UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: david1819 on April 02, 2016, 10:45:36 PM
-
Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
Why was he allowed to tell this to the Jury? here's why
Jeremy's "confession"
Below is what Julie claims Jeremy confessed to her. This statement is false for two reasons. Jeremy's alleged confession of the crime as told by Julie Mugford does not correspond or coincide with the actual crime scene itself, as we all know Shelia was found on the floor not on the bed, the bible next to her also on the floor not on her chest. Had Jeremy committed the murders and given a detailed confession as Julie claims then Julies statements would corroborate the crime scene and they don't!
(http://s30.postimg.org/4co0gw6ht/mugford1.png)
The second reason Julies statement is false is because her description of Jeremy's alleged confession is exactly the same as Ann Eaton and RWB's impression of events as seen in Ann Eatons notes and RWB's diary written in August. See below
Ann Eaton's note's second line down "Shelia on bed bible on chest"
(http://s23.postimg.org/v7c6huou3/AEnotes1.png)
RWB's Diary
(http://s23.postimg.org/eegx5omrf/rwbdiary1.jpg)
So not only can we establish that Julies claims are false we can now narrow down were she actually got that information from. Either Police or Ann Eaton as Rivlin rightly told the jury.
More disturbing correlations
Windows and the Bike
In August RWB speculates that Jeremy used a bike then also in august RWB and AE speculate how Jeremy would enter the building
(http://s21.postimg.org/mc273onk7/rwbbike.png)
(http://s10.postimg.org/kmegatna1/rwbwindows.png)
Then come September the 8th Julie reveals how Jeremy "confessed" to her his method of travel and entry, exactly how RWB and AE predicted!
(http://s8.postimg.org/nc7pjvf5x/jmbikewindow.png)
The Wet suit
On the 28th of August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy used a wet suit in the murders
(http://s29.postimg.org/fu9qvz293/rwbwetsuit.png)
This then appears in Julie Mugford's diary along with the bicycle
(http://s30.postimg.org/iq197ubc1/jmwetsuitdiary.png)
The £2000.00 payment
2nd of September RWB claims Jeremy lent a friend £2000
(http://s13.postimg.org/q3t1pks7b/rwb2000.png)
Julie then claims that Jeremy paid Macdonald £2000
(http://s22.postimg.org/64wqetcg1/JM2000.png)
The Fingerprints and the gun magazine
In August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy got Shelia to load the bullets into the magazine to get her fingerprints on them.
(http://s18.postimg.org/urhcc1fgp/rwbfingerprints.jpg)
Then come September lo and behold Julie claims this is exactly what Jeremy had confessed to her.
(http://s8.postimg.org/f3y3s6tyd/jmfingerprints.png)
This is why Julies statements are completely false, Her statements have direct parallels with Ann Eaton notes and RWBs diary both of which deviate from the facts of the crime scene and contradicts other factual aspects surrounding the case. Therefore Jeremy did not and could not have confessed or told her anything that is in her statements, it is impossible!
10
-
Thanks for putting this together David. It takes a lot of effort and time to hunt out all the docs.
I think the relatives influenced the police and the police influenced JM with the police acting as hub for communications.
-
Thanks for putting this together David. It takes a lot of effort and time to hunt out all the docs.
I think the relatives influenced the police and the police influenced JM with the police acting as hub for communications.
I dismissed Julie's credibility from the beginning and rightly so. It only takes simple forensic linguistics to establish that her claims are false and where she really got the information from.
How people are still buying her words 30 years later to this day is astonishing
-
I dismissed Julie's credibility from the beginning and rightly so. It only takes simple forensic linguistics to establish that her claims are false and where she really got the information from.
How people are still buying her words 30 years later to this day is astonishing
Yes I agree but unlike some I see her as a victim. There's no evidence she received any legal representation during her interviews. She was only just 21 yoa. During JB's police interviews he was told SC could not have shot herself twice; not true according to the pathologist. If EP relayed similar to JM along with the relatives and CC believing JB was responsible I would imagine this amounted to a lot of pressure. Of course she must have been traumatized by the whole thing too. You surely don't put small boys to bed and read them a bedtime story one day (which she did the Sat before the tragedy) and then identify them less than a week later at a morgue and walk away unscathed unless you're some sort of psychopath.
Many MoJ's from the 70's and 80's involved forced/false confessions as a result of the police subjecting witnesses/suspects to undue pressure and I've no doubt similar tactics were used with JM.
-
I dismissed Julie's credibility from the beginning and rightly so. It only takes simple forensic linguistics to establish that her claims are false and where she really got the information from.
How people are still buying her words 30 years later to this day is astonishing
You dismiss her words because of your bias not because of any rational reason.
You completely ignored her most damning testimony.
The prosecution conceded that Jeremy lied to Julie after the murders about MacDonald carrying out the murders and the manner in which MacDonald did so. Jeremy was being tried for murder as opposed to solicitation of murder because the prosecution was sure he carried out the murders himself. Some of the false information Jeremy fed Julie came from the press. The press erroneously reported several details. One detail he knew about regarding the glove coming off during the scuffle is something that was not reported and that only he knew about.
You have not provided any evidence at all that Julie obtained any information from Ann or RWB you simply decided that is the case because that is what you want to believe. By your own admission you decided to not believe Julie and just are looking for a way to try to justify your actions.
While the nonsense you conjured up is good enough for you it objectively fails miserably.
The most damaging evidence from Julie was regarding his planning. She detailed how he first considered burning them but then decided to shoot them. She detailed how he called her before the murders and said tonight is the night then immediately after the murders he called her saying he had not yet been to bed and basically telling her he carried out the murder plan.
Because of your bias you choose to ignore such but this is the most damaging. He called her before he called the police even but later lied saying he phoned her after police and this fact as well as the lie to try to conceal it are quite significant.
After the murders he decided to lie to her and say a hitman did it. Even if she wanted to falsely blame Jeremy she had no reason to make up the hitman story to blame him falsely all she had to do was claim he confessed to committing the murders. She told police he told her few details. If she were going to lie she could simply have said he told her no details and just admitted he did it. This hitman story is the convoluted tale that the prosecution correctly said no sane person would make up.
You have nothing to disprove Julie's claim that prior to the murders Jeremy said he was going to do a test run on a bike. That the family suspected he may have used a bike doesn't in any way prove that she conspired with the family. Sizable numbers of people talk about how using a bike would be better than a car RWB is hardly the only one to think of such. You ignore why the family among others were so suspicious though. Friends and family were all suspicious because he took June's bike. It ad mud on it which the family believed was the same kind at WHF proving it had been ridden there. When confronted about having June's bike he lied saying she gave it to him for Julie to use. It is this that made people suspicious that he used such bike. You have no proof that Julie made up the account of him telling her he was considering using a bike you simply don't want to believe it because of your bias.
I pointed out previously with the press reporting 24 shots fired and Nevill shot 7 times Jeremy himself could have believed such. The graze wound was not initially reported as a gunshot wound. You don't have any proof that Jeremy knew he in fact shot him 8 times and thus would have told Julie it was actually 8. I stressed how even on a range it is easy to lose count let alone in a situation like that. Yet because you don't want to believe the evidence you arbitrarily decided that he would have known he fired 8 and would have corrected the record to Julie. You ignore that he likely didn't know and ignore other possibilities as well. You ignored the possibility that he told her 7 on purpose just like he lied about the hitman on purpose. You also ignore the possibility he said 8 but she didn't remember and remembered 7 falsely because that is what was reported. It is easy to get select details wrong. Getting wrong that kept saying he wanted them dead though if he in fact didn't say such would not be easy it would have to be intentional.
You have not proven her testimony to be lies except in your own mind and others of the same mindset who are too biased to look at her testimony honestly will do the same.
That prevents you from understanding why her testimony was found to be credible by the jury and by a majority who know the details of this case.
You ignore the claims that were damaging in favor of the claims that she and the prosecution say were lies Jeremy told her because those lies he told are easy to prove false. You say because these lies are false Julie must have made them up as opposed to her telling the truth about Jeremy telling her such lies. You completely ignore that if she were going to lie she would not make up a hitman story let alone name a hitman she would simply say Jeremy confessed to committing the murders himself. You have not done anything to seriously undermine her testimony.
Let's reveiw things:
A) Julie told a friend the story
B) The friend ran to police
C) Police sought to question Julie regarding what the friend said
D) Julie decided to come clean
E) At first police doubted her claims but came around to accepting them after a while
You have not come up with anything to establish Julie conspiring with the family let alone conspiring with them come up with a tale about a hitman. You have not come up with anything to suggest conspiring with the family and her friend to trick police into questioning her. You have not come up with anything to suggest police coached her into making up the story. No one except Jeremy had a motive to make up a hitman being involved. Neither the family, nor police, nor Julie would decide to make up a hitman if they wanted to get Jeremy they would tell Julie to say he confessed to committing the murders himself. This is the most fundamental problem which the defense faced and you decided to completely ignore it instead of trying to find a way to attack it. Mind you attacking it is what an advocate of Jeremy must do. An objective person should not be trying to find a way to attack it but simply keep their eyes open in case something arises which could undermine it but not even advocates looking to attack this found any way.
The best an advocate can make up is perhaps on September 8 Julie was scared that someone would come out of the woodwork who could give Jeremy an alibi so for the sake of safety decided to make up that a hitman did it. Problem 1 is that in that case she would say he didn't tell her who the hitman was. Naming a hitman who can provide an alibi ruins the whole thing. Worse yet, she knew for sure no one would be able to come out of the woodwork to alibi him. So this fails miserably and that is why the defense did not suggest it the defense simply glossed over the problem like you did. Glossing over problems do not make them go away though.
No Jeremy supporter who suggest Julie lied is able to come up with a plausible reason for Julie to make up a hitman story let alone for her to ID a false hitman thus enabling police to confirm the tale was false. They are unable to because it makes no sense for her to do so and the prosecution stressed such point without any competent counter coming from the defense.
-
You dismiss her words because of your bias not because of any rational reason.
You completely ignored her most damning testimony.
The prosecution conceded that Jeremy lied to Julie after the murders about MacDonald carrying out the murders and the manner in which MacDonald did so. Jeremy was being tried for murder as opposed to solicitation of murder because the prosecution was sure he carried out the murders himself. Some of the false information Jeremy fed Julie came from the press. The press erroneously reported several details. One detail he knew about regarding the glove coming off during the scuffle is something that was not reported and that only he knew about.
You have not provided any evidence at all that Julie obtained any information from Ann or RWB you simply decided that is the case because that is what you want to believe. By your own admission you decided to not believe Julie and just are looking for a way to try to justify your actions.
While the nonsense you conjured up is good enough for you it objectively fails miserably.
The most damaging evidence from Julie was regarding his planning. She detailed how he first considered burning them but then decided to shoot them. She detailed how he called her before the murders and said tonight is the night then immediately after the murders he called her saying he had not yet been to bed and basically telling her he carried out the murder plan.
Because of your bias you choose to ignore such but this is the most damaging. He called her before he called the police even but later lied saying he phoned her after police and this fact as well as the lie to try to conceal it are quite significant.
After the murders he decided to lie to her and say a hitman did it. Even if she wanted to falsely blame Jeremy she had no reason to make up the hitman story to blame him falsely all she had to do was claim he confessed to committing the murders. She told police he told her few details. If she were going to lie she could simply have said he told her no details and just admitted he did it. This hitman story is the convoluted tale that the prosecution correctly said no sane person would make up.
You have nothing to disprove Julie's claim that prior to the murders Jeremy said he was going to do a test run on a bike. That the family suspected he may have used a bike doesn't in any way prove that she conspired with the family. Sizable numbers of people talk about how using a bike would be better than a car RWB is hardly the only one to think of such. You ignore why the family among others were so suspicious though. Friends and family were all suspicious because he took June's bike. It ad mud on it which the family believed was the same kind at WHF proving it had been ridden there. When confronted about having June's bike he lied saying she gave it to him for Julie to use. It is this that made people suspicious that he used such bike. You have no proof that Julie made up the account of him telling her he was considering using a bike you simply don't want to believe it because of your bias.
I pointed out previously with the press reporting 24 shots fired and Nevill shot 7 times Jeremy himself could have believed such. The graze wound was not initially reported as a gunshot wound. You don't have any proof that Jeremy knew he in fact shot him 8 times and thus would have told Julie it was actually 8. I stressed how even on a range it is easy to lose count let alone in a situation like that. Yet because you don't want to believe the evidence you arbitrarily decided that he would have known he fired 8 and would have corrected the record to Julie. You ignore that he likely didn't know and ignore other possibilities as well. You ignored the possibility that he told her 7 on purpose just like he lied about the hitman on purpose. You also ignore the possibility he said 8 but she didn't remember and remembered 7 falsely because that is what was reported. It is easy to get select details wrong. Getting wrong that kept saying he wanted them dead though if he in fact didn't say such would not be easy it would have to be intentional.
