Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on September 18, 2017, 09:43:AM
-
Carol Ann Lee's book says Brett gave a solo interview with The Sun - 'Bambi, police blaming my pal Jeremy'. This was before Bamber was charged.
The following week Brett rang up Michael Fielder & both Bamber & Brett met him.
Fielder is on tape saying Bamber offerred smutty photo's of Sheila which he never saw. Fielder was willing to testify such although Nugs said yesterday he was only willing to testify because he knew he wouldn't be called ? !
Carol Ann Lee said that according to both Colin Caffell & Sheila's freind the photos did exist, and that Bamber wanted over £20,000p for them & his life story.
Bamber's meeting with Fielder was either his idea, after finding out what Brett had done & realising he could do the same thing for money. Or it was Brett's idea & Bamber agreed. Probably a combination of the two.
It seems Brett wasn't so shy prior to Bamber being charged but completely disappeared afterwards.
Hopefully a copy of the Sun's interview with Brett will surface one day.
-
Police didn't want any Bamber supporters around,that's why they either " fled " like Brett did, and testimonials/character references weren't allowed in court---------they were dismissed.
How dare anyone support Bamber !
NOTW and the S*N were renowned rogue newspapers as it has been well proved,along with their editors in their day.
Because you haven't shown any proof,and because headline " stories " such as that would still be available particularly to those who want to keep Bamber where he is and to continue name-blackening, most would say that it's all untrue.
Where,in the circle,did the " story" originate ?
-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zV3WCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA320&lpg=PA320&dq=jeremy+bamber+meeting+with+the+sun&source=bl&ots=jQzXO1FcuY&sig=qp_eX-zfphdOv2ZqDsEy_Mukpfg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZsaDKsqzWAhUPZFAKHQAnArgQ6AEIZDAR
This is not where it originated but is CAL's book extract.
Knowledge of Bamber & Brett's meeting with Fielder has existed for over 30 years.
-
CAL also wrote about Sheila's drug debt,etc----------that's not true either. As did Claire Powell.
-
CAL also wrote about Sheila's drug debt,etc----------that's not true either. As did Claire Powell.
All of the thread post is correct. As confirmed by Bamber, Carol Ann Lee, CC & Michael Fielder.
What page does CAL mention Sheila's drug habit ?
-
If you've read the book you should know ?
-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zV3WCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA320&lpg=PA320&dq=jeremy+bamber+meeting+with+the+sun&source=bl&ots=jQzXO1FcuY&sig=qp_eX-zfphdOv2ZqDsEy_Mukpfg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZsaDKsqzWAhUPZFAKHQAnArgQ6AEIZDAR
This is not where it originated but is CAL's book extract.
Knowledge of Bamber & Brett's meeting with Fielder has existed for over 30 years.
nobody has cliamed it hasnt where are just what was actully said,
-
If you've read the book you should know ?
I haven't but can try to get the relevant pages up online.
You have obviously read the book. So can either quote the extract or tell me the page.
-
nobody has cliamed it hasnt where are just what was actully said,
If Brett rings up Fielder & him & Bamber then meet Fielder, what do think they spoke about ?
-
If Brett rings up Fielder & him & Bamber then meet Fielder, what do think they spoke about ?
they could of spocken about anything.
jeremy could of wanted to put his side of the story like he cliamed.
you still only got the fielder it happend and hes a proven liar who has been proven to have made up storys before.
-
they could of spocken about anything.
jeremy could of wanted to put his side of the story like he cliamed.
you still only got the fielder it happend and hes a proven liar who has been proven to have made up storys before.
Yes they could have spoken about the weather.
Yes CAL said Bamber did want to give his side of the story. Fielder saying Bamber offerred him smutty pictures of Sheila as well. For £20,000 +.
If Bamber wanted to give his side of the story he could have offerred this for free. The Sun would have then published his story.
Bamber is a much worse proven liar.
-
Yes they could have spoken about the weather.
Yes CAL said Bamber did want to give his side of the story. Fielder saying Bamber offerred him smutty pictures of Sheila as well. For £20,000 +.
If Bamber wanted to give his side of the story he could have offerred this for free. The Sun would have then published his story.
Bamber is a much worse proven liar.
what sort of moron believes the unsubsansated word of a sun journalist must be trure.
-
what sort of moron believes the unsubsansated word of a sun journalist must be trure.
What sort of moron believes Bamber could have met a Sun journalist to speak about 'anything'.
-
they could of spocken about anything.
jeremy could of wanted to put his side of the story like he cliamed.
you still only got the fielder it happend and hes a proven liar who has been proven to have made up storys before.
How come Fielder used almost the same words in his article as Colin stated Jeremy used to him? "You can see everything down to the last detail". Give it up Nugs, the guy tried to sell dodgy pictures of his dead sister to the tabloids. Doesn't make him a killer but it does make him the guy of guy who every well might be!
-
what sort of moron believes the unsubsansated word of a sun journalist must be trure.
What sort of moron thinks I am just going by what Michael Fielder said.
I am going by what Bamber, Brett Collins, Carol Ann Lee, Colin Caffell & Michael Fielder said.
But I assume 'conspiracy' Nugs doesn't believe any of them.
-
How come Fielder used almost the same words in his article as Colin stated Jeremy used to him? "You can see everything down to the last detail". Give it up Nugs, the guy tried to sell dodgy pictures of his dead sister to the tabloids. Doesn't make him a killer but it does make him the guy of guy who every well might be!
colin wasnt at the meeting so he wouldent know what was discused.
-
How come Fielder used almost the same words in his article as Colin stated Jeremy used to him? "You can see everything down to the last detail". Give it up Nugs, the guy tried to sell dodgy pictures of his dead sister to the tabloids. Doesn't make him a killer but it does make him the guy of guy who every well might be!
Since when have conspiracy theorists given up anything ? Nug's next post will arrive now. Probably focusing on Fielder.
-
Since when have conspiracy theorists given up anything ? Nug's next post will arrive now. Probably focusing on Fielder.
yes fielder who libeled a woman in gibrlater who has a history of making up lies.
-
colin wasnt at the meeting so he wouldent know what was discused.
Nugs, give it up.
The meeting happened. Source - Fielder, Bamber, Brett, CAL, The Sun.
Brett rang Fielder - Source - CAL, Bamber, Fielder, Brett.
Smutty Pictures existed - Source Fielder, CAL, CC. Sheila's friend, Brett, Bamber.
Bamber offerred his life story - Source, Bamber, CAL, Brett, The Sun.
Bamber offerred the pictures - Source, Bamber, Fielder, Brett. CAL, The Sun.
Bamber wanted £20,000. Source - CAL, Bamber, Brett, The Sun.
-------------------
-
I have included Bamber & Brett as sources as CAL said she interviewed everyone, including Bamber, excluding Julie. So her source automatically means Bamber & Brett are sources.
Although happy to exclude Brett if there is proof he wasn't interviewed by CAL.
-
I notice Nugs didn't answer my question on why Bamber didn't offer his side of the story for free. Rather than trying to cash in on his murdered family. Mind you Bamber did only want £20,000 +.
He just reverted back to Fielder. Forgetting Bamber is a proven multiple liar.
But that's conspiracy theorists for you.
-
Nugs, give it up.
The meeting happened. Source - Fielder, Bamber, Brett, CAL, The Sun.
Brett rang Fielder - Source - CAL, Bamber, Fielder, Brett.
Smutty Pictures existed - Source Fielder, CAL, CC. Sheila's friend, Brett, Bamber.
Bamber offerred his life story - Source, Bamber, CAL, Brett.
Bamber offerred the pictures - Source, Bamber, Fielder, Brett. CAL.
Bamber wanted £20,000. Source - CAL, Bamber, Brett.
-------------------
Istating it over aand over again does not make it true.
-
Istating it over aand over again does not make it true.
I just gave you 7 sources about what happened & what was said.
But appreciate that won't be enough for a conspiracy theorist.
-
so im supposed to belive news international as the gospel truth am i sory im not that deranged yet.
-
I have just had a look under The Sun headline 'Bambi brother in photo scandal'. Which was The Sun's headline in 1985. However the article is not online.
The Sun were taking a risk. A soon to be rich Bamber could have sued.
-
so im supposed to belive news international as the gospel truth am i sory im not that deranged yet.
'News International' are nothing to do with this issue.
Anyway, you're never going to accept the 7 sources I just gave you. Even though one of them is Bamber.
-
'News International' are nothing to do with this issue.
Anyway, you're never going to accept the 7 sources I just gave you. Even though one of them is Bamber.
there everything do with it there who feilder works for the only newcompany as far as i know thats ever employed him.
-
What sort of moron thinks I am just going by what Michael Fielder said.
I am going by what Bamber, Brett Collins, Carol Ann Lee, Colin Caffell & Michael Fielder said.
But I assume 'conspiracy' Nugs doesn't believe any of them.
bevouse you are just going on what feilder said brett colins talked about the meeting carol and colin were not there so your only source is feilder theres no point trying to lie your way out of it.
feilder is your only source.
-
bevouse you are just going on what feilder said brett colins talked about the meeting carol and colin were not there so your only source is feilder theres no point trying to lie your way out of it.
feilder is your only source.
Fielder was obviously at the meeting after Brett invited him.
Bamber was there who CAL certainly interviewed.
Brett was there who CAL may have interviewed.
CC said the pictures exist.
Sheila's friend said the pictures exist. According to CAL.
The Sun published a front page article on Bamber's picture offer. Risking perjury charges.
Bamber wanted £20,00+ for the pictures & life story. According to CAL who interviewed Bamber & everyone else excluding Julie.
--------------------
Anyway you agree the meeting took place with Michael Fielder.
You believe they could have spoken about anything and disagree that Bamber wanted to sell pictures & his life story for £20,000+.
However you did say in reply 9 that Bamber may have wanted to put his side of the story to Michael Fielder. But didn't answer my question why Bamber didn't offer his side of the story for free.
-
What I wonder is did brett contact the sun or did the sun contact him.
-
I just gave you 7 sources about what happened & what was said.
But appreciate that won't be enough for a conspiracy theorist.
It don't count if you make those sources up or falsely attribute them to people.
You gave six "sources" Fielder, Bamber, Brett, CAL, The Sun and Sheila's friend.
Fielder and the Sun are one of the same and CALs source is Sheila's friend so that Narrows it down to four sources.
The Sun and Fielder are not credible sources. The fact you use the Sun newspaper as evidence is laughable.
Sheila's friend only mentions the existence of those photos.
Then you have Brett and Bamber who have never said what you are attributing to them.
So you have provided zero sources. Unless you consider the Sun newspaper a source. Then you have one "source"
-
What I wonder is did brett contact the sun or did the sun contact him.
Brett contacted The Sun. You know this.
-
It don't count if you make those sources up or falsely attribute them to people.
You gave six "sources" Fielder, Bamber, Brett, CAL, The Sun and Sheila's friend.
Fielder and the Sun are one of the same and CALs source is Sheila's friend so that Narrows it down to four sources.
The Sun and Fielder are not credible sources. The fact you use the Sun newspaper as evidence is laughable.
Sheila's friend only mentions the existence of those photos.
Then you have Brett and Bamber who have never said what you are attributing to them.
So you have provided zero sources. Unless you consider the Sun newspaper a source. Then you have one "source"
You forgot CC who I mentioned. Who has said the pictures exist. So seven sources. Learn to count.
Fielder is an individual. The Sun a national paper - 2 sources.
CAL interviewed Bamber, Brett & Sheila's friend.
You've quoted from CAL's book enough times. Is it now wrong ?
-
Sources that the meeting happened:
Bamber
Brett
Fielder
CAL.
The CT.
Numerous other sources from the last 32 years.
Sources of what was said
Fielder
The Sun
CAL.
Sources that the photo's existed:
CAL
Sheila's friend.
CC.
Fielder.
The Sun.
-
Brett contacted The Sun. You know this.
nothing of the sort is known.
-
nothing of the sort is known.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zV3WCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA320&lpg=PA320&dq=jeremy+bamber+meeting+with+the+sun&source=bl&ots=jQzXO1FcuY&sig=qp_eX-zfphdOv2ZqDsEy_Mukpfg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZsaDKsqzWAhUPZFAKHQAnArgQ6AEIZDAR
Now if you can provide a source that Fielder contacted Bamber.....
-
Sources that the meeting happened:
Bamber
Brett
Fielder
CAL.
The CT.
Numerous other sources from the last 32 years.
Sources of what was said
Fielder
The Sun
CAL.
Sources that the photo's existed:
CAL
Sheila's friend.
CC.
fielder and the sun are the same source carol ann lee was not there and was only repeated what feilder said so that leads feilder as the only source.
this is desprate beyound belief.
Fielder.
The Sun.
-
How many sources have you ever supplied ? Oh yes. None.
-
nothing of the sort is known.
https://youtu.be/bcTvqLk0MWU
Source from Fielder. But as you said Fielder lied for no reason & Bamber never has.
-
Why not just accept that the incident happened? It's not conclusive proof he is guilty of mass murder, but is indicative of his character. Any denial makes the adherents of Bamber look rather desperate..
-
Why not just accept that the incident happened? It's not conclusive proof he is guilty of mass murder, but is indicative of his character. Any denial makes the adherents of Bamber look rather desperate..
I think Nugs is the only person kicking & screaming.
He's accepted there was a meeting & Bamber may have wanted to give his side of the story.
However doesn't accept CAL & Fielder saying that Bamber wanted £20,000+ for photos & his life story.
Nugs has not said why Bamber wouldn't offer his story for free.
-
https://youtu.be/bcTvqLk0MWU
Source from Fielder. But as you said Fielder lied for no reason & Bamber never has.
fielder lied to get a good just he lied in other cases like the death on the rock this as we have mentioned many hes a proven liar.
why the hell would I belive is telling the truth in this case.
-
C'mon,it reeks of desperation and as far as I remember the description of " sexual predator " as JB was named by Fielder,wasn't even mentioned in the courtroom,and that's a charge on its own.
-
I think Nugs is the only person kicking & screaming.
He's accepted there was a meeting & Bamber may have wanted to give his side of the story.
However doesn't accept CAL & Fielder saying that Bamber wanted £20,000+ for photos & his life story.
Nugs has not said why Bamber wouldn't offer his story for free.
because nobody with a working brian cell belives the word of somebody who has been proven to have lied before. and fielder has.
-
fielder lied to get a good just he lied in other cases like the death on the rock this as we have mentioned many hes a proven liar.
why the hell would I belive is telling the truth in this case.
That's fine. You believe a convicted murderer & liar instead.
Fielder lied & offerred to commit perjury in court. The Sun lied & risked libel action.
Was Fielder lying when he said there was a meeting ? No
Was Fielder lying when he said photo's existed ? No.
Was Fielder lying when he said he didn't see the photos ? No.
Do you agree with Fielder that Bamber would want to give his side of the story ? Yes.
But Fielder has apparently lied in the past on unrelated matters. So must have lied here. Like no one ever a lied in their lives.
-
What I wonder is did brett contact the sun or did the sun contact him.
He contacted The Sun
-
He contacted The Sun
thats acording to the sun i assume.
-
thats acording to the sun i assume.
They're not complete fools. They can't always print total fabrication.
-
thats acording to the sun i assume.
And Carol Hughes Young.
-
thats acording to the sun i assume.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=435.msg9069#msg9069
And this link. It's good to provide sources. You should try it sometime.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=435.msg9069#msg9069
And this link. It's good to provide sources. You should try it sometime.
proving yey agian that your to stupid to know what a source is.
-
proving yey agian that your to stupid to know what a source is.
You don't know as you've never provided one.
-
I haven't but can try to get the relevant pages up online.
You have obviously read the book. So can either quote the extract or tell me the page.
No response from Lookout. Hopefully tomorrow.
-
The Defence is not doing itself any favours by denying this story. They had gained some ground recently but slipped back last week, and it looks as if this week will be just as bad..
-
The Defence is not doing itself any favours by denying this story. They had gained some ground recently but slipped back last week, and it looks as if this week will be just as bad..
What ground. The 999 call ?
-
What ground. The 999 call ?
Well they crucified Sheila for her mental illness, but now the spotlight is back on Jeremy they are feeling the pressure once again.
-
The Defence is not doing itself any favours by denying this story. They had gained some ground recently but slipped back last week, and it looks as if this week will be just as bad..
well I'm not part of the defence.
and I think questioning the integrity of news international is a pretty safe thing to do.
-
well I'm not part of the defence.
and I think questioning the integrity of news international is a pretty safe thing to do.
Wonder why Jeremy didn't question their integrity? I guess he knew the story was true, which is why he has never challenged it and prefers not to answer questions about it. He knows what he did would be seen by decent people as being the lowest!
-
Wonder why Jeremy didn't question their integrity? I guess he knew the story was true, which is why he has never challenged it and prefers not to answer questions about it. He knows what he did would be seen by decent people as being the lowest!
how do we know he hasnt.
actully i think he has i think theres a bit on the campaghn website about it.
-
how do we know he hasnt.
actully i think he has i think theres a bit on the campaghn website about it.
You need to provide a source he has.
Rather than saying just because there is no evidence he has, doesn't mean he hasn't.
If you have not got the capacity to post sources, you need to get someone to teach you.
-
You need to provide a source he has.
Rather than saying just because there is no evidence he has, doesn't mean he hasn't.
If you have not got the capacity to post sources, you need to get someone to teach you.
It is common knowledge that Bamber has denied the story.
Gruner's claim that JB didn't deny it is duplicitous. His actual reply to Gruner was "that's interesting. I haven't seen today's papers." It has not been specified what Gruner's question was but it can be reasonably inferred from the reply.
What can be inferred from the response is that Gruner self evidently did not ask JB if he had attempted to sell pics to Fielder or the Sun. All of which makes the allegation of non denial even more bizarre.
I would imagine that anyone would fail to deny a question that they weren't asked.
-
It is common knowledge that Bamber has denied the story.
Gruner's claim that JB didn't deny it is duplicitous. His actual reply to Gruner was "that's interesting. I haven't seen today's papers." It has not been specified what Gruner's question was but it can be reasonably inferred from the reply.
What can be inferred from the response is that Gruner self evidently did not ask JB if he had attempted to sell pics to Fielder or the Sun. All of which makes the allegation of non denial even more bizarre.
I would imagine that anyone would fail to deny a question that they weren't asked.
Have you got a source ? I don't believe Nugs has the capacity to post sources. Or he can't be bothered to look.
There is nothing on the Official site.
-
The main thing here is did RWB know anything of all this ? Had he entered this" sleazy report" on any of his statements or conversations with his friends at the Met ?
I ask because whatever RWB said or did his story was believed and carried more clout that the officers of EP. This man had more influence over the case than anyone and if JB had had anything to do with pornography RWB would have demanded extra criminal charges for such. As I've said,if the situation was that bad that JB was called a " sexual predator ",then is this fact entered in RWB's notes/statements ?
If not,you can guarantee that Fielder was lying. To be sure,RWB would have been the first to know,after having had JB tracked for his homosexuality in order to get something on JB.
-
It is common knowledge that Bamber has denied the story.
Gruner's claim that JB didn't deny it is duplicitous. His actual reply to Gruner was "that's interesting. I haven't seen today's papers." It has not been specified what Gruner's question was but it can be reasonably inferred from the reply.
What can be inferred from the response is that Gruner self evidently did not ask JB if he had attempted to sell pics to Fielder or the Sun. All of which makes the allegation of non denial even more bizarre.
I would imagine that anyone would fail to deny a question that they weren't asked.
When did he deny it and who to?
-
No source from Gringo or Nugs. Although Nugs never provides sources.
-
No source from Gringo or Nugs. Although Nugs never provides sources.
He didn't comment on the fact that I posted about asking Bamber this question back in 2015 either. There is no record of him denying he met Fielder, in fact quite the opposite - although he did try and turn the tables saying Fielder asked for pictures (like he would know they existed ::)). This just makes him look more guilty because he used the same words to Fielder in describing them as he did to Colin "You can see everything down to the last detail". Supporters know that such behaviour worrying so have to deny it happened. Unfortunately, denial is futile.
-
Not sure what Nugs is trying to say again.
He agrees there was a meeting.
He agrees Bamber would want to give his side of the story.
He agrees the photo's exist.
He agrees The Sun published a front page article & risked libel charges.
He agrees Fielder was willing to testify & risk perjury charges if lying.
He agrees Bamber is a hardcore & long term liar.
He agrees Fielder would only know about the photos if Bamber told him.
He agrees journalists carry tape recorders.
He agrees Bamber or Brett could have brought a tape recorder, but didn't.
He agrees Bamber has never discussed this issue.
------------------
After agreeing with all that, he disagrees that Brett contacted Fielder. Although I have provided sources.
He disagrees Bamber wanted a substantial payment. Although I have provided sources.
-----------------
He has provided no sources & not answered questions.
His reason for not believing two things is Fielder apparently lied in the past about something unrelated. Although as mentioned Bamber is a multiple liar.
His reason why Fielder & The Sun risked libel & perjury charges is they wanted to assist the police. Although he doesn't say how the police would be assisted by this.
-
He didn't comment on the fact that I posted about asking Bamber this question back in 2015 either. There is no record of him denying he met Fielder, in fact quite the opposite - although he did try and turn the tables saying Fielder asked for pictures (like he would know they existed ::)). This just makes him look more guilty because he used the same words to Fielder in describing them as he did to Colin "You can see everything down to the last detail". Supporters know that such behaviour worrying so have to deny it happened. Unfortunately, denial is futile.
defending news international is futile and only idiot would try.
-
Why not contact the now editor of the newspaper,or look into their archives for this " Sensational Story "?
Those who are genuinely interested in the case do their own searching/investigating like Holly on red has done.
-
defending news international is futile and only idiot would try.
Ignoring facts that are screaming in your face is even more idiotic.
-
Why not contact the now editor of the newspaper,or look into their archives for this " Sensational Story "?
Those who are genuinely interested in the case do their own searching/investigating like Holly on red has done.
Since when was Holly your bestie? ::) ::)
-
Since when was Holly your bestie? ::) ::)
Did I say she was my bestie ?? NO,and what's more she ISN'T !! And NEVER will be,thank Heaven.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6754.msg310061.html#msg310061
-
He contacted The Sun
The newspaper contacted him by phone-----------no photographs involved------no selling.
-
CAL also wrote about Sheila's drug debt,etc----------that's not true either. As did Claire Powell.
No she didn't, she wrote about the newspaper story nt that Sheila had a REAL drug debt!
-
No she didn't, she wrote about the newspaper story nt that Sheila had a REAL drug debt!
what nespaper does that come from.
-
No she didn't, she wrote about the newspaper story nt that Sheila had a REAL drug debt!
The same newspaper which Fielder was a reporter for ?
-
oh well if thats the source of the drug debt story you can pretty much discount it.
-
oh well if thats the source of the drug debt story you can pretty much discount it.
It's already been discounted.
-
Along with the photo's debacle.
-
Along with the photo's debacle.
well you cant have it both ways the both storys come from the same source.
-
well you cant have it both ways the both storys come from the same source.
Exactly-----consigned to the garbage bin.
-
Exactly-----consigned to the garbage bin.
yes both storys
-
I notice Nugs didn't answer my question on why Bamber didn't offer his side of the story for free. Rather than trying to cash in on his murdered family. Mind you Bamber did only want £20,000 +.
He just reverted back to Fielder. Forgetting Bamber is a proven multiple liar.
But that's conspiracy theorists for you.
What do you think about Julie Mugford cashing in on Jeremy's murdered family? Not only did she fail to reveal what he allegedly said to her for several weeks, she also went to stay with Colin the weekend after the murders - you know, the father of the murdered twins, and didn't say a word about what she knew - while he discussed it all with Jeremy.
-
What do you think about Julie Mugford cashing in on Jeremy's murdered family? Not only did she fail to reveal what he allegedly said to her for several weeks, she also went to stay with Colin the weekend after the murders - you know, the father of the murdered twins, and didn't say a word about what she knew - while he discussed it all with Jeremy.
Despicable, just as Jeremy's deal with the same newspaper group had he been acquitted.
-
What do you think about Julie Mugford cashing in on Jeremy's murdered family? Not only did she fail to reveal what he allegedly said to her for several weeks, she also went to stay with Colin the weekend after the murders - you know, the father of the murdered twins, and didn't say a word about what she knew - while he discussed it all with Jeremy.
It would be really sickening if true wouldn't it
Adam finds nothing wrong with her behaviour
-
Despicable, just as Jeremy's deal with the same newspaper group had he been acquitted.
Yes. I don't have a high opinion of her at all. How can you sit there with a man whose young children had been murdered a few days before and say nothing? How could you even be in the same room whilst he grieved and probably blamed himself?
-
Despicable, just as Jeremy's deal with the same newspaper group had he been acquitted.
To be fair Steve if JB was found innocent it would have been a very different scenario than Julie's behavior although admittedly making money out of 5 deaths can never be regarded as good taste.
-
Yes. I don't have a high opinion of her at all. How can you sit there with a man whose young children had been murdered a few days before and say nothing? How could you even be in the same room whilst he grieved and probably blamed himself?
I agree Kaldin, if JM knew the truth as she claimed she did I believe her behaviour was unforgivable.
-
I agree Kaldin, if JM knew the truth as she claimed she did I believe her behaviour was unforgivable.
Yes it was. She's very lucky she wasn't prosecuted for assisting an offender IMO. I wish she had been.
-
What do you think about Julie Mugford cashing in on Jeremy's murdered family? Not only did she fail to reveal what he allegedly said to her for several weeks, she also went to stay with Colin the weekend after the murders - you know, the father of the murdered twins, and didn't say a word about what she knew - while he discussed it all with Jeremy.
Yes she did, but so did Jeremy and he tried to cash in long before Julie even thought about it. How is Julie worse than Jeremy in that scenario? He'd killed everyone in clod blood, she temporarily kept quiet about it.
-
Yes. I don't have a high opinion of her at all. How can you sit there with a man whose young children had been murdered a few days before and say nothing? How could you even be in the same room whilst he grieved and probably blamed himself?
I don't get this, how come the object of vilification is STILL Julie when considering a guilty Bamber?
-
Yes she did, but so did Jeremy and he tried to cash in long before Julie even thought about it. How is Julie worse than Jeremy in that scenario? He'd killed everyone in clod blood, she temporarily kept quiet about it.
She's supposed to be a "nice" person. How nice is it to sit there with a man who lost his children and discuss it with him when all the time she "knew" that it was Jeremy who'd done it. You'd think she would have kept her distance from Colin at least instead of accepting his hospitality.
-
I don't get this, how come the object of vilification is STILL Julie when considering a guilty Bamber?
She got away with lying for weeks, she was free to do whatever she wanted, and all the time she was shielding a man who she claimed murdered his family.
-
What do you think about Julie Mugford cashing in on Jeremy's murdered family? Not only did she fail to reveal what he allegedly said to her for several weeks, she also went to stay with Colin the weekend after the murders - you know, the father of the murdered twins, and didn't say a word about what she knew - while he discussed it all with Jeremy.
She didn't cash in. The NOTW approached her over a year after the massacre.
Bamber tried to tout sordid photos & his life story a few weeks after the massacre.
Nugs did eventually answer my question. Saying Bamber did offer his story for free but The Sun turned down this big freebie exclusive. Apparently they had already written a false story about photos & £20,000 ? !
Nugs guess contradicts CAL, Fielder & The Sun.
-
Yes she did, but so did Jeremy and he tried to cash in long before Julie even thought about it. How is Julie worse than Jeremy in that scenario? He'd killed everyone in clod blood, she temporarily kept quiet about it.
But Jeremy is in prison and if guilty we cannot expect him to have any kind of empathy for Colin however Julie claims innocence and walked away free to continue her life. OK she may not have killed anyone but it speaks volumes about her character. I cannot see how her age can in any way excuse her of such dreadful behaviour.
-
She got away with lying for weeks, she was free to do whatever she wanted, and all the time she was shielding a man who she claimed murdered his family.
She betrayed Bamber after 20 days.
-
But Jeremy is in prison and if guilty we cannot expect him to have any kind of empathy for Colin however Julie claims innocence and walked away free to continue her life. OK she may not have killed anyone but it speaks volumes about her character. I cannot see how her age can in any way excuse her of such dreadful behaviour.
Why not: because he's a psychopath?
-
She didn't cash in. The NOTW approached her over a year after the massacre.
Bamber tried to tout sordid photos & his life story a few weeks after the massacre.
Nugs did eventually answer my question. Saying Bamber did offer his story for free but The Sun turned down this big freebie exclusive. Apparently they had already written a false story about photos & £20,000 ? !
Nugs guess contradicts CAL, Fielder & The Sun.
A year later - are you sure about that? Are you claiming that she did not get paid for her story? She should have hung her head in shame rather than accept money.
-
But Jeremy is in prison and if guilty we cannot expect him to have any kind of empathy for Colin however Julie claims innocence and walked away free to continue her life. OK she may not have killed anyone but it speaks volumes about her character. I cannot see how her age can in any way excuse her of such dreadful behaviour.
The fact is, she did come clean and without her, they may never have gotten a conviction. As far as age goes, it's been used by some (not you) to make excuses for Jeremy and he was 5 years older. I don't think age is an excuse, people know right from wrong at a much earlier age than those two. Legally, it's not a crime not to report a crime but of course that is exactly what she should have done - nevertheless, I still don't get why she gets the stronger vilification even when the scenario is considering a guilty Jeremy? ???
-
She betrayed Bamber after 20 days.
A month later actually. In that month, she went away for weekends with him and sat there with Colin Caffell discussing the deaths of his sons. You admire her, I don't.
-
Why not: because he's a psychopath?
Maybe but anyone who kills 2 little boys and his mother, father and sister must surely have some kind of personality disorder. Why would he care about Colin if he had committed premeditated murder on his boys?
-
Why not: because he's a psychopath?
Has to be.
-
The fact is, she did come clean and without her, they may never have gotten a conviction. As far as age goes, it's been used by some (not you) to make excuses for Jeremy and he was 5 years older. I don't think age is an excuse, people know right from wrong at a much earlier age than those two. Legally, it's not a crime not to report a crime but of course that is exactly what she should have done - nevertheless, I still don't get why she gets the stronger vilification even when the scenario is considering a guilty Jeremy? ???
She didn't just fail to report a crime, she omitted an awful lost when she was interviewed by the police. She basically covered up for him - until he dumped her. Are we seriously to believe that she didn't mention any of the stuff she claimed he said to any of her mates before the murders?
-
A month later actually. In that month, she went away for weekends with him and sat there with Colin Caffell discussing the deaths of his sons. You admire her, I don't.
I don't think anyone admires her, though to be fair she did try to make amends and has led an exemplary life in Canada.
-
I don't think anyone admires her, though to be fair she did try to make amends and has led an exemplary life in Canada.
I hope she apologised to Colin.
-
A month later actually. In that month, she went away for weekends with him and sat there with Colin Caffell discussing the deaths of his sons. You admire her, I don't.
She started telling friends what she knew on August 27th.
-
She started telling friends what she knew on August 27th.
Whilst still going away with Jeremy? She's a piece of work.
-
She didn't just fail to report a crime, she omitted an awful lost when she was interviewed by the police. She basically covered up for him - until he dumped her. Are we seriously to believe that she didn't mention any of the stuff she claimed he said to any of her mates before the murders?
Bamber didn't dump her. He rang her up 3 times on the massacre night & then whisked her to WHF. To be by his side so he could keep an eye on her. Persuading her to accompany him on various trips when she didn't want to.
-
Bamber didn't dump her. He rang her up 3 times on the massacre night & then whisked her to WHF. To be by his side so he could keep an eye on her. Persuading her to accompany him when she didn't want to.
