Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackiePreece on May 13, 2017, 02:09:PM
-
The twins were 6 years old when they died so they obviously had teachers, pre school teachers and numerous carers and foster parents looking after them in the six years
There is absolutely no reason why Mugford would want to identify the people murdered at WHF when she was sleeping with the 'murderer
-
The twins were 6 years old when they died so they obviously had teachers, pre school teachers and numerous carers and foster parents looking after them in the six years
There is absolutely no reason why Mugford would want to identify the people murdered at WHF when she was sleeping with the 'murderer
I can hear how desperate you are to rope someone else in to identify the twins. Facts are, for whatever reason, it fell to Julie, ergo, no one else offered. No one else wanted to.
-
As I've already mentioned,Heather also went to see the twins,at Colin's behest.
-
Already posted today:
She wanted to be helpful.
She was not as upset as everyone else. As was not related to any of the deceased.
She still didn't believe or was not sure Bamber was guilty.
She was asked to.
She was not doing anything useful or constructive, as had been whisked over by Bamber. So offered, or was asked.
Bamber seemed to be coping well, and could cope for a short period while Julie went to identify the bodies.
She went with another relative to give moral support.
If she didn't go with another relative, then she would have originally assumed she would be accompanied.
She believed Bamber was guilty, identifying the twins is no worse than being by his side as he acted.
She knew the twins and could identify them.
Bamber didn't offer to do this.
No one else offerred.
Her WS was true and she felt she could communicate with them.
She offered in error. But couldn't withdraw once the offer had been made.
She wanted a break from the crime scene and police. Which was a situation she had not asked to be a part of.
She believed seeing the twins would help her come to terms with what had happened.
She was in the room when discussions about who would do this started. So not surprising she ended up doing this.
If not in the room, Bamber or someone else recommended to the police Julie could do this.
The police felt Julie was the best person. She could identify the twins but had least emotional attachment.
She had little attachment to the twins. They were her boyfriends sisters, sons.
Bamber had brought her over in a police car. She assumed this was so she could be helpful. Identifying the bodies is being helpful.
No one tried to stop her identifying the twins.
A combination of several of the above.
-
Did Julie go with AE to identify the twins ?
They would both want to support each other
-
Heather had been more involved with the twins at that time,more than anyone else. They were with Colin and so was she.
-
I can hear how desperate you are to rope someone else in to identify the twins. Facts are, for whatever reason, it fell to Julie, ergo, no one else offered. No one else wanted to.
If you start to be rude again I will ask Maggie to remove your posts again.
It happens regularly even when I am not here
I am not desperate to rope anyone into anything
I am desperate to get to the truth
Identifying the twins did not fall to Julie and she wasn't even a relative
She volunteered
-
Between Heather and Julie,I wonder who went first ? Was it Heather because of Colin who couldn't face going ? Then not to be outdone,did Julie go after having visited both Colin and Heather ?
-
If you start to be rude again I will ask Maggie to remove your posts again.
It happens regularly even when I am not here
I am not desperate to rope anyone into anything
I am desperate to get to the truth
Identifying the twins did not fall to Julie and she wasn't even a relative
She volunteered
I'm not trying to be rude -I'm only ever 'rude' to those who are rude to me, first, and you haven't been- I'm reflecting what I'm hearing from you. None of it can be UNhappened. History can't be changed. WHOEVER there was who knew the twins better than Julie didn't present themselves. Are you suggesting that Julie fought for the right to identify them. Colin didn't want to. Understandable. AE claimed not to be able to tell them apart, which probably meant that no one else could, within the family. We have no idea who MAY have been asked and refused. You say Julie wasn't family. I concur. But she was connected. Going outside to teachers/social workers/ doctors? would have meant even less connection to the family. AND they couldn't be compelled.
-
I'm not trying to be rude -I'm only ever 'rude' to those who are rude to me, first, and you haven't been- I'm reflecting what I'm hearing from you. None of it can be UNhappened. History can't be changed. WHOEVER there was who knew the twins better than Julie didn't present themselves. Are you suggesting that Julie fought for the right to identify them. Colin didn't want to. Understandable. AE claimed not to be able to tell them apart, which probably meant that no one else could, within the family. We have no idea who MAY have been asked and refused. You say Julie wasn't family. I concur. But she was connected. Going outside to teachers/social workers/ doctors? would have meant even less connection to the family. AND they couldn't be compelled.
Absolutely Jane it's not just about "how many people knew the twins" but whether they could tell them apart. This thread is yet another smokescreen to deflect from the truth, leading us down a blind alley and a tasteless one at that.
-
Absolutely Jane it's not just about "how many people knew the twins" but whether they could tell them apart. This thread is yet another smokescreen to deflect from the truth, leading us down a blind alley and a tasteless one at that.
I don't think it's tasteless! AE would t do it as she didn't know them at all! Julie should never have been the ones to identify those little boys. She wasn't family and it should have been colin. Jane is right though this cannot be undone but it is worthy of debate imo.
-
Absolutely Jane it's not just about "how many people knew the twins" but whether they could tell them apart. This thread is yet another smokescreen to deflect from the truth, leading us down a blind alley and a tasteless one at that.
I see those little lives as being very limited by their diversification, Steve. Sure, they had their London life, but it was a part time life. Some of it with Sheila. Some of it with Colin. I suspect that neither allowed them much time to put down roots. Then there were the forays to WHF where life would have been even more limited. A rather jolly, but busy, Grandpa. A very reserved, and busy, Grandma. An occasional Uncle Jeremy. An even more occasional Great Aunt Pam. No playmates of their own age. What starts off as looking diverse suddenly starts to look limited. As would have been those who knew them and were close to them.
-
I don't think it's tasteless! AE would t do it as she didn't know them at all! Julie should never have been the ones to identify those little boys. She wasn't family and it should have been colin. Jane is right though this cannot be undone but it is worthy of debate imo.
I'm rapidly tiring of this sad carousel, Notsure. The past can NOT be changed! It's irrelevant who SHOULD/SHOULDN'T have identified the twins. The relevant point is, THEY DIDN'T, and it fell to Julie. I've held no candle to her in the past, but for God's sake, the girl was 20!! Do you imagine she fought tooth and claw to be first in line to identify them, because unless I'm VERY much mistaken, THAT'S what appears to be suggested by several. Sorry. Rant over. As you were :-[ :-[
-
I see those little lives as being very limited by their diversification, Steve. Sure, they had their London life, but it was a part time life. Some of it with Sheila. Some of it with Colin. I suspect that neither allowed them much time to put down roots. Then there were the forays to WHF where life would have been even more limited. A rather jolly, but busy, Grandpa. A very reserved, and busy, Grandma. An occasional Uncle Jeremy. An even more occasional Great Aunt Pam. No playmates of their own age. What starts off as looking diverse suddenly starts to look limited. As would have been those who knew them and were close to them.
There were a few kids from Herbie's set they used to play with, and considering what they'd been through with their mother's illness and then the fostering they had emerged remarkably unscathed. It was Jeremy who was their main threat, but this went unnoticed faced with the severity of Sheila's illness. Colin gave them the rich social and educational experiences they had so sadly lacked and it's little wonder faced with the choices of relatives you mention they gravitated towards their father.
-
I'm rapidly tiring of this sad carousel, Notsure. The past can NOT be changed! It's irrelevant who SHOULD/SHOULDN'T have identified the twins. The relevant point is, THEY DIDN'T, and it fell to Julie. I've held no candle to her in the past, but for God's sake, the girl was 20!! Do you imagine she fought tooth and claw to be first in line to identify them, because unless I'm VERY much mistaken, THAT'S what appears to be suggested by several. Sorry. Rant over. As you were :-[ :-[
She didn't fight tooth and claw though did she! A fag was the only requirement. She said she was hoping to use telepathic powers to find out what had happened, yet she supposedly knew since 1984.
-
I don't think it's tasteless! AE would t do it as she didn't know them at all! Julie should never have been the ones to identify those little boys. She wasn't family and it should have been colin. Jane is right though this cannot be undone but it is worthy of debate imo.
Sometimes you're in shock and denial and it's no reflection of the feelings you have for any particular individual. There's nothing wrong with wanting to remember a person as they were, particularly if their bodies had been ridden with bullets, as was the case here. Allow Colin the discretion to decide.
-
She didn't fight tooth and claw though did she! A fag was the only requirement. She said she was hoping to use telepathic powers to find out what had happened, yet she supposedly knew since 1984.
OK. You're suggesting that she offered to do it if someone gave her a fag? It was a somewhat esoteric way of hopefully changing a suspicion into a confirmation.
-
One thing guaranteed is that when Heather went,Colin would have been told the truth in return.
-
One thing guaranteed is that when Heather went,Colin would have been told the truth in return.
Lookout, the reason he didn't want to go is because he didn't want to KNOW the truth, OR see it laid out in front of him.
-
I'm rapidly tiring of this sad carousel, Notsure. The past can NOT be changed! It's irrelevant who SHOULD/SHOULDN'T have identified the twins. The relevant point is, THEY DIDN'T, and it fell to Julie. I've held no candle to her in the past, but for God's sake, the girl was 20!! Do you imagine she fought tooth and claw to be first in line to identify them, because unless I'm VERY much mistaken, THAT'S what appears to be suggested by several. Sorry. Rant over. As you were :-[ :-[
NOTHING Fell to Julie
She wanted to identify the bodies. It's a fact there were numerous people who could identify the body
In her words she was with the murderer when she chose to identifyi the bodies
Why do you keep going on about she was twenty
Old enough to smoke drink get married and have babies
-
20 is not young
-
NOTHING Fell to Julie
She wanted to identify the bodies. It's a fact there were numerous people who could identify the body
In her words she was with the murderer when she chose to identifyi the bodies
Why do you keep going on about she was twenty
Old enough to smoke drink get married and have babies
She could have been the scheming single mother left to rot on a Chelmsford housing estate and had she been so we would never have heard the last of it. Whatever mistakes Julie made she was a grafter, she volunteered because it was in her nature, as her extensive charity work in Canada has proved since.
-
Lookout, the reason he didn't want to go is because he didn't want to KNOW the truth, OR see it laid out in front of him.
How ridiculous. There are plenty of people who prefer not to go to those places however much they love and miss their families. It's got NOTHING whatsoever to do with truth or anything else.It's not everyones cup of tea visiting a mortuary and certainly not a given thing to do either.
-
NOTHING Fell to Julie
She wanted to identify the bodies. It's a fact there were numerous people who could identify the body
In her words she was with the murderer when she chose to identifyi the bodies
Why do you keep going on about she was twenty
Old enough to smoke drink get married and have babies
Jackie, having made SUCH an expansive and sweeping statement, perhaps you could furnish us with the names of the many Julie allegedly walked over in order to take on this onerous task. I think it's something we require evidence of. As for her being old enough to have babies, for most people it involves something more like pleasure than hard work to conceive them. Smoking and drinking are also considered pleasurable. Most 20 year olds have yet to experience full adult life and can't be expected to think like mature adults, other than on an intellectual level, repeating what they've learned in FE.
-
How ridiculous. There are plenty of people who prefer not to go to those places however much they love and miss their families. It's got NOTHING whatsoever to do with truth or anything else.It's not everyones cup of tea visiting a mortuary and certainly not a given thing to do either.
Hang on. Did he not say in his book that he wanted to remember them how they were? I don't see that Julie should be slagged off for doing something their father couldn't.
-
Hang on. Did he not say in his book that he wanted to remember them how they were? I don't see that Julie should be slagged off for doing something their father couldn't.
Yes,he did say that.That's why he sent Heather !
-
Something else Colin had said was that Sheila would rather kill than be parted from her children.
-
Yes,he did say that.That's why he sent Heather !
But you weren't ready to let on to that, were you? I guess you preferred to let others believe I was wrong. So now you must concur that he couldn't face the truth. I'm not Colin bashing, Lookout. I'm saying it how it was.
-
She could have been the scheming single mother left to rot on a Chelmsford housing estate and had she been so we would never have heard the last of it. Whatever mistakes Julie made she was a grafter, she volunteered because it was in her nature, as her extensive charity work in Canada has proved since.
Steve how do you come to the conclusion that Julie was a grafter? What has a single mother on a Chelmsford housing estate have any bearing on Julie? I am sure that a lot of decent single mothers have found themselves in a hole not by their making. Charity work is of no consequence.
-
But you weren't ready to let on to that, were you? I guess you preferred to let others believe I was wrong. So now you must concur that he couldn't face the truth. I'm not Colin bashing, Lookout. I'm saying it how it was.
What do you mean I wasn't ready to say that ? I must have mentioned about Heather going half a dozen times,but nobody said anything until you've just decided to chip in in your roundabout way of accusing me of something that NONE of us would have really known which was---- why didn't Colin go. We don't know the full reason so how can you anticipate that I knew,when I didn't ?
-
Steve how do you come to the conclusion that Julie was a grafter? What has a single mother on a Chelmsford housing estate have any bearing on Julie? I am sure that a lot of decent single mothers have found themselves in a hole not by their making. Charity work is of no consequence.
Oh for goodness sake. A university degree, teaching practice, preparation and notes, jobs at Sloppy Joe's and Maldon Growers, decorating Bourtree Cottage. Had Julie wanted to be a single mother courtesy of Jeremy or the owner of a wine bar in a fashionable area of London I'm sure with all the scheming she's been accused of she could have arranged it.
-
As I've already mentioned,Heather also went to see the twins,at Colin's behest.
No, she didn't because she couldn't tell them apart and Julie could - which is why she offered.
-
No, she didn't because she couldn't tell them apart and Julie could - which is why she offered.
It was AE who couldn't tell the twins apart------or so she said.
In Colin's book he says that Heather went to see the twins.
-
What do you mean I wasn't ready to say that ? I must have mentioned about Heather going half a dozen times,but nobody said anything until you've just decided to chip in in your roundabout way of accusing me of something that NONE of us would have really known which was---- why didn't Colin go. We don't know the full reason so how can you anticipate that I knew,when I didn't ?
Hi lookout I thought Julie said she had some kind of powers and by studying Sheila in the mortuary would help her understand why Sheila had killed her family this could of course be a myth I just remember reading this.
-
Hi lookout I thought Julie said she had some kind of powers and by studying Sheila in the mortuary would help her understand why Sheila had killed her family this could of course be a myth I just remember reading this.
I'd read that too Susan and JM had allegedly asked Sheila what had happened. Well I would have thought that she already knew that months before it did with what JB told her,allegedly ?
-
What do you mean I wasn't ready to say that ? I must have mentioned about Heather going half a dozen times,but nobody said anything until you've just decided to chip in in your roundabout way of accusing me of something that NONE of us would have really known which was---- why didn't Colin go. We don't know the full reason so how can you anticipate that I knew,when I didn't ?
No Lookout, you INSISTED strongly that Colin's reluctance to identify the twins had NOTHING to do with my belief that he couldn't face the truth -and I believe I DO know- and is actually corroborated by his own words in the book you've read and can quote from but seem NOT to have read those words. This has NOTHING to do with Heather. It's simply about Colin not being willing to see the destruction inflicted on his children. I understand that.
-
It was AE who couldn't tell the twins apart------or so she said.
In Colin's book he says that Heather went to see the twins.
I think that was at the funeral when the boys were in the coffin. I can't find any specific reference to Heather accompanying Ann Eaton and Julie to the morgue.
