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: Holly Goodhead on September 28, 2017, 02:54:14 PM
-
Absolutely not imo. Although I accept whether JB is guilty or innocent JM comes out of it badly. Vilifying JM is imo the easy and lazy way for those who are either unable or unwilling to look at the forensic evidence and/or policing and judicial process. I see the vilification of JM as akin to discovering you have bought rotten eggs and then berating the person at the supermarket check-out for selling them! Whereas the responsibility clearly lies with the management and ultimately those overseeing the supply chain and producer.
- According to Ewan Smith, JB's one time lawyer and former CCRC commissioner, the trial judge warned jurors about the reliability of JM's testimony. He went on to say the silencer sealed JB's fate or words to this effect. An ITN news clip existed confirming this but it seems it is now unavailable.
- JM was interviewed over many days whilst holed up at a police training college and 'advised' not to speak with anyone including her mother. She was also without the benefit of any independent legal representation. This is a just turned 21 year old woman with no previous or criminal connections afaik interviewed over a prolonged period of time by middle-aged experienced male police officers. A very unhealthy situation imo.
- DS Jones lied to JB during his police interviews telling JB SC could not have shot her herself twice. This is not what the pathologist said. He said he was unable to confirm murder/suicide and it means just that. It is not for lay people such as DS Jones to override expert opinion with his own interpretation. If DS Jones went down this road with JM what was she to think? If pressure was bought to bear by DS Jones suggesting JM knew more than she was letting on with threats of accessory, perverting the course of justice, criminal charges over unrelated offences and ruining her chances of a teaching career she may well have broke.
- Blaming JM seems pretty lame when I consider the incompetence and negligence by JB's lawyers at trial and 2002 appeal; the bias shown by the trial judge and appeal court judges; incompetence, negligence and possible wrongdoing by staff at FSS and possible wrongdoing by a very small minority of police officers.
- The four female proseuction witnesses in the case of Stefan Kizsko admitted "lying for a laugh" and all went unpunished. If JB's conviction is overturned, and there's no doubt in my mind it will be, it is extremely unlikely JM will suffer any consequences even if she retracted her testimony. She will either maintain her testimony is based on the truth or that she was coerced by the police.
NGB recently said if JB is innocent JM ruined his life. And yet you never hear NGB criticise the lawyers or judges. At best he will say 'they expected an acquital' or 'it was their first case and they were time limited'. But who works on the basis of expecting an acquital? Sounds a touch arrogant. When premier league teams play low level teams in the FA cup they always respect the oppostion, turn up on the day and play to win. And what sort of system allows the new guy or girl on the block to take on a hugely complex case?
-
Giving a 30-page statement is one thing but standing up in a high profile court and being cross-examined is something else altogether. Julie's evidence to the court was extremely credible, she did not waver even under the pressure of cross examination. She feared for her future certainly but then any innocent kid in that situation would. Clearly it was explained to her in no uncertain terms what would happen to her if she lied to the court, she was left with no option but to come clean and spill the beans.
-
Giving a 30-page statement is one thing but standing up in a high profile court and being cross-examined is something else altogether. Julie's evidence to the court was extremely credible, she did not waver even under the pressure of cross examination. She feared for her future certainly but then any innocent kid in that situation would. Clearly it was explained to her in no uncertain terms what would happen to her if she lied to the court, she was left with no option but to come clean and spill the beans.
Well as I've previously posted the four 13 year old female prosecution witnesses at Stefan Kiszko's trial later admitted they "lied for a laugh" and "because at the time it was funny". They were cross-examined by David Waddington QC who went on to become Home Sec. The trial judge, Sir Hugh Park, praised the girls for bringing Stefan Kiszko to justice. The girls went unpunished. David Waddington maintained his position as Home Sec and the trial judge kept his knighthood.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
JM was some 8 years older than the 4 x teenage girls, university educated and trained to present on her teaching course.
Afaik JM's evidence in chief and cross examination hasn't survived so we don't know exactly how it all played out.
-
Well as I've previously posted the four 13 year old female prosecution witnesses at Stefan Kiszko's trial later admitted they "lied for a laugh" and "because at the time it was funny". They were cross-examined by David Waddington QC who went on to become Home Sec. The trial judge, Sir Hugh Park, praised the girls for bringing Stefan Kiszko to justice. The girls went unpunished. David Waddington maintained his position as Home Sec and the trial judge kept his knighthood.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
JM was some 8 years older than the 4 x teenage girls, university educated and trained to present on her teaching course.
Afaik JM's evidence in chief and cross examination hasn't survived so we don't know exactly how it all played out.
Actually we do. The jury, well at least 10 of them, accepted her evidence at face value and convicted Jeremy Bamber.
-
Actually we do. The jury, well at least 10 of them, accepted her evidence at face value and convicted Jeremy Bamber.
The jury's questions to the judge revolved around the blood/silencer evidence (and I believe to a lesser degree they sought clarification on who would benefit from the Bamber estate if JB was found guilty).
The case, like most I guess, was made up of many different aspects and no one has any idea what weight jurors attached to the various aspects as no one is privy to their deliberations. I am all for trial by jury. In JB's case it is seems the jurors were very astute and got to the hub of the case ie blood/silencer as evidenced by their questions to the judge.
-
I would suggest that if the jury hadn't believed Julie Mugford, JB would not have been convicted. The only remaining question was of course, had JB been acquitted, would Muggy have been done for perjury?
-
I don't really know much about this case, but came across this pdf that maybe of interest to some, i hope i have put it in the right place.
Parliament Transcript re Jermey Bamber.pdf
Apologies if this has already been posted before.
-
I don't really know much about this case, but came across this pdf that maybe of interest to some, i hope i have put it in the right place.
Parliament Transcript re Jermey Bamber.pdf
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_AMpl4jeqWkYjU4ZTFmODYtNzAxOC00MTI3LWE5MmYtODczZTA1MGU3N2M3/view?hl=en_GB
Apologies if this has already been posted before.
Hi Nine.
Thanks for the link but I'm unable to open? I'm on my phone at present so it might be the device.
-
I would suggest that if the jury hadn't believed Julie Mugford, JB would not have been convicted. The only remaining question was of course, had JB been acquitted, would Muggy have been done for perjury?
In a word 'no'.
People testify all the time for the prosecution. If a person is found 'not guilty', they are not charged with perjury. Otherwise no one would ever testify for the prosecution.
-
Hi Nine.
Thanks for the link but I'm unable to open? I'm on my phone at present so it might be the device.
I have attached the pdf to my original post Holly
-
I have attached the pdf to my original post Holly
Thanks Nine. I think I may have read this quickly on a previous occasion but it might be worth starting up a thread to sort out the fact from fiction.
-
I would suggest that if the jury hadn't believed Julie Mugford, JB would not have been convicted. The only remaining question was of course, had JB been acquitted, would Muggy have been done for perjury?
