Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on July 24, 2015, 06:21:PM
-
https://youtu.be/BexgGJu9n9o
-
One could always argue that Jeremy never made the trip to WHF that night because its possible he could have hidden in the farm all along.
-
It was interesting to see the sea route that posters had mentioned .
I think if you were going to replicate the journey it is pretty obvious you should do it at the time of night it is supposed to have happened.
And the neighbour testified they heard Jeremy drive away - so he would have had to travel back to the farm unless someone else took his car home?
-
One could always argue that Jeremy never made the trip to WHF that night because its possible he could have hidden in the farm all along.
Didn't Doris Foakes see or hear his car driving away?
-
Didn't Doris Foakes see or hear his car driving away?
yes and they said the time as well.
-
One could always argue that Jeremy never made the trip to WHF that night because its possible he could have hidden in the farm all along.
He called Julie from his home, he clearly went home before returning. He wanted people to know he was home so as to help support his alibi so made sure neighbors knew he was home between 11 and 12. Plus he would have gone crazy hanging outside for 4 hours and then entering at 2am finally.
-
It was interesting to see the sea route that posters had mentioned .
I think if you were going to replicate the journey it is pretty obvious you should do it at the time of night it is supposed to have happened.
And the neighbour testified they heard Jeremy drive away - so he would have had to travel back to the farm unless someone else took his car home?
Mike has posted a Youtube video on the sea route.
-
Same old same old.
No one saw Jeremy go to or from WHF and his car had not moved. Which can and has been explained away. Easily.
It then said there is no evidence linking Jeremy to the scene. This is wrong as there is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence.
When did the police say Jeremy walked to WHF ? The video also says that is a 'fantastic' story. Don't see what is so fantastic about a 24 year old man walking 3 miles. Or less.
It says there was no evidence of a force entry. Which is wrong. There were scratch marks on the bathroom window. Anyway Jeremy said he knew how to get into WHF.
It says he used the bike only to return home. This is wrong as Julie's WS says she saw the bike at Goldhanger pre massacre.
Why would there be blood on the bike ? Was Jeremy bleeding ? I thought he showered at WHF.
The bike had been bought for Julie to use ;D
It says the reconstruction of the bike ride was not done by someone of Jeremy's size and weight ? Was Jeremy 20 stone and hardly able to move then ?
It seems there were several cycle and walking routes to/from WHF. The longest route was 35 minutes. And ?
It says Jeremy detailed TV programmes he watched. However the police interviews show he made mistakes.
It says there is no evidence he videoed any TV programmes on the night. Perhaps he erased them, the criminal mastermind. Or didn't video anything.
It has a pop at the relatives. But the police didn't need the relatives. Julie had told them the bike had been brought over just before the massacre. RB & AE had seen the bike at Goldhanger as well. All eventually confirmed by Jeremy in his police interviews.
-
there is so much factually wrong with your post Adam its unbelievable .I wonder if you are in your own little bubble.
-
One could always argue that Jeremy never made the trip to WHF that night because its possible he could have hidden in the farm all along.
thats possble.
-
thats possble.
Hi Nugnug
he drove his car home that was witnessed and was parked outside his house but I have always thought Caroline's theory that he brought the last trailer back and was inside the farmhouse on a pretence of staying over as it was late or indeed Sheila let him in.
-
Hi Nugnug
he drove his car home that was witnessed and was parked outside his house but I have always thought Caroline's theory that he brought the last trailer back and was inside the farmhouse on a pretence of staying over as it was late or indeed Sheila let him in.
That's possible Susan. He would have had to watch the television programmes on miscarriages at the White House in that case I suppose.
-
That's possible Susan. He would have had to watch the television programmes on miscarriages at the White House in that case I suppose.
Hello Steve it was suggested by Caroline I think that he recorded programmes at WHF then watched them when he got home and was very eager to tell EP what he had watched without being asked.
-
Hello Steve it was suggested by Caroline I think that he recorded programmes at WHF then watched them when he got home and was very eager to tell EP what he had watched without being asked.
There is no record of Jeremy volunteering information to the police about what he watched on television.
He answered the question weeks later in police interviews. And was unconvincing in his response.
-
There is no record of Jeremy volunteering information to the police about what he watched on television.
He answered the question weeks later in police interviews. And was unconvincing in his response.
Adam probably dreamt it like most stuff ;D
-
Bamber did not need to video anything.
He could just watch TV until leaving for WHF. The time he left for WHF can be the same time he tells police he went to bed. Meaning he cannot make any mistakes.
-
There is no record of Jeremy volunteering information to the police about what he watched on television.
He answered the question weeks later in police interviews. And was unconvincing in his response.
Really? Oh you know the case so well Adam, you're quite the authority aren't you? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Statement dated 07.08.85 - the very day after the murders, I suggest you read it before making your bold claims!
-
Adam probably dreamt it like most stuff ;D
No, you didn't Susan, Adam just isn't the authority that he THINKS he is! ;)
-
Really? Oh you know the case so well Adam, you're quite the authority aren't you? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Statement dated 07.08.85 - the very day after the murders, I suggest you read it before making your bold claims!
Thank you Caroline. I stand corrected.
There was a documentary about guilty criminals who have not yet been arrested. Mike Philpot being one of them. One trait is that they offer too much information about exactly what they did around the time of the murders. Jeremy knowing and stating exactly what programmes he watched seems calculated.
Bamber soon changed after his arrest. Hardly responding at all to police questions but still getting his TV information mixed up.
-
Thank you Caroline. I stand corrected.
There was a documentary about guilty criminals who have not yet been arrested. Mike Philpot being one of them. One trait is that they offer too much information about exactly what they did around the time of the murders. Jeremy knowing and stating exactly what programmes he watched seems calculated.
Bamber soon changed after his arrest. Hardly responding at all to police questions.
I already said that!
-
I doubt that the police asked him on the day of the murders what TV programmes he watched.
So Bamber really did offer this useless detail to the police. Thought he would be in too much shock to remember the names of the programmes. Or bother stating them. Seems he was trying too hard to set the scene
Anyway, what a helpful chap.
-
I doubt that the police asked him on the day of the murders what TV programmes he watched.
So Bamber really did offer this useless detail to the police. Thought he would be in too much shock to remember the names of the programmes. Or bother stating them. Seems he was trying too hard to set the scene
Anyway, what a helpful chap.
Obviously it was t bolster his alibi.
-
Obviously it was t bolster his alibi.
Good teamwork.
You give me the statement.
I state that him remembering and volunteering this minor detail is a common trait in guilty people. Highlighting guilt further.
-
No, you didn't Susan, Adam just isn't the authority that he THINKS he is! ;)
Caroline thanks for clearing that up ;D I aint as dumb as I thought I was ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Good teamwork.
You give me the statement.
I state that him remembering and volunteering this minor detail is a common trait in guilty people. Highlighting guilt further.
Yeah - of course you did Adam and no one had ever said it before! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yeah - of course you did Adam and no one had ever said it before! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Correct, no one has.
Although I created a recent thread about criminals assisting the police pre arrest. One of the problems the criminal has is he tries too hard to be helpful and volunteers too much information.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6799.0.html
-
Good teamwork.
You give me the statement.
I state that him remembering and volunteering this minor detail is a common trait in guilty people. Highlighting guilt further.
If you had read her posts, you'd have known that Caroline said exactly that MONTHS ago..................perhaps you did but thought you'd take the credit?
-
If you had read her posts, you'd have known that Caroline said exactly that MONTHS ago..................perhaps you did but thought you'd take the credit?
Not for the first time!! Two minutes ago he was arguing that Jeremy didn't even mention what he's watched.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6766.msg311885.html#msg311885
-
If you had read her posts, you'd have known that Caroline said exactly that MONTHS ago..................perhaps you did but thought you'd take the credit?
I don't read every single post on here. But feel free to direct me.
-
I don't read every single post on here. But feel free to direct me.
Yes, I know what you mean - I hardly ever read yours.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6766.msg311885.html#msg311885
-
I don't read every single post on here. But feel free to direct me.
No, from the amount of threads you excrete you appear to show a far greater depth of interest in your own words than in any said by others.
-
No, from the amount of threads you excrete you appear to show a far greater depth of interest in your own words than in any said by others.
Hence the bold claims and weak substance! ;D ;D
-
I may read the 17 pages one day.
However Bamber saying on the day exactly what TV programmes he watched is a sign of guilt.
Bews was saying how Bamber was volunteering information and suggesting things to him on the night. Without much encouragement. Seems like Jeremy continued doing this after cooking breakfast.
-
I may read the 17 pages one day.
However Bamber saying on the day exactly what TV programmes he watched is a sign of guilt.
Bews was saying how Bamber was volunteering information and suggesting things to him on the night. Without much encouragement. Seems like Jeremy continued doing this after cooking breakfast.
No sh*t Sherlock!
-
No sh*t Sherlock!
Hahaha Caroline you are on form today think Adam brings the best out in you ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
https://youtu.be/8E_dTHeeszA
This is a typical example of a guilty person going into too much detail. While he was saying this, poor Tia was in the loft.
-
https://youtu.be/8E_dTHeeszA
This is a typical example of a guilty person going into too much detail. While he was saying this, poor Tia was in the loft.
A few hours ago you were 'adam ant' that Jeremy didn't mention the TV programmes!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
A few hours ago you were 'adam ant' that Jeremy didn't mention the TV programmes!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Caroline ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
A few hours ago you were 'adam ant' that Jeremy didn't mention the TV programmes!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
He'll allege he's far to young to know what you're talking about.
-
A few hours ago you were 'adam ant' that Jeremy didn't mention the TV programmes!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
I was indeed. But thanks to you that has changed. Jeremy falling into the trap of saying too much.
-
I was indeed. But thanks to you that has changed. Jeremy falling into the trap of saying too much.
Thread already created!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 8)
-
How about the new video about the phones which is on Bambertweets-------it's interesting !
-
Jeremy is making the most of his 'Mum's baked cakes' publicity. Lots of new videos are up on Youtube.
Even this one about the bike. Even though it still puts him in a bad light. See post 7.
The video even diverts to Jeremy's video recorder and the windows to help pad it out.
-
It would be good to see a video on the windows.
There is not much he can say really. He knows how to get and out through windows and used the found hacksaw.
Although he has never said he knew you could shut the kitchen latch from outside. He can't deny this is the case. There are 19 sources. But only Julie has said he knew about this, so he could focus on Julie (again) and say she is lying.
-
Jeremy is making the most of his 'Mum's baked cakes' publicity. Lots of new videos are up on Youtube.
Even this one about the bike. Even though it still puts him in a bad light. See post 7.
The video even diverts to Jeremy's video recorder and the windows to help pad it out.
