Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on January 04, 2015, 09:38:AM
-
Bamber's highly paid defence went through Julie's WS brick by brick. Looking for a brick they could pull out to bring everything crashing down.
However they could not find anything. Admitting to each other her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.
Out of desperation, at trial the defence focused on the 1984 minor cheque book fraud. To try to show her as a dishonest person. The judge rightly poured scorn on this saying both Bamber & Julie had committed previous crime, but that does not mean either had lied at trial. He also said Julie had paid back the money ( Bamber had not). Bamber had also trusted Julie enough to tell her about the caravan break in, so may have trusted her enough to tell her about the massacre.
Julies WS is in different parts -
What happened after the massacre:
The eating out, hotels, trips around the country and abroad. There is no point in Julie lying here. A lot of other people joined them for some of these. Hotel bookings can be checked and relatives asked. So there was no reason to lie as everything can be easily checked.
What Bamber did does not highlight guilt or innocence anyway. Although Bamber's callous actions have come back to haunt him
Bamber's hatred and resentment :
This could be her word against Bamber's. But was not.
Bamber himself testified he had a very poor/non existent relationship with June.
He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' on the massacre night. Saying they did not like each other and she had committed child abuse on the twins. Decades later saying he did not understand her illness.
There are also a lot of other people who said Bamber did not like his family or the raw deal he had. The facts back this up, Sheila living rent free in London, Bamber working long hours after reluctantly starting to work on the farm as a last resort.
The massacre plans :
This is again Julies word against Bamber's. However some of the things Julie said are backed up.
She said he planned to ride to WHF. This is backed up by the fact that the bike was brought over just before the massacre.
Julie also knew about the bible and kitchen fight. Which was not reported in the papers. And knew about the lockable from outside window.
The judge and appeal courts found it hard to understand Bamber's 3am call to Julie. Julie saying Bamber said 'he had not slept all night' and 'everything is going well'. When the police asked him about the call, he just said 'no comment'.
Julie also knew about the under insurance of WHF and the items inside.
Julies feelings :
Her feelings while things were evolving can only be changed by Julie herself, and cannot be disputed.
___________________
Overall Julie's statement does have a 'ring of truth' to it. She approached the police and was not forced to say anything.
Her reason to lie was also very weak. Bamber allegedly jilting her, after he said their relationship had been in decline/coming to a close for six months. Julie creating a false WS and lying under oath for this sole reason.
Do other people believe Julies WS had a 'ring of truth' to it ?
-
Of course it would - because
1) If the police persuaded her in her 32 interviews to help them get their man because they did not have enough evidence they would "persuade " her to take some conversations and embellish or change them slightly - for example the calls on the night - the change from the wording in her statements quite neatly takes an innocent call to a call about murder with just a few changes of words - hence the ring of truth.
2) One thing she quoted that a reason for killing the twins that Jeremy Allegedly said to her during the months before was something she actually overheard Jeremy say to Colin on the night of the party - Hence the ring of truth
3) things like the sleeping tablets - they existed - but did the conversation about the drugging of his family happen? Perhaps not - hence the ring of truth
4) Did he say sometimes he hated his family ? Perhaps Did he say he was going to murder them all ? Perhaps not - hence the "ring of truth"
5) Did he ring her on the night and tell her about his day on the farm - yes - did he say "tonights the night" debatable - hence the "ring of truth "
You keep going on about a relationship in decline - well that to me does indicate that she was perhaps not telling the truth , I can see that anyone who had planned such a complicated and risky murder would ever consider telling a girlfriend that he was planning to dump . It does not make sense at all.
If the police did not have Julie - ALL they had was the silencer that could and should have been disregarded because of contamination . The rest was unsubstantiated hearsay and no forensics .
-
If it took 32 interviews, then so be it.
It was a long WS for a 5x murder trial. She was the most important witness and a 21 woman. It has to be right which will take several interviews.
It is good it took so long. The police could study her and make sure she was not lying. Stan Jones had no doubt she told the truth. The WS was very believable. Even to the defence.
-
The silencer was accepted at court without dispute from the defence. Appeals have also accepted this.
Jeremy focused on the silencer in the early 90's. He had to.
-
Adam, it doesn't matter if her statement according to some did have some sort of "ring of truth". What matters is "was it the truth?" The question must be asked could she back-up what she said about that which she claimed Jeremy said to her in private and let's face it, her statement consisted almost entirely of such things. Did she have any witnesses to these private conversations? And if we are truthful we must answer "no".
-
The silencer was accepted at court without dispute from the defence. Appeals have also accepted this.
Jeremy focused on the silencer in the early 90's. He had to.
Unlawfully so in my opinion.
-
Re: The massacre plans.
Charles Marsden also said Jeremy had mentioned about burning down WHF. Which matches Julies WS.
Julie's WS also said Bamber had decided to massacre everyone and use Sheila as a scapegoat. This is exactly what happened.
-
Re: The massacre plans.
Charles Marsden also said Jeremy had mentioned about burning down WHF. Which matches Julies WS.
Julie's WS also said Bamber had decided to massacre everyone and use Sheila as a scapegoat. This is exactly what happened.
She said that "after" the event. Easy to make up.
-
Re: The massacre plans.
Charles Marsden also said Jeremy had mentioned about burning down WHF. Which matches Julies WS.
Julie's WS also said Bamber had decided to massacre everyone and use Sheila as a scapegoat. This is exactly what happened.
As we have established the statement from Charles Marsden was not used and he was a friend of Julies and Liz . Therefore it was not considered to be good enough to use in court. Probably it was not used in court and they could have collaborated on evidence?
Of course Julies WS tied up with what happened - but is it the truth or not?
-
As we have established the statement from Charles Marsden was not used and he was a friend of Julies and Liz . Therefore it was not considered to be good enough to use in court. Probably it was not used in court and they could have collaborated on evidence?
Of course Julies WS tied up with what happened - but is it the truth or not?
The defence thought it had a 'ring of truth'. And were not able to dislodge any bricks.
You think Charles Marsden lied to the police to help out Julie ?
Caroline asked Jeremy. Who said Marsden was his friend.
-
The defence thought it had a 'ring of truth'. And were not able to dislodge any bricks.
You think Charles Marsden lied to the police to help out Julie ?
Caroline asked Jeremy. Who said Marsden was his friend.
Do you understand police tactics from the 80s?
Caroline also said in an older post he was a friend of Julies and Liz as well. He went out with Jeremy to pick up girls on one occasion.
I don't know whether he lied it would only be a matter of opinion - but it appears unless you show me otherwise that the police/ prosecution did not consider his testimony worthy of using in court.
-
Do you understand police tactics from the 80s?
Caroline also said in an older post he was a friend of Julies and Liz as well. He went out with Jeremy to pick up girls on one occasion.
I don't know whether he lied it would only be a matter of opinion - but it appears unless you show me otherwise that the police/ prosecution did not consider his testimony worthy of using in court.
There is no evidence to say whether he did or did not testify.
Can't see a problem with him testifying this myself. It is not hard to do.
Anyway he told the police this. He was a friend of Jeremy's.
You say she was a friend of Julie's to. Are you saying Julie asked him to lie ?
I am too young to know about police tactics in the 80's.
-
There is no evidence to say whether he did or did not testify.
Can't see a problem with him testifying this myself. It is not hard to do.
Anyway he told the police this. He was a friend of Jeremy's.
You say she was a friend of Julie's to. Are you saying Julie asked him to lie ?
I am too young to know about police tactics in the 80's.
yea sure you are.
Lets check if he gave evidence or not before we give credence to his apparent revelation.
-
Charles Marsden DIDN'T testify.
FM wasn't allowed to as he'd specifically stated that to testify,would be in favour of the defence ONLY.
A biased courtroom ? I'll say it was !
-
yea sure you are.
Lets check if he gave evidence or not before we give credence to his apparent revelation.
To me there is enough credence that he told the police this. But you will say he had to testify as well.
The prosecution said they had an 'overwhelming' case without the silencer. So may not have thought him & others needed to testify.
-
The defence thought it had a 'ring of truth'. And were not able to dislodge any bricks.
You think Charles Marsden lied to the police to help out Julie ?
Caroline asked Jeremy. Who said Marsden was his friend.
Interesting comment because it's not exactly a startling endorsement, is it?
-
Interesting comment because it's not exactly a startling endorsement, is it?
A top, highly paid defence saying her WS had a 'ring of truth'. So much so that they had to focus on a minor crime from two years earlier. To try to put doubt in the juries mind.
Seems like a good endorsement to me.
-
" Ring of Truth " doesn't bode well at all in a court of law. The oath goes, " the truth,the WHOLE truth ", nothing about " ring of truth ".
-
A top, highly paid defence saying her WS had a 'ring of truth'. So much so that they had to focus on a minor crime from two years earlier. To try to put doubt in the juries mind.
Seems like a good endorsement to me.
