Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: chochokeira on June 27, 2011, 12:10:AM
-
I can't decide. What do you think, Jackie?
-
Like a hole in the head?
-
She certainly seemed obsessed with him and maybe his money.Jeremy complained to friends that Julie and Brett expected him to pay for everything.And Julie had a tantrum once when Jeremy didnt get around to booking them a holiday as he said he was too busy with the farm,so he gave her £400 for her to take herself and a friend on holiday.And all this after the murders,when she is supposed to have suspected him of being responsible!
-
She certainly seemed obsessed with him and maybe his money.Jeremy complained to friends that Julie and Brett expected him to pay for everything.And Julie had a tantrum once when Jeremy didnt get around to booking them a holiday as he said he was too busy with the farm,so he gave her £400 for her to take herself and a friend on holiday.And all this after the murders,when she is supposed to have suspected him of being responsible!
I wonder if he gave her that £400 in order to persuade her to leave him in peace to spend some time with an old girlfriend who had reappeared. That would explain why he didn't book the holiday ;D Jeremy gave JM this money either just before they stopped seeing each other or just after, didn't he? I seem to recall reading of a conversation between JM and whatsername (Battersby?) about £400 had given JM. I'm sure the conversation took place after JM and Jeremy had broken off their relationship. Though I suppose JB may have given JM £400 on more than one occasion. That £400 would be worth around £1000 now. Very generous!
-
Keira,Im not sure.In the book it states the £400 holiday money was before they broke up,and a £400 cheque as a late birthday present after they broke up.JM had a really big problem with Jeremy and Bretts friendship didn't she.It all seemed to go downhill once he appeared on the scene.
-
Could the money have been a bung in order to keep her quiet?
-
Could the money have been a bung in order to keep her quiet?
Staying in a relationship with her and not chasing other women right under her nose may have been more effective!
-
I can't decide. What do you think, Jackie?
I think JM was a pillar of soceity, the sort of girl a father hopes his son brings home.
Seriously, i think there was a strong bond between them.
Edited: terrible spelling mistake!
-
Paulg,do you think they seemed to be two peas in a pod?
-
Paulg,do you think they seemed to be two peas in a pod?
Yes, in lots of ways.
-
I can't decide. What do you think, Jackie?
I think JM was a pillar of soceity, the sought of girl a father hopes his son brings home.
Seriously, i think there was a strong bond between them.
If my son ever brings home a girl like that he can pack his bags.... ;)
-
I can't decide. What do you think, Jackie?
I think JM was a pillar of soceity, the sought of girl a father hopes his son brings home.
Seriously, i think there was a strong bond between them.
If my son ever brings home a girl like that he can pack his bags.... ;)
One slip as a student and you condemn her for life. Are you trying to tell me that all students and young folk in general are angels and never get up to anything naughty. A rather blinkered approach if I may say so?
Julie Mugford has redeemed herself in her maturity and is a valuable asset to society irrespective of her evidence at Jeremy's trial.
Keira, if your sons ever brings home a girl like that maybe you should pack your bags or at least purchase a bullet-proof vest! :)
+1 out of sympathy Keira.
-
Surely, JM & JB Both robbed the caravan Park, both slept around, both led the high life after the murders.
How can you judge one to be more trustworthy than the other?
-
She didn't so much rob the Osea Road Caravan site as accompany Jeremy when he was doing it in order to get back at Ann Eaton.
It was Jeremy who had the ulterior motive for the robbery, the arson and the trashing the place.
Such a nice boy, the sort one would automatically make a Director?
No wonder granny changed her will and disowned him.
-
I think most people on the forum agree there is no proof JM was telling the truth but as shown in many ways she was a good actress in the witness box unfortunately JB thought just by telling the truth that would be enough.
Thanks for for that funny message Paul about JM I had just been away for a couple of days in beautilful Southwold xxx
-
There is lots of proof in the various corroborations we have in several statements. After all, it was lovely Julie who spilled the beans on the whole Osea Caravan Park fiasco otherwise we would never have known about it.
Do they not have phone signals in Southwold?
-
Jerry I am seriously getting worried about your state of mind lately whether she was telling the truth or telling lies I find it difficult to imagine anyone describing Julie Mugford as lovely.
Still at least everyone on the forum can judge you on the sort of person you describe as lovely
Unbelievable
Yes they have phone signals in Southwold but there are more than enough people fighting JB s corner for me not to be around for a few days. But incase you dont know everything is going brilliantly with JB
so many high profile supporting him at the moment. Its just brilliant
-
Jerry I am seriously getting worried about your state of mind lately whether she was telling the truth or telling lies I find it difficult to imagine anyone describing Julie Mugford as lovely.
Still at least everyone on the forum can judge you on the sort of person you describe as lovely
Unbelievable
Yes they have phone signals in Southwold but there are more than enough people fighting JB s corner for me not to be around for a few days. But incase you dont know everything is going brilliantly with JB
so many high profile supporting him at the moment. Its just brilliant
Hi ya Jackie, i love Southwold, used to stay in my motorhome there all the time. They've put bloody yellow lines everywhere now. :(
I knew you'd love my earlier comment, was just for you. ;)
And i didn't receive your holiday request form... ;)
-
Jerry I am seriously getting worried about your state of mind lately whether she was telling the truth or telling lies I find it difficult to imagine anyone describing Julie Mugford as lovely.
Still at least everyone on the forum can judge you on the sort of person you describe as lovely
Unbelievable
Yes they have phone signals in Southwold but there are more than enough people fighting JB s corner for me not to be around for a few days. But incase you dont know everything is going brilliantly with JB
so many high profile supporting him at the moment. Its just brilliant
Hi Jackie. Good to see you back! Hope you had a great time in Southwold - what a beautiful place.
-
Only me and you online tonight Keira, what shall we argue about. :)
Was down at Goldhanger sea wall again on Sunday...
Bloody Oysters everywhere, was tempted to take a few home to try...never eaten one before.
-
Surely, JM & JB Both robbed the caravan Park, both slept around,
both led the high life after the murders.
How can you judge one to be more trustworthy than the other?
"In another development, Bamber's cousin, David Boutflour, who found the silencer at the farm days after the killings, has admitted – for the first time – that he inherited a significant sum following the murders. "I have inherited quite a large amount of money as a result of Jeremy. And most of it I've wasted, I've spent," he said."
Looks like these two weren't the only ones who lived the high life after the murders then?
-
Only me and you online tonight Keira, what shall we argue about. :)
Was down at Goldhanger sea wall again on Sunday...
Bloody Oysters everywhere, was tempted to take a few home to try...never eaten one before.
Never had an oyster? They're lovely. The ones in the Colchester district are said to be among the best in the world, I believe.
-
"I think most people on the forum agree there is no proof JM was telling the truth"
There is absolutely no proof she was lying either! The Jury believed her and thought JB was lying......
JM's story hasn't changed one bit over the years....Jeremy's has. Just on the phone call alone he changed his mind before the trial and has changed it since.
-
"I think most people on the forum agree there is no proof JM was telling the truth"
There is absolutely no proof she was lying either! The Jury believed her and thought JB was lying......
JM's story hasn't changed one bit over the years....Jeremy's has. Just on the phone call alone he changed his mind before the trial and has changed it since.
That isn't true though, is it, Vic? JM used 3 totally contradictory stories:
1. JB was innocent
2. JB hired a hitman
5. JB was the murderer
Don't accept what you're told so uncritically.
-
Chocho and Paul + 1 each Paul what is my punishment? X
-
Chocho and Paul + 1 each Paul what is my punishment? X
Thanks, Jackie. What do you mean by, "what's my punishment?"
-
Hi Keira,
JM never said JB was innocent.
JM said that JB told her he'd used a hitman. Why would she make that up? If she wanted to frame JB she surely would have just said that he did it?
Why would JB call JM at 3am after a long day working on the farm? Nobody disputes this call happened, only the timing. There are 3 witnesses that say it was at 3am, BEFORE nevill supposedly called JB.
The defence have always tried to claim this call was about 3.30 to make JB's story fit, but the jury didn't believe that either.
Now, there is a theory that Nevill called the police, only yet again, this would place JB's call to JM BEFORE he rang the Police, making him seem a little, er, uncaring.
-
Hi Chocho I think Southwold is like stepping back in time it's really special shall we go there one day together for a weekend x
Chocho I didn't fill in my holiday form !!!
-
Vidvic jeremy had never been in trouble for stealing before being involved with Mugford. I think she probably instigated the caravan theft. Mugford was an experienced theif and fraudster. Vidvic look up the word fraud or fraudster and let me know what it means
-
Hi Keira,
JM never said JB was innocent.
Oh, yes she did. During one long year in which she claimed Jeremy repeatedly threatened to slaughter his entire immediate family and made a number of detailed plans for the murders, JM's whole demeanour said he was innocent.
When JM did nothing to warn the family that they were about to be brutally slaughtered, despite her later claims that Jeremy told her he was intent on murdering them all, JM's underlying story was that he was innocent.
When she continued her relationship with Jeremy after the murders, when she went out drinking with him and on holiday with him, when she went to the funerals and to see Colin Caffell, JM was silently telling the story that Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
-
Hi Chocho I think Southwold is like stepping back in time it's really special shall we go there one day together for a weekend x
Chocho I didn't fill in my holiday form !!!
Good idea! I went there once when I was staying with friends at their holiday home in Suffolk. The House in the Clouds is there, isn't it?
-
Chocho Vidvic has gone!
I don't know about the house in the clouds what is it?
It's just started raining here have you had it yet I hope it really pours!
-
Vidvic jeremy had never been in trouble for stealing before being involved with Mugford. I think she probably instigated the caravan theft. Mugford was an experienced theif and fraudster. Vidvic look up the word fraud or fraudster and let me know what it means
Jackie, JB by his own admission was responsible for the robbery, "to test the security"....only he forgot to tell anyone he'd done it and spent the money.......
-
Surely, JM & JB Both robbed the caravan Park, both slept around,
both led the high life after the murders.
How can you judge one to be more trustworthy than the other?
"In another development, Bamber's cousin, David Boutflour, who found the silencer at the farm days after the killings, has admitted – for the first time – that he inherited a significant sum following the murders. "I have inherited quite a large amount of money as a result of Jeremy. And most of it I've wasted, I've spent," he said."
Looks like these two weren't the only ones who lived the high life after the murders then?
As I have said before, the fact that David 'blew' his inheritance shows how little he needed it. At appeal team JB tried to show that money couldn't have been a motive for JB to commit the murders, that greed wasn't a factor because eventually he'd have been a wealthy man. So, how can you argue this both ways? These families are and were wealthy enough not to need to inherit the Bamber inheritance. And, BTW, it was much less than 500k.
-
Hi Keira,
JM never said JB was innocent.
Oh, yes she did. During one long year in which she claimed Jeremy repeatedly threatened to slaughter his entire immediate family and made a number of detailed plans for the murders, JM's whole demeanour said he was innocent.
When JM did nothing to warn the family that they were about to be brutally slaughtered, despite her later claims that Jeremy told her he was intent on murdering them all, JM's underlying story was that he was innocent.
When she continued her relationship with Jeremy after the murders, when she went out drinking with him and on holiday with him, when she went to the funerals and to see Colin Caffell, JM was silently telling the story that Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
I would argue that the first two paragraphs refer to something that hadn't happened yet, so how could she be saying he was innocent when he hadn't done it yet?
And yes, it took her a while to come clean, but she did, and the jury believed her.
-
JM said that JB told her he'd used a hitman. Why would she make that up? If she wanted to frame JB she surely would have just said that he did it?
David Shaw's theory is that a lot of JM's stories were gleaned from others: from an insider, from the extended family, the press and local gossip. That's why key aspects of her stories were riddled with so many errors, a number of which just happended to match the errors in AE's account. For example, both JM and AE claimed that Sheila was found on the bed, both claimed that the Bible was on top of Sheila.
There was a profusion of confusing stories in the press and doing the rounds of the local grape vine after the murders, according to Shaw. One story in the tabloids at the time that a scruffy man had been seen leaving the farm and a scruffy local man was viewed by villagers as a suspect - Shaw names him. Another local man is said to have threatened Nevill, this man killed his wife and himself the following year and attempted to kill his mother in law and his child. Shaw seems to suggest that JM could have conflated all of these people into the self proclaimed local villain: Mathew McDonald.
-
Hi Keira,
JM never said JB was innocent.
Oh, yes she did. During one long year in which she claimed Jeremy repeatedly threatened to slaughter his entire immediate family and made a number of detailed plans for the murders, JM's whole demeanour said he was innocent.
When JM did nothing to warn the family that they were about to be brutally slaughtered, despite her later claims that Jeremy told her he was intent on murdering them all, JM's underlying story was that he was innocent.
When she continued her relationship with Jeremy after the murders, when she went out drinking with him and on holiday with him, when she went to the funerals and to see Colin Caffell, JM was silently telling the story that Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
I would argue that the first two paragraphs refer to something that hadn't happened yet, so how could she be saying he was innocent when he hadn't done it yet?
And yes, it took her a while to come clean, but she did, and the jury believed her.
Innocent of threatening and planning to kill his family, Vic, therefore, by implication, innocent of later carrying out these alleged threats.
-
Hi Keira,
JM never said JB was innocent.
Oh, yes she did. During one long year in which she claimed Jeremy repeatedly threatened to slaughter his entire immediate family and made a number of detailed plans for the murders, JM's whole demeanour said he was innocent.
When JM did nothing to warn the family that they were about to be brutally slaughtered, despite her later claims that Jeremy told her he was intent on murdering them all, JM's underlying story was that he was innocent.
When she continued her relationship with Jeremy after the murders, when she went out drinking with him and on holiday with him, when she went to the funerals and to see Colin Caffell, JM was silently telling the story that Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
I would argue that the first two paragraphs refer to something that hadn't happened yet, so how could she be saying he was innocent when he hadn't done it yet?
And yes, it took her a while to come clean, but she did, and the jury believed her.
Innocent of threatening and planning to kill his family, Vic, therefore, by implication, innocent of later carrying out these alleged threats.
It's late so I'm probably being thick, but I don't get this argument at all. If he said he was going to do it, but didn't, she had nothing to say, until the point when he actually did it, and then she told all.
-
Hi Keira,
JM never said JB was innocent.
Oh, yes she did. During one long year in which she claimed Jeremy repeatedly threatened to slaughter his entire immediate family and made a number of detailed plans for the murders, JM's whole demeanour said he was innocent.
When JM did nothing to warn the family that they were about to be brutally slaughtered, despite her later claims that Jeremy told her he was intent on murdering them all, JM's underlying story was that he was innocent.
When she continued her relationship with Jeremy after the murders, when she went out drinking with him and on holiday with him, when she went to the funerals and to see Colin Caffell, JM was silently telling the story that Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
I would argue that the first two paragraphs refer to something that hadn't happened yet, so how could she be saying he was innocent when he hadn't done it yet?
And yes, it took her a while to come clean, but she did, and the jury believed her.
Innocent of threatening and planning to kill his family, Vic, therefore, by implication, innocent of later carrying out these alleged threats.
It's late so I'm probably being thick, but I don't get this argument at all. If he said he was going to do it, but didn't, she had nothing to say, until the point when he actually did it, and then she told all.
I'm too tired to reply, will reply tomorrow. ZZzzz
-
Vidvic you didn't really answer my question from yesterday about JM.
Would you agree that it has been accepted JM was breaking the law by carrying out the cheque fraud way before Jeremy stole anything
-
Vicvic would you say that by JM walking up and down Oxford obtaining goods to the value of £700 in 1986 she must be skilled in the art of deception
-
Vidvic you didn't really answer my question from yesterday about JM.
Would you agree that it has been accepted JM was breaking the law by carrying out the cheque fraud way before Jeremy stole anything
Good point, Jackie. +1
-
Vicvic would you say that by JM walking up and down Oxford obtaining goods to the value of £700 in 1986 she must be skilled in the art of deception
How skilled do you need to be to sign a cheque?
-
Vidvic you didn't really answer my question from yesterday about JM.
Would you agree that it has been accepted JM was breaking the law by carrying out the cheque fraud way before Jeremy stole anything
Good point, Jackie. +1
of course I agree. She returned the money and the bank took no further action. What's your point?
-
Vidvic you didn't really answer my question from yesterday about JM.
Would you agree that it has been accepted JM was breaking the law by carrying out the cheque fraud way before Jeremy stole anything
Good point, Jackie. +1
of course I agree. She returned the money and the bank took no further action. What's your point?
Have you seen any evidence that JM did return the money, Vic? I'm sure I've read somewhere that she did not repay this money.
-
The point is Vic on numerous occasions she stood face to face with a shop assistant passing stolen cheques and not showing nerves
I think I am correct but I will check with NGB if JM had been caught she would have gone straight to Crown Court for fraud. I think any case of fraud is treated as to serious to be dealt with at Magistrates court.
I would say a fraud adding up to thousands of pounds it was very likely she would have faced a prison sentence
She risked her career and future because of her greed
Being the experienced criminal I would think most people probably think the caravan robbery was her idea
I think risking your future for greed of money is an important factor showing her character
That's my point Vic
-
from the 2002 appeal.
342. On 4 October, Susan Battersby and Julie Mugford went to the bank. They saw there Alan Dovey, an accountant with the bank who was acting as Branch Manager. A statement from Mr Dovey recording this visit was served upon the defence. Mr Dovey's statement included:
"I can say that on 4 October 1985 Miss Battersby came to the bank to see me with another girl who I know as a Miss Julie Mugford. Miss Battersby then informed me that she had not lost her cheque book but had been dishonest. Both stated that they were involved in the passing of the cheques. As a result of what they said I accepted their offer of paying the money back to the bank. In fact £320 has been paid to date and arrangements have been made for the outstanding amount to be paid at the rate of £50 per week. I can say that the bank was the loser in this matter and not the shops who accepted the cheques.
I am authorised on behalf of the bank to say that in view of the fact that the girls have confessed and agreed to pay back the monies the bank do not wish to prosecute in this case."
It was not "thousands" it was about £700
JB, in his own words, admitted that the caravan Park robbery was HIS idea, to "test the security".
Even the defence sollicitors at original trial were worried about JM's evidence as it had "The ring of truth about it"
-
Chocho Vidvic has gone!
I don't know about the house in the clouds what is it?
It's just started raining here have you had it yet I hope it really pours!
The House In The Clouds, Jackie:
http://been-seen.com/travel-spots/house-in-the-clouds
-
The point is Vic on numerous occasions she stood face to face with a shop assistant passing stolen cheques and not showing nerves
I think I am correct but I will check with NGB if JM had been caught she would have gone straight to Crown Court for fraud. I think any case of fraud is treated as to serious to be dealt with at Magistrates court.
I would say a fraud adding up to thousands of pounds it was very likely she would have faced a prison sentence
She risked her career and future because of her greed
Being the experienced criminal I would think most people probably think the caravan robbery was her idea
I think risking your future for greed of money is an important factor showing her character
That's my point Vic
Jackie,
As there are two blatant untruths or exaggerations then no, I don't accept your point.
-
Vic I made the point the £700 was in 1986 the value today was thousands. What do you think £700 is worth now Vic do you not consider this a large amount of money and do you not agree enough to get her sent to prison for
-
Vic I made the point the £700 was in 1986 the value today was thousands. What do you think £700 is worth now Vic do you not consider this a large amount of money and do you not agree enough to get her sent to prison for
It's worth £1452.50
-
Vic I made the point the £700 was in 1986 the value today was thousands. What do you think £700 is worth now Vic do you not consider this a large amount of money and do you not agree enough to get her sent to prison for
It's worth £1452.50
Can I ask which calculator you used, Harters?
Just like the clocks in this case, the various calculators available tend to provide different results.
-
Vic I made the point the £700 was in 1986 the value today was thousands. What do you think £700 is worth now Vic do you not consider this a large amount of money and do you not agree enough to get her sent to prison for
It's worth £1452.50
Can I ask which calculator you used, Harters?
Just like the clocks in this case, the various calculators available tend to provide different results.
I can't remember now. Looking again at the Bank of England website it comes out at about £1650.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/inflation/calculator/flash/index.htm
-
There is lots of proof in the various corroborations we have in several statements. After all, it was lovely Julie who spilled the beans on the whole Osea Caravan Park fiasco otherwise we would never have known about it.
Do they not have phone signals in Southwold?
Well if this crime had happened back in the very early 60's she would have beenb charged and found guilty by association. Also if she was charged with that crime she may even have been charged later with murder with JB and who knows she herself may still be in prison with JB?
So isn't it a pity that the law these days has been so corrupted.
-
I think she stole enough to send her to prison very lucky in the circumstances she must have been a very confident thief don't know how Jerry describes her at lovely
I wonder if she is as famous in Canada for her involvement in the murders
-
I think she stole enough to send her to prison very lucky in the circumstances she must have been a very confident thief don't know how Jerry describes her at lovely
I wonder if she is as famous in Canada for her involvement in the murders
Her cheque fraud was nothing to do with JB. I think she was quite a competant crook all by herself?
-
Chocho and Paul + 1 each Paul what is my punishment? X
I'll think of something, just don't go AWOL again. ;)
-
Chocho and Paul + 1 each Paul what is my punishment? X
I'll think of something, just don't go AWOL again. ;)
I'll think of something far ya ;)
}Paulg mode on{ Well it does just go to show what a lovely a conscientious person she was, she did the right thing, she didn't get caught for the cheque fraud, she saw the error of her ways, handed herself in and turned supergrass. {Paulg mode off}
-
Chocho and Paul + 1 each Paul what is my punishment? X
I'll think of something, just don't go AWOL again. ;)
I'll think of something far ya ;)
}Paulg mode on{ Well it does just go to show what a lovely a conscientious person she was, she did the right thing, she didn't get caught for the cheque fraud, she saw the error of her ways, handed herself in and turned supergrass. {Paulg mode off}
Paul, you should keep your head down mate, Jackies not gonna be impressed with that. :o
-
Chocho and Paul + 1 each Paul what is my punishment? X
I'll think of something, just don't go AWOL again. ;)
I'll think of something far ya ;)
}Paulg mode on{ Well it does just go to show what a lovely a conscientious person she was, she did the right thing, she didn't get caught for the cheque fraud, she saw the error of her ways, handed herself in and turned supergrass. {Paulg mode off}
Paul, you should keep your head down mate, Jackies not gonna be impressed with that. :o
Nah, i'll be all right, Jackie knows my thoughts on this relationship...but i'll put them down again.
Both have shown signs of greed, and prepared to do things most wouldn't consider to gain money...two peas in a pod.
One it appears went to the extreme of extremes, the other gained a conscience, but cashed in the conscience.Did Julie gain this conscience because she was being dumped? I'm not so sure.
Do i think the NOTW money was wrong? 100% i do, and i hope she is ashamed of herself.
-
Do i think the NOTW money was wrong? 100% i do, and i hope she is ashamed of herself.
We must also not forget that JM went to Ellisons Solicitors in Colchester to try and find a way to avoid the press hounding, it was the solicitors who suggested going to a news paper in exchange for a financial agreement. Whilst JM agreed to the deal and gained financially in the sum of £25000 we can therefore judge her morally on that basis, but it clearly shows that it was not her intention from the outset, to gain financially.
-
Chocho and Paul + 1 each Paul what is my punishment? X
I'll think of something, just don't go AWOL again. ;)
I'll think of something far ya ;)
}Paulg mode on{ Well it does just go to show what a lovely a conscientious person she was, she did the right thing, she didn't get caught for the cheque fraud, she saw the error of her ways, handed herself in and turned supergrass. {Paulg mode off}
Paul, you should keep your head down mate, Jackies not gonna be impressed with that. :o
Nah, i'll be all right, Jackie knows my thoughts on this relationship...but i'll put them down again.
Both have shown signs of greed, and prepared to do things most wouldn't consider to gain money...two peas in a pod.
One it appears went to the extreme of extremes, the other gained a conscience, but cashed in the conscience.Did Julie gain this conscience because she was being dumped? I'm not so sure.
Do i think the NOTW money was wrong? 100% i do, and i hope she is ashamed of herself.
Ok paul, I'm having a 20% day....
Do you think that there was an early phone call to Julie, 3.00am-3.15am, in order to establish an alibi for both Jeremy and Julie? This would imply Miss Mugford was fully aware of a diabolical scheme to commit murder for inheritance. Would explain why Bamber seemed nonchalant towards Julie (he assumed she was in no position to have any say about his desires elsewhere... what with her being an accomplice to five murders).. was f***ed once Julie went to police (wasn't expecting that to happen and could hardly point out that she is an accomplice to murder could he?).
I really don't like this scenario ::) because it has no place in my video >:(
-
Chocho and Paul + 1 each Paul what is my punishment? X
I'll think of something, just don't go AWOL again. ;)
I'll think of something far ya ;)
}Paulg mode on{ Well it does just go to show what a lovely a conscientious person she was, she did the right thing, she didn't get caught for the cheque fraud, she saw the error of her ways, handed herself in and turned supergrass. {Paulg mode off}
Paul, you should keep your head down mate, Jackies not gonna be impressed with that. :o
Nah, i'll be all right, Jackie knows my thoughts on this relationship...but i'll put them down again.
Both have shown signs of greed, and prepared to do things most wouldn't consider to gain money...two peas in a pod.
One it appears went to the extreme of extremes, the other gained a conscience, but cashed in the conscience.Did Julie gain this conscience because she was being dumped? I'm not so sure.
Do i think the NOTW money was wrong? 100% i do, and i hope she is ashamed of herself.
Ok paul, I'm having a 20% day....
Do you think that there was an early phone call to Julie, 3.00am-3.15am, in order to establish an alibi for both Jeremy and Julie? This would imply Miss Mugford was fully aware of a diabolical scheme to commit murder for inheritance. Would explain why Bamber seemed nonchalant towards Julie (he assumed she was in no position to have any say about his desires elsewhere... what with her being an accomplice to five murders).. was f***ed once Julie went to police (wasn't expecting that to happen and could hardly point out that she is an accomplice to murder could he?).
I really don't like this scenario ::) because it has no place in my video >:(
For me Rochy, a lot of what you say could well be true, but we both know we can put different spin on things.
I certainly wouldn't rule out JM having knowledge of a plot to kill off the family, and being happy to go along with it.
But i think JB's alibi was the phone call from WHF to his house, from the likely hired killer. I do believe that Nevill was killed elsewhere, then dragged to the kitchen, bludgeoned, and had 3 more shots fired into his body.Nevill had 4 fatal head shots, but only 3 bullet cases in the kitchen.
I think the phone call from JB to JM was to give the killer time to escape, before calling the police. I'm guessing it was adrenalin pumping in JB that caused the call to JM, a need to talk with his confidant.
I believe that JB fully expected BT to confirm a phone call from WHF to his house, at roughly 3:10amish, thus giving him an alibi, backed up with a phone call to Mugford.
-
Do i think the NOTW money was wrong? 100% i do, and i hope she is ashamed of herself.
We must also not forget that JM went to Ellisons Solicitors in Colchester to try and find a way to avoid the press hounding, it was the solicitors who suggested going to a news paper in exchange for a financial agreement. Whilst JM agreed to the deal and gained financially in the sum of £25000 we can therefore judge her morally on that basis, but it clearly shows that it was not her intention from the outset, to gain financially.
oh, I forgot. Bamber had a nice little 40k deal done at trial too and he complained to his defence team that he didn't think it enough "surely you can get me a better deal!"
-
Do i think the NOTW money was wrong? 100% i do, and i hope she is ashamed of herself.
We must also not forget that JM went to Ellisons Solicitors in Colchester to try and find a way to avoid the press hounding, it was the solicitors who suggested going to a news paper in exchange for a financial agreement. Whilst JM agreed to the deal and gained financially in the sum of £25000 we can therefore judge her morally on that basis, but it clearly shows that it was not her intention from the outset, to gain financially.
Its just the fact that she gained out of the death of 2 sleeping kids Hartley, ok its indirect, and she may well have been advised to go to the press......but its something well below my own moral values, and so i judge her based on my own morals.
-
Do i think the NOTW money was wrong? 100% i do, and i hope she is ashamed of herself.
We must also not forget that JM went to Ellisons Solicitors in Colchester to try and find a way to avoid the press hounding, it was the solicitors who suggested going to a news paper in exchange for a financial agreement. Whilst JM agreed to the deal and gained financially in the sum of £25000 we can therefore judge her morally on that basis, but it clearly shows that it was not her intention from the outset, to gain financially.
oh, I forgot. Bamber had a nice little 40k deal done at trial too and he complained to his defence team that he didn't think it enough "surely you can get me a better deal!"
Can that be backed up in any way?
I'll state once again for the record, they were 2 peas in a pod, bloody unbelievable.
-
Hi Paul what % are you thinking it had to be a hit man?
Hartley don't try sucking up to Paul it won't work try asking Paulg if he thinks JM is lovely as you and Jerry think
For that comment you both lose credibility
Vidvic I will deal with you in a minute over unanswered questions
-
Chocho and Paul + 1 each Paul what is my punishment? X
I'll think of something, just don't go AWOL again. ;)
I'll think of something far ya ;)
}Paulg mode on{ Well it does just go to show what a lovely a conscientious person she was, she did the right thing, she didn't get caught for the cheque fraud, she saw the error of her ways, handed herself in and turned supergrass. {Paulg mode off}
Paul, you should keep your head down mate, Jackies not gonna be impressed with that. :o
Nah, i'll be all right, Jackie knows my thoughts on this relationship...but i'll put them down again.
Both have shown signs of greed, and prepared to do things most wouldn't consider to gain money...two peas in a pod.
One it appears went to the extreme of extremes, the other gained a conscience, but cashed in the conscience.Did Julie gain this conscience because she was being dumped? I'm not so sure.
Do i think the NOTW money was wrong? 100% i do, and i hope she is ashamed of herself.
Ok paul, I'm having a 20% day....
Do you think that there was an early phone call to Julie, 3.00am-3.15am, in order to establish an alibi for both Jeremy and Julie? This would imply Miss Mugford was fully aware of a diabolical scheme to commit murder for inheritance. Would explain why Bamber seemed nonchalant towards Julie (he assumed she was in no position to have any say about his desires elsewhere... what with her being an accomplice to five murders).. was f***ed once Julie went to police (wasn't expecting that to happen and could hardly point out that she is an accomplice to murder could he?).
I really don't like this scenario ::) because it has no place in my video >:(
For me Rochy, a lot of what you say could well be true, but we both know we can put different spin on things.
I certainly wouldn't rule out JM having knowledge of a plot to kill off the family, and being happy to go along with it.
But i think JB's alibi was the phone call from WHF to his house, from the likely hired killer. I do believe that Nevill was killed elsewhere, then dragged to the kitchen, bludgeoned, and had 3 more shots fired into his body.Nevill had 4 fatal head shots, but only 3 bullet cases in the kitchen.
I think the phone call from JB to JM was to give the killer time to escape, before calling the police. I'm guessing it was adrenalin pumping in JB that caused the call to JM, a need to talk with his confidant.
I believe that JB fully expected BT to confirm a phone call from WHF to his house, at roughly 3:10amish, thus giving him an alibi, backed up with a phone call to Mugford.
If Jeremy is guilty then his need for an alibi can only have been driven by a conscience. If the plot was that good he did not need an alibi.
A locked up and secure farmhouse with 5 dead bodies inside would have been found in the morning by someone.
There is an argument to say, if guilty, two mistakes were made in preventing a perfect crime from remaining unsolved.
The first the alleged telephone call from Nevill and then the calls to JM and the police.
The second was allowing the keys to White House Farm to be handed to the Eatons at a time when 4 murders and a suicide was all over the papers.
-
Do i think the NOTW money was wrong? 100% i do, and i hope she is ashamed of herself.
We must also not forget that JM went to Ellisons Solicitors in Colchester to try and find a way to avoid the press hounding, it was the solicitors who suggested going to a news paper in exchange for a financial agreement. Whilst JM agreed to the deal and gained financially in the sum of £25000 we can therefore judge her morally on that basis, but it clearly shows that it was not her intention from the outset, to gain financially.
oh, I forgot. Bamber had a nice little 40k deal done at trial too and he complained to his defence team that he didn't think it enough "surely you can get me a better deal!"
Can that be backed up in any way?
I'll state once again for the record, they were 2 peas in a pod, bloody unbelievable.
I've heard that before but put it down to hearsay, it would certainly be interesting if it could be corroborated.
-
I bet you disappear in a minute Vidvic difficult questions etc thats your normal trick
JB s 40k deal I will use you phrase wild speculation or fact?
-
Hi Paul what % are you thinking it had to be a hit man?
Hartley don't try sucking up to Paul it won't work try asking Paulg if he thinks JM is lovely as you and Jerry think
For that comment you both lose credibility
Vidvic I will deal with you in a minute over unanswered questions
75% is a rough figure for hit man, 20% it was JB, 5% it was Sheila........so yes, there is a little doubt in my head.
-
Do i think the NOTW money was wrong? 100% i do, and i hope she is ashamed of herself.
We must also not forget that JM went to Ellisons Solicitors in Colchester to try and find a way to avoid the press hounding, it was the solicitors who suggested going to a news paper in exchange for a financial agreement. Whilst JM agreed to the deal and gained financially in the sum of £25000 we can therefore judge her morally on that basis, but it clearly shows that it was not her intention from the outset, to gain financially.
oh, I forgot. Bamber had a nice little 40k deal done at trial too and he complained to his defence team that he didn't think it enough "surely you can get me a better deal!"
Can that be backed up in any way?
I'll state once again for the record, they were 2 peas in a pod, bloody unbelievable.
Source was one of the defence team.
While they were waiting for the verdict at trial. From 'Blood Relations';
"He was bandying figures for which he planned to sell his story to the newspapers - somewhat unattractive behaviour in the opinion of one of his legal team. A group of them sat with Jeremy, trying to buoy his spirits but feeling increasingly uncomfortable about his obsession with a newspaper deal. The best offer he'd had, he said, was £40,000. Couldn't they get him a better offer than that? After all, he was pointing out, if he was convicted, Julie had been promised £15,000 for her story."
-
I bet you disappear in a minute Vidvic difficult questions etc thats your normal trick
JB s 40k deal I will use you phrase wild speculation or fact?
Jackie, we all get busy and come and go as time allows, indeed you yourself dared to go away for a few days recently.
I guess I'm just saying, wait for his reply and then comment, instead of being so confrontational.
-
Paulg dont you struggle with the fact surely JB would have had an alibi that doesnt make sense especially if JM knew "tonights the night" I think JB seems stupid but surely not that stupid and I just dont think he hung around in the right circles to know any hit men and I cannot believe a hit man would shoot two 6 year old boys in the head
-
Do i think the NOTW money was wrong? 100% i do, and i hope she is ashamed of herself.
We must also not forget that JM went to Ellisons Solicitors in Colchester to try and find a way to avoid the press hounding, it was the solicitors who suggested going to a news paper in exchange for a financial agreement. Whilst JM agreed to the deal and gained financially in the sum of £25000 we can therefore judge her morally on that basis, but it clearly shows that it was not her intention from the outset, to gain financially.
oh, I forgot. Bamber had a nice little 40k deal done at trial too and he complained to his defence team that he didn't think it enough "surely you can get me a better deal!"
Can that be backed up in any way?
I'll state once again for the record, they were 2 peas in a pod, bloody unbelievable.
Source was one of the defence team.
While they were waiting for the verdict at trial. From 'Blood Relations';
"He was bandying figures for which he planned to sell his story to the newspapers - somewhat unattractive behaviour in the opinion of one of his legal team. A group of them sat with Jeremy, trying to buoy his spirits but feeling increasingly uncomfortable about his obsession with a newspaper deal. The best offer he'd had, he said, was £40,000. Couldn't they get him a better offer than that? After all, he was pointing out, if he was convicted, Julie had been promised £15,000 for her story."
That's interesting, and if true shows that the defence were aware of JM's deal and could have therefore alerted the jury to that fact at any time they wanted.
-
Do i think the NOTW money was wrong? 100% i do, and i hope she is ashamed of herself.
We must also not forget that JM went to Ellisons Solicitors in Colchester to try and find a way to avoid the press hounding, it was the solicitors who suggested going to a news paper in exchange for a financial agreement. Whilst JM agreed to the deal and gained financially in the sum of £25000 we can therefore judge her morally on that basis, but it clearly shows that it was not her intention from the outset, to gain financially.
Harters,
As I understand it, Jeremy lost every penny of his inheritance to his extended family. He further spent every penny of his savings funding his fight to establish his innocence. If JB was offered a £40K deal for his story:
1. Where is this story?
2. Anyway, good luck to him as this money will have helped to fund his ongoing legal expenses
3. What legal expenses did JB have? Zero that wasn't reimbursed at huge profit.
oh, I forgot. Bamber had a nice little 40k deal done at trial too and he complained to his defence team that he didn't think it enough "surely you can get me a better deal!"
Can that be backed up in any way?
I'll state once again for the record, they were 2 peas in a pod, bloody unbelievable.
I've heard that before but put it down to hearsay, it would certainly be interesting if it could be corroborated.
-
Chocho and Paul + 1 each Paul what is my punishment? X
I'll think of something, just don't go AWOL again. ;)
I'll think of something far ya ;)
}Paulg mode on{ Well it does just go to show what a lovely a conscientious person she was, she did the right thing, she didn't get caught for the cheque fraud, she saw the error of her ways, handed herself in and turned supergrass. {Paulg mode off}
Paul, you should keep your head down mate, Jackies not gonna be impressed with that. :o
Nah, i'll be all right, Jackie knows my thoughts on this relationship...but i'll put them down again.
Both have shown signs of greed, and prepared to do things most wouldn't consider to gain money...two peas in a pod.
One it appears went to the extreme of extremes, the other gained a conscience, but cashed in the conscience.Did Julie gain this conscience because she was being dumped? I'm not so sure.
Do i think the NOTW money was wrong? 100% i do, and i hope she is ashamed of herself.
Ok paul, I'm having a 20% day....
Do you think that there was an early phone call to Julie, 3.00am-3.15am, in order to establish an alibi for both Jeremy and Julie? This would imply Miss Mugford was fully aware of a diabolical scheme to commit murder for inheritance. Would explain why Bamber seemed nonchalant towards Julie (he assumed she was in no position to have any say about his desires elsewhere... what with her being an accomplice to five murders).. was f***ed once Julie went to police (wasn't expecting that to happen and could hardly point out that she is an accomplice to murder could he?).
I really don't like this scenario ::) because it has no place in my video >:(
For me Rochy, a lot of what you say could well be true, but we both know we can put different spin on things.
I certainly wouldn't rule out JM having knowledge of a plot to kill off the family, and being happy to go along with it.
But i think JB's alibi was the phone call from WHF to his house, from the likely hired killer. I do believe that Nevill was killed elsewhere, then dragged to the kitchen, bludgeoned, and had 3 more shots fired into his body.Nevill had 4 fatal head shots, but only 3 bullet cases in the kitchen.
I think the phone call from JB to JM was to give the killer time to escape, before calling the police. I'm guessing it was adrenalin pumping in JB that caused the call to JM, a need to talk with his confidant.
I believe that JB fully expected BT to confirm a phone call from WHF to his house, at roughly 3:10amish, thus giving him an alibi, backed up with a phone call to Mugford.
If Jeremy is guilty then his need for an alibi can only have been driven by a conscience. If the plot was that good he did not need an alibi.
A locked up and secure farmhouse with 5 dead bodies inside would have been found in the morning by someone.
There is an argument to say, if guilty, two mistakes were made in preventing a perfect crime from remaining unsolved.
The first the alleged telephone call from Nevill and then the calls to JM and the police.
The second was allowing the keys to White House Farm to be handed to the Eatons at a time when 4 murders and a suicide was all over the papers.
The problem of leaving the bodies to be discovered, is that police would of had to investigate every avenue, but by sowing the story of Sheila with a gun via phone calls to police, the investigation is already going towards suicide/murder.
Who knows what evidence was lost through the police falling for the suicide story, as i've said before, this forum may well have been called "should Jeremy Bamber serve as long as the hit man", or "should Jeremy Bamber be hung"
-
Vicvid you really will turn into the laughing stock of the forum very soon.
So you can quote blood relations when it suits you but you dont believe David Shaws manuscript
Hartley I am sure Vidvic is big enough to fight his own battles when I talk of him going off the forum it is when I am logged on and he cant answer questions I put to him so he just logs off
-
Choc, your quotes seem to have gone a bit awry, but I think I can see which is your post.
I think following JB's conviction, he would not have been permitted to sell his story.
-
Do i think the NOTW money was wrong? 100% i do, and i hope she is ashamed of herself.
We must also not forget that JM went to Ellisons Solicitors in Colchester to try and find a way to avoid the press hounding, it was the solicitors who suggested going to a news paper in exchange for a financial agreement. Whilst JM agreed to the deal and gained financially in the sum of £25000 we can therefore judge her morally on that basis, but it clearly shows that it was not her intention from the outset, to gain financially.
oh, I forgot. Bamber had a nice little 40k deal done at trial too and he complained to his defence team that he didn't think it enough "surely you can get me a better deal!"
Can that be backed up in any way?
I'll state once again for the record, they were 2 peas in a pod, bloody unbelievable.
Source was one of the defence team.
While they were waiting for the verdict at trial. From 'Blood Relations';
"He was bandying figures for which he planned to sell his story to the newspapers - somewhat unattractive behaviour in the opinion of one of his legal team. A group of them sat with Jeremy, trying to buoy his spirits but feeling increasingly uncomfortable about his obsession with a newspaper deal. The best offer he'd had, he said, was £40,000. Couldn't they get him a better offer than that? After all, he was pointing out, if he was convicted, Julie had been promised £15,000 for her story."
So the defence / Jeremy knew JM had a deal with a newspaper?
Why did they not use this information during the trial??
-
Vicvid you really will turn into the laughing stock of the forum very soon.
So you can quote blood relations when it suits you but you dont believe David Shaws manuscript
Hartley I am sure Vidvic is big enough to fight his own battles when I talk of him going off the forum it is when I am logged on and he cant answer questions I put to him so he just logs off
I have never logged off because you are logged on.
-
Vicvid you really will turn into the laughing stock of the forum very soon.
So you can quote blood relations when it suits you but you dont believe David Shaws manuscript
Hartley I am sure Vidvic is big enough to fight his own battles when I talk of him going off the forum it is when I am logged on and he cant answer questions I put to him so he just logs off
I have never logged off because you are logged on.
I might choose to ignore you sometimes.....
-
Vicvid you really will turn into the laughing stock of the forum very soon.
So you can quote blood relations when it suits you but you dont believe David Shaws manuscript
Hartley I am sure Vidvic is big enough to fight his own battles when I talk of him going off the forum it is when I am logged on and he cant answer questions I put to him so he just logs off
Oh I'm sure he is, but in keeping with the recent moderation of the forum and good will to all ethos trying to be portrayed, your posts of such a nature stick out and do nothing but instigate the kind of behaviour which is trying to be eliminated.
