The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?

[Nicholas]

Jeremy Bamber is skating on thin ice with regards his coercive controlling pattern of behaviour towards Julie Mugford. He may be imprisoned but the authorities can still intervene and impose sanctions on him and indeed his supporters if need be.

"Your abuser will be guilty of the offence of coercive control if

he is personally connected to you, and
his behaviour has had a serious effect on you, and
your abuser knew or ought to have known that his behaviour would have a serious effect on you.
http://rightsofwomen.org.uk/get-information/violence-against-women-and-international-law/coercive-control-and-the-law/#What%20is%20coercive%20control?

[adam]

Bamber would have thought Julie would not retract on her first WS she gave on the 7th August.

He would have warned her not to while simultaneously telling her he was 'watertight' & impressing her with holidays & gifts.

It would have been Bamber's decision to see Colin Caffell. Julie going along because she was Bamber's girlfriend. Simultaneously she was getting ready to approach the police.

[Nicholas]

Bamber would have thought Julie would not retract on her first WS she gave on the 7th August.

He would have warned her not to while simultaneously telling her he was 'watertight' & impressing her with holidays & gifts.

It would have been Bamber's decision to see Colin Caffell. Julie going along because she was Bamber's girlfriend. Simultaneously she was getting ready to approach the police.

The Court and many of us have seen the intercepted letter Jeremy Bamber attempted to send Julie Mugford Adam. It's in the public domain, on the blue forum! I can't find the letter here?

None of us know how she actually felt at that time as she has yet to speak openly about it but that doesn't mean she won't!

Maggie is a moderator of the blue forum and as such is fully aware of the numerous threats made towards ALL the victims in this case and other cases I might add.

[Nicholas]

"Coercive control is when a person with whom you are personally connected, repeatedly behaves in a way which makes you feel controlled, dependent, isolated or scared.

The following types of behaviour are common examples of coercive control:

isolating you from your friends and family

controlling how much money you have and how you spend it

monitoring your activities and your movements

repeatedly putting you down, calling you names or telling you that you are worthless

threatening to harm or kill you or your child

threatening to publish information about you or to report you to the police or the authorities

damaging your property or household goods

forcing you to take part in criminal activity or child abuse

Many of Daisy's post here on Jeremy Bamber are IMO suggestive of coercive control. It's a shame she didn't persue this matter via the correct channels. http://rightsofwomen.org.uk/get-information/violence-against-women-and-international-law/coercive-control-and-the-law/#What%20is%20coercive%20control?

[Nicholas]

Bamber would have thought Julie would not retract on her first WS she gave on the 7th August.

He would have warned her not to while simultaneously telling her he was 'watertight' & impressing her with holidays & gifts.

I agree Adam. Individuals like Bamber who think they can exert power and control over their victims slip up in the end.


"What I accept is Julie has been subjected to decades of abuse because of her involvement with Jeremy Bamber, as indeed have others, and this abuse has been rationalised by many in order to support there agendas. There has been much suggestion of her complicity into the murders which leaves me questioning why these suggestions are made in the first place.
Many people are unaware of the consequences of abusive partners in romantic relationships nor of the strategies employed by these abusers. Julie Mugford's witness statements clearly also demonstrates Bamber's strategies of entrapment and control and thankfully the police recognised this when she finally came forward. They are to be congratulated for this aspect of their investigations, not condemned imo.
She was not a scorned women as some have suggested she was a victim of psychological torture. There is a vast difference between the two.
And because of what she had been subjected to by Bamber it is understandable why she made the odd one or two mistakes whilst giving live evidence.http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8069.msg381801.html#msg381801


"I believe it's highly likely he did say both to her. She was merely the messenger of the message. He knew if she repeated what he'd said it was unlikely she would be believed.  Thankfully the police eventually recognised Julie was a victim of psychological manipulation at the hands of Bamber.
That's one of the ways men like him confuse their victims. It a mind control tactic. It helps them to deplete their victim of reality. What is left behind is cognitive dissonance. Holding 2 conflicting thoughts.
She most possible also suffered something akin to stockholm syndrome. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8069.msg381844.html#msg381844

[ActualMat]

The Court and many of us have seen the intercepted letter Jeremy Bamber attempted to send Julie Mugford Adam. It's in the public domain, on the blue forum! I can't find the letter here?

