Jeremy's Alibi...

[Steve_uk]

Sorry Steve. Please except my apologies. The comment was in reference to your opening line to me, in one of your posts....

Who is Martin? 

You might well ask. It seems an awful long time since his thread of 06-08am today,which as I say went like water off a duck's back..

[Caroline R]

I have tried to break down Steve's post into parts to try to emphasise his main points and to facilitate analysis.

Julie Mugford was not out for all she could get. She first met Jeremy at a London bar in November 1983 where they were both working and they felt a mutual attraction. It wasn't until a few months later that she realized the farming connection, and at that time Jeremy didn't even have the cottage at Goldhanger. Here is Jeremy back from his working holiday in New Zealand, not wanting to enter the farming way of life, feeling his way around maybe at a bit of a loss, whereupon he meets Julie.

Julie would stay at the cottage in Goldhanger during the holidays and it was then that she would come to meet June Bamber. Again the atmosphere would have been tense whenever June called, sometimes with Sheila and the twins but mostly alone. Again Julie sensed June's disapproval of her relationship with Jeremy and June made it clear that biblically they were living in sin together and that Julie was a harlot. June's hypocrisy is manifested because Sheila is not good enough to marry her son, a view she would have imparted to Jeremy, but again Julie is not in this relationship for short-term gain as she rejects June's offer of buying them a flat if they would leave the village and thereby stop the rumours flowing at the Queen's Head, which were damaging to Ralph's status as the local magistrate.

Jeremy had a strange view of relationships which he had learnt from his parents having employed farm staff: people were used for what they could offer and in return they received payment. There was no emotion involved and Jeremy accepted this as normal; when he one time visited Julie's relations he couldn't understand the tactile nature and the feeling of benevolence in the family was quite alien to him. It was this feeling of warmth and loyalty which kept him in the relationship with an older woman, Suzette Ford for a number of years.

Julie was also learning fast in Thatcherite Britain, the lesson that money talks. Why, she inquired, did Jeremy not just cut loose, leave his family behind and move on? Because, retorted Jeremy, he had too much to lose. It was in this atmosphere that Julie became cocooned, and it is one explanation that inured her to Jeremy's unpleasant and cruel streak.

At the turn of the year 1985 Jeremy had been harbouring thoughts about harming his family.

The farming lifestyle didn't suit, Sheila was living it up in London whilst the agricultural life was hard physical labour, June was unreliable and might easily change her will and leave money to the Church.

Jeremy was a disappointment to Ralph who wanted an heir to take over the managerial responsibility the farm as a business entailed. Jeremy wasn't a natural leader, he didn't inspire confidence around him, and Jeremy was restless. If only his family would disappear Jeremy could receive his inheritance and move on.

Spurred by a chance conversation with Colin Caffell that the twins were "a millstone round my neck" Jeremy began to conceive ways that his family might disappear.

[b]He made hints to Julie,[/b] who busy with the fatigue of teaching practice and giving of herself in a way not demanded by other jobs, did not take him seriously and preoccupied herself with her immediate future gaining the necessary qualifications to make something of her life.

Jeremy himself had never looked far ahead in a constructive way, having failed his first attempt at gaining qualifications. As a product of a public school it was others who occupied themselves with the menial tasks and as long as Jeremy had a cheque book he felt security thereby.

It was this callous disregard for people over money which set Jeremy on his evil course. [/b]He at first borrowed some of Julie's sleeping pills and drugged his parents' bedtime drinks one night but upon inquiring the following morning as to their slumber realized that they had experienced no detrimental effects. Jeremy was becoming desperate, especially when he saw the bills for Sheila's psychiatric care in March 1985 which were running into thousands of pounds and cutting into his inheritance.

He discussed burning the house down with Julie but was talked out of this when he discovered the house was underinsured and many valuable heirlooms would be irreparably lost. It was then that he realized the solution that had been in the back of his mind all along, but even callous Jeremy had rejected it as an extreme solution for one so squeamish about guns. He would have to personally execute the family and make it look as if Sheila had killed them all.


Julie's primary school experience and training kicked in. How could he possibly kill the twins? And here,reader, how could a prospective teacher of small children who must have seen children like them on a regular basis in an educational setting sitting on those tiny plywood chairs with their uncorrupted faces not recoil at such a wicked scheme? Did Julie plead with Jeremy to save the twins, to spare them from this murder ritual, as frightening as any religious ritual that June had made her children and now her grandchildren endure at church and at the farm? No, replied Jeremy heartlessly, the twins would have to go, they were stopping Colin from obtaining regular employment and he would be able to move on with a life and make a fresh start, just as he, Jeremy was planning to do.

