Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Zoso on July 30, 2024, 06:31:PM
-
Roch has requested that Jane and I debate with HB on the above question - for some reason he thinks we won't?
So ..... HB - how could Julie have been charged as an accomplice when she had an airtight alibi, witnesses and didn't lie for Bamber?
-
My point has always been that pressure could have been applied to her and I believe it was. This is partly why she became a malleable witness. In her case, the stick came before the carrot. The carrot was she got to have a career and she got a new life with her 25K. The stick came early days. She needed to realise her position was precarious. How can any of us say that she would have said a single thing, had Jeremy not dispensed with her. How do we know she wouldn't have enjoyed being quids in?
-
My point has always been that pressure could have been applied to her and I believe it was. This is partly why she became a malleable witness. In her case, the stick came before the carrot. The carrot was she got to have a career and she got a new life with her 25K. The stick came early days. She needed to realise her position was precarious. How can any of us say that she would have said a single thing, had Jeremy not dispensed with her. How do we know she wouldn't have enjoyed being quids in?
We don't know for sure, but it was out of character for Julie to expect something for nothing. She turned down the offer of managing a wine bar in a fashionable area of London, she neither relinquished her university course nor got pregnant by him. Infatuation was the word, and as a 20-year-old she is surely to be granted clemency, however incomprehensible to the outsider her actions at the time may have seemed.
-
My point has always been that pressure could have been applied to her and I believe it was. This is partly why she became a malleable witness. In her case, the stick came before the carrot. The carrot was she got to have a career and she got a new life with her 25K. The stick came early days. She needed to realise her position was precarious. How can any of us say that she would have said a single thing, had Jeremy not dispensed with her. How do we know she wouldn't have enjoyed being quids in?
How can any of us know that -contrary to what the Booby has to say on the subject!- the most we can do is speculate, but since when was anyone convicted on what they may, or not, have done?
-
For me if Jeremy and Julie are complicit. Jeremy will never shop Julie for her involvement because it wouldn't bring Jeremy no benefit. It might put her away but his situation will not change. The man's ultimate goal is freedom. Shopping Julie will not alter that. His position would remain the same
-
For me if Jeremy and Julie are complicit. Jeremy will never shop Julie for her involvement because it wouldn't bring Jeremy no benefit. It might put her away but his situation will not change. The man's ultimate goal is freedom. Shopping Julie will not alter that. His position would remain the same
Makes much more sense than trying to encourage concurring posters to 'debate' the one topic on which they think differently.
-
My point has always been that pressure could have been applied to her and I believe it was. This is partly why she became a malleable witness. In her case, the stick came before the carrot. The carrot was she got to have a career and she got a new life with her 25K. The stick came early days. She needed to realise her position was precarious. How can any of us say that she would have said a single thing, had Jeremy not dispensed with her. How do we know she wouldn't have enjoyed being quids in?
Pressure on what basis? How was her position precarious? She couldn't be linked to the murders, she had a rock solid alibi and unless Bamber said she was involved, the police had nothing. For Bamber to implicate her, he'd have to admit responsibility. There is also the fact that it was Liz Rimmington's boyfriend (Waters I think he's called), who contacted the police on her behalf. She had already reported what she knew before the £25,000.00 was offered, so that was never an incentive.
-
Roch has requested that Jane and I debate with HB on the above question - for some reason he thinks we won't?
So ..... HB - how could Julie have been charged as an accomplice when she had an airtight alibi, witnesses and didn't lie for Bamber?
Hi Zoso, been camping last nigh not long nack, but here goes................Julie knew he had made plans to murder his family having already admited this, she knew he had committed the murders and she knew the night before byu the 10.00 pm call tonights the night, and she realised he had done the murders with the 3=00 am call because she said so, now NGB might correct me but......An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being committed, will be committed, or has been committed. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way. The assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.
In My view she definatly concealed and was happy that Jeremy had told her MM had done it, this still does not excuse her, because he told her MM had done it, because she is still aware of Jeremy's involvement.
I stand by 100 per cent, she is a s guilty as him, she could have told the Police all about from day one, and i think she got off very very lightly and i don't think she would today.
-
Hi Zoso, been camping last nigh not long nack, but here goes................Julie knew he had made plans to murder his family having already admited this, she knew he had committed the murders and she knew the night before byu the 10.00 pm call tonights the night, and she realised he had done the murders with the 3=00 am call because she said so, now NGB might correct me but......An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being committed, will be committed, or has been committed. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way. The assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.
In My view she definatly concealed and was happy that Jeremy had told her MM had done it, this still does not excuse her, because he told her MM had done it, because she is still aware of Jeremy's involvement.
I stand by 100 per cent, she is a s guilty as him, she could have told the Police all about from day one, and i think she got off very very lightly and i don't think she would today.
Do you mean an accessory after the fact? Maybe ngb1066 could clarify.
-
Hi Zoso, been camping last nigh not long nack, but here goes................Julie knew he had made plans to murder his family having already admited this, she knew he had committed the murders and she knew the night before byu the 10.00 pm call tonights the night, and she realised he had done the murders with the 3=00 am call because she said so, now NGB might correct me but......An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being committed, will be committed, or has been committed. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way. The assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.
In My view she definatly concealed and was happy that Jeremy had told her MM had done it, this still does not excuse her, because he told her MM had done it, because she is still aware of Jeremy's involvement.
I stand by 100 per cent, she is a s guilty as him, she could have told the Police all about from day one, and i think she got off very very lightly and i don't think she would today.
It isn't illegal to not report a crime, which is the only thing she could have been 'guilty' of. I do get what you are saying and there is every possibility that she did take a more supportive role previous to being dumped. But I thought Roch was saying that she was probably threatened in some way by Jones, that if she didn't help nail him, she would be prosecuted as an accessory. I fail to see how the police could have made that stick ...... stick? I suspect that the premise is that she wasn't a willing witness, she was forced into it. The is nothing to prove that and she has never indicated that this was the case. She could, if she wanted to now and even manage to come out of it a victim - but she has never once indicated that she believes Bamber is anything but guilty.
-
Do you mean an accessory after the fact? Maybe ngb1066 could clarify.
Yes Steve, she wasn't involved in the crime itself, but there isn't any doubt whatsoever she knew what he had done. He even told her the twins shooting and his Dad put up a fight, no one can tell me she didn't know and she chose to conceal this from the Police. I cannot excuse this woman and i think in today's world she would have got charged.
-
Yes Steve, she wasn't involved in the crime itself, but there isn't any doubt whatsoever she knew what he had done. He even told her the twins shooting and his Dad put up a fight, no one can tell me she didn't know and she chose to conceal this from the Police. I cannot excuse this woman and i think in today's world she would have got charged.
Like I said, it isn't a crime to not report one. I agree that she knew, what I don't agree with is that EP threatened her and that's why she gave evidence against Bamber. I think it's more likely that she came forward because she was pissed off with him.
-
It isn't illegal to not report a crime, which is the only thing she could have been 'guilty' of. I do get what you are saying and there is every possibility that she did take a more supportive role previous to being dumped. But I thought Roch was saying that she was probably threatened in some way by Jones, that if she didn't help nail him, she would be prosecuted as an accessory. I fail to see how the police could have made that stick ...... stick? I suspect that the premise is that she wasn't a willing witness, she was forced into it. The is nothing to prove that and she has never indicated that this was the case. She could, if she wanted to now and even manage to come out of it a victim - but she has never once indicated that she believes Bamber is anything but guilty.
I don't think she was threatened by Jones, i think she was helped by Jones, with the Bank and she was needed as a witness, in them days it was more help if they had a witness like her and they would pull strings to make sure she wouldn't be prosecuted or she doen't look a good witness?
-
I don't think she was threatened by Jones, i think she was helped by Jones, with the Bank and she was needed as a witness, in them days it was more help if they had a witness like her and they would pull strings to make sure she wouldn't be prosecuted or she doen't look a good witness?
DS Jones was suspicious of Bamber from the outset, as his colleagues had said: "We're not happy with this chap." Manoeuvring himself at the other side of a door he heard a cough or a chuckle, and his suspicions were confirmed.
-
Yes Steve, she wasn't involved in the crime itself, but there isn't any doubt whatsoever she knew what he had done. He even told her the twins shooting and his Dad put up a fight, no one can tell me she didn't know and she chose to conceal this from the Police. I cannot excuse this woman and i think in today's world she would have got charged.
I think there would have come a moment when the penny would have dropped, HB. Until then, the two ways of looking at it -from my perspective!- are A) she hadn't wanted to believe him capable, and B) she was secretly harbouring the fantasy that he was. The problem with B is that we're talking about an intelligent woman, here. I can't believe it hadn't been at the back of her mind every waking moment. Just an aside, but knowing how little regard police of 1985, had for women -especially the more intelligent types- I rather imagine anything she told them would have been filed in the waste paper basket. ................And I am more than willing to bet all knowledge of it would have been denied.
-
I don't think she was threatened by Jones, i think she was helped by Jones, with the Bank and she was needed as a witness, in them days it was more help if they had a witness like her and they would pull strings to make sure she wouldn't be prosecuted or she doen't look a good witness?
Then we agree! We also agree about the bank and why Jones got involved with the bank fraud. He needed his witness to have 'clean hands' or as clean as he could get them.
-
I don't think she was threatened by Jones, i think she was helped by Jones, with the Bank and she was needed as a witness, in them days it was more help if they had a witness like her and they would pull strings to make sure she wouldn't be prosecuted or she doen't look a good witness?
I think that's a part of the "How involved was Julie" question on which we're in sync, don't you?
-
I think if Jeremy is gulity solely Julie did have a fear in her mind being implicated once she went forward.
From experience getting interviewed is a stressful affair, there's every chance Bamber could have cracked and confessed. If he had done our of spite he may have said " Julie was involved in the planning "
Also let's be fair if what Julie was saying is true, he was replying " you will be roped in as much as I am " you are up to your neck as much in it as I am "
To be fair if I was a member of CID, I would suspect Julie. She displayed no signs of concern until Bamber chatted up another women. This is fact, she accompanied him on meals went abroad with him. He wasn't controlling her. He seemed more interested in other people.
If Bamber did confess at the time and implicate Julie her conduct post the crime ( remaining at Bambers side until he jilted her) would come into contention. If he had confessed and then was spiteful she could have found herself in a whole lot of potential trouble. She may have been found not guilty at a trial but she may have been charged
-
Having the benefit of having sisters I'm quite surprised she didn't confide in MM early on. Suppose it goes on the strength of her relationship with her mum.
-
Like I said, it isn't a crime to not report one. I agree that she knew, what I don't agree with is that EP threatened her and that's why she gave evidence against Bamber. I think it's more likely that she came forward because she was pissed off with him.
Doesn't it fit into this though Zoso?
knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way. The assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.
She concealed the fact he had involvement in the murders, either himself or MM? She went to view the dead bodies and seen those children in the Morgue and still kept about his involvent, that has to be some callous and evil person to me.
-
I think there would have come a moment when the penny would have dropped, HB. Until then, the two ways of looking at it -from my perspective!- are A) she hadn't wanted to believe him capable, and B) she was secretly harbouring the fantasy that he was. The problem with B is that we're talking about an intelligent woman, here. I can't believe it hadn't been at the back of her mind every waking moment. Just an aside, but knowing how little regard police of 1985, had for women -especially the more intelligent types- I rather imagine anything she told them would have been filed in the waste paper basket. ................And I am more than willing to bet all knowledge of it would have been denied.
Without checking Jane, the penny dropped after the 3.00am phone call, she said in her statement she knew he had done it?
I lay in bed but did not go to sleep as I knew that Jeremy had murdered his family.
-
Then we agree! We also agree about the bank and why Jones got involved with the bank fraud. He needed his witness to have 'clean hands' or as clean as he could get them.
Yes thats what i think.
-
Without checking Jane, the penny deopped after the 3.00am phone call, she said in her statement she knew he had done it?
I lay in bed but did not go to sleep as I knew that Jeremy had murdered his family.
Had he not told her that if he went down, she'd go down with him because she was implicated? Was this blackmail, a threat, or fear that she might tell?
-
DS Jones was suspicious of Bamber from the outset, as his colleagues had said: "We're not happy with this chap." Manoeuvring himself at the other side of a door he heard a cough or a chuckle, and his suspicions were confirmed.
Yes Steve he was from day one, and he's saying to Julie, "i should have been an Actor" anyone who didn't know their boyfriend was involed would have questioned that?
-
Had he not told her that if he went down, she'd go down with him because she was implicated? Was this blackmail, a threat, or fear that she might tell?
Maybe Jane, but she didn't run from him after telling her about his involvent in murdering his entire family, she still chose to stay with him and sleep with him?
I asked how much he paid Mathew and he said £2000. I did mention to Jeremy where he could get £2000 as I knew he hadn’t got it.
She is helping him conceal and she is helping him get away with it?
-
iv'e been trying a new gadgit out Camping, solar Panel for my tent in Clumber i didn't have electrics and so this then charges my power Bank, i wish i'd stopped another night now ;D ;D ;D
-
iv'e been trying a new gadgit out Camping, solar Panel for my tent in Clumber i didn't have electrics and so this then charges my power Bank, i wish i'd stopped another night now ;D ;D ;D
Been watching a documentary on Prime called "I Shouldn't Be Alive". It's about people who have survived hellish circumstances after, either getting lost in a Canyon, or at sea, have fallen down a mountainside or stuck in an avalanche ETC. Your post just reminded me of that - be careful out there! ;D
-
The police are allowed to use deception in order to elicit information or get witnesses to comply.
Accuse one of lying to the police to help protect a witness. Accessory after the fact or accessory before fact etc.
Dana Ewell was 200 miles away from the crime he is convicted of, had plenty of alibi witnesses. He is currently serving a longer sentence than the hitman he hired.
-
Julie left Bamber & Brett on the 27th August. To return to London & the job she had abruptly been taken away from.
She told 5 people and then approached the police. Once she told one person there was no going back.
It would be interesting to know if telling friends & her police approach was 100% due to her conscience. Or whether she knew the police were closing in on him.
-
Julie left Bamber & Brett on the 27th August. To return to London & the job she had abruptly been taken away from.
She told 5 people and then approached the police. Once she told one person there was no going back.
It would be interesting to know if telling friends & her police approach was 100% due to her conscience. Or whether she knew the police were closing in on him.
Julie is as bigger liar as him, she knew he planned to do it and she knew he had done it after the 3.00am phone call, she was happy to shag about with him and free load off him and when she realised this was going to stop that's when she chose to shop him, there is nothing else to suggest otherwise.
Look at the lies she say's..................But she insisted as soon as she realised he was the one responsible for the crimes, she had to go to the police. Yet In her statement she say's after the 3.00 am phone call on the day of the murders, "she knew then he had murdered everyone"
I cannot get what your thinking, you work from evidence and statements, yet the times Julie say's Jeremy was planning to do it and even supplying him with tablets to use on his parents, she say's she knew he had done it after the 3.00am phone call, if this woman had any Conscience like normal people, she would have discouraged him from commiting these murders and left him for even suggesting such, if she had done so maybe Bamber would not have done the murders in the first place, and she should have done like normal conscience minded people and told the Police he had done it in her first interview.
I will not stick up for someone who knew he was planning to commit a crime and then covered up for someone who committed and killed those innocent people, including two lovely little boys?
-
Maybe Jane, but she didn't run from him after telling her about his involvent in murdering his entire family, she still chose to stay with him and sleep with him?
I asked how much he paid Mathew and he said £2000. I did mention to Jeremy where he could get £2000 as I knew he hadn’t got it.
She is helping him conceal and she is helping him get away with it?
Wrote this last night but it dropped out half way through. Second attempt!!
I'm not claiming that any of it fits who she was at the time, just putting it out there.
There are numerous cases -outside of domestic abuse- of victims of abduction/kidnapping/abuse who choose to stay, even when they have the' freedom' to leave. Abuse can be more subtle than bruises and broken bones, it can be about mind control and he'd already exercised that by telling her if he went down, she'd go down with him. I may well have been that, when he dumped her, she was freed from the 'prison' she'd been in, and found the courage to come forward, having told her friends first and being supported by them.
On the surface, though, she's guilty of all you claim her to be.
Just an add on!! Such was the mind set of police, at that time, re women, especially intelligent ones, that chances are, had she voiced her concerns, they'd have been filed in a waste paper bin and all knowledge of it would have been denied.
-
Been watching a documentary on Prime called "I Shouldn't Be Alive". It's about people who have survived hellish circumstances after, either getting lost in a Canyon, or at sea, have fallen down a mountainside or stuck in an avalanche ETC. Your post just reminded me of that - be careful out there! ;D
Ha Ha iv'e watched some of them, unbelievable how they survive. I love Anna Mcnuff, i follow her, she's not extreme but she's does challenging events, even cycling the 50 states of America solo and unsupported, and set out to run 2,620 miles (100 marathons) through Britain in her bare feet. Starting in the Shetland Islands and ending five months later in London.
