Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on December 11, 2021, 10:51:PM
-
The relationship before the massacre had been in decline for 6 months. Source, Bamber.
Bamber rings Julie 3 times on the massacre night/morning. Telling her to 'not go to work'. He wants her with him.
Bamber tells her he was involved
Bamber is very pro active & arranges several jolly ups. Julie always near him.
Julie & Bamber drift apart -
Bamber feels he is 'watertight' & does not need Julie.
Julie wants to break away after knowing Bamber was involved. She tells 5 people. Bamber not aware.
Still on speaking terms, Bamber helps Julie move. He asks another girl out in front of her.
Julie approaches the police.
All of this took around 1 month.
-
If Bamber was aware Julie was telling other people, he would have made another effort with her.
He certainly would not ask another girl out in front of her!
-
If Bamber was aware Julie was telling other people, he would have made another effort with her.
He certainly would not ask another girl out in front of her!
I agree Adam the only explanation is he planned all along to get caught, if not then someone is lying.
-
The relationship before the massacre had been in decline for 6 months. Source, Bamber.
I think it was Michael Deckers who also lent credence to this, saying that he was surprised Julie and Jeremy stayed together after the autumn of 1984. Thus it's strange that Jeremy shared his deepest, darkest secret with her: that he had killed his entire family, including two six year-old boys. Then again, I suppose he would have had to be unhinged to commit such a crime, therefore maybe he did tell her, despite their relationship being in decline.
Bamber rings Julie 3 times on the massacre night/morning. Telling her to 'not go to work'. He wants her with him.
I believe he rang her twice that morning and once the night before.
Bamber tells her he was involved
Yes. Julie knew at the outset.
Bamber is very pro active & arranges several jolly ups. Julie always near him.
So your explanation for Jeremy's post-incident behaviour is that he is trying to keep Julie onboard? In effect bribing her? How do you therefore reason Jeremy's confession to Julie at Bourtree Cottage in the aftermath? Is it that Jeremy has been rash? Yet you say he planned this meticulously, and you admit that the relationship was in decline, as stated by Jeremy you say (and I agree, corroborated by Michael Deckers).
Julie & Bamber drift apart -
Oh dear. That's a bit of a bugger for Jeremy isn't it, when you consider that he has confessed a crime to Julie that could see him locked up for rather a long stretch, maybe for life.
Bamber feels he is 'watertight' & does not need Julie.
If Jeremy did it, then that can be the only explanation. It may also explain why he let family members in the house where the silencer still was. He was clearly unhinged anyway.
Julie wants to break away after knowing Bamber was involved. She tells 5 people. Bamber not aware.
She wants to break away? It's made to sound like Jeremy has done something comparatively mild, like fiddle his tax returns. This is mass murder. Don't you think she should have been speaking to the police quite quickly? Was she too busy on these jolly-ups you mention?
Still on speaking terms, Bamber helps Julie move. He asks another girl out in front of her.
Still on speaking terms? Still, it's nice of Evil Mass Murdering Child Killer Jeremy to help her move house. You don't normally get that sort of assistance from those types.
Julie approaches the police.
Finally! Thanks Julie. Phew! That was a close one. But strictly speaking, it's not clear that she did approach the police. There is some controversy about that. I've been told that it was someone else who rang the police and the police then spoke to Julie.
All of this took around 1 month.
Well, better late than never, I say. I'm just glad she fitted it into her busy schedule, in between jolly-ups.
-
Julie was an education student at Goldsmiths, University of London - i.e. she was studying for an undergraduate degree in education, with a view to a professional career as a primary school teacher. As a prospective primary school teacher, Julie would be put in situations where she would interact with young children and be given experience of observing classroom teaching; and, the career she was committing herself to would eventually give her charge and influence over young children.
Before we even go into the incident itself, why would such a person stay in a serious relationship with somebody who had twice plotted to kill his parents and who talked on repeated occasions of wanting to murder his parents? How does this square with her career choice? One day she is discussing murder with the lunatic in Essex, the next she is doing finger-painting with little kids in class.
Julie says that she was prescribed sleeping tablets in October 1984, and that:
- she brought the tablets with her on a visit to Bourtree Cottage, where she was to stay;
- she showed the tablets to Jeremy;
- she left the tablets at the cottage (not explaining why she did this);
- Jeremy then rang her, and told her he was going to test the tablets on himself to see if they could viably be used as tranquilisers as part of a murder plot.
Jeremy is clearly a lunatic. Julie ignores this because she is "besotted" with Jeremy and anyway she thinks it is all a "charade". Then she claims that a week before the murders, loony Jeremy was strangling rats, again because he had murder in mind. Like you do.
Julie in her statements relates how Jeremy discussed his murder plots with her with every indication that he was planning things carefully. For instance, he'd decided not to burn the farmhouse down with the family in it because the home insurance was low and there were one or two high-value pieces among all the bric-a-brac. How he came to this conclusion is not clear, but what is clear is that he was giving the whole enterprise some considerable thought. Indeed, Julie says Jeremy had told her that killing his family required very careful planning indeed. I'm sure it did.
At no point has it occurred to Julie that she should alert somebody in authority or mention to a friend that she is consorting with a potential murderer. She did not tell her mother, or anybody. She just dismisses it all as a "charade" on Jeremy's part, but that's not the point. Even if it were a charade, we are left with the question of why somebody like Julie would have anything to do with somebody like Jeremy.
Then on the morning of 7th. August at Bourtree Cottage, Jeremy confesses that he is the killer. Julie continues to treat this as a charade of some sort, not quite believing the grotesque hyper-reality she has been thrust into.
-
Julie was an education student at Goldsmiths, University of London - i.e. she was studying for an undergraduate degree in education, with a view to a professional career as a primary school teacher. As a prospective primary school teacher, Julie would be put in situations where she would interact with young children and be given experience of observing classroom teaching; and, the career she was committing herself to would eventually give her charge and influence over young children.
Before we even go into the incident itself, why would such a person stay in a serious relationship with somebody who had twice plotted to kill his parents and who talked on repeated occasions of wanting to murder his parents? How does this square with her career choice? One day she is discussing murder with the lunatic in Essex, the next she is doing finger-painting with little kids in class.
Julie says that she was prescribed sleeping tablets in October 1984, and that:
- she brought the tablets with her on a visit to Bourtree Cottage, where she was to stay;
- she showed the tablets to Jeremy;
- she left the tablets at the cottage (not explaining why she did this);
- Jeremy then rang her, and told her he was going to test the tablets on himself to see if they could viably be used as tranquilisers as part of a murder plot.
Jeremy is clearly a lunatic. Julie ignores this because she is "besotted" with Jeremy and anyway she thinks it is all a "charade". Then she claims that a week before the murders, loony Jeremy was strangling rats, again because he had murder in mind. Like you do.
Julie in her statements relates how Jeremy discussed his murder plots with her with every indication that he was planning things carefully. For instance, he'd decided not to burn the farmhouse down with the family in it because the home insurance was low and there were one or two high-value pieces among all the bric-a-brac. How he came to this conclusion is not clear, but what is clear is that he was given the whole enterprise some considerable thought. Indeed, Julie says Jeremy had told her that killing his family required very careful planning indeed. I'm sure it did.
At no point has it occurred to Julie that she should alert somebody in authority or mention to a friend that she is consorting with a potential murderer. She did not tell her mother, or anybody. She just dismisses it all as a "charade" on Jeremy's part, but that's not the point. Even if it were a charade, we are left with the question of why somebody like Julie would have anything to do with somebody like Jeremy.
Then on the morning of 7th. August at Bourtree Cottage, Jeremy confesses that he is the killer. Julie continues to treat this as a charade of some sort, not quite believing the grotesque hyper-reality she has been thrust into.
We've all been told the story of the boy who cried wolf. He's described by the former Headmaster of Gresham's as "a prickly boy..a relentless tease" and in the Dickinson report as "not a popular boy at school..untrustworthy, not straightforward, unstable and a boaster." (Paragraph 29)
I'm glad you understand Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud and were familiar with these individuals at 19 years old. You yourself fell foul of the law and were given a second chance. What a pity that you have not afforded this second chance to others.
-
Seems like a natural process of splitting up. Passionate supporters say Julie should have told the police as soon as she arrived at WHF. Which is crazy.
Julie did not have to approach the police due to her minor cheque book fraud or Bambers caravan break in. The police were not aware of either.
Bamber can only say Julie committed massive perjury because 'he jilted her'. Which is what he has said. The trouble is......he didn't jilt her!
-
The relationship before the massacre had been in decline for 6 months. Source, Bamber.
Bamber rings Julie 3 times on the massacre night/morning. Telling her to 'not go to work'. He wants her with him.
Bamber tells her he was involved
Bamber is very pro active & arranges several jolly ups. Julie always near him.
Julie & Bamber drift apart -
Bamber feels he is 'watertight' & does not need Julie.
Julie wants to break away after knowing Bamber was involved. She tells 5 people. Bamber not aware.
Still on speaking terms, Bamber helps Julie move. He asks another girl out in front of her.
Julie approaches the police.
All of this took around 1 month.
All of this is fact & backed up by sources. It happened this way.
Julie when interviewed said Bamber told her she would not be believed. He must have believed he was free to go off with Brett.
-
Bamber asking another woman out in front of Julie was not the reason she approached the police. Although it might have speedied up the process by a few days.
Julie could perhaps tell one person & get away with not going to the police. But not 5.
-
Although the relationship had been in decline for 6 months, Bamber still had to bring her straight on board after the massacre.
Why? Because of what he had told her over the previous 18 months.
An eventful month later with lots of jolly ups for Bamber & he now felt safe. Julie wanted out anyway.
-
We've all been told the story of the boy who cried wolf. He's described by the former Headmaster of Gresham's as "a prickly boy..a relentless tease" and in the Dickinson report as "not a popular boy at school..untrustworthy, not straightforward, unstable and a boaster." (Paragraph 29)
I'm glad you understand Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud and were familiar with these individuals at 19 years old. You yourself fell foul of the law and were given a second chance. What a pity that you have not afforded this second chance to others.
Again, you must refrain from attacking me personally. If other posters attack you, that is a matter between you and them and you can report it to the moderator. You can't transfer the blame on to me. I appreciate that my own personal experiences may come into my commentary on this case, but you are raising it to goad me.
Turning to the point you make, nowhere in what I say do I deny Julie Mugford a second chance. I don't understand what you are getting at in that respect.
Jeremy had a teasing nature, which I have mentioned myself before, so you are not telling me anything about him I don't already know. But plotting in detail to murder your family and weighing up the different methods by which this could be done is a little bit different. He even discussed the insurance implications with her. I am sorry, but I don't buy your excuses for Julie.
The excuse Julie herself gave police for not reporting the earlier abortive murder plots was that she was "besotted" with him and that it was a "charade". Both terms imply seriousness. She would not use those terms if she just thought Jeremy was being teasing or boastful or jokey, and that is not the underlying theme of her evidence. She does mention that Jeremy did joke about the subject tangentially. For instance, he would say that it would be a shame to burn down such a beautiful old house, but that was part of a more serious intent to kill his family. Perhaps the intent was not fully formed, but it was there.