I don't mean on the night of the murders - obviously - I mean later on - before she spoke to the police and claimed he was responsible.
-
The fact is, she did come clean and without her, they may never have gotten a conviction. As far as age goes, it's been used by some (not you) to make excuses for Jeremy and he was 5 years older. I don't think age is an excuse, people know right from wrong at a much earlier age than those two. Legally, it's not a crime not to report a crime but of course that is exactly what she should have done - nevertheless, I still don't get why she gets the stronger vilification even when the scenario is considering a guilty Jeremy? ???
I agree with what you say but if she did know JB had killed Colin'so boys as she claims then it is very hard to grasp and understand how she was able to do such a thing.
I agree nowhere near as hard to grasp as JB's behavour but difficult for all that.
-
I don't think anyone admires her, though to be fair she did try to make amends and has led an exemplary life in Canada.
To be fair Steve we don't know much about her life in Canada. One newspaper article telling us she was head of a school and did some charity work. Good for her but has her life in Canada been exemplary? We don't know the answer to that to be honest.
-
She didn't just fail to report a crime, she omitted an awful lost when she was interviewed by the police. She basically covered up for him - until he dumped her. Are we seriously to believe that she didn't mention any of the stuff she claimed he said to any of her mates before the murders?
If JB is guilty then she most certainly did more than fail to report a crime. There is ample evidence, if JB is guilty, that she was an accessory/accomplice to the crime.
I feel sure that if all the dealings between EP, JM and the NOTW were revealed then we would see exposed the plotting of a frame up.
Just to add to the many who have already said, it is good to see you posting again, Kaldin.
-
If JB is guilty then she most certainly did more than fail to report a crime. There is ample evidence, if JB is guilty, that she was an accessory/accomplice to the crime.
I feel sure that if all the dealings between EP, JM and the NOTW were revealed then we would see exposed the plotting of a frame up.
Just to add to the many who have already said, it is good to see you posting again, Kaldin.
Thanks gringo. :))
-
If JB is guilty then she most certainly did more than fail to report a crime. There is ample evidence, if JB is guilty, that she was an accessory/accomplice to the crime.
I feel sure that if all the dealings between EP, JM and the NOTW were revealed then we would see exposed the plotting of a frame up.
Just to add to the many who have already said, it is good to see you posting again, Kaldin.
No it's yours and others realms of fantasy here. I have condemned Julie for her behaviour in that short time frame post-murders but the rest is speculation, and attacking Julie is a soft target instead of exploring some of the other more difficult avenues.
-
A year later - are you sure about that? Are you claiming that she did not get paid for her story? She should have hung her head in shame rather than accept money.
The NOTW approached her mid trial. The trial was a year after Bamber's arrest.
Hang her head in shame ? She had to put her life on hold for a year to help convict a murderer.
-
The NOTW approached her mid trial. The trial was a year after Bamber's arrest.
Hang her head in shame ? She had to put her life on hold for a year to help convict a murderer.
She could have donated the money to charity. It was blood money after all.
-
She could have donated the money to charity. It was blood money after all.
How much money had she lost in wages in the previous 18 months ? How much stress had Bamber put her under ? The CT are still creating 8 minute Youtube videos on her, 32 years after the event.
No other witnesses donate money to charity after selling their stories after a big trial.
It wasn't her family so don't see why she shouldn't accept the NOTW offer. Just as Bamber was going to.
-
She could have donated the money to charity. It was blood money after all.
that was her hard earned bribe money for giving evdence she was going to give it away who would.
-
How much money had she lost in wages in the previous 18 months ? How much stress had Bamber put her under ? The CT are still creating 8 minute Youtube videos on her, 32 years after the event.
No other witnesses donate money to charity after selling their stories after a big trial.
It wasn't her family so don't see why she shouldn't accept the NOTW offer. Just as Bamber was going to.
She was a grown woman and responsible for her own actions, whatever she did was her own choice and her own responsibility. She was supposed to be a reasonably intelligent woman but she made some really bad choices
-
well she was only giving evdence for money why would she then go on to give that money away.
-
well she was only giving evdence for money why would she then go on to give that money away.
She was giving evidence because she believed it was the right thing to do. Rather than let a murderer walk free.
She at least receieved the offerred NOTW money over a year after the trial, after submitting a 34 page WS & testifying.
Bamber approached The Sun & wanted £20,000 for doing nothing except hand over sordid pictures of his sister.
-
She was giving evidence because she believed it was the right thing to do. Rather than let a murderer walk free.
She at least receieved the offerred NOTW money over a year after the trial after submitting a 34 WS & testifying.
Bamber approached The Sun & wanted £20,000 for doing nothing except hand over sordid pictures of his sister.
it was the right thing to do it made her a lot of money.
-
Since conviction Bamber has engaged with people such as Hunter, Woffinden, Alison, The Telegraph; The Times & The Mail.
Makes it even more surprising he chose to engage with The Sun pre arrest. Espescially as 'The Campaign for freedom' say he was in high demand by the media. Mind you none of the above would have been interested in photos of Sheila.
-
Since conviction Bamber has engaged with people such as Hunter, Woffinden, Alison, The Telegraph; The Times & The Mail.
Makes it even more surprising he chose to engage with The Sun pre arrest. Espescially as 'The Campaign for freedom' say he was in high demand by the media. Mind you none of the above would have been interested in photos of Sheila.
well he wouldent be engaging with the sun after hes conviction would he.
well of course he would of engaged with wolfingdon and wolfingdon would of engaged with him and wolfingdon happens to write mostly for the mail.
-
Actually he did engage with The Mirror after his conviction.
The Mirror being as down market as The Sun & probably the only paper daft enough to publish a story about Nevill's call to Chelmsford police.
-
Actually he did engage with The Mirror after his conviction.
The Mirror being as down market as The Sun & probably the only paper daft enough to publish a story about Nevill's call to Chelmsford police.
not as down market still fasirly down market.
-
But Jeremy is in prison and if guilty we cannot expect him to have any kind of empathy for Colin however Julie claims innocence and walked away free to continue her life. OK she may not have killed anyone but it speaks volumes about her character. I cannot see how her age can in any way excuse her of such dreadful behaviour.
Would you expect him to have empathy if he's innocent?
-
How can anyone have empathy for someone who was a party to " stabbing you in the back " ? I don't doubt for one minute that Jeremy is far different than I'd ever be in that so far he's shown no bitterness or any of those negative emotions against/towards anybody. If I knew I'd been innocent,human nature would have kicked in and my verbal behaviour towards those who wronged me would know no bounds !!
-
How can anyone have empathy for someone who was a party to " stabbing you in the back " ? I don't doubt for one minute that Jeremy is far different than I'd ever be in that so far he's shown no bitterness or any of those negative emotions against/towards anybody. If I knew I'd been innocent,human nature would have kicked in and my verbal behaviour towards those who wronged me would know no bounds !!
You sure about that?
-
You sure about that?
Nothing about bitter behaviour etc has ever been reported. No screaming,kicking or swearing.
-
Nothing about bitter behaviour etc has ever been reported. No screaming,kicking or swearing.
Kicking or screaming? What's that got to do with anything?
-
Nothing about bitter behaviour etc has ever been reported. No screaming,kicking or swearing.
Why would it be? Who cares? If papers were to report each and every occurrence -committed by incarcerated murderers- there'd be no room for other news.
-
Why would it be? Who cares? If papers were to report each and every occurrence -committed by incarcerated murderers- there'd be no room for other news.
And your point
Who cares what you post
It's one sided bullshit
-
And your point
Who cares what you post
It's one sided bullshit
And yours is just sour vomit.
-
And yours is just sour vomit.
It's been good when you have been away except your sidekicks been on here insulting people and having her posts removed left right and centre as per usual
-
It's been good when you have been away except your sidekicks been on here insulting people and having her posts removed left right and centre as per usual
All caused by you, undoubtedly. Strange how you appear so puffed up about your sour vomit being the cause of others' posts being removed. Still, yours go with them, so nothing lost.
-
Why would it be? Who cares? If papers were to report each and every occurrence -committed by incarcerated murderers- there'd be no room for other news.
Perhaps you weren't aware that this man's movements are being scrutinised. Brady's was,Sutcliffe's is. Those in Cat A are " watched " more than others are,being as their numbers are smaller.
-
It's been good when you have been away except your sidekicks been on here insulting people and having her posts removed left right and centre as per usual
You wait hours for an idiot to turn up and low and behold, after one, you're fighting the bloody things off!
-
Perhaps you weren't aware that this man's movements are being scrutinised. Brady's was,Sutcliffe's is. Those in Cat A are " watched " more than others are,being as their numbers are smaller.
Well, we didn't get to learn of the daily activities of the two 'gentlemen' you mentioned, did we? It could be because Brady was kept -at his own request- in isolation. Certainly, there will be close circuit camera's strategically placed, but so there are on every street, watching our every movement. Given that Cat A's are in a much smaller number, AND in a more "confined" confined space than the rest of us, it's hardly necessary to spend money or manpower keeping an eye on them 24/7. You blow up Jeremy's importance to almost Royal status -I sincerely hope you don't believe THAT story- to the majority, he's simply NOT that important.
-
Tell me what's important about being a Cat A prisoner ? What an idiotic thing to say.
-
Tell me what's important about being a Cat A prisoner ? What an idiotic thing to say.
I've NO idea. You're the one who gives the impression that it elevates him.
-
I've NO idea. You're the one who gives the impression that it elevates him.
And YOU'RE the one who twists everything ! Elevate,my eye !! You don't half talk some garbage.
-
And YOU'RE the one who twists everything ! Elevate,my eye !! You don't half talk some garbage.
For God's sake put that bloody mirror down. Perhaps, if you stop looking at yourself, you'll stop talking to yourself.
-
You're a despicable excuse for a human being !!
-
You're a despicable excuse for a human being !!
And you can't possibly be described as BEING human. I'm very happy to keep this nonsense going just as long as you keep feeding me the lines.
-
Julie Mugford held up the investigation big time. If she had told the truth straightaway, a lot of the evidence wouldn't have been destroyed, and Colin wouldn't have thought his ex-wife was a murderer for so long. Any normal person would have recoiled in horror if their partner told them they had just hired someone to kill five people, including two children, but she did not do that - she covered up for him for a month, carried on seeing him, and even going away with him.
-
Julie Mugford held up the investigation big time. If she had told the truth straightaway, a lot of the evidence wouldn't have been destroyed, and Colin wouldn't have thought his ex-wife was a murderer for so long. Any normal person would have recoiled in horror if their partner told them they had just hired someone to kill five people, including two children, but she did not do that - she covered up for him for a month, carried on seeing him, and even going away with him.
yes she does not really come out of it well ethere way you look at it.
-
yes she does not really come out of it well ethere way you look at it.
I just don't get it nugnug. Here we have a woman who says that Jeremy talked about killing parents, and she said she got fed up with it, and yet she carried on with him. I can understand that she didn't take it seriously, but then he rang her up and said "tonight's the night", or whatever, and she just ignored it? Then after the murders he allegedly told her that he hired someone to kill them all, and she just carried on like nothing happened? It's just not believable really.
-
I just don't get it nugnug. Here we have a woman who says that Jeremy talked about killing parents, and she said she got fed up with it, and yet she carried on with him. I can understand that she didn't take it seriously, but then he rang her up and said "tonight's the night", or whatever, and she just ignored it? Then after the murders he allegedly told her that he hired someone to kill them all, and she just carried on like nothing happened? It's just not believable really.
It's the threnody of the human condition; all too believable really.
-
This thread may as well run and run..
-
I just don't get it nugnug. Here we have a woman who says that Jeremy talked about killing parents, and she said she got fed up with it, and yet she carried on with him. I can understand that she didn't take it seriously, but then he rang her up and said "tonight's the night", or whatever, and she just ignored it? Then after the murders he allegedly told her that he hired someone to kill them all, and she just carried on like nothing happened? It's just not believable really.
even why i was a guilter i took her story with a fair pinch of salt.
-
I just don't get it nugnug. Here we have a woman who says that Jeremy talked about killing parents, and she said she got fed up with it, and yet she carried on with him. I can understand that she didn't take it seriously, but then he rang her up and said "tonight's the night", or whatever, and she just ignored it? Then after the murders he allegedly told her that he hired someone to kill them all, and she just carried on like nothing happened? It's just not believable really.
Carried on like nothing happened? How can you possibly know that?
-
Carried on like nothing happened? How can you possibly know that?
OK, like nothing bad had happened. She went to Colin's for the weekend with Jeremy and went out for a meal with several people, she went to Eastbourne with Jeremy, she helped him load up the van with stuff from the house, she went out for meals with Jeremy and others, she had him back to stay at her house, she went to the farm with him to comfort him when he went there for the first time after the murders, she went to the funeral wearing a rather ostentatious veil and held Jeremy's arm like he was a victim, she went shopping in Colchester with her mate, she stayed at Jeremy's house ...
Need I go on?
-
Carried on like nothing happened? How can you possibly know that?
erm her actions.
-
erm her actions.
Such as? When you list them tell us how you know what was going on in her head?
I won't waste by time waiting for a proper response from you. You'll do as you generally do, wait for someone else to do the work then agree with them.
-
Oh, and she went to Amsterdam with Jeremy, and also the Nottinghill Carnival. She also planned for the relationship with Jeremy to continue.
None of that sounds like a woman who was afflicted with guilt and/or fear.
-
Such as? When you list them tell us how you know what was going on in her head?
I won't waste by time waiting for a proper response from you. You'll do as you generally do, wait for someone else to do the work then agree with them.
erm they already been listed many times.
-
OK, like nothing bad had happened. She went to Colin's for the weekend with Jeremy and went out for a meal with several people, she went to Eastbourne with Jeremy, she helped him load up the van with stuff from the house, she went out for meals with Jeremy and others, she had him back to stay at her house, she went to the farm with him to comfort him when he went there for the first time after the murders, she went to the funeral wearing a rather ostentatious veil and held Jeremy's arm like he was a victim, she went shopping in Colchester with her mate, she stayed at Jeremy's house ...
Need I go on?
How do you know what was going on in her head? .
-
erm they already been listed many times.
As expected! ::)
-
How do you know what was going on in her head? .
What would be going on in your head if you continued to see someone who you knew had murdered five people, including two children? I bet you wouldn't be thinking about your next trip abroad, or going out for meals all the time, or asking the murderer not to leave you.
-
Oh, and she went to Amsterdam with Jeremy, and also the Nottinghill Carnival. She also planned for the relationship with Jeremy to continue.
None of that sounds like a woman who was afflicted with guilt and/or fear.
Like I said, you can't possibly know what was going on in her head. In oder to know if her behaviour was different (seeking company so as not to be alone with her thoughts), you would have to know what she usually did, then compare the two.
-
What would be going on in your head if you continued to see someone who you knew had murdered five people, including two children? I bet you wouldn't be thinking about your next trip abroad, or going out for meals all the time, or asking the murderer not to leave you.
I would never find myself in that situation but no I wouldn't be thinking about my next trip - however, you don't know that SHE was thinking about such things either!
-
I would never find myself in that situation but no I wouldn't be thinking about my next trip - however, you don't know that SHE was thinking about such things either!
What do you think she was thinking? If your boyfriend told you he'd had his entire family murdered, would you not be a little bit worried about your own life? Would you continue to be alone with him? Of course you wouldn't.
I've tried to put myself in her place, I really have. I've tried to go back to when I was that age, and thought about what I would have done. I would have made excuses not to see him, I would have told someone, I would have not gone to the funerals, I would have been in a horrible state. She did none of those things, and she continued to go to places and do things which reminded her the whole time of what he did.
-
Like I said, you can't possibly know what was going on in her head. In oder to know if her behaviour was different (seeking company so as not to be alone with her thoughts), you would have to know what she usually did, then compare the two.
She sought his company though. She said she was upset about it, and yet she continually went around with him, and stayed at his house!
-
What do you think she was thinking? If your boyfriend told you he'd had his entire family murdered, would you not be a little bit worried about your own life? Would you continue to be alone with him? Of course you wouldn't.
I've tried to put myself in her place, I really have. I've tried to go back to when I was that age, and thought about what I would have done. I would have made excuses not to see him, I would have told someone, I would have not gone to the funerals, I would have been in a horrible state. She did none of those things, and she continued to go to places and do things which reminded her the whole time of what he did.
You can't put yourself in her place, no more than I can and because of that, you can't know what she was thinking. People do all kinds of things that seem odd to others. Battered women go back to their violent partners time after time and I guess unless we walk a mile in their shoes, we'll never understand. Do I think it's odd she stayed with him? Most certainly! I'd have dumped his backside the first time he talked about killing his family but that's me.
-
What do you think she was thinking? If your boyfriend told you he'd had his entire family murdered, would you not be a little bit worried about your own life? Would you continue to be alone with him? Of course you wouldn't.
I've tried to put myself in her place, I really have. I've tried to go back to when I was that age, and thought about what I would have done. I would have made excuses not to see him, I would have told someone, I would have not gone to the funerals, I would have been in a horrible state. She did none of those things, and she continued to go to places and do things which reminded her the whole time of what he did.
She didn't want to do go to the funerals. Or do other things. Read her WS & testimony.
Anyway, you believe you would have acted differently. So what ?
-
cuddling a guy at a funeral when you know hes not really grieving at all.
offering to indeiy body of dead kids you know your boyfriends killed you cant get much worse than that.
-
She sought his company though. She said she was upset about it, and yet she continually went around with him, and stayed at his house!
She did and they ended up talking about the murders most of the time which shows it was on her mind. He was the only person she could talk to about it so no wonder he sought him out. I think he looked at her as a bit of a drag, always going on about it - he just wanted to forget and put it behind him. Now that's odd!
-
She didn't want to do go to the funerals. Or do other things. Read her WS & testimony.
Anyway, you believe you would have acted differently. So what ?
Then why did she go? She made a big effort to dress up - I was surprised by that veil. She clung onto his arm, she didn't just trail along behind him. I don't believe she didn't want to go, or that she didn't want to do any of those things she did. She wasn't beholden to him, she lived elsewhere, and it would have been easy for her to make excuses not to see him.
So what? I don't know - I'm merely giving my opinion because some people admire her for coming forward, and I don't.
-
Then why did she go? She made a big effort to dress up - I was surprised by that veil. She clung onto his arm, she didn't just trail along behind him. I don't believe she didn't want to go, or that she didn't want to do any of those things she did. She wasn't beholden to him, she lived elsewhere, and it would have been easy for her to make excuses not to see him.
So what? I don't know - I'm merely giving my opinion because some people admire her for coming forward, and I don't.
She hid behind the veil.
-
She did and they ended up talking about the murders most of the time which shows it was on her mind. He was the only person she could talk to about it so no wonder he sought him out. I think he looked at her as a bit of a drag, always going on about it - he just wanted to forget and put it behind him. Now that's odd!
why would she be cuddling him at the murders if she knew he wasn't really grieving at all.
-
cuddling a guy at a funeral when you know hes not really grieving at all.
offering to indeiy body of dead kids you know your boyfriends you cant get much worse than that.
She even let him pay for the dress which she wore to the funeral.
-
She hid behind the veil.
It wasn't that kind of veil, it was a "fashion" veil.
-
Then why did she go? She made a big effort to dress up - I was surprised by that veil. She clung onto his arm, she didn't just trail along behind him. I don't believe she didn't want to go, or that she didn't want to do any of those things she did. She wasn't beholden to him, she lived elsewhere, and it would have been easy for her to make excuses not to see him.
So what? I don't know - I'm merely giving my opinion because some people admire her for coming forward, and I don't.
Because Bamber pleaded with her. He rang her 3 times on the massacre night & whisked her to WHF. What would you expect ?
Dressed up for a funeral. She wore a dark dress.
-
Because Bamber pleaded with her. He rang her 3 times on the massacre night & whisked her to WHF. What would you expect ?
Dressed up for a funeral. She wore a dark dress.
What would I expect? I'd expect to be in a state, but I'd think it was maybe a coincidence after all he'd said, and that maybe Sheila had done it. After he told me that he hired someone to do it, I wouldn't be running off to him, I'd be running the other way. He clearly wasn't pleading with her to see him later because he dumped her.
It's the veil - it was just a fashion accessory too far.
-
She even let him pay for the dress which she wore to the funeral.
and if story is to be believed.she attending the funreal purely to make the event look normal so her boyfriend can put on his act.
-
and if story is to be believed.she attending the funreal purely to make the event look normal so her boyfriend can put on his act.
Whichever way you look at it, she covered up for a murderer, she helped him evade justice for several weeks, and she planned to keep doing so. They're not the actions of a good person.
Either that or she made the whole thing up when they split up.
-
It's the veil
When you look beyond the veil - her actions were beyond the pale :))
Alternatively it's just made up rubbish, cobbled together over many meetings between Julie and DS Stan Jones, with a bit of truth thrown in. What is it they say about the best lies?
-
When you look beyond the veil - her actions were beyond the pale :))
Alternatively it's just made up rubbish, cobbled together over many meetings between Julie and DS Stan Jones, with a bit of truth thrown in. What is it they say about the best lies?
if she was lying that actully piants a better picture of her than if she was telling the truth.
-
OK, like nothing bad had happened. She went to Colin's for the weekend with Jeremy and went out for a meal with several people, she went to Eastbourne with Jeremy, she helped him load up the van with stuff from the house, she went out for meals with Jeremy and others, she had him back to stay at her house, she went to the farm with him to comfort him when he went there for the first time after the murders, she went to the funeral wearing a rather ostentatious veil and held Jeremy's arm like he was a victim, she went shopping in Colchester with her mate, she stayed at Jeremy's house ...
Need I go on?
Perhaps this suggests that Julie didn't know that JB was responsible for the murders at that stage?
Even given the fantasy chats about sleeping tablets, etc, that went before, it must have been quite unbelievable for her to think he actually did it.
-
What would I expect? I'd expect to be in a state, but I'd think it was maybe a coincidence after all he'd said, and that maybe Sheila had done it. After he told me that he hired someone to do it, I wouldn't be running off to him, I'd be running the other way. He clearly wasn't pleading with her to see him later because he dumped her.
It's the veil - it was just a fashion accessory too far.
Julie wore a veil at a funeral. Bamber must be innocent.
She was in a state after Bamber told her MM did it. Then she told 5 people what she knew after 20 days.
Not sure what the problem is.
-
Perhaps this suggests that Julie didn't know that JB was responsible for the murders at that stage?
Even given the fantasy chats about sleeping tablets, etc, that went before, it must have been quite unbelievable for her to think he actually did it.
how could she not know if he had told her before the murders he was going to do it.
-
how could she not know if he had told her before the murders he was going to do it.
You don't know what she was told or whether she believed him.
The crime scene 'appeared' to suggest Sheila was responsible, this was the view of the police initially and this is what was reported by the media.
So it's possible that she wasn't sure JB was responsible initially, but became certain and went to the police.
Even afterwards JB doesn't admit it to her.
-
You don't know what she was told or whether she believed him.
The crime scene 'appeared' to suggest Sheila was responsible, this was the view of the police initially and this is what was reported by the media.
So it's possible that she wasn't sure JB was responsible initially, but became certain and went to the police.
Even afterwards JB doesn't admit it to her.
well if he told her what he was going to do and then it happened it shouldn't of been hard to work out.
-
well if he told her what he was going to do and then it happened it shouldn't of been hard to work out.
She did work it out. Then told 5 people 20 days after the massacre & the police a few days later.
-
Julie wore a veil at a funeral. Bamber must be innocent.
She was in a state after Bamber told her MM did it. Then she told 5 people what she knew after 20 days.
Not sure what the problem is.
I didn't say that, and I've told you what the problem is.
She was in such a state that she carried on going out for meals, going away for weekends, going shopping, staying at Jeremy's, and spending the weekend with the father of two murdered children.
-
well if he told her what he was going to do and then it happened it shouldn't of been hard to work out.
Again, you do not know what she was told.
You are making too many assumptions to arrive at your preferred conclusion.
There is certainly a scenario where Julie initially didn't know that JB actually carried out the murders. Even afterwards he eventually only tells her that it was MacDonald.
-
Perhaps this suggests that Julie didn't know that JB was responsible for the murders at that stage?
Even given the fantasy chats about sleeping tablets, etc, that went before, it must have been quite unbelievable for her to think he actually did it.
She claimed that she did know that he was responsible though - all the time she was carrying on as if it was nothing to do with him.
-
Again, you do not know what she was told.
You are making too many assumptions to arrive at your preferred conclusion.
There is certainly a scenario where Julie initially didn't know that JB actually carried out the murders. Even afterwards he eventually only tells her that it was MacDonald.
from her statements I do well if there true of course.
-
Again, you do not know what she was told.
You are making too many assumptions to arrive at your preferred conclusion.
There is certainly a scenario where Julie initially didn't know that JB actually carried out the murders. Even afterwards he eventually only tells her that it was MacDonald.
People are fond of asking how they would have behaved in Julie's shoes, the first thoughts would for me be disbelief.
-
She did work it out. Then told 5 people 20 days after the massacre & the police a few days later.
She didn't need to work it out, according to her own statement. She said that Jeremy told her that he got McDonald to do it. She said he told her that on the evening of 7th August.
-
I didn't say that, and I've told you what the problem is.
She was in such a state that she carried on going out for meals, going away for weekends, going shopping, staying at Jeremy's, and spending the weekend with the father of two murdered children.
That is correct. For 20 days.
Julie didn't ask to be whisked to WHF on the massacre morning. And no doubt didn't ask to be whisked around by Bamber as he partied. I have already said Bamber had to plead her to accompany him sometimes.
-
Again, you do not know what she was told.
You are making too many assumptions to arrive at your preferred conclusion.
There is certainly a scenario where Julie initially didn't know that JB actually carried out the murders. Even afterwards he eventually only tells her that it was MacDonald.
Oh well that was OK then - he only got someone else to do it for him.
-
People are fond of asking how they would have behaved in Julie's shoes, the first thoughts would for me be disbelief.
Yes, maybe for a day, but not for several weeks.
-
Oh well that was OK then - he only got someone else to do it for him.
yes lol that would make all the difference wouldent it.
-
She didn't need to work it out, according to her own statement. She said that Jeremy told her that he got McDonald to do it. She said he told her that on the evening of 7th August.
Alright you believe you would have told the police on the 7th August while simultaneously having nothing to do with Bamber. And believe everyone would act in the same way you would.
-
She claimed that she did know that he was responsible though - all the time she was carrying on as if it was nothing to do with him.
She suspected perhaps, but she was also fed information to the contrary. After confronting JB he eventually comes out with MM being responsible.
Then she confided in friends and went to the police.
Your description of carrying on as if nothing happened is a bit of a leap. I suspect none of it was 'usual', with the deaths of five people never too far from anyone's mind.
-
She suspected perhaps, but she was also fed information to the contrary. After confronting JB he eventually comes out with MM being responsible.
Then she confided in friends and went to the police.
Your description of carrying on as if nothing happened is a bit of a leap. I suspect none of it was 'usual', with the deaths of five people never too far from anyone's mind.
did the friends go to the police.
-
Oh well that was OK then - he only got someone else to do it for him.
I fear you are missing the point.
If she wasn't sure for 20 days, and then she eventually confronts JB, who tells her it was MM. Then perhaps this is the catalyst for her to confide in friends and then go to the police.
-
Alright you believe you would have told the police on the 7th August while simultaneously having nothing to do with Bamber. And believe everyone would act in the same way you would.
No, I didn't say that. However, all that going out for meals, going away for weekends, staying at his house, inviting him back to her house - now that's pushing it. I just find her behaviour very bizarre.
-
She suspected perhaps, but she was also fed information to the contrary. After confronting JB he eventually comes out with MM being responsible.
Then she confided in friends and went to the police.
Your description of carrying on as if nothing happened is a bit of a leap. I suspect none of it was 'usual', with the deaths of five people never too far from anyone's mind.
Thanks for that piece of logic and sanity, H. I've said, time and again, that I can't begin to imagine the conflicting thoughts and feelings Julie must have experienced, but I DO know that there would have been a point at which she realized that nothing in her life would ever go back to what it had been before the murders.
-
I find comforting somone whaen you full well there tears are fake the most bizarre.
-
Adam, do you think that she would have continued to cover it up if Jeremy hadn't dumped her or asked another girl out? How long do you think she would have kept that up? Remember they had the evidence of the silencer, so she would have had every opportunity to come clean then.
From her testimony it seems to me that she would never have accused him if they hadn't broken up, or do you think that she was on the verge of going to the police anyway?
-
She suspected perhaps, but she was also fed information to the contrary. After confronting JB he eventually comes out with MM being responsible.
Then she confided in friends and went to the police.
Your description of carrying on as if nothing happened is a bit of a leap. I suspect none of it was 'usual', with the deaths of five people never too far from anyone's mind.
Of course she would have suspected something if Jeremy had been going on about killing his family prior to the murders. She said that Jeremy had told her it was McDonald, and that he knew all about it and put him up to it. She didn't need to "suspect" anything after that.
She did carry on as normal - if going out for meals and staying with Jeremy was normal for her.
-
No, I didn't say that. However, all that going out for meals, going away for weekends, staying at his house, inviting him back to her house - now that's pushing it. I just find her behaviour very bizarre.
All upon Bamber's invites & requests.
I'm surprised it only took her 20 days to betray
Bamber.
He had her for 20 days & the opportunity to convince her with bravado & tell he was watertight & no one would believe her if she told anyone.
-
I fear you are missing the point.
If she wasn't sure for 20 days, and then she eventually confronts JB, who tells her it was MM. Then perhaps this is the catalyst for her to confide in friends and then go to the police.
According to her statement, Jeremy told her it was McDonald on 7th August, not 20 days later.
-
All upon Bamber's invites & requests.
I'm surprised it only took her 20 days to betray Bamber. He had the opportunity to convince her with bravado & tell he was watertight & no one would believe her.
She was free to turn down requests. Anway, it was her who begged him not to leave her. I've never understood the logic in not saying anything on the grounds that I wouldn't be believed.
-
She was free to turn down requests. Anway, it was her who begged him not to leave her. I've never understood the logic in not saying anything on the grounds that I wouldn't be believed.
She did. But Bamber persuaded her.
Yes you've said you would have instantly broken away from Bamber & told the police. Rather than in 20 days.
-
She did. But Bamber persuaded her.
Yes you've said you would have instantly broken away from Bamber & told the police. Rather than in 20 days.
No, I didn't say that. I said it would be normal to run the other way, which I still think, and I said that I would make excuses not to be anywhere near him.
-
She did. But Bamber persuaded her.
Yes you've said you would have instantly broken away from Bamber & told the police. Rather than in 20 days.
well most people would.
-
Adam, do you think that she would have continued to cover it up if Jeremy hadn't dumped her or asked another girl out? How long do you think she would have kept that up? Remember they had the evidence of the silencer, so she would have had every opportunity to come clean then.
From her testimony it seems to me that she would never have accused him if they hadn't broken up, or do you think that she was on the verge of going to the police anyway?
I know you asked the question of Adam, but I don't believe the answer is a simple one. In court, her words were "I was very much in love with him and I'd hoped to marry him." I truly think that there may have been a point at which she hoped the situation could be resolved -I don't know how, I'm not in her head- and HAD they married, I think she'd have kept her mouth shut, at least until she found out about his first affair!!! I think there was probably an element of hoping to wake up to find none of it had happened, and probably MORE than a trace of total disbelief that the man she was in love with could have carried out such a vile act.
-
No, I didn't say that. I said it would be normal to run the other way, which I still think, and I said that I would make excuses not to be anywhere near him.
Ok. That's you're vision of what you would have done in her situation & at her age. And you believe someone you have never met before would have done the same.
