Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on August 04, 2015, 10:03:AM
-
If Julie wanted to be the lady of the manor, you would think she would keep her trap shut. I'm sure Jeremy would have advised her to do this.
Telling one person could be fatal, as that person could go straight to the police. However in between Jeremy whisking her around Europe, Julie had the time and the desire to tell not one, but five people what she knew.
This refutes the suggestion that she was amazingly brave and stupid and charged to the police in a rage, because Bamber had apparently jilted her. Although Bamber asking another woman out in front of her, didn't help him.
She had obviously been in turmoil and thinking about what to do for several days or weeks. Bamber had put the frighteners on her and told her how safe he was and that she wouldn't be believed.
So Julie spoke to Liz Rimmington, Andy Bishop, Karen Bishop, Malcolm Walters and Susan Battersby. These people encouraged her to go to the police. Which she did do.
Telling five people really backed her into a corner. As she would anticipate at least one of these people would approach the police and tell them what Julie knew. Perhaps without realising it, this is what Julie wanted, moral support and being in a situation where she had just one option. Which to her was morally the right option.
If Julie and Bamber were still together when she first started telling people, why did she talk ? Telling people what she knew while her and Bamber were still an item, contradicts the alleged reason she went to the police.
Why do other people believe she told five people before going to the police ?
-
The chain of events with Julie all seemed quite normal -
Jeremy requested a police car pick her up at around 5am.
In a daze and with Jeremy hovering about, she gives a short statement.
He starts whisking her around the country and to Amsterdam. Impressing her with expensive hotels and meals.
Julie finally catches her breath. Lets what happened sink in and starts to contemplate what to do. Jeremy telling her he is 'watertight' and 'there is nothing she can do'.
Things get more strained between Jeremy and Julie. Especially with Brett joining in with the jolly ups. However Julie is persuaded to continue joining him.
Julie starts telling other people what she knows. To get feedback on what she should do. She is advised to go to the police.
The massacre has sped up the already 'coming to a close' relationship. Shortly after Julie hears Jeremy ask another woman out in front of him, she approaches the police.
-
If she really wanted to be the 'lady of the manor' as claimed, she would have -
Not told anyone.
Not kept confronting Jeremy about it.
At first denied everything if the police approached her.
I have no doubt she would have broken quickly if the police had approached and pressurised her. People break under police questioning all the time. She was a young woman caught up in something unbelievable. Not a super tough terrorist.
-
Perhaps some of the guilters who used to be supporters should make an apology to Julie.
I am sure they would be the first to admit they previously bad mouthed her a lot. Just as Jan did yesterday, saying her WS is a lie. April previously criticising her clothes she wore at trial.
It's clear her WS and testimony is true, otherwise Bamber would be innocent. It's also clear she didn't want to be the 'lady of the Manor' as some posters have put it.
Her only crime was delaying her approach, and there are several reasons for this.
-
It seems Julie is not going to get an apology from posters on here. Which is disappointing.
Certainly Jeremy is not going to apologise, after putting a young woman into an almost impossible situation. Only last year an 8 minute Youtube video was created on her.
-
" Everything's going well " said Jeremy to Julie. So why didn't she herself dial 999 if she knew what was going on, to save a catastrophe ?
Then in the next breath," Something's wrong ?", Jeremy had said.
The two don't quite gel do they ??
-
" Everything's going well " said Jeremy to Julie. So why didn't she herself dial 999 if she knew what was going on, to save a catastrophe ?
Then in the next breath," Something's wrong ?", Jeremy had said.
The two don't quite gel do they ??
"Everything is going well" easily translates to "Everything is working out according to plan" meaning that "Something's wrong" is the outcome of that plan. Seemples :D
-
"Everything is going well" easily translates to "Everything is working out according to plan" meaning that "Something's wrong" is the outcome of that plan. Seemples :D
Then she told him to go to bed ?? So she didn't care that a whole family were about to get wiped out ?
-
Then she told him to go to bed ?? So she didn't care that a whole family were about to get wiped out ?
OR she wanted to dissociate herself from what she suspected he'd gone through with? To give herself some thinking space?
-
OR she wanted to dissociate herself from what she suspected he'd gone through with? To give herself some thinking space?
Thinking space ? She KNEW that two families were going to die.What sort of a person,in love or not,allows something like that to happen ? What did JM's mother think,I wonder ?
-
Like it or not,JM WAS an accessory !!
That young Jordan lad is in prison as an accessory and he DIDN'T know that Gary Newlove was going to be murdered,but Julie Mugford DID know of the Bambers murders,so where's the justice ?
-
Like it or not,JM WAS an accessory !!
That young Jordan lad is in prison as an accessory and he DIDN'T know that Gary Newlove was going to be murdered,but Julie Mugford DID know of the Bambers murders,so where's the justice ?
The whole tale might come out in the next few years as Jeremy reaches exhaustion,but he has thus far been unable to rope Julie in apart from saying "Julie is telling lots of lies". As for Jordan Cunliffe he was spotted by an eyewitness kicking the victim.
-
" Everything's going well " said Jeremy to Julie. So why didn't she herself dial 999 if she knew what was going on, to save a catastrophe ?
Then in the next breath," Something's wrong ?", Jeremy had said.
The two don't quite gel do they ??
She could not dial out with the phone at her place.
Lewisham was not the sort of place to be walking around in at 3am.
Anyway she was half asleep and didn't believe Jeremy would do anything.
-
The whole tale might come out in the next few years as Jeremy reaches exhaustion,but he has thus far been unable to rope Julie in apart from saying "Julie is telling lots of lies". As for Jordan Cunliffe he was spotted by an eyewitness kicking the victim.
How could she be any more roped in. Apart from being there with him ?
She knew of his hatred, plans, aborted plans and confession.
-
How could she be any more roped in. Apart from being there with him ?
She knew of his hatred, plans, aborted plans and confession.
She could be far more roped in. She could have stayed the Tuesday night at Bourtree Cottage and backed up the call from Nevill. Jeremy could have told us she was a co-conspirator to drug Nevill with her pills. Jeremy could have told Police the idea to kill them all was hers.
Just supposition of course..
-
The whole tale might come out in the next few years as Jeremy reaches exhaustion
What do you mean by that?
-
She could be far more roped in. She could have stayed the Tuesday night at Bourtree Cottage and backed up the call from Nevill. Jeremy could have told us she was a co-conspirator to drug Nevill with her pills. Jeremy could have told Police the idea to kill them all was hers.
Just supposition of course..
Well she was in New Cross when the massacre happened.
She may have encouraged him. But that is doubtful.
If Jeremy admits guilt he can implicate Julie. But that would only be of encouragement. Something I doubt she would get prosecuted for. She will deny it anyway.
-
What do you mean by that?
Well Jeremy is not going to be released;I think this is evident by now. His lawyers may huff and puff and procure him the key to his prison cell but he is stuck inside for the rest of his natural life watching his fellow inmates work the market garden at Full Sutton or the parterre from his new dwelling in Wakefield. He might one day spill the beans on his evil scheme and I do believe it was his scheme engendered through him blaming June for the loss of Suzette. Once he does begin to talk we might get more detail furnished as to exactly what Julie did say each time he sounded her out for murder.
-
The whole tale might come out in the next few years as Jeremy reaches exhaustion,but he has thus far been unable to rope Julie in apart from saying "Julie is telling lots of lies". As for Jordan Cunliffe he was spotted by an eyewitness kicking the victim.
I'd understood that the lad was sitting in a car the time that poor man was kicked to death. I didn't know he'd actually been part of it.
As for Julie,I'd have thought she'd have defended herself being called a liar as she had enough to say at the trial.
-
and I do believe it was his scheme engendered through him blaming June for the loss of Suzette..
You've lost me on that one :( please elaborate
-
Well Jeremy is not going to be released;I think this is evident by now. His lawyers may huff and puff and procure him the key to his prison cell but he is stuck inside for the rest of his natural life watching his fellow inmates work the market garden at Full Sutton or the parterre from his new dwelling in Wakefield. He might one day spill the beans on his evil scheme and I do believe it was his scheme engendered through him blaming June for the loss of Suzette. Once he does begin to talk we might get more detail furnished as to exactly what Julie did say each time he sounded her out for murder.
