Lest We Forget...................

[lookout]

I have no recall of teachers from either school saying anything of any impairments to learning.

It's one of those diagnoses that varies with each individual. Some children attend mainstream schooling, others go to " special educational " schools. It depends on the severity of the problem.

[Roch]

I have ADHD. What are you implying?

People have said the same of me. I keep meaning to get tested. Bit late now though.

[guest29835]

QC, I suspect it may have been more serious for Julie than for Jeremy -there are tales, possibly apocryphal- of him, pardon the expression, screwing around, whilst they were together. The observation that she "was a bit plain in the looks department" is almost complimentary compared with my own claims about her, during the time I was staunchly pro Jeremy, showing the beginnings of a moustache and having appalling dress sense!!!

But it's not meant as an insult.  If anything, it's a compliment to her and to Jeremy.

Actually, there are rumours of Julie sleeping around.  Interestingly, you don't mention this.  And rumours are rumours.  And it wouldn't mean that Jeremy's feelings were insincere anyway.

Now, I hear what you say about pre trial signed contracts. The law states. End of. No further discussion. BUT, I must ask, because I need it to be clarified, if Julie had admitted that this was the case, ie, she stood to make money according to the outcome of the trial, what possible difference would it have made to the questions she was going to be asked based on information she'd given long before the deal was thought about? Is it not the case that a witness can only respond to questions asked? I presume no one asked the question.

It maybe as you say. That having such knowledge would/might have swayed jurors to another direction. It MAY be that there should be a retrial, but I remain conscious that an unsafe conviction is a far remove from an innocent verdict.

I think you miss the point.  Her evidence was non-corroborated.  She had nothing to support what she was saying.  Even the details of the murder could have been obtained from other sources, and even if the source was Jeremy, it still proves nothing because Jeremy may have obtained the information innocently.  Even the person she named as the killer turned out to have an alibi.  Why should we accept such evidence?  And if it then develops that she's been paid for such evidence, how on earth can you consider that a fair trial?  And then it turns out she lied to the court about being paid for the evidence.

Come along Jane.  I think there really comes a point when even you have to acknowledge that this has not been done right.  I'm afraid I can't respect people who aren't honest about these things. 

[Jane]

It's one of those diagnoses that varies with each individual. Some children attend mainstream schooling, others go to " special educational " schools. It depends on the severity of the problem.

Well, if he had it, and there seems no reason to say more than perhaps he may have, it was so boarderline it didn't show. I wonder how many teaches taught him different subjects over the course of his school career? I cannot imagine, had there been anything noteworthy about his behaviour, regarding disruptive behaviour and poor attention skills, that one of them wouldn't have picked it up. However, even if they had, like psychopathy, it's an explanation for behaviours.

[lookout]

I have a grandson who has ADHD---he's a brilliant fitness instructor, drives, has never been out of work, saved for a house and presently lives with his partner. Growing up he had some very " odd " ways which we were all used to as a family and aware of too but he was very clever and knew all the stars/ planets as well as all the dinosaurs.
It's possible to grow out of some of the quirks which were evident in the younger years and lead a normal life as my g/son does. He did attend a specialised school originally.

[lookout]

People have said the same of me. I keep meaning to get tested. Bit late now though.

It's never too late Roch.

[Jane]

But it's not meant as an insult.  If anything, it's a compliment to her and to Jeremy.

Actually, there are rumours of Julie sleeping around.  Interestingly, you don't mention this.  And rumours are rumours.  And it wouldn't mean that Jeremy's feelings were insincere anyway.

I think you miss the point.  Her evidence was non-corroborated.  She had nothing to support what she was saying.  Even the details of the murder could have been obtained from other sources, and even if the source was Jeremy, it still proves nothing because Jeremy may have obtained the information innocently.  Even the person she named as the killer turned out to have an alibi.  Why should we accept such evidence?  And if it then develops that she's been paid for such evidence, how on earth can you consider that a fair trial?  And then it turns out she lied to the court about being paid for the evidence.

Come along Jane.  I think there really comes a point when even you have to acknowledge that this has not been done right.  I'm afraid I can't respect people who aren't honest about these things.

That's interesting. Other than her claim of being raped when she was in France and claimed it was Jeremy's fault for not being with her, I'd not heard of her playing away. Could equally well be apocryphal.

The evidence was mainly circumstantial. It's not the only trial -although arguably, the biggest?- in which circumstantial evidence has been presented.

I regularly use expressions such as "maybe" and "perhaps" or ask "might it be?" when I'm fully aware of another possibility than the one I'm suggesting. You appear to be using the same reasoning in entirely the opposite direction.

Actually, I do accept that it may not have been a fair trial, but an unfair trial doesn't make a guilty person innocent. I AM fully convinced of Jeremy's guilt, whereas you are not. Were I not, my thought processes may be the same as your own.

[Roch]

It's never too late Roch.

In my day there was no such thing as ADHD. You just spent your school days in the corridor.

[Adam]

Julie's WS is in different parts -


What happened after the massacre:

The eating out, hotels, trips around the country and abroad. There is no point in Julie lying here.

A lot of other people joined them for some of these. Hotel bookings can be checked and relatives asked. So there was no reason to lie as everything can be easily checked.

What Bamber did does not highlight guilt or innocence anyway. Although Bamber's callous actions have come back to haunt him.

100% true.


Bamber's hatred and resentment :

This could be her word against Bamber's. But was not.

Bamber himself testified he had a very poor/non existent relationship with June.