-
Wrote this last night but it dropped out half way through. Second attempt!!
I'm not claiming that any of it fits who she was at the time, just putting it out there.
There are numerous cases -outside of domestic abuse- of victims of abduction/kidnapping/abuse who choose to stay, even when they have the' freedom' to leave. Abuse can be more subtle than bruises and broken bones, it can be about mind control and he'd already exercised that by telling her if he went down, she'd go down with him. I may well have been that, when he dumped her, she was freed from the 'prison' she'd been in, and found the courage to come forward, having told her friends first and being supported by them.
On the surface, though, she's guilty of all you claim her to be.
Just an add on!! Such was the mind set of police, at that time, re women, especially intelligent ones, that chances are, had she voiced her concerns, they'd have been filed in a waste paper bin and all knowledge of it would have been denied.
I get what your saying Jane and i do agree there are women in abusive relationships, i was chatting to a 37 year old woman the other day who had been raped by an Asian taxi driver in Matlock, and before it went to court he fled Britain, she told me how it had affected her life.
But, like i say, if she had gone to Police after the 3.00 am Phone call and the 10.00pm phone call, she would have been relieved of any consciene whether the police beileve you or not, i don't think she was abused and i think she chose to stay through her own greed. She probably thought at this stage, that she would have an hold on him for the rest of his life. I think it was later anyway and not at the early stage when he used the threat of her being an accessory, he used this when he decided to dump her.
-
I get what your saying Jane and i do agree there are women in abusive relationships, i was chatting to a 37 year old woman the other day who had been raped by an Asian taxi driver in Matlock, and before it went to court he fled Britain, she told me how it had affected her life.
But, like i say, if she had gone to Police after the 3.00 am Phone call and the 10.00pm phone call, she would have been relieved of any consciene whether the police beileve you or not, i don't think she was abused and i think she chose to stay through her own greed. She probably thought at this stage, that she would have an hold on him for the rest of his life. I think it was later anyway and not at the early stage when he used the threat of her being an accessory, he used this when he decided to dump her.
Who of us is right? It does seem rather strange that he's never sought to implicate her, suggesting that she may know rather more than she claims. There's also the fact of him having to admit to his own guilt if he does. She may well have him by the short and curlies!
-
I suspect Julie believed the police were closing in on Bamber.
He had told her of his plans and said he was involved afterwards.
There was only so long the police would swallow the 'my father started ringing my AM' story for.
-
I suspect Julie believed the police were closing in on Bamber.
He had told her of his plans and said he was involved afterwards.
There was only so long the police would swallow the 'my father started ringing my AM' story for.
Suppose Julie would be in the dark to be honest.
Suspect Bamber must have had more suspicions. The chats with police would have got less friendly, the relatives et al. I bet he picked up subtle hints along the way that the heat was cranking up on him.
Whether you believe he was too busy on " jolly ups" or not.
-
Would like to know the date of The Sun article regarding Bamber trying to sell photos of Sheila.
Would also like to read it.
If Julie read it she would certainly know the tide was turning.
-
Julie would suspect the relatives would not accept murder/suicide. They knew how strong Nevill was.
She would also know the police would see the lack of remorse from Bamber. She was with him!
-
Who of us is right? It does seem rather strange that he's never sought to implicate her, suggesting that she may know rather more than she claims. There's also the fact of him having to admit to his own guilt if he does. She may well have him by the short and curlies!
I agree Jane we will never know the truth because neither of them dare admit to anything.
-
I do believe Julie approached the police to save her skin.
Bamber being charged and confessing would implement her.
Him being charged and denying everything will still result in Julie being put under heavy pressure by the police. Then heavy pressure at trial.
She was now also being encouraged to approach the police by 5 people she had told.
-
Julie and Bamber were not together in late August/early September.
So there was now no point in her keeping quiet or lying if the police approched her.
It was better she approach them first if she believed the police were closing in on Bamber. Which she did do.
Her friends encouraging her to do this & Bamber asking another woman out in front of her, speeded up the process. Which was lucky as she had no time waste.
-
I do believe Julie approached the police to save her skin.
Bamber being charged and confessing would implement her.
Him being charged and denying everything will still result in Julie being put under heavy pressure by the police. Then heavy pressure at trial.
She was now also being encouraged to approach the police by 5 people she had told.
Agree there was a risk if he confessed he may implicate her out of spite.
Disagree she would be under pressure if doing the right thing. ( If she is telling the truth )
If anything it would be soul cleansing
Dont believe she feared for her personal safety prior the trial. Bamber was banged up on remand.
-
Agree there was a risk if he confessed he may implicate her out of spite.
Disagree she would be under pressure if doing the right thing. ( If she is telling the truth )
If anything it would be soul cleansing
It undoubtedly was. After she'd done it, I imagine there'd have been a huge weight lifted from her shoulders.
-
Conscience would have also been a factor.
Julie had kept quiet when Bamber outlined his plans & then for 20 days after the massacre.
She had also kept quiet about the caravan break in.
About time she made good.
---------
The perfect storm was -
Her conscience.
The police closing in on both of them.
No longer being Bamber's GF.
Encouragement from friends.
Bamber asking another woman out in front of her.
-
Conscience would have also been a factor.
Julie had kept quiet when Bamber outlined his plans & then for 20 days after the massacre.
She had also kept quiet about the caravan break in.
About time she made good.
---------
The perfect storm was -
Her conscience.
The police closing in on both of them.
No longer being Bamber's GF.
Encouragement from friends.
Bamber asking another woman out in front of her.
I don't think she kept quiet in fairness when he was going on about it. She probably just didn't believe he would do anything, he was just venting and it all was pie in the sky.
Even when he rang her on the night she was like " whatever don't talk stupid "
I imagine when she found out what happened it was a massive shock, when it turned out he wasn't bullshitting after all.
-
Having had the advantage of meeting Jeremy Bamber many years ago. I know form first hand that he is self assured confident individual. But this display of confidence towards Julie and police officers is something I've never seen before. Remember prior to 1985 he'd never been arrested for a crime.
I don't know whether to believe from the gulity scenario if it was down to his arrogance and stupidity or the possiblity they were in it together. ( Him and Julie )
-
I don't think she kept quiet in fairness when he was going on about it. She probably just didn't believe he would do anything, he was just venting and it all was pie in the sky.
Even when he rang her on the night she was like " whatever don't talk stupid "
I imagine when she found out what happened it was a massive shock, when it turned out he wasn't bullshitting after all.
Agree that she didn't believe he would do anything pre massacre. She said this herself.
Some people have said she should have contacted the police pre massacre. After the massacre she may have wished she had done that. This helped motivate her to approach the police.
-
If I was to kill my family and I had told my missus that I had done it and I had told beforehand Id been planning it, she would shop me straight away. And rightly so.
If I had done all that and even she hadn't said anything. To then cheat on her with another woman, then I might as well drop her off at the police station! Hell hath no fury et al.
Bamber must have believed Julie would never say anything. Was his plan with the cash once it had gone through probate to buy her silence?
Or maybe Bamber just thought " well if she does grass me up " it's not the end of the world, il fight it at trial and prove my innocence
-
Talking from the gulity scenario.
It's obvious the relationship would be doomed. He had killed his family. She was in turmoil. Eventually they would part ways.
Jeremy was taking a huge risk with this. But obviously was not bothered. Or he had a plan.
-
If I was to kill my family and I had told my missus that I had done it and I had told beforehand Id been planning it, she would shop me straight away. And rightly so.
If I had done all that and even she hadn't said anything. To then cheat on her with another woman, then I might as well drop her off at the police station! Hell hath no fury et al.
Bamber must have believed Julie would never say anything. Was his plan with the cash once it had gone through probate to buy her silence?
Or maybe Bamber just thought " well if she does grass me up " it's not the end of the world, il fight it at trial and prove my innocence
Surely your first point revolves round whether or not your wife believed you capable of murder?
It very possible he told her that they'd always be together and they'd have a wonderful life.
But he can't implicate her now without putting himself centre stage.
-
Surely your first point revolves round whether or not your wife believed you capable of murder?
It very possible he told her that they'd always be together and they'd have a wonderful life.
But he can't implicate her now without putting himself centre stage.
Many people who believed Jeremy guilty also at the same time had a lingering belief that Shelia could have done it. We have to remember Shelia had mental health difficulties. In many a sense he had a very convinient scapegoat.
The relatives BW, at the beginning it was all " ohhh I'm sorry Jeremy, holding his hands hugging etc, it's only after they began to get suspicious
For Julie however she must have known from the outset he had done it, he had told her of his intention and had been planning it for a long time, he had phoned her.
-
Bamber and Julie as 24 & 21 year olds acted and reacted the way they did.
Whether people think it was right, wrong, risky or they would have done it differently themselves, nothing can change what decisions they made.
There are reasons why both did what they did in regards to there interaction.
-
Surely your first point revolves round whether or not your wife believed you capable of murder?
My Missus knows I don't bullshit, if I told her I had done something. She would know I had done it. Also if it happened, she wouldn't need to be clairvoyant.
I give Julie the benefit of being 20, and in love with Bamber.
What I noticed in her ws, she doesn't cast him in a that negative light. In terms of his behaviour. She never mentions any type of controlling behaviour, I will never belief it was a " Julie do as your told relationship "even post massacre.
-
Many people who believed Jeremy guilty also at the same time had a lingering belief that Shelia could have done it. We have to remember Shelia had mental health difficulties. In many a sense he had a very convinient scapegoat.
The relatives BW, at the beginning it was all " ohhh I'm sorry Jeremy, holding his hands hugging etc, it's only after they began to get suspicious
For Julie however she must have known from the outset he had done it, he had told her of his intention and had been planning it for a long time, he had phoned her.
But without admitting guilt, how can he implicate Julie?
-
Bamber and Julie as 24 & 21 year olds acted and reacted the way they did.
Whether people think it was right, wrong, risky or they would have done it differently themselves, nothing can change what decisions they made.
There are reasons why both did what they did in regards to there interaction.
These were not feral children from a council towerblock with a bad background
Julie was academically bright, Jeremy was streetwise travelling around AUS NZ.
From the gulit perspective I afford Julie sympathy as she was obviously in love and a young girl. But that's as far as it stretches
-
But without admitting guilt, how can he implicate Julie?
We were talking about the risk in Julie coming forward.
If he had confessed he may have tried to implicate Julie out of spite.
-
These were not feral children from a council towerblock with a bad background
Julie was academically bright, Jeremy was streetwise travelling around AUS NZ.
From the gulit perspective I afford Julie sympathy as she was obviously in love and a young girl. But that's as far as it stretches
They both did what they did. Both before and after -
Bamber tell her of his plans. Julie not report him.
Bamber tell her he was involved. Via a proxy.
Julie return to London, tell 5 people and approach the police. Within one month.
----------
As said there are reasons why they made those choices. But people believe they would do things differeny themselves.
-
They both did what they did. Both before and after -
Bamber tell her of his plans. Julie not report him.
Bamber tell her he was involved. Via a proxy.
Julie return to London, tell 5 people and approach the police. Within one month.
----------
As said there are reasons why they made those choices. But people believe they would do things differeny themselves.
People are bound to question the motives of Julie in this case, from the behaviour and the fact the man maintains innocence.
-
They both did what they did. Both before and after -
Bamber tell her of his plans. Julie not report him.
Bamber tell her he was involved. Via a proxy.
Julie return to London, tell 5 people and approach the police. Within one month.
----------
As said there are reasons why they made those choices. But people believe they would do things differeny themselves.
As said I wouldn't expect Julie to report him for discussing it.
She will have thought he was talking bollocks
He will have confided in her and mentioned it at certain periods, such as when arguing with Nevill or a bad day at the farm.
At other times he might not have mentioned it at all. They were just ostensibly a normal young couple.
-
Obviously from the gulit perspective he made the snap decision that Tuesday afternoon.
Julie was with him the previous weekend. She said he didn't mention it at all.
Something snapped that Tuesday.
Fair play, all the family under one roof, but he would have known of this prior and during the weekend with Julie.
-
People are bound to question the motives of Julie in this case, from the behaviour and the fact the man maintains innocence.
Julie is for social media. Either on discussion forums or properganda purposes by the CT. Which is not surprising as she was the main witness.
She has not been a ground for any of the CCRC/COA submissions since the trial as will never retract.
-
Julie is for social media. Either on discussion forums or properganda purposes by the CT. Which is not surprising as she was the main witness.
She has not been a ground for any of the CCRC/COA submissions since the trial as will never retract.
Agree she will never retract. If he's gulity she has no reason to, if he's innocent she'd be going to prison for a long time.
-
Julie is for social media. Either on discussion forums or properganda purposes by the CT. Which is not surprising as she was the main witness.
She has not been a ground for any of the CCRC/COA submissions since the trial as will never retract.
Julie for Jeremy, should be his number one priority, her testimony is one of two key reasons he has spent 39 years rotting in jail.
-
Julie is for social media. Either on discussion forums or properganda purposes by the CT. Which is not surprising as she was the main witness.
She has not been a ground for any of the CCRC/COA submissions since the trial as will never retract.
You need to show something that undermines the original verdict.
You may remember Victor Temple QC, the respondent counsel in Bambers 2002 appeal
-
Julie for Jeremy, should be his number one priority, her testimony is one of two key reasons he has spent 39 years rotting in jail.
What can he do. Regarding including her in a CCRC submission?
-
What can he do. Regarding including her in a CCRC submission?
Go in heavily on the NOTW pre verdict scenario. But I don't believe it will amount to much either way.
In all honesty it was word against word back in 1986, and word against word what helped secure the gulity verdict. Loosely
translated the late justice drake said words to the effect " I kept an open mind in regard to Jeremy and Julie until I began to believe the latter "
I personally only believe that undermining Julie and the silencer are they only ways " slam dunk " wise to undermine the verdict, burns, coppers slack paperwork, will not do that. The window might have mileage but it's heavily disputed.
Like you say, how he goes about that in a legal arena is a difficult feat.
-
In the event of a ccrc referral once it goes to the COA the crown have a respondent KC.
Here is a little bit from victor Temple QC in 2002.
To this day ( 20 odd years on ) the CT are heavily reliant on slack paperwork.
-
Go in heavily on the NOTW pre verdict scenario. But I don't believe it will amount to much either way.
In all honesty it was word against word back in 1986, and word against word what helped secure the gulity verdict. Loosely
translated the late justice drake said words to the effect " I kept an open mind in regard to Jeremy and Julie until I began to believe the latter "
I personally only believe that undermining Julie and the silencer are they only ways " slam dunk " wise to undermine the verdict, burns, coppers slack paperwork, will not do that. The window might have mileage but it's heavily disputed.
Like you say, how he goes about that in a legal arena is a difficult feat.
I thought they did that in 2002. Julie attended the COA but was not called up.
-
I thought they did that in 2002. Julie attended the COA but was not called up.
I believe they did do so. She was released as a witness.
-
In the event of a ccrc referral once it goes to the COA the crown have a respondent KC.
Here is a little bit from victor Temple QC in 2002.
To this day ( 20 odd years on ) the CT are heavily reliant on slack paperwork.
I totally agree with Mr Temple.
-
I totally agree with Mr Temple.
It might help if stuff didn't get put away for 70-94 years.
-
I stand by Julie being involved, she was in line with his thinking, if this is not encouraging Bamber i don't know what is..................... I asked him why as I could understand him talking about his parents like that but not about Sheila and the twins. I asked him why kill Sheila and the twins as they had done nothing to him................... I remember that I made a joke about the house saying that he couldn’t burn it down because it was so beautiful................ He said he thought about getting cyanide but wherever he got it would be recorded.
Would Julie know about Cyanide being recorded unless she was told by Bamber, she was a 21 year trainee school teacher, not a Chemist, it can be used in manufacturing, pesticides?
-
I stand by Julie being involved, she was in line with his thinking, if this is not egging Bamber on i don't know what is..................... I asked him why as I could understand him talking about his parents like that but not about Sheila and the twins. I asked him why kill Sheila and the twins as they had done nothing to him................... I remember that I made a joke about the house saying that he couldn’t burn it down because it was so beautiful................ He said he thought about getting cyanide but wherever he got it would be recorded.
Would Julie know about Cyanide being recorded unless she was told by Bamber, she was a 21 year trainee school teacher, not a Chemist, it can be used in manufacturing, pesticides?
She was, undoubtedly, his sounding board. How much credence he placed on anything she may have said, is questionable.
-
I stand by Julie being involved, she was in line with his thinking, if this is not encouraging Bamber i don't know what is..................... I asked him why as I could understand him talking about his parents like that but not about Sheila and the twins. I asked him why kill Sheila and the twins as they had done nothing to him................... I remember that I made a joke about the house saying that he couldn’t burn it down because it was so beautiful................ He said he thought about getting cyanide but wherever he got it would be recorded.