Seems his campaign team are trying to work against all of the negative publicity that Bamber has received lately and of course the fact that two new books have been released highlighting Bambers guilt to the wider public.
But the campaigns illogical propaganda does more harm than good, to me anyway. If he is truly innocent- then why do the campaign team lie in their videos?
-
It would be good to see a video on the windows.
There is not much he can say really. He knows how to get and out through windows and used the found hacksaw.
Although he has never said he knew you could shut the kitchen latch from outside. He can't deny this is the case. There are 19 sources. But only Julie has said he knew about this, so he could focus on Julie (again) and say she is lying.
do you really not care how that makes you look talking about the 19 sources ?even those who believe he is guilty know that is absolute rubbish -which is why the court of said it did not have to be proven - because it wasn't.
-
do you really not care how that makes you look talking about the 19 sources ?even those who believe he is guilty know that is absolute rubbish -which is why the court of said it did not have to be proven - because it wasn't.
The court said there was no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt by which means he used to enter and exit. The prosecution nonetheless offered evidence establishing what he most likely did. They did such because it was extremely helpful to prove it was possible for him to get in and out for the jury to believe it happened even though there was no obligation to prove how beyond a reasonable doubt.
Take the following example.
Bank safe has a timer and it can't be opened until 9AM.
Bank safe is closed at 6PM and the money inside was counted and there.
Bank safe is opened the following morning at 9AM and is empty
Defendant is caught trying to spend money that was stolen from the bank safe
Beyond a reasonable doubt it was robbed even though it should not have been able to be robbed. It is not necessary to prove how the person got inside beyond a reasonable doubt clearly it happened. (Sheila could not have killed herself so clearly someone entered, shot her and exited- see the comparison)
Though not necessary it still would be helpful to demonstrate how it were possible and that the person in question knew about such method to help further demonstrate it was the defendant in possession of the money.
That is why they proffered the evidence about how Jeremy knew how to use the windows to enter and exit and the evidence that suggested he most likely entered through the bathroom and exited through the kitchen. The evidence they proffered certainly established such by a preponderance which merely requires more likely than not or as one of my law professors referred to as 50% plus anything.
-
The court said there was no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt by which means he used to enter and exit. The prosecution nonetheless offered evidence establishing what he most likely did. They did such because it was extremely helpful to prove it was possible for him to get in and out for the jury to believe it happened even though there was no obligation to prove how beyond a reasonable doubt.
Take the following example.
Bank safe has a timer and it can't be opened until 9AM.
Bank safe is closed at 6PM and the money inside was counted and there.
Bank safe is opened the following morning at 9AM and is empty
Defendant is caught trying to spend money that was stolen from the bank safe
Beyond a reasonable doubt it was robbed even though it should not have been able to be robbed. It is not necessary to prove how the person got inside beyond a reasonable doubt clearly it happened. (Sheila could not have killed herself so clearly someone entered, shot her and exited- see the comparison)
Though not necessary it still would be helpful to demonstrate how it were possible and that the person in question knew about such method to help further demonstrate it was the defendant in possession of the money.
That is why they proffered the evidence about how Jeremy knew how to use the windows to enter and exit and the evidence that suggested he most likely entered through the bathroom and exited through the kitchen. The evidence they proffered certainly established such by a preponderance which merely requires more likely than not or as one of my law professors referred to as 50% plus anything.
Although they didn't have to prove the window could be latched from outside. It was.
There are 19 sources. Good sources as well. The most recent being from CAL.
You created a thread a few months ago with a statement from the police showing they tested the window.
Jan just keeps denying the kitchen window latch could be banged into place from outside. But has no sources to counter the 19 sources.
-
The court said there was no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt by which means he used to enter and exit. The prosecution nonetheless offered evidence establishing what he most likely did. They did such because it was extremely helpful to prove it was possible for him to get in and out for the jury to believe it happened even though there was no obligation to prove how beyond a reasonable doubt.
Take the following example.
Bank safe has a timer and it can't be opened until 9AM.
Bank safe is closed at 6PM and the money inside was counted and there.
Bank safe is opened the following morning at 9AM and is empty
Defendant is caught trying to spend money that was stolen from the bank safe
Beyond a reasonable doubt it was robbed even though it should not have been able to be robbed. It is not necessary to prove how the person got inside beyond a reasonable doubt clearly it happened. (Sheila could not have killed herself so clearly someone entered, shot her and exited- see the comparison)
Though not necessary it still would be helpful to demonstrate how it were possible and that the person in question knew about such method to help further demonstrate it was the defendant in possession of the money.
That is why they proffered the evidence about how Jeremy knew how to use the windows to enter and exit and the evidence that suggested he most likely entered through the bathroom and exited through the kitchen. The evidence they proffered certainly established such by a preponderance which merely requires more likely than not or as one of my law professors referred to as 50% plus anything.
I never said that - my only query is that the window that he used was able to be locked from the outside . the only source for that is the family - the police report was ambiguous to say the least .
-
the new video on the phones is interesting.
-
If the inside latch falls into place after being banged from outside, that is locked.
It may not be a very secure lock, like a bolt or key lock. But an intruder would have to force entry.
If you want to call it closed, shut etc, feel free.
-
the new video on the phones is interesting.
So interesting in fact that not a word has been said about it. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ??
-
Its was not a pitch black night according to Bews it was a well lit night because the moon was out. Anybody seen walking, biking or moving would have been more likely to have been seen.
I'm sure that most people would have been sleeping, but with it being August I dare bet most people would have had windows open as did Mr and Mrs Bamber. In the dead of the night a bike would have made a noise especially on gravel paths etc. The risk of biking through and near other farms could have triggered dogs barking at those farms...There is no proof the bike was used. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Its was not a pitch black night according to Bews it was a well lit night because the moon was out. Anybody seen walking, biking or moving would have been more likely to have been seen.
I'm sure that most people would have been sleeping, but with it being August I dare bet most people would have had windows open as did Mr and Mrs Bamber. In the dead of the night a bike would have made a noise especially on gravel paths etc. The risk of biking through and near other farms could have triggered dogs barking at those farms...There is no proof the bike was used. ;D ;D ;D ;D
DB's WS said the cycle route would not pass any dwellings.
-
DB's WS said the cycle route would not pass any dwellings.
I don't think that is right because for one he would have had to have passed his neighbours not once but twice...There are cottages north and south of Pages Lane, plus a few farms on route...Plus going via sea wall on a moonlit night is likely but unlikely. There is no proof the bike was used. Maybe its pure speculation?
-
I don't think that is right because for one he would have had to have passed his neighbours not once but twice...There are cottages north and south of Pages Lane, plus a few farms on route...Plus going via sea wall on a moonlit night is likely but unlikely. There is no proof the bike was used. Maybe its pure speculation?
Do you think it is a coincidence it was brought over just before the massacre ? It was certainly a big one. And strange that Jeremy would expect his girlfriend and guest to start cycling to places. Very charming.
There is no proof the bike was used. But the prosecution alleged this to the jury. He could have also walked there.
-
A well lit moonlight night will assist Jeremy in cycling to WHF.
-
Do you think it is a coincidence it was brought over just before the massacre ? It was certainly a big one. And strange that Jeremy would expect his girlfriend and guest to start cycling to places. Very charming.
There is no proof the bike was used. But the prosecution alleged this to the jury. He could have also walked there.
Not at all. June must have known Jeremy had the bike for it was at Head Street the weekend prior to the tragedies . Julie had mentioned about having a bike to Jeremy and Jeremy being Jeremy obliged her with his mothers bike. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever the bike was used on the night. It was forensically tested. The bike was introduced as a possibility by the CPS there was no evidence to back up the claim. The CPS used the bike as plot and staged it as being a possibility to the jury. :-\ :-\
-
Not at all. June must have known Jeremy had the bike for it was at Head Street the weekend prior to the tragedies . Julie had mentioned about having a bike to Jeremy and Jeremy being Jeremy obliged her with his mothers bike. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever the bike was used on the night. It was forensically tested. The bike was introduced as a possibility by the CPS there was no evidence to back up the claim. The CPS used the bike as plot and staged it as being a possibility to the jury. :-\ :-\
There is no proof June knew about the bike. A thread was created on whether he stole the bike just before the massacre.
Julie said she may have mentioned a bike a year earlier. The judge asking why Bamber would bring the bike over when he had said himself the relationship was 'coming to a close'.
There is no proof it was used. Why would there be ? Bamber was not injured and may have showered at WHF. He also had time to clean it.
The prosecution alleged to the jury the bike was used. Some of the jury may not have agreed. But could then simply believe he walked the journey.
-
EP were continually using a sledgehammer to crack a nut,simply because they'd found nothing to go on as regards Jeremy having been the killer.
They tried the bike,the file,the windows, the phone-call,etc,etc and when all else failed,used the silencer,which to this day remains dodgy.
-
Do you think it is a coincidence it was brought over just before the massacre ? It was certainly a big one. And strange that Jeremy would expect his girlfriend and guest to start cycling to places. Very charming.
There is no proof the bike was used. But the prosecution alleged this to the jury. He could have also walked there.
No because Julie admitted that in the past she had asked Jeremy about the bike.
-
If the inside latch falls into place after being banged from outside, that is locked.
It may not be a very secure lock, like a bolt or key lock. But an intruder would have to force entry.
If you want to call it closed, shut etc, feel free.
I will have to remember that if I have an insurance claim
"claim refused your windows were closed but not locked so the burglars got in "
But insurance company how can you refuse my claim ? CLOSED AND LOCKED IS THE SAME THING! :o
-
No because Julie admitted that in the past she had asked Jeremy about the bike.
A year earlier she said she may have mentioned it.
Why would he bring the bike over just before the massacre for Julie, if the relationship was coming to a close ? (Judges question).
She also put in her WS that Bamber was planning to cycle to WHF.
-
Seems his campaign team are trying to work against all of the negative publicity that Bamber has received lately and of course the fact that two new books have been released highlighting Bambers guilt to the wider public.
But the campaigns illogical propaganda does more harm than good, to me anyway. If he is truly innocent- then why do the campaign team lie in their videos?
Mat - are they telling lies about the phone then?
Just to show I am still trying to look at things in detail and asking questions.
Or are you saying the words they are attributing to Ainsley are not true - it is a very clear statement?
-
If Julie was trying to frame Bamber, why would she say that she 'may' have mentioned a bike may be useful to her a year earlier ?
-
If Julie was trying to frame Bamber, why would she say that she 'may' have mentioned a bike may be useful to her a year earlier ?
I never said she was trying to frame Jeremy - did I - Do you never read my posts?
-
I never said she was trying to frame Jeremy - did I - Do you never read my posts?
