Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: ILB on April 11, 2025, 08:51:PM
-
............
-
............
He doesn't mention using the toilet but I expect he did.
-
............
If innocent, while giving his first statement JB would have been in severe shock and disbeliaf, ILB!
Its a wonder he even remembered his own name let alone every detail of the previous day.
He would have been just going through the motions in the days after the shooting, hence having breakfast with Stan!
Probably doesn't even remember having that sandwich, poor man!
Pity Stan wasn't a psychologist rather than a suspicious copper. Stan was hardly a liason officer or councellor either was he?
-
Don't think it means much him not mentioning it.
He has spent 40 years refusing to say what they spoke about. So have to go by Julie's detailed account.
-
Don't think it means much him not mentioning it.
He has spent 40 years refusing to say what they spoke about. So have to go by Julie's detailed account.
But Julie mentions it from her 8.8.85 WS.
If you believe Bamber got her to say things in her WS to match what he said, I'd doubt he'd sanction this.
Bamber lists other mundane stuff such as as baths and programmes he watched, a 10pm call to Julie is a detail I would expect him to mention.
Especially when Julie was supporting him.
It either never happened or Bamber was spooked by it
-
He does mention the 3.26am ( 3am ) whatever to Julie, which has been poured scorn upon from many a guilter view.
The 10pm call I don't understand why he didn't freely omit, especially at the material time on 8.8.85. JM was on side.
-
If innocent, while giving his first statement JB would have been in severe shock and disbeliaf, ILB!
Its a wonder he even remembered his own name let alone every detail of the previous day.
He would have been just going through the motions in the days after the shooting, hence having breakfast with Stan!
Probably doesn't even remember having that sandwich, poor man!
Pity Stan wasn't a psychologist rather than a suspicious copper. Stan was hardly a liason officer or councellor either was he?
But he remembers every mundane detail of the previous hours.
Such as bedtime, programmes he watched.
I'd expect him to mention a 10pm call to Julie.
-
Don't think it means much him not mentioning it.
He has spent 40 years refusing to say what they spoke about. So have to go by Julie's detailed account.
In fairness he did offer an explanation a month on when getting interviewed, probably something soppy lovey dovey and boyfriend gf chat.
8.8.85 though it must have been fresh in memory.
-
He does mention the 3.26am ( 3am ) whatever to Julie, which has been poured scorn upon from many a guilter view.
The 10pm call I don't understand why he didn't freely omit, especially at the material time on 8.8.85. JM was on side.
He has freely admitted to it. Never denying it but refusing to say why he rang her and what they spoke about.
-
He has freely admitted to it. Never denying it but refusing to say why he rang her and what they spoke about.
But he didn't freely omit it 8.8.85 when it was hours prior.
I can understand a lack of memory in his September interviews, a lot had gone on
-
In fairness he did offer an explanation a month on when getting interviewed, probably something soppy lovey dovey and boyfriend gf chat.
8.8.85 though it must have been fresh in memory.
Have to go by Julie's more detailed account.
-
Have to go by Julie's more detailed account.
Why do you think he failed to mention it?
Must have been fresh in his memory.
-
Why do you think he failed to mention it?
Must have been fresh in his memory.
No idea.
His WS was setting the scene -"rifle left out, him watching TV then going to bed.
Ringing Julie is not part of that.
-
No idea.
His WS was setting the scene -"rifle left out, him watching TV then going to bed.
Ringing Julie is not part of that.
Cos it never happened?
He never freely admitted the call, he surmised it may have happened.
Only joking.
-
But he remembers every mundane detail of the previous hours.
Such as bedtime, programmes he watched.
I'd expect him to mention a 10pm call to Julie.
I'll take a look at his statement, ILB.
-
If anything it clears Bamber of directing JM what to put in her 8m8.85 statement, coupled with the little time they had coupled with police presence.
-
Cos it never happened?
He never freely admitted the call, he surmised it may have happened.
You are getting more desperate.
Julie said it happened in her first WS.
SB said it happened. Although I know you believe the police made her create a second false WS.
-
Bamber did eventually admit he had been sitting in his tractor that day.
As Julie said.
-
The 3 calls do merge well -
Call 1:
I have been thinking about it all day.
Tonights the night.
It's now or never.
You may hear from me later.
Call 2:
Everythings going well.
I haven't slept all night.
There is something wrong at the farm.
Call 3:
Don't go to work.
-
The 3 calls do merge well -
Call 1:
I have been thinking about it all day.
Tonights the night.
It's now or never.
You may hear from me later.
Call 2:
Everythings going well.
I haven't slept all night.
There is something wrong at the farm.
Call 3:
Don't go to work.
No they don't.
It's word against word.
Nothing recorded, no transcript. Nothing.
This is the case 40 years on.
You know this.
-
No they don't.
It's word against word.
Nothing recorded, no transcript. Nothing.
This is the case 40 years on.
You know this.
They merge well from Julie's detailed WS.
Bamber has refused to speak about the 3 calls he made.
You know this.
-
Not really her word V his.
Bamber agrees he made the calls but has refused to speak about them.
-
They merge well from Julie's detailed WS.
Bamber has refused to speak about the 3 calls he made.
You know this.
He detailed the two and three in his WS.
He surmised call 1 (10pm) when under arrest and jnterview a month later.
Nobody has a transcript. It's jezs word v Julie.
You know this.
-
Not really her word V his.
It very much is.
Such as Justice Drakes jury direction " do you believe Jeremy Bamber or do you believe Julie Mugford "
" Someone in this case is lying, and lying their heads off "
-
Bamber did eventually admit he had been sitting in his tractor that day.
As Julie said.
In fairness I don't understand why he no commented this question when it was his job duty anyway. In no way damaging.
Perhaps he felt he was getting led up the garden path.
-
It very much is.
Such as Justice Drakes jury direction " do you believe Jeremy Bamber or do you believe Julie Mugford "
" Someone in this case is lying, and lying their heads off "
Bamber & the CT have always refused to speak about his 3 calls.
So have to go by Julie's detailed account.
You know this.
-
You are getting more desperate.
Julie said it happened in her first WS.
SB said it happened. Although I know you believe the police made her create a second false WS.
Not at all.
If anything if clears Bamber of directing Julie for her WS 8.8.85 which you've long alleged.
-
Obviously Bamber's 10pm call was to help motivate himself.
The second was an update call.
The third was an instruction and telling her who was coming to pick her up.
-
Bamber & the CT have always refused to speak about his 3 calls.
So have to go by Julie's detailed account.
You know this.
What are you talking bollocks for.
As early as 7.8.85 he makes reference to 2 and 3 calls to Julie.
He surmised a 10pm phone call a month on when under arrest.
The documents are on this site. Why do you lie?
-
Obviously Bamber's 10pm call was to help motivate himself.
The second was an update call.
The third was an instruction and telling her who was coming to pick her up.
Motivate himself?
By ringing his bird in Lewisham?
-
SB said it happened. Although I know you believe the police made her create a second false WS.
Where have I said this?