Would Julie know about Cyanide being recorded unless she was told by Bamber, she was a 21 year trainee school teacher, not a Chemist, it can be used in manufacturing, pesticides?
I've always looked at the case from every angle. And I totally can envisage the scenario of them being in it together.
I suppose though if that's the case she was taking a gamble herself on the event he confessed and implicated her? Even to this day, imagine if he confessed and implicated her. If this is the case she must have never had a decent night's sleep.
I can see why he would maintain innocence if they were in league together as screwing her over wouldn't bring him freedom. They'd be nothing in it for him to gain apart from putting Julie behind bars as well.
-
I've always looked at the case from every angle. And I totally can envisage the scenario of them being in it together.
I suppose though if that's the case she was taking a gamble herself on the event he confessed and implicated her? Even to this day, imagine if he confessed and implicated her. If this is the case she must have never had a decent night's sleep.
I can see why he would maintain innocence if they were in league together as screwing her over wouldn't bring him freedom. They'd be nothing in it for him to gain apart from putting Julie behind bars as well.
I agree ILB, there are not many Women in League with this kind of talk with their Partners, any sensible person would give this a very wide berth and give the person who is constantly planning such a wide berth, unless they are in League and looking to gain? She's full of shit and it doesn't wash with me, she had numerous opportunities to get out or go to the Police, she never had any thought for those poor victims, it was only when she realised she wasn't going to get what she thought, she was as bad as him.
-
Julie for Jeremy, should be his number one priority, her testimony is one of two key reasons he has spent 39 years rotting in jail.
For me it's the Silencer, Julie Mudford testimony although damaging, it would be hard because it was hear say evidence and word against word? Unless she say's she made a complete lie up about Jeremy, i don't see how it can be proved? Maybe the NOW deal, but that seems dead now?
-
Thank you for confirming HB, that Mugford should have done time.
-
I've always looked at the case from every angle. And I totally can envisage the scenario of them being in it together.
I suppose though if that's the case she was taking a gamble herself on the event he confessed and implicated her? Even to this day, imagine if he confessed and implicated her. If this is the case she must have never had a decent night's sleep.
I can see why he would maintain innocence if they were in league together as screwing her over wouldn't bring him freedom. They'd be nothing in it for him to gain apart from putting Julie behind bars as well.
They were in it together. Her WS says so.
But she didn't pull the trigger and approached the police before they approached her.
-
They were in it together. Her WS says so.
But she didn't pull the trigger and approached the police before they approached her.
In it together?
She claims she didn't have nothing to do with the planning and never believed he would carry it out...
-
In it together?
She claims she didn't have nothing to do with the planning and never believed he would carry it out...
She stayed with him. Didn't try to stop him or alert the relatives/police beforehand.
Supplied him with her sleeping tablets and suggested he didn't burn down WHF.
She didn't warn Nevill or the police a few hours beforehand. Despite seeing the bike at Goldhanger and Bamber saying 'tonights the night'.
Afterwards she didn't approch the police for a month.
-
She also robbed the caravan site with him & told her about the cheque book fraud. Which created a trust regarding crimes.
I believe her WS that she didn't like talk of murder. But seems she didn't discourage him much. So indirectly was in it with him.
-
She didn't believe he would do it. But once he did, she was in it with him.
Don't believe she delayed going to the police after the massacre because she wanted to enjoy Bamber's fortune. If she wanted money she would have accepted June's offer to buy her a house.
-
She didn't believe he would do it. But once he did, she was in it with him.
Don't believe she delayed going to the police after the massacre because she wanted to enjoy Bamber's fortune. If she wanted money she would have accepted June's offer to buy her a house.
I agree with most of what you say Adam, i'm not comfortable with what she say's about June buying her a flat, so June offers to buy a flat in London for someone she hardly knows and refers to as a Harlot or loose woman. If anything maybe June offered to put her up somewhere but not in name or ownership? June had no idea at this stage how the relationship would continue, i think this is Julie's way of trying to portray herself as not being a Gold Digger.
-
She didn't believe he would do it. But once he did, she was in it with him.
She was in it with him if she had kept quiet. Whether she had stayed with him or split up.
She's either an innocent woman or in it with him. Either one or the other
Bamber must have been confident she wouldn't grass him the morning of the massacre. He'd have no idea how she'd react
-
She also robbed the caravan site with him & told her about the cheque book fraud. Which created a trust regarding crimes.
I believe her WS that she didn't like talk of murder. But seems she didn't discourage him much. So indirectly was in it with him.
I agree, Bamber had invested a lot of confidence in Julie, she was always on board with what he said, but he tired of her as the relationship progressed, he could not rid of her before the murders because Julie would have transpired to friends , nothing to stop her going to Police if he carried it out, she's not with him and not implicated at this stage.
Bamber would naturally think it better once he had done the murders and the heat was off him, who would believe Julie now, Bodies gone, evidence destroyed, Taff on Board, Julie still keeping Schtum but implicated, plan A executed [murders], now for pan B [Julie]
-
She was in it with him if she had kept quiet. Whether she had stayed with him or split up.
She's either an innocent woman or in it with him. Either one or the other
Bamber must have been confident she wouldn't grass him the morning of the massacre. He'd have no idea how she'd react
Agree she was in it with him while she kept quiet.
In late August she was no longer in it with him as had started telling people.
-
I agree with most of what you say Adam, i'm not comfortable with what she say's about June buying her a flat, so June offers to buy a flat in London for someone she hardly knows and refers to as a Harlot or loose woman. If anything maybe June offered to put her up somewhere but not in name or ownership? June had no idea at this stage how the relationship would continue, i think this is Julie's way of trying to portray herself as not being a Gold Digger.
Julie's WS & Bamber's interviews mention about buying her a property.
Thought it was near WHF rather than London.
Her own place at that age would be good going.
-
I agree, Bamber had invested a lot of confidence in Julie, she was always on board with what he said, but he tired of her as the relationship progressed, he could not rid of her before the murders because Julie would have transpired to friends , nothing to stop her going to Police if he carried it out, she's not with him and not implicated at this stage.
Bamber would naturally think it better once he had done the murders and the heat was off him, who would believe Julie now, Bodies gone, evidence destroyed, Taff on Board, Julie still keeping Schtum but implicated, plan A executed [murders], now for pan B [Julie]
That is an interesting hyperthetical question.
If they had split up 3-6 months earlier would Julie have approached the police?
She may not have even known about it if not reading the papers or watching TV.
Bamber certainly would not have phoned her 3 times in 7 hours and got a police car to pick her up.
-
Julie's WS & Bamber's interviews mention about buying her a property.
Thought it was near WHF rather than London.
Her own place at that age would be good going.
It was offered in Colchester or London so she say's, yes she does say Buy, but that is a long shot to buy someone you hardly know, and think is a Harlot or Loose woman and not sure how the relationship would progress, that's why i question the BUY bit, the person to deny such is not around anymore? I'm not saying that June didn't want her out the way, but maybe June was quite prepared to pay rent for the short term?
-
That is an interesting hyperthetical question.
If they had split up 3-6 months earlier would Julie have approached the police?
She may not have even known about it if not reading the papers or watching TV.
Bamber certainly would not have phoned her 3 times in 7 hours and got a police car to pick her up.
He had first mentioned it in oct/nov 84 and then it become a constant trickle, i don't think anyone would forget what their past boyfriend had revealed especially killing his parents and sister and the Twins, so i'm pretty certain with nothing to lose she would have told the Police and her friends? Wouldn't you find it strange if your past Partner had revealed their intention to kill their family on several occasions and then it happens?
It was all over the News and i'm pretty certain she would have seen this, especially coming from Essex herself, even one of her friends would have told her about her ex Boyfriend?
-
He had first mentioned it in oct/nov 84 and then it become a constant trickle, i don't think anyone would forget what their past boyfriend had revealed especially killing his parents and sister and the Twins, so i'm pretty certain with nothing to lose she would have told the Police and her friends? Wouldn't you find it strange if your past Partner had revealed their intention to kill their family on several occasions and then it happens?
It was all over the News and i'm pretty certain she would have seen this, especially coming from Essex herself, even one of her friends would have told her about her ex Boyfriend?
The Mugfordites are taking a pounding here.
-
He had first mentioned it in oct/nov 84 and then it become a constant trickle, i don't think anyone would forget what their past boyfriend had revealed especially killing his parents and sister and the Twins, so i'm pretty certain with nothing to lose she would have told the Police and her friends? Wouldn't you find it strange if your past Partner had revealed their intention to kill their family on several occasions and then it happens?
It was all over the News and i'm pretty certain she would have seen this, especially coming from Essex herself, even one of her friends would have told her about her ex Boyfriend?
It would have been over the news for a day. Then the media would have gone onto the next story.
It is correct a friend or someone like Mary Mugford could have told her about it otherwise.
She may have intially told people she knew what Bamber had said while they were together before the massacre. Get some feedback. As she did in August.
Depends on how much he had said before they split up. If he had just said he hated his parents that would not be enough. But if he had given her his window entry/exit plan that would be worth reporting.
-
The Mugfordites are taking a pounding here.
Do you think Julie should have approached the police pre massacre?
-
Julies WS is 99% correct. The 1% Bamber disputes is when he discusses the massacre with her.
Dates, times, places, phone calls, people she was with, things she did, can and have all been checked & verified.
-
The Mugfordites are taking a pounding here.
If what she is saying is true about Jeremy, she has to reveal her part in it as well Roch, she has to or she cannot implicate him, it's not hard to see, their wasn't any violence in the relationship or she would have told us, she admits she knew his intentions beforehand and discussed it with him and she admits she knew he had done it. How on earth can you then plead your innocence when she has helped him by providing a false first statement, she has helped him emotionally by being there for him and shagging about with him and spending his money, and she has helped him by concealment, and in the eyes of the LAW she is an accessory to his Murder.
-
If what she is saying is true about Jeremy, she has to reveal her part in it as well Roch, she has to or she cannot implicate him, it's not hard to see, their wasn't any violence in the relationship or she would have told us, she admits she knew his intentions beforehand and discussed it with him and she admits she knew he had done it. How on earth can you then plead your innocence when she has helped him by providing a false first statement, she has helped him emotionally by being there for him and shagging about with him and spending his money, and she has helped him by concealment, and in the eyes of the LAW she is an accessory to his Murder.
Do you think Julie should have approached the police pre massacre or on the 7th August?
-
It would have been over the news for a day. Then the media would have gone onto the next story.
It is correct a friend or someone like Mary Mugford could have told her about it otherwise.
She may have intially told people she knew what Bamber had said while they were together before the massacre. Get some feedback. As she did in August.
Depends on how much he had said before they split up. If he had just said he hated his parents that would not be enough. But if he had given her his window entry/exit plan that would be worth reporting.
I remember it very well Adam, it was news for quite some while and i dare say even longer in the news outlets in Colchester. The main theme centred around Sheila being a model, pictures splashed everywhere.
-
Do you think Julie should have approached the police pre massacre or on the 7th August?
It's hard to call that one Adam, i don't think she wanted to
-
The 1% of Julie's WS Bamber disputes, he struggles with.
As Julie says a lot of things she could have only got from Bamber.
-
Not surprised the defence lawyers said her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.
They couldn't even get there teeth into the 1%!
-
It's hard to call that one Adam, i don't think she wanted to
Do you think she should have been given a prison sentence because she didn't approach the police until early September?
-
Do you think she should have been given a prison sentence because she didn't approach the police until early September?
All i'm saying, in the eye's of the Law she was an accessory to the murder and this carries a prison sentence. I'm saying she was as bad as he was she knew off his plans and she knew he committed the murder and she covered for him? Make of it what you want.
-
If what she is saying is true about Jeremy, she has to reveal her part in it as well Roch, she has to or she cannot implicate him, it's not hard to see, their wasn't any violence in the relationship or she would have told us, she admits she knew his intentions beforehand and discussed it with him and she admits she knew he had done it. How on earth can you then plead your innocence when she has helped him by providing a false first statement, she has helped him emotionally by being there for him and shagging about with him and spending his money, and she has helped him by concealment, and in the eyes of the LAW she is an accessory to his Murder.
I don't know if you are technically legally right, but it's hard to disagree with your rationale. It certainly makes sense to me.
-
I don't know if you are technically legally right, but it's hard to disagree with your rationale. It certainly makes sense to me.
Doesn't it fall into this Roch.....................Knowledge of the crime
To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection,
(1) Being an accessory after the fact?
(2) Perverting the course of justice?
any act that interferes with an investigation or causes it to head in the wrong direction may tend to pervert the course of justice.
-
Her simple explanation pre massacre is that she did not believe he would do it.
After the massacre if the police had approached her & she spent days being interviewed and denied everything, she would have been prosecuted.
-
Her simple explanation pre massacre is that she did not believe he would do it.
After the massacre if the police had approached her & she spent days being interviewed and denied everything, she would have been prosecuted.
She at that stage was just Bambers partner.
She wasn't that important at that stage apart from Bamber phoning her to tell that " something was wrong" remember it was deemed murder suicide, tying up loose ends, crossing ts spitting i's
It was Bambers family that had been murdered. She was just his girlfriend who he needed by his side. On the face of it quite a normal reaction.
-
" everything is going well, something is wrong at the farm " is weird terminology to use.
I would expect something along the lines of
" Job complete, I've done what I've needed to do "
Or
" Yes he's done it, Ive spoken to him "
-
To be fair the police did class it as murder/suicide.
If they had believed Bamber guilty straight away & started interviewing Julie, she would have started talking quickly.
In the end it was her that approached them.
-
To be fair the police did class it as murder/suicide.
If they had believed Bamber guilty straight away & started interviewing Julie, she would have started talking quickly.
In the end it was her that approached them.
For Bamber to call her on the night in question and to get to go to WHF he must have been extremely confident she would not say anything.
Soon as the police were on the scene, they dictate the agenda. It's my view Bamber was confident she'd not say a word
-
For Bamber to call her on the night in question and to get to go to WHF he must have been extremely confident she would not say anything.
Soon as the police were on the scene, they dictate the agenda. It's my view Bamber was confident she'd not say a word
He had the opportunity after the massacre to simultaneously scare her and spend money on her.
But it wasn't enough and she returned to London on the 27th August.
He probably felt she wouldn't go to the police but if she did it wouldn't be enough.
-
They were in it together. Her WS says so.
But she didn't pull the trigger and approached the police before they approached her.
The choice of words is misleading, Adam.
-
I agree, Bamber had invested a lot of confidence in Julie, she was always on board with what he said, but he tired of her as the relationship progressed, he could not rid of her before the murders because Julie would have transpired to friends , nothing to stop her going to Police if he carried it out, she's not with him and not implicated at this stage.
Bamber would naturally think it better once he had done the murders and the heat was off him, who would believe Julie now, Bodies gone, evidence destroyed, Taff on Board, Julie still keeping Schtum but implicated, plan A executed [murders], now for pan B [Julie]
But he telephoned her immediately after the murders. He must have been confident both of her silence and police would find no evidence against him.
-
He had the opportunity after the massacre to simultaneously scare her and spend money on her.
But it wasn't enough and she returned to London on the 27th August.
He probably felt she wouldn't go to the police but if she did it wouldn't be enough.
In fairness she did accompany on trips and he paid for her. But the trips were probably just due to the fact she was his girlfriend. He and Brett began a heavy bromance post massacre and Julie almost seems a tag along.
Whether it was more than friendship between the two men. They both deny being lovers.
I don't think he was spoiling her per say.
-
Julie for Jeremy, should be his number one priority, her testimony is one of two key reasons he has spent 39 years rotting in jail.
Impossible without implicating himself.
-
Impossible without implicating himself.
Well if he wants out of jail, in my opinion that's the only way along with the silencer he will do it.
If you have read my posts, I did give a reason why he would not implicate Julie out of spite. To gain freedom it would be a fruitless excersise.
-
" everything is going well, something is wrong at the farm " is weird terminology to use.
I would expect something along the lines of
" Job complete, I've done what I've needed to do "
Or
" Yes he's done it, Ive spoken to him "
It was a shared telephone line, so he used a coded message.
-
It was a shared telephone line, so he used a coded message.
Which means they must have been in league with another.
Otherwise she would have just said " what the fuck are you talking about "
Bare in mind, he called her at 3am approx.
-
Well if he wants out of jail, in my opinion that's the only way along with the silencer he will do it.
If you have read my posts, I did give a reason why he would not implicate Julie out of spite. To gain freedom it would be a fruitless excersise.
Wouldn't admitting to be a child killer sign his own death warrant before he could open the prison exit gates?
-
Interestingly according to Julie's WS that the weekend prior to the massacre she says Bamber didn't mention killing anybody.
There's a part of me that thinks he would blab or brag to Julie that weekend. It was a golden opportunity. The boys, Shelia and Nevill and June all under one roof.
Which is why I have always believed he made a snap decision that Tuesday afternoon whilst on the tractor.
