What sentence(s) in his statement are you alluding to?
What sentence(s) in his statement are you alluding to?
The sentences I posted to you a dozen times but which you ridiculously claim don't mean what they expressly state.
He said that he received a call from Nevill around 3:10 and immediately phoned Chelmsford then later around 3:25 called Julie. I posted snapshots of the statement a dozen times. You can play all the games you like to try to pretend that claiming he called Chelmsford immediately leaves the door open to him calling Julie first all you like but it is just dishonest nonsense. If he claimed he called Julie before Chelmsford he would have claimed he called Julie immediately as opposed to saying he called her 15 minutes later.
You don't know his evidence on the witness stand.
I do know because I read part of his testimony that portion of his testimony happens to be testimony that addressed this very issue. Furthermore, the summing up and of the trial judge and 2002 Appeal Court saw his cross examination and summarized it.
What I read featured him saying he phoned Julie AFTER speaking with West. He said he did nothign at first because he didn't fully appreciate what was said by Nevill until he was off the phone and had a chance to fully wake up and ponder it. He said after he thought about it he became worried and called the police. He said he called Julie after that and then went to WHF.
If you doubt this then beg Mike for the transcript. He will never post it though because a number of things Jeremy said are contradictory to the allegations he makes up.
Here is the full Appeal Court summary of his cross examination:
"In cross-examination the appellant said:
Sheila Caffell had frequent delusions and had spoken to him of suicide.
He admitted that the burglary at the caravan site had been motivated by greed and that by breaking a window and scattering papers around he had deliberately sought to give the impression it had been committed by somebody other than him.
Apart from Julie Mugford the appellant suggested that other witnesses had told lies about him during the trial. They included Mrs Mugford, James Richards, Dorothy Foakes and Robert Boutflour.
He admitted enjoying the good things in life – restaurants, wine bars, travelling, fast cars etc. In respect of the conversation with PC Myall about the Porsche car, the appellant said he was in fact referring to a kit model car made by a company called Covan Turbo who produced vehicles looking very similar to Porsche vehicles but at a cost of between £1-2,000.
The appellant claimed to have returned to the farmhouse within a day or two of his release from the Police Station, i.e. a day or two from the 13 September, and gained entry via the downstairs bathroom window. He said he had done this because he had left his keys in London and needed some documents for his trip to the South of France. The appellant did not accept that that had been an unwise thing to do bearing in mind the circumstances nor that it would have been easy for him to have borrowed keys from the housekeeper who lived nearby.
He described his father as reasonably careful with guns and agreed that had Mr Bamber seen the rifle lying around in the kitchen he would have put it away in the gun cupboard. He agreed it would have taken him 30 seconds to have returned the gun to its cupboard and that he had been lazy.
The appellant confirmed he had not seen his sister fire a gun as an adult.
Having received the telephone call from his father, the appellant said that it had not crossed his mind to use the 999 system to call the police. Instead he described spending a little time looking up the number for Colchester Police Station. On that particular page of the directory (which he was shown in the witness box) it reads in bold type, "In emergency call the operator (dial 999 where appropriate) and ask for the police". The appellant agreed on his account, even though his father had asked him to come quickly,
he had then telephoned Julie Mugford and then driven slowly to the farmhouse. He agreed it would also have been possible for him to have called one of the farm workers. He said he had not considered that."
Note the underscored portions. He said he phoned Chelmsford and THEN (which means subsequently) called Julie and THEN (which means subsequently) drove to WHF.
That's what he did. If guilty, why would he damage his own case, especially when Julie could have said he was lying straight away? Clearly, he was innocent. If guilty, he wouldn't have relied on such excuses, and would have called 999. Clearly, he was innocent.
You have things completely backwards. If innocent he would have phoned 999 and/or rushed over. He would not have phoned Julie period. Waking Julie was totally pointless except if he was guilty. He called her out of excitement and also to present the bogus lie that he was so upset he decided to call her. He realized it would look quite bad to claim he was upset so called her for comfort instead of calling police so he lied and claimed he called police then called her for comfort.
To drop that account, he would have had to have given it in the first place, but that's not in his statement. Clearly, he was innocent.
You have graduated to full on lying mode like Mike engages in. How many times must one post the same thing to get you and Mike to stop lying and face the evidence honestly:
What part of Nevill called at 3:10 I tried to call him back but could not get through so immediately called Chelmsford and then at 3:25 called Julie amounts to him claiming he called Julie before Chelmsford?
Each time you try to twist Jeremy's words it demonstrates you know he is guilty but want to pretend he is innocent so badly you will even pretend he said and wrote things that he clearly didn't.
He didn't mention calling Julie initially in his statement and didn't even mention looking up a number. He said he called the police immediately.
Not only in the same statement but on the VERY SAME PAGE where he said he phoned Chelmsford immediately he noted he called Julie LATER at 3:25.
Your suggestion that it is possible he meant he received Nevill's call at 3:10, waited until 3:25 to call Julie then after that he called Chelmsford and yet characterized it as immediately calling Chelmsford is beyond absurd. All you are doing in making such a claim is demolishing your own credibility. You and Mike for months have been trying to distort Jeremy's clear words but all you have managed to accomplish in the process is to demonstrate you are dishonest and can't be trusted.
A short while later, he said he'd called Julie at about 3:25am.
Not a short while later, he put it in the statement that you insisted he didn't put it in.
Around 3:30am according to Julie's initial estimate. Even at trial, one of Julie's flatmates testified that JB's call to Julie could have occurred as late as 3:30am.
Julie didn't look at a clock so didn't know what time it was she only knew it was a few hours before the second call. 2 roommates though looked at clocks and it was around 3. We know he was on the phone with police until after 3:30 and that he phoned Julie first so we know for sure he phoned Julie before 3:20 and most like around 3AM.
He didn't say he waited 15-20 minutes after calling her to call the police.
Of course he didn't because that would prove his guilt. How stupid would it have been to say. "I phoned Julie around 3AM, Nevill phoned me around 3:10 and I phoned Witham around 3:20 then Chelmsford a couple of minutes later." That would give away he was guilty.
Saying he called Julie right after Nevill called and then called police 10 minutes later would still look very bad so instead of telling that lie he decided to lie completely and falsely claim he called Julie after police. He told police at the scene that he called police before Julie, put in his statement that he called police before Julie and on the witness stand told the jury he called police before Julie.
