UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: adam on December 20, 2014, 05:59:06 PM
-
Jeremy's supporters often criticise Julie for not going to the police straight away.
There are lots of reasons why she approached the police a month later-
She was Jeremy's girlfriend.
She loved Jeremy and said she was under his spell.
She was in shock.
She was afraid of what Jeremy may do if he found out.
She tried to deny it to herself that the man she loved was involved.
Jeremy had said that he had paid MM £2,000 to commit the massacre. Julie said she knew Jeremy did not have this money available. So she would have clung to the possibility that Jeremy was making false boasts. Maybe it was Sheila.
She was 20 years old. We all make wrong decisions when so young.
Jeremy had said he was 'watertight' and it was an 'open and shut case'. He said Julie would not be believed.
She was afraid she would be implicating herself. Being aware of his hatred and resentment towards his family, and previous plans.
While still in shock, she gave a statement early on. So was afraid that changing her statement days or weeks later may put her in trouble.
She was afraid she would not be believed. Making herself look stupid and getting in trouble with the police for making false claims. In a TV interview she said Jeremy said 'there was nothing she could have done on the night, and there is nothing she can do now'
She was caught in the eye of a hurricane. Police, relatives and the media always around, funerals to attend. Jeremy getting police cars to pick her up, then whisking her off to Amsterdam the weekend after the massacre.
She had no one to speak to at first. Being with Jeremy most of the time after the massacre. She did not want to attend the funeral or continuously go around with Jeremy & Brett. But was persuaded to by Jeremy.
--------------------------------
It is true she approached the police, (via Liz Rimmington) after they had spilt up. After finally getting to speak to other people she trusted. She was hardly likely to approach the police while still Jeremy's girlfriend, was she ?
Jeremy said the relationship had been in decline for six months prior to the massacre. They were both young and living miles away from each other. The massacre probably speeded up the ending of the relationship by a few weeks. After Julie had come to terms with the massacre and cleared her head.
It is not conclusive about who jilted who. Although Jeremy has always weakly said Julie spoke to the police and testified because he jilted her. But he has never said scorned women are just as likely to tell the truth.
Speaking to the police a month later seems quite normal to me (see above). Making these claims months of years later, after moving in with or marrying Jeremy would have looked much worse. Although politician's wife Chris Hulme did just that ten years later after he left her. Hulme was found guilty.
She was brave in approaching the police. Jeremy had not been arrested and the silencer evidence had not come back from the lab. The police could have laughed her out of the station. Or charged her with wasting police time. Or both.
54
-
Question is, would she have gone to the police if...
1. Jeremy hadn't two-timed her with Brett Collins and...
2. Jeremy hadn't assaulted her in Sheila's London flat.
-
Two timed her with Brett ? ?
-
Question is, would she have gone to the police if...
1. Jeremy hadn't two-timed her with Brett Collins and...
2. Jeremy hadn't assaulted her in Sheila's London flat.
Emotional infidelity can be more devastating to a woman than sexual infidelity. Jeremy's relationship with Brett was something Julie seemed not to understand.
Her relationship with Jeremy can be described as volatile as her temper seemed to be. I think they probably got off on a bit of S&M. The venue was immaterial. It's my belief that the more guilt which can be attributed to Jeremy -albeit supposition- the guiltier, exponentially, becomes Julie. My own view is that whatever Jeremy planned, Julie knew of and colluded with. When she realized he wasn't about to put a ring on her finger/two timed her/jilted her took her revenge. She got her story in first, leaving out her own involvement -OR the police chose to overlook it to get her onside. The question now is, which one has the tightest hold on the others short and curlies. Jeremy can't talk about her TRUE involvement without admitting his own and SHE can't admit hers because it would prove that she'd lied in court, under oath. TUT TUT.
-
You're view is right.
Julie knew of all his different plans. And his final plan. It is in her WS and she testified this.
It is not conclusive she was jilted. But if she was she must be really bitter, twisted, vindictive and confident to put an innocent man in jail for life.
