Sheila not fighting back. Why ?

[Jane]

I think you have over used the word 'rational' and there are more people here that are 'rational; other than you. In fact, your obsession with suggesting that other people are 'irrational' because they don't agree with you - is in fact - Irrational!!

The points you highlighted are important points to YOU!! It does NOT naturally follow that the barrel would have blood inside, it is NOT impossible that it wouldn't - the light may have been broken as part of the staging and I have still yet to see you post evidence to suggest the blood inside the silencer was 'a fine mist' - blood and paint could easily have been put there.

You can call me irrational a million times if it makes you feel better but I will NOT believe that the silencer evidence is sound!

Nor will I believe it's rational to believe that a farmer's son, allegedly good at shooting, waited until he was 25 before attempting, for the first and only time in  his life, to shoot rabbits.

[scipio_usmc]

The lies from Jeremy Bamber defenders never seem to cease.

The spin from Jeremy defenders:

Julie was going to be criminally punished and rolled over on Jeremy in exchange for immunity.

Did Julie make up the claims about Jeremy to get out of being punished for crimes police found out she had committed

The facts:

1) But for Sheila telling police she was at the Caravan site when Jeremy burglarized it they would not have known she was there.

2) But for her and Battersby telling police about their check fraud neither the police nor bank would have been aware of it.  They paid the bank back and the bank thus chose not to press charges.  here was nothing police could do after that to charge them even if they wanted to.

3) But for telling police about her drug offenses police would not have known about them and the most they could do was give her a simple caution for same.

So it was her statement to police about Jeremy that made police aware of her crimes.  She made up the stories about Jeremy just to implicate herself to police?  That makes no sense at all and in fact she could have implicated Jeremy without admitting her drug and check fraud offenses.

So the JB supporter argument that she made up the claims against Jeremy to help herself are sheer nonsense.

What about agreeing to testify in exchange for immunity from the things she mentioned to police?
The police determined there was no basis to charge her, she wasn't ever granted immunity.

So Jeremy supporters are distorting.

Why do supporters do this?  Because Jeremy supporters have no valid way to suggest Julie is lying so resort to the bogus tale that she lied in exchange for being given immunity or the ridiculous claim she lied in order to get a magazine deal.

What is clear is that during the course of ratting on Jeremy she came clean about the illicit things she was involved in, police didn't know about them prior and use that as a basis to get her to roll over on Jeremy.  Nor did police give her immunity.  There is no way to argue that Julie made up the claims she did in order to get immunity.

Now on to Jan's BS in light of the above

They were not minor crimes . So you don't believe the bank manager about the police arranging her visit to the bank then? What about the alleged drug smuggling - you call that minor? this was mentioned in official documents.

His recollection years later that police called to let them know what the girls wanted to do doesn't amount to granting immunity.  The police don't have the authority to grant immunity the decision is made at a different governmental level.

In any event you keep ignoring the big picture which is that the only way your allegations have any meaning is if you can establish Julie had a reason to make up the story she told police.  It was during the course of telling such story that she admitted her criminal actions.  Clearly they didn't know about her criminal actions and get her to make up a story about Jeremy. She didn't need to ask the for immunuty in exchange for the story because they didn't knwo about her crimes and she coudl have told them what she knew about Jeremy without implicating herself but she chose to come clean anyway though she didn't have to.

She didn't ask for immunity during her interview and never was granted immunity.  There was nothing that legally prevented police from trying to prosecute her after she gave her testimony and Jeremy was convicted.  They didn't prosecute her because her drug crimes could only have resulted in a simple caution there was nothing they could do with respect to the bank since the bank refused to press charges and no evidence she did anything to rob the caravan site.  Jeremy would have to have confessed and implicated her and then they would have to have decided if they could get a conviction with a convicted killer who wanted retribution against Julie as their star witness.  But he didn't confess and claim she was involved so...

Fraud / Theft and drugs offences ? Not always a caution and the document from DPP shows she was given immunity because of the trial

A) She would need to be caught with a lot of drugs to make out a major case against a first time offender but all they had was her own admission related to the drugs not some large amount of drugs they could tie to her.  So all they could do was caution her.

