Jeremy Bamber Forum

JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: buddy on January 09, 2018, 03:38:PM

Title: A question.
Post by: buddy on January 09, 2018, 03:38:PM
If it could be proved that someone aided or abetted JB in the slaughter of his whole family what would you think was a suitable sentence. bearing in mind that JB has a whole life term.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: nugnug on January 09, 2018, 03:45:PM
well the same sentence but I don't see how it could be proved.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: buddy on January 09, 2018, 03:47:PM
well the dame sentence but I don't see how it could be proved.
It can Nugs.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: nugnug on January 09, 2018, 03:49:PM
It can Nugs.

how
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: buddy on January 09, 2018, 03:54:PM
how
In a confession.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: David1819 on January 09, 2018, 04:17:PM
In a confession.

If some goofball claims he was JBs accomplice. It wont prove anything other than he is a goofball.

Title: Re: A question.
Post by: buddy on January 09, 2018, 04:19:PM
If some goofball claims he was JBs accomplice. It wont prove anything other than he is a goofball.
I didn't say an accomplice, I said aided, or abetted.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Jane on January 09, 2018, 04:47:PM
I didn't say an accomplice, I said aided, or abetted.

Buddy, I THINK I read somewhere that doing -BEING- such incurs the same penalty as the actual murderer.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: nugnug on January 09, 2018, 05:00:PM
I didn't say an accomplice, I said aided, or abetted.

did you have specific person in mind ot is this hyperfectical.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Jane on January 09, 2018, 05:02:PM
did you have specific person in mind ot is this hyperfectical.


Is there a specific reason for your question?
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: nugnug on January 09, 2018, 05:39:PM

Is there a specific reason for your question?

just currosity.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: buddy on January 10, 2018, 03:20:PM
OK time to come clean Who said I supplied Jeremy with sleeping pills in order to kill his entire family?
He said they did not work and had changed his mind, as there were valuables that he didn't want to destroy. The idea being to burn down the farm.
Now the same question, was that aiding or abetting a criminal action.
I think the answer is yes.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Jane on January 10, 2018, 03:57:PM
OK time to come clean Who said I supplied Jeremy with sleeping pills in order to kill his entire family?
He said they did not work and had changed his mind, as there were valuables that he didn't want to destroy. The idea being to burn down the farm.
Now the same question, was that aiding or abetting a criminal action.
I think the answer is yes.

You're right, Buddy......................in theory :) There are some questions which need answering first, though ;D First off, young female goes to her doctor and complains of uni/work related stress which is making it difficult for her to sleep, so please could he give her something to help her through this difficult phase. Is he really going to give her enough pills, of high enough strength, to do serious damage to several people, bearing in mind Jeremy wanted to get rid of the entire family. Second, how is Jeremy going to grind up enough of these pills -plus find something acceptable to dissolve them into, which will make them palatable- to supply the whole family with them? In all probability, it's likely that Julie's doctor gave her no more than a few days worth of pills, of a strength commensurate with her having the sort of sleep which didn't leave her feeling drunk and incapable the next day.

 THIS must surely raise the speculation that Julie was fully aware of this. That she felt perfectly safe about taking the pills to Goldhanger. COULD she have thought that if he tried -and FAILED- he'd give up on the idea? The other idea which occurs to me is that, at that stage, Jeremy wasn't entirely serious about carrying out his dastardly plan. That he never actually got round to testing it out. Could it be that Julie's plan to prevent it, MAY have been the trigger for him to put it into action?
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: buddy on January 10, 2018, 04:17:PM
You're right, Buddy......................in theory :) There are some questions which need answering first, though ;D First off, young female goes to her doctor and complains of uni/work related stress which is making it difficult for her to sleep, so please could he give her something to help her through this difficult phase. Is he really going to give her enough pills, of high enough strength, to do serious damage to several people, bearing in mind Jeremy wanted to get rid of the entire family. Second, how is Jeremy going to grind up enough of these pills -plus find something acceptable to dissolve them into, which will make them palatable- to supply the whole family with them? In all probability, it's likely that Julie's doctor gave her no more than a few days worth of pills, of a strength commensurate with her having the sort of sleep which didn't leave her feeling drunk and incapable the next day.