Is it this thought, the thought that she could have saved the family, the spectre of Sheila's boys which haunts Julie every day, the new day which dawns in the backdrop of that bleak Canadian landscape?  Sheila's boys, Jeremy's future rivals in the profit-driven culture of the time, were not to be spared. Julie's way of making amends is to put her life and soul into her own boys, her immediate family, to please her husband and to provide enrichment for other people's children, thousands of miles away, the geographical distance numbing somewhat the ramifications of those events twenty seven years ago, though the universality of childhood [/b]must bring the tears flooding back on occasion after the school bell has rung.




The usual criticism of writers who produce this kind of bilge, is that they confuse together fact and  supposition. But this author is so hopelessly inept that he appears be unaware of the distinction between the two. If  I were to make an attempt at this I might write things like
 
"The air is still and the moon is shining into the room and evil Bamber thinks "Tonight's the night!"."

To be sure, some reputable writers sometimes use  dramatic reconstruction to try to show what probably went through a person's mind at a certain time. But what Steve does, habitually, is to use that device to alter the narrative as he chooses, and to peddle fiction disguised as fact which is inexcusable. He also has a nasty habit of insulting people and then to express indignation, if somebody is bold enought to insult him back. I suppose it’s the company you keep!

He appears to be a big fan and imitator of starryian, who typically gives us this style of narrative. For example Starry tells us that Bamber frogmarched Nevill downstairs and much else besides.

Did Julie plead with Jeremy to save the twins?  He strangely answers the question with Jeremy's alleged reply.

 "No replied Jeremy heartlessly."

This is simply ridiculous. If you ask a question you admit that you don't know the answer. How can you know how somebody replied to a question if you don't even know if it was asked.

Moreover, we are meant  to assume that Mugford is a reliable witness. We know that she definitely lied on several counts. Elsewhere, Steve tells us that Julie was not coached by Stan Jones and was a truthful witness-but that's just the story as he wants it to be. 

I think Steve takes as his model of writing the historical novel where fiction is meant to be included along with basic historical facts, but then he goes a step further: he also invents the facts.

Please don’t anybody bother saying that it’s fact that the jury found Bamber guilty.

This was Martin's post Patti and it's spot on!!

[Steve_uk]

This was Martin's post Patti and it's spot on!!

The problem is Caroline is that lies abound in this case,and this is one difficulty which one has to circumvent by trying to sort out which are the white lies,so to speak and which are the greater lies which are concealing five murders. Of course I would not cast Julie Mugford as the Virgin Mary or Mother Teresa in any biography of them,but in my view one has to look at the bigger picture whilst reading Julie's testimony and disregard what in comparison to the crimes discussed on this site are relatively trivial. Either Julie or Jeremy is lying,either David Boutflour et al or Jeremy is lying,either James Richards or Jeremy is lying,either the farm hand or Jeremy is lying..

It reminds me of the Princess Diana conspiracy theories which I don't want to discuss in detail apart from this: Mohammed Al Fayed claimed that Princess Diana had telephoned him saying that she was pregnant with Dodi's child and they were going to be married. Rosa Monckton says that on a holiday several days previously Diana had had her period so could not be pregnant..

These are diametrically opposed views and there can only be one truth. I just happen to believe in the Jeremy Bamber case that Jeremy had planned these murders for months and knew that if all went well there would be no direct evidence to incriminate him with the crime,but he was oh so ready for the indictment process. He knew the storm he was about to unleash and had prepared himself for it mentally;hence his actions and statements vis-a vis the Police which were all taciturn and non-committal,yet even then his secret glee at deceiving them into thinking Sheila was to blame could hardly be contained.

[maggie]

The problem is Caroline is that lies abound in this case,and this is one difficulty which one has to circumvent by trying to sort out which are the white lies,so to speak and which are the greater lies which are concealing five murders. Of course I would not cast Julie Mugford as the Virgin Mary or Mother Teresa in any biography of them,but in my view one has to look at the bigger picture whilst reading Julie's testimony and disregard what in comparison to the crimes discussed on this site are relatively trivial. Either Julie or Jeremy is lying,either David Boutflour et al or Jeremy is lying,either James Richards or Jeremy is lying,either the farm hand or Jeremy is lying..

It reminds me of the Princess Diana conspiracy theories which I don't want to discuss in detail apart from this: Mohammed Al Fayed claimed that Princess Diana had telephoned him saying that she was pregnant with Dodi's child and they were going to be married. Rosa Monckton says that on a holiday several days previously Diana had had her period so could not be pregnant..

These are diametrically opposed views and there can only be one truth. I just happen to believe in the Jeremy Bamber case that Jeremy had planned these murders for months and knew that if all went well there would be no direct evidence to incriminate him with the crime,but he was oh so ready for the indictment process. He knew the storm he was about to unleash and had prepared himself for it mentally;hence his actions and statements vis-a vis the Police which were all taciturn and non-committal,yet even then his secret glee at deceiving them into thinking Sheila was to blame could hardly be contained.