You have not proven her testimony to be lies except in your own mind and others of the same mindset who are too biased to look at her testimony honestly will do the same.
That prevents you from understanding why her testimony was found to be credible by the jury and by a majority who know the details of this case.
You ignore the claims that were damaging in favor of the claims that she and the prosecution say were lies Jeremy told her because those lies he told are easy to prove false. You say because these lies are false Julie must have made them up as opposed to her telling the truth about Jeremy telling her such lies. You completely ignore that if she were going to lie she would not make up a hitman story let alone name a hitman she would simply say Jeremy confessed to committing the murders himself. You have not done anything to seriously undermine her testimony.
Let's reveiw things:
A) Julie told a friend the story
B) The friend ran to police
C) Police sought to question Julie regarding what the friend said
D) Julie decided to come clean
E) At first police doubted her claims but came around to accepting them after a while
You have not come up with anything to establish Julie conspiring with the family let alone conspiring with them come up with a tale about a hitman. You have not come up with anything to suggest conspiring with the family and her friend to trick police into questioning her. You have not come up with anything to suggest police coached her into making up the story. No one except Jeremy had a motive to make up a hitman being involved. Neither the family, nor police, nor Julie would decide to make up a hitman if they wanted to get Jeremy they would tell Julie to say he confessed to committing the murders himself. This is the most fundamental problem which the defense faced and you decided to completely ignore it instead of trying to find a way to attack it. Mind you attacking it is what an advocate of Jeremy must do. An objective person should not be trying to find a way to attack it but simply keep their eyes open in case something arises which could undermine it but not even advocates looking to attack this found any way.
The best an advocate can make up is perhaps on September 8 Julie was scared that someone would come out of the woodwork who could give Jeremy an alibi so for the sake of safety decided to make up that a hitman did it. Problem 1 is that in that case she would say he didn't tell her who the hitman was. Naming a hitman who can provide an alibi ruins the whole thing. Worse yet, she knew for sure no one would be able to come out of the woodwork to alibi him. So this fails miserably and that is why the defense did not suggest it the defense simply glossed over the problem like you did. Glossing over problems do not make them go away though.
No Jeremy supporter who suggest Julie lied is able to come up with a plausible reason for Julie to make up a hitman story let alone for her to ID a false hitman thus enabling police to confirm the tale was false. They are unable to because it makes no sense for her to do so and the prosecution stressed such point without any competent counter coming from the defense.
Hahaha! You naively thought I Just posted that quote from Rivlin QC claiming I "didn't understand evidence" didn't you? and how wrong you were.
Your now arguing that Jeremy fed her false information and that by an extraordinary coincidence its exactly the same as the false impressions Ann Eaton and Robert Boutflour had in August? How comical! and the fact you call me irrational just compounds the amusement.
[ moderated ]
-
Hahaha! You naively thought I Just posted that quote from Rivlin QC claiming I "didn't understand evidence" didn't you? and how wrong you were.
Your now arguing that Jeremy fed her false information and that by an extraordinary coincidence its exactly the same as the false impressions Ann Eaton and Robert Boutflour had in August? How comical! and the fact you call me irrational just compounds the amusement.
It is not my fault you started at the outset revealing you decided not to believe Julie right off the bat.
It is not my fault the nonsense you resort to in order to try to justify calling Julie a liar falls flat.
Let's just look in more detail about the total lack of logic you applied so you can whine some more.
Boutflour wondered whether Jeremy planted Sheila's prints. Is this something that no one else in the World would think of? No! It's been done in real life and in movies/television from the 1940s to the present criminals have been shown sticking objects in the hands of dead people as well as unconscious people to plant prints. When something is shows in movies it is quite well known. Yet you want us to believe there is no way Jeremy could have worried about such. You want us to believe Jeremy can't have worried about such and told Julie but rather RWB must have fed such to Julie and helped her to make up that Jeremy said such.
You ignore that there actually is some corroboration of her claim as well. June told Pam Boutflour that Jeremy had tried to teach Sheila to load the magazine. That clearly was an effort to get her prints on the weapon he had no reason to actually teach her.
By September it seemed obvious there were no prints from Sheila found because they would have been reported if they had been found. The family kept hounding police. So if Julie had been in contact with the family and plotting with the she would have had no need to try to account for prints belonging to Sheila anyway. You have no evidence at all to suggest that Boutflour got Julie to make such up as opposed to Julie telling the truth about what Jeremy told her.
You have established no evidence at all that Julie got anything from the family let alone conspired with them to come up with her account. You have no evidence of her interacting with them. You just decided that because the family had OBVIOUS concerns and some of those concerns were later confirmed by her account that it means they must have spoken to her and gotten her to lie. You have proved no connection merely your own bias.
Your supposed evidence proving Julie lied is not in the least bit convincing let alone conclusive.
[ moderated ]
-
Julie would have taken a common sense approach on this issue. As anyone would. She would have simply looked at the disadvantages of approaching the police if Bamber was innocent. Although to be fair she would not have thought about it at all, if Bamber was innocent.
Disadvantages of Julie trying to frame an innocent Bamber:
There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.
She would be charged by the police. When caught lying.
Julie was being reckless and too spontaneous straight after splitting up with Bamber. Women and men are much more calculated and patient if seeking revenge on someone.
Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.
To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?
Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?
There was no financial reward in approaching the police.
It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.
She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims. Bamber was innocent.
Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.
She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.
It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.
She may quickly wilt under pressure. This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?
It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.
It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.
It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.
An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.
It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.
She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.
It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.
She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean an option weeks or months down the line ?
She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.
She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.
Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.
If an unsuccessful police approach became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.
There were no examples of anyone attempting something as extreme as this before, after apparently being so devaststed after apparently being jilted. Julie was a 20 year old going into the unknown. Alone.
Bamber may have an alibi. He was innocent.
Her decision to introduce and lie about a hit man would be exposed. Unless the hit man had no alibi.
Julie knew Bamber could be charming and convincing. And was innocent.
The only advantage of doing this, was that he ex boyfriend would spend his life in prison. As an innocent man.
-
Can anyone imagine Julie (or anyone) thinking
'I am sad about splitting up with Jeremy. But i'm only 20 and will meet someone else.
He did upset me a bit for about 3 minutes. I know what, I'll tell the police he murdered his mother, father, sister and 6 year old nephews'.
-
You constantly display you are little more than an immature biased child. You accuse others of being liek that but it is you who are such you constantly project.
You have no ability to win on the merits so act like a spoiled child.
I have a more than adequate ability to debate you, its just that i seldom find you worth my time enganging you in debate, However since you have taken the time to try and
refute what i present, Its only fair i respond to each of your points accordingly and explain to you why you are wrong.
It is not my fault you started at the outset revealing you decided not to believe Julie right off the bat.
It is not my fault the nonsense you resort to in order to try to justify calling Julie a liar falls flat.
I never said anything was your fault, Infact having a sharp enough intuition to realise Julies claims are bogus from the beginning is a good thing, So if is your responcility thank you :)
Boutflour wondered whether Jeremy planted Sheila's prints. Is this something that no one else in the World would think of? No! It's been done in real life and in movies/television
from the 1940s to the present criminals have been shown sticking objects in the hands of dead people as well as unconscious people to plant prints. When something is shows in movies
it is quite well known. Yet you want us to believe there is no way Jeremy could have worried about such. You want us to believe Jeremy can't have worried about such and told Julie
but rather RWB must have fed such to Julie and helped her to make up that Jeremy said such.
First of all you need to grapple with the fact Jeremys alleged confession deviates from the facts of crime, Thus you must assume he gave her false information. Now considering all the variables Jeremy could have fictionalised, it is remarkable that two fundental aspects of the crime he falsely gave Julie was exactly the same as the errornous account police gave Ann Eaton and Robert Boutflour. The probablity of this being coincidental is extremly low. Then we must assume that Jeremy took such carefull planning and precision for the crime only to then be foolish enough to tell the girl he was about to reject? and not only that he commits a perfect murder convincingly showing Shelia as the culprit only to then incriminate himself saying he hired a Hitman? Its sounds completely absured.
You ignore that there actually is some corroboration of her claim as well. June told Pam Boutflour that Jeremy had tried to teach Sheila to load the magazine.
That clearly was an effort to get her prints on the weapon he had no reason to actually teach her.
I am glad you brought this up! Because using a bit of common sense and forensic linguistics one can establish this to be a complete fabrication made up by Robert Boutflour and i shall explain
This statement first appears on the 20th of September 1985, now read carefully Roberts diary entires on the 11th of August 1985.
(http://s18.postimg.org/urhcc1fgp/rwbfingerprints.jpg)
As you righly pointed out he is wondering or speculating about Jeremy planting the prints, now had Pam actually told him this he would not need to speculate he would know this with certainty, not only that he would also mention Pam telling him such a thing and he does not! Not until the 20th of September. Even more damning June is dead and Pam is too ill to testify and soon passes away. Was it so unfortunatle that the only two witnesses to this alleged important conversation happen to be dead? or was this a deception using false claims from the dead who cannot refute what one is saying? Make your own mind up
By September it seemed obvious there were no prints from Sheila found because they would have been reported if they had been found.
The family kept hounding police. So if Julie had been in contact with the family and plotting with the she would have had no need to
try to account for prints belonging to Sheila anyway. You have no evidence at all to suggest that Boutflour got Julie to make such up
as opposed to Julie telling the truth about what Jeremy told her.
Strangely enough there are reports of prints found on the bullets and the magazine, see below
(http://s22.postimg.org/so0zlobtd/printsreport.jpg)
What happened to these reports? god only knows but during Jeremy's 2002 appeal hearings his Queens Council Michael Turner made a very good point
"Robert Boutflour claimed Jeremy had been trying to get Sheila to load the rifle in front of June and Pamela, but Pamela made no such reference of the incident in her statements. Jeremy denied ever doing this. It is now known fingerprints were found on the bullet cases of the cartridges, but this was not disclosed. Whose fingerprints were these? One can only postulate that the police told Robert Boutflour the fingerprints were Sheila’s, and in an attempt to explain it, he made a statement of how Sheila’s fingerprints came to be on the bullet cases"
Let's reveiw things:
A) Julie told a friend the story
B) The friend ran to police
C) Police sought to question Julie regarding what the friend said
D) Julie decided to come clean
E) At first police doubted her claims but came around to accepting them after a while
Why on Earth are you still falling for this deplorable gambit made up by Essex Police?
Contrary to what was first told Julie did not come forward to the police on the 7th. As the Bank manager can prove he had her accounted for with her friend
and a police officer in the bank on the 4th several days before she "came forward".
The police orchestrated the situation with the bank as part of the deal with Julie Mugford for her evidence against Jeremy and in order to sanitise her character before the jury.
They then covered up what had happened hiding it from the defence and the court.
(http://s24.postimg.org/nj3jwimf9/dovey.jpg)
You have established no evidence at all that Julie got anything from the family let alone conspired with them to come up with her account.
You have no evidence of her interacting with them. You just decided that because the family had OBVIOUS concerns and some of those concerns were later confirmed by her account that it means they must have spoken to her and gotten her to lie. You have proved no connection merely your own bias.
Your supposed evidence proving Julie lied is not in the least bit convincing let alone conclusive.
I have established the evidence, Just because it falls flat in YOUR OPINION that does not reflect the reality of the situation whether you know it or not.
For bursting your bubble and exposing it as nonsense you call me a douche. You think names bother me it just proves you can't refute what I wrote and displays your own immaturity.
I can refute what you wrote as you have just discovered for yourself. My fool abouts with calling you names or posting a guy laughting is fully justified due to the way you talk to others, also its partly
because I seldom bother to give you the time of day. If the day comes were you start opening your mind somewhat and stop being a brick wall to talk to i may decide to engage with more lenghly discussions with you.
-
Let's keep replies civil and to the point please.
Julie made a thirty-something page statement if I recall and included details which could never have been invented. Many of her claims were easily verifiable and when brought together resulted in a plausible and compelling document. However, it is what is given in evidence before a jury which counts and Julie did not pull any punches. The defence was unable to shake her such was the confidence which she gave her evidence. That is in itself a major factor in determining truth from the lies.