He obviously didn't trust Julie enough to have her stay over on the night. To back up his story to the police they had been at home all night.
He probably suspected she would crack straight away under police questioning.
-
He obviously didn't trust Julie enough to have her stay over on the night. To back up his story to the police they had been at home all night.
He probably suspected she would crack straight away under police questioning.
She did not normally stay over. How suspicious if she decided to spend one night there on the same exact night of the murders. The police would say he had her stay to provide a false alibi. It would be harmful instead of helpful.
-
She did not normally stay over. How suspicious if she decided to spend one night there on the same exact night of the murders. The police would say he had her stay to provide a false alibi. It would be harmful instead of helpful.
I thought she had previously lived there. And went home the night before the massacre after coming over.
So she always went from Lewisham to Essex. And back again on the same day. That's very generous of Jeremy and a lot of travelling for Julie. But at least they could have lunch together.
-
You've lost me on that one :( please elaborate
June thought Suzette unsuitable and it's alleged by CAL that she threatened to cut him out of her will if the relationship continued.
-
June thought Suzette unsuitable and it's alleged by CAL that she threatened to cut him out of her will if the relationship continued.
Didn't June also disapprove of his relationship with Julie. She even offered to buy her a house !
It's all looking like things were slipping away from Jeremy. And he knew it.
-
Didn't June also disapprove of his relationship with Julie. She even offered to buy her a house !
It's all looking like things were slipping away from Jeremy. And he knew it.
Julie was preferable to Suzette in that at least she was single and career minded. I think June and Nevill discussed the situation and Julie was by Christmas 1984 welcome at the Farm. But in retrospect I don't think Jeremy had got over Suzette and the murder plot began to germinate,Jeremy using Julie as someone to sound out.
-
What do you mean by that?
He obviously ponders Jeremy may confess.
-
Well Jeremy is not going to be released;I think this is evident by now. His lawyers may huff and puff and procure him the key to his prison cell but he is stuck inside for the rest of his natural life watching his fellow inmates work the market garden at Full Sutton or the parterre from his new dwelling in Wakefield. He might one day spill the beans on his evil scheme and I do believe it was his scheme engendered through him blaming June for the loss of Suzette. Once he does begin to talk we might get more detail furnished as to exactly what Julie did say each time he sounded her out for murder.
I bet Jeremy's memory is foggy as to what he even told Julie at this point. He probably doesn't even recall every detail of the murders anymore.
-
Didn't June also disapprove of his relationship with Julie. She even offered to buy her a house !
It's all looking like things were slipping away from Jeremy. And he knew it.
They wanted to give her a place to live so he would stop living in sin with Julie.
They stopped living together anyway.
They got engaged and June was glad because then they would not be engaging in sin together.
Because his family liked the idea he broke the engagement to spite them.
He clearly wanted to do things that displeased them as opposed to doing things to please them. That demonstrates a problem he had with them.
He expressed to Colin he didn't like how they were controlling his life he had big mental issues with them.
-
It certainly wasn't Jeremy who had the " mental issues !"
-
It certainly wasn't Jeremy who had the " mental issues !"
After a life time of being constrained by someone else's rules -which didn't fit HIM- I'd be VERY surprised if, at the very least, he wasn't in need of therapy.
-
After a life time of being constrained by someone else's rules -which didn't fit HIM- I'd be VERY surprised if, at the very least, he wasn't in need of therapy.
Huge mistake to try to make him into what they wanted instead of letting him be what he needed to be and I can understand why they did it but it really wouldn't have helped him very much.
Whether Jeremy or Sheila or both of them did it there's no doubt both those children would have had psychological difficulties with their mother, not particularly their father notwithstanding anything June did but because of the loss of their natural mother which was never addressed or understood in any way.
-
Huge mistake to try to make him into what they wanted instead of letting him be what he needed to be and I can understand why they did it but it really wouldn't have helped him very much.
Whether Jeremy or Sheila or both of them did it there's no doubt both those children would have had psychological difficulties with their mother, not particularly their father notwithstanding anything June did but because of the loss of their natural mother which was never addressed or understood in any way.
But this is what occurs when children are adopted solely to fulfil the practical needs of the adopting parents who give no consideration to the emotional needs of the child.
-
But this is what occurs when children are adopted solely to fulfil the practical needs of the adopting parents who give no consideration to the emotional needs of the child.
I would have resisted that adoptive parents could be like that Jabe but I do agree now. As an adoptive mum I find it very difficult to be disloyal to others who have been through a similar experience. I agree it is not about the adoptive parent, not at all, it's all about the child and I suppose for some people that will always come more easily as any kind of parent.
My kids would never do a thing we may have wanted them to do and still don't but we're really proud of them for being them. ;D ;D ;D
-
They're individuals Maggie,not puppets.
-
It does seem amazing that Julie would tell five people before the police. But she did.
If Jeremy was innocent he would be grieving and in shock. So why would she tell people what Jeremy had said if it was lies ? She was his girlfriend.
There was no financial incentive for her to lie to other people. Or the police. The financial incentive was staying with Jeremy.
When making big decisions people often ask other peoples opinions beforehand. Julie was no different. The only person she had spoken to was Jeremy, who told her in uncertain terms to stay silent. So she spoke to five other people.
Time to apologise to Julie ?
-
They're individuals Maggie,not puppets.
I think I know that Lookout but I do believe there is a lot of truth in the new understanding about adoption trauma. I have never thought m children were anything but individual.
-
I would have resisted that adoptive parents could be like that Jabe but I do agree now. As an adoptive mum I find it very difficult to be disloyal to others who have been through a similar experience. I agree it is not about the adoptive parent, not at all, it's all about the child and I suppose for some people that will always come more easily as any kind of parent.
My kids would never do a thing we may have wanted them to do and still don't but we're really proud of them for being them. ;D ;D ;D
And there lays the clear and ABSOLUTE difference between unconditional love and love with parental strings attached.
-
It does seem amazing that Julie would tell five people before the police. But she did.
If Jeremy was innocent he would be grieving and in shock. So why would she tell people what Jeremy had said if it was lies ? She was his girlfriend.
Gossip and rumour
-
One observation is that she never revealed anything about the crime that the police ,the family and herself did not already know. Not one thing . Not how he got rid of the clothes , his transport etc etc. Why was the moderator in the cupboard , why Sheila complied with being shot. Its almost like she was talking about a crime with a hitman that they thought had happened.
-
One observation is that she never revealed anything about the crime that the police ,the family and herself did not already know. Not one thing . Not how he got rid of the clothes , his transport etc etc. Why was the moderator in the cupboard , why Sheila complied with being shot. Its almost like she was talking about a crime with a hitman that they thought had happened.
Hello Jan
very interesting points you have made Jan she never told them anything they did not already know and the other issues are not known 30 years on.
-
I think she did say that a glove came off in the fight. Also her testimony about the first plan to burn the Farm down is corroborated indirectly by Charles Marsden,whom Jeremy told at the Frog and Beans in Autumn 1984 that "if the Farm burned down everything would be mine".
-
She did say that a glove came off in the fight. Also her testimony about the first plan to burn the Farm down is corroborated indirectly by Charles Marsden,whom Jeremy told at the Frog and Beans in Autumn 1984 that "if the Farm burned down everything would be mine".
-
I think she did say that a glove came off in the fight. Also her testimony about the first plan to burn the Farm down is corroborated indirectly by Charles Marsden,whom Jeremy told at the Frog and Beans in Autumn 1984 that "if the Farm burned down everything would be mine".
I don't think that means anything. How can we be sure Jeremy said those precise words? plus you would have to assume he was meaning his entire family burned down with it
-
I think she did say that a glove came off in the fight. Also her testimony about the first plan to burn the Farm down is corroborated indirectly by Charles Marsden,whom Jeremy told at the Frog and Beans in Autumn 1984 that "if the Farm burned down everything would be mine".
steve I think you are right about the glove and about burning the farm down also she did give him her sleeping pills so she must have had a clue what he was planning.