 THIS must surely raise the speculation that Julie was fully aware of this. That she felt perfectly safe about taking the pills to Goldhanger. COULD she have thought that if he tried -and FAILED- he'd give up on the idea? The other idea which occurs to me is that, at that stage, Jeremy wasn't entirely serious about carrying out his dastardly plan. That he never actually got round to testing it out. Could it be that Julie's plan to prevent it, MAY have been the trigger for him to put it into action?
You make some valid points Jane, but the fact remains that she supplied the pills knowing of the plan.
I think I speak for all that they would not have complied with Jeremy's request.
The fact that she went along with the plan means she aided or abetted with Bamber.
This means she was fully aware of his intentions, and should have been charged IMO.
Much has been made of her vunurability but she was not.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Jane on January 10, 2018, 04:26:PM
You make some valid points Jane, but the fact remains that she supplied the pills knowing of the plan.
I think I speak for all that they would not have complied with Jeremy's request.
The fact that she went along with the plan means she aided or abetted with Bamber.
This means she was fully aware of his intentions, and should have been charged IMO.
Much has been made of her vunurability but she was not.

I know I'm splitting hairs, here, Buddy, but is 'knowing' about someone's intention and perhaps feeling "Yeah yeah! Here we go again" the same thing as FEELING "Oh my God, he's really serious about this"? Just how DEEPLY aware was she of his intentions. I'm having difficulty in getting my head round how I'd have believed, at 20, that the guy I was in love with was capable of murdering ONE person, let alone 5.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Caroline on January 10, 2018, 04:34:PM
I know I'm splitting hairs, here, Buddy, but is 'knowing' about someone's intention and perhaps feeling "Yeah yeah! Here we go again" the same thing as FEELING "Oh my God, he's really serious about this"? Just how DEEPLY aware was she of his intentions. I'm having difficulty in getting my head round how I'd have believed, at 20, that the guy I was in love with was capable of murdering ONE person, let alone 5.

But there is no getting away from the fact that she did supply the pills.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: buddy on January 10, 2018, 04:40:PM
I know I'm splitting hairs, here, Buddy, but is 'knowing' about someone's intention and perhaps feeling "Yeah yeah! Here we go again" the same thing as FEELING "Oh my God, he's really serious about this"? Just how DEEPLY aware was she of his intentions. I'm having difficulty in getting my head round how I'd have believed, at 20, that the guy I was in love with was capable of murdering ONE person, let alone 5.
At 20 I am sure you knew right from  wrong Jane. Turn it on it's head Jane and consider the points I am trying to make.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Jane on January 10, 2018, 04:55:PM
But there is no getting away from the fact that she did supply the pills.

At 20 I am sure you knew right from  wrong Jane. Turn it on it's head Jane and consider the points I am trying to make.


Yes, you're both absolutely right. Torn as I'd have been, I'd have had to walk away. Had Julie done that it may not have been as difficult for her to spill the beans. But she has to live with that.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: David1819 on January 10, 2018, 05:00:PM
You make some valid points Jane, but the fact remains that she supplied the pills knowing of the plan.
I think I speak for all that they would not have complied with Jeremy's request.
The fact that she went along with the plan means she aided or abetted with Bamber.
This means she was fully aware of his intentions, and should have been charged IMO.
Much has been made of her vunurability but she was not.

Charging Julie would not work. She is not going to send herself in jail on her own vindictive nonsense.

If charges were brought then she would defend herself by admitting she was lying. The punishment for wasting police time is far less severe than being an accomplice to five murders.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: buddy on January 10, 2018, 05:10:PM
Charging Julie would not work. She is not going to send herself in jail on her own vindictive nonsense.

If charges were brought then she would defend herself by admitting she was lying. The punishment for wasting police time is far less severe than being an accomplice to five murders.
IMO that is cobblers David. She ADMITTED involvement.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Adam on January 10, 2018, 05:23:PM
OK time to come clean Who said I supplied Jeremy with sleeping pills in order to kill his entire family?
He said they did not work and had changed his mind, as there were valuables that he didn't want to destroy. The idea being to burn down the farm.
Now the same question, was that aiding or abetting a criminal action.
I think the answer is yes.

Come clean ? I spotted this was about Julie a mile off. But didn't post as you would deny it.

You were not referring to Mike's hit man team theory and it's no secret you blame the relatives, Julie & the police for everything.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Adam on January 10, 2018, 05:30:PM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8592.msg409816.html#msg409816

This has been discussed before. The police could have attempted to get a 3 month suspended sentance on Julie. For withholding information for a month.

However the police looked at the big picture & wanted their main witness to be a committed witness in a 5x murder trial. Has anyone ever heard of a main prosecution witness being a 'hostile' witness ?
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: buddy on January 10, 2018, 05:32:PM
Come clean ? I spotted this was about Julie a mile off. But didn't post as you would deny it.