-
It was probably a case of knew about them but didn't want to believe it. Again most probably the reason she offered to do the formal identifications in the morgue. She had to square the circle.
-
You're view is right.
Julie knew of all his different plans. And his final plan. It is in her WS and she testified this.
It is not conclusive she was jilted. But if she was she must be really bitter, twisted, vindictive and confident to put an innocent man in jail for life.
I imagine that her WS is only PART of the story. Of COURSE she will have us believe she reacted with "Shock!! Horror!!" She certainly wouldn't want us to believe that she may have agreed with him that the family had held him back, prevented him from implementing certain ideas, kept him from his full earning potential and with them out of the picture he'd be free to make his own decisions, especially if she believed that SHE was going to be one of the decisions he made.
If, as I believe, she was fully cognisant of his plans, she wasn't worried about putting an innocent man in prison for life -she knew he was guilty- but she may have been VERY concerned about keeping herself out. Perhaps THIS is why she's remained so silent all these years and devoted herself to charity works.
-
I imagine that her WS is only PART of the story. Of COURSE she will have us believe she reacted with "Shock!! Horror!!" She certainly wouldn't want us to believe that she may have agreed with him that the family had held him back, prevented him from implementing certain ideas, kept him from his full earning potential and with them out of the picture he'd be free to make his own decisions, especially if she believed that SHE was going to be one of the decisions he made.
If, as I believe, she was fully cognisant of his plans, she wasn't worried about putting an innocent man in prison for life -she knew he was guilty- but she may have been VERY concerned about keeping herself out. Perhaps THIS is why she's remained so silent all these years and devoted herself to charity works.
She probably did agree with anything he said about the raw deal he was being given. Julie would have just heard his one sided rants over a long period of time. She was an impressionable teenager when they first met
-
She probably did agree with anything he said about the raw deal he was being given. Julie would have just heard his one sided rants over a long period of time. She was an impressionable teenager when they first met
19 to his 22, I believe. We're not talking about a 15 year old, we're talking about a young woman at university, NOT from a sheltered background, working part time at whatever paid her. They were both 22 months older when the murders happened. My point is- the more she went along with what he was saying, the more complicit she appeared and the more he'd have shared his plans with her. We've heard from her what HE said. What we haven't heard, nor are we likely to, is what SHE said. Exactly what point were you trying to make?
-
Well she was 21 when compiling her WS -
'I am 21 years of age and I live at the above address. I am a full time student at the University of London, Goldsmith College.
I am studying education, and have at present a degree in education. I am now studying for a honours degree in the same subject '
I agree with you again. We will only know what Julie says he said.
-
'Jeremy first invited me out on the Boxing Day of 1983. He invited me round to where he was living and we all had dinner at lunchtime and later I went with Jeremy to meet my parents who live at 11 Scott Drive, Lexden, Colchester. Where I was living at the time'
It seems that they were together less than two years. The last six months the relationship had been in decline according to Jeremy. Surprised she became so upset and vindictive after they spilt up.
-
'Jeremy first invited me out on the Boxing Day of 1983. He invited me round to where he was living and we all had dinner at lunchtime and later I went with Jeremy to meet my parents who live at 11 Scott Drive, Lexden, Colchester. Where I was living at the time'
It seems that they were together less than two years. The last six months the relationship had been in decline according to Jeremy. Surprised she became so upset and vindictive after they spilt up.
Is it upset and vindictive to tell the police he was a murderer? Or just morally something she should have done. You seem to have her character well formed in your mind - which was it?
-
'I am 21 years of age and I live at the above address. I am a full time student at the University of London, Goldsmith College.
I am studying education, and have at present a degree in education. I am now studying for a honours degree in the same subject '
'Have at present a degree'.
Studying for an honours degree'.
A bit more academic than Jeremy then !
-
Is it upset and vindictive to tell the police he was a murderer? Or just morally something she should have done. You seem to have her character well formed in your mind - which was it?
It is morally something she should have done. And she did do.
Supporters say she did it because Jeremy (apparently) jilted her.
-
It is morally something she should have done. And she did do.
Supporters say she did it because Jeremy (apparently) jilted her.
