Author Topic: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:  (Read 14004 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #90 on: January 05, 2017, 10:02:PM »
A very good and fair post Gringo.  I think it will be impossible to pin point any true and accurate times now, which is a shame, the one thing that would have helped and cleared things better would have been a 999 call?  They are more accurate with time keeping and used to this sort of call, maybe it threw West and Bonnet with the nature of the call that would normally gone through emergency services and not the local police? 

How do we believe anyone, everyone changed their story, Julie changed hers because she was covering up for Bamber and probably had pressure from the police, Bamber could not remember the times he made the calls, if he phoned Julie first then the police, also he could not remember what he said to Julie yet Julie could, he changed his story from Sheila to Sister to she.
   I think that you are probably correct to say that pinpointing a definitive time is now quite likely impossible, Justice. This state of affairs, however, can be blamed in it's entirety on Essex Police and their record keeping and record "disposal" as well as their record withholding.
    This balance needs to weighed fairly when considering the changing stance of prosecution and defence.
In fairness to JB, he was coerced by EP into changing his times by their dubious claims whilst interviewing him. I think any of us would doubt our recollections if we were told that things were "known" which cast doubt on our own recollections.
     Bamber did not withhold any documents or edit any statements. All he and his defence had to go on was whatever EP and the prosecution provided as supposed full disclosure.
     Essex Police on the other hand should be held to a much different standard and we all know this really. With all that we now know about the conduct of EP, both during and after the investigation and trial, it is mind boggling that anyone anyone treats any statement/pronouncement from them with anything other than a heavy dose of scepticism.
     Quite aside from the shoddy approach to gathering evidence, the "horseplay" by officers at the scene which was photographed and the burning of much evidence by EP within days. EP also failed to record accurate times of death, or so we are, at least, led to believe. It would not surprise me to find out that accurate times were recorded after all and have been hidden somewhere for 30 years.
    Bizarrely, there are those who would have us believe that the "cunning/manipulative/evil/scheming Bamber" tricked EP with his plot and it is because of him that the investigation and evidence gathering was so shoddy.
    Because of this evil scheme by the cunning Bamber, EP then had to conceal some logs which would cast doubt on their own claims. If only they hadn't been fooled into burning the evidence or ascertaining times of death by the cunning Bamber.
    The existence of logs which show either evidence of a second call or,at the very least, evidence which casts serious doubt on the timings presented to the court were not disclosed and were hidden. Eventually years later the logs were mistakenly disclosed by EP. The logs had a number of discrepancies as well as recording different call times and it was decided that these be kept from the defence, judge and jury.
     It is barely debatable that EP have shown themselves, with their actions and behaviour, to be disrespectful, incompetent and dishonest.
     The discerning observer would treat anything they have to say with doubt. They have ignored court orders to disclose evidence and then destroyed it , with the apparent connivance of Special Branch and to this day still withhold requested evidence.
    Is all of this is just "one mistake by West"?

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #91 on: January 05, 2017, 10:15:PM »
   
In fairness to JB, he was coerced by EP into changing his times by their dubious claims whilst interviewing him. I think any of us would doubt our recollections if we were told that things were "known" which cast doubt on our own recollections.

Jeremy remained firm that the timings in his first statement were correct. He wouldn't budge on this. Always his first statements. Which he made on the day. Therefore no need to recollect anything. He didn't reply on recollection. He relied on what he said in his first statement.

Mo one coerced him.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2017, 10:17:PM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44300
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #92 on: January 05, 2017, 10:19:PM »
The police presurrised Bamber. It's what they do to a suspect.

Bamber was lucky everything was written down. Rather than taped. It gave him more time to think up potential answers. But even then his performance was shabby and shambolic.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Online Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21084
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #93 on: January 05, 2017, 10:21:PM »
The police presurrised Bamber. It's what they do to a suspect.

Bamber was lucky everything was written down. Rather than taped. It gave him more time to think up potential answers. But even then his performance was shabby and shambolic.
He coped in his own way through reticence after realizing too late what he had previously told Julie and others.

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #94 on: January 05, 2017, 10:26:PM »
The police presurrised Bamber. It's what they do to a suspect.

Bamber was lucky everything was written down. Rather than taped. It gave him more time to think up potential answers. But even then his performance was shabby and shambolic.

Most of his answers were in his first statement so not much to remember

It is clear through out his interviews he was in control most of the time. His arrogance supports this.

Ans when he slipped up or the questions got too close to home he would ask for a break or deflect in some way.

He was clearly duping the police at times, giving subtle clues about his crimes quite often, and appeared to be getting a kick out of it.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2017, 10:28:PM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #95 on: January 05, 2017, 10:40:PM »
He coped in his own way through reticence after realizing too late what he had previously told Julie and others.