-
So Vidvic which books do you believe
Blood Relations
or
An Innocent Man
-
Chocho and Paul + 1 each Paul what is my punishment? X
I'll think of something, just don't go AWOL again. ;)
I'll think of something far ya ;)
}Paulg mode on{ Well it does just go to show what a lovely a conscientious person she was, she did the right thing, she didn't get caught for the cheque fraud, she saw the error of her ways, handed herself in and turned supergrass. {Paulg mode off}
Paul, you should keep your head down mate, Jackies not gonna be impressed with that. :o
Nah, i'll be all right, Jackie knows my thoughts on this relationship...but i'll put them down again.
Both have shown signs of greed, and prepared to do things most wouldn't consider to gain money...two peas in a pod.
One it appears went to the extreme of extremes, the other gained a conscience, but cashed in the conscience.Did Julie gain this conscience because she was being dumped? I'm not so sure.
Do i think the NOTW money was wrong? 100% i do, and i hope she is ashamed of herself.
Ok paul, I'm having a 20% day....
Do you think that there was an early phone call to Julie, 3.00am-3.15am, in order to establish an alibi for both Jeremy and Julie? This would imply Miss Mugford was fully aware of a diabolical scheme to commit murder for inheritance. Would explain why Bamber seemed nonchalant towards Julie (he assumed she was in no position to have any say about his desires elsewhere... what with her being an accomplice to five murders).. was f***ed once Julie went to police (wasn't expecting that to happen and could hardly point out that she is an accomplice to murder could he?).
I really don't like this scenario ::) because it has no place in my video >:(
For me Rochy, a lot of what you say could well be true, but we both know we can put different spin on things.
I certainly wouldn't rule out JM having knowledge of a plot to kill off the family, and being happy to go along with it.
But i think JB's alibi was the phone call from WHF to his house, from the likely hired killer. I do believe that Nevill was killed elsewhere, then dragged to the kitchen, bludgeoned, and had 3 more shots fired into his body.Nevill had 4 fatal head shots, but only 3 bullet cases in the kitchen.
I think the phone call from JB to JM was to give the killer time to escape, before calling the police. I'm guessing it was adrenalin pumping in JB that caused the call to JM, a need to talk with his confidant.
I believe that JB fully expected BT to confirm a phone call from WHF to his house, at roughly 3:10amish, thus giving him an alibi, backed up with a phone call to Mugford.
If Jeremy is guilty then his need for an alibi can only have been driven by a conscience. If the plot was that good he did not need an alibi.
A locked up and secure farmhouse with 5 dead bodies inside would have been found in the morning by someone.
There is an argument to say, if guilty, two mistakes were made in preventing a perfect crime from remaining unsolved.
The first the alleged telephone call from Nevill and then the calls to JM and the police.
The second was allowing the keys to White House Farm to be handed to the Eatons at a time when 4 murders and a suicide was all over the papers.
The problem of leaving the bodies to be discovered, is that police would of had to investigate every avenue, but by sowing the story of Sheila with a gun via phone calls to police, the investigation is already going towards suicide/murder.
Who knows what evidence was lost through the police falling for the suicide story, as i've said before, this forum may well have been called "should Jeremy Bamber serve as long as the hit man", or "should Jeremy Bamber be hung"
What about the second in allowing the keys to White House Farm to be handed to the Eaton's at a time when 4 murders and a suicide was all over the papers.
-
The statement below can you name any of these vast majority of journalists you are talking about
I am sure they are not shy about being named?
In stating what you have below I assume you are saying the vast majority of National newspapers think JB is Guilty. Is that what you are say Vic
I know many journalists that have spent thousands of hours doing exactly what some of you do, asking questions, reading statements, testing theories. The vast majority that I have met agree with me and the appeal court judges, in that the more you know about this case, the more convinced you become of JB's guilt1st June
-
Chocho and Paul + 1 each Paul what is my punishment? X
I'll think of something, just don't go AWOL again. ;)
I'll think of something far ya ;)
}Paulg mode on{ Well it does just go to show what a lovely a conscientious person she was, she did the right thing, she didn't get caught for the cheque fraud, she saw the error of her ways, handed herself in and turned supergrass. {Paulg mode off}
Paul, you should keep your head down mate, Jackies not gonna be impressed with that. :o
Nah, i'll be all right, Jackie knows my thoughts on this relationship...but i'll put them down again.
Both have shown signs of greed, and prepared to do things most wouldn't consider to gain money...two peas in a pod.
One it appears went to the extreme of extremes, the other gained a conscience, but cashed in the conscience.Did Julie gain this conscience because she was being dumped? I'm not so sure.
Do i think the NOTW money was wrong? 100% i do, and i hope she is ashamed of herself.
Ok paul, I'm having a 20% day....
Do you think that there was an early phone call to Julie, 3.00am-3.15am, in order to establish an alibi for both Jeremy and Julie? This would imply Miss Mugford was fully aware of a diabolical scheme to commit murder for inheritance. Would explain why Bamber seemed nonchalant towards Julie (he assumed she was in no position to have any say about his desires elsewhere... what with her being an accomplice to five murders).. was f***ed once Julie went to police (wasn't expecting that to happen and could hardly point out that she is an accomplice to murder could he?).
I really don't like this scenario ::) because it has no place in my video >:(
For me Rochy, a lot of what you say could well be true, but we both know we can put different spin on things.
I certainly wouldn't rule out JM having knowledge of a plot to kill off the family, and being happy to go along with it.
But i think JB's alibi was the phone call from WHF to his house, from the likely hired killer. I do believe that Nevill was killed elsewhere, then dragged to the kitchen, bludgeoned, and had 3 more shots fired into his body.Nevill had 4 fatal head shots, but only 3 bullet cases in the kitchen.
I think the phone call from JB to JM was to give the killer time to escape, before calling the police. I'm guessing it was adrenalin pumping in JB that caused the call to JM, a need to talk with his confidant.
I believe that JB fully expected BT to confirm a phone call from WHF to his house, at roughly 3:10amish, thus giving him an alibi, backed up with a phone call to Mugford.
If Jeremy is guilty then his need for an alibi can only have been driven by a conscience. If the plot was that good he did not need an alibi.
A locked up and secure farmhouse with 5 dead bodies inside would have been found in the morning by someone.
There is an argument to say, if guilty, two mistakes were made in preventing a perfect crime from remaining unsolved.
The first the alleged telephone call from Nevill and then the calls to JM and the police.
The second was allowing the keys to White House Farm to be handed to the Eatons at a time when 4 murders and a suicide was all over the papers.
The problem of leaving the bodies to be discovered, is that police would of had to investigate every avenue, but by sowing the story of Sheila with a gun via phone calls to police, the investigation is already going towards suicide/murder.
Who knows what evidence was lost through the police falling for the suicide story, as i've said before, this forum may well have been called "should Jeremy Bamber serve as long as the hit man", or "should Jeremy Bamber be hung"
What about the second in allowing the keys to White House Farm to be handed to the Eaton's at a time when 4 murders and a suicide was all over the papers.
Who do you think gave instructions for the keys to be handed to the Eatons?
-
Chocho and Paul + 1 each Paul what is my punishment? X
I'll think of something, just don't go AWOL again. ;)
I'll think of something far ya ;)
}Paulg mode on{ Well it does just go to show what a lovely a conscientious person she was, she did the right thing, she didn't get caught for the cheque fraud, she saw the error of her ways, handed herself in and turned supergrass. {Paulg mode off}
Paul, you should keep your head down mate, Jackies not gonna be impressed with that. :o
Nah, i'll be all right, Jackie knows my thoughts on this relationship...but i'll put them down again.
Both have shown signs of greed, and prepared to do things most wouldn't consider to gain money...two peas in a pod.
One it appears went to the extreme of extremes, the other gained a conscience, but cashed in the conscience.Did Julie gain this conscience because she was being dumped? I'm not so sure.
Do i think the NOTW money was wrong? 100% i do, and i hope she is ashamed of herself.
Ok paul, I'm having a 20% day....
Do you think that there was an early phone call to Julie, 3.00am-3.15am, in order to establish an alibi for both Jeremy and Julie? This would imply Miss Mugford was fully aware of a diabolical scheme to commit murder for inheritance. Would explain why Bamber seemed nonchalant towards Julie (he assumed she was in no position to have any say about his desires elsewhere... what with her being an accomplice to five murders).. was f***ed once Julie went to police (wasn't expecting that to happen and could hardly point out that she is an accomplice to murder could he?).
I really don't like this scenario ::) because it has no place in my video >:(
For me Rochy, a lot of what you say could well be true, but we both know we can put different spin on things.
I certainly wouldn't rule out JM having knowledge of a plot to kill off the family, and being happy to go along with it.
But i think JB's alibi was the phone call from WHF to his house, from the likely hired killer. I do believe that Nevill was killed elsewhere, then dragged to the kitchen, bludgeoned, and had 3 more shots fired into his body.Nevill had 4 fatal head shots, but only 3 bullet cases in the kitchen.
I think the phone call from JB to JM was to give the killer time to escape, before calling the police. I'm guessing it was adrenalin pumping in JB that caused the call to JM, a need to talk with his confidant.
I believe that JB fully expected BT to confirm a phone call from WHF to his house, at roughly 3:10amish, thus giving him an alibi, backed up with a phone call to Mugford.
If Jeremy is guilty then his need for an alibi can only have been driven by a conscience. If the plot was that good he did not need an alibi.
A locked up and secure farmhouse with 5 dead bodies inside would have been found in the morning by someone.
There is an argument to say, if guilty, two mistakes were made in preventing a perfect crime from remaining unsolved.
The first the alleged telephone call from Nevill and then the calls to JM and the police.
The second was allowing the keys to White House Farm to be handed to the Eatons at a time when 4 murders and a suicide was all over the papers.
The problem of leaving the bodies to be discovered, is that police would of had to investigate every avenue, but by sowing the story of Sheila with a gun via phone calls to police, the investigation is already going towards suicide/murder.
Who knows what evidence was lost through the police falling for the suicide story, as i've said before, this forum may well have been called "should Jeremy Bamber serve as long as the hit man", or "should Jeremy Bamber be hung"
What about the second in allowing the keys to White House Farm to be handed to the Eaton's at a time when 4 murders and a suicide was all over the papers.
Confidence i suppose, 4 murders and a suicide all over the papers says it all.
-
Vicvid I have been waiting for an answer re your statements below since the 19th June can I have one today please
I would like to go over a couple of points bought up by vicvid
Also remember that in the first few hours after those dreadful events they rallied round JB and tried to support him. JB knows this to be true.
It was only after things were overheard being told to the police that doubts started to emerge and the events of that night were questioned.I have read many times on here about greedy relatives. I ask you. Do you really believe that the Nevill and June estate would have changed any of the families lives?! That they needed to frame Jeremy for the money? Ridiculous. May 31st
(1) How long did the relatives rally around and support JB
(2) What was overheard being told to police
(3) By who
(4) Was this fact or wild speculation
(5) Does anyone here believe that Neville or Junes moneys would have changed relatives lives
(6) Does anyone on the forum think the relatives needed to frame Jeremy for money
(7) Which bit is ridiculous
-
So Vidvic which books do you believe
Blood Relations
or
An Innocent Man
I am trying to get hold of a copy of Innocent Man as I've not read it yet.
Roger Wilkes' book is very powerful because it was JB that made the first contact with him and he came into the project believing there to be a MOJ. He appears to have changed his mind.
-
Chocho and Paul + 1 each Paul what is my punishment? X
I'll think of something, just don't go AWOL again. ;)
I'll think of something far ya ;)
}Paulg mode on{ Well it does just go to show what a lovely a conscientious person she was, she did the right thing, she didn't get caught for the cheque fraud, she saw the error of her ways, handed herself in and turned supergrass. {Paulg mode off}
Paul, you should keep your head down mate, Jackies not gonna be impressed with that. :o
Nah, i'll be all right, Jackie knows my thoughts on this relationship...but i'll put them down again.
Both have shown signs of greed, and prepared to do things most wouldn't consider to gain money...two peas in a pod.
One it appears went to the extreme of extremes, the other gained a conscience, but cashed in the conscience.Did Julie gain this conscience because she was being dumped? I'm not so sure.
Do i think the NOTW money was wrong? 100% i do, and i hope she is ashamed of herself.
Ok paul, I'm having a 20% day....
Do you think that there was an early phone call to Julie, 3.00am-3.15am, in order to establish an alibi for both Jeremy and Julie? This would imply Miss Mugford was fully aware of a diabolical scheme to commit murder for inheritance. Would explain why Bamber seemed nonchalant towards Julie (he assumed she was in no position to have any say about his desires elsewhere... what with her being an accomplice to five murders).. was f***ed once Julie went to police (wasn't expecting that to happen and could hardly point out that she is an accomplice to murder could he?).
I really don't like this scenario ::) because it has no place in my video >:(
For me Rochy, a lot of what you say could well be true, but we both know we can put different spin on things.
I certainly wouldn't rule out JM having knowledge of a plot to kill off the family, and being happy to go along with it.
But i think JB's alibi was the phone call from WHF to his house, from the likely hired killer. I do believe that Nevill was killed elsewhere, then dragged to the kitchen, bludgeoned, and had 3 more shots fired into his body.Nevill had 4 fatal head shots, but only 3 bullet cases in the kitchen.
I think the phone call from JB to JM was to give the killer time to escape, before calling the police. I'm guessing it was adrenalin pumping in JB that caused the call to JM, a need to talk with his confidant.
I believe that JB fully expected BT to confirm a phone call from WHF to his house, at roughly 3:10amish, thus giving him an alibi, backed up with a phone call to Mugford.
If Jeremy is guilty then his need for an alibi can only have been driven by a conscience. If the plot was that good he did not need an alibi.
A locked up and secure farmhouse with 5 dead bodies inside would have been found in the morning by someone.
There is an argument to say, if guilty, two mistakes were made in preventing a perfect crime from remaining unsolved.
The first the alleged telephone call from Nevill and then the calls to JM and the police.
The second was allowing the keys to White House Farm to be handed to the Eatons at a time when 4 murders and a suicide was all over the papers.
The problem of leaving the bodies to be discovered, is that police would of had to investigate every avenue, but by sowing the story of Sheila with a gun via phone calls to police, the investigation is already going towards suicide/murder.
Who knows what evidence was lost through the police falling for the suicide story, as i've said before, this forum may well have been called "should Jeremy Bamber serve as long as the hit man", or "should Jeremy Bamber be hung"
What about the second in allowing the keys to White House Farm to be handed to the Eaton's at a time when 4 murders and a suicide was all over the papers.
Who do you think gave instructions for the keys to be handed to the Eatons?
Apparently Jeremy did not want them and the police had to hand them over to somebody.
At that time and by rights Jeremy should have had them as he was the closest surviving relative.
The Eaton's were an alternative. Apparently Jeremy had already installed Peter Eaton as farm manager.
-
The statement below can you name any of these vast majority of journalists you are talking about
I am sure they are not shy about being named?
In stating what you have below I assume you are saying the vast majority of National newspapers think JB is Guilty. Is that what you are say Vic
I know many journalists that have spent thousands of hours doing exactly what some of you do, asking questions, reading statements, testing theories. The vast majority that I have met agree with me and the appeal court judges, in that the more you know about this case, the more convinced you become of JB's guilt1st June
I have already answered this question. Your supplimentary question; No newspapers have one view in my opinion. Some journalists do, some don't. I think the Colchester Gazette have consistantly supported Bamber recently, though in the past were not so supportive. If team JB are going to feed them stories then interest in the case is such that they will run them.
-
Vicvid I have been waiting for an answer re your statements below since the 19th June can I have one today please
I would like to go over a couple of points bought up by vicvid
Also remember that in the first few hours after those dreadful events they rallied round JB and tried to support him. JB knows this to be true.
It was only after things were overheard being told to the police that doubts started to emerge and the events of that night were questioned.I have read many times on here about greedy relatives. I ask you. Do you really believe that the Nevill and June estate would have changed any of the families lives?! That they needed to frame Jeremy for the money? Ridiculous. May 31st
(1) How long did the relatives rally around and support JB
(2) What was overheard being told to police
(3) By who
(4) Was this fact or wild speculation
(5) Does anyone here believe that Neville or Junes moneys would have changed relatives lives
(6) Does anyone on the forum think the relatives needed to frame Jeremy for money
(7) Which bit is ridiculous
Jackie
On the subject of answering questions, to set an example, will you answer my question to you yesterday posted on another thread.
The question.......
Jackie
It would appear you are in touch or have an in depth knowledge of the CCRC appeal.
What time, according to the current position, did Jeremy call Julie on the morning of 7th August 1985?
-
curiousessex I have no idea what is going to be used for the ccrc as the forensic people are still at work and the defence are still asking for evidence under PII hence another 3 month delay. I would post anything I can up here for everyone. I knew when the supposed notebook was found but I never believed it was genuine so I didnt post anything
-
Vidvic about the books?
So your statement regarding journalists is misleading
-
I am trying to get hold of a copy of Innocent Man as I've not read it yet.
Vic, this link to a cached webpage on the sleuthing for justice site contains Shaws manuscript although it's incomplete, I'm not sure if there is a better version floating around somewhere.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jP4ZtW5Off0J:www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D74%26t%3D2445
-
curiousessex I have no idea what is going to be used for the ccrc as the forensic people are still at work and the defence are still asking for evidence under PII hence another 3 month delay. I would post anything I can up here for everyone. I knew when the supposed notebook was found but I never believed it was genuine so I didnt post anything
Jackie
Thank you.
Do you know what time the defence are using for the telephone call from Jeremy to Julie on the morniong of 7th August?
In the alternative, what time do you believe Jeremy rang Julie in the early hours of the morning of 7th August?
-
Vidvic about the books?
So your statement regarding journalists is misleading
Journalists work for television not just newspapers Jackie.
I answered your book question.
-
I am trying to get hold of a copy of Innocent Man as I've not read it yet.
Vic, this link to a cached webpage on the sleuthing for justice site contains Shaws manuscript although it's incomplete, I'm not sure if there is a better version floating around somewhere.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jP4ZtW5Off0J:www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D74%26t%3D2445
Cheers Hartley.
-
Vicvid I have been waiting for an answer re your statements below since the 19th June can I have one today please
I would like to go over a couple of points bought up by vicvid
Also remember that in the first few hours after those dreadful events they rallied round JB and tried to support him. JB knows this to be true.
It was only after things were overheard being told to the police that doubts started to emerge and the events of that night were questioned.I have read many times on here about greedy relatives. I ask you. Do you really believe that the Nevill and June estate would have changed any of the families lives?! That they needed to frame Jeremy for the money? Ridiculous. May 31st
(1) How long did the relatives rally around and support JB
Ann and David came straight round to support him. Pam and Bobby offered loads of help. Peter managed the farm for him. They even cleaned up the house for him to make it less painful to enter. Ask JB.
(2) What was overheard being told to police
This is well documented.
(3) By who
Ann, David, Bobby. Again, well documented.
(4) Was this fact or wild speculation
It was JB saying it. lol.
(5) Does anyone here believe that Neville or Junes moneys would have changed relatives lives
This question is not to me.
(6) Does anyone on the forum think the relatives needed to frame Jeremy for money
This question is not to me.
(7) Which bit is ridiculous
That the family needed the money. I'll say it again, ridiculous.
-
Vidvic sorry I missed your answer about the books.You have already said that Roger Wilkes supports the relatives but you are quoting something as if it was fact do you know has Roger Wilkes got a website where I can ask a direct question
You make the statement Roger Wilkes appears to have changed his mind from innocent to guilty.
You are in close contact with the relatives who are in contact with Roger Wilkes
So does he think JB is Innocent or Guilty
Maybe he will post on our forum
-
Vidvic can you explain or details of what was overheard to make the relatives believe JB was responsible for the murders (Hartley normally has this kind of information)
(2) What was overheard being told to police
This is well documented.
(3) By who
Ann, David, Bobby. Again, well documented
-
Curiousessex sorry I dont have that information
-
Vidvic can you explain or details of what was overheard to make the relatives believe JB was responsible for the murders (Hartley normally has this kind of information)
Have a read of Anns statement to COLP, most of your questions are answered already.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443
-
Chochokeira thankyou for your info house in the clouds we must go there one day.
I need some help I am trying to find out how I can get hold of Roger Wilkes I dont think he is on twitter and he is not on Wickipedia have you got any ideas where I can find him?
Thanks
-
Choc, your quotes seem to have gone a bit awry, but I think I can see which is your post.
I think following JB's conviction, he would not have been permitted to sell his story.
Hi Harters,
Thanks for reminding me of that, of course he wouldn't.
-
Chochokeira thankyou for your info house in the clouds we must go there one day.
I need some help I am trying to find out how I can get hold of Roger Wilkes I dont think he is on twitter and he is not on Wickipedia have you got any ideas where I can find him?
Thanks
You could try via his publisher.
-
I am trying to get hold of a copy of Innocent Man as I've not read it yet.
Vic, this link to a cached webpage on the sleuthing for justice site contains Shaws manuscript although it's incomplete, I'm not sure if there is a better version floating around somewhere.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jP4ZtW5Off0J:www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D74%26t%3D2445
The Shaw Manuscript looks like a first draft to me. Like a work in progress that... has been abandoned. I prefer the private communications. Though not all have been posted on here yet.
-
Hartley I have just managed to get this 72 page document up on my computer where are the copies of the statements taken the day of the murders
-
I am trying to get hold of a copy of Innocent Man as I've not read it yet.
Vic, this link to a cached webpage on the sleuthing for justice site contains Shaws manuscript although it's incomplete, I'm not sure if there is a better version floating around somewhere.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jP4ZtW5Off0J:www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D74%26t%3D2445
The Shaw Manuscript looks like a first draft to me. Like a work in progress that... has been abandoned. I prefer the private communications. Though not all have been posted on here yet.
I seem to recall some sections are also very similar, almost verbatim, with content that is included in Roger Wilkes' book 'Blood Relations'.
-
Hartley I have just managed to get this 72 page document up on my computer where are the copies of the statements taken the day of the murders
Mike has copies of them, but as far as I'm aware they haven't been made available on the forum.
-
Hartley I have just managed to get this 72 page document up on my computer where are the copies of the statements taken the day of the murders
Mike has copies of them, but as far as I'm aware they haven't been made available on the forum.
Correct.
I have been asking Mike to make available to the forum Jeremy's original witness statement for sometime. Mike will not make them available because of PII (joke).......... rather something to do with some personal details Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffell in his witness statement.
-
Vidvic sorry I missed your answer about the books.You have already said that Roger Wilkes supports the relatives but you are quoting something as if it was fact do you know has Roger Wilkes got a website where I can ask a direct question
You make the statement Roger Wilkes appears to have changed his mind from innocent to guilty.
You are in close contact with the relatives who are in contact with Roger Wilkes
So does he think JB is Innocent or Guilty
Maybe he will post on our forum
I met Roger Wilkes at the 2002 appeal. I don't believe he has ever gone on record either way.
But a fact, and JB will confirm this i'm sure, is that JB was very pissed off about the book.
-
Vidvic I am looking for this
It was only after things were overheard being told to the police
What on earth are you talking about what page
-
Vidvic I am looking for this
It was only after things were overheard being told to the police
What on earth are you talking about what page
Jackie, this is from real life conversations. There is no page reference.
-
I am working my way through this crap as said in a statement to the police in 1991 and if thats the state of our justice system god help us all. I will start to systematically tear the whole thing apart it is ridiculous.
Lets start with Nanny Speakman has photos of us all in her bedroom but I dont recall one of Jeremy??????
Did she or not what a twisted nasty person Ann Eaton is.
I would like to know what other forum members think of that
Jeremy and Neville did not get on I heard them shouting at each once???????????????
Unbelievable
We have never spoken about the murders since they happened
Unbelievable
Julie was in the mortuary for a long time and when she came out she said they all looked peaceful and smoked heavily?????????????????
No tears then
Ann speaks in detail about Sheila but cant tell one twin from the other???????????????
Vidvic where is the evidence that JB told JM "he should have been an actor" or is that just wild speculation??????????????
Hartley as you seem to have all the documents to hand can you tell me around what time did JB allegedly say "he should have been an actor" and JM subsequent trip to the mortuary
-
Vidvic about the books?
So your statement regarding journalists is misleading
Jackie, do I take it that Shaw's work is unpublished?
So your statement regarding 'Books' is misleading?
-
Vidvic
You made the statement just tell me what did they over hear to make them change there mind about JB I only need a sentance
-
Hartley as you seem to have all the documents to hand can you tell me around what time did JB allegedly say "he should have been an actor" and JM subsequent trip to the mortuary
Unfortunately not, if you remember, it is Mike who apparently has all the documents.
Maybe you could ask him to post the original statements so that we can all view them?
-
Vidvic about the books?
So your statement regarding journalists is misleading
Jackie, do I take it that Shaw's work is unpublished?
So your statement regarding 'Books' is misleading?
Yes Vic that is correct.
-
Vidvic
Lets say books and manuscripts then are you saying Roger Wilkes book is definate facts and everything in his book is proven to be true because I have never ever said that about David Shaws manuscript
-
Vidvic
Lets say books and manuscripts then are you saying Roger Wilkes book is definate facts and everything in his book is proven to be true because I have never ever said that about David Shaws manuscript
Does Wilkes' book include detailed sources?
I only ask because I dismiss the Shaw manuscript for that very reason - it could be a pure work of fiction given that it does not attribute anything it claims as "fact" to any source (we've been here before of course!) :)
-
Vidvic
It was only after things were overheard being told to the police that doubts started to emerge and the events of that night were questioned.What was overheard Vidvic and where is this stated
-
Vidvic
It was only after things were overheard being told to the police that doubts started to emerge and the events of that night were questioned.What was overheard Vidvic and where is this stated
Jackie, I have already answered this. Do not insult my intelligence with repeated questions which you already know the answer to.
-
Bob
What happens constantly on this forum is certain things are stated as fact when this is not true and this consitantly happens from the people who think JB is guilty and I just want to get to the bottom of why this keeps happening
Somehow we are led to believe JB hated his father because they had a shouting match once
it is just laughable I cannot believe what wickedness came out of Ann Eatons mouth she is even trying to make out what Granny Speakman thought of Jeremy. I hope she reads this forum what a vile person what a nasty bunch of relatives to be adopted into
-
I hope she reads this forum what a vile person what a nasty bunch of relatives to be adopted into
And there you go.......
-
Vicvid no I dont know the answer I am asking you politely please answer that question it will take you two minutes to reply
-
I am quite happy with that get her on the phone and tell her
Could you answer my question
You cant can you
-
What happens constantly on this forum is certain things are stated as fact when this is not true and this consitantly happens from the people who think JB is guilty and I just want to get to the bottom of why this keeps happening
Get out of here Jackie, you and others kept on stating as fact that Ann took blood soaked clothes home to Oak Farm, you then used this as a tool to try and show Ann's behaviour as abnormal, I've since corrected you all on that score.
The same deal with describing Junes bike as a bone shaker.
Does Pot, kettle, black spring to mind?
I think this consistently happens from the people who think JB is innocent as often (actually I think a lot more often).
-
I am quite happy with that get her on the phone and tell her
Could you answer my question
You cant can you
Jackie, you well know that the quote comes from Julie Mugford's statements
-
vidvic why do you continually make things up you are making yourself look stupid again this is what you said
(2) What was overheard being told to police
This is well documented.
(3) By who
Ann, David, Bobby. Again, well documented.
so have you changed your story and are you now saying it was Mugford
Explain yourself when you make statements about the above
-
Hartley I will accept about Ann Eaton taking clothes away might not be accurate but I am still looking into that she has at least stated she washed the clothes but I dont think we will ever know the truth about what happened there except once again Ann Eatons weird behaviour washing a dead womens clothes. We have no proof either way.
Can you fill me in what I am supposed to have said about the bike because I have not please post details now
-
Can you fill me in what I am supposed to have said about the bike because I have not please post details now
Yes I can. See below.
I just told that story to my friend but I was laughing so much it took me twenty minutes this is the most ridiculous situation I have ever experienced I don't think Essex police had a brain between them can you imagine it. I haven't heard them do one single thing right in this case but Chocho won't it be brilliant when the person who said it wouldn't be a problem turns up for the reconstruction
Do you think we could find a boneshaker from somewhere
-
To be fair though Jackie, I was referring to others regarding the bike.
-
Thankyou Hartley I dont know the sea wall so I couldnt comment but Chochokeira knows the area well and she believes it was too dangerous for JB to have left the farm that way
-
vidvic why do you continually make things up you are making yourself look stupid again this is what you said
(2) What was overheard being told to police
This is well documented.
(3) By who
Ann, David, Bobby. Again, well documented.
so have you changed your story and are you now saying it was Mugford
Explain yourself when you make statements about the above
Jackie, you specifically mentioned the "I should have been an actor" quote from JB. This was in JM's statements.
AS I HAVE ANSWERED BEFORE, there were many things Jeremy said to Police and Relatives that alerted their suspicions. This is well documented. You will get the same answer however big you make your font.
-
Thankyou Hartley I dont know the sea wall so I couldnt comment but Chochokeira knows the area well and she believes it was too dangerous for JB to have left the farm that way
We've done the sea wall and alternative routes to death, but that wasn't the point. The point was describing the bike as an old boneshaker where as it was a top notch model purchased just a few months earlier.
The point was berating people for posting inaccurate statements which are consistently coming from those in the guilty camp, however it seems to flow both ways.
-
Can you fill me in what I am supposed to have said about the bike because I have not please post details now
Yes I can. See below.
I just told that story to my friend but I was laughing so much it took me twenty minutes this is the most ridiculous situation I have ever experienced I don't think Essex police had a brain between them can you imagine it. I haven't heard them do one single thing right in this case but Chocho won't it be brilliant when the person who said it wouldn't be a problem turns up for the reconstruction
Do you think we could find a boneshaker from somewhere
Harters,
You know the sea wall route, so you know that the sea wall path is part compacted earth (or mud when it rains), part gravel, part stones, part clumps of weeds and part clumps of grass. That's these days. In the 1980s, prior to the radical health and safety improvements carried out, much of the path was crumbling away and there were clumps of grass the size of sleeping policemen. Anyone taking that route on June's bicycle would have felt were riding a bone shaker, wouldn't they?
-
Harters,
You know the sea wall route, so you know that the sea wall path is part compacted earth (or mud when it rains), part gravel, part stones, part clumps of weeds and part clumps of grass. That's these days. In the 1980s, prior to the radical health and safety improvements carried out, much of the path was crumbling away and there were clumps of grass the size of sleeping policemen. Anyone taking that route on June's bicycle would have felt were riding a bone shaker, wouldn't they?
See my post below.
Maybe so, I understand your point, but I also don't think it is as implausable as what you have previously made out. I don't know if that's what happened or not, but I thinks it's a possibility and can't be dismissed out of hand so easily.
A good deal of the journey can be covered today between fields, not field margins with tyre puncturing spikes of harvest wheat, but via a network of farm tracks wide enough to get a tractor down.
What it was like 26 years ago I have no idea, but the scenario was rightly or wrongly accepted at the time.
-
Vidvic there wasnt anything was there or you would post it hearsay from everyone involved not one single shred of evidence. You can document hearsay all day long but thats all it is
Vidvic you are so sure that the police have got it right tell me why do you post on this forum because I couldnt be bothered if I was so sure
At this moment in time we have no actual proof that JB, Sheila or any of the relatives are responsible for the murders or this case would not be with the ccrc STILL
Unless you are unaware juries get it wrong
-
Can you fill me in what I am supposed to have said about the bike because I have not please post details now
Yes I can. See below.
I just told that story to my friend but I was laughing so much it took me twenty minutes this is the most ridiculous situation I have ever experienced I don't think Essex police had a brain between them can you imagine it. I haven't heard them do one single thing right in this case but Chocho won't it be brilliant when the person who said it wouldn't be a problem turns up for the reconstruction
Do you think we could find a boneshaker from somewhere
Harters,
You know the sea wall route, so you know that the sea wall path is part compacted earth (or mud when it rains), part gravel, part stones, part clumps of weeds and part clumps of grass. That's these days. In the 1980s, prior to the radical health and safety improvements carried out, much of the path was crumbling away and there were clumps of grass the size of sleeping policemen. Anyone taking that route on June's bicycle would have felt were riding a bone shaker, wouldn't they?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,614.30.htmlhttp://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,614.30.html
-
Bob
What happens constantly on this forum is certain things are stated as fact when this is not true and this consitantly happens from the people who think JB is guilty and I just want to get to the bottom of why this keeps happening
Somehow we are led to believe JB hated his father because they had a shouting match once
it is just laughable I cannot believe what wickedness came out of Ann Eatons mouth she is even trying to make out what Granny Speakman thought of Jeremy. I hope she reads this forum what a vile person what a nasty bunch of relatives to be adopted into
Jackie - this doesn't answer my question but I agree with the first part about people not stating as fact things that are not true. That is exactly why I discount the Shaw manuscript - as it has no sources to back up whether it is true or not. On what basis do you accept it as truth?
And back to my original question - does the Wilkes book quote detailed sources?
-
Vidvic there wasnt anything was there or you would post it hearsay from everyone involved not one single shred of evidence. You can document hearsay all day long but thats all it is
Vidvic you are so sure that the police have got it right tell me why do you post on this forum because I couldnt be bothered if I was so sure
At this moment in time we have no actual proof that JB, Sheila or any of the relatives are responsible for the murders or this case would not be with the ccrc STILL
Unless you are unaware juries get it wrong
Jackie, I post on this forum to give a voice to the family against posts such as "I hope she reads this forum what a vile person what a nasty bunch of relatives to be adopted into"
-
What happens constantly on this forum is certain things are stated as fact when this is not true and this consitantly happens from the people who think JB is guilty and I just want to get to the bottom of why this keeps happening
Get out of here Jackie, you and others kept on stating as fact that Ann took blood soaked clothes home to Oak Farm, you then used this as a tool to try and show Ann's behaviour as abnormal, I've since corrected you all on that score.
The same deal with describing Junes bike as a bone shaker.
Does Pot, kettle, black spring to mind?
I think this consistently happens from the people who think JB is innocent as often (actually I think a lot more often).
..or should that be "if the cap fits" Hartley?? :)
-
Vidvic there wasnt anything was there or you would post it hearsay from everyone involved not one single shred of evidence. You can document hearsay all day long but thats all it is
Vidvic you are so sure that the police have got it right tell me why do you post on this forum because I couldnt be bothered if I was so sure
At this moment in time we have no actual proof that JB, Sheila or any of the relatives are responsible for the murders or this case would not be with the ccrc STILL
Unless you are unaware juries get it wrong
Jackie, I post on this forum to give a voice to the family against posts such as "I hope she reads this forum what a vile person what a nasty bunch of relatives to be adopted into"
Quite agree Vidvic, what gives anyone the right to criticise individuals and a family they really know very little about?
-
Vidvic there wasnt anything was there or you would post it hearsay from everyone involved not one single shred of evidence. You can document hearsay all day long but thats all it is
Vidvic you are so sure that the police have got it right tell me why do you post on this forum because I couldnt be bothered if I was so sure
At this moment in time we have no actual proof that JB, Sheila or any of the relatives are responsible for the murders or this case would not be with the ccrc STILL
Unless you are unaware juries get it wrong
Jackie, I post on this forum to give a voice to the family against posts such as "I hope she reads this forum what a vile person what a nasty bunch of relatives to be adopted into"
Quite agree Vidvic, what gives anyone the right to criticise individuals and a family they really know very little about?
+1 Vic & Jerry
-
Bob
What happens constantly on this forum is certain things are stated as fact when this is not true and this consitantly happens from the people who think JB is guilty and I just want to get to the bottom of why this keeps happening
Somehow we are led to believe JB hated his father because they had a shouting match once
it is just laughable I cannot believe what wickedness came out of Ann Eatons mouth she is even trying to make out what Granny Speakman thought of Jeremy. I hope she reads this forum what a vile person what a nasty bunch of relatives to be adopted into
Jackie - this doesn't answer my question but I agree with the first part about people not stating as fact things that are not true. That is exactly why I discount the Shaw manuscript - as it has no sources to back up whether it is true or not. On what basis do you accept it as truth?
And back to my original question - does the Wilkes book quote detailed sources?
Yes and No. For the most part yes and the interviews are across both sides of the fence, family, friends and legal teams. It's as unbiased account as I've seen, leaving the reader to make up your own mind. Had fantastic access to statements.
-
Bob
What happens constantly on this forum is certain things are stated as fact when this is not true and this consitantly happens from the people who think JB is guilty and I just want to get to the bottom of why this keeps happening
Somehow we are led to believe JB hated his father because they had a shouting match once
it is just laughable I cannot believe what wickedness came out of Ann Eatons mouth she is even trying to make out what Granny Speakman thought of Jeremy. I hope she reads this forum what a vile person what a nasty bunch of relatives to be adopted into
Jackie - this doesn't answer my question but I agree with the first part about people not stating as fact things that are not true. That is exactly why I discount the Shaw manuscript - as it has no sources to back up whether it is true or not. On what basis do you accept it as truth?
And back to my original question - does the Wilkes book quote detailed sources?
As far as I am aware the Wilkes book was based on a number of sourrces, interviews with witnesses, references to evidence used in the trial, references to trial transcripts, reports commissioned some of which were specifically done at Jeremy's request (a report from Professor Herbert MacDonell in relation to blood / ballistics aspects of the shootings).
Page 3 of the book details -
'The book has been written with the help of Jeremy Bamber, but not at his bidding; indeed, it is manifestly not the one-sided book in support of his innocence that he might have hoped for. But he knows I never promised him that. Indeed I have taken into account, and reflected, several points of view, often bearing on the same point or turn of events. You, the reader, can judge for yourself, without my own prejudices or opinions getting in the way. In any case, on the known facts, likelihoods and suppositions, the dispassionate observer might feel that the question of who really did it is just too close to call.'
-
Thanks Vic and CE - in that case it would appear to be a more reliable account than most. I'll have to give it a go...
-
Bob
I have never said the David Shaw manuscript is fact where have I said that
-
Bob and Jerry you have obviously never read Ann Eatons statement as far as I can see its hearsay. What a wicked thing to say that JB did not get on with his dad
Exactly what evidence is there to prove that fact? There is none is there I can you he loved his Dad and Ann Eaton even tripped herself up by saying JB used to copy his Dad. I think most people would say that was adoration of Neville
She mentions SHE THINKS Nanny Speakman didnt have a photo of Jeremy in her bedroom but she had photos of everyone else. Was that true or hearsay? What has that got to do with the murders Bob or Jerry? No actual evidence lets screw JB paint him in a bad light
From the very start Ann Eaton has shown an obsession wth Jeremy
She has made numerous assumptions that are far worse than I have done and as there IS NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to proof JB is responsible for the murders she is trying to blacken his name
So glaringly obvious
Come on Jerry and Bob do you really think people cant see straight through all of that
-
Bob and Jerry you have obviously never read Ann Eatons statement as far as I can see its hearsay. What a wicked thing to say that JB did not get on with his dad
Exactly what evidence is there to prove that fact? There is none is there I can you he loved his Dad and Ann Eaton even tripped herself up by saying JB used to copy his Dad. I think most people would say that was adoration of Neville
She mentions SHE THINKS Nanny Speakman didnt have a photo of Jeremy in her bedroom but she had photos of everyone else. Was that true or hearsay? What has that got to do with the murders Bob or Jerry? No actual evidence lets screw JB paint him in a bad light
From the very start Ann Eaton has shown an obsession wth Jeremy
She has made numerous assumptions that are far worse than I have done and as there IS NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to proof JB is responsible for the murders she is trying to blacken his name
So glaringly obvious
Come on Jerry and Bob do you really think people cant see straight through all of that
Jackie, bear in mind that, that statement was taken some six years after the five murders took place.
-
Bob
I have never said the David Shaw manuscript is fact where have I said that
I didn't say you did say that did I Jackie?
-
Jackie - this doesn't answer my question but I agree with the first part about people not stating as fact things that are not true. That is exactly why I discount the Shaw manuscript - as it has no sources to back up whether it is true or not. On what basis do you accept it as truth?
Bob where have I said it is true
-
Jackie - this doesn't answer my question but I agree with the first part about people not stating as fact things that are not true. That is exactly why I discount the Shaw manuscript - as it has no sources to back up whether it is true or not. On what basis do you accept it as truth?
Bob where have I said it is true
Is it not true then?
-
Hartley I dont understand what you mean?
When Ann says JB used to copy his Dad what do you take from that?
Bob its a manuscript I dont think it has ever been described as anything other, do you believe it to be true?
-
Bob and Jerry you have obviously never read Ann Eatons statement as far as I can see its hearsay. What a wicked thing to say that JB did not get on with his dad
Exactly what evidence is there to prove that fact? There is none is there I can you he loved his Dad and Ann Eaton even tripped herself up by saying JB used to copy his Dad. I think most people would say that was adoration of Neville
She mentions SHE THINKS Nanny Speakman didnt have a photo of Jeremy in her bedroom but she had photos of everyone else. Was that true or hearsay? What has that got to do with the murders Bob or Jerry? No actual evidence lets screw JB paint him in a bad light
From the very start Ann Eaton has shown an obsession wth Jeremy
She has made numerous assumptions that are far worse than I have done and as there IS NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to proof JB is responsible for the murders she is trying to blacken his name
So glaringly obvious
Come on Jerry and Bob do you really think people cant see straight through all of that
Jackie, you have absolutely NO idea of Ann's relationship with Jeremy. The only people that do are Ann and Jeremy. Ann can say what she wants in a statement and it's up to the jury to decide and the defence to question. Just because she had a poor opinion of Jeremy does not make her wrong or untruthful.
Jackie, a question for you. If your couson had been killed and she had left her bloodstained knickers from her period to soak in a bucket, would you not wash them before throwing them away, as Ann did. Would you not want to protect her modesty even in death? Seems perfectly natural and caring to me.
-
Hartley I dont understand what you mean?
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
What I mean is that their initial suspicions regarding JB's horrific actions have been found out to be true and he's been convicted of multiple murder in a court of law. Now regardless if there was or wasn't any animosity between the other relatives and Jeremy prior to his conviction, you can absolutely bet your life that there was, after his conviction. So it's hardly surprising that the statement to COLP six years later doesn't try to show JB in a particularly pleasant light, he's not so long ago murdered five members of their family in cold blood.
-
Jackie, I have another question for you.
Name me one action, that you know Jeremy to have done, that was for the benefit of his Mother, Father or sister. One selfless act.
-
Hartley
The bloody clothes would have been thrown away (it is my belief there is still something suspicious about that)
-
Vidvic how on earth could I know that
You put that question to me knowing I do not know the answer so its a stupid question but I will ask him
-
Bob and Jerry you have obviously never read Ann Eatons statement as far as I can see its hearsay. What a wicked thing to say that JB did not get on with his dad
This may help improve your memory.
-
Hartley
The bloody clothes would have been thrown away (it is my belief there is still something suspicious about that)
Now it's my turn to not understand what you mean?
If you are referring to the blood stained clothes in soak which Ann washed and then threw in the bin, then there is nothing suspicious about that at all, the house had ceased being a live crime scene and it was handed over to the relatives to clean up. They proceeded to do so.
