Julies witness statement. A 'ring of truth' ?

[adam]

Bamber's highly paid defence went through Julie's WS brick by brick. Looking for a brick they could pull out to bring everything crashing down.

However they could not find anything. Admitting to each other her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.

Out of desperation, at trial the defence focused on the 1984 minor cheque book fraud. To try to show her as a dishonest person. The judge rightly poured scorn on this saying both Bamber & Julie had committed previous crime, but that does not mean either had lied at trial. He also said Julie had paid back the money ( Bamber had not). Bamber had also trusted Julie enough to tell her about the caravan break in, so may have trusted her enough to tell her about the massacre.

Julies WS is in different parts -

What happened after the massacre :

The eating out, hotels, trips around the country and abroad. There is no point in Julie lying here. A lot of other people joined them for some of these. Hotel bookings can be checked and relatives asked. So there was no reason to lie as everything can be easily checked.

What Bamber did does not highlight guilt or innocence anyway. Although Bamber's callous actions have come back to haunt him


Bamber's hatred  and resentment :

This could be her word against Bamber's. But was not.

Bamber himself testified he had a very poor/non existent relationship with June.

He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' on the massacre night. Saying they did not like each other and she had committed child abuse on the twins. Decades later saying he did not understand her illness.

There are also a lot of other people who said Bamber did not like his family or the raw deal he had. The facts back this up, Sheila living rent free in London, Bamber working long hours after reluctantly starting to work on the farm as a last resort.


The massacre plans :

This is again Julies word against Bamber's. However some of the things Julie said are backed up.

She said he planned to ride to WHF. This is backed up by the fact that the bike was brought over just before the massacre.

Julie also knew about the bible and kitchen fight. Which was not reported in the papers. And knew about the lockable from outside window.

The judge and appeal courts found it hard to understand Bamber's 3am call to Julie. Julie saying Bamber said 'he had not slept all night' and 'everything is going well'. When the police asked him about the call, he just said 'no comment'.

Julie also knew about the under insurance of WHF and the items inside.


Julies feelings :

Her feelings while things were evolving can only be changed by Julie herself, and cannot be disputed.

                                  ___________________

Overall Julie's statement does have a 'ring of truth' to it. She approached the police and was not forced to say anything.

Her reason to lie was also very weak. Bamber allegedly jilting her, after he said their relationship had been in decline/coming to a close for six months. Julie creating a false WS and lying under oath for this sole reason.

Do other people believe Julies WS had a 'ring of truth' to it ?


17

[Holly Goodhead]

Bamber's highly paid defence went through Julie's WS brick by brick. Looking for a brick they could pull out to bring everything crashing down.

However they could not find anything. Admitting to each other her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.

Out of desperation, at trial the defence focused on the 1984 minor cheque book fraud. To try to show her as a dishonest person. The judge rightly poured scorn on this saying both Bamber & Julie had committed previous crime, but that does not mean either had lied at trial. He also said Julie had paid back the money ( Bamber had not). Bamber had also trusted Julie enough to tell her about the caravan break in, so may have trusted her enough to tell her about the massacre.

Julies WS is in different parts -

What happened after the massacre :

The eating out, hotels, trips around the country and abroad. There is no point in Julie lying here. A lot of other people joined them for some of these. Hotel bookings can be checked and relatives asked. So there was no reason to lie as everything can be easily checked.

What Bamber did does not highlight guilt or innocence anyway. Although Bamber's callous actions have come back to haunt him


Bamber's hatred  and resentment :

This could be her word against Bamber's. But was not.

Bamber himself testified he had a very poor/non existent relationship with June.

He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' on the massacre night. Saying they did not like each other and she had committed child abuse on the twins. Decades later saying he did not understand her illness.

There are also a lot of other people who said Bamber did not like his family or the raw deal he had. The facts back this up, Sheila living rent free in London, Bamber working long hours after reluctantly starting to work on the farm as a last resort.


The massacre plans :

This is again Julies word against Bamber's. However some of the things Julie said are backed up.

She said he planned to ride to WHF. This is backed up by the fact that the bike was brought over just before the massacre.

Julie also knew about the bible and kitchen fight. Which was not reported in the papers. And knew about the lockable from outside window.

