Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: David1819 on April 02, 2016, 10:44:PM
-
Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
Why was he allowed to tell this to the Jury? here's why
Jeremy's "confession"
Below is what Julie claims Jeremy confessed to her. This statement is false for two reasons. Jeremy's alleged confession of the crime as told by Julie Mugford does not correspond or coincide with the actual crime scene itself, as we all know Shelia was found on the floor not on the bed, the bible next to her also on the floor not on her chest. Had Jeremy committed the murders and given a detailed confession as Julie claims then Julies statements would corroborate the crime scene and they don't!
(http://s30.postimg.org/4co0gw6ht/mugford1.png)
The second reason Julies statement is false is because her description of Jeremy's alleged confession is exactly the same as Ann Eaton and RWB's impression of events as seen in Ann Eatons notes and RWB's diary written in August. See below
Ann Eaton's note's second line down "Shelia on bed bible on chest"
(http://s23.postimg.org/v7c6huou3/AEnotes1.png)
RWB's Diary
(http://s23.postimg.org/eegx5omrf/rwbdiary1.jpg)
So not only can we establish that Julies claims are false we can now narrow down were she actually got that information from. Either Police or Ann Eaton as Rivlin rightly told the jury.
More disturbing correlations
Windows and the Bike
In August RWB speculates that Jeremy used a bike then also in august RWB and AE speculate how Jeremy would enter the building
(http://s21.postimg.org/mc273onk7/rwbbike.png)
(http://s10.postimg.org/kmegatna1/rwbwindows.png)
Then come September the 8th Julie reveals how Jeremy "confessed" to her his method of travel and entry, exactly how RWB and AE predicted!
(http://s8.postimg.org/nc7pjvf5x/jmbikewindow.png)
The Wet suit
On the 28th of August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy used a wet suit in the murders
(http://s29.postimg.org/fu9qvz293/rwbwetsuit.png)
This then appears in Julie Mugford's diary along with the bicycle
(http://s30.postimg.org/iq197ubc1/jmwetsuitdiary.png)
The £2000.00 payment
2nd of September RWB claims Jeremy lent a friend £2000
(http://s13.postimg.org/q3t1pks7b/rwb2000.png)
Julie then claims that Jeremy paid Macdonald £2000
(http://s22.postimg.org/64wqetcg1/JM2000.png)
The Fingerprints and the gun magazine
In August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy got Shelia to load the bullets into the magazine to get her fingerprints on them.
(http://s18.postimg.org/urhcc1fgp/rwbfingerprints.jpg)
Then come September lo and behold Julie claims this is exactly what Jeremy had confessed to her.
(http://s8.postimg.org/f3y3s6tyd/jmfingerprints.png)
This is why Julies statements are completely false, Her statements have direct parallels with Ann Eaton notes and RWBs diary both of which deviate from the facts of the crime scene and contradict other factual aspects surrounding the case. Therefore Jeremy did not and could not have confessed or told her anything in her statements, it is impossible!
-
Erm,you've missed out the " robin " who showed everyone how "Jeremy got inside the farmhouse."
-
Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
Why was he allowed to tell this to the Jury? here's why
Jeremy's "confession"
Below is what Julie claims Jeremy confessed to her. This statement is false for two reasons. Jeremy's alleged confession of the crime as told by Julie Mugford does not correspond or coincide with the actual crime scene itself, as we all know Shelia was found on the floor not on the bed, the bible next to her also on the floor not on her chest. Had Jeremy committed the murders and given a detailed confession as Julie claims then Julies statements would corroborate the crime scene and they don't!
(http://s30.postimg.org/4co0gw6ht/mugford1.png)
The second reason Julies statement is false is because her description of Jeremy's alleged confession is exactly the same as Ann Eaton and RWB's impression of events as seen in Ann Eatons notes and RWB's diary written in August. See below
Ann Eaton's note's second line down "Shelia on bed bible on chest"
(http://s23.postimg.org/v7c6huou3/AEnotes1.png)
RWB's Diary
(http://s23.postimg.org/eegx5omrf/rwbdiary1.jpg)
So not only can we establish that Julies claims are false we can now narrow down were she actually got that information from. Either Police or Ann Eaton as Rivlin rightly told the jury.
