Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on September 09, 2014, 03:53:AM
-
Jeremy's supporters often criticise Julie for not going to the police straight away.
There are lots of reasons why she approached the police a month later-
She was Jeremy's girlfriend.
She loved Jeremy and said she was under his spell.
She was in shock.
She was afraid of what Jeremy may do if he found out.
She tried to deny it to herself that the man she loved was involved.
Jeremy had said that he had paid MM £2,000 to commit the massacre. Julie said she knew Jeremy did not have this money available. So she would have clung to the possibility that Jeremy was making false boasts.
She was 20 years old. We all make wrong decisions when so young.
Jeremy had said he was 'watertight' and it was an 'open and shut case'. He said Julie would not be believed.
She was afraid she would be implicating herself. Being aware of his hatred and resentment towards his family, and previous plans.
While still in shock, she gave a statement early on. So was afraid that changing her statement days or weeks later may put her in trouble.
She was afraid she would not be believed. Making herself look stupid and getting in trouble with the police for making false claims.
She was caught in the eye of a hurricane. Police, relatives and the media always around, funerals to attend. Jeremy getting police cars to pick her up, then whisking her off to Amsterdam the weekend after the massacre.
She had no one to speak to at first. Being with Jeremy most of the time after the massacre. She did not want to attend the funeral or continuously go around with Jeremy & Brett. But was persuaded to by Jeremy.
--------------------------------
It is true she approached the police, (via Liz Rimmington) after they had spilt up. After finally getting to speak to other people she trusted. She was hardly likely to approach the police while still Jeremy's girlfriend, was she ?
Jeremy said the relationship had been in decline for six months prior to the massacre. They were both young and living miles away from each other. The massacre probably speeded up the ending of the relationship by a few weeks. After Julie had come to terms with the massacre and cleared her head.
It is not conclusive about who jilted who. Although Jeremy has always weakly said Julie spoke to the police and testified because he jilted her. But he has never said scorned women are just as likely to tell the truth.
Speaking to the police a month later seems quite normal to me (see above). Making these claims months of years later, after moving in with or marrying Jeremy would have looked much worse.
She was brave in approaching the police. Jeremy had not been arrested and the silencer evidence had not come back from the lab. The police could have laughed her out of the station. Or charged her with wasting police time. Or both.
-
Julie did not wait a month she spoke to police on the day of the murders, she simply didn't tell them everything she knew. After police dragged her in and told her that Liz Rimington told the what she told Liz about the murders then she came clean to police. She didn't go to police they grabbed her.
Thread started here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5792.msg256748.html#msg256748
-
Adam
amongst a lot of things in your post that I d not believe are correct - this statement I find quite strange.
"After Julie had come to terms with the massacre and cleared her head. "
How could anyone ever come to terms with what happened? It would affect you for the rest of your life.
Also in her statements ( if you believe them ) when talking about the past she does say that she did know he meant it when talking about killing his parents. And then she said on the night she knew he had done it?
So I don't get your post at all. So I am sorry if Jeremy is guilty and all of her statements are true she should have said something immediately. And I can not think of one reason why she would not do so.
-
Julie did not wait a month she spoke to police on the day of the murders, she simply didn't tell them everything she knew. After police dragged her in and told her that Liz Rimington told the what she told Liz about the murders then she came clean to police. She didn't go to police they grabbed her.
Thread started here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5792.msg256748.html#msg256748
Yes she did speak to the police on day one. After Jeremy got a police car to whisk her over. But did not tell them anything worthwhile.
Please provide the source that she was dragged into the police station. The police had nothing on her.
I have already provided the source that Liz Rimmington rang Stan Jones. Where was Julie ? In the room with Liz.
-
Stan Jones was at home when he received a call from someone at Witham Police station. It was Liz Rimmington -
Liz ? (SJ).
Hello
Have you got Julie with you ?
Yes.
Is it about the Bamber case ?
Yes.
Is she making allegations ?
Yes
I will be right over.
Julie said to SJ straight away she just couldn't live with Jeremy's secret anymore. She had tried to deny the truth. But now wanted the truth to come out.
As everyone knows, Julie had no reason to speak to the police. They had nothing on her.
