Mary Mugford's husband

[Roch]

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".

You need to read the paragraph. Clearly it isn't just the view of one member he is referring to.

[Hardy Boy]

You need to read the paragraph. Clearly it isn't just the view of one member he is referring to.

I always remember this statement from David Connett a journalist at the trial Roch

He did establish that she (Julie Mugford) went to the police after Bamber had upset her by ending the relationship. Personally, I couldn't understand how she could be relied upon as a witness, but others, particularly women, thought the contradictions in her evidence made her more compelling.

Julie Mugford would not have been a credible witness in my view Roch,  if true, she knew of his plans she knew of his involvement in it, and she chose to cover for him, either way, depending how you look at things,  she’s a guilty party in this by her own admission and she did it because he had jilted her.

[Roch]

I always remember this statement from David Connett a journalist at the trial Roch

He did establish that she (Julie Mugford) went to the police after Bamber had upset her by ending the relationship. Personally, I couldn't understand how she could be relied upon as a witness, but others, particularly women, thought the contradictions in her evidence made her more compelling.

Julie Mugford would not have been a credible witness in my view Roch,  if true, she knew of his plans she knew of his involvement in it, and she chose to cover for him, either way, depending how you look at things,  she’s a guilty party in this by her own admission and she did it because he had jilted her.

According to Vic the relatives' former spokesperson, the relatives regarded Julie in a bad light. Now why would that be?

[Hardy Boy]

According to Vic the relatives' former spokesperson, the relatives regarded Julie in a bad light. Now why would that be?

Hi Roch, yes I remember Vic saying such, and if I was a family member I would have the same view as well.

[Steve_uk]

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

Weren't the two jury members who voted not guilty female? A young man in a smart suit, well-presented, clean cut, the man who claimed he could get anyone to believe anything, the alter ego of the farmer labelled Stinko and who was dependent on his parents' largesse.

So many youngsters these days living in a fantasy world, dependent on central nervous system stimulants to break the perceived monotony of the working week, yet who in reality do not know how lucky they really are.

[Steve_uk]

According to Vic the relatives' former spokesperson, the relatives regarded Julie in a bad light. Now why would that be?

I recall David Boutflour stating he didn't understand why Julie didn't tell him what she knew when they both went from Bourtree Cottage to the Chequers for lunch. Of course in retrospect the relatives and Colin had a right to question Julie's role in the affair.

[Cambridgecutie]

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

It is clear to see if you read the information I uploaded.  It even contains timings.  The jury, justifiably so, aksed for clarification around the blood evidence.  This was provided.  You might argue that the information provided was not entirely accurate.  Nevertheless it was provided and the jury returned a verdict. 

[Cambridgecutie]

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.

Please provide your evidence for this.

[Cambridgecutie]

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.

If from a judicial perspective this was true then how come the CCRC referred the case to CoA in 2002 on the back of the blood evidence?  If JM's testimony is as strong as you make out then why didn't the CCRC trot this out to take precedence?

If from the jurors perspective this was true then how come they sought clarification from the judge about the blood evidence and shortly afterwards returned a verdict?

[Adam]

If from a judicial perspective this was true then how come the CCRC referred the case to CoA in 2002 on the back of the blood evidence?  If JM's testimony is as strong as you make out then why didn't the CCRC trot this out to take precedence?

If from the jurors perspective this was true then how come they sought clarification from the judge about the blood evidence and shortly afterwards returned a verdict?

It was DNA evidence in 2002.

Both the relatives and COA were disappointed it was referred.

[Cambridgecutie]

It was DNA evidence in 2002.

Both the relatives and COA were disappointed it was referred.

It was LCN DNA evidence in 2002 in an attempt to undermine the flake of blood.  Still the lawyers were caught up in the mixed blood theory and not getting to the heart of the issue ie fabrication.

Whatever happens the relatives will be disappointed.  They want JB to fade away.  That's not going to happen.

The CoA will not be disappointed if it is presented with material that meets the CPS criteria for appeals.