The caravan break in. A taste for money, a taste to massacre ?

[grahameb]

I have perfect vision.

If you want to justify Jeremy's caravan break in. Or deny it happened, or blame Ann Eaton, just do it.

If you want to not make any comment. Then don't.

You are a Jeremy supporter. So that will be normal procedure.

Actually as far as I know I have never expressed an opinion on the caravan break in, only to say that Mugsy was a willing accomplice. Moreover I have always criticised Bamber and even said that I dislike him. What I do find fascinating though is why you, someone who was probably a todler at the time of the murders should take a great interest in a man who was found guilty and banged of for nigh on 30 years?

[Adam]

You just said I was blind. Suggesting you had commented and I had not read it.

My understanding is Jeremy just took her there one evening and told her to wait outside and keep lookout. Julie could refuse or support her boyfriend.

Putting Julie in an very difficult situation. Just as he did 5 months later.

The case is always in the media, with Jeremy protesting his innocence. So I took an interest.

[lookout]

 This is the trouble,it ISN'T always in the media !!

[Jan]

Adam I can  not believe your posts. Grahame has always made his stance extremely clear as are his feelings about Jeremy.  Do you not read his posts? He is here because he believes there was a MOJ.  This may mean that Jeremy is innocent, but he has never defended his character. If I have understood this I can  not see you have not?

[Adam]

So Grahame is  a Jeremy supporter. Which I said two pages ago.

Grahame had a tantrum and denied it.

[Roch]

So Grahame is  a Jeremy supporter. Which I said two pages ago.

Grahame had a tantrum and denied it.

I remember Grahame expressing a couple of years ago on here that he doesn't particularly like Jeremy Bamber (in so far as you disliking somebody that you dont actually know in person).  I would describe Grahame as attempting to be a 'truth supporter'.  I'm sure there are many others on here.

[lookout]

So Grahame is  a Jeremy supporter. Which I said two pages ago.

Grahame had a tantrum and denied it.

Grow up !

 I'm not sure that Grahame is 100% towards innocence anyway.

What does it matter ?  It's no big deal,and there are no prizes !

The more you debate against-----------the more one is forced to have opposing views. Simply because your views on guilt don't make sense.

[lebaleb]

You just said I was blind. Suggesting you had commented and I had not read it.

My understanding is Jeremy just took her there one evening and told her to wait outside and keep lookout. Julie could refuse or support her boyfriend.

Putting Julie in an very difficult situation. Just as he did 5 months later.

The case is always in the media, with Jeremy protesting his innocence. So I took an interest.

For someone who was so reluctant as an accomplice, JM seems to have had no qualms helping him spend the proceeds.

[grahameb]

So Grahame is  a Jeremy supporter. Which I said two pages ago.

Grahame had a tantrum and denied it.

How on earth can you guage whether I had a tantrum or not?

[Jane]

For someone who was so reluctant as an accomplice, JM seems to have had no qualms helping him spend the proceeds.

Lebaleb, identifying the two little boys doesn't seem to have put her off her stride, either.

[grahameb]

For someone who was so reluctant as an accomplice, JM seems to have had no qualms helping him spend the proceeds.

He owned up to it as well, to his father. She only did after a long time probably to look lilly white for the trial.

[Alias]

It is so funny to read Julie´s account of how the "loot" from the cheque book fraud was handled. She says that Susan quickly threw hers in the garbage, but Julie "doesn´t remember" what she did with hers. She says that she probably gave some of it to the Sally Army! BS!!! She is so transparent!

BTW, it was she who forged the signatures on the cheques, she practiced Susan´s signature. Such a nice girl!

[grahameb]

It is so funny to read Julie´s account of how the "loot" from the cheque book fraud was handled. She says that Susan quickly threw hers in the garbage, but Julie "doesn´t remember" what she did with hers. She says that she probably gave some of it to the Sally Army! BS!!! She is so transparent!

BTW, it was she who forged the signatures on the cheques, she practiced Susan´s signature. Such a nice girl!

If that is so Alias then the crime was much more serious than cheque book fraud. Byt the way I've seen people go down for three years for similar frauds.

[Jane]

If that is so Alias then the crime was much more serious than cheque book fraud. Byt the way I've seen people go down for three years for similar frauds.

So there is now forgery on top of fraud on top of aiding a burglary on top of dope peddling..

[Alias]

If that is so Alias then the crime was much more serious than cheque book fraud. Byt the way I've seen people go down for three years for similar frauds.

It is considered a serious crime. No more calling it "minor", right!