Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on August 07, 2017, 09:35:AM
-
Maxine Carr was prosecuted & spent 18 months in prison for perverting the course of justice. Posters have said if Maxine Carr was prosecuted, so should Julie have been. However there are a lot of differences -
Carr gave Huntley a false alibi which she maintained for weeks. She was over a 100 miles away when Huntley committed her crime.
Carr asked Huntley not to go to the police as she may lose her teaching job. She would have maintained her false alibi for weeks, months or years unless the police found out.
Carr helped clean Huntley's property where the murders took place after the murders.
Carr helped dispose of the two bodies.
Carr said it was her idea to give a false alibi.
Carr did not approach the police to tell them the truth. The police got forensic evidence against Huntley & Carr confessed over 11 days later.
Huntley told Carr he was responsible, rather than a third person.
The police got Carr's & then Huntley's confessions. They did not need Carr to assist them as a prosecuting witness for a man pleading 'not guilty'.
Huntleys crime was spontaneous & not planned. He had not spent 18 months telling Carr of his plans & reasons. The police did not need Carr to tell the jury of this, as they did with Julie.
Huntley had confessed pre trial, rather than pleaded not guilty. All that remained to be discussed was whether it was deliberate or not. Carr could not assist them here as she was not present when the murders took place.
Carr had not told anyone else what she knew & there is no evidence she was building up to approach the police & make a confession.
Huntley did not insist Carr spent all her time with him after the murders & did not take her abroad.
Carr was interviewed on television prior to Huntley being a suspect.
-
I had no idea that she'd helped him dispose of the bodies. I can't remember the time frame but I do recall that she was away when it occurred.
-
'Mrs Clift said in a statement: "The car boot was open and both of them appeared to be looking into it. Maxine was sobbing and Ian just looked really thin and pale."
When they saw Mrs Clift looking at them, Huntley closed the boot. Later when police seized the car they found that the factory-fitted carpet had been replaced with a roughly cut piece of house carpet. Huntley and Carr's house was also extensively cleaned.'
On reading this again, this took place after Huntley had disposed of the bodies. I suspect there may have been blood or clothes in the car boot which made Carr upset. The clothes were later found near Huntley's property.
Carr may have also helped Huntley clean his car.
-
I had no idea that she'd helped him dispose of the bodies. I can't remember the time frame but I do recall that she was away when it occurred.
Neither had I, I know she covered for him afterwards but thought that was as far as it went. Always felt she had a bit of a rough deal.
-
https://youtu.be/8PRKBInjg_I
Notice Carr does not look up or into the eyes of the interviewer.
-
Carr only spent 18 months in prison.
The police could have attempted to prosecute Julie. If successful she may have got a 3 month suspended sentence.
However the police may have been unsuccessful in prosecuting Julie as she had approached them. Bamber was also pleading 'not guilty' so they had to firstly be successful in getting him convicted. A 'not guilty' Bamber means a 'not guilty' Julie.
If the police started prosecuting Julie, she may have gone silent & not said anything. Rather than give a 24 page WS & long court testimony which helped convict Bamber.
The police did the right thing in looking at the big picture & working with Julie rather than against her. The priority was getting justice for the murder of men, women & children.
-
Neither had I, I know she covered for him afterwards but thought that was as far as it went. Always felt she had a bit of a rough deal.
As did I.
-
'Mrs Clift said in a statement: "The car boot was open and both of them appeared to be looking into it. Maxine was sobbing and Ian just looked really thin and pale."
When they saw Mrs Clift looking at them, Huntley closed the boot. Later when police seized the car they found that the factory-fitted carpet had been replaced with a roughly cut piece of house carpet. Huntley and Carr's house was also extensively cleaned.'
On reading this again, this took place after Huntley had disposed of the bodies. I suspect there may have been blood or clothes in the car boot which made Carr upset. The clothes were later found near Huntley's property.
Carr may have also helped Huntley clean his car.
I believe she did help him clean his car.
-
Carr could have gone to the police straight away. If she couldn't do this because she loved Huntley, she could have just kept well out of it & stayed where she was.