More disturbing correlations
Windows and the Bike
In August RWB speculates that Jeremy used a bike then also in august RWB and AE speculate how Jeremy would enter the building
(http://s21.postimg.org/mc273onk7/rwbbike.png)
(http://s10.postimg.org/kmegatna1/rwbwindows.png)
Then come September the 8th Julie reveals how Jeremy "confessed" to her his method of travel and entry, exactly how RWB and AE predicted!
(http://s8.postimg.org/nc7pjvf5x/jmbikewindow.png)
The Wet suit
On the 28th of August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy used a wet suit in the murders
(http://s29.postimg.org/fu9qvz293/rwbwetsuit.png)
This then appears in Julie Mugford's diary along with the bicycle
(http://s30.postimg.org/iq197ubc1/jmwetsuitdiary.png)
The £2000.00 payment
2nd of September RWB claims Jeremy lent a friend £2000
(http://s13.postimg.org/q3t1pks7b/rwb2000.png)
Julie then claims that Jeremy paid Macdonald £2000
(http://s22.postimg.org/64wqetcg1/JM2000.png)
The Fingerprints and the gun magazine
In August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy got Shelia to load the bullets into the magazine to get her fingerprints on them.
(http://s18.postimg.org/urhcc1fgp/rwbfingerprints.jpg)
Then come September lo and behold Julie claims this is exactly what Jeremy had confessed to her.
(http://s8.postimg.org/f3y3s6tyd/jmfingerprints.png)
This is why Julies statements are completely false, Her statements have direct parallels with Ann Eaton notes and RWBs diary both of which deviate from the facts of the crime scene and contradict other factual aspects surrounding the case. Therefore Jeremy did not and could not have confessed or told her anything in her statements, it is impossible!
The hit man story doesn't prove Julie was lying at all - one of them was but it could just as easily have been Jeremy. Why? Because it is so different from what actually happened that you might assume she would be discredited by telling it. No? Well, you're using it for that very reason now!
AE was told by a police officer about how June and Sheila were found, she no doubt told RWB. They both mention that the bible was on Sheila's chest which as we know, it wasn't when she was discovered. However, perhaps it was when Jeremy left her and it slid off.
Not sure what point you're trying to make by 'the method of travel' as was pointed out to you on the red forum, he had to get there somehow and the bicycle was found in his garden - this supports what Julie said rather than contradicts. The family also saw the bike! He also had to get in the house and the windows are the obvious choice.
The wetsuit was no doubt mentioned to Julie when questioned by Jones "Did Jeremy ever mention anything about a wetsuit" so, Julie notes it down.
The £2000.00 ic clearly a coincidence given that Jeremy went to New Zealand years before the murders.
-
How was the glove coming off in the fight with Nevill connected with Sheila's fingerprints on the bullets? And why are you taking Jeremy's word on anything to do with the sequence of events that night when we know he has lied from the outset?
-
How was the glove coming off in the fight with Nevill connected with Sheila's fingerprints on the bullets? And why are you taking Jeremy's word on anything to do with the sequence of events that night when we know he has lied from the outset?
It doesn't have any relevance Steve - but once conspiracy sets it, it spreads like a disease.
-
I doubt Julie engaged much with RB or AE prior to Bamber's arrest.
Bamber had whisked her over to be by his side early in the morning of the massacre. After that she spent most of her time with Bamber being whisked around Europe. Mainly at Bamber's request.
Julie did engage with the police a lot. After one month. It's what happens when witnesses complie witness statements.
-
The main way Julie could have engaged with the family prior to Bamber's arrest, was by phone.
However she was Bamber's girlfriend, so unlikely to be phoning people behind Bamber's back. The relatives would not be able to get hold of Julie, as she was being whisked around Europe by Bamber
-
I'm surprised that Rivlin didn't have the clout as he normally would have done with his more well-known stance as a prosecuting judge ( was ) He'd appeared very tame,especially when it came to JM.
-
Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
Why was he allowed to tell this to the Jury? here's why
Jeremy's "confession"
Below is what Julie claims Jeremy confessed to her. This statement is false for two reasons. Jeremy's alleged confession of the crime as told by Julie Mugford does not correspond or coincide with the actual crime scene itself, as we all know Shelia was found on the floor not on the bed, the bible next to her also on the floor not on her chest. Had Jeremy committed the murders and given a detailed confession as Julie claims then Julies statements would corroborate the crime scene and they don't!