The prosecution case against JB was made up of many different aspects as stated in the 2002 appeal:
151. The prosecution relied upon the following areas of evidence:
i) The appellant's expressed dislike of his family;
ii) His speaking of his plans to kill his family and thereafter his confessions to his girlfriend, Julie Mugford;
iii) The finding of his mother's bicycle at Goldhanger;
iv) The appellant's admitted ability to effect covert entry into and exit from the farmhouse and the finding of the hacksaw blade outside the bathroom window. His claim to have entered the house in that way after the first arrest was an attempt to explain these findings;
v) Because on the facts of the case it could only have been the appellant or Sheila Caffell who carried out the killings, the factors below proved they were not the responsibility of the appellant's sister:
a) Although seriously mentally ill, there had been no indication of any deterioration in her mental health in the days before the killings. Neither had she expressed any recent suicidal thoughts and the expert evidence was that she would not have harmed her children or her father;
b) Save for the appellant nobody had seen her use a gun and she had no interest in them. Sheila Caffell also had very poor co-ordination and would not have been capable of loading and operating the rifle nor would she have had the required knowledge to do so;
c) She would not have been able physically to have overcome her father (who was fit, strong and 6' 4" tall) during the struggle which undoubtedly took place before his death in the kitchen;
d) Her hands and feet were clean. They were not blood stained and neither was there any sugar upon them;
e) Hand swabs from her body did not reveal the levels of lead to be expected in somebody who must have re-loaded the magazine of the gun on at least two occasions; and
f) Her clothing was relatively clean and she was not injured in the way that might be expected of somebody involved in a struggle. Her long fingernails were still intact and undamaged.
vi) The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself. The following aspects of the evidence established it was still in place on the gun when the appellant's sister was murdered:
a) The blood grouping analysis proved (on the particular facts of the case) that Sheila Caffell's blood was inside the moderator; and
b) Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.
vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:
a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;
b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;
c) As a matter of common sense, Nevill Bamber would have called the police before the appellant;
d) Had the appellant really received such a call, he would have immediately made a 999 call, alerted the farm workers who lived close to the farmhouse and then driven at speed to his parents home; and
e) Instead he had spoken to Julie Mugford before calling the police. When he subsequently contacted the Police, it was not by way of the emergency system.
viii) He stood to inherit considerable sums of money.
I don't think there's anything 'beyond reasonable doubt' in JM's testimony.
I think it is generally accepted in legal circles that the blood/silencer sealed JB's fate which I can understand as taken at face value it is very compelling evidence against JB. Either the blood in the silencer, which matched SC's blood groups, was deposited there as a result of drawback aka as blowback as claimed by the prosecution or it was fabricated. IMO JB's defence made a monumental error by arguing SC used the silencer and returned it to the gun cupboard before taking her own life and that the blood represented an intimate mix of NB's and June's. The big mistake imo was not going on an all out attack on the integrity of the blood and silencer and also underestimating juror's ability to see through the fog. I've been shocked by what I consider to be the inadequacies of all those who have defended JB and the various judges.
The only person in the world who knows whether JB is guilty or innocent is JB. And the only 2 people in the world who know whether JM's testimony is truthful are JM and JB. Even if JB didn't say a word to JM about murdering his family it wouldn't make JB innocent. Conversely even if JB said all or some of what JM testified about it wouldn't make JB guilty. He may have made such comments as bad taste jokes or for effect, to shock etc.
Had the jury found JB not guilty I don't believe there would be any reprecussions for JM. Why would there be? It would just have meant they were unable to find JB guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' based on the collective evidence.
I'm all for trial by jury but with the advent of 21st century forensic science I think it is time to drop lay witness testimony. All the research shows lay witnesses are unreliable even when it is limited to eye witness testimony only.
-
Myster where r thou'? I'm missing you. Xx
-
Supporters have different views on Julie.
JackieD believes Julie wouldn't have identified the twins if Bamber had told her he was involved. Not sure how JackieD knows what a young woman would or would not do in a situation she has never been in herself. However it's certainly her main reason for promoting Bamber's innocence. Even creating a thread addressed to me on this & proposing to make a documentary on Julie. Which is nice.
David does not believe Bamber mentioned Matthew Macdonald to Julie. Suggesting Robert Boutflour & Julie dreamed up MM between them. When Julie & RB were supposed to have engaged with each other while she was with her boyfriend Bamber virtually all the time, no one knows.
Nugs brings up Julie usually in his one line 'question' threads. Julie is a player in his conspiracy theories which bizarrely include The Sun, who apparently turned down an offer of a big, free exclusive from Bamber.
Kaldin has spent a lot of this week complaining about Julie buying a veil, attending the funeral & staying with Bamber. None of which Kaldin would have done. Again, I don't know how anyone knows what they would have done in Julie's situation. It was also suggested this week that Julie lied about Bamber saying he planned to cycle to WHF. Julie having the idea for this lie after seeing June's bike at Bamber's cottage just before the massacre.
Mike doesn't post about Julie much. Preferring to post mainly about the police
-
Supporters have different views on Julie.
JackieD believes Julie wouldn't have identified the twins if Bamber had told her he was involved. Not sure how JackieD knows what a young woman would or would not do in a situation she has never been in herself. However it's certainly her main reason for promoting Bamber's innocence. Even creating a thread addressed to me on this & proposing to make a documentary on Julie. Which is nice.
David does not believe Bamber mentioned Matthew Macdonald to Julie. Suggesting Robert Boutflour & Julie dreamed up MM between them. When Julie & RB were supposed to have engaged with each other while she was with her boyfriend Bamber virtually all the time, no one knows.
Nugs brings up Julie usually in his one line 'question' threads. Julie is a player in his conspiracy theories which bizarrely include The Sun, who apparently turned down an offer of a big, free exclusive from Bamber.
Kaldin has spent a lot of this week complaining about Julie buying a veil, attending the funeral & staying with Bamber. None of which Kaldin would have done. Again, I don't know how anyone knows what they would have done in Julie's situation. It was also suggested this week that Julie lied about Bamber saying he planned to cycle to WHF. Julie having the idea for this lie after seeing June's bike at Bamber's cottage just before the massacre.
Mike doesn't post about Julie much. Preferring to post mainly about the police
As far as I'm concerned JM is a small bit player in the grand scheme of things.
I dont recall JM making ref to the bike in her WS other than saying she would like it when JB asked her if she wanted anything from the house?
-
As far as I'm concerned JM is a small bit player in the grand scheme of things.
I dont recall JM making ref to the bike in her WS other than saying she would like it when JB asked her if she wanted anything from the house?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1647
Page 10.
Do you think it was a coincidence thar Bamber brought a bike to his cottage just before the massacre ?
Talk about an open goal for Julie & bad luck for Bamber.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1647
Page 10.
Do you think it was a coincidence thar Bamber brought a bike to his cottage just before the massacre ?
Talk about an open goal for Julie & bad luck for Bamber.
Thanks Adam. The typed versions on this forum don't seem to tie in with the above link? Page 10 of JM's 8/9 WS doesn't make ref to the bike? I will look into this later time permitting.
In any event in answer to your Q yes I think June's bike at JB's cottage was there for the reason JB claimed ie for JM's use when she was hanging out at JB's. Whatever JB did or didn't do in the lead up to the tragedy could be picked off and meshed into a JB dunnit scenario. This is the reason I prefer to home in on aspects of the case that have some scientific basis:
Ballistics
Blood staining
Casings
Distance of shots
Hand swabs
Pathological evidence
Psychological and psychiatric evidence
Wound tracks and trajectories
-
From the OS -
'The bicycle belonged to Jeremy's mother, but it had been brought to Jeremy’s house for Julie Mugford to use, so that she could cycle from Goldhanger to Toleshunt D'arcy, leaving the bike at the Red Lion Pub. She would then get the Osbourne's bus which runs from Tollesbury to Colchester.'
A very strange & unbelievable reason. But June obviously approved of Bamber's romantic jesture.
It was just bad luck & a coincidence Bamber brought the bike to his cottage just before the massacre.
-
From the OS -
'The bicycle belonged to Jeremy's mother, but it had been brought to Jeremy’s house for Julie Mugford to use, so that she could cycle from Goldhanger to Toleshunt D'arcy, leaving the bike at the Red Lion Pub. She would then get the Osbourne's bus which runs from Tollesbury to Colchester.'
A very strange & unbelievable reason. But June obviously approved of Bamber's romantic jesture.
It was just bad luck & a coincidence Bamber brought the bike to his cottage just before the massacre.
Why do you think it is "strange & unbelievable"? I don't know whether or not JM was able to drive but she certainly didn't have access to a car. If JM was at JB's cottage during term time (it was the summer break) and JB was working then a bike was surely a convenient and practical means of transporting herself to the nearest bus route to Colchester where her mother lived? Maybe she had other reasons for wanting to visit Colchester: holiday work? friends? more going on etc.
Goldhanger is a sleepy village with very limited links to public transport:
http://www.goldhanger.org.uk/buses.php
I thought it was a case that June had purchased the bike but didn't get on with it? Isn't there some testimony from BW to this effect along the lines June said there was some problem with it and JB tested it and said it was ok? Whilst he did this, according to BW, he also took the opportunity to annoy June by circling her and pulling up short in front of her?
The bike was forensically examined and nothing incriminating was found although I accept JB had the opportunity to clean it up in the interim.
-
Here's the timetable for buses from Red Lion, Tolleshunt D'arcy to Colchester:
https://bustimes.org.uk/services/set_5-92-E-y08
It's 3 miles from Goldhanger to the Red Lion pub and then a 30 min bus ride to Colchester with a slightly longer journey time on the return journey. All seems entirely normal and plausible to my mind.
http://www.theaa.com/route-planner/index.jsp#fromNode=0%7CGoldhanger,%20Maldon%20CM9,%20UK%7C%7C0.744984%7C51.749615%7CtoNode=0%7CTolleshunt%20D%27Arcy,%20Maldon%20CM9,%20UK%7C%7C0.794998%7C51.771637
-
I wonder if Mary Mugford's court testimony covered the bike ie a means for JM to travel to Colchester? (The name Mary Mugford always reminds me of my fave children's tv prog: Mary, Mungo and Midge. The BBC at its absolute best ?>)()<).
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1647
Page 10.
Do you think it was a coincidence thar Bamber brought a bike to his cottage just before the massacre ?
Talk about an open goal for Julie & bad luck for Bamber.
I've found it now. It's page 9 of the typed stats. I think I was getting confused with the fact that although JM outlines a MM scenario this doesn't include how he got to and from the farm or mention the bike.
I vaguely recall reading some handwritten ws's on Blue. Hartley states the grammar, spelling and handwriting is poor which makes me wonder whether JM was the author: grammar school, uni, teacher training and has risen through the ranks of Canada's education system to a senior role. Her diary entries supposedly in her own fair hand are legible.
-
I've found it now. It's page 9 of the typed stats. I think I was getting confused with the fact that although JM outlines a MM scenario this doesn't include how he got to and from the farm or mention the bike.
I vaguely recall reading some handwritten ws's on Blue. Hartley states the grammar, spelling and handwriting is poor which makes me wonder whether JM was the author: grammar school, uni, teacher training and has risen through the ranks of Canada's education system to a senior role. Her diary entries supposedly in her own fair hand are legible.
The thing about statements is that the wording is not a verbatim representation of anything a witness has to say as they are often scribed in police lingo and later edited. Witnesses are always asked to read their statements before signing to ensure that what is recorded is correct. If it isn't correct it will be edited as necessary and then the witness asked to sign.
The only time a statement should be relied upon in court is if the witness was unable to testify personally, in such case the statement is converted to a sworn affidavit.
-
The thing about statements is that the wording is not a verbatim representation of anything a witness has to say as they are often scribed in police lingo and later edited. Witnesses are always asked to read their statements before signing to ensure that what is recorded is correct. If it isn't correct it will be edited as necessary and then the witness asked to sign.
The only time a statement should be relied upon in court is if the witness was unable to testify personally, in such case the statement is converted to a sworn affidavit.
Thanks John. I wrongly assumed a police officer would say something like tell us everything from the beginning and away the witness goes with pen in hand. But what you're saying is the officer will elicit info from the witness and make notes. These notes are then put into some sort of coherent narrative and typed up. The witness is then asked to read and confirm the contents are correct by signing.
-
Why do you think it is "strange & unbelievable"? I don't know whether or not JM was able to drive but she certainly didn't have access to a car. If JM was at JB's cottage during term time (it was the summer break) and JB was working then a bike was surely a convenient and practical means of transporting herself to the nearest bus route to Colchester where her mother lived? Maybe she had other reasons for wanting to visit Colchester: holiday work? friends? more going on etc.
Goldhanger is a sleepy village with very limited links to public transport:
http://www.goldhanger.org.uk/buses.php
I thought it was a case that June had purchased the bike but didn't get on with it? Isn't there some testimony from BW to this effect along the lines June said there was some problem with it and JB tested it and said it was ok? Whilst he did this, according to BW, he also took the opportunity to annoy June by circling her and pulling up short in front of her?
The bike was forensically examined and nothing incriminating was found although I accept JB had the opportunity to clean it up in the interim.
It is very strange & unbelievable. I know of no other such arrangement between boyfriend & girlfriend. And never will do. Do you ? But appreciate supporters have to support Bamber's weird counter reason.
Bamber could have at least paid for a taxi if in the unlikely event he couldn't drive her to a train station. Or Julie could have paid herself. Cycling, lol.