However she gave Huntley an alibi, helped clean the crime scenes & spoke to the media. Only confessing after she had no choice.
I don't believe her story about trying to save her teaching career by keeping Huntley free. How would being over 100 miles away from a murder effect it ?
-
Maxine Carr was prosecuted & spent 18 months in prison for perverting the course of justice. Posters have said if Maxine Carr was prosecuted, so should Julie have been. However there are a lot of differences -
Carr gave Huntley a false alibi which she maintained for 11 days. She was over a 100 miles away when Huntley committed her crime.
Carr asked Huntley not to go to the police as she may lose her teaching job. She would have maintained her false alibi for weeks, months or years unless the police found out.
Carr helped clean Huntley's property where the murders took place after the murders.
Carr helped dispose of the two bodies.
Carr said it was her idea to give a false alibi.
Carr did not approach the police to tell them the truth. The police got forensic evidence against Huntley & Carr confessed over 11 days later.
Huntley told Carr he was responsible, rather than a third person.
The police got Carr's & then Huntley's confessions. They did not need Carr to assist them as a prosecuting witness for a man pleading 'not guilty'.
Huntleys crime was spontaneous & not planned. He had not spent 18 months telling Carr of his plans & reasons. The police did not need Carr to tell the jury of this, as they did with Julie.
Huntley had confessed pre trial, rather than pleaded not guilty. All that remained to be discussed was whether it was deliberate or not. Carr could not assist them here as she was not present when the murders took place.
Carr had not told anyone else what she knew & there is no evidence she was building up to approach the police & make a confession.
Huntley did not insist Carr spent all her time with him after the murders & did not take her abroad.
Carr was interviewed on television prior to Huntley being a suspect.
theres a big diffrence in law carr was only an acomplice after the fact.
-
Carr was as bad as Huntley so far as I'm concerned.
-
theres a big diffrence in law carr was only an acomplice after the fact.
I know. She voluntarily gave a false alibi, helped clean the crime scenes & spoke to the media.
-
Whereas JM had the means to flee the country-----as she did so, as though her behind was on fire,then flatly refused to talk to the press in Canada------which was odd considering that she'd screwed the NOTW out of £25,000 !!
-
I know. She voluntarily gave a false alibi, helped clean the crime scenes & spoke to the media.
theres no evdence she helped him clean the crime scene thats completly untrue she was convicted of giving a false albi that was all.
and the very big diffrence is maxine gave an albi to somone she thought was innocent mugford if you belive her story was doing it for somone she knew was guilty.
-
Whereas JM had the means to flee the country-----as she did so, as though her behind was on fire,then flatly refused to talk to the press in Canada------which was odd considering that she'd screwed the NOTW out of £25,000 !!
None of which is the exact truth, is it? More, distortion of facts.
-
Maxine Carr was prosecuted & spent 18 months in prison for perverting the course of justice. Posters have said if Maxine Carr was prosecuted, so should Julie have been. However there are a lot of differences -
Carr gave Huntley a false alibi which she maintained for 11 days. She was over a 100 miles away when Huntley committed her crime.
Carr asked Huntley not to go to the police as she may lose her teaching job. She would have maintained her false alibi for weeks, months or years unless the police found out.
Carr helped clean Huntley's property where the murders took place after the murders.
Carr helped dispose of the two bodies.
Carr said it was her idea to give a false alibi.
Carr did not approach the police to tell them the truth. The police got forensic evidence against Huntley & Carr confessed over 11 days later.
Huntley told Carr he was responsible, rather than a third person.
The police got Carr's & then Huntley's confessions. They did not need Carr to assist them as a prosecuting witness for a man pleading 'not guilty'.
Huntleys crime was spontaneous & not planned. He had not spent 18 months telling Carr of his plans & reasons. The police did not need Carr to tell the jury of this, as they did with Julie.
Huntley had confessed pre trial, rather than pleaded not guilty. All that remained to be discussed was whether it was deliberate or not. Carr could not assist them here as she was not present when the murders took place.
Carr had not told anyone else what she knew & there is no evidence she was building up to approach the police & make a confession.
