Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackiePreece on August 01, 2014, 01:49:PM
-
If Jeremy was guilty why would he:
1) Blame the police for killing his family
2) Say to the police he wasn't getting along with his sister
3) Not get an alibi
4) Finish with Julie Mugford a few weeks after he had told her he was responsible for the murders
5) Say he was responsible for leaving the gun on the table
6) Go away on holiday leaving a silencer in the cupboard which was used in the murders
more to be added
-
If Jeremy was guilty why would he:
1) Blame the police for killing his family
2) Say to the police he wasn't getting along with his sister
3) Not get an alibi
4) Finish with Julie Mugford a few weeks after he had told her he was responsible for the murders
5) Say he was responsible for leaving the gun on the table
6) Go away on holiday leaving a silencer in the cupboard which was used in the murders
more to be added
Remember JM went with him. She didn't think it was strange like everybody else "apparenly" did?
-
If Jeremy was guilty why would he:
1) Blame the police for killing his family - I believe he was referred to as a 'consummate actor'?
2) Say to the police he wasn't getting along with his sister - "It's important to tell the truth where possible"
3) Not get an alibi - The phone call from his father was supposed to be his alibi.
4) Finish with Julie Mugford a few weeks after he had told her he was responsible for the murders - He didn't tell her the full truth and I guess he hoped that when her story didn't check out, the police would just think she was a woman scorned seeking revenge
5) Say he was responsible for leaving the gun on the table. Same answer as 2 but also to explain away any finger prints which might have been found on the weapon or ammunition.
6) Go away on holiday leaving a silencer in the cupboard which was used in the murders. Don't believe the silencer was used
more to be added
-
Hello Caroline I agree with all the points in your post butI do try and figure out why he told Julie anything at all was he just acting the big man and showing off.
-
well he wouldent of done any of thnose things.
-
Exactly nugnug
-
How do you explain the scratches on the mantle?
-
Who described him as an actor?
-
well maybe leaving a silencer in the cupboard down to carelessness but the rest no way.
if he was trying to fool the police the last thing he would do is accuse them of anything.
-
How could a non alibi be an alibi? If it is not accepted by others then surely it must have occerred to him that it would be a crap alibi. I cannot see any way he could call that an alibi. Has he at any time used the word alibi in regard to the phone call? Or has he at any point used the phone call as a means of defense in order to try and prove that he didn't kill his family?
-
well of course if your innocent you dont know you need an albi.
-
Who described him as an actor?
A copper.
-
well of course if your innocent you dont know you need an albi.
Only crooks and coppers talk about alibis. Innocent people do not.
-
if you did something you theirs a chance you will be accused of it.
of course if you dident do it you wont have a clue your going to be accused.
-
How could a non alibi be an alibi? If it is not accepted by others then surely it must have occerred to him that it would be a crap alibi. I cannot see any way he could call that an alibi. Has he at any time used the word alibi in regard to the phone call? Or has he at any point used the phone call as a means of defense in order to try and prove that he didn't kill his family?
Jeremy's best option was to phone the police and create the siege situation.
Threads already created.
-
Jeremy's best option was to phone the police and create the siege situation.
Threads already created.
That statement Adam has precisely nothing to do with what I just posted. Wanna try again?
-
These were his options:
1:
Jeremy to have coffee & brekkie with the family. Before starting work.
This is unlikely.
Jeremy likes to give the impression he had a nice family supper on the massacre night. However it is well known he did not like and resented his family. The evening supper was Jeremys chance to case the joint, make sure everyone was sleeping at WHF that night, load the rifle and insinuate Sheila later by mentioning the fostering conversation. .
So it is unlikely breakfast and coffee at WHF was going to happen in the morning before work.
2:
Jeremy to meet Neville on site at the farm first thing in the morning. Neville to instruct Jeremy what to do for the day.
This is more likely. They were both working long hours at the time.
3:
Jeremy knew what he had to do on the farm. So just had to get on with it without meeting anyone beforehand.
Again possible. Jeremy was an experienced farmer.
It would be good to establish what the normal routine was at the time first thing in the morning. To see if there was a way Jeremy would not look suspicious.
If it was 1 or 2, it would help explain why Jeremy made up the call, as Jeremy was going to be the first person supposed to meet Neville/the family.
If it was 3, Jeremy could claim ignorance and let someone else find the bodies. Providing other people were due at WHF that morning. And had keys to let themselves in and find the bodies. That would not totally rule Jeremy out. As he was outside, nearby on WHF farm land, probably before anyone else as farmers are early starters.
The farm workers or family may know what the normal routine was.
It would be hard for Jeremy to avoid being first on the scene or look suspicious. He worked there and it was his family.
At least the phone call to the police intially put Jeremy sleeping 'like a log' at home. And arriving after the police
-
Hello Caroline I agree with all the points in your post butI do try and figure out why he told Julie anything at all was he just acting the big man and showing off.
Jeremy was an immature, insecure, baby and thus even after the murders toyed with police but before he long complained to her and even his potential future mother in law about his family. She was one of the witnesses who testified about how he complained about them and hated them. People who are secure don't need to open up to others with their problems especially just petty griping but he did and she wanted to share his excitement at the thought of killing them with someone and Julie was his confidant- maybe Collins was as well we have no way to know.
Private people tend to get away with more crimes than people like Jeremy but physical evidence can still trip them up. Still plenty of people who admitted what they have done were not betrayed till after they are dead or after the evidence is so old that the authorities cannot try them and some never betrayed. Even though there is no statute of limitations for murder, witnesses die and the evidence of the confession is often not considered enough. DNA or the like usually is not available. So being betrayed decades later often results in no charges.
It takes discipline for a killer not to brag. In OJ Simpson's book he wrote if he had done the murders this is how he would have done it...Even professional killers sometimes liek to brag about their exploits. The ones ashamed often down brag though they might eventually seek counseling and open up or confess to a priest.
-
I'll try again Adam:
How could a non alibi be an alibi? If it is not accepted by others then surely it must have occerred to him that it would be a crap alibi. I cannot see any way he could call that an alibi. Has he at any time used the word alibi in regard to the phone call? Or has he at any point used the phone call as a means of defense in order to try and prove that he didn't kill his family?
-
As everyone knows, Jeremy went for the double alibi attempt. Asking the police to pick him up.
Thread already created.
-
if he had really told mugfored all she cliamed we wouldent ask her to provide him with an albi.
-
As everyone knows, Jeremy went for the double alibi attempt. Asking the police to pick him up.
Thread already created.
Please answer my question Adam...Post created....Twice.
-
This is from the double alibi thread.
Two more important discoveries have been made in the last two days.
Jeremy's best option after committing the massacre was to phone the police at 3.30am. Another poster said Jeremy usually had breakfast at WHF, so being a farmer and early starter, he would have discovered the bodies. At best he would have been on WHF land for several hours when someone else discovered the bodies. So much better to phone the police and create a big siege scene outside WHF.
