Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Jane on August 10, 2020, 09:03:AM
-
...................that however bad we claim Jeremy's crime to have been, allegedly, Julie's subsidiary crimes were infinitely worse. Many think -despite that she was nowhere near the soc- she should be where Jeremy now is.
It is claimed that she was an adventress and had Jeremy under her thumb. It's been suggested that it was she who planned their Bonnie and Clyde activities. It's hard to think of anyone whose brain works in such a way putting themselves through the hard graft of years of education requiring that they do menial part time work to fund.
She was more tghan just Jeremy's girlfriend, though. She was his fiancee. He had asked her to marry him, the register office all but booked. I suspect it may have been called off because of parental approval of him "making an honest woman of her". Might that suggest that the engagement had merely been an attempt to get up parental noses? Nonetheless, they were still a couple. As the relationship was ongoing, perhaps the wedding had been put on hold?
Despite constant and vociferous reminders about the possibility of a signed, pre-trial contract with the NOTW -although quite how it could have damaged Jeremy's chances is beyond me. She'd made her statement, which would form the basis of her testimony. She, as far as we know, didn't do any unexpected turnarounds from the witness box- and the equally vociferous claims that she lied -if she did, repeating what Jeremy had told her, the lies were his- Julie has never changed her story. No one forced her to come back from Canada, all those years after the event, to give evidence. She can hardly be blamed if it was decided it wasn't necessary to call her.
What, exactly, might she have been guilty of? I suspect she didn't tell the whole truth. I suspect she knew way more of his plans than she admitted to. Possibly the sort of things which she believed may have shown her as complicit? She may even have gone through it with her mother. Might her mother have warned her that if she wasn't careful, she was in danger of being dragged down with Jeremy, who'd already told her that would happen. I'll bet she went for damage limitation.
We really don't need to keep being told that if only the jury had known dah, dah, dah, they'd have voted differently. Would they? A signed, pre-trial contract against the murder of an entire family including two little boys? No contract was signed when that happened, nor did it change who the murderer was.
-
Lest we forget.
Jane spent 28 years believing Jeremy was innocent. Then changed her mind in chorus with Caroline and Paul Harrison and refuses to discus why. ::)
-
It would have appeared that everyone had Jeremy under their thumb. The more I read about this case the more sickened and disgusted I am. It just beggars belief.
Those who are adamant that Jeremy is a psychopath and committed the murders should stop and think that psychopathy is a mental illness/ disturbance too and his state of mind and general mental health needs as much understanding as the illness which troubled his sister so why is one mental illness any different from another ? They're all the same troubled souls. This is the way I see it.
-
It would have appeared that everyone had Jeremy under their thumb. The more I read about this case the more sickened and disgusted I am. It just beggars belief.
Those who are adamant that Jeremy is a psychopath and committed the murders should stop and think that psychopathy is a mental illness/ disturbance too and his state of mind and general mental health needs as much understanding as the illness which troubled his sister so why is one mental illness any different from another ? They're all the same troubled souls. This is the way I see it.
Psychopathy is a mental illness? Really? How long has that been so? Try telling that to to the risk takers in this world who acheive wonderful things for humanity. Those who made possible heart transplants. Those who made it possible for the childless to conceive. Those who takes financial risks which give employment to thousands. Risk taking at such levels denotes the possibility that they're all on the psychopathic spectrum.
Jeremy, if his state of mind is causing him problems, will have greater and faster access to those who will support him through it, than those on the outside for whom there's more than a year's wait.
-
Just nearly choked on my cup of tea.
-
Psychopathy is a mental illness? Really? How long has that been so? Try telling that to to the risk takers in this world who acheive wonderful things for humanity. Those who made possible heart transplants. Those who made it possible for the childless to conceive. Those who takes financial risks which give employment to thousands. Risk taking at such levels denotes the possibility that they're all on the psychopathic spectrum.
Jeremy, if his state of mind is causing him problems, will have greater and faster access to those who will support him through it, than those on the outside for whom there's more than a year's wait.
Risk-takers have no fear which in a child who's growing up is scrutinised by a psychologist and put on the list of suspected ADHD or Autism. We all have in-built fears of sorts but those who don't definitely have a problem with the amygdala ( which has been mentioned before ) set on either side of the brain, it dictates our perceptions, or not, of fear. In sociopaths this area is disordered the same as in psychopaths. Psychoanalysts are studying these effects in such fearless people as lack of emotion/empathy plays a huge part in the impaired amygdala.
Impaired meaning an accident/blow on the head or one of birth/ genetic. Wasn't Jeremy damaged on his head ?
Do you have proof that these clever people are/were psychopaths ? Proof that Jeremy was ?
As Jeremy himself once said---" it's for you to find out ", I refer to the psychiatric tests which were done over a period of time to which all came back as NAD, so no psychopathy there then. Not to my knowledge has Jeremy had treatment of any sort for any mental impairment.
These things can't be fully detected without an MRI scan anyway, but in 35 years there hasn't been one report in behaviour change of any kind.
-
Risk-takers have no fear which in a child who's growing up is scrutinised by a psychologist and put on the list of suspected ADHD or Autism. We all have in-built fears of sorts but those who don't definitely have a problem with the amygdala ( which has been mentioned before ) set on either side of the brain, it dictates our perceptions, or not, of fear. In sociopaths this area is disordered the same as in psychopaths. Psychoanalysts are studying these effects in such fearless people as lack of emotion/empathy plays a huge part in the impaired amygdala.
Impaired meaning an accident/blow on the head or one of birth/ genetic. Wasn't Jeremy damaged on his head ?
Do you have proof that these clever people are/were psychopaths ? Proof that Jeremy was ?
As Jeremy himself once said---" it's for you to find out ", I refer to the psychiatric tests which were done over a period of time to which all came back as NAD, so no psychopathy there then. Not to my knowledge has Jeremy had treatment of any sort for any mental impairment.
These things can't be fully detected without an MRI scan anyway, but in 35 years there hasn't been one report in behaviour change of any kind.
Psychopathy isn't mental impairment. It's a personality disorder. I see no reason for Jeremy to be singled out as a special case deserving of anything more than the routine test administered to all prisoners.
-
...................that however bad we claim Jeremy's crime to have been, allegedly, Julie's subsidiary crimes were infinitely worse. Many think -despite that she was nowhere near the soc- she should be where Jeremy now is.
It is claimed that she was an adventress and had Jeremy under her thumb. It's been suggested that it was she who planned their Bonnie and Clyde activities. It's hard to think of anyone whose brain works in such a way putting themselves through the hard graft of years of education requiring that they do menial part time work to fund.
She was more tghan just Jeremy's girlfriend, though. She was his fiancee. He had asked her to marry him, the register office all but booked. I suspect it may have been called off because of parental approval of him "making an honest woman of her". Might that suggest that the engagement had merely been an attempt to get up parental noses? Nonetheless, they were still a couple. As the relationship was ongoing, perhaps the wedding had been put on hold?
I didn't know that about them. Obviously I knew it was a serious relationship, that's common ground, but I didn't realise they had progressed to a consideration of the formalities of marriage.
We're told Jeremy was a psychopath, yet he was able to conduct a serious intimate relationship with a woman who, if you don't mind me making the observation, was a bit on the plain side in the looks department. That said, I think there was an underlying psychological drive on Jeremy's part in the relationship: Julie was a facsimile of June and represented his attempt to appease his mother, who I am sure wanted him to settle down with a 'nice girl' - as all mothers do.
Haven't we all had that conversation with our mothers (and fathers too)? "When are you going to find a nice girl, Chevalier, and settle down?" And haven't we all nagged our own children in the same way, without even realising we're doing it? Some of us can ignore or distance ourselves from the well-intended parental nagging, but Jeremy couldn't because of the situation he was in: he was tied to his parents economically.
We may ask: was Julie a long-term calculation on Jeremy's part, or a genuine love? Maybe the truth is that Jeremy did not understand fully his own motivations. I think it must have been genuine in Jeremy's mind, but with June dead, the underlying psychological picture shifted radically and Jeremy suddenly knew the relationship was over. Thus, the family funeral also marked the end of Jeremy and Julie as a serious relationship. The fooling around in the funeral car perhaps signified this. Instead of being a marriage prospect, Julie became 'just another girl' again.
Despite constant and vociferous reminders about the possibility of a signed, pre-trial contract with the NOTW -although quite how it could have damaged Jeremy's chances is beyond me. She'd made her statement, which would form the basis of her testimony. She, as far as we know, didn't do any unexpected turnarounds from the witness box- and the equally vociferous claims that she lied -if she did, repeating what Jeremy had told her, the lies were his- Julie has never changed her story. No one forced her to come back from Canada, all those years after the event, to give evidence. She can hardly be blamed if it was decided it wasn't necessary to call her.
What, exactly, might she have been guilty of? I suspect she didn't tell the whole truth. I suspect she knew way more of his plans than she admitted to. Possibly the sort of things which she believed may have shown her as complicit? She may even have gone through it with her mother. Might her mother have warned her that if she wasn't careful, she was in danger of being dragged down with Jeremy, who'd already told her that would happen. I'll bet she went for damage limitation.
We really don't need to keep being told that if only the jury had known dah, dah, dah, they'd have voted differently. Would they? A signed, pre-trial contract against the murder of an entire family including two little boys? No contract was signed when that happened, nor did it change who the murderer was.
Here I must disagree with you Jane.
Justice must be paramount and it must be applied to all cases. The principles of a fair trial are fundamental because that's how we find out what happened. If a trial has not been fair, then any conviction that resulted from it must be considered unsafe. We can't pick and choose who the rules apply to and when, just because we're concerned or repulsed by what an individual is accused of.
If Jeremy made a deal with a newspaper, that doesn't matter to justice. This was a contested trial and Jeremy can be expected to deny the allegations anyway. Having a deal in place, which will pay out if indeed he is acquitted, makes no difference to his evidence. Naturally he wants to be acquitted anyway.
On the other hand, if Julie made a deal with a newspaper, that is a serious problem because it means her evidence is coloured by the knowledge she will be paid if a case she is influential in goes a certain way. At the very least, the jury should have been told about this factor. As it is, Julie misled the trial. Why did she do this if, as you claim, it doesn't matter?
I should also add that, in English law, a contract can be verbal or oral as well as written, and informal understandings can be contractual in nature; and, even if it isn't contractual, such an arrangement may still be prejudicial to a criminal trial. If Julie had a verbal understanding with a newspaper, then arguably there was a contract or a 'quasi-contractual' arrangement, but whatever the strict position in law, the bottom line is that she has not told the truth and it is material to her evidence.
Let us say I am sitting as a juror in a criminal trial, and there is a key prosecution witness whose evidence is entirely uncorroborated - in other words, I am being asked to accept the witness' say-so that such-and-such thing happened, in conflict with the denials of the accused. Let us say I then discover that this same witness is going to receive a substantial sum of money if a conviction is secured. I am sorry, but I would disregard the evidence from that witness. It's not safe evidence. Allowing it pollutes the trial and renders the trial unfair and any resulting conviction would be unsafe.
-
Psychopathy isn't mental impairment. It's a personality disorder. I see no reason for Jeremy to be singled out as a special case deserving of anything more than the routine test administered to all prisoners.
Not even for " having slayed all his family ?" One prisoner is kept in a cage-like environment because he's so dangerous.
-
I didn't know that about them. Obviously I knew it was a serious relationship, that's common ground, but I didn't realise they had progressed to a consideration of the formalities of marriage.
We're told Jeremy was a psychopath, yet he was able to conduct a serious intimate relationship with a woman who, if you don't mind me making the observation, was a bit on the plain side in the looks department. That said, I think there was an underlying psychological drive on Jeremy's part in the relationship: Julie was a facsimile of June and represented his attempt to appease his mother, who I am sure wanted him to settle down with a 'nice girl' - as all mothers do.
Haven't we all had that conversation with our mothers (and fathers too)? "When are you going to find a nice girl, Chevalier, and settle down?" And haven't we all nagged our own children in the same way, without even realising we're doing it? Some of us can ignore or distance ourselves from the well-intended parental nagging, but Jeremy couldn't because of the situation he was in: he was tied to his parents economically.
We may ask: was Julie a long-term calculation on Jeremy's part, or a genuine love? Maybe the truth is that Jeremy did not understand fully his own motivations. I think it must have been genuine in Jeremy's mind, but with June dead, the underlying psychological picture shifted radically and Jeremy suddenly knew the relationship was over. Thus, the family funeral also marked the end of Jeremy and Julie as a serious relationship. The fooling around in the funeral car perhaps signified this. Instead of being a marriage prospect, Julie became 'just another girl' again.
Here I must disagree with you Jane.
Justice must be paramount and it must be applied to all cases. The principles of a fair trial are fundamental because that's how we find out what happened. If a trial has not been fair, then any conviction that resulted from it must be considered unsafe. We can't pick and choose who the rules apply to and when, just because we're concerned or repulsed by what an individual is accused of.
If Jeremy made a deal with a newspaper, that doesn't matter to justice. This was a contested trial and Jeremy can be expected to deny the allegations anyway. Having a deal in place, which will pay out if indeed he is acquitted, makes no difference to his evidence. Naturally he wants to be acquitted anyway.
On the other hand, if Julie made a deal with a newspaper, that is a serious problem because it means her evidence is coloured by the knowledge she will be paid if a case she is influential in goes a certain way. At the very least, the jury should have been told about this factor. As it is, Julie misled the trial. Why did she do this if, as you claim, it doesn't matter?
I should also add that, in English law, a contract can be verbal or oral as well as written, and informal understandings can be contractual in nature; and, even if it isn't contractual, such an arrangement may still be prejudicial to a criminal trial. If Julie had a verbal understanding with a newspaper, then arguably there was a contract or a 'quasi-contractual' arrangement, but whatever the strict position in law, the bottom line is that she has not told the truth and it is material to her evidence.
Let us say I am sitting as a juror in a criminal trial, and there is a key prosecution witness whose evidence is entirely uncorroborated - in other words, I am being asked to accept the witness' say-so that such-and-such thing happened, in conflict with the denials of the accused. Let us say I then discover that this same witness is going to receive a substantial sum of money if a conviction is secured. I am sorry, but I would disregard the evidence from that witness. It's not safe evidence. Allowing it pollutes the trial and renders the trial unfair and any resulting conviction would be unsafe.
Again, I am sorry, but regardless of Jeremy's culpability, anybody who thinks his convictions are unsafe needs to be tell me what hallucinogenic they're smoking, so I can buy some of it and get high as well. The judiciary may say it's a safe conviction, but as they say in the financial world, past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future performance. I'm not sure we can rely on the judgement of professionals who, it seems to me, have a vested interest in upholding the credibility of the system on which they depend for their livings and kudos.
QC, I suspect it may have been more serious for Julie than for Jeremy -there are tales, possibly apocryphal- of him, pardon the expression, screwing around, whilst they were together. The observation that she "was a bit plain in the looks department" is almost complimentary compared with my own claims about her, during the time I was staunchly pro Jeremy, showing the beginnings of a moustache and having appalling dress sense!!!
Did Jeremy feel a "till death do us part" love for Julie? Well, it certainly did that, didn't it? Allegedly, his real love had been Suzette Ford. Older than he, married with two children, she'd had dinner with him and his parents on the occasion of his 21st birthday. She became pregnant to him twice but miscarried and subsequently returned to her husband. Perhaps Julie was a rebound romance? It seems his parents didn't approve of either relationship. It seems he may have seen an entirely different future mapped out once he was free of his parents and the farm. Perhaps he no longer saw the need for a permanent relationship. Wealth opens many doors.
Now, I hear what you say about pre trial signed contracts. The law states. End of. No further discussion. BUT, I must ask, because I need it to be clarified, if Julie had admitted that this was the case, ie, she stood to make money according to the outcome of the trial, what possible difference would it have made to the questions she was going to be asked based on information she'd given long before the deal was thought about? Is it not the case that a witness can only respond to questions asked? I presume no one asked the question.
It maybe as you say. That having such knowledge would/might have swayed jurors to another direction. It MAY be that there should be a retrial, but I remain conscious that an unsafe conviction is a far remove from an innocent verdict.
-
Just nearly choked on my cup of tea.
Considering the weather. Ice Tea? :)
-
Risk-takers have no fear which in a child who's growing up is scrutinised by a psychologist and put on the list of suspected ADHD or Autism. We all have in-built fears of sorts but those who don't definitely have a problem with the amygdala ( which has been mentioned before ) set on either side of the brain, it dictates our perceptions, or not, of fear. In sociopaths this area is disordered the same as in psychopaths. Psychoanalysts are studying these effects in such fearless people as lack of emotion/empathy plays a huge part in the impaired amygdala.
Impaired meaning an accident/blow on the head or one of birth/ genetic. Wasn't Jeremy damaged on his head ?
Do you have proof that these clever people are/were psychopaths ? Proof that Jeremy was ?
As Jeremy himself once said---" it's for you to find out ", I refer to the psychiatric tests which were done over a period of time to which all came back as NAD, so no psychopathy there then. Not to my knowledge has Jeremy had treatment of any sort for any mental impairment.
These things can't be fully detected without an MRI scan anyway, but in 35 years there hasn't been one report in behaviour change of any kind.
I have ADHD. What are you implying?
-
QC, I suspect it may have been more serious for Julie than for Jeremy -there are tales, possibly apocryphal- of him, pardon the expression, screwing around, whilst they were together. The observation that she "was a bit plain in the looks department" is almost complimentary compared with my own claims about her, during the time I was staunchly pro Jeremy, showing the beginnings of a moustache and having appalling dress sense!!!
Did Jeremy feel a "till death do us part" love for Julie? Well, it certainly did that, didn't it? Allegedly, his real love had been Suzette Ford. Older than he, married with two children, she'd had dinner with him and his parents on the occasion of his 21st birthday. She became pregnant to him twice but miscarried and subsequently returned to her husband. Perhaps Julie was a rebound romance? It seems his parents didn't approve of either relationship. It seems he may have seen an entirely different future mapped out once he was free of his parents and the farm. Perhaps he no longer saw the need for a permanent relationship. Wealth opens many doors.
Now, I hear what you say about pre trial signed contracts. The law states. End of. No further discussion. BUT, I must ask, because I need it to be clarified, if Julie had admitted that this was the case, ie, she stood to make money according to the outcome of the trial, what possible difference would it have made to the questions she was going to be asked based on information she'd given long before the deal was thought about? Is it not the case that a witness can only respond to questions asked? I presume no one asked the question.
It maybe as you say. That having such knowledge would/might have swayed jurors to another direction. It MAY be that there should be a retrial, but I remain conscious that an unsafe conviction is a far remove from an innocent verdict.
they depend for their livings and kudos.
QC, I suspect it may have been more serious for Julie than for Jeremy -there are tales, possibly apocryphal- of him, pardon the expression, screwing around, whilst they were together
Is that the words you used for Colin ‘screwing around’ when he was fully aware of Sheila’s health and suicidal thoughts
-
I have ADHD. What are you implying?
Nothing David, so stop reading into it please. I wasn't referring to you or anyone else. I'm more interested in the debility itself with nothing personal implied.
-
Nothing David, so stop reading into it please. I wasn't referring to you or anyone else. I'm more interested in the debility itself with nothing personal implied.
I have no recall of teachers from either school saying anything of any impairments to learning.
-
I have no recall of teachers from either school saying anything of any impairments to learning.
It's one of those diagnoses that varies with each individual. Some children attend mainstream schooling, others go to " special educational " schools. It depends on the severity of the problem.
-
I have ADHD. What are you implying?
People have said the same of me. I keep meaning to get tested. Bit late now though.
-
QC, I suspect it may have been more serious for Julie than for Jeremy -there are tales, possibly apocryphal- of him, pardon the expression, screwing around, whilst they were together. The observation that she "was a bit plain in the looks department" is almost complimentary compared with my own claims about her, during the time I was staunchly pro Jeremy, showing the beginnings of a moustache and having appalling dress sense!!!
But it's not meant as an insult. If anything, it's a compliment to her and to Jeremy.
Actually, there are rumours of Julie sleeping around. Interestingly, you don't mention this. And rumours are rumours. And it wouldn't mean that Jeremy's feelings were insincere anyway.
Now, I hear what you say about pre trial signed contracts. The law states. End of. No further discussion. BUT, I must ask, because I need it to be clarified, if Julie had admitted that this was the case, ie, she stood to make money according to the outcome of the trial, what possible difference would it have made to the questions she was going to be asked based on information she'd given long before the deal was thought about? Is it not the case that a witness can only respond to questions asked? I presume no one asked the question.
It maybe as you say. That having such knowledge would/might have swayed jurors to another direction. It MAY be that there should be a retrial, but I remain conscious that an unsafe conviction is a far remove from an innocent verdict.
I think you miss the point. Her evidence was non-corroborated. She had nothing to support what she was saying. Even the details of the murder could have been obtained from other sources, and even if the source was Jeremy, it still proves nothing because Jeremy may have obtained the information innocently. Even the person she named as the killer turned out to have an alibi. Why should we accept such evidence? And if it then develops that she's been paid for such evidence, how on earth can you consider that a fair trial? And then it turns out she lied to the court about being paid for the evidence.
Come along Jane. I think there really comes a point when even you have to acknowledge that this has not been done right. I'm afraid I can't respect people who aren't honest about these things.
-
It's one of those diagnoses that varies with each individual. Some children attend mainstream schooling, others go to " special educational " schools. It depends on the severity of the problem.
Well, if he had it, and there seems no reason to say more than perhaps he may have, it was so boarderline it didn't show. I wonder how many teaches taught him different subjects over the course of his school career? I cannot imagine, had there been anything noteworthy about his behaviour, regarding disruptive behaviour and poor attention skills, that one of them wouldn't have picked it up. However, even if they had, like psychopathy, it's an explanation for behaviours.
-
I have a grandson who has ADHD---he's a brilliant fitness instructor, drives, has never been out of work, saved for a house and presently lives with his partner. Growing up he had some very " odd " ways which we were all used to as a family and aware of too but he was very clever and knew all the stars/ planets as well as all the dinosaurs.
It's possible to grow out of some of the quirks which were evident in the younger years and lead a normal life as my g/son does. He did attend a specialised school originally.
-
People have said the same of me. I keep meaning to get tested. Bit late now though.
It's never too late Roch.
-
But it's not meant as an insult. If anything, it's a compliment to her and to Jeremy.
Actually, there are rumours of Julie sleeping around. Interestingly, you don't mention this. And rumours are rumours. And it wouldn't mean that Jeremy's feelings were insincere anyway.
I think you miss the point. Her evidence was non-corroborated. She had nothing to support what she was saying. Even the details of the murder could have been obtained from other sources, and even if the source was Jeremy, it still proves nothing because Jeremy may have obtained the information innocently. Even the person she named as the killer turned out to have an alibi. Why should we accept such evidence? And if it then develops that she's been paid for such evidence, how on earth can you consider that a fair trial? And then it turns out she lied to the court about being paid for the evidence.
Come along Jane. I think there really comes a point when even you have to acknowledge that this has not been done right. I'm afraid I can't respect people who aren't honest about these things.
That's interesting. Other than her claim of being raped when she was in France and claimed it was Jeremy's fault for not being with her, I'd not heard of her playing away. Could equally well be apocryphal.
The evidence was mainly circumstantial. It's not the only trial -although arguably, the biggest?- in which circumstantial evidence has been presented.
I regularly use expressions such as "maybe" and "perhaps" or ask "might it be?" when I'm fully aware of another possibility than the one I'm suggesting. You appear to be using the same reasoning in entirely the opposite direction.
Actually, I do accept that it may not have been a fair trial, but an unfair trial doesn't make a guilty person innocent. I AM fully convinced of Jeremy's guilt, whereas you are not. Were I not, my thought processes may be the same as your own.
-
It's never too late Roch.
In my day there was no such thing as ADHD. You just spent your school days in the corridor.
-
Julie's WS is in different parts -
What happened after the massacre:
The eating out, hotels, trips around the country and abroad. There is no point in Julie lying here.
A lot of other people joined them for some of these. Hotel bookings can be checked and relatives asked. So there was no reason to lie as everything can be easily checked.
What Bamber did does not highlight guilt or innocence anyway. Although Bamber's callous actions have come back to haunt him.
100% true.
Bamber's hatred and resentment :
This could be her word against Bamber's. But was not.
Bamber himself testified he had a very poor/non existent relationship with June.
He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' on the massacre night. Saying they did not like each other and she had committed child abuse on the twins. Decades later saying he did not understand her illness.
There are also a lot of other people who said Bamber did not like his family or the raw deal he had. The facts back this up, Sheila living rent free in London, Bamber working long hours after reluctantly starting to work on the farm as a last resort.
100% true.
The massacre plans :
This is again Julies word against Bamber's. However some of the things Julie said are backed up.
She said he planned to ride to WHF. This is backed up by the fact that the bike was brought over just before the massacre.
Julie also knew about the bible and kitchen fight. Which was not reported in the papers. And knew about the lockable from outside window.
The judge and appeal courts found it hard to understand Bamber's 3am call to Julie. Julie saying Bamber said 'he had not slept all night' and 'everything is going well'. When the police asked him about the call, he just said 'no comment'.
Julie also knew about the under insurance of WHF and the items inside.
Very convincing.
Julies feelings :
Her feelings while things were evolving can only be changed by Julie herself, and cannot be disputed.
Cannot be disputed.
___________________
Overall Julie's statement does have a 'ring of truth' to it. She approached the police and was not forced to say anything.
Her reason to lie was also very weak. Bamber allegedly jilting her, after he said their relationship had been in decline/coming to a close for six months. Julie creating a false WS and lying under oath for this sole reason.
-
The massacre plans:
This is again Julies word against Bamber's.
Thanks Adam.
Overall Julie's statement does have a 'ring of truth' to it. She approached the police and was not forced to say anything.
Julie didn't do a deal with the police or the DPP. I didn't know that. Thanks Adam.
Her reason to lie was also very weak.
Julie had a reason to lie. Thanks Adam.
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/lack-of-appeal/amp&ved=2ahUKEwjnwYLT6pDrAhVUt3EKHUlLDosQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0TfUyvxi7kf08gFPh0y9vL&cf=1
As Leo Mckinsty said, Julie would never dare perjure herself so seriously on such trivial grounds - being jilted.
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/lack-of-appeal/amp&ved=2ahUKEwjnwYLT6pDrAhVUt3EKHUlLDosQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0TfUyvxi7kf08gFPh0y9vL&cf=1
As Leo Mckinsty said, Julie would never dare perjure herself so seriously on such trivial grounds - being jilted.
Scorned women never lie in court and Julie's criminal history had nothing to do with it. I didn't know that.
Thanks Adam.
-
...................that however bad we claim Jeremy's crime to have been, allegedly, Julie's subsidiary crimes were infinitely worse. Many think -despite that she was nowhere near the soc- she should be where Jeremy now is.
It is claimed that she was an adventress and had Jeremy under her thumb. It's been suggested that it was she who planned their Bonnie and Clyde activities. It's hard to think of anyone whose brain works in such a way putting themselves through the hard graft of years of education requiring that they do menial part time work to fund.
She was more tghan just Jeremy's girlfriend, though. She was his fiancee. He had asked her to marry him, the register office all but booked. I suspect it may have been called off because of parental approval of him "making an honest woman of her". Might that suggest that the engagement had merely been an attempt to get up parental noses? Nonetheless, they were still a couple. As the relationship was ongoing, perhaps the wedding had been put on hold?
Despite constant and vociferous reminders about the possibility of a signed, pre-trial contract with the NOTW -although quite how it could have damaged Jeremy's chances is beyond me. She'd made her statement, which would form the basis of her testimony. She, as far as we know, didn't do any unexpected turnarounds from the witness box- and the equally vociferous claims that she lied -if she did, repeating what Jeremy had told her, the lies were his- Julie has never changed her story. No one forced her to come back from Canada, all those years after the event, to give evidence. She can hardly be blamed if it was decided it wasn't necessary to call her.
What, exactly, might she have been guilty of? I suspect she didn't tell the whole truth. I suspect she knew way more of his plans than she admitted to. Possibly the sort of things which she believed may have shown her as complicit? She may even have gone through it with her mother. Might her mother have warned her that if she wasn't careful, she was in danger of being dragged down with Jeremy, who'd already told her that would happen. I'll bet she went for damage limitation.
We really don't need to keep being told that if only the jury had known dah, dah, dah, they'd have voted differently. Would they? A signed, pre-trial contract against the murder of an entire family including two little boys? No contract was signed when that happened, nor did it change who the murderer was.
I think this sums it up Jane. She snapped out of her own make-believe world that the girl would marry the handsome prince, she became disgusted with herself as she realized she'd been deceived by a handsome conman, and she decided in herself to make no more excuses for him. The plain and simple truth had to be told.
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/lack-of-appeal/amp&ved=2ahUKEwjnwYLT6pDrAhVUt3EKHUlLDosQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0TfUyvxi7kf08gFPh0y9vL&cf=1
As Leo Mckinsty said, Julie would never dare perjure herself so seriously on such trivial grounds - being jilted.
That McKinstry character seems dodgy to me.
-
Disadvantages of Julie making a lone attempt to frame an innocent man. (Because she was apparently jilted).
There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.
She would be charged by the police. When caught lying. Bamber was innocent.
Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.
To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?
Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?
There was no financial reward in approaching the police.
It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.
She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims. Bamber was innocent.
Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.
She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.
It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.
She may quickly wilt under pressure. This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?
It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.
It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.
It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.
An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.
It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.
She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.
It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.
She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?
She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.
She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.
Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.
If an unsuccessful police approach became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.
-
Risk-takers have no fear which in a child who's growing up is scrutinised by a psychologist and put on the list of suspected ADHD or Autism. We all have in-built fears of sorts but those who don't definitely have a problem with the amygdala ( which has been mentioned before ) set on either side of the brain, it dictates our perceptions, or not, of fear. In sociopaths this area is disordered the same as in psychopaths. Psychoanalysts are studying these effects in such fearless people as lack of emotion/empathy plays a huge part in the impaired amygdala.
Impaired meaning an accident/blow on the head or one of birth/ genetic. Wasn't Jeremy damaged on his head ?
Do you have proof that these clever people are/were psychopaths ? Proof that Jeremy was ?
As Jeremy himself once said---" it's for you to find out ", I refer to the psychiatric tests which were done over a period of time to which all came back as NAD, so no psychopathy there then. Not to my knowledge has Jeremy had treatment of any sort for any mental impairment.
These things can't be fully detected without an MRI scan anyway, but in 35 years there hasn't been one report in behaviour change of any kind.
I'm quite sure there's a lot in the shrunken amygdala theory. Of course we don't know with Jeremy Bamber because he has never undergone a brain scan. But there are quite "normal" people out there who will take risks: the teenager speeding on a Saturday night, the bursar housewife who gambles online and embezzles school funds, and the inheritance killer who calculates he will never get caught.
-
Adam:
It's canon that she did not go to the police voluntarily. Just read the statements. Some, including me, suspect she was arrested and the fact has been concealed under P.I.I.
Also, you can't have this both ways: we keep being told her offences weren't all that serious, but now you say it would have affected her teaching career. Isn't it more likely that there was an element of coercion in her co-operation with the police, and also in the mix was a realisation on her part that the game was up for Jeremy and her own misdeeds were going to be exposed, possibly even her involvement in murder? That does not mean Jeremy or Julie were actually culpable in murder, only that she thought that Jeremy was in trouble and she could be dragged into it, due to her close association with him and evidence about those phone calls in the early hours of 7th. August 1985.
As ever, Adam, you only present us with a partial picture of things. I'm interested in the full picture. Whether it is good or bad for Jeremy is not my concern. I want to get at the truth. I do accept that Julie would not have lied about Jeremy to this extent just because she was a jilted lover, but there's a bit more to it than that.
-
It's not clear whether Julie was jilted. It seemed to be coming to a natural end prior to the massacre after 18 months.
They were both young & lived a long way from each other. Bamber's 10pm call to her was the first time they had spoken for 3 days.
Bamber whisked Julie over to WHF a few hours after the massacre night & kept a close eye on her for a month. He was not aware of the silencer evidence & after a month was comfortable he was home free & Julie was no threat.
Julie felt uncomfortable knowing what she knew & had already told 5 people prior to approaching the police. It must have been a relief when they split.
-
I didn't know that about them. Obviously I knew it was a serious relationship, that's common ground, but I didn't realise they had progressed to a consideration of the formalities of marriage.
We're told Jeremy was a psychopath, yet he was able to conduct a serious intimate relationship with a woman who, if you don't mind me making the observation, was a bit on the plain side in the looks department. That said, I think there was an underlying psychological drive on Jeremy's part in the relationship: Julie was a facsimile of June and represented his attempt to appease his mother, who I am sure wanted him to settle down with a 'nice girl' - as all mothers do.
Haven't we all had that conversation with our mothers (and fathers too)? "When are you going to find a nice girl, Chevalier, and settle down?" And haven't we all nagged our own children in the same way, without even realising we're doing it? Some of us can ignore or distance ourselves from the well-intended parental nagging, but Jeremy couldn't because of the situation he was in: he was tied to his parents economically.
We may ask: was Julie a long-term calculation on Jeremy's part, or a genuine love? Maybe the truth is that Jeremy did not understand fully his own motivations. I think it must have been genuine in Jeremy's mind, but with June dead, the underlying psychological picture shifted radically and Jeremy suddenly knew the relationship was over. Thus, the family funeral also marked the end of Jeremy and Julie as a serious relationship. The fooling around in the funeral car perhaps signified this. Instead of being a marriage prospect, Julie became 'just another girl' again.
Here I must disagree with you Jane.
