Julie provided information that could only have come from the killer

Started by Erik Narramore, January 29, 2022, 10:55:10 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

Erik Narramore

January 29, 2022, 10:55:10 PM
What information provided by Julie to the police could only have come from a perpetrator?
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#1
January 29, 2022, 10:55:32 PM
Julie gleaning information from the police does not require that Julie was in some sort of conspiracy with the police and/or relatives.

Julie would have obtained her information from multiple sources, including the police.  She was present throughout most of the aftermath of the incident and would have picked things up from various people, including the police.  She was fairly bright academically and would be able to retain information and synthesise it into a convincing story on her own initiative.

My question still stands: Which information from Julie could only have been given to her by the perpetrator?
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#2
January 29, 2022, 10:56:10 PM
Julie picked up information from a variety of sources, as is normal.  She will have obtained some of it from Jeremy, but that doesn't make Jeremy guilty.  The key question is whether a piece of information could only have come from the perpetrator - a point you refuse to consider.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#3
January 29, 2022, 10:58:40 PM
Some further points to consider:

Julie was also around the farm and Bourtree Cottage.

What revenge could Jeremy have taken?  What action could the police have taken?  Why would the relatives need to rope in Julie in the first place?

If the witness is telling the truth, then the truth is the truth.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#4
January 29, 2022, 11:06:59 PM
I think, on this point, the prosecution are dogmatically assuming that the killer is Jeremy and then reasoning backwards.

Low house insurance.

This probably came from Jeremy.  It doesn't mean that Jeremy is the perpetrator.

Bible by Sheila.

Sheila's shot locations.

Kitchen fight.

Twins asleep.

Sheila putting up no resistance.

Nevill's multiple shots.

June shot in bed.

Kitchen windows.

These could have come from anybody and from a variety of sources, even from newspapers.  Even if every single one came from Jeremy, that doesn't mean he is the perpetrator.  He could have simply been telling Julie what the police told him.

Portable phone.

Meissen clock.

She visited the house.  Again, same comment as above in relation to Jeremy.

Twins shot first.

That's speculation.  Nobody knows for sure who was shot first.  And she could have heard it from anybody, again even in a newspaper.

Sheila shot last.

That's just simple logic.  She could work that out on her own, or Jeremy could simply tell her what the police told him.

June's sleeping pills.

A conversation Julie alleges they had.  It can't be rationally proved one way or the other.

Do we know if there actually were sleeping tablets among June's personal effects?  Did June's GP confirm that tablets had been prescribed at the time Julie claims this conversation took place?

On the other hand, Julie would not need to know that June actually had sleeping pills to come up with a tale of Jeremy planning to kill June with sleeping pills.  She could make up the story and if it turned out there were no sleeping pills, she could aver that this is what Jeremy told her.  It is also the case that some antihistamines, such as Nytol (a diphenhydramine) and promethazine are available over-the-counter.

Alternatively, it could be that June had a prescription and Julie picked that information up along the way, as she would have been present during intimate family conversations.  June may have mentioned to her that she has trouble sleeping, etc., etc.

Sheila & the twins sleeping in different rooms on different nights.

She had contact with Sheila and the twins and could easily have picked that information up.

Kitchen argument.

Shooting rabbits.

This is Jeremy's own evidence, in his first witness statement.  Of course Jeremy will tell her this.  It doesn't follow that Jeremy is the perpetrator.

Sheila shot on parents bed.

I thought you said she was shot on the floor?  Didn't Stan Jones and Ann Eaton both report that Sheila was found on the bed?  Wasn't there also a newspaper article to that effect?  She could have got this from anybody.

Matthew Macdonald

She knew him, or she knew who he was.  He was a Walter Mitty character.

It could easily be that Julie started out by making up a story to attract attention and it all spun out of control.

The relatives passing a small amount of information they acquired onto Julie has been ruled out.

No it hasn't.  This assumes that she colluded with them.

If Julie was present in any conversations Bamber had with the police (doubtful), the police had no reason to say any of the above.

Why not? If Julie was present during conversations about the case between Jeremy and the police and between Jeremy and relatives, and between other parties, then she would pick up information, wouldn't she.  It stands to reason.

The only plausible way she got this information was from Bamber during the 18 months before and the 1 month after the massacre.

Obviously Jeremy will have given her information, but I don't believe you have shown - so far - that she had information that only a perpetrator could know.

"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#5
January 29, 2022, 11:08:19 PM
Just to add:

Even if none of the above list was in the newspapers, Julie did not turn on Jeremy in the following days.

The prosecution never did establish precisely what information only the perpetrator could have known.  That's because there wasn't any.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#6
January 29, 2022, 11:09:05 PM
In fact, several of the points would have been covered in the following days' newspapers.  There was, if memory serves, an article saying that Sheila had been found on the bed with a Bible on her chest.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions