Author Topic: A New Approach  (Read 56072 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #60 on: July 30, 2017, 09:25:PM »
ADam I don't understand any of your post it does not really make sense .What are you trying to say ?

In fewer words.

He uses a large amount of words deliberately.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #61 on: July 30, 2017, 09:35:PM »
 8). You learn something new every day

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44324
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #62 on: July 30, 2017, 09:39:PM »
He uses a large amount of words deliberately.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

If there are 26 huge & obvious disadvantages in Julie trying to frame an innocent man, a month after the massacre, they have to be posted.

Feel free to refute them.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44324
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #63 on: July 30, 2017, 09:41:PM »
Disadvantages of Julie trying to frame an innocent Bamber

She didn't know what evidence existed.

There would be no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.

There would be evidence showing Sheila was guilty. As she was.

She would be charged by the police. When caught lying.

Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.

To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?

Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?

There was no financial reward in approaching the police.

It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.

She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims.

Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.

She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.

It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.

She may quickly wilt under pressure.  This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?

It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.

It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.

It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.

An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.

It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.

She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.

It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.

She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?

She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.

She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.

Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.

If an unsuccessful police approach  became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #64 on: July 30, 2017, 09:48:PM »
If there are 26 huge & obvious disadvantages in Julie trying to frame an innocent man, a month after the massacre, they have to be posted.

Feel free to refute them.

So why add a total inappropriate newspaper article to 26 items which otherwise would  prove her in your eyes to be a heroine ?

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #65 on: July 30, 2017, 10:01:PM »
8). You learn something new every day

Jan we are never to old to learn and we are so lucky we have people around us to highlight our faults hehehe :))

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #66 on: July 31, 2017, 12:47:AM »
If there are 26 huge & obvious disadvantages in Julie trying to frame an innocent man, a month after the massacre, they have to be posted.

Feel free to refute them.

Your can make up 1000 disadvantages. It does not refute the proof that she did indeed do so.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8367.msg398537.html#msg398537

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21095
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #67 on: July 31, 2017, 01:10:AM »
Your can make up 1000 disadvantages. It does not refute the proof that she did indeed do so.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8367.msg398537.html#msg398537
The £2000 was the sum Jeremy owed Nevill for the holiday in New Zealand. Of course after the massacre the loan was conveniently forgotten, but the figure stuck in Jeremy's mind.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2017, 01:14:AM by Steve_uk »

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #68 on: July 31, 2017, 01:52:AM »
The £2000 was the sum Jeremy owed Nevill for the holiday in New Zealand. Of course after the massacre the loan was conveniently forgotten, but the figure stuck in Jeremy's mind.

How did that exact figure end up in RWBs diary before Julie 'came forward'?

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21095
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #69 on: July 31, 2017, 01:54:AM »
How did that exact figure end up in RWBs diary before Julie 'came forward'?
Possibly because Nevill discussed the amount of the loan with him whilst Jeremy was away sowing his wild oats.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33773
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #70 on: July 31, 2017, 06:52:AM »
How did that exact figure end up in RWBs diary before Julie 'came forward'?

An obvious answer is that RWB was present when Nevill gave Jeremy the money, OR told RWB that he'd done it. I don't imagine Nevill would have seen it as being a secret. I'm not certain what is your point about "the exact figure"? £2000 IS an exact figure?

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3879
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #71 on: July 31, 2017, 07:36:AM »
A reminder of the power of a well made mini series


Chillenden Murders: Legal experts on BBC documentary to assist Michael Stone in fresh appeal against hammer killings of Lin and Megan

Fascinating TV documentary says no clear evidence convicted killer Stone was even at the scene of the crime

The Experts working with the brilliant Minnow Films on the mini series

Sheryl Nwosu, Jane Antrobus, Richard Hobbs, Stephen Kamlish, Des Thomas, Georgina Meakin - The team behind the BBC's documentary The Chillenden Murders (C) Minnow Films - Photographer: Andy Boag


