Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: IndigoJ on August 03, 2018, 08:20:PM
-
I think without her testimony it might well have been a not guilty verdict , what does everyone else think?
believe her or not?
-
No I don't believe her and neither do others if they're honest.
Yes the trial did rest on her testimony. If only the jury had been told everything.
-
I think without her testimony it might well have been a not guilty verdict , what does everyone else think?
believe her or not?
I think you're right and although I think there is a lot she didn't say, I do believe that Jeremy told her he planned to kill the family.
-
I think she told some of the truth, but not ALL of the truth.
-
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.
-
Plenty to whet your appetite now Indigo.
-
I will leave you to decide where Julie got the story from.
Jeremy!
-
Plenty to whet your appetite now Indigo.
Plenty of David's opinion.
-
Plenty of David's opinion.
He does his best bless him.
-
Plenty to whet your appetite now Indigo.
that's for sure
-
I can try to explain David's lengthy post if members will allow. His premise is false, namely that a man who killed five proceeded to tell the truth to his girlfriend, when he was in fact free to relate and embellish whatever story took his fancy. Did Julie ever meet the relatives again post-murders apart from the set-up on Monday 12 August when Jeremy and Julie were shown round the Farm, which is when I assume Ann Eaton questioned her on the bible position. The alternative is that Julie got mixed up and heard the rumours on the previous Wednesday from Police at Bourtree Cottage.
Jeremy owed his father £2000 from the round the world trips, which is why the sum was on his mind, and of course the debt was cancelled upon Nevill's death.
-
I think for every one thing she said - she left ten things out.
-
Did Julie ever meet the relatives again post-murders apart from the set-up on Monday 12 August..
Julie didn't need to. Stan Jones willingly acted as a conduit. He was working to a brief from Mick Ainsley, who was Robert Boutflour's man on the inside. Underneath this (and in accordance with the direction of events), Stan Jones had cordial relations with Ann Eaton & co.
His interviews and statement coaching were derived from this.
-
I can try to explain David's lengthy post if members will allow. His premise is false, namely that a man who killed five proceeded to tell the truth to his girlfriend, when he was in fact free to relate and embellish whatever story took his fancy. Did Julie ever meet the relatives again post-murders apart from the set-up on Monday 12 August when Jeremy and Julie were shown round the Farm, which is when I assume Ann Eaton questioned her on the bible position. The alternative is that Julie got mixed up and heard the rumours on the previous Wednesday from Police at Bourtree Cottage.
Jeremy owed his father £2000 from the round the world trips, which is why the sum was on his mind, and of course the debt was cancelled upon Nevill's death.
This doesn't explain how Julie's story contains many details, which as David has shown, came not from Jeremy but AE and RWB.
-
This doesn't explain how Julie's story contains many details, which as David has shown, came not from Jeremy but AE and RWB.
-
This doesn't explain how Julie's story contains many details, which as David has shown, came not from Jeremy but AE and RWB.
Hitman!
-
Jeremy is obviously not going to furnish every detail to the girl he is about to dump. He fed her the bare bones to keep her onside and thought he could buy her off with the managership of a wine bar in a fashionable area of London. He had very little experience of women and certainly none as academic as Julie. You're also forgetting that detail about the glove coming off in the fight with Nevill and the conversation with Charles Marsden at Christmas 1984 where he speculates about the Farm burning down.
-
Hitman!
Exactly! Where indeed - the rumour that Matthew McDonald was a 'mercenary' made him the perfect target for gossip mongers and I believe this is where JM got her hitman story from! I have to wonder also if the seed was planted by the family and it was embroidered into the elaborate tapestry of hearsay and conjecture we have today!
Well done Caroline!
-
Well done Caroline!
So you got your theories from me. That's no surprise, you don't have an original thought in your head. By the way how's the big breakthrough coming along? You know, the one about the palm print?
I was once as taken in by Bamber as you are - then woke up!
-
Bamber's one reason for Julie creating a 35 page WS & testifying against him, is according to him, 'he jilted her'.
Appreciate supporters will come up with lots of alternative crazy theories.
-
Disadvantages in Julie trying to frame an innocent man. A month after the massacre -
There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.
