Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on March 27, 2014, 05:43:PM
-
Interesting section from the 2002 appeal.
The following morning she was awoken by a telephone call from the appellant to her lodgings in London. The appellant said to her, "Everything is going well. Something is wrong at the farm. I haven't had any sleep all night … bye honey and I love you lots". Miss Mugford did not take him seriously and went back to sleep.As to the timing of this call, Miss Mugford said in evidence said that it was between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m.
A number of Miss Mugford's housemates were disturbed by the telephone call and provided additional evidence as to timing.
One, Helen Eaton, had been consulted by Julie Mugford, when the latter was first making a statement to the police about it. She put the time at 3.00 a.m. in evidence but agreed in cross-examination that it might have been as late as 3.30 a.m.
Another flat mate, Sue Battersby, said that she was positive that when she was disturbed, she had looked at her clock and the time shown was 3.12 a.m. However, she pointed out that she was in the habit of keeping her clock about 10 minutes early and police checks made on the clock confirmed this to be the case. If her evidence was right and if the clock was, as the evidence suggested, ten minutes fast, the time was probably no more than a minute or two after 3 a.m.
Joanna Wood gave evidence that when she heard the telephone, she looked at her digital clock and all that she noted was that the time was 2 something. This meant that according to her clock the time was between 2.00 and 2.59 a.m. If it was at the end of that bracket, it differed very little from the time suggested by Susan Battersby's evidence.
...........
So it seems that Jeremys phone call was at 3.00am. The most damning evidence from Joanna Wood.
However there is a slim chance it was at 3.30am. Hang on, didn't Jeremy ring the police at 3.26am. The call lasting several minutes after being put on hold ? So he couldn't have rang Julie at 3.30am.
Maybe Jeremy rang Julie at 3.40. Hang on, he was driving to WHF at that time after getting smartly dressed. And none of the witnesses said the call was that late.
If this evidence & the 4 witnesses are correct & Jeremy phoned Julie around 3am, that is over 20 minutes before 'dad' rang Jeremy. But Jeremy said he was sleeping like a log with his answering machine switched off. 'Dad's' call waking him.
Julies much discussed diary has the call at 3.00am.
I will leave the last words to Jeremy when asked why he phoned Julie at that unsocial hour - 'No comment'. That was after intially saying he phoned Julie first.
Do other people beleive Jeremy phoning Julie at 3.00am is conclusive of his guilt ?
-
Everyone at that place were bombed off their skulls with drink and drugs and didn't know whether it was Christmas Day or Pancake Tuesday. Even JM told Jeremy to go back to bed ( which proves he WAS in bed,and not out killing anyone ) then with that,she turned over and went back to sleep.
I can see the situation,,they were students,and students don't do sensible at that hour of the morning.
-
Everyone at that place were bombed off their skulls with drink and drugs and didn't know whether it was Christmas Day or Pancake Tuesday. Even JM told Jeremy to go back to bed ( which proves he WAS in bed,and not out killing anyone ) then with that,she turned over and went back to sleep.
I can see the situation,,they were students,and students don't do sensible at that hour of the morning.
Where did you read that the 4 witnesses were bombed out of their skulls on drink & drugs ?
Julie had no idea whether Jeremy had been in bed or not. She had been sleeping. People usually are at 3am.
Jeremy being awake at 3am shows certain guilt.
-
lookout the reason I love you is because you tell it as it is ;D Christmas Day or Pancake Tuesday ;D ;D ;D but you are right of course. :-*
-
Adam your statement people are usually sleeping at 3 a.m you have to apply that to Jeremy as well you cannot have rules for one and another set for another.
-
Adam your statement people are usually sleeping at 3 a.m you have to apply that to Jeremy as well you cannot have rules for one and another set for another.
Perhaps Jeremy stayed awake that night. He did say 'tonights the night'.
-
Adam yes he said "tonights the night" to Julie yet she still allowed the whole family to be murdered. Would you consider that normal behaviour.
-
Jeremy being awake at 3am & phoning Julie at that time, 20 minutes before Nevilles mysterious call, does not make him guilty.
However it is a massive 'curious coincidence' & circumstantial evidence. The jury would think it too much of a coincidence.
Jeremy told the police he was 'sleeping like a log' & Nevilles call woke him. Why lie from the first minute if you are innocent ?
-
Adam yes he said "tonights the night" to Julie yet she still allowed the whole family to be murdered. Would you consider that normal behaviour.
Julie did not believe he would do anything. It is not often a family is massacred.
-
Adam please come on now Jeremy had been telling her for a year he planned doing it and yet she did not believe him until he passed her over for another fair maiden.
-
Adam please come on now Jeremy had been telling her for a year he planned doing it and yet she did not believe him until he passed her over for another fair maiden.
The thread I have created is about Jeremy phoning Julie 20 minutes before 'dad' phoned Jeremy.
What is you're view on that ?
-
Adam sorry don't have a view on that at the moment will let you know when I have figured it out,
-
Adam sorry don't have a view on that at the moment will let you know when I have figured it out,
I like honesty.
My view is it highlights Jeremys guilt as he wasn't even asleep when Neville was supposed to have phoned.
A family massacred in the middle of the night. Jeremy awake at 3am....
-
Even the police could not get the timings of the calls correct and contradicted themselves . So how can you expect a house full of students to get it right?
The only reason JB doubted the timings is that the police said they could prove the time . They were not telling the truth . Look at his interviews - he was relieved when they said that because then they could prove the call from his father.
I am glad I can not see Adams posts - he is on ignore - because this is like groundhog day again .
The police did not know if their clock was 10 minutes wrong or not - FACT - so that throws all your theories out of the window.
-
Even the police could not get the timings of the calls correct and contradicted themselves . So how can you expect a house full of students to get it right?
The only reason JB doubted the timings is that the police said they could prove the time . They were not telling the truth . Look at his interviews - he was relieved when they said that because then they could prove the call from his father.
I am glad I can not see Adams posts - he is on ignore - because this is like groundhog day again .
The police did not know if their clock was 10 minutes wrong or not - FACT - so that throws all your theories out of the window.
Thought you were not reading my posts. Probably because you only like reading posts that agree with you. Cry baby.
It throws nothing out of the window.
The police reveived a call at 3.26am. From Jeremy. Meaning Jeremy could not have phoned Julie at 3.30.
Four people giving very similar times. Not surprising. It is not often a phone wakes you up at 3.00am. Or something you forget.
-
MB's log indicates that it was Nevill that telephoned the police at 3:26, and Pc West wrote that Jeremy rang him at 3:36. Both wrote logs that fit with Jeremy's account, as given before he knew what was in the logs. If Jeremy rang Julie at about 3am, he couldn't possibly have known that Julie wouldn't remember that time initially or that after ringing her flat to ask about the time of the call, she would say it occurred at about 3:30. If the police really thought that one of their own clocks might have been 10 minutes fast, why didn't they make enquiries to find out who reset it to the correct time?
-
The police have never said they got a call from Neville. Even in the first month before Jeremy was charged.
It is inconcievable that Jeremy would not have been told that Neville had also phoned the police. Probably on the massacre night or soon afterwards.
Taff Jones would have told the relatives as soon as they started saying they did not beleive Sheila was capable of the massacre. He & other aware police officers would have also told the rest of EP, meaning no one within EP would suspect Jeremy.
Jeremy made it clear on the night & afterwards that Neville liked to keep things private & not involve the police. Changing his mind 20 years later.
The 3am phone call was discussed in court & was in the judges summing up. It is very damaging for Jeremy & highlights certain guilt.
-
The police have never said they got a call from Neville. Even in the first month before Jeremy was charged.
It is inconcievable that Jeremy would not have been told that Neville had also phoned the police. Probably on the massacre night or soon afterwards.
Taff Jones would have told the relatives as soon as they started saying they did not beleive Sheila was capable of the massacre. He & other aware police officers would have also told the rest of EP, meaning no one within EP would suspect Jeremy.
Jeremy made it clear on the night & afterwards that Neville liked to keep things private & not involve the police. Changing his mind 20 years later.
The 3am phone call was discussed in court & was in the judges summing up. It is very damaging for Jeremy & highlights certain guilt.
due to PII we dont know what Taff Jones or any other officers knew that night or in the days just after the raid had taken place. the logs were no even made public untill many years after the event. if they pointed to Jeremys guilt why were they not made an issue of at trial?
wilf
-
due to PII we dont know what Taff Jones or any other officers knew that night or in the days just after the raid had taken place. the logs were no even made public untill many years after the event. if they pointed to Jeremys guilt why were they not made an issue of at trial?
wilf
Exactly Wilf. These questions come up all the time, so much evidence is conspicuous by it's absence.
-
Maggie I think Taff Jones knew exactly what had taken place on the fateful night at WHF and this is why he would not take the rellies on board and eventually removed from the case. Now why would they remove a first class police officer like Taff Jones off the case :'(
-
MB's log indicates that it was Nevill that telephoned the police at 3:26, and Pc West wrote that Jeremy rang him at 3:36. Both wrote logs that fit with Jeremy's account, as given before he knew what was in the logs. If Jeremy rang Julie at about 3am, he couldn't possibly have known that Julie wouldn't remember that time initially or that after ringing her flat to ask about the time of the call, she would say it occurred at about 3:30. If the police really thought that one of their own clocks might have been 10 minutes fast, why didn't they make enquiries to find out who reset it to the correct time?
Agreed. In some way both logs were merged into one. The police sometimes do that so that they know that both called are related to one another. Police may deny it. But the logs seem to confirm it. I think that the two logs are separate phone calls personally?
-
Agreed. In some way both logs were merged into one. The police sometimes do that so that they know that both called are related to one another. Police may deny it. But the logs seem to confirm it. I think that the two logs are separate phone calls personally?
Its hard to believe otherwise Grahame, there are noticeable differences which are very difficult to explain.
-
It is inconcievable that Jeremy would not have been told that Neville had also phoned the police.
Why? I find it odd and surprising, but that's a long way short of inconceivable. Perhaps Nevill said something to Pc West that led him to choose not to disclose the call to Jeremy when he rang, or perhaps Pc West simply chose not to tell Jeremy because he thought it would add to his distress.
-
Why? I find it odd and surprising, but that's a long way short of inconceivable. Perhaps Nevill said something to Pc West that led him to choose not to disclose the call to Jeremy when he rang, or perhaps Pc West simply chose not to tell Jeremy because he thought it would add to his distress.
I agree Reader, all things are possible and nothing is inconceivable, however difficult it may be for a person to accept.
-
It's only over time that the memory begins to sort itself out regarding the past. When confronted with the present,,it's much more difficult to remember what you had for lunch the day before,,let alone what time you received a phone-call. Unless these things are immediately written down as they occur,,then vital information is lost forever in a fog of guesswork.
"Original" police logs/documents will have been written as to the crime scene. Though a selective memory came into play when these originals were not adhered to and another set were presented during the trial,,with an edited version of events.
Hence this is why Jeremy has had the time to sit and think about past events,times,,and what he did that particular day. His mind now at this stage will be very much focussed on reverting to the past,,it is obvious,,as sadly,he's had no future to think about,,so therefore lots of things would become clearer to him.
-
Why? I find it odd and surprising, but that's a long way short of inconceivable. Perhaps Nevill said something to Pc West that led him to choose not to disclose the call to Jeremy when he rang, or perhaps Pc West simply chose not to tell Jeremy because he thought it would add to his distress.
It is called teamwork. Jeremy says what he knows. The police inform Jeremy what Neville has told them. In this serious situation both parties must know everthing.
However Jeremy seemed to be directly things upon arrival.
Telling the police Sheila was a nutter & depressive psychopath. He also said Sheila was competent with guns. But changed his story in court.
-
Anyway my thread post asked the question -
Does Jeremy being awake at 3.00am, rather than asleep as he claimed, highlight his guilt ?
-
Adam don't understand the question are you saying if Jeremy was asleep at 3 a.m. he is guilty of murder or if he was not asleep at 3 a.m. he is guilty of murder.
-
Adam what does that mean Jeremy seems to be directly things upon arrival.
-
Adam don't understand the question are you saying if Jeremy was asleep at 3 a.m. he is guilty of murder or if he was not asleep at 3 a.m. he is guilty of murder.
Er no. If he slept 'like a log' until being woken by Nevilles 3.20am phone call, then he was innocent. Jeremy is claiming this is what happened.
However he phoned Julie at 3.00am. Meaning he was awake a long time before Nevilles call. For some strange reason deciding to phone Julie ?
-
And my post,,as usual,has gone right over his head !
-
Adam maybe Julie's clock was running fast or slow which ever fits ;D
-
Everyone at that place were bombed off their skulls with drink and drugs and didn't know whether it was Christmas Day or Pancake Tuesday. Even JM told Jeremy to go back to bed ( which proves he WAS in bed,and not out killing anyone ) then with that,she turned over and went back to sleep.
I can see the situation,,they were students,and students don't do sensible at that hour of the morning.
It did not. I asked for a source.
-
Adam maybe Julie's clock was running fast or slow which ever fits ;D
Please read my thread post on page one.
-
Anyway my thread post asked the question -
Does Jeremy being awake at 3.00am, rather than asleep as he claimed, highlight his guilt ?
-
At this stage,,seeing as nobody was there when this tragedy happened,,I have no sources-------only theories like the rest of us-------you included !
-
At this stage,,seeing as nobody was there when this tragedy happened,,I have no sources-------only theories like the rest of us-------you included !
But you said the 4 witnesses in Julies flat were bombed out of their skulls on drink & drugs on the massacre night.
-
Consider it done SIR ;D ;D I will report back ;D
-
But you said the 4 witnesses in Julies flat were bombed out of their skulls on drink & drugs on the massacre night.
This is how I picture students to be at 3 in the morning,Dumbo.Use your imagination for a change.
-
Yet another thread about phone calls! If you have any more ideas about phone calls use one of the existing threads - we don't need another phone calls thread - Adam!
-
This is how I picture students to be at 3 in the morning,Dumbo.Use your imagination for a change.
Oh so it's you making up things as facts. Then when I ask for a source you say it's how you imagine them to be.
So you imagine the 4 students to be alcoholics & drug addicts. And all wrong about the times.
-
You've finally got it. Do you know different ? I wasn't there,,were you ?
What I've seen of students,,what I said,rings true.
-
Yet another thread about phone calls! If you have any more ideas about phone calls use one of the existing threads - we don't need another phone calls thread - Adam!
This issue is very important.
It shows Jeremy was awake at 3.00am. And for some reason phoned Julie ?
Very damaging.
-
Adam lookout did not say they were alcoholics just liked an odd glass or two and a wee bit of puff ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You've finally got it. Do you know different ? I wasn't there,,were you ?
What I've seen of students,,what I said,rings true.
I don't know different & never claimed I did.
All students I knew were not alcoholics or drug addicts. Even if they were it is doubtful they would all be out of their heads on a Tuesday night.
-
Adam lookout did not say they were alcoholics just liked an odd glass or two and a wee bit of puff ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Everyone at that place were bombed off their skulls with drink and drugs and didn't know whether it was Christmas Day or Pancake Tuesday. Even JM told Jeremy to go back to bed ( which proves he WAS in bed,and not out killing anyone ) then with that,she turned over and went back to sleep.
I can see the situation,,they were students,and students don't do sensible at that hour of the morning.
-
Adam,,why are you going to the red forum,then coming here with posts that others have written ???
Why don't you just stay there ?
-
Adam,,why are you going to the red forum,then coming here with posts that others have written ???
Why don't you just stay there ?
He used to have a job as a copyist.
-
He used to have a job as a copyist.
I've just called him a plagiarist,,as that's what he is. His motive is non too honest either.
-
I think this explains about the clock timings quite well I think.
Funny how there is no memory of the police going with them to the bank - because the bank manager remembers it well.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1166.0.html
-
SMS----------Selective Memory Syndrome.From which it appeared to be rather catching.
-
This issue is very important.
It shows Jeremy was awake at 3.00am. And for some reason phoned Julie ?
Very damaging.
It shows nothing of the sort!! There were several DIFFERENT times quoted, you have simply CHOSEN the one the best matches YOUR THEORY. That's NOT a FACT Adam that's just YOUR OPINION!!
-
I think this explains about the clock timings quite well I think.
Funny how there is no memory of the police going with them to the bank - because the bank manager remembers it well.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1166.0.html
Yes, he also remembered that the police officer stayed to sort some things after the girls left - which strongly, STRONGLY indicates that Julie did not go to the bank on her own volition. EP needed a "clean" star "witness" (witness of what BTW - it was all hearsay).
Heard a lawyer say yesterday that it happens all the time that police convince "star witnesses" that it is all right to bend the truth, a tad, or outright lie, because they "know" they have the right culprit.
