Did Bamber call Witham police station ?

[Angelo222]

We use the word 'subjective' differently methinks.

Anyway, I have since solved the problem, replacing it with a lesser problem.   The time Bamber gave for Nevill's call had to be earlier than the time at which he called Julie and he could not be sure no one at Julie's place would note the time precisely.   Now, the problem is: why did he call Julie shortly after 3.00 a.m? (see below)
It's a good thing to be sad about.   Let me help.   Bamber said Nevill called at three.   He was wearing his watch (Ann Eaton).   He has since moved that to '3.15 or 3.30' per his recorded interview from prison which Myster, I think, posted recently.

In the 2002 appeal, the judge summarised the evidence of Julie's roommates on the time of the call to her as follows:

Helen Eaton 3.00 (but at trial she agreed in cross it might have been 3.30)
Sue Battersby 3.02 (after adjustment as she kept her clock 10 minutes fast)
Joanna Wood 2.00 - 2.59 (she only remembered it was a number beginning with 2)
Julie Mugford 3.30, corrected to 3.15 after calling someone at her place (source, Ann Eaton)

Julie's timing should be discarded as she was (IMO) complicit in the crime.   The others tend towards 3.00 a.m. which is also the time Bamber assigns to Nevill's call.   It rather looks as though he was obliged to say Nevill called at 3.00 because he placed a call through to Julie right after.

The timing of Jeremy's call to Julie must have been at or shortly after 3am.  If you allow time for the long conversation which both of them testified took place then the 3.26am call to police makes sense.  Both also agreed that Jeremy did not phone the police prior to his call to Julie so he had to have placed that call afterwards. Bearing in mind also that Julie told Jeremy to go back to bed she had to have thought he already was in bed when we now know he wasn't. That alone suggests to me that Julie thought he was mucking around and was making up the entire thing.

[anglolawyer]

The timing of Jeremy's call to Julie must have been at or shortly after 3am.  If you allow time for the long conversation which both of them testified took place then the 3.26am call to police makes sense.  Both also agree that Jeremy did not phone the police prior to his call to Julie so he had to have placed that call afterwards. Bearing in mind also that Julie told Jeremy to go back to bed she had to have thought he already was in bed when we now know he wasn't.

Heh, well it depends what you mean by 'makes sense' I guess.   To me, it doesn't make sense at all to get a call from your father at 3 in the morning telling you about your paranoid schizo sister 'going crazy' with a gun and then to camp on the phone to Julie.   After all, for all Bamber knew, Nevill might have been trying to reach him again during that period.

[Angelo222]

Heh, well it depends what you mean by 'makes sense' I guess.   To me, it doesn't make sense at all to get a call from your father at 3 in the morning telling you about your paranoid schizo sister 'going crazy' with a gun and then to camp on the phone to Julie.   After all, for all Bamber knew, Nevill might have been trying to reach him again during that period.

That certainly doesn't make sense because it didn't happen, Jeremy concocted that story for Julie's benefit in order to back up his 'Sheila done it' fabrication which later morphed into the hitman story.

[anglolawyer]

That certainly doesn't make sense because it didn't happen, Jeremy concocted that story for Julie's benefit in order to back up his 'Sheila done it' fabrication which later morphed into the hitman story.

I am not sure about your morphing there, Angelo.   As I understand it, before the crime he has told her about the hit man but as the date drew nearer and the event happened (she is not terribly clear about when the shift occurred) she came to realise he was the killer.   She never says he told her it really was Sheila.

You do raise an interesting question, though.   Why did Bamber tell her the hit man story at all?

[APRIL]

Heh, well it depends what you mean by 'makes sense' I guess.   To me, it doesn't make sense at all to get a call from your father at 3 in the morning telling you about your paranoid schizo sister 'going crazy' with a gun and then to camp on the phone to Julie.   After all, for all Bamber knew, Nevill might have been trying to reach him again during that period.

Jeremy said he phoned Julie "to hear a friendly voice" Hmmmmm! Don't know how friendly my voice would be if I'd been woken up and got out of bed circa 3.15 am to a phone call which said WHAT, exactly? It seems Jeremy didn't give her space to tell whether or not her voice was friendly. HE appeared to do most of the talking.

[anglolawyer]

Jeremy said he phoned Julie "to hear a friendly voice" Hmmmmm! Don't know how friendly my voice would be if I'd been woken up and got out of bed circa 3.15 am to a phone call which said WHAT, exactly? It seems Jeremy didn't give her space to tell whether or not her voice was friendly. HE appeared to do most of the talking.

Where do you get that from April?   Is that in one of Julie's statements?

Incidentally, while it's on my mind, is there a transcript out there of Bamber's trial evidence?   It would be awesome to read that.

[APRIL]

Where do you get that from April?   Is that in one of Julie's statements?

Incidentally, while it's on my mind, is there a transcript out there of Bamber's trial evidence?   It would be awesome to read that.

No, I THINK it's in Jeremy's. Ha ha! It would indeed be "awesome" to read. Can I suggest we put it on our wish list? You never know what Santa might have in his sack

[Myster]

Where do you get that from April?   Is that in one of Julie's statements?

