Is Julie Mugford relevant?

[ngb1066]

Roch trying to goad again.

Quoting a 6 day old post to try to liven up the forum. After everyone left due to creepy posters such as Roch and Nigel.

Roch is lucky he is a former moderator and fiercely protected by former collegues. And yes I have mentioned the Blue forum on the red forum recently. Everyone has been. You are also free to join that forum. Unless you have been banned.

What's happened to the evidence you have seen which shows Sheila is definately the killer ? Or is it still a secret.

Be very careful Adam.  I suggest you read carefully the forum rules.  Just because the forum is moderated with a light touch - some may say too light a touch - does not mean you can continue to ignore forum rules.

[Steve_uk]

This forum is devalued because we are not privy to the latest developments. Is it any wonder that sometimes posters do attempt entertainment in an attempt to fill the lacuna?

[Luminous Wanderer]

I have been Julie Smerchanski's harshest critic, but I do believe her evidence. In private so did the Defence, which is why they remained so pessimistic throughout the trial. The Jeremy Bamber case contains within a microcosm of the society through which I lived in the 1980s (from your writings you profess to be learned but it is you who is the callow youth here), a society redolent with all its brickbats and bouquets, and maybe in the final analysis Julie was prepared to sacrifice five lives on the altar of materialism, but this horrific fact of human nature does not change the power of her evidence, nor exculpate Jeremy Bamber because you unilaterally have decided to disregard it.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=5528.0

My threads are created partly from invention or intelligent guessing as I would call it, but also from original documentation, and where this original documentation is not at my fingertips I have used footnotes in the various books on the case which does furnish it to supplement them with.

You and several others here seem to think that five people were murdered out of the blue, that everything in the Bamber household was lovely (as Jeremy asserts) until the tragedy occurred, that you can somehow produce diagrams of White House Farm to exculpate him or rubbish every other Prosecution witness and those who sincerely believe him guilty won't notice what you are doing. You even make allegations that Crispy the dog or the position of the dustpan and brush proves him innocent. I could go on.

The plain and terribly sad fact is that a young chronic schizophrenic woman (I use the word chronic because she was liable at intervals to relapse and may well have been on medication for life) was told to lie down at Jeremy's behest, a rifle was thrust into her hands and before she knew what was happening a report was discharged to the throat, shortly followed by another bullet to her brain, which instantly killed her.

She was used as a scapegoat because she could not fight back, her experience of life had made her bitter at times as she railed against human nature and reflected on how in her opinion she had been used and abused, mostly by men, the only power she did once hold against Colin as wife having dissipated once he found another partner and moved on, though a part of him always loved her, which is why he remained on good terms with her and she wanted him back.

As far as Jeremy Bamber is concerned he was the bitter individual if ever there was one. He was bitter at his status in the pecking order at White House Farm, bitter that his parents had sent him away to boarding school, where he endured eight long years, only to ascend the lowest rung of the ladder upon return. He indulged in three foreign trips pre-murders and never truly settled down to farm work apart from the last few months of his parents life, with his own ulterior motive of fulfilling the terms of his parents' wills, knowing full well that on the death of five they would be overturned and he would become sole beneficiary.

Nothing that you have said here has anything to do with the subject-matter of the thread, the question I ask in the thread, what the thread is about: which is the relevance of her evidence.

With the greatest respect, I don't care if you believe her or not.  It's not germane to what I'm asking.

Also, where did I say, imply, suggest or infer that five people were murdered out of the blue?  Nowhere have I suggested a thing.

The basic problem with you is that you go beyond the known facts.  You don't know what happened.  You don't know that Jeremy Bamber is a congenital liar.  That's what makes you irrational.

As far as I can tell, you have nothing to contribute here as you are treating this case as an article of faith.  Why are you here if you're so sure you know everything?  Is it some sort of sadistic sexual delight for you to discuss the case?  I really don't get people like you.  Why can't we just stick to facts?

[Luminous Wanderer]

This forum is devalued because we are not privy to the latest developments. Is it any wonder that sometimes posters do attempt entertainment in an attempt to fill the lacuna?

No, what devalues forums like this is human nature: 98% of the population are unintelligent and irrational.  That's why miscarriages of justice happen.  It's why forums like this can't sustain rational discussion for very long, because some people are driven by their egos and need to make assertions beyond the facts.  It also explains why religious belief and superstition persist on a mass level.  The bottom line is that the brain is not, primarily, a facilitator for rational engagement.  The brain a hormone factory.  Human beings aren't rational, but ego-driven.  You're a case in point, whether you recognise it or not.

