

Well, if that came to light - it wouldn't be Julie what would have things to answer, it would be EP. However, given that she did/dose have immunity, presumably couldn't be charged anyway? I'm no Julie fan but I would rather she walk that a 5 times murderer. I think she has since done her best to become a decent person and should get credit for that. I guess it depends on whether you think Bamber is innocent or guilty.

[lookout]

I think whether guilty or not it won't be a walk in the park for Julie, though she has nothing to worry about if she's told/ telling the truth. 

Why has this come to light now after all these years ? Surely, if the conviction was dodgy from the offset it would/ should have been sorted within 2 years of imprisonment.  I don't get it at all. To even bother after all these years after a guilty verdict  doesn't make sense.
Then I don't know what's gone on in the background. JB has never shown malice towards her either, there's been no shouting, blaming, insults----nothing. Weird.

[Jane]

I think whether guilty or not it won't be a walk in the park for Julie, though she has nothing to worry about if she's told/ telling the truth. 

Why has this come to light now after all these years ? Surely, if the conviction was dodgy from the offset it would/ should have been sorted within 2 years of imprisonment.  I don't get it at all. To even bother after all these years after a guilty verdict  doesn't make sense.
Then I don't know what's gone on in the background. JB has never shown malice towards her either, there's been no shouting, blaming, insults----nothing. Weird.

I hope you're right, Lookout, but recently it's been a bit like a witch-hunt out to get Julie. Some seem not to care that she didn't commit murder. It's almost as if it's been her fault he did it.

I think some of what she said was the truth, but I don't believe she told ALL of the truth. I think the reason that Jeremy has taken a softly softly approach regarding her is that if he reveals exactly what she knows, ie their conversations/plans/pillow talk, it will be tantamount to admitting his guilt. She can't reveal all she knows because it will involve her in a greater involvement than she admitted too. In a less than desirable way, it means they're still linked.

[Caroline]

I think whether guilty or not it won't be a walk in the park for Julie, though she has nothing to worry about if she's told/ telling the truth. 

Why has this come to light now after all these years ? Surely, if the conviction was dodgy from the offset it would/ should have been sorted within 2 years of imprisonment.  I don't get it at all. To even bother after all these years after a guilty verdict  doesn't make sense.
Then I don't know what's gone on in the background. JB has never shown malice towards her either, there's been no shouting, blaming, insults----nothing. Weird.

Why hasn't what come to light?

By the way, how do you know her hasn't shown any malice?

[lookout]

I hope you're right, Lookout, but recently it's been a bit like a witch-hunt out to get Julie. Some seem not to care that she didn't commit murder. It's almost as if it's been her fault he did it.

I think some of what she said was the truth, but I don't believe she told ALL of the truth. I think the reason that Jeremy has taken a softly softly approach regarding her is that if he reveals exactly what she knows, ie their conversations/plans/pillow talk, it will be tantamount to admitting his guilt. She can't reveal all she knows because it will involve her in a greater involvement than she admitted too. In a less than desirable way, it means they're still linked.

Whichever way you look at it it's not going to be easy.

Typically British-----cart before the horse 

[Caroline]

Whichever way you look at it it's not going to be easy.

Typically British-----cart before the horse 

Maybe the carts backing up? 

[Steve_uk]

That is very unfair.  On any view. Bamber guilty or innocent, Julie Mugford comes out of this extremely badly.  I can tell you with confidence that even the family agree with this.

I've just logged in so bear with me. You can't possibly believe that Jeremy Bamber is innocent. You are an intelligent man. You are therefore being disingenuous for your own reasons or proxy agenda.

[Steve_uk]

You are a disgrace Steve UK.  You and I have argued about this before.  You are an apologist for JM and it is shameful in my view.

I am not an apologist for Julie Mugford. But she was a young woman who became outsmarted by a conman.  The charges against her were dropped by the Director of Public Prosecutions so that the big fish could be caught. As for the matter of the News of the World deal you are like a dog with a bone, even though the position has been explained to you and your coterie many times that Julie had negotiated but not signed the agreement before the trial started.

[Steve_uk]

A totally unfair and unjustified attack on ngb imo Steve.  I’m sure ‘breaking up the Smerchanski family’ is the last thing on his mind.

Some marriages have failed for far less Maggie.