-
Which means they must have been in league with another.
Otherwise she would have just said " what the fuck are you talking about "
Bare in mind, he called her at 3am approx.
Well, she did say in her statement when she went back to bed that she realized Jeremy had killed his family, or words to that effect. She did question him that evening and was possibly taken in by the Matthew McDonald story.
-
Wouldn't admitting to be a child killer sign his own death warrant before he could open the prison exit gates?
His ultimate goal is freedom. Shopping Julie won't change that.
-
Interestingly according to Julie's WS that the weekend prior to the massacre she says Bamber didn't mention killing anybody.
There's a part of me that thinks he would blab or brag to Julie that weekend. It was a golden opportunity. The boys, Shelia and Nevill and June all under one roof.
Which is why I have always believed he made a snap decision that Tuesday afternoon whilst on the tractor.
I agree. As he told Julie: "It's either now or never." The tragedy in this case is it nearly was never. But I'm glad the blame is being laid squarely where it lies: on Jeremy Bamber.
-
Well, she did say in her statement when she went back to bed that she realized Jeremy had killed his family, or words to that effect. She did question him that evening and was possibly taken in by the Matthew McDonald story.
She must have put two and two together. But was probably dreary at the time due to being half asleep.
Id imagine on the way to the farm in the police car he blood was running cold and she was terrified. I don't believe she thought for one minute Shelia had done it if what she is saying is the truth. She must have known he had done it.
-
His ultimate goal is freedom. Shopping Julie won't change that.
Freedom with money. Remember he is money-minded, which is how he landed behind bars in the first place.
-
Freedom with money. Remember he is money-minded, which is how he landed behind bars in the first place.
From the gulit perspective I don't believe the crime was solely money orentiated
-
I agree. As he told Julie: "It's either now or never." The tragedy in this case is it nearly was never. But I'm glad the blame is being laid squarely where it lies: on Jeremy Bamber.
I have always looked at the case straight down the middle. On the fence that's where I will always be unless Jeremy Bamber says " yes I have decieved everyone " " I did it "
-
From the gulit perspective I don't believe the crime was solely money orentiated
No, but it was a large part of it. He justified it to himself for the way they had pushed Suzette away, though he kept this concealed from Julie, telling her "they have forfeited their right to life for the way they have treated me."
Not happy in his job, not happy in his private life, he wanted to start anew, to break free from the prison inside which he felt incarcerated. But to free oneself from prison one first has to kill the prison guards..
-
The Mugfordites are taking a pounding here.
HB and I are on opposite sides of the case based upon our analysis of the evidence. However, his assessment of JM is very accurate. If she is telling the truth she is guilty of a heinous crime and should be in prison. If she is not telling the truth she is likewise guilty of a heinous crime and should be in prison. HB is consistent in his analysis and I respect that. It is very refreshing and in stark contrast to some who bend over backwards to whitewash JM.
-
HB and I are on opposite sides of the case based upon our analysis of the evidence. However, his assessment of JM is very accurate. If she is telling the truth she is guilty of a heinous crime and should be in prison. If she is not telling the truth she is likewise guilty of a heinous crime and should be in prison. HB is consistent in his analysis and I respect that. It is very refreshing and in stark contrast to some who bend over backwards to whitewash JM.
Why should she be in prison?
Pre massacre she can say she didn't believe him.
Post massacre she approached the police a month later.
-
Why should she be in prison?
Pre massacre she can say she didn't believe him.
Post massacre she approached the police a month later.
Agree with this If talking the sole Bamber gulity scenario
But there's every possiblity they were in league so to put it from that point of view
Although what helps Julie out is Jeremy Bamber if gulity never had no intention in going to prison for life. He was going to fight it all the way. ( And still till this day is doing so) Thus, this has effectively scuppered any type of blame upon Julie for the simple effect he himself did not confess. If he had confessed Julie could have found herself in trouble although I'm of the opinion she would have been acquitted because there would just be Bambers word for it had he decided to bring her down with him.
-
But from my perspective from the Bamber gulity scenario I would hedge my bet that Julie wasn't innocent in it, I would stake a 50 percent hand. Only getting cold feet after he jilted her. Which is what he did. She lost the plot when he phoned another women in front of her There is sources he was a player pre massacre which might have been a further bone of contention.
-
In fairness though there's every chance she was just a naive girl who was in love with Bamber and under his spell
I accept that many a guilter believe to be the case. And it may well be true.
-
I doubt Julie encouraged pre massacre. It was killing men, women and children.
But she didn't leave him or tell the relatives or police. She also made a suggestion and let him use her sleeping tablets.
So a passive accomplice for a crime she never thought would happen.
-
Julie's WS is 23 pages.
Both sides agree 22 pages are true.
The page worth which Bamber disputes regards him discussing the massacre.
The problem Bamber has is a lot of the massacre information Julie could have only got from Bamber.
-
I doubt Julie encouraged pre massacre. It was killing men, women and children.
But she didn't leave him or tell the relatives or police. She also made a suggestion and let him use her sleeping tablets.
So a passive accomplice for a crime she never thought would happen.
Myra hindley did that when she was just two years Julie's senior
Rose west killed Fred wests stepdaughter when she was 17 and he was serving a short prison sentence.
You can never speak for someone you don't know, and even if you know them you can't speak for what they'd do either !
-
I doubt Julie encouraged pre massacre. It was killing men, women and children.
But she didn't leave him or tell the relatives or police. She also made a suggestion and let him use her sleeping tablets.
So a passive accomplice for a crime she never thought would happen.
Are you beginning to believe the Jez and Julie in league together theory ?
If I remember from previous debate you believed Julie totally innocent.
I'm not championing it by the way, but believe it may have happened
-
I understand Maxine Carr going to prison.
She helped clean up the crime scene, gave a false alibi and lied in police interviews.
Julie was just told 'don't go to work'.
-
Julie's WS is 23 pages.
Both sides agree 22 pages are true.
The page worth which Bamber disputes regards him discussing the massacre.
The problem Bamber has is a lot of the massacre information Julie could have only got from Bamber.
There is Jeremy's version
There is Julie's version
And then there is the truth.
I for one would have loved to been a fly on the wall in their conversations pre massacre
-
I understand Maxine Carr going to prison.
She helped clean up the crime scene, gave a false alibi and lied in police interviews.
Julie was just told 'don't go to work'.
I think Maxine Carr believed Huntley to be innocent. And wanted to protect him from accusation in fairness.
-
Are you beginning to believe the Jez and Julie in league together theory ?
If I remember from previous debate you believed Julie totally innocent.
I'm not championing it by the way, but believe it may have happened
Have always gone by her WS, interviews and court testimony.
A passive accomplice for a crime she never thought would happen.
Then returning to London on the 27th August to tell 5 people and the police.
-
Have always gone by her WS, interviews and court testimony.
A passive accomplice for a crime she never thought would happen.
Then returning to London on the 27th August to tell 5 people and the police.
" Passive accomplice "
She was either totally disgusted or on board.
-
Then returning to London on the 27th August to tell 5 people and the police.
Either in my opinion
" I can't go on knowing what he's done having killed those two small boys and his sister and parents he's pure evil"
Or
" I'm not going to get the life I wanted to live "
-
I find it hard to tally a shocked girl who has realised her boyfriend was a cold hearted family killer for monetary gain and then mere hours after agree to identify the two small children he killed
Isn't it correct she volunteered as well?
-
Why should she be in prison?
Pre massacre she can say she didn't believe him.
Post massacre she approached the police a month later.
I have posted an analysis of this in detail in the past, in particular in fractious exchanges with Steve_uk several years ago. Look the posts up if you want but I cannot be bothered to go through it all again.
-
I have posted an analysis of this in detail in the past, in particular in factious exchanges with Steve_uk several years ago. Look the posts up if you want but I cannot be bothered to go through it all again.
Thank you.
The courts and police didn't believe she was worthy of a prison sentence.
-
Either in my opinion
" I can't go on knowing what he's done having killed those two small boys and his sister and parents he's pure evil"
Or
" I'm not going to get the life I wanted to live "
She just wanted to return to her job.
-
Thank you.
The courts and police didn't believe she was worthy of a prison sentence.
Your not going to jail the star witness in a trial of a man charged with five counts or murder.
-
She just wanted to return to her job.
He want controlling her.
He was more interested in other people
-
Do you think if Bamber confessed and there was no trial, Julie would have got a prison sentence?
-
Do you think if Bamber confessed and there was no trial, Julie would have got a prison sentence?
What for ?
Chequebook offences or his accomplice ?
-
What for ?
Chequebook offences or his accomplice ?
Either or both.
-
Either or both.
I'm not too sure personally.
Think Julie may have been charged had Bamber implicated her but I believe she would have been acquitted at trial.
That's not minimizing her potential involvement that's just my opinion.
-
Believe the judge had the power to suggest the police charge Julie for her role. After the verdict.
As a stand alone crime it is unlikely the judge would recommend Julie is prosecuted for the cheque book fraud.
It was a first offence and she had paid the money back. The bank had not prosecuted.
-
Believe the judge had the power to suggest the police charge Julie for her role. After the verdict.
As a stand alone crime it is unlikely the judge would recommend Julie is prosecuted for the cheque book fraud.
It was a first offence and she had paid the money back. The bank had not prosecuted.
Think DPP and EP only cared about sending Bamber down for life in the grand scheme of things.
-
Believe the judge had the power to suggest the police charge Julie for her role. After the verdict.
As a stand alone crime it is unlikely the judge would recommend Julie is prosecuted for the cheque book fraud.
It was a first offence and she had paid the money back. The bank had not prosecuted.
You have changed tact on Julie, with all due respect.
Previously it was " saint Julie "
Now it's " yes it's possible she was working with him until it went tits up "
Just an observation.
-
Think DPP and EP only cared about sending Bamber down for life in the grand scheme of things.
That was the main crime and Julie the main witness.
The judge didn't recommend Julie was prosecuted seperately after the verdict.
-
That was the main crime and Julie the main witness.
The judge didn't recommend Julie was prosecuted seperately after the verdict.
Thought that was agreed pre trial
But yes agree
-
It's hard to call that one Adam, i don't think she wanted to
I have never seen much of people saying Julie should have approached the police pre massacre.
Either she was Bamber's GF & wanted to live off his riches.
Or she was Bamber's GF, was a passive accomplice and didn't think he would do it.
The closest to this is from ILB who believes Julie should have approached the police on the 7th August.
-
I do believe Julie's WS that she told Bamber she didn't like him talking about a massacre plan.
I also believe her WS when she says Bamber used her sleeping tablets. Bamber confirmed Julie had sleeping tablets.
Julie telling Bamber not to burn down WHF is also plausible.
-
" everything is going well, something is wrong at the farm " is weird terminology to use.
I would expect something along the lines of
" Job complete, I've done what I've needed to do "
Or
" Yes he's done it, Ive spoken to him "
The 'something is wrong at the farm' quote is not incriminating.
However the 'everything is going well' and 'I haven't slept all night' are both incriminating.
Sadly all we have from Bamber on this is his court testimony - 'I wanted to hear a friendly voice'.
-
Adam, we've now had it confirmed by an ex barister one one side of the case and HB on the other side of the case, a meticulous researcher himself on here, that Mugford should have been incarcerated.
-
Adam, we've now had it confirmed by an ex barister one one side of the case and HB on the other side of the case, a meticulous researcher himself on here, that Mugford should have been incarcerated.
Do you think Julie should have approached the police on a guilty Bamber pre massacre?
-
The 'something is wrong at the farm' quote is not incriminating.
However the 'everything is going well' and 'I haven't slept all night' are both incriminating.
Sadly all we have from Bamber on this is his court testimony - 'I wanted to hear a friendly voice'.
Well all we have is Julie's take on this. I accept Jeremy Bamber was found gulity.
-
Do you think Julie should have approached the police on a guilty Bamber pre massacre?
IDK Adam.
-
Do you think Julie should have approached the police on a guilty Bamber pre massacre?
She is saying she didn't believe he was serious.
Who would? It would be madness to think someone you was in love with would do something like that.
May have just thought Bamber was venting or piss taking.
-
She could have informed Nevill after the ten pm phonecall but I imagine she believed Bamber was just talking bollocks because he had had a bad day at the farm.
Also Bamber would have then just denied it anyway had Nevill confronted him. She probably also was worried about getting Bamber into trouble. Bamber would likely dump her and be enraged
.
Also Nevill might not take her seriously. He was an overworked busy tired man who just wanted to go to bed ready for the next days graft. He would have no time to listen to bollocks from Bambers girlfriend and would think they were just having relationship problems and she was angry at him.
-
To me she was either in it and expecting to share the spoils or didn't take him seriously and thought he was full of wind and piss
-
Her WS also mentions that for certain periods he didn't talk about massacring the family.
Which would probably in her mind bolster the view that he had no intention of doing anything.
-
She could have informed Nevill after the ten pm phonecall but I imagine she believed Bamber was just talking bollocks because he had had a bad day at the farm.
Also Bamber would have then just denied it anyway had Nevill confronted him. She probably also was worried about getting Bamber into trouble. Bamber would likely dump her and be enraged
.
Also Nevill might not take her seriously. He was an overworked busy tired man who just wanted to go to bed ready for the next days graft. He would have no time to listen to bollocks from Bambers girlfriend and would think they were just having relationship problems and she was angry at him.
Assume Julie had Nevill's number. As Bamber worked there. She would have had to have gone outside to call him. Lewisham is not a safe place after 10pm.
If Julie had rang Nevill she would have to give the back story of the times Bamber spoke about killing his family.
This would be a total betrayal of Bamber although he may not have been serious.
-
Assume Julie had Nevill's number. As Bamber worked there. She would have had to have gone outside to call him. Lewisham is not a safe place after 10pm.
If Julie had rang Nevill she would have to give the back story of the times Bamber spoke about killing his family.
This would be a total betrayal of Bamber although he may not have been serious.
I know Lewisham very well as well as Eltham, Streatham, deptford, bermondsey, i used to live in south London
-
If Julie had rang Nevill, he had several choices. He would know the best one.
-
If Julie had rang Nevill, he had several choices. He would know the best one.
Think he would have just believed she had had a domestic with Bamber, and was trying to cause trouble. No doubt Nevills first port of call would be to ring Bamber, and he would just deny it and say what I have just said.
Nevill would side with his son ( and possibly be glad that Bamber was intending to leave Julie ( as Bamber would probably say )as he knew June would be )
Nevill was too busy and too overworked. I don't think he would have taken it seriously.
-
Although it's clear that the relationship with Nevill and Bamber was strained ( no doubt Nevill reeling over the theft, and it's claimed that Nevill and Bamber had had a blazing row in july 1985) i have never believed BW tale of Nevills " premonition "
I think BW was spinning a yarn. Others may disagree.
-
Of course though Julie had phoned Nevill I doubt Bamber would have gone on that night to carry it out. No doubt it would be put back for some time.
Strongly believe he would have dumped Julie though.
It's not like he was at a great loss. He was a good looking bloke and had no problem attracting girls. He would have probably found another girlfriend very shortly after.
-
Think he would have just believed she had had a domestic with Bamber, and was trying to cause trouble. No doubt Nevills first port of call would be to ring Bamber, and he would just deny it and say what I have just said.
Nevill would side with his son ( and possibly be glad that Bamber was intending to leave Julie ( as Bamber would probably say )as he knew June would be )
Nevill was too busy and too overworked. I don't think he would have taken it seriously.
If Julie gave him the full history of his plans, the bike arriving and phone call, Nevill should take it seriously.
He knew Bamber had robbed him and was worried about being shot.
Julie wouldn't ring Nevill because of a phone call domestic.
-
Bamber must have been treading on egg shells by August 85 anyway.
If anything the march 85 burglary may have put relations between him and Nevill at boiling point. Although Nevill may have not got the police involved he may have been punishing Bamber by deducting his salary or giving him arduous tasks. I doubt Nevill was a pushover. And I'm sure he never failed to remind Jeremy who had the upperhand.
This may be what caused Bamber to eventually snap. There's not a big difference between march 85 and August 85.
-
Of course though Julie had phoned Nevill I doubt Bamber would have gone on that night to carry it out. No doubt it would be put back for some time.
Strongly believe he would have dumped Julie though.
It's not like he was at a great loss. He was a good looking bloke and had no problem attracting girls. He would have probably found another girlfriend very shortly after.
Nevill had several options.
Put Bruce the guard dog outside his bedroom door. That would surprise Bamber.
-
Julie wouldn't ring Nevill because of a phone call domestic.
It is what Nevill may have interpreted it as being.
-
Nevill had several options.
Put Bruce the guard dog outside his bedroom door. That would surprise Bamber.
I honestly believe he wouldn't have taken it seriously.
Bamber would just deny it and make out Julie was crackers
-
I honestly believe he wouldn't have taken it seriously.
