"I haven't rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury." (JM)

[mike tesko]

We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders

The problem for the defence is that a weak point remains around the period the case turned.  If we follow Mike's arguments that the case turned after RWB went to see ACC Simpson, this mechanism seems to operate separately from whatever turned Julie Mugford against Bamber.  For two major players (Julie and police) to turn against Jeremy Bamber, seemingly separate from each other, creates quite a barrier for the defence.  If you knock one down with a 'conspiracy theory'... people fall back upon the other.  I've always wondered whether Julie got wind of the family's malice aforethought towards Jeremy and jumped ship accordingly?  This does not seem to be the case because nobody linked to the defence has ever suggested such.

There is no evidence that there was any collusion between Julie Mugford and the family and I think that this is unlikely.  ACC Simpson's intervention in the case and the changed focus of the police enquiry would in my view not have resulted in the prosecution of Jeremy had it not been for the bombshell of Julie Mugford's claims.

 

Despite the fact that Mugford was coerced to come forward by her friend, when  she did come forward, fact of the matter is, that despite these revelations made by Mugford, or by someone else on her behalf, Jeremy was not originally charged, with the murders, but was simply released on bail, pending the case of burglary at Osea road, Camp site...

In this respect...role adopted by police, and the coming forward of Mugford with information (around about the same time), suggests that there was a link between both, which did not have the desired effect immediately, but was one which appears to be a unified effort later on, once Jeremy was re-arrested, and charged with the murders...

[Roch]

Ngb as a criminal barrister have you had to contend with the problem of not being able to cross examine because someone keeps breaking down and crying.

Did you believe they were faking it?

Can't they be kept in the witness box until you can cross examine them even if it is days?

Is it common knowledge that police sometimes tell witnesses cross examination has to stop if witnesses get too upset?

Or would you think Mugford herself would you use this tactic



Great thread Keira and one more reason this forum is so valuable

Forum is doing pretty good from the pro perspective.  However, we have lost all members of the opposition.  Credible posters like Curious Essex.  We have also lost the spectacle of Mike Tesko vs Hartley which makes for an excellent read.  We now seem to have only Vidvic making the odd foray on to the forum.  I'm not sure what this says about the state of play.

[ngb1066]

Ngb as a criminal barrister have you had to contend with the problem of not being able to cross examine because someone keeps breaking down and crying.

Did you believe they were faking it?

Can't they be kept in the witness box until you can cross examine them even if it is days?

Is it common knowledge that police sometimes tell witnesses cross examination has to stop if witnesses get too upset?

Or would you think Mugford herself would you use this tactic



Great thread Keira and one more reason this forum is so valuable

I have had experience of this on a number of occasions.  When a witness breaks down and cries it interrupts the flow of the evidence.  It therefore can be a tactic used by a witness to gain more time to think of the answer to the question.  Obviously in some cases a witness is genuinely upset rather than playing for time, and this is particularly difficult for counsel.  For example great care is needed in cross examining a child witness or a victim in a rape trial.  The judge will normally grant short adjournments for the witness to compose him/herself, and the cross examination then continues.  Counsel has the accept the interruptions and cope as well as possible.  Counsel can continue to cross examine until all the required questions have been put to the witness, however long that may take.

 

[chochokeira]

The thing is, I suppose the relatives would have got wind of Mugford coming forward.  So even if Jones had been removed, RWB would have stepped up a gear and demanded to see the Home Secretary.

I'm starting to wonder at how pivotal DS Stan Jones is in all of this.  He seems to be a hub between the two aspects of Mugford's testimony and the relatives bogus silencer evidence.

I think we need a time line thread.  key events happening in the case as per the date that they happened.  I could put one together but I'm working on a video?  Any other takers?

