Julie's Witness Statement - A 'ring of truth' ?

[Caroline]

The defence thought it had a 'ring of truth'. And were not able to dislodge any bricks.

You think Charles Marsden lied to the police to help out Julie ?

Caroline asked Jeremy. Who said Marsden was his friend.

Interesting comment because it's not exactly a startling endorsement, is it?

[Adam]

Interesting comment because it's not exactly a startling endorsement, is it?

A top, highly paid defence saying her WS had a 'ring of truth'. So much so that they had to focus on a minor crime from two years earlier. To try to put doubt in the juries mind.

Seems like a good endorsement to me.

[lookout]

" Ring of Truth " doesn't bode well at all in a court of law. The oath goes, " the truth,the WHOLE truth ",     nothing about " ring of truth ".

[Caroline]

A top, highly paid defence saying her WS had a 'ring of truth'. So much so that they had to focus on a minor crime from two years earlier. To try to put doubt in the juries mind.

Seems like a good endorsement to me.

Which is also NOT a startling endorsement! 

[Mr. Gee]

A top, highly paid defence saying her WS had a 'ring of truth'. So much so that they had to focus on a minor crime from two years earlier. To try to put doubt in the juries mind.

Seems like a good endorsement to me.

So what you are saying in effect is that just because a "top highly paid lawyer" says it is so that that makes it the truth? What that tells me is that their readiness to believe a woman's made up story over well known facts is an indication that these lawyers weren't so good as Jeremy thought? It is a lawyer's job to fight for their client. These words if true are a fair indication that they failed in their duty to do this?

[Adam]

So what you are saying in effect is that just because a "top highly paid lawyer" says it is so that that makes it the truth? What that tells me is that their readiness to believe a woman's made up story over well known facts is an indication that these lawyers weren't so good as Jeremy thought? It is a lawyer's job to fight for their client. These words if true are a fair indication that they failed in their duty to do this?

What brick/s  would you have taken off her WS to bring everything crashing down ?

Can't be hard, she was a 21 year old testifying in a high profile and serious case. A bit of pressure would crack her, wouldn't it ?

[lookout]

What brick/s  would you have taken off her WS to bring everything crashing down ?

Can't be hard, she was a 21 year old testifying in a high profile and serious case. A bit of pressure would crack her, wouldn't it ?

Like Jeremy was only 24 at the time, being accused of 5 murders,and you speak of pressure ??

[Jan]

Which is also NOT a startling endorsement! 

I already explained why her Statements would have to have a Ring of truth - or a little truth - because otherwise they could be proved as lies immediately .

It is very very easy to twist words to make them fit - when you know what the scenario is.

For example Jeremy probably did tell her how he used to get into WHF after a late night out - Then it was realised the windows were secured to they would have to twist that a bit - So there is the ring of truth.

[Mr. Gee]

What brick/s  would you have taken off her WS to bring everything crashing down ?

Can't be hard, she was a 21 year old testifying in a high profile and serious case. A bit of pressure would crack her, wouldn't it ?

Everything Adam. It was a witness statement that she could not back up. The court just chose to believe her without any other corroborating evidence, end of. Personally I think her witness statement was a mixture of truth and lies. The reason I say that is that a downright lie would be easy to detect. But a half truth or an insinuation would be more readily believed. Half truths are an age old tactic of liars.
The plain facts of the case are that her testimony, because of the character of the person who wrote it, because of the circumstances in which it was written and finally because there is absolutely no corroborating evidence to substantiate her more damning claims should have been thrown out of course. That is my opinion. But also in my opinion that is one of the reasons that Bamber's trial was a miscarriage of justice.

[Jan]

Everything Adam. It was a witness statement that she could not back up. The court just chose to believe her without any other corroborating evidence, end of. Personally I think her witness statement was a mixture of truth and lies. The reason I say that is that a downright lie would be easy to detect. But a half truth or an insinuation would be more readily believed. Half truths are an age old tactic of liars.
The plain facts of the case are that her testimony, because of the character of the person who wrote it, because of the circumstances in which it was written and finally because there is absolutely no corroborating evidence to substantiate her more damning claims should have been thrown out of course. That is my opinion. But also in my opinion that is one of the reasons that Bamber's trial was a miscarriage of justice.

Adam should be asking why her original interviews are  not available - perhaps we would then have a better picture of where the "ring of truth " comes from

[Mr. Gee]

Like Jeremy was only 24 at the time, being accused of 5 murders,and you speak of pressure ??

I would say judging by his words and actions at the time that Jeremy was less worldly wise that Mugford. She had proved herself to be a schema from the very begining, by (a) the cheque fraud in which she was a willing participant and (b) because she all too readily dobbed Bamber in about the caravan park break in, stressing to the police that her part in the robbery was only a lookout and that it was Bamber who actually broke in.

[lookout]

I would say judging by his words and actions at the time that Jeremy was less worldly wise that Mugford. She had proved herself to be a schema from the very begining, by (a) the cheque fraud in which she was a willing participant and (b) because she all too readily dobbed Bamber in about the caravan park break in, stressing to the police that her part in the robbery was only a lookout and that it was Bamber who actually broke in.

Oh yes,the woman was streets ahead when it came to being street-wise.What a loathesome person.

[Adam]

Everything Adam. It was a witness statement that she could not back up. The court just chose to believe her without any other corroborating evidence, end of. Personally I think her witness statement was a mixture of truth and lies. The reason I say that is that a downright lie would be easy to detect. But a half truth or an insinuation would be more readily believed. Half truths are an age old tactic of liars.
The plain facts of the case are that her testimony, because of the character of the person who wrote it, because of the circumstances in which it was written and finally because there is absolutely no corroborating evidence to substantiate her more damning claims should have been thrown out of course. That is my opinion. But also in my opinion that is one of the reasons that Bamber's trial was a miscarriage of justice.

Well my thread post had four sections.

After the massacre - All facts. Which can be checked.

Hatred of family - Her word against his. Lots of other witnesses said similar things to Julie.

Plans to massacre: Her word against his. Although some of the things she said are backed up with facts.

Her feelings - Cannot be argued with or proved wrong.

[Mr. Gee]

Well my thread post had four sections.

After the massacre - All facts. Which can be checked.

Hatred of family - Her word against his. Lots of other witnesses said similar things to Julie.

Plans to massacre: Her word against his. Although some of the things she said are backed up with facts.

Her feelings - Cannot be argued with or proved wrong.

And of course the FACT that she went to the police "immediately" after Bamber cheated on her. That immediacy tells me a great deal about this person thank you. It is a great pity that some people are besotted with her.

[Jan]

Well my thread post had four sections.

After the massacre - All facts. Which can be checked.

Hatred of family - Her word against his. Lots of other witnesses said similar things to Julie.

Plans to massacre: Her word against his. Although some of the things she said are backed up with facts.

Her feelings - Cannot be argued with or proved wrong.

What are the things that can be backed up with FACTS/