I have debated with starry on this and he stands by his view that Mugford was an accessory after the fact - technically. He said that does not make Mugford a less credible witness - maybe? I am not sure. Maybe some here can enlighten me on this?
He is not admin but he is a full member. Nice guy and willing to debate with you sensibly. I have not got any problem with the man. He has helped clear up some points I had, along with some posters on this forum.
If Bamber is guilty then JM is an accessory after the fact and should have stood trial for that offence. I have always held that view. Because she did not, this makes the police guilty of obstructing the course of justice in that they refused to charge her for this crime and they should set up an enquiry into that.
If on the other hand Jeremy is innocent, then JM should be charged with pergery. Plus obstructing the course of justice, as she had drawn the police away from their original investigations.
Note: There is nothing and no one to back up JM's story. It is her word against Bamber. It is the argument of the anti Bambers that because JB was found guilty in a court of law then that should be termed a fair trial and therefore he is rightfully in prison. But one must remember that even if a 1000 people believe in a wrong thing. It is still a wrong thing. There have been so many doubts regarding this case among members of the public. MP's, Law students and even barristers and solicitors and so many who find the so called evidence troubling, that this alone should force a general inquiry concerning the evidence and more disturbing the lack of evidence. I believe myself that even if there is the smallest of doubts about JB's guilt, that this should be enough to stir everybody's conscience to ask within themselves whether this man is in fact innocent. For if he is innocent, then that surely is not true British justice?