-
Not at all.
If anything if clears Bamber of directing Julie for her WS 8.8.85 which you've long alleged.
Never really accused Bamber of directing her in her first WS.
Although Julie did say they spoke about it beforehand.
-
Motivate himself?
By ringing his bird in Lewisham?
She will encourage him. Or dismiss him.
Either way, a motivation.
-
Never really accused Bamber of directing her in her first WS.
Although Julie did say they spoke about it beforehand.
Then as a guilter why do you believe he summoned her on the scene?
-
Where have I said this?
On the forum.
You said SB created a second false WS to back up Julie's WS saying Bamber said 'you may hear from me later'.
-
On the forum.
You said SB created a second false WS to back up Julie's WS saying Bamber said 'you may hear from me later'.
Think you are getting me mixed up with CC
Unless you can provide a source.
-
Think you are getting me mixed up with CC
Unless you can provide a source.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12447.msg575718.html#msg575718
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12447.msg575718.html#msg575718
Inconstiancies highlighted.
That doesn't mean an agenda between SJ and JM.
-
You posted.
'No mention of the 10pm call, yet can clearly remember the 3am call.
No excuse, stinks of revisionism".
----------
-
You posted.
'No mention of the 10pm call, yet can clearly remember the 3am call.
No excuse, stinks of revisionism".
----------
Maybe it is revisiomsm.
JB doesn't mention it hours after in his WS at his cottage.
Maybe revisionism from Julie herself without SJ influence.
We've never conclusively 40 years on got to the bottom of Julie's involvement, we have just excused her.
All i can say is it clears JB of having influence over JMs first WS 8.8.85
-
Inconstiancies highlighted.
That doesn't mean an agenda between SJ and JM.
Agree there was no agenda between Julie & SB regarding the 10pm call.
If there was it would be in SB's first WS. Julie had enough time to persuade her beforehand.
-
Agree there was no agenda between Julie & SB regarding the 10pm call.
If there was it would be in SB's first WS. Julie had enough time to persuade her beforehand.
But you must admit it clears Bamber of directing her what to say?
-
Agree there was no agenda between Julie & SB regarding the 10pm call.
If there was it would be in SB's first WS. Julie had enough time to persuade her beforehand.
Do you mean SB had enough time?
The narrative was Jez was a grieving relative.
-
But you must admit it clears Bamber of directing her what to say?
Her first WS was short & straight after the massacre while she was still Bamber's GF.
So doubt he did much directing.
He certainly didn't do any on her 23 page second WS!
-
If anything it clears Bamber of directing JM what to put in her 8m8.85 statement, coupled with the little time they had coupled with police presence.
Had a look at both JBs first statements and Julies , and agree that the omission of the 9.50-10 o'clock call favours an innocent Bamber, ILB.
As you say, JB and Julie had all night to decide what to put in their 8 Aug statements, and due to the fact that JB didn't mention the ten o'clock call again in 'his' 8th Aug statement must mean that he didn't discuss or influence Julie in any way regarding what to put in her statement either.
I mean why would JB tell Julie what to say regarding the 10 o'clock call and then completely omit it from his own statement? Makes no sense!
Look at it this way, if JB is guilty just when did he tell Julie what to put in her statement??
After all, the contents of the ten o'clock call as well as the 3.30 call changed after Julie went to the police remember. The ten o'clock call changed to 'tonights the night' and the 3.30 call changed to 'everything is going well'.
So it stands to reason that if JB is guilty then he must have told Julie at some stage what to tell the police so that it would match what he told them, yet he didn't even mention the ten o'clock call, why?
You could argue that he simply didn't want to mention the ten o'clock call for some reason, but if so, why didn't he tell Julie to omit it too? Again, makes no sense from a guilt point of view!
Besides, surely JB would have known that there was a good chance that Julies flat mates would have been aware of the 10 o'clock call anyway, so why try and hide it?
Lets say that JB is guilty and told Julie at 10.00 'tonights the night' then 'everything is going well' at 3.30, the only chance he had to tell her what to put in her statement was after the police left on the evening of the 7th Aug. What other chance did he have?? And why only discuss the 3.30 call anyway as we have said? And more importantly, if JB didn't discuss the 10 o'clock call with Julie, just where did she get the 'original' story regarding the harvest that day? Did she simply chance making something up herself hoping it would match JBs story? Again, doesn't add up from a guilt point of view, it suggests to me that Julie's original statement on 8th Aug was indeed the truth and 'tonights the night' and 'everything is going well' were simply made up later on, hence JB is indeed innocent!
And one other thing, how did JB know that the police wouldn't interview Julie on 7th Aug before he had a chance to talk to her? In this case we would have to assume that not only did Julie know about JBs plan, but also that she knew exactly when he was going to phone that night and had also rehearsed with JB what to tell the police about the calls too!
Oh well, hope you can understand where i'm coming from , ILB , and make some sense of what I have said!
Anyway, I think you may have hit on something here with JBs omission of the ten o'clock call!
-
Her first WS was short & straight after the massacre while she was still Bamber's GF.
So doubt he did much directing.
He certainly didn't do any on her 23 page second WS!
Well as I was saying Adam, how did Julie know what to put in her first statement regarding the ten and 3.30 calls if JB didn't direct her?
-
Well as I was saying Adam, how did Julie know what to put in her first statement regarding the ten and 3.30 calls if JB didn't direct her?
As I said, he may have directed her in a small way.
She said she omitted things to protect him.
-
Julie's first WS is only 2 pages.
The second page she mentions his 3 phone calls.
Nice of Jeremy to drive her to Chelmsford Railway Station on the 3rd August. Maybe he would have told her to cycle next time.
-
He does mention the 3.26am ( 3am ) whatever to Julie, which has been poured scorn upon from many a guilter view.
The 10pm call I don't understand why he didn't freely omit, especially at the material time on 8.8.85. JM was on side.
It was a 3am call to Julie, which proves that the call from Nevill didn't happen.
-
It was a 3am call to Julie, which proves that the call from Nevill didn't happen.
No it doesn't. Nothing proves or disproves the call. The technology wasn't there.
-
No it doesn't. Nothing proves or disproves the call. The technology wasn't there.
He called the police at 3:26 and said that Nevill called him at 3:10, so how come he called Julie at 3am?
-
He called the police at 3:26 and said that Nevill called him at 3:10, so how come he called Julie at 3am?
So where did Julie get 3.30 from
Wasn't at the behest of Bamber.
Nothing proves or disproves Nevills call.
-
He also says " about 3.10"
I am very careful with times in this case as they all seem to be approx. From all witnesses.
I don't believe Susan Battersby either to be honest. But that is just me.
-
The fact Bamber didn't mention the 10pm call in his first WS is strange given he recalls every little detail otherwise, and summoned for JM.
-
Summary of 5 flat mates:
From COA:
Julie - Did not look at time.
Helen Eaton - Did not look at time.
Douglas Dale - Did not look at time.
Joanne Woad - Looked at time. Said it was 2 something. So could have been anything from 2am - 2.59am.
SB - Looked at time. Said it was 3.12am but she kept her clock 10 minutes fast.
----------
These witnesses testified.
Pretty clear Bamber called Julie very close to 3am.
-
Bamber calling Julie very close to 3am then telling the police Nevill called him 'around 3.10am' is incriminating.
He can say 'so I got the time wrong while half asleep'. Which is possible.
However he needs to explain away 26 minutes rather than 16 minutes before calling Chelmsford Police.
-
Summary of 5 flat mates:
From COA:
Julie - Did not look at time.
Helen Eaton - Did not look at time.
Douglas Dale - Did not look at time.
Joanne Woad - Looked at time. Said it was 2 something. So could have been anything from 2am - 2.59am.
SB - Looked at time. Said it was 3.12am but she kept her clock 10 minutes fast.
----------
These witnesses testified.
Pretty clear Bamber called Julie very close to 3am.
Julie must have either Looked at the time or was directed to the time by Bamber to get the time of 3.30am
The latter, I don't believe to be true.
-
All times are approx.
-
However he needs to explain away 26 minutes rather than 16 minutes before calling Chelmsford Police.
Nevill calls JB, 3.10
JB calls JM 3.15
JB calls west 3.26am
-
Nevill calls JB, 3.10
JB calls JM 3.15
JB calls west 3.26am
Have to go by the two witnesses who testified - JW & SB. They both checked the time.
Very close to 3am.
Calling Julie at 3.30am is a non starter as he was speaking to the police then.
-
Have to go by the two witnesses who testified - JW & SB. They both checked the time.
Very close to 3am.
Calling Julie at 3.30am is a non starter as he was speaking to the police then.
So where do you believe Julie got 3.30am from?
-
Have to go by the two witnesses who testified - JW & SB. They both checked the time.
Very close to 3am.
Calling Julie at 3.30am is a non starter as he was speaking to the police then.
Is Joanna Woods WS on here?
-
If he did answer his own call, that would have given him some time leeway -
Answer his own call at 2.55am.
2.55am - 3.26am -
Ring Julie.
Shower, change, wash clothes, eat.
-
JBs words were Nevill said " come quick, your sister has gone crazy and HAS the gun "
Perhaps if he had said " ring the coppers" he may have phoned them sooner, but maybe he thought Nevill had already done so. Maybe he knew Nevill was reluctant to ring the authorities.
From a layperson, it's hard to judge someone unless you've been in the situation.
-
So where do you believe Julie got 3.30am from?
No idea. But impossible for it to be this time.
The two people who did check the time put it very close to 3.00am.
SB's boyfriend confirmed she kept her clock 10 minutes fast.
-
Julie's first WS does say 'about 3.30am'. Although she did not check the time.
Maybe Bamber told her it was that time. Which is 20 minutes after his 'around 3.10am' WS.
Anyway he called her very close to 3.00am.
-
I don't believe calling Julie before the police is too bad. Although his 'wanting to hear a friendly voice' (at 3am) was weak.
Better to say he didn't know what to do so wanted advice.
What is bad is the long gap afterwards before he called the police.
Saying 'no comment' in his police interviews afterwards on the call didn't help.
-
Not sure why he flip flopped in his police interviews on whether he called Julie before or after the police.
He was well aware he called Julie a long time before the police.
-
I don't believe calling Julie before the police is too bad. Although his 'wanting to hear a friendly voice' (at 3am) was weak.
Better to say he didn't know what to do so wanted advice.
What is bad is the long gap afterwards before he called the police.
Saying 'no comment' in his police interviews afterwards on the call didn't help.
He hesitated.
Nevill didn't say ring the police, he asked him to come over.
If Bamber is telling the truth then the whole police involvement came off his own back.
-
So where do you believe Julie got 3.30am from?
She wasn't sure of the time. When giving evidence she said between 3:00 - 3:30.
No-one gave evidence that they thought the time was 3:30.
Two witnesses said 3:00 - 3:30 and the other two said "2 something [i.e. 2:00 - 2:59]" and the other said "3:12 and I keep my clock 10 minutes fast".
In summary:
1) 3:00 - 3:30
2) 3:00 - 3:30
3) 3:02
4) 2 something - probably 2:55-2:59
3am fits all three of the above timings
-
He hesitated.
Nevill didn't say ring the police, he asked him to come over.
If Bamber is telling the truth then the whole police involvement came off his own back.
There is no 'if' about it.
But interesting to discuss his plan & how he managed to remain a free man for a month. Together with his 40 year 'Campaign for Freedom'.
Nevill says 'please come over'.
So he phones Julie. Twenty six minutes later phones a police station over 20 miles from WHF.
-
She wasn't sure of the time. When giving evidence she said between 3:00 - 3:30.
No-one gave evidence that they thought the time was 3:30.
Two witnesses said 3:00 - 3:30 and the other two said "2 something [i.e. 2:00 - 2:59]" and the other said "3:12 and I keep my clock 10 minutes fast".
In summary:
1) 3:00 - 3:30
2) 3:00 - 3:30
3) 3:02
4) 2 something - probably 2:55-2:59
3am fits all three of the above timings
There was around a 30 minute period at GH where he needed to shower, change, wash clothes, eat. Prior to phoning the police at 3.26am.
Ringing Julie was also done during this 30 minute period. At 3.00am.
-
She wasn't sure of the time. When giving evidence she said between 3:00 - 3:30.
A year later.
If she wasn't sure of the time and hadn't looked at a clock where did she get 3.30am from?
-
There is no 'if' about it.
I'm on the fence, to me there is.
Many people are pro innocent.
-
A year later.
If she wasn't sure of the time and hadn't looked at a clock where did she get 3.30am from?
'About 3.30am'.
Probably from Bamber. As said earlier.
Anyway 3.30am was impossible.
-
Probably from Bamber. As said earlier.
Doubtful.
-
Doubtful.
She did spend a long time with him. Prior to her first WS.
'About 3.30am' is after his own 'around 3.10' call from Nevill & his 3.26am call to the police.
-
She did spend a long time with him. Prior to her first WS.
'About 3.30am' is after his own 'around 3.10' call from Nevill & his 3.26am call to the police.
3.10 Nevill
3.15 Julie
3.26 coppers
Fits
-
It was good thing SB had a clock purposefully set fast so she could have a lie in the mornings ::)
-
Why the CT still go with the 3.26am NB 3.36am Jeremy call is madness. But down to them.
-
3.10 Nevill
3.15 Julie
3.26 coppers
Fits
Have to go by the two witnesses who testified.
It is within the 30 minute period where he had to shower, change, wash clothes & eat.
You have to suck it up.
-
Have to go by the two witnesses who testified.
It is within the 30 minute period where he had to shower, change, wash clothes & eat.
You have to suck it up.
Two girls putting their heads together.
I don't buy it and I'm suspicious of it. I'm sorry.
-
It was good thing SB had a clock purposefully set fast so she could have a lie in the mornings ::)
Do you think SB & Joanne Woad lied under oath?