[John]

Thanks for that Myster.  For someone who was facing five murder charges, his responses were appalling and most certainly not the actions of an innocent man.  Arrogance personified imo.

ps  he certainly messed up on his recollection of events.

[Myster]

A master of obfuscation, as always. It couldn't have been sooooo difficult to remember who he called first, even a month after such a life changing event.  No wonder his mouth needed lubrication after that drilling.

And Holly's still deeply troubled by which lubricant was on the bullets. 

[APRIL]

A master of obfuscation, as always. It couldn't have been sooooo difficult to remember who he called first, even a month after such a life changing event.  No wonder his mouth needed lubrication after that drilling.

And Holly's still deeply troubled by which lubricant was on the bullets. 

Ta for that Myster. OK, I said "friendly voice", Jeremy said "friendly ear". One would have thought that the friendliest, indeed, the ONLY ear necessary, would have been the one which listened to his request for help when he made a 999 call.........................Oh, but he didn't make a 999 call, did he?

[Myster]

Ta for that Myster. OK, I said "friendly voice", Jeremy said "friendly ear". One would have thought that the friendliest, indeed, the ONLY ear necessary, would have been the one which listened to his request for help when he made a 999 call.........................Oh, but he didn't make a 999 call, did he?

You were also right though, because she told him to - "Go back to bed... Bye Honey!"

Why would Julie say that, if he'd rung the police beforehand (as confirmed under questioning) and they told him to drive over to WHF straight away? 

Julie Mugford - w/s 8th. August 1985...



Julie Mugford - w/s 8/9th. September 1985...

[Holly Goodhead]

A master of obfuscation, as always. It couldn't have been sooooo difficult to remember who he called first, even a month after such a life changing event.  No wonder his mouth needed lubrication after that drilling.

And Holly's still deeply troubled by which lubricant was on the bullets. 

I'm not deeply troubled at all.  Please see my posts on relevant thread or John will be placing me on the naughty steps for some severe punishment 

[Holly Goodhead]

We use the word 'subjective' differently methinks.

Anyway, I have since solved the problem, replacing it with a lesser problem.   The time Bamber gave for Nevill's call had to be earlier than the time at which he called Julie and he could not be sure no one at Julie's place would note the time precisely.   Now, the problem is: why did he call Julie shortly after 3.00 a.m? (see below)
It's a good thing to be sad about.   Let me help.   Bamber said Nevill called at three.   He was wearing his watch (Ann Eaton).   He has since moved that to '3.15 or 3.30' per his recorded interview from prison which Myster, I think, posted recently.

In the 2002 appeal, the judge summarised the evidence of Julie's roommates on the time of the call to her as follows:

Helen Eaton 3.00 (but at trial she agreed in cross it might have been 3.30)
Sue Battersby 3.02 (after adjustment as she kept her clock 10 minutes fast)
Joanna Wood 2.00 - 2.59 (she only remembered it was a number beginning with 2)
Julie Mugford 3.30, corrected to 3.15 after calling someone at her place (source, Ann Eaton)

Julie's timing should be discarded as she was (IMO) complicit in the crime.   The others tend towards 3.00 a.m. which is also the time Bamber assigns to Nevill's call.   It rather looks as though he was obliged to say Nevill called at 3.00 because he placed a call through to Julie right after.

Re Joanna Wood above (think it might be Woad) SB claims in her 10th Sept WS the occupants in the house on the night of 6th Aug were as follows:

Herself
JM
Helen Eaton
Douglas Dale

No mention of Joanne Woad:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=529.0;attach=1659

And yet in the CoA doc:

309. Joanne Woad first made a statement on 16 September. In that statement she said that she thought the time was about 2 a.m. On 3 October, she made a further statement in which she explained why she had said about 2 a.m. She said:

"In my original statement I stated that this call was at 2 a.m. To be more precise I can add that when I awoke I remember looking at my digital radio/alarm clock at the foot of my bed and reading the hour figure as "2". I do not remember noting the minute reading and therefore the time could have been anywhere between 2 a.m. and 2.59 a.m."

310. In evidence Miss Woad gave precisely the same account and she would not accept in cross-examination that she was wrong.

[anglolawyer]

Re Joanna Wood above (think it might be Woad) SB claims in her 10th Sept WS the occupants in the house on the night of 6th Aug were as follows:

Herself
JM
Helen Eaton
Douglas Dale

No mention of Joanne Woad:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=529.0;attach=1659

And yet in the CoA doc:

309. Joanne Woad first made a statement on 16 September. In that statement she said that she thought the time was about 2 a.m. On 3 October, she made a further statement in which she explained why she had said about 2 a.m. She said:

"In my original statement I stated that this call was at 2 a.m. To be more precise I can add that when I awoke I remember looking at my digital radio/alarm clock at the foot of my bed and reading the hour figure as "2". I do not remember noting the minute reading and therefore the time could have been anywhere between 2 a.m. and 2.59 a.m."

310. In evidence Miss Woad gave precisely the same account and she would not accept in cross-examination that she was wrong.

Why no reference to Dale in the CA judgment?