Author Topic: Amsterdam, London & St Tropez. The expected future ?  (Read 7071 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline adam

Re: Amsterdam, London & St Tropez. The expected future ?
« Reply #15 on: December 19, 2014, 03:00:32 PM »
It's not actually a crime to aspire to own a sports car.  I think the figure was 1k to 2k certainly well within JB's budget.  EP checked with the manufacturers of the kit car and it all checked out.  See pics here of the kit car:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1015.msg29645#msg29645

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1015.msg29647#msg29647

It would certainly increase his pulling power compared with his silver Vauxhall Astra  8(>(( 8**8:/:

Anyway it was all dismissed at CoA as being irrelevant:

Ground 11 – the proposed purchase of a Porsche by the appellant 428. This ground was abandoned before the hearing and nothing further need be said about it.

I can see it cruising the Essex countryside rather than the streets of London.

Do you believe Jeremy was in bed in his 'Culture Club' pyjamas,  with his teddy bear,  when Neville called ?

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Amsterdam, London & St Tropez. The expected future ?
« Reply #16 on: December 19, 2014, 03:43:35 PM »
Do you believe Jeremy was in bed in his 'Culture Club' pyjamas,  with his teddy bear,  when Neville called ?

Not if the actor in 'Crimes that shook Britain' is anything to go by:

@ 1.38 in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4XDiAoafck

Horny looking guy  8**8:/:  Looks like he works out in the gym and removes his chest hair  8(>((
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 Myster

Re: Amsterdam, London & St Tropez. The expected future ?
« Reply #17 on: December 19, 2014, 07:15:38 PM »
Not if the actor in 'Crimes that shook Britain' is anything to go by:

@ 1.38 in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4XDiAoafck

Horny looking guy  8**8:/:  Looks like he works out in the gym and removes his chest hair  8(>((
Your mind's wandering again... pay attention to the content, not the beefcake!

The video's an extended version of Johnny Escobar's "Crimes that Shook Britain" (by 20 minutes), which I don't think included this part about the relatives gathered at WHF, as in the "Jeremy and a shotgun" thread...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4XDiAoafck&feature=youtu.be&t=1h23s

Offline guinness

Re: Amsterdam, London & St Tropez. The expected future ?
« Reply #18 on: December 19, 2014, 07:40:26 PM »
Who knows if she would have come forward if she had not overheard him ask another woman out. A woman scorned...

Jeremy said the relationship had been in decline for over 6 months prior to the massacre. There was no way he was going to stay with her for long after inheriting all that money.

The police knew nothing about Susan Battersby's 1984 cheque book fraud until a long time after her WS had been completed. I do not know what the police protocol is with witnesses. Julie approached the police so there were no deals they had to offer her.


if the relationship was in decline why would he trust her enough to tell her he was responsible for the crime?

Offline puglove

Re: Amsterdam, London & St Tropez. The expected future ?
« Reply #19 on: December 19, 2014, 11:20:07 PM »

if the relationship was in decline why would he trust her enough to tell her he was responsible for the crime?

Well, he rang her twice that night. Why do you think he did that?

And I read tonight that "he never asks for anything."  Try telling that to Daisy.
Jeremy Bamber kicked Mike Tesko in the fanny.

Offline adam

Re: Amsterdam, London & St Tropez. The expected future ?
« Reply #20 on: December 20, 2014, 03:40:38 AM »

if the relationship was in decline why would he trust her enough to tell her he was responsible for the crime?


Offline adam

Re: Amsterdam, London & St Tropez. The expected future ?
« Reply #21 on: December 20, 2014, 03:41:15 AM »
There is a lot debate about whether Jeremy jilted Julie, as he claims. Jeremy and his supporters have to claim this, otherwise why would Julie have lied to the country saying Jeremy committed the massacre ? 

They were both young, not married or living together, with no children. Jeremy said the relationship had been in decline for several months. Lots of young romances fizzle out. Both people then having several more different relationships before settling down with new partners when older. Julie said she was under Jeremys spell. It is common for young women to be impressionable, espescially with older men. A young & pretty Julie would have got over a break up quickly & met someone else if she so wished. 

Julie was shocked, in fear & wrestling with her emotions after the massacre. She did not like Brett & did not want to go to certain places, but was persuaded by Jeremy. She also said she did not want to go to the funeral. But again was persuaded to by Jeremy. 

Things came to a head when Jeremy callously asked another woman out in front of her. Already knowing Jeremy was involved in the massacre & showed no regret,  this phone call was the final nail in the coffin. After confessing to a friend, Julie started engaging with the police. 

