Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: nugnug on March 27, 2014, 01:02:PM
-
of the innocent posters who is com;pletly certan and of the guilty camp who is completely certain of guilt
-
of the innocent posters who is com;pletly certan and of the guilty camp who is completely certain of guilt
Don't believe anyone can ever be totally certain of anything unless you have absolute proof.
I certainly cannot see how Jeremy Bamber managed to carry out this crime and that is taking into account the act of physically doing it and the psychological effect of being able to do it and his ability to be at the farm with the police afterwards and not show the slightest sign of any kind of reaction.
For all that I am aware there are always possibilities and have an open mind.
-
Nugs, I have moments of great uncertainty but it always comes back to how he could have held it together psychologically in the few hours AFTER it supposedly happened. The other question is HOW, after the first kill, when the enormity of what he'd started would have hit him, could he possibly have done it 4 more times. This wasn't a hardened criminal/professional hitman and I think he'd have been suffering flashbacks.
-
Nugs,I'll go as far as to say that I'm 100% certain that he didn't kill anyone.
-
I am completely certain that the silencer was never used and that much of the case was 'engineered'. As to guilt, I think it's possible because even taking the silencer out of the equation, doesn't prove his innocence. I fluctuate from time to time between innocent and guilty.
-
Would be foolish of me to be completely certain either way, but I'm as certain as one can be that Jeremy is guilty, although I think the polcie case is flawed and we'll never get to the absolute truth as to what happened that night, but that is the case in most crimes.
-
from the information I have seen so far I am about 90% certain he is innocent.
But I don't want him to come out on a technicality as I think his life would be hell. There is still a lot of strong feeling about the case .
I would love something or someone to come forward to prove his innocence .
-
75 to 80% in favour of innocence, because I am not a 100% sure there was not an accomplice. The case does not make sense whether you think Sheila did it or Jeremy. Something is missing.
-
Alias,,the only " accomplice " if there'd been one,would have been Brett,,but he was in Greece when the tragedy happened. I'm afraid that I mistrust the relatives more than I mistrust Jeremy.
-
to doubt is to question the information you are given. those questions help to form an oppinion. its better to have doubts than to blindly ignore arguments and dogmatically stick to a preset idea.
but to be certain BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT would lead me to be unable to convict. the doubts are too many.
wilf
-
Nugs,I'll go as far as to say that I'm 100% certain that he didn't kill anyone.
What a ridiculous statement.
How on earth can you be 100% certain unless you were actually there.
I can certainly see lots of evidence pointing towards his innocence but to state so brazenly that you are 100% certain is quite ridiculous in my opinion and sadly means you are not here to debate as you have a closed mind. This is a real shame as in the real world clearly none of us know whether he is innocent or guilty so post on this forum to debate issues to strengthen / weaken our initial thoughts. To be honest as you have a closed mind I don't really know why you are on this forum?
-
i asked a question lookout answered what the hell is the problem with that for fucks sake.
whens someones asked for honest option and they then give its totally unfair hauled over coals for it.
-
i asked a qustion lookout answered what the hell is the problem with that for fucks sake.
I'm merely explaining what a ridiculous statement she made. Not sure why you feel the need to swear to be honest.
-
I have established many things which highlights Jeremys almost certain guilt. The latest being today, establishing that Jeremy phoned Julie at 3am. Twenty minutes before Nevilles alledged call.
However there is a 5% chance he is innocent. And the unluckiest man in the world.
-
its an opinion -nothing to make a fuss about really.
-
I have established many things which highlights Jeremys almost certain guilt. The latest being today, establishing that Jeremy phoned Julie at 3am. Twenty minutes before Nevilles alledged call.
However there is a 5% chance he is innocent. And the unluckiest man in the world.
So you would have found him innocent then?
-
What a ridiculous statement.
How on earth can you be 100% certain unless you were actually there.
I can certainly see lots of evidence pointing towards his innocence but to state so brazenly that you are 100% certain is quite ridiculous in my opinion and sadly means you are not here to debate as you have a closed mind. This is a real shame as in the real world clearly none of us know whether he is innocent or guilty so post on this forum to debate issues to strengthen / weaken our initial thoughts. To be honest as you have a closed mind I don't really know why you are on this forum?
Harsh! The same could be said of Steve and Adam but given the site is (in the main) pro Jeremy Bamber, I don't think it's odd that someone would be that confident of his innocence. I find it strange when ardent guilty supporters post here - after all, Jeremy is locked up and not going anywhere soon. Not sure why those people come here - unless they just like to argue.
-
Harsh! The same could be said of Steve and Adam but given the site is (in the main) pro Jeremy Bamber, I don't think it's odd that someone would be that confident of his innocence. I find it strange when ardent guilty supporters post here - after all, Jeremy is locked up and not going anywhere soon. Not sure why those people come here - unless they just like to argue.
Adam to his credit just said 95% guilty.
-
So you would have found him innocent then?