-
No Lookout, you INSISTED strongly that Colin's reluctance to identify the twins had NOTHING to do with my belief that he couldn't face the truth -and I believe I DO know- and is actually corroborated by his own words. This has NOTHING to do with Heather. It's simply about Colin not being willing to see the destruction inflicted on his children. I understand that.
Your visible anger is because you thought that only JM had attended,so why get in a sweat because Heather went too--------at the request of Colin who'd wished to remember the twins as they were and NOT about any damage inflicted upon them,they're your words added for effect as usual.Sheesh !
-
Your visible anger is because you thought that only JM had attended,so why get in a sweat because Heather went too--------at the request of Colin who'd wished to remember the twins as they were and NOT about any damage inflicted upon them,they're your words added for effect as usual.Sheesh !
Please don't embarrass yourself by trying to play psychologist, Lookout. It's true I didn't know that Heather went, but this isn't about Heather. It's about Julie's reasons for going. It seems to me, that whichever woman went first, there'd have been NO justifiable reason for the other to have gone. It's also interesting that the reason you're now giving for Heather's attendance is the VERY reason you shouted me down, ie, when I said Colin couldn't face -didn't want to know- the truth. I have no idea why you accept Colin wanting to remember the twins as they were, yet at the same time insisting that it had nothing to do with the injuries they'd sustained.
-
No, she didn't because she couldn't tell them apart and Julie could - which is why she offered.
There would have been numerous people could have identified the twins
It is repulsive to think she offered to view the bodies
Any other normal person would have been full of guilt if they had known they could have potentially saved lives
And then at the 'young' age of 20 she hit the jackpot
Job done
-
No Lookout, you INSISTED strongly that Colin's reluctance to identify the twins had NOTHING to do with my belief that he couldn't face the truth -and I believe I DO know- and is actually corroborated by his own words in the book you've read and can quote from but seem NOT to have read those words. This has NOTHING to do with Heather. It's simply about Colin not being willing to see the destruction inflicted on his children. I understand that.
I am not in the slightest bit interested in the reasons Colin did not view the bodies because at that time he would probably have felt guilty about the past with Sheila
It's irrelevant
It is inconceivable that Mugford would offer while still planning jollies with Jeremy
The women lied and lied and then lied again
-
Please don't embarrass yourself by trying to play psychologist, Lookout. It's true I didn't know that Heather went, but this isn't about Heather. It's about Julie's reasons for going. It seems to me, that whichever woman went first, there'd have been NO justifiable reason for the other to have gone. It's also interesting that the reason you're now giving for Heather's attendance is the VERY reason you shouted me down, ie, when I said Colin couldn't face -didn't want to know- the truth. I have no idea why you accept Colin wanting to remember the twins as they were, yet at the same time insisting that it had nothing to do with the injuries they'd sustained.
And your the one accusing people of not knowing enough about the case
I think you owe lookout an apology
-
There would have been numerous people could have identified the twins
It is repulsive to think she offered to view the bodies
Any other normal person would have been full of guilt if they had known they could have potentially saved lives
And then at the 'young' age of 20 she hit the jackpot
Job done
Then where were all these willing people, Jackie? I don't understand what this is about. SOMEONE had to do it. If Heather did it first, surely it was job done. Julie wasn't needed. If Julie did it first, why was it necessary for Heather to go. Supposing they'd disagreed?
-
And your the one accusing people of not knowing enough about the case
I think you owe lookout an apology
I'm sure you do, Jackie. However, an apology from Lookout, to me, is long overdue.
-
It was AE who couldn't tell the twins apart------or so she said.
In Colin's book he says that Heather went to see the twins.
No Lookout, although she offered, Heather didn't go, Jones didn't want her to go and dismissed her request. P38.
-
No Lookout, although she offered, Heather didn't go, Jones didn't want her to go and dismissed her request. P38.
Ooops ;D
-
Yes,he did say that.That's why he sent Heather !
H didn't send Heather. How many people do you think is needed to identify a body? If Heather had gone, there would have been no need for Julie to attend.
-
Then where were all these willing people, Jackie? I don't understand what this is about. SOMEONE had to do it. If Heather did it first, surely it was job done. Julie wasn't needed. If Julie did it first, why was it necessary for Heather to go. Supposing they'd disagreed?
'Someone had to do it' for christs sake are you joking
I wonder what the pillow talk was that night
What's sickening is why she offered, it doesn't bare thinking about
-
'Someone had to do it' for christs sake are you joking
I wonder what the pillow talk was that night
What's sickening is why she offered, it doesn't bare thinking about
Jackie, all you have to do is tell me who's toes Julie trod on in order to persuade the powers that be that she was the best person for the job, because from how I'm seeing it, she was the ONLY person for the job.
-
'Someone had to do it' for christs sake are you joking
I wonder what the pillow talk was that night
What's sickening is why she offered, it doesn't bare thinking about
But it's only sickening if he's guilty and you don't believe he is.
-
" For some reason,Jones ignored her request and said something really patronising like," No,no,no,we can't have that. Why don't you stick to writing in your notebook and looking after this feller,eh ?"
Heather had really wanted to see the boys.
Okay,so what was the real reason behind SJ's deceiving ways ? He was putting so much pressure on CC that he felt intimidated. Then in the next breath SJ was saying that CC should identify the bodies.
What a horror that man was !!
-
'Someone had to do it' for christs sake are you joking
I wonder what the pillow talk was that night
What's sickening is why she offered, it doesn't bare thinking about
Possibly to alleviate Colin's ordeal.
-
" For some reason,Jones ignored her request and said something really patronising like," No,no,no,we can't have that. Why don't you stick to writing in your notebook and looking after this feller,eh ?"
Heather had really wanted to see the boys.
Okay,so what was the real reason behind SJ's deceiving ways ? He was putting so much pressure on CC that he felt intimidated. Then in the next breath SJ was saying that CC should identify the bodies.
What a horror that man was !!
Then perhaps Heather should have put in a formal offer/request. Which is all by the by because this thread seems to have turned into a Julie bashing free for all because no one offered to identify the boys.
-
Possibly to alleviate Colin's ordeal.
As I said. It HAD to be done.
-
Then perhaps Heather should have put in a formal offer/request. Which is all by the by because this thread seems to have turned into a Julie bashing free for all because no one offered to identify the boys.
Makes a change from Jeremy bashing don't you think ?
-
" For some reason,Jones ignored her request and said something really patronising like," No,no,no,we can't have that. Why don't you stick to writing in your notebook and looking after this feller,eh ?"
Heather had really wanted to see the boys.
Okay,so what was the real reason behind SJ's deceiving ways ? He was putting so much pressure on CC that he felt intimidated. Then in the next breath SJ was saying that CC should identify the bodies.
What a horror that man was !!
Who knows but Heather didn't go.
-
But it's only sickening if he's guilty and you don't believe he is.
That's quite funny. ;D
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3171.0
Page 21.
AE said she went with Julie to identify the bodies.
Julie could identify the twins apart. AE couldn't.
Robert Howie was supposed to go. But his mother had already spoken to the press. The police wanted someone else.
That answers that.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3171.0
Page 21.
AE said she went with Julie to identify the bodies.
Julie could identify the twins apart. AE couldn't.
Robert Howie was supposed to go. But his mother had already spoken to the press. The police wanted someone else.
That answers that.
Yes, they needed someone to be able to tell the twins apart and Julie could - this is why she agreed to go.
-
Yes, they needed someone to be able to tell the twins apart and Julie could - this is why she agreed to go.
Heather couldn't tell them apart,could she ?? Could she ?
-
Yes, they needed someone to be able to tell the twins apart and Julie could - this is why she agreed to go.
I'm struggling to really understand why it matters? ???
What difference does it make whether Julie did the ID or not.
-
I'm rapidly tiring of this sad carousel, Notsure. The past can NOT be changed! It's irrelevant who SHOULD/SHOULDN'T have identified the twins. The relevant point is, THEY DIDN'T, and it fell to Julie. I've held no candle to her in the past, but for God's sake, the girl was 20!! Do you imagine she fought tooth and claw to be first in line to identify them, because unless I'm VERY much mistaken, THAT'S what appears to be suggested by several. Sorry. Rant over. As you were :-[ :-[
Ok I get it lol
😂
-
I'm struggling to really understand why it matters? ???
What difference does it make whether Julie did the ID or not.
I've always thought that. But supporters make a big thing of it. The latest being Jackie today.
If the police & AE wanted & needed Julie to go, was she going to say 'no' ?
-
I'm struggling to really understand why it matters? ???
What difference does it make whether Julie did the ID or not.
I absolutely doesn't H. I keep labouring the point, I know, but it remains that no one else offered.
-
Julie never asked to be at WHF in the first place.
Bamber testifying he was wrong to bring her over on the massacre morning.
-
No Lookout, you INSISTED strongly that Colin's reluctance to identify the twins had NOTHING to do with my belief that he couldn't face the truth -and I believe I DO know- and is actually corroborated by his own words in the book you've read and can quote from but seem NOT to have read those words. This has NOTHING to do with Heather. It's simply about Colin not being willing to see the destruction inflicted on his children. I understand that.
I don't get me wrong Jane I completely understand why he didn't identify them but I wonder if he regrets it and also it's the boys , I would need to tuck them in, I wouldn't want anyone else going near them. It was obviously too much for him to bare but for me no one would have got in there except me.
It's actually the boys I'm thinking of not Colin. Poor little darlings, breaks my heart to think of them.
-
I don't get me wrong Jane I completely understand why he didn't identify them but I wonder if he regrets it and also it's the boys , I would need to tuck them in, I wouldn't want anyone else going near them. It was obviously too much for him to bare but for me no one would have got in there except me.
It's actually the boys I'm thinking of not Colin. Poor little darlings, breaks my heart to think of them.
Oh. Certainly, Notsure, and there's no way I'm pointing a finger at him. He made a decision which was best for him............at the time. That's what he has to hold onto whatever other decision he may have arrived at down the years. I think Colin was a very sensitive father but I believe women tend to see things differently.
-
I'm struggling to really understand why it matters? ???
What difference does it make whether Julie did the ID or not.
It doesn't but if people are trying to demonise her by saying she was sick to ID the twins when she knew Jeremy had just murdered them, they have to acknowledge his guilt.
-
It doesn't but if people are trying to demonise her by saying she was sick to ID the twins when she knew Jeremy had just murdered them, they have to acknowledge his guilt.
We don't have to acknowledge his guilt at all. All we've been saying is that it was rather a strange thing to do in light of " her knowing that he'd murdered them all ".Anyone else would have been miles away at the thought.
-
We don't have to acknowledge his guilt at all. All we've been saying is that it was rather a strange thing to do in light of " her knowing that he'd murdered them all ".Anyone else would have been miles away at the thought.
Why is it if she was the only option? No one else who could tell them apart offered to go.
-
Why is it if she was the only option? No one else who could tell them apart offered to go.
In fact that's the nub of this thread summarized in one sentence.
-
Why is it if she was the only option? No one else who could tell them apart offered to go.
The one who could tell them apart wasn't allowed,was she ? For reasons unknown.
I fail to understand that excuse anyway-------what would it have mattered if they couldn't have been recognised apart ? They were children,just the two of them.
-
We don't have to acknowledge his guilt at all. All we've been saying is that it was rather a strange thing to do in light of " her knowing that he'd murdered them all ".Anyone else would have been miles away at the thought.
Hi lookout it seems to me when Julie identified the twins she did not know her boyfriend had killed them I don't believe for one moment she would have gone along with him knowing he was responsible for the murders she was an intelligent woman studying for a degree to teach children she would not have taken a month to go to the police.
-
The one who could tell them apart wasn't allowed,was she ? For reasons unknown.
I fail to understand that excuse anyway-------what would it have mattered if they couldn't have been recognised apart ? They were children,just the two of them.
I can perfectly well see that it wouldn't matter to you. You weren't family. After the ignominious way in which they died, the least they could have bestowed on them was the dignity of their own names.
-
The one who could tell them apart wasn't allowed,was she ? For reasons unknown.
I fail to understand that excuse anyway-------what would it have mattered if they couldn't have been recognised apart ? They were children,just the two of them.
Julie could tell them apart, I've already told you that. Of course it matters, it matters for the records, for the autopsy. You can't just treat them as 'the twins'. Each twin had to be identified to distinguish their injuries etc. I'd have thought that was obvious to someone from the medical profession?
-
Jackie, all you have to do is tell me who's toes Julie trod on in order to persuade the powers that be that she was the best person for the job, because from how I'm seeing it, she was the ONLY person for the job.
It's staring you in the face. If Jeremy is guilty she would not have gone near that mortuary
As we are told continually Julie was a highly intelligent women. She would not have done anything connecting her to the murders
-
It's staring you in the face. If Jeremy is guilty she would not have gone near that mortuary
As we are told continually Julie was a highly intelligent women. She would not have done anything connecting her to the murders
Identifying the bodies doesn't connect her to the murders.
-
I'm struggling to really understand why it matters? ???
What difference does it make whether Julie did the ID or not.
Obviously because if Jeremy was guilty she would not have offered to ID the bodies
-
Julie could tell them apart, I've already told you that. Of course it matters, it matters for the records, for the autopsy. You can't just treat them as 'the twins'. Each twin had to be identified to distinguish their injuries etc. I'd have thought that was obvious to someone from the medical profession?
I wasn't speaking from a medical point of view--that's your suggestion,which is left to pathologists/coroners. I was already aware of their profession without being reminded,thankyou !
Aside from that it doesn't matter whether you can tell them apart or not when you're a family member.
-
Oh. Certainly, Notsure, and there's no way I'm pointing a finger at him. He made a decision which was best for him............at the time. That's what he has to hold onto whatever other decision he may have arrived at down the years. I think Colin was a very sensitive father but I believe women tend to see things differently.
I bet Colin was sick to his stomach when he realised the women that offered to identify the bodies was planning her jollies with the murderer
I bet it mattered to Colin who viewed the bodies then
-
ALL bodies are labelled anyway,so where's the problem ?
-
It doesn't but if people are trying to demonise her by saying she was sick to ID the twins when she knew Jeremy had just murdered them, they have to acknowledge his guilt.
That's it I am 100% sure Jeremy is not guilty
She made the whole thing up out of greed and jealousy
-
Hi lookout it seems to me when Julie identified the twins she did not know her boyfriend had killed them I don't believe for one moment she would have gone along with him knowing he was responsible for the murders she was an intelligent woman studying for a degree to teach children she would not have taken a month to go to the police.
Spot on again Susan
-
Identifying the bodies doesn't connect her to the murders.
How do you know?
You have no idea what happened in her police interviews and what the police threatened her with
-
I wasn't speaking from a medical point of view--that's your suggestion,which is left to pathologists/coroners. I was already aware of their profession without being reminded,thankyou !
Aside from that it doesn't matter whether you can tell them apart or not when you're a family member.
Eh? The police NEEDED a formal ID for reasons already stated. You clearly do need remining or you wouldn't have asked the question.
-
I bet Colin was sick to his stomach when he realised the women that offered to identify the bodies was planning her jollies with the murderer
I bet it mattered to Colin who viewed the bodies then
Colin states in his book that he is 'Eternally grateful to Julie Mugford for making the formal ID"
-
That's it I am 100% sure Jeremy is not guilty
She made the whole thing up out of greed and jealousy
What just now? I thought you always were?
