Author Topic: Are 'supporters' justified in their vilification of JM?  (Read 18142 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline adam

Re: Are 'supporters' justified in their vilification of JM?
« Reply #45 on: October 27, 2017, 10:11:23 AM »
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.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Are 'supporters' justified in their vilification of JM?
« Reply #46 on: October 27, 2017, 10:48:32 AM »
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. 
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline adam

Re: Are 'supporters' justified in their vilification of JM?
« Reply #47 on: October 27, 2017, 11:13:43 AM »
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.

Offline Caroline

Re: Are 'supporters' justified in their vilification of JM?
« Reply #48 on: October 27, 2017, 11:48:03 AM »
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.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Are 'supporters' justified in their vilification of JM?
« Reply #49 on: October 27, 2017, 12:06:57 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 05:05:30 PM by Angelo222 »
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Are 'supporters' justified in their vilification of JM?
« Reply #50 on: October 27, 2017, 12:38:41 PM »
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.
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Nicholas

Re: Are 'supporters' justified in their vilification of JM?
« Reply #51 on: October 27, 2017, 12:57:01 PM »
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.


Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: Are 'supporters' justified in their vilification of JM?
« Reply #52 on: October 27, 2017, 01:10:41 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 05:11:17 PM by Angelo222 »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: Are 'supporters' justified in their vilification of JM?
« Reply #53 on: October 27, 2017, 01:23:46 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 01:40:37 PM by Stephanie »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: Are 'supporters' justified in their vilification of JM?
« Reply #54 on: October 27, 2017, 01:28:16 PM »
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?

« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 05:13:11 PM by Angelo222 »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline APRIL

Re: Are 'supporters' justified in their vilification of JM?
« Reply #55 on: October 27, 2017, 01:30:03 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 05:29:45 PM by Angelo222 »

Offline Nicholas

Re: Are 'supporters' justified in their vilification of JM?
« Reply #56 on: October 27, 2017, 01:33:33 PM »
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!
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 05:31:54 PM by Angelo222 »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline adam

Re: Are 'supporters' justified in their vilification of JM?
« Reply #57 on: October 27, 2017, 02:06:36 PM »
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.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Are 'supporters' justified in their vilification of JM?
« Reply #58 on: October 27, 2017, 02:23:58 PM »
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.
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: Are 'supporters' justified in their vilification of JM?
« Reply #59 on: October 27, 2017, 02:37:37 PM »
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
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation