Thirty reasons why an innocent Bamber would not call Julie at 3am.

[Adam]

She was asleep.

An answering machine may be on.

She may not answer the phone.

She would be half asleep when answering a call. 

She would be irritated and tell Bamber to 'go back to bed'.

The phone may not be answered for a long time.

Julie was in London, so unable to attend the cottage or WHF to assist Bamber.

It was not Julie's family. She would not be concerned.

It was not Julie's family. She would have less idea what to do.

He didn't need Julie's advice as he had already rang Chelmsford police station.

Julie would not be a 'friendly voice' at 3am.

It was wasting more time after Neville's frantic call.

There were other phoning options who could assist Bamber at the scene. Such as relatives.

There were other phoning options who could assist Bamber at the scene. Such as farm workers like the Foalke's.

There is no record of Bamber ringing Julie for advice in a family crisis before. So why now ?

Julie couldn't call him back.

Julie couldn't call the police.

It would be making Julie worried. However there was nothing she could do in London.

It would take a long time to explain to Julie what was happening. And then wait for her advice. But he had to meet the police at WHF.

He had already wasted a lot of time looking for two police phone numbers. After Neville's frantic call.

Someone else may answer the phone. Wasting more time.

Bamber has never said he rang Julie for advice. Saying 'no comment' when asked by the police.

Bamber intially did not say he rang Julie to 'hear a friendly (3am) voice'. Saying 'no comment' when the police asked him.

Other 'friendly voices' such as relatives or nearby farm workers could assist Bamber by meeting him at WHF.

Other 'friendly voices' such as relatives or nearby farm workers could give Bamber better advice.

Bamber's only reason given when testifying is that he 'wanted to hear a friendly voice'. This in no way resolves the situation.

Bamber's only reason given when testifying was that he 'wanted to hear a friendly voice'. The likelihood of Julie being friendly at 3am was zero.

Bamber's only reason given when testifying was that he 'wated to hear a friendly voice'. Any friendly voice would be very brief as Bamber had to meet the police. So not worth making the call.

The precedent taught from a young age is to ring 999 in a police emergency. Not ring younger girlfriends at 3am who are miles away.

Julie may give him conflicting advce to what the police did. Just making Bamber more stressed.

[Jane]

From the thread title, you appear to be suggesting that, despite it being established that he made the call, Jeremy didn't phone Julie circa 3am. Is it your personal belief that he didn't make that call?

[Adam]

My other closure threads have had between 20 - 30 points. This closure thread has reached the big 30. Pleased about that.

There is no justification in Bamber phoning Julie at 3am. Except to boast that 'everything is going well'. Even Bamber spent over a year saying 'no comment' on the issue, before giving an extremely weak reason when testifying.

[Jane]

My other closure threads have had between 20 - 30 points. This closure thread has reached the big 30. Pleased about that.

There is no justification in Bamber phoning Julie at 3am. Except to boast that 'everything is going well'. Even Bamber spent over a year saying 'no comment' on the issue, before giving an extremely weak reason when testifying.

What is the point of the thread? It isn't disputed that he called her. He has never denied it. On any other night during harvest, he'd probably have been asleep, but on this particular night, he'd allegedly received a call from his father a silly o'clock. Presumably had he not had cause to be awake, he wouldn't have called her. Again, what point are you trying to make which hasn't already been made/accepted many times previously?

[nugnug]

3 reasons why adam is flooding the forum with things tht have been discused to death allready can anyone think of them.

[Adam]

What is the point of the thread? It isn't disputed that he called her. He has never denied it. On any other night during harvest, he'd probably have been asleep, but on this particular night, he'd allegedly received a call from his father a silly o'clock. Presumably had he not had cause to be awake, he wouldn't have called her. Again, what point are you trying to make which hasn't already been made/accepted many times previously?

He can't deny it. He woke up half of Julie's house with the call. Then accepted Julie's WS a few hours later. He thought it was an open and shut case and the 3am call would never be mentioned again.

Anyway the point is that it shows Bamber is guilty, as there are 30 reasons why Bamber would not call Julie. Just as there are 40 reasons why Neville would not call Bamber (TAC).

Even Bamber failed to justify why he called her or refute what Julie said he had said. Just saying 'no comment'. Eventually giving one extremely weak reason when he had no choice under oath.

So strange that you supported Bamber for 29 years.

[Adam]

Several of my thread post points answer Bamber's one reason given. Highlighting it's extreme weakness and why he failed to give this reason for over a year.

[lookout]

3 reasons why adam is flooding the forum with things tht have been discused to death allready can anyone think of them.

1 ) Lack of something to do.

2 ) Likes to put himself forward all the time.

3 ) Does it to annoy.

[Adam]

I'll leave it at 30. But he was taking a risk spending a long time ringing Julie. What if Neville or the police rang him back ? They would just get an engaged tone.

[Jane]

I'll leave it at 30. But he was taking a risk spending a long time ringing Julie. What if Neville or the police rang him back ? They would just get an engaged tone.

But that DIDN'T happen, Adam. Are you trying to create an entirely different case using "What if................." and "Supposing....................."?

[Jane]

1 ) Lack of something to do.

2 ) Likes to put himself forward all the time.

3 ) Does it to annoy.

PRECISELY, Lookout.

[Jane]

He can't deny it. He woke up half of Julie's house with the call. Then accepted Julie's WS a few hours later. He thought it was an open and shut case and the 3am call would never be mentioned again.

Anyway the point is that it shows Bamber is guilty, as there are 30 reasons why Bamber would not call Julie. Just as there are 40 reasons why Neville would not call Bamber (TAC).

Even Bamber failed to justify why he called her or refute what Julie said he had said. Just saying 'no comment'. Eventually giving one extremely weak reason when he had no choice under oath.

So strange that you supported Bamber for 29 years.

But he never HAS denied it.

This thread proves nothing more than any of your others. Your own penchant for creating worthless lists which you believe to be important.

You seem to have a naive conviction that no one has ever lied under oath.

[Adam]

But that DIDN'T happen, Adam. Are you trying to create an entirely different case using "What if................." and "Supposing....................."?

I know it didn't happen. But spending several minutes phoning Julie meant Neville or the police couldn't phone him if they wanted to.

[Adam]

But he never HAS denied it.

This thread proves nothing more than any of your others. Your own penchant for creating worthless lists which you believe to be important.

You seem to have a naive conviction that no one has ever lied under oath.

Well you supported Bamber for 29 years because you didn't like Julie's court outfit. Which is a 'worthless' reason.

As the thread title says 'Thirty reasons why an innocent Bamber would not call Julie at 3am'. Doesn't seem worthless to me.

[Jane]

I know it didn't happen. But spending several minutes phoning Julie meant Neville or the police couldn't phone him if they wanted to.

So? How does what didn't happen, in any way effect what did?