She had waited a month.
She would be charged by the police. When caught lying.
Having a criminal record will effect her teaching career.
To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?
Her own 1984 minor crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?
At the time there was no financial reward in approaching the police.
It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.
She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims.
Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.
She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.
It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.
She may quickly wilt under pressure. This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?
It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.
It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.
It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.
An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.
It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.
She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.
It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.
She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?
She had already given a short WS on the massacre day and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.
She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.
Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's sick attempt for revenge.
If an unsuccessful police approach became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.
Perjury can result in prison.
Julie would be condidered sick & unhinged when exposed.
-
So you got your theories from me. That's no surprise, you don't have an original thought in your head. By the way how's the big breakthrough coming along? You know, the one about the palm print?
I was once as taken in by Bamber as you are - then woke up!
Actually, the above isn't quite true, I was NEVER the caliber of supporter as the likes of you and gringo.
-
Well I haven't got to the stage of talking to myself yet. :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
-
Actually, the above isn't quite true, I was NEVER the caliber of supporter as the likes of you and gringo.
Still you should be tarred and feathered though.
-
Oh joy-------it's the reinforcement. :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
-
Well I haven't got to the stage of talking to myself yet. :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
Neither have I - not sure what you're on about?
-
Neither have I - not sure what you're on about?
You answered your own post.
-
Actually, the above isn't quite true, I was NEVER the caliber of supporter as the likes of you and gringo.
How do you measure a supporter's caliber?
-
How do you measure a supporter's caliber?
By how far they will go to make back white - it's clear how far you will go!
-
By how far they will go to make back white - it's clear how far you will go!
Self awareness not your strong point?
-
Self awareness not your strong point?
Right back at you! This started as a discussion about Bird, I didn't think he was a specialist photographer and as this is a discussion forum, I posted my thoughts. You then (in your usual angry, supercilious fashion), decided to add personal insults and put-downs. As things went on and it became clear that Bird was inexperienced, you dug your heels in further and made the whole thing about me - spurred on by Lookout. I'm well aware of how stubborn I am but I will also admit when I'm wrong, I was wrong about the training but my original and MAIN argument turned out to be correct. Even now, when it's clear that Bird was inexperienced, having played the role of photographer twice - you still can't admit that maybe he wasn't as experienced as is being portrayed. ::)
-
People in glass houses-----------
I don't think for one minute that gringo is " spurred on " by me, nor I him but----------you and Jane are, by each other. Can't you see that Caroline ? Then your friend from red joins you.
-
People in glass houses-----------
I don't think for one minute that gringo is " spurred on " by me, nor I him but----------you and Jane are, by each other. Can't you see that Caroline ? Then your friend from red joins you.
God you're dumb. I was a member HERE long before I EVER joined the red forum. I am not FROM the red forum - I post here more than there. Do you ever have a clue as to what you're whittering on about?
-
God you're dumb. I was a member HERE long before I EVER joined the red forum. I am not FROM the red forum - I post here more than there. Do you ever have a clue as to what you're whittering on about?
You post here because John put up his " strict " notice-pmsl.
-
People in glass houses-----------
I don't think for one minute that gringo is " spurred on " by me, nor I him but----------you and Jane are, by each other. Can't you see that Caroline ? Then your friend from red joins you.
Remember this
I'm jealous. ;D
I'm not bothered what you post Lookout but when you get something wrong, just have the grace to admit it. Mind you, gringo is the same - can't admit when he's wrong and makes it all about the other poster!
-
You post here because John put up his " strict " notice-pmsl.
I posted here long before I posted on the red. What part of that do you struggle to understand?
No idea what notice John is meant to have put up, I've not seen it.
-
In anticipation of her " reward ".
-
I posted here long before I posted on the red. What part of that do you struggle to understand?
No idea what notice John is meant to have put up, I've not seen it.
Lookout seems to know more about what goes on on red than we do.
-
Lookout seems to know more about what goes on on red than we do.
Seems it, I've no idea.
-
Lookout seems to know more about what goes on on red than we do.
Huh ! As if.
-
Lookout seems to know more about what goes on on red than we do.
She never read it though ;D