-
I think this explains about the clock timings quite well I think.
Funny how there is no memory of the police going with them to the bank - because the bank manager remembers it well.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1166.0.html
It's also strange that it was Stan Jones's day off!
-
Yes, he also remembered that the police officer stayed to sort some things after the girls left - which strongly, STRONGLY indicates that Julie did not go to the bank on her own volition. EP needed a "clean" star "witness" (witness of what BTW - it was all hearsay).
Heard a lawyer say yesterday that it happens all the time that police convince "star witnesses" that it is all right to bend the truth, a tad, or outright lie, because they "know" they have the right culprit.
Exactly!
-
It shows nothing of the sort!! There were several DIFFERENT times quoted, you have simply CHOSEN the one the best matches YOUR THEORY. That's NOT a FACT Adam that's just YOUR OPINION!!
-
The following morning she was awoken by a telephone call from the appellant to her lodgings in London. The appellant said to her, "Everything is going well. Something is wrong at the farm. I haven't had any sleep all night … bye honey and I love you lots".
Miss Mugford did not take him seriously and went back to sleep.As to the timing of this call, Miss Mugford said in evidence said that it was between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m.
A number of Miss Mugford's housemates were disturbed by the telephone call and provided additional evidence as to timing.
One, Helen Eaton, had been consulted by Julie Mugford, when the latter was first making a statement to the police about it. She put the time at 3.00 a.m. in evidence but agreed in cross-examination that it might have been as late as 3.30 a.m.
Another flat mate, Sue Battersby, said that she was positive that when she was disturbed, she had looked at her clock and the time shown was 3.12 a.m. However, she pointed out that she was in the habit of keeping her clock about 10 minutes early and police checks made on the clock confirmed this to be the case. If her evidence was right and if the clock was, as the evidence suggested, ten minutes fast, the time was probably no more than a minute or two after 3 a.m.
Joanna Wood gave evidence that when she heard the telephone, she looked at her digital clock and all that she noted was that the time was 2 something. This meant that according to her clock the time was between 2.00 and 2.59 a.m. If it was at the end of that bracket, it differed very little from the time suggested by Susan Battersby's evidence.
-
So it seems that Jeremys phone call was at 3.00am. The most damning evidence from Joanna Wood.
However there is a slim chance it was at 3.30am. Hang on, didn't Jeremy ring the police at 3.26am. The call lasting several minutes after being put on hold ? So he couldn't have rang Julie at 3.30am.
Maybe Jeremy rang Julie at 3.40. Hang on, he was driving (slowly) to WHF at that time after getting smartly dressed. And none of the witnesses said the call was that late.
If this evidence & the 4 witnesses are correct & Jeremy phoned Julie around 3am, that is over 20 minutes before 'dad' rang Jeremy. But Jeremy said he was sleeping like a log with his answering machine switched off. 'Dad's' call waking him.
I will leave the last words to Jeremy when asked why he phoned Julie at that unsocial hour - 'No comment'. That was after intially saying he phoned Julie first.
-
The following morning she was awoken by a telephone call from the appellant to her lodgings in London. The appellant said to her, "Everything is going well. Something is wrong at the farm. I haven't had any sleep all night … bye honey and I love you lots".
Miss Mugford did not take him seriously and went back to sleep.As to the timing of this call, Miss Mugford said in evidence said that it was between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m.
A number of Miss Mugford's housemates were disturbed by the telephone call and provided additional evidence as to timing.
One, Helen Eaton, had been consulted by Julie Mugford, when the latter was first making a statement to the police about it. She put the time at 3.00 a.m. in evidence but agreed in cross-examination that it might have been as late as 3.30 a.m.
Another flat mate, Sue Battersby, said that she was positive that when she was disturbed, she had looked at her clock and the time shown was 3.12 a.m. However, she pointed out that she was in the habit of keeping her clock about 10 minutes early and police checks made on the clock confirmed this to be the case. If her evidence was right and if the clock was, as the evidence suggested, ten minutes fast, the time was probably no more than a minute or two after 3 a.m.
Joanna Wood gave evidence that when she heard the telephone, she looked at her digital clock and all that she noted was that the time was 2 something. This meant that according to her clock the time was between 2.00 and 2.59 a.m. If it was at the end of that bracket, it differed very little from the time suggested by Susan Battersby's evidence.
Exactly no one was certain!
-
So it seems that Jeremys phone call was at 3.00am. The most damning evidence from Joanna Wood.
However there is a slim chance it was at 3.30am. Hang on, didn't Jeremy ring the police at 3.26am. The call lasting several minutes after being put on hold ? So he couldn't have rang Julie at 3.30am.
Maybe Jeremy rang Julie at 3.40. Hang on, he was driving (slowly) to WHF at that time after getting smartly dressed. And none of the witnesses said the call was that late.
If this evidence & the 4 witnesses are correct & Jeremy phoned Julie around 3am, that is over 20 minutes before 'dad' rang Jeremy. But Jeremy said he was sleeping like a log with his answering machine switched off. 'Dad's' call waking him.
I will leave the last words to Jeremy when asked why he phoned Julie at that unsocial hour - 'No comment'. That was after intially saying he phoned Julie first.
No it doesn't.
-
Joanna Wood gave evidence that when she heard the telephone, she looked at her digital clock and all that she noted was that the time was 2 something. This meant that according to her clock the time was between 2.00 and 2.59 a.m. If it was at the end of that bracket, it differed very little from the time suggested by Susan Battersby's evidence.
-
Jeremy was ringing the police at 3.26. Spending several minutes on hold. This was after spending several minutes looking for the phone number of a police station several miles away. So could not have phoned Julie at 3.30am.
After phoning the police, Jeremy would not have had time to phone Julie, get smartly dressed & arrive at WHF by 3.48am, driving slowly. None of the witnesses said the call was after 3.30am.
Jeremy phoned Julie at 3.00am. Cleaned himself up, then phoned the police.
-
Julie said during the 3am phone call Jeremy said 'he had not slept' & 'everything was going well'.
When the police asked Jeremy why he phoned Julie at this time, Jeremy said 'no comment'. Although in court he could not say 'no comment', so said he rang Julie for support ???
Why an earth ring Julie before you even know what is actually happening ?
-
The police inform Jeremy what Nevill has told them.
So Nevill did telephone the police!
-
No answer came the firm reply ! But he's learning. ;)
-
Morning lookout he is still in his bed. He will arise and attack ;D
-
Morning Susan,,I'd still like to know what his motive is because he HAS got an ulterior one. ;)
He's NOT a genuine debater.
-
Morning lookout don't think he has the type of brain to have a "motive" he just likes a platform and an audience he would be exactly the same if he was talking about hill walking or morris dancing hope he never decides to take up politics ;D see him as a morris dancer myself ;D
-
I just picture him as a sheep,Susan. ;D
-
lookout ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I love sheep :'(
-
lookout ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I love sheep :'(
I prefer them roasted,Susan. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
lookout :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
-
So it seems that Jeremys phone call was at 3.00am. The most damning evidence from Joanna Wood.
However there is a slim chance it was at 3.30am. Hang on, didn't Jeremy ring the police at 3.26am. The call lasting several minutes after being put on hold ? So he couldn't have rang Julie at 3.30am.
Maybe Jeremy rang Julie at 3.40. Hang on, he was driving (slowly) to WHF at that time after getting smartly dressed. And none of the witnesses said the call was that late.
If this evidence & the 4 witnesses are correct & Jeremy phoned Julie around 3am, that is over 20 minutes before 'dad' rang Jeremy. But Jeremy said he was sleeping like a log with his answering machine switched off. 'Dad's' call waking him.
I will leave the last words to Jeremy when asked why he phoned Julie at that unsocial hour - 'No comment'. That was after intially saying he phoned Julie first.
It may explain why he told JM that there was something wrong at the farm? Something he would not have known if his father hadn't have phoned him.
-
Jeremy was ringing the police at 3.26. Spending several minutes on hold. This was after spending several minutes looking for the phone number of a police station several miles away. So could not have phoned Julie at 3.30am.
After phoning the police, Jeremy would not have had time to phone Julie, get smartly dressed & arrive at WHF by 3.48am, driving slowly. None of the witnesses said the call was after 3.30am.
Jeremy phoned Julie at 3.00am. Cleaned himself up, then phoned the police.
Times are rather fluid it seems this this case. Even the clock at the police station was apparently misread?
-
It may explain why he told JM that there was something wrong at the farm? Something he would not have known if his father hadn't have phoned him.
Jeremy also said 'everything is going well' & he had 'not been to sleep'. According to Julie.
Jeremy refused to tell the police why he phoned Julie & what he said.
-
" According" to Julie .Yes,,you've said it.
Allegedly,is the term used in what JM had accordingly said.
-
Julies diaries also say Jeremy called her at 3am.
Sorry I forgot to mention that in the thread post.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=255.0
-
I knew you had been making references from the red forum,as I've seen it all before,,but,,,is what they say,backed up with documentation like it is on this forum ?
-
It is Julies hand written diary. Where I found it is not the issue.
The wording is very damaging to Jeremy. And more proof he phoned her at 3am.
But why did Jeremy tell the police straight away that Neville's call woke him up ?
-
And why did Jeremy leave WHF at 5.40am to phone Julie from a call box. Before anyone had entered WHF ? Source in Julies diaries.
He was so confident no one was alive he told her not to go to work & a police car was picking her up.
-
Jeremy also said 'everything is going well' & he had 'not been to sleep'. According to Julie.
Jeremy refused to tell the police why he phoned Julie & what he said.
This is probably how it went. I will paraphrase it.
Jeremy phones JM: RING RING. RING RING. "Hello (in a sleepy voice) "It's Jerry". "Oh hi Jerry. What's up?" Everything's going well with me.....erm....there's something wrong at the farm". JM: "It's probably nothing. Go back to bed".
Thinks Jeremy: "What shall I do. It's Sheila on one of her fits again. Dad sounded worried. But on the other hand he phoned me and not the cops. What shall I do? I know, I'll phone the local plod. Perhaps they can advise me. It may be nothing? But on the other hand She may have got out of hand. Although she's never been violent before. So I should think dad just needs my help as usual?"
-
Adam think if the Jury read all your posts they would find Jeremy Bamber GUILTY ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
'Everything is going well'.
'I have not slept all night'.
From the 3am call. Written by Julie in her diary.
Julie cannot change her diary. Every page was written on the day. Each day having entries.
If the police wanted to see what she wrote on the massacre night, they would have taken the whole diary to make sure it is genuine.
-
'Everything is going well'.
'I have not slept all night'.
From the 3am call. Written by Julie in her diary.
Julie cannot change her diary. Every page was written on the day. Each day having entries.
If the police wanted to see what she wrote on the massacre night, they would have taken the whole diary to make sure it is genuine.
Hmm. I wonder when JM began writing her...erm...diary? ::)
A diary can easily be backdated from when she obtained it. Why can't you think logically?
-
This is probably how it went. I will paraphrase it.
Jeremy phones JM: RING RING. RING RING. "Hello (in a sleepy voice) "It's Jerry". "Oh hi Jerry. What's up?" Everything's going well with me.....erm....there's something wrong at the farm". JM: "It's probably nothing. Go back to bed".
Thinks Jeremy: "What shall I do. It's Sheila on one of her fits again. Dad sounded worried. But on the other hand he phoned me and not the cops. What shall I do? I know, I'll phone the local plod. Perhaps they can advise me. It may be nothing? But on the other hand She may have got out of hand. Although she's never been violent before. So I should think dad just needs my help as usual?"
Thank you Graheme.
I laughed out loud at the 'everything is going well with me' claim.
-
Thank you Graheme.
I laughed out loud at the 'everything is going well with me' claim.
Laugh away hyena boy. Its just like saying. Oh I'm ok. But there's something wrong at the farm?
-
Hmm. I wonder when JM began writing her...erm...diary? ::)
A diary can easily be backdated from when she obtained it. Why can't you think logically?
Not if the 7th August 85 page is already full.
The first entries on that date would be the 3am & 5.40am phone calls. Adding them on at the bottom of page would be too obvious.
Think logically Graheme.
-
Hmm. I wonder when JM began writing her...erm...diary? ::)
A diary can easily be backdated from when she obtained it. Why can't you think logically?
Months, years ? Who knows.
If the police wanted to cross check her diaries with what she was saying, they would have checked this.
-
Seemed like every man an his dog were keeping diaries!! ::)
-
Not if the 7th August 85 page is already full.
The first entries on that date would be the 3am & 5.40am phone calls. Adding them on at the bottom of page would be too obvious.
Think logically Graheme.
Use you common sense Adam. A diary is always written after the event. I personally would like to see when she actually started her diary?
-
Jeremys Official Site has to say why he phoned Julie at 3am.
Or prove that he did not. All the evidence is pointing against him & showing his guilt.
-
Jeremys Official Site has to say why he phoned Julie at 3am.
Or prove that he did not. All the evidence is pointing against him & showing his guilt.
Link please.
-
Jeremys Official Site has to say why he phoned Julie at 3am.
Or prove that he did not. All the evidence is pointing against him & showing his guilt.
Besides your " official site " being information from the red forum,,which site/link did they glean it from ?
-
Link please.
Link.
Read the post. Jeremys OS 'has' to say...
So far they have not said.
-
Link.
Read the post. Jeremys OS 'has' to say...
So far they have not said.
You said you always privide links. So where is this link please?
-
You've forgotten the source,Graham. With Adam,,it's sauce ( source ) with everything.
-
Julies diaries also say Jeremy called her at 3am.
Sorry I forgot to mention that in the thread post.
And can you validate for us the exact time it was thought to be judicious for Julie to begin writing a diary?
-
You said you always privide links. So where is this link please?
Use you're brain.
The OS is always claming he is innocent.
They have to prove he did not phone Julie at 3am. They have not.
All the evidence shows he did. Four witnesses, a diary & the fact that Jeremy spent several minutes from 3.26am on the phone with the police. So could not have phoned Julie at 3.30am.
It is highlighting certain guilt.
-
Use you're brain.
The OS is always claming he is innocent.
They have to prove he did not phone Julie at 3am. They have not.
All the evidence shows he did. Four witnesses, a diary & the fact that Jeremy spent several minutes from 3.26am on the phone with the police. So could not have phoned Julie at 3.30am.
It is highlighting certain guilt.
All I want is a link.
-
Use you're brain.
The OS is always claming he is innocent.
They have to prove he did not phone Julie at 3am. They have not.
All the evidence shows he did. Four witnesses, a diary & the fact that Jeremy spent several minutes from 3.26am on the phone with the police. So could not have phoned Julie at 3.30am.
It is highlighting certain guilt.
Isn't it somewhat difficult to prove something that no one seems to be positive about to start with. I would have called it a case of "Take Your Pick" which is clearly what you've done.
-
All I want is a link.
How can I provide a link for what the OS have not said ? Dhhh
-
Isn't it somewhat difficult to prove something that no one seems to be positive about to start with. I would have called it a case of "Take Your Pick" which is clearly what you've done.
I have just quoted 4 witnesses. A hand written diary & Jeremys 3.26 phone call to the police.
All showing Jeremy called Julie at 3.00am = guilty.
-
How can I provide a link for what the OS have not said ? Dhhh
You haven't proven that the call was at 3am - just claiming it isn't a fact Adam!!
-
All I want is a link.
Grahame, has it not dawned on you that whenever Adam finds himself in the odur, he blames it on the OS :D
-
I have just quoted 4 witnesses. A hand written diary & Jeremys 3.26 phone call to the police.
All showing Jeremy called Julie at 3.00am = guilty.
You haven't PROVED the call was at 3 am, only CLAIMED it was. Don't you know the difference?
-
I have just quoted 4 witnesses. A hand written diary & Jeremys 3.26 phone call to the police.
All showing Jeremy called Julie at 3.00am = guilty.
NONE of whom can give an exact time.
-
How can I provide a link for what the OS have not said ? Dhhh
Well why bring the official site into the argument then? The only evidence you have is that all the 3 girls agreed together that Jeremy phoned at 3am. Before that JM said he phoned ay 3.20am. I suggest to you that they just got together and agreed on a particular time. I mean one girl always set her clock fast. The other wasn't exactly sure and JM herself stated that it was around 3.20. It doesn't sound very definite to me. In actual fact a later time would be a more natural occurance.
-
You haven't PROVED the call was at 3 am, only CLAIMED it was. Don't you know the difference?
I am afraid I have proved it. Read the first page of this thread & Julies diaries. A mountain of evidence.
Where is the evidence showing Jeremy phoned Julie after the police. None.
The judge mentioned the 3am call in his summing up. Very damaging.