Or Bamber could have driven Julie from WHF to a train station if he was working & couldn't drive back to his cottage to collect her. I assume Julie was allowed to spend time at WHF if Bamber was working there. Otherwise a bit pointless her visiting.
Would Julie not visit Bamber when he was not working ? Or did she just hang around on her own until Bamber finished work every night ?
Whatever, I'm sure two adults Bamber & Julie between them could have arranged a short lift to a train station.
Both guilters & supporters agree Bamber was very unlucky that he brough the bike over just before the massacre. Leaving an open goal for everyone. Which everyone scored from.
-
It is very strange & unbelievable. I know of no other such arrangement between boyfriend & girlfriend. And never will do. Do you ? But appreciate supporters have to support Bamber's weird counter reason.
Bamber could have at least paid for a taxi if in the unlikely event he couldn't drive her to a train station. Or Julie could have paid herself.
Or Bamber could have driven Julie from WHF to a train station if he was working & couldn't drive back to his cottage to collect her. I assume Julie was allowed to spend time at WHF if Bamber was working there. Otherwise a bit pointless her visiting.
Would Julie not visit Bamber when he was not working ? Or did she just hang around on her own until Bamber finished work every night ?
Whatever, I'm sure two adults Bamber & Julie between them could have arranged a short lift to a train station.
Both guilters & supporters agree Bamber was very unlucky that he brough the bike over just before the massacre. Leaving an open goal for everyone. Which everyone scored from.
If the bike hadn't been found at JB's then I'm sure all those who argued JB cycled would revert to walking.
JB did take JM to the train station when she returned to London. I understand the bike was simply a means of getting around the local area whilst she was staying at JB's and he was working. Students use bikes and public transport to get around on.
One of her ws's refers to NB picking her up from a bus stop.
I don't see anything remotely suspicious here:
- JM was at teacher training college with long hols
- JB was working during the day and it would be unreasonable for him to down tools on the farm to ferry JM about on non-essential trips
- Goldhanger is a sleepy village with very limited public transport
-
If the bike hadn't been found at JB's then I'm sure all those who argued JB cycled would revert to walking.
JB did take JM to the train station when she returned to London. I understand the bike was simply a means of getting around the local area whilst she was staying at JB's and he was working. Students use bikes and public transport to get around on.
One of her ws's refers to NB picking her up from a bus stop.
I don't see anything remotely suspicious here:
- JM was at teacher training college with long hols
- JB was working during the day and it would be unreasonable for him to down tools on the farm to ferry JM about on non-essential trips
- Goldhanger is a sleepy village with very limited public transport
So you are not aware of anything similar ?
Non essential trip ? It was one lift to the station when Julie was going home. Would have been nice for Bamber to give her a lift after she made the effort to visit him.
I don't agree with Nugs that Bamber would have got lost to/from WHF. Or with David that it would take 30 minutes longer to walk 3 miles in the dark, or it would take Bamber 100 minutes to walk to WHF.
So it was also possible to walk to/from WHF. But having a bike made it a lot easier & quicker. Meaning Bamber could leave his cottage later & would have more time to complete things at WHF. A reduced travelling time outside also means less chance of being seen.
-
So you are not aware of anything similar ?
Non essential trip ? It was one lift to the station when Julie was going home. Would have been nice for Bamber to give her a lift after she made the effort to visit him.
I don't agree with Nugs that Bamber would have got lost to/from WHF. Or with David that it would take 30 minutes longer to walk 3 miles in the dark, or it would take Bamber 100 minutes to walk to WHF.
So it was also possible to walk to/from WHF. But having a bike made it a lot easier & quicker. Meaning Bamber could leave his cottage later & would have more time to complete things at WHF. A reduced travelling time outside also means less chance of being seen.
Similar to what? JB taking June's bike for JM's use whilst she was effectively stranded in Goldhanger is to my mind an entirely 'normal' domestic arrangement. According to JM's WS she even asked for the bike when JB offered her anything from the house. This was after she discussed JB's 'involvement' with SB and LR.
As I understand it the intended purpose of the bike was a means for JM getting about on whilst staying at Goldhanger when JB was working. When she returned to London by train JB dropped her off at the station.
The fact the bike even forms part of the case against JB is in itself telling of the investigation and judicial process when there's so much untapped forensic evidence.
-
Similar to what? JB taking June's bike for JM's use whilst she was effectively stranded in Goldhanger is to my mind an entirely 'normal' domestic arrangement. According to JM's WS she even asked for the bike when JB offered her anything from the house. This was after she discussed JB's 'involvement' with SB and LR.
As I understand it the intended purpose of the bike was a means for JM getting about on whilst staying at Goldhanger when JB was working. When she returned to London by train JB dropped her off at the station.
The fact the bike even forms part of the case against JB is in itself telling of the investigation and judicial process when there's so much untapped forensic evidence.
I know the bike was allegedly there for Julie's use, but the last time I was there -in Goldhanger- I came back via Totham. As I turned off the main road, ALMOST adjacent Church Road, I noticed Maldon Growers(?) Is that not where Julie had a summer job? It's easily withing walking distance of Jeremy's cottage................HOWEVER, cycling from Goldhanger to the Queen's Head in D'Arcy would have meant taking her life in her hands!!! If the bike was never used, it wouldn't come as a surprise!
-
I know the bike was allegedly there for Julie's use, but the last time I was there -in Goldhanger- I came back via Totham. As I turned off the main road, ALMOST adjacent Church Road, I noticed Maldon Growers(?) Is that not where Julie had a summer job? It's easily withing walking distance of Jeremy's cottage................HOWEVER, cycling from Goldhanger to the Queen's Head in D'Arcy would have meant taking her life in her hands!!! If the bike was never used, it wouldn't come as a surprise!
JM's WS's state she worked at North Maldon Growers (NMG) but I don't believe it was in the lead up to the tragedy? The AA route planner shows the journey time from Head St to NMG as 1.1 miles which I would find very walkable but some people just don't like walking.
I visited the area some 4 years ago and found the roads very quiet although quite winding in places. I would imagine 32 years they were even quieter?
JB transported the bike from WHF to his cottage around the start of the academic summer break which obviously coincides with the tragedy so can be viewed either way. If JM planned to spend some, most or all of the time at JB's and wasn't working then what would she do all day stranded in Goldhanger? Depends what she was into I guess as to how she could amuse herself or send herself stir crazy and whether or not she was happy with her own company.
Personally I think the bike is unremarkable. Had such a case been heard in the US the emphasis would be on the ballistics evidence, other evidence at soc eg blood stain analysis, pathological and psychological evidence.
-
Actually thinking about it JM was working at the time of the tragedy as when JB called her at circa 5am he told her not to go to work. Also he gave her a cheque for £400 in respect of loss of earnings due to all the time she had off work post tragedy. I think she was working in a kindergarten in London?
So maybe the bike was for her use in London? According to her WS's post tragedy JB asked her if she wanted anything from the house and she asked for the bike.
-
It would have been a long way for her to cycle from Goldhanger to Witham station. Had she wanted it for getting to school in London -although August would still have been school holidays, surely- I'd have thought Jeremy would have taken it to the station for her.
-
It would have been a long way for her to cycle from Goldhanger to Witham station. Had she wanted it for getting to school in London -although August would still have been school holidays, surely- I'd have thought Jeremy would have taken it to the station for her.
Yes I'm not suggesting there was ever any intention to use the bike as part of the journey to London. Maybe kindergartens operated all year round in London/1980's? I'm unsure exactly where she was working at the time of the tragedy but by all accounts she was committed to some type of work in London at the time.
It seems the bike was for JM's use whilst at JB's pad when he was working and would provide a means of transport to the bus stop in Tolleshunt D'arcy with links to Colchester. Her mother lived in Colchester and she went to school there so I'm assuming she wanted to hook up with friends/family for coffee/lunch.
-
Yes I'm not suggesting there was ever any intention to use the bike as part of the journey to London. Maybe kindergartens operated all year round in London/1980's? I'm unsure exactly where she was working at the time of the tragedy but by all accounts she was committed to some type of work in London at the time.
It seems the bike was for JM's use whilst at JB's pad when he was working and would provide a means of transport to the bus stop in Tolleshunt D'arcy with links to Colchester. Her mother lived in Colchester and she went to school there so I'm assuming she wanted to hook up with friends/family for coffee/lunch.
It's not a journey I'd have wanted to do but -although it's relative, roads would have been quieter then- the last bus back from Colchester was probably around 6pm so she wouldn't have had to travel it at night.
-
WHY do Bamber supporters vilify JM?
And HOW are her actions comparble to this women's
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-41763408
-
Nugnug posted today -
"you cant convincly say that a hitman did it but you know exactly what happened her statements about the hitman and the order contradict each other.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8845.msg422550.html#msg422550
JM's statements are reflective of Bambers personality (where she has relayed to the police what he has told her)
-
Why they vilify her is quite simple. They don't want to face he is guilty, the things that he told and did like breaking in to the Caravan site to steal money puts him in a bad light and thus they insist she lied or even make up that she was the ring leader.
It's a matter of their agenda driving things.
-
WHY do Bamber supporters vilify JM?
And HOW are her actions comparble to this women's
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-41763408
Because in their mind she did the dirty on him.
-
But this doesn't really explain how on the one hand I see JB as the victim of a MoJ and on the other hand don't believe JM deserves the vilification she receives from some quarters.
-
WHY do Bamber supporters vilify JM?
And HOW are her actions comparble to this women's
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-41763408
Further to Scipio's response, JM's testimony is the one piece of evidence his supporters can't just explain away with a diagram or some other bollocks. It was damning. So they besmirch her character at every opportunity.
There was no good reason for anyone to question this brave, thoroughly decent and conscionable woman's testimony. Remember what she told the court had the ring of truth about it.
-
Further to Scipio's response, JM's testimony is the one piece of evidence his supporters can't just explain away with a diagram or some other bollocks. It was damning. So they besmirch her character at every opportunity.
There was no good reason for anyone to question this brave, thoroughly decent and conscionable woman's testimony. Remember what she told the court had the ring of truth about it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
Also that month, the four girls involved in the court trial admitted that the evidence they had given which had led to Kiszko's arrest and conviction was false, and that they had lied for "a laugh" and because "at the time it was funny". Burke said she wished she had not said anything but refused to apologise, saying she did not think it would go as far as it did. Buckley said it was not Kiszko who had exposed himself to her and that he had not been stalking them, but they had seen a taxi driver (not Ronald Castree) urinating behind a bush on the day of Molseed's murder. She also refused to apologise. Brown refused to make a statement. Hind was the most remorseful of the four, saying that what they did was "foolish but we were young" and that, had she appeared in court, she would have told the truth about Kiszko, unlike her friends, who all had committed perjury. She herself did not think Kiszko would be convicted
In this day and age of forensic science I think it's time to call time on lay witness testimony.
-
Hi Holly, you cannot compare 2 completely different cases, we have been here before. It's like when you compare Tracie Andrews with Sheila Caffell, apples and oranges.
Unlike the 2 very questionable witnesses in the Kischko case, Julie Mugford was indeed a credible witness. Enough of the jury believed her. That did as much if not more to sway a jury than the forensics.
I know we disagree on this but I think her day in court is the main reason Bamber will never see the light of day. unless he confesses which I still reckon is a possibility
-
Why they vilify her is quite simple. They don't want to face he is guilty, the things that he told and did like breaking in to the Caravan site to steal money puts him in a bad light and thus they insist she lied or even make up that she was the ring leader.
It's a matter of their agenda driving things.
What about the difference in agendas between the disordered and non disordered personalities?
"With disordered characters, what we commonly perceive as unconscious defenses (e.g., denial) are more often deliberate tactics of impression-management, manipulation, and responsibility-avoidance. http://counsellingresource.com/features/2008/10/08/denial-as-defense-mechanism/
-
Because in their mind she did the dirty on him.
"Why are people so often in denial?
In the psychological sense, denial is a defense mechanism in which a person, faced with a painful fact, rejects the reality of that fact. They will insist that the fact is not true despite what may be overwhelming and irrefutable evidence.
There are three forms of denial. Simple denial is when the painful fact is denied altogether. Minimisational denial is when the painful fact is admitted but its seriousness is downplayed. Transference denial is when the painful fact is admitted, the seriousness also admitted, but one's moral responsibility in the situation involving the painful fact is downplayed.
When a person is in denial, they engage in distractive or escapist strategies to reduce stress and help them cope. The effect upon psychological well-being in doing this is unclear. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/29/the_odd_body_denial/
-
Further to Scipio's response, JM's testimony is the one piece of evidence his supporters can't just explain away with a diagram or some other bollocks. It was damning. So they besmirch her character at every opportunity.
There was no good reason for anyone to question this brave, thoroughly decent and conscionable woman's testimony. Remember what she told the court had the ring of truth about it.
"Psychological manipulation can be defined as the exercise of undue influence through mental distortion and emotional exploitation, with the intention to seize power, control, benefits and/or privileges at the victim’s expense.
It is important to distinguish healthy social influence from psychological manipulation. Healthy social influence occurs between most people, and is part of the give and take of constructive relationships. In psychological manipulation, one person is used for the benefit of another. The manipulator deliberately creates an imbalance of power, and exploits the victim to serve his or her agenda.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/communication-success/201510/14-signs-psychological-and-emotional-manipulation
JM was psychologically manipulated by Bamber. She was another of his victims
Certain types of people choose to exploit victims like JM to serve their own agendas
-
Nugs yesterday said Julie should have secretly tried to locate Matthew Macdonald to ask him if he carried out the massacre.