Justice must be paramount and it must be applied to all cases. The principles of a fair trial are fundamental because that's how we find out what happened. If a trial has not been fair, then any conviction that resulted from it must be considered unsafe. We can't pick and choose who the rules apply to and when, just because we're concerned or repulsed by what an individual is accused of.
If Jeremy made a deal with a newspaper, that doesn't matter to justice. This was a contested trial and Jeremy can be expected to deny the allegations anyway. Having a deal in place, which will pay out if indeed he is acquitted, makes no difference to his evidence. Naturally he wants to be acquitted anyway.
On the other hand, if Julie made a deal with a newspaper, that is a serious problem because it means her evidence is coloured by the knowledge she will be paid if a case she is influential in goes a certain way. At the very least, the jury should have been told about this factor. As it is, Julie misled the trial. Why did she do this if, as you claim, it doesn't matter?
I should also add that, in English law, a contract can be verbal or oral as well as written, and informal understandings can be contractual in nature; and, even if it isn't contractual, such an arrangement may still be prejudicial to a criminal trial. If Julie had a verbal understanding with a newspaper, then arguably there was a contract or a 'quasi-contractual' arrangement, but whatever the strict position in law, the bottom line is that she has not told the truth and it is material to her evidence.
Let us say I am sitting as a juror in a criminal trial, and there is a key prosecution witness whose evidence is entirely uncorroborated - in other words, I am being asked to accept the witness' say-so that such-and-such thing happened, in conflict with the denials of the accused. Let us say I then discover that this same witness is going to receive a substantial sum of money if a conviction is secured. I am sorry, but I would disregard the evidence from that witness. It's not safe evidence. Allowing it pollutes the trial and renders the trial unfair and any resulting conviction would be unsafe.
I don't know where you got this from but it seems to me they didn't have so much in common, mainly due to the generation gap. June was from landed gentry, Julie was a working-class grammar school girl made good. June worried excessively about morality, and whilst Julie may have possessed her own moral code she allowed herself to be led astray in a way I could never envisage happening to June.
-
Bamber testified his relationship with Julie had been coming to a close over 6 months.
However he had said enough to her during this time & had to keep her with him directly after the massacre.
The split after a month was a combination of Bamber believing he was home free & Julie wanting to break away anyway, knowing what she knew.
Bamber asking another girl out in front of her may have been a final nudge in her going to the police soon afterwards. Rather than her just walking away quietly.
-
I don't know where you got this from but it seems to me they didn't have so much in common, mainly due to the generation gap. June was from landed gentry, Julie was a working-class grammar school girl made good. June worried excessively about morality, and whilst Julie may have possessed her own moral code she allowed herself to be led astray in a way I could never envisage happening to June.
I know they were from different backgrounds, and I didn't say they were the same - though to be fair, that doesn't necessarily mean people won't see eye to eye and we don't really know for sure what the relationship between June and Julie was like. If the shootings hadn't occurred, Julie would have matured, her subsequent life is testament to that, and it's not hard to imagine her slotting into a life alongside June. Why not?
But back to my point. As usual, we kind of misunderstand each other. I proposed that Julie was a facsimile of June. In other words, I think Julie was an (imperfect) reproduction of June by Jeremy in an effort to generally placate June. I'm not saying Jeremy went about it purposefully, just that he may have had this vague notion floating around in his head or it was subconscious. Julie does look plain and conservatively dressed. She is a sharp contrast to, say, Anji Greaves, who even when she turned up at court, looked 'sexy'. I'm generalising, though. I don't have any greater insight than anybody else here, which is why as a rule I stay away from conversations like this.
-
Bamber testified his relationship with Julie had been coming to a close over 6 months.
However he had said enough to her during this time & had to keep her with him directly after the massacre.
The split after a month was a combination of Bamber believing he was home free & Julie wanting to break away anyway, knowing what she knew.
Bamber asking another girl out in front of her may have been a final nudge in her going to the police soon afterwards. Rather than her just walking away quietly.
Thanks Adam.
-
I know they were from different backgrounds, and I didn't say they were the same - though to be fair, that doesn't necessarily mean people won't see eye to eye and we don't really know for sure what the relationship between June and Julie was like. If the shootings hadn't occurred, Julie would have matured, her subsequent life is testament to that, and it's not hard to imagine her slotting into a life alongside June. Why not?
But back to my point. As usual, we kind of misunderstand each other. I proposed that Julie was a facsimile of June. In other words, I think Julie was an (imperfect) reproduction of June by Jeremy in an effort to generally placate June. I'm not saying Jeremy went about it purposefully, just that he may have had this vague notion floating around in his head or it was subconscious. Julie does look plain and conservatively dressed. She is a sharp contrast to, say, Anji Greaves, who even when she turned up at court, looked 'sexy'. I'm generalising, though. I don't have any greater insight than anybody else here, which is why as a rule I stay away from conversations like this.
June called Julie /referred to Julie as a harlot. She offered to buy her an apartment, presumably in the hope of keeping her away from Jeremy/to prevent neighbours knowing she was sharing his bed/to pretend to herself that she wasn't?
-
June called Julie /referred to Julie as a harlot. She offered to buy her an apartment, presumably in the hope of keeping her away from Jeremy/to prevent neighbours knowing she was sharing his bed/to pretend to herself that she wasn't?
And? How does that contradict me, Jane (assuming you are taking issue)? She may have called Julie a harlot. She may have called her all sorts of things. But you also say she offered to buy her an apartment. What are we supposed to conclude from this?
-
Julie accusing an innocent man of murdering his family is the daftest thing anyone would ever do.
Reply 31 shows there were over 20 massive disadvantages for her. And no advantages.
Obviously Julie's WS & testimony is correct. This together with the vast amount of forensic evidence & one alive suspect with motives, opportunity & no alib has resulted in the conviction standing for 35 years. Despite Bamber's 24/7 attempts.
-
I know they were from different backgrounds, and I didn't say they were the same - though to be fair, that doesn't necessarily mean people won't see eye to eye and we don't really know for sure what the relationship between June and Julie was like. If the shootings hadn't occurred, Julie would have matured, her subsequent life is testament to that, and it's not hard to imagine her slotting into a life alongside June. Why not?
But back to my point. As usual, we kind of misunderstand each other. I proposed that Julie was a facsimile of June. In other words, I think Julie was an (imperfect) reproduction of June by Jeremy in an effort to generally placate June. I'm not saying Jeremy went about it purposefully, just that he may have had this vague notion floating around in his head or it was subconscious. Julie does look plain and conservatively dressed. She is a sharp contrast to, say, Anji Greaves, who even when she turned up at court, looked 'sexy'. I'm generalising, though. I don't have any greater insight than anybody else here, which is why as a rule I stay away from conversations like this.
I suppose it's possible that Jeremy was attracted to Julie in that she was a smart woman whom he could relate to and who listened to him, though he was careful to keep her hidden away from his mother in the early stages (their affair was conducted at her halls of residence) but by the time he resided at Bourtree Cottage the mother and son relationship had irretrievably broken down.
-
And? How does that contradict me, Jane (assuming you are taking issue)? She may have called Julie a harlot. She may have called her all sorts of things. But you also say she offered to buy her an apartment. What are we supposed to conclude from this?
That the Bamber reputation in the village was paramount in June's life.
-
Julie accusing an innocent man of murdering his family is the daftest thing anyone would ever do.
I agree, but that doesn't mean she didn't.
Also, Adam, have you considered the possibility that she accused Jeremy because she thought he was guilty? It doesn't follow that Jeremy is guilty.
I think life experience affects how people look at something like this. I admit I have quite a lot in common with Jeremy in terms of personality, which is one reason why I harbour some doubt because I can see that there are possible innocent explanations for much of what Julie says.
For instance, if I recall correctly, I think she says Jeremy mooted at one point the idea of burning the house down with the family in it, but that could easily have been Jeremy's idea of a joke, or a flippancy, or a way of teasing Julie.
I have no problem believing that, in the generality, Jeremy didn't like his parents, but one way of expressing this dislike could have been through dry humour and ad hoc flippant eruptions. It's actually quite a common personality quirk among English men, and was especially at that time when maybe people were more relaxed in each other's private company and we didn't have the same intrusion of political correctness into society. Dark humour was a sine qua non of manhood, mainly because it made women laugh, and if you can make women laugh, you know where that leads.
Julie could have twisted all of this round into something it wasn't, or she may even have taken the view that Jeremy's 'jokes' had a serious undercurrent to them and revealed some sort of emergent criminal intent. In other words, as often happens, she put 2 and 2 together and came up with 5.
-
Julie told 5 people what she knew prior to approaching the police - Liz Rimmington, Andy Bishop, Karen Bishop, Malcolm Walters and Susan Battersby.
These people encouraged her to go to the police. Which she did do. She obviously wanted some moral support prior to her approach.
-
And? How does that contradict me, Jane (assuming you are taking issue)? She may have called Julie a harlot. She may have called her all sorts of things. But you also say she offered to buy her an apartment. What are we supposed to conclude from this?
And nothing, QC. I'm simply providing information! I believe it to be documented. Make of it what you will. What I make of it, rightly or wrongly, is that Julie didn't appear to be June's favourite person.
-
Julie told 5 people what she knew prior to the massacre - Liz Rimmington, Andy Bishop, Karen Bishop, Malcolm Walters and Susan Battersby.
These people encouraged her to go to the police. Which she did do. She obviously wanted some moral support prior to her approach.
Absolutely. It vindicates her claim that one of the reasons she didn't come forward earlier was that she didn't think she would be believed.
-
Absolutely. It vindicates her claim that one of the reasons she didn't come forward earlier was that she didn't think she would be believed.
She said Bamber was 'terribly confident' & she would never be believed. Her diaries mention being told he was 'watertight' & it was an 'open & shut case'.
All this while being whisked around the country & to Amsterdam on jolly ups. Hardly having time to breath.
-
Absolutely. It vindicates her claim that one of the reasons she didn't come forward earlier was that she didn't think she would be believed.
I believe it's in her WS that she claims Jeremy told her no one would believe her. I have a feeling she may have been right. Given that, it's possible that for a while she convinced herself she'd be safer with him than without him?
-
If the police had approached Julie & said 'we believe Bamber may have been involved, do you have anything else you can tell us, she would have instantly talked.
The police would have eventually approached Julie again. The evidence was piling up against Bamber.
However she approached the police.
-
Julie told 5 people what she knew prior to approaching the police - Liz Rimmington, Andy Bishop, Karen Bishop, Malcolm Walters and Susan Battersby.
Thanks Adam. I assume all these people went straight to the police, so why didn't the police just arrest Julie? Or is it that Julie wasn't really imparting any knowledge of the massacre, she was just telling a tale about various things Jeremy had told her and these people didn't take it too seriously?
I know if I had been one of those people, and I was being told that Jeremy did it or was involved in it, I would be straight on to the police. I wouldn't be relying on Julie to go to the police. I'd be contacting the police immediately.
While we're here, Adam, perhaps you could also tell us how many of the people you list subsequently socialised with Jeremy? I've heard a rumour that one of them squirted cream in Jeremy's face at a party, or it could have been the other way round, and this happened after Julie told her Jeremy was the Evil One.
I suppose it must have been exciting attending a party with a mass murderer. Not something you get to do every day. Maybe Jeremy regaled them all with how Matthew had done it and how he'd slipped up putting his palm print on the Bible?
Thanks Adam.
-
One thing she couldn't tell the police was that there was any violence in their relationship.
Which to me is strange considering that a non-violent character can slaughter 5 people including 2 children ?
-
Apropos of absolutely nothing and totally unrelated. An Essex woman has been jailed for battering her husband to death with a revolver after firing at him six times. All six shots missed.
-
One thing she couldn't tell the police was that there was any violence in their relationship.
Which to me is strange considering that a non-violent character can slaughter 5 people including 2 children ?
She also forgot to mention the sticky silencer. Maybe Matthew forgot to mention it to Jeremy? These things happen. Even professionals like Matthew overlook the details. Why did Matthew put the silencer back in the gun cupboard? Would he even know where the gun cupboard was? All very interesting questions.
She also mentioned nothing about marks, cuts and bruises on Jeremy. He must have had some after that struggle with Nevill. Wouldn't he have got scratched by Sheila? No, wait, she was asleep the whole time. Nevill was asleep too, until he got shot. That woke him up. Thanks Adam.
-
Thanks Adam. I assume all these people went straight to the police, so why didn't the police just arrest Julie? Or is it that Julie wasn't really imparting any knowledge of the massacre, she was just telling a tale about various things Jeremy had told her and these people didn't take it too seriously?
I know if I had been one of those people, and I was being told that Jeremy did it or was involved in it, I would be straight on to the police. I wouldn't be relying on Julie to go to the police. I'd be contacting the police immediately.
While we're here, Adam, perhaps you could also tell us how many of the people you list subsequently socialised with Jeremy? I've heard a rumour that one of them squirted cream in Jeremy's face at a party, or it could have been the other way round, and this happened after Julie told her Jeremy was the Evil One.
I suppose it must have been exciting attending a party with a mass murderer. Not something you get to do every day. Maybe Jeremy regaled them all with how Matthew had done it and how he'd slipped up putting his palm print on the Bible?
Thanks Adam.
Well she approached the police with Liz Rimmington.
If the days after had turned into weeks, one of these people may have gone to the police. However by then the police would have approached Julie again.
-
She also forgot to mention the sticky silencer. Maybe Matthew forgot to mention it to Jeremy? These things happen. Even professionals like Matthew overlook the details. Why did Matthew put the silencer back in the gun cupboard? Would he even know where the gun cupboard was? All very interesting questions.
She also mentioned nothing about marks, cuts and bruises on Jeremy. He must have had some after that struggle with Nevill. Wouldn't he have got scratched by Sheila? No, wait, she was asleep the whole time. Nevill was asleep too, until he got shot. That woke him up. Thanks Adam.
There is no reason he would tell Julie about the silencer. He used it, took it off & put it away.
He did tell her about Nevill putting up a big fight. That would have been more memorable to him.
-
Well she approached the police with Liz Rimmington.
If the days after had turned into weeks, one of these people may have gone to the police. However by then the police would have approached Julie again.
Or is it that Julie wasn't really imparting any knowledge to her friends, they realised this, and they just discounted what she was saying? If Jeremy is guilty, then this looks foolish with the benefit of hindsight, but at the time it may have seemed sensible. Women do tell lies like this, you know, Adam. It's common knowledge that they do and common experience. It's really not that hard to extrapolate a scenario based on that premise.
Moreover, looking at this objectively (I hold no brief for Jeremy), Julie's evidence was content-free. It was a mixture of bad character evidence and hearsay about a fictitious conversation between some fantasist called Matthew Macdonald and Jeremy, who may also have been a total fantasist, albeit a darkly funny one.
Julie's evidence actually proves nothing at all of any centrality to the case.
-
There is no reason he would tell Julie about the silencer. He used it, took it off & put it away.
He did tell her about Nevill putting up a big fight. That would have been more memorable to him.
Jeremy tells Julie about everything, including the Bible, he just forgot to mention the critical fact of the silencer causing the problem of Sheila's arms being too short.
Like you say, Adam, he clean forgot.
Thanks Adam.
-
Or is it that Julie wasn't really imparting any knowledge to her friends, they realised this, and they just discounted what she was saying? If Jeremy is guilty, then this looks foolish with the benefit of hindsight, but at the time it may have seemed sensible. Women do tell lies like this, you know, Adam. It's common knowledge that they do and common experience. It's really not that hard to extrapolate a scenario based on that premise.
Moreover, looking at this objectively (I hold no brief for Jeremy), Julie's evidence was content-free. It was a mixture of bad character evidence and hearsay about a fictitious conversation between some fantasist called Matthew Macdonald and Jeremy, who may also have been a total fantasist, albeit a darkly funny one.
Julie's evidence actually proves nothing at all of any centrality to the case.
Obviously she didn't give her friends a 34 page WS. But she wouldn't tell 5 people the basics while still in contact with Bamber, unless it was true.
There were no advantages in trying to implicate an innocent man. The NOTW offer was over a year away.
However the huge amount of massive disadvantages show it would have been the daftest thing ever to attempt.
However if there is a similar example.....
-
Jeremy tells Julie about everything, including the Bible, he just forgot to mention the critical fact of the silencer causing the problem of Sheila's arms being too short.
Like you say, Adam, he clean forgot.
Thanks Adam.
Might it not have slipped his memory after a fight with his father, in which he didn't die conveniently, a glove came off, and the rifle stock broke with the force of the beating?
-
Obviously she didn't give her friends a 34 page WS. But she wouldn't tell 5 people the basics while still in contact with Bamber, unless it was true.
There were no advantages in trying to implicate an innocent man. The NOTW offer was over a year away.
However the huge amount of massive disadvantages show it would have been the daftest thing ever to attempt.
However if there is a similar example.....
Thanks Adam. While I've got you, do you think the new information that Jeremy liked HP sauce with his bacon, not ketchup, will be enough for the CCRC, if you add in Peggy and Pat? Why do you think Stan lied and said it was ketchup? Do you think the truth will ever come out, Adam?
-
Bamber mentioning the bible to Julie was a way to show off.
The bible shows there may have been religous reasons as well as foster care reasons. Implicating Sheila further.
Bamber telling Julie the twins did not suffer & that MM carried out the massacre made him seem less of a monster. He had spent months telling Julie what a raw deal he had from his family. She may be less likely to wilt & support him in the coming days.
-
Some posters believe Julie should have approached the police on the way to WHF in the police car. Which is very extreme as she didn't even know what had happened.
It seems she started wilting within the first week. While simultaneously attending the funeral & then being taken on Bamber's jolly ups.
Over the next 3 weeks things escalated. Julie started talking to other people. Bamber felt more confident & didn't want Julie tagging along with Brett & dampening the mood.
-
Might it not have slipped his memory after a fight with his father, in which he didn't die conveniently, a glove came off, and the rifle stock broke with the force of the beating?
Slipped his memory you say?
Curious that Julie mentions the things that were known to the investigation at that stage and she could have heard secondhand, but not the one critical piece of evidence that only became significant later and that an innocent Jeremy would not have known about: the silencer. How interesting.
-
Some posters believe Julie should have approached the police on the way to WHF in the police car. Which is very extreme as she didn't even know what had happened.
It seems she started wilting within the first week. While simultaneously attending the funeral & then being taken on Bamber's jolly ups.
Over the next 3 weeks things escalated. Julie started talking to other people. Bamber felt more confident & didn't want Julie tagging along with Brett & dampening the mood.
Thanks Adam. Did Julie mention details of the crime to her various friends? Or just to the police?
I know that Susan is quite broad-minded as she let Jeremy, a mass murderer, come to her 21st. birthday party. Steve wouldn't like her.
Thanks Adam.
-
Thanks Adam. Did Julie mention details of the crime to her various friends? Or just to the police?
I know that Susan is quite broad-minded as she let Jeremy, a mass murderer, come to her 21st. birthday party. Steve wouldn't like her.
Thanks Adam.
I thought you had read up on the case.
Why does it matter?
Had Julie told Liz Rimmington before her 21st birthday.
Anyway, she told 5 people before approaching the police. Most likely before Bamber said he 'jilted her'.
-
Slipped his memory you say?
Curious that Julie mentions the things that were known to the investigation at that stage and she could have heard secondhand, but not the one critical piece of evidence that only became significant later and that an innocent Jeremy would not have known about: the silencer. How interesting.
No, I didn't say. That would be claiming. I asked a question. Your answer might be right. IF Jeremy is innocent. I believe the police paid MM a visit and he satisfied them with his alibi. Given he'd never been a mercenary, it's quite reasonable to think he may never have handled a gun.
-
Bamber spoke to Julie for months before & days after the massacre. About his plans & actions.
Julie told 5 people Bamber was involved before going to the police after a month. Submitting a WS, testifying & never retracting.
Obviously no one would do this if the person was innocent.
Not sure what else can be said.
-
I thought you had read up on the case.
Why does it matter?
Had Julie told Liz Rimmington before her 21st birthday.
Anyway, she told 5 people before approaching the police. Most likely before Bamber said he 'jilted her'.
I have read up on the case and I know more about the case than you do - that's a certainty. I can wipe the floor with you.
Sometimes questioning is used as a debating technique, Adam. Barristers, for instance, ask questions they already know the answer to in order to highlight weaknesses or strengths in a case.
The information flow from Julie to her friends and the police highlights a glaring flaw in the prosecution case. She DID share some crime scene information with Susan Battersby, but it was vague and undetailed and based on secondhand factoids she could have picked up or inferred from anywhere.
Why didn't Julie mention the silencer to the police?
-
No, I didn't say. That would be claiming. I asked a question. Your answer might be right. IF Jeremy is innocent. I believe the police paid MM a visit and he satisfied them with his alibi. Given he'd never been a mercenary, it's quite reasonable to think he may never have handled a gun.
Like both Adam and Steve, you dodge the real question.
-
I have read up on the case and I know more about the case than you do - that's a certainty. I can wipe the floor with you.
Sometimes questioning is used as a debating technique, Adam. Barristers, for instance, ask questions they already know the answer to in order to highlight weaknesses or strengths in a case.
The information flow from Julie to her friends and the police highlights a glaring flaw in the prosecution case. She DID share some crime scene information with Susan Battersby, but it was vague and undetailed and based on secondhand factoids she could have picked up or inferred from anywhere.
Why didn't Julie mention the silencer to the police?
Why should Bamber mention the silencer to her? He used it & took off without giving it a second thought. It became an issue weeks later.
Julie would assume a silencer would be used in a 2am massacre attempt anyway.
At least this shows the police did not interfere with Julie's WS. Getting hefr to include one line ' Jeremy told me he used a silencer' would have been very damaging.
-
Slipped his memory you say?
Curious that Julie mentions the things that were known to the investigation at that stage and she could have heard secondhand, but not the one critical piece of evidence that only became significant later and that an innocent Jeremy would not have known about: the silencer. How interesting.
He wasn't going to tell her everything. As it was he was distancing himself from the crimes with the hitman story, which Julie would not have invented were she desperate to be believed.
-
Why should Bamber mention the silencer to her? He used it & took off without giving it a second thought. It became an issue weeks later.
Julie would assume a silencer would be used in a 2am massacre attempt anyway.
At least this shows the police did not interfere with Julie's WS. Getting hefr to include one line ' Jeremy told me he used a silencer' would have been very damaging.
Thanks Adam. 'Matthew' (Jeremy) had to unscrew the silencer and put it back in the gun cupboard because Sheila's arms wouldn't have let her kill herself with a silenced rifle. On the way to the gun cupboard, he stopped at the aga surround and put some scratch marks there, just to be fair and sporting and give the police a chance. He also left some blood visible on the outside of the silencer, for the same reason.
Jeremy later forgets to mention all this to Julie.
Meanwhile...
Five police officers inspect the gun cupboard and find nothing of significance.
Stan Jones, formerly of C11 Branch of Scotland Yard, suspects Jeremy from the off.
This same Stan Jones offers Jeremy the keys to the crime scene, including the gun cupboard.
Jeremy refuses and lets the relatives have the keys instead.
It's all falling into place. Thanks Adam.
-
Like both Adam and Steve, you dodge the real question.
Okay. Here's another. The debacle with the silencer was such a cock up and bought him so close to losing everything, apart from making him look incompetent, that he buried it. Talking about it would only have made it real.
-
He wasn't going to tell her everything. As it was he was distancing himself from the crimes with the hitman story, which Julie would not have invented were she desperate to be believed.
Jeremy was distancing himself from the crimes.
Jeremy told Julie he was involved in the crimes.
It all makes sense now. Thanks Steve.
-
Jeremy was distancing himself from the crimes.
Jeremy told Julie he was involved in the crimes.
It all makes sense now. Thanks Steve.
Only because by that stage Julie had known how long he had been planning them.
-
Jeremy was distancing himself from the crimes.
Jeremy told Julie he was involved in the crimes.
It all makes sense now. Thanks Steve.
lol
-
Thanks Adam. 'Matthew' (Jeremy) had to unscrew the silencer and put it back in the gun cupboard because Sheila's arms wouldn't have let her kill herself with a silenced rifle. On the way to the gun cupboard, he stopped at the aga surround and put some scratch marks there, just to be fair and sporting and give the police a chance. He also left some blood visible on the outside of the silencer, for the same reason.
Jeremy later forgets to mention all this to Julie.
Meanwhile...
Five police officers inspect the gun cupboard and find nothing of significance.
Stan Jones, formerly of C11 Branch of Scotland Yard, suspects Jeremy from the off.
This same Stan Jones offers Jeremy the keys to the crime scene, including the gun cupboard.
Jeremy refuses and lets the relatives have the keys instead.
It's all falling into place. Thanks Adam.
The aga scratches happened during Bamber's & Nevill's kitchen fight. Sheila's blood is in the silencer from back splatter from her contact shot. You know this.
You previously said there was a 5% chance of it being animal blood. I did ask for a source but got no response.
-
Jeremy was distancing himself from the crimes.
Jeremy told Julie he was involved in the crimes.
It all makes sense now. Thanks Steve.
Actually, it does make some sense. It was big time, big shot talk, prior to carrying it out. He'd have been ignorant of what the scene would look like, smell like, be like. Job having been done it paints a picture of reality not present before. It's perfectly acceptable that he may wish to distance himself from it.
-
Here's a tragic breaking news story: https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/08/10/swiss-police-german-woman-apparently-kills-self-twin-kids/
-
Some posters believe Julie should have approached the police on the way to WHF in the police car. Which is very extreme as she didn't even know what had happened.
It seems she started wilting within the first week. While simultaneously attending the funeral & then being taken on Bamber's jolly ups.
Over the next 3 weeks things escalated. Julie started talking to other people. Bamber felt more confident & didn't want Julie tagging along with Brett & dampening the mood.
You missed the bit when Julie was desperate to get in the mortuary to take a close look at the bodies
-
Only because by that stage Julie had known how long he had been planning them.
Jeremy frames himself for the crime by telling Julie that he had indeed carried out a crime he had previously told her he had been planning.
Why not just not tell her he carried out the crime and let her and others suspect him without proof?
None of this makes sense.
Why didn't Julie mention the silencer, something that, interestingly enough, an innocent Jeremy wouldn't mention? The silencer was a major issue during the killings, assuming it was used. It's almost unbelievable that it wouldn't be mentioned.
Bear in mind, also, that if Jeremy had returned the silencer to the gun cupboard in order to allay suspicions about it being missed, Jeremy also knew (or at least, could reasonably infer) that the police had not found the silencer, or if they had found it, they had not understood its significance.
This means Jeremy was home and dry. Why not just take the keys off Dozy Stan, thank him, invite him in for a whisky or three, send him on his way, then dispose of the silencer?! Simple.
-
You missed the bit when Julie was desperate to get in the mortuary to take a close look at the bodies
I don't believe desperate. But she did offer to be helpful as no one else wanted to.
-
Absolutely. It vindicates her claim that one of the reasons she didn't come forward earlier was that she didn't think she would be believed.
So were her actual words
I’ve been dumped by that wanker Bamber and I had all my bag packs ready to move into Whitehouse but I’m glad he dumped me because he told me he was responsible for all his family being murdered at the farm. He told me the night before the murders it was going to happen and he told me straightaway after he was responsible but hey ho he had a great big house and land and I would never have had to work again. So I just turned a blind eye
Is that how it went Steve
-
Jeremy frames himself for the crime by telling Julie that he had indeed carried out a crime he had previously told her he had been planning.
Why not just not tell her he carried out the crime and let her and others suspect him without proof?
None of this makes sense.
Why didn't Julie mention the silencer, something that, interestingly enough, an innocent Jeremy wouldn't mention? The silencer was a major issue during the killings, assuming it was used. It's almost unbelievable that it wouldn't be mentioned.
Bear in mind, also, that if Jeremy had returned the silencer to the gun cupboard in order to allay suspicions about it being missed, Jeremy also knew (or at least, could reasonably infer) that the police had not found the silencer, or if they had found it, they had not understood its significance.
This means Jeremy was home and dry. Why not just take the keys off Dozy Stan, thank him, invite him in for a whisky or three, send him on his way, then dispose of the silencer?! Simple.
He told Julie MM did it.
Think your on your own saying Bamber would have told Julie about the silencer. Don't believe it's ever been suggested before. On or off the forum.
But go with it if you believe it's a major thing. Although as I said it also shows the police did not tamper with her WS.
-
I believe it's in her WS that she claims Jeremy told her no one would believe her. I have a feeling she may have been right. Given that, it's possible that for a while she convinced herself she'd be safer with him than without him?
Oh it must be true then
Muggy famous for her honesty
-
Here's a tragic breaking news story: https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/08/10/swiss-police-german-woman-apparently-kills-self-twin-kids/
So sad. Nobody knows of the pain/suffering that the woman had endured. Things such as this are hidden.
-
Jeremy frames himself for the crime by telling Julie that he had indeed carried out a crime he had previously told her he had been planning.
Why not just not tell her he carried out the crime and let her and others suspect him without proof?
None of this makes sense.
Why didn't Julie mention the silencer, something that, interestingly enough, an innocent Jeremy wouldn't mention? The silencer was a major issue during the killings, assuming it was used. It's almost unbelievable that it wouldn't be mentioned.
Bear in mind, also, that if Jeremy had returned the silencer to the gun cupboard in order to allay suspicions about it being missed, Jeremy also knew (or at least, could reasonably infer) that the police had not found the silencer, or if they had found it, they had not understood its significance.
This means Jeremy was home and dry. Why not just take the keys off Dozy Stan, thank him, invite him in for a whisky or three, send him on his way, then dispose of the silencer?! Simple.
1. Jeremy had already framed himself for the crime. He had been planning it since Autumn 1984 and let Julie into the secret.
2. Why telephone Julie at 3am on 7th August 1985? It gives him a knowledge of the crimes at the very earliest stage.
3. Maybe Julie didn't mention the silencer because Jeremy omitted it from the hitman story.
4. Jeremy had committed the crimes, blamed Sheila, walked away from the Farm he had hated for 24 years and was about to embark on his new life in Maida Vale, taking a few well-earned jaunts in the interim.
-
1. Jeremy had already framed himself for the crime. He had been planning it since Autumn 1984 and let Julie into the secret.
2. Why telephone Julie at 3am on 7th August 1985? It gives him a knowledge of the crimes at the very earliest stage.
3. Maybe Julie didn't mention the silencer because Jeremy omitted it from the hitman story.
4. Jeremy had committed the crimes, blamed Sheila, walked away from the Farm he had hated for 24 years and was about to embark on his new life in Maida Vale, taking a few well-earned jaunts in the interim.
Killing two children can never be planned Steve. It just didn't happen that way. They were killed out of love for them not hate. They died together with their mother which Sheila had wanted that way and not left to the mercy of the world, orphaned and unloved. In Sheila's mind she saw a better place.
-
Sheila had literally reached the end of her tether, an unpredictability that even the cleverest physician couldn't predict.
-
Killing two children can never be planned Steve. It just didn't happen that way. They were killed out of love for them not hate. They died together with their mother which Sheila had wanted that way and not left to the mercy of the world, orphaned and unloved. In Sheila's mind she saw a better place.
One might have thought she'd have gone with them -"Mummy is here with you, my darlings. We're all here together"- rather than leaving them alone.
-
So were her actual words
I’ve been dumped by that wanker Bamber and I had all my bag packs ready to move into Whitehouse but I’m glad he dumped me because he told me he was responsible for all his family being murdered at the farm. He told me the night before the murders it was going to happen and he told me straightaway after he was responsible but hey ho he had a great big house and land and I would never have had to work again. So I just turned a blind eye
Is that how it went Steve
He offered to buy her a wine bar in a fashionable area of London, or at least she would be the manageress. It's what Nevill and June should have realized whilst Jeremy was working at Sloppy Joe's and tried to break out again at the Little Chef off the A11. Instead they broke up his relationship with Suzette and he blamed the stress on her miscarriages. Then all of a sudden come those two angelic little boys on the scene with parasite mother in tow, and his resentment reaches fever pitch. Throw in a cocktail of central nervous system stimulants to unhinge his brain for a couple of hours and you have the cataclysmic tragedy of White House Farm.
-
One might have thought she'd have gone with them -"Mummy is here with you, my darlings. We're all here together"- rather than leaving them alone.
She may have even said that as they lay asleep. There are a lot of things we don't know.
-
Killing two children can never be planned Steve. It just didn't happen that way. They were killed out of love for them not hate. They died together with their mother which Sheila had wanted that way and not left to the mercy of the world, orphaned and unloved. In Sheila's mind she saw a better place.
But Sheila had never accomplished anything of worth apart from those two boys, and they were her bridge to Colin, they brought her respect and her relationship with June was slowly healing with the quarterly allowance about to be put in place. One talent Jeremy did have was reckoning money: money for the Maida Vale flat, money for hospital bills, money for food parcels and money for a private education for the boys. This was his chance with all occupants under one roof to maximize his inheritance and like Brutus in Julius Caesar take the tide at the flood.
-
Sheila had literally reached the end of her tether, an unpredictability that even the cleverest physician couldn't predict.
Poor Sheila
-
One might have thought she'd have gone with them -"Mummy is here with you, my darlings. We're all here together"- rather than leaving them alone.
Yes Jane. I think that is the real giveaway..
-
But Sheila had never accomplished anything of worth apart from those two boys, and they were her bridge to Colin, they brought her respect and her relationship with June was slowly healing with the quarterly allowance about to be put in place. One talent Jeremy did have was reckoning money: money for the Maida Vale flat, money for hospital bills, money for food parcels and money for a private education for the boys. This was his chance with all occupants under one roof to maximize his inheritance and like Brutus in Julius Caesar take the tide at the flood.