A two-part TV documentary which saw experts re-examine the case files of the horrific Chillenden murder of Lin and Megan Russell 21 years ago, has seen two of them so convinced of the fragility of the conviction of Michael Stone, they intend to assist in his next appeal.
The BBC2 show The Chillenden Murders concluded on Tuesday night.
It aimed to uncover the truth about one of Kent’s most notorious cases which took place in July 1996.
Mother Lin Russell, 45, and her six-year-old daughter Megan were beaten to death on a quiet country path with a hammer as they walked home from a swimming gala in Chillenden, between Canterbury and Dover. Another daughter Josie suffered horrific injuries but somehow survived.
A year-long manhunt turned up nothing until a psychiatrist tipped off police about Stone, from Gillingham, after watching an appeal on TV show Crimewatch.
He was found guilty initially upon evidence provided by cellmates who claimed he confessed to them. After two admitted they had lied, a retrial was order but he was again found guilty on the evidence provided by Damien Daley who claimed a cell confession while he was on remand in Canterbury. Daley is now serving time for murder, while a former friend on the BBC programme claims Daley admitted to lying about Stone at both trials.
No forensic evidence has ever been found to link Stone to the scene and a key piece of evidence - a shoelace which apparently contained some DNA evidence thought to be from the attacker, went missing.
Now barrister Stephen Kamlish QC who appeared in the show is taking up the case along with fellow barrister Sheryl Nwosu.
They were particularly disturbed by the loss of the shoelace. The programme was told the forensic lab that did the original testing sent the lace back to a Kent police officer. Kent Police, however, say “exhaustive testing” meant there was nothing left of it.
Mr Kamlish was not impressed with the two conflicting claims, and said: “Kent say it doesn’t exist anymore, and the lab says we gave it to a Kent police officer. And now the bag is empty. There are two different accounts as to what happened to it. This one lace could contain the key to who killed this family.”
Part of the BBC programme team was former detective chief superintendent Jane Antrobus who ruled out robbery as a motive as Lin still had her watch and necklace.
She concluded: “There is no ID against Stone, there is no forensics against Stone.
“I am not saying he is not a dangerous man, and I am not saying the best place for him isn’t locked up, but I am saying to me, I don’t think there is enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict him.”
She said the case still needs a “golden nugget of information” to support or condemn Stone.
Kent Police has consistently said they are not looking for anyone else, and have also ruled out convicted serial killer Levi Bellfield, who murdered Millie Dowler and other girls.
Stephen Kamlish and Sheryl Nwosu, another legal expert in the documentary, are now actively working on Stone’s next legal appeal, as a direct result of examining the case files.
She said: “His conviction hung on a very delicate thread.”
Stone is currenly 20 years into a minimum 25 year prison term.

Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44324
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #72 on: July 31, 2017, 09:38:AM »
Your can make up 1000 disadvantages. It does not refute the proof that she did indeed do so.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8367.msg398537.html#msg398537

There are not a 1000 disadvantages. But 26 huge disadvantages is a lot.

Julie was 20 & studying for her second degree. So would not be stupid enough to try to frame an innocent man a month after the massacre. Assumming she was jilted, bothered & madly vindictive.

« Last Edit: July 31, 2017, 09:49:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44324
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #73 on: July 31, 2017, 09:46:AM »
It is strange that with over 200 pieces of incriminating forensic & circumstantial evidence, people who have never met Bamber are so passionate about his innocence.

EP are corrupt, experts lied, the relatives greedy, Julie was jealous, Mary Mugford was protective, the judge was biased, the COA are outdated, the CCRC are scared.

The only innocent person in all this is Bamber.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #74 on: July 31, 2017, 10:20:AM »
There are not a 1000 disadvantages. But 26 huge disadvantages is a lot.

Julie was 20 & studying for her second degree. So would not be stupid enough to try to frame an innocent man a month after the massacre. Assumming she was jilted, bothered & madly vindictive.
How could Sheila be 20 and studying for her second degree?  Julie went to Teacher's Training College at 18 and the general course lasted 3 years. She may have been studying for a 4 year BEd which was an alternative course equivalent to a degree.  Sorry to be picky but can't help it. :'(
« Last Edit: July 31, 2017, 10:29:AM by maggie »