When did the relatives tell Julie about the lockable from outside window ?

[Roch]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=296.0
The relatives had very limited opportunities in which to tell Julie about the lockable from outside window.

Their ability to tell Julie anything had no limits whatsoever. They could simply tell Mick Ainsley or Stan Jones.  Then Stan Jones could just say that the info had come from Julie, in collusion with Julie, who was trying to save her own situation.

[Caroline]

Their ability to tell Julie anything had no limits whatsoever. They could simply tell Mick Ainsley or Stan Jones.  Then Stan Jones could just say that the info had come from Julie, in collusion with Julie, who was trying to save her own situation.

Or Jeremy could just have told Julie and the masses not be involved at all?

[Roch]

Or Jeremy could just have told Julie and the masses not be involved at all?

I would imagine that police would know how to manipulate a witness and suspect without the use of 'masses'.  I wouldn't describe a family with inheritance concerns and a cosy relationship with police, as equating to 'masses'.

[David1819]

Or Jeremy could just have told Julie and the masses not be involved at all?

I would imagine that police would know how to manipulate a witness and suspect without the use of 'masses'.  I wouldn't describe a family with inheritance concerns and a cosy relationship with police, as equating to 'masses'.

The 'coincidence theory' of Jeremy being the killer and telling Julie the same false information that the police told AE. Has no plausible basis in reality. It only works in the fictional game of "lets make things fit" by blaming Jeremy for Julies lies.

[Adam]

Their ability to tell Julie anything had no limits whatsoever. They could simply tell Mick Ainsley or Stan Jones.  Then Stan Jones could just say that the info had come from Julie, in collusion with Julie, who was trying to save her own situation.

You agree there was an Industrial frame ?

Why did the police tell Julie to include Matthew Macdonald in her WS. Or was that part true ?

[lookout]

Every individual concerned had THEIR own interests at heart,regardless.

[Adam]

Every individual concerned had THEIR own interests at heart,regardless.

Do you believe the police told Julie to include both the kitchen window & Matthew Macdonald in her WS ?

[lookout]

Do you believe the police told Julie to include both the kitchen window & Matthew Macdonald in her WS ?

Whenever EP shouted sh+t,they ALL jumped on the shovel. That's how it was.

[Caroline]

You agree there was an Industrial frame ?

Why did the police tell Julie to include Matthew Macdonald in her WS. Or was that part true ?

I have asked this before - there is no reason whatsoever to include MacDonald but perhaps it's because RWB mentioned 'A' MacDonald at some point or maybe they threw him in there just for the hell of it? 

[Caroline]

The 'coincidence theory' of Jeremy being the killer and telling Julie the same false information that the police told AE. Has no plausible basis in reality. It only works in the fictional game of "lets make things fit" by blaming Jeremy for Julies lies.

What false information? That Sheila was on the left side of the bed with a bible on her chest? She was on the left of the bed and maybe the bible WAS on her chest when Bamber left, but it slid off? So actually, in that respect, it wouldn't be false - just open to interpretation.

[lookout]

I thought it was the left side of the bed where the blood-staining appeared on the bottom sheet ?

[Jane]

I thought it was the left side of the bed where the blood-staining appeared on the bottom sheet ?

She was, if one is looking at the bed from the foot to the head. However, if one looks from the head to the foot, the blood staining -from June's wounds- are on the left.

[Caroline]

I thought it was the left side of the bed where the blood-staining appeared on the bottom sheet ?

That's what I meant by interpretation ....... left side of the bed but on the floor. Think I have said this several times but if you were to describe object in your own room (not you personally), you might refer to a bedside table being 'on the left side of the bed'. You wouldn't mention it being on the floor because that is taken as read. I would also have described Sheila as being 'on the left side of the bed' but someone else may that that literally. Perhaps when Jeremy told Julie that 'Sheila was on the left side of the bed' she took it literally'.

[Adam]

If Bamber had used MM as a proxy to Julie, the police would still remove MM from her WS.

There is no way the police would insert the kitchen window & then not remove MM from a created false WS for Julie.

Only the relatives could have told Julie about the kitchen window in their short time scale. My thread post asks why & when.

[Adam]

Perhaps Bamber told Julie about MM & the kitchen window & Julie's WS is not false.

Too simple an explanation.