Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Roch on January 18, 2017, 05:13:PM
-
We seem to have a young woman who was allowed to live free of charge in police accommodation for just over a year. But where did she get her daily living expenses from?
-
she could of been signinighn on i suppose.
-
We seem to have a young woman who was allowed to live free of charge in police accommodation for just over a year. But where did she get her daily living expenses from?
No idea how this thread will support Bambers claims of innocence?
But in answer to your question, she turned Queens evidence so more than likely the state.
-
she could of been signinighn on i suppose.
I was just wondering the same. Pretty measly existence though.
-
We seem to have a young woman who was allowed to live free of charge in police accommodation for just over a year. But where did she get her daily living expenses from?
She wasn't charged with anything so presumably she's still have been paid a salary. Even had she been suspended, I believe she'd still have been entitled to half pay.
-
No idea how this thread will support Bambers claims of innocence?
But in answer to your question, she turned Queens evidence so more than likely the state.
How does that work though? Which element of the state? Would there not have to be an audit trail somewhere?
-
I was just wondering the same. Pretty measly existence though.
Definitely compared to the high life bamber was afforded from sponging off others.
-
How does that work though? Which element of the state? Would there not have to be an audit trail somewhere?
Still not sure how an audit trail will clear Bamber?
-
It's her evidence given during the trial you need to focus on. Attempting to assassinate her character further won't clear his name.
-
Definitely compared to the high life bamber was afforded from sponging off others.
He worked full time - and his scheming, avaricious relatives soon put paid to any 'high-life'.
Still not sure how an audit trail will clear Bamber?
I haven't stated that it would. That doesn't mean is is not an interesting or valid query.
-
I was just wondering the same. Pretty measly existence though.
dole money was a bit more genrous then that it is now but still wouldent of been a pleasent exitence for a whle year.
but then the thought of 25k when it was all over might of been enough to keep her going.
-
He worked full time - and his scheming, avaricious relatives soon put paid to any 'high-life'.
I haven't stated that it would. That doesn't mean is is not an interesting or valid query.
You were referring to Julie in the year leading up to the trial. Where was bamber working full time at that time?
-
It's her evidence given during the trial you need to focus on. Attempting to assassinate her character further won't clear his nameatur.
I think you summed it up with your use of the term 'further'. Her character has already been damaged. However, she was arguably a victim in all this - not given an opportunity to hang around after trial but sent packing over the pond - out of the picture. It's a pity Stan told her that the phone call from Nevill to Jeremy never existed (when it fact - it could not be proven either way). He had no right to do that.
-
dole money was a bit more genrous then that it is now but still wouldent of been a pleasent exitence for a whle year.
but then the thought of 25k when it was all over might of been enough to keep her going.
You stole the thoughts right out of my mind nugsy.
-
You were referring to Julie in the year leading up to the trial. Where was bamber working full time at that time?
He wasn't - he was incarcerated in various prisons awaiting trial.
-
She wasn't charged with anything so presumably she's still have been paid a salary. Even had she been suspended, I believe she'd still have been entitled to half pay.
I hadn't thought of that.
-
I think you summed it up with your use of the term 'further'. Her character has already been damaged. However, she was arguably a victim in all this - not given an opportunity to hang around after trial but sent packing over the pond - out of the picture. It's a pity Stan told her that the phone call from Nevill to Jeremy never existed (when it fact - it could not be proven either way). He had no right to do that.
Never considered she could have figured that all out on her own then? All Stan's fault was it?
-
I hadn't thought of that.
You could verify with Steve UK. I feel certain he'd know more than I.
-
I think you summed it up with your use of the term 'further'. Her character has already been damaged. However, she was arguably a victim in all this - not given an opportunity to hang around after trial but sent packing over the pond - out of the picture. It's a pity Stan told her that the phone call from Nevill to Jeremy never existed (when it fact - it could not be proven either way). He had no right to do that.
I thought it was In Australia in 1990 she met Canadian Glen Smerchanski?