To behave as you say, Jeremy Bamber would have to be a psychopath/sociopath or have some other sort of personality disorder. It has been proven over and over again that he is not............

[Patti]

The problem is Caroline is that lies abound in this case,and this is one difficulty which one has to circumvent by trying to sort out which are the white lies,so to speak and which are the greater lies which are concealing five murders. Of course I would not cast Julie Mugford as the Virgin Mary or Mother Teresa in any biography of them,but in my view one has to look at the bigger picture whilst reading Julie's testimony and disregard what in comparison to the crimes discussed on this site are relatively trivial. Either Julie or Jeremy is lying,either David Boutflour et al or Jeremy is lying,either James Richards or Jeremy is lying,either the farm hand or Jeremy is lying..

It reminds me of the Princess Diana conspiracy theories which I don't want to discuss in detail apart from this: Mohammed Al Fayed claimed that Princess Diana had telephoned him saying that she was pregnant with Dodi's child and they were going to be married. Rosa Monckton says that on a holiday several days previously Diana had had her period so could not be pregnant..

These are diametrically opposed views and there can only be one truth. I just happen to believe in the Jeremy Bamber case that Jeremy had planned these murders for months and knew that if all went well there would be no direct evidence to incriminate him with the crime,but he was oh so ready for the indictment process. He knew the storm he was about to unleash and had prepared himself for it mentally;hence his actions and statements vis-a vis the Police which were all taciturn and non-committal,yet even then his secret glee at deceiving them into thinking Sheila was to blame could hardly be contained.

Hi Steve you say it is difficult to determine who is telling the truth and who is lying....How can you be sure that JB committed any crime that night...What actual evidence do you have he entered the home, picked up a rifle, shot his family, rode a bike back home, got rid of all his clothes, had a shower, made up a call from father. Evidence please Steve.

By the way, the gun was not wiped....that is a forensic fact. Good night all... 

[Steve_uk]

To behave as you say, Jeremy Bamber would have to be a psychopath/sociopath or have some other sort of personality disorder. It has been proven over and over again that he is not............

Maggie he said so himself to Julie that he had a mental problem..sorry I just happen to believe her..his family were nothing to him,they were a barrier to his freedom. As discussed before experts in this field are still not competent enough even in the 21st century to fully work out the human mind.

[Steve_uk]

Hi Steve you say it is difficult to determine who is telling the truth and who is lying....How can you be sure that JB committed any crime that night...What actual evidence do you have he entered the home, picked up a rifle, shot his family, rode a bike back home, got rid of all his clothes, had a shower, made up a call from father. Evidence please Steve.

By the way, the gun was not wiped....that is a forensic fact. Good night all... 

It's the balance of probabilities in this scenario with the ridiculous assertion that Sheila discharges 25 rounds of a .22 anschutz rifle with no gun oil on her nightie or lead traces on hands,bashes brutally a man to incapacity,shoots herself once,does her ablutions,proceeds upstairs and shoots herself again...well now we are going round in circles again..

[lookout]

Believe what you like Steve. Why do think Jeremy would compile thousands upon thousands of files pertaining to the case and how it was handled,if he was guilty.?
He's been gathering evidence over the years to prove his innocence,not his guilt.

Nothing whatsoever was planned on his part at all.     It strikes me that he was the only one who wasn't scheming. !

[Caroline R]

The problem is Caroline is that lies abound in this case,and this is one difficulty which one has to circumvent by trying to sort out which are the white lies,so to speak and which are the greater lies which are concealing five murders. Of course I would not cast Julie Mugford as the Virgin Mary or Mother Teresa in any biography of them,but in my view one has to look at the bigger picture whilst reading Julie's testimony and disregard what in comparison to the crimes discussed on this site are relatively trivial. Either Julie or Jeremy is lying,either David Boutflour et al or Jeremy is lying,either James Richards or Jeremy is lying,either the farm hand or Jeremy is lying..

It reminds me of the Princess Diana conspiracy theories which I don't want to discuss in detail apart from this: Mohammed Al Fayed claimed that Princess Diana had telephoned him saying that she was pregnant with Dodi's child and they were going to be married. Rosa Monckton says that on a holiday several days previously Diana had had her period so could not be pregnant..

These are diametrically opposed views and there can only be one truth. I just happen to believe in the Jeremy Bamber case that Jeremy had planned these murders for months and knew that if all went well there would be no direct evidence to incriminate him with the crime,but he was oh so ready for the indictment process. He knew the storm he was about to unleash and had prepared himself for it mentally;hence his actions and statements vis-a vis the Police which were all taciturn and non-committal,yet even then his secret glee at deceiving them into thinking Sheila was to blame could hardly be contained.