Bamber would just deny it and make out Julie was crackers
Bamber would deny if Nevill rang him.
I would have taken Julie's call seriously. Things had reached breaking point between Nevill & Bamber.
-
Bamber would deny if Nevill rang him.
I would have taken Julie's call seriously. Things had reached breaking point between Nevill & Bamber.
But not enough for Nevil to consider putting a lock on the gun cupboard?
Nevil was not that worried.
-
Bamber would deny if Nevill rang him.
I would have taken Julie's call seriously. Things had reached breaking point between Nevill & Bamber.
Nevill would be led into thinking it was a domestic between him and Julie.
Nevill would side with his son
-
Nevill would be led into thinking it was a domestic between him and Julie.
Nevill would side with his son
So Julie rings Nevill and tells him of Bamber's long term plans, the bike arriving & a 'tonight's the night' call.
Because they had a domestic over the phone.
Doesn't make sense to me.
-
But not enough for Nevil to consider putting a lock on the gun cupboard?
Nevil was not that worried.
Yes Nevill was expecting a daytime attack on just him during farming hours.
A shooting accident when his back is turned.
He wasn't expecting Bamber to go after the whole family.
-
So Julie rings Nevill and tells him of Bamber's long term plans, the bike arriving & a 'tonight's the night' call.
Because they had a domestic over the phone.
Doesn't make sense to me.
Julie would ring Nevill. Either go into detail like you suggest or keep it much shorter.
Nevill would ring Bamber.
Bamber would deny it. Bamber would insinuate Julie has lost the plot. Saying she is making stuff up because shes angry with him or something stupid
Nevill would ultimately just believe that it's a couples row with no substance to it.
-
Julie would ring Nevill. Either go into detail like you suggest or keep it much shorter.
Nevill would ring Bamber.
Bamber would deny it. Bamber would insinuate Julie has lost the plot. Saying she is making stuff up because shes angry with him or something stupid
Nevill would ultimately just believe that it's a couples row with no substance to it.
Agree Bamber would deny it if Nevill rang him. He's not going to admit to it!
Not sure Nevill would ring Bamber. With the relationship they have, he may stay awake & see if Bamber does attempt to get in.
If he does, Nevill can disown him.
-
Agree Bamber would deny it if Nevill rang him. He's not going to admit to it!
Not sure Nevill would ring Bamber. With the relationship they have, he may stay awake & see if Bamber does attempt to get in.
If he does, Nevill can disown him.
Of course he will ring him as well as telling June and Shelia
-
Yes Nevill was expecting a daytime attack on just him during farming hours.
A shooting accident when his back is turned.
He wasn't expecting Bamber to go after the whole family.
Do you actually believe he really said that to BW?
-
Of course he will ring him as well as telling June and Shelia
Disagree.
After the caravan break in & Julie's phone call, he will see if Bamber does try to break in.
If he does, Nevill can disown him.
-
Do you actually believe he really said that to BW?
She has said it on camera. So yes.
-
Disagree.
After the caravan break in & Julie's phone call, he will see if Bamber does try to break in.
If he does, Nevill can disown him.
Disown him ?
Id think he'd want to kick ten bells of shit out of him.
Then phone the police on him.
-
Disagree.
After the caravan break in & Julie's phone call, he will see if Bamber does try to break in.
If he does, Nevill can disown him.
Nevill will not take Julie seriously.
Agree he could catch Bamber in the act that night if he waited up
-
Nevill will not take Julie seriously.
Agree he could catch Bamber in the act that night if he waited up
Not take her seriously?
Long term plans, kitchen window, June's bike, doing CC a favour, 'tonights the night'.
This together with Nevill's relationship with Bamber will have him taking it seriously.
Phoning Bamber will not tell Nevill anything. Bamber will deny everything. Waiting up & seeing him arrive at WHF will show Bamber is wanting to kill him.
Nevill may show Bamber mercy and not call the police. Bamber would deny everything anyway. Disowning him is punishment enough.
-
Not take her seriously?
Long term plans, kitchen window, June's bike, doing CC a favour, 'tonights the night'.
This together with Nevill's relationship with Bamber will have him taking it seriously.
Phoning Bamber will not tell Nevill anything. Bamber will deny everything. Waiting up & seeing him arrive at WHF will show Bamber is wanting to kill him.
Nevill may show Bamber mercy and not call the police. Bamber would deny everything Disowning him is punishment enough.
Doubt Julie would tell Nevill all that over the phone.
Just simplify it to Bamber was intending to do harm
-
Not take her seriously?
Long term plans, kitchen window, June's bike, doing CC a favour, 'tonights the night'.
This together with Nevill's relationship with Bamber will have him taking it seriously.
Phoning Bamber will not tell Nevill anything. Bamber will deny everything. Waiting up & seeing him arrive at WHF will show Bamber is wanting to kill him.
Nevill may show Bamber mercy and not call the police. Bamber would deny everything anyway. Disowning him is punishment enough.
Disowning him is not punishment really, Bamber will have got off Scot free. Obviously would be disinherited.
Then it's a case of finding a flat and a job.
-
Doubt Julie would tell Nevill all that over the phone.
Just simplify it to Bamber was intending to do harm
Agree it would depend on how much Julie says.
If she is going to go to a call box in Lewisham after 10pm to phone Nevill, it won't be with one 10p.
There is a possibility June answers the phone. Don't think that would change things much.
-
Phoning Bamber means Bamber will postpone it indefinitely.
He will realise that even if Nevill did " believe him" due to their rocky relationship he would have watching him like a hawk and be suspicious of him.
Bamber would just dump Julie, and postpone the massacre a few months till things got more amicable between him and Nevill.
Shelia and the boys no doubt would make future visits
-
Don't believe Julie ever considered phoning WHF beforehand.
It took her until late August until she started telling people.
No one from either side has said she should have.
-
Don't believe Julie ever considered phoning WHF beforehand.
It took her until late August until she started telling people.
No one from either side has said she should have.
Probably because she thought he would never do it.
Then again how many times had he rang her before saying " tonight's the night "
-
Don't believe Julie ever considered phoning WHF beforehand.
Shame, it could have saved five lifes.
-
Lewisham is not that bad, understand if it was Brixton Peckham or catford fair enough!
-
Disowning him is not punishment really, Bamber will have got off Scot free. Obviously would be disinherited.
Then it's a case of finding a flat and a job.
Back to Little Chef and shared accommodation. No inheriting.
Maybe he would use June's bike to get around as no more free petrol. Unless June demanded it back.
He couldn't stay with Julie as she had betrayed his trust.
-
Nevill could ring Bamber and then make a judgement call on Bamber's reaction.
Nevill knew him better than anyone, so would know how convincing his denial was.
Afterwards Nevill would make WHF more secure over the following days.
If Bamber didn't answer Nevill's call, then Nevill would prepare WHF for a possible raid that night.
-
Back to Little Chef and shared accommodation. No inheriting.
Maybe he would use June's bike to get around as no more free petrol. Unless June demanded it back.
He couldn't stay with Julie as she had betrayed his trust.
I think Nevill had bought his car, after he had wrote the other one off in a road traffic accident. ( Ironically PC Saxby was in attendance for that incident about eight months before the massacre)
So Nevill would probably take the car as well. As he had bought it.
Suppose he could have got a job in Tenerife or Majorca as a holiday rep. His good looks would have made him popular with the ladies. Could supplement it being a barman while over there.
The call from Julie would end the relationship there and then. What ever Nevills reaction. Bamber would be furious with her.
-
Nevill could ring Bamber and then make a judgement call on Bamber's reaction.
Nevill knew him better than anyone, so would know how convincing his denial was.
Afterwards Nevill would make WHF more secure over the following days.
If Bamber didn't answer Nevill's call, then Nevill would prepare WHF for a possible raid that night.
If Nevill took Julie's call seriously he may even jump in his car and go over to head street to confront Bamber there and then.
If Nevill had had suspicions he may even want to kick ten bells of shit out of Bamber.
Especially after the burglary and if there relationship had been at loggerheads. The phonecall if he did take it seriously may push Nevill over the edge.
-
I think Nevill had bought his car, after he had wrote the other one off in a road traffic accident. ( Ironically PC Saxby was in attendance for that incident about eight months before the massacre)
So Nevill would probably take the car as well. As he had bought it.
Suppose he could have got a job in Tenerife or Majorca as a holiday rep. His good looks would have made him popular with the ladies. Could supplement it being a barman while over there.
The call from Julie would end the relationship there and then. What ever Nevills reaction. Bamber would be furious with her.
His round the world trips and his jobs at Little Chef and Sloppy Joe's were an attempt at independence. But it was less hassle to be subsidized by June and go through the motions of farming, at least temporarily, until his inheritance was expedited through his own diabolical actions.
-
Saw a doc on holiday reps. Looks stressful.
The manager had a photo of all the new reps & said by the end of the season, most heads will be crossed off after they quit or get sacked.
She was right.
-
Saw a doc on holiday reps. Looks stressful.
The manager had a photo of all the reps & said by the end of the season, most heads will be crossed off after they quit or get sacked. She was right.
I don't think languages were quite his forte, if I recall from schooldays. He was happier at Maths and Geography. The Maths would come in handy calculating his inheritance and Geography for negotiating the terrain.
-
I don't think languages were quite his forte, if I recall from schooldays. He was happier at Maths and Geography. The Maths would come in handy calculating his inheritance and Geography for negotiating the terrain.
The holidays reps just need to speak English. All the tourists are English.
-
The holidays reps just need to speak English. All the tourists are English.
No, they have to liaise with hotel management and may need to speak to police. They should have a rudimentary knowledge of the host country.
-
No, they have to liaise with hotel management and may need to speak to police. They should have a rudimentary knowledge of the host country.
There is no way the teenage holiday reps I saw in that doc could speak different laungages.
Maybe 'good morning' and 'thank you'.
The hotel management will speak English as all there residents are English.
-
No, they have to liaise with hotel management and may need to speak to police. They should have a rudimentary knowledge of the host country.
Jesus, poor Bamber would have only wanted a good drink, a one bedroom flat and loose women.
-
Maybe Nevill would have relented in time.
Bamber could play heavily on the mental health card.
Shelia having such problems as well.
-
Jesus, poor Bamber would have only wanted a good drink, a one bedroom flat and loose women.
Had he not been adopted by the Bambers, you mean.
-
Had he not been adopted by the Bambers, you mean.
Must have hated them with a core to throw away future permanent employment and wealth.
-
Bamber if gulity didn't go into this thinking " I'm definatley going to get away with it" he took a calculated risk,
He lost, and has paid the price heavily.
He is a resilient character with a strong personality and a ready line in conversation, he's managed to go through jail with his facilities in tact. Fighting the case has kept his sanity. Even if gulity and living in fantasy. It's something he can occupy himself with and keep busy.
He's a survivor, and what I mean by that he's felt in his own mind hes never belonged. He was adopted from birth, never had a meaningful close relationship with his adopted family, was shunted to boarding school at a young age.
Had circumstances been different, perhaps he'd be successful person.
-
Must have hated them with a core to throw away future permanent employment and wealth.
The saying goes thus: The grass is always greener on the other side.
-
The saying goes thus: The grass is always greener on the other side.
Almost forty years at a category A prisoner. I think I'd rather go to bible classes with June and drink tea and eat crumpets
-
Almost forty years at a category A prisoner. I think I'd rather go to bible classes with June and drink tea and eat crumpets
Many find out the hard way that it was all an illusion.
-
I just give the facts on Julie -
Pre massacre:
Did not speak to anyone else.
Post massacre:
Gave a 2 page WS on 8th August 1985.
Left Bamber 27th August 1985 to return to London and work.
Told 5 people between late August and early September.
Bamber asks another woman out in front of her. On 4th September 1985.
Last meeting with Bamber & Brett. In London. On 6th September 1985.
September 7th 1985. Approached the police.
New signed 23 page WS submitted 8th September 1985. From which she would testify from.
----------
Some people say this is understandable, others say it is not acceptable. Others say she should have been put in prison.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. What is true is that no one was in her position at 20/21 years old. Everyone would have reacted in a different way.
-
I just give the facts on Julie -
Pre massacre:
Did not speak to anyone else.
Post massacre:
Gave a 2 page WS on 8th August 1985.
Left Bamber 27th August 1985 to return to London and work.
Told 5 people between late August and early September.
Bamber asks another woman out in front of her. On 4th September 1985.
Last meeting with Bamber & Brett. In London. On 6th September 1985.
September 7th 1985. Approached the police.
New signed 23 page WS submitted 8th September 1985. From which she would testify from.
----------
Some people say this is understandable, others say it is not acceptable. Others say she should have been put in prison.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. What is true is that no one was in her position at 20/21 years old. Everyone would have reacted in a different way.
What, it's understandable to cover up for your Boyfriend putting 5 and 3 bullets into the head of two little boy's and 8 into his Father 7 and 2 in to his mother and sister, who are the UNDERSTANDABLE one's, or do you mean it's understandable because she's part of it and tried to cover herself?
-
What, it's understandable to cover up for your Boyfriend putting 5 and 3 bullets into the head of two little boy's and 8 into his Father 7 and 2 in to his mother and sister, who are the UNDERSTANDABLE one's, or do you mean it's understandable because she's part of it and tried to cover herself?
Do you agree with ILB that Julie should have told the police everything on the 7th August?
-
What, it's understandable to cover up for your Boyfriend putting 5 and 3 bullets into the head of two little boy's and 8 into his Father 7 and 2 in to his mother and sister, who are the UNDERSTANDABLE one's, or do you mean it's understandable because she's part of it and tried to cover herself?
Aww! I guess, as one of their number, I have to explain what "UNDERSTANDABLE" means to me, HB! I understand all the reasons -when added up, there aren't that many- behind most crimes -I'm leaving out pedophilia/sexual crimes- but understanding isn't condoning. Before every crime is committed, there is choice, but when rage, jealousy, and greed are present, self control isn't. I feel certain we can ALL understand what rage, jealousy, and greed feel like? Thankfully, most of us have enough self control that we don't act on them in a way which harms others.
-
I just give the facts on Julie -
Pre massacre:
Did not speak to anyone else.
Post massacre:
Gave a 2 page WS on 8th August 1985.
Left Bamber 27th August 1985 to return to London and work.
Told 5 people between late August and early September.
Bamber asks another woman out in front of her. On 4th September 1985.
Last meeting with Bamber & Brett. In London. On 6th September 1985.
September 7th 1985. Approached the police.
New signed 23 page WS submitted 8th September 1985. From which she would testify from.
----------
Some people say this is understandable, others say it is not acceptable. Others say she should have been put in prison.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. What is true is that no one was in her position at 20/21 years old. Everyone would have reacted in a different way.
Interesting points in this -
Between the 7th August 1985 - 7th September 1985 I don't believe the police spoke to or approached Julie.
After Bamber asked another woman out in front of her, Julie did not approach the police for another 3 days. She also met Bamber 2 days later. So her approach was not rage motivated.
The 6th September 1985 meeting with Bamber he told her he was water tight.
Her submitted WS was only a day after she approached the police. Supporters claim she needed several drafts.This may be true but it was still finished within hours.
-
Do you agree with ILB that Julie should have told the police everything on the 7th August?
Put it this way, i don't think anyone would stop with their Boyfriend who is commited to murdering his family. Julie was in on it for the spoils and nothing else and should have been put in jail because she knew what happened and covered up for him, until he ditched her.
-
Put it this way, i don't think anyone would stop with their Boyfriend who is commited to murdering his family. Julie was in on it for the spoils and nothing else and should have been put in jail because she knew what happened and covered up for him, until he ditched her.
I disagree that he ditched her. Her WS says she left him on the 27th August 1985 to return to London & her job. She then met him on the 4th & 6th September 1985 so they were still on speaking terms.
Her WS also says she tried to leave him earlier. But Bamber said he needed her.
Believe it is optimistic to expect Julie to jilt Bamber on the 7th August 1985. Then start speaking to the police on the same day.
She had to digest what she was being told by him & what was happening around her.
Bamber was still directing things, insinuating Sheila. The police and the relatives were giving him emotional support. Everyone accepting it was murder/suicide.
-
What, it's understandable to cover up for your Boyfriend putting 5 and 3 bullets into the head of two little boy's and 8 into his Father 7 and 2 in to his mother and sister, who are the UNDERSTANDABLE one's, or do you mean it's understandable because she's part of it and tried to cover herself?
She may not have been thinking straight, Hardy Boy. Remember blokes usually are wired differently from women and we may never be able to fully understand a woman in love. She said initially that she didn't want him to go to prison, she realized something was wrong with him when she confronted him that evening and at Blazer's Restaurant, Blackheath several days later. I agree it's all rather sordid, but had she been threatened to be roped in as an accessory one can just about understand how events transpired.
-
I disagree that he ditched her. Her WS says she left him on the 27th August 1985 to return to London & her job. She then met him on the 4th & 6th September 1985 so they were still on speaking terms.