Huntley did not insist Carr spent all her time with him after the murders & did not take her abroad.
Carr was interviewed on television prior to Huntley being a suspect.
So what law are you actually querying ? perverting the course of justice by not handing Jeremy over to the police on the first day when she admitted she knew what he had done ?
Or the possibility she could have been an accessory ?
two different things
-
I had no idea that she'd helped him dispose of the bodies. I can't remember the time frame but I do recall that she was away when it occurred.
she could not of helped him dispose of the bodys becouse she wasnt there at the time.
-
theres no evdence she helped him clean the crime scene thats completly untrue she was convicted of giving a false albi that was all.
and the very big diffrence is maxine gave an albi to somone she thought was innocent mugford if you belive her story was doing it for somone she knew was guilty.
''Next day the search for the girls continued. During a break, a junior caretaker went into Mr Huntley and Ms Carr's house for a drink. He claimed Ms Carr was in the kitchen scrubbing the tiles so hard that she was complaining she was rubbing the pattern off.
The jury has been told that Mr Huntley "sanitised" his car by cleaning it thoroughly and when police visited the house the girls' disappearance they noticed a strong smell of a "lemony cleaning product".
-
"On 16 August, 12 days after the girls went missing, Huntley and Carr were first questioned by police and agreed to give witness statements during seven hours of questioning before being released."
Surely this was a good time for Carr to come clean. But no, she didn't budge.
-
maxine carr was in another town at the time of the murders so coldent of been in any way involved in the murders.
or the imedate cover up of them.
-
''Next day the search for the girls continued. During a break, a junior caretaker went into Mr Huntley and Ms Carr's house for a drink. He claimed Ms Carr was in the kitchen scrubbing the tiles so hard that she was complaining she was rubbing the pattern off.
The jury has been told that Mr Huntley "sanitised" his car by cleaning it thoroughly and when police visited the house the girls' disappearance they noticed a strong smell of a "lemony cleaning product".
where did you get that from source please.
-
she could not of helped him dispose of the bodys becouse she wasnt there at the time.
Agreed. However, it didn't appear to have stopped her helping him to clean up the car afterwards.
-
"Carr then agreed to tell police she was having a bath inside the house while he spoke to the girls.
It was a story she would stick to for eight weeks after the couple were arrested.
Carr would only cut herself off from Huntley, who was she was to describe as a ‘thing’ in court after months in Holloway Prison listening to shouts of ‘nonce".
Only 18 months in prison for lying for 8 weeks to cover for a child sex killer by giving a false alibi ?
The police would have been lucky to get a 3 month suspended for Julie.
-
s fearing his DNA could be traced.
The charred remains of the football shirt
Carr then agreed to tell police she was having a bath inside the house while he spoke to the girls.
It was a story she would stick to for eight weeks after the couple were arrested.
Carr would only cut herself off from Huntley, who was she was to describe as a ‘thing’ in court after months in Holloway Prison listening to shouts of ‘nonce".
Only 18 months in prison for lying for 8 weeks to cover for a child sex killer ?
The police would have been lucky to get a 3 month suspended for Julie.
source please
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/ian-huntley-and-maxine-carr/&ved=0ahUKEwjW6pDXmcXVAhUEZlAKHdooBlA4ChAWCCUwAw&usg=AFQjCNGZuluSHVOGFg6ivNwYlAwKC3ohDA
-
Agreed. However, it didn't appear to have stopped her helping him to clean up the car afterwards.
he had allready cleaned it of incrimating evdence.
as they were living together im sure helped him do loads of house hold tasks on a reguler basis.
-
"Richard Latham, QC, prosecuting, said Huntley, 29, went to great lengths to transform his car - changing "perfectly good" tyres, replacing carpet in the boot and cleaning it thoroughly inside and out.
He also cleaned his house at No 5 College Close and Maxine Carr, his fiancée, joined in - scrubbing wall tiles until she thought the pattern was being removed."
-
"Richard Latham, QC, prosecuting, said Huntley, 29, went to great lengths to transform his car - changing "perfectly good" tyres, replacing carpet in the boot and cleaning it thoroughly inside and out.