It is highly unlikely Julie would say such serious lies for such trivial reasons as apparently being jilted. A 20 year old would not have the confidence or committment to lie over such a long period. She is now 29 years older & wiser & has never retracted a word of what she said. 

It is much more likely she would tell the truth after being apparently jilted. 

Offline adam

Re: Amsterdam, London & St Tropez. The expected future ?
« Reply #22 on: December 20, 2014, 03:43:39 AM »
Jeremy amazingly rang Julie twice before the raid team had entered WHF.

The first time almost certainly before ringing the police. According to Julie to tell her he had 'not slept all night' & 'everything was going well'. The second time to tell her not to go to work & a police car would pick her up. Which was generous of the police as Julie was not a relative. 

Jeremy was in a self satisfied mood when meeting Julie. Not confident enough to say he did the massacre, but boashut upl enough to say he arranged it and wise enough to give a proxy who would have been no where near WHF. 

There are several reasons why Jeremy told Julie. 

Julie would suspect anyway. Jeremy would tell anyone who would listen how much he hated his family. Julie was the person closest to Jeremy prior to the massacre. So would have been on  the receiving end of Jeremys rants & unfufilled plans to get rid of everyone. 

Julie knew about the caravan break in. Committing a crime against the family, Julie would suspect that Jeremy was also prepared to go one stage further & committ a crime to his family. So even if Jeremy said he had nothing to do with the massacre, Julie would again suspect. 

Jeremy trusted Julie enough to involve her in the caravan break in. So he may have trusted her enough to confess an involvement in the massacre. 

Julie said herself she was under Jeremys spell. Jeremy would have known this & felt Julie would remain under his spell. If they spilt up weeks or months later, there would be no evidence, even if Julie went to the police. 

Jeremy felt Julie would not have the confidence to go through with a confession & trial. She would be scared of getting implicated & they would not believe her anyway. Jeremy had boasted about being 'watertight' & it being an 'open & shut case' with no evidence against him. Julie was only 20 & caught in an unexpected situation. 

Jeremy wanted to boast & prove Julie wrong. Julie had dismissed his 10am 'it's now or never' claim. She had also dismissed his previous plans. When interviewed on television she said 'Jeremy liked to say things to shock people'. 

Jeremy would have been buzzing & hyped up directly after the massacre. He had lost his immediate family, although intentianally.  The closest person to him was now Julie. He had to phone her, even though it was 3.00am.  Just to hear her voice & reaffirm that somebody still loved him. After that 3.00am phone call, what he said & how he said it, Jeremy knew there was no point lying to her after that.  

Jeremy would have enjoyed boasting to Julie. Once things had blown over even more he would have no doubt hinted to other people of his involvement. He may have even enjoyed police suspecting him, believing they would never have enough evidence to charge him or  get a conviction. It has been said Jeremy enjoyed the female attention at the trial. 

Jeremy had repeatedly told Julie of his hatred for his family. He may have thought Julie would understand his reasons. Espesically after some nice, expensive meals. 

There is some debate on whether Jeremy did jilt Julie. However if they did split up & Julie went to police, Jeremy could claim she is doing it as a scorned woman. Which is exactly what happened, although Jeremy has never said a scorned woman is also likely to tell the truth. 

Jeremy had not said to Julie he had committed the massacre. He gave himself a proxy. If the police were informed, the proxy would deny it. And Matthew Macdonald could probably prove he was no where near WHF. If there was no other evidence against Jeremy, - case closed. 

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Amsterdam, London & St Tropez. The expected future ?
« Reply #23 on: December 20, 2014, 04:53:40 PM »
There is a lot debate about whether Jeremy jilted Julie, as he claims. Jeremy and his supporters have to claim this, otherwise why would Julie have lied to the country saying Jeremy committed the massacre ?

They were both young, not married or living together, with no children. Jeremy said the relationship had been in decline for several months. Lots of young romances fizzle out. Both people then having several more different relationships before settling down with new partners when older. Julie said she was under Jeremys spell. It is common for young women to be impressionable, espescially with older men. A young & pretty Julie would have got over a break up quickly & met someone else if she so wished.

Julie was shocked, in fear & wrestling with her emotions after the massacre. She did not like Brett & did not want to go to certain places, but was persuaded by Jeremy. She also said she did not want to go to the funeral. But again was persuaded to by Jeremy.

Things came to a head when Jeremy callously asked another woman out in front of her. Already knowing Jeremy was involved in the massacre & showed no regret,  this phone call was the final nail in the coffin. After confessing to a friend, Julie started engaging with the police.

It is highly unlikely Julie would say such serious lies for such trivial reasons as apparently being jilted. A 20 year old would not have the confidence or committment to lie over such a long period. She is now 29 years older & wiser & has never retracted a word of what she said.

