Mary Mugford's husband

[Roch]

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.

Why would there be evidence for my assertion? You clearly haven't thought this through. And it's not my assertion. Read the paragraph yourself.

[Cambridgecutie]

Why would there be evidence for my assertion? You clearly haven't thought this through. And it's not my assertion. Read the paragraph yourself.

Unlike you I am capable of carrying out due diligence on data.  I place little/next to no weight on hearsay about what the jury foreman told a detective who told CAL. 

The judge correctly, imo, directed the jury to the silencer evidence.  At face value this is by far the most compelling evidence that the verdict was the correct one.  It is clear the blood aspect of the silencer weighed heavily on the minds of jurors hence the question to the judge for clarification.  Even MT agrees it was the turning point in the case:

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,381.msg5351.html#msg5351

[Roch]

Unlike you I am capable of carrying out due diligence on data.  I place little/next to no weight on hearsay about what the jury foreman told a detective who told CAL. 

The judge correctly, imo, directed the jury to the silencer evidence.  At face value this is by far the most compelling evidence that the verdict was the correct one.  It is clear the blood aspect of the silencer weighed heavily on the minds of jurors hence the question to the judge for clarification.  Even MT agrees it was the turning point in the case:

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,381.msg5351.html#msg5351

Were you in the jury? The foreman was. He says it was the judge.

[Cambridgecutie]

Were you in the jury? The foreman was. He says it was the judge.

Where are your claims documeted?

I have supplied you with a link (please read) which provides a robust audit trail of my claim.  The jury asked the judge to clarify the blood evidence.  This was done.  The jury retired to consider and returned with their verdicts. 

[Roch]

Where are your claims documeted?

I have supplied you with a link (please read) which provides a robust audit trail of my claim.  The jury asked the judge to clarify the blood evidence.  This was done.  The jury retired to consider and returned with their verdicts.

Why would my claims be officially documented?  Under what remit? Within which framework? The foreman of the jury has told a detective that if it wasn't for the judge 'telling' them to convict Bamber, he would have walked.  The jury interpreted the judge's summing up as an instruction. Two refused to join the others in adhering to the instruction.

I really do not understand why you go out of your way to be obtuse in certain situations.

[Jane]

Why would my claims be officially documented?  Under what remit? Within which framework? The foreman of the jury has told a detective that if it wasn't for the judge 'telling' them to convict Bamber, he would have walked.  The jury interpreted the judge's summing up as an instruction. Two refused to join the others in adhering to the instruction.

I really do not understand why you go out of your way to be obtuse in certain situations.

Actually, all the foreman could say, truthfully, was that it sounded, to most of them, as if the judge was 'telling' them/giving them permission to convict. It maybe that such was the clarification most of them were seeking, albeit, two chose not to.

[Cambridgecutie]

Why would my claims be officially documented?  Under what remit? Within which framework? The foreman of the jury has told a detective that if it wasn't for the judge 'telling' them to convict Bamber, he would have walked.  The jury interpreted the judge's summing up as an instruction. Two refused to join the others in adhering to the instruction.

I really do not understand why you go out of your way to be obtuse in certain situations.

You are relying on a claim that the foreman of the jury told a detective what you claim above.  Where is the evidence?  The link I provided you with documents the conversations between the judge, jury and jury foreman. 

[Cambridgecutie]

Actually, all the foreman could say, truthfully, was that it sounded, to most of them, as if the judge was 'telling' them/giving them permission to convict. It maybe that such was the clarification most of them were seeking, albeit, two chose not to.

It is documented in the link I provided the conversation between judge, jury and jury foreman.

[Roch]

Actually, all the foreman could say, truthfully, was that it sounded, to most of them, as if the judge was 'telling' them/giving them permission to convict. It maybe that such was the clarification most of them were seeking, albeit, two chose not to.

Why would they be seeking permission to convict, if he was going to walk?

[Roch]

You are relying on a claim that the foreman of the jury told a detective what you claim above.  Where is the evidence?  The link I provided you with documents the conversations between the judge, jury and jury foreman.

Again I ask again, within which framework would the foreman's information have been officially recorded? Under what remit?

[Jane]

Why would they be seeking permission to convict, if he was going to walk?

Possibly because, up to that point, they weren't quite sure? Really, Roch, can you say, with 100% truthfulness, that you've never been persuaded to change your mind?

[Zoso]

Unlike you I am capable of carrying out due diligence on data.  I place little/next to no weight on hearsay about what the jury foreman told a detective who told CAL. 

The judge correctly, imo, directed the jury to the silencer evidence.  At face value this is by far the most compelling evidence that the verdict was the correct one.  It is clear the blood aspect of the silencer weighed heavily on the minds of jurors hence the question to the judge for clarification.  Even MT agrees it was the turning point in the case:

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,381.msg5351.html#msg5351

Completely agree.

[ILB]

I have never doubted that justice drakes directions reference the silencer were damning to Bamber. It's blatantly obvious. He gave a route to verdict on this instance alone.

However from a more relatable perspective I do agree with the prosecution counsel the late Anthony Arlidge that the evidence of JM was the strongest. ( or on par with the silencer) She whether you believe she was brainwashed or not came across well in the witness box and never faltered despite attempts by Rivlin. As a juror a simple question I would say to myself is Would I believe this young woman would perjure herself so badly to put a man she was in love away for life?

Jurors are human and I believe found JM very credible.

[Roch]

Jurors are human and I believe found JM very credible.

They didn't, according to one jury member who voted guilty.

[Jane]

They didn't, according to one jury member who voted guilty.

A sweeping statement, that!  I have serious doubts about the entire jury not finding Julie credible, especially as it's the opinion of just "one jury member".