He also cleaned his house at No 5 College Close and Maxine Carr, his fiancée, joined in - scrubbing wall tiles until she thought the pattern was being removed."
theres no evdence she what she doing as far as she was concerned she was just helping him clean the house.
and theres absulutlty no proof to the contary.
we dont reall know what tail huntley told her.
-
I appreciate Nugs is trying to make Carr's actions seem less terrible. Carr only spent 18 months in jail for behaving in a much worse way than Julie.
However everyone has to agree that Julie's actions in comparison were not worthy of a prosecution attempt by the police. Espescially as she approached the police & they wanted her as a co operating prosecution witness.
-
I appreciate Nugs is trying to make Carr's actions seem less terrible. Carr only spent 18 months in jail for behaving in a much worse way than Julie.
However everyone has to agree that Julie's actions in comparison were not worthy of a prosecution attempt by the police. Espescially as she approached the police & they wanted her as a co operating witness.
why do you think she only spent 18 months becouse she was only convicted of lying
-
Mr Latham said.
"Within minutes of talking to Maxine Carr, he was outside doing a thorough clean of the Fiesta.
"Just minutes, after talking to her that night, he is making a report of the man with the bin liner."
The case continues.
-
why do you think she only spent 18 months becouse she was only convicted of lying
She gave a false alibi & kept to it for several weeks, even after being arrested.
She also helped clean the crime scene & spoke to the media.
She also let Huntley speak to the media & give the police false leads.
Voluntarily. To apparently keep her teaching job.
-
what do you think carline.
-
why do you think she only spent 18 months becouse she was only convicted of lying
Why do you think it wasn't considered appropriate to convict Julie of anything?
-
Why do you think it wasn't considered appropriate to convict Julie of anything?
becouse theres was no evdence what she was true for a start so she could of retracted it.
thats the only reason.
-
becouse theres was no evdence what she was true for a start so she could of retracted it.
thats the only reason.
And none that what she said wasn't, either.
-
Anyway there was no point in the police going for a double conviction of 25 years for Bamber & a 3 month suspended sentence for Julie.
They may have failed on both counts as Julie would have clamed up & failed to co operate with the police.
After Julie approached the police, it was in everyone's best interests to focus on who committed the 5x massacre. Julie giving a 24 page long WS & long testimony.
-
JM should have come in for far more serious questioning at the time of the tragedies and because that didn't happen the fact being that should another appeal be forthcoming she will surely be called upon for her "part in the crime ." The question has to be asked is why she was able to off-load these crimes without fear of prosecution. Interesting !!
What she'd committed was more serious than people imagine and does carry a sentence, as there were a number of crimes involved . Also,what she got away with wouldn't happen today.
-
JM should have come in for far more serious questioning at the time of the tragedies and because that didn't happen the fact being that should another appeal be forthcoming she will surely be called upon for her "part in the crime ." The question has to be asked is why she was able to off-load these crimes without fear of prosecution. Interesting !!
What she'd committed was more serious than people imagine and does carry a sentence, as there were a number of crimes involved . Also,what she got away with wouldn't happen today.
I see mounds of hair being pulled out by supporters because Julie wasn't prosecuted for -well, just about- ANYTHING! Anyone would think it was the first time someone had been given immunity from prosecution by turning Queen's Counsel. It's not "interesting". It's common practice. Her previous 'crimes', altogether, weren't as heinous as the murder of three generations of one family, so balanced against the information she gave them, what was to be gained by charging her with anything?
-
I see mounds of hair being pulled out by supporters because Julie wasn't prosecuted for -well, just about- ANYTHING! Anyone would think it was the first time someone had been given immunity from prosecution by turning Queen's Counsel. It's not "interesting". It's common practice. Her previous 'crimes', altogether, weren't as heinous as the murder of three generations of one family, so balanced against the information she gave them, what was to be gained by charging her with anything?
But hers was like a different case on its own and should have been treated as such ?
-
But hers was like a different case on its own and should have been treated as such ?
Hmm, but unless she'd owned up, they wouldn't have known anything about it, and the law always shows leniency to those who admit to their crimes, even more when they seek to make recompense, which Julie and Susan did. What their motives may have been isn't relevant. It wasn't their motives which could have been put on trial.
-
Supporters say the police made mistakes.
Surely the biggest mistake of all would have been if the police had turned down Julie's approach & offer of a mountain of witness evidence. Just so the police could attempt to obtain a 3 month suspended sentence on Julie for not telling them straight away.
-
But hers was like a different case on its own and should have been treated as such ?
It's no use Lookout, The JM lovers will continue to make excuses for her. She knew from day one for F---s sake, and said nothing. Unless of course she knew nothing, and decided to frame JB.
-
i dont see how this thread is even vaguely relvant to the bamber case you can find simlariates in any murder if you look hard enough.
if the only you can make somone look guilty is to try and compare them with ian huntley thats shows you havent got a very good case.
-
It's no use Lookout, The JM lovers will continue to make excuses for her. She knew from day one for F---s sake, and said nothing. Unless of course she knew nothing, and decided to frame JB.
I don't think anyone on this site does love her, but at 20 years old aren't you entitled to love and want to be loved back..
-
It's no use Lookout, The JM lovers will continue to make excuses for her. She knew from day one for F---s sake, and said nothing. Unless of course she knew nothing, and decided to frame JB.
Buddy, I'm no one's "lover"and I'm certainly NOT making excuses for her. As characters, both Julie and Jeremy leave much to be desired. NOTHING in this world -other than dead/alive, pregnant/not pregnant- is as simple as black/white.
-
i dont see how this thread is even vaguely relvant to the bamber case you can find simlariates in any murder if you look hard enough.
if the only you can make somone look guilty is to try and compare them with ian huntley thats shows you havent got a very good case.
Other supporters compared Julie to Maxine Carr. Lookout even compared Julie to Myra Hindley & Rose West. Which is rather revolting.
This thread has shown the best the police could have got with Julie was a 3 month suspended sentence. This would have been negated by the police losing their main witness in a 5x massacre trial against Bamber.
The claim that Julie should have been prosecuted for not approaching the police on day one has been dismissed.
-
This thread has shown the best the police could have got with Julie was a 3 month suspended sentence.
No it has not.
-
I don't think anyone on this site does love her, but at 20 years old aren't you entitled to love and want to be loved back..
Absolutely Steve. I defy ANY of these "holier than thou" types -who have NEVER, allegedly, in their lives got anything morally wrong- to go back to being 20, being hopelessly in love and being insecure enough to stand on their heads and turn themselves inside out to try to make their idol love them back. If anyone watched the Diana programme last night they'll have seen it in action.
-
I don't think anyone on this site does love her, but at 20 years old aren't you entitled to love and want to be loved back..
Why do people keep on about her age.? She knew right from wrong even if she was ten. She was
intelligent enough to train to be a teacher. Stop making lame excuses please.
-
No it has not.
Yes it has. Read the thread.
Maxine Carr spent 18 months in prison. What she did was a lot worse than what Julie did.
The police had to focus on getting justice for a shocking 5x murder where the accused was pleading 'not guilty".
Just getting a 3 month suspended sentence on Julie & Bamber getting away with murder would not be acceptable.
-
Why do people keep on about her age.? She knew right from wrong even if she was ten. She was
intelligent enough to train to be a teacher. Stop making lame excuses please.
Since when did intelligence have anything to do with desire? MOST ten year olds know right from wrong but I believe there may be more that have pinched the odd thing than haven't.
-
Absolutely Steve. I defy ANY of these "holier than thou" types -who have NEVER, allegedly, in their lives got anything morally wrong- to go back to being 20, being hopelessly in love and being insecure enough to stand on their heads and turn themselves inside out to try to make their idol love them back. If anyone watched the Diana programme last night they'll have seen it in action.
I certainly am not holier than thou at all, but I can assure you that I knew right from wrong at a very early age hence I have never been in trouble with the law, unless you count riding two on a bike which I got bollocked for.
-
Since when did intelligence have anything to do with desire? MOST ten year olds know right from wrong but I believe there may be more that have pinched the odd thing than haven't.