-
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
What I mean is that their initial suspicions regarding JB's horrific actions have been found out to be true and he's been convicted of multiple murder in a court of law. Now regardless if there was or wasn't any animosity between the other relatives and Jeremy prior to his conviction, you can absolutely bet your life that there was, after his conviction. So it's hardly surprising that the statement to COLP six years later doesn't try to show JB in a particularly pleasant light, he's not so long ago murdered five members of their family in cold blood.
Hartley re the above, hasnt been found out to be true thats why the case is still under investigation and that is why law students are petitioning the ccrc to get more evidence released. When everything is released to do with this case then we can have this discussion again.
It is true the relatives would like this to go away but its not is it!
Hartley are you aware juries make mistakes and Hartley are you aware Appeal Court Judges make mistakes and Hartley are you aware there have been numerous cases of miscarriages of justice
-
Vidvic how on earth could I know that
You put that question to me knowing I do not know the answer so its a stupid question but I will ask him
you didn't answer my question regarding the knickers.
-
vidvic answers about the knickers and I bet everyone of the women here would do the same thing throw them away
The bloody clothes would have been thrown away (it is my belief there is still something suspicious about that)
Vidvic how many selfless things do you know JB did and how much time did you spend with him to see this or is this another piece of "hearsay" from your friends the relatives
-
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
What I mean is that their initial suspicions regarding JB's horrific actions have been found out to be true and he's been convicted of multiple murder in a court of law. Now regardless if there was or wasn't any animosity between the other relatives and Jeremy prior to his conviction, you can absolutely bet your life that there was, after his conviction. So it's hardly surprising that the statement to COLP six years later doesn't try to show JB in a particularly pleasant light, he's not so long ago murdered five members of their family in cold blood.
Hartley re the above, hasnt been found out to be true thats why the case is still under investigation and that is why law students are petitioning the ccrc to get more evidence released. When everything is released to do with this case then we can have this discussion again.
It is true the relatives would like this to go away but its not is it!
Hartley are you aware juries make mistakes and Hartley are you aware Appeal Court Judges make mistakes and Hartley are you aware there have been numerous cases of miscarriages of justice
Jackie, he was found guilty at trial, he has lost 2 appeals and has had an initial application to the CCRC turned down. I think the ball is in JB's court to show that all of this is NOT true.
-
vidvic answers about the knickers and I bet everyone of the women here would do the same thing throw them away
The bloody clothes would have been thrown away (it is my belief there is still something suspicious about that)
Vidvic how many selfless things do you know JB did and how much time did you spend with him to see this or is this another piece of "hearsay" from your friends the relatives
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you knew him well. My mistake.
-
Jerry I lost interest in anything you had to say when you bought up the porche question for the 100th time when you knew the answer
With regard to the statement you have posted exactly how does that prove JB hated his father
Vidvic yes the ball is in his court and I have never said any different
Vidvic do you think the relatives have told you the truth about their financial position at the time of the murders and if I could prove to you they had lied would you change your mind about JB being responsible for the murders
-
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
What I mean is that their initial suspicions regarding JB's horrific actions have been found out to be true and he's been convicted of multiple murder in a court of law. Now regardless if there was or wasn't any animosity between the other relatives and Jeremy prior to his conviction, you can absolutely bet your life that there was, after his conviction. So it's hardly surprising that the statement to COLP six years later doesn't try to show JB in a particularly pleasant light, he's not so long ago murdered five members of their family in cold blood.
Hartley re the above, hasnt been found out to be true thats why the case is still under investigation and that is why law students are petitioning the ccrc to get more evidence released. When everything is released to do with this case then we can have this discussion again.
It is true the relatives would like this to go away but its not is it!
Hartley are you aware juries make mistakes and Hartley are you aware Appeal Court Judges make mistakes and Hartley are you aware there have been numerous cases of miscarriages of justice
Jackie
Whether you like it or not, in the eyes of the law Jeremy was found guilty in a court of law by a jury of 12 people who were there to do their duty and they found him guilty on a 10-2 verdict.
The jury could have included you or I.
May I ask if you had served on that jury would you have declared Jeremy innocent or guilty?
Jeremy is currently following due process as he has done previously.
-
On the basis of events at Osea caravan site alone, Ann and the family would be entitled to despise Jeremy Bamber.
-
Jerry I lost interest in anything you had to say when you bought up the porche question for the 100th time when you knew the answer
With regard to the statement you have posted exactly how does that prove JB hated his father
Vidvic yes the ball is in his court and I have never said any different
Vidvic do you think the relatives have told you the truth about their financial position at the time of the murders and if I could prove to you they had lied would you change your mind about JB being responsible for the murders
I would love to see this evidence, yes.
-
Curiousessex
Definately not guilty and I was on a murder trial previously. I would be interested to know if any other forum members have been part of a jury at a murder trial because some of the people I was with did not take it seriously at all some just wanted to get home.
-
Vidvic good I am glad you are now showing an open mind. I dont think you will have long to wait
-
Curiousessex
Definately not guilty and I was on a murder trial previously. I would be interested to know if any other forum members have been part of a jury at a murder trial because some of the people I was with did not take it seriously at all some just wanted to get home.
Jackie
May I ask why you would have found Jeremmy not guilty if you had been a member of the jury at the original trial?
-
Vidvic good I am glad you are now showing an open mind. I dont think you will have long to wait
So, you don't have this evidence?
-
Vidvic good I am glad you are now showing an open mind. I dont think you will have long to wait
So, you don't have this evidence?
I take it this is the new 'dynamite' evidence yet to be posted.
-
Vidvic
Of course I have seen the evidence
-
Vidvic good I am glad you are now showing an open mind. I dont think you will have long to wait
So, you don't have this evidence?
I take it this is the new 'dynamite' evidence yet to be posted.
Vidvic - again I find your goading of Jackie unattractive to say the least, particular for a site "Global Moderator". You are aware that Jeremy Bamber and his team have been concerned at new material being posted publicly, in particular on this forum, before they have had a chance to evaluate that new material properly. Jackie is following the reasonable requests of Jeremy Bamber's team in this regard, as they do not want to set hares running and damage the work which they are carrying out. You should respect this rather than ridicule it.
-
Curiousessex
Jeremy was convicted mainly on the silencer and JM testimony and never in a million years could I have found JB guilty on JM s evidence. I might have had doubts on certain things but there was not enough evidence to convict JB and I have spoken to people that were in court that they were surprised he was convicted.
-
Mwah xxx
-
vidvic answers about the knickers and I bet everyone of the women here would do the same thing throw them away
The bloody clothes would have been thrown away (it is my belief there is still something suspicious about that)
Vidvic how many selfless things do you know JB did and how much time did you spend with him to see this or is this another piece of "hearsay" from your friends the relatives
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you knew him well. My mistake.
Vidvic - I tried to post a reply to this earlier but it was lost. I do not think that your sarcasm with Jackie does you justice, or set the right tone for this forum. You know very well that Jackie has only had limited contact with Jeremy, starting several years after his trial. That contact has until very recently been limited to letters and even now is only extended to an occasional telephone call. You on the other hand have been on close friendly terms with the family for many years and have been able to discuss this case, and Jeremy Bamber in particular, on numerous occasions face to face. Please try to be be fair.
-
Vidvic I dont know how much of an expert you are with guns but if you read NGB s posts you might understand how this happened
Vidvic said
Read the actual descriptions of what was done to the victims.....Arc of bullets into one of the twins heads, Nevill's injuries to his face, all done by Sheila? A woman whom Jeremy himself admitted to having never seen fire a gun as an adult. How many times did she load the magazine? You try doing it! It's bloody hard going! And by Sheila? Yeah right!
-
Curiousessex
Definately not guilty and I was on a murder trial previously. I would be interested to know if any other forum members have been part of a jury at a murder trial because some of the people I was with did not take it seriously at all some just wanted to get home.
Jackie
Thanks.
What, for you, was wrong with the silencer and JM evidence in the original trial.
It may be easiest to reply to the silencer part first as I have sensed how passionate you are regarding JM.
-
vidvic answers about the knickers and I bet everyone of the women here would do the same thing throw them away
The bloody clothes would have been thrown away (it is my belief there is still something suspicious about that)
Vidvic how many selfless things do you know JB did and how much time did you spend with him to see this or is this another piece of "hearsay" from your friends the relatives
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you knew him well. My mistake.
Vidvic - I tried to post a reply to this earlier but it was lost. I do not think that your sarcasm with Jackie does you justice, or set the right tone for this forum. You know very well that Jackie has only had limited contact with Jeremy, starting several years after his trial. That contact has until very recently been limited to letters and even now is only extended to an occasional telephone call. You on the other hand have been on close friendly terms with the family for many years and have been able to discuss this case, and Jeremy Bamber in particular, on numerous occasions face to face. Please try to be be fair.
NGB, bearing in mind the abuse and personal attacks I've had to endure from Jackie, please allow me a little sarcasm. But I take your point.
-
Vidvic I dont know how much of an expert you are with guns but if you read NGB s posts you might understand how this happened
Vidvic said
Read the actual descriptions of what was done to the victims.....Arc of bullets into one of the twins heads, Nevill's injuries to his face, all done by Sheila? A woman whom Jeremy himself admitted to having never seen fire a gun as an adult. How many times did she load the magazine? You try doing it! It's bloody hard going! And by Sheila? Yeah right!
NGB answered this all by himself Jackie.
-
Vidvic
So now Ngb has explained things do you accept Sheila could be responsible
-
Jackie's personal opinion of Julie Mugford is simply that, a personal opinion.
There is no evidence to suggest that Julie was anything other than frank in her interviews with police or that the evidence she freely gave at Jeremy's trial was other than factual and honest.
For Jackie to state otherwise is just sour grapes.
-
Vidvic
So now Ngb has explained things do you accept Sheila could be responsible
NGB has his view and I respect that, but I am yet to see one single piece of evidence to suggest Sheila had the knowledge to use any of the weopons in the house. Zilch. There is no one the has ever seen her use a gun, handle a gun and only ever Jeremy that suggested otherwise and the retracted it. Would you know how to fire it? Reload it? Unjam it? I fired 7.62 SLR's in the RAF and wouldn't have a clue with this rifle.
-
Curiousessex its difficult for me to answer properly because I cant remember exactly what information was at trial and what has become available since but with the silencer I dont believe JB would have put it back in the cupboard after and added to everything regarding forensics etc when the relatives took the silencer home I couldnt have found JB guilty on that and as for JM how do you seperate the lies for the truth maybe I just find it unbeleivable that someone would sleep with someone if they knew they had instigated the murder of two little boys. Yes I will never forget that and just now I have read Ann Eaton saying JM was a long time viewing the bodies of everyone and was smoking heavily. Where were tears from this women she sounds like the coldest hardest women I have ever read about.
The cheque fraud she didnt need the money why do that why risk everything. No I could not believe anything she said. When I was on jury service I asked so many questions the other jurors must have been so fed up with me but I didnt care I was disgusted with how they couldnt wait to get home.
If you take JB out of the equation and put in an anonomous figure I would still feel so strongly about
everything around this case. The way the police handled it the way the case was handled at Appeal the way the ccrc have behaved. If this case is made into a documentary on main stream television most of the general public would be appalled at what has happened. Just a couple of days ago I was contacted by someone very important who is handling two miscarriages of justice cases and I am working with him as well he is much more important than me but I have more contacts in the media I think things will improve but its going to be something as big as this for a change to come.
-
Julie Mugford never lied in court and it is disingenuous of you to infer that she did.
-
Well what a profound statement for you to make Jerry!
Best you jog along to the ccrc and tell them they are wasting their time investigating this case
Jerry you could save us millions
-
Vidvic
So now Ngb has explained things do you accept Sheila could be responsible
I think certain members here who shall be nameless have already accepted that, Jackie. That's why the wagons are circling around you so closely. Keep them guessing, you are so good at that! Good to see ngb riding shotgun ;D
-
Thanks Chocho it was 3 against me at one point I was doing my best and along came my hero !
-
Thanks Chocho it was 3 against me at one point I was doing my best and along came my hero !
When they do that, talk about anything but what they want you to discuss. Talk about the weather, they'll soon get fed up.
-
Well what a profound statement for you to make Jerry!
Best you jog along to the ccrc and tell them they are wasting their time investigating this case
Jerry you could save us millions
And what's more, there isn't a single piece of evidence attributed to Julie that you can categorically claim is a lie.
If you care to look at Julie's evidence you will see that it relates to what Jeremy told her, not what he ultimately did or didn't do. Thanks to Julie the family and that included granny, found out what Jeremy did and what he was capable of. Came as quite a shock to a good few people and especially Jeremy who was quite content to let the whole episode be put down to burglars.
Now I wonder who the real liar is?
-
Thanks Chocho it was 3 against me at one point I was doing my best and along came my hero !
When they do that, talk about anything but what they want you to discuss. Talk about the weather, they'll soon get fed up.
Maybe you will get that right since you obviously don't understand the intricacies of the Bamber case.
-
According to Ann Eaton's statement, when Julie came out to the car after she'd identified the victims' bodies, she said Sheila had one hole in her neck, pointing to under her chin. Was the other bullet hole hidden from view?
Perhaps with her locket, if she was still wearing it?
-
I posted weeks ago, that it would have made sense for JB to have just allowed the scene to be discovered by a farmhand, or secretary, the following morning. But, then again, what better alibi could he have had than to be sitting outside the farm with the police? Once he had had the phone call to tell him that the family was dead.
-
Evening Shona is this a drinking night
I need a good laugh
Today Jerry described Julie as lovely what's your opinion?
-
Hallo, Jack. I've just got to pop out to feed the horses and empty the pugs. Hold that thought!!
-
Don't forget that I described JM as a Canadian pie-eater!
-
Don't forget that I described JM as a Canadian pie-eater!
Of the fury variety :P? :o
-
Shona I love your descriptions of people I am still laughing at Gollum
What horses have you got I used to have a horse but had to sell him because the farm I kept him at was sold. I want to get another one I would like an Irish Dapple Grey gelding 4 years old that would be on my wish list
-
Don't forget that I described JM as a Canadian pie-eater!
;D
-
Jack, your dream horse sounds lovely!! Perhaps we should be the Follyfoot Club!! I haven't got many left now - the girls grew up and fizzled out of riding, and I'm too stiff to get my leg over, so now I've just got a retired old boy (poorly at the moment with laminitis and a sore willy) and a little mare I found on a scrap yard, 3 months ago, and the foal she popped out a week after she got here.
-
Rochy - eeww!!
-
Jack, you need a connemara. And can I ask you, what first made you so committed to JB's innocence?
-
Shona I will love you forever for that how gorgeous is that foal and how lucky are they you found them. Horses are something that is born in you I like it when I can smell horses on my hands. There is nothing nicer than going out on your horse in the country on a beautiful day
Everyone just got + 1 for making me laugh
Where's Andrea, Abs and Joolz
-
I don't know where the rest of the wide awake girls are, though I think we may have Choch. And I don't want to get in trouble again.....does anyone know why Hartley is a guest now?
-
Jack, you think that Ralph and JB had a good relationship. Wouldn't Ralph have warned JB away, rather than ask him to come to the farm? If Sheila really had "gone crazy with a gun" wouldn't Ralph have been worried for JB's safety? I AM NOT HAVING A POP. You have a lot of insight - what do you think?
-
I have read and seen police lies and corruption first hand to people I know that have been 100% innocent and I have read all the stuff about Birmingham Six and Guildford Four and Colin Stagg and I have followed JB s story for a long time and the only thing I wasn't sure about was Sheilas capability but Ngb explained that one. I have to say I think he is innocent but absolute definitive proof I don't know if that can ever happen unless someone proves the police have lied.
I will share something with you though as Ngb has said that I speak to JB on the phone. I had quite a long conversation with him on Saturday and I said I could not get my head around how anyone could stitch someone up and get them life in prison. He said there were people in that prison that have done a lot more for a lot less and then he went into great detail saying he had sympathy for JM and explained why she could have done what she did. It is something I have never read before and wouldn't repeat but he didn't say anything bad about her and he certainly doesn't hate her and that is not really how he should be I had a lot of respect for what he said and he does talk about his mum and dad and aunty pam with a lot of love
-
Blimey, Jack, you speak to him? Respect!! You and Mike, then. Who on earth does he know that are in prison for a worse crime than his (allegedly)?
-
If things were as JB said the only explanation I can come up with is Sheila was having another one of her episodes and Neville couldn't calm her down and he thought Jeremy might be able to. Sheila could have been storming around the house with the gun but Neville didn't ever expect her to use the gun.
I can't really come up with much more than that. I think Sheila and JB were closer than people made out and perhaps Neville might make a difference
I don't make too much of the driving slowly thing I think JB was a bit of a coward or woos I think he would have purposely held back for the police I don't think Jeremy would have gone into the house before the police
-
I must have led a sheltered life, because I find it hard to imagine many crimes worse than the slaughter of two tiny boys, an elderly couple and a poorly young woman, murdered in their beds.
-
Jack, does JB ever try to explain why he rang JM?
-
Shona when he said that he meant the people that set him up JM and the relatives he has come into contact with people that have done a lot worse than set people up for a lot less money
-
I must have led a sheltered life, because I find it hard to imagine many crimes worse than the slaughter of two tiny boys, an elderly couple and a poorly young woman, murdered in their beds.
What do you make of JM, Shona?
-
Do you think that he would cope, Jack, if he was released? Has he got somewhere to go?
-
Shona when he said that he meant the people that set him up JM and the relatives he has come into contact with people that have done a lot worse than set people up for a lot less money
Hi Jackie. Hi Shona, by the way!
-
Choch, JM was surely deeply dodgy, but found herself out of her depth. I don't think that she lied, once she was under oath.
-
By the way, Choch, my book came today! I've only had a moment to skim through it, but it belonged to a prisoner, was scribbled all over, and underlined in red whenever McDonald was mentioned. I'll try to look at it properly when I get a chance. I've also ordered Colin's book, but it cost me a bit!!
-
Choch, JM was surely deeply dodgy, but found herself out of her depth. I don't think that she lied, once she was under oath.
She claimed that Jeremy became increasingly bitter towards his family in late 1984. Yet, aside form the extended family who seem intent on portraying him as evil, other witnesses said the opposite was true, that he was settling down as he matured and that the relationships wer improving.
-
Well I did make him laugh on Saturday because I said he was causing havoc with women when he was 24 and I think he still is now. I said if he gets released there will be all these women outside in cars waiting for him. I said you will be in so much trouble so he said you would put me up Jac wouldn't you and I thought cheeky monkey still a player. I think he needs to be with his male friends or I suggested a one way ticket to Australia
-
Choch, JM was surely deeply dodgy, but found herself out of her depth. I don't think that she lied, once she was under oath.
She claimed that Jeremy became increasingly bitter towards his family in late 1984. Yet, aside form the extended family who seem intent on portraying him as evil, other witnesses said the opposite was true, that he was settling down as he matured and that the relationships wer improving.
The man in charge of the WHF part of the Smith charity, I forget his name, said that he felt Jeremy was making a good farmer and that he was happy for him to take over the farm when the time came.
-
Jack, if he gets out, direct him towards Max Clifford.
-
Choch, JM was surely deeply dodgy, but found herself out of her depth. I don't think that she lied, once she was under oath.
She claimed that Jeremy became increasingly bitter towards his family in late 1984. Yet, aside form the extended family who seem intent on portraying him as evil, other witnesses said the opposite was true, that he was settling down as he matured and that the relationships wer improving.
The man in charge of the WHF part of the Smith charity, I forget his name, said that he felt Jeremy was making a good farmer and that he was happy for him to take over the farm when the time came.
In late 1984, JM said Jeremy often talked of killing his family. I've read that when she was asked what her response to that, JM said:
"I just regarded it as idle chit chat."
Killing 5 people, idle chit chat...?
-
I know, I know, she lets herself down so many times. But she never wavered in court.
-
Hi Chocho
You always come up with bits I haven't read before what a waste if JB is innocent
-
Choch, JM was surely deeply dodgy, but found herself out of her depth. I don't think that she lied, once she was under oath.
She claimed that Jeremy became increasingly bitter towards his family in late 1984. Yet, aside form the extended family who seem intent on portraying him as evil, other witnesses said the opposite was true, that he was settling down as he matured and that the relationships wer improving.
The man in charge of the WHF part of the Smith charity, I forget his name, said that he felt Jeremy was making a good farmer and that he was happy for him to take over the farm when the time came.
In late 1984, JM said Jeremy often talked of killing his family. I've read that when she was asked what her response to that, JM said:
"I just regarded it as idle chit chat."
Killing 5 people, idle chit chat...?
I read too that JM claimed Jeremy's plan number 1 was to drug the family and to burn the house down. She claimed, according to this account, that he did a test run using some sleeping pills she'd brought with her. Was JB supposed to have asked JM to get these pills?
Still JM said she beleived this was idle chit chat and joke.
If JM's account is true, she had 5 lives in her hands, yet she failed to warn them or to do anything to prevent these murders.
-
I read that JB considered burning the house down - making it look like Ralph had been drinking gin and dropped his fag, but JM said that the house was "too beautiful to burn". We're getting into the twilight zone again.
-
Choch, JM was surely deeply dodgy, but found herself out of her depth. I don't think that she lied, once she was under oath.
She claimed that Jeremy became increasingly bitter towards his family in late 1984. Yet, aside form the extended family who seem intent on portraying him as evil, other witnesses said the opposite was true, that he was settling down as he matured and that the relationships wer improving.
The man in charge of the WHF part of the Smith charity, I forget his name, said that he felt Jeremy was making a good farmer and that he was happy for him to take over the farm when the time came.
In late 1984, JM said Jeremy often talked of killing his family. I've read that when she was asked what her response to that, JM said:
"I just regarded it as idle chit chat."
Killing 5 people, idle chit chat...?
I read too that JM claimed Jeremy's plan number 1 was to drug the family and to burn the house down. She claimed, according to this account, that he did a test run using some sleeping pills she'd brought with her. Was JB supposed to have asked JM to get these pills?
Still JM said she beleived this was idle chit chat and joke.
If JM's account is true, she had 5 lives in her hands, yet she failed to warn them or to do anything to prevent these murders.
I can't believe JM could possibly said of plan number 1 what I read in one account: that it was too beautiful to burn and would be too difficult to torch because it was so big,
-
Snap, shona!
-
Then she claims there was plan number 2: shoot them all.
Could JM possibly have said when asked for her response to this, what one account claims: "I got really upset and said I'd rather he didn't mention it"?
-
Choch, she was young, she was dodgy, she was frightened and backed into a corner. It was time to stop lying and covering for JB.
-
The threats became more frequent, JM is alleged to have claimed.
"They worried me a little."
Yet even if stirred to worry a little, JM told no one.
-
Jeremy's threats to murder his entire immediate family were supposed to have been formulated for around a year, from Summer '84 to Summer '85. All the while, JM was going out with Jeremy, stopping and sleeping with him and meeting these people he kept chit chatting about killing.
-
The threats became more frequent, JM is alleged to have claimed.
"They worried me a little."
Yet even if stirred to worry a little, JM told no one.
she couldnt tell anyone prior to the killings as there was nothing to tell as its all been fabricated after the murder...simple ...
Come on...if anyone really was talking like JM claimed...then you would steer well clear of them in fear for your own life.
-
Vidvic
So now Ngb has explained things do you accept Sheila could be responsible
I think certain members here who shall be nameless have already accepted that, Jackie. That's why the wagons are circling around you so closely. Keep them guessing, you are so good at that! Good to see ngb riding shotgun ;D
What a strange post Keira. I simply don't understand what you mean?
-
JM claimed, according to one account, that Jeremy told her that he planned to use his mother's bike and cycle undetected along the sea wall path to travel between WHF and Goldhanger.
In July 1985, JM's holiday from college began and she chose to stay with Jeremy.
Does this sound like a woman who is afraid of her murderous boyfriend?
On JM's arrival at Head Street she noticed June's bicycle outside.
JM said she still thought it was all still just one of Jeremy's fantasies.
She still told not a soul.
-
The threats became more frequent, JM is alleged to have claimed.
"They worried me a little."
Yet even if stirred to worry a little, JM told no one.
she couldnt tell anyone prior to the killings as there was nothing to tell as its all been fabricated after the murder...simple ...
Come on...if anyone really was talking like JM claimed...then you would steer well clear of them in fear for your own life.
Exactly. That's the point I'm making, smiffy, I'm attempting to post about it as objectively as I can.
-
Chocho you are good at this
In Ann eatons statement she says JB used to imitate his Dad when he was young the way he ate etc
I take this to be looking up to Neville a kind of adulation what do you think
-
JM said that Jeremy told her that the bicycle was for her use during the holidays but that she'd figured out why it was really there.
Nevertheless, JM claimed at the trial that she did not take any of the plans that she alleged Jeremy made to wipe out his family seriously.
Nevertheless, she warned no one, told no one, asked no for advice.
At no time does she appear to have said to Jeremy: You're a sick b*****d, I'm going and I'm never coming back.
At no time did she choose to leave and not return...he dumped her.
At no time did these evil plans JM claimed Jeremy made prompt her to tell him to get some psychiatic help - urgently.
-
Chocho you are good at this
In Ann eatons statement she says JB used to imitate his Dad when he was young the way he ate etc
I take this to be looking up to Neville a kind of adulation what do you think
and yet, less than a year before the murders he reduced Nevill to tears at Marks Tey Hotel by embarrassing Nevill in front of his fellow farmers at a local farmers meeting.........
-
Chocho you are good at this
In Ann eatons statement she says JB used to imitate his Dad when he was young the way he ate etc
I take this to be looking up to Neville a kind of adulation what do you think
Yes, like you I believe he adored Nevill.
-
Chocho you are good at this
In Ann eatons statement she says JB used to imitate his Dad when he was young the way he ate etc
I take this to be looking up to Neville a kind of adulation what do you think
Yes, like you I believe he adored Nevill.
Surely those who knew the individuals involved are more qualified to give opinions regarding the relationships involved than those whose only insight is from reading a few witness statements and the like?
-
Thanks Chocho it was 3 against me at one point I was doing my best and along came my hero !
When they do that, talk about anything but what they want you to discuss. Talk about the weather, they'll soon get fed up.
Keira, Isn't that the point of a forum like this to discuss things?
-
Apparently not. Best of luck, everyone.
-
Chocho you are good at this
In Ann eatons statement she says JB used to imitate his Dad when he was young the way he ate etc
I take this to be looking up to Neville a kind of adulation what do you think
and yet, less than a year before the murders he reduced Nevill to tears at Marks Tey Hotel by embarrassing Nevill in front of his fellow farmers at a local farmers meeting.........
I regularly had my mum in tears even up to the age of 23, and often in a nasty way as well. This is part of life. When I gave my heartfelt apologies to her at the end of her life, she simply replied 'it's alright, that's what mums are for'. We live and learn.
-
Chocho you are good at this
In Ann eatons statement she says JB used to imitate his Dad when he was young the way he ate etc
I take this to be looking up to Neville a kind of adulation what do you think
and yet, less than a year before the murders he reduced Nevill to tears at Marks Tey Hotel by embarrassing Nevill in front of his fellow farmers at a local farmers meeting.........
I regularly had my mum in tears even up to the age of 23, and often in a nasty way as well. This is part of life. When I gave my heartfelt apologies to her at the end of her life, she simply replied 'it's alright, that's what mums are for'. We live and learn.
I completely agree Rochford. The point I was trying to make is that immitating Nevill as a young boy does not make him incapable of murder anymore than making him cry as a young man makes him a murderer. These are both as irrelevant as each other.
-
Chocho you are good at this
In Ann eatons statement she says JB used to imitate his Dad when he was young the way he ate etc
I take this to be looking up to Neville a kind of adulation what do you think
and yet, less than a year before the murders he reduced Nevill to tears at Marks Tey Hotel by embarrassing Nevill in front of his fellow farmers at a local farmers meeting.........
I regularly had my mum in tears even up to the age of 23, and often in a nasty way as well. This is part of life. When I gave my heartfelt apologies to her at the end of her life, she simply replied 'it's alright, that's what mums are for'. We live and learn.
I completely agree Rochford. The point I was trying to make is that immitating Nevill as a young boy does not make him incapable of murder anymore than making him cry as a young makes him a murderer. These are both as irrelevant as each other.
Yes totally agree. Though I think there seems to have been a character assassination on Jeremy since 85/86. There may be tendency among the 'JB Camp' for people to attempt to claw back any positive traits / instances etc.
-
Where as the relatives have been caste as angels by the defence?
I think it just goes with the territory, you have try and see through it and come to your own conclusion.
-
Vidvic you have such an insight is there any incident of violence in JB s past?
-
Chocho you are good at this
In Ann eatons statement she says JB used to imitate his Dad when he was young the way he ate etc
I take this to be looking up to Neville a kind of adulation what do you think
and yet, less than a year before the murders he reduced Nevill to tears at Marks Tey Hotel by embarrassing Nevill in front of his fellow farmers at a local farmers meeting.........
Did you never rebel against your parents, Vic? I certainly did, for a few years I was surly, rude and aggressive. Like Jeremy, I humiliated my parents at times and got into all manner of trouble.
My two children rebelled horribly too. My son used to run away from home and we'd find him sleeping in the greenhouse. When I complained about him running up huge phone bills, mostly in order to have silent rows with his girlfriends for hours, or about his various girlfriends throwing stones at our bedroom windows in the early hours, he'd swear and run me over with his bike. He threw a cup of coffee over me one morning, so I threw one back, he followed through with his sandwiches.
My daughter was just the same, rude, aggressive; she and her friends trashed my house while I was at work.
Both my son and daughter were hell to live with from their teens to their early twenties, I thought they would never grow up and despaired of both them.
They both eventually began to change, thank goodness and now they are the loveliest children anyone could have.
A rebellious period is part of the natural development process. Almost all young people go through this horrible stage and it's complete misery for their families while they do so.
Jeremy, just like my son, was a horror to live with from his late teens to his early twenties. Then he began to settle down.
-
Rocky unfortunately I have also reduced my mum to tears before we have had some mega rows but I do love her
-
Chocho you are good at this
In Ann eatons statement she says JB used to imitate his Dad when he was young the way he ate etc
I take this to be looking up to Neville a kind of adulation what do you think
and yet, less than a year before the murders he reduced Nevill to tears at Marks Tey Hotel by embarrassing Nevill in front of his fellow farmers at a local farmers meeting.........
Did you never rebel against your parents, Vic? I certainly did, for a few years I was surly, rude and aggressive. Like Jeremy, I humiliated my parents at times and got into all manner of trouble.
My two children rebelled horribly too. My son used to run away from home and we'd find him sleeping in the greenhouse. When I complained about him running up huge phone bills, mostly in order to have silent rows with his girlfriends for hours, or about his various girlfriends throwing stones at our bedroom windows in the early hours, he'd swear and run me over with his bike. He threw a cup of coffee over me one morning, so I threw one back, he followed through with his sandwiches.
My daughter was just the same, rude, aggressive; she and her friends trashed my house while I was at work.
Both my son and daughter were hell to live with from their teens to their early twenties, I thought they would never grow up and despaired of both them.
They both eventually began to change, thank goodness and now they are the loveliest children anyone could have.
A rebellious period is part of the natural development process. Almost all young people go through this horrible stage and it's complete misery for their families while they do so.
Jeremy, just like my son, was a horror to live with from his late teens to his early twenties. Then he began to settle down.
Keira, if you read my answer to Rochford you'll see that I totally agree with you.
-
What the prosecution did deem rel lavant though, is that JB allegedly talked to JM about killing his family, and the 'I could kill any of my relatives' statement at the caravan park meeting.
Surely it's just common practise for the prosecution to try and discredit the appellants character and likewise for the defence to praise the appellants character. Hence hostile or friendly witnesses.
-
Vidvic you are on friendly terms with Ann Eaton what possible bearing did it have on this case for her to make a police statement saying there might or might not have been a photo of JB amongst the rest of the family in Nanny Speakmans bedroom
Tell me Vic what possible reason was there for Ann Eaton to make that disgraceful statement what is she implying
-
Thanks Chocho it was 3 against me at one point I was doing my best and along came my hero !
When they do that, talk about anything but what they want you to discuss. Talk about the weather, they'll soon get fed up.
Keira, Isn't that the point of a forum like this to discuss things?
Yes, the point of the forum is to discuss things. The forum is not, however, meant to be a place where one person is made to feel pressured by a group of people ganging up on them. Few individuals can hold a serious discussion with several people - all focussing questions on that one person at one time - without feeling stressed and pressured. That's why I gave Jackie the above advice - which you have censored - on how to deal with this. My advice was for her to disengage and bore them into giving up.
I somehow duplicated this post when I corrected a spelling error, so I've removed one copy
-
Thanks Chocho it was 3 against me at one point I was doing my best and along came my hero !
When they do that, talk about anything but what they want you to discuss. Talk about the weather, they'll soon get fed up.
Keira, Isn't that the point of a forum like this to discuss things?
Yes, the point of the forum is to discuss things. The forum is not, however, meant to be a place where one person is made to feel pressured by a group of people ganging up on them. Few individuals can hold a serious discussion with several people at one time without feeling stressed and pressured. That's why I gave Jackie the above advice - which you have censored - on how to deal with this. My advice was for her to disengage and bore them into giving up.
To be fair, her posts are often goading, if she has several posters disagreeing with her then that is ultimately and simply a consequence of her own making. She is not being bullied or ganged up on in any way shape or form.
-
Chocho you are good at this
In Ann eatons statement she says JB used to imitate his Dad when he was young the way he ate etc
I take this to be looking up to Neville a kind of adulation what do you think
and yet, less than a year before the murders he reduced Nevill to tears at Marks Tey Hotel by embarrassing Nevill in front of his fellow farmers at a local farmers meeting.........
Did you never rebel against your parents, Vic? I certainly did, for a few years I was surly, rude and aggressive. Like Jeremy, I humiliated my parents at times and got into all manner of trouble.
My two children rebelled horribly too. My son used to run away from home and we'd find him sleeping in the greenhouse. When I complained about him running up huge phone bills, mostly in order to have silent rows with his girlfriends for hours, or about his various girlfriends throwing stones at our bedroom windows in the early hours, he'd swear and run me over with his bike. He threw a cup of coffee over me one morning, so I threw one back, he followed through with his sandwiches.
My daughter was just the same, rude, aggressive; she and her friends trashed my house while I was at work.
Both my son and daughter were hell to live with from their teens to their early twenties, I thought they would never grow up and despaired of both them.
They both eventually began to change, thank goodness and now they are the loveliest children anyone could have.
A rebellious period is part of the natural development process. Almost all young people go through this horrible stage and it's complete misery for their families while they do so.
Jeremy, just like my son, was a horror to live with from his late teens to his early twenties. Then he began to settle down.
Keira, if you read my answer to Rochford you'll see that I totally agree with you.
I haven't yet read that post. I'll have a look at it.
-
Thanks Chocho it was 3 against me at one point I was doing my best and along came my hero !
When they do that, talk about anything but what they want you to discuss. Talk about the weather, they'll soon get fed up.
Keira, Isn't that the point of a forum like this to discuss things?
Yes, the point of the forum is to discuss things. The forum is not, however, meant to be a place where one person is made to feel pressured by a group of people ganging up on them. Few individuals can hold a serious discussion with several people at one time without feeling stressed and pressured. That's why I gave Jackie the above advice - which you have censored - on how to deal with this. My advice was for her to disengage and bore them into giving up.
To be fair, her posts are often goading, if she has several posters disagreeing with her then that is ultimately and simply a consequence of her own making. She is not being bullied or ganged up on in any way shape or form.
I do accept that point, Harters. It's also true that the others involved in this discussion goad at times. My advice was simply: disengage and bore. In other words: stop.
-
Thanks Chocho it was 3 against me at one point I was doing my best and along came my hero !
When they do that, talk about anything but what they want you to discuss. Talk about the weather, they'll soon get fed up.
Keira, Isn't that the point of a forum like this to discuss things?
Yes, the point of the forum is to discuss things. The forum is not, however, meant to be a place where one person is made to feel pressured by a group of people ganging up on them. Few individuals can hold a serious discussion with several people at one time without feeling stressed and pressured. That's why I gave Jackie the above advice - which you have censored - on how to deal with this. My advice was for her to disengage and bore them into giving up.
To be fair, her posts are often goading, if she has several posters disagreeing with her then that is ultimately and simply a consequence of her own making. She is not being bullied or ganged up on in any way shape or form.
I do accept that point, Harters. It's also true that the others involved in this discussion goad at times. My advice was simply: disengage and bore. In other words: stop.
Keira, who has censored what?
-
Keira, this is a little example of the posts I had directed at me this afternoon from Jackie.
vidvic why do you continually make things up you are making yourself look stupid again
I think I had the right to defend myself??
If she felt pressured then she should treat people with more respect!
-
Vidvic you are on friendly terms with Ann Eaton what possible bearing did it have on this case for her to make a police statement saying there might or might not have been a photo of JB amongst the rest of the family in Nanny Speakmans bedroom
Tell me Vic what possible reason was there for Ann Eaton to make that disgraceful statement what is she implying
I have no idea Jackie.
-
You do Vic she said it so it looked like JB wasn't liked by his Nan and Ann Eaton knew it couldn't be proved because Nanny Speakman had been dead for years that is what Is called clutching at straws trying to discredit JB invade the colp investigation went against the relatives
Vidvic you didn't reply on the point of do you know of any acts of violence by JB because there isn't is there even Ann Eaton failed on that point
-
You do Vic she said it so it looked like JB wasn't liked by his Nan and Ann Eaton knew it couldn't be proved because Nanny Speakman had been dead for years that is what Is called clutching at straws trying to discredit JB invade the colp investigation went against the relatives
Vidvic you didn't reply on the point of do you know of any acts of violence by JB because there isn't is there even Ann Eaton failed on that point
Apart from pulling JM's arms up behind her back, No.
I think Harold Shipman had no previous convictions or incidents in his history either Jackie.
-
Well I did make him laugh on Saturday because I said he was causing havoc with women when he was 24 and I think he still is now. I said if he gets released there will be all these women outside in cars waiting for him. I said you will be in so much trouble so he said you would put me up Jac wouldn't you and I thought cheeky monkey still a player. I think he needs to be with his male friends or I suggested a one way ticket to Australia
I don't think they transport convicts there any more.
-
Choch, JM was surely deeply dodgy, but found herself out of her depth. I don't think that she lied, once she was under oath.
She claimed that Jeremy became increasingly bitter towards his family in late 1984. Yet, aside form the extended family who seem intent on portraying him as evil, other witnesses said the opposite was true, that he was settling down as he matured and that the relationships wer improving.
Well if you consider robbing, trashing and setting fire to the family business settling down I suppose you can get away with any nonsense on this forum.
It isn't surprising then that granny changed her will given his conduct.
I must have led a sheltered life, because I find it hard to imagine many crimes worse than the slaughter of two tiny boys, an elderly couple and a poorly young woman, murdered in their beds.
I quite agree Shona, dreadful.
-
I have read and seen police lies and corruption first hand to people I know that have been 100% innocent and I have read all the stuff about Birmingham Six and Guildford Four and Colin Stagg and I have followed JB s story for a long time and the only thing I wasn't sure about was Sheilas capability but Ngb explained that one. I have to say I think he is innocent but absolute definitive proof I don't know if that can ever happen unless someone proves the police have lied.
I will share something with you though as Ngb has said that I speak to JB on the phone. I had quite a long conversation with him on Saturday and I said I could not get my head around how anyone could stitch someone up and get them life in prison. He said there were people in that prison that have done a lot more for a lot less and then he went into great detail saying he had sympathy for JM and explained why she could have done what she did. It is something I have never read before and wouldn't repeat but he didn't say anything bad about her and he certainly doesn't hate her and that is not really how he should be I had a lot of respect for what he said and he does talk about his mum and dad and aunty pam with a lot of love
You can't hate someone who told the truth.
-
I have read and seen police lies and corruption first hand to people I know that have been 100% innocent and I have read all the stuff about Birmingham Six and Guildford Four and Colin Stagg and I have followed JB s story for a long time and the only thing I wasn't sure about was Sheilas capability but Ngb explained that one. I have to say I think he is innocent but absolute definitive proof I don't know if that can ever happen unless someone proves the police have lied.
I will share something with you though as Ngb has said that I speak to JB on the phone. I had quite a long conversation with him on Saturday and I said I could not get my head around how anyone could stitch someone up and get them life in prison. He said there were people in that prison that have done a lot more for a lot less and then he went into great detail saying he had sympathy for JM and explained why she could have done what she did. It is something I have never read before and wouldn't repeat but he didn't say anything bad about her and he certainly doesn't hate her and that is not really how he should be I had a lot of respect for what he said and he does talk about his mum and dad and aunty pam with a lot of love
You can't hate someone who told the truth.
Why not?
-
Try and use your brain for once Jerry
JB was trying to make excuses for JM making up the lies she told the police
That's hardly what he would have done if he was guilty he was explaining what happened
Just like the comment JB made when he was told all his family was dead
'the police must have killed them'
Hardly the words you would use if the plan was to pin the murders on Sheila
-
Vidvic good I am glad you are now showing an open mind. I dont think you will have long to wait
So, you don't have this evidence?
I take it this is the new 'dynamite' evidence yet to be posted.
Vidvic - again I find your goading of Jackie unattractive to say the least, particular for a site "Global Moderator". You are aware that Jeremy Bamber and his team have been concerned at new material being posted publicly, in particular on this forum, before they have had a chance to evaluate that new material properly. Jackie is following the reasonable requests of Jeremy Bamber's team in this regard, as they do not want to set hares running and damage the work which they are carrying out. You should respect this rather than ridicule it.
NGB - I appreciate what you are saying. But if they are concerned about information leaking out, why are they sharing this information with "civilians" such as Jackie? If such leaks genuinely run the risk of jeopardising the appeal then it doesn't seem terribly professional to me!
-
Vidvic good I am glad you are now showing an open mind. I dont think you will have long to wait
So, you don't have this evidence?
I take it this is the new 'dynamite' evidence yet to be posted.
Vidvic - again I find your goading of Jackie unattractive to say the least, particular for a site "Global Moderator". You are aware that Jeremy Bamber and his team have been concerned at new material being posted publicly, in particular on this forum, before they have had a chance to evaluate that new material properly. Jackie is following the reasonable requests of Jeremy Bamber's team in this regard, as they do not want to set hares running and damage the work which they are carrying out. You should respect this rather than ridicule it.
NGB - I appreciate what you are saying. But if they are concerned about information leaking out, why are they sharing this information with "civilians" such as Jackie? If such leaks genuinely run the risk of jeopardising the appeal then it doesn't seem terribly professional to me!
Bob - I take your point but although Jackie is a "civilian" in that she is not part of Jeremy Bamber's legal team she does do a lot of work on behalf on the campaign to generate public support for Jeremy Bamber's case. Jackie is therefore trusted by Jeremy Bamber and his team and they know that if they ask Jackie will refrain from posting confidential information.
I do accept that it is frustrating for members of this forum to see hints posted about ground breaking new evidence and then when further information is understandably requested it is withheld because of a request by the defence team. The caution on the part of the defence team is understandable in my view as in the past information has been released before the defence had been able to carry out a thorough check on its reliability and they want to avoid that happening in the future.