The problems with this are she didn't know him, didn't know any of his friends, was told MM was disappearing for a while & she was with Bamber virtually all the time after the massacre.
Guilty or not, MM would not have told someone he didn't know (Julie) that he killed 5 people.
Telling close friends & the police seems like the normal reaction.
-
Nugs yesterday said Julie should have secretly tried to locate Matthew Macdonald to ask him if he carried out the massacre.
The problems with this are she didn't know him, didn't know any of his friends, was told MM was disappearing for a while & she was with Bamber virtually all the time after the massacre.
Guilty or not, MM would not have told someone he didn't know (Julie) that he killed 5 people.
Telling close friends & the police seems like the normal reaction.
JM was acquainted with MM. MM refers to an encounter at Boutrtee Cottage in his WS. I will go and have a look for the WS.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=284.0
Sheet 12 says Bamber told Julie MM was going out of the country. Even Bamber didn't know where to.
If Julie met MM once or twice months ago while with Bamber, that does not mean anything. But feel free to clarify.
-
JM was acquainted with MM. MM refers to an encounter at Boutrtee Cottage in his WS. I will go and have a look for the WS.
Acquainted? An encounter isn't really acquainted. But why would Julie involve MM off the top of her head? Doesn't make any sense - but it does sound like something Jeremy would have said. Julie had no reason to mention a hit man.
-
Acquainted? An encounter isn't really acquainted. But why would Julie involve MM off the top of her head? Doesn't make any sense - but it does sound like something Jeremy would have said. Julie had no reason to mention a hit man.
Adam said JM didn't know MM. I guess it depends on what your definition of not knowing is. Mine would be unable to put name to face, never spoken with etc.
JM met MM when he visited Bourtree Cottage and she was present. My definition of this intereaction is that she was acquainted with him.
Afaik they didn't move in the same circles. It seems there were 2 crowds from Sloppy Joes/Frog n Beans: the older crowd: MM, CB and SF and the younger crowd: JB, JM, MD, MW, LR, CM, and on the edge the Bishops. JB's relationship with SF connected him with MM and CB but the others didn't seem to mix.
-
It's also interesting to note RD Jnr (DeFeo case) introduced a hitman initially.
Doubt JB took inspiration from this since RD Jnr was found guilty but others who were looking to secure a conviction may have.
Asfaik there are very few domestic mass shootings across the globe. A high profile case like Amytville could serve as a blueprint for WHF even in a pre-internet satellite global 24 hours news era.
-
Blaming JM seems pretty lame when I consider the incompetence and negligence by JB's lawyers at trial and 2002 appeal; the bias shown by the trial judge and appeal court judges; incompetence, negligence and possible wrongdoing by staff at FSS and possible wrongdoing by a very small minority of police officers.
So in your mind it was solely the fault of EP?
I've no idea how ANY future appeal would have had any bearing on JM's evidence - the clue is in the word future
JM appeared to be a responsible young 21 year old who could stand on her own 2 feet. I'm sure if she felt intimidated by any police officer she would have raised these concerns either at the time or in the time since. She said nothing about this when she was flown over for Bambers appeal. In fact what she did say was she was still very much convinced in his guilt.
The fact she held her hands up to the cheque fraud and indeed told officers she was with Bamber when he broke into his families caravan park further support the fact she had the capacity to admit to her wrong doings.
-
JM was acquainted with MM. MM refers to an encounter at Boutrtee Cottage in his WS. I will go and have a look for the WS.
- According to Ewan Smith, JB's one time lawyer and former CCRC commissioner, the trial judge warned jurors about the reliability of JM's testimony. He went on to say the silencer sealed JB's fate or words to this effect. An ITN news clip existed confirming this but it seems it is now unavailable.
Going by your interpretation of JM being acquainted with MM -
I too am acquainted with Ewan Smith. I spent several hours with him up in Birmingham at the CCRC's head office.
It is my firm belief, Ewan Smith, as Bambers "one time lawyer," KNOWS Bamber is guilty.
He struck me as a reasonable, open minded man willing to listen to new arguments. He did not however strike me as the kind of man to suffer fools gladly.
Ewan Smith will not be the first or indeed last CCRC commissioner to have made a mistake.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
Also that month, the four girls involved in the court trial admitted that the evidence they had given which had led to Kiszko's arrest and conviction was false, and that they had lied for "a laugh" and because "at the time it was funny". Burke said she wished she had not said anything but refused to apologise, saying she did not think it would go as far as it did. Buckley said it was not Kiszko who had exposed himself to her and that he had not been stalking them, but they had seen a taxi driver (not Ronald Castree) urinating behind a bush on the day of Molseed's murder. She also refused to apologise. Brown refused to make a statement. Hind was the most remorseful of the four, saying that what they did was "foolish but we were young" and that, had she appeared in court, she would have told the truth about Kiszko, unlike her friends, who all had committed perjury. She herself did not think Kiszko would be convicted
In this day and age of forensic science I think it's time to call time on lay witness testimony
- The four female proseuction witnesses in the case of Stefan Kizsko admitted "lying for a laugh" and all went unpunished. If JB's conviction is overturned, and there's no doubt in my mind it will be, it is extremely unlikely JM will suffer any consequences even if she retracted her testimony. She will either maintain her testimony is based on the truth or that she was coerced by the police. .
How can you possibly compare the witnesses in the Kisko case with JM?
They were clearly a different ilk of person Holly.
Please point me to ANY evidence where it shows JM to have taken advantage of, or exploited a vulnerable individual?
How can you possibly suggest or indeed allude to JM having given evidence against Bamber "for a laugh" or because "at the time it was funny?"
Do you think people are all good or all bad?
-
It's also interesting to note RD Jnr (DeFeo case) introduced a hitman initially.
Doubt JB took inspiration from this since RD Jnr was found guilty but others who were looking to secure a conviction may have.
HOW can you possibly know this?
How do you Know what books Bamber had read or movies he'd seen in his lifetime before his crimes
What are you basing YOUR assumption on?
-
I'm appalled that 'newbies/probies' were allowed to cut their teeth on such a seemingly complex trial but it does make me wonder if it may have been felt, higher up the chain, that the result was a foregone conclusion?
-
I'm appalled that 'newbies/probies' were allowed to cut their teeth on such a seemingly complex trial but it does make me wonder if it may have been felt, higher up the chain, that the result was a foregone conclusion?
Jeremy Bamber was responsible for his actions - no one else!
-
JM was acquainted with MM. MM refers to an encounter at Boutrtee Cottage in his WS. I will go and have a look for the WS.
Look forward to seeing this. Just out of interest. There seems to be some confusion over whether MM met Julie.
Julie's WS just says she 'knew who he (Bamber) was referring to.
Even Bamber in his police interviews says he didn't know MM well.
I suspect Bamber used MM as a proxy as MM had a local reputation as some sort of mercenary, which Julie knew about.