-
Do you think SB & Joanne Woad lied under oath?
Was it oath or affirm?
Who knows.
-
Was it oath or affirm?
Who knows.
Do you think Douglas Dale & Helen Eaton lied under oath. When they said they did not check the time?
-
Do you think Douglas Dale & Helen Eaton lied under oath. When they said they did not check the time?
I believe that to be a truthful account.
-
I believe that to be a truthful account.
Do you believe Julie when she testified she did not check the time?
-
Do you believe Julie when she testified she did not check the time?
Given her 3.30am time in her first WS and my belief that I don't believe Bamber coached her I have no idea.
-
If Bamber had seen from a clock in his house or his watch that it was 3.26am when he phoned the coppers he wouldnt direct Julie to say he phoned her at 3.30am
-
Given her 3.30am time in her first WS and my belief that I don't believe Bamber coached her I have no idea.
Do you not believe Bamber spoke about Julie's WS at all beforehand?
He had several hours to.
-
Do you not believe Bamber spoke about Julie's WS at all beforehand?
He had several hours to.
No, as both of their first initial WS don't both mention the 10pm call. Just JMs
-
A phone ringing at 3.00am in a house of 5 people, you will get different reactions.
Three people did not check there clocks.
Two people did check their clocks and gave similar times.
-
A phone ringing at 3.00am in a house of 5 people, you will get different reactions.
Three people did not check there clocks.
Two people did check their clocks and gave similar times.
It took Battersby 13 days to produce a 2nd WS that included information that should have been included in the first.
It was either forgotten or cooked up.
-
No, as both of their first initial WS don't both mention the 10pm call. Just JMs
Bamber wouldn't tell her to omit it.
Wouldn't consider it important. She may refuse anyway as it was a 20 minute call.
He may have told her to tone it down.
-
309. Joanne Woad first made a statement on 16 September. In that statement she said that she thought the time was about 2 a.m.
-
Woad later changed the time in a later statement to between 2am and 2.59.
-
It took Battersby 13 days to produce a 2nd WS that included information that should have been included in the first.
It was either forgotten or cooked up.
Do you agree a 3.00am call is within the 30 minute period where Bamber had to shower, change, wash clothes & eat?
-
Bamber wouldn't tell her to omit it.
Wouldn't consider it important. She may refuse anyway as it was a 20 minute call.
He may have told her to tone it down.
He doesn't mention calling her. She mentions the call.
-
He doesn't mention calling her. She mentions the call.
Won't free Bamber.
-
Do you agree a 3.00am call is within the 30 minute period where Bamber had to shower, change, wash clothes & eat?
I'm looking at this from the neutral perspective. I am on the fence. You are a guilter.
-
Won't free Bamber.
Never claimed it would.
But it certainly means he wasn't trying to mirror their statements.
-
Woad later changed the time in a later statement to between 2am and 2.59.
Always said her clock said 2 something. She did not check the minutes.
Would have been very near to 3.00am.
-
Never claimed it would.
But it certainly means he wasn't trying to mirror their statements.
Why would he?
A 23 page WS is what he wouldn't want.
-
I'm looking at this from the neutral perspective. I am on the fence. You are a guilter.
Do you agree a 3.00am call is within the 30 minute period where Bamber had to shower, change, wash clothes & eat?
-
Always said her clock said 2 something. She did not check the minutes.
Would have been very near to 3.00am.
In her first WS 16.9.85 she said 2AM. On the dot.
To me, you look at a clock. You see a time. You stick by the time.
No rounding up or down 2.15 3am 3.06. They claim they saw the time so much so they went to testify at court in a trial a year later.
To me it's all cooked up, but appreciate you find it gospel.
-
Do you agree a 3.00am call is within the 30 minute period where Bamber had to shower, change, wash clothes & eat?
From a neutral standpoint I can't answer the question in the gulity stance way your portraying it.
You know this.
-
In her first WS 16.9.85 she said 2AM. On the dot.
To me, you look at a clock. You see a time. You stick by the time.
No rounding up or down 2.15 3am 3.06. They claim they saw the time so much so they went to testify at court in a trial a year later.
To me it's all cooked up, but appreciate you find it gospel.
Can you post Joanne Woad's WS's.
It is not on this forum.
-
From a neutral standpoint I can't answer the question in the gulity stance way your portraying it.
You know this.
Do you agree a 3.00am call is within the 30 minute period where Bamber had to shower, change, wash clothes & eat?
Third/final time asking an 'on the fence' poster.
-
Why would he?
A 23 page WS is what he wouldn't want.
A 23 page WS after getting dumped for an upgrade.
But at that material time we are talking from when Julie was " on side "
-
Do you agree a 3.00am call is within the 30 minute period where Bamber had to shower, change, wash clothes & eat?
Third/final time asking an 'on the fence' poster.
No, he got woke up from Nevill, phoned Julie cops, chucked some clobber on got in the astra and bombed it to WHF.
-
Jez says nevill called him about 3.10.
The CT use the 3.26 3.36
I have my own views.
-
No, he got woke up from Nevill, phoned Julie cops, chucked some clobber on got in the astra and bombed it to WHF.
So you don't believe a 3.00am phone call falls within a 30 minute period pre 3.26am.
Have to disagree and go by SB & JW WS's.
-
A 23 page WS after getting dumped for an upgrade.
But at that material time we are talking from when Julie was " on side "
She left Bamber on the 27th.
Tried to leave him on the 17th. But Bamber begged her to stay.
Unlike Bamber & Brett she did not want a life of jolly ups. Espescially using money from 5 murdered people.
-
Can you post Joanne Woad's WS's.
It is not on this forum.
Il have to check and see if I can find it.
The information I provided is from COA 2002.
-
She left Bamber on the 27th.
Tried to leave him on the 17th. But Bamber begged her to stay.
Unlike Bamber & Brett she did not want a life of jolly ups. Espescially using money from 5 murdered people.
" begged her to stay "
No he didn't.
-
Unlike Bamber & Brett she did not want a life of jolly ups. Espescially using money from 5 murdered people.
Jez maintains innocence.
-
So you don't believe a 3.00am phone call falls within a 30 minute period pre 3.26am.
Have to disagree and go by SB & JW WS's.
We have no official timestamp.
We're relying on a bunch of stoners and students getting a time to a tee. Which they fail doing so.
Battersby in her first WS say she was out at pub drinking 13 days later was in the flat when Jeremy called Julie!
-
309.
Joanne Woad first made a statement on 16 September. In that statement she said that she thought the time was about 2 a.m.
On 3 October, she made a further statement in which she explained why she had said about 2 a.m. She said:
"In my original statement I stated that this call was at 2 a.m. To be more precise I can add that when I awoke I remember looking at my digital radio/alarm clock at the foot of my bed and reading the hour figure as "2". I do not remember noting the minute reading and therefore the time could have been anywhere between 2 a.m. and 2.59 a.m."
310.
In evidence Miss Woad gave precisely the same account and she would not accept in cross-examination that she was wrong.
