Did JM ever really love Jeremy Bamber?

[paulg]

Gerald/NGB

I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.

Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.

[chochokeira]

Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:

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.

and this:

Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue.  When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action.  Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.

That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.

Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.

One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.

So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.

This really is school boy law.

Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?

I have no idea.

Very true!

I second that!

[curiousessex]

Curiousessex we can go round and round in circles about the phone calls but JB was a naive boy of 24 who didnt even request a solicitor for three days because he probably thought the whole thing was ridiculous if he was innocent. I DONT THINK I COULD PUT THIS ANY CLEARER but for this mass murder that JB had alledgedly been planning for months he didnt even have a story or exact times worked out.
Then added to Mugfords initial statement about times and then subsequent statements about changed times and I think one of those was backed up by her partner in crime (from the fraud) nothing on that subject is straightforward.  If JM was telling the truth about knowing when the murders happened (and there is not one shred of evidence to say she was) maybe we would have an answer to everything.  Robert Boutflour was like a vulcher straight in finding out who would get the money.

You questioned Ngb earlier about if he was helping JB now its my turn are you one of the polieman involved in the case because I know from another policeman that a number of police involved in the case still live in Essex.  Its just you seem obsessed with these timings as if you know the silencer is going to be discredited so you are looking for something else to look like JB is guilty


I would like to add that JB has got the very best people working on this case and mostly working for nothing because they believe this is a miscarriage of justice and  this includes some of the  best forensic scientists in England.  A lot of students are working day and night on a number of other issues and in the end we will get as near to the truth as is physically possible

Jackie

You asked me.............. You questioned Ngb earlier about if he was helping JB now its my turn are you one of the polieman involved in the case because I know from another policeman that a number of police involved in the case still live in Essex.  Its just you seem obsessed with these timings as if you know the silencer is going to be discredited so you are looking for something else to look like JB is guilty

The answer........... No I am not a policeman. I have never been a policeman. I will never be a policeman (or police person to be PC)

I have always stated I believe the timings of the telephone calls are significant because this is when the outside world first becomes aware of there being any trouble at White House Farm. Before the outside world ever becomes aware of any trouble at White House Farm Jeremy is the only person in the whole world who knows about any incident at White House Farm.

Jeremy either knows about it because (i) he did it having the inside knowledge or (ii) because he received a telephone call from Nevill which specifically identified Sheila with a weapon.

Not one person in the world knew this before Jeremy.

These are events which occur before anyone visits White House Farm and before any investigations or witnesses make statements.

 
Let me ask you a simple question which has nothing to do with Julie Mugford, Ann Eaton or the police.

Do you believe it is possible to make a telephone call and hold a brief conversation with a third party that predicts trouble?

Addition after posting......

As for the silencer.......... I have stated on this forum that I do believe the trial as it happened if transposed to today would be thrown out. (You can ask NGB about this because we had a specific exchange of messages on the subject. I think you will find NGB detailed my summary of the position was well described and summed up.)

For the sake of clarity
(i) I do not think the silencer has a satisfactory evidence trail and there is too much risk of contamination etc.
(ii) I do not think it is right that Jeremy having been sentenced to serve a minimum term of 25 years should have his sentence further increased to a whole life tariff removing any chance of parole.
(iii) I would not like to have sat on the jury at the original trial
(iv) I think money will remain a major factor in the position of both sides.
(v) Is Jeremy innocent or is Jeremy guilty........... who really knows................... and after everything pans out only one thing will remain the same................ only Jeremy knows the truth somewhere within himself.

[jon]

Curious , dont you think if JB had an ounce of common sense and was the murderer , he would simply have said  ' i am not sure of the time , with it being in the early hours of the morning ' or simply went to bed and got up in the morning as usual ? Like i have said before how was he to know BT could not say who phoned who and when !!

[ngb1066]

I can find plenty to back up my "stance".

Go on then, case law will do. I’m sure as a barrister you will have access to reams of that.

Firstly, in English law it is claimant and defendant, or applicant and respondent in the case of an application.

The burden of proof lies with the complainant, but in practice if a complainant states in evidence "I did not say x or did not do X" the burden of proving the contrary then effectively shifts back to the respondent.

Good grief. Why would the claimant state in evidence "I did not say x or did not do X"? The claimant is complaining of the words of the defendant, not the other way around, do keep up.

When a defamation claim is brought the claimant must first persuade the court that the words are defamatory. The accepted legal definition of defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.

Once it is established that the words are defamatory it is up to the defendant to show that they have a defence to the claim. One such defence is “justification”, in other words, that the words published are true.

Here is a simple example:

Dave writes an article for a magazine which asserts that Clive (founder of a childrens charity) is a paedophile.

Clive sues Dave in defamation.

Clive successfully shows that Dave’s words are defamatory.

