tonights the night.

[Jan]

She didn't believe he would follow his plan through - and yet, he did.

Sorry , I don't buy that , not in the detail she said they discussed it , especially saying she could understand it if he just talked about murdering his parents . On the night the penny would have dropped which she herself said it did.

[Caroline]

Sorry , I don't buy that , not in the detail she said they discussed it , especially saying she could understand it if he just talked about murdering his parents . On the night the penny would have dropped which she herself said it did.

It doesn't really matter if you buy it or not, she has explained her feelings on what went on and she would know how she felt about what was said better than you or I. You think she's a liar and that's your prerogative - I think Jeremy is and that's mine.

[lookout]

No way did Jeremy murder anyone.

[nugnug]

It doesn't really matter if you buy it or not, she has explained her feelings on what went on and she would know how she felt about what was said better than you or I. You think she's a liar and that's your prerogative - I think Jeremy is and that's mine.

in law shes an acomplice if the slightist understanding of law works doesnt matter what she cliams.

[Steve_uk]

in law shes an acomplice if the slightist understanding of law works doesnt matter what she cliams.

But you have to prove joint enterprise and the law has since changed in the defendant's favour: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35598896

[Jane]

in law shes an acomplice if the slightist understanding of law works doesnt matter what she cliams.

Obviously not! Supporters treat her as if she's the only person who has -in their opinion- escaped prosecution for a crime THEY allege her to be guilty of, when, in truth, leniency ha frequently been given to those who turn Queen's Evidence.

[Caroline]

Obviously not! Supporters treat her as if she's the only person who has -in their opinion- escaped prosecution for a crime THEY allege her to be guilty of, when, in truth, leniency ha frequently been given to those who turn Queen's Evidence.

Point is though, if they believe she's also guilty, they have to believe that Bamber is too and yet still make excuses for him. 

[nugnug]

Obviously not! Supporters treat her as if she's the only person who has -in their opinion- escaped prosecution for a crime THEY allege her to be guilty of, when, in truth, leniency ha frequently been given to those who turn Queen's Evidence.

theres no allged about it if what she says guilty of being an acomplice.

on the other hand if isnt as i strongly suspect shes only guilty of perverting the course of justice.

[nugnug]

Point is though, if they believe she's also guilty, they have to believe that Bamber is too and yet still make excuses for him. 

we said if it happend if you care to read the orginal posts.

[Jane]

theres no allged about it if what she says guilty of being an acomplice.

on the other hand if isnt as i strongly suspect shes only guilty of perverting the course of justice.

As Caroline said, then. If Julie is guilty of being an accomplice it make Jeremy guilty of murder  -which was what he was convicted of-  but as Julie turned Queen's Evidence and could be proved to be MILES away from the SoC, there was nothing to charge her with.

[Caroline]

we said if it happend if you care to read the orginal posts.

It's said quite often!

[Adam]

What could Julie be charged with as far as being an accomplice goes ?

Did she supply the murder weapon for Bamber ? No.

Did she loosen the bathroom window for him ? No.

Did she say Bamber was on the phone to her between 10pm - 3am so could not have left gone to WHF ? No.

Did she draw up confidential plans of the inside of WHF ? No.


She could only be charged with knowing Bamber intended to committ the massacre. I assume. In that case she would just say she didn't believe him.

Or she could be charged with withholding evidence. For 20 days. That is negated by her approaching the police, giving a full WS & testifying.

[nugnug]

What could Julie be charged with as far as being an accomplice goes ?

Did she supply the murder weapon for Bamber ? No.

Did she loosen the bathroom window for him ? No.

Did she say Bamber was on the phone to her between 10pm - 3am so could not have left gone to WHF ? No.

Did she draw up confidential plans of the inside of WHF ? No.


She could only be charged with knowing Bamber intended to committ the massacre. I assume. In that case she would just say she didn't believe him.

Or she could be charged with withholding evidence. For 20 days. That is negated by her approaching the police, giving a full WS & testifying.

if you know a murder is going to happen and you dont do anything about it your ancomplice in law simple as.

doesnt matter how much bullshit you come out with that you dident think theyd go through with it.

[Adam]

if you know a murder is going to happen and you dont do anything about it your ancomplice in law simple as.

doesnt matter how much bullshit you come out with that you dident think theyd go through with it.

You're the one who talks bullshit. That's when I can actually understand through you're 'bullshit' spelling & grammer.

There is no point charging Julie with 'knowing Bamber was committing the massacre'. She would just say she didn't believe he was serious. There was no evidence to refute Julie.

[Jane]

if you know a murder is going to happen and you dont do anything about it your ancomplice in law simple as.

doesnt matter how much bullshit you come out with that you dident think theyd go through with it.

So if someone you know says they want to kill someone, you'd go straight to the police, would you? What do you think the police would say if this person had no previous? And what would YOUR first words be if murder was subsequently committed? I'll bet you'd say that you never believed the threat was real.