Splitting words was your trade but it doesn't work in the real world. In any event it was Jackie who said "his whole family" after I stated "his family".
He said it so get over it.
It certainly raises the question as to who in their right mind would raise such a matter never mind boast about doing so. I am not surprised that Robert Boutflour was shocked.
"boasting about killing his family" as you well know implies boasting about the murders after committing them. You do not need to be legally qualified to understand the ordinary meaning of words.
It can be taken either way but in any event these boasts to Robert and then Julie and others was made prior to the murders as well you already know.
He also boasted to Julie after the murders that he had engaged a hitman to do it for hi. Now I wonder what had changed for him to tell her this?
Not the sort of thing you make up is it?
That is exactly the point. Each of these statements is strongly contested by Jeremy Bamber, and "made up" would certainly be his mild description of the evidence of the statements he was alleged to have made about killing his family.
NGB
As a non practising barrister how much valididty is there in what Jeremy stated in his original statement on 8th August when he was interviewed as a witness when this statement is compared to what is being claimed 26 years later or is detailed in recordings of Jeremy's comments which are in the public domain.
It is detailed
'[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
I am sure you will be aware there are significant differences.
In the eyes of the law which statements will hold more evidential value / weight?
As a matter of law there is no difference in evidential value between statements made at different times. It is the evidence given by witnesses in court which is the key evidence, and those witnessses can be cross examined about inconsistencies between their oral evidence and what they have stated in earlier written statements. As a general rule the recollection of a witness is likely to be more accurate the earlier a witness statement is made, but there can obviously be exceptions to this, for example if a witness is in shock at the time of making the earliest statement. In Jeremy Bamber's case it should be remembered that his earliest statements were taken from him when he was being treated as a witness and the police had already reached a firm view on the four murders and a suicide theory. They were likely therefore not to be so concerned about detail than they were when much later interviewing Jeremy Bamber as a suspect.
Given your reply does it make any difference if Jeremy when interviewed as a suspect he refers back to his original statement as being 'done at the time and must be correct'.
The following is detailed on page 136 in the book 'Blood Relations'.
' Stan Jones reminded Jeremy Bamber that he had been asked by several police officers about his actions that night, and that he had said he phoned the police before calling Julie. So what was the correct order?
'I don't remember,' said Jeremy, 'but my first statement was done at the time and must be correct.'
[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
I replied to this message at some length a few minutes ago but I clearly did something stupid and it did not get posted. I will therefore try again.
I understand the point you are making and I accept that it deserves a proper answer. I agree that generally an earlier witness statement is likely to be more accurate than a later one. However I also believe that inaccuracies in times given for specific events and for the duration of those events can be wrong, either as a result of dishonesty or as a result of genuine mistake. The risk of a mistake is all the greater when the witness is being questioned when tired, under stress or even in shock.
I agree that there are discrepancies between the various pieces of evidence concerning timings in this part of the case. I personally do not see them as a critical factor in determining what happened that night but I accept and respect the fact that you and others who post here disagree with me on that. I believe that other factors and pieces of evidence will ultimately be the key to unlocking this case.
I must emphasise that the views I have expressed on this are my own and do not result from any discussions with Jeremy Bamber or his team (I have in fact had no discussions with them on this aspect of the case).
NGB
Our posts have crossed.
I am sure you will have seen I have since added the following -
...... and with regard to the inconsistencies / differentials could it be argued that indirectly Jeremy is contesting his own statements.
I note your comment from Jeremy's perspective in relation to statements made by others
'Each of these statements is strongly contested by Jeremy Bamber, and "made up" would certainly be his mild description of the evidence of the statements he was alleged to have made about killing his family.'
Whilst difficult these are questions which I am sure the prosecution will want answers........
This I believe will be a major obstacle for Jeremy and his team to overcome should he gain the retrial it has been stated he wants.
Given your reply above to which this post replies you mentioned
'However I also believe that inaccuracies in times given for specific events and for the duration of those events can be wrong, either as a result of dishonesty or as a result of genuine mistake. The risk of a mistake is all the greater when the witness is being questioned when tired, under stress or even in shock.'
3 Questions
1 - What about in the eyes of the law as opposed to your beliefs?
2 - Do you believe the same leeway applies to other witnesses?
3 - Same question as 2 above but from the perspective of the eyes of the law?
curiousessex - our posts did cross and in the meantime you will see I have made a minor edit to my post (which does not alter the point i was making).
In answer to your three questions above:
1. In the eyes of the law there are no absolute rules about the weight to be attached to conflicting details given by an individual witness. Although there are some exceptions to this, the law is only concerned with the admissability of a piece of evidence. The weight to be attached to that evidence, and any discrepancies within it, are for a jury to decide in evaluating the evidence as a whole.
2. The same applies to any witnesses - due account should be taken of explanations given by a prosecution witness for any discrepancies. Bear in mind however that in a criminal case the burden of proof rests throughout with the prosecution and the standard of proof is high. If there are two credible explanations in relation to a critical piece of evidence the benefit of the doubt should always be given to the defendant. It follows therefore that a discrepancy in the evidence of a defence witness leading to some genuine doubt on the point should lead to that point being conceded to the defence, with equivalent discrepacies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses also treated in the same way, i.e.in favour of the defence if the discrepancy gives rise to a genuine doubt about a particular issue. I hope that is clear.
3. The same answer as for 1 above.
