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

[Jane]

Yours, and Adam's posts here, misrepresent some JB supporters. It has been said that Julie was placed in an impossible position by police and that her 'cooperation' came about as a result of that coercion. She is in those circs, a victim of EP and the relatives - who incidentally are 'no fan' of hers.

Roch, I suspect you're the only one of Jeremy's defenders to extend such sympathy to Julie.

[guest7363]

Not forgetting that Julie was keeping tabs RJ. Accessory to his petty crimes ? There's a young man in prison for being with those who murdered Gary Newlove---and he was only the driver ? Didn't know someone was going to be murdered, but he was sent to jail all the same.

I agree Lookout and as I’ve said before, I’m no Julie fan, she knew a lot and in my eyes she’s no angel, but ( I don’t think it would happen now) i would say the police depended on this sort of information and conviction, more than they do now.

[Roch]

Roch, I suspect you're the only one of Jeremy's defenders to extend such sympathy to Julie.

Bambergate did, who incidentally, originally posted as 'Ron Crook'.  I believe he favoured Ron's involvement in some of the EP chicanery.

[Jane]

Bambergate did, who incidentally, originally posted as 'Ron Crook'.  I believe he favoured Ron's involvement in some of the EP chicanery.

There must be balance in all things. Nothing is entirely one thing or another. An old and evangelical saying reminds us that even the devil has his good points.

[Caroline]

Yours, and Adam's posts here, misrepresent some JB supporters. It has been said that Julie was placed in an impossible position by police and that her 'cooperation' came about as a result of that coercion. She is in those circs, a victim of EP and the relatives - who incidentally are 'no fan' of hers.

Surly supporters represent themselves? However, I'm willing to consider the notion that Julie was 'coerced' but the evidence shows she offered up the information about incidents like the CBF. The police couldn't have known unless she or Bamber told them and as Bamber was questioned about the items she gave him as a result of the CBF it proves she told them. Witnesses such as Malcolm Waters and Liz Rimington and confirm that Julie approached the police, not the other way around. If there is evidence to show Julie was approached by the police and coerced, then post it, otherwise the claim doesn't mean anything

[Caroline]

Bambergate did, who incidentally, originally posted as 'Ron Crook'.  I believe he favoured Ron's involvement in some of the EP chicanery.

Yes, Bambergate - have you seen him video on Youtube? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcaWYr3O3eE

Personally, I think it's embarrassing!

[guest29835]

Yep, that’s how the Law works Jane.

If we look at the Accountant, not even a Branch Manager, he had the Authority to decide whether to press charges or not, so what possible pressure could the police have put him under? Shut the Bank down, Do him for opening after time, check his books, or a Shot in the Dark 😂😂😂😂

I said the bank may have been influenced or pressured; I did not say forced.

Discussing this with you is like conducting a criminal trial by only listening to the prosecution.  Or, as I ventured before, debating the merits of a house with an estate agent who's on commission, and with the seller listening in.

You're only interested in half the story: the half that favours your view.

[lookout]

"......and he was only the driver" implies you to believe he shouldn't be in prison because he "Didn't know someone was going to be murdered..........." Yet you seem to emphatically believe Julie should be in prison even though she wasn't there. Is there to be a completely different set of rules specifically for Julie?

I didn't say that Julie should be in prison I intimated the difference in being an accessory when she'd accompanied Jeremy in the theft from the office and " other things " which AE didn't mention.
And yes, in this case there were different rules when you compare other cases. Maybe a few £thousand fine out of her £25,000 ? But they wouldn't have done that would they for fear the prosecution plan would have gone t*ts-up ?

[guest7363]

I said the bank may have been influenced or pressured; I did not say forced.

Discussing this with you is like conducting a criminal trial by only listening to the prosecution.  Or, as I ventured before, debating the merits of a house with an estate agent who's on commission, and with the seller listening in.

You're only interested in half the story: the half that favours your view.

Keep your Belt on, I’m saying pressured same as you.  Where do I use the word FORCED? You don’t have to discuss anything with me, I’d rather you didn’t, your only defence is, to either get personal or to use foul language. 

[Jane]

I didn't say that Julie should be in prison I intimated the difference in being an accessory when she'd accompanied Jeremy in the theft from the office and " other things " which AE didn't mention.
And yes, in this case there were different rules when you compare other cases. Maybe a few £thousand fine out of her £25,000 ? But they wouldn't have done that would they for fear the prosecution plan would have gone t*ts-up ?

Well, just out of interest, Lookout, how would you have dealt with her? She didn't have £25000 when she stood in the witness box, nor were there any guarantees which way the verdict would go.

[guest29835]

Keep your Belt on, I’m saying pressured same as you.  Where do I use the word FORCED? You don’t have to discuss anything with me, I’d rather you didn’t, your only defence is, to either get personal or to use foul language.

Again, you clearly implied something, and then when I challenge you about it, you fall back on the extremely disingenuous defence that you didn't actually say it. 

You should probably be working in the PR department of Essex Police.  I'm sure they'd have an opening for somebody like you.

Certainly I agree that you and I would be better off ignoring each other, but you're the one who seems to jump in and respond to my posts.  I do also find your arrogance annoying, with the 'laughing' emoticons, in effect making fun of valid points and twisting what people say in the process.  It doesn't endear you to me, and I'm sure others take umbrage.

At least you've stopped using Australian intonation.  That's a plus point, I suppose.  You were starting to sound like Charlene from Neighbours.

[guest7363]

Again, you clearly implied something, and then when I challenge you about it, you fall back on the extremely disingenuous defence that you didn't actually say it. 

You should probably be working in the PR department of Essex Police.  I'm sure they'd have an opening for somebody like you.

Certainly I agree that you and I would be better off ignoring each other, but you're the one who seems to jump in and respond to my posts.  I do also find your arrogance annoying, with the 'laughing' emoticons, in effect making fun of valid points and twisting what people say in the process.  It doesn't endear you to me, and I'm sure others take umbrage.

At least you've stopped using Australian intonation.  That's a plus point, I suppose.  You were starting to sound like Charlene from Neighbours.

Yes, my time spent with Essex Police was valid, although I ribbed them about the Bamber case, I still enjoyed my experience. Pot calling the kettle black is a great way of putting it 😂😂😂

[lookout]

Well, just out of interest, Lookout, how would you have dealt with her? She didn't have £25000 when she stood in the witness box, nor were there any guarantees which way the verdict would go.

I'd have fined her because she'd been a willing participant and benefitted from however much was stolen, as besides it being a " blot on her copybook " it might have shown her that acting that way doesn't pay to which if she'd have had anything about her she'd have then decided if this was the type of life she'd wanted. In other words, it would have been her decision in carrying on with her involvement with JB. 

[lookout]

I'm fully aware that there was no money until after the conviction, but I wonder how she'd have felt parting with a quarter of it for her trouble ?

[Jane]

I'd have fined her because she'd been a willing participant and benefitted from however much was stolen, as besides it being a " blot on her copybook " it might have shown her that acting that way doesn't pay to which if she'd have had anything about her she'd have then decided if this was the type of life she'd wanted. In other words, it would have been her decision in carrying on with her involvement with JB.

How could you fine Julie for a crime Jeremy committed -and had nothing to do with the murders- but wasn't taken to court over?