Which is why she'd felt that there was nothing to live for, while this way her boys would remain with her.
-
The greatest reason for a mother who kills her children is a separation and/or marriage break up.
What exactly did Sheila have going for her ? Anything positive on the horizon ? I wouldn't have thought so .
-
Like many today ( too many ) Sheila had been badly let down by a mental health system which isn't much further on 35 years later.
-
The greatest reason for a mother who kills her children is a separation and/or marriage break up.
What exactly did Sheila have going for her ? Anything positive on the horizon ? I wouldn't have thought so .
It's difficult to know, and of course one does recall Bamber's remark about this being "the perfect crime". Why was it the perfect crime: because Sheila had in the past expressed to a psychiatrist feelings of antipathy towards the boys and humanity in general, that she was unaware of most events going on around her due to her illness, that the farmhouse was somewhat isolated..and so it was that she was led to her death by a handsome conman like a lamb to the slaughter.
-
Famous last words from many a professional " they don't pose a risk ". How many times have we heard that or seen it written ?
-
Famous last words from many a professional " they don't pose a risk ". How many times have we heard that or seen it written ?
..and how many times have we heard anecdotal evidence from neighbours that "that bloke wouldn't hurt a fly.."
-
..and how many times have we heard anecdotal evidence from neighbours that "that bloke wouldn't hurt a fly.."
Tommy Mair's neighbour said as much.. and a lot more.
-
It's difficult to know, and of course one does recall Bamber's remark about this being "the perfect crime". Why was it the perfect crime: because Sheila had in the past expressed to a psychiatrist feelings of antipathy towards the boys and humanity in general, that she was unaware of most events going on around her due to her illness, that the farmhouse was somewhat isolated..and so it was that she was led to her death by a handsome conman like a lamb to the slaughter.
I somehow can't picture Sheila having been " led like a lamb to the slaughter ", she'd have turned like a whippet with a bite just as bad. Whoever had attempted to attack her would have come off worse. Remember her pan throwing at Colin ? Amongst other things.
-
I somehow can't picture Sheila having been " led like a lamb to the slaughter ", she'd have turned like a whippet with a bite just as bad. Whoever had attempted to attack her would have come off worse. Remember her pan throwing at Colin ? Amongst other things.
But that was in the early days of the marriage before she was on any medication. Was she comparing Colin to Nevill? Had she ever been in control of any situation before given that she was either at an all-girls private school or White House Farm?
-
I somehow can't picture Sheila having been " led like a lamb to the slaughter ", she'd have turned like a whippet with a bite just as bad. Whoever had attempted to attack her would have come off worse. Remember her pan throwing at Colin ? Amongst other things.
She was receiving, by injection, medication whose chief purpose is to dull the senses. It's unlikely she could have raised the energy to throw a tantrum, let alone accomplish several loadings of a gun -something she was totally unskilled at- and fire it accurately enough to kill five people. Throwing pans is a very different animal from firing a gun.
-
Like many today ( too many ) Sheila had been badly let down by a mental health system which isn't much further on 35 years later.
Exactly
-
She was receiving, by injection, medication whose chief purpose is to dull the senses. It's unlikely she could have raised the energy to throw a tantrum, let alone accomplish several loadings of a gun -something she was totally unskilled at- and fire it accurately enough to kill five people. Throwing pans is a very different animal from firing a gun.
Jane (the forum hopper that likes to change her name) has been told on numerous occasions by Ngb that it would have been very easy for Sheila to have used the rifle
Jane likes to ignore facts
-
..and how many times have we heard anecdotal evidence from neighbours that "that bloke wouldn't hurt a fly.."
As far as I've heard the neighbours and those who knew him didn't have a good word to say about JB anyway.
-
Then again when you have a cop going from door to door telling everyone he'd murdered two children it's hardly surprising.
-
How many of Julie's circle have spoken against her these past 35 years? Not one as far as I know..
-
How many of Julie's circle have spoken against her these past 35 years? Not one as far as I know..
I've not heard anything in her favour either Steve.
-
I've not heard anything in her favour either Steve.
But 35 years is a long time. I'm sure she catches up with old friends when she pays visits home. I wouldn't expect that any would be disloyal. Best to keep a discreet and dignified silence. I wonder if any of Jeremy's pre murder days are still in touch or visit? There don't seem to be any on his testimonial page, but perhaps, they too, feel a discreet silence is best.
-
But 35 years is a long time. I'm sure she catches up with old friends when she pays visits home. I wouldn't expect that any would be disloyal. Best to keep a discreet and dignified silence. I wonder if any of Jeremy's pre murder days are still in touch or visit? There don't seem to be any on his testimonial page, but perhaps, they too, feel a discreet silence is best.
I don't think he's short of past acquaintances, those who knew him before his arrest still appear to acknowledge the fact that he's an innocent man if you read the letters pages after he's appeared in the news.
-
Obviously it is a straight forward process with Julie. Even QC agrees trying to frame an innocent man of 5x murder would be the daftest thing ever.
Bamber spent 18 months telling her about his resentment & possible ways to inherit everything. He then brought her straight over to WHF after the massacre & gave vague details of his involvement with MM.
A month after the massacre Bamber thought he was home free & had Brett & others as a jolly up buddies. Julie had already told 5 people some of what she knew & was now free to approach the police.
-
Obviously it is a straight forward process with Julie. Even QC agrees trying to frame an innocent man of 5x murder would be the daftest thing ever.
Bamber spent 18 months telling her about his resentment & possible ways to inherit everything. He then brought her straight over to WHF after the massacre & gave vague details of his involvement with MM.
A month after the massacre Bamber thought he was home free & had Brett & others as a jolly up buddies. Julie had already told 5 people some of what she knew & was now free to approach the police.
Thanks Adam.
-
Bamber may have felt confident Julie would not go to the police. He had spent a month telling her how watertight he was.
If she did go to the police, she would not be believed as he believed there was nothing tying him to the massacre. The police would dismiss her once she brought up MM.
-
You're forgetting that Julie was still reeling after the split Adam, so yes, out of spite and angst she scurried to the police station where she ended up with more than she'd bargained for. A grave mistake on her part !
JM actually created more confusion within the case than was necessary as it should by rights have been a straightforward affair. Her very impetuous mood had boosted others to act in the same way because hatred and spite are catching and it's easy to whip up a crowd who will think along those same lines. Pathetic.
-
Bamber may have felt confident Julie would not go to the police. He had spent a month telling her how watertight he was.
If she did go to the police, she would not be believed as he believed there was nothing tying him to the massacre. The police would dismiss her once she brought up MM.
Actually, this is a fair point, but if you stop and think about it, another way of interpreting what you are saying is that her evidence was of no probative value in the first place. This is the paradox with Julie. Her evidence was, in my view, an attempt by the prosecution to sway the jury emotionally. She didn't convey anything that actually proves Jeremy did it.
Why didn't one of these friends/housemates rush to the police as soon as she spilled the beans? Do you really think I would have invited a mass murderer to my 21st. birthday party? Would you?
"Oh hello, Jeremy! Everybody! It's Jeremy!!"
"Hey, nice one Jezza - you really socked it to Sheila!"
"Do you think you'll get caught, Jeremy?"
I mean, honestly, what sort of conversation are you supposed to have with Julie or Jeremy in those circumstances? Why weren't the police alerted? Why isn't there a record of Stan Jones rushing round to Julie's and demanding to know what the hell has gone off? In fact, when you take into account the 3 a.m. phone call, you have to ask: why didn't they arrest her?
Surely the conclusion has to be that they didn't take what she was saying very seriously. Young women do come out with all sorts of nonsense and the police know this anyway, but if she was imparting this information to this Battersby woman, or especially one of her male friends, surely the police would have been informed if it was actually being taken seriously?
Then there's the absence of any mention of the silencer from her evidence. If 'Matthew' (i.e. Jeremy) used the silencer, it would be one of the first things he'd mention to her when relating this exciting tale. After all, what has Jeremy got to fear? The police have missed the silencer, and according to you, Jeremy thinks he's got away with it.
Maybe Jeremy missed that part out thinking it might then eventually lead the police to a specific item of evidence if Julie turned on him, but couldn't Jeremy have just hidden that silencer when he took back the keys to the farmhouse and swopped it out for another one that was clean? Oh wait, he didn't take the keys back, did he. He let the relatives have the keys and access to the crime scene, the gun cupboard and the silencer.
I am sorry, but I remain sceptical.
-
Actually, this is a fair point, but if you stop and think about it, another way of interpreting what you are saying is that her evidence was of no probative value in the first place. This is the paradox with Julie. Her evidence was, in my view, an attempt by the prosecution to sway the jury emotionally. She didn't convey anything that actually proves Jeremy did it.
Why didn't one of these friends/housemates rush to the police as soon as she spilled the beans? Do you really think I would have invited a mass murderer to my 21st. birthday party? Would you?
"Oh hello, Jeremy! Everybody! It's Jeremy!!"
"Hey, nice one Jezza - you really socked it to Sheila!"
"Do you think you'll get caught, Jeremy?"
I mean, honestly, what sort of conversation are you supposed to have with Julie or Jeremy in those circumstances? Why weren't the police alerted? Why isn't there a record of Stan Jones rushing round to Julie's and demanding to know what the hell has gone off? In fact, when you take into account the 3 a.m. phone call, you have to ask: why didn't they arrest her?
Surely the conclusion has to be that they didn't take what she was saying very seriously. Young women do come out with all sorts of nonsense and the police know this anyway, but if she was imparting this information to this Battersby woman, or especially one of her male friends, surely the police would have been informed if it was actually being taken seriously?
Then there's the absence of any mention of the silencer from her evidence. If 'Matthew' (i.e. Jeremy) used the silencer, it would be one of the first things he'd mention to her when relating this exciting tale. After all, what has Jeremy got to fear? The police have missed the silencer, and according to you, Jeremy thinks he's got away with it.
Maybe Jeremy missed that part out thinking it might then eventually lead the police to a specific item of evidence if Julie turned on him, but couldn't Jeremy have just hidden that silencer when he took back the keys to the farmhouse and swopped it out for another one that was clean? Oh wait, he didn't take the keys back, did he. He let the relatives have the keys and access to the crime scene, the gun cupboard and the silencer.
I am sorry, but I remain sceptical.
As said, you are on your own with the silencer theory.
Bamber would give Julie the basics - MM being paid, Nevill fighting back, the bible, the twins not sufferring, Sheila shot last. He couldn't go into any more detail as he wasn't there.
No reason to mention MM used a silencer then put it away.
-
As said, you are on your own with the silencer theory.
Bamber would give Julie the basics - MM being paid, Nevill fighting back, the bible, the twins not sufferring, Sheila shot last. He couldn't go into any more detail as he wasn't there.
No reason to mention MM used a silencer then put it away.
Jeremy told Julie that Nevill put up quite a fight for a man of his age. What does this say about Jeremy's character and why did Julie need to include this detail?
-
As said, you are on your own with the silencer theory.
Bamber would give Julie the basics - MM being paid, Nevill fighting back, the bible, the twins not sufferring, Sheila shot last. He couldn't go into any more detail as he wasn't there.
No reason to mention MM used a silencer then put it away.
But he was there, according to you. The hypothetical 'Matthew', Jeremy's more adventurous imaginary friend, would mention it to Jeremy, wouldn't he.
-
People have said the same of me. I keep meaning to get tested. Bit late now though.
If you have coped all this time without treatment, might not be nessisary.
-
If you have coped all this time without treatment, might not be nessisary.
People have said the same of me. I keep meaning to get tested. Bit late now though.
You could always try this.
https://www.4nrx-uk.md/neurological-health/axepta-atomoxetine-hcl.html (https://www.4nrx-uk.md/neurological-health/axepta-atomoxetine-hcl.html)
I have not tried it myself. The tablets I take you cannot purchase online.
-
But he was there, according to you. The hypothetical 'Matthew', Jeremy's more adventurous imaginary friend, would mention it to Jeremy, wouldn't he.
Its a Binary proposition.
Either A
Jeremy confesses to the crime with the same false details either published in the papers or told to Ann Eaton. He also implicates another man that Julie happens to know and dislike. Jeremy then dumps her despite her knowing all. She then reveals the truth for the first time in Lewisham Pizza Hut.
Or B
After getting dumped. Julie meets a friend in Lewishan Pizza Hut. Julie then makes up this story out of spite, with the details she either got from the papers or Ann Eaton. She also implicates Mathew Mcdonald because like Jeremy she dislikes him also.
-
We know Julie made up the McDonald story since she let slip that she didn't know if McDonald had ever visited the farm despite claiming to have believed he was Jeremy's hitman who killed the family at the farm.
"I have been asked what I know about Matthew. I have only met him a couple of times, always at Head Street, Goldhanger. He made me feel very nervous although I do not know why. I am aware that Jeremy met him through a previous relationship, in fact whilst he was living with Sue FORD in Colchester. I do not know if Matthew has ever been to White House Farm".
"I have been asked why I did not make known to any other person, particularly to the authorities the contents of the conversations between myself and Jeremy BAMBER for 20 days, namely the 27th August 1985 when I then told Susan BATTERSBY. In answer to this I can say that in my subconscious I believed what Jeremy had said was true and I would qualify this by stating that I believed Jeremy when he said he had hired Mathew to kill the family".
-
We know Julie made up the McDonald story since she let slip that she didn't know if McDonald had ever visited the farm despite claiming to have believed he was Jeremy's hitman who killed the family at the farm.
"I have been asked what I know about Matthew. I have only met him a couple of times, always at Head Street, Goldhanger. He made me feel very nervous although I do not know why. I am aware that Jeremy met him through a previous relationship, in fact whilst he was living with Sue FORD in Colchester. I do not know if Matthew has ever been to White House Farm".
"I have been asked why I did not make known to any other person, particularly to the authorities the contents of the conversations between myself and Jeremy BAMBER for 20 days, namely the 27th August 1985 when I then told Susan BATTERSBY. In answer to this I can say that in my subconscious I believed what Jeremy had said was true and I would qualify this by stating that I believed Jeremy when he said he had hired Mathew to kill the family".
'We know Julie made up the McDonald story since she let slip that she didn't know if McDonald had ever visited the farm despite claiming to have believed he was Jeremy's hitman who killed the family at the farm.'
----------
Why does that mean Julie made up what Bamber told her?
-
We know Julie made up the McDonald story since she let slip that she didn't know if McDonald had ever visited the farm despite claiming to have believed he was Jeremy's hitman who killed the family at the farm.
"I have been asked what I know about Matthew. I have only met him a couple of times, always at Head Street, Goldhanger. He made me feel very nervous although I do not know why. I am aware that Jeremy met him through a previous relationship, in fact whilst he was living with Sue FORD in Colchester. I do not know if Matthew has ever been to White House Farm".
"I have been asked why I did not make known to any other person, particularly to the authorities the contents of the conversations between myself and Jeremy BAMBER for 20 days, namely the 27th August 1985 when I then told Susan BATTERSBY. In answer to this I can say that in my subconscious I believed what Jeremy had said was true and I would qualify this by stating that I believed Jeremy when he said he had hired Mathew to kill the family".
Well.....yes, but to be fair to Julie, remember that her evidence consists only of relating what she has been told. She may well not know if Matthew Macdonald has actually been on the premises, it doesn't follow that she's lying when she says that Jeremy told her that he had.
One question that occurs to me: Do we know when Julie compiled that diary of hers? Diaries are meant to be retrospective, but Julie's diary entries read to me as if they are retroactive: in other words, she is planting information on particular dates in the past and this then forms the basis of a script for her story to the police, if you follow me.
-
Its a Binary proposition.
Either A
Jeremy confesses to the crime with the same false details either published in the papers or told to Ann Eaton. He also implicates another man that Julie happens to know and dislike. Jeremy then dumps her despite her knowing all. She then reveals the truth for the first time in Lewisham Pizza Hut.
Or B
After getting dumped. Julie meets a friend in Lewishan Pizza Hut. Julie then makes up this story out of spite, with the details she either got from the papers or Ann Eaton. She also implicates Mathew Mcdonald because like Jeremy she dislikes him also.
Or C
Jeremy forgot how many bullets he discharged, high on central nervous system stimulants as he was, and conveyed this false information to Julie along with other wicked falsehoods such as the hitman story. Julie was finally beginning to accept that she had fallen in love with a mass murderer and at the behest of Karen and David Bishop amongst others realized that she had to come forward and tell Police what she knew.
-
We know Julie made up the McDonald story since she let slip that she didn't know if McDonald had ever visited the farm despite claiming to have believed he was Jeremy's hitman who killed the family at the farm.
"I have been asked what I know about Matthew. I have only met him a couple of times, always at Head Street, Goldhanger. He made me feel very nervous although I do not know why. I am aware that Jeremy met him through a previous relationship, in fact whilst he was living with Sue FORD in Colchester. I do not know if Matthew has ever been to White House Farm".
"I have been asked why I did not make known to any other person, particularly to the authorities the contents of the conversations between myself and Jeremy BAMBER for 20 days, namely the 27th August 1985 when I then told Susan BATTERSBY. In answer to this I can say that in my subconscious I believed what Jeremy had said was true and I would qualify this by stating that I believed Jeremy when he said he had hired Mathew to kill the family".
That was on a separate occasion, so no contradiction there.
-
Bamber used MM as a proxy because -
Julie knew him. Vaguely.
MM had a reputation as a local action man.
Bamber was unlikely to cross paths with MM over the next few weeks. Meaning Julie could not speak to him.
Julie thought someone else was cold enough to pull the trigger.
Julie would be wrong if she went to the police & implemented MM.
-
Bamber used MM as a proxy because -
Julie knew him. Vaguely.
MM had a reputation as a local action man.
Bamber was unlikely to cross paths with MM over the next few weeks. Meaning Julie could not speak to him.
Julie thought someone else was cold enough to pull the trigger.
Julie would be wrong if she went to the police & implemented MM.
Thanks Adam.
-
Thanks Adam.
Bit like Grant Mitchell in Eastenders.
-
Bit like Grant Mitchell in Eastenders.
I'm still upset that you didn't put me forward for the CT in the earlier thread, Adam, after I came up with my Crispy theory. Then there's your HP sauce and Eastenders revelations. I'm surprised one of us hasn't had a 3 a.m. phone call from Jeremy himself.
-
I'm still upset that you didn't put me forward for the CT in the earlier thread, Adam, after I came up with my Crispy theory. Then there's your HP sauce and Eastenders revelations. I'm surprised one of us hasn't had a 3 a.m. phone call from Jeremy himself.
Well if he wakes me at 3am to 'hear a friendly voice', he won't get one.
-
Well if he wakes me at 3am to 'hear a friendly voice', he won't get one.
I suppose Julie would have heard of Matthew, being the local action man, and she might have been impressed by his reputation.
Matthew wouldn't have let on that he worked in Libya as a plumber. He was happy for impressionable women like Julie to think he was something more dangerous.
Jeremy sounds like a bit of panicker to me, what with him ringing Julie at all hours, whereas Matthew could be seen as a safe pair of hands - the strong silent type - and just the man to sweep Julie off her feet, in her imaginings perhaps.
Thanks Adam.
-
Jeremy sounds like a bit of panicker to me, what with him ringing Julie at all hours
Agree. I think he placed his trust in her because he looked to her for support / guidance.
-
'We know Julie made up the McDonald story since she let slip that she didn't know if McDonald had ever visited the farm despite claiming to have believed he was Jeremy's hitman who killed the family at the farm.'
----------
Why does that mean Julie made up what Bamber told her?
Because she must have known or believed McDonald had been to the crime scene. She cannot symotainiously think MM killed every one at the Farm and also not know if he had ever been there in the first place.
-
Because she must have known or believed McDonald had been to the crime scene. She cannot symotainiously think MM killed every one at the Farm and also not know if he had ever been there in the first place.
To be fair, I have to agree with Adam and Steve on this point, though they won't approve of my reasons.
Strictly, Julie was not saying that Jeremy or Matthew were involved in the killings, rather her evidence was that Jeremy had told her this. The distinction is important and is the basis of why I don't consider her evidence of great import from a legal perspective.
-
To be fair, I have to agree with Adam and Steve on this point, though they won't approve of my reasons.
Strictly, Julie was not saying that Jeremy or Matthew were involved in the killings, rather her evidence was that Jeremy had told her this. The distinction is important and is the basis of why I don't consider her evidence of great import from a legal perspective.
How is an alleged murder confession to someone not important from a legal perspective? lol
-
How is an alleged murder confession to someone not important from a legal perspective? lol
I didn't realise Matthew was involved. Thanks David.
-
How is an alleged murder confession to someone not important from a legal perspective? lol
Work it out yourself. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/hearsay#:~:text=The%20law%20on%20hearsay%20is,(1)%20CJA%202003).&text=where%20the%20evidence%20is%20multiple%20hearsay%20(section%20121%20CJA%202003).
-
I didn't realise Matthew was involved. Thanks David.
He wasn’t
-
He wasn’t
But we should listen to Julie anyway? I didn't know that. Thanks David.
-
But we should listen to Julie anyway? I didn't know that. Thanks David.
In order to ascertain if one is lying or not you must listen.
-
In order to ascertain if one is lying or not you must listen.
Yes David, or you become mired in your own reality.
-
The Channel 5 documentary said Nevill & June knew Jeremy had committed the caravan break in. If they didn't know, it wouldn't be hard to guess.
Rather than pay the money back, maybe Nevill had decided Jeremy must attend bible classes with June for 6 months. Which would hopefully improve Jeremy's relationship with June & make him a more honest person.
Sadly, this never happened.
-
In order to ascertain if one is lying or not you must listen.
My point is her evidence proves nothing and should have been excluded.
-
The Channel 5 documentary said Nevill & June knew Jeremy had committed the caravan break in. If they didn't know, it wouldn't be hard to guess.
Rather than pay the money back, maybe Nevill had decided Jeremy must attend bible classes with June for 6 months. Which would hopefully improve Jeremy's relationship with June & make him a more honest person.
Sadly, this never happened.
Thanks Adam. This is new information.
We must imagine Jeremy studiously contemplating the Parable of the Prodigal Son and perhaps discussing its implications with June in a leisurely summer stroll back to the farm? Then on Sundays, we see Jeremy at church joining in the chorus of 'Go, Tell It On The Mountain', though that might be a bit too evangelical for June's tastes. Be Still For The Presence Of The Lord may be more up her street.
Perhaps the placing of the Bible upside down at the scene was Jeremy's way of getting his own back? He was cocking-a-snoot to June's religious convictions.
Thanks Adam.
-
Thanks Adam. This is new information.
We must imagine Jeremy studiously contemplating the Parable of the Prodigal Son and perhaps discussing its implications with June in a leisurely summer stroll back to the farm? Then on Sundays, we see Jeremy at church joining in the chorus of 'Go, Tell It On The Mountain', though that might be a bit too evangelical for June's tastes. Be Still For The Presence Of The Lord may be more up her street.
Perhaps the placing of the Bible upside down at the scene was Jeremy's way of getting his own back? He was cocking-a-snoot to June's religious convictions.
Thanks Adam.
You mean cock a snook. I love Be still for the presence of the Lord.
-
Thanks Adam. This is new information.
We must imagine Jeremy studiously contemplating the Parable of the Prodigal Son and perhaps discussing its implications with June in a leisurely summer stroll back to the farm? Then on Sundays, we see Jeremy at church joining in the chorus of 'Go, Tell It On The Mountain', though that might be a bit too evangelical for June's tastes. Be Still For The Presence Of The Lord may be more up her street.
Perhaps the placing of the Bible upside down at the scene was Jeremy's way of getting his own back? He was cocking-a-snoot to June's religious convictions.
Thanks Adam.
Maybe Jeremy would have taken one of June's bibles home. So he could do some extra reading in his spare time.
There were still enough bibles left at WHF to swat Crispy with.
-
Maybe Jeremy would have taken one of June's bibles home. So he could do some extra reading in his spare time.
There were still enough bibles left at WHF to swat Crispy with.
😂😂😂 Thats the only time Bamber would pick one of those up. Never mind poor Crispy has revenge, Bamber is now locked in his own cage.
-
Jeremy could have invited June over for dinner.
He could cook her a lovely Spag Bol before they discuss the readings of the bible.
Perhaps this was going to happen prior to Sheila's attack.
-
Maybe Jeremy would have taken one of June's bibles home. So he could do some extra reading in his spare time.
There were still enough bibles left at WHF to swat Crispy with.
Where did he fit time in to Help Mum Bake cakes?
-
Where did he fit time in to Help Mum Bake cakes?
I think some people are confusing the pre-pubescent Jeremy with the one that emerged post-chrysalides.
-
Maybe Jeremy would have taken one of June's bibles home. So he could do some extra reading in his spare time.
There were still enough bibles left at WHF to swat Crispy with.
Thanks Adam, but I can't let you take credit for my Crispy theory.
-
Thanks Adam, but I can't let you take credit for my Crispy theory.
What, you mean a theory better than Bambers, that Crispy shot Sheila for the second shot?
-
Jeremy could have invited June over for dinner.
He could cook her a lovely Spag Bol before they discuss the readings of the bible.
Perhaps this was going to happen prior to Sheila's attack.
Thanks Adam. This is a new theory.
It's all coming together.
Jeremy was practising his cooking skills and had ambitions to become a sort of Ainsley Harriott.
He preferred HP sauce to ketchup (Stan lied about this), but June liked ketchup and Nevill preferred mayonnaise.
The last straw was when Jeremy put too much salt in his latest culinary concoction, resulting in a stand-up row with June, Julie and Sheila, with Crispy barking.
Things went from bad to worse when Nevill returned and accused Jeremy of leaving the gun out fully-loaded.
All of this should have come out at the trial.
Thanks Adam.
-
Remember the clues are there as we go..Through the Keyhole.
-
Remember the clues are there as we go..Through the Keyhole.
Thanks Steve for cocking that snook.
-
You mean cock a snook. I love Be still for the presence of the Lord.
By the way, Badly-Taught Steve: cocking a snoot is also good English. It can be either snook or snoot.
-
What, you mean a theory better than Bambers, that Crispy shot Sheila for the second shot?
Thanks Fake Justice, I didn't know about that. Perhaps provide a link to where Bamber makes this claim?
-
Thanks Fake Justice, I didn't know about that. Perhaps provide a link to where Bamber makes this claim?
😂😂😂. Reel them in 👍
-
Thanks Fake Justice, I didn't know about that. Perhaps provide a link to where Bamber makes this claim?
Crispy done it sir 🙈
-
😂😂😂. Reel them in 👍
Then provide the link, Fake Justice. Or be condemned as another liar, like Disingenuous Steve.
-
Then provide the link, Fake Justice. Or be condemned as another liar, like Disingenuous Steve.
Nah can’t be bothered
-
Nah can’t be bothered
Don't worry, No Justice, we believe you.
-
Don't worry, No Justice, we believe you.
Thanks, I’ll sleep tonight, Phew
-
Thanks, I’ll sleep tonight, Phew
No problem Lying Fake.
Oh, and don't forget that 3 a.m. phone call! Make sure you're up.
-
No problem Lying Fake.
Oh, and don't forget that 3 a.m. phone call! Make sure you're up.
Ok 👍
-
No problem Lying Fake.
Oh, and don't forget that 3 a.m. phone call! Make sure you're up.
Are you phoning 999 first or after? Whoops forgot, you don’t ring 999 do you 🙈
-
Are you phoning 999 first or after? Whoops forgot, you don’t ring 999 do you 🙈
He did ring the police, though, didn't he. So I wonder why it makes any difference? It's not as if we're sat here wondering why he rang nobody. He did ring somebody in authority.
Anyway, thanks for your input, Fake Justice.
-
He did ring the police, though, didn't he. So I wonder why it makes any difference? It's not as if we're sat here wondering why he rang nobody. He did ring somebody in authority.
Anyway, thanks for your input, Fake Justice.
No problem
-
Err, is it my turn next ? ;D
-
Thanks Adam. This is a new theory.
It's all coming together.
Jeremy was practising his cooking skills and had ambitions to become a sort of Ainsley Harriott.
He preferred HP sauce to ketchup (Stan lied about this), but June liked ketchup and Nevill preferred mayonnaise.
The last straw was when Jeremy put too much salt in his latest culinary concoction, resulting in a stand-up row with June, Julie and Sheila, with Crispy barking.
Things went from bad to worse when Nevill returned and accused Jeremy of leaving the gun out fully-loaded.
All of this should have come out at the trial.
Thanks Adam.
I'm sure Jeremy was going to help June with supper & the washing up. While chatting about the bible.
But he saw rabbitts.
-
I'm sure Jeremy was going to help June with supper & the washing up. While chatting about the bible.
But he saw rabbitts.
I'm amazed what the Bamberettes fall for after all this time.
-
I'm sure Jeremy was going to help June with supper & the washing up. While chatting about the bible.
But he saw rabbitts.
Thanks Adam. It sounds like Chef Jeremy had rabbits on the brain. Why do think he didn't catch one and put in the pot for supper, Adam? This is new evidence. I'm surprised Arlidge didn't ask Jeremy about this at the trial. Thanks Adam.
-
I'm amazed what the Bamberettes fall for after all this time.
Forget the Bamberettes... Remember the Bamberistas!? (raises clenched fist in defiance to the authorities).
-
Thanks Fake Justice, I didn't know about that. Perhaps provide a link to where Bamber makes this claim?
It's in the interview transcripts.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=33.0
-
Bamber was very evasive.
Over 30 'No comments' & 'can't remembers'. Over 10 -don't knows' & 'can't say'.
Several one word answers as well as vague answers such as 'not really', 'I think so' & 'less than 40 but more than 10 !'
He did not dispute that Sheila could not have shot herself a second time. Saying it may have been Crispy, a reflex movement or that Nevill said 'She' on the phone.
-
You're not obliged to tell your life story when being questioned----or even answer any given questions.
It's done to stop any fabricating by highly imaginative police officers.
-
You're not obliged to tell your life story when being questioned----or even answer any given questions.
It's done to stop any fabricating by highly imaginative police officers.
Who of us, never having previously been questioned by police, would have known that? As an innocent person, it simply wouldn't have occurred to me to hold anything back to prevent "fabricating by highly imaginative police officers". It seems very odd that someone too naive to know that in emergencies one calls 999, not a friend, suddenly becomes so cynical. I'd have answered every question, if only to get it over with.
-
Who of us, never having previously been questioned by police, would have known that? As an innocent person, it simply wouldn't have occurred to me to hold anything back to prevent "fabricating by highly imaginative police officers". It seems very odd that someone too naive to know that in emergencies one calls 999, not a friend, suddenly becomes so cynical. I'd have answered every question, if only to get it over with.
Hadn’t he been arrested and questioned about the caravan robbery ?
Didn’t he decline a solicitor when first arrested ?
Hardly the behaviour of a guilty person
-
Don't worry, No Justice, we believe you.
What's your view of Bamber's police interviews?
-
Who of us, never having previously been questioned by police, would have known that? As an innocent person, it simply wouldn't have occurred to me to hold anything back to prevent "fabricating by highly imaginative police officers". It seems very odd that someone too naive to know that in emergencies one calls 999, not a friend, suddenly becomes so cynical. I'd have answered every question, if only to get it over with.
Without a solicitor present ? It's they who call the shots and if they say " no comment " you repeat that process.
-
Without a solicitor present ? It's they who call the shots and if they say " no comment " you repeat that process.
Are you saying his behaviour was calculated? Seems to me he may have been doing a double bluff wich back-fired.
-
Are you saying his behaviour was calculated? Seems to me he may have been doing a double bluff wich back-fired.
Jeremy probably didn't know the meaning of calculated back then.
-
Compared to others in their day, both Sheila, or perhaps Jeremy more so, didn't appear to be as up to speed with the way of life as the " townies " were as particularly Jeremy, he had seemed immature in lots of ways----which can only be put down to his upbringing and somewhat sheltered life. Sheila had managed to extricate herself from those confines so was more worldly-wide.
-
Compared to others in their day, both Sheila, or perhaps Jeremy more so, didn't appear to be as up to speed with the way of life as the " townies " were as particularly Jeremy, he had seemed immature in lots of ways----which can only be put down to his upbringing and somewhat sheltered life. Sheila had managed to extricate herself from those confines so was more worldly-wide.
But both -unlike their Boutflour cousins- were encouraged, partly through their education to spread themselves wider than the confines of rural Essex.
I entirely disagree that Sheila was more worldly wise than Jeremy. She was far too much of a spiritual being with her head in the clouds to be so. At a practical level she couldn't drive and was, allegedly, hopeless at domesticity. She needed support in order to function. Jeremy, by contrast, spent as much time as possible traveling away. He was far more condident than Sheila.
No child who attends boarding school can be said to have led a sheltered life as a result. Their oportunities are endless. My friend's children boarded at both Felixtow and Felsted and visited school friends as far away as Guernsey and Northamptonshire.
-
But both -unlike their Boutflour cousins- were encouraged, partly through their education to spread themselves wider than the confines of rural Essex.
I entirely disagree that Sheila was more worldly wise than Jeremy. She was far too much of a spiritual being with her head in the clouds to be so. At a practical level she couldn't drive and was, allegedly, hopeless at domesticity. She needed support in order to function. Jeremy, by contrast, spent as much time as possible traveling away. He was far more condident than Sheila.
No child who attends boarding school can be said to have led a sheltered life as a result. Their oportunities are endless. My friend's children boarded at both Felixtow and Felsted and visited school friends as far away as Guernsey and Northamptonshire.
Sheila obviously wasn't made to help around the house or assist her mother when baking/cooking which was why there were failings on the domestic front. Who cooked for the boys ? Did Colin " carry " her through their short marriage ?
Her wish to move to London was purely for the nightlife, something that I can't get my head around considering she was supposed to have been very ill ? A sick person, mentally or physically wouldn't be interested in nightlife of any sort, and certainly wouldn't care or know half the time where they were.
Sheila was more advanced in/with life than Jeremy was. He only got a taste of it when he used to go to modelling classes with her. I bet he felt as though he'd been released out of a cage.
Not forgetting she got herself pregnant at 17, so knew what she was doing.
-
Sheila obviously wasn't made to help around the house or assist her mother when baking/cooking which was why there were failings on the domestic front. Who cooked for the boys ? Did Colin " carry " her through their short marriage ?
Her wish to move to London was purely for the nightlife, something that I can't get my head around considering she was supposed to have been very ill ? A sick person, mentally or physically wouldn't be interested in nightlife of any sort, and certainly wouldn't care or know half the time where they were.
Sheila was more advanced in/with life than Jeremy was. He only got a taste of it when he used to go to modelling classes with her. I bet he felt as though he'd been released out of a cage.
Not forgetting she got herself pregnant at 17, so knew what she was doing.
Making her do anything could do nothing to create aptitude. It certainly won't have helped if what she did wasn't up tp June's exacting standards. It would have lowered what confidence she had. In fact, receiving criticism for what she got wrong rather than praise for what she got right was probably why she lacked confidence. We're not told who organized the boys' food. I believe Colin's mother helped and probably June was never far away. It may have been Colin. He seems to have been very closely bonded with them which I don't think was the norm in the late 70s.
I'm sure her underlying reason for wanting to be in London was to do with the potential nightlife -or simply freedom per se?- but I feel certain neither June nor Nevill would have allowed her to go unless she had employment or college. We know that she proved less than successful at both. MAYbe, she wasn't really interested in doing either and saw their potential as a means of escape? I don't believe her to have been ill when she went to live in London. What parents would allow their sick daughter to live away from home where they couldn't look after her?
Sheila didn't impregnate herself. Colin impregnated her. I think she was more than willing to take the chance. Pregnancy would have served several useful purposes. A) Colin would have to marry her B) it would mean she wouldn't have to live with her parents (and June's criticism) C) she wouldn't have to get a job. Sadly, like much of what she did, things didn't go to plan. I think Sheila may have thought she knew what she was doing but forward thinking doesn't seem to have been hard wired into her psyche. On the other hand, Jeremy, I believe, planned, and gave himself time to formulate his plans. Something necessary if he intended to have a life outside of farming and have the financial wherewithal to fund it.
-
Sheila obviously wasn't made to help around the house or assist her mother when baking/cooking which was why there were failings on the domestic front. Who cooked for the boys ? Did Colin " carry " her through their short marriage ?
Her wish to move to London was purely for the nightlife, something that I can't get my head around considering she was supposed to have been very ill ? A sick person, mentally or physically wouldn't be interested in nightlife of any sort, and certainly wouldn't care or know half the time where they were.
Sheila was more advanced in/with life than Jeremy was. He only got a taste of it when he used to go to modelling classes with her. I bet he felt as though he'd been released out of a cage.
Not forgetting she got herself pregnant at 17, so knew what she was doing.
According to her friend Tora and Freddie, Sheila was an excellent cook.
-
According to her friend Tora and Freddie, Sheila was an excellent cook.
I haven't seen anything which refers to that. Only that Tora had remarked on how Sheila had changed and Freddie's fear of her.
-
Why was a big man so scared ? In what way did Tora think that Sheila had changed ?
-
AE had said she couldn't put beans on toast.
-
Why was a big man so scared ? In what way did Tora think that Sheila had changed ?
If you're referring to the time Sheila became ill whilst he was with her, I don't think his size is relevant. I can fully understand that if he felt himself to be in a situation over which he had no control, he'd have felt pretty helpless. Should he stay? Should he go? Should he try to calm her down? Should he leave he to come out of it on her own? Should he call a doctor? Colin? Her parents? Might she then calm down and be furious with him? Sheila wasn't his responsibility. He was in an invidious position. He could do the wrong thing by trying to do the right thing.
-
AE had said she couldn't put beans on toast.
Maybe they only tasted her food without getting to see the mess she created whilst preparing it?
-
If you're referring to the time Sheila became ill whilst he was with her, I don't think his size is relevant. I can fully understand that if he felt himself to be in a situation over which he had no control, he'd have felt pretty helpless. Should he stay? Should he go? Should he try to calm her down? Should he leave he to come out of it on her own? Should he call a doctor? Colin? Her parents? Might she then calm down and be furious with him? Sheila wasn't his responsibility. He was in an invidious position. He could do the wrong thing by trying to do the right thing.
Even her friend saw the difference in her on her last visit, so something must have been amiss at that time which wasn't long before the murders. Sheila was in a bad place, without having the support and understanding from anyone. What alternative did she have ? She was a tortured soul.
-
AE had said she couldn't put beans on toast.
My wife says that about me Lookout. I must admit I think she had coordination problems and the drugs would have enhanced this. Did Sheila learn to drive or could she drive Lookout?
-
My wife says that about me Lookout. I must admit I think she had coordination problems and the drugs would have enhanced this. Did Sheila learn to drive or could she drive Lookout?
Sheila and driving hasn't ever been mentioned RJ. I can only assume that the interest was never there.
-
Sheila and driving hasn't ever been mentioned RJ. I can only assume that the interest was never there.
Thanks Lookout, I find that interesting, a farmers daughter not driving and no interest in shooting, maybe she lacked confidence, coordination and social skills from a young age?
-
Thanks Lookout, I find that interesting, a farmers daughter not driving and no interest in shooting, maybe she lacked confidence, coordination and social skills from a young age?
Because someone didn't have an interest in shooting didn't mean that they couldn't shoot. The same with driving. Sheila was as used to guns in her life as she was with vehicles.
-
Because someone didn't have an interest in shooting didn't mean that they couldn't shoot. The same with driving. Sheila was as used to guns in her life as she was with vehicles.
She probably could do both Lookout, the driving requires a little more confidence and coordination though? She probably had no interest and was just happy to let others run her about? I would have thought money wouldn’t have been an object if she wanted to drive or have her own car, so there must have been a reason why she didn’t drive?
-
Because someone didn't have an interest in shooting didn't mean that they couldn't shoot. The same with driving. Sheila was as used to guns in her life as she was with vehicles.
I think the words I read were "she couldn't learn to drive". Make of that what you will. It can be interpreted as you wish.
It simply does not follow that if one grows up watching something being done, one can automatically do it. I grew up watching a talented knitter. She tested out patterns for magazines. My only attempts at knitting resulted in the stitches having to be cut from the needle. Need I bring the adoption factor into it? Sheila had no more natural/genetic/interest/ability in firearms than had I in knitting.
-
Because someone didn't have an interest in shooting didn't mean that they couldn't shoot. The same with driving. Sheila was as used to guns in her life as she was with vehicles.
Sheila didn't drive either.
-
I think the words I read were "she couldn't learn to drive". Make of that what you will. It can be interpreted as you wish.
It simply does not follow that if one grows up watching something being done, one can automatically do it. I grew up watching a talented knitter. She tested out patterns for magazines. My only attempts at knitting resulted in the stitches having to be cut from the needle. Need I bring the adoption factor into it? Sheila had no more natural/genetic/interest/ability in firearms than had I in knitting.
Adopted or not children will eventually go their own way, so no, adoption isn't relevant in whatever a child's future is once they become an adult.
That crime scene was a bloodbath, whereas a person used to shooting wouldn't have created such a scene. It was frenzied shooting, proof enough that Sheila hadn't been used to using guns.
-
Adopted or not children will eventually go their own way, so no, adoption isn't relevant in whatever a child's future is once they become an adult.
That crime scene was a bloodbath, whereas a person used to shooting wouldn't have created such a scene. It was frenzied shooting, proof enough that Sheila hadn't been used to using guns.
Or it was frenzied shooting because Jerermy, an expert marksman, made it look as if Sheila, who wasn't, did it.
Re adoption. We receive our genetics from our biological parents/families, not our parents by adoption. What we pick up from those is learned behaviour. There are some behaviours we'll have no interest in learning.
-
Adopted or not children will eventually go their own way, so no, adoption isn't relevant in whatever a child's future is once they become an adult.
That crime scene was a bloodbath, whereas a person used to shooting wouldn't have created such a scene. It was frenzied shooting, proof enough that Sheila hadn't been used to using guns.
She did well, to come out unscathed and lack of forensics (blood, residue) from such a bloodbath
-
She did well, to come out unscathed and lack of forensics (blood, residue) from such a bloodbath
She would do, being the shooter. She was in control---holding the rifle.
-
She would do, being the shooter. She was in control---holding the rifle.
What applies to Sheila also applies to Jeremy. They both had time to clean up/have a shower/change their clothes -although it's a mystery where Sheila's ended up.
-
What's your view of Bamber's police interviews?
There's a thread on this somewhere. He was on the defensive, cagey, not offering information. Too many "no comments" for my liking.
-
There's a thread on this somewhere. He was on the defensive, cagey, not offering information. Too many "no comments" for my liking.
At first Steve not under caution he was very open in his detail about Sheila’s past troubles, trying to sow seeds.
-
He did not dispute that Sheila could not have shot herself twice.
Obviously he was there & knew she was knocked out but still breathing & may have died eventually from the first shot.
So he accused Crispy, reflexes & that Nevill may have said 'She' on the phone.
-
He did not dispute that Sheila could not have shot herself twice.
Obviously he was there & knew she was knocked out but still breathing & may have died eventually from the first shot.
So he accused Crispy, reflexes & that Nevill may have said 'She' on the phone.
Thanks Adam. Looks like Jeremy beat me to it.
-
There's a thread on this somewhere. He was on the defensive, cagey, not offering information. Too many "no comments" for my liking.
Jeremy giving information = Guilty.
Jeremy not giving information = Guilty.
Thanks Steve. It does make sense. I also never knew that saying No Comment was an indicator of guilt. Thanks.
-
As I've said before---too much given information gives police carte blanche to elaborate on what was said so that's why the " no comment " is advised then nothing can be added to what's not said. Elementary.
-
It was very surprising Bamber instantly said Nevill may have said 'She' in his 4 second phone call. After being told she could not have shot herself twice.
He had spent the last month insinuating Sheila!
-
It was very surprising Bamber instantly said Nevill may have said 'She' in h8s 4 second phone call. After being told she could not have shot herself twice.
He had spent the last month insinuating Sheila!
Thanks Adam. It's a good job you're here to pull me back from the brink. I was about to book a train to Wakefield. (P.S. My dossier on Crispy is almost ready. Code-named 'Barking'. I think we're almost there for the CCRC 'reasonable doubt' angle).
-
Thanks Adam. It's a good job you're here to pull me back from the brink. I was about to book a train to Wakefield. (P.S. My dossier on Crispy is almost ready. Code-named 'Barking'. I think we're almost there for the CCRC 'reasonable doubt' angle).
What Adam is saying is not even true. Jeremy used the term “she has” in his August statement.
It’s been pointed out to him before
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10110.msg471467.html#msg471467 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10110.msg471467.html#msg471467)
Yet doesn’t stop him from repeating this distortion he has created.
-
What Adam is saying is not even true. Jeremy used the term “she has” in his August statement.
It’s been pointed out to him before
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10110.msg471467.html#msg471467 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10110.msg471467.html#msg471467)
Yet doesn’t stop him from repeating this distortion he has created.
When before?
I am referring to his interview transcripts. When he didn't bother disputing or trying to find out more when told Sheila could not have shot herself a second time. Quickly blaming Crispy & saying Nevill may have said 'she'.
Anyway 'she has' is the same.
-
When before?
I am referring to his interview transcripts. When he didn't bother disputing or trying to find out more when told Sheila could not have shot herself a second time. Quickly blaming Crispy & saying Nevill may have said 'she'.
Anyway 'she has' is the same.
Thanks Adam. I agree that Jeremy should have remembered every detail of the call. He should have had his pocketbook with him, like Stan.
-
Who wakes up suddenly at 3am all bright and breezy ready to go ? Nobody to my mind ! Not even me when I've had a long-haul journey ahead of me.
-
Basic questions Bamber could have asked when told Sheila could not have shot herself twice -
Was Sheila shot twice?
Who says it was not possible?
Could the person be wrong?
Are there alternative views?
Can I see evidence or speak to the expert it's not possible.
How did Sheila end up with two shots if it was impossible ?
Have you got the evidence Sheila was shot twice ?
Where were Sheila's two shots ?
Was the rifle powerful enough to prevent a two shot suicide ?
Have two shot suicides happened before ?
Who else could have shot Sheila?
Do you have any other suspects then?
Do you need any other assistance regarding any other suspects?
Could it have been a break in?
I thought I saw Sheila, alive by the window inside WHF. Could the police have shot her upon entrance.
Have you checked to see if the two bullets were the same?
-----------
All this would be after the original shock & confusion.
Instead he just said it could have been Crispy & Nevill may have said 'she' on the phone.
-
Basic questions Bamber could have asked when told Sheila could not have shot herself twice -
Was Sheila shot twice?
Who says it was not possible?
Could the person be wrong?
Are there alternative views?
Can I see evidence or speak to the expert it's not possible.
How did Sheila end up with two shots if it was impossible ?
Have you got the evidence Sheila was shot twice ?
Where were Sheila's two shots ?
Was the rifle powerful enough to prevent a two shot suicide ?
Have two shot suicides happened before ?
Who else could have shot Sheila?
Do you have any other suspects then?
Do you need any other assistance regarding any other suspects?
Could it have been a break in?
I thought I saw Sheila, alive by the window inside WHF. Could the police have shot her upon entrance.
Have you checked to see if the two bullets were the same?
-----------
All this would be after the original shock & confusion.
Instead he just said it could have been Crispy & Nevill may have said 'she' on the phone.
Thanks Adam. Jeremy was definitely in the wrong in not having all these questions prepared. To be honest, I think he should have instructed his own pathologist to go over the crime scene with Ann. Why trust the police?
-
Why trust the police indeed ? Look what happened in the Ian Tomlinson case !
-
Thanks Adam. Jeremy was definitely in the wrong in not having all these questions prepared. To be honest, I think he should have instructed his own pathologist to go over the crime scene with Ann. Why trust the police?
A tactic could have been to have some of these questions prepared. Act surprised and innocent.
It's doubtful the police told him Sheila had been shot twice. So at least be surprised about that.
However by now it was too late. He knew he was now the only suspect & it was going to a long battle. All that mattered now was the juries verdict. So no point acting surprised & innocent to the police. And no more being co operative with them.
-
Adam why don't/won't you accept that the verdict was unsafe if nothing else ?
-
Adam why don't/won't you accept that the verdict was unsafe if nothing else ?
Adam is too emotionally invested in the idea of Bamber being guilty.
Someone who has made over 21 thousand posts repeating the same crap that's been debunked is not going to publicly chance their view.
-
Adam is too emotionally invested in the idea of Bamber being guilty.
Someone who has made over 21 thousand posts repeating the same crap that's been debunked is not going to publicly chance their view.
Well at least Adam likes my Crispy theory, which is more than can be said for the rest of you lot.
Plus Adam came up with the Eastenders theory.
CCRC here we come.
-
I'll think of something then QC.
-
Adam is too emotionally invested in the idea of Bamber being guilty.
Someone who has made over 21 thousand posts repeating the same crap that's been debunked is not going to publicly chance their view.
..and members who have other members on ignore because they are frightened of being shaken out of their entrenched views are rather insecure people.
-
Why have I just been playing MacArthur Park ? Richard Harris. ;D ;D. Going crackers in my old age.
-
None of these have been debunked. A few have been challenged by the CT. Without success.
Disputed/Not disputed is referring to the CT -
1.
Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
2.
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
3.
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER'S DEFENCE.
4.
Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
5.
No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
6.
Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
7.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
8.
No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
9.
No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
10.
No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
11.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER, JUDGE.
12.
No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
13.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
14.
Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
15.
Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
16.
Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER.
17.
No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
18.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.
19.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
20.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
21.
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
22.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
23.
No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.
24.
Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries with no body or face protection - Not disputed - COA.
25.
Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
26.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
27.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
28.
Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.
29.
Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.
30.
Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
31.
Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
32.
Sheila's blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
33.
No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - COA.
34.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
35.
Blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
36.
A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - COA.
37.
Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - INTERNET ARTICLES, YOUTUBE, COA.
38.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
39.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE, COA.
40.
Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
41.
Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER, COA.
42.
Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed in 2017 but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - COA.
43.
No better massacre weapon options for Bamber - Not disputed - FORUM.
44.
Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.
45.
Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - COA.
46.
Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS, COA.
47.
June not waking or getting woken by Nevill - Not disputed - COA.
48.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER, TONIGHT PROGRAMME, COA.
49.
2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.
50.
The twins not waking - Not disputed - COA.
51.
Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - COA.
52.
Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COA.
53.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
54.
No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.
55.
Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - COA.
56.
Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER, COA.
57.
Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.
58.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - COA.
59.
Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.
60.
Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.
61.
Bamber's found hacksaw - Not disputed - COA.
62.
Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
63.
Only execution period available to Bamber, 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER
64.
Housekeeper evidence of items around the kitchen sink being moved on massacre night - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK
65.
Only Sheila receiving a contact shot in a location that produces back splatter- Not disputed, COA.
66.
Bloodied plam print on Sheila's nightdress - Not disputed. COA.
67.
Nevill being lifted onto a coal scuttle - Not disputed. CRIME SCENE PICTURES, COA.
68.
Dried blood on Sheila - Not Disputed. PATHOLOGIST.
69.
Sheila having to load prior to first shots - Not disputed. COA
70.
Blood in silencer being Sheila's with remote possibility of being a mixture of June and Nevill's. Meaning the silencer was used. Not disputed. COA.
71:
Nevill having the oppportunity to restrain Sheila while fully fit prior to her firing shots. Not disputed. AGREED BY ALL PARTIES.
-
Jeeze Adam----what a tail/ tale our cat's got.
-
At least I provide forensic evidence. With sources.
David wouldn't even divulge his one 'forensic evidence breakthrough' !
-
None of these have been debunked. A few have been challenged by the CT. Without success.
Disputed/Not disputed is referring to the CT -
1.
Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
2.
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
3.
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER'S DEFENCE.
4.
Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
5.
No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
6.
Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
7.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
8.
No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
9.
No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
10.
No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
11.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER, JUDGE.
12.
No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
13.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
14.
Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
15.
Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
16.
Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER.
17.
No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
18.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.
19.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
20.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
21.
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
22.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
23.
No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.
24.
Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries with no body or face protection - Not disputed - COA.
25.
Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
26.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
27.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
28.
Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.
29.
Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.
30.
Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
31.
Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
32.
Sheila's blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
33.
No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - COA.
34.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
35.
Blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
36.
A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - COA.
37.
Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - INTERNET ARTICLES, YOUTUBE, COA.
38.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
39.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE, COA.
40.
Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
41.
Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER, COA.
42.
Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed in 2017 but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - COA.
43.
No better massacre weapon options for Bamber - Not disputed - FORUM.
44.
Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.
45.
Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - COA.
46.
Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS, COA.
47.
June not waking or getting woken by Nevill - Not disputed - COA.
48.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER, TONIGHT PROGRAMME, COA.
49.
2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.
50.
The twins not waking - Not disputed - COA.
51.
Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - COA.
52.
Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COA.
53.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
54.
No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.
55.
Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - COA.
56.
Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER, COA.
57.
Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.
58.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - COA.
59.
Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.
60.
Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.
61.
Bamber's found hacksaw - Not disputed - COA.
62.
Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
63.
Only execution period available to Bamber, 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER
64.
Housekeeper evidence of items around the kitchen sink being moved on massacre night - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK
65.
Only Sheila receiving a contact shot in a location that produces back splatter- Not disputed, COA.
66.
Bloodied plam print on Sheila's nightdress - Not disputed. COA.
67.
Nevill being lifted onto a coal scuttle - Not disputed. CRIME SCENE PICTURES, COA.
68.
Dried blood on Sheila - Not Disputed. PATHOLOGIST.
69.
Sheila having to load prior to first shots - Not disputed. COA
70.
Blood in silencer being Sheila's with remote possibility of being a mixture of June and Nevill's. Meaning the silencer was used. Not disputed. COA.
71:
Nevill having the oppportunity to restrain Sheila while fully fit prior to her firing shots. Not disputed. AGREED BY ALL PARTIES.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort.
"Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."
-
David doesn't resort to attention seeking.
-
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort.
"Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."
David are you referring to your detailed analysis of the Matthew McDonald story?
-
See below. I can't reply to every point because I don't have time, and these are not detailed responses, again due to time constraints on me.
I would like to ask that if Adam wants to cite the Court of Appeal (I assume the 2002 judgment) as his source, then he should provide the paragraph number each time. This is so that we can quickly verify if Adam's interpretation of what the judges ruled or stated is accurate.
3.
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER'S DEFENCE.
Given that she was found holding a rifle, that's rather peculiar. But who am I to argue with the Court of Appeal?
16.
Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER.
Even if true, proves nothing.
25.
Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
I dispute this, not as a simple fact, but for its interpretation and significance. You take the simple view that big must prevail over small, but that is not how it works in reality. For various reasons, a small and weak person can have physical and psychological advantages over a large person in a fight or struggle.
26.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
Paragraph?
27.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Well why didn't you say so before? There I was thinking we had reasonable doubt because she could have killed herself and then showered. I'll have to amend that submission to the CCRC now. Thanks Adam.
30.
Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
31.
Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
How were these scratch marks made, Adam?
36.
A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - COA.
Paragraph?
40.
Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
Not true. We've been over this twice. Your assertion does not reflect what the Court of Appeal states in its judgment.
45.
Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - COA.
Definitely disputed, Adam!
47.
June not waking or getting woken by Nevill - Not disputed - COA.
Definitely disputed, as is your assertion that Nevill was woken up by being shot!
48.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER, TONIGHT PROGRAMME, COA.
This was not rejected by the Court of Appeal. To my knowledge, the specific point has never been adjudicated.
50.
The twins not waking - Not disputed - COA.
Well I'll dispute this. There is no evidence for it. It's just an assumption and opinionation on the part of the pathologist.
53.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
No idea what you mean, sorry.
54.
No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.
Not true. Both I and David have provided you with plausible Sheila scenarios.
55.
Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - COA.
I agree with this one.
57.
Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.
That's not incriminating. It suggests that Bamber was at Bourtree Cottage, as he claims.
58.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - COA.
Hotly disputed, to use a pun. Nobody knows how those injuries were caused.
59.
Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.
Easy for a woman to wake up in the middle of a violent massacre or when being carried - Common knowledge.
61.
Bamber's found hacksaw - Not disputed - COA.
I also agree with you on this one. While it doesn't link Bamber to the crime, it does open up the possibility that he could have entered and exited the farmhouse that night while allowing the appearance that it was locked from the inside.
62.
Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
In regard to both this and your earlier point about blood under the Bible, the problem you have is that the police probably moved the Bible and re-positioned Sheila - no doubt for entirely innocent reasons. My suspicion is that Jeremy left Sheila on the bed.
63.
Only execution period available to Bamber, 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER
I agree with this, but I would say that the period was more like 1 a.m. to 2.30 a.m.
He needed to do the deed in the absolute dead hours.
12 a.m. is a bit too early, because it's possible people are still awake at that time - not just in the farmhouse, but in the locality.
3 a.m. is a bit too late, due to the risk that people in the locality will be getting up and going to work.
I think he needed it done by 2.30 a.m.
64.
Housekeeper evidence of items around the kitchen sink being moved on massacre night - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK
You are forgetting that the police moved everything about.
69.
Sheila having to load prior to first shots - Not disputed. COA
The magazine was charged. It's not a big deal for her to load the gun.
70.
Blood in silencer being Sheila's with remote possibility of being a mixture of June and Nevill's. Meaning the silencer was used. Not disputed. COA.
That's not what the blood expert found and the trial judge misdirected the jury on the blood evidence. Hayward only said that the blood grouping corresponded to Sheila's, with a remote possibility of June and Nevill's blood groups.
71:
Nevill having the oppportunity to restrain Sheila while fully fit prior to her firing shots. Not disputed. AGREED BY ALL PARTIES.
But you assume it would have been like taking sweets from a baby. I would dispute this. I've explained already elsewhere.
-
See below. I can't reply to every point because I don't have time, and these are not detailed responses, again due to time constraints on me.
I would like to ask that if Adam wants to cite the Court of Appeal (I assume the 2002 judgment) as his source, then he should provide the paragraph number each time. This is so that we can quickly verify if Adam's interpretation of what the judges ruled or stated is accurate.
It would help if he provided the sources used by COA also. But the idea of using primary sources is rather alien to him.
-
Would either an undisclosed photograph of Sheila on the bed or an admission by a Raid Team member that he physically moved Sheila's body 35 years on be enough to render the conviction of Jeremy Bamber unsafe?
-
See below. I can't reply to every point because I don't have time, and these are not detailed responses, again due to time constraints on me.
Don't waste your time
1.
Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
This is actually disputed in the COA Point 517 and contradicted in the pathologists notes.
2.
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
This is not even incriminating
3.
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER'S DEFENCE.
Again wrong
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9975.msg455530.html#msg455530 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9975.msg455530.html#msg455530)
4.
Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
5.
No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
6.
Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
Here Adam has mentioned the same thing three times over but worded them differently. Need I say more?
The first 10% of the gish gallop is crap then the other 90% of it will be.
-
It would help if he provided the sources used by COA also. But the idea of using primary sources is rather alien to him.
Says the poster who won't even disclose his forensic evidence breakthrough.
The COA judgement quotes lots of sources. Try reading it some time.
-
See below. I can't reply to every point because I don't have time, and these are not detailed responses, again due to time constraints on me.
I would like to ask that if Adam wants to cite the Court of Appeal (I assume the 2002 judgment) as his source, then he should provide the paragraph number each time. This is so that we can quickly verify if Adam's interpretation of what the judges ruled or stated is accurate.
Given that she was found holding a rifle, that's rather peculiar. But who am I to argue with the Court of Appeal?
Even if true, proves nothing.
I dispute this, not as a simple fact, but for its interpretation and significance. You take the simple view that big must prevail over small, but that is not how it works in reality. For various reasons, a small and weak person can have physical and psychological advantages over a large person in a fight or struggle.
Paragraph?
Well why didn't you say so before? There I was thinking we had reasonable doubt because she could have killed herself and then showered. I'll have to amend that submission to the CCRC now. Thanks Adam.
How were these scratch marks made, Adam?
Paragraph?
Not true. We've been over this twice. Your assertion does not reflect what the Court of Appeal states in its judgment.
Definitely disputed, Adam!
Definitely disputed, as is your assertion that Nevill was woken up by being shot!
This was not rejected by the Court of Appeal. To my knowledge, the specific point has never been adjudicated.
Well I'll dispute this. There is no evidence for it. It's just an assumption and opinionation on the part of the pathologist.
No idea what you mean, sorry.
Not true. Both I and David have provided you with plausible Sheila scenarios.
I agree with this one.
That's not incriminating. It suggests that Bamber was at Bourtree Cottage, as he claims.
Hotly disputed, to use a pun. Nobody knows how those injuries were caused.
Easy for a woman to wake up in the middle of a violent massacre or when being carried - Common knowledge.
I also agree with you on this one. While it doesn't link Bamber to the crime, it does open up the possibility that he could have entered and exited the farmhouse that night while allowing the appearance that it was locked from the inside.
In regard to both this and your earlier point about blood under the Bible, the problem you have is that the police probably moved the Bible and re-positioned Sheila - no doubt for entirely innocent reasons. My suspicion is that Jeremy left Sheila on the bed.
I agree with this, but I would say that the period was more like 1 a.m. to 2.30 a.m.
He needed to do the deed in the absolute dead hours.
12 a.m. is a bit too early, because it's possible people are still awake at that time - not just in the farmhouse, but in the locality.
3 a.m. is a bit too late, due to the risk that people in the locality will be getting up and going to work.
I think he needed it done by 2.30 a.m.
You are forgetting that the police moved everything about.
The magazine was charged. It's not a big deal for her to load the gun.
That's not what the blood expert found and the trial judge misdirected the jury on the blood evidence. Hayward only said that the blood grouping corresponded to Sheila's, with a remote possibility of June and Nevill's blood groups.
But you assume it would have been like taking sweets from a baby. I would dispute this. I've explained already elsewhere.
Thanks.
Do you believe there was an Industrial frame. Involving EP, the relatives, Julie & the experts?
-
26.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
27.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
And Adam wonders why nobody takes him seriously.
-
36.
A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - COA.
Not only is there no mention of that in the COA. The crime scene photos dispute that. ;D
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40863)
-
Thanks.
Do you believe there was an Industrial frame. Involving EP, the relatives, Julie & the experts?
No, I think it was Crispy - Thread started.
Why do you think Jeremy had him put down? Crispy would have been the star witness. Even Taff was on to it.
-
44.
Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.
Not disputed? The guy himself changed his view.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8025.msg380343.html#msg380343 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8025.msg380343.html#msg380343)
You already know this. ;D
-
Not disputed? The guy himself changed his view.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8025.msg380343.html#msg380343 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8025.msg380343.html#msg380343)
You already know this. ;D
McConnel said Sheila could not commit suicide as her arms were too long.
Sorry I forgot. The relatives put diluted period blood & aga paint into the silencer and the lab didn't notice.
-
28.
Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.
29.
Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.
Victims being bare footed and in pyjamas? Very compelling proof of guilt! ::)
-
Not only is there no mention of that in the COA. The crime scene photos dispute that. ;D
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40863)
On the floor. Apparently Sheila's & June's. But doubt they tested everything. So a slim chance some could be Nevill's.
You refuse to discuss one of your two reasons for your secret stance change.
-
On the floor. Apparently Sheila's & June's. But doubt they tested everything. So a slim chance some could be Nevill's.
You refuse to discuss one of your two reasons for your secret stance change.
Thanks Adam.
-
Victims being bare footed and in pyjamas? Very compelling proof of guilt! ::)
I agree. Suggesting both had just got out of bed.
One or both would have certainly put on a dressing gown or slippers in that large house.
At least after 5 years you are trying.
-
Thanks Adam.
Here to help.
Do you believe there was an industrial frame. Involving hundreds of people. On a man who had just lost his family?
Why would everyone agree to this?
-
Here to help.
Do you believe there was an industrial frame. Involving hundreds of people. On a man who had just lost his family?
Why would everyone agree to this?
As I've said already, Adam, I think Crispy was behind it all. That's my theory and I'm basing it on fresh evidence. You'll have to forgive me here, Adam, because I can't reveal all the details as it's going before the CCRC. I'm sure you understand.
With this, your Eastenders theory (the Frank, Peggy and Pat carry-on) and the ketchup/HP sauce fiasco, I think we may have enough for a referral to the Court of Appeal.
Don't forget as well my theory that Jeremy was training for the Tour de Yorkshire. This was a clever cover story on Jeremy's part to explain his bicycling routines but he almost came unstuck because Uncle Bobby realised and started looking for track marks.
It's all falling into place, Adam, and you've played a big part in it.
-
As I've said already, Adam, I think Crispy was behind it all. That's my theory and I'm basing it on fresh evidence. You'll have to forgive me here, Adam, because I can't reveal all the details as it's going before the CCRC. I'm sure you understand.
With this, your Eastenders theory (the Frank, Peggy and Pat carry-on) and the ketchup/HP sauce fiasco, I think we may have enough for a referral to the Court of Appeal.
Don't forget as well my theory that Jeremy was training for the Tour de Yorkshire. This was a clever cover story on Jeremy's part to explain his bicycling routines but he almost came unstuck because Uncle Bobby realised and started looking for track marks.
It's all falling into place, Adam, and you've played a big part in it.
David believes it was just the relatives. Who scratched the aga and put Sheila's diluted period blood from a bucket of water into the silencer.
-
David believes it was just the relatives. Who scratched the aga and put Sheila's diluted period blood in the silencer.
How were the scratch marks made on the aga surround, Adam?
-
How were the scratch marks made on the aga surround, Adam?
During the kitchen fight.
-
During the kitchen fight.
But how? How precisely?
-
But how? How precisely?
Well I was not there. But while they wrestled for the rifle. The kitchen light also smashing.
This was accepted by defence, prosecution & judge at trial.
-
Well I was not there. But while they wrestled for the rifle. The kitchen light also smashing.
This was accepted by defence, prosecution & judge at trial.
I assume you think the silencer made the scratch marks and this was while the silencer was attached to the rifle? Is that so? If so, I think that this would have been virtually impossible, for at least three reasons:
(i). The relevant part of the silencer could not have made those marks.
(ii). The silencer would have had to be flat to the surface of the aga surround.
(iii). No traces of paint were found on the floor beneath the aga surround, yet there are at least two scratch marks, if not three.
-
I assume you think the silencer made the scratch marks and this was while the silencer was attached to the rifle? Is that so? If so, I think that this would have been virtually impossible, for at least three reasons:
(i). The relevant part of the silencer could not have made those marks.
(ii). The silencer would have had to be flat to the surface of the aga surround.
(iii). No traces of paint were found on the floor beneath the aga surround, yet there are at least two scratch marks, if not three.
The scratch marks were too feint to produce debris.
The other two points I do not understand.
-
The scratch marks were too feint to produce debris.
The other two points I do not understand.
I don't agree with your first point, nor does the defence. If you don't understand my other points, then possibly you haven't really thought it all through or checked primary sources. Have you looked at the relevant General Examination Record? Obviously I am no expert, but it seems to me that the silencer could not have made those scratch marks at all. That means either the paint has accidentally ended up in the knurled ribbon of the silencer or somebody has put it there after making the scratches with something else.
-
The scratch marks were too feint to produce debris.