So you think she was telling the truth ?
-
So you think she was telling the truth ?
that proves 100% you just like the sound of your own voice .
And you are not even one tiny bit interested in anyones opinion except your own.
-
I never said she was trying to frame Jeremy - did I - Do you never read my posts?
I have reported you to the moderators again.
My post was not asking you or anyone else. However you accused me of 'not bothering to read you're posts'.
Of course I read them, which is why I have told you that you must change stance.
-
Adam -why don't you start a thread on the new video about the phones ?
Just to show you are open minded to discussion?
-
I have reported you to the moderators again.
My post was not asking you or anyone else. However you accused me of 'not bothering to read you're posts'.
Of course I read them, which is why I have told you that you must change stance.
No you have not otherwise you would not be asking questions about what I think of julies evidence - I explained my OPINION, because it is nothing more nothing less, very recently.
F
-
Adam -why don't you start a thread on the new video about the phones ?
Just to show you are open minded to discussion?
Why don't you start a thread.
I have only watched a bit of it.
It is interesting that there was just one phone line. Bamber taking the kitchen phone off the hook upon entry disabling all phones.
-
Why don't you start a thread.
I have only watched a bit of it.
It is interesting that there was just one phone line. Bamber taking the kitchen phone off the hook upon entry disabling all phones.
Hmm refusing to start a thread . Really ? Are you not feeling well today?
-
Unless BW, the housekeeper or anyone else can say where the phones were on the day of the massacre, then no one will ever know.
The bedroom phone was either in the bedroom and disabled by Bamber upon entrance. Who then took it downstairs. Or it was already downstairs in the kitchen.
Either way, it is a reason why Neville headed to the kitchen.
-
Unless BW, the housekeeper or anyone else can say where the phones were on the day of the massacre, then no one will ever know.
The bedroom phone was either in the bedroom and disabled by Bamber upon entrance. Who then took it downstairs. Or it was already downstairs in the kitchen.
Either way, it is a reason why Neville headed to the kitchen.
But the new video says the phone was not hidden under the magazines - which was used against Jeremy by the prosecution - so why would Ainsley change his story ? Its quite a vital part of the case because it was used against Jeremy in court.
-
But the new video says the phone was not hidden under the magazines - which was used against Jeremy by the prosecution - so why would Ainsley change his story ? Its quite a vital part of the case because it was used against Jeremy in court.
Under magazines or not is not important. You can't really hide something as big as a 1980's house phone under magazines.
What's more important is that the kitchen phone was working. So why was the bedroom phone plugged in the kitchen socket ? And the kitchen phone unplugged ?
-
Just watched some of the video.
It claims Ainsley said the kitchen phone was wrapped up and on a shelf upstairs. Although no WS was shown from Ainsley in the video supporting this. Why a working kitchen phone would be put away upstairs I don't know.
The video did show a WS from Ainsley saying the kitchen phone was underneath a pile of magazines in the kitchen.
-
Unless BW, the housekeeper or anyone else can say where the phones were on the day of the massacre, then no one will ever know.
So why do you persist in saying that Jeremy hid it ?
-
The video then suggests AE moved the working kitchen phone from upstairs, into the kitchen underneath a pile of magazines.
Why ? The police had carried out their searches. Was she psychic and would realise doing this would help frame Bamber ?
-
Just watched some of the video.
It claims Ainsley said the kitchen phone was wrapped up and on a shelf upstairs. Although no WS was shown from Ainsley in the video supporting this. Why a working kitchen phone would be put away upstairs I don't know.
The video did show a WS from Ainsley saying the kitchen phone was underneath a pile of magazines in the kitchen.
They repeated two different statements attributed to Ainsley . So either they are telling lies or it was found in the piles of evidence shown being delivered to Jeremys cell a few months ago .
-
The video then suggests AE moved the working kitchen phone from upstairs, into the kitchen underneath a pile of magazines.
Why ? The police had carried out their searches. Was she psychic and would realise doing this would help frame Bamber ?
They were saying only certain people had access to the house -but to be honest it is about the same level of assumption as saying Jermemy hid it. But it was a lot more damaging to him .
-
They repeated two different statements attributed to Ainsley . So either they are telling lies or it was found in the piles of evidence shown being delivered to Jeremys cell a few months ago .
Or Ainsley just made a mistake and mixed up the phones.
-
Unless BW, the housekeeper or anyone else can say where the phones were on the day of the massacre, then no one will ever know.
So why do you persist in saying that Jeremy hid it ?
Jan brought it up.
I am sure you will agree it is very very suspicious where how the phones were found.
-
They repeated two different statements attributed to Ainsley . So either they are telling lies or it was found in the piles of evidence shown being delivered to Jeremys cell a few months ago .
If the video had posted two different WS from Ainsley, then that would mean something.
Ainsley is only allowed to submit one WS. Which says the phone was underneath a pile of magazines in the kitchen.
-
Nearly everyone involved has reneged on evidence when you go through everything,as what they've said initially doesn't tally with what was received at trial.
When you read about " Bambers Application for Prerogative Pardon 2005 " ( Home Office ) it's not something that you can turn a blind eye to.
-
The video then says a policeman dialled Simpson from the kitchen using the cream bedroom phone. Again there is no proof of this.
I assume this was after photographs were taken which showed no blood on the phone.
Fingerprint tests not being carried out on that phone were not an issue. I assume Neville's and Jeremy's prints were on it. And Junes, and Sheila's, and...
-
Nearly everyone involved has reneged on evidence when you go through everything,as what they've said initially doesn't tally with what was received at trial.
When you read about " Bambers Application for Prerogative Pardon 2005 " ( Home Office ) it's not something that you can turn a blind eye to.
I didn't know he did this. He was being optimistic.
-
I didn't know he did this. He was being optimistic.
Pity you hadn't read it then as it was/is on the forum in February.
-
Mat - are they telling lies about the phone then?
Just to show I am still trying to look at things in detail and asking questions.
Or are you saying the words they are attributing to Ainsley are not true - it is a very clear statement?
I haven't seen their video about the phones? It must be a new one? But I am suspicious whenever the official site makes a claim because of the little tricks that they have pulled in the past so if they are posting a discrepancy in something Ainsley said I hope they post both his statements that show the discrepancy and that they don't just SAY there is one.
The phone situation in WHF that night is alarming.
Are you saying you don't think the official site lies? Or posts misleading information? :o There was no love lost between the last defence team and OCT - got to be a reason for that.
I am on holiday for 2 weeks soon - so after tonight when I don't reply, don't think I've ran off!! ;D ;D
-
Nearly everyone involved has reneged on evidence when you go through everything,as what they've said initially doesn't tally with what was received at trial.
When you read about " Bambers Application for Prerogative Pardon 2005 " ( Home Office ) it's not something that you can turn a blind eye to.
Why not? He didn't get one!
-
Why not? He didn't get one!
Exactly. I'd imagine many criminals make these kind of requests for pardon - lets not paint over the fact it was obviously REJECTED.
-
Exactly. I'd imagine many criminals make these kind of requests for pardon - lets not paint over the fact it was obviously REJECTED.
It was worth a shot but rejected fairly quickly ;D
-
I haven't seen their video about the phones? It must be a new one? But I am suspicious whenever the official site makes a claim because of the little tricks that they have pulled in the past so if they are posting a discrepancy in something Ainsley said I hope they post both his statements that show the discrepancy and that they don't just SAY there is one.
The phone situation in WHF that night is alarming.
Are you saying you don't think the official site lies? Or posts misleading information? :o There was no love lost between the last defence team and OCT - got to be a reason for that.
I am on holiday for 2 weeks soon - so after tonight when I don't reply, don't think I've ran off!! ;D ;D
No not at all - I was genuinely asking if anyone knew about this claim
I am trying to find out as I type. :)
-
No not at all - I was genuinely asking if anyone knew about this claim
I am trying to find out as I type. :)
Ah, I really don't know what the claim is. Perhaps Caroline or Scip will look into it. They will do a better job than I will. ;D
-
oh no I might have to do an Adam and :o start :o a :o thread
-
oh no I might have to do an Adam and :o start :o a :o thread
If you do that... you know what to say in the future don't you? When someone else brings up the telephones??
(THREAD ALREADY CREATED)
-
If you do that... you know what to say in the future don't you? When someone else brings up the telephones??
(THREAD ALREADY CREATED)
;D ;D ;D ;D shouldn't you be packing?
-
Why not? He didn't get one!
Try reading it first before you pass comment.
-
Try reading it first before you pass comment.
Are you saying he did get a pardon? I'll read it if you post a link - I'm not looking for it though.
-
Are you saying he did get a pardon? I'll read it if you post a link - I'm not looking for it though.
Suit yourself.
-
Are you saying he did get a pardon? I'll read it if you post a link - I'm not looking for it though.
It looks if it was the arguments from the last submissions.
In a letter to Mr Clarke last month, his solicitors wrote: "Under those circumstances, it would be wholly wrong and inequitable for Jeremy Bamber to remain a single day longer in custody when there is this specific doubt.
"In all the circumstances, we take the view that the appropriate course is for the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the exercise of his prerogative powers to grant a pardon."
So it was just the arugements that were used in the last appeal that went on to be rejected by the CCRC and held up by the judicial review.
-
Written by the criminal law group Paul Martin & co.of Essex.
-
Actually, let me correct myself. It wasn't the last submissions. It was before that...
Legal adviser Giovanni di Stefano is still awaiting a decision from the Criminal Cases Review Commission on whether a fresh appeal will be granted.
;D ;D
-
http://news.sky.com/story/372393/jailed-killer-bamber-calls-for-a-pardon
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-362613/Killer-Bamber-appeals-pardon.html
-
It looks if it was the arguments from the last submissions.
In a letter to Mr Clarke last month, his solicitors wrote: "Under those circumstances, it would be wholly wrong and inequitable for Jeremy Bamber to remain a single day longer in custody when there is this specific doubt.
"In all the circumstances, we take the view that the appropriate course is for the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the exercise of his prerogative powers to grant a pardon."
So it was just the arugements that were used in the last appeal that went on to be rejected by the CCRC and held up by the judicial review.
Bamber has requested this before in 2005 I have pasted the solicitor letter below
PSM/SLI/SMM/BAMBER
3 August 2005
Secretary of State for the
Home Department,
2 Marsham Street,
London, SW1P 4DF
And By Fax : 020 7035 4745
Dear Sirs,
Re: Jeremy BAMBER
Application for Prerogative of Pardon
We act for Mr. Jeremy Bamber whom, as you will be personally aware, was convicted on the 28th October 1986 of five counts of murder by a majority verdict of 10 to 2 following a 19 day trial in the Crown Court at Chelmsford before Mr. Justice Drake and a jury.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommendation that he serve a minimum of 25 years.
