The 3am telephone call. What was said ?

[maggie]

It's a very real possibility, Maggie. I have known a several men who have always been attracted to older women. In each case it appeared that something had been lacking in the mother/son relationship which they were trying to get right through the new relationship. I have watched in amazement as the women concerned have treated these grown men like naughty children but they seemed to love it. The rule is, for a child, negative attention -even to abuse- is better than NO attention. It goes a long way towards explaining why so many end up in abusive relationships.

IT does and its so terribly sad.

[maggie]

It seems no one is able to offer an alternative credible conversation between the two of them at 3am.

I wonder whether it was a spur of the moment decision to phone Julie ? Hyped up and wanting to tell someone 'everything is going well. Which at the same time helps convince him 'everything is going well' in the middle of his massive gamble.  Julie had also dismissed his 'now or never' claim only a few hours earlier.

The other possibility is he planned to phone Julie and wanted the police to know this. He can say he phoned her from his cottage backing up his claim he was there all night. But he didn't need to do this. He phoned the police from his cottage and arrived at WHF  after the police.

Either way it was a big mistake.

Adam there are hundreds nay thousands of possibilities which is why nobody can offer you any conversation except variables on the words we have been told. It's pointless trying to guess.....

[Caroline]

From Scipio

"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. "


So if you are going to use that argument  that's why people should not assume what Jeremy would or would not have done when he got the call.

That's why people should not assume what Neville would have done if a shot had not been fired when he made the call.

On the other side - to show I am not biased we should not assume what the police should have done when they arrived ( although if it was my children in the house and they had heard or seen nothing I would have been annoyed to put it politely )

I think it's true in 'ambiguous' situations we might not act a way we would have predicted. However, given the information that your family might be in BIG trouble (gauged from the fact that during a call, your father sounded terrified) - calling 999 takes less processing. Worrying about what dad might think later, where the phone book might be to look up a local number etc. takes much more processing and REEKS of stall tactics. Even the badly made docu 'presumed' he had called 999 - it was taken for granted because anything else, doesn't make sense.

[Adam]

People will always say 'no one knows how they will react in that situation'.

This will be said by a supporter of an individual when there is a consensus that an action by an individual cannot be fathomed and looks highly suspicious. 

It is often said by supporters to justify Bamber looking in the phone book for police stations miles away and for phoning Julie at 3am.

It has also been done to support Neville phoning Bamber. Trying to negate the 60 facts why he would not.

Even guilters have done it to support why Julie took one month to approach the police. Although I haven't, instead just giving several reasons. Some of which Julie said herself.

[Adam]

In Sheila's case people have recently said no one knows how she would behave when in a psychotic rage.

This is to justify why she kept herself alive right up until the raid team entered WHF. As Bamber claims. There are no common sense reasons why she would kill everyone in a few minutes and then wait hours before killing herself.

[susan]

I think it's true in 'ambiguous' situations we might not act a way we would have predicted. However, given the information that your family might be in BIG trouble (gauged from the fact that during a call, your father sounded terrified) - calling 999 takes less processing. Worrying about what dad might think later, where the phone book might be to look up a local number etc. takes much more processing and REEKS of stall tactics. Even the badly made docu 'presumed' he had called 999 - it was taken for granted because anything else, doesn't make sense.

Caroline
if I had a phone call saying my family might be in big trouble I would have no hesitation but to call 999 to me it would be an automatic reaction.

[Jan]

In Sheila's case people have recently said no one knows how she would behave when in a psychotic rage.

This is to justify why she kept herself alive right up until the raid team entered WHF. As Bamber claims. There are no common sense reasons why she would kill everyone in a few minutes and then wait hours before killing herself.

No it is not - it is because of her illness .

Read up about it.

[Caroline]

Caroline
if I had a phone call saying my family might be in big trouble I would have no hesitation but to call 999 to me it would be an automatic reaction.

It takes less thinking about and less time to do.

[Reader]

I asked him who he called first after the 'supposed' call from Nevill and he said 'the police' - that's all I asked him about the calls.

Given that this is a key issue, why is that all? It seems that you caused him to focus on a single issue, without considering the closely related issues. For example, it presumably didn't seem important on 7th August 1985 to "fill in" the time line, so that there would be some mention of what he did between 3:10am and 3:25am. If that's the case, he had little reason to suppose in hindsight (including now) that what was in his first statement should be regarded as correct in every detail, or even approximately correct, especially the "implausible" details, such as his use of the word "immediately".

[scipio_usmc]

Given that this is a key issue, why is that all? It seems that you caused him to focus on a single issue, without considering the closely related issues. For example, it presumably didn't seem important on 7th August 1985 to "fill in" the time line, so that there would be some mention of what he did between 3:10am and 3:25am. If that's the case, he had little reason to suppose in hindsight (including now) that what was in his first statement should be regarded as correct in every detail, or even approximately correct, especially the "implausible" details, such as his use of the word "immediately".

You write the dumbest things.  This is complete nonsense:

"If that's the case, he had little reason to suppose in hindsight (including now) that what was in his first statement should be regarded as correct in every detail, or even approximately correct"

Do you have to spend time trying to think up such ridiculous things or does it come naturally?

[lookout]

The word " assume " usually makes an " ass(of)u(and)me. 

[Jan]

You write the dumbest things.  This is complete nonsense:

"If that's the case, he had little reason to suppose in hindsight (including now) that what was in his first statement should be regarded as correct in every detail, or even approximately correct"

Do you have to spend time trying to think up such ridiculous things or does it come naturally?

Why is that nonsense ? If he was innocent why on earth would he think he was going to become a suspect . Why would he know all the times - Julie herself said he did not wear a watch in bed.

It is the opposite which should occur to you - if he was guilty he would have made sure every part of his story was  watertight and be prepared for questions about timings .

It reminds me a bit in those newspapers where it said the police believed Jeremy when he told them Sheila had done it. He never said that  he never said a shot had been fired even . He never said she was capable of violence when he was outside . He said she was ill - he said the name of the illness.All true.

[Steve_uk]

So Jeremy dithered when faced with a course of action that Wednesday morning. Did he also dither as regards Julie or was he really telling her that he had executed his plan to which he fully expected her to accede now it was a fait accompli..

[Jan]

So Jeremy dithered when faced with a course of action that Wednesday morning. Did he also dither as regards Julie or was he really telling her that he had executed his plan to which he fully expected her to accede now it was a fait accompli..

I still don't get the phone call bit what difference would it have made if he was guilty who he called - by that time they were all dead so if he wanted to delay everything so they did not know time of death he could have just called a bit later and called 999. It makes no sense why he would through suspicion on himself by not phoning 999. It sounds more like he was a coward and did not know what to do and made a bad decision.

[Caroline]

Given that this is a key issue, why is that all? It seems that you caused him to focus on a single issue, without considering the closely related issues. For example, it presumably didn't seem important on 7th August 1985 to "fill in" the time line, so that there would be some mention of what he did between 3:10am and 3:25am. If that's the case, he had little reason to suppose in hindsight (including now) that what was in his first statement should be regarded as correct in every detail, or even approximately correct, especially the "implausible" details, such as his use of the word "immediately".

Except he confirmed that what he said in his first statement was correct and made a big thing about saying so in his interrogation. I'm simply telling you I asked him, if you want answers to your own questions then have the courage of your convictions, get your thumb out and ask him yourself. I'm sharing with people what I was told, I don't bloody have to and if what he told me isn't good enough for you - then you best take it up with HIM!