Did JM ever really love Jeremy Bamber?

[hartley]

Come on Hartley you like me don't you

You love fighting with me on the forum?

Not at all Jackie, I have no problem with many of your posts and your insight is often good for the purposes of discussions on the forum. I don't agree with many of your views just like you don't agree with mine.

You do have an uncanny way of winding people up though.  I don't think you can play the victim either.

[hartley]

Hartley you have upset me now I even put you forward as a moderator

I don't think I'd make a very good moderator, too prone to mood swings depending on whether there's a full moon or not.

[Jerry]

I will deal in turn with your points above.

1.  Jackie Preece believes very strongly about Jeremy Bamber's innocence and that comes across in some of her posts, particularly where  an "anti bamber" poster refuses to answer a direct question or where she is goaded by one or more posters.  I am sure that some people have posted deliberately in a way intended to antagonise Jackie in order to get a reaction from her.  Your opinion that Jackie has harmed Jeremy Bamber's chances of setting aside his convictions is not one shared by Jeremy Bamber himself.  He appreciates all her efforts on his behalf.

2. Jackie's references to Julie Mugford lying are simply a reflection of Jeremy Bamber's case.  If Jeremy Bamber is telling the truth, Julie Mugford must have lied.  This is a central part of the case as we all know and strong comments by Jackie about Julie Mugford are to be expected in the circumstances and have nothing to do with ego our sour grapes.  Anti - Bamber supporters post some damning comments about Jeremy Bamber, as is to be expected considering their views on the case. 

3. There is nothing illegal in making contact with a potential witness in Australia or Canada or anywhere else.  I have not seen Jackie suggesting anything which would come close to being a criminal offence. 

   

1. Jackie Preece is entitled to her opinion but she should not go around calling people liars on a public forum. Does she not realise that Julie Smerchanski could sue her for libel due to the malicious posts she has made?  I wonder does Jeremy know everything that is being said on this forum on his behalf?

Maybe I should write to him too and tell him exactly what is going on?

2. I don't see where you obtain the correlation between Julies evidence and that of Jeremy and especially as you do not have a copy of his statements or his evidence?  Julie never said that Jeremy murdered his family.  Julie simply told the court what Jeremy had told her, there is a significant difference in these contentions.  The anti Bamber posters as you refer to them are entitled to post the truth as corroborated by many individuals as to Jeremy's behaviour prior to the murders and in respect of the guilty verdict following them.

Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are libellous and you know it ngb1066.

3. The illegality arises when a former senior police officer is being harassed in a campaign to besmirch him within his own community. I am quite sure the authorities will take a dim view of such behaviour.


Definitely a loose cannon!

[hartley]

I wonder does Jeremy know everything that is being said on this forum on his behalf?

I think the disclaimer is quite clear on this point Jerry:

Much of the information posted on this forum is by 3rd parties and is not necessarily accurate and may not always be the views of Jeremy Bamber or the website.

[Jerry]

Jerry
For a start in her first statement to the police

Do you agree Jerry

Statements are irrelevant where a witness testifies in the witness box.  According to you, what did Julie lie about in her evidence?

[Jerry]

I wonder does Jeremy know everything that is being said on this forum on his behalf?

I think the disclaimer is quite clear on this point Jerry:

Much of the information posted on this forum is by 3rd parties and is not necessarily accurate and may not always be the views of Jeremy Bamber or the website.

Indeed Hartley, I still think I will write to him and encourage others to do the same in order to get it from the horses mouth.

I wonder how he will respond to being told how his most avid supporter is besmirching his long lost love and encouraging a vendetta against retired police officers?

[Jackiepreece]

Jerry feel free ask him about the porche car you lied about

[ngb1066]

I will deal in turn with your points above.

1.  Jackie Preece believes very strongly about Jeremy Bamber's innocence and that comes across in some of her posts, particularly where  an "anti bamber" poster refuses to answer a direct question or where she is goaded by one or more posters.  I am sure that some people have posted deliberately in a way intended to antagonise Jackie in order to get a reaction from her.  Your opinion that Jackie has harmed Jeremy Bamber's chances of setting aside his convictions is not one shared by Jeremy Bamber himself.  He appreciates all her efforts on his behalf.