Pursuant to his trial he sought Leave to Appeal against his Conviction but his Application was refused on the papers by the Single Judge and on the 20th March 1989 the Full Court, presided over by the then Lord Chief Justice Lane, heard his renewed Application for Leave.
The Court dismissed the said Application.
Under Section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the matter back to the Court of Appeal and on the 12th December 2002 Lord Justice Kay delivered a 100 page Judgement dismissing the said appeal.
It is of course true to say that the matter is currently again with the Criminal Cases Review Commission on new evidence based upon the abysmal failure on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service and, more importantly, the Essex Police in disclosure.
It is correct to say that perhaps slightly less than one quarter of the 4 million or so documents still have not been disclosed to the Defence, although in the 38 boxes of papers that we received, it is also true to say there were a number of documents and, more importantly, photographs contained within which did not form part of the Defence papers either at (a) trial (b) the 1989 appeal and (c) the 2002 appeal.
Applications have been made to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and, as we have stated, it is absolutely correct to state that those investigations are ongoing. However, certain information has recently come to light which concerns a photograph which was discovered by ourselves amongst the papers, namely a post mortem photograph of Sheila Caffell’s wounds and the blood flow from her neck taking into consideration that the said blood flow was fresh and certainly, as per the photograph, could be deemed to be extremely recent.
That is a subject matter which is attracting the attention of the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
On the 28th July 2005 amongst the papers was discovered a Witness Statement from PC Peter Woodcock ATS 426 which, although dated 20th September 1985, refers to his visit to the scene of the crime at 7.34 am in the morning. In short this Witness Statement which, whilst we cannot be 100% certain did not form part of the trial bundle, certainly must be deemed corroborative of the photograph that we discovered which definitely did not form part of the trial bundle.
PC Woodcock states the following :
“She had what appeared to be two bullet holes under her chin and blood leaking from both sides of her mouth down her cheeks”.
This Statement clearly is corroborative to the photographs of Sheila Caffell with blood leaking down from her neck which we submitted to the Commission and which, at the cost of being again repetitive, there was a clear and distinct failure on the part of the Crown to disclose to the Defence.
The Statement of PC Woodcock who was the first officer to enter the house at 7.34 am states that there was “blood leaking from both sides of her mouth down her cheeks”. We know from his Witness Statement this was at 7.34 am. We also know from common medical knowledge that blood flowing the way that (a) the photograph proves and (b) evidence by the Statement of PC Woodcock, namely of leaking and or flowing, clearly confirms that at a very maximum, the time of death must have been 1 ½ hours from the time of either (a) the discovery of the body which was within 10 minutes of 7.34 am or (b) the photograph which we know was taken between 8.30 and 9.20 am on the said day of the tragedy.
That being the case and that evidence now being available, quite frankly, make it impossible for our client to have been responsible for the said murders.
Quite apart from this, there are the radio and telephone logs, again that were not disclosed to the Defence and to which the Chief Prosecutor, Mr. Anthony Arlidge QC has written to us confirming that he has never had sight of the said logs, which show (a) that at approximately 5.24 am there was conversation and movement by the police with someone inside the house, and (b) that upon entry to the house there was a “dead male and dead female body in the kitchen”.
The Prosecution allege that Sheila Caffell was found upstairs but the documents by the police, which they failed to disclose not only to the Defence but also to their own Prosecutor, tell a very different story.
The questions to be asked are that if indeed Sheila Caffell was found downstairs, how she then found herself upstairs by the time that PC Woodcock allegedly states that he found her.
Quite apart from the deplorable state of affairs and the fact that our client has now been 20 years in prison for a crime that it is evidently clear now by (a) the photographic evidence that the Crown failed to disclose, and (b) the corroboration of the blood flow by PC Woodcock in a Statement dated almost a year after the event and which, as we have stated, whilst we cannot be 100% certain was not disclosed, certainly the amount of documentation still covertly maintained by the Crown, over 600,000 pieces of paper, goes to the heart of the merits of our request.
It is of course true to say, as we have already perhaps overstated, that there is an Application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and that, ultimately, this matter may find itself back to the Court of Appeal. Nevertheless, our client continues to be in custody and, as you will also be aware, last year was savagely attacked with a knife by an inmate for reasons that have never really been ascertained and which the Authorities almost invariably were aware that the assailant was a man of extreme danger.
In short, our client continues his detention, notwithstanding all of the above factors because perhaps there is really no system upon which any Authority, even the Crown Prosecution Service, the Police or the Court, can effect a release without the implementation of the 1995 Criminal Appeal Act and the Criminal Cases Review Commission making a referral.
In all the circumstances, we take the view that the appropriate course is for the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the exercise of his Prerogative Powers to grant a Pardon.
The exercise of this Prerogative Power to Pardon does not necessarily have to be a free pardon but can be conditional or in the form of a remission or a partial remission of sentence :
R –v- Secretary of State for the Home Department. Ex p. Bentley [1994] QB 349. Moreover, the Crown may exercise the prerogative right of granting a reprieve, which can be effected by announcing its pleasure in any way: 2 Hale PC 412. Since at least 1830 constitutionally the Crown has acted in the matter of reprieve on the uncontrolled responsibility of the Home Secretary: see Mackintosh “The British Cabinet” (2nd Ed) page 328 note 4; Sir Edward Troup “The Home Office” (Whitehall series) Chapter V. (referred to in Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Ed Volume 8(2) paragraph 825, footnote1).
We are of course aware that this is perhaps one of the most high profile cases in recent British criminal history and that, according to papers we have seen, the Director of Public Prosecutions and Attorney General and the then Secretary of State for the Home Department certainly played a role. There are no allegations of misfeasance in public office save that there is clearly reference to the fact that the Secretary of State was made aware of the events from the beginning and was copied on correspondence between the then Prosecution, which was initiated in those days by the police, although there is no evidence that after 2002 the Secretary of State played any part in this whatsoever, other than of course the role of fixing the tariff.
In light of this evidence and in light of the way upon which matters have progressed and clearly the unsatisfactory situation on disclosure and the evidence found by ourselves and submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission now clearly suggest that Jeremy Bamber is not only technically and as a matter of law not guilty of these offences (the sheer size of the 600,000 or more pages of documents which the Crown failed to disclose is in itself per se a point of appeal) but that the simple photograph at the scene of the crime taken of Sheila Caffell with blood pouring from her neck and now the corroboration from the police officer Woodcock confirming that “blood was leaking from both sides of her mouth down her cheeks” show that since Mr. Bamber was with the police from 3 am and the cause of death having been ascertained as two bullet wounds and the oozing, leaking, flowing of blood taken in evidence make it impossible for Jeremy Bamber to be factually guilty of murder.
The use of the prerogative pardon, it is conceded, must be one that is administered with care and consideration. There is a real anger and a real fear that if a serious miscarriage of justice continues to be done and the public confidence in the criminal justice system must be one that when the Crown or the Executive understand and realise that a potential miscarriage of justice is apparent and not remedied, then the implications for the Crown and the Executive can be reflected upon the public confidence in the criminal justice system.
It is for these reasons that the Secretary of State is required to adopt the prerogative of pardon with the proviso and the understanding that it is in the form of remission of sentence. The quest for Mr. Bamber continues with the Criminal Cases Review Commission and can indeed continue until such time as the courts make an ultimate decision.
In the case of Susan May, the Parole Board duly released Miss May on parole notwithstanding her continued protestations of innocence and continued application currently with the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Under normal circumstances, we would ask, and we do so in the alternative, for the Secretary of State to refer the matter to the Parole Board in a similar manner to that of Susan May with a view to releasing Mr. Bamber on licence if the Secretary of State feels that the time has not yet arrived when the prerogative of pardon cam be adopted. That being so, our prime objective is to (a) place information before the Secretary of State and (b) a formal application for the Secretary of State to use the prerogative of pardon and release Mr. Bamber forthwith.
This will in no way, as we have stated, interfere with the current ongoing Application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and, in our view and taking into consideration that within the 4 million or so documents, notwithstanding that over 600,000 documents have failed to be disclosed, but one critical key factor was never dealt with either during the time of the investigation, the trial, the two appeals and to date.
Professor Vanezis who was the pathologist never stated in his Report his opinion on the time of death. We would have thought this would have been crucial and critical but it is evidently clear that the pathologies at the scene of the crime having witnessed and seen and in fact ordering photographs to be taken, having seen blood flowing from the neck of Sheila Caffell and then invariably reviewing the Witness Statements of the police (save of course for the Witness Statement dated 20th September 1985 of PC Woodcock had not been disclosed to the pathologist and of course the close up photograph of Sheila Caffell not having been disclosed to the pathologist), he could never have failed to give even a basic estimate of time of death.
It is clear when one reviews the scene of crime photographs that, for example, on June Bamber there is undoubtedly dried blood by the time the photographs were taken. However Sheila Caffell was a different story which was in itself, without even precise medical qualification, shows to the untrained eye that the time of death was fairly recent, otherwise the blood would not be flowing or leaking.
Under those circumstances, it would be wholly wrong and inequitable for Jeremy Bamber to remain a single day longer in custody when there is this specific doubt. The only mechanism which allows our client’s release is either the grant of parole licence by the Parole Board (which can take up to nine months) or the prerogative of pardon by the Secretary of State.
Whilst of course, to coin a phrase, beggars cannot be choosers, and this is not a situation where such should be the case, we will of course accept an urgent and immediate referral to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State but the preferable and more obvious avenue is clearly that, in this case, the Secretary of State must apply the prerogative of pardon.
This we kindly request to be done on an urgent basis.
We take this opportunity of thanking you for your kind consideration.
Yours faithfully,
PAUL MARTIN & CO.
-
It looks if it was the arguments from the last submissions.
In a letter to Mr Clarke last month, his solicitors wrote: "Under those circumstances, it would be wholly wrong and inequitable for Jeremy Bamber to remain a single day longer in custody when there is this specific doubt.
"In all the circumstances, we take the view that the appropriate course is for the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the exercise of his prerogative powers to grant a pardon."
So it was just the arugements that were used in the last appeal that went on to be rejected by the CCRC and held up by the judicial review.
So it was rejected then? Which is what we said.
-
Thank you David!!
-
Actually, let me correct myself. It wasn't the last submissions. It was before that...
Legal adviser Giovanni di Stefano is still awaiting a decision from the Criminal Cases Review Commission on whether a fresh appeal will be granted.
;D ;D
Oh dear! ;D
-
I've yet to see/read a good enough reason why it was rejected.
-
I've yet to see/read a good enough reason why it was rejected.