-
Well why bring the official site into the argument then? The only evidence you have is that all the 3 girls agreed together that Jeremy phoned at 3am. Before that JM said he phoned ay 3.20am. I suggest to you that they just got together and agreed on a particular time. I mean one girl always set her clock fast. The other wasn't exactly sure and JM herself stated that it was around 3.20. It doesn't sound very definite to me. In actual fact a later time would be a more natural occurance.
The most damaging witness said her digital clock said 2 something.
Oh dear.
-
I am afraid I have proved it. Read the first page of this thread & Julies diaries. A mountain of evidence.
Where is the evidence showing Jeremy phoned Julie after the police. None.
The judge mentioned the 3am call in his summing up. Very damaging.
YOU have proved NOTHING. As for digesting what you twist and present as truth, I wasn't born yesterday, Adam.
-
I appreciate that Jeremys supporters have to rubbish all the evidence showing Jeremy phoned Julie at 3am.
But sometimes you have to accept it happened.
Jeremy being awake at 3am does not make him guilty. But he needs to say why he told police he was sleeping 'like a log' & Nevilles call woke him. His answering machine strangly switched off.
-
The most damaging witness said her digital clock said 2 something.
Oh dear.
Was this " damaging " witness aware that Sheila was still alive at that time ? And also at 7am onwards ?
-
Was this " damaging " witness aware that Sheila was still alive at that time ? And also at 7am onwards ?
So it was Sheila barking like a dog.
-
So it was Sheila barking like a dog.
Do as you always do, Adam. Believe what you want.
-
YOU have proved NOTHING. As for digesting what you twist and present as truth, I wasn't born yesterday, Adam.
I will post the documents again. How can I twist documents ?
-
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=255.0
-
I will post the documents again. How can I twist documents ?
Would you like me to list them? Shall we start with just about ALL of what Dr F said of Sheila?
-
And why did Jeremy leave WHF at 5.40am to phone Julie from a call box. Before anyone had entered WHF ? Source in Julies diaries.
He was so confident no one was alive he told her not to go to work & a police car was picking her up.
so where would he phone from? the police wanted him out of the way at some time and going to or being taken to a phone box by the police was what you would expect. in such a situation you would also expect the police to want a close friend to be available so it would be reasonable to arrange for her to be collected.
wilf
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=255.0
In actual fact the diary in that link proves that she backdated it. Because she supposedly writes on January 1st 1985. But talks about the funeral in August 1985. Similarly so in the 6th August page. She writes in the past tense all the time.
-
In actual fact the diary in that link proves that she backdated it. Because she supposedly writes on January 1st 1985. But talks about the funeral in August 1985. Similarly so in the 6th August page. She writes in the past tense all the time.
GRAHAME!!! You're right!!! How the HELL can she write, on Jan 2nd 1985, things pertaining to a crime which doesn't happen in till August 1985?
-
What she's done here,,is completely,and purposely side-tracked the right date because she KNEW damn well that Jeremy was innocent,and that had she written using the correct time/date etc,,then she would be perjuring. See what I'm getting at ? So she did have half a conscience at least,,but not enough,I'm afraid,in order to gain his freedom.
If she'd have written into the dates intended,,it would have appeared as the written truth. She was one crafty,cunning bint.
-
so where would he phone from? the police wanted him out of the way at some time and going to or being taken to a phone box by the police was what you would expect. in such a situation you would also expect the police to want a close friend to be available so it would be reasonable to arrange for her to be collected.
wilf
The police asked Jeremy if he had some one close he would like to contact and he obviously said Jeremy. The police then took him to a phone box to phone her. I would imagine there was a conversation between Jeremy and the police and they said they would pick Julie up and bring her down to his cottage. The police did it to distract Jeremy while they broke into the house, Adam.
-
You've only to think of the time that JM visited the mortuary,and " asked " a deceased Sheila,who'd done it. Would she have uttered those words if she'd KNOWN it to be Jeremy ? No,,she wasn't the type. JM was seeking guidance,assurance,call it what you like,but her conscience was beginning to waver after having been told so many things by the police and the relatives.
Notice that she didn't shout it out in court that " he done it ".Her words !
-
I'm convinced that whether Jeremy dumped JM or not,,and that if JM hadn't been offered £25,000,,then she wouldn't have played any part in " sending Jeremy down ". It's surprising the effect that an offer of money creates.It immediately brings out the mistrust in a person. Money is power to a simple mind.
It was nothing less than bribery and corruption on the part of the police in order to get a conviction. How utterly wrong and unjust was this ?
-
In actual fact the diary in that link proves that she backdated it. Because she supposedly writes on January 1st 1985. But talks about the funeral in August 1985. Similarly so in the 6th August page. She writes in the past tense all the time.
Oh dear, no response from Adam - unsurprisingly!!
-
I appreciate that Jeremys supporters have to rubbish all the evidence showing Jeremy phoned Julie at 3am.
But sometimes you have to accept it happened.
Jeremy being awake at 3am does not make him guilty. But he needs to say why he told police he was sleeping 'like a log' & Nevilles call woke him. His answering machine strangly switched off.
You haven't posted any evidence to support your 'theory' A back dated diary and a bunch of people all giving different times isn't proof of anything but it does support the notion of a frame up!!
-
Adam did not get my post at all did he ?
I think it clearly shows that the timings of calls was manipulated because there was immunity offered to the girls.
The fact that the police tried to say the clock was wrong in the station , which was later denied as well shows this as well.
Julie in her OWS says he called her about 3.30 - which could have been possible - so either her diary or her OWS taken the day afterwards was not the truth.
Take your pick Adam - its obvious you will chose the one that suits you.
Personally I think the timings of calls are not relevant without proof so you are wasting your time - they have been changed by witnesses and EP all the way through so you are on a bit of a lost trail really .
-
Adam did not get my post at all did he ?
I think it clearly shows that the timings of calls was manipulated because there was immunity offered to the girls.
The fact that the police tried to say the clock was wrong in the station , which was later denied as well shows this as well.
Julie in her OWS says he called her about 3.30 - which could have been possible - so either her diary or her OWS taken the day afterwards was not the truth.
They fudge them here, They fudge then there,
They fudge those timings everywhere
3 or 3.30, both will do well
In convincing the jury to send Jeremy to hell.
Take your pick Adam - its obvious you will chose the one that suits you.
Personally I think the timings of calls are not relevant without proof so you are wasting your time - they have been changed by witnesses and EP all the way through so you are on a bit of a lost trail really .
-
so where would he phone from? the police wanted him out of the way at some time and going to or being taken to a phone box by the police was what you would expect. in such a situation you would also expect the police to want a close friend to be available so it would be reasonable to arrange for her to be collected.
wilf
You do not understand my point.
Jeremy rang Julie at 5.40am. Telling her a police car was picking her up.
However the raid team had not even arrived. No one knew what had happened in WHF. Everyone could be asleep & alive. But Jeremy seemed sure that was not the case & was not interested in staying outside WHF to see if there were any developments. How did he know ?
After his 3.00am phone call, Jeremy phoned again less than three hours later. Wanting Julie to come over as quickly as possible. Itching to do a bit of boasting ?
-
Adam did not get my post at all did he ?
I think it clearly shows that the timings of calls was manipulated because there was immunity offered to the girls.
The fact that the police tried to say the clock was wrong in the station , which was later denied as well shows this as well.
Julie in her OWS says he called her about 3.30 - which could have been possible - so either her diary or her OWS taken the day afterwards was not the truth.
Take your pick Adam - its obvious you will chose the one that suits you.
Personally I think the timings of calls are not relevant without proof so you are wasting your time - they have been changed by witnesses and EP all the way through so you are on a bit of a lost trail really .
Oh yes, Susan Battersby lied to prevent a life term after the joint cheque book fraud.
And what about the other two witnesses ? One saying her digital clock said 2 something ?
Proof. What are witnesses ?
-
You haven't posted any evidence to support your 'theory' A back dated diary and a bunch of people all giving different times isn't proof of anything but it does support the notion of a frame up!!
I am afraid you are wrong again.
Four people said the call was between 2.00am - 3.00am. Jeremy was on the phone at 3.26am for several minutes so could not have phoned Julie at 3.30am.
Julies diary says it was 3.00am. There is no evidence it was falseified or backdated. It was not discussed in court so what was the point ?
Anyway I have created a thread saying Jeremy being awake at 3.00am does not make him guilty. Do you agree ?
-
I'm convinced that whether Jeremy dumped JM or not,,and that if JM hadn't been offered £25,000,,then she wouldn't have played any part in " sending Jeremy down ". It's surprising the effect that an offer of money creates.It immediately brings out the mistrust in a person. Money is power to a simple mind.
It was nothing less than bribery and corruption on the part of the police in order to get a conviction. How utterly wrong and unjust was this ?
Jeremy did not dump Julie. He said himself the relationship had been coming to a close over several months. Julie would have been pleased to escape after Jeremys confession regarding the massacre & his asking another woman out in front on her. Amyway a scorned woman is more likely to tell the truth.
The NOTW offer would not have been until 1986. Julie would not have been expecting an offer when she first started speaking with the police.
-
You do not understand my point.
Jeremy rang Julie at 5.40am. Telling her a police car was picking her up.
However the raid team had not even arrived. No one knew what had happened in WHF. Everyone could be asleep & alive. But Jeremy seemed sure that was not the case & was not interested in staying outside WHF to see if there were any developments. How did he know ?
After his 3.00am phone call, Jeremy phoned again less than three hours later. Wanting Julie to come over as quickly as possible. Itching to do a bit of boasting ?
Adam, the police suggested Jeremy rang a close friend or relative, they took him to the phone box and supplied the car to collect Julie so Jeremy would have emotional support at such a traumatic time. It is normal procedure in such a situation. Your post is callous, misleading and untrue.
-
Jeremy did not dump Julie. He said himself the relationship had been coming to a close over several months. Julie would have been pleased to escape after Jeremys confession regarding the massacre & his asking another woman out in front on her. Amyway a scorned woman is more likely to tell the truth.
The NOTW offer would not have been until 1986. Julie would not have been expecting an offer when she first started speaking with the police.
HE may have seen it that way because that's how it had been for him but it doesn't mean that Julie felt the same. You say Julie "would have been pleased to escape" but she had a choice. She never DIDN'T have a choice and I suspect she clung on because "If I can't have you, nobody will." THAT would stimulate not truth but REVENGE.
-
Adam, the police suggested Jeremy rang a close friend or relative, the took him to the phone box and supplied the car so Jeremy would have emotional support. It is normal procedure in such a situation. Your post is misleading and is totally untruth.
Source please.
Thought the police would want Jeremy to stay at WHF. Sheila may engage & Jeremy could help talk her down. After all Neville had rang Jeremy at 3.20am.
-
HE may have seen it that way because that's how it had been for him but it doesn't mean that Julie felt the same. You say Julie "would have been pleased to escape" but she had a choice. She never DIDN'T have a choice and I suspect she clung on because "If I can't have you, nobody will." THAT would stimulate not truth but REVENGE.
Oh yes. That quote, which Julie put in her WS.
Bit silly of Julie & Stan Jones to put it in her WS if they were trying to frame Jeremy.
-
Source please.
Thought the police would want Jeremy to stay at WHF. Sheila may engage & Jeremy could help talk her down. After all Neville had rang Jeremy at 3.20am.
I am on my phone at the moment so cannot supply source. I think it is in a wit stat of someone from EP. I shall find it but not today. Please bear with me as I am not too well at the moment.
Wouldn't hurt you to read wit stats, you might learn a few things.
-
I can back Maggie up with the fact that Jeremy was advised/led by the police to phone Julie. That was when he told her that a police car would pick her up from the station on her journey into Essex.
Remember that Jeremy had no family left,to speak of. Obviously,if there'd been a closeness with the relatives,he'd have been in touch with them as they were nearer than Julie,,but because there wasn't,he didn't have a choice,and his pal Brett was in Greece at that time.
If I had relatives like that,I'd only speak to them through a medium !
Look for the sources yourself.We all had to do,for reference.
-
I can back Maggie up with the fact that Jeremy was advised/led by the police to phone Julie. That was when he told her that a police car would pick her up from the station on her journey into Essex.
Remember that Jeremy had no family left,to speak of. Obviously,if there'd been a closeness with the relatives,he'd have been in touch with them as they were nearer than Julie,,but because there wasn't,he didn't have a choice,and his pal Brett was in Greece at that time.
If I had relatives like that,I'd only speak to them through a medium !
Look for the sources yourself.We all had to do,for reference.
Source please. Surprise me.
I supplied several sources yesterday. Don't see why you should tell me to look for sources if you can supply them on a discussion forum.
-
It wouldn't make a scrap of difference if I was to put up the Encyclopaedia Britannica,,you'd still ask for the bloody source,,or argue that it was wrong.
-
It wouldn't make a scrap of difference if I was to put up the Encyclopaedia Britannica,,you'd still ask for the bloody source,,or argue that it was wrong.
Oh dear. You have not got a source. Again.
-
Source please.
Thought the police would want Jeremy to stay at WHF. Sheila may engage & Jeremy could help talk her down. After all Neville had rang Jeremy at 3.20am.
What, hast thou been so long on these forums and ye know not these things? ::)
-
Oh dear. You have not got a source. Again.
Sources for whatever you want/need are ALL on this forum. Archives for instance.Use your flaming eyes ! Your trouble is that you're not interested in anything unless it's slagging Jeremy off,so therefore,you won't even bother looking.
You've been reading all the wrong things that have no supportive documentation.
-
Sources for whatever you want/need are ALL on this forum. Archives for instance.Use your flaming eyes ! Your trouble is that you're not interested in anything unless it's slagging Jeremy off,so therefore,you won't even bother looking.
You've been reading all the wrong things that have no supportive documentation.
Adam's idea of a source is linking to whole manuscripts so you have to read pages and pages of the stuff before you actually reach the relevant bit. ;D
-
Sources for whatever you want/need are ALL on this forum. Archives for instance.Use your flaming eyes ! Your trouble is that you're not interested in anything unless it's slagging Jeremy off,so therefore,you won't even bother looking.
You've been reading all the wrong things that have no supportive documentation.
Oh dear. Once again you have not got a source.
You know a lot about what the jury were told or not told in court. I asked you a basic question recently about the trial. You did not answer. Would you like me to ask it again ? I already know the answer.
-
Oh dear. Once again you have not got a source.
You know a lot about what the jury were told or not told in court. I asked you a basic question recently about the trial. You did not answer. Would you like me to ask it again ? I already know the answer.
I've got some tomato sauce.
-
Oh yes. That quote, which Julie put in her WS.
Bit silly of Julie & Stan Jones to put it in her WS if they were trying to frame Jeremy.
My point was, she wasn't compelled to stay with him. She CHOSE to.
-
My point was, she wasn't compelled to stay with him. She CHOSE to.
Yes, for one month. Partly persuaded to by Jeremy, who persuaded her to go away with him & Brett & to the funeral.
-
Yes, for one month. Partly persuaded to by Jeremy, who persuaded her to go away with jim & Brett & to the funeral.
For one month until he dumped her. I'd be interested to hear what you consider is meant by being dumped.
-
For one month until he dumped her. I'd be interested to hear what you consider is meant by being dumped.
Read my recent thread about scorned women.
Julie was not dumped. But appreciate you have to doggedly always say she was. Otherwise why would Julie tell the police.
-
Read my recent thread about scorned women.
Julie was not dumped. But appreciate you have to doggedly always say she was. Otherwise why would Julie tell the police.
Oh so you know all about scorned women do you? ;D
-
Read my recent thread about scorned women.
Julie was not dumped. But appreciate you have to doggedly always say she was. Otherwise why would Julie tell the police.
Forgive me for drawing your attention to it, but for more than one reason I'm in a better position than yourself to know what scorned women are capable of. I will ask you AGAIN what is YOUR interpretation of being dumped.
-
Oh so you know all about scorned women do you? ;D
If he doesn't,,he soon will,Grahame. ;D ;D
-
Forgive me for drawing your attention to it, but for more than one reason I'm in a better position than yourself to know what scorned women are capable of. I will ask you AGAIN what is YOUR interpretation of being dumped.
This is not about me.
Was Julie crying, refusing to leave Jeremy. Pestering him, begging him on her knees to stay with her ? Not as far as I know.
-
This is not about me.
Was Julie crying, refusing to leave Jeremy. Pestering him, begging him on her knees to stay with her ? Not as far as I know.
I rather think "If I can't have you, nobody will" tells us quite a lot. I'd still like to know what, for you, constitutes "being dumped" and why you think it can't be applied to Julie. It isn't a trick question.
-
Read my recent thread about scorned women.
