Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: nugnug on August 03, 2017, 04:29:PM
-
when jeremy i supposed to have phoned mugford and said tonights surely as his confidant in more or less everything she knows that allready so why would he need to phone her and tell her.
alsothe words tonights the night doesnt that imply he hasnt comited the crime yet.
-
when jeremy i supposed to have phoned mugford and said tonights surely as his confidant in more or less everything she knows that allready so why would he need to phone her and tell her.
alsothe words tonights the night doesnt that imply he hasnt comited the crime yet.
Julief had not heard from Bamber since Sunday.
Bamber had just been to supper & seen that everyone was at WHF & Sheila was zonked out.
He rang Julie at 10pm to say 'tonights the night'.
Five hours later he rang her to say 'Everything is going well'.
Two hours later he rang her to say 'don't go to work. A police car is coming to pick you up'.
-
Julief had not heard from Bamber since Sunday.
Bamber had just been to supper & seen that everyone was at WHF & Sheila was zonked out.
He rang Julie at 10pm to say 'tonights the night'.
Five hours later he rang her to say 'Everything is going well'.
Two hours later he rang her to say 'don't go to work. A police car is coming to pick you up'.
ADam all this is just hearsay from Julie and I don't believe one word of it
-
how could he have rang her 5 am or so he was with the police outside the time.
so how did he ring her and say a police cars going to pick you uo.
-
ADam all this is just hearsay from Julie and I don't believe one word of it
The three phone calls made by Bamber happened.
The police asked Bamber what he said at 3am. He just said 'no comment'. His two other phone calls he couldn't remember what was said.
He did testify he rang the Julie at 3am to 'hear a friendly voice'. Which is nice.
Read Bamber's police interviews.
-
how could he have rang her 5 am or so he was with the police outside the time.
so how did he ring her and say a police cars going to pick you uo.
He rang her from a phone box.
-
The three phone calls made by Bamber happened.
The police asked Bamber what he said at 3am. He just said 'no comment'. His two other phone calls he couldn't remember what was said.
He did testify he rang the Julie at 3am to 'hear a friendly voice'. Which is nice.
Read Bamber's police interviews.
Didn't the police suggest he rang someone at 5 am? Thought they asked him if there was anyone he could ring to support him as things were not looking good. No surprise he suggest Julie as she was the closest person he knew I|would guess.
-
Didn't the police suggest he rang someone at 5 am? Thought they asked him if there was anyone he could ring to support him as things were not looking good. No surprise he suggest Julie as she was the closest person he knew I|would guess.
Yes that is correct .
-
Julief had not heard from Bamber since Sunday.
Bamber had just been to supper & seen that everyone was at WHF & Sheila was zonked out.
He rang Julie at 10pm to say 'tonights the night'.
Five hours later he rang her to say 'Everything is going well'.
Two hours later he rang her to say 'don't go to work. A police car is coming to pick you up'.
Not according to her original statements he did not . So she lied at some point .
-
Not according to her original statements he did not . So she lied at some point .
Her original statement was a page long. It confirmed who she was & that Bamber rang her at 3am.
The WS being made after a police car had picked her up of course.
-
Her original statement was a page long. It confirmed who she was & that Bamber rang her at 3am.
The WS being made after a police car had picked her up of course.
so why would she have mentioned the other phone calls.
-
so why would she have mentioned the other phone calls.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1932
She mentioned all three of Bamber's phone calls to her in her WS dated 8/8/85.
-
but why dident she mention them in the first place.
did the police statements confrem that bamber went to a phone box at 5 am.
-
Her original statement was a page long. It confirmed who she was & that Bamber rang her at 3am.
The WS being made after a police car had picked her up of course.
Yes and she mentioned what the call at 10 was about . So she lied .
-
but why dident she mention them in the first place.
did the police statements confrem that bamber went to a phone box at 5 am.
She did mention them in the first place. The 8/8/85 is the massacre morning.
How else could Bamber call Julie (again) at 5am than from a call box.
-
Yes and she mentioned what the call at 10 was about . So she lied .
She didn't lie. She gave a 2 page statement after Bamber had rang her 3 times in 7 hours & told her 'not to go work' as she was being whisked to WHF. Which I assume was again Julie's fault.
She gave a more detailed WS a month later.
-
Interestingly enough. In July of 1985 (weeks before the murders) a disco dance song was released called "tonight's the night"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEn9bqOy7zw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEn9bqOy7zw)
-
Interestingly enough. In July of 1985 (weeks before the murders) a disco dance song was released called "tonight's the night"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEn9bqOy7zw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEn9bqOy7zw)
Perhaps RBW wrote it in anticipation of the murders ::)
-
Interestingly enough. In July of 1985 (weeks before the murders) a disco dance song was released called "tonight's the night"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEn9bqOy7zw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEn9bqOy7zw)
are yes there was i rember now.
-
She didn't lie. She gave a 2 page statement after Bamber had rang her 3 times in 7 hours & told her 'not to go work' as she was being whisked to WHF. Which I assume was again Julie's fault.
She gave a more detailed WS a month later.
She did lie. She said what he spoke about in the first call .
Then it changed from not mentioning his family to talking about the crime
That is not missing things out " he did not mention his family again"
Really ?
I was at my home in Lewisham when Jeremy phoned me about 10pm.
He said to me ‘ Hi honey’ I’ve just phoned up to ask how you are. I said to him I have had a wonderful day at work and that I was really happy and I wanted to make him happy. I asked him how his day had been and he said ‘ As best as can be expected’ as he had spent all day on the tractor; …???… it had been sunny and he had spent all day inside. I assume that he meant he was inside the cab of the tractor all day.
I said to him ‘you sound pissed off’. He said I have been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never. I told him not to be so stupid and that he was only saying this because he had had a bad day on the tractor. He also told me that he had only just got back from work and had had supper with his parents and Sheila and the twins and that was why he late in phoning me.
-
Bamber's highly paid defence went through Julie's 19 WS's brick by brick. Looking for a brick they could pull out to bring everything crashing down.
However they could not find anything. Admitting to each other her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.
Out of desperation, at trial the defence focused on the 1984 minor cheque book fraud. To try to show her as a dishonest person. The judge rightly poured scorn on this saying both Bamber & Julie had committed previous crimes, but that does not mean either had lied at trial. He also said Julie had paid back the money ( Bamber had not). Bamber had also trusted Julie enough to tell her about the caravan break in, so may have trusted her enough to tell her about the massacre.
Julies WS is in different parts -
What happened after the massacre
The eating out, hotels, trips around the country and abroad. There is no point in Julie lying here. A lot of other people joined them for some of these. Hotel bookings can be checked and relatives asked. So there was no reason to lie as everything can be easily checked.
What Bamber did does not highlight guilt or innocence anyway. Although Bamber's callous actions have come back to haunt him
Bamber's hatred & resentment:
This could be her word against Bamber's. But was not.
Bamber himself testified he had a very poor/non existent relationship with June.
He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' on the massacre night. Saying they did not like each other and she had committed child abuse on the twins. Decades later saying he did not understand her illness.
There are also a lot of other people who said Bamber did not like his family or the raw deal he had. The facts back this up, Sheila living rent free in London, Bamber working long hours after reluctantly starting to work on the farm as a last resort.
The massacre plans
This is again Julies word against Bamber's. However some of the things Julie said are backed up.
She said he planned to ride to WHF. This is backed up by the fact that the bike was brought over just before the massacre.
Julie also knew about the bible and kitchen fight. Which was not reported in the papers. And knew about the lockable from outside window.
The judge and appeal courts found it hard to understand Bamber's 3am call to Julie. Julie saying Bamber said 'he had not slept all night' and 'everything is going well'. When the police asked him about the call, he just said 'no comment'.
Julie also knew about the under insurance of WHF and the items inside.
Julie's feelings
Her feelings while things were evolving can only be changed by Julie herself, and cannot be disputed.
___________________
Overall Julie's statement does have a 'ring of truth' to it. She approached the police after speaking to 5 people and was not forced to say anything.
Her reason to lie was also the weakest possible. Bamber allegedly jilting her, after he said their relationship had been in decline/coming to a close for six months. Julie being devastated & psychotic.
-
I know Bamber's supporters have to go after everything. Complaining about a 2 page WS made hours after the massacre, is another dead end.
-
She did lie. She said what he spoke about in the first call .
Then it changed from not mentioning his family to talking about the crime
That is not missing things out " he did not mention his family again"
Really ?
I was at my home in Lewisham when Jeremy phoned me about 10pm.
He said to me ‘ Hi honey’ I’ve just phoned up to ask how you are. I said to him I have had a wonderful day at work and that I was really happy and I wanted to make him happy. I asked him how his day had been and he said ‘ As best as can be expected’ as he had spent all day on the tractor; …???… it had been sunny and he had spent all day inside. I assume that he meant he was inside the cab of the tractor all day.
I said to him ‘you sound pissed off’. He said I have been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never. I told him not to be so stupid and that he was only saying this because he had had a bad day on the tractor. He also told me that he had only just got back from work and had had supper with his parents and Sheila and the twins and that was why he late in phoning me.
Initially she did lie, she lied for him or rather she left out things that tied him to the murders.
-
when jeremy i supposed to have phoned mugford and said tonights surely as his confidant in more or less everything she knows that allready so why would he need to phone her and tell her.
alsothe words tonights the night doesnt that imply he hasnt comited the crime yet.
Back to the thread question.
I've no idea what Nugs is trying to say. However Bamber rang Julie for the first time in 3 days at 10pm to say 'tonights the night'.
-
when jeremy i supposed to have phoned mugford and said tonights surely as his confidant in more or less everything she knows that allready so why would he need to phone her and tell her.
alsothe words tonights the night doesnt that imply he hasnt comited the crime yet.
It was the 10 o'clock call so apparently he would be committing the crime later . So in her second statement he is supposedly clearly telling her he is going to carry out the murders that he had been planning and allegedly telling her about for a long time . Crimes with drugs cyanide or burning . She said at one stage she could understand him killing his parents but not the twins . So that contradicts her not believing him as well .
So she knew the date and then in the second call she knew he had done it .
Don't know what to say really .
-
so if that that 10pm call happend she had time to call the police and stop it happening but she chose not wich would make her an acomplice in law.
-
so if that that 10pm call happend she had time to call the police and stop it happening but she chose not wich would make her an acomplice in law.
Nugs that is right if this is all true she could have prevented these murders she should be serving time as well.
-
so if that that 10pm call happend she had time to call the police and stop it happening but she chose not wich would make her an acomplice in law.
Or it was not true .
-
so if that that 10pm call happend she had time to call the police and stop it happening but she chose not wich would make her an acomplice in law.
She was Bamber's girlfriend & didn't think he was serious.
I understand there had been no previous instances of a son murdering his mother, father, sister & two nephews in Essex. At least not in the previous week.
If she rang the police Bamber would 'jilt her'. Which Julie was apparently despatate to avoid. After all Bamber said she's lying because he did 'jilt her'.
-
Julief had not heard from Bamber since Sunday.
Bamber had just been to supper & seen that everyone was at WHF & Sheila was zonked out.
He rang Julie at 10pm to say 'tonights the night'.
Five hours later he rang her to say 'Everything is going well'.
Two hours later he rang her to say 'don't go to work. A police car is coming to pick you up'.
Not sure what is so hard to believe here.
Bamber agrees he phoned Julie these three times.
Bamber ringing Julie for the first time in 3 days, at 10pm, obviously shows he wanted to tell her something. Unfortunately only Julie remembers what they spoke about. Bamber can't remember.
Bamber ringing Julie at 3am obviously shows Bamber wanted to tell Julie something else. Julie has given details. Bamber has just said 'no comment'.
Bamber ringing Julie (again) at 5pm was obviously to say 'don't go to work. A police car is coming to pick you up'. As that is exactly what happened. Again Bamber couldn't remember what he said.
-
It was the 10 o'clock call so apparently he would be committing the crime later . So in her second statement he is supposedly clearly telling her he is going to carry out the murders that he had been planning and allegedly telling her about for a long time . Crimes with drugs cyanide or burning . She said at one stage she could understand him killing his parents but not the twins . So that contradicts her not believing him as well .
So she knew the date and then in the second call she knew he had done it .
Don't know what to say really .
She lied, then she lied some more and she just couldn't stop lying
-
so if that that 10pm call happend she had time to call the police and stop it happening but she chose not wich would make her an acomplice in law.
Or she didn't think he would go through with it.
-
She was Bamber's girlfriend & didn't think he was serious.
I understand there had been no previous instances of a son murdering his mother, father, sister & two nephews in Essex. At least not in the previous week.
If she rang the police Bamber would 'jilt her'. Which Julie was apparently despatate to avoid. After all Bamber said she's lying because he did 'jilt her'.
How can you say that ? If she was his girlfriend she should have known him very well . According to her statements he give her intricate details and motives including why he would kill the twins . Not just casual throw away comments , details methods and plans . HE opened up about his family life and how he was allegedly badly treated and cyaninde burning and drugging were mentioned , and yet you understand why she did not believe him ? Pull the other one .
Someone convinced her he was guilty and how he did it and she saved her life and career by going along with it after she found out he had slept with her friend . imo of course
-
How can you say that ? If she was his girlfriend she should have known him very well . According to her statements he give her intricate details and motives including why he would kill the twins . Not just casual throw away comments , details methods and plans . HE opened up about his family life and how he was allegedly badly treated and cyaninde burning and drugging were mentioned , and yet you understand why she did not believe him ? Pull the other one .
Someone convinced her he was guilty and how he did it and she saved her life and career by going along with it after she found out he had slept with her friend . imo of course
Could you do that without proof?
-
Could you do that without proof?
A woman scorned and all that .
She said she could have smothered him so testifying against him would have been easy .
-
A woman scorned and all that .
She said she could have smothered him so testifying against him would have been easy .
A woman scorned is just a saying.
She put a pillow over his face - it wasn't an attempt to smother him - that is something that gets dragged out of proportion frequently.
-
Or she didn't think he would go through with it.
after 10 pm she clearly knew he would.
but she did nothing and she had plenty of time to phone the police.
-
after 10 pm she clearly knew he would.
but she did nothing and she had plenty of time to phone the police.
How do you know?
-
what somone bans on for weeks about killing there family and then at they phone you and say tonights the night.
of course you know.
-
what somone bans on for weeks about killing there family and then at they phone you and say tonights the night.
of course you know.
Don't be so ridiculous. Of course she didn't believe he would massacre his mother, father, sister & two nephews.
She would have started suspecting Bamber had actually gone ahead after he phoned her (again) at 3am.
-
How can you say that ? If she was his girlfriend she should have known him very well . According to her statements he give her intricate details and motives including why he would kill the twins . Not just casual throw away comments , details methods and plans . HE opened up about his family life and how he was allegedly badly treated and cyaninde burning and drugging were mentioned , and yet you understand why she did not believe him ? Pull the other one .
Someone convinced her he was guilty and how he did it and she saved her life and career by going along with it after she found out he had slept with her friend . imo of course
Julie told 5 people what she knew before going to the police. She was still with Bamber. You know this.
No one told her anything. You know this.
You're conspiracy theories do not work.
-
Don't be so ridiculous. Of course she didn't believe he would massacre his mother, father, sister & two nephews.
She would have started suspecting Bamber had actually gone ahead after he phoned her (again) at 3am.
You are right how ridiculous he would never do that. Exactly !
-
Julie told 5 people what she knew before going to the police. She was still with Bamber. You know this.
No one told her anything. You know this.