I believe your excuses for Julie fall down flat. On the one hand you want to be able to say that Jeremy was telling everybody how he hated his family and sharing with Julie his plots to kill, these being a precursor for the main act. On the other hand, you want to reassure us that Julie didn't take the prior plots seriously because she thought he was joking or teasing or boasting or fooling around. Julie must have been a poor judge of character and rather purblind to Jeremy. What a pity she didn't take him more seriously.
If Jeremy is guilty, I think it's more likely that Julie was involved in some way and when, on or around the 12th. September 1985, she realised the family were on to Jeremy and the game was up, she turned. What we know of developments from there can be explained in that context. Jeremy and Julie became trapped in a 'prisoner's dilemma' and Julie got her version of events in first, anticipating that if Jeremy confessed and implicated her, she could plausibly deny it. I also think that Essex Police realised all this, hence the non-disclosure, and they decided that her evidence would be of value in prosecuting Jeremy but could be of less value if she was prosecuted alongside him or in collateral proceedings. The reason for the stupid stories about rats and sleeping tablets is because she needed to make something up to conceal what had actually occurred between them.
-
Seems like a natural process of splitting up. Passionate supporters say Julie should have told the police as soon as she arrived at WHF. Which is crazy.
Julie did not have to approach the police due to her minor cheque book fraud or Bambers caravan break in. The police were not aware of either.
Bamber can only say Julie committed massive perjury because 'he jilted her'. Which is what he has said. The trouble is......he didn't jilt her!
I don't dispute that they may have been gradually splitting-up anyway, but why does Jeremy tell her all about what he is doing if they are growing apart?
It was minor cheque book fraud, that is true, but despite this, she and Susan Battersby saw fit to then blame it all on Jeremy. There is a theme running right up to her 2002 statement of Julie not taking responsibility for her own actions. I accept what you say about her owning up to the cheque book fraud and the caravan park break-in, but she blamed all this on Jeremy, and if she was involved in the murder plot with Jeremy in some way, she may have been concerned to give her account of things more credibility by admitting past crimes, knowing that it could come out anyway if Jeremy confessed.
Bamber asking another woman out in front of Julie was not the reason she approached the police. Although it might have speedied up the process by a few days.
Julie could perhaps tell one person & get away with not going to the police. But not 5.
That's a contradiction. If it speeded up her co-operation with the police, then it is the reason she approached the police.
Although the relationship had been in decline for 6 months, Bamber still had to bring her straight on board after the massacre.
Why? Because of what he had told her over the previous 18 months.
An eventful month later with lots of jolly ups for Bamber & he now felt safe. Julie wanted out anyway.
It all seems curious.
If their relationship is in decline, then why does Jeremy tell her anything?
Let's consider this:
Adam and Steve have no explanation. They say it is because Jeremy wanted to.
There is, however, a rational explanation, which is that although the romantic side of the relationship was in decline, Jeremy might tell her he was plotting to kill his family and ask for her assistance, or inveigle her into his plot - as he did with the drugs - and this might have kept the relationship going.
You could further interpret this one of two ways, either as:
(i). Jeremy and Julie as partners in crime. Julie might even have researched a murder plot for him and helped him plan what occurred that night. Who was the junior partner of the two? We chivalrously assume Jeremy was the dominant factor, but that assumption may be awry. I see no reason why Julie could not have been the one who manipulated Jeremy.
(ii). Jeremy uses Julie as cover, manipulates her emotionally and exploits her immaturity. This fits the dogma of the guilt camp better. The 'Babe in the Wood' theory. Essex Police then proceed to conceal Julie's culpability and help her construct a plausible cover story based on what she has already told her friends.
-
Again, you must refrain from attacking me personally. If other posters attack you, that is a matter between you and them and you can report it to the moderator. You can't transfer the blame on to me. I appreciate that my own personal experiences may come into my commentary on this case, but you are raising it to goad me.
Turning to the point you make, nowhere in what I say do I deny Julie Mugford a second chance. I don't understand what you are getting at in that respect.
Jeremy had a teasing nature, which I have mentioned myself before, so you are not telling me anything about him I don't already know. But plotting in detail to murder your family and weighing up the different methods by which this could be done is a little bit different. He even discussed the insurance implications with her. I am sorry, but I don't buy your excuses for Julie.
The excuse Julie herself gave police for not reporting the earlier abortive murder plots was that she was "besotted" with him and that it was a "charade". Both terms imply seriousness. She would not use those terms if she just thought Jeremy was being teasing or boastful or jokey, and that is not the underlying theme of her evidence. She does mention that Jeremy did joke about the subject tangentially. For instance, he would say that it would be a shame to burn down such a beautiful old house, but that was part of a more serious intent to kill his family. Perhaps the intent was not fully formed, but it was there.
I believe your excuses for Julie fall down flat. On the one hand you want to be able to say that Jeremy was telling everybody how he hated his family and sharing with Julie his plots to kill, these being a precursor for the main act. On the other hand, you want to reassure us that Julie didn't take the prior plots seriously because she thought he was joking or teasing or boasting or fooling around. Julie must have been a poor judge of character and rather purblind to Jeremy. What a pity she didn't take him more seriously.
