Did JM ever really love Jeremy Bamber?

[ngb1066]

It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue. 

I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?

 

Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.

That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.

1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?

2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible .  She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman.  An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court.  Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber.  In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.



 

[Jerry]

I made no reference to whether a hitman hirer would be guilty of murder. I'm not sure what you mean Jon?

I believe Jon means that jeremy is as guilty of murder just as if he pulled the trigger himself in such a scenario.

In Law, an accessory is a person who incites someone to commit a crime or assists the perpetrator of a crime, either before or during its commission.

[ngb1066]

It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue. 

I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?

Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.

That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.

Right on the ball as usual Hartley.  +1

I am surprised at a former barrister falling for that one.

Are you not guilty of murder if you hire a hitman ?

I made no reference to whether a hitman hirer would be guilty of murder. I'm not sure what you mean Jon?

Yes you are guilty of murder if you hire a hitman.

[Jerry]

It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue. 

I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?

 

Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.

That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.

1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?

2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible .  She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman.  An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court.  Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber.  In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.

Didn't he tell other witnesses that he could kill his family. It all adds up to one thing in my estimation.

Sorry, two things, he also could be psychotic and delusional.

[ngb1066]

It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue. 

I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?

Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.

That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.

Right on the ball as usual Hartley.  +1

I am surprised at a former barrister falling for that one.

Falling for what?  By the way I am still a barrister although currently non practising, so "former" is not accurate.

[Jackiepreece]

Come on Hartley you know everything about the porche car and it has been mentioned time and time again police investigated this and even went to the garage to confirm JB was talking about a kit car


Jerry I will add that to the missing photo of jeremy in nanny Speakmans bedroom

 
Feel free to pit yourself against Ngb on legal opinion this is going to be fun

[hartley]

1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?

Likewise, why would you so matter of factly state it as significant? I am merely pointing out that it is not significant at all.

2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible .  She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman.  An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court.  Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber.  In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.

That's not the point and not what I said.

JM gave evidence stating what JB had told her.

She did not give evidence stating what JB had done, unless what JB had done coincided with what he had told JM.

Anyway we're moving into the territory of arguing for the sake of it, it seems.

[ngb1066]

It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue. 

I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?

 

Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.

That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.

1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?

2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible .  She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman.  An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court.  Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber.  In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.

Didn't he tell other witnesses that he could kill his family. It all adds up to one thing in my estimation.

Sorry, two things, he also could be psychotic and delusional.

None of the many psychiatrists and psychologists who have examined Jeremy Bamber over the past 26 years support your view.

[bob]

It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue. 

I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?

 

Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.

That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.

1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?

2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible .  She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman.  An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court.  Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber.  In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.

Didn't he tell other witnesses that he could kill his family. It all adds up to one thing in my estimation.

Sorry, two things, he also could be psychotic and delusional.

None of the many psychiatrists and psychologists who have examined Jeremy Bamber over the past 26 years support your view.

Why is it ok to believe the psychiatrists who give expert opinion on behalf of the defence, and yet we are always told that the experts who worked on behalf of the prosecution (pathologists, forensic scientists etc.) were either incompetent or in on some kind of conspiracy?

[Jerry]

It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue. 

I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?

 

Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.

That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.

1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?

2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible .  She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman.  An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court.  Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber.  In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.

Didn't he tell other witnesses that he could kill his family. It all adds up to one thing in my estimation.

Sorry, two things, he also could be psychotic and delusional.

None of the many psychiatrists and psychologists who have examined Jeremy Bamber over the past 26 years support your view.

So what do you call a guy who boasts about killing his family?

[hartley]

So what do you call a guy who boasts about killing his family?

A cheeky monkey? 

Well I did make him laugh on Saturday because I said he was causing havoc with women when he was 24 and I think he still is now.  I said if he gets released there will be all these women outside in cars waiting for him. I said you will be in so much trouble so he said you would put me up Jac wouldn't you and I thought cheeky monkey still a player.  I think he needs to be with his male friends or I suggested a one way ticket to Australia

[jon]

It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue. 

I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?

 

Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.

That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.

1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?

2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible .  She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman.  An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court.  Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber.  In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.

Didn't he tell other witnesses that he could kill his family. It all adds up to one thing in my estimation.

Sorry, two things, he also could be psychotic and delusional.

None of the many psychiatrists and psychologists who have examined Jeremy Bamber over the past 26 years support your view.

Why is it ok to believe the psychiatrists who give expert opinion on behalf of the defence, and yet we are always told that the experts who worked on behalf of the prosecution (pathologists, forensic scientists etc.) were either incompetent or in on some kind of conspiracy?

The psychiatrists  work for the prison service !!

[Jerry]

Why is it ok to believe the psychiatrists who give expert opinion on behalf of the defence, and yet we are always told that the experts who worked on behalf of the prosecution (pathologists, forensic scientists etc.) were either incompetent or in on some kind of conspiracy?

In any case, they examined him long after the event, not prior to it or while it took place.

Isn't there a medical condition which manifests itself in such delusional ramblings and which ultimately ends in the paranoia becoming a real event?

[ngb1066]

It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue. 

I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?

 

Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.

That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.

1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?

2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible .  She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman.  An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court.  Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber.  In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.

Didn't he tell other witnesses that he could kill his family. It all adds up to one thing in my estimation.

Sorry, two things, he also could be psychotic and delusional.

None of the many psychiatrists and psychologists who have examined Jeremy Bamber over the past 26 years support your view.

Why is it ok to believe the psychiatrists who give expert opinion on behalf of the defence, and yet we are always told that the experts who worked on behalf of the prosecution (pathologists, forensic scientists etc.) were either incompetent or in on some kind of conspiracy?

The psychiatrists and psychologists who have examined Jeremy Bamber have not given evidence on behalf of the defence.  They were instructed by the prison service to prepare reports as is always the case with prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment (and some others).

I do not believe it is part of Jeremy Bamber's case that every pathologist and forensic scientist instructed by the prosecution was "either incompetent or in on some kind of conspiracy".

[Jerry]

So what do you call a guy who boasts about killing his family?

A cheeky monkey? 

Well I did make him laugh on Saturday because I said he was causing havoc with women when he was 24 and I think he still is now.  I said if he gets released there will be all these women outside in cars waiting for him. I said you will be in so much trouble so he said you would put me up Jac wouldn't you and I thought cheeky monkey still a player.  I think he needs to be with his male friends or I suggested a one way ticket to Australia

I reminded her that they do not transport to the colonies any more.

In any event he would be lucky to get a day trip to the Isle of Wight never mind a one way ticket to Aussieland.