So she decided to do her moral duty after Jeremy made it obvious she was no longer "numero uno".
-
So she decided to do her moral duty after Jeremy made it obvious she was no longer "numero uno".
I agree with you again. That is what she did. After speaking to other people.
-
I agree with you again. That is what she did. After speaking to other people.
So is't it possible that she didn't previously do her moral duty because she saw their futures as being linked? Once she realized it wasn't going to happen she was free. She could do her moral duty -minus her own complicity, of course- and get revenge for what he'd "forced" her into, AND get paid for doing it, all in one fell swoop. Job done, wouldn't you say ?{)(**
-
I agree with you again. That is what she did. After speaking to other people.
If I had been the defence barrister I would certainly have given her a tough time then. And If I was the family or Colin I don't think I would have spoken to her again. She was in your eyes very nearly responsible for him getting away with the murders.
-
If I had been the defence barrister I would certainly have given her a tough time then. And If I was the family or Colin I don't think I would have spoken to her again. She was in your eyes very nearly responsible for him getting away with the murders.
Guinness, it's my belief, that had he put a ring on her finger and married her indecently soon, it may have been more than "very nearly".
-
If I had been the defence barrister I would certainly have given her a tough time then. And If I was the family or Colin I don't think I would have spoken to her again. She was in your eyes very nearly responsible for him getting away with the murders.
Well my thread post gave lots of reasons why she waited a month.
One of the reasons they spilt up may have been because of what she knew. Being unable to live with it. They did spilt up quickly after the massacre.
Who knows if she would have stayed loyal if he had put a ring on her finger. But he didn't, did he ?
There was never much chance of marriage happening in the near future. Both being young and in a short term declining relationship. Jeremy about to become very rich and live his dream life. He wouldn't want Julie tagging along. She was whisked here there and everywhere at first, probably so Jeremy could keep an eye on her and keep her from making mischief. But once he thought things had quietened down he can start asking other girls out.
-
Well my thread post gave lots of reasons why she waited a month.
One of the reasons they spilt up may have been because of what she knew. Being unable to live with it. They did spilt up quickly after the massacre.
Who knows if she would have stayed loyal if he had put a ring on her finger. But he didn't, did he ?
There was never much chance of marriage happening in the near future. Both being young and in a short term declining relationship. Jeremy about to become very rich and live his dream life. He wouldn't want Julie tagging along. She was whisked here there and everywhere at first, probably so Jeremy could keep an eye on her and keep her from making mischief. But once he thought things had quietened down he can start asking other girls out.
The very fact that he kept Julie close to him during the aftermath would hardly have induced the thought in her that he was trying to make sure she kept her mouth shut. Understandably she have believed he needed her -they were in it together- and engagement/marriage would soon follow. You've said on numerous occasions that the relationship was in decline. I feel certain that Julie wasn't aware of it. She'd have thought the murders linked them for life.
-
I will never understand why Jeremy took the risk of alienating Julie to the extent he did by carrying on with Brett. Did he really believe that he had so much on Julie that she wouldn't dare go to the police?
-
I will never understand why Jeremy took the risk of alienating Julie to the extent he did by carrying on with Brett. Did he really believe that he had so much on Julie that she wouldn't dare go to the police?
Brett arrived straight after the massacre to become Jeremy's jolly up buddy. And eventual long term holiday replacement companion for Julie. Brett going everywhere with him & Julie.
Julie soon felt that three is a crowd. Women want a man's undivided attention at least some of the time. Jeremy said he enjoyed the two of them wanting his attention.
-
I will never understand why Jeremy took the risk of alienating Julie to the extent he did by carrying on with Brett. Did he really believe that he had so much on Julie that she wouldn't dare go to the police?
I imagine that the difference between Julie and Brett was darkness and light, Julie representing constraint and Brett representing fun. Jeremy was 24 going on 13. On a scale of 1 to 10 his emotional maturity was about 4. To be fair to Julie, she had certain responsibilities and wanted to be sure of her future. She was probably pushing Jeremy towards making a commitment. She was volatile. Emotional. She put a pillow over Jeremy's face. She stabbed a teddy bear. She threw a bar of soap at him in a supermarket. She smashed a mirror. These are NOT the way in which a woman persuades a man to marry her. C'mon John. WOULD you if the alternative was a great mate with no whinging and no strings?