-
Vidvic good I am glad you are now showing an open mind. I dont think you will have long to wait
So, you don't have this evidence?
I take it this is the new 'dynamite' evidence yet to be posted.
Vidvic - again I find your goading of Jackie unattractive to say the least, particular for a site "Global Moderator". You are aware that Jeremy Bamber and his team have been concerned at new material being posted publicly, in particular on this forum, before they have had a chance to evaluate that new material properly. Jackie is following the reasonable requests of Jeremy Bamber's team in this regard, as they do not want to set hares running and damage the work which they are carrying out. You should respect this rather than ridicule it.
NGB - I appreciate what you are saying. But if they are concerned about information leaking out, why are they sharing this information with "civilians" such as Jackie? If such leaks genuinely run the risk of jeopardising the appeal then it doesn't seem terribly professional to me!
Bob - I take your point but although Jackie is a "civilian" in that she is not part of Jeremy Bamber's legal team she does do a lot of work on behalf on the campaign to generate public support for Jeremy Bamber's case. Jackie is therefore trusted by Jeremy Bamber and his team and they know that if they ask Jackie will refrain from posting confidential information.
I do accept that it is frustrating for members of this forum to see hints posted about ground breaking new evidence and then when further information is understandably requested it is withheld because of a request by the defence team. The caution on the part of the defence team is understandable in my view as in the past information has been released before the defence had been able to carry out a thorough check on its reliability and they want to avoid that happening in the future.
NGB
Have you provided any help to Mike or the team given your legal background?
-
Thankyou Ngb
bob I have absolutely no idea what JB will put forward to the CCRC
At this moment in time it must be very difficult for JB to trust anyone because of the Bob W saga
I have never asked JB to phone me and I have never asked or been to visit him and I have never got involved in any of the goings on over on Facebook but he trusts me.
Anything I have been told is a brief summary and I have never been told anything else that would interest this forum
I have no need to because I have no legal background and it is impossible for me to give opinions
JB has now extra pro bono legal help and I have never asked what is happening because legal stuff goes straight over my head and I just don't need to know I am just estatic that someone else is helping to get this case to appeal
The only
-
Vidvic good I am glad you are now showing an open mind. I dont think you will have long to wait
So, you don't have this evidence?
I take it this is the new 'dynamite' evidence yet to be posted.
Vidvic - again I find your goading of Jackie unattractive to say the least, particular for a site "Global Moderator". You are aware that Jeremy Bamber and his team have been concerned at new material being posted publicly, in particular on this forum, before they have had a chance to evaluate that new material properly. Jackie is following the reasonable requests of Jeremy Bamber's team in this regard, as they do not want to set hares running and damage the work which they are carrying out. You should respect this rather than ridicule it.
NGB - I appreciate what you are saying. But if they are concerned about information leaking out, why are they sharing this information with "civilians" such as Jackie? If such leaks genuinely run the risk of jeopardising the appeal then it doesn't seem terribly professional to me!
Bob - I take your point but although Jackie is a "civilian" in that she is not part of Jeremy Bamber's legal team she does do a lot of work on behalf on the campaign to generate public support for Jeremy Bamber's case. Jackie is therefore trusted by Jeremy Bamber and his team and they know that if they ask Jackie will refrain from posting confidential information.
I do accept that it is frustrating for members of this forum to see hints posted about ground breaking new evidence and then when further information is understandably requested it is withheld because of a request by the defence team. The caution on the part of the defence team is understandable in my view as in the past information has been released before the defence had been able to carry out a thorough check on its reliability and they want to avoid that happening in the future.
NGB
Have you provided any help to Mike or the team given your legal background?
curiousessex - I am not part of Jeremy Bamber's legal team as although I am qualified and have relevant experience I am not currently practicising as a barrister. I am in contact with Jeremy Bamber directly by letter and telephone and have contact with some of his team. In areas where I have some relevant knowledge or experience ( essentialy law and firearms) I have indicated that I am willing to assist if requested. Jeremy Bamber does have very competent legal representation and he is assisted by others who have been working on collating the vast volume of material associated with the case. I am sure that his team will give him the best possible chance of success with the CCRC and with the case overall.
As far as Mike Tesko is concerned I have expressed on this forum my view that he has made a compelling case for having been the victim of miscarriage of justice, and I have openly urged him to continue in his efforts to secure justice for himself. l do not feel it would be right for me to go further on this than I have posted on the forum. Mike has continued to post documents relevant to his case.
-
Vidvic good I am glad you are now showing an open mind. I dont think you will have long to wait
So, you don't have this evidence?
I take it this is the new 'dynamite' evidence yet to be posted.
Vidvic - again I find your goading of Jackie unattractive to say the least, particular for a site "Global Moderator". You are aware that Jeremy Bamber and his team have been concerned at new material being posted publicly, in particular on this forum, before they have had a chance to evaluate that new material properly. Jackie is following the reasonable requests of Jeremy Bamber's team in this regard, as they do not want to set hares running and damage the work which they are carrying out. You should respect this rather than ridicule it.
NGB - I appreciate what you are saying. But if they are concerned about information leaking out, why are they sharing this information with "civilians" such as Jackie? If such leaks genuinely run the risk of jeopardising the appeal then it doesn't seem terribly professional to me!
Bob - I take your point but although Jackie is a "civilian" in that she is not part of Jeremy Bamber's legal team she does do a lot of work on behalf on the campaign to generate public support for Jeremy Bamber's case. Jackie is therefore trusted by Jeremy Bamber and his team and they know that if they ask Jackie will refrain from posting confidential information.
I do accept that it is frustrating for members of this forum to see hints posted about ground breaking new evidence and then when further information is understandably requested it is withheld because of a request by the defence team. The caution on the part of the defence team is understandable in my view as in the past information has been released before the defence had been able to carry out a thorough check on its reliability and they want to avoid that happening in the future.
I beg to differ on that count. Jackie Preece is like a loose cannon and has done nothing but damage to Jeremy Bamber's chances of ever being believed as having been wrongly convicted. Her constant allegation that Julie Mugford lied and lied serves no purpose other than to feed her own ego and most certainly smells of sour grapes.
Her latest invitation to pursue a vendetta against a retired policeman who now lives in Australia on the basis of some anonymous post by a cyber user called Ron Cooke just serves to underline my previous comment. Maybe she should contact Julie Mugford or Mrs Julie Smerchanski as she is now if she feels so strongly about her.
Jackie should be in no doubt however that harassment of an individual whether he be in Australia or she be in Canada can quickly become a police matter with the ensuing consequences that such brings.
Mike knows all too well what it is like to get on the wrong side of the police and ngb1066 is a former barrister so I am quite sure that they both will advise caution in anything that Jackie or anyone else contemplates doing.
-
Jerry just incase you have not read everything about this case
Julie Mugford is a liar fact
I have stated what my opinion is on statements she made to the police
Where do you separate the lies from the truth
Where did I say anything on here about harassing anyone?
I am more interested in finding out fact from fiction on the bambergate thread and who Ron Cook is and does he have anymore GENUINE information about the police involved. I doubt it but you never know it's probably John up to his tricks
Try and be constructive and bring something of use to the forum. Nobody will ever take you seriously when you keep referring to Julie as lovely
-
Vidvic good I am glad you are now showing an open mind. I dont think you will have long to wait
So, you don't have this evidence?
I take it this is the new 'dynamite' evidence yet to be posted.
Vidvic - again I find your goading of Jackie unattractive to say the least, particular for a site "Global Moderator". You are aware that Jeremy Bamber and his team have been concerned at new material being posted publicly, in particular on this forum, before they have had a chance to evaluate that new material properly. Jackie is following the reasonable requests of Jeremy Bamber's team in this regard, as they do not want to set hares running and damage the work which they are carrying out. You should respect this rather than ridicule it.
NGB - I appreciate what you are saying. But if they are concerned about information leaking out, why are they sharing this information with "civilians" such as Jackie? If such leaks genuinely run the risk of jeopardising the appeal then it doesn't seem terribly professional to me!
Bob - I take your point but although Jackie is a "civilian" in that she is not part of Jeremy Bamber's legal team she does do a lot of work on behalf on the campaign to generate public support for Jeremy Bamber's case. Jackie is therefore trusted by Jeremy Bamber and his team and they know that if they ask Jackie will refrain from posting confidential information.
I do accept that it is frustrating for members of this forum to see hints posted about ground breaking new evidence and then when further information is understandably requested it is withheld because of a request by the defence team. The caution on the part of the defence team is understandable in my view as in the past information has been released before the defence had been able to carry out a thorough check on its reliability and they want to avoid that happening in the future.
I beg to differ on that count. Jackie Preece is like a loose cannon and has done nothing but damage to Jeremy Bamber's chances of ever being believed as having been wrongly convicted. Her constant allegation that Julie Mugford lied and lied serves no purpose other than to feed her own ego and most certainly smells of sour grapes.
Her latest invitation to pursue a vendetta against a retired policeman who now lives in Australia on the basis of some anonymous post by a cyber user called Ron Cooke just serves to underline my previous comment. Maybe she should contact Julie Mugford or Mrs Julie Smerchanski as she is now if she feels so strongly about her.
Jackie should be in no doubt however that harassment of an individual whether he be in Australia or she be in Canada can quickly become a police matter with the ensuing consequences that such brings.
Mike knows all too well what it is like to get on the wrong side of the police and ngb1066 is a former barrister so I am quite sure that they both will advise caution in anything that you contemplate doing.
I will deal in turn with your points above.
1. Jackie Preece believes very strongly about Jeremy Bamber's innocence and that comes across in some of her posts, particularly where an "anti bamber" poster refuses to answer a direct question or where she is goaded by one or more posters. I am sure that some people have posted deliberately in a way intended to antagonise Jackie in order to get a reaction from her. Your opinion that Jackie has harmed Jeremy Bamber's chances of setting aside his convictions is not one shared by Jeremy Bamber himself. He appreciates all her efforts on his behalf.
2. Jackie's references to Julie Mugford lying are simply a reflection of Jeremy Bamber's case. If Jeremy Bamber is telling the truth, Julie Mugford must have lied. This is a central part of the case as we all know and strong comments by Jackie about Julie Mugford are to be expected in the circumstances and have nothing to do with ego our sour grapes. Anti - Bamber supporters post some damning comments about Jeremy Bamber, as is to be expected considering their views on the case.
3. There is nothing illegal in making contact with a potential witness in Australia or Canada or anywhere else. I have not seen Jackie suggesting anything which would come close to being a criminal offence.
-
Jerry just incase you have not read everything about this case
Julie Mugford is a liar fact
I have stated what my opinion is on statements she made to the police
Where do you separate the lies from the truth
Where did I say anything on here about harassing anyone?
I am more interested in finding out fact from fiction on the bambergate thread and who Ron Cook is and does he have anymore GENUINE information about the police involved. I doubt it but you never know it's probably John up to his tricks
Try and be constructive and bring something of use to the forum. Nobody will ever take you seriously when you keep referring to Julie as lovely
You call Julie a liar but you have been asked on several occasions to be specific. What did she lie about in your humble opinion?
-
1. Jackie Preece believes very strongly about Jeremy Bamber's innocence and that comes across in some of her posts, particularly where an "anti bamber" poster refuses to answer a direct question or where she is goaded by one or more posters.
No disrespect NGB, but I think you will find it happens to be the case that it is Jackie who is often (but not always) the antagonist and issues goading questions which have already been answered, can't be answered or are irrelevant. She also has a habit of being particularly rude to anyone who disagrees with her (again, not always but often).
She gets stick for it sure, but it is of her own making.
-
Jerry
For a start in her first statement to the police
Do you agree Jerry
-
Come on Hartley you like me don't you
You love fighting with me on the forum?
-
Hartley you have upset me now I even put you forward as a moderator
-
Come on Hartley you like me don't you
You love fighting with me on the forum?
Not at all Jackie, I have no problem with many of your posts and your insight is often good for the purposes of discussions on the forum. I don't agree with many of your views just like you don't agree with mine.
You do have an uncanny way of winding people up though. ;) I don't think you can play the victim either.
-
Hartley you have upset me now I even put you forward as a moderator
I don't think I'd make a very good moderator, too prone to mood swings depending on whether there's a full moon or not.
-
I will deal in turn with your points above.
1. Jackie Preece believes very strongly about Jeremy Bamber's innocence and that comes across in some of her posts, particularly where an "anti bamber" poster refuses to answer a direct question or where she is goaded by one or more posters. I am sure that some people have posted deliberately in a way intended to antagonise Jackie in order to get a reaction from her. Your opinion that Jackie has harmed Jeremy Bamber's chances of setting aside his convictions is not one shared by Jeremy Bamber himself. He appreciates all her efforts on his behalf.
2. Jackie's references to Julie Mugford lying are simply a reflection of Jeremy Bamber's case. If Jeremy Bamber is telling the truth, Julie Mugford must have lied. This is a central part of the case as we all know and strong comments by Jackie about Julie Mugford are to be expected in the circumstances and have nothing to do with ego our sour grapes. Anti - Bamber supporters post some damning comments about Jeremy Bamber, as is to be expected considering their views on the case.
3. There is nothing illegal in making contact with a potential witness in Australia or Canada or anywhere else. I have not seen Jackie suggesting anything which would come close to being a criminal offence.
1. Jackie Preece is entitled to her opinion but she should not go around calling people liars on a public forum. Does she not realise that Julie Smerchanski could sue her for libel due to the malicious posts she has made? I wonder does Jeremy know everything that is being said on this forum on his behalf?
Maybe I should write to him too and tell him exactly what is going on?
2. I don't see where you obtain the correlation between Julies evidence and that of Jeremy and especially as you do not have a copy of his statements or his evidence? Julie never said that Jeremy murdered his family. Julie simply told the court what Jeremy had told her, there is a significant difference in these contentions. The anti Bamber posters as you refer to them are entitled to post the truth as corroborated by many individuals as to Jeremy's behaviour prior to the murders and in respect of the guilty verdict following them.
Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are libellous and you know it ngb1066.
3. The illegality arises when a former senior police officer is being harassed in a campaign to besmirch him within his own community. I am quite sure the authorities will take a dim view of such behaviour.
Definitely a loose cannon!
-
I wonder does Jeremy know everything that is being said on this forum on his behalf?
I think the disclaimer is quite clear on this point Jerry:
Much of the information posted on this forum is by 3rd parties and is not necessarily accurate and may not always be the views of Jeremy Bamber or the website.
-
Jerry
For a start in her first statement to the police
Do you agree Jerry
Statements are irrelevant where a witness testifies in the witness box. According to you, what did Julie lie about in her evidence?
-
I wonder does Jeremy know everything that is being said on this forum on his behalf?
I think the disclaimer is quite clear on this point Jerry:
Much of the information posted on this forum is by 3rd parties and is not necessarily accurate and may not always be the views of Jeremy Bamber or the website.
Indeed Hartley, I still think I will write to him and encourage others to do the same in order to get it from the horses mouth.
I wonder how he will respond to being told how his most avid supporter is besmirching his long lost love and encouraging a vendetta against retired police officers?
-
Jerry feel free ask him about the porche car you lied about
-
I will deal in turn with your points above.
1. Jackie Preece believes very strongly about Jeremy Bamber's innocence and that comes across in some of her posts, particularly where an "anti bamber" poster refuses to answer a direct question or where she is goaded by one or more posters. I am sure that some people have posted deliberately in a way intended to antagonise Jackie in order to get a reaction from her. Your opinion that Jackie has harmed Jeremy Bamber's chances of setting aside his convictions is not one shared by Jeremy Bamber himself. He appreciates all her efforts on his behalf.
2. Jackie's references to Julie Mugford lying are simply a reflection of Jeremy Bamber's case. If Jeremy Bamber is telling the truth, Julie Mugford must have lied. This is a central part of the case as we all know and strong comments by Jackie about Julie Mugford are to be expected in the circumstances and have nothing to do with ego our sour grapes. Anti - Bamber supporters post some damning comments about Jeremy Bamber, as is to be expected considering their views on the case.
3. There is nothing illegal in making contact with a potential witness in Australia or Canada or anywhere else. I have not seen Jackie suggesting anything which would come close to being a criminal offence.
1. Jackie Preece is entitled to her opinion but she should not go around calling people liars on a public forum. Does she not realise that Julie Smerchanski could sue her for libel due to the malicious posts she has made? I wonder does Jeremy know everything that is being said on this forum on his behalf?Maybe I should write to him too and tell him exactly what is going on?
2. I don't see where you obtain the correlation between Julies evidence and that of Jeremy and especially as you do not have a copy of his statements or his evidence? Julie never said that Jeremy murdered his family. Julie simply told the court what Jeremy had told her, there is a significant difference in these contentions. The anti Bamber posters as you refer to them are entitled to post the truth as corroborated by many individuals as to Jeremy's behaviour prior to the murders and in respect of the guilty verdict following them.Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are libellous and you know it ngb1066.3. The illegality arises when a former senior police officer is being harassed in a campaign to besmirch him within his own community. I am quite sure the authorities will take a dim view of such behaviour.
Definitely a loose cannon!
I will not answer every point as I would end up repeating myself. However I will to respond to two specific points which you have made.
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
2. Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman. That would amount to murder just as much as if he carried out the murders by his own hand. She also said that she was aware of his plans in advance, was informed on the day itself and was given a progress report on the night itself, and was subsequently given all the gory details.
-
It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?
Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.
That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.
-
Jerry feel free ask him about the porche car you lied about
I will leaving the lying to you Jackie.
The comments about the buying a Porsche car are evidenced and stand irrespective of how you would now like to portray them. Point being, imagine discussing the proposed purchase of a new car when your family are lying inside riddled with bullets. I really must ask him to explain that one and I will post his response here.
-
It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?
Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.
That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.
Right on the ball as usual Hartley. +1
I am surprised at a former barrister falling for that one. :)
-
Jerry feel free ask him about the porche car you lied about
The porche car was mentioned, it was only later that it then turned into a kit car. Whether that's down to the police misunderstanding him; the police trying to show Jeremy in a bad light; or whether it's because Jeremy lied, who knows.
It's detailed in the 2002 Appeal Judgement.
-
I will not answer every point as I would end up repeating myself. However I will to respond to two specific points which you have made.
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
2. Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman. That would amount to murder just as much as if he carried out the murders by his own hand. She also said that she was aware of his plans in advance, was informed on the day itself and was given a progress report on the night itself, and was subsequently given all the gory details.
1. As of this moment in time they are libellous. I have no doubt that Julie knows little of what is being said about her, maybe we should inform her?
http://ww.wsd1.org/contacts/contacts.htm
2. So which part of this is a lie as this is what he told her and what's more he has never denied it?
-
It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?
Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.
That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.
Right on the ball as usual Hartley. +1
I am surprised at a former barrister falling for that one. :)
Are you not guilty of murder if you hire a hitman ?
-
It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?
Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.
That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.
Right on the ball as usual Hartley. +1
I am surprised at a former barrister falling for that one. :)
Are you not guilty of murder if you hire a hitman ?
I made no reference to whether a hitman hirer would be guilty of murder. I'm not sure what you mean Jon?
-
It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?
Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.
That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.
1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?
2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible . She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman. An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court. Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber. In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.
-
I made no reference to whether a hitman hirer would be guilty of murder. I'm not sure what you mean Jon?
I believe Jon means that jeremy is as guilty of murder just as if he pulled the trigger himself in such a scenario.
In Law, an accessory is a person who incites someone to commit a crime or assists the perpetrator of a crime, either before or during its commission.
-
It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?
Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.
That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.
Right on the ball as usual Hartley. +1
I am surprised at a former barrister falling for that one. :)
Are you not guilty of murder if you hire a hitman ?
I made no reference to whether a hitman hirer would be guilty of murder. I'm not sure what you mean Jon?
Yes you are guilty of murder if you hire a hitman.
-
It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?
Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.
That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.
1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?
2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible . She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman. An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court. Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber. In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.
Didn't he tell other witnesses that he could kill his family. It all adds up to one thing in my estimation.
Sorry, two things, he also could be psychotic and delusional.
-
It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?
Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.
That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.
Right on the ball as usual Hartley. +1
I am surprised at a former barrister falling for that one. :)
Falling for what? By the way I am still a barrister although currently non practising, so "former" is not accurate.
-
Come on Hartley you know everything about the porche car and it has been mentioned time and time again police investigated this and even went to the garage to confirm JB was talking about a kit car
Jerry I will add that to the missing photo of jeremy in nanny Speakmans bedroom
Feel free to pit yourself against Ngb on legal opinion this is going to be fun
-
1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?
Likewise, why would you so matter of factly state it as significant? I am merely pointing out that it is not significant at all.
2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible . She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman. An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court. Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber. In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.
That's not the point and not what I said.
JM gave evidence stating what JB had told her.
She did not give evidence stating what JB had done, unless what JB had done coincided with what he had told JM.
Anyway we're moving into the territory of arguing for the sake of it, it seems.
-
It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?
Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.
That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.
1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?
2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible . She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman. An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court. Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber. In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.
Didn't he tell other witnesses that he could kill his family. It all adds up to one thing in my estimation.
Sorry, two things, he also could be psychotic and delusional.
None of the many psychiatrists and psychologists who have examined Jeremy Bamber over the past 26 years support your view.
-
It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?
Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.
That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.
1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?
2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible . She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman. An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court. Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber. In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.
Didn't he tell other witnesses that he could kill his family. It all adds up to one thing in my estimation.
Sorry, two things, he also could be psychotic and delusional.
None of the many psychiatrists and psychologists who have examined Jeremy Bamber over the past 26 years support your view.
Why is it ok to believe the psychiatrists who give expert opinion on behalf of the defence, and yet we are always told that the experts who worked on behalf of the prosecution (pathologists, forensic scientists etc.) were either incompetent or in on some kind of conspiracy?
-
It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?
Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.
That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.
1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?
2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible . She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman. An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court. Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber. In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.
Didn't he tell other witnesses that he could kill his family. It all adds up to one thing in my estimation.
Sorry, two things, he also could be psychotic and delusional.
None of the many psychiatrists and psychologists who have examined Jeremy Bamber over the past 26 years support your view.
So what do you call a guy who boasts about killing his family?
-
So what do you call a guy who boasts about killing his family?
A cheeky monkey? :-\
Well I did make him laugh on Saturday because I said he was causing havoc with women when he was 24 and I think he still is now. I said if he gets released there will be all these women outside in cars waiting for him. I said you will be in so much trouble so he said you would put me up Jac wouldn't you and I thought cheeky monkey still a player. I think he needs to be with his male friends or I suggested a one way ticket to Australia
-
It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?
Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.
That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.
1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?
2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible . She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman. An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court. Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber. In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.
Didn't he tell other witnesses that he could kill his family. It all adds up to one thing in my estimation.
Sorry, two things, he also could be psychotic and delusional.
None of the many psychiatrists and psychologists who have examined Jeremy Bamber over the past 26 years support your view.
Why is it ok to believe the psychiatrists who give expert opinion on behalf of the defence, and yet we are always told that the experts who worked on behalf of the prosecution (pathologists, forensic scientists etc.) were either incompetent or in on some kind of conspiracy?
The psychiatrists work for the prison service !!
-
Why is it ok to believe the psychiatrists who give expert opinion on behalf of the defence, and yet we are always told that the experts who worked on behalf of the prosecution (pathologists, forensic scientists etc.) were either incompetent or in on some kind of conspiracy?
In any case, they examined him long after the event, not prior to it or while it took place.
Isn't there a medical condition which manifests itself in such delusional ramblings and which ultimately ends in the paranoia becoming a real event?
-
It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?
Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.
That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.
1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?
2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible . She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman. An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court. Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber. In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.
Didn't he tell other witnesses that he could kill his family. It all adds up to one thing in my estimation.
Sorry, two things, he also could be psychotic and delusional.
None of the many psychiatrists and psychologists who have examined Jeremy Bamber over the past 26 years support your view.
Why is it ok to believe the psychiatrists who give expert opinion on behalf of the defence, and yet we are always told that the experts who worked on behalf of the prosecution (pathologists, forensic scientists etc.) were either incompetent or in on some kind of conspiracy?
The psychiatrists and psychologists who have examined Jeremy Bamber have not given evidence on behalf of the defence. They were instructed by the prison service to prepare reports as is always the case with prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment (and some others).
I do not believe it is part of Jeremy Bamber's case that every pathologist and forensic scientist instructed by the prosecution was "either incompetent or in on some kind of conspiracy".
-
So what do you call a guy who boasts about killing his family?
A cheeky monkey? :-\
Well I did make him laugh on Saturday because I said he was causing havoc with women when he was 24 and I think he still is now. I said if he gets released there will be all these women outside in cars waiting for him. I said you will be in so much trouble so he said you would put me up Jac wouldn't you and I thought cheeky monkey still a player. I think he needs to be with his male friends or I suggested a one way ticket to Australia
I reminded her that they do not transport to the colonies any more.
In any event he would be lucky to get a day trip to the Isle of Wight never mind a one way ticket to Aussieland.
-
1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?
Likewise, why would you so matter of factly state it as significant? I am merely pointing out that it is not significant at all.2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible . She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman. An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court. Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber. In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.
That's not the point and not what I said.
JM gave evidence stating what JB had told her.
She did not give evidence stating what JB had done, unless what JB had done coincided with what he had told JM.
Anyway we're moving into the territory of arguing for the sake of it, it seems.
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
I agree that there is no point in arguing any further about the other point.
-
It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?
Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.
That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.
1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?
2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible . She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman. An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court. Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber. In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.
Didn't he tell other witnesses that he could kill his family. It all adds up to one thing in my estimation.
Sorry, two things, he also could be psychotic and delusional.
None of the many psychiatrists and psychologists who have examined Jeremy Bamber over the past 26 years support your view.
So what do you call a guy who boasts about killing his family?
I could think of some choice words to describe someone who did that.
-
Jerry where is the proof JB boasted of killing his whole family
Or
Is it mere speculation
-
1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?
Likewise, why would you so matter of factly state it as significant? I am merely pointing out that it is not significant at all.
2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible . She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman. An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court. Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber. In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.
That's not the point and not what I said.
JM gave evidence stating what JB had told her.
She did not give evidence stating what JB had done, unless what JB had done coincided with what he had told JM.
Anyway we're moving into the territory of arguing for the sake of it, it seems.
Didn't Julie say when she came over on the last appeal, "I put him there (in prison) and there he will stay", or words to that effect? So however way you choose to look at it, the court certainly took it as her evidence that convicted Bamber, therefore it was her testimony in "saying" what she said what JB said to her that convicted Bamber not the words of Bamber, but "her" words and therefore the court chose to believe "her" testimony. Unfortunately none of us have the luxury of not being responsible for our own words whether they be truth or lies by sitting back claiming that they were not our words. You cannot play with words like that. Either her testimony was hers or it was not. If it was her testimony then she is responsible for her own words. Moreover if those words turn out in the end to be lies, then she will be judged by that same testimony that sent JB to prison.
-
Jerry where is the proof JB boasted of killing his whole family
Or
Is it mere speculation
Read the statements.
-
1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?
Likewise, why would you so matter of factly state it as significant? I am merely pointing out that it is not significant at all.
2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible . She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman. An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court. Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber. In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.
That's not the point and not what I said.
JM gave evidence stating what JB had told her.
She did not give evidence stating what JB had done, unless what JB had done coincided with what he had told JM.
Anyway we're moving into the territory of arguing for the sake of it, it seems.
Didn't Julie say when she came over on the last appeal, "I put him there (in prison) and there he will stay", or words to that effect? So however way you choose to look at it, the court certainly took it as her evidence that convicted Bamber, therefore it was her testimony in "saying" what she said what JB said to her that convicted Bamber not the words of Bamber, but "her" words and therefore the court chose to believe "her" testimony. Unfortunately none of us have the luxury of not being responsible for our own words whether they be truth or lies by sitting back claiming that they were not our words. You cannot play with words like that. Either her testimony was hers or it was not. If it was her testimony then she is responsible for her own words. Moreover if those words turn out in the end to be lies, then she will be judged by that same testimony that sent JB to prison.
Grahame - you have put this across very well and made my point more clearly than I managed to do. You ought to be a lawyer!
-
Jerry do you support everything being released under PII
Jerry so it is mere speculation after reading statements
-
I PUT BAMBER IN PRISON ... AND THAT'S WHERE HE SHOULD STAY
THEN, she was the beautiful 21-year-old brunette whose evidence was vital in convicting her boyfriend Jeremy Bamber of the cold- blooded murder of his whole family.
Now, she is a respectable and matronly mother-of-two, a tireless charity worker and the deputy head of a primary school in Canada.
Everything about Julie Mugford's life has changed except for one crucial fact - she is still utterly convinced Bamber DID slaughter his adoptive parents Nevill and June, his sister Sheila Caffell and her twin six-year-old sons Nicholas and Daniel at the family's Essex farmhouse in 1985.
Bamber, 39, was given five life sentences for the killings. At the trial, Julie's evidence that he had bragged to her about committing the perfect murder and phoned her before the slaughter to say: "It's tonight or never" was vital in securing a guilty verdict.
He is now relying on DNA evidence not available 15 years ago to fight his conviction, and if successful could be free by Christmas.
Julie, now 36, said: "I thought this was long in the past. The last few weeks have been a nightmare. As far as I am concerned nothing has changed - I sincerely believe he is guilty. Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life.
"And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case I still believe he is guilty. He has a right to appeal, that is the law. It is just very hard for me to accept.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20010401/ai_n14524991/
-
Grahame woop woop!!!
You must be chuffed by that statement and you are poorly x
-
Jerry where is the proof JB boasted of killing his whole family
Or
Is it mere speculation
Read the statements.
The only "proof" of JB's "boast" is in the evidence given by Julie Mugford.
-
Jerry where is the proof JB boasted of killing his whole family
Or
Is it mere speculation
Read the statements.
The only "proof" of JB's "boast" is in the evidence given by Julie Mugford.
You would like to think so but have a rummage and you will find he said it to others.
-
Jerry where is the proof JB boasted of killing his whole family
Or
Is it mere speculation
Read the statements.
The only "proof" of JB's "boast" is in the evidence given by Julie Mugford.
You would like to think so but have a rummage and you will find he said it to others.
Would you care to do the rummaging and enlighten us all?
-
Jeremy was known to his relatives as a ruthless operator obsessed with obtaining money. Since he’d returned from various overseas jaunts and settled into a job on the farm, he’d complained bitterly about being paid a labourer’s wage, comparing Nevill and June’s treatment of him unfavourably with Sheila’s subsidised existence in Maida Vale (Bamber enjoyed much in the way of subsidy himself – he lived rent free in the Goldhanger cottage and had access to a car and as much free petrol as he wanted). At a meeting to discuss dealing with trespassers at a family-owned caravan site in which he held an 8% share, Jeremy had shocked his Uncle Bobby with the observation “I’d have no trouble killing anyone. I could easily kill my own parents”. (Bamber later admitted robbing the premises in March 1985, stealing nearly £1,000 from a safe).
-
What amazing supporters JB has!!!!!!!
-
Jeremy was known to his relatives as a ruthless operator obsessed with obtaining money. Since he’d returned from various overseas jaunts and settled into a job on the farm, he’d complained bitterly about being paid a labourer’s wage, comparing Nevill and June’s treatment of him unfavourably with Sheila’s subsidised existence in Maida Vale (Bamber enjoyed much in the way of subsidy himself – he lived rent free in the Goldhanger cottage and had access to a car and as much free petrol as he wanted). At a meeting to discuss dealing with trespassers at a family-owned caravan site in which he held an 8% share, Jeremy had shocked his Uncle Bobby with the observation “I’d have no trouble killing anyone. I could easily kill my own parents”. (Bamber later admitted robbing the premises in March 1985, stealing nearly £1,000 from a safe).
But where is the "boasting of killing his whole family"? Is some further rummaging necessary?
-
Splitting words was your trade but it doesn't work in the real world. In any event it was Jackie who said "his whole family" after I stated "his family".
He said it so get over it.
It certainly raises the question as to who in their right mind would raise such a matter never mind boast about doing so. I am not surprised that Robert Boutflour was shocked.
-
Jerry do you support getting everything released under PII
-
Jerry do you support getting everything released under PII
No
-
Splitting words was your trade but it doesn't work in the real world. In any event it was Jackie who said "his whole family" after I stated "his family".
He said it so get over it.
It certainly raises the question as to who in their right mind would raise such a matter never mind boast about doing so. I am not surprised that Robert Boutflour was shocked.
"boasting about killing his family" as you well know implies boasting about the murders after committing them. You do not need to be legally qualified to understand the ordinary meaning of words.
-
jerry I knew you would say that never mind because it will be I am going to make sure it is.
-
Splitting words was your trade but it doesn't work in the real world. In any event it was Jackie who said "his whole family" after I stated "his family".
He said it so get over it.
It certainly raises the question as to who in their right mind would raise such a matter never mind boast about doing so. I am not surprised that Robert Boutflour was shocked.
"boasting about killing his family" as you well know implies boasting about the murders after committing them. You do not need to be legally qualified to understand the ordinary meaning of words.
It can be taken either way but in any event these boasts to Robert and then Julie and others was made prior to the murders as well you already know.
He also boasted to Julie after the murders that he had engaged a hitman to do it for hi. Now I wonder what had changed for him to tell her this?
Not the sort of thing you make up is it?
-
jerry I knew you would say that never mind because it will be I am going to make sure it is.
There are reasons why some information will never be released so your reference to all is a non starter.
-
Splitting words was your trade but it doesn't work in the real world. In any event it was Jackie who said "his whole family" after I stated "his family".
He said it so get over it.
It certainly raises the question as to who in their right mind would raise such a matter never mind boast about doing so. I am not surprised that Robert Boutflour was shocked.
"boasting about killing his family" as you well know implies boasting about the murders after committing them. You do not need to be legally qualified to understand the ordinary meaning of words.
It can be taken either way but in any event these boasts to Robert and then Julie and others was made prior to the murders as well you already know.
He also boasted to Julie after the murders that he had engaged a hitman to do it for hi. Now I wonder what had changed for him to tell her this?
Not the sort of thing you make up is it?
That is exactly the point. Each of these statements is strongly contested by Jeremy Bamber, and "made up" would certainly be his mild description of the evidence of the statements he was alleged to have made about killing his family.
-
Jerry where is the proof JB boasted of killing his whole family
Or
Is it mere speculation
Read the statements.
The only "proof" of JB's "boast" is in the evidence given by Julie Mugford.
Exactly, and what a tangled web that 'proof' was.
JM told three different stories of these murders.
Story 1.
When she was first interviewed - in early August, before she was jilted - JM's first story supported Jeremy's account of what happened on the night of the murders and during the period leading up to the that night.
JM, for example, said in her first statement that Jeremy was disorientated and worried when he rang her at her digs.
Story 2.
When she was was interviewed a month later, in September - after JM had been jilted - JM's then story had dramatically changed. JM then alleged that Jeremy had been planning for some time to kill his entire immediate family and had told her that he had hired a hitman, Mathew Macdonald, to kill five members of his family.
JM further stated that Jeremy had told her during telephone conversations on the night/morning of the murders, "tonight's the night" and "all's going well, there's trouble at the farm".
Story 3.
At the time of Jeremy's Appeal, JM claimed "I sincerely believe he is guilty". As it was established at the trial that, among so many other glaring errors in her testimony, JM was wrong about the hitman, who proved to have an alibi, and as Jeremy was found guilty of murdering his family in person, then JM could only mean that her latest story was that Jeremy Bamber had himself committed the murders.
-
You see Jerry that's the difference with you and other guilty posters nearly all of them would like everything released held under PII
We have just had a situation where a number of photographs have been made available for the defence after many years
There is no reasonable excuse given for why this has happened
Disgraceful
Maybe JB s case will put an end to this secrecy once and for all
Jerry what is your reason?
-
Splitting words was your trade but it doesn't work in the real world. In any event it was Jackie who said "his whole family" after I stated "his family".
He said it so get over it.
It certainly raises the question as to who in their right mind would raise such a matter never mind boast about doing so. I am not surprised that Robert Boutflour was shocked.
"boasting about killing his family" as you well know implies boasting about the murders after committing them. You do not need to be legally qualified to understand the ordinary meaning of words.
It can be taken either way but in any event these boasts to Robert and then Julie and others was made prior to the murders as well you already know.
He also boasted to Julie after the murders that he had engaged a hitman to do it for hi. Now I wonder what had changed for him to tell her this?
Not the sort of thing you make up is it?
That is exactly the point. Each of these statements is strongly contested by Jeremy Bamber, and "made up" would certainly be his mild description of the evidence of the statements he was alleged to have made about killing his family.
NGB
As a non practising barrister how much valididty is there in what Jeremy stated in his original statement on 8th August when he was interviewed as a witness when this statement is compared to what is being claimed 26 years later or is detailed in recordings of Jeremy's comments which are in the public domain.
It is detailed
'[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
I am sure you will be aware there are significant differences.
In the eyes of the law which statements will hold more evidential value / weight?
-
Jerry, you're not going to like my video.
But the case is vast enough and has so many strands and aspects, that there is room for all of us to portray our stance.
-
Splitting words was your trade but it doesn't work in the real world. In any event it was Jackie who said "his whole family" after I stated "his family".
He said it so get over it.
It certainly raises the question as to who in their right mind would raise such a matter never mind boast about doing so. I am not surprised that Robert Boutflour was shocked.
"boasting about killing his family" as you well know implies boasting about the murders after committing them. You do not need to be legally qualified to understand the ordinary meaning of words.
It can be taken either way but in any event these boasts to Robert and then Julie and others was made prior to the murders as well you already know.
He also boasted to Julie after the murders that he had engaged a hitman to do it for hi. Now I wonder what had changed for him to tell her this?
Not the sort of thing you make up is it?
That is exactly the point. Each of these statements is strongly contested by Jeremy Bamber, and "made up" would certainly be his mild description of the evidence of the statements he was alleged to have made about killing his family.
NGB
As a non practising barrister how much valididty is there in what Jeremy stated in his original statement on 8th August when he was interviewed as a witness when this statement is compared to what is being claimed 26 years later or is detailed in recordings of Jeremy's comments which are in the public domain.
It is detailed
'[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
I am sure you will be aware there are significant differences.
In the eyes of the law which statements will hold more evidential value / weight?
the extract you speak of "curious" is exactly what...a summary.... where is the source document...
what provenance have you got for the source document....and in what circumstances was the statement taken that this summary extract is formulated from... it may be hearsay or a fabrication!!
-
Splitting words was your trade but it doesn't work in the real world. In any event it was Jackie who said "his whole family" after I stated "his family".
He said it so get over it.
It certainly raises the question as to who in their right mind would raise such a matter never mind boast about doing so. I am not surprised that Robert Boutflour was shocked.
"boasting about killing his family" as you well know implies boasting about the murders after committing them. You do not need to be legally qualified to understand the ordinary meaning of words.
It can be taken either way but in any event these boasts to Robert and then Julie and others was made prior to the murders as well you already know.
He also boasted to Julie after the murders that he had engaged a hitman to do it for hi. Now I wonder what had changed for him to tell her this?
Not the sort of thing you make up is it?
That is exactly the point. Each of these statements is strongly contested by Jeremy Bamber, and "made up" would certainly be his mild description of the evidence of the statements he was alleged to have made about killing his family.
NGB
As a non practising barrister how much valididty is there in what Jeremy stated in his original statement on 8th August when he was interviewed as a witness when this statement is compared to what is being claimed 26 years later or is detailed in recordings of Jeremy's comments which are in the public domain.
It is detailed
'[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
I am sure you will be aware there are significant differences.
In the eyes of the law which statements will hold more evidential value / weight?
the extract you speak of "curious" is exactly what...a summary.... where is the source document...
what provenance have you got for the source document....and in what circumstances was the statement taken that this summary extract is formulated from... it may be hearsay or a fabrication!!
Smiffy
The extract is detailed on page 136 of the book 'Blood Relations' by Roger Wilkes.
I have also included below what preceeds the extracted content........
' Stan Jones reminded Jeremy Bamber that he had been asked by several police officers about his actions that night, and that he had said he phoned the police before calling Julie. So what was the correct order?
'I don't remember,' said Jeremy, 'but my first statement was done at the time and must be correct.'
[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
-
Splitting words was your trade but it doesn't work in the real world. In any event it was Jackie who said "his whole family" after I stated "his family".
He said it so get over it.
It certainly raises the question as to who in their right mind would raise such a matter never mind boast about doing so. I am not surprised that Robert Boutflour was shocked.
"boasting about killing his family" as you well know implies boasting about the murders after committing them. You do not need to be legally qualified to understand the ordinary meaning of words.
It can be taken either way but in any event these boasts to Robert and then Julie and others was made prior to the murders as well you already know.
He also boasted to Julie after the murders that he had engaged a hitman to do it for hi. Now I wonder what had changed for him to tell her this?
Not the sort of thing you make up is it?
That is exactly the point. Each of these statements is strongly contested by Jeremy Bamber, and "made up" would certainly be his mild description of the evidence of the statements he was alleged to have made about killing his family.
NGB
As a non practising barrister how much valididty is there in what Jeremy stated in his original statement on 8th August when he was interviewed as a witness when this statement is compared to what is being claimed 26 years later or is detailed in recordings of Jeremy's comments which are in the public domain.
It is detailed
'[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
I am sure you will be aware there are significant differences.
In the eyes of the law which statements will hold more evidential value / weight?
As a matter of law there is no difference in evidential value between statements made at different times. It is the evidence given by witnesses in court which is the key evidence, and those witnessses can be cross examined about inconsistencies between their oral evidence and what they have stated in earlier written statements. As a general rule the recollection of a witness is likely to be more accurate the earlier a witness statement is made, but there can obviously be exceptions to this, for example if a witness is in shock at the time of making the earliest statement. In Jeremy Bamber's case it should be remembered that his earliest statements were taken from him when he was being treated as a witness and the police had already reached a firm view on the four murders and a suicide theory. They were likely therefore not to be so concerned about detail than they were when much later interviewing Jeremy Bamber as a suspect.
-
Splitting words was your trade but it doesn't work in the real world. In any event it was Jackie who said "his whole family" after I stated "his family".
He said it so get over it.
It certainly raises the question as to who in their right mind would raise such a matter never mind boast about doing so. I am not surprised that Robert Boutflour was shocked.
"boasting about killing his family" as you well know implies boasting about the murders after committing them. You do not need to be legally qualified to understand the ordinary meaning of words.
It can be taken either way but in any event these boasts to Robert and then Julie and others was made prior to the murders as well you already know.
He also boasted to Julie after the murders that he had engaged a hitman to do it for hi. Now I wonder what had changed for him to tell her this?
Not the sort of thing you make up is it?
That is exactly the point. Each of these statements is strongly contested by Jeremy Bamber, and "made up" would certainly be his mild description of the evidence of the statements he was alleged to have made about killing his family.
NGB
As a non practising barrister how much valididty is there in what Jeremy stated in his original statement on 8th August when he was interviewed as a witness when this statement is compared to what is being claimed 26 years later or is detailed in recordings of Jeremy's comments which are in the public domain.
It is detailed
'[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
I am sure you will be aware there are significant differences.