Which is also NOT a startling endorsement! ;D ;D ;D
-
A top, highly paid defence saying her WS had a 'ring of truth'. So much so that they had to focus on a minor crime from two years earlier. To try to put doubt in the juries mind.
Seems like a good endorsement to me.
So what you are saying in effect is that just because a "top highly paid lawyer" says it is so that that makes it the truth? What that tells me is that their readiness to believe a woman's made up story over well known facts is an indication that these lawyers weren't so good as Jeremy thought? It is a lawyer's job to fight for their client. These words if true are a fair indication that they failed in their duty to do this?
-
So what you are saying in effect is that just because a "top highly paid lawyer" says it is so that that makes it the truth? What that tells me is that their readiness to believe a woman's made up story over well known facts is an indication that these lawyers weren't so good as Jeremy thought? It is a lawyer's job to fight for their client. These words if true are a fair indication that they failed in their duty to do this?
What brick/s would you have taken off her WS to bring everything crashing down ?
Can't be hard, she was a 21 year old testifying in a high profile and serious case. A bit of pressure would crack her, wouldn't it ?
-
What brick/s would you have taken off her WS to bring everything crashing down ?
Can't be hard, she was a 21 year old testifying in a high profile and serious case. A bit of pressure would crack her, wouldn't it ?
Like Jeremy was only 24 at the time, being accused of 5 murders,and you speak of pressure ??
-
Which is also NOT a startling endorsement! ;D ;D ;D
I already explained why her Statements would have to have a Ring of truth - or a little truth - because otherwise they could be proved as lies immediately .
It is very very easy to twist words to make them fit - when you know what the scenario is.
For example Jeremy probably did tell her how he used to get into WHF after a late night out - Then it was realised the windows were secured to they would have to twist that a bit - So there is the ring of truth.
-
What brick/s would you have taken off her WS to bring everything crashing down ?
Can't be hard, she was a 21 year old testifying in a high profile and serious case. A bit of pressure would crack her, wouldn't it ?
Everything Adam. It was a witness statement that she could not back up. The court just chose to believe her without any other corroborating evidence, end of. Personally I think her witness statement was a mixture of truth and lies. The reason I say that is that a downright lie would be easy to detect. But a half truth or an insinuation would be more readily believed. Half truths are an age old tactic of liars.
The plain facts of the case are that her testimony, because of the character of the person who wrote it, because of the circumstances in which it was written and finally because there is absolutely no corroborating evidence to substantiate her more damning claims should have been thrown out of course. That is my opinion. But also in my opinion that is one of the reasons that Bamber's trial was a miscarriage of justice.
-
Everything Adam. It was a witness statement that she could not back up. The court just chose to believe her without any other corroborating evidence, end of. Personally I think her witness statement was a mixture of truth and lies. The reason I say that is that a downright lie would be easy to detect. But a half truth or an insinuation would be more readily believed. Half truths are an age old tactic of liars.
The plain facts of the case are that her testimony, because of the character of the person who wrote it, because of the circumstances in which it was written and finally because there is absolutely no corroborating evidence to substantiate her more damning claims should have been thrown out of course. That is my opinion. But also in my opinion that is one of the reasons that Bamber's trial was a miscarriage of justice.
Adam should be asking why her original interviews are not available - perhaps we would then have a better picture of where the "ring of truth " comes from
-
Like Jeremy was only 24 at the time, being accused of 5 murders,and you speak of pressure ??
I would say judging by his words and actions at the time that Jeremy was less worldly wise that Mugford. She had proved herself to be a schema from the very begining, by (a) the cheque fraud in which she was a willing participant and (b) because she all too readily dobbed Bamber in about the caravan park break in, stressing to the police that her part in the robbery was only a lookout and that it was Bamber who actually broke in.
-
I would say judging by his words and actions at the time that Jeremy was less worldly wise that Mugford. She had proved herself to be a schema from the very begining, by (a) the cheque fraud in which she was a willing participant and (b) because she all too readily dobbed Bamber in about the caravan park break in, stressing to the police that her part in the robbery was only a lookout and that it was Bamber who actually broke in.
Oh yes,the woman was streets ahead when it came to being street-wise.What a loathesome person.
-
Everything Adam. It was a witness statement that she could not back up. The court just chose to believe her without any other corroborating evidence, end of. Personally I think her witness statement was a mixture of truth and lies. The reason I say that is that a downright lie would be easy to detect. But a half truth or an insinuation would be more readily believed. Half truths are an age old tactic of liars.
