The 3am telephone call. What was said ?

[Jan]

This is a thread about what Bamber said in his 3am call to Julie.

Feel free to give an alternative conversation to Julie's.

Suggesting Julie did this for attention or any other reason is ridiculous. Her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it. Even Bamber's lawyers said so. Thread already created.

I just did - I said she was telling the truth in her first statement - which statement do you think she was telling lies in?

[Adam]

that will be her first statement then :)because she does not lie does she?

don't bother posting the link.

Statements do get amended until a final one is submitted. Everyone has to go a final WS. As the courts do.

[Adam]

I just did - I said she was telling the truth in her first statement - which statement do you think she was telling lies in?

I only go by the final WS. For everyone.

[maggie]

It is easy to say that when you are not in the situation.  It is far more difficult to actually follow through with what you claim you will categorically do.  I know someone who said that if someone tried to rob him that he would paralyze the SOB. Years later he was robbed and did nothing.  Talk is cheap.

In any event Julie is not you nor were the countless loved ones actually put in such situations who ended up not ratting out their loved ones right away or at all and some even covered for their loved ones and some wet beyond that still in helping get rid of evidence including bodies.

The notion that Julie lied because someone in her position would not have remained silent fails miserably.

Perverting Justice AKA obstruction requires more than not telling police everything you know.  It requires telling untrue things that throw police off track and thus causes interference that would not otherwise exist or actively interfering by helping dispose of evidence. Depending on the extent it can rise to the level of an accessory after the fact which can have more severe punishment than simply obstruction.

There is no legal duty to come forward and tell police everything you know. There is evidence Julie didn't tell police everything she knew but that's it.  There isn't evidence she agreed to help cover for Jeremy by actively lying.

If he told her during the 3Am or 6AM call that they were all dead and he was going to lie to police saying he got a call from Nevill and needed her to tell them that he told her of receiving such call and being worried THEN she would be guilty of perverting justice because in that scenario she knew the call from WHF never happened, knew Jeremy was not concerned and was actively lying pretending he was concerned about a call in order to help support Jeremy's bogus claim he got a call. 

There is no evidence that this is the case. Julie says he claimed he did receive a call and lied to her about receiving such a call just like he lied to everyone else.  Jeremy is the only one who could contradict this by saying he told her he was going to pretend he received a call and needed her to lie saying he told her he received the call and was worried.  Doing this though would confirm his guilt.

If people choose to believe he told her he was making the call up and that he needed her to lie claiming he told her he received the call and was concerned for their safety that's their prerogative. But to convict her for obstruction would require proof. Deciding to believe this is what happened or suspecting this is what happened is not proof.

 

 

I GREE WITH YOU SCIPIO AND HAVE ARGUED N VRIOUS OCCASIONS THAT NONE OF US KNOW HOW WE WOULD ACT IN ANY SITUATION UNTIL WE EXPERIENCE IT AND EVEN THEN SO MUCH DEPENDS ON CULTURE, UOBRINGING, PERSONALITY ETC. (sorry about caps, my mistake)

[Jan]

Statements do get amended until a final one is submitted. Everyone has to go a final WS. As the courts do.

it was not amended - she changed what he said and why he called and the time.

I suggest there is a possibility if you believe the second one that she actually knew what Jeremy was going to do that night and she was more involved than she lets on. But of course JB is not going to let on about that is he ?

[lookout]

I'd have phoned to speak to someone in the force straight away telling of my concerns. I happen to be like that and can detach myself quite easily if I thought for one minute that there was meaning in a threat,no matter who said it. I understand that there are also those who can't switch-off,but I still fail to understand people like that. It's like women who stay with monster husbands/partners who physically abuse.

Give me truth over love any day.

[Jan]

I AGREE WITH YOU SCIPIO AND HAVE ARGUED ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS THAT NONE OF US KNOW HOW WE WOULD ACT IN ANY SITUATION UNTIL WE EXPERIENCE IT AND EVEN THEN SO MUCH DEPENDS ON CULTURE, UOBRINGING, PERSONALITY ETC. (sorry about caps, my mistake)

I have to disagree  She said she knew he had done it on the night -then  he told her the next day and all the gruesome details about how the hit man had done it and the hit man had made the call. that's when she should have done something .

[maggie]

I have to disagree  She said she knew he had done it on the night -then  he told her the next day and all the gruesome details about how the hit man had done it and the hit man had made the call. that's when she should have done something .

I just agreed with him when he said none of us know how we would behave until faced with a situation......   not the rest 

[Jane]

Give me truth over love any day.

I'm afraid that was my mother's philosophy, Lookout -"Tell the truth and shame the devil"-she didn't care who she hurt or who she offended. She told the truth and remained smug in her sense of self righteousness. She was incapable of showing affection to anyone. The irony is that for the most part, her "truth" was only HER opinion.