If Jeremy is guilty, I think it's more likely that Julie was involved in some way and when, on or around the 12th. September 1985, she realised the family were on to Jeremy and the game was up, she turned. What we know of developments from there can be explained in that context. Jeremy and Julie became trapped in a 'prisoner's dilemma' and Julie got her version of events in first, anticipating that if Jeremy confessed and implicated her, she could plausibly deny it. I also think that Essex Police realised all this, hence the non-disclosure, and they decided that her evidence would be of value in prosecuting Jeremy but could be of less value if she was prosecuted alongside him or in collateral proceedings. The reason for the stupid stories about rats and sleeping tablets is because she needed to make something up to conceal what had actually occurred between them.
With regard to your last paragraph. I concur. I have posted such. JB is alleged to have said that it's always best to tell as much of the truth as possible. I think Julie did exactly that to avoid further implication. I don't think Essex Police to have been the first to have 'manipulated' evidence in favour of a witness. As for the rats? There have been other stories about JB and rats. I'm also very inclined to agree with you about Julie's judgement of character. Certainly, it was poor, but at 19, I wonder how many of us would have had perfectly honed judgement such, unless we're blessed with sixth sense, generally comes from experience, and how many of us have found ourselves in the close up company of a potential killer.
Referencing your many complaints to the moderator, about Steve, and your 'requests' for him to be banned. From sitting here quietly and reading from a distance, I see little in what he says, that might cause you such disquiet. Especially so, as you're very liberal with your own deliveries of reprimands and sarcasms to all who cause you offence, and there have been numerous of us. In your latest complaints you sound victimized and helpless to rectify the situation. Actually, you're neither! You have a choice, and one or two alternatives!! I'm sure you understand that it's not possible -unless by coercive means- to change/control others' behaviours. We have to change our approach to it, which means you, WE, are perfectly free to ignore Steve -or anyone else who offends- by either simply taking a deep breath before responding, not responding, or putting them on ignore. If none of those things work for us, there's another. We're free to walk away.
-
With regard to your last paragraph. I concur. I have posted such. JB is alleged to have said that it's always best to tell as much of the truth as possible. I think Julie did exactly that to avoid further implication. I don't think Essex Police to have been the first to have 'manipulated' evidence in favour of a witness. As for the rats? There have been other stories about JB and rats. I'm also very inclined to agree with you about Julie's judgement of character. Certainly, it was poor, but at 19, I wonder how many of us would have had perfectly honed judgement such, unless we're blessed with sixth sense, generally comes from experience, and how many of us have found ourselves in the close up company of a potential killer.
Referencing your many complaints to the moderator, about Steve, and your 'requests' for him to be banned. From sitting here quietly and reading from a distance, I see little in what he says, that might cause you such disquiet. Especially so, as you're very liberal with your own deliveries of reprimands and sarcasms to all who cause you offence, and there have been numerous of us. In your latest complaints you sound victimized and helpless to rectify the situation. Actually, you're neither! You have a choice, and one or two alternatives!! I'm sure you understand that it's not possible -unless by coercive means- to change/control others' behaviours. We have to change our approach to it, which means you, WE, are perfectly free to ignore Steve -or anyone else who offends- by either simply taking a deep breath before responding, not responding, or putting them on ignore. If none of those things work for us, there's another. We're free to walk away.
Do you recognise the contradiction in your second paragraph?
If I started coming on here and insulting and attacking you every time, would you "walk away" or would you raise the matter with moderators?
Finally, can you confirm you agree and will abide by the Forum Rules that say personal attacks on members are not allowed? I ask because you seem to be implying you don't agree with it.
I have reported your post - to the moderator.
I do wonder why you, again, intervene in a dispute that does not directly concern you, rather than just leave it at the first paragraph? What is motivating you?
-
Do you recognise the contradiction in your second paragraph?
If I started coming on here and insulting and attacking you every time, would you "walk away" or would you raise the matter with moderators?
Finally, can you confirm you agree and will abide by the Forum Rules that say personal attacks on members are not allowed? I ask because you seem to be implying you don't agree with it.
I have reported your post - to the moderator.
I do wonder why you, again, intervene in a dispute that does not directly concern you, rather than just leave it at the first paragraph? What is motivating you?
The main reason I and others don't like you whining to the Moderator at every available opportunity is that you obscenely maligned him only a short while ago. You have therefore lost the status of independent moral arbiter on this site. A brief period of atonement from yourself would not go amiss.
-
The main reason I and others don't like you whining to the Moderator at every available opportunity is that you obscenely maligned him only a short while ago. You have therefore lost the status of independent moral arbiter on this site. A brief period of atonement from yourself would not go amiss.
Is there a moderator on the Forum?
I am not an independent moral arbiter on this site. I am a member of this site asking that you cease and desist from launching personal attacks on me every time you come on here.
-
I believe the tactic we may now be seeing is an attempt to distract from inconvenient observations about Julie Mugford.
-
Is there a moderator on the Forum?
I am not an independent moral arbiter on this site. I am a member of this site asking that you cease and desist from launching personal attacks on me every time you come on here.
Yes, but if it were me and I had been insulted in the manner you insulted him I would think twice in intervening on your behalf when you have proved in the past to be one of the worst culprits for rule transgression.
-
I believe the tactic we may now be seeing is an attempt to distract from inconvenient observations about Julie Mugford.
Not at all. I have been Julie's harshest critic in my time: https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5528.0.html
The problem for the Jeremy supporters is how to meld her evidence with his in a way which puts him unambiguously in the clear.
-
Is there a moderator on this Forum?
-
Is there a moderator on this Forum?
As adults, I feel confident that with a little effort, we're all capable of moderating ourselves.
-
Not at all. I have been Julie's harshest critic in my time: https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5528.0.html
The problem for the Jeremy supporters is how to meld her evidence with his in a way which puts him unambiguously in the clear.
