The 3am telephone call. What was said ?

[vidvic]

It would appear that I am banned from the forum on one of my computers. This post will probably lead to this computer being banned also. I have no idea why I am being banned. Catch you all laters if I am.

[Reader]

I wasn't attempting to quote you.

You posted "You ask how we know his motive was...", so you were referring to the wording of my earlier question, which amounts to quoting me. However, you perhaps didn't reread post #292, in which vidvic alleged Jeremy's motive. I was replying to vidvic about that, so my question was based on his wording. Hence your point about whether appearing reasonable applied to a future date would need to be addressed to vidvic rather than me.

By the way, vidvic asserted "initially Bamber said that he called the police BEFORE he called Julie", which seems incorrect, as Jeremy initially stated he called Julie at about 3:25am.

. . . he mentioned it a few times and one day he went through with it.

Read again - I wrote "have then told you (or anyone else)".

[vidvic]

You posted "You ask how we know his motive was...", so you were referring to the wording of my earlier question, which amounts to quoting me. However, you perhaps didn't reread post #292, in which vidvic alleged Jeremy's motive. I was replying to vidvic about that, so my question was based on his wording. Hence your point about whether appearing reasonable applied to a future date would need to be addressed to vidvic rather than me.

By the way, vidvic asserted "initially Bamber said that he called the police BEFORE he called Julie", which seems incorrect, as Jeremy initially stated he called Julie at about 3:25am.
Read again - I wrote "have then told you (or anyone else)".

However you dress it up reader, Bamber has changed his story err....4 times about wether he called julie or the police first. You are right though, I forgot that in the very first instance he said he called julie, but when pushed he changed his mind....at trial he fought hard to establish it was after he called police and now, his latest timings place the call to julie before the police again....

Surely you must acknowledge this is a weakness in his defence?

[Reader]

It would appear that I am banned from the forum on one of my computers.

I'm confident you weren't banned (unless it was a mistake that was soon rectified).

[vidvic]

I'm confident you weren't banned (unless it was a mistake that was soon rectified).

It most definitely says I'm banned.

[maggie]

It would appear that I am banned from the forum on one of my computers. This post will probably lead to this computer being banned also. I have no idea why I am being banned. Catch you all laters if I am.

Vic No one has banned you, don't know what's happened but you're definitely not banned.

[vidvic]

Vic No one has banned you, don't know what's happened but you're definitely not banned.

Says "vidvic you are banned from using this forum. Two accounts. This ban is not set to expire"

[maggie]

Says "vidvic you are banned from using this forum. Two accounts. This ban is not set to expire"

Have no idea what's happened but am sure Neil or Caroline can sort it as its an Admin problem, I think.??

[vidvic]

Have no idea what's happened but am sure Neil or Caroline can sort it as its an Admin problem, I think.??

No worries Maggie, I'll stay on this one.

[vidvic]

Reader... Is this not a weakness?

[Reader]

Bamber has changed his story 4 times about whether he called Julie or the police first.

That kind of thing can seem to happen when someone has difficulty remembering exactly what occurred, especially if, when thinking through what happened, one unwittingly makes possibly false assumptions, such as assuming that there was only one call to the police, and that the police were being truthful. Contradicting oneself as a consequence of trying to give the truth isn't lying.

[vidvic]

That kind of thing can seem to happen when someone has difficulty remembering exactly what occurred, especially if, when thinking through what happened, one unwittingly makes possibly false assumptions, such as assuming that there was only one call to the police, and that the police were being truthful. Contradicting oneself as a consequence of trying to give the truth isn't lying.

Surely it makes no difference from bambers point of view how many calls were made? There is no reference point. He might get confused for a second or two, then think about it and answer the question. It doesn't matter who else was being truthful or not. 

[vidvic]

Do you not accept that at trial it was considered important as to which happened first? That to have called julie showed a lack of urgency and diminished his argument of a phone call from Nevill saying he was in danger?

[Caroline]

You posted "You ask how we know his motive was...", so you were referring to the wording of my earlier question, which amounts to quoting me. However, you perhaps didn't reread post #292, in which vidvic alleged Jeremy's motive. I was replying to vidvic about that, so my question was based on his wording. Hence your point about whether appearing reasonable applied to a future date would need to be addressed to vidvic rather than me.

By the way, vidvic asserted "initially Bamber said that he called the police BEFORE he called Julie", which seems incorrect, as Jeremy initially stated he called Julie at about 3:25am.
Read again - I wrote "have then told you (or anyone else)".

Then that is a dumb question!

[vidvic]

Come on reader you're an intelligent guy. Don't insult my intelligence with arguing the unarguable...