Dave pleads a defence of justification.

Dave now has to prove that Clive is a paedophile. Clive is not required to prove that he isn’t a paedophile (that would be absurd!).

Is that simple enough?

for evidential reasons which are beyond the scope of this lecture and would certainly be beyond your comprehension.

Careful, you’re starting to sound desperate.

Whatever I am I am not desperate.  Calmly confident might be a better description. You are totally out of your depth but also obnoxious in the way you attempt to mount an argument.  I cannot be bothered to spend the time necessary to demolish your points individually.  You have no knowledge of the law other than snippets taken from the internet, in some cases out of date and taken out of context. You are similar to another poster now barred from this site - in fact similar in many ways.  Apart from calling me a liar and refusing either to support that allegation or retract it, your tone and use of language and sentence construction appear familiar. 

   

I'll make it simple for you then. Post the authority (I'm sure you know what I mean by "authority" don't you?) for your argument that the claimant must prove that the words of the defendant are untrue.

I doubt if you know the meaning of "authority".  I see no reason to give someone like you a free (and necessarily in your case lengthy) lecture on any aspect of law, particularly when you have refused to retract the allegation that I am a liar.  However you have failed to understand the principles relating to the burden of proof.

Why not give us your "authority" for the proposition that a true statement can constitute libel? 

By the way, I notice that you have not responded to my comment about your similarity to a former member of this forum.  I wonder why?

[ngb1066]

Gerald/NGB

I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.

Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.

PaulG  - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying.  I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.


 

[curiousessex]

Curious , dont you think if JB had an ounce of common sense and was the murderer , he would simply have said  ' i am not sure of the time , with it being in the early hours of the morning ' or simply went to bed and got up in the morning as usual ? Like i have said before how was he to know BT could not say who phoned who and when !!

But he did not did he.

According to the only information that appears currently available regarding Jeremy's original statement is the following -

[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.] '

Jeremy timed his father's call.

Repeated requests have been made of Mike to post copy of Jeremy's original statement but he has been told not to do so.

Presumably if Jeremy is guilty then he will have only done it because he thought he would get away with it. Maybe in such a thought process a guilty conscience might also say...... if I do this maybe I will need an alibi...... hence the alleged telephone call from Nevill.

I have also mentioned on the forum that if Jeremy was guilty then maybe the best thing to have done was nothing and let the scene be found in the morning. This is of course irrelevant because it is in the past and did not happen.......... hindsight and all that

[curiousessex]

Curiousessex we can go round and round in circles about the phone calls but JB was a naive boy of 24 who didnt even request a solicitor for three days because he probably thought the whole thing was ridiculous if he was innocent. I DONT THINK I COULD PUT THIS ANY CLEARER but for this mass murder that JB had alledgedly been planning for months he didnt even have a story or exact times worked out.
Then added to Mugfords initial statement about times and then subsequent statements about changed times and I think one of those was backed up by her partner in crime (from the fraud) nothing on that subject is straightforward.  If JM was telling the truth about knowing when the murders happened (and there is not one shred of evidence to say she was) maybe we would have an answer to everything.  Robert Boutflour was like a vulcher straight in finding out who would get the money.

You questioned Ngb earlier about if he was helping JB now its my turn are you one of the polieman involved in the case because I know from another policeman that a number of police involved in the case still live in Essex.  Its just you seem obsessed with these timings as if you know the silencer is going to be discredited so you are looking for something else to look like JB is guilty


I would like to add that JB has got the very best people working on this case and mostly working for nothing because they believe this is a miscarriage of justice and  this includes some of the  best forensic scientists in England.  A lot of students are working day and night on a number of other issues and in the end we will get as near to the truth as is physically possible

Jackie

You asked me.............. You questioned Ngb earlier about if he was helping JB now its my turn are you one of the polieman involved in the case because I know from another policeman that a number of police involved in the case still live in Essex.  Its just you seem obsessed with these timings as if you know the silencer is going to be discredited so you are looking for something else to look like JB is guilty

The answer........... No I am not a policeman. I have never been a policeman. I will never be a policeman (or police person to be PC)

I have always stated I believe the timings of the telephone calls are significant because this is when the outside world first becomes aware of there being any trouble at White House Farm. Before the outside world ever becomes aware of any trouble at White House Farm Jeremy is the only person in the whole world who knows about any incident at White House Farm.

Jeremy either knows about it because (i) he did it having the inside knowledge or (ii) because he received a telephone call from Nevill which specifically identified Sheila with a weapon.

Not one person in the world knew this before Jeremy.

These are events which occur before anyone visits White House Farm and before any investigations or witnesses make statements.

 
Let me ask you a simple question which has nothing to do with Julie Mugford, Ann Eaton or the police.