I would have been one of the crying jurors, if he was found guilty.
-
Adam I have been misreading you I thought you would have been one of the crying jurors had he been found innocent just goes to show how wrong I get it.
-
I would have been one of the crying jurors, if he was found guilty.
you would be crying even though you 95 percent certain he was guilty.
that rather suprises me.
-
Adam I have been misreading you I thought you would have been one of the crying jurors had he been found innocent just goes to show how wrong I get it.
I would have probably cried either way. I am very sensitive.
-
Adam to his credit just said 95% guilty.
When you make statements like Jeremy Bamber is guilty - that's pretty sure.
-
Adam I know you would my pet ;D you have a heart of gold ;D and after your inheritance a wallet to go with it ;D
-
nugnug nothing Adam says surprises me he is one surprise after another ;D
-
I would have probably cried either way. I am very sensitive.
Sensitive ? You ? You could have fooled me. You've got a hide like an elephant when it comes to slagging Jeremy off.A man who you don't know.
-
I am almost certain that Sheila could not have been responsible.
Jeremy, guilty beyond reasonable doubt.....Yes
Jeremy, certainly guilty.....No
-
but can we be certan that it was jeremy or shiela and not a 3rd party.
-
but can we be certan that it was jeremy or shiela and not a 3rd party.
True nugs we can't be certain about anything. If Jeremy could leave by a window and perform a magic trick to lock the window behind him so could someone else. There is a possibility that someone phoned Jeremy pretending to be Nevill, it's unlikely but not impossible,
There is still the question of how Sheila was killed and where she was while the killer was shooting her mother and father and her boys.
-
However there is a 5% chance he is innocent.
That's enough for a juror to say "not guilty". Any juror should say "guilty" only if they are certain that the defendant is guilty. How certain? Good question, but even 0.5% doubt is enough for me.
-
That's enough for a juror to say "not guilty". Any juror should say "guilty" only if they are certain that the defendant is guilty. How certain? Good question, but even 0.5% doubt is enough for me.
5% is the benefit of the doubt, not reasonable doubt.
It is saying it is not impossible for the accused to be innocent. But when is it impossible ? Unless the accused admits guilt & knows things only the criminal would know.
Even in today's DNA society, defence lawyers always claim the DNA has been contaminated.
-
Adam to his credit just said 95% guilty.
Yes but other times he has said he is absolutely sure that he is guilty. He has even denied definite facts that I have proved to him in order to hold to his view of Jeremy being guilty. To put it bluntly he says one thing one day and another thing another day.
-
I would have probably cried either way. I am very sensitive.
You are also inconsistent and deny proven facts.
-
You are also inconsistent and deny proven facts.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
5% is the benefit of the doubt, not reasonable doubt.
It is saying it is not impossible for the accused to be innocent. But when is it impossible ? Unless the accused admits guilt & knows things only the criminal would know.
Even in today's DNA society, defence lawyers always claim the DNA has been contaminated.
No numbers will ever be attached (correctly as that is not the way it works) but it is widely thought that 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt' equates to more than a 99% (some would say more than 99.9%) belief in guilt.
Therefore if you or anyone else believe him 95% guilty you would have found him innocent in a court of law.
-
You are also inconsistent and deny proven facts.
and im 95 percent sure about that.
-
nugnug according to petey that means innocent you will have to go 99/100 percent ;D
-
yes but i musant be 100 percent sure otherwise ive got a closed mind and shouldent be on the forum aperantly.
-
nugnug my apologies I forgot that important factor. You may leave now ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
yes but i musant be 100 percent sure otherwise ive got a closed mind and shouldent be on the forum aperantly.
TUT...TUT
-
yes but i musant be 100 percent sure otherwise ive got a closed mind and shouldent be on the forum aperantly.
If you can be 100% certain of something when so much is unknown and so much evidence is missing or destroyed, then that is a credit to you. I can only dream of having such perception.
-
You are also inconsistent and deny proven facts.
Inconsistent. Well I have not changed my mind.
How can I deny proven facts ?
-
There are NO proven facts,unless you were witness to the shootings ! Get a grip.
-
and im 95 percent sure about that.
It's beyond reasonable doubt to me. ;D
-
Inconsistent. Well I have not changed my mind.
[color-red]How can I deny proven facts ?[/color]
Your memory is also 95% deficient.
-
are so you find adam guilty.
-
are so you find adam guilty.
And from his own mouth. ;D
-
i thought there might just be reasonble doubt but as you find him guilty ill go along with that.
-
i thought there might just be reasonble doubt but as you find him guilty ill go along with that.
The trouble is he is unreasonable as he claims now that he has never denied the proven facts. That police asked Jeremy's permission to destroy bloodied carpets.
-
are so you find adam guilty.
Adam is guilty of plagiarism !
-
The trouble is he is unreasonable as he claims now that he has never denied the proven facts. That police asked Jeremy's permission to destroy bloodied carpets.