The other discovery is there was no valid reason why Jeremy would ask the police to pick him up. The only reason given was he was afraid of little Sheila. So why did Neville phone him and ask him to 'come quickly' ? Jeremy could have driven and waited 50 yards from WHF in his car. Until the police arrive. Sheila would not even know Jeremy was there. The police agreed, telling Jeremy to make his own way to WHF.
So it is clear Jeremy went after a double alibi. Trying to show he had been at home all night.
Jeremy could make sure he was seen putting on his clothes when the police arrive. Looking worried and as if he had just woken up. On the journey he could start his speech about Neville's phone call and insinuating Sheila. All this is better than the police refusing Jeremy's request and passing an almost static Jeremy on the way. It is helping Jeremy to convincingly lead the police into a direction.
Everything would happen as it did on that fateful day once everyone was at the scene. Everything would still happen afterwards, with Julie breaking, suspicious relatives, Jeremy's callous behaviour and a found silencer.
At trial, the police will testify that they picked up Jeremy at home. They may say Jeremy was half dressed and looked worried. So far, so good. Much better than Jeremy being overtaken on the way.
However the police could also testify that Jeremy asked them to pick him up. Why ? The prosecution will ask. Jeremy being at home at 3.30 does not give him an alibi for the 11pm - 3am period.
If Jeremy had been successful in his double alibi attempt, would it have made a difference ?
-
As everyone knows, Jeremy went for the double alibi attempt. Asking the police to pick him up.
Thread already created.
thats not an albi he needs one for the whole night.
-
thats not albi he needs one for the whole night.
But he can't get one. Why ?
Must dash. A lady to cook for.
-
Jeremy was an immature, insecure, baby and thus even after the murders toyed with police but before he long complained to her and even his potential future mother in law about his family. She was one of the witnesses who testified about how he complained about them and hated them. People who are secure don't need to open up to others with their problems especially just petty griping but he did and she wanted to share his excitement at the thought of killing them with someone and Julie was his confidant- maybe Collins was as well we have no way to know.
Private people tend to get away with more crimes than people like Jeremy but physical evidence can still trip them up. Still plenty of people who admitted what they have done were not betrayed till after they are dead or after the evidence is so old that the authorities cannot try them and some never betrayed. Even though there is no statute of limitations for murder, witnesses die and the evidence of the confession is often not considered enough. DNA or the like usually is not available. So being betrayed decades later often results in no charges.
It takes discipline for a killer not to brag. In OJ Simpson's book he wrote if he had done the murders this is how he would have done it...Even professional killers sometimes liek to brag about their exploits. The ones ashamed often down brag though they might eventually seek counseling and open up or confess to a priest.
I wouldn't have thought that an immature,insecure baby would even think about slaughtering 5 members of his family somehow. He'd be a quivering wreck just thinking about it,let alone carrying it out.
-
But he can't get one. Why ?
Must dash. A lady to cook for.
why couldent he have aranged one with julie if had really told was going to do it.
he could have easly got an albi if he had known he was going to need one.
-
But he can't get one. Why ?
Must dash. A lady to cook for.
Because innocent men don't need alibis. Jeremy made no mention of any kind of alibi. It is only the gulters and the cops who have used that expression in regard to Bamber.
-
How do you explain the scratches on the mantle?
I imagine whoever planted the silencer evidence made them.
-
Because innocent men don't need alibis. Jeremy made no mention of any kind of alibi. It is only the gulters and the cops who have used that expression in regard to Bamber.
surely he would of asked julie mugford to provide with one way in advance.
-
Because innocent men don't need alibis. Jeremy made no mention of any kind of alibi. It is only the gulters and the cops who have used that expression in regard to Bamber.
His alibi was that he was home and his proof was being home to receive a call from Nevill. The fact you are either too dishonest to admit this too dumb to realize is says volumes about you.
-
How could a non alibi be an alibi? If it is not accepted by others then surely it must have occerred to him that it would be a crap alibi. I cannot see any way he could call that an alibi. Has he at any time used the word alibi in regard to the phone call? Or has he at any point used the phone call as a means of defense in order to try and prove that he didn't kill his family?
Of course it's an alibi, his father called him which means he wasn't at the ram when his father was alive, hence, if he was elsewhere, he couldn't have killed him. The fact that it's full of holes means nothing but people argue in support of the phone call quite regularly so, some people obviously believe it and if you think Jeremy is innocent, then you have to believe it. How is it in any way a 'non-alibi'?
-
Who described him as an actor?
He was described as such at the trial.
-
Of course it's an alibi, his father called him which means he wasn't at the ram when his father was alive, hence, if he was elsewhere, he couldn't have killed him. The fact that it's full of holes means nothing but people argue in support of the phone call quite regularly so, some people obviously believe it and if you think Jeremy is innocent, then you have to believe it. How is it in any way a 'non-alibi'?
Show me where Bamber claimed any kind of alibi.
-
He was described as such at the trial.
The copper claimed he said it period.
-
thats not an albi he needs one for the whole night.
That's the best he could do - he couldn't have one for the time of the murders if he's guilty.
-
The copper claimed he said it period.
It was also said at the trial.
-
It was also said at the trial.
Who at the trial said it?
-
That's the best he could do - he couldn't have one for the time of the murders if he's guilty.
he could of aranged an abli with julie mugford he could of got her to come down so she could say he was with her all night.
-
Show me where Bamber claimed any kind of alibi.
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/alibis-1 ;D ;)
-
Who at the trial said it?
He was called 'a consummate actor' by Alderidge (or it could have been the judge).
-
He was described as such at the trial.
By whom
-
I imagine whoever planted the silencer evidence made them.
So you are saying he was set up?
You must have an opinion on who?
-
So you are saying he was set up?
You must have an opinion on who?
I have already said that I think Jones instigated the silencer.
-
His alibi was that he was home and his proof was being home to receive a call from Nevill. The fact you are either too dishonest to admit this too dumb to realize is says volumes about you.
as ive stated before thats not an albi he needed one for whole night and he could of easly got one if he knewneeded it.
-
He was called 'a consummate actor' by Alderidge (or it could have been the judge).
What a ridiculous quote and they knew him how well ?
-
By whom
Actually, it was Rivlin who used the term and asked the jury to decide "Who are we dealing with in this case – a consummate actor or a consummate actress?" I guess we all know the rest - but I would say there wasn't much to decide between them.
-
if was really prepared to tell Julie everything and confide in her surely he could asked her to give him an albi.
-
Yes,in exchange to be Lady of the Manor !
-
Ridiculous statement regarding the rifle
It would be perfectly normal for Jeremy's prints to be on a gun laying around whf
Where is a statement where Jeremy said he never touched guns laying around the farm?
-
Ridiculous statement regarding the rifle
It would be perfectly normal for Jeremy's prints to be on a gun laying around whf
Where is a statement where Jeremy said he never touched guns laying around the farm?