He quite often revealed his thoughts Steve and attempted to back track after his slip ups
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #96 on: January 05, 2017, 10:42:PM »
He coped in his own way through reticence after realizing too late what he had previously told Julie and others.

What exactly are you referring to that he told others and what did he realise too late he told Julie?
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #97 on: January 05, 2017, 10:49:PM »
He didn't know a lot of things until it was too late,then it fell on deaf ears and remains to do so with EP.
   He still doesn't know things kept hidden to this day either, lookout. The Kenneally report, for starters would make interesting reading.
     Unfortunately, we only know that Kenneally was asked to review "all of the evidence" and that after doing so he concluded that Sheila was responsible.
     It is still a secret as to what the evidence he reviewed was(quite possibly because it includes the evidence that was destroyed despite a court order in 1996). It is also a secret how he reached his conclusion. It is fair to infer that EP are withholding Kenneally Report because there is much in it to hide ;)
   

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #98 on: January 05, 2017, 10:59:PM »
   He still doesn't know things kept hidden to this day either, lookout. The Kenneally report, for starters would make interesting reading.
     Unfortunately, we only know that Kenneally was asked to review "all of the evidence" and that after doing so he concluded that Sheila was responsible.
     It is still a secret as to what the evidence he reviewed was(quite possibly because it includes the evidence that was destroyed despite a court order in 1996). It is also a secret how he reached his conclusion. It is fair to infer that EP are withholding Kenneally Report because there is much in it to hide ;)
   

The Kenneally report has most probably been withheld in order to project the victim. Why should they disclose it if Jeremy has been found guilty in a court of law. In the eyes of the law he is guilty, ergo Sheila is innocent and his victim. Why should they disclose a document that quite possibly portrays a victim in a poor light?
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Online Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21084
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #99 on: January 05, 2017, 11:14:PM »
What exactly are you referring to that he told others and what did he realise too late he told Julie?
He'd told her the whole plan beforehand, he'd more or less sounded her out in Call 1, telegraphed his actions in Call 2 and in Call 3 this would have been confirmed to her.

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #100 on: January 05, 2017, 11:19:PM »
The Kenneally report has most probably been withheld in order to project the victim. Why should they disclose it if Jeremy has been found guilty in a court of law. In the eyes of the law he is guilty, ergo Sheila is innocent and his victim. Why should they disclose a document that quite possibly portrays a victim in a poor light?
   Kenneally was asked to review "all of the evidence". Some evidence has been destroyed despite court order. It is reasonable to assume that some of the "missing evidence" will be reviewed in Kenneally.
      Surely EP should be keen to assist in atoning for their supposed "mistake" of destroying evidence. After all EP did claim that the evidence was destroyed mistakenly and they were unaware that it was subject to court order.
      As it was an honest mistake then they shouldn't object to releasing Kenneally.
      Any belief that EP are withholding Kenneally to "protect the victim" ::) requires a large suspension of disbelief as well as the ignoring of their attitude to disclosure throughout the last 30 years.
      EP are withholding Kenneally to protect their own arses would be a more likely reason

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #101 on: January 05, 2017, 11:33:PM »
   Kenneally was asked to review "all of the evidence". Some evidence has been destroyed despite court order. It is reasonable to assume that some of the "missing evidence" will be reviewed in Kenneally.
      Surely EP should be keen to assist in atoning for their supposed "mistake" of destroying evidence. After all EP did claim that the evidence was destroyed mistakenly and they were unaware that it was subject to court order.
      As it was an honest mistake then they shouldn't object to releasing Kenneally.
      Any belief that EP are withholding Kenneally to "protect the victim" ::) requires a large suspension of disbelief as well as the ignoring of their attitude to disclosure throughout the last 30 years.
      EP are withholding Kenneally to protect their own arses would be a more likely reason

How much would you like to bet that the Kenneally report has gone 'missing' along with DI Cook's interview tape of the 1991 enquiry?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2017, 11:34:PM by David1819 »

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #102 on: January 05, 2017, 11:37:PM »
The Kenneally report has most probably been withheld in order to project the victim. Why should they disclose it if Jeremy has been found guilty in a court of law. In the eyes of the law he is guilty, ergo Sheila is innocent and his victim. Why should they disclose a document that quite possibly portrays a victim in a poor light?

Yes there is nothing worse than being wrongly accused of something
Yes there is nothing worse than in publicly trying to ruin two peoples reputation when you don't know they are guilty
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #103 on: January 05, 2017, 11:39:PM »
He'd told her the whole plan beforehand, he'd more or less sounded her out in Call 1, telegraphed his actions in Call 2 and in Call 3 this would have been confirmed to her.

Maybe you could fill me in on the 'whole plan' he told her
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Online Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21084
Re: 2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:
« Reply #104 on: January 05, 2017, 11:49:PM »
Maybe you could fill me in on the 'whole plan' he told her
Well you might care to read Julie's statement of 8th September 1985.  http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1647