Didn't Adam tell us that Jeremy ORDERED the police to burn them?
-
Didn't Adam tell us that Jeremy ORDERED the police to burn them?
Something like that and they "obeyed". lol ;D
-
Didn't Adam tell us that Jeremy ORDERED the police to burn them?
They requested to burn the carpets etc. Making things up really doesn't help either side - he MUST know that?
-
They requested to burn the carpets etc. Making things up really doesn't help either side - he MUST know that?
I never make things up & gave a source about the carpets. A source which you requested.
Please do not lie and say I make things up.
-
I never make things up & gave a source about the carpets. A source which you requested.
Please do not lie and say I make things up.
Then post facts!! The police 'requested' that Jeremy sign for the articles to be burned he did NOT demand they did so!!
-
Then post facts!! The police 'requested' that Jeremy sign for the articles to be burned he did NOT demand they did so!!
Yes alright. It was a fact on another source. In an article people praised.
Someone else posted a document I was not aware of, which outweighed my source. Stating Jeremy agreed for the carpets to be burned.
That is why I am on here, to find out new information. And ask important questions such as 'does Jeremys 3.00am phone call highlight his guilt'.
-
Adam, please answer this question: why would Jeremy have highlighted his guilt by telephoning Julie as early as 3am (and not having a good explanation for the next 25 minutes)?
-
Yes alright. It was a fact on another source. In an article people praised.
Someone else posted a document I was not aware of, which outweighed my source. Stating Jeremy agreed for the carpets to be burned.
That is why I am on here, to find out new information. And ask important questions such as 'does Jeremys 3.00am phone call highlight his guilt'.
So are you telling us that you're prepared to post ANY drivel, from ANY source, allow us to believe that you're posting your own thoughts, but refuse to take responsibility for them. If you don't wish to be labelled LIAR, why don't you, instead of whinging like a spoiled child when it happens, make it clear that you're quoting. WE can't be expected to know.
-
I would say Adam is best at ignoring information that does not fit his scenario. For example the visit to the bank by Julie and her friend , who in their statements they went alone. But when shown the statement by the bank manager who says they were accompanied by the police, he just Iignores it. And I think that is important as the immunity for crimes committed in return for giving evidence is relevant.
-
So are you telling us that you're prepared to post ANY drivel, from ANY source, allow us to believe that you're posting your own thoughts, but refuse to take responsibility for them. If you don't wish to be labelled LIAR, why don't you, instead of whinging like a spoiled child when it happens, make it clear that you're quoting. WE can't be expected to know.
I am always backing up my posts with sources. You never do.
Why do I need to lie ? There is more than enough common knowledge which highlights Jeremys guilt.
-
Adam, please answer this question: why would Jeremy have highlighted his guilt by telephoning Julie as early as 3am (and not having a good explanation for the next 25 minutes)?
Because he was stupid. He thought it would not be an issue and thought Julie was under his spell.
The evidence shows he phoned Julie at 3am. Read my thread.
-
Adam Ha Ha Ha you putting Reader in his place. Dream on Adam ;D
-
I would say Adam is best at ignoring information that does not fit his scenario. For example the visit to the bank by Julie and her friend , who in their statements they went alone. But when shown the statement by the bank manager who says they were accompanied by the police, he just Iignores it. And I think that is important as the immunity for crimes committed in return for giving evidence is relevant.
You have never mentioned it to me.
Oh yes the 1984 multi million cheque book fraud. Committed with a friend. Money paid back months befire the trial. A first offence I believe.
Does that mean Julie lied ?
-
You have never mentioned it to me.
Oh yes the 1984 multi million cheque book fraud. Committed with a friend. Money paid back months befire the trial. A first offence I believe.
Does that mean Julie lied ?
It makes her an unreliable witness.
-
I am always backing up my posts with sources. You never do.
Why do I need to lie ? There is more than enough common knowledge which highlights Jeremys guilt.
Adam, I don't need to. I rarely need to use others' thoughts to make my point. Common knowledge MAY be little more than gossip.
-
It makes her an unreliable witness.
Something the defence can try to prove when spending several hours cross examining her.
They did spend several hours trying to prove it.
-
I am always backing up my posts with sources. You never do.
Why do I need to lie ? There is more than enough common knowledge which highlights Jeremys guilt.
You don't back up your posts - clearly we wouldn't be having this conversation if you did! You could start your post by saying "I saw this interesting point on (name source)" and provide a link to it. People would know the words weren't yours and it would make things clearer.
-
You don't back up your posts - clearly we wouldn't be having this conversation if you did! You could start your post by saying "I saw this interesting point on (name source)" and provide a link to it. People would know the words weren't yours and it would make things clearer.
I am always providing links. The last one being yesterday.
Or saying 'source available upon request'.
I have asked Lookout for a source over ten times on different posts. The last times yesterday & today. I have never had one.
-
You don't back up your posts - clearly we wouldn't be having this conversation if you did! You could start your post by saying "I saw this interesting point on (name source)" and provide a link to it. People would know the words weren't yours and it would make things clearer.
When did you last back up you're posts ?
Three word posts should be backed up.
-
It works both ways,Adam !
-
I just backed up a post less than five minutes ago - Julies diaries.
-
When did you last back up you're posts ?
Three word posts should be backed up.
I don't post people's posts from other forums!
-
When did you last back up you're posts ?
Three word posts should be backed up.
If I claim something, I back it up!! Still haven't commented on the discrepancy in the autopsy notes have you? Thing is, if you can't wheedle out of something you just pretend it wasn't said and open another thread about phone calls!!
-
Autopsy notes. Talk about bringing something up out of thin air.
You have not commented on Julies hand written diaries. Or whether Jeremys 3am phone call highlights his guilt. Or what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy. Or whether scorned women are more likely to tell the truth. Or whether the Jeremy planned to phone the police. Or...
-
I just backed up a post less than five minutes ago - Julies diaries.
No. You backed up your post with what you said was JM's diary. The real question is when did she start keeping a diary? And had she always kept a diary, not just from the date Essex Police told her to? I suspect it was a bit like Hitler signing his diary in 1986?
-
No. You backed up your post with what you said was JM's diary. The real question is when did she start keeping a diary? And had she always kept a diary, not just from the date Essex Police told her to? I suspect it was a bit like Hitler signing his diary in 1986?
So a document of Julies diary is not authentic. Or the police told her to start writing a diary & back date it to match her WS.
You couldn't make it up.
-
So a document of Julies diary is not authentic. Or the police told her to start writing a diary & back date it to match her WS.
You couldn't make it up.
No I couldn't make it up. But she could have. And I suggest that that is what she in fact did? Especially if she was not in the habbit of keeping a diary anyway. Do you have documentary proof that she has ever kept a diary in the months or years before the Bamber case. Can she prove that she has always kept a diary by producing other diaries that predate Bamber? Because to me by what the police told her that she should keep a diary of all the events that it is a definite indication that she produced this diary specifically for this case against Bamber?
-
Autopsy notes. Talk about bringing something up out of thin air.
You have not commented on Julies hand written diaries. Or whether Jeremys 3am phone call highlights his guilt. Or what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy. Or whether scorned women are more likely to tell the truth. Or whether the Jeremy planned to phone the police. Or...
I certainly wouldn't have taken anything that that woman wrote-----as gospel.Least of all her diaries. How easy is it to enter something/anything,after an event ? Usually in your own words,,and NOT how it happened.
I prefer a woman such as June who called her a harlot.June was no fool ! I wonder what led June to be so forthright ?? She obviously saw something in her which Jeremy didn't. Love being blind and all that.
-
No I couldn't make it up. But she could have. And I suggest that that is what she in fact did? Especially if she was not in the habbit of keeping a diary anyway. Do you have documentary proof that she has ever kept a diary in the months or years before the Bamber case. Can she prove that she has always kept a diary by producing other diaries that predate Bamber? Because to me by what the police told her that she should keep a diary of all the events that it is a definite indication that she produced this diary specifically for this case against Bamber?
Oh so Julie only kept a diary after the massacre. And back dated it.
People do keep diaries. Espescially women.
-
So a document of Julies diary is not authentic. Or the police told her to start writing a diary & back date it to match her WS.
You couldn't make it up.
Well,,JM did !
-
I certainly wouldn't have taken anything that that woman wrote-----as gospel.Least of all her diaries. How easy is it to enter something/anything,after an event ? Usually in your own words,,and NOT how it happened.
I prefer a woman such as June who called her a harlot.June was no fool ! I wonder what led June to be so forthright ?? She obviously saw something in her which Jeremy didn't. Love being blind and all that.
The page on the 7th August looks full. If written on the day it could not be amended.
Oh sorry, the police told her to create & back date a diary to match her false witness statement. To help convict an innocent man.
-
Oh so Julie only kept a diary after the massacre. And back dated it.
People do keep diaries. Espescially women.
Prove that she kept a diary the year before the tragedy. Otherwise yes I do believe she backdated everything. Because it is a relatively easy thing to do. All you need id a blank diary and even you can do it. I suggest in absence of any proof that she did not do that, that that is what she in fact did. This being established by the fact that she was told to make a diary by Essex Police.
-
The page on the 7th August looks full. If written on the day it could not be amended.
Oh sorry, the police told her to create & back date a diary to match her false witness statement. To help convict an innocent man.
Know what,Adam ? Nobody's interested in JM's diaries,,,but we're very interested in the diaries that Sheila wrote,,which mysteriously NEVER came to light.
-
Know what,Adam ? Nobody's interested in JM's diaries,,,but we're very interested in the diaries that Sheila wrote,,which mysteriously NEVER came to light.
Now there's a girl that DID write a diary. But as you say it has never been published. It was handed back to the relatives and since then it has disappeared off the face of the Earth.
