Author Topic: Why Did JB Have His Category Status Downgraded So Quickly By Prison Authoritys  (Read 2016 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4590
Yes it does. Mr. Justice Drake addressed all the "woman scorned" points in his summing up and advised them to "treat her evidence with a good deal of caution." They never asked for clarification before they delivered their verdict (unlike the Robert Boutflour and inheritance and the blood in the silencer) so I suggest to you that this was not foremost in their minds when they came to the conclusion they did.

Rubbish.  He urged caution only because of the "woman scorned" possibility, not because of the financial incentive of the NOW deal or because of the pressure brought to bear by the police (because both were concealed from the judge).  The evidence of Mugford was an important part of the prosecution case (as emphasised by the judge) and no doubt played a major role in the jury's deliberations.


Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19921





But, what if the police and family 'needed' her to play ball?

Imagine she received no phone call from Jeremy, she slept with him after the murders.... he dumped her!

She had stood by him through the funeral etc, he's about to inherit a huge sum and power... with her support, and he dumps her?   She'd be so upset.

Both the police and family knew she was vulnerable, emotionally and financially.

What if Jeremy had to be convicted at any cost?

Both the Police and the family had Julie.  Pay to play.  It's a common practice especially in government and practised so often amongst the higher echelons in life.   It's a cover up from start to finish.

Yes, that could explain why Julie MAY have lied (although, I don't think she did to the extent claimed here). What about the others? Susan Battersby, Liz Rimington, Malcolm Waters et al? What was their motive?
100% GUILTY - No doubts!

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18102
Rubbish.  He urged caution only because of the "woman scorned" possibility, not because of the financial incentive of the NOW deal or because of the pressure brought to bear by the police (because both were concealed from the judge).  The evidence of Mugford was an important part of the prosecution case (as emphasised by the judge) and no doubt played a major role in the jury's deliberations.

It is correct Julie was the main witness. However there is also over 200+ pieces of incriminating forensic & circumstantial evidence. Which you do not comment on.

Bamber's reason why Julie approached the police - 'he jilted her' is also incredibly weak.

But appreciate as a lawyer you have to go for a technicality. Which seems to be the NOTW deal.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 06:28:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23965
Yes, that could explain why Julie MAY have lied (although, I don't think she did to the extent claimed here). What about the others? Susan Battersby, Liz Rimington, Malcolm Waters et al? What was their motive?

It must also be remembered that outside of her social group Julie had a family -mother, brother, step-father- who was supporting her. Are we to believe that they, too encouraged her in a lie? MORE to add to the conspiracy theory?

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 34957
Her family couldn't read her mind no matter how much support they gave.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4590
It is correct Julie was the main witness. However there is also over 200+ pieces of incriminating forensic & circumstantial evidence. Which you do not comment on.

Bamber's reason why Julie approached the police - 'he jilted her' is also incredibly weak.

But appreciate as a lawyer you have to go for a technicality. Which seems to be the NOTW deal.

Not at all Adam.  I have already said that an appeal in this case will not be won on a technicality.  in view of the history the grounds of appeal would have to be very strong, undermining fundamental planks of the prosecution case at trial.  I accept that there are a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence which were relied upon by the prosecution, and these formed part of the overall case against JB.  However, in the absence of the two key planks of the prosecution case, namely the Julie Mugford evidence and the evidence relating to the silencer I do not believe the case would even have gone to trial, and if it had done the judge would have withdrawn it from the jury.


Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19921
Her family couldn't read her mind no matter how much support they gave.

It is being claimed that the police told Julie Mugford to testify against Bamber 'or else'. They really had nothing much on him without Julie - they needed her BUT, Julie had already told her friends about Bamber's involvement prior to going to the police. How do they fit in and what was the point of adding in a hit man scenario?
100% GUILTY - No doubts!