Julie was not dumped. But appreciate you have to doggedly always say she was. Otherwise why would Julie tell the police.
This isn't about you!
-
This is not about me.
Was Julie crying, refusing to leave Jeremy. Pestering him, begging him on her knees to stay with her ? Not as far as I know.
No. She just put a cusion over his head saying, "If I can't have you no one will".
-
I rather think "If I can't have you, nobody will" tells us quite a lot. I'd still like to know what, for you, constitutes "being dumped" and why you think it can't be applied to Julie. It isn't a trick question.
Saw a psychologist intervewed recently speaking about a narcissist who had killed. He used those same words ...... 'if I can't have her, no one else can'. Interesting? The psychologist stated that was a typical attitude of a narcissist ........?????
-
Saw a psychologkst intervewed recently speaking abought a narcissist who had milled.He used tbose same words ...... 'if I can't have her, no one else can'. Interesting? The psychologist stated that was typical attitude of a narcissist ........?????
Well, the prosecution`s "star" "witness" was a bit on the unstable side.
-
Saw a psychologkst intervewed recently speaking about a narcissist who had killled.He used tbose same words ...... 'if I can't have her, no one else can'. Interesting? The psychologist stated that was typical attitude of a narcissist ........?????
Narcissistic would certainly seem an apt description, Maggie, but although there's no treatment/cure it does tent to dissipate at around 50.
-
Well, the prosecution`s "star" "witness" was a bit on the unstable side.
Certainly looks like it Alias. :)
-
I'm still waiting for Adam to respond to my request for him to explain his definition of being dumped.
-
I'm still waiting for Adam to respond to my request for him to explain his definition of being dumped.
I'm still waiting for Adam to respond to Aunt Agatha's posts.
-
Heheheheeee ;D He's probably trawling the internet looking for suitable ripostes.
-
Heheheheeee ;D He's probably trawling the internet looking for suitable ripostes.
He'll be lucky to find anything to stand up against that, April. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Adam, the police suggested Jeremy rang a close friend or relative, they took him to the phone box and supplied the car to collect Julie so Jeremy would have emotional support at such a traumatic time. It is normal procedure in such a situation. Your post is callous, misleading and untrue.
Still waiting for you're source. Thank you.
-
Are we sure that Julie said, "if I can't have you, no one can"?
Where does this bit of 'evidence' come from?
-
Are we sure that Julie said, "if I can't have you, no one can"?
Where does this bit of 'evidence' come from?
Think it may have come from JM herself Neil. Needs checking ... will put it on my list. ;)
-
Still waiting for you're source. Thank you.
You will have to wait, I have told you I'm not well.
-
Think it may have come from JM herself Neil. Needs checking ... will put it on my list. ;)
Is it not in her witness statement ? But Julie is a liar & everything in her WS is not true. Even her diary was made up.
Silly thing to include if she was trying to frame Jeremy.
-
You will have to wait, I have told you I'm not well.
But you're well enough to post ?
-
Don't be so cheeky,Adam.
-
But you're well enough to post ?
That is out of order Adam.
-
Think it may have come from JM herself Neil. Needs checking ... will put it on my list. ;)
Thanks Maggie. Get well soon.
-
Adam you leave Maggie alone and get off her case she will supply you with what you are asking when she is fit and well.
-
Thanks Maggie. Get well soon.
Thanks Neil, hope you are well. :)
-
Get well soon, maggie!
-
Get well soon, maggie!
Thanks Alias, am doing really well but takes time. :)
-
Julie said some strange things in her WS. Considering she was trying to frame Jeremy.
-
It is almost certain that Jeremy called Julie at 3.00am, before phoning the police & Nevilles call. Even Jeremy himself intially said he phoned Julie first.
Jeremys supporters dispute this although it may actually help his case if he was already awake when Neville called. Although it shows Jeremy was lying when claiming Nevilles call woke him.
Before or after. It was a very strange call Jeremy made.
There are lots of reasons below why Jeremy would not phone Julie after the police -
Neville had asked Jeremy to 'Come quickly'.
It was 3.00am. The phone may not be answered at all.
It was 3.00am. The phone may not be answered for a long time. Neville had asked Jeremy to 'come quickly'.
Jeremy had already spent a long time looking for the number of Chelmsford police station. Neville had asked Jeremy to 'come quickly'.
Julie would be half asleep & irritated at being woken up. Her answer is likely to be flippent.
Julie did not know the family as well as Jeremy. So may give poor advice.
Julie had not received Nevilles call so again would not be able to give a reasoned answer.
Jeremy did not need Julies advice. He had already made his decision. Ringing up Chelmsford police station & agreeing to meet them at WHF.
Jeremy did not need Julies support. He was a confident man of 24.
Julie was in London. She could not ring back on her phone so was no use during the rest of the night. It would just create worry for Julie.
Jeremy had no idea what had happened at WHF. Why ring someone just to say you do not know what is happening ?
Do other people think phoning Julie after the police would be unrealistic ?
-
I have move the above post because we don't need another thread about the same phone call - the topic is the same!!
-
Good idea.
My 11 reasons/facts go together with the substantial evidence already written on this thread.
Jeremy being awake at 3.00am has good & bad points.
Good points -
He is more likely to answer the phone before the answering machine came on. Neville would have been unlikely to wait several minutes for an answer if the answering machine was off.
Bad points -
Jeremy was awake and rang Julie before Neville rang. According to Julie, Jeremy already knew there was something wrong at the farm, he had not slept all night & everything was going well. Jeremy did not refute this to the police, saying 'no comment' when asked why he phoned Julie. If Jeremy knew these things at 3.00am, he must be the murderer.
Jeremy lied to the police, saying Nevilles call woke him up. He then lied to the police saying he phoned Julie after the police.
-
Good idea.
My 11 reasons/facts go together with the substantial evidence already written on this thread.
Jeremy being awake at 3.00am has good & bad points.
Good points -
He is more likely to answer the phone before the answering machine came on. Neville would have been unlikely to wait several minutes for an answer if the answering machine was off.
Bad points -
Jeremy was awake and rang Julie before Neville rang.
Jeremy lied to the police, saying Nevilles call woke him up. He then lied to the police saying he phoned Julie after the police.
Or the answer-phone may not have been on - but you can play around with the 'maybe's' all you like but you will NEVER know for sure!!
-
Just modified my last post.
The bad points really do point to guilt.
If Julie is telling the truth about what Jeremy said at his strange 3.00am call. Julie was not lying about receiving a phone call from Jeremy. Other witnesses were woken by the call. Jeremy himself admitted making the call, when interviewed by the police. However refused to say what he said to Julie.
-
It is almost certain that Jeremy called Julie at 3.00am, before phoning the police & Nevilles call. Even Jeremy himself intially said he phoned Julie first.
Jeremys supporters dispute this although it may actually help his case if he was already awake when Neville called. Although it shows Jeremy was lying when claiming Nevilles call woke him.
Before or after. It was a very strange call Jeremy made.
There are lots of reasons below why Jeremy would not phone Julie after the police -
Neville had asked Jeremy to 'Come quickly'.
It was 3.00am. The phone may not be answered at all.
It was 3.00am. The phone may not be answered for a long time. Neville had asked Jeremy to 'come quickly'.
Jeremy had already spent a long time looking for the number of Chelmsford police station. Neville had asked Jeremy to 'come quickly'.
Julie would be half asleep & irritated at being woken up. Her answer is likely to be flippent.
Julie did not know the family as well as Jeremy. So may give poor advice.
Julie had not received Nevilles call so again would not be able to give a reasoned answer.
Jeremy did not need Julies advice. He had already made his decision. Ringing up Chelmsford police station & agreeing to meet them at WHF.
Jeremy did not need Julies support. He was a confident man of 24.
Julie was in London. She could not ring back on her phone so was no use during the rest of the night. It would just create worry for Julie.
Jeremy had no idea what had happened at WHF. Why ring someone just to say you do not know what is happening ?
Do other people think phoning Julie after the police would be unrealistic ?
Julie Mugford answered hers. If the phone in my house goes of at 3am I always hear it when I'm asleep. In fact I think that most people would answer their phones at that time, because it would more than likely be an emergency.
-
Good idea.
My 11 reasons/facts go together with the substantial evidence already written on this thread.
Jeremy being awake at 3.00am has good & bad points.
Good points -
He is more likely to answer the phone before the answering machine came on. Neville would have been unlikely to wait several minutes for an answer if the answering machine was off.
Bad points -
Jeremy was awake and rang Julie before Neville rang. According to Julie, Jeremy already knew there was something wrong at the farm, he had not slept all night & everything was going well. Jeremy did not refute this to the police, saying 'no comment' when asked why he phoned Julie. If Jeremy knew these things at 3.00am, he must be the murderer.
Jeremy lied to the police, saying Nevilles call woke him up. He then lied to the police saying he phoned Julie after the police.
I thought he rang her in response to his father ringing him?
-
There was no suspicion,nor ulterior motive in Jeremy phoning JM at all. Little things like that have been blown out of all proportion to make it look bad for Jeremy.The same as everything else has been.
Apart from the tragedy itself,,the whole case against Jeremy has been,,in Shakespeares' words " Much Ado About Nothing ".
-
I thought he rang her in response to his father ringing him?
He did Grahame, except in Adams world. ;D
-
Julie Mugford answered hers. If the phone in my house goes of at 3am I always hear it when I'm asleep. In fact I think that most people would answer their phones at that time, because it would more than likely be an emergency.
Thought her flatmate answered the phone.
Seems everyone was answering the phone & making calls at 3.00am that night.
Neville ringing his sleeping like a log son three miles away. While Sheila was going crazy with a gun.
Jeremy ringing Julie at 3.00am and then a police station miles away.
Even the good old fashioned pay phone got into the act at 5.40am.
-
I thought he rang her in response to his father ringing him?
No. Read my post on page one.
-
There was no suspicion,nor ulterior motive in Jeremy phoning JM at all. Little things like that have been blown out of all proportion to make it look bad for Jeremy.The same as everything else has been.
Apart from the tragedy itself,,the whole case against Jeremy has been,,in Shakespeares' words " Much Ado About Nothing ".
Why do you think Jeremy would phone Julie after phoning the police ?
Advice ? No he had already made his decision & was meeting the police at WHF. Although Neville apparently liked to keep things private.
Comfort ? Well Julie was asleep & would have been irritated at being woken up. As most people would be. Julie gave a flippant answer. Surely Jeremy would be expecting that.
-
Why do you think Jeremy would phone Julie after phoning the police ? Advice ? No he had already made his decision & was meeting the police at WHF. Although Neville apparently liked to keep things private.
Comfort ? Well Julie was asleep & would have been irritated at being woken up. As most people would be. Julie gave a flippant answer.
And this is exactly what I mean. Assuming you know how people will react to a phone call. Perhaps he thought that as his loving girlfriend she would hear the uncertainty in his voice - realise he must be worried to call her at that time in the morning and offer him some supportive words. Perhaps ask should she come over in case it was serious? ( because he did not know anyone had actually be shot at that time) I would think that would be quite an expected reaction tbh.
-
Ruddy parrot seed for tea again ? Your questions are repeats that have already been answered,Adam.
-
And this is exactly what I mean. Assuming you know how people will react to a phone call. Perhaps he thought that as his loving girlfriend she would hear the uncertainty in his voice - realise he must be worried to call her at that time in the morning and offer him some supportive words. Perhaps ask should she come over in case it was serious? ( because he did not know anyone had actually be shot at that time) I would think that would be quite an expected reaction tbh.
React to a 3.00am phone call.
Julie could not ring back on her phone. Anyway Jeremy was going to be incommunicardo at WHF. So she could not provide ongoing support.
Travel over ? It was 3.00am. She was a student miles away. She did not know what was happening. And neither did Jeremy, (although what he said suggests otherwise). Julie could not go out in Lewisham at that time. Too unsafe, and yes I have been to Lewisham.
-
I posted this back in December, so we have been over this already and rather recently. I think my interpretation of events surrounding the phonecalls makes perfect sense - as much sense as anything anyone might come up with. Here goes:
I think that Jeremy called Julie because he didn´t know what to do. He might have called her before he called the police. I interpret his call like this: He was insecure about what was happening, perhaps there had been incidents with Sheila before (well, we know that there had), and they had been settled within the family. Jeremy would have been unsure what NEVILL WANTED HIM TO DO. He had just asked him to come to the farm, not to call the police, so Jeremy called Julie.
"Everything is going well" meaning, I am OK, (but) "there is a problem at the farm (what should I do?)."
Julie, stoned: "Go back to bed."
Jeremy, now on his own, afraid to go to the farm alone, afraid to call 911 - it could upset a very private Nevill Bamber. He decided on a compromise: the local police, perhaps that would upset Nevill less than a 911 emergency.
That way the whole thing makes some sense, because taken out of this context, it just does not make sense to say: Everything is going well, something is wrong at the farm. And then Julie: go back to bed. No sense.
-
Julie did go over.
Jeremy summoned her over at 5.40am. Telling her a police car was picking her up. Although no one had any idea what had happened inside WHF. And didn't Jeremy say there were conversations inside the house ?
-
And this is exactly what I mean. Assuming you know how people will react to a phone call. Perhaps he thought that as his loving girlfriend she would hear the uncertainty in his voice - realise he must be worried to call her at that time in the morning and offer him some supportive words. Perhaps ask should she come over in case it was serious? ( because he did not know anyone had actually be shot at that time) I would think that would be quite an expected reaction tbh.
I'd be VERY surprised to learn that there was a significant other in Adam's life, Jansus. His understanding of the human state is, I'm afraid,seriously lacking if what he posts is anything to go by.
-
I posted this back in December, so we have been over this already and rather recently. I think my interpretation of events surrounding the phonecalls makes perfect sense - as much sense as anything anyone might come up with. Here goes:
I think that Jeremy called Julie because he didn´t know what to do. He might have called her before he called the police. I interpret his call like this: He was insecure about what was happening, perhaps there had been incidents with Sheila before (well, we know that there had), and they had been settled within the family. Jeremy would have been unsure what NEVILL WANTED HIM TO DO. He had just asked him to come to the farm, not to call the police, so Jeremy called Julie.
"Everything is going well" meaning, I am OK, (but) "there is a problem at the farm (what should I do?)."
Julie, stoned: "Go back to bed."
Jeremy, now on his own, afraid to go to the farm alone, afraid to call 911 - it could upset a very private Nevill Bamber. He decided on a compromise: the local police, perhaps that would upset Nevill less than a 911 emergency.
That way the whole thing makes some sense, because taken out of this context, it just does not make sense to say: Everything is going well, something is wrong at the farm. And then Julie: go back to bed. No sense.
Jeremy gets a call from Neville before 3.00am. Then rings Julie at 3.00am & says 'everything is going well' ? You forgot that he said he 'has not slept all night'.
Then 20 minutes later rings the police at 3.26am. Mind you he did have to get smartly dressed.
-
Julie did go over.
Jeremy summoned her over at 5.40am. Telling her a police car was picking her up. Although no one had any idea what had happened inside WHF. And didn't Jeremy say there were conversations inside the house ?
so ? what is your point?
-
Jeremy gets a call from Neville before 3.00am. Then rings Julie at 3.00am & says 'everything is going well' ? You forgot that he said he 'has not slept all night'.
Then 20 minutes later rings the police at 3.26am. Mind you he did have to get smartly dressed.
The timing you are quoting contradict all of the original WS - AGAIN!
-
Jeremy gets a call from Neville before 3.00am. Then rings Julie at 3.00am & says 'everything is going well' ? You forgot that he said he 'has not slept all night'.
Then 20 minutes later rings the police at 3.26am. Mind you he did have to get smartly dressed.
His mode of dress would depend largely on one's OWN interpretation of "smartly".
-
I don´t put much credence into times that relied on TWO clocks which were not correct and times that were twisted and wiggled into place to fit.
-
so ? what is your point?
Everyone could be alive. So why not stay at WHF and assist the police in talking Sheila down. Neville had taken the trouble to ring Jeremy & ask him to 'come quickly'.
Leaving to find a phone box & phone Julie is another mysterious call.
-
Adam are you having a laugh if you call that smartly dressed dread to think what you wear ;D ;D ;D
-
His mode of dress would depend largely on one's OWN interpretation of "smartly".
Well the police thought he looked very smart.
-
Adam are you having a laugh if you call that smartly dressed dread to think what you wear ;D ;D ;D
Call what smartly dressed ?
-
Everyone could be alive. So why not stay at WHF and assist the police in talking Sheila down. Neville had taken the trouble to ring Jeremy & ask him to 'come quickly'.
Leaving to find a phone box & phone Julie is another mysterious call.