-
Prove that she kept a diary the year before the tragedy. Otherwise yes I do believe she backdated everything. Because it is a relatively easy thing to do. All you need id a blank diary and even you can do it. I suggest in absence of any proof that she did not do that, that that is what she in fact did. This being established by the fact that she was told to make a diary by Essex Police.
You know I cannot prove that.
Therefore you are entitled to beleive that Julie & EP police decided to create a diary and back date it.
It's a free country.
-
I have always believed his case to be a miscarriage of justice, however, from the very beginning I have never maintained he was 100% innocent - as I was not there on the night.
From all the information I have read, from the times we have sat together and talked, from everything I know of Jeremy.....I could still not say I am 100% sure of his innocence......that would be quite impossible!!
However, I believe he is innocent - far more innocent than guilty.
-
I have always believed his case to be a miscarriage of justice, however, from the very beginning I have never maintained he was 100% innocent - as I was not there on the night.
From all the information I have read, from the times we have sat together and talked, from everything I know of Jeremy.....I could still not say I am 100% sure of his innocence......that would be quite impossible!!
However, I believe he is innocent - far more innocent than guilty.
Fairly said, Aunt Agatha. You may be saying what many of us feel.
-
You know I cannot prove that.
Therefore you are entitled to beleive that Julie & EP police decided to create a diary and back date it.
It's a free country.
Pity the " free country " don't give Jeremy a chance of it then,isn't it ?
What a weak reply when you're stumped for an answer,eh ? Yet YOU expect US to rattle off chapter and verse following YOUR posts ! How much easier it is to be on the prosecuting side ! Saying that,,you have to have a go at proving his innocence as well as his guilt.
-
Pity the " free country " don't give Jeremy a chance of it then,isn't it ?
What a weak reply when you're stumped for an answer,eh ? Yet YOU expect US to rattle off chapter and verse following YOUR posts ! How much easier it is to be on the prosecuting side ! Saying that,,you have to have a go at proving his innocence as well as his guilt.
I provide a document as a source. Graheme refuses to beleive it and wants information he knows I cannot supply.
What more can I do ?
Graheme has made his mind up that Julies diary was created after the massacre & backdated to match her WS. The police supporting her with this.
As I said it's a free country.
-
I provide a document as a source. Graheme refuses to beleive it and wants information he knows I cannot supply.
What more can I do ?
Graheme has made his mind up that Julies diary was created after the massacre & backdated to match her WS. The police supporting her with this.
Who's to say it wasn't? Who's to say they didn't encourage and support her in this?
-
I have always believed his case to be a miscarriage of justice, however, from the very beginning I have never maintained he was 100% innocent - as I was not there on the night.
From all the information I have read, from the times we have sat together and talked, from everything I know of Jeremy.....I could still not say I am 100% sure of his innocence......that would be quite impossible!!
However, I believe he is innocent - far more innocent than guilty.
Yes,,very well put,AA,,and as April said,,it's what many of us feel. Those of you who've met and spoken with Jeremy, have the real advantage of " sussing " the man out,,as that,partly,is what it's all about.
-
Who's to say it wasn't? Who's to say they didn't encourage and support her in this?
:)
-
:)
Well, well, well, Adam :)
-
:)
What was that you said ? :o
-
Who's to say it wasn't? Who's to say they didn't encourage and support her in this?
Just for you, Lookout :)
-
He smiled and that was all he said. ;D
He now has to try and follow AA. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I provide a document as a source. Graheme refuses to beleive it and wants information he knows I cannot supply.
What more can I do ?
Graheme has made his mind up that Julies diary was created after the massacre & backdated to match her WS. The police supporting her with this.
As I said it's a free country.
All I am doing is to cast doubt upon the "accepted" testimony. I am saying that it is pefectly possible that she did create this diary for the specific purpose of this particular case. Moreover my theory is supported somewhat by what the police said to JM themselves ie, that she should make a diary for the purpose of the investigation. Therefore I deduce from that that (1) She created the diary for that purpose and for that purpose alone. This is also backed up by the probability of deducing from that (2) That she had never kept a diary before, unless there is proof eg: diaries from previous years thus indicating that she was in the general habit of keeping a diary?
All I have done is make logical deductions. Nothing else.
-
Oh yeah,Julie kept a diary. She was also psychic and could see in to the future! Check out the date of this entry lol
-
Oh yeah,Julie kept a diary. She was also psychic and could see in to the future! Check out the date of this entry lol
Tyler, I did a double take when I clocked that one. How the HELL did she get away with it?????
-
Oh yeah,Julie kept a diary. She was also psychic and could see in to the future! Check out the date of this entry lol
Like I said. It is a false diary specifically written for the benefit of the trial.
-
Like I said. It is a false diary specifically written for the benefit of the trial.
I think it was an unused diary simply used as a notebook post murders in order to help get her story right,for the purposes of her numerous witness statements.
