A New Approach

[Adam]

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.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1647

First paragraph of WS. Amending my previous post, she was 21.

[Jane]

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.

I, too, have raised this, previously. I certainly don't think it would have been possible for her to have left school at 18, completed a Ba/Bsc and gone on to do a Masters at 20. She didn't even become 21 until the August of 1985, around the time of her breakup with Jeremy.

[Caroline]

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

The two sums are for two different incidents. Don't know why you keep bringing this up? Jeremy borrowed the two grand from Nevil YEARS before the murders. There is no suggestion that Jeremy used this money to pay a hit man - that would be stupid given the time between his trip and the deaths of his family.

[Caroline]

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.

So which documentary have you been involved with previously?

[Jan]

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.

but she was stupid enough to get involved in fraud , theft and smuggling cannabis ? ( source city of London police) any of which would prevent her from carrying on in her chosen career?

What is your reasoning behind that ?

[Jane]

but she was stupid enough to get involved in fraud , theft and smuggling cannabis ? ( source city of London police) any of which would prevent her from carrying on in her chosen career?

What is your reasoning behind that ?

Yes, she was, but whom of us, at 20, haven't become involved with things we'd sooner not come back to haunt us?

[maggie]

Yes, she was, but whom of us, at 20, haven't become involved with things we'd sooner not come back to haunt us?

I can't agree with you there Jane, I know at 20 we are only learning and can make all kind of mistakes but this was hardcore imo.    Most 20 year old girls could not and would not do anything so blatant and criminal.  By the time we get to 20 most of us have boundaries that we know we mustn't cross, some people would call them morals but whatever name you choose imo JM lacked these boundaries.   I am not particularly blaming JM but you do have to wonder why she was so lacking.

[Adam]

but she was stupid enough to get involved in fraud , theft and smuggling cannabis ? ( source city of London police) any of which would prevent her from carrying on in her chosen career?

What is your reasoning behind that ?

Yes her & Susan Battersby did commit minor cheque book fraud once. Smuggling cannabis. I thought she just dealt with it at Goldsmiths college. Although I've never seen a source.

Neither of those crimes relate to the massacre. However Bamber's caravan break in does.

Anyway, there is no possibility of a 21 year old woman doing her second degree trying to frame an innocent man of killing his family. A month after the massacre. On the assumption she was jilted, devastated, mad & savagely vindictive in the first place. 

There are too many huge & obvious disadvantages.

[maggie]

Yes her & Susan Battersby did commit minor cheque book fraud once. Smuggling cannabis. I thought she just dealt with it at Goldsmiths college. Although I've never seen a source.

Neither of those crimes are relate to the massacre. However Bamber's caravan break in does.

Anyway, there is no possibility of a 21 year old woman doing her second degree trying to frame an innocent man of killing his family. A month after the massacre. On the assumption she was jilted, devastated, mad & savagely vindictive.

There are too many huge disadvantages.

You are minimising what she did to suit your own argument, Adam. You now say she was 21 however JB was only 23/24 during their relationship so he wasn't mature either.   It is accepted that she committed cheque fraud in Oxford Street,  do you think that's ok behaviour?  Is that the way you would behave?  She was also involved in the caravan park break in, you can say JB made her but that is your spin, she aided and abetted him to steal from his parents and as she was often a guest in their house that was pretty dreadful behaviour. I give her the benefit of the doubt about her part in the massacre but if he killed his family and she knew as much as she claimed to have then it is very worrying imo.  However bad his behaviour may have been, she was pretty suspect as well.

[Jane]

I can't agree with you there Jane, I know at 20 we are only learning and can make all kind of mistakes but this was hardcore imo.    Most 20 year old girls could not and would not do anything so blatant and criminal.  By the time we get to 20 most of us have boundaries that we know we mustn't cross, some people would call them morals but whatever name you choose imo JM lacked these boundaries.   I am not particularly blaming JM but you do have to wonder why she was so lacking.

Hmm. It was SUCH hardcore that I imagine it would have been beyond her frame of reference. I do, however, get your point about a moral compass. We have know idea what Julie's might have been, do we? What we've never been shown it's unlikely that we'll do instinctively. She may, if she'd been made to feel responsible, have thought she could control the situation she was in.

[Jane]

You are minimising what she did to suit your own argument, Adam.  It is accepted that she committed cheque fraud in Oxford Street, is that the way you would behave?  She was also involved in the caravan park breakin, you can say JB made her but that is your spin, she aided and abetted him to steal from his parents and as she was often a guest in their house that was pretty dreadful behaviour. I give her the benefit of the doubt about her part in the massacre but if he killed his family and she knew as much as she claimed to have then it is very worrying imo.  However bad his behaviour may have been, she was pretty suspect as well.

To the best of my memory, at the time,m such was her reputation, she may as well have committed the murders herself.

[Adam]

You are minimising what she did to suit your own argument, Adam.  It is accepted that she committed cheque fraud in Oxford Street, is that the way you would behave?  She was also involved in the caravan park breakin, you can say JB made her but that is your spin, she aided and abetted him to steal from his parents and as she was often a guest in their house that was pretty dreadful behaviour. I give her the benefit of the doubt about her part in the massacre but if he killed his family and she knew as much as she claimed to have then it is very worrying imo.  However bad his behaviour may have been, she was pretty suspect as well.

What has the cheque book fraud got to do with the huge & obvious disadvantages of Julie trying to frame an innocent man of killing his family. A month after the massacre. On the assumption she was jilted, devastated, mad & savagely vindictive.

Feel free to refute my 26 disadvantages. Unless you can't. In that case keep talking about a cheque book fraud in 1984.

[Adam]

I'm not sure what a 1984 cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby has got to do with huge & obvious disadvantages Julie had in trying to frame an innocent man of killing his family. A month afterwards.

The 26 huge & obvious disadvantages would be there whether she did that in 1984 or not.

Her reaction to these disadvantages would be no different regardless of what she did in 1984. Which would be to not attempt anything.

[maggie]

Hmm. It was SUCH hardcore that I imagine it would have been beyond her frame of reference. I do, however, get your point about a moral compass. We have know idea what Julie's might have been, do we? What we've never been shown it's unlikely that we'll do instinctively. She may, if she'd been made to feel responsible, have thought she could control the situation she was in.

I know we cannot take our own experiences and upbringing to judge others, I would have been terrified at the thought of cheque fraud and stealing but I accept that is me at 20 not Julie.  By the time I was 20 I was a Student Nurse with no energy for anything but work and sleep  .  I can't help wondering what was in her head, she was intelligent enough to get into Goldsmith's which was the top Teachers Training College before it became part of the university system.   This makes me wonder where she learned her morals, makes me wonder about her mother, I'm afraid, we do tend to learn our morals and our behaviour by the example of those closest to us.

[maggie]

I'm not sure what a 1984 cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby has got to do with huge & obvious disadvantages Julie had in trying to frame an innocent man of killing his family. A month afterwards.

The 26 huge & obvious disadvantages would be there whether she did that in 1984 or not.

Her reaction to these disadvantages would be no different regardless of what she did in 1984. Which would be to not attempt anything.

Apologies Adam but don't understand your post.