Such a cold and calculating individual would never tell a woman of his plans and then end the relationship so in answer to your question(s) between Jeremy and Julie, I believe Jeremy! There are blatant lies in Julie's statements and what kind of a person would keep such a secret after the event and after identifying the bodies? It's BS that she decided to tell all because it just all got too much, she did it because she was jilted. Somewhere along the line a seed was planted (most likely by the relatives) that Jeremy may have done it and it grew with her desire for revenge. Perhaps she thought he would never be convicted but she can't go back and admit to lying because she would face perjury charges and her career would be over. As for the relatives, they don't have to be lying; I believe that they really do think he's guilty and looked for things (no matter how outlandish) to back up their theory. This is also what you do. I actually started from the premise that JB was as guilty as sin but after spending a LONG time raking over everything I think he is no more guilty than I am.

You're probably a really nice guy Steve but you seem to have a canny knack of winding people up - this is probably not your intention but let me point you to the example in red above. If his "glee" was "secret" how the hell do you know about it or anyone else for that matter? You seem to make up a lot of what you have to say and embroider the rest into a flowery narrative that would be more at home in pulp fiction than on a forum dealing with a real tragedy. Just my opinion but others seem to agree. Perhaps it might help your case (as suggested by Martin) if you indicate that it is just your opinion and that you supply references to the information you post from other sources - just as other people do. 

[Patti]

It's the balance of probabilities in this scenario with the ridiculous assertion that Sheila discharges 25 rounds of a .22 anschutz rifle with no gun oil on her nightie or lead traces on hands,bashes brutally a man to incapacity,shoots herself once,does her ablutions,proceeds upstairs and shoots herself again...well now we are going round in circles again..

Steve the rifle could have been used by a child, the recoil was very small..anyone could have discharged 25 rounds from that rifle, even I could use it...its not rocket science to load a magazine, shove it in a rifle, pull the clip back and shoot the thing....

Fact is there were no microscopic inspection or forensics done on her nightie Steve. Elliot used a visual method, which would never be excepted in a court of law today....A quick look is not evidence.

Particles of residue can fall....The fact is the swabs were not taken at the crime scene. Her hands were bagged...but particles can fall off...The other fact is that the hand swabs were rejected by the lab, due to cross contamination, for they arrived at the lab with guns....They were resubmitted some 4 weeks later....but the lab was not aware that they had already been rejected on their first submission.  One would think having been in a room and having her hand on a rifle, she would have residue all over her....But no....she had nothing, which is very suspect....she only had a similar amount of lead as anyone would in a normal day.....

I don't believe that she had been shot downstairs, the evidence doesn't point to that...

[Patti]

Hi Lookout/Caroline...It's a bit late, I am already 45 minutes behind my bedtime....So I must say goodnight....speak tomorrow and maggie if you are still around and you Steve....be good...lol 

[Caroline R]

It's the balance of probabilities in this scenario with the ridiculous assertion that Sheila discharges 25 rounds of a .22 anschutz rifle with no gun oil on her nightie or lead traces on hands,bashes brutally a man to incapacity,shoots herself once,does her ablutions,proceeds upstairs and shoots herself again...well now we are going round in circles again..

Yes, you are Steve!

[Steve_uk]

Believe what you like Steve. Why do think Jeremy would compile thousands upon thousands of files pertaining to the case and how it was handled,if he was guilty.?
He's been gathering evidence over the years to prove his innocence,not his guilt.

Nothing whatsoever was planned on his part at all.     It strikes me that he was the only one who wasn't scheming. !

He's frightened of what would befall him in prison by other inmates if he finally admitted to being a child killer,he doesn't want to renounce any legal redress he might have against relatives if he admitted culpability,and of course,the religious path which might be available to many people in his position is closed off because of the bad connotations it had with his upbringing and its confusion with mental illness present in both his mother and Sheila. He has to keep up the pretense of innocence,especially since he became subject to a life tariff,which in his mind now means he is either let out a free man or ends his days in prison.

[lookout]

Hi Lookout/Caroline...It's a bit late, I am already 45 minutes behind my bedtime....So I must say goodnight....speak tomorrow and maggie if you are still around and you Steve....be good...lol 

Goodnight Patti,,,I'm hitting the hay myself now.

[Caroline R]

He's frightened of what would befall him in prison by other inmates if he finally admitted to being a child killer,he doesn't want to renounce any legal redress he might have against relatives if he admitted culpability,and of course,the religious path which might be available to many people in his position is closed off because of the bad connotations it had with his upbringing and its confusion with mental illness present in both his mother and Sheila. He has to keep up the pretense of innocence,especially since he became subject to a life tariff,which in his mind now means he is either let out a free man or ends his days in prison.

More pulp fiction! Just stick to facts Steve - Simples!