In the eyes of the law which statements will hold more evidential value / weight?
As a matter of law there is no difference in evidential value between statements made at different times. It is the evidence given by witnesses in court which is the key evidence, and those witnessses can be cross examined about inconsistencies between their oral evidence and what they have stated in earlier written statements. As a general rule the recollection of a witness is likely to be more accurate the earlier a witness statement is made, but there can obviously be exceptions to this, for example if a witness is in shock at the time of making the earliest statement. In Jeremy Bamber's case it should be remembered that his earliest statements were taken from him when he was being treated as a witness and the police had already reached a firm view on the four murders and a suicide theory. They were likely therefore not to be so concerned about detail than they were when much later interviewing Jeremy Bamber as a suspect.
Given your reply does it make any difference if Jeremy when interviewed as a suspect he refers back to his original statement as being 'done at the time and must be correct'.
The following is detailed on page 136 in the book 'Blood Relations'.
' Stan Jones reminded Jeremy Bamber that he had been asked by several police officers about his actions that night, and that he had said he phoned the police before calling Julie. So what was the correct order?
'I don't remember,' said Jeremy, 'but my first statement was done at the time and must be correct.'
[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
-
NGB
In case you have not heard Jeremy talking about the telephone call from Nevill and subsequently the police I have included a link below for a recoridng which is available on the mirror website -
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/
-
NGB
In case you have not heard Jeremy talking about the telephone call from Nevill and subsequently the police I have included a link below for a recoridng which is available on the mirror website -
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/
Yes - thank you for the link. I listened to this when it was first published by the Daily Mirror.
-
NGB
In case you have not heard Jeremy talking about the telephone call from Nevill and subsequently the police I have included a link below for a recoridng which is available on the mirror website -
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/
Yes - thank you for the link. I listened to this when it was first published by the Daily Mirror.
...... and with regard to the inconsistencies / differentials could it be argued that indirectly Jeremy is contesting his own statements.
I note your comment from Jeremy's perspective in relation to statements made by others
'Each of these statements is strongly contested by Jeremy Bamber, and "made up" would certainly be his mild description of the evidence of the statements he was alleged to have made about killing his family.'
Whilst difficult these are questions which I am sure the prosecution will want answers........
This I believe will be a major obstacle for Jeremy and his team to overcome should he gain the retrial it has been stated he wants.
-
Splitting words was your trade but it doesn't work in the real world. In any event it was Jackie who said "his whole family" after I stated "his family".
He said it so get over it.
It certainly raises the question as to who in their right mind would raise such a matter never mind boast about doing so. I am not surprised that Robert Boutflour was shocked.
"boasting about killing his family" as you well know implies boasting about the murders after committing them. You do not need to be legally qualified to understand the ordinary meaning of words.
It can be taken either way but in any event these boasts to Robert and then Julie and others was made prior to the murders as well you already know.
He also boasted to Julie after the murders that he had engaged a hitman to do it for hi. Now I wonder what had changed for him to tell her this?
Not the sort of thing you make up is it?
That is exactly the point. Each of these statements is strongly contested by Jeremy Bamber, and "made up" would certainly be his mild description of the evidence of the statements he was alleged to have made about killing his family.
NGB
As a non practising barrister how much valididty is there in what Jeremy stated in his original statement on 8th August when he was interviewed as a witness when this statement is compared to what is being claimed 26 years later or is detailed in recordings of Jeremy's comments which are in the public domain.
It is detailed
'[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
I am sure you will be aware there are significant differences.
In the eyes of the law which statements will hold more evidential value / weight?
As a matter of law there is no difference in evidential value between statements made at different times. It is the evidence given by witnesses in court which is the key evidence, and those witnessses can be cross examined about inconsistencies between their oral evidence and what they have stated in earlier written statements. As a general rule the recollection of a witness is likely to be more accurate the earlier a witness statement is made, but there can obviously be exceptions to this, for example if a witness is in shock at the time of making the earliest statement. In Jeremy Bamber's case it should be remembered that his earliest statements were taken from him when he was being treated as a witness and the police had already reached a firm view on the four murders and a suicide theory. They were likely therefore not to be so concerned about detail than they were when much later interviewing Jeremy Bamber as a suspect.
Given your reply does it make any difference if Jeremy when interviewed as a suspect he refers back to his original statement as being 'done at the time and must be correct'.
The following is detailed on page 136 in the book 'Blood Relations'.
' Stan Jones reminded Jeremy Bamber that he had been asked by several police officers about his actions that night, and that he had said he phoned the police before calling Julie. So what was the correct order?
'I don't remember,' said Jeremy, 'but my first statement was done at the time and must be correct.'
[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
I replied to this message at some length a few minutes ago but I clearly did something stupid and it did not get posted. I will therefore try again.
I understand the point you are making and I accept that it deserves a proper answer. I agree that generally an earlier witness statement is likely to be more accurate than a later one. However I also believe that inaccuracies in times given for specific events and for the duration of those events can arise either from dishonesty or as a result of genuine mistake. The risk of a mistake is all the greater when the witness is being questioned when tired, under stress or even in shock.
I agree that there are discrepancies between the various pieces of evidence concerning timings in this part of the case. I personally do not see them as a critical factor in determining what happened that night because there are too few genuine "fixed points" in time accepted by all witnesses. I accept and respect the fact that you and others who post here disagree with me on that. I believe that other factors and pieces of evidence will ultimately be the key to unlocking this case.
I must emphasise that the views I have expressed on this are my own and do not result from any discussions with Jeremy Bamber or his team (I have in fact had no discussions with them on this aspect of the case).
-
Vidvic - again I find your goading of Jackie unattractive to say the least, particular for a site "Global Moderator". You are aware that Jeremy Bamber and his team have been concerned at new material being posted publicly, in particular on this forum, before they have had a chance to evaluate that new material properly. Jackie is following the reasonable requests of Jeremy Bamber's team in this regard, as they do not want to set hares running and damage the work which they are carrying out. You should respect this rather than ridicule it.
Dear Ngb,
I'm sorry that you feel this way about my posts to Jackie but I don't think on this occasion you've followed the thread.
Jackie asked me if she could prove financial problems in the family, would I be more inclined to believe JB to be innocent. I said I'd love to see it.
She then told me I wouldn't have long to wait.
I then stated that she didn't have the evidence she was going to show me.
It then dawned on me that this was the new 'dynamite' evidence.
It wasn't goading at all. Jackie suggested she was going to show me info but then didn't show me anything. My conscience is clear on this occasion.
-
NGB
In case you have not heard Jeremy talking about the telephone call from Nevill and subsequently the police I have included a link below for a recoridng which is available on the mirror website -
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/
Yes - thank you for the link. I listened to this when it was first published by the Daily Mirror.
...... and with regard to the inconsistencies / differentials could it be argued that indirectly Jeremy is contesting his own statements.
I note your comment from Jeremy's perspective in relation to statements made by others
'Each of these statements is strongly contested by Jeremy Bamber, and "made up" would certainly be his mild description of the evidence of the statements he was alleged to have made about killing his family.'
Whilst difficult these are questions which I am sure the prosecution will want answers........
This I believe will be a major obstacle for Jeremy and his team to overcome should he gain the retrial it has been stated he wants.
Jeremy does want a retrial because he wants the opportunity for some key witnesses to be cross examined with the benefit of material now available but not available at trial. If there is a retial ordered I agree that Jeremy will be cross examined in detail about his statements to the police (initially as a witness but subsequently as a suspect) and he will have to deal with any discrepancies between the written statements and his oral evidence. However as I have posted before I believe a retrial is very unlikely in this case and if the Court of Appeal allow the appeal Jeremy Bamber will be found not guilty on each of the five counts of murder.
I believe it is other evidence which will be the key to Jeremy Bamber's case being referred to the Court of Appeal. However, I accept that the issue of the timings of telephone calls is a legitimate one for examination by those interested in this case.
-
Splitting words was your trade but it doesn't work in the real world. In any event it was Jackie who said "his whole family" after I stated "his family".
He said it so get over it.
It certainly raises the question as to who in their right mind would raise such a matter never mind boast about doing so. I am not surprised that Robert Boutflour was shocked.
"boasting about killing his family" as you well know implies boasting about the murders after committing them. You do not need to be legally qualified to understand the ordinary meaning of words.
It can be taken either way but in any event these boasts to Robert and then Julie and others was made prior to the murders as well you already know.
He also boasted to Julie after the murders that he had engaged a hitman to do it for hi. Now I wonder what had changed for him to tell her this?
Not the sort of thing you make up is it?
That is exactly the point. Each of these statements is strongly contested by Jeremy Bamber, and "made up" would certainly be his mild description of the evidence of the statements he was alleged to have made about killing his family.
NGB
As a non practising barrister how much valididty is there in what Jeremy stated in his original statement on 8th August when he was interviewed as a witness when this statement is compared to what is being claimed 26 years later or is detailed in recordings of Jeremy's comments which are in the public domain.
It is detailed
'[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
I am sure you will be aware there are significant differences.
In the eyes of the law which statements will hold more evidential value / weight?
As a matter of law there is no difference in evidential value between statements made at different times. It is the evidence given by witnesses in court which is the key evidence, and those witnessses can be cross examined about inconsistencies between their oral evidence and what they have stated in earlier written statements. As a general rule the recollection of a witness is likely to be more accurate the earlier a witness statement is made, but there can obviously be exceptions to this, for example if a witness is in shock at the time of making the earliest statement. In Jeremy Bamber's case it should be remembered that his earliest statements were taken from him when he was being treated as a witness and the police had already reached a firm view on the four murders and a suicide theory. They were likely therefore not to be so concerned about detail than they were when much later interviewing Jeremy Bamber as a suspect.
Given your reply does it make any difference if Jeremy when interviewed as a suspect he refers back to his original statement as being 'done at the time and must be correct'.
The following is detailed on page 136 in the book 'Blood Relations'.
' Stan Jones reminded Jeremy Bamber that he had been asked by several police officers about his actions that night, and that he had said he phoned the police before calling Julie. So what was the correct order?
'I don't remember,' said Jeremy, 'but my first statement was done at the time and must be correct.'
[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
I replied to this message at some length a few minutes ago but I clearly did something stupid and it did not get posted. I will therefore try again.
I understand the point you are making and I accept that it deserves a proper answer. I agree that generally an earlier witness statement is likely to be more accurate than a later one. However I also believe that inaccuracies in times given for specific events and for the duration of those events can be wrong, either as a result of dishonesty or as a result of genuine mistake. The risk of a mistake is all the greater when the witness is being questioned when tired, under stress or even in shock.
I agree that there are discrepancies between the various pieces of evidence concerning timings in this part of the case. I personally do not see them as a critical factor in determining what happened that night but I accept and respect the fact that you and others who post here disagree with me on that. I believe that other factors and pieces of evidence will ultimately be the key to unlocking this case.
I must emphasise that the views I have expressed on this are my own and do not result from any discussions with Jeremy Bamber or his team (I have in fact had no discussions with them on this aspect of the case).
NGB
Our posts have crossed.
I am sure you will have seen I have since added the following -
...... and with regard to the inconsistencies / differentials could it be argued that indirectly Jeremy is contesting his own statements.
I note your comment from Jeremy's perspective in relation to statements made by others
'Each of these statements is strongly contested by Jeremy Bamber, and "made up" would certainly be his mild description of the evidence of the statements he was alleged to have made about killing his family.'
Whilst difficult these are questions which I am sure the prosecution will want answers........
This I believe will be a major obstacle for Jeremy and his team to overcome should he gain the retrial it has been stated he wants.
Given your reply above to which this post replies you mentioned
'However I also believe that inaccuracies in times given for specific events and for the duration of those events can be wrong, either as a result of dishonesty or as a result of genuine mistake. The risk of a mistake is all the greater when the witness is being questioned when tired, under stress or even in shock.'
3 Questions
1 - What about in the eyes of the law as opposed to your beliefs?
2 - Do you believe the same leeway applies to other witnesses?
3 - Same question as 2 above but from the perspective of the eyes of the law?
-
Splitting words was your trade but it doesn't work in the real world. In any event it was Jackie who said "his whole family" after I stated "his family".
He said it so get over it.
It certainly raises the question as to who in their right mind would raise such a matter never mind boast about doing so. I am not surprised that Robert Boutflour was shocked.
"boasting about killing his family" as you well know implies boasting about the murders after committing them. You do not need to be legally qualified to understand the ordinary meaning of words.
It can be taken either way but in any event these boasts to Robert and then Julie and others was made prior to the murders as well you already know.
He also boasted to Julie after the murders that he had engaged a hitman to do it for hi. Now I wonder what had changed for him to tell her this?
Not the sort of thing you make up is it?
That is exactly the point. Each of these statements is strongly contested by Jeremy Bamber, and "made up" would certainly be his mild description of the evidence of the statements he was alleged to have made about killing his family.
NGB
As a non practising barrister how much valididty is there in what Jeremy stated in his original statement on 8th August when he was interviewed as a witness when this statement is compared to what is being claimed 26 years later or is detailed in recordings of Jeremy's comments which are in the public domain.
It is detailed
'[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
I am sure you will be aware there are significant differences.
In the eyes of the law which statements will hold more evidential value / weight?
As a matter of law there is no difference in evidential value between statements made at different times. It is the evidence given by witnesses in court which is the key evidence, and those witnessses can be cross examined about inconsistencies between their oral evidence and what they have stated in earlier written statements. As a general rule the recollection of a witness is likely to be more accurate the earlier a witness statement is made, but there can obviously be exceptions to this, for example if a witness is in shock at the time of making the earliest statement. In Jeremy Bamber's case it should be remembered that his earliest statements were taken from him when he was being treated as a witness and the police had already reached a firm view on the four murders and a suicide theory. They were likely therefore not to be so concerned about detail than they were when much later interviewing Jeremy Bamber as a suspect.
Given your reply does it make any difference if Jeremy when interviewed as a suspect he refers back to his original statement as being 'done at the time and must be correct'.
The following is detailed on page 136 in the book 'Blood Relations'.
' Stan Jones reminded Jeremy Bamber that he had been asked by several police officers about his actions that night, and that he had said he phoned the police before calling Julie. So what was the correct order?
'I don't remember,' said Jeremy, 'but my first statement was done at the time and must be correct.'
[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
I replied to this message at some length a few minutes ago but I clearly did something stupid and it did not get posted. I will therefore try again.
I understand the point you are making and I accept that it deserves a proper answer. I agree that generally an earlier witness statement is likely to be more accurate than a later one. However I also believe that inaccuracies in times given for specific events and for the duration of those events can be wrong, either as a result of dishonesty or as a result of genuine mistake. The risk of a mistake is all the greater when the witness is being questioned when tired, under stress or even in shock.
I agree that there are discrepancies between the various pieces of evidence concerning timings in this part of the case. I personally do not see them as a critical factor in determining what happened that night but I accept and respect the fact that you and others who post here disagree with me on that. I believe that other factors and pieces of evidence will ultimately be the key to unlocking this case.
I must emphasise that the views I have expressed on this are my own and do not result from any discussions with Jeremy Bamber or his team (I have in fact had no discussions with them on this aspect of the case).
NGB
Our posts have crossed.
I am sure you will have seen I have since added the following -
...... and with regard to the inconsistencies / differentials could it be argued that indirectly Jeremy is contesting his own statements.
I note your comment from Jeremy's perspective in relation to statements made by others
'Each of these statements is strongly contested by Jeremy Bamber, and "made up" would certainly be his mild description of the evidence of the statements he was alleged to have made about killing his family.'
Whilst difficult these are questions which I am sure the prosecution will want answers........
This I believe will be a major obstacle for Jeremy and his team to overcome should he gain the retrial it has been stated he wants.
Given your reply above to which this post replies you mentioned
'However I also believe that inaccuracies in times given for specific events and for the duration of those events can be wrong, either as a result of dishonesty or as a result of genuine mistake. The risk of a mistake is all the greater when the witness is being questioned when tired, under stress or even in shock.'
3 Questions
1 - What about in the eyes of the law as opposed to your beliefs?
2 - Do you believe the same leeway applies to other witnesses?
3 - Same question as 2 above but from the perspective of the eyes of the law?
curiousessex - our posts did cross and in the meantime you will see I have made a minor edit to my post (which does not alter the point i was making).
In answer to your three questions above:
1. In the eyes of the law there are no absolute rules about the weight to be attached to conflicting details given by an individual witness. Although there are some exceptions to this, the law is only concerned with the admissability of a piece of evidence. The weight to be attached to that evidence, and any discrepancies within it, are for a jury to decide in evaluating the evidence as a whole.
2. The same applies to any witnesses - due account should be taken of explanations given by a prosecution witness for any discrepancies. Bear in mind however that in a criminal case the burden of proof rests throughout with the prosecution and the standard of proof is high. If there are two credible explanations in relation to a critical piece of evidence the benefit of the doubt should always be given to the defendant. It follows therefore that a discrepancy in the evidence of a defence witness leading to some genuine doubt on the point should lead to that point being conceded to the defence, with equivalent discrepacies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses also treated in the same way, i.e.in favour of the defence if the discrepancy gives rise to a genuine doubt about a particular issue. I hope that is clear.
3. The same answer as for 1 above.
-
Vidvic that is incorrect what you have posted
-
Vidvic
I then stated that she didn't have the evidence she was going to show me.
A lot of people might call that goading
When I said you wouldnt have long to wait I meant for the CCRC Vidvic show me if I gave any indication of not having long to wait
Jackie suggested she was going to show me info but then didn't show me anything.
my words were
"if I could"
Do you understand the word if Vicvid IF I COULD
-
Curiousessex we can go round and round in circles about the phone calls but JB was a naive boy of 24 who didnt even request a solicitor for three days because he probably thought the whole thing was ridiculous if he was innocent. I DONT THINK I COULD PUT THIS ANY CLEARER but for this mass murder that JB had alledgedly been planning for months he didnt even have a story or exact times worked out.
Then added to Mugfords initial statement about times and then subsequent statements about changed times and I think one of those was backed up by her partner in crime (from the fraud) nothing on that subject is straightforward. If JM was telling the truth about knowing when the murders happened (and there is not one shred of evidence to say she was) maybe we would have an answer to everything. Robert Boutflour was like a vulcher straight in finding out who would get the money.
You questioned Ngb earlier about if he was helping JB now its my turn are you one of the polieman involved in the case because I know from another policeman that a number of police involved in the case still live in Essex. Its just you seem obsessed with these timings as if you know the silencer is going to be discredited so you are looking for something else to look like JB is guilty
I would like to add that JB has got the very best people working on this case and mostly working for nothing because they believe this is a miscarriage of justice and this includes some of the best forensic scientists in England. A lot of students are working day and night on a number of other issues and in the end we will get as near to the truth as is physically possible
-
Splitting words was your trade but it doesn't work in the real world. In any event it was Jackie who said "his whole family" after I stated "his family".
He said it so get over it.
It certainly raises the question as to who in their right mind would raise such a matter never mind boast about doing so. I am not surprised that Robert Boutflour was shocked.
"boasting about killing his family" as you well know implies boasting about the murders after committing them. You do not need to be legally qualified to understand the ordinary meaning of words.
It can be taken either way but in any event these boasts to Robert and then Julie and others was made prior to the murders as well you already know.
He also boasted to Julie after the murders that he had engaged a hitman to do it for hi. Now I wonder what had changed for him to tell her this?
Not the sort of thing you make up is it?
That is exactly the point. Each of these statements is strongly contested by Jeremy Bamber, and "made up" would certainly be his mild description of the evidence of the statements he was alleged to have made about killing his family.
He would say that wouldn't he. I wonder why he eventually admitted trashing and robbing the caravan site office though. Did she have him by the balls on that one too? :)
-
Jerry where is the proof JB boasted of killing his whole family
Or
Is it mere speculation
Read the statements.
The only "proof" of JB's "boast" is in the evidence given by Julie Mugford.
Exactly, and what a tangled web that 'proof' was.
JM told three different stories of these murders.
Story 1.
When she was first interviewed - in early August, before she was jilted - JM's first story supported Jeremy's account of what happened on the night of the murders and during the period leading up to the that night.
JM, for example, said in her first statement that Jeremy was disorientated and worried when he rang her at her digs.
Story 2.
When she was was interviewed a month later, in September - after JM had been jilted - JM's then story had dramatically changed. JM then alleged that Jeremy had been planning for some time to kill his entire immediate family and had told her that he had hired a hitman, Mathew Macdonald, to kill five members of his family.
JM further stated that Jeremy had told her during telephone conversations on the night/morning of the murders, "tonight's the night" and "all's going well, there's trouble at the farm".
Story 3.
At the time of Jeremy's Appeal, JM claimed "I sincerely believe he is guilty". As it was established at the trial that, among so many other glaring errors in her testimony, JM was wrong about the hitman, who proved to have an alibi, and as Jeremy was found guilty of murdering his family in person, then JM could only mean that her latest story was that Jeremy Bamber had himself committed the murders.
I find the consistency in her statement quite compelling. As time went on she revealed more and more which is quite normal in such circumstances.
What you are interpreting as changes in her statements is merely a progression towards the truth as time went by.
-
You see Jerry that's the difference with you and other guilty posters nearly all of them would like everything released held under PII
We have just had a situation where a number of photographs have been made available for the defence after many years
There is no reasonable excuse given for why this has happened
Disgraceful
Maybe JB s case will put an end to this secrecy once and for all
Jerry what is your reason?
And have the photographs been of any use after all these years? Are they the holy grail which will see Jeremy Bamber released?
I bet they are absolutely useless as regards any appeal.
-
Jerry, you're not going to like my video.
But the case is vast enough and has so many strands and aspects, that there is room for all of us to portray our stance.
As long as it is based on fact and not fiction I will like it.
-
It is extremely interesting that when Jeremy was challenged and outsmarted about the order in which he made the consecutive telephone calls to Julie Mugford and the police, his reaction was to immediately say that he could not remember.
Classic signs of a liar.
-
Jerry the caravan robbery is no indication that someone would go on to murder 5 people
Try to get things into perspective Jerry there is NO evidence to prove Jeremy is guilty of the murders the prosecution could not even show how JB "got away from the scene" dispite R Boutflour scouring for tyre tracks
By the way Jerry if you have the documents to hand have you got the dates and times Robert Boutflour was trying to find out what would happen to the Bamber inheritance if JB was convicted
-
I do.
-
Curiousessex we can go round and round in circles about the phone calls but JB was a naive boy of 24 who didnt even request a solicitor for three days because he probably thought the whole thing was ridiculous if he was innocent. I DONT THINK I COULD PUT THIS ANY CLEARER but for this mass murder that JB had alledgedly been planning for months he didnt even have a story or exact times worked out.
Then added to Mugfords initial statement about times and then subsequent statements about changed times and I think one of those was backed up by her partner in crime (from the fraud) nothing on that subject is straightforward. If JM was telling the truth about knowing when the murders happened (and there is not one shred of evidence to say she was) maybe we would have an answer to everything. Robert Boutflour was like a vulcher straight in finding out who would get the money.
You questioned Ngb earlier about if he was helping JB now its my turn are you one of the polieman involved in the case because I know from another policeman that a number of police involved in the case still live in Essex. Its just you seem obsessed with these timings as if you know the silencer is going to be discredited so you are looking for something else to look like JB is guilty
I would like to add that JB has got the very best people working on this case and mostly working for nothing because they believe this is a miscarriage of justice and this includes some of the best forensic scientists in England. A lot of students are working day and night on a number of other issues and in the end we will get as near to the truth as is physically possible
Such a pity they are going to be disappointed then isn't it?
-
Jerry the caravan robbery is no indication that someone would go on to murder 5 people
Try to get things into perspective Jerry there is NO evidence to prove Jeremy is guilty of the murders the prosecution could not even show how JB "got away from the scene" dispite R Boutflour scouring for tyre tracks
By the way Jerry if you have the documents to hand have you got the dates and times Robert Boutflour was trying to find out what would happen to the Bamber inheritance if JB was convicted
No it doesn't but it does expose a character who was quite able and more than willing to bring distress upon his family in order to make financial gains and mores to the point, lie through his teeth about it afterwards.
The evidence of his guilt was there for all to see and the jury concurred with that.
-
Come on post details of Robert Boutflour checking how soon he could get his hands on the Bamber family fortunes. Couldn't do the decent manly thing and identify the bodies more interested in getting his hands on the money
What a very jealous unpleasant man
-
Come on post details of Robert Boutflour checking how soon he could get his hands on the Bamber family fortunes. Couldn't do the decent manly thing and identify the bodies more interested in getting his hands on the money
What a very jealous unpleasant man
You clearly have not the slightest idea of the events surrounding the identifying of bodies.
-
Come on post details of Robert Boutflour checking how soon he could get his hands on the Bamber family fortunes. Couldn't do the decent manly thing and identify the bodies more interested in getting his hands on the money
What a very jealous unpleasant man
You clearly have not the slightest idea of the events surrounding the identifying of bodies.
Cloud-cuckoo-land would be closer to the point.
-
Come on fill me in I have read the fairy tales of Ann Eatons trip to the mortuary
-
Come on fill me in I have read the fairy tales of Ann Eatons trip to the mortuary
Jac I've got no intention of doing your research for you, I've pointed you in different directions enough already. The information is around in the public domain.
-
There is nothing is there Hartley it was all about the money
That's what this case has always been about extreme jealousy and money and greed I just pray for a retrial an appeal would be a let off for those relatives
-
There is nothing is there Hartley it was all about the money
That's what this case has always been about extreme jealousy and money and greed I just pray for a retrial an appeal would be a let off for those relatives
You've gone a bit odd again, we were talking about body identification. Keep up.
-
Jackie, is it true that Jeremy is godfather to your children?
-
That's a joke right?
-
I think one would remember the day their entire family was wiped out, don't you?
-
I think one would remember the day their entire family was wiped out, don't you?
Indeed.
-
That's a joke right?
No I'm very serious as I have this on very good authority. Maybe Jackie will confirm this?
That answers my question nicely.
-
Jac?
-
Jerry where is the proof JB boasted of killing his whole family
Or
Is it mere speculation
Read the statements.
The only "proof" of JB's "boast" is in the evidence given by Julie Mugford.
Exactly, and what a tangled web that 'proof' was.
JM told three different stories of these murders.
Story 1.
When she was first interviewed - in early August, before she was jilted - JM's first story supported Jeremy's account of what happened on the night of the murders and during the period leading up to the that night.
JM, for example, said in her first statement that Jeremy was disorientated and worried when he rang her at her digs.
Story 2.
When she was was interviewed a month later, in September - after JM had been jilted - JM's then story had dramatically changed. JM then alleged that Jeremy had been planning for some time to kill his entire immediate family and had told her that he had hired a hitman, Mathew Macdonald, to kill five members of his family.
JM further stated that Jeremy had told her during telephone conversations on the night/morning of the murders, "tonight's the night" and "all's going well, there's trouble at the farm".
Story 3.
At the time of Jeremy's Appeal, JM claimed "I sincerely believe he is guilty". As it was established at the trial that, among so many other glaring errors in her testimony, JM was wrong about the hitman, who proved to have an alibi, and as Jeremy was found guilty of murdering his family in person, then JM could only mean that her latest story was that Jeremy Bamber had himself committed the murders.
I find the consistency in her statement quite compelling. As time went on she revealed more and more which is quite normal in such circumstances.
What you are interpreting as changes in her statements is merely a progression towards the truth as time went by.
one statement in isolation will be consistent with itself....THATS NO BIG DEAL JERRY! so you find that compelling. ...the same could be said for any statement in isolation.. so there is nothing compelling at all so your claim of finding it compelling has no basis and your claims appear to be foolish and unreasoned.
Changes between statements are changes between statements and not "Interpretations" ....such changes cannot on their own be deemed as progression towards the truth automatically. They may be changes to the fabrication being offered by JM as she obtains more information to make the fabrication hold together and to deal with holes in her story when it became apparent to her that some lies had to be changed to new lies to overcome problems in the story.
JM ...changes to statements appear to support her story as being a fabrication. Her record of deception cannot be ignored.
-
if jb is godfather to jacks kids, what doesthat have to do with the case?
dont drag peoples family onto the forum its not on.
smite away
-
I PUT BAMBER IN PRISON ... AND THAT'S WHERE HE SHOULD STAY
THEN, she was the beautiful 21-year-old brunette whose evidence was vital in convicting her boyfriend Jeremy Bamber of the cold- blooded murder of his whole family.
Now, she is a respectable and matronly mother-of-two, a tireless charity worker and the deputy head of a primary school in Canada.
Everything about Julie Mugford's life has changed except for one crucial fact - she is still utterly convinced Bamber DID slaughter his adoptive parents Nevill and June, his sister Sheila Caffell and her twin six-year-old sons Nicholas and Daniel at the family's Essex farmhouse in 1985.
Bamber, 39, was given five life sentences for the killings. At the trial, Julie's evidence that he had bragged to her about committing the perfect murder and phoned her before the slaughter to say: "It's tonight or never" was vital in securing a guilty verdict.
He is now relying on DNA evidence not available 15 years ago to fight his conviction, and if successful could be free by Christmas.
Julie, now 36, said: "I thought this was long in the past. The last few weeks have been a nightmare. As far as I am concerned nothing has changed - I sincerely believe he is guilty. Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life.
"And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case I still believe he is guilty. He has a right to appeal, that is the law. It is just very hard for me to accept.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20010401/ai_n14524991/
Oh well. That ok then, as long as she's respectable now. ::)
-
I PUT BAMBER IN PRISON ... AND THAT'S WHERE HE SHOULD STAY
THEN, she was the beautiful 21-year-old brunette whose evidence was vital in convicting her boyfriend Jeremy Bamber of the cold- blooded murder of his whole family.
Now, she is a respectable and matronly mother-of-two, a tireless charity worker and the deputy head of a primary school in Canada.
Everything about Julie Mugford's life has changed except for one crucial fact - she is still utterly convinced Bamber DID slaughter his adoptive parents Nevill and June, his sister Sheila Caffell and her twin six-year-old sons Nicholas and Daniel at the family's Essex farmhouse in 1985.
Bamber, 39, was given five life sentences for the killings. At the trial, Julie's evidence that he had bragged to her about committing the perfect murder and phoned her before the slaughter to say: "It's tonight or never" was vital in securing a guilty verdict.
He is now relying on DNA evidence not available 15 years ago to fight his conviction, and if successful could be free by Christmas.
Julie, now 36, said: "I thought this was long in the past. The last few weeks have been a nightmare. As far as I am concerned nothing has changed - I sincerely believe he is guilty. Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life.
"And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case I still believe he is guilty. He has a right to appeal, that is the law. It is just very hard for me to accept.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20010401/ai_n14524991/
Oh well. That ok then, as long as she's respectable now. ::)
This is what I dont get... and my video is weak on Mugford. I wonder whether comments were made by Jeremy in some form, in the year leading up to the killings. I do feel something has been said to Mugford, somewhere along the line. Paradoxically I think Sheila had her own agenda, which tragically, nobody realised in time to prevent.
-
Jerry, you're not going to like my video.
But the case is vast enough and has so many strands and aspects, that there is room for all of us to portray our stance.
As long as it is based on fact and not fiction I will like it.
I'm afraid that 'facts' in this case appear to be a bone of contention Jerry. But you have seen the logs for your self. The logs which were buried.
-
Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
-
cant wait to see the vid u made roch, when can we see it ?
-
Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?
-
Morning Andrea
Brilliant can I sell my story to the NOW now it's revealed JB is the "godfather" to my children
Gerard friend of the Mugfords bring it on this is just the sort of publicity this case needs in the next few weeks
lovely mugfords character being put to the test
-
Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?
I have no idea.
-
But where is the "boasting of killing his whole family"? Is some further rummaging necessary?
I think it's being taken out of context and referring to when JB allegedly stated that he could kill any member of his family (or words to that effect) during a caravan park meeting.
-
Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
Gerald - I do not know where you get your law from but it is rubbish, to put it as politely as I can. To succeed in a libel case the aggrieved party needs to demonstrate that the statements complained of are not in fact true. If the statements are true they are not defamatory. The burden of proof is upon the claimant/aggrieved party to show that the statements are untrue.
As I have stated before Julie Mugford would have two obstacles to cross before succeeding in a libel action. The first is as I have explained above for the second time. The second obstacle is to show that her reputation has genuinely been damaged by the statements. In assessing that the court takes into account her current reputation. Given that if she is to be believed she had advance knowledge of the murders and did nothing to prevent them, then assisted the murderer for a considerable period, obstructing the course of justice and behaving in a callous way towards relatives. The argument could and would no doubt be advanced that her character and reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the public is already at a very low ebb.
Before you ask, yes I have been involved in defamation cases. I have also advised publishers on libel issues.
-
Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?
If she sued for libel and was successful in court she could recover considerably more than £25,000 in damages. However, she has not sued and I strongly suspect that she will not do so.
-
Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?
I have no idea.
Very true!
-
Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?
If she sued for libel and was successful in court she could recover considerably more than £25,000 in damages. However, she has not sued and I strongly suspect that she will not do so.
-
But where is the "boasting of killing his whole family"? Is some further rummaging necessary?
I think it's being taken out of context and referring to when JB allegedly stated that he could kill any member of his family (or words to that effect) during a caravan park meeting.
actually it was I could easily kill my parents,so no need to dramatize it furter.words supposedly spoken to his uncle robert.the same uncle that was desperate to lay his hands on the bamber estate to provide future stability for his own family
-
But where is the "boasting of killing his whole family"? Is some further rummaging necessary?
I think it's being taken out of context and referring to when JB allegedly stated that he could kill any member of his family (or words to that effect) during a caravan park meeting.
actually it was I could easily kill my parents,so no need to dramatize it furter.words supposedly spoken to his uncle robert.the same uncle that was desperate to lay his hands on the bamber estate to provide future stability for his own family
Hence my brackets.
-
Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
Gerald - I do not know where you get your law from but it is rubbish, to put it as politely as I can. To succeed in a libel case the aggrieved party needs to demonstrate that the statements complained of are not in fact true. If the statements are true they are not defamatory. The burden of proof is upon the claimant/aggrieved party to show that the statements are untrue.
As I have stated before Julie Mugford would have two obstacles to cross before succeeding in a libel action. The first is as I have explained above for the second time. The second obstacle is to show that her reputation has genuinely been damaged by the statements. In assessing that the court takes into account her current reputation. Given that if she is to be believed she had advance knowledge of the murders and did nothing to prevent them, then assisted the murderer for a considerable period, obstructing the course of justice and behaving in a callous way towards relatives. The argument could and would no doubt be advanced that her character and reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the public is already at a very low ebb.
Before you ask, yes I have been involved in defamation cases. I have also advised publishers on libel issues.
I wasn't going to ask because clearly you haven't.
There is a laymans guide to defamation on the Liberty website, I suggest you read it.
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/defamation/index.html
-
Jackie, is it true that Jeremy is godfather to your children?
I know this one. No he is not and what has this to to with the current thread? Me thinks that your words are calculated to provoke Jackie. Warning. Your supposed facts are indeed ERROR.
-
Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
Gerald - I do not know where you get your law from but it is rubbish, to put it as politely as I can. To succeed in a libel case the aggrieved party needs to demonstrate that the statements complained of are not in fact true. If the statements are true they are not defamatory. The burden of proof is upon the claimant/aggrieved party to show that the statements are untrue.
As I have stated before Julie Mugford would have two obstacles to cross before succeeding in a libel action. The first is as I have explained above for the second time. The second obstacle is to show that her reputation has genuinely been damaged by the statements. In assessing that the court takes into account her current reputation. Given that if she is to be believed she had advance knowledge of the murders and did nothing to prevent them, then assisted the murderer for a considerable period, obstructing the course of justice and behaving in a callous way towards relatives. The argument could and would no doubt be advanced that her character and reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the public is already at a very low ebb.
Before you ask, yes I have been involved in defamation cases. I have also advised publishers on libel issues.
I wasn't going to ask because clearly you haven't.
There is a laymans guide to defamation on the Liberty website, I suggest you read it.http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/defamation/index.html
You are as offensive as you are ignorant. You accuse me of being a liar when you have no basis whatsoever for doing so. That says far more about you than it does about me. You have the arrogance to lecture me on a subject about which your extremely limited knowledge is based upon a quick internet search. I on the other hand do know what I am talking about. It is not worth spending more time trying to educate someone of your limited intellect.
-
I am offensive? All I have said is that you are wrong. Did you read the Liberty site? Here is another one, the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/journalism/law/defamation/defamation-defences-justification.shtml
Where it says:
The claimant does not have to prove that your defamatory statement is false.
And again form the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A1183394
Where it says:
The burden of proof lies with the defendant
Almost uniquely in English law, in libel cases the burden of proof lies with the author / publisher and not the complainant. In other words, you have to prove that what you write is true. The person you?ve targeted does not have to prove that you?re wrong.
Can you find anything at all to back up your stance?
Touchy for a barrister aren't you.
-
I am offensive? All I have said is that you are wrong. Did you read the Liberty site? Here is another one, the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/journalism/law/defamation/defamation-defences-justification.shtml
Where it says:
The claimant does not have to prove that your defamatory statement is false.
And again form the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A1183394
Where it says:
The burden of proof lies with the defendant
Almost uniquely in English law, in libel cases the burden of proof lies with the author / publisher and not the complainant. In other words, you have to prove that what you write is true. The person you?ve targeted does not have to prove that you?re wrong.
Can you find anything at all to back up your stance?
Touchy for a barrister aren't you.
I can find plenty to back up my "stance". The summaries you have posted are an oversimplification of the law for the benefit of lay people like yourself. The burden of proof lies with the complainant, but in practice if a complainant states in evidence "I did not say x or did not do X" the burden of proving the contrary then effectively shifts back to the respondent. The burden of proving a particular point in any case can shift several times, for evidential reasons which are beyond the scope of this lecture and would certainly be beyond your comprehension. Evidence is a complex area of the law. The position with Julie Mugford would would be far more difficult than for most complainants, if she were to bring an action for libel, in view of the circumstances surrounding her involvement in the case.
What do you say about your original "learned" assertion that a statement can be libellous even if it is true? Where did you find that bit of rubbish?
I am not particularly touchy but I do not like being called a liar. What gives you the right to say that I do not have the experience in this field which I do, as a matter of fact, have?
-
Ngb1066 you are awesome I could listen to you all day.
-
I can find plenty to back up my "stance".
Go on then, case law will do. I’m sure as a barrister you will have access to reams of that.
Firstly, in English law it is claimant and defendant, or applicant and respondent in the case of an application.
The burden of proof lies with the complainant, but in practice if a complainant states in evidence "I did not say x or did not do X" the burden of proving the contrary then effectively shifts back to the respondent.
Good grief. Why would the claimant state in evidence "I did not say x or did not do X"? The claimant is complaining of the words of the defendant, not the other way around, do keep up.
When a defamation claim is brought the claimant must first persuade the court that the words are defamatory. The accepted legal definition of defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.
Once it is established that the words are defamatory it is up to the defendant to show that they have a defence to the claim. One such defence is “justification”, in other words, that the words published are true.
Here is a simple example:
Dave writes an article for a magazine which asserts that Clive (founder of a childrens charity) is a paedophile.
Clive sues Dave in defamation.
Clive successfully shows that Dave’s words are defamatory.
Dave pleads a defence of justification.
Dave now has to prove that Clive is a paedophile. Clive is not required to prove that he isn’t a paedophile (that would be absurd!).
Is that simple enough?
for evidential reasons which are beyond the scope of this lecture and would certainly be beyond your comprehension.
Careful, you’re starting to sound desperate.
-
I can find plenty to back up my "stance".
Go on then, case law will do. I’m sure as a barrister you will have access to reams of that.
Firstly, in English law it is claimant and defendant, or applicant and respondent in the case of an application.
The burden of proof lies with the complainant, but in practice if a complainant states in evidence "I did not say x or did not do X" the burden of proving the contrary then effectively shifts back to the respondent.
Good grief. Why would the claimant state in evidence "I did not say x or did not do X"? The claimant is complaining of the words of the defendant, not the other way around, do keep up.
When a defamation claim is brought the claimant must first persuade the court that the words are defamatory. The accepted legal definition of defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.
Once it is established that the words are defamatory it is up to the defendant to show that they have a defence to the claim. One such defence is “justification”, in other words, that the words published are true.
Here is a simple example:
Dave writes an article for a magazine which asserts that Clive (founder of a childrens charity) is a paedophile.
Clive sues Dave in defamation.
Clive successfully shows that Dave’s words are defamatory.
Dave pleads a defence of justification.
Dave now has to prove that Clive is a paedophile. Clive is not required to prove that he isn’t a paedophile (that would be absurd!).
Is that simple enough?
for evidential reasons which are beyond the scope of this lecture and would certainly be beyond your comprehension.
Careful, you’re starting to sound desperate.
Whatever I am I am not desperate. Calmly confident might be a better description. You are totally out of your depth but also obnoxious in the way you attempt to mount an argument. I cannot be bothered to spend the time necessary to demolish your points individually. You have no knowledge of the law other than snippets taken from the internet, in some cases out of date and taken out of context. You are similar to another poster now barred from this site - in fact similar in many ways. Apart from calling me a liar and refusing either to support that allegation or retract it, your tone and use of language and sentence construction appear familiar.
-
I can find plenty to back up my "stance".
Go on then, case law will do. I’m sure as a barrister you will have access to reams of that.
Firstly, in English law it is claimant and defendant, or applicant and respondent in the case of an application.
The burden of proof lies with the complainant, but in practice if a complainant states in evidence "I did not say x or did not do X" the burden of proving the contrary then effectively shifts back to the respondent.
Good grief. Why would the claimant state in evidence "I did not say x or did not do X"? The claimant is complaining of the words of the defendant, not the other way around, do keep up.
When a defamation claim is brought the claimant must first persuade the court that the words are defamatory. The accepted legal definition of defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.
Once it is established that the words are defamatory it is up to the defendant to show that they have a defence to the claim. One such defence is “justification”, in other words, that the words published are true.
Here is a simple example:
Dave writes an article for a magazine which asserts that Clive (founder of a childrens charity) is a paedophile.
Clive sues Dave in defamation.
Clive successfully shows that Dave’s words are defamatory.
Dave pleads a defence of justification.
Dave now has to prove that Clive is a paedophile. Clive is not required to prove that he isn’t a paedophile (that would be absurd!).
Is that simple enough?
for evidential reasons which are beyond the scope of this lecture and would certainly be beyond your comprehension.
Careful, you’re starting to sound desperate.
Whatever I am I am not desperate. Calmly confident might be a better description. You are totally out of your depth but also obnoxious in the way you attempt to mount an argument. I cannot be bothered to spend the time necessary to demolish your points individually. You have no knowledge of the law other than snippets taken from the internet, in some cases out of date and taken out of context. You are similar to another poster now barred from this site - in fact similar in many ways. Apart from calling me a liar and refusing either to support that allegation or retract it, your tone and use of language and sentence construction appear familiar.
I'll make it simple for you then. Post the authority (I'm sure you know what I mean by "authority" don't you?) for your argument that the claimant must prove that the words of the defendant are untrue.
-
Gerald/NGB
I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.
Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.
-
Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?
I have no idea.
Very true!