You have not been Julie's harshest critic. I am harsher. I was implying she is a murderer or something close to it.
And I have just melded her evidence with Jeremy's in a way that is unambiguously clear: she was in on it.
Not that I am saying I know that is the case, but as a theory, I can't make it clearer.
-
As adults, I feel confident that with a little effort, we're all capable of moderating ourselves.
It seems not.
-
You have not been Julie's harshest critic. I am harsher. I was implying she is a murderer or something close to it.
And I have just melded her evidence with Jeremy's in a way that is unambiguously clear: she was in on it.
Not that I am saying I know that is the case, but as a theory, I can't make it clearer.
Just as a further note on this, and in direct response to Steve's comment, I also previously melded Julie's evidence to Jeremy's: I explained that Jeremy could have been teasing her and she took his words out of context. Ironically, Steve himself lends support to this in one of his posts above, when he reminds us that Jeremy was regarded as a teaser when at Gresham's.
-
You have not been Julie's harshest critic. I am harsher. I was implying she is a murderer or something close to it.
And I have just melded her evidence with Jeremy's in a way that is unambiguously clear: she was in on it.
Not that I am saying I know that is the case, but as a theory, I can't make it clearer.
You're a simple man. You're simple because you've never juggled more than one thing at once in your life, never held down a 9-5 job or longer hours, never been in a relationship where after doing a day's work you slavishly followed the whim of a mass murderer because you were in love, a simple man if you think that weak, ineffectual sleeping tablets prescribed by a GP might suddenly be able to produce the effect of cyanide capsules and liquidate an entire family.
-
Just as a further note on this, and in direct response to Steve's comment, I also previously melded Julie's evidence to Jeremy's: I explained that Jeremy could have been teasing her and she took his words out of context. Ironically, Steve himself lends support to this in one of his posts above, when he reminds us that Jeremy was regarded as a teaser when at Gresham's.
..and how pray is Julie supposed to know her boyfriend is teasing when he moves from one topic of conversation to the other?
-
Do you recognise the contradiction in your second paragraph?
If I started coming on here and insulting and attacking you every time, would you "walk away" or would you raise the matter with moderators?
Finally, can you confirm you agree and will abide by the Forum Rules that say personal attacks on members are not allowed? I ask because you seem to be implying you don't agree with it.
I have reported your post - to the moderator.
I do wonder why you, again, intervene in a dispute that does not directly concern you, rather than just leave it at the first paragraph? What is motivating you?
I've reported you. Once, I think. Since then, I've used the choice open to us all.
To the best of my knowledge, I've not broken Forum rules badly enough for a moderator to consider banning me. Had my knuckles rapped once or twice, I imagine. Personal attacks are relative. From observation, it's often the poster responsible for causing them who's the loudest complainant -although they fail to see that.
I wonder on what grounds you've complained about my post? It was neither rude, nor insulting. More an observation.
Have you never 'intervened' in a conversation/dispute which has not directly concerned you? Very little of what's said here, directly concerns any of us, but we all like to have our say on occasions.
-
Is there a moderator on this Forum?
Yes, as you know. However there are limits to the time I can spend here. I am hoping that things will calm down without the need for any forum disciplinary action, which almost always has consequences. When I have time I will go through some threads and prune or edit them. In the meantime I ask for restraint.
-
JB's teasing/ jesting certainly backfired. It pays to know a person thoroughly and ask yourself if that person would ever be spiteful enough to twist what you'd said.
Unfortunately JB didn't have the nouse to see-through anyone at the time.
I bet he's learned now not to trust a soul !
-
You're a simple man. You're simple because you've never juggled more than one thing at once in your life, never held down a 9-5 job or longer hours, never been in a relationship where after doing a day's work you slavishly followed the whim of a mass murderer because you were in love, a simple man if you think that weak, ineffectual sleeping tablets prescribed by a GP might suddenly be able to produce the effect of cyanide capsules and liquidate an entire family.
I beg your pardon..?..?..?
-
I beg your pardon..?..?..?
FFS he must have a screw loose. Steve see if you can see Jane’s doctor
-
I don't dispute that they may have been gradually splitting-up anyway, but why does Jeremy tell her all about what he is doing if they are growing apart?
It was minor cheque book fraud, that is true, but despite this, she and Susan Battersby saw fit to then blame it all on Jeremy. There is a theme running right up to her 2002 statement of Julie not taking responsibility for her own actions. I accept what you say about her owning up to the cheque book fraud and the caravan park break-in, but she blamed all this on Jeremy, and if she was involved in the murder plot with Jeremy in some way, she may have been concerned to give her account of things more credibility by admitting past crimes, knowing that it could come out anyway if Jeremy confessed.
That's a contradiction. If it speeded up her co-operation with the police, then it is the reason she approached the police.
It all seems curious.
If their relationship is in decline, then why does Jeremy tell her anything?
Let's consider this:
Adam and Steve have no explanation. They say it is because Jeremy wanted to.
There is, however, a rational explanation, which is that although the romantic side of the relationship was in decline, Jeremy might tell her he was plotting to kill his family and asked for her assistance, or inveigled her into his plot - as he did with the drugs - and this might have kept the relationship going.
You could further interpret this one of two ways, either as:
(i). Jeremy and Julie as partners in crime. Julie might even have researched a murder plot for him and helped him plan what occurred that night. Who was the junior partner of the two? We chivalrously assume Jeremy was the dominant factor, but that assumption may be awry. I see no reason why Julie could not have been the one who manipulated Jeremy.