Because most of it is billhooks!
-
I've yet to see/read a good enough reason why it was rejected.
It would be illogical for the Home Office to grant a pardon to someone who has their CCRC submission and appeals rejected. The defence will have received reasons for rejection, they just haven't shared it.
-
I've yet to see/read a good enough reason why it was rejected.
"YOU may say that. I couldn't possibly comment" :D 8)
-
Thank you David.
You have to admire Jeremy's cheek.
Conversations inside WHF ;D
-
Thank you David.
You have to admire Jeremy's cheek.
Conversations inside WHF ;D
Desperate times and all that..
-
It would be illogical for the Home Office to grant a pardon to someone who has their CCRC submission and appeals rejected. The defence will have received reasons for rejection, they just haven't shared it.
I wonder if we can get hold of it? though it may not exist why would they waste their time refuting the claims made? Home office has priorities
-
Thank you David.
You have to admire Jeremy's cheek.
Conversations inside WHF ;D
I wonder if he will try writing to the Queen? ;D
-
I wonder if he will try writing to the Queen? ;D
well he is residing at her residence so you never know.
-
I've yet to see/read a good enough reason why it was rejected.
It was rejected because it is bunk.
They defense could neither establish the trial defense had not seen Woodcock's statement nor could they establish he was claiming the blood was actively leaking from her as opposed to being dry. Clearly based on all the other things he said about the case he was claiming the blood was dry like everyone else and simply was sloppy in his wording. To prevail the defense needed to question him but they knew he would say it was sloppy wording and that the blood was dry so they didn't question him. They simply alleged his statement is clear that the blood was wet hoping to get away with a trick but it failed miserably.
-
well he is residing at her residence so you never know.
The Queen has the power to pardon people. However I doubt she will ever use it
-
The Queen has the power to pardon people. However I doubt she will ever use it
I would say a snowball's chance in hell...
4 since WWII and they all seem to have been politically motivated including one I consider worthless because it was posthumous.
-
You've got to admire his cheek.
Believing his case is such a MOJ that he deserves to be the fifth person in about 70 years to get a pardon. Which would mean everyone else was wrong.
-
I wonder if it is common practice for lawyers to request pardons for their clients ?
It seems that a long letter is all that is required. There is nothing to lose. Requesting a pardon suggests they are innocent and the courts have got it wrong. It also creates publicity.
-
Yes,and it wouldn't be the first time that the courts have been wrong,would it ?
-
Someone on Red made an interesting point. Saying Bamber could have cycled to and from WHF on the roads.
There would be no cars at that time. Bews said the only car they passed when going to WHF was Bamber's.
Any cars that were on the roads Bamber would have plenty of time to hide from. Seeing the car headlights and hearing it from a distance.
Another option ?
-
Someone on Red made an interesting point. Saying Bamber could have cycled to and from WHF on the roads.
There would be no cars at that time. Bews said the only car they passed when going to WHF was Bamber's.
Any cars that were on the roads Bamber would have plenty of time to hide from. Seeing the car headlights and hearing it from a distance.
Another option ?
No one would deny it's a possibility but it's a big risk, was he up . To more risk than necessary or didn't he worry? Country roads are unpredictable at night you may not see anyone or you may hit a walker in dark clothing before you see them. Remember it's pitch black.
-
Say the chain broke ? ;D ;D ;D ;D Or you got a puncture ? ;D ;D ;D ;D ( laughing like the Cadbury Smash advert )
-
Someone on Red made an interesting point. Saying Bamber could have cycled to and from WHF on the roads.
There would be no cars at that time. Bews said the only car they passed when going to WHF was Bamber's.
Any cars that were on the roads Bamber would have plenty of time to hide from. Seeing the car headlights and hearing it from a distance.
Another option ?
he would still be taking a very risky option - just because there were no cars in that journey does not mean there were no cars at the time he went to and from the house . Like I said he had to make a plan to get rid of clothing /shoes on the way back ( he would not know how much blood would be on him ) He would only need one person to see him and the whole plan would be done for. Or his neighbours hear him entering the house etc. He would have to have lights on his bike and then jump into a hedge and turn the lights off at the same time - don't you think that might be a bit obvious?
We can make up all sorts of scenarios but the facts are - not one person saw him on his journey there or back. Not one person found any discarded clothes or shoes. There was no evidence on the bike . The police were round his house immediately and saw nothing suspicious . Anne was watching him like a hawk.
That does not mean he was not clever and did the journey and got rid of things - but it means that any suggestions about what he did or how he did it are assumptions or scenarios - nothing more than that.
There are lots of things that are possibilities but it does not mean they are true.
And that goes for the opposite side of the arguments as well. Just to be fair.
-
Someone on Red made an interesting point. Saying Bamber could have cycled to and from WHF on the roads.
There would be no cars at that time. Bews said the only car they passed when going to WHF was Bamber's.
Any cars that were on the roads Bamber would have plenty of time to hide from. Seeing the car headlights and hearing it from a distance.
Another option ?
I think you need to know the road before making such sweeping statements. Of course there ARE "hiding places" but there are also front gardens aplenty and where there are front gardens there are houses and where there are houses....................some risks would have HAD to be taken. I think the main road may have been a risk too far.
-
he would still be taking a very risky option - just because there were no cars in that journey does not mean there were no cars at the time he went to and from the house . Like I said he had to make a plan to get rid of clothing /shoes on the way back ( he would not know how much blood would be on him ) He would only need one person to see him and the whole plan would be done for. Or his neighbours hear him entering the house etc. He would have to have lights on his bike and then jump into a hedge and turn the lights off at the same time - don't you think that might be a bit obvious?
We can make up all sorts of scenarios but the facts are - not one person saw him on his journey there or back. Not one person found any discarded clothes or shoes. There was no evidence on the bike . The police were round his house immediately and saw nothing suspicious . Anne was watching him like a hawk.
That does not mean he was not clever and did the journey and got rid of things - but it means that any suggestions about what he did or how he did it are assumptions or scenarios - nothing more than that.
There are lots of things that are possibilities but it does not mean they are true.
And that goes for the opposite side of the arguments as well. Just to be fair.
Well said jan, excellent reply
-
There could also have been regular movement of tractors,etc as it was harvest-time and they tend to set out early,as do the farmers themselves.
Jeremy wouldn't have chosen the busiest time of the year when workers make an early appearance to various farms,including WHF.
-
I think you need to know the road before making such sweeping statements. Of course there ARE "hiding places" but there are also front gardens aplenty and where there are front gardens there are houses and where there are houses....................some risks would have HAD to be taken. I think the main road may have been a risk too far.
That's interesting Jane because I always imagined the road to be a dark deserted place not with houses and gardens, that makes it extremely risky anyone could have looked out of a window apart from anything else.
-
And I think poachers about - I still think that was the lamps in the fields and the scruffy man scenario .
-
he would still be taking a very risky option - just because there were no cars in that journey does not mean there were no cars at the time he went to and from the house . Like I said he had to make a plan to get rid of clothing /shoes on the way back ( he would not know how much blood would be on him ) He would only need one person to see him and the whole plan would be done for. Or his neighbours hear him entering the house etc. He would have to have lights on his bike and then jump into a hedge and turn the lights off at the same time - don't you think that might be a bit obvious?
We can make up all sorts of scenarios but the facts are - not one person saw him on his journey there or back. Not one person found any discarded clothes or shoes. There was no evidence on the bike . The police were round his house immediately and saw nothing suspicious . Anne was watching him like a hawk.
That does not mean he was not clever and did the journey and got rid of things - but it means that any suggestions about what he did or how he did it are assumptions or scenarios - nothing more than that.
There are lots of things that are possibilities but it does not mean they are true.
And that goes for the opposite side of the arguments as well. Just to be fair.
Why would he have to get rid of clothing on the way back ? He wasn't a suspect for a month. His clothes may be free of blood anyway. Leaving clothes lying around between his place and WHF is too risky.
There has already been a closure thread on the disposal of the clothes.
I believe he cycled cross country. But if behind on time he may have gone some or all of the way on the roads to catch up on time. Avoiding being seen.
He would not need the bike lights on if travelling by road.
As I said, another option.
-
That's interesting Jane because I always imagined the road to be a dark deserted place not with houses and gardens, that makes it extremely risky anyone could have looked out of a window apart from anything else.
Maggie, it's quite a distance, there are numerous bends, houses right on the road, houses with short front gardens and houses with longer front gardens and there are open fields with ditches. There ARE side lanes but what might be the chances of him being near enough to hide in one OR how many ditches might he have had to jump into?
-
There could also have been regular movement of tractors,etc as it was harvest-time and they tend to set out early,as do the farmers themselves.
Jeremy wouldn't have chosen the busiest time of the year when workers make an early appearance to various farms,including WHF.
He couldn't afford to be that picky. He had to do it when the opportunity presented itself, meaning when the whole family was there.
-
Bamber knew the routes and would know the easiest safe route.
This may have been a mixture of roads and cross country. Arriving in his back garden. Bikes are silent and most of the time he would not need bike lights on.
It is surprising that people believe he disposed of clothes on the way back.
-
Bamber knew the routes and would know the easiest safe route.
This may have been a mixture of roads and cross country. Arriving in his back garden. Bikes are silent and most of the time he would not need bike lights on.
It is surprising that people believe he disposed of clothes on the way back.
Jeremy's house in Head Street was in a row of houses at right angles to another row of houses in Fish Street. I don't think there to have been any way he could have got into his back garden, other than from the road at the front.
-
Jeremy's house in Head Street was in a row of houses at right angles to another row of houses in Fish Street. I don't think there to have been any way he could have got into his back garden, other than from the road at the front.
His back garden leads onto a pathway into the fields.
-
His back garden leads onto a pathway into the fields.
There's a children's playing field right down the bottom of Fish Street, but it has houses on the "Jeremy" side of it but there may be a foot path between them. Using that route -if it was possible- would have taken him well out of his way but time may not have been a consideration....................especially if he'd made one or more phone calls from the farm. Only the last call out would be recorded.
-
Why would he have to get rid of clothing on the way back ? He wasn't a suspect for a month. His clothes may be free of blood anyway. Leaving clothes lying around between his place and WHF is too risky.
There has already been a closure thread on the disposal of the clothes.
I believe he cycled cross country. But if behind on time he may have gone some or all of the way on the roads to catch up on time. Avoiding being seen.
He would not need the bike lights on if travelling by road.
As I said, another option.
