More disappointment looming for Bamber?

[Nicholas]

Nicholas, regarding any alleged drug/date rape. I'm afraid there's absolutely no evidence for it. Marsden's statement from what I've seen doesn't say anything about drugging or lack of consent. Only the "alleged" victim could really establish that and evidently she never came forward.

Carol Ann Lee writes - ‘She told detectives in 1985 that she had suddenly found herself in Jeremy’s bedroom with him, ‘on top of me having intercourse’

The - ‘ON TOP OF ME HAVING INTERCOURSE’ - is quoted by CAL suggesting the wording has come from a statement by the girl

Or maybe the above wasn’t written or stated by Sarah but was the interpretation of the author?

By ‘author’ I meant police officer

Maybe the wording isn’t from a statement but from a police report ? It’s difficult to tell

[Truth SKR1]

It certainly appears highly suspicious. And Julie's ending of her friendship with her and accepting Jeremy's explanation didn't help either in terms of helping a victim get justice. CAL would obviously know where she got the quotes from, a reference would be useful. They're not in any of Julie's statements as far as I've read, I presume Sarah was interviewed by police, has CAL read those statements and is paraphrasing and mixing with direct quotes from that?

[Nicholas]

It certainly appears highly suspicious. And Julie's ending of her friendship with her and accepting Jeremy's explanation didn't help either in terms of helping a victim get justice. CAL would obviously know where she got the quotes from, a reference would be useful. They're not in any of Julie's statements as far as I've read, I presume Sarah was interviewed by police, has CAL read those statements and is paraphrasing and mixing with direct quotes from that?

Do you think Julie was to blame for not ‘helping a victim get Justice’ or are you suggesting something else?

[Truth SKR1]

I'm suggesting merely that Julie's response to her may perhaps have further put her off going to the police. Were the three together during a conversation about the incident? I've no doubt Julie was under the control of Bamber and, unfortunately in this instance and others, sometimes no doubt unwittingly, she would back him up blindly.

[colsville]

 Truth SKR1 - What is described in the book is rape, without using the word rape.  Non-consensual sex is rape, and that is what is described in the book.

Every quote is referenced in CAL's book, the references are there if you care to look.  The story is a simple one.   Buy the digital version of the  book for just a few pounds and you will be able to check this.

In 1985 it's unlikely that the police would have had any energy or motivation to investigate the girls allegation.  Even today in 2021 it is statistically almost impossible to get a conviction from a genuine rape allegation.  The statistics were catastrophic then, and still are catastrophic now.

You can sign up for Amazon Audible and get 7 days for free and have the book read to you.  Just cancel as soon as you subscribe, and your account will not be charged, but you will still get a week for free.  Fill your boots.

Unless you think that women generally lie about being abused, or you think there is a massive global conspiracy against Bamber, then there is no reason to disbelieve the story.

No one is actually saying she was drugged, it's just that she lost consciousness and couldn't work out any other way of getting into that state.

But Jeremy Bamber has an extreme form of [ censored word]ocial personality disorder, and with someone of his personality type, anything is possible.  His behaviour before the murders and his behaviour after the murders....behaviour which is factually proven, depicts someone with very clear [ censored word]ocial personality disorder, and he has a severe form of it.

And hopefully this new documentary, which is in 3 parts, will cover this.  If Bamber knows about this new documentary, then he'll be stewing in his cell right now, steam pouring out of his ears....

[Nicholas]

I'm suggesting merely that Julie's response to her may perhaps have further put her off going to the police. Were the three together during a conversation about the incident? I've no doubt Julie was under the control of Bamber and, unfortunately in this instance and others, sometimes no doubt unwittingly, she would back him up blindly.

Bamber became violent with Julie when she told him Sarah had called to see her

And the thing is none of us know Julie’s actual response towards Sarah - we can only go by what was written in her witness statement or by what it written by others eg: CAL stated in her book, ‘Julie decided to believe him and broke off her friendship with the girl as he asked’

Did Julie ever make contact with Sarah following Bamber’s trial do you know?

More on coercive control here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11873.msg638677#msg638677

[Nicholas]

Truth SKR1 - What is described in the book is rape, without using the word rape.  Non-consensual sex is rape, and that is what is described in the book.

Every quote is referenced in CAL's book, the references are there if you care to look.  The story is a simple one.   Buy the digital version of the  book for just a few pounds and you will be able to check this.

In 1985 it's unlikely that the police would have had any energy or motivation to investigate the girls allegation.  Even today in 2021 it is statistically almost impossible to get a conviction from a genuine rape allegation.  The statistics were catastrophic then, and still are catastrophic now.

You can sign up for Amazon Audible and get 7 days for free and have the book read to you.  Just cancel as soon as you subscribe, and your account will not be charged, but you will still get a week for free.  Fill your boots.

Unless you think that women generally lie about being abused, or you think there is a massive global conspiracy against Bamber, then there is no reason to disbelieve the story.

No one is actually saying she was drugged, it's just that she lost consciousness and couldn't work out any other way of getting into that state.

But Jeremy Bamber has an extreme form of [ censored word]ocial personality disorder, and with someone of his personality type, anything is possible.  His behaviour before the murders and his behaviour after the murders....behaviour which is factually proven, depicts someone with very clear [ censored word]ocial personality disorder, and he has a severe form of it.