And pigs MIGHT fly. With half of EP surrounding the house, I guess one COULD get the impression that something was seriously wrong. The police should have been more capable than Jeremy of doing whatever was needed.
As for your continuous wittering about the phone box, it's highly likely that the police didn't want jeremy to see what they did next. I don't recall reading anywhere about how Jeremy request a lift to a public call box, which incidentally was VERY much closer that his home in Goldhanger.
-
Adam you tell me your words not mine that he had to get smartly dressed so you must know what he was wearing ;D please share ;)
-
Well the police thought he looked very smart.
It was only their opinion, NOT a given.
-
I don´t put much credence into times that relied on TWO clocks which were not correct and times that were twisted and wiggled into place to fit.
The main issue of this thread is Jeremys second call to Julie.
Jeremy either got a call from Neville before 3.00am. Called Julie at 3.00am. Then over 20 minutes later called the police.
Or there was no call from Neville. Jeremy called Julie at 3.00am. Got cleaned up & then phoned the police.
None of the evidence suggests Jeremy called Julie after the police.
-
The main issue of this thread is Jeremys second call to Julie.
Jeremy either got a call from Neville before 3.00am. Called Julie at 3.00am. Then over 20 minutes later called the police.
Or there was no call from Neville. Jeremy called Julie at 3.00am. Got cleaned up & then phoned the police.
None of the evidence suggests Jeremy called Julie after the police.
WHAT evidence??? Nobody seems to be able to establish call times accurately.
-
Adam if the police said he looked very smart he must have been then ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
WHAT evidence??? Nobody seems to be able to establish call times accurately.
Read page one.
-
WHAT evidence??? Nobody seems to be able to establish call times accurately.
We might as well give up on this. I´ll stick to my interpretation which is very logical and very plausible.
-
Adam if the police said he looked very smart he must have been then ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thought he would have driven over in his dressing gown & slippers. Quickly.
-
When one can't remember the times of phone calls,,it suggests to me that nothing had been either pre-arranged or timed.
It's those who are precise about their timings that you have to worry about ! They daren't slip up you see for fear of letting their guard down.
Liars and murderers are quite fussy about times as they have to learn them as in learning lines of a play.
-
When one can't remember the times of phone calls,,it suggests to me that nothing had been either pre-arranged or timed.
It's those who are precise about their timings that you have to worry about ! They daren't slip up you see for fear of letting their guard down.
Liars and murderers are quite fussy about times as they have to learn them as in learning lines of a play.
Exactly!
"Smartly dressed" - some people only have smart clothes, like me for instance! ;D
-
Read page one.
Adam, assuming that page 1 is something connected to you, it's authenticity is dubious at best.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D Good for you,girl.
-
Adam, assuming that page 1 is something connected to you, it's authenticity is dubious at best.
It relates to transcripts from the 2002 appeal. Documents of Julies diary & based on Jeremys call to the police.
-
It relates to transcripts from the 2002 appeal. Documents of Julies diary & based on Jeremys call.
Ya win some, ya lose some ;D
-
Adam Jeremy would not wear dressing gown and slippers that is old men's dress don't tell me you are sitting there in that attire yourself ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Adam Jeremy would not wear dressing gown and slippers that is old men's dress don't tell me you are sitting there in that attire yourself ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D
-
Adam Jeremy would not wear dressing gown and slippers that is old men's dress don't tell me you are sitting there in that attire yourself ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D
Susie, should think Jeremy would have felt vulnerable and under stress, he would therefore automatically dress himself properly and taken his time. That is normal reaction to such a situation not your fantasy of him running out of the house half dressed and tearing off to WHF at 90 miles a hour. It really doesn't happen like that in real life.
-
Maggie quite right I seem to think I read he put on an extra jumper as he was cold that would be shock not vanity :(
-
Jeremy gets a call from Neville before 3.00am. Then rings Julie at 3.00am & says 'everything is going well' ? You forgot that he said he 'has not slept all night'.
Then 20 minutes later rings the police at 3.26am. Mind you he did have to get smartly dressed.
He also said something's wrong at the farm. So that is an indication that his father had phoned him. I don't believe the time of 3am. The fact the girls changed it continually means that it is probably wrong.
-
Grahame those girls would not know what day it was never mind what time it was ;D
-
Adam Jeremy would not wear dressing gown and slippers that is old men's dress don't tell me you are sitting there in that attire yourself ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hey! I've found a picture of Adam. ;D
-
Alias are you going weak at the knees thinking of Adam in his check style dressing gown and brown furry slippers ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie quite right I seem to think I read he put on an extra jumper as he was cold that would be shock not vanity :(
Think he got the extra jumper out of the car at some point cos he was cold. All these statements are just events repeated by various police sometimes months after the event so we cannot believe them word for word, each person remembers events differently imo.
-
Alias are you going weak at the knees thinking of Adam in his check style dressing gown and brown furry slippers ;D ;D ;D
Maybe a tad frightened wouod be closer to the truth! :o
-
Hey! I've found a picture of Adam. ;D
LOL, Grahame - I think this is spot on, including the expression!
-
Grahame that is more like steve uk a little old for Adam ;D try again ;D
-
Think he got the extra jumper out of the car at some point cos he was cold. All these statements are just events repeated by various police sometimes months after the event so we cannot believe them word for word, each person remembers events differently imo.
You've got to remember also that those police officers had been on duty all night and therefore were probably warm enough.
But if you are woken at 3 or 4 am then your body is at its lowest ebb and you would therefore feel cold?
-
Alias ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Source please. Surprise me.
I supplied several sources yesterday. Don't see why you should tell me to look for sources if you can supply them on a discussion forum.
OK Adam, I have to apologise, it is true it is stated that Jeremy asked if he could contact Julie as stated in PC Adams and PC Collins' statements.
It was also stated that the police sorted this out for Jeremy. There was nothing strange about such a request.
I still thought I had read another statement where it's said that he was asked if he would like to phone someone and was taken by a PC to the village phone box. Can't find this.
Also very interesting that in this same statement by PC Collins, it was his second statement, he stated that Jeremy told him about his relationship with Sheila ......... that he 'didn't get on too well' with her which is very different from another quote that they didn't like each other at all. Goes to show everything is hearsay and subject to interpretation.
Source: PC Adams statement and POC Collins second statement. I shall keep looking for the expanded quote, I know it's somewhere.
-
OK Adam, I have to apologise, it is true it is stated that Jeremy asked if he could contact Julie as stated in PC Adams and PC Collins' statements.
It was also stated that the police sorted this out for Jeremy. There was nothing strange about such a request.
I still thought I had read another statement where it's said that he was asked if he would like to phone someone and was taken by a PC to the village phone box. Can't find this.
Also very interesting that in this same statement by PC Collins, it was his second statement, he stated that Jeremy told him about his relationship with Sheila ......... that he 'didn't get on too well' with her which is very different from another quote that they didn't like each other at all. Goes to show everything is hearsay and subject to interpretation.
Source: PC Adams statement and POC Collins second statement. I shall keep looking for the expanded quote, I know it's somewhere.
Maggie, there is nothing suspicious about them taking him to a phone box. They'd have had to drive past it so it made more sense to use it that to drive on further to Jeremy's cottage in Goldhanger.
-
Maggie, there is nothing suspicious about them taking him to a phone box. They'd have had to drive past it so it made more sense to use it that to drive on further to Jeremy's cottage in Goldhanger.
I am just answering Adams demands about source Susie.
-
Everyone could be alive. So why not stay at WHF and assist the police in talking Sheila down. Neville had taken the trouble to ring Jeremy & ask him to 'come quickly'.
Leaving to find a phone box & phone Julie is another mysterious call.
The police were presumably in your scenario in complete control of the situation - so did they ask him to do that? did he refuse ?
If you don't know then you are making assumptions.
-
The police were presumably in your scenario in complete control of the situation - so did they ask him to do that? did he refuse ?
If you don't know then you are making assumptions.
Wasn´t it strange advice from the police to tell Jeremy to go to the farm and meet them there? They were basically putting a citizen in harms way - potentially. I cannot blame Jeremy for not hurrying there, he must have been scared.
-
Everyone could be alive. So why not stay at WHF and assist the police in talking Sheila down. Neville had taken the trouble to ring Jeremy & ask him to 'come quickly'.
Leaving to find a phone box & phone Julie is another mysterious call.
Yeah because the police are renowned for involving unqualified members of the public in armed siege situations - the more the merrier!! ::)
-
Yeah because the police are renowned for involving unqualified members of the public in armed siege situations - the more the merrier!! ::)
Neville had rang Jeremy. Jeremy rang the police. So he is clearly the most important person at WHF.
But he disappears ?
-
Wasn´t it strange advice from the police to tell Jeremy to go to the farm and meet them there? They were basically putting a citizen in harms way - potentially. I cannot blame Jeremy for not hurrying there, he must have been scared.
Jeremy asked them to pick him up. Making his alibi stronger.
-
Jeremy asked them to pick him up. Making his alibi stronger.
Why would the police picking him up make his alibi stronger? His neighbours saw his car parked outside all night til they heard him drive over to WHF. Doesn't make any sense.
-
Why would the police picking him up make his alibi stronger? His neighbours saw his car parked outside all night til they heard him drive over to WHF. Doesn't make any sense.
It wouldn't, there has never been any question about where he was at the time of the phone call to the police. I have no idea where he thinks he's going with this?
-
It wouldn't, there has never been any question about where he was at the time of the phone call to the police. I have no idea where he thinks he's going with this?
It's the whole thing again about him driving slowly or slowing down while police car overtook him. Doesn't mean anything imo.
-
Jeremy could claim he was too stressed to drive to WHF. The shock of Nevilles call too much for him after being woken up at his cottage. Where the police would have picked him up. If he was already at WHF when the police arrive, that does not look so good.
As it happened, after driving to WHF, he drove back to his cottage after the massacre was confirmed. Annoncing he was starving upon arrival.
-
Jeremy asked them to pick him up. Making his alibi stronger.
Not an unreasonable request when they were only yards from his house when they were en route to the farm.
-
The police slipped up yet again there. They should have gone to Goldhanger to pick Jeremy up,,even if it was only to feel the engine of Jeremys' car to see if it had been recently used/driven,,to discount the fact that it had been used.Whether Jeremy was a suspect or not. At least they could have crossed that off their lists !
-
The police slipped up yet again there. They should have gone to Goldhanger to pick Jeremy up,,even if it was only to feel the engine of Jeremys' car to see if it had been recently used/driven,,to discount the fact that it had been used.Whether Jeremy was a suspect or not. At least they could have crossed that off their lists !
Lookout, they would have been within YARDS of his door.
-
It would have been an important factor,April,,but instead,they carried on in their own tin-pot ways and made things up as they went along,missing out the " little "things that would have mattered.
It was no earthly use examining the car well after the event.
-
It is almost certain that Jeremy called Julie at 3.00am, before phoning the police & Nevilles call. Even Jeremy himself intially said he phoned Julie first.
Jeremys supporters dispute this although it may actually help his case if he was already awake when Neville called. Although it shows Jeremy was lying when claiming Nevilles call woke him.
Before or after. It was a very strange call Jeremy made.
There are lots of reasons below why Jeremy would not phone Julie after the police -
Neville had asked Jeremy to 'Come quickly'.
It was 3.00am. The phone may not be answered at all.
It was 3.00am. The phone may not be answered for a long time. Neville had asked Jeremy to 'come quickly'.
Jeremy had already spent a long time looking for the number of Chelmsford police station. Neville had asked Jeremy to 'come quickly'.
Julie would be half asleep & irritated at being woken up. Her answer is likely to be flippent.
Julie did not know the family as well as Jeremy. So may give poor advice.
Julie had not received Nevilles call so again would not be able to give a reasoned answer.
Jeremy did not need Julies advice. He had already made his decision. Ringing up Chelmsford police station & agreeing to meet them at WHF.
Jeremy did not need Julies support. He was a confident man of 24.
Julie was in London. She could not ring back on her phone so was no use during the rest of the night. It would just create worry for Julie.
Jeremy had no idea what had happened at WHF. Why ring someone just to say you do not know what is happening ?
Do other people think phoning Julie after the police would be unrealistic ?
-
Jeremy was very keen to phone Julie.
At 3.00am before Nevilles call.
Then at 5.40am. Nearly 2 hours before entry into WHF.
Why ? Perhaps he was dying to boast about something.
-
Jeremy was very keen to phone Julie.
At 3.00am before Nevilles call.
Then at 5.40am. Nearly 2 hours before entry into WHF.
Why ? Perhaps he was dying to boast about something.
You are either totally bereft of normal human understanding or taking the p***. Even if you lean towards guilt but are willing to accept the possibility of innocence surely you can understand the probability that Jeremy was very close to Julie and it would be natural for him to consult her on most things. I can understand why he rang her after Neville's phone call as he may have needed reassurance and again at 5.40am would imagine he felt very frightened and alone again needed the closest person to him. It's hardly rocket science Adam!!!!
-
Jeremy is in a no win situation.
Phoning Julie at 3.00am before Neville phoned & before phoning the police is deeply damaging.
But there is no logic in phoning Julie after the police. He had already decided what to do & it wastes valuble time.
Phoning Julie at 5.40am was not great either. Thought he would be worried sick standing outside WHF with the police.
Guess he should not have made either call.
-
You are either totally bereft of normal human understanding or taking the p***. Even if you lean towards guilt but are willing to accept the possibility of innocence surely you can understand the probability that Jeremy was very close to Julie and it would be natural for him to consult her on most things. I can understand why he rang her after Neville's phone call as he may have needed reassurance and again at 5.40am would imagine he felt very frightened and alone again needed the closest person to him. It's hardly rocket science Adam!!!!
:)
-
I rather believe the sequence of phone calls were Nevill phones Jeremy. Jeremy tries to phone back. Jeremy phones JM and then phones the police.
-
Jeremy is in a no win situation.
Phoning Julie at 3.00am before Neville phoned & before phoning the police is deeply damaging.
But there is no logic in phoning Julie after the police. He had already decided what to do & it wastes valuble time.
Phoning Julie at 5.40am was not great either. Thought he would be worried sick standing outside WHF with the police.
Guess he should not have made either call.
One of the officers told him to call to keep his mind occupied with some thing else!! He didn't just wander off ;D ;D ;D. You haven't read any of the statements which is why you have no clue what you're talking about and hence the massive blunders!!
-
One of the officers told him to call to keep his mind occupied with some thing else!! He didn't just wander off ;D ;D ;D. You haven't read any of the statements which is why you have no clue what you're talking about and hence the massive blunders!!
Hi Caroline, I have already given Adam info from PC Adams and PC Collins statements showing Jeremy discussed phoning Julie with them and that they arranged his trip to the phone box and picking up Julie from the station. Of course he hasn't commented on this and probably hasn't bothered to read it.
-
PC Myall asked him if he wanted anyone with him and Jeremy said he wanted his girlfriend (Julie Mugford). He was accompanied by PC Robert Lay to call Julie about 05:30am and arrangements were made to pick Julie up.
-
Hi Caroline, I have already given Adam info from PC Adams and PC Collins statements showing Jeremy discussed phoning Julie with them and that they arranged his trip to the phone box and picking up Julie from the station. Of course he hasn't commented on this and probably hasn't bothered to read it.
That's because he can't comment - if he does, he'll have to admit that he didn't know!! :)
-
I rather believe the sequence of phone calls were Nevill phones Jeremy. Jeremy tries to phone back. Jeremy phones JM and then phones the police.
I tend to agree with that. I think he was confused and didn´t know what to do exactly, so he called Julie.
-
PC Myall asked him if he wanted anyone with him and Jeremy said he wanted his girlfriend (Julie Mugford). He was accompanied by PC Robert Lay to call Julie about 05:30am and arrangements were made to pick Julie up.
Was it Myall who gave a more detailed statement about this. I know I read it but couldn't find his statement last night. Dyou know where it is? Collins and Adams do mention it but would like Adam to read all three statements ..... fat chance!!!! ;D
-
Was it Myall who gave a more detailed statement about this. I know I read it but couldn't find his statement last night. Dyou know where it is? Collins and Adams do mention it but would like Adam to read all three statements ..... fat chance!!!! ;D
Why is it so strange that Jeremy needed his girlfriend at his side at such upsetting circumstances? To me that is perfectly natural!
So sick of that EVERYTHING Jeremy did and said is being twisted into something sinister, even down to his way of dressing, his getting hungry, his "chuckling", which most likely was sobbing - what person would be chuckling after killing five people, seriously! So sick of it.
-
Why is it so strange that Jeremy needed his girlfriend at his side at such upsetting circumstances? To me that is perfectly natural!