Julie was a teaching student with her whole life and career in front of her, a career which has seen her rise to the highest echelons of the Canadian Education System.. I have no doubt whatsoever that DS Jones put the fear of God in her. She had no choice but to spill the beans and spill them she did. Inevitably, some of her evidence came from Bamber himself, the hitman story being part of it. It could be that Bamber told her this story as an insurance just in case she went to the police. He thought her telling of this story would discredit her in their eyes and the eyes of a jury if it came to it. He gambled but lost!
It was Rivlin's job to persuade the jury to disregard Julie's evidence but when push came to shove Bamber's arrogance came to the fore. He couldn't help himself, the jury obviously found Julie's evidence compelling and Jeremy Bamber a liar.
-
I have a more than adequate ability to debate you, its just that i seldom find you worth my time enganging you in debate, However since you have taken the time to try and
refute what i present, Its only fair i respond to each of your points accordingly and explain to you why you are wrong.
You have never proven me wrong about anything except in your dreams.
I never said anything was your fault, Infact having a sharp enough intuition to realise Julies claims are bogus from the beginning is a good thing, So if is your responcility thank you :)
[
You have failed to prove Julie's claims to be bogus. Julie's claims were regarding what she was told by Jeremy. The prosecution readily admitted that some of the stories Jeremy told to Julie were lies. You need to prove that Jeremy didn't tell Julie what she claims he said. You have no ability whatsoever to do that. Your claims you proved such are patently false.
First of all you need to grapple with the fact Jeremys alleged confession deviates from the facts of crime, Thus you must assume he gave her false information. Now considering all the variables Jeremy could have fictionalised, it is remarkable that two fundental aspects of the crime he falsely gave Julie was exactly the same as the errornous account police gave Ann Eaton and Robert Boutflour. The probablity of this being coincidental is extremly low.
I already explained why you are completely wrong and you failed to address my points you simply repeated the same nonsense.
The press reported Nevill was shot 7 times. You incorrectly insist that Jeremy had to know he shot Nevill 8 times not 7 and that this press account was wrong. It is possible Jeremy though he missed and even more likely that he didn't count how many shots he fired thus accepted whatever the press presented as the true number. You keep insisting he had to know how many shots he fired though it is more likely he didn't count the shots and keep track. You just ignore reality and make up that he had to know for sure how many shots he fired.
It is less likely he knew the real number he fired but even if he did know there is a reason to keep it a secret. Telling Julie a hitman did it was obviously some protection in case she ratted him out. Correcting the actual number of wounds would implicate him so just like lying about the hitman he could have chosen to lie about the number of shots. It is also possible that he did tell her 8 shots but she didn't remember how many he said and she simply memorized the number reported in the press. I alreayd mentioned all of these issues. You simply ignore them and say he had to know how many he fired, he would have told her how many her fired and she would have remembered it so using the 7 shot figure reported int he press proves he didn't tell her anything. It proves no such thing. Your bias makes you say it proves such but objectively it fails miserably.
Just like he made up MacDonald carrying out the murders he made up the claim that Sheila got on the bed and shot herself under his orders. No one knows why he told these lies. Maybe he did it so that if she ratted him out then the police would see the details were untrue and dismiss them. You ignore that and simply say she lied and made it all up including the hitman though there is zero reason for her to do so.
You also ignore that Ann Eaton misunderstood what police told her and erroneously though that saying she was on the far side of the bed meant she was on the bed when in fact police meant on the floor on the far side of the bed. Worse still you ignore that when Julie spoke to police the family and her were aware at that point that Sheila had been shot on the floor not the bed. If she was conspiring with the family to frame Jeremy she would not have said he told her Sheila was shot on the bed. You completely ignore such because you never looked at the issue objectively. you decided she lied and the family conspired with her despite no proof of such and simply make up nonsense to try to pretend this definitely happened despite no proof.
When Julie spoke to police she knew Sheila had been shot on the floor and that Jeremy had no alibi. If she were going to lie she would have said Jeremy confessed to killing her on the floor . If setting out to lie she would not have ran with the erroneous bed claim and would have fingered Jeremy directly not finger a hitman let alone to name a hitman who would be able to clear himself in short order.
You fail to deal with this at all. You also fail to deal with the most compelling part of her testimony.
Then we must assume that Jeremy took such carefull planning and precision for the crime only to then be foolish enough to tell the girl he was about to reject? and not only that he commits a perfect murder convincingly showing Shelia as the culprit only to then incriminate himself saying he hired a Hitman? Its sounds completely absured.
Telling Julie was stupid but not absurd. People confess to loved ones quite often but he did more than that. He told her in advance and even called her right after. Why would he call her period at 3AM let alone before police unless he had in fact involved her prior?
If he was the genius you claim then making up the hitman story was one of his bright ideas to deal with Julie. It served to enable him to ell her if she ratted him out then the hitman would come get her. Furthermore, if she did rat him out the police would find the story false and simply dismiss her claims as untrue which is PRECISELY what you are doing. Instead of being the brilliant man you think you are, you fell right into Jeremy's trap.
It was stupid to tell Julie about his plans but quite believable he would do such. It is not in the least bit absurd. lying to her afterwards to try to hedge his bets and protect himself is not absurd either but in fact if true would be intelligent. What is totally absurd though is the notion she would make up a tale implicating him and during the course of such say he provided to her details she and the family knew at that time were untrue- like that Sheila had been shot on the bed- and to make up a hitman instead of saying he confessed to committing the murders himself and most absurd of all to name the hitman so he could clear himself and prove the whole story false. That is beyond stupid and careless it is absurd. The level of detail Julie provided was substantial including mentioning how he took sleeping pills she had given to him and he considered trying to use them to get everyone to stay asleep while the house burned but found them unsuitable for the task. If she spent a great deal of time making up such details she would not ruin it by making up a hitman she would have said he confessed to carrying out the murders himself.
I am glad you brought this up! Because using a bit of common sense and forensic linguistics one can establish this to be a complete fabrication made up by Robert Boutflour and i shall explain
This statement first appears on the 20th of September 1985, now read carefully Roberts diary entires on the 11th of August 1985.
(http://s18.postimg.org/urhcc1fgp/rwbfingerprints.jpg)
As you righly pointed out he is wondering or speculating about Jeremy planting the prints, now had Pam actually told him this he would not need to speculate he would know this with certainty, not only that he would also mention Pam telling him such a thing and he does not! Not until the 20th of September. Even more damning June is dead and Pam is too ill to testify and soon passes away. Was it so unfortunatle that the only two witnesses to this alleged important conversation happen to be dead? or was this a deception using false claims from the dead who cannot refute what one is saying? Make your own mind up
Pam spoke to police about her phonecall with June and Sheila, she was not too ill to speak to them and deny the account. You are too biased to approach this case rationally. Boutflour wasn't smart enough figure out that the reason why Jeremy wanted to teach her to load it was because it was an effort to plant prints. Like most he assumed such was so that people would believe she knew how to use it. I am the one who has pointed out that Jeremy was doing such to get her prints on it. It was far enough away for the murders that Boutflour failed to appreciate it. Boutflour was unsure whether Sheila's prints were found or not but he SPECULATED that if they were found it would be because Jeremy had planted them. He didn't believe that Sheila did anything and thus believed the only way for her prints to get on it would be from planting them.
His concerns are obvious ones you have not demonstrated at all that he got to Julie and got her to make up stories about Jeremy saying he had planted her prints on it but was unsure whether they had been wiped off. Your thought process is entirely guided by bias. Indeed if you were thinking clearly then you would not suggest that family members who KNEW in mid August that Sheila had been shot on the floor pressed Julie to make up in September that Jeremy told her she was shot on the bed! You don't think through your claims much.
Strangely enough there are reports of prints found on the bullets and the magazine, see below
(http://s22.postimg.org/so0zlobtd/printsreport.jpg)
What happened to these reports? god only knows
That doesn't show the section where they detail the results. That lists what they tested. If you bothered to show the result portion you would find out they got 5 results on the rifle but ZILCH on the moderator and magazine. You fall for every lie Mike and the CT come out with. how sad you are. You fall for lies form them then ridiculously claim the police lied and I fell for it. You operate totally backwards...
but during Jeremy's 2002 appeal hearings his Queens Council Michael Turner made a very good point
"Robert Boutflour claimed Jeremy had been trying to get Sheila to load the rifle in front of June and Pamela, but Pamela made no such reference of the incident in her statements. Jeremy denied ever doing this. It is now known fingerprints were found on the bullet cases of the cartridges, but this was not disclosed. Whose fingerprints were these? One can only postulate that the police told Robert Boutflour the fingerprints were Sheila’s, and in an attempt to explain it, he made a statement of how Sheila’s fingerprints came to be on the bullet cases"
Why on Earth are you still falling for this deplorable gambit made up by Essex Police?
They asked Pam to give a statement about the phone call prior to the murders. That was all they asked of her. That doesn't mean that Boutflour lied, indeed it would make no sense to lie since Pam could have refuted his claims. The claim that there were prints found on the casings is a lie. That is why in discussing the prints the COA decision fails to mention any prints found on casings. The one falling for lies is you not me.
Contrary to what was first told Julie did not come forward to the police on the 7th. As the Bank manager can prove he had her accounted for with her friend
and a police officer in the bank on the 4th several days before she "came forward".
The police orchestrated the situation with the bank as part of the deal with Julie Mugford for her evidence against Jeremy and in order to sanitise her character before the jury.
They then covered up what had happened hiding it from the defence and the court.
(http://s24.postimg.org/nj3jwimf9/dovey.jpg)
I have established the evidence, Just because it falls flat in YOUR OPINION that does not reflect the reality of the situation whether you know it or not.
I can refute what you wrote as you have just discovered for yourself. My fool abouts with calling you names or posting a guy laughting is fully justified due to the way you talk to others, also its partly
because I seldom bother to give you the time of day. If the day comes were you start opening your mind somewhat and stop being a brick wall to talk to i may decide to engage with more lenghly discussions with you.
Dovey's October 14, 1985 statement indicates that they went to see him On October 4, 1985. That is nearly a month after Julie met with police on September 7. His 2002 statement was rejected by the COA as containing faulty recollections because so many years had passed.
Police only knew about the fraud because Julie admitted to it during the course of ratting Jeremy out and had she not done so neither the police nor anyone else would have been able to raise the issue.
All you have done is expose your own biases you have failed miserably at establishing Julie lied about anything let alone establishing that police and the family conspired with Julie to have her lie.
You have fallen for Jeremy's lies and those of his supporters, you are the one who looks gullible not me.
-
Let's keep replies civil and to the point please.
Julie made a thirty-something page statement if I recall and included details which could never have been invented. Many of her claims were easily verifiable and when brought together resulted in a plausible and compelling document. However, it is what is given in evidence before a jury which counts and Julie did not pull any punches. The defence was unable to shake her such was the confidence which she gave her evidence. That is in itself a major factor in determining truth from the lies.
Julie was a teaching student with her whole life and career in front of her, a career which has seen her rise to the highest echelons of the Canadian Education System.. I have no doubt whatsoever that DS Jones put the fear of God in her. She had no choice but to spill the beans and spill them she did. Inevitably, some of her evidence came from Bamber himself, the hitman story being part of it. It could be that Bamber told her this story as an insurance just in case she went to the police. He thought her telling of this story would discredit her in their eyes and the eyes of a jury if it came to it. He gambled but lost!
It was Rivlin's job to persuade the jury to disregard Julie's evidence but when push came to shove Bamber's arrogance came to the fore. He couldn't help himself, the jury obviously found Julie's evidence compelling and Jeremy Bamber a liar.
David doesn't know how to do that. He posts childish insulting cartoons when he lacks the ability to substantively challenge claims and evidence that refute things he wish were true and if not permitted to do such then he simply will hide and post on the safety of blue where his fellow Jeremy supporters will placate and protect him instead of challenging his claims.
He is so biased is it easy to see why he won't reveal his supposed new evidence that Jeremy is innocent. He only will take it to die hard Jeremy supporters who won' view it in an objective manner.
By his own admission he said he decided to not believe Julie from the outset. Instead of looking at all the issue in an objective manner he went by his gut opinion. He knew that would look bad if he simply admits it is his gut opinion he still goes by so looks for reasons to justify his decision. The only thing he could come up with is insisting that Julie conspired with the family and police to present false claims implicating him. He has decided that is what happened despite not having any evidence. So he has made up evidence that suffices in his mind but objectively fails miserably.
