Why did Julie tell five people before approaching the police ?

[scipio_usmc]

steve I think you are right about the glove and about burning the farm down also she did give him her sleeping pills so she must have had a clue what he was planning.

She said she gave him sleeping pills to use for himself.

[Caroline]

She said she gave him sleeping pills to use for himself.

'Said' being the operative word.

[scipio_usmc]

I think she did say that a glove came off in the fight. Also her testimony about the first plan to burn the Farm down is corroborated indirectly by Charles Marsden,whom Jeremy told at the Frog and Beans in Autumn 1984 that "if the Farm burned down everything would be mine".

He told her a glove came off and had no reason to make such up.  In all likelihood it came off when the stock broke it would be right where the hand was, the splinters would get stuck in it and one would pull it off to avoid getting stabbed. This is one of the few details he did provide to her he was mostly vague and spoke in a general sense.  The more details he knew the more it would be obvious he did it not MM so he could not say too much.  He knew the boys did not wake up that to an extent is something only the killer or police would have known when he told her.  That is something that could be guessed though so is not as meaningful as if he knew some obscure detail that could not be guessed.

If the glove the killer lost was left behind and he mentioned that to her then it would be much more damning.   





 

[scipio_usmc]

'Said' being the operative word.

If she gave them to him to use to carry out the murders she would not have mentioned providing them to him.  She mentioned it as something that suggests he was seriously thinking about doing it because he actually contemplated trying to use the pills against them but realized they were not suitable for the desired task.

[Caroline]

If she gave them to him to use to carry out the murders she would not have mentioned providing them to him.  She mentioned it as something that suggests he was seriously thinking about doing it because he actually contemplated trying to use the pills against them but realized they were not suitable for the desired task.

She might if she thought he might mention them - the pills could easily be tracked back to her. She couldn't know that he wouldn't admit to the murders and try to take her down with him. He could also have said she suggested bumping off his parents and even gave him sleeping pills to knock them out.

[Steve_uk]

He told her a glove came off and had no reason to make such up.  In all likelihood it came off when the stock broke it would be right where the hand was, the splinters would get stuck in it and one would pull it off to avoid getting stabbed. This is one of the few details he did provide to her he was mostly vague and spoke in a general sense.  The more details he knew the more it would be obvious he did it not MM so he could not say too much.  He knew the boys did not wake up that to an extent is something only the killer or police would have known when he told her.  That is something that could be guessed though so is not as meaningful as if he knew some obscure detail that could not be guessed.

If the glove the killer lost was left behind and he mentioned that to her then it would be much more damning.

Funny you can believe the glove evidence in this case but turn your mind against the glove evidence in the David Bain case.

[Caroline]

Funny you can believe the glove evidence in this case but turn your mind against the glove evidence in the David Bain case.

 

[scipio_usmc]

Funny you can believe the glove evidence in this case but turn your mind against the glove evidence in the David Bain case.

The glove evidence is that Jeremy told Julie a glove came off during the struggle with Nevill nothing more.  The most likely time for that to occur was when the rifle stock broke.

The evidence in the Bain case is someone wore gloves and one was off nothing more.  Robin Bain could have worn it.

The evidence in this case proves someone murdered Sheila, it is impossible for her to have killed herself.  There is no such evidence in the Bain case he could indeed have killed himself.  You can delude yourself all you like but there is no evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that David did it.  That you choose to believe he did it doesn't establish he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Steve_uk]

The glove evidence is that Jeremy told Julie a glove came off during the struggle with Nevill nothing more.  The most likely time for that to occur was when the rifle stock broke.

The evidence in the Bain case is someone wore gloves and one was off nothing more.  Robin Bain could have worn it.

The evidence in this case proves someone murdered Sheila, it is impossible for her to have killed herself.  There is no such evidence in the Bain case he could indeed have killed himself.  You can delude yourself all you like but there is no evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that David did it.  That you choose to believe he did it doesn't establish he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you think Robin Bain wore gloves to frame David,then typed a note "sorry you're the only one who deserved to stay" you are not just rude(which we all know by now) but potty as well. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/david-bains-bloody-gloves-were-found-in-stephens-room

[Jane]

If you think Robin Bain wore gloves to frame David,then typed a note "sorry you're the only one who deserved to stay" you are not just rude(which we all know by now) but potty as well. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/david-bains-bloody-gloves-were-found-in-stephens-room

 

[scipio_usmc]

If you think Robin Bain wore gloves to frame David,then typed a note "sorry you're the only one who deserved to stay" you are not just rude(which we all know by now) but potty as well. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/david-bains-bloody-gloves-were-found-in-stephens-room

Who said he did it to frame David?  He could have intended to try making it look like a burglar did it.  You are so biased and gullible you believe Robin Bain had a wonderful life though his marriage was a shambles, he was stuck living in a camper instead of in the house and his daughter accused him of incest. Your reasoning in this case is all based on your gut feelings instead of objective facts and evidence.