-
steve I think you are right about the glove and about burning the farm down also she did give him her sleeping pills so she must have had a clue what he was planning.
She said she gave him sleeping pills to use for himself.
-
She said she gave him sleeping pills to use for himself.
'Said' being the operative word.
-
I think she did say that a glove came off in the fight. Also her testimony about the first plan to burn the Farm down is corroborated indirectly by Charles Marsden,whom Jeremy told at the Frog and Beans in Autumn 1984 that "if the Farm burned down everything would be mine".
He told her a glove came off and had no reason to make such up. In all likelihood it came off when the stock broke it would be right where the hand was, the splinters would get stuck in it and one would pull it off to avoid getting stabbed. This is one of the few details he did provide to her he was mostly vague and spoke in a general sense. The more details he knew the more it would be obvious he did it not MM so he could not say too much. He knew the boys did not wake up that to an extent is something only the killer or police would have known when he told her. That is something that could be guessed though so is not as meaningful as if he knew some obscure detail that could not be guessed.
If the glove the killer lost was left behind and he mentioned that to her then it would be much more damning.
-
'Said' being the operative word.
If she gave them to him to use to carry out the murders she would not have mentioned providing them to him. She mentioned it as something that suggests he was seriously thinking about doing it because he actually contemplated trying to use the pills against them but realized they were not suitable for the desired task.
-
If she gave them to him to use to carry out the murders she would not have mentioned providing them to him. She mentioned it as something that suggests he was seriously thinking about doing it because he actually contemplated trying to use the pills against them but realized they were not suitable for the desired task.
She might if she thought he might mention them - the pills could easily be tracked back to her. She couldn't know that he wouldn't admit to the murders and try to take her down with him. He could also have said she suggested bumping off his parents and even gave him sleeping pills to knock them out.
-
He told her a glove came off and had no reason to make such up. In all likelihood it came off when the stock broke it would be right where the hand was, the splinters would get stuck in it and one would pull it off to avoid getting stabbed. This is one of the few details he did provide to her he was mostly vague and spoke in a general sense. The more details he knew the more it would be obvious he did it not MM so he could not say too much. He knew the boys did not wake up that to an extent is something only the killer or police would have known when he told her. That is something that could be guessed though so is not as meaningful as if he knew some obscure detail that could not be guessed.
If the glove the killer lost was left behind and he mentioned that to her then it would be much more damning.
Funny you can believe the glove evidence in this case but turn your mind against the glove evidence in the David Bain case.
-
Funny you can believe the glove evidence in this case but turn your mind against the glove evidence in the David Bain case.
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Funny you can believe the glove evidence in this case but turn your mind against the glove evidence in the David Bain case.
The glove evidence is that Jeremy told Julie a glove came off during the struggle with Nevill nothing more. The most likely time for that to occur was when the rifle stock broke.
The evidence in the Bain case is someone wore gloves and one was off nothing more. Robin Bain could have worn it.
The evidence in this case proves someone murdered Sheila, it is impossible for her to have killed herself. There is no such evidence in the Bain case he could indeed have killed himself. You can delude yourself all you like but there is no evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that David did it. That you choose to believe he did it doesn't establish he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
The glove evidence is that Jeremy told Julie a glove came off during the struggle with Nevill nothing more. The most likely time for that to occur was when the rifle stock broke.
The evidence in the Bain case is someone wore gloves and one was off nothing more. Robin Bain could have worn it.
The evidence in this case proves someone murdered Sheila, it is impossible for her to have killed herself. There is no such evidence in the Bain case he could indeed have killed himself. You can delude yourself all you like but there is no evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that David did it. That you choose to believe he did it doesn't establish he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you think Robin Bain wore gloves to frame David,then typed a note "sorry you're the only one who deserved to stay" you are not just rude(which we all know by now) but potty as well. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/david-bains-bloody-gloves-were-found-in-stephens-room
-
If you think Robin Bain wore gloves to frame David,then typed a note "sorry you're the only one who deserved to stay" you are not just rude(which we all know by now) but potty as well. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/david-bains-bloody-gloves-were-found-in-stephens-room
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
If you think Robin Bain wore gloves to frame David,then typed a note "sorry you're the only one who deserved to stay" you are not just rude(which we all know by now) but potty as well. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/david-bains-bloody-gloves-were-found-in-stephens-room
Who said he did it to frame David? He could have intended to try making it look like a burglar did it. You are so biased and gullible you believe Robin Bain had a wonderful life though his marriage was a shambles, he was stuck living in a camper instead of in the house and his daughter accused him of incest. Your reasoning in this case is all based on your gut feelings instead of objective facts and evidence.
You act EXACTLY like Bamber supporters act only the inverse you do so to argue guilt instead of innocence.
There are plenty of cases where people murder intending to try to escape liability but then realize they are not going to be able to get away with it and they either kill themselves or force police to kill them.
Jeremy ruined the chance to argue such by claiming Sheila was walking around crazy with the gun. She would have simply shot everyone instantly. The evidence establishes everyone was instantly shot and that no phone call happened.
I follow logic and evidence while you act out of emotion. While you correctly believe Jeremy is guilty you often resort to less than logical reasoning for evidence he did it. You apply the same to the Bain case.
The majority of people including the courts agree with me on the Bain case not you. You are just like the Bamber campaign team you denounce. Each time you lash out like a child on this issue you embarrass yourself further.
-
Who said he did it to frame David? He could have intended to try making it look like a burglar did it. You are so biased and gullible you believe Robin Bain had a wonderful life though his marriage was a shambles, he was stuck living in a camper instead of in the house and his daughter accused him of incest. Your reasoning in this case is all based on your gut feelings instead of objective facts and evidence.
You act EXACTLY like Bamber supporters act only the inverse you do so to argue guilt instead of innocence.
There are plenty of cases where people murder intending to try to escape liability but then realize they are not going to be able to get away with it and they either kill themselves or force police to kill them.
Jeremy ruined the chance to argue such by claiming Sheila was walking around crazy with the gun. She would have simply shot everyone instantly. The evidence establishes everyone was instantly shot and that no phone call happened.
I follow logic and evidence while you act out of emotion. While you correctly believe Jeremy is guilty you often resort to less than logical reasoning for evidence he did it. You apply the same to the Bain case.
The majority of people including the courts agree with me on the Bain case not you. You are just like the Bamber campaign team you denounce. Each time you lash out like a child on this issue you embarrass yourself further.
I have finished debating with you on this issue,not because I have lost,but because most people log in to discuss the Jeremy Bamber case,and I won't change you because you're like a driver with a new Sat nav who on approach to a brick wall wants to continue because the instrument can't be wrong(this was a time I accepted a lift from the Head of Maths and never again..) http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/karam-would-have-us-believe-that-david-bain-had-a-great-deal-of-bad-luck
-
steve I think you are right about the glove and about burning the farm down also she did give him her sleeping pills so she must have had a clue what he was planning.
I would say that IF julies testimony was a ruse to implicate JB for the "noble cause" It would be necessary for her to paint a complete picture as possible and use what was known.
So it would be necessary to put some "history " behind it . Her just saying I think he did it would not be enough.
there a lots of things I don't understand - like why Liz said Julie did not want to go to the police and it was her that made her go . Was Julie a fantasist / attention seeker that got herself in too deep ? Or was she actually involved.
We all say only Jeremy knows the truth - but really Julie knows as well because of what was said by the police when they first talked to her - and I have a feeling that would reveal a lot.
-
You should have stuck to your bicycle Steve. Rely on nobody,I don't.
-
I would say that IF julies testimony was a ruse to implicate JB for the "noble cause" It would be necessary for her to paint a complete picture as possible and use what was known.
So it would be necessary to put some "history " behind it . Her just saying I think he did it would not be enough.
there a lots of things I don't understand - like why Liz said Julie did not want to go to the police and it was her that made her go . Was Julie a fantasist / attention seeker that got herself in too deep ? Or was she actually involved.
