Jeremys second phone call to Julie:

[Jane]

Good point Graheme.

Julie knew that Jeremy knew about Susans cheque book fraud.

So why did Julie go to the police if she knew Jeremy could implicate her with Susans cheque book fraud ? Was she really worried about getting a criminal record & her teaching career. Or did she decide telling the truth was the right thing to do ?

And why tell the police about the caravan break in ? Again risking getting a criminal record & her teaching career. 

And why go to the police at all. Knowing she could be charged with withholding information, again getting a criminal record ? Going to the police means standing up in court & getting cross examined. An ordeal for anyone.

Susans cheque book fraud was brought up nearly a month after her Witness Statement had been finished. There was no reason to intially lie. Unless she really was jilted & unbeileivably vindictive as well as totally confident of not getting found out & charged with perjury.  But scorned women are just as likely to tell the truth.

Ask yourself if Julie would have said anything at all if Jeremy had put a ring on her finger.

 As for why she told the police about her own criminal activities, don't felons usually as for all their crimes to be taken into consideration so they can't be retried at a later date? Imagine, had she not told them and it had come up  when she'd got her first job. Parents of young children may not have been happy to learn that someone with a criminal past was teaching their children and heads may not have been happy to employ her.

 No need to worry about ANY such triviality, had Jeremy put a ring on her finger, but he'd dumped her and "If I can't have him, nobody will." Was that out of love, lust or lucre?

[maggie]

Sorry Maggie, I'm too busy laughing to post any more - I give up, it's impossible to debate with someone like Adam because he can't admit when he's wrong and he doesn't doesn't listen and he doesn't seem to know what a fact is. All that matters is HIS opinion. 

[grahameb]

I always felt it was fanciful that Julie agreed to create a false WS & diary. Then lie in court because the police threatened to charge her with involvement in Susans cheque book fraud.

Julies WS is 8/9/85. The bank managers WS relates to Susan & Julie attending the bank on 4/10/85. Separate issues.

She also paid the money back long before the trial. But all this is negated by the fact that the police escorted her to the bank,   

But if her cheque fraud had nothing to do with the Jeremy Bamber case where police were busy gathering evidence against him, why then did the same police officer accompany her to the bank? I think that, that fact is vital to the case.

[Caroline]

Good point Graheme.

Julie knew that Jeremy knew about Susans cheque book fraud.

So why did Julie go to the police if she knew Jeremy could implicate her with Susans cheque book fraud ? Was she really worried about getting a criminal record & her teaching career. Or did she decide telling the truth was the right thing to do ?

And why tell the police about the caravan break in ? Again risking getting a criminal record & her teaching career. 

And why go to the police at all. Knowing she could be charged with withholding information, again getting a criminal record ? Going to the police means standing up in court & getting cross examined. An ordeal for anyone.

Susans cheque book fraud was brought up nearly a month after her Witness Statement had been finished. There was no reason to intially lie. Unless she really was jilted & unbeileivably vindictive as well as totally confident of not getting found out & charged with perjury.  But scorned women are just as likely to tell the truth.

It doesn't matter one iota what YOU think is important, the jury did NOT hear what happened in respect to JULIE'S act of fraud - it may have made a difference to them had they been told the TRUTH. It's about 'credibility; as a witness and if the fraud didn't matter, it would never have been mentioned - of course it mattered. You can call it 'Susan's cheque book fraud' as much as you like - however, Julie was the instigator - she admits it and the ONLY reason she did so was because she knew that Jeremy already knew about it and it would have been used to discredit her as a witness!
It may also have made a difference for the jury to know that initially, the autopsy report stated that Sheila had blood on her palms, more to the point that Venezis attributed the stain on Sheila's hand to the blood on her palms and they may just have wondered why, when Jeremy became a suspect that the opposite was written into his official statement that was used at trial.

It doesn't matter what you think, it ONLY matters that the jury were and weren't told. These are just a few examples - there ar lots more. With your vast knowledge - you must already know what they are!! 

[Adam]

But if her cheque fraud had nothing to do with the Jeremy Bamber case where police were busy gathering evidence against him, why then did the same police officer accompany her to the bank? I think that, that fact is vital to the case.

Yes, Julie's 1984 small cheque book fraud is not really anything to do with the case.