That is incorrect. There was 20mm by 30mm area of paint chipped off the shelf. If the photos show a 2mm by 4mm bit of debris corresponding to a part missing from Sheila's toe nail in the same photo then it would show the paint debris from the 20mm by 30mm area of paint chipped off
-
I don't agree with your first point, nor does the defence. If you don't understand my other points, then possibly you haven't really thought it all through or checked primary sources. Have you looked at the relevant General Examination Record? Obviously I am no expert, but it seems to me that the silencer could not have made those scratch marks at all. That means either the paint has accidentally ended up in the knurled ribbon of the silencer or somebody has put it there after making the scratches with something else.
Did the defence bring debris up? Thought it was the CT, decades later.
We'll have to wait for Yvonne Hartley to divulge more information. She knows when the scratch marks were created and by who.
-
Did the defence bring debris up? Thought it was the CT, decades later.
We'll have to wait for Yvonne Hartley to divulge more information. She knows when the scratch marks were created and by who.
Thanks Adam. I think it was Frank Butcher and Stan helped him because they didn't want Taff taking the credit by pinning it on Peggy and Pat. Do you think the truth will ever come out, Adam?
-
That is incorrect. There was 20mm by 30mm area of paint chipped off the shelf. If the photos show a 2mm by 4mm bit of debris corresponding to a part missing from Sheila's toe nail in the same photo then it would show the paint debris from the 20mm by 30mm area of paint chipped off
I disagree. It seems the silencer skimmed the aga for a second or less while Bamber & Nevill were fighting. Either before or after the kitchen light smashed.
Appreciate the CT trying to make it an issue.
-
I disagree. It seems the silencer skimmed the aga for a second or less while Bamber & Nevill were fighting. Either before or after the kitchen light smashed.
Appreciate the CT trying to make it an issue.
How did the silencer make those scratches? Which part of the silencer impacted on the aga surround? How was the rifle being held when this happened?
-
That is incorrect. There was 20mm by 30mm area of paint chipped off the shelf. If the photos show a 2mm by 4mm bit of debris corresponding to a part missing from Sheila's toe nail in the same photo then it would show the paint debris from the 20mm by 30mm area of paint chipped off
Not necessarily if members of the Raid Team had trampled it underfoot.
-
Paint chippings/debris would drop flush with the skirting , downwards so couldn't be trodden on . Nobody treads near edges.
-
How did the silencer make those scratches? Which part of the silencer impacted on the aga surround? How was the rifle being held when this happened?
I have already answered this.
As agreed at trial it was while Nevill & Bamber wrestled for the rifle. Simultaneously smashing the kitchen light.
The silencer skimmed the aga.
If you think the aga was scratched due as part of the industrial frame, that is fine.
-
I have already answered this.
As agreed at trial it was while Nevill & Bamber wrestled for the rifle. Simultaneously smashing the kitchen light.
The silencer skimmed the aga.
If you think the aga was scratched due as part of the industrial frame, that is fine.
I don't accept you've answered it properly, sorry. Have you read the General Examination Record?
-
I don't accept you've answered it properly, sorry. Have you read the General Examination Record?
Well it is clear Nevill & Bamber wrestled for the rifle. Smashing the kitchen light.
Nevill had to do something to stop the mammoth blows to his forearms and head from the rifle.
Don't see what the big issue about the attached silencer skimming a kitchen wall.
Who do you believe scratched the aga?
-
Well it is clear Nevill & Bamber wrestled for the rifle. Smashing the kitchen light.
Nevill had to do something to stop the mammoth blows to his forearms and head from the rifle.
Don't see what the big issue about the attached silencer skimming a kitchen wall.
Who do you believe scratched the aga?
So have you read the forensic examination record or not? If you haven't, that would explain why you don't see what the issue is. The issue is that the paint was found on the knurled ribbon of the silencer at the muzzle end, and the scratch marks could not have been made by that part of the silencer, and since it's at the muzzle end, the silencer would have needed to be held flat to the aga surround despite being on the rifle, which is virtually impossible. Or at least, it seems that way to me. Do you have an explanation?
It seems to me you don't, because you haven't read the primary sources, so we're at cross-purposes: you want to discuss this case based on received wisdom, whereas I consider the primary sources and make up my own mind, whether for or against Jeremy or something else. What, then, is there for us to discuss? To be honest, I don't quite understand why you're here, Adam, but that's your affair. You're immovable because you're just relying on what you've been told and won't question it.
-
So have you read the forensic examination record or not? If you haven't, that would explain why you don't see what the issue is. The issue is that the paint was found on the knurled ribbon of the silencer at the muzzle end, and the scratch marks could not have been made by that part of the silencer, and since it's at the muzzle end, the silencer would have needed to be held flat to the aga surround despite being on the rifle, which is virtually impossible. Or at least, it seems that way to me. Do you have an explanation?
It seems to me you don't, because you haven't read the primary sources, so we're at cross-purposes: you want to discuss this case based on received wisdom, whereas I consider the primary sources and make up my own mind, whether for or against Jeremy or something else. What, then, is there for us to discuss? To be honest, I don't quite understand why you're here, Adam, but that's your affair. You're immovable because you're just relying on what you've been told and won't question it.
You are coming up with a new theory. Knowing which part of the silencer the paint was on & that it was not possible for that part of the silencer to scratch the aga.
Even the CT are not saying this. They just say someone else correctly scratched the aga after the event.
Who do you believe scratched the aga?
Think we both agree it was a very innovative frame idea which did it's job in 1985.
-
You are coming up with a new theory. Knowing which part of the silencer the paint was & that it was not possible for that part of the silencer to scratch the aga.
Even the CT are not saying this. They just say someone else correctly scratched the aga after the event.
Who do you believe scratched the aga?
Think we both agree it was a very innovative frame idea which did it's job in 1985.
The matter would need to be tested, but it is difficult to see how the silencer could have caused those scratch marks during a struggle.
-
That fire-surround had been recently painted------obviously over layers of years of paint so since the previous June ? it would have been on the tacky side with the heat from the Aga. Though that gouge would have been caused by a hand behind the implement, in this case a silencer.
-
That fire-surround had been recently painted------obviously over layers of years of paint so since the previous June ? it would have been on the tacky side with the heat from the Aga. Though that gouge would have been caused by a hand behind the implement, in this case a silencer.
Could you tell me which part of the silencer came into contact with the aga surround to make these scratches and how the paint traces got in the knurled ribbon at the muzzle end of the silencer?
-
Could you tell me which part of the silencer came into contact with the aga surround to make these scratches and how the paint traces got in the knurled ribbon at the muzzle end of the silencer?
By digging in using the brim/edge as in scraping.
-
By digging in using the brim/edge as in scraping.
Are you satisfied that this would result in paint traces in the knurled ribbon at the muzzle end?
Have you seen the General Examination Record and taken it into account?
-
Are you satisfied that this would result in paint traces in the knurled ribbon at the muzzle end?
Have you seen the General Examination Record and taken it into account?
Why would I have to see the General Examination Record when common sense tells you that by using the rim of a round- shaped object as a scraper can be achieved ?
-
Where there's a will there's always a way.
-
Why would I have to see the General Examination Record when common sense tells you that by using the rim of a round- shaped object as a scraper can be achieved ?
Because, Lookout, the General Examination Record shows where the paint was found on the silencer! Don't you think that might be important?
-
Because, Lookout, the General Examination Record shows where the paint was found on the silencer! Don't you think that might be important?
Why don't you post the relevant part instead of sounding so pompous..
-
Because, Lookout, the General Examination Record shows where the paint was found on the silencer! Don't you think that might be important?
Again, common sense would dictate that the rim itself would have the paint adhered to it.
-
Why don't you post the relevant part instead of sounding so pompous..
Steve, pompous doesn't bother me but lack of common sense does. :) Or as Mrs Foakes described, gumption.
-
Again, common sense would dictate that the rim itself would have the paint adhered to it.
But it didn't.
-
Why don't you post the relevant part instead of sounding so pompous..
Because all the information is on this site, weirdo, and I expect people who make such statements to back them up.
Adam hasn't looked at the evidence.
Lookout hasn't looked at the evidence.
What am I supposed to think?
-
Steve, pompous doesn't bother me but lack of common sense does. :) Or as Mrs Foakes described, gumption.
You haven't looked at the evidence, Lookout.
Your belief in Jeremy's innocence is just an article of faith. It's not rational.
You're no more worthy of the words of Sir Frederick Lawrence than other ignoramuses on here like Jane and Steve.
Sorry if I offend you, but I am right in what I say. You're ignorant, Lookout. You're also offending me by implying that I'm pompous. It's not 'pompous' to expect people to look at evidence.
If you don't want to look at the evidence or haven't, why not just admit it? Why are you being dishonest and pretending?
-
Funny whenever you scarper you imply that your time is more valuable than everyone else's. If you wish to reinforce your argument you would cut and paste the relevant section from where you are looking.
-
Steve, pompous doesn't bother me but lack of common sense does. :) Or as Mrs Foakes described, gumption.
Here Lookout, I know you have seen this before but here's a refresh.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4474)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4475)
-
You haven't looked at the evidence, Lookout.
Your belief in Jeremy's innocence is just an article of faith. It's not rational.
You're no more worthy of the words of Sir Frederick Lawrence than other ignoramuses on here like Jane and Steve.
Sorry if I offend you, but I am right in what I say. You're ignorant, Lookout. You're also offending me by implying that I'm pompous. It's not 'pompous' to expect people to look at evidence.
If you don't want to look at the evidence or haven't, why not just admit it? Why are you being dishonest and pretending?
Blimey, who rattled your cage ?
Now how did I know you were going to answer in such a way ? Mmm. True colours spring to mind in a character such as yourself !
Where has all this abuse come from towards a person you know nothing about ?What's your problem ?
I'm not irrational.
I'm not dishonest.
I don't pretend.
Is it that you feel superior against us mere mortals on this forum ? Because that's what it looks like from where I'm sitting. Do you have to know everything to avoid going into a strop ?
If I wish to know what evidence is the right evidence I'll await the answer from the proper quarters and it's not yours.
-
gumption.
Is a term I would associate with Jeremy's uncle Bobby and his clan. They had the gumption to get this prosecution off the ground, by hook or by crook.
Senior detective standing in the way? You know what the Sicillians say? 'Remove the person, remove the problem'
Lack of material evidence a barrier?...
-
Is a term I would associate with Jeremy's uncle Bobby and his clan. They had the gumption to get this prosecution off the ground, by hook or by crook.
Senior detective standing in the way? You know what the Sicillians say? 'Remove the person, remove the problem'
Lack of material evidence a barrier?...
You're telling me.
-
Here Lookout, I know you have seen this before but here's a refresh.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4474)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4475)
Thanks Caroline---the paint is still on the edge as I'd stated.
-
Thanks Caroline---the paint is still on the edge as I'd stated.
You're welcome Lookout.
-
So have you read the forensic examination record or not? If you haven't, that would explain why you don't see what the issue is. The issue is that the paint was found on the knurled ribbon of the silencer at the muzzle end, and the scratch marks could not have been made by that part of the silencer, and since it's at the muzzle end, the silencer would have needed to be held flat to the aga surround despite being on the rifle, which is virtually impossible. Or at least, it seems that way to me. Do you have an explanation?
It seems to me you don't, because you haven't read the primary sources, so we're at cross-purposes: you want to discuss this case based on received wisdom, whereas I consider the primary sources and make up my own mind, whether for or against Jeremy or something else. What, then, is there for us to discuss? To be honest, I don't quite understand why you're here, Adam, but that's your affair. You're immovable because you're just relying on what you've been told and won't question it.
I don’t follow you I’m sorry, why would the silencer need to be held flat to the arga surround? It’s showing the paint on the side of the silencer the knurled edge, the part that would be more abrasive than a flat surface? This means it could have glanced down sideways past the aga in a struggle?
-
You haven't looked at the evidence, Lookout.
Your belief in Jeremy's innocence is just an article of faith. It's not rational.
You're no more worthy of the words of Sir Frederick Lawrence than other ignoramuses on here like Jane and Steve.
Sorry if I offend you, but I am right in what I say. You're ignorant, Lookout. You're also offending me by implying that I'm pompous. It's not 'pompous' to expect people to look at evidence.
If you don't want to look at the evidence or haven't, why not just admit it? Why are you being dishonest and pretending?
I'm not sure how much more pompous you can be, but I expect you'll show us! You award yourself a bogus title which epitomises pomposity and sit in selfrighteous judgement with biblical condemnation. Your claims of impartiality look more like the vengeful playing of both ends against the middle.
We now have the juxtaposition of the offender, who seems to believe it's his God-given right to name posters as ignorant and ignoramuses, being offended. Is it not reasonable to accept that which you throw out shall come back in abundance?
Possibly, it's the effects of the bogus title adding flatulence to your ego -and you have the temerity to accuse others of dishonesty!!!!!- enabling you to hide behind it, but whilst you accuse, deride, poke fun, and demand answers, you refuse to answer questions about accusations you throw out. Just to remind you:- "Guilters deodorize Julie and Colin.............". Despite numerous requests for you to provide incidences of such, you decline to answer. For one who's spent so much time trolling through past posts to use against others, I wouldn't have thought, despite the likelihood of the post being years old, it would have been beyond you to find something.
-
Well that should dampen down his bumptiousness Jane ;D
-
Well that should dampen down his bumptiousness Jane ;D
I enjoy his bumptiousness much more than Janes biased downright rudeness. She needs to get a life rather than constant forum hopping and changing her name
I love the way QC challenges his guilty theories
-
Well that should dampen down his bumptiousness Jane ;D
:)) :)) :)) :)) :))
-
I'm not sure how much more pompous you can be, but I expect you'll show us! You award yourself a bogus title which epitomises pomposity and sit in selfrighteous judgement with biblical condemnation. Your claims of impartiality look more like the vengeful playing of both ends against the middle.
We now have the juxtaposition of the offender, who seems to believe it's his God-given right to name posters as ignorant and ignoramuses, being offended. Is it not reasonable to accept that which you throw out shall come back in abundance?
Possibly, it's the effects of the bogus title adding flatulence to your ego -and you have the temerity to accuse others of dishonesty!!!!!- enabling you to hide behind it, but whilst you accuse, deride, poke fun, and demand answers, you refuse to answer questions about accusations you throw out. Just to remind you:- "Guilters deodorize Julie and Colin.............". Despite numerous requests for you to provide incidences of such, you decline to answer. For one who's spent so much time trolling through past posts to use against others, I wouldn't have thought, despite the likelihood of the post being years old, it would have been beyond you to find something.
B.O.L.L.O.C.K.S.
You're an Aunt Sally. You know nothing about the law and the legal process and your posts are mostly content-free. You've spent years on this Forum and the other one attacking people haughtily. You're sad and weird.
-
Blimey, who rattled your cage ?
Now how did I know you were going to answer in such a way ? Mmm. True colours spring to mind in a character such as yourself !
Where has all this abuse come from towards a person you know nothing about ?What's your problem ?
I'm not irrational.
I'm not dishonest.
I don't pretend.
Is it that you feel superior against us mere mortals on this forum ? Because that's what it looks like from where I'm sitting. Do you have to know everything to avoid going into a strop ?
If I wish to know what evidence is the right evidence I'll await the answer from the proper quarters and it's not yours.
My problem is that you insulted me. I did not insult you. I asked you reasonable questions and I agree with you that the paint could have been planted (that's the irony of this!).
Take your blinkers off and look back at the thread and see. I asked you to explain how the paint got on the silencer and you couldn't and can't. I asked you to confirm you had seen the relevant forensic document and you haven't. I wasn't attacking you, I was asking you to think, which you clearly can't because you won't.
Instead of being reasonable, you became defensive and insulted me.
When people insult me, I go to war.
From now on, I will insult you.
-
Thanks Caroline---the paint is still on the edge as I'd stated.
No, the paint is not on the edge. You just can't accept that you're wrong. Ironically, what I am saying helps Jeremy!
You just haven't really looked at it and thought about it.
-
I don’t follow you I’m sorry, why would the silencer need to be held flat to the arga surround? It’s showing the paint on the side of the silencer the knurled edge, the part that would be more abrasive than a flat surface? This means it could have glanced down sideways past the aga in a struggle?
At which end of the silencer is the paint? Where on the silencer is the paint?
-
At which end of the silencer is the paint? Where on the silencer is the paint?
Actually, to answer my own question, having looked at the General Examination Record again and compared it again to stock photographs of a Parker Hale silencer, it does look like the knurled ribbon ('gridded pattern') is at the open end rather than the muzzle end, so I could be mistaken on that fact. That means in principle it could be possible to make those scratches and leave that paint on the silencer without having to hold it flat to the surface, but I would still maintain it would be very difficult, at the very least, to leave the paint traces where they were found while making those marks. I'm still sceptical about it.
One problem we have here is that we don't have forensic photographs of the actual silencer, other than very poor photography during (I think) Cook's examination, and those photographs don't show any of the forensic findings. I'm also not aware of any FSS or SOCO video in existence showing the examinations in progress.
Anyway, all I'm doing is asking questions. I've raised this twice before and my view is that this needs to be tested, with the correct silencer, to see if and how the scratch marks could have been made and how the paint is 'captured' by the silencer housing.
-
Actually, to answer my own question, having looked at the General Examination Record again and compared it again to stock photographs of a Parker Hale silencer, it does look like the knurled ribbon ('gridded pattern') is at the open end rather than the muzzle end, so I could be mistaken on that fact. That means in principle it could be possible to make those scratches and leave that paint on the silencer without having to hold it flat to the surface, but I would still maintain it would be very difficult, at the very least, to leave the paint traces where they were found while making those marks. I'm still sceptical about it.
One problem we have here is that we don't have forensic photographs of the actual silencer, other than very poor photography during (I think) Cook's examination, and those photographs don't show any of the forensic findings. I'm also not aware of any FSS or SOCO video in existence showing the examinations in progress.
Anyway, all I'm doing is asking questions. I've raised this twice before and my view is that this needs to be tested, with the correct silencer, to see if and how the scratch marks could have been made and how the paint is 'captured' by the silencer housing.
Sorry, but thinking about it more, I confused because I've used guns and silencers and the knurled ribbon is at the muzzle end, and the 'end cap' end is the open end. Yet looking at the General Examination Record ('GER') again, it says that the knurling is at the "extreme end" with the end cap, which I am now reinterpreting to mean the open end.
I must be going loony or it doesn't make sense, but Cook or the FSS or whoever has filled out that GER has not used what I understand to be the correct terminology. If I understand correctly, he should have said muzzle end or open end.
Plus, we don't have a photographic or video forensic record.
I remain sceptical and I think we should not be accepting any of the prosecution's assumptions on this point. It needs more investigation and the actual process of putting the scratch marks on such a surface and 'collecting' the paint traces in the knurling using friction from the brim needs to be tested/re-enacted.
-
B.O.L.L.O.C.K.S.
You're an Aunt Sally. You know nothing about the law and the legal process and your posts are mostly content-free. You've spent years on this Forum and the other one attacking people haughtily. You're sad and weird.
Absolutely spot on
-
Sorry, but thinking about it more, I confused because I've used guns and silencers and the knurled ribbon is at the muzzle end, and the 'end cap' end is the open end. Yet looking at the General Examination Record ('GER') again, it says that the knurling is at the "extreme end" with the end cap, which I am now reinterpreting to mean the open end.
I must be going loony or it doesn't make sense, but Cook or the FSS or whoever has filled out that GER has not used what I understand to be the correct terminology. If I understand correctly, he should have said muzzle end or open end.
Plus, we don't have a photographic or video forensic record.
I remain sceptical and I think we should not be accepting any of the prosecution's assumptions on this point. It needs more investigation and the actual process of putting the scratch marks on such a surface and 'collecting' the paint traces in the knurling using friction from the brim needs to be tested/re-enacted.
[/color][/size][/b]
Thank you
-
[/color][/size][/b]
Thank you
For a moment, I thought I was going loony, but I may still be wrong and somebody who knows more may come along and correct me.
So far, it does look to me like there's a serious problem. I wonder if the GER diagram is just wrong? That's one possible explanation. The other explanation really doesn't bear thinking about, but I will summarise it below.
The difficulty we seem to have is: How do you collect paint in the knurling at the muzzle end while scratching at the muzzle end with the brim? The muzzle end is on the rifle barrel side, and that being the case, it's actually a really difficult thing to do, if not impossible. You would have to hold the silenced rifle flat to the aga surround and then somehow the friction with the brim causes the paint to collect in the knurling.
I suppose the paint could curl off the brim and be 'squashed' between the silencer housing and the aga surround surface, thus ending up embedded in the knurling, but even then, you still have the issue of how the silenced rifle can be pivoted to produce the effect. I really don't see it happening.
The more disturbing alternative scenario is as follows:
(i). The scratch marks are made on purpose with something else (maybe the Pargeter gun, hence why it was removed).
(ii). The paint traces are collected up (with a false nail?) and then implanted in the silencer knurling, in the mistaken belief that the knurled ribbon is at the open end. If - a big 'if' - Ann Eaton did this, maybe she didn't realise which way round the paint should go, or maybe the knurled ribbon was the only place the paint would 'stick', or maybe she just didn't think about what she was doing.
This is all speculation, let me stress. I'm not alleging anything.
-
My dilemma has always been that I've never believed that the silencer had been deliberately tampered with on the Aga to have got paint on it.
It seemed an honest enough argument that it had been done on the night of the murders when there'd been a struggle, or as my thoughts went, a cross-threaded silencer half-cocked on the end of the rifle with a skew-wiff Sheila on the other end while rifle and wonky silencer fell against the Aga thus causing the marks that are seen.
Since " learning " that it could have been deliberate, I await proof of who it was, when it was and how it was done.
So, QC, how can I answer something that none of us know anything about ?? Even you !
-
My dilemma has always been that I've never believed that the silencer had been deliberately tampered with on the Aga to have got paint on it.
It seemed an honest enough argument that it had been done on the night of the murders when there'd been a struggle, or as my thoughts went, a cross-threaded silencer half-cocked on the end of the rifle with a skew-wiff Sheila on the other end while rifle and wonky silencer fell against the Aga thus causing the marks that are seen.
Since " learning " that it could have been deliberate, I await proof of who it was, when it was and how it was done.
So, QC, how can I answer something that none of us know anything about ?? Even you !
To be honest Lookout, the paint on the silencer could have happened pre murders, it was used mainly to bolster the blood on the silencer, the defence could have and should have argued this case? In a nutshell it was used as a secondary piece of evidence. Now if the defence could prove the paint was deliberate and after the murders, which I think they tried in an appeal, this could have been damaging for the prosecution?
-
To be honest Lookout, the paint on the silencer could have happened pre murders, it was used mainly to bolster the blood on the silencer, the defence could have and should have argued this case? In a nutshell it was used as a secondary piece of evidence. Now if the defence could prove the paint was deliberate and after the murders, which I think they tried in an appeal, this could have been damaging for the prosecution?
RJ, unless someone does come up with some substantial evidence I'll always remain sceptical.
-
RJ, unless someone does come up with some substantial evidence I'll always remain sceptical.
I wouldn’t want it any different my friend 👍. You are a pleasure to debate with and I love your humour 👍
-
My dilemma has always been that I've never believed that the silencer had been deliberately tampered with on the Aga to have got paint on it.
It seemed an honest enough argument that it had been done on the night of the murders when there'd been a struggle, or as my thoughts went, a cross-threaded silencer half-cocked on the end of the rifle with a skew-wiff Sheila on the other end while rifle and wonky silencer fell against the Aga thus causing the marks that are seen.
Since " learning " that it could have been deliberate, I await proof of who it was, when it was and how it was done.
So, QC, how can I answer something that none of us know anything about ?? Even you !
I think the 'how' and 'when' can be proved. The 'who' is more a matter of probability. The question of who discovered these scratch marks and/or what initiated the closer examination of the aga surround is a whole topic in its own right as there are inconsistencies in the accounts between Ann Eaton, Stan Jones and Ron Cook.
I would rule out Cook as a suspect.
-
I wouldn’t want it any different my friend 👍. You are a pleasure to debate with and I love your humour 👍
Aw, thankyou for those few kind words RJ x
-
I think the 'how' and 'when' can be proved. The 'who' is more a matter of probability. The question of who discovered these scratch marks and/or what initiated the closer examination of the aga surround is a whole topic in its own right as there are inconsistencies in the accounts between Ann Eaton, Stan Jones and Ron Cook.
I would rule out Cook as a suspect.
I hope this can be proved anyone responsible prosecuted
-
B.O.L.L.O.C.K.S.
You're an Aunt Sally. You know nothing about the law and the legal process and your posts are mostly content-free. You've spent years on this Forum and the other one attacking people haughtily. You're sad and weird.
It reminds me of a programme from a few years back. Might it be "V For Vengeance"? in which 'humans' burst out of their skins to reveal the hostile and venemous interiors lurking beneath the surface.
It's of no relevance HOW long I've spent on this forum. As for "the other one", I have NEVER seen any discord between posters. It's not permitted. I can only think it's one you were banned from because you didn't obey the rules. I don't attack unless I'm attacked first. Why do I get the feeling that you're looking to attack because you enjoy it?
Of course, this may all be your way of covering up that you STILL, after having been asked three or four times, haven't provided incidences of the "deodorizing of Julie and Colin" which you accuse Jeremy's detractors of?
-
I hope this can be proved anyone responsible prosecuted
The only one of the three alive now is Ann Eaton and she's probably in her 70s. Even if there is something in what I say, prosecution is unlikely. To be honest, this case is academic now. Jeremy is touching 60. They could release him tomorrow and he's still lost his life. It's all over now anyway. These questions should have been asked 35 years ago.
-
It reminds me of a programme from a few years back. Might it be "V For Vengeance"? in which 'humans' burst out of their skins to reveal the hostile and venemous interiors lurking beneath the surface.
It's of no relevance HOW long I've spent on this forum. As for "the other one", I have NEVER seen any discord between posters. It's not permitted. I can only think it's one you were banned from because you didn't obey the rules. I don't attack unless I'm attacked first. Why do I get the feeling that you're looking to attack because you enjoy it?
Of course, this may all be your way of covering up that you STILL, after having been asked three or four times, haven't provided incidences of the "deodorizing of Julie and Colin" which you accuse Jeremy's detractors of?
Of course, we all need my answer to that. Even Jeremy is on tenterhooks in Wakefield.
You're weird.
-
To be honest Lookout, the paint on the silencer could have happened pre murders, it was used mainly to bolster the blood on the silencer, the defence could have and should have argued this case? In a nutshell it was used as a secondary piece of evidence. Now if the defence could prove the paint was deliberate and after the murders, which I think they tried in an appeal, this could have been damaging for the prosecution?
I've truthfully not given it much thought recently, but I'm inclined to think it was an old 'injury' to the paintwork being used to advantage. I think Lookout said something about the paintwork being recent. If it was still soft, how could it have flaked? It's actually bought back memories of what I used to do as a child!!! After my Pa had painted something, say a window, at just the right degree of dryness, and somewhere it couldn't easily be detected, I could gouge it a little with my nails.
-
The only one of the three alive now is Ann Eaton and she's probably in her 70s. Even if there is something in what I say, prosecution is unlikely. To be honest, this case is academic now. Jeremy is touching 60. They could release him tomorrow and he's still lost his life. It's all over now anyway. These questions should have been asked 35 years ago.
I didn't know Ron Cook had passed.
-
I didn't know Ron Cook had passed.
I think QC means family Roch?
-
I think QC means family Roch?
I am open to correction, but I believe both Stan and Ron have now passed on. The only survivor of the three is Ann, and as I say, I expect she will now be elderly (no disrespect meant).
-
I am open to correction, but I believe both Stan and Ron have now passed on. The only survivor of the three is Ann, and as I say, I expect she will now be elderly (no disrespect meant).
Mid 70s
-
Mid 70s
Even if what I say is correct, I wouldn't be enthusiastic about prosecuting somebody in their 70s. Sorry.
-
I think QC means family Roch?
Sounds like Cooky's pegged it. He was a bit of an expert in this case wasn't he? He was on the ITV docu about eight years ago.
-
Most of them have fallen off their perch's-----while waiting for JB to have a massive coronary probably.
-
Most of them have fallen off their perch's-----while waiting for JB to have a massive coronary probably.
That definitely was a laugh out loud moment Lookout ;D
-
I am open to correction, but I believe both Stan and Ron have now passed on. The only survivor of the three is Ann, and as I say, I expect she will now be elderly (no disrespect meant).
Ron is very much alive.
-
Ron is very much alive.
I was reliably told he was gone. Well that's good news and my apologies.
He may now say, as Mark Twain did, 'Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated'.
-
I was reliably told he was gone. Well that's good news and my apologies.
He may now say, as Mark Twain did, 'Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated'.
Does that mean Ron can be prosecuted or does he get a pass too
-
Does that mean Ron can be prosecuted or does he get a pass too
I suppose anybody who is still alive can be prosecuted. Even if somebody is in their 70s/80s, if they perverted the course of justice, then they are fair game for the authorities; but, at that age it sort of becomes academic, doesn't it.
To be honest, I can't really picture Ron deliberately planting evidence or engaging in funny business to that extent, but - assuming it happened - he might have known about it and kept his mouth shut, if you see what I mean. Who knows?
I can imagine Ann doing this, on the basis of a 'vital interest', as I call it.
I can just about imagine Stan doing it, if he thought Jeremy was guilty and wanted to nail the case.
But first thing's first: How did that paint get on the silencer? That must be established before we start pointing the finger at people.
The prosecution say it happened in a struggle, but I don't see how it could have. I think that GER is wrong and it's also not good enough, as one or two people have said above, to suggest it must have happened before the incident. If Sheila deliberately put those scratches there at some point beforehand, June must have noticed and Jeremy must have known about it and would speak up. That's before we get into how the brim of the silencer could make those scratches and collect the paint traces in the knurled ribbon. Is that possible? And what would Sheila be doing with the silencer in the first place? And does that then lend credence to Jeremy's original defence at the 1986 trial?
As a first step, I would say somebody needs to take a look at the same model of Parker Hale silencer and then think about how the scenario claimed by the Crown could be tested in a reliable and scientific way. You'd probably need to start by scratching a painted surface with it similar to the aga surround of that time, to see how the scratching occurs and where the paint goes. If that's consistent with the prosecution theory, then maybe stage a reconstruction to see if the silencer could have impacted the surround and made those scratches while flat to the surface.
Are there experts who undertake such tests?
-
I suppose anybody who is still alive can be prosecuted. Even if somebody is in their 70s/80s, if they perverted the course of justice, then they are fair game for the authorities; but, at that age it sort of becomes academic, doesn't it.
To be honest, I can't really picture Ron deliberately planting evidence or engaging in funny business to that extent, but - assuming it happened - he might have known about it and kept his mouth shut, if you see what I mean. Who knows?
I can imagine Ann doing this, on the basis of a 'vital interest', as I call it.
I can just about imagine Stan doing it, if he thought Jeremy was guilty and wanted to nail the case.
But first thing's first: How did that paint get on the silencer? That must be established before we start pointing the finger at people.
The prosecution say it happened in a struggle, but I don't see how it could have. I think that GER is wrong and it's also not good enough, as one or two people have said above, to suggest it must have happened before the incident. If Sheila deliberately put those scratches there at some point beforehand, June must have noticed and Jeremy must have known about it and would speak up. That's before we get into how the brim of the silencer could make those scratches and collect the paint traces in the knurled ribbon. Is that possible? And what would Sheila be doing with the silencer in the first place? And does that then lend credence to Jeremy's original defence at the 1986 trial?
As a first step, I would say somebody needs to take a look at the same model of Parker Hale silencer and then think about how the scenario claimed by the Crown could be tested in a reliable and scientific way. You'd probably need to start by scratching a painted surface with it similar to the aga surround of that time, to see how the scratching occurs and where the paint goes. If that's consistent with the prosecution theory, then maybe stage a reconstruction to see if the silencer could have impacted the surround and made those scratches while flat to the surface.
Are there experts who undertake such tests?
Ann is my prime suspect.
-
Ann is my prime suspect.
It was Essex CID's idea to examine the aga surround, not Ann Eaton's. The story is that Stan Jones noticed that the aga surround paint colour seemed to match the paint on the silencer. They then went to examine the aga surround. I believe those present were D.S. Jones,. D.I. Cook, D.I. Miller and Ann Eaton.
Of those four, I think we'd both probably agree we have two likely and obvious suspects, Stan and Ann, but given that police already had custody of the silencer, how can it be Ann Eaton? Are you saying you think she put the paint on the silencer before Peter Eaton handed it over to Stan, and this tipped off Stan? That ties Stan in on it as well. Or are you saying that Ann assumed the police would notice the similarity, and if they did not, she planned to tell Stan, and maybe did tell him?
Another explanation would be that there was more than one silencer.
Having looked at a couple more GERs, I'm thoroughly confused. It does very much look like Essex Police/FSS had possession of at least two different silencers. I've found a GER for a different model of silencer with it stated that there is no red paint. It could be that this is an updated GER compiled after examination and removal of the paint, but it looks like a different silencer and it has a different exhibit reference.
Second, there's the problem of explaining how the paint got on the silencer. I am virtually certain that the silencer in the GER posted in this thread could not have made those marks in a struggle, or at all (though this would have to be verified in testing). I am also close to certain that the paint could not have got into the knurled ribbon at the muzzle end of the silencer due to a struggle. For this to happen, it would require the silenced rifle to be held flat to the aga surround and pivoted around in order to make two or three separate scratches. The paint traces could not have fallen into the knurled ribbon from the brim of the open end if the silencer is flat to the surface. The threaded muzzle end of the silencer nearest to the knurled ribbon could not have made the scratches and collected the paint in the knurling as the brim is downward from the knurled ribbon when the silencer is threaded.
