Unlikelihood of Crispy barking and waking anyone:

[guest29835]

I said 'did not dispute'.

Yes, and I'm saying Jeremy did not agree! 

[guest29835]

I asked you what you thought of the interview transcripts. Stay focused on Bamber rather than me.

Do you not agree Bamber was very evasive, vague & unhelpful. But appreciate you will have reasons for this.

I think Jeremy was very foolish to answer police questions in a formal interview setting, and I think if his solicitor allowed this without advising very strongly against it, then he was very poorly served by his legal representatives - to say the least of it.  This may go some way to explain why Bruce Bowler was eventually dropped, though that may be unfair as we don't know what transpired between him and Jeremy prior to the interviews.  It could be that Jeremy willingly answered police questions and turned down the offer of legal help thinking that it would all be cleared up, and then when he did have a solicitor present, he ignored professional advice to answer 'No Comment' throughout.

Beyond that, few firm conclusions can be drawn from a pre-PACE interview.  There was no audio record in those days of what was said, so even if we assume that what was said has been written down faithfully (which is a big assumption), we don't have tone or nuance. 

I mention you because I have no choice.  You do misrepresent things.  You now say that Jeremy was being evasive, vague and unhelpful.  I wonder what you would have said if Jeremy had not answered any questions at all?  To me, this perfectly captures your unfairness and bias.  Anybody answering loaded and hostile police questions will come across as evasive, vague and unhelpful.

[guest29835]

That must be it.

Thanks QC.

Thanks Adam.  I think my Crispy theory may persuade more guilters to change stance like you have.  Some people have dismissed it as barking, but I'm doggedly determined to win through.

Jane may realise that Crispy was the guilty party after all, and with Caroline's encouragement, she may bark for us.

Hartley has always hated Crispy anyway and may now agree that Jeremy is innocent after all and it was all the work of the barking monster.

[Smythe]

I think Jeremy was very foolish to answer police questions in a formal interview setting, and I think if his solicitor allowed this without advising very strongly against it, then he was very poorly served by his legal representatives - to say the least of it.  This may go some way to explain why Bruce Bowler was eventually dropped, though that may be unfair as we don't know what transpired between him and Jeremy prior to the interviews.  It could be that Jeremy willingly answered police questions and turned down the offer of legal help thinking that it would all be cleared up, and then when he did have a solicitor present, he ignored professional advice to answer 'No Comment' throughout.

Beyond that, few firm conclusions can be drawn from a pre-PACE interview.  There was no audio record in those days of what was said, so even if we assume that what was said has been written down faithfully (which is a big assumption), we don't have tone or nuance. 

I mention you because I have no choice.  You do misrepresent things.  You now say that Jeremy was being evasive, vague and unhelpful.  I wonder what you would have said if Jeremy had not answered any questions at all?  To me, this perfectly captures your unfairness and bias.  Anybody answering loaded and hostile police questions will come across as evasive, vague and unhelpful.

My guess is that Jeremy felt that he could talk his way through the early interviews and ignored Bowler's advice. With a change of solicitor and realising these encounters had not gone well, he was then inclined to take the advice of the more learned barristers. However, I suspect he may have taken some of the advice too literally and ended up denying everything in order to discredit some of the witnesses. This caused him to look defensive and his credibility suffered.

[guest29835]

My guess is that Jeremy felt that he could talk his way through the early interviews and ignored Bowler's advice. With a change of solicitor and realising these encounters had not gone well, he was then inclined to take the advice of the more learned barristers. However, I suspect he may have taken some of the advice too literally and ended up denying everything in order to discredit some of the witnesses. This caused him to look defensive and his credibility suffered.

Yes, again you have identified something quite important.

One possible criticism that could be made of Jeremy's defence at trial is that they sought to present the jury with a simple dichotomy: Jeremy is telling the truth, Julie is lying; Jeremy is genuine, Julie is an actress.  It's the 'actor or actress' question put to the jury by Rivlin in his closing speech.

The problem with this is that, even if you take the view that Julie was lying, it may not be a very clever defence strategy to say she is lying.  You have to put yourself in the shoes of the jury.  I state the obvious, but they hadn't seen the case before and didn't have the luxury that we have of considering the case at leisure.  If they're told Julie is lying about everything, realistically are they likely to accept this?

It may have been smarter for the defence to suggest to the jury that Julie was perhaps telling the truth about a lot of it, but Jeremy didn't mean it.  Or some other permutation may have been possible. 

In the end, on a strict view, Julie's evidence proved nothing of value to the jury, even if she was telling the truth about everything.

[Smythe]

Yes, again you have identified something quite important.