We all say only Jeremy knows the truth - but really Julie knows as well because of what was said by the police when they first talked to her - and I have a feeling that would reveal a lot.
Julie told her account to her friends before she ever spoke to police. Claiming police got her to make it up so as to create fake evidence doesn't work.
-
I have finished debating with you on this issue,not because I have lost,but because most people log in to discuss the Jeremy Bamber case,and I won't change you because you're like a driver with a new Sat nav who on approach to a brick wall wants to continue because the instrument can't be wrong(this was a time I accepted a lift from the Head of Maths and never again..) http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/karam-would-have-us-believe-that-david-bain-had-a-great-deal-of-bad-luck
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D steve!!
-
Julie told her account to her friends before she ever spoke to police. Claiming police got her to make it up so as to create fake evidence doesn't work.
yes of course she did.
And if JB is innocent there are still possibilities - for example when JB dumped her she was making up stories ( such as the hitman) for attention and then Liz dumped her in it . Which fell right into the laps of the police trying to do a U turn. The timings and dates of them changing stance and her being pushed into going to the police all seem a little convenient.
-
I have finished debating with you on this issue,not because I have lost,but because most people log in to discuss the Jeremy Bamber case,and I won't change you because you're like a driver with a new Sat nav who on approach to a brick wall wants to continue because the instrument can't be wrong(this was a time I accepted a lift from the Head of Maths and never again..) http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/karam-would-have-us-believe-that-david-bain-had-a-great-deal-of-bad-luck
Steve - he NEVER debates - he lectures . Nothing more nothing less . He never looks at any other possibility other than the one he believes to be true.
-
I would say that IF julies testimony was a ruse to implicate JB for the "noble cause" It would be necessary for her to paint a complete picture as possible and use what was known.
So it would be necessary to put some "history " behind it . Her just saying I think he did it would not be enough.
there a lots of things I don't understand - like why Liz said Julie did not want to go to the police and it was her that made her go . Was Julie a fantasist / attention seeker that got herself in too deep ? Or was she actually involved.
We all say only Jeremy knows the truth - but really Julie knows as well because of what was said by the police when they first talked to her - and I have a feeling that would reveal a lot.
Good thinking Jan, Julie certainly knows more of the truth than anyone except Jeremy.
-
yes of course she did.
And if JB is innocent there are still possibilities - for example when JB dumped her she was making up stories ( such as the hitman) for attention and then Liz dumped her in it . Which fell right into the laps of the police trying to do a U turn. The timings and dates of them changing stance and her being pushed into going to the police all seem a little convenient.
It does Jan, I have always thought your suggestion that she painted herself into a corner was a possibility. Her behaviour was really strange imo.
-
I have finished debating with you on this issue,not because I have lost,but because most people log in to discuss the Jeremy Bamber case,and I won't change you because you're like a driver with a new Sat nav who on approach to a brick wall wants to continue because the instrument can't be wrong(this was a time I accepted a lift from the Head of Maths and never again..) http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/karam-would-have-us-believe-that-david-bain-had-a-great-deal-of-bad-luck
I trust YOU got out in one piece :D :D
-
Jeremy wrote to Julie after he'd been convicted. I think his letter is on the forum somewhere.He'd asked her why she'd said what she did and to retract it because he knew it wasn't true and she also knew that it wasn't true. The letter never reached her it was " returned,not known at this address ". ???
-
It does Jan, I have always thought your suggestion that she painted herself into a corner was a possibility. Her behaviour was really strange imo.
I still wonder if the police did contact her and ask her to get info out of Jeremy - I guess we will never know.
but in any case if you knew on the night he was guilty - then he told you he was involved why on earth would you tell your friends?
-
I still wonder if the police did contact her and ask her to get info out of Jeremy - I guess we will never know.
but in any case if you knew on the night he was guilty - then he told you he was involved why on earth would you tell your friends?
Catharsis.
-
Catharsis.
I agree to some extent as I have just taken on a new member of staff who is attention seeking and I think possibly a liar - who keeps involving lots of members of staff in her personal life .
However this was multiple murders - not social or personal problems.
-
I agree to some extent as I have just taken on a new member of staff who is attention seeking and I think possibly a liar - who keeps involving lots of members of staff in her personal life .
However this was multiple murders - not social or personal problems.
Could be trouble ahead, Jan :'(
-
Could be trouble ahead, Jan :'(
there already is and she has only been with us for about 8 weeks . She is driving me bonkers - its difficult enough running a business without having a drama queen. I am afraid I would be no good as a counsellor my family are from the "don't complain just get on with it " school.
-
Does anyone know where the letter is on the forum please ..?
-
Does anyone know where the letter is on the forum please ..?
It's not.
-
I agree to some extent as I have just taken on a new member of staff who is attention seeking and I think possibly a liar - who keeps involving lots of members of staff in her personal life . (We all know one of those!)
However this was multiple murders - not social or personal problems.
All the more difficult to reconcile on your own. If it were me, I'd have to tell someone (although I'd never get that far and I would tell as soon as I found out).
-
I have seen it in a thread but Its not in the archives I don't think
-
It's not.
Seen it discussed, never seen the actual letter.
-
All the more difficult to reconcile on your own. If it were me, I'd have to tell someone (although I'd never get that far and I would tell as soon as I found out).
It would have been one hell of a burden for her to carry. I'd be really interested to know if her drinking/ /drug taking increased during that time OR if there was any kind of personality change. Of course, if she confided in a doctor/counsellor/priest we'll never know.
-
It would have been one hell of a burden for her to carry. I'd be really interested to know if her drinking/ /drug taking increased during that time OR if there was any kind of personality change. Of course, if she confided in a doctor/counsellor/priest we'll never know.
She ratted him out and sent him to prison. That is something which rectifies matters and causes your conscience to clear. Not telling anyone and letting him get away with it is the kind of thing that causes anguish people deal with my substances and the like. The truth shall set you free...
-
She ratted him out and sent him to prison. That is something which rectifies matters and causes your conscience to clear. Not telling anyone and letting him get away with it is the kind of thing that causes anguish people deal with my substances and the like. The truth shall set you free...
Cannot believe in your world you really believe it was OK for JM to stay with Jeremy, support him at the funeral and sleep with him when he had killed 5 people in such a cruel way. She even stayed at Colin's house with \Jeremy, what was that about? I know it's easy to judge and \I try not to but her behaviour is beyond me, wasn't she terrified apart from anything? She spoke about it to 5 people so she can't have been that frightened of him........ :o :o :o
-
She ratted him out and sent him to prison. That is something which rectifies matters and causes your conscience to clear. Not telling anyone and letting him get away with it is the kind of thing that causes anguish people deal with my substances and the like. The truth shall set you free...
Personally, I think it may take her several lifetimes to clear from her conscience the fact, that had she ratted sooner, those two little boys may have been leading happy fulfilled lives and heading towards 40. I'm not saying it will be there every waking moment, but in the wee small hours OR when something triggers her memory, they WILL come back to her.
-
Cannot believe in your world you really believe it was OK for JM to stay with Jeremy, support him at the funeral and sleep with him when he had killed 5 people in such a cruel way. She even stayed at Colin's house with \Jeremy, what was that about? I know it's easy to judge and \I try not to but her behaviour is beyond me, wasn't she terrified apart from anything? She spoke about it to 5 people so she can't have been that frightened of him........ :o :o :o
Who said in my world it was ok? I have repeatedly criticized her for not telling the truth right away. Saying I understand why didn't come forward immediately but that it was wrong for her to not do so hardly condones her behavior.
I am not going to delude myself into thinking she blames herself for their deaths and can't come to grips with it. If Jeremy got away with it because she didn't come forward then she would have a lot to think about. She didn't stay silent though so has no secret she is keeping that is eating away at her and thus is not feeling guilty.
-
Who said in my world it was ok? I have repeatedly criticized her for not telling the truth right away. Saying I understand why didn't come forward immediately but that it was wrong for her to not do so hardly condones her behavior.