(ii). Jeremy uses Julie as cover, manipulates her emotionally and exploits her immaturity. This fits the dogma of the guilt camp better. The 'Babe in the Wood' theory. Essex Police then proceed to conceal Julie's culpability and help her construct a plausible cover story based on what she has already told her friends.
We agree.
-
I don't dispute that they may have been gradually splitting-up anyway, but why does Jeremy tell her all about what he is doing if they are growing apart?
It was minor cheque book fraud, that is true, but despite this, she and Susan Battersby saw fit to then blame it all on Jeremy. There is a theme running right up to her 2002 statement of Julie not taking responsibility for her own actions. I accept what you say about her owning up to the cheque book fraud and the caravan park break-in, but she blamed all this on Jeremy, and if she was involved in the murder plot with Jeremy in some way, she may have been concerned to give her account of things more credibility by admitting past crimes, knowing that it could come out anyway if Jeremy confessed.
That's a contradiction. If it speeded up her co-operation with the police, then it is the reason she approached the police.
It all seems curious.
If their relationship is in decline, then why does Jeremy tell her anything?
Let's consider this:
Adam and Steve have no explanation. They say it is because Jeremy wanted to.
There is, however, a rational explanation, which is that although the romantic side of the relationship was in decline, Jeremy might tell her he was plotting to kill his family and asked for her assistance, or inveigled her into his plot - as he did with the drugs - and this might have kept the relationship going.
You could further interpret this one of two ways, either as:
(i). Jeremy and Julie as partners in crime. Julie might even have researched a murder plot for him and helped him plan what occurred that night. Who was the junior partner of the two? We chivalrously assume Jeremy was the dominant factor, but that assumption may be awry. I see no reason why Julie could not have been the one who manipulated Jeremy.
(ii). Jeremy uses Julie as cover, manipulates her emotionally and exploits her immaturity. This fits the dogma of the guilt camp better. The 'Babe in the Wood' theory. Essex Police then proceed to conceal Julie's culpability and help her construct a plausible cover story based on what she has already told her friends.
They were growing apart for 6 of the 18 months.
-
I don't dispute that they may have been gradually splitting-up anyway, but why does Jeremy tell her all about what he is doing if they are growing apart?
It was minor cheque book fraud, that is true, but despite this, she and Susan Battersby saw fit to then blame it all on Jeremy. There is a theme running right up to her 2002 statement of Julie not taking responsibility for her own actions. I accept what you say about her owning up to the cheque book fraud and the caravan park break-in, but she blamed all this on Jeremy, and if she was involved in the murder plot with Jeremy in some way, she may have been concerned to give her account of things more credibility by admitting past crimes, knowing that it could come out anyway if Jeremy confessed.
That's a contradiction. If it speeded up her co-operation with the police, then it is the reason she approached the police.
It all seems curious.
If their relationship is in decline, then why does Jeremy tell her anything?
Let's consider this:
Adam and Steve have no explanation. They say it is because Jeremy wanted to.
There is, however, a rational explanation, which is that although the romantic side of the relationship was in decline, Jeremy might tell her he was plotting to kill his family and asked for her assistance, or inveigled her into his plot - as he did with the drugs - and this might have kept the relationship going.
You could further interpret this one of two ways, either as:
(i). Jeremy and Julie as partners in crime. Julie might even have researched a murder plot for him and helped him plan what occurred that night. Who was the junior partner of the two? We chivalrously assume Jeremy was the dominant factor, but that assumption may be awry. I see no reason why Julie could not have been the one who manipulated Jeremy.
(ii). Jeremy uses Julie as cover, manipulates her emotionally and exploits her immaturity. This fits the dogma of the guilt camp better. The 'Babe in the Wood' theory. Essex Police then proceed to conceal Julie's culpability and help her construct a plausible cover story based on what she has already told her friends.
She approached the police. Completed a 24 page WS & testified.
-
I don't dispute that they may have been gradually splitting-up anyway, but why does Jeremy tell her all about what he is doing if they are growing apart?
It was minor cheque book fraud, that is true, but despite this, she and Susan Battersby saw fit to then blame it all on Jeremy. There is a theme running right up to her 2002 statement of Julie not taking responsibility for her own actions. I accept what you say about her owning up to the cheque book fraud and the caravan park break-in, but she blamed all this on Jeremy, and if she was involved in the murder plot with Jeremy in some way, she may have been concerned to give her account of things more credibility by admitting past crimes, knowing that it could come out anyway if Jeremy confessed.
That's a contradiction. If it speeded up her co-operation with the police, then it is the reason she approached the police.
It all seems curious.
If their relationship is in decline, then why does Jeremy tell her anything?
Let's consider this:
Adam and Steve have no explanation. They say it is because Jeremy wanted to.
There is, however, a rational explanation, which is that although the romantic side of the relationship was in decline, Jeremy might tell her he was plotting to kill his family and asked for her assistance, or inveigled her into his plot - as he did with the drugs - and this might have kept the relationship going.
You could further interpret this one of two ways, either as:
(i). Jeremy and Julie as partners in crime. Julie might even have researched a murder plot for him and helped him plan what occurred that night. Who was the junior partner of the two? We chivalrously assume Jeremy was the dominant factor, but that assumption may be awry. I see no reason why Julie could not have been the one who manipulated Jeremy.
(ii). Jeremy uses Julie as cover, manipulates her emotionally and exploits her immaturity. This fits the dogma of the guilt camp better. The 'Babe in the Wood' theory. Essex Police then proceed to conceal Julie's culpability and help her construct a plausible cover story based on what she has already told her friends.
Well it was Bamber who robbed the caravan site.