-
I will never understand why Jeremy took the risk of alienating Julie to the extent he did by carrying on with Brett. Did he really believe that he had so much on Julie that she wouldn't dare go to the police?
I'm not sure what you mean by "carrying on with Brett"?
But she didn't "go to the police", did she? By this I mean initiate contact? I thought it was SB who made the first approach?
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "carrying on with Brett"?
But she didn't "go to the police", did she? By this I mean initiate contact? I thought it was SB who made the first approach?
She was with Liz Rimmington discussing the case. Liz then rang Stan Jones, with Julies permission. Jones went straight over.
-
I imagine that the difference between Julie and Brett was darkness and light, Julie representing constraint and Brett representing fun. Jeremy was 24 going on 13. On a scale of 1 to 10 his emotional maturity was about 4. To be fair to Julie, she had certain responsibilities and wanted to be sure of her future. She was probably pushing Jeremy towards making a commitment. She was volatile. Emotional. She put a pillow over Jeremy's face. She stabbed a teddy bear. She threw a bar of soap at him in a supermarket. She smashed a mirror. These are NOT the way in which a woman persuades a man to marry her. C'mon John. WOULD you if the alternative was a great mate with no whinging and no strings?
Have you got a source about her throwing soap at Jeremy ?
I know she put a pillow over him and then took it away. She says it in her own WS.
Does it also mention the teddy bear in her WS.
Was the smashed mirror after she heard him ask another woman out ? Isn't that in her WS as well ?
-
She was with Liz Rimmington discussing the case. Liz then rang Stan Jones, with Julies permission. Jones went straight over.
Thanks Adam I was pretty certain it wasn't JM who initiated contact with EP. Why did Liz phone and not JM?
-
I did not realise Julie already had a degree and was studying an honours degree. She is now very successful in her chosen field.
Jeremy asked her out. They were together only 20 months. Living in different parts of the country with the relationship in decline/coming to a close six months prior to the massacre according to Jeremy.
Being the age 19 - 21 I can't believe she was that bothered about the break up. Certainly not enough to be so savagely vindictive, as Jeremy claims.
-
Thanks Adam I was pretty certain it wasn't JM who initiated contact with EP. Why did Liz phone and not JM?
Who knows. Maybe it was Liz's phone. Julie was in the room.
-
If Jeremy was innocent, surely his callous actions and indifference to the massacre would have put her off him.
She would be relieved to get out. Rather than devastated and vindictive.
-
If Jeremy was innocent, surely his callous actions and indifference to the massacre would have put her off him.
She would be relieved to get out. Rather than devastated and vindictive.
His behaviour post tragedy is subjective and who is to say how he felt inside? Most men I know don't go around wearing their heart on their sleeve. The likes of Gladys and Tubby Tesco who share all their woes are unusual.
Virginia Greaves (girlfriend post JM) seemed to think JM was unsupportive and gave him grief.
Why did JM go off on one when JB invited VG out? She slapped him, threw an ornament smashing a mirror and attempted to smother him with a pillow so no one else could have him. That doesn't sound to me like someone relieved to get out.
-
Thought they had already spilt up when he asked another woman out in front of her ? She approached the police three days later. She probably didn't like him still treating her badly. After what he had put her through and she had so far kept quiet for him. Hence the slap. Women have been known to slap men.
Her WS says she put a pillow on his head. Then took it off. Ohhh.
I did not realise Julie already had a degree and was studying for an honours degree. She is now very successful in her chosen field.
Jeremy asked her out. They were together only 20 months. Living in different parts of the country with the relationship in decline/coming to a close six months prior to the massacre according to Jeremy.
Being the age 19 - 21 I can't believe she was that bothered about the break up. Certainly not enough to be so savagely vindictive. But Jeremy has to claim this
-
I wonder why Bamber was so successful with women.