B) In the law in existence at the time the most they could face for the check fraud was a fine and community order. They subsequently have toughened the penalty for fraud and yet still the penalty today would be between these ranges:

Minimum: community order (LOW)
Maximum: Fine and community order Medium

This was pointed out to you in the past.  You keep ignoring it because of your bias.

C) There is no document claiming she was only given a caution because of the trial. The document in question states police determined they could only give her a caution based on the nature of the drug offenses she admitted to.   

Your whole stance in this  case is that the police never lie. This has been shown in many other cases NOT to be a FACT

No my stance is that it must be demonstrated police lied or did whatever acts defenders want to attribute to them that supposedly resulted in an MOJ.  In order to establish reasonable doubt it is necessary to prove that it is reasonably likely that police did very specific things such as concealing blood found int he rifle and planting blood int he moderator.  Saying that police have lied before and since doesn't speak to the issues at hand and thus doesn't meet your burden of proof. 

[scipio_usmc]

Nor will I believe it's rational to believe that a farmer's son, allegedly good at shooting, waited until he was 25 before attempting, for the first and only time in  his life, to shoot rabbits.

Indeed it is not rational to believe he ever did so.

If you are trying to suggest it is not rational for someone to decide they do not want to ever shoot at animals then in that case you don't know what rational means. Plenty of people, myself included will not shoot at animals except in self-defense.

The evidence in this case was that Jeremy was opposed to shooting animals and never did so before. To say because he was a farmer's son he would have to like shooting rabbits and would have to have done so is irrational not a rational position.

 

[scipio_usmc]

I think you have over used the word 'rational' and there are more people here that are 'rational; other than you. In fact, you're obsession with suggesting that other people are 'irrational' because they don't agree with you - is in fact - irrational!!

The points you highlighted are important points to YOU!! It does NOT naturally follow that the barrel would have blood inside, it is NOT impossible that it wouldn't - the light may have been broken as part of the staging and I have still yet to see you post evidence to suggest the blood inside the silencer was 'a fine mist' - blood and paint could easily have been put there.

You can call me irrational a million times if it makes you feel better but I will NOT believe that the silencer evidence is sound!

No I have not overused the words reasonable and rational because they are part of the law.  The reasonable person is a part of our legal system and rational basis is as well hence why they are used is so many legal formulations including the term "reasonable doubt".

The points I made are important to the law and the reason they are important to the law is because they entail assessing in an objective, reasonable manner what the truth is.  Saying such is not important to you is an admission you are not looking a the issue in a reasonable manner.

Each time you make your unreasonable argument i am going to point out why it is flawed.  It doesn't matter whether that will change your mind or not the point is to demonstrate it is an invalid position so a position that has no value so far as the Courts are concerned and no value in an argument over the facts anymore than Lookout's opinion that Jeremy is innocent would have in any debate over evidence.



 

[Jane]

The lies from Jeremy Bamber defenders never seem to cease.

The spin from Jeremy defenders:

Julie was going to be criminally punished and rolled over on Jeremy in exchange for immunity.

Did Julie make up the claims about Jeremy to get out of being punished for crimes police found out she had committed

The facts:

1) But for Sheila telling police she was at the Caravan site when Jeremy burglarized it they would not have known she was there.

2) But for her and Battersby telling police about their check fraud neither the police nor bank would have been aware of it.  They paid the bank back and the bank thus chose not to press charges.  here was nothing police could do after that to charge them even if they wanted to.

3) But for telling police about her drug offenses police would not have known about them and the most they could do was give her a simple caution for same.

So it was her statement to police about Jeremy that made police aware of her crimes.  She made up the stories about Jeremy just to implicate herself to police?  That makes no sense at all and in fact she could have implicated Jeremy without admitting her drug and check fraud offenses.

So the JB supporter argument that she made up the claims against Jeremy to help herself are sheer nonsense.

