Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: David1819 on August 12, 2019, 12:34:AM
-
Just two days after she went to the police implicating Matthew McDonald as Jeremys hitman. Complete with a story of how Jeremy instructed him to enter the farm. She admits she does not know if Matthew Mcdonald had ever been to the farm in the first place.
"I have been asked what I know about Matthew. I have only met him a couple of times, always at Head Street, Coldhanger. He made me feel very nervous although I do not know why. I am aware that Jeremy met him through a previous relationship, in fact whilst he was living with Sue FORD in Colchester. I do not know if Matthew has ever been to White House Farm".
(https://i.ibb.co/7rFXk6Q/1531011138laughing-emoji-png-1.png)
"I have been asked why I did not make known to any other person, particularly to the authorities the contents of the conversations between myself and Jeremy BAMBER for 20 days, namely the 27th August 1985 when I then told Susan BATTERSBY. In answer to this I can say that in my subconscious I believed what Jeremy had said was true and I would qualify this by stating that I believed Jeremy when he said he had hired Mathew to kill the family".
-
Just two days after she went to the police implicating Matthew McDonald as Jeremys hitman. Complete with a story of how Jeremy instructed him to enter the farm. She admits she does not know if Matthew Mcdonald had ever been to the farm in the first place.
"I have been asked what I know about Matthew. I have only met him a couple of times, always at Head Street, Coldhanger. He made me feel very nervous although I do not know why. I am aware that Jeremy met him through a previous relationship, in fact whilst he was living with Sue FORD in Colchester. I do not know if Matthew has ever been to White House Farm".
(https://i.ibb.co/7rFXk6Q/1531011138laughing-emoji-png-1.png)
"I have been asked why I did not make known to any other person, particularly to the authorities the contents of the conversations between myself and Jeremy BAMBER for 20 days, namely the 27th August 1985 when I then told Susan BATTERSBY. In answer to this I can say that in my subconscious I believed what Jeremy had said was true and I would qualify this by stating that I believed Jeremy when he said he had hired Mathew to kill the family".
But all she did was repeat what had been told her by Jeremy, so it was unnecessary for her to know whether or not MM had previously been to the farm. With the acceptance that Jeremy had told her the truth would have been the assumption that he knew his way. It's highly unlikely that she'd have asked Jeremy how he'd found his way there.
-
Just two days after she went to the police implicating Matthew McDonald as Jeremys hitman. Complete with a story of how Jeremy instructed him to enter the farm. She admits she does not know if Matthew Mcdonald had ever been to the farm in the first place.
"I have been asked what I know about Matthew. I have only met him a couple of times, always at Head Street, Coldhanger. He made me feel very nervous although I do not know why. I am aware that Jeremy met him through a previous relationship, in fact whilst he was living with Sue FORD in Colchester. I do not know if Matthew has ever been to White House Farm".
(https://i.ibb.co/7rFXk6Q/1531011138laughing-emoji-png-1.png)
"I have been asked why I did not make known to any other person, particularly to the authorities the contents of the conversations between myself and Jeremy BAMBER for 20 days, namely the 27th August 1985 when I then told Susan BATTERSBY. In answer to this I can say that in my subconscious I believed what Jeremy had said was true and I would qualify this by stating that I believed Jeremy when he said he had hired Mathew to kill the family".
Jeremy implicated an innocent Matthew McDonald, someone who he already harbored a grudge against!
-
This case was nothing but a hate-fuelled/filled session in court as each in turn had an axe to grind with the other and because of the reams of paperwork handed in by those with huge grudges, the actual crime itself, its cause and motive were put to one side making/treating any evidence on a circumstantial basis.
The crime, such as it was would certainly have been handled differently today, with better policing and also a far better understanding of this particular type of crime. An example being how much further on in 34 years that those involved in this particular case have found, with many anomalies which have been unearthed. It's going to be a huge embarrassment to the justice system eventually.