Her WS also says she tried to leave him earlier. But Bamber said he needed her.
Believe it is optimistic to expect Julie to jilt Bamber on the 7th August 1985. Then start speaking to the police on the same day.
She had to digest what she was being told by him & what was happening around her.
Bamber was still directing things, insinuating Sheila. The police and the relatives were giving him emotional support. Everyone accepting it was murder/suicide.
He may not have ditched her, but Jeremy was no longer her exclusive prerogative, if he ever had been, I think she felt used, cheated, and under those circumstances it's not entirely incomprehensible to think that love may have evaporated.
-
I disagree that he ditched her. Her WS says she left him on the 27th August 1985 to return to London & her job. She then met him on the 4th & 6th September 1985 so they were still on speaking terms.
Her WS also says she tried to leave him earlier. But Bamber said he needed her.
Believe it is optimistic to expect Julie to jilt Bamber on the 7th August 1985. Then start speaking to the police on the same day.
She had to digest what she was being told by him & what was happening around her.
Bamber was still directing things, insinuating Sheila. The police and the relatives were giving him emotional support. Everyone accepting it was murder/suicide.
The relatives especially AE were on his case from literally day one more or less.
Stan Jones didn't like him from the outset.
Taff was still stubborn with his murder suicide theory.
Accept it have come as a shock to Julie ( depends on how much you think her involvement was /but even without Bamber telling her she must have been able to put and two and two together
She was composed enough to volunteer to identify the twins.
She was composed enough to spend time in the vicinity of CC, enjoying his hospitality. Knowing all along that she had knowledge of Bamber killing this mans children.
She supported Bamber at the funeral.
-
The relatives especially AE were on his case from literally day one more or less.
Stan Jones didn't like him from the outset.
Taff was still stubborn with his murder suicide theory.
Accept it have come as a shock to Julie ( depends on how much you think her involvement was /but even without Bamber telling her she must have been able to put and two and two together
She was composed enough to volunteer to identify the twins.
She was composed enough to spend time in the vicinity of CC, enjoying his hospitality. Knowing all along that she had knowledge of Bamber killing this mans children.
She supported Bamber at the funeral.
Agree she would have put 2 & 2 together. He had rang her at 10pm & 3am.
So there was no point him saying he wasn't involved. But a good idea to give a proxy to her.
-
Agree she would have put 2 & 2 together. He had rang her at 10pm & 3am.
So there was no point him saying he wasn't involved. But a good idea to give a proxy to her.
Well prior to the massacre from what Julie tells us Bamber was insinuating his plans from a lone killer -(himself ) basis.
Whether he then said MM, on a moral basis ( although to me organising a mass killing is still as bad as carrying it out) ( law wise it's still a multiple life sentence) to make it not look as bad, is anybodys guess.
I'm shocked Julie believed his MM story. For a starters Bamber told Julie according to her he had " been thinking all day on the tractor that tonight This crime had to be done " it's clear from this thay he made a snap on the spur decision. Secondly, when would he have time to contact MM? He was working all day, This is pre mobile phones, he's hardly going to have a conversation at WHF in the daytime organising a hitman! did Julie really believe that he could just summon MM at gone 11pm on a midweek night to carry out a killing for £2000? It's ludicrous, she must have known Bamber was solely responsible.
-
Well prior to the massacre from what Julie tells us Bamber was insinuating his plans from a lone killer -(himself ) basis.
Whether he then said MM, on a moral basis ( although to me organising a mass killing is still as bad as carrying it out) ( law wise it's still a multiple life sentence) to make it not look as bad, is anybodys guess.
I'm shocked Julie believed his MM story. For a starters Bamber told Julie according to her he had " been thinking all day on the tractor that tonight This crime had to be done " it's clear from this thay he made a snap deciasion. Secondly, when would he have time to contact MM? He was working all day, This is pre mobile phones, he's hardly going to have a conversation at WHF in the daytime organising a hitman! did Julie really believe that he could just summon MM at gone 11pm on a midweek night to carry out a killing for £2000? It's ludicrous, she must have known Bamber was solely responsible.
I doubt she believed the proxy story. Her WS says she knew he didn't have 2k.
She told the police the MM story as that is what he told her.
-
I doubt she believed the proxy story. Her WS says she knew he didn't have 2k.
She told the police the MM story as that is what he told her.
Well she told SB and others and EP the Matthew story.
She also states that she she kept saying to Bamber " £2000 for five lifes"
-
Did we ever know for certain how much Bamber had at his disposal in 1985?
In police interviews he says his account is between £1000 and a several thousand "
His custody report shows he had plenty of cash and numerous bank accounts in his property. But accept this is post massacre.
-
Well she told SB and others and EP the Matthew story.
She also states that she she kept saying to Bamber " £2000 for five lifes"
Will never know if she believed it.
He did speak about the massacre beforehand as if he was going to do it himself. Afterwards it was all about MM doing it.
She wouldn't believe it was MM after his alibi was confirmed.
-
Will never know if she believed it.
He did speak about the massacre beforehand as if he was going to do it himself. Afterwards it was all about MM doing it.
She wouldn't believe it was MM after his alibi was confirmed.
Have you ever believed that they were in league together in the sense of that she have happily kept quiet post events if Bamber had stayed faithful and lavished cash on her? Do you believe she encouraged Bamber despite her saying otherwise ?
Or do you believe Julie is totally innocent and another victim of Bamber? I know she played no part in the crime, as in trying to actively discourage him.
-
Have you ever believed that they were in league together in the sense of that she have happily kept quiet post events if Bamber had stayed faithful and lavished cash on her?
Or do you believe Julie is totally innocent and another victim of Bamber
We will never know for sure. My own opinion is that a secret like that is too huge not to slip out some time thereafter.
-
We will never know for sure. My own opinion is that a secret like that is too huge not to slip out some time thereafter.
It's certainly in your best self interest ( julie) to keep quiet though of course.
-
Have you ever believed that they were in league together in the sense of that she have happily kept quiet post events if Bamber had stayed faithful and lavished cash on her? Do you believe she encouraged Bamber despite her saying otherwise ?
Or do you believe Julie is totally innocent and another victim of Bamber? I know she played no part in the crime, as in trying to actively discourage him.
A passive collaborator.
Told him she didn't like him speaking about it. Also didn't believe he would do anything.
But she also kept quiet, let him use her sleeping tablets & suggested he did not attempt to burn down WHF.
I don't think him spending loads of money on her would have stopped her going to the police. He was spending money on her and also trying to scare her. Didn't he also offer to buy her a wine bar?
-
A passive collaborator.
Told him she didn't like him speaking about it. Also didn't believe he would do anything.
But she also kept quiet, let him use her sleeping tablets & suggested he did not attempt to burn down WHF.
I don't think him spending loads of money on her would have stopped her going to the police. He was spending money on her and also trying to scare her. Didn't he also offer to buy her a wine bar?
Yes, he offered to buy her a wine bar in a fashionable area of London, or at least for her to be the manageress, whilst he continued his dalliances away from her watchful gaze. Whether it was the Matthew McDonald story or her waiting wistfully for him one September afternoon on the doorstep of Moreshead Mansions, or simply Colin's ingenuousness that weekend, the truth began to hurt, and the woman who had the mind in time to come to write a Mathematics textbook, but not one to penetrate that of her lover of eighteen months and foresee the wickedness contained therein, slowly began to grasp the peril she faced. She had fallen in love with a murderer, been strung along like a gaping puppet, then discarded like trash, as his parents, his sister and the twins had been in their turn, along with their toys placed hurriedly in bin bags left out for Colin to collect, the only remnants of existence Daniel's macabre drawings and the sunflowers in the back yard, coming into bloom on the very day they were laid to rest in Highgate.
-
I believe it's very possible that she may have encouraged him. And to be perfectly honest they had been in league. Although of course Bamber would be the spearhead and carry it out.
I think post massacre the conscience may have come out to play. A possible percentage wise for the sorrow for the victims but more likely for self preservation. She may have been genuinely scared that if Bamber came a cropper he would confess and implicate her.
She's in a decent position either way if her and Bamber were in league together. He will never confess and highlight her involvement as it would scupper the most desired goal of his. Namely freedom.
-
" I still believe he is gulity " - Julie Mugford. 2002 appeal.
No sweetheart, he either confessed to you or didn't.
On the flip side of things perhaps it's why Bamber seldom mentions Julie as I've heard some guilters point out.
Perhaps he was worried over the years that if Julie ended up having a breakdown and confessed her involvement to someone that's pretty much also going to scupper his chance of gaining freedom by getting his convictions overturned.
I guess we will never know.
-
I believe it's very possible that she may have encouraged him. And to be perfectly honest they had been in league. Although of course Bamber would be the spearhead and carry it out.
I think post massacre the conscience may have come out to play. A possible percentage wise for the sorrow for the victims but more likely for self preservation. She may have been genuinely scared that if Bamber came a cropper he would confess and implicate her.
She's in a decent position either way if her and Bamber were in league together. He will never confess and highlight her involvement as it would scupper the most desired goal of his. Namely freedom.
I believe her WS. Which was completed the day after she approached the police.
It is up to the reader to decide if that was encouragement.
Don't believe she would encourage the murder of men, women & children.
Doubt that a 20 year olds main interest was money. If it was she would take up June's offer of a house.
Dismissing his 'tonight's the night' call would have encouraged him.
-
Doubt that a 20 year olds main interest was money..
Bamber was just three years Julie's senior. A young man himself. It was alleged that was his sole aim and motive.
-
I believe her WS. Which was completed the day after she approached the police. .
In fairness after it was established MM had an alibi it was a case of EP suggesting " have a second go Julie "
-
I believe her WS. Which was completed the day after she approached the police.
It is up to the reader to decide if that was encouragement.
Don't believe she would encourage the murder of men, women & children.
If it was she would take up June's offer of a house.
.
Which would come with terms and conditions and could be pulled away by Mrs Bamber at any given notice.
I don't believe June would have bought a property for mugford in Mugfords name. And also June did not approve of Mugford so there may be an ulterior motive on June's behalf
-
In fairness after it was established MM had an alibi it was a case of EP suggesting " have a second go Julie "
Don't understand that. Her WS has MM in it.
-
Bamber was just three years Julie's senior. A young man himself. It was alleged that was his sole aim and motive.
He is an inheritance killer. Main motivation being money & freedom.
-
Don't understand that. Her WS has MM in it.
MM was seen to have am alibi. It was Julie who first mentioned MM had killed the family after being hired by Bamber.
After MM is vindicated it then switched to a sole Bamber scenario.
-
He is an inheritance killer. Main motivation being money & freedom.
But you must admit saying Julie not being interested by money at 20 is a sweeping statement and neither of us can prove otherwise.
-
Believe Taff stated after MM vindication that " that Julies full of shit _
-
MM was seen to have am alibi. It was Julie who first mentioned MM had killed the family after being hired by Bamber.
After MM is vindicated it then switched to a sole Bamber scenario.
The police always had Bamber as the sole killer. But had to follow up Julie's WS.
-
Believe Taff stated after MM vindication that " that Julies full of shit _
Taff by now was the sole EP officer still supporting Bamber. He later arrested him in London.
-
Taff by now was the sole EP officer still supporting Bamber. He later arrested him in London.
At the behest of Ainsley.
I don't believe personally taffs personal or professional view amounts to much. He was adamant he was right. Others felt different.
-
The police always had Bamber as the sole killer. But had to follow up Julie's WS.
Why arrest MM then?
-
Why arrest MM then?
They had to interview him. Bamber had told Julie he paid him.
-
Julie's WS is very convincing.
Long, detailed and completed the day after she approached the police.
Ninety nine per cent is not disputed. Dates, times, locations & people she was with can & will have been checked.
Bamber really struggles with the other 1% where she says he spoke about the massacre. A lot of this information she could have only got from Bamber.
He agrees she had sleeping tablets and refuses to talk about his 10pm and 3pm calls. The police told him Julie was right about the lockable from outside window.
All he can do is very optimistically claim she made & stood by such a serious accusation because he 'jilted her'. Although she left him on the 27th August 1985.
-
Seems Jez did believe phone calls could be recorded
-
" Jeremy said we shouldn't mention it in the house in case it had been bugged "
Moments prior gave a full account of him organising it and MM carrying it out....
-
" Jeremy said we shouldn't mention it in the house in case it had been bugged "
Moments prior gave a full account of him organising it and MM carrying it out....
And he accused Sheila of paranoia? !!!!!!
-
" I still believe he is gulity " - Julie Mugford. 2002 appeal.
No sweetheart, he either confessed to you or didn't.
On the flip side of things perhaps it's why Bamber seldom mentions Julie as I've heard some guilters point out.
Perhaps he was worried over the years that if Julie ended up having a breakdown and confessed her involvement to someone that's pretty much also going to scupper his chance of gaining freedom by getting his convictions overturned.
I guess we will never know.
I'm not sure what you mean. Julie still believes him guilty. It's a statement on her position.
-
Which would come with terms and conditions and could be pulled away by Mrs Bamber at any given notice.
I don't believe June would have bought a property for mugford in Mugfords name. And also June did not approve of Mugford so there may be an ulterior motive on June's behalf
Strange she didn't offer accommodation to Suzette, whatever the motive. But the Bambers did make Bourtree Cottage available for Jeremy's use. This would ensure there was no debauchery occurring on White House Farm premises. They were still determined to split up the couple, however.
-
" Jeremy said we shouldn't mention it in the house in case it had been bugged "
Moments prior gave a full account of him organising it and MM carrying it out....
..because Jeremy as a 23-year-old shoots his mouth of first and thinks of the consequences second.
-
I'm not sure what you mean. Julie still believes him guilty. It's a statement on her position.
She either knows he is by him telling her or doesn't.
-
Strange she didn't offer accommodation to Suzette, whatever the motive. But the Bambers did make Bourtree Cottage available for Jeremy's use. This would ensure there was no debauchery occurring on White House Farm premises. They were still determined to split up the couple, however.
Why would Suzette need accomodation?
She probably felt strongly Suzette and Bamber would fizzle out.
-
..because Jeremy as a 23-year-old shoots his mouth of first and thinks of the consequences second.
Only aspect that statement in the entire case of Bamber " trying to cover his tracks "
Rest of the time, he's seen as either chilled out, happy, a braggart or out of it on valium and going on holiday
-
Why would Suzette need accomodation?
She probably felt strongly Suzette and Bamber would fizzle out.
Well, if that were the case Nevill wouldn't have threatened disinheritance.
-
Jeremy I believe was just as potentially academic as Julie. He just didn't apply himself. Perhaps the knowledge of having wealthy parents culled his academic career long term thinking he'd always be alright financial wise.
He was a maths genius.
-
Well, if that were the case Nevill wouldn't have threatened disinheritance.
Believe Nevill would have done it at the behest of June " her I n doors " " the gaffer "
All men ( including me ) are the same we just don't admit it
As much as I think I'm in charge the missus says jump I saw " how high " love the quiet life !
-
Only aspect that statement in the entire case of Bamber " trying to cover his tracks "
Rest of the time, he's seen as either chilled out, happy, a braggart or out of it on valium and going on holiday
Remember this was "the perfect crime." I doubt he ever loved Julie, but she was a different female in that she made the time to listen to him, he feeling unburdened thereafter. But Julie was unprepared for the confidences which Jeremy broached, and the intricacy of the trap he had set her. She was used, deceived and finally attempted extrication, though alas too late to stop the tragedy.
-
Remember this was "the perfect crime." I doubt he ever loved Julie, but she was a different female in that she made the time to listen to him, he feeling unburdened thereafter. But Julie was unprepared for the confidences which Jeremy broached, and the intricacy of the trap he had set her. She was used, deceived and finally attempted extrication, though alas too late to stop the tragedy.
Many people believe she encouraged him and was actively involved. Others of course hardcore supporters think she's a liar and was spurned.
I'm undecided
-
Jeremy I believe was just as potentially academic as Julie. He just didn't apply himself. Perhaps the knowledge of having wealthy parents culled his academic career long term thinking he'd always be alright financial wise.
He was a maths genius.
It's true he may have bandied figures about in his head, but as it transpired, for nefarious purposes only.
-
Many people believe she encouraged him and was actively involved. Others of course hardcore supporters think she's a liar and was spurned.
I'm undecided
For those who experienced teaching practice in an ILEA school in the 1980s, I can state categorically she would have had enough on her plate already.
-
For those who experienced teaching practice in an ILEA school in the 1980s, I can state categorically she would have had enough on her plate already.
Money is tempting and a remedy.
-
Money is tempting and a remedy.
But she never relinquished her teaching career, she refused the offer of a flat from June and she didn't get pregnant by him and demand a council house in Manningtree.
-
But she never relinquished her teaching career, she refused the offer of a flat from June and she didn't get pregnant by him and demand a council house in Manningtree.
Julie states that Jeremy told her he couldn't have children.