-
Thanks for that piece of logic and sanity, H. I've said, time and again, that I can't begin to imagine the conflicting thoughts and feelings Julie must have experienced, but I DO know that there would have been a point at which she realized that nothing in her life would ever go back to what it had been before the murders.
I just think some of the assertions made are a little too monochrome.
We don't know what Julie thought, felt or knew at any given time.
It's possible that she knew JB was responsible, but also possible that she wasn't certain from the outset and the penny only finally dropped later.
-
Bamber never dumped Julie. The relationship had been in decline for 6 months & wasn't helped by Bamber murdering his family.
He just said he 'wanted to live his own life'. Julie wasn't bothered & even agreed that Bamber help her move.
However Bamber then asking another woman out in front of her was a fatal mistake.
-
Ok. That's you're vision of what you would have done in her situation & at her age. And you believe someone you have never met before would have done the same.
Yes.
Anyway, it's not as if she actually had to go to the police, they interviewed her several times, so how did she manage to keep up the charade? If Jeremy should have been an actor, so should she IMO.
For those who think she was so besotted with Jeremy that she would have gone along with anything, she said if she had known that he personally killed them, Jeremy knew she would have gone to the police and wouldn't expect her to carry on their relationship. I find it bizarre that she thought it was OK for him to get someone else to do it.
-
I just think some of the assertions made are a little too monochrome.
We don't know what Julie thought, felt or knew at any given time.
It's possible that she knew JB was responsible, but also possible that she wasn't certain from the outset and the penny finally dropped.
Hartley, you seem to be under the impression that Jeremy didn't say he was responsible for 20 days. That's not the case according to Julie. She said he told her on 7th August - the day of the murders.
-
Bamber never dumped Julie. The relationship had been in decline for 6 months & wasn't helped by Bamber murdering his family.
He just said he 'wanted to live his own life'. Julie wasn't bothered & even agreed that Bamber help her move.
However Bamber then asking another woman out in front of her was a fatal mistake.
So you think that Julie was indifferent to him? Why then would she cover up what he'd done?
-
I just think some of the assertions made are a little too monochrome.
We don't know what Julie thought, felt or knew at any given time.
It's possible that she knew JB was responsible, but also possible that she wasn't certain from the outset and the penny only finally dropped later.
I agree. I believe it's perfectly possible she knew what his plan was. But knowing what a plan is and believing it's going to happen are very different things. Accepting that it's happened is probably the hardest part.
-
So you think that Julie was indifferent to him? Why then would she cover up what he'd done?
She didn't.
-
Hartley, you seem to be under the impression that Jeremy didn't say he was responsible for 20 days. That's not the case according to Julie. She said he told her on 7th August - the day of the murders.
He told her it was MM. He never admitted to her that he killed them.
JB seems to tell a lot of jokes and make up fantasies. It's quite possible JM didn't believe him and thought he was talking his usual nonsense.
Alternatively, she knew exactly what had happened and was happy to go along with it. In the same way a mobsters wife might provide an alibi.
-
Yes.
Anyway, it's not as if she actually had to go to the police, they interviewed her several times, so how did she manage to keep up the charade? If Jeremy should have been an actor, so should she IMO.
For those who think she was so besotted with Jeremy that she would have gone along with anything, she said if she had known that he personally killed them, Jeremy knew she would have gone to the police and wouldn't expect her to carry on their relationship. I find it bizarre that she thought it was OK for him to get someone else to do it.
I thought they interviewed her once. Straight after the massacre. To confirm who she was & that Bamber had phoned her at 3am.
Even that interview only happened because Bamber whisked her to WHF in a police car.
-
She didn't.
Yes she did. She was interviewed by the police more than once, and she omitted to tell the truth about what he'd said to her. She also told Jeremy that she would never tell anyone what he had done. That's covering up for him.
-
Yes she did. She was interviewed by the police more than once, and she omitted to tell the truth about what he'd said to her. She also told Jeremy that she would never tell anyone what he had done. That's covering up for him.
Where does it say she told Jeremy that ?
Please provide sources of the WS's from Julie covering for him.
-
I thought they interviewed her once. Straight after the massacre. To confirm who she was & that Bamber had phoned her at 3am.
Even that interview only happened because Bamber whisked her to WHF in a police car.
Three times I think.
-
Three times I think.
Sources please. Anyway her 8th August WS is online. Which only arrived because Bamber whisked her over to WHF.
-
Where does it say she told Jeremy that ?
Please provide sources of the WS's from Julie covering for him.
In her statements. She also told Susan not to tell anyone.
-
Sources please. Anyway her 7th August WS is online. Which only arrived because Bamber whisked her over to WHF.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,374.msg5109.html#msg5109
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,374.msg5109.html#msg5109
So 7th & 8th August. Resulting in one 2 page WS. After Bamber whisked her to WHF.
The September interviews resulted in a 34 page WS & testimony.
-
In her statements. She also told Susan not to tell anyone.
Good. She was building herself up to approach the police herself.
-
So 7th & 8th August. Resulting in one 2 page WS. After Bamber whisked her to WHF.
The September interviews resulted in a 34 page WS & testimony.
Remember that Jeremy had already told her on 7th August that he had got McDonald to do the murders, and she "forgot" to mention that in her statement of 8th August. Do you not call that covering up?
-
Good. She was building herself up to approach the police herself.
I'm afraid not. She told Susan not to tell anyone because she loved Jeremy and couldn't bear to think of him in prison.
-
Remember that Jeremy had already told her on 7th August that he had got McDonald to do the murders, and she "forgot" to mention that in her statement of 8th August. Do you not call that covering up?
Well the police asked her who she was & whether Bamber phoned her at 3am. So no lies there.
The police didn't ask her if Bamber committed the massacre.
Anyway, she first betrayed Bamber 20 days later while still with. Despite his attempts to scare her from doing this.
-
Well the police asked her who she was & whether Bamber phoned her at 3am. So no lies there.
The police didn't ask her if Bamber committed the massacre.
Anyway, she first betrayed Bamber 20 days later while still with.
It's still covering up for him. Did they not ask what he said when he phoned her on the evening of 6th August. She didn't go to the police 20 days later, she told Susan about it, which is not the same thing. I'm very surprised she didn't tell her earlier if she was so racked with guilt and fear.
-
I'm afraid not. She told Susan not to tell anyone because she loved Jeremy and couldn't bear to think of him in prison.
Good. So another reason why she didn't leave him on the 7th August & tell the police on the same day.
-
It's still covering up for him. Did they not ask what he said when he phoned her on the evening of 6th August. She didn't go to the police 20 days later, she told Susan about it, which is not the same thing. I'm very surprised she didn't tell her earlier if she was so racked with guilt and fear.
Ok. You believe Julie covered for Bamber for 20 days. Although she was being whisked around England & Amsterdam most of this time. Just giving one 2 page WS on the 8th August.
She then betrayed him after 20 days while still with him.
And ?
-
Ok. You believe Julie covered for Bamber for 20 days. Although she was being whisked around England & Amsterdam most of this time. Just giving one 2 page WS on the 8th August.
She then betrayed him after 20 days while still with him.
And ?
For more than 20 days - she covered for him for a month. All that time she was still seeing him, going for meals with him, going abroad with him, going to the seaside with him, and just carrying on as if he did nothing wrong.
You didn't answer my question. Do you think she would ever have gone to the police if they hadn't split up?
-
if she was lying it actually paints a bet picure of her than if she was telling the truth.
-
if she was lying it actually paints a bet picure of her than if she was telling the truth.
Yes, I was just thinking that. :))
-
For more than 20 days - she covered for him for a month. All that time she was still seeing him, going for meals with him, going abroad with him, going to the seaside with him, and just carrying on as if he did nothing wrong.
You didn't answer my question. Do you think she would ever have gone to the police if they hadn't split up?
She told 5 people what she knew prior to the police. Starting from the 27th August while still with Bamber. So yes, she was building up to telling the police. With or without Bamber.
The spilt up was inevitable after the massacre. Bamber wanted to be a play boy & Julie couldn't come to terms with what she realished Bamber had done. Besides which Bamber said the relationship had been coming to a close for 6 months anyway.
Bamber only whisked Julie over to WHF on the 7th August so he could try & attempt to control & sweet talk her until he felt the heat was off him.
People claim Julie would have kept quiet if Bamber had put a ring on her finger. But he didn't, did he ?
-
She told 5 people what she knew prior to the police. Starting from the 27th August while still with Bamber. So yes, she was building up to telling the police. With or without Bamber.
The spilt up was inevitable after the massacre. Bamber wanted to be a play boy & Julie couldn't come to terms with what she realished Bamber had done. Besides which Bamber said the relationship had been coming to a close for 6 months anyway.
Bamber only whisked Julie over to WHF on the 7th August so he could try & attempt to control & sweet talk her until he felt the heat was off him.
People claim Julie would have kept quiet if Bamber had put a ring on her finger. But he didn't, did he ?
She wasn't building up to telling the police when she told Susan, otherwise she wouldn't have said that what she did. Who were the other four people?
Are you saying that Julie tried to come to terms with what Jeremy had done for at least 20 days? I suppose he would have been rich if he'd got away with it, so do you think that influenced her? Are you also saying that she would never have told anyone if he'd promised to marry her?
Does any of that make her sound like a decent person?
-
There was also that business when she went to see the bodies. Now at that time Jeremy had already allegedly told her that he was responsible for the murders, and that McDonald had actually carried them out. She went to see the bodies in order to see if they had suffered apparently. She wanted to go and see them a second time, but she thought questions would be asked that she couldn't answer. Why couldn't she answer them? Because she was covering up for Jeremy.
-
Oh, and if the relationship had been coming to a close for 6 months, why would Jeremy have confided in her, and why would he keep wanting to see her?
-
Oh, and if the relationship had been coming to a close for 6 months, why would Jeremy have confided in her, and why would he keep wanting to see her?
Power & control
-
She wasn't building up to telling the police when she told Susan, otherwise she wouldn't have said that what she did. Who were the other four people?
Are you saying that Julie tried to come to terms with what Jeremy had done for at least 20 days? I suppose he would have been rich if he'd got away with it, so do you think that influenced her? Are you also saying that she would never have told anyone if he'd promised to marry her?
Does any of that make her sound like a decent person?
Sorry I forgot Bamber is a decent person. But very unlucky.
Other people claim Julie would have kept quiet if Bamber had put a ring on her finger. Which I don't agree with. Anyway he didn't.
Anyway, you've got a big issue with Julie telling 5 people while still with Bamber. Then telling the police a few days later, completing a 34 page WS, testifying & never re tracting a word.
That happened & can't be changed. The police, DPP, jury & appeal courts don't believe Julie doing this means anything. And neither do the guilters.
-
Sorry I forgot Bamber is a decent person. But very unlucky.
Other people claim Julie would have kept quiet if Bamber had put a ring on her finger. Which I don't agree with. Anyway he didn't.
Anyway, you've got a big issue with Julie telling 5 people while still with Bamber. Then telling the police a few days later, completing a 34 page WS, testifying & never re tracting a word.
That happened & can't be changed. The police, DPP, jury & appeal courts don't believe this means anything. And neither do the guilters.
You didn't answer my question - who are the other four people she told?
Then there's the issue of him giving her money to compensate for her having time off work after the murders. I'm not sure what work she was doing at the time, but she chose to have time off and spend all her time with a person who was responsible for the vicious murder of five people? That's pretty bizarre isn't it?
-
She wasn't building up to telling the police when she told Susan, otherwise she wouldn't have said that what she did. Who were the other four people?
Are you saying that Julie tried to come to terms with what Jeremy had done for at least 20 days? I suppose he would have been rich if he'd got away with it, so do you think that influenced her? Are you also saying that she would never have told anyone if he'd promised to marry her?
Does any of that make her sound like a decent person?
There was also that business when she went to see the bodies. Now at that time Jeremy had already allegedly told her that he was responsible for the murders, and that McDonald had actually carried them out. She went to see the bodies in order to see if they had suffered apparently. She wanted to go and see them a second time, but she thought questions would be asked that she couldn't answer. Why couldn't she answer them? Because she was covering up for Jeremy.
Cognitive dissonance- you should research it
-
Oh, and if the relationship had been coming to a close for 6 months, why would Jeremy have confided in her, and why would he keep wanting to see her?
He confided in her for the 18 months leading up to the massacre. He kept Julie close to him after the massacre because of this.
They were still together on the 7th August. Julie was more likely to go to the police if Bamber started his post massacre partying without her.
-
Cognitive dissonance- you should research it
She couldn't answer questions because of cognitive dissonance? Please elaborate.
-
He confided in her for the 18 months leading up to the massacre. He kept Julie close to him after the massacre because of this.
They were still together on the 7th August. Julie was more likely to go to the police if Bamber started his post massacre partying without her.
But then he dumped her. Why would he do that just when she was getting cold feet about the whole thing? Why was he still with her on 7th August if the relationship had been going wrong for six months?
-
You didn't answer my question - who are the other four people she told?
Then there's the issue of him giving her money to compensate for her having time off work after the murders. I'm not sure what work she was doing at the time, but she chose to have time off and spend all her time with a person who was responsible for the vicious murder of five people? That's pretty bizarre isn't it?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6871.msg320376.html#msg320376
You should know these things. After all you are accusing a person of framing a man of murdering 5 members of his family.
-
By the way, in the month it took for Julie Mugford to finally come clean, what was happening about the silencer? That had been found a few days after the murders. Does it really take that long to get lab results back, and did Julie Mugford know about the evidence of the silencer when she went to the police?
-
I can understand a jilted girlfriend in anger making up lies about her boyfriend that she later could not go back on for fear repercussions much more than understand somone coldly standing by and allowing a whole family to be killed.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6871.msg320376.html#msg320376
You should know these things. After all you are accusing a person of framing a man of murdering 5 members of his family.
I've done nothing of the kind. You should think about what you're saying.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6871.msg320376.html#msg320376
You should know these things. After all you are accusing a person of framing a man of murdering 5 members of his family.
Can you post a link to the evidence that she told five people rather than a thread with your claim that she did? Thanks. I'm not disputing it, I'm just asking.
-
Power & control
I'm sure he could have found a girl a bit closer to home to control if he'd wanted to.
-
Can you post a link to the evidence that she told five people rather than a thread with your claim that she did? Thanks. I'm not disputing it, I'm just asking.
A comprehensive dissection of Julies 'evidence' is below.
Sigh... Here we go again........
Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
Why was he allowed to tell this to the Jury? here's why
Jeremy's "confession"
Below is what Julie claims Jeremy confessed to her. This statement is false for two reasons. Jeremy's alleged confession of the crime as told by Julie Mugford does not correspond or coincide with the actual crime scene itself, as we all know Shelia was found on the floor not on the bed, the bible next to her also on the floor not on her chest. Had Jeremy committed the murders and given a detailed confession as Julie claims then Julies statements would corroborate the crime scene and they don't!
(http://s30.postimg.org/4co0gw6ht/mugford1.png)
The second reason Julies statement is false is because her description of Jeremy's alleged confession is exactly the same as Ann Eaton and RWB's impression of events as seen in Ann Eatons notes and RWB's diary written in August. See below
Ann Eaton's note's second line down "Shelia on bed bible on chest"
(http://s23.postimg.org/v7c6huou3/AEnotes1.png)
RWB's Diary
(http://s23.postimg.org/eegx5omrf/rwbdiary1.jpg)
So not only can we establish that Julies claims are false we can now narrow down were she actually got that information from. Either Police or Ann Eaton as Rivlin rightly told the jury.
More disturbing correlations
Windows and the Bike
In August RWB speculates that Jeremy used a bike then also in august RWB and AE speculate how Jeremy would enter the building
(http://s21.postimg.org/mc273onk7/rwbbike.png)
(http://s10.postimg.org/kmegatna1/rwbwindows.png)
Then come September the 8th Julie reveals how Jeremy "confessed" to her his method of travel and entry, exactly how RWB and AE predicted!
(http://s8.postimg.org/nc7pjvf5x/jmbikewindow.png)
The Wet suit
On the 28th of August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy used a wet suit in the murders
(http://s29.postimg.org/fu9qvz293/rwbwetsuit.png)
This then appears in Julie Mugford's diary along with the bicycle
(http://s30.postimg.org/iq197ubc1/jmwetsuitdiary.png)
The £2000.00 payment
2nd of September RWB claims Jeremy lent a friend £2000
(http://s13.postimg.org/q3t1pks7b/rwb2000.png)
Julie then claims that Jeremy paid Macdonald £2000
(http://s22.postimg.org/64wqetcg1/JM2000.png)
The Fingerprints and the gun magazine
In August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy got Shelia to load the bullets into the magazine to get her fingerprints on them.
(http://s18.postimg.org/urhcc1fgp/rwbfingerprints.jpg)
Then come September lo and behold Julie claims this is exactly what Jeremy had confessed to her.
(http://s8.postimg.org/f3y3s6tyd/jmfingerprints.png)
This is why Julies statements are completely false, Her statements have direct parallels with Ann Eaton notes and RWBs diary both of which deviate from the facts of the crime scene and contradict other factual aspects surrounding the case. Therefore Jeremy did not and could not have confessed or told her anything in her statements, it is impossible!
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record). I have shown you the trial transcripts and the very statements mentioned in those trial transcripts.
The fundamental point Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
One only has to read Julie Mugfords statements and the cross examination of Ann Eaton to workout were Julie really got those false details from in order for her to make the bogus claim that Jeremy confessed to the killings. The devil is in the details, its just a matter of putting the puzzle together.
From Julie Mugford’s statement, page 23
"I have been asked if I have read or been told about a bible found on Sheila's
chest when she was found dead. I can definitely say I haven't but it was
told to me by Jeremy. I will add that some time after the 7th August 1985,
Ann EATON asked me if I knew about a bible which was near Sheila and I told
her that I did and that it was found on her chest. I think I told her it
was creepy. I think she asked me about the bible on the Friday of the week of the murders.”
This makes no sense. If Ann Eaton had asked Julie question of the bible some time after the 7th August then Julie answers to Ann that the bible was on Sheila's chest, Then she would have asked Julie how she got that information and Julie would have had to tell her that Jeremy told her the story about Matthew MacDonald. ?
In the trial transcript below. While cross examined by Rivlin QC, at first AE said that she thought she had first heard about the bible on Sheila's chest from Julie Mugford, but Rivlin QC was setting a trap to force AE to admit she actually got that information from the police by showing her her own statement which she sais she got the information from the police at the house. Another interesting observation, is that AE seems to remember the police telling her all the details mentioned in the statement but when it comes to bible she just happens to forget. Selective memory loss at times most convenient when it comes to the big issues seems to occur often in AE. ::)
Ann Eaton trial testimony: cross examined 7th October 1986
RIVLIN. I would like to ask you another thing about Julie Mugford, and it is this
something I was going to ask you before the luncheon adjournment- there
came a stage shortly after the events when a police officer told you something
in confidence, did he not, about what had happened and what had been found?
Do you remember? He told you, amongst other things, that when 'Sheila had
been found there was a bible on her chest?
AE. I did hear there was a bible on her chest.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): Did you hear it from the policeman is the
question?
AE. I cannot remember, but I heard it whilst in Jeremy's cottage.
MR. RIVLIN: Let remind you. Is it not right that one of the police officers
told you that Uncle Nevill was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle, that the
twins were in their beds, shot?
AE. Yes.
Rivlin. That Aunt June Bamber and Sheila were both on the bed, shot, with Sheila having
a bible on her chest, with the gun beside her?
AE. Yes.
Rivlin. And is it right that shortly after that information had been imparted to you,
you had a conversation with Julie Mugford, and you told Julie that when Sheila.
had been found there had been a bible found on her chest?
AE. I really cannot remember who told me the bible was on the chest.
MR JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): That is not the question now, but it is right
you should tell us. You do not remember who told you that Sheila was found
with the bible on her chest, but the question now is, whoever it was who told
you that, did you pass that on to Julie?
AE. I do not remember. I did have a conversation with Julie about the same time.
She said to me Sheila kept saying, I thought she said she was a "white wedge", or perhaps it was a “white
witch", but I do not remember who told me that the bible was on the chest.
MR. JUSTICE Drake: I do not think we have the full answer yet, Mr. Rivlin.
MR. RIVLIN: Would you accept that it was, in fact, one of the officers who told
you that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest and the gun beside her?
AE. I cannot remember who told me the bible was on her chest, so I am saying
it could have been Julie. I cannot remember who told me.
RIVLIN. In those circumstances I think that I must show the document to the witness.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE: What the witness just said is “it could have been Julie who
told me that" - that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest. (To the
witness): Wherereas the question you are being asked is put the other way around
That someone told you and you told Julie that she had been found with a bible
on her chest. That is the question. If you cannot answer, you cannot?
AE. I cannot remember. I just remember Julie saying something about Sheila
said she was a “white wedge", which I thought she said, but it turned out she
thought she was a "white witch", but I cannot remember who told me about the
bible.
MR. RIVLIN: Could you remember at the time who told you about the bible?
AE. I cannot remember.
RIVLIN. You made statements to the police officers, did you not, in this case, and I
would like you to look, please, at a statement which is dated 8th September
1985. (Same handed). Your signature appears on this document. Is it a
typewritten document? Does it bear your signature?
AE. No.
MR RIVLIN: I am told that the original is outside.
MR. ARLIDGE: I will have it checked with the original.
MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows:
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near
the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila
Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her
chest with the gun beside her"?
AE. Yes.
Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?
A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember
the policeman telling me Uncle Nevill was beside the coal scuttle, the twins
were in their beds, shot, Auntie June and Sheila were on the bed with the gun
between them, and I asked how they were shot, and he went like this. I do
not know who told me. I am sorry. Maybe it was a mistake. Asking me now.
I cannot remember who told me.
This is a fantastic post from Hermann over at IA
1 Julie Mugford is a proven liar.
Here's some background information from Robin Cox.
"Ann Eaton said herself in a statement that a police officer told her Sheila and June were found on the bed and that Sheila had the bible on her chest and the gun by her side which was not the prosecution's case at all. Did this give the family leverage in their arguments with Assistant Chief Inspector Simpson? The relatives didn’t like Jeremy, whom they called ‘Cuckoo’ on account of both he and Sheila being adopted but I won’t digress into that here."
http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/robin-cox
The idea is that the relatives were told that Sheila's body was on the bed at one stage and therefore also knew that it must have been the police who stage managed it on the floor. Robert Boutflour was convinced that Bamber was the killer. Some supporters of Bamber think that the police had to go along with the relatives and prosecute Bamber because the relatives knew Sheila's body was on the bed before it was moved to the floor by the police. That is what Cox means by leverage.
Bamber's confession to Julie Mugford
Julie Mugford account of Jeremy's confession includes a story of how Matthew MacDonald put a bible on Sheila's chest after telling her to shoot herself on the bed. So the description of the position of Sheila's body which the policeman gave to Ann Eaton turns up in Julie Mugford's story almost verbatim. It corresponds exactly to how Matthew MacDonald is supposed to have left the body. Mugford tells how Jeremy told her that MacDonald left Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest. It's in Mugford's statment. The police had not told Jeremy that story and it's dismissed as a mistake anyway. So it's impossible that Mugford had gotten it from Bamber.
Here's what Ann Eaton says in her statement of 08/09/85 when told where the bodies were found.
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her chest with the gun beside her"
Here's what Julie Mugford says in her statement of 08/08/1985 page 14
"I asked Jeremy if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were sound asleep and didn’t wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Mathew who then put a bible on her chest."
The devil is in the detail
I find it strange that people ignore this telling detail and that when somebody mentions it, even people who are fence sitters just ignore it and get back to talking about Julie and saying that her evidence has "the ring of truth about it". But how can it have the ring of truth when you can point to virtual proof that she lied. I have a theory as to why that kind of thing tends to happen.
Some people like talking about Julie Mugford just like others like talking about Amanda Knox. Of course anybody familiar with the scientific evidence knows that Knox and Solecito are innocent, but people like having something to talk about. They like the element of mystery. Hayden Panettiere undersood that when, talking about Amanda, she said to a bunch of reporters "Did she or didn't she?" So in just the same way, they like the discussion about Julie Mugford which has at it's basis the question "Who is telling the truth Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber."
When the Judge put the question to the jury "It depends on whether you believe Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber" he was being a prima donna. He was going for saying something catchy for the popular press. But he shouldn't have been doing that. You can excuse Hayden for a little lapse of judgement, but you can't make excuses for a judge misdirecting a jury. He should have drawn the jury's attention to the bible on the chest detail which was examined in court. He could have said. "Are we to believe that it's just a coincidence that Jeremy Bamber made up a story which just happens to have in it exactly the same description of a scene with Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest." But he didn't. He apparently wanted to help the prosecution and to hinder the defense. It happens a lot.
The devil is in the detail
There is a saying, the devil is in the detail. Such a detail is to me proof that Julie Mugford's story of Bamber's confession is a fabrication. It has bits and pieces which come from here and there. But I admit that a person sympathetic to Mugford could argue in the manner
" Well OK, she embellished the story a little with that description of the body on the bed which she had obviously gotten from Ann Eaton, probably because she thought people might not believe her, but I still believe she was telling the truth when she said that Jeremy told her he had paid Matthew MacDonald. There is no proof that she made that up."
Hermann
Evidence was withheld at trial, alternatively fresh evidence is now available which indicates that Jeremy Bamber telephoned his then girlfriend Julie Mugford at 3.30am in the morning of 7th August and that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby lied in evidence when they timed the called at 3.15am and 3.12 am respectively.
The 3.30am Phone Call Overview:
20. The timing of Jeremy Bamber's phone call to Julie Mugford in the early hours of 71h August 1985 was also of "crucial importance- at trial, His Honour Mr Justice Drake's summing, up at p.12 B. Much evidence was adduced to show that the call had been made at or about 3,15um. This meant that the eau must have been made prior to the Appellant's call to the Chelmsford police station
21.
The Police's own contemporaneous record of the Appellant's call on 7th August 1985, appended to this document, has now come to light. It reveals that the Appellant's initial call to Chelmsford Police station was recorded, in error as conceded at trial, as 3.36am. More importantly it shows that having first spoken to the Appellant and established the nature of the problem in some detail the officer at Chelmsford phoned Witham Police station at 3.26am, that being undisputedly a correct time. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant's initial call to the Police must have been some minutes before 3.26am.
Ann Eaton's Notes In Relation to The Call to Julie Mugford:
22. Ann Eaton's allegedly contemporaneous notes regarding 8th August disclosed at trial stated that there had been a "muddle about the right time of the 3.15 phone call - a London friend was called".
A further note has since been found which reveals that in her original note she stated "talked to Julie about the phone calls Julie said re flatmate (our emphasis - photocopy is poor here exact wording should be clear on viewing of the original) 3.30am". It is submitted that this discrepancy shows that not only was Ann Eaton's note deliberately changed to undermine the appellant's case but that Julie Mugford and Susan Batteresby lied when they gave evidence that the telephone call was 3.15am or earlier, as it was Susan Battersby who was the flatmate referred to it the undisclosed Ann Eaton note.
Julie Mugford's Evidence:
23. In her original statement to the Police dated 81h August 1985 stated at p345:
next time I heard front Jeremy was at about 3.30am on Wednesday morning the th August 1985."
This then changes in her statement of e September 1985 when she states :
" I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan Battersby who lives with
me that it was about 3.15am."
At trial when she was cross examined as to the fact that she had told the police that the telephone call was received at 3.30am, she stated at p38 on 8th October:
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record).
The fundamental point is Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
You cannot get round these points no matter how much you bring up the sleeping pills or fire. Its rather obvious the police zeroed in on those pills and did not buy her original innocent explanation for them, thus she made up something they wanted to hear from her.
I am not quoting word for word here but it goes like this
Julie Mugford - "Jeremy told me that Sheila was told to lay on the bed and was ordered to shoot herself under the supervision of Mathew Macdonald he then left the bible on the her chest" (Jeremy is supposed to have told her this on the 7th of August at his cottage while the house was occupied by many other people )
Julie Mugford - "On the 7th I told Ann Eaton about the bible on her chest"
Anne Eaton - "On the 7th Police told me Sheila was found laying on the bed with a bible on her chest"
Ann Eaton - " I cant remember who told me on the 7th" (Just after confirming the police told her various details she obviously remembers. problem being she was told about the bible in the exact same conversation)
The idea of the bible being a "meme" is not credible because there are too many similarities with her statement as a whole. The probability of it being coincidental, you are looking at almost jackpot lottery odds. (Bible on chest + Sheila on Bed + Exiting windows + Cycling to the farm + Fingerprints on gun + wetsuit + 2000 pounds + a McDonald mentioned in police meeting + Hitman to explain the reported movement)
All of these can either be found in Julies testimony or her "diary". Most importantly Jeremy is supposed to have told her all this. This means that what Jeremy told her in his alleged "confessions" he deliberately falsified how he killed everyone so it just so happens to be the same as Ann Eatons and RWBs erroneous information. Not only that but he also falsifies his "confessions" so what he tells her just so happens to explain the gaps and problems the police were facing at that moment in time! gaps and problems that later turned out to be wrong! Then Jeremy decides not to tell her about the silencer, the one piece of crucial evidence that was only discovered to be incriminating in the weeks AFTER Julie made her statements.
Its just not possible for Jeremy to have told her all this in the way its been presented by her coinciding with the circumstances of the police investigation and the relatives suspicions in that instance of time. With some of those circumstances and ideas backfiring, thus harming her credibility later on.
Lets look at Mathew Mcdoanld for example.
1. Robert Boutflour speculates if Jeremy had assistance on the night - See Diary
2. Robert Boutflour zeros in on the £2000 that Neville lent to Jeremy - See Diary
3. The £2000 of course has an innocent explanation and is totally unrelated to the event. but RWB believes he is onto something (Tunnel vision)
4. Jeremy is supposed to have lent this £2000 to a friend - See Diary
5. 20th of August police have a meeting with RWB present. During that meeting a question is put forward in relation to a drug deal (from a man called McDonald??) See Barlow's note book
6. Jeremy has a friend called Mathew Mcdonald they both do drugs together - See MMs statement
7. Mathew Mcdonald happens to a fantasist who goes around telling people he is a mercenary and has done missions in Libya. People believe the rumours - see MMs statement
According to Julie. Jeremy told her that he paid £2000 to Mathew Mcdonald to help him carry out the killings. The fact of the matter is a sum of £2000 went somewhere else. Mathew Macdonald is a mercenary only in his imagination plus he was miles away from the farm that night. Robert Bouflour and Stand Jones ignorant of the facts at the time. To them this theory would make perfect sense to them. Jeremy's "mercenary" friend and drug associate complete with a money trail and can explain the reported movement in the farm while Jeremy was outside with the police.
I will leave you to decide where Julie got the story from.
-
You didn't answer my question - who are the other four people she told?
Then there's the issue of him giving her money to compensate for her having time off work after the murders. I'm not sure what work she was doing at the time, but she chose to have time off and spend all her time with a person who was responsible for the vicious murder of five people? That's pretty bizarre isn't it?
Why are you focusing on JM in your scenario?
You refer to her behaviour as "pretty bizarre" yet omit to comment on Jeremy bambers behaviour after he murdered his family. I find this approach "pretty bizarre!?"
Why is your focus on Julie's behaviour?
-
Tuesday August 27 1985 - Julie tells Sue Battersby. Sue tells boyfriend Mark.
Friday 30 August - Julie tells Liz Rimington.
Monday 2 September - Julie tells Karen Bishop.
Friday 6 September - Julie tells Malcolm Waters.
Liz Rimington telephones Witham Police and asks for Stan Jones. Julie is with her.
-
I've done nothing of the kind. You should think about what you're saying.