-
This case was nothing but a hate-fuelled/filled session in court as each in turn had an axe to grind with the other and because of the reams of paperwork handed in by those with huge grudges, the actual crime itself, its cause and motive were put to one side making/treating any evidence on a circumstantial basis.
The crime, such as it was would certainly have been handled differently today, with better policing and also a far better understanding of this particular type of crime. An example being how much further on in 34 years that those involved in this particular case have found, with many anomalies which have been unearthed. It's going to be a huge embarrassment to the justice system eventually.
It already has been when police officers missed the fact that it was no murder suicide. However, they put that right and justice was done.
-
Justice can be undone too with the correct information.
-
Justice can be undone too with the correct information.
You want 'justice' undone? ???
-
But all she did was repeat what had been told her by Jeremy, so it was unnecessary for her to know whether or not MM had previously been to the farm. With the acceptance that Jeremy had told her the truth would have been the assumption that he knew his way. It's highly unlikely that she'd have asked Jeremy how he'd found his way there.
She believed that Jeremy has hired Mcdonald to commit the crime yet doesn't know if he has ever been to the crime scene?
(https://i.ibb.co/7rFXk6Q/1531011138laughing-emoji-png-1.png)
PS: What was your explanation for this woman's behaviour when you believed Sheila carried out the shootings?
-
She believed that Jeremy has hired Mcdonald to commit the crime yet doesn't know if he has ever been to the crime scene?
(https://i.ibb.co/7rFXk6Q/1531011138laughing-emoji-png-1.png)
PS: What was your explanation for this woman's behaviour when you believed Sheila carried out the shootings?
Why do you keep labouring that it's necessary for her to "know"? It's perfectly obvious that if she believed he'd committed the crime, he HAD to have been at the crime scene.
-
Why do you keep labouring that it's necessary for her to "know"? It's perfectly obvious that if she believed he'd committed the crime, he HAD to have been at the crime scene.
No Jane. If she believed what she was allegedly told (as she said she did) she would have been under the impression that he had been to the crime scene. Yet she did not know if he been to the crime scene. Hence its obvious she is lying. Any claim to the contrary is willfull ignorance.
PS: What was your explanation for this woman's behaviour when you believed Sheila carried out the shootings?
-
No Jane. If she believed what she was allegedly told (as she said she did) she would have been under the impression that he had been to the crime scene. Yet she did not know if he been to the crime scene. Hence its obvious she is lying. Any claim to the contrary is willfull ignorance.
PS: What was you explanation for this woman's behaviour when you believed Sheila carried out the shootings?
Utter bollox, anyone with half a brain can work out that she was talking about PRIOR to the murders!
-
No Jane. If she believed what she was allegedly told (as she said she did) she would have been under the impression that he had been to the crime scene. Yet she did not know if he been to the crime scene. Hence its obvious she is lying. Any claim to the contrary is willfull ignorance.
PS: What was you explanation for this woman's behaviour when you believed Sheila carried out the shootings?
Ignorance is your lack of knowledge of the nuances of language. How could she have believed he'd committed a crime at a scene he'd been absent from. It's perfectly acceptable that, until she was told he'd committed the crime, she'd given no thought to whether, or not, he'd ever visited the farm. Why would she?
-
Ignorance is your lack of knowledge of the nuances of language. How could she have believed he'd committed a crime at a scene he'd been absent from. It's perfectly acceptable that, until she was told he'd committed the crime, she'd given no thought to whether, or not, he'd ever visited the farm. Why would she?
Well put 2 and 2 together. Her allegation is a lie ::)
-
Well put 2 and 2 together. Her allegation is a lie ::)
You're right! It was!! But the lie was NEVER hers. She simply repeated the lie that Jeremy had told her and as such she can't be held responsible for it.
I seem to recall that, at various times, to suit the situation? you've held to either knowing nothing about this case, OR having made in depth study of it. If I'd passed this information on, one of those claims will have been untrue but the untruth wouldn't have been mine, I'd have simply been passing on information.
