Going down the pan

[chochokeira]

Can I believe a few coppers cocked up really badly?
Can I believe they and their colleagues got deeper into the mire as they tried to cover this up?
Can I believe Mugford might have been flattered, enticed with money and egged on by NoW reporters?
Can I believe they might have enticed her to make wilder and wilder claims about the case?
Can I believe the family's self interest and jealousy guided their statements to the police regarding JB?
Can I believe that judges are mere mortals and as prone to cock up as the rest of us?
Can I believe all 5 of these things happened to varying degrees?

Oh, yes.

That was 6 things.
Good job you didn't count the bodies in the kitchen!

It is, isn't it? :O)

Not to worry, when you're in a debate, we all lose track of who argued what and number of arguments made.

Just read a very well written article in The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html

nicely written and she manages to 'twist' you to and fro in her tale... quite probably expressing the emotions we all have with this case... ebbing and flowing between guilt and innocence or 'unproven'.

I can't speak for all, but I suspect even those of us who perhaps choose to stand at the 70-90% guilty (or innocent) ends of the scale, we still from time get moments when we think "maybe he DID do it" or "maybe he DIDN'T" (you know... that sort of temporary upturn of theories whatever you 'usually' believe in.

She goes on to write about Mugford too, and of how she (the reporter) was inclined to discount her evidence for ulterior motives / axe to grind, and yet, the jury bought it.
What struck me there was (regardless of the 25K payment by news of the world) it was already well known that she'd split with him, and that only after this even did she go to the police. That she was no angel herself, and her courtroom theatrics (if that's what they were) hindered the defence cross examination. All of that known, the jury still chose to believe her? was Jeremy really so unconvincing? arrogant? cocky? that they so readily chose to believe her?
We will never know what each juror thought, but she must have been an actress of some skill!, or Jeremy's confidence in his own innocence, may well have been the very thing that convicted him.

If he hadn't been so wealthy, so well dressed, so handsome, so young... it may well have saved him.

Good post! + 1

"there was a real sense that he was revelling in being the centre of attention"

My cousin who was raised in a children's home then fostered as an older child, is, like Jeremy Bamber, extraordinarily attractive. She tells me how she and others used to hide under the stairs in the children's home when the 'new mummies and daddies' used to visit to choose a child: a fear of rejection that's haunted her throughout her life. She says that has always felt rootless and invisible and that she tends to be an attention seeker to compensate for that.

[Reader]

She goes on to write about Mugford too, and of how she (the reporter) . . .

The story is subtitled "David Connett revisits the story he first covered...", yet the name Serrena Pang is given at the end.

As for Ann and David and silencer - how did they get the witness (the accountant) to collude with them?

Your point about the accountant is interesting, but was evidence from him used in the trial and is he still alive? It was later noticed that he was referred to (by Ann Eaton, I think) as having grumbled about the omnipresence of fingerprinting powder, but I doubt that there was enough time prior to the alleged date of finding of the sound moderator for extensive dusting for fingerprints to have been done, and there's no documentation to confirm WHF was dusted for fingerprint searches before September 1985.

[chochokeira]

Can I believe a few coppers cocked up really badly?
Can I believe they and their colleagues got deeper into the mire as they tried to cover this up?
Can I believe Mugford might have been flattered, enticed with money and egged on by NoW reporters?
Can I believe they might have enticed her to make wilder and wilder claims about the case?
Can I believe the family's self interest and jealousy guided their statements to the police regarding JB?
Can I believe that judges are mere mortals and as prone to cock up as the rest of us?
Can I believe all 5 of these things happened to varying degrees?

Oh, yes.

That was 6 things.
Good job you didn't count the bodies in the kitchen!

It is, isn't it? :O)

Not to worry, when you're in a debate, we all lose track of who argued what and number of arguments made.

Just read a very well written article in The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html

nicely written and she manages to 'twist' you to and fro in her tale... quite probably expressing the emotions we all have with this case... ebbing and flowing between guilt and innocence or 'unproven'.