I am not going to delude myself into thinking she blames herself for their deaths and can't come to grips with it. If Jeremy got away with it because she didn't come forward then she would have a lot to think about. She didn't stay silent though so has no secret she is keeping that is eating away at her and thus is not feeling guilty.
Does this have to do with the absolution granted during confession? It sounds very much as if you're saying that whatever crime is committed, providing one confesses, one conscience can thus be cleared. Where is the bit about taking responsibility for one's own actions?
-
Who said in my world it was ok? I have repeatedly criticized her for not telling the truth right away. Saying I understand why didn't come forward immediately but that it was wrong for her to not do so hardly condones her behavior.
I am not going to delude myself into thinking she blames herself for their deaths and can't come to grips with it. If Jeremy got away with it because she didn't come forward then she would have a lot to think about. She didn't stay silent though so has no secret she is keeping that is eating away at her and thus is not feeling guilty.
No---------she didn't " stay silent ",far from it. A 32 page statement,if you can possibly decipher it,signed by S.Jones himself------yeah,who else ?
Now tell me that there wasn't some coercion going on. The instigator of 3/4 of what was written.
-
Does this have to do with the absolution granted during confession? It sounds very much as if you're saying that whatever crime is committed, providing one confesses, one conscience can thus be cleared. Where is the bit about taking responsibility for one's own actions?
Timing is crucial . So I agree . In her statement she says she knew he had done it on the night - so she could have stopped him very nearly getting away with it. I don't believe she was frightened - she does not come across as a shrinking violet.
-
Does this have to do with the absolution granted during confession? It sounds very much as if you're saying that whatever crime is committed, providing one confesses, one conscience can thus be cleared. Where is the bit about taking responsibility for one's own actions?
It has nothing to do with religion it has to do with human nature.
People who know someone is guilty but conceal their knowledge will often agonize over such. They often drink, do drugs or something else to cope with their guilt. Sometimes they will finally come forward after years because they can't take it anymore. This has to do with the guilt of keeping a secret when that secret is out you no longer still agonize over the decision to keep it secret. You no longer have to consider whether to continue to keep it a secret or not.
Confession is about recognizing your behavior was wrong, doing penance for it and pledging you will strive not to do it again. You are not absolved simply because you told a priest. You have to actually be sorry and say you will try not to do it again. If you just go confess the same sin over and over again without any earnest effort to change your ways it amounts to nothing.
During confession we say the Act of Contrition:
"O my God I am heartily sorry for having offended thee, and I detest all my sins because of your just punishments, but most of all because they offend you, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of your grace, to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin."
-
Personally, I think it may take her several lifetimes to clear from her conscience the fact, that had she ratted sooner, those two little boys may have been leading happy fulfilled lives and heading towards 40. I'm not saying it will be there every waking moment, but in the wee small hours OR when something triggers her memory, they WILL come back to her.
She should have been sent to prison.
-
She should have been sent to prison.
Hartley
quite right she got off too light (not in her bank account)
-
She should have been sent to prison.
Hartley, I find it very difficult to see that what she did was any less bad -in fact I think it was worse- than what Maxine Carr was imprisoned for.
-
Hartley, I find it very difficult to see that what she did was any less bad -in fact I think it was worse- than what Maxine Carr was imprisoned for.
Yes, I agree.
-
It has nothing to do with religion it has to do with human nature.
People who know someone is guilty but conceal their knowledge will often agonize over such. They often drink, do drugs or something else to cope with their guilt. Sometimes they will finally come forward after years because they can't take it anymore. This has to do with the guilt of keeping a secret when that secret is out you no longer still agonize over the decision to keep it secret. You no longer have to consider whether to continue to keep it a secret or not.
Confession is about recognizing your behavior was wrong, doing penance for it and pledging you will strive not to do it again. You are not absolved simply because you told a priest. You have to actually be sorry and say you will try not to do it again. If you just go confess the same sin over and over again without any earnest effort to change your ways it amounts to nothing.
During confession we say the Act of Contrition:
"O my God I am heartily sorry for having offended thee, and I detest all my sins because of your just punishments, but most of all because they offend you, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of your grace, to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin."
Scipio, thank-you. I can see that the truly contrite might feel that their sins have been forgiven but even God can't forgive crimes.
-
And lead us not into Thames Station---------------
-
And lead us not into Thames Station---------------
or deliver _us from evil..
-
or deliver _us from evil..
;D
-
Timing is crucial . So I agree . In her statement she says she knew he had done it on the night - so she could have stopped him very nearly getting away with it. I don't believe she was frightened - she does not come across as a shrinking violet.
Don't you think it was strange if she wasn't frightened of him if she knew what he was capable of? Shrinking violet or not think anyone with any common sense would realise he was an extremely dangerous and violent man who could turn on you at any moment. No thanks, I would have been off fast as I could.
-
Don't you think it was strange if she wasn't frightened of him if she knew what he was capable of? Shrinking violet or not think anyone with any common sense would realise he was an extremely dangerous and violent man who could turn on you at any moment. No thanks, I would have been off fast as I could.
Well, according to her, she only really knew 'after' everyone was dead. I guess she must have considered how it would look if something happened to her because it would be highly suspicious as far as Jeremy was concerned.
-
or deliver _us from evil..
8)
-
Don't you think it was strange if she wasn't frightened of him if she knew what he was capable of? Shrinking violet or not think anyone with any common sense would realise he was an extremely dangerous and violent man who could turn on you at any moment. No thanks, I would have been off fast as I could.
Running away could make one even more of a target plus he told her about a hitman to give her some added fear.
In any event she didn't run out of a mix of fear and love it wasn't all fear. Some lovers,mothers, and other friends or family have helped dispose of bodies and do all sorts of things to protect their loved ones who did wrong. Love is a funny thing.
-
yes of course she did.
And if JB is innocent there are still possibilities - for example when JB dumped her she was making up stories ( such as the hitman) for attention and then Liz dumped her in it . Which fell right into the laps of the police trying to do a U turn. The timings and dates of them changing stance and her being pushed into going to the police all seem a little convenient.
When did Bamber dump Julie ?
Was it when he was whisking her around the country and to Amsterdam. Or after he phoned her at 3am and 5am.
The relationship was coming to a close pre massacre Bamber testified. The massacre speeded things up. Julie not wanting to go around with Bamber and Brett so much. But being persuaded to.
Bamber said he wanted to live his own life. Julie seemed fine with that and Bamber had even agreed to help her move.
-
Hartley, I find it very difficult to see that what she did was any less bad -in fact I think it was worse- than what Maxine Carr was imprisoned for.
Did Maxine Carr withhold information or did she volunteer information ?
Julie volunteered information, created a WS and testified. The first month she didn't, but there are lots of reasons why, thread already created.
-
Just read up on it.
Maxine Carr gave a false alibi. Julie didn't. In fact didn't Julie say Jeremy rang her at 3am in her first WS ? Which did Jeremy no favours.
Maxine Carr was arrested and eventually spoke. Julie was not arrested and approached the police. She also gave information about another crime, the caravan break in,which the police knew nothing about.
-
Because of some stupid theory surrounding Huntley's conviction,which beggars belief,it sets a precedent for all those who are CLEARLY guilty,to question their own guilt. ::)
Apparently the theory is that it wasn't Huntley,but some American serviceman. Who starts these theories,David Icke ?
-
Because of some stupid theory surrounding Huntley's conviction,which beggars belief,it sets a precedent for all those who are CLEARLY guilty,to question their own guilt. ::)
Apparently the theory is that it wasn't Huntley,but some American serviceman. Who starts these theories,David Icke ?
Maxine Carr may NOT have told the truth in the beginning -she wasn't even there when the crime occurred and had no idea what he was planning- but she obviously went with what Huntley told her had occurred -just as Julie, who KNEW what Jeremy had been planning, repeated what Jeremy allegedly told her.
-
Just read up on it.
Maxine Carr gave a false alibi. Julie didn't. In fact didn't Julie say Jeremy rang her at 3am in her first WS ? Which did Jeremy no favours.