(http://s30.postimg.org/4co0gw6ht/mugford1.png)
The second reason Julies statement is false is because her description of Jeremy's alleged confession is exactly the same as Ann Eaton and RWB's impression of events as seen in Ann Eatons notes and RWB's diary written in August. See below
Ann Eaton's note's second line down "Shelia on bed bible on chest"
(http://s23.postimg.org/v7c6huou3/AEnotes1.png)
RWB's Diary
(http://s23.postimg.org/eegx5omrf/rwbdiary1.jpg)
So not only can we establish that Julies claims are false we can now narrow down were she actually got that information from. Either Police or Ann Eaton as Rivlin rightly told the jury.
More disturbing correlations
Windows and the Bike
In August RWB speculates that Jeremy used a bike then also in august RWB and AE speculate how Jeremy would enter the building
(http://s21.postimg.org/mc273onk7/rwbbike.png)
(http://s10.postimg.org/kmegatna1/rwbwindows.png)
Then come September the 8th Julie reveals how Jeremy "confessed" to her his method of travel and entry, exactly how RWB and AE predicted!
(http://s8.postimg.org/nc7pjvf5x/jmbikewindow.png)
The Wet suit
On the 28th of August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy used a wet suit in the murders
(http://s29.postimg.org/fu9qvz293/rwbwetsuit.png)
This then appears in Julie Mugford's diary along with the bicycle
(http://s30.postimg.org/iq197ubc1/jmwetsuitdiary.png)
The £2000.00 payment
2nd of September RWB claims Jeremy lent a friend £2000
(http://s13.postimg.org/q3t1pks7b/rwb2000.png)
Julie then claims that Jeremy paid Macdonald £2000
(http://s22.postimg.org/64wqetcg1/JM2000.png)
The Fingerprints and the gun magazine
In August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy got Shelia to load the bullets into the magazine to get her fingerprints on them.
(http://s18.postimg.org/urhcc1fgp/rwbfingerprints.jpg)
Then come September lo and behold Julie claims this is exactly what Jeremy had confessed to her.
(http://s8.postimg.org/f3y3s6tyd/jmfingerprints.png)
This is why Julies statements are completely false, Her statements have direct parallels with Ann Eaton notes and RWBs diary both of which deviate from the facts of the crime scene and contradict other factual aspects surrounding the case. Therefore Jeremy did not and could not have confessed or told her anything in her statements, it is impossible!
I've never seen so many lies in my life.It's more than" quite sickening ".It's downright evil. !
-
a lot of rather remarkable coincedences here arnt there.
-
Without a doubt lying through her teeth.
-
well whats the chances of them all coming to those conclusions independantly.
-
That'd be the test,nugs.
-
well whats the chances of them all coming to those conclusions independantly.
Lets see;
He had to get there and his mothers bike was in his garden.
He had to get in, doors were locked and bolted from the inside - had to be a window.
Boutflour came up with the notion of the wetsuit, Julie was interviewed at length and Jones may have asked her about it - she noted it down.
Fingerprints on the bullets, finger prints on the rifle - two DIFFERENT things.
£2000.00 years apart? Hardly relevant.
-
how did they all know he dident use his car or walk.
-
how did they all know he dident use his car or walk.
They don't. No one knows how he got there exactly, but that doesn't mean anything. They don't have to prove HOW he got there, but just that it was possible. They don't have to prove that he could get inside, just that it was possible.
The relatives found it strange that Junes bikes was borrowed and at Jeremy's cottage, so it makes sense that they would wonder if it had been used.
-
but its rather wierd that there all coming up with exactly the same theorys.
-
but its rather wierd that there all coming up with exactly the same theorys.
There was nothing unusual about his car being there, nor the fact that he had two legs. However, the additional bicycle that wasn't there before would be the things to arouse suspicion.
-
and a wetsuit a well they come to that conclusion independantly.
-
and a wetsuit a well they come to that conclusion independantly.
Who came up with the wet suit independently?
-
It was Rivlin's job to ask the jury to discard Julie's evidence but unfortunately for him her testimony was both credible and persuasive. Julie had everything to lose by lying so I see no possible reason for doing so.
Julie was best placed to put the meat on the bones, the only thing she can be held in contempt for is delaying doing so.
