Why am I unable to open Mike's new Mugford thread?
Mugfords answer, when she was being interviewed as part of the COLP enquiry debacle, illustrates clearly the means by which the jury were deceived into thinking, that Jeremy Bamber had called Julie, (3.00am, 3.10am, 3.12am), before he had called the police, the time discrepancy between 3.36am, and 3.26am, was being enquired into, was of itself mistakenly argued as if there had only ever been one phone call to the police, not two separate ones. The fact that the discovery of a second phone logs content (3.26am), was not mentioned during the October, 1986, trial, simply because to have done so, or do so, would undermine the claim that there was only a mix up, regarding the time of one phone log and its contents, when if the truth had been made known to the court, there actually existed another entirely separate phone log contents, bearing the time 3.26am. The prosecuting authorities, deliberately deceived the court by not disclosing the contents of the log timed at 3.26am, simply because to have done so, would have exposed their claim, that there had simply been a mix up involving the timing of the 3.36am phone log contents...
This deception was tied in to, the deliberate withholding and non disclosure of Julie Mugfords witness statement contents, dated 8th August, 1985, in which she stated that Jeremy's call to her on the morning of 7th August 1985, occurred at 3.30am, and not at either 3.00am, 3.10am, 3.12am, and 3.15am, as mentioned in her disclosed, 8th September, 1985, witness statement.
If the second (Essex police) phone log contents bearing the time 3.26am, and the contents of Julie Mugfords, witness statement, dated, 8th August 1985, had not been deliberately withheld and not disclosed, would have opened up a can of worms, and the defence would have been in a much stronger position, to establish and prove, that in fact, 'Mr Bamber, Snr', had telephoned the police at 3.26am, and that Jeremy had made a completely separate call, to the police, himself, in accordance with the contents of the 3.36am police phone log...
Had this evidence not been deliberately withheld, and not disclosed, here was evidence in abundance, that 'Mr Bamber, Snr', was still alive at the time he made that 3.26am emergency call to the police. Other evidence, which was also deliberately withheld, and not disclosed, was a crime scene photograph showing a view of the kitchen worktop upon which was the telephone cradle, and its handset, detached, along with a large number of live .22 ammunition which had been strewn all over. Another deliberately withheld, and non disclosed crime scene photograph, captured blood spotting upon the floor beneath where the telephone handset was situated, and another non disclosed crime scene photograph which showed bloodied fingermarks on the edge of that kitchen worktop - crucial evidence capable of establishing that somebody who had been using the telephone, was injured and bleeding at the time he, (or she) spoke to someone over the telephone. All of this deliberately withheld, and non disclosed material, was kept back, because to have disclosed it, was counter productive to the case the CPS, Essex Police, and all their witnesses intended to testify about. Bamber was stitched up by a corrupted Essex police force, a dodgy CPS, several very manipulative witnesses, and relatives, keen to steal Jeremy Bambers freedom, and his parents inheritance which was rightly his...
If the dodgy times of Jeremy's phone call to Julie Mugford, as stated in the contents of her disclosed witness statement, dated, 8th September, 1985, and testified by her during the trial had been true (3.00am, 3.10am, 3.12am, and 3.15am), how was it possible for any evidence to exist which served to establish that ’Mr Bamber, Snr', had still been alive, after Jeremy had called her beforehand?
Think about the words, which Julie Mugfords states were spoken by Jeremy, whenever he made that call to her, on the 7th August 1985?