Author Topic: Mugford supporters  (Read 695 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8873
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #90 on: August 12, 2017, 04:26:PM »
He reported his views, for goodness sake.
He reported an exchange between Defence counsel and witness for the prosecution. Where is the opinion contained therein?

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #91 on: August 12, 2017, 04:30:PM »
So this was from a book then? not a fact.

Well that's a surprise from Steve not a fact at all

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18110
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #92 on: August 12, 2017, 04:39:PM »
Well there was an exchange between her and Rivlin about the marijuana the rats had eaten. This gave Rivlin the chance to bring up Julie's drug use. She told him that she smoked it occasionally, but Jeremy smoked it frequently. (Blood Relations Chapter 31)

I remember that.

I don't know how Julie occasionally smoking  & Bamber frequently smoking marijuana makes Bamber innocent. But I'm sure JackieD believes it does.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15858
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #93 on: August 12, 2017, 04:49:PM »
I remember that.

I don't know how Julie occasionally smoking  & Bamber frequently smoking marijuana makes Bamber innocent. But I'm sure JackieD believes it does.

Adam who smoked what makes no difference to the trial and JB being convicted I guess it is just a method of making Julie look lily white and Bamber a total so and so.  Don't believe everything you read in books I don't they have to make a story up to fill the book and this applies to them all.

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 34959
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #94 on: August 12, 2017, 04:53:PM »
Adam who smoked what makes no difference to the trial and JB being convicted I guess it is just a method of making Julie look lily white and Bamber a total so and so.  Don't believe everything you read in books I don't they have to make a story up to fill the book and this applies to them all.





I can second that Susan.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19922
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #95 on: August 12, 2017, 09:33:PM »
Well that's a surprise from Steve not a fact at all

So books don't contain facts?
100% GUILTY - No doubts!

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8873
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #96 on: August 12, 2017, 09:36:PM »
So books don't contain facts?
No, only Wikipedia articles on thongs.

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 34959
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #97 on: August 12, 2017, 09:42:PM »
No, only Wikipedia articles on thongs.






They're common.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8873
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #98 on: August 12, 2017, 09:43:PM »





They're common.
What the articles or the garment?

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 34959
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #99 on: August 12, 2017, 09:47:PM »
What the articles or the garment?





The garment---if you can call it such. More like a cheese slice.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19922
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #100 on: August 12, 2017, 09:50:PM »




The garment---if you can call it such. More like a cheese slice.

Don't knock em till you've tried em Lookout - eliminates VPL  ;D ;D ;D
100% GUILTY - No doubts!

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23969
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #101 on: August 12, 2017, 09:54:PM »

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 34959
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #102 on: August 12, 2017, 10:22:PM »
Dear me :o :o






I suppose they'd be useful if the fan belt went. That's about all. Or a catapult.

Offline lebaleb

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #103 on: August 13, 2017, 08:55:AM »
NGB, what is Bamber's stance with all the published incriminating forensic & circumstantial evidence ? Some of it below. He hasn't publically disputed nearly all of it.

Is he focusing on one or two pieces to try to get a technicality ? Surely this is his only option.

However I've read 360 is going through all evidence to try to get a release. Which must take years.


Perfectly clean front of hands on Sheila.   

One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila. 

Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila.  Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected.

Well manicured nails on Sheila. 

No broken nails.

Nails in tact.

No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers. 

No blood on finger tips.

No dirt on finger tips.

No powder on finger tips.

No trace of any lead dust coating.

No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice.

Very clean feet.

Feet free from significant blood staining.

No debris such as sugar on feet.

No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight.

Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress.

No presence of firearm residue on nightdress.

No presense of firearm residue on arms.

No trace of rifle oil on nightdress

No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight.

Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila.

Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself.

Nevill being bare footed in pyjamas.

Sheila being bare footed in pyjamas.

Paint in silencer.

Aga scratch's.

Blood in silencer.

No blood in the rifle end.

Sheila's legs pulled after second shot.

Sheila's blood underneath the bible.

A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed.

Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol.

Sheila having Haloperidol in her body.

Sheila's condition hours before the massacre.

Sheila under sedation.

Easy window entrance into WHF.

Shutting kitchen window from outside. 

Murder weapon options.

Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell.

Items around the kitchen window being moved after housekeeper had left. 

Easy bike route to WHF.

Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre.

June not waking/getting shot in bed.

Nevill's back burns.

2012 CCRC court judgement.

The twins not waking.

Bamber's call to the police.

Nevill's horrific injuries.

Huge kitchen fight.

Sheila's time limits.

No valid Sheila scenario.

How is that possible when there are photographs of Sheila with the rifle laying on her nightdress?


Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18110
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #104 on: August 13, 2017, 09:54:AM »
How is that possible when there are photographs of Sheila with the rifle laying on her nightdress?

That's what everyone wants to know.

If Sheila reloaded twice there would be oil all over her hands & nightdress. If she fired 26 bullets there would be firearm residue on her hands, arms & nightdress.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 10:32:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.