-
I doubt Julie engaged much with RB or AE prior to Bamber's arrest.
Bamber had whisked her over to be by his side early in the morning of the massacre. After that she spent most of her time with Bamber being whisked around Europe. Mainly at Bamber's request.
Julie did engage with the police a lot. After one month. It's what happens when witnesses complie witness statements.
You "doubt" but you don't know for sure - do you Adam ?
-
The hit man story doesn't prove Julie was lying at all - one of them was but it could just as easily have been Jeremy. Why? Because it is so different from what actually happened that you might assume she would be discredited by telling it. No? Well, you're using it for that very reason now!
AE was told by a police officer about how June and Sheila were found, she no doubt told RWB. They both mention that the bible was on Sheila's chest which as we know, it wasn't when she was discovered. However, perhaps it was when Jeremy left her and it slid off.
Not sure what point you're trying to make by 'the method of travel' as was pointed out to you on the red forum, he had to get there somehow and the bicycle was found in his garden - this supports what Julie said rather than contradicts. The family also saw the bike! He also had to get in the house and the windows are the obvious choice.
The wetsuit was no doubt mentioned to Julie when questioned by Jones "Did Jeremy ever mention anything about a wetsuit" so, Julie notes it down.
The £2000.00 ic clearly a coincidence given that Jeremy went to New Zealand years before the murders.
I don't agree Caroline. I don't think David is using anything. He is clearly pointing out from written statement/notes how Julie could have lied. I find his argument very convincing. I am very uneasy about the way the family did there own investigation and the police rather than do their own investigations used theirs.
-
They don't. No one knows how he got there exactly, but that doesn't mean anything. They don't have to prove HOW he got there, but just that it was possible. They don't have to prove that he could get inside, just that it was possible.
The relatives found it strange that Junes bikes was borrowed and at Jeremy's cottage, so it makes sense that they would wonder if it had been used.
Bloom in heck it's frightening isn't it to think that they can just prove something is possible to put a man in prison for 30 years
-
I don't agree Caroline. I don't think David is using anything. He is clearly pointing out from written statement/notes how Julie could have lied. I find his argument very convincing. I am very uneasy about the way the family did there own investigation and the police rather than do their own investigations used theirs.
The key word here being "could". It could equally have been COULDN'T which is what the jury believed, as they were entitled to.
-
Rivlin was the prosecuting QC. So not surprised he told the jury this.
The judge didn't.
If the jury didn't believe Julie, there must have been enough forensic and circumstantial evidence to convict anyway. It was just coincidence that Julie decided to lie a month after the massacre. Well who wouldn't seek revenge ? Bamber had just (apparently) jilted her.
-
Thank you David for putting that side by side . It is interesting
The comment about the glove coming off and accidentally wiping the prints off is the most ridiculous one of all. It's so obvious they are trying to cover things they did not understand at the scene.
I am pretty sure EP did not want to get criticised by the public or press again so they had to sling as much mud as possible hoping it would stick. after all there was No forensic evidence to suggest gloves were used , not one little fibre. But they had to explain the lack of prints didn't they?
-
I don't agree Caroline. I don't think David is using anything. He is clearly pointing out from written statement/notes how Julie could have lied. I find his argument very convincing. I am very uneasy about the way the family did there own investigation and the police rather than do their own investigations used theirs.
That's your opinion but David doesn't use words like 'could'.
-
That's your opinion but David doesn't use words like 'could'.
Well she did lie at one stage . Obviously . Because her first statements are completely different so she was capable of blatant lies. I won't go into all of that again ,I have made my opinion of Julie quite clear.
-
Well she did lie at one stage . Obviously . Because her first statements are completely different so she was capable of blatant lies. I won't go into all of that again ,I have made my opinion of Julie quite clear.
There is a factual discrepancy in JM and AE statements, that shows JM got the info form AE. I will post it later today.
-
There is a factual discrepancy in JM and AE statements, that shows JM got the info form AE. I will post it later today.
I doubt Julie and Ann socialized at all apart from that first morning at Goldhanger and both being present at the funeral.
-
Rivlin was the prosecuting QC. So not surprised he told the jury this.
The judge didn't.
If the jury didn't believe Julie, there must have been enough forensic and circumstantial evidence to convict anyway. It was just coincidence that Julie decided to lie a month after the massacre. Well who wouldn't seek revenge ? Bamber had just (apparently) jilted her.