[lookout]

I'm afraid that was my mother's philosophy, Lookout -"Tell the truth and shame the devil"-she didn't care who she hurt or who she offended. She told the truth and remained smug in her sense of self righteousness. She was incapable of showing affection to anyone. The irony is that for the most part, her "truth" was only HER opinion.

It's not a bad philosophy if you keep it balanced. I would not have been in JM's position that's for sure for as soon as he said those words,I'd have reported it immediately. Forewarned is forearmed,another of my sayings. Did JM not ever think it was a strange thing to have said,along with other things that coincided ? " Tonight's the night ?". Is when she should have phoned and not gone back to bed.

[scipio_usmc]

it was not amended - she changed what he said and why he called and the time.

I suggest there is a possibility if you believe the second one that she actually knew what Jeremy was going to do that night and she was more involved than she lets on. But of course JB is not going to let on about that is he ?

She didn't change what he said, she added things he said which she failed to disclose in August.

In August she failed to disclose that during the 3AM call he had said things were going well and he was up all night.  She failed to disclose that in the prior 10PM call he sounded pissed, said tonight was the night and also said she might be hearing from him again later.  She also failed to disclose he had been talking about killing them for a quite a while. 

[notsure]

Sorry scip your wrong. I know 100% i would not under any circumstances be able to be with a man that had or had instructed a hitman to kill his family.

She knew within a day or so and what she told the police  was a lie if that was the case.

big fat liar in my opinion. 

Adam she is a liar and what was said in the phone call no one will ever know, certainly the first statement she made about whatwas said seems far more plausable than her later statements. It flowed like a proper conversation.

does a yone know if jb called jm every night aftercwork.

[Adam]

Sorry scip your wrong. I know 100% i would not under any circumstances be able to be with a man that had or had instructed a hitman to kill his family.

She knew within a day or so and what she told the police  was a lie if that was the case.

big fat liar in my opinion. 

Adam she is a liar and what was said in the phone call no one will ever know, certainly the first statement she made about whatwas said seems far more plausable than her later statements. It flowed like a proper conversation.

does a yone know if jb called jm every night aftercwork.

We do know. Because Julie has told us. Bamber hasn't. So we have to go by Julie.

Did you not read my thread about why Julie waited one month ?

[notsure]

I try to ignore your pists Adam, hadnt u noticed. I always get the impression yoh are just trying to antagonise people.

[scipio_usmc]

I have to disagree  She said she knew he had done it on the night -then  he told her the next day and all the gruesome details about how the hit man had done it and the hit man had made the call. that's when she should have done something .

You are arguing what she morally SHOULD have done.  No one disputes that if you are aware a love done committed a crime turning them in is the just thing to do but no one can know what they will do in such a situation and plenty of people do the immoral thing of playing dumb or even actively trying to help their loved one escape liability for crimes.  They don't want the pain of losing their loved one to prison.

Their are exceptional people who don't bat an eyelash and immediately turn in their loved ones even their kids.  But most take time to decide what to do and many end up deciding to turn a blind eye and remain silent. Others decide to actively help protect them. 

Until actually in the situation no one can know what they will do. I've been robbed in the past and I pulled a knife on the perp and literally scared the piss out of him. I KNEW what he stuck in my back wasn't a gun though. I just knew from the feel of it that it wasn't. It wound up being a stubby cellphone antenna. Since I knew it wasn't really a gun and that I had a knife I had no fear in confronting him.  I have had training disarming people. I still can't know for sure how I will react in a situation where someone robs me and I know they have a gun.  I wasn't in that exact situation before so can't predict my reaction. Practice disarming with a fake gun is not the same as trying it with a loaded weapon.

There is no such thing as practicing for the emotional turmoil involved in ratting out a loved one. The choice is easier in a situation where your loved one is a psychopath who rapes and murders at will and will keep doing it.  In a situation where you think it was a one time thing and the person poses little threat to anyone or only a threat to gangsters and people you can rationalize as being deserving it is harder. Julie didn't think Jeremy posed a danger to anyone else. He had his family killed for money. She didn't see him being in that kind of a position ever again.

Through college and law school I knew people who shoplifted, did drugs and other illegal things.  Did I run to police to rat any out?  No. If I knew anyone who was guilty of a violent crime that would have been different that is significant enough to rat out but what if the person is extremely close to you and them being in prison will pain you greatly? What do you do then it is a quandary.

One of the best lines in Scent of a Woman was when Pacino said, "I always knew what the right path was. Without exception I knew. But I never took it. You know why? It was too damn hard." It is so poignant and easy to remember because it is often true.