All assumptions as usual. How long is it going to take you to come up with something worth debating, like where would JM have stood as a prosecution witness if she herself had been prosecuted for her past dealings in drugs and the cheque fraud ?
You don't need Julie Mugford to find Jeremy Bamber guilty. Her statement to police was important in getting the case turned around. But the case shouldn't have needed turning around in the first place.
You don't actually need Julie Mugfords statement/testimony to find Jeremy Bamber guilty. There is plenty of other evidence that does that.
And maybe Julie Mulford's testimony did convince the jury that Jeremy Bamber was guilty, and so she was important in that regard, but it still doesn't change the facts, which is that there is plenty of evidence that proves that Jeremy Bamber is guilty.
If it went to court today, there would be even more evidence that could be considered, that wasn't presented to the jury in 1986, that points to Jeremy Bambers guilt.
And there is
insurmountable proof that Sheila was murdered. And that proof automatically makes Jeremy Bamber guilty, on account of his absolute refusal to allow his defence team to suggest the possible involvement of a third party.
His defence team, have been unable to introduce reasonable doubt into the equation, because Jeremy Bamber insists that it was Sheila who committed the crime.
His 37 year campaign to prove Sheila's guilt, makes no sense whatsoever, given that he says he wasn't there and that he was asleep in his bed when it all kicked off. So how does he know that Sheila is guilty? An innocent person wouldn't know this. So why the 37 year long campaign?
But it does make sense if you are guilty, and you are trying to frame your sister.
But as everything stands right now, Julie Mugford is an irrelevance. Relevant then, but irrelevant now.