I second that!
-
Curiousessex we can go round and round in circles about the phone calls but JB was a naive boy of 24 who didnt even request a solicitor for three days because he probably thought the whole thing was ridiculous if he was innocent. I DONT THINK I COULD PUT THIS ANY CLEARER but for this mass murder that JB had alledgedly been planning for months he didnt even have a story or exact times worked out.
Then added to Mugfords initial statement about times and then subsequent statements about changed times and I think one of those was backed up by her partner in crime (from the fraud) nothing on that subject is straightforward. If JM was telling the truth about knowing when the murders happened (and there is not one shred of evidence to say she was) maybe we would have an answer to everything. Robert Boutflour was like a vulcher straight in finding out who would get the money.
You questioned Ngb earlier about if he was helping JB now its my turn are you one of the polieman involved in the case because I know from another policeman that a number of police involved in the case still live in Essex. Its just you seem obsessed with these timings as if you know the silencer is going to be discredited so you are looking for something else to look like JB is guilty
I would like to add that JB has got the very best people working on this case and mostly working for nothing because they believe this is a miscarriage of justice and this includes some of the best forensic scientists in England. A lot of students are working day and night on a number of other issues and in the end we will get as near to the truth as is physically possible
Jackie
You asked me.............. You questioned Ngb earlier about if he was helping JB now its my turn are you one of the polieman involved in the case because I know from another policeman that a number of police involved in the case still live in Essex. Its just you seem obsessed with these timings as if you know the silencer is going to be discredited so you are looking for something else to look like JB is guilty
The answer........... No I am not a policeman. I have never been a policeman. I will never be a policeman (or police person to be PC)
I have always stated I believe the timings of the telephone calls are significant because this is when the outside world first becomes aware of there being any trouble at White House Farm. Before the outside world ever becomes aware of any trouble at White House Farm Jeremy is the only person in the whole world who knows about any incident at White House Farm.
Jeremy either knows about it because (i) he did it having the inside knowledge or (ii) because he received a telephone call from Nevill which specifically identified Sheila with a weapon.
Not one person in the world knew this before Jeremy.
These are events which occur before anyone visits White House Farm and before any investigations or witnesses make statements.
Let me ask you a simple question which has nothing to do with Julie Mugford, Ann Eaton or the police.
Do you believe it is possible to make a telephone call and hold a brief conversation with a third party that predicts trouble?
Addition after posting......
As for the silencer.......... I have stated on this forum that I do believe the trial as it happened if transposed to today would be thrown out. (You can ask NGB about this because we had a specific exchange of messages on the subject. I think you will find NGB detailed my summary of the position was well described and summed up.)
For the sake of clarity
(i) I do not think the silencer has a satisfactory evidence trail and there is too much risk of contamination etc.
(ii) I do not think it is right that Jeremy having been sentenced to serve a minimum term of 25 years should have his sentence further increased to a whole life tariff removing any chance of parole.
(iii) I would not like to have sat on the jury at the original trial
(iv) I think money will remain a major factor in the position of both sides.
(v) Is Jeremy innocent or is Jeremy guilty........... who really knows................... and after everything pans out only one thing will remain the same................ only Jeremy knows the truth somewhere within himself.
-
Curious , dont you think if JB had an ounce of common sense and was the murderer , he would simply have said ' i am not sure of the time , with it being in the early hours of the morning ' or simply went to bed and got up in the morning as usual ? Like i have said before how was he to know BT could not say who phoned who and when !!
-
I can find plenty to back up my "stance".
Go on then, case law will do. I’m sure as a barrister you will have access to reams of that.
Firstly, in English law it is claimant and defendant, or applicant and respondent in the case of an application.
The burden of proof lies with the complainant, but in practice if a complainant states in evidence "I did not say x or did not do X" the burden of proving the contrary then effectively shifts back to the respondent.
Good grief. Why would the claimant state in evidence "I did not say x or did not do X"? The claimant is complaining of the words of the defendant, not the other way around, do keep up.
When a defamation claim is brought the claimant must first persuade the court that the words are defamatory. The accepted legal definition of defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.
Once it is established that the words are defamatory it is up to the defendant to show that they have a defence to the claim. One such defence is “justification”, in other words, that the words published are true.
Here is a simple example:
Dave writes an article for a magazine which asserts that Clive (founder of a childrens charity) is a paedophile.
Clive sues Dave in defamation.
Clive successfully shows that Dave’s words are defamatory.
Dave pleads a defence of justification.
Dave now has to prove that Clive is a paedophile. Clive is not required to prove that he isn’t a paedophile (that would be absurd!).
Is that simple enough?
for evidential reasons which are beyond the scope of this lecture and would certainly be beyond your comprehension.
Careful, you’re starting to sound desperate.
Whatever I am I am not desperate. Calmly confident might be a better description. You are totally out of your depth but also obnoxious in the way you attempt to mount an argument. I cannot be bothered to spend the time necessary to demolish your points individually. You have no knowledge of the law other than snippets taken from the internet, in some cases out of date and taken out of context. You are similar to another poster now barred from this site - in fact similar in many ways. Apart from calling me a liar and refusing either to support that allegation or retract it, your tone and use of language and sentence construction appear familiar.
I'll make it simple for you then. Post the authority (I'm sure you know what I mean by "authority" don't you?) for your argument that the claimant must prove that the words of the defendant are untrue.
I doubt if you know the meaning of "authority". I see no reason to give someone like you a free (and necessarily in your case lengthy) lecture on any aspect of law, particularly when you have refused to retract the allegation that I am a liar. However you have failed to understand the principles relating to the burden of proof.
Why not give us your "authority" for the proposition that a true statement can constitute libel?
By the way, I notice that you have not responded to my comment about your similarity to a former member of this forum. I wonder why?
-
Gerald/NGB
I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.
Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.
PaulG - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying. I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.
-
Curious , dont you think if JB had an ounce of common sense and was the murderer , he would simply have said ' i am not sure of the time , with it being in the early hours of the morning ' or simply went to bed and got up in the morning as usual ? Like i have said before how was he to know BT could not say who phoned who and when !!
But he did not did he.
According to the only information that appears currently available regarding Jeremy's original statement is the following -
[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
Jeremy timed his father's call.
Repeated requests have been made of Mike to post copy of Jeremy's original statement but he has been told not to do so.
Presumably if Jeremy is guilty then he will have only done it because he thought he would get away with it. Maybe in such a thought process a guilty conscience might also say...... if I do this maybe I will need an alibi...... hence the alleged telephone call from Nevill.
I have also mentioned on the forum that if Jeremy was guilty then maybe the best thing to have done was nothing and let the scene be found in the morning. This is of course irrelevant because it is in the past and did not happen.......... hindsight and all that
-
Curiousessex we can go round and round in circles about the phone calls but JB was a naive boy of 24 who didnt even request a solicitor for three days because he probably thought the whole thing was ridiculous if he was innocent. I DONT THINK I COULD PUT THIS ANY CLEARER but for this mass murder that JB had alledgedly been planning for months he didnt even have a story or exact times worked out.
Then added to Mugfords initial statement about times and then subsequent statements about changed times and I think one of those was backed up by her partner in crime (from the fraud) nothing on that subject is straightforward. If JM was telling the truth about knowing when the murders happened (and there is not one shred of evidence to say she was) maybe we would have an answer to everything. Robert Boutflour was like a vulcher straight in finding out who would get the money.
You questioned Ngb earlier about if he was helping JB now its my turn are you one of the polieman involved in the case because I know from another policeman that a number of police involved in the case still live in Essex. Its just you seem obsessed with these timings as if you know the silencer is going to be discredited so you are looking for something else to look like JB is guilty
I would like to add that JB has got the very best people working on this case and mostly working for nothing because they believe this is a miscarriage of justice and this includes some of the best forensic scientists in England. A lot of students are working day and night on a number of other issues and in the end we will get as near to the truth as is physically possible
Jackie
You asked me.............. You questioned Ngb earlier about if he was helping JB now its my turn are you one of the polieman involved in the case because I know from another policeman that a number of police involved in the case still live in Essex. Its just you seem obsessed with these timings as if you know the silencer is going to be discredited so you are looking for something else to look like JB is guilty
The answer........... No I am not a policeman. I have never been a policeman. I will never be a policeman (or police person to be PC)
I have always stated I believe the timings of the telephone calls are significant because this is when the outside world first becomes aware of there being any trouble at White House Farm. Before the outside world ever becomes aware of any trouble at White House Farm Jeremy is the only person in the whole world who knows about any incident at White House Farm.
Jeremy either knows about it because (i) he did it having the inside knowledge or (ii) because he received a telephone call from Nevill which specifically identified Sheila with a weapon.
Not one person in the world knew this before Jeremy.
These are events which occur before anyone visits White House Farm and before any investigations or witnesses make statements.
Let me ask you a simple question which has nothing to do with Julie Mugford, Ann Eaton or the police.
Do you believe it is possible to make a telephone call and hold a brief conversation with a third party that predicts trouble?
Addition after posting......
As for the silencer.......... I have stated on this forum that I do believe the trial as it happened if transposed to today would be thrown out. (You can ask NGB about this because we had a specific exchange of messages on the subject. I think you will find NGB detailed my summary of the position was well described and summed up.)
For the sake of clarity
(i) I do not think the silencer has a satisfactory evidence trail and there is too much risk of contamination etc.
(ii) I do not think it is right that Jeremy having been sentenced to serve a minimum term of 25 years should have his sentence further increased to a whole life tariff removing any chance of parole.
(iii) I would not like to have sat on the jury at the original trial
(iv) I think money will remain a major factor in the position of both sides.
(v) Is Jeremy innocent or is Jeremy guilty........... who really knows................... and after everything pans out only one thing will remain the same................ only Jeremy knows the truth somewhere within himself.
Jackie
I will add a second part to my question for you in my post above.
Do you believe it is possible to make a telephone call and hold a brief conversation with a third party that predicts trouble?
If so, is such a telephone conversation likely to happen when you are also asleep?
-
Paulg and Chocho Ngb1066 always plays nicely but if you are happy for him to be spoken to by "Gerald" you might lose the opinion of a barrister and a gun expert
I definitely belief Gerald is goading him just like Vidvic yesterday who has refused to answer my post from yesterday
-
Gerald/NGB
I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.
Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.
PaulG - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying. I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.
Okeedokee, i read his reply "clearly you haven't" more as a non belief in your knowledge of the subject, rather than i think you're lying. Call it one of the subtle digs i mentioned earlier, and i don't have to insult your intelligence by pointing out your own retorts...but the "very true" is on a par, subtle.
Now, all i ask, is that you both use your knowledge to make informed arguments, without the subtle digs, i thank you.
-
Curious you have got me really confused now can you explain exactly what you mean and explain as if you think JB is guilty
All I can say is so much doesn't make sense if a hit man was used JB would have had an alibi. The scene was left as a suicide if JB had been in London with Julie it would have stayed a suicide. If JB was responsible he would have used a solicitor he would have acted differently in the witness box.
You would have to show me something definate proving JB s guilt re the telephone calls rather than him just forgetting or just muddling up times because I forget times even important times so maybe I am the wrong person to put the argument to but please explain it to me in detail.
-
Why not give us your "authority" for the proposition that a true statement can constitute libel?
Certainly. Parmiter v Coupland and Sim v Stretch. You will note that truth or untruth is not an element contained within the definitions emerging from those decisions- the court was concerned only with what constitutes defamation, not what would be required to succeed in a defamation claim - hence the current common law position that a statement which complies with the definition is defamatory, and the defence to a claim in defamation is that whilst the statement itself is defamatory, it is true.
By the way, I notice that you have not responded to my comment about your similarity to a former member of this forum. I wonder why?
Because your comment was inane, unworthy of you and certainly not worthy of a response?
"Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying.
Actually what I said was "I wasn't going to ask because clearly you haven't." (been involved in defamation cases). I am quite happy to retract that and replace it with - If you have been involved in defamation cases you display an amazing lack of understanding of how defamation law works.
Paulg - for my part, I take on board what you say.
-
Paulg
How many times would you say in the last 50 years has a hit man been used to murder 2 children
Just a guess
-
I hope Ngb has left I am sure he has much more important things to do
What did Gerald say "schoolboy what"
If he has I will never post on here again
Paulg have you spoken to Vidvic yet
-
Gerald/NGB
I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.
Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.
PaulG - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying. I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.
Okeedokee, i read his reply "clearly you haven't" more as a non belief in your knowledge of the subject, rather than i think you're lying. Call it one of the subtle digs i mentioned earlier, and i don't have to insult your intelligence by pointing out your own retorts...but the "very true" is on a par, subtle.
Now, all i ask, is that you both use your knowledge to make informed arguments, without the subtle digs, i thank you.
Please reread the post where the words "clearly you haven't" appear. It is a clear reference to my statement that I had experience in the law of defamation and had advised publishers on the subject. You are glossing over it by suggesting an alternative interpretation which simply does not wash. This was a clear allegation that I had lied.
I am afraid that I do not accept your admonition to me as as forum moderator and would expect moderators to intervene when an unsupported accusation of lying is levelled by one forum member against another. Frankly if you do not like my response then tough, I am obviously wasting my time posting here. You can ban me if you like. I have got plenty of other things to do with my time. I hope other moderators will intervene here and see that the right approach is now made to this.
I will await posts from other moderators before posting further.
-
Paulg
How many times would you say in the last 50 years has a hit man been used to murder 2 children
Just a guess
Do you know something Jackie, probabilities, possibilities, odds and History are my love, its whats helped me become one of the best strategists at strategic games on the internet...that i choose to play.
I've no idea what the answer is, my concern would be whether it is possible in this case, and it is.
-
nah then paulg hows tha doin lad?
-
Gerald/NGB
I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.
Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.
PaulG - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying. I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.
Okeedokee, i read his reply "clearly you haven't" more as a non belief in your knowledge of the subject, rather than i think you're lying. Call it one of the subtle digs i mentioned earlier, and i don't have to insult your intelligence by pointing out your own retorts...but the "very true" is on a par, subtle.
Now, all i ask, is that you both use your knowledge to make informed arguments, without the subtle digs, i thank you.
Please reread the post where the words "clearly you haven't" appear. It is a clear reference to my statement that I had experience in the law of defamation and had advised publishers on the subject. You are glossing over it by suggesting an alternative interpretation which simply does not wash. This was a clear allegation that I had lied.
I am afraid that I do not accept your admonition to me as as forum moderator and would expect moderators to intervene when an unsupported accusation of lying is levelled by one forum member against another. Frankly if you do not like my response then tough, I am obviously wasting my time posting here. You can ban me if you like. I have got plenty of other things to do with my time. I hope other moderators will intervene here and see that the right approach is now made to this.
I will await posts from other moderators before posting further.
Tbh no i don't like your post, i believe what i have highlighted to you can be interpreted two ways. Someone questioned your knowledge, you used a cheap shot with "very true", and when asked to fall into line, you're now behaving like a spoilt child...and this is said with mod hat off.
And just to add, and not directed at you NGB, but it doesn't worry me if i'm a moderator here or not, i call things as i see them, please feel free Mike to remove my moderator title.
-
Paul what you getting involved for your a moderator not a copper of the net !! As anyone complained to you? Gerald seems capable of looking after himself and i for one was enjoying it !!
-
Gerald/NGB
I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.
Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.
Please refer to my new thread, regarding moderating.
All opinions are welcomed , but I think Ngb you have come under needless fire.
I would be interested in Geralds qualifications, as I know a lot of barrack room lawyers.
PaulG - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying. I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.
Okeedokee, i read his reply "clearly you haven't" more as a non belief in your knowledge of the subject, rather than i think you're lying. Call it one of the subtle digs i mentioned earlier, and i don't have to insult your intelligence by pointing out your own retorts...but the "very true" is on a par, subtle.
Now, all i ask, is that you both use your knowledge to make informed arguments, without the subtle digs, i thank you.
Please reread the post where the words "clearly you haven't" appear. It is a clear reference to my statement that I had experience in the law of defamation and had advised publishers on the subject. You are glossing over it by suggesting an alternative interpretation which simply does not wash. This was a clear allegation that I had lied.
I am afraid that I do not accept your admonition to me as as forum moderator and would expect moderators to intervene when an unsupported accusation of lying is levelled by one forum member against another. Frankly if you do not like my response then tough, I am obviously wasting my time posting here. You can ban me if you like. I have got plenty of other things to do with my time. I hope other moderators will intervene here and see that the right approach is now made to this.
I will await posts from other moderators before posting further.
-
Gerald/NGB
I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.
Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.
PaulG - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying. I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.
Okeedokee, i read his reply "clearly you haven't" more as a non belief in your knowledge of the subject, rather than i think you're lying. Call it one of the subtle digs i mentioned earlier, and i don't have to insult your intelligence by pointing out your own retorts...but the "very true" is on a par, subtle.
Now, all i ask, is that you both use your knowledge to make informed arguments, without the subtle digs, i thank you.
Please reread the post where the words "clearly you haven't" appear. It is a clear reference to my statement that I had experience in the law of defamation and had advised publishers on the subject. You are glossing over it by suggesting an alternative interpretation which simply does not wash. This was a clear allegation that I had lied.
I am afraid that I do not accept your admonition to me as as forum moderator and would expect moderators to intervene when an unsupported accusation of lying is levelled by one forum member against another. Frankly if you do not like my response then tough, I am obviously wasting my time posting here. You can ban me if you like. I have got plenty of other things to do with my time. I hope other moderators will intervene here and see that the right approach is now made to this.
I will await posts from other moderators before posting further.
[/quote
I don,t know what happened to my post, so I will repeat.
Ngb you are a valued member. I do not know Geralds qualifacations, perhaps he is a barrack room lawyer I do not know, but I will say that I do not like his aggresive attitude, and found it uncalled for.
It does seem that all the anti,s are aggressive [there are ecceptions].
Keep posting Ngb your knowlege is appriciated.
-
Early start again folks, so I have got to go[who said good]
Lock horn again tommorrow,sleep well.
-
Gerald/NGB
I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.
Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.
PaulG - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying. I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.
Okeedokee, i read his reply "clearly you haven't" more as a non belief in your knowledge of the subject, rather than i think you're lying. Call it one of the subtle digs i mentioned earlier, and i don't have to insult your intelligence by pointing out your own retorts...but the "very true" is on a par, subtle.
Now, all i ask, is that you both use your knowledge to make informed arguments, without the subtle digs, i thank you.
Please reread the post where the words "clearly you haven't" appear. It is a clear reference to my statement that I had experience in the law of defamation and had advised publishers on the subject. You are glossing over it by suggesting an alternative interpretation which simply does not wash. This was a clear allegation that I had lied.
I am afraid that I do not accept your admonition to me as as forum moderator and would expect moderators to intervene when an unsupported accusation of lying is levelled by one forum member against another. Frankly if you do not like my response then tough, I am obviously wasting my time posting here. You can ban me if you like. I have got plenty of other things to do with my time. I hope other moderators will intervene here and see that the right approach is now made to this.
I will await posts from other moderators before posting further.
I don,t know what happened to my post, so I will repeat.
Ngb you are a valued member. I do not know Geralds qualifacations, perhaps he is a barrack room lawyer I do not know, but I will say that I do not like his aggresive attitude, and found it uncalled for.
It does seem that all the anti,s are aggressive [there are ecceptions].
Keep posting Ngb your knowlege is appriciated.
Aggressive attitude, are you for real?
Here is what NGB has said to me:
You are as offensive as you are ignorant.
You have the arrogance to lecture me on a subject about which your extremely limited knowledge is based upon a quick internet search.
It is not worth spending more time trying to educate someone of your limited intellect.
The burden of proving a particular point in any case can shift several times, for evidential reasons which are beyond the scope of this lecture and would certainly be beyond your comprehension.
You are totally out of your depth but also obnoxious in the way you attempt to mount an argument.
You have no knowledge of the law other than snippets taken from the internet, in some cases out of date and taken out of context.
You are similar to another poster now barred from this site - in fact similar in many ways.
I doubt if you know the meaning of "authority".
I see no reason to give someone like you a free (and necessarily in your case lengthy) lecture on any aspect of law
Perhaps you would be so kind to show me what I have said to justify any of that?
It does seem that all the anti,s are aggressive
And then show me where I have said that I am an "anti".
-
Gerald/NGB
I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.
Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.
PaulG - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying. I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.
Okeedokee, i read his reply "clearly you haven't" more as a non belief in your knowledge of the subject, rather than i think you're lying. Call it one of the subtle digs i mentioned earlier, and i don't have to insult your intelligence by pointing out your own retorts...but the "very true" is on a par, subtle.
Now, all i ask, is that you both use your knowledge to make informed arguments, without the subtle digs, i thank you.
Please reread the post where the words "clearly you haven't" appear. It is a clear reference to my statement that I had experience in the law of defamation and had advised publishers on the subject. You are glossing over it by suggesting an alternative interpretation which simply does not wash. This was a clear allegation that I had lied.
I am afraid that I do not accept your admonition to me as as forum moderator and would expect moderators to intervene when an unsupported accusation of lying is levelled by one forum member against another. Frankly if you do not like my response then tough, I am obviously wasting my time posting here. You can ban me if you like. I have got plenty of other things to do with my time. I hope other moderators will intervene here and see that the right approach is now made to this.
I will await posts from other moderators before posting further.
ngb,
I agree with Cliff's statement. You are a valued member of this forum who has made many invaluable contributions to members' knowledge and understanding. I very much hope that you will not leave.
I have had little time to properly look at this exchange until now as I've been working on a report. Having now looked at this thread, my view is that Gerald's comment to you during the initial part of your exchanges on this thread
"clearly you haven't"
is unacceptable and is an attempt to goad and provoke you into a row with Gerald.
Gerald,
I will repeat to you what I have said to ngb. Having looked at this thread, my view is that your comment to ngb during the initial part of your exchanges on this thread
"clearly you haven't"
is unacceptable and is an attempt to goad and provoke ngb into rowing with you.
I am therefore issuing a warning to you not repeat unacceptable and provocatory posts of this nature.
I have to collect a file from my office now, but I shall return to this issue either later this evening or tomorrow.
-
I am therefore issuing a warning to you not repeat unacceptable and provocatory posts of this nature.
If you took the time to actually read this thread you would see that I have already retracted it, not that it needed retracting.
-
Curious you have got me really confused now can you explain exactly what you mean and explain as if you think JB is guilty
All I can say is so much doesn't make sense if a hit man was used JB would have had an alibi. The scene was left as a suicide if JB had been in London with Julie it would have stayed a suicide. If JB was responsible he would have used a solicitor he would have acted differently in the witness box.
You would have to show me something definate proving JB s guilt re the telephone calls rather than him just forgetting or just muddling up times because I forget times even important times so maybe I am the wrong person to put the argument to but please explain it to me in detail.
Jackie
I will try to explain, as per your request, from a perspective of Jeremy being guilty.
Jeremy states he was woken from his sleep by a telephone call from his father at between 03.15 and 03.30 a.m. You can hear this in Jeremy's own words if you follow the link below
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/
Jeremy confirms his father tells him Sheila has got hold of the gun.
Jeremy admits calling Julie.
Jeremy admits to telling Julie about trouble at the farm.
Three flatmates testified in a court of law they heard the telephone in the flat ringing at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”. - NGB has confirmed on this forum that testimony in court is what counts above any witness statements that may have been taken. - Two of these witnesses fall outside your voiced concern about them being involved in a cheque fraud which would contribute to them being a potentially unreliable witnesses.
It is impossible for Jeremy to have rung Julie's flat in London to advise of trouble at the farm at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”, if by his own admission, he is still asleep before 03.15 and 03.30 am.
Jeremy would also, by his own admission, be telling of trouble at the farm before he is alerted to the fact that there is any trouble at the farm by a telephone call from Nevill.
Jeremy could only possibly know of there being trouble at the farm by other means i.e. he was there
As such Jeremy's defence falls apart by his own admission when compared against two other credible witnesses.
Does this make sense with regard to your specific request?
-
My advice if anyone wants to listen?
I think if mods feel that they need to take action then they should do so via pm's and not in full view on the forum, otherwise you'll have idiots like me sticking my oar in.
-
I quite agree with your refreshing comments Gerald. I have just come back from a busy day away and read this thread over quickly tonight. Ngb1066 has shown himself to be rather shallow yet again and quite incapable of acceding to constructive criticism. It was ngb1066 who fired the first volley of abuse against Gerald, it was most certainly uncalled for.
You are as offensive as you are ignorant. You accuse me of being a liar when you have no basis whatsoever for doing so. That says far more about you than it does about me. You have the arrogance to lecture me on a subject about which your extremely limited knowledge is based upon a quick internet search. I on the other hand do know what I am talking about. It is not worth spending more time trying to educate someone of your limited intellect.
Gerald, I found your explanation of libel and defamation rather enlightening, it is clear that certain members of this forum should take a long hard look at themselves in this context as they have done nothing but defame Julie Mugford for months and tried their damnedest to ridicule and besmirch her.
I believe ngb1066 owes Gerald an apology for such behaviour.
I don't expect, or even want an apology. All I want is for NGB to either accept that he has made a mistake, or tell me why I am wrong. Standard stuff for a barrister I would have thought.
-
My advice if anyone wants to listen?
I think if mods feel that they need to take action then they should do so via pm's and not in full view on the forum, otherwise you'll have idiots like me sticking my oar in.
Hartley
I think you are being unfair on yourself.............. certainly not an idiot in my opinion........... but then again who am I to comment if you want to libel yourself.
By the way I was sorry to read of your loss re the 7/7 tragedy.
-
Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?
I have no idea.
Very true!
I second that!
You see Keira, this is goading, it took place before any so called lying comment by Gerald. What makes it worse, is you chose to "second the comment" rather than act.
Since then, you've read back through the thread, decided that Gerald is guilty, this forum can not be moderated.
-
Jackie, is it true that Jeremy is godfather to your children?
I know this one. No he is not and what has this to to with the current thread? Me thinks that your words are calculated to provoke Jackie. Warning. Your supposed facts are indeed ERROR.
A global moderator decides this post is "calculated to provoke", yet many posters are asked if they are relatives, or police that are involved in the case, i take it the same questions will be dealt with accordingly.
Paul, I stand by my words. This is not a point scoring exercise. If you look at the statement that Jerry made you will see that it had nothing to do with the thread. May I remind you that you have the responsible post of moderator. That means that you should uphold the rules of the forum and also to remind others of those rules. If I see anything or if anything is brought to my attention that anything that provokes other members needlessly then I will judge all things uprightly and accordingly and I trust that you also will not take sides but will see to the smooth running of the forum?
-
Hartley
I think you are being unfair on yourself.............. certainly not an idiot in my opinion........... but then again who am I to comment if you want to libel yourself.
By the way I was sorry to read of your loss re the 7/7 tragedy.
Hartley, I would add my own sympathies to that offered by curiousessex, I saw your post and had intended to say something on Thursday evening but must have been distracted by the volume of posts.
It is an awful thing to loose a parent at the best of times but to do so following a terrorist incident is all the more devastating. Best wishes to you and yours Hartley.
-
Jackie, is it true that Jeremy is godfather to your children?
I know this one. No he is not and what has this to to with the current thread? Me thinks that your words are calculated to provoke Jackie. Warning. Your supposed facts are indeed ERROR.
You can take it any way you like but at the end of the day it was a valid question which she chose to answer in silence. I can only infer that such silence is tantamount to acknowledging that it is indeed correct. Is she embarrassed by the revelation I wonder?
-
Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?
I have no idea.
Very true!
I second that!
You see Keira, this is goading, it took place before any so called lying comment by Gerald. What makes it worse, is you chose to "second the comment" rather than act.
Since then, you've read back through the thread, decided that Gerald is guilty, this forum can not be moderated.
It's ok Paulg, I'm sure anyone reading this thread can see what happened. NGB stamped his feet and demanded his ego be massaged by "other moderators" and up popped Cliff and Chochokeira, all too happy to sacrifice any facade of independant thought in order to keep their prize poster.
They're probably right to do so. From his posts NGB appears to be generally intelligent, eloquent and well read. No doubt he makes more of a contribution to this board than I ever would. But you will never persuade me that he is any kind of lawyer, let alone a barrister. If he was, do you really think he would throw his toys out of the pram over the opinion of an anonymous poster who registered just yesterday on an internet forum?
-
I can see you were in the wrong Gerald.
yes...you posts are so similar to a known dodgy poster...as are jerry's.
does not mean you are that disruptive poster popping back onto the forum under other names to continue his mischeif...but purely an observation.
-
Gerald/NGB
I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.
Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.
PaulG - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying. I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.
Okeedokee, i read his reply "clearly you haven't" more as a non belief in your knowledge of the subject, rather than i think you're lying. Call it one of the subtle digs i mentioned earlier, and i don't have to insult your intelligence by pointing out your own retorts...but the "very true" is on a par, subtle.
Now, all i ask, is that you both use your knowledge to make informed arguments, without the subtle digs, i thank you.
Please reread the post where the words "clearly you haven't" appear. It is a clear reference to my statement that I had experience in the law of defamation and had advised publishers on the subject. You are glossing over it by suggesting an alternative interpretation which simply does not wash. This was a clear allegation that I had lied.
I am afraid that I do not accept your admonition to me as as forum moderator and would expect moderators to intervene when an unsupported accusation of lying is levelled by one forum member against another. Frankly if you do not like my response then tough, I am obviously wasting my time posting here. You can ban me if you like. I have got plenty of other things to do with my time. I hope other moderators will intervene here and see that the right approach is now made to this.
I will await posts from other moderators before posting further.
Tbh no i don't like your post, i believe what i have highlighted to you can be interpreted two ways. Someone questioned your knowledge, you used a cheap shot with "very true", and when asked to fall into line, you're now behaving like a spoilt child...and this is said with mod hat off.
And just to add, and not directed at you NGB, but it doesn't worry me if i'm a moderator here or not, i call things as i see them, please feel free Mike to remove my moderator title.
I do not think is is appropriate for you to say that I am "behaving like a spoilt child." I wish Mike would remove you, as you are not doing your job as moderator properly. It is not my decision, and frankly I have got better things to do with my time than getting involved in rubbish like this.
-
Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?
I have no idea.
Very true!
I second that!
You see Keira, this is goading, it took place before any so called lying comment by Gerald. What makes it worse, is you chose to "second the comment" rather than act.
Since then, you've read back through the thread, decided that Gerald is guilty, this forum can not be moderated.
It's ok Paulg, I'm sure anyone reading this thread can see what happened. NGB stamped his feet and demanded his ego be massaged by "other moderators" and up popped Cliff and Chochokeira, all too happy to sacrifice any facade of independant thought in order to keep their prize poster.
They're probably right to do so. From his posts NGB appears to be generally intelligent, eloquent and well read. No doubt he makes more of a contribution to this board than I ever would. But you will never persuade me that he is any kind of lawyer, let alone a barrister. If he was, do you really think he would throw his toys out of the pram over the opinion of an anonymous poster who registered just yesterday on an internet forum?
Another allegation that I am a liar. If forum moderation has any meaning, action should follow. However, this is not my responsibilty because I am not a moderator. Mike Tesko in an effort to ensure fairness and balance picked a set of moderators from both sides of this debate. Most have acted fairly and effectively. Paulg has not. No doubt he will support "Gerald" on this post as well.
-
Gerald/NGB
I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.
Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.
PaulG - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying. I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.
Okeedokee, i read his reply "clearly you haven't" more as a non belief in your knowledge of the subject, rather than i think you're lying. Call it one of the subtle digs i mentioned earlier, and i don't have to insult your intelligence by pointing out your own retorts...but the "very true" is on a par, subtle.
Now, all i ask, is that you both use your knowledge to make informed arguments, without the subtle digs, i thank you.
Please reread the post where the words "clearly you haven't" appear. It is a clear reference to my statement that I had experience in the law of defamation and had advised publishers on the subject. You are glossing over it by suggesting an alternative interpretation which simply does not wash. This was a clear allegation that I had lied.
I am afraid that I do not accept your admonition to me as as forum moderator and would expect moderators to intervene when an unsupported accusation of lying is levelled by one forum member against another. Frankly if you do not like my response then tough, I am obviously wasting my time posting here. You can ban me if you like. I have got plenty of other things to do with my time. I hope other moderators will intervene here and see that the right approach is now made to this.
I will await posts from other moderators before posting further.
Tbh no i don't like your post, i believe what i have highlighted to you can be interpreted two ways. Someone questioned your knowledge, you used a cheap shot with "very true", and when asked to fall into line, you're now behaving like a spoilt child...and this is said with mod hat off.
And just to add, and not directed at you NGB, but it doesn't worry me if i'm a moderator here or not, i call things as i see them, please feel free Mike to remove my moderator title.
I do not think is is appropriate for you to say that I am "behaving like a spoilt child." I wish Mike would remove you, as you are not doing your job as moderator properly. It is not my decision, and frankly I have got better things to do with my time than getting involved in rubbish like this.
I agree , if you have got anything to say as a Mod , PM whoever like Hartley say's , if not stay out of the argument !!
-
I'm glad you're back NGB, perhaps you could explain the Hon. Mr Justice Bell's decision in the McDonalds libel case, and especially his comments at paragraphs 59, 60 and 61, where he says:
59. Where a Plaintiff establishes the publication of words which are defamatory, he has established his claim subject to the Defendant proving that he has a defence to the claim. The Plaintiff does not have to prove that the defamatory words are false. The law presumes that the defamatory words are false until the contrary is shown.
60. However, it is a complete defence to an action for libel to show that defamatory statements of alleged fact are true in substance and in fact. This is the defence of "justification" and it was the primary defence of Ms Steel and Mr Morris in this case. They contended that the substance of what is said in the factsheet is true.
61. The burden of proving that the substance of the words is true lies on the Defendant even though the Plaintiff may have set out to prove that the words are in fact false, as McDonald's have done in many instances in this case. Again the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Here is a link:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1997/366.html
No, I don't believe you are a lawyer - because:
a) A lawyer would not make assertions as if they were fact regarding areas of law they clearly know little about.
b) A lawyer would understand that once beaten on a point it is better to concede defeat gracefully.
c) A lawyer would be more than able to fight his own battles, and would not expect others to fight them for him.
-
I can see you were in the wrong Gerald.
yes...you posts are so similar to a known dodgy poster...as are jerry's.
does not mean you are that disruptive poster popping back onto the forum under other names to continue his mischeif...but purely an observation.
That's ok, we all do that. I will admit that at one point I thought you were Jackie Preece's evil twin.
-
I can see you were in the wrong Gerald.
yes...you posts are so similar to a known dodgy poster...as are jerry's.
does not mean you are that disruptive poster popping back onto the forum under other names to continue his mischeif...but purely an observation.
That's ok, we all do that. I will admit that at one point I thought you were Jackie Preece's evil twin.
thats rather nasty and uncalled for Gerald..
jackie seems a nice decent poster to me and going by your post I very much doubt the same could be said about you.
-
Read my post again. I haven't offered an opinion about Jackie.
-
I'm glad you're back NGB, perhaps you could explain the Hon. Mr Justice Bell's decision in the McDonalds libel case, and especially his comments at paragraphs 59, 60 and 61, where he says:
59. Where a Plaintiff establishes the publication of words which are defamatory, he has established his claim subject to the Defendant proving that he has a defence to the claim. The Plaintiff does not have to prove that the defamatory words are false. The law presumes that the defamatory words are false until the contrary is shown.
60. However, it is a complete defence to an action for libel to show that defamatory statements of alleged fact are true in substance and in fact. This is the defence of "justification" and it was the primary defence of Ms Steel and Mr Morris in this case. They contended that the substance of what is said in the factsheet is true.
61. The burden of proving that the substance of the words is true lies on the Defendant even though the Plaintiff may have set out to prove that the words are in fact false, as McDonald's have done in many instances in this case. Again the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Here is a link:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1997/366.html
No, I don't believe you are a lawyer - because:
a) A lawyer would not make assertions as if they were fact regarding areas of law they clearly know little about.
b) A lawyer would understand that once beaten on a point it is better to concede defeat gracefully.
c) A lawyer would be more than able to fight his own battles, and would not expect others to fight them for him.
oh dear your misguided opinions gerald.
seems like you object to others giving their views hence you posted your point (c) which has no real relevance. you assume ngb is expecting others to tackle you " gerald".....on this issue....
you cannot possibly know how ngb thinks ...so you come across as an idiot for making such an assumption and also in your attempt to belittle ngb you are being abusive.
point (b) ...you in fact lost the argument gerald and in pathetically claiming you had beaten ngb on the issue you are deluding yourself and then again you presume you imply how lawyers should act in your opinion which is no more than wishful thinking on your part.
point (a).... ngb knows what he is on about which is something you are unable to fully grasp gerald and again you have no basis to belittle ngb as you cannot possibly know how much he knows about the areas of law involved...so your claim is abusive on that issue.
digging an ever deeper hole for yourself here gerald.
-
I'm glad you're back NGB, perhaps you could explain the Hon. Mr Justice Bell's decision in the McDonalds libel case, and especially his comments at paragraphs 59, 60 and 61, where he says:
59. Where a Plaintiff establishes the publication of words which are defamatory, he has established his claim subject to the Defendant proving that he has a defence to the claim. The Plaintiff does not have to prove that the defamatory words are false. The law presumes that the defamatory words are false until the contrary is shown.
60. However, it is a complete defence to an action for libel to show that defamatory statements of alleged fact are true in substance and in fact. This is the defence of "justification" and it was the primary defence of Ms Steel and Mr Morris in this case. They contended that the substance of what is said in the factsheet is true.
61. The burden of proving that the substance of the words is true lies on the Defendant even though the Plaintiff may have set out to prove that the words are in fact false, as McDonald's have done in many instances in this case. Again the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Here is a link:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1997/366.html
No, I don't believe you are a lawyer - because:
a) A lawyer would not make assertions as if they were fact regarding areas of law they clearly know little about.
b) A lawyer would understand that once beaten on a point it is better to concede defeat gracefully.
c) A lawyer would be more than able to fight his own battles, and would not expect others to fight them for him.
A repeat of your claim that I am a liar. You are really taunting the moderators now as they will have to decide what to do about this. I will await a response to your latest post from one of them. I have no intention of debating points with you because i) I cannot be bothered to argue with offensive characters like you and ii) you would not accept any point I make because you are either too stupid/arrogant or you are following your own agenda.
-
I'm glad you're back NGB, perhaps you could explain the Hon. Mr Justice Bell's decision in the McDonalds libel case, and especially his comments at paragraphs 59, 60 and 61, where he says:
59. Where a Plaintiff establishes the publication of words which are defamatory, he has established his claim subject to the Defendant proving that he has a defence to the claim. The Plaintiff does not have to prove that the defamatory words are false. The law presumes that the defamatory words are false until the contrary is shown.
60. However, it is a complete defence to an action for libel to show that defamatory statements of alleged fact are true in substance and in fact. This is the defence of "justification" and it was the primary defence of Ms Steel and Mr Morris in this case. They contended that the substance of what is said in the factsheet is true.
61. The burden of proving that the substance of the words is true lies on the Defendant even though the Plaintiff may have set out to prove that the words are in fact false, as McDonald's have done in many instances in this case. Again the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Here is a link:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1997/366.html
No, I don't believe you are a lawyer - because:
a) A lawyer would not make assertions as if they were fact regarding areas of law they clearly know little about.
b) A lawyer would understand that once beaten on a point it is better to concede defeat gracefully.
c) A lawyer would be more than able to fight his own battles, and would not expect others to fight them for him.
oh dear your misguided opinions gerald.
seems like you object to others giving their views hence you posted your point (c) which has no real relevance. you assume ngb is expecting others to tackle you " gerald".....on this issue....
you cannot possibly know how ngb thinks ...so you come across as an idiot for making such an assumption and also in your attempt to belittle ngb you are being abusive.
point (b) ...you in fact lost the argument gerald and in pathetically claiming you had beaten ngb on the issue you are deluding yourself and then again you presume you imply how lawyers should act in your opinion which is no more than wishful thinking on your part.
point (a).... ngb knows what he is on about which is something you are unable to fully grasp gerald and again you have no basis to belittle ngb as you cannot possibly know how much he knows about the areas of law involved...so your claim is abusive on that issue.
digging an ever deeper hole for yourself here gerald.
It is NGB who is whining at the moderators is it not?
As to the rest of your post, I can only assume you haven't read the thread.
-
I'm glad you're back NGB, perhaps you could explain the Hon. Mr Justice Bell's decision in the McDonalds libel case, and especially his comments at paragraphs 59, 60 and 61, where he says:
59. Where a Plaintiff establishes the publication of words which are defamatory, he has established his claim subject to the Defendant proving that he has a defence to the claim. The Plaintiff does not have to prove that the defamatory words are false. The law presumes that the defamatory words are false until the contrary is shown.
60. However, it is a complete defence to an action for libel to show that defamatory statements of alleged fact are true in substance and in fact. This is the defence of "justification" and it was the primary defence of Ms Steel and Mr Morris in this case. They contended that the substance of what is said in the factsheet is true.
61. The burden of proving that the substance of the words is true lies on the Defendant even though the Plaintiff may have set out to prove that the words are in fact false, as McDonald's have done in many instances in this case. Again the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Here is a link:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1997/366.html
No, I don't believe you are a lawyer - because:
a) A lawyer would not make assertions as if they were fact regarding areas of law they clearly know little about.
b) A lawyer would understand that once beaten on a point it is better to concede defeat gracefully.
c) A lawyer would be more than able to fight his own battles, and would not expect others to fight them for him.
A repeat of your claim that I am a liar. You are really taunting the moderators now as they will have to decide what to do about this. I wil await a response to your latest post from one of them. I have no intention of debating points with you because i) I cannot be bothered to argue with offensive characters like you and ii) you would not accept any point I make because you are either too stupid/arrogant or you are following your own agenda.
If you were to actually make a point I would give it my full consideration.
-
right ok, ive seen enough, can everyone drop the squabbling and behave? concentrate on the CASE not each other, i dont want to start editing or removing posts.thanks
-
right ok, ive seen enough, can everyone drop the squabbling and behave? concentrate on the CASE not each other, i dont want to start editing or removing posts.thanks
Andrea - are you placing my posts in the same category as Gerald's? Are you suggesting that you are going to remove any of my posts? I believe we need some firm action by moderators here and I have urged for that to happen but we have not seen any yet. This forum is rapidly going downhill.
-
right ok, ive seen enough, can everyone drop the squabbling and behave? concentrate on the CASE not each other, i dont want to start editing or removing posts.thanks
A MOD should get involved only if somebody complain's and then discreetly !! IMO
-
hello ngb :D i dont want to start removing any posts to be completely honest.
your opinion is valued here as you know, but as a moderator i see it as my job to ask people to stop the bickering because the forum will go down hill as you said.
my post above was aimed at all not just a particular poster, i havent been online much in the past couple of weeks, so i havent really got a "feel" for things that have been posted.
I intend to contact other moderators and try and find ways to stop offensive or malicious posters because it ruins debate. But without banning them, because we are all enititled to our opinions.
Anyway ngb keep posting the forum bennefits from them, and they are an interesting read. This is my first time as a mod so im new to this. thanks :)
-
Jackie, is it true that Jeremy is godfather to your children?