Before you make such statements you need to know more about the road and whether it was lit and whether it would have been dark at the time he was riding. We have no lights at all on our road and we are not in the middle of no where. And if he did not need lights then it also means he would be spotted easily. And also ( I don't know how many times I have to say this) He had NO way of knowing he would not be a suspect for a month. He had no way of knowing the police would fall for his story . He had no way of knowing they would not suspect him from the beginning - especially with the two shot scenario - you think he would have been quaking in his boots as soon as they went inside and thinking they would arrest him on the spot. The fact that you think he had a month to get rid of evidence is irrelevant. For example Julie said on the night she KNEW he had done it so she could have told the police the very next day - so to get out of that scenario he would have to had got rid of any evidence.
-
Before you make such statements you need to know more about the road and whether it was lit and whether it would have been dark at the time he was riding. We have no lights at all on our road and we are not in the middle of no where. And if he did not need lights then it also means he would be spotted easily. And also ( I don't know how many times I have to say this) He had NO way of knowing he would not be a suspect for a month. He had no way of knowing the police would fall for his story . He had no way of knowing they would not suspect him from the beginning - especially with the two shot scenario - you think he would have been quaking in his boots as soon as they went inside and thinking they would arrest him on the spot. The fact that you think he had a month to get rid of evidence is irrelevant. For example Julie said on the night she KNEW he had done it so she could have told the police the very next day - so to get out of that scenario he would have to had got rid of any evidence.
Well he would not be seen on the roads if there were no houses or cars. Miller said he would certainly not be seen if going along the sea wall. RB said this route passed no dwellings.
But he may have gone some of the way by road.
As I said there has been a closure thread on the disposal of the clothes. Amsterdam, London, Eastbourne, St Tropez, you name it. He may have just put his clothes in the washing machine when arriving back. He seemed pretty calm when with the police. Probably believing he was watertight.
-
Well he would not be seen on the roads if there were no houses or cars. Miller said he would certainly not be seen if going along the sea wall. RB said this route passed no dwellings.
But he may have gone some of the way by road.
As I said there has been a closure thread on the disposal of the clothes. Amsterdam, London, Eastbourne, St Tropez, you name it. He may have just put his clothes in the washing machine when arriving back. He seemed pretty calm when with the police. Probably believing he was watertight.
So where were they before he went to pick them up to take them abroad ? Perhaps he passed them to Julie to look after?
Don't you think he would be a bit worried about customs finding blood stained clothes in his suitcase ?
Seems a bit stupid for the man who is supposed to have planned the perfect mass murder ?
-
So where were they before he went to pick them up to take them abroad ? Perhaps he passed them to Julie to look after?
Don't you think he would be a bit worried about customs finding blood stained clothes in his suitcase ?
Seems a bit stupid for the man who is supposed to have planned the perfect mass murder ?
Who said they were blood stained ? Washing machines help here.
Customs in Eastbourne and London ?
Customs are looking for drugs. They don't care about clothes. As it happened Bamber smuggled drugs from Amsterdam.
-
Julie smuggled them from Canada before she started going out with Jeremy.
-
Who said they were blood stained ? Washing machines help here.
Customs in Eastbourne and London ?
Customs are looking for drugs. They don't care about clothes. As it happened Bamber smuggled drugs from Amsterdam.
so if he washed them - no need to take them abroad then ;D Silly policemen not realising why he was doing his washing while they were there interviewing him.
Was Julie not implicated for drug smuggling as well? Saw that on an official document. Bonnie and Clyde springs to mind.
-
so if he washed them - no need to take them abroad then ;D Silly policemen not realising why he was doing his washing while they were there interviewing him.
Was Julie not implicated for drug smuggling as well? Saw that on an official document. Bonnie and Clyde springs to mind.
He could have washed them after the police had left or he could have shoved them in the washer when he got back after killing everyone and they could have been washing while he was with police outside WHF.
-
Julie smuggled them from Canada before she started going out with Jeremy.
When did Julie visit Canada prior to going out with Jeremy?
-
so if he washed them - no need to take them abroad then ;D Silly policemen not realising why he was doing his washing while they were there interviewing him.
Was Julie not implicated for drug smuggling as well? Saw that on an official document. Bonnie and Clyde springs to mind.
Correct. No need to take them through customs if there was no blood.
He could have washed and hung them up prior to meeting the police. He spent enough time at his cottage looking for phone numbers and ringing Julie. Plenty of time for a quick spin.
-
When did Julie visit Canada prior to going out with Jeremy?
I'm not sure,but she didn't go while she was with Jeremy.
-
I'm not sure,but she didn't go while she was with Jeremy.
You may find it's YET another apocryphal story, Lookout.
-
You may find it's YET another apocryphal story, Lookout.
Looking at the OS site a while ago,it had said that JM had 5 criminal charges against her and the smuggling drugs from Canada was one of them.
-
Looking at the OS site a while ago,it had said that JM had 5 criminal charges against her and the smuggling drugs from Canada was one of them.
yes it was mentioned on an official document.
I am sure I saw that not just in a post.
-
I'm not sure,but she didn't go while she was with Jeremy.
Good source.
-
Looking at the OS site a while ago,it had said that JM had 5 criminal charges against her and the smuggling drugs from Canada was one of them.
The OS site. AH!!! She was teaching? With 5 criminal charges against her? She is now in a high position in education in CANADA, the place from where she is allegedly accused of smuggling drugs?!!!!!!!!!
-
The OS site. AH!!! She was teaching? With 5 criminal charges against her? She is now in a high position in education in CANADA, the place from where she is allegedly accused of smuggling drugs?!!!!!!!!!
Sounds plausible... right?
-
Sounds plausible... right?
Really, REALLY, Mat ;D ;D ;D
-
Really, REALLY, Mat ;D ;D ;D
No. ;D
-
No. ;D
Yeeeah ;D
-
It really was a mistake using the bike. It has haunted him ever since.
He could have quite easily have walked at a brisk pace or jogged to and from WHF. It would just mean leaving his house half an hour earlier and getting back half an hour later. Which would still make it easy for him to create the desired effect.
-
The OS site. AH!!! She was teaching? With 5 criminal charges against her? She is now in a high position in education in CANADA, the place from where she is allegedly accused of smuggling drugs?!!!!!!!!!
yes but she was not prosecuted or charged so nothing on her records . The letter from the DPP was on here once
-
yes but she was not prosecuted or charged so nothing on her records . The letter from the DPP was on here once
5 previous criminal charges are suss, whether or not she was prosecuted.
-
5 previous criminal charges are suss, whether or not she was prosecuted.
But she was not charged for anything though was she?
All charges were withdrawn so she had no need to declare anything when she emigrated - was she married by then?
-
But she was not charged for anything though was she?
All charges were withdrawn so she had no need to declare anything when she emigrated - was she married by then?
Yes Jan, I believe she was -I can almost see the church where she married from where I live- which would mean that there would be nothing to find against her in her new name.
-
Yes Jan, I believe she was -I can almost see the church where she married from where I live- which would mean that there would be nothing to find against her in her new name.
Her wedding was reported and news travels fast. They would have known who she was - they do checks when emigrating and when taking a job as a teacher.
-
Thought it was just the 1984 minor cheque book fraud.
Bamber admitted the caravan break in was his idea. To highlight security problems. Although it is likely he did it out of greed. Admitting himself he spent the money due to greed. Julie was probably dragged along and told to stand outside.
It seems the ladies on here really don't like Julie. Caroline calling her a cow yesterday and saying she was as greedy as Bamber. April hasn't liked her since seeing Julie's and MM's court outfits.
Miller called her an honest and nice person. But he would, wouldn't he.
-
Her wedding was reported and news travels fast. They would have known who she was - they do checks when emigrating and when taking a job as a teacher.
Well, ya know what they say. Better to be born lucky than rich. She sure as hell seems to have had luck aplenty.
-
Thought it was just the 1984 minor cheque book fraud.
Bamber admitted the caravan break in was his idea. To highlight security problems. Although it is likely he did it out of greed. Admitting himself he spent the money due to greed. Julie was probably dragged along and told to stand outside.
It seems the ladies on here really don't like Julie. Caroline calling her a cow yesterday and saying she was as greedy as Bamber. April hasn't liked her since seeing Julie's and MM's court outfits.
Miller called her an honest and nice person. But he would, wouldn't he.
Poor little Julie so meek and mild she committed cheque fraud in the busiest and most famous shopping street in Britain. She was an accomplice in stealing money from the caravan park and enjoyed the spoils with her boyfriend, I wonder if they discussed him killing his family while they ate their meal. You can protest al you like Adam and try to paint her as some kind of saint but in those days at least she was no good and was very lucky to get away with it all, plus £25,000.
-
It is surprising that Julie turned down June's offer of a house. I wouldn't !
-
Poor little Julie so meek and mild she committed cheque fraud in the busiest and most famous shopping street in Britain. She was an accomplice in stealing money from the caravan park and enjoyed the spoils with her boyfriend, I wonder if they discussed him killing his family while they ate their meal. You can protest al you like Adam and try to paint her as some kind of saint but in those days at least she was no good and was very lucky to get away with it all, plus £25,000.
Maggie well said Julie was not meek and mild she was a hard case from what I have gathered on here.
-
It is surprising that Julie turned down June's offer of a house. I wouldn't !
As you repeatedly say, she was young. Why would she want the responsibility of a flat -on her own- miles away from Jeremy when she already had living accommodation -with friends- which was someone else's responsibility. Besides which, as Jeremy's wife -which she must have been hankering for or she wouldn't have accepted his proposal- any property would be his responsibility. I very much doubt that your agenda would have been the same as Julie's.
-
As you repeatedly say, she was young. Why would she want the responsibility of a flat -on her own- miles away from Jeremy when she already had living accommodation -with friends- which was someone else's responsibility. Besides which, as Jeremy's wife -which she must have been hankering for or she wouldn't have accepted his proposal- any property would be his responsibility. I very much doubt that your agenda would have been the same as Julie's.
That's it. She turned down a house which could be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Why ? Because her sole aim was to marry a farm labourer.
Seems naive to me. But Maggie said she was not naive.
-
That's it. She turned down a house which could be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Why ? Because her sole aim was to marry a farm labourer.
Seems naive to me. But Maggie said she was not naive.
First of all, unless you know what it feels like to be a 20 year old female with her eye on marriage to a wealthy farmer's on, you're not ever going to have an understanding of her.
At 20 years old she'd have had no concept of "hundreds of thousands of pounds" unless they were amounts she'd been used to seeing her family deal in...................they weren't on that rung of the ladder.
Her aim wasn't to marry a farm labourer. It was to marry the farmer's heir and you may rest assured that by the way Jeremy spoke and presented himself she'd have had no doubts about his status.
If Julie had been naive, she'd have dated a fellow student, NOT someone who could wine and dine her and whisk her off to exotic places. Naive? Possibly in your bed. NOT, I imagine, in Jeremy's.