[ngb1066]

This forum is devalued because we are not privy to the latest developments. Is it any wonder that sometimes posters do attempt entertainment in an attempt to fill the lacuna?

That is a fair point.

[Steve_uk]

Nothing that you have said here has anything to do with the subject-matter of the thread, the question I ask in the thread, what the thread is about: which is the relevance of her evidence.

With the greatest respect, I don't care if you believe her or not.  It's not germane to what I'm asking.

Also, where did I say, imply, suggest or infer that five people were murdered out of the blue?  Nowhere have I suggested a thing.

The basic problem with you is that you go beyond the known facts.  You don't know what happened.  You don't know that Jeremy Bamber is a congenital liar. That's what makes you irrational.

As far as I can tell, you have nothing to contribute here as you are treating this case as an article of faith.  Why are you here if you're so sure you know everything?  Is it some sort of sadistic sexual delight for you to discuss the case?  I really don't get people like you.  Why can't we just stick to facts?

You have already said that you don't believe Julie Mugford's evidence and you are not alone amongst the membership here in so asserting. What I am saying to you is that if you follow her statement through it provides the backdrop to the crime and the rationale behind it. Without her evidence you have to rely on claiming that the relatives deliberately inserted Sheila's blood by means of a pipette into a silencer so as to sufficiently arouse Police interest in a case which heretofore DCI Jones had regarded as over and done with.

I don't really know what you are asking. You say Julie's evidence is not relevant, but then in the same breath we are compelled to believe that Jeremy Bamber had a conversation with Matthew Macdonald about arranging to murder his family, when we are not obliged to believe anything of the sort.

I have read from the various books enough about Jeremy Bamber to know he is not a truthful person, from his stealing Cartier watches in a jeweller's shop in New Zealand to him conning people out of their rings to his desire to break into rich people's houses in London with the justification that it would teach them a lesson, just as was his rationale with the Osea Road break-in. He swept Julie off her feet with extravagant romantic gestures such as hiring the bridal suite at a top London hotel, and you think the girl is not entitled to dream that one day he won't offer marriage?

As for my sexual proclivities it really is none of your business, but you may be disappointed at how mundane they really are. I have lived through Jeffrey Archer, John Major, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Savile and the rest and compared to them I'm as pure as the driven snow.

[Luminous Wanderer]

That is a fair point.

Anybody who says they definitely know Bamber is innocent or guilty is a buffoon.  It's self-evident that you just can't know, and therefore, I regard nearly everybody posting on here and on the Red Forum as an idiot.  Go ahead and ban me.

How can you regard yourself as rational when you're commenting beyond your own knowledge?  That's what religious people do.  I'm genuinely confused by this.  How am I supposed to know what happened in that house on that night?  It's not a case on which it's possible to take an informed view of his culpability.  This is partly because the only other suspect is dead and there are two independent possible matrices of fact leading to two different suspects.

Sorry but I'm just honest.  One of the reasons forums like this sometimes break down is because people are taking sides when they shouldn't be.  This particular case is not amenable to tribalism.  It's really just a question of whether his conviction is safe.  Any other discussion is futile and akin to arguing over whether Manchester United are better than Manchester City.  Hence the insults and all the tension - it's not primarily a rational discussion because the people involved are prioritising loyalty to one side or the other.

[Steve_uk]

Anybody who says they definitely know Bamber is innocent or guilty is a buffoon.  It's self-evident that you just can't know, and therefore, I regard nearly everybody posting on here and on the Red Forum as an idiot.  Go ahead and ban me.

How can you regard yourself as rational when you're commenting beyond your own knowledge?  That's what religious people do.  I'm genuinely confused by this.  How am I supposed to know what happened in that house on that night?  It's not a case on which it's possible to take an informed view of his culpability.  This is partly because the only other suspect is dead and there are two independent possible matrices of fact leading to two different suspects.

Sorry but I'm just honest.  One of the reasons forums like this sometimes break down is because people are taking sides when they shouldn't be.  This particular case is not amenable to tribalism.  It's really just a question of whether his conviction is safe.  Any other discussion is futile and akin to arguing over whether Manchester United are better than Manchester City.  Hence the insults and all the tension - it's not primarily a rational discussion because the people involved are prioritising loyalty to one side or the other.

