Author Topic: WPC Julia Jeapes  (Read 12686 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sherlock

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1419
Re: WPC Julia Jeapes
« Reply #240 on: January 23, 2023, 11:59:PM »
I believe the medical term is shock Steve.It makes you blether about things like cars without thinking,and it makes you half chuckle or cry often at inappropriate times.

As a caring human being,I am sure you are very well aware of this.

His mind WASN'T working .

A lot of Jeremy's "strange" behaviour was because as well as smoking weed he was abusing valium.
I have seen someone abuse valium and it is 100% consistent with some of Jeremy's reported "strange" behaviour.
We need to analyse this case based on the actual known evidence not on personal opinions about his reported behaviour after the event. or opinions about his general character.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33781
Re: WPC Julia Jeapes
« Reply #241 on: January 24, 2023, 09:29:AM »
To my knowledge and the information I have seen there was only one policeman, SBJ who voiced his concerns. The rest is newspaper reports and other statements about 'rumblings in the ranks'. please provide a list and evidence of other officers who had misgivings.

There is certainly a wealth of information on the forum, however, as the late -and staunchly loyal to JB- Mike Tesko was keeper of it, he could pick and choose that which we saw. It's highly unlikely that he'd have posted anything remotely anti.

It's very easy to claim to have "seen information" isn't it? Why should that be accepted as 'truth', any more than information -as yet unseen, but most certainly in existence- passed from "a horse's mouth? It would be naive, in the extreme, to expect that we'll suck up and swallow the 'fact' that there was only ever SBJ who "voiced his concerns", wouldn't it?
« Last Edit: January 24, 2023, 10:00:AM by Jane »

Offline killingeve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
Re: WPC Julia Jeapes
« Reply #242 on: January 24, 2023, 09:51:AM »
Nothing more than a typo? And that's the be all and end all of it? Righto. 

You keep using the term conspiracy theorist in a perjorative manner. Tbh, I feel that you are engaged in a form of gaslighting for your own amusement.  If conspiracies didn't exist then the word would never have entered the English language. 'Conspiracy Theorists' is a trope. And when people use the term in the manner it is used on here, I feel that they effectively reveal a weakness in their own argument.

I don't know anything about Dr V's written evidence changed to support the prosecution? 

With regard to the typo surrouding Colin's written evidence how do you believe JB was disadvanted by this?Do you think it weighed heavily in the minds of jurors compared with all the other evidence eg blood flake in silencer, JM's testimony, cleanliness of Sheila?

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
Re: WPC Julia Jeapes
« Reply #243 on: January 24, 2023, 10:31:AM »
There is certainly a wealth of information on the forum, however, as the late -and staunchly loyal to JB- Mike Tesko was keeper of it, he could pick and choose that which we saw. It's highly unlikely that he'd have posted anything remotely anti.

It's very easy to claim to have "seen information" isn't it? Why should that be accepted as 'truth', any more than information -as yet unseen, but most certainly in existence- passed from "a horse's mouth? It would be naive, in the extreme, to expect that we'll suck up and swallow the 'fact' that there was only ever SBJ who "voiced his concerns", wouldn't it?
NO

Offline Zoso

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
Re: WPC Julia Jeapes
« Reply #244 on: January 24, 2023, 10:56:AM »
Where / when did she do that?  I must have missed that.

BTW, not every person is knowingly or willingly part of a conspiracy. Some may be passive or even unknowing.

For example, if a police officer raised something with their superior, like a serious concern for example, that raising of the issue internally might be enough to salve their own conscience. They did what was right. They raised their concern through the correct channel.

The fact that their concern didn't go anywhere, is not on their own conscience. It's now the fault of a higher up person who chose not to act on it. Not everyone is like a dog with a bone.

I believe that Cambridge said she had responded to the claim that she saw a gun and has accepted that she was mistaken? I haven't read it but I'm sure she knows that she is being used as a pawn in the Bamber saga and were she sure she saw a gun, we'd have seen her on one of the many documentaries by now, or interviewed for one of the books.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33781
Re: WPC Julia Jeapes
« Reply #245 on: January 24, 2023, 04:39:PM »
NO

Dear me! Only one policeman in the entire Essex force belied JB guilty?!!! I can only reiterate. Very naive.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44407
Re: WPC Julia Jeapes
« Reply #246 on: January 24, 2023, 05:08:PM »
Bews, Miller, Jones & Jones's assistant believed Bamber guilty straight away.

Along with the relatives & Julie.

Taff believed he was guilty later on & interviewed Bamber after arresting him.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.