-
First of all, unless you know what it feels like to be a 20 year old female with her eye on marriage to a wealthy farmer's on, you're not ever going to have an understanding of her.
At 20 years old she'd have had no concept of "hundreds of thousands of pounds" unless they were amounts she'd been used to seeing her family deal in...................they weren't on that rung of the ladder.
Her aim wasn't to marry a farm labourer. It was to marry the farmer's heir and you may rest assured that by the way Jeremy spoke and presented himself she'd have had no doubts about his status.
If Julie had been naive, she'd have dated a fellow student, NOT someone who could wine and dine her and whisk her off to exotic places. Naive? Possibly in your bed. NOT, I imagine, in Jeremy's.
For love or money? I would guess for love of money ..... she soon changed her story when he wasn't available anymore :-\
-
For love or money? I would guess for love of money ..... she soon changed her story when he wasn't available anymore :-\
the bounced cheque was probably the last straw! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
the bounced cheque was probably the last straw! ;D ;D ;D ;D
That did it!! ;D ;D
-
First of all, unless you know what it feels like to be a 20 year old female with her eye on marriage to a wealthy farmer's on, you're not ever going to have an understanding of her.
At 20 years old she'd have had no concept of "hundreds of thousands of pounds" unless they were amounts she'd been used to seeing her family deal in...................they weren't on that rung of the ladder.
Her aim wasn't to marry a farm labourer. It was to marry the farmer's heir and you may rest assured that by the way Jeremy spoke and presented himself she'd have had no doubts about his status.
If Julie had been naive, she'd have dated a fellow student, NOT someone who could wine and dine her and whisk her off to exotic places. Naive? Possibly in your bed. NOT, I imagine, in Jeremy's.
Yes, a farmers heir. Well along with Sheila and the twins. In 20 years. Unless disinherited. Which was a big possibility even MM knew about.
Yes, at 19/20 she would have an eye on marriage. Don't want to be left on the shelf now. Bamber's a real catch and she couldn't possibly do better.
No concept of hundreds of thousands of pounds ? She was doing her second degree. Maggie said she was not naive.
No doubts about his status ? Yes Jeremy did moan a lot about his raw deal having to sit on a tractor.
What exotic places did Bamber take her to ? Amsterdam after the massacre.
She would have maybe dated a fellow student. But met Jeremy at 'Sloppy Joe's'. She must have been impressed with his status and dress then. Waiters with badges must be a turn on.
-
Yes, a farmers heir. In 20 years.
Yes, at 20 she would have an eye on marriage. Don't want to be left on the shelf now.
No concept of hundreds of thousands of pounds ? She was doing her second degree.
No doubts about his status ? Yes Jeremy did moan a lot about his raw deal having to sit on a tractor.
What exotic places did Bamber take her to ? Amsterdam after the massacre.
She would have maybe dated a fellow student. But met Jeremy at 'Sloppy Joe's'. She must have been impressed with his status and dress then.
Adam, sneer as much as you like -for that's exactly what you seem to do rather well- but the key word and the point YOU'RE missing but Julie certainly would not have, is Jeremy's POTENTIAL.
I'll guarantee she didn't envisage a long term future in a two up two down cottage. Farmers get to live in rather larger farm houses and become respected members of a community.
WHAT has doing a Masters got to do with understanding finance? She was training to be a teach, not an accountant.
Did you not say they stayed in a 5* hotel in Amsterdam? Not bad going for a 20 year old, eh?
I've yet to know any man whose chat up line is pleading poverty. The aim is to impress. NOT to put off.
She maybe COULD have dated a fellow student, but I suspect she was aspiring much higher. Jeremy's background and education, despite him roughing it a bit by "helping out" -I doubt he'd have called it work- in a friend's wine bar, would have set him well above any fellow students...................and then there was that POTENTIAL.
-
Adam, sneer as much as you like -for that's exactly what you seem to do rather well- but the key word and the point YOU'RE missing but Julie certainly would not have, is Jeremy's POTENTIAL.
I'll guarantee she didn't envisage a long term future in a two up two down cottage. Farmers get to live in rather larger farm houses and become respected members of a community.
WHAT has doing a Masters got to do with understanding finance? She was training to be a teach, not an accountant.
Did you not say they stayed in a 5* hotel in Amsterdam? Not bad going for a 20 year old, eh?
I've yet to know any man whose chat up line is pleading poverty. The aim is to impress. NOT to put off.
She maybe COULD have dated a fellow student, but I suspect she was aspiring much higher. Jeremy's background and education, despite him roughing it a bit by "helping out" -I doubt he'd have called it work- in a friend's wine bar, would have set him well above any fellow students...................and then there was that POTENTIAL.
So Julie met Bamber at Sloppy Joe's and started seeing him for his potential ? Taking a big leap of faith there. Hoping Bamber stays with her for the next 20 years. And that he inherits a decent amount. But being a teacher simply isn't enough. She was just taking degrees to pass the time until becoming the 'Lady of the manor'.
Yes perhaps living in a big farm house in 20 years is better than living in her Lewisham digs. (Although it's doubtful that will still be the case for her in 20 years). And must be better than being a teacher and having degrees.
Every adult knows what hundreds of thousands of pounds means.
Yes she did stay in a deluxe hotels for a month. After the massacre. Not sure about the 18 months beforehand. But Julie just had to sit tight and maybe in 20 years...
Bamber's education ? He did poorly. Although he could impress her by mentioning Gresham's. That always gets the girls going. He would have tried to impress her. It's what men attempt to do. But he soon started moaning about his entire family and situation.
-
So Julie met Bamber at Sloppy Joe's and started seeing him for his potential ? Taking a big leap of faith there. Hoping Bamber stays with her for the next 20 years. And that he inherits a decent amount. But being a teacher simply isn't enough. She was just taking degrees to pass the time until becoming the 'Lady of the manor'.
Yes perhaps living in a big farm house in 20 years is better than living in her Lewisham digs. And must be better than being a teacher and having degrees.
Every adult knows what hundreds of thousands of pounds means.
Yes she did stay in a deluxe hotels for a month. After the massacre. Not sure about the 18 months beforehand. But Julie just had to sit tight and maybe in 20 years...
Bamber's education ? He did poorly. Although he could impress her by mentioning Gresham's. That always gets the girls going. He would have tried to impress her. It's what men attempt to do. But he soon started moaning about his entire family and situation.
What 20 year old is going to imagine the man of her dreams isn't going to stay with her. There's no doubt that he was out to impress. On their first date -FIRST DATE!!!- he introduced her to his parents. That's big time serious. Men don't usually introduce girls to their parents unless they have something more than bed in mind. So she saw what Jeremy, as the heir, was likely to inherit and I guess she wanted to be part of it. What's with your concern regarding her doing degrees. Plenty do them with no intention of using them to get careers. To some it's a hobby.
Unlikely, had Jeremy taken over from his father, that they'd have stayed in the cottage.
I think that what she saw in the way of house, properties, land and social standing would have meant more to Julie than money alone.
Jeremy may have done poorly at Gresham's but the point is, he WENT to Gresham's.
You do a hell of a lot of "Yeh, but's" when it comes to Julie's relationship with Jeremy but she FANCIED him, Adam, and I guess she thought they were in it for the long haul. Like the girl proudly told the world from the pages of NOTW "He taught me sex like I'd never known"
-
What 20 year old is going to imagine the man of her dreams isn't going to stay with her. There's no doubt that he was out to impress. On their first date -FIRST DATE!!!- he introduced her to his parents. That's big time serious. Men don't usually introduce girls to their parents unless they have something more than bed in mind. So she saw what Jeremy, as the heir, was likely to inherit and I guess she wanted to be part of it. What's with your concern regarding her doing degrees. Plenty do them with no intention of using them to get careers. To some it's a hobby.
Unlikely, had Jeremy taken over from his father, that they'd have stayed in the cottage.
I think that what she saw in the way of house, properties, land and social standing would have meant more to Julie than money alone.
Jeremy may have done poorly at Gresham's but the point is, he WENT to Gresham's.
You do a hell of a lot of "Yeh, but's" when it comes to Julie's relationship with Jeremy but she FANCIED him, Adam, and I guess she thought they were in it for the long haul. Like the girl proudly told the world from the pages of NOTW "He taught me sex like I'd never known"
Jane
that is an excellent post and just about sums Julie and her aspirations up.
-
Jane
that is an excellent post and just about sums Julie and her aspirations up.
Awww THANKS Susan. I do -GENUINELY- believe that Julie thought she'd got it all and what girl of her age wouldn't have. There was this drop dead gorgeous fella that all the other girls fancied, he takes her to meet his parents -on their first date- who live in a house which screams "old money"!!! which presmable Jeremy will inherit!!! Who wouldn't have dreamed of being part of it, FGS?
-
What 20 year old is going to imagine the man of her dreams isn't going to stay with her. There's no doubt that he was out to impress. On their first date -FIRST DATE!!!- he introduced her to his parents. That's big time serious. Men don't usually introduce girls to their parents unless they have something more than bed in mind. So she saw what Jeremy, as the heir, was likely to inherit and I guess she wanted to be part of it. What's with your concern regarding her doing degrees. Plenty do them with no intention of using them to get careers. To some it's a hobby.
Unlikely, had Jeremy taken over from his father, that they'd have stayed in the cottage.
I think that what she saw in the way of house, properties, land and social standing would have meant more to Julie than money alone.
Jeremy may have done poorly at Gresham's but the point is, he WENT to Gresham's.
You do a hell of a lot of "Yeh, but's" when it comes to Julie's relationship with Jeremy but she FANCIED him, Adam, and I guess she thought they were in it for the long haul. Like the girl proudly told the world from the pages of NOTW "He taught me sex like I'd never known"
Supporters that have turned to guilters still have it for Julie. Caroline calling her a cow and saying she was just as greedy as Bamber. Maggie saying she was not naive and Susan saying she was hard. You said you have never liked her after seeing her and MM's court outfits.
It was a simple, normal relationship. Nothing sinister. Until Bamber killed his family and dragged Julie into 30+ years of abuse and stress.
They met at Sloppy Joe's and dated for 18 months. Both working. Julie studying for her second degree and wanting to be a teacher. June offered to buy Julie a house. Julie declined. To suggest Julie was with a farm labourer just for his potential in 20 years is fanciful.
Bamber testified the relationship started coming to a close during the six months leading up to the massacre. Although he still trusted her enough to involve her in the caravan break in and massacre plans.
At 20 and 24, they both had plenty of time to date, or be single once the inevitable spilt happened. At only 20 it is doubtful Julie was looking for a rich man to look after her. Teachers can make a good living and she obviously enjoyed it.