When people present an objective criticism of his claims he flips out. How he views the evidence in this case and an objective person views it are very different. For instance, in another thread he insisted that Julie took her claims from RWB's diary even though it was written after she was questioned so that is quite impossible.
In this thread he ignores that the press erroneously reported Sheila had been shot in bed but at the time Julie came forward the family knew Sheila had been found on the floor and pretends that they still thought she was killed in bed and got Julie to falsely claim that Jeremy told her Sheila had been shot in bed. He ignores the press reported it and wants to pretend it had to come from the family because no one else thought that. Worse he ignores the family was told she was on the floor by mid August. If Julie had made things up this would be evidence that tends to refute she wasn't conspiring with the family or police in making it up.
In this thread he also claims that Julie saying Jeremy told her Nevill was shot 7 times had to come from the family. Her full account is that there was a significant struggle where the killer blacked out for a minute but recovered to overcome Nevill and shot him 7 times. He totally ignores that this 7 shot figure was reported in the press and that is where not only she could have gotten it but Jeremy could have gotten it. He ignores that Jeremy could have gotten it from the press or even could have told her 8 but she failed to remember this and the figure reported in the press stuck in her mind. Quite obviously she was not conspiring with police because if police were driving her statement they would have ensured all the details matched the crime to the letter.
Too that end he totally ignores that there was no reason for the family or police to prompt Julie to make up a hitman account and no reason for her to do so on her own. The only one with a motive to do so is Jeremy. The hitman story served several purposes: 1) so Julie would not think he was as cold blooded as he actually was; 2) to threaten Julie that the hitman would get her if she talked and thus discourage her fro ratting him out; 3) if she did rat him out the police would find the account to be false and he would be in the clear because they would assume her accounts of him planning the murders were also false.
This is completely ignored and it pretended that there would be some reason for the other members of the conspiracy to get Julie to make up a hitman claim and even ID an innocent man as the hitman. Naturally no reason is ever set forward and the issue not directly discussed because he can't come up with any reason why Julie or the others would want to make up a hitman. Indeed, people out to blame Jeremy falsely would simply say he confessed to personally carrying out the murders.
Given how backwards David views everything in this case it is little wonder he is scared to publicly post his "breakthrough". There is no doubt his breakthrough was come up with using the same biased goggles through which he looks at everything in this case and thus doesn't prove what he thinks. He wants sycophants to review his evidence as opposed to people who would give honest objective review.
NGB is so ridiculous he stated he thinks it is possible Mike's claims are true about Sheila being shot in the kitchen and moved by police. He evoked such a strong reaction from Harters that he banned Harters for tearing into him so severely. Turning to someone like NGB for his opinion on the evidence is like asking a wolf if a chicken looks tasty. The way you test a theory is to have naysayers look at it and see if it can withstand them. If it can then you know you have something.
-
Is it correct that David is not allowed to annonce details of his alleged discovery ?
This is apparently because it would 'give the crown more time to prepare'. This is suggesting the CCRC are biased against Bamber.
It's doubtful the CCRC read forums. If this alleged discovery does make it into a CCRC application in 5 or 10 years time, they would still have months or weeks to look at it.
Mike is always making annoncements about new evidence which hasn't been included in previous appeals.
In the unlikely event that the alleged discovery is good and does eventually end up with Bamber, it is likely there will be a press anoncement. They were not slow in coming forward regarding Sheila's feet and Neville's call.
-
A red herring comes to mind.
-
Is it correct that David is not allowed to annonce details of his alleged discovery ?
This is apparently because it would 'give the crown more time to prepare'. This is suggesting the CCRC are biased against Bamber.
It's doubtful the CCRC read forums. If this alleged discovery does make it into a CCRC application in 5 or 10 years time, they would still have months or weeks to look at it.
Mike is always making annoncements about new evidence which hasn't been included in previous appeals.
In the unlikely event that the alleged discovery is good and does eventually end up with Bamber, it is likely there will be a press anoncement. They were not slow in coming forward regarding Sheila's feet and Neville's call.
The defense can't bar David from releasing his theory to the board. David said that he doesn't want to post the information because he fears the crown will see it and then explore ways to refute his claims before the defense even has time to get experts to assess whether his claims have any merit.
A) It is absurd to think that the government is monitoring blue and here to test claims set forth by us. The notion the government will be actively trying to test and refute claims made on the web is absurd. The truth is that unless/until an application to the courts is made that the government will not attempt to do squat.
B) If his claims have merit then he should not only not fear people testing his claims but should welcome people testing his claims. If they are legitimate then such testing will confirm as opposed to refute his claims.
When you try to keep arguments a secret to spring on opponents at the last minute it is because you fear they will be proven false if adequate time exists to test the claims and hope by denying time for adequate testing that you will prevent the truth from being revealed. Of course legal rules require the government being given time to prepare after a filing occurs and the filing itself will put the government on notice of the claims so the notion they will be able to ambush the government without allowing them any chance to test the claims is nonsense.
-
David doesn't know how to do that. He posts childish insulting cartoons when he lacks the ability to substantively challenge claims and evidence that refute things he wish were true and if not permitted to do such then he simply will hide and post on the safety of blue where his fellow Jeremy supporters will placate and protect him instead of challenging his claims.
He is so biased is it easy to see why he won't reveal his supposed new evidence that Jeremy is innocent. He only will take it to die hard Jeremy supporters who won' view it in an objective manner.
By his own admission he said he decided to not believe Julie from the outset. Instead of looking at all the issue in an objective manner he went by his gut opinion. He knew that would look bad if he simply admits it is his gut opinion he still goes by so looks for reasons to justify his decision. The only thing he could come up with is insisting that Julie conspired with the family and police to present false claims implicating him. He has decided that is what happened despite not having any evidence. So he has made up evidence that suffices in his mind but objectively fails miserably.
When people present an objective criticism of his claims he flips out. How he views the evidence in this case and an objective person views it are very different. For instance, in another thread he insisted that Julie took her claims from RWB's diary even though it was written after she was questioned so that is quite impossible.
In this thread he ignores that the press erroneously reported Sheila had been shot in bed but at the time Julie came forward the family knew Sheila had been found on the floor and pretends that they still thought she was killed in bed and got Julie to falsely claim that Jeremy told her Sheila had been shot in bed. He ignores the press reported it and wants to pretend it had to come from the family because no one else thought that. Worse he ignores the family was told she was on the floor by mid August. If Julie had made things up this would be evidence that tends to refute she wasn't conspiring with the family or police in making it up.
In this thread he also claims that Julie saying Jeremy told her Nevill was shot 7 times had to come from the family. Her full account is that there was a significant struggle where the killer blacked out for a minute but recovered to overcome Nevill and shot him 7 times. He totally ignores that this 7 shot figure was reported in the press and that is where not only she could have gotten it but Jeremy could have gotten it. He ignores that Jeremy could have gotten it from the press or even could have told her 8 but she failed to remember this and the figure reported in the press stuck in her mind. Quite obviously she was not conspiring with police because if police were driving her statement they would have ensured all the details matched the crime to the letter.
Too that end he totally ignores that there was no reason for the family or police to prompt Julie to make up a hitman account and no reason for her to do so on her own. The only one with a motive to do so is Jeremy. The hitman story served several purposes: 1) so Julie would not think he was as cold blooded as he actually was; 2) to threaten Julie that the hitman would get her if she talked and thus discourage her fro ratting him out; 3) if she did rat him out the police would find the account to be false and he would be in the clear because they would assume her accounts of him planning the murders were also false.
This is completely ignored and it pretended that there would be some reason for the other members of the conspiracy to get Julie to make up a hitman claim and even ID an innocent man as the hitman. Naturally no reason is ever set forward and the issue not directly discussed because he can't come up with any reason why Julie or the others would want to make up a hitman. Indeed, people out to blame Jeremy falsely would simply say he confessed to personally carrying out the murders.
Given how backwards David views everything in this case it is little wonder he is scared to publicly post his "breakthrough". There is no doubt his breakthrough was come up with using the same biased goggles through which he looks at everything in this case and thus doesn't prove what he thinks. He wants sycophants to review his evidence as opposed to people who would give honest objective review.
NGB is so ridiculous he stated he thinks it is possible Mike's claims are true about Sheila being shot in the kitchen and moved by police. He evoked such a strong reaction from Harters that he banned Harters for tearing into him so severely. Turning to someone like NGB for his opinion on the evidence is like asking a wolf if a chicken looks tasty. The way you test a theory is to have naysayers look at it and see if it can withstand them. If it can then you know you have something.
Your excuses for this women are beyond desperate. Her testimony is a result of coercion, I know it and you know it. But whether your going to admit it or not who knows.
Its remarkable how Jeremy's detailed "confession" Julie revealed on the 8th of September had no mention of a silencer. Maybe that's because the blood flake was discovered on the 12th of September hence police nor the relatives could have given her that information. The same silencer that DI Cook dismantled in August and never reported any blood! That would explain why DI Cooks 1991 COLP interview audio tape went "missing" or is that just another innocent mistake?
-
David has probably been advised not to post his allegation as it could constitute a libel.
Am I correct?
-
Your excuses for this women are beyond desperate. Her testimony is a result of coercion, I know it and you know it. But whether your going to admit it or not who knows.
You have presented zero evidence of coercion. You believe she was coerced simply because that fits in with the narrative you have decided to advance not because evidence establishes it happened. You admitted long ago to me that you changed your mind in this case not because of evidence but because of a very stupid subjective reason. You said you spoke to lawyers who believe Jeremy would not be convicted based upon the same evidence if he were tried today. Their subjective unsupported opinion that he would not be convicted is what you claimed convinced you he was innocent. You approach this case from a very emotional standpoint not a logical one.
I don't believe Julie was coerced because there is no evidence to suggest she was and furthermore there is evidence that establishes she wasn't.
Evidence establishes that she stated her claims to a friend BEFORE she spoke to police, that this friend went to the police and that this is why police questioned Julie. You have presented no evidence of any kind that establishes the police went to Julie and put pressure on her to make up stories and then told her and the friend to support the lie that the friend went to police and this is why police questioned her.
You have failed to identify any pressure the police could use to even try to force Julie to lie for them. What could they do to her how could they threaten her if she didn't lie for them? You don't even think about it you just make up it happened. They had no evidence that she had committed any crimes or anything they could use as leverage to coerce her.
The best anyone can make up is to suggest that police convinced Julie he was guilty and going to get away with murder so begged her to lie in order to help them nab him. No one has any evidence whatsoever that anyone put their career on the line to solicit her to lie let alone that agreed to do so.
What I know is that if police had convinced Julie to lie that they would have had her say that Jeremy told her he committed the murders they would not have her make up a hitman account. If they were the ones behind it they also would have made sure all the details he told her matched what happened to the letter of what the evidence established. They would have had her say he told her he shot Nevill 8 times not 7. They would have had her say he admitted he shot Nevill in the bedroom and then shot him again in the kitchen. The inaccurate details you point to REFUTE your argument that police coerced her and establish they didn't. They would not coerce her to say such things.
You attack Mike and profess that you are evidence based while he isn't but you advance many of the same things he does, you only reject a few of his most outrageous claims like that police shot her in the kitchen and moved her body. Rejecting such doesn't make one rational and evidence based indeed you support the nonsense about there being multiple moderators that were doctored and this is why there were multiple exhibit numbers for Nevill's moderator.
You approach the case in the same biased way Mike does. It is Mikesque to claim police would coerce Julie to make up a hitman who police would easily be able to prove was not involved. It is Miekesque to claim police would coerce her to say confessed but to feed her false details to which he confessed to.
I believe Jeremy is guilty as sin and I KNOW that the evidence establishes he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe Julie told the truth and that the moderator evidence was not doctored. I KNOW that no one has come up with any evidence to prove Julie lied or any evidence to prove the moderator evidence was doctored.
I also KNOW that you decided Jeremy was innocent without reviewing the evidence but rather based on your gut feelings and beliefs of others and after making such decision you then decided to review the evidence to see how you can look for ways to twist the evidence to pretend it supports your view. In contrast I followed the evidence where it leads and after reviewing everything decided Jeremy is indeed guilty.
Let's just look at an argument which illustrates how different we operate. You argued that Jeapes saw a rifle in the bedroom window and a crime scene photo confirms it was in that location at the time of the raid. The photo that shows the murder weapon near the window was taken after the photos where it was seen on Sheila's body. How could this confirm it had been in the window at the time of the raid? Moreover, evidence proves that Jeapes was looking in the boxroom window not the bedroom window. Countless times this was pointed out to you and countless times you ignored it. In the meantime all Jeapes said was that she saw something in the boxroom window that appeared to be the barrel of a gun sticking up like would be the case if it had been leaning on a window sill. She wasn't positive that it was a rifle barrel it could have been a tip of a broomstick for all she knew or a reflection. In any event it was a different room. She said this more than a month later not contemporaneously which casts even more doubt on it. But even if she did see something that appeared to be the tip of a rifle in the boxroom window but chose not to tell anyone because she wasn't sure, clearly whatever it was that she saw wasn't a rifle because no rifle was found in the boxroom let alone near the window. Instead of facing this reality you continued suggesting a rifle had been in he master bedroom window and that she saw it.
I face reality and follow evidence where it leads while like Mike you make mountains out of molehills.
Its remarkable how Jeremy's detailed "confession" Julie revealed on the 8th of September had no mention of a silencer. Maybe that's because the blood flake was discovered on the 12th of September hence police nor the relatives could have given her that information. The same silencer that DI Cook dismantled in August and never reported any blood! That would explain why DI Cooks 1991 COLP interview audio tape went "missing" or is that just another innocent mistake?
1) Thank you for proving yet again how you post the same false claims Mike does. Mike made up that Cook took the moderator apart in August. There are no documents of any kind that suggest Cook ever took the moderator apart let alone did so in August. Nor is there any testimonial evidence of any kind that suggests such. Mike took a photocopy of a photo showing the moderator disassembled and wrote a date on it. He then claimed because this date was written on it this proves it was taken on such date. You are the one who falls for nonsense not me. How funny it would be if this lie formed part of your breakthrough.
2) Julie said that Jeremy failed to provide her a detailed account of how the murders were committed. She said that he only told her a few details. Your claim that she said he gave a very detailed confession is patently false. Since he didn't give her much detail he didn't mention the moderator. If police were forcing her to lie then they would have had her lie about him saying he used the moderator. Blood was found on and inside it August 13th. They had suspicions it was used in the murders at that time but didn't think it mattered much if it was used. They didn't really think through how ridiculous it would be for Sheila to use it then put it away before killing herself. Even though such would be ridiculous the defense argued that is what happened. The significance of the flake is that such proved it was attached when Sheila was killed which makes it impossible for her to have killed herself. If the flake is subtracted then impossible changes back to ridiculous.
-
David has probably been advised not to post his allegation as it could constitute a libel.
Am I correct?
I have been told that I should not release the info, As it will give the crown more time to prepare for having to refute it. That is the advice I have been given, If Scipio wants to believe its some excuse I have made up that's fine because I really couldn't give a dam.
I have direct evidence incriminating Sheila. I have been told by a press agent it could be worth thousands if I am prepared to give it to them. So believe me I am very tempted! it could come out sooner than you think
I can understand why people wont believe me, but my claims are genuine.
-
I have been told that I should not release the info, As it will give the crown more time to prepare for having to refute it. That is the advice I have been given, If Scipio wants to believe its some excuse I have made up that's fine because I really couldn't give a dam.
I have direct evidence incriminating Sheila. I have been told by a press agent it could be worth thousands if I am prepared to give it to them. So believe me I am very tempted! it could come out sooner than you think
I can understand why people wont believe me, but my claims are genuine.
1) If you claims are accurate then it doesn't matte rhow much time the crown has to prepare they won't be able to refute your claims. If they are untrue though then naturally you will want them to have the least possible amount of time to prepare. So it is quite clear you have little confidence in your claims if you fear the crown will disprove them given enough time.
2) The notion the Crown is trolling this site and blue for theories so they can then take action to refute them is nonsense. The crown will not take action until the argument is advanced in a legal setting. That is the only time they will bother to take notice.
3) Your claim you have proof that Sheila committed the murders is beyond laughable you the same person who said you have absolute proof that Julie lied about Jeremy telling her what you claimed and your supposed proof proved nothing you claimed. You also just repeated Mike's lie about Cook taking apart the moderator in August. You have a history of claiming things prove something they objectively do not. As such I won't hold my breath...
-
3) Your claim you have proof that Sheila committed the murders is beyond laughable
I agree it is beyond laughable, and I cannot blame you for feeling that way. But I am not making this up.
The state can always claim JB set up what I have discovered but the argument is just not credible.
What's even more laughable is that of all people I have noticed what the authorities should have noticed decades ago.
-
I agree it is beyond laughable, and I cannot blame you for feeling that way. But I am not making this up.
The state can always claim JB set up what I have discovered but the argument is just not credible.
What's even more laughable is that of all people I have noticed what the authorities should have noticed decades ago.
If you are not scared of it being disproved then PM me what the argument is. I will give you a private critique. I won't steal it to try to make money off it myself and won't publish it on the web. Of course if you can't handle honest criticism then it would be pointless because I'm not a sycophant and if it is crap I am going to say so and explain why.
Based on what NGB wrote I initially had some suspicions that you blew up some photos of Sheila and think you see a muzzle imprint consistent with the front of the rifle sans moderator but there are many possibilities of what you can think you found.
-
The defense can't bar David from releasing his theory to the board. David said that he doesn't want to post the information because he fears the crown will see it and then explore ways to refute his claims before the defense even has time to get experts to assess whether his claims have any merit.
A) It is absurd to think that the government is monitoring blue and here to test claims set forth by us. The notion the government will be actively trying to test and refute claims made on the web is absurd. The truth is that unless/until an application to the courts is made that the government will not attempt to do squat.
B) If his claims have merit then he should not only not fear people testing his claims but should welcome people testing his claims. If they are legitimate then such testing will confirm as opposed to refute his claims.
When you try to keep arguments a secret to spring on opponents at the last minute it is because you fear they will be proven false if adequate time exists to test the claims and hope by denying time for adequate testing that you will prevent the truth from being revealed. Of course legal rules require the government being given time to prepare after a filing occurs and the filing itself will put the government on notice of the claims so the notion they will be able to ambush the government without allowing them any chance to test the claims is nonsense.
David has obviously decided to be a supporter.
He did say twice he was going to post an account of how Sheila committed the massacre. The second time in 2015, when he said he wanted to delay it to 2016 to make it detailed. Dispite repeated requests it has not been posted.
He then claimed authors steal his ideas and gave an example. His example had already been mentioned in 2011 by a journalist and discussed on another forum.
As Holly said, this thread would have taken a long time to compile. But again it didn't make any impact. Neither did his claim that he had sent something to Andrew Hunter. To prevent himself just becoming another Mike/Lookout esq supporter he secretly seeked out approval from another supporter. NGB was happy to post one dipomatic post regarding David's alleged finding.
The reason for saying why the alleged finding cannot be discussed on a forum is incredibly weak. There are actually a lot of advantages of posting new ideas, theories and evidence on forums. Which is why people do it.
If David has documents which have never been released before, maybe these should not be posted. However this is very doubtful. There is no reason why he should have priviledged documents or witness testimony. I did twice ask how he came up with this alleged discovery, but got stonewalled.
Hopefully David will PM his findings to you.
-
I'm afraid the moment David posted about selling his theory to the media all credibility was lost. In all reality the evidence against Jeremy Bamber is substantial, the invented telephone call from Nevill and his attempt to blame Sheila from the moment he contacted the police have been his undoing. It would take something of the highest order to see Bamber walk free.
-
I am trying really hard to follow this, because I think there is a distinct possibility that Jeremy Bamber is Innocent. But you are such an incestuous bunch that makes it difficult to get a word in edgeways without being insulted. Or watching you all insulting each other.
Is there an Appeal in the offering? And if so, on what grounds?
-
I am trying really hard to follow this, because I think there is a distinct possibility that Jeremy Bamber is Innocent. But you are such an incestuous bunch that makes it difficult to get a word in edgeways without being insulted. Or watching you all insulting each other.
Is there an Appeal in the offering? And if so, on what grounds?
There is most definitely NOT an appeal in the offing.
Bambers supporters are really, very good at spreading propaganda.
I'm not sure how much clearer the CCRC could have been, when dismissing Bambers case the last time round.
That prat must have cost the tax payer a bloody fortune already. The sooner he carks it, the better.
-
I am trying really hard to follow this, because I think there is a distinct possibility that Jeremy Bamber is Innocent. But you are such an incestuous bunch that makes it difficult to get a word in edgeways without being insulted. Or watching you all insulting each other.
Is there an Appeal in the offering? And if so, on what grounds?
I never insult anyone, other than an occasional dig at Holly... but that's a friendly kind of insultation.
None that I know of, but the CT will say anything to get spondulix for the quid pro quos reeling in.
Have a look at the CS photo of Sheila, Ellie. Does she look as if she's been in a heated struggle with her badly wounded and heavily bleeding father? Someone has run their thumb (or finger) twice from left to right over the upper wound. It certainly wasn't Sheila because that shot was instantaneously fatal (according to Dr.Vanezis, the pathologist).
-
There is most definitely NOT an appeal in the offing.
Bambers supporters are really, very good at spreading propaganda.
I'm not sure how much clearer the CCRC could have been, when dismissing Bambers case the last time round.
That prat must have cost the tax payer a bloody fortune already. The sooner he carks it, the better.
Thank You. I really didn't need to know that this how you feel.
-
I never insult anyone, other than an occasional dig at Holly... but that's a friendly kind of insultation.
None that I know of, but the CT will say anything to get spondulix for the quid pro quos reeling in.
Have a look at the CS photo of Sheila, Ellie. Does she look as if she's been in a heated struggle with her badly wounded and heavily bleeding father? Someone has run their thumb (or finger) twice from left to right over the upper wound. It certainly wasn't Sheila because that shot was instantaneously fatal (according to Dr.Vanezis, the pathologist).
I am quite prepared to listen to anything if it makes some sort of sense, Myster. I just don't understand the anger. Although I suppose I should, in the light of what else I do on this Board.
In the beginning of me on here, I really tried to get involved beyond The McCann Forum, and got really seriously shot back by Tim Invictus, with such vitriol that I just about bounced off the wall. I have never quite recovered from that.
I am not actually a very brave person. But I wouldn't like to think that Jeremy Bamber is innocent and still convicted.
-
I am not actually a very brave person. But I wouldn't like to think that Jeremy Bamber is innocent and still convicted.
There is little chance of that Eleanor according to the facts of the case.
-
A further reminder to those that have posted on this thread:
Can I remind all members of the 3 high level rules on the home page please:
* Posters are asked to keep to thread topics where possible
* Libellous or defamatory material will be removed on sight
* Abuse will not be tolerated. Break the rules expect a ban!
Providing members are adhering to the above they are entitled to post whatever views they hold about the case, however unlikely they might seem to others, without fear of any sort of intimidation.
-
David has obviously decided to be a supporter.
He did say twice he was going to post an account of how Sheila committed the massacre. The second time in 2015, when he said he wanted to delay it to 2016 to make it detailed. Dispite repeated requests it has not been posted.
He then claimed authors steal his ideas and gave an example. His example had already been mentioned in 2011 by a journalist and discussed on another forum.
As Holly said, this thread would have taken a long time to compile. But again it didn't make any impact. Neither did his claim that he had sent something to Andrew Hunter. To prevent himself just becoming another Mike/Lookout esq supporter he secretly seeked out approval from another supporter. NGB was happy to post one dipomatic post regarding David's alleged finding.
The reason for saying why the alleged finding cannot be discussed on a forum is incredibly weak. There are actually a lot of advantages of posting new ideas, theories and evidence on forums. Which is why people do it.
If David has documents which have never been released before, maybe these should not be posted. However this is very doubtful. There is no reason why he should have priviledged documents or witness testimony. I did twice ask how he came up with this alleged discovery, but got stonewalled.
Hopefully David will PM his findings to you.
Yes Holly did highlight David's efforts in pulling together various docs which he believes demonstrate JM's statements were based on coercion.
I've made it clear on numerous occasions I find JM an unreliable prosecution witness. Unfortunately we do not have access to her trial testimony. However journalist David Connett who attended much of the trial and listened to JM's evidence found her unreliable:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html
-
Yes Holly did highlight David's efforts in pulling together various docs which he believes demonstrate JM's statements were based on coercion.
I've made it clear on numerous occasions I find JM an unreliable prosecution witness. Unfortunately we do not have access to her trial testimony. However journalist David Connett who attended much of the trial and listened to JM's evidence found her unreliable:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html
Her testimony is discussed in the COA decision and we know wha she put in her statements had to be what she testified to.
David Connett's subjective opinion means little. If he articulated specific reasons and points those points could be discussed but he didn't really do that.