The Brilliant Mistake tried to put a time line together in painstaking detail.  However he stopped early in on in his project. 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,532.0.html

TBM's summary was okay up to a point but there were significant errors and omission, Rocky, because, I believe, he attempted to do too much. The precis he did for each of the Bambers, for example, were short of the mark in so many ways - because they reflected a certain amount of prejudice on TBM's part? Take this one:

"Jeremy Bamber

Jeremy Bamber was educated privately as a child - not the whole truth?
and was not believed to have been involved in anything of significant note during his childhood or youth - what about working on the farm and driving tractors from a young age? Hardly insignificant

After leaving education, Jeremy spent a year or so traveling, primarily to Australia and New Zealand by way of France and the Far East. He spent at least a year away from home.
He returned home for a short period of time (a few months) before returning to Australia/New Zealand for a few more months.
He finally returned home about a year before the murders took place - does this contradicts TBM's claim that JM was Jeremy's girlfriend for c 18 months?Jeremy worked with his father farming, and held a business interest in Osea Holiday Park, a local camping venue for holiday makers. This venture was a family venture, of which Jeremy was part.

Jeremy was a young man who enjoyed the finer things in life - nice car, food, wine and very probably ladies. - Meals out in Burnham on Crouch - the finer things? I don't think so!

For a period of time, Jeremy was involved in a relationship with a older married lady named Suzy/Suzette Ford - she was separated

No mention of Jeremy working on the farm from the age of about 14 or 15and shared a home with her and her children  - sometimes, on a part-time basis

At the time of the murders, Julie Mugford, a younger lady was his girlfriend, and had been so for about 18 months.

It is considered that Jeremy had no long term interest in farming and preferred to establish a career outside of farming - untrue

[chochokeira]

Ngb as a criminal barrister have you had to contend with the problem of not being able to cross examine because someone keeps breaking down and crying.

Did you believe they were faking it?

Can't they be kept in the witness box until you can cross examine them even if it is days?

Is it common knowledge that police sometimes tell witnesses cross examination has to stop if witnesses get too upset?

Or would you think Mugford herself would you use this tactic



Great thread Keira and one more reason this forum is so valuable

Forum is doing pretty good from the pro perspective.  However, we have lost all members of the opposition.  Credible posters like Curious Essex.  We have also lost the spectacle of Mike Tesko vs Hartley which makes for an excellent read.  We now seem to have only Vidvic making the odd foray on to the forum.  I'm not sure what this says about the state of play.

It says to me they are:

1. Sulking

2. Colluding in this

3. Will return

[Roch]

The thing is, I suppose the relatives would have got wind of Mugford coming forward.  So even if Jones had been removed, RWB would have stepped up a gear and demanded to see the Home Secretary.

I'm starting to wonder at how pivotal DS Stan Jones is in all of this.  He seems to be a hub between the two aspects of Mugford's testimony and the relatives bogus silencer evidence.

I think we need a time line thread.  key events happening in the case as per the date that they happened.  I could put one together but I'm working on a video?  Any other takers?

The Brilliant Mistake tried to put a time line together in painstaking detail.  However he stopped early in on in his project. 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,532.0.html

TBM's summary was okay up to a point but there were significant errors and omission, Rocky, because, I believe, he attempted to do too much. The precis he did for each of the Bambers, for example, were short of the mark in so many ways - because they reflected a certain amount of prejudice on TBM's part? Take this one:

"Jeremy Bamber

Jeremy Bamber was educated privately as a child - not the whole truth?
and was not believed to have been involved in anything of significant note during his childhood or youth - what about working on the farm and driving tractors from a young age? Hardly insignificant

After leaving education, Jeremy spent a year or so traveling, primarily to Australia and New Zealand by way of France and the Far East. He spent at least a year away from home.
He returned home for a short period of time (a few months) before returning to Australia/New Zealand for a few more months.
He finally returned home about a year before the murders took place - does this contradicts TBM's claim that JM was Jeremy's girlfriend for c 18 months?Jeremy worked with his father farming, and held a business interest in Osea Holiday Park, a local camping venue for holiday makers. This venture was a family venture, of which Jeremy was part.

Jeremy was a young man who enjoyed the finer things in life - nice car, food, wine and very probably ladies. - Meals out in Burnham on Crouch - the finer things? I don't think so!

For a period of time, Jeremy was involved in a relationship with a older married lady named Suzy/Suzette Ford - she was separated

No mention of Jeremy working on the farm from the age of about 14 or 15and shared a home with her and her children  - sometimes, on a part-time basis

At the time of the murders, Julie Mugford, a younger lady was his girlfriend, and had been so for about 18 months.