-
I think it was an unused diary simply used as a notebook post murders in order to help get her story right,for the purposes of her numerous witness statements.
But Adam of course thinks that it was filled in daily. lol ;D
-
She was no Mrs Dale,Grahame. ;D
-
She was no Mrs Dale,Grahame. ;D
If she did it would be a bit like my own diary: Monday: Woke up. Got up. Went to the toilet. Had a shower. Got dressed. Went and got a paper. Had breakfast. Scratched arse. Watched TV. Felt tired. Lazed around all day. Went to bed.
-
Well,er yes,Grahame. ;D
It's one thing I regret, not keeping a diary. It would have read like any novel,,but getting people to believe its contents would have been another matter. Though I've filled an A4 writing book,no problem,,about a personal " happening in 2011.
-
Well,er yes,Grahame. ;D
It's one thing I regret, not keeping a diary. It would have read like any novel,,but getting people to believe its contents would have been another matter. Though I've filled an A4 writing book,no problem,,about a personal " happening in 2011.
Oooh,was it a love affair Lookout? Can we expect a series like 'Fifty Shades of Grey' being published anytime soon? :P
-
lookout you little dark horse tell us more we could do with cheering up ;D ;D ;D
-
number 9 ???
bit personal. Looks like she was going for a particular type of character assassination there. :o
-
I can upload the rest of her 'diary' entries if anyone is interested?
-
I can upload the rest of her 'diary' entries if anyone is interested?
Tyler, thank-you, that would be super.
-
I can upload the rest of her 'diary' entries if anyone is interested?
Please!! :)
-
Oooh,was it a love affair Lookout? Can we expect a series like 'Fifty Shades of Grey' being published anytime soon? :P
I wish,tyler. :)
-
I am actually reading them right now on another board. They sound as if she were a stenographer, very point by point. They also sound as if they were written some time after events, and they sound as if she is writing FOR someone - like a time-line.
To me it doesn´t appear to be a young person´s diary. It is a bit.... off.
P.S. as an example she writes on the page of August 17: For a day we were quite happy. If she had written the diary day by day wouldn´t she say something like: The day was quite happy - or: Today was quite happy.
Another thing: There is an entry on"August 6" (she couldn´t have known then, could she? ;)):
"Night/morning of 5 murders at Tolleshunt D'Arcy.
- White House Farm
1) Mr Nevill Bamber 8 x 's
2) Mrs June Bamber 5 x 's
3) Mrs Sheila Caffell All shot twice (suicide?)
4) Nicholas Caffell 3 x 's
5) Daniel Caffell 3 x 's"
It sounds like something a police officer would write, "Mrs Sheila Caffell", "Daniel Caffell".... Julie knew them, she would have written "Sheila" and "Daniel" etc.
Why so formal?
Not her diary - something concocted in collaboration with EP. Some of it undoubdetly true, some not.
Lastly, if this is not a day-by-day diary, we can see by the dates it isn´t, why use a diary with those dates? Can´t help thinking it is to give it an air of authenticity.
Just thinking aloud here - and not very coherently.... LOL
-
I am actually reading them right now on another board. They sound as if she were a stenographer, very point by point. They also sound as if they were written some time after events, and they sound as if she is writing FOR someone - like a time-line.
To me it doesn´t appear to be a young person´s diary. It is a bit.... off.
It reads VERY much like it's been written by someone who isn't used to keeping a diary.
-
How are you supposed to write a diary ?
Diaries are usually kept private, certainly not shown to police or put online. It seems genuine to me.
-
How are you supposed to write a diary ?
Diaries are usually kept private, certainly not shown to police or put online. It seems genuine to me.
Haway Adam. Surely you can spot an unsubtle Stan Jones-led piece of fiction? Ann Eaton kept note cards and somebody got the idea that Julie Mugford should do something similar, after the fact.
The Hitler Diaries are more genuine than this pap, come on!
-
Ann Eaton did write a few things down. She did not beleive Sheila was capable of going on such an unbelievable savage murderous rampage. Or did her family want Jeremys inheritance ???
Julies diaries seem disorganised, messing & abreviated. In other words written for her eyes only on the day. But appreciate what they say are so damaging that Jeremys supporters have to say they are made up.
-
Ann Eaton did write a few things down.
Pity her contemporaneous note of the phone call time given by Helen Eaton didn't remain the same when it got transferred in to her statements and had to fit with the prosecution case.
She did not beleive Sheila was capable of going on such an unbelievable savage murderous rampage. Or did her family want Jeremys inheritance ???
Pity she wasn't clued up in a similar vein to Colin, Nevill & Farhad. Then she might have thought differently. However I think the sentiment stated in your second sentence could have been strong enough to override even this.
Julies diaries seem disorganised, messing & abreviated. In other words written for her eyes only on the day. But appreciate what they say are so damaging that Jeremys supporters have to say they are made up.
Ha ha - I'd like to see your opinion on them if they were being used as evidence against your self.
