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

[JackieD]

Like many today ( too many ) Sheila had been badly let down by a mental health system which isn't much further on 35 years later.

Exactly

[JackieD]

She was receiving, by injection, medication whose chief purpose is to dull the senses. It's unlikely she could have raised the energy to throw a tantrum, let alone accomplish several loadings of a gun -something she was totally unskilled at- and fire it accurately enough to kill five people. Throwing pans is a very different animal from firing a gun.

Jane (the forum hopper that likes to change her name) has been told on numerous occasions by Ngb that it would have been very easy for Sheila to have used the rifle

Jane likes to ignore facts

[lookout]

..and how many times have we heard anecdotal evidence from neighbours that "that bloke wouldn't hurt a fly.."

As far as I've heard the neighbours and those who knew him didn't have a good word to say about JB anyway.

[lookout]

Then again when you have a cop going from door to door telling everyone he'd murdered two children it's hardly surprising.

[Steve_uk]

How many of Julie's circle have spoken against her these past 35 years? Not one as far as I know..

[lookout]

How many of Julie's circle have spoken against her these past 35 years? Not one as far as I know..

I've not heard anything in her favour either Steve.

[Jane]

I've not heard anything in her favour either Steve.

But 35 years is a long time. I'm sure she catches up with old friends when she pays visits home. I wouldn't expect that any would be disloyal. Best to keep a discreet and dignified silence. I wonder if any of Jeremy's pre murder days are still in touch or visit? There don't seem to be any on his testimonial page, but perhaps, they too, feel a discreet silence is best.

[lookout]

But 35 years is a long time. I'm sure she catches up with old friends when she pays visits home. I wouldn't expect that any would be disloyal. Best to keep a discreet and dignified silence. I wonder if any of Jeremy's pre murder days are still in touch or visit? There don't seem to be any on his testimonial page, but perhaps, they too, feel a discreet silence is best.

I don't think he's short of past acquaintances, those who knew him before his arrest still appear to acknowledge the fact that he's an innocent man if you read the letters pages after he's appeared in the news. 

[Adam]

Obviously it is a straight forward process with Julie. Even QC agrees trying to frame an innocent man of 5x murder would be the daftest thing ever.

Bamber spent 18 months telling her about his resentment & possible ways to inherit everything.  He then brought her straight over to WHF after the massacre & gave vague details of his involvement with MM.

A month after the massacre Bamber thought he was home free & had Brett & others as a jolly up buddies. Julie had already told 5 people some of what she knew & was now free to approach the police.

[guest29835]

Obviously it is a straight forward process with Julie. Even QC agrees trying to frame an innocent man of 5x murder would be the daftest thing ever.

Bamber spent 18 months telling her about his resentment & possible ways to inherit everything.  He then brought her straight over to WHF after the massacre & gave vague details of his involvement with MM.

A month after the massacre Bamber thought he was home free & had Brett & others as a jolly up buddies. Julie had already told 5 people some of what she knew & was now free to approach the police.

Thanks Adam.

[Adam]

Bamber may have felt confident Julie would not go to the police. He had spent a month telling her how watertight he was.

If she did go to the police, she would not be believed as he believed there was nothing tying him to the massacre. The police would dismiss her once she brought up MM.

[lookout]

You're forgetting that Julie was still reeling after the split Adam, so yes, out of spite and angst she scurried to the police station where she ended up with more than she'd bargained for. A grave mistake on her part !
JM actually created more confusion within the case than was necessary as it should by rights have been a straightforward affair. Her very impetuous mood had boosted others to act in the same way because hatred and spite are catching and it's easy to whip up a crowd who will think along those same lines. Pathetic.

[guest29835]

Bamber may have felt confident Julie would not go to the police. He had spent a month telling her how watertight he was.

If she did go to the police, she would not be believed as he believed there was nothing tying him to the massacre. The police would dismiss her once she brought up MM.

Actually, this is a fair point, but if you stop and think about it, another way of interpreting what you are saying is that her evidence was of no probative value in the first place.  This is the paradox with Julie.  Her evidence was, in my view, an attempt by the prosecution to sway the jury emotionally.  She didn't convey anything that actually proves Jeremy did it.