The plain facts of the case are that her testimony, because of the character of the person who wrote it, because of the circumstances in which it was written and finally because there is absolutely no corroborating evidence to substantiate her more damning claims should have been thrown out of course. That is my opinion. But also in my opinion that is one of the reasons that Bamber's trial was a miscarriage of justice.
Well my thread post had four sections.
After the massacre - All facts. Which can be checked.
Hatred of family - Her word against his. Lots of other witnesses said similar things to Julie.
Plans to massacre: Her word against his. Although some of the things she said are backed up with facts.
Her feelings - Cannot be argued with or proved wrong.
-
Well my thread post had four sections.
After the massacre - All facts. Which can be checked.
Hatred of family - Her word against his. Lots of other witnesses said similar things to Julie.
Plans to massacre: Her word against his. Although some of the things she said are backed up with facts.
Her feelings - Cannot be argued with or proved wrong.
And of course the FACT that she went to the police "immediately" after Bamber cheated on her. That immediacy tells me a great deal about this person thank you. It is a great pity that some people are besotted with her.
-
Well my thread post had four sections.
After the massacre - All facts. Which can be checked.
Hatred of family - Her word against his. Lots of other witnesses said similar things to Julie.
Plans to massacre: Her word against his. Although some of the things she said are backed up with facts.
Her feelings - Cannot be argued with or proved wrong.
What are the things that can be backed up with FACTS/
-
And of course the FACT that she went to the police "immediately" after Bamber cheated on her. That immediacy tells me a great deal about this person thank you. It is a great pity that some people are besotted with her.
Well he asked another woman out on the phone. Julie hearing this. Did Bamber mean to humiliate her ? Or was it a mistake Julie over hearing ?
Either way, my thread says it was 'a fatal mistake ?'. My other thread asked 'is a woman scorned just as likely to tell the truth ?'
-
Well he asked another woman out on the phone. Julie hearing this. Did Bamber mean to humiliate her ? Or was it a mistake Julie over hearing ?
Either way, my thread says it was 'a fatal mistake ?'. My other thread asked 'is a woman scorned just as likely to tell the truth ?'
Two answers to that Adam. Yes and no. You are correct in saying that it was Bamber's fatal mistake for she was his femme fatale so to speak. The lesson to be learned of course is don't cheat on your women. Some women can be like tigers and can tear you apart if you cheat on them.
-
Two answers to that Adam. Yes and no. You are correct in saying that it was Bamber's fatal mistake for she was his femme fatale so to speak. The lesson to be learned of course is don't cheat on your women. Some women can be like tigers and can tear you apart if you cheat on them.
Julie did that alright.
-
If Julie was lying she could just say Bamber said he did it. Like other stuff in her WS, it was her word against his.
She would have known Bamber had no alibi, a motive and opportunity. And that the police believed it was Bamber. If she was confident and vindictive enough to go through with it, why hold back ?
Why mention MM when he may have a water tight alibi ?
-
If Julie was lying she could just say Bamber said he did it. Like other stuff in her WS, it was her word against his.
She would have known Bamber had no alibi, a motive and opportunity. And that the police believed it was Bamber.
Why mention MM when he may have a water tight alibi ?
Remember what I said Adam about "half truths"? It is always better and more convincing if you tell half truths. It is those half truths that give the lies the ring of truth. You will come across those in your life Adam. Beware of them, for they are much more deadly that a complete lie. Take note that as you say yourself Mugford never told the police that Bamber confessed to her that he did it. ;)
-
My account has been compromised in some way.When I logout,it asks me to login,and when I login,it doesn't give me the facility to post,ie,no quote or reply area ??
When I revert back a page,it neither shows my name nor the search facility. So technically,I'm not on the forum and I guess it won't right itself until I re-register which means starting from scratch and losing my posts.
-
Can anyone tell me what the problem is that I'm having on this forum,please ?
-
My account has been compromised in some way.When I logout,it asks me to login,and when I login,it doesn't give me the facility to post,ie,no quote or reply area ??
When I revert back a page,it neither shows my name nor the search facility. So technically,I'm not on the forum and I guess it won't right itself until I re-register which means starting from scratch and losing my posts.
Lookout, this is clearly more serious than I had thought when we spoke last night. I feel sure Caroline will be able to help you when she comes back.................if she isn't here now.
-
Lookout, this is clearly more serious than I had thought when we spoke last night. I feel sure Caroline will be able to help you when she comes back.................if she isn't here now.
Thanks April. I know it's not me having done anything I shouldn't/or should. It's frustrating,but peculiar as I'm not logged in.? Yet still able to post,albeit anonymously.