-
Pity her contemporaneous note of the phone call time given by Helen Eaton didn't remain the same when it got transferred in to her statements and had to fit with the prosecution case.
Pity she wasn't clued up in a similar vein to Colin, Nevill & Farhad. Then she might have thought differently. However I think the sentiment stated in your second sentence could have been strong enough to override even this.
Ha ha - I'd like to see your opinion on them if they were being used as evidence against your self.
The diaries were not discussed in court.
-
Ann Eaton did write a few things down. She did not beleive Sheila was capable of going on such an unbelievable savage murderous rampage. Or did her family want Jeremys inheritance ???
Julies diaries seem disorganised, messing & abreviated. In other words written for her eyes only on the day. But appreciate what they say are so damaging that Jeremys supporters have to say they are made up.
Ann Eaton was another one who only wrote what she wanted to write.She too had a duff memory when it suited. For instance,,she " forgot " who it was who'd told her that Sheila was found on the bed with the bible on her chest. It was either her or JM who'd been told,,but both forgot who'd told them,Yeah !
We all know how " cosy " Mr S Jones was with them all !
How could you miss not writing about the most pivotal item in all this ? Strange.
Though I must hand it to AE,,she did report the bloodied cobweb 6 years later !
-
Ann Eaton did write a few things down. She did not beleive Sheila was capable of going on such an unbelievable savage murderous rampage. Or did her family want Jeremys inheritance ???
Julies diaries seem disorganised, messing & abreviated. In other words written for her eyes only on the day. But appreciate what they say are so damaging that Jeremys supporters have to say they are made up.
A VERY sweeping statement, Adam. You have no way of knowing what AE wrote, and given her determination to get Jeremy blamed one can only assume she wrote down somewhat MORE than "a few things." She certainly didn't WANT Sheila to have committed the murders but she didn't know her well enough to know whether she could have done it or not. If you recall, she went out of her way to avoid contact with Sheila and didn't bother to reply when Sheila wrote to her. You'll find this in her WS. As for whether her family wanted that inheritance. THEY saw that inheritance as theirs and apart from that there were loans attached to it that had Jeremy chosen to call in MAY have left them financially embarrassed.
Julie's diaries were all you say of them. So, too, were all my college notes. Taken down in a form of crude shorthand for me to expand on/talk about at a later date. Either those diaries are retrospective OR Julie was psychic. How could she write about, on Jan 2nd, what didn't happen until the following August?
-
A VERY sweeping statement, Adam. You have no way of knowing what AE wrote, and given her determination to get Jeremy blamed one can only assume she wrote down somewhat MORE than "a few things." She certainly didn't WANT Sheila to have committed the murders but she didn't know her well enough to know whether she could have done it or not. If you recall, she went out of her way to avoid contact with Sheila and didn't bother to reply when Sheila wrote to her. You'll find this in her WS. As for whether her family wanted that inheritance. THEY saw that inheritance as theirs and apart from that there were loans attached to it that had Jeremy chosen to call in MAY have left them financially embarrassed.
Julie's diaries were all you say of them. So, too, were all my college notes. Taken down in a form of crude shorthand for me to expand on/talk about at a later date. Either those diaries are retrospective OR Julie was psychic. How could she write about, on Jan 2nd, what didn't happen until the following August?
I have read her WS. She is in no doubt that Sheila could not have massacred her family. And that Jeremy is guilty.
As I said the diary seems genuine. Certainly not neat & tidy & something that would be supplied in court. It wasn't. But appreciate you have to discredit it.
-
Haway Adam. Surely you can spot an unsubtle Stan Jones-led piece of fiction? Ann Eaton kept note cards and somebody got the idea that Julie Mugford should do something similar, after the fact.
The Hitler Diaries are more genuine than this pap, come on!
"Got up. Walked into Poland. Went back to bed again". ::)
-
I have read her WS. She is in no doubt that Sheila could not have massacred her family. And that Jeremy is guilty.
As I said the diary seems genuine. Certainly not neat & tidy & something that would be supplied in court. It wasn't. But appreciate you have to discredit it.
So much so that she foresaw everything that was going to happen in August that she wrote it down in January. Really, You aren't that thick are you?
-
I have read her WS. She is in no doubt that Sheila could not have massacred her family. And that Jeremy is guilty.
As I said the diary seems genuine. Certainly not neat & tidy & something that would be supplied in court. It wasn't. But appreciate you have to discredit it.
Of COURSE she isn't!! However, I reaffirm that she didn't know enough of Sheila to know what she was or wasn't capable of.
Can you please explain why Julie wrote, in a brand new diary, on Jan 2nd, things which hadn't yet occurred. At the VERY least it suggests that the diary was little more than another version of AE's note book.
-
So much so that she foresaw everything that was going to happen in August that she wrote it down in January. Really, You aren't that thick are you?
I am not as thick as you. Believing a massive the massive cover up to frame an innocent man. Err Jeremy has lost 4 times. In court.