He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' on the massacre night. Saying they did not like each other and she had committed child abuse on the twins. Decades later saying he did not understand her illness.

There are also a lot of other people who said Bamber did not like his family or the raw deal he had. The facts back this up, Sheila living rent free in London, Bamber working long hours after reluctantly starting to work on the farm as a last resort.

100% true.



The massacre plans :

This is again Julies word against Bamber's. However some of the things Julie said are backed up.

She said he planned to ride to WHF. This is backed up by the fact that the bike was brought over just before the massacre.

Julie also knew about the bible and kitchen fight. Which was not reported in the papers. And knew about the lockable from outside window.

The judge and appeal courts found it hard to understand Bamber's 3am call to Julie. Julie saying Bamber said 'he had not slept all night' and 'everything is going well'. When the police asked him about the call, he just said 'no comment'.

Julie also knew about the under insurance of WHF and the items inside.

Very convincing.


Julies feelings :

Her feelings while things were evolving can only be changed by Julie herself, and cannot be disputed.

Cannot be disputed.

                                  ___________________

Overall Julie's statement does have a 'ring of truth' to it. She approached the police and was not forced to say anything.

Her reason to lie was also very weak. Bamber allegedly jilting her, after he said their relationship had been in decline/coming to a close for six months. Julie creating a false WS and lying under oath for this sole reason.

[guest29835]

The massacre plans:

This is again Julies word against Bamber's.

Thanks Adam.

Overall Julie's statement does have a 'ring of truth' to it. She approached the police and was not forced to say anything.

Julie didn't do a deal with the police or the DPP.  I didn't know that.  Thanks Adam.

Her reason to lie was also very weak.

Julie had a reason to lie.  Thanks Adam.

[Adam]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/lack-of-appeal/amp&ved=2ahUKEwjnwYLT6pDrAhVUt3EKHUlLDosQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0TfUyvxi7kf08gFPh0y9vL&ampcf=1

As Leo Mckinsty said, Julie would never dare perjure herself so seriously on such trivial grounds - being jilted.

[guest29835]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/lack-of-appeal/amp&ved=2ahUKEwjnwYLT6pDrAhVUt3EKHUlLDosQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0TfUyvxi7kf08gFPh0y9vL&ampcf=1

As Leo Mckinsty said, Julie would never dare perjure herself so seriously on such trivial grounds - being jilted.

Scorned women never lie in court and Julie's criminal history had nothing to do with it.  I didn't know that.

Thanks Adam.

[Steve_uk]

...................that however bad we claim Jeremy's crime to have been, allegedly, Julie's subsidiary crimes were infinitely worse. Many think -despite that she was nowhere near the soc- she should be where Jeremy now is.

It is claimed that she was an adventress and had Jeremy under her thumb. It's been suggested that it was she who planned their Bonnie and Clyde activities. It's hard to think of anyone whose brain works in such a way putting themselves through the hard graft of years of education requiring that they do menial part time work to fund.

She was more tghan just Jeremy's girlfriend, though. She was his fiancee. He had asked her to marry him, the register office all but booked. I suspect it may have been called off because of parental approval of him "making an honest woman of her". Might that suggest that the engagement had merely been an attempt to get up parental noses? Nonetheless, they were still a couple. As the relationship was ongoing, perhaps the wedding had been put on hold?

Despite constant and vociferous reminders about the possibility of a signed, pre-trial contract with the NOTW -although quite how it could have damaged Jeremy's chances is beyond me. She'd made her statement, which would form the basis of her testimony. She, as far as we know, didn't do any unexpected turnarounds from the witness box- and the equally vociferous claims that she lied -if she did, repeating what Jeremy had told her, the lies were his- Julie has never changed her story. No one forced her to come back from Canada, all those years after the event, to give evidence. She can hardly be blamed if it was decided it wasn't necessary to call her.

What, exactly, might she have been guilty of? I suspect she didn't tell the whole truth. I suspect she knew way more of his plans than she admitted to. Possibly the sort of things which she believed may have shown her as complicit? She may even have gone through it with her mother. Might her mother have warned her that if she wasn't careful, she was in danger of being dragged down with Jeremy, who'd already told her that would happen. I'll bet she went for damage limitation.

We really don't need to keep being told that if only the jury had known dah, dah, dah, they'd have voted differently. Would they? A signed, pre-trial contract against the murder of an entire family including two little boys? No contract was signed when that happened, nor did it change who the murderer was.

I think this sums it up Jane. She snapped out of her own make-believe world that the girl would marry the handsome prince, she became disgusted with herself as she realized she'd been deceived by a handsome conman, and she decided in herself to make no more excuses for him. The plain and simple truth had to be told.

[Roch]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/lack-of-appeal/amp&ved=2ahUKEwjnwYLT6pDrAhVUt3EKHUlLDosQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0TfUyvxi7kf08gFPh0y9vL&ampcf=1

As Leo Mckinsty said, Julie would never dare perjure herself so seriously on such trivial grounds - being jilted.

That McKinstry character seems dodgy to me.

[Adam]

Disadvantages of Julie making a lone attempt to frame an innocent man. (Because she was apparently jilted).

There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.

She would be charged by the police. When caught lying. Bamber was innocent.

Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.

To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?

Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?

There was no financial reward in approaching the police.

It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.

She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims. Bamber was innocent.

Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.

She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.

It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.

She may quickly wilt under pressure.  This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?

It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.

It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.

It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.

An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.

It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.

She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.

It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.

She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?

She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.

She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.

Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.

If an unsuccessful police approach  became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.