-
Eh? The police NEEDED a formal ID for reasons already stated. You clearly do need remining or you wouldn't have asked the question.
Reminding of what exactly ?
-
How do you know?
You have no idea what happened in her police interviews and what the police threatened her with
If Heather had identified the bodies would it connect her to the murders? Simply agreeing to do a formal ID doesn't connect you to a murder.
On your second point - neither do you!
-
Reminding of what exactly ?
Why bodies NEED to be formally identified.
-
There are many things you can pull Julie up on but this is surely not one of them. Had this thread not insinuated ridiculous things it would have maintained a degree of vérité.
-
There are many things you can pull Julie up on but this is surely not one of them. Had this thread not insinuated ridiculous things it would have maintained a degree of vérité.
I agree Steve.
-
Hi lookout it seems to me when Julie identified the twins she did not know her boyfriend had killed them I don't believe for one moment she would have gone along with him knowing he was responsible for the murders she was an intelligent woman studying for a degree to teach children she would not have taken a month to go to the police.
Again you speculate on what a young woman you have never met would do. In a situation you have never been in. Why ? Because it suits you're conspiracy theory.
The forensic evidence shows Sheila was not the killer. You're Sheila scenario where she locks herself in the bathroom has been dismissed. The amended version you said you were going to submit, has not been submitted.
Saying in you're opinion Julie would/would not do something does not negate the evidence.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3171.0
Page 21.
AE said she went with Julie to identify the bodies.
Julie could identify the twins apart. AE couldn't.
Robert Howie was supposed to go. But his mother had already spoken to the press. The police wanted someone else.
That answers that.
I have to quote my own post, as I've often had to refer people to replies from only a few minutes earlier.
As other posters have said, there is no big deal in Julie identifying the bodies. The police & AE asked her to as she could tell them apart.
Supporters claiming Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins is clutching at straws again.
-
ALL bodies are labelled anyway,so where's the problem ?
NOT until they have been identified!
-
The forensic evidence shows Sheila was not the killer.
No it doesn't.
You're Sheila scenario where she locks herself in the bathroom has been dismissed.
No it hasn't. The bathroom light was on for a reason.
Saying in you're opinion Julie would/would not do something does not negate the evidence.
Indeed. Saying Julie would/would not do something does not negate the overwhelming evidence that her testimony is a pack of lies. Just to remind you here it is.
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!
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record). I have shown you the trial transcripts and the very statements mentioned in those trial transcripts.
The fundamental point Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
One only has to read Julie Mugfords statements and the cross examination of Ann Eaton to workout were Julie really got those false details from in order for her to make the bogus claim that Jeremy confessed to the killings. The devil is in the details, its just a matter of putting the puzzle together.
From Julie Mugford’s statement, page 23
"I have been asked if I have read or been told about a bible found on Sheila's
chest when she was found dead. I can definitely say I haven't but it was
told to me by Jeremy. I will add that some time after the 7th August 1985,
Ann EATON asked me if I knew about a bible which was near Sheila and I told
her that I did and that it was found on her chest. I think I told her it
was creepy. I think she asked me about the bible on the Friday of the week of the murders.”
This makes no sense. If Ann Eaton had asked Julie question of the bible some time after the 7th August then Julie answers to Ann that the bible was on Sheila's chest, Then she would have asked Julie how she got that information and Julie would have had to tell her that Jeremy told her the story about Matthew MacDonald. ?
In the trial transcript below. While cross examined by Rivlin QC, at first AE said that she thought she had first heard about the bible on Sheila's chest from Julie Mugford, but Rivlin QC was setting a trap to force AE to admit she actually got that information from the police by showing her her own statement which she sais she got the information from the police at the house. Another interesting observation, is that AE seems to remember the police telling her all the details mentioned in the statement but when it comes to bible she just happens to forget. Selective memory loss at times most convenient when it comes to the big issues seems to occur often in AE. ::)
Ann Eaton trial testimony: cross examined 7th October 1986
RIVLIN. I would like to ask you another thing about Julie Mugford, and it is this
something I was going to ask you before the luncheon adjournment- there
came a stage shortly after the events when a police officer told you something
in confidence, did he not, about what had happened and what had been found?
Do you remember? He told you, amongst other things, that when 'Sheila had
been found there was a bible on her chest?
AE. I did hear there was a bible on her chest.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): Did you hear it from the policeman is the
question?
AE. I cannot remember, but I heard it whilst in Jeremy's cottage.
MR. RIVLIN: Let remind you. Is it not right that one of the police officers
told you that Uncle Nevill was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle, that the
twins were in their beds, shot?
AE. Yes.
Rivlin. That Aunt June Bamber and Sheila were both on the bed, shot, with Sheila having
a bible on her chest, with the gun beside her?
AE. Yes.
Rivlin. And is it right that shortly after that information had been imparted to you,
you had a conversation with Julie Mugford, and you told Julie that when Sheila.
had been found there had been a bible found on her chest?
AE. I really cannot remember who told me the bible was on the chest.
MR JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): That is not the question now, but it is right
you should tell us. You do not remember who told you that Sheila was found
with the bible on her chest, but the question now is, whoever it was who told
you that, did you pass that on to Julie?
AE. I do not remember. I did have a conversation with Julie about the same time.
She said to me Sheila kept saying, I thought she said she was a "white wedge", or perhaps it was a “white
witch", but I do not remember who told me that the bible was on the chest.
MR. JUSTICE Drake: I do not think we have the full answer yet, Mr. Rivlin.
MR. RIVLIN: Would you accept that it was, in fact, one of the officers who told
you that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest and the gun beside her?
AE. I cannot remember who told me the bible was on her chest, so I am saying
it could have been Julie. I cannot remember who told me.
RIVLIN. In those circumstances I think that I must show the document to the witness.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE: What the witness just said is “it could have been Julie who
told me that" - that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest. (To the
witness): Wherereas the question you are being asked is put the other way around
That someone told you and you told Julie that she had been found with a bible
on her chest. That is the question. If you cannot answer, you cannot?
AE. I cannot remember. I just remember Julie saying something about Sheila
said she was a “white wedge", which I thought she said, but it turned out she
thought she was a "white witch", but I cannot remember who told me about the
bible.
MR. RIVLIN: Could you remember at the time who told you about the bible?
AE. I cannot remember.
RIVLIN. You made statements to the police officers, did you not, in this case, and I
would like you to look, please, at a statement which is dated 8th September
1985. (Same handed). Your signature appears on this document. Is it a
typewritten document? Does it bear your signature?
AE. No.
MR RIVLIN: I am told that the original is outside.
MR. ARLIDGE: I will have it checked with the original.
MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows:
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near
the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila
Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her
chest with the gun beside her"?
AE. Yes.
Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?
A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember
the policeman telling me Uncle Nevill was beside the coal scuttle, the twins
were in their beds, shot, Auntie June and Sheila were on the bed with the gun
between them, and I asked how they were shot, and he went like this. I do
not know who told me. I am sorry. Maybe it was a mistake. Asking me now.
I cannot remember who told me.
This is a fantastic post from Hermann over at IA
1 Julie Mugford is a proven liar.
Here's some background information from Robin Cox.
"Ann Eaton said herself in a statement that a police officer told her Sheila and June were found on the bed and that Sheila had the bible on her chest and the gun by her side which was not the prosecution's case at all. Did this give the family leverage in their arguments with Assistant Chief Inspector Simpson? The relatives didn’t like Jeremy, whom they called ‘Cuckoo’ on account of both he and Sheila being adopted but I won’t digress into that here."
http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/robin-cox
The idea is that the relatives were told that Sheila's body was on the bed at one stage and therefore also knew that it must have been the police who stage managed it on the floor. Robert Boutflour was convinced that Bamber was the killer. Some supporters of Bamber think that the police had to go along with the relatives and prosecute Bamber because the relatives knew Sheila's body was on the bed before it was moved to the floor by the police. That is what Cox means by leverage.
Bamber's confession to Julie Mugford
Julie Mugford account of Jeremy's confession includes a story of how Matthew MacDonald put a bible on Sheila's chest after telling her to shoot herself on the bed. So the description of the position of Sheila's body which the policeman gave to Ann Eaton turns up in Julie Mugford's story almost verbatim. It corresponds exactly to how Matthew MacDonald is supposed to have left the body. Mugford tells how Jeremy told her that MacDonald left Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest. It's in Mugford's statment. The police had not told Jeremy that story and it's dismissed as a mistake anyway. So it's impossible that Mugford had gotten it from Bamber.
Here's what Ann Eaton says in her statement of 08/09/85 when told where the bodies were found.
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her chest with the gun beside her"
Here's what Julie Mugford says in her statement of 08/08/1985 page 14
"I asked Jeremy if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were sound asleep and didn’t wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Mathew who then put a bible on her chest."
The devil is in the detail
I find it strange that people ignore this telling detail and that when somebody mentions it, even people who are fence sitters just ignore it and get back to talking about Julie and saying that her evidence has "the ring of truth about it". But how can it have the ring of truth when you can point to virtual proof that she lied. I have a theory as to why that kind of thing tends to happen.
Some people like talking about Julie Mugford just like others like talking about Amanda Knox. Of course anybody familiar with the scientific evidence knows that Knox and Solecito are innocent, but people like having something to talk about. They like the element of mystery. Hayden Panettiere undersood that when, talking about Amanda, she said to a bunch of reporters "Did she or didn't she?" So in just the same way, they like the discussion about Julie Mugford which has at it's basis the question "Who is telling the truth Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber."
When the Judge put the question to the jury "It depends on whether you believe Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber" he was being a prima donna. He was going for saying something catchy for the popular press. But he shouldn't have been doing that. You can excuse Hayden for a little lapse of judgement, but you can't make excuses for a judge misdirecting a jury. He should have drawn the jury's attention to the bible on the chest detail which was examined in court. He could have said. "Are we to believe that it's just a coincidence that Jeremy Bamber made up a story which just happens to have in it exactly the same description of a scene with Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest." But he didn't. He apparently wanted to help the prosecution and to hinder the defense. It happens a lot.
The devil is in the detail
There is a saying, the devil is in the detail. Such a detail is to me proof that Julie Mugford's story of Bamber's confession is a fabrication. It has bits and pieces which come from here and there. But I admit that a person sympathetic to Mugford could argue in the manner
" Well OK, she embellished the story a little with that description of the body on the bed which she had obviously gotten from Ann Eaton, probably because she thought people might not believe her, but I still believe she was telling the truth when she said that Jeremy told her he had paid Matthew MacDonald. There is no proof that she made that up."
Hermann
Evidence was withheld at trial, alternatively fresh evidence is now available which indicates that Jeremy Bamber telephoned his then girlfriend Julie Mugford at 3.30am in the morning of 7th August and that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby lied in evidence when they timed the called at 3.15am and 3.12 am respectively.
The 3.30am Phone Call Overview:
20. The timing of Jeremy Bamber's phone call to Julie Mugford in the early hours of 71h August 1985 was also of "crucial importance- at trial, His Honour Mr Justice Drake's summing, up at p.12 B. Much evidence was adduced to show that the call had been made at or about 3,15um. This meant that the eau must have been made prior to the Appellant's call to the Chelmsford police station
21.
The Police's own contemporaneous record of the Appellant's call on 7th August 1985, appended to this document, has now come to light. It reveals that the Appellant's initial call to Chelmsford Police station was recorded, in error as conceded at trial, as 3.36am. More importantly it shows that having first spoken to the Appellant and established the nature of the problem in some detail the officer at Chelmsford phoned Witham Police station at 3.26am, that being undisputedly a correct time. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant's initial call to the Police must have been some minutes before 3.26am.
Ann Eaton's Notes In Relation to The Call to Julie Mugford:
22. Ann Eaton's allegedly contemporaneous notes regarding 8th August disclosed at trial stated that there had been a "muddle about the right time of the 3.15 phone call - a London friend was called".
A further note has since been found which reveals that in her original note she stated "talked to Julie about the phone calls Julie said re flatmate (our emphasis - photocopy is poor here exact wording should be clear on viewing of the original) 3.30am". It is submitted that this discrepancy shows that not only was Ann Eaton's note deliberately changed to undermine the appellant's case but that Julie Mugford and Susan Batteresby lied when they gave evidence that the telephone call was 3.15am or earlier, as it was Susan Battersby who was the flatmate referred to it the undisclosed Ann Eaton note.
Julie Mugford's Evidence:
23. In her original statement to the Police dated 81h August 1985 stated at p345:
next time I heard front Jeremy was at about 3.30am on Wednesday morning the th August 1985."
This then changes in her statement of e September 1985 when she states :
" I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan Battersby who lives with
me that it was about 3.15am."
At trial when she was cross examined as to the fact that she had told the police that the telephone call was received at 3.30am, she stated at p38 on 8th October:
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record).
The fundamental point is Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
You cannot get round these points no matter how much you bring up the sleeping pills or fire. Its rather obvious the police zeroed in on those pills and did not buy her original innocent explanation for them, thus she made up something they wanted to hear from her.
I am not quoting word for word here but it goes like this
Julie Mugford - "Jeremy told me that Sheila was told to lay on the bed and was ordered to shoot herself under the supervision of Mathew Macdonald he then left the bible on the her chest" (Jeremy is supposed to have told her this on the 7th of August at his cottage while the house was occupied by many other people )
Julie Mugford - "On the 7th I told Ann Eaton about the bible on her chest"
Anne Eaton - "On the 7th Police told me Sheila was found laying on the bed with a bible on her chest"
Ann Eaton - " I cant remember who told me on the 7th" (Just after confirming the police told her various details she obviously remembers. problem being she was told about the bible in the exact same conversation)
The idea of the bible being a "meme" is not credible because there are too many similarities with her statement as a whole. The probability of it being coincidental, you are looking at almost jackpot lottery odds. (Bible on chest + Sheila on Bed + Exiting windows + Cycling to the farm + Fingerprints on gun + wetsuit + 2000 pounds + a McDonald mentioned in police meeting + Hitman to explain the reported movement)
All of these can either be found in Julies testimony or her "diary". Most importantly Jeremy is supposed to have told her all this. This means that what Jeremy told her in his alleged "confessions" he deliberately falsified how he killed everyone so it just so happens to be the same as Ann Eatons and RWBs erroneous information. Not only that but he also falsifies his "confessions" so what he tells her just so happens to explain the gaps and problems the police were facing at that moment in time! gaps and problems that later turned out to be wrong! Then Jeremy decides not to tell her about the silencer, the one piece of crucial evidence that was only discovered to be incriminating in the weeks AFTER Julie made her statements.
Its just not possible for Jeremy to have told her all this in the way its been presented by her coinciding with the circumstances of the police investigation and the relatives suspicions in that instance of time. With some of those circumstances and ideas backfiring, thus harming her credibility later on.
Lets look at Mathew Mcdoanld for example.
1. Robert Boutflour speculates if Jeremy had assistance on the night - See Diary
2. Robert Boutflour zeros in on the £2000 that Neville lent to Jeremy - See Diary
3. The £2000 of course has an innocent explanation and is totally unrelated to the event. but RWB believes he is onto something (Tunnel vision)
4. Jeremy is supposed to have lent this £2000 to a friend - See Diary
5. 20th of August police have a meeting with RWB present. During that meeting a question is put forward in relation to a drug deal (from a man called McDonald??) See Barlow's note book
6. Jeremy has a friend called Mathew Mcdonald they both do drugs together - See MMs statement
7. Mathew Mcdonald happens to a fantasist who goes around telling people he is a mercenary and has done missions in Libya. People believe the rumours - see MMs statement
According to Julie. Jeremy told her that he paid £2000 to Mathew Mcdonald to help him carry out the killings. The fact of the matter is a sum of £2000 went somewhere else. Mathew Macdonald is a mercenary only in his imagination plus he was miles away from the farm that night. Robert Bouflour and Stand Jones ignorant of the facts at the time. To them this theory would make perfect sense to them. Jeremy's "mercenary" friend and drug associate complete with a money trail and can explain the reported movement in the farm while Jeremy was outside with the police.
I will leave you to decide where Julie got the story from.
-
David there is a forensic evidence library with over 40 threads.
You can't explain how Sheila committed the massacre & have spent the last 5 months trying to work out you're 5th scenario.
You're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' from a year ago was a hoax & no one from the CT or Bamber's team have mentioned it.
You didn't support Susans theory that Sheila committed the massacre by locking herself in the bathroom. Susan agreed it should be dismissed & is going to amend it. What's changed ?
-
David there is a forensic evidence library with over 40 threads.
You can't explain how Sheila committed the massacre & have spent the last 5 months trying to work out you're 5th scenario.
You're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' from a year ago was a hoax & no one from the CT or Bamber's team have mentioned it.
You didn't support Susans theory that Sheila committed the massacre by locking herself in the bathroom. Susan agreed it should be dismissed & is going to amend it. What's changed ?
Your library is empty.
I have explained how Sheila commits the massacre.
The forensic evidence is no hoax.
You know this. Stay mad 8)
-
Jeremy could tell Julie as little or as much as he liked regarding that fateful night. Why do you take his story as gospel truth and then castigate Julie when some of the details are wrong? You cannot deny the three telephone calls which passed between them in the space of several hours, you cannot deny the delay Jeremy took to summon help and you cannot deny the multiplicity of lies he told that first morning at Bourtree Cottage in a desperate attempt to incriminate a mentally ill and vulnerable young woman.
-
Your library is empty.
I have explained how Sheila commits the massacre.
The forensic evidence is no hoax.
You know this. Stay mad 8)
David you can't explain how Sheila committed the massacre. Which is why you have spent 5 months trying to work it out for the 5th time.
You're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' was a hoax.
The library shows Sheila did not committ the massacre. In over 40 threads.
-
Obviously because if Jeremy was guilty she would not have offered to ID the bodies
If Jeremy is not guilty then why is Julie sick?
You can't have it both ways.
-
Obviously because if Jeremy was guilty she would not have offered to ID the bodies
Totally agree.
-
No it doesn't.
No it hasn't. The bathroom light was on for a reason.
Indeed. Saying Julie would/would not do something does not negate the overwhelming evidence that her testimony is a pack of lies. Just to remind you here it is.
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!
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record). I have shown you the trial transcripts and the very statements mentioned in those trial transcripts.
The fundamental point Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
One only has to read Julie Mugfords statements and the cross examination of Ann Eaton to workout were Julie really got those false details from in order for her to make the bogus claim that Jeremy confessed to the killings. The devil is in the details, its just a matter of putting the puzzle together.
From Julie Mugford’s statement, page 23
"I have been asked if I have read or been told about a bible found on Sheila's
chest when she was found dead. I can definitely say I haven't but it was
told to me by Jeremy. I will add that some time after the 7th August 1985,
Ann EATON asked me if I knew about a bible which was near Sheila and I told
her that I did and that it was found on her chest. I think I told her it
was creepy. I think she asked me about the bible on the Friday of the week of the murders.”
This makes no sense. If Ann Eaton had asked Julie question of the bible some time after the 7th August then Julie answers to Ann that the bible was on Sheila's chest, Then she would have asked Julie how she got that information and Julie would have had to tell her that Jeremy told her the story about Matthew MacDonald. ?
In the trial transcript below. While cross examined by Rivlin QC, at first AE said that she thought she had first heard about the bible on Sheila's chest from Julie Mugford, but Rivlin QC was setting a trap to force AE to admit she actually got that information from the police by showing her her own statement which she sais she got the information from the police at the house. Another interesting observation, is that AE seems to remember the police telling her all the details mentioned in the statement but when it comes to bible she just happens to forget. Selective memory loss at times most convenient when it comes to the big issues seems to occur often in AE. ::)
Ann Eaton trial testimony: cross examined 7th October 1986
RIVLIN. I would like to ask you another thing about Julie Mugford, and it is this
something I was going to ask you before the luncheon adjournment- there
came a stage shortly after the events when a police officer told you something
in confidence, did he not, about what had happened and what had been found?
Do you remember? He told you, amongst other things, that when 'Sheila had
been found there was a bible on her chest?
AE. I did hear there was a bible on her chest.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): Did you hear it from the policeman is the
question?
AE. I cannot remember, but I heard it whilst in Jeremy's cottage.
MR. RIVLIN: Let remind you. Is it not right that one of the police officers
told you that Uncle Nevill was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle, that the
twins were in their beds, shot?
AE. Yes.
Rivlin. That Aunt June Bamber and Sheila were both on the bed, shot, with Sheila having
a bible on her chest, with the gun beside her?
AE. Yes.
Rivlin. And is it right that shortly after that information had been imparted to you,
you had a conversation with Julie Mugford, and you told Julie that when Sheila.
had been found there had been a bible found on her chest?
AE. I really cannot remember who told me the bible was on the chest.
MR JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): That is not the question now, but it is right
you should tell us. You do not remember who told you that Sheila was found
with the bible on her chest, but the question now is, whoever it was who told
you that, did you pass that on to Julie?
AE. I do not remember. I did have a conversation with Julie about the same time.
She said to me Sheila kept saying, I thought she said she was a "white wedge", or perhaps it was a “white
witch", but I do not remember who told me that the bible was on the chest.
MR. JUSTICE Drake: I do not think we have the full answer yet, Mr. Rivlin.
MR. RIVLIN: Would you accept that it was, in fact, one of the officers who told
you that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest and the gun beside her?
AE. I cannot remember who told me the bible was on her chest, so I am saying
it could have been Julie. I cannot remember who told me.
RIVLIN. In those circumstances I think that I must show the document to the witness.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE: What the witness just said is “it could have been Julie who
told me that" - that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest. (To the
witness): Wherereas the question you are being asked is put the other way around
That someone told you and you told Julie that she had been found with a bible
on her chest. That is the question. If you cannot answer, you cannot?
AE. I cannot remember. I just remember Julie saying something about Sheila
said she was a “white wedge", which I thought she said, but it turned out she
thought she was a "white witch", but I cannot remember who told me about the
bible.
MR. RIVLIN: Could you remember at the time who told you about the bible?
AE. I cannot remember.
RIVLIN. You made statements to the police officers, did you not, in this case, and I
would like you to look, please, at a statement which is dated 8th September
1985. (Same handed). Your signature appears on this document. Is it a
typewritten document? Does it bear your signature?
AE. No.
MR RIVLIN: I am told that the original is outside.
MR. ARLIDGE: I will have it checked with the original.
MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows:
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near
the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila
Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her
chest with the gun beside her"?
AE. Yes.
Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?
A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember
the policeman telling me Uncle Nevill was beside the coal scuttle, the twins
were in their beds, shot, Auntie June and Sheila were on the bed with the gun
between them, and I asked how they were shot, and he went like this. I do
not know who told me. I am sorry. Maybe it was a mistake. Asking me now.
I cannot remember who told me.
This is a fantastic post from Hermann over at IA
1 Julie Mugford is a proven liar.
Here's some background information from Robin Cox.
"Ann Eaton said herself in a statement that a police officer told her Sheila and June were found on the bed and that Sheila had the bible on her chest and the gun by her side which was not the prosecution's case at all. Did this give the family leverage in their arguments with Assistant Chief Inspector Simpson? The relatives didn’t like Jeremy, whom they called ‘Cuckoo’ on account of both he and Sheila being adopted but I won’t digress into that here."
http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/robin-cox
The idea is that the relatives were told that Sheila's body was on the bed at one stage and therefore also knew that it must have been the police who stage managed it on the floor. Robert Boutflour was convinced that Bamber was the killer. Some supporters of Bamber think that the police had to go along with the relatives and prosecute Bamber because the relatives knew Sheila's body was on the bed before it was moved to the floor by the police. That is what Cox means by leverage.
Bamber's confession to Julie Mugford
Julie Mugford account of Jeremy's confession includes a story of how Matthew MacDonald put a bible on Sheila's chest after telling her to shoot herself on the bed. So the description of the position of Sheila's body which the policeman gave to Ann Eaton turns up in Julie Mugford's story almost verbatim. It corresponds exactly to how Matthew MacDonald is supposed to have left the body. Mugford tells how Jeremy told her that MacDonald left Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest. It's in Mugford's statment. The police had not told Jeremy that story and it's dismissed as a mistake anyway. So it's impossible that Mugford had gotten it from Bamber.
Here's what Ann Eaton says in her statement of 08/09/85 when told where the bodies were found.
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her chest with the gun beside her"
Here's what Julie Mugford says in her statement of 08/08/1985 page 14
"I asked Jeremy if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were sound asleep and didn’t wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Mathew who then put a bible on her chest."
The devil is in the detail
I find it strange that people ignore this telling detail and that when somebody mentions it, even people who are fence sitters just ignore it and get back to talking about Julie and saying that her evidence has "the ring of truth about it". But how can it have the ring of truth when you can point to virtual proof that she lied. I have a theory as to why that kind of thing tends to happen.
Some people like talking about Julie Mugford just like others like talking about Amanda Knox. Of course anybody familiar with the scientific evidence knows that Knox and Solecito are innocent, but people like having something to talk about. They like the element of mystery. Hayden Panettiere undersood that when, talking about Amanda, she said to a bunch of reporters "Did she or didn't she?" So in just the same way, they like the discussion about Julie Mugford which has at it's basis the question "Who is telling the truth Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber."
When the Judge put the question to the jury "It depends on whether you believe Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber" he was being a prima donna. He was going for saying something catchy for the popular press. But he shouldn't have been doing that. You can excuse Hayden for a little lapse of judgement, but you can't make excuses for a judge misdirecting a jury. He should have drawn the jury's attention to the bible on the chest detail which was examined in court. He could have said. "Are we to believe that it's just a coincidence that Jeremy Bamber made up a story which just happens to have in it exactly the same description of a scene with Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest." But he didn't. He apparently wanted to help the prosecution and to hinder the defense. It happens a lot.
The devil is in the detail
There is a saying, the devil is in the detail. Such a detail is to me proof that Julie Mugford's story of Bamber's confession is a fabrication. It has bits and pieces which come from here and there. But I admit that a person sympathetic to Mugford could argue in the manner
" Well OK, she embellished the story a little with that description of the body on the bed which she had obviously gotten from Ann Eaton, probably because she thought people might not believe her, but I still believe she was telling the truth when she said that Jeremy told her he had paid Matthew MacDonald. There is no proof that she made that up."
Hermann
Evidence was withheld at trial, alternatively fresh evidence is now available which indicates that Jeremy Bamber telephoned his then girlfriend Julie Mugford at 3.30am in the morning of 7th August and that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby lied in evidence when they timed the called at 3.15am and 3.12 am respectively.
The 3.30am Phone Call Overview:
20. The timing of Jeremy Bamber's phone call to Julie Mugford in the early hours of 71h August 1985 was also of "crucial importance- at trial, His Honour Mr Justice Drake's summing, up at p.12 B. Much evidence was adduced to show that the call had been made at or about 3,15um. This meant that the eau must have been made prior to the Appellant's call to the Chelmsford police station
21.
The Police's own contemporaneous record of the Appellant's call on 7th August 1985, appended to this document, has now come to light. It reveals that the Appellant's initial call to Chelmsford Police station was recorded, in error as conceded at trial, as 3.36am. More importantly it shows that having first spoken to the Appellant and established the nature of the problem in some detail the officer at Chelmsford phoned Witham Police station at 3.26am, that being undisputedly a correct time. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant's initial call to the Police must have been some minutes before 3.26am.
Ann Eaton's Notes In Relation to The Call to Julie Mugford:
22. Ann Eaton's allegedly contemporaneous notes regarding 8th August disclosed at trial stated that there had been a "muddle about the right time of the 3.15 phone call - a London friend was called".
A further note has since been found which reveals that in her original note she stated "talked to Julie about the phone calls Julie said re flatmate (our emphasis - photocopy is poor here exact wording should be clear on viewing of the original) 3.30am". It is submitted that this discrepancy shows that not only was Ann Eaton's note deliberately changed to undermine the appellant's case but that Julie Mugford and Susan Batteresby lied when they gave evidence that the telephone call was 3.15am or earlier, as it was Susan Battersby who was the flatmate referred to it the undisclosed Ann Eaton note.
Julie Mugford's Evidence:
23. In her original statement to the Police dated 81h August 1985 stated at p345:
next time I heard front Jeremy was at about 3.30am on Wednesday morning the th August 1985."
This then changes in her statement of e September 1985 when she states :
" I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan Battersby who lives with
me that it was about 3.15am."
At trial when she was cross examined as to the fact that she had told the police that the telephone call was received at 3.30am, she stated at p38 on 8th October:
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record).
The fundamental point is Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
You cannot get round these points no matter how much you bring up the sleeping pills or fire. Its rather obvious the police zeroed in on those pills and did not buy her original innocent explanation for them, thus she made up something they wanted to hear from her.
I am not quoting word for word here but it goes like this
Julie Mugford - "Jeremy told me that Sheila was told to lay on the bed and was ordered to shoot herself under the supervision of Mathew Macdonald he then left the bible on the her chest" (Jeremy is supposed to have told her this on the 7th of August at his cottage while the house was occupied by many other people )
Julie Mugford - "On the 7th I told Ann Eaton about the bible on her chest"
Anne Eaton - "On the 7th Police told me Sheila was found laying on the bed with a bible on her chest"
Ann Eaton - " I cant remember who told me on the 7th" (Just after confirming the police told her various details she obviously remembers. problem being she was told about the bible in the exact same conversation)
The idea of the bible being a "meme" is not credible because there are too many similarities with her statement as a whole. The probability of it being coincidental, you are looking at almost jackpot lottery odds. (Bible on chest + Sheila on Bed + Exiting windows + Cycling to the farm + Fingerprints on gun + wetsuit + 2000 pounds + a McDonald mentioned in police meeting + Hitman to explain the reported movement)
All of these can either be found in Julies testimony or her "diary". Most importantly Jeremy is supposed to have told her all this. This means that what Jeremy told her in his alleged "confessions" he deliberately falsified how he killed everyone so it just so happens to be the same as Ann Eatons and RWBs erroneous information. Not only that but he also falsifies his "confessions" so what he tells her just so happens to explain the gaps and problems the police were facing at that moment in time! gaps and problems that later turned out to be wrong! Then Jeremy decides not to tell her about the silencer, the one piece of crucial evidence that was only discovered to be incriminating in the weeks AFTER Julie made her statements.