So sick of that EVERYTHING Jeremy did and said is being twisted into something sinister, even down to his way of dressing, his getting hungry, his "chuckling", which most likely was sobbing - what person would be chuckling after killing five people, seriously! So sick of it.
It's ridiculous isn't it? I have said before on here that after my dad died suddenly in his sleep my mother was laughing on and off all morning. We were all aware she was distraught and on the edge but it was just the way shock affected her. Forums often seem to attract people who enjoy judging others instead of looking at themselves imo. It's all about casting out the beam in your own eye before judging others imo.
-
Jeremy is in a no win situation.
Phoning Julie at 3.00am before Neville phoned & before phoning the police is deeply damaging.
But there is no logic in phoning Julie after the police. He had already decided what to do & it wastes valuble time.
Phoning Julie at 5.40am was not great either. Thought he would be worried sick standing outside WHF with the police.
Guess he should not have made either call.
Hi Adam, how have you arrived at the conclusion, that Jeremy phoned Julie before he received the call from Ralf?
Forgive me if you have already stated this elsewhere.
-
Hi Adam, how have you arrived at the conclusion, that Jeremy phoned Julie before he received the call from Ralf?
Forgive me if you have already stated this elsewhere.
-
Interesting section from the 2002 appeal.
The following morning she was awoken by a telephone call from the appellant to her lodgings in London. The appellant said to her, "Everything is going well. Something is wrong at the farm. I haven't had any sleep all night … bye honey and I love you lots". Miss Mugford did not take him seriously and went back to sleep.As to the timing of this call, Miss Mugford said in evidence said that it was between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m.
A number of Miss Mugford's housemates were disturbed by the telephone call and provided additional evidence as to timing.
One, Helen Eaton, had been consulted by Julie Mugford, when the latter was first making a statement to the police about it. She put the time at 3.00 a.m. in evidence but agreed in cross-examination that it might have been as late as 3.30 a.m.
Another flat mate, Sue Battersby, said that she was positive that when she was disturbed, she had looked at her clock and the time shown was 3.12 a.m. However, she pointed out that she was in the habit of keeping her clock about 10 minutes early and police checks made on the clock confirmed this to be the case. If her evidence was right and if the clock was, as the evidence suggested, ten minutes fast, the time was probably no more than a minute or two after 3 a.m.
Joanna Wood gave evidence that when she heard the telephone, she looked at her digital clock and all that she noted was that the time was 2 something. This meant that according to her clock the time was between 2.00 and 2.59 a.m. If it was at the end of that bracket, it differed very little from the time suggested by Susan Battersby's evidence.
...........
So it seems that Jeremys phone call was at 3.00am. The most damning evidence from Joanna Wood.
However there is a slim chance it was at 3.30am. Hang on, didn't Jeremy ring the police at 3.26am. The call lasting several minutes after being put on hold ? So he couldn't have rang Julie at 3.30am.
Maybe Jeremy rang Julie at 3.40. Hang on, he was driving to WHF at that time after getting smartly dressed. And none of the witnesses said the call was that late.
If this evidence & the 4 witnesses are correct & Jeremy phoned Julie around 3am, that is over 20 minutes before 'dad' rang Jeremy. But Jeremy said he was sleeping like a log with his answering machine switched off. 'Dad's' call waking him.
Julies much discussed diary has the call at 3.00am.
I will leave the last words to Jeremy when asked why he phoned Julie at that unsocial hour - 'No comment'. That was after intially saying he phoned Julie first.
Do other people beleive Jeremy phoning Julie at 3.00am is conclusive of his guilt ?
-
One of the officers told him to call to keep his mind occupied with some thing else!! He didn't just wander off ;D ;D ;D. You haven't read any of the statements which is why you have no clue what you're talking about and hence the massive blunders!!
Can you not get personal again. It makes you look clueless.
I have read lots of statements. And Jeremys interview transcripts where he refused to answer questions. Oh sorry I forgot, Jeremy was fed up assisting the police investigating the massacre of his family.
I have also read Julies statement which of course is all lies according to you.
-
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
-
Just as damning was the testimony of his former girlfriend Julie Mugford, who told the police that he had talked of his hatred for his family and his plans to kill them.
‘It’s tonight or never,’ he reportedly said on the day of the murders. Pro-Bamber campaigners have always tried to dismiss Mugford’s evidence, arguing that she was a tainted witness because not only had he apparently jilted her soon after the murders but also she sold her story to the press after the trial. But it is highly unlikely that she would have dared to perjure herself on such trivial grounds, particularly not in such a serious trial.
Nor has she ever retracted a word of her testimony.
From journalist Leo Mckinsty.
-
Why is it so strange that Jeremy needed his girlfriend at his side at such upsetting circumstances? To me that is perfectly natural!
So sick of that EVERYTHING Jeremy did and said is being twisted into something sinister, even down to his way of dressing, his getting hungry, his "chuckling", which most likely was sobbing - what person would be chuckling after killing five people, seriously! So sick of it.
That's it, Jeremy was sobbing. Sheila had massacred five people.
-
Just as damning was the testimony of his former girlfriend Julie Mugford, who told the police that he had talked of his hatred for his family and his plans to kill them.
‘It’s tonight or never,’ he reportedly said on the day of the murders. Pro-Bamber campaigners have always tried to dismiss Mugford’s evidence, arguing that she was a tainted witness because not only had he apparently jilted her soon after the murders but also she sold her story to the press after the trial. But it is highly unlikely that she would have dared to perjure herself on such trivial grounds, particularly not in such a serious trial.
Nor has she ever retracted a word of her testimony.
From journalist Leo Mckinsty.
I, personally have now disregarded Julie's evidence. Who would seek to make a huge financial gain, out of such a tragedy? If her intention was to then donate the profits to charity, then I would have to reconsider.
-
I, personally have now disregarded Julie's evidence. Who would seek to make a huge financial gain, out of such a tragedy? If her intention was to then donate the profits to charity, then I would have to reconsider.
Jeremy also at a 40k NOTW deal. Which is more distasteful.
Jeremy would have enjoyed being a weird sort of celebrity upon acquital. He is a weird sort of celebrity now with his 'Campaign for Freedom' & regular press statements.
-
Jeremy also at a 40k NOTW deal. Which is more distasteful.
Jeremy would have enjoyed being a weird sort of celebrity upon acquital. He is a weird sort of celebrity now with his 'Campaign for Freedom' & regular press statements.
That's as maybe, but I was questioning whether Julie was a credible witness. I will have to go back and refresh my memory, as to what the Judges made of her media deal when the appeal was heard. How, with that deal in place, can her evidence be viewed as credible?
-
Nothing weird about wanting to be free. For something you haven't done.
-
Adam think Julie enjoyed being a weird sort of a celebrity after Jeremy was sentenced posing for the newspaper showing her thighs how distasteful is that the money she was paid for her story was only due to 5 people being murdered two of them being little boys how distasteful is that!!!!
-
That's as maybe, but I was questioning whether Julie was a credible witness. I will have to go back and refresh my memory, as to what the Judges made of her media deal when the appeal was heard. How, with that deal in place, can her evidence be viewed as credible?
Was Jeremy a credible witness then ?
Julie was not called to give evidence in 2002.
-
Jeremy also at a 40k NOTW deal. Which is more distasteful.
Jeremy would have enjoyed being a weird sort of celebrity upon acquital. He is a weird sort of celebrity now with his 'Campaign for Freedom' & regular press statements.
I think it would be more 'weird' if he were innocent and didn't 'Campaign for Freedom'.
-
Adam think Julie enjoyed being a weird sort of a celebrity after Jeremy was sentenced posing for the newspaper showing her thighs how distasteful is that the money she was paid for her story was only due to 5 people being murdered two of them being little boys how distasteful is that!!!!
Where is Julie now ? Oh yes, a teacher living abroad.
-
I think it would be more 'weird' if he were innocent and didn't 'Campaign for Freedom'.
There are lots of reasons why Jeremy has protested his innocence.
I feel a thread coming.
-
Was Jeremy a credible witness then ?
Julie was not called to give evidence in 2002.
The jury obviously concluded that Jeremy was not a credible witness.
The jury concluded that Julie was, but crucially....they didn't know about the media deal.
Had the judge been aware, her evidence would have been inadmissible, wouldn't it?
-
There are lots of reasons why Jeremy has protested his innocence.
I feel a thread coming.
Oh blimey! Sorry everyone. ;D
-
The jury obviously concluded that Jeremy was not a credible witness.
The jury concluded that Julie was, but crucially....they didn't know about the media deal.
Had the judge been aware, her evidence would have been inadmissible, wouldn't it?
It was a high profile case. The main players having provisional deals ready upon conviction/acquittal.
Nothing would have been signed until the verdict.
Standard practice.
-
It was a high profile case. The main players having provisional deals ready upon conviction/acquittal.
Nothing would have been signed until the verdict.
All I can say Adam, is that if I was on that jury and knew about the deal and her previous financial misdemeanours, I would have totally disregarded her evidence.
-
Not only her thighs, susie.... This on the back of the tragic killing of five people, including two little kids, all of whom she had actually seen in their deaths.
I have to question her mental state and judgement and have a hard time seeing her as a credible witness - as it was, she was the prosecution´s "star" witness.
-
All I can say Adam, is that if I was on that jury and knew about the deal and her previous financial misdemeanours, I would have totally disregarded her evidence.
The jury were told about the cheque book fraud.
-
Julie looked naturally pretty when interviewed on TV after the verdict. What a pity the NOTW changed that.
-
Caroline, why aren´t those pics of Julie not in the picture thread? BTW, have noticed that you have put piccies in there in the correct places! So nice to see that, warms my heart! ;D
-
The jury were told about the cheque book fraud.
It has been proved that Julie is someone capable of telling lies and committing criminal acts, in order to make money. Her evidence must be massively questioned / disregarded.
-
It has been proved that Julie is someone capable of telling lies and committing criminal acts, in order to make money. Her evidence must be massively questioned / disregarded.
What lies ?
The £800.00 cheque book fraud with a friend was a first offence I beleive. Unless you count her acting as look out upon Jeremys demand while he robbed his own family. Something Julie told the police about, without being asked to.
-
What lies ?
The £800.00 cheque book fraud with a friend was a first offence I beleive. Unless you count her acting as look out upon Jeremys demand while he robbed his own family. Something Julie told the police about, without being asked to.
She is guilty, by her own admission, of theft and fraud. That makes her a liar in my book and certainly not someone I would trust.
The fact that she had an accomplice on each occasion, is irrelevant.
-
Julie had a tongue in her head,,she could have stopped Jeremy from going into the office at the caravan site-------------but she didn't,did she ? Neither did she run away and leave him to it !
As far as I'm concerned with that episode,it was 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.
Her cheque fraud had nothing whatsoever to do with Jeremy. He was completely oblivious that he was wearing stolen trousers until she told him they were the proceeds of the theft.
-
Julie looked naturally pretty when interviewed on TV after the verdict. What a pity the NOTW changed that.
Do you think they FORCED her to pose like that then? And talk about her sex life?
She does not look that unhappy about it in the photo?
-
Do you think they FORCED her to pose like that then? And talk about her sex life?
She does not look that unhappy about it in the photo?
Wasn´t she with her mother a lot during the trial and after? Did Mary Mugford really think this was OK - didn´t she try to talk her daughter out of it - or was she all about the money too? How much extra did Julie get for the sleazy posing?
-
There are lots of reasons why Jeremy has protested his innocence.
I feel a thread coming.
The main one of course is because he is innocent? ::)
-
Caroline, why aren´t those pics of Julie not in the picture thread? BTW, have noticed that you have put piccies in there in the correct places! So nice to see that, warms my heart! ;D
Which ones Alias? (hat 'aren't there)
-
Jeremy is in a no win situation.
Phoning Julie at 3.00am before Neville phoned & before phoning the police is deeply damaging.
But there is no logic in phoning Julie after the police. He had already decided what to do & it wastes valuble time.
Phoning Julie at 5.40am was not great either. Thought he would be worried sick standing outside WHF with the police.
Guess he should not have made either call.
NSS!!
-
Not only her thighs, susie.... This on the back of the tragic killing of five people, including two little kids, all of whom she had actually seen in their deaths.
I have to question her mental state and judgement and have a hard time seeing her as a credible witness - as it was, she was the prosecution´s "star" witness.
Looking at that photo of Mugford I can't help thinking she wasn't all that bright. Or she would have questioned the photographer as to why they wanted a picture of her thighs? Maybe it was the same photographer who claimed to have been offered photographs of Sheila? ::)
-
The jury were told about the cheque book fraud.
But they weren't told that Julie and Susan Battersby DID NOT go to the bank of their own accord to explain what they had done, they were NOT told that they were accompanied by a police officer. It was made to look as though they went because they wanted to purge themselves from guilt when in fact they were being hoodwinked by a prosecution that had to TRY and play the incident down. They played it like collateral damage. It was always going to hurt them but they might just get away with it if they could make Julie look like she was sorry. Read the statements and you might form your own opinion instead of repeating inaccuracies!
-
Which ones Alias? (hat 'aren't there)
The pictures of Julie in NOTW.
-
JM doesn't somehow look like someone who is/was " terrified to go to sleep " as she'd put it.
So " terrified" in fact,that she drank two bottles of wine a night !
It was all about HER,wasn't it ? Nobody else mattered.
-
Just as damning was the testimony of his former girlfriend Julie Mugford, who told the police that he had talked of his hatred for his family and his plans to kill them.
‘It’s tonight or never,’ he reportedly said on the day of the murders. Pro-Bamber campaigners have always tried to dismiss Mugford’s evidence, arguing that she was a tainted witness because not only had he apparently jilted her soon after the murders but also she sold her story to the press after the trial. But it is highly unlikely that she would have dared to perjure herself on such trivial grounds, particularly not in such a serious trial.
Nor has she ever retracted a word of her testimony.
Adam - trivial grounds?
The way JB treated her? Sleeping with her best friend?
The possible immunity offered ?
The money from the N.O.W?
The fact that if she was prosecuted for her crimes she would never be able to continue with her chosen profession?
The 30 plus interviews with the police where they may have convinced her they knew he did it but they just needed her evidence to "tip the scales " so to speak?
Add it all up together and it is not trivial grounds is it?
-
But they weren't told that Julie and Susan Battersby DID NOT go to the bank of their own accord to explain what they had done, they were NOT told that they were accompanied by a police officer. It was made to look as though they went because they wanted to purge themselves from guilt when in fact they were being hoodwinked by a prosecution that had to TRY and play the incident down. They played it like collateral damage. It was always going to hurt them but they might just get away with it if they could make Julie look like she was sorry. Read the statements and you might form your own opinion instead of repeating inaccuracies!
Very good point, indeed.
-
The pictures of Julie in NOTW.
It is now but it's in a new thread called Newspaper Articles, it takes too long for the picture thread to load given the amount of pictures stored there.
-
Very good point, indeed.
Thanks Neil :). I can't think of any other reason for keeping the ''in-tow' officer away from the defence.
-
It is now but it's in a new thread called Newspaper Articles, it takes too long for the picture thread to load given the amount of pictures stored there.
OK. Just, it doesn´t take long to load for me though.
-
But they weren't told that Julie and Susan Battersby DID NOT go to the bank of their own accord to explain what they had done, they were NOT told that they were accompanied by a police officer. It was made to look as though they went because they wanted to purge themselves from guilt when in fact they were being hoodwinked by a prosecution that had to TRY and play the incident down. They played it like collateral damage. It was always going to hurt them but they might just get away with it if they could make Julie look like she was sorry. Read the statements and you might form your own opinion instead of repeating inaccuracies!
So what ? The defence & police are making Julie look like a credible witness.
It is up to the defence to find things out. They had several months before the trial. They did not.
Jeremy has had three appeals to bring up this minor point.
-
JM doesn't somehow look like someone who is/was " terrified to go to sleep " as she'd put it.
So " terrified" in fact,that she drank two bottles of wine a night !
It was all about HER,wasn't it ? Nobody else mattered.
Julie drank two bottles of wine a night ? Source please.
-
She is guilty, by her own admission, of theft and fraud. That makes her a liar in my book and certainly not someone I would trust.
The fact that she had an accomplice on each occasion, is irrelevant.
Have you never lied.
Or committed a minor, victimless crime when young ? Yes claiming you're cheque book has been stolen is victimless. It was also Susans cheque book, suggesting she was the main force.
-
Julie drank two bottles of wine a night ? Source please.
On that newspaper cutting of Fanlight Fanny that was put up before ! Try reading it !
-
The main one of course is because he is innocent? ::)
Who knows ?
As Jeremy stood up & said to Liz Rimmington before he was a suspect 'Only I know what really happened that night'.
-
Who knows ?