Posted on Sunday. Scipio must have missed it. Source Wilkes's acclaimed book. Scipio must have not read it.
-
Adam
amongst a lot of things in your post that I d not believe are correct - this statement I find quite strange.
"After Julie had come to terms with the massacre and cleared her head. "
How could anyone ever come to terms with what happened? It would affect you for the rest of your life.
Also in her statements ( if you believe them ) when talking about the past she does say that she did know he meant it when talking about killing his parents. And then she said on the night she knew he had done it?
So I don't get your post at all. So I am sorry if Jeremy is guilty and all of her statements are true she should have said something immediately. And I can not think of one reason why she would not do so.
Yes. Cleared her head and got around the fact that her lover was a beast.
-
come to terms with - are the words I find strange.
this is a real life crime - not a computer game.
-
come to terms with - are the words I find strange.
this is a real life crime - not a computer game.
Not sure what you're referring to Jansus?
-
adams first post - he said Julie came clean after she cleared her head and came to terms with the massacre.
Makes it sound like a stroll down the shops.
-
adams first post - he said Julie came clean after she cleared her head and came to terms with the massacre.
Makes it sound like a stroll down the shops.
You have to come to terms with bad things that happen in life. Even a massacre.
Anyway this thread is showing why Julie did not say anything on day one. For the reasons in the thread post. There are 12 reasons.
Saying what she knew 30 days later was much more realistic in the situation she found herself in.
-
So if a really good loyal friend of yours said he was going to kill someone - and then he did - then you would not tell the police?
-
So if a really good loyal friend of yours said he was going to kill someone - and then he did - then you would not tell the police?
I would tell the police.
Beforehand if I believed he was serious ( Julie didn't).
Julie and Jeremy were not 'good loyal friends'. Anyway Julie did tell the police. And testified.
-
I would tell the police.
Beforehand if I believed he was serious ( Julie didn't).
Julie and Jeremy were not 'good loyal friends'. Anyway Julie did tell the police. And testified.
in parts of her statements she did say she knew he meant it - and asked him to stop talking about it because it upset her - so she did think he was serious at times.
So you think Love was the excuse although you think the relationship was on the decline?
-
in parts of her statements she did say she knew he meant it - and asked him to stop talking about it because it upset her - so she did think he was serious at times.
So you think Love was the excuse although you think the relationship was on the decline?
Jeremy said it was in decline for six months leading up to the massacre. This is backed up by the fact that they were both young, living miles away from each other and did spilt up soon after the massacre.
Love is one reason for not speaking straight away, along with several others I mentioned.
-
Jeremy's supporters often criticise Julie for not going to the police straight away.
There are lots of reasons why she approached the police a month later-
His supporters are not the only ones who criticize her.
She told police it was a combination of loving Jeremy so not wanting him to be in trouble and fearing the hitman would hurt her that caused her to remain silent for so long.
Explaining her actions in no way excuses them. She was wrong and almost helped him get away with the crimes. Had she spoken sooner police would have done a more thorough job from the outset.
-
Blimey,Julie had been going out with Jeremy for nigh on 2 years,surely any hint of violence towards her during that time would have been a hint enough that he could display enough angst in which to murder.
I don't remember one utterance of any violent behaviour coming forthwith. If anything,it was Julies' behaviour which was questionable.
-
Blimey,Julie had been going out with Jeremy for nigh on 2 years,surely any hint of violence towards her during that time would have been a hint enough that he could display enough angst in which to murder.
I don't remember one utterance of any violent behaviour coming forthwith. If anything,it was Julies' behaviour which was questionable.
Jeremy doesn't have to be overtly violent to use violence when required. The murders were a means to an end - a necessary evil.
-
Blimey,Julie had been going out with Jeremy for nigh on 2 years,surely any hint of violence towards her during that time would have been a hint enough that he could display enough angst in which to murder.
I don't remember one utterance of any violent behaviour coming forthwith. If anything,it was Julies' behaviour which was questionable.
I am not allowed to say 'thread already created' (opps), or leave a link. But there is a thread on here about how often weak individuals go from zero crime to inheritance killing in one go.
-
Jeremy's supporters often criticise Julie for not going to the police straight away.