The judge and appeal courts found it hard to understand Bamber's 3am call to Julie. Julie saying Bamber said 'he had not slept all night' and 'everything is going well'. When the police asked him about the call, he just said 'no comment'.

Julie also knew about the under insurance of WHF and the items inside.


Julies feelings :

Her feelings while things were evolving can only be changed by Julie herself, and cannot be disputed.

                                  ___________________

Overall Julie's statement does have a 'ring of truth' to it. She approached the police and was not forced to say anything.

Her reason to lie was also very weak. Bamber allegedly jilting her, after he said their relationship had been in decline/coming to a close for six months. Julie creating a false WS and lying under oath for this sole reason.

Do other people believe Julies WS had a 'ring of truth' to it ?

I'm not sure what you mean by "highly paid defence"?  When JB was interviewed by EP under caution he was represented by the duty solicitor Bruce Bowler.  JB's girlfriend post JM, Virginia Greaves, secured the services of Kingsley Napley via legal aid and JB was represented by Paul Terzeon.  This was Kingsley Napley's first case funded via legal aid.  As such they were unfamiliar with the funding of expert witnesses and it has been said this was to JB's detriment.  I understand with the benefit of hindsight JB regrets not continuing with Bruce Bowler.

Have you any documentary evidence for the "ring of truth".

[Holly Goodhead]

Do you have a transcript of JM's court testimony to enable us to determine whether or not the defence  were "desperate"?

JB didn't have to tell JM about OCP since she acted as a lookout!

Most would question JM's reliability as a prosecution witness when her initial WS of 8th August completely contradicts her later WS's.

As far as the later WS's go I only have to read as far as page 2 to doubt what she says later on:

"About a week later Jeremy took me to Tollesbury where we had a walk around and then he took me to meet his parents at White House Farm Tolleshunt D'Arcy.  I met his parents who I knew as June Bamber and Nevill Bamber"

If JB had such a bad relationship with his parents why would he introduce a girlfriend of a week or so to his parents?  He wasn't living at WHF at the time.

"I met his parents frequently but Mrs Bamber didn't approve of me living with Jeremy"

Again why was JM meeting NB and June "frequently" if JB had a bad relationship with his parents?  JB lived in Colchester at the  time he met JM (Dec '83) and around Easter '84 moved to Goldhanger.  There was no need for JM to meet with them "frequently" unless they all agreed to meet up either at WHF, GH or some other location.  If JB disliked his parents and vice-versa and/or relationships were strained why would he socialise with them and JM?

"Jeremy very seldom talked about his family and it was not until some months after I first met him that he told me he had a sister who was a top model".

So JB "very seldom" talked about his family other than to discuss various plans to murder them 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1090

[John]

Good points and thanks for pointing out that Julie was there at Osea Caravan Park when Jeremy let himself in and ransacked the place before they made off with nearly £1000 in cash.

As far as Julie's written statement to police is concerned, I recall going through it thoroughly and thinking the same.  It contains far too much information for it to be merely a concoction of Julie's imagination.  When suspects lie in interviews conducted by the police it is the fine details which always give them away.  If an example were needed, compare Julies responses with those of Jeremy.  Julie never refused to answer once!

[Holly Goodhead]

Good points and thanks for pointing out that Julie was there at Osea Caravan Park when Jeremy let himself in and ransacked the place before they made off with nearly £1000 in cash.

As far as Julie's written statement to police is concerned, I recall going through it thoroughly and thinking the same.  It contains far too much information for it to be merely a concoction of Julie's imagination.  When suspects lie in interviews conducted by the police it is the fine details which always give them away.  If an example were needed, compare Julies responses with those of Jeremy.  Julie never refused to answer once!

Did JB ransack the place?  I wasn't aware that the break-in involved criminal damage too?  I thought JB reached through the letterbox for the key, accessed the building and safe, stole the money and scattered some papers while JM acted as lookout?

As far as I'm aware JM wasn't interviewed under caution?  She provided WS's only?  JB was interviewed aggressively under caution and during these interviews the police deliberately lied and/or misled. 

I haven't seen any questions ever put to JM by the police?  Are you able to make the interview/Q & A session available?

