Did JM ever really love Jeremy Bamber?

[grahameb]

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.

Gerald  - I do not know where you get your law from but it is rubbish, to put it as politely as I can.  To succeed in a libel case the aggrieved party needs to demonstrate that the statements complained of are not in fact true.  If the statements are true they are not defamatory.  The burden of proof is upon the claimant/aggrieved party to show that the statements are untrue.

As I have stated before Julie Mugford would have two obstacles to cross before succeeding in a libel action.  The first is as I have explained above for the second time.  The second obstacle is to show that her reputation has genuinely been damaged by the statements.  In assessing that the court takes into account her current reputation.  Given that if she is to be believed she had advance knowledge of the murders and did nothing to prevent them, then assisted the murderer for a considerable period, obstructing the course of justice and behaving in a callous way towards relatives.  The argument could and would no doubt be advanced that her character and reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the public is already at a very low ebb.

Before you ask, yes I have been involved in defamation cases.  I have also advised publishers on libel issues.

I wasn't going to ask because clearly you haven't.

There is a laymans guide to defamation on the Liberty website, I suggest you read it.

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/defamation/index.html

You are a layman then Gerald? I can confirm that ngb IS a barrister and has much more than a "schoolboy" knowledge of the law. It is up to you of course as to whether you believe that or not. If you refuse to believe it of course then it is your choice to remain in ignorance. But please refrain from implying that ngb is a lyer by your continued berating of him and his knowledge of the law? Thank you.

I was simply trying to find something which illustrated my point and which was written in language which anyone following the link would understand.

It is of course up to me to believe what I will, and the same applies to anyone else who takes the trouble to follow the argument.

For the record, I have no other user names.

Accepted :D

[Jerry]

Gerald  - I do not know where you get your law from but it is rubbish, to put it as politely as I can.  To succeed in a libel case the aggrieved party needs to demonstrate that the statements complained of are not in fact true.  If the statements are true they are not defamatory.  The burden of proof is upon the claimant/aggrieved party to show that the statements are untrue.

As I have stated before Julie Mugford would have two obstacles to cross before succeeding in a libel action.  The first is as I have explained above for the second time.  The second obstacle is to show that her reputation has genuinely been damaged by the statements.  In assessing that the court takes into account her current reputation.  Given that if she is to be believed she had advance knowledge of the murders and did nothing to prevent them, then assisted the murderer for a considerable period, obstructing the course of justice and behaving in a callous way towards relatives.  The argument could and would no doubt be advanced that her character and reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the public is already at a very low ebb.

Before you ask, yes I have been involved in defamation cases.  I have also advised publishers on libel issues.

Apparently your law is rubbish Gerald but I must admit that ngb1066 is right in one thing and that is that Jeremy Bamber is a murderer and a child murderer to boot.

I don't know where ngb1066 gets this idea that Julie Mugford was derided by the remaining family because irrespective of how she behaved momentarily, she came through in the end with all guns blazing.

Ask Hartley, he at least knows them personally.

[Jerry]

I do not think is is appropriate for you to say that I am "behaving like a spoilt child." I wish Mike would remove you, as you are not doing your job as moderator properly.  It is not my decision, and frankly I have got better things to do with my time than getting involved in rubbish like this.

Usual hogwash from ngb1066, when the going gets tuff, the week get moaning.

Jerry you cannot seem to help your own habitual need to cause strife.  No matter which Christian name you use, I fear your days on the forum could be numbered, unless you revert back to contributing to the forum in a constructive manner.

Is that a personal threat Rochford...maybe you should take note of your own rules before you act all high and mighty?

I am perfectly entitled to make an observation and that observation was that ngb1066 threw the dummy out of the pram as someone else suggested earlier.

No it is a moderating decision Jerry. I'm sure it isn't beyond you to hold a civilised conversation without all this backbiting just out of spite towards another member?

You do sound awfully like another poster Grahame, are you sure you aren't related?

[curiousessex]

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.

Jackie

I will try to explain, as per your request, from a perspective of Jeremy being guilty.

Jeremy states he was woken from his sleep by a telephone call from his father at between 03.15 and 03.30 a.m. You can hear this in Jeremy's own words if you follow the link below

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/

Jeremy confirms his father tells him Sheila has got hold of the gun.

Jeremy admits calling Julie.

Jeremy admits to telling Julie about trouble at the farm.