You believe the diary is made up. Why bother ? It was not discussed in court.
-
I am not as thick as you. Believing a massive the massive cover up to frame an innocent man. Err Jeremy has lost 4 times. In court.
You believe the diary is made up. Why bother ? It was not discussed in court.
Well thats no redeeming thought, as I acknowledge the fact that I am thick. But it is always good to see that you acknowledge that you are as well. ;D
-
I am not as thick as you. Believing a massive the massive cover up to frame an innocent man. Err Jeremy has lost 4 times. In court.
You believe the diary is made up. Why bother ? It was not discussed in court.
Adam. I've just given you proof that it was made up for that specific purpose. I just wonder why you can't accept it? How else would you explain why an August entry was placed on a January page? And why is there nothing else in the diary that refers to ordinary every day stuff?
-
Adam. I've just given you proof that it was made up for that specific purpose. I just wonder why you can't accept it? How else would you explain why an August entry was placed on a January page? And why is there nothing else in the diary that refers to ordinary every day stuff?
Ordinary stuff ? You mean 'woke up, brush my teeth'. There were more important things happening.
I do not believe the diary was made up. Like Julies 'Witness Statement' it has a 'ring of truth to it'.
-
Ordinary stuff ? You mean 'woke up, brush my teeth'. There were more important things happening.
I do not believe the diary was made up. Like Julies 'Witness Statement' it has a 'ring of truth to it'.
Isn't it you who keeps quoting Jeremy as saying that it's important to tell as much of the truth as possible? Perhaps that's what Julie did.......................at times.
-
Ordinary stuff ? You mean 'woke up, brush my teeth'. There were more important things happening.
I do not believe the diary was made up. Like Julies 'Witness Statement' it has a 'ring of truth to it'.
Yes exactly that and why doesn't the diary start with that ordinary stuff earlier in the year? Stuff like "went to Selfrideges and stole a load of clothes". Went to France. Had a great time with Jeremy since he paid for everything. You know. Orinary stuff that ordinary people put in their diaries. Instead of writing on January something that she foresaw was going to happen in August?
-
of the innocent posters who is com;pletly certan and of the guilty camp who is completely certain of guilt
I am certain I would bet my own life on it in a blink of a eye.
Mark
-
Me too.
-
lookout
Me Too.
-
I am not as thick as you. Believing a massive the massive cover up to frame an innocent man. Err Jeremy has lost 4 times. In court.
You believe the diary is made up. Why bother ? It was not discussed in court.
the pii certficates prove theres as massive cover up.
-
lookout
Me Too.
well if all 3 of you are prepared to bet your life on it i am as well.
-
Good for you nugnug stick with us that is the best thing to do ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I personally am not absolutely sure of his guilt or innocence. But as I said before, I haven't changed my mind from the first. But I do tend to argue from the innocent side more than from the guilty side probably because I dislike the man who first created the guilty page on facebook specifically to taunt and abuse the Bamber supporters and he has continued this on his vile forum that he created.
And I am the kind of person who defends those who suffer persecution and abuse from such cowardly individuals. That is probably the reason I continue on the innocent side rather than wanting to be associated with such people.
-
I personally am not absolutely sure of his guilt or innocence. But as I said before, I haven't changed my mind from the first. But I do tend to argue from the innocent side more than from the guilty side probably because I dislike the man who first created the guilty page on facebook specifically to taunt and abuse the Bamber supporters and he has continued this on his vile forum that he created.
And I am the kind of person who defends those who suffer persecution and abuse from such cowardly individuals. That is probably the reason I continue on the innocent side rather than wanting to be associated with such people.
Well said Grahame - I don't quite understand why someone , who is in their eyes in the right place, Should be subject to that . His punishment if he is guilty is imprisonment - and that is where he is . So they have what they want.
-
Well said Grahame - I don't quite understand why someone , who is in their eyes in the right place, Should be subject to that . His punishment if he is guilty is imprisonment - and that is where he is . So they have what they want.
I think the need to hammer their points home constantly comes from not feeling completely sure of the safety of the verdict. Can´t see any other reason, really.
-
I think the need to hammer their points home constantly comes from not feeling completely sure of the safety of the verdict. Can´t see any other reason, really.
That's a good point you've made, Alias. The more they labour their point the more convinced are they of their "rightness".
-
I am completely certain of being uncertain!!
-
I am completely certain of being uncertain!!
I'm COMPLETELY certain he wasn't given a fair trial.
-
I'm COMPLETELY certain he wasn't given a fair trial.
Yeah but I said that earlier and didn't want to repeat myself ;D ;D ;D
-
I am completely certain of being uncertain!!
are you certain of that.
-
are you certain of that.
Completely! :)
-
Completely! :)
Phone a friend? ;D
-
I'll ask the audience-----------second thoughts----no I won't. ;D ;D ;D ;D I have a mind of my own. ;D