I can't speak for all, but I suspect even those of us who perhaps choose to stand at the 70-90% guilty (or innocent) ends of the scale, we still from time get moments when we think "maybe he DID do it" or "maybe he DIDN'T" (you know... that sort of temporary upturn of theories whatever you 'usually' believe in.

She goes on to write about Mugford too, and of how she (the reporter) was inclined to discount her evidence for ulterior motives / axe to grind, and yet, the jury bought it.
What struck me there was (regardless of the 25K payment by news of the world) it was already well known that she'd split with him, and that only after this even did she go to the police. That she was no angel herself, and her courtroom theatrics (if that's what they were) hindered the defence cross examination. All of that known, the jury still chose to believe her? was Jeremy really so unconvincing? arrogant? cocky? that they so readily chose to believe her?
We will never know what each juror thought, but she must have been an actress of some skill!, or Jeremy's confidence in his own innocence, may well have been the very thing that convicted him.

If he hadn't been so wealthy, so well dressed, so handsome, so young... it may well have saved him.

Thank you for the article from the Independent, I agree that it's excellent. I wonder what conclusions the reporter would reached regarding guilt or innocence if the trial had had access to the key parts of all of that withheld evidence?

As you describe so well, we are all indeed tossed to and fro on the tide of conflicting evidence and emotions emerging on this forum. What is it about Jeremy Bamber that makes him such a perfect catalyst or conduit for that emotional ebb and flo? His self assurance, so devoid of emotion?

[chelmsey]

It amazes me how there was so much importance regarding Julie Mugfords testimony in court. From what I can tell,she never had anything actually concrete to tell the courts,if you know what I mean? It was all a kind of he said - she said kind of thing.JB told me this and JB told me that! Its a lot different to saying - well I actually saw him purchase the bullets that were needed or I was actually with him when he was doing trial trial runs to and from whf to see which was the quickest route.The best she could come up with was - I saw him strangle rats so he could ascertain whether he could actually kill somebody!Its common knowledge that farm people often have to,in fact,kill animals.Recently in court,a friend of mine was told by her solicitor that there was no point in going with the he said,she said thing as it would just be regarded as "hearsay".

[Newbury1]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would kill their parents for money in that manner, but then I have to remind myself of the Menendez murders in the US in 1989 and remember that those two brothers did exactly that.

I agree, but you're right - people walk into schools with automatic weapons and open fire 'cos they didn't like school (or mondays)'
Or drive around Cumbria with a grudge then escalates to shooting anybody at all

Or a siege in Rothbury....

When we look at it that way, it's one in a million that does this (sheila OR jeremy) but that one in a million is still someone... somewhere...

I often think about the Moors Murderers (I have a very special interest in that case)... for one of them to be 'that way inclined' is rare... for TWO? VERY rare... but it happened... as did the Wests.

Yes but those people are mainly killing strangers because they're angry at the world or something. This crime was different and unusual - which is why people are still talking about it all these years later. 

Hi Kaldin - have you seen my post on Lowell Lee on "Other High Profile Cases?

[Kaldin]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would kill their parents for money in that manner, but then I have to remind myself of the Menendez murders in the US in 1989 and remember that those two brothers did exactly that.

I agree, but you're right - people walk into schools with automatic weapons and open fire 'cos they didn't like school (or mondays)'
Or drive around Cumbria with a grudge then escalates to shooting anybody at all

Or a siege in Rothbury....

When we look at it that way, it's one in a million that does this (sheila OR jeremy) but that one in a million is still someone... somewhere...

I often think about the Moors Murderers (I have a very special interest in that case)... for one of them to be 'that way inclined' is rare... for TWO? VERY rare... but it happened... as did the Wests.

Yes but those people are mainly killing strangers because they're angry at the world or something. This crime was different and unusual - which is why people are still talking about it all these years later. 