It is considered that Jeremy had no long term interest in farming and preferred to establish a career outside of farming - untrue

Yes Choch, I was never a major fan of TBM's posts, though he was obviously pretty sharp brained.  The kind of thing I had in mind was a bit more like this

7/8/85 police actions / relatives actions / Jeremy's actions / Julie's actions (each where applicable)
8/8/85   "
9/8/85   "
10/8/85 "
11/8/85 "

And so on, all the way through August / September '85.  The info for this would have to come from all of the documents posted by Mike.   

[ngb1066]

We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders

The problem for the defence is that a weak point remains around the period the case turned.  If we follow Mike's arguments that the case turned after RWB went to see ACC Simpson, this mechanism seems to operate separately from whatever turned Julie Mugford against Bamber.  For two major players (Julie and police) to turn against Jeremy Bamber, seemingly separate from each other, creates quite a barrier for the defence.  If you knock one down with a 'conspiracy theory'... people fall back upon the other.  I've always wondered whether Julie got wind of the family's malice aforethought towards Jeremy and jumped ship accordingly?  This does not seem to be the case because nobody linked to the defence has ever suggested such.

There is no evidence that there was any collusion between Julie Mugford and the family and I think that this is unlikely.  ACC Simpson's intervention in the case and the changed focus of the police enquiry would in my view not have resulted in the prosecution of Jeremy had it not been for the bombshell of Julie Mugford's claims.

 

Despite the fact that Mugford was coerced to come forward by her friend, when  she did come forward, fact of the matter is, that despite these revelations made by Mugford, or by someone else on her behalf, Jeremy was not originally charged, with the murders, but was simply released on bail, pending the case of burglary at Osea road, Camp site...

In this respect...role adopted by police, and the coming forward of Mugford with information (around about the same time), suggests that there was a link between both, which did not have the desired effect immediately, but was one which appears to be a unified effort later on, once Jeremy was re-arrested, and charged with the murders...

That is true.  The police did not think they had enough evidence even after Julie Mugford came forward.  What clinched it for them was the evidence of the blood on the baffles of the silencer.  I believe the report from the FSS at Huntingdon was received while Jeremy was on bail and on holiday in France.  With this evidence and Julie Mugford's evidence the DPP authorised the prosecution for murder and Jeremy was rearrested on his return to Dover. 

[jackiepreece]

Rocky
The more evidence that comes to light the tougher it would be for the guilty camp to put up an argument.

Because this is a case of circumstantial evidence everything seems to point to the jury should have found Jeremy innocent because of reasonable doubt.

Just the tiniest thing like the NOTW deal not coming to light or the withholding of some information about how bad Sheilas illness was probably would have changed the jurors verdict

Hartley was very bad tempered off late because we were all fed up with his 'I believe Mugford' statements and it was out in the open he was not impartial as he was a friend of the relatives

He kept that hidden for ages making his arguments and views more credible

It is going to be difficult to find anti Bamber people with the information out there now and there is something strange going on after Shonas message 'she was having to leave the forum'

It was a nice message and we hadn't fallen out so It's a big mystery

[Roch]

Rocky
The more evidence that comes to light the tougher it would be for the guilty camp to put up an argument.

Because this is a case of circumstantial evidence everything seems to point to the jury should have found Jeremy innocent because of reasonable doubt.

Just the tiniest thing like the NOTW deal not coming to light or the withholding of some information about how bad Sheilas illness was probably would have changed the jurors verdict

Hartley was very bad tempered off late because we were all fed up with his 'I believe Mugford' statements and it was out in the open he was not impartial as he was a friend of the relatives

He kept that hidden for ages making his arguments and views more credible

It is going to be difficult to find anti Bamber people with the information out there now and there is something strange going on after Shonas message 'she was having to leave the forum'

It was a nice message and we hadn't fallen out so It's a big mystery

I agree with your first, second and third points.  Though the second point seems to have been canceled out over the years, by the relatives' genuine belief in Jeremy's guilt and their successful ability to project this belief on to their associates.  Now I suppose it could be argued that if the silencer evidence is falsified, then the relatives have a vested interest in shoring up their position.  And it becomes difficult for us to decipher whether their belief in Jeremy's guilt actually is genuine.  I suspect if it wasn't, Vidvic and Hartley would have sussed this by now.

