The Week of the Murders

[No-Bits]

Another way of looking at it, is that Julie was actually in a unique position to prevent the murders, she not only failed in that way, she then went along with the 'story' for another month. It does not reflect well on her in any respect.

I do not know how the surviving relatives view her, but personally I think she should have been charged as an accessory.

If anybody genuinely thinks otherwise, then all I can do is question their logic. 

With the exception that is Adam, does a single person disagree with the above? Regardless of your stance on the case. 

[Adam]

Adam have you yet not realised that April and myself are no longer Jeremy Bamber supporters so what are you on  about you are just contrary.

I appreciate it is hard for both of you to admit you are wrong. Just as it is for Caroline.

So you will bring up things to try to justify you're previous stance.

A natural thing to do. Nothing wrong with it.

[susan]

April had Jeremy Bamber not got rid of her for another fair maiden she would have never opened her mouth she had her eye on being the next Mrs Bamber.  Wonder why he did not scream from the rooftops thst she was not telling the truth this makes me really wonder

[Adam]

With the exception that is Adam, does a single person disagree with the above? Regardless of your stance on the case. 

The police and courts decided she should not be charged as an accessory.

So the law says no.

[susan]

Adam I am not trying to justify my previous stance I have very good reason to have changed it and it has nothing to do with your posts and people like me Caroline and April have looked at the case from both sides of the fence you have just looked on the guilty side this is why your thinking is so limited and not open for discussion.

[Adam]

April had Jeremy Bamber not got rid of her for another fair maiden she would have never opened her mouth she had her eye on being the next Mrs Bamber.  Wonder why he did not scream from the rooftops thst she was not telling the truth this makes me really wonder

Who knows. Julie was not after money.

Did you not read my thread about June's offer to buy Julie a house ? Or have you forgotten it ?

[Jane]

April I have to agree with you totally sick why can't Adam see this saying it is commendable it is double SICK

Susan, I think we are in total agreement that Adam's view that Julie's action was commendable is sicker than sick.

[No-Bits]

The police and courts decided she should not be charged as an accessory.

So the law says no.

You are in my opinion steadfast in your delusions.

She brokered a deal to avoid prosecution, it's quite simple. I do believe her testimony,  but it doesn't excuse her earlier behaviour.

I can also understand why those who think Jeremy is innocent, are questioning her motives and ultimately her honesty.

[Adam]

Adam I am not trying to justify my previous stance I have very good reason to have changed it and it has nothing to do with your posts and people like me Caroline and April have looked at the case from both sides of the fence you have just looked on the guilty side this is why your thinking is so limited and not open for discussion.

What made you change you're mind then ?

You said yourself you do read about the case away from this board. Someone's posts must have influenced you.

[Jane]

Who knows. Julie was not after money.

Did you not read my thread about June's offer to buy Julie a house ? Or have you forgotten it ?

But one can't compare the value of one small property with the value of an entire estate.

[Adam]

You are in my opinion steadfast in your delusions.

She brokered a deal to avoid prosecution, it's quite simple. I do believe her testimony,  but it doesn't excuse her earlier behaviour.

I can also understand why those who think Jeremy is innocent, are questioning her motives and ultimately her honesty.

She did not broker a deal.

The police knew nothing about Jeremy's caravan break in. Julie told them.

The police found out about Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud after Julie had completed her WS.

The police had nothing to make her speak.

[susan]

Harters from a innocent stance and a guilty stance I have always thought she should have been charged and serving a prison sentence one if she was telling the truth she could have prevented the murders and saved 5 lives she came out of it ridding herself of a criminal record and a cheque for £25,000 gained from the deaths of 5 innocent people two of them being wee children Shame on her.

[Jane]

Another way of looking at it, is that Julie was actually in a unique position to prevent the murders, she not only failed in that way, she then went along with the 'story' for another month. It does not reflect well on her in any respect.

I do not know how the surviving relatives view her, but personally I think she should have been charged as an accessory.

If anybody genuinely thinks otherwise, then all I can do is question their logic. 

Sorry Harters, I missed this. I agree entirely.

[Adam]

You are in my opinion steadfast in your delusions.

She brokered a deal to avoid prosecution, it's quite simple. I do believe her testimony,  but it doesn't excuse her earlier behaviour.

I can also understand why those who think Jeremy is innocent, are questioning her motives and ultimately her honesty.

Yes Jeremy's supporters will question her motives.

But the man himself has only ever given one reason why Julie would tell such serious lies over the last 29 years - he (apparently) jilted her.

[No-Bits]

She did not broker a deal.

The police knew nothing about Jeremy's caravan break in. Julie told them.

The police found out about Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud after Julie had completed her WS.

The police had nothing to make her speak.

As I said, delusional.