I didnt think she went straight to Canada? I thought she did d some travelling first? Then married in Essex in 1991?
-
I thought it was In Australia in 1990 she met Canadian Glen Smerchanski?
I didnt think she went straight to Canada? I thought she did d some travelling first? Then married in Essex in 1991?
You are right Justice.
-
I thought it was In Australia in 1990 she met Canadian Glen Smerchanski?
I didnt think she went straight to Canada? I thought she did d some travelling first? Then married in Essex in 1991?
St Barnabas, Gt Tey.
-
You could verify with Steve UK. I feel certain he'd know more than I.
Well I don't know very much. London is a big place and I never talked to her. I'm assuming she carried on teaching until the trial, after which the publicity made it hard for her to remain in her primary school position and she was redeployed to a different school within the ILEA(Inner London Education Authority). She continued to teach for a further two years, after which time she travelled the world as Reader mentioned, where she met her husband- to-be, Canadian Greg Smerchanski. She did not "scarper off to Canada" or other derogatory expressions I have read on this site, but decided as many young professionals do to take a break, have a year off, call it what you will. It's quite common these days to take a gap year after A Levels, let alone wait until you've left university and begun employment.
I have to say I don't know how Julie managed to hold down a career, have two children, juggle family and household responsibilities and still have time for the charity work she is reported to have engaged in in the locality. She must first and foremost have been a good teacher to make such a career progression, and I'm sure the hard work took her mind off the guilt feelings any normal person must have undergone after what she had experienced as a 21-year-old. It would be unchristian and churlish in the extreme not to have given her this new start, which she grasped with both hands, whilst never retracting her belief that Jeremy was responsible for the murders at White House Farm.
-
You are right Justice.
Thanks Caroline and Jane, i didn't think she just up and went to Canada.
-
Well I don't know very much. London is a big place and I never talked to her. I'm assuming she carried on teaching until the trial, after which the publicity made it hard for her to remain in her primary school position and she was redeployed to a different school within the ILEA(Inner London Education Authority). She continued to teach for a further two years, after which time she travelled the world as Reader mentioned, where she met her husband- to-be, Canadian Greg Smerchanski. She did not "scarper off to Canada" or other derogatory expressions I have read on this site, but decided as many young professionals do to take a break, have a year off, call it what you will. It's quite common these days to take a gap year after A Levels, let alone wait until you've left university and begun employment.
I have to say I don't know how Julie managed to hold down a career, have two children, juggle family and household responsibilities and still have time for the charity work she is reported to have engaged in in the locality. She must first and foremost have been a good teacher to make such a career progression, and I'm sure the hard work took her mind off the guilt feelings any normal person must have undergone after what she had experienced as a 21-year-old. It would be unchristian and churlish in the extreme not to have given her this new start, which she grasped with both hands, whilst never retracting her belief that Jeremy was responsible for the murders at White House Farm.
Excellant post Steve.
-
Never considered she could have figured that all out on her own then? All Stan's fault was it?
That's missing the point. It was apparently not provable either way - even a former spokes-person for the family stated that on this forum. But DS Stan Jones went round telling all the witnesses that it definitely didn't happen. What effect do you think that had?
-
I thought it was In Australia in 1990 she met Canadian Glen Smerchanski?
I didnt think she went straight to Canada? I thought she did d some travelling first? Then married in Essex in 1991?
Around the time of COLP? So did she up and off in '91 or later?
-
Well I don't know very much. London is a big place and I never talked to her. I'm assuming she carried on teaching until the trial, after which the publicity made it hard for her to remain in her primary school position and she was redeployed to a different school within the ILEA(Inner London Education Authority). She continued to teach for a further two years, after which time she travelled the world as Reader mentioned, where she met her husband- to-be, Canadian Greg Smerchanski. She did not "scarper off to Canada" or other derogatory expressions I have read on this site, but decided as many young professionals do to take a break, have a year off, call it what you will. It's quite common these days to take a gap year after A Levels, let alone wait until you've left university and begun employment.