Where is the post where I said the above?
-
What a ridiculous quote and they knew him how well ?
As well as any legal team/judge/jury know the defendant. Others knew him well and yet chose either to condemn him or just not say anything in his defence.
-
judges and barristers allways say things like that its a bit of a cliche.
-
As well as any legal team/judge/jury know the defendant. Others knew him well and yet chose either to condemn him or just not say anything in his defence.
So your statement means nothing?
Aren't you getting mixed up with Mugford
I think I know Jeremy a bit more than you do and it's a ridiculous thing to be said
-
Hello Caroline I thought I had read on here (but it could be just hearsay) Jeremy said to Julie" I should have been an actor"
-
this is the same judge mugford hadent been paid when she had and that the relatives were independently wealthy when they were in fact heavily in debt.
-
So your statement means nothing?
Aren't you getting mixed up with Mugford
I think I know Jeremy a bit more than you do and it's a ridiculous thing to be said
What's that got to do with anything? Apart from Mike and NGB, you probably have spent more time with him than any other regular member. Does that mean only your opinions should be counted? You're right, it was a ridiculous thing to say but I'll let it pass!
-
Hello Caroline I thought I had read on here (but it could be just hearsay) Jeremy said to Julie" I should have been an actor"
According to Julie he said it but whether we believe it or not, depends on how reliable you think she is.
-
According to Julie he said it but whether we believe it or not, depends on how reliable you think she is.
Ha ha just hilarious!
-
As well as any legal team/judge/jury know the defendant. Others knew him well and yet chose either to condemn him or just not say anything in his defence.
Caroline
Could you just remind me what the judge/prosecution said about the Guildord Four/Birmingham 6 ?
-
Caroline
Could you just remind me what the judge/prosecution said about the Guildord Four/Birmingham 6 ?
I'm sure you'll find it online somewhere Jackie. There are probably quotes from Judges presiding over the trails of the Yorkshire Ripper trial, Denis Neilson, The Crossbow Cannibal etc. Point being that not every case is a MOJ, so not sure what a quote by the judges from the Guildord Four/Birmingham 6 has to do with Jeremy Bamber's case?
-
If Jeremy was guilty why would he:
1) Blame the police for killing his family
I have note seen him assert police killed and of his family only wacko supporters of his claim they killed Sheila. But if he ever did claim such his motication would be the same as the motivation of his wacko supporters who assert such- to pretend he didn't do it by blaming someone else. WHy do you ask such silly questions like this?
2) Say to the police he wasn't getting along with his sister
Eithe rbecause he didn't think before he spoke and thus actually spoke the truth or he realized others would reveal the truth to police and didn't want them to catch him in the lie of telling them he got along great with her. Moreover, he figured it would make no difference since he had framed her and expected them to fall for it.
3) Not get an alibi
Because guilty peopel can't have a valid alibi so the best he coudl do in trying to have an alibi was to pretend Nevill phoned him and this was supposed to establish he was home at the time of the murders.
So police would not think he dialed them from WHF he made sure police got to WHF before him.
4) Finish with Julie Mugford a few weeks after he had told her he was responsible for the murders
Julie Mugford could not take it that he was responsible for th emurders and would not marry him and that is why she broke up with him, he didn't dump her. At any rate at that point he considered himself bulletproof and did not think police would be able to prove he did it even if they believed her.
5) Say he was responsible for leaving the gun on the table
Another extremely stupid question. He claimed he left the gun and bullets in the kitchen to frame Sheila. No one would have believed that in the middle of a rage Sheila would go digging through the closet for a gun and bullets and if she had done so then she would have found a gun with the scope and moderator attached and while she was trying to load the gun she coudl have been stopped. The goal was to make it so all she had to do was place a magazine loaded prior into the gun and chamber a round and that's it so there would be no time to stop her as she was trying to load it. Moreover his way if his prints were found on the gun or bullet casings then this would provide an innocent reason for such.
6) Go away on holiday leaving a silencer in the cupboard which was used in the murders
more to be added
The same reaosn he left it there right after the murders- because he had no idea about drawback let alone serology and had no idea they would be able to prove it was used to kill Sheila. He had no idea whether police took it or not originally and if they hadn't he had no reaosn to think they would come back later. But he didn't care anyway becaus ehe had no idea that they could prove it was attached when SHeila was shot and that such would be able to prove she didn't kill herself.
-
I'm sure you'll find it online somewhere Jackie. There are probably quotes from Judges presiding over the trails of the Yorkshire Ripper trial, Denis Neilson, The Crossbow Cannibal etc. Point being that not every case is a MOJ, so not sure what a quote by the judges from the Guildord Four/Birmingham 6 has to do with Jeremy Bamber's case?
The point is if you don't understand Judges make mistakes, huge mistakes, so the 'actor' quote is worthless
-
I have note seen him assert police killed and of his family only wacko supporters of his claim they killed Sheila. But if he ever did claim such his motication would be the same as the motivation of his wacko supporters who assert such- to pretend he didn't do it by blaming someone else. WHy do you ask such silly questions like this?
Eithe rbecause he didn't think before he spoke and thus actually spoke the truth or he realized others would reveal the truth to police and didn't want them to catch him in the lie of telling them he got along great with her. Moreover, he figured it would make no difference since he had framed her and expected them to fall for it.
Because guilty peopel can't have a valid alibi so the best he coudl do in trying to have an alibi was to pretend Nevill phoned him and this was supposed to establish he was home at the time of the murders.
So police would not think he dialed them from WHF he made sure police got to WHF before him.
Julie Mugford could not take it that he was responsible for th emurders and would not marry him and that is why she broke up with him, he didn't dump her. At any rate at that point he considered himself bulletproof and did not think police would be able to prove he did it even if they believed her.
Another extremely stupid question. He claimed he left the gun and bullets in the kitchen to frame Sheila. No one would have believed that in the middle of a rage Sheila would go digging through the closet for a gun and bullets and if she had done so then she would have found a gun with the scope and moderator attached and while she was trying to load the gun she coudl have been stopped. The goal was to make it so all she had to do was place a magazine loaded prior into the gun and chamber a round and that's it so there would be no time to stop her as she was trying to load it. Moreover his way if his prints were found on the gun or bullet casings then this would provide an innocent reason for such.
The same reaosn he left it there right after the murders- because he had no idea about drawback let alone serology and had no idea they would be able to prove it was used to kill Sheila. He had no idea whether police took it or not originally and if they hadn't he had no reaosn to think they would come back later. But he didn't care anyway becaus ehe had no idea that they could prove it was attached when SHeila was shot and that such would be able to prove she didn't kill herself.
he could of easly got a false albi if he wanted he only had to ask his girlfriend.
-
The point is if you don't understand Judges make mistakes, huge mistakes, so the 'actor' quote is worthless
well this judge all be it acedently did mislead the jury a fair few times.