You act EXACTLY like Bamber supporters act only the inverse you do so to argue guilt instead of innocence.   

There are plenty of cases where people murder intending to try to escape liability but then realize they are not going to be able to get away with it and they either kill themselves or force police to kill them.

Jeremy ruined the chance to argue such by claiming Sheila was walking around crazy with the gun.  She would have simply shot everyone instantly. The evidence establishes everyone was instantly shot and that no phone call happened.

I follow logic and evidence while you act out of emotion.  While you correctly believe Jeremy is guilty you often resort to less than logical reasoning for evidence he did it.  You apply the same to the Bain case.

The majority of people including the courts agree with me on the Bain case not you.  You are just like the Bamber campaign team you denounce.  Each time you lash out like a child on this issue you embarrass yourself further.

[Steve_uk]

Who said he did it to frame David?  He could have intended to try making it look like a burglar did it.  You are so biased and gullible you believe Robin Bain had a wonderful life though his marriage was a shambles, he was stuck living in a camper instead of in the house and his daughter accused him of incest. Your reasoning in this case is all based on your gut feelings instead of objective facts and evidence.

You act EXACTLY like Bamber supporters act only the inverse you do so to argue guilt instead of innocence.   

There are plenty of cases where people murder intending to try to escape liability but then realize they are not going to be able to get away with it and they either kill themselves or force police to kill them.

Jeremy ruined the chance to argue such by claiming Sheila was walking around crazy with the gun.  She would have simply shot everyone instantly. The evidence establishes everyone was instantly shot and that no phone call happened.

I follow logic and evidence while you act out of emotion.  While you correctly believe Jeremy is guilty you often resort to less than logical reasoning for evidence he did it.  You apply the same to the Bain case.

The majority of people including the courts agree with me on the Bain case not you.  You are just like the Bamber campaign team you denounce.  Each time you lash out like a child on this issue you embarrass yourself further.

I have finished debating with you on this issue,not because I have lost,but because most people log in to discuss the Jeremy Bamber case,and I won't change you because you're like a driver with a new Sat nav who on approach to a brick wall wants to continue because the instrument can't be wrong(this was a time I accepted a lift from the Head of Maths and never again..)  http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/karam-would-have-us-believe-that-david-bain-had-a-great-deal-of-bad-luck

[Jan]

steve I think you are right about the glove and about burning the farm down also she did give him her sleeping pills so she must have had a clue what he was planning.

I would say that IF julies testimony was a ruse to implicate JB for the "noble cause" It would be necessary for her to paint a complete picture as possible and use what was known.

So it would be necessary to put some "history " behind it . Her just saying I think he did it would not be enough.

there a lots of things I don't understand - like why Liz said Julie did not want to go to the police and it was her that made her go . Was Julie  a fantasist / attention seeker that got herself in too deep ? Or was she actually involved.

We all say only Jeremy knows the truth - but really Julie knows as well because of  what was said by the police when they first talked to her - and I have a feeling that would reveal a lot.

[lookout]

 You should have stuck to your bicycle Steve. Rely on nobody,I don't.

[scipio_usmc]

I would say that IF julies testimony was a ruse to implicate JB for the "noble cause" It would be necessary for her to paint a complete picture as possible and use what was known.

So it would be necessary to put some "history " behind it . Her just saying I think he did it would not be enough.

there a lots of things I don't understand - like why Liz said Julie did not want to go to the police and it was her that made her go . Was Julie  a fantasist / attention seeker that got herself in too deep ? Or was she actually involved.

We all say only Jeremy knows the truth - but really Julie knows as well because of  what was said by the police when they first talked to her - and I have a feeling that would reveal a lot.

Julie told her account to her friends before she ever spoke to police.  Claiming police got her to make it up so as to create fake evidence doesn't work.