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: anglolawyer on September 27, 2015, 02:06:07 AM
-
If he didn't, he's not guilty. Therefore, he did. Does anyone know?
-
If he didn't, he's not guilty. Therefore, he did. Does anyone know?
I don't think even Carol Ann Lee knows the answer to that riddle. &%+((£
Better write and ask him, because if he didn't then he's wasted 30 years on hold and is off-the-hook. 8((()*/
-
I don't think even Carol Ann Lee knows the answer to that riddle. &%+((£
Better write and ask him, because if he didn't then he's wasted 30 years on hold and is off-the-hook. 8((()*/
He had a phone with an automatic call back function so it was funky to at least that extent. The thing is, he said in interview that the police should be able to verify from telephone records that the call was made. That means it must have been picked up at Bourtree Cottage. If there was no answerphone then there was no way of pulling off the crime so as to leave a trace of this call. He believed a trace had been left. Therefore:
(I) no answerphone = not guilty
(II) answerphone = guilty or not guilty, and
(III) if guilty, he had an answerphone
Now there is a second problem. If Bamber called from WHF at 3.00 a.m. how did he place a call from
Bourtree to Julie a minute or two later? That seems impossible but, if he believed, right or not, the call times could be retrieved then he had to solve it.
-
If he didn't, he's not guilty. Therefore, he did. Does anyone know?
Much has been made of the possibility of an answerphone on another forum and I'm inclined to go with it. The suggestion has been that by the time Jeremy got out of bed and downstairs when the alleged call happened, the answerphone would have kicked in. Then it was suggested that he turned it off at night. I THINK I recall that the police took it away.....................but I can't promise that I've given a definitive answer.
-
If he didn't, he's not guilty. Therefore, he did. Does anyone know?
You've lost me...how can anything be determined by whether or not he had an answering machine?
AE's WS states she continuously dialled his number circa 8am on 7th Aug and got no reply. No mention of an answering machine but he may have had one and it was turned off.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2175
I think I might have read something about one of the Greaves sisters leaving a message on an answering machine but that may have been at Maida Vale. Or maybe JB bought one post tragedy.
-
I don't think even Carol Ann Lee knows the answer to that riddle. &%+((£
Better write and ask him, because if he didn't then he's wasted 30 years on hold and is off-the-hook. 8((()*/
CAL's book talks about meter pulses on 8 min cycles and the tel eng at trial talked about 2 mins?
-
You've lost me...how can anything be determined by whether or not he had an answering machine?
AE's WS states she continuously dialled his number circa 8am on 7th Aug and got no reply. No mention of an answering machine but he may have had one and it was turned off.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2175
I think I might have read something about one of the Greaves sisters leaving a message on an answering machine but that may have been at Maida Vale. Or maybe JB bought one post tragedy.
Do try and keep up, HG.
Let's assume he is guilty for a minute. And he wants there to be a trace of a call from WHF to Bourtree at 3.00 a.m. Only a call which connects will leave such a trace. Therefore, he needs an answerphone to pick up the call. So, if he hasn't got one he can't have expected the police to be able to zero in on the time of the call from BT's records.
Of course, if he was really smart, he would have bought an answerphone for use on this single occasion and then chucked it away, so finding he never had one will not solve the crime, sadly.
-
Much has been made of the possibility of an answerphone on another forum and I'm inclined to go with it. The suggestion has been that by the time Jeremy got out of bed and downstairs when the alleged call happened, the answerphone would have kicked in. Then it was suggested that he turned it off at night. I THINK I recall that the police took it away.....................but I can't promise that I've given a definitive answer.
Thanks April. That is interesting.
I am going with this theory at the moment:
1 he kills everybody
2 he calls Bourtree from WHF at 3.00 a.m. - a pre-arranged time, hanging up after a few seconds once the answer phone has kicked in
3 he calls Julie's number right after, using the WHF phone
4 he rings off before she picks up
5 she 'answers' the fake call
6 she goes into Sue Battersby to discuss the call, thereby getting SB involved as an unknowing, independent witness to the time (Sue was precise - the call was at 3.12 on her clock which was set 10 minutes fast, so therefore at 3.02)
What do you think?
-
Do try and keep up, HG.
Let's assume he is guilty for a minute. And he wants there to be a trace of a call from WHF to Bourtree at 3.00 a.m. Only a call which connects will leave such a trace. Therefore, he needs an answerphone to pick up the call. So, if he hasn't got one he can't have expected the police to be able to zero in on the time of the call from BT's records.
