Build up to 'That is what you have got to try and establish'.

[lookout]

QC should have appeared on the 'docu'. And David, regarding Mugford. In fact' I think if David had have been let loose regarding Mugford's testimony, a lot of people would have come away with real doubt about the conviction.

I'd personally have liked to have seen someone like QC grilling Mugford in between her dramas of snivelling as I'm sure he'd have continued and not given up like Rivlin did. I notice she didn't cry when Arlidge questioned her.
 He was probably thinking about his bit of fluff who was 50 years younger than him----eeuuwwww !

[Steve_uk]

Ordinarily, a witness in criminal proceedings does not swear an affidavit.  Normally, they give a statement of truth to the police, which is encapsulated in a witness statement - which is signed - and then they swear an oath when giving evidence at the Crown Court.

And it was a Crown Court, I believe, for James Richards, not the High Court, as you claim.

Of course, it could be that for some reason James Richards did also give an affidavit, and it may also be he appeared at a High Court in connection with this case.  You're the one making these claims, so I was merely asking you for your source and to explain.  Instead of answering, you insult me.  [Q. for Moderator: Is that allowed?]

It would appear you are telling us you have got your facts wrong because you don't know or understand the law, but instead of graciously admitting this, you throw insults at me and affect to pretend I am the ignorant and stupid one.

Yes it was Chelmsford Crown Court.

[guest29835]

Yes it was Chelmsford Crown Court.

In fact, everything you have just been saying about James Richards is incorrect.  You used the wrong terminology and caused confusion, while ironically telling me I am lacking in intelligence and knowledge about the law. 

Of course, if James Richards has entered into an affidavit, you should tell us how you know that.  I don't recall reading anything about that and it wouldn't be the usual procedure.

[Steve_uk]

I'd personally have liked to have seen someone like QC grilling Mugford in between her dramas of snivelling as I'm sure he'd have continued and not given up like Rivlin did. I notice she didn't cry when Arlidge questioned her.
 He was probably thinking about his bit of fluff who was 50 years younger than him----eeuuwwww !

What could the Defence have done differently lookout re: Julie? As for Arlidge's bit of fluff, he had his mid-life crisis quite late on, didn't he..https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186493/Barrister-Anthony-Arlidge-QC-76-left-partner-25-year-old-Oxford-graduate-insists-mother-approves.html

[lookout]

I wonder what attracted a young girl to an old wizened millionaire ?

[Steve_uk]

In fact, everything you have just been saying about James Richards is incorrect.  You used the wrong terminology and caused confusion, while ironically telling me I am lacking in intelligence and knowledge about the law. 

Of course, if James Richards has entered into an affidavit, you should tell us how you know that.  I don't recall reading anything about that and it wouldn't be the usual procedure.

All potential witnesses have to give statements to Police and sign them. It may not have been a formal affidavit.

[lookout]

What could the Defence have done differently lookout re: Julie? As for Arlidge's bit of fluff, he had his mid-life crisis quite late on, didn't he..https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186493/Barrister-Anthony-Arlidge-QC-76-left-partner-25-year-old-Oxford-graduate-insists-mother-approves.html

Well I'm surprised that Rivlin never saw through the " tears ".  Not much good in the observation department was he ?

[Steve_uk]

Well I'm surprised that Rivlin never saw through the " tears ".  Not much good in the observation department was he ?

There's not much you can do except offer the witness a glass of water or call for a recess.

[lookout]

There's not much you can do except offer the witness a glass of water or call for a recess.

Apparently he gave up altogether.

[lookout]

I think he might have had the sense to continue in farming until his parents died a natural death, or at least any normal person would have. But Jeremy had a character defect, possibly exacerbated by his recreational drug use that obfuscated reality. He saw the chance to commit what he told Julie would be the "perfect crime" and justified to himself the loss of five lives thereby.

It was Sheila's cocaine snorting that hadn't helped her mental state, I don't know about JB's odd smoke of cannabis. It wasn't the skunk that we have now or I could have understood if he'd had defects.

[guest29835]

You've got some of this right but if Barbara is Nevill's confidante then she is by far the most important character of the two. Nevill confides in her that he has a premonition of his own demise. You couldn't get a more serious discussion.

Notice here the obscure way Steve expresses this.  I have been led to believe that this was a suspected murder plot, the story being underpinned by Julie's admission that she supplied Jeremy with sedatives for an earlier abortive murder scheme.

Steve calls it a 'premonition'.  This is over-articulation and suggests there is dissembling going on. 

I cannot say for sure whether Barbara had such a conversation with Nevill on the terms she claims, but what is suspicious is that Nevill should believe that Jeremy would only kill him.  Why would he do that?  And reference is made to a dossier and I must wonder where this dossier is?  The police and then the relatives and Barbara herself had custody of and access to Nevill's papers and effects during the relevant period.

Perhaps a guilter on here could clear all this up by starting a new thread outlining the full story for us, with the supporting evidence?  Instead of telling us about 'premonitions', you can give us a precise account.

Back to Julie and the claim about sedatives.  Did Julie ever clarify what sedatives were to be used and that she supplied to Jeremy?  Were they prescription or over-the-counter?  What brand?

[Adam]

Julie had sleeping pills. Bamber confirms in his police interviews he was aware of them.

Whether Bamber tried them himself is her word against his.

[guest29835]

Julie had sleeping pills. Bamber confirms in his police interviews he was aware of them.

Whether Bamber tried them himself is her word against his.

From where?

She was his steady girlfriend, so in the ordinary course of affairs he would know she was taking sleeping pills.

[Adam]

From where?

She was his steady girlfriend, so in the ordinary course of affairs he would know she was taking sleeping pills.

She was taking sleeping pills. Bamber was aware of them.

What is the issue?

[guest29835]

She was taking sleeping pills. Bamber was aware of them.

What is the issue?

Were they prescription or over-the-counter?

The issue is that I am suspicious of everybody and everything and I like checking things down to the nitty-gritty.  You often find that things aren't what they seem.  People tell lies quite a lot.