You believe Bamber is guilty but think Julie should have told the police sooner.
That's fine.
-
Power & control
Stephanie, the clock is ticking on your prediction. BTW
It is my belief that in 2017 Jeremy Bamber will be exposed for the con artist he is.
Nearly october now :-\
-
Julie actually told 4 people. Although Karen Bishop told Andy Bishop. So 6 people knew, including Mark Battersby.
-
A comprehensive dissection of Julies 'evidence' is below.
Sigh... Here we go again........
Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
Why was he allowed to tell this to the Jury? here's why
Jeremy's "confession"
Below is what Julie claims Jeremy confessed to her. This statement is false for two reasons. Jeremy's alleged confession of the crime as told by Julie Mugford does not correspond or coincide with the actual crime scene itself, as we all know Shelia was found on the floor not on the bed, the bible next to her also on the floor not on her chest. Had Jeremy committed the murders and given a detailed confession as Julie claims then Julies statements would corroborate the crime scene and they don't!
(http://s30.postimg.org/4co0gw6ht/mugford1.png)
The second reason Julies statement is false is because her description of Jeremy's alleged confession is exactly the same as Ann Eaton and RWB's impression of events as seen in Ann Eatons notes and RWB's diary written in August. See below
Ann Eaton's note's second line down "Shelia on bed bible on chest"
(http://s23.postimg.org/v7c6huou3/AEnotes1.png)
RWB's Diary
(http://s23.postimg.org/eegx5omrf/rwbdiary1.jpg)
So not only can we establish that Julies claims are false we can now narrow down were she actually got that information from. Either Police or Ann Eaton as Rivlin rightly told the jury.
More disturbing correlations
Windows and the Bike
In August RWB speculates that Jeremy used a bike then also in august RWB and AE speculate how Jeremy would enter the building
(http://s21.postimg.org/mc273onk7/rwbbike.png)
(http://s10.postimg.org/kmegatna1/rwbwindows.png)
Then come September the 8th Julie reveals how Jeremy "confessed" to her his method of travel and entry, exactly how RWB and AE predicted!
(http://s8.postimg.org/nc7pjvf5x/jmbikewindow.png)
The Wet suit
On the 28th of August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy used a wet suit in the murders
(http://s29.postimg.org/fu9qvz293/rwbwetsuit.png)
This then appears in Julie Mugford's diary along with the bicycle
(http://s30.postimg.org/iq197ubc1/jmwetsuitdiary.png)
The £2000.00 payment
2nd of September RWB claims Jeremy lent a friend £2000
(http://s13.postimg.org/q3t1pks7b/rwb2000.png)
Julie then claims that Jeremy paid Macdonald £2000
(http://s22.postimg.org/64wqetcg1/JM2000.png)
The Fingerprints and the gun magazine
In August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy got Shelia to load the bullets into the magazine to get her fingerprints on them.
(http://s18.postimg.org/urhcc1fgp/rwbfingerprints.jpg)
Then come September lo and behold Julie claims this is exactly what Jeremy had confessed to her.
(http://s8.postimg.org/f3y3s6tyd/jmfingerprints.png)
This is why Julies statements are completely false, Her statements have direct parallels with Ann Eaton notes and RWBs diary both of which deviate from the facts of the crime scene and contradict other factual aspects surrounding the case. Therefore Jeremy did not and could not have confessed or told her anything in her statements, it is impossible!
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record). I have shown you the trial transcripts and the very statements mentioned in those trial transcripts.
The fundamental point Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
One only has to read Julie Mugfords statements and the cross examination of Ann Eaton to workout were Julie really got those false details from in order for her to make the bogus claim that Jeremy confessed to the killings. The devil is in the details, its just a matter of putting the puzzle together.
From Julie Mugford’s statement, page 23
"I have been asked if I have read or been told about a bible found on Sheila's
chest when she was found dead. I can definitely say I haven't but it was
told to me by Jeremy. I will add that some time after the 7th August 1985,
Ann EATON asked me if I knew about a bible which was near Sheila and I told
her that I did and that it was found on her chest. I think I told her it
was creepy. I think she asked me about the bible on the Friday of the week of the murders.”
This makes no sense. If Ann Eaton had asked Julie question of the bible some time after the 7th August then Julie answers to Ann that the bible was on Sheila's chest, Then she would have asked Julie how she got that information and Julie would have had to tell her that Jeremy told her the story about Matthew MacDonald. ?
In the trial transcript below. While cross examined by Rivlin QC, at first AE said that she thought she had first heard about the bible on Sheila's chest from Julie Mugford, but Rivlin QC was setting a trap to force AE to admit she actually got that information from the police by showing her her own statement which she sais she got the information from the police at the house. Another interesting observation, is that AE seems to remember the police telling her all the details mentioned in the statement but when it comes to bible she just happens to forget. Selective memory loss at times most convenient when it comes to the big issues seems to occur often in AE. ::)
Ann Eaton trial testimony: cross examined 7th October 1986
RIVLIN. I would like to ask you another thing about Julie Mugford, and it is this
something I was going to ask you before the luncheon adjournment- there
came a stage shortly after the events when a police officer told you something
in confidence, did he not, about what had happened and what had been found?
Do you remember? He told you, amongst other things, that when 'Sheila had
been found there was a bible on her chest?
AE. I did hear there was a bible on her chest.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): Did you hear it from the policeman is the
question?
AE. I cannot remember, but I heard it whilst in Jeremy's cottage.
MR. RIVLIN: Let remind you. Is it not right that one of the police officers
told you that Uncle Nevill was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle, that the
twins were in their beds, shot?
AE. Yes.
Rivlin. That Aunt June Bamber and Sheila were both on the bed, shot, with Sheila having
a bible on her chest, with the gun beside her?
AE. Yes.
Rivlin. And is it right that shortly after that information had been imparted to you,
you had a conversation with Julie Mugford, and you told Julie that when Sheila.
had been found there had been a bible found on her chest?
AE. I really cannot remember who told me the bible was on the chest.
MR JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): That is not the question now, but it is right
you should tell us. You do not remember who told you that Sheila was found
with the bible on her chest, but the question now is, whoever it was who told
you that, did you pass that on to Julie?
AE. I do not remember. I did have a conversation with Julie about the same time.
She said to me Sheila kept saying, I thought she said she was a "white wedge", or perhaps it was a “white
witch", but I do not remember who told me that the bible was on the chest.
MR. JUSTICE Drake: I do not think we have the full answer yet, Mr. Rivlin.
MR. RIVLIN: Would you accept that it was, in fact, one of the officers who told
you that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest and the gun beside her?
AE. I cannot remember who told me the bible was on her chest, so I am saying
it could have been Julie. I cannot remember who told me.
RIVLIN. In those circumstances I think that I must show the document to the witness.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE: What the witness just said is “it could have been Julie who
told me that" - that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest. (To the
witness): Wherereas the question you are being asked is put the other way around
That someone told you and you told Julie that she had been found with a bible
on her chest. That is the question. If you cannot answer, you cannot?
AE. I cannot remember. I just remember Julie saying something about Sheila
said she was a “white wedge", which I thought she said, but it turned out she
thought she was a "white witch", but I cannot remember who told me about the
bible.
MR. RIVLIN: Could you remember at the time who told you about the bible?
AE. I cannot remember.
RIVLIN. You made statements to the police officers, did you not, in this case, and I
would like you to look, please, at a statement which is dated 8th September
1985. (Same handed). Your signature appears on this document. Is it a
typewritten document? Does it bear your signature?
AE. No.
MR RIVLIN: I am told that the original is outside.
MR. ARLIDGE: I will have it checked with the original.
MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows:
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near
the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila
Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her
chest with the gun beside her"?
AE. Yes.
Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?
A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember
the policeman telling me Uncle Nevill was beside the coal scuttle, the twins
were in their beds, shot, Auntie June and Sheila were on the bed with the gun
between them, and I asked how they were shot, and he went like this. I do
not know who told me. I am sorry. Maybe it was a mistake. Asking me now.
I cannot remember who told me.
This is a fantastic post from Hermann over at IA
1 Julie Mugford is a proven liar.
Here's some background information from Robin Cox.
"Ann Eaton said herself in a statement that a police officer told her Sheila and June were found on the bed and that Sheila had the bible on her chest and the gun by her side which was not the prosecution's case at all. Did this give the family leverage in their arguments with Assistant Chief Inspector Simpson? The relatives didn’t like Jeremy, whom they called ‘Cuckoo’ on account of both he and Sheila being adopted but I won’t digress into that here."
http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/robin-cox
The idea is that the relatives were told that Sheila's body was on the bed at one stage and therefore also knew that it must have been the police who stage managed it on the floor. Robert Boutflour was convinced that Bamber was the killer. Some supporters of Bamber think that the police had to go along with the relatives and prosecute Bamber because the relatives knew Sheila's body was on the bed before it was moved to the floor by the police. That is what Cox means by leverage.
Bamber's confession to Julie Mugford
Julie Mugford account of Jeremy's confession includes a story of how Matthew MacDonald put a bible on Sheila's chest after telling her to shoot herself on the bed. So the description of the position of Sheila's body which the policeman gave to Ann Eaton turns up in Julie Mugford's story almost verbatim. It corresponds exactly to how Matthew MacDonald is supposed to have left the body. Mugford tells how Jeremy told her that MacDonald left Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest. It's in Mugford's statment. The police had not told Jeremy that story and it's dismissed as a mistake anyway. So it's impossible that Mugford had gotten it from Bamber.
Here's what Ann Eaton says in her statement of 08/09/85 when told where the bodies were found.
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her chest with the gun beside her"
Here's what Julie Mugford says in her statement of 08/08/1985 page 14
"I asked Jeremy if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were sound asleep and didn’t wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Mathew who then put a bible on her chest."
The devil is in the detail
I find it strange that people ignore this telling detail and that when somebody mentions it, even people who are fence sitters just ignore it and get back to talking about Julie and saying that her evidence has "the ring of truth about it". But how can it have the ring of truth when you can point to virtual proof that she lied. I have a theory as to why that kind of thing tends to happen.
Some people like talking about Julie Mugford just like others like talking about Amanda Knox. Of course anybody familiar with the scientific evidence knows that Knox and Solecito are innocent, but people like having something to talk about. They like the element of mystery. Hayden Panettiere undersood that when, talking about Amanda, she said to a bunch of reporters "Did she or didn't she?" So in just the same way, they like the discussion about Julie Mugford which has at it's basis the question "Who is telling the truth Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber."
When the Judge put the question to the jury "It depends on whether you believe Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber" he was being a prima donna. He was going for saying something catchy for the popular press. But he shouldn't have been doing that. You can excuse Hayden for a little lapse of judgement, but you can't make excuses for a judge misdirecting a jury. He should have drawn the jury's attention to the bible on the chest detail which was examined in court. He could have said. "Are we to believe that it's just a coincidence that Jeremy Bamber made up a story which just happens to have in it exactly the same description of a scene with Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest." But he didn't. He apparently wanted to help the prosecution and to hinder the defense. It happens a lot.
The devil is in the detail
There is a saying, the devil is in the detail. Such a detail is to me proof that Julie Mugford's story of Bamber's confession is a fabrication. It has bits and pieces which come from here and there. But I admit that a person sympathetic to Mugford could argue in the manner
" Well OK, she embellished the story a little with that description of the body on the bed which she had obviously gotten from Ann Eaton, probably because she thought people might not believe her, but I still believe she was telling the truth when she said that Jeremy told her he had paid Matthew MacDonald. There is no proof that she made that up."
Hermann
Evidence was withheld at trial, alternatively fresh evidence is now available which indicates that Jeremy Bamber telephoned his then girlfriend Julie Mugford at 3.30am in the morning of 7th August and that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby lied in evidence when they timed the called at 3.15am and 3.12 am respectively.
The 3.30am Phone Call Overview:
20. The timing of Jeremy Bamber's phone call to Julie Mugford in the early hours of 71h August 1985 was also of "crucial importance- at trial, His Honour Mr Justice Drake's summing, up at p.12 B. Much evidence was adduced to show that the call had been made at or about 3,15um. This meant that the eau must have been made prior to the Appellant's call to the Chelmsford police station
21.
The Police's own contemporaneous record of the Appellant's call on 7th August 1985, appended to this document, has now come to light. It reveals that the Appellant's initial call to Chelmsford Police station was recorded, in error as conceded at trial, as 3.36am. More importantly it shows that having first spoken to the Appellant and established the nature of the problem in some detail the officer at Chelmsford phoned Witham Police station at 3.26am, that being undisputedly a correct time. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant's initial call to the Police must have been some minutes before 3.26am.
Ann Eaton's Notes In Relation to The Call to Julie Mugford:
22. Ann Eaton's allegedly contemporaneous notes regarding 8th August disclosed at trial stated that there had been a "muddle about the right time of the 3.15 phone call - a London friend was called".
A further note has since been found which reveals that in her original note she stated "talked to Julie about the phone calls Julie said re flatmate (our emphasis - photocopy is poor here exact wording should be clear on viewing of the original) 3.30am". It is submitted that this discrepancy shows that not only was Ann Eaton's note deliberately changed to undermine the appellant's case but that Julie Mugford and Susan Batteresby lied when they gave evidence that the telephone call was 3.15am or earlier, as it was Susan Battersby who was the flatmate referred to it the undisclosed Ann Eaton note.
Julie Mugford's Evidence:
23. In her original statement to the Police dated 81h August 1985 stated at p345:
next time I heard front Jeremy was at about 3.30am on Wednesday morning the th August 1985."
This then changes in her statement of e September 1985 when she states :
" I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan Battersby who lives with
me that it was about 3.15am."
At trial when she was cross examined as to the fact that she had told the police that the telephone call was received at 3.30am, she stated at p38 on 8th October:
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record).
The fundamental point is Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
You cannot get round these points no matter how much you bring up the sleeping pills or fire. Its rather obvious the police zeroed in on those pills and did not buy her original innocent explanation for them, thus she made up something they wanted to hear from her.
I am not quoting word for word here but it goes like this
Julie Mugford - "Jeremy told me that Sheila was told to lay on the bed and was ordered to shoot herself under the supervision of Mathew Macdonald he then left the bible on the her chest" (Jeremy is supposed to have told her this on the 7th of August at his cottage while the house was occupied by many other people )
Julie Mugford - "On the 7th I told Ann Eaton about the bible on her chest"
Anne Eaton - "On the 7th Police told me Sheila was found laying on the bed with a bible on her chest"
Ann Eaton - " I cant remember who told me on the 7th" (Just after confirming the police told her various details she obviously remembers. problem being she was told about the bible in the exact same conversation)
The idea of the bible being a "meme" is not credible because there are too many similarities with her statement as a whole. The probability of it being coincidental, you are looking at almost jackpot lottery odds. (Bible on chest + Sheila on Bed + Exiting windows + Cycling to the farm + Fingerprints on gun + wetsuit + 2000 pounds + a McDonald mentioned in police meeting + Hitman to explain the reported movement)
All of these can either be found in Julies testimony or her "diary". Most importantly Jeremy is supposed to have told her all this. This means that what Jeremy told her in his alleged "confessions" he deliberately falsified how he killed everyone so it just so happens to be the same as Ann Eatons and RWBs erroneous information. Not only that but he also falsifies his "confessions" so what he tells her just so happens to explain the gaps and problems the police were facing at that moment in time! gaps and problems that later turned out to be wrong! Then Jeremy decides not to tell her about the silencer, the one piece of crucial evidence that was only discovered to be incriminating in the weeks AFTER Julie made her statements.
Its just not possible for Jeremy to have told her all this in the way its been presented by her coinciding with the circumstances of the police investigation and the relatives suspicions in that instance of time. With some of those circumstances and ideas backfiring, thus harming her credibility later on.
Lets look at Mathew Mcdoanld for example.
1. Robert Boutflour speculates if Jeremy had assistance on the night - See Diary
2. Robert Boutflour zeros in on the £2000 that Neville lent to Jeremy - See Diary
3. The £2000 of course has an innocent explanation and is totally unrelated to the event. but RWB believes he is onto something (Tunnel vision)
4. Jeremy is supposed to have lent this £2000 to a friend - See Diary
5. 20th of August police have a meeting with RWB present. During that meeting a question is put forward in relation to a drug deal (from a man called McDonald??) See Barlow's note book
6. Jeremy has a friend called Mathew Mcdonald they both do drugs together - See MMs statement
7. Mathew Mcdonald happens to a fantasist who goes around telling people he is a mercenary and has done missions in Libya. People believe the rumours - see MMs statement
According to Julie. Jeremy told her that he paid £2000 to Mathew Mcdonald to help him carry out the killings. The fact of the matter is a sum of £2000 went somewhere else. Mathew Macdonald is a mercenary only in his imagination plus he was miles away from the farm that night. Robert Bouflour and Stand Jones ignorant of the facts at the time. To them this theory would make perfect sense to them. Jeremy's "mercenary" friend and drug associate complete with a money trail and can explain the reported movement in the farm while Jeremy was outside with the police.
I will leave you to decide where Julie got the story from.
What this clearly shows is how Jeremy Bamber gas lighted JM and used her as a pawn in the hope he would get away with his crimes.
He relies on people like yourself to keep his charade going
-
By the way, in the month it took for Julie Mugford to finally come clean, what was happening about the silencer? That had been found a few days after the murders. Does it really take that long to get lab results back, and did Julie Mugford know about the evidence of the silencer when she went to the police?
The silencer was sent to Huntingdon for testing.
-
Stephanie, the clock is ticking on your prediction. BTW
Nearly october now :-\
Absolutely not
You should have said in your opinion
-
But then he dumped her. Why would he do that just when she was getting cold feet about the whole thing? Why was he still with her on 7th August if the relationship had been going wrong for six months?
Disordered individuals like Jeremy bamber idealise, devalue then discard their victims. When they run out of options they then use a technique referred to as hoovering and so the cycle goes on
https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/idealize-devalue-discard-the-dizzying-cycle-of-narcissism-0325154
-
I'm sure he could have found a girl a bit closer to home to control if he'd wanted to.
But he'd already found her. There's a theory that when we meet THE person with whom our lives will be intertwined, we each know all we need to know of the other as soon as we set eyes on each other. It's by no means as simple as "love at first sight". The relationship could equally well be a dysfunctional disaster. The point is that rightly or wrongly we 'fit' together.
-
The silencer was sent to Huntingdon for testing.
And how long did it take to test it? More than a month?
-
And how long did it take to test it? More than a month?
It took a few weeks. Into September. It wasn't like CSI in 1985.
-
I'm really not sure about this statement that the relationship had been coming to an end for six months. If that's true, there's no earthly reason why Jeremy would tell Julie of his plans, and there's no earthly reason why she would cover up for him for a month.
-
Oh, and if the relationship had been coming to a close for 6 months, why would Jeremy have confided in her, and why would he keep wanting to see her?
I'm really not sure about this statement that the relationship had been coming to an end for six months. If that's true, there's no earthly reason why Jeremy would tell Julie of his plans, and there's no earthly reason why she would cover up for him for a month.
You are referring to a clearly disordered individual; Jeremy Bamber did not/does not tick like a non disordered individual
https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/idealize-devalue-discard-the-dizzying-cycle-of-narcissism-0325154
-
Disordered individuals like Jeremy bamber idealise, devalue then discard their victims. When they run out of options they then use a technique referred to as hoovering and so the cycle goes on
https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/idealize-devalue-discard-the-dizzying-cycle-of-narcissism-0325154
You know nothing about Jeremy and you are well known in the news for your bad judgement of people
Your husband
Falsely accusing people of murder
-
You are referring to a clearly disordered individual; Jeremy Bamber did not/does not tick like a non disordered individual
https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/idealize-devalue-discard-the-dizzying-cycle-of-narcissism-0325154
Offline JackieD
Senior Member
****
Posts: 564
View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Brett Collins's published interview with The Sun:
« Reply #271 on: Today at 03:23 PM »
QuoteModifyRemove
Quote from: Stephanie on Today at 03:13 PM
Disordered individuals like Jeremy bamber idealise, devalue then discard their victims. When they run out of options they then use a technique referred to as hoovering and so the cycle goes on
https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/idealize-devalue-discard-the-dizzying-cycle-of-narcissism-0325154
You know nothing about Jeremy and you are well known in the news for your bad judgement of people
Your husband
Falsely accusing people of murder
Modify message
-
I'm really not sure about this statement that the relationship had been coming to an end for six months. If that's true, there's no earthly reason why Jeremy would tell Julie of his plans, and there's no earthly reason why she would cover up for him for a month.
Bamber testified this. And the judge repeated it in his summing up. Source Wilkes's book.
As I said Bamber spent 18 months telling Julie about his family resentment & plans. It's in her WS.
-
Bamber testified this. And the judge repeated it in his summing up. Source Wilkes's book.
As I said Bamber spent 18 months telling Julie about his family resentment & plans. It's in her WS.
Well that makes her behaviour even more bizarre then.
-
Well that makes her behaviour even more bizarre then.
She didn't think Bamber would shoot his mother, father, sister & nephews in the face.
Stupid of her, I know.
-
You know nothing about Jeremy and you are well known in the news for your bad judgement of people
Your husband
Falsely accusing people of murder
I'm unsure what news you are referring to however for the record I was duped by a highly disordered individual; not dissimilar to Jeremy Bamber.
I was taken in by claims of innocence along with 'expert' opinions made by others.
I made a mistake.
However not unlike Kaldin I find it "pretty bizarre" people like you behave the way they do towards people like me and put the murderes on some kind of pedestal
-
She didn't think Bamber would shoot his mother, father, sister & nephews in the face.
Stupid of her, I know.
I mean her behaviour after the event is bizarre. It's quite bizarre before the event as well really, unless it was Jeremy who wanted things to end and she didn't. You'd think she'd be sick of him going on about killing his family though, and that it would put her off him.
I still don't see why Jeremy would go to so much effort to keep the relationship going if it was ending. It's not as if she lived down the road and was easy to see.
-
A comprehensive dissection of Julies 'evidence' is below.
Sigh... Here we go again........
Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
Why was he allowed to tell this to the Jury? here's why
Jeremy's "confession"
Below is what Julie claims Jeremy confessed to her. This statement is false for two reasons. Jeremy's alleged confession of the crime as told by Julie Mugford does not correspond or coincide with the actual crime scene itself, as we all know Shelia was found on the floor not on the bed, the bible next to her also on the floor not on her chest. Had Jeremy committed the murders and given a detailed confession as Julie claims then Julies statements would corroborate the crime scene and they don't!
(http://s30.postimg.org/4co0gw6ht/mugford1.png)
The second reason Julies statement is false is because her description of Jeremy's alleged confession is exactly the same as Ann Eaton and RWB's impression of events as seen in Ann Eatons notes and RWB's diary written in August. See below
Ann Eaton's note's second line down "Shelia on bed bible on chest"
(http://s23.postimg.org/v7c6huou3/AEnotes1.png)
RWB's Diary
(http://s23.postimg.org/eegx5omrf/rwbdiary1.jpg)
So not only can we establish that Julies claims are false we can now narrow down were she actually got that information from. Either Police or Ann Eaton as Rivlin rightly told the jury.
More disturbing correlations
Windows and the Bike
In August RWB speculates that Jeremy used a bike then also in august RWB and AE speculate how Jeremy would enter the building
(http://s21.postimg.org/mc273onk7/rwbbike.png)
(http://s10.postimg.org/kmegatna1/rwbwindows.png)
Then come September the 8th Julie reveals how Jeremy "confessed" to her his method of travel and entry, exactly how RWB and AE predicted!
(http://s8.postimg.org/nc7pjvf5x/jmbikewindow.png)
The Wet suit
On the 28th of August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy used a wet suit in the murders
(http://s29.postimg.org/fu9qvz293/rwbwetsuit.png)
This then appears in Julie Mugford's diary along with the bicycle
(http://s30.postimg.org/iq197ubc1/jmwetsuitdiary.png)
The £2000.00 payment
2nd of September RWB claims Jeremy lent a friend £2000
(http://s13.postimg.org/q3t1pks7b/rwb2000.png)
Julie then claims that Jeremy paid Macdonald £2000
(http://s22.postimg.org/64wqetcg1/JM2000.png)
The Fingerprints and the gun magazine
In August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy got Shelia to load the bullets into the magazine to get her fingerprints on them.
(http://s18.postimg.org/urhcc1fgp/rwbfingerprints.jpg)
Then come September lo and behold Julie claims this is exactly what Jeremy had confessed to her.
(http://s8.postimg.org/f3y3s6tyd/jmfingerprints.png)
This is why Julies statements are completely false, Her statements have direct parallels with Ann Eaton notes and RWBs diary both of which deviate from the facts of the crime scene and contradict other factual aspects surrounding the case. Therefore Jeremy did not and could not have confessed or told her anything in her statements, it is impossible!
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record). I have shown you the trial transcripts and the very statements mentioned in those trial transcripts.
The fundamental point Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
One only has to read Julie Mugfords statements and the cross examination of Ann Eaton to workout were Julie really got those false details from in order for her to make the bogus claim that Jeremy confessed to the killings. The devil is in the details, its just a matter of putting the puzzle together.
From Julie Mugford’s statement, page 23
"I have been asked if I have read or been told about a bible found on Sheila's
chest when she was found dead. I can definitely say I haven't but it was
told to me by Jeremy. I will add that some time after the 7th August 1985,
Ann EATON asked me if I knew about a bible which was near Sheila and I told
her that I did and that it was found on her chest. I think I told her it
was creepy. I think she asked me about the bible on the Friday of the week of the murders.”
This makes no sense. If Ann Eaton had asked Julie question of the bible some time after the 7th August then Julie answers to Ann that the bible was on Sheila's chest, Then she would have asked Julie how she got that information and Julie would have had to tell her that Jeremy told her the story about Matthew MacDonald. ?
In the trial transcript below. While cross examined by Rivlin QC, at first AE said that she thought she had first heard about the bible on Sheila's chest from Julie Mugford, but Rivlin QC was setting a trap to force AE to admit she actually got that information from the police by showing her her own statement which she sais she got the information from the police at the house. Another interesting observation, is that AE seems to remember the police telling her all the details mentioned in the statement but when it comes to bible she just happens to forget. Selective memory loss at times most convenient when it comes to the big issues seems to occur often in AE. ::)
Ann Eaton trial testimony: cross examined 7th October 1986
RIVLIN. I would like to ask you another thing about Julie Mugford, and it is this
something I was going to ask you before the luncheon adjournment- there
came a stage shortly after the events when a police officer told you something
in confidence, did he not, about what had happened and what had been found?
Do you remember? He told you, amongst other things, that when 'Sheila had
been found there was a bible on her chest?
AE. I did hear there was a bible on her chest.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): Did you hear it from the policeman is the
question?
AE. I cannot remember, but I heard it whilst in Jeremy's cottage.
MR. RIVLIN: Let remind you. Is it not right that one of the police officers
told you that Uncle Nevill was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle, that the
twins were in their beds, shot?
AE. Yes.
Rivlin. That Aunt June Bamber and Sheila were both on the bed, shot, with Sheila having
a bible on her chest, with the gun beside her?
AE. Yes.
Rivlin. And is it right that shortly after that information had been imparted to you,
you had a conversation with Julie Mugford, and you told Julie that when Sheila.
had been found there had been a bible found on her chest?
AE. I really cannot remember who told me the bible was on the chest.
MR JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): That is not the question now, but it is right
you should tell us. You do not remember who told you that Sheila was found
with the bible on her chest, but the question now is, whoever it was who told
you that, did you pass that on to Julie?
AE. I do not remember. I did have a conversation with Julie about the same time.
She said to me Sheila kept saying, I thought she said she was a "white wedge", or perhaps it was a “white
witch", but I do not remember who told me that the bible was on the chest.
MR. JUSTICE Drake: I do not think we have the full answer yet, Mr. Rivlin.
MR. RIVLIN: Would you accept that it was, in fact, one of the officers who told
you that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest and the gun beside her?
AE. I cannot remember who told me the bible was on her chest, so I am saying
it could have been Julie. I cannot remember who told me.
RIVLIN. In those circumstances I think that I must show the document to the witness.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE: What the witness just said is “it could have been Julie who
told me that" - that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest. (To the
witness): Wherereas the question you are being asked is put the other way around
That someone told you and you told Julie that she had been found with a bible
on her chest. That is the question. If you cannot answer, you cannot?
AE. I cannot remember. I just remember Julie saying something about Sheila
said she was a “white wedge", which I thought she said, but it turned out she
thought she was a "white witch", but I cannot remember who told me about the
bible.
MR. RIVLIN: Could you remember at the time who told you about the bible?
AE. I cannot remember.
RIVLIN. You made statements to the police officers, did you not, in this case, and I
would like you to look, please, at a statement which is dated 8th September
1985. (Same handed). Your signature appears on this document. Is it a
typewritten document? Does it bear your signature?
AE. No.
MR RIVLIN: I am told that the original is outside.
MR. ARLIDGE: I will have it checked with the original.
MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows:
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near
the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila
Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her
chest with the gun beside her"?
AE. Yes.
Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?
A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember
the policeman telling me Uncle Nevill was beside the coal scuttle, the twins
were in their beds, shot, Auntie June and Sheila were on the bed with the gun
between them, and I asked how they were shot, and he went like this. I do
not know who told me. I am sorry. Maybe it was a mistake. Asking me now.
I cannot remember who told me.
This is a fantastic post from Hermann over at IA
1 Julie Mugford is a proven liar.
Here's some background information from Robin Cox.
"Ann Eaton said herself in a statement that a police officer told her Sheila and June were found on the bed and that Sheila had the bible on her chest and the gun by her side which was not the prosecution's case at all. Did this give the family leverage in their arguments with Assistant Chief Inspector Simpson? The relatives didn’t like Jeremy, whom they called ‘Cuckoo’ on account of both he and Sheila being adopted but I won’t digress into that here."
http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/robin-cox
The idea is that the relatives were told that Sheila's body was on the bed at one stage and therefore also knew that it must have been the police who stage managed it on the floor. Robert Boutflour was convinced that Bamber was the killer. Some supporters of Bamber think that the police had to go along with the relatives and prosecute Bamber because the relatives knew Sheila's body was on the bed before it was moved to the floor by the police. That is what Cox means by leverage.
Bamber's confession to Julie Mugford
Julie Mugford account of Jeremy's confession includes a story of how Matthew MacDonald put a bible on Sheila's chest after telling her to shoot herself on the bed. So the description of the position of Sheila's body which the policeman gave to Ann Eaton turns up in Julie Mugford's story almost verbatim. It corresponds exactly to how Matthew MacDonald is supposed to have left the body. Mugford tells how Jeremy told her that MacDonald left Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest. It's in Mugford's statment. The police had not told Jeremy that story and it's dismissed as a mistake anyway. So it's impossible that Mugford had gotten it from Bamber.
Here's what Ann Eaton says in her statement of 08/09/85 when told where the bodies were found.
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her chest with the gun beside her"
Here's what Julie Mugford says in her statement of 08/08/1985 page 14
"I asked Jeremy if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were sound asleep and didn’t wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Mathew who then put a bible on her chest."
The devil is in the detail
I find it strange that people ignore this telling detail and that when somebody mentions it, even people who are fence sitters just ignore it and get back to talking about Julie and saying that her evidence has "the ring of truth about it". But how can it have the ring of truth when you can point to virtual proof that she lied. I have a theory as to why that kind of thing tends to happen.
Some people like talking about Julie Mugford just like others like talking about Amanda Knox. Of course anybody familiar with the scientific evidence knows that Knox and Solecito are innocent, but people like having something to talk about. They like the element of mystery. Hayden Panettiere undersood that when, talking about Amanda, she said to a bunch of reporters "Did she or didn't she?" So in just the same way, they like the discussion about Julie Mugford which has at it's basis the question "Who is telling the truth Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber."
