End of the road ?

[lookout]

Very well done ILB. It can take about 6 weeks for a reply so don't despair.

[Roch]

It's properganda.

Do you mean that the information is not 100% proof of innocence? Propaganda only works if enough people believe it. Given the amount of JB detractors (hugely increased by CAL, and others), as a piece of propaganda, JB saying that the CCRC has had 100% proof of innocence since December 2021 doesn't really work.

It could be that it's factual or it could be that he is exaggerating the importance. However, whatever it was depended upon forensics; the results of which were sufficient to be submitted as separate ground/s, a full nine months after the original submissions. It is unlikely to be something minor.

[Cambridgecutie]

JM had a £25,000 sweetener to find JB guilty. A very good reason don't you think ?

I think Julie Mugford was and could still be a nasty piece of work.  Her behaviour then was inexcusable and I wouldn't even acknowledge her existence if she came to me for employment.  Then or now.

And she knew how to look after herself, and make sure that number one was properly catered for.  And I think she was always number one in her relationship with Bamber, despite Bamber being highly manipulative.

But,

It was the silencer that that the jury came back for more information on, so the Jury were not entirely swayed by her testimony.  Then they went back for another 2.5 hours of deliberation.

There was enough truth in her statement/testimony to be able to trust overall what she said.  The bits that can be corroborated, like the existence of the phonecalls, are important facts in the case.

But with a friend like Julie, you don't need enemies.  And I would guess that that still applies today.

[Jane]

I think Julie Mugford was and could still be a nasty piece of work.  Her behaviour then was inexcusable and I wouldn't even acknowledge her existence if she came to me for employment.  Then or now.

And she knew how to look after herself, and make sure that number one was properly catered for.  And I think she was always number one in her relationship with Bamber, despite Bamber being highly manipulative.

But,

It was the silencer that that the jury came back for more information on, so the Jury were not entirely swayed by her testimony.  Then they went back for another 2.5 hours of deliberation.

There was enough truth in her statement/testimony to be able to trust overall what she said.  The bits that can be corroborated, like the existence of the phonecalls, are important facts in the case.

But with a friend like Julie, you don't need enemies.  And I would guess that that still applies today.

Very insightful, Ke. I concur, although I'm not fully on board with how you see her standing with JB. He was, after all, used to the "top dog" position. Perhaps theirs was a war of attrition?

[ILB]

There is just something of the " hidden fervour " about Julie. I won't judge her just on a gut feeling or just for Bambers benefit. But there is something off about it to me.

On paper it looks compelling to a degree. That she was in turmoil and couldn't keep the secret any longer. But if you look at the evidence closer from her own mouth Bamber had been referencing his plans since 1984 at the earliest. I don't think it's a case of her being in disbelief as such. But by her own words she had the night crystal clear admissions that Bamber had committed the crime. He practically gave her a running commentary.

With what Bamber has been supposed to have mentioned from 1984 at the earliest. She must have known. Yet she stays with him for a significant period.

This was not a naive teenager. She was an educated woman. A trainee teacher. Logically I can't believe if what she says is true she would have wanted to be in the same vicinity as Bamber for any time scale period. Given his horrific admissions

[David1819]

There is just something of the " hidden fervour " about Julie. I won't judge her just on a gut feeling or just for Bambers benefit. But there is something off about it to me.

On paper it looks compelling to a degree. That she was in turmoil and couldn't keep the secret any longer. But if you look at the evidence closer from her own mouth Bamber had been referencing his plans since 1984 at the earliest. I don't think it's a case of her being in disbelief as such. But by her own words she had the night crystal clear admissions that Bamber had committed the crime. He practically gave her a running commentary.

With what Bamber has been supposed to have mentioned from 1984 at the earliest. She must have known. Yet she stays with him for a significant period.

This was not a naive teenager. She was an educated woman. A trainee teacher. Logically I can't believe if what she says is true she would have wanted to be in the same vicinity as Bamber for any time scale period. Given his horrific admissions

There are many problems with Julie's claims. To highlight a few -

Just two days after she went to the police implicating Matthew McDonald as Jeremys hitman. Complete with a story of how Jeremy instructed him to enter the farm. She admits she does not know if Matthew Mcdonald had ever been to the farm in the first place.