What about agreeing to testify in exchange for immunity from the things she mentioned to police?
The police determined there was no basis to charge her, she wasn't ever granted immunity.

So Jeremy supporters are distorting.

Why do supporters do this?  Because Jeremy supporters have no valid way to suggest Julie is lying so resort to the bogus tale that she lied in exchange for being given immunity or the ridiculous claim she lied in order to get a magazine deal.

What is clear is that during the course of ratting on Jeremy she came clean about the illicit things she was involved in, police didn't know about them prior and use that as a basis to get her to roll over on Jeremy.  Nor did police give her immunity.  There is no way to argue that Julie made up the claims she did in order to get immunity.

Now on to Jan's BS in light of the above

His recollection years later that police called to let them know what the girls wanted to do doesn't amount to granting immunity.  The police don't have the authority to grant immunity the decision is made at a different governmental level.

In any event you keep ignoring the big picture which is that the only way your allegations have any meaning is if you can establish Julie had a reason to make up the story she told police.  It was during the course of telling such story that she admitted her criminal actions.  Clearly they didn't know about her criminal actions and get her to make up a story about Jeremy. She didn't need to ask the for immunuty in exchange for the story because they didn't knwo about her crimes and she coudl have told them what she knew about Jeremy without implicating herself but she chose to come clean anyway though she didn't have to.

She didn't ask for immunity during her interview and never was granted immunity.  There was nothing that legally prevented police from trying to prosecute her after she gave her testimony and Jeremy was convicted.  They didn't prosecute her because her drug crimes could only have resulted in a simple caution there was nothing they could do with respect to the bank since the bank refused to press charges and no evidence she did anything to rob the caravan site.  Jeremy would have to have confessed and implicated her and then they would have to have decided if they could get a conviction with a convicted killer who wanted retribution against Julie as their star witness.  But he didn't confess and claim she was involved so...


A) She would need to be caught with a lot of drugs to make out a major case against a first time offender but all they had was her own admission related to the drugs not some large amount of drugs they could tie to her.  So all they could do was caution her.

B) In the law in existence at the time the most they could face for the check fraud was a fine and community order. They subsequently have toughened the penalty for fraud and yet still the penalty today would be between these ranges:

Minimum: community order (LOW)
Maximum: Fine and community order Medium

This was pointed out to you in the past.  You keep ignoring it because of your bias.

C) There is no document claiming she was only given a caution because of the trial. The document in question states police determined they could only give her a caution based on the nature of the drug offenses she admitted to.   

No my stance is that it must be demonstrated police lied or did whatever acts defenders want to attribute to them that supposedly resulted in an MOJ.  In order to establish reasonable doubt it is necessary to prove that it is reasonably likely that police did very specific things such as concealing blood found int he rifle and planting blood int he moderator.  Saying that police have lied before and since doesn't speak to the issues at hand and thus doesn't meet your burden of proof.

Regarding your points 1-3, there are other possibilities. A. However minor you consider her crimes to have been, she may have thought it better for her to confess that wait for Jeremy to do a tit for tat.  .  B.The police may have asked if there was anything she'd done which might be seen as undermining to her testimony if it came up in court.  I think there's a statement here somewhere -possibly to do with COLP- in which it's accepted that JM was offered immunity for her testimony.

[Caroline]

No I have not overused the words reasonable and rational because they are part of the law.  The reasonable person is a part of our legal system and rational basis is as well hence why they are used is so many legal formulations including the term "reasonable doubt".

The points I made are important to the law and the reason they are important to the law is because they entail assessing in an objective, reasonable manner what the truth is.  Saying such is not important to you is an admission you are not looking a the issue in a reasonable manner.

Each time you make your unreasonable argument i am going to point out why it is flawed.  It doesn't matter whether that will change your mind or not the point is to demonstrate it is an invalid position so a position that has no value so far as the Courts are concerned and no value in an argument over the facts anymore than Lookout's opinion that Jeremy is innocent would have in any debate over evidence.

Fill your boots mate! Now point me in the direction of the fine mist reference?

