Greetings !

[RodCrosby]

Hi, I'm a private researcher, with an interest in True Crime.

In 2018, a successful true-crime author, after examining all alternative theories,  credited me with abducing, in 2008, on balance, "the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history." [The Wallace Case]

On the Bamber Case, put me down as "sceptical" as to his guilt, although I don't claim to be any kind of expert on this case.

Bamber is, in many ways, similar to Wallace, and Jonathan Jones and Sheila Bowler [all convictions quashed], although the evidence, such as it is, is much more dense and impenetrable, and contested both ways.

In my spare time, I am a private pilot of gyrocopters.

[ngb1066]

Hi, I'm a private researcher, with an interest in True Crime.

In 2018, a successful true-crime author, after examining all alternative theories,  credited me with abducing, in 2008, on balance, "the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history." [The Wallace Case]

On the Bamber Case, put me down as "sceptical" as to his guilt, although I don't claim to be any kind of expert on this case.

Bamber is, in many ways, similar to Wallace, and Jonathan Jones and Sheila Bowler [all convictions quashed], although the evidence, such as it is, is much more dense and impenetrable, and contested both ways.

In my spare time, I am a private pilot of gyrocopters.

Welcome to the forum.

Where do you fly gyrocopters?  What type do you fly?

 

[RodCrosby]

Thanks

I trained in Inverness, but my aircraft is now based at my private strip between Liverpool and Manchester.

I have an MTO Sport open-cockpit gyrocopter.

[snow66!]

Hello Rod ,i am also new to this forum and sceptical of JBs guilt.Will be very interested to hear your theories.

[killingeve]

Hi and welcome to the forum Rod.

[RodCrosby]

Hello Rod ,i am also new to this forum and sceptical of JBs guilt.Will be very interested to hear your theories.

I tend to think it all hinges, legally, on Mugford.

If you believe her, there is just enough "evidence" to perhaps, minimally, sustain a conviction.

Without her, there is essentially nothing, but theory and suspicion. And a ton of logic against.

[guest29835]

I tend to think it all hinges, legally, on Mugford.

If you believe her, there is just enough "evidence" to perhaps, minimally, sustain a conviction.

Without her, there is essentially nothing, but theory and suspicion. And a ton of logic against.

Rod,

If the silencer evidence is overturned, would you say the convictions are still safe and satisfactory due to Julie Mugford's evidence?

[RodCrosby]

I have never, since examining the case, believed the convictions are safe.

But that is my personal opinion, acknowledging that I am not an expert on all of the evidence.

If ever there was a borderline case, between legally "insufficient" and "maybe just, just enough", Bamber is THE case.

The telephone evidence swings it for me. If the Prosecution has to make excuses, and torture the evidence on its plain reading that Nevill made a call, then, whether or not Bamber actually killed his relatives, the case cannot be said to be proved.

[guest29835]

I have never, since examining the case, believed the convictions are safe.

But that is my personal opinion, acknowledging that I am not an expert on all of the evidence.

If ever there was a borderline case, between legally "insufficient" and "maybe just, just enough", Bamber is THE case.

The telephone evidence swings it for me. If the Prosecution has to make excuses, and torture the evidence on its plain reading that Nevill made a call, then, whether or not Bamber actually killed his relatives, the case cannot be said to be proved.

OK, I will interpret that to mean you don't believe Julie Mugford's evidence would be enough. I ask because it's clear that the two main planks of the case are Julie Mugford's evidence and the blood in the silencer - this is officially admitted.

That being so, are you saying you think Julie Mugford lied?  Or was she just mistaken in some way about what Jeremy was telling her?  Or do you think Jeremy actually could have done it and she was in on it and betrayed him to save herself?

[lookout]

For starters JM lied about Malcolm McDonald and also Brett Collins as being two suspects-----Wrong !
Who in their right mind is going to believe anything else she said ?

[killingeve]

For starters JM lied about Malcolm McDonald and also Brett Collins as being two suspects-----Wrong !
Who in their right mind is going to believe anything else she said ?

The CT do!  They recite from Julie Mugford's testimony about her trying to smother Bamber and saying something like if I can't have you no one can!  You can't cherry pick pieces of her testimony.  Either you believe her or you don't. 

[Jane]

The CT do!  They recite from Julie Mugford's testimony about her trying to smother Bamber and saying something like if I can't have you no one can!  You can't cherry pick pieces of her testimony.  Either you believe her or you don't.

Wasn't she advised, by JB, that it's always best to tell as much of the truth as possible? I think she told much of the truth, just not ALL of the truth.

[guest29835]

The CT do!  They recite from Julie Mugford's testimony about her trying to smother Bamber and saying something like if I can't have you no one can!  You can't cherry pick pieces of her testimony.  Either you believe her or you don't.

You can cherry pick evidence. This is because a witness can tell the truth about one thing but not the other, and if something that they are lying about or telling the truth about helps your case, the usual way to proceed is to exploit it to further your case.  I've never heard of any lawyer doing otherwise.  If you have, then I don't want him as my lawyer.

However, my understanding was always that Jeremy denied such an incident took place, and it's not possible for him to know anyway - it's entirely Julie's account.  He said he simply left the flat after they broke up that morning and it was otherwise uneventful.  If the Campaign Team now say differently, that may be because Jeremy does tell lies.  But that doesn't mean Jeremy is guilty.

The adage,  "Dishonest in one thing, dishonest is all things", is only a rule of thumb, it should not be applied to formal situations where things need to be weighed up with evidence.

[lookout]

The CT do!  They recite from Julie Mugford's testimony about her trying to smother Bamber and saying something like if I can't have you no one can!  You can't cherry pick pieces of her testimony.  Either you believe her or you don't.

The CT can't afford to lie ! And don't anyway because whatever they say is already scripted from legal documents from which are read from.

[lookout]

The CT didn't go to court and lie did they ?