Three flatmates testified in a court of law they heard the telephone in the flat ringing at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”. - NGB has confirmed on this forum that testimony in court is what counts above any witness statements that may have been taken. - Two of these witnesses fall outside your voiced concern about them being involved in a cheque fraud which would contribute to them being a potentially unreliable witnesses.

It is impossible for Jeremy to have rung Julie's flat in London to advise of trouble at the farm at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”, if by his own admission, he is still asleep before 03.15 and 03.30 am.

Jeremy would also, by his own admission, be telling of trouble at the farm before he is alerted to the fact that there is any trouble at the farm by a telephone call from Nevill.

Jeremy could only possibly know of there being trouble at the farm by other means i.e. he was there

As such Jeremy's defence falls apart by his own admission when compared against two other credible witnesses.

Does this make sense with regard to your specific request?

Jackie

In case you have not seen, given the high volume of posts regarding inter member dispute, I have responded to your request for an explanation - see above.

Does the explanation make sense?

[jon]

Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?

[smiffy]

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.

Jackie

I will try to explain, as per your request, from a perspective of Jeremy being guilty.

Jeremy states he was woken from his sleep by a telephone call from his father at between 03.15 and 03.30 a.m. You can hear this in Jeremy's own words if you follow the link below

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/

Jeremy confirms his father tells him Sheila has got hold of the gun.

Jeremy admits calling Julie.

Jeremy admits to telling Julie about trouble at the farm.

Three flatmates testified in a court of law they heard the telephone in the flat ringing at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”. - NGB has confirmed on this forum that testimony in court is what counts above any witness statements that may have been taken. - Two of these witnesses fall outside your voiced concern about them being involved in a cheque fraud which would contribute to them being a potentially unreliable witnesses.

It is impossible for Jeremy to have rung Julie's flat in London to advise of trouble at the farm at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”, if by his own admission, he is still asleep before 03.15 and 03.30 am.

Jeremy would also, by his own admission, be telling of trouble at the farm before he is alerted to the fact that there is any trouble at the farm by a telephone call from Nevill.

Jeremy could only possibly know of there being trouble at the farm by other means i.e. he was there

As such Jeremy's defence falls apart by his own admission when compared against two other credible witnesses.

Does this make sense with regard to your specific request?

Jackie

In case you have not seen, given the high volume of posts regarding inter member dispute, I have responded to your request for an explanation - see above.

Does the explanation make sense?

Any confusion over the times of calls and these being changed is probably down to police trickery and manipulation...  police claiming false things at interview etc etc etc.

Roll out every piece of paperwork etc...including suicide investigation paperwork and we may well see what really went on.

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

what indeed were the words reportedly used by JB in regards to the call to JM.

Was it "there is trouble at the farm"...
that sticks in my memory for it sounds absolutely correct....for an ongoing event about which JB would not know much about .  The key word being "is" in the present tense.

Now IF JM had any inkling of JB plotting to murder and had indeed said something along the lines of "Tonights the Night"....then surely he would have slipped up in the claimed words spoken and have spoken in the past tense to someone who was supposed to know what had gone on . He would not need to conceal this from JM if she knew.
If Jm knew then his words would have been "THERE HAS BEEN TROUBLE AT THE FARM " or "there was trouble at the farm" or even said something else entirely to confirm what "Tonights the Night" must have meant had been carried out and delivered in the past tense.

But JM supposedly claims she though JB's talking of killing the family etc was all fantasy and that he was not going through with it as it was all nonsense. 
So if JB really said "Tonights the Night" then her claims of it being JB's fantasy bring up the question that she should wonder what the hell JB meant when he said "TONIGHTS THE NIGHT" for such a statement would demand the listener to ask the speaker what he meant by "tonights the night" and he would have answered....meaning she was fully aware of his intentions, plans and what was going to happen.

JM seems to miss this bit out...so must have been clueless ... But if clued up...which she should have been then it makes no sense for JB to use the "is" tense when he phoned JM after the call from Neville.

It seems to me the JM has fabricated the Tonights the Night claim and much else besides as it does tie up with other evidence and falls flat on its face in regards to what JB later said on the phone to her.

