Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?

[Steve_uk]

But didn't Jerry tell Julie he hadn't been to bed?  Not the sort of thing one makes up eh?

You have to dismiss Julie's statement lock, stock and barrel if you're in the innocent camp, whether you are Lady Diana, Waterlow, Flo Krause or Sir Simeon 2003 (apologies to the latter but I don't know his stance, the former two ladies having been taken in by Jeremy's Potemkin charm.)   http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/patrons-and-supporters

[lookout]

But didn't Jerry tell Julie he hadn't been to bed?  Not the sort of thing one makes up eh?

Sez Julie. Heard it all before. She had a lot to say until it came to JB's defence 

It's an age-old acting trick to turn on the tears when being cross-questioned.

It usually indicates that they're losing the plot--------------lying in other words.

[lookout]

You have to dismiss Julie's statement lock, stock and barrel if you're in the innocent camp, whether you are Lady Diana, Waterlow, Flo Krause or Sir Simeon 2003 (apologies to the latter but I don't know his stance, the former two ladies having been taken in by Jeremy's Potemkin charm.)   http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/patrons-and-supporters

I wouldn't have said that either ladies were taken in given the numbers of years " under their belts ".

I'd hardly have said or called JB charming,either.

[lookout]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I really must throw this laptop in the bin  It's getting on my nerves.

[Steve_uk]

I wouldn't have said that either ladies were taken in given the numbers of years " under their belts ".

I'd hardly have said or called JB charming,either.

But where are the specifics as opposed to the generalities and have they read the books and statements or is this just another case to them as per the cab rank rule?

[Adam]

John,how can anyone produce evidence of their innocence when they were in bed and nobody believes a word they say,except for those WITH an agenda,because everyone else appeared to have done well considering there was little or no investigation done in spite of their protestations of JB's guilt.

That's right, Jeremy was at home sleeping. Sheila went crazy and Neville phoned Jeremy.

[David1819]

You have to dismiss Julie's statement lock, stock and barrel if you're in the innocent camp.

You have to dismiss Julie's statement if you have a shade of sense.

Jeremy's "detailed confession" to her does not corroborate with the facts of the crime

In 2001 Julie told the Sunday Mirror "I still believe he is guilty" But hang on there Julie, if the man confessed to you shouldent you KNOW he is guilty? 

[Jane]

You have to dismiss Julie's statement if you have a shade of sense.

Jeremy's "detailed confession" to her does not corroborate with the facts of the crime

In 2001 Julie told the Sunday Mirror "I still believe he is guilty" But hang on there Julie, if the man confessed to you shouldent you KNOW he is guilty? 

I believe her phraseology was correct. Saying "I KNOW he's guilty" to me, would have suggested she actually DIDN'T know and was seeking the validation of others.

[Stephanie]

You have to dismiss Julie's statement if you have a shade of sense.

Jeremy's "detailed confession" to her does not corroborate with the facts of the crime

In 2001 Julie told the Sunday Mirror "I still believe he is guilty" But hang on there Julie, if the man confessed to you shouldent you KNOW he is guilty? 

Are you suggesting people who know Bamber to be guilty do not have a shade of sense and that people like you, who dismiss her statement, are superior?

For reasons only known to you, you appear to be ignoring the following;

"Psychopaths generate as many pretend sob stories as needed in order to draw others into their hidden games, again and again and again. The ability they have to lie pathologically, easily, and confidently makes it possible for them to convince others that such an implausible number of tragedies is plausible, which unfortunately opens the door to a variety of manipulation and exploitation opportunities.

I agree with Jane. She may well have needed validation from others. 2001 was 15 years ago - a lot can change in that time. Or maybe in 2001 she hadn't yet come to understand psychopathy?

As usual your argument is poor. You are clasping at straws and seem intent on dismissing JM's evidence; therefore your confirmation bias is blinding you to the factual evidence in this case.

[Stephanie]

In 2001 Julie told the Sunday Mirror "I still believe he is guilty" But hang on there Julie, if the man confessed to you shouldent you KNOW he is guilty? 

In 2001 she could still have been holding two conflicting views regarding Bamber.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

It's not unusual in cases like this.

[Steve_uk]

I was reading Julie's statements again last night and in one she mixed up the time when she was on teaching practice, which I doubt many teachers would have done. It tells me she was under stress at the time she volunteered her statement and wasn't as organized an individual as I thought, even though now she has reached the top of her profession(and all credit to her for that achievement). As for Stephanie's dissonance link, maybe Julie was looking beyond the murders to a future together with Jeremy, or was just hoping that somehow there would be no ill effects of staying with him, just as a smoker blocks the thought of cancer out of his mind.

[Stephanie]

I was reading Julie's statements again last night and in one she mixed up the time when she was on teaching practice, which I doubt many teachers would have done. It tells me she was under stress at the time she volunteered her statement and wasn't as organized an individual as I thought, even though now she has reached the top of her profession(and all credit to her for that achievement). As for Stephanie's dissonance link, maybe Julie was looking beyond the murders to a future together with Jeremy, or was just hoping that somehow there would be no ill effects of staying with him, just as a smoker blocks the thought of cancer out of his mind.

I doubt in 2001 she would have been considering a future with Bamber Steve. Cognitive dissonance can affect people differently and can last years. I guess you could liken it to a form of denial. Maybe JM was still trying to understand how the Bamber she thought she knew could annihilate his family like he did?
Maybe her first sentence was 'I still believe he did it' and her second sentence was 'I know he did it.' But the paper decided to run with the first quote? Who knows 

[Steve_uk]

I doubt in 2001 she would have been considering a future with Bamber Steve. Cognitive dissonance can affect people differently and can last years. I guess you could liken it to a form of denial. Maybe JM was still trying to understand how the Bamber she thought she knew could annihilate his family like he did?
Maybe her first sentence was 'I still believe he did it' and her second sentence was 'I know he did it.' But the paper decided to run with the first quote? Who knows 

Well I'm not talking about 2001 Stephanie but attempting to understand Julie's thought processes from Summer 1984, which many in the Jeremy-is-guilty camp still regard as unforgivable.

[Stephanie]

You have to dismiss Julie's statement if you have a shade of sense.

You see David the above statement could also be seen as a form of tactical covert manipulation.

What you are suggesting is unless we don't agree with you, we have no sense. But those that agree with you have sense... But in reality neither are true. Because people hold opposing views doesn't make either person less sensible. There are many psychological factors at play..

[Jane]

Well I'm not talking about 2001 Stephanie but attempting to understand Julie's thought processes from Summer 1984, which many in the Jeremy-is-guilty camp still regard as unforgivable.

I doubt in 2001 she would have been considering a future with Bamber Steve. Cognitive dissonance can affect people differently and can last years. I guess you could liken it to a form of denial. Maybe JM was still trying to understand how the Bamber she thought she knew could annihilate his family like he did?
Maybe her first sentence was 'I still believe he did it' and her second sentence was 'I know he did it.' But the paper decided to run with the first quote? Who knows 

Steph/Steve. I think by 2001, she may have been wondering -like many of us who have cause to look back at certain aspects of our pasts, wishing we hadn't been there- HOW she'd had any part of it. WHY she had/hadn't done certain things. All of course, with the luxury of hindsight and maturity.

In 1985, whilst it was established that "she'd been very much in love with him and had hoped to marry him" it MAY also have been that she felt that if they HAD married, she'd have been saved from all that subsequently happened. Maybe, as a 21 year old, she fantasized that marriage would somehow "unhappen" what had occurred. It can't have been a time of unalloyed joy for her, but I don't believe she would have experienced what relief it would be to have it over UNTIL she'd experienced it.