There are lots of reasons why she approached the police a month later-
She was Jeremy's girlfriend.
She loved Jeremy and said she was under his spell.
She was in shock.
She was afraid of what Jeremy may do if he found out.
She tried to deny it to herself that the man she loved was involved.
Jeremy had said that he had paid MM £2,000 to commit the massacre. Julie said she knew Jeremy did not have this money available. So she would have clung to the possibility that Jeremy was making false boasts.
She was 20 years old. We all make wrong decisions when so young.
Jeremy had said he was 'watertight' and it was an 'open and shut case'. He said Julie would not be believed.
She was afraid she would be implicating herself. Being aware of his hatred and resentment towards his family, and previous plans.
While still in shock, she gave a statement early on. So was afraid that changing her statement days or weeks later may put her in trouble.
She was afraid she would not be believed. Making herself look stupid and getting in trouble with the police for making false claims.
She was caught in the eye of a hurricane. Police, relatives and the media always around, funerals to attend. Jeremy getting police cars to pick her up, then whisking her off to Amsterdam the weekend after the massacre.
She had no one to speak to at first. Being with Jeremy most of the time after the massacre. She did not want to attend the funeral or continuously go around with Jeremy & Brett. But was persuaded to by Jeremy.
--------------------------------
It is true she approached the police, (via Liz Rimmington) after they had spilt up. After finally getting to speak to other people she trusted. She was hardly likely to approach the police while still Jeremy's girlfriend, was she ?
Jeremy said the relationship had been in decline for six months prior to the massacre. They were both young and living miles away from each other. The massacre probably speeded up the ending of the relationship by a few weeks. After Julie had come to terms with the massacre and cleared her head.
It is not conclusive about who jilted who. Although Jeremy has always weakly said Julie spoke to the police and testified because he jilted her. But he has never said scorned women are just as likely to tell the truth.
Speaking to the police a month later seems quite normal to me (see above). Making these claims months of years later, after moving in with or marrying Jeremy would have looked much worse.
She was brave in approaching the police. Jeremy had not been arrested and the silencer evidence had not come back from the lab. The police could have laughed her out of the station. Or charged her with wasting police time. Or both.
she tried to deny he was involved even though supposed of told her months earlyer he was going to do it.
-
Jeremy doesn't have to be overtly violent to use violence when required. The murders were a means to an end - a necessary evil.
The urge to inflict harm on someone has to be there in the first place,but to actually and physically murder " 5 " people then a person is totally crackers,which after all the assessments he's had as well as round the clock observations.
Nobody in their right mind could just murder someone on the spur of the moment like that.Saying it and doing it are two entirely different things.
Anyone contemplating a murder on this scale doesn't breathe a word to anyone.
-
to do that for money you would have to be a pscopath of some sort i would of thought.
-
Of course you would,or a mercenary,, same thing really.
-
The urge to inflict harm on someone has to be there in the first place,but to actually and physically murder " 5 " people then a person is totally crackers,which after all the assessments he's had as well as round the clock observations.
Nobody in their right mind could just murder someone on the spur of the moment like that.Saying it and doing it are two entirely different things.
Anyone contemplating a murder on this scale doesn't breathe a word to anyone.
Sorry Lookout but this isn't the first time something like this has happened. The Menendez brothers weren't violent either until they killed their parents, nor was Brian Blackwell. The killings weren't about the violence nor the act of killing - they were a means to an end - the end being the inheritance. And no, you don't have to be 'insane' psychopathy isn't classed as insanity. Jeremy has been tested once for psychopathy and I'm not sure which method they used to test him. The others are just general psychological assessments, he doesn't get the Hare assessment for psychopathy every year.
-
Sorry Lookout but this isn't the first time something like this has happened. The Menendez brothers weren't violent either until they killed their parents, nor was Brian Blackwell. The killings weren't about the violence nor the act of killing - they were a means to an end - the end being the inheritance. And no, you don't have to be 'insane' psychopathy isn't classed as insanity. Jeremy has been tested once for psychopathy and I'm not sure which method they used to test him. The others are just general psychological assessments, he doesn't get the Hare assessment for psychopathy every year.
