Jeremy Bamber's story - NOTW deal

[gringo]

The basic assumption I’m making is that Julie Mugford knew that Jeremy was suspected by the relatives when she first confided with Susan Battersby. I agree with pro guilt people about one thing: Julie did not invent the story she told. By the time she had started talking to Battersby, she already knew that trouble was in store for Jeremy.

Before the falling out, she may have half believed what certain people had suggested to her, but at that stage, kept faith with Jeremy. But when it finally became clear to her that she had been dumped, she changed sides. Then instead of  putting up resistance to suggestions made to her, she thought she’d actually help out by adding embellishments of her own to what was basically a ready made story, with the intention of incriminating Jeremy. I’m only suggesting that the hitman idea might have already been in the original story and that it’s presence is not really so strange as it may appear.

I feel certain, however, that Julie did not make up the story that Jeremy strangled rats to test his courage. I’m not seven years old and nor was she at the time. That one shows the police doing their demonization thing-you get a lot of that in the Jenkins case. Julie, not being a hardened copper, would never have thought of that one. I admit that it’s not possible to know precisely what the story was when she first got hold of it, what she added herself and what the police told her to say. But you can use a bit of common sense.

I think you need to consider the possibility that Mugford lied to Battersby when she told the latter that Jeremy had told her that he had hired a hitman. That may really only have been suggested to her at some point, but in her intense anger she was going to say the worst she could think of.

It’s worth considering this observation by David Shaw.

"Julie Mugford did not impart a single piece of information she couldn’t have got from the newspapers or the Boutflours and Eatons and Carrs, or from pure imagination, and if Stan Jones had done his homework he’d have picked her for the liar she was. She made mistakes in her details of the killings that mirrored the mistakes made by the newspapers of the day, and other mistakes that uncannily concurred with errors the family made in assessing the layout of the murders. Not a single syllable of her tale about Jeremy’s involvements of the crime was ever backed by a shred of evidence; not then, not now. Indeed, not one word Julie said during the entire trial indicated knowledge only the killer would be privy to."

Really interesting observations Martin .

[killingeve]

There is no other side to the case unfortunately:Jeremy limited the suspects to two with the non-existent telephone call from Nevill,whom none of the Police manning the phones at the time recalled speaking to personally.

Jeremy is playing the same attention-seeking trick akin to when he used to balance a wine glass on his forehead in front of his adoptive parents,both of whom he slayed,along with his new rivals the twins and his sister,none of whom were blood relations.

There were several occasions when Jeremy could have gravitated away from the course he chose:his scuba diving career which was apparently closed to him when June allegedly dropped him as a baby,thus causing a weakness in the skull area,there was the relationship with Suzette Ford which tragically did not provide a family of his own to minister,and there was Julie,who doted on Jeremy and indulged him and would have made a good wife,in contrast to the Anji Greaves fly-by-night types.Some life chances where Jeremy may have been more sinned against than sinning,yet still he is bent on murder.

It's time for his natural parents to swallow hard, make the long journey up north,book into a hotel in Pocklington and meet their son for the first time in 50 years.

Morning Steve_uk

I'm intrigued...What would be the purpose of JB's birth parents visting JB at HMP?

[Nickos]

Morning Steve_uk

I'm intrigued...What would be the purpose of JB's birth parents visting JB at HMP?

It might give JB the opportunity to confess - blaiming it all on his birth parents of course!

[susan]

Hi Nickos  how are you today.  Jeremy would have genes from his natural birth parents which to  a certain extent would form part of his character.   But the environment a child is brought up in determines so much to how his character is formed I am sure you have heard of the saying "Give me the child and I'll give you the man.

[Nickos]

Hi Nickos  how are you today.  Jeremy would have genes from his natural birth parents which to  a certain extent would form part of his character.   But the environment a child is brought up in determines so much to how his character is formed I am sure you have heard of the saying "Give me the child and I'll give you the man.

Hi susie i,

I'm fine thanks x , how about you?

Yes, nature and nurture!

Nature - can of course produce "alternatives" to the original gene profile!

Nurture - a lot of wrong ingredients unfortunately went into JB's and SC's upbringing, creating some let’s say interesting individuals.

I wonder if an emotional, possibly confrontational, meeting between JB and his birth parents might trigger a confessional response in JB - who knows!!

 

[susan]

Hi Nickos  yes how a child is brought up can have such an effect on their behaviour as they get older.  Whether Jeremy meeting his birth parents would have had a profound effect on him I'm not qualified to say april has a degree in psychology so she could answer that one.  steve's suggestion to send Jeremy to a Scottish Island would make him feel he wished to confess is of course pure nonsense

[Steve_uk]

Morning Steve_uk

I'm intrigued...What would be the purpose of JB's birth parents visting JB at HMP?