Its just not possible for Jeremy to have told her all this in the way its been presented by her coinciding with the circumstances of the police investigation and the relatives suspicions in that instance of time. With some of those circumstances and ideas backfiring, thus harming her credibility later on.
Lets look at Mathew Mcdoanld for example.
1. Robert Boutflour speculates if Jeremy had assistance on the night - See Diary
2. Robert Boutflour zeros in on the £2000 that Neville lent to Jeremy - See Diary
3. The £2000 of course has an innocent explanation and is totally unrelated to the event. but RWB believes he is onto something (Tunnel vision)
4. Jeremy is supposed to have lent this £2000 to a friend - See Diary
5. 20th of August police have a meeting with RWB present. During that meeting a question is put forward in relation to a drug deal (from a man called McDonald??) See Barlow's note book
6. Jeremy has a friend called Mathew Mcdonald they both do drugs together - See MMs statement
7. Mathew Mcdonald happens to a fantasist who goes around telling people he is a mercenary and has done missions in Libya. People believe the rumours - see MMs statement
According to Julie. Jeremy told her that he paid £2000 to Mathew Mcdonald to help him carry out the killings. The fact of the matter is a sum of £2000 went somewhere else. Mathew Macdonald is a mercenary only in his imagination plus he was miles away from the farm that night. Robert Bouflour and Stand Jones ignorant of the facts at the time. To them this theory would make perfect sense to them. Jeremy's "mercenary" friend and drug associate complete with a money trail and can explain the reported movement in the farm while Jeremy was outside with the police.
I will leave you to decide where Julie got the story from.
"The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity and the Trump Tirade)"
"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.
Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad of component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."
-
Totally agree.
Why not?
-
"The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity and the Trump Tirade)"
"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.
Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad of component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."
Nope. Gish Gallops are made of bullshit. For example It's applies to Adam but not Scipio.
PS this is a very strange way of ignoring me.
-
Nope. Gish Gallops are made of bullshit. For example It's applies to Adam but not Scipio.
PS this is a very strange way of ignoring me.
Yes Scipios posts were so good he can't post on here.
Unfortunately you're the one who posts bullshit. Such as you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough', which has made no difference a year on. And where is you're 5th Sheila scenario you've been working on here for 5 months. Complete with naff diagrams ?
I don't know why you keep posting you're gish gash bullshit. If you disagreed yesterday with my list of 24 reasons why Julie would not try to frame an innocent Bamber, say why.
-
Unfortunately you're the one who posts bullshit. Such as you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough', which has made no difference a year on.
I don't know why you keep posting you're gish gash bullshit. If you disagree with my list, debate.
Ha Ha, looks like you've just Gish Gashed the Gish Galloper Adam.
-
I've amended my list on why Julie identified the bodies. After reading AE's WS. As Hartley said yesterday 'it doesn't really matter' that Julie identified the bodies. Which I've ways agreed with .
Supporters always try to make a big thing of it. Jackie claiming 'Julie wouldn't have identified the bodies if Bamber was guilty'. I'm not sure how Jackie knows what Julie would do.
-----------------------
AE asked her to.
The police asked her to.
Robert Howie volunteered but the police rejected his offer.
Saying 'no' would have been rude and unhelpful.
No one else volunteered.
Julie could identify the bodies apart.
She wanted to be helpful.
She was not as upset as everyone else. As was not related to any of the deceased.
She still didn't believe or was not sure Bamber was guilty.
She was not doing anything useful or constructive, as had been whisked over by Bamber. So offered, or was asked.
Bamber seemed to be coping well, and could cope for a short period while Julie went to identify the bodies.
She went with another relative to give moral support.
If she didn't go with another relative, then she would have originally assumed she would be accompanied.
She believed Bamber could be guilty, identifying the twins is no worse than being by his side as he acted.
Bamber didn't offer to do this.
Her WS was true and she felt she could communicate with them.
She offered in error. But couldn't withdraw once the offer had been made.
She wanted a break from the crime scene and police. Which was a situation she had not asked to be a part of.
She believed seeing the twins would help her come to terms with what had happened.
She was in the room when discussions about who would do this started. So not surprising she ended up doing this.
If not in the room, Bamber or someone else recommended to the police Julie could do this.
She had little attachment to the twins. They were her boyfriends sisters, sons.
Bamber had brought her over in a police car. She assumed this was so she could be helpful. Identifying the bodies is being helpful.
No one tried to stop her identifying the twins.
A combination of all or several of the above 24 reasons.
-
I've amended my list on why Julie identified the bodies. After reading AE's WS. As Hartley said yesterday 'it doesn't really matter' that Julie identified the bodies. Which I 've ways agreed with .
Supporters always try to make a big thing of it. Jackie claiming 'Julie wouldn't have identified the bodies if Bamber was guilty'. I'm not sure how she knows this.
-----------------------
AE asked her to.
The police asked her to.
Robert Howie volunteered but the police rejected his offer.
No one else volunteered.
Julie could identify the bodies apart.
She wanted to be helpful.
She was not as upset as everyone else. As was not related to any of the deceased.
She still didn't believe or was not sure Bamber was guilty.
She was not doing anything useful or constructive, as had been whisked over by Bamber. So offered, or was asked.
Bamber seemed to be coping well, and could cope for a short period while Julie went to identify the bodies.
She went with another relative to give moral support.
If she didn't go with another relative, then she would have originally assumed she would be accompanied.
She believed Bamber could be guilty, identifying the twins is no worse than being by his side as he acted.
Bamber didn't offer to do this.
Her WS was true and she felt she could communicate with them.
She offered in error. But couldn't withdraw once the offer had been made.
She wanted a break from the crime scene and police. Which was a situation she had not asked to be a part of.
She believed seeing the twins would help her come to terms with what had happened.
She was in the room when discussions about who would do this started. So not surprising she ended up doing this.
If not in the room, Bamber or someone else recommended to the police Julie could do this.
She had little attachment to the twins. They were her boyfriends sisters, sons.
Bamber had brought her over in a police car. She assumed this was so she could be helpful. Identifying the bodies is being helpful.
No one tried to stop her identifying the twins.
A combination of several of the above.
Very interesting Adam.
Unfortunately for you I'm sure just as may reasons can be dredged up showing why Julie should not have done it.
Sadly I don't have time to list them today as am searching for a needle in a haystack. ;)
-
Very interesting Adam.
Unfortunately for you I'm sure just as may reasons can be dredged up showing why Julie should not have done it.
Sadly I don't have time to list them today as am searching for a needle in a haystack. ;)
I look forward to seeing a list. Rather than supporters just saying Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the bodies.
At the end of the day, it was Julie's decision. In her situation, some people would have done the same, some wouldn't.
She's given her reasons in her WS & in court.
-
I look forward to seeing a list. Rather than supporters just saying Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the bodies.
At the end of the day, it was Julie's decision. In her situation, some people would have done the same, some wouldn't.
She's given her reasons in her WS & in court.
I agree it was Julie's decision.
The debate is why did she make the decision and what did she or did she not know when she made it.
I won't be making that list Adam, as I explained in an earlier post I am searching for a needle today :)
-
I agree it was Julie's decision.
The debate is why did she make the decision and what did she or did she not know when she made it.
I won't be making that list Adam, as I explained in an earlier post I am searching for a needle today :)
I've given 25 reasons why she made her decision. All she had been told was MM had done it.
I look forward to seeing a list from someone. Rather than supporters just saying Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the bodies.
-
I've given 25 reasons why she made her decision. All she had been told was MM had done it.
I look forward to seeing a list from someone. Rather than supporters just saying Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the bodies.
Remind me if Mugford was telling the truth she KNEW the person responsible for the murders of 3 adults and 2 children was her partner the person she was sleeping with
There were no depths to her anger no longer being Jeremy's girlfriend and missing out on the JACKPOT
Remind me Adam of the pillow incident ???
This is not a normal human being
-
Nope. Gish Gallops are made of bullshit. For example It's applies to Adam but not Scipio.
PS this is a very strange way of ignoring me.
How about trying to trick people in to believing Remington and Eley are the same bullets, does that count? :-\
-
How about trying to trick people in to believing Remington and Eley are the same bullets, does that count? :-\
No. Because they are. Trying to trick people in to believing Remington .22lr and Eley are different bullets would count thou.
-
No. Because they are. Trying to trick people in to believing Remington .22lr and Eley are different bullets would count thou.
They are not, Eley is British made and far superior quality. In the US Remington distribute Eley products as high end products and package them up in boxes with the names of both manufacturers.
What purpose does it serve for you to deny this easily confirmed fact? Weird. ???
-
They are not, Eley is British made and far superior quality. In the US Remington distribute Eley products as high end products and package them up in boxes with the names of both manufacturers.
What purpose does it serve for you to deny this easily confirmed fact? Weird. ???
Heck, it even says on the boxes - Manufactured by Eley in England. :P
-
Why mix different brands ? Isn't it always best to use the same consecutively as you would when using household batteries for better performance ?
Because it was a comparatively new rifle,I'd have thought that sticking to one particular make/brand of bullets would make it more efficient ?
-
Why mix different brands ? Isn't it always best to use the same consecutively as you would when using household batteries for better performance ?
Because it was a comparatively new rifle,I'd have thought that sticking to one particular make/brand of bullets would make it more efficient ?
Why does everything have to be about absolutes? A may NOT be as efficient as B, but if one happens to have a supply of B, it would be false economy to ditch it in favour of A.
-
Why mix different brands ? Isn't it always best to use the same consecutively as you would when using household batteries for better performance ?
Because it was a comparatively new rifle,I'd have thought that sticking to one particular make/brand of bullets would make it more efficient ?
They did, they used Eley only.
The images provided by David are not connected to this case, they show packaging of Eley bullets sold in the US distributed by Remington.
Such packaging is not available in the UK as they are distributed by Eley themselves.
-
Why not?
She would have to be as absolutely cold as ice to do that and then just carry on as normal until her and Jeremy split.
I think it's far more likely that her story was simply cobbled together, as a result of external pressures, a build up of mumerings and the realisation that Jeremy was going to take a fall.
-
They did, they used Eley only.
The images provided by David are not connected to this case, they show packaging of Eley bullets sold in the US distributed by Remington.
Such packaging is not available in the UK as they are distributed by Eley themselves.
I see.
-
She would have to be as absolutely cold as ice to do that and then just carry on as normal until her and Jeremy split.
I think it's far more likely that her story was simply cobbled together, as a result of external pressures, a build up of mumerings and the realisation that Jeremy was going to take a fall.
Suppressed feelings wouldn't have been inappropriate under the circumstances.
-
It doesn't but if people are trying to demonise her by saying she was sick to ID the twins when she knew Jeremy had just murdered them, they have to acknowledge his guilt.
Hi Caroline - this is something that guilters do all the time on here and it needs addressing. Forgive me for butting in - but Jackie is speaking hypothetically.
It means she would be sick, if she identified twins while knowing Jeremy was guilty. It gets interpreted as innocent posters expressing that Jeremy must be guilty. That's not what innocent posters are expressing. They are tryng to express the level of unbelievableness in the prosection case.
-
I've amended my list on why Julie identified the bodies. After reading AE's WS. As Hartley said yesterday 'it doesn't really matter' that Julie identified the bodies. Which I've ways agreed with .
Supporters always try to make a big thing of it. Jackie claiming 'Julie wouldn't have identified the bodies if Bamber was guilty'. I'm not sure how Jackie knows what Julie would do.
-----------------------
AE asked her to.
The police asked her to.
Robert Howie volunteered but the police rejected his offer.
Saying 'no' would have been rude and unhelpful.
No one else volunteered.
Julie could identify the bodies apart.
She wanted to be helpful.
She was not as upset as everyone else. As was not related to any of the deceased.
She still didn't believe or was not sure Bamber was guilty.
She was not doing anything useful or constructive, as had been whisked over by Bamber. So offered, or was asked.
Bamber seemed to be coping well, and could cope for a short period while Julie went to identify the bodies.
She went with another relative to give moral support.
If she didn't go with another relative, then she would have originally assumed she would be accompanied.
She believed Bamber could be guilty, identifying the twins is no worse than being by his side as he acted.
Bamber didn't offer to do this.
Her WS was true and she felt she could communicate with them.
She offered in error. But couldn't withdraw once the offer had been made.
She wanted a break from the crime scene and police. Which was a situation she had not asked to be a part of.
She believed seeing the twins would help her come to terms with what had happened.
She was in the room when discussions about who would do this started. So not surprising she ended up doing this.
If not in the room, Bamber or someone else recommended to the police Julie could do this.
She had little attachment to the twins. They were her boyfriends sisters, sons.
Bamber had brought her over in a police car. She assumed this was so she could be helpful. Identifying the bodies is being helpful.
No one tried to stop her identifying the twins.
A combination of all or several of the above 24 reasons.
I wish supporters would address my 25 reasons why Julie identified the twins. It's been posted on this thread & a separate thread previously created in 2016.
Supporters just saying Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins, is not good enough.
-
Must admit if I had been woken then whisked over to a murder scene by Bamber, & the police asked me to do something, I'll do it.
-
How do you expect anyone to truthfully know why JM went to the mortuary ? Except that JM had volunteered to go " to save Jeremy "------CAL's words,and to also" convince herself that it had really happened". Closure in other words.
I do know,that according to AE JM had not cried or shown any distress whatsoever.
-
Must admit if I had been woken then whisked over to a murder scene by Bamber, & the police asked me to do something, I'll do it.
She wasn't whisked anywhere Adam, she made a choice to go or are you saying that Julie was just a girl therefore she didn't have a mind of her own?
-
She would have to be as absolutely cold as ice to do that and then just carry on as normal until her and Jeremy split.
I think it's far more likely that her story was simply cobbled together, as a result of external pressures, a build up of mumerings and the realisation that Jeremy was going to take a fall.
Not really, think about it - someone you really care about is full of banter about what life would be life if only he/she could land their inheritance. You never really take them seriously when they talk about their family being gone. Then one day ........ There must have been a lot of confusion; "did he or didn't he?" Maybe she had to see for herself BUT the reason Julie ended up doing the formal ID was because she could tell the twins apart, not because she got some sick pleasure out of it and as Jane keeps saying 'there was no one else' other than Heather and Jones wanted her to stay with Colin.
-
Hi Caroline - this is something that guilters do all the time on here and it needs addressing. Forgive me for butting in - but Jackie is speaking hypothetically.
It means she would be sick, if she identified twins while knowing Jeremy was guilty. It gets interpreted as innocent posters expressing that Jeremy must be guilty. That's not what innocent posters are expressing. They are tryng to express the level of unbelievableness in the prosection case.
Then if I may, Roch, I'd like to pick up on something that those of the innocent persuasion are inclined to say without thinking it through. At the time Julie identified the twins, I don't believe she categorically KNEW that Jeremy was responsible. I think, though, because of the conversations they'd had, she was afraid and suspicious that he MIGHT be. Not for one moment do I think she wanted to believe her suspicions were correct. It may well have been, that having seen the appalling damage done to the boys, she convinced herself that the man she loved wasn't capable of such. I suspect doubts remained and I think she probably spent the following month in a mind set of veering between his guilt and his innocence. I think, over the next month, it may have been the behaviours she saw demonstrated, the words she heard said, coupled with his cavalier treatment of her, which finally convinced her of his guilt. Julie never said Jeremy was guilty. How could she 'KNOW'? She wasn't there. She only KNEW what he'd told her. All she'd have had when she identified the twins was a horrible and nagging suspicion.