As Jeremy stood up & said to Liz Rimmington before he was a suspect 'Only I know what really happened that night'.
Maybe he was speaking about the evening before the killings or the phone call? Quotes out of context are pretty meaningless.
-
Maybe he was speaking about the evening before the killings or the phone call? Quotes out of context are pretty meaningless.
:-\
-
Have you never lied.
Or committed a minor, victimless crime when young ? Yes claiming you're cheque book has been stolen is victimless. It was also Susans cheque book, suggesting she was the main force.
OR suggesting Julie didn't want her own name associated with the crime, which, let's be perfectly honest, had WHF not happened, it would have been SB who took the rap for it if they'd been caught.
-
OR suggesting Julie didn't want her own name associated with the crime, which, let's be perfectly honest, had WHF not happened, it would have been SB who took the rap for it if they'd been caught.
It was Susans cheque book. Interesting.
-
It was Jeremys caravan break in. Interesting.
-
It was Susans cheque book. Interesting.
Yea, dear sweet Julie talked her best friend into committing fraud. Still, I'm sure you'll try and pin the idea onto Susan Battersby, even though it was Julie's idea.
-
It was Jeremys caravan break in. Interesting.
It was Julie's photograph in the newspaper. Interesting.
-
Oh dam. I forgot Julie was the Scarface of Goldsmiths college. Getting students hooked on heroin. She must have sent Jeremy on his drug buying holiday.
-
Yea, dear sweet Julie talked her best friend into committing fraud. Still, I'm sure you'll try and pin the idea onto Susan Battersby, even though it was Julie's idea.
Oh so Julie persuaded Susan to use her own cheque book.
When Julie was first interviewed by the police, were they aware of the cheque book fraud ? They were not aware of the caravan break in.
-
Oh dam. I forgot Julie was the Scarface of Goldsmiths college. Getting students hooked on heroin. She must have sent Jeremy on his drug buying holiday.
I wonder how proud of her actions you'd have been had you been her parent.
-
Yea, dear sweet Julie talked her best friend into committing fraud. Still, I'm sure you'll try and pin the idea onto Susan Battersby, even though it was Julie's idea.
Julie said so herself. She said she did it to "impress" Jeremy. :o She is an expert pinning things she does herself on other people. Jeremy had absolutely nothing to do with that.
Love when nons have to defend Julie, because they HAVE to to be able to accept her testimony, but it is so hard, coz the girl was shifty, sleazy, dishonest and mean, and they know it! ;D
Drug dealing is not a victimless crime - neither is accessory to murder if you want to go that route.
-
Oh so Julie persuaded Susan to use her own cheque book.
When Julie was first interviewed by the police, were they aware of the cheque book fraud ? They were not aware of the caravan break in.
I doubt that but she was no angel - she not only committed fraud, she involved her best friend - using her cheque book and then the whole thing was played down by the prosecution to make it LOOK as though she went cap on hand to apologise and seek retribution. However, that's not what happened - they were accompanied by an office,r who had already smoothed the cracks over with the banks head office. This is the part the jury didn't hear - they didn't go of their own accord, the whole admission to the bank was engineered to make Julie a more credible witness.
-
It was Susans cheque book. Interesting.
If it was Susan's cheque book, where is the crime? If it was someone else's cheque book, then it is far from victimless?
-
If it was Susan's cheque book, where is the crime? If it was someone else's cheque book, then it is far from victimless?
Didn´t they tell the bank that Susan´s cheque book had been stolen - and then went on a buying spree with that exact cheque book? Would the bank have had to cover the losses the stores suffered from the thefts? If so, the bank was the victim.
There are no victimless crimes.
-
Didn´t they tell the bank that Susan´s cheque book had been stolen - and then went on a buying spree with that exact cheque book? Would the bank have had to cover the losses the stores suffered from the thefts? If so, the bank was the victim.
There are no victimless crimes.
Ah I see. That shows I'm a bit thick. ;D
-
Have you never lied.
Or committed a minor, victimless crime when young ? Yes claiming you're cheque book has been stolen is victimless. It was also Susans cheque book, suggesting she was the main force.
You haven't asked if anyone has ever been guilty of cashing in on the death of two six year old boys!
Just to make it clear, I am coming at this from a completely objective point of view. Julie may very well have been telling the truth, but how can you be sure, when her own character is so flawed? It makes her evidence totally unreliable.
Her behaviour, in selling her story would have been disgusting enough, if she'd done it years after the event, but to do it mid enquiry, just weeks after......well, words fail me.
-
Didn´t they tell the bank that Susan´s cheque book had been stolen - and then went on a buying spree with that exact cheque book? Would the bank have had to cover the losses the stores suffered from the thefts? If so, the bank was the victim.
There are no victimless crimes.
That's exactly it Alias ...... in a nutshell :)
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=289.0
Julies statement on the bank fraud.
It says she had already told the police about the caravan break in. So I suspect she had given a comprehensive interview.
She knew that Susan was being interviewed in another room & told the police about the cheque book fraud.
Suspect Julie did not bother intially mentioning the cheque book fraud, as it was nothing to do with the case. The caravan break in involved Jeremy so was mentioned.
-
You haven't asked if anyone has ever been guilty of cashing in on the death of two six year old boys!
Just to make it clear, I am coming at this from a completely objective point of view. Julie may very well have been telling the truth, but how can you be sure, when her own character is so flawed? It makes her evidence totally unreliable.
Her behaviour, in selling her story would have been disgusting enough, if she'd done it years after the event, but to do it mid enquiry, just weeks after......well, words fail me.
Neil, I have previously asked him how proud he would have been of Julie had she been his daughter but like numerous other question which have been put to him, he hasn't replied. Had she been my daughter I may have had to fight the urge to leave the country after seeing her sex life splashed across the tabloids along with her thighs.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=289.0
Julies statement on the bank fraud.
It says she had already told the police about the caravan break in. She knew that Susan was being interviewed in another room & told the police about the cheque book fraud.
Suspect Julie did not bother intially mentioning the cheque book fraud, as it was nothing to do with the case. The caravan break in involved Jeremy so was mentioned.
I don't care what Julie says and given that her honesty is in question, why would you even mention her statement? However, read the following and will post another statement from the acting bank manager at the time - Mr Dovey who was an independent witness with NO REASON to lie.
-
Neil, I have previously asked him how proud he would have been of Julie had she been his daughter but like numerous other question which have been put to him, he hasn't replied. Had she been my daughter I may have had to fight the urge to leave the country after seeing her sex life splashed across the tabloids along with her thighs.
I answer all posts.
I would be proud of Julie. Going to the police & telling the truth. As well as standing up in court.
Hang on. I would have already disowned her after Susans major fraud.
-
.
-
I was always under the impression the police knew about the major bank fraud & approached Julie.
The police blackmailed Julie into saying Jeremy did it. Threatening her with bank fraud charges.
But it seems she had already told the police everything.
Interesting.
-
I answer all posts.
I would be proud of Julie. Going to the police & telling the truth. As well as standing up in court.
Hang on. I would have already disowned her after Susans major fraud.
And what would you have said, about her cashing in on the death of two young boys?
-
Mr Dovey contradicts MOST of Julie's statement where she talks about her and Susan going to the bank alone and of their own free will because they felt guilty!! Mr Dovey had no reason to lie, he wasn't connected to anyone involved in the case.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1165.0.html
-
You haven't asked if anyone has ever been guilty of cashing in on the death of two six year old boys!
Just to make it clear, I am coming at this from a completely objective point of view. Julie may very well have been telling the truth, but how can you be sure, when her own character is so flawed? It makes her evidence totally unreliable.
Her behaviour, in selling her story would have been disgusting enough, if she'd done it years after the event, but to do it mid enquiry, just weeks after......well, words fail me.
Flawed character ? No 20 year is perfect. It was not her fault Jeremy rang her at 3.00am.
Susan Battersby committed minor fraud with her own cheque book. And.
-
I was always under the impression the police knew about the major bank fraud & approached Julie.
The police blackmailed Julie into saying Jeremy did it. Threatening her with bank fraud charges.
But it seems she had already told the police everything.
Interesting.
What on earth are you talking about? You're making this up as you go along. It's not interesting, it's just bad fiction!
-
I answer all posts.
I would be proud of Julie. Going to the police & telling the truth. As well as standing up in court.
Hang on. I would have already disowned her after Susans major fraud.
Well, I imagine that tells us all we need to know of your character. The word which comes to mind is UNPRINCIPLED.
-
Flawed character ? No 20 year is perfect. It was not her fault Jeremy rang her at 3.00am.
Susan Battersby committed minor fraud with her own cheque book. And.
There is something flawed and it's your powers (or lack) of reasoning.
-
Mr Dovey contradicts MOST of Julie's statement where she talks about her and Susan going to the bank alone and of their own free will because they felt guilty!! Mr Dovey had no reason to lie, he wasn't connected to anyone involved in the case.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1165.0.html
For me the main issue is Julie had already told the police Jeremy did it before mentioning the bank fraud. She had also confessed about the caravan break in. So was prepared to be charged.
She was not blackmailed into confessing.
The bank fraud is neither here or there.
-
Flawed character ? No 20 year is perfect. It was not her fault Jeremy rang her at 3.00am.
Susan Battersby committed minor fraud with her own cheque book. And.
Forgive me Adam, but I have to ask......are you drunk? ;)
-
There is something flawed and it's your powers (or lack) of reasoning.
Thank you.
-
For me the main issue is Julie had already told the police Jeremy did it before mentioning the bank fraud. She had also confessed about the caravan break in. So was prepared to be charged.
She was not blackmailed into confessing.
She didn't go to the police of her own accord!! She was FORCED into it - Liz Rimmington told the police NOT Julie Mugford- but you go on living in your dream world. You're not here to learn about the case, you're here to try and wind people up. You haven't learned anything since you have been here because you're STILL repeating the same inaccuracies.
-
Forgive me Adam, but I have to ask......are you drunk? ;)
Blind!
-
For me the main issue is Julie had already told the police Jeremy did it before mentioning the bank fraud. She had also confessed about the caravan break in. So was prepared to be charged.
She was not blackmailed into confessing.
The bank fraud is neither here or there.
Julie obviously disagreed, which is why, according to Mr Doveys statement, she continued to lie about their meeting.
-
...................................The bank fraud is neither here or there.
I rather imagine Mr Dovey didn't share that view.
-
She didn't go to the police of her own accord!! She was FORCED into it - Liz Rimmington told the police NOT Julie Mugford- but you go on living in your dream world. You're not here to learn about the case, you're here to try and wind people up. You haven't learned anything since you have been here because you're STILL repeating the same inaccuracies.
Yes Liz Rimmington rang the police. Julie was with Liz.
Who is Liz Rimmington to force Julie ?
Julie was ready to tell the police after telling Liz.
The police knew nothing about Susans bank fraud or Jeremys caravan break in. Julie told them. She also told them about Jeremys involvement in the massacre.
-
Yes Liz Rimmington rang the police. Julie was with Liz.
Who is Liz Rimmington to force Julie ?
Julie was ready to tell the police after telling Liz.
The police knew nothing about Susans bank fraud or Jeremys caravan break in. Julie told them. She also told them about Jeremys involvement in the massacre.
You're not ale to grasp it but I'll try one more time and see if it sinks in ........ she had ro tell them about the bank fraud, she had to tell them because Jeremy knew about it and it would have been used to discredit her testimony. She would have been asked if there was ANYTHING in her past that the defence could use against her. So she was left with little choice but to come clean. It was NOTHING to do with guilt or the need to do the right thing - she had NO CHOICE.
The police were then left with a bit of a problem, keep quiet and it would be used to discredit their prize witness. Better to try and plaster over the cracks by 'pretending' (in a moment of guilty clarity) that she and SB went cap in hand to appeal to the bank manager for mercy. While what really happened was tht the police called the head office and smoothed over the issue and it was a formality that JM and SB went to the bank with a police officer - simply to show willing so that if questions were asked there would be at least some evidence to back up the 'story' from JM and SB's statements.
-
You're not ale to grasp it but I'll try one more time and see if it sinks in ........ she had ro tell them about the bank fraud, she had to tell them because Jeremy knew about it and it would have been used to discredit her testimony. She would have been asked if there was ANYTHING in her past that the defence could use against her. So she was left with little choice but to come clean. It was NOTHING to do with guilt or the need to do the right thing - she had NO CHOICE.
The police were then left with a bit of a problem, keep quiet and it would be used to discredit their prize witness. Better to try and plaster over the cracks by 'pretending' (in a moment of guilty clarity) that she and SB went cap in hand to appeal to the bank manager for mercy. While what really happened was tht the police called the head office and smoothed over the issue and it was a formality that JM and SB went to the bank with a police officer - simply to show willing so that if questions were asked there would be at least some evidence to back up the 'story' from JM and SB's statements.
I will say this again so it sinks in.
Julie went to the police via Liz Rimington.
She told them what Jeremy had said & about the caravan break in.
Julie's 1984 cheque book fraud was not in the equation.
Julie had no reason to lie. The police had nothing to blackmail her with.
-
I always felt it was fanciful that Julie agreed to create a false WS & diary. Then lie in court because the police threatened to charge her with involvement in Julie's cheque book fraud.
Julies WS is 8/9/85. The bank managers WS relates to Susan & Julie attending the bank on 4/10/85. Separate issues.
She also paid the money back long before the trial. But all this is negated by the fact that the police escorted her to the bank, :-\
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=289.0
-
I will say this again so it sinks in.
Julie went to the police via Liz Rimington.
She told them what Jeremy had said & about the caravan break in.
Susans 1984 cheque book fraud was not in the equation.
Julie had no reason to lie. The police had nothing to blackmail her with.
You REALLY need to read the statements and interviews Adam you haven't got the faintest idea about the facts of this case.
-
Good point Graheme.
Julie knew that Jeremy knew about her cheque book fraud.
So why did Julie go to the police if she knew Jeremy could implicate her with her cheque book fraud ? Was she really worried about getting a criminal record & her teaching career. Or did she decide telling the truth was the right thing to do ?
And why tell the police about the caravan break in ? Again risking getting a criminal record & her teaching career.
And why go to the police at all. Knowing she could be charged with withholding information, again getting a criminal record ? Going to the police means standing up in court & getting cross examined. An ordeal for anyone.
Julie's cheque book fraud was brought up nearly a month after her Witness Statement had been finished. There was no reason to intially lie. Unless she really was jilted & unbeileivably vindictive as well as totally confident of not getting found out & charged with perjury. But scorned women are just as likely to tell the truth.
-
You REALLY need to read the statements and interviews Adam you haven't got the faintest idea about the facts of this case.
Sorry Maggie, I'm too busy laughing to post any more - I give up, it's impossible to debate with someone like Adam because he can't admit when he's wrong and he doesn't doesn't listen and he doesn't seem to know what a fact is. All that matters is HIS opinion. ::) ::)
-
Morning Adam was Susan jilted as well. Oh dear :'(
-
Good point Graheme.
Julie knew that Jeremy knew about Susans cheque book fraud.
So why did Julie go to the police if she knew Jeremy could implicate her with Susans cheque book fraud ? Was she really worried about getting a criminal record & her teaching career. Or did she decide telling the truth was the right thing to do ?
And why tell the police about the caravan break in ? Again risking getting a criminal record & her teaching career.
And why go to the police at all. Knowing she could be charged with withholding information, again getting a criminal record ? Going to the police means standing up in court & getting cross examined. An ordeal for anyone.
Susans cheque book fraud was brought up nearly a month after her Witness Statement had been finished. There was no reason to intially lie. Unless she really was jilted & unbeileivably vindictive as well as totally confident of not getting found out & charged with perjury. But scorned women are just as likely to tell the truth.
Ask yourself if Julie would have said anything at all if Jeremy had put a ring on her finger.
As for why she told the police about her own criminal activities, don't felons usually as for all their crimes to be taken into consideration so they can't be retried at a later date? Imagine, had she not told them and it had come up when she'd got her first job. Parents of young children may not have been happy to learn that someone with a criminal past was teaching their children and heads may not have been happy to employ her.
No need to worry about ANY such triviality, had Jeremy put a ring on her finger, but he'd dumped her and "If I can't have him, nobody will." Was that out of love, lust or lucre?
-
Sorry Maggie, I'm too busy laughing to post any more - I give up, it's impossible to debate with someone like Adam because he can't admit when he's wrong and he doesn't doesn't listen and he doesn't seem to know what a fact is. All that matters is HIS opinion. ::) ::)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I always felt it was fanciful that Julie agreed to create a false WS & diary. Then lie in court because the police threatened to charge her with involvement in Susans cheque book fraud.
Julies WS is 8/9/85. The bank managers WS relates to Susan & Julie attending the bank on 4/10/85. Separate issues.