I have to say I don't know how Julie managed to hold down a career, have two children, juggle family and household responsibilities and still have time for the charity work she is reported to have engaged in in the locality. She must first and foremost have been a good teacher to make such a career progression, and I'm sure the hard work took her mind off the guilt feelings any normal person must have undergone after what she had experienced as a 21-year-old. It would be unchristian and churlish in the extreme not to have given her this new start, which she grasped with both hands, whilst never retracting her belief that Jeremy was responsible for the murders at White House Farm.
Steve your post is well written. A cynic might say, that after being cleaned and coached as a witness; after providing second-hand testimony from Ann Eaton & others; after being holed up for a year in police accommodation; after taking a cheque for 25K (a huge amount in 1986); and after posing in a basque for a salacious gutter-press article (very respectful to the dead victims), she finally cleared-off in the same year as COLP?
She could hardly retract her testimony, without landing herself in extremely hot water? That's called self-preservation.
-
Around the time of COLP? So did she up and off in '91 or later?
I think it was a month after the wedding in Essex 1991 July they then had a blessing in Canada? So I would imagine it was then?
-
That's missing the point. It was apparently not provable either way - even a former spokes-person for the family stated that on this forum. But DS Stan Jones went round telling all the witnesses that it definitely didn't happen. What effect do you think that had?
Could somebody(Caroline) deal once and for all with the allegations that the Police merged Jeremy's call and Nevill's purported call into one and whether the claim that a car was dispatched to White House Farm before Jeremy made his call has any veracity? http://poppymeze.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/jeremy-bamber-police-dispatch-car.html
-
Could somebody(Caroline) deal once and for all with the allegations that the Police merged Jeremy's call and Nevill's purported call into one and whether the claim that a car was dispatched to White House Farm before Jeremy made his call has any veracity? http://poppymeze.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/jeremy-bamber-police-dispatch-car.html
Steve - that's not the point I was making. That's a separate issue. I'm referring to the alleged call from Nevill to Jeremy.
-
Steve your post is well written. A cynic might say, that after being cleaned and coached as a witness; after providing second-hand testimony from Ann Eaton & others; after being holed up for a year in police accommodation; after taking a cheque for 25K (a huge amount in 1986); and after posing in a basque for a salacious gutter-press article (very respectful to the dead victims), she finally cleared-off in the same year as COLP?
She could hardly retract her testimony, without landing herself in extremely hot water? That's called self-preservation.
I wonder who coached her to rise to the highest echelons of the Canadian education system? The information about the hitman and the glove coming off in the fight with Nevill did not come from the Press or relatives. Sometimes when you're under intense pressure you can smile nervously to reduce tension. I'm not excusing Julie completely for her role in all of this but had she not gone to Police the case would have gone ahead anyway and with the weighting Mr. Justice Drake gave to the silencer evidence the same result would probably have been reached.
-
I wonder who coached her to rise to the highest echelons of the Canadian education system? The information about the hitman and the glove coming off in the fight with Nevill did not come from the Press or relatives. Sometimes when you're under intense pressure you can smile nervously to reduce tension. I'm not excusing Julie completely for her role in all of this but had she not gone to Police the case would have gone ahead anyway and with the weighting Mr. Justice Drake gave to the silencer evidence the same result would probably have been reached.
Quite true Steve, the case would have changed direction even if Julie never came forward.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=728.0;attach=3153
-
Quite true Steve, the case would have changed direction even if Julie never came forward.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=728.0;attach=3153
With what we now know, that's a bit like saying, without questionable evidence procured from Mugford and altered to suit, Bamber would still have been prosecuted - because of a questionable exhibit having been produced by other interested parties in the Bamber estate, that the police actually thought were trying to frame Bamber. Not even all guilters believe the sound moderator evidence is genuine. All things considered, it's hardly reassuring or watertight.
-
With what we now know, that's a bit like saying, without questionable evidence procured from Mugford and altered to suit, Bamber would still have been prosecuted - because of a questionable exhibit having been produced by other interested parties in the Bamber estate, that the police actually thought were trying to frame Bamber. Not even all guilters believe the sound moderator evidence is genuine. All things considered, it's hardly reassuring or watertight.
Differentiate, please, between WHAT we know, what we THINK we know, and what we're being TOLD we know.
-
Differentiate, please, between WHAT we know, what we THINK we know, and what we're being TOLD we know.
One thing we do know is that JM lied under oath, either in her first statement or in subsequent statements and on the witness stand, which is a crime. We know she committed fraud. We know she was complicit in a burglary. We know she took drugs.
-
One thing we do know is that JM lied under oath, either in her first statement or in subsequent statements and on the witness stand, which is a crime. We know she committed fraud. We know she was complicit in a burglary. We know she took drugs.
So? It was never any secret. I believe the papers made much of it at the time. Are you suggesting that those without impeccable CV's should be excluded from the witness box? Actually we DON'T know that she "lied under oath". We are aware though, that some would like her to have and claim she did.
-
So? It was never any secret. I believe the papers made much of it at the time. Are you suggesting that those without impeccable CV's should be excluded from the witness box? Actually we DON'T know that she "lied under oath". We are aware though, that some would like her to have and claim she did.
We know Jeremy took, sold and grew his own drugs and organised a burglary - however, for some, this has no bearing on his innocence or guilt and yet Julie should have been prosecuted even though her involvement in such activities was due to her involvement with Bamber. You're right Jane, we don't know that she lied at all - the majority of the jury found her story more credible that Jeremy's.
I'd have thought if Julie was all the things being peddled here, she'd have kept a low profile, however, she is very much high profile and has gone on to be successful 'in spite' of her passed.
-
With what we now know, that's a bit like saying, without questionable evidence procured from Mugford and altered to suit, Bamber would still have been prosecuted - because of a questionable exhibit having been produced by other interested parties in the Bamber estate, that the police actually thought were trying to frame Bamber. Not even all guilters believe the sound moderator evidence is genuine. All things considered, it's hardly reassuring or watertight.
There is a difference, I said it would have changed direction, it had to if they found Sheila's blood in the moderator, the end result who knows?
-
One thing we do know is that JM lied under oath, either in her first statement or in subsequent statements and on the witness stand, which is a crime. We know she committed fraud. We know she was complicit in a burglary. We know she took drugs.
Is this what you are referring to lebaleb?
Ground 5 – evidence relevant to the credibility of Julie Mugford 331. Ground 5 raises issues relating to Julie Mugford. When she had given a statement to the police in September 1985, she had made admissions of dishonest conduct in which she had been involved. She referred to a burglary offence committed jointly with the appellant and to a cheque book fraud committed jointly with Susan Battersby. She was not prosecuted for either offence nor was Susan Battersby prosecuted for the cheque book fraud which she too had admitted to the police. The first limb of ground 5 is a complaint that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby were given immunity.
332. As Mr Temple points out, in answer to that aspect of the matter, Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby were not granted immunity as such but a decision was taken by the DPP not to prosecute. We therefore read this ground as being a complaint that the documentation relating to the decision not to prosecute each of the witnesses was not disclosed to the defence.
333. The jury knew about the admissions made to the police. They further knew that neither of the girls had been prosecuted for these offences. Julie Mugford told the jury that she had "got a caution for it". When the judge summed the case up to the jury, he referred to her receiving "a police caution". Mr Turner's submission is that the jury were misled by being told that she had received a "police caution", and that the prosecution were under a duty to correct this wrong impression.
334. It is undoubtedly correct that Julie Mugford had not received a formal police caution in the sense that that expression is clearly understood by police officers and lawyers. It may be that the trial judge in translating Miss Mugford's reference to a caution into a formal police caution had misunderstood the position. However it seems unlikely to us that the jury would have understood the significance of a formal police caution as opposed to any other warning as to her future behaviour.
-
The information about the hitman and the glove coming off in the fight with Nevill did not come from the Press or relatives.
Wrong.
Macdonald and the £2000 can be traced back to the police and Robert Boutflour weeks before Julie came forward. Read RWB'sS diary notes and Barlows notes from the Dickinson inquiry.
There was no fight in the kitchen with Neville for various reasons. Read Vanezis trail transcript and DI Cooks 1991 COLP interview.
-
With what we now know, that's a bit like saying, without questionable evidence procured from Mugford and altered to suit, Bamber would still have been prosecuted - because of a questionable exhibit having been produced by other interested parties in the Bamber estate, that the police actually thought were trying to frame Bamber. Not even all guilters believe the sound moderator evidence is genuine. All things considered, it's hardly reassuring or watertight.
Altered to suit who? I don't understand how you can say her statements were altered when she herself has never come forward to accuse the police of tampering with her evidence. You're right, I do have questions over the moderator but more questions that hang over Jeremy's story both before and after his conviction.
-
Altered to suit who? I don't understand how you can say her statements were altered when she herself has never come forward to accuse the police of tampering with her evidence. You're right, I do have questions over the moderator but more questions that hang over Jeremy's story both before and after his conviction.
His supporters ruminate on details that may never be known until such time that Bamber confesses. By ruminating on things like the sound moderator, in their minds they keep the argument alive.
-
Altered to suit who? I don't understand how you can say her statements were altered when she herself has never come forward to accuse the police of tampering with her evidence. You're right, I do have questions over the moderator but more questions that hang over Jeremy's story both before and after his conviction.
for a start it would depend if she knew her statement had if she dident read the final transcript she wouldent of done.
-
So? It was never any secret. I believe the papers made much of it at the time. Are you suggesting that those without impeccable CV's should be excluded from the witness box? Actually we DON'T know that she "lied under oath". We are aware though, that some would like her to have and claim she did.
In the first statement she says 'he didn't know what to do'. In the second that becomes 'everything is going well'. Present continuous tense. One of them has to be a lie.
-
We know Jeremy took, sold and grew his own drugs and organised a burglary - however, for some, this has no bearing on his innocence or guilt and yet Julie should have been prosecuted even though her involvement in such activities was due to her involvement with Bamber. You're right Jane, we don't know that she lied at all - the majority of the jury found her story more credible that Jeremy's.
I'd have thought if Julie was all the things being peddled here, she'd have kept a low profile, however, she is very much high profile and has gone on to be successful 'in spite' of her passed.
You mean 'past'.
-
You mean 'past'.
::) it's quite obvious it was auto correct Lelaleb ::) passed - past, who cares, Caroline got the point across.
-
Altered to suit who? I don't understand how you can say her statements were altered when she herself has never come forward to accuse the police of tampering with her evidence.
That's not what I meant. I meant her story was adapted through the various statements. If she is complicit with others for this developing story, she is hardly going to flail her arms in the air and cry foul. It sent a man to prison for life - while she was afforded a fresh start (which she built upon admirably as Steve has described).
-
::) it's quite obvious it was auto correct Lelaleb ::) passed - past, who cares, Caroline got the point across.
I love being pedantic. That's Lebaleb by the way.
-
I always get Lebaleb mixed up with Gringo.
-
You mean 'past'.
So you couldn't argue the point then? ::)
-
So you couldn't argue the point then? ::)
I believe I have given an instant where JM evidently lied under oath. Jeremy may have been a less than model citizen but he can't be proven to have lied. He readily admits to inconsistencies caused by confusion.
-
I believe I have given an instant where JM evidently lied under oath. Jeremy may have been a less than model citizen but he can't be proven to have lied. He readily admits to inconsistencies caused by confusion.
Oh! 'Confusion' I see ;D ;D ;D ;D