"I have been asked what I know about Matthew. I have only met him a couple of times, always at Head Street, Coldhanger. He made me feel very nervous although I do not know why. I am aware that Jeremy met him through a previous relationship, in fact whilst he was living with Sue FORD in Colchester. I do not know if Matthew has ever been to White House Farm".

"I have been asked why I did not make known to any other person, particularly to the authorities the contents of the conversations between myself and Jeremy BAMBER for 20 days, namely the 27th August 1985 when I then told Susan BATTERSBY. In answer to this I can say that in my subconscious I believed what Jeremy had said was true and I would qualify this by stating that I believed Jeremy when he said he had hired Mathew to kill the family".

She believes he was Jeremy's hitman yet doesn't know if he has even ever been to the crime scene?

Then we have her sudden recollection about the twins dying first. This conveniently prevents Colin from inheriting any money should JB be convicted.

As the assumed murderer I think Sheila would have not inherited anything ...

A strong principle in UK law is that no person can benefit in any way from a crime they commit ...

So it would be assumed that as the youngest the twins died last and Colin would have inherited a big slice ...

This principle also explains why it was so important for Robert to see Jeremy convicted of the murders ...

Jeremy's conviction stopped him from inheriting in line with this legal principle ...

So to Robert (a known will fraudster) it was important that Jeremy was convicted and that there was some evidence (Julie's "remembered" statement) that the twins died first ...

It makes no sense (other than to a deranged Sheila perhaps) for anyone to shoot the twins before Nevill ...

Julie did not "remember" Jeremy telling her the twins died first during 4 days with Police ...

Julie was telling lies that Robert Boutflour asked her to tell ...

The truth is easy to see when looking at these details ...

Robert was a known liar (he lied in court about the money and lied to grandma Speakman about Jeremy having died)

Robert was a known will fraudster (his lies to grandma Speakman about Jeremy dying)

Robert was behind the planting of the silencer ...

Robert was behind Julie's lies to the Police ...

His motive was very simple - money ....

[ILB]

David thank you very interesting.

[lookout]

RWB also refused to do a DNA test.

[Adam]

RWB also refused to do a DNA test.

Stop being an arse & provide the source.

[Adam]

There are many problems with Julie's claims. To highlight a few -

Just two days after she went to the police implicating Matthew McDonald as Jeremys hitman. Complete with a story of how Jeremy instructed him to enter the farm. She admits she does not know if Matthew Mcdonald had ever been to the farm in the first place.


"I have been asked what I know about Matthew. I have only met him a couple of times, always at Head Street, Coldhanger. He made me feel very nervous although I do not know why. I am aware that Jeremy met him through a previous relationship, in fact whilst he was living with Sue FORD in Colchester. I do not know if Matthew has ever been to White House Farm".

"I have been asked why I did not make known to any other person, particularly to the authorities the contents of the conversations between myself and Jeremy BAMBER for 20 days, namely the 27th August 1985 when I then told Susan BATTERSBY. In answer to this I can say that in my subconscious I believed what Jeremy had said was true and I would qualify this by stating that I believed Jeremy when he said he had hired Mathew to kill the family".

She believes he was Jeremy's hitman yet doesn't know if he has even ever been to the crime scene?

Then we have her sudden recollection about the twins dying first. This conveniently prevents Colin from inheriting any money should JB be convicted.

Bamber told Julie about MM as a proxy.

Julie did not know if MM had been to WHF before.

What is the issue?

[Adam]

This conveniently prevents Colin from inheriting any money should JB be convicted.

----------

Why would Julie want that?

[Jane]

Bamber told Julie about MM as a proxy.

Julie did not know if MM had been to WHF before.

What is the issue?

Why was it necessary for Julie to know such details as whether, or not, MM had been to the farm previously?  Why would it have occurred to her to ask?  Clearly, he found  out, even if he'd  never previously been there, if, as JB claimed, it was he who'd  killed them.

[Adam]

Julie knew who MM was but barely knew him. She had no way of contacting him. She may have neen aware of the myth of MM being a mercenary.

In other words the perfect proxy.

[lookout]

Stop being an arse & provide the source.

Source/proof that all you can do is copy what others have said without using that pea of a brain you've got.

[Adam]

This conveniently prevents Colin from inheriting any money should JB be convicted.

----------

Why would Julie want that?

Hopefully David will answer.