When the Judge put the question to the jury "It depends on whether you believe Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber" he was being a prima donna. He was going for saying something catchy for the popular press. But he shouldn't have been doing that. You can excuse Hayden for a little lapse of judgement, but you can't make excuses for a judge misdirecting a jury. He should have drawn the jury's attention to the bible on the chest detail which was examined in court. He could have said. "Are we to believe that it's just a coincidence that Jeremy Bamber made up a story which just happens to have in it exactly the same description of a scene with Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest." But he didn't. He apparently wanted to help the prosecution and to hinder the defense. It happens a lot.
The devil is in the detail
There is a saying, the devil is in the detail. Such a detail is to me proof that Julie Mugford's story of Bamber's confession is a fabrication. It has bits and pieces which come from here and there. But I admit that a person sympathetic to Mugford could argue in the manner
" Well OK, she embellished the story a little with that description of the body on the bed which she had obviously gotten from Ann Eaton, probably because she thought people might not believe her, but I still believe she was telling the truth when she said that Jeremy told her he had paid Matthew MacDonald. There is no proof that she made that up."
Hermann
Evidence was withheld at trial, alternatively fresh evidence is now available which indicates that Jeremy Bamber telephoned his then girlfriend Julie Mugford at 3.30am in the morning of 7th August and that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby lied in evidence when they timed the called at 3.15am and 3.12 am respectively.
The 3.30am Phone Call Overview:
20. The timing of Jeremy Bamber's phone call to Julie Mugford in the early hours of 71h August 1985 was also of "crucial importance- at trial, His Honour Mr Justice Drake's summing, up at p.12 B. Much evidence was adduced to show that the call had been made at or about 3,15um. This meant that the eau must have been made prior to the Appellant's call to the Chelmsford police station
21.
The Police's own contemporaneous record of the Appellant's call on 7th August 1985, appended to this document, has now come to light. It reveals that the Appellant's initial call to Chelmsford Police station was recorded, in error as conceded at trial, as 3.36am. More importantly it shows that having first spoken to the Appellant and established the nature of the problem in some detail the officer at Chelmsford phoned Witham Police station at 3.26am, that being undisputedly a correct time. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant's initial call to the Police must have been some minutes before 3.26am.
Ann Eaton's Notes In Relation to The Call to Julie Mugford:
22. Ann Eaton's allegedly contemporaneous notes regarding 8th August disclosed at trial stated that there had been a "muddle about the right time of the 3.15 phone call - a London friend was called".
A further note has since been found which reveals that in her original note she stated "talked to Julie about the phone calls Julie said re flatmate (our emphasis - photocopy is poor here exact wording should be clear on viewing of the original) 3.30am". It is submitted that this discrepancy shows that not only was Ann Eaton's note deliberately changed to undermine the appellant's case but that Julie Mugford and Susan Batteresby lied when they gave evidence that the telephone call was 3.15am or earlier, as it was Susan Battersby who was the flatmate referred to it the undisclosed Ann Eaton note.
Julie Mugford's Evidence:
23. In her original statement to the Police dated 81h August 1985 stated at p345:
next time I heard front Jeremy was at about 3.30am on Wednesday morning the th August 1985."
This then changes in her statement of e September 1985 when she states :
" I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan Battersby who lives with
me that it was about 3.15am."
At trial when she was cross examined as to the fact that she had told the police that the telephone call was received at 3.30am, she stated at p38 on 8th October:
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record).
The fundamental point is Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
You cannot get round these points no matter how much you bring up the sleeping pills or fire. Its rather obvious the police zeroed in on those pills and did not buy her original innocent explanation for them, thus she made up something they wanted to hear from her.
I am not quoting word for word here but it goes like this
Julie Mugford - "Jeremy told me that Sheila was told to lay on the bed and was ordered to shoot herself under the supervision of Mathew Macdonald he then left the bible on the her chest" (Jeremy is supposed to have told her this on the 7th of August at his cottage while the house was occupied by many other people )
Julie Mugford - "On the 7th I told Ann Eaton about the bible on her chest"
Anne Eaton - "On the 7th Police told me Sheila was found laying on the bed with a bible on her chest"
Ann Eaton - " I cant remember who told me on the 7th" (Just after confirming the police told her various details she obviously remembers. problem being she was told about the bible in the exact same conversation)
The idea of the bible being a "meme" is not credible because there are too many similarities with her statement as a whole. The probability of it being coincidental, you are looking at almost jackpot lottery odds. (Bible on chest + Sheila on Bed + Exiting windows + Cycling to the farm + Fingerprints on gun + wetsuit + 2000 pounds + a McDonald mentioned in police meeting + Hitman to explain the reported movement)
All of these can either be found in Julies testimony or her "diary". Most importantly Jeremy is supposed to have told her all this. This means that what Jeremy told her in his alleged "confessions" he deliberately falsified how he killed everyone so it just so happens to be the same as Ann Eatons and RWBs erroneous information. Not only that but he also falsifies his "confessions" so what he tells her just so happens to explain the gaps and problems the police were facing at that moment in time! gaps and problems that later turned out to be wrong! Then Jeremy decides not to tell her about the silencer, the one piece of crucial evidence that was only discovered to be incriminating in the weeks AFTER Julie made her statements.
Its just not possible for Jeremy to have told her all this in the way its been presented by her coinciding with the circumstances of the police investigation and the relatives suspicions in that instance of time. With some of those circumstances and ideas backfiring, thus harming her credibility later on.
Lets look at Mathew Mcdoanld for example.
1. Robert Boutflour speculates if Jeremy had assistance on the night - See Diary
2. Robert Boutflour zeros in on the £2000 that Neville lent to Jeremy - See Diary
3. The £2000 of course has an innocent explanation and is totally unrelated to the event. but RWB believes he is onto something (Tunnel vision)
4. Jeremy is supposed to have lent this £2000 to a friend - See Diary
5. 20th of August police have a meeting with RWB present. During that meeting a question is put forward in relation to a drug deal (from a man called McDonald??) See Barlow's note book
6. Jeremy has a friend called Mathew Mcdonald they both do drugs together - See MMs statement
7. Mathew Mcdonald happens to a fantasist who goes around telling people he is a mercenary and has done missions in Libya. People believe the rumours - see MMs statement
According to Julie. Jeremy told her that he paid £2000 to Mathew Mcdonald to help him carry out the killings. The fact of the matter is a sum of £2000 went somewhere else. Mathew Macdonald is a mercenary only in his imagination plus he was miles away from the farm that night. Robert Bouflour and Stand Jones ignorant of the facts at the time. To them this theory would make perfect sense to them. Jeremy's "mercenary" friend and drug associate complete with a money trail and can explain the reported movement in the farm while Jeremy was outside with the police.
I will leave you to decide where Julie got the story from.
Brilliant stuff, David.
A long post but worth the read for the clarity it brings :)
-
I'm unsure what news you are referring to however for the record I was duped by a highly disordered individual; not dissimilar to Jeremy Bamber.
I was taken in by claims of innocence along with 'expert' opinions made by others.
I made a mistake.
However not unlike Kaldin I find it "pretty bizarre" people like you behave the way they do towards people like me and put the murderes on some kind of pedestal
I have not put anyone on a pedestal and the fact is your husband had a very violent background. I personally would never get involved with someone with a violent past full stop
You put your hubby on a pedestal every day and we're the closest to him
I personally am not interested in your opinion because of your bad judgements
I thought you would hide away
-
Brilliant stuff, David.
A long post but worth the read for the clarity it brings :)
Please explain what "clarity" David's post brings - if you are able. Though I sense you are goading and are unable to.
As previously stated; the contents of David's post clearly shows Jeremy Bamber's manipulative, cunning and calculating behaviour towards JM and his quite blatant mind f**k games he used in order to confuse her and distort his crimes and abhorrent behaviours leading up to and following the murders he committed.
-
You are referring to a clearly disordered individual; Jeremy Bamber did not/does not tick like a non disordered individual
https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/idealize-devalue-discard-the-dizzying-cycle-of-narcissism-0325154
Hey Steph - good to see you posting again! X
-
Brilliant stuff, David.
A long post but worth the read for the clarity it brings :)
David's argument is that because 'similar' concepts were discussed by different individuals, it must mean they originated from the same source and yet just a few days ago, you suggested that even though the EXACT same words were used on two different occasions and attributed the the SAME person by two separate people - it didn't prove anything and that to argue such was 'weak'. Seriously, you couldn't make this up! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Brilliant stuff, David.
A long post but worth the read for the clarity it brings :)
Furthermore and for clarity the following is well worth a read https://narcsite.com/2017/09/22/word-salad-and-how-to-toss-it-2/
-
I have not put anyone on a pedestal and the fact is your husband had a very violent background. I personally would never get involved with someone with a violent past full stop
You put your hubby on a pedestal every day and we're the closest to him
I personally am not interested in your opinion because of your bad judgements
I thought you would hide away
Keep telling yourself that - you got it bad!
-
Hey Steph - good to see you posting again! X
Hey Caroline, thanks! Good to see you too! X
-
Hey Caroline, thanks! Good to see you too! X
:)
-
Oh, and if the relationship had been coming to a close for 6 months, why would Jeremy have confided in her, and why would he keep wanting to see her?
Because she offered the veneer of respectability he needed to tide him over the aftermath. You could equally ask why if the relationship was cooling (and by implication Julie was becoming too clingy) why he telephoned her at 3am at all..
-
I have not put anyone on a pedestal
I personally would never get involved with someone with a violent past full stop
Why do you ignore Bamber's criminal versatility?
Why have you continuously ignored his behaviour regarding the burglary he committed?
You have publicly chosen to put jeremy Bamber on a pedestal, over and above anyone or anything else, even though he is convicted on murdering his 5 family members (including 2 little sleeping boys) If this is not the definition of abhorrent violence then please explain what is!?
-
Because she offered the veneer of respectability he needed to tide him over the aftermath. You could equally ask why if the relationship was cooling (and by implication Julie was becoming too clingy) why he telephoned her at 3am at all..
I don't think that explanation or any of the other explanations really cuts its.
id have more sympathy for her if she was lying than if she was telling the truth you could excuse her that you could explain that but shes telling the truth I don't see how you possibly can.
-
I don't think that explanation or any of the other explanations really cuts its.
id have more sympathy for her if she was lying than if she was telling you could excuse her that you could explain that but shes telling the truth I don't see how you possibly can.
So you would have more sympathy for lying and sending an innocent man to prison for 30 odd years, then if she were telling the truth and a guilty man was convicted? Yeah, coz that makes perfect sense! ;D ;D
-
A comprehensive dissection of Julies 'evidence' is below.
Sigh... Here we go again........
Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
Why was he allowed to tell this to the Jury? here's why
Jeremy's "confession"
Below is what Julie claims Jeremy confessed to her. This statement is false for two reasons. Jeremy's alleged confession of the crime as told by Julie Mugford does not correspond or coincide with the actual crime scene itself, as we all know Shelia was found on the floor not on the bed, the bible next to her also on the floor not on her chest. Had Jeremy committed the murders and given a detailed confession as Julie claims then Julies statements would corroborate the crime scene and they don't!
(http://s30.postimg.org/4co0gw6ht/mugford1.png)
The second reason Julies statement is false is because her description of Jeremy's alleged confession is exactly the same as Ann Eaton and RWB's impression of events as seen in Ann Eatons notes and RWB's diary written in August. See below
Ann Eaton's note's second line down "Shelia on bed bible on chest"
(http://s23.postimg.org/v7c6huou3/AEnotes1.png)
RWB's Diary
(http://s23.postimg.org/eegx5omrf/rwbdiary1.jpg)
So not only can we establish that Julies claims are false we can now narrow down were she actually got that information from. Either Police or Ann Eaton as Rivlin rightly told the jury.
More disturbing correlations
Windows and the Bike
In August RWB speculates that Jeremy used a bike then also in august RWB and AE speculate how Jeremy would enter the building
(http://s21.postimg.org/mc273onk7/rwbbike.png)
(http://s10.postimg.org/kmegatna1/rwbwindows.png)
Then come September the 8th Julie reveals how Jeremy "confessed" to her his method of travel and entry, exactly how RWB and AE predicted!
(http://s8.postimg.org/nc7pjvf5x/jmbikewindow.png)
The Wet suit
On the 28th of August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy used a wet suit in the murders
(http://s29.postimg.org/fu9qvz293/rwbwetsuit.png)
This then appears in Julie Mugford's diary along with the bicycle
(http://s30.postimg.org/iq197ubc1/jmwetsuitdiary.png)
The £2000.00 payment
2nd of September RWB claims Jeremy lent a friend £2000
(http://s13.postimg.org/q3t1pks7b/rwb2000.png)
Julie then claims that Jeremy paid Macdonald £2000
(http://s22.postimg.org/64wqetcg1/JM2000.png)
The Fingerprints and the gun magazine
In August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy got Shelia to load the bullets into the magazine to get her fingerprints on them.
(http://s18.postimg.org/urhcc1fgp/rwbfingerprints.jpg)
Then come September lo and behold Julie claims this is exactly what Jeremy had confessed to her.
(http://s8.postimg.org/f3y3s6tyd/jmfingerprints.png)
This is why Julies statements are completely false, Her statements have direct parallels with Ann Eaton notes and RWBs diary both of which deviate from the facts of the crime scene and contradict other factual aspects surrounding the case. Therefore Jeremy did not and could not have confessed or told her anything in her statements, it is impossible!
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record). I have shown you the trial transcripts and the very statements mentioned in those trial transcripts.
The fundamental point Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
One only has to read Julie Mugfords statements and the cross examination of Ann Eaton to workout were Julie really got those false details from in order for her to make the bogus claim that Jeremy confessed to the killings. The devil is in the details, its just a matter of putting the puzzle together.
From Julie Mugford’s statement, page 23
"I have been asked if I have read or been told about a bible found on Sheila's
chest when she was found dead. I can definitely say I haven't but it was
told to me by Jeremy. I will add that some time after the 7th August 1985,
Ann EATON asked me if I knew about a bible which was near Sheila and I told
her that I did and that it was found on her chest. I think I told her it
was creepy. I think she asked me about the bible on the Friday of the week of the murders.”
This makes no sense. If Ann Eaton had asked Julie question of the bible some time after the 7th August then Julie answers to Ann that the bible was on Sheila's chest, Then she would have asked Julie how she got that information and Julie would have had to tell her that Jeremy told her the story about Matthew MacDonald. ?
In the trial transcript below. While cross examined by Rivlin QC, at first AE said that she thought she had first heard about the bible on Sheila's chest from Julie Mugford, but Rivlin QC was setting a trap to force AE to admit she actually got that information from the police by showing her her own statement which she sais she got the information from the police at the house. Another interesting observation, is that AE seems to remember the police telling her all the details mentioned in the statement but when it comes to bible she just happens to forget. Selective memory loss at times most convenient when it comes to the big issues seems to occur often in AE. ::)
Ann Eaton trial testimony: cross examined 7th October 1986
RIVLIN. I would like to ask you another thing about Julie Mugford, and it is this
something I was going to ask you before the luncheon adjournment- there
came a stage shortly after the events when a police officer told you something
in confidence, did he not, about what had happened and what had been found?
Do you remember? He told you, amongst other things, that when 'Sheila had
been found there was a bible on her chest?
AE. I did hear there was a bible on her chest.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): Did you hear it from the policeman is the
question?
AE. I cannot remember, but I heard it whilst in Jeremy's cottage.
MR. RIVLIN: Let remind you. Is it not right that one of the police officers
told you that Uncle Nevill was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle, that the
twins were in their beds, shot?
AE. Yes.
Rivlin. That Aunt June Bamber and Sheila were both on the bed, shot, with Sheila having
a bible on her chest, with the gun beside her?
AE. Yes.
Rivlin. And is it right that shortly after that information had been imparted to you,
you had a conversation with Julie Mugford, and you told Julie that when Sheila.
had been found there had been a bible found on her chest?
AE. I really cannot remember who told me the bible was on the chest.
MR JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): That is not the question now, but it is right
you should tell us. You do not remember who told you that Sheila was found
with the bible on her chest, but the question now is, whoever it was who told
you that, did you pass that on to Julie?
AE. I do not remember. I did have a conversation with Julie about the same time.
She said to me Sheila kept saying, I thought she said she was a "white wedge", or perhaps it was a “white
witch", but I do not remember who told me that the bible was on the chest.
MR. JUSTICE Drake: I do not think we have the full answer yet, Mr. Rivlin.
MR. RIVLIN: Would you accept that it was, in fact, one of the officers who told
you that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest and the gun beside her?
AE. I cannot remember who told me the bible was on her chest, so I am saying
it could have been Julie. I cannot remember who told me.
RIVLIN. In those circumstances I think that I must show the document to the witness.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE: What the witness just said is “it could have been Julie who
told me that" - that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest. (To the
witness): Wherereas the question you are being asked is put the other way around
That someone told you and you told Julie that she had been found with a bible
on her chest. That is the question. If you cannot answer, you cannot?
AE. I cannot remember. I just remember Julie saying something about Sheila
said she was a “white wedge", which I thought she said, but it turned out she
thought she was a "white witch", but I cannot remember who told me about the
bible.
MR. RIVLIN: Could you remember at the time who told you about the bible?
AE. I cannot remember.
RIVLIN. You made statements to the police officers, did you not, in this case, and I
would like you to look, please, at a statement which is dated 8th September
1985. (Same handed). Your signature appears on this document. Is it a
typewritten document? Does it bear your signature?
AE. No.
MR RIVLIN: I am told that the original is outside.
MR. ARLIDGE: I will have it checked with the original.
MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows:
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near
the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila
Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her
chest with the gun beside her"?
AE. Yes.
Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?
A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember
the policeman telling me Uncle Nevill was beside the coal scuttle, the twins
were in their beds, shot, Auntie June and Sheila were on the bed with the gun
between them, and I asked how they were shot, and he went like this. I do
not know who told me. I am sorry. Maybe it was a mistake. Asking me now.
I cannot remember who told me.
This is a fantastic post from Hermann over at IA
1 Julie Mugford is a proven liar.
Here's some background information from Robin Cox.
"Ann Eaton said herself in a statement that a police officer told her Sheila and June were found on the bed and that Sheila had the bible on her chest and the gun by her side which was not the prosecution's case at all. Did this give the family leverage in their arguments with Assistant Chief Inspector Simpson? The relatives didn’t like Jeremy, whom they called ‘Cuckoo’ on account of both he and Sheila being adopted but I won’t digress into that here."
http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/robin-cox
The idea is that the relatives were told that Sheila's body was on the bed at one stage and therefore also knew that it must have been the police who stage managed it on the floor. Robert Boutflour was convinced that Bamber was the killer. Some supporters of Bamber think that the police had to go along with the relatives and prosecute Bamber because the relatives knew Sheila's body was on the bed before it was moved to the floor by the police. That is what Cox means by leverage.
Bamber's confession to Julie Mugford
Julie Mugford account of Jeremy's confession includes a story of how Matthew MacDonald put a bible on Sheila's chest after telling her to shoot herself on the bed. So the description of the position of Sheila's body which the policeman gave to Ann Eaton turns up in Julie Mugford's story almost verbatim. It corresponds exactly to how Matthew MacDonald is supposed to have left the body. Mugford tells how Jeremy told her that MacDonald left Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest. It's in Mugford's statment. The police had not told Jeremy that story and it's dismissed as a mistake anyway. So it's impossible that Mugford had gotten it from Bamber.
Here's what Ann Eaton says in her statement of 08/09/85 when told where the bodies were found.
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her chest with the gun beside her"
Here's what Julie Mugford says in her statement of 08/08/1985 page 14
"I asked Jeremy if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were sound asleep and didn’t wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Mathew who then put a bible on her chest."
The devil is in the detail
I find it strange that people ignore this telling detail and that when somebody mentions it, even people who are fence sitters just ignore it and get back to talking about Julie and saying that her evidence has "the ring of truth about it". But how can it have the ring of truth when you can point to virtual proof that she lied. I have a theory as to why that kind of thing tends to happen.
Some people like talking about Julie Mugford just like others like talking about Amanda Knox. Of course anybody familiar with the scientific evidence knows that Knox and Solecito are innocent, but people like having something to talk about. They like the element of mystery. Hayden Panettiere undersood that when, talking about Amanda, she said to a bunch of reporters "Did she or didn't she?" So in just the same way, they like the discussion about Julie Mugford which has at it's basis the question "Who is telling the truth Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber."
When the Judge put the question to the jury "It depends on whether you believe Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber" he was being a prima donna. He was going for saying something catchy for the popular press. But he shouldn't have been doing that. You can excuse Hayden for a little lapse of judgement, but you can't make excuses for a judge misdirecting a jury. He should have drawn the jury's attention to the bible on the chest detail which was examined in court. He could have said. "Are we to believe that it's just a coincidence that Jeremy Bamber made up a story which just happens to have in it exactly the same description of a scene with Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest." But he didn't. He apparently wanted to help the prosecution and to hinder the defense. It happens a lot.
The devil is in the detail
There is a saying, the devil is in the detail. Such a detail is to me proof that Julie Mugford's story of Bamber's confession is a fabrication. It has bits and pieces which come from here and there. But I admit that a person sympathetic to Mugford could argue in the manner
" Well OK, she embellished the story a little with that description of the body on the bed which she had obviously gotten from Ann Eaton, probably because she thought people might not believe her, but I still believe she was telling the truth when she said that Jeremy told her he had paid Matthew MacDonald. There is no proof that she made that up."
Hermann
Evidence was withheld at trial, alternatively fresh evidence is now available which indicates that Jeremy Bamber telephoned his then girlfriend Julie Mugford at 3.30am in the morning of 7th August and that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby lied in evidence when they timed the called at 3.15am and 3.12 am respectively.
The 3.30am Phone Call Overview:
20. The timing of Jeremy Bamber's phone call to Julie Mugford in the early hours of 71h August 1985 was also of "crucial importance- at trial, His Honour Mr Justice Drake's summing, up at p.12 B. Much evidence was adduced to show that the call had been made at or about 3,15um. This meant that the eau must have been made prior to the Appellant's call to the Chelmsford police station
21.
The Police's own contemporaneous record of the Appellant's call on 7th August 1985, appended to this document, has now come to light. It reveals that the Appellant's initial call to Chelmsford Police station was recorded, in error as conceded at trial, as 3.36am. More importantly it shows that having first spoken to the Appellant and established the nature of the problem in some detail the officer at Chelmsford phoned Witham Police station at 3.26am, that being undisputedly a correct time. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant's initial call to the Police must have been some minutes before 3.26am.
Ann Eaton's Notes In Relation to The Call to Julie Mugford:
22. Ann Eaton's allegedly contemporaneous notes regarding 8th August disclosed at trial stated that there had been a "muddle about the right time of the 3.15 phone call - a London friend was called".
A further note has since been found which reveals that in her original note she stated "talked to Julie about the phone calls Julie said re flatmate (our emphasis - photocopy is poor here exact wording should be clear on viewing of the original) 3.30am". It is submitted that this discrepancy shows that not only was Ann Eaton's note deliberately changed to undermine the appellant's case but that Julie Mugford and Susan Batteresby lied when they gave evidence that the telephone call was 3.15am or earlier, as it was Susan Battersby who was the flatmate referred to it the undisclosed Ann Eaton note.
Julie Mugford's Evidence:
23. In her original statement to the Police dated 81h August 1985 stated at p345:
next time I heard front Jeremy was at about 3.30am on Wednesday morning the th August 1985."
This then changes in her statement of e September 1985 when she states :
" I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan Battersby who lives with
me that it was about 3.15am."
At trial when she was cross examined as to the fact that she had told the police that the telephone call was received at 3.30am, she stated at p38 on 8th October:
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record).
The fundamental point is Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
You cannot get round these points no matter how much you bring up the sleeping pills or fire. Its rather obvious the police zeroed in on those pills and did not buy her original innocent explanation for them, thus she made up something they wanted to hear from her.
I am not quoting word for word here but it goes like this
Julie Mugford - "Jeremy told me that Sheila was told to lay on the bed and was ordered to shoot herself under the supervision of Mathew Macdonald he then left the bible on the her chest" (Jeremy is supposed to have told her this on the 7th of August at his cottage while the house was occupied by many other people )
Julie Mugford - "On the 7th I told Ann Eaton about the bible on her chest"
Anne Eaton - "On the 7th Police told me Sheila was found laying on the bed with a bible on her chest"
Ann Eaton - " I cant remember who told me on the 7th" (Just after confirming the police told her various details she obviously remembers. problem being she was told about the bible in the exact same conversation)
The idea of the bible being a "meme" is not credible because there are too many similarities with her statement as a whole. The probability of it being coincidental, you are looking at almost jackpot lottery odds. (Bible on chest + Sheila on Bed + Exiting windows + Cycling to the farm + Fingerprints on gun + wetsuit + 2000 pounds + a McDonald mentioned in police meeting + Hitman to explain the reported movement)
All of these can either be found in Julies testimony or her "diary". Most importantly Jeremy is supposed to have told her all this. This means that what Jeremy told her in his alleged "confessions" he deliberately falsified how he killed everyone so it just so happens to be the same as Ann Eatons and RWBs erroneous information. Not only that but he also falsifies his "confessions" so what he tells her just so happens to explain the gaps and problems the police were facing at that moment in time! gaps and problems that later turned out to be wrong! Then Jeremy decides not to tell her about the silencer, the one piece of crucial evidence that was only discovered to be incriminating in the weeks AFTER Julie made her statements.
Its just not possible for Jeremy to have told her all this in the way its been presented by her coinciding with the circumstances of the police investigation and the relatives suspicions in that instance of time. With some of those circumstances and ideas backfiring, thus harming her credibility later on.
Lets look at Mathew Mcdoanld for example.
1. Robert Boutflour speculates if Jeremy had assistance on the night - See Diary
2. Robert Boutflour zeros in on the £2000 that Neville lent to Jeremy - See Diary
3. The £2000 of course has an innocent explanation and is totally unrelated to the event. but RWB believes he is onto something (Tunnel vision)
4. Jeremy is supposed to have lent this £2000 to a friend - See Diary
5. 20th of August police have a meeting with RWB present. During that meeting a question is put forward in relation to a drug deal (from a man called McDonald??) See Barlow's note book
6. Jeremy has a friend called Mathew Mcdonald they both do drugs together - See MMs statement
7. Mathew Mcdonald happens to a fantasist who goes around telling people he is a mercenary and has done missions in Libya. People believe the rumours - see MMs statement
According to Julie. Jeremy told her that he paid £2000 to Mathew Mcdonald to help him carry out the killings. The fact of the matter is a sum of £2000 went somewhere else. Mathew Macdonald is a mercenary only in his imagination plus he was miles away from the farm that night. Robert Bouflour and Stand Jones ignorant of the facts at the time. To them this theory would make perfect sense to them. Jeremy's "mercenary" friend and drug associate complete with a money trail and can explain the reported movement in the farm while Jeremy was outside with the police.
I will leave you to decide where Julie got the story from.
Further to gringo's compliments let me add my own: this is total rubbish, and however many times you serve up rubbish it will not make it more appetizing, sadly. Firstly we have no way of knowing just how much truth was in Jeremy's proxy confession to his girlfriend, remembering his dictum: "It's important to tell the truth where possible." Since Julie was a doormat for the most part of their two year relationship it's possible to assume that he told her a good deal more than he was initially disposed to do.
Next we really have no idea whether Sheila was found on the bed with a bible on her chest or not. This rumour went the rounds that first morning with seemingly no corroboration thenceforward. Thirdly the sum of £2000 was on Jeremy's money-oriented mind because it was a debt he owed Nevill which he was glad to cast off. Thirdly Julie deviates from the Boutflour script when she adds that a glove came off in the fight, which again we have no way of checking the veracity except that it's true Sheila's prints were not all over the gun, which might have helped the Defence case whilst suggesting that the murder weapon may well have been wiped at some stage that morning.
-
So you would have more sympathy for lying and sending an innocent man to prison for 30 odd years, then if she were telling the truth and a guilty man was convicted? Yeah, coz that makes perfect sense! ;D ;D
yes I can understand a jilted girlfriend wanting revenge making up some lies and then being traped by those lies so she could never retract.
but ive got bugger all sympathy for someone who allows kids to be murdered and only comes forward when there told there going to be sharing the cash.
-
Why do you ignore Bamber's criminal versatility?
Why have you continuously ignored his behaviour regarding the burglary he committed?
You have publicly chosen to put jeremy Bamber on a pedestal, over and above anyone or anything else, even though he is convicted on murdering his 5 family members (including 2 little sleeping boys) If this is not the definition of abhorrent violence then please explain what is!?
I have never been or wanted to be in a relationship with Jeremy. How can you compare a burglary at a caravan park where Jeremy had shares with the murder of 5 people
Jeremy was known to be squeamish
You continued to support Simon Hall causing great anguish to the murdered pensioners family
How many years did you support a murderer and rapist
There is no comparison between Hall and Bamber
You planned a future with a violent past
-
Please explain what "clarity" David's post brings - if you are able. Though I sense you are goading and are unable to.
As previously stated; the contents of David's post clearly shows Jeremy Bamber's manipulative, cunning and calculating behaviour towards JM and his quite blatant mind f**k games he used in order to confuse her and distort his crimes and abhorrent behaviours leading up to and following the murders he committed.
Same old trying to cause trouble again
-
I can understand a jilted girlfriend in anger making up lies about her boyfriend that she later could not go back on for fear repercussions much more than understand somone coldly standing by and allowing a whole family to be killed.
yes I can understand a jilted girlfriend wanting revenge making up some lies and then being traped by those lies so she could never retract.
but ive got bugger all sympathy for someone who allows kids to be murdered and only comes forward when there told there going to be sharing the cash.
How could Julie Mugford foresee the murders?
And why do you refer to her as the "jilted girlfriend?"
Why did Jeremy Bamber telephone his alledged "jilted girlfriend" on the night he murdered his family?
-
Keep telling yourself that - you got it bad!
In your opinion which once again means nothing on this forum
-
In your opinion which once again means nothing on this forum
No, it obviously mean a lot to you which is why you always make a beeline! ;)
-
I don't think that explanation or any of the other explanations really cuts its.
id have more sympathy for her if she was lying than if she was telling the truth you could excuse her that you could explain that but shes telling the truth I don't see how you possibly can.
Well as Oscar Wilde said: "The truth is rarely pure and never simple."
-
How could Julie Mugford foresee the murders?
And why do you refer to her as the "jilted girlfriend?"
Why did Jeremy Bamber telephone his alledged "jilted girlfriend" on the night he murdered his family?
because according to her he had told them he was going to do it.
-
Same old trying to cause trouble again
Ooh goody goody! All your birthdays and Christmas's come at once. ANOTHER poster to inflict TSV.s sourness on ::) ::)
-
Further to gringo's compliments let me add my own: this is total rubbish, and however many times you serve up rubbish it will not make it more appetizing, sadly. Firstly we have no way of knowing just how much truth was in Jeremy's proxy confession to his girlfriend, remembering his dictum: "It's important to tell the truth where possible." Since Julie was a doormat for the most part of their two year relationship it's possible to assume that he told her a good deal more than he was initially disposed to do.
Next we really have no idea whether Sheila was found on the bed with a bible on her chest or not. This rumour went the rounds that first morning with seemingly no corroboration thenceforward. Thirdly the sum of £2000 was on Jeremy's money-oriented mind because it was a debt he owed Nevill which he was glad to cast off. Thirdly Julie deviates from the Boutflour script when she adds that a glove came off in the fight, which again we have no way of checking the veracity except that it's true Sheila's prints were not all over the gun, which might have helped the Defence case whilst suggesting that the murder weapon may well have been wiped at some stage that morning.