-
It was Essex CID's idea to examine the aga surround, not Ann Eaton's. The story is that Stan Jones noticed that the aga surround paint colour seemed to match the paint on the silencer. They then went to examine the aga surround. I believe those present were D.S. Jones,. D.I. Cook, D.I. Miller and Ann Eaton.
Of those four, I think we'd both probably agree we have two likely and obvious suspects, Stan and Ann, but given that police already had custody of the silencer, how can it be Ann Eaton? Are you saying you think she put the paint on the silencer before Peter Eaton handed it over to Stan, and this tipped off Stan? That ties Stan in on it as well. Or are you saying that Ann assumed the police would notice the similarity, and if they did not, she planned to tell Stan, and maybe did tell him?
Another explanation would be that there was more than one silencer.
Having looked at a couple more GERs, I'm thoroughly confused. It does very much look like Essex Poice/FSS had possession of at least two different silencers. I've found a GER for a different model of silencer with it stated that there is no red paint. It could be that this is an updated GER compiled after examination and removal of the paint, but it looks like a different silencer and it has a different exhibit reference.
Second, there's the problem of explaining how the paint got on the silencer. I am virtually certain that the silencer in the GER posted in this thread could not have made those marks in a struggle, or at all (though this would have to be verified in testing). I am also close to certain that the paint could not have got into the knurled ribbon at the muzzle end of the silencer due to a struggle. For this to happen, it would require the silenced rifle to be held flat to the aga surround and pivoted around in order to make two or three separate scratches. The paint traces could not have fallen into the knurled ribbon from the brim of the open end if the silencer is flat to the surface. The threaded muzzle end of the silencer nearest to the knurled ribbon could not have made the scratches and collected the paint in the knurling as the brim is downward from the knurled ribbon when the silencer is threaded.
Yes
-
Yes
Therefore, was Stan in on it, or are you saying she anticipated Stan would want to know where the paint was from and would put 2 and 2 together, and planned to tell him if he didn't?
-
Therefore, was Stan in on it, or are you saying she anticipated Stan would want to know where the paint was from and would put 2 and 2 together, and planned to tell him if he didn't?
The scheming AE & family with the treacherous Stan Jones. Working with the scorned Julie and EP's industrial frame department.
Maybe all will be revealed in the next CCRC submission.
-
Would AE have known enough about the law to have carried out such a thing ?
-
Would AE have known enough about the law to have carried out such a thing ?
Lookout, I do believe we've endowed the relatives with accomplishments they didn't have.
-
Lookout, I do believe we've endowed the relatives with accomplishments they didn't have.
Except for the connotations that such an act would have on JB's life ? Would she have known that ?
-
Stan the man would have known.
-
Except for the connotations that such an act would have on JB's life ? Would she have known that ?
I don't know how she would have, Lookout. There wasn't the benefit of the internet back then so she'd have needed to go to a library and be very certain of what she was looking for. She was a wife, mother, secretary, and probably 'gofer' in a small family business. She probably wouldn't have had the time or inclination for academic or scientific studies.
-
Stan the man would have known.
Would he, though? Back then -or at least when Stan entered the force- a degree wasn't requisite. A secondry school education was enough to get you in and you worked your way up through the ranks. Such was how police gained a reputation for being thick. I don't know when it was believed that having a degree was adventageous -I know of two females who went in with degrees- other than enabling entry to the force at a higher level, but it doesn't guarantee the people skills necessary for dealing with the public.
-
The scheming AE & family with the treacherous Stan Jones. Working with the scorned Julie and EP's industrial frame department.
Maybe all will be revealed in the next CCRC submission.
Adam I suggest you watch The Money Trail 50 times on replay and it might just sink in who had a motive to lie
It’s right there in front of you
-
Would he, though? Back then -or at least when Stan entered the force- a degree wasn't requisite. A secondry school education was enough to get you in and you worked your way up through the ranks. Such was how police gained a reputation for being thick. I don't know when it was believed that having a degree was adventageous -I know of two females who went in with degrees- other than enabling entry to the force at a higher level, but it doesn't guarantee the people skills necessary for dealing with the public.
That part Stan would definitely have known, it was his job to think ill of " would be criminals " whether right or wrong. We must also remember that he took an instant dislike to Jeremy, quite possibly because of what Jeremy stood to gain ( my thoughts ) where something like that can't be hidden and is easily rubbed off when you have others involved who are also of the same mindset. So easy when there was nobody to speak up for Jeremy. It was such a top-heavy case in that respect.
-
Dreadful Lookout
A 24 year old on his own having to sit and listen to all the lies.
He obviously didn’t know half the lies until after conviction
-
That part Stan would definitely have known, it was his job to think ill of " would be criminals " whether right or wrong. We must also remember that he took an instant dislike to Jeremy, quite possibly because of what Jeremy stood to gain ( my thoughts ) where something like that can't be hidden and is easily rubbed off when you have others involved who are also of the same mindset. So easy when there was nobody to speak up for Jeremy. It was such a top-heavy case in that respect.
"So easy when there was nobody to speak up for Jeremy" Have you never wondered why, Lookout?
I still recall feeling shock when I read you saying that if Jeremy was your grandson you'd have been proud of how he presented himself (in this case, it was in court). It was with some horror that it occurred to me that the mothers/grandmothers of youngsters who are frankly no more than thugs and sh-one-ts, sit in courtrooms saying they feel really proud of their young -probably even the mummies/grannies of those wastes of space who were responsible for the death of the young policeman. My guess is that mums/grandmums will always love their boys, no matter what others say.......................which brings me back to wondering why no one spoke up for Jeremy.
I imagine, if you were suspected of having committed a crime, the general concensus, of all who know you, might be along the lines of you were feisty and sometimes 'difficult' but you definitely wouldn't have done X. In my own case, from all who know me, I can guarantee, their opinion would be NEVER in a million years. These opinions, both from your friends, and mine, would spread beyond ther parameters of our own groups to a wider audience. NONE of this happened for Jeremy. I've never known a single friend of his parents' -there are so few left now- who've supported him. I'm told there was one person from his school but the only person I've known who did support him is my cousin's co in law, a vicar. Those females whose bed he'd shared chose not to hang around to beat the drum for him after he'd been convicted. His only support has come from those who've only known him since his conviction. How can he have got to 25, spent 7 years at a school, been to college, traveled the world -twice-, had numerous jobs around many different people, but have SO few willing to say"He COULDN'T have done this. It simply isn't possible". It makes me suspicious.
-
"So easy when there was nobody to speak up for Jeremy" Have you never wondered why, Lookout?
I still recall feeling shock when I read you saying that if Jeremy was your grandson you'd have been proud of how he presented himself (in this case, it was in court). It was with some horror that it occurred to me that the mothers/grandmothers of youngsters who are frankly no more than thugs and sh-one-ts, sit in courtrooms saying they feel really proud of their young -probably even the mummies/grannies of those wastes of space who were responsible for the death of the young policeman. My guess is that mums/grandmums will always love their boys, no matter what others say.......................which brings me back to wondering why no one spoke up for Jeremy.
I imagine, if you were suspected of having committed a crime, the general concensus, of all who know you, might be along the lines of you were feisty and sometimes 'difficult' but you definitely wouldn't have done X. In my own case, from all who know me, I can guarantee, their opinion would be NEVER in a million years. These opinions, both from your friends, and mine, would spread beyond ther parameters of our own groups to a wider audience. NONE of this happened for Jeremy. I've never known a single friend of his parents' -there are so few left now- who've supported him. I'm told there was one person from his school but the only person I've known who did support him is my cousin's co in law, a vicar. Those females whose bed he'd shared chose not to hang around to beat the drum for him after he'd been convicted. His only support has come from those who've only known him since his conviction. How can he have got to 25, spent 7 years at a school, been to college, traveled the world -twice-, had numerous jobs around many different people, but have SO few willing to say"He COULDN'T have done this. It simply isn't possible". It makes me suspicious.
My guess is that it was only latterly that people didn't so much know Jeremy, but knew of him. He was too busy womanising to make any proper male friends who he'd " knock around with ", he hadn't cemented any male friendship which would have made a difference in every way. Were both siblings on pins in case their friends weren't accepted by their mother ? Hence why Sheila also hadn't appeared to have had any close friends either, as June seemed to have found fault in everyone.
The only time that these people " knew " Jeremy was after the tragedy when newspapers were full of unfounded damning reports which everyone latched on to as well as gossip from those who only thought they knew him and the family well, when if the truth be told, the closer family didn't know at all.
Probably the reason why so many who briefly knew him, women especially, and haven't all come forward, is that most people whether they know you or not, will steer clear of anything to do with court, though police did collect many testimonies that didn't make an appearance at trial as like many other documents, were withheld.
-
Therefore, was Stan in on it, or are you saying she anticipated Stan would want to know where the paint was from and would put 2 and 2 together, and planned to tell him if he didn't?
He comes across as right plank. I am more inclined to think he was a manipulated tool.
-
He comes across as right plank. I am more inclined to think he was a manipulated tool.
He was possibly manipulated, but he certainly became the manipulator in every sense of the word. You've only to look at the way he was with Julie.
-
Plus, do or die he wanted a conviction under his belt given the bad performance record of Essex Police at the time.
-
He comes across as right plank. I am more inclined to think he was a manipulated tool.
The original portrayal of him on this forum was that he was labelled 'Stupid Stan'. Also that he was very fond of a tipple. That he was not made privvy to events relating to the raid (and that the decision not do so massively backfired).
-
My guess is that it was only latterly that people didn't so much know Jeremy, but knew of him. He was too busy womanising to make any proper male friends who he'd " knock around with ", he hadn't cemented any male friendship which would have made a difference in every way. Were both siblings on pins in case their friends weren't accepted by their mother ? Hence why Sheila also hadn't appeared to have had any close friends either, as June seemed to have found fault in everyone.
The only time that these people " knew " Jeremy was after the tragedy when newspapers were full of unfounded damning reports which everyone latched on to as well as gossip from those who only thought they knew him and the family well, when if the truth be told, the closer family didn't know at all.
Probably the reason why so many who briefly knew him, women especially, and haven't all come forward, is that most people whether they know you or not, will steer clear of anything to do with court, though police did collect many testimonies that didn't make an appearance at trial as like many other documents, were withheld.
There's certainly some truth in what you say. Any friendship base would have come from outside of his small community. Sheila was certainly able to frequent pubs out of the immediate vicinity, but maybe Jeremy looked too young to have got in. But what about school friends? Were there any? Or, because there was something(?) about him, was he just not popular? Males, if they're going to bond, seem to do so at an early age. Possibly he never did. That neither -allegedly- took friends home doesn't necessarily signify there weren't any. Jeremy was at a mixed college and chose to do work involving males and females. He had several jobs so wasn't exactly reclusive. That he chose to spend more time with friends of his own age -if he had any- rather than family members who were older than he, wouldn't be surprising.
I really can't accept that there were so few who knew so little of him that they didn't feel able to, at least, give their impression of him, so unless these people have since come forward to say, publicly, they'd been to the police to support him, I'm not certain how such can be known. I can't imagine that police would admit to having taken supportive statements and deliberately withholding them. Unless ANY who'd made statements had sat in court, how would they know that said statements hadn't been read out?
-
"So easy when there was nobody to speak up for Jeremy" Have you never wondered why, Lookout?
I still recall feeling shock when I read you saying that if Jeremy was your grandson you'd have been proud of how he presented himself (in this case, it was in court). It was with some horror that it occurred to me that the mothers/grandmothers of youngsters who are frankly no more than thugs and sh-one-ts, sit in courtrooms saying they feel really proud of their young -probably even the mummies/grannies of those wastes of space who were responsible for the death of the young policeman. My guess is that mums/grandmums will always love their boys, no matter what others say.......................which brings me back to wondering why no one spoke up for Jeremy.
I imagine, if you were suspected of having committed a crime, the general concensus, of all who know you, might be along the lines of you were feisty and sometimes 'difficult' but you definitely wouldn't have done X. In my own case, from all who know me, I can guarantee, their opinion would be NEVER in a million years. These opinions, both from your friends, and mine, would spread beyond ther parameters of our own groups to a wider audience. NONE of this happened for Jeremy. I've never known a single friend of his parents' -there are so few left now- who've supported him. I'm told there was one person from his school but the only person I've known who did support him is my cousin's co in law, a vicar. Those females whose bed he'd shared chose not to hang around to beat the drum for him after he'd been convicted. His only support has come from those who've only known him since his conviction. How can he have got to 25, spent 7 years at a school, been to college, traveled the world -twice-, had numerous jobs around many different people, but have SO few willing to say"He COULDN'T have done this. It simply isn't possible". It makes me suspicious.
I suspect he lost more family friends Jane when he committed the Park robbery out of greed, saying he had done it to test security, yet on oath he admitted he had done it for greed? I’m not a Julie fan, but at least she owned up to being a part of this and the Cheque book fraud.
-
The original portrayal of him on this forum was that he was labelled 'Stupid Stan'. Also that he was very fond of a tipple. That he was not made privvy to events relating to the raid (and that the decision not do so massively backfired).
Who labelled him that? Someone on the forum? I've learned not to listen to those kind of opinions - unless it was was written by someone who knew him well - what value is it?
-
Who labelled him that? Someone on the forum? I've learned not to listen to those kind of opinions - unless it was was written by someone who knew him well - what value is it?
The same people who praise Taff I would think Caroline 🙈🙈🙈
-
I suspect he lost more family friends Jane when he committed the Park robbery out of greed, saying he had done it to test security, yet on oath he admitted he had done it for greed? I’m not a Julie fan, but at least she owned up to being a part of this and the Cheque book fraud.
RJ, the cheque book fraud thing has been blown out of all proportion. I KNOW it was wrong. I know it was a crime, but let's at least TRY to keep a sense of proportion about it. It was hardly so great an occurrence that it sent the bank into lock-down. It appears they weren't even aware of it until she admitted to having done it. Okay, so had the police not suggested that she come clean, she may not have, BUT!!! had she not been with Jeremy, she most probably wouldn't have (done it) in the first instant. In fact, it can surely be said that, had Jeremy not convinced her that he'd murdered his entire family, there'd have been no need for her to have been anywhere near a police station. If one weighs up the balance between a very minor cheque fraud and a multiple murder, the cheque fraud pales into insignificance, doesn't it?
-
RJ, the cheque book fraud thing has been blown out of all proportion. I KNOW it was wrong. I know it was a crime, but let's at least TRY to keep a sense of proportion about it. It was hardly so great an occurrence that it sent the bank into lock-down. It appears they weren't even aware of it until she admitted to having done it. Okay, so had the police not suggested that she come clean, she may not have, BUT!!! had she not been with Jeremy, she most probably wouldn't have (done it) in the first instant. In fact, it can surely be said that, had Jeremy not convinced her that he'd murdered his entire family, there'd have been no need for her to have been anywhere near a police station. If one weighs up the balance between a very minor cheque fraud and a multiple murder, the cheque fraud pales into insignificance, doesn't it?
The CBF was merely a version of what Jeremy had done in Australia with his travelers cheques. He was a bad influence who met someone who was also a bad influence.
-
Who labelled him that? Someone on the forum? I've learned not to listen to those kind of opinions - unless it was was written by someone who knew him well - what value is it?
No, not someone on the forum. It's an anecdote relayed via the forum. It's how he was supposed to have been viewed by contemporaries. Such a description is hardly going to feature in 'The Force' is it? Or whatever the EP publication was called.
Nevertheless, the author who claimed to have interviewed him quite liked him.
-
RJ, the cheque book fraud thing has been blown out of all proportion. I KNOW it was wrong. I know it was a crime, but let's at least TRY to keep a sense of proportion about it. It was hardly so great an occurrence that it sent the bank into lock-down. It appears they weren't even aware of it until she admitted to having done it. Okay, so had the police not suggested that she come clean, she may not have, BUT!!! had she not been with Jeremy, she most probably wouldn't have (done it) in the first instant. In fact, it can surely be said that, had Jeremy not convinced her that he'd murdered his entire family, there'd have been no need for her to have been anywhere near a police station. If one weighs up the balance between a very minor cheque fraud and a multiple murder, the cheque fraud pales into insignificance, doesn't it?
Excellent post Jane. I thought long and hard on this one, at first I thought she could have kept quite about both these events, especially the Cheque book fraud, but Bamber would have told any way, hoping to eliminate Julie’s testimony, so she was in a no win situation once she came forward.
-
Who labelled him that? Someone on the forum? I've learned not to listen to those kind of opinions - unless it was was written by someone who knew him well - what value is it?
Same value as the dishonest mortuary loving Julie
-
Excellent post Jane. I thought long and hard on this one, at first I thought she could have kept quite about both these events, especially the Cheque book fraud, but Bamber would have told any way, hoping to eliminate Julie’s testimony, so she was in a no win situation once she came forward.
Exactly! Which would have been worse, being slagged of as a thief when she admitted it, or, if she didn't, being slagged off as a devious thief when she was found out?
-
The CBF was merely a version of what Jeremy had done in Australia with his travelers cheques. He was a bad influence who met someone who was also a bad influence.
Bit like all the elements coming together to create the perfect storm, really. It took someone of Julie's character to stay with him knowing what was potentially on the cards.
-
Exactly! Which would have been worse, being slagged of as a thief when she admitted it, or, if she didn't, being slagged off as a devious thief when she was found out?
I think there was a lot of confusion caused by her coming forward Jane, Julie thought she had received a caution, when in fact it was the DPP who decided not to prosecute them, so she didn’t actually get a caution.
-
I think there was a lot of confusion caused by her coming forward Jane, Julie thought she had received a caution, when in fact it was the DPP who decided not to prosecute them, so she didn’t actually get a caution.
She became the proverbial sprat to catch a mackeral. So? Nothing new, is it? It's a ploy which has been used since time immemorial and will go on being used. It works. They were hardly going to charge her with a cheque fraud the bank knew nothing about, and risk letting a murderer go free. Ignore the lesser crime to nail the serious one. Can't see much wrong with that.
-
She became the proverbial sprat to catch a mackeral. So? Nothing new, is it? It's a ploy which has been used since time immemorial and will go on being used. It works. They were hardly going to charge her with a cheque fraud the bank knew nothing about, and risk letting a murderer go free. Ignore the lesser crime to nail the serious one. Can't see much wrong with that.
When you think about it Jane, it was a Bold/Risky decision by Julie, she could have wrecked her chance of working in Schools with a conviction/caution? I say risky also, she could have lost her friend Susan Battersby because she now had to tell the police Susan was involved.
This is Mr Dovey’s statement
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.
-
When you think about it Jane, it was a Bold/Risky decision by Julie, she could have wrecked her chance of working in Schools with a conviction/caution? I say risky also, she could have lost her friend Susan Battersby because she now had to tell the police Susan was involved.
This is Mr Dovey’s statement
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.
It maybe that she didn't see herself as having many options -and here it's possible that the police played it up- and went for what she believed was the lesser of two evils. Despite her move to Canada, I don't think she and her family could have been castigated more had the gun been in her hand.
-
It maybe that she didn't see herself as having many options -and here it's possible that the police played it up- and went for what she believed was the lesser of two evils. Despite her move to Canada, I don't think she and her family could have been castigated more had the gun been in her hand.
Forgot to add Jane,
Mr Dovey in his statement finally repeated that he had not been put under any pressure to reach a conclusion one way or the other.
So, it was him after all who decided not to press charges, I think he admired their honesty in the end?
-
No, not someone on the forum. It's an anecdote relayed via the forum. It's how he was supposed to have been viewed by contemporaries. Such a description is hardly going to feature in 'The Force' is it? Or whatever the EP publication was called.
Nevertheless, the author who claimed to have interviewed him quite liked him.
So no substance then.
-
So no substance then.
Hardly going to be in a statement?
-
Forgot to add Jane,
Mr Dovey in his statement finally repeated that he had not been put under any pressure to reach a conclusion one way or the other.
So, it was him after all who decided not to press charges, I think he admired their honesty in the end?
You're probably right. It would have seemed like a considerable sum back then, but balanced against what a bank takes in, and compared with what they lose and never get back, they probably thought it wasn't worth their while, or time spent on paperwork, to bother with prosecution, especially as they hadn't known anything about it. I imagine the police supported that decision.
-
Forgot to add Jane,
Mr Dovey in his statement finally repeated that he had not been put under any pressure to reach a conclusion one way or the other.
So, it was him after all who decided not to press charges, I think he admired their honesty in the end?
I wonder why the trial judge misinformed the jury on this point?
-
Hardly going to be in a statement?
You clearly have some basis to believe it that hasn't been documented here?
-
I wonder why the trial judge misinformed the jury on this point?
In what way QC?
-
In what way QC?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10294.msg480324.html#msg480324
The full thread: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10294.0.html
-
He comes across as right plank. I am more inclined to think he was a manipulated tool.
Is it true what I've read elsewhere on here that Stan Jones was part of the investigation team into the Diane Jones murder?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10294.msg480324.html#msg480324
The full thread: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10294.0.html
Gotcha,, yes in the summing up he told the Jury that she had been cautioned, when in fact she hadn’t. Yes it was covered in the appeal, I think there was a lot of mix up wasn’t there QC. Probably would have looked better if he said, “Julie wasn’t even cautioned or received immunity, it was the bank’s decision and DPP not to prosecute”. Saying she had a caution could have gone against Julie?
I think Julie thought she had been cautioned, when she confessed they told her she was under caution and what she said would be used against her ect.
-
Gotcha,, yes in the summing up he told the Jury that she had been cautioned, when in fact she hadn’t. Yes it was covered in the appeal, I think there was a lot of mix up wasn’t there QC. Probably would have looked better if he said, “Julie wasn’t even cautioned or received immunity, it was the bank’s decision and DPP not to prosecute”. Saying she had a caution could have gone against Julie?
I think Julie thought she had been cautioned, when she confessed they told her she was under caution and what she said would be used against her ect.
I think the opposite. By saying she had been cautioned for those offences, the judge contributed to the impression that a deal had not been done with the police, when in reality it had.
Also, when was this specific point raised on appeal? I don't recall that.
You also keep saying that Julie confessed voluntarily and Mr Dovey was not pressured by police. I'm afraid I am not convinced this is true.
-
I think the opposite. By saying she had been cautioned for those offences, the judge contributed to the impression that a deal had not been done with the police, when in reality it had.
Also, when was this specific point raised on appeal? I don't recall that.
You also keep saying that Julie confessed voluntarily and Mr Dovey was not pressured by police. I'm afraid I am not convinced this is true.
Its in here QC
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
Its in here QC
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
If anyone wants to read it, it’s Ground 5 court of appeal 2002
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
Its in here QC
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
I emphatically do NOT accept what Mr Dovey is saying. He is lying on the point, and if you like, I'll say it to his face.
He is simply lying and his evidence is a joke. The surrounding circumstances and what he admits himself show him to be lying. Any unbiased/objective person who reads the relevant part of that link can see it. He admits that he was pressured by the police, and then in the same breath, he says he wasn't!
Asking us to accept this is akin to treating us like children. We are not children. We will stare the truth in the face, no matter how ugly it is.
Guilters, including you Real Justice, keep telling us that Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby went to the police voluntarily, but they did not. Mr Dovey confirms this when he says the police set up the meeting.
Niceties and pleasantries aside, debating/discussing this case with people like you is rather like debating with an estate agent the merits of a particular house on its books, with the prospective seller listening in.
-
Don't tell me the man from the bank lied as well.
-
I emphatically do NOT accept what Mr Dovey is saying. He is lying on the point, and if you like, I'll say it to his face.
He is simply lying and his evidence is a joke. The surrounding circumstances and what he admits himself show him to be lying. Any unbiased/objective person who reads the relevant part of that link can see it. He admits that he was pressured by the police, and then in the same breath, he says he wasn't!
Asking us to accept this is akin to treating us like children. We are not children. We will stare the truth in the face, no matter how ugly it is.
Guilters, including you Real Justice, keep telling us that Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby went to the police voluntarily, but they did not. Mr Dovey confirms this when he says the police set up the meeting.
Niceties and pleasantries aside, debating/discussing this case with people like you is rather like debating with an estate agent the merits of a particular house on its books, with the prospective seller listening in.
Im sorry QC, I’m not with you on this one?
Guilters, including you Real Justice, keep telling us that Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby went to the police voluntarily, but they did not. Mr Dovey confirms this when he says the police set up the meeting.
Are you saying the police set up a meeting with the Police? I know the Police probably advised and set a meeting up with the bank,
-
Don't tell me the man from the bank lied as well.
😂😂😂😂 Another one 🙈
-
Im sorry QC, I’m not with you on this one?
Guilters, including you Real Justice, keep telling us that Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby went to the police voluntarily, but they did not. Mr Dovey confirms this when he says the police set up the meeting.
Are you saying the police set up a meeting with the Police? I know the Police probably advised and set a meeting up with the bank,
Exactly. You keep saying they went voluntarily to the bank and the bank were not pressured into making a complaint, but it's not true.
-
Don't tell me the man from the bank lied as well.
Yes, he did.
Who else involved in this case have I accused of lying? So far, very few people, if anybody, but the evidence from the man at the bank is contradictory.
Of course, you won't see this because you're biased.
-
Exactly. You keep saying they went voluntarily to the bank and the bank were not pressured into making a complaint, but it's not true.
You are absolutely correct QCC. This is a significant issue which taken with other points is very important.
-
You are absolutely correct QCC. This is a significant issue which taken with other points is very important.
What makes me laugh is that Mr Dovey's own evidence shows it not to be true! Were the appeal judges blind or deaf or both?
-
What makes me laugh is that Mr Dovey's own evidence shows it not to be true! Were the appeal judges blind or deaf or both?
I agree.
-
I emphatically do NOT accept what Mr Dovey is saying. He is lying on the point, and if you like, I'll say it to his face.
He is simply lying and his evidence is a joke. The surrounding circumstances and what he admits himself show him to be lying. Any unbiased/objective person who reads the relevant part of that link can see it. He admits that he was pressured by the police, and then in the same breath, he says he wasn't!
Asking us to accept this is akin to treating us like children. We are not children. We will stare the truth in the face, no matter how ugly it is.
Guilters, including you Real Justice, keep telling us that Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby went to the police voluntarily, but they did not. Mr Dovey confirms this when he says the police set up the meeting.
Niceties and pleasantries aside, debating/discussing this case with people like you is rather like debating with an estate agent the merits of a particular house on its books, with the prospective seller listening in.
WHOA!!! I'm going to say, before I start this that there's no offence intended, but from your above post, you probably will be.
You sound angry. You appear to be taking this very personally. Do you really see yourself as having the chance to call him a liar to his face? You say his "evidence is a joke". I'd thought you to be more intelligent than to use an expression employed by those with nothing better to contribute to an argument.
He's not asking "us" to believe anything. It was neither written nor said for "our" benefit, but maybe you feel as if you're being treated like a child. "We will stare the truth in the face, no matter how ugly it is"!!!! Dear God, it sounds like an Evangelist's rallying cr and is unlikely to have alleged miscreants shaking in their shoes..
At the end of the day, whether Julie and Susan visited the bank of their own volition, or whether their arms were twisted, and whether they went alone or were accompanied by a policeman, or whether the bank decided not to prosecute or the police asked them no to, and whether Julie received a caution or whether she didn't, makes not an iota of difference to whether or not Jeremy pulled the trigger, and NONE of it makes him innocent. The most it would have done is suggest Julie's evidence to be unreliable, but that doesn't mean she wasn't telling the truth.
If you truly feel that "debating/discussing this case with people like you is rather like debating with an estate agent the merits of a particular house on its books, with the prospective seller listening in" it maybe better for your blood pressure if you didn't or put them on ignore. Deep, slow breathing might help.
-
WHOA!!! I'm going to say, before I start this that there's no offence intended, but from your above post, you probably will be.
You sound angry. You appear to be taking this very personally. Do you really see yourself as having the chance to call him a liar to his face? You say his "evidence is a joke". I'd thought you to be more intelligent than to use an expression employed by those with nothing better to contribute to an argument.
He's not asking "us" to believe anything. It was neither written nor said for "our" benefit, but maybe you feel as if you're being treated like a child. "We will stare the truth in the face, no matter how ugly it is"!!!! Dear God, it sounds like an Evangelist's rallying cr and is unlikely to have alleged miscreants shaking in their shoes..
At the end of the day, whether Julie and Susan visited the bank of their own volition, or whether their arms were twisted, and whether they went alone or were accompanied by a policeman, or whether the bank decided not to prosecute or the police asked them no to, and whether Julie received a caution or whether she didn't, makes not an iota of difference to whether or not Jeremy pulled the trigger, and NONE of it makes him innocent. The most it would have done is suggest Julie's evidence to be unreliable, but that doesn't mean she wasn't telling the truth.
If you truly feel that "debating/discussing this case with people like you is rather like debating with an estate agent the merits of a particular house on its books, with the prospective seller listening in" it maybe better for your blood pressure if you didn't or put them on ignore. Deep, slow breathing might help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM8vOcxatsI
-
Exactly. You keep saying they went voluntarily to the bank and the bank were not pressured into making a complaint, but it's not true.
Again, can you point out where I said Julie went voluntary to the bank?
-
makes not an iota of difference to whether or not Jeremy pulled the trigger, and NONE of it makes him innocent.
Jane, do you realise how many times you have posted this rationale?
You never seem to stop and ask yourself regarding the cumulative number of anomalies or incidents of wrongdoing required, in order to achieve this conviction.
If Jeremy did pull the trigger, why on earth would all this be necessary?
-
Jane, do you realise how many times you have posted this rationale?
You never seem to stop and ask yourself regarding the cumulative number of anomalies or incidents of wrongdoing, required in order to achieve this conviction.
If Jeremy did pull the trigger, why on earth would all this be necessary?
That's your perspective though Roch.
-
I do agree NGB, but I don’t think I said it the way QC, I was on about having to disclose to the police their past etc i apologise if it comes across that way. I’m under no illusion that they would have been advised to and probably helped in sorting it out.
I don't think this is usual at all. You don't want your star witness to be tripped up by the other side, so you make sure they tell you all their past misdemeanors. Stuff that the opposition might possibly find out about. Then try and fire fight the consequences. Jones should have been more honest about it.
-
Jane, do you realise how many times you have posted this rationale?
You never seem to stop and ask yourself regarding the cumulative number of anomalies or incidents of wrongdoing, required in order to achieve this conviction.
If Jeremy did pull the trigger, why on earth would all this be necessary?
Roch, it's seeming more and more that his supporters have forgotten/are choosing to overlook the real reason he's in prison and have become far more concerned with technicalities. "The cumulative number of anomalies or incidents of wrongdoing, required in order to acheive this conviction", as far as I'm concerned, doesn't exceed the cumulative number of anomalies and coincidences which bought it to court in the first place. I do accept however that several wrong do not several rights make. They also don't make a guilty person innocent.
-
What makes me laugh is that Mr Dovey's own evidence shows it not to be true! Were the appeal judges blind or deaf or both?
QC on fire tonight
-
Roch, it's seeming more and more that his supporters have forgotten/are choosing to overlook the real reason he's in prison and have become far more concerned with technicalities. "The cumulative number of anomalies or incidents of wrongdoing, required in order to acheive this conviction", as far as I'm concerned, doesn't exceed the cumulative number of anomalies and coincidences which bought it to court in the first place. I do accept however that several wrong do not several rights make. They also don't make a guilty person innocent.
Unbelievable
-
I don't think this is usual at all. You don't want your star witness to be tripped up by the other side, so you make sure they tell you all their past misdemeanors. Stuff that the opposition might possibly find out about. Then try and fire fight the consequences. Jones should have been more honest about it.
The point being Caroline, I’ve not said what I’ve been accused off.
-
The point being Caroline, I’ve not said what I’ve been accused off.
I don't know where we've deodorized Julie and Colin, either, but it hasn't stopped the claim that we have being made.
-
I don't think this is usual at all. You don't want your star witness to be tripped up by the other side, so you make sure they tell you all their past misdemeanors. Stuff that the opposition might possibly find out about. Then try and fire fight the consequences. Jones should have been more honest about it.
Happens all the time Caroline.
-
The point being Caroline, I’ve not said what I’ve been accused off.
I know.
-
Again, can you point out where I said Julie went voluntary to the bank?
You didn't. You implied it by your post #366.
The issue I have here is that it does seem the prosecution left the jury with the impression that Julie Mugford's evidence was entirely voluntary and the organic outcome of her own conscience. The misleading information given by the judge to the jury contributed to this impression because it suggested that offences of dishonesty were disposed of by the authorities in the usual manner. This was done because the kernel of her evidence at trial was her own believability and the dishonesty offences damage her as a prosecution witness if it appears she has done a deal, especially if a deal has been done under police duress.
-
You didn't. You implied it by your post #366.
The issue I have here is that it does seem the prosecution left the jury with the impression that Julie Mugford's evidence was entirely voluntary and the organic outcome of her own conscience. The misleading information given by the judge to the jury contributed to this impression because it suggested that offences of dishonesty were disposed of by the authorities in the usual manner. This was done because the kernel of her evidence at trial was her own believability and the dishonesty offences damage her as a prosecution witness if it appears she has done a deal, especially if a deal has been done under police duress.
I think you will find I’m talking of Julie going to the police, not the bank.
When you think about it Jane, it was a Bold/Risky decision by Julie, she could have wrecked her chance of working in Schools with a conviction/caution? I say risky also, she could have lost her friend Susan Battersby because she now had to tell the police Susan was involved.
I’m saying, once she had opened up about her past it became risky, she could have damaged her career and lost her friend. Nothing at all to do with the bank.