Probably why she decided to smother him with a pillow then . Not because he was a murderer?
-
Probably why she decided to smother him with a pillow then . Not because he was a murderer?
But her statement is a warts and all picture which only makes the substance of her testimony all the more credible.
-
Lets see;
He had to get there and his mothers bike was in his garden.
He had to get in, doors were locked and bolted from the inside - had to be a window.
Boutflour came up with the notion of the wetsuit, Julie was interviewed at length and Jones may have asked her about it - she noted it down.
Fingerprints on the bullets, finger prints on the rifle - two DIFFERENT things.
£2000.00 years apart? Hardly relevant
How did they know that that Jeremy had not used his car though? Unless the police told them? Because for all they knew there could be a witness that saw him driving back to his cottage?
-
But her statement is a warts and all picture which only makes the substance of her testimony all the more credible.
Sorry are you trying to say that it paints her in such a bad light it must be true?
-
How did they know that that Jeremy had not used his car though? Unless the police told them? Because for all they knew there could be a witness that saw him driving back to his cottage?
Don't waste your time arguing with Caroline over this. She has already dissected this evidence herself and she knows the answers, but just wants to turn every conversation in a never ending loop to prevent any constructive debate. Just refer her to her own posts if she asks the questions ;)
Then suddenly it all changed and the media built Jeremy up to be evil personified. I never really questioned his guilt because no one at the time could ever have imagined what an absolute mess the police had made of the crime scene and that the following trial was based on hear-say and scenarios made to 'fit' circumstances for which there was no evidence - the Silencer, the moving of the phones and the bicycle initially spring to mind. Ann Eaton said the silencer would have been on the rifle - police blindly took her word for that - why? This evidence would not have been allowed today because it was clearly contaminated! The whole moving of the phones idea seems to be ludicrous! As the kitchen phone was the 'master' phone, Jeremy would only have needed to unplug it to disconnect the bedroom phone! Why bother moving the phones around and hiding them under magazines - besides the cream phone from the bedroom wasn't even the under the magazines, it was being USED in the kitchen which supports Jeremy's account and the testimony of others that the phones were always being moved around. Finally the bazar 'story' of the bicycle ride back to Goldhanger after the shootings - the story seems to have been made to fit without any evidence to back it up.
I'm not sure if you are a supporter of guilt or innocence but these are just a few things that initially made me question his guilt but as you know, the list is endless! :o
-
Don't waste your time arguing with Caroline over this. She has already dissected this evidence herself and she knows the answers, but just wants to turn every conversation in a never ending loop to prevent any constructive debate. Just refer her to her own posts if she asks the questions ;)
Yep, I said that when I was as deluded as you and a few others! I was wrong then - so?
-
Sorry are you trying to say that it paints her in such a bad light it must be true?
Well that is what a warts and all picture is, but I doubt critics would have been assuaged had she left the bit about the pillow and the jewellery box smashed against the mirror out.
-
Well that is what a warts and all picture is, but I doubt critics would have been assuaged had she left the bit about the pillow and the jewellery box smashed against the mirror out.
I think she said those things after the trial , to the papers. Just added to the picture I agree ..
-
I think she said those things after the trial , to the papers. Just added to the picture I agree ..
No they're all in her statement.
-
Yep, I said that when I was as deluded as you and a few others! I was wrong then - so?
Was there any need to call supporters deluded ? Just because we have differing views,and you expect me to be polite ?
-
Was there any need to call supporters deluded ? Just because we have differing views,and you expect me to be polite ?
Can you remember calling me stupid earlier - RUDE!
-
Can you remember calling me stupid earlier - RUDE!
And it's not too courteous to imply that I'm thick, either. In fact it's RUDE
-
Good God,you sound like a pair of pantomime dames.
-
Good God,you sound like a pair of pantomime dames.
RUDE!
-
Good God,you sound like a pair of pantomime dames.
RUDE!!!!!!!
-
No they're all in her statement.
Back to the thread . I think the distractions are deliberate.
I think it was also reported that her testimony in court was presented in quite a different way to the defence and prosecution. She became quite hard to understand at times and her testimony was hard to comprehend but only when questioned by the defence . But she did not seem unconfident when it came to the papers.
-
Back to the thread . I think the distractions are deliberate.