Oh dear. You are literally Julies Mugford's cuckold!
-
Ooh goody goody! All your birthdays and Christmas's come at once. ANOTHER poster to inflict TSV.s sourness on ::) ::)
VCF 'Jane' I'm sure u can work out you nickname
bring it on
-
Because she offered the veneer of respectability he needed to tide him over the aftermath. You could equally ask why if the relationship was cooling (and by implication Julie was becoming too clingy) why he telephoned her at 3am at all..
I would indeed ask that, which is why I don't really believe that it was cooling. I also don't believe that he carried on with her because she offered a veneer of respectability.
-
Oh dear. You are literally Julies Mugford's cuckold!
I might add that you are an apologist for a child murderer, but as I'm a gentleman I might desist.
-
How could Julie Mugford foresee the murders?
And why do you refer to her as the "jilted girlfriend?"
Why did Jeremy Bamber telephone his alledged "jilted girlfriend" on the night he murdered his family?
He hadn't jilted her then - that came later, just before she went to the police.
-
VCF 'Jane' I'm sure u can work out you nickname
bring it on
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery which is just as well coz you ain't bright enough to think up anything original for yourself .................other that duping some poor unsuspecting souls into believing you can open doors for them. OH, and what's with the ""?
-
I have never been or wanted to be in a relationship with Jeremy. How can you compare a burglary at a caravan park where Jeremy had shares with the murder of 5 people
Jeremy was known to be squeamish
You continued to support Simon Hall causing great anguish to the murdered pensioners family
How many years did you support a murderer and rapist
There is no comparison between Hall and Bamber
You planned a future with a violent past
Jackie I'm unsure why your posts are always about yourself?
Are you suggesting is was okay for Bamber to break in to the caravan park and rob his family in order to "teach them a lesson" as he stated?
How do you know Jeremy Bamber was squeamish? Simon Hall said he was squeamish! There's a similarity right there.
Please explain how I am responsible for Simon Hall's crimes.
There are numerous similarities between Hall and Bamber only you refuse to accept them due to your quite apparent inability to be objective.
I believed Simon Hall was innocent of murder and did not possess the knowledge at the time re: psychopathic relationships etc..
BTW Jackie don't go crying wolf again. Remember it is YOU who continues to bring up the Simon Hall case!
-
I would indeed ask that, which is why I don't really believe that it was cooling. I also don't believe that he carried on with her because she offered a veneer of respectability.
Good old Julie would be a shoulder to cry on, someone who would shield him from the probing questions of relatives and support him during the interregnum, parrying blows from unexpected quarters and Police forays questioning the validity of his account.
In retrospect, of course, he discovered there are not many women who would cover for a murderer.
-
Jackie I'm unsure why your posts are always about yourself?
Are you suggesting is was okay for Bamber to break in to the caravan park and rob his family in order to "teach them a lesson" as he stated?
How do you know Jeremy Bamber was squeamish? Simon Hall said he was squeamish! There's a similarity right there.
There are numerous similarities between Hall and Bamber only you refuse to accept them due to your quite apparent inability to be objective.
I believed Simon Hall was innocent of murder and did not possess the knowledge at the time re: psychopathic relationships etc..
You are barking mad claiming to be an expert now
Try getting a job because I don't want to pay for lazy people like you who claimed to me you were never going going to get a job
I can't read anymore of your ridulous rants
Putting you on ignore
-
Good old Julie would be a shoulder to cry on, someone who would shield him from the probing questions of relatives and support him during the interregnum, parrying blows from unexpected quarters and Police forays questioning the validity of his account.
In retrospect, of course, he discovered there are not many women who would cover for a murderer.
I really don't think he would keep her around for six months longer than he wanted just in case the opportunity to murder his whole family came up.
-
I really don't think he would keep her around for six months longer than he wanted just in case the opportunity to murder his whole family came up.
Which only goes to show you do not understand why and how disordered individuals like Bamber tick.
-
Which only goes to show you do not understand why and how disordered individuals like Bamber tick.
What makes you think that you understand it any better than me?
Come on, he's not going to keep on seeing a girl he's not bothered about or doesn't like just in case he gets the chance to kill his family and then keep her around for - well I don't know for what.
-
You are barking mad claiming to be an expert now
Try getting a job because I don't want to pay for lazy people like you who claimed to me you were never going going to get a job
I can't read anymore of your ridulous rants
Putting you on ignore
Ha ha. Yeah and Jeremy Bamber is "squeamish, innocent & loves baking cakes! Yeah right ::)
-
You are barking mad claiming to be an expert now
Try getting a job because I don't want to pay for lazy people like you who claimed to me you were never going going to get a job
I can't read anymore of your ridulous rants
Putting you on ignore
That's correct. You CAN'T read what Steph writes -GREAT to see you back, Steph, by the way- coz you're not bright enough to come up with an intelligent response.
-
What makes you think that you understand it any better than me?
Come on, he's not going to keep on seeing a girl he's not bothered about or doesn't like just in case he gets the chance to kill his family and then keep her around for - well I don't know for what.
your posts make me think I understand it better than you. You appear to be looking at Bambers behaviour as "normal" as opposed to that of someone who is disordered.
-
your posts make me think I understand it better than you. You appear to be looking at Bambers behaviour as "normal" as opposed to that of someone who is disordered.
This is a very good point.
-
your posts make me think I understand it better than you. You appear to be looking at Bambers behaviour as "normal" as opposed to that of someone who is disordered.
Disordered in what way? Killing his family doesn't necessarily he had a disorder. After all, the motive was said to be money, not some kind of disorder.
-
He hadn't jilted her then - that came later, just before she went to the police.
It was Jeremy Bamber who dropped the old cliche that JM was a scorned women etc. He said this during his police interviews.
Why did he telephone her on the night he murdered his family? Another pretty lame excuse (lie) that he hoped would help his defence.
If you read back through his police interviews he's already given away his guilt in his previous answers.
-
It was Jeremy Bamber who dropped the old cliche that JM was a scorned women etc. He said this during his police interviews.
Why did he telephone her on the night he murdered his family? Another pretty lame excuse (lie) that he hoped would help his defence.
If you read back through his police interviews he's already given away his guilt in his previous answers.
Are you claiming that he jilted her just after the murders, or are you claiming that she dumped him? The point is that they were together at least until a day or two before she went to the police.
How would phoning her the night of the murders help his defence?
-
Disordered in what way? Killing his family doesn't necessarily he had a disorder. After all, the motive was said to be money, not some kind of disorder.
The man killed 5 members of his family, including two six year old's while they slept, simply because he could wait for his inheritance and you don't think that's 'disordered'? However, wearing a veil at a funeral struck you as odd? Whatever the motive, you have to have something of a disorder to do what he did and carry on as 'normal'!
-
Are you claiming that he jilted her just after the murders, or are you claiming that she dumped him? The point is that they were together at least until a day or two before she went to the police.
How would phoning her the night of the murders help his defence?
Because he's obviously trying to rope her in as an accessory and hopes that the telephone calls along with the cannabis dealing and an offer of a wine bar in a fashionable area of London (I've mislaid my post on this by the way) will be sufficient to buy her silence.
-
Are you claiming that he jilted her just after the murders, or are you claiming that she dumped him? The point is that they were together at least until a day or two before she went to the police.
How would phoning her the night of the murders help his defence?
To bolster his alibi - it wasn't for Julie's benefit, it was for the others she shared the flat with. The more people knew that 'something was wrong at the farm' the better.
If you're a fence sitter, what part has you questioning Bambers innocence? I haven't seen you question that side yet?
-
That's correct. You CAN'T read what Steph writes -GREAT to see you back, Steph, by the way- coz you're not bright enough to come up with an intelligent response.
VCF you keep us with the personal attacks and you will end up with a prison sentence
You do realise the the new laws on online abuse and it's not just me you attack is it
It's good to see you paired up with Mrs Hall who should be ashamed of her past behaviour and hide away from the people she upset in Ipswich
I will be printing off her posts and sending them to the local ipswich newspapers
-
That's correct. You CAN'T read what Steph writes -GREAT to see you back, Steph, by the way- coz you're not bright enough to come up with an intelligent response.
Yes I share the sentiment after a short reflection, as long as she doesn't deviate too much by delving into her past with Simon Hall.
-
Are you claiming that he jilted her just after the murders, or are you claiming that she dumped him? The point is that they were together at least until a day or two before she went to the police.
How would phoning her the night of the murders help his defence?
It is you who has referred to JM as having been jilted not I!
She was a mere pawn as I've already stated. He would have idealised devalued and discarded her then hoovered her back up when he saw fit.
Why did Jeremy Bamber say he phoned her on the night he murdered. You should re read his police interviews!
-
Disordered in what way? Killing his family doesn't necessarily he had a disorder. After all, the motive was said to be money, not some kind of disorder.
The motive was said to be a burglary gone wrong in the Simon Hall case but following his confession and disclosure it seems this was not true.
Therefore it might be wise to keep an open mind regarding Bambers genuine motives...
-
GREAT to see you back, Steph
Thanks Jane! :)
-
It is you who has referred to JM as having been jilted not I!
She was a mere pawn as I've already stated. He would have idealised devalued and discarded her then hoovered her back up when he saw fit.
Why did Jeremy Bamber say he phoned her on the night he murdered. You should re read his police interviews!
It was you who implied that he wouldn't have phoned if he'd jilted her. I merely pointed out that he hadn't jilted her at that point.
Why did Jeremy Bamber telephone his alledged "jilted girlfriend" on the night he murdered his family?
-
VCF you keep us with the personal attacks and you will end up with a prison sentence
You do realise the the new laws on online abuse and it's not just me you attack is it
It's good to see you paired up with Mrs Hall who should be ashamed of her past behaviour and hide away from the people she upset in Ipswich
I will be printing off her posts and sending them to the local ipswich newspapers
Well, I guess that means it's you who'll get arrested first, coz all the rest of us do is respond to your abuse. As for any of US 'causing trouble' -I wonder just how many times that's been levied at you- I imagine sending other peoples' posts to newspapers will come under that heading. By the way, did you ever send those newspaper cuttings to Canada? You like threatening people with the police, don't you? I seem to recall you doing it when I first joined. They must be sick of you by now.
-
To bolster his alibi - it wasn't for Julie's benefit, it was for the others she shared the flat with. The more people knew that 'something was wrong at the farm' the better.
If you're a fence sitter, what part has you questioning Bambers innocence? I haven't seen you question that side yet?
Phoning her didn't give him an alibi though, so I don't know what you mean.
I also don't understand your second question.
-
Phoning her didn't give him an alibi though, so I don't know what you mean.
I also don't understand your second question.
It did of sorts because he was telephoning from Bourtree Cottage and not the scene of the crime.
-
It did of sorts because he was telephoning from Bourtree Cottage and not the scene of the crime.
He phoned the police from the cottage as well so he didn't need an extra alibi. None of it actually gave him an alibi anyway.
-
He phoned the police from the cottage as well so he didn't need an extra alibi. None of it actually gave him an alibi anyway.
But that's with the benefit of hindsight. I feel certain it would have registered that the more people who knew he'd called to say there was "something wrong at the farm" the more it proved he couldn't have done it.
-
But that's with the benefit of hindsight. I feel certain it would have registered that the more people who knew he'd called to say there was "something wrong at the farm" the more it proved he couldn't have done it.
Not if he phoned her at 3pm it wouldn't because that would have been before Nevill phoned him. I also find it bizarre that she merely told him to go to bed. After all, he had allegedly phoned her earlier to say that tonight was the night, or whatever it was he said.
-
It was you who implied that he wouldn't have phoned if he'd jilted her. I merely pointed out that he hadn't jilted her at that point.
You appear to be confusing yourself Kaldin.
I cannot make it any clearer. Jeremy Bamber used JM as a pawn. Why he chose to phone her on the night he murdered his family only he knows; though as Steve_UK suggests he could have done so to implicate her in some way and/or play mind f**k games.
During police interview Jeremy Bamber referred to JM being a "scorned women" as his reasoning for why she would tell the police what she did about him.
Who says he jilted her? I don't believe Bamber jilted her. I believe he played games with her and used her for his own ends.
-
Not if he phoned her at 3pm it wouldn't because that would have been before Nevill phoned him. I also find it bizarre that she merely told him to go to bed. After all, he had allegedly phoned her earlier to say that tonight was the night, or whatever it was he said.
But you are presuming JM knew what he meant re his comment "tonight is the night." You aren't being objective.
Her response of "go back to bed" suggests it was just another night to her and she was unaware of his plans. How can it be perceived any other way?!
And we only have Bambers word that his father had phoned him! What if, as I believe, there was no phone call from NB?
-
You appear to be confusing yourself Kaldin.
I cannot make it any clearer. Jeremy Bamber used JM as a pawn. Why he chose to phone her on the night he murdered his family only he knows; though as Steve_UK suggests he could have done so to implicate her in some way and/or play mind f**k games.
During police interview Jeremy Bamber referred to JM being a "scorned women" as his reasoning for why she would tell the police what she did about him.
Who says he jilted her? I don't believe Bamber jilted her. I believe he played games with her and used her for his own ends.
Huh? If I'm confused, it's because of your posts.
How could Julie Mugford foresee the murders?
And why do you refer to her as the "jilted girlfriend?"
Why did Jeremy Bamber telephone his alledged "jilted girlfriend" on the night he murdered his family?
Are you claiming that Jeremy did not jilt Julie or what?
The point is that he didn't jilt her until just before she went to the police. Steve appears to not know that either.
-
Not if he phoned her at 3pm it wouldn't because that would have been before Nevill phoned him. I also find it bizarre that she merely told him to go to bed. After all, he had allegedly phoned her earlier to say that tonight was the night, or whatever it was he said.
Well, if he phoned her prior to when Nevill -allegedly- phoned him, and told her "something is wrong at the farm" are you suggesting he was telepathic, OR can you see he could have killed them?
-
But you are presuming JM knew what he meant re his comment "tonight is the night." You aren't being objective.
Her response of "go back to bed" suggests it was just another night to her and she was unaware of his plans. How can it be perceived any other way?!
as he had been telling her for weeks she had have been bloody thick not of guessed.
and as she dident ask him what by the sentence tonights the night surely she must of known exactly what he ment.
this is of course presuming the storys true.
-
But you are presuming JM knew what he meant re his comment "tonight is the night." You aren't being objective.
Her response of "go back to bed" suggests it was just another night to her and she was unaware of his plans. How can it be perceived any other way?!
And we only have Bambers word that his father had phoned him! What if, as I believe, there was no phone call from NB?
Oh, and she didn't think to ask what he meant by it, despite the fact that he'd been going on about killing his family for months?
If someone rang me in the early hours and said there was something wrong at home, I'd want to know what they meant, wouldn't you?
-
Anyway, he said a lot more to Julie during the earlier call - according to Julie, so of course she knew what he meant.
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.
I then continued telling him about my day and dropped the matter concerning his family. I was aware that when he said the word crime he was referring to the killing of his family.
-
Oh, and she didn't think to ask what he meant by it, despite the fact that he'd been going on about killing his family for months?
If someone rang me in the early hours and said there was something wrong at home, I'd want to know what they meant, wouldn't you?
Not at 3am.
-
Not at 3am.
You wouldn't want to know what they meant, particularly as they'd been talking about the killing of their family a few hours earlier? That's just weird.
-
Oh, and she didn't think to ask what he meant by it, despite the fact that he'd been going on about killing his family for months?
If someone rang me in the early hours and said there was something wrong at home, I'd want to know what they meant, wouldn't you?
Julie Mugford wasn't a mind reader. It was silly o'clock in the morning and Bamber had just woken her and the rest of the household up.
If Jeremy Bamber really did receive a telephone call from his father stating what he alleged why would he be phoning JM?
You are doing it again; you are putting the emphasis on JM.
Neville allegedly called Jeremy. The responsibility of that call therefore lay with Jeremy. Only he was privy to the alleged call, it's content and any inflection
Anyway, I thought you suggested in previous posts that Jeremy was cooling things off with Julie?
-
Not at 3am.
sorry Jeremy is expected to know exactly what hes doing at 3 am but Julie isn't.
-
But you are presuming JM knew what he meant re his comment "tonight is the night." You aren't being objective.
Her response of "go back to bed" suggests it was just another night to her and she was unaware of his plans. How can it be perceived any other way?!
And we only have Bambers word that his father had phoned him! What if, as I believe, there was no phone call from NB?
I've just posted her statement which makes it clear she knew exactly what he meant.
-
as he had been telling her for weeks she had have been bloody thick not of guessed.
and as she dident ask him what by the sentence tonights the night surely she must of known exactly what he ment.
this is of course presuming the storys true.
Forgive me for mentioning it, Nugs, but you seem to be someone who's suspicious of everyone so I expect you would have 'guessed'. I, on the other hand simply wouldn't go down the road of contemplating that my lover -friend, Godson, cousin- would kill members of their family, however arsy they may be with them at times.
-
Phoning her didn't give him an alibi though, so I don't know what you mean.
I also don't understand your second question.
Technically no, but it gave the impression that Jeremy was concerned about something happening at the farm
By the way, you didn't answer the question about being a fence sitter? You said you were a fence sitter but like many who claim that, you have only argued from a 'Jeremy is innocent' perspective. What makes you think he might not be?
-
I've just posted her statement which makes it clear she knew exactly what he meant.
Anyway, he said a lot more to Julie during the earlier call - according to Julie, so of course she knew what he meant.
You mean with hindsight?!?!
-
You wouldn't want to know what they meant, particularly as they'd been talking about the killing of their family a few hours earlier? That's just weird.
I find it very weird that he chose to phone Julie at all at 3.00am, esp before phoning the police as per his statement
-
You mean with hindsight?!?!
No, she said she knew what he meant at the time.
I was aware that when he said the word crime he was referring to the killing of his family. I did not believe he could carry it out.
She may well have not believed he would carry it out, but when she received a later call to say something was wrong at the farm, why on earth did she just ignore that?
-
Technically no, but it gave the impression that Jeremy was concerned about something happening at the farm
By the way, you didn't answer the question about being a fence sitter? You said you were a fence sitter but like many who claim that, you have only argued from a 'Jeremy is innocent' perspective. What makes you think he might not be?
I haven't only argued from the perspective that he's innocent. I've probably argued more in favour of that because that's what this forum is for. If it was certain he did it, there would be no point in any of us posting here.
What makes me think he might not be innocent? The fact that he was convicted, the issue of the silencer, Julie's story. I don't know yet if I think she was lying or not, I'm just commenting on her alleged "virtue" in coming forward.
-
Julie Mugford wasn't a mind reader. It was silly o'clock in the morning and Bamber had just woken her and the rest of the household up.
If Jeremy Bamber really did receive a telephone call from his father stating what he alleged why would he be phoning JM?
You are doing it again; you are putting the emphasis on JM.
Neville allegedly called Jeremy. The responsibility of that call therefore lay with Jeremy. Only he was privy to the alleged call, it's content and any inflection
Anyway, I thought you suggested in previous posts that Jeremy was cooling things off with Julie?
This is being done constantly. Supporters are determined to put the gun in Julie's hand by whatever means possible.
-
No, she said she knew what he meant at the time.
She may well have not believed he would carry it out, but when she received a later call to say something was wrong at the farm, why on earth did she just ignore that?
Why do you appear to be holding JM to account for Jeremy Bambers crimes? This is clearly clouding your judgement. You are being bias and aren't looking at all angles.
How do any of us know whether or not he'd used this phrase to her before? This could have been something he told her during numerous telephone calls prior to the night of the murders.
Why on earth didn't Bamber phone 999? Why on earth didn't he get in his car and get his backside over to WHF to find out?
-
Julie Mugford wasn't a mind reader. It was silly o'clock in the morning and Bamber had just woken her and the rest of the household up.
If Jeremy Bamber really did receive a telephone call from his father stating what he alleged why would he be phoning JM?
You are doing it again; you are putting the emphasis on JM.
Neville allegedly called Jeremy. The responsibility of that call therefore lay with Jeremy. Only he was privy to the alleged call, it's content and any inflection
Anyway, I thought you suggested in previous posts that Jeremy was cooling things off with Julie?
No, she wasn't a mind reader, which is why she would have asked what he meant and what had happened. She had to get out of bed to speak to him on the phone, and she knew what he'd been talking about earlier. Was he in the habit of ringing her at that time in the morning. If not, then why on earth would you just dismiss such a call?
I didn't suggest that Jeremy was cooling things off with Julie - it was Adam who said that.
-
You wouldn't want to know what they meant, particularly as they'd been talking about the killing of their family a few hours earlier? That's just weird.
Not at 3am.
-
Why do you appear to be holding JM to account for Jeremy Bambers crimes? This is clearly clouding your judgement. You are being bias and aren't looking at all angles.
How do any of us know whether or not he'd used this phrase to her before? This could have been something he told her during numerous telephone calls prior to the night of the murders.
Why on earth didn't Bamber phone 999? Why on earth didn't he get in his car and get his backside over to WHF to find out?
Quite true Stephanie, he didn't phone 999 because he had no idea how long the police would take, he wanted the police to arrive first, phoning a police station would have given him a idea how long they would take from Witham or Chelmsford.
-
No, she wasn't a mind reader, which is why she would have asked what he meant and what had happened. She had to get out of bed to speak to him on the phone, and she knew what he'd been talking about earlier. Was he in the habit of ringing her at that time in the morning. If not, then why on earth would you just dismiss such a call?
I didn't suggest that Jeremy was cooling things off with Julie - it was Adam who said that.
I said Bamber testified the relationship had been coming to a close over 6 months.
Anyway, you believe Julie shouldn't have worn a veil at the funeral & should have reacted differently when Bamber rang her at 3am.
The best thing is for Bamber not to ring Julie at 3am. He had more important things to do.
-
Why do you appear to be holding JM to account for Jeremy Bambers crimes? This is clearly clouding your judgement. You are being bias and aren't looking at all angles.
How do any of us know whether or not he'd used this phrase to her before? This could have been something he told her during numerous telephone calls prior to the night of the murders.
Why on earth didn't Bamber phone 999? Why on earth didn't he get in his car and get his backside over to WHF to find out?
I'm holding her to account for covering up his crime - assuming she told the truth in the end. I don't think I'm being biased. I've explained my reasoning for holding her to account several times.
She didn't say that he'd phoned her in the early hours before to say that it was tonight or never.
If Jeremy is telling the truth, he might have been afraid to go to the farm on his own. After all, he would have thought that Sheila had the gun and that she might shoot him.
I've also questioned why he didn't phone 999. I've also suggested that if he did ring his own home from the farm and he thought that the call could be traced re the timing of that call, he needed a reason why it took him 15 minutes or so to call the police - ie, the time it took him to get home. A reason could be that he had to find the phone directory and look up the number. You see? I'm not biased.
-
I said Bamber testified the relationship had been coming to a close over 6 months.
Anyway, you believe Julie shouldn't have worn a veil at the funeral & should have reacted differently when Bamber rang her at 3am.
The best thing is for Bamber not to ring Julie at 3am. He had more important things to do.
The point is that it wasn't me who claimed that the relationship was cooling off.
Yes, I think any normal person would have reacted differently to that phone call. The veil was a frivolous addition to a funeral outfit, which I find odd given that she apparently knew all along that he'd done it. Why did she wear the veil? It didn't hide her face.
-
No, she wasn't a mind reader, which is why she would have asked what he meant and what had happened. She had to get out of bed to speak to him on the phone, and she knew what he'd been talking about earlier. Was he in the habit of ringing her at that time in the morning. If not, then why on earth would you just dismiss such a call?
I didn't suggest that Jeremy was cooling things off with Julie - it was Adam who said that.
Why would she have asked that? Because you say she should have? You again do not appear able to be objective. You are applying your bias.
Isn't that what Jeremy Bamber suggested to the police during interview? That he dismissed the telephone call from Neville as not being important? Or words to that effect? I suggest you take your questions up with him!
My apologies re confusing Adams post with yours though you still haven't answered my numerous questions?!
-
Why would she have asked that? Because you say she should have? You again do not appear able to be objective. You are applying your bias.
Isn't that what Jeremy Bamber suggested to the police during interview? That he dismissed the telephone call from Neville as not being important? Or words to that effect? I suggest you take your questions up with him!
My apologies re confusing Adams post with yours though you still haven't answered my numerous questions?!
Why wouldn't she ask? Wouldn't you ask what happened if someone rang you in the early hours and said something was wrong?
Which of your questions haven't I answered? If I missed some posts, it's probably because you've been bickering with another member about something else.
-
I'm holding her to account for covering up his crime - assuming she told the truth in the end. I don't think I'm being biased. I've explained my reasoning for holding her to account several times.
She didn't say that he'd phoned her in the early hours before to say that it was tonight or never.
If Jeremy is telling the truth, he might have been afraid to go to the farm on his own. After all, he would have thought that Sheila had the gun and that she might shoot him.
I've also questioned why he didn't phone 999. I've also suggested that if he did ring his own home from the farm and he thought that the call could be traced re the timing of that call, he needed a reason why it took him 15 minutes or so to call the police - ie, the time it took him to get home. A reason could be that he had to find the phone directory and look up the number. You see? I'm not biased.
Bamber said he got Nevill's call at 3.10am. He said he rang Chelmsford police at 3.36am.
It doesn't take 26 minutes to look up the number of the 5th furthest away police station.
-
The point is that it wasn't me who claimed that the relationship was cooling off.
Yes, I think any normal person would have reacted differently to that phone call. The veil was a frivolous addition to a funeral outfit, which I find odd given that she apparently knew all along that he'd done it. Why did she wear the veil? It didn't hide her face.
No but you have referred to her as his jilted ex! In other words a scorned women who was believed by the police thus Bamber was arrested and charged with murder in the first place.
What is your definition of normal? If my boyfriend telephoned me at 3am I wouldn't answer the phone. Or if I did and he told me tonight was the night I'd think wt.. and go back to bed too.
Why did Jeremy Bamber dye his hair and wear make up? Where did he get the energy from considering he was "grief stricken?!"
Sunglasses also don't hide a persons face but people still wear them to hide behind.
-
Which of your questions haven't I answered? If I missed some posts, it's probably because you've been bickering with another member about something else.
Ooh interesting ;)
-
Why wouldn't she ask? Wouldn't you ask what happened if someone rang you in the early hours and said something was wrong?
Which of your questions haven't I answered? If I missed some posts, it's probably because you've been bickering with another member about something else.
Why can't the same be applied to Jeremy? Why didn't he interrupt Nevill's -alleged- call at silly o'clock, to ask questions?
-
Ooh interesting ;)
Why is that? What questions haven't I answered?
-
No but you have referred to her as his jilted ex! In other words a scorned women who was believed by the police thus Bamber was arrested and charged with murder in the first place.
What is your definition of normal? If my boyfriend telephoned me at 3am I wouldn't answer the phone. Or if I did and he told me tonight was the night I'd think wt.. and go back to bed too.
Why did Jeremy Bamber dye his hair and wear make up? Where did he get the energy from considering he was "grief stricken?!"
Sunglasses also don't hide a persons face but people still wear them to hide behind.
Well she was jilted eventually - just before she went to the police. I haven't said that she made the story up because of it though.
Your boyfriend wouldn't have told you a few hours before that he was going to have his family killed that night would he? If he had, would you still think wtf?
It's my opinion that they were both playing to the gallery at the funeral. They knew the press would be there. That doesn't necessarily point to his guilt though.
-
Bamber said he got Nevill's call at 3.10am. He said he rang Chelmsford police at 3.36am.
It doesn't take 26 minutes to look up the number of the 5th furthest away police station.
I realise that, but he needed some kind of reason why he didn't phone the police straightaway didn't he?
You appear to be defending him now.
-
I'm holding her to account for covering up his crime - assuming she told the truth in the end. I don't think I'm being biased. I've explained my reasoning for holding her to account several times..
Now you are just being silly
Jeremy Bambers crimes weren't covered up. He was arrested charged and found guilty in a court of law!
-
I realise that, but he needed some kind of reason why he didn't phone the police straightaway didn't he?
You appear to be defending him now.
No it's you who appears to be defending him now
-
I realise that, but he needed some kind of reason why he didn't phone the police straightaway didn't he?
You appear to be defending him now.
Defending him. I am asking what he did for 26 minutes.
-
Defending him. I am asking what he did for 26 minutes.
Why don't you tell me why he didn't ring 999 - in your opinion.
Also, are you saying that he rang the police at 3.36? If so, he can't be guilty, right?
-
Well she was jilted eventually - just before she went to the police. I haven't said that she made the story up because of it though.
Your boyfriend wouldn't have told you a few hours before that he was going to have his family killed that night would he? If he had, would you still think wtf?
It's my opinion that they were both playing to the gallery at the funeral. They knew the press would be there. That doesn't necessarily point to his guilt though.
She wasn't jilted & certainly not bothered about the spilt.
But appreciate this is the only reason Bamber has given for Julie saying he murdered his family.
-
Why don't you tell me why he didn't ring 999 - in your opinion.
Also, are you saying that he rang the police at 3.36? If so, he can't be guilty, right?
He's saying he rang Chelmsford police at 3.36am.
There is no reason to not dial 999.
-
He's saying he rang Chelmsford police at 3.36am.
There is no reason to not dial 999.
Yes, but the police say he rang earlier than that - at 3.26.
-
Why is that?
Which of your questions haven't I answered? If I missed some posts, it's probably because you've been bickering with another member about something else.
Maybe you'd like to explain what you meant by this
-
Yes, but the police say he rang earlier than that - at 3.26.
So you think Bamber was wrong ?
What was Bamber doing for 16 minutes between 3.10am & 3.26am ?
-
Why don't you tell me why he didn't ring 999 - in your opinion.
Also, are you saying that he rang the police at 3.36? If so, he can't be guilty, right?
He didn't telephone 999 because he didn't receive a call from Nevill in the first place, he knew there was no rush and no emergency because they were all dead at the Farm, and the interlude gave him the chance to clean up, telephone Julie to hint at malfeasance and get his story straight for the onslaught to follow.
-
So you think Bamber was wrong ?
What was Bamber doing for 16 minutes between 3.10am & 3.26am ?
I think that he must have phoned at 3.26 because the first car was dispatched before 3.36.
What was he doing? Assuming that he called his own house at 3.10, he was probably cycling back to his house. If he's not guilty, I don't know what he was doing - looking up the phone number for the police? Phoning Julie?
-
I think that he must have phoned at 3.26 because the first car was dispatched before 3.36.
What was he doing? Assuming that he called his own house at 3.10, he was probably cycling back to his house. If he's not guilty, I don't know what he was doing - looking up the phone number for the police? Phoning Julie?
He said he phoned Julie after the police.
-
I think that he must have phoned at 3.26 because the first car was dispatched before 3.36.
What was he doing? Assuming that he called his own house at 3.10, he was probably cycling back to his house. If he's not guilty, I don't know what he was doing - looking up the phone number for the police? Phoning Julie?
Now you appear to be contradicting yourself from what you've posted in the past?
-
He said he phoned Julie after the police.
Actually, he didn't call the police at 3.26, that was when Malcolm Bonnet received the call from PC West, so Jeremy would have spoken to PC West earlier than that.
-
Now you appear to be contradicting yourself from what you've posted in the past?
How so?
-
Actually, he didn't call the police at 3.26, that was when Malcolm Bonnet received the call from PC West, so Jeremy would have spoken to PC West earlier than that.
Really ? It's always been 3.26am. Until Bamber said it was 3.36am 25 years later.