Julie was living in digs in Lewisham. Her life suddenly changed for ever after Bamber whisked her over to WHF after the massacre. Before she could catch breath she was being taken all over England as well as to Amsterdam on jolly ups . Before telling five people what she knew and approaching the police, after one month.
But the xxxx xxxxxx on here will always believe Julie was just with Bamber for the money.
-
Supporters that have turned to guilters still have it for Julie. Caroline calling her a cow and saying she was just as greedy as Bamber. Maggie saying she was not naive and Susan saying she was hard. You said you have never liked her after seeing her and MM's court outfits.
It is simple relationship. Nothing sinister. Until Bamber killed his family and dragged Julie into 30+ years of abuse and stress.
They met at Sloppy Joe's and dated for 18 months. Both working. Julie studying for her second degree and wanting to be a teacher. June offered to buy Julie a house. Julie declined. To suggest Julie was with a farm labourer just for his potential in 20 years is fanciful.
Bamber testified the relationship started coming to a close during the six months leading up to the massacre. Although he still trusted her enough to involve her in the caravan break in and massacre plans.
At 20 and 24, they both had plenty of time to date, or be single once the inevitable spilt happened. At only 20 it is doubtful Julie was looking for a rich man to look after her.
Julie was living in digs in Lewisham. Her life suddenly changed for ever after Bamber whisked her over to WHF after the massacre. Before she could catch breath she was being taken all over England as well as to Amsterdam on jolly ups . Before telling five people and approaching the police.
But the dear ladies on here will always believe Julie was just with Bamber for the money.
Adam, whilst you see people generally as nothing deeper than one dimensional cardboard cut outs without hopes, desires or motivations, it makes, very difficult and sadly not worthwhile, trying to hold a conversation with you.
-
Adam, whilst you see people generally as nothing deeper than one dimensional cardboard cut outs without hopes, desires or motivations, it makes, very difficult and sadly not worthwhile, trying to hold a conversation with you.
Julie did have hopes. She wanted to be a teacher. And was studying for her second degree.
To suggest she was studying as a hobby and just wanted to live off Bamber is offensive to her and there is no evidence of this.
-
One thing people are forgetting is Julie may have loved Bamber. Which is why they were together. It does happen.
Nothing to do with being her being greedy.
-
Thought it was just the 1984 minor cheque book fraud.
Bamber admitted the caravan break in was his idea. To highlight security problems. Although it is likely he did it out of greed. Admitting himself he spent the money due to greed. Julie was probably dragged along and told to stand outside.
It seems the ladies on here really don't like Julie. Caroline calling her a cow yesterday and saying she was as greedy as Bamber. April hasn't liked her since seeing Julie's and MM's court outfits.
Miller called her an honest and nice person. But he would, wouldn't he.
you are like a broken record.
Its not a matter of liking someone or not liking someone it is a matter of not accepting her reasons for not reporting Jeremy immediately . She was not a shrinking violet was she ?
-
Julie did have hopes. She wanted to be a teacher. And was studying for her second degree.
To suggest she was studying as a hobby and just wanted to live off Bamber is offensive to her and there is no evidence of this.
But I'm NOT suggesting she wanted to live OFF Jeremy, merely that she have liked what every wife has the right to expect and it may not have occurred to you but there are plenty of schools where she could have taught in and around the area where Jeremy lived, but if she'd never used it, no one can take education away.
-
Yes, a farmers heir. Well along with Sheila and the twins. In 20 years. Unless disinherited. Which was a big possibility even MM knew about.
Yes, at 19/20 she would have an eye on marriage. Don't want to be left on the shelf now. Bamber's a real catch and she couldn't possibly do better.
No concept of hundreds of thousands of pounds ? She was doing her second degree. Maggie said she was not naive.
No doubts about his status ? Yes Jeremy did moan a lot about his raw deal having to sit on a tractor.
What exotic places did Bamber take her to ? Amsterdam after the massacre.
She would have maybe dated a fellow student. But met Jeremy at 'Sloppy Joe's'. She must have been impressed with his status and dress then. Waiters with badges must be a turn on.
Second degree ? So clever enough to know that her crimes could have prevented her from pursuing her chosen career and also intelligent enough to know that if your boyfriend has told you for months he wants to kill his family and then tells you the day after the murders he has hired a hit man - then you should go to the police.
that is why I don't think what she says is true - but you are right she could be clever and stupid at the same time I suppose ?
-
One thing people are forgetting is Julie may have loved Bamber. Which is why they were together. It does happen.
Nothing to do with being her being greedy.
Perfectly possible for greedy people to fall in love. The greed will have developed long before they meet their love interest.
-
Thought it was just the 1984 minor cheque book fraud.
Bamber admitted the caravan break in was his idea. To highlight security problems. Although it is likely he did it out of greed. Admitting himself he spent the money due to greed. Julie was probably dragged along and told to stand outside.
It seems the ladies on here really don't like Julie. Caroline calling her a cow yesterday and saying she was as greedy as Bamber. April hasn't liked her since seeing Julie's and MM's court outfits.
Miller called her an honest and nice person. But he would, wouldn't he.
To be honest, I see little about Julie to recommend her, with or without the clothes she wore to court. Even if her pre court behaviour can be overlooked, her post court behaviour certainly can't.
-
One thing people are forgetting is Julie may have loved Bamber. Which is why they were together. It does happen.
Nothing to do with being her being greedy.
Nobody ever said she did not love him and I know of people who do make all sorts of excuses for peoples bad behaviour during a relationship ( trust me I do) But there is a limit and telling someone you arranged the murder of 6 year old twins is one of them .
-
One thing people are forgetting is Julie may have loved Bamber. Which is why they were together. It does happen.
Nothing to do with being her being greedy.
Adam
I think Julie was in love with what Bamber was well spoken,well educated good family background and heir to property and money it appears even when she knew he had murdered his family it did not worry her too much when she was told he was guilty of the murders she changed her tune and thought of Julie first second and third.
-
The prosecutors correspondence with EP had placed blame on Jeremy for all Julie's misdemeanors and added by saying that Jeremy was the instigator of all her crimes as all had been committed during her involvement with Jeremy. That she had been corrupted by Jeremy Bamber.
There was no direct evidence to justify that JM be prosecuted for the drugs offence. As a first offender she'd only have received a caution.
JM was only classed as the bystander in the burglary of the caravan site office as she couldn't reach the key to the door.
As for the cheque offence,the money was paid back and the bank wouldn't have been prepared to have continued criminal proceedings.
With this in mind it was decided not to prosecute her as she will be required as a witness against JB.
Was the prosecution right to make light of JM's crimes ? Was JM the whiter than white person as seen by the prosecution ? After all,they must have been right in their assumptions,they were the law !
-
Except for the newspaper interview I guess she has never spoken since ? So we don't really know much about her feelings since do we?
-
Perfectly possible for greedy people to fall in love. The greed will have developed long before they meet their love interest.
So she fell in love because of greed. How romantic.
There is no evidence Julie was looking for a rich man to look after her. If she was, then she could do better than 'potential' in 20 years. There are plenty of older men that would be happy to be a sugar daddy to a 20 year old.
-
Nobody ever said she did not love him and I know of people who do make all sorts of excuses for peoples bad behaviour during a relationship ( trust me I do) But there is a limit and telling someone you arranged the murder of 6 year old twins is one of them .
Yes, she went to police and testified against him. Julie had reached her limit.
-
So she fell in love because of greed. How romantic.
There is no evidence Julie was looking for a rich man to look after her. If she was, then she could do better than 'potential' in 20 years. There are plenty of older men that would be happy to be a sugar daddy to a 20 year old.
I was about to say that we don't know anything about any previous boyfriends but it's just come to me that she was going out with someone -a fellow student- who she dumped after she started going out with Jeremy.
It's very mean of you to suggest that she fell in love because of greed. All I said was that greed doesn't preclude or prevent people from falling in love. As for romance, I imagine we all have different ideas of what constitutes it. You're the one who suggests she could have found an older man. You clearly have made no attempt to understand that Julie may have thought, despite that YOU think she could have done better, that she had found in Jeremy, everything she wanted.
-
I was about to say that we don't know anything about any previous boyfriends but it's just come to me that she was going out with someone -a fellow student- who she dumped after she started going out with Jeremy.
It's very mean of you to suggest that she fell in love because of greed. All I said was that greed doesn't prelude or prevent people from falling in love. You're the one who suggests she could have found an older man. You clearly have made no attempt to understand that Julie may have thought, despite that YOU think she could have done better, that she had found in Jeremy, everything she wanted.
She may have found everything she wanted. But Bamber himself says it had been fizzling out for 6 months. Although he was the one who involved her in the caravan break in and took her on post massacre trips.
Going out with a student before a farm labourer ? She really was a gold digger.
-
She may have found everything she wanted. But Bamber himself says it had been fizzling out for 6 months. Although he was the one who involved her in the caravan break in and took her on post massacre trips.
Going out with a student before a farm labourer ? She really was a gold digger.
Why do you quote Jeremy as if he is speaking for Julie? And I wonder what it says about you that you insist on calling him a farm labourer. I wonder how many of them were earning -I think Jeremy quoted- £18,000 per year in 1985.
-
Yes, she went to police and testified against him. Julie had reached her limit.
No liz called and told the police she was withholding evidence - there is a difference .
-
No liz called and told the police she was withholding evidence - there is a difference .
Yes the difference being the claim Julie made up the story and ran to police with it to get back at Jeremy flies out the window.
-
No liz called and told the police she was withholding evidence - there is a difference .
Liz called. Julie was in the room. She had told five people.
-
Liz called. Julie was in the room. She had told five people.
I imagine she was relieved that the decision had been made for her.
-
I imagine she was relieved that the decision had been made for her.
I agree.
-
I agree.
You DO!!! O - M - G :o :o :o :o :o
-
You DO!!! O - M - G :o :o :o :o :o
.
Very much so.
We've no doubt all been in an undecided situation. Someone has given us a nudge or just done something we should have done.
-
Yes the difference being the claim Julie made up the story and ran to police with it to get back at Jeremy flies out the window.
It may not be that black and white .
-
.
Very much so.
We've no doubt all been in an undecided situation. Someone has given us a nudge or just done something we should have done.
Really ? A nudge to do something we should have done?
you make it sound like stealing make up from Boots.
-
Really ? A nudge to do something we should have done?
you make it sound like stealing make up from Boots.
I will find the thread again on why it took a 20 year woman a month to go to the police about her boyfriend, when everyone was treating it as murder/suicide.
-
I will find the thread again on why it took a 20 year woman a month to go to the police about her boyfriend, when everyone was treating it as murder/suicide.
DONT BOTHER - it wont bring the arguments to a conclusion.