[Alias]

Skip:

She wasn't given immunity in exchange for testimony, In fact, the only reason police knew about her minor crimes was because she told them during the course of her statements about Jeremy.  She could have failed to disclose such things and police would not have been the wiser.  It was not the case of police catching her doing something wrong and then offering her immunity to get a bigger fish. Police already made the decision prior to trial that they would not be able to prosecute her because of a lack of evidence.  The only evidence they had came from her and was nonspecific as to her drug offenses with Jeremy. They determined there was no evidence she was a co-conspirator with respect to Jeremy's Caravan robbery. The only evidence against her that could be verified after she told them about it was the check fraud but the bank indicated it would not press charges against her and Battersby because they paid the money back.   

You forget accessory to murder or obstruction of justice. That is not minor, it is major! If Jeremy did it, she was in on it. Reading her statements that is what you have to conclude. She had every opportunity to warn the Bamber family and Sheila, but she chose not to. A serious offence.

If Jeremy is innocent, police could have threatened her into testifying against him - otherwise she would be prosecuted for being accessory to murder and/or obstruction of justice.

[Jan]

The lies from Jeremy Bamber defenders never seem to cease.

The spin from Jeremy defenders:

Julie was going to be criminally punished and rolled over on Jeremy in exchange for immunity.

Did Julie make up the claims about Jeremy to get out of being punished for crimes police found out she had committed

The facts:

1) But for Sheila telling police she was at the Caravan site when Jeremy burglarized it they would not have known she was there.

2) But for her and Battersby telling police about their check fraud neither the police nor bank would have been aware of it.  They paid the bank back and the bank thus chose not to press charges.  here was nothing police could do after that to charge them even if they wanted to.

3) But for telling police about her drug offenses police would not have known about them and the most they could do was give her a simple caution for same.

So it was her statement to police about Jeremy that made police aware of her crimes.  She made up the stories about Jeremy just to implicate herself to police?  That makes no sense at all and in fact she could have implicated Jeremy without admitting her drug and check fraud offenses.

So the JB supporter argument that she made up the claims against Jeremy to help herself are sheer nonsense.

What about agreeing to testify in exchange for immunity from the things she mentioned to police?
The police determined there was no basis to charge her, she wasn't ever granted immunity.

So Jeremy supporters are distorting.

Why do supporters do this?  Because Jeremy supporters have no valid way to suggest Julie is lying so resort to the bogus tale that she lied in exchange for being given immunity or the ridiculous claim she lied in order to get a magazine deal.

What is clear is that during the course of ratting on Jeremy she came clean about the illicit things she was involved in, police didn't know about them prior and use that as a basis to get her to roll over on Jeremy.  Nor did police give her immunity.  There is no way to argue that Julie made up the claims she did in order to get immunity.

Now on to Jan's BS in light of the above

His recollection years later that police called to let them know what the girls wanted to do doesn't amount to granting immunity.  The police don't have the authority to grant immunity the decision is made at a different governmental level.

In any event you keep ignoring the big picture which is that the only way your allegations have any meaning is if you can establish Julie had a reason to make up the story she told police.  It was during the course of telling such story that she admitted her criminal actions.  Clearly they didn't know about her criminal actions and get her to make up a story about Jeremy. She didn't need to ask the for immunuty in exchange for the story because they didn't knwo about her crimes and she coudl have told them what she knew about Jeremy without implicating herself but she chose to come clean anyway though she didn't have to.

She didn't ask for immunity during her interview and never was granted immunity.  There was nothing that legally prevented police from trying to prosecute her after she gave her testimony and Jeremy was convicted.  They didn't prosecute her because her drug crimes could only have resulted in a simple caution there was nothing they could do with respect to the bank since the bank refused to press charges and no evidence she did anything to rob the caravan site.  Jeremy would have to have confessed and implicated her and then they would have to have decided if they could get a conviction with a convicted killer who wanted retribution against Julie as their star witness.  But he didn't confess and claim she was involved so...