The hitman claim...which seems completely false....now if she really knew JB was the actual killer and was in no doubt about this and what JB had done...then she was putting herself at huge risk spending time with him , sleeping with him etc etc  for a whole month.... Now this eats seriously into her credibility as no normal person would do that would they!!!  To overcome this credibility issue it seems the hitman claim was invented in which that way her spending time with JB does not put her in direct threat of him harming her as he didnt commit the actual killings.

oh  my own view....Criminals are essentially selfish people who are more concerned for themselves than for others and this hampers their ability to properly love somebody in the same sense and using the same values as non criminal types could. JM falls into this category of criminal by her own admitted actions so to answer the thread question....NO  JM did not really love JB.

[chochokeira]

Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?

That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1

[HMEssex]

Just read this.  Apologies if you have already seen it.

http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/timothy-ernest

[grahameb]

right ok, ive seen enough, can everyone drop the squabbling and behave? concentrate on the CASE not each other, i dont want to start editing or removing posts.thanks

Andrea  - are you placing my posts in the same category as Gerald's?  Are you suggesting that you are going to remove any of my posts?  I believe we need some firm action by moderators here and I have urged for that to happen but we have not seen any yet.  This forum is rapidly going downhill.

I've been out of action for a week and it is taking me some time to catch up on things. My mind also is not working that well yet. If there is any untoward behaviour I will try and sort it out. Indded it is not enough to bunch everything together and treat all posters the same. If there is a clear offender then I promise I will take action to repremand those guilty of those actions. Please bear with me on this one.

[curiousessex]

Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?

Jon

Here is a reply for you.

I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'

In order to answer the question somethings should be established.

With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.

It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.

With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.

As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.

I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.

[Roch]

Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?

Jon

Here is a reply for you.

I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'

In order to answer the question somethings should be established.

With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.

It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.

With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.

As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.

I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.

    

Curious, if you had a percentage re guilt / innocence for JB, would I be right in thinking you are approx 80/20 in favour of guilt?

[jon]

Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?

Jon

Here is a reply for you.

I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'

In order to answer the question somethings should be established.

With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.

It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.

With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.

As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.

I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.

So you are of the belief that JB put the Silencer and Ammunition box in the cupboard after it had been searched ?

[curiousessex]

Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?

Jon

Here is a reply for you.

I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'

In order to answer the question somethings should be established.

With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.

It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.

With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.

As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.

I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.

    

Curious, if you had a percentage re guilt / innocence for JB, would I be right in thinking you are approx 80/20 in favour of guilt?

Rochford

To be honest I would not like to call and certainly would not like to have sat on the jury.

I have always stated the telephone calls on the morning of 7th August bother me and they do not add up. I believe the answer lies within the telphone calls and sequence thereof. I know some do not like this debate but given the 03.26 call log is public knowledge re press articles etc. and is being cited within the CCRC submissions it is, for me, legitimate debate on the forum.

The silencer / moderator, I believe should never have been allowed as evidence........ not a clean evidence trail and with being dismantled and 'off site' for a period of time before being handed over to police etc. and all this regardless of any question of exhibit labels.

There is no doubt the investigation was poor with evidence being burnt at the Farm. If reports are to be believed this is something Jeremy encouraged the police to do.

Also for me I find difficulty with Mike not posting Jeremy's witness statements because I think these will hold important information either way. I guess therefore I need to be persuaded.

[curiousessex]

Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?

Jon

Here is a reply for you.

I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'

In order to answer the question somethings should be established.

With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.

It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.

With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.

As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.

I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.

So you are of the belief that JB put the Silencer and Ammunition box in the cupboard after it had been searched ?

Jon

It is a possibility.

Jeremy by his own admission got into White House Farm undetected in order to get some travel documents or other items from the office before going abroad. This being in the aftermath of the killings.

[smiffy]

Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?

Jon

Here is a reply for you.

I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'

In order to answer the question somethings should be established.

With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.

It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.

With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.

As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.

I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.

So you are of the belief that JB put the Silencer and Ammunition box in the cupboard after it had been searched ?

Jon

It is a possibility.

Jeremy by his own admission got into White House Farm undetected in order to get some travel documents or other items from the office before going abroad. This being in the aftermath of the killings.

It would be a rather ridiculous thing for JB to do... if he was guilty and had removed these items so they would not be found....then he would have sensibly disposed of them elsewhere so they would not be found and certainly not took them back and place them where they would be found.

In my view , considering how the police did act...it seems more likely that some dodgy police officers are responsible for tampering with evidence in order to frame JB . If not them ...then the dodgy relatives were involved in messing around with the evidence in this regard.