-
The point is if you don't understand Judges make mistakes, huge mistakes, so the 'actor' quote is worthless
Of course they do, but not always.
-
well this judge all be it acedently did mislead the jury a fair few times.
To be honest, I think he was biased and made it pretty clear what his own thinking was but then again, I haven't read all of the transcripts.
-
The point is if you don't understand Judges make mistakes, huge mistakes, so the 'actor' quote is worthless
Actually, I made a mistake (which I corrected earlier), it wasn't the judge who made the comment, it was Rivlin the quote being "Who are we dealing with in this case – a consummate actor or a consummate actress?"
-
well suerly when he said he was implying was acting.
he be implying that his own client was it would be gross misconduct if he had been.
-
he could of easly got a false albi if he wanted he only had to ask his girlfriend.
So her roomates could say they are both lying and she was in fact home with them?
Being caught in a lie like that is worse than saying you were home alone sleeping!
-
they could of easly aranged an albi way in advance she could of come down and spent the night there to give him an albi.
acording to her he told her he was planing a long time before the murder so they would of had plenty of time to set up an albi together.
-
yes ,much less stressful than going to the mortuary when "she knew he had done it"
-
they could of easly aranged an albi way in advance she could of come down and spent the night there to give him an albi.
Yeha that would not look suspicious her visiting at a time she would have been working the next day and he would have been working so not a time wehn she wa sknown to visit and yet the very day of the murders is when it happens. That too is worse than claiming being alone sleeping.
-
she could of come down stayed in the cottage while did the murders then said he was with her all night.
-
Yeha that would not look suspicious her visiting at a time she would have been working the next day and he would have been working so not a time wehn she wa sknown to visit and yet the very day of the murders is when it happens. That too is worse than claiming being alone sleeping.
never heard of a "sickie" skippy?
-
Yeha that would not look suspicious her visiting at a time she would have been working the next day and he would have been working so not a time wehn she wa sknown to visit and yet the very day of the murders is when it happens. That too is worse than claiming being alone sleeping.
she could of aranged some time of work acording to her they had plenty of time to plan it.
-
they could of easly aranged an albi way in advance she could of come down and spent the night there to give him an albi.
acording to her he told her he was planing a long time before the murder so they would of had plenty of time to set up an albi together.
Then he would have to have admitted HE did it and he would have to have selected the exact day in advance as opposed to picking a day of opportunity like he did. You are asusming she would have helped him though ther eis no guarantee she would have.
Worse yet whatever they come up with would be DIFFERENT from their usual schedule. Deviating from their usual schedule exactly when the murders occur is supicious. Her visiting out of the blue to provide an alibi would be extremely transparent.
-
of course she would of helped him acording to her story she prepared to help drug them all and she lied for him afterwoods.
why wouldent she of provided him with an albi as well.
-
Then he would have to have admitted HE did it and he would have to have selected the exact day in advance as opposed to picking a day of opportunity like he did. You are asusming she would have helped him though ther eis no guarantee she would have.
Worse yet whatever they come up with would be DIFFERENT from their usual schedule. Deviating from their usual schedule exactly when the murders occur is supicious. Her visiting out of the blue to provide an alibi would be extremely transparent.
Naaah - she was such a performer she 100% would have got away with it.
-
of course she would of helped him acording to her story she prepared to help drug them all and she lied for him afterwoods.
why wouldent she of provided him with an albi as well.
She denies that she gave him the drugs to use on his family. Whether she would have helpe dhim only she knows though she says she would not have and there is no alibi that she could have provided that would nto have been worthless and totally transparent.
-
His alibi was that he was home and his proof was being home to receive a call from Nevill. The fact you are either too dishonest to admit this too dumb to realize is says volumes about you.
Really scipio you really must buy a dictionary as your vocabulary appears to be very limited? Well I suppose grunts don't need to have much intelligence do they?
I cannot appear to find anywhere that Jeremy used the word "alibi", could you please assist me and find it for me. For as far as I can see he never once used this as his defence. But I can remember the prosecution using it though.
Oh by the way,
Wake up Dinozzo.
-
she could of come down stayed in the cottage while did the murders then said he was with her all night.
Her being at the flat with the other flat mates, meant that not only could Julie corroborate the call, but so could the others.
-
She denies that she gave him the drugs to use on his family. Whether she would have helpe dhim only she knows though she says she would not have and there is no alibi that she could have provided that would nto have been worthless and totally transparent.
He denys the whole conversation so yet again "hearsay"
Love to stay so you can run round me but have a long day tomorrow having to take a family member for an operation.
so end of the evening for me.Dont tire your self out running round in circles
-
She denies that she gave him the drugs to use on his family. Whether she would have helpe dhim only she knows though she says she would not have and there is no alibi that she could have provided that would nto have been worthless and totally transparent.
if she had said he was with her that would of been albi enough for most policeman rember that they would have to prove she was lying.
and there was no way on earth they could of done.
-
Really scipio you really must buy a dictionary as your vocabulary appears to be very limited? Well I suppose grunts don't need to have much intelligence do they?
I cannot appear to find anywhere that Jeremy used the word "alibi", could you please assist me and find it for me. For as far as I can see he never once used this as his defence. But I can remember the prosecution using it though.
Oh by the way,
Wake up Dinozzo.
It's on his own website - http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/alibis-1
-
It's on his own website - http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/alibis-1
So nowhere has Jeremy himself said he had an alibi then? Although as you have pointed out his own team have said that. So how is that phone call an alibi then? It would only be an alibi if he could back up what he said? So in effect he had no alibi did he.
In fact he would have had an actual alibi if he had done nothing. But I simply cannot see how such a phone call to his father could count as an alibi even if his official site tean said so? I don't agree with them pure and simple.
-
So nowhere has Jeremy himself said he had an alibi then? Although as you have pointed out his own team have said that. So how is that phone call an alibi then? It would only be an alibi if he could back up what he said? So in effect he had no alibi did he.
In fact he would have had an actual alibi if he had done nothing. But I simply cannot see how such a phone call to his father could count as an alibi even if his official site tean said so? I don't agree with them pure and simple.
The very fact that he indicated he was somewhere else when the murders occurred means he is providing himself with an alibi. I really don't understand what point you are trying to make here?
-
He denys the whole conversation so yet again "hearsay"
Love to stay so you can run round me but have a long day tomorrow having to take a family member for an operation.
so end of the evening for me.Dont tire your self out running round in circles
You are the one running in circles not me.
Your claim an alibi that was credible could have easily been crafted between them is nonsense. Staying over at the time of the murders to lie and say he never left would be suspicious and of little use since she could have been lying for him. Indee dit coudl be suggested in that case that she went to help him.
-
you couldent of proved it wasnt true.
to do that they would have to find somone who saw him elsewhere.
highly unlikely at that time of night.
-
Her being at the flat with the other flat mates, meant that not only could Julie corroborate the call, but so could the others.