One possible criticism that could be made of Jeremy's defence at trial is that they sought to present the jury with a simple dichotomy: Jeremy is telling the truth, Julie is lying; Jeremy is genuine, Julie is an actress.  It's the 'actor or actress' question put to the jury by Rivlin in his closing speech.

The problem with this is that, even if you take the view that Julie was lying, it may not be a very clever defence strategy to say she is lying.  You have to put yourself in the shoes of the jury.  I state the obvious, but they hadn't seen the case before and didn't have the luxury that we have of considering the case at leisure.  If they're told Julie is lying about everything, realistically are they likely to accept this?

It may have been smarter for the defence to suggest to the jury that Julie was perhaps telling the truth about a lot of it, but Jeremy didn't mean it.  Or some other permutation may have been possible. 

In the end, on a strict view, Julie's evidence proved nothing of value to the jury, even if she was telling the truth about everything.

If Jeremy had admitted to saying one or two comments in moments of anger or frustration but gave credible testimony suggesting that there was a firm line between empty threats and violent action, he could have avoided the issue of corroborating evidence from other witnesses. This could made all the difference in court.

[Adam]

Yes, again you have identified something quite important.

One possible criticism that could be made of Jeremy's defence at trial is that they sought to present the jury with a simple dichotomy: Jeremy is telling the truth, Julie is lying; Jeremy is genuine, Julie is an actress.  It's the 'actor or actress' question put to the jury by Rivlin in his closing speech.

The problem with this is that, even if you take the view that Julie was lying, it may not be a very clever defence strategy to say she is lying.  You have to put yourself in the shoes of the jury.  I state the obvious, but they hadn't seen the case before and didn't have the luxury that we have of considering the case at leisure.  If they're told Julie is lying about everything, realistically are they likely to accept this?

It may have been smarter for the defence to suggest to the jury that Julie was perhaps telling the truth about a lot of it, but Jeremy didn't mean it.  Or some other permutation may have been possible. 

In the end, on a strict view, Julie's evidence proved nothing of value to the jury, even if she was telling the truth about everything.

Surely too much of a coincidence that his family were then massacred. And he is the only alive suspect who knew there was something wrong at the farm.

[lookout]

So--------who was inside switching lights on and off, opening curtains, moving around, placed the gun in the window, telephone engaged one minute and off-line the next, who called for an ambulance ?? Adam.

[Roch]

If Jeremy had admitted to saying one or two comments in moments of anger or frustration but gave credible testimony suggesting that there was a firm line between empty threats and violent action, he could have avoided the issue of corroborating evidence from other witnesses. This could made all the difference in court.

Interesting post. The bones of this have been rattling round my head for a while. But you have expressed this well. I think he was bullied as well during interviews. Goaded.

[Adam]

So--------who was inside switching lights on and off, opening curtains, moving around, placed the gun in the window, telephone engaged one minute and off-line the next, who called for an ambulance ?? Adam.

Who called for an ambulance?

Sheila must have switched the lights off after readin the bible.

[Adam]

Interesting post. The bones of this have been rattling round my head for a while. But you have expressed this well. I think he was bullied as well during interviews. Goaded.

Have you read the interview transcripts?

No one has said that before. Not even the OS.

[lookout]

Who called for an ambulance?

Sheila must have switched the lights off after readin the bible.

So between 4am and 7am Sheila was still alive ?

[Adam]

Yes, again you have identified something quite important.

One possible criticism that could be made of Jeremy's defence at trial is that they sought to present the jury with a simple dichotomy: Jeremy is telling the truth, Julie is lying; Jeremy is genuine, Julie is an actress.  It's the 'actor or actress' question put to the jury by Rivlin in his closing speech.

The problem with this is that, even if you take the view that Julie was lying, it may not be a very clever defence strategy to say she is lying.  You have to put yourself in the shoes of the jury.  I state the obvious, but they hadn't seen the case before and didn't have the luxury that we have of considering the case at leisure.  If they're told Julie is lying about everything, realistically are they likely to accept this?

It may have been smarter for the defence to suggest to the jury that Julie was perhaps telling the truth about a lot of it, but Jeremy didn't mean it.  Or some other permutation may have been possible. 

In the end, on a strict view, Julie's evidence proved nothing of value to the jury, even if she was telling the truth about everything.

Both parties agree a lot of what Julie said was true.

The caravan break in, the bike, the pills, the 3 phone calls, Bamber's dislike of his mother, the jolly ups, the windows, the valuables inside WHF, the kitchen fight, the bible, the sleeping twins, the portable phone.

To then say Julie was also telling the truth about Bamber saying he wanted to get rid of his family by killing them, but he was not serious,  is going too far.

[Adam]

All the defence can say is a lot of Julie's WS is true. But she lied about the pre and post massacre discussions. Because according to Bamber, she was jilted.

[David1819]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.msg356435.html#msg356435