I always got on with Hartley but at times I found his opposition to Mike exasperating.  I believe both he and Vidvic (who I have also always personally found decent) have acted out of a misplaced loyalty to the relatives.  They might disagree but that's how I see it.

I didn't see Shona's parting message but I got on very well with her, albeit we were on completely opposite sides.

[chochokeira]

The thing is, I suppose the relatives would have got wind of Mugford coming forward.  So even if Jones had been removed, RWB would have stepped up a gear and demanded to see the Home Secretary.

I'm starting to wonder at how pivotal DS Stan Jones is in all of this.  He seems to be a hub between the two aspects of Mugford's testimony and the relatives bogus silencer evidence.

I think we need a time line thread.  key events happening in the case as per the date that they happened.  I could put one together but I'm working on a video?  Any other takers?

The Brilliant Mistake tried to put a time line together in painstaking detail.  However he stopped early in on in his project. 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,532.0.html

TBM's summary was okay up to a point but there were significant errors and omission, Rocky, because, I believe, he attempted to do too much. The precis he did for each of the Bambers, for example, were short of the mark in so many ways - because they reflected a certain amount of prejudice on TBM's part? Take this one:

"Jeremy Bamber

Jeremy Bamber was educated privately as a child - not the whole truth?
and was not believed to have been involved in anything of significant note during his childhood or youth - what about working on the farm and driving tractors from a young age? Hardly insignificant

After leaving education, Jeremy spent a year or so traveling, primarily to Australia and New Zealand by way of France and the Far East. He spent at least a year away from home.
He returned home for a short period of time (a few months) before returning to Australia/New Zealand for a few more months.
He finally returned home about a year before the murders took place - does this contradicts TBM's claim that JM was Jeremy's girlfriend for c 18 months?Jeremy worked with his father farming, and held a business interest in Osea Holiday Park, a local camping venue for holiday makers. This venture was a family venture, of which Jeremy was part.

Jeremy was a young man who enjoyed the finer things in life - nice car, food, wine and very probably ladies. - Meals out in Burnham on Crouch - the finer things? I don't think so!

For a period of time, Jeremy was involved in a relationship with a older married lady named Suzy/Suzette Ford - she was separated

No mention of Jeremy working on the farm from the age of about 14 or 15and shared a home with her and her children  - sometimes, on a part-time basis

At the time of the murders, Julie Mugford, a younger lady was his girlfriend, and had been so for about 18 months.

It is considered that Jeremy had no long term interest in farming and preferred to establish a career outside of farming - untrue

Yes Choch, I was never a major fan of TBM's posts, though he was obviously pretty sharp brained.  The kind of thing I had in mind was a bit more like this

7/8/85 police actions / relatives actions / Jeremy's actions / Julie's actions (each where applicable)
8/8/85   "
9/8/85   "
10/8/85 "
11/8/85 "

And so on, all the way through August / September '85.  The info for this would have to come from all of the documents posted by Mike.

That's what I would like to see too, Rocky, a chronological summary in the form of bullet points, not long winded on each point, merely an aid to memory. Perhaps we could all do one together? How about you starting a topic on it and we all contribute. If anyone disagrees with a point, they could perhaps put a - one line - alternative view of the point below the main point?

[Roch]

The thing is, I suppose the relatives would have got wind of Mugford coming forward.  So even if Jones had been removed, RWB would have stepped up a gear and demanded to see the Home Secretary.

I'm starting to wonder at how pivotal DS Stan Jones is in all of this.  He seems to be a hub between the two aspects of Mugford's testimony and the relatives bogus silencer evidence.

I think we need a time line thread.  key events happening in the case as per the date that they happened.  I could put one together but I'm working on a video?  Any other takers?