Also believe a farm worker stated that Jeremy did not wish to have children.
-
Julie states that Jeremy told her he couldn't have children.
Also believe a farm worker stated that Jeremy did not wish to have children.
Well, I don't recall that anywhere. It can't be true anyway if Suzette suffered miscarriages as she claimed.
-
Well, I don't recall that anywhere. It can't be true anyway if Suzette suffered miscarriages as she claimed.
I will find you the passage
In fairness to Jeremy these are Julie's words not his.
-
Sensible posters from both sides will agree Julie's WS is true.
No woman would perjure herself so seriously with a 23 page WS and several days testifying in court.
Even the defence at trial had to resort to bringing up a totally unrelated minor cheque book fraud from 2 years earlier.
-
How people interpret her WS & court testimony has differred. Within both sides.
Suggestions have included -
Babe in the woods.
Gold digger.
Passive collaborator.
Pro active collaborator.
Rabbit caught in the headlights.
Should have been put in prison.
Brave to approach the police.
Should have approached them on the 7th August.
Approached the police to save her skin.
Approached the police to do the right thing.
----------
Maybe there is a bit of truth in all of these.
-
How people interpret her WS & court testimony has differred. Within both sides.
Suggestions have included -
Babe in the woods.
Gold digger.
Passive collaborator.
Pro active collaborator.
Rabbit caught in the headlights.
Should have been put in prison.
Brave to approach the police.
Should have approached them on the 7th August.
Approached the police to save her skin.
Approached the police to do the right thing.
----------
Maybe there is a bit of truth in all of these.
From which ever side of the divide one supports, it wasn't her finest moment and she didn't come out of it smelling of roses.
-
Many people believe she encouraged him and was actively involved. Others of course hardcore supporters think she's a liar and was spurned.
I'm undecided
Her claims are factually inaccurate and contains within it false information she could only have got from either the police or Ann Eaton.
Those who believe Julie is telling the truth subscribe to a coincidence theory whereby Jeremy confesses with all the false details that Ann Eaton and DC Clarke happened to believe at the time.
I suggest you read the following posts -
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8753.msg419820.html#msg419820 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8753.msg419820.html#msg419820)
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg458825.html#msg458825 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg458825.html#msg458825)
There is also in existence a copy of a NTOW agreement signed and dated by Julie pre trial. Despite telling the jury she had made no such agreement. Why the defence at trial never looked into finding such paperwork to begin with is rather astonishing.
-
Her claims are factually inaccurate and contains within it false information she could only have got from either the police or Ann Eaton.
Those who believe Julie is telling the truth subscribe to a coincidence theory whereby Jeremy confesses with all the false details that Ann Eaton and DC Clarke happened to believe at the time.
I suggest you read the following posts -
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8753.msg419820.html#msg419820 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8753.msg419820.html#msg419820)
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg458825.html#msg458825 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg458825.html#msg458825)
There is also in existence a copy of a NTOW agreement signed and dated by Julie pre trial. Despite telling the jury she had made no such agreement. Why the defence at trial never looked into finding such paperwork to begin with is rather astonishing.
Whether Jeremy told Julie the twins died last it has no legal standing affecting the law of commorientes. As for the other stuff, it was some weeks after the event and Julie cannot be expected to remember every detail, words which in the first place came from Jeremy's mouth and which were, in any case, compromised thereby.
-
Whether Jeremy told Julie the twins died last it has no legal standing affecting the law of commorientes. As for the other stuff, it was some weeks after the event and Julie cannot be expected to remember every detail, words which in the first place came from Jeremy's mouth and which were, in any case, compromised thereby.
Julie did get the amount of shots Nevill received wrong. Suspect Bamber had lost count.
I have asked David multiple times why and when AE would alert Bamber's girlfriend people suspected him. He has never answered.
There was no signed NOTW contract pre verdict.
-
Julie did get the amount of shots Nevill received wrong. Suspect Bamber had lost count.
I have asked David multiple times why and when AE would alert Bamber's girlfriend people suspected him. He has never answered.
There was no signed NOTW contract pre verdict.
James Weatherup, a NOTW journalist suggested on the theroux documentary that there was.
-
Sensible posters from both sides will agree Julie's WS is true.
No woman would perjure herself so seriously with a 23 page WS and several days testifying in court.
Even the defence at trial had to resort to bringing up a totally unrelated minor cheque book fraud from 2 years earlier.
Can't prove or disprove it.
Can't make fleeting statements that people won't lie on oath.
It's been happening since the beginning of time.
Whether a totally innocent Julie or julie the bonnie to Bambers Clyde.
-
Just by going through the 8.9.85 statement of Julie the discrepancies are blaringly obvious. Amongst other things.
I think we are all in agreement that this wasn't a " damsel in distress "
-
Her claims are factually inaccurate and contains within it false information she could only have got from either the police or Ann Eaton.
Those who believe Julie is telling the truth subscribe to a coincidence theory whereby Jeremy confesses with all the false details that Ann Eaton and DC Clarke happened to believe at the time.
I suggest you read the following posts -
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8753.msg419820.html#msg419820 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8753.msg419820.html#msg419820)
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg458825.html#msg458825 (https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg458825.html#msg458825)
There is also in existence a copy of a NTOW agreement signed and dated by Julie pre trial. Despite telling the jury she had made no such agreement. Why the defence at trial never looked into finding such paperwork to begin with is rather astonishing.
I have always suspected Robert Boutflour. From his incessant self proclaimed dislike of Jeremy.
This is not conspiracy. This is fact. He didn't like him one little bit.
I also believe that Robert Boutflour was intensely jealous of Nevill Bamber. Despite on the face of it the two men having a amicable relationship. The latter a more successful businessman.
-
Just by going through the 8.9.85 statement of Julie the discrepancies are blaringly obvious. Amongst other things.
I think we are all in agreement that this wasn't a " damsel in distress "
What discrepancies?
-
There was no signed NOTW contract pre verdict.
I have posted about this many times over the years. There was a concluded contract pre verdict (in fact I believe before the start of the trial) and JM lied about it during the trial. This is serious.
-
Just by going through the 8.9.85 statement of Julie the discrepancies are blaringly obvious. Amongst other things.
I think we are all in agreement that this wasn't a " damsel in distress "
I was under the impression that Julie had stuck to her story. Her only "discrepancies", as I see it, are in some posters not knowing the difference between what Julie claims as her own knowledge, and what she 'knows' resulting from information given her by JB.
-
What discrepancies?
Many.
-
I have posted about this many times over the years. There was a concluded contract pre verdict (in fact I believe before the start of the trial) and JM lied about it during the trial. This is serious.
Julie had her own solicitor, and so, I imagine, did the NOTW. She was barely 21. Was she expected to know the law? Was she not told by those whose job it was to understand the law, that she could be in deep water if she signed a document from which she stood to gain, prior to trial?
-
I have posted about this many times over the years. There was a concluded contract pre verdict (in fact I believe before the start of the trial) and JM lied about it during the trial. This is serious.
It was discussed during her testimony.
Nothing since.
-
Many.
Please list them.
-
Its scripted to fuck. For a starters Bamber would just say he would be killing the family, at a push mention his methods. She says stuff like " how he would say goodnight to everybody " Bamber wouldn't say that. It's an add on by Julie or perhaps EP.
Also he
The excellent memory for dates. She would simply just say " he's been talking about it for a while, her recalling Xmas 84 and January 85 whilst maintaining a heavy schedule in her own life and at the same time being " flippant " of what Bamber is saying doesn't reflect the true picture she'd be able to recollect precise dates. Nobody would. Everyone is too wrapped up in their own affairs. Me, you, Mr Jones at number 10. Accept it may have come at prompting from the coppers. But it's not a true picture of what Julie is remembering.
-
That's just one page.
-
Julie had her own solicitor, and so, I imagine, did the NOTW. She was barely 21. Was she expected to know the law? Was she not told by those whose job it was to understand the law, that she could be in deep water if she signed a document from which she stood to gain, prior to trial?
Be that as it may Jane.
The criminal age of responsibility in the UK is ten.
-
Julie had her own solicitor, and so, I imagine, did the NOTW. She was barely 21. Was she expected to know the law? Was she not told by those whose job it was to understand the law, that she could be in deep water if she signed a document from which she stood to gain, prior to trial?
Serious money was involved. She crossed the line and thought she would not be found out. She is very lucky because although JB's team knew what had happened at the time of the 2002 appeal they did not have the proof required and were prevented by a very unsympathetic Court of Appeal from obtaining that proof. I have posted on this subject before. What HB has posted about Julie Mugford is very valid. Whatever your view on the case, she comes out of it very badly indeed.
-
It was discussed during her testimony.
Nothing since.
A lot since. The evidence has become available. She lied.
-
Serious money was involved. She crossed the line and thought she would not be found out. She is very lucky because although JB's team knew what had happened at the time of the 2002 appeal they did not have the proof required and were prevented by a very unsympathetic Court of Appeal from obtaining that proof. I have posted on this subject before. What HB has posted about Julie Mugford is very valid. Whatever your view on the case, she comes out of it very badly indeed.
As I've previously said, numerous times, it was neither her finest moment, nor did she come out of it smelling of roses, BUT I find it very difficult to believe that those whose job it was to look after her best interests, didn't advise her as to what would be the consequences under certain circumstances if the law was contravened. None of them knew what the outcome of the trial would be, and it wasn't Julie's job to know the law. By suggesting "she crossed the line and thought she would not be found out" suggests she may have been warned? However, whilst she may have been many things, stupid wasn't one of them.
-
A lot since. The evidence has become available. She lied.
No documents were signed until the right moment.
Julie's lawyers and the NOTW would know how it worked.
-
As I've previously said, numerous times, it was neither her finest moment, nor did she come out of it smelling of roses, BUT I find it very difficult to believe that those whose job it was to look after her best interests, didn't advise her as to what would be the consequences under certain circumstances if the law was contravened. None of them knew what the outcome of the trial would be, and it wasn't Julie's job to know the law. By suggesting "she crossed the line and thought she would not be found out" suggests she may have been warned? However, whilst she may have been many things, stupid wasn't one of them.
I think her solicitor earned a substantial fee out of this and he knew exactly what he was doing. He comes out of this with no credit whatsoever. She lied during the trial to the police who asked her questions on behalf of the judge. She is very lucky indeed that the Court of Appeal judges in 2002 protected her because she could have faced serious consequences.
-
Its scripted to fuck. For a starters Bamber would just say he would be killing the family, at a push mention his methods. She says stuff like " how he would say goodnight to everybody " Bamber wouldn't say that. It's an add on by Julie or perhaps EP.
Also he
The excellent memory for dates. She would simply just say " he's been talking about it for a while, her recalling Xmas 84 and January 85 whilst maintaining a heavy schedule in her own life and at the same time being " flippant " of what Bamber is saying doesn't reflect the true picture she'd be able to recollect precise dates. Nobody would. Everyone is too wrapped up in their own affairs. Me, you, Mr Jones at number 10. Accept it may have come at prompting from the coppers. But it's not a true picture of what Julie is remembering.
'Goodnight to everybody'?
Julie's WS will have specific dates and general times. As anyone's WS would when covering the previous 18 months.
-
No documents were signed until the right moment.
Julie's lawyers and the NOTW would know how it worked.
You are wrong on this. There was a concluded binding contract and JM knew about it and agreed it. She lied about it during the trial. She did that in order to protect herself and in order to receive a life changing sum of money. She nearly got exposed for this in 2002.
-
Its scripted to fuck. For a starters Bamber would just say he would be killing the family, at a push mention his methods. She says stuff like " how he would say goodnight to everybody " Bamber wouldn't say that. It's an add on by Julie or perhaps EP.
Also he
The excellent memory for dates. She would simply just say " he's been talking about it for a while, her recalling Xmas 84 and January 85 whilst maintaining a heavy schedule in her own life and at the same time being " flippant " of what Bamber is saying doesn't reflect the true picture she'd be able to recollect precise dates. Nobody would. Everyone is too wrapped up in their own affairs. Me, you, Mr Jones at number 10. Accept it may have come at prompting from the coppers. But it's not a true picture of what Julie is remembering.
It's possible because all through those last months he was keeping up appearances in front of everyone, following his return from the round the world trip. He even managed to fool Nevill, who told John Seward he was pleased that his son was finally shaping up to farming.
But we know subsequently that his motive was to align with the terms of Nevill's will, and not from some genuine interest in the agricultural industry. It appears Jeremy managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, save farm secretary Barbara Wilson, who speculated that there was an ulterior motive in everything he did.
-
Julie does mention several specific dates after the massacre.
This is not surprising as it was just recalling the last 30 days.
-
You are wrong on this. There was a concluded binding contract and JM knew about it and agreed it. She lied about it during the trial. She did that in order to protect herself and in order to receive a life changing sum of money. She nearly got exposed for this in 2002.
I assume the relevant documents are held under PII? In any case, £25,000 even in 1985 was not really a life-changing sum of money. Jeremy Bamber's £436,000 certainly was.
-
I have posted about this many times over the years. There was a concluded contract pre verdict (in fact I believe before the start of the trial) and JM lied about it during the trial. This is serious.
If she lied about this, what else has she lied about?
-
'Goodnight to everybody'?
Julie's WS will have specific dates and general times. As anyone's WS would when covering the previous 18 months.
So do you believe she kept a detailed log prior to 7.8.85?
-
Julie does mention several specific dates after the massacre.
This is not surprising as it was just recalling the last 30 days.
It's just one paragraph.
Will go through the rest tomorrow at some point.
-
At best she's a jilted bird who was lucky she didn't get the clink with Jez.
-
So do you believe she kept a detailed log prior to 7.8.85?
Didn't need to.
A 23 page WS covering the previous 18 months will have specific dates - 27th August 1985 and rough dates - Christmas 1984.
Besides didn't she have a diary?
-
At best she's a jilted bird who was lucky she didn't get the clink with Jez.
No, she had moved on post-murders, was steadfast in her loyalty, which worked to her detriment, until finally she was able to extricate herself from a monster.
-
Didn't need to.
A 23 page WS covering the previous 18 months will have specific dates - 27th August 1985 and rough dates - Christmas 1984.
Besides didn't she have a diary?
Yes, with an initial entry January 1985 which then went to August 85 with Stans blessing perhaps
-
No, she had moved on post-murders, was steadfast in her loyalty, which worked to her detriment, until finally she was able to extricate herself from a monster.
Jeremy Bamber isn't a monster. He is a human being like me and you.
-
Different opinions on Julie from a couple of guilters.
Adam always seemed pro Julie, " Florence nightingale" " naive young girl " but has seemed to adopt a " Bamber and Julie bonnie and Clyde approach recently.
Steve is still vehemently the pro guardian angel Julie, which is fine.
-
Different opinions on Julie from a couple of guilters.
Adam always seemed pro Julie, " Florence nightingale" " naive young girl " but has seemed to adopt a " Bamber and Julie bonnie and Clyde approach recently.
Steve is still vehemently the pro guardian angel Julie, which is fine.
Just go by her WS & court testimony.
Also take into account her age and that she was in a situation no one had ever been in before.
Good luck in finding the brick that brings the wall crashing down in her WS. Her lawyers couldn't.
-
EP never went into this on a holy Julie mantra
Ostensibly believed Julie was as complicit as Bamber.
If circumstances had presented themselves differently they'd have happily put both Bamber and Mugford in the dock.
-
Just go by her WS & court testimony.
Also take into account her age and that she was in a situation no one had ever been in before.
Good luck in finding the brick that brings the wall crashing down in her WS. Her lawyers couldn't.
As said I've found many discrepancies.
What brick am I looking for? What are you getting at ?
-
Also take into account her age and that she was in a situation no one had ever been in before.
If she was happy beforehand and complicit that makes no difference.
Bamber was only three years older.
-
As said I've found many discrepancies.
What brick am I looking for? What are you getting at ?
Her lawyers were looking for a loose brick that would bring the wall crashing down - Wilkes.
They couldn't find one & admitted her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.
Good luck in finding the loose brick 39 years later. You need to do better than Julie knowing some dates.
-
Her lawyers were looking for a loose brick that would bring the wall crashing down - Wilkes.
They couldn't find one & admitted her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.
Good luck in finding the loose brick 39 years later. You need to do better than Julie knowing some dates.
Surely you mean his lawyers. Rivlin and Lawson put their clients case forward. In regards to Bamber and Julie as a specific it was literally word v word. Justice drake himself commenting upon it
You are quoting Wilkes, an author who wrote a book without references with a view to make profit.
I did enjoy the book though
-
Would like to know the date of Fieldings article in The Sun.
I'm sure that would have influenced Julie in approaching the police.
-
Doubt that Julie was pro active in encouraging Bamber.
She would know once he had money he wouldn't want to stay with her. It was also killing men, women and children.
However if she was pro active, Bamber will be gutted. He did all the dirty work, then Julie says 'nothing to do with me guv' to save her skin.