-
Not sure what the big issue is.
The police probably advised Julie to go to the bank & pay the money back. Which she did do.
QC is getting carried away with his bias.again.
-
I think you will find I’m talking of Julie going to the police, not the bank.
When you think about it Jane, it was a Bold/Risky decision by Julie, she could have wrecked her chance of working in Schools with a conviction/caution? I say risky also, she could have lost her friend Susan Battersby because she now had to tell the police Susan was involved.
I’m saying, once she had opened up about her past it became risky, she could have damaged her career and lost her friend. Nothing at all to do with the bank.
And, I’m not implying that Julie went to the police voluntary about the Cheque book fraud, this was answered in my 360 post, could she have or couldn’t she have kept quite?
-
Not sure what the big issue is.
The police probably advised Julie to go to the bank & pay the money back. Which she did do.
QC is getting carried away with his bias.again.
Its a no brainier, of course they did.
-
I think you will find I’m talking of Julie going to the police, not the bank.
When you think about it Jane, it was a Bold/Risky decision by Julie, she could have wrecked her chance of working in Schools with a conviction/caution? I say risky also, she could have lost her friend Susan Battersby because she now had to tell the police Susan was involved.
I’m saying, once she had opened up about her past it became risky, she could have damaged her career and lost her friend. Nothing at all to do with the bank.
I did go back to take a look at what you'd said, but I failed to see that you'd implied what you've been accused of.
-
I think you will find I’m talking of Julie going to the police, not the bank.
When you think about it Jane, it was a Bold/Risky decision by Julie, she could have wrecked her chance of working in Schools with a conviction/caution? I say risky also, she could have lost her friend Susan Battersby because she now had to tell the police Susan was involved.
I’m saying, once she had opened up about her past it became risky, she could have damaged her career and lost her friend. Nothing at all to do with the bank.
I've answered that above.
Your whole assumption here is that her actions were voluntary and on account of conscience.
-
And, I’m not implying that Julie went to the police voluntary about the Cheque book fraud, this was answered in my 360 post, could she have or couldn’t she have kept quite?
I think you are implying this. It's the whole assumption behind the classic guilter approach to the case, which is to naively think that Julie was acting on her conscience.
-
My daughter worked in Colchester high street bank Jane, it was very rare banks would prosecute minor fraud, even against Staff members.
I would realistically have thought there to be a ceiling below which prosecution wouldn't be worth their while. They could cancel the 'fraudster's account and/or sack the employee.
-
Its a no brainier, of course they did.
I rather have the impression that everything's a no-brainer for you.
-
I would realistically have thought there to be a ceiling below which prosecution wouldn't be worth their while. They could cancel the 'fraudster's account and/or sack the employee.
Then I would say you're wrong. Realistically of course.
-
I would realistically have thought there to be a ceiling below which prosecution wouldn't be worth their while. They could cancel the 'fraudster's account and/or sack the employee.
Thats what happened Jane
-
Not sure what the big issue is.
The police probably advised Julie to go to the bank & pay the money back. Which she did do.
QC is getting carried away with his bias.again.
Except that's not what actually happened, is it, silly bum.
-
Thats what happened Jane
Were you there?
-
I rather have the impression that everything's a no-brainer for you.
And, Oh Father?
-
Were you there?
Here there and every where
-
Except that's not what actually happened, is it, silly bum.
What happened then?
Briefly please.
-
Stan the man struck a deal with Dovey and JM was granted immunity, so the episode never reached trial.
-
Stan the man struck a deal with Dovey and JM was granted immunity, so the episode never reached trial.
I would have thought immunity, but the DPP and Bank dropping charges, is that Immunity Lookout?
-
Where there's a will there's --always-- been a way in this case. You can't have a prosecuting witness in the stand who's committed fraud.
-
Where there's a will there's --always-- been a way in this case. You can't have a prosecuting witness in the stand who's committed fraud.
The Jury were told about the fraud Lookout
-
Where there's a will there's --always-- been a way in this case. You can't have a prosecuting witness in the stand who's committed fraud.
Exactly, but it's not just that Lookout. Remember, it was admitted that she had committed fraud and the trial judge misinformed the jury by telling them she had been cautioned for it. This, I think, is why the 2002 appeal court didn't take the point very seriously, because they took the view that the jury had already been given the worst case scenario regarding Julie Mugford's offending, a caution being the normal disposal for minor cheque offences, and since Julie Mugford's evidence depended on her believability, there was no prejudice to Jeremy Bamber.
The point they overlook is that there was a wider scope of considerations for the jury. It was not just whether she had committed dishonest acts in the past, but also whether she was entering into a deal with the police in which she was pressured to give certain evidence in return for various matters being dropped. When the judge misled the jury on this point, it was part of a narrative, which is continued by guilters on here, in which Julie Mugford's trial evidence is naively regarded as voluntary and spontaneous and the organic outcome of her own conscience, rather than something she was pressured into doing by Essex Police.
-
Exactly, but it's not just that Lookout. Remember, it was admitted that she had committed fraud and the trial judge misinformed the jury by telling them she had been cautioned for it. This, I think, is why the 2002 appeal court didn't take the point very seriously, because they took the view that the jury had already been given the worst case scenario regarding Julie Mugford's offending, a caution being the normal disposal for minor cheque offences, and since Julie Mugford's evidence depended on her believability, there was no prejudice to Jeremy Bamber.
The point they overlook is that there was a wider scope of considerations for the jury. It was not just whether she had committed dishonest acts in the past, but also whether she was entering into a deal with the police in which she was pressured to give certain evidence in return for various matters being dropped. When the judge misled the jury on this point, it was part of a narrative, which is continued by guilters on here, in which Julie Mugford's trial evidence is naively regarded as voluntary and spontaneous and the organic outcome of her own conscience, rather than something she was pressured into doing by Essex Police.
How did the police know about the CBF in order to pressure her in the first place? Unless she told them, they wouldn't have known.
-
How did the police know about the CBF in order to pressure her in the first place? Unless she told them, they wouldn't have known.
Thought Bamber told his lawyers.
-
Thought Bamber told his lawyers.
He would have done. They would have asked Julie if she was hiding any past I would have thought?
-
How did the police know about the CBF in order to pressure her in the first place? Unless she told them, they wouldn't have known.
I am willing to believe she volunteered this to police, but much depends on context. It's said that she was the one who went to the police, but this is not true. Even if we believe the official story, it remains the case that she was press-ganged after telling several people that Jeremy was a murderer.
She had already told Jeremy about the cheque offences. The police would have told her that she could be regarded as an accomplice to murder, and they demanded she tell them everything, so she did. Both she and the police will have anticipated that Jeremy and his defence would bring her offending up, so there was no point in pretending it hadn't happened.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=289.0
Julie is saying she volunteered the information to the police.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=289.0
Julie is saying she volunteered the information to the police.
The thing to bear in mind here is that, irrespective of whether Jeremy is guilty, he was already involved in unrelated criminal activity. This means he will have been coy with the police about his girlfriend, Julie, as some of what he was up to would have involved Julie or Julie would have known about it. This is why I am inclined to take the view that Julie did volunteer the cheque offences to the police, but there is a caveat I must add.
It could well be (I rather suspect it is the case) that Julie's criminality was much more extensive than has been admitted and the only reason we know about the cheque offences is because she happened to mention it to Jeremy and, for this reason, realised that she had to confess it to the police.
-
Doubt that Julie was involved in much other criminal activity.
She had to find time to pass her first degree and was in the process of doing her second - an honours degree.
-
Doubt that Julie was involved in much other criminal activity.
She had to find time to pass her first degree and was in the process of doing her second - an honours degree.
People studying for degrees don't commit crime. Except when they do, like Julie did.
Thanks Adam. I'm slowly getting there.
-
People studying for degrees don't commit crime. Except when they do, like Julie did.
Thanks Adam. I'm slowly getting there.
People doing two degrees have to spend time studying.
But look forward to you providing information on the other crimes you believe she did.
-
Julie told the police about the caravan break in, drug dealing & cheque book fraud.
The police would have advised her & Susan Battersby to approach the bank and pay the money back. Which they did do.
The bank decided not to prosecute.
All straight forward. As usual.
-
The thing to bear in mind here is that, irrespective of whether Jeremy is guilty, he was already involved in unrelated criminal activity. This means he will have been coy with the police about his girlfriend, Julie, as some of what he was up to would have involved Julie or Julie would have known about it. This is why I am inclined to take the view that Julie did volunteer the cheque offences to the police, but there is a caveat I must add.
It could well be (I rather suspect it is the case) that Julie's criminality was much more extensive than has been admitted and the only reason we know about the cheque offences is because she happened to mention it to Jeremy and, for this reason, realised that she had to confess it to the police.
She must have because they clearly knew about it when they interviewed Bamber, asking him about various items that she gave him from the proceeds.
-
People doing two degrees have to spend time studying.
But look forward to you providing information on the other crimes you believe she did.
I'm glad you look forward to my posts, Adam. Thanks.
She wasn't studying for two degrees at once, just one at a time, and she wasn't studying during the summer holidays.
-
Julie told the police about the caravan break in, drug dealing & cheque book fraud.
The police would have advised her & Susan Battersby to approach the bank and pay the money back. Which they did do.
The bank decided not to prosecute.
All straight forward. As usual.
Thanks Adam. Since it's all so straight-forward, I wonder why we have this discussion forum? I suppose some people just want to make it all complicated, when we should listen to you instead. Thanks.
-
Julie had already completed her WS by the time she mentioned the cheque book fraud.
So the police could not use this to pressurise her.
-
Julie had already completed her WS when by the time she mentioned the cheque book fraud.
So the police could not use this to pressurise her.
Thanks Adam. I wonder why she needed to spend so long at Essex Police HQ giving all those statements?
-
Thanks Adam. Since it's all so straight-forward, I wonder why we have this discussion forum? I suppose some people just want to make it all complicated, when we should listen to you instead. Thanks.
That would be a sensible approach.
Have you read any books on the case?
-
Thanks Adam. I wonder why she needed to spend so long at Essex Police HQ giving all those statements?
Had to be correct. It was a big very serious case. It takes time.
-
That would be a sensible approach.
Have you read any books on the case?
Never mind whether I have read any books on the case, YOU should write a book on it, Adam.
You could call it: "Adam's Big Book Of 86 Reasons Jeremy Did It".
-
Never mind whether I have read any books on the case, YOU should write a book on it, Adam.
You could call it: "Adam's Big Book Of 86 Reasons Jeremy Did It".
Most people have read at least one.
-
Most people have read at least one.
How about: "Adam's Jumbo Book of 500 Pieces Of Evidence: Proof That Jeremy Is The Killer".
You'd make a fortune!
-
Julie approached the police, retracted her original WS & said she was aware of his plans. She then brought up the caravan break in, her drug dealing & cheque book fraud (paying the money back).
The defence at trial said she did all this because she was (apparently) jilted.
-
Julie approached the police, retracted her original WS & said she was aware of his plans. She then brought up the caravan break in, her drug dealing & cheque book fraud (paying the money back).
The defence at trial said she did all this because she was (apparently) jilted.
She didn't.
-
She didn't.
Liz Rimmington rang Stan Jones. Julie was with her ready to talk to the police after confiding to 5 people.
-
Liz Rimmington rang Stan Jones. Julie was with her ready to talk to the police after confiding to 5 people.
Julie asked Liz to call on her behalf.
-
QC does confirm Bamber's guilt while trying to create his reasonable doubt. While simultaneously insulting other posters.
Coming up with new obstacles on my Bamber scemario, which were easily covered.
He then suggested Julie assisted Bamber more than she said she did & that Bamber was fit enough to jog to WHF & used the bike for scouting.
He's now accusing the bank manager of lying & that Julie committed more crimes than she mentioned. After she brought up her cheque book fraud and paid the money back.
-
There certainly appears to be a move afoot to compound Julie's minor crimes into something gargantuan. ie, the suggestion that there's more than meets the eye. The suggestion that she spent the holidays carrying out criminal acts.
If we look at the crimes she was involved in, out of three, Jeremy was involved in two. This leaves ONE, the cheque book fraud -which she didn't do alone- and she admitted to. It makes perfect sense that police wouldn't wish such to be revealed when she was on the witness stand, turning her from ther Crown's star witness to defence fodder.
-
QC does confirm Bamber's guilt while trying to create his reasonable doubt. While simultaneously insulting other posters.
Coming up with new obstacles on my Bamber scemario, which were easily covered.
He then suggested Julie assisted Bamber more than she said she did & that Bamber was fit enough to jog to WHF & used the bike for scouting.
He's now accusing the bank manager of lying & that Julie committed more crimes than she mentioned. After she brought up her cheque book fraud and paid the money back.
Dovey wasn't even the bank manager, he was an accountant at the Bank acting as the Branch Manager. So it’s the Accountant that QC is accusing of lying. A statement from Mr Dovey recording this visit was served upon the defence.
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."
-
Where there's a will there's --always-- been a way in this case. You can't have a prosecuting witness in the stand who's committed fraud.
Its here Lookout, the jury knew about the Cheque book fraud.
The jury knew about the admissions made to the police. They further knew that neither of the girls had been prosecuted for these offences. Julie Mugford told the jury that she had "got a caution for it". When the judge summed the case up to the jury, he referred to her receiving "a police caution". Mr Turner's submission is that the jury were misled by being told that she had received a "police caution", and that the prosecution were under a duty to correct this wrong impression.
334. It is undoubtedly correct that Julie Mugford had not received a formal police caution in the sense that that expression is clearly understood by police officers and lawyers. It may be that the trial judge in translating Miss Mugford's reference to a caution into a formal police caution had misunderstood the position. However it seems unlikely to us that the jury would have understood the significance of a formal police caution as opposed to any other warning as to her future behaviour.
335. However, whether or not the jury understood the legal distinction of a formal police caution, we fail to see how this could have had any possible impact upon their considerations. What mattered in assessing the weight to be given to the witness's evidence was their own admitted dishonesty, and how they had behaved in relation to such dishonesty, not how the authorities had responded to their admissions. Any failure to correct the judge's reference to a formal police caution cannot be laid at the door of the police since the position was clearly understood by the lawyers and hence such a failure could not in any way taint the evidence of the police officers involved in the inquiry.
Sometimes it works in favour of the accused, he can have a past that the Jury don’t get to hear about, he could be a sex offender and the Jury wouldn't always get to hear about it?
-
Exactly, but it's not just that Lookout. Remember, it was admitted that she had committed fraud and the trial judge misinformed the jury by telling them she had been cautioned for it. This, I think, is why the 2002 appeal court didn't take the point very seriously, because they took the view that the jury had already been given the worst case scenario regarding Julie Mugford's offending, a caution being the normal disposal for minor cheque offences, and since Julie Mugford's evidence depended on her believability, there was no prejudice to Jeremy Bamber.
The point they overlook is that there was a wider scope of considerations for the jury. It was not just whether she had committed dishonest acts in the past, but also whether she was entering into a deal with the police in which she was pressured to give certain evidence in return for various matters being dropped. When the judge misled the jury on this point, it was part of a narrative, which is continued by guilters on here, in which Julie Mugford's trial evidence is naively regarded as voluntary and spontaneous and the organic outcome of her own conscience, rather than something she was pressured into doing by Essex Police.
How was she pressured into giving evidence, she offered this information after,
In order to consider these allegations it is necessary to look in more detail at what occurred. Julie Mugford went to the police on 7 September 1985 and gave them the account which she was to repeat in evidence. She made a detailed statement on the following two days, 8 and 9 September. On 10 September she made a further statement. In the course of the taking of that statement, she spoke about smoking cannabis that the appellant had purchased. She then spoke of other things that she suggested the appellant had done and she went on to say:
"I would like to tell you about the burglary I committed with Jeremy."
338. At that point she was cautioned and told that she did not have to say anything but she went on to give the police details of that burglary. Having dealt with that matter, she then revealed that she had also committed the cheque fraud with Susan Battersby.
-
Its here Lookout, the jury knew about the Cheque book fraud.
The jury knew about the admissions made to the police. They further knew that neither of the girls had been prosecuted for these offences. Julie Mugford told the jury that she had "got a caution for it". When the judge summed the case up to the jury, he referred to her receiving "a police caution". Mr Turner's submission is that the jury were misled by being told that she had received a "police caution", and that the prosecution were under a duty to correct this wrong impression.
334. It is undoubtedly correct that Julie Mugford had not received a formal police caution in the sense that that expression is clearly understood by police officers and lawyers. It may be that the trial judge in translating Miss Mugford's reference to a caution into a formal police caution had misunderstood the position. However it seems unlikely to us that the jury would have understood the significance of a formal police caution as opposed to any other warning as to her future behaviour.
335. However, whether or not the jury understood the legal distinction of a formal police caution, we fail to see how this could have had any possible impact upon their considerations. What mattered in assessing the weight to be given to the witness's evidence was their own admitted dishonesty, and how they had behaved in relation to such dishonesty, not how the authorities had responded to their admissions. Any failure to correct the judge's reference to a formal police caution cannot be laid at the door of the police since the position was clearly understood by the lawyers and hence such a failure could not in any way taint the evidence of the police officers involved in the inquiry.
Sometimes it works in favour of the accused, he can have a past that the Jury don’t get to hear about, he could be a sex offender and the Jury wouldn't always get to hear about it?
Well, if we want hypocrisy look no further. A sex offender's past crimes can't be revealed because it could be prejudicial to the verdict against them, but a witness's past crimes have to be laid open with i's dotted and t's crossed. So what if subsequent prejudice against them allows the guilty to go free?
-
Well, if we want hypocracy look no further. A sex offender's past crimes can't be revealed because it could be prejudicial to the verdict against them, but a witness's past crimes have to be laid open with i's dotted and t's crossed. So what if subsequent prejudice against them allows the guilty to go free?
Yep, that’s how the Law works Jane.
If we look at the Accountant, not even a Branch Manager, he had the Authority to decide whether to press charges or not, so what possible pressure could the police have put him under? Shut the Bank down, Do him for opening after time, check his books, or a Shot in the Dark 😂😂😂😂
-
The thing to bear in mind here is that, irrespective of whether Jeremy is guilty, he was already involved in unrelated criminal activity. This means he will have been coy with the police about his girlfriend, Julie, as some of what he was up to would have involved Julie or Julie would have known about it. This is why I am inclined to take the view that Julie did volunteer the cheque offences to the police, but there is a caveat I must add.
It could well be (I rather suspect it is the case) that Julie's criminality was much more extensive than has been admitted and the only reason we know about the cheque offences is because she happened to mention it to Jeremy and, for this reason, realised that she had to confess it to the police.
QC suggests Julie had more crimes behind her, I don’t think she had, she would have told Jeremy all about her past, he wouldn’t be bothered one bit, not only that, the police would have told her under no uncertain terms, she tells everything or the case would collapse. Any other person who new Julie had a past criminal activity would have come forward, I would say this information would be worth a fortune especially against Julie.
-
QC suggests Julie had more crimes behind her, I don’t think she had, she would have told Jeremy all about her past, he wouldn’t be bothered one bit, not only that, the police would have told her under no uncertain terms, she tells everything or the case would collapse. Any other person who new Julie had a past criminal activity would have come forward, I would say this information would be worth a fortune especially against Julie.
Vic, the former spokesperson for the family expressed the opinion that they (Jeremy and Julie) were up to all sorts. I believe this was in the context of petty criminal activity. He did not go in to detail.
-
Vic, the former spokesperson for the family expressed that they (Jeremy and Julie) were up to all sorts. I believe this was in the context of petty criminal activity.
Like I said, if it was there it would have been used, I couldn’t see Bamber and the CT keeping quite on this? I’m not suggesting Julie is whiter than white and to be honest I’m no fan, but with the mud Bamber and the CT sling, I’m sure something would have been said? Depends what and how one see’s petty i suppose? Of little importance?
-
Vic, the former spokesperson for the family expressed the opinion that they (Jeremy and Julie) were up to all sorts. I believe this was in the context of petty criminal activity. He did not go in to detail.
Which rather fits with Ann's claim that "Jeremy did other things". She didn't go into detail, either.
-
Like I said, if it was there it would have been used, I couldn’t see Bamber and the CT keeping quite on this? I’m not suggesting Julie is whiter than white and to be honest I’m no fan, but with the mud Bamber and the CT sling, I’m sure something would have been said? Depends what and how one see’s petty i suppose? Of little importance?
I agree. I just think there's an attempt afoot to blacken Julie's name further. It has to sicken some that her misdemeanours have been revealed. They can't hang any of those over her head, so they hint that there are more.
-
Which rather fits with Ann's claim that "Jeremy did other things". She didn't go into detail, either.
Yes Ann seemed to be an 'expert' on anything potentially damning towards Jeremy. Certainly showed dedication or as Lookout might say 'gumption'.
-
Yes Ann seemed to be an 'expert' on anything potentially damning towards Jeremy. Certainly showed dedication or as Lookout might say 'gumption'.
Then why say anything at all, Roch? I'd get it if she'd listed his misdeads, but just telling a group of friends that he'd done "other things" is hardly damning in the light of what he was convicted of.
-
I agree. I just think there's an attempt afoot to blacken Julie's name further. It has to sicken some that her misdemeanours have been revealed. They can't hang any of those over her head, so they hint that there are more.
Ha Ha it’s laughable really, getting up to all sorts when I was younger would make me and most of the public career criminals 😂😂😂. Nah, they can’t be anything serious or damaging there Jane, else that Canary would have squealed.
-
Then why say anything at all, Roch? I'd get it if she'd listed his misdeads, but just telling a group of friends that he'd done "other things" is hardly damning in the light of what he was convicted of.
If I recollect it correctly, I interpreted what Vic was saying as the family regarded Jeremy and Julie to be up to all sorts, a kind of petty crime wave.
-
I agree. I just think there's an attempt afoot to blacken Julie's name further. It has to sicken some that her misdemeanours have been revealed. They can't hang any of those over her head, so they hint that there are more.
To be fair, the attempt to blacken Julie's name further has only been going on for 35 years.
-
QC suggests Julie had more crimes behind her, I don’t think she had, she would have told Jeremy all about her past, he wouldn’t be bothered one bit, not only that, the police would have told her under no uncertain terms, she tells everything or the case would collapse. Any other person who new Julie had a past criminal activity would have come forward, I would say this information would be worth a fortune especially against Julie.
QC has no source. But suggest this as she told the police about the 3 crimes people know about.
Julie would have told the police about anything else. Knowing Bamber or someone else might otherwise bring it up.
-
QC has no source. But suggest this as she told the police about the 3 crimes people know about.
Julie would have told the police about anything else. Knowing Bamber or someone else might otherwise bring it up.
Thanks Adam. You must be right. We can trust Julie. Thanks.
-
Yes Ann seemed to be an 'expert' on anything potentially damning towards Jeremy. Certainly showed dedication or as Lookout might say 'gumption'.
And I would be the same if he trashed and Robbed part of a Buisness I was a director of.
-
How did the police know about the CBF in order to pressure her in the first place? Unless she told them, they wouldn't have known.
It would have been SJ who'd told the rest of his squad to " keep it under their hat "----the fact that there had been a deal struck for her to stand prosecution witness so eliminating any further details on the matter. SJ was a cunning individual. Not a character I'd have trusted.
-
Its here Lookout, the jury knew about the Cheque book fraud.
The jury knew about the admissions made to the police. They further knew that neither of the girls had been prosecuted for these offences. Julie Mugford told the jury that she had "got a caution for it". When the judge summed the case up to the jury, he referred to her receiving "a police caution". Mr Turner's submission is that the jury were misled by being told that she had received a "police caution", and that the prosecution were under a duty to correct this wrong impression.
334. It is undoubtedly correct that Julie Mugford had not received a formal police caution in the sense that that expression is clearly understood by police officers and lawyers. It may be that the trial judge in translating Miss Mugford's reference to a caution into a formal police caution had misunderstood the position. However it seems unlikely to us that the jury would have understood the significance of a formal police caution as opposed to any other warning as to her future behaviour.
335. However, whether or not the jury understood the legal distinction of a formal police caution, we fail to see how this could have had any possible impact upon their considerations. What mattered in assessing the weight to be given to the witness's evidence was their own admitted dishonesty, and how they had behaved in relation to such dishonesty, not how the authorities had responded to their admissions. Any failure to correct the judge's reference to a formal police caution cannot be laid at the door of the police since the position was clearly understood by the lawyers and hence such a failure could not in any way taint the evidence of the police officers involved in the inquiry.
Sometimes it works in favour of the accused, he can have a past that the Jury don’t get to hear about, he could be a sex offender and the Jury wouldn't always get to hear about it?
Yes,RJ but what a pity the jury hadn't known the full story of what SJ had in mind.
-
Julie had already completed her WS by the time she mentioned the cheque book fraud.
So the police could not use this to pressurise her.
Pity Jeremy hadn't been afforded 32 visits to have written his side of the sorry saga. Instead, he'd have been pressurised into a confession for something he clearly didn't do but wasn't given a chance. He knew nothing and neither did his defence team.
-
Which rather fits with Ann's claim that "Jeremy did other things". She didn't go into detail, either.
Most unusual for AE, I wonder why ?
-
And I would be the same if he trashed and Robbed part of a Buisness I was a director of.
Not forgetting that Julie was keeping tabs RJ. Accessory to his petty crimes ? There's a young man in prison for being with those who murdered Gary Newlove---and he was only the driver ? Didn't know someone was going to be murdered, but he was sent to jail all the same.
-
Not forgetting that Julie was keeping tabs RJ. Accessory to his petty crimes ? There's a young man in prison for being with those who murdered Gary Newlove---and he was only the driver ? Didn't know someone was going to be murdered, but he was sent to jail all the same.
But isn't that what people would have loved to have seen in respect to Julie Mugford?
-
But isn't that what people would have loved to have seen in respect to Julie Mugford?
So for JM it was a silly petty crime worth dismissing. For Jeremy it was a hanging offence.
-
To be fair, the attempt to blacken Julie's name further has only been going on for 35 years.
Yes Adam. You're right. I guess they have to keep trying.
-
QC has no source. But suggest this as she told the police about the 3 crimes people know about.
Julie would have told the police about anything else. Knowing Bamber or someone else might otherwise bring it up.
I imagine, once it was impressed on her what could happen if she withheld any misdemeanour, she'd have told them she'd once managed to slip into a public loo without paying the proverbial penny to gain entrance.
-
Yes Adam. You're right. I guess they have to keep trying.
Yours, and Adam's posts here, misrepresent some JB supporters. It has been said that Julie was placed in an impossible position by police and that her 'cooperation' came about as a result of that coercion. She is in those circs, a victim of EP and the relatives - who incidentally are 'no fan' of hers.
-
Not forgetting that Julie was keeping tabs RJ. Accessory to his petty crimes ? There's a young man in prison for being with those who murdered Gary Newlove---and he was only the driver ? Didn't know someone was going to be murdered, but he was sent to jail all the same.
"......and he was only the driver" implies you to believe he shouldn't be in prison because he "Didn't know someone was going to be murdered..........." Yet you seem to emphatically believe Julie should be in prison even though she wasn't there. Is there to be a completely different set of rules specifically for Julie?
-
Yours, and Adam's posts here, misrepresent some JB supporters. It has been said that Julie was placed in an impossible position by police and that her 'cooperation' came about as a result of that coercion. She is in those circs, a victim of EP and the relatives - who incidentally are 'no fan' of hers.
Roch, I suspect you're the only one of Jeremy's defenders to extend such sympathy to Julie.
-
Not forgetting that Julie was keeping tabs RJ. Accessory to his petty crimes ? There's a young man in prison for being with those who murdered Gary Newlove---and he was only the driver ? Didn't know someone was going to be murdered, but he was sent to jail all the same.
I agree Lookout and as I’ve said before, I’m no Julie fan, she knew a lot and in my eyes she’s no angel, but ( I don’t think it would happen now) i would say the police depended on this sort of information and conviction, more than they do now.
-
Roch, I suspect you're the only one of Jeremy's defenders to extend such sympathy to Julie.
Bambergate did, who incidentally, originally posted as 'Ron Crook'. I believe he favoured Ron's involvement in some of the EP chicanery.
-
Bambergate did, who incidentally, originally posted as 'Ron Crook'. I believe he favoured Ron's involvement in some of the EP chicanery.
There must be balance in all things. Nothing is entirely one thing or another. An old and evangelical saying reminds us that even the devil has his good points.
-
Yours, and Adam's posts here, misrepresent some JB supporters. It has been said that Julie was placed in an impossible position by police and that her 'cooperation' came about as a result of that coercion. She is in those circs, a victim of EP and the relatives - who incidentally are 'no fan' of hers.
Surly supporters represent themselves? However, I'm willing to consider the notion that Julie was 'coerced' but the evidence shows she offered up the information about incidents like the CBF. The police couldn't have known unless she or Bamber told them and as Bamber was questioned about the items she gave him as a result of the CBF it proves she told them. Witnesses such as Malcolm Waters and Liz Rimington and confirm that Julie approached the police, not the other way around. If there is evidence to show Julie was approached by the police and coerced, then post it, otherwise the claim doesn't mean anything
-
Bambergate did, who incidentally, originally posted as 'Ron Crook'. I believe he favoured Ron's involvement in some of the EP chicanery.
Yes, Bambergate - have you seen him video on Youtube? :-\
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcaWYr3O3eE
Personally, I think it's embarrassing!
-
Yep, that’s how the Law works Jane.
If we look at the Accountant, not even a Branch Manager, he had the Authority to decide whether to press charges or not, so what possible pressure could the police have put him under? Shut the Bank down, Do him for opening after time, check his books, or a Shot in the Dark 😂😂😂😂
I said the bank may have been influenced or pressured; I did not say forced.
Discussing this with you is like conducting a criminal trial by only listening to the prosecution. Or, as I ventured before, debating the merits of a house with an estate agent who's on commission, and with the seller listening in.
You're only interested in half the story: the half that favours your view.
-
"......and he was only the driver" implies you to believe he shouldn't be in prison because he "Didn't know someone was going to be murdered..........." Yet you seem to emphatically believe Julie should be in prison even though she wasn't there. Is there to be a completely different set of rules specifically for Julie?
I didn't say that Julie should be in prison I intimated the difference in being an accessory when she'd accompanied Jeremy in the theft from the office and " other things " which AE didn't mention.
And yes, in this case there were different rules when you compare other cases. Maybe a few £thousand fine out of her £25,000 ? But they wouldn't have done that would they for fear the prosecution plan would have gone t*ts-up ?
-
I said the bank may have been influenced or pressured; I did not say forced.
Discussing this with you is like conducting a criminal trial by only listening to the prosecution. Or, as I ventured before, debating the merits of a house with an estate agent who's on commission, and with the seller listening in.
You're only interested in half the story: the half that favours your view.
Keep your Belt on, I’m saying pressured same as you. Where do I use the word FORCED? You don’t have to discuss anything with me, I’d rather you didn’t, your only defence is, to either get personal or to use foul language.
-
I didn't say that Julie should be in prison I intimated the difference in being an accessory when she'd accompanied Jeremy in the theft from the office and " other things " which AE didn't mention.
And yes, in this case there were different rules when you compare other cases. Maybe a few £thousand fine out of her £25,000 ? But they wouldn't have done that would they for fear the prosecution plan would have gone t*ts-up ?
Well, just out of interest, Lookout, how would you have dealt with her? She didn't have £25000 when she stood in the witness box, nor were there any guarantees which way the verdict would go.
-
Keep your Belt on, I’m saying pressured same as you. Where do I use the word FORCED? You don’t have to discuss anything with me, I’d rather you didn’t, your only defence is, to either get personal or to use foul language.
Again, you clearly implied something, and then when I challenge you about it, you fall back on the extremely disingenuous defence that you didn't actually say it.
You should probably be working in the PR department of Essex Police. I'm sure they'd have an opening for somebody like you.
Certainly I agree that you and I would be better off ignoring each other, but you're the one who seems to jump in and respond to my posts. I do also find your arrogance annoying, with the 'laughing' emoticons, in effect making fun of valid points and twisting what people say in the process. It doesn't endear you to me, and I'm sure others take umbrage.
At least you've stopped using Australian intonation. That's a plus point, I suppose. You were starting to sound like Charlene from Neighbours.
-
Again, you clearly implied something, and then when I challenge you about it, you fall back on the extremely disingenuous defence that you didn't actually say it.
You should probably be working in the PR department of Essex Police. I'm sure they'd have an opening for somebody like you.
Certainly I agree that you and I would be better off ignoring each other, but you're the one who seems to jump in and respond to my posts. I do also find your arrogance annoying, with the 'laughing' emoticons, in effect making fun of valid points and twisting what people say in the process. It doesn't endear you to me, and I'm sure others take umbrage.
At least you've stopped using Australian intonation. That's a plus point, I suppose. You were starting to sound like Charlene from Neighbours.
Yes, my time spent with Essex Police was valid, although I ribbed them about the Bamber case, I still enjoyed my experience. Pot calling the kettle black is a great way of putting it 😂😂😂
-
Well, just out of interest, Lookout, how would you have dealt with her? She didn't have £25000 when she stood in the witness box, nor were there any guarantees which way the verdict would go.
I'd have fined her because she'd been a willing participant and benefitted from however much was stolen, as besides it being a " blot on her copybook " it might have shown her that acting that way doesn't pay to which if she'd have had anything about her she'd have then decided if this was the type of life she'd wanted. In other words, it would have been her decision in carrying on with her involvement with JB.
-
I'm fully aware that there was no money until after the conviction, but I wonder how she'd have felt parting with a quarter of it for her trouble ?