Still a bit of an oversite on his part. I rather think it unfortunate that she wasn't staying with him that night. Otherwise it is obvious that nothing that happened that night could have helped Jeremy could it? No alibi and nothing that even smacks of an alibi. He may either have been a very very dim boy? Or innocent all together?
-
You are the one running in circles not me.
Your claim an alibi that was credible could have easily been crafted between them is nonsense. Staying over at the time of the murders to lie and say he never left would be suspicious and of little use since she could have been lying for him. Indee dit coudl be suggested in that case that she went to help him.
Matthew M´s alibi was that he was with a girlfriend that night.
-
exactly and how however hard they tried the police couldent prove otherwise.
-
The very fact that he indicated he was somewhere else when the murders occurred means he is providing himself with an alibi. I really don't understand what point you are trying to make here?
Police event told him they knew the phone call was his alibi but that they didn't believe him:
(http://s10.postimg.org/jv0kptb7d/alibi.jpg)
-
Matthew M´s alibi was that he was with a girlfriend that night.
Adide from the fact that is the norm with them unlike it not being the norm for Julie to stay over, do you actually have any evidence concerning their moveents that night or are you just assuming like you are prone to do?
-
Adide from the fact that is the norm with them unlike it not being the norm for Julie to stay over, do you actually have any evidence concerning their moveents that night or are you just assuming like you are prone to do?
Who´s movement?
You are the most unpleasant person I ever came across - just thought I´d throw that in.
-
Who´s movement?
You are the most unpleasant person I ever came across - just thought I´d throw that in.
MM's movements. What evidence do you have of what his alibi for the entire night was? You seem to just be assuming and not actually have any knowledge about whether he had been out till a certain time or not.
-
Who´s movement?
You are the most unpleasant person I ever came across - just thought I´d throw that in.
Don't get annoyed by him Alias. He's just a simple ex grunt without any kind of manners or etiquette.
-
MM's movements. What evidence do you have of what his alibi for the entire night was? You seem to just be assuming and not actually have any knowledge about whether he had been out till a certain time or not.
Whatever are your thoughts on the matter the court accepted his "alibi" for what it is worth.
-
Adide from the fact that is the norm with them unlike it not being the norm for Julie to stay over, do you actually have any evidence concerning their moveents that night or are you just assuming like you are prone to do?
how could it wasnt true if julie said it do so they would of had to have found someone who saw jeremy elsewhere.
not believing an albi and proving its not true are very different things.
if that albi had been offered they couldn't of broken it.
-
Don't get annoyed by him Alias. He's just a simple ex grunt without any kind of manners or etiquette.
I was not a grunt. All Marines go through infantry training but that doe snot ake e a grunt. They have their life on the line so it is an insult to them to take credit to having been a grunt when I was not and to disparage them for being mere "grunts" when they are the ones doing the tasks that the military exists for.
Per this video MM testified he was staying with friends not just his girlfriend providing the alibi. I wanted to see if Alias was going to cite his testimony or not and where exactly he was with these friends since it could have been far away. I know he also said he had not talked to Bamber in over a year.
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1986/10/09/AS091086026/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1
Police said his alibi was very strong and no one here seems to actually know the specifics of how far away he was, or how many peopel provided such alibi.
-
Adide from the fact that is the norm with them unlike it not being the norm for Julie to stay over, do you actually have any evidence concerning their moveents that night or are you just assuming like you are prone to do?
I'm not sure it would be normal for him given that he was also married?
-
I was not a grunt. All Marines go through infantry training but that doe snot ake e a grunt. They have their life on the line so it is an insult to them to take credit to having been a grunt when I was not and to disparage them for being mere "grunts" when they are the ones doing the tasks that the military exists for.
Per this video MM testified he was staying with friends not just his girlfriend providing the alibi. I wanted to see if Alias was going to cite his testimony or not and where exactly he was with these friends since it could have been far away. I know he also said he had not talked to Bamber in over a year.
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1986/10/09/AS091086026/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1
Police said his alibi was very strong and no one here seems to actually know the specifics of how far away he was, or how many peopel provided such alibi.
HAHA. Wake up Dinozzo
-
I'm not sure it would be normal for him given that he was also married?
If she wasn't with him and he was with a girlfriend then his alibi of messing around with her and friends some where away from home would get him in the doghouse with her (maybe she already knew he cheated though if that was the case) but beig seen far from WHF would provide a good alibi.
I still want to know where exactly he said he was and who all the people who provided alibis were.
It would put an end to the speculation about his alibi not being so solid.
-
So your statement means nothing?
Aren't you getting mixed up with Mugford
I think I know Jeremy a bit more than you do and it's a ridiculous thing to be said
Awful :o Just yuk!!!!!!!!
-
If she wasn't with him and he was with a girlfriend then his alibi of messing around with her and friends some where away from home would get him in the doghouse with her (maybe she already knew he cheated though if that was the case) but beig seen far from WHF would provide a good alibi.
I still want to know where exactly he said he was and who all the people who provided alibis were.
It would put an end to the speculation about his alibi not being so solid.
I thought I had read a typed statement before, but might be mistaken. There could be one on the forum somewhere.
-
Awful :o Just yuk!!!!!!!!
Ha! Just the man - any idea if there is a typed statement from Malcolm McD on the forum?
-
Ha! Just the man - any idea if there is a typed statement from Malcolm McD on the forum?
Not sure about a typed statement. But I suppose you are already aware of this link?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4034.0.html
-
Not sure about a typed statement. But I suppose you are already aware of this link?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4034.0.html
Yes, although hard to read, he really doesn't give an account of where he was during the murders in that interview.
-
Ha! Just the man - any idea if there is a typed statement from Malcolm McD on the forum?
There is not. :(
(That I can recall)
-
if that albi was good enough for macdonald theres no rason to think it wouldn't of been for bamber.
im sure they wanted to brake down MacDonalds albi but of course they couldn't.
-
There is not. :(
(That I can recall)
Bugger! >:(
-
HAHA. Wake up Dinozzo
What does Dinozzo mean? ???
-
Bugger! >:(
Yes, there are lots of them on the forum!!! ;D
-
I thought I had read a typed statement before, but might be mistaken. There could be one on the forum somewhere.
The only thing I have ever seen is a hand written record of him being questioned supposedly and trying to read it gave me a headache. I have seen no typed statements or his trial testomony.
-
What does Dinozzo mean? ???
Haven't you ever seen N.C.I.S. ? Navy Crime Investigation Service:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCIS_%28TV_series%29
Agent Dinozzo is one of the investigators and Jethro Gibbs is the one who slaps Dinozzo round the head for being dim.
Scipio is a Marine and obviously an investigator. I'm just having a bit of fun with him. ;)
-
Haven't you ever seen N.C.I.S. ? Navy Crime Investigation Service:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCIS_%28TV_series%29
No, sheltered life :-[
-
No, sheltered life :-[
Its a good series. One of the most popular in the States.