-
How so?
quote author=Kaldin link=topic=666.msg17081#msg17081 date=1303203255]
I've said I'm on the fence about it all, and that's true because there is nothing to convince me one way or another which one did it, and I'm still waiting for that one thing which will tell me who did it.
X
If I go on instinct though, I find it hard to believe that Jeremy did it. I don't know him obviously but from what I've read and heard, he sounds like the sort of person who always took the path of least resistance. I simply can't imagine him getting his hands dirty. All this stuff about him allegedly cycling through the darkness and mud to the farm, shooting the family - some of them face to face, just seems out of character - he sounds far too lazy to do that kind of thing.
[/quote]
I think that he must have phoned at 3.26 because the first car was dispatched before 3.36.
What was he doing? Assuming that he called his own house at 3.10, he was probably cycling back to his house. If he's not guilty, I don't know what he was doing - looking up the phone number for the police? Phoning Julie?
There are numerous other examples but you appear to have changed stance re him cycling home being one such point
-
Really ? It's always been 3.26am. Until Bamber said it was 3.36am 25 years later.
No, the time that Bonnet received the call from PC West was 3.26. That's not when Jeremy phoned the police.
-
quote author=Kaldin link=topic=666.msg17081#msg17081 date=1303203255]
I've said I'm on the fence about it all, and that's true because there is nothing to convince me one way or another which one did it, and I'm still waiting for that one thing which will tell me who did it.
X
If I go on instinct though, I find it hard to believe that Jeremy did it. I don't know him obviously but from what I've read and heard, he sounds like the sort of person who always took the path of least resistance. I simply can't imagine him getting his hands dirty. All this stuff about him allegedly cycling through the darkness and mud to the farm, shooting the family - some of them face to face, just seems out of character - he sounds far too lazy to do that kind of thing.
I'm simply looking at both scenarios - ie, Jeremy guilty and Jeremy innocent. I think that's clear in my post.
-
quote author=Kaldin link=topic=666.msg17081#msg17081 date=1303203255]
I've said I'm on the fence about it all, and that's true because there is nothing to convince me one way or another which one did it, and I'm still waiting for that one thing which will tell me who did it.
X
If I go on instinct though, I find it hard to believe that Jeremy did it. I don't know him obviously but from what I've read and heard, he sounds like the sort of person who always took the path of least resistance. I simply can't imagine him getting his hands dirty. All this stuff about him allegedly cycling through the darkness and mud to the farm, shooting the family - some of them face to face, just seems out of character - he sounds far too lazy to do that kind of thing.
There are numerous other examples but you appear to have changed stance re him cycling home being one such point
Kaldin ignores the published forensic evidence.
To be fair, all supporters do.
-
Kaldin ignores the published forensic evidence.
To be fair, all supporters do.
I haven't ignored it at all - please indicate where I've done that.
-
No, the time that Bonnet received the call from PC West was 3.26. That's not when Jeremy phoned the police.
The police say they received a call from Bamber at 3.26am. Bamber says he phoned them at 3.36am.
26 or 16 minutes. Neither can be accounted for.
-
I haven't ignored it at all - please indicate where I've done that.
I posted it earlier in the week while you were posting.
There is no harm in saying you would have acted differently to Julie. Obviously claiming Bamber could be innocent is not plausible.
-
The police say they received a call from Bamber at 3.26am. Bamber says he phoned them at 3.36am.
26 or 16 minutes. Neither can be accounted for.
PC West said he received a call from Jeremy at 3.26 - that was after he wrote down 3.36 of course, so is he sure what time it was?
I doubt very much that PC West could have got all the info he needed out of Jeremy and phoned Malcolm in the space of one minute. Mr Bonnet wrote down that the call from PC West was at 3.26.
Jeremy said he received a call from Nevill at about 3.10, not 3.10 exactly.
-
I posted it earlier in the week while you were posting.
There is no harm in saying you would have acted differently to Julie. Obviously claiming Bamber could be innocent is not plausible.
You'll have to remind me of the forensic evidence which I allegedly ignored. I'm sure you can remember it.
-
Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA
Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER.
No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - BAMBER
No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Bamber/Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries - Not disputed - FORUM.
Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - ACCEPTED FACT.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES. .
Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE.
Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER.
Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - 20 SOURCES IN THE LIBRARY.
No better massacre weapon options - Not disputed - FORUM.
Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.
Items around the kitchen window being moved after housekeeper had left - Not disputed - WILKES'S BOOK.
Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS.
June not waking/getting shot in bed - Not disputed - COA.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER.
2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.
The twins not waking - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COURT OF APPEAL.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.
Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.
Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.
June & the twins not waking - Not disputed - COA.
The found hacksaw - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Execution period 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER
-
Not that wretched list again. You'll have to be more concise and explain the evidence more clearly. I've addressed some of the points, but I don't have all day to go through each one.
-
Not that wretched list again. You'll have to be more concise and explain the evidence more clearly. I've addressed some of the points, but I don't have all day to go through each one.
You addressed one.
Well I've given the sources. You can investigate further if you want.
Julie not doing anything for 20 days doesn't negate this.
-
You addressed one.
Well I've given the sources. You can investigate further if you want.
Julie not doing anything for 20 days doesn't negate this.
Bring up each point in turn and I'll address it.
Julie not doing anything for one month shows that she covered up the crime.
-
Bring up each point in turn and I'll address it.
Julie not doing anything for one month shows that she covered up the crime.
100% couldnt be clearer
-
Julie not doing anything for one month shows that she covered up the crime.
100% couldnt be clearer
Which by default shows you both know Jeremy Bamber to be guilty!
-
Which by default shows you both know Jeremy Bamber to be guilty!
Obviously, I'm talking from the viewpoint that she's telling the truth. If she's not, then that will involve a lot more research to find out where she got the story from.
-
Which by default shows you both know Jeremy Bamber to be guilty!
Yes the Defence never has got round that one sufficiently for my liking. They have to pussyfoot round the evidence, portray her as a wicked woman whilst somehow bestowing exalted status on a mass murderer and con man.
-
Yes the Defence never have got round that one sufficiently for my liking. They have to pussyfoot round the evidence, portray her as a wicked woman whilst somehow bestowing exalted status on a mass murderer and con man.
What Jeremy Bamber did to JM is all here https://www.facebook.com/notes/psychopaths-rule-the-world/gaslighting-crazy-making-and-the-reversive-blockade-techniques-of-the-psychopath/268145193228876/
-
Obviously, I'm talking from the viewpoint that she's telling the truth. If she's not, then that will involve a lot more research to find out where she got the story from.
Oh don't trouble yourself now the nights are drawing in. Like that household cleaning product commercial David has done all the hard work so you don't have to.
-
Oh don't trouble yourself now the nights are drawing in. Like that household cleaning product commercial David has done all the hard work so you don't have to.
Naughty! :))
There's a lot of stuff to consider - don't you agree? There's no point just accepting things at face value - attention to detail is important.
-
What Jeremy Bamber did to JM is all here https://www.facebook.com/notes/psychopaths-rule-the-world/gaslighting-crazy-making-and-the-reversive-blockade-techniques-of-the-psychopath/268145193228876/
No it's not - that's just a general article.
-
No it's not - that's just a general article.
Naughty! :))
There's a lot of stuff to consider - don't you agree? There's no point just accepting things at face value - attention to detail is important.
If attention to detail is important as you suggest why then did you miss the fact that the link to which I posted and you referred are taken from numerous articles.
Did you read the following?
"The Reversive Blockade:
Emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between the truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method... Use of this method can be included within the [previously] mentioned special psychological knowledge developed by psychopaths concerning the weaknesses of human nature and the art of leading others into error.
– Andrew Lobaczewski, Political Ponerology
-
If attention to detail is important as you suggest why then did you miss the fact that the link to which I posted and you referred are taken from numerous articles.
Did you read the following?
"The Reversive Blockade:
Emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between the truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method... Use of this method can be included within the [previously] mentioned special psychological knowledge developed by psychopaths concerning the weaknesses of human nature and the art of leading others into error.
– Andrew Lobaczewski, Political Ponerology
The article you posted isn't about Jeremy Bamber and Julie Mugford though. You're just guessing what their relationship was like.
-
This is being done constantly. Supporters are determined to put the gun in Julie's hand by whatever means possible.
I guess it's down to the varying personality types Jane ::)
-
The article you posted isn't about Jeremy Bamber and Julie Mugford though. You're just guessing what their relationship was like.
No guesswork required, you only need refer to David's posts on the subject matter.
Personality disordered individuals possess varying personality traits which become predictable over a period of time; especially if you know what to look for.
It's clear JM was another victim of Jeremy Bamber's!
-
No guesswork required, you only need refer to David's posts on the subject matter.
Personality disordered individuals possess varying personality traits which become predictable over a period of time; especially if you know what to look for.
Why would I refer to David's posts?
There's no evidence that Jeremy is a psychopath anyway.
-
I guess it's down to the varying personality types Jane ::)
It feels like it's hoped that by condemning Julie, it'll shift attention away from Jeremy's guilt.
-
Not that wretched list again. You'll have to be more concise and explain the evidence more clearly. I've addressed some of the points, but I don't have all day to go through each one.
Gish Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop) is Adams 'debate' strategy.
-
No guesswork required, you only need refer to David's posts on the subject matter.
Personality disordered individuals possess varying personality traits which become predictable over a period of time; especially if you know what to look for.
It's clear JM was another victim of Jeremy Bamber's!
I'd like to think that and I still probably do. The problem I have is the collateral damage left in the relationship's wake. When I compare it to Suzette Ford for example she seemed to walk away unscathed, though of course Jeremy hadn't yet begun his musings on the killings, which to my mind were inchoate in Autumn 1984, germinated throughout his association with her and should have been derailed before execution.
I forgive her because I know what teaching practice is like (Maggie may or may not forgive me for mentioning) and I have to accept that she was in love, as a 20-year-old is entitled to be.
-
Gish Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop) is Adams 'debate' strategy.
It's not Adam posting Gish gallop
-
The man killed 5 members of his family, including two six year old's while they slept, simply because he could wait for his inheritance.
What evidence do you have to support this? And don't shift the burden or give a cheap answer like 'cuz he's guilty' or 'his story iz bollox' I would like some tangible evidence please.
-
It's not Adam posting Gish gallop
He is. He needs to break that list down and be more specific.
-
What evidence do you have to support this? And don't shift the burden or give a cheap answer like 'cuz he's guilty' or 'his story iz bollox' I would like some tangible evidence please.
There is no smoking gun, but there is a whole host of circumstantial evidence regarding Jeremy's relationship with his parents, the true nature of which he is still in denial over after 32 years, the provisions of the will, his bitter state of mind over the period as related by Julie, his proficiency in firearms, his materialistic nature and desperation to impress others by money to compensate for his inadequacy, and the combination of circumstances which accrued, including Sheila's illness, Nevill's infirmity, the lightning strike and the occasion of all the family assembled under the one roof, making as Julie reported that the crime would be "now or never".
-
There is no smoking gun, but there is a whole host of circumstantial evidence regarding Jeremy's relationship with his parents, the true nature of which he is still in denial over after 32 years, the provisions of the will, his bitter state of mind over the period as related by Julie, his proficiency in firearms, his materialistic nature and desperation to impress others by money to compensate for his inadequacy, and the combination of circumstances which accrued, including Sheila's illness, Nevill's infirmity, the lightning strike and the occasion of all the family assembled under the one roof, making as Julie reported that the crime would be "now or never".
That is all very circumstantial, and a lot of it could just as easily apply to Sheila. A lot of it is just the opinion of others who perhaps didn't know him very well anyway.
I thought you would bring up the issue of the silencer, which is at least slightly more in the line of hard evidence.
-
He is. He needs to break that list down and be more specific.
Specific. You are just making excuses so you can focus on Julie wearing a veil at the funeral or taking 20 days before telling someone.
As you know, each piece has at least one source.
David won't even say what his one piece of evidence from 18 months ago is. Which he somehow found himself.
-
That is all very circumstantial, and a lot of it could just as easily apply to Sheila. A lot of it is just the opinion of others who perhaps didn't know him very well anyway.
I thought you would bring up the issue of the silencer, which is at least slightly more in the line of hard evidence.
Well forensics is not my strong point, but to get Sheila's blood as far down into the baffles as it travelled to mimic the firing of the murder weapon would be an art in itself, not to mention the risk the individuals themselves were taking should their involvement in criminal activity of this kind ever have transpired.
-
Specific. You are just making excuses so you can focus on Julie wearing a veil at the funeral or taking 20 days before telling someone.
David won't even say what his one piece of evidence from 18 months ago is. Which he somehow found himself.
It's no use bombarding me with a vague list of "evidence". You have to back it up and concentrate on one issue at a time.
-
It's no use bombarding me with a vague list of "evidence". You have to back it up and concentrate on one issue at a time.
Vague list. Each piece has a source. Most several.
Some pieces have been discussed on here. Supporters claiming the published evidence is wrong. Meaning there was an industrial frame & Bamber is the unluckiest man ever.
-
Vague list. Each piece has a source. Most several.
Some pieces have been discussed on here. Supporters claiming the published evidence is wrong. Meaning there was an industrial frame & Bamber is the unluckiest man ever.
So discuss them one at a time then. I can't go through that whole list all at once.
-
So discuss them one at a time then. I can't go through that whole list all at once.
Already have for most of them. You have been a member longer than me so should have read them.
You need to decide whether Bamber is guilty or whether there was an industrial frame.
Focusing on Julie for not being interested in Bamber's 3am call is not a reason for being 'on the fence'.
-
I do despair of members who are on the fence..
-
Already have for most of them. You have been a member longer than me so should have read them.
You need to decide whether Bamber is guilty or whether there was an industrial frame.
Focusing on Julie for not being interested in Bamber's 3am call is not a reason for being 'on the fence'.
There are many reasons that I'm on the fence, and I've only discussed that phone call recently. I don't need to decide anything just to suit you. If I'm undecided, I'm undecided. If you can convince me that Jeremy is guilty with no chance of any alternative, feel free to try.
I might have been a member here for a long time, but I didn't read the forum or post for about six years.
-
I do despair of members who are on the fence..
Why? If you've decided that he's guilty why are you discussing it on here anyway?
-
Why? If you've decided that he's guilty why are you discussing it on here anyway?
Because there are some intelligent people here on both sides. It's none of your business anyway..
-
Because there are some intelligent people here on both sides. It's none of your business anyway..
Me being on the fence is none of your business either, but you chose to remark on it.
-
Me being on the fence is none of your business either, but you chose to remark on it.
I didn't know you were. Very sorry to cause offence.
-
There is no smoking gun, but there is a whole host of circumstantial evidence regarding Jeremy's relationship with his parents, the true nature of which he is still in denial over after 32 years, the provisions of the will, his bitter state of mind over the period as related by Julie, his proficiency in firearms, his materialistic nature and desperation to impress others by money to compensate for his inadequacy, and the combination of circumstances which accrued, including Sheila's illness, Nevill's infirmity, the lightning strike and the occasion of all the family assembled under the one roof, making as Julie reported that the crime would be "now or never".
Half of this is based on your assumptions while the other half is based on the word of a proven liar.
Now lets look at credible circumstantial evidence against Sheila.
the circumstance: of the re-admission was that Mr. Neville BAMBER ‘phoned
the hospital requesting that she be re-admitted urgently due to
deterioration of her mental state.
Sheila was found to be psychotic and this time thought that her boyfriend
Fredey was the devil.
See Dr Furgusons statements
Sheila had a violent and short temper
I would say that Sheila had a very quick and violent temper.
See F Ahami statements
People would not feel safe around her while having a psychotic episode.
I was in fear for my personal safety.
See F Ahami statements
Sheila had mentioned killing people
"All People Are Bad And Should Be Killed"
See notes of DS Jones/Barbra Wilson
Sheila was suicidal
She asked if I had ever thought of killing myself, and that she had contemplated suicide on more than one occassion
See statements of Helen Grimster
RC was once sent out to take the twins away from her because she might harm them.
-
I didn't know you were. Very sorry to cause offence.
That's OK. :)
-
Half of this is based on your assumptions while the other half is based on the word of a proven liar.
Now lets look at credible circumstantial evidence against Sheila.
the circumstance: of the re-admission was that Mr. Neville BAMBER ‘phoned
the hospital requesting that she be re-admitted urgently due to
deterioration of her mental state.
Sheila was found to be psychotic and this time thought that her boyfriend
Fredey was the devil.
See Dr Furgusons statements
Sheila had a violent and short temper
I would say that Sheila had a very quick and violent temper.
See F Ahami statements
People would not feel safe around her while having a psychotic episode.
I was in fear for my personal safety.
See F Ahami statements
Sheila had mentioned killing people
"All People Are Bad And Should Be Killed"
See notes of DS Jones/Barbra Wilson
Sheila was suicidal
She asked if I had ever thought of killing myself, and that she had contemplated suicide on more than one occassion
See statements of Helen Grimster
RC was once sent out to take the twins away from her because she might harm them.
David I'm sorry but we have focussed on Sheila and her illness ad nauseum recently and she has been crucified for suffering from an illness through no fault of her own. Why not add "all people are bad and should be killed" whilst you're about it?
The whole point why Jeremy Bamber expressed the view that this was a perfect crime was because he saw what a fragile state she was in those last few months and realized he could use her as a scapegoat to start anew, though five people had to die for him to accomplish that end.
-
It feels like it's hoped that by condemning Julie, it'll shift attention away from Jeremy's guilt.
think that's referred to blame shifting tactics - which we all know Jeremy Bamber attempted to do, and failed, in order to get away with his crimes.
There's a wealth of material on the www now regarding personality disorders and the like but I would encourage posters to read/listen to the work of H G Tudor - who is a self confessed "greater elite narcissist."
This is an interview with the man himself https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0zFlKwaf9oo - a good starting point imo
-
Further re Blame Shifting courtesy of H G Tudor
"The fact for so long you had no idea what you were dealing with resulted in you engaging in an anticipated behaviour. This behaviour is one which we regularly rely on in order to keep you in the dark. I have made mention of the various traits which we look for in those who make the most useful victims to us. One of those traits concerns your ability to try to find the good in everyone and everything. This is a typical empathic trait and along with all of the others which you possess causes you to flare up on our radar when we are seeking an excellent primary source. Your desire to see good means that it obscures your ability to see the bad or perhaps more accurately, to accept the bad. This is something we desire because it prevents you from truly recognising what it is that is happening to you once your devaluation has begun. We of course love to operate from a position of plausible deniability, we court ambiguity since we enjoy and need to twist and turn in order to achieve what we want. If you saw everything as stark and clear as I now describe our machinations to you, you would be more inclined to escape us and bring about that unwelcome cessation of our primary source of fuel. It would also make it harder to apply those hoovers when we wish to return you to the fold and have you engage in our cyclical endeavours once again. We present you with the truth of what we are on a repeated basis but although we offer it up in front of you, we never let you see it clearly. We draw a veil across certain elements, apply a smoke screen, obscure some parts and distort others. The reality is there before you. It is evident and plain but because of the way in which we purposefully manipulate you, you are unable to see it. It is akin to us pointing out a ship on the horizon. It is obvious for us to see but when we hand you a telescope to gain a better look at this vessel, the lens has been smeared with something which distorts the view, or we place our finger over part of the lens blocking your view.
The consequence of this distortion is to prevent you from truly seeing what we are. This in turn means that you are unable to form a clear and coherent view of the person which has taken hold of you. This becomes infuriating for others who we have not been able to drag into our façade, but who recognise full well what we are. These observers tell you what you are dealing with. They may be circumspect to begin with, hoping not to offend your sensibilities but over time their increasing exasperation causes them to come out and say it straight. Yet, such candour rarely finds favour with you because you do not like to be told something about someone as wonderful as us (or at least someone who was wonderful). You do not like to think that the golden period has gone. You do not like to be deprived of the idea that what you once had will never come back or even that it did not exist to begin with. Most of the reasons why you think like this is as a consequence of our manipulative behaviour, which further goes to underline that it is not your fault. Even your desire to see the good in people is not your fault either. That is who you are. We know that and we exploit it. It is our fault again but of course in the midst of the battle that we engage in with you, we will never admit that anything is our fault. That will never do.
Thus, your view of us is obscured and because of this you will always issue excuses to explain away our behaviour, our words and our actions. You make these excuses time and time again, to others and to yourselves. You believe these excuses because this is how you think and you have been led towards this train of thought by the schooling you have received at our manipulative hands and mouths. You also utilise these excuses to continue to convince yourself that the unsavoury elements of our behaviour are just an aberration, an occasional blip in respect of an otherwise magnificent person. Your charity is amazing and naturally most welcome for through this blinkered approach you divest us of responsibility for the things we do, something which aligns with one of our many stated aims. You prevent yourself from examining further the reality of what has now ensnared you and the repeated application of these excuses keeps you in situ. We want you to utilise these excuses. We want to hear them. We want them said to us and to others. Your excuses frustrate and alienate those who are against us, your excuses support our manufactured façade and most of all they ensure you deny to yourself that which is directly before you. Here are twenty-five of those such excuses. You will have said them and probably more than once. Understand that each time you utter one you have used a further death knell for your prospects of escaping us.
He is just tired; it makes him snap.
He doesn’t mean it, not really.
You don’t have to pretend with me, I just want you to be yourself.
He has a lot on his mind at the moment.
Work is particularly stressful for him.
He sometimes has a bit too much to drink, but hey, who hasn’t been there?
I think perhaps I am too harsh on him at times, it is my fault really.
He is in a bad place but he will come through it.
He is a complex person; you don’t understand him like I do
It is just the way he is; I have got used to it.
I know it seems bad but he does so much that is lovely; this is only a small part of what he is like.
Nobody knows him properly, that’s why you think bad of him.
He is a popular guy so he is always going to have women hitting on him.
He has a temper, I know, but that’s part of what he is and it’s not for us to change him.
I need to be more supportive and then he will be better.
He’s not well at the moment but I will help him get through it, you will see.
You’ve only heard one side of the story; he is not like that at all.
Yes, well, his family would say that about him to cover up what they did to him.
All he needs is to be loved and I am the one who is going to do that for him.
You don’t know what you are saying anymore, it is okay, I do understand.
It was a one-off, it won’t happen again.
I know it was wrong but this time he has promised that he won’t do it anymore.
You don’t understand the way that me and him are together.
You are just jealous of what we have. Why can’t you be pleased for us, for my sake?
I’m sorry, it was my fault
https://narcsite.com/category/blame-shifting/
Julie Mugfords view was obscured, to her detriment, until the penny finally dropped and she came out of the FOG - fear, obligation, guilt
-
Further re Blame Shifting courtesy of H G Tudor
The fact for so long you had no idea what you were dealing with resulted in you engaging in an anticipated behaviour. This behaviour is one which we regularly rely on in order to keep you in the dark. I have made mention of the various traits which we look for in those who make the most useful victims to us. One of those traits concerns your ability to try to find the good in everyone and everything. This is a typical empathic trait and along with all of the others which you possess causes you to flare up on our radar when we are seeking an excellent primary source. Your desire to see good means that it obscures your ability to see the bad or perhaps more accurately, to accept the bad. This is something we desire because it prevents you from truly recognising what it is that is happening to you once your devaluation has begun. We of course love to operate from a position of plausible deniability, we court ambiguity since we enjoy and need to twist and turn in order to achieve what we want. If you saw everything as stark and clear as I now describe our machinations to you, you would be more inclined to escape us and bring about that unwelcome cessation of our primary source of fuel. It would also make it harder to apply those hoovers when we wish to return you to the fold and have you engage in our cyclical endeavours once again. We present you with the truth of what we are on a repeated basis but although we offer it up in front of you, we never let you see it clearly. We draw a veil across certain elements, apply a smoke screen, obscure some parts and distort others. The reality is there before you. It is evident and plain but because of the way in which we purposefully manipulate you, you are unable to see it. It is akin to us pointing out a ship on the horizon. It is obvious for us to see but when we hand you a telescope to gain a better look at this vessel, the lens has been smeared with something which distorts the view, or we place our finger over part of the lens blocking your view.
The consequence of this distortion is to prevent you from truly seeing what we are. This in turn means that you are unable to form a clear and coherent view of the person which has taken hold of you. This becomes infuriating for others who we have not been able to drag into our façade, but who recognise full well what we are. These observers tell you what you are dealing with. They may be circumspect to begin with, hoping not to offend your sensibilities but over time their increasing exasperation causes them to come out and say it straight. Yet, such candour rarely finds favour with you because you do not like to be told something about someone as wonderful as us (or at least someone who was wonderful). You do not like to think that the golden period has gone. You do not like to be deprived of the idea that what you once had will never come back or even that it did not exist to begin with. Most of the reasons why you think like this is as a consequence of our manipulative behaviour, which further goes to underline that it is not your fault. Even your desire to see the good in people is not your fault either. That is who you are. We know that and we exploit it. It is our fault again but of course in the midst of the battle that we engage in with you, we will never admit that anything is our fault. That will never do.
Thus, your view of us is obscured and because of this you will always issue excuses to explain away our behaviour, our words and our actions. You make these excuses time and time again, to others and to yourselves. You believe these excuses because this is how you think and you have been led towards this train of thought by the schooling you have received at our manipulative hands and mouths. You also utilise these excuses to continue to convince yourself that the unsavoury elements of our behaviour are just an aberration, an occasional blip in respect of an otherwise magnificent person. Your charity is amazing and naturally most welcome for through this blinkered approach you divest us of responsibility for the things we do, something which aligns with one of our many stated aims. You prevent yourself from examining further the reality of what has now ensnared you and the repeated application of these excuses keeps you in situ. We want you to utilise these excuses. We want to hear them. We want them said to us and to others. Your excuses frustrate and alienate those who are against us, your excuses support our manufactured façade and most of all they ensure you deny to yourself that which is directly before you. Here are twenty-five of those such excuses. You will have said them and probably more than once. Understand that each time you utter one you have used a further death knell for your prospects of escaping us.
He is just tired; it makes him snap.
He doesn’t mean it, not really.
You don’t have to pretend with me, I just want you to be yourself.
He has a lot on his mind at the moment.
Work is particularly stressful for him.
He sometimes has a bit too much to drink, but hey, who hasn’t been there?
I think perhaps I am too harsh on him at times, it is my fault really.
He is in a bad place but he will come through it.
He is a complex person; you don’t understand him like I do
It is just the way he is; I have got used to it.
I know it seems bad but he does so much that is lovely; this is only a small part of what he is like.
Nobody knows him properly, that’s why you think bad of him.
He is a popular guy so he is always going to have women hitting on him.
He has a temper, I know, but that’s part of what he is and it’s not for us to change him.
I need to be more supportive and then he will be better.
He’s not well at the moment but I will help him get through it, you will see.
You’ve only heard one side of the story; he is not like that at all.
Yes, well, his family would say that about him to cover up what they did to him.
All he needs is to be loved and I am the one who is going to do that for him.
You don’t know what you are saying anymore, it is okay, I do understand.
It was a one-off, it won’t happen again.
I know it was wrong but this time he has promised that he won’t do it anymore.
You don’t understand the way that me and him are together.
You are just jealous of what we have. Why can’t you be pleased for us, for my sake?
I’m sorry, it was my fault
https://narcsite.com/category/blame-shifting/
Julie Mugfords view was obscured, to her detriment, until the penny finally dropped and she came out of the FOG...
Stop diluting the topic with unrelated or meaningless material.
Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion.
-
oh dear we are back in the world of psycho babble.
-
David I'm sorry but we have focussed on Sheila and her illness ad nauseum recently and she has been crucified for suffering from an illness through no fault of her own. Why not add "all people are bad and should be killed" whilst you're about it?
The whole point why Jeremy Bamber expressed the view that this was a perfect crime was because he saw what a fragile state she was in those last few months and realized he could use her as a scapegoat to start anew, though five people had to die for him to accomplish that end.
well if sheila did it then her islness would be the couse of her doing it so you have to focus on it.
-
David I'm sorry but we have focussed on Sheila and her illness ad nauseum recently and she has been crucified for suffering from an illness through no fault of her own. Why not add "all people are bad and should be killed" whilst you're about it?
The whole point why Jeremy Bamber expressed the view that this was a perfect crime was because he saw what a fragile state she was in those last few months and realized he could use her as a scapegoat to start anew, though five people had to die for him to accomplish that end.
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
-
Carol Ann Lee's book says Brett gave a solo interview with The Sun - 'Bambi, police blaming my pal Jeremy'. This was before Bamber was charged.
The following week Brett rang up Michael Fielder & both Bamber & Brett met him.
Fielder is on tape saying Bamber offerred smutty photo's of Sheila which he never saw. Fielder was willing to testify such although Nugs said yesterday he was only willing to testify because he knew he wouldn't be called ? !
Carol Ann Lee said that according to both Colin Caffell & Sheila's freind the photos did exist, and that Bamber wanted over £20,000p for them & his life story.
Bamber's meeting with Fielder was either his idea, after finding out what Brett had done & realising he could do the same thing for money. Or it was Brett's idea & Bamber agreed. Probably a combination of the two.
It seems Brett wasn't so shy prior to Bamber being charged but completely disappeared afterwards.
Hopefully a copy of the Sun's interview with Brett will surface one day.
If either of you (David/Nugnug) bothered to actually read and absorb the posts on this thread you will both comprehend the fact that blame shifting is a well known diversion tactic used by people like Jeremy Bamber.
I am not interested in psycho babble nor indeed am I interested in your quite apparent biased attitudes towards Sheila and Julie.
It's also clear from your numerous pointless posts that the pair of you are keen to derail debate at any cost.
What is it you both wish to hide I wonder?
-
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
This is referred to as circular conversation David; I've posted a link regarding this here
Furthermore and for clarity the following is well worth a read https://narcsite.com/2017/09/22/word-salad-and-how-to-toss-it-2/
"Word salad can appear in many forms. For instance, there will be circular conversations where the topic just keeps repeating without there ever being a resolution. We will repeatedly project and we will also bring up the past (whether real or manufactured). It is common as well in this word salad to play the victim. We will make incredible leaps of logic which will make no sense to you, but make perfect sense to us because they are necessary in order to achieve our aims and to keep the upper hand. We will twist, contort and engage in all manner of spoken and written gymnastics to ensure that the effects we require or desire are achieved.
-
Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion.
Now if you were to apply the above to Jeremy Bamber and what he has publicly attempted to do over the past 32 years then yes I would agree.
-
Now if you were to apply the above to Jeremy Bamber and what he has publicly attempted to do over the past 32 years then yes I would agree.
Do you believe Bamber's supporters have fallen for the same things people did with Simon Hall ?
-
Further re Blame Shifting courtesy of H G Tudor
"The fact for so long you had no idea what you were dealing with resulted in you engaging in an anticipated behaviour. This behaviour is one which we regularly rely on in order to keep you in the dark. I have made mention of the various traits which we look for in those who make the most useful victims to us. One of those traits concerns your ability to try to find the good in everyone and everything. This is a typical empathic trait and along with all of the others which you possess causes you to flare up on our radar when we are seeking an excellent primary source. Your desire to see good means that it obscures your ability to see the bad or perhaps more accurately, to accept the bad. This is something we desire because it prevents you from truly recognising what it is that is happening to you once your devaluation has begun. We of course love to operate from a position of plausible deniability, we court ambiguity since we enjoy and need to twist and turn in order to achieve what we want. If you saw everything as stark and clear as I now describe our machinations to you, you would be more inclined to escape us and bring about that unwelcome cessation of our primary source of fuel. It would also make it harder to apply those hoovers when we wish to return you to the fold and have you engage in our cyclical endeavours once again. We present you with the truth of what we are on a repeated basis but although we offer it up in front of you, we never let you see it clearly. We draw a veil across certain elements, apply a smoke screen, obscure some parts and distort others. The reality is there before you. It is evident and plain but because of the way in which we purposefully manipulate you, you are unable to see it. It is akin to us pointing out a ship on the horizon. It is obvious for us to see but when we hand you a telescope to gain a better look at this vessel, the lens has been smeared with something which distorts the view, or we place our finger over part of the lens blocking your view.
