Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on July 07, 2021, 08:12:AM
-
Lots of reasons why Bamber would use a proxy. Also lots of reasons why he chose MM. Threads created.
If Julie was trying to frame an innocent Bamber, why would she bring up MM?
-
Lots of reasons why Bamber would use a proxy. Also lots of reasons why he chose MM. Threads created.
If Julie was trying to frame an innocent Bamber, why would she bring up MM?
That's easy to answer.
-
That's easy to answer.
So answer it then.
-
Thread is of course open to everyone. I'm sure Lookout & JackieD have an explanation why Julie brought up an innocent MM when trying to frame an innocent Bamber.
-
Thread is of course open to everyone. I'm sure Lookout & JackieD have an explanation why Julie brought up an innocent MM when trying to frame an innocent Bamber.
I'm sure you'd neither listen nor understand any explanation I attempted to make. One-trick ponies never do.
-
I'm sure you'd neither listen nor understand any explanation I attempted to make. One-trick ponies never do.
I created the thread to hear answers.
Do you agree with QC that Julie's WS may be true, but Bamber may have been kidding her?
-
So answer it then.
I assume you've had involvement with the opposite sex?
-
I assume you've had involvement with the opposite sex?
Don't try to change the focus.
If you lied in reply 1, best don't post anything else & let Lookout & JackieD answer.
-
Don't try to change the focus.
If you lied in reply 1, best don't post anything else & let Lookout & JackieD answer.
"Change the focus ?" You're always doing that Adam when you can't answer a question. What a cheek.
-
Julie had no idea whatsoever who'd killed the family so in her infantile mind named the first person that came into her head given MM's " fantasy " background. She knew that JB hadn't done it and so shouted out his name.
-
"Change the focus ?" You're always doing that Adam when you can't answer a question. What a cheek.
I always answer questions. With sources.
Answer my question in reply 5.
-
Julie had no idea whatsoever who'd killed the family so in her infantile mind named the first person that came into her head given MM's " fantasy " background. She knew that JB hadn't done it and so shouted out his name.
So you do not believe Bamber told her this but was only
kidding.
A month after the massacre she approaches the police & compiles a 24 page WS. In a panic she says MM committed the massacre.
-
Don't try to change the focus.
If you lied in reply 1, best don't post anything else & let Lookout & JackieD answer.
I have not lied. The explanation is easy, but to understand it requires an understanding of human nature and female nature and life experiences, plus a bit of imagination.
I won't it explain it now because I can't be bothered.
-
I assume you've had involvement with the opposite sex?
😂😂😂
-
Adam hasn't got a bloomin' clue about how the opposite sex function.
-
Just re read replies 1, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13 & 14.
None give any explanation why Julie would bring up MM if she was trying to frame an innocent Bamber.
Reply 9 does give a reason ' it was the first person that came into her head'. Although she was trying to frame Bamber!
-
Other threads give reasons why Bamber would use a proxy. As well as why that proxy would be MM.
It has to be concluded that MM was in Julie's WS because Bamber told her he had committed the massacre for money.
I don't agree with QC that he may have been kidding her. He wouldn't spend 18 months doing that.
-
At least JB had a sense of humour which is more than you've got. JB and his dad used to have a whale of a time when they were together as both had the same sense of humour. JM had latched on to this and was used to JB being a joker-----until it suited her otherwise. What he'd said in joke form she twisted to suit the agenda because of her ulterior motive, MONEY !
-
At least JB had a sense of humour which is more than you've got. JB and his dad used to have a whale of a time when they were together as both had the same sense of humour. JM had latched on to this and was used to JB being a joker-----until it suited her otherwise. What he'd said in joke form she twisted to suit the agenda because of her ulterior motive, MONEY !
Do you think Julie's WS is correct. But everything Bamber told her was in jest?
-
Do you think Julie's WS is correct. But everything Bamber told her was in jest?
Of course he was kidding her. It wasn't he who had anything to hide.
-
Of course he was kidding her. It wasn't he who had anything to hide.
So you believe Julie's WS covering her 18 months with Bamber is true.
-
So you believe Julie's WS covering her 18 months with Bamber is true.
I've only read the bits that aren't, the rest is typical of a schoolgirl's rantings after a split.
-
Other threads give reasons why Bamber would use a proxy. As well as why that proxy would be MM.
It has to be concluded that MM was in Julie's WS because Bamber told her he had committed the massacre for money.
I don't agree with QC that he may have been kidding her. He wouldn't spend 18 months doing that.
Why not?
-
Why not?
18 months kidding her about plans to massacre his family. Then telling her he was involved & hired MM.
His kidding her included a lot of detailed information.
Do you believe Julie's 24 page WS could be correct but he was kidding her?
-
Normally JM would have ignored his witterings, as maybe he was waiting for some kind of a reaction from her for having said these things----if he said them at all !
-
The pair of then appeared to have been very immature at the time. Unlike your average 20 odd year old.
-
18 months kidding her about plans to massacre his family. Then telling her he was involved & hired MM.
His kidding her included a lot of detailed information.
Do you believe Julie's 24 page WS could be correct but he was kidding her?