Maxine Carr was arrested and eventually spoke. Julie was not arrested and approached the police. She also gave information about another crime, the caravan break in,which the police knew nothing about.
Julie identified the bodies, and failed to mention anything. Apart from being more than a little cold, her failure to speak up actually delayed the investigation of JB. She lied by omission and assisted a murderer to the point that he nearly got away with it.
The fact that she later changed her story, voluntarily or not, doesn't wipe out her earlier action/inaction.
Clearly she made a deal to avoid being prosecuted. I maintain my opinion that she should have been charged as an accessory, or at the very least for perverting justice.
She certainly shouldn't have benefited financially and I'm not sure she should have been able to pursue her teaching career.
I don't see how anybody could see her in a favourable light.
-
That I can agree with,Hartley. June must have seen through her to have called her a harlot and a loose woman ( that was without knowing her ! )
-
Don't you think it was strange if she wasn't frightened of him if she knew what he was capable of? Shrinking violet or not think anyone with any common sense would realise he was an extremely dangerous and violent man who could turn on you at any moment. No thanks, I would have been off fast as I could.
she seemed quite happy to be close to him after the murders and yet one of her "friends" said she knew the truth within days and she herself said she knew on the night.
something does not add up.
-
Jealousy,blackmail and greed.
-
Julie identified the bodies, and failed to mention anything. Apart from being more than a little cold, her failure to speak up actually delayed the investigation of JB. She lied by omission and assisted a murderer to the point that he nearly got away with it.
The fact that she later changed her story, voluntarily or not, doesn't wipe out her earlier action/inaction.
Clearly she made a deal to avoid being prosecuted. I maintain my opinion that she should have been charged as an accessory, or at the very least for perverting justice.
She certainly shouldn't have benefited financially and I'm not sure she should have been able to pursue her teaching career.
I don't see how anybody could see her in a favourable light.
Hartley
excellent post
-
It is often used against Jeremy about how he behaved at the funeral - but how about how about how she acted? her words on the night "I knew he had done it" and yet there she is supporting him and holding his arm ?
Now I don't agree with the analogy of behaviour because I do believe everyone acts differently etc etc , but if you are going to criticise JB then you have to apply that to her as well.
-
It is often used against Jeremy about how he behaved at the funeral - but how about how about how she acted? her words on the night "I knew he had done it" and yet there she is supporting him and holding his arm ?
Now I don't agree with the analogy of behaviour because I do believe everyone acts differently etc etc , but if you are going to criticise JB then you have to apply that to her as well.
With hindsight!!!! -yeh, yeh, I know!!!!- do you not think the pair of them look like ham actors? Who can say what is appropriate but to me, their behaviours look overdone, exaggerated BUT -and you know I hold NO brief for her- hers would have been about cause and effect,so with Jeremy displaying an OTT demonstration of grief, SHE was required to demonstrate an equally OTT demonstration of concern.
-
Julie identified the bodies, and failed to mention anything. Apart from being more than a little cold, her failure to speak up actually delayed the investigation of JB. She lied by omission and assisted a murderer to the point that he nearly got away with it.
The fact that she later changed her story, voluntarily or not, doesn't wipe out her earlier action/inaction.
Clearly she made a deal to avoid being prosecuted. I maintain my opinion that she should have been charged as an accessory, or at the very least for perverting justice.
She certainly shouldn't have benefited financially and I'm not sure she should have been able to pursue her teaching career.
I don't see how anybody could see her in a favourable light.
Well the police didn't prosecute her. Carr got over 3 years. So was much worse.
There are lots of reasons why Julie waited one month. I will find my thread post. Again.
Did Julie deserve the 25k. Certainly. I will find my thread post. Again.
Julie was being very helpful identifying the bodies. No one wanted to. Including Jeremy.
The investigation was delayed as Jeremy lead them in a direction and evidence takes time to process. And kept a close eye on Julie, whisking her around and saying she would never be believed.
-
Jeremy's supporters often criticise Julie for not going to the police straight away.
There are lots of reasons why she approached the police a month later-
She was Jeremy's girlfriend.
She loved Jeremy and said she was under his spell.
She was in shock.
She was afraid of what Jeremy may do if he found out.
She tried to deny it to herself that the man she loved was involved.
Jeremy had said that he had paid MM £2,000 to commit the massacre. Julie said she knew Jeremy did not have this money available. So she would have clung to the possibility that Jeremy was making false boasts.
She was 20 years old. We all make wrong decisions when so young.
Jeremy had said he was 'watertight' and it was an 'open and shut case'. He said Julie would not be believed.
She was afraid she would be implicating herself. Being aware of his hatred and resentment towards his family, and previous plans.
While still in shock, she gave a statement early on. So was afraid that changing her statement days or weeks later may put her in trouble.
She was afraid she would not be believed. Making herself look stupid and getting in trouble with the police for making false claims.
She was caught in the eye of a hurricane. Police, relatives and the media always around, funerals to attend. Jeremy getting police cars to pick her up, then whisking her off to Amsterdam the weekend after the massacre.
She had no one to speak to at first. Being with Jeremy most of the time after the massacre. She did not want to attend the funeral or continuously go around with Jeremy & Brett. But was persuaded to by Jeremy.
--------------------------------
It is true she approached the police, (via Liz Rimmington) after they had spilt up. After finally getting to speak to other people she trusted. She was hardly likely to approach the police while still Jeremy's girlfriend, was she ?
Jeremy said the relationship had been in decline for six months prior to the massacre. They were both young and living miles away from each other. The massacre probably speeded up the ending of the relationship by a few weeks. After Julie had come to terms with the massacre and cleared her head.
It is not conclusive about who jilted who. Although Jeremy has always weakly said Julie spoke to the police and testified because he jilted her. But he has never said scorned women are just as likely to tell the truth.
Speaking to the police a month later seems quite normal to me (see above). Making these claims months of years later, after moving in with or marrying Jeremy would have looked much worse.
She was brave in approaching the police. Jeremy had not been arrested and the silencer evidence had not come back from the lab. The police could have laughed her out of the station. Or charged her with wasting police time. Or both.
-
3am - 'I've not slept all night, there is something wrong at the farm. Everything is going well'.
A few hours later 'A police car is coming to pick you up'
From then on Julie or her families life will never be the same again. Being whisked over to WHF, Eastbourne, Burnham, Amsterdam, London and Champagne funerals. Sometimes against her wishes as Bamber insisted on also bringing jolly up buddy Brett along. Her (second) degree and work having to be left behind, indefinitely.
After a month of soul searching, confiding to several friends and hearing Bamber ask another woman out, she approached the police. Risking serious perjury charges if proved to be lying. Which has never been proved.
A harrowing trial followed for a 21 year old woman. For both Julie and her family. Julie not retracting a word of her 'ring of truth' WS and having to answer questions on an unrelated 1984 joint minor cheque book fraud.
Bamber had already tried to sell his life story and distasteful pictures of Sheila to the Sun. And drove a hard bargain with the NOTW. Complaining to his lawyers about his fee.
The NOTW approached Julie after getting inside knowledge that Bamber was guilty. Julie accepted their offer without haggling.
Bamber was hoping to make money from the massacre of his family. Julie accepted an offer regarding a massacre of people she was not related to. Having nothing to do with the massacre on the night.
Even 30 years later people post all sorts of nasty things about Julie. Jeremy's OS has a whole chapter on her & the campaign team posted an 8 minute Youtube video on her in 2014. One of several distasteful videos about her.
Julie has kept a dignified silence after the NOTW interview. Refusing to get drawn into a war of words with Bamber. Preferring to focus on her family and successful teaching career. Even Wilkes couldn't get her to speak.
Did Julie deserve £25,000 ? You bet.
-
Julie identified the bodies, and failed to mention anything. Apart from being more than a little cold, her failure to speak up actually delayed the investigation of JB. She lied by omission and assisted a murderer to the point that he nearly got away with it.
The fact that she later changed her story, voluntarily or not, doesn't wipe out her earlier action/inaction.
Clearly she made a deal to avoid being prosecuted. I maintain my opinion that she should have been charged as an accessory, or at the very least for perverting justice.