Why didn't one of these friends/housemates rush to the police as soon as she spilled the beans?  Do you really think I would have invited a mass murderer to my 21st. birthday party?  Would you?

"Oh hello, Jeremy!  Everybody!  It's Jeremy!!"

"Hey, nice one Jezza - you really socked it to Sheila!"

"Do you think you'll get caught, Jeremy?"

I mean, honestly, what sort of conversation are you supposed to have with Julie or Jeremy in those circumstances?  Why weren't the police alerted?  Why isn't there a record of Stan Jones rushing round to Julie's and demanding to know what the hell has gone off?  In fact, when you take into account the 3 a.m. phone call, you have to ask: why didn't they arrest her?

Surely the conclusion has to be that they didn't take what she was saying very seriously.  Young women do come out with all sorts of nonsense and the police know this anyway, but if she was imparting this information to this Battersby woman, or especially one of her male friends, surely the police would have been informed if it was actually being taken seriously?
 
Then there's the absence of any mention of the silencer from her evidence.  If 'Matthew' (i.e. Jeremy) used the silencer, it would be one of the first things he'd mention to her when relating this exciting tale.  After all, what has Jeremy got to fear?  The police have missed the silencer, and according to you, Jeremy thinks he's got away with it.

Maybe Jeremy missed that part out thinking it might then eventually lead the police to a specific item of evidence if Julie turned on him, but couldn't Jeremy have just hidden that silencer when he took back the keys to the farmhouse and swopped it out for another one that was clean?  Oh wait, he didn't take the keys back, did he.  He let the relatives have the keys and access to the crime scene, the gun cupboard and the silencer.

I am sorry, but I remain sceptical.

[Adam]

Actually, this is a fair point, but if you stop and think about it, another way of interpreting what you are saying is that her evidence was of no probative value in the first place.  This is the paradox with Julie.  Her evidence was, in my view, an attempt by the prosecution to sway the jury emotionally.  She didn't convey anything that actually proves Jeremy did it.

Why didn't one of these friends/housemates rush to the police as soon as she spilled the beans?  Do you really think I would have invited a mass murderer to my 21st. birthday party?  Would you?

"Oh hello, Jeremy!  Everybody!  It's Jeremy!!"

"Hey, nice one Jezza - you really socked it to Sheila!"

"Do you think you'll get caught, Jeremy?"

I mean, honestly, what sort of conversation are you supposed to have with Julie or Jeremy in those circumstances?  Why weren't the police alerted?  Why isn't there a record of Stan Jones rushing round to Julie's and demanding to know what the hell has gone off?  In fact, when you take into account the 3 a.m. phone call, you have to ask: why didn't they arrest her?

Surely the conclusion has to be that they didn't take what she was saying very seriously.  Young women do come out with all sorts of nonsense and the police know this anyway, but if she was imparting this information to this Battersby woman, or especially one of her male friends, surely the police would have been informed if it was actually being taken seriously?
 
Then there's the absence of any mention of the silencer from her evidence.  If 'Matthew' (i.e. Jeremy) used the silencer, it would be one of the first things he'd mention to her when relating this exciting tale.  After all, what has Jeremy got to fear?  The police have missed the silencer, and according to you, Jeremy thinks he's got away with it.

Maybe Jeremy missed that part out thinking it might then eventually lead the police to a specific item of evidence if Julie turned on him, but couldn't Jeremy have just hidden that silencer when he took back the keys to the farmhouse and swopped it out for another one that was clean?  Oh wait, he didn't take the keys back, did he.  He let the relatives have the keys and access to the crime scene, the gun cupboard and the silencer.

I am sorry, but I remain sceptical.

As said, you are on your own with the silencer theory.

Bamber would give Julie the basics - MM being paid,  Nevill fighting back, the bible, the twins not sufferring, Sheila shot last. He couldn't go into any more detail as he wasn't there. 

No reason to mention MM used a silencer then put it away.

[Steve_uk]

As said, you are on your own with the silencer theory.

Bamber would give Julie the basics - MM being paid,  Nevill fighting back, the bible, the twins not sufferring, Sheila shot last. He couldn't go into any more detail as he wasn't there. 

No reason to mention MM used a silencer then put it away.

Jeremy told Julie that Nevill put up quite a fight for a man of his age. What does this say about Jeremy's character and why did Julie need to include this detail?