This forum was functioning quite adequately before your arrival and will I'm sure survive your departure, should it come to that.

[Luminous Wanderer]

You have already said that you don't believe Julie Mugford's evidence and

No, I haven't said that Steve.

Steve, you are a case in point of what I am saying is the flaw in these forums.  You're not reading my posts.  You haven't understood my position.  I have not at any point doubted Mugford's truthfulness.  That's because her truthfulness is not germane.

you are not alone amongst the membership here in so asserting. What I am saying to you is that if you follow her statement through it provides the backdrop to the crime and the rationale behind it. Without her evidence you have to rely on claiming that the relatives deliberately inserted Sheila's blood by means of a pipette into a silencer so as to sufficiently arouse Police interest in a case which heretofore DCI Jones had regarded as over and done with.

No, Steve, you don't have to rely on that to prove the case against Bamber.  Have long have you been commenting on this forum and you still don't understand the basics?

I don't really know what you are asking. You say Julie's evidence is not relevant, but then in the same breath we are compelled to believe that Jeremy Bamber had a conversation with Matthew Macdonald about arranging to murder his family, when we are not obliged to believe anything of the sort.

No, I'm not saying that.  You're just in a muddle.  You're confused about the thread.  It would be better if you stop commenting on my posts.

I have read from the various books enough about Jeremy Bamber to know he is not a truthful person, from his stealing Cartier watches in a jeweller's shop in New Zealand to him conning people out of their rings to his desire to break into rich people's houses in London with the justification that it would teach them a lesson, just as was his rationale with the Osea Road break-in. He swept Julie off her feet with extravagant romantic gestures such as hiring the bridal suite at a top London hotel, and you think the girl is not entitled to dream that one day he won't offer marriage?

Assuming all this is true, then this part of what you say is very fair in forming a view about Bamber as an innately dishonest individual.  OK, good.  I'm neutral here, so that's helpful information for me.  Thanks.  But....None of it establishes that he killed his family and in the context of an appeal, it's not relevant.  Remember the purpose of the thread is to discuss how an appeal might be framed, not to rake over the issues at trial.

As for my sexual proclivities it really is none of your business, but you may be disappointed at how mundane they really are. I have lived through Jeffrey Archer, John Major, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Saville and the rest and compared to them I'm as pure as the driven snow.

What is this gibberish?  I've mentioned nothing about your sexual proclivities: my comment to Nigel before was obviously just a joke and it was aimed at him, not you.

[Luminous Wanderer]

This forum was functioning quite adequately before your arrival and will I'm sure survive your departure, should it come to that.

Oh, I'm sorry that I have an inclination to actually think and ask questions.  Maybe I should go then and leave the forum to half-wits like you who think you know what happened 33 years ago at a farmhouse in Essex?  Would that represent an improvement in understanding the case?

And of course, lest we forget that your own behaviour is absolutely perfect and beyond the reproach.

[Roch]

Roch trying to goad again.

Quoting a 6 day old post to try to liven up the forum. After everyone left due to creepy posters such as Roch and Nigel.

Roch is lucky he is a former moderator and fiercely protected by former collegues. And yes I have mentioned the Blue forum on the red forum recently. Everyone has been. You are also free to join that forum. Unless you have been banned.

Don't think I've ever tried to register on their latest forum.  They are obsessed with here and hang off our every word.  Although I go through phases of scanning it, I find their scoffing tone a real bore.  They are all so obsequious with each other as well - pass the sick bucket.  The only moderator there with any ability is in the innocent camp - but is so busy trying to flatter and accommodate all the guilters, you'd hardly notice.  They've effectively shackled and blinkered her without her even realising.    Then there's  Steph who is absolutely xxxxxxx clueless about the Bamber case but has free reign to spew out utter nonsense - a bit like your self.
As for people leaving here.  You left, except you haven't (unfortunately).  Caroline is there (hope she posts here again) and Jane/April has also left.  Mat ferrets back and forth with his 'hit and run' posts.  Hardly a mass exodus Adam 

What's happened to the evidence you have seen which shows Sheila is definately the killer ? Or is it still a secret.