----------
It would have been very close to 3.00am. Which matches SB's WS.
Bamber would not committ the massacre so early he was back at GH by 2am. Or wait 90 minutes before calling the police.
-
" begged her to stay "
No he didn't.
It is in her WS.
-
We have no official timestamp.
We're relying on a bunch of stoners and students getting a time to a tee. Which they fail doing so.
Battersby in her first WS say she was out at pub drinking 13 days later was in the flat when Jeremy called Julie!
She did go out for a drink. Won't free Bamber.
Back prior to Bamber's 10pm call.
-
309.
Joanne Woad first made a statement on 16 September. In that statement she said that she thought the time was about 2 a.m.
On 3 October, she made a further statement in which she explained why she had said about 2 a.m. She said:
"In my original statement I stated that this call was at 2 a.m. To be more precise I can add that when I awoke I remember looking at my digital radio/alarm clock at the foot of my bed and reading the hour figure as "2". I do not remember noting the minute reading and therefore the time could have been anywhere between 2 a.m. and 2.59 a.m."
310.
In evidence Miss Woad gave precisely the same account and she would not accept in cross-examination that she was wrong.
----------
It would have been very close to 3.00am. Which matches SB's WS.
Bamber would not committ the massacre so early he was back at GH by 2am. Or wait 90 minutes before calling the police.
Why can't any of these people give an exact time?
-
Why can't any of these people give an exact time?
They did -
3 people did not check the time.
One said 3.00am.
One said 2.00am - 3.00am.
----------
SB & JW's WS's do match the 30 minute period when Bamber had to shower, change, wash clothes and eat.
-
SB wasn't sure the clock was even set ten minutes fast. She say she sometimes set the clock fast. It is likely he phoned Julie at 3.15AM
Where Woad got 2am from I have no idea.
-
For me.
NB to JB - 3.10
JB to JM 3.15
JB to police 3.26am.
-
We have no official timestamp.
We're relying on a bunch of stoners and students getting a time to a tee. Which they fail doing so.
Battersby in her first WS say she was out at pub drinking 13 days later was in the flat when Jeremy called Julie!
And yet according to you JB and likes of Emma Morris are reliable witnesses 40 years after the event. Its called confirmation bias ::)
-
And yet according to you JB and likes of Emma Morris are reliable witnesses 40 years after the event. Its called confirmation bias ::)
Here she is.
Can you give me a detailed character assassination on EM?
-
And yet according to you JB and likes of Emma Morris are reliable witnesses 40 years after the event. Its called confirmation bias ::)
Jeremy Bamber had an AM.
-
Jeremy Bamber had an AM.
If only you had some evidence to support your argument JB had an AM pre murders. Oh hang about you do...JB and Emma Morris 40 years after the event ;D
-
If only you had some evidence to support your argument JB had an AM pre murders. Oh hang about you do...JB and Emma Morris 40 years after the event ;D
I'm not arguing he had an AM. He said he had ownership of one.
It's from him direct.
-
And yet according to you JB and likes of Emma Morris are reliable witnesses 40 years after the event. Its called confirmation bias ::)
If Bamber is not a reliable witness, there is no hope.
-
If Bamber is not a reliable witness, there is no hope.
Well it's pretty much Jeremy's word v et Al.
-
Well it's pretty much Jeremy's word v et Al.
Much of this case comes down to Jeremy's word versus everyone else. Many of Bamber's supporters say everyone is lying except for Bamber.
-
Why can't any of these people give an exact time?
"The last of the flatmates, Susan Battersby, made a statement on 10 September. In that statement she said that she had been woken by the telephone and had looked at her radio clock and noticed that it was 3.15 a.m. She went on to point out that the time might not be accurate because she kept her clock 10 minutes fast. On 19 December, she made a further statement. In that statement she again referred to the telephone call being at 3.15 a.m. but later in the statement she said:
"I can say that sometime during the evening of Thursday 8 August 1985, I telephoned Julie at Jeremy's house in Goldhanger. I spoke to Julie in relation to the time of the telephone call from Jeremy to our flat during the early hours of Wednesday 7 August 1985. I told Julie that Jeremy had phoned her at 3.12 a.m. I can now remember that when I looked at my clock radio display, the time showed 3.12 a.m. Previously I had said the phone call was at 3.15 a.m. I am positive the time was 3.12 a.m. I was aware that Julie wanted to know the time of this phone call as she had phoned the flat trying to contact me that day when she spoke to Helen Eaton."
In her evidence to the jury Susan Battersby was adamant that the time shown by her clock was 3.12 a.m. and that she had kept her clock approximately 10 minutes fast. The prosecution supported her evidence about keeping the clock fast by calling evidence from her boyfriend and also by evidence from a police officer who had been to check the timing on her clock at a later date without forewarning her. In cross-examination the fact that she had originally said that the time was 3.15 a.m. was put to her. She explained that she had been quite nervous when she made her first statement and had not then appreciated the importance of giving the time exactly. Later she had thought about it and she could picture in her mind the time as being 3.12 a.m. and she remained certain that that was the time shown on the clock. "
-
SB wasn't sure the clock was even set ten minutes fast. She say she sometimes set the clock fast. It is likely he phoned Julie at 3.15AM
Where Woad got 2am from I have no idea.
I put Woads information up earlier.
Woad & SB WS's are both within the 30 minute period where Bamber had to do various things at GH prior to 3.26am.
So will go by there court testimonies.
But appreciate you being 'on the fence' say 3 10am, 3.15am & 3.26am.
-
Even SB's boyfriend testified. Regarding her keeping her clock 10 minutes fast.
A police officer did a check of her clock. Without warning.
-
Surprised the CT have not done a podcast on SB.
Several important issues she was a factor in.
-
I put Woads information up earlier.
Woad & SB WS's are both within the 30 minute period where Bamber had to do various things at GH prior to 3.26am.
So will go by there court testimonies.
But appreciate you being 'on the fence' say 3 10am, 3.15am & 3.26am.
Woad on her 16/09/85 WS gave the exact time of 2AM. So her clock must have been an hour slow. ::)
Which to me means she according to her looked at a clock and saw 2AM.
Then she changes that to between " 2AM and 2.59AM", You either see a time or you don't.
Battersby says it was 3.15, in Julie's 8.9.85 WS Julie says " Susan told me for sure the time was " 3.12AM exact" This is when they are at Pizza Hut.
So both Battersby and Woad are adamant of an exact time in the first instance but then change it later. For what reason?
-
Even SB's boyfriend testified. Regarding her keeping her clock 10 minutes fast.
SB says it was something she sometimes did.
-
SB says it was something she sometimes did.
Woad & SB confirm Bamber called Julie at 3.00am.
He called a police station over 20 miles away 26 minutes later after doing various essential things at GH.
Both have to accept Woads & SB. Doesn't make Bamber guilty.
-
I put Woads information up earlier.
Woad & SB WS's are both within the 30 minute period where Bamber had to do various things at GH prior to 3.26am.
" do various things "
This is just your opinion as a guilter. Nothing more.