I think it might give Jeremy a perspective on life,where his roots lay and possibly even a second chance with his natural parents. What a twist of fate that his mother gave up Jeremy for adoption to save her husband's career-all because of the morals of the time of the Royals and their set,when subsequently we have seen how hypocritical those morals turned out to be with the likes of Charles,Fergie,Andrew,Diana..they were all at it. I don't know,but maybe Jeremy might finally turn a corner with some love from his natural mother and find a spark with his natural father,instead of those cold,aloof figures he was placed with,well-intentioned as they might have been.

[Jane]

Hi Nickos  yes how a child is brought up can have such an effect on their behaviour as they get older.  Whether Jeremy meeting his birth parents would have had a profound effect on him I'm not qualified to say april has a degree in psychology so she could answer that one.  steve's suggestion to send Jeremy to a Scottish Island would make him feel he wished to confess is of course pure nonsense

Susan, there are so many variables attached to this one that it's difficult to know where to start. I've known of birth familys meeting with very happy outcomes, whereas others have been a disaster. In one instance the behaviour of the adopted child towards the birth parent was totally inappropriate but there was only 16 years between them and neither had been given guidance about the reactions and emotions that may result from their meeting.

I'm not even going to speculate on how Jeremy might feel about the prospect of meeting his birth parents, but in any case, its hypothetical and has, to my knowledge only been suggested by someone who seems to have little understanding of how delicate a situation it would be. What I am able to tell you is that it's my experience that adopted boys are less curious about their birth parents than adopted girls although I'm aware that it's hardly conclusive evidence.

[Steve_uk]

Dismissing the sociologists' psychobabble of the previous posts,I'm afraid there isn't much left for Jeremy in the way of relationships I can see for him. He's had the brief fumbles,the sexual encounters with trainee Policewomen and the council tenants' women who are curious about the man and make a quick buck on the side when they sell their correspondence to the highest Sunday tabloid bidder. It's time for Jeremy to develop a chronic stable relationship with people who at least share the same DNA and to whom Jeremy feels he can confide in,and yes,this may well result in a confession. A Scottish island like Staffa with Fingal's Cave might well be the change of environment Jeremy needs,instead of the constant heat of the latest legal drama highlighted by the mass media for their own ends,who ultimately do not have Jeremy's welfare at heart.

[lookout]

Susan, there are so many variables attached to this one that it's difficult to know where to start. I've known of birth familys meeting with very happy outcomes, whereas others have been a disaster. In one instance the behaviour of the adopted child towards the birth parent was totally inappropriate but there was only 16 years between them and neither had been given guidance about the reactions and emotions that may result from their meeting.

I'm not even going to speculate on how Jeremy might feel about the prospect of meeting his birth parents, but in any case, its hypothetical and has, to my knowledge only been suggested by someone who seems to have little understanding of how delicate a situation it would be. What I am able to tell you is that it's my experience that adopted boys are less curious about their birth parents than adopted girls although I'm aware that it's hardly conclusive evidence.

I wonder why Sheila had only latterly decided to contact her birth mother,rather than sooner.

[Caroline R]

The basic assumption I’m making is that Julie Mugford knew that Jeremy was suspected by the relatives when she first confided with Susan Battersby. I agree with pro guilt people about one thing: Julie did not invent the story she told. By the time she had started talking to Battersby, she already knew that trouble was in store for Jeremy.

Before the falling out, she may have half believed what certain people had suggested to her, but at that stage, kept faith with Jeremy. But when it finally became clear to her that she had been dumped, she changed sides. Then instead of  putting up resistance to suggestions made to her, she thought she’d actually help out by adding embellishments of her own to what was basically a ready made story, with the intention of incriminating Jeremy. I’m only suggesting that the hitman idea might have already been in the original story and that it’s presence is not really so strange as it may appear.

I feel certain, however, that Julie did not make up the story that Jeremy strangled rats to test his courage. I’m not seven years old and nor was she at the time. That one shows the police doing their demonization thing-you get a lot of that in the Jenkins case. Julie, not being a hardened copper, would never have thought of that one. I admit that it’s not possible to know precisely what the story was when she first got hold of it, what she added herself and what the police told her to say. But you can use a bit of common sense.

I think you need to consider the possibility that Mugford lied to Battersby when she told the latter that Jeremy had told her that he had hired a hitman. That may really only have been suggested to her at some point, but in her intense anger she was going to say the worst she could think of.

It’s worth considering this observation by David Shaw.