-
I don't dispute that they may have been gradually splitting-up anyway, but why does Jeremy tell her all about what he is doing if they are growing apart?
It was minor cheque book fraud, that is true, but despite this, she and Susan Battersby saw fit to then blame it all on Jeremy. There is a theme running right up to her 2002 statement of Julie not taking responsibility for her own actions. I accept what you say about her owning up to the cheque book fraud and the caravan park break-in, but she blamed all this on Jeremy, and if she was involved in the murder plot with Jeremy in some way, she may have been concerned to give her account of things more credibility by admitting past crimes, knowing that it could come out anyway if Jeremy confessed.
That's a contradiction. If it speeded up her co-operation with the police, then it is the reason she approached the police.
It all seems curious.
If their relationship is in decline, then why does Jeremy tell her anything?
Let's consider this:
Adam and Steve have no explanation. They say it is because Jeremy wanted to.
There is, however, a rational explanation, which is that although the romantic side of the relationship was in decline, Jeremy might tell her he was plotting to kill his family and asked for her assistance, or inveigled her into his plot - as he did with the drugs - and this might have kept the relationship going.
You could further interpret this one of two ways, either as:
(i). Jeremy and Julie as partners in crime. Julie might even have researched a murder plot for him and helped him plan what occurred that night. Who was the junior partner of the two? We chivalrously assume Jeremy was the dominant factor, but that assumption may be awry. I see no reason why Julie could not have been the one who manipulated Jeremy.
(ii). Jeremy uses Julie as cover, manipulates her emotionally and exploits her immaturity. This fits the dogma of the guilt camp better. The 'Babe in the Wood' theory. Essex Police then proceed to conceal Julie's culpability and help her construct a plausible cover story based on what she has already told her friends.
He had spent 18 months telling her everything. So had to keep her onside immediately after the massacre.
-
An even quicker summary is -
Julie didn't take much interest or believe in Bamber's rants & outlandish plans. Teenage girls have more important things to worry about.
She was unexpectedly escorted to WHF by a police car. Managing to escape Bamber around a month later. He now felt safe & preferred Brett anyway.
-
Appreciate QC will try to make more of it & muddy the waters. He is advocating reasonable doubt if a trial was held now.
-
Just as a further note on this, and in direct response to Steve's comment, I also previously melded Julie's evidence to Jeremy's: I explained that Jeremy could have been teasing her and she took his words out of context. Ironically, Steve himself lends support to this in one of his posts above, when he reminds us that Jeremy was regarded as a teaser when at Gresham's.
Bit of a coincidence then about the blood found deep within the silencer matching Sheila's groups.
-
Jeremy could have been teasing her and she took his words out of context.
----------
As said QC muddying the waters.
-
I don't dispute that they may have been gradually splitting-up anyway, but why does Jeremy tell her all about what he is doing if they are growing apart?
It was minor cheque book fraud, that is true, but despite this, she and Susan Battersby saw fit to then blame it all on Jeremy. There is a theme running right up to her 2002 statement of Julie not taking responsibility for her own actions. I accept what you say about her owning up to the cheque book fraud and the caravan park break-in, but she blamed all this on Jeremy, and if she was involved in the murder plot with Jeremy in some way, she may have been concerned to give her account of things more credibility by admitting past crimes, knowing that it could come out anyway if Jeremy confessed.
That's a contradiction. If it speeded up her co-operation with the police, then it is the reason she approached the police.
It all seems curious.
If their relationship is in decline, then why does Jeremy tell her anything?
Let's consider this:
Adam and Steve have no explanation. They say it is because Jeremy wanted to.
There is, however, a rational explanation, which is that although the romantic side of the relationship was in decline, Jeremy might tell her he was plotting to kill his family and ask for her assistance, or inveigle her into his plot - as he did with the drugs - and this might have kept the relationship going.
You could further interpret this one of two ways, either as:
(i). Jeremy and Julie as partners in crime. Julie might even have researched a murder plot for him and helped him plan what occurred that night. Who was the junior partner of the two? We chivalrously assume Jeremy was the dominant factor, but that assumption may be awry. I see no reason why Julie could not have been the one who manipulated Jeremy.
(ii). Jeremy uses Julie as cover, manipulates her emotionally and exploits her immaturity. This fits the dogma of the guilt camp better. The 'Babe in the Wood' theory. Essex Police then proceed to conceal Julie's culpability and help her construct a plausible cover story based on what she has already told her friends.
Was Julie able to get away with blaming Bamber about the cheque fraud at trial? Seems to me the trial judge placed responsibility for it on her shoulders?
344. When the judge dealt with this aspect of the matter in his summing up (Transcript page 19C), he said:
"It is the defendant's case, of course, that Julie Mugford's evidence in this case is fabricated, and that she is a brazen, blatant liar, so Mr Rivlin introduced the matter of her previous cheque offences in order to suggest to you then that it was shown that she has been dishonest in the past and so that you can bear in mind that part of her character when assessing whether to believe her not on the evidence she has given in this trial. That is the degree to which that evidence is relevant. Of course, the fact that a person has committed some offence, or has at some time lied in the past, in no way proves that they can never again tell the truth and you might think particularly so, on oath in a murder trial. It does not prove that at all. It is merely there for you to have in mind when you come to weigh up her evidence.
What about Julie's involvement with Bamber supplying drugs which she sold around uni campus?
-
Jeremy could have been teasing her and she took his words out of context.
----------
As said QC muddying the waters.