None of us know how she actually felt at that time as she has yet to speak openly about it but that doesn't mean she won't!

Maggie is a moderator of the blue forum and as such is fully aware of the numerous threats made towards ALL the victims in this case and other cases I might add.

ModMaggie doesn't care what's posted about the relatives and has been as guilty as anyone in the past for pathetic bitchy comments against them, particularly towards AE.
 
I see that they've dug JackieDPreece up.  Always good for a laugh but I've not been able to take her seriously since I found a photo of her. 
No number of negative comments towards Julie will ever change anything, the case is more complex than those who bleat on about JM and the NOTW will ever be able to comprehend.

[Nicholas]

ModMaggie doesn't care what's posted about the relatives and has been as guilty as anyone in the past for pathetic bitchy comments against them, particularly towards AE.

No number of negative comments towards Julie will ever change anything, the case is more complex than those who bleat on about JM and the NOTW will ever be able to comprehend.

Bit more than negative comment IMO

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=17.msg459258#msg459258

[ActualMat]

Bit more than negative comment IMO

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=17.msg459258#msg459258

Actually, yeah I think it's fair to say they're worse than negative. There is a jealous streak throughout the comments towards Julie, I'll never understand why.

[Nicholas]

Actually, yeah I think it's fair to say they're worse than negative. There is a jealous streak throughout the comments towards Julie, I'll never understand why.

Jeremy Bamber has a habit of making his supporters look bad http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=792.msg459256#msg459256 and vice versa

Bamber states: "You will be proven right very soon"   

[Nicholas]

Actually, yeah I think it's fair to say they're worse than negative. There is a jealous streak throughout the comments towards Julie, I'll never understand why.

I wonder if Bamber ever spoke to Daisy about JM?

Goatboy I have thought about this and maybe she made up a story (she is after all a  liar and actress re her behaviour after the murders) and never realised the full consequences of her actions. Once she had started she set the ball rolling.
She made it clear how jealous she was and that is a dangerous trait.
I have had long conversations with Jeremy and mentioned Mugford many times and he doesn't seem to hate her at all which surprises me but he did tell me when he wanted to split with Mugford she went mad because her mothers husband used to treat his wife very badly (violence) and Jeremy had put a stop to it by having words with him.
Mugford said to Jeremy if he wasn't around anymore the trouble would start again.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=937.msg29070#msg29070

[Nicholas]

Jeremy Bamber is skating on thin ice with regards his coercive controlling pattern of behaviour towards Julie Mugford. He may be imprisoned but the authorities can still intervene and impose sanctions on him and indeed his supporters if need be.

"Your abuser will be guilty of the offence of coercive control if

he is personally connected to you, and
his behaviour has had a serious effect on you, and
your abuser knew or ought to have known that his behaviour would have a serious effect on you.
http://rightsofwomen.org.uk/get-information/violence-against-women-and-international-law/coercive-control-and-the-law/#What%20is%20coercive%20control?

"Julie, now 36, said: "I thought this was long in the past. The last few weeks have been a nightmare. As far as I am concerned nothing has changed - I sincerely believe he is guilty. Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life.

"And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case I still believe he is guilty. He has a right to appeal, that is the law. It is just very hard for me to accept.
"At this stage the appeal process is so sketchy that I have no idea what is going on."

A friend added: "It is something Julie has never really recovered from. Ultimately it was her evidence that put him behind bars and it is something she still has nightmares about. She still grieves for his family and wonders if she could have averted the murders by telling the police about his scheming beforehand."