"Julie Mugford did not impart a single piece of information she couldn’t have got from the newspapers or the Boutflours and Eatons and Carrs, or from pure imagination, and if Stan Jones had done his homework he’d have picked her for the liar she was. She made mistakes in her details of the killings that mirrored the mistakes made by the newspapers of the day, and other mistakes that uncannily concurred with errors the family made in assessing the layout of the murders. Not a single syllable of her tale about Jeremy’s involvements of the crime was ever backed by a shred of evidence; not then, not now. Indeed, not one word Julie said during the entire trial indicated knowledge only the killer would be privy to."

These are exactly my own thoughts also Martin!

[susan]

Morning april trust you are well.  Thanks for your thoughts on the Jeremy and his birth parents.  I read that after Jeremy was convicted he did request to meet his natural parents but his Father made it quite clear that was not going to happen and he thought Jeremy was a horrible or words to that effect young man.  Personnally I think he was out of order he and his wife were responsible for creating Jeremy and to pass the buck as they did and not accept any responsibility tells me quite a lot about them as people.  I will never understand how a Mother can reject her child irrespective of what they had done.  When Jeremy was convicted he was left in this world without anyone which I think is so sad everybody needs and deserves somebody.  I did read that Jeremy had met with his step sisters not sure what happened there.

[Jane]

Morning Susan, I'm well, thank you.

Curious thing about Jeremy's birth parents. Whether or not they choose to acknowledge it, they DO have to live with the incontraversial fact that life for the son they gave up for adoption would have been entirely different had they not made that decision, so is it shame or guilt which prompts their declining to see Jeremy. I would have thought his siblings would have been curious to meet him, unless they are bound by "what would people say" and loyalty to their parents, they won't have the same constraints. Like you, I find it SO sad that he has nobody, adopted or natural, who he can call family.

[Roch]

The basic assumption I’m making is that Julie Mugford knew that Jeremy was suspected by the relatives when she first confided with Susan Battersby. I agree with pro guilt people about one thing: Julie did not invent the story she told. By the time she had started talking to Battersby, she already knew that trouble was in store for Jeremy.

Before the falling out, she may have half believed what certain people had suggested to her, but at that stage, kept faith with Jeremy. But when it finally became clear to her that she had been dumped, she changed sides. Then instead of  putting up resistance to suggestions made to her, she thought she’d actually help out by adding embellishments of her own to what was basically a ready made story, with the intention of incriminating Jeremy. I’m only suggesting that the hitman idea might have already been in the original story and that it’s presence is not really so strange as it may appear.

I feel certain, however, that Julie did not make up the story that Jeremy strangled rats to test his courage. I’m not seven years old and nor was she at the time. That one shows the police doing their demonization thing-you get a lot of that in the Jenkins case. Julie, not being a hardened copper, would never have thought of that one. I admit that it’s not possible to know precisely what the story was when she first got hold of it, what she added herself and what the police told her to say. But you can use a bit of common sense.

I think you need to consider the possibility that Mugford lied to Battersby when she told the latter that Jeremy had told her that he had hired a hitman. That may really only have been suggested to her at some point, but in her intense anger she was going to say the worst she could think of.

It’s worth considering this observation by David Shaw.

"Julie Mugford did not impart a single piece of information she couldn’t have got from the newspapers or the Boutflours and Eatons and Carrs, or from pure imagination, and if Stan Jones had done his homework he’d have picked her for the liar she was. She made mistakes in her details of the killings that mirrored the mistakes made by the newspapers of the day, and other mistakes that uncannily concurred with errors the family made in assessing the layout of the murders. Not a single syllable of her tale about Jeremy’s involvements of the crime was ever backed by a shred of evidence; not then, not now. Indeed, not one word Julie said during the entire trial indicated knowledge only the killer would be privy to."

I found this post quite resonant. 

[tonyb]

It might give JB the opportunity to confess - blaiming it all on his birth parents of course!

I don't see that as a possibility
If guilty,JB has no reason to confess. He on whole life so he won't get parole. Whilst there is any shred of doubt in his conviction ( assuming he's guilty ) he should keep quiet and continue his life in incarcerated comparative luxury.
If he were taken off whole life term,that changes things. If all other efforts were exhausted,he'd served his 30 years,there would be good reason to confess,even if your innocent. That way,however small,there is a hope of parole.
If he doesn't recognise his guilt,he'll stay in whatever. ( if he's innocent or guilty and all appeal avenues are exhausted )
IMO he's at the tipping point in his life.
Assuming he will not be successfully at appeal, one wonders if he is able to overturn the whole life term,and negotiate an exit to the satisfaction of all.
I am aware that would be very difficult,especially for the relations, but if you said to him that he'd be free aged 60, permanent Tag, 200 mile exclusion order and press gagged, I bet he'd take it.....