1.As to Sue Battersby's insistance that she remembered the time of the phone call as 3.12am, I did an experiment; when I woke up during the night I deliberately checked the time on my clock with the aim of remembering what it said next morning, I was consistantly unsure. I wonder if she had been consuming any alcohol or drugs that evening. And why after being unsure did she suddenly remember so definately?
2.In my opinion Neville Bamber's call to Jeremy must have been before anyone had been shot, otherwise he would surely have called 999 for an ambulance or at least told Jeremy he'd been shot. Therefore one wouldn't expect to find blood on the kitchen telephone. If someone calls you rather than 999 one would automatically assume that the situation was not out of control or extreemly urgent.
3.Police officer DS Ainsley noted that a call had been made by a TFG police officer from another phone which wouldn't have worked with the kitchen phone off the hook. Statements from 10 officers that nothing was moved were accepted by the appeals commision but what about all the other policemen?
4.The police allowed the silencer to become contaminated thus denying the DNA evidence but somehow not affecting the blood flake evidence. Even a remote possibility of a false bloodmatch means doubt. I worked in a blood lab and I know false matches happen frequently sometimes resulting in death.
5. Julie Mugford is guilty. If she lied about Jeremy's call she committed perjury if she told the truth, she witheld evidence and became an accomplice to murders she could have prevented and then went on to enjoy the spoils.
Point 4 is questionable, since DNA testing (for Police at this level) simply wasn't available, so it's a little disingenuous to say denying the DNA evidence'. Technically, it did inhibit the future ability, but the inference drawn from your statement is that they could have foreseen it. Blood samples are much simpler than DNA samples, and DNA usually has to be of sufficient quantity AND to be able to find enough markers to suggest a 'match'. Even with LCN, enough markers have to match to be statistically likely to belong to someone (although it often discount something more readily than it can prove (depending on the circumstances of course)).
Point 5 is simply incorrect.
Julie Mugford's guilt or innocence remains unproven and will almost certainly remain so. But a jury found her credible and assumed her to be innocent. Notwithstanding all of that, she would NOT be an accomplice to murder for her delay in telling the police. Nor is it likely she would have been charged for not having mentioned to the police JB's 'plotting' and 'talk' of murder.
She, in theory, the murder MIGHT have been considered a joint enterprise, if they could convince a jury that she considered his plotting and planning to be clear plans AND that she knew of a genuine intent or likelihood that he was going to carry out his plans.
Joint Enterprise is a tricky area and it's hard enough when someone's at the scene!... it wouldn't stand a realistic chance of persuaded the CPS, let alone a jury.
Now, IF she was an instigator, she might be charged with incitement to murder - but that's purely speculative and it's never been suggested by anyone (to my knowledge) (even by JB).
I do appreciate what you are saying though - I have similar troubles with her - but it's wrong to say she is guilty - there's no proof of it.
I just happen to think her behaviour was highly questionable, AND that she must have contemplated going along with the lie with Bamber for the rest of her life. i.e. there was no mad panic to tell the police was there?
But - she wasn't an angel, far from it. This was known to the jury. I believe for all their doubt about motives and questionable character, the circumstantial, and forensic evidence (as presented) would have swayed them more than Mugford (no proof of that, just a gut feeling)