2. Jackie's references to Julie Mugford lying are simply a reflection of Jeremy Bamber's case.  If Jeremy Bamber is telling the truth, Julie Mugford must have lied.  This is a central part of the case as we all know and strong comments by Jackie about Julie Mugford are to be expected in the circumstances and have nothing to do with ego our sour grapes.  Anti - Bamber supporters post some damning comments about Jeremy Bamber, as is to be expected considering their views on the case. 

3. There is nothing illegal in making contact with a potential witness in Australia or Canada or anywhere else.  I have not seen Jackie suggesting anything which would come close to being a criminal offence. 

   

1. Jackie Preece is entitled to her opinion but she should not go around calling people liars on a public forum. Does she not realise that Julie Smerchanski could sue her for libel due to the malicious posts she has made?  I wonder does Jeremy know everything that is being said on this forum on his behalf?Maybe I should write to him too and tell him exactly what is going on?

2. I don't see where you obtain the correlation between Julies evidence and that of Jeremy and especially as you do not have a copy of his statements or his evidence?  Julie never said that Jeremy murdered his family.  Julie simply told the court what Jeremy had told her, there is a significant difference in these contentions.  The anti Bamber posters as you refer to them are entitled to post the truth as corroborated by many individuals as to Jeremy's behaviour prior to the murders and in respect of the guilty verdict following them.Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are libellous and you know it ngb1066.3. The illegality arises when a former senior police officer is being harassed in a campaign to besmirch him within his own community. I am quite sure the authorities will take a dim view of such behaviour.


Definitely a loose cannon!

I will not answer every point as I would end up repeating myself.  However I will to respond to two specific points which you have made.

1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone).   It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue. 

2. Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.  That would amount to murder just as much as if he carried out the murders by his own hand.  She also said that she was aware of his plans in advance, was informed on the day itself and was given a progress report on the night itself, and was subsequently given all the gory details.

 

[hartley]

It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue. 

I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?

Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.

That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.

[Jerry]

Jerry feel free ask him about the porche car you lied about

I will leaving the lying to you Jackie.

The comments about the buying a Porsche car are evidenced and stand irrespective of how you would now like to portray them.  Point being, imagine discussing the proposed purchase of a new car when your family are lying inside riddled with bullets.  I really must ask him to explain that one and I will post his response here.

[Jerry]

It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue. 

I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?

Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.

That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.

Right on the ball as usual Hartley.  +1

I am surprised at a former barrister falling for that one.

[hartley]

Jerry feel free ask him about the porche car you lied about

The porche car was mentioned, it was only later that it then turned into a kit car. Whether that's down to the police misunderstanding him; the police trying to show Jeremy in a bad light; or whether it's because Jeremy lied, who knows.

It's detailed in the 2002 Appeal Judgement.

[Jerry]

I will not answer every point as I would end up repeating myself.  However I will to respond to two specific points which you have made.

1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone).   It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue. 

2. Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.  That would amount to murder just as much as if he carried out the murders by his own hand.  She also said that she was aware of his plans in advance, was informed on the day itself and was given a progress report on the night itself, and was subsequently given all the gory details.

 

1. As of this moment in time they are libellous.  I have no doubt that Julie knows little of what is being said about her, maybe we should inform her?

http://ww.wsd1.org/contacts/contacts.htm

2. So which part of this is a lie as this is what he told her and what's more he has never denied it?

[jon]

It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue. 

I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?

Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.

That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.

Right on the ball as usual Hartley.  +1

I am surprised at a former barrister falling for that one.

Are you not guilty of murder if you hire a hitman ?

[hartley]

It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue. 

I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?

Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.

That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.

Right on the ball as usual Hartley.  +1

I am surprised at a former barrister falling for that one.

Are you not guilty of murder if you hire a hitman ?

I made no reference to whether a hitman hirer would be guilty of murder. I'm not sure what you mean Jon?