-
Its a good series. One of the most popular in the States.
Not really a TV kinda guy, other than sports, it's not my thing, even then I'd rather be playing than watching.
-
Haven't you ever seen N.C.I.S. ? Navy Crime Investigation Service:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCIS_%28TV_series%29
Agent Dinozzo is one of the investigators and Jethro Gibbs is the one who slaps Dinozzo round the head for being dim.
Scipio is a Marine and obviously an investigator. I'm just having a bit of fun with him. ;)
I actually don't like that show or the spinoffs. I was a fan of the various Law and Order series and CSI, particularly CSI NY which the SOBs cancelled- CBS cancels most of the shows I like such as Numbers and Without a Trace but Blue Blood's has been renewed at least...
-
If MM did it, Jeremy would not be daft enough to ring the police.
He would stay in London with Julie and claim he was taking authorised annual leave. Being nowhere near the scene when the bodies were found or when the massacre could have happened.
Julie also said Jeremy did not have £2,000 to pay.
Jeremy would not hire MM. He was not a hit man for hire, or some sort of tough guy. To expect him to suddenly massacre a family is unrealistic. There is every chance he would back down at the last minute or during the massacre. Jeremy wouldn't.
-
Adam I don't think MM was ever hired for anything he was just a plumber who liked his women. Scipio said Jeremy had not seen him for a year.
-
I agree. Other people are questioning MM alibi.
-
If MM did it, Jeremy would not be daft enough to ring the police.
He would stay in London with Julie and claim he was taking authorised annual leave. Being nowhere near the scene when the bodies were found or when the massacre could have happened.
Julie also said Jeremy did not have £2,000 to pay.
Jeremy would not hire MM. He was not a hit man for hire, or some sort of tough guy. To expect him to suddenly massacre a family is unrealistic. There is every chance he would back down at the last minute or during the massacre. Jeremy wouldn't.
Actually, Jeremy had exactly £2,000 in his account at the time of the murders but I agree that it would be difficult for Jeremy to find a local man willing to kill two children for 2 grand. I believe that Jeremy purposely told Julie a C&B story so as to discredit her if she ever went to the police. He was simply confident (or arrogant) enough to think he would be believed.
-
There are lots of reasons why Jeremy would tell Julie he was involved. Thread already created.
There are also lots of reasons why he would use a proxy. It is clear MM had nothing to do with the massacre.
-
Yes, there are lots of them on the forum!!! ;D
When I was young I was always taught never to say them or you. But rather to say We or us. ;D So probably being a man of good manners you probably meant to say, "Yes, there are lots of us on the forum"!!! ;D
-
I actually don't like that show or the spinoffs. I was a fan of the various Law and Order series and CSI, particularly CSI NY which the SOBs cancelled- CBS cancels most of the shows I like such as Numbers and Without a Trace but Blue Blood's has been renewed at least...
Yes I like those shows as well. But I don't really find the time to watch many of them.
-
If MM did it, Jeremy would not be daft enough to ring the police.
He would stay in London with Julie and claim he was taking authorised annual leave. Being nowhere near the scene when the bodies were found or when the massacre could have happened.
Julie also said Jeremy did not have £2,000 to pay.
Jeremy would not hire MM. He was not a hit man for hire, or some sort of tough guy. To expect him to suddenly massacre a family is unrealistic. There is every chance he would back down at the last minute or during the massacre. Jeremy wouldn't.
Exactly What I think. The whole silly story of the hitman was a complete fabrication by Muggy. ;) It's a pity she didn't think things through.
-
Actually, Jeremy had exactly £2,000 in his account at the time of the murders but I agree that it would be difficult for Jeremy to find a local man willing to kill two children for 2 grand. I believe that Jeremy purposely told Julie a C&B story so as to discredit her if she ever went to the police. He was simply confident (or arrogant) enough to think he would be believed.
Caroline the clue is " in his account". ;)
-
Hi Grahame give me a clue don't get the answer you gave Caroline :'(
-
Actually, Jeremy had exactly £2,000 in his account at the time of the murders but I agree that it would be difficult for Jeremy to find a local man willing to kill two children for 2 grand. I believe that Jeremy purposely told Julie a C&B story so as to discredit her if she ever went to the police. He was simply confident (or arrogant) enough to think he would be believed.
Quote from: Adam on December 24, 2013, 01:45:PM
There is no evidence Mugford lied. Ever.
Oh yes there is!!
You have come a long way since you said this Caroline !!
-
Hi Grahame give me a clue don't get the answer you gave Caroline :'(
Susan the money was "in his account". In other words he didn't pay anyone to muder his family.
-
Quote from: Adam on December 24, 2013, 01:45:PM
There is no evidence Mugford lied. Ever.
Oh yes there is!!
You have come a long way since you said this Caroline !!
And this ,
Well, I guess that's arguable but I do think Rivlin made a good job of discrediting Mugford, even the judge (who I feel was biased in favour of the prosecution because he didn't understand the blood in the silencer evidence!!), warned the jury about talking anything she said as gospel. Rivlin pointed out that when the defence asked her questions, she became weepy and emotional and it was difficult to get an answer from her but when questioned by the prosecution she was composed and answered with no problem!! (Rather telling I think!!).
-
Caroline the clue is " in his account". ;)
What clue? She was responding to a post indicating that Jeremy didn't £2, by saying he actually had that amount in his account.
That was all. :-\
-
Quote from: Adam on December 24, 2013, 01:45:PM
There is no evidence Mugford lied. Ever.
Oh yes there is!!
You have come a long way since you said this Caroline !!
The evidence that Muggy lied are the lies she told about almost everything she claimed Jeremy told her. The problem is that although it was she who lied the opposition are intent of thinking that it was Jeremy who lied and not her.
That to me is very strange as those who lie are usually accountable for their own lies. Unfortunately instead of Muggy, Jeremy gets blamed for her lies. Very odd logic if you ask me, especially as there is absolutely nothing to back up a word she said as they were allegedly said in private.
What amazes me of course is how can anyone be so dumb so as to be taken in by this woman?
-
And this ,
Well, I guess that's arguable but I do think Rivlin made a good job of discrediting Mugford, even the judge (who I feel was biased in favour of the prosecution because he didn't understand the blood in the silencer evidence!!), warned the jury about talking anything she said as gospel. Rivlin pointed out that when the defence asked her questions, she became weepy and emotional and it was difficult to get an answer from her but when questioned by the prosecution she was composed and answered with no problem!! (Rather telling I think!!).
Jeremy's counsel apparently according to Adam were also taken in by Muggy's lies. The only level headed one among the cops was Taff Jones who didn't believe a word of her testimony.
-
What clue? She was responding to a post indicating that Jeremy didn't £2, by saying he actually had that amount in his account.
That was all. :-\
Wake up Hartley I just explained what I meant. Have a cup of coffee, that'll sharpen you up a bit. ;)
-
The evidence that Muggy lied are the lies she told about almost everything she claimed Jeremy told her. The problem is that although it was she who lied the opposition are intent of thinking that it was Jeremy who lied and not her.