Neither he nor anyone else who says they doubt her claims have come up with any plausible reason for her to make up what she did and that is a huge problem in trying to suggest she made it up. Going by gut impressions means little. A jury is supposed to carefully and rationally weigh evidence not just go by gut impressions.
Why would she make up that he told her he wanted to kill the family by burning them and all such details? If she wanted to lie all she had to do was say he told her he planned to shoot the family.
Why would she lie about him talking about it for a long time and making up details? All she had to do was say he recently decided to kill them and obviate the need to strain to make up details covering far more than a couple of months.
If she were lying why would she make up a hitman story and even ID him? She would simply make up that he confessed to carrying out the murder himself.
Not only does it make no sense for her to make up such things her account is supported by the fact she was the last person he spoke to before committing the murders and the firth person he spoke to after the murders were carried out. He never provided a good reason for calling her period in the middle of the night but even worse he called her before police. He tried to conceal this by lying and claiming he called police first because he had no plausible excuse for why he called her before police. To call her before police and lie about doing so because he had no valid reason for doing so is supportive of her account.
In further support of her account the story about the Caravan breakin was true and she admitted to various bad acts which she had no need to admit to and could have omitted. She said she was admitting to everything in an effort to come clean totally and nothing suggests she didn't.
In addition other evidence supports Julie's accounts. Some of that is witness testimony confirming Jeremy said he would not share his inheritance with his sister and nephews and didn't get along with his family but other evidence was that Jeremy did in fact kill them and try to frame his sister. That comports with Julie's account and provides added support then.
People who want to believe Jeremy is innocent use that bias to simply dismiss all the evidence in the case including Julie's claims instead of evaluating them in an objective way.
People are free to do that but should not be surprised that such gut impressions are considered totally worthless in the debate arena and should not be surprised so many others disagree.
-
I am trying really hard to follow this, because I think there is a distinct possibility that Jeremy Bamber is Innocent. But you are such an incestuous bunch that makes it difficult to get a word in edgeways without being insulted. Or watching you all insulting each other.
Is there an Appeal in the offering? And if so, on what grounds?
Incestuous? There is plenty of disagreement among us and we have no problem with new people contributing.
The problem is that we are well versed in the facts of this case and want to debate such not simply discuss subjective unsupported opinion of whether people think he is innocent or guilty.
You wrote elsewhere that you heard things that make you think he could be guilty but failed to specify what these things you heard were. In this post you said you think there is a distinct possibility he is innocent but do not explain why. What people want to hear is the why and what evidence you base such upon.
The majority of people who are not well versed in this case get their impressions based on false claims that were posted in the press and by the campaign team. Much of the false claims posted by the press came fro the campaign team. People want to know whether you are basing your position on disproved propaganda or something else. Much of the propaganda has been refuted here but it would take a long time to read all the threads/posts.
If you seriously want to discuss the facts and evidence we love doing that. If you want to know the real facts and evidence we love to discuss such. You don't have to be scared to discuss such. You may not want to discuss the things that you base your impressions on in which case there is little to discuss because subjective gut impressions can't be debated in any useful way.
Raw opinions can't be debated but the things that form the basis of opinions can be provided there is actually something that forms a basis other than just gut feelings or whims.
-
Not only did Julie say one plan Jeremy had was burning WHF down, but he also told Chris Marsden in December 1984 - 'If the house burnt down with everyone inside, everything would be mine.
-
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 verified.
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 for the deceased:
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' and 'should be locked up' 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 a lot about the massacre which was not in the newspapers. Of which I have already posted.
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.
Julie's feelings and opinions:
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 barely a reason at all. 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.
-
Her testimony is discussed in the COA decision and we know wha she put in her statements had to be what she testified to.
David Connett's subjective opinion means little. If he articulated specific reasons and points those points could be discussed but he didn't really do that.
Neither he nor anyone else who says they doubt her claims have come up with any plausible reason for her to make up what she did and that is a huge problem in trying to suggest she made it up. Going by gut impressions means little. A jury is supposed to carefully and rationally weigh evidence not just go by gut impressions.
Why would she make up that he told her he wanted to kill the family by burning them and all such details? If she wanted to lie all she had to do was say he told her he planned to shoot the family.
Why would she lie about him talking about it for a long time and making up details? All she had to do was say he recently decided to kill them and obviate the need to strain to make up details covering far more than a couple of months.
If she were lying why would she make up a hitman story and even ID him? She would simply make up that he confessed to carrying out the murder himself.
Not only does it make no sense for her to make up such things her account is supported by the fact she was the last person he spoke to before committing the murders and the firth person he spoke to after the murders were carried out. He never provided a good reason for calling her period in the middle of the night but even worse he called her before police. He tried to conceal this by lying and claiming he called police first because he had no plausible excuse for why he called her before police. To call her before police and lie about doing so because he had no valid reason for doing so is supportive of her account.
In further support of her account the story about the Caravan breakin was true and she admitted to various bad acts which she had no need to admit to and could have omitted. She said she was admitting to everything in an effort to come clean totally and nothing suggests she didn't.
In addition other evidence supports Julie's accounts. Some of that is witness testimony confirming Jeremy said he would not share his inheritance with his sister and nephews and didn't get along with his family but other evidence was that Jeremy did in fact kill them and try to frame his sister. That comports with Julie's account and provides added support then.
People who want to believe Jeremy is innocent use that bias to simply dismiss all the evidence in the case including Julie's claims instead of evaluating them in an objective way.
People are free to do that but should not be surprised that such gut impressions are considered totally worthless in the debate arena and should not be surprised so many others disagree.
Why is David Connett's opinion any more subjective than yours? He actually heard JM testify in court. He found her testimony unreliable and for all we know jurors may have thought similar.
There could be numerous reasons for JM to be economical with the truth. Four female teenage prosecuction witnesses in the Stefan Kiszko case years later admitted "lying for a laugh".
In the following WS's JM states when DS Jones and DC Clarke left Bourtree Cottage on 7th Aug JB told her he arranged for MM to carry out the murders. She then claims JB elaborated further and then went on to say they shouldn't talk about it in the house in case it was bugged! And yet according to JM they had in fact done just that as the conversation took place in the lounge! Why would JB incriminate himself if he thought the house was bugged? This clearly makes no sense whatsover. Why not say he pulled me in close and whispered....Or he said lets go for a walk/to the pub and he told me....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1112
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1114
Anyway I don't propose to go round in circles discussing JM's testimony. I've read the WS's numerous times and as far as I am concerned I find her unreliable. If that makes me bias etc then so be it.
-
Not only did Julie say one plan Jeremy had was burning WHF down, but he also told Chris Marsden in December 1984 - 'If the house burnt down with everyone inside, everything would be mine.
We don't know the full context of the conversation with Charles Marsden. The problem I have with these prosecution witnesses is that we only hear random sentences and not the before and after. Eg James Richard "I hate my f-----g parents" and Doris Foakes "I'm not going to share my money with my sister". Unless he was really socially inept he was hardly likely to walk up to these individuals blurt out those sentences and walk off again &%+((£
-
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 verified.
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 for the deceased:
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' and 'should be locked up' 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 a lot about the massacre which was not in the newspapers. Of which I have already posted.
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.
Julie's feelings and opinions:
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 barely a reason at all. 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.
We don't know who made the initial move. EP may well have bugged all the phones and properties and been on to JM like a rat up a drainpipe the moment they heard the relationship had ended. EP would know full well JM's credibility would be reduced by such a lengthy delay in coming forward so to counter this EP might well have 'helped' JM engineer the 'telling' to the friend and all that went with it.
Adam you also claim JB said the following on the "massacre night" which I believe are true or similar was said:
"He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' and 'should be locked up' "
And yet if he staged the bible surely he would include derogatory terms about SC and religion eg religious nut or whatever.
-
We don't know the full context of the conversation with Charles Marsden. The problem I have with these prosecution witnesses is that we only hear random sentences and not the before and after. Eg James Richard "I hate my f-----g parents" and Doris Foakes "I'm not going to share my money with my sister". Unless he was really socially inept he was hardly likely to walk up to these individuals blurt out those sentences and walk off again &%+((£
Well he would have said these extreme and incriminating things in the course of two way conversation. At the end of the day, he said them.
-
We don't know who made the initial move. EP may well have bugged all the phones and properties and been on to JM like a rat up a drainpipe the moment they heard the relationship had ended. EP would know full well JM's credibility would be reduced by such a lengthy delay in coming forward so to counter this EP might well have 'helped' JM engineer the 'telling' to the friend and all that went with it.
Adam you also claim JB said the following on the "massacre night" which I believe are true or similar was said:
"He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' and 'should be locked up' "
And yet if he staged the bible surely he would include derogatory terms about SC and religion eg religious nut or whatever.
Julie told five people before going to the police. She didn't need to speak to the police.
The police couldn't bug all the places Julie went to. In the few days after she had split up with Bamber. Not sure if they allowed to anyway. She was not a suspect.
Bamber didn't mention Sheila's religious views. He had said enough, and left a bible out as a little something extra for the police. He saved the 'religious maniac accusations for June.
-
We don't know the full context of the conversation with Charles Marsden. The problem I have with these prosecution witnesses is that we only hear random sentences and not the before and after. Eg James Richard "I hate my f-----g parents" and Doris Foakes "I'm not going to share my money with my sister". Unless he was really socially inept he was hardly likely to walk up to these individuals blurt out those sentences and walk off again &%+((£
Not just once, but two or three times... and "It really did sound like hate!", said James Richards when cross-examined.
How does that square with the recent sycophantic graveside eulogy? Much too late to make amends, methinks.
-
Well he would have said these extreme and incriminating things in the course of two way conversation. At the end of the day, he said them.
He may well have said them but in what context? Random sentences from proseuction witnesses that JB wasn't particuarly close to or spent much time with doesn't really do it for me.
-
Not just once, but two or three times... and "It really did sound like hate!", said James Richards when cross-examined.
How does that square with the recent sycophantic graveside eulogy? Much too late to make amends, methinks.
Have you read Mary Mugford's (Julies mother) testimony ?
-
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
-
Not just once, but two or three times... and "It really did sound like hate!", said James Richards when cross-examined.
How does that square with the recent sycophantic graveside eulogy? Much too late to make amends, methinks.
Well lets not forget James Richard was a friend/housemate of JM's. But perhaps more importantly SB does say in her WS that she did not like JB and JM having drugs in the house as James (Jim) and Charles (not Marsden) were attached to the army and if the army discovered they were in a house with drugs they might get kicked out. I believe EP were bugging all phones and properties and used this sort of thing to their advantage.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=529.0;attach=1655;image
There were also many other witnesses that said they never heard JB talk ill of his parents such as various business associates that visited the farm, Jean Boutell, the housekeeper, and JB's former girlfriend Suzette Ford.
It's also worth remembering that SC discussed morbid/disturbing thoughts with Dr F regarding the twins and June which I find far more compelling than random sentences from prosecution witnesses who JB was only acquainted with and may have had their own agendas. During that era the police were known to pile on the pressure to get whatever result they wanted whether it was a confession from a suspect or false testimony from witnesses.
The graveside eulogy was completely inappropriate regardless of whose idea it was. JB said he will always love his sister but this hasn't always been the case as he is on record as saying at times he has hated SC but hate/anger give you lines around the eyes. I will try and dig it out. I think it is kosher. If you're innocent it is surely a natural reaction? Is it possible to have such intense feelings for people 30 years after their demise? Maybe it is in his situation ie if he's innocent and was unable to grieve at the time. But all the Walton/Little House On The Prairie stuff about Easter egg hunts etc is again inappropriate imo and it makes me wonder about those close to him that advise/discuss these things with him and upload to blogs etc. I suppose if his conviction is ever quashed it will stand as some sort of record. Frankly I just find the whole thing cringworthy. There again I guess if he just focused on his case some would accuse him of being selfish for not remembering his family.
Do other UK prisones have websites, blogs, CT's etc?
I'm in serious danger of having to take myself in hand for going off topic! Right off to the local for two halves of Peroni followed by a curry with maybe a glass of wine or two!
-
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
And in CAL's book MM (the name Mary Mugford reminds me of my fave child prog Mary, Mungo and Midge) states she liked JB and he was accepted by the family. If she had bad vibes about him she would surely have tried to steer her daughter away from him but there's no evidence she did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8pByfrk2M
-
And in CAL's book MM (the name Mary Mugford reminds me of my fave child prog Mary, Mungo and Midge) states she liked JB and he was accepted by the family. If she had bad vibes about him she would surely have tried to steer her daughter away from him but there's no evidence she did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8pByfrk2M
MM liking Bamber does not contradict him telling her of his hatred of June. It supports it, as it shows Bamber liked MM enough to confide in her. Bamber testified he agreed with what MM said in court.