-
Woad & SB confirm Bamber called Julie at 3.00am.
He called a police station over 20 miles away 26 minutes later after doing various essential things at GH.
Both have to accept Woads & SB. Doesn't make Bamber guilty.
Woads gave an exact time of 2AM in her first WS.
Doesn't make Bamber gulity agree.
-
Woads clock must have been an hour fast as well.
Lecturers must have loved them for their punctuality.
-
Suspect the timeline was -
2.55am, arrive at GH.
3.00am, ring Julie.
3.00am - 3.26am, shower, change, eat, wash clothes.
3 26am - 3 36am - Speak to police.
3.36am - Put washed clothes away.
3.39am - Leave for WHF.
-
Hell hath no fury.
-
Woads gave an exact time of 2AM in her first WS.
Doesn't make Bamber gulity agree.
She did not look at the minutes hand.
Would have been 2.55am - 2.59am.
Bamber didn't call Julie at 2.00am then wait 90 minutes to call Chelmsford Police.
-
Suspect the timeline was -
2.55am, arrive at GH.
3.00am, ring Julie.
After a 1 hour 10 minute pitch black various fields, private property gruelling cycle ride, coupled with murdering five people, no rest, he's straight on the phone.
Must have drank many a lucozade that night.
-
She did not look at the minutes hand.
Would have been 2.55am - 2.59am.
Bamber didn't call Julie at 2.00am then wait 90 minutes to call Chelmsford Police.
She gave the exact time of 2AM, now your debating whether her clock was analog or digital.
You just have to accept it.
-
Surprised the CT have not done a podcast on SB.
Several important issues she was a factor in.
He chucked a cake in her face.
-
Knackered clocks.
Boozing
Smoking weed.
Fraud
Who needs a more reliable witness.
-
He chucked a cake in her face.
As said surprised the CT have not done a podcast on her.
One of the hundreds of liars against poor Jeremy.
-
She gave the exact time of 2AM, now your debating whether her clock was analog or digital.
You just have to accept it.
She testified it waa 2.00am - 2.59am.
Refused to retract during cross examination.
-
Knackered clocks.
Boozing
Smoking weed.
Fraud
Who needs a more reliable witness.
Do you believe all witnesses that have a negative impact on the 'Campaign for Freedom' are wrong?
-
Do you believe all witnesses that have a negative impact on the 'Campaign for Freedom' are wrong?
They can't get a time right between them and have gave various accounts. A layperson would be only rightly suspicious and skeptical.
Jez can't even get the time right for when Nevill supposably called him " about 3.10am"
The CT now claim he called West at 3.36, still sticking to the " nevill called cops " stance at 3.26
-
As said surprised the CT have not done a podcast on her.
Give it time, they most likely one day will.
-
They can't get a time right between them and have gave various accounts. A layperson would be only rightly suspicious and skeptical.
Jez can't even get the time right for when Nevill supposably called him " about 3.10am"
The CT now claim he called West at 3.36, still sticking to the " nevill called cops " stance at 3.26
Do you believe all witnesses that have a negative impact on the 'Campaign for Freedom' are wrong?
-
Do you believe all witnesses that have a negative impact on the 'Campaign for Freedom' are wrong?
Not for me to decide.
-
Not for me to decide.
What witnesses that have a negative impact on the 'Campaign for Freedom' do you agree with?
-
What witnesses that have a negative impact on the 'Campaign for Freedom' do you agree with?
Well you need to scale it down, scientific evidence and Julie secured the conviction.
-
Well you need to scale it down, scientific evidence and Julie secured the conviction.
Do you think SB's boyfriend lied when testifying?
-
Do you think SB's boyfriend lied when testifying?
He said she sometimes kept her clock fast
-
Do you believe SB believed Bamber gulity as soon as she heard the news of the massacre?
-
312
In her evidence to the jury Susan Battersby was adamant that the time shown by her clock was 3.12 a.m. and that she had kept her clock approximately 10 minutes fast.
The prosecution supported her evidence about keeping the clock fast by calling evidence from her boyfriend and also by evidence from a police officer who had been to check the timing on her clock at a later date without forewarning her.
In cross-examination the fact that she had originally said that the time was 3.15 a.m. was put to her. She explained that she had been quite nervous when she made her first statement and had not then appreciated the importance of giving the time exactly.
Later she had thought about it and she could picture in her mind the time as being 3.12 a.m. and she remained certain that that was the time shown on the clock.
----------
Adamant.
Certain.
Ad hoc police check.
Boyfriend testimony.
Not sure what else she can do.
-
Do you believe SB believed Bamber gulity as soon as she heard the news of the massacre?
Doubtful. Maybe some suspision.
When Julie started telling her on the 27th, she would have believed her.
-
312
In her evidence to the jury Susan Battersby was adamant that the time shown by her clock was 3.12 a.m. and that she had kept her clock approximately 10 minutes fast.
The prosecution supported her evidence about keeping the clock fast by calling evidence from her boyfriend and also by evidence from a police officer who had been to check the timing on her clock at a later date without forewarning her.
In cross-examination the fact that she had originally said that the time was 3.15 a.m. was put to her. She explained that she had been quite nervous when she made her first statement and had not then appreciated the importance of giving the time exactly.
Later she had thought about it and she could picture in her mind the time as being 3.12 a.m. and she remained certain that that was the time shown on the clock.
----------
Adamant.
Certain.
Ad hoc police check.
Boyfriend testimony.
Not sure what else she can do.
She said she sometimes did it
Whether she did on the night of August 6th its not proven conclusively.
A ad hoc " check"by a copper down the line means nothing.
She told Julie she " was adamant it was 3.12am"
Nervous?
Nervous of what?
-
Doubtful. Maybe some suspision.
When Julie started telling her on the 27th, she would have believed her.
Battersby and Mugford were close.
I am surprised Mugford never mentioned what Bamber supposably was saying ( she thought he wasn't being serious ) in the months preceeding 7.8.85
Just in general girl chit chat.
-
Doubtful. Maybe some suspision.
When Julie started telling her on the 27th, she would have believed her.
Well SB says that Julie got off the phone to Jeremy with a " horrified look on her face" and said " we may be hearing from Jeremy later "
Hours later Jeremy's mum dad sister and nephews are found dead.
-
Well SB says that Julie got off the phone to Jeremy with a " horrified look on her face" and said " we may be hearing from Jeremy later "
Hours later Jeremy's mum dad sister and nephews are found dead.
That is a good point.
As said, maybe some suspision.
-
309.
"In my original statement I stated that this call was at 2 a.m. To be more precise I can add that when I awoke I remember looking at my digital radio/alarm clock at the foot of my bed and reading the hour figure as "2". I do not remember noting the minute reading
How can you look at a clock, a digital one and only see one digit?
So she is saying she looked at a clock but didn't see the colon or last two digits?
-
That is a good point.
As said, maybe some suspision.
Doesn't take a Poirot.
Do you believe that Julie would have told SB about Jeremy's family rantings in idle girlie chit chat prior to the massacre?
-
How can you look at a clock, a digital one and only see one digit?
So she is saying she looked at a clock but didn't see the colon or last two digits?
Have to go by the witnesses who testified. But appreciate you won't.
-
Have to go by the witnesses who testified. But appreciate you won't.
Have you got a source of JW having an eyesight problem?
-
SB said it happened.
SB according to herself was in close proximity to JM while she was on the phone to JB at the 10pm call .looking at thev "horror on Julie's face " after the 10pm call.
Surprised she didn't pick up and hear the dialog, if you stand in close proximity to someone on the phone you can certainly hear and here is an individual on the other end apparently planning to massacre his family in a few hours, he must have been angry and pumped.
-
SB according to herself was in close proximity to JM while she was on the phone to JB at the 10pm call .looking at thev "horror on Julie's face " after the 10pm call.
Surprised she didn't pick up and hear the dialog, if you stand in close proximity to someone on the phone you can certainly hear and here is an individual on the other end apparently planning to massacre his family in a few hours, he must have been angry and pumped.
Yes, this is the kind of common sense issues that people ignore, ILB.
Bamber apparently trying to plan a massacre over the phone with Julie while a household of students listen in!
Good grief!
-
Yes, this is the kind of common sense issues that people ignore, ILB.
Bamber apparently trying to plan a massacre over the phone with Julie while a household of students listen in!
Good grief!
It is heads together cooked statements snow, only sensible conclusion you can arrive at mate.
-
It is heads together cooked statements snow, only sensible conclusion you can arrive at mate.
Definately, ILB.
-
Yes, this is the kind of common sense issues that people ignore, ILB.
Bamber apparently trying to plan a massacre over the phone with Julie while a household of students listen in!
Good grief!
He had already spent several months planning it and done his reconnaissance at WHF. The rifle & Sheila were ready.
He was telling Julie -
'I've been thinking about it all day'.
'Tonights the night'.
'It's now or never'.
'You may hear from me later'.
-
SB according to herself was in close proximity to JM while she was on the phone to JB at the 10pm call .looking at thev "horror on Julie's face " after the 10pm call.
Surprised she didn't pick up and hear the dialog, if you stand in close proximity to someone on the phone you can certainly hear and here is an individual on the other end apparently planning to massacre his family in a few hours, he must have been angry and pumped.
I don’t think there was any planning during this conversation, the conversation was about days events. The planning had been done weeks before, Bamber was supposed to have said, “I’ve been thinking on the tractor and the crime had to be tonight” it had been discussed many times between them what he intended to do, so Julie was aware what he meant, “tonight is the night or never” so not a lot of dialogue or planning to massacre in that phone call in my opinion. They were both in on it, Bamber trusted Julie with the caravan robbery and his drug dealings, Julie trusted Bamber with her cheque book fraud and her part in the drug dealings, this was the next step for them both.
-
Well SB says that Julie got off the phone to Jeremy with a " horrified look on her face" and said " we may be hearing from Jeremy later "
Hours later Jeremy's mum dad sister and nephews are found dead.
So she didn’t hear any conversation at all then? Looking at it objectively, She could quite easily have said “she heard Bamber say tonight’s the night” if it was heads together cooked up statements?
-
Yes, this is the kind of common sense issues that people ignore, ILB.
Bamber apparently trying to plan a massacre over the phone with Julie while a household of students listen in!
Good grief!
Common sense and opinions are not the same, I base my opinions on Facts! Don’t preach to other that your obviously lacking.
-
Common sense and opinions are not the same, I base my opinions on Facts! Don’t preach to other that your obviously lacking.
Well I dont know if it is a 'fact' or not that Julie was aware of JBs intentions to kill his family or not HB.
If JB is guilty, then its possible, but obviously from an innocent point of view this cannot be correct.
-
Yes, this is the kind of common sense issues that people ignore, ILB.
Bamber apparently trying to plan a massacre over the phone with Julie while a household of students listen in!
Good grief!
Common sense? I rather imagine that, by the time it got to the telephone call, the massacre was well past the 'planning' stage! I'd even go as far as saying it had been completed. Just a thought. I wasn't aware that video/camera phones were in use in the 1980s. I'm wondering how it would have been possible to know that "a house full of students were listening in"?
-
Common sense? I rather imagine that, by the time it got to the telephone call, the massacre was well past the 'planning' stage! I'd even go as far as saying it had been completed. Just a thought. I wasn't aware that video/camera phones were in use in the 1980s. I'm wondering how it would have been possible to know that "a house full of students were listening in"?
Do you agree with HB that Julie was in it up to her neck all along, Jane?
-
Do you agree with HB that Julie was in it up to her neck all along, Jane?
Thats my belief and opinion and again, according to the Court, Julie knew of his planning and Julie knew he played a part in it. So it’s not just my belief.
-
Do you agree with HB that Julie was in it up to her neck all along, Jane?
Mmm? Well, if not her neck, certainly much further than her knees. She had to have 'known' because everything she said was what she alleges he'd told her. Just how much they planned together, is unlikely to ever be known.
-
Thats my belief and opinion and again, according to the Court, Julie knew of his planning and Julie knew he played a part in it. So it’s not just my belief.
Julies statements and trial testimony are ambiguous at best HB!
-
Julies statements and trial testimony are ambiguous at best HB!
And Bamber’s isn’t?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1091.msg33765.html#msg33765
This is saying Bamber saw rabbits by the potatoe shed. When he went outside to make sure the barn was running.
Rather than seeing them in the kitchen.
I believe the potatoe shed was 100 yards away. So no surprise they had gone by the time he returned.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1091.msg33765.html#msg33765
This is saying Bamber saw rabbits by the potatoe shed. When he went outside to make sure the barn was running.
Rather than seeing them in the kitchen.
I believe the potatoe shed was 100 yards away. So no surprise they had gone by the time he returned.
Seeing them in the kitchen comes from his own mouth in his WS.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1091.msg33765.html#msg33765
I believe the potatoe shed was 100 yards away. So no surprise they had gone by the time he returned.
Arlidge brought this up at his cross,
-
Seeing them in the kitchen comes from his own mouth in his WS.
I just put the WS up where he says he saw the rabbits when he went outside to check the barn was running.
-
Arlidge brought this up at his cross,
No point disputing his WS. He was never going to see rabbits from the kitchen window.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1091.msg33765.html#msg33765
This is saying Bamber saw rabbits by the potatoe shed. When he went outside to make sure the barn was running.
Rather than seeing them in the kitchen.
I believe the potatoe shed was 100 yards away. So no surprise they had gone by the time he returned.
They were never there in the first place. Pure fiction to embellish his follow-on tale that he left the gun leaning by the settle afterwards and that Sheila saw it "as a sign", presumably that she could/should kill her family with it. Again utter rubbish.
-
They were never there in the first place. Pure fiction to embellish his follow-on tale that he left the gun leaning by the settle afterwards and that Sheila saw it "as a sign", presumably that she could/should kill her family with it. Again utter rubbish.
Agree they were never there.