-
Doubt that Julie was pro active in encouraging Bamber.
She would know once he had money he wouldn't want to stay with her. It was also killing men, women and children.
However if she was pro active, Bamber will be gutted. He did all the dirty work, then Julie says 'nothing to do with me guv' to save her skin.
Can't grass her. Would be pointless for him.
Nothing to gain. Putting Julie away won't bring him freedom. He's whole life tariff.
-
No woman would perjure herself so seriously with a 23 page WS and several days testifying in court.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-whose-bogus-rape-claim-landed-man-a-seven-year-prison-sentence-jailed-a3619441.html (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-whose-bogus-rape-claim-landed-man-a-seven-year-prison-sentence-jailed-a3619441.html)
🤡
-
Surely you mean his lawyers. Rivlin and Lawson put their clients case forward. In regards to Bamber and Julie as a specific it was literally word v word. Justice drake himself commenting upon it
You are quoting Wilkes, an author who wrote a book without references with a view to make profit.
I did enjoy the book though
The "ring of truth" quote comes from the following passage of the Judges summing up -
"Approach the evidence of Julie Mugford with a great degree of caution. Ask yourselves whether her evidence generally had the ring of truth about it."
This has somehow been distorted by Adam into being an admission from Jeremys defence. :))
-
The "ring of truth" quote comes from the following passage of the Judges summing up -
"Approach the evidence of Julie Mugford with a great degree of caution. Ask yourselves whether her evidence generally had the ring of truth about it."
This has somehow been distorted by Adam into being an admission from Jeremys defence. :))
It is called a judge's summing up.
It is also in Wilkes's book.
-
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-whose-bogus-rape-claim-landed-man-a-seven-year-prison-sentence-jailed-a3619441.html (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-whose-bogus-rape-claim-landed-man-a-seven-year-prison-sentence-jailed-a3619441.html)
🤡
That is a good point. Julie could have made a false assault claim instead.
-
Suspect Fieldings front page article in The Sun was in late August.
Also suspect it said the police were not convinced it was murder/suicide. Which was true.
This together with Julie being back in London having left Bamber and friends encouraging her to approach the police, helped motivate her.
-
Can't grass her. Would be pointless for him.
Nothing to gain. Putting Julie away won't bring him freedom. He's whole life tariff.
Agree with that.
My post was about how pro active Julie was in encouraging Bamber.
Her WS shows she was re active. Just responding when Bamber brought up the subject & answering his 3 phone calls on the night.
If she was actually pro active and persuaded a hesitant Bamber to go ahead, he will be gutted he did all the dirty work only to be quickly abandoned & receive all the punishment. But he was the one who pulled the trigger.
-
Agree with that.
My post was about how pro active Julie was in encouraging Bamber.
Her WS shows she was re active. Just responding when Bamber brought up the subject & answering his 3 phone calls on the night.
If she was actually pro active and persuaded a hesitant Bamber to go ahead, he will be gutted he did all the dirty work only to be quickly abandoned & receive all the punishment. But he was the one who pulled the trigger.
Think he would be gutted either way even if Julie was totally innocent. He was caught and jailed for life.
Maybe he took a calculated risk and after hedging his bets knew it wouldn't be wise to admit his guilt and highlight Julie's involvement as it wouldn't help himself out.
Reference her WS, it's self serving of course. Even if it describes what Bamber truly did it may minimise and overlook her own involvement.
If Bamber had confessed in 1985, he may have took Julie down with him. As far as EP would be concerned the case would be solved. Bamber pleading guilty would mean no trial. And if he brought up Julie's involvement fictious or what, she would have probably faced charges as well.
Julie was utilised because the man was denying guilt. Suspect many in EP believed Julie to have some involvement but they needed her
-
Think he would be gutted either way even if Julie was totally innocent. He was caught and jailed for life.
Maybe he took a calculated risk and after hedging his bets knew it wouldn't be wise to admit his guilt and highlight Julie's involvement as it wouldn't help himself out.
Reference her WS, it's self serving of course. Even if it describes what Bamber truly did it may minimise and overlook her own involvement.
If Bamber had confessed in 1985, he may have took Julie down with him. As far as EP would be concerned the case would be solved. Bamber pleading guilty would mean no trial. And if he brought up Julie's involvement fictious or what, she would have probably faced charges as well.
Julie was utilised because the man was denying guilt. Suspect many in EP believed Julie to have some involvement but they needed her
Would be interesting what he would have said about Julie if he had admitted guilt.
He could say it was all her idea & she persuaded him. She would deny it.
Don't think it would have made much difference to his sentence.
Julie approaching the police first would have helped her avoid a prison sentence.
-
Would be interesting what he would have said about Julie if he had admitted guilt.
He could say it was all her idea & she persuaded him. She would deny it.
Don't think it would have made much difference to his sentence.
Julie approaching the police first would have helped her avoid a prison sentence.
Don't think the " she persuaded me to do it spiel " would go down well in all honesty.
He was the one who made the initial phonecall in the early hours of 7.8.85. Julie was in London. He could never claim a backseat approach if he admitted guilt.
It was Bambers family, not Julie's. Any information she received about them would have come from him. It's my belief that if charges had been brought against the two, Bamber would have been seen as the prime mover and Mugford a willing accomplice albeit playing no part in the actual shooting.
-
Once he admitted it he could spend the next 39 years laying into Julie.
But no one would be listening as he was a self confessed killer.
When do you think he has been closest to admitting guilt? Stan Jones believes he would have during his police interviews if the Q & A's were recorded rather than written down. This I do believe. Getting a 'not guilty' at trial was now the aim.
-
Read that 69% of prisoners plead guilty at trial because there is a lot of evidence against them.
This is to get a lesser sentence - 3 years instead of 5. Or a lesser charge - manslaugter instead of murder.
Wasting court time & money in going through a trial will not go down well when a judge passes sentence.
There was no point Bamber being one of the 69% to get a lesser sentence. The crime was so serious he would still get 25 years.
-
Read that the Brinks Mat robbers offerred to turn grasses after there convictions.
They wanted there convictions reduced from 25 years to 10 years in return.
The police turned them down.
-
Don't believe Bamber being offerred 10 years instead of 25 pre trial would have tempted him.
He would have nothing to come out to after 10 years & always be labelled a child killer.
He would lose the chance of getting a 'not guilty'. If found guilty, he could be released within 10 years anyway if successful in an appeal.
It would mean giving up on the riches he felt he deserved soon after the massacre after all his planning and motivation.
Anyway 10 years instead of 25 was never on the table as the crime was too serious.
-
I have heard of immunity from prosecution but I've never heard of anybody in my experience " get a deal " I think plea bargains happen In the US not UK. For a crime or murder you are getting a life sentence. In the old days the home secretary made a recommendation how long you served. The 2003 criminal justice act means you know get a tariff set.
However charges can be dropped to lesses charges. This has happened to myself from a section 47 ABH to a common assault. I don't believe sentencing plea bargains happen over here. Sentencing guidelines are set by parliament and the judge goes over the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before handing down sentence.
-
Once he admitted it he could spend the next 39 years laying into Julie.
But no one would be listening as he was a self confessed killer.
When do you think he has been closest to admitting guilt? Stan Jones believes he would have during his police interviews if the Q & A's were recorded rather than written down. This I do believe. Getting a 'not guilty' at trial was now the aim.
I don't think he would have admitted guilt. I think Stan just made this assumption as he probably felt he had Bamber on the ropes and was putting him under pressure.
Agree if it had been tape recorded he may have been under more pressure. But he may have just gone more no comment.
Bamber may have just thought he would convince a jury at trial. He had taken a gamble with the massacre. So would takeva gamble at trial.
If he had confessed I don't think he would just have said " yes I did it Julie had nothing to do with it guv, he would have admitted it and tried to bring Julie down with him out of spite. ( Even if was true )
Not many people will plead guilty to murder. The implication is obvious. You are going down for a long time. People will run trial because they have nothing to lose. Even if your case is a hopeless case. You are still getting a mandatory life sentence whether you plead guilty or not gulity. Although you will receive credit for a gulity plea. But whose thinking of limited credit when you know you are going down for a long time anyway? Many defendants just delay the inevitable.
In Bambers case it was X5 murder. When you look at today's sentencing his original tariff back in 1986 was 25 years minimum. People get that in this day and age for a single victim on a murder charge. The Yorkshire ripper back in 81 got a recommendation of 30 years at trial for the murder of 13 women. How sentencing has changed!
Albeit both men later got upgraded to whole life tariff.
-
There was no point Bamber being one of the 69% to get a lesser sentence. The crime was so serious he would still get 25 years.
Minimum tariff of 25 years is what he got in 1986. It meant exactly that. I highly doubt that had he not been upgraded to whole life tariff it's unlikely he would have been released at the 25 year point in 2010. Many lifers serve well over their minimum tariff.
There are prisoners who are still in jail after been given the now defunct IPP sentence. Many who were only given a three year recommendation.
-
Since conviction I don't believe he has considered admitting guilt.
Maybe early 90's when Mike was his only supporter.
But once his sentence was increased from 25 years to 'whole life' there is no point.
If he won an appeal, wonder what his legal rights would be regarding reclaiming the 1985 inheritance?
-
If he won an appeal, wonder what his legal rights would be regarding reclaiming the 1985 inheritance?
Not to sure to be honest. I believe he would put a claim in for the caravan site. In regards to the inheritance it may have well been spent up.
He would be a wealthy man anyway, a minor celebrity. TV interviews, columns, book deals, piers Morgan life stories perhaps even! Compensation from the state.
But like anything eventually he would just fade into obscurity after the hype died down.
He would probably have his own battles as well adjusting to the outside world after 40 years in the nick.
-
Not to sure to be honest. I believe he would put a claim in for the caravan site. In regards to the inheritance it may have well been spent up.
He would be a wealthy man anyway, a minor celebrity. TV interviews, columns, book deals, piers Morgan life stories perhaps even! Compensation from the state.
But like anything eventually he would just fade into obscurity after the hype died down.
He would probably have his own battles as well adjusting to the outside world after 40 years in the nick.
Couldn't he try to get WHF?
If he got it, he could sell. Be worth a few million.
He could then live the lifestyle he wanted in 1985. Although now a man in his 60's.
-
Couldn't he try to get WHF?
If he got it, he could sell. Be worth a few million.
He could then live the lifestyle he wanted in 1985. Although now a man in his 60's.
Come to think of it he could I suppose.
Lots of money would be coming his way anyway.
May want to move abroad.
I'm sure a member of the CT would spare a room for him to sleep in until that happened
-
Come to think of it he could I suppose.
Lots of money would be coming his way anyway.
May want to move abroad.
I'm sure a member of the CT would spare a room for him to sleep in until that happened
Assume the disinheritance rule will be overturned regardless of how he got a release.
Could be a new mis trial or a technicality with no compensation.
This would have motivated him in the early 90's. He was still young & could also do a few paid interviews.
-
Assume the disinheritance rule will be overturned regardless of how he got a release.
Could be a new mis trial or a technicality with no compensation.
This would have motivated him in the early 90's. He was still young & could also do a few paid interviews.
Won't be a new trial, most of the witnesses are dead. Bamber would walk free.
He will be a minor celebrity book deals TV interviews, loose women etc
He would probably also try to punish the Eaton and Boutflour family by every legal means possible
-
Maybe NGB can confirm if a re trial would be an option for the COA.
If not it would be bad news for Bamber.
-
Maybe NGB can confirm if a re trial would be an option for the COA.
If not it would be bad news for Bamber.
Although theoretically a retrial would be an option for the Court of Appeal, the reality now is that this would not happen. If an appeal is allowed the convictions will be quashed and not guilty verdicts recorded.
-
As well as Fielding's front page article in The Sun, there may have been other articles in the newspapers. On the police still investigating the murder/suicide theory.
This may have been fed to the media by the police themselves.
If Julie read these, it would help her decide to leave Bamber & start telling other people in August.
It was then a matter of luck on whether she approached the police first or vice versa.
-
Bamber's over confidence may have had the opposite effect on Julie. Over confidence can result in mistakes.
Leaving WHF empty to travel was risky. She would guess that the relatives would be pro active.
-
Splitting hairs really.
Depends on whether you believe she was involved or not.
-
Splitting hairs really.
Depends on whether you believe she was involved or not.
Lots of things creating a perfect storm for her. Which would have escalated from the 27th August.
-
Couldn't he try to get WHF?
If he got it, he could sell. Be worth a few million.
He could then live the lifestyle he wanted in 1985. Although now a man in his 60's.
The money was in the income it generated, not the property itself, which was owned by the Henry Smith trustees. True, there would be June's share of Osea Road, along with Nevill's Bourtree Cottage and the Bamber's flat at Moreshead Mansions. I'm not sure how it would work out, but it's hypothetical anyway as Bamber's guilty status will never change and he will die in prison.
-
Julie's WS says she tried to leave him on the 17th August. But was persuaded to stay.
Her police approach would have been sooner if she had left then.
Her WS highlights how much money Jeremy was spending. Multiple paying the bills in restauraunts, always eating out, clothes, offering to buy Julie clothes, travelling deluxe class and buying drugs.
Julie said he kept some of the farmers wages back for himself.
-
Julie's WS says she tried to leave him on the 17th August. But was persuaded to stay.
Her police approach would have been sooner if she had left then.
Her WS highlights how much money Jeremy was spending. Multiple paying the bills in restauraunts, always eating out, clothes, offering to buy Julie clothes, travelling deluxe class and buying drugs.
Julie said he kept some of the farmers wages back for himself.
So he was spending money, she was there too. She didn't decline to go and Bamber didn't hold her at gunpoint.
-
Julie said he kept some of the farmers wages back for himself.
Barbara Wilson also states he made a beeline for her and went out of his way what with everything going on to make sure the farmers received their wage.
No employee has ever come forward to state Jeremy kept me out of pocket August 85, this is fact.
-
Barbara Wilson also states he made a beeline for her and went out of his way what with everything going on to make sure the farmers received their wage.
No employee has ever come forward to state Jeremy kept me out of pocket August 85, this is fact.
That's rather misleading, ILB. He put his feet upon a gargoyle ( or the desk top, whichever version you care to believe), and barked orders at her.
-
That's rather misleading, ILB. He put his feet upon a gargoyle ( or the desk top, whichever version you care to believe), and barked orders at her.
How is it misleading just because how she perceived his actions ( if it's even true ) how he came across?
He sorted the farmers wages.
-
How is it misleading just because how she perceived his actions ( if it's even true ) how he came across.
He sorted the farmers wages.
He may well have done, but it was only a gesture. His long-term plans were to ditch the farm as soon as a buyer could be found. He was only talked out of putting it on the market there and then by Basil Cock.
-
If an employee had been kept out of pocket they would have gone to Jeremy. If EP had found out he had conned employees out of money it would have been used against him. It never was because it never happened.
-
He may well have done, but it was only a gesture. His long-term plans were to ditch the farm as soon as a buyer could be found. He was only talked out of putting it on the market there and then by Basil Cock.
In fairness perhaps so. He had the sense to install PE.. let's not forget which ever way you look at it he was only 24 and had been riding Nevills coatails.
Take the crime aside, I think it was a sensible decision
-
I have his custody records from September 29th at Dover. This guy was not without a pot to piss in. Take the inheritance farm spending aside. He had in his possession various personal accounts in the name of J N BAMBER. Remember this was the 80s. In 1985 I think I earned £23 a week at my granddad's garage.
Don't think they had all been signed from BC, I think the accounts were Jeremy's solely.
-
If an employee had been kept out of pocket they would have gone to Jeremy. If EP had found out he had conned employees out of money it would have been used against him. It never was because it never happened.
But nobody ever made that allegation, though didn't Barbara Wilson find an IOU note inside the safe at one point?
-
But nobody ever made that allegation, though didn't Barbara Wilson find an IOU note inside the safe at one point?
I think I made comment due to Adams contention that Bamber was spending " wildly "
Means little, he had the means to do so.
-
Barbara Wilson also states he made a beeline for her and went out of his way what with everything going on to make sure the farmers received their wage.
No employee has ever come forward to state Jeremy kept me out of pocket August 85, this is fact.
Have you got a source from BW?
I would assume he would pay the farmers what they were owed.
Maybe he dipped into the business reserve fund to help fund his spending.
Or told the workers there was a shortfall this week which would be made up for them in September - when he inherits.
-
Have you got a source from BW?
I would assume he would pay the farmers what they were owed.
Maybe he dipped into the business reserve fund to help fund his spending.
Or told the workers there was a shortfall this week which would be made up for them in September - when he inherits.
There's a bit in Chapter 28 of CAL.
-
Have you got a source from BW?
I would assume he would pay the farmers what they were owed.
Maybe he dipped into the business reserve fund to help fund his spending.
Or told the workers there was a shortfall this week which would be made up for them in September - when he inherits.
I have a source. Will PM it you if you wish