Do you believe it is possible to make a telephone call and hold a brief conversation with a third party that predicts trouble?

Addition after posting......

As for the silencer.......... I have stated on this forum that I do believe the trial as it happened if transposed to today would be thrown out. (You can ask NGB about this because we had a specific exchange of messages on the subject. I think you will find NGB detailed my summary of the position was well described and summed up.)

For the sake of clarity
(i) I do not think the silencer has a satisfactory evidence trail and there is too much risk of contamination etc.
(ii) I do not think it is right that Jeremy having been sentenced to serve a minimum term of 25 years should have his sentence further increased to a whole life tariff removing any chance of parole.
(iii) I would not like to have sat on the jury at the original trial
(iv) I think money will remain a major factor in the position of both sides.
(v) Is Jeremy innocent or is Jeremy guilty........... who really knows................... and after everything pans out only one thing will remain the same................ only Jeremy knows the truth somewhere within himself.

Jackie

I will add a second part to my question for you in my post above.


Do you believe it is possible to make a telephone call and hold a brief conversation with a third party that predicts trouble?

If so, is such a telephone conversation likely to happen when you are also asleep?

[Jackiepreece]

Paulg and Chocho Ngb1066 always plays nicely but if you are happy for him to be spoken to by "Gerald" you might lose the opinion of a barrister and a gun expert

I definitely belief Gerald is goading him just like Vidvic yesterday who has refused to answer my post from yesterday

[paulg]

Gerald/NGB

I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.

Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.

PaulG  - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying.  I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.

Okeedokee, i read his reply "clearly you haven't" more as a non belief in your knowledge of the subject, rather than i think you're lying. Call it one of the subtle digs i mentioned earlier, and i don't have to insult your intelligence by pointing out your own retorts...but the "very true" is on a par, subtle.

Now, all i ask, is that you both use your knowledge to make informed arguments, without the subtle digs, i thank you.

[Jackiepreece]

Curious you have got me really confused now can you explain exactly what you mean and explain as if you think JB is guilty

All I can say is so much doesn't make sense if a hit man was used JB would have had an alibi.  The scene was left as a suicide if JB had been in London with Julie it would have stayed a suicide.  If JB was responsible he would have used a solicitor he would have acted differently in the witness box.

You would have to show me something definate proving JB s guilt re the telephone calls rather than him just forgetting or just muddling up times because I forget times even important times so maybe I am the wrong person to put the argument to but please explain it to me in detail.

[Gerald]

Why not give us your "authority" for the proposition that a true statement can constitute libel? 

Certainly. Parmiter v Coupland and Sim v Stretch. You will note that truth or untruth is not an element contained within the definitions emerging from those decisions- the court was concerned only with what constitutes defamation, not what would be required to succeed in a defamation claim - hence the current common law position that a statement which complies with the definition is defamatory, and the defence to a claim in defamation is that whilst the statement itself is defamatory, it is true.

By the way, I notice that you have not responded to my comment about your similarity to a former member of this forum.  I wonder why?

Because your comment was inane, unworthy of you and certainly not worthy of a response?

"Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying.

Actually what I said was "I wasn't going to ask because clearly you haven't." (been involved in defamation cases). I am quite happy to retract that and replace it with - If you have been involved in defamation cases you display an amazing lack of understanding of how defamation law works.

Paulg - for my part, I take on board what you say.

[Jackiepreece]

Paulg

How many times would you say in the last 50 years has a hit man been used to murder 2 children

Just a guess

[Jackiepreece]

I hope Ngb has left I am sure he has much more important things to do

What did Gerald say "schoolboy what"

If he has I will never post on here again


Paulg have you spoken to Vidvic yet

[ngb1066]

Gerald/NGB

I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.

Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.

PaulG  - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying.  I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.

Okeedokee, i read his reply "clearly you haven't" more as a non belief in your knowledge of the subject, rather than i think you're lying. Call it one of the subtle digs i mentioned earlier, and i don't have to insult your intelligence by pointing out your own retorts...but the "very true" is on a par, subtle.

Now, all i ask, is that you both use your knowledge to make informed arguments, without the subtle digs, i thank you.

Please reread the post where the words "clearly you haven't" appear.  It is a clear reference to my statement that I had experience in the law of defamation and had advised publishers on the subject. You are glossing over it by suggesting an alternative interpretation which simply does not wash.  This was a clear allegation that I had lied.

I am afraid that I do not accept your admonition to me as as forum moderator and would expect moderators to intervene when an unsupported accusation of lying is levelled by one forum member against another.  Frankly if you do not like my response then tough, I am obviously wasting my time posting here.  You can ban me if you like.  I have got plenty of other things to do with my time. I hope other moderators will intervene here and see that the right approach is now made to this.

I will await posts from other moderators before posting further.