Repository For Points/Questions Adam Has Failed To Address

[Jane]

Julie apparently was perfectly fine with the fraud for several months - she only confessed to this when she had no other way out. She was also perfectly fine with being with an alleged mass murderer for a month.
Inevitably when looking at Julie´s actions, you end up with the conclusion: she looks very bad one way or the other!

P.S. I saw our resident troll referring to the fraud as "Susan´s". I would stop doing that, since we have it black on white that Julie, according to her, ventured into this criminal endeavour to impress Jeremy.

Alias, I guess what she was "fine with" for several months, she'd have been equally "fine with" as Jeremy's wife until such time as death, or divorce, did them part. The thought comes to mind, that if she planned the cheque fraud to impress Jeremy, SHOULD he be guilty, perhaps Julie encouraged him in the planning.

[Caroline]

Alias, I guess what she was "fine with" for several months, she'd have been equally "fine with" as Jeremy's wife until such time as death, or divorce, did them part. The thought comes to mind, that if she planned the cheque fraud to impress Jeremy, SHOULD he be guilty, perhaps Julie encouraged him in the planning.

Mentioning Jeremy was simply a psychological trick - mention his name (especially given the circumstances of of his predicament) and it's something else to associate him with 'negatively'. Quite clever really.

[Jane]

Mentioning Jeremy was simply a psychological trick - mention his name (especially given the circumstances of of his predicament) and it's something else to associate him with 'negatively'. Quite clever really.

It also hints that she's small fry but CAN give them an enormous fish.

[Adam]

JM would NOT have gone to the bank under her own volition.It was only when Stan Jones had reminded her that a criminal record would be put into place if she didn't " own up " ,,though without Jones by her side,,she still would have had a criminal record for theft/fraud.
I wonder if JM thought for one minute that this was blackmail ?

Correct. Julie's cheque book fraud was a year earlier in 1984. Neither Susan or Julie were going to bring it up.

Jeremy was not going to admit the caravan break in. Telling Julie 'I will be the number one suspect but they will never be able to prove it'. Julie told the police. Jeremy admitting he did it out of greed.

[grahameb]

Correct. Julie's cheque book fraud was a year earlier in 1984. Neither Susan or Julie were going to bring it up.

Jeremy was not going to admit the caravan break in. Telling Julie 'I will be the number one suspect but they will never be able to prove it'. Julie told the police. Jeremy admitting he did it out of greed.

So it is a puzzled then as to why the exact same police officer who was involved in the Bamber case, was also the police officer who accompanied her to the bank. Have you got an answer for that?

[Adam]

So it is a puzzled then as to why the exact same police officer who was involved in the Bamber case, was also the police officer who accompanied her to the bank. Have you got an answer for that?

Was that Stan Jones ? Who was helping Julie with her WS.

He went to the bank with Julie & Susan. And ?

[grahameb]

Was that Stan Jones ? Who was helping Julie with her WS.

He went to the bank with Julie & Susan. And ?

Well it was a year after her cheque fraud. Why didn't she go to the bank a year earlier?

[Adam]

Well it was a year after her cheque fraud. Why didn't she go to the bank a year earlier?

Because Susan was a young woman who had committed a minor fraud. People do not admit to crimes they have committed. Just ask Jeremy.

[Jane]

Because Susan was a young woman who had committed a minor fraud. People do not admit to crimes they have committed. Just ask Jeremy.

YOU may call it "a minor fraud" but I knew someone who was given 200 hours community service for a similar crime in the same year. That didn't hurt as much as the damage to his reputation and the fact that he was banned for life from getting another job with local government.

[lookout]

But Julie did admit to her crime---------only because it suited her and others to do so.
Jeremy hasn't admitted anything that he didn't do !


How do you think the case would have gone had nobody known about Julies' crime,until towards the summing up ? There'd have been a complete turnaround and the jury then would have realised that she wasn't without blame herself,,that if she could commit fraud,,then she could be an accessory.
There was a method in the madness of Stan Jones in gleaning this information from the start,,he wanted/needed this conviction come what may.

[Adam]

But Julie did admit to her crime---------only because it suited her and others to do so.
Jeremy hasn't admitted anything that he didn't do !


How do you think the case would have gone had nobody known about Julies' crime,until towards the summing up ? There'd have been a complete turnaround and the jury then would have realised that she wasn't without blame herself,,that if she could commit fraud,,then she could be an accessory.
There was a method in the madness of Stan Jones in gleaning this information from the start,,he wanted/needed this conviction come what may.

The jury were fully aware of Julie's 1984 fraud using Susan's cheque book

[lookout]

Erm----it was Julies' " dare ",wasn't it ??

[Adam]

Anyway.

The main issue is Julie went the police after a month of soul searching.

She made  her WS. Everyone can read it. Her diary is online. Everyone can read it.

The 'only' reason she would have to lie was because she was 'apparently' jilted. The police had 'nothing' I repeat 'nothing' on her to force her to lie.

[grahameb]

Because Susan was a young woman who had committed a minor fraud. People do not admit to crimes they have committed. Just ask Jeremy.

But why a year after and just before the Bamber trial? Intriguing.

[Jane]

Anyway.

The main issue is Julie went the police after a month of soul searching.

She made  her WS. Everyone can read it. Her diary is online. Everyone can read it.

The 'only' reason she would have to lie was because she was 'apparently' jilted. The police had 'nothing' I repeat 'nothing' on her to force her to lie.

Police only had a series of possibilities on Jeremy but the still prosecuted him. Even the judge said it wasn't necessary to PROVE he did it, only that it was POSSIBLE for him to have done it.