He was very poor academically, failing all his exams. Despite being sent to esteemed schools. Becoming a school bully in the process.
He had no other special skills, resulting in him reluctantly returning to farm life as a last resort. Neville giving him limited roles saying he had 'no business sense'.
He had an average wage for working long hours. Things were not likely to change any time soon.
His laungage was very primitive in the 80's and he was not articulate. Even his supporters say he was very lazy and not a nice person. He has improved on these issues while running his 'Campaign for Freedom'.
He was average/good looking. Depending on the haircut.
Maybe it is all a bit of a myth partly built up by Jeremy himself. He did ask Julie out and stayed with her until he felt safe and rich. She was average looking and not a trophy girlfriend.
-
I wonder why Bamber was so successful with women.
He was very poor academically, failing all his exams. Despite being sent to esteemed schools. Becoming a school bully in the process.
He had no other special skills, resulting in him reluctantly returning to farm life as a last resort. Neville giving him limited roles saying he had 'no business sense'.
He had an average wage for working long hours. Things were not likely to change any time soon.
His laungage was very primitive in the 80's and he was not articulate. Even his supporters say he was very lazy and not a nice person. He has improved on these issues while running his 'Campaign for Freedom'.
He was average/good looking. Depending on the haircut.
Maybe it is all a bit of a myth partly built up by Jeremy himself. He did ask Julie out and stayed with her until he felt safe and rich. She was average looking and not a trophy girlfriend.
I think we can safely assume there's so much myth surrounding the so-called WHF murders and Jeremy Bamber that it is difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction! Well at least for some of us anyway 8(0(*
-
If Jeremy was innocent, surely his callous actions and indifference to the massacre would have put her off him.
She would be relieved to get out. Rather than devastated and vindictive.
As opposed to being guilty and murdering 5 people?? Yeah, that's a guy you really want to stay with! @)(++(*
-
Thought they had already spilt up when he asked another woman out in front of her ? She approached the police three days later. She probably didn't like him still treating her badly. After what he had put her through and she had so far kept quiet for him. Hence the slap. Women have been known to slap men.
Her WS says she put a pillow on his head. Then took it off. Ohhh.
I did not realise Julie already had a degree and was studying for an honours degree. She is now very successful in her chosen field.
Jeremy asked her out. They were together only 20 months. Living in different parts of the country with the relationship in decline/coming to a close six months prior to the massacre according to Jeremy.
Being the age 19 - 21 I can't believe she was that bothered about the break up. Certainly not enough to be so savagely vindictive. But Jeremy has to claim this
No, they were still together (as far as she knew), this is where the 'woman scorned' comes into it but you just keep insisting she wasn't jilted when in fact - she was.
-
I imagine that the difference between Julie and Brett was darkness and light, Julie representing constraint and Brett representing fun. Jeremy was 24 going on 13. On a scale of 1 to 10 his emotional maturity was about 4. To be fair to Julie, she had certain responsibilities and wanted to be sure of her future. She was probably pushing Jeremy towards making a commitment. She was volatile. Emotional. She put a pillow over Jeremy's face. She stabbed a teddy bear. She threw a bar of soap at him in a supermarket. She smashed a mirror. These are NOT the way in which a woman persuades a man to marry her. C'mon John. WOULD you if the alternative was a great mate with no whinging and no strings?
Julies WS says she threw a bar of soap to him in the Supermarket and it accidentally hit him on the nose.
-
No, they were still together (as far as she knew), this is where the 'woman scorned' comes into it but you just keep insisting she wasn't jilted when in fact - she was.
Well Julies WS says prior to this Bamber had been telling her he 'wanted to live his own life'.
After hearing Bamber ask another woman out she threatened to go to the police. She had previously threatened this. Bamber saying he was 'so watertight they would not believe her'.
They met one more time after this argument.
-
I think we can safely assume there's so much myth surrounding the so-called WHF murders and Jeremy Bamber that it is difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction! Well at least for some of us anyway 8(0(*
I suppose Bamber being made out to be irresistible to women supports the Julie telling lies claim.