Of course, if he was really smart, he would have bought an answerphone for use on this single occasion and then chucked it away, so finding he never had one will not solve the crime, sadly.
I'm sorry you've still lost me 8)><( Please spell it out in very simple terms.
-
Thanks April. That is interesting.
I am going with this theory at the moment:
1 he kills everybody
2 he calls Bourtree from WHF at 3.00 a.m. - a pre-arranged time, hanging up after a few seconds once the answer phone has kicked in
3 he calls Julie's number right after, using the WHF phone
4 he rings off before she picks up
5 she 'answers' the fake call
6 she goes into Sue Battersby to discuss the call, thereby getting SB involved as an unknowing, independent witness to the time (Sue was precise - the call was at 3.12 on her clock which was set 10 minutes fast, so therefore at 3.02)
What do you think?
The only problem with 4 and 5 is that JM didn't pick up, Douglas Dale did.
You're aving a laf
-
According to CAL P259 Virginia Greaves left a message on an answering machine at Bourtree Cottage.
-
If he didn't, he's not guilty. Therefore, he did. Does anyone know?
Yes, he did but said it wasn't on.
-
Do try and keep up, HG.
Let's assume he is guilty for a minute. And he wants there to be a trace of a call from WHF to Bourtree at 3.00 a.m. Only a call which connects will leave such a trace. Therefore, he needs an answerphone to pick up the call. So, if he hasn't got one he can't have expected the police to be able to zero in on the time of the call from BT's records.
Of course, if he was really smart, he would have bought an answerphone for use on this single occasion and then chucked it away, so finding he never had one will not solve the crime, sadly.
Where are you suggesting that such a call would leave a trace? There was no such trace left at those old exchanges whether the call was picked up or not.
-
Where are you suggesting that such a call would leave a trace? There was no such trace left at those old exchanges whether the call was picked up or not.
That's not the point. It's what he believed that matters and he believed the time of the call from WHF would be recorded somewhere.
-
The only problem with 4 and 5 is that JM didn't pick up, Douglas Dale did.
You're aving a laf
That's very boring. Source?
-
Yes, he did but said it wasn't on.
Great. The prediction (that, if guilty, he must have had an answerphone) is true.
-
Great. The prediction (that, if guilty, he must have had an answerphone) is true.
Anglolawyer HI. Thought you might be interested in this. In CAL'S book she says "Julie went to bed about quarter past eleven", SLEEPING!!!! -I mean, WOULD you, if your lover had phoned you earlier to say he was going to kill his entire family? Guess it takes all sorts- "until the phone rang in the early hours of the morning" Julie says "I got out of bed and went to the phone on the landing and said "Hello" I felt very dozy and I suppose I was only half awake"-personally, I think she was expecting that call- but the point I'm trying to make is that there is no mention of anyone else answering that call.
-
Anglolawyer HI. Thought you might be interested in this. In CAL'S book she says "Julie went to bed about quarter past eleven", SLEEPING!!!! -I mean, WOULD you, if your lover had phoned you earlier to say he was going to kill his entire family? Guess it takes all sorts- "until the phone rang in the early hours of the morning" Julie says "I got out of bed and went to the phone on the landing and said "Hello" I felt very dozy and I suppose I was only half awake"-personally, I think she was expecting that call- but the point I'm trying to make is that there is no mention of anyone else answering that call.
I completely disagree. Julie wasn't expecting any call from Bamber, she told him to go back to bed. Thing is though, he was never in bed.
As fas as the call from WHF to Bourtree Cottage is concerned all Jeremy Bamber had to do was make it just before he left the farmhouse and answer it ten minutes later on his arrival at Bourtree.
-
The only problem with 4 and 5 is that JM didn't pick up, Douglas Dale did.
Source?
According to Julie's 8/9th Sept. w/s, Douglas Dale answered the "3am" call...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5934.msg275556#msg275556 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5934.msg275556#msg275556)
-
According to Julie's 8/9th Sept. w/s, Douglas Dale answered the "3am" call...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5934.msg275556#msg275556 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5934.msg275556#msg275556)
Thanks Myster saved me a task. And yet in the CoA doc/DD's WS of 9th Sept (which I haven't actually seen) he makes no ref of taking the call just that he heard it &%+((£
"307. Douglas Dale was in the house at the time. He made a statement on 9 September saying that he had heard the phone at about 3 a.m. He also gave that evidence at trial. But when cross-examined he said that it could have been about 3.30 a.m. He said that he had never looked at the time and had probably been told the time the next morning by others".