-
She wasn't whisked anywhere Adam, she made a choice to go or are you saying that Julie was just a girl therefore she didn't have a mind of her own?
Bamber got a police car to pick her up.
What was she going to do, refuse to go ?
-
Hi Caroline - this is something that guilters do all the time on here and it needs addressing. Forgive me for butting in - but Jackie is speaking hypothetically.
It means she would be sick, if she identified twins while knowing Jeremy was guilty. It gets interpreted as innocent posters expressing that Jeremy must be guilty. That's not what innocent posters are expressing. They are tryng to express the level of unbelievableness in the prosection case.
I know exactly what she means - however, if Jeremy is guilty, Julie making a formal ID pales into insignificance. This is something the innocent side do all of the time; making the claim that Julie is 'sick' has the element of Jeremy being guilty BUT they push that aside and pull Julie into the spotlight with the claim of 'what about her'. There is nothing worse than killing 5 members of your family for money - there just isn't.
-
How do you expect anyone to truthfully know why JM went to the mortuary ? Except that JM had volunteered to go " to save Jeremy "------CAL's words,and to also" convince herself that it had really happened". Closure in other words.
I do know,that according to AE JM had not cried or shown any distress whatsoever.
Hmm. This is the trouble with absolutes. I think what is more true, AE hadn't actually SEEN Julie cry or show distress. Hardly surprising if she had suspicions about Jeremy's involvement.
-
Hmm. This is the trouble with absolutes. I think what is more true, AE hadn't actually SEEN Julie cry or show distress. Hardly surprising if she had suspicions about Jeremy's involvement.
" Absolutes ?"----again ? ::) What's that about ?
I bet AE didn't shed many tears either.Too busy ranting,tearing paper and making notes as well as hinting at getting black flowers for Sheila. What a lovely woman ! Not.
-
She would have to be as absolutely cold as ice to do that and then just carry on as normal until her and Jeremy split.
I think it's far more likely that her story was simply cobbled together, as a result of external pressures, a build up of mumerings and the realisation that Jeremy was going to take a fall.
I tend to agree with you Roch, if we take the view that Julie didn't in any way suspect that JB was involved at the time of her identifying the boys, staying at Colin's, accompanying him to the funeral and various getaways we could believe that by the time she went to the police she may have been troubled by insinuation and murmerings as you suggest. Adding to this her memories of comments and threats by Jeremy about his family over the time she had known him may have caused some kind of realisation to take root in her mind until it became too strong and she couldn't ignore it any more therefore she shared it with friends and rightly they persuaded her to go and speak to the police.
She would have been a gift to the police who could easily have worked on her convincing her and reinforcing her fears that he had done it, and explaining that they needed her to be a witness for them to ensure he was locked up for good. Her past criminal behaviour gave them an added lever to 'persuade' her of his guilt and her need to point the finger at him.
If JM knew JB was responsible from the start as is the official claim she would have to have been a young woman without any moral compass at all or as you say 'as cold as ice' to behave the way she did and although her behaviour before the crime was very questionable since the trial she does seem to have grown up, had a good career and lead a decent life without any sign of criminality etc.
It's good to look at things from different angles sometimes as there are many possibilities and as far as we know any one of them or none of them may be the truth.
-
" Absolutes ?"----again ? ::) What's that about ?
I bet AE didn't shed many tears either.Too busy ranting,tearing paper and making notes as well as hinting at getting black flowers for Sheila. What a lovely woman ! Not.
Lookout, that rant comes from a place of emotion rather than reason. You don't know. You weren't there. Such a shame that you're so UNemotional when it comes to the task of identifying the boys, that it seems to matter not if they're buried under the wrong names.
-
Lookout, that rant comes from a place of emotion rather than reason. You don't know. You weren't there. Such a shame that you're so UNemotional when it comes to the task of identifying the boys, that it seems to matter not if they're buried under the wrong names.
How dare you !!
I happen to KNOW that bodies are labelled in mortuaries---------I've seen them,naturally,so don't ever accuse me of not caring if anyone is buried under the wrong names.
That's a disgusting statement !! How much more horrible can you be,or is it natural with you ?
-
I'm not stupid,I can see you picking at my posts.I have ignored a few,but you're pushing it now. You're not happy unless there's unpleasantness and it's NOT me who creates it ! You seem to enjoy me being rattled--------well I think it's unforgiving !
-
How dare you !!
I happen to KNOW that bodies are labelled in mortuaries---------I've seen them,naturally,so don't ever accuse me of not caring if anyone is buried under the wrong names.
That's a disgusting statement !! How much more horrible can you be,or is it natural with you ?
How do you label a body that hasn't been identified?
-
How dare you !!
I happen to KNOW that bodies are labelled in mortuaries---------I've seen them,naturally,so don't ever accuse me of not caring if anyone is buried under the wrong names.
That's a disgusting statement !! How much more horrible can you be,or is it natural with you ?
I believe you said words to the effect that it wasn't important because they were twins. Not naming them correctly could not have been OTHER than the cause of them being buried under the wrong name. There's no getting away from it, "disgusting" as you say it is.
-
I'm not stupid,I can see you picking at my posts.I have ignored a few,but you're pushing it now. You're not happy unless there's unpleasantness and it's NOT me who creates it ! You seem to enjoy me being rattled--------well I think it's unforgiving !
You have a choice in whether or not you act on it, Lookout. Some of your posts, in which I see glaring errors, may rattle me but I choose not to react to them However, when faced with your emotional response to Ann, which is nothing more than your opinion, coupled by the coldness with which you suggest it wasn't important if the twins weren't correctly identified, I allowed my "rattled" to show.
-
The one who could tell them apart wasn't allowed,was she ? For reasons unknown.
I fail to understand that excuse anyway-------what would it have mattered if they couldn't have been recognised apart ? They were children,just the two of them.
There you go. I KNEW I hadn't dreamed it!!! ".............what would it have mattered if they couldn't have been recognized apart?" Hardly the voice of compassion, is it?
-
She would have to be as absolutely cold as ice to do that and then just carry on as normal until her and Jeremy split.
I think it's far more likely that her story was simply cobbled together, as a result of external pressures, a build up of mumerings and the realisation that Jeremy was going to take a fall.
Exactly
-
Not really, think about it - someone you really care about is full of banter about what life would be life if only he/she could land their inheritance. You never really take them seriously when they talk about their family being gone. Then one day ........ There must have been a lot of confusion; "did he or didn't he?" Maybe she had to see for herself BUT the reason Julie ended up doing the formal ID was because she could tell the twins apart, not because she got some sick pleasure out of it and as Jane keeps saying 'there was no one else' other than Heather and Jones wanted her to stay with Colin.
What on earth are you going on about??
Apparently Jeremy had been going on about how much he hated parents for ages, then the night of the murders he said tonight's the night and the day after he said I should have been an actor
All his family are dead
Jesus Christ, what xxxxxxx confusion
You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now
It's beyond belief, how can you make excuses for this women
-
What on earth are you going on about??
Apparently Jeremy had been going on about how much he hated parents for ages, then the night of the murders he said tonight's the night and the day after he said I should have been an actor
All his family are dead
Jesus Christ, what xxxxxxx confusion
You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now
It's beyond belief, how can you make excuses for this women
I'm perfectly certain, in part because I'd be reluctant to believe that the man "I was deeply in love with. I'd hoped we'd get married" was capable of such a crime. I feel sure, initially, I'd have tried to put it all down to coincidence.
-
How do you label a body that hasn't been identified?
They are named when in the mortuary,which is what this is all about re. identification, ?-------not always at the actual scene of the crime.
-
They are named when in the mortuary,which is what this is all about re. identification, ?-------not always at the actual scene of the crime.
I think they will try and clone me first before Burial, they won't want to waste such talent.
-
Not really, think about it - someone you really care about is full of banter about what life would be life if only he/she could land their inheritance. You never really take them seriously when they talk about their family being gone. Then one day ........ There must have been a lot of confusion; "did he or didn't he?" Maybe she had to see for herself BUT the reason Julie ended up doing the formal ID was because she could tell the twins apart, not because she got some sick pleasure out of it and as Jane keeps saying 'there was no one else' other than Heather and Jones wanted her to stay with Colin.
Some people do naturally find it hard to empathize, and more often than not women with a scientific or maths background( Angela Merkel-a nuclear physicist, Margaret Thatcher a chemist, Theresa May a geographer) all have their strengths but a touchy-feely mother I'd say no-if they had children at all. I have a friend who's a brilliant pianist and also a good chess player, but hopeless at human relationships.
It's this one-in-a billion chance that all these factors came together at White House Farm and prevented the plot from being discovered.
-
What on earth are you going on about??
Apparently Jeremy had been going on about how much he hated parents for ages, then the night of the murders he said tonight's the night and the day after he said I should have been an actor
All his family are dead
Jesus Christ, what xxxxxxx confusion
You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now
It's beyond belief, how can you make excuses for this women
So in this scenario Jeremy is guilty then..
-
What on earth are you going on about??
Apparently Jeremy had been going on about how much he hated parents for ages, then the night of the murders he said tonight's the night and the day after he said I should have been an actor
All his family are dead
Jesus Christ, what xxxxxxx confusion
You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now
It's beyond belief, how can you make excuses for this women
Yes I am certainly scraping the bottom of the barrel, each time I reply to one of your ramblings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDQGNOAnfVc ;D ;D
-
I think they will try and clone me first before Burial, they won't want to waste such talent.
That's what I say as well. ;D
-
I'm perfectly certain, in part because I'd be reluctant to believe that the man "I was deeply in love with. I'd hoped we'd get married" was capable of such a crime. I feel sure, initially, I'd have tried to put it all down to coincidence.
Your posts are funny, I take that was a joke
A coincidence 3 people and 2 children dead
Funny she was so sure in her police interviews
-
Yes I am certainly scraping the bottom of the barrel, each time I reply to one of your ramblings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDQGNOAnfVc ;D ;D
It is funny
You and Jane are the funny double act of the forum
-
They are named when in the mortuary,which is what this is all about re. identification, ?-------not always at the actual scene of the crime.
How CAN they be named if they haven't been identified?
-
Your posts are funny, I take that was a joke
A coincidence 3 people and 2 children dead
Funny she was so sure in her police interviews
I think you're missing the point. You appear to be suggesting that she SHOULD have know he did it. I'm saying she only ever knew what he told her he was planning to do and when it happened, hoped, like hell, it hadn't been him. It was one month on by the time she became certain.
-
I tend to agree with you Roch, if we take the view that Julie didn't in any way suspect that JB was involved at the time of her identifying the boys, staying at Colin's, accompanying him to the funeral and various getaways we could believe that by the time she went to the police she may have been troubled by insinuation and murmerings as you suggest. Adding to this her memories of comments and threats by Jeremy about his family over the time she had known him may have caused some kind of realisation to take root in her mind until it became too strong and she couldn't ignore it any more therefore she shared it with friends and rightly they persuaded her to go and speak to the police.
She would have been a gift to the police who could easily have worked on her convincing her and reinforcing her fears that he had done it, and explaining that they needed her to be a witness for them to ensure he was locked up for good. Her past criminal behaviour gave them an added lever to 'persuade' her of his guilt and her need to point the finger at him.
If JM knew JB was responsible from the start as is the official claim she would have to have been a young woman without any moral compass at all or as you say 'as cold as ice' to behave the way she did and although her behaviour before the crime was very questionable since the trial she does seem to have grown up, had a good career and lead a decent life without any sign of criminality etc.
It's good to look at things from different angles sometimes as there are many possibilities and as far as we know any one of them or none of them may be the truth.
great post maggie , good to see an actual debate.
-
great post maggie , good to see an actual debate.
Hi notsure I agree that is a great post Maggie has just made.
-
It is funny
You and Jane are the funny double act of the forum
And you're a fair few brain cells short for being an idiot.
-
It is funny
You and Jane are the funny double act of the forum
I guess that's as opposed to you being a stand up comedienne?
-
How CAN they be named if they haven't been identified?
Are you being funny ? I've already explained. They were already identified in the mortuary !! Julie will have been shown where they were,so how do you think the mortician knew who they were if they hadn't been identified ??
-
Are you being funny ? I've already explained. They were already identified in the mortuary !! Julie will have been shown where they were,so how do you think the mortician knew who they were if they hadn't been identified ??
Please explain how the mortician knew who they were when Julie was the only one who could tell them apart, AND if they'd already been identified, WHY did Julie have to go through that ordeal?
-
Are you being funny ? I've already explained. They were already identified in the mortuary !! Julie will have been shown where they were,so how do you think the mortician knew who they were if they hadn't been identified ??
Ha, ha!!!!!! He knew the were the twins from WHF, He probably knew their names were Daniel and Nicholas - what he didn't know was WHICH ONE WAS WHICH so that is why Julie was required to make a formal ID.
-
Please explain how the mortician knew who they were when Julie was the only one who could tell them apart, AND if they'd already been identified, WHY did Julie have to go through that ordeal?
Because of the nature of their deaths ( murder ) the police would have been in attendance to hand over names and details of the deceased. The police would have told the person in charge about the names of the twins and sadly because one had 5 bullets and the other 3,there wouldn't have been any mix up who was who.
As for identification,it has to be done by a family member to verify that it's the family in question.
Who said Julie was the only one who knew them apart ? When clearly,if someone had explained their injuries could have seen for themselves.Julie didn't HAVE TO go through any ordeal--she volunteered !
-
Because of the nature of their deaths ( murder ) the police would have been in attendance to hand over names and details of the deceased. The police would have told the person in charge about the names of the twins and sadly because one had 5 bullets and the other 3,there wouldn't have been any mix up who was who.
As for identification,it has to be done by a family member to verify that it's the family in question.
Who said Julie was the only one who knew them apart ? When clearly,if someone had explained their injuries could have seen for themselves.Julie didn't HAVE TO go through any ordeal--she volunteered !
NO! They needed to know which twin was which and Julie could tell them apart! Colin didn't want to go because he wanted to remember them how they were in life and Jones stopped Heather from going. Julie didn't leap up and shout 'me, me, me! Pick ME!' ::) She went because she knew them apart!
-
Because of the nature of their deaths ( murder ) the police would have been in attendance to hand over names and details of the deceased. The police would have told the person in charge about the names of the twins and sadly because one had 5 bullets and the other 3,there wouldn't have been any mix up who was who.
As for identification,it has to be done by a family member to verify that it's the family in question.
Who said Julie was the only one who knew them apart ? When clearly,if someone had explained their injuries could have seen for themselves.Julie didn't HAVE TO go through any ordeal--she volunteered !
Lookout, you say anything rather than admit you're wrong. Julie was needed to identify the twins because, regardless of what you say, there was no one else who could/was prepared to. The most the mortician could say was that they were twin boys. Ever heard that when you're in a hole you should stop digging.
-
Apart from that,their injuries told anyone which twin was which.Julie volunteered to go.
-
Apart from that,their injuries told anyone which twin was which.Julie volunteered to go.
For God's sake Lookout. They didn't have their names tattooed on them. Twin A had X wounds. Twin B had Z wounds. How did that knowledge give them names?
-
For God's sake Lookout. They didn't have their names tattooed on them. Twin A had X wounds. Twin B had Z wounds. How did that knowledge give them names?