Julie not able to accept that irresistible Jeremy did not want her.
-
I suppose Bamber being made out to be irresistible to women supports the Julie telling lies claim.
Julie not able to accept that irresistible Jeremy did not want her.
Who made out he was irresistible to women? And whether he was or wasn't how would this support any claim that JM told lies?
I think his shagability rating is subjective. I think he looks attractive in the following pic. In other pics I don't find him particularly attractive. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. He wasn't Elephant Man but then again he wasn't Brad Pitt either imo. As you said Adam JM wasn't the trophy girlfriend. Suzette Ford was imo far more attractive and glamorous.
-
Julie intially spoke to Susan Battersby about what Bamber had done. Then she spoke to Karen and Andy Bishop.
Liz Rimmington and her ex boyfriend were then spoken to, before Stan Jones was invited over.
Julie was relieved that she could tell the truth.
-
Julie intially spoke to Susan Battersby about what Bamber had done. Then she spoke to Karen and Andy Bishop.
Liz Rimmington and her ex boyfriend were then spoken to, before Stan Jones was invited over.
Julie was relieved that she could tell the truth.
I would have thought the time to tell the truth was when JM left the morgue with AE having identified the victims.
I will never be able to take anthing JM says seriously. CC tells in his book how on Saturday 3rd August 1985 he held a party at his London home. SC, JM and JB attended. CC makes a point of telling how JM put the twins to bed and read them a bedtime story; two little boys just turned 6 yoa. This no doubt included some affection perhaps a hug, kiss and ruffling or stroking their hair. With hindsight this was very poignant for CC as it was sadly the last opportunity he would ever have of putting the twins to bed which he missed. Less than 5 days later on Thursday 8th August JM is taken to the morgue by AE to identify the victims including the twins. To my mind this just doesn't bear thinking about. Surely seeing those two little boys with shaven heads and gunshot wounds would bring the truth home then and there?
JM claims JB told her on 7th August he arranged for MM to carry out the murders. If this is true how on earth could she continue an intimate relationship with a man capable of orchestrating such an act? She was not some silly 'love struck' teenage girl. She was almost 21yoa and studying for a masters degree.
-
I would have thought the time to tell the truth was when JM left the morgue with AE having identified the victims.
I will never be able to take anthing JM says seriously. CC tells in his book how on Saturday 3rd August 1985 he held a party at his London home. SC, JM and JB attended. CC makes a point of telling how JM put the twins to bed and read them a bedtime story; two little boys just turned 6 yoa. This no doubt included some affection perhaps a hug, kiss and ruffling or stroking their hair. With hindsight this was very poignant for CC as it was sadly the last opportunity he would ever have of putting the twins to bed which he missed. Less than 5 days later on Thursday 8th August JM is taken to the morgue by AE to identify the victims including the twins. To my mind this just doesn't bear thinking about. Surely seeing those two little boys with shaven heads and gunshot wounds would bring the truth home then and there?
JM claims JB told her on 7th August he arranged for MM to carry out the murders. If this is true how on earth could she continue an intimate relationship with a man capable of orchestrating such an act? She was not some silly 'love struck' teenage girl. She was almost 21yoa and studying for a masters degree.
The thread post says why she waited a month. Lots of reasons.
-
Jeremy's supporters often criticise Julie for not going to the police straight away.
There are lots of reasons why she approached the police a month later-
She was Jeremy's girlfriend.
She loved Jeremy and said she was under his spell.
She was in shock.
She was afraid of what Jeremy may do if he found out.
She tried to deny it to herself that the man she loved was involved.
Jeremy had said that he had paid MM £2,000 to commit the massacre. Julie said she knew Jeremy did not have this money available. So she would have clung to the possibility that Jeremy was making false boasts. Maybe it was Sheila.
She was 20 years old. We all make wrong decisions when so young.
Jeremy had said he was 'watertight' and it was an 'open and shut case'. He said Julie would not be believed.
She was afraid she would be implicating herself. Being aware of his hatred and resentment towards his family, and previous plans.