That to me is very strange as those who lie are usually accountable for their own lies. Unfortunately instead of Muggy, Jeremy gets blamed for her lies. Very odd logic if you ask me, especially as there is absolutely nothing to back up a word she said as they were allegedly said in private.
What amazes me of course is how can anyone be so dumb so as to be taken in by this woman?
You clearly don't understand then.
Regardless of whether you believe Julie or not, she has given an account of what Jeremy had told her.
The fact that the information Jeremy told her was a fabrication, doesn't mean that he didn't say it to Julie.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Julie lied. Likewise there is no actual evidence that she told the truth.
It boils down to what you believe, I suspect the actual truth is somewhere in between.
-
You clearly don't understand then.
Regardless of whether you believe Julie or not, she has given an account of what Jeremy had told her.
The fact that the information Jeremy told her was a fabrication, doesn't mean that he didn't say it to Julie.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Julie lied. Likewise there is no actual evidence that she told the truth.
It boils down to what you believe, I suspect the actual truth is somewhere in between.
Perhaps or perhaps not. ;D
-
Wake up Hartley I just explained what I meant. Have a cup of coffee, that'll sharpen you up a bit. ;)
Yes and what you meant didn't relate to what was posted.
I have to admit though, I am struggling to wake up ...... zzzzzzzzzzzzzz :P
-
Yes and what you meant didn't relate to what was posted.
I have to admit though, I am struggling to wake up ...... zzzzzzzzzzzzzz :P
Perhaps this'll help? ;D ;D
-
Caroline the clue is " in his account". ;)
Clue to what? She wouldn't know he had 2 grand in his account but if he told her that MM was a hitman and said he paid him 2 grand; when the police check out her story and find out it's bollocks - he could prove he still had 2 grand and that none of it was paid out from his account. Had Jeremy not already been a suspect, the woman scorned may have held ground with police. Strange how she told police the exact amount that Jeremy had in his account - was he drip feeding?
-
Thought Julie said in her WS she knew Jeremy did not have 2k available.
-
Thought Julie said in her WS she knew Jeremy did not have 2k available.
Well, he did!
-
Thought Julie said in her WS she knew Jeremy did not have 2k available.
Yes, so I don't know where Caroline got all that from about her knowing he had 2k in the bank?
-
Well, he did!
Is that what Jeremy told you ?
-
Well, he did!
The JM didn't know what he had in the bank then after all?
-
Yes, so I don't know where Caroline got all that from about her knowing he had 2k in the bank?
if you were paying a hit man I dont think you would be stupid enough to go and draw the money out of your own account straight after the event, don't forget he had been planning for a year so he would have the cash stashed away somewhere so I think this whole argument is nonsense.
The only way I can see Jeremy having said any of the hit man stuff ( although of course he claims it is fabrication) is if Julie had started probing him accusingly and he ( on the verge of dumping her) thought was a silly young woman ( as he was innocent ) and started making sarcastic comments which he never thought she would take seriously.
But I still don't believe innocent or guilty that he said any of it. It just does not make any sense at all.
Especially if the relationship was on the wane you would not want to give anything away to implicate yourself . If he did all that planning , with the phone detail and everything else that was involved , you are not going to risk everything at the last minute.
-
Julie said Jeremy told her about MM when they first met after the massacre.
-
Julie said Jeremy told her about MM when they first met after the massacre.
that makes it even more unlikely then.
Why would he be that stupid - it does not make the crime any less horrific?
OR, LIGHTBULB MOMENT , does that in her mind excuse her still supporting him and sleeping with a murderer for a month because he had not done it by his own hands ?
If she was a fantasist and attention seeker then in her own mind that meant she was not really an accessory because he was not the person who had carried out the murders. Hmmm now that does sound more likely. She was going to help the police get him put away but protect her involvement at the same time.
-
Yes, so I don't know where Caroline got all that from about her knowing he had 2k in the bank?
Actually, it's in Jeremy's WS But will have to check, thought this was common knowledge?
-
Julie said she asked Jeremy almost straight away if he did it.
She obviously had her suspicions straight away. It must have been what Jeremy had previously told her. And Jeremy's 3am phone call to her.
-
that makes it even more unlikely then.
Why would he be that stupid - it does not make the crime any less horrific?
OR, LIGHTBULB MOMENT , does that in her mind excuse her still supporting him and sleeping with a murderer for a month because he had not done it by his own hands ?
If she was a fantasist and attention seeker then in her own mind that meant she was not really an accessory because he was not the person who had carried out the murders. Hmmm now that does sound more likely. She was going to help the police get him put away but protect her involvement at the same time.
Of course it doesn't make it any less horrific in your or my eye's but maybe it did to Jeremy. I still say he made up the hit man story so that if she blabbed, it could be shown there was no hit man and Julie would be discredited.
-
That is one reason.
The other being that it did not make Jeremy seem so bad.
There are lots of reasons he told Julie. Thread already created.
-
I will read his WS soon. Should be interesting.
-
Of course it doesn't make it any less horrific in your or my eye's but maybe it did to Jeremy. I still say he made up the hit man story so that if she blabbed, it could be shown there was no hit man and Julie would be discredited.
possible - but quite complicated - I would of thought that if he ever thought she would blab then he would not have told her in the first place . Especially not the words she alleges on the night of the murder .
-
I will read his WS soon. Should be interesting.
You mean you haven't read it already? How then can you make any balanced judgments on the matter?
-
possible - but quite complicated - I would of thought that if he ever thought she would blab then he would not have told her in the first place . Especially not the words she alleges on the night of the murder .
It may have been too late, after all, he is supposed to have been planning it for a year. He may have thought she and he would stay together but as time went on, they grew apart but he's already told her his plan. The hitman story was insurance - unfortunately for Jeremy (if this was the plan) he became a suspect for other reasons and so it didn't work.
-
You mean you haven't read it already? How then can you make any balanced judgments on the matter?
Quite easily thank you. There is a lot of information online. And some good unbiased books. You should try reading one.
-
Quite easily thank you. There is a lot of information online. And some good unbiased books. You should try reading one.
I don't think the books you have read could be unbiased or you would be capable of looking at things from both sides.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=TlrdU9mkCKuR0QXZpoHQDQ&url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1854872214%3Fpc_redir%3D1404038278%26robot_redir%3D1&cd=7&ved=0CDIQFjAG&usg=AFQjCNGqSz5LAQ-wEsax-4aJ9haT9ydD9w
-
I don't think the books you have read could be unbiased or you would be capable of looking at things from both sides.
There is no such thing as an unbiased book, the writer can't help (no matter how hard he/she tries) from influencing how the information is presented. Even history books are biased, depending on the source of the info.
-
Quite easily thank you. There is a lot of information online. And some good unbiased books. You should try reading one.