I haven't read into those that you've mentioned,but I bet they were entirely different,even if the end result was for financial gain. No two murders are alike anyway,as circumstances are different,but I imagine that Jeremy is far more intelligent than those noted,in that he'd know immediately that he'd gain nothing by murdering anyone.He's also have realised that if he'd wanted cash that he could have applied for a bank loan at any given time,so there'd have been no reason for him to have murdered. He had no motive whatsoever as money wasn't an issue.He'd NEVER been deprived or refused it by his parents and he always knew he could go to either of them,as he'd been funded all along.
There was just no reason for him to have murdered at all. I couldn't imagine him working up a sweat,going into that farmhouse and killing everyone-----------bar a yapping dog.
-
I haven't read into those that you've mentioned,but I bet they were entirely different,even if the end result was for financial gain. No two murders are alike anyway,as circumstances are different,but I imagine that Jeremy is far more intelligent than those noted,in that he'd know immediately that he'd gain nothing by murdering anyone.He's also have realised that if he'd wanted cash that he could have applied for a bank loan at any given time,so there'd have been no reason for him to have murdered. He had no motive whatsoever as money wasn't an issue.He'd NEVER been deprived or refused it by his parents and he always knew he could go to either of them,as he'd been funded all along.
There was just no reason for him to have murdered at all. I couldn't imagine him working up a sweat,going into that farmhouse and killing everyone-----------bar a yapping dog.
If you don't know about the others, then you don't know about their intellect. Also you have to pay a loan back but not an inheritance.
-
If you don't know about the others, then you don't know about their intellect. Also you have to pay a loan back but not an inheritance.
There aren't many murderers who end up collecting inheritances,I'll bet.
-
There aren't many murderers who end up collecting inheritances,I'll bet.
There are lots who try.
-
There are lots who try.
This is exactly where lack of intelligence comes into play with their lack of forward thinking regarding forensic investigations where a bead of sweat can cause them to relinquish everything they think they'd laid hands on so easily for.
Jeremy may have been all things,but not a risk-taker.
-
People have said Jeremy could not have committed the massacre as he had no history of violence.
It is true he had no history of violence, but he had recently committed a crime against his family, and had lots of hatred and resentment towards his family and the situation he found himself in. As discussed.
Inheritance killers are free men. Otherwise they would not be able to commit their inheritance killing. The other famous inheritance killers had no history of violent crime, apart from Defeo who apparently had fired a rifle in a rage before. However most had financial problems, committed minor crime and had poor relationships with their families, which usually included hatred and resentment.
Despite having respectable jobs and no history of violent crime, they took the huge jump to murder relatives for inheritance. There are several reasons why.
Each case is different, but there would be lots of other reasons, apart from inheriting. See the 'Steve Benson' & the 'Apart from £436,000....' threads. These reasons together with inheriting huge amounts of money would increase motivation.
The killer would know their intended victims. Know exactly when, where and how would be the most effective way to kill them. They will have constant access to the family members. Most victims would have known their assassin. The killer would feel comfortable in carrying out the crime on someone they know.
The killer would be desperate or greedy for money. Or both. Not being experienced violent criminals or Criminal masterminds, getting money via inheritance is their only option. They would know no other way, not having the courage to try to rob a bank for money, or have the mind to commit hi tec financial crime.
Not being big time criminals, they will then spend several months or years planning the crime and plucking up the courage.
Not having violent histories will go in their favour. The police will surely not suspect they would be capable of committing such a violent crime to loved family members. But if they did, the killer obviously believed the police would find no proof, the killer would also have a ready made alternative suspect.
Anyway it is a fact that people have murdered for inheritance. Both the Menendez brothers & Defeo admitting their crime. So the big jump is possible
-
Lookout the thread about inheritance killers is on page 6. I am not allowed to leave the link.
Page 7 also has a thread on Steve Benson. I am not allowed to leave a link.
Benson looked a real wimp and was a businessman. However still killed family members for inheritance. The Youtube video has him unconvincingly crying at the funeral. A bit like Jeremy.
-
This is exactly where lack of intelligence comes into play with their lack of forward thinking regarding forensic investigations where a bead of sweat can cause them to relinquish everything they think they'd laid hands on so easily for.
Jeremy may have been all things,but not a risk-taker.
