Author Topic: Why did the police frame Jeremy ?  (Read 14928 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44313
Re: Why did the police frame Jeremy ?
« Reply #135 on: January 13, 2015, 02:51:AM »
No need to feed her misinformation. If Jeremy wasn't 100% sure of JM's loyalty why tell her anything? I would be more inclined to believe her if she had come up with anything only the murderer could have known... she didn't.
She was said to be impossible to cross examine constantly bursting into tears.

There are lots of reasons why Bamber told Julie. I will get the thread post.

Bamber's  police interviews also suggest to him that Julie knew things that had not been reported in the newspapers.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2015, 04:02:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44313
Re: Why did the police frame Jeremy ?
« Reply #136 on: January 13, 2015, 02:52:AM »
Jeremy amazingly rang Julie twice before the raid team had entered WHF.

The first time almost certainly before ringing the police. According to Julie to tell her he had 'not slept all night' & 'everything was going well'. The second time to tell her not to go to work & a police car would pick her up. Which was generous of the police as Julie was not a relative.

Jeremy was in a self satisfied mood when meeting Julie. Not confident enough to say he did the massacre, but boastful enough to say he arranged it and wise enough to give a proxy who would have been no where near WHF.

There are several reasons why Jeremy told Julie:

Julie would suspect anyway. Jeremy would tell anyone who would listen how much he hated his family. Julie was the person closest to Jeremy prior to the massacre. So would have been on  the receiving end of Jeremys rants & unfufilled plans to get rid of everyone.

Julie knew about the caravan break in. Committing a crime against the family, Julie would suspect that Jeremy was also prepared to go one stage further & committ a crime to his family. So even if Jeremy said he had nothing to do with the massacre, Julie would again suspect.

Jeremy trusted Julie enough to involve her in the caravan break in. So he may have trusted her enough to confess an involvement in the massacre.

Julie said herself she was under Jeremys spell. Jeremy would have known this & felt Julie would remain under his spell. If they spilt up weeks or months later, there would be no evidence, even if Julie went to the police.

Jeremy felt Julie would not have the confidence to go through with a confession & trial. She would be scared of getting implicated & they would not believe her anyway. Jeremy had boasted about being 'watertight' & it being an 'open & shut case' with no evidence against him. Julie was only 21 & caught in an unexpected situation. Julie said on TV that Bamber had said 'there was nothing you could have done to stop it, and nothing you can do now'.

Jeremy wanted to boast & prove Julie wrong. Julie had dismissed his 10am 'it's now or never' claim. She had also dismissed his previous plans. When interviewed on television she said 'Jeremy liked to say things to shock people'.

Jeremy would have been buzzing & hyped up directly after the massacre. He had lost his immediate family, although intentianally.  The closest person to him was now Julie. He had to phone her, even though it was 3.00am.  Just to hear her voice & reaffirm that somebody still loved him. After that 3.00am phone call, what he said & how he said it, Jeremy knew there was no point lying to her after that. 

Jeremy would have enjoyed boasting to Julie. Once things had blown over even more he would have no doubt hinted to other people of his involvement. He may have even enjoyed police suspecting him, believing they would never have enough evidence to charge him or  get a conviction. It has been said Jeremy enjoyed the female attention at the trial.

Jeremy had repeatedly told Julie of his hatred for his family. He may have thought Julie would understand his reasons. Espesically after some nice, expensive meals.

There is some debate on whether Jeremy did jilt Julie. However if they did split up & Julie went to police, Jeremy could claim she is doing it as a scorned woman. Which is exactly what happened, although Jeremy has never said a scorned woman is also likely to tell the truth.

Jeremy had not said to Julie he had committed the massacre. He gave himself a proxy. If the police were informed, the proxy would deny it. And Matthew Macdonald could probably prove he was no where near WHF. If there was no other evidence against Jeremy, - case closed.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2015, 03:53:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44313
Re: Why did the police frame Jeremy ?
« Reply #137 on: January 13, 2015, 03:00:AM »
What/who else would there have been without JM's lies ? Because there was no forensic evidence of any kind in which to pin the murders on Jeremy.
JM was coerced by the police,particularly SJ,to go as a prosecution witness,with a sweetner of £25,000 to go with it pending a conviction.
I bet that JM was very uncomfortable with this " arrangement" and it was only the thought of the financial gain that kept her going.
Without the encouragement from SJ,she'd have fallen flat on her face.
EVERYONE likes money,and JM was no different,being in the position at the time to like it even more after splitting up with Jeremy, so looked upon it as a means to an end and also as a form of " compensation " against her loss/dream of becoming mistress of WHF one day.
If only we'd been privy to her 32 statements,eh ?

