Yes and the Campaign Team have yet again raised deceit into an art form. Let's not lose sight of the bigger picture. Briefly:
1) The master bedroom was devoid of a telephone on the evening of 6th August 1985. Wouldn't June have preferred to take her sister's call at 10:00pm in bed, rather than have to stand around in the kitchen at so late an hour?
What is your evidence that Jeremy moved any phones?
2) On Monday morning, around 10 o' clock, Douglas Pike called at the farm to collect the faulty cordless telephone from the kitchen; it had been a replacement for the original one, damaged during the lightning strikes. Sheila greeted him at the back door. He noticed Nicholas and Daniel: "I was very impressed, as a grandfather, by the way that the two boys were behaving. They were standing at the end of the kitchen table making paper flags and colouring them in with pencils." Pike left thinking what a happy family they seemed.
How long was Douglas Pike at the farmhouse to form this evaluation of Sheila's mood, composure and parenting skills that you seem to want us to rely on?
Assuming Mr Pike's visit was brief and did not consist of a detailed observational study of Sheila and the children, why should Mr Pike's opinion override that of others, including people who lived with Sheila and professionals?
If somebody came and took the kitchen phone away, isn't it logical to assume that this was replaced with another phone and this explains why there was no phone in the master bedroom?
3) There's no credible evidence whatsoever that the telephone calls in the wee hours attributed to Sheila were ever made.
The CT say they have a document. Have you seen it? If not, how do you know there is no credible evidence?
Jackie it was a spur-of-the-moment one day white collar crime spree. Jeremy Bamber killed five.
I don't understand what you mean. The point of all this is that her evidence requires us to rely on things she says that Jeremy told her when no-one else was present or could hear. It is not to say her own criminality means she was lying, but it is to say that it must be a factor for consideration in the round, together with other personal factors, such as Jeremy's decision to split up with her.
You and Adam make the argument that it was just one criminal act and it was minor. Even if that is accepted, it still raises questions about her judgement and moral character. She was of mature age at this point - I think she was 20. People don't go on 'white collar crime sprees' at the age of 20 unless they have serious moral defects or broad psychological issues (wanting attention, etc.). You say it was 'spur-of-the-moment', but this is disingenuous. The plan itself may have been spur-of-the-moment, but you don't do something like that unless you have an inclination to do it.
Also, her criminal career did not just consist of one crime. Both you and Adam mislead people on here about this, and since you don't want new members "brainwashed", I think we should make it clear that she committed other offences. She assisted Jeremy with the robbery and also with smuggling drugs from the Netherlands. You will say that these escapades were Jeremy's idea. Maybe, but it is unclear how much Jeremy was influenced by Julie. It is also alleged that she was involved in other things on her own account, including smuggling drugs from Canada. I completely accept that Julie Smerchanski is an upstanding lady. We're not talking about her. We're talking about Julie Mugford, who in a sense was a completely different person, and hardly an upstanding character.
At trial, there was nothing in her evidence that only the killer could have told her. (Adam has attempted to demonstrate otherwise, but I was able to take that apart effortlessly. Not that he took any notice).
There was also the part in her evidence when she claimed that she volunteered to identify the bodies in the morgue because she wanted to channel their spirits. What was that all about?
Julie also mislead the court about her deal with the News of the World. I now know what the evidence is for that. I haven't actually seen it myself, but a summary of it has been imparted to me, and it sounds very credible indeed.
She also allowed the court to be misled about her criminal record.
A truthful picture is not quite how you present it, though at the same time, I can understand why you would want to defend her. If Jeremy is guilty, then she helped to convict him.
Yet let us not forget what she did after Jeremy was convicted (or maybe before, who knows?). She posed for a rather racy snap that was published the next day in a scummy tabloid.
I repeat again that I do not airily dismiss Julie or her evidence. I am sceptical of her evidence, but I have thought-through reasons for that position. I add these remarks for balance, as I cannot abide the disingenuousness of both agenda-riven camps in this case. In the Bamber case, the truth is the first victim.
