Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on September 07, 2021, 01:03:PM
-
Their only option would be to threaten to charge Julie of 'perverting the course of justice'.
This would be reliant that Bamber confessed & then said he had discussed the massacre with Julie. Both beforehand & afterwards.
Bamber has never confessed.
If Bamber did confess, he may leave Julie out of his confession. If she had kept quiet for him.
-
Bamber not confessing but then getting convicted in court, would not have been enough to charge Julie. Providing she still denied any knowledge.
Bamber pleading innocence at trial & afterwards cannot say he discussed the massacre with Julie.
-
At best, the police could say to Julie they are building a case against Bamber.
If he confesses & says he discussed the massacre with you, you could be charged with 'perverting the course of Justice'. If proven.
Doubtful that would be enough to scare Julie to compile such a comprehensive false WS & commit such serious perjury. Better to keep quiet. Espescially if Bamber really had not discussed it with her.
-
At best, the police could say they are building a case against Bamber.
If he confesses & says he discussed the massacre with you, you could be charged with 'perverting the course of Justice'. If proven.
Doubtful that would be enough to compile such a comprehensive false WS & commit such serious perjury. Better to keep quiet. Espescially if Bamber really had not discussed it with her.
Of course, the police saying this to Julie, would just motivate her to tell the truth - her WS.
-
To charge Julie with 'perverting the course of justice' -
Bamber would have to confess.
Bamber would have to say he discussed the massacre with Julie. After the 6th August 1985.
Julie would have to confirm Bamber was telling the truth.
----------
Julie could deny any discussions took place. As it is her word against Bamber's, it is doubtful the police would get a successful prosecution.
The police also may not pursue Julie very rigorously. Their main objective was getting the right person for a 5x murder.
-
To charge Julie with 'perverting the course of justice' -
Bamber would have to confess.
Bamber would have to say he discussed the massacre with Julie. After the 6th August 1985.
----------
Julie could deny any discussions took place. As it is her word against Bamber's, it is doubtful the police would get a successful prosecution.
The police also may not pursue Julie. Their main objective was getting the right person for a 5x murder.
This relates to a scenario where Julie had kept silent in 1985.
Bamber confessing now would not result in any charges against Julie.
-
NGB what punishment would Julie have received in 1985 if the following had happened -
Bamber confesses.
Bamber says he discussed the massacre with Julie. After the 6th August 1985.
Julie confirms Bamber was telling the truth.
----------
This is the only thing the police could threaten Julie with, if trying to get a false WS & Julie to commit serious perjury.
-
NGB what punishment would Julie have received in 1985 if the following had happened -
Bamber confesses.
Bamber says he discussed the massacre with Julie. After the 6th August 1985.
Julie confirms Bamber was telling the truth.
----------
This is the only thing the police could threaten Julie with, if trying to get a false WS & Julie to commit serious perjury.
If JM's knowledge was only after the event and she did nothing to assist, e.g. by giving a false account to police of conversations with JB, she would probably have faced no sanction. However on any view that is not the case. If JM is to be believed (which I emphasise I do not believe) she had advance knowledge and assisted JB after the event by giving an incomplete/false account to the police. It is my belief (based upon some clear pointers) that JM was leaned upon very heavily by the police after she was taken into custody (which she undoubtedly was) and that is why a large amount of material relating to interviews with her are still withheld under PII.
-
If JM's knowledge was only after the event and she did nothing to assist, e.g. by giving a false account to police of conversations with JB, she would probably have faced no sanction. However on any view that is not the case. If JM is to be believed (which I emphasise I do not believe) she had advance knowledge and assisted JB after the event by giving an incomplete/false account to the police. It is my belief (based upon some clear pointers) that JM was leaned upon very heavily by the police after she was taken into custody (which she undoubtedly was) and that is why a large amount of material relating to interviews with her are still withheld under PII.
If Bamber confessed in 1985 & Julie did not dispute him saying he had discussed his involvement with her, what would her punishment have been?
It would be for 'perverting the course of justice' by withholding information after the 6th August.
-
Maxine Carr got 21 months in prison.
I believe she assisted Huntley in disposing the bodies and removing evidence. As well as refusing to admit to any involvement for a long time even after the police started questioning her.
-
If Bamber confessed in 1985 & Julie did not dispute him saying he had discussed his involvement with her, what would her punishment have been?
It would be for 'perverting the course of justice' by withholding information after the 6th August.
If convicted of perverting the course of justice a prison sentence would have been inevitable.