-
According to Julie's 8/9th Sept. w/s, Douglas Dale answered the "3am" call...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5934.msg275556#msg275556 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5934.msg275556#msg275556)
Which meant that Jeremy had to have murdered everyone and left the farmhouse by 2.50am or thereabouts.
I think if Julie was lying in bed expecting a call from Bamber to tell her the dirty deed was done that she would have been ready to intercept the phonecall. In my opinion she never expected to get a call from Bamber that morning because he never told her what he was about to do just in case she alerted the police
-
It matters who answered the call. My theory is busted if Dale did but now there seems to be doubt about it. I have little doubt at all that if Bamber is guilty, Julie was his knowing accomplice. I also believe, on the same assumption of guilt, that the call to Julie was a key part of the plan.
-
I just cannot believe that Julie was complicit with his plan to execute two harmless children, she was after all training to teach so had respect for them and kids in general, though obviously extremely naive, besotted with and out of her depth with Bamber, but definitely no Bonnie to his Clyde, imo.
-
I just cannot believe that Julie was complicit with his plan to execute two harmless children, she was after all training to teach so had respect for them and kids in general, though obviously extremely naive, besotted with and out of her depth with Bamber, but definitely no Bonnie to his Clyde, imo.
I don't know why you are so sure given that she stayed with him knowing he was planning the murders and after he carried them out. Doesn't thst cause you any concern about her character?
-
I don't know why you are so sure given that she stayed with him knowing he was planning the murders and after he carried them out. Doesn't thst cause you any concern about her character?
My own view is that Julie never took Jerry seriously and simply put up with his ramblings about wanting to do away with his family. Even after the murders Jerry was telling her that someone else did it for him, he feared that admitting to cold blooded murder would in reality turn Julie against him...he was right!
-
My own view is that Julie never took Jerry seriously and simply put up with his ramblings about wanting to do away with his family. Even after the murders Jerry was telling her that someone else did it for him, he feared that admitting to cold blooded murder would in reality turn Julie against him...he was right!
I think you have been fooled by a convenient conspiracy in which no one could explore Julie's role properly. Not Jeremy, without destroying himself, not Julie, obviously and not the DPP who needed her in order to convict. Her claim that she never really believed him is simply not credible and had the pokive not been so gullible and stupid as to need her evidence, she might very well have found herself in the dock beside him.
-
Just WHAT has this woman got that men on BOTH forums rush to defend her? Was it, perhaps that she beguiled with her suggestive, post trial poses OR does this "dull and unattractive woman" possess a dangerous je ne sais quoi?
Angelo sounded almost apoplectic at my suggestion that Julie was expecting Jeremy's call. I can't believe she simply went to bed and slept AFTER it. HowEVER much my reason told me "Nah, he wouldn't" fear that he just might would have kept me awake, ESPECIALLY as he appeared to have rung specifically to say "It's tonight or never".
Myster, I'm so sorry if I've ruined your illusions of soft and gentle womanhood but it's an element in Julie that I always found missing and no one will convince me that she'd have said anything if he'd put something the size of the Krupps on her finger. A grasping and avaristic trait doesn't JUST develop so it's possible that whilst she didn't like thinking about him actually doing it, she was able to focus on what their life would be with all that wealth at his -THEIR- disposal. I'm inclined to think they may have been singing from the same hymn sheet.
John, I've always believed that you'd say it how it is but you seem not to be able to even look at the possibility of her being complicit.
Anglolawyer, I'm entirely with you, here and I find it a black but amusing irony that after 30 yrs they still have each other by the short and curlies. HE can't reveal what she knew without admitting his own guilt and as she has built a new life on her non complicity in the crime, it's possible a fragile house of cards could fall if she reveals exactly what -albeit passive- influence she'd had in what happened.
-
Ooops, sorry... well, in my case I was mesmerized by her come-to-bed eyes. @)(++(*
Seriously though, the thought that she could just accept her boyfriend murdering them all so they could both live the high life doesn't sit easy with me. I'm with John, in that she believed it was all a fantasy for JB and never thought for a moment that he'd carry it out. Wasn't she supposed to have told him something like - "You'll get the money eventually, if you wait" and "If you don't like them running your life, why not just leave?".
Who knows, maybe you're both right... which is why she's kept silent for thirty years and JB is loathe to mention much about her, although he has asked her in the past to "play the white (wo)man", whatever that's supposed to mean, and also why his wrath has been directed more at "the relatives" and "corrupt" Essex police.