I have. In the meantime I should read Jeremy's statement if I were you and instead of relying on biased books you should do your own research for a change.
-
There is no such thing as an unbiased book, the writer can't help (no matter how hard he/she tries) from influencing how the information is presented. Even history books are biased, depending on the source of the info.
I am agreeing and its obvious which way the books are biased that Adam has read.
Sometimes it is obvious of the bias just from the title. :)
-
I have. In the meantime I should read Jeremy's statement if I were you and instead of relying on biased books you should do your own research for a change.
I am afraid I have done a lot more research than you.
Which is why you spend all you're time fire fighting. Making excuses and trying to justify the mountain of incriminating forensic and circumstantial evidence highlighting Jeremy's guilt.
-
I am agreeing and its obvious which way the books are biased that Adam has read.
Sometimes it is obvious of the bias just from the title. :)
I trow that he already believed that Jeremy was guilty before he even read the books? He just needed the books to back up his belief.
-
I am afraid I have done a lot more research than you.
Which is why you spend all you're time fire fighting. Making excuses and trying to justify the mountain of incriminating forensic and circumstantial evidence highlighting Jeremy's guilt.
I doubt it mate? I you weren't even born when I started my research into the case then you were certainly running around in nappies.
-
I am agreeing and its obvious which way the books are biased that Adam has read.
Sometimes it is obvious of the bias just from the title. :)
Have you read the book. Or any books on the case ?
-
Have you read the book. Or any books on the case ?
Adam come back when you've grown in wisdom (when you're old) then we will consider your opinion valid.
-
Have you read the book. Or any books on the case ?
which one are you referring to in particular?
And you obviously have not read my posts if you ask that question.
-
I doubt it mate? I you weren't even born when I started my research into the case then you were certainly running around in nappies.
Why are you wrong about just about every detail you post then? If you did so much research and yet are always wrong it means your research was dreadfully incompetent.
From your claim Ann Eaton never specified the blood in the panties was in the crotch area, to your claim there is absolute evidence that Nevill called Jeremy the night of the murders you have been wrong.
-
There is no such thing as an unbiased book, the writer can't help (no matter how hard he/she tries) from influencing how the information is presented. Even history books are biased, depending on the source of the info.
That is not entirely true. A write can write a book that objectively covers all details and leav eit to the reader to decide what is the truth but few writers have the discipline or desire to do such for a variety of reasons including that such books usually garner less attention than something provocative.
-
if you were paying a hit man I dont think you would be stupid enough to go and draw the money out of your own account straight after the event, don't forget he had been planning for a year so he would have the cash stashed away somewhere so I think this whole argument is nonsense.
The only way I can see Jeremy having said any of the hit man stuff ( although of course he claims it is fabrication) is if Julie had started probing him accusingly and he ( on the verge of dumping her) thought was a silly young woman ( as he was innocent ) and started making sarcastic comments which he never thought she would take seriously.
But I still don't believe innocent or guilty that he said any of it. It just does not make any sense at all.
Especially if the relationship was on the wane you would not want to give anything away to implicate yourself . If he did all that planning , with the phone detail and everything else that was involved , you are not going to risk everything at the last minute.
There are people who have done just that hsortly before or after a crime and that is why police always check because even though many are not so foolish some are.
-
Why are you wrong about just about every detail you post then? If you did so much research and yet are always wrong it means your research was dreadfully incompetent.
From your claim Ann Eaton never specified the blood in the panties was in the crotch area, to your claim there is absolute evidence that Nevill called Jeremy the night of the murders you have been wrong.
It's called "age" sonny jim and failing memory which comes along when some become old. Add to that the weariness of life.
Now I find I cannot remember things both long term and short term. Yes that's one reason I make mistakes sometimes. What's your excuse for being arrogant and rude?
-
That is not entirely true. A write can write a book that objectively covers all details and leav eit to the reader to decide what is the truth but few writers have the discipline or desire to do such for a variety of reasons including that such books usually garner less attention than something provocative.
I very much doubt it. It is a bit like playing chess. You are bound to prefer one side or the other somewhere down the line. Every writer must put his mark on a book somewhere. We all without exception are biased to some degree or other, even if we come to that bias through facts obtained. That is why when someone on here calls the other person biased there is always an element of truth in it whether that person denies it or not.
-
It's called "age" sonny jim and failing memory which comes along when some become old. Add to that the weariness of life.
Now I find I cannot remember things both long term and short term. Yes that's one reason I make mistakes sometimes. What's your excuse for being arrogant and rude?
Hey,age doesn't come in to it, Grahame.. I can still multi-task-------laugh,,cough,,sneeze,,fart and pee,all at the same time,so there.
-
There are people who have done just that hsortly before or after a crime and that is why police always check because even though many are not so foolish some are.
Take it from me sonny jim most are just plain dumb.
-
It's called "age" sonny jim and failing memory which comes along when some become old. Add to that the weariness of life.
Now I find I cannot remember things both long term and short term. Yes that's one reason I make mistakes sometimes. What's your excuse for being arrogant and rude?
I'm not arrogant, peopel who can't stand being proved wrong call those who prove them wrong constantly arrogant.
In the meantime if you know your memroy is not great because of age then why don't you actually read a statement before claiming a statement says something or accusing others of being wrong?
-
I'm not arrogant, peopel who can't stand being proved wrong call those who prove them wrong constantly arrogant.
In the meantime if you know your memroy is not great because of age then why don't you actually read a statement before claiming a statement says something or accusing others of being wrong?
I think most people on this forum will say you are arrogant. It isn't what you say that upsets members it's the way you say it. Why should I worry about whether you're right or wrong? It doesn't make sense. Your very words betray you. The fact that you keep insisting that you are the be all and end all when it comes to the truth shows that you are indeed arrogant. You misinterpret people who insist that you are arrogant thinking that they don't like you because you are telling the truth.
Unfortunately that is just you walking in the vanity of your own mind.
Listen let me give you a piece of advice. When 3 people tell you that you are sick, lie down ecause they are probably right.
No one called Hartley arrogant and he posts the truth about stuff. Surely that must be some kind of litmus test for your own attitude?
-
Take it from me sonny jim most are just plain dumb.
If most criminals are dumb enough to pay a hitman by drawing a large sum from their bank account around the time of the event then there would be more instances of police catching criminals for displaying sheer stupidity. My post that some are that dumb but not a majority was accurate.
But since you think most are that stupid why do you doubt Jeremy was not smart enough to know about drawback? That actually requires a lot of skill to know about not even the level of stupidity you attribute to most.
If you actually sincenrely held the beliefs you have expressed including your belief that he would not have taken out the gun to shoot rabbits then you should believe he is guilty.
It seems you just say crap you don't mean and just give Jeremy a free pass for no rational reason. You repeatedly have stated you will neve rbelieve he did it but have no raitonal reaosn why you are guided purely by bias not facts when it comes to making that call.