There was a lot of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Bamber is then automatically guilty.

There is also a lot of circumstantial evidence, a motive, opportunity and no alibi. Together with witnesses on Bamber's poor relationship with his family and the silencer evidence.

Things such as reasons why Neville would not phone Bamber and  what Sheila was doing then would be asked by the jury. There are 40 answers to the first question. And no answer to the second. 

You may have called it a 'silly question',  but the jury would also discuss who was in the best position to carry out the massacre. My thread post showed it was Bamber.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2015, 05:48:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44313
Re: Why did the police frame Jeremy ?
« Reply #138 on: January 13, 2015, 03:13:AM »
If he was guilty why would Mugford need to lie?

Well Julie's testimony is in 4 parts.

Two parts are 100% correct and cannot be disputed:

What her and Bamber did after the massacre. Where they went etc.

Her feelings at different times. Only Julie can change this.


Two parts of the WS are Julie's words against Bamber's.  However a lot of what Julie said is backed up by other witnesses -

Bamber's pre massacre hatred, resentment and plans.

Bamber's post massacre confession.


I will find my thread post.



« Last Edit: January 13, 2015, 03:15:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44313
Re: Why did the police frame Jeremy ?
« Reply #139 on: January 13, 2015, 03:16:AM »
Bamber's highly paid defence went through Julie's WS brick by brick. Looking for a brick they could pull out to bring everything crashing down.

However they could not find anything. Admitting to each other her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.

Out of desperation, at trial the defence focused on the 1984 minor cheque book fraud. To try to show her as a dishonest person. The judge rightly poured scorn on this saying both Bamber & Julie had committed previous crime, but that does not mean either had lied at trial. He also said Julie had paid back the money ( Bamber had not). Bamber had also trusted Julie enough to tell her about the caravan break in, so may have trusted her enough to tell her about the massacre.

Julies WS is in different parts -


What happened after the massacre:

The eating out, hotels, trips around the country and abroad. There is no point in Julie lying here. A lot of other people joined them for some of these. Hotel bookings can be checked and relatives asked. So there was no reason to lie as everything can be easily checked.

What Bamber did does not highlight guilt or innocence anyway. Although Bamber's callous actions have come back to haunt him


Bamber's hatred and resentment:

This could be her word against Bamber's. But was not.

Bamber himself testified he had a very poor/non existent relationship with June.

He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' on the massacre night. Saying they did not like each other and she had committed child abuse on the twins. Decades later saying he did not understand her illness.

There are also a lot of other people who said Bamber did not like his family or the raw deal he had. The facts back this up, Sheila living rent free in London, Bamber working long hours after reluctantly starting to work on the farm as a last resort.


The massacre plans:

Interestingly Charles Marsden mentioned that Bamber had spoken to him about burning down WHF. Backing up Julie's assertion of Bamber's aborted plan.

This is again Julies word against Bamber's. However some of the things Julie said are backed up.

She said he planned to ride to WHF. This is backed up by the fact that the bike was brought over just before the massacre.

Julie also knew about the bible and kitchen fight. Which was not reported in the papers. And knew about the lockable from outside window.

The judge and appeal courts found it hard to understand Bamber's 3am call to Julie. Julie saying Bamber said 'he had not slept all night' and 'everything is going well'. When the police asked him about the call, he just said 'no comment'.

Julie also knew about the under insurance of WHF and the items inside.


Julie's feelings:

Her feelings while things were evolving can only be changed by Julie herself, and cannot be disputed.

                                  ___________________

Overall Julie's statement does have a 'ring of truth' to it. She approached the police and was not forced to say anything.