You're conspiracy theories do not work.
I am getting closer . Davids post really helped clarify a few things ;)
-
Don't be so ridiculous. Of course she didn't believe he would massacre his mother, father, sister & two nephews.
She would have started suspecting Bamber had actually gone ahead after he phoned her (again) at 3am.
what she wouldent belive he was going to rhat after hed been banging on about doing it for weeks and then pjoned and told her he was going to do it.
youd have to be in someway mentally challged not to know what was going to happen. and if she was i doubt if she would of got to be inthe job she now holds.
and the laws pretty clear doing that makes you an acomplice whatever she cliamed to belive.
-
You are right how ridiculous he would never do that. Exactly !
She didn't believe he would follow his plan through - and yet, he did.
-
She didn't believe he would follow his plan through - and yet, he did.
Sorry , I don't buy that , not in the detail she said they discussed it , especially saying she could understand it if he just talked about murdering his parents . On the night the penny would have dropped which she herself said it did.
-
Sorry , I don't buy that , not in the detail she said they discussed it , especially saying she could understand it if he just talked about murdering his parents . On the night the penny would have dropped which she herself said it did.
It doesn't really matter if you buy it or not, she has explained her feelings on what went on and she would know how she felt about what was said better than you or I. You think she's a liar and that's your prerogative - I think Jeremy is and that's mine.
-
No way did Jeremy murder anyone.
-
It doesn't really matter if you buy it or not, she has explained her feelings on what went on and she would know how she felt about what was said better than you or I. You think she's a liar and that's your prerogative - I think Jeremy is and that's mine.
in law shes an acomplice if the slightist understanding of law works doesnt matter what she cliams.
-
in law shes an acomplice if the slightist understanding of law works doesnt matter what she cliams.
But you have to prove joint enterprise and the law has since changed in the defendant's favour: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35598896
-
in law shes an acomplice if the slightist understanding of law works doesnt matter what she cliams.
Obviously not! Supporters treat her as if she's the only person who has -in their opinion- escaped prosecution for a crime THEY allege her to be guilty of, when, in truth, leniency ha frequently been given to those who turn Queen's Evidence.
-
Obviously not! Supporters treat her as if she's the only person who has -in their opinion- escaped prosecution for a crime THEY allege her to be guilty of, when, in truth, leniency ha frequently been given to those who turn Queen's Evidence.
Point is though, if they believe she's also guilty, they have to believe that Bamber is too and yet still make excuses for him. :-\
-
Obviously not! Supporters treat her as if she's the only person who has -in their opinion- escaped prosecution for a crime THEY allege her to be guilty of, when, in truth, leniency ha frequently been given to those who turn Queen's Evidence.
theres no allged about it if what she says guilty of being an acomplice.
on the other hand if isnt as i strongly suspect shes only guilty of perverting the course of justice.
-
Point is though, if they believe she's also guilty, they have to believe that Bamber is too and yet still make excuses for him. :-\
we said if it happend if you care to read the orginal posts.
-
theres no allged about it if what she says guilty of being an acomplice.
on the other hand if isnt as i strongly suspect shes only guilty of perverting the course of justice.
As Caroline said, then. If Julie is guilty of being an accomplice it make Jeremy guilty of murder -which was what he was convicted of- but as Julie turned Queen's Evidence and could be proved to be MILES away from the SoC, there was nothing to charge her with.
-
we said if it happend if you care to read the orginal posts.
It's said quite often!
-
What could Julie be charged with as far as being an accomplice goes ?
Did she supply the murder weapon for Bamber ? No.
Did she loosen the bathroom window for him ? No.
Did she say Bamber was on the phone to her between 10pm - 3am so could not have left gone to WHF ? No.
Did she draw up confidential plans of the inside of WHF ? No.
She could only be charged with knowing Bamber intended to committ the massacre. I assume. In that case she would just say she didn't believe him.
Or she could be charged with withholding evidence. For 20 days. That is negated by her approaching the police, giving a full WS & testifying.
-
What could Julie be charged with as far as being an accomplice goes ?
Did she supply the murder weapon for Bamber ? No.
Did she loosen the bathroom window for him ? No.
Did she say Bamber was on the phone to her between 10pm - 3am so could not have left gone to WHF ? No.
Did she draw up confidential plans of the inside of WHF ? No.
She could only be charged with knowing Bamber intended to committ the massacre. I assume. In that case she would just say she didn't believe him.
Or she could be charged with withholding evidence. For 20 days. That is negated by her approaching the police, giving a full WS & testifying.
if you know a murder is going to happen and you dont do anything about it your ancomplice in law simple as.
doesnt matter how much bullshit you come out with that you dident think theyd go through with it.
-
if you know a murder is going to happen and you dont do anything about it your ancomplice in law simple as.
doesnt matter how much bullshit you come out with that you dident think theyd go through with it.
You're the one who talks bullshit. That's when I can actually understand through you're 'bullshit' spelling & grammer.
There is no point charging Julie with 'knowing Bamber was committing the massacre'. She would just say she didn't believe he was serious. There was no evidence to refute Julie.
-
if you know a murder is going to happen and you dont do anything about it your ancomplice in law simple as.
doesnt matter how much bullshit you come out with that you dident think theyd go through with it.
So if someone you know says they want to kill someone, you'd go straight to the police, would you? What do you think the police would say if this person had no previous? And what would YOUR first words be if murder was subsequently committed? I'll bet you'd say that you never believed the threat was real.
-
if you know a murder is going to happen and you dont do anything about it your ancomplice in law simple as.
doesnt matter how much bullshit you come out with that you dident think theyd go through with it.
Have you got any examples of someone being charged with being an accomplice, due to alledgedly knowing someone was going to committ a crime which had been committed ?
Thought not.
-
thers a barister on here asking he wil tell you thats the law.
your just digging a hole here.
-
thers a barister on here asking he wil tell you thats the law.
your just digging a hole here.
You are correct nugnug. Adam is simply wrong. I have posted about this at length in the past. JM potentially faced very serious charges. If her account is correct she could have been charged as an accomplice to murder (based upon support both before and after the events), or with assisting an offender, or with perverting the course of justice, leaving aside the unrelated deception, burglary and drugs offences.
-
You are correct nugnug. Adam is simply wrong. I have posted about this at length in the past. JM potentially faced very serious charges. If her account is correct she could have been charged as an accomplice to murder (based upon support both before and after the events), or with assisting an offender, or with perverting the course of justice, leaving aside the unrelated deception, burglary and drugs offences.
So why wasn't she ?
-
Heard of bribery and corruption ?
-
Hopefully NGB will answer.
-
So why wasn't she ?
It's obvious . There was a deal because she was the main prosecution witness.
-
adam you have no legal qqaulfications you taking to sombody who has plenty what do you think the chances are of you winning this argument/
-
It's obvious . There was a deal because she was the main prosecution witness.
And what was so surprising about such a deal? It was hardly the first time, and I imagine scores have been done since.
-
Hopefully NGB will answer.
Jan has already answered.
-
Hopefully NGB will answer.
He doesn't have to . You know the answer .
And there were many charges she could have faced as has already been explained.
In the Bentley case it was joint enterprise and he did not even pull the trigger and he was hanged .
-
And what was so surprising about such a deal? It was hardly the first time, and I imagine scores have been done since.
I did not say it was surprising? I said it was obvious?
However I do believe she was encouraged to embellish her statements . IMO
-
Jan has already answered.
Thought you might give more information. As you were involved in the case.
Anyway that's that then.
The priority was getting the correct person convicted for a 5x massacre. Prosecuting a woman for a minor 1994 cheque book fraud was not as important. Espescially as she was an important witness. Besides which the bank never pressed charges.
-
Thought you might give more information. As you were involved in the case.
Anyway that's that then.
The priority was getting the correct person convicted for a 5x massacre. Prosecuting a woman for a minor 1994 cheque book fraud was not as important. Espescially as she was an important witness. Besides which the bank never pressed charges.