Yeah could have been like he did with all the other prosecution witnesses eg James Richard who appeared on the Sky doc and was adamant even some 36 years on that Bamber said "I hate my fcuking parents". Apparently when asked at trial how he was able to recall he said because it was said with so much vehemence!
What reasons(s) would James Richard have to lie on oath during a high profile mass murder trial?
-
Yeah could have been like he did with all the other prosecution witnesses eg James Richard who appeared on the Sky doc and was adamant even some 36 years on that Bamber said "I hate my fcuking parents". Apparently when asked at trial how he was able to recall he said because it was said with so much vehemence!
What reasons(s) would James Richard have to lie on oath during a high profile mass murder trial?
Hi Alcoholly 👋
-
Yeah could have been like he did with all the other prosecution witnesses eg James Richard who appeared on the Sky doc and was adamant even some 36 years on that Bamber said "I hate my fcuking parents". Apparently when asked at trial how he was able to recall he said because it was said with so much vehemence!
What reasons(s) would James Richard have to lie on oath during a high profile mass murder trial?
Should we stop for a moment to consider the reasons each witness may have had to testify against JB, they would add up to -well, really too many to count, wouldn't they, each providing a different reason, because whilst they'd all have known JB, they wouldn't necessarily have known each other.
So what might it have been about this, according to supporters, poor innocent boy, that engendered so much dislike in all these people, that they'd ALL, to a man/woman, be prepared to stand up in a court of law, and lie through their teeth to get him convicted? Might it have been his saintliness? His generosity, both spiritually and financially? Could it have been his natural empathy? Was he the immediate go to for some, if they had a problem?
It's doubtful that any of them saw or experienced these qualities in him, but as none of them were there to witness the tragedy, it wouldn't have been possible for them to say, definitively, that he was guilty, but maybe there was something in him/something about him, that suggested to them all, that each, individually, had witnessed, that he was capable of committing such an act?
-
Should we stop for a moment to consider the reasons each witness may have had to testify against JB, they would add up to -well, really too many to count, wouldn't they, each providing a different reason, because whilst they'd all have known JB, they wouldn't necessarily have known each other.
So what might it have been about this, according to supporters, poor innocent boy, that engendered so much dislike in all these people, that they'd ALL, to a man/woman, be prepared to stand up in a court of law, and lie through their teeth to get him convicted? Might it have been his saintliness? His generosity, both spiritually and financially? Could it have been his natural empathy? Was he the immediate go to for some, if they had a problem?
It's doubtful that any of them saw or experienced these qualities in him, but as none of them were there to witness the tragedy, it wouldn't have been possible for them to say, definitively, that he was guilty, but maybe there was something in him/something about him, that suggested to them all, that each, individually, had witnessed, that he was capable of committing such an act?
I think you might have hit the nail on the head! It seems that 36 years later Brett Collins also saw something in Bamber being able to orchestrate a family annihilation even if indirectly via a third party.
-
Hi Alcoholly 👋
How is the medication going David?
-
Hi Alcoholly 👋
Hi Attention Defecit Hyperactivity Disordered individual.
-
Should we stop for a moment to consider the reasons each witness may have had to testify against JB, they would add up to -well, really too many to count, wouldn't they, each providing a different reason, because whilst they'd all have known JB, they wouldn't necessarily have known each other.
So what might it have been about this, according to supporters, poor innocent boy, that engendered so much dislike in all these people, that they'd ALL, to a man/woman, be prepared to stand up in a court of law, and lie through their teeth to get him convicted? Might it have been his saintliness? His generosity, both spiritually and financially? Could it have been his natural empathy? Was he the immediate go to for some, if they had a problem?
It's doubtful that any of them saw or experienced these qualities in him, but as none of them were there to witness the tragedy, it wouldn't have been possible for them to say, definitively, that he was guilty, but maybe there was something in him/something about him, that suggested to them all, that each, individually, had witnessed, that he was capable of committing such an act?
Absolutely hilarious post. You will find literally hundreds of people dislike the family more than Jeremy. Even fake justice sent me a pm about how badly the family are thought of. I work a lot in that area so I know.
David Boutflours demeaner in the last documentary said it all. The truth always comes out in the end
-
Absolutely hilarious post. You will find literally hundreds of people dislike the family more than Jeremy. Even fake justice sent me a pm about how badly the family are thought of. I work a lot in that area so I know.
David Boutflours demeaner in the last documentary said it all. The truth always comes out in the end
'Cept THEY weren't in court, were they, Jackie, and frankly, given that 36 years have, imperceptibly, slipped past, and JB is STILL where he was sent, those who, allegedly hold him in such high regard, are, by their very absence, somewhat thin on the ground. I glad to here that you're capable of work.
-
'Cept THEY weren't in court, were they, Jackie, and frankly, given that 36 years have, imperceptibly, slipped past, and JB is STILL where he was sent, those who, allegedly hold him in such high regard, are, by their very absence, somewhat thin on the ground. I glad to here that you're capable of work.
Taking into account all the Bamber money the family have at the moment you would think David Boutflour could invest in some new teeth
-
'Cept THEY weren't in court, were they, Jackie, and frankly, given that 36 years have, imperceptibly, slipped past, and JB is STILL where he was sent, those who, allegedly hold him in such high regard, are, by their very absence, somewhat thin on the ground. I glad to here that you're capable of work.
The greed of the family is off the scale even infighting about how much of the Bambers money that wood get each
#pargeter
Gross
-
Taking into account all the Bamber money the family have at the moment you would think David Boutflour could invest in some new teeth
Irrelevant and bitchy in the extreme, but littler more can be expected from you. At least it shows that, unlike JB, the family's concern is about more than showiness and bling.