I think it was also reported that her testimony in court was presented in quite a different way to the defence and prosecution. She became quite hard to understand at times and her testimony was hard to comprehend but only when questioned by the defence . But she did not seem unconfident when it came to the papers.
All the Defence could argue was that she was making the story up and Julie stuck to her guns. If you think they could and should have asked her different questions I wish you'd say so.
-
All the Defence could argue was that she was making the story up and Julie stuck to her guns. If you think they could and should have asked her different questions I wish you'd say so.
To be honest without seeing the full trial transcript that is difficult for me to judge. But there are some other things that I think should have been done that should not have relied on he said she said scenarios.
-
All the Defence could argue was that she was making the story up and Julie stuck to her guns. If you think they could and should have asked her different questions I wish you'd say so.
She could have been seriously grilled during the trial, sadly we don't know fully what was said. There may have been more she said that hasn't come out or Jeremy is hoping isn't discovered. He is always silent on Julie.
-
She could have been seriously grilled during the trial, sadly we don't know fully what was said. There may have been more she said that hasn't come out or Jeremy is hoping isn't discovered. He is always silent on Julie.
Surely we could see the full transcript now under the freedom of information act , or does that not apply to this sort of case?
-
Surely we could see the full transcript now under the freedom of information act , or does that not apply to this sort of case?
I doubt it has been saved.
-
She could have been seriously grilled during the trial, sadly we don't know fully what was said. There may have been more she said that hasn't come out or Jeremy is hoping isn't discovered. He is always silent on Julie.
There was something about "you're trying to make it look as black as possible for the Defendant, aren't you.."
Julie to Defence counsel: "The evidence is black enough already.."
-
I doubt it has been saved.
That's a shame really because it would be interesting to compare some of the information it was claimed was not available at trial as to what was actually shown . I think it als may give the bigger picture about witnesses because I am sure we all realise books are not always that accurate
-
Reading some of this, you would think Rivilin turned up to court with only his sandwiches and a chewed biro for company! ::)
-
There was something about "you're trying to make it look as black as possible for the Defendant, aren't you.."
Julie to Defence counsel: "The evidence is black enough already.."
Yes well she was in court as a prosecution witness . So she would be doing her job so to speak.
But apparently some of her evidence was incompressible at times.
-
Yes well she was in court as a prosecution witness . So she would be doing her job so to speak.
But apparently some of her evidence was incompressible at times.
Had Julie had more time to tell her story as she wished the two female jurors who were swayed by Jeremy Bamber's charm might just have changed their minds..
-
Don't waste your time arguing with Caroline over this. She has already dissected this evidence herself and she knows the answers, but just wants to turn every conversation in a never ending loop to prevent any constructive debate. Just refer her to her own posts if she asks the questions ;)
Lol. Yes the 2012 post shows a lot of current guilters used to argue just as passionately for innocence. Caroline changing stance after Bamber didn't answer her question about the last trailer.
You are the only person I know who has gone from guilty to innocent, which seemed to happen after you made you're forensic evidence breakthrough. Although we have both said Scipio may have changed stance after watching Mike's latest video.
https://youtu.be/mmCART1vcCo
-
Do we know if the two jurors were women,or is it just another slight on Jeremy ?
-
Do we know if the two jurors were women,or is it just another slight on Jeremy ?
It was two women.
-
It was two women.
You would know that--------how ? Hearsay ?
-
You would know that--------how ? Hearsay ?
Wilkes's book. Page 279.
-
Wilkes's book. Page 279.
--------------he said,smugly.
-
Lol. Yes the 2012 post shows a lot of current guilters used to argue just as passionately for innocence. Caroline changing stance after Bamber didn't answer her question about the last trailer.
You are the only person I know who has gone from guilty to innocent, which seemed to happen after you made you're forensic evidence breakthrough. Although we have both said Scipio may have changed stance after watching Mike's latest video.
https://youtu.be/mmCART1vcCo
I can never tell if you are joking , was that sarcasm or did skippy change his mind?
-
I can never tell if you are joking , was that sarcasm or did skippy change his mind?
Did Skippy skip to the other side? Officially No
We had some rather lengthy and drawn out arguments on red about the silencer that he seemed to struggle grappling with the evidence I put forward.