She certainly shouldn't have benefited financially and I'm not sure she should have been able to pursue her teaching career.
I don't see how anybody could see her in a favourable light.
Totally agree Hartley. :)
-
Jeremy's supporters often criticise Julie for not going to the police straight away.
There are lots of reasons why she approached the police a month later-
She was Jeremy's girlfriend.
She loved Jeremy and said she was under his spell.
She was in shock.
She was afraid of what Jeremy may do if he found out.
She tried to deny it to herself that the man she loved was involved.
Jeremy had said that he had paid MM £2,000 to commit the massacre. Julie said she knew Jeremy did not have this money available. So she would have clung to the possibility that Jeremy was making false boasts.
She was 20 years old. We all make wrong decisions when so young.
Jeremy had said he was 'watertight' and it was an 'open and shut case'. He said Julie would not be believed.
She was afraid she would be implicating herself. Being aware of his hatred and resentment towards his family, and previous plans.
While still in shock, she gave a statement early on. So was afraid that changing her statement days or weeks later may put her in trouble.
She was afraid she would not be believed. Making herself look stupid and getting in trouble with the police for making false claims.
She was caught in the eye of a hurricane. Police, relatives and the media always around, funerals to attend. Jeremy getting police cars to pick her up, then whisking her off to Amsterdam the weekend after the massacre.
She had no one to speak to at first. Being with Jeremy most of the time after the massacre. She did not want to attend the funeral or continuously go around with Jeremy & Brett. But was persuaded to by Jeremy.
--------------------------------
It is true she approached the police, (via Liz Rimmington) after they had spilt up. After finally getting to speak to other people she trusted. She was hardly likely to approach the police while still Jeremy's girlfriend, was she ?
Jeremy said the relationship had been in decline for six months prior to the massacre. They were both young and living miles away from each other. The massacre probably speeded up the ending of the relationship by a few weeks. After Julie had come to terms with the massacre and cleared her head.
It is not conclusive about who jilted who. Although Jeremy has always weakly said Julie spoke to the police and testified because he jilted her. But he has never said scorned women are just as likely to tell the truth.
Speaking to the police a month later seems quite normal to me (see above). Making these claims months of years later, after moving in with or marrying Jeremy would have looked much worse.
She was brave in approaching the police. Jeremy had not been arrested and the silencer evidence had not come back from the lab. The police could have laughed her out of the station. Or charged her with wasting police time. Or both.
This post just shows how biased you are. ;D
-
Running away could make one even more of a target plus he told her about a hitman to give her some added fear.
In any event she didn't run out of a mix of fear and love it wasn't all fear. Some lovers,mothers, and other friends or family have helped dispose of bodies and do all sorts of things to protect their loved ones who did wrong. Love is a funny thing.
Love? That's not love how can you love a mass murderer?
She was only very young, I know how young girls minds work because I have been one, also I have two daughters who are in their 20s. Julie's behaviour as it is stated was very difficult to understand. Imo
People who help others bury bodies etc. have serious issues themselves...... ...... you are kidding surely?
-
Love? That's not love, certainly not in the true sense of the word.
She was only very young, I know how young girls minds work because I have been one, I have two daughters who are in their 20s. Julie's behaviour as it is stated was very difficult to understand. Imo
People who help others bury bodies etc. have serious issues themselves...... you are kidding surely?
If a police car picked you up and took you to WHF on the morning of the massacre, would you have shopped you're boyfriend and the man you love there and then ?
Not now, but when you were 20.
-
If a police car picked you up and took you to WHF on morning of the massacre, would you have shopped you're boyfriend and the man you love there and then ?
Possibly not at that moment but she had plenty of time after.
My argument is not even moral, even if I didn't shop him I'd be horrified, terrified want to run away.
I know I often argue we don't know how we'd behave in any situation til we are in it but even if it took a week, once rational thinking clicked back in you'd be too horrified/ scared to keep going, unless in some way you had problems, 'love' is not an excuse in the eyes of the law.
I was always strong on self preservation so I would guess that would have been the strongest instinct along with horror especially after identifying 5 murdered bodies of people I knew...... talk about nightmares or maybe I'm unusual and she was normal?
-
It is often used against Jeremy about how he behaved at the funeral - but how about how about how she acted? her words on the night "I knew he had done it" and yet there she is supporting him and holding his arm ?
Now I don't agree with the analogy of behaviour because I do believe everyone acts differently etc etc , but if you are going to criticise JB then you have to apply that to her as well.
Everyone else too considering that there were two little children involved.I'd have been beside myself and thoroughly destroyed.
-
Possibly not at that moment but she had plenty of time after.
My argument is not even moral, even if I didn't shop him I'd be horrified, terrified want to run away.
I know I often argue we don't know how we'd behave in any situation til we are in it but even if it took a week, once rational thinking clicked back in you'd be too horrified/ scared to keep going, unless in some way you had problems, 'love' is not an excuse in the eyes of the law.
I was always strong on self preservation so I would guess that would have been the strongest instinct along with horror especially after identifying 5 murdered bodies of people I knew...... talk about nightmares or maybe I'm unusual and she was normal?
She may well have been horrified and terrified. But with police, family and Jeremy all around, a 20 year old woman is hardly likely to start accusing Jeremy at 8 am.
The relationship went into a steep decline afterwards and they soon spilt up. Julie approaching the police a month later.
-
Julie identified the bodies, and failed to mention anything. Apart from being more than a little cold, her failure to speak up actually delayed the investigation of JB. She lied by omission and assisted a murderer to the point that he nearly got away with it.
The fact that she later changed her story, voluntarily or not, doesn't wipe out her earlier action/inaction.
Clearly she made a deal to avoid being prosecuted. I maintain my opinion that she should have been charged as an accessory, or at the very least for perverting justice.
She certainly shouldn't have benefited financially and I'm not sure she should have been able to pursue her teaching career.
I don't see how anybody could see her in a favourable light.
Totally agree!
-
It is often used against Jeremy about how he behaved at the funeral - but how about how about how she acted? her words on the night "I knew he had done it" and yet there she is supporting him and holding his arm ?
Now I don't agree with the analogy of behaviour because I do believe everyone acts differently etc etc , but if you are going to criticise JB then you have to apply that to her as well.
I do think her behaviour was deplorable but she didn't kill 5 members of her family they are separated in deplorability by the act.
-
This post just shows how biased you are. ;D
I just follow the evidence and common sense.
Supporters think Julie should have grassed on Jeremy at 8am on the massacre morning. She did it a month later for lots of good reasons. So what ?
-
She may well have been horrified and terrified. But with police, family and Jeremy all around, a 20 year old woman is hardly likely to start accusing Jeremy at 8 am.
The relationship went into a steep decline afterwards and they soon spilt up. Julie approaching the police a month later.
Interesting that you are so clued up about the behaviour of a 20 year old woman. :-\
I didn't mention at 8 am. anywhere. I gave her a week but I'm inclined to think JMs behaviour was more about self interest if her story was true.
I love the excuses for Julie's behaviour under pressure but you know exactly how Jeremy should have behaved every step of the way. You're totally biased Adam, can't see the wood for the trees. Imo
-
I just follow the evidence and common sense.
Supporters think Julie should have grassed on Jeremy at 8am on the massacre morning. She did it a month later for lots of good reasons. So what ?
So what????
Her behaviour was unbelievable.
D'you think the extended family and all who loved that family thought 'so what'?
D'you believe Colin thought 'so what' about her behaviour. She could have alerted that family to what Jeremy was planning, saved his sons lives.
We all make mistakes but that's one humdinger of a mistake.
-
Julie was nothing but a scheming so-and-so who was filled with so much venom she didn't know what to do for the best against damaging Jeremy,until her plan snowballed and blew up out of all proportion and because she'd already contacted the police,her next move was to quickly tell them about her own shortcomings. After that it was all plain sailing. That sense of relief that she must have felt of her own admission gave way to 32 pages of utter tripe. Jeremy was well rid of her.
