Bamber's WS agrees a lot with Julie about what he said in his 3am call to her. In
He didn't call Julie Mugford at San. line with Julie's WS, his WS said he rang Julie and said - "there is something wrong" (at the farm) to her.
yes, and...I doubt that Bamber would deny saying "bye honey I love you lots" It's not incriminating although quite jovial for someone in his situation.
so, your point is?Both of them agree Bamber did not phone Julie and ask for advice.
no, but he did tell her that he thought -there's something wrong at the farm'So the only disagreement is whether Bamber said "everything is going well, not to worry". Which Julie says Bamber said.
not to be overlooked, is the fact that Julie's witness statements were written in the hand writing of 'Stan' Jones, who paraphrased her answers...Making a big effort to phone Julie at 3am,
3.30am - 'there's something wrong at the farmhouse... suggests he wanted to give her an update on his 'it's now never' / 'tonights the night' statements a few hours earlier.
it doesn't sound right, sorry... This would automatically mean saying "everything is going well, not to worry" as Bamber had attempted and completed the first part of his plan.
He didn't have a plan, unlike 'Stan' Jones who had intend to lock Jeremy up for his involvement of one or more of the five murders...To just ring Julie up just to say "there is something wrong at the farm. Bye honey love you lots" makes no sense.
it makes perfect sense, in the circumstances...I don't recall Bamber ever denying outright he said "everything is going well, not to worry". He just said "no comment" to the police when asked what he said.
In August 1985 it was a suspects right to remain silent, so him offering bank comments was an acceptable reply in those days... Then testified he "wanted to hear a friendly voice".
yes, which was why Jeremy phoned her, to tell her that 'something was wrong at the farmhouse'...The problem is Bamber had a severe case of amenesia in 1985. If
No, he did not. It was his legal right to remain silent or offer 'no explanation. His solicitor would have advised him not to answer questions at that stage. Since when was it a criminal offence to remain silent, or to offer 'no comments? the OS now gives percifics on what Bamber said in that call, people will ask how Bamber can now suddenly remember.
May E, he remembered all a!Omg, but did not want to say, because during his trial he was assured by his counsel, Rivlin QC, that the court should be instructed to disregard Julie Mugfords evidence for a variety of different reasons!!!Everyone will agree if he said "Everything is going well, not to worry", it makes Bamber 100% guilty. It
is almost certain he did ring Julie to make this boast after she dismissed his 10am rants.
You think so?
