Hi Caroline,
I used to think JB may not be guilty (following the Sutherst photo report highlighted in the Sunday Times back in 2010), but the more I read, and thought about certain aspects of the case, the more I came to believe JB did do it (or certainly had a significant hand in it).
Or thinking the other way - SC may have done it, but after some thought and consideration this look’s more unlikely. If you take this stance (which I believe most of the Jurors may have) the only suspect left is JB.
Trial by elimination.
I agree the silencer evidence is suspect (and always have) as it was handled by the relatives, and as for Mugford!! (this bit smacks to me of the Nat Fraser case – which as I believe you know is all circumstantial).
Originally Hector Dick was in the doc next to Fraser. The next thing Dick is giving damning evidence against Fraser – Dick is free (pardon the expression) and Fraser in jail (Mugford is free and JB in jail). Mugford could have sat in the doc next to JB if she knew so much about the murders. Rivlin imo did a poor job on Mugford – and the rest is history!!
Even the defence in the Fraser case actually accused Dick (a witness) in court of being the murderer. Rivlin wasn’t direct enough with Mugford, and even helped a prosecution witness with the use of a certain “trick of the light” expression imo.
There was an expression used by the prosecution in the Nat Fraser trial – it’s like taking individual strands, which on their own are weak, but when combined make it a strong.
In this recent circumstantial evidence case (not even a body or murder weapon) a jury still found Fraser guilty for a second time – even though Fraser continues to protest his innocence.
JB has had multiple appeals, a COLP enquiry, a Judicial review, etc. – JB has had his case reviewed over years and to be frank nothing has changed.
Hi Nickos,
I agree with much of what you say and having watched The Trial the other night, I personally believe that Fraser was/is guilty but that Dick certainly isn't innocent.
I don't however agree with you on the Jeremy Bamber case - The judge gave a final biased closing speech and in directing the jury on the blood evidence, he misquoted Hayward!!
I think Mugford found herself in a precarious position and was perhaps told that if she didn't 'cooperate' she would find herself facing an accessory charge. Having been convinced of JB's involvement (by certain ambitious officers), the 'story' of JB's year long confession to her finally emerged!!
I don't believe the whole moderator scenario - I have my own ideas about that!!
Having already been heavily criticised for the bungling of the initial investigation, there is no way EP would cough to another mistake!!
As for the CCRC, I'm sure they do their best but they have certain criteria to abide by. One of which is assessing IF the new evidence presented is 'likely' to lead to a different verdict. I would love to know who made that particular gem a criteria because this on it's own is stacked against any miscarriage of Justice case.