I know this one. No he is not and what has this to to with the current thread? Me thinks that your words are calculated to provoke Jackie. Warning. Your supposed facts are indeed ERROR.
You can take it any way you like but at the end of the day it was a valid question which she chose to answer in silence. I can only infer that such silence is tantamount to acknowledging that it is indeed correct. Is she embarrassed by the revelation I wonder?
Well Jerry all I can say is that I have knowledge of this one and you are just demonstrating your ignorance by suggesting something so ridiculous. This also indicates to me that you are ignorant on many things and that you are just second guessing. Anyway Jerry this still stands as a warning to you that if you persist in such blank questions which have nothing whatsoever to do with the thread but are just calculated to cause confusion and aggression then I will take you offline.
-
right ok, ive seen enough, can everyone drop the squabbling and behave? concentrate on the CASE not each other, i dont want to start editing or removing posts.thanks
A MOD should get involved only if somebody complain's and then discreetly !! IMO
I'm afraid that you are wrong jon. If someone is openly abused or called names then the person who does the abusing should expect to receive an open rebuke for their actions. Arguments are ok but when they get personal then the moderators should take action. I take my position as moderator very seriously and I expect the other mods to do likewise. Please do not suggest any favouritism on my part because my first and foremost task is to see to the smooth running of the forum. I will do that job with equity and uprightness. If I do this, then I must also expect flak from both sides of the argument as each will see my decision as one sided. Please do not provoke me. ;)
-
Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
Gerald - I do not know where you get your law from but it is rubbish, to put it as politely as I can. To succeed in a libel case the aggrieved party needs to demonstrate that the statements complained of are not in fact true. If the statements are true they are not defamatory. The burden of proof is upon the claimant/aggrieved party to show that the statements are untrue.
As I have stated before Julie Mugford would have two obstacles to cross before succeeding in a libel action. The first is as I have explained above for the second time. The second obstacle is to show that her reputation has genuinely been damaged by the statements. In assessing that the court takes into account her current reputation. Given that if she is to be believed she had advance knowledge of the murders and did nothing to prevent them, then assisted the murderer for a considerable period, obstructing the course of justice and behaving in a callous way towards relatives. The argument could and would no doubt be advanced that her character and reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the public is already at a very low ebb.
Before you ask, yes I have been involved in defamation cases. I have also advised publishers on libel issues.
I wasn't going to ask because clearly you haven't.
There is a laymans guide to defamation on the Liberty website, I suggest you read it.
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/defamation/index.html
You are a layman then Gerald? I can confirm that ngb IS a barrister and has much more than a "schoolboy" knowledge of the law. It is up to you of course as to whether you believe that or not. If you refuse to believe it of course then it is your choice to remain in ignorance. But please refrain from implying that ngb is a lyer by your continued berating of him and his knowledge of the law? Thank you.
-
Can we agree to start from this minimum baseline:
No poster is to allege of another poster that they are personally a liar. This does still allow for questioning of a posters particular standpoint / experience / knowledge in any given area
No poster is to personally insult another poster. This still allows for posters to be critical of each others views and stand points
Where searching questions are asked by a poster from one side of the spectrum, to a poster from another side, those questions should be worded in as polite a manner as is possible, so as to particularly avoid 'goading'.
Sarcasm should be overlooked, as long as it doesn't fall in to any of the above categories. We cant police everything.
Multiple user-names are not permitted. Please note we have one poster who has had a string of Christian names as user-names. Bit of a coincidence?
This still leaves the problem of when two posters are having a spat. Now this can become highly entertaining for other posters to view. We don't want a sterile forum where there is no entertainment do we? This kind of disagreement does sometimes further the debate because it often happens around a specific contentious issue. I think when this happens we should look out for any of the above happening and also look out for repetitive, disruptive behavior.
-
I do not think is is appropriate for you to say that I am "behaving like a spoilt child." I wish Mike would remove you, as you are not doing your job as moderator properly. It is not my decision, and frankly I have got better things to do with my time than getting involved in rubbish like this.
Usual hogwash from ngb1066, when the going gets tuff, the week get moaning.
-
I do not think is is appropriate for you to say that I am "behaving like a spoilt child." I wish Mike would remove you, as you are not doing your job as moderator properly. It is not my decision, and frankly I have got better things to do with my time than getting involved in rubbish like this.
Usual hogwash from ngb1066, when the going gets tuff, the week get moaning.
Jerry you cannot seem to help your own habitual need to cause strife. No matter which Christian name you use, I fear your days on the forum could be numbered, unless you revert back to contributing to the forum in a constructive manner.
-
I do not think is is appropriate for you to say that I am "behaving like a spoilt child." I wish Mike would remove you, as you are not doing your job as moderator properly. It is not my decision, and frankly I have got better things to do with my time than getting involved in rubbish like this.
Usual hogwash from ngb1066, when the going gets tuff, the week get moaning.
Jerry you cannot seem to help your own habitual need to cause strife. No matter which Christian name you use, I fear your days on the forum could be numbered, unless you revert back to contributing to the forum in a constructive manner.
Is that a personal threat Rochford...maybe you should take note of your own rules before you act all high and mighty?
I am perfectly entitled to make an observation and that observation was that ngb1066 threw the dummy out of the pram as someone else suggested earlier.
-
I do not think is is appropriate for you to say that I am "behaving like a spoilt child." I wish Mike would remove you, as you are not doing your job as moderator properly. It is not my decision, and frankly I have got better things to do with my time than getting involved in rubbish like this.
Usual hogwash from ngb1066, when the going gets tuff, the week get moaning.
Jerry you cannot seem to help your own habitual need to cause strife. No matter which Christian name you use, I fear your days on the forum could be numbered, unless you revert back to contributing to the forum in a constructive manner.
Is that a personal threat Rochford...maybe you should take note of your own rules before you act all high and mighty?
No it is not a threat. I am simply reminding you that you've been given a long leash, of late. However I'm not sure it is possible for a leopard to change it's spots in this case.
-
Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
Gerald - I do not know where you get your law from but it is rubbish, to put it as politely as I can. To succeed in a libel case the aggrieved party needs to demonstrate that the statements complained of are not in fact true. If the statements are true they are not defamatory. The burden of proof is upon the claimant/aggrieved party to show that the statements are untrue.
As I have stated before Julie Mugford would have two obstacles to cross before succeeding in a libel action. The first is as I have explained above for the second time. The second obstacle is to show that her reputation has genuinely been damaged by the statements. In assessing that the court takes into account her current reputation. Given that if she is to be believed she had advance knowledge of the murders and did nothing to prevent them, then assisted the murderer for a considerable period, obstructing the course of justice and behaving in a callous way towards relatives. The argument could and would no doubt be advanced that her character and reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the public is already at a very low ebb.
Before you ask, yes I have been involved in defamation cases. I have also advised publishers on libel issues.
I wasn't going to ask because clearly you haven't.
There is a laymans guide to defamation on the Liberty website, I suggest you read it.
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/defamation/index.html
You are a layman then Gerald? I can confirm that ngb IS a barrister and has much more than a "schoolboy" knowledge of the law. It is up to you of course as to whether you believe that or not. If you refuse to believe it of course then it is your choice to remain in ignorance. But please refrain from implying that ngb is a lyer by your continued berating of him and his knowledge of the law? Thank you.
I was simply trying to find something which illustrated my point and which was written in language which anyone following the link would understand.
It is of course up to me to believe what I will, and the same applies to anyone else who takes the trouble to follow the argument.
For the record, I have no other user names.
-
I do not think is is appropriate for you to say that I am "behaving like a spoilt child." I wish Mike would remove you, as you are not doing your job as moderator properly. It is not my decision, and frankly I have got better things to do with my time than getting involved in rubbish like this.
Usual hogwash from ngb1066, when the going gets tuff, the week get moaning.
Jerry you cannot seem to help your own habitual need to cause strife. No matter which Christian name you use, I fear your days on the forum could be numbered, unless you revert back to contributing to the forum in a constructive manner.
Is that a personal threat Rochford...maybe you should take note of your own rules before you act all high and mighty?
I am perfectly entitled to make an observation and that observation was that ngb1066 threw the dummy out of the pram as someone else suggested earlier.
No it is a moderating decision Jerry. I'm sure it isn't beyond you to hold a civilised conversation without all this backbiting just out of spite towards another member?
-
Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
Gerald - I do not know where you get your law from but it is rubbish, to put it as politely as I can. To succeed in a libel case the aggrieved party needs to demonstrate that the statements complained of are not in fact true. If the statements are true they are not defamatory. The burden of proof is upon the claimant/aggrieved party to show that the statements are untrue.
As I have stated before Julie Mugford would have two obstacles to cross before succeeding in a libel action. The first is as I have explained above for the second time. The second obstacle is to show that her reputation has genuinely been damaged by the statements. In assessing that the court takes into account her current reputation. Given that if she is to be believed she had advance knowledge of the murders and did nothing to prevent them, then assisted the murderer for a considerable period, obstructing the course of justice and behaving in a callous way towards relatives. The argument could and would no doubt be advanced that her character and reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the public is already at a very low ebb.
Before you ask, yes I have been involved in defamation cases. I have also advised publishers on libel issues.
I wasn't going to ask because clearly you haven't.
There is a laymans guide to defamation on the Liberty website, I suggest you read it.
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/defamation/index.html
You are a layman then Gerald? I can confirm that ngb IS a barrister and has much more than a "schoolboy" knowledge of the law. It is up to you of course as to whether you believe that or not. If you refuse to believe it of course then it is your choice to remain in ignorance. But please refrain from implying that ngb is a lyer by your continued berating of him and his knowledge of the law? Thank you.
I was simply trying to find something which illustrated my point and which was written in language which anyone following the link would understand.
It is of course up to me to believe what I will, and the same applies to anyone else who takes the trouble to follow the argument.
For the record, I have no other user names.
Accepted :D
-
Gerald - I do not know where you get your law from but it is rubbish, to put it as politely as I can. To succeed in a libel case the aggrieved party needs to demonstrate that the statements complained of are not in fact true. If the statements are true they are not defamatory. The burden of proof is upon the claimant/aggrieved party to show that the statements are untrue.
As I have stated before Julie Mugford would have two obstacles to cross before succeeding in a libel action. The first is as I have explained above for the second time. The second obstacle is to show that her reputation has genuinely been damaged by the statements. In assessing that the court takes into account her current reputation. Given that if she is to be believed she had advance knowledge of the murders and did nothing to prevent them, then assisted the murderer for a considerable period, obstructing the course of justice and behaving in a callous way towards relatives. The argument could and would no doubt be advanced that her character and reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the public is already at a very low ebb.
Before you ask, yes I have been involved in defamation cases. I have also advised publishers on libel issues.
Apparently your law is rubbish Gerald but I must admit that ngb1066 is right in one thing and that is that Jeremy Bamber is a murderer and a child murderer to boot.
I don't know where ngb1066 gets this idea that Julie Mugford was derided by the remaining family because irrespective of how she behaved momentarily, she came through in the end with all guns blazing.
Ask Hartley, he at least knows them personally.
-
I do not think is is appropriate for you to say that I am "behaving like a spoilt child." I wish Mike would remove you, as you are not doing your job as moderator properly. It is not my decision, and frankly I have got better things to do with my time than getting involved in rubbish like this.
Usual hogwash from ngb1066, when the going gets tuff, the week get moaning.
Jerry you cannot seem to help your own habitual need to cause strife. No matter which Christian name you use, I fear your days on the forum could be numbered, unless you revert back to contributing to the forum in a constructive manner.
Is that a personal threat Rochford...maybe you should take note of your own rules before you act all high and mighty?
I am perfectly entitled to make an observation and that observation was that ngb1066 threw the dummy out of the pram as someone else suggested earlier.
No it is a moderating decision Jerry. I'm sure it isn't beyond you to hold a civilised conversation without all this backbiting just out of spite towards another member?
You do sound awfully like another poster Grahame, are you sure you aren't related?
-
Curious you have got me really confused now can you explain exactly what you mean and explain as if you think JB is guilty
All I can say is so much doesn't make sense if a hit man was used JB would have had an alibi. The scene was left as a suicide if JB had been in London with Julie it would have stayed a suicide. If JB was responsible he would have used a solicitor he would have acted differently in the witness box.
You would have to show me something definate proving JB s guilt re the telephone calls rather than him just forgetting or just muddling up times because I forget times even important times so maybe I am the wrong person to put the argument to but please explain it to me in detail.
Jackie
I will try to explain, as per your request, from a perspective of Jeremy being guilty.
Jeremy states he was woken from his sleep by a telephone call from his father at between 03.15 and 03.30 a.m. You can hear this in Jeremy's own words if you follow the link below
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/
Jeremy confirms his father tells him Sheila has got hold of the gun.
Jeremy admits calling Julie.
Jeremy admits to telling Julie about trouble at the farm.
Three flatmates testified in a court of law they heard the telephone in the flat ringing at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”. - NGB has confirmed on this forum that testimony in court is what counts above any witness statements that may have been taken. - Two of these witnesses fall outside your voiced concern about them being involved in a cheque fraud which would contribute to them being a potentially unreliable witnesses.
It is impossible for Jeremy to have rung Julie's flat in London to advise of trouble at the farm at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”, if by his own admission, he is still asleep before 03.15 and 03.30 am.
Jeremy would also, by his own admission, be telling of trouble at the farm before he is alerted to the fact that there is any trouble at the farm by a telephone call from Nevill.
Jeremy could only possibly know of there being trouble at the farm by other means i.e. he was there
As such Jeremy's defence falls apart by his own admission when compared against two other credible witnesses.
Does this make sense with regard to your specific request?
Jackie
In case you have not seen, given the high volume of posts regarding inter member dispute, I have responded to your request for an explanation - see above.
Does the explanation make sense?
-
Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?
-
Curious you have got me really confused now can you explain exactly what you mean and explain as if you think JB is guilty
All I can say is so much doesn't make sense if a hit man was used JB would have had an alibi. The scene was left as a suicide if JB had been in London with Julie it would have stayed a suicide. If JB was responsible he would have used a solicitor he would have acted differently in the witness box.
You would have to show me something definate proving JB s guilt re the telephone calls rather than him just forgetting or just muddling up times because I forget times even important times so maybe I am the wrong person to put the argument to but please explain it to me in detail.
Jackie
I will try to explain, as per your request, from a perspective of Jeremy being guilty.
Jeremy states he was woken from his sleep by a telephone call from his father at between 03.15 and 03.30 a.m. You can hear this in Jeremy's own words if you follow the link below
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/
Jeremy confirms his father tells him Sheila has got hold of the gun.
Jeremy admits calling Julie.
Jeremy admits to telling Julie about trouble at the farm.
Three flatmates testified in a court of law they heard the telephone in the flat ringing at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”. - NGB has confirmed on this forum that testimony in court is what counts above any witness statements that may have been taken. - Two of these witnesses fall outside your voiced concern about them being involved in a cheque fraud which would contribute to them being a potentially unreliable witnesses.
It is impossible for Jeremy to have rung Julie's flat in London to advise of trouble at the farm at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”, if by his own admission, he is still asleep before 03.15 and 03.30 am.
Jeremy would also, by his own admission, be telling of trouble at the farm before he is alerted to the fact that there is any trouble at the farm by a telephone call from Nevill.
Jeremy could only possibly know of there being trouble at the farm by other means i.e. he was there
As such Jeremy's defence falls apart by his own admission when compared against two other credible witnesses.
Does this make sense with regard to your specific request?
Jackie
In case you have not seen, given the high volume of posts regarding inter member dispute, I have responded to your request for an explanation - see above.
Does the explanation make sense?
Any confusion over the times of calls and these being changed is probably down to police trickery and manipulation... police claiming false things at interview etc etc etc.
Roll out every piece of paperwork etc...including suicide investigation paperwork and we may well see what really went on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what indeed were the words reportedly used by JB in regards to the call to JM.
Was it "there is trouble at the farm"...
that sticks in my memory for it sounds absolutely correct....for an ongoing event about which JB would not know much about . The key word being "is" in the present tense.
Now IF JM had any inkling of JB plotting to murder and had indeed said something along the lines of "Tonights the Night"....then surely he would have slipped up in the claimed words spoken and have spoken in the past tense to someone who was supposed to know what had gone on . He would not need to conceal this from JM if she knew.
If Jm knew then his words would have been "THERE HAS BEEN TROUBLE AT THE FARM " or "there was trouble at the farm" or even said something else entirely to confirm what "Tonights the Night" must have meant had been carried out and delivered in the past tense.
But JM supposedly claims she though JB's talking of killing the family etc was all fantasy and that he was not going through with it as it was all nonsense.
So if JB really said "Tonights the Night" then her claims of it being JB's fantasy bring up the question that she should wonder what the hell JB meant when he said "TONIGHTS THE NIGHT" for such a statement would demand the listener to ask the speaker what he meant by "tonights the night" and he would have answered....meaning she was fully aware of his intentions, plans and what was going to happen.
JM seems to miss this bit out...so must have been clueless ... But if clued up...which she should have been then it makes no sense for JB to use the "is" tense when he phoned JM after the call from Neville.
It seems to me the JM has fabricated the Tonights the Night claim and much else besides as it does tie up with other evidence and falls flat on its face in regards to what JB later said on the phone to her.
The hitman claim...which seems completely false....now if she really knew JB was the actual killer and was in no doubt about this and what JB had done...then she was putting herself at huge risk spending time with him , sleeping with him etc etc for a whole month.... Now this eats seriously into her credibility as no normal person would do that would they!!! To overcome this credibility issue it seems the hitman claim was invented in which that way her spending time with JB does not put her in direct threat of him harming her as he didnt commit the actual killings.
oh my own view....Criminals are essentially selfish people who are more concerned for themselves than for others and this hampers their ability to properly love somebody in the same sense and using the same values as non criminal types could. JM falls into this category of criminal by her own admitted actions so to answer the thread question....NO JM did not really love JB.
-
Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?
That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1
-
Just read this. Apologies if you have already seen it.
http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/timothy-ernest
-
right ok, ive seen enough, can everyone drop the squabbling and behave? concentrate on the CASE not each other, i dont want to start editing or removing posts.thanks
Andrea - are you placing my posts in the same category as Gerald's? Are you suggesting that you are going to remove any of my posts? I believe we need some firm action by moderators here and I have urged for that to happen but we have not seen any yet. This forum is rapidly going downhill.
I've been out of action for a week and it is taking me some time to catch up on things. My mind also is not working that well yet. If there is any untoward behaviour I will try and sort it out. Indded it is not enough to bunch everything together and treat all posters the same. If there is a clear offender then I promise I will take action to repremand those guilty of those actions. Please bear with me on this one.
-
Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?
Jon
Here is a reply for you.
I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'
In order to answer the question somethings should be established.
With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.
It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.
With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.
As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.
I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.
-
Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?
Jon
Here is a reply for you.
I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'
In order to answer the question somethings should be established.
With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.
It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.
With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.
As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.
I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.
::) ;D
Curious, if you had a percentage re guilt / innocence for JB, would I be right in thinking you are approx 80/20 in favour of guilt?
-
Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?
Jon
Here is a reply for you.
I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'
In order to answer the question somethings should be established.
With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.
It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.
With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.
As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.
I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.
So you are of the belief that JB put the Silencer and Ammunition box in the cupboard after it had been searched ?
-
Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?
Jon
Here is a reply for you.
I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'
In order to answer the question somethings should be established.
With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.
It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.
With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.
As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.
I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.
::) ;D
Curious, if you had a percentage re guilt / innocence for JB, would I be right in thinking you are approx 80/20 in favour of guilt?
Rochford
To be honest I would not like to call and certainly would not like to have sat on the jury.
I have always stated the telephone calls on the morning of 7th August bother me and they do not add up. I believe the answer lies within the telphone calls and sequence thereof. I know some do not like this debate but given the 03.26 call log is public knowledge re press articles etc. and is being cited within the CCRC submissions it is, for me, legitimate debate on the forum.
The silencer / moderator, I believe should never have been allowed as evidence........ not a clean evidence trail and with being dismantled and 'off site' for a period of time before being handed over to police etc. and all this regardless of any question of exhibit labels.
There is no doubt the investigation was poor with evidence being burnt at the Farm. If reports are to be believed this is something Jeremy encouraged the police to do.
Also for me I find difficulty with Mike not posting Jeremy's witness statements because I think these will hold important information either way. I guess therefore I need to be persuaded.
-
Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?
Jon
Here is a reply for you.
I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'
In order to answer the question somethings should be established.
With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.
It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.
With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.
As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.
I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.
So you are of the belief that JB put the Silencer and Ammunition box in the cupboard after it had been searched ?
Jon
It is a possibility.
Jeremy by his own admission got into White House Farm undetected in order to get some travel documents or other items from the office before going abroad. This being in the aftermath of the killings.
-
Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?
Jon
Here is a reply for you.
I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'
In order to answer the question somethings should be established.
With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.
It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.
With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.
As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.
I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.
So you are of the belief that JB put the Silencer and Ammunition box in the cupboard after it had been searched ?
Jon
It is a possibility.
Jeremy by his own admission got into White House Farm undetected in order to get some travel documents or other items from the office before going abroad. This being in the aftermath of the killings.
It would be a rather ridiculous thing for JB to do... if he was guilty and had removed these items so they would not be found....then he would have sensibly disposed of them elsewhere so they would not be found and certainly not took them back and place them where they would be found.
In my view , considering how the police did act...it seems more likely that some dodgy police officers are responsible for tampering with evidence in order to frame JB . If not them ...then the dodgy relatives were involved in messing around with the evidence in this regard.
-
Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?
Jon
Here is a reply for you.
I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'
In order to answer the question somethings should be established.
With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.
It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.
With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.
As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.
I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.
So you are of the belief that JB put the Silencer and Ammunition box in the cupboard after it had been searched ?
Jon
It is a possibility.
Jeremy by his own admission got into White House Farm undetected in order to get some travel documents or other items from the office before going abroad. This being in the aftermath of the killings.
It would be a rather ridiculous thing for JB to do... if he was guilty and had removed these items so they would not be found....then he would have sensibly disposed of them elsewhere so they would not be found and certainly not took them back and place them where they would be found.
In my view , considering how the police did act...it seems more likely that some dodgy police officers are responsible for tampering with evidence in order to frame JB . If not them ...then the dodgy relatives were involved in messing around with the evidence in this regard.
Smiffy
What we do knoew is Jermey admits to gaingin undetected entry and exit from WHite House Farm after the killings.
Was it rediculous behaviour for Jeremy to get into White House Farm after the killings undetected in order to get some travel documents?
Is this not unusual behaviour?
Is this something you would have done?
Do you think this will have been a deliberate action or could it have been stress that made him do it because he was not thinking straight?
-
Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?
Jon
Here is a reply for you.
I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'
In order to answer the question somethings should be established.
With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.
It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.
With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.
As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.
I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.[/b]
With all the information possible, i could certainly create a market. It would have to be 2 markets really, one treating JB as innocent, and the other as guilty. There would be no accuracy in the odds v actual events, but none the less, a decent spead of odds for all punters to have a wager on. ;)
-
Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?
Jon
Here is a reply for you.
I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'
In order to answer the question somethings should be established.
With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.
It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.
With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.
As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.
I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.
So you are of the belief that JB put the Silencer and Ammunition box in the cupboard after it had been searched ?
Jon
It is a possibility.
Jeremy by his own admission got into White House Farm undetected in order to get some travel documents or other items from the office before going abroad. This being in the aftermath of the killings.
It would be a rather ridiculous thing for JB to do... if he was guilty and had removed these items so they would not be found....then he would have sensibly disposed of them elsewhere so they would not be found and certainly not took them back and place them where they would be found.
In my view , considering how the police did act...it seems more likely that some dodgy police officers are responsible for tampering with evidence in order to frame JB . If not them ...then the dodgy relatives were involved in messing around with the evidence in this regard.
Smiffy
What we do knoew is Jermey admits to gaingin undetected entry and exit from WHite House Farm after the killings.
Was it rediculous behaviour for Jeremy to get into White House Farm after the killings undetected in order to get some travel documents?
Is this not unusual behaviour?
Is this something you would have done?
Do you think this will have been a deliberate action or could it have been stress that made him do it because he was not thinking straight?
I see nothing wierd about JB getting his travel documents in the way he admitted to.
as for putting evidence back for no good reason....thats a truly crackpot idea that makes no sense....not credible!
-
Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?
Jon
Here is a reply for you.
I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'
In order to answer the question somethings should be established.
With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.
It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.
With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.
As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.
I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.[/b]
With all the information possible, i could certainly create a market. It would have to be 2 markets really, one treating JB as innocent, and the other as guilty. There would be no accuracy in the odds v actual events, but none the less, a decent spead of odds for all punters to have a wager on. ;)
So what are the odds?
In your opinion, was the summary logic in establishing background a fair assessment in order to provide a response?
-
Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?
Jon
Here is a reply for you.
I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'
In order to answer the question somethings should be established.
With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.
It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.
With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.
As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.
I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.[/b]
With all the information possible, i could certainly create a market. It would have to be 2 markets really, one treating JB as innocent, and the other as guilty. There would be no accuracy in the odds v actual events, but none the less, a decent spead of odds for all punters to have a wager on. ;)
So what are the odds?
In your opinion, was the summary logic in establishing background a fair assessment in order to provide a response?
Odds on this CE can not be accurate, so very little point creating a market, it would just be a fun market.
But, your logic is spot on.
What would need to be established, is whether the items would raise suspicion if not found in the cupboard, from possibly other family members/friends.
If there is a positive answer to this, then it would effect any fun market i'd attempt to create.
-
Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?
Jon
Here is a reply for you.
I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'
In order to answer the question somethings should be established.
With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.
It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.
With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.
As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.
I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.
So you are of the belief that JB put the Silencer and Ammunition box in the cupboard after it had been searched ?
Jon
It is a possibility.
Jeremy by his own admission got into White House Farm undetected in order to get some travel documents or other items from the office before going abroad. This being in the aftermath of the killings.
It would be a rather ridiculous thing for JB to do... if he was guilty and had removed these items so they would not be found....then he would have sensibly disposed of them elsewhere so they would not be found and certainly not took them back and place them where they would be found.
In my view , considering how the police did act...it seems more likely that some dodgy police officers are responsible for tampering with evidence in order to frame JB . If not them ...then the dodgy relatives were involved in messing around with the evidence in this regard.
Smiffy
What we do knoew is Jermey admits to gaingin undetected entry and exit from WHite House Farm after the killings.
Was it rediculous behaviour for Jeremy to get into White House Farm after the killings undetected in order to get some travel documents?
Is this not unusual behaviour?
Is this something you would have done?
Do you think this will have been a deliberate action or could it have been stress that made him do it because he was not thinking straight?
I see nothing wierd about JB getting his travel documents in the way he admitted to.
as for putting evidence back for no good reason....thats a truly crackpot idea that makes no sense....not credible!
Smiffy
If I am not mistaken Jeremy admits to gaining entry and exit via windows at night.
Would it not be more reasonable just to ask to get the documents from the office during the day when people are at the farm working or just ask the police etc. It is not as if the trip abroad was unplanned.
Have you ever gone or are you in the habit of getting into a relative's home at night via windows undetected?
-
Curious you have got me really confused now can you explain exactly what you mean and explain as if you think JB is guilty
All I can say is so much doesn't make sense if a hit man was used JB would have had an alibi. The scene was left as a suicide if JB had been in London with Julie it would have stayed a suicide. If JB was responsible he would have used a solicitor he would have acted differently in the witness box.
You would have to show me something definate proving JB s guilt re the telephone calls rather than him just forgetting or just muddling up times because I forget times even important times so maybe I am the wrong person to put the argument to but please explain it to me in detail.
Jackie
I will try to explain, as per your request, from a perspective of Jeremy being guilty.
Jeremy states he was woken from his sleep by a telephone call from his father at between 03.15 and 03.30 a.m. You can hear this in Jeremy's own words if you follow the link below
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/
Jeremy confirms his father tells him Sheila has got hold of the gun.
Jeremy admits calling Julie.
Jeremy admits to telling Julie about trouble at the farm.
Three flatmates testified in a court of law they heard the telephone in the flat ringing at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”. - NGB has confirmed on this forum that testimony in court is what counts above any witness statements that may have been taken. - Two of these witnesses fall outside your voiced concern about them being involved in a cheque fraud which would contribute to them being a potentially unreliable witnesses.
It is impossible for Jeremy to have rung Julie's flat in London to advise of trouble at the farm at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”, if by his own admission, he is still asleep before 03.15 and 03.30 am.
Jeremy would also, by his own admission, be telling of trouble at the farm before he is alerted to the fact that there is any trouble at the farm by a telephone call from Nevill.
Jeremy could only possibly know of there being trouble at the farm by other means i.e. he was there
As such Jeremy's defence falls apart by his own admission when compared against two other credible witnesses.
Does this make sense with regard to your specific request?
Jackie
In case you have not seen, given the high volume of posts regarding inter member dispute, I have responded to your request for an explanation - see above.
Does the explanation make sense?
Jackie
I see you are on line...........
Did my explanation to your specific request make sense?
-
Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?
Jon
Here is a reply for you.
I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'
In order to answer the question somethings should be established.
With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.
It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.
With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.
As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.
I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.
::) ;D
Curious, if you had a percentage re guilt / innocence for JB, would I be right in thinking you are approx 80/20 in favour of guilt?
Rochford
To be honest I would not like to call and certainly would not like to have sat on the jury.
I have always stated the telephone calls on the morning of 7th August bother me and they do not add up. I believe the answer lies within the telphone calls and sequence thereof. I know some do not like this debate but given the 03.26 call log is public knowledge re press articles etc. and is being cited within the CCRC submissions it is, for me, legitimate debate on the forum.
The silencer / moderator, I believe should never have been allowed as evidence........ not a clean evidence trail and with being dismantled and 'off site' for a period of time before being handed over to police etc. and all this regardless of any question of exhibit labels.
There is no doubt the investigation was poor with evidence being burnt at the Farm. If reports are to be believed this is something Jeremy encouraged the police to do.
Also for me I find difficulty with Mike not posting Jeremy's witness statements because I think these will hold important information either way. I guess therefore I need to be persuaded.
Thanks for that C.E. On my scale of innocence / guilt (imagine a horizontal bar running from 0% - 100%) I'm going to place you at 65%
-
Curious , which is more likely in your opinion , three policemen searching a small cupboard and missing a silencer and box of ammunition , or a man waking up in the early hour's and getting the time wrong ?
Jon
Here is a reply for you.
I believe Kiera also wanted to know the reply as she posted...............'That's a very good question, jon. I look forward to the answer. +1'
In order to answer the question somethings should be established.
With regard to the searching of a small cupboard by three policeman it should be noted there is no evidence that the silencer and ammunition were in the cupboard at the time it was searched. If they all stated that they did not see the silencer and box of ammunition. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements.
It is possible the items were returned / or placed in the cupboard later by someone else between the morning of 7th August and the time when they were found sometime later. If you have evidence that the items were in the cupboard when the cupboard was searched by three policemen then please share it.
With regard to a man waking up in the early hours and getting the time wrong. If the same man, in a first statement had specifically timed a call from his father at about 3.10 a.m. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement.
As such, given the above, I would say the three policemen scenario is more likely.
I am no statistician but from other posts I have read maybe the 'G' brothers could work out the odds more scientifically.
So you are of the belief that JB put the Silencer and Ammunition box in the cupboard after it had been searched ?
Jon
It is a possibility.
Jeremy by his own admission got into White House Farm undetected in order to get some travel documents or other items from the office before going abroad. This being in the aftermath of the killings.
It would be a rather ridiculous thing for JB to do... if he was guilty and had removed these items so they would not be found....then he would have sensibly disposed of them elsewhere so they would not be found and certainly not took them back and place them where they would be found.
In my view , considering how the police did act...it seems more likely that some dodgy police officers are responsible for tampering with evidence in order to frame JB . If not them ...then the dodgy relatives were involved in messing around with the evidence in this regard.
Smiffy
What we do knoew is Jermey admits to gaingin undetected entry and exit from WHite House Farm after the killings.
Was it rediculous behaviour for Jeremy to get into White House Farm after the killings undetected in order to get some travel documents?
Is this not unusual behaviour?
Is this something you would have done?
Do you think this will have been a deliberate action or could it have been stress that made him do it because he was not thinking straight?
I see nothing wierd about JB getting his travel documents in the way he admitted to.
as for putting evidence back for no good reason....thats a truly crackpot idea that makes no sense....not credible!
Smiffy
If I am not mistaken Jeremy admits to gaining entry and exit via windows at night.
Would it not be more reasonable just to ask to get the documents from the office during the day when people are at the farm working or just ask the police etc. It is not as if the trip abroad was unplanned.
Have you ever gone or are you in the habit of getting into a relative's home at night via windows undetected?
I am more curious as to why he had no key to his parents house? My son has a key to my house.
-
Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?
I have no idea.
Very true!
I second that!
You see Keira, this is goading, it took place before any so called lying comment by Gerald. What makes it worse, is you chose to "second the comment" rather than act.
Since then, you've read back through the thread, decided that Gerald is guilty, this forum can not be moderated.
It's ok Paulg, I'm sure anyone reading this thread can see what happened. NGB stamped his feet and demanded his ego be massaged by "other moderators" and up popped Cliff and Chochokeira, all too happy to sacrifice any facade of independant thought in order to keep their prize poster.
They're probably right to do so. From his posts NGB appears to be generally intelligent, eloquent and well read. No doubt he makes more of a contribution to this board than I ever would. But you will never persuade me that he is any kind of lawyer, let alone a barrister. If he was, do you really think he would throw his toys out of the pram over the opinion of an anonymous poster who registered just yesterday on an internet forum?
Another allegation that I am a liar. If forum moderation has any meaning, action should follow. However, this is not my responsibilty because I am not a moderator. Mike Tesko in an effort to ensure fairness and balance picked a set of moderators from both sides of this debate. Most have acted fairly and effectively. Paulg has not. No doubt he will support "Gerald" on this post as well.
Right, now i've taken my time to respond to you.
This debate was never about the guilty v's not guilty factions, IMO it was about law that affected every person that posts on this forum.
You've made statements of fact on this forum, regarding legal issues, that in the opinion of a new poster, where clearly not made by an English barrister/lawyer (i'll come back to the English bit). You've decided to hide behind the he's calling me a liar, or i think its John attacking me. Then you've hid behind Paulg is a biased mod, help me other mods, i want him removed.
What concerns me, is that you have not retracted these statements, yet they are false, i suggest that if you are in the legal profession, you do so when you are next online.
Now, back to the English bit. Maybe you googled your information, or maybe you're an attorney in the US, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're from the US, but do not post on English law unless you are qualified to do so.
This is a quote from a case on the internet, involving an English company.
"The impact of the First Amendment has resulted in a substantial divergence of approach between American and English defamation law. For example in innocent dissemination cases in English law the Defendant publisher has to establish his innocence whereas in American law the Plaintiff who has been libelled has to prove that the publisher was not innocent."
Now, i don't want an apology, but i certainly think you owe one to every person that posts on this forum.
Mike, as i said before, feel free to remove me as a moderator. But, i can assure you i am not biased, and in this instance, i only had everyones interest on my mind, including yours.
-
Paul that post had better not be to ngb
-
Paul that post had better not be to ngb
I think it might be.
-
Well that just shows someone's intelligence and the very reason I have put a stop to Ngb ever posting on this forum again. For your information Paul a number of members of this forum know who Ngb is and they know exactly his background and his experience but I am glad you have got your legal beagle mates to take Ngb s place on the forum
Maybe a lot of people are too stupid to realise but this is a nice set up with Paul Vidvic Hartley Gerry and Jerry to stop people saying anything against Mugford and the relatives
What a great forum this is but I can take away something good from Pauls profound conclusions Ngb has so much more time working on JB s case and just incase your interested Ngb is very connected to people who make the highest decisions
-
Paul that post had better not be to ngb
Jackie, i don't think you realise how serious this is, i'm sure NGB does.
-
Hey don't try and bring me into it. I'll leave you to it in this thread.
-
Hartley you might think you are clever but I will stay on the side of all those people that have written testimonials and you stay on the side of Ann eaton, Vidvic, Jerry, Gerald and jailbird and Paulg if that makes you happy and I count Ngb as a friend and an amazing person and him and Jeremy are working very well together
-
Paulg what exactly is serious
-
Hartley you might think you are clever but I will stay on the side of all those people that have written testimonials and you stay on the side of Ann eaton, Vidvic, Jerry, Gerald and jailbird and Paulg if that makes you happy and I count Ngb as a friend and an amazing person and him and Jeremy are working very well together
My opinions are my own. I'm not on anybodies side.
-
paulg I don't think he 'hid behind' anything. There was a genuine suspicion that Gerald was another John incarnation. What should be taken in to account therefore, is not only Gerald's opening salvo but also the previous war of attrition waged by John against ngb. It should be seen in that context.
-
Paulg I never want Ngb s name mentioned again he's gone I am glad he's left and the legal stuff on the forum can be left to you
I am absolutely disgusted
-
Well that just shows someone's intelligence and the very reason I have put a stop to Ngb ever posting on this forum again. For your information Paul a number of members of this forum know who Ngb is and they know exactly his background and his experience but I am glad you have got your legal beagle mates to take Ngb s place on the forum
Maybe a lot of people are too stupid to realise but this is a nice set up with Paul Vidvic Hartley Gerry and Jerry to stop people saying anything against Mugford and the relatives
What a great forum this is but I can take away something good from Pauls profound conclusions Ngb has so much more time working on JB s case and just incase your interested Ngb is very connected to people who make the highest decisions
I suggest Jackie that you ask Mike T for his take on things, because Gerald just might have saved a lot of people from law suits.
The facts are Jackie, that if you call JM an evil lying bitch, it is down to you to prove this in a court of law, she would not have to say a single word, and her lawyers would have to say very little as well.
NGB is welcome to come in here and show us in English law any different, but i don't think he can...if he does, i'll gladly fall on my sword, apologise, and melt away.
-
Rochy I don't want Ngb mentioned again it's bad enough what he has had to put up with over the weeks and a lot of it was probably because he defended me
Rocky don't get in any arguments it's just not worth it nobody here is worth it
-
paulg I don't think he 'hid behind' anything. There was a genuine suspicion that Gerald was another John incarnation. What should be taken in to account therefore, is not only Gerald's opening salvo but also the previous war of attrition waged by John against ngb. It should be seen in that context.
Are you serious Rochy, NGB gives mis-information about defamatory laws, is questioned on it, claims to represent companies on the laws, and suspects its John out to goad him. Do me a favour, he would have known he was wrong.
Gerald may have seemed to be John to the casual observer, but it shouldn't have been the case with NGB.
-
paulg I don't think he 'hid behind' anything. There was a genuine suspicion that Gerald was another John incarnation. What should be taken in to account therefore, is not only Gerald's opening salvo but also the previous war of attrition waged by John against ngb. It should be seen in that context.
Are you serious Rochy, NGB gives mis-information about defamatory laws, is questioned on it, claims to represent companies on the laws, and suspects its John out to goad him. Do me a favour, he would have known he was wrong.
Gerald may have seemed to be John to the casual observer, but it shouldn't have been the case with NGB.
I wasn't kidding and I don't doubt for a moment his absolute genuine credentials. He posted many times on this forum, often very quickly in response to many different legal queries. The forum will be considerably lesser for his withdrawal. But that's his choice I suppose. P.S. It was me who suggested to him that Gerald was John. In light of that being incorrect, I do apologise. Since Gerald had only posted a few times and used a sarcastic tone, plus it's quite feasible for John to have some knowledge of such legal matters, given who he allegedly is, I think the thought of further cretinous baiting by 'John' was off-putting for him.
-
paulg I don't think he 'hid behind' anything. There was a genuine suspicion that Gerald was another John incarnation. What should be taken in to account therefore, is not only Gerald's opening salvo but also the previous war of attrition waged by John against ngb. It should be seen in that context.
Are you serious Rochy, NGB gives mis-information about defamatory laws, is questioned on it, claims to represent companies on the laws, and suspects its John out to goad him. Do me a favour, he would have known he was wrong.
Gerald may have seemed to be John to the casual observer, but it shouldn't have been the case with NGB.
I wasn't kidding and I don't doubt for a moment his absolute genuine credentials. He posted many times on this forum, often very quickly in response to many different legal queries. The forum will be considerably lesser for his withdrawal. But that's his choice I suppose. P.S. It was me who suggested to him that Gerald was John. In light of that being incorrect, I do apologise. Since Gerald had only posted a few times and used a sarcastic tone, plus it's quite feasible for John to have some knowledge of such legal matters, given who he allegedly is, I think the thought of further cretinous baiting by 'John' was off-putting for him.
But he shouldn't withdraw though should he Rochy? Just a "i got it wrong, sorry" is enough.
-
paulg I don't think he 'hid behind' anything. There was a genuine suspicion that Gerald was another John incarnation. What should be taken in to account therefore, is not only Gerald's opening salvo but also the previous war of attrition waged by John against ngb. It should be seen in that context.
Are you serious Rochy, NGB gives mis-information about defamatory laws, is questioned on it, claims to represent companies on the laws, and suspects its John out to goad him. Do me a favour, he would have known he was wrong.
Gerald may have seemed to be John to the casual observer, but it shouldn't have been the case with NGB.
I wasn't kidding and I don't doubt for a moment his absolute genuine credentials. He posted many times on this forum, often very quickly in response to many different legal queries. The forum will be considerably lesser for his withdrawal. But that's his choice I suppose. P.S. It was me who suggested to him that Gerald was John. In light of that being incorrect, I do apologise. Since Gerald had only posted a few times and used a sarcastic tone, plus it's quite feasible for John to have some knowledge of such legal matters, given who he allegedly is, I think the thought of further cretinous baiting by 'John' was off-putting for him.
Hi Rocky, I thought he was John too because he used the tactics, the same line of attack, the same manner, the same accusation that ngb was lying about his profession when that is not the case.
-
paulg I don't think he 'hid behind' anything. There was a genuine suspicion that Gerald was another John incarnation. What should be taken in to account therefore, is not only Gerald's opening salvo but also the previous war of attrition waged by John against ngb. It should be seen in that context.
Are you serious Rochy, NGB gives mis-information about defamatory laws, is questioned on it, claims to represent companies on the laws, and suspects its John out to goad him. Do me a favour, he would have known he was wrong.
Gerald may have seemed to be John to the casual observer, but it shouldn't have been the case with NGB.
I wasn't kidding and I don't doubt for a moment his absolute genuine credentials. He posted many times on this forum, often very quickly in response to many different legal queries. The forum will be considerably lesser for his withdrawal. But that's his choice I suppose. P.S. It was me who suggested to him that Gerald was John. In light of that being incorrect, I do apologise. Since Gerald had only posted a few times and used a sarcastic tone, plus it's quite feasible for John to have some knowledge of such legal matters, given who he allegedly is, I think the thought of further cretinous baiting by 'John' was off-putting for him.
Hi Rocky, I thought he was John too because he used the tactics, the same line of attack, the same manner, the same accusation that ngb was lying about his profession when that is not the case.
Well NGB should come on here and correct his statements then.