-
I'd have fined her because she'd been a willing participant and benefitted from however much was stolen, as besides it being a " blot on her copybook " it might have shown her that acting that way doesn't pay to which if she'd have had anything about her she'd have then decided if this was the type of life she'd wanted. In other words, it would have been her decision in carrying on with her involvement with JB.
How could you fine Julie for a crime Jeremy committed -and had nothing to do with the murders- but wasn't taken to court over?
-
How could you fine Julie for a crime Jeremy committed -and had nothing to do with the murders- but wasn't taken to court over?
Julie was at the scene when the office crime was committed. I wasn't talking about the murders.
-
Julie was at the scene when the office crime was committed. I wasn't talking about the murders.
But Jeremy wasn't charged with it! Jeremy wasn't sentenced for it? It wasn't included in the length of the murder sentence. Why should Julie have paid for his crime? However, my question was about the murders, and how you'd have liked to see her treated if, as you claim, she was an accessory?
-
But Jeremy wasn't charged with it! Jeremy wasn't sentenced for it? It wasn't included in the length of the murder sentence. Why should Julie have paid for his crime? However, my question was about the murders, and how you'd have liked to see her treated if, as you claim, she was an accessory?
Because, it would have seemed, she knew he was the murderer yet continued to sleep with him ? Would any other woman, knowing that ? He'd allegedly told her often enough over the months " his plans " but she never went near a police station nor did she tell anyone-----that all came out after he dumped her !
An accessory in this case because she'd known what his plans were and offered no protection to the family so yes, a sentence would have been in order the same as anyone else would have been sentenced.
-
Because, it would have seemed, she knew he was the murderer yet continued to sleep with him ? Would any other woman, knowing that ? He'd allegedly told her often enough over the months " his plans " but she never went near a police station nor did she tell anyone-----that all came out after he dumped her !
An accessory in this case because she'd known what his plans were and offered no protection to the family so yes, a sentence would have been in order the same as anyone else would have been sentenced.
But the murders are an entirely different matter. At least you're now saying that you'd have liked her to have been sentenced, even though, at the beginning you denied it. You wanted to see her fined for the part she played in the robbery -even though Jeremy was never charged with it so effectively he got off Scott free- so it stands to reason you'd want her charged.
-
But the murders are an entirely different matter. At least you're now saying that you'd have liked her to have been sentenced, even though, at the beginning you denied it. You wanted to see her fined for the part she played in the robbery -even though Jeremy was never charged with it so effectively he got off Scott free- so it stands to reason you'd want her charged.
Jeremy would have had the robbery inadvertently added to the murders as an offence having been previously committed.
-
Jeremy would have had the robbery inadvertently added to the murders as an offence having been previously committed.
I don't recall anything being said about a robbery in the sentencing, and the term of the sentence said nothing about a concurrent sentence for the robbery.
-
It couldn't be hard for Bamber to find out about human back splatter. Or that the rifle he intended to leave on Sheila, would be too long for her to reach the trigger with the silencer on. He already knew about guns and it would just take a bit of reading.
He put the silencer away so certainly knew the rifle was too long for Sheila with the silencer on. Either beforehand or realising at the time. But did he know about back splatter beforehand ?
He had to use the silencer. As my video showed, it greatly increased his chance to commit a silent, clinical and quick execution.
People say Bamber could have just left the silencer next to Sheila. But then that's leaving an open goal for the police. They would still get suspicious and would routinely check the silencer. Finding Sheila's blood on it, would mean Bamber would have no where to go.
He could have thrown away the silencer away from WHF. But to him, putting it in a box, underneath other boxes, dartboards and other guns, at the back of the gun cupboard was virtually throwing it away. He didn't believe the police would check inside every box inside WHF. And they didn't.
The thing he didn't legislate for, was the relatives being very suspicious, getting access to WHF and carrying out a big search. This happened, and the silencer was tested. As other forensic and circumstantial evidence emerged and Julie came forward, Bamber's 'watertight' plan started to leak.
Do other people believe Bamber knew about back splatter and the rifle being too long beforehand ?
Thanks Adam.
I agree Jeremy probably knew about backspatter beforehand, which is why:
(i). He probably didn't use the silencer.
(ii). The possibility that the relatives planted blood in the silencer is plausible, since they had at least as much knowledge about guns as Jeremy did.
Thanks Adam.
-
I don't recall anything being said about a robbery in the sentencing, and the term of the sentence said nothing about a concurrent sentence for the robbery.
It would have been there with the list of offences.
-
It would have been there with the list of offences.
Then it would have been bought up in court as being what he was charged with.
-
Thanks Adam.
I agree Jeremy probably knew about backspatter beforehand, which is why:
(i). He probably didn't use the silencer.
(ii). The possibility that the relatives planted blood in the silencer is plausible, since they had at least as much knowledge about guns as Jeremy did.
Thanks Adam.
But still managed to kill five innocent people.
-
But still managed to kill five innocent people.
You say, 100% certain you are too. Impressive. Just like you were once 100% certain he was innocent.
-
You say, 100% certain you are too. Impressive. Just like you were once 100% certain he was innocent.
Yep, then I wrote to him and asked him questions for myself. I guess sitting on the fence is always a safe place - mind you don't get splinters!
-
Yep, then I wrote to him and asked him questions for myself. I guess sitting on the fence is always a safe place - mind you don't get splinters!
Thanks Caroline. That sounds like a good basis to switch from 100% innocent to 100% guilty. Jeremy not answering your questions. He must be guilty. I can see why you're 100% sure.
-
Thanks Caroline. That sounds like a good basis to switch from 100% innocent to 100% guilty. Jeremy not answering your questions. He must be guilty. I can see why you're 100% sure.
Oh, you're very welcome QC - anytime! Odd that you also think he's guilty but would be happy for him to walk. So kind of you, I am sure he appreciates it. Alway good to welcome a fence sitter that fights his corner!!
-
Oh, you're very welcome QC - anytime! Odd that you also think he's guilty but would be happy for him to walk. So kind of you, I am sure he appreciates it. Alway good to welcome a fence sitter that fights his corner!!
Thanks Caroline. Every time you post, you confirm my impression of you: as somebody who has a need to take a side, it doesn't matter which, as long as you can be a member of a tribe and hurl contempt and vitriol at the 'other side'. You allow yourself one heterodoxy: that the silencer wasn't used, yet you still think he should stay in prison because, after all, you know he is guilty. You are 100% sure. How you can be so sure is a mystery.
I'm not a 'fence sitter'. That's just a term of abuse for somebody who thinks. In this case, we don't know the truth. Jeremy Bamber possibly does, but if he is innocent, then even he doesn't necessarily know. That being the case, I start from the presumption of innocence. I acknowledge that there is evidence pointing to Jeremy and I personally think him to be guilty, but the law requires the case to be proved - for a number of good reasons - and besides, I just don't know and I am humble enough to admit it.
It's honest and decent to admit that you don't know and look honestly and objectively at evidence, instead of going round pretending you know things you don't and sneering at people who are honest enough to accept their limitations and ask questions.
-
Thanks Adam.
I agree Jeremy probably knew about backspatter beforehand, which is why:
(i). He probably didn't use the silencer.
(ii). The possibility that the relatives planted blood in the silencer is plausible, since they had at least as much knowledge about guns as Jeremy did.
Thanks Adam.
Wow. You are post searching.
That is a valid point. If he knew about back splatter beforehand, he may have disposed of or ran the silencer under the tap before putting it away. Sheila had received a contact shot in area with high blood flow.
Then again it was a low powered rifle & he was not expecting the police to check the silencers. And they didn't.
He may have known about the rifle lenght beforehand. But still decided to use the silencer. For obvious reasons.
-
Thanks Caroline. Every time you post, you confirm my impression of you: as somebody who has a need to take a side, it doesn't matter which, as long as you can be a member of a tribe and hurl contempt and vitriol at the 'other side'. You allow yourself one heterodoxy: that the silencer wasn't used, yet you still think he should stay in prison because, after all, you know he is guilty. You are 100% sure. How you can be so sure is a mystery.
I'm not a 'fence sitter'. That's just a term of abuse for somebody who thinks. In this case, we don't know the truth. Jeremy Bamber possibly does, but if he is innocent, then even he doesn't necessarily know. That being the case, I start from the presumption of innocence. I acknowledge that there is evidence pointing to Jeremy and I personally think him to be guilty, but the law requires the case to be proved - for a number of good reasons - and besides, I just don't know and I am humble enough to admit it.
It's honest and decent to admit that you don't know and look honestly and objectively at evidence, instead of going round pretending you know things you don't and sneering at people who are honest enough to accept their limitations and ask questions.
That is what I call a perfect post, spot on with your observations and you have only been here 5 minutes
-
Wow. You are post searching.
That is a valid point. If he knew about back splatter beforehand, he may have disposed of or ran the silencer under the tap before putting it away. Sheila had received a contact shot in area with high blood flow.
Then again it was a low powered rifle & he was not expecting the police to check the silencers. And they didn't.
He may have known about the rifle lenght beforehand. But still decided to use the silencer. For obvious reasons.
That must be it. Thanks Adam.
-
Thinking more about it. Back splatter was not something Bamber would need to know about or would find out about in his life at WHF.
Seems he occasionally fired a low powered rifle if he saw rabbits & went on a shooting party years earlier. None of these shots would be contact shots.
So it would not be something he considered when firing one contact shot into Sheila with a rifle used for shooting rabbits.
-
Thinking more about it. Back splatter was not something Bamber would need to know about or would find out about in his life at WHF.
Seems he occasionally fired a low powered rifle if he saw rabbits & went on a shooting party years earlier. None of these shots would be contact shots.
So it would not be something he considered when firing one contact shot into Sheila with a rifle used for shooting rabbits.
Thanks Adam. I suppose this means you've been wrong all along and the relatives wouldn't need to know about backspatter either in order to plant blood in the silencer.
Nice one Adam. Thanks.
-
Thanks Caroline. Every time you post, you confirm my impression of you: as somebody who has a need to take a side, it doesn't matter which, as long as you can be a member of a tribe and hurl contempt and vitriol at the 'other side'. You allow yourself one heterodoxy: that the silencer wasn't used, yet you still think he should stay in prison because, after all, you know he is guilty. You are 100% sure. How you can be so sure is a mystery.
I'm not a 'fence sitter'. That's just a term of abuse for somebody who thinks. In this case, we don't know the truth. Jeremy Bamber possibly does, but if he is innocent, then even he doesn't necessarily know. That being the case, I start from the presumption of innocence. I acknowledge that there is evidence pointing to Jeremy and I personally think him to be guilty, but the law requires the case to be proved - for a number of good reasons - and besides, I just don't know and I am humble enough to admit it.
It's honest and decent to admit that you don't know and look honestly and objectively at evidence, instead of going round pretending you know things you don't and sneering at people who are honest enough to accept their limitations and ask questions.
QC? You impression of me means squat. You don't know. I am sure my impression of you would meet with the same disdain. Lets just stick to discussing the case.
-
QC? You impression of me means squat. You don't know. I am sure my impression of you would meet with the same disdain. Lets just stick to discussing the case.
Game, set and match.
-
Thanks Adam. I suppose this means you've been wrong all along and the relatives wouldn't need to know about backspatter either in order to plant blood in the silencer.
Nice one Adam. Thanks.
The relatives would need to know about back splatter. And a lot more. I will re post.
-
The relatives would need to know -
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Different positions Sheila could have shot herself.
What back splatter is.
Who received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on everyone.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Where was Sheila's blood.
Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
----------
I
-
If similar to Bamber, they were unlikely to know about back splatter, then they couldn't attempt the frame.
-
The relatives would need to know -
Sheila's arm lenght.
The rifle lenght with silencer.
Different positions Sheila could have shot herself.
What back splatter is.
Who received contact shots.
What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.
Where were the contact shots on everyone.
Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.
How to realistically put blood into a silencer.
Where was Sheila's blood.
Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.
Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.
The chance of this getting a conviction.
The punishment if caught doing this.
----------
I
Gish-gallop goop, beep-bop-beep. Thanks Adam.
-
Game, set and match.
Thanks!
-
Regarding back splatter alone, the relatives would need to know -
About back splatter.
Have the idea.
Know who received a contact shot.
Know where people received a contact shot.
Know whether the rifle nozzle had back splatter.
How to insert back splatter.
How to get Sheila's blood.
Know if the silencers had already been looked at.
Know whether there was a silencer on the weapon on top of Sheila.
Know whether Sheils could shoot herself with silencer attached.
----------
Obviously there was no possibilty of any of those happening.
-
Regarding back splatter alone, the relatives would need to know -
About back splatter.
Have the idea.
Know who received a contact shot.
Know where people received a contact shot.
Know whether the rifle nozzle had back splatter.
How to insert back splatter.
How to get Sheila's blood.
Know if the silencers had already been looked at.
Know whether there was a silencer on the weapon on top of Sheila.
Know whether Sheils could shoot herself with silencer attached.
----------
Obviously there was no possibilty of any of those happening.
Beep-bop-beep, gish gallop. Thanks Computer Adam.
Q. Is Adam a regular computer or an android sent from the future?
-
Thanks!
Thanks! You're the greatest Caroline! I think we should start calling you Caroline 100, because you're 100% about everything.
-
If we take this part of it QC, coming from Susan,
339. Susan Battersby was also being interviewed on the same day and at the same time and she independently admitted the cheque book fraud to the police. She made a written statement to the police under caution. That statement commenced by expressing her belief that she would not be taken before the court as a result of making the statement.
The defence have this information, you’ve got Susan saying it was her belief that she wouldn’t be taken to court, not mentioning any caution ect
Yet Julie whether mistakingly or on purpose says she got cautioned, surely alarm bells should have rang somewhere, why did Julie receive a caution and Susan didn’t?
The defence had all this information, maybe they didn’t think it was a problem or maybe they missed it? Surely as a defence you would have everything about Julie’s police record?
-
Thanks! You're the greatest Caroline! I think we should start calling you Caroline 100, because you're 100% about everything.
Well if you think so QC, but I'm not 100% about everything. Not that I would want to contradict you! I'm not even sure if that's allowed? I'll go with whatever you think is right.
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/019498072bb355c4f1d7538630b9c03e/tenor.gif?itemid=8499182)
-
If we take this part of it QC, coming from Susan,
339. Susan Battersby was also being interviewed on the same day and at the same time and she independently admitted the cheque book fraud to the police. She made a written statement to the police under caution. That statement commenced by expressing her belief that she would not be taken before the court as a result of making the statement.
The defence have this information, you’ve got Susan saying it was her belief that she wouldn’t be taken to court, not mentioning any caution ect
Yet Julie whether mistakingly or on purpose says she got cautioned, surely alarm bells should have rang somewhere, why did Julie receive a caution and Susan didn’t?
The defence had all this information, maybe they didn’t think it was a problem or maybe they missed it? Surely as a defence you would have everything about Julie’s police record?
As I understand it, the defence never pushed or questioned Susan about the Cheque Book fraud, which I find very very odd, all she was asked about was the timings of the Calls. WHAT, here is a chance to discredit a witness, yet they gave her an easy ride?
-
Yep, then I wrote to him and asked him questions for myself. I guess sitting on the fence is always a safe place - mind you don't get splinters!
Just to let you all know that I received a letter from Jeremy today and he said that he mentioned 'no amount' when asking about the wallet. He said he doesn't remember the incident that well but that he is sure he didn't mention an amount. I am happy that he has now answered and accept his reply. It's now a case of Jeremy's word against AE's
-
You have a point QC or as usual are you just looking for an argument? By the way when I said it was his word against AE - I believe AE because in a separate letter when he had forgotten all about me asking the question in the first place - he told me all about looking for the wallet and how AE was 'buzzing' when he was unable to find it - so so much for not remembering the event.
Yes, I asked many questions, that being one of them - the answer came 2 years later when I had to ask again.
-
You have a point QC or as usual are you just looking for an argument? By the way when I said it was his word against AE - I believe AE because in a separate letter when he had forgotten all about me asking the question in the first place - he told me all about looking for the wallet and how AE was 'buzzing' when he was unable to find it - so so much for not remembering the event.
Yes, I asked many questions, that being one of them - the answer came 2 years later when I had to ask again.
Perhaps post up redacted copies of both letters? We can then make our own judgement about it. I doubt Jeremy could object to publishing the letters on copyright grounds. As long as you post up only the relevant parts for the purposes of discussion, it's fair dealing. He also can't object on the basis of some moral right to privacy. He's a convicted prisoner who protests his innocence: it's a matter of public interest.
-
Perhaps post up redacted copies of both letters? We can then make our own judgement about it. I doubt Jeremy could object to publishing the letters on copyright grounds. As long as you post up only the relevant parts for the purposes of discussion, it's fair dealing. He also can't object on the basis of some moral right to privacy. He's a convicted prisoner who protests his innocence: it's a matter of public interest.
I have posted letters here before and it led to the usual BS, so I won't be posting them here again.
-
I have posted letters here before and it led to the usual BS, so I won't be posting them here again.
Can you link to where you have posted these letters?
-
Can you link to where you have posted these letters?
I took them down.
-
I took them down.
If what you say is true, then you are holding evidence.
I think it is fair that we ask you to support your claims. If you can’t, then we can dismiss what you say.
It’s not that I’m saying you’re lying, as such, it’s more that a lot depends on one’s interpretation of what is said and not said. We must remember that these events will have taken place many years prior to your letters, and Jeremy’s memory will come and go – a common problem that we all have. You seem to interpret this as suspicious, which suggests to me that you are giving us your slant on things, which in turn I think makes it important that we see what was actually written – both by you and him – before we accept your version of it.
I'm not asking you to send us the full letters, just the relevant parts.
It’s your choice, of course, but if you won’t, then I’m sure you will appreciate that I will take a view accordingly.
-
If what you say is true, then you are holding evidence.
I think it is fair that we ask you to support your claims. If you can’t, then we can dismiss what you say.
It’s not that I’m saying you’re lying, as such, it’s more that a lot depends on one’s interpretation of what is said and not said. We must remember that these events will have taken place many years prior to your letters, and Jeremy’s memory will come and go – a common problem that we all have. You seem to interpret this as suspicious, which suggests to me that you are giving us your slant on things, which in turn I think makes it important that we see what was actually written – both by you and him – before we accept your version of it.
I'm not asking you to send us the full letters, just the relevant parts.
It’s your choice, of course, but if you won’t, then I’m sure you will appreciate that I will take a view accordingly.
I have already posted the letters and various people have seen them including NGB and Roch, I won't be posting them again. I really don't give a hoot what view you take. YOU brought this subject up as a means of having a go, now because of my response, you're curious. You clearly think the wallet aspect is suspicious yourself - the fact that he went looking for it is a matter of record and the question to ask is 'how did he know it was missing'? He must have known it's location to be sure that it was missing and not just somewhere else in the house other than where he looked.
-
I’ve not seen the letters I must have been on holiday
Just post them up unless you have something to hide
Why even take them down??????
What reason did you take them down for???
I think QC is being perfectly reasonable. I would like to see how QC interprets the letters
Obviously all the legal people representing Jeremy have seen the letters and continue to defend Jeremy
What a fuss
-
I have already posted the letters and various people have seen them including NGB and Roch, I won't be posting them again. I really don't give a hoot what view you take. YOU brought this subject up as a means of having a go, now because of my response, you're curious. You clearly think the wallet aspect is suspicious yourself - the fact that he went looking for it is a matter of record and the question to ask is 'how did he know it was missing'? He must have known it's location to be sure that it was missing and not just somewhere else in the house other than where he looked.
Of course it could be suspicious if he knew what was in the wallet. Yes, that's why I'm interested.
But we only have your interpretation of things, and you refuse to let us judge for ourselves.
And actually, you're the one who brought it up. You don't mention the wallet specifically in this thread, but I know it's one of the things you alluded to earlier. You mention it now and then on the Forum and I see from previous discussions that when people ask you questions about it, you get huffy and refuse to answer. You seem to want it both ways.
It's entirely your business what view you take about Jeremy, but you come on here and tell us this, that and the other, and it's reasonable to ask questions about it. Nobody is accusing you of lying, it's just that over a long period of time, I've learned to be sceptical whenever somebody starts blackening Jeremy or casting aspersions on him. More often than not, there's little substance in it, rather it's that the person simply dislikes Jeremy.
Perhaps if NG1066 and Roch have copies, they could post them up here? I'm sure Caroline won't mind, though I don't understand why Caroline is making an issue about it. Just post them up. What's the big deal?
-
Of course it could be suspicious if he knew what was in the wallet. Yes, that's why I'm interested.
But we only have your interpretation of things, and you refuse to let us judge for ourselves.
And actually, you're the one who brought it up. You don't mention the wallet specifically in this thread, but I know it's one of the things you alluded to earlier. You mention it now and then on the Forum and I see from previous discussions that when people ask you questions about it, you get huffy and refuse to answer. You seem to want it both ways.
It's entirely your business what view you take about Jeremy, but you come on here and tell us this, that and the other, and it's reasonable to ask questions about it. Nobody is accusing you of lying, it's just that over a long period of time, I've learned to be sceptical whenever somebody starts blackening Jeremy or casting aspersions on him. More often than not, there's little substance in it, rather it's that the person simply dislikes Jeremy.
Perhaps if NG1066 and Roch have copies, they could post them up here? I'm sure Caroline won't mind, though I don't understand why Caroline is making an issue about it. Just post them up. What's the big deal?
He didn't know how much was in the wallet. He also didn't know that Anne Eaton had taken it and that she withheld this information from him when he complained to the police about the wallet being missing. Jeremy said there was 4/500 hundred pounds in the wallet as I remember.
Anne Eaton definitely knew how much it contained because it was she who had removed her deceased uncle's wallet.
The letters won't be posted because there are a standing joke and easily dissected
-
Obviously Caroline did not change stance from hardcore supporter to hardcore guilter because Bamber either mistakedly or deliberately did not answer one question on the wallet.
It would have been a build up of different things over several months.
The forum was 90% supporters when I joined. Now it is more 50%. Some of the points made by guilters would have influenced her.
-
He didn't know how much was in the wallet. He also didn't know that Anne Eaton had taken it and that she withheld this information from him when he complained to the police about the wallet being missing. Jeremy said there was 4/500 hundred pounds in the wallet as I remember.
Anne Eaton definitely knew how much it contained because it was she who had removed her deceased uncle's wallet.
The letters won't be posted because there are a standing joke and easily dissected
Thanks - but I want to make up my own mind. To be fair, somebody says he did know how much was in the wallet, and that could be considered interesting, and maybe suspicious. I'm also interested to know how he can tell Caroline he can't remember and then suddenly remember later on, though of course that could be the entirely innocent vicissitudes of memory.
Anyway, unless I see the letters, all I'm left with (if I understand this right) is Ann Eaton's claims. Didn't Ann Eaton keep the wallet and not tell Jeremy, or have I got that wrong?
-
Obviously Caroline did not change stance from hardcore supporter to hardcore guilter because Bamber either mistakedly or deliberately did not answer one question on the wallet.
It would have been a build up of different things over several months.
The forum was 90% supporters when I joined. Now it is more 50%. Some of the points made by guilters would have influenced her.
I didn't know that. Thanks Adam.
-
I didn't know that. Thanks Adam.
Believe Caroline is saying that was her reason.
Keep up.
-
Thanks - but I want to make up my own mind. To be fair, somebody says he did know how much was in the wallet, and that could be considered interesting, and maybe suspicious. I'm also interested to know how he can tell Caroline he can't remember and then suddenly remember later on, though of course that could be the entirely innocent vicissitudes of memory.
Anyway, unless I see the letters, all I'm left with (if I understand this right) is Ann Eaton's claims. Didn't Ann Eaton keep the wallet and not tell Jeremy, or have I got that wrong?
Who is stopping you making up your own mind?
Nothing that I posted is in dispute.
-
Thanks - but I want to make up my own mind. To be fair, somebody says he did know how much was in the wallet, and that could be considered interesting, and maybe suspicious. I'm also interested to know how he can tell Caroline he can't remember and then suddenly remember later on, though of course that could be the entirely innocent vicissitudes of memory.
Anyway, unless I see the letters, all I'm left with (if I understand this right) is Ann Eaton's claims. Didn't Ann Eaton keep the wallet and not tell Jeremy, or have I got that wrong?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6439.195.html
It is discussed here. I am sure that the questions and answers will be instructive in helping you to make up your own mind.
-
I wonder if it was ever handed in for probate purposes ? What a damn silly thought !
-
It will be hard to change stance. It means someone changing their mind on a long term view. Publically admitting they were wrong.
David attempted a quiet stance change. So he could quote 5 year old posts of Caroline & Jane. He eventually gave two reasons, one he refuses to discuss. As well as claiming he made a 'forensic evidence breakthrough' but refusing to say what it was.
Jane changed stance without a reason & Caroline has given one reason.
-
I went into the case with an open mind. As didn't know anything about it. Reading stuff online before reading an acclaimed book from Wilkes.
With a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence, he could only be guilty. I don't believe there was an industrial frame involving EP, relatives, experts, the courts & Julie.
-
I wonder if it was ever handed in for probate purposes ? What a damn silly thought !
Come on Lookout really !!
-
You see? This why! Out of the woodwork they creep. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Thanks - but I want to make up my own mind. To be fair, somebody says he did know how much was in the wallet, and that could be considered interesting, and maybe suspicious. I'm also interested to know how he can tell Caroline he can't remember and then suddenly remember later on, though of course that could be the entirely innocent vicissitudes of memory.
Anyway, unless I see the letters, all I'm left with (if I understand this right) is Ann Eaton's claims. Didn't Ann Eaton keep the wallet and not tell Jeremy, or have I got that wrong?
No, she gave the wallet to the executor.
-
You see? This why! Out of the woodwork they creep. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Try watching the money trail and it will explain in detail why everyone is suspicious about the whereabouts of the Bamber money and goods even Barbara Wilson
-
Of course it could be suspicious if he knew what was in the wallet. Yes, that's why I'm interested.
But we only have your interpretation of things, and you refuse to let us judge for ourselves.
And actually, you're the one who brought it up. You don't mention the wallet specifically in this thread, but I know it's one of the things you alluded to earlier. You mention it now and then on the Forum and I see from previous discussions that when people ask you questions about it, you get huffy and refuse to answer. You seem to want it both ways.
It's entirely your business what view you take about Jeremy, but you come on here and tell us this, that and the other, and it's reasonable to ask questions about it. Nobody is accusing you of lying, it's just that over a long period of time, I've learned to be sceptical whenever somebody starts blackening Jeremy or casting aspersions on him. More often than not, there's little substance in it, rather it's that the person simply dislikes Jeremy.
Perhaps if NG1066 and Roch have copies, they could post them up here? I'm sure Caroline won't mind, though I don't understand why Caroline is making an issue about it. Just post them up. What's the big deal?
I will mind, I had enough of the troll element last time I posted them and they are here now as I knew they would be ;D ;D.
Actually, I wasn't talking about the wallet specifically when I said I asked questions. That's a conclusion you jumped to.
I suggest you write to him yourself and ask the question.
-
No, she gave the wallet to the executor.
Full or empty ? ;D
-
Full or empty ? ;D
No idea on that Lookout.
-
It will be hard to change stance. It means someone changing their mind on a long term view. Publically admitting they were wrong.
David attempted a quiet stance change. So he could quote 5 year old posts of Caroline & Jane. He eventually gave two reasons, one he refuses to discuss. As well as claiming he made a 'forensic evidence breakthrough' but refusing to say what it was.
Jane changed stance without a reason & Caroline has given one reason.
Okay, Adam. If the reasons I think I gave -one of them definitely being Nevill's alleged call and what he did about it- weren't clear enough to define why I went from innocent to guilty, I'll give you the ONLY reasons why I thought he was innocent.
The second, and rather insignificant reason, was local interest. It was on the doorstep. The first, and far and away, the most important to me, was that he was adopted, and that was before I realized how similar had run our lives. Both reasons are nothing more than an emotional response. Had anyone asked my why I believed he was innocent, I could only have said it was because he was adopted. When the chips are down, such an emotional response doesn't hold water.
-
Okay, Adam. If the reasons I think I gave -one of them definitely being Nevill's alleged call and what he did about it- weren't clear enough to define why I went from innocent to guilty, I'll give you the ONLY reasons why I thought he was innocent.
The second, and rather insignificant reason, was local interest. It was on the doorstep. The first, and far and away, the most important to me, was that he was adopted, and that was before I realized how similar had run our lives. Both reasons are nothing more than an emotional response. Had anyone asked my why I believed he was innocent, I could only have said it was because he was adopted. When the chips are down, such an emotional response doesn't hold water.
You were a supporter because he was adopted? Similar to Lookout supporting him because of a gut feeling in 1985.
Other posters such as Susan watched the 'Crimes that shook Britain' documentary. Then came straight onto this forum when it was 90% pro Bamber. So became a hardcore supporter.
Every murder case, a conviction/aquital will be just about the evidence. Meaning Bamber is guilty. Remaining supporters such as Lookout & JackieD focus on gut feelings & distaste at Julie identifying the bodies.
-
You were a supporter because he was adopted? Similar to Lookout supporting him because of a gut feeling in 1985.
Other posters such as Susan watched the 'Crimes that shook Britain' documentary. Then came straight onto this forum when it was 90% pro Bamber. So became a hardcore supporter.
Every murder case, a conviction/aquital will be just about the evidence. Meaning Bamber is guilty. Remaining supporters such as Lookout & JackieD focus on gut feelings & distaste at Julie identifying the bodies.
Adam, you sound incredulous? Deciding he was innocent JUST because of that would make no sense, would it? You could say it was "gut feeling". Perhaps you're unaware that I'm adopted?
-
You were a supporter because he was adopted? Similar to Lookout supporting him because of a gut feeling in 1985.
Other posters such as Susan watched the 'Crimes that shook Britain' documentary. Then came straight onto this forum when it was 90% pro Bamber. So became a hardcore supporter.
Every murder case, a conviction/aquital will be just about the evidence. Meaning Bamber is guilty. Remaining supporters such as Lookout & JackieD focus on gut feelings & distaste at Julie identifying the bodies.
Thanks Adam. I think Jeremy has a nice voice and wears his sports shirts quite well, plus he was nice to me in a letter, so that's why I plump for innocent. I did have second thoughts after that 3 a.m. phone call, which got me up in the middle of the night, but he turned on the charm and the rest is history.
What about you, Adam? Why have you changed your mind and now think Jeremy is innocent? Don't tell me it's because he likes Eastenders! After everything Peggy, Frank and Pat have done!
-
It will be hard to change stance. It means someone changing their mind on a long term view. Publically admitting they were wrong.
David attempted a quiet stance change. So he could quote 5 year old posts of Caroline & Jane. He eventually gave two reasons, one he refuses to discuss. As well as claiming he made a 'forensic evidence breakthrough' but refusing to say what it was.
Jane changed stance without a reason & Caroline has given one reason.
My reasons are fully explained here.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9026.msg427855.html#msg427855 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9026.msg427855.html#msg427855)
-
He didn't know how much was in the wallet. He also didn't know that Anne Eaton had taken it and that she withheld this information from him when he complained to the police about the wallet being missing. Jeremy said there was 4/500 hundred pounds in the wallet as I remember.
Anne Eaton definitely knew how much it contained because it was she who had removed her deceased uncle's wallet.
The letters won't be posted because there are a standing joke and easily dissected
I have some saved for prosperity. ;D
"22/4/13 JEREMY BAMBER
A5352AC
HM FULL SUTTON
YORK
YO411PS
DEAR CAROLINE
I THOUGHT THAT ID ANSWERED
YOUR LAST LETTER, BUT MAY
BE NOT - I GET A BIT
MUDDLED SOMETIMES AS
I GET LOADS OF MAIL WHEN
THAT SKY TV PROGS ON AND
I DON'T KNOW QUITE WHAT
I'M DOING. I KNOW YOU
ASKED ME A PARTICULAR
QUESTION - I CANT RECALL
WHAT IT WAS NOW - I KNOW
THE ANSWER WAS NO OR
ITS NOT TRUE."
-
My reasons are fully explained here.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9026.msg427855.html#msg427855 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9026.msg427855.html#msg427855)
I know. I have recently posted this.
Two reasons. Eventually.
-
Thanks Adam. I think Jeremy has a nice voice and wears his sports shirts quite well, plus he was nice to me in a letter, so that's why I plump for innocent. I did have second thoughts after that 3 a.m. phone call, which got me up in the middle of the night, but he turned on the charm and the rest is history.
What about you, Adam? Why have you changed your mind and now think Jeremy is innocent? Don't tell me it's because he likes Eastenders! After everything Peggy, Frank and Pat have done!
Oh, I forgot another reason - I think he looks quite swish in those nice pink plimsolls. He has to be innocent on that basis alone.
-
Oh, I forgot another reason - I think he looks quite swish in those nice pink plimsolls. He has to be innocent on that basis alone.
I've thought of another one! What am I like?! I like his stylish glasses, they make him look professorial. I really think somebody with his edge in couture can't be a killer.
-
Christie wore John Lennon glasses but they didn't alter his ways did they ? ;D
-
Yes, Bambergate - have you seen him video on Youtube? :-\
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcaWYr3O3eE
Personally, I think it's embarrassing!
I have a lot of respect for Mark. He wrote some great posts as Ron Crook and Bambergate. He tried something different. A kind of private investigation directly with several protagonists in the case.
You would chose Mick Ainsley and the evidence corralled under his stewardship as being a more reliable source. All I see is a ruthless, crooked cop.
I'd rather throw my lot in with Mark if I had a choice.
-
Christie wore John Lennon glasses but they didn't alter his ways did they ? ;D
That is a fair point. Perhaps I need to go back to the drawing board, but remember, the pink plimsolls might be enough.