Hi Kaldin - have you seen my post on Lowell Lee on "Other High Profile Cases?

Hello Newbury.

No I haven't - will have a look, ta.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

It amazes me how there was so much importance regarding Julie Mugfords testimony in court. From what I can tell,she never had anything actually concrete to tell the courts,if you know what I mean? It was all a kind of he said - she said kind of thing.JB told me this and JB told me that! Its a lot different to saying - well I actually saw him purchase the bullets that were needed or I was actually with him when he was doing trial trial runs to and from whf to see which was the quickest route.The best she could come up with was - I saw him strangle rats so he could ascertain whether he could actually kill somebody!Its common knowledge that farm people often have to,in fact,kill animals.Recently in court,a friend of mine was told by her solicitor that there was no point in going with the he said,she said thing as it would just be regarded as "hearsay".

I think it was the nail in his coffin for want of a better expression.

I do agree that her motives were questionable (but that's true of the family too, and the police) - but, when all added up, I 'think' (but don't know) that the jury believed it unlikely that they all ganged up on him, and unlikely that they all independently chose to 'stitch him up'.

They were very explicitly told (as it was agreed by both sides) that it's essentially Sheila or Jeremy, and that was that.
If if had been Jeremy, or a robbery etc etc things MIGHT have looked different, but that was it... Sheila or Jeremy.

If you can't quite believe Sheila could do it, then by default, Jeremy did (and vice versa). I can genuinely think some jurors thought "I'm 99% of the feeling it wasn't Sheila" and paradoxically thinking "but I'm not 99% he did it, I'm only 60% sure he did it" (mathematically, this cannot be, but in their hearts and minds it's possible".

IF their belief in Sheila's innocence happened to win the day, then by default, Jeremy did it - and so Mugford just helped them confirm that... along the lines of

"I'm struggling to believe Sheila did it, so it must have been Jeremy (even though I'm not 100% convinced) - but Mugford says it was him too, and the family seem to think so, so that makes it easier for me to go along with it too"

It's this 'him or her' scenario that's quite rare. If Sheila had been found to be the killer, I think we'd still be here today with people saying "do you really think the brother had nothing to do with it?... when he made the call, and inherited it all etc etc".

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. He was pitched against 'Bambi' for heaven's sake. Beautiful young lady, with beautiful little twins - how could SHE have done this?
And her arrogant, suave, cocky young brother with a taste for the 'good life' living it up in the wake of their deaths?

Oh and in court, Mugford 'appeared' human - she cried, clearly upset etc. She was 21, still a 'girl' in some people's eyes - too young to be so calculating.
 
Bamber appeared cold and aloof (by all accounts). Possibly this was confidence in his innocence, but even innocent people up for murder get worried it might all go wrong.
And his remarks: "well, that's for you to prove isn't it?". Nothing wrong with that - but it's not the way to win people over when your liberty depends on it.

Mugford saying it was him just made the decision easier.


p.s. It is not MY opinion about 'arrogant / cocky etc', just how it was presented then, and still is today, but his demeanour and appearance almost certainly did him no favours, and matched many people's impression of the stereotypical spoilt brat.

[Kaldin]

Re Julie Mugford - that's a tough one and I agree that she had a motive to lie. She had been dumped, she didn't want anyone else to have Jeremy, and what better way to ensure nobody else did have him than by getting him sent to prison?

I watched an old You Tube of the funeral yesterday, and it showed Jeremy getting out of the car followed by Julie who immediately grabbed his hand. She had no problem with sticking by him at that time and yet just over two weeks later that had all changed. I do find it hard to believe that she suddenly turned on him because she'd been dumped and that she didn't try to get him back before going to the police. That suggests to me that she perhaps didn't really want him back.

If she was lying, it should have been relatively easy to break her down. I don't know if the police challenged her story at all and suggested to her that she was lying, but the defence at trial should certainly have been able to make her crack, and they didn't.

[Hartley]

If she was lying, it should have been relatively easy to break her down. I don't know if the police challenged her story at all and suggested to her that she was lying, but the defence at trial should certainly have been able to make her crack, and they didn't.

That's what I keep thinking back to, could she have lied so convincingly to persuade the police, the judge and the jury and withstand hostile cross-examination by the defence?

I don't know, I don't think so, but I wasn't there and for a balanced view I suppose I'd concede that it is possible.

I don't really subscribe to the theory that she broke down when the defence cross-examined her and therefore they couldn't crack her. That's what these people do, the are experts at cross-examining witnesses, if a few tears thwarted them so easily then I wouldn't want them representing me any time soon (not that they would need to of course  ).

[Jackiepreece]

Once the relatives had got the police to believe that the suicides could be in fact murders by JB the probably knew they were in trouble because they had already investigating the suicide theory and agreed this had happened.  Once it turned into a murder enquiry they must have been desperate to solve the case and there was only one person in the frame JB because of the phone call.  It is well known on a number of cases that police under pressure have wrongly charged someone to get that important result solving the case. A very extreme case Colin Stagg when the police had no real evidence to charge him.  When the relatives came forward with the silencer the police might probably have still thought they still had a weak case. Then hey presto Julie Mugford tells her story and I think the amount of pressure they put on her giving statements could be changeable with regard to how important it was to get her to give evidence in court and help solve this high profile case that Essex police had already messed up.  In MY OPINION that is what happened because there was absolutely no reason why she was not charged with something regarding this case.  Why give her immunity when she had already told her story. She was probably laughing her head off having Essex Police run around after her as the star witness.

You only have to remember that she volunteered to identify the bodies to realise Julie mugford was no ordinary girl

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Re Julie Mugford - that's a tough one and I agree that she had a motive to lie. She had been dumped, she didn't want anyone else to have Jeremy, and what better way to ensure nobody else did have him than by getting him sent to prison?

I watched an old You Tube of the funeral yesterday, and it showed Jeremy getting out of the car followed by Julie who immediately grabbed his hand. She had no problem with sticking by him at that time and yet just over two weeks later that had all changed. I do find it hard to believe that she suddenly turned on him because she'd been dumped and that she didn't try to get him back before going to the police. That suggests to me that she perhaps didn't really want him back.

If she was lying, it should have been relatively easy to break her down. I don't know if the police challenged her story at all and suggested to her that she was lying, but the defence at trial should certainly have been able to make her crack, and they didn't.

The video to which you refer also (might be my cynicism) actually looks like Bamber has a smirk just as he stand upright from the car.
BUT, this is terrible, I've been known to laugh at serious things - nerves. Still, it looks like a smirk to me.

Also, Mugford went to the police with the hitman story. Either very cunning on her part (knowing they'd figure that was wrong but get wise to Jeremy, and make paradoxically sound more plausible) OR Bamber did tell her it was a hitman and it was his way of telling her but not being THE actual killer.
And, for all we know, there still could have been a hitman! (But so far, all parties seem happy to discount that notion)

[Hartley]

The video to which you refer also (might be my cynicism) actually looks like Bamber has a smirk just as he stand upright from the car.
BUT, this is terrible, I've been known to laugh at serious things - nerves. Still, it looks like a smirk to me.

Yes I've seen that, and seen people use it as an argument to prove he's guilty, it's not.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Once the relatives had got the police to believe that the suicides could be in fact murders by JB the probably knew they were in trouble because they had already investigating the suicide theory and agreed this had happened.  Once it turned into a murder enquiry they must have been desperate to solve the case and there was only one person in the frame JB because of the phone call.  It is well known on a number of cases that police under pressure have wrongly charged someone to get that important result solving the case. A very extreme case Colin Stagg when the police had no real evidence to charge him.  When the relatives came forward with the silencer the police might probably have still thought they still had a weak case. Then hey presto Julie Mugford tells her story and I think the amount of pressure they put on her giving statements could be changeable with regard to how important it was to get her to give evidence in court and help solve this high profile case that Essex police had already messed up.  In MY OPINION that is what happened because there was absolutely no reason why she was not charged with something regarding this case.  Why give her immunity when she had already told her story. She was probably laughing her head off having Essex Police run around after her as the star witness.