-
Carr also gave Huntley a false alibi. Saying they were together when Holly & Jessica vanished.
-
If JM's knowledge was only after the event and she did nothing to assist, e.g. by giving a false account to police of conversations with JB, she would probably have faced no sanction. However on any view that is not the case. If JM is to be believed (which I emphasise I do not believe) she had advance knowledge and assisted JB after the event by giving an incomplete/false account to the police. It is my belief (based upon some clear pointers) that JM was leaned upon very heavily by the police after she was taken into custody (which she undoubtedly was) and that is why a large amount of material relating to interviews with her are still withheld under PII.
Was she actually arrested instead of "coming forward"?
-
Was she actually arrested instead of "coming forward"?
After her friend contacted police to say she had been withholding information and Stan Jones collected her and took her back to the police station she was at some point (I do not no exactly when but it was at the police station) arrested and held in custody. She was interviewed at length under caution and the notes of these interviews have never been released.
-
Julie told 5 people before approaching the police. Her & Liz Rimmington deciding to ring Stan Jones.
It is likely Julie started singing like a canary straight away. If not the police could use friendly persuasion.
They had the persuasion option that she could be charged with 'perverting the course of justice'. If Bamber confessed & had compelling evidence he had confided in her. Doubtful the police did that as that eventuality was so far down the line.
-
After her friend contacted police to say she had been withholding information and Stan Jones collected her and took her back to the police station she was at some point (I do not no exactly when but it was at the police station) arrested and held in custody. She was interviewed at length under caution and the notes of these interviews have never been released.
How do you know this? Being arrested and interviewed under caution are two separate things anyway: if you're arrested don't the police have a time limit in which to charge you, but interviewed under caution means you are free to leave the interview at any time and may have access to legal advice?
-
After her friend contacted police to say she had been withholding information and Stan Jones collected her and took her back to the police station she was at some point (I do not no exactly when but it was at the police station) arrested and held in custody. She was interviewed at length under caution and the notes of these interviews have never been released.
Is it regular practice that interview notes of a witness should be released?
Next people will be wanting to see her draft WS's.
-
Maxine Carr got 21 months in prison.
I believe she assisted Huntley in disposing the bodies and removing evidence. As well as refusing to admit to any involvement for a long time even after the police started questioning her.
I don't think this is true.
-
How do you know this? Being arrested and interviewed under caution are two separate things anyway: if you're arrested don't the police have a time limit in which to charge you, but interviewed under caution means you are free to leave the interview at any time and may have access to legal advice?
Are you really suggesting you know more about the law than a criminal barrister?
-
Are you really suggesting you know more about the law than a criminal barrister?
No but I would like clarification. I do know more about every aspect of this case under the sun than yourself, by the way.
-
After her friend contacted police to say she had been withholding information and Stan Jones collected her and took her back to the police station she was at some point (I do not no exactly when but it was at the police station) arrested and held in custody. She was interviewed at length under caution and the notes of these interviews have never been released.
So she never actually went to the police voluntarily?
-
Before approaching the police, Julie may have been worried that Bamber would confess & then say he confided in her.
Or he gets arrested & charged. Resulting in a long trial & the police interviewing her.
Best she made the first move. If it was not enough to get Bamber arrested, at least she was honest.
-
Is it regular practice that interview notes of a witness should be released?
Next people will be wanting to see her draft WS's.
Something I find strange is that she keeps changing the time JB called her on the morning, first it is 3.30 in the first WS then 3.00 then back to 3.30?
-
No but I would like clarification. I do know more about every aspect of this case under the sun than yourself, by the way.
You clearly don’t or you wouldn’t be defending Mugford.
Everyone on here knows you are not impartial. If you really believe Mugfords role in this conviction why don’t you fight to have all Mugfords withheld statements released
-
You clearly don’t or you wouldn’t be defending Mugford.
Everyone on here knows you are not impartial. If you really believe Mugfords role in this conviction why don’t you fight to have all Mugfords withheld statements released
Her draft WS's would have been binned in 1985.
Why keep them?
-
Something I find strange is that she keeps changing the time JB called her on the morning, first it is 3.30 in the first WS then 3.00 then back to 3.30?
Ditto Bamber. Have you read his police interviews?
Believe she said one time. One of her flatmates was sure it was another.
-
Her draft WS's would have been binned in 1985.
Why keep them?
Are you serious ?????
-
Are you serious ?????
Why keep 36 year old draft WS's?