Bamber also knew there was no way Julie would come into contact with MM as MM was not part of Bamber's jolly up crowd. She couldn't go looking for MM as she was with Bamber & wouldn't know where to start anyway. Bamber had also told her MM had gone abroad.
-
Look forward to seeing this. Just out of interest. There seems to be some confusion over whether MM met Julie.
Julie's WS just says she 'knew who he (Bamber) was referring to.
Even Bamber in his police interviews says he didn't know MM well.
I suspect Bamber used MM as a proxy as MM had a local reputation as some sort of mercenary, which Julie knew about.
Bamber also knew there was no way Julie would come into contact with MM as MM was not part of Bamber's jolly up crowd. She couldn't go looking for MM as she was with Bamber & wouldn't know where to start anyway. Bamber had also told her MM had gone abroad.
Sounds to me as though JM was referring to the rumour mill, as opposed to being "acquainted" with MM as Holly suggests.
-
Look forward to seeing this. Just out of interest. There seems to be some confusion over whether MM met Julie.
Julie's WS just says she 'knew who he (Bamber) was referring to.
Even Bamber in his police interviews says he didn't know MM well.
I suspect Bamber used MM as a proxy as MM had a local reputation as some sort of mercenary, which Julie knew about.
Bamber also knew there was no way Julie would come into contact with MM as MM was not part of Bamber's jolly up crowd. She couldn't go looking for MM as she was with Bamber & wouldn't know where to start anyway. Bamber had also told her MM had gone abroad.
There's a section here which touches on MM https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rj14BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=jeremy+bamber+secure+windows+insecure+windows&source=bl&ots=h8HoPINfVj&sig=QzLGZOOfb86Co0wLCsexvGhkaoA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2l9Xz54zXAhUDVhoKHTHUDIMQ6AEIMjAB#v=onepage&q=jeremy%20bamber%20secure%20windows%20insecure%20windows&f=false
And how he didn't know one end of a rifle from the other
Interesting also are the comments made by the women Bamber surrounded himself with after the murders.
And of course the comments made by the police regarding Bambers behaviour
-
There's a section here which touches on MM https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rj14BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=jeremy+bamber+secure+windows+insecure+windows&source=bl&ots=h8HoPINfVj&sig=QzLGZOOfb86Co0wLCsexvGhkaoA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2l9Xz54zXAhUDVhoKHTHUDIMQ6AEIMjAB#v=onepage&q=jeremy%20bamber%20secure%20windows%20insecure%20windows&f=false
And how he didn't know one end of a rifle from the other
Interesting also are the comments made by the women Bamber surrounded himself with after the murders.
And of course the comments made by the police regarding Bambers behaviour
After reading the above link and absorbing its content it would be helpful to compare it to the following http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8541.msg428224#msg428224
Which reminds me, where are ALL of Bambers ex girlfriends and "girlfriends" witness statements? Why do we only have JM's?
What is in the statements of other "girlfriends" Bamber does not want us to see
-
The discussion is about Julie Mugford, anything else will be removed as per admins orders.
-
The discussion is about Julie Mugford, anything else will be removed as per admins orders.
I was discussing JM and indeed her vilification?
-
The fact she held her hands up to the cheque fraud and indeed told officers she was with Bamber when he broke into his families caravan park further support the fact she had the capacity to admit to her wrong doings.
Mugford had no option but to confess. It was either that or be charged along with Bamber. She was intelligent enough to know where her future lay. After all, she did admit to knowing of Bamber's threats towards his family yet she did nothing choosing instead to feather her own nest. Little wonder she is now vilified imo.
-
Mugford had no option but to confess. It was either that or be charged along with Bamber. She was intelligent enough to know where her future lay. After all, she did admit to knowing of Bamber's threats towards his family yet she did nothing choosing instead to feather her own nest. Little wonder she is now vilified imo.
Where is your evidence to prove beyond any reasonable doubt JM recognised in Bamber that he was a highly disordered and dangerous individual capable of carrying out his threats?
What did JM, at the age of 21, understand a psychopath to be?
What did she know about personality disorders?
What would EP police have known about psychopaths and personality disordered individuals?
-
Look forward to seeing this. Just out of interest. There seems to be some confusion over whether MM met Julie.
Julie's WS just says she 'knew who he (Bamber) was referring to.
Even Bamber in his police interviews says he didn't know MM well.
I suspect Bamber used MM as a proxy as MM had a local reputation as some sort of mercenary, which Julie knew about.
Bamber also knew there was no way Julie would come into contact with MM as MM was not part of Bamber's jolly up crowd. She couldn't go looking for MM as she was with Bamber & wouldn't know where to start anyway. Bamber had also told her MM had gone abroad.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1057.0;attach=3286
I'm convinced drugs play a far bigger role in this case than most of us could possibly imagine.
-
Mugford had no option but to confess. It was either that or be charged along with Bamber. She was intelligent enough to know where her future lay. After all, she did admit to knowing of Bamber's threats towards his family yet she did nothing choosing instead to feather her own nest. Little wonder she is now vilified imo.
If Essex police could make the mistake of believing Bambers lies, what makes JM's reasoning of events any different?
-
Mugford had no option but to confess. It was either that or be charged along with Bamber. She was intelligent enough to know where her future lay. After all, she did admit to knowing of Bamber's threats towards his family yet she did nothing choosing instead to feather her own nest. Little wonder she is now vilified imo.
Jeremy Bambers pre trial assessment report suggested he was a possibly psychopath
He was found guilty in a court of law for mass murder of his family
On that basis - JM was subjected to psychological abuse by Bamber for 18 months during their relationship
"Using mind control techniques alternating abuse with offering crumbs of hope or social kindness, they keep targets pervasively off balance, wanting to help, resenting how they are being treated, and constantly emotionally, physically, and psychologically off balance.
It takes approximately as long as you were exposed to their maniacal behavior to recover. If you only were involved with them for a few days, a few weeks, or a few months, count your lucky STARS.
The damage their mental abuse tactics do (gaslighting, triangulating, undermining, ridiculing, shaming) takes far longer to heal from than any physical act of violence they do to you.
Even if they do bodily harm that caused PTSD, C-PTSD tends to develop rapidly for ever person who truly risks remaining in close personal touch with one.
It might seem fun to party with a lunatic when you are a wayward teen, not understanding what the red flags of a personality disorder this extreme actually are, but by the time you pass the age of 28?
http://flyingmonkeysdenied.com/definition/psychopath/
Today there is a wealth of material on the www about psychopaths. What was available back in the 80's?
JM did appear to be intelligent but intelligence does not mean she wasn't naive, especially with regards an 18 months relationship with a highly disordered and dangerous individual
-
How does UK law view the public vilification of prosecution witnesses like JM?
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/mentally_disordered_offenders/
And where does Jeremy Bamber stand in relation to this is; are the public, like JM protected?