-
lookout a similar thing happened to me I just logged in again with my password and email address and got going again. Sure it will be OK.
-
Thanks April. I know it's not me having done anything I shouldn't/or should. It's frustrating,but peculiar as I'm not logged in.? Yet still able to post,albeit anonymously.
Heheheeee :D Lookout, I'm sure it's small comfort but you ARE still registered as a "Hero" member :D :D
-
lookout a similar thing happened to me I just logged in again with my password and email address and got going again. Sure it will be OK.
Hi Susan,I've done that about half a dozen times,but it's not having any at all and is asking me to re-register ?
-
lookout that is strange I am sure it will be fixed easily mine was cannot remember what happened but I spoke with ngb and he said it was my laptop and sure it was it came right with a wink and a prayer ;D
-
Heheheeee :D Lookout, I'm sure it's small comfort but you ARE still registered as a "Hero" member :D :D
Aw,shucks. ;D ;D
-
My account has been compromised in some way.When I logout,it asks me to login,and when I login,it doesn't give me the facility to post,ie,no quote or reply area ??
When I revert back a page,it neither shows my name nor the search facility. So technically,I'm not on the forum and I guess it won't right itself until I re-register which means starting from scratch and losing my posts.
Not quite understanding Lookout, how are you posting now if you can't post when logged in?
-
lookout that is strange I am sure it will be fixed easily mine was cannot remember what happened but I spoke with ngb and he said it was my laptop and sure it was it came right with a wink and a prayer ;D
It's just the suddenness of it happening,Susan. I've always just got onto the forum,no problem,with the usual greeting " hello lookout " ( which I now haven't got ) boo hoo,so I'm mr nobody. :(
The laptop knows who I am,but the forum doesn't. ;D ;D Yet I can still post ?
-
My account has been compromised in some way.When I logout,it asks me to login,and when I login,it doesn't give me the facility to post,ie,no quote or reply area ??
When I revert back a page,it neither shows my name nor the search facility. So technically,I'm not on the forum and I guess it won't right itself until I re-register which means starting from scratch and losing my posts.
I will ask Neil to take a look at it for you Lookout. Can't understand how you can post if you are not logged in.... If Neil is not on the forum, maybe Caroline could be off help. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I would say judging by his words and actions at the time that Jeremy was less worldly wise that Mugford. She had proved herself to be a schema from the very begining, by (a) the cheque fraud in which she was a willing participant and (b) because she all too readily dobbed Bamber in about the caravan park break in, stressing to the police that her part in the robbery was only a lookout and that it was Bamber who actually broke in.
She was more than that. She was the instigator. She forged Susan´s signature - practiced for days.
-
I will ask Neil to take a look at it for you Lookout. Can't understand how you can post if you are not logged in.... If Neil is not on the forum, maybe Caroline could be off help. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thanks Patti. No,I can't understand it either,as everything else is okay and I can get into the archives no problem. It's just not showing my name,and when I log out,it logs in ;D ;D ;D ;D,but then there aren't any " quotes or reply " facilities visible,hahahaha.
-
Thanks Patti. No,I can't understand it either,as everything else is okay and I can get into the archives no problem. It's just not showing my name,and when I log out,it logs in ;D ;D ;D ;D,but then there aren't any " quotes or reply " facilities visible,hahahaha.
Read your PM's Lookout.
-
Thanks Patti. No,I can't understand it either,as everything else is okay and I can get into the archives no problem. It's just not showing my name,and when I log out,it logs in ;D ;D ;D ;D,but then there aren't any " quotes or reply " facilities visible,hahahaha.
Lookout look at the top above the letter J (Jeremy Bamber Forum) there is a very small white arrow if you click on it, it will bring your name back..... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Lookout look at the top above the letter J (Jeremy Bamber Forum) there is a very small white arrow if you click on it, it will bring your name back..... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Eureka,Patti--------------Thank you ever so much all you girlies. I'm back in business. How dare that little white arrow have a mind of its own,koff koff.xxxxxxxxxxxx
-
Eureka,Patti--------------Thank you ever so much all you girlies. I'm back in business. How dare that little white arrow have a mind of its own,koff koff.xxxxxxxxxxxx
;D
-
Apologies for the gap in posts when I rudely interrupted with my technical problems everyone. It can be deleted.
-
Lookout we will forgive you just this once ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Lookout we will forgive you just this once ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Aww,thanks Susan. What a palava. Unlike me to cause a " scene ". ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Lookout you are the last person in the world to cause a scene ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D or even a little ripple ;)
-
:-* :-* :-*