You were not referring to Mike's hit man team theory and it's no secret you blame the relatives, Julie & the police for everything.
I don't deny anything Adam. It is a FACT that Julie knew of the plan.
The fact that you are madly in love with Mugford changes nothing.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Adam on January 10, 2018, 05:40:PM
I don't deny anything Adam. It is a FACT that Julie knew of the plan.
The fact that you are madly in love with Mugford changes nothing.

She knew what Bamber was telling her. But didn't think he would do anything. There had not been any recent incidents in Essex of a man shooting his mother, father, sister & nephews.

I don't see how that makes her an accomplice.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: David1819 on January 10, 2018, 05:40:PM
IMO that is cobblers David. She ADMITTED involvement.

Oh dear... Buddy. You buy into Carolines blatant baloney and now this?

Sorry but I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Adam on January 10, 2018, 05:44:PM
People know about the sleeping pills because Julie told the police and put it in her witness statement. Bamber when interviewed said he knew Julie had these pills.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Steve_uk on January 10, 2018, 06:10:PM
Let's leave aside the reason Julie gave for having the sleeping pills in her possession (I would have told her Siberian ginseng worked better for me but then I wasn't an insomniac), but I can't help but compare this to the Lizzie Borden case (though Julie is far prettier I'm sure David will dredge up some physical resemblance). The reason I bring up the Falls River, Massachusetts murders in 1892 was that Ms. Borden had attempted to buy prussic acid the day before the murders, but at trial this was deemed inadmissible because it was too remote from the actual manner of deaths (bludgeoning with a hatchet) and I can't see how it would be relevant in the Bamber case either.

Given that both Lizzie and Jeremy lived in a dysfunctional family, they both had a history of minor theft and stealing from their family, they both felt as if the world was passing them by and there was the temptation of a large inheritance upon their parents' demise, I'm surprised the parallels haven't been remarked upon heretofore.

Of course Lizzie Borden got off..
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: nugnug on January 10, 2018, 06:32:PM
that staement is rather odd as none of the victems had been drugged.

it doesnt really make he an acomplice becouse it dident happen.

Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Adam on January 10, 2018, 06:38:PM
Bamber confirmed to the police he knew about the sleeping pills.

Bamber also told Chris Marsden in December 1984 - 'If the house burnt down with everyone inside,  everything would be mine. This supports Julie's WS.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Jane on January 10, 2018, 06:46:PM
That he even remotely thought it possible to drug 5 people to the stage that they'd burn to death suggests the idea may have been no more than fantasy.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Caroline on January 10, 2018, 06:50:PM
Oh dear... Buddy. You buy into Carolines blatant baloney and now this?

Sorry but I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

More goading from the most useless poster on the forum!  ::)
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Jane on January 10, 2018, 07:05:PM
More goading from the most useless poster on the forum!  ::)

Attention seeking. No one's talking to him.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: David1819 on January 10, 2018, 07:16:PM
Let's leave aside the reason Julie gave for having the sleeping pills in her possession (I would have told her Siberian ginseng worked better for me but then I wasn't an insomniac), but I can't help but compare this to the Lizzie Borden case (though Julie is far prettier I'm sure David will dredge up some physical resemblance). The reason I bring up the Falls River, Massachusetts murders in 1892 was that Ms. Borden had attempted to buy prussic acid the day before the murders, but at trial this was deemed inadmissible because it was too remote from the actual manner of deaths (bludgeoning with a hatchet) and I can't see how it would be relevant in the Bamber case either.

Given that both Lizzie and Jeremy lived in a dysfunctional family, they both had a history of minor theft and stealing from their family, they both felt as if the world was passing them by and there was the temptation of a large inheritance upon their parents' demise, I'm surprised the parallels haven't been remarked upon heretofore.

Of course Lizzie Borden got off..

There is an interesting equilibrium between both cases. Both are appauling miscarriage's of justice mainly down to the fact that many people (specially men) refuse to believe a woman is capable of such act.

They say It takes a woman to know a woman. Which explains why most of Jeremys supporters are female.

"Men cannot get away from the fascination of sex. Women jurors will not be moved by tears of a murderess. They will not permit their judgment to become paralyzed by the sight of a trembling lip and a pale face."

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j8K45nk9lqQ/TmePio4_9CI/AAAAAAAAAhg/e91kbKhcS4Q/s1600/wayman-aug26-12-color-dark.bmp)
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: David1819 on January 10, 2018, 07:18:PM
More goading from the most useless poster on the forum!  ::)


"most useless poster on the forum?"  You know what Mrs Psychobabble would say about that.  ;D
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Steve_uk on January 10, 2018, 07:23:PM
There is an interesting equilibrium between both cases. Both are appauling miscarriage's of justice mainly down to the fact that many people (specially men) refuse to believe a woman is capable of such act.

They say It takes a woman to know a woman. Which explains why most of Jeremys supporters are female.

"Men cannot get away from the fascination of sex. Women jurors will not be moved by tears of a murderess. They will not permit their judgment to become paralyzed by the sight of a trembling lip and a pale face."

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j8K45nk9lqQ/TmePio4_9CI/AAAAAAAAAhg/e91kbKhcS4Q/s1600/wayman-aug26-12-color-dark.bmp)
Yes: Jeremy chuckled to Julie behind closed doors on the slaughter of five and Lizzie cackled over the banisters..
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Caroline on January 10, 2018, 07:30:PM

"most useless poster on the forum?"  You know what Mrs Psychobabble would say about that.  ;D

Yeah, that you're a tosser!
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Caroline on January 10, 2018, 07:32:PM
Attention seeking. No one's talking to him.

True colours! Just because Buddy wasn't falling for his BS, he turns on him.  ::)
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Jane on January 10, 2018, 07:41:PM
True colours! Just because Buddy wasn't falling for his BS, he turns on him.  ::)


Guess it's lonely being on the outside.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: David1819 on January 10, 2018, 07:47:PM
Yeah, that you're a tosser!

Actually I take that back. You are not useless, you can be used as a bad example.  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Caroline on January 10, 2018, 08:31:PM
Actually I take that back. You are not useless, you can be used as a bad example.  ;D ;D ;D

I certainly rattle your cage!

You earned that accolade when you went from a reasonable human being to an obsessed Bamber supporter, quite possibly the MOST obsessed poster this forum has ever known!
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Reader on January 11, 2018, 03:40:AM
Bamber confirmed to the police he knew about the sleeping pills.
What exactly did he tell the police about them?
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: David1819 on January 11, 2018, 07:27:AM
I certainly rattle your cage!

In order to rattle my cage, I must value your opinion first.

You earned that accolade when you went from a reasonable human being to an obsessed Bamber supporter, quite possibly the MOST obsessed poster this forum has ever known!

Says the woman who has made over 20,000 forum posts. Not including the god knows how many on your old account.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Caroline on January 11, 2018, 11:14:AM
In order to rattle my cage, I must value your opinion first.

Says the woman who has made over 20,000 forum posts. Not including the god knows how many on your old account.

Ha, ha! It's so bloody obvious to ALL  that I certainly do rattle your cage. Value my opinion? You spend hours trawling through my old posts - you sad little moron!

I've been a member here a lot longer than you - posts used to be quality before the likes of you joined.
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Jan on January 13, 2018, 05:46:PM
Personally I think there is a chance that her statements were a load of tosh used to set a whole picture of his intention and character . Because without that the police had nothing to go on . And before we get the bleating about other statements they were all hearsay that could not be proven and yes in. Those days the police did do anything to get their man .

If she lied to protect herself from charges the pill thing did not even happen .

IMO
Title: Re: A question.
Post by: Jane on January 13, 2018, 05:53:PM
You're right, Buddy......................in theory :) There are some questions which need answering first, though ;D First off, young female goes to her doctor and complains of uni/work related stress which is making it difficult for her to sleep, so please could he give her something to help her through this difficult phase. Is he really going to give her enough pills, of high enough strength, to do serious damage to several people, bearing in mind Jeremy wanted to get rid of the entire family. Second, how is Jeremy going to grind up enough of these pills -plus find something acceptable to dissolve them into, which will make them palatable- to supply the whole family with them? In all probability, it's likely that Julie's doctor gave her no more than a few days worth of pills, of a strength commensurate with her having the sort of sleep which didn't leave her feeling drunk and incapable the next day.

 THIS must surely raise the speculation that Julie was fully aware of this. That she felt perfectly safe about taking the pills to Goldhanger. COULD she have thought that if he tried -and FAILED- he'd give up on the idea? The other idea which occurs to me is that, at that stage, Jeremy wasn't entirely serious about carrying out his dastardly plan. That he never actually got round to testing it out. Could it be that Julie's plan to prevent it, MAY have been the trigger for him to put it into action?

Personally I think there is a chance that her statements were a load of tosh used to set a whole picture of his intention and character . Because without that the police had nothing to go on . And before we get the bleating about other statements they were all hearsay that could not be proven and yes in. Those days the police did do anything to get their man .

If she lied to protect herself from charges the pill thing did not even happen .

IMO


OR played out in an entirely different way.