The ITV Drama

[Kaldin]

Adam, you just keep posting the same stuff in the wrong threads.

[Kaldin]

I might binge watch it, to catch up. Feel like I'm missing out.

It's worth watching IMO. I can't imagine how they're going to fit everything in for the next two episodes. Some viewers have said they find it rather slow though. 

[Adam]

From the COA in case anyone claims Wilkes's book is wrong.

116.

Other evidence was given which supported the evidence of Miss Mugford that the appellant disliked his family. Mary Mugford (Julie's mother) said the appellant had often told her that he hated his adoptive mother and he described her as quite mad.

Some of Julie's testimony.

97.

She said that after she met the appellant, it quickly became obvious to her that the appellant disliked his family. He resented his parents whom he claimed, "tried to run his life" and he said he did not get on with Sheila Caffell.

He was angry that she lived in an expensive flat in Maida Vale, which was maintained by his parents. Between July and October 1984, he said that his parents were getting him down and he said that he wished "he could get rid of them all". In evidence Miss Mugford said this included his sister and children because "if he was going to get rid of them it would have to be all of them".

The appellant explained to her that his "father was getting old, his mother was mad … Sheila was mad as well … and in respect of the way the twins had been brought up, … they were emotionally disturbed and unbalanced".

The appellant also told Julie Mugford he had seen copies of his parents' wills.

[Adam]

Jeremy confirmed he had seen the wills.

131.

He told the police that he had seen the draft wills his parents had made leaving their joint estate to be shared between him and his sister.

---------

There is a thread on the wills. Believe it was even worse than that for him.

[Jan]

Some of Julie's testimony.

97.

She said that after she met the appellant, it quickly became obvious to her that the appellant disliked his family. He resented his parents whom he claimed, "tried to run his life" and he said he did not get on with Sheila Caffell.

He was angry that she lived in an expensive flat in Maida Vale, which was maintained by his parents. Between July and October 1984, he said that his parents were getting him down and he said that he wished "he could get rid of them all". In evidence Miss Mugford said this included his sister and children because "if he was going to get rid of them it would have to be all of them".

The appellant explained to her that his "father was getting old, his mother was mad … Sheila was mad as well … and in respect of the way the twins had been brought up, … they were emotionally disturbed and unbalanced".

The appellant also told Julie Mugford he had seen copies of his parents' wills.

And ? She was being offered immunity to act as a prosecution witness ? What do you expect her to say ? And who would you expect the bambers to leave their money to ?

[Adam]

And ? She was being offered immunity to act as a prosecution witness ? What do you expect her to say ? And who would you expect the bambers to leave their money to ?

What do you think of the other testimonies?

Obviously very danaging for Jeremy.

[Steve_uk]

And ? She was being offered immunity to act as a prosecution witness ? What do you expect her to say ? And who would you expect the bambers to leave their money to ?

I expected her to finally tell the truth, warts and all. June was considering changing her will to leave something to the twins, or the Church..

[Steve_uk]

What do you think of the other testimonies?

Obviously very danaging for Jeremy.

Of course there was nothing he could counter with: just bluff it out..

[Adam]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8363.msg398163.html#msg398163

This is a thread on the wills. It would have only got worse for him over the next 15 years.

[Jan]

What do you think of the other testimonies?

Obviously very danaging for Jeremy.

Which ones in particular? The ones who lied about their financial positions when asked by the jury ?

[Kaldin]

Which ones in particular? The ones who lied about their financial positions when asked by the jury ?

That was outrageous. Technically, Robert Boutflour was telling the truth, but it was very misleading.

[Jan]

That was outrageous. Technically, Robert Boutflour was telling the truth, but it was very misleading.

Actually when it all came out in 1991 I wonder why they decided to come clean ? I guess it was all in the records of ownership by then ?

The ironic thing was it seems jeremy was not even aware of the complexity of the asset ownership.

[Steve_uk]

Actually when it all came out in 1991 I wonder why they decided to come clean ? I guess it was all in the records of ownership by then ?

The ironic thing was it seems jeremy was not even aware of the complexity of the asset ownership.

He was well up on the situation with the wills though, wasn't he?

[Roch]

I know you have written stuff on here and you may well be right, but you have no concrete evidence to go along side, hence no TV company would touch it.

The pictures that BR posted were odd, they were hazy and we have no idea where they came from. Even if I gave them the benefit of the doubt, Nevill had marks on his arms and he didn't kill anyone. Marks such as the ones being claimed could be defence marks but they weren't even mentioned in Vanezis's notes, written at the time of the autopsy's. He mentioned those on Nevill, no reason not to mention marks on Sheila, especially at that juncture. Remember that the man maintained that Sheila COULD have committed suicide, were he part of the conspiracy, he's have leaned heavily on the murder side. If marks are there, there was no reason not to mention them - even if you support a guilty Jeremy.

As far as there being a rifle spotted, the word 'appeared' is important. However, we haven't seen the CS photographs of either the box room or the twins room which is where she was indicating. I don't hold much store with that either.

OK I'll keep it short because my longer post got timed out and I lost it while trying to copy and paste 

Whatever was posted up, there was also a clearer image, better than anything in archive.  It serves no purpose to add something to an image that isn't in the original negative (as the original negative can just be referred back to).   

I would refute what you're saying re evidence and re TV companies.  I am not a custodian of evidence.  Where something is referenced, it could refer to material not on the forum or it could refer to material on the forum.  I'm afraid that's out of my control - such is life.  I think there is some kind of embargo on defence programs for this case.  Nothing official.

If PV was supposed to note every single thing, all I can say is: either he hasn't done that (for reasons unknown) OR his notes were re-written to exclude certain things.  This is not just SC related.

Re the sightings, I may write to JB for the first time ever, regarding whether images are being held back by the defence i.e. images that would explain the sightings.

[Caroline]

OK I'll keep it short because my longer post got timed out and I lost it while trying to cop and paste 

Whatever was posted up, there was also a clearer image, better than anything in archive.  It serves no purpose to add something to an image that isn't in the original negative (as the original negative can just be referred back to).   

I would refute what you're saying re evidence and re TV companies.  I am not a custodian of evidence.  Where something is referenced, it could refer to material not on the forum or it could refer to material on the forum.  I'm afraid that's out of my control - such is life.  I think there is some kind of embargo on defenced programs for this case.  Nothing official.

If PV was supposed to note every single thing, all I can say is: either he hasn't done that (for reasons unknown) OR his notes were re-written to exclude certain things.  This is not just SC related.

Re the sightings, I may write to JB for the first time ever, regarding whether images are being held back by the defence i.e. images that would explain the sightings.

Write away Roch, I'm surprised you haven't yet - in fact, any supporter who hasn't - why not?

I thought you would say that about Venezis, were that the case, he's have corrected the issue of 'blood being present on her palms'.