A) She would need to be caught with a lot of drugs to make out a major case against a first time offender but all they had was her own admission related to the drugs not some large amount of drugs they could tie to her.  So all they could do was caution her.

B) In the law in existence at the time the most they could face for the check fraud was a fine and community order. They subsequently have toughened the penalty for fraud and yet still the penalty today would be between these ranges:

Minimum: community order (LOW)
Maximum: Fine and community order Medium

This was pointed out to you in the past.  You keep ignoring it because of your bias.

C) There is no document claiming she was only given a caution because of the trial. The document in question states police determined they could only give her a caution based on the nature of the drug offenses she admitted to.   

No my stance is that it must be demonstrated police lied or did whatever acts defenders want to attribute to them that supposedly resulted in an MOJ.  In order to establish reasonable doubt it is necessary to prove that it is reasonably likely that police did very specific things such as concealing blood found int he rifle and planting blood int he moderator.  Saying that police have lied before and since doesn't speak to the issues at hand and thus doesn't meet your burden of proof.

Why don't you just Stop YOUR BS. You rude ill mannered man.


32 interviews that have not been seen.

So for all we know - JM went in with her cock and bull story as a woman scorned - then as  the police had realised they were under pressure they saw an opportunity for her to help . Just checked with her whether there was anything that would have stopped her being a good "witness" and that's when the crimes came out.

I never said they offered her immunity before she dobbed in JB so your accusations are incorrect .

The fact is there is an official document - so there was an incentive for her to continue - even if she had regretted her first interviews .

I am entitled to my opinion and I think she was "coached" in order for her evidence to fit the crime - she even covered why there were no prints on the gun. How convenient.

[Jan]

Skip:

You forget accessory to murder or obstruction of justice. That is not minor, it is major! If Jeremy did it, she was in on it. Reading her statements that is what you have to conclude. She had every opportunity to warn the Bamber family and Sheila, but she chose not to. A serious offence.

If Jeremy is innocent, police could have threatened her into testifying against him - otherwise she would be prosecuted for being accessory to murder and/or obstruction of justice.

And perverting the course of justice . Which she definitely could have been prosecuted on , after all she said in her statement on the night she "knew" he had done it.

[Alias]

And perverting the course of justice . Which she definitely could have been prosecuted on , after all she said in her statement on the night she "knew" he had done it.

Sorry, maybe I used the wrong term - not too strong in legal terminology in English!

[scipio_usmc]

Regarding your points 1-3, there are other possibilities. A. However minor you consider her crimes to have been, she may have thought it better for her to confess that wait for Jeremy to do a tit for tat.  .  B.The police may have asked if there was anything she'd done which might be seen as undermining to her testimony if it came up in court.  I think there's a statement here somewhere -possibly to do with COLP- in which it's accepted that JM was offered immunity for her testimony.

Scenario:

Jeremy alleges Julie and Susan committed fraud.  What could he offer beyond his allegation to actually prove it?  Nothing so if he did make such a claim they could have simply denied it without any problem if they wanted to.  Similarly there was no evidence related to the drugs or that she did anything to rob the caravan site.  It would be the word of an accused killer only and claiming these things to try to undermine her testimony would not accomplish much especially since it would require him admitting she was smuggling the drugs for him and helped him steal from the caravan site.

She had no need to confess.

More importantly if the argument is that she would need to confess if she ratted Jeremy out tha tis a motivation to remain silent instead of ratting him out.

From a rational standpoint and legalistic standpoint, when you try to undermine someone's credibility by bringing up immunity it is done to allege police found out about a crime, you then told them about a different crime someone else committed and do so in exchange for immunity form the crime they initially knew about.  The argument is that the witness made up the claim the other person is guilty just to escape liability.

That argument can't be made here because police didn't know about the crimes until she told them during the course of the statement.  So one can't claim she was busted by cop and then made up a tale to try to escape punishment.  Even after she gave the statement she wasn't given a deal where if she agreed to testify they would not prosecute her. They could have attempted to prosecute her after his conviction.  The decision not to prosecute was based on the fact she could only get a caution for the drugs and no evidence to try her for the caravan burglary. 