-
Ooops, sorry... well, in my case I was mesmerized by her come-to-bed eyes. @)(++(*
Seriously though, the thought that she could just accept her boyfriend murdering them all so they could both live the high life doesn't sit easy with me. I'm with John, in that she believed it was all a fantasy for JB and never thought for a moment that he'd carry it out. Wasn't she supposed to have told him something like - "You'll get the money eventually, if you wait" and "If you don't like them running your life, why not just leave?".
Who knows, maybe you're both right... which is why she's kept silent for thirty years and JB is loathe to mention much about her, although he has asked her in the past to "play the white (wo)man", whatever that's supposed to mean, and also why his wrath has been directed more at "the relatives" and "corrupt" Essex police.
Oh, I totally agree Myster. It doesn't sit comfortably but when we consider weighing up how it was possible, we must remember that this same girl flashed her flesh, post trial, very willingly, adding for our further delectation the fact that Jeremy had taught her sex like never before. I feel there's a hardness about her which enabled her to turn any situation to her advantage.
-
Just WHAT has this woman got that men on BOTH forums rush to defend her? Was it, perhaps that she beguiled with her suggestive, post trial poses OR does this "dull and unattractive woman" possess a dangerous je ne sais quoi?
Angelo sounded almost apoplectic at my suggestion that Julie was expecting Jeremy's call. I can't believe she simply went to bed and slept AFTER it. HowEVER much my reason told me "Nah, he wouldn't" fear that he just might would have kept me awake, ESPECIALLY as he appeared to have rung specifically to say "It's tonight or never".
Myster, I'm so sorry if I've ruined your illusions of soft and gentle womanhood but it's an element in Julie that I always found missing and no one will convince me that she'd have said anything if he'd put something the size of the Krupps on her finger. A grasping and avaristic trait doesn't JUST develop so it's possible that whilst she didn't like thinking about him actually doing it, she was able to focus on what their life would be with all that wealth at his -THEIR- disposal. I'm inclined to think they may have been singing from the same hymn sheet.
John, I've always believed that you'd say it how it is but you seem not to be able to even look at the possibility of her being complicit.
Anglolawyer, I'm entirely with you, here and I find it a black but amusing irony that after 30 yrs they still have each other by the short and curlies. HE can't reveal what she knew without admitting his own guilt and as she has built a new life on her non complicity in the crime, it's possible a fragile house of cards could fall if she reveals exactly what -albeit passive- influence she'd had in what happened.
I am in complete agreement with this.
The 'je ne sais quoi' is probably no more than a willingness to participate in his life of crime. She was unattractive and not especially bright so she must have had something. It has been suggested on another board that the whole thing may have been her idea. I'm not sure I would go that far but I wouldn't rule it out either. If Bamber is guilty (I am still willing to contemplate the other possibility) then the whole thing (her behaviour and his) makes much more sense if she was his accomplice than otherwise.
-
Ooops, sorry... well, in my case I was mesmerized by her come-to-bed eyes. @)(++(*
Seriously though, the thought that she could just accept her boyfriend murdering them all so they could both live the high life doesn't sit easy with me. I'm with John, in that she believed it was all a fantasy for JB and never thought for a moment that he'd carry it out. Wasn't she supposed to have told him something like - "You'll get the money eventually, if you wait" and "If you don't like them running your life, why not just leave?".
Who knows, maybe you're both right... which is why she's kept silent for thirty years and JB is loathe to mention much about her, although he has asked her in the past to "play the white (wo)man", whatever that's supposed to mean, and also why his wrath has been directed more at "the relatives" and "corrupt" Essex police.
Of course! Jeremy can never say 'she is guilty as me' can he? Her story was swallowed by a grateful establishment which had monumentally screwed up the crime of the century (as far as Essex goes anyway) so neither she nor they have any reason to question it.
It seems highly possible that the documents buried behind PII certificates concern this aspect as they would otherwise offer a window on the world of behind-the-scenes dealings that we aren't supposed to know about, and I speak as a semi-insider. The English do nothing as well as they do hypocrisy. Thus, plea bargaining is not allowed - officially - so it happens behind closed doors and everyone pretends it doesn't exist. That's the English way. Simply in taking her statement without administering a caution the Essex police had already screwed up before anyone in authority cottoned on, assuming advice from on high was not sought at an early stage, which it probably was.
-
Of course! Jeremy can never say 'she is guilty as me' can he? Her story was swallowed by a grateful establishment which had monumentally screwed up the crime of the century (as far as Essex goes anyway) so neither she nor they have any reason to question it.