While still in shock, she gave a statement early on. So was afraid that changing her statement days or weeks later may put her in trouble.
She was afraid she would not be believed. Making herself look stupid and getting in trouble with the police for making false claims. In a TV interview she said Jeremy said 'there was nothing she could have done on the night, and there is nothing she can do now'
She was caught in the eye of a hurricane. Police, relatives and the media always around, funerals to attend. Jeremy getting police cars to pick her up, then whisking her off to Amsterdam the weekend after the massacre.
She had no one to speak to at first. Being with Jeremy most of the time after the massacre. She did not want to attend the funeral or continuously go around with Jeremy & Brett. But was persuaded to by Jeremy.
--------------------------------
It is true she approached the police, (via Liz Rimmington) after they had spilt up. After finally getting to speak to other people she trusted. She was hardly likely to approach the police while still Jeremy's girlfriend, was she ?
Jeremy said the relationship had been in decline for six months prior to the massacre. They were both young and living miles away from each other. The massacre probably speeded up the ending of the relationship by a few weeks. After Julie had come to terms with the massacre and cleared her head.
It is not conclusive about who jilted who. Although Jeremy has always weakly said Julie spoke to the police and testified because he jilted her. But he has never said scorned women are just as likely to tell the truth.
Speaking to the police a month later seems quite normal to me (see above). Making these claims months of years later, after moving in with or marrying Jeremy would have looked much worse. Although politician's wife Chris Hulme did just that ten years later after he left her. Hulme was found guilty.
She was brave in approaching the police. Jeremy had not been arrested and the silencer evidence had not come back from the lab. The police could have laughed her out of the station. Or charged her with wasting police time. Or both.
21
1. According to you the relationship was in decline by mutual consent.
2. That being the case, how can 1. be true?
3. Possibly, but it doesn't prove non complicity.
4. Afraid enough to share his bed, take all he offered AND attempt to smother him.
5. But she admitted to knowing what he was planning.
6. She SAID Jeremy said. His bank balance was in credit.
7. She was a 21 year old doing a Masters.
8. If he said it, perhaps he was reassuring HER.
9. Probably, if she'd always been in on it.
10. Same could be said of Jeremy. Shock isn't only in the domain of the innocent.
11. So she made certain she was by effectively wiping her hands of it in public.
12. She was a free agent and was intelligent enough to make her own choices. She loved the limelight. Who else was going to pay for her trips abroad.
13. What a sacrifice on her part. Having to share his bed, take his money, accept his hospitality, like his friends. You insist she was his girlfriend. Is this not what girlfriends do, especially those who are hoping for a wedding ring at the end of their "sacrifice".
-
I would have thought the time to tell the truth was when JM left the morgue with AE having identified the victims.
I will never be able to take anthing JM says seriously. CC tells in his book how on Saturday 3rd August 1985 he held a party at his London home. SC, JM and JB attended. CC makes a point of telling how JM put the twins to bed and read them a bedtime story; two little boys just turned 6 yoa. This no doubt included some affection perhaps a hug, kiss and ruffling or stroking their hair. With hindsight this was very poignant for CC as it was sadly the last opportunity he would ever have of putting the twins to bed which he missed. Less than 5 days later on Thursday 8th August JM is taken to the morgue by AE to identify the victims including the twins. To my mind this just doesn't bear thinking about. Surely seeing those two little boys with shaven heads and gunshot wounds would bring the truth home then and there?
JM claims JB told her on 7th August he arranged for MM to carry out the murders. If this is true how on earth could she continue an intimate relationship with a man capable of orchestrating such an act? She was not some silly 'love struck' teenage girl. She was almost 21yoa and studying for a masters degree.
I agree, it's impossible to imagine how Julie could bring herself to identify the boys. But who knows? Maybe Ann bullied her into it, I would think that she is quite a forceful person. And, sadly, only Julie could tell the boys apart.