That leads to the broader issue for us.  Is there any evidence to suggest she made up the story in order to avoid being prosecuted.  The answer is no, that is the ultimate issue for people debating the evidence in the case.  Defenders play games with technicalities that are of little consequence to this broad question. Such games are to IMPLY maybe she could have lied to save her own skin though a broad look at that issue turns up no evidence of that at all.  Supporters want to pretend there is evidence she made up the whole story to save her own skin and pretend such evidence was withheld from the jury. 

Some people actually buy this mubmo jumbo but usually it is people who are biased to Jeremy anyway not people who are trying to be objective who get suckered in by it.  So in a way it is not being suckered in so much as intentionally adopting it because of bias.

[Jane]

No I have not overused the words reasonable and rational because they are part of the law.  The reasonable person is a part of our legal system and rational basis is as well hence why they are used is so many legal formulations including the term "reasonable doubt".

The points I made are important to the law and the reason they are important to the law is because they entail assessing in an objective, reasonable manner what the truth is.  Saying such is not important to you is an admission you are not looking a the issue in a reasonable manner.

Each time you make your unreasonable argument i am going to point out why it is flawed.  It doesn't matter whether that will change your mind or not the point is to demonstrate it is an invalid position so a position that has no value so far as the Courts are concerned and no value in an argument over the facts anymore than Lookout's opinion that Jeremy is innocent would have in any debate over evidence.

So now you're going to squirm out of it by saying that YOU were talking about ONLY what is reasonable in law. WHAT a bloody BRILLIANT way of saying you can 't be wrong on any point you raise. All you have to do is say that it's reasonable in law ergo in YOUR opinion it's rational.

As no one has yet said that Jeremy had any aversion to shooting game birds I'm assuming that he did. As no one has yet said that Jeremy was anti hunt, I'm assuming he wasn't and as no one has yet said he was vegetarian I'll assume he wasn't. So it would seem a little more than slightly odd that he had NEVER shot rabbits.

So jump up and down till your feet hurt. Pull your hair out for all I care. Tell me, until your throat is raw that it's reasonable and rational that you believe Jeremy had NEVER previously shot rabbits. Guess what, I DON'T believe it holds water where I live -which is in the real world NOT a semi legal vacuum- nor do I think that particular view will be accepted by many others from whichEVER side of the divide they sit. I'm not saying it was a favourite pass time, but I'm DAMNED certain he was no rabbit shooting virgin.

[Alias]

Skip, why do you always have to end your posts with tirades of degrading bullshit? Does it make you feel better?
It paints a picture of an individual who has a strong need to elevate himself on the cost of others aka strong insecurity. In other words, it makes you look weak.
Thought I´d tell ya. 

[lookout]

When it was proved that MM had nothing to do with the murders after JM had roped him in owing to Jeremy having told her,what would have been JM's reaction towards leaving Jeremy to take the blame ?
Would JM have automatically blamed Jeremy,or just thought it was one of his jokes which she'd got used to ignoring ?
Not forgetting that after the murders both JM and JB went for breaks to Eastbourne ? and Amsterdam. Would she have not thought that she was technically with a murderer at that time ? Also their visit to CC,JM had to face Colin ( knowing what she allegedly did ) How could she ? How could anyone ? She was with the " killer " of this mans' twin sons,sitting quite brazenly offering her smpathies.

I find it a bit suspect that after both had parted company albeit not very amicably,that JM should start accusing him of being involved with the tragedy,knowing in her heart that it wasn't true.
It must have felt very satisfying telling tales and having everyone agree with you,except that things went further than she'd anticipated so had to continue with the charade to save face,and of course to be rewarded with the pot of gold at the end of it.

[Jane]

That was a lot of words when the only thing you needed to say was the above to which I would have  given the answer that had she known that, she probably WOULDN'T have, but as a 21 year old who just may have been scared of what the future held for her, who's to say?

You haven't addressed my point that it was recognized that she was offered immunity, or does THAT come under your heading of a technicality of little consequence.