It is much more likely she would tell the truth after being apparently jilted.

Do you have any statistical evidence or research to back up your assertion?  Are females more likely or less likely to tell the truth when their man is facing murder charges and the woman later finds herself jilted by that man?

As far as I can see there will always be questions over JM's reliability as chief prosecution witness:

- Kept schtum for over a month
- Maintained an intimate relationship with JM for over a month
- Slate wiped clean re cheque book fraud, OCP and dope pedalling allowing her to pursue her teaching career
- 25k NoW deal
- Remove threat of perjury and perverting the course of justice if she didn't co-operate and JB was subsequently charged

CC tells in his book how JM put the twins to bed on Saturday 3rd August 1985 and read them a bedtime story.  These were two little boys just turned 6 yoa.  I fail to see how she was then able to identify their bodies 5 days later at the morgue and at the same time continue an intimate relationship with JB if she had any idea whatsoever that he was responsible either directly or indirectly.  Imo she told the whole truth and nothing but in her WS of 8th August 1985 and subsequent ones are based on lies.  Or she is a psychopath and the WS of 8th August 1985 are based on lies and the subsequent ones based on the truth.

She was circa 21 yoa and above average in intelligence.  I don't accept that she made a mistake based on immaturity and was spell bound by JB etc, etc.  How many women are spell bound by a man capable of shooting dead two just turned 6 year old sleeping boys in beds  8(8-))  Most women would want to take a bath in bleach to wash all traces of him away. 

Did she have a solicitor present when she was interviewed by EP? 
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: Amsterdam, London & St Tropez. The expected future ?
« Reply #24 on: December 21, 2014, 03:36:17 PM »

There is now a thread on why she waited a month.

The NOTW offer was months after she approached the police.

The police knew nothing about Susan Battersby's 1984 cheque book fraud until after her WS had been completed. They also knew nothing about the caravan site break in ( Julie told them straight away).

Have you got a source about her alleged drug dealing ?

Remove the threat of perjury ?







« Last Edit: December 21, 2014, 03:38:18 PM by adam »

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Amsterdam, London & St Tropez. The expected future ?
« Reply #25 on: December 21, 2014, 08:19:07 PM »
There is now a thread on why she waited a month.

The NOTW offer was months after she approached the police.

The police knew nothing about Susan Battersby's 1984 cheque book fraud until after her WS had been completed. They also knew nothing about the caravan site break in ( Julie told them straight away).

Have you got a source about her alleged drug dealing ?

Remove the threat of perjury ?

Chque book fraud, OCP and NOW all place question marks over JM's integrity as a prosecution witness imo.

Dope Pedalling

See SB's WS where she states she accompanied JM to obtain plastic coin money bags from the bank to package and distribute the cannabis in.  Also her admission that it was distributed around the college for £5 a bag.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=529.0;attach=1653

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=529.0;attach=1655

Perjury/Perverting the course of justice

See JM's WS of 8th Aug '85 then her later ones  &%+((£

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=282.0;attach=1010

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=282.0;attach=1012

Seems to me IF she was telling the truth she was rather economical with it  8(0(*

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: Amsterdam, London & St Tropez. The expected future ?
« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2014, 08:38:08 PM »
Your mind's wandering again... pay attention to the content, not the beefcake!

The video's an extended version of Johnny Escobar's "Crimes that Shook Britain" (by 20 minutes), which I don't think included this part about the relatives gathered at WHF, as in the "Jeremy and a shotgun" thread...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4XDiAoafck&feature=youtu.be&t=1h23s

The content re the relatives gathered at WHF and discovering the silencer contradicts AE's WS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4XDiAoafck&feature=youtu.be&t=1h23s

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=3108

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=3110


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: Amsterdam, London & St Tropez. The expected future ?
« Reply #27 on: September 10, 2022, 08:01:12 PM »
After a champagne funeral it was time for a lavish meal. Jeremy & Brett getting merry and chatting to other eaters.

The following day it was time for a jolly up with friends to Eastbourne. Brett was now using Neville's Citroen, while Mary Mugford had been offered June's car. Everyone piled in with Brett and headed for the deluxe hotel.

There was hardly time to catch breath after Eastbourne. A trip to Amsterdam had been booked. However this wasn't just to chill, it was part business & a lot of cannabis was smuggled back to England. 

After some trips to London, meetings with lawyers, Sotherby's & time at the Notting Hill Carnival, another holiday was needed. This time to playboy mansion St Tropez. This time it was without Julie, who had had enough after hearing Jeremy ask another girl out. .

Podcast on the ‘Playboy Mansion’
👇
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lBZBrqt_9aQ&feature=youtu.be
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)