Mary Mugford's husband

[Cambridgecutie]

No it didn't..

Yes it did.  Hence the judge told the jury they could convict on that alone.  And hence the case went back to the CoA in 2002 based on LCN DNA evidence.

[Cambridgecutie]

Ah yes, Farcebook - that fount of knowledge, truth and logical thinking.

It was a link to JS's Facebook page.  This was years ago when no one seemed to give a damn about privacy settings.  It wasn't something that I agreed with but I had a little snoop anyway 

[ILB]

Or she may fess up and my theory that DS Jones threatened her with accessory to murder might be correct.  In those circumstances JB might find it within himself to forigive and forget especially since the blood evidence secured the conviction.

In any event I am not convinced you have the right Greg.

I am always right.

[Cambridgecutie]

I am always right.

No.  I am always right 

[ILB]

No.  I am always right 

I guarantee you that's Julie's husband.

Didn't expect a debate to start about it to be honest haha

[Cambridgecutie]

I guarantee you that's Julie's husband.

Didn't expect a debate to start about it to be honest haha

Prove it!

[ILB]

Prove it!

Prove otherwise 

[Cambridgecutie]

Prove otherwise 

You are the one wanting to make guarantees.

[Jane]

Prove it!

On the memorial page of a local? paper, there are personal messages offering condolences to Julie and naming the children.

[Cambridgecutie]

On the memorial page of a local? paper, there are personal messages offering condolences to Julie and naming the children.

Yes I appreciate this.  I've read the memorial page I think you are referring to.  But is the reference to Julie, Julie nee Mugford who testified at JB's trial?  I have no idea of the names of her children.  As I said I was led to believe she had two sons not a son and a daughter. 

To my eye the man in the image with JM connected to her UK visit/2002 appeal looks nothing like the image of the man on the memorial page even allowing for ageing.  But afaik there's no evidence the man in the image connected to the 2002 appeal was JM's husband, is there?  He might have been someone acting on her behalf in a professional capacity or a friend/member of her family?

[Zoso]

Prove it!

He's right, it is.

[Roch]

Yes it did.  Hence the judge told the jury they could convict on that alone.  And hence the case went back to the CoA in 2002 based on LCN DNA evidence.

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.

[Cambridgecutie]

He's right, it is.

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? 

[Cambridgecutie]

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.

But what evidence do you have that the foreman of the jury told the Bamber officer the judge told the jury to convict?  You seem to take any old data if it suits your narrative without any consideration for the veracity.

This is what the judge told the jury and yes the blood/silencer was the linchpin:

The summing up 153. When Drake J. summed up to the jury, he suggested that there were three "crucial questions". The first, and he made clear that they were not in any order of importance, was whether they believed Julie Mugford? If they were sure that she had told the truth it meant the appellant had planned and carried out the killings. The second was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide? The third was whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill Bamber to his son? If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of the appellant's story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.

154. In dealing with the second question, whether Sheila Caffell may have killed the others and then committed suicide, the judge made clear that answering this question involved a number of different considerations. He suggested that one was "clearly of paramount importance", namely whether the second and fatal shot to Sheila Caffell was fired with the silencer on. If it was, she could not have fired that shot. He made clear that there were other considerations and the jury could come to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell did not carry out the killings "even without reference to the sound moderator". He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

 

[Roch]

But what evidence do you have that the foreman of the jury told the Bamber officer the judge told the jury to convict?  You seem to take any old data if it suits your narrative without any consideration for the veracity.

This is what the judge told the jury and yes the blood/silencer was the linchpin:

The summing up 153. When Drake J. summed up to the jury, he suggested that there were three "crucial questions". The first, and he made clear that they were not in any order of importance, was whether they believed Julie Mugford? If they were sure that she had told the truth it meant the appellant had planned and carried out the killings. The second was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide? The third was whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill Bamber to his son? If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of the appellant's story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.

154. In dealing with the second question, whether Sheila Caffell may have killed the others and then committed suicide, the judge made clear that answering this question involved a number of different considerations. He suggested that one was "clearly of paramount importance", namely whether the second and fatal shot to Sheila Caffell was fired with the silencer on. If it was, she could not have fired that shot. He made clear that there were other considerations and the jury could come to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell did not carry out the killings "even without reference to the sound moderator". He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

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.