Her reason to lie was also very weak. Bamber allegedly jilting her, after he said their relationship had been in decline/coming to a close for six months. Julie creating a false WS and lying under oath for this sole reason.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2015, 03:21:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Why did the police frame Jeremy ?
« Reply #140 on: January 13, 2015, 08:31:AM »
Where have you copied that from?
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33773
Re: Why did the police frame Jeremy ?
« Reply #141 on: January 13, 2015, 08:41:AM »
Where have you copied that from?



I imagine that at least 95% of what he posts is cloned. IF one was interested enough to look, the last post is probably scattered in other places through all the threads he's produced. I won 't use the expression "created" as it suggests innovation.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Why did the police frame Jeremy ?
« Reply #142 on: January 13, 2015, 08:57:AM »


I imagine that at least 95% of what he posts is cloned. IF one was interested enough to look, the last post is probably scattered in other places through all the threads he's produced. I won 't use the expression "created" as it suggests innovation.

Didn't read it the first time, having read it, he probably did write it.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33773
Re: Why did the police frame Jeremy ?
« Reply #143 on: January 13, 2015, 09:00:AM »
Didn't read it the first time, having read it, he probably did write it.



The exception which proves the rule, Caroline :D

Offline Gemma

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
Re: Why did the police frame Jeremy ?
« Reply #144 on: January 18, 2015, 09:14:PM »
I think you're forgetting the silencer?  ;D

Caroline, can you state in basic form what role you think Bamber's relatives played in helping the police fabricate the silencer evidence. Do you think that the finding of the silencer as described by the relatives really did occur? One aspect of the case which suggests it did not is the fact that no silencer was mentioned in Ann Eaton's first statement which was given well after the time of the alleged finding.

Evidence tampering is a criminal offence. What do you say to supporters of the relatives who resent the accusation, notwithstanding your expressed view that Bamber is guilty.


Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Why did the police frame Jeremy ?
« Reply #145 on: January 18, 2015, 09:25:PM »
Caroline, can you state in basic form what role you think Bamber's relatives played in helping the police fabricate the silencer evidence. Do you think that the finding of the silencer as described by the relatives really did occur? One aspect of the case which suggests it did not is the fact that no silencer was mentioned in Ann Eaton's first statement which was given well after the time of the alleged finding.

Evidence tampering is a criminal offence. What do you say to supporters of the relatives who resent the accusation, notwithstanding your expressed view that Bamber is guilty.

No, I don't believe they found it and I have mentioned AE's statement before in this respect. I don't believe it was their idea but obviously if the silencer was planted, they must have gone along with it.

I don't say anything to supporters of the relatives - people who support the relatives do so for their own reasons.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: Why did the police frame Jeremy ?
« Reply #146 on: January 18, 2015, 09:27:PM »
I rather believe that if the silencer was found by the relatives then it is possible that it was planted the previous night?

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Why did the police frame Jeremy ?
« Reply #147 on: January 18, 2015, 09:34:PM »
I rather believe that if the silencer was found by the relatives then it is possible that it was planted the previous night?

Possibly or perhaps it was discussed that they should find it? It just seems weird that A silencer was talked about when AE et al made their initial accusations about Jeremy in Taff's office. Jeremy was asked about the silencer later in the day by both TJ and SJ and then the following day, a silencer is found, complete with blood, paint and hair. The statements don't match and no one seems to be in agreement about who was actually present.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: Why did the police frame Jeremy ?
« Reply #148 on: January 18, 2015, 09:40:PM »
Possibly or perhaps it was discussed that they should find it? It just seems weird that A silencer was talked about when AE et al made their initial accusations about Jeremy in Taff's office. Jeremy was asked about the silencer later in the day by both TJ and SJ and then the following day, a silencer is found, complete with blood, paint and hair. The statements don't match and no one seems to be in agreement about who was actually present.
So do you know what was said about the silencer in Taff's office?

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Why did the police frame Jeremy ?
« Reply #149 on: January 18, 2015, 09:43:PM »
So do you know what was said about the silencer in Taff's office?

AP mentioned it, stating that the last time he saw the rifle it had both the silencer and sights attached. TJ and SJ went to Goldhanger and asked Jeremy if the silencer (and sights) was/were attached when he went to shoot rabbits. Jeremy said that neither were attached.
Few people have the imagination for reality