-
Mugford had no option but to confess. It was either that or be charged along with Bamber. She was intelligent enough to know where her future lay. After all, she did admit to knowing of Bamber's threats towards his family yet she did nothing choosing instead to feather her own nest. Little wonder she is now vilified imo.
I am of the opinion the CPS recognised JM as a victim of psychopathic abuse at the hands of Jeremy Bamber
"At some point, however, the evidence of a highly disturbed personality shows through, especially once the psychopath is no longer invested in a given victim and thus no longer makes a significant effort to keep his mask on. Then total denial is no longer possible. The floodgates of reality suddenly burst open and a whole slew of inconsistencies, downright lies, manipulations, criticism and emotional abuse flows through to the surface of our consciousness.
However, even then it’s difficult to absorb such painful information all at once. Our heart still yearns for what we have been persuaded, during the luring phase, was our one true love. Our minds are still filled with memories of the so-called good times with the psychopath. Yet, the truth about the infidelities, the constant deception, the manipulation and the backstabbing can no longer be denied. We can’t undo everything we learned about the psychopath; we cannot return to the point of original innocence, of total blindness. The result is a contradictory experience: a kind of internal battle between clinging to denial and accepting the truth.
Cognitive dissonance is a painful incredulity marked by this inner contradiction in the victim’s attitude towards the victimizer. In 1984, perhaps the best novel about brainwashing that occurs in totalitarian regimes, George Orwell coined his own term for this inner contradiction: he called it doublethink. Doublethink is not logical, but it is a common defense mechanism for coping with deception, domination and abuse. Victims engage in doublethink, or cognitive dissonance, in a partly subconscious attempt to reconcile the contradictory claims and behavior of the disordered individuals who have taken over their lives.
The denial itself can take several forms. It can manifest itself as the continuing idealization of the psychopath during the luring phase of the relationship or it can be shifting the blame for what went wrong in the relationship from him, the culprit, to ourselves, or to other victims. In fact, the easiest solution is to blame neither oneself nor the psychopath, but other victims. How often have you encountered the phenomenon where people who have partners who cheat on them lash out at the other women (or men) instead of holding their partners accountable for their actions? It’s far easier to blame someone you’re not emotionally invested in than someone you love, particularly if you still cling to that person or relationship.https://psychopathyawareness.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/a-painful-incredulity-psychopathy-and-cognitive-dissonance/
-
I am of the opinion the CPS recognised JM as a victim of psychopathic abuse at the hands of Jeremy Bamber
"At some point, however, the evidence of a highly disturbed personality shows through, especially once the psychopath is no longer invested in a given victim and thus no longer makes a significant effort to keep his mask on. Then total denial is no longer possible. The floodgates of reality suddenly burst open and a whole slew of inconsistencies, downright lies, manipulations, criticism and emotional abuse flows through to the surface of our consciousness.
However, even then it’s difficult to absorb such painful information all at once. Our heart still yearns for what we have been persuaded, during the luring phase, was our one true love. Our minds are still filled with memories of the so-called good times with the psychopath. Yet, the truth about the infidelities, the constant deception, the manipulation and the backstabbing can no longer be denied. We can’t undo everything we learned about the psychopath; we cannot return to the point of original innocence, of total blindness. The result is a contradictory experience: a kind of internal battle between clinging to denial and accepting the truth.
Cognitive dissonance is a painful incredulity marked by this inner contradiction in the victim’s attitude towards the victimizer. In 1984, perhaps the best novel about brainwashing that occurs in totalitarian regimes, George Orwell coined his own term for this inner contradiction: he called it doublethink. Doublethink is not logical, but it is a common defense mechanism for coping with deception, domination and abuse. Victims engage in doublethink, or cognitive dissonance, in a partly subconscious attempt to reconcile the contradictory claims and behavior of the disordered individuals who have taken over their lives.
The denial itself can take several forms. It can manifest itself as the continuing idealization of the psychopath during the luring phase of the relationship or it can be shifting the blame for what went wrong in the relationship from him, the culprit, to ourselves, or to other victims. In fact, the easiest solution is to blame neither oneself nor the psychopath, but other victims. How often have you encountered the phenomenon where people who have partners who cheat on them lash out at the other women (or men) instead of holding their partners accountable for their actions? It’s far easier to blame someone you’re not emotionally invested in than someone you love, particularly if you still cling to that person or relationship.https://psychopathyawareness.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/a-painful-incredulity-psychopathy-and-cognitive-dissonance/
I am further of the opinion JM went to the police when Bambers mask slipped one to many times and she could no longer deny her gut feeling that he had murdered his family
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1057.0;attach=3286
I'm convinced drugs play a far bigger role in this case than most of us could possibly imagine.
Thanks. Obviously Nugs's theory has been dismissed MM didn't know who Julie was.
He does come up with some strange theories. Recently saying The Sun met Bamber but turned down a big free exclusive from him, so they could commit serious libel instead.
-
Mugford had no option but to confess. It was either that or be charged along with Bamber. She was intelligent enough to know where her future lay. After all, she did admit to knowing of Bamber's threats towards his family yet she did nothing choosing instead to feather her own nest. Little wonder she is now vilified imo.
What about Anji Greaves "feathering her nest?"
How much did she receive for her story?
-
Thanks. Obviously Nugs's theory has been dismissed MM didn't know who Julie was.
He does come up with some strange theories. Recently saying The Sun met Bamber but turned down a big free exclusive from him, so they could commit serious libel instead.
Well I don't know what you mean by "MM didn't know who Julie was". They obviously met at JB's cottage as per MM's WS. MM describes her as "studenty".
-
What about Anji Greaves "feathering her nest?"
How much did she receive for her story?
So she has a brief fling with the mass murderer Bamber, betraying her sister in the process, turns on JM, vilifying her for no apparent reason, does a deal with a national newspaper, then disappears *&^^&
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1057.0;attach=3286
I'm convinced drugs play a far bigger role in this case than most of us could possibly imagine.
The evidence supports greed. Not simply greed from someone hooked on drugs who wants money to keep obtaining drugs but someone who doesn't want to work for a living and wants to live it up who happens to do drugs. I'm no defender of hop heads but just don't see it here.
-
Topic is, "Are 'supporters' justified in their vilification of JM?"
-
Topic is, "Are 'supporters' justified in their vilification of JM?"
Obviously not. She literally was between a rock and hard place. I can't believe how Roch on blue is painting himself into a corner, but he's always done that. If there's blood in the silencer, but none in the barrel, then the silencer was used. Otherwise, there HAD to be blood in the barrel. And there wasn't. You don't have to be Steven Hawking to work that one out. Durr.
^*&&
-
Good to see that Brady's ashes were dumped into the sea this week.
When Bamber dies, I've got a massive, steaming muck heap. Just waiting for his horrible, worthless remains to be dug deep into the shit, turned over a bit, then pissed on by a fox.
8((()*/