She also paid the money back long before the trial. But all this is negated by the fact that the police escorted her to the bank, :-\
But if her cheque fraud had nothing to do with the Jeremy Bamber case where police were busy gathering evidence against him, why then did the same police officer accompany her to the bank? I think that, that fact is vital to the case.
-
Good point Graheme.
Julie knew that Jeremy knew about Susans cheque book fraud.
So why did Julie go to the police if she knew Jeremy could implicate her with Susans cheque book fraud ? Was she really worried about getting a criminal record & her teaching career. Or did she decide telling the truth was the right thing to do ?
And why tell the police about the caravan break in ? Again risking getting a criminal record & her teaching career.
And why go to the police at all. Knowing she could be charged with withholding information, again getting a criminal record ? Going to the police means standing up in court & getting cross examined. An ordeal for anyone.
Susans cheque book fraud was brought up nearly a month after her Witness Statement had been finished. There was no reason to intially lie. Unless she really was jilted & unbeileivably vindictive as well as totally confident of not getting found out & charged with perjury. But scorned women are just as likely to tell the truth.
It doesn't matter one iota what YOU think is important, the jury did NOT hear what happened in respect to JULIE'S act of fraud - it may have made a difference to them had they been told the TRUTH. It's about 'credibility; as a witness and if the fraud didn't matter, it would never have been mentioned - of course it mattered. You can call it 'Susan's cheque book fraud' as much as you like - however, Julie was the instigator - she admits it and the ONLY reason she did so was because she knew that Jeremy already knew about it and it would have been used to discredit her as a witness!
It may also have made a difference for the jury to know that initially, the autopsy report stated that Sheila had blood on her palms, more to the point that Venezis attributed the stain on Sheila's hand to the blood on her palms and they may just have wondered why, when Jeremy became a suspect that the opposite was written into his official statement that was used at trial.
It doesn't matter what you think, it ONLY matters that the jury were and weren't told. These are just a few examples - there ar lots more. With your vast knowledge - you must already know what they are!! ::)
-
But if her cheque fraud had nothing to do with the Jeremy Bamber case where police were busy gathering evidence against him, why then did the same police officer accompany her to the bank? I think that, that fact is vital to the case.
Yes, Julie's 1984 small cheque book fraud is not really anything to do with the case.
The defence said from an early stage that it was going to be an extremly difficult case to win. So they brought up Susans small cheque book fraud two years earlier. Jeremy had 8 hours to paint Julie as an unreliable witness. The defence 19 days.
The jury would be more interested in a motive, possible alibi, curious coincidences, circumstantial evidence, forensic evidence, other witnesses, phone call times, bikes, Nevilles phone call being described as mysterious, whether Julie was really jilted, answering machines, what Sheila could have been doing when Neville phoned, blood experts, psychiatrists, phone locations, Nevilles beating, Sheilas lack of gun experience, how Sheila committed the massacre, Jeremys family hatred & resentment etc.
-
Adam Jeremy Bamber is serving life for the murders of his family he was found guilty by a Jury. Now to me whoever you are sound terrified he may get released nothing you or I say on this forum will have any bearing on the outcome of Jeremy Bambers future. Accept that. I am on the forum in the hope new evidence can be found to release an innocent man and my contribution is not supplying new evidence but helping to keep his name in the public domain so he is not forgotten. Now what is your agenda.
-
MEMO TO POSTERS.
Just to clear up any doubt and because Adam's use of English doesn't make it clear. The cheque book was Susan's. The CRIME, by her own admission, was Julies.
-
MEMO TO POSTERS.
Just to clear up any doubt and because Adam's use of English doesn't make it clear. The cheque book was Susan's. The CRIME, by her own admission, was Julies.
It was Susans cheque book. Therefore 'Susans cheque book fraud'.
Both guilty. Although if it was all Julies idea I don't know why she would not use her own cheque book.
-
It was Susans cheque book. Therefore 'Susans cheque book fraud'.
Both guilty. Although if it was all Julies idea I don't know why she would not use her own cheque book.
The fraud was Julie's by her own admission.
I would have thought the answer to that might have been obvious. Had they been sussed, Julie's name wouldn't come up.
-
Yes, Julie's 1984 small cheque book fraud is not really anything to do with the case.
The defence said from an early stage that it was going to be an extremly difficult case to win. So they brought up Susans small cheque book fraud two years earlier. Jeremy had 8 hours to paint Julie as an unreliable witness. The defence 19 days.
The jury would be more interested in a motive, possible alibi, curious coincidences, circumstantial evidence, forensic evidence, other witnesses, phone call times, bikes, Nevilles phone call being described as mysterious, whether Julie was really jilted, answering machines, what Sheila could have been doing when Neville phoned, blood experts, psychiatrists, phone locations, Nevilles beating, Sheilas lack of gun experience, how Sheila committed the massacre, Jeremys family hatred & resentment etc.
Past crimes have got EVERYTHING to do with an on-going case !
-
The fraud was Julie's by her own admission.
Was it ? I will read her statements again.
Good. She showed her honesty. She could have denied it & claimed it was not even her cheque book. But did not.
How does a 1984 minor cheque book fraud using another persons cheque book (with her permission) effect the case ?
-
Was it ? I will read her statements again.
Good. She showed her honesty. She could have denied it & claimed it was not even her cheque book. But did not.
How does a 1984 minor cheque book fraud using another persons cheque book (with her permission) effect the case ?
Someone must have thought it might otherwise why mention it.
You have a very skewed idea of honesty. I would have thought "honesty" meant NOT committing crimes in the first place, not committing them and admitting to them because of the possible consequences for not doing so.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=289.0
Seems like it was a joint decision. Encouraged by Jeremy. Susan a willing participant & using her own cheque book.
Both Julie & Susan admitting to it, apoloising to the bank manager & paying the money back.
The main issue is the police had nothing to blackmail Julie with, to create a false WS & diary after she first went to visit them.
-
So if Jeremy had told Julie to put her hand in the fire-----------she would have done ?
Cobblers !
-
Someone must have thought it might otherwise why mention it.
You have a very skewed idea of honesty. I would have thought "honesty" meant NOT committing crimes in the first place, not committing them and admitting to them because of the possible consequences for not doing so.
Yes. The defence mentioned it at trial.
Susan went to the police after Julie had finished her WS. Julie also admitted the fraud using Susan's cheque book a month after her WS had been completed.
I suspect both people felt if they were going to be involved in a major trial, they should be honest about their previous minor crime. Julie had already been honest, mentioning the caravan break in.
-
Julie mentioned the caravan break in because it involved Jeremy. It also involved his family who were massacred a few months later. It also implicated Julie.
Susans cheque book fraud was nothing to do with anything.
-
Yes. The defence mentioned it at trial.
Susan went to the police after Julie had finished her WS. Julie also admitted the fraud using Susan's cheque book a month after her WS had been completed.
I suspect both people felt if they were going to be involved in a major trial, they should be honest about their previous minor crime. Julie had already been honest, mentioning the caravan break in.
Being honest would have been not committing the crime in the first place, NOT as you admit, only owning up to it because they were going to be involved in a major trial.
-
Being honest would have been not committing the crime in the first place, NOT as you admit, only owning up to it because they were going to be involved in a major trial.
Ok. Both Julie and Jeremy lied under oath. They had both committed crimes previously so are not honest.
Guess we have to go on the other witnesses & evidence.
-
Ok. Both Julie and Jeremy lied under oath. They had both committed crimes previously so are not honest.
Guess we have to go on the other witnesses & evidence.
Which brings us very neatly back to the point that the evidence, the WHOLE evidence and (in places) NOTHING of the evidence was put to the jury. For me, this isn 't so much about whether Jeremy is guilty or innocent, it's more about the fairness, or not, of his trial.
-
Which brings us very neatly back to the point that the evidence, the WHOLE evidence and (in places) NOTHING of the evidence was put to the jury. For me, this isn 't so much about whether Jeremy is guilty or innocent, it's more about the fairness, or not, of his trial.
I created a thread on the trial fairness. Did not get much evidence of what was unfair or held back.
There was a mountain of circumstantial evidence. Together with the forensic evidence - silencer, Sheilas body condition. Together with other witnesses.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=289.0
Seems like it was a joint decision. Encouraged by Jeremy. Susan a willing participant & using her own cheque book.
Both Julie & Susan admitting to it, apoloising to the bank manager & paying the money back.
The main issue is the police had nothing to blackmail Julie with, to create a false WS & diary after she first went to visit them.
Oh I can just imagine the Nuremberg trial after the 2nd world war. "But it was all Hitler's idea. We are completely innocent and honest people". But it didn't save them. Come on she can't really play the innocent card on this one. Everybody must bear his/her own sins.
-
Ok. Both Julie and Jeremy lied under oath. They had both committed crimes previously so are not honest.
Guess we have to go on the other witnesses & evidence.
So you could use the same argument with regard to Jeremy as well. What has the break in at the caravan site got to do with this case?
-
I created a thread on the trial fairness. Did not get much evidence of what was unfair or held back.
There was a mountain of circumstantial evidence. Together with the forensic evidence - silencer, Sheilas body condition. Together with other witnesses.
You were given the evidence of how unfair the trial was. You just didn't believe it. But you did get answers.
-
Ok. Both Julie and Jeremy lied under oath. They had both committed crimes previously so are not honest.
Guess we have to go on the other witnesses & evidence.
Well, you got there in the end.
-
So you could use the same argument with regard to Jeremy as well. What has the break in at the caravan site got to do with this case?
It was a crime committed by Jeremy against his family.
It involved both the suspect & the main witness.
It was followed by a further crime against Jeremys family. By Jeremy.
Jeremy trusted Julie enough to include Julie in his caravan break in. Would he trust her enough to ring her at 3.00am ?
-
Of course,,because she was his " partner in crime ",,wasn't she ??
-
You were given the evidence of how unfair the trial was. You just didn't believe it. But you did get answers.
I will read the thread again as I do not remember anything.
-
It was a crime committed by Jeremy against his family.
It involved both the suspect & the main witness.
It was followed by a further crime against Jeremys family. By Jeremy.
Jeremy trusted Julie enough to include Julie in his caravan break in. Would he trust her enough to ring her at 3.00am ?
So perhaps he recognized that having established her criminal capabilities with fraud using someone else's cheque book, she wouldn't be too squeamish about doing a tiny robbery on an establishment that Jeremy had shares in anyway.
-
It was a crime committed by Jeremy against his family.
It involved both the suspect & the main witness.
It was followed by a further crime against Jeremys family. By Jeremy.
Jeremy trusted Julie enough to include Julie in his caravan break in. Would he trust her enough to ring her at 3.00am ?
Not 3am
Does not make him a murderer
-
So perhaps he recognized that having established her criminal capabilities with fraud using someone else's cheque book, she wouldn't be too squeamish about doing a tiny robbery on an establishment that Jeremy had shares in anyway.
Perhaps.
After telling Julie & anyone else who would listen how much he hated his family , he may have thought Julie would understand. Which helps explain the 3.00am call.
-
A side note about the Q B fraud. It was Julie´s idea, she says so herself. She had to talk a reluctant Susan into it, she says so herself.
Why didn´t she use her own Q B for the fraud, since this was HER idea, and why did she wipe it off on Jeremy that she did it in the first place, he had nothing to do with it whatsoever?
Manipulative much?
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=284.0
You must have missed my post on page 25. Oh sorry I forgot you have me ignore. So will post incorrect information.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=284.0
You must have missed my post on page 25. Oh sorry I forgot you have me ignore. So will post incorrect information.
Why must you always link to that dusgusting pooy place?
-
I am just putting up official documents.
-
It really all does not make any sense . According to JM he went to all that thought about why he could not burn the house down, threw in the red herring about a contract killing and yet it appears from the trial he then made the basic mistake of leaving a bloodied silencer in the house .
She certainly constructed the crime well - mentioning all the possible questions that might crop up ::)
It also neatly covers that it could be a contract - OR JB by mentioning the bike / etc.
The last paragraph about the fingerprints on the gun are weird - its implicating that Sheila was killed before NB as the glove coming off in the fight might wipe off her prints and someone elses prints? Who might they be.
I find it all very very strange. If in the long run it is proved JB is innocent then JM has an awful lot to answer for .
And as for Adams comments about her not being dumped? Its quite clear from her statements she thought that she was .
Also she does not mention having to ID the bodies and how she felt about that. She also repeats several times that she "Knew" he was guilty - it was only because she loved him and felt sorry for him that she kept quiet - weird .
I can genuinely say if JB is guilty I don't get her - I think it is wicked to go and see those poor children knowing what he had done - and if he is innocent I don't get her either , because this is a wicked web to have spun.
-
I am just putting up official documents.
Just save them and post them on here. I'd rather not soil my shoes in that unholy place. I'll burn them it's hot as hell over there.
-
Are we sure that Julie said, "if I can't have you, no one can"?
Where does this bit of 'evidence' come from?
Hi Neil, in her statement of 8th September 1985 Julie Mugford actually said 'at one point I got a pillow and put it over his head' ..... 'he asked me why I did it and I said if he were dead he would always be with me. I had his car keys so he couldn't go.'
Jeremy Bamber has always claimed she also said 'If I can't have you nobody will' So it may be that Jeremy Bamber may have misquoted deliberately or mistakenly or Julie Mugford may have slightly changed her original words for her statement?? :) :)
-
Hi Neil, in her statement of 8th September 1985 Julie Mugford actually said 'at one point I got a pillow and put it over his head' ..... 'he asked me why I did it and I said if he were dead he would always be with me. I had his car keys so he couldn't go.'
Jeremy Bamber has always claimed she also said 'If I can't have you nobody will' So it may be that Jeremy Bamber may have misquoted deliberately or mistakenly or Julie Mugford may have slightly changed her original words for her statement?? :) :)
Thanks for that Maggie. As a proponent of "If I can't have you, no one will" it's good to know that even if Julie didn't say the words, they were said and I didn't just pull them out of the ether. Apologies if I misled anyone.
-
Hi Neil, in her statement of 8th September 1985 Julie Mugford actually said 'at one point I got a pillow and put it over his head' ..... 'he asked me why I did it and I said if he were dead he would always be with me. I had his car keys so he couldn't go.'
Jeremy Bamber has always claimed she also said 'If I can't have you nobody will' So it may be that Jeremy Bamber may have misquoted deliberately or mistakenly or Julie Mugford may have slightly changed her original words for her statement?? :) :)
Julie Mugford gave evidence in court that at the time of the above incident she knew Jeremy Bamber was guilty but it's obvious to anyone that Julie Mugford was not in the least bit frightened of Jeremy Bamber causing her any harm at that time. I find this really strange if she knew he had just murdered five people in cold blood?
-
Thanks for that Maggie. As a proponent of "If I can't have you, no one will" it's good to know that even if Julie didn't say the words, they were said and I didn't just pull them out of the ether. Apologies if I misled anyone.
No you didn't pull them out of the ether Jeremy claims Julie said those exact words but Julie's recorded words are slightly different. It may just be interpretation April??
-
Julie Mugford gave evidence in court that at the time of the above incident she knew Jeremy Bamber was guilty but it's obvious to anyone that Julie Mugford was not in the least bit frightened of Jeremy Bamber causing her any harm at that time. I find this really strange if she knew he had just murdered five people in cold blood?
Maggie, I find it equally odd that in her WS she says that because of what had happened, she left Goldhanger on August 27th because she "was too upset to stay" but she hoped the courtship would continue!!!!! THIS from a woman who supposedly KNEW her lover had committed mass murder -her WS is peppered with how she KNEW- but the"hoped the courtship would continue." Strange.
-
Maggie, I find it equally odd that in her WS she says that because of what had happened, she left Goldhanger on August 27th because she "was too upset to stay" but she hoped the courtship would continue!!!!! THIS from a woman who supposedly KNEW her lover had committed mass murder -her WS is peppered with how she KNEW- but the"hoped the courtship would continue." Strange.
yes I would be interested to read her court transcript when she was cross examined.
-
yes I would be interested to read her court transcript when she was cross examined.
Wouldn't we all, Jansus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Maggie, I find it equally odd that in her WS she says that because of what had happened, she left Goldhanger on August 27th because she "was too upset to stay" but she hoped the courtship would continue!!!!! THIS from a woman who supposedly KNEW her lover had committed mass murder -her WS is peppered with how she KNEW- but the"hoped the courtship would continue." Strange.
It's another example of mixed messages imo April!! If these people have agreed to be economical with the truth I wish they'd stick to their story, they are all so bad at it, it's like an amateur production of a 'who done it', unfortunately it had dreadfully serious consequences for Jeremy Bamber. :(