Julie now fears she could be called to give evidence at the appeal - and last week she consulted Canadian lawyers for advice.

"She dreads having to face Bamber again in court. And she's afraid he could come after her and her family if he is freed. It's tragic. She has been so happy here in Canada."

[Nicholas]

"Julie, now 36, said: "I thought this was long in the past. The last few weeks have been a nightmare. As far as I am concerned nothing has changed - I sincerely believe he is guilty. Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life.

"And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case I still believe he is guilty. He has a right to appeal, that is the law. It is just very hard for me to accept.
"At this stage the appeal process is so sketchy that I have no idea what is going on."

A friend added: "It is somethingJulie has never really recovered from. Ultimately it was her evidence that put him behind bars and it is something she still has nightmares about. She still grieves for his family and wonders if she could have averted the murders by telling the police about his scheming beforehand."

Julie now fears she could be called to give evidence at the appeal - and last week she consulted Canadian lawyers for advice.

"She dreads having to face Bamber again in court. And she's afraid he could come after her and her family if he is freed. It's tragic. She has been so happy here in Canada."

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,675.msg17468.html#msg17468
"That's not strictly true and you know it so lets stop making up nonsense.  It was Julie who made the first moves in that particular direction, domestic violence is as good a reason as any for leaving a violent relationship.

She and Jeremy spent the following weekend with Colin and on 12 August she went to the house in Goldhanger with Jeremy. There he told her that the police had been a bit slack because they had not done all the fingerprinting at White House Farm. On 16 August Julie attended the funerals of Nevill and June with Jeremy and then on 19 August the funerals of Sheila and her children. During that period she spoke of Jeremy taking her out for frequent meals, and buying expensive clothes for himself and for her. She described his mood during this period as “very happy”. After one of the funerals they drank champagne and cocktails.

Julie spent the weekend of 17-18 August 1985 with him in Eastbourne and it was then that she began to ask how he could behave as he was doing. She kept telling him “£2,000 for 5 lives”. The following week the couple went to Amsterdam for two days, staying in expensive hotels and eating out. On 27 August Julie returned alone to her lodgings in London and she told her friend Susan Battersby of what Jeremy had done.

On Saturday 31 August Julie asked Jeremy whether he loved her. He said he did not know. Again they spoke about the murders. Julie said she could not cope with him behaving so normally and asked why he had told her what had happened. She said she felt guilt for the two of them. Jeremy told her he was doing everybody a favour and there was nothing to feel guilty about. Later that night he told her that she was the best friend he had ever had and he had entrusted his life to her.

On Tuesday 3 September the couple met again in London at the flat which had belonged to Sheila. Again Julie raised the question of their relationship and his part in the killing. During their conversation Jeremy received a telephone call from an ex-girlfriend and Julie heard him asking her out. She became angry and threw an ornament box at a mirror and then slapped him. He became very angry and twisted her arm up behind her back. 4 days later, she went to the police.

[Caroline]

I think it's shameless the way the CT have latched on to the case of Liam Allan and are using his name and face to promote Bamber! I guess they think they are being subtle - they AREN'T! Think he's been through enough FFS!

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/dec/19/police-non-disclosure-should-lead-to-reform

[ActualMat]

I think it's shameless the way the CT have latched on to the case of Liam Allan and are using his name and face to promote Bamber! I guess they think they are being subtle - they AREN'T! Think he's been through enough FFS!

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/dec/19/police-non-disclosure-should-lead-to-reform

It would be interesting to know if he is aware of Bamber. Any idea who's representing him?

[Holly Goodhead]

It would be interesting to know if he is aware of Bamber. Any idea who's representing him?

He's a millennial so doubt he has an awareness although I think he was studying forensic science so maybe I'm wrong.  I know JB's case is covered in A level law syllabus. 

I've asked around acquaintances, friends and family what does the name Jeremy Bamber mean and no one has any idea including people in 40's, 50's plus.