[John]

Did JB ransack the place?  I wasn't aware that the break-in involved criminal damage too?  I thought JB reached through the letterbox for the key, accessed the building and safe, stole the money and scattered some papers while JM acted as lookout?

As far as I'm aware JM wasn't interviewed under caution?  She provided WS's only?  JB was interviewed aggressively under caution and during these interviews the police deliberately lied and/or misled. 

I haven't seen any questions ever put to JM by the police?  Are you able to make the interview/Q & A session available?

He wrecked the place to make it look like a burglary ie direct the blame elsewhere.

Julie was indeed interviewed under caution, the interview is subject to PII.

www.jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4259.0.html

[Holly Goodhead]

He wrecked the place to make it look like a burglary ie direct the blame elsewhere.

Julie was indeed interviewed under caution, the interview is subject to PII.

www.jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4259.0.html

I was aware that JB scattered papers to make it look like a break-in but I was not aware he "wrecked the place".  Is there any documentary evidence showing the cost of damage caused etc?

Ah that explains then why I haven't read JM's interview under caution if its held under PII.  I have no idea why so much material is held under PII?

[John]

I was aware that JB scattered papers to make it look like a break-in but I was not aware he "wrecked the place".  Is there any documentary evidence showing the cost of damage caused etc?

Ah that explains then why I haven't read JM's interview under caution if its held under PII.  I have no idea why so much material is held under PII?

There was also the arson attack on the caravans if I recall.  What manner of idiot does such a thing to their own family?

[Holly Goodhead]

There was also the arson attack on the caravans if I recall.  What manner of idiot does such a thing to their own family?

I read the OCP site shop suffered an arson attack but as far as I'm aware there's nothing linking JB to this.

[John]

I read the OCP site shop suffered an arson attack but as far as I'm aware there's nothing linking JB to this.

Just like the burglary, didn't he attempt to explain it away to police as simply an attempt to influence the Osea directors on the subject of site security when all along he was jealous and very pissed at not being made a director like cousin Ann?

[Holly Goodhead]

Just like the burglary, didn't he attempt to explain it away to police as simply an attempt to influence the Osea directors on the subject of site security when all along he was jealous and very pissed at not being made a director like cousin Ann?

Not as far as I'm aware.  There's no reference to it in JB's police interviews or JM's WS's.  From memory I think AE made reference to it in her WS along the line of the site shop suffered an arson attack and it was thought JB might be responsible.  But there is no evidence for this whatsoever.  In fact JB was tasked with re-designing the layout of the new shop.

[John]

Julie had much to lose by telling porkies to the police so I have no trouble whatsoever taking her statements at face value.  She had nothing to gain by lying and everything to gain by telling the truth.

[Holly Goodhead]

Julie had much to lose by telling porkies to the police so I have no trouble whatsoever taking her statements at face value.  She had nothing to gain by lying and everything to gain by telling the truth.

We know for certain Julie told porkies/misled the police as evidenced by her WS of 8th August. 

Prosecutions witnesses often provide false testimony and sometimes for no specific reason.  In the case of Stefan Kiszko the four female teenage prosecution witnesses, circa 13 yoa, later admitted lying for a laugh.  One would think that highly trained/experienced police officers and defence counsel would be more than capable of finding the truth, or lack of, in the teenage girls' testimony.  Sadly not. 3 of the 4 girls refused to even apologise. None were punished by the courts. What sort of message does this send out?

Another example is that of the Bridgwater 4.  See at 1:47 in to 1:51 how at least two of the prosecutions witnesses admitted providing false/misleading testimony at trial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHinL8ON3Uo 

False/misleading testimony from prosecutions witnesses is often a feature of MoJ's.

Btw John you mentioned in a post the other day that JM was forthcoming in her police interviews conducted under caution.  I haven't seen these as they are held under pii.  May I ask do you have access to privileged information?

[John]

We know for certain Julie told porkies/misled the police as evidenced by her WS of 8th August. 

What porkies are you referring to Holly?   I have always found Julies statements to be entirely consistent with events.

[goatboy]

Her 8th August statement basically backed up Jeremy's story, so we know for a fact she didn't tell police the full story on this occasion (for obvious reasons).