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

[guest29835]

In what way QC?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10294.msg480324.html#msg480324

The full thread: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10294.0.html

[guest29835]

He comes across as right plank. I am more inclined to think he was a manipulated tool.

Is it true what I've read elsewhere on here that Stan Jones was part of the investigation team into the Diane Jones murder?

[guest7363]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10294.msg480324.html#msg480324

The full thread: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10294.0.html

Gotcha,, yes in the summing up he told the Jury that she had been cautioned, when in fact she hadn’t.  Yes it was covered in the appeal, I think there was a lot of mix up wasn’t there QC.  Probably would have looked better if he said, “Julie wasn’t even cautioned or received immunity, it was the bank’s decision and DPP not to prosecute”. Saying she had a caution could have gone against Julie?

I think Julie thought she had been cautioned, when she confessed they told her she was under caution and what she said would be used against her ect.

[guest29835]

Gotcha,, yes in the summing up he told the Jury that she had been cautioned, when in fact she hadn’t.  Yes it was covered in the appeal, I think there was a lot of mix up wasn’t there QC.  Probably would have looked better if he said, “Julie wasn’t even cautioned or received immunity, it was the bank’s decision and DPP not to prosecute”. Saying she had a caution could have gone against Julie?

I think Julie thought she had been cautioned, when she confessed they told her she was under caution and what she said would be used against her ect.

I think the opposite.  By saying she had been cautioned for those offences, the judge contributed to the impression that a deal had not been done with the police, when in reality it had.

Also, when was this specific point raised on appeal?  I don't recall that.

You also keep saying that Julie confessed voluntarily and Mr Dovey was not pressured by police.  I'm afraid I am not convinced this is true.

[guest7363]

I think the opposite.  By saying she had been cautioned for those offences, the judge contributed to the impression that a deal had not been done with the police, when in reality it had.

Also, when was this specific point raised on appeal?  I don't recall that.

You also keep saying that Julie confessed voluntarily and Mr Dovey was not pressured by police.  I'm afraid I am not convinced this is true.

Its in here QC

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

[guest7363]

Its in here QC

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

If anyone wants to read it, it’s Ground 5 court of appeal 2002


http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

[guest29835]

Its in here QC

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

I emphatically do NOT accept what Mr Dovey is saying.  He is lying on the point, and if you like, I'll say it to his face. 

He is simply lying and his evidence is a joke.  The surrounding circumstances and what he admits himself show him to be lying.  Any unbiased/objective person who reads the relevant part of that link can see it.  He admits that he was pressured by the police, and then in the same breath, he says he wasn't!

Asking us to accept this is akin to treating us like children.  We are not children.  We will stare the truth in the face, no matter how ugly it is.

Guilters, including you Real Justice, keep telling us that Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby went to the police voluntarily, but they did not.  Mr Dovey confirms this when he says the police set up the meeting.

Niceties and pleasantries aside, debating/discussing this case with people like you is rather like debating with an estate agent the merits of a particular house on its books, with the prospective seller listening in.

[Adam]

Don't tell me the man from the bank lied as well.

[guest7363]

I emphatically do NOT accept what Mr Dovey is saying.  He is lying on the point, and if you like, I'll say it to his face. 

He is simply lying and his evidence is a joke.  The surrounding circumstances and what he admits himself show him to be lying.  Any unbiased/objective person who reads the relevant part of that link can see it.  He admits that he was pressured by the police, and then in the same breath, he says he wasn't!

Asking us to accept this is akin to treating us like children.  We are not children.  We will stare the truth in the face, no matter how ugly it is.

Guilters, including you Real Justice, keep telling us that Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby went to the police voluntarily, but they did not.  Mr Dovey confirms this when he says the police set up the meeting.

Niceties and pleasantries aside, debating/discussing this case with people like you is rather like debating with an estate agent the merits of a particular house on its books, with the prospective seller listening in.

Im sorry QC, I’m not with you on this one?

Guilters, including you Real Justice, keep telling us that Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby went to the police voluntarily, but they did not.  Mr Dovey confirms this when he says the police set up the meeting.

Are you saying the police set up a meeting with the Police?  I know the Police probably advised and set a meeting up with the bank,

[guest7363]

Don't tell me the man from the bank lied as well.

😂😂😂😂 Another one 🙈

[guest29835]

Im sorry QC, I’m not with you on this one?

Guilters, including you Real Justice, keep telling us that Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby went to the police voluntarily, but they did not.  Mr Dovey confirms this when he says the police set up the meeting.

Are you saying the police set up a meeting with the Police?  I know the Police probably advised and set a meeting up with the bank,

Exactly.  You keep saying they went voluntarily to the bank and the bank were not pressured into making a complaint, but it's not true.

[guest29835]

Don't tell me the man from the bank lied as well.

Yes, he did.

Who else involved in this case have I accused of lying?  So far, very few people, if anybody, but the evidence from the man at the bank is contradictory.

Of course, you won't see this because you're biased.

[ngb1066]

Exactly.  You keep saying they went voluntarily to the bank and the bank were not pressured into making a complaint, but it's not true.

You are absolutely correct QCC.  This is a significant issue which taken with other points is very important.

 

[guest29835]

You are absolutely correct QCC.  This is a significant issue which taken with other points is very important.

 

What makes me laugh is that Mr Dovey's own evidence shows it not to be true!  Were the appeal judges blind or deaf or both?

[ngb1066]

What makes me laugh is that Mr Dovey's own evidence shows it not to be true!  Were the appeal judges blind or deaf or both?

I agree.