Do you want me to do a list of what she could have possibly done a deal on?
Fraud
Burglary
Selling drugs
Drug abuse
Perverting the course of justice
Joint enterprise
Being an accomplice in the murders
Making a deal with a newspaper during a trial
Have I missed anything .
Now if he is guilty people are going to say this is all fine
But if he is innocent it means she made a deal and lied in court .
So a second charge of perverting the course of justice.
Is that clear enough adam
Just statingposible facts , not necessarily and opinion on this .
-
Do you want me to do a list of what she could have possibly done a deal on?
Fraud
Burglary
Selling drugs
Drug abuse
Perverting the course of justice
Joint enterprise
Being an accomplice in the murders
Making a deal with a newspaper during a trial
Have I missed anything .
Now if he is guilty people are going to say this is all fine
But if he is innocent it means she made a deal and lied in court .
So a second charge of perverting the course of justice.
Is that clear enough adam
Just statingposible facts , not necessarily and opinion on this .
1984 minor cheque book fraud. The police found out about it after she had completed her WS. Nothing to do with the massacre - Dismissed.
Burglary - She told the police about Bamber robbing his family. Bamber told her to be a look out. - Dismissed.
Selling cannabis at college - As Bamber did. Source please. However nothing to do with the massacre - Dismissed.
Drug abuse - Just like Bamber again then. Again source please. Nothing to do with the massacre - Dismissed.
Perverting the course of justice - She approached the police after 1 month after telling 5 people while still with Bamber. After Bamber had finally stopped whisking her around England & Amsterdam - Dismissed.
Being an accomplice - She was in London when Bamber massacred everyone - Dismissed.
Making a verbal NOTW deal - As Bamber had also done. Prior to his sick efforts to sell pictures of Sheila to the Sun - Dismissed.
-
1984 minor cheque book fraud. The police found out about it after she had completed her WS. Nothing to do with the massacre - Dismissed.
Burglary - She told the police about Bamber robbing his family. Bamber told her to be a look out. - Dismissed.
Selling cannabis at college - As Bamber did. Source please. However nothing to do with the massacre - Dismissed.
Drug abuse - Just like Bamber again then. Again source please. Nothing to do with the massacre - Dismissed.
Perverting the course of justice - She approached the police after 1 month after telling 5 people while still with Bamber. After Bamber had finally stopped whisking her around England & Amsterdam - Dismissed.
Being an accomplice - She was in London when Bamber massacred everyone - Dismissed.
Making a verbal NOTW deal - As Bamber had also done. Prior to his sick efforts to sell pictures of Sheila to the Sun - Dismissed.
Adam how arrogant you are to make out you know more about the law than NGB who is a fully qualified experienced Barrister.
-
It is strange that with over 200 pieces of forensic & circumstantial evidence against the only alive individual who could have committed the massacre, supporters so passionately support Bamber. A man virtually every supporter has never met.
The police were corrupt, Julie is literally hated by supporters, the relatives framed another greiving relation, the experts lied, the judge was biased, the defence were not good enough, Mary Mugford supported her pyschotic daughter, James Richards was wrong, the COA are outdated, the CCRC were wrong, the police complaints commission biased.
I know it's a high profile case & Bamber has always said he's innocent. But surely a convicted man saying he's innocent shouldn't negate over 200 pieces of evidence & several court decisions. Otherwise no one would ever be convicted.
-
1984 minor cheque book fraud. The police found out about it after she had completed her WS. Nothing to do with the massacre - Dismissed.
Burglary - She told the police about Bamber robbing his family. Bamber told her to be a look out. - Dismissed.
Selling cannabis at college - As Bamber did. Source please. However nothing to do with the massacre - Dismissed.
Drug abuse - Just like Bamber again then. Again source please. Nothing to do with the massacre - Dismissed.
Perverting the course of justice - She approached the police after 1 month after telling 5 people while still with Bamber. After Bamber had finally stopped whisking her around England & Amsterdam - Dismissed.
Being an accomplice - She was in London when Bamber massacred everyone - Dismissed.
Making a verbal NOTW deal - As Bamber had also done. Prior to his sick efforts to sell pictures of Sheila to the Sun - Dismissed.
Adam I read all your posts and sometimes you come over as quite desperate as if you have doubts about your own posts an example of this is the fact that you have to refer Julie's fraud as "minor" also you try to take posts away from your main points by bringing up the nude pictures etc you don't come over as a confident poster at all. Now don't say the same applies to me I admit I am not confident in my posting I have to read old posts to refresh my mind and get some details.
-
You are correct nugnug. Adam is simply wrong. I have posted about this at length in the past. JM potentially faced very serious charges. If her account is correct she could have been charged as an accomplice to murder (based upon support both before and after the events), or with assisting an offender, or with perverting the course of justice, leaving aside the unrelated deception, burglary and drugs offences.
The point was she turned Queen's evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_state%27s_evidence
It may be that she potentially faced serious charges, which is what Jeremy Bamber was counting on and explains her reticence for the month in question.
Adam is not wrong: it is you who have either been misinformed or are desperate to deceive.
-
The point was she turned Queen's evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_state%27s_evidence
It may be that she potentially faced serious charges, which is what Jeremy Bamber was counting on and explains her reticence for the month in question.
Adam is not wrong: it is you who have either been misinformed or are desperate to deceive.
I suppose the police could have prosecuted Julie for apparently dealing in low grade drugs at college. Or for being a look out to Bamber as he robbed his family. Or for waiting a month before approaching the police.
This would mean Julie wouldn't be an important witness in a 5x murder charge.
I know what I would prefer the police to do when women & children had been shot while they slept.
-
I suppose the police could have prosecuted Julie for apparently dealing in low grade drugs at college. Or for being a look out to Bamber as he robbed his family. Or for waiting a month before approaching the police.
This would mean Julie wouldn't be an important witness in a 5x murder charge.
I know what I would prefer the police to do when women & children had been shot while they slept.
He's wrong about noble cause corruption as well. We're not dealing with the odd murder here but cases where potentially thousands of lives can be saved.
-
He's wrong about noble cause corruption as well. We're not dealing with the odd murder here but cases where potentially thousands of lives can be saved.
As with the incarceration of "The Three Musketeers".
-
As with the incarceration of "The Three Musketeers".
And who wouldn't have stopped the transatlantic bomb plot by any means available? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6153243/Airline-terror-trial-The-bomb-plot-to-kill-10000-people.html
-
The point was she turned Queen's evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_state%27s_evidence
It may be that she potentially faced serious charges, which is what Jeremy Bamber was counting on and explains her reticence for the month in question.
Adam is not wrong: it is you who have either been misinformed or are desperate to deceive.
Not wrong about what ?
-
Not wrong about what ?
We've been through this before several years ago. The trouble is ngb1066 doesn't debate but presents a fait accompli, which members are supposed to accept due to his elevated status. In fact when I come to think of it it reminds me of another forum I used to frequent but I digress. He's far too much of a gentleman, above the fray or out of touch to argue the toss, whichever way you care to look at it.
-
He's wrong about noble cause corruption as well. We're not dealing with the odd murder here but cases where potentially thousands of lives can be saved.
Can someone be wrong or right about noble cause corruption? Sure that is a matter of opinion ?
-
Can someone be wrong or right about noble cause corruption? Sure that is a matter of opinion ?
Well the principle of not getting your hands dirty is a noble one. The problem is there are people in our society not playing by our rules. I always thought I was the one living in the past.
-
Can someone be wrong or right about noble cause corruption? Sure that is a matter of opinion ?
NO. Strictly on a point of law, NCC is wrong. End of. No argument. However, The Law doesn't allow for sentiment or emotion -it would NEVER do for me to be a lawyer!!!- but it does affect, sentimentally and emotionally, most of those it touches.