The consequence of this distortion is to prevent you from truly seeing what we are. This in turn means that you are unable to form a clear and coherent view of the person which has taken hold of you. This becomes infuriating for others who we have not been able to drag into our façade, but who recognise full well what we are. These observers tell you what you are dealing with. They may be circumspect to begin with, hoping not to offend your sensibilities but over time their increasing exasperation causes them to come out and say it straight. Yet, such candour rarely finds favour with you because you do not like to be told something about someone as wonderful as us (or at least someone who was wonderful). You do not like to think that the golden period has gone. You do not like to be deprived of the idea that what you once had will never come back or even that it did not exist to begin with. Most of the reasons why you think like this is as a consequence of our manipulative behaviour, which further goes to underline that it is not your fault. Even your desire to see the good in people is not your fault either. That is who you are. We know that and we exploit it. It is our fault again but of course in the midst of the battle that we engage in with you, we will never admit that anything is our fault. That will never do.
Thus, your view of us is obscured and because of this you will always issue excuses to explain away our behaviour, our words and our actions. You make these excuses time and time again, to others and to yourselves. You believe these excuses because this is how you think and you have been led towards this train of thought by the schooling you have received at our manipulative hands and mouths. You also utilise these excuses to continue to convince yourself that the unsavoury elements of our behaviour are just an aberration, an occasional blip in respect of an otherwise magnificent person. Your charity is amazing and naturally most welcome for through this blinkered approach you divest us of responsibility for the things we do, something which aligns with one of our many stated aims. You prevent yourself from examining further the reality of what has now ensnared you and the repeated application of these excuses keeps you in situ. We want you to utilise these excuses. We want to hear them. We want them said to us and to others. Your excuses frustrate and alienate those who are against us, your excuses support our manufactured façade and most of all they ensure you deny to yourself that which is directly before you. Here are twenty-five of those such excuses. You will have said them and probably more than once. Understand that each time you utter one you have used a further death knell for your prospects of escaping us.
He is just tired; it makes him snap.
He doesn’t mean it, not really.
You don’t have to pretend with me, I just want you to be yourself.
He has a lot on his mind at the moment.
Work is particularly stressful for him.
He sometimes has a bit too much to drink, but hey, who hasn’t been there?
I think perhaps I am too harsh on him at times, it is my fault really.
He is in a bad place but he will come through it.
He is a complex person; you don’t understand him like I do
It is just the way he is; I have got used to it.
I know it seems bad but he does so much that is lovely; this is only a small part of what he is like.
Nobody knows him properly, that’s why you think bad of him.
He is a popular guy so he is always going to have women hitting on him.
He has a temper, I know, but that’s part of what he is and it’s not for us to change him.
I need to be more supportive and then he will be better.
He’s not well at the moment but I will help him get through it, you will see.
You’ve only heard one side of the story; he is not like that at all.
Yes, well, his family would say that about him to cover up what they did to him.
All he needs is to be loved and I am the one who is going to do that for him.
You don’t know what you are saying anymore, it is okay, I do understand.
It was a one-off, it won’t happen again.
I know it was wrong but this time he has promised that he won’t do it anymore.
You don’t understand the way that me and him are together.
You are just jealous of what we have. Why can’t you be pleased for us, for my sake?
I’m sorry, it was my fault
https://narcsite.com/category/blame-shifting/
Julie Mugfords view was obscured, to her detriment, until the penny finally dropped and she came out of the FOG - fear, obligation, guilt
In other words, psychopaths idealise, devalue then discard.
-
oh dear we are back in the world of psycho babble.
I know..and there's only me that reads them.
-
If JB is guilty then she most certainly did more than fail to report a crime. There is ample evidence, if JB is guilty, that she was an accessory/accomplice to the crime.
I feel sure that if all the dealings between EP, JM and the NOTW were revealed then we would see exposed the plotting of a frame up.
Just to add to the many who have already said, it is good to see you posting again, Kaldin.
JM failed to spot the fact she was being manipulated by an extremely dangerous, calculated and cunning individual. in other words a classic psycho!
She was quite clearly conflicted by her thoughts of "did he or didn't he" until such time that she spoke to the police.
-
JM failed to spot the fact she was being manipulated by an extremely dangerous, calculated and cunning individual. in other words a classic psycho!
She was quite clearly conflicted by her thoughts of "did he or didn't he" until such time that she spoke to the police.
Is this claim of "fact" made by someone credible, or is it just you?
-
Is this claim of "fact" made by someone credible, or is it just you?
This is just it gringo---it's so easy to paint situations with the same brush when you've gone through similar yourself. I do it myself regarding a social services team who damaged 4 of my great-grandchildren,besides the fact that they also " criminalised " the family. I truly hate the lot of them for what they did to my family and nothing that anyone says will ever convince me that such an establishment does any good.
So when you have a fixation about something or somebody,it's very very difficult to " look at the other side " of things.
-
This is just it gringo---it's so easy to paint situations with the same brush when you've gone through similar yourself. I do it myself regarding a social services team who damaged 4 of my great-grandchildren,besides the fact that they also " criminalised " the family. I truly hate the lot of them for what they did to my family and nothing that anyone says will ever convince me that such an establishment does any good.
So when you have a fixation about something or somebody,it's very very difficult to " look at the other side " of things.
I think that is what Steph is saying ;D ;D ;D
-
I think that is what Steph is saying ;D ;D ;D
I was actually referring to her when I said that.
-
I was actually referring to her when I said that.
I know, but that is what Steph is saying. You can't see the wood for the trees when you're obsessed with someone which is why she believed he for innocent etc. She isn't obsessed now and is applying what she now knows to this case and I agree 100% with her.
-
I know, but that is what Steph is saying. You can't see the wood for the trees when you're obsessed with someone which is why she believed he for innocent etc. She isn't obsessed now and is applying what she now knows to this case and I agree 100% with her.
But I'm NOT obsessed with this case at all. I am when it comes to my family's good name and can relate to how JB has been treated when it's proven he is innocent and just how desperate people can be to hang on to their jobs by jeopardising the lives of others.
-
I was actually referring to her when I said that.
Well don't!!!
I don't think like you Lookout!
-
I know, but that is what Steph is saying. You can't see the wood for the trees when you're obsessed with someone which is why she believed he for innocent etc. She isn't obsessed now and is applying what she now knows to this case and I agree 100% with her.
Exactly Caroline not unlike Julie Mugford who was obsessed by Bamber and couldn't see the wood through the trees.
-
Well don't!!!
I don't think like you Lookout!
No need to snap. Unless of course I happened to be " on your side "-------then of course you wouldn't !!
-
.
So when you have a fixation about something or somebody,it's very very difficult to " look at the other side " of things.
Both you and Gringo are projecting.
-
Both you and Gringo are projecting.
Rubbish--------it's because we think differently to you.
-
Rubbish--------it's because we think differently to you.
Haha
This is just it gringo---it's so easy to paint situations with the same brush when you've gone through similar yourself. I do it myself regarding a social services team who damaged 4 of my great-grandchildren,besides the fact that they also " criminalised " the family. I truly hate the lot of them for what they did to my family and nothing that anyone says will ever convince me that such an establishment does any good.
So when you have a fixation about something or somebody,it's very very difficult to " look at the other side " of things.
I think that is what Steph is saying ;D ;D ;D
I was actually referring to her when I said that.
I know, but that is what Steph is saying. You can't see the wood for the trees when you're obsessed with someone which is why she believed he for innocent etc. She isn't obsessed now and is applying what she now knows to this case and I agree 100% with her.
But I'm NOT obsessed with this case at all. I am when it comes to my family's good name and can relate to how JB has been treated when it's proven he is innocent and just how desperate people can be to hang on to their jobs by jeopardising the lives of others.
If you and indeed Gringo could just take your focus off me and see your "double standards" (though I actually prefer contradictions or conflicting thought ie: cognitive bias) you may both start to realise what you are quite blatantly doing.
It probably wasn't fair of me to reply to your last post by laughing but I find you so predictable.
The fact that you are quite clearly in denial and fail to recognise the error of your ways (one minute say one thing then the next say the opposite) is sad really. And sadder still that you may always think this way because "it's the way you are wired" as opposed to possessing the ability for self reflection.
-
Haha
If you and indeed Gringo could just take your focus off me and see your "double standards" (though I actually prefer contradictions or conflicting thought ie: cognitive bias) you may both start to realise what you are quite blatantly doing.
It probably wasn't fair of me to reply to your last post by laughing but I find you so predictable.
The fact that you are quite clearly in denial and fail to recognise the error of your ways (one minute say one thing then the next say the opposite) is sad really. And sadder still that you may always think this way because "it's the way you are wired" as opposed to possessing the ability for self reflection.
I did give Lookout the opportunity to PM me prior to a stance change. Posters were changing stance to guilty at a rapid rate at that time.
Lookout said 'hell would freeze over' before she changed stance. Which shows she is very rigid.
Stance changes are not uncommon, either way. David changing stance to innocent after realising the police & relatives had the opportunity to create a sick, risky & complex fabrication of one piece of evidence. Although there is no evidence they did.
Nugs has recently said he previously changed stance to guilty. Although did not say why. As a conspiracy theorist it will be to do with external factors surrounding Bamber & he has never suggested how Sheila could have committed the massacre.
-
Haha
If you and indeed Gringo could just take your focus off me and see your "double standards" (though I actually prefer contradictions or conflicting thought ie: cognitive bias) you may both start to realise what you are quite blatantly doing.
It probably wasn't fair of me to reply to your last post by laughing but I find you so predictable.
The fact that you are quite clearly in denial and fail to recognise the error of your ways (one minute say one thing then the next say the opposite) is sad really. And sadder still that you may always think this way because "it's the way you are wired" as opposed to possessing the ability for self reflection.
Believe me,my focus ISN'T on you,all I was doing was replying to your post--------so please don't make anything of it with your usual garbage.
-
If anyone's predictable-----it's you !!
-
If anyone's predictable-----it's you !!
Could have predicated you'd say that!
-
Could have predicated you'd say that!
Why,are you sorry you didn't say it yourself ?
-
JM failed to spot the fact she was being manipulated by an extremely dangerous, calculated and cunning individual. in other words a classic psycho!
She was quite clearly conflicted by her thoughts of "did he or didn't he" until such time that she spoke to the police.
Why would she be in doubt if he told her everything on 7th August? Of course, he said MM had done it, but other than that, according to her he made it clear he was responsible. Do you think she just thought he was showing off or joking, or what?
-
Why would she be in doubt if he told her everything on 7th August? Of course, he said MM had done it, but other than that, according to her he made it clear he was responsible. Do you think she just thought he was showing off or joking, or what?
I think she realized the consequences if the Police discovered the truth, she was still in love with him for her own reasons and was anxious lest her own flaws were exposed to scrutiny.
-
[/b]
I think she realized the consequences if the Police discovered the truth, she was still in love with him for her own reasons and was anxious lest her own flaws were exposed to scrutiny.
I mean why would she be thinking "did he or didn't he"?
-
I mean why would she be thinking "did he or didn't he"?
I think she knew deep down that he was the instigator, whether or not Matthew was somehow involved.
-
I think she knew deep down that he was the instigator, whether or not Matthew was somehow involved.
But he told her he was the instigator didn't he? She didn't need to know "deep down".
-
But he told her he was the instigator didn't he? She didn't need to know "deep down".
Well she had to work through the consequences, presented as she was with a fait accompli. This was a huge step up from the Osea Road break in and cannabis dealing at Goldsmiths College. I don't think she knew what was going on around her, trapped as she was in this miasma of evil.
-
I think she had become dependent on his love for the best part of two years. When Angi Greaves came onto the scene the love evaporated.
-
I think she had become dependent on his love for the best part of two years. When Angi Greaves came onto the scene the love evaporated.
I don't get where Anji Greaves came into this. Julie didn't mention her in any statements.
-
I don't get where Anji Greaves came into this. Julie didn't mention her in any statements.
With Julie being busy away from the Farm with her own career to consider she was either ignorant of or turned a blind eye to Jeremy's dalliances. Once he decided to uproot from Goldhanger to Maida Vale Julie probably thought she would be cohabiting with him there and commuting to her new school from that address. Jeremy's behaviour had changed post-murders, difficult to say why unless he had become corrupted with the huge sums he was about to inherit and with a new bachelor pad in London decided to play the field again, though this time Julie was within earshot.
-
With Julie being busy away from the Farm with her own career to consider she was either ignorant of or turned a blind eye to Jeremy's dalliances. Once he decided to uproot from Goldhanger to Maida Vale Julie probably thought she would be cohabiting with him there and commuting to her new school from that address. Jeremy's behaviour had changed post-murders, difficult to say why unless he had become corrupted with the huge sums he was about to inherit and with a new bachelor pad in London decided to play the field again, though this time Julie was within earshot.
He can't have known Anji Greaves for very long before he was arrested though.
-
He can't have known Anji Greaves for very long before he was arrested though.
He had known her a while - I believe he had previously dates her sister.
-
He can't have known Anji Greaves for very long before he was arrested though.
No I believe he had dated her sister, Virginia.
-
Julie was with Jeremy virtually all the time after the murders though. I thought she got upset about a call from Virginia Greaves, not Anji Greaves.
-
Julie was with Jeremy virtually all the time after the murders though. I thought she got upset about a call from Virginia Greaves, not Anji Greaves.
Yes it was Virginia who telephoned about accommodation for herself and Jeremy admitted to Julie he had been seeing her again, though it seems he had been seeing her sister Anji as well. It was Anji who was loyal whilst he was in custody but post-conviction I think she realized any future relationship would be doomed to failure.
-
Yes it was Virginia who telephoned about accommodation for herself and Jeremy admitted to Julie he had been seeing her again, though it seems he had been seeing her sister Anji as well. It was Anji who was loyal whilst he was in custody but post-conviction I think she realized any future relationship would be doomed to failure.
I don't really see when Jeremy had time to be seeing anyone else, and there doesn't seem much time for Anji to become so loyal to him.
-
I don't really see when Jeremy had time to be seeing anyone else, and there doesn't seem much time for Anji to become so loyal to him.
He had known Virginia since his time with Suzette and I assume met Anji through her.
-
Quite true Stephanie, he didn't phone 999 because he had no idea how long the police would take, he wanted the police to arrive first, phoning a police station would have given him a idea how long they would take from Witham or Chelmsford.
Hello Justice. Great to see you Posting again ;D
He well and truly effed up there didn't he
-
Hello Justice. Great to see you Posting again ;D
He well and truly effed up there didn't he
Ha Ha he most certainly did
Thanks Steph I’ve been away a while, been trying to catch up with posts over the last few days.
-
Ha Ha he most certainly did
Thanks Steph I’ve been away a while, been trying to catch up with posts over the last few days.
Yeah, too b****y long ;D ;D ;D................good to see you back :-*
-
A comprehensive dissection of Julies 'evidence' is below.
Sigh... Here we go again........
Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
Why was he allowed to tell this to the Jury? here's why
Jeremy's "confession"
Below is what Julie claims Jeremy confessed to her. This statement is false for two reasons. Jeremy's alleged confession of the crime as told by Julie Mugford does not correspond or coincide with the actual crime scene itself, as we all know Shelia was found on the floor not on the bed, the bible next to her also on the floor not on her chest. Had Jeremy committed the murders and given a detailed confession as Julie claims then Julies statements would corroborate the crime scene and they don't!
(http://s30.postimg.org/4co0gw6ht/mugford1.png)
The second reason Julies statement is false is because her description of Jeremy's alleged confession is exactly the same as Ann Eaton and RWB's impression of events as seen in Ann Eatons notes and RWB's diary written in August. See below
Ann Eaton's note's second line down "Shelia on bed bible on chest"
(http://s23.postimg.org/v7c6huou3/AEnotes1.png)
RWB's Diary
(http://s23.postimg.org/eegx5omrf/rwbdiary1.jpg)
So not only can we establish that Julies claims are false we can now narrow down were she actually got that information from. Either Police or Ann Eaton as Rivlin rightly told the jury.
More disturbing correlations
Windows and the Bike
In August RWB speculates that Jeremy used a bike then also in august RWB and AE speculate how Jeremy would enter the building
(http://s21.postimg.org/mc273onk7/rwbbike.png)
(http://s10.postimg.org/kmegatna1/rwbwindows.png)
Then come September the 8th Julie reveals how Jeremy "confessed" to her his method of travel and entry, exactly how RWB and AE predicted!
(http://s8.postimg.org/nc7pjvf5x/jmbikewindow.png)
The Wet suit
On the 28th of August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy used a wet suit in the murders
(http://s29.postimg.org/fu9qvz293/rwbwetsuit.png)
This then appears in Julie Mugford's diary along with the bicycle
(http://s30.postimg.org/iq197ubc1/jmwetsuitdiary.png)
The £2000.00 payment
2nd of September RWB claims Jeremy lent a friend £2000
(http://s13.postimg.org/q3t1pks7b/rwb2000.png)
Julie then claims that Jeremy paid Macdonald £2000
(http://s22.postimg.org/64wqetcg1/JM2000.png)
The Fingerprints and the gun magazine
In August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy got Shelia to load the bullets into the magazine to get her fingerprints on them.
(http://s18.postimg.org/urhcc1fgp/rwbfingerprints.jpg)
Then come September lo and behold Julie claims this is exactly what Jeremy had confessed to her.
(http://s8.postimg.org/f3y3s6tyd/jmfingerprints.png)
This is why Julies statements are completely false, Her statements have direct parallels with Ann Eaton notes and RWBs diary both of which deviate from the facts of the crime scene and contradict other factual aspects surrounding the case. Therefore Jeremy did not and could not have confessed or told her anything in her statements, it is impossible!
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record). I have shown you the trial transcripts and the very statements mentioned in those trial transcripts.
The fundamental point Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
One only has to read Julie Mugfords statements and the cross examination of Ann Eaton to workout were Julie really got those false details from in order for her to make the bogus claim that Jeremy confessed to the killings. The devil is in the details, its just a matter of putting the puzzle together.
From Julie Mugford’s statement, page 23
"I have been asked if I have read or been told about a bible found on Sheila's
chest when she was found dead. I can definitely say I haven't but it was
told to me by Jeremy. I will add that some time after the 7th August 1985,
Ann EATON asked me if I knew about a bible which was near Sheila and I told
her that I did and that it was found on her chest. I think I told her it
was creepy. I think she asked me about the bible on the Friday of the week of the murders.”
This makes no sense. If Ann Eaton had asked Julie question of the bible some time after the 7th August then Julie answers to Ann that the bible was on Sheila's chest, Then she would have asked Julie how she got that information and Julie would have had to tell her that Jeremy told her the story about Matthew MacDonald. ?
In the trial transcript below. While cross examined by Rivlin QC, at first AE said that she thought she had first heard about the bible on Sheila's chest from Julie Mugford, but Rivlin QC was setting a trap to force AE to admit she actually got that information from the police by showing her her own statement which she sais she got the information from the police at the house. Another interesting observation, is that AE seems to remember the police telling her all the details mentioned in the statement but when it comes to bible she just happens to forget. Selective memory loss at times most convenient when it comes to the big issues seems to occur often in AE. ::)
Ann Eaton trial testimony: cross examined 7th October 1986
RIVLIN. I would like to ask you another thing about Julie Mugford, and it is this
something I was going to ask you before the luncheon adjournment- there
came a stage shortly after the events when a police officer told you something
in confidence, did he not, about what had happened and what had been found?
Do you remember? He told you, amongst other things, that when 'Sheila had
been found there was a bible on her chest?
AE. I did hear there was a bible on her chest.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): Did you hear it from the policeman is the
question?
AE. I cannot remember, but I heard it whilst in Jeremy's cottage.
MR. RIVLIN: Let remind you. Is it not right that one of the police officers
told you that Uncle Nevill was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle, that the
twins were in their beds, shot?
AE. Yes.
Rivlin. That Aunt June Bamber and Sheila were both on the bed, shot, with Sheila having
a bible on her chest, with the gun beside her?
AE. Yes.
Rivlin. And is it right that shortly after that information had been imparted to you,
you had a conversation with Julie Mugford, and you told Julie that when Sheila.
had been found there had been a bible found on her chest?
AE. I really cannot remember who told me the bible was on the chest.
MR JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): That is not the question now, but it is right
you should tell us. You do not remember who told you that Sheila was found
with the bible on her chest, but the question now is, whoever it was who told
you that, did you pass that on to Julie?
AE. I do not remember. I did have a conversation with Julie about the same time.
She said to me Sheila kept saying, I thought she said she was a "white wedge", or perhaps it was a “white
witch", but I do not remember who told me that the bible was on the chest.
MR. JUSTICE Drake: I do not think we have the full answer yet, Mr. Rivlin.
MR. RIVLIN: Would you accept that it was, in fact, one of the officers who told
you that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest and the gun beside her?
AE. I cannot remember who told me the bible was on her chest, so I am saying
it could have been Julie. I cannot remember who told me.
RIVLIN. In those circumstances I think that I must show the document to the witness.
MR. JUSTICE DRAKE: What the witness just said is “it could have been Julie who
told me that" - that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest. (To the
witness): Wherereas the question you are being asked is put the other way around
That someone told you and you told Julie that she had been found with a bible
on her chest. That is the question. If you cannot answer, you cannot?
AE. I cannot remember. I just remember Julie saying something about Sheila
said she was a “white wedge", which I thought she said, but it turned out she
thought she was a "white witch", but I cannot remember who told me about the
bible.
MR. RIVLIN: Could you remember at the time who told you about the bible?
AE. I cannot remember.
RIVLIN. You made statements to the police officers, did you not, in this case, and I
would like you to look, please, at a statement which is dated 8th September
1985. (Same handed). Your signature appears on this document. Is it a
typewritten document? Does it bear your signature?
AE. No.
MR RIVLIN: I am told that the original is outside.
MR. ARLIDGE: I will have it checked with the original.
MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows:
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near
the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila
Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her
chest with the gun beside her"?
AE. Yes.
Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?
A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember
the policeman telling me Uncle Nevill was beside the coal scuttle, the twins
were in their beds, shot, Auntie June and Sheila were on the bed with the gun
between them, and I asked how they were shot, and he went like this. I do
not know who told me. I am sorry. Maybe it was a mistake. Asking me now.
I cannot remember who told me.
This is a fantastic post from Hermann over at IA
1 Julie Mugford is a proven liar.
Here's some background information from Robin Cox.
"Ann Eaton said herself in a statement that a police officer told her Sheila and June were found on the bed and that Sheila had the bible on her chest and the gun by her side which was not the prosecution's case at all. Did this give the family leverage in their arguments with Assistant Chief Inspector Simpson? The relatives didn’t like Jeremy, whom they called ‘Cuckoo’ on account of both he and Sheila being adopted but I won’t digress into that here."
http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/robin-cox
The idea is that the relatives were told that Sheila's body was on the bed at one stage and therefore also knew that it must have been the police who stage managed it on the floor. Robert Boutflour was convinced that Bamber was the killer. Some supporters of Bamber think that the police had to go along with the relatives and prosecute Bamber because the relatives knew Sheila's body was on the bed before it was moved to the floor by the police. That is what Cox means by leverage.
Bamber's confession to Julie Mugford
Julie Mugford account of Jeremy's confession includes a story of how Matthew MacDonald put a bible on Sheila's chest after telling her to shoot herself on the bed. So the description of the position of Sheila's body which the policeman gave to Ann Eaton turns up in Julie Mugford's story almost verbatim. It corresponds exactly to how Matthew MacDonald is supposed to have left the body. Mugford tells how Jeremy told her that MacDonald left Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest. It's in Mugford's statment. The police had not told Jeremy that story and it's dismissed as a mistake anyway. So it's impossible that Mugford had gotten it from Bamber.
Here's what Ann Eaton says in her statement of 08/09/85 when told where the bodies were found.
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her chest with the gun beside her"
Here's what Julie Mugford says in her statement of 08/08/1985 page 14
"I asked Jeremy if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were sound asleep and didn’t wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Mathew who then put a bible on her chest."
The devil is in the detail
I find it strange that people ignore this telling detail and that when somebody mentions it, even people who are fence sitters just ignore it and get back to talking about Julie and saying that her evidence has "the ring of truth about it". But how can it have the ring of truth when you can point to virtual proof that she lied. I have a theory as to why that kind of thing tends to happen.
Some people like talking about Julie Mugford just like others like talking about Amanda Knox. Of course anybody familiar with the scientific evidence knows that Knox and Solecito are innocent, but people like having something to talk about. They like the element of mystery. Hayden Panettiere undersood that when, talking about Amanda, she said to a bunch of reporters "Did she or didn't she?" So in just the same way, they like the discussion about Julie Mugford which has at it's basis the question "Who is telling the truth Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber."
When the Judge put the question to the jury "It depends on whether you believe Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber" he was being a prima donna. He was going for saying something catchy for the popular press. But he shouldn't have been doing that. You can excuse Hayden for a little lapse of judgement, but you can't make excuses for a judge misdirecting a jury. He should have drawn the jury's attention to the bible on the chest detail which was examined in court. He could have said. "Are we to believe that it's just a coincidence that Jeremy Bamber made up a story which just happens to have in it exactly the same description of a scene with Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest." But he didn't. He apparently wanted to help the prosecution and to hinder the defense. It happens a lot.
The devil is in the detail
There is a saying, the devil is in the detail. Such a detail is to me proof that Julie Mugford's story of Bamber's confession is a fabrication. It has bits and pieces which come from here and there. But I admit that a person sympathetic to Mugford could argue in the manner
" Well OK, she embellished the story a little with that description of the body on the bed which she had obviously gotten from Ann Eaton, probably because she thought people might not believe her, but I still believe she was telling the truth when she said that Jeremy told her he had paid Matthew MacDonald. There is no proof that she made that up."
Hermann
Evidence was withheld at trial, alternatively fresh evidence is now available which indicates that Jeremy Bamber telephoned his then girlfriend Julie Mugford at 3.30am in the morning of 7th August and that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby lied in evidence when they timed the called at 3.15am and 3.12 am respectively.
The 3.30am Phone Call Overview:
20. The timing of Jeremy Bamber's phone call to Julie Mugford in the early hours of 71h August 1985 was also of "crucial importance- at trial, His Honour Mr Justice Drake's summing, up at p.12 B. Much evidence was adduced to show that the call had been made at or about 3,15um. This meant that the eau must have been made prior to the Appellant's call to the Chelmsford police station
21.
The Police's own contemporaneous record of the Appellant's call on 7th August 1985, appended to this document, has now come to light. It reveals that the Appellant's initial call to Chelmsford Police station was recorded, in error as conceded at trial, as 3.36am. More importantly it shows that having first spoken to the Appellant and established the nature of the problem in some detail the officer at Chelmsford phoned Witham Police station at 3.26am, that being undisputedly a correct time. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant's initial call to the Police must have been some minutes before 3.26am.
Ann Eaton's Notes In Relation to The Call to Julie Mugford:
22. Ann Eaton's allegedly contemporaneous notes regarding 8th August disclosed at trial stated that there had been a "muddle about the right time of the 3.15 phone call - a London friend was called".
A further note has since been found which reveals that in her original note she stated "talked to Julie about the phone calls Julie said re flatmate (our emphasis - photocopy is poor here exact wording should be clear on viewing of the original) 3.30am". It is submitted that this discrepancy shows that not only was Ann Eaton's note deliberately changed to undermine the appellant's case but that Julie Mugford and Susan Batteresby lied when they gave evidence that the telephone call was 3.15am or earlier, as it was Susan Battersby who was the flatmate referred to it the undisclosed Ann Eaton note.
Julie Mugford's Evidence:
23. In her original statement to the Police dated 81h August 1985 stated at p345:
next time I heard front Jeremy was at about 3.30am on Wednesday morning the th August 1985."
This then changes in her statement of e September 1985 when she states :
" I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan Battersby who lives with
me that it was about 3.15am."
At trial when she was cross examined as to the fact that she had told the police that the telephone call was received at 3.30am, she stated at p38 on 8th October:
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record).
The fundamental point is Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
You cannot get round these points no matter how much you bring up the sleeping pills or fire. Its rather obvious the police zeroed in on those pills and did not buy her original innocent explanation for them, thus she made up something they wanted to hear from her.
I am not quoting word for word here but it goes like this
Julie Mugford - "Jeremy told me that Sheila was told to lay on the bed and was ordered to shoot herself under the supervision of Mathew Macdonald he then left the bible on the her chest" (Jeremy is supposed to have told her this on the 7th of August at his cottage while the house was occupied by many other people )
Julie Mugford - "On the 7th I told Ann Eaton about the bible on her chest"
Anne Eaton - "On the 7th Police told me Sheila was found laying on the bed with a bible on her chest"
Ann Eaton - " I cant remember who told me on the 7th" (Just after confirming the police told her various details she obviously remembers. problem being she was told about the bible in the exact same conversation)
The idea of the bible being a "meme" is not credible because there are too many similarities with her statement as a whole. The probability of it being coincidental, you are looking at almost jackpot lottery odds. (Bible on chest + Sheila on Bed + Exiting windows + Cycling to the farm + Fingerprints on gun + wetsuit + 2000 pounds + a McDonald mentioned in police meeting + Hitman to explain the reported movement)
All of these can either be found in Julies testimony or her "diary". Most importantly Jeremy is supposed to have told her all this. This means that what Jeremy told her in his alleged "confessions" he deliberately falsified how he killed everyone so it just so happens to be the same as Ann Eatons and RWBs erroneous information. Not only that but he also falsifies his "confessions" so what he tells her just so happens to explain the gaps and problems the police were facing at that moment in time! gaps and problems that later turned out to be wrong! Then Jeremy decides not to tell her about the silencer, the one piece of crucial evidence that was only discovered to be incriminating in the weeks AFTER Julie made her statements.
Its just not possible for Jeremy to have told her all this in the way its been presented by her coinciding with the circumstances of the police investigation and the relatives suspicions in that instance of time. With some of those circumstances and ideas backfiring, thus harming her credibility later on.
Lets look at Mathew Mcdoanld for example.
1. Robert Boutflour speculates if Jeremy had assistance on the night - See Diary
2. Robert Boutflour zeros in on the £2000 that Neville lent to Jeremy - See Diary
3. The £2000 of course has an innocent explanation and is totally unrelated to the event. but RWB believes he is onto something (Tunnel vision)
4. Jeremy is supposed to have lent this £2000 to a friend - See Diary
5. 20th of August police have a meeting with RWB present. During that meeting a question is put forward in relation to a drug deal (from a man called McDonald??) See Barlow's note book
6. Jeremy has a friend called Mathew Mcdonald they both do drugs together - See MMs statement
7. Mathew Mcdonald happens to a fantasist who goes around telling people he is a mercenary and has done missions in Libya. People believe the rumours - see MMs statement
According to Julie. Jeremy told her that he paid £2000 to Mathew Mcdonald to help him carry out the killings. The fact of the matter is a sum of £2000 went somewhere else. Mathew Macdonald is a mercenary only in his imagination plus he was miles away from the farm that night. Robert Bouflour and Stand Jones ignorant of the facts at the time. To them this theory would make perfect sense to them. Jeremy's "mercenary" friend and drug associate complete with a money trail and can explain the reported movement in the farm while Jeremy was outside with the police.
I will leave you to decide where Julie got the story from.
are so this was actuly said at the trial then.
are so thankyo