Thjat makes no sense at all. We are talking murder here not sexual gratification.
-
I certainly am not holier than thou at all, but I can assure you that I knew right from wrong at a very early age hence I have never been in trouble with the law, unless you count riding two on a bike which I got bollocked for.
What did Julie do wrong in the case. Apart from wait 20 days before betraying Bamber ? Which is perhaps worthy of a 3 month suspended sentence.
Don't bring up unrelated crimes EP knew nothing about.
-
Tell me Jane/ Steve would you cover for a murderer if you were in love?
-
I certainly am not holier than thou at all, but I can assure you that I knew right from wrong at a very early age hence I have never been in trouble with the law, unless you count riding two on a bike which I got bollocked for.
As did I. Believe me, the threats I received for daring to go off the rails were FAR worse than the consequences would have been, however, it DID keep me on the straight and narrow. Now what we're BOTH saying is that parental rules were the law and they were drummed into us. MAYBE Julie didn't receive those guidelines? MAYBE Julie was lead to believe that not getting caught was the most important thing? MAYBE, when faced with temptation, Julie didn't have correct moral compass to cope.
-
Thjat makes no sense at all. We are talking murder here not sexual gratification.
No Buddy, I'm NOT talking sexual gratification. I'm talking about desire. They're not always the same thing.
-
Why do people keep on about her age.? She knew right from wrong even if she was ten. She was
intelligent enough to train to
We would expect her to know right from wrong but she really didn't seem to.
Imo she seemed to lack the ability to make good choices which makes me wonder about her.
Also makes me wonder about her Mother and Father and Stepfather. I have always felt JM lacked morals/boundaries. :-\
It would be interesting to know more about her because we really don't know much at all about her background and personality.
-
Tell me Jane/ Steve would you cover for a murderer if you were in love?
Certainly, I don't believe I would now. At 20? Insecure? Desperate for the person I loved to love me? Terrified I'd lose him if I didn't go along with his plans? DESPERATE to get away from parents? I MAY have done whatever I thought it would take. I can't put my hand on my heart and say I wouldn't have covered.............but I'd have cracked, anyway. I couldn't have lived with the lie.
-
We would expect her to know right from wrong but she really didn't seem to.
Imo she seemed to lack the ability to make good choices which makes me wonder about her.
Also makes me wonder about her Mother and Father and Stepfather. I have always felt JM lacked morals/boundaries. :-\
It would be interesting to know more about her because we really don't know much at all about her background and personality.
Breathe of fresh air as normal Maggie. ;)
-
It's no use Lookout, The JM lovers will continue to make excuses for her. She knew from day one for F---s sake, and said nothing. Unless of course she knew nothing, and decided to frame JB.
JM acted appallingly in court,falling about in floods of tears when questioned by the defence. I wouldn't have stood for that. They should have allowed intervals for " composure " and continued until they got the truth out of her. Her crying told me she was lying anyway and was uncomfortable with the questioning. A sure way of halting the procedure. I bet she didn't cry when she picked up her cheque ! The woman doesn't fool me.
-
Certainly, I don't believe I would now. At 20? Insecure? Desperate for the person I loved to love me? Terrified I'd lose him if I didn't go along with his plans? DESPERATE to get away from parents? I MAY have done whatever I thought it would take. I can't put my hand on my heart and say I wouldn't have covered.............but I'd have cracked, anyway. I couldn't have lived with the lie.
She went along with his plans because she didn't believe he was serious.
Not approaching the police on day one was perhaps worthy of a 3 month suspended prison sentence. But only if Bamber had confessed & the police didn't need her.
-
Certainly, I don't believe I would now. At 20? Insecure? Desperate for the person I loved to love me? Terrified I'd lose him if I didn't go along with his plans? DESPERATE to get away from parents? I MAY have done whatever I thought it would take. I can't put my hand on my heart and say I wouldn't have covered.............but I'd have cracked, anyway. I couldn't have lived with the lie.
That's a honest answer Jane, thankyou. JM didn't crack did she?