-
Adam how arrogant you are to make out you know more about the law than NGB who is a fully qualified experienced Barrister.
This is an open forum Susan and if you want it otherwise then go ahead and cleanse it of the troublemakers, though the precedent might come back and bite you.
-
This is an open forum Susan and if you want it otherwise then go ahead and cleanse it of the troublemakers, though the precedent might come back and bite you.
Whatever deal the police made with Julie, it was legal. As 32 years later it hasn't been breached.
The only thing relevant is the caravan break in & Julie not approaching the police for a month. The caravan break in relating more to Bamber.
It is a pity NGB couldn't give the forum more information. He just left it to Jan to bring up unrelated apparent drug dealing.
-
Whatever deal the police made with Julie, it was legal. As 32 years later it hasn't been breached.
The only thing relevant is the caravan break in & Julie not approaching the police for a month. The caravan break in relating more to Bamber.
It is a pity NGB couldn't give the forum more information. He just left it to Jan to bring up unrelated apparent drug dealing.
Who said it was illegal ?
And all of the crimes are relevant .
-
Who said it was illegal ?
And all of the crimes are relevant .
So are you saying that Julie shouldn't have been allowed to testify?
-
So are you saying that Julie shouldn't have been allowed to testify?
I can't escape the feeling that, if all those who think Jeremy is innocent believed he's in his rightful place, there wouldn't be an argument about what was said -or not- by whom. I feel certain that some of the punishments some would like to see imposed on the police are FAR from legal, but no one seems to worry about that.
-
This is an open forum Susan and if you want it otherwise then go ahead and cleanse it of the troublemakers, though the precedent might come back and bite you.
Steve I agree this is an open forum and I am not suggesting Adam is a trouble maker or indeed any other poster is all I am suggesting to Adam he remembers the word respect and posts accordingly.
-
So are you saying that Julie shouldn't have been allowed to testify?
Not if she was telling the truth . I was explaining the reasons why sometimes a person might embellish their evidence in order to save their own skin .
-
Not if she was telling the truth . I was explaining the reasons why sometimes a person might embellish their evidence in order to save their own skin .
The police knew nothing about the 1984 minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby until after she had completed her WS.
She told them about the caravan robbery.
The unsourced minor drug taking & college dealing is nothing to do with the massacre & the police didn't know about it.
She had no skin that needed saving when approaching the police.
-
The police knew nothing about the 1984 minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby until after she had completed her WS.
She told them about the caravan robbery.
The unsourced minor drug taking & college dealing is nothing to do with the massacre & the police didn't know about it.
She had no skin that needed saving when approaching the police.
Her friend had allegedly dobbed her in for withholding evidence which as you well know is a crime so she could have been procesuted for that for a start . And because of the new investigation allegedly the police were on to Jeremy so straight away she became an accessory at the point because she had not come forward on a voluntary basis.
So good job she agreed to appear for the prosecution don't you think?
-
Her friend had allegedly dobbed her in for withholding evidence which as you well know is a crime so she could have been procesuted for that for a start . And because of the new investigation allegedly the police were on to Jeremy so straight away she became an accessory at the point because she had not come forward on a voluntary basis.
So good job she agreed to appear for the prosecution don't you think?
If she wanted to save her skin I guess she shouldn't have told 5 people. While still with Bamber. Or approached the police with Liz Rimmington.
-
This is an open forum Susan and if you want it otherwise then go ahead and cleanse it of the troublemakers, though the precedent might come back and bite you.
True enough Steve but I'm sure susan knows that well enough.
I cannot see why you should be offended by her post to Adam. She had a right to express her opinion.
-
If she wanted to save her skin I guess she shouldn't have told 5 people. While still with Bamber. Or approached the police with Liz Rimmington.
Maybe someone Tipped her off that Jeremy was definitely in the frame and about to go down. And that's when she started thinking of saving her own skin , and adam if she had not appeared for the prosecution what would have happened to her?
Or if her evidence had not been convincing enough what would have happened to her?
-
True enough Steve but I'm sure susan knows that well enough.
I cannot see why you should be offended by her post to Adam. She had a right to express her opinion.
Maggie thank you, I must admit I was quite taken aback at steve,s post as I had not said anything abusive or nasty Adam has used stronger words to others but it was just my opinion that NGB runs this forum with you Maggie and I think you both deserve respect
-
I have no idea what Susan is talking about.
However I would like to know how by telling 5 people & then approaching the police, Julie was saving her skin about previous minor crimes the police didn't know about.
-
Adam how arrogant you are to make out you know more about the law than NGB who is a fully qualified experienced Barrister.
You quoted my post which was to Jan.
Discuss the case rather than try to be a mother hen.
-
1984 minor cheque book fraud. The police found out about it after she had completed her WS. Nothing to do with the massacre - Dismissed.
Burglary - She told the police about Bamber robbing his family. Bamber told her to be a look out. - Dismissed.
Selling cannabis at college - As Bamber did. Source please. However nothing to do with the massacre - Dismissed.
Drug abuse - Just like Bamber again then. Again source please. Nothing to do with the massacre - Dismissed.
Perverting the course of justice - She approached the police after 1 month after telling 5 people while still with Bamber. After Bamber had finally stopped whisking her around England & Amsterdam - Dismissed.
Being an accomplice - She was in London when Bamber massacred everyone - Dismissed.
Making a verbal NOTW deal - As Bamber had also done. Prior to his sick efforts to sell pictures of Sheila to the Sun - Dismissed.
Not sure what is wrong with this.
-
You quoted my post which was to Jan.
Discuss the case rather than try to be a mother hen.
Adam just because I keep hens no need to make me their Mother but they think I am cluck cluck hehehe
-
You quoted my post which was to Jan.
Discuss the case rather than try to be a mother hen.
You need a mother hen . To shoo you up outside for a while .
-
You need a mother hen . To shoo you up outside for a while .
hahaha Jan I have enough hens just now hehehe
-
hahaha Jan I have enough hens just now hehehe
I meant adam needs one . He spends all day and all night on here . He needs to see daylight . Oops that makes him sound like a vampire
-
I have no idea what Susan is talking about.
However I would like to know how by telling 5 people & then approaching the police, Julie was saving her skin about previous minor crimes the police didn't know about.
Hopefully someone can give me an answer to my quoted question.
Also not sure how Julie was saving her skin by approaching the police a month after the massacre. Several people have said she should have done it after arriving at WHF the following morning.
-
I meant adam needs one . He spends all day and all night on here . He needs to see daylight . Oops that makes him sound like a vampire
Hahaha or battery operated whoops I,m in trouble ;D
-
Thought you might give more information. As you were involved in the case.
Anyway that's that then.
The priority was getting the correct person convicted for a 5x massacre. Prosecuting a woman for a minor 1994 cheque book fraud was not as important. Espescially as she was an important witness. Besides which the bank never pressed charges.
You have just had it explained to you quite clearly the numerous serious charges Mugford could face if the police wanted to so do not keep making out the only charge would the cheque book fraud
-
Hopefully someone can give me an answer to my quoted question.
Also not sure how Julie was saving her skin by approaching the police a month after the massacre. Several people have said she should have done it after arriving at WHF the following morning.
I just told you .
-
The point was she turned Queen's evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_state%27s_evidence
It may be that she potentially faced serious charges, which is what Jeremy Bamber was counting on and explains her reticence for the month in question.
Adam is not wrong: it is you who have either been misinformed or are desperate to deceive.
Oh my god, I cannot believe what I have just read. I was right about you all along
-
Maybe someone Tipped her off that Jeremy was definitely in the frame and about to go down. And that's when she started thinking of saving her own skin , and adam if she had not appeared for the prosecution what would have happened to her?
Or if her evidence had not been convincing enough what would have happened to her?
No one tipped her off. She was with Bamber virtually all the time until she started telling other people after 20 days.
So Bamber was innocent. But Juiie decided to save her own skin a month later on her unrelated minor crimes the police didn't know about. By framing an innocent man.
Smart move.
-
Oh my god, I cannot believe what I have just read. I was right about you all along
Jackie the forum should accommodate all personalities as long as nobody is breaking the law.
-
Maybe someone Tipped her off that Jeremy was definitely in the frame and about to go down. And that's when she started thinking of saving her own skin , and adam if she had not appeared for the prosecution what would have happened to her?
Or if her evidence had not been convincing enough what would have happened to her?
If Julie was tipped off that Bamber was in the frame, the most plausible reason why she would be saving her skin, was if she knew Bamber was guilty.
Julie realising she should have told the police earlier. But better late than never. An approach & co operation by her is better than waiting for the police to approach her & then stone walling them.
-
No one tipped her off. She was with Bamber virtually all the time until she started telling other people after 20 days.
So Bamber was innocent. But Juiie decided to save her own skin a month later on her unrelated minor crimes the police didn't know about. By framing an innocent man.
Smart move.
Blimey it's like banging your head against a brick wall.
She admitted she knew he had killed his family
She admitted she knew of his plans
She even condoned understood why he would do it .
So after those 20 days she was accused of withholding evidence she did not go to the police willingly and funnily enough Jeremy was now in the frame and she used the exact same theories in her statements that were in the family notes.
And unless you are the source because you were there then you definitely do not know they were together all of the time ( they broke up by the way ) or whether she had a call from anyone .
Dismissed
-
If Julie was tipped off that Bamber was in the frame, the most plausible reason why she would be saving her skin, was if she knew Bamber was guilty.
Julie realising she should have told the police earlier. But better late than never & an approach by her is better than waiting for the police to approach her & then stone walling them.
I sincerely hope so . Because if she used other people's theories , as shown by david, or embellished throw away remarks , or told lies to help the police get her man then I don't know how she can live with herself .
-
Blimey it's like banging your head against a brick wall.
She admitted she knew he had killed his family
She admitted she knew of his plans
She even condoned understood why he would do it .
So after those 20 days she was accused of withholding evidence she did not go to the police willingly and funnily enough Jeremy was now in the frame and she used the exact same theories in her statements that were in the family notes.
And unless you are the source because you were there then you definitely do not know they were together all of the time ( they broke up by the way ) or whether she had a call from anyone .
Dismissed
Julie was tipped off & saving her skin because -
She knew Bamber was guilty & should have told the police earlier.
Bamber was innocent but she wanted to save her skin from minor crimes from months & years ago. Which the police didn't know about. So attempted to frame an innocent man.
Which was it ?
Please don't give me more rubbish.
-
Jackie the forum should accommodate all personalities as long as nobody is breaking the law.
I've known Ngb long enough to respect his opinion. With relation to what is being discussed on this forum, Ngb would know all about 'deals' police make to get their man, even if they don't really know the person involved is guilty
Barristers know what goes on behind the scenes
-
Julie was tipped off & saving her skin because -
She knew Bamber was guilty & should have told the police earlier.
Bamber was innocent but she wanted to save her skin from minor crimes from months & years ago. Which the police didn't know about. So attempted to frame an innocent man.
Which was it ?
Please don't give me more rubbish.
Excuse me? Give you more rubbish ?
Why don't you rephrase that .
-
I've known Ngb long enough to respect his opinion. With relation to what is being discussed on this forum, Ngb would know all about 'deals' police make to get their man, even if they don't really know the person involved is guilty
Barristers know what goes on behind the scenes
There is something in that and every case should be judged on its merits. However nobody has to follow slavishly someone else's opinion on a wink and a nudge.
-
Excuse me? Give you more rubbish ?
Why don't you rephrase that .
Please answer.
How was Julie saving her skin by approaching the police, after being tipped off ?
-
Please answer.
How was Julie saving her skin by approaching the police, after being tipped off ?
I suppose because she got her own story in first, if you're an anti-Julie person.
-
Please answer.
How was Julie saving her skin by approaching the police, after being tipped off ?
Because if she had not she would be charged with him .
And don't accuse me of posting rubbish when you are the worst offender on here .
You start being rude then expect it back .
-
I suppose because she got her own story in first, if you're an anti-Julie person.
Why approach the police to tell a false story if Bamber had never mentioned the massacre before ?
-
Because if she had not she would be charged with him .
And don't accuse me of posting rubbish when you are the worst offender on here .
You start being rude then expect it back .
Don't say 'it's like banging you're head against a brick wall'. It is rude.
So she knew Bamber was guilty & wanted to avoid being charged with withholding evidence. So approached the police & said what she knew. Before they approached her. After telling 5 people.
That is all I wanted to know.
-
Why approach the police to tell a false story if Bamber had never mentioned the massacre before ?
Well she didn't, but it was Liz Rimington who telephoned Police and forced her hand. Fortunately Julie's story tallied with Susan's under separate Police interrogation and the case started there.
-
Well she didn't, but it was Liz Rimington who telephoned Police and forced her hand. Fortunately Julie's story tallied with Susan's under separate Police interrogation and the case started there.
Yes. She told Liz Rimmington & was in the room when she phoned Stan Jones. So no hands being forced.
Susan who ?
-
Yes. She told Liz Rimmington & was in the room when she phoned Stan Jones. So no hands being forced.
Susan who ?
Susan Battersby, with whom she committed the cheque book fraud.
-
Susan Battersby, with whom she committed the cheque book fraud.
The police found out about the cheque book fraud after Julie had completed her WS.
-
I agree with Jan.
The relatives had gone to Peter Simpson & may have spoken to Julie, CC, BW etc on the phone - the tip off.
Julie had already spoken to 5 people & wanted to 'save her skin' by going to the police & telling them what she knew. Which she should have done earlier.
-
I suppose because she got her own story in first, if you're an anti-Julie person.
I don't understand your comment 'if you're an anti-Julie person'. Surely the fact is that she had behaved in a criminal way and broken the law and that undeniable whichever way you look at it.
-
Don't say 'it's like banging you're head against a brick wall'. It is rude.
So she knew Bamber was guilty & wanted to avoid being charged with withholding evidence. So approached the police & said what she knew. Before they approached her. After telling 5 people.
That is all I wanted to know.
You started it boy child ;D
She did not approach them first . Fact
And personally I think she made most of it up to help convict him . IMO 8)
-
I don't understand your comment 'if you're an anti-Julie person'. Surely the fact is that she had behaved in a criminal way and broken the law and that undeniable whichever way you look at it.
But this is tied in with the noble cause argument in that the greater public good was to put Bamber behind bars, just as in the 3 Musketeers case it was to prevent an atrocity on the scale of the Manchester Arena bombing.
-
I agree with Jan.
The relatives had gone to Peter Simpson & may have spoken to Julie, CC, BW etc on the phone - the tip off.
Julie had already spoken to 5 people & wanted to 'save her skin' by going to the police & telling them what she knew. Which she should have done earlier.
OR she was tipped off by the family that Jeremy was in the frame started blabbing some information she was fed , was shopped by her friend and then lied to suit the scene and save her skin .
You have your opinion I have mine .
-
If Julie was not tipped off, there is still the liklihood she would want to 'save her skin'.
She won't know what the police were doing, but decided to tell them what she knew anyway. To prevent punishment if Bamber was ever charged. Morally it's also the right thing to do.
Her prior minor crimes are irrelevent.
-
But this is tied in with the noble cause argument in that the greater public good was to put Bamber behind bars, just as in the 3 Musketeers case it was to prevent an atrocity on the scale of the Manchester Arena bombing.
I cannot agree with NCC , the whole point of the legal system is to be objective and above board. We cannot have all and sundry deciding its ok to set traps or plant evidence because they have decided someone is guilty. It already does happen but it should never be acceptable.