From the police of course !! Sheesh ::)
-
From the police of course !! Sheesh ::)
And how do you suppose the police knew which twin was which? Who d'ya think told them, Lookout, and why did that mystery person not do the formal identification rather than Julie?
-
Just to make it absolutely crystal clear Jane because there would numerous people who could identify the twins rather than the supposedly murderers partner
Pre school teachers
School teachers
Foster parents
Social workers
Neighbours
Doctors
The list could go on and on
The list goes on and on but the question is why was Julie so keen to see the devastation Jeremy had 'spoken' about for so long
-
Just to make it absolutely crystal clear Jane because there would numerous people who could identify the twins rather than the supposedly murderers partner
Pre school teachers
School teachers
Foster parents
Social workers
Neighbours
Doctors
The list could go on and on
The list goes on and on but the question is why was Julie so keen to see the devastation Jeremy had 'spoken' about for so long
How do you know those people could identify the twins apart ?
Those people were not around. Julie was. She wasn't keen, she was asked after Bamber had whisked her to WHF in a police car.
The forensic evidence shows Sheila was not the killer. Stating Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the bodies will never get anywhere.
-
The forensic evidence shows Sheila was not the killer.
Such as?
-
How do you know those people could identify the twins apart ?
Those people were not around. Julie was. She wasn't keen, she was asked after Bamber had whisked her to WHF in a police car.
The forensic evidence shows Sheila was not the killer. Stating Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the bodies will never get anywhere.
If Mugford is part of a series and has an hour dedicated to her we will see what the public think of her and not even the mortuary visit, cheque book journolisum
-
Just to make it absolutely crystal clear Jane because there would numerous people who could identify the twins rather than the supposedly murderers partner
Pre school teachers
School teachers
Foster parents
Social workers
Neighbours
Doctors
The list could go on and on
The list goes on and on but the question is why was Julie so keen to see the devastation Jeremy had 'spoken' about for so long
So where were they all, Jackie. There's NO guarantee that ANY of those listed would have been able to tell them apart. Perhaps that's why they didn't volunteer. We're not talking about people who knew them. We're talking about those who could tell them apart.
-
So where were they all, Jackie. There's NO guarantee that ANY of those listed would have been able to tell them apart. Perhaps that's why they didn't volunteer. We're not talking about people who knew them. We're talking about those who could tell them apart.
So how many times do you think Julie had seen them
That would not even compare with teachers and foster parents
Mugford volunteered
-
If Mugford is part of a series and has an hour dedicated to her we will see what the public think of her and not even the mortuary visit, cheque book journolisum
I'm beginning to wonder what's more important. Freeing Jeremy or destroying Julie. It's sounding more and more like a witch hunt and hatred for her seems to be nearing fever pitch.
-
Such as?
It's all in the library.
-
If Mugford is part of a series and has an hour dedicated to her we will see what the public think of her and not even the mortuary visit, cheque book journolisum
A whole hour discrediting Julie.
You're 6 part documentary is not going to be impartial then.
-
So how many times do you think Julie had seen them
That would not even compare with teachers and foster parents
Mugford volunteered
What foster parents? Colin had them most of the time. Sheila didn't have foster parents for the short time she had them and if foster parents were already in place, it makes mockery of the alleged conversation re fostering, around the supper table at WHF.
I'll bet their teachers wouldn't have been 100% certain which twin was which. Doctors and nurses wouldn't have seen them frequently enough to know. If the police had asked family members first and none offered, and Julie knew, and offered,- that's OFFERED as opposed to seeking out police and requesting- there's no problem. There was no one else.
-
So how many times do you think Julie had seen them
That would not even compare with teachers and foster parents
Mugford volunteered
The police & AE asked her.
After Bamber had asked a police car to bring her to WHF.
-
A whole hour discrediting Julie.
You're 6 part documentary is not going to be impartial then.
And for what valid reason? Just a chance that if they put out a warrant for arrest they MAY have found someone other than Julie.
-
It's all in the library.
In other words. There is no evidence.
(https://ihrrelocation.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/snv33520.jpg)
-
She could have made the point that if Julie was able to tell them apart it suggested a degree of intimacy with them that makes her disinclination to act on Jeremy's murder talk all the more inexcusable, but then she didn't make the point, did she..
-
She could have made the point that if Julie was able to tell them apart it suggested a degree of intimacy with them that makes her disinclination to act on Jeremy's murder talk all the more inexcusable, but then she didn't make the point, did she..
I really don't know where they're trying to take this Julie bashing Steve. It doesn't make a ha'peth of difference to the case, but the crazy and untrue reasons for why it was unnecessary for her to do it, come thick and fast.
-
Just to make it absolutely crystal clear Jane because there would numerous people who could identify the twins rather than the supposedly murderers partner
Pre school teachers - weren't there - and wouldn't know the difference
School teachers - weren't there - and wouldn't know the difference
Foster parents weren't there - and wouldn't know the difference
Social workers - weren't there - and wouldn't know the difference
Neighbours - weren't there - and wouldn't know the difference
Doctors - weren't there - and wouldn't know the differencee
The list could go on and on but it's stupid so why bother?
The list goes on and on but the question is why was Julie so keen to see the devastation Jeremy had 'spoken' about for so long - She wasn't keen, that's YOUR slant
-
All of the above named,would have told them apart had they been there.
Wasn't the whole point of the argument whether they could be identified as being " different " to each other,rather than who was going to see them and who wasn't ? Why has it snow-balled ??
-
All of the above named,would have told them apart had they been there.
Wasn't the whole point of the argument whether they could be identified as being " different " to each other,rather than who was going to see them and who wasn't ? Why has it snow-balled ??
The whole point of the argument was that there appeared to be no one available, at the time, OTHER THAN JULIE, who was able.
-
I now won't tolerate shouting,thankyou. There's no need.
-
All of the above named,would have told them apart had they been there.
Wasn't the whole point of the argument whether they could be identified as being " different " to each other,rather than who was going to see them and who wasn't ? Why has it snow-balled ??
The argument has a few different threads to it. Basically it is an attack on Julie, but only under certain conditions.
To sum it up, it is being said that if Jeremy is guilty and Julie knew this to be the case, then Julie being the one to identify the victims is a bit 'sick' or 'twisted'.
However, if Jeremy is not guilty, or Julie didn't know at the time that Jeremy was responsible, then the opinion of her identifying the victims as being 'sick', doesn't work.
Nobody (to my knowledge) has voiced an opinion that Julie identified the victims with the knowledge that they had been murdered by Jeremy. The two schools of thought are that either Jeremy is innocent, or Julie didn't believe at that stage that Jeremy had murdered them.
-
Given that Julie had been told umpteen times by Jeremy,of his " threat " it's rather surprising that when the tragedy had occurred,that she hadn't thought back on his words and put two and two together.I'm sure lots of women would have ? Plus the same/similar conversation to his uncle too ?
-
The argument has a few different threads to it. Basically it is an attack on Julie, but only under certain conditions.
To sum it up, it is being said that if Jeremy is guilty and Julie knew this to be the case, then Julie being the one to identify the victims is a bit 'sick' or 'twisted'.
However, if Jeremy is not guilty, or Julie didn't know at the time that Jeremy was responsible, then the opinion of her identifying the victims as being 'sick', doesn't work.
Nobody (to my knowledge) has voiced an opinion that Julie identified the victims with the knowledge that they had been murdered by Jeremy. The two schools of thought are that either Jeremy is innocent, or Julie didn't believe at that stage that Jeremy had murdered them.
The argument put forward by supporters is Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins.
Supporters believing they would have acted in a different way in Julie's situation & at her age. Although no one has ever been in her situation.
Because Julie didn't react in the same way they believe they would have done, Bamber must be innocent.
The forensic evidence is not important.
-
Given that Julie had been told umpteen times by Jeremy,of his " threat " it's rather surprising that when the tragedy had occurred,that she hadn't thought back on his words and put two and two together.I'm sure lots of women would have ? Plus the same/similar conversation to his uncle too ?
Absolutely. However, it is possible that she simply didn't believe it possible that Jeremy had carried out what she had put down to immature fantasy.
Her own version of events is that the reality set in over the next few weeks and then went to the police.
Of course, she might just be a bit 'sick'. :-\
-
Absolutely. However, it is possible that she simply didn't believe it possible that Jeremy had carried out what she had put down to immature fantasy.
Her own version of events is that the reality set in of the next few weeks and then went to the police.
Of course, she might just be a bit 'sick'. :-\
Hartley,he must have spoken about his " plans " over the period of time they were together ? What woman wouldn't have felt uncomfortable or suspicious when it finally did happen ?
Reality would have been an immediate effect for most and no matter how much she'd professed her love for him,she'd have run for her life if she'd have thought for one minute he'd been responsible,if only to escape from the knowledge that she'd pre-known what was to happen. Nobody with any sense wants any involvement with murder.
-
Supporters accept Julie could identify the twins apart. And that the police rejected Robert Howie's identifcation offer.
However it is now being said that the police should have srarted searching for social workers & doctors who probably lived in London. Although the police would not have known if these people could identify the twins apart.
-
Already posted today:
She wanted to be helpful.
She was not as upset as everyone else. As was not related to any of the deceased.
She still didn't believe or was not sure Bamber was guilty.
She was asked to.
She was not doing anything useful or constructive, as had been whisked over by Bamber. So offered, or was asked.
Bamber seemed to be coping well, and could cope for a short period while Julie went to identify the bodies.
She went with another relative to give moral support.
If she didn't go with another relative, then she would have originally assumed she would be accompanied.
She believed Bamber was guilty, identifying the twins is no worse than being by his side as he acted.
She knew the twins and could identify them.
Bamber didn't offer to do this.
No one else offerred.
Her WS was true and she felt she could communicate with them.
She offered in error. But couldn't withdraw once the offer had been made.
She wanted a break from the crime scene and police. Which was a situation she had not asked to be a part of.
She believed seeing the twins would help her come to terms with what had happened.
She was in the room when discussions about who would do this started. So not surprising she ended up doing this.
If not in the room, Bamber or someone else recommended to the police Julie could do this.
The police felt Julie was the best person. She could identify the twins but had least emotional attachment.
She had little attachment to the twins. They were her boyfriends sisters, sons.
Bamber had brought her over in a police car. She assumed this was so she could be helpful. Identifying the bodies is being helpful.
No one tried to stop her identifying the twins.
A combination of several of the above.
I will add to my list that Bamber was not a suspect at this time. And the police did not suspect Julie knew anything. Therefore she was the logical choice to accompany AE & assist the police.
-
Supporters accept Julie could identify the twins apart. And that the police rejected Robert Howie's identifcation offer.
However it is now being said that the police should have srarted searching for social workers & doctors who probably lived in London. Although the police would not have known if these people could identify the twins apart.
For the last time,Julie went,voluntarily because AE couldn't tell the twins apart.
It's got nothing to do with JB's guilt or innocence.
-
For the last time,Julie went,voluntarily because AE couldn't tell the twins apart.
It's got nothing to do with JB's guilt or innocence.
I agree it has nothing to do with Bamber's guilt or innocence.
Unfortunately Jackie & Susan believe Julie identifying the twins shows Bamber is innocent.
Both believe in Julie's situation & at her age they would have rejected the opportunity to assist Bamber, the police & relatives.
-
The argument put forward by supporters is Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins.
Supporters believing they would have acted in a different way in Julie's situation & at her age. Although no one has ever been in her situation.
Because Julie didn't react in the same way they believe they would have done, Bamber must be innocent.
The forensic evidence is not important.
None of them would have dialled 999 either.
-
For the last time,Julie went,voluntarily because AE couldn't tell the twins apart.
It's got nothing to do with JB's guilt or innocence.
Adam has failed to respond or challenge my definitive dissection of Julies evidence.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8358.msg397988.html#msg397988 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8358.msg397988.html#msg397988)
I can only assume he does not want to bite the bullet. Alternatively he could read through it and get a good lesson on the case. He might learn something :-\
-
Hartley,he must have spoken about his " plans " over the period of time they were together ? What woman wouldn't have felt uncomfortable or suspicious when it finally did happen ?
Reality would have been an immediate effect for most and no matter how much she'd professed her love for him,she'd have run for her life if she'd have thought for one minute he'd been responsible,if only to escape from the knowledge that she'd pre-known what was to happen. Nobody with any sense wants any involvement with murder.
I don't know the woman, or the interaction she had with Jeremy, so I don't really feel I could say I knew what she was thinking at that time, or indeed at any time.
I can however see a number of possibilities. My current thoughts are that she simply didn't believe JB could have done it and was probably doing her boyfriend a favour by identifying the bodies so that he wouldn't have to.
-
I don't know the woman, or the interaction she had with Jeremy, so I don't really feel I could say I knew what she was thinking at that time, or indeed at any time.
I can however see a number of possibilities. My current thoughts are that she simply didn't believe JB could have done it and was probably doing her boyfriend a favour by identifying the bodies so that he wouldn't have to.
Jackie needs to come up with something a lot stronger than Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins.
Hopefully today when she submits the new information she said she has received on the 13th May, together with the requested Sheila scenario, everyone will be calling her the 'comeback woman'.
-
I don't know the woman, or the interaction she had with Jeremy, so I don't really feel I could say I knew what she was thinking at that time, or indeed at any time.
I can however see a number of possibilities. My current thoughts are that she simply didn't believe JB could have done it and was probably doing her boyfriend a favour by identifying the bodies so that he wouldn't have to.
The other thing which may be worth mentioning, is that she had been called to the scene by the police to basically comfort Jeremy. Jeremy was not under arrest or even under suspicion.
None of which gives the impression to Julie that Jeremy had actually committed the murders himself.
-
I don't know the woman, or the interaction she had with Jeremy, so I don't really feel I could say I knew what she was thinking at that time, or indeed at any time.
I can however see a number of possibilities. My current thoughts are that she simply didn't believe JB could have done it and was probably doing her boyfriend a favour by identifying the bodies so that he wouldn't have to.
Where there's a murder case,the belief in imagining that the person you're " in love with had nothing to do with it ", has to be so strong as to render it an impossibility that that person had anything to do with it at all.
Had Julie genuinely loved him ? Because judging by her actions in court,she didn't. You don't tear into someone like she did without feeling any pangs of sorrow,or was that why she cried uncontrollably when being questioned by Rivlin ? Did she,or didn't she want to be there at that point,or was she happier letting off steam for the prosecution side ? If that was the case she didn't have any love for him.
I can't really fathom the woman out apart from the fact she was mixed up.
It wasn't a case that she " did Jeremy a favour ". He simply couldn't face it,like a lot of people can't,so don't knock him for that. According to CAL,she went on behalf of Jeremy as she was nearer to family than anyone else. Colin hadn't wanted to go,that's why he'd asked Heather,until SJ put a stop to that arrangement.
-
Where there's a murder case,the belief in imagining that the person you're " in love with had nothing to do with it ", has to be so strong as to render it an impossibility that that person had anything to do with it at all.
Had Julie genuinely loved him ? Because judging by her actions in court,she didn't. You don't tear into someone like she did without feeling any pangs of sorrow,or was that why she cried uncontrollably when being questioned by Rivlin ? Did she,or didn't she want to be there at that point,or was she happier letting off steam for the prosecution side ? If that was the case she didn't have any love for him.
