Another MASSIVE Lie

[Jan]

Was about to ask the same thing, Steve. I've read CAL's book but I'm as capable of "selective reading" as the next person.

its on my kindle so it not easy to find - but I have only just finished reading it so it is fresh in my mind.

[Jan]

I thought that there was a theory circulating at one point that Nevill struggled with his daughter in the vicinity of the mantelpiece, thus creating the aforementioned scratch marks with the rifle with silencer attached.

if only those original photos were better it would be straight forward to see if those scratches were post crime date.

[Jane]

I would like to add that of those posters who think he is innocent not all believe the call from Neville to the police happened or that Jeremy was framed.

If Jeremy is innocent he does not know if the call happened  or not.

I think at the point of the investigation being changed the police believed it was murder suicide - but they did not have proof either way so had not choice but to go with the flow on the pressure being put on them.

One other thing in CAL book Julie is quoted as saying she still thought Jeremey was guilty but that forensic evidence might prove otherwise.

Why on earth would she say that? She of all people must KNOW he is guilty.

Same as Bews - he thinks he is guilty?

A lot of people who should know the truth seem to be covering their backs.

Just found it. It isn't quite as you said it, Jan. It reads as follows:- "Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life. And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case, I still believe he is guilty."

[guest154]

Just found it. It isn't quite as you said it, Jan. It reads as follows:- "Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life. And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case, I still believe he is guilty."

Not exactly what Jan claimed.    New light on the investigation, but she still believes him guilty. Is that a direct quote Jane? I assume it is? Don't go to the bother of scanning the page or anything, I do trust you. 

[Jane]

Not exactly what Jan claimed.    New light on the investigation, but she still believes him guilty. Is that a direct quote Jane? I assume it is? Don't go to the bother of scanning the page or anything, I do trust you. 

Yeah Mat, it IS a word for word quote but I have to say, it's an ambiguous one......................however, not for a moment do I believe she's suggesting that "new forensic techniques" could prove his innocence.

[lebaleb]

Just found it. It isn't quite as you said it, Jan. It reads as follows:- "Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life. And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case, I still believe he is guilty."

She stands by her original story. That must be the one in her original statement.
'I still BELIEVE he's guilty.' If she doesn't know for sure, then she must have been lying all along.

[Jane]

She stands by her original story. That must be the one in her original statement.
'I still BELIEVE he's guilty.' If she doesn't know for sure, then she must have been lying all along.

Perhaps it was "I STILL believe he's guilty."

[lookout]

Not " I KNOW he's guilty ?" Which would have been more precise.

[guest154]

Not " I KNOW he's guilty ?" Which would have been more precise.

Why are you nitpicking? She believes he is guilty, he statements from that time clearly show that. She says she still believes he is, of course she does, why wouldn't she?

These are the same games people played with Colin, acting as if they can read between the lines that he wrote in his book and that he has doubts. It wasn't until recently, when Colin spoke out saying that he DOES believe Bamber guilty, that the games stopped but now it seems they have begun with Julie!! The prosecution witness!!! 

Colin believes Bamber guilty.
Julie believes Bamber guilty.

[Jane]

Not " I KNOW he's guilty ?" Which would have been more precise.

I would have wondered just who she was trying to convince had she said that.

[lookout]

I would have wondered just who she was trying to convince had she said that.

Whatever she said and however she said it was probably said under sufferance anyway because of a possible " threat " hanging over herself pertaining to her own shortcomings if she hadn't abided by the rules of " him who had to be obeyed ",namely,S Jones.

[Jane]

Whatever she said and however she said it was probably said under sufferance anyway because of a possible " threat " hanging over herself pertaining to her own shortcomings if she hadn't abided by the rules of " him who had to be obeyed ",namely,S Jones.

Lookout, I hold no love for the woman, but you seem to carry such spite against her that your words are likely to make people feel like defending her.

[lookout]

Lookout, I hold no love for the woman, but you seem to carry such spite against her that your words are likely to make people feel like defending her.

That's strange,I feel the same when the world and its wife go on about Jeremy,particularly those here on the forum. I actually felt " quietly " sorry for JM if you did but realise it.
However,I'm by no means a spiteful person and never have been. I'm quite balanced and sober although I say it myself.

[Jane]

That's strange,I feel the same when the world and its wife go on about Jeremy,particularly those here on the forum. I actually felt " quietly " sorry for JM if you did but realise it.
However,I'm by no means a spiteful person and never have been. I'm quite balanced and sober although I say it myself.

I don't find it difficult to believe re Jeremy as you think he's 100% innocent but as you think Julie has lied through her teeth -even, I believe, suggesting she should be forced to tell the truth- I find it difficult to believe you hold any positive feelings for her.

[lookout]

I don't find it difficult to believe re Jeremy as you think he's 100% innocent but as you think Julie has lied through her teeth -even, I believe, suggesting she should be forced to tell the truth- I find it difficult to believe you hold any positive feelings for her.

JM was betwixt and between as half of her wanted to spite him but only because of his waywardness,nothing else. Until she was spurred on to side with the guilty and the possibility and prospect of what would be in store if she went along with everyone else, it was called a sweetener-----------and who wouldn't be tempted by such a huge amount as it was then ?  I wonder if she thought about the word blackmail ?
EP must have thought all their Christmases had come at once after that tempting tactic,because they had nothing on Jeremy. JM WOULD have had feelings of guilt but it's surprising how quickly those feelings vanish when you've got a healthy bank account.
JM was bamboozled into her part at the trial------------shame on EP for influencing and grooming a young woman for their own ends.