-
You are now absolutely taking the piss now Paul you are not trying to insinuate Ngb is wrong
You are kidding yes
Paul thanks for bringing the forum to it's knees
A big clap for you though getting rid of a barrister and gun expert all in one day
What good work for the anti Bamber camp
It does not take a genius to see Gerald got everything off the Internet
I will put it to you Paul why don't you have a thousand pound bet with Ngb who has got the best credentials
Think before you make ridiculous statements about genuine people
Put up or shut up
-
paulg / choch...Well ideally I would have preferred for ngb to hang around and challenge / post as before, rather than pack in. Any grievance he has is his grievance. I cant speak for him. I can only offer an opinion of the context surrounding what happened, as I perceived it to be.
I don't see any prosecution linked witnesses scrambling to undergo polygraphs and I dont think we'll see any dragging posters through the courts... but I appreciate your concern on the defamation / libel issue paulg, in relation to the forum.
-
paulg / choch...Well ideally I would have preferred for ngb to hang around and challenge / post as before, rather than pack in. Any grievance he has is his grievance. I cant speak for him. I can only offer an opinion of the context surrounding what happened, as I perceived it to be.
I don't see any prosecution linked witnesses scrambling to undergo polygraphs and I dont think we'll see any dragging posters through the courts... but I appreciate your concern on the defamation / libel issue paulg, in relation to the forum.
Well said, Rocky, I agree with you.
-
Rochy how many weeks has Ngb been a victim of the type of goading that Paul has been doing tonight it really shows what type of man he is
One thing I am certain of he won't take the bet because he knows the answer
Over to Paul the big man to take up the challenge
How could anyone in their wildest dreams think Ngb would ever post on here again with Pauls behaviour
I might get Ngb to sue Paul now that would be fun
-
Oh dear Paul seems to have disappeared I wonder why
-
Jackie - I've not been involved in this long-running NGB war/love-in, but isn't the key point that NGB seemed to be wrong on a key point of defamation law? Are you contesting that that is not the case?
(for what it's worth I always found NGB to be a decent chap in his forum dealings and will miss his contributions - not sure why you've said you have made sure he will never post again? Could he not hang around and argue his case, barrister-style?!)
-
You are now absolutely taking the piss now Paul you are not trying to insinuate Ngb is wrong
You are kidding yes
Paul thanks for bringing the forum to it's knees
A big clap for you though getting rid of a barrister and gun expert all in one day
What good work for the anti Bamber camp
It does not take a genius to see Gerald got everything off the Internet
I will put it to you Paul why don't you have a thousand pound bet with Ngb who has got the best credentials
Think before you make ridiculous statements about genuine people
Put up or shut up
He could o got it from the back of lolly stick for all i care, the fact is, he's right, and he's right on a law issue that has to be 110% correct for this forum.
I don't care if NGB once played in goal for the Old Bailey 11, the fact is, he's wrong, dangerously wrong.
-
Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?
I have no idea.
Very true!
I second that!
You see Keira, this is goading, it took place before any so called lying comment by Gerald. What makes it worse, is you chose to "second the comment" rather than act.
Since then, you've read back through the thread, decided that Gerald is guilty, this forum can not be moderated.
It's ok Paulg, I'm sure anyone reading this thread can see what happened. NGB stamped his feet and demanded his ego be massaged by "other moderators" and up popped Cliff and Chochokeira, all too happy to sacrifice any facade of independant thought in order to keep their prize poster.
They're probably right to do so. From his posts NGB appears to be generally intelligent, eloquent and well read. No doubt he makes more of a contribution to this board than I ever would. But you will never persuade me that he is any kind of lawyer, let alone a barrister. If he was, do you really think he would throw his toys out of the pram over the opinion of an anonymous poster who registered just yesterday on an internet forum?
Another allegation that I am a liar. If forum moderation has any meaning, action should follow. However, this is not my responsibilty because I am not a moderator. Mike Tesko in an effort to ensure fairness and balance picked a set of moderators from both sides of this debate. Most have acted fairly and effectively. Paulg has not. No doubt he will support "Gerald" on this post as well.
Right, now i've taken my time to respond to you.
This debate was never about the guilty v's not guilty factions, IMO it was about law that affected every person that posts on this forum.
You've made statements of fact on this forum, regarding legal issues, that in the opinion of a new poster, where clearly not made by an English barrister/lawyer (i'll come back to the English bit). You've decided to hide behind the he's calling me a liar, or i think its John attacking me. Then you've hid behind Paulg is a biased mod, help me other mods, i want him removed.
What concerns me, is that you have not retracted these statements, yet they are false, i suggest that if you are in the legal profession, you do so when you are next online.
Now, back to the English bit. Maybe you googled your information, or maybe you're an attorney in the US, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're from the US, but do not post on English law unless you are qualified to do so.
This is a quote from a case on the internet, involving an English company.
"The impact of the First Amendment has resulted in a substantial divergence of approach between American and English defamation law. For example in innocent dissemination cases in English law the Defendant publisher has to establish his innocence whereas in American law the Plaintiff who has been libelled has to prove that the publisher was not innocent."
Now, i don't want an apology, but i certainly think you owe one to every person that posts on this forum.
Mike, as i said before, feel free to remove me as a moderator. But, i can assure you i am not biased, and in this instance, i only had everyones interest on my mind, including yours.
I can assure you Paul 100% that ngb is an English barrister who is working with Jeremy Bamber at this present time. There are ways that I can prove this. But feel that I should not because it may adversely affect many aspects of his work with Jeremy. ngb prefers to remain anonymous and I respect his decision. Also he has proved himself many times with his posts on the forum. Therefore I courteously ask you to accept my word as an honest and true statement. Thank you. Also ngb has told me that he is loath to post in the forums now because of this continual harassment from certain members. I do hope that you will keep taking your responsibilities as a moderator seriously? Because although you say that you are not biased, it certainly looks as if you are from where I am standing?
-
Jackie - I've not been involved in this long-running NGB war/love-in, but isn't the key point that NGB seemed to be wrong on a key point of defamation law? Are you contesting that that is not the case?
(for what it's worth I always found NGB to be a decent chap in his forum dealings and will miss his contributions - not sure why you've said you have made sure he will never post again? Could he not hang around and argue his case, barrister-style?!)
What some people do not realise is that different barristers specialise in various points of law. For instance. I know a Christian barrister in Cornwall who specialises in family law. All barristers and even judges have to refer to lawbooks if there is an article of law that they are unsure of. You will find this with every barrister, solicitor and judge. He was speaking from experience. You as a laymen of course may have an advantage over barristers and even judges in that all you need to do rather than study for years to be qualified as a barrister is to look it up on the internet, therefore making you an overnight qualified barrister. But I'm afraid that all us laymen have one big disadvantage. In that whilst we may look very knowledgeable to other with our cursory looks on the law pages and cut and paste methods and may for a time rejoice in trying to make the expert look foolish. Is that in reality we are just...."laymen" and therefore are all basically "ignorant" of the real issues at stake. So may I cordially ask that you please leave ngb alone and maybe we who care about others may once again enjoy his posts?
-
To be fair, he did state that he'd been involved in many defamation cases.
This is getting a tad boring though, he could claim to be the prime minister for all I care, as long as he is civil to others, which for the most part he has been as far as I can see.
-
To be fair, he did state that he'd been involved in many defamation cases.
This is getting a tad boring though, he could claim to be the prime minister for all I care, as long as he is civil to others, which for the most part he has been as far as I can see.
It may be becoming a tad boring to you Hartley. But to the one who has this near libellous accusations levelled at him constantly they are becoming more and more distressing and I intend to put a stop to it one way or another.
-
To be fair, he did state that he'd been involved in many defamation cases.
This is getting a tad boring though, he could claim to be the prime minister for all I care, as long as he is civil to others, which for the most part he has been as far as I can see.
It may be becoming a tad boring to you Hartley. But to the one who has this near libellous accusations levelled at him constantly they are becoming more and more distressing and I intend to put a stop to it one way or another.
I think it's a tad boring to everyone.
Finish it then, lock the thread, have a word with the mods and the people involved, take it to PM's rather than on the public boards.
Issue warning or bans, temporary or permanent, delete posts, etc, etc.
It really shouldn't be this difficult.
-
I think we need a cooling off period. I don't think drastic action is necessary. People have called it how they genuinely see it. It's just unfortunate that it was wrongly assumed / suspected that Gerald was another incarnation of John.
-
It didn't get this much attention in the pre-mod days when Mike suggested that the relatives carried out the murders.
Now that's defamation!
-
To be fair, he did state that he'd been involved in many defamation cases.
This is getting a tad boring though, he could claim to be the prime minister for all I care, as long as he is civil to others, which for the most part he has been as far as I can see.
It may be becoming a tad boring to you Hartley. But to the one who has this near libellous accusations levelled at him constantly they are becoming more and more distressing and I intend to put a stop to it one way or another.
I think it's a tad boring to everyone.
Finish it then, lock the thread, have a word with the mods and the people involved, take it to PM's rather than on the public boards.
Issue warning or bans, temporary or permanent, delete posts, etc, etc.
It really shouldn't be this difficult.
Hartley I am the kind of person that likes to think the best in people to be adult enough to control their own childish behaviour. There are 7 moderators in this forum. But it seems that I am the only one who has gut enough to admit there is a serious problem with a few posters which by some strange fluke always seem to be in the anti bamber camp who are also it seems to me to be backed up by the anti bamber moderators. I don't know about you, but to me there seems to be some kind of unequal judgement on the part of those particular moderator. The others it seems to me are afraid to take a stand against it? I'm sorry, but this has to be said publically whether folk like it or not.
-
To be fair, he did state that he'd been involved in many defamation cases.
This is getting a tad boring though, he could claim to be the prime minister for all I care, as long as he is civil to others, which for the most part he has been as far as I can see.
It may be becoming a tad boring to you Hartley. But to the one who has this near libellous accusations levelled at him constantly they are becoming more and more distressing and I intend to put a stop to it one way or another.
I think it's a tad boring to everyone.
Finish it then, lock the thread, have a word with the mods and the people involved, take it to PM's rather than on the public boards.
Issue warning or bans, temporary or permanent, delete posts, etc, etc.
It really shouldn't be this difficult.
Hartley I am the kind of person that likes to think the best in people to be adult enough to control their own childish behaviour. There are 7 moderators in this forum. But it seems that I am the only one who has gut enough to admit there is a serious problem with a few posters which by some strange fluke always seem to be in the anti bamber camp who are also it seems to me to be backed up by the anti bamber moderators. I don't know about you, but to me there seems to be some kind of unequal judgement on the part of those particular moderator. The others it seems to me are afraid to take a stand against it? I'm sorry, but this has to be said publically whether folk like it or not.
Can i ask where has Gerald posted anything that says he is anti- Jeremy Bamber?
-
What absolute rubbish from Paul as he is 100% sure Ngb is wrong let's hope he is ready to put his
Money where his mouth is as he is a betting man
Rocky can you not see what is going on maybe I let the cat out of the bag about Ngb helping Jeremy and the anti JB people have made sure he is now gone
So far at least Paulg is saying Ngb doesn't know what he is talking about and John day after day was vile to Ngb
I pray that I can pursuade Ngb to take legal action against Paulg
How long is this goading going to go on
As for Hartley he can butt out I want everyone to know what levels people will go to in their efforts to disadvantage JB
Don't forget it was Ngb who explained in detail how Sheila was physically possible to carry out the murders
Ngb believes 100% Jeremy is innocent
I don't want these posts removed I want Paul hung out to dry over this
-
To be fair, he did state that he'd been involved in many defamation cases.
This is getting a tad boring though, he could claim to be the prime minister for all I care, as long as he is civil to others, which for the most part he has been as far as I can see.
It may be becoming a tad boring to you Hartley. But to the one who has this near libellous accusations levelled at him constantly they are becoming more and more distressing and I intend to put a stop to it one way or another.
I think it's a tad boring to everyone.
Finish it then, lock the thread, have a word with the mods and the people involved, take it to PM's rather than on the public boards.
Issue warning or bans, temporary or permanent, delete posts, etc, etc.
It really shouldn't be this difficult.
Hartley I am the kind of person that likes to think the best in people to be adult enough to control their own childish behaviour. There are 7 moderators in this forum. But it seems that I am the only one who has gut enough to admit there is a serious problem with a few posters which by some strange fluke always seem to be in the anti bamber camp who are also it seems to me to be backed up by the anti bamber moderators. I don't know about you, but to me there seems to be some kind of unequal judgement on the part of those particular moderator. The others it seems to me are afraid to take a stand against it? I'm sorry, but this has to be said publically whether folk like it or not.
I don't know, it's not my place to judge.
But I think your suggestion regarding the strange fluke that it is the anti-Bamber crowd is misguided.
Smiffy, Scrapper, Law1, and many others over the months have been just as disruptive, it's just that their targets are different. They are also backed up by the pro-Bamber mods such as Choc and Cliff.
-
Jackie - I've not been involved in this long-running NGB war/love-in, but isn't the key point that NGB seemed to be wrong on a key point of defamation law? Are you contesting that that is not the case?
(for what it's worth I always found NGB to be a decent chap in his forum dealings and will miss his contributions - not sure why you've said you have made sure he will never post again? Could he not hang around and argue his case, barrister-style?!)
What some people do not realise is that different barristers specialise in various points of law. For instance. I know a Christian barrister in Cornwall who specialises in family law. All barristers and even judges have to refer to lawbooks if there is an article of law that they are unsure of. You will find this with every barrister, solicitor and judge. He was speaking from experience. You as a laymen of course may have an advantage over barristers and even judges in that all you need to do rather than study for years to be qualified as a barrister is to look it up on the internet, therefore making you an overnight qualified barrister. But I'm afraid that all us laymen have one big disadvantage. In that whilst we may look very knowledgeable to other with our cursory looks on the law pages and cut and paste methods and may for a time rejoice in trying to make the expert look foolish. Is that in reality we are just...."laymen" and therefore are all basically "ignorant" of the real issues at stake. So may I cordially ask that you please leave ngb alone and maybe we who care about others may once again enjoy his posts?
I agree with your views on this, Grahame. This issue cannot be dismissed as 'boring', if it was boring it would n not attract continuing interest and comments. Many of us value ngb's contribution to the forum, he should not be hounded off by personal attacks which wrongly allege that ngb is lying when he - correctly - states that he is a qualified and experienced barrister who no longer practices.
Any one of us has any right to challenge the views of ngb or those of any other forum member as long as we do so respectfully. This challenge, however, was made in the form of a highly disrespectful personal attack on ngb which which should not have occurred.
When ngb requested support from moderators regarding this, he was told that his professional credentials were not being called into question and initially, along with Gerald, was effectively told to go and "play nicely".
Apologies fo the ed: messing up all my posts today by posting in mad rush from my office
-
To be fair, he did state that he'd been involved in many defamation cases.
This is getting a tad boring though, he could claim to be the prime minister for all I care, as long as he is civil to others, which for the most part he has been as far as I can see.
It may be becoming a tad boring to you Hartley. But to the one who has this near libellous accusations levelled at him constantly they are becoming more and more distressing and I intend to put a stop to it one way or another.
I think it's a tad boring to everyone.
Finish it then, lock the thread, have a word with the mods and the people involved, take it to PM's rather than on the public boards.
Issue warning or bans, temporary or permanent, delete posts, etc, etc.
It really shouldn't be this difficult.
Hartley I am the kind of person that likes to think the best in people to be adult enough to control their own childish behaviour. There are 7 moderators in this forum. But it seems that I am the only one who has gut enough to admit there is a serious problem with a few posters which by some strange fluke always seem to be in the anti bamber camp who are also it seems to me to be backed up by the anti bamber moderators. I don't know about you, but to me there seems to be some kind of unequal judgement on the part of those particular moderator. The others it seems to me are afraid to take a stand against it? I'm sorry, but this has to be said publically whether folk like it or not.
You are not alone in taking this view, Grahame, I too am concerned about this issue and I know that I am not the only mod who shares your view.
-
To be fair, he did state that he'd been involved in many defamation cases.
This is getting a tad boring though, he could claim to be the prime minister for all I care, as long as he is civil to others, which for the most part he has been as far as I can see.
It may be becoming a tad boring to you Hartley. But to the one who has this near libellous accusations levelled at him constantly they are becoming more and more distressing and I intend to put a stop to it one way or another.
I think it's a tad boring to everyone.
Finish it then, lock the thread, have a word with the mods and the people involved, take it to PM's rather than on the public boards.
Issue warning or bans, temporary or permanent, delete posts, etc, etc.
It really shouldn't be this difficult.
Hartley I am the kind of person that likes to think the best in people to be adult enough to control their own childish behaviour. There are 7 moderators in this forum. But it seems that I am the only one who has gut enough to admit there is a serious problem with a few posters which by some strange fluke always seem to be in the anti bamber camp who are also it seems to me to be backed up by the anti bamber moderators. I don't know about you, but to me there seems to be some kind of unequal judgement on the part of those particular moderator. The others it seems to me are afraid to take a stand against it? I'm sorry, but this has to be said publically whether folk like it or not.
You are not alone in taking this view, Grahame, I too am concerned about this issue and I know that I am only mod who shares your view.
Well I've openly challenged John / Jerry several times so I do not agree with that assessment grahame. With regards to paulg, he appears to have taken a stance on what he genuinely believes (rightly or wrongly in technical terms). Perhaps he could have been more neutral.
-
To be fair, he did state that he'd been involved in many defamation cases.
This is getting a tad boring though, he could claim to be the prime minister for all I care, as long as he is civil to others, which for the most part he has been as far as I can see.
It may be becoming a tad boring to you Hartley. But to the one who has this near libellous accusations levelled at him constantly they are becoming more and more distressing and I intend to put a stop to it one way or another.
I think it's a tad boring to everyone.
Finish it then, lock the thread, have a word with the mods and the people involved, take it to PM's rather than on the public boards.
Issue warning or bans, temporary or permanent, delete posts, etc, etc.
It really shouldn't be this difficult.
Hartley I am the kind of person that likes to think the best in people to be adult enough to control their own childish behaviour. There are 7 moderators in this forum. But it seems that I am the only one who has gut enough to admit there is a serious problem with a few posters which by some strange fluke always seem to be in the anti bamber camp who are also it seems to me to be backed up by the anti bamber moderators. I don't know about you, but to me there seems to be some kind of unequal judgement on the part of those particular moderator. The others it seems to me are afraid to take a stand against it? I'm sorry, but this has to be said publically whether folk like it or not.
You are not alone in taking this view, Grahame, I too am concerned about this issue and I know that I am only mod who shares your view.
In Gerald's case it would be very useful if you could list the exact dialogue that Gerald has used that has caused offense and list what rules were broken so us evil anti Bamber crew are aware of what is and is not acceptable.
-
Simong
I have it on good authority from my legal sources that Paulg could be in trouble for what he has written perhaps he would like to pop off to the golf club for some legal advice to see what his position is
-
Simong
I have it on good authority from my legal sources that Paulg could be in trouble for what he has written perhaps he would like to pop off to the golf club for some legal advice to see what his position is
Thanks for that Jackie, I am sure Paul is quaking in his boots.
-
What absolute rubbish from Paul as he is 100% sure Ngb is wrong let's hope he is ready to put his
Money where his mouth is as he is a betting man
Rocky can you not see what is going on maybe I let the cat out of the bag about Ngb helping Jeremy and the anti JB people have made sure he is now gone
So far at least Paulg is saying Ngb doesn't know what he is talking about and John day after day was vile to Ngb
I pray that I can pursuade Ngb to take legal action against Paulg
How long is this goading going to go on
As for Hartley he can butt out I want everyone to know what levels people will go to in their efforts to disadvantage JB
Don't forget it was Ngb who explained in detail how Sheila was physically possible to carry out the murders
Ngb believes 100% Jeremy is innocent
I don't want these posts removed I want Paul hung out to dry over this
It did occur to me that with ngb being 'prize' poster that he would sooner or later attract negative attention from somewhere. However I do think it works both ways. Certain prominent posters on the other side have took some flak also. Now I don't agree with some of their opinions or stances but it is a forum... and I think for the most part, Mike's knowledge of the case and the evidence he has available is strong enough to place the pro camp in the leading position here.
About the mod thing, I have challenged several posters on the anti-side both openly and by pm. I have also pm'd pro posters when posts have been reported to the mods. Everyone has different sensibilities and it is difficult to keep everyone on board without running the risk of sterilising the forum. Nobody wants a forum devoid of any disagreements, where everyone posts like a Stepford Wife, frightened to express any humour or sarcasm.
-
Rochy
Do you not get the point!!!!
Thats exactly what is going on here trying to make everyone scared to say anything about Mugford or the relatives
Surely you can see that its not rocket science
That was what was going on all day yesterday and last night
-
As for Hartley he can butt out I want everyone to know what levels people will go to in their efforts to disadvantage JB
Yes I will gladly but out. Save your animosity for somebody else please.
-
Rochy
Do you not get the point!!!!
Thats exactly what is going on here trying to make everyone scared to say anything about Mugford or the relatives
Surely you can see that its not rocket science
That was what was going on all day yesterday and last night
Jackie, could this issue not be got around by stating 'in my opinion' and 'may' as opposed to 'is' when referring to Julie Mugford or the relatives. E.G. 'In my opinion, Julie Mugford may be lying about this'
I think this was stated by a couple of posters last night. I also stated last night that I didn't think there was any danger to posters because it's not like any of the prosecution witnesses or marple-ites are interested in taking up a polygraph test.
-
Rochford
As plain as anything (and backed up by people who have sent me pm s) it was to get rid of Ngb because of his experience and to stop us saying anything about the relatives and JM
I am clear on that
Ngb and I have become friends over the last few months and if I had said anything that would have got me in trouble legally he would have warned me
He hasnt
Do I trust him
Yes
Do I trust some of the other posters on here who are saying he doesnt know what he is talking about
No I dont
If they were right me and shona would be looking at 20 years inside for what we have said about Mugford
-
hello all :)
Do any of jbs "family" actually look at this board? or even old muggy herself?
-
Yes.
Not sure about JM though.
-
Yes.
Not sure about JM though.
so hartley the family then look at this board, have they ever indicated to you that what is wrote on here is in their opinion libellous?
-
Rochford
As plain as anything (and backed up by people who have sent me pm s) it was to get rid of Ngb because of his experience and to stop us saying anything about the relatives and JM
I am clear on that
Ngb and I have become friends over the last few months and if I had said anything that would have got me in trouble legally he would have warned me
He hasnt
Do I trust him
Yes
Do I trust some of the other posters on here who are saying he doesnt know what he is talking about
No I dont
If they were right me and shona would be looking at 20 years inside for what we have said about Mugford
I assume the pm's that backed up your theory were from pro JB supporters. A poor analogy but, If you ask Man Utd fans who the best team in England is they will say Man Utd, ask City fans the same question and you will get a different answer. Hope you get the point. :)
-
Yes.
Not sure about JM though.
so hartley the family then look at this board, have they ever indicated to you that what is wrote on here is in their opinion libellous?
No they have not.
EDIT: Although they may have to someone else, I don't know.
-
Yes.
Not sure about JM though.
so hartley the family then look at this board, have they ever indicated to you that what is wrote on here is in their opinion libellous?
No they have not.
EDIT: Although they may have to someone else, I don't know.
thanks hartley, in your opinion would they take legal action against anyone on this board, if they felt they were being libelled? if your not sure hartley thats fine.
-
Yes.
Not sure about JM though.
so hartley the family then look at this board, have they ever indicated to you that what is wrote on here is in their opinion libellous?
No they have not.
EDIT: Although they may have to someone else, I don't know.
thanks hartley, in your opinion would they take legal action against anyone on this board, if they felt they were being libelled? if your not sure hartley thats fine.
I don't know, I'm not really in a position to offer an opinion.
-
can you tell us which members look at the forum hartley? are they "main players" so to speak ?
-
Rochford
As plain as anything (and backed up by people who have sent me pm s) it was to get rid of Ngb because of his experience and to stop us saying anything about the relatives and JM
I am clear on that
Ngb and I have become friends over the last few months and if I had said anything that would have got me in trouble legally he would have warned me
He hasnt
Do I trust him
Yes
Do I trust some of the other posters on here who are saying he doesnt know what he is talking about
No I dont
If they were right me and shona would be looking at 20 years inside for what we have said about Mugford
I trust him also. The issue of libel and defamation went right back to Kaldin, Mb1, TBM who questioned this either in the disclaimer or early threads I believe. I've not seen the pm's you are referring to so I cant comment on them. But I would like to see ngb return and argue the case for Jeremy Bamber, as he has previously done with great skill and tact. If he returns, then any alleged plan to get rid of him hasn't worked has it?
-
can you tell us which members look at the forum hartley? are they "main players" so to speak ?
Unfortunately I'll have to direct you towards Vic.
I'm not happy divulging that information, Vic may be.
-
ah well....i tried ;)
-
ah well....i tried ;)
I'm worried there would be a witchhunt to work out their identities.
-
ah well....i tried ;)
I'm worried there would be a witchhunt to work out their identities.
have they actually joined the forum vic ?
-
ah well....i tried ;)
I'm worried there would be a witchhunt to work out their identities.
I don't know, honestly. But some of them do read the stuff regularly.
have they actually joined the forum vic ?
-
are the ones that read main players vic ?
-
are the ones that read main players vic ?
Yes. Ann comes on here from time to time.
-
so she just looks and hasnt registered?
-
I don't know, honestly. But some of them do read the stuff regularly.
-
To be fair, he did state that he'd been involved in many defamation cases.
This is getting a tad boring though, he could claim to be the prime minister for all I care, as long as he is civil to others, which for the most part he has been as far as I can see.
It may be becoming a tad boring to you Hartley. But to the one who has this near libellous accusations levelled at him constantly they are becoming more and more distressing and I intend to put a stop to it one way or another.
I think it's a tad boring to everyone.
Finish it then, lock the thread, have a word with the mods and the people involved, take it to PM's rather than on the public boards.
Issue warning or bans, temporary or permanent, delete posts, etc, etc.
It really shouldn't be this difficult.
Hartley I am the kind of person that likes to think the best in people to be adult enough to control their own childish behaviour. There are 7 moderators in this forum. But it seems that I am the only one who has gut enough to admit there is a serious problem with a few posters which by some strange fluke always seem to be in the anti bamber camp who are also it seems to me to be backed up by the anti bamber moderators. I don't know about you, but to me there seems to be some kind of unequal judgement on the part of those particular moderator. The others it seems to me are afraid to take a stand against it? I'm sorry, but this has to be said publically whether folk like it or not.
You are not alone in taking this view, Grahame, I too am concerned about this issue and I know that I am only mod who shares your view.
Do you mean that only you and I have the insight to see what is going on here? Well that is a surprise and a disappointment.
-
Rochford
As plain as anything (and backed up by people who have sent me pm s) it was to get rid of Ngb because of his experience and to stop us saying anything about the relatives and JM
I am clear on that
Ngb and I have become friends over the last few months and if I had said anything that would have got me in trouble legally he would have warned me
He hasnt
Do I trust him
Yes
Do I trust some of the other posters on here who are saying he doesnt know what he is talking about
No I dont
If they were right me and shona would be looking at 20 years inside for what we have said about Mugford
I assume the pm's that backed up your theory were from pro JB supporters. A poor analogy but, If you ask Man Utd fans who the best team in England is they will say Man Utd, ask City fans the same question and you will get a different answer. Hope you get the point. :)
No Simon. I this case you are wrong. What is going on in this forum is wrong whatever side from which you look at it. There is a serious imbalance here and it seems it is constantly coming from the anti Bamber camp. If you think I'm being biased then hard luck, you will just have to stew in your willing ignorance.
-
To be fair, he did state that he'd been involved in many defamation cases.
This is getting a tad boring though, he could claim to be the prime minister for all I care, as long as he is civil to others, which for the most part he has been as far as I can see.
It may be becoming a tad boring to you Hartley. But to the one who has this near libellous accusations levelled at him constantly they are becoming more and more distressing and I intend to put a stop to it one way or another.
I think it's a tad boring to everyone.
Finish it then, lock the thread, have a word with the mods and the people involved, take it to PM's rather than on the public boards.
Issue warning or bans, temporary or permanent, delete posts, etc, etc.
It really shouldn't be this difficult.
Hartley I am the kind of person that likes to think the best in people to be adult enough to control their own childish behaviour. There are 7 moderators in this forum. But it seems that I am the only one who has gut enough to admit there is a serious problem with a few posters which by some strange fluke always seem to be in the anti bamber camp who are also it seems to me to be backed up by the anti bamber moderators. I don't know about you, but to me there seems to be some kind of unequal judgement on the part of those particular moderator. The others it seems to me are afraid to take a stand against it? I'm sorry, but this has to be said publically whether folk like it or not.
You are not alone in taking this view, Grahame, I too am concerned about this issue and I know that I am only mod who shares your view.
Do you mean that only you and I have the insight to see what is going on here? Well that is a surprise and a disappointment.
Grahame, I am confused. What do you both mean?
-
To be fair, he did state that he'd been involved in many defamation cases.
This is getting a tad boring though, he could claim to be the prime minister for all I care, as long as he is civil to others, which for the most part he has been as far as I can see.
It may be becoming a tad boring to you Hartley. But to the one who has this near libellous accusations levelled at him constantly they are becoming more and more distressing and I intend to put a stop to it one way or another.
I think it's a tad boring to everyone.
Finish it then, lock the thread, have a word with the mods and the people involved, take it to PM's rather than on the public boards.
Issue warning or bans, temporary or permanent, delete posts, etc, etc.
It really shouldn't be this difficult.
Hartley I am the kind of person that likes to think the best in people to be adult enough to control their own childish behaviour. There are 7 moderators in this forum. But it seems that I am the only one who has gut enough to admit there is a serious problem with a few posters which by some strange fluke always seem to be in the anti bamber camp who are also it seems to me to be backed up by the anti bamber moderators. I don't know about you, but to me there seems to be some kind of unequal judgement on the part of those particular moderator. The others it seems to me are afraid to take a stand against it? I'm sorry, but this has to be said publically whether folk like it or not.
You are not alone in taking this view, Grahame, I too am concerned about this issue and I know that I am only mod who shares your view.
Do you mean that only you and I have the insight to see what is going on here? Well that is a surprise and a disappointment.
Hi Grahame,
Woops! I'm posting from my office during breaks and totally messed up the post you quote. The post should have stated:
You are not alone in taking this view, Grahame, I too am concerned about this issue and I know that I am NOT the only mod who shares your view.
Apologies grahame and other mods, posted that too quickly.
-
Rochford
As plain as anything (and backed up by people who have sent me pm s) it was to get rid of Ngb because of his experience and to stop us saying anything about the relatives and JM
I am clear on that
Ngb and I have become friends over the last few months and if I had said anything that would have got me in trouble legally he would have warned me
He hasnt
Do I trust him
Yes
Do I trust some of the other posters on here who are saying he doesnt know what he is talking about
No I dont
If they were right me and shona would be looking at 20 years inside for what we have said about Mugford
I assume the pm's that backed up your theory were from pro JB supporters. A poor analogy but, If you ask Man Utd fans who the best team in England is they will say Man Utd, ask City fans the same question and you will get a different answer. Hope you get the point. :)
No Simon. I this case you are wrong. What is going on in this forum is wrong whatever side from which you look at it. There is a serious imbalance here and it seems it is constantly coming from the anti Bamber camp. If you think I'm being biased then hard luck, you will just have to stew in your willing ignorance.
Grahame i am confused, how am i wrong. My analogy was in direct reference to Jackies post claiming that the mails she had received about a witch hunt against ngb being from pro JB supporters. Are you saying that Jackie has received mails from the anti brigade confirming this witch hunt?
-
Rochford
As plain as anything (and backed up by people who have sent me pm s) it was to get rid of Ngb because of his experience and to stop us saying anything about the relatives and JM
I am clear on that
Ngb and I have become friends over the last few months and if I had said anything that would have got me in trouble legally he would have warned me
He hasnt
Do I trust him
Yes
Do I trust some of the other posters on here who are saying he doesnt know what he is talking about
No I dont
If they were right me and shona would be looking at 20 years inside for what we have said about Mugford
I assume the pm's that backed up your theory were from pro JB supporters. A poor analogy but, If you ask Man Utd fans who the best team in England is they will say Man Utd, ask City fans the same question and you will get a different answer. Hope you get the point. :)
No Simon. I this case you are wrong. What is going on in this forum is wrong whatever side from which you look at it. There is a serious imbalance here and it seems it is constantly coming from the anti Bamber camp. If you think I'm being biased then hard luck, you will just have to stew in your willing ignorance.
Grahame i am confused, how am i wrong. My analogy was in direct reference to Jackies post claiming that the mails she had received about a witch hunt against ngb being from pro JB supporters. Are you saying that Jackie has received mails from the anti brigade confirming this witch hunt?
No Simon. I'm referring to the general downtrend of the forum.
-
I never mentioned the forum in my post ???
-
No Simon. I this case you are wrong. What is going on in this forum is wrong whatever side from which you look at it. There is a serious imbalance here and it seems it is constantly coming from the anti Bamber camp. If you think I'm being biased then hard luck, you will just have to stew in your willing ignorance.
When it was the other way round or when the boot was on the other foot and anti Bamber posters were being abused, criticised and even banned for daring to speak the truth, then pro Bamber posters were quite content to languish in their indifference to such blatantly one-sided ongoings.
-
Jerry social services are aware of your behaviour I will leave you to work that one out
-
Jerry social services are aware of your behaviour I will leave you to work that one out
:-* :-*
-
...unfortunately JB thought just by telling the truth that would be enough.
Not so much telling the truth but acting the victim I would say. It isn't surprising that Mike cannot bring himself to post Jeremy's statements on here.
-
I never mentioned the forum in my post ???
You were comparing JB supporters to Man U supporters and used that analogy I assumed to imply that those moderators on the forum who are pro JB to handle things in an unequal way? I must say though what I have seen is in actual fact the reverse.
-
I feel like I'm in an episode of "The Prisoner."
-
...unfortunately JB thought just by telling the truth that would be enough.
Not so much telling the truth but acting the victim I would say. It isn't surprising that Mike cannot bring himself to post Jeremy's statements on here.
You assume far too much Jerry. In fact what you think is entirely within your own imagination. There is absolutely no way that you can prove that which you assume to be true.
-
I feel like I'm in an episode of "The Prisoner."
Wasn't that filmed in a caravan park?..........rofl
-
I feel like I'm in an episode of "The Prisoner."
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I feel like I'm in an episode of "The Prisoner."
Brilliant Shona...absolutely brilliant!! :) +1
-
But there was a different number 2 every week...........
-
I feel like I'm in an episode of "The Prisoner."
Wasn't that filmed in a caravan park?..........rofl
I suppose it was if you call Hotel Portmeirion in Penrhyndeudraeth, North Wales a car park.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/29/travel/29journ600.1.jpg)
-
I feel like I'm in an episode of "The Prisoner."
Wasn't that filmed in a caravan park?..........rofl
I suppose it was if you can call Hotel Portmeirion in Penrhyndeudraeth, North Wales one.
LOL.......are you calling me a liar?....... ;D
-
I feel like I'm in an episode of "The Prisoner."
Wasn't that filmed in a caravan park?..........rofl
I suppose it was if you can call Hotel Portmeirion in Penrhyndeudraeth, North Wales one.
LOL.......are you calling me a liar?....... ;D
Yes! :P
-
I feel like I'm in an episode of "The Prisoner."
;D One of your best, Shona. +1
Do you mean the episode where Patrick McGoohan stands on the beach as the sinister beach ball bounces across the waves and shouts:
"I am not a prisoner, I am a free man"?
-
I feel like I'm in an episode of "The Prisoner."
Wasn't that filmed in a caravan park?..........rofl
I suppose it was if you can call Hotel Portmeirion in Penrhyndeudraeth, North Wales one.
LOL.......are you calling me a liar?....... ;D
Yes! :P
I have informed the local Rotary club of your behaviour. ;)
-
I feel like I'm in an episode of "The Prisoner."
;D One of your best, Shona. +1
Do you mean the episode where Patrick McGoohan stands on the beach as the sinister beach ball bounces across the waves and shouts:
"I am not a prisoner, I am a free man"?
Blast, I got it wrong, it should have been:
"I am not a number, I am free man!"
-
I never mentioned the forum in my post ???
You were comparing JB supporters to Man U supporters and used that analogy I assumed to imply that those moderators on the forum who are pro JB to handle things in an unequal way? I must say though what I have seen is in actual fact the reverse.
No i wasn't comparing JB's supporters to Man U fans. I was trying to reason with Jackie that that if she was only getting mails from a certain faction of people then she is going to get the same response. Hence the Utd/City analogy. I thought the first sentence of my post gave away what i was referring to so absolutely nothing to do with this forum or its moderators.
-
I feel like I'm in an episode of "The Prisoner."
Wasn't that filmed in a caravan park?..........rofl
I suppose it was if you can call Hotel Portmeirion in Penrhyndeudraeth, North Wales one.
LOL.......are you calling me a liar?....... ;D
Yes! :P
I have informed the local Rotary club of your behaviour. ;)
I should be receiving your letter tomorrow then. Together with Social Services we can undoubtedly resolve the issue.
-
Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
Gerald - I do not know where you get your law from but it is rubbish, to put it as politely as I can. To succeed in a libel case the aggrieved party needs to demonstrate that the statements complained of are not in fact true. If the statements are true they are not defamatory. The burden of proof is upon the claimant/aggrieved party to show that the statements are untrue.
As I have stated before Julie Mugford would have two obstacles to cross before succeeding in a libel action. The first is as I have explained above for the second time. The second obstacle is to show that her reputation has genuinely been damaged by the statements. In assessing that the court takes into account her current reputation. Given that if she is to be believed she had advance knowledge of the murders and did nothing to prevent them, then assisted the murderer for a considerable period, obstructing the course of justice and behaving in a callous way towards relatives. The argument could and would no doubt be advanced that her character and reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the public is already at a very low ebb.
Before you ask, yes I have been involved in defamation cases. I have also advised publishers on libel issues.
Grahame, i'll address this to you.
Firstly, yes i do take my moderating very seriously, that seriously, that as soon as i was informed of post suggesting i could be in trouble, i took legal advice. I assumed this would be legal trouble?
Firstly, you've confimed in a post, that NGB is a barrister, and is currently working for Jeremy Bamber.
NGB i apologise for thinking that you could be an American attorney, but as you had posted law similar US defamatory law, a fair minded person would understand my confusion.
Now, the above quotes have raised eyebrows from my potential legal representative.
Can i ask if NGB is currently being paid by Jeremy Bamber for his work?
Just to add, as it has been suggested that i may be in trouble with a legal problem,(i think thats what the suggestion was), this thread is now potentially evidence. Although photo's have been taken of certain posts, i would ask that no posts are deleted or modified.
Thank you.
-
On that basis this thread should be locked by a moderator.
-
[
Can i ask if NGB is currently being paid by Jeremy Bamber for his work?
Hi Paul, thank you for your honest and straightforward post. I appreciate your unbiased remarks on this situation. NGB had mentioned to me that he had a case to sue certain people on the forum. But he also said that he is not going to do so.
To answer5 your question about ngb being paid by Jeremy, no he is not. He is simply sorting out his case so that it can be presented to the CCRC in an ordered fashion. If you knew him you would see that he is a good man and a really kind and generous person who0 has been seriously hurt by all these suggestions by these "cricket club" (as he put it) "legal experts" that he is ignorant of the law and should know certain things that a schoolboy should know. Whilst in reality he is a professional man and a highly qualified barrister. A position that is achieved over many years of study and experience.
To have some cretin (not you Paul) who gets all his information from the internet and his mates at the cricket club criticise him is to him highly offensive.
I you want my opinion. I think that we have lost one brilliant mind from the forum through the continual hounding of those I would call "common hooligans" and he is a great loss whom we should have valued more than we did. If the forum continues to harbour this "gang" of wild cowboys from the facebook guilty site who even to the cursory reader are intent on one thing only, that of the distruction and confusion of the forum., which purpose is to post and examine evidence and new evidence for or against Jeremy Bamber and to do so in a civilised way, then all I can predict is the utter downward trend of this once respected forum. Therefore can I suggest that all the moderators stand together (whatever view we hold) against these disruptors of the forum and if necessary to delete their accounts immediately?
As a side thought Paul. NGB would help any of us in the same generous way that he is helping Jeremy.
-
My god Grahame, how bloody short sighted are you?
Read posts by Jackie, Smiffy, Law1, Scrapper and just lately Choc (Choc to a much lesser extent), and try and tell me that it is entirely the anti-Bamber crowd cqusing these problems. Forget about NGB for a second and consider why other posters have left, Kaldin, TBM for example.
Speaking of hooligans, so Jackies football factory quote, telling people to jog on, which means 'fuck off' if you weren't aware.
Sorry grahame but you are beginning to appear a bit ridiculous if you contunue to try and express such a view.
-
hi hartley :)
this forum was a great place to post on at one time, no matter which camp you were in.
the debate was always respectful and never nasty like some of the stuff is on here lately.
a certain member was dealt with because he instigated alot of it, but others are following suit and they have to be dealt with, i want to see this forum as it used to be, then we may get some good posters back.
-
My god Grahame, how bloody short sighted are you?
Read posts by Jackie, Smiffy, Law1, Scrapper and just lately Choc (Choc to a much lesser extent), and try and tell me that it is entirely the anti-Bamber crowd cqusing these problems. Forget about NGB for a second and consider why other posters have left, Kaldin, TBM for example.
Speaking of hooligans, so Jackies football factory quote, telling people to jog on, which means 'fuck off' if you weren't aware.
Sorry grahame but you are beginning to appear a bit ridiculous if you contunue to try and express such a view.
No Hartley I think on this occasion that you are being short sited. Cast your mind back to when all this trouble started. The posts by Jackie and the others were by provocation. All this started when those from the facebook guilty page began to come over here with the aim of causing confusion and trouble and a lot of "short sited" supposedly intelligent people were are still are being conned by them. I warned folk when it started and told you all in the clearest possible way what was going on at the time. But people refused to listen. Instead they welcomed this bunch of "losers" with open arms and actually congratulated them in "livening up" the forum. Well my friend you have reaped what you have sown and got what you "intelligent and wiser" folk have got at the moment. I intend to delete their accounts one by one. Because the majority of them are useless shite.
-
My god Grahame, how bloody short sighted are you?
Read posts by Jackie, Smiffy, Law1, Scrapper and just lately Choc (Choc to a much lesser extent), and try and tell me that it is entirely the anti-Bamber crowd cqusing these problems. Forget about NGB for a second and consider why other posters have left, Kaldin, TBM for example.
Speaking of hooligans, so Jackies football factory quote, telling people to jog on, which means 'fuck off' if you weren't aware.
Sorry grahame but you are beginning to appear a bit ridiculous if you contunue to try and express such a view.
Hartley,
You state above: "Read posts by Jackie, Smiffy, Law1, Scrapper and just lately Choc (Choc to a much lesser
"extent).
Please provide your alleged proof of this groundless claim in respect of me, because from where I'm sitting, you have none whatsoever.
* Posting this from my office