The defence said from an early stage that it was going to be an extremly difficult case to win. So they brought up Susans small cheque book fraud two years earlier. Jeremy had 8 hours to paint Julie as an unreliable witness. The defence 19 days.

The jury would be more interested in a motive, possible alibi, curious coincidences, circumstantial evidence, forensic evidence, other witnesses, phone call times, bikes, Nevilles phone call being described as mysterious, whether Julie was really jilted, answering machines, what Sheila could have been doing when Neville phoned, blood experts, psychiatrists, phone locations, Nevilles beating, Sheilas lack of gun experience, how Sheila committed the massacre, Jeremys family hatred & resentment etc.

[susan]

Adam  Jeremy Bamber is serving life for the murders of his family he was found guilty by a Jury.  Now to me whoever you are sound terrified he may get released nothing you or I say on this forum will have any bearing on the outcome of Jeremy Bambers future.  Accept that.  I am on the forum in the hope new evidence can be found to release an innocent man and my contribution is not supplying new evidence but helping to keep his name in the public domain so he is not forgotten.  Now what is your agenda.

[Jane]

MEMO TO POSTERS.

Just to clear up any doubt and because Adam's use of English doesn't make it clear. The cheque book was Susan's. The CRIME, by her own admission, was Julies.

[Adam]

MEMO TO POSTERS.

Just to clear up any doubt and because Adam's use of English doesn't make it clear. The cheque book was Susan's. The CRIME, by her own admission, was Julies.

It was Susans cheque book. Therefore 'Susans cheque book fraud'.

Both guilty. Although if it was all Julies idea I don't know why she would not use her own cheque book.

[Jane]

It was Susans cheque book. Therefore 'Susans cheque book fraud'.

Both guilty. Although if it was all Julies idea I don't know why she would not use her own cheque book.

The fraud was Julie's by her own admission.

I would have thought the answer to that might have been obvious. Had they been sussed, Julie's name wouldn't come up.

[lookout]

Yes, Julie's 1984 small cheque book fraud is not really anything to do with the case.

The defence said from an early stage that it was going to be an extremly difficult case to win. So they brought up Susans small cheque book fraud two years earlier. Jeremy had 8 hours to paint Julie as an unreliable witness. The defence 19 days.

The jury would be more interested in a motive, possible alibi, curious coincidences, circumstantial evidence, forensic evidence, other witnesses, phone call times, bikes, Nevilles phone call being described as mysterious, whether Julie was really jilted, answering machines, what Sheila could have been doing when Neville phoned, blood experts, psychiatrists, phone locations, Nevilles beating, Sheilas lack of gun experience, how Sheila committed the massacre, Jeremys family hatred & resentment etc.

Past crimes have got EVERYTHING to do with an on-going case !

[Adam]

The fraud was Julie's by her own admission.

Was it ? I will read her statements again.

Good. She showed her honesty. She could have denied it & claimed it was not even her cheque book. But did not.

How does a 1984 minor cheque book fraud using another persons cheque book (with her permission) effect the case ?

[Jane]

Was it ? I will read her statements again.

Good. She showed her honesty. She could have denied it & claimed it was not even her cheque book. But did not.

How does a 1984 minor cheque book fraud using another persons cheque book (with her permission) effect the case ?

Someone must have thought it might otherwise why mention it.

 You have a very skewed idea of honesty. I would have thought "honesty" meant NOT committing crimes in the first place, not committing them and admitting to them because of the possible consequences for not doing so.

[Adam]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=289.0

Seems like it was a joint decision. Encouraged by Jeremy. Susan a willing participant & using her own cheque book.

Both Julie & Susan admitting to it, apoloising to the bank manager & paying the money back.

The main issue is the police had nothing to blackmail Julie with,  to create a false WS & diary after she first went to visit them.

[lookout]

So if Jeremy had told Julie to put her hand in the fire-----------she would have done ?
Cobblers !

[Adam]

Someone must have thought it might otherwise why mention it.

 You have a very skewed idea of honesty. I would have thought "honesty" meant NOT committing crimes in the first place, not committing them and admitting to them because of the possible consequences for not doing so.

Yes. The defence mentioned it at trial.

Susan went to the police after Julie had finished her WS. Julie also admitted the fraud using Susan's cheque book a month after her WS had been completed.

I suspect both people felt if they were going to be involved in a major trial, they should be honest about their previous minor crime. Julie had already been honest, mentioning the caravan break in.