As you know already, it was evidence of Sheila having been in a violent struggle with the other two adults.  All three adult victims sustained attack/defence wounds which are not referred to by PV.  I also mentioned the earring, also not referred to by PV.  You were given a snippet (back of Sheila's right hand), which I think was quite generous. 

[Roch]

Anybody who says they definitely know Bamber is innocent or guilty is a buffoon.  It's self-evident that you just can't know, and therefore, I regard nearly everybody posting on here and on the Red Forum as an idiot. 

The way I see the case has developed.  I 100% believe Sheila was involved in the killings. I take this view because I have become aware of various wounds and circumstances that strongly indicate a fight between all three of the adults who became deceased.  A life or death struggle to thwart / contain Sheila.   

However, I cannot say 100% for certain that Jeremy had no foreknowledge, influence or involvement in what took place that night.  In any scenario where Sheila experiences a severe psychotic episode, Jeremy's involvement can only have taken place pre-incident (as how would it be possible for him to assist, influence and safeguard himself, while Sheila is raving and hallucinating?).  So for example, he got wind of what was going to happen or even encouraged it and facilitated the rifle being left out for her by using the ruse of the rabbits.  Therefore he assisted in the preparation and had foreknowledge - but he did not participate.  He could only physically participate alongside Sheila in a scenario where she is not hallucinating, IMO.  However, unlike the other three adults, he is not marked, so I think this scenario is unlikely.

I 100% believe the sound moderator is concocted.  It is a bogus exhibit.  If in order to convict somebody, you have to literally concoct a physical exhibit, how likely is it that person was never involved in the first place? 

Thus, using this reasoning, I think it's unlikely he had foreknowledge, influence, involvement.

[David1819]

Don't think I've ever tried to register on their latest forum.  They are obsessed with here and hang off our every word.  Although I go through phases of scanning it, I find their scoffing tone a real bore.  They are all so obsequious with each other as well - pass the sick bucket.  The only moderator there with any ability is in the innocent camp - but is so busy trying to flatter and accommodate all the guilters, you'd hardly notice.  They've effectively shackled and blinkered her without her even realising.    Then there's  Steph who is absolutely xxxxxxx clueless about the Bamber case but has free reign to spew out utter nonsense - a bit like your self.
As for people leaving here.  You left, except you haven't (unfortunately).  Caroline is there (hope she posts here again) and Jane/April has followed, as she follows whatever Caroline says / does.  Mat ferrets back and forth with his 'hit and run' posts.  Hardly a mass exodus Adam 

As you know already, it was evidence of Sheila having been in a violent struggle with the other two adults.  All three adult victims sustained attack/defence wounds which are not referred to by PV.  I also mentioned the earring, also not referred to by PV.  You were given a snippet (back of Sheila's right hand), which I think was quite generous.

What about the Mythster?

[lookout]

NONE of you,apart from Roch,are anywhere near the sorry event that went on at WHF.

In the words of Shakespeare and in my way of thinking,the case was " Much ado about nothing " in that the full background of Sheila was never studied indepth and the smug attitude of EP whose main goal was to secure a conviction at that particular time,after the Doctor Jones fiasco, saw JB as their quarry.

How quick was it to pin a murder charge on the recent case of the elderly man who'd been protecting his sick wife and his home from intruders when the backgrounds of the dead individual came to light ?
Backgrounds ofa case/individual are as important as discussing " trajectories " and such like which only bolster a self-opinionated attitude of that person who thinks they know it all. The psychology of a murder/murderer goes much deeper !

Sheila was an unpredictable person,which the family were presumably always used to until her mood changed as time went on.I imagine her mother had been aware having had mental health issues herself but she herself hadn't beenstrong mentally to hide that fact and it had rubbed off on Sheila unfortunately.

I'm also convinced that JB himself knew nothing of the tragedy that night nor was he up to speed on Sheila's overall problems which he'd put down to her as being a " nutter " . Such ignorance would have been and still is the norm with some when it comes to a lack of understanding in mental health,but certainly not always a malicious description and by no means a cue for a would-be " murderer ".

Julie Mugford had been well aware at the time that it hadn't been JB who murdered his family. Her thoughts on being dumped were exacerbated by the hype of EP and the determination of the relatives to also seal a conviction whatever it took and I firmly believe that JM had gone too far to pull out,having been encouraged from all directions. I bet she often wonders !!

[lookout]

----------Goodness me,a lot of catching up to do !!