Why would MM try to steer Julie away from Bamber ? He never told MM he was planning to massacre his family.
-
Why is David Connett's opinion any more subjective than yours? He actually heard JM testify in court. He found her testimony unreliable and for all we know jurors may have thought similar.
He provides no rational reasoning for his opinion. He provided no rational basis for any of his opinions on this case. He said that he felt Jeremy was guilty because he was cocky. A ration person would believe he was guilty because of the evidence. He chose to disbelieve all the evidence. He didn't provide any rational why he disbelieved the evidence he simply said he did. So we have someone who just uses gut instinct to ignore all the evidence and decide it was all fraudulent and thus to declare Jeremy not proven guilty but to believe he was guilty anymore for an irrational reason.
My opinions in this case are based on evidence and logic not ignoring evidence and logic and just deciding to believe things for the hell of it.
Someone who wants to establish Julie lied needs to come up with a reason for her to make up what she did. There is no motive that makes any sense for her to decide to want him jailed for the rest of his life and even if one could make up something far fetched in that regard, if she were going to lie she would say he admitted to her that he did it himself not make up a hitman and the long tale of him planning this for ages first considering fire.
Many different elements of her story are supported by extraneous evidence in the meantime including that Sheila didn't kill herself and that Nevill didn't call Jeremy. Jeremy calling Julie before police most certainly supports her and confessing to things she had no need to confess to supports her telling the truth at that point.
There could be numerous reasons for JM to be economical with the truth. Four female teenage prosecuction witnesses in the Stefan Kiszko case years later admitted "lying for a laugh".
There is nothing to suggest that Julie decided to make up a long involved tale to try to get him convicted for a laugh.
In the following WS's JM states when DS Jones and DC Clarke left Bourtree Cottage on 7th Aug JB told her he arranged for MM to carry out the murders. She then claims JB elaborated further and then went on to say they shouldn't talk about it in the house in case it was bugged! And yet according to JM they had in fact done just that as the conversation took place in the lounge! Why would JB incriminate himself if he thought the house was bugged? This clearly makes no sense whatsover. Why not say he pulled me in close and whispered....Or he said lets go for a walk/to the pub and he told me....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1112
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1114
Anyway I don't propose to go round in circles discussing JM's testimony. I've read the WS's numerous times and as far as I am concerned I find her unreliable. If that makes me bias etc then so be it.
It is rather obvious that Jeremy didn't want to elaborate further fearing he would give away that he carried out the murders himself if he went into too much detail and cut the conversation short with the fiction that it was not safe to talk about it further. If Julie wanted to make up a story all she had to do was say he admitted he did it but he refused to give her the play by play and get into the finer details. There was no need to make up that he mentioned a handful of details like the glove coming off and the boys being killed in their sleep but not too much else.
-
MM liking Bamber does not contradict him telling her of his hatred of June. It supports it, as it shows Bamber liked MM enough to confide in her. Bamber testified he agreed with what MM said in court.
Why would MM try to steer Julie away from Bamber ? He never told MM he was planning to massacre his family.
JB never hid the fact he had a 'difficult' relationship with June. In his police interviews he described it as "rough and smooth".
June seemed to have problems with the younger generation if they didn't share her world view especially with regard to religion and sexual morality. I don't accept that this was how members of that generation were. June was younger than my grandmothers and great aunts and older than my mum and aunts. None of these women chastised younger members of the family for no doubt doing things differently eg having sex outside marriage. They were not overly liberal minded in the sense that anything went but just accepted that times had changed. And religion played no part in my family whatsoever. Had it have done I would imagine people would just have gone to church done their thing end of story and not expected anyone else to share their views.
June's relationship with the likes of her nieces and nephews seemed ok but with SC, JB, CC, JM, and others it appeared difficult. Friends of SC's and JB's also said the same such as Tora Tompkins and Brett Collins ie that they found June 'difficult'.
If MM had reservations about JB in terms of all the stuff we hear eg cocky, arrogant, greedy, womaniser, lazy etc, etc she surely would have made her views known to her daughter. MM seemed to endorse the relationship.
I will always maintain June was totally unsuitable to adopt. In an era when babies were in the main adopted due to societal stigma attached to illegitimacy June's chastising and proselytising to her adopted children conceived outside marriage (a sin in June's eyes) was a recipe for disaster. JB was able to dismiss it but sadly SC took it to heart and the consequences for all resulted in disaster.
As MM said JB would go weeks without speaking to June. Sadly SC she did not have the wherewithal to take this approach or similar and took all June's criticisms to heart which imo manifested in her mental illness.
-
MM saw Dr Jekyll ?{)(** ... June saw Mr Hyde ?8)@)-)
-
He provides no rational reasoning for his opinion. He provided no rational basis for any of his opinions on this case. He said that he felt Jeremy was guilty because he was cocky. A ration person would believe he was guilty because of the evidence. He chose to disbelieve all the evidence. He didn't provide any rational why he disbelieved the evidence he simply said he did. So we have someone who just uses gut instinct to ignore all the evidence and decide it was all fraudulent and thus to declare Jeremy not proven guilty but to believe he was guilty anymore for an irrational reason.
I'm sure he did provide a rational basis for his opinion when he attended trial and produced his column inches. The article is a summary of his recollections:
- He would not have convicted JB on the evidence he heard (although he admits he did not attend every day of the trial).
- Despite the above he thought JB guilty based on it appears spurious reasons as you have stated.
- He thought JM's testimony had too many inconsistencies to be relied upon.
Unlike posters on internet forums journalists are not given carte blanche by their editors to write war and peace when the mood takes! 8(0(* @)(++(* 8((()*/
My opinions in this case are based on evidence and logic not ignoring evidence and logic and just deciding to believe things for the hell of it.
Really? Please see below &%+((£
Someone who wants to establish Julie lied needs to come up with a reason for her to make up what she did. There is no motive that makes any sense for her to decide to want him jailed for the rest of his life and even if one could make up something far fetched in that regard, if she were going to lie she would say he admitted to her that he did it himself not make up a hitman and the long tale of him planning this for ages first considering fire.
Many different elements of her story are supported by extraneous evidence in the meantime including that Sheila didn't kill herself and that Nevill didn't call Jeremy. Jeremy calling Julie before police most certainly supports her and confessing to things she had no need to confess to supports her telling the truth at that point.
There is nothing to suggest that Julie decided to make up a long involved tale to try to get him convicted for a laugh.
It is rather obvious that Jeremy didn't want to elaborate further fearing he would give away that he carried out the murders himself if he went into too much detail and cut the conversation short with the fiction that it was not safe to talk about it further. If Julie wanted to make up a story all she had to do was say he admitted he did it but he refused to give her the play by play and get into the finer details. There was no need to make up that he mentioned a handful of details like the glove coming off and the boys being killed in their sleep but not too much else.
You seem to think human behaviour is logical and rational. It isn't. There could be numerous reasons why JM was economical with the truth. I gave the example of how the four prosecution witnesses in the Stefan Kiszko case "lied for a laugh" to show how wide ranging the reasons can be. I'm not suggesting JM lied for a laugh. I believe JM was put under enormous pressure by the police and cracked. Similar to how Amanda Knox did with Patrick Lumumba. PL had a cast iron alibi JB didn't. When the police apply brutal interviewing techniques to young women who have no legal representation they are left in a vulnerable position. JM was no doubt brainwashed by EP into thinking JB was responsible. EP told JB during his interviews SC was murdered as she could not have shot herself twice despite the pathologist stating otherwise. If JM was told similar lies EP no doubt brainwashed her into thinking JB was responsible. There's evidence to suggest JM wasn't mentally strong around that time as indicated by the need to take sleeping tablets to cope with her teacher training.
There's nothing in her "story" supported by extraneous evidence. It was all passed to her by EP cobbled together by EP and the relatives.
According to JM JB did elaborate further. JM said JB explained in detail at Bourtree Cottage on 7th Aug how he had arranged for MM to carry out the murders. He then added they should not talk about it in the house in case it was bugged! If JB thought the house was bugged why would he explain in detail how he arranged for MM to carry out the murders thus incriminating himself?
"About 8.30pm the same day DS JONES and DC CLARKE left the house leaving Jeremy and myself alone. We went and sat in the lounge and I think the first thing Jeremy said was that he was glad the day was over. I then said to Jeremy "Did you do it". He said, "No I couldn't have done it, Matthew did it". I knew to whom he was referring. He said that before he had phoned me that morning Matthew had phoned from the house, which I took to be the farm, and said that everything had been completed and proceeded to tell him about his father who he stated that for his age he was very strong and had put up a fight. He said that Mathhew had said he was sorry because during the fight with his father he had had a mental blank and had fired 7 shots into him. I asked Jerry if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he said the boys were still asleep and didn't wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Matthew who put a bible on her chest. He told me that he had told Matthew where the gun was going to be, how to get into the house. He had found out what bedroom they had all been sleeping in as Sheila and the twins frequently slept in different rooms when they visited the farm, He also told Matthew how to leave the house so it appeared locked, and the route back to Goldhanger. I asked how much he paid Matthew and he said "£2,000". Jeremy said that when Matthew phoned him from the hose he told him that he was going out of the country and it would be in both their interest if Jeremy didn't know where he had gone. I did mention to Jeremy where he could get £2,000 as I knew he hadn't got it. Jeremy told me that he had to find a way of getting it without the police finding out or the accountant. I forgot to tell you about the phone in the house. When Jeremy changed his plan from burning the house down to shooting the family, he told me that he was going to make it look as if Sheila was responsible and the grounds would be that she was mad having been in a mental hospital. He also told me that there would be a phone call made from the house because the last phone call made would be recorded. He said the call would be made=made from the White House to his house. He didn't say who would =make it or why. I know there was portable phone in the house with a memory key which when pressed would phone back to the last number called. The conversation regarding the phone took place when he changed his plan in April time this year. I would like to add that the conversation I had with Jeremy the day the police were at the house on Wednesday 7th August 1985 might not be in the correct order of speech. DURING THIS CONVERSATION JEREMY DID TELL ME THAT WE SHOULD NOT TALK ABOUT IT IN THE HOUSE IN CASE THE HOUSE WAS BEING BUGGED"
But hang on a minute Julie, according to you JB has just fessed up about how he arranged for MM to carry out the murders and yet according to you he also believed the house was bugged thus incriminating himself. Isn't that what's commonly referred to as 'locking the stable door after the horse has bolted'?
If some wish to treat JM as a credible prosecution witness that's up to them but they won't be convincing me she was anything other than unreliable.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1112
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1114
-
Julie told five people before going to the police. She didn't need to speak to the police.
The police couldn't bug all the places Julie went to. In the few days after she had split up with Bamber. Not sure if they allowed to anyway. She was not a suspect.
Bamber didn't mention Sheila's religious views. He had said enough, and left a bible out as a little something extra for the police. He saved the 'religious maniac accusations for June.
With regard to listening devices I'm not sure where the law stood at the time. I think now the police have to obtain a special warrant but I've no doubt it went on at the time regardless of where the law stood.
EP visited JM's house to check the clocks so they had every opportunity then to plant listening devices. They also broke into SC's flat and had access to Bourtree cottage so again every opportunity to plant further listening devices.
The above provided useful intelligence gathering for the police and enabled them to manipulate witnesses.
JB was placed under surveillance so we know for a fact this sort of thing went on. The fact JM refers to JB's cottage being bugged just fuels my suspicion.
-
I'm sure he did provide a rational basis for his opinion when he attended trial and produced his column inches. The article is a summary of his recollections:
- He would not have convicted JB on the evidence he heard (although he admits he did not attend every day of the trial).
- Despite the above he thought JB guilty based on it appears spurious reasons as you have stated.
- He thought JM's testimony had too many inconsistencies to be relied upon.
Unlike posters on internet forums journalists are not given carte blanche by their editors to write war and peace when the mood takes! 8(0(* @)(++(* 8((()*/
Really? Please see below &%+((£
His opinion that they failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is his unsupported opinion nothing more. Unsupported opinion is never evidence to be relied upon but journalists in particular have a very poor track record. Journalists are trained in communications not substantively trained in many subjects and often are horrible at grasping the key issues.
From a legal standpoint there is no question the evidence was sufficient to establish reasonable doubt.