-
That's a honest answer Jane, thankyou. JM didn't crack did she?
As Maggie and I have both said, much about the adult Julie is dependent on the role models she observed -and from whom she learned- during her formative years. After that, it was too late. By then, her personal way of being would have become instinctive.
-
Anyway, as said already, the police didn't need Carr for a conviction at trial. Huntley had confessed.
So the police prosecuted Carr for very serious crimes on the Huntley case & she spent 18 months in prison.
The police needed Julie as a witness. Bamber was pleading 'not guilty'.
Julie's crime regarding the Bamber case was nowhere near as bad as Carr's. The police decided not to attempt to obtain a 3 month 'suspended' prison sentence on Julie. Preferring to focus on a horrific 5x massacre.
I hope supporters don't continue claiming Julie should have been prosecuted.
-
As Maggie and I have both said, much about the adult Julie is dependent on the role models she observed -and from whom she learned- during her formative years. After that, it was too late. By then, her personal way of being would have become instinctive.
Jane thankyou for your reply. The fact is JM had lived outside her family for years. She had a mind of her own. It is not a case of not telling on a trivial matter, it was murder. Remember it was her idea to commit fraud.
-
Jane thankyou for your reply. The fact is JM had lived outside her family for years. She had a mind of her own. It is not a case of not telling on a trivial matter, it was murder. Remember it was her idea to commit fraud.
She did tell the police. Betraying Bamber after 20 days. It's in her 24 page WS. She also testified.
She just didn't go to the police on day 1 which is what you are clinging onto. She was Bamber's girlfriend & in shock.
The 1984 minor cheque book fruad with Susan Battersby is nothing to do with the case.
-
Jane thankyou for your reply. The fact is JM had lived outside her family for years. She had a mind of her own. It is not a case of not telling on a trivial matter, it was murder. Remember it was her idea to commit fraud.
The fact of her having "lived outside her family for years" makes not an iota of difference, Buddy. She'll have no memories of what she learned, on a daily basis, as a baby, then a toddler. Yes, she'll have had a mind of her own, but that mind set would have been formed when she was far to young tom have formed any opinions. They are the things -instincts- which will come to the fore before anything else. Not just with Julie. For all of us. Next time you do something instinctively -out of habit- ask yourself why. See if you can remember from where the suggestion came that you should do it/say it that way. See how many times you catch yourself saying the things your parents said. Watch when you see a friend/relative laugh as a child, just able to speak, repeats what adults say. The child will have no idea what it's talking about. It's just copying adults.
-
She went along with his plans because she didn't believe he was serious.
Not approaching the police on day one was perhaps worthy of a 3 month suspended prison sentence. But only if Bamber had confessed & the police didn't need her.
Adam you say Julie did not think Jeremy was serious about killing his family what would she have thought on the morning after the murders would that have been serious enough for her.
-
She did tell the police. Betraying Bamber after 20 days. It's in her 24 page WS. She also testified.
She just didn't go to the police on day 1 which is what you are clinging onto. She was Bamber's girlfriend & in shock.
The 1984 minor cheque book fruad with Susan Battersby is nothing to do with the case.
Adam if that is the case about the cheque book fraud having nothing to do with the case is not true it shows Julie had a very dishonest streak in her and it makes me wonder what else she was dishonest about. Fraud is a serous criminal offence.
-
The fact of her having "lived outside her family for years" makes not an iota of difference, Buddy. She'll have no memories of what she learned, on a daily basis, as a baby, then a toddler. Yes, she'll have had a mind of her own, but that mind set would have been formed when she was far to young tom have formed any opinions. They are the things -instincts- which will come to the fore before anything else. Not just with Julie. For all of us. Next time you do something instinctively -out of habit- ask yourself why. See if you can remember from where the suggestion came that you should do it/say it that way. See how many times you catch yourself saying the things your parents said. Watch when you see a friend/relative laugh as a child, just able to speak, repeats what adults say. The child will have no idea what it's talking about. It's just copying adults.