-
Interesting that you are so clued up about the behaviour of a 20 year old woman. :-\
I didn't mention at 8 am. anywhere. I gave her a week but I'm inclined to think JMs behaviour was more about self interest if her story was true.
I love the excuses for Julie's behaviour under pressure but you know exactly how Jeremy should have behaved every step of the way. You're totally biased Adam, can't see the wood for the trees. Imo
So you think she should have gone to the police a week later.
Wasn't the funerals then ? Jeremy asking her to attend. Bit of an insensitive time to break ranks. It was an 'open and shut' case then. Apart from a few suspicious relatives and police sniffing about. Which Julie would be unaware of.
I do believe he is guilty. By following the evidence. If you wish to call that bias, feel free.
Julie approaching the police may have been partly due to self interest. I created a thread on this a few days ago. That doesn't mean she lied.
-
So what????
Her behaviour was unbelievable.
D'you think the extended family and all who loved that family thought 'so what'?
D'you believe Colin thought 'so what' about her behaviour. She could have alerted that family to what Jeremy was planning, saved his sons lives.
We all make mistakes but that's one humdinger of a mistake.
There are at least 14 reasons why it took her one month. I will re post my post from page 8.
-
Jeremy's supporters often criticise Julie for not going to the police straight away.
There are lots of reasons why she approached the police a month later-
She was Jeremy's girlfriend.
She loved Jeremy and said she was under his spell.
She was in shock.
She was afraid of what Jeremy may do if he found out.
She tried to deny it to herself that the man she loved was involved.
Jeremy had said that he had paid MM £2,000 to commit the massacre. Julie said she knew Jeremy did not have this money available. So she would have clung to the possibility that Jeremy was making false boasts.
She was 20 years old. We all make wrong decisions when so young.
Jeremy had said he was 'watertight' and it was an 'open and shut case'. He said Julie would not be believed.
She was afraid she would be implicating herself. Being aware of his hatred and resentment towards his family, and previous plans.
While still in shock, she gave a statement early on. So was afraid that changing her statement days or weeks later may put her in trouble.
She was afraid she would not be believed. Making herself look stupid and getting in trouble with the police for making false claims.
She was caught in the eye of a hurricane. Police, relatives and the media always around, funerals to attend. Jeremy getting police cars to pick her up, then whisking her off to Amsterdam the weekend after the massacre.
She had no one to speak to at first. Being with Jeremy most of the time after the massacre. She did not want to attend the funeral or continuously go around with Jeremy & Brett. But was persuaded to by Jeremy.
--------------------------------
It is true she approached the police, (via Liz Rimmington) after they had spilt up. After finally getting to speak to other people she trusted. She was hardly likely to approach the police while still Jeremy's girlfriend, was she ?
Jeremy said the relationship had been in decline for six months prior to the massacre. They were both young and living miles away from each other. The massacre probably speeded up the ending of the relationship by a few weeks. After Julie had come to terms with the massacre and cleared her head.
It is not conclusive about who jilted who. Although Jeremy has always weakly said Julie spoke to the police and testified because he jilted her. But he has never said scorned women are just as likely to tell the truth.
Speaking to the police a month later seems quite normal to me (see above). Making these claims months of years later, after moving in with or marrying Jeremy would have looked much worse.
She was brave in approaching the police. Jeremy had not been arrested and the silencer evidence had not come back from the lab. The police could have laughed her out of the station. Or charged her with wasting police time. Or both.
-
One word describes her-------------VINDICTIVE !
-
So you think she should have gone to the police a week later.
Wasn't the funerals then ? Jeremy asking her to attend. Bit of an insensitive time to break ranks. It was an 'open and shut' case then. Apart from a few suspicious relatives and police sniffing about. Which Julie would be unaware of.
I do believe he is guilty. By following the evidence. If you wish to call that bias, feel free.
Julie approaching the police may have been partly due to self interest. I created a thread on this a few days ago. That doesn't mean she lied.
I love the fact you use the word 'sensitive' can't find any of that in her behaviour at all, anywhere!
I said you are biased toward Julie Mugford because you attack Jeremy Bamber for breathing but excuse Julie Mugford's crass behaviour and make every excuse for her?
Why? What is she to you?
-
Interesting that you are so clued up about the behaviour of a 20 year old woman. :-\
I didn't mention at 8 am. anywhere. I gave her a week but I'm inclined to think JMs behaviour was more about self interest if her story was true.
I love the excuses for Julie's behaviour under pressure but you know exactly how Jeremy should have behaved every step of the way. You're totally biased Adam, can't see the wood for the trees. Imo
Why have we become bound into this 8am thing? Why is it apparently so important and what has it to do with anything?
-
I love the fact you use the word 'sensitive' can't find any of that in her behaviour at all, anywhere!
I said you are biased toward Julie Mugford because you attack Jeremy Bamber for breathing but excuse Julie Mugford's crass behaviour and make every excuse for her?
Why? What is she to you?
Attack Bamber for breathing ? I have never done that.
Supporters and Bamber claim Julie is lying and back this up by saying she waited a month before approaching the police.
But there are at least 14 reasons why it took her month. All seems quite normal to me.
Waiting a month and then trying to frame an 'innocent' Bamber would be amazingly insensitive, vindictive, stupid, optimistic and brave.
-
So what????
Her behaviour was unbelievable.
D'you think the extended family and all who loved that family thought 'so what'?
D'you believe Colin thought 'so what' about her behaviour. She could have alerted that family to what Jeremy was planning, saved his sons lives.
We all make mistakes but that's one humdinger of a mistake.
It's interesting, isn't it, that ALL here -but one- find Julie's behaviour deplorable in the extreme.
-
Attack Bamber for breathing ? I have never done that.
Supporters and Bamber claim Julie is lying and back this up by saying she waited a month before approaching the police.
But there are at least 14 reasons why it took her month. All seems quite normal to me.
Waiting a month and then trying to frame an 'innocent' Bamber would be amazingly insensitive, vindictive, stupid, optimistic and brave.
Its not only 'supporters' who think her behaviour suspect but whatever, you are blinkered and refuse to consider anything but your own fixed opinion. :'(
-
Its not only 'supporters' who think her behaviour suspect but whatever, you are blinkered and refuse to consider anything but your own fixed opinion. :'(
Yes even former supporters think she is some sort of devil because she didn't grass on her boyfriend for a whole month.
Although at least they now agree Julie was telling the truth.
-
Its not only 'supporters' who think her behaviour suspect but whatever, you are blinkered and refuse to consider anything but your own fixed opinion. :'(
I absolutely certain that the beliefs about Julie by "former" supporters" is 100% the same now as it was when they were "current" supporters.
-
I love the fact you use the word 'sensitive' can't find any of that in her behaviour at all, anywhere!
I said you are biased toward Julie Mugford because you attack Jeremy Bamber for breathing but excuse Julie Mugford's crass behaviour and make every excuse for her?
Why? What is she to you?
Maggie
Adam is not biased he just likes to be different maybe contrary would fit him better ;D
-
I absolutely certain that the beliefs about Julie by "former" supporters" is 100% the same now as it was when they were "current" supporters.
Jane
you are quite right whatever our views on JB are the majority of the forum have had the same feelings about Julie from day 1 upto the present time and none of us will have our minds changed by the minority.
-
Jane
you are quite right whatever our views on JB are the majority of the forum have had the same feelings about Julie from day 1 upto the present time and none of us will have our minds changed by the minority.
Yes nothing can change the fact she waited a month before bravely going to the police. Then spending a lot of time compiling a 'ring of truth' WS and then testifying. To ensure justice was done.
Although there are at least 14 common sense reasons why it took her one month, supporters and former supporters will never forgive her for that.
Hopefully my poll today will determine when she should have approached the police.
-
Yes nothing can change the fact she waited a month before bravely going to the police. Then spending a lot of time compiling a 'ring of truth' WS and then testifying. To ensure justice was done.
Although there are at least 14 common sense reasons why it took her one month, supporters and former supporters will never forgive her for that.
Hopefully my poll today will determine when she should have approached the police.
Fiddling while Rome burned.........
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D