Why keep them at all?
-
Why keep 36 year old draft WS's?
Why keep them at all?
They were not draft witness statements, they were notes of very lengthy interviews.
-
Why keep 36 year old draft WS's?
Why keep them at all?
Out of all the most ridiculous and embarrassing posts you have made over the years this has to be the worst
Since Jeremy has been convicted he has been appealing the decision
So you believe anyone appealing against their sentence should have any evidence withheld destroyed
Crawl back under that stone you came from
-
How do you know this? Being arrested and interviewed under caution are two separate things anyway: if you're arrested don't the police have a time limit in which to charge you, but interviewed under caution means you are free to leave the interview at any time and may have access to legal advice?
I gained some details about the case, which as far as I know have not yet been made public, during the period in 2011 and 2012 in which I did have some direct involvement in legal work on behalf of JB. There are time limits following arrest although these can be extended and in this case following intensive interviews JM was no longer treated as under arrest and in police custody but as a prosecution witness. It is documents which detail this history which remain withheld under PII. If disclosed I suspect they would prove very embarrassing to the prosecution.
-
So she never actually went to the police voluntarily?
No she did not. Because of what she had said to friends she was coming under pressure to talk to police and she was in an increasingly difficult position. She knew the police were being contacted and even if she was not happy about that (which I suspect) there was in reality nothing she could do about it. Events then overtook her.
-
My thoughts too NGB.
-
I'm sure there are many people who've been visibly furious over something that's happened to them, then wishing the worst on a person and instead of accepting that let-downs do happen they start a hate-fest about the person who upset them and as in this case it blew up into her face, in other words JM bit off more than she could chew because of her fury and spite.
This has been my thought from day one. No need for all the rigmarole over the years when you study the minds of individuals.
-
How do you know this? Being arrested and interviewed under caution are two separate things anyway: if you're arrested don't the police have a time limit in which to charge you, but interviewed under caution means you are free to leave the interview at any time and may have access to legal advice?
There is a formal procedure for a voluntary interviewee who is not under an arrest in which the interview is under caution, but it is also the case that when an arrestee is interviewed, that is under caution (and the caution will normally be re-read to the arrestee at the outset of the interview).
Normally when people say 'interview under caution' or 'interviewed under caution', they mean a voluntary interview. NGB1066 did not exactly use that phrase, if you look at his post. It looks like he was referring to the generic idea of somebody interviewed following arrest, but it is possible that the information NGB1066 has been given is wrong and in fact Julie was not arrested.
-
No she did not. Because of what she had said to friends she was coming under pressure to talk to police and she was in an increasingly difficult position. She knew the police were being contacted and even if she was not happy about that (which I suspect) there was in reality nothing she could do about it. Events then overtook her.
Julie was gearing up to approach the police. By confiding to 5 friends first.
She would not have confided to anyone if she was planning to keep quiet.
Friends were obviously going to encourage her to tell the police.
Julie then agreed Liz should ring up Stan Jones.
-
Julie was gearing up to approach the police. By confiding to 5 friends first.
Malicious gossip in Lewisham Pizzahut after JB split up with her.
-
The police would have told Julie straight away how serious not telling the truth & wasting police time is.
Simultaneously they would have told her Bamber was a suspect & it was better to tell the truth now rather than risk being charged with 'perverting the course of justice'.
Julie then compiled a 32 page WS.
-
The police would have told Julie straight away how serious not telling the truth & wasting police time is.
Simultaneously they would have told her Bamber was a suspect & it was better to tell the truth now rather than risk being charged with 'perverting the course of justice'.
Julie then compiled a 32 page WS.
This is probably standard practice when a witness comes forward a month after a crime.
Letting the witness know the situation with the investigation & informing the witness how serious wasting police time is
-
Malicious gossip in Lewisham Pizzahut after JB split up with her.
Spot on
Due to JB sleeping around
-
The police would have told Julie straight away how serious not telling the truth & wasting police time is.
Simultaneously they would have told her Bamber was a suspect & it was better to tell the truth now rather than risk being charged with 'perverting the course of justice'.
Julie then compiled a 32 page WS.
Your posts are pathetic as you have no idea what went on in the interview room
-
This is probably standard practice when a witness comes forward a month after a crime.
Letting the witness know the situation with the investigation & informing the witness how serious wasting police time is
Probably. Your posts are the worse I have ever seen on a forum
Get a life Adam and give us all a break
-
Your posts are pathetic as you have no idea what went on in the interview room
You believe Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins.
