submit questions for the Essex Police Challenge

[Jan]

I would ask if there is nothing to hide - why refuse access to documents?

[maggie]

I would ask Essex police;
1. Why was JM not charged with drug smuggling.
2. why was JM not charged with burglary from the caravan site.
3. why was JM not charged with cheque card fraud.
4. Why after the murders did she not go to the police as Jeremy had told her " tonight is the night".
5. She had no difficulty identifying the twins, and still said nothing.
6 JM never went to the police in the first place.
Sounds like a woman scorned to me.

Hi buddy, good to see you posting again 
These are all valid questions which have never been answered imo.

[lookout]

Of course it was Buddy. A heat of the moment decision done for spite to get her own back,but---------as she began to think what she'd done,she must have suddenly thought about the part she'd played in with the fraud,robbery and smuggling,then it was too late,except with Mr S Jones behind her and him desperate to get a conviction for Jeremy,their plan worked out quite nicely. 

[Caroline]

I would ask Essex police;
1. Why was JM not charged with drug smuggling.
2. why was JM not charged with burglary from the caravan site.
3. why was JM not charged with cheque card fraud.
4. Why after the murders did she not go to the police as Jeremy had told her " tonight is the night".
5. She had no difficulty identifying the twins, and still said nothing.
6 JM never went to the police in the first place.
Sounds like a woman scorned to me.

In respect to questions 1-4 - she wasn't charged because she gave evidence against Jeremy Bamber. EP wouldn't have even known about the offences until she told them. She had to admit to them in case Jeremy mentioned her involvement thus discrediting her as a witness.

5 and 6 can only be answered by JM.

[Jane]

I would ask Essex police;
1. Why was JM not charged with drug smuggling.
2. why was JM not charged with burglary from the caravan site.
3. why was JM not charged with cheque card fraud.
4. Why after the murders did she not go to the police as Jeremy had told her " tonight is the night".
5. She had no difficulty identifying the twins, and still said nothing.
6 JM never went to the police in the first place.
Sounds like a woman scorned to me.

Buddy, all those questions apply which ever side of the divide we are, but I can almost guarantee that if all of us here, who believe those questions need answers, were to submit them, the most, IMO, we'd receive in return, is an acknowledgement. But it's more likely that we'd hear nothing.

[scipio_usmc]

Buddy, all those questions apply which ever side of the divide we are, but I can almost guarantee that if all of us here, who believe those questions need answers, were to submit them, the most, IMO, we'd receive in return, is an acknowledgement. But it's more likely that we'd hear nothing.

Those questions are all basically commentary anyway not questions for the police.  The police don't decide who is prosecuted, the police can't speak for Julie.  The questions about the charges are proper questions for the prosecutors but we already saw the document where they laid out why she would not be charged.  The other questions about why Julie did things are questions for her.

It takes a lot of effort to get police to answer questions appropriate to them these are not and thus if they did respond substantively it would be to say these questions should be posed to others not them.  They would either do that or not respond at all.

[Jan]

In respect to questions 1-4 - she wasn't charged because she gave evidence against Jeremy Bamber. EP wouldn't have even known about the offences until she told them. She had to admit to them in case Jeremy mentioned her involvement thus discrediting her as a witness.

5 and 6 can only be answered by JM.

unless they asked her in the interviews - which you would think was an obvious question.

So EP could have the answers in the file.

[Caroline]

unless they asked her in the interviews - which you would think was an obvious question.

So EP could have the answers in the file.

Perhaps but I fail to see how the answers to either question would make any difference to Jeremy's incarceration.

[Jan]

"the police can't speak for Julie"

Do you really know the british police force of the 80s?
 
They certainly admit to putting words in the mouths of witnesses to "get their man" so to speak.

Especially when it is one persons word against another.

Trust me - it happened.

[Caroline]

"the police can't speak for Julie"

Do you really know the british police force of the 80s?
 
They certainly admit to putting words in the mouths of witnesses to "get their man" so to speak.

Especially when it is one persons word against another.

Trust me - it happened.

But Julie hasn't accused them of doing that.

[Jan]

Perhaps but I fail to see how the answers to either question would make any difference to Jeremy's incarceration.

Well it would if her answers implied she was telling lies.

A bit like - I knew he had done it - I knew he had killed his family


But then later saying  implying she never thought he meant he would actually kill his family .

So which was it in the days after the murder ?

[Alias]

I would ask why they chose to destroy almost all physical evidence in 1996.

That is one of the reasons I believe the case against Jeremy is dodgy.

[Jan]

But Julie hasn't accused them of doing that.

Why would she ? that would mean she lied under oath so would be in jail herself?

IMO I still think she was persuaded to say certain things to implicate JB - because the police persuaded her he was guilty and it would help them . But we don't know do we? perhaps they said she could be charged with perverting the course of justice if she did not testify? Perhaps she went to EP in anger and then got in to deep?

Obviously I don't know - but her statements appear very contrived to me.

[lookout]

How about seeing JM's 32 statements for starters ?

[David1819]

In respect to questions 1-4 - she wasn't charged because she gave evidence against Jeremy Bamber. EP wouldn't have even known about the offences until she told them. She had to admit to them in case Jeremy mentioned her involvement thus discrediting her as a witness.

5 and 6 can only be answered by JM.

http://canlookup.com/business-directory/listing/S/1715/3/5416/155186

She is only a phone call away