I can't really fathom the woman out apart from the fact she was mixed up.
It wasn't a case that she " did Jeremy a favour ". He simply couldn't face it,like a lot of people can't,so don't knock him for that. According to CAL,she went on behalf of Jeremy as she was nearer to family than anyone else. Colin hadn't wanted to go,that's why he'd asked Heather,until SJ put a stop to that arrangement.
Then don't knock her for doing something no one else had the stomach for.
-
Then don't knock her for doing something no one else had the stomach for.
Julie wouldn't have volunteered if she hadn't wanted to. The experience didn't distress her.
If you want to see " Julie-bashing " look at threads in 2011. Maybe that'll stop me being singled out.
-
Where there's a murder case,the belief in imagining that the person you're " in love with had nothing to do with it ", has to be so strong as to render it an impossibility that that person had anything to do with it at all.
Had Julie genuinely loved him ? Because judging by her actions in court,she didn't. You don't tear into someone like she did without feeling any pangs of sorrow,or was that why she cried uncontrollably when being questioned by Rivlin ? Did she,or didn't she want to be there at that point,or was she happier letting off steam for the prosecution side ? If that was the case she didn't have any love for him.
I can't really fathom the woman out apart from the fact she was mixed up.
It wasn't a case that she " did Jeremy a favour ". He simply couldn't face it,like a lot of people can't,so don't knock him for that. According to CAL,she went on behalf of Jeremy as she was nearer to family than anyone else. Colin hadn't wanted to go,that's why he'd asked Heather,until SJ put a stop to that arrangement.
"Had Julie genuinely loved him"? She stated "I was very much in love with him. I'd hoped we would be married".........................and just for the record, I was EMPHASIZING. Hearing aids Perhaps? I wouldn't then need to be quite so emphatic.
-
Julie wouldn't have volunteered if she hadn't wanted to. The experience didn't distress her.
If you want to see " Julie-bashing " look at threads in 2011. Maybe that'll stop me being singled out.
Heather volunteered, does that make her sick too? How do you know whether it distressed her or not?
-
Julie wouldn't have volunteered if she hadn't wanted to. The experience didn't distress her.
If you want to see " Julie-bashing " look at threads in 2011. Maybe that'll stop me being singled out.
How many more times are you going to take this round in circles rather than admit you're wrong? Have you NEVER been in a position in which you've found yourself volunteering to do something that no one else was willing to do?
-
"Had Julie genuinely loved him"? She stated "I was very much in love with him. I'd hoped we would be married".........................and just for the record, I was EMPHASIZING. Hearing aids Perhaps? I wouldn't then need to be quite so emphatic.
Hearing aids ? I don't even wear glasses.
-
Hearing aids ? I don't even wear glasses.
Might that explain why you appear to be blind to the point which is being made, and deaf to what numerous posters are telling you?
-
Absolutely. However, it is possible that she simply didn't believe it possible that Jeremy had carried out what she had put down to immature fantasy.
Her own version of events is that the reality set in over the next few weeks and then went to the police.
Of course, she might just be a bit 'sick'. :-\
I imagine her version is probably the truth, it does make sense when you think about it that the idea may have built in her head, especially if she was at times surrounded by people who suspected his guilt, was aware of the way JB was behaving etc.
Rightly or wrongly her belief in his guilt could have become a driving force which she had to express. To my mind it doesn't prove JB's guilt but it does make it easier to understand JM's actions at the time.
Whether she was right or wrong in her belief of JB's guilt she was a gift to EP.
-
Might that explain why you appear to be blind to the point which is being made, and deaf to what numerous posters are telling you?
Beats being daft though doesn't it ?
-
Beats being daft though doesn't it ?
Beat or join? ;D
-
Hearing aids ? I don't even wear glasses.
Hahaha lookout bet you have a pair of roller skates for when you go shopping :)) :)) :))
-
Hahaha lookout bet you have a pair of roller skates for when you go shopping :)) :)) :))
Don't need them either Susan. ;D ;D
-
Don't need them either Susan. ;D ;D
Lookout I think you must be wonder woman :)) :)) :)) :))
-
how on earth have you come to this conclusion
You have absolutely no idea
Please supply details how you came to this conclusion
Fact the children had foster carers
Fact the children had teachers
Fact the children had social workers
-
how on earth have you come to this conclusion
You have absolutely no idea
Please supply details how you came to this conclusion
Fact the children had foster carers
Fact the children had teachers
Fact the children had social workers
OMG! What's with the new account? It's obvious who you are!
Use some common sense for a change! ALL of the people you have mentioned above were in LONDON! Julie was a person at the scene able and ready to do the formal ID. Your notion that Jeremy is innocent because Julie ID'd the twins is ridiculous and lacks basic common sense but that's par for the course for you.
-
OMG! What's with the new account? It's obvious who you are!
Use some common sense for a change! ALL of the people you have mentioned above were in LONDON! Julie was a person at the scene able and ready to do the formal ID. Your notion that Jeremy is innocent because Julie ID'd the twins is ridiculous and lacks basic common sense but that's par for the course for you.
Great excuse but it does not wash. in essex we are just under an hour from London
Try again
-
Great excuse but it does not wash. in essex we are just under an hour from London
Try again
Do you think the police should have asked Bamber for phone numbers of Sheila's social workers & former teachers. On the basis they may be able to tell the twins apart & were available to travel into Essex ?
It's doubtful Bamber or anyone else would have these phone numbers at the crime scene.
Seems easier to ask Julie who was already there.
-
Great excuse but it does not wash. in essex we are just under an hour from London
Try again
I don't need to try again, you're suggestion that they would bypass a person AT THE SCENE in orcer to contact people who probably couldn't tell the difference anyway - is ludicrous! Are you including this theory in your errrrrr docu? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Do you think the police should have asked Bamber for phone numbers of Sheila's social workers & former teachers. On the basis they may be able to tell the twins apart & were available to travel into Essex ?
It's doubtful Bamber or anyone else would have these phone numbers at the crime scene.
Seems easier to ask Julie who was already there.
That's the 'common sense' answer but it doesn't demonise Julie enough.
-
That's the 'common sense' answer but it doesn't demonise Julie enough.
The forensic evidence shows Sheila did not committ the massacre.
Conspiracy theorists saying AE giving BC Nevill's wallet & Julie identifying the twins shows Bamber is innocent will never get anywhere.
I have no idea what David is trying to say again with his boxes and casings threads.
-
Do you think the police should have asked Bamber for phone numbers of Sheila's social workers & former teachers. On the basis they may be able to tell the twins apart & were available to travel into Essex ?
It's doubtful Bamber or anyone else would have these phone numbers at the crime scene.
Seems easier to ask Julie who was already there.
Yes because obviously Mugford would Never offer to do the job when she knew for definate her partner was responsible for the murders
-
I don't need to try again, you're suggestion that they would bypass a person AT THE SCENE in orcer to contact people who probably couldn't tell the difference anyway - is ludicrous! Are you including this theory in your errrrrr docu? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
As the post above you know Mugford would never in a million years offer to identify the bodies if she knew for definate her boyfriend was responsible for the dead bodies
And FACT MUGFORD was not the only person who could identify the twins
I have checked with my friend who is a high ranking policeman who said the police would have sent a car to pick up the appropriate person
-
As the post above you know Mugford would never in a million years offer to identify the bodies if she knew for definate her boyfriend was responsible for the dead bodies
And FACT MUGFORD was not the only person who could identify the twins
I have checked with my friend who is a high ranking policeman who said the police would have sent a car to pick up the appropriate person
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D yeah right Jackie, yeah right! ::)
-
As the post above you know Mugford would never in a million years offer to identify the bodies if she knew for definate her boyfriend was responsible for the dead bodies
And FACT MUGFORD was not the only person who could identify the twins
I have checked with my friend who is a high ranking policeman who said the police would have sent a car to pick up the appropriate person
Jackie, it doesn't need any sort of policeman to tell you that police will send a car for anyone for anything. Did they not send a car to pick Julie up that morning, OR a car within the area of another force took her. It's as broad as it is long. The point was, Julie was there at the time ergo Julie was the most convenient person who knew for sure which twin was which. Or perhaps you'd like me to verify that with MY friend, a judge?
-
Jackie, it doesn't need any sort of policeman to tell you that police will send a car for anyone for anything. Did they not send a car to pick Julie up that morning, OR a car within the area of another force took her. It's as broad as it is long. The point was, Julie was there at the time ergo Julie was the most convenient person who knew for sure which twin was which. Or perhaps you'd like me to verify that with MY friend, a judge?
Verify what you like but Julie would not have offered to view the bodies of 2 six year old boys if she knew Jeremy was responsible
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D yeah right Jackie, yeah right! ::)
Yep absolutely right
-
Yep absolutely right
Yes I believe you ::)
-
Verify what you like but Julie would not have offered to view the bodies of 2 six year old boys if she knew Jeremy was responsible
Jackie I agree with you one hundred percent.
-
Verify what you like but Julie would not have offered to view the bodies of 2 six year old boys if she knew Jeremy was responsible
Actually Jackie, if you'd bothered to read my posts, you'd have seen that, in this case, I agree with you. I think, at that stage she only suspected but hoped she was wrong. Unfortunately, if one can only see things in terms of black or white it becomes difficult to see any other view than one's own.
-
Verify what you like but Julie would not have offered to view the bodies of 2 six year old boys if she knew Jeremy was responsible
Why wouldn't she?
-
Bamber rings Julie at 10pm, 3am & 5am.
Then Bamber gets a police car to pick her up to whisk her to WHF. Which he testified was wrong of him to do.
Still in a daze Julie's quickly asked by AE & the police to identify the twins as she can tell them apart.
Thirty two years later Julie is still getting all the blame.
-
Verify what you like but Julie would not have offered to view the bodies of 2 six year old boys if she knew Jeremy was responsible
That's just you're opinion. Although you've never been in her situation as a 20 year old.
-
As the post above you know Mugford would never in a million years offer to identify the bodies if she knew for definate her boyfriend was responsible for the dead bodies
And FACT MUGFORD was not the only person who could identify the twins
I have checked with my friend who is a high ranking policeman who said the police would have sent a car to pick up the appropriate person
You mean the mysterious neighbour or social worker who could perhaps identify the twins apart.
You need to focus on the forensic & circumstantial evidence. Which is what got and has kept Bamber convicted.
The jury & appeal courts know Julie identified the twins. Although the trial judge never thought it was worthy of mentioning in his summing up.
-
Julie identifying the twins was not mentioned in the 2002 & 2012 CCRC/COA applications either.
Supporters need to focus on the mountain of forensic & circumstantial evidence which convicted Bamber.
If Roch & Jackie have got new evidence they should post it on here. Just as the OS, Bamber, CT & 360 post on the internet about developments. Rather than posting about Julie identifying the twins. Otherwise people won't believe them.
-
Why wouldn't she?
There is no reason why she wouldn't and they wouldn't ask teachers, foster carers (unless the child was in their care) or social workers; who would have no reason to be able to tell them apart and certainly NOT when they had a person AT THE SCENE able to do the job.
-
There is no reason why she wouldn't and they wouldn't ask teachers, foster carers (unless the child was in their care) or social workers; who would have no reason to be able to tell them apart and certainly NOT when they had a person AT THE SCENE able to do the job.
Why is it that people are so keen to find someone other than Julie to identify the twins. That's probably how Julie felt but as she was the only one on hand she drew the short straw.
-
Why is it that people are so keen to find someone other than Julie to identify the twins. That's probably how Julie felt but as she was the only one on hand she drew the short straw.
Because as she did ID them. the premise is that Jeremy can't be guilty or she would never have been able to do so. It's not even a logical argument.
-
Because as she did ID them. the premise is that Jeremy can't be guilty or she would never have been able to do so. It's not even a logical argument.
No, it isn't. It doesn't correlate.
-
Jackie I agree with you one hundred percent.
Thank you Susan. What on earth went on in her mind. If Jeremy is innocent as I am sure how can she possibly live with that burden. How can someone put a pillow over someone's head out of jealous. I cannot imagine hating someone that much.
-
Actually Jackie, if you'd bothered to read my posts, you'd have seen that, in this case, I agree with you. I think, at that stage she only suspected but hoped she was wrong. Unfortunately, if one can only see things in terms of black or white it becomes difficult to see any other view than one's own.
[/
I don't understand your version of events
According to Julie's statements, Jeremy hated his family and threatened to kill them, she even shared details how he planned to inherit
According to Julie the night before the murders he said tonight's night. Then the whole family of 5 is shot dead and then he allegedly said I should have been an actor.
That morning any normal women would have got hold of the nearest policeman for protection
You cannot be serious that if Jeremy was guilty she could not be sure Jeremy was responsible
How many multiple murders do we have in Essex ??
-
Why wouldn't she?
That's why I never take your posts seriously
-
That's why I never take your posts seriously
Jackie as a new member maybe you could introduce yourself in the Forum please..
-
Because as she did ID them. the premise is that Jeremy can't be guilty or she would never have been able to do so. It's not even a logical argument.
Most normal people on this forum agree with me
-
Jackie as a new member maybe you could introduce yourself in the Forum please..
No I am not a new forum member
-
Thank you Susan. What on earth went on in her mind. If Jeremy is innocent as I am sure how can she possibly live with that burden. How can someone put a pillow over someone's head out of jealous. I cannot imagine hating someone that much.
Jackie when she identified the wee boys she thought Sheila had murdered her family then herself. She carried on escorting Jeremy everywhere then silly Jeremy messed her about and went with one of her friends you can imagine how she felt she obviously was consumed with rage and jealousy her behaviour with the pillow shows that she was not prepared to let anyone else to have him. I think she was quietly brain washed into believing Jeremy had committed the murders and together with the banter they had shared about burning the house down etc and information given to her by EP she then put everything together and came up with a statement and you know the rest. As a result she was not charged with her own criminal offences and she made enough money from selling her story to buy a flat and when she was posing showing her thighs did she not think the money she was to receive was all down to 5 people loosing their lives two of them wee boys. I think she will be in denial but sadly her own children may have been affected by all of it.
-
That's why I never take your posts seriously
Didn't think you could answer that.
-
Jackie when she identified the wee boys she thought Sheila had murdered her family then herself. She carried on escorting Jeremy everywhere then silly Jeremy messed her about and went with one of her friends you can imagine how she felt she obviously was consumed with rage and jealousy her behaviour with the pillow shows that she was not prepared to let anyone else to have him. I think she was quietly brain washed into believing Jeremy had committed the murders and together with the banter they had shared about burning the house down etc and information given to her by EP she then put everything together and came up with a statement and you know the rest. As a result she was not charged with her own criminal offences and she made enough money from selling her story to buy a flat and when she was posing showing her thighs did she not think the money she was to receive was all down to 5 people loosing their lives two of them wee boys. I think she will be in denial but sadly her own children may have been affected by all of it.
Susan that's exactly how I see it, but it's still hard to believe somebody would do that to someone she once loved
Once the police got involved there was no going back
-
Susan that's exactly how I see it, but it's still hard to believe somebody would do that to someone she once loved
Once the police got involved there was no going back
Jackie we will never know deep down she may have thought he would walk free also we all know the saying " a scorned woman" but as you said it is so difficult to understand how she could do this and we will never know how she felt I wonder what she said to Colin he mentioned their meeting in his book but would not say what the conversation was all about.