You ignore the evidence.
You really are 'Mad'.
-
Your posts are pathetic as you have no idea what went on in the interview room
Why is Bamber innocent?
Oh yes. Julie identified the twins.
-
Spot on
Due to JB sleeping around
Julie told 5 people prior to approaching the police.
Keep up.
-
You believe Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins.
You ignore the evidence.
You really are 'Mad'.
Putting you on ignore you are so irrelevant to the truth
-
David how do I put Adam on ignore ? Forgotten and can’t be arsed to read his drivel
-
David how do I put Adam on ignore ? Forgotten and can’t be arsed to read his drivel
Profile > Summary > Modify Profile > Buddies/Ignore list > Edit Ignore list.
-
Profile > Summary > Modify Profile > Buddies/Ignore list > Edit Ignore list.
Thanks David all done
-
Lol. JackieD was rude to me earlier today. As she is to Steve.
Soon as I give it back, she becomes a cry baby.
Anyway I'll respond to her Julie posts as usual.
-
Lol. JackieD was rude to me earlier today. As she is to Steve.
Soon as I give it back, she becomes a cry baby.
Anyway I'll respond to her Julie posts as usual.
This is an important part of Adam's moral support efforts: giving people the 'hard word'. Think of this Forum as a military camp and Adam is the Regimental Sergeant-Major. Not a popular job, but it has to be done.
-
Lol. JackieD was rude to me earlier today. As she is to Steve.
Soon as I give it back, she becomes a cry baby.
Anyway I'll respond to her Julie posts as usual.
She gets away with it because she's a woman.
-
She gets away with it because she's a woman.
Rudeness started in reply 40.
-
I gained some details about the case, which as far as I know have not yet been made public, during the period in 2011 and 2012 in which I did have some direct involvement in legal work on behalf of JB. There are time limits following arrest although these can be extended and in this case following intensive interviews JM was no longer treated as under arrest and in police custody but as a prosecution witness. It is documents which detail this history which remain withheld under PII. If disclosed I suspect they would prove very embarrassing to the prosecution.
Are the documents held under PII protected (listed and logged) or can this information go missing like say SC's nightdress? if someone think's it's not needed anymore?
-
Are the documents held under PII protected (listed and logged) or can this information go missing like say SC's nightdress? if someone think's it's not needed anymore?
They certainly were all listed at one time in accordance with standard procedure and they should of course be preserved. However, who knows what may have happened? After all, a number of the photographic negatives were removed from the film strips and destroyed, in breach of clear police standing orders.
-
They certainly were all listed at one time in accordance with standard procedure and they should of course be preserved. However, who knows what may have happened? After all, a number of the photographic negatives were removed from the film strips and destroyed, in breach of clear police standing orders.
Thanks this case is so bizarre, PII for a murder case?
-
After her friend contacted police to say she had been withholding information and Stan Jones collected her and took her back to the police station she was at some point (I do not no exactly when but it was at the police station) arrested and held in custody. She was interviewed at length under caution and the notes of these interviews have never been released.
Susan Battersby was interviewed under caution as well NGB, I think that was more to do with the Cheque book fraud. I’m of the same opinion as you NGB, Stan went for Julie and Taff interviewed Bamber, Stan went in hard on Julie to start with until she played ball. Barlow on the other hand thought Taff had taken it easy with Bamber, can’t remember off hand but didn’t Stan go in for Bamber’s second interview?
-
They certainly were all listed at one time in accordance with standard procedure and they should of course be preserved. However, who knows what may have happened? After all, a number of the photographic negatives were removed from the film strips and destroyed, in breach of clear police standing orders.
Am I right in saying that in the 80s sensitive material could be withheld from the defence at the discretion of the Prosecutor and not the Courts NGB and did this change in the 90s? Would the said witness statements made by Julie be covered by the current Law for PII, or would they just be in the Data protection act?
-
Susan Battersby was interviewed under caution as well NGB, I think that was more to do with the Cheque book fraud. I’m of the same opinion as you NGB, Stan went for Julie and Taff interviewed Bamber, Stan went in hard on Julie to start with until she played ball. Barlow on the other hand thought Taff had taken it easy with Bamber, can’t remember off hand but didn’t Stan go in for Bamber’s second interview?
Yes and made a complete mess of it.
-
Yes and made a complete mess of it.
Yes, Barlow was very critical of Taff for not covering all the points that needed to be covered, he focused too much on the Burglary and drugs and not on the murders.