It seems highly possible that the documents buried behind PII certificates concern this aspect as they would otherwise offer a window on the world of behind-the-scenes dealings that we aren't supposed to know about, and I speak as a semi-insider. The English do nothing as well as they do hypocrisy. Thus, plea bargaining is not allowed - officially - so it happens behind closed doors and everyone pretends it doesn't exist. That's the English way. Simply in taking her statement without administering a caution the Essex police had already screwed up before anyone in authority cottoned on, assuming advice from on high was not sought at an early stage, which it probably was.
It's also possible that "advice from on high" may have been delivered, before it was sought, to avoid a rerun of the cock-up perceived to have occurred re the Dr Jones case in near-by Coggeshall.
-
It's also possible that "advice from on high" may have been delivered, before it was sought, to avoid a rerun of the cock-up perceived to have occurred re the Dr Jones case in near-by Coggeshall.
Very possible. Indeed, likely. I don't know about the Dr Jones case. Aren't there too many people called Jones in this business already?
-
The idea that JM was complicit in any shape or form has as much credibility as Paul Harrison's theory that SC was JB's accomplice.
All the forensics will eventually show that EP's initial assessment was correct ie 4 murders and a suicide.
-
I am in complete agreement with this.
The 'je ne sais quoi' is probably no more than a willingness to participate in his life of crime. She was unattractive and not especially bright so she must have had something. It has been suggested on another board that the whole thing may have been her idea. I'm not sure I would go that far but I wouldn't rule it out either. If Bamber is guilty (I am still willing to contemplate the other possibility) then the whole thing (her behaviour and his) makes much more sense if she was his accomplice than otherwise.
"...not especially bright..." I see a few of those around here 8(0(*. What % of the population from developed countries born in 1964 obtained degrees?
With regard to whether or not she was attractive I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What has her physical appearance got to do with anything anyway?
I'm not going to waste my time joining in these silly debates.
Most lawyers I know usually stick to the facts of a case &%+((£
-
"...not especially bright..." I see a few of those around here 8(0(*. What % of the population from developed countries born in 1964 obtained degrees?
With regard to whether or not she was attractive I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What has her physical appearance got to do with anything anyway?
I'm not going to waste my time joining in these silly debates.
Most lawyers I know usually stick to the facts of a case &%+((£
I bet you don't know any lawyers, still less what they stick to.
I'm a man. I can tell attractive from unattractive. She was unattractive. She was studying to be a teacher, not a rocket scientist. I have seen her in recorded interview. She is plain and uninteresting. That is relevant because Bamber soon tired of her and was even willing to risk exposure to be shot of her. That in turn better explains her conduct in turning him in than some agonising about ethics. If she expected to be Mrs Bamber and to be rich (in her provincial terms, anyway) then it is not hard to imagine how she must have felt, especially having helped him commit the crime (as I believe) when he spurned her and tried to fob her off with a paid holiday.
By the way, despite being a straight man, I can also tell attractive men from unattractive ones and it has been my experience, to which there are of course exceptions, that attractive people tend to wind up with other attractive people while unattractive tend to pair with unattractive. Colin and Sheila are examples of a couple of 9s. Bamber is probably an 8 while Sheila is perhaps a 3. While I would not put too much weight on it, I don't think it irrelevant to ask: what attracted him to her? Its not as though he didn't have plenty of offers, many of which he seems to have taken advantage of.
-
I bet you don't know any lawyers, still less what they stick to.
I'm a man. I can tell attractive from unattractive. She was unattractive. She was studying to be a teacher, not a rocket scientist. I have seen her in recorded interview. She is plain and uninteresting. That is relevant because Bamber soon tired of her and was even willing to risk exposure to be shot of her. That in turn better explains her conduct in turning him in than some agonising about ethics. If she expected to be Mrs Bamber and to be rich (in her provincial terms, anyway) then it is not hard to imagine how she must have felt, especially having helped him commit the crime (as I believe) when he spurned her and tried to fob her off with a paid holiday.
By the way, despite being a straight man, I can also tell attractive men from unattractive ones and it has been my experience, to which there are of course exceptions, that attractive people tend to wind up with other attractive people while unattractive tend to pair with unattractive. Colin and Sheila are examples of a couple of 9s. Bamber is probably an 8 while Sheila is perhaps a 3. While I would not put too much weight on it, I don't think it irrelevant to ask: what attracted him to her? Its not as though he didn't have plenty of offers, many of which he seems to have taken advantage of.
There is a theory that the moment we set eyes on the person who will become our "significant other" there is a level on which we "know" that we and they will know all the steps we/they dance to................whatever they may be.