2002 Appeal: Determining the time of Bamber's second call to Julie:

[gringo]

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?

   EP have demonstrated, time and again, evasiveness and dishonesty and that anyone gives them any credence is astonishing and in spite of the weight of evidence demonstrating their total lack of credibility.
      I wonder if Soames from Special Branch knows where the tape went? 

[mike tesko]

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.

With Julies call fixed at 3.30am, and Jeremy's call to Witham police station prior to him calling Julie at 3.30am, and another call by Jeremy to PC West at 3.36am, the writing is already on the wall for Essex police, a call made by Jeremy, before and after his call, to Julie Mugford at 3.30am...

[mike tesko]

   EP have demonstrated, time and again, evasiveness and dishonesty and that anyone gives them any credence is astonishing and in spite of the weight of evidence demonstrating their total lack of credibility.
      I wonder if Soames from Special Branch knows where the tape went?

Seems like you, and I, certainly don't....

[mike tesko]

   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"?
[/quote

 I sense a positive fibration in the messages embedded in this post - thank you for supporting Jeremy Bambers cause. This young man (Baber) has been the victim of arguable one of the worst miscarriages of justice England has ever known about. I feel that if I die this very minute, that you will carry forward the mantle of this forums campaign...

[David1819]

Well you might care to read Julie's statement of 8th September 1985.  http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1647

Are you deliberately trying to embarrass yourself?

[gringo]

Seems like you, and I, certainly don't....

  Hidden or destroyed? or withheld to "protect the victims" ?

[JackiePreece]

Well you might care to read Julie's statement of 8th September 1985.  http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1647

You know full well there is absolutely nothing exclusive in Julie's statement that shows Jeremy shared any plan with her
Would you like to point out any one thing to me?
Do you also accept We all know Julie is a competent liar

[Stephanie]

You know full well there is absolutely nothing exclusive in Julie's statement that shows Jeremy shared any plan with her
Would you like to point out any one thing to me?
Do you also accept We all know Julie is a competent liar

What we know is that Julie's statement tell us a lot about Jeremy's plans leading up to the murders and indeed gives us an insight into how he behaved after the murders. It's not just one thing within the statements that shows Jeremy's coercing and controlling ways, it's a collection of facts. Taken in isolation it's possible to dismiss one or two incidents but there is far too much in Julie's statement to even suggest she has made it up. This is quite clearly a young women who has been lied to, coerced and controlled.

By turning Queens evidence, Julie had absolved herself therefore there was no reason to doubt what she said was anything but the truth.

Abusers of others are sly, they do everything in their power to remain under the radar however when one has survived something like this or indeed witnessed it, it's easier to spot and recognise in others.

[Stephanie]

Are you deliberately trying to embarrass yourself?

  Hidden or destroyed? or withheld to "protect the victims" ?

you appear to be way off mark David and indeed missing what is in front of your very eyes.

However, it's likely it's neither Gringo. It's not uncommon for men like Bamber to remain at large sometime after their crimes (SH wasn't apprehended for almost 7 months). They are skilled at getting away with things.

The police would have no doubt been under a lot of pressure to prove he was responsible because of his awareness and criminal versatility.

[lookout]

" Criminal versatility ?" His parents despaired of him when they used to try and prize him out of a chair when he lived at home. He was so lazy.

[lebaleb]

you appear to be way off mark David and indeed missing what is in front of your very eyes.

However, it's likely it's neither Gringo. It's not uncommon for men like Bamber to remain at large sometime after their crimes (SH wasn't apprehended for almost 7 months). They are skilled at getting away with things.

The police would have no doubt been under a lot of pressure to prove he was responsible because of his awareness and criminal versatility.

Is that why he called Mugford and told her he didn't know what to do?

[Stephanie]

" Criminal versatility ?" His parents despaired of him when they used to try and prize him out of a chair when he lived at home. He was so lazy.

Aren't you omitting facts here Lookout.

What about the caravan break in, the attempted shooting of rabbits, the growing and selling of weed, the stolen watches, the physical assault of Julie (Punch in face/arm twisted behind back - he admitted to these during interview) need I go on...

You are being selective with what you post Lookout. You are cherry picking in order to suit your agenda.

[guest7363]

" Criminal versatility ?" His parents despaired of him when they used to try and prize him out of a chair when he lived at home. He was so lazy.

Good point Lookout, that could have been a motive for Bamber to murder his parents, imagine being forced out the comfort of the armchair by your despairing parents. 

[lookout]

Aren't you omitting facts here Lookout.

What about the caravan break in, the attempted shooting of rabbits, the growing and selling of weed, the stolen watches, the physical assault of Julie (Punch in face/arm twisted behind back - he admitted to these during interview) need I go on...

You are being selective with what you post Lookout. You are cherry picking in order to suit your agenda.

You also cherry-pick-------just as you have done now,so don't accuse me ! Unless you don't know what you're saying,then I feel sorry for you.

[Adam]

Is that why he called Mugford and told her he didn't know what to do?

He called her to 'hear a friendly voice'.

Although it seems accepted by both Bamber and Julie that all Julie said was "hello" and "go back to bed".