We then exchanged various PMs about the more recent developments. He then suddenly stopped posting on the forum for a few month, I had emailed him to ask him why he was not posting anymore and if he started to change his mind, I got no answer. So I began to assume that could be the case, however he has recently come forward to deny this. No surprise.
However I believe he has become a closet doubter! in my opinion.
-
I can never tell if you are joking , was that sarcasm or did skippy change his mind?
Do you agree with Mike that the police shot Sheila ?
-
Did Skippy skip to the other side? Officially No
We had some rather lengthy and drawn out arguments on red about the silencer that he seemed to struggle grappling with the evidence I put forward.
We then exchanged various PMs about the more recent developments. He then suddenly stopped posting on the forum for a few month, I had emailed him to ask him why he was not posting anymore and if he started to change his mind, I got no answer. So I began to assume that could be the case, however he has recently come forward to deny this. No surprise.
Thanks David .
I did not think it would be that easy.
However I believe he has become a closet doubter! in my opinion.
-
Do you agree with Mike that the police shot Sheila ?
I am not sure I do because I think they would have done everything to keep the conclusion that Sheila was guilty , so to cover their backs I am sure they could have arranged a cover up story with evidence to shut the family and press up.
The only way I think that is true is if they were really cocky , they thought they had it covered but they did not count on the family forcing the issue by going further up the chain , and the new officers that took over the case were not aware what had happened.
-
Talk about " them and us ",which is in evidence,I've just read about a senior CPS lawyer who'd stabbed his wife in the head with a kitchen knife and beat her with an ornament was given a 6 year sentence for her attempted murder.
He'd pre-written a suicide note pertaining to " the day of death ",26th May.
The excuse for his attempted murder ? Desperation after a bout of work-related depression !
This mad looking individual will probably only serve 3 years if that.
-
how did they all know he dident use his car or walk.
They didn't/don't. Personally, I think he did walk.
-
They didn't/don't. Personally, I think he did walk.
Both ways ?
-
Both ways ?
Yep.
-
Yep.
So what time after the " deed " would he have left WHF ? And in what direction/route ?
-
So what time after the " deed " would he have left WHF ? And in what direction/route ?
20 minutes and 32 seconds and he headed towards ... His house! ::) ;D ;D ;D
-
If he were planning to murder his family why leave at all? He could have easily made an excuse to stay that night. That would have eliminated the risk of being seen on the journey and the possibility of being heard while entering the house. If he thought going home would afford some kind of alibi, he would surely have made sure he had witnesses to that effect.
-
Wasn't it Rivlin who'd " kept in touch " with Jeremy not long after the trial ?
-
Supposing JB had stayed at the house to murder his family, how would he have explained being the only one alive without injury? He's reason for leaving was to give him an alibi regarding his supposed call from his father to his cottage. By ringing Chelmsford Police himself this was proof he was at home. But because of the two phone call logs written down by police JB's mistake was in saying his father had made one of the calls..... so he is saying his father also rang Chelmsford Police.....strange that! Why didn't his father dial 999 or did he also have time to look up Chelmsford Police phone number?
-
Supposing JB had stayed at the house to murder his family, how would he have explained being the only one alive without injury? He's reason for leaving was to give him an alibi regarding his supposed call from his father to his cottage. By ringing Chelmsford Police himself this was proof he was at home. But because of the two phone call logs written down by police JB's mistake was in saying his father had made one of the calls..... so he is saying his father also rang Chelmsford Police.....strange that! Why didn't his father dial 999 or did he also have time to look up Chelmsford Police phone number?
Jeremy saying his father called the police, comes decades later when he was looking over the police logs and found police calls at different times and descriptions.
There are only two possibilities.
A) Neville did call the police and identified himself as "Mr Bamber" thus the call logs can be misinterpreted and "Mr Bamber" can also be attributed to Jeremy Bamber.
B) The police messed up the call logs either on the night or later on by trying to revise them and in the confusion making it appear that two calls had been made.
I just embrace the uncertainty that its A or B.
The phone calls are allot like trying to explain the bullet casings discrepancies. They are so muddled up and all over the place you will never find a definitive answer to your satisfaction. :(
-
Wasn't it Rivlin who'd " kept in touch " with Jeremy not long after the trial ?
Yes lookout, I believe Rivlin did keep in touch with JB and was always willing to help out if asked.