From a legal standpoint and common sense there is no reason why Julie would make up the things she said even if she had wanted to punish Jeremy by getting him falsely convicted. That is part and parcel of whether to believe someone. He never exhibited any discussion of such issues. He simply published his raw gut impressions which mean zilch to anyone rational and objective.
The raw opinion of people means nothing at all it is a rationale and evidence set forth to support opinions which matter. That he heard her speak doesn't mean his opinion of her is reliable. All it means is even greater opportunity to consider stupid things instead of actually looking at the claims she made.
You seem to think human behaviour is logical and rational. It isn't. There could be numerous reasons why JM was economical with the truth. I gave the example of how the four prosecution witnesses in the Stefan Kiszko case "lied for a laugh" to show how wide ranging the reasons can be. I'm not suggesting JM lied for a laugh. I believe JM was put under enormous pressure by the police and cracked. Similar to how Amanda Knox did with Patrick Lumumba. PL had a cast iron alibi JB didn't. When the police apply brutal interviewing techniques to young women who have no legal representation they are left in a vulnerable position. JM was no doubt brainwashed by EP into thinking JB was responsible. EP told JB during his interviews SC was murdered as she could not have shot herself twice despite the pathologist stating otherwise. If JM was told similar lies EP no doubt brainwashed her into thinking JB was responsible. There's evidence to suggest JM wasn't mentally strong around that time as indicated by the need to take sleeping tablets to cope with her teacher training.
Your claims are totally illogical. You spend your time making up possibilities that she lied without coming up with any evidence that actually suggests she did. Worse yet you ignore the facts when making such up.
1) You IGNORE that Julie told her story to Susan BEFORE she told it to police. That right there refutes your notion that police confused her and got her to change her testimony because of their actions
2) You ignore the level of detail of her story which spans nearly a year prior to the murders. Police didn't put such in her head
3) You admit that Julie and police all knew that Jeremy had no alibi and thus police would have pressed Julie about whether Jeremy did it himself not invent a hitman story and similarly Julie would have no reason on her own to admit a hitman story.
Knox was being grilled by police as a suspect while Julie was not. Police had text messages between Lumumba and Knox and insisted to Knox that her text of see you later meant that she planned to meet him and insisted he met up with her. They interviewed her in the middle of the night, confused her, questioned her in a language she barely knew and told her to imagine what happened when he met up with her. Hours after they pressured her she REVOKED her statement and told them it was false. Trying to suggest this could help prove Julie lied for similar reasons but instead of immediately revoking it like Knox maintained it to this day and testified to such at a trial fails miserably.
Julie was not a suspect like Knox. Julie was not treated as a suspect. Julie told her story before she spoke with police. Police initially didn't believe Julie. In the meantime you ignore that Jeremy had no alibi so police and Julie had no reason to try implicating someone else. Police had no evidence of any sort against MacDonald. There were no text messages or other contact between Jeremy and MacDonald (analogous to those between Knox and Lumumba) that would make police suggest to Julie that MacDonald had been involved. There is nothing remotely similar. You constantly attempt to draw false comparisons between things that are not even remotely similar.
Three 13 year old girls in the Kiszko case claimed the defendant had exposed himself to them. That hardly was direct evidence of his guilt. When adults they recanted and said they lied. Julie was not a 13 year old girl she was an adult. Julie did not come out with a simply claim she proved a long detailed account that would have taken quite a while to make up. The things she claimed are not things that would be made up by someone who wanted to get Jeremy in trouble. She would have made up that he confessed himself to committing the crimes not finger a hitman who in short order could prove the claim false.
You want us to ignore evidence and logic and simply to believe that either police prompted her to finger a hitman or she made such up on her own to get Jeremy in trouble though neither police nor Julie would have a reason to conjure such up. That is what a biased person does. A biased person decides they want to believe something regardless of evidence and logic. You decided to believe Jeremy is innocent and in order for him to be innocent Julie had to have lied and this alone is why you suggest she lied.
I prefer to look at the claims in great detail. The claims of Jeremy expressing desire to kill his family are very detailed over the course of many months. This cuts against the notion such were simply made up suddenly. She admitted to various wrongdoing which she had no need to admit to. This cuts in favor of her telling the truth. If she were going to lie she would not have made up a hitman but would have said Jeremy admitted to committing the murders himself. The hitman story is something only Jeremy would make up and thus cuts in favor of her telling the truth. The fact Jeremy called her right after the murders before even calling police supports that she was telling the truth.
You are desperate to establish she lied but can't. You can't establish she lied with any evidence so instead invoke unsupported opinion of others who don't believe her as if their unsupported opinions mean squat. You admit humans can be irrational and yet say he must have a good reason for his belief because he is a journalist.
You bring up 2 scenarios where witnesses recanted- one recanted within hours and yet police ran with it anyway while in the other scenario the recanting occurred many years later. Here there was no recanting period. The testimony here was much more complex, much more detailed and directly implicates the defendant in the planning stage. His admission of being responsible after isn't really significant. It is her testimony regarding the planning that is significant as well as the evidence that right after the murders that he phoned her before police. The notion he planned to murder them and frame Sheila but didn't have to because Sheila went crazy and killed them for real is not the least bit credible.
There's nothing in her "story" supported by extraneous evidence. It was all passed to her by EP cobbled together by EP and the relatives.
According to JM JB did elaborate further. JM said JB explained in detail at Bourtree Cottage on 7th Aug how he had arranged for MM to carry out the murders. He then added they should not talk about it in the house in case it was bugged! If JB thought the house was bugged why would he explain in detail how he arranged for MM to carry out the murders thus incriminating himself?
"About 8.30pm the same day DS JONES and DC CLARKE left the house leaving Jeremy and myself alone. We went and sat in the lounge and I think the first thing Jeremy said was that he was glad the day was over. I then said to Jeremy "Did you do it". He said, "No I couldn't have done it, Matthew did it". I knew to whom he was referring. He said that before he had phoned me that morning Matthew had phoned from the house, which I took to be the farm, and said that everything had been completed and proceeded to tell him about his father who he stated that for his age he was very strong and had put up a fight. He said that Mathhew had said he was sorry because during the fight with his father he had had a mental blank and had fired 7 shots into him. I asked Jerry if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he said the boys were still asleep and didn't wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Matthew who put a bible on her chest. He told me that he had told Matthew where the gun was going to be, how to get into the house. He had found out what bedroom they had all been sleeping in as Sheila and the twins frequently slept in different rooms when they visited the farm, He also told Matthew how to leave the house so it appeared locked, and the route back to Goldhanger. I asked how much he paid Matthew and he said "£2,000". Jeremy said that when Matthew phoned him from the hose he told him that he was going out of the country and it would be in both their interest if Jeremy didn't know where he had gone. I did mention to Jeremy where he could get £2,000 as I knew he hadn't got it. Jeremy told me that he had to find a way of getting it without the police finding out or the accountant. I forgot to tell you about the phone in the house. When Jeremy changed his plan from burning the house down to shooting the family, he told me that he was going to make it look as if Sheila was responsible and the grounds would be that she was mad having been in a mental hospital. He also told me that there would be a phone call made from the house because the last phone call made would be recorded. He said the call would be made=made from the White House to his house. He didn't say who would =make it or why. I know there was portable phone in the house with a memory key which when pressed would phone back to the last number called. The conversation regarding the phone took place when he changed his plan in April time this year. I would like to add that the conversation I had with Jeremy the day the police were at the house on Wednesday 7th August 1985 might not be in the correct order of speech. DURING THIS CONVERSATION JEREMY DID TELL ME THAT WE SHOULD NOT TALK ABOUT IT IN THE HOUSE IN CASE THE HOUSE WAS BEING BUGGED"
But hang on a minute Julie, according to you JB has just fessed up about how he arranged for MM to carry out the murders and yet according to you he also believed the house was bugged thus incriminating himself. Isn't that what's commonly referred to as 'locking the stable door after the horse has bolted'?
If some wish to treat JM as a credible prosecution witness that's up to them but they won't be convincing me she was anything other than unreliable.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1112
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1114
All you are doing is demonstrating you are too biased to approach this case in a rational manner.
1) Your claim that EP fed Julie everything is complete hogwash. The details she told about Jeremy plotting to kill his family by fire but changing it to shooting them and pretending Sheila did it came from Julie herself. You have zero evidence to suggest police and family fed such to her.
2) You keep ignoring that the family and police believed Jeremy committed the crimes himself. they didn't suspect he had hired a hitman. They would not have prompted a hitman story from her let alone to name a hitman who in short order could establish the tale false. Jeremy had no alibi police and Julie had no reason to suggest someone other than Jeremy himself committed the murders
3) Jeremy didn't believe the house was bugged. Jeremy didn't want to provide more detail about the murders fearing he would give away that he committed them himself so he made up the claim that the house might be bugged and they needed to stop talking about it as an excuse to stop talking about it. Jeremy LIED to Julie about hiring MacDonald to kill his family. He didn't fear police hearing the tale because it was a lie. He knew it was a lie and that if it got back to police that upon investigating it they would determine it was false. He wouldn't care if police had been listening but he knew they weren't. His lie was to be used against Julie. This lie:
A) fooled Julie into thinking he was less cold blooded than he actually was
B) fooled Julie into thinking that there was a hitman who would go after her if she told police anything
C) intended that if she went to police anyway despite the fear then police would find out this tale was false by investigating MacDonald and his financials and not believe anything Julie said from that point forward.
These are logical reasons why Jeremy made up the hitman story. Neither you nor any other Jeremy supporters can come up with a single rational reason why someone other than Jeremy would make up the hitman claim.
Jeremy had no alibi so police had no reason to invent a hitman story period let alone to pick MacDonald as a mark.
For the same reason Julie herself had no reason to make up a hitman story. If Julie were simply a pissed off girlfriend she would have said he admitted to committing the murders himself. "He called me before the murders saying he was going to kill his family and make it appear that Sheila did it, then called me around 3AM saying he had carried out the murders" That would be sufficient. He really did call her before and after and it would just be his word against hers of what they discussed. That's what someone lying would make up. Not a long involved tale of him graduating from burning the place down to shooting them and especially not a hitman story.
People who choose to believe that Julie made up a hitman story though it makes no sense do so not because of evidence and logic but because of their own internal bias and subjective feelings. As such they can't justify their views and have a hard time even explaining why they believe such.
-
Reasons why Julie or the police would not introduce MM.
MM was innocent.
MM may have an alibi.
MM may sue the police.
MM may take revenge on Julie.
Julie said she was scared of what MM would do to her.
There were no advantages in bringing up MM.
A lot of Julies WS had things which Julie would almost certainly have only got from Bamber. Showing he was the killer. Recent TAC. So why introduce MM ?
It was not believable that MM would carry out the massacre for £2,000.
It would be Julie's word against both Bamber's and MM's.
Julie and/or the police were already trying to put one innocent man behind bars. Why try to do two ?
Introducing MM is still trying to frame Bamber. It would be easier to just say Bamber said he did it.
A lot of Julies alleged false WS was factually correct. Such as times or places her and Bamber went to. Both pre and post massacre. The rest was her word against Bamber's. Introducing such an outrageous lie about MM in the middle of this makes no sense.
Bamber had no alibi for the 11pm - 3pm period. So no reason to bring in MM.
If MM had no alibi, he may have been found guilty.
MM being found to not be involved undermined the whole prosecution case.
There are several reasons why Bamber would bring up MM to Julie. Recent TAC. Therefore it is only credible that he is on her WS because that is what Bamber told her.
If the police investigated MM a bit. They would find out he was a plumber !
If it was just Julie attempting to frame an innocent Bamber, this was an almost impossible undertaking. Recent TAC. Why make things harder for herself by bringing up a man who had nothing to do with the family ?
If the police decided to attempt to frame Bamber after one month, they would have to ask Julie to lie. When her lie about MM was exposed, Julie may panic and come clean about everything.
The police's framing attempt was delicately relying on a 20 year old woman as a main witness. Surely all the alleged lies they put on her WS, should be watertight. Rather than including a ridiculous lie.
The police attempting to frame Bamber would not even know who MM was.
Julie agreeing with the police to create a false WS, would let them dictate the WS contents. So would not bring up MM. The police would not know MM so would also not bring him up.
The prosecution case at court was that Bamber committed the massacre. So why leave their main witness exposed when testifying ?
MM testified in court, highlighting his innocence. Which meant several minutes spent by a witness in court undermining the prosecution case. The police would have expected this to happen. So a bad idea to put him on Julie's WS.
Either MM had an alibi and was innocent. Or had no alibi and may have been wrongly convicted. Either way, there are no advantages for Julie or the police.