And hopefully this new documentary, which is in 3 parts, will cover this.  If Bamber knows about this new documentary, then he'll be stewing in his cell right now, steam pouring out of his ears....

‘What is described in the book is rape, without using the word rape’ - I agree colsville

Although ‘No one is actually saying she was drugged’ - Sarah did say she thought she’d been drugged

CAL writes, ‘The following day, the girl wondered whether she had been drugged.’

According to CAL

‘In addition to the odd dalliance with Sue Ford, Jeremy was unfaithful to Julie in the first half of 1984 with two other women. The first was Liz Rimmimgton, whose relationship with Malcolm Waters had come to an end. After spending the night with Jeremy, Liz felt ‘terribly guilty’, telling Essex police in 1985 that they were never ‘romantically involved’ and Julie knew nothing about it.

Jeremy’s second liaison was with another friend of Julie’s. He and Charles Marsden had spent an evening drinking with the girl at the Chequers. Returning to Bourtree cottage after the pub closed, Charles went to bed while Jeremy and the girl stayed downstairs drinking. She told detectives in 1985 that she had suddenly found herself in Jeremy’s bedroom with him, ‘on top of me having intercourse’. Charles Marsden lay next to them; he recalled waking up to find the couple having sex but both he and the girl confirmed he had taken no part in what was going on.

The following day, the girl wondered whether she had been drugged. Feeling ‘shocked, angry and abused’ after hearing that Jeremy had told Julie about the episode, she called at the cottage while Jeremy was working. Julie recalled the girl describing a threesome and, when she confronted Jeremy, he told her that the girl was neurotic. Leaving Julie sobbing in the garden, he returned later and charged at the locked door, splintering it. Julie decided to believe him and broke off her friendship with the girl as he asked.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zV3WCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=charles+marsden+essex&source=bl&ots=jQISI3Diw_&sig=ACfU3U1i336DTUwUTlMThBe2M3Xntg_NJA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwil_JK6psXpAhW-QhUIHRPOAwkQ6AEwBHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=charles%20marsden%20essex&f=false

I’m surprised CAL referred to this event as ’the odd dalliance’

[Nicholas]

I'm suggesting merely that Julie's response to her may perhaps have further put her off going to the police. Were the three together during a conversation about the incident? I've no doubt Julie was under the control of Bamber and, unfortunately in this instance and others, sometimes no doubt unwittingly, she would back him up blindly.

No

It appears Sarah may have been warning Julie about Bamber - as well as confiding in her

[Nicholas]

No

It appears Sarah may have been warning Julie about Bamber - as well as confiding in her

These were clues to Bamber’s real character which Julie doesn’t appear to have initially recognised at the time

[APRIL]

These were clues to Bamber’s real character which Julie doesn’t appear to have initially recognised at the time

There's a very good reason for that being the case. Julie could have previously experienced it so it would have felt familiar to her.

[Nicholas]

There's a very good reason for that being the case. Julie could have previously experienced it so it would have felt familiar to her.

I don’t agree - it’s not necessarily the case ‘Julie could have previously experienced it so it would have felt familiar to her’ - Don’t you think it possible Bamber conditioned her? How many psychopaths had Julie previously been in a relationship with?

‘When we understand coercive control, it’s really about utter domination’ (Laura Richards)

[APRIL]

I don’t agree - it’s not necessarily the case ‘Julie could have previously experienced it so it would have felt familiar to her’ - Don’t you think it possible Bamber conditioned her? How many psychopaths had Julie previously been in a relationship with?

‘When we understand coercive control, it’s really about utter domination’ (Laura Richards)

I'm talking about a much earlier experience, here, Nicholas, and a narcissistic as opposed to a psychopathic. I'm going back to her roots. If I'm correct, she'd have been ripe for a 'successful' partnership with JB.

[Nicholas]

I'm talking about a much earlier experience, here, Nicholas, and a narcissistic as opposed to a psychopathic. I'm going back to her roots. If I'm correct, she'd have been ripe for a 'successful' partnership with JB.

Psychopaths can dupe anyone April - even Robert Hare

And Julie was another of Bamber’s victims - regardless of her ‘roots’

[Truth SKR1]

I don't know where you get the impression that I disbelieve Sarah's account. I don't, and I take your point that it was extremely difficult to get an accusation of rape taken seriously at that time. It's despicable that she "told detectives" all this and no charges were brought. Charles Marsden was questioned three times the week Bamber was initially brought into custody. I believe he stated he "woke up" to find them having intercourse on the bed beside him, and I take it he would've refuted the notion of a threesome. Did Charles Marsden testify at trial? Bearing in mind he had heard Bamber talking of killing his family you'd have thought he'd have been a useful corroborator of Julie's testimony. We still don't know if Sarah wanted to pursue the complaint or not, it would be sad to assume that the police intimated to her that she had no grounds to press charges.

[Nicholas]

Did Charles Marsden testify at trial?

No he didn’t

So why did the prosecution and defence agree during pre trial hearings to not call him to give evidence ?

And what did Bamber and Marsden really talk about on the day following the murders?

Bearing in mind he had heard Bamber talking of killing his family you'd have thought he'd have been a useful corroborator of Julie's testimony.

Bamber obviously didn’t want Marsden to corroborate Julie’s evidence

So why did the prosecution agree to not call Marsden ?