All your positions have a common thread. All of them revolve around your suggestion Jeremy would not have done something like that. At the core that is your position- that you personally don't believe Jeremy would do it. You don't know him well enough to know what he would do and people who knew him others very well still are usually surprised by what their friends/relatives do. Your opinion of whether he would do it is not evidence that can be used to establish his innocent and refute the evidence that convicted him.
You seem willing to ignore the evidence and not care that your position doesn't refute it. Most people won't do that though they won't have blind faith.
When debating facts and evidence a position set forth in blind faith is not really pertinent and thus is easy to dismiss as insignificant. If you continue making these same arguments you are not going to get anywhere in your efforts to establish those who you oppose are wrong.
-
Lots of people have been taken in by Jeremy's charm and persuasiveness.
He had a much older and sophisicated girlfriend when very young. Something most 20 year old's dream about.
Since conviction he has managed to persuade respected MP's and journalists of his innocence, Woffinden saying he was instantly impressed by Jeremy. Although he has since changed his mind. Mike has said he became convinced of Jeremy's innocence after spending just a few hours sharing a cell with him. There are still a few loyal supporters 29 years later, although he has lost a lot of support on this forum in 2014.
So it is not surprising Jeremy's charm and persuasiveness contributed to an impressionable 20 year old delaying approaching the police by 30 days.
-
Sorry,Adam,he was NOT my type,and isn't now,so it has NOTHING to do with charm so far as I'm concerned.
No disrespects to Jeremy,but my idea of a man is Neil Oliver,he off the programme " Coast ". I wouldn't have been impressed at all with a man like Jeremy,too much on the feminine side for me.
-
Sorry,Adam,he was NOT my type,and isn't now,so it has NOTHING to do with charm so far as I'm concerned.
No disrespects to Jeremy,but my idea of a man is Neil Oliver,he off the programme " Coast ". I wouldn't have been impressed at all with a man like Jeremy,too much on the feminine side for me.
That is you're choice. But there is no doubt he was and still is a very persuasive and convincing charmer.
He would have turned it on even more on Julie after the massacre. Lobster and champagne meals would have helped.
-
That is you're choice. But there is no doubt he was and still is a very persuasive and convincing charmer.
He would have turned it on even more on Julie after the massacre. Lobster and champagne meals would have helped.
Good Lord,a fellow such as he was in his younger years,I could have put him on his back,easily,he'd have been a pushover. This type of character might be charming and all the rest of it,but no way would they be able to handle themselves in a fight situation. He was no Joe Lois. He was more the Julian Clary type,flamboyant,and I certainly couldn't see the likes of him tackling a " big,strong farmer ".
Jeremy would have been black and blue,certainly in the facial area if Neville had used his strength against him in " the violent struggle " in the kitchen ".So many kitchen utensils to hand to have used as weapons,including those around the fireplace.
Neville had strength in his arms to have done damage towards Jeremy.I don't care what anyone says.
-
Good Lord,a fellow such as he was in his younger years,I could have put him on his back,easily,he'd have been a pushover. This type of character might be charming and all the rest of it,but no way would they be able to handle themselves in a fight situation. He was no Joe Lois. He was more the Julian Clary type,flamboyant,and I certainly couldn't see the likes of him tackling a " big,strong farmer ".
Jeremy would have been black and blue,certainly in the facial area if Neville had used his strength against him in " the violent struggle " in the kitchen ".So many kitchen utensils to hand to have used as weapons,including those around the fireplace.
Neville had strength in his arms to have done damage towards Jeremy.I don't care what anyone says.
Jeremy was not expecting a fight.
But when there had to be one, there was no turning back. Luckily he had injured Neville. He was also young, slim and tall himself. So would have beaten a badly injured Neville.
-
Jeremy was not expecting a fight.
But when there had to be one, there was no turning back. Luckily he had injured Neville. He was also young, slim and tall himself. So would have beaten a badly injured Neville.
Wasn't expecting a fight ?? All dressed up for the Arctic,in his balaclava,gloves,etc ? Even I'd have a go if someone came into my home dressed " to kill " !
Maybe Jeremy was young and slim-------------but still no match for a " strappingly built " experienced farmer. Jeremy couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding--------sorry.