You only have to remember that she volunteered to identify the bodies to realise Julie mugford was no ordinary girl

Oh that's a very tricky argument. It's valid absolutely, but it's just as valid to say it was in the Police's interests that they were RIGHT and it was a suicide.

I think the solutions in order of preference (for the police) would have been:

1) Jeremy quickly proven to be innocent (family wrong) and their years of policing insight proved to be right yet again.... Suicide it was.
They'd take a bit of flak for the evidence gathering, but the right outcome was reached and they aren't 'intuitive' coppers for nothing ;-)

2) Jeremy found guilty
Ok they made a mess of things, but quickly recovered and managed to get their man in the end.
And it just goes to show they aren't too big to change their minds - what a great policing outfit they are.

3) Jeremy found innocent (at trial)
THIS is a nightmare for them... they made mistakes gathering evidence, then chased their man and it turns out HE was innocent too. What a hapless police force (or farce).
Not only that, but there will be others saying a killer got off Scot Free thanks to the police's incompetence.

Just my view of things. Maybe the liked option 2 best of all not because it was easier for them, but option 1 was 'too' good for them, and so would look suspect!

Perhaps  the family knew Jeremy better than the Police did. They might not have known he was a killer, but they thought he was a 'bit of a lad' who never had much time for his parents.
They had their suspicions and Ann pressed the police to take it more seriously.

Over time, Jeremy started exhibiting his 'true' self, and started getting too cocky, too soon, and only confirmed all that the family had suggested. By now, even the police and wider community could see the side of him that was usually only seen by the family.

... and the rest is history.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

The video to which you refer also (might be my cynicism) actually looks like Bamber has a smirk just as he stand upright from the car.
BUT, this is terrible, I've been known to laugh at serious things - nerves. Still, it looks like a smirk to me.

Yes I've seen that, and seen people use it as an argument to prove he's guilty, it's not.

Absolutely correct - I've laughed being told someone's died (in shock)
and who knows if I'd go out and get drunk after my family was killed, or want to overcompensate by spending lots of money, or getting away from it all.
So what if he WAS arrogant and cocky? a murderer this does not make!

But I do believe they played a part in his downfall.
It's when you sum up all the 'odd' things - the selling the treasures rapidly, the breaking back into the house, the spending afterwards.... AND you combine that with "we aren't just here today to judge if Jeremy might be the killer from many other possibilities.... we are agreed it was either HIM or HER" then that becomes a very different matter.

it's that if it wasn't her - it must have been him scenario that the jury were faced with, and add on all those other factors, AND the family and mugford wading in too.... he was done for

[Hartley]

The video to which you refer also (might be my cynicism) actually looks like Bamber has a smirk just as he stand upright from the car.
BUT, this is terrible, I've been known to laugh at serious things - nerves. Still, it looks like a smirk to me.

Yes I've seen that, and seen people use it as an argument to prove he's guilty, it's not.

Absolutely correct - I've laughed being told someone's died (in shock)
and who knows if I'd go out and get drunk after my family was killed, or want to overcompensate by spending lots of money, or getting away from it all.
So what if he WAS arrogant and cocky? a murderer this does not make!

But I do believe they played a part in his downfall.
It's when you sum up all the 'odd' things - the selling the treasures rapidly, the breaking back into the house, the spending afterwards.... AND you combine that with "we aren't just here today to judge if Jeremy might be the killer from many other possibilities.... we are agreed it was either HIM or HER" then that becomes a very different matter.

I agree, his attitude hasn't done him any favours, either in these criminal trials and appeals, or indeed in the various civil court hearings.