Mary Mugford's husband

[Jane]

That's interesting. On here it's been said a judge cannot tell a jury to convict and would not do so.  Yet the foreman of the jury told a Bamber officer that the judge did exactly that, and furthermore, if the judge hadn't told them, Bamber would have walked free.

There's also something about how words are interpreted. How many times are words read wrongly on this forum? Rarely is it asked what's meant? Who's going to ask that of a judge?

[Cambridgecutie]

There are four options. CAL made it up. The detective made it up. The foreman of the jury made it up. None of the above made it up.

No idea what you're talking about Roch.  I've taken an extract from Bamber v Regina 2002 which quotes from the judge's summing up.  What do you think is likely to be more reliable?  Official court docs, CAL, an unnamed detective, an unnamed foreman of the jury?  The latter two based on hearsay. 

I think you fall into the trap William Clegg KC describes in his vid ie you spend an inordinate amount of time listening to Bamber/supporters without considering what the other side are saying and whether or not they can actually establish what they claim.

[Roch]

There's also something about how words are interpreted. How many times are words read wrongly on this forum? Rarely is it asked what's meant? Who's going to ask that of a judge?

It's in black and white. Unless you mean her interpretation.

[Roch]

No idea what you're talking about Roch.  I've taken an extract from Bamber v Regina 2002 which quotes from the judge's summing up.  What do you think is likely to be more reliable?  Official court docs, CAL, an unnamed detective, an unnamed foreman of the jury?  The latter two based on hearsay. 

I think you fall into the trap William Clegg KC describes in his vid ie you spend an inordinate amount of time listening to Bamber/supporters without considering what the other side are saying and whether or not they can actually establish what they claim.

CAL isn't a JB supporter.

[Jane]

It's in black and white. Unless you mean her interpretation.

Whose interpretation?

[Roch]

Whose interpretation?

CAL's.

[Jane]

CAL's.

But she gleaned her opinion from a person closer to the judge than herself, ergo, said person will, presumably along with fellow jury members, already have interpreted his words, passing that interpretation to CAL.

[Roch]

But she gleaned her opinion from a person closer to the judge than herself, ergo, said person will, presumably along with fellow jury members, already have interpreted his words, passing that interpretation to CAL.

The line of communication is Foreman of the Jury - Detective - CAL. In that order. The Foreman of the Jury would know from deliberations, what the jury's position was. It's not brain surgery.  He was walking until the judge's summing up - which the jury interpreted as a direction they should find him guilty. Two members must have refused to do so, despite the said interpreted direction (hence 10/2).  None of this is complex.

[Jane]

The line of communication is Foreman of the Jury - Detective - CAL. In that order. The Foreman of the Jury would know from deliberations, what the jury's position was. It's not brain surgery.  He was walking until the judge's summing up - which the jury interpreted as a direction they should find him guilty. Two members must have refused to do so, despite the said interpreted direction (hence 10/2).  None of this is complex.

Unlike CC, I haven't looked at Bamber v Regina 2002, so I don't have the judges exact words, but unless there was 100% exactness about them, they may have been open to interpretation................from Foreman to Detective to CAL?

[Roch]

Unlike CC, I haven't looked at Bamber v Regina 2002, so I don't have the judges exact words, but unless there was 100% exactness about them, they may have been open to interpretation................from Foreman to Detective to CAL?

Anyway, getting back to the original question, JB has expressed that when he and JM split, either JM or Mary (not sure which), lost their protection (JB) from Mary's abusive husband.  He thinks this was a motivating factor for JM in the year up to the trial.

[Steve_uk]

Anyway, getting back to the original question, JB has expressed that when he and JM split, either JM or Mary (not sure which), lost their protection (JB) from Mary's abusive husband.  He thinks this was a motivating factor for JM in the year up to the trial.

I don't know where you're getting this from. It sounds like tittle-tattle to me.

[Cambridgecutie]

I don't know where you're getting this from. It sounds like tittle-tattle to me.
[/quote

Roch involved in tittle-tattle...no...I don't believe it 

[Zoso]

Well if it is then I doubt the man in the image with JS/M connected with the 2002 appeal is her husband as they look nothing alike even allowing for some two decades plus of ageing. 

And I'm not really too sure why others are interested in JS/M's husband?

Nor am I, he has nothing to do with the case.

[Cambridgecutie]

The line of communication is Foreman of the Jury - Detective - CAL. In that order. The Foreman of the Jury would know from deliberations, what the jury's position was. It's not brain surgery.  He was walking until the judge's summing up - which the jury interpreted as a direction they should find him guilty. Two members must have refused to do so, despite the said interpreted direction (hence 10/2).  None of this is complex.

You have no evidence for your assertion.  The evidence suggests the blood evidence weighed heavily in the minds of jurors hence the question to the judge about this very matter which is documented here in the library. 

[Cambridgecutie]

CAL isn't a JB supporter.

I never said she was.  But she was capable of writing a book which in the main was objective and left the reader wondering...