The Hyper-Reality Of Julie Mugford

[guest29835]

None of us do. Yonks back there was a thread asking for posters to put forward what they believed happened. I think every poster said something different. Who knows, ONE of them may have been correct. As for the trial, he was convicted more on a balance of probabilities, than on one point in particular.

Again, we appear to be in agreement.  I don't know if you meant here 'balance of probabilities' as a term of art, but I do think the case was not proved to the criminal standard.  I base that opinion on the evidence the jury would have seen in 1986, to the extent that is available to us.  And the position has only worsened for the prosecution since.  On the basis of the 1986 evidence, he would lose a civil case, and had he been acquitted in the criminal trial, there's a fair chance he would have lost much of the estates in an inheritance action by the relatives; but he should have been acquitted by the jury in the criminal trial itself.

[Rob_]

Yes.  How I came up with the theory is that I was convinced in my own head that Jeremy is factually guilty.  To an extent, that default position is still with me now.  I'm inclined to think he did do it.  But I was sat there racking my brain trying to figure out how he did it. 

The logistics of it - getting to and from the farmhouse.

Subduing Sheila and the risk of Sheila perambulating around.

There just seemed to be so many problems.

Together with this, I've always been intrigued by the photo of Sheila's bedroom and wondered if this was a 'dog that didn't bark' clue.

I then re-thought the whole thing and came up with a way that he could have done it, had he planned it through properly.  I've not gone over how I think he could have gone to and from the farmhouse, but in regard to Sheila, ideally he would kill her first while she is still in bed, then he would leave her and kill the rest.  Then he would return and clean up and move her.

The reason the detectives don't notice this is, quite simply, because he does an excellent job of cleaning-up the relevant area, which is why it looks so neat.  No doubt he does leave small clues, but they are overlooked.

As for why he leaves her in the main bedroom, my explanation for that is simply that he knows he is leaving blood everywhere he goes and the main bedroom is nearest - it's just across the landing - so it's more practical to leave Sheila there than risk carrying her to the twins' bedroom.  It also means any residual blood trail can be explained as spatter.

I don't believe this is how he did it, though.

I think it would be pretty obvious to the Police QC if this was done, the blood patterns would be all wrong?

If JB did do something like this it was well planned and thought out so why does he almost deliberately give himself away!

[Adam]

Supporters have also said an up & awake Sheila would have put up resistance (or froze). Not a problem for Bamber. He was several times stronger than her.

[guest29835]

I think it would be pretty obvious to the Police OC if this was done, the blood patterns would be all wrong?

If JB did do something like this it was well planned and thought out so why does he almost deliberately give himself away!

Yes, the blood spatter is one issue with such a plan. The blood would be on her after she was shot in bed, but there was also what appears to be aspirated blood on the surrounding carpet.  Whichever way you look at it, there's a flaw.  We're left with the problem of how he incapacitates her in order to shoot her.

[killingeve]

I'm not going to reply to you line-by-line and get sucked into your game.  The issue I take with you is more a general pattern of behaviour in which you seem to want to personalise things and take digs at people.  It's a bit off-putting.  I think you and Steve need to move out of that mode and just stick to content.  By all means, criticise, but try not to take offence and lash out just because somebody differs in their views from your own.  Try giving somebody the benefit of the doubt first.  Consider also that this is an internet forum, so we don't have the benefit of things like tone of voice, etc., so when you launch into these attacks and digs, it will come across in the worst way possible.  It's unavoidable.

You could argue that the 'pseudo-intellectual' jibe is a comment on posting and style and so not strictly an insult, but something doesn't have to be strictly ad hominem to be personal.  To me, the distinction between being personal and relevant comment is clear.  Moreover, I'm not clear where all these personal digs are getting us, as opposed to discussing what people say.  You think I'm a pseudo-intellectual.  Marvellous, I'll make a note of that.  Thanks.  But where does it get us?  I could say you're lots of things, but what does it achieve?

When I talk about ramifications and consequences, I'm not making threats, I'm simply saying what is right there in that post you just read.  If you and Steve want to continue in this obnoxious mode of posting, then clearly it makes it difficult for me to sympathise with anything you have to say or treat you convivially as a fellow poster.  I'm only human.  This in turn will affect the atmosphere on the Forum.  This is only to be expected.

You think my posts are ridiculous, but your attempt to pull me up on a fact ended with you flat on your face after I pointed out that your understanding of the facts is wrong.  Your understanding of the case isn't as good as it needs to be for somebody who comes on here with all this swagger and attitude.

Its always others, never you.  Have you forgotten your angry outburst whereby you told the moderator to go suck ****?   

I can neither agree or disagree since I've no idea what you're talking about.  I do know that you attempted to bluff your way on a thread about Irish politics and when I copied and pasted an excerpt showing such you took great offence to the point of TELLING me not to copy and paste!

You think I've got swagger and attitude and I think you're a massive windbag 

[Adam]

Yes, the blood spatter is one issue with such a plan. The blood would be on her after she was shot in bed, but there was also what appears to be aspirated blood on the surrounding carpet.  Whichever way you look at it, there's a flaw.  We're left with the problem of how he incapacitates her in order to shoot her.

Bamber is several times stronger than Sheila.

Sheila was very docile, half asleep & on medication. Bamber had checked on her during his supper reconnaisance.

Simple.

[Adam]

QC is always trying to find flaws in the straight forward Bamber scenario.

What did he do when I dissected his Sheila scenario? Cried to NGB.

[Adam]

QC is always trying to find flaws in the straight forward Bamber scenario.

What did he do when I dissected his Sheila scenario? Cried to NGB.

To be fair Rob was nearly as bad.

He created a Sheila. Then said 'a Sheila scenario is not important' when I posted 34 flaws.

[Rob_]

To be fair Rob was nearly as bad.

He created a Sheila. Then said 'a Sheila scenario is not important' when I posted 34 flaws.

Well when we look at your JB scenario Adam and CC's there are such huge differences that to me suggest there is a major problem not just flaws in the guilters argument? Perhaps you and CC can get together and produce something that at least is plausible?

[Adam]

Well when we look at your JB scenario Adam and CC's there are such huge differences that to me suggest there is a major problem not just flaws in the guilters argument? Perhaps you and CC can get together and produce something that at least is plausible?

Yes, Sheila being tied up was a new one on me.

Mine & CAL's scenarios are similar.

[guest29835]

QC is always trying to find flaws in the straight forward Bamber scenario.

What did he do when I dissected his Sheila scenario? Cried to NGB.

Thanks Adam.  NGB1066 had to give me some tissues I was crying that much.

[guest29835]

Its always others, never you.  Have you forgotten your angry outburst whereby you told the moderator to go suck ****?   

I can neither agree or disagree since I've no idea what you're talking about.  I do know that you attempted to bluff your way on a thread about Irish politics and when I copied and pasted an excerpt showing such you took great offence to the point of TELLING me not to copy and paste!

You think I've got swagger and attitude and I think you're a massive windbag 

You're not taking it in.

[Rob_]

Yes, Sheila being tied up was a new one on me.

Mine & CAL's scenarios are similar.

Don't think I have seen CAL's I will dig it out.