The Brilliant Mistake tried to put a time line together in painstaking detail.  However he stopped early in on in his project. 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,532.0.html

TBM's summary was okay up to a point but there were significant errors and omission, Rocky, because, I believe, he attempted to do too much. The precis he did for each of the Bambers, for example, were short of the mark in so many ways - because they reflected a certain amount of prejudice on TBM's part? Take this one:

"Jeremy Bamber

Jeremy Bamber was educated privately as a child - not the whole truth?
and was not believed to have been involved in anything of significant note during his childhood or youth - what about working on the farm and driving tractors from a young age? Hardly insignificant

After leaving education, Jeremy spent a year or so traveling, primarily to Australia and New Zealand by way of France and the Far East. He spent at least a year away from home.
He returned home for a short period of time (a few months) before returning to Australia/New Zealand for a few more months.
He finally returned home about a year before the murders took place - does this contradicts TBM's claim that JM was Jeremy's girlfriend for c 18 months?Jeremy worked with his father farming, and held a business interest in Osea Holiday Park, a local camping venue for holiday makers. This venture was a family venture, of which Jeremy was part.

Jeremy was a young man who enjoyed the finer things in life - nice car, food, wine and very probably ladies. - Meals out in Burnham on Crouch - the finer things? I don't think so!

For a period of time, Jeremy was involved in a relationship with a older married lady named Suzy/Suzette Ford - she was separated

No mention of Jeremy working on the farm from the age of about 14 or 15and shared a home with her and her children  - sometimes, on a part-time basis

At the time of the murders, Julie Mugford, a younger lady was his girlfriend, and had been so for about 18 months.

It is considered that Jeremy had no long term interest in farming and preferred to establish a career outside of farming - untrue

Yes Choch, I was never a major fan of TBM's posts, though he was obviously pretty sharp brained.  The kind of thing I had in mind was a bit more like this

7/8/85 police actions / relatives actions / Jeremy's actions / Julie's actions (each where applicable)
8/8/85   "
9/8/85   "
10/8/85 "
11/8/85 "

And so on, all the way through August / September '85.  The info for this would have to come from all of the documents posted by Mike.

That's what I would like to see too, Rocky, a chronological summary in the form of bullet points, not long winded on each point, merely an aid to memory. Perhaps we could all do one together? How about you starting a topic on it and we all contribute. If anyone disagrees with a point, they could perhaps put a - one line - alternative view of the point below the main point?

Not a bad idea.  I expect it would be tricky but worth a pop.  I think the original thread would be like a draft, because it would get messy.

[ngb1066]

Rocky
The more evidence that comes to light the tougher it would be for the guilty camp to put up an argument.

Because this is a case of circumstantial evidence everything seems to point to the jury should have found Jeremy innocent because of reasonable doubt.

Just the tiniest thing like the NOTW deal not coming to light or the withholding of some information about how bad Sheilas illness was probably would have changed the jurors verdict

Hartley was very bad tempered off late because we were all fed up with his 'I believe Mugford' statements and it was out in the open he was not impartial as he was a friend of the relatives

He kept that hidden for ages making his arguments and views more credible

It is going to be difficult to find anti Bamber people with the information out there now and there is something strange going on after Shonas message 'she was having to leave the forum'

It was a nice message and we hadn't fallen out so It's a big mystery

I agree with your first, second and third points.  Though the second point seems to have been canceled out over the years, by the relatives' genuine belief in Jeremy's guilt and their successful ability to project this belief on to their associates.  Now I suppose it could be argued that if the silencer evidence is falsified, then the relatives have a vested interest in shoring up their position.  And it becomes difficult for us to decipher whether their belief in Jeremy's guilt actually is genuine.  I suspect if it wasn't, Vidvic and Hartley would have sussed this by now.

I always got on with Hartley but at times I found his opposition to Mike exasperating.  I believe both he and Vidvic (who I have also always personally found decent) have acted out of a misplaced loyalty to the relatives.  They might disagree but that's how I see it.

I didn't see Shona's parting message but I got on very well with her, albeit we were on completely opposite sides.

I have no doubt that all of the relatives are genuinely convinced of Jeremy's guilt and that they are very forceful in presenting their views.  Both Hartley and Vidvic reflect the same views and that is not surprising given that they know some of the relatives well.  I have no problem with anyone arguing the case for guilt, and doing so forcefully.  To be challenged by someone presenting a cogent argument is healthy and forces us to justify our own positions.

My only concern about some of Hartley's posts was his goading of Mike Tesko which was unnecessary and I suspect was sometimes done in order to provoke a reaction.  On the other hand Mike is very able to look after himself so no harm was done.  Hartley certainly has a comprehensive grasp of the evidence in the case and he also clearly has access to a lot of the case papers as a result of his connections with the family.  I suspect that Hartley will return and that will good for stimulating debate.  I hope he registers as Hartley and not as Steve Augi!

Vidvic also has a good knowledge of the case as a result of his close involvement with the family at the time of the 2002 appeal.  As he has posted here he attended the Court of Appeal on each day of the appeal hearing.  He also acted as the spokesman for the family at that time.  Vidvic is also therefore well equipped to contribute to the debate here. 

I seem to recall either Vidvic or Hartley posting some time ago that at least one family member is a forum member, although does not post.  As Mike Tesko has made clear, if family members want to post here they are welcome to do so. 

I never mind being challenged on points by members who present a proper argument and avoid personal attacks.  I find that answering questions or challenges helps me to develop my own views on aspects of the case.  I hope we can attract more members to the forum and that members who have not yet posted will start to contribute.  Nobody should be afraid to ask questions or present their point of view.  We seem to have fought off the attacks by trolls and things seem to be much calmer here now.

[Roch]

It says to me they are:

1. Sulking

2. Colluding in this

3. Will return

You could be right in some cases.  There seemed to be tonnes of them before though.  But they're like the lesser spotted guilty finch now.  Occasional visitors only.  Do you think any of them are having doubts but cant bring themselves to admit it?

I have no doubt that all of the relatives are genuinely convinced of Jeremy's guilt and that they are very forceful in presenting their views.  Both Hartley and Vidvic reflect the same views and that is not surprising given that they know some of the relatives well.  I have no problem with anyone arguing the case for guilt, and doing so forcefully.  To be challenged by someone presenting a cogent argument is healthy and forces us to justify our own positions.

My only concern about some of Hartley's posts was his goading of Mike Tesko which was unnecessary and I suspect was sometimes done in order to provoke a reaction.  On the other hand Mike is very able to look after himself so no harm was done.  Hartley certainly has a comprehensive grasp of the evidence in the case and he also clearly has access to a lot of the case papers as a result of his connections with the family.  I suspect that Hartley will return and that will good for stimulating debate.  I hope he registers as Hartley and not as Steve Augi!

Vidvic also has a good knowledge of the case as a result of his close involvement with the family at the time of the 2002 appeal.  As he has posted here he attended the Court of Appeal on each day of the appeal hearing.  He also acted as the spokesman for the family at that time.  Vidvic is also therefore well equipped to contribute to the debate here. 

I seem to recall either Vidvic or Hartley posting some time ago that at least one family member is a forum member, although does not post.  As Mike Tesko has made clear, if family members want to post here they are welcome to do so. 

I never mind being challenged on points by members who present a proper argument and avoid personal attacks.  I find that answering questions or challenges helps me to develop my own views on aspects of the case.  I hope we can attract more members to the forum and that members who have not yet posted will start to contribute.  Nobody should be afraid to ask questions or present their point of view.  We seem to have fought off the attacks by trolls and things seem to be much calmer here now.

Think you've summed it up nicely there Neil.  Would love to see that particular relative post or any for that matter but cant see it happening.

[chochokeira]

It says to me they are:

1. Sulking

2. Colluding in this

3. Will return

You could be right in some cases.  There seemed to be tonnes of them before though.  But they're like the lesser spotted guilty finch now.  Occasional visitors only.  Do you think any of them are having doubts but cant bring themselves to admit it?

YES! Sorry for shouting, I couldn't keep it in.

[chochokeira]

It says to me they are:

1. Sulking

2. Colluding in this

3. Will return

You could be right in some cases.  There seemed to be tonnes of them before though.  But they're like the lesser spotted guilty finch now.  Occasional visitors only.  Do you think any of them are having doubts but cant bring themselves to admit it?

YES! Sorry for shouting, I couldn't keep it in.

They all left en masse...a coincidence?