-
If Julie was not tipped off, there is still the liklihood she would want to 'save her skin'.
She won't know what the police were doing, but decided to tell them what she knew anyway. To prevent punishment if Bamber was ever charged. Morally it's also the right thing to do.
Her prior minor crimes are irrelevent.
But not telling the police straight away he was the murderer is ok then ? Perhaps if he is guilty she thought she was in for a good life with Jeremy , being rich and travelling the world . That makes it ok then .
-
I also agree with Jan that Julie wanted to save her own skin.
It is ridiculous to suggest she approached the police as she wanted to prevent prosecution on her minor crimes from months & years ago. The police knew nothing about these & never would have found out.
After understandably not telling the police on day 1, she went to them & sung like a canary after telling 5 friends. This is much better than the police approaching her & coercing information.
Bamber is guilty & Julie saved her own skin.
-
I cannot agree with NCC , the whole point of the legal system is to be objective and above board. We cannot have all and sundry deciding its ok to set traps or plant evidence because they have decided someone is guilty. It already does happen but it should never be acceptable.
I agree which is why independent forensic labs are mush better plus recorded interviews etc.
And sometimes planting evidence can in fact have the opposite affect and cause a trial to collapse.
I hate vunerable persons being used as well .
Such as making of a murderer . Shocking
-
I cannot agree with NCC , the whole point of the legal system is to be objective and above board. We cannot have all and sundry deciding its ok to set traps or plant evidence because they have decided someone is guilty. It already does happen but it should never be acceptable.
But the legal system is not consistent-just look at how the highest solicitor in the land, Peter Goldsmith, changed his advice to Cabinet in the run up to the Iraq war. If MI5 were under the control of responsible ministers there might be more control and accountability. I don't support a blanket ban on the practice.
-
A lot has been agreed in the last few minutes.
Julie may have been tipped off that the police knew what Julie knew. That Bamber was guilty.
Julie had already told 5 people what she knew. And knew it was much better to approach the police now than do nothing. Better late than never.
There is no way Julie approached the police to stop prosecution for her minor crimes from months & years ago, as suggested. EP were never going to find out about these.
If she had not been tipped off, there is still a strong chance she would approach the police. Morally she may feel it was the right thing to do & had already told 5 people.
-
What is certain is the only way Julie was saving her own skin, was because she knew Bamber was guilty.
Approaching the police if Bamber was innocent would be psychotic.
-
A lot has been agreed in the last few minutes.
Julie may have been tipped off that the police knew what Julie knew. That Bamber was guilty.
Julie had already told 5 people what she knew. And knew it was much better to approach the police now than do nothing. Better late than never.
There is no way Julie approached the police to stop prosecution for her minor crimes from months & years ago. EP were never going to find out about these.
If she had not been tipped off, there is still a strong chance she would approach the police. She had already told 5 people.
I don't really understand Julie but maybe she hung around because she thought Jeremy needed her-after all he'd told her that at Pevensey. I think in retrospect the relationship was shattered after the second telephone call.
-
I don't really understand Julie but maybe she hung around because she thought Jeremy needed her-after all he'd told her that at Pevensey. I think in retrospect the relationship was shattered after the second telephone call.
She didn't hang around Bamber. He whisked her to WHF & then here, there & everywhere. Often pleading with Julie to accompany him.
Anyway the 200+ pieces of forensic & circumstantial evidence shows Bamber is guilty.
Julie's lateness in approaching the police after telling 5 people shows she may well have been saving her own skin knowing Bamber was guilty. As well as believing it was the right thing to do.
-
She didn't hang around Bamber. He whisked her to WHF & then here, there & everywhere. Often pleading with Julie to accompany him.
Anyway the forensic & circumstantial evidence shows Bamber is guilty.
Julie's lateness in approaching the police after telling 5 people shows she may well have been saving her own skin. As well as believing it was the right thing to do.
Or she was actually a naive person and did not go to the police because she had no idea he was guilty .
-
Or she was actually a naive person and did not go to the police because she had no idea he was guilty .
I don't quite follow.
She had no idea Bamber was guilty, but told 5 people. Then decided to approach the police & give a false WS a month after the massacre ?
How is that 'saving her skin' ?
-
She didn't hang around Bamber. He whisked her to WHF & then here, there & everywhere. Often pleading with Julie to accompany him.
Anyway the 200+ pieces of forensic & circumstantial evidence shows Bamber is guilty.
Julie's lateness in approaching the police after telling 5 people shows she may well have been saving her own skin knowing Bamber was guilty. As well as believing it was the right thing to do.
I was referring to the incident one Saturday afternoon at Moreshead Mansions when she was left waiting on the doorstep for Jeremy and Brett to return from a shopping trip. It was evident that he didn't need her anymore, the love had gone for whatever reason and it was time to go their separate ways.
-
I don't quite follow.
She had no idea Bamber was guilty, but told 5 people. Then decided to approach the police & give a false WS a month after the massacre ?
How is that 'saving her skin' ?
There were lots of conversations going on between family police and friends that were not recorded . We don't know everything in detail . Even Colin got told by mistake what was happening when Jeremy got arrested by the family and not the police . Work it out .
-
I don't quite follow.
She had no idea Bamber was guilty, but told 5 people. Then decided to approach the police & give a false WS a month after the massacre ?
How is that 'saving her skin' ?
Let's look at this another way. The main story that Julie allegedly gave was about the hitman .
There was never a hitman
The story was false and yet she knew money amounts phone calls things that happened while the hitman was in the house .
Why ? That is the question you should be asking why ?
-
There were lots of conversations going on between family police and friends that were not recorded . We don't know everything in detail . Even Colin got told by mistake what was happening when Jeremy got arrested by the family and not the police . Work it out .
My question of how Julie was 'saving her skin' by approaching the police when Bamber was innocent has not been answered.
I've worked out you have no answer.
-
Let's look at this another way. The main story that Julie allegedly gave was about the hitman .
There was never a hitman
The story was false and yet she knew money amounts phone calls things that happened while the hitman was in the house .
Why ? That is the question you should be asking why ?
My question of how Julie was 'saving her skin' by approaching the police when Bamber was innocent has not been answered.
There are already threads on why Bamber introduced MM.
-
My question of how Julie was 'saving her skin' by approaching the police when Bamber was innocent has not been answered.
I've worked out you have no answer.
Yes I have said.
She could have been told that he was about to be arrested and put in the frame and that she could be considered an accomplice .
That's why
And let's face this fact even if her statements are from information fed to her and embellishment and only have a ring of truth she never could have been 100% sure of his innocence could she ? Because she was not with him on the night?
So in her heart of hearts she may have known what she was saying was wrong , but she had been convinced she was doing the right thing .
-
Yes I have said.
She could have been told that he was about to be arrested and put in the frame and that she could be considered an accomplice .
That's why
And let's face this fact even if her statements are from information fed to her and embellishment and only have a ring of truth she never could have been 100% sure of his innocence could she ? Because she was not with him on the night?
So in her heart of hearts she may have known what she was saying was wrong , but she had been convinced she was doing the right thing .
So Bamber had never spoken to Julie about the massacre. But she was apparently tipped off that Bamber was about to arrested.
So she approached the police (after already telling 5 people). To create a false WS & commit perjury at trial.
Apparently she was now an accomplice on a crime that Bamber had never discussed with her.
-
So Bamber had never spoken to Julie about the massacre. But she was apparently tipped off that Bamber was about to arrested.
So she approached the police (after already telling 5 people). To create a false WS & commit perjury at trial.
Apparently she was now an accomplice on a crime that Bamber had never discussed with her.
No . You are conveniently ignoring what I said about the ring of truth . Are you being deliberately obtrusive or do you really not get it?
What is your answer to why the only things she did say were about a hitman that did not exist ?
Open your mind ?
Perhaps she was told that by someone else beside Jeremy ?
Or what is your theory?