People are very strange. Look at Gladys, pretending to be all pious and decent, while at the same time describing on youtube how he'd like to sodomise a policeman. To death. With a two-foot penis. And look at Sonia Sutcliffe, still visiting her husband, still living in the house they shared while he was murdering all those women.
Strange. 8(8-))
-
Did Julie identify ALL the family or just the twins? If someone else identified the others, why did they not also identify the boys? I'm not denying it would have been hard but surely more loving than allowing a non family member/ comparative stranger to do it.
-
Did Julie identify ALL the family or just the twins? If someone else identified the others, why did they not also identify the boys? I'm not denying it would have been hard but surely more loving than allowing a non family member/ comparative stranger to do it.
Yes, she identified all five, mainly because no-one else in the family could bear to see them in such a state.
-
Yes, she identified all five, mainly because no-one else in the family could bear to see them in such a state.
A curious juxtaposition, don't you think? The woman who can't bear to see her relatives, including her small second cousins, "in such a state", can confidently take her own children to help her change the beds in which took place the "state" she couldn't bear to see them in.
-
A curious juxtaposition, don't you think? The woman who can't bear to see her relatives, including her small second cousins, "in such a state", can confidently take her own children to help her change the beds in which took place the "state" she couldn't bear to see them in.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3168.0;attach=3118
-
A curious juxtaposition, don't you think? The woman who can't bear to see her relatives, including her small second cousins, "in such a state", can confidently take her own children to help her change the beds in which took place the "state" she couldn't bear to see them in.
Identifying a shaven, battered, bruised and bullet-ridden corpse is somewhat different though to remaking an empty bed with fresh sheets, if the blood-stained ones have already been disposed of.
-
Yes, she identified all five, mainly because no-one else in the family could bear to see them in such a state.
Actually most members of the family hardly saw Sheila and said they would not know the difference between the twins. Colins girlfriend offered to save colin doing it but the police refused.
-
Actually most members of the family hardly saw Sheila and said they would not know the difference between the twins. Colins girlfriend offered to save colin doing it but the police refused.
I think David Boutflour and Ann Eaton would have recognised Nevill, June and Sheila easily enough, but maybe not able to distinguish the twins, hence the reason for Julie's intervention.
JB couldn't have given a sh*t, imo... he was more interested in scarpering off to see how much he was worth the afternoon after the murders than identifying his parents, sister and nephews.
-
I think David Boutflour and Ann Eaton would have recognised Nevill, June and Sheila easily enough, but maybe not able to distinguish the twins, hence the reason for Julie's intervention.
JB couldn't have given a sh*t, imo... he was more interested in scarpering off to see how much he was worth the afternoon after the murders than identifying his parents, sister and nephews.
The victims of WHF were really from two families. I would have thought it more appropriate to have RB and PB or AE and DB identify SC, June and NB with CC's parents identifying the twins. I'm not an overly emotional, sentimental type but personally I think the way it was handled was a bit inappropriate and disrespectful to the victims. JM was only JB's girlfriend and by all accounts June didn't approve of her. I can understand CC and JB not feeling up to the task but I would have thought those once removed so to speak could find it in themselves to do so.
Did JB initiate contact with Basil Cock, the accountant, and the solicitor or did they approach him? Perhaps there were pressing matters to deal with eg maybe June and Nevill were the only authorised signatories on the N & J Bamber Ltd bank account. The staff needed paying. Perhaps merchants and others too. BW tells in the following at 6.55 mins in that she went to JB's home to collect the wages and money on the Friday after the murders. It could well be that JB had to meet the accountant and solicitor to access the N & J Bamber Ltd bank account in order to pay the wages. Perhaps JB was just trying to keep the show on the road. Or dealing with practical mundane matters was his way of coping with the shock/grief.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo
-
I think Julie was in a daze and until she saw Bambers handiwork first hand she couldn't believe it. It was all downhill from that point on.
-
Identifying a shaven, battered, bruised and bullet-ridden corpse is somewhat different though to remaking an empty bed with fresh sheets, if the blood-stained ones have already been disposed of.
They show you the face mainly, the rest of the body is covered up unless the face is in such bad shape that you need to look for tatts and other identifying features.