Sorry but I don't believe a single word of a woman who would knowingly sleep with the killer of two young children, nothing she says or writes can be trusted. Did the jury know she had 32 interviews with the police??
-
Sorry but I don't believe a single word of a woman who would knowingly sleep with the killer of two young children, nothing she says or writes can be trusted. Did the jury know she had 32 interviews with the police??
Have you read Bamber's interviews? They are online.
Doubt it was 32. She would have met the police several times while compiling her WS.
Why would Julie bring up MM if she was trying to frame an innocent Bamber?
-
Have you read Bamber's interviews? They are online.
Doubt it was 32. She would have met the police several times while compiling her WS.
Why would Julie bring up MM if she was trying to frame an innocent Bamber?
No I have not read the Bamber interviews I am new to the case so have a lot of catching up to do.
-
No I have not read the Bamber interviews I am new to the case so have a lot of catching up to do.
Bamber was evasive from the start.
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 !'
-
Bamber was evasive from the start.
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 !'
Thanks I will read them, but this is what troubles me with this case everything that shows JB in a bad light is available, everything that helps him or could help is withheld.
-
Thanks I will read them, but this is what troubles me with this case everything that shows JB in a bad light is available, everything that helps him or could help is withheld.
Spot on Rob
-
Thanks I will read them, but this is what troubles me with this case everything that shows JB in a bad light is available, everything that helps him or could help is withheld.
'everything that shows JB in a bad light is available'.
----------
Re phrase -
'Everything available shows JB in a bad light'.
-
This was purely a prosecution case so therefore any material that was/is ( still held ) could have undermined the case, but ALSO, could well have assisted the defence. Was this a fair trial ?? No, it wasn't !
This is IMHO an archaic and deceptive way of conducting any court case. No wonder there's a need for the CCRC ( such as it is ) for sifting out all the MOJ's that occur.
If cases were investigated properly and thoroughly in the first place there'd be no need for either PII's nor the CCRC. It's like living in the dark ages, without the advanced technology that we're supposed to have.
-
The 30 year holding of withheld documents has well passed, so my guess is that information being held holds many testimonials from those who saw JB in a good light ! Otherwise, why would anything be withheld now going on for 36 years ? So many edits/alterations and lies were told, I don't doubt that shame will fall upon EP at some stage.
I remain suspicious of their actions in holding onto material which is no longer relevant to present serving officers.
-
Those now acting on JB's behalf should be given ALL the remaining documents/ photo's etc !
-
'everything that shows JB in a bad light is available'.
----------
Re phrase -
'Everything available shows JB in a bad light'.
I probably worded this badly but I mean all evidence that is available for example:
The kitchen window that JB was supposed to have left the house from, I was under the impression that when inspected by EP and AE they could only get the latch to partly close after several hours of trying, slamming the window etc. and not fully close as depicted in the WHF series.
Also the picture shown to the jury showing the kitchen window was at a angle and not straight on so the handle looked partly open, when in fact it was fully closed. The picture showing the straight on view was not shown.
-
'Julie Mugford' second guessed 'Mathew McDonald', as 'The Hitman' - the 'more likeliest hit man' , or 'SheilaCaffells', 'accomplice,', was non other than, 'Mathew Hampton', the 'dodgy farm worker, who turned up at' Osea Road, Campsite' offering to work for the relatives, without pay after the time of 'Jeremy Bambers' first arrest, on the basis that 'his mother' and the 'Bamber parents, were best of friends....
-
'Julie Mugford' second guessed 'Mathew McDonald', as 'The Hitman' - the 'more likeliest hit man' , or 'SheilaCaffells', 'accomplice,', was non other than, 'Mathew Hampton', the 'dodgy farm worker, who turned up at' Osea Road, Campsite' offering to work for the relatives, without pay after the time of 'Jeremy Bambers' first arrest, on the basis that 'his mother' and the 'Bamber parents, were best of friends....
I agree that she was forced into giving a name and second guessed MM.
-
I agree that she was forced into giving a name and second guessed MM.
EP forced Julie to give a name of someone who didn't committ the massacre. To frame Bamber, who also didn't committ the massacre.
Why?
-
EP forced Julie to give a name of someone who didn't committ the massacre. To frame Bamber, who also didn't committ the massacre.
Why?
Well why don't you ask your Mum and let us know?
-
Well why don't you ask your Mum and let us know?
Why are you bringing my mother into this?
Prat.
-
JM had brought MM into the equation because she KNEW JB hadn't done it so was fishing around for someone to blame. No doubt she'd have blamed BC if she could have done but probably realised he didn't " fit the bill " as a killer and had been abroad anyway.
You'd blame anyone really if you thought there was £25,000 at the end of it, wouldn't you ??
-
'Mathew Hamptons' sudden involvement with the running of 'Osea Road Campite' and 'White House Farm' where 'he' offered to work without pay, suggests to me, like he was looking to get the latest police investigation updates from the relatives - as far as I am aware, the police never took 'Mathew Hamptons' fingerprints to check against any being found or detected at the scene once the nature of the police investigation from the 'the 7th September 1985'..