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8873
Rubbish.  He urged caution only because of the "woman scorned" possibility, not because of the financial incentive of the NOW deal or because of the pressure brought to bear by the police (because both were concealed from the judge).  The evidence of Mugford was an important part of the prosecution case (as emphasised by the judge) and no doubt played a major role in the jury's deliberations.
What the Defence can't stand is that Julie's statement chimed in with all the other evidence given independently of herself. There was a doubt as to whether Jeremy Bamber had telephoned Julie in the early hours before the claim of the call from his father, belying Bamber's evidence on that point alone, him telling Colin that first morning that he sounded as if Nevill had been injured when he was apparently still able physically to converse on the telephone, Jeremy bringing Julie a bicycle in the first place when their relationship had been cooling for months, and his claim to two Chelmsford-based PCs that he had attempted to telephone Witham Police Station first, which he withdrew at trial.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8873
Not at all Adam.  I have already said that an appeal in this case will not be won on a technicality.  in view of the history the grounds of appeal would have to be very strong, undermining fundamental planks of the prosecution case at trial.  I accept that there are a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence which were relied upon by the prosecution, and these formed part of the overall case against JB.  However, in the absence of the two key planks of the prosecution case, namely the Julie Mugford evidence and the evidence relating to the silencer I do not believe the case would even have gone to trial, and if it had done the judge would have withdrawn it from the jury.
Sorry but I don't believe you anymore. You can quote me when the CCRC or whoever is perusing this new evidence as I speak finally make their judgement.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18102
Not at all Adam.  I have already said that an appeal in this case will not be won on a technicality.  in view of the history the grounds of appeal would have to be very strong, undermining fundamental planks of the prosecution case at trial.  I accept that there are a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence which were relied upon by the prosecution, and these formed part of the overall case against JB.  However, in the absence of the two key planks of the prosecution case, namely the Julie Mugford evidence and the evidence relating to the silencer I do not believe the case would even have gone to trial, and if it had done the judge would have withdrawn it from the jury.

What about the forensic evidence below ?

You optimistically believe the case would not go to court without Julie & the silencer. But it did & that can't change.

                             -----------------------


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.

Nevill's call to Bamber only lasting 4 seconds.

No valid Sheila scenario.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 06:46:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8873
The lawyer's answer might be that Sheila wasn't on trial-Jeremy was. Remember we are dealing with a master manipulator, who had planned the "perfect crime" for months, a classic piece of management legerdemain whilst seated in a cannabis-filled haze inside the tractor for hours on end, his way of avenging his comparative impotence in the management decisions made at boardroom level and from which he felt excluded.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 06:53:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4624
What the Defence can't stand is that Julie's statement chimed in with all the other evidence given independently of herself.

Rubbish!

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8469.msg402819.html#msg402819
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8873
Rubbish!

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8469.msg402819.html#msg402819
But Julie had no contact with relatives after that first day, apart from when they went back to the farmhouse at Ann Eaton's request. The £2000 was the debt Jeremy owed his father and as such the sum stuck in his mind, rather like David Bain who had crashed a motorcycle on a test drive but didn't seem overly concerned about repayment, since he knew that shortly money would be coming his way.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18102
Oh yes. Julie & MM between them came up with a wrong fantasy that MM was paid £2,000 to committ the massacre. And Julie told the police.

I prefer the option that Bamber used MM as a proxy.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 06:59:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline justice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2641
Which is a disgrace - he kids and husband have no part in the case. It just shows the calibre of some people.
Totally agree Caroline, like it or not Julie put herself up there and I think tells a lot of truth, she has now done well for herself and earning well over $100,000 a year in a role of schools director, seems to have trust from authorities in the process.

Julie Smerchanski — who pulled in $126,440 in 2011,


https://www.winnipegsd.ca/About%20WSD/superintendents-office/Pages/WSDDirectors.aspx
Envy kills,” the Pope said. “It does not tolerate others having something that I do not have. And it always suffers, because the heart of an envious or jealous person suffers. It is a suffering heart!” It is a suffering that desires “the death of others