-
You're right! It was!! But the lie was NEVER hers. She simply repeated the lie that Jeremy had told her and as such she can't be held responsible for it.
I seem to recall that, at various times, to suit the situation? you've held to either knowing nothing about this case, OR having made in depth study of it. If I'd passed this information on, one of those claims will have been untrue but the untruth wouldn't have been mine, I'd have simply been passing on information.
If I was told by Fred Bloggs that he hired Bob Bloggs to murder my next door neighbour at his house and I believe that to be true. Would I then say I don't know if Bob Bloggs has ever been to my next door neighbours house?
::)
-
If I was told by Fred Bloggs that he hired Bob Bloggs to murder my next door neighbour at his house and I believe that to be true. Would I then say I don't know if Bob Bloggs has ever been to my next door neighbours house?
::)
Why would you not had you NOT known he'd been there prior to being told he'd been there? I really don't know why you feel the need to keep plugging this?
-
Why would you not had you NOT known he'd been there prior to being told he'd been there? I really don't know why you feel the need to keep plugging this?
If I tell people that Fred Bloggs told me that he hired Bob Bloggs to murder my next door neighbour at his house and I believe this to be true. Then I say I don't know if Bob Bloggs has ever been to my next door neighbours house. You cannot blame Fred Bloggs for that discrepancy. I was not repeating Fred Bloggs lie, it was me that would be lying.
PS. What was your explanation for this woman's behaviour prior to your chance of stance in chorus with Paul Harrison and Caroline? ;D
-
If I tell people that Fred Bloggs told me that he hired Bob Bloggs to murder my next door neighbour at his house and I believe this to be true. Then I say I don't know if Bob Bloggs has ever been to my next door neighbours house. You cannot blame Fred Bloggs for that discrepancy. I was not repeating Fred Bloggs lie, it was me that would be lying.
PS. What was your explanation for this woman's behaviour prior to your chance of stance in chorus with Paul Harrison and Caroline? ;D
You're off your head!
And you would be lying idiot because YOU didn't have first hand knowledge of them ever being there - you would be misleading if you said yes!
-
If I tell people that Fred Bloggs told me that he hired Bob Bloggs to murder my next door neighbour at his house and I believe this to be true. Then I say I don't know if Bob Bloggs has ever been to my next door neighbours house. You cannot blame Fred Bloggs for that discrepancy. I was not repeating Fred Bloggs lie, it was me that would be lying.
PS. What was your explanation for this woman's behaviour prior to your chance of stance in chorus with Paul Harrison and Caroline? ;D
If you repeat what someone else told you -be it truth or lie- the responsibility for those words aren't yours..........................HOWEVER! Should you choose to embellish them with your own words, the responsibility for them is yours.
-
If you repeat what someone else told you -be it truth or lie- the responsibility for those words aren't yours..........................HOWEVER! Should you choose to embellish them with your own words, the responsibility for them is yours.
Julie stopped believing MM had any part in the murders long before she told police about Jeremy ;D ;D
-
Julie stopped believing MM had any part in the murders long before she told police about Jeremy ;D ;D
But David puts it in a way in which the reader might believe her words were said within 24 hours of the crime being committed. Much has been made, over the years, about what Julie may have felt. All are different. ALL, in my opinion, are probably right. She'd have gone through a gamut of differing emotions, but she was an intelligent girl and unlikely to have accepted -for long- Jeremy's explanation of hiring a hit man, especially as he'd previously discussed, with her, ways in which he might rid himself of the encumbrance of his family.
So if we come back to her words, which David holds to be a lie, we can clearly see that for the first part she is simply telling them, the police, what Jeremy said -any lie, therefore being Jeremy's- BUT the claim that she doesn't know if MM had ever visited the farm are her own thoughts. By voicing them and owning responsibility for them -and I have NO reason to doubt them- she's hinting that she doesn't believe what Jeremy has said.
-
But David puts it in a way in which the reader might believe her words were said within 24 hours of the crime being committed. Much has been made, over the years, about what Julie may have felt. All are different. ALL, in my opinion, are probably right. She'd have gone through a gamut of differing emotions, but she was an intelligent girl and unlikely to have accepted -for long- Jeremy's explanation of hiring a hit man, especially as he'd previously discussed, with her, ways in which he might rid himself of the encumbrance of his family.
So if we come back to her words, which David holds to be a lie, we can clearly see that for the first part she is simply telling them, the police, what Jeremy said -any lie, therefore being Jeremy's- BUT the claim that she doesn't know if MM had ever visited the farm are her own thoughts. By voicing them and owning responsibility for them -and I have NO reason to doubt them- she's hinting that she doesn't believe what Jeremy has said.
By then, she wasn't hinting, she didn't believe that MM was responsible so she wouldn't know if he'd been to WHF or not and even if she had still believed it could be true - she still wouldn't know for sure if he'd been.
-
If you repeat what someone else told you -be it truth or lie- the responsibility for those words aren't yours..........................HOWEVER! Should you choose to embellish them with your own words, the responsibility for them is yours.
But she is not repeating this from anyone. She has made this up herself
- Claims JB said he hired MM to kill the family at WHF
- Claims she believes what JB has told her.
- Says she does not know if MM has ever been to WHF
Same goes with what she said about the bank fraud
- Claims she went to the bank on her own to repay the money she stole.
- Bank manager says the police brought her in and the whole thing was all pre-arrainged.
You cannot blame JB for these lies how ever much you try.
Do you have any intention of answering the question as to what your explanation was for this woman's behaviour prior to changing your mind along with Paul Harrison and Caroline?
-
JM must have been trembling as each remark/accusation she made she was clutching at straws because she'd been peeved by JB's behaviour with another woman but also comparing £25,000 and the truth. Under such circumstances the former seemed more acceptable.
-
But she is not repeating this from anyone. She has made this up herself
- Claims JB said he hired MM to kill the family at WHF
- Claims she believes what JB has told her.
- Says she does not know if MM has ever been to WHF
Same goes with what she said about the bank fraud
- Claims she went to the bank on her own to repay the money she stole.
- Bank manager says the police brought her in and the whole thing was all pre-arrainged.
You cannot blame JB for these lies how ever much you try.
Do you have any intention of answering the question as to what your explanation was for this woman's behaviour prior to changing your mind along with Paul Harrison and Caroline?
Do you have any intention of answering the question about your report being one of the 5 submitted to the CCRC because you implied it yesterday!
You don't seem to be able to grasp that by the time Julie was asked about MM, she believed that Jeremy had LIED about him being responsible. It really is quite simple!
-
JM must have been trembling as each remark/accusation she made she was clutching at straws because she'd been peeved by JB's behaviour with another woman but also comparing £25,000 and the truth. Under such circumstances the former seemed more acceptable.
Hi Lookout
Jeremy's trial was a Joke.
JM got £25,000 and her fraud charges dropped.
AE got control of the caravan park and her debts to JB eliminated.
DB and RWB got all the rest of the £500,000 worth of assets.
It would be funny if it weren't so serious. :-\
-
Hi Lookout
Jeremy's trial was a Joke.
JM got £25,000 and her fraud charges dropped.
AE got control of the caravan park and her debts to JB eliminated.
DB and RWB got all the rest of the £500,000 worth of assets.
It would be funny if it weren't so serious. :-\
(https://i.ibb.co/dmvB6wZ/dbmoney.jpg)
-
Hi Lookout
Jeremy's trial was a Joke.
JM got £25,000 and her fraud charges dropped.
AE got control of the caravan park and her debts to JB eliminated.
DB and RWB got all the rest of the £500,000 worth of assets.
It would be funny if it weren't so serious. :-\
And Jeremy got a whole life tariff for murdering his whole family which included two six year old children!
None of that's funny!!
-
And Jeremy got a whole life tariff for murdering his whole family which included two six year old children!
None of that's funny!!
No accounting for what some see as "funny".