Shall we now blame our parents then? My dad did a bunk when I was about five. My lovely mum bought up four of us, and sadly died when I was sixteen. She taught us right from wrong, and I had a wonderful life. She always said don't do anything wrong or they will take you away from me. We had free rein, but never got into trouble. None of us committed any crime except me {two on a bike}
-
Maxine Carr/Julie Mugford. Differences
Maxine Carr told lies to begin with Julie Mugford did not. Maxine Carr became an honest witness later on Mugford did not.
-
Adam if that is the case about the cheque book fraud having nothing to do with the case is not true it shows Julie had a very dishonest streak in her and it makes me wonder what else she was dishonest about. Fraud is a serous criminal offence.
The judge disagrees.
In his summing up he said both Bamber or Julie may have committed other crimes, however it does not mean either lied in this trial.
-
Shall we now blame our parents then? My dad did a bunk when I was about five. My lovely mum bought up four of us, and sadly died when I was sixteen. She taught us right from wrong, and I had a wonderful life. She always said don't do anything wrong or they will take you away from me. We had free rein, but never got into trouble. None of us committed any crime except me {two on a bike}
And as a small child, I'll bet you were more scared of being taken away from your lovely mun, than getting into trouble for doing something wrong. You learned right from wrong. Supposing though, you'd only ever learned that it was getting caught which was bad? The message here is more about it not being important what you do. Buddy, ALL parents have a responsibility towards their children. Children copy and learn from adults, NOT the other way round. YOU were lucky enough to have a good role model. Many aren't so lucky.
-
I rather feel that JM had to "grow up quickly" for some reason.I obviously don't know anything about her but that's the impression I got as she looked older than her years,even at the age of twenty. Shyness,being timid and naive wasn't part of her make-up either. The woman was as hard as nails.
-
I rather feel that JM had to "grow up quickly" for some reason.I obviously don't know anything about her but that's the impression I got as she looked older than her years,even at the age of twenty. Shyness,being timid and naive wasn't part of her make-up either. The woman was as hard as nails.
I get the impression of a girl who'd not experienced a carefree childhood. One in which lack of finances may have been ongoing for a while. One in which it may have been instilled in her that she had to make something of herself. I can see why marriage with Jeremy would have seemed such an attractive proposition.
-
I rather feel that JM had to "grow up quickly" for some reason.I obviously don't know anything about her but that's the impression I got as she looked older than her years,even at the age of twenty. Shyness,being timid and naive wasn't part of her make-up either. The woman was as hard as nails.
Lookout Julie did look hard and I think she was she had her eye on being lady of the manor but it all back fired when Jeremy did her wrong I think what he did was not nice.
-
And as a small child, I'll bet you were more scared of being taken away from your lovely mun, than getting into trouble for doing something wrong. You learned right from wrong. Supposing though, you'd only ever learned that it was getting caught which was bad? The message here is more about it not being important what you do. Buddy, ALL parents have a responsibility towards their children. Children copy and learn from adults, NOT the other way round. YOU were lucky enough to have a good role model. Many aren't so lucky.
I agree with all these comments. Imo the example a child is set by their parents, mother in particular, is the most important to their development and behavour. Alongside that is unconditional love which gives an instinctive sense of self and security.
Some children can realise the lack of all of this in their lives, possibly because they have a genetic difference from the parents which enables them to do things differently.
I have read on here suggestions Julie Mugford was abused by her father or stepfather, not sure which but this would have had a definite effect on her and certainly caused her to grow up and be far more aware at 20 than young women who had never faced such things.
We don't know anything much about Mary Mugford except she was a witness for the prosecution against JB. She is held up as someone with moral principals and totally trustworthy standing by her daughter. That is the way she's presented but was she or did she put husbands one and two before her daughter, did she tolerate abuse towards Julie? Did she teach her daughter to go for a man with money and hang on no matter what. Could she have instigated, encouraged the financial arrangement, the dreadful clothes and attitude of that interview?
On the other hand was JB attracted to JM and her mother because the set up was so completely different from his own family life?
Was their relationship more open and fun than the repressed atmosphere at the farm?
We know very little about the real lives of these people, what made them who they were and in fact who they really were.
Without this knowledge it's all assumption imo.
-
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!