Who do you think Bamber shot first?
-
Agree they were never there.
Who do you think Bamber shot first?
Probably his father in the bedroom as he was the one most likely to resist if awake and thus had to be taken out first.
-
Probably his father in the bedroom as he was the one most likely to resist if awake and thus had to be taken out first.
So he shot Nevill 4 times. Then started shooting June 5 times while Nevill went downstairs.
-
So he shot Nevill 4 times. Then started shooting June 5 times while Nevill went downstairs.
Whilst she was still in bed as evidenced by blood stains on pillow, then having run out of ammo he had to follow Nevill downstairs and reload, but not before beating him semi-conscious first.
-
So he shot Nevill 4 times. Then started shooting June 5 times while Nevill went downstairs.
So Bamber starts shooting June while Nevil was still a threat? Really?
-
I just put the WS up where he says he saw the rabbits when he went outside to check the barn was running.
Well that's exactly what he claimed the day before on August 7th statement. No mention of a potato barn. He was in the kitchen.
Guess Jez dropped a bollock.
-
Whilst she was still in bed as evidenced by blood stains on pillow, then having run out of ammo he had to follow Nevill downstairs and reload, but not before beating him semi-conscious first.
Why do you think Nevill did not pick up a rifle or shot gun downstairs?
The gun cupboard was unlocked and there was a shot gun in the back office.
-
Why do you think Nevill did not pick up a rifle of shot gun downstairs?
The gun cupboard was unlocked and there was a shot gun in the back office.
Nevill never got the chance to reach any rifle or shotgun in Nevill's den, because he was mortally wounded and out of it by then.
This case will be my specialist subject on Mastermind (Old Codger's Edition) if ever I get the opportunity.
-
Nevill never got the chance to reach any rifle or shotgun in Nevill's den, because he was mortally wounded and out of it by then.
This case will be my specialist subject on Mastermind (Old Codger's Edition) if ever I get the opportunity.
Well he got downstairs while Bamber was shooting June upstairs.
Nevill must have been so badly injured he travelled slowly which allowed Bamber to catch him. So surprised he felt Nevill needed such a forceful and prolonged beating.
A risk letting Nevill go downstairs while he shoots June. But Nevill didn't make it to a weapon.
-
So she didn’t hear any conversation at all then? Looking at it objectively, She could quite easily have said “she heard Bamber say tonight’s the night” if it was heads together cooked up statements?
Overriding point for me Hardy is that I don't believe SB and JM are truthful witnesses, doesn't make Bamber innocent but their statements can be taken apart easily in my opinion.
I will hesitate to share CC view that they were brainwashed and threatened by SJ, because there's no evidence of such and it's going down the mad road of conspiracy theories etc
Also girls talk, I do believe Julie would have confided in SB Jeremy's strange rantings preceeding the massacre. Because in Julie's mind she states she didn't think he was being serious
When my Mrs rings her friends she updates them in almost every aspect of my life, despite me hardly knowing most of them. It's what females do!
If anything it just adds fuel to the fire that they were both in it together and it soured once Jeremy dumped her. She got off lightly.
-
Overriding point for me Hardy is that I don't believe SB and JM are truthful witnesses, doesn't make Bamber innocent but their statements can be taken apart easily in my opinion.
I will hesitate to share CC view that they were brainwashed and threatened by SJ, because there's no evidence of such and it's going down the mad road of conspiracy theories etc
Also girls talk, I do believe Julie would have confided in SB Jeremy's strange rantings preceeding the massacre. Because in Julie's mind she states she didn't think he was being serious
When my Mrs rings her friends she updates them in almost every aspect of my life, despite me hardly knowing most of them. It's what females do!
If anything it just adds fuel to the fire that they were both in it together and it soured once Jeremy dumped her. She got off lightly.
You believe anyone who testified against Bamber were not 'truthful witnesses'.
Police.
Family.
Friends.
Grlfriends.
Friends of girlfriends.
Experts.
----------
I believe all witnesses who testified. From either side.
I don't believe hundreds of people committed serious perjury & only Bamber told the truth.
-
You believe everyone who testified against Bamber were not 'truthful witnesses'.
Police.
Family.
Friends.
Grlfriends.
Friends of girlfriends.
Experts.
----------
I believe all witnesses who testified. From either side.
I don't believe hundreds of people committed serious perjury.
You wasnt on the jury, neither was I.
To me only Julie and the blood evidence count for anything. Although I seriously believe JM is a shady witness.
-
I don't believe hundreds of people committed serious perjury & only Bamber told the truth.
You are talking absolute bollocks.
The evidence that convicted Bamber was JM and the silencer evidence.
-
You wasnt on the jury, neither was I.
To me only Julie and the blood evidence count for anything. Although I seriously believe JM is a shady witness.
What witness do you believe did not committ serious perjury. Apart from Bamber?
-
You believe anyone who testified against Bamber were not 'truthful witnesses'.
Reference SB, and JW, completely unreliable, times allover the place.
One of them claiming she saw a digital clock with her own eyes but only saw one digit.
-
You are talking absolute bollocks.
The evidence that convicted Bamber was JM and the silencer evidence.
The nightdress alone had 9 pieces of evidence.
But keep saying it was just JM & the silencer if it makes you feel better.
-
The nightdress alone had 9 pieces of evidence.
But keep saying it was just JM & the silencer if it makes you feel better.
No It didn't.
-
Reference SB, and JW, completely unreliable, times allover the place.
One of them claiming she saw a digital clock with her own eyes but only saw one digit.
As I said, everyone committed perjury except Bamber.
-
No It didn't.
Keep lying to yourself and the forum if it makes you feel better.
-
Keep lying to yourself and the forum if it makes you feel better.
Ritualistic cleansing.
-
Ritualistic cleansing.
What witnesses do you believe did not committ serious perjury. Apart from Bamber?
-
What witnesses do you believe did not committ serious perjury. Apart from Bamber?
You can't compare every witness you tit.
For example I can't draw a comparison between Glynis Hayward, Julie Mugford
-
You can't compare every witness you tit.
For example I can't draw a comparison between Glynis Hayward, Julie Mugford
So there were no 'truthful witnesses'.
They all committed serious perjury.
Except Bamber.
-
So there were no 'truthful witnesses'.
They all committed serious perjury.
Except Bamber.
The experts offer an opinion from their findings.
Can't compare them with Robert Boutflour etc
-
Except Bamber.
Only today I highlighted an inconsistency in Bambers WS.
-
The experts offer an opinion from their findings.
Can't compare them with Robert Boutflour etc
So the experts told the truth on the mountain of forensic evidence.
-
So the experts told the truth on the mountain of forensic evidence.
The truth is for the jury to decide.
An expert offers a professional opinion
-
So the experts told the truth on the mountain of forensic evidence.
Mountain of Adam goading " evidence"
-
Mountain of Adam goading " evidence"
Sourced evidence. If that upsets supporters that is unfortunate.
-
Sourced evidence. If that upsets supporters that is unfortunate.
Sourced evidence haha. OK son.