-
No . You are conveniently ignoring what I said about the ring of truth . Are you being deliberately obtrusive or do you really not get it?
What is your answer to why the only things she did say were about a hitman that did not exist ?
Open your mind ?
Perhaps she was told that by someone else beside Jeremy ?
Or what is your theory?
Are you deliberately talking rubbish again or do you just not get it ?
I'm going to have to create a thread on Julie approaching the police after telling 5 people, because she 'wanted to save her skin'.
You're answers are weak.
-
Yes I have said.
She could have been told that he was about to be arrested and put in the frame and that she could be considered an accomplice .
That's why
And let's face this fact even if her statements are from information fed to her and embellishment and only have a ring of truth she never could have been 100% sure of his innocence could she ? Because she was not with him on the night?
So in her heart of hearts she may have known what she was saying was wrong , but she had been convinced she was doing the right thing .
I can just imagine what all the innocent brigade would say had she shared a bed with him on the Tuesday night..
-
Are you deliberately talking rubbish again or do you just not get it ?
I'm going to have to create a thread on Julie approaching the police after telling 5 people, because she 'wanted to save her skin'.
You're answers are weak.
No you are just not understanding.
What was the information she gave to the 5 friends . Start from there.
-
Are you deliberately talking rubbish again or do you just not get it ?
I'm going to have to create a thread on Julie approaching the police after telling 5 people, because she 'wanted to save her skin'.
You're answers are weak.
Adam , I am sure you are adult enough to tell me if our discussions are getting too much for you because I have been accused about having a go at you .
So rather than saying my posts are rubbish or weak please feel free to comment if you feel my posts are nasty or personal.
i will try not to get personal with you and visa versa.
I am sure you are capable of that ?
-
Blimey,it beggars belief that you,Jan,have had a go at anyone.
-
Well Adams not worried enough to reply , so hey ho , carry on .
-
It might be a start for everyone to turn over a new leaf as the anniversary of the massacre approaches.
-
It might be a start for everyone to turn over a new leaf as the anniversary of the massacre approaches.
Yes that is a good point Steve .
-
It might be a start for everyone to turn over a new leaf as the anniversary of the massacre approaches.
That is something that could only last temporarily I'm afraid.
-
That is something that could only last temporarily I'm afraid.
Only if you prefer it to be that way.
-
Only if you prefer it to be that way.
And if you're prepared to go along with it.
-
And if you're prepared to go along with it.
I'm all for a quiet uncomplicated life.
-
I'm all for a quiet uncomplicated life.
That's good to know.
-
Tonight is the night - 32nd anniversary.
-
Tonight is the night - 32nd anniversary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEn9bqOy7zw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEn9bqOy7zw)
(http://keycdn.mturkcrowd.com/emoticons/celebrate.gif)
-
Supporting evidence to 'confirm there was an attack alarm' which was activated from within the farmhouse by 3.29am, is contained in 'a police telex message' log. All types of alarm such as 'intruder alarms' and 'attack alarms' which were fed directly through to the police are 'automatically recorded' there as one of many telex messages 'when' activated! The times that police units got deployed to respond to such occurences are 'also' recorded! There is little doubt from what I have seen that 'PC Myall' left to go to the farmhouse 'long before the occupants of CA07' containing 'PS Bews' and 'PS Saxby' did! The telex message log I have seen has 'the occupants of CA07' being deployed to the incident at '3.45am', not 3.35am! Bonnetts 'handwritten note' that the occupants of 'CA07' were deployed to the incident at '3.35am', and that they 'arrived' there at '3.48am', is false! From his console (6) in the incident room 'he typed' in the fact that 'CA07 were deployed at 3.45am', hence why in the police 'telex message' log it 'flagged up' correctly as 3.45am! The handwritten version of 'Malcolm Bonnetts' 3.26am log, therefore has 'misleading information' recorded upon it and in it. He 'typed' in at his keyboard that 'CA07 had been deployed to the incident at 3.45am', which was 'after Jeremy called Chelmsford police station' at 3.36am, why would he record the time 'inaccurately' as though they had been deployed '10 minutes' earlier? The answer seems clear to me, the handwritten phone log made by 'Malcolm Bonnett', was 'not' written up contemporaneously, it was made up and 'written out much later' on another occasion! Probably after the 'nature of the police investigation altered' from 'four murders and a suicide', into 'five murders', by which time the 'audio recordings' of Neville Bambers 3.26am call to Witham police station which 'got diverted' to Chelmsford incident room by the 'automated service' deployed back at Witham because there was 'no-one' available to take Nevilles call at that time, and 'Jeremys' call to Chelmsford police station at '3.36am', had both been (arguably) 'destroyed' or 'disposed of' because they were over '28 days' old. Bews and Saxby did 'not arrive' at the scene until '3.58am', they 'weren't there' at '3.48am', but 'PC Myall' was 'already there', he was there in time to see 'the scruffy looking hunched man walking away from the farmhouse' at '3.45am', not at 'about' 3.45am, and certainly not 'about an hour before the firearm officers arrived at the scene' (5am) in keeping with 'Kim Sengupta's News article' on the matter! The reason why 'Bonnetts' 3.26am phone log records the time that CA07 was deployed to the incident and arrived there, is recorded as having taken place 10 minutes sooner than they had been, was because at the time Bonnet wrote out the handwritten version of his 3.26am log, 'Jeremy' had already been interviewed in early September about the sequence with which 'he had called the police and his girlfriend' Julie Mugford! He told the 'interviewing officers' that he had called Julie first then the police! They took Jeremy to task on that asssertion 'reminding him' that on the morning of the incident he had told officers at the scene that 'he had tried phoning Witham police station' but had got no reply, and then 'he had phoned Julie'! Jeremy 'appeared confused' when challenged about this, and 'eventually conceded' that 'what he had originally told the officers at the scene' that he had tried to phone Witham police station before he had phoned Julie, and not the other way round, 'must be the true sequence' of events! But, 'Jeremy' had tried to contact Witham police 'before he phoned his girlfriend' but got no answer, and he had phoned Chelmsford police 'after he had spoken' to Julie! What the police knew and have known all along, is that 'Neville Bambers' distress call was made at 3.26am, and that 'Jeremys' call to Chelmsford occurred at 3.36am, 10 minutes later! Somebody in authority who was possibly 'trying to keep the lid on' the true nature of the 'incident' at the farmhouse (the murders of Neville, June and their two grandchildren on the one hand, and the 'circumstances of the death of Sheila', who perhaps may have originally been 'earmarked as the patsy' to take the blame for the other deaths, if we lean toward Giovanni De Stefano's explanation for what might have occured involving a spy ring conspiracy) realised that by presenting the time of 'Jeremys' 3.36am call to Chelmsford, as having occurred 10 minutes sooner, it would 'serve to mask the fact that Neville Bamber had made his distress call' at around the time that 'Jeremy' had attempted to contact Witham police station himself unsuccessfully! Hence why during the trial 'an attempt was made' to try and get 'PC West' to agree that he could have 'made a mistake' when looking at the control room clock by as much as 10 minutes. In the end though PC West 'wasn't prepared to accept' that he had made such a glaring error! The 'fact is', he didn't...
The contents of both logs (Bonnetts 3.26am log, and Wests 3.36am log) were 'never disclosed together', alongside one another during the trial, or the 'subsequent' failed appeal and the 'contradictory nature' of both were 'never considered' or 'debated, and no court 'judgement' given which dispensed the issues arising therein, because the prosecution made Jeremys call (PC Wests 3.36am log) the subject of 'a mistaken time' having been recorded by PC West. There was 'nothing presented' to suggest or imply that the 'contents of each log' supported the fact that Neville and Jeremy had contacted the police about the same matter, albeit 'couched in terminology' representative of 'Neville telling police himself' what was happening, and 'Jeremy telling police what Neville had told him' was happening!
-
No attack alarm