0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
There is a factual discrepancy in JM and AE statements, that shows JM got the info form AE. I will post it later today.
Rivlin was the prosecuting QC. So not surprised he told the jury this. The judge didn't. If the jury didn't believe Julie, there must have been enough forensic and circumstantial evidence to convict anyway. It was just coincidence that Julie decided to lie a month after the massacre. Well who wouldn't seek revenge ? Bamber had just (apparently) jilted her.
Probably why she decided to smother him with a pillow then . Not because he was a murderer?
Lets see;He had to get there and his mothers bike was in his garden.He had to get in, doors were locked and bolted from the inside - had to be a window.Boutflour came up with the notion of the wetsuit, Julie was interviewed at length and Jones may have asked her about it - she noted it down.Fingerprints on the bullets, finger prints on the rifle - two DIFFERENT things.£2000.00 years apart? Hardly relevant
But her statement is a warts and all picture which only makes the substance of her testimony all the more credible.
How did they know that that Jeremy had not used his car though? Unless the police told them? Because for all they knew there could be a witness that saw him driving back to his cottage?
Then suddenly it all changed and the media built Jeremy up to be evil personified. I never really questioned his guilt because no one at the time could ever have imagined what an absolute mess the police had made of the crime scene and that the following trial was based on hear-say and scenarios made to 'fit' circumstances for which there was no evidence - the Silencer, the moving of the phones and the bicycle initially spring to mind. Ann Eaton said the silencer would have been on the rifle - police blindly took her word for that - why? This evidence would not have been allowed today because it was clearly contaminated! The whole moving of the phones idea seems to be ludicrous! As the kitchen phone was the 'master' phone, Jeremy would only have needed to unplug it to disconnect the bedroom phone! Why bother moving the phones around and hiding them under magazines - besides the cream phone from the bedroom wasn't even the under the magazines, it was being USED in the kitchen which supports Jeremy's account and the testimony of others that the phones were always being moved around. Finally the bazar 'story' of the bicycle ride back to Goldhanger after the shootings - the story seems to have been made to fit without any evidence to back it up.I'm not sure if you are a supporter of guilt or innocence but these are just a few things that initially made me question his guilt but as you know, the list is endless!
Don't waste your time arguing with Caroline over this. She has already dissected this evidence herself and she knows the answers, but just wants to turn every conversation in a never ending loop to prevent any constructive debate. Just refer her to her own posts if she asks the questions
Sorry are you trying to say that it paints her in such a bad light it must be true?
Well that is what a warts and all picture is, but I doubt critics would have been assuaged had she left the bit about the pillow and the jewellery box smashed against the mirror out.
I think she said those things after the trial , to the papers. Just added to the picture I agree ..
Yep, I said that when I was as deluded as you and a few others! I was wrong then - so?
Was there any need to call supporters deluded ? Just because we have differing views,and you expect me to be polite ?
Can you remember calling me stupid earlier - RUDE!
Good God,you sound like a pair of pantomime dames.
