Going down the pan

[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.

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)

When I watched the video I thought how fake his demeanour was, but that doesn't really indicate anything. He knew everyone would be looking at him, including the press, so perhaps he was self-conscious, and as you say, people do smirk when they know they shouldn't.

[Lorna Lake]

A face can appear to smile or smirk when it's owner is struggling to contain emotions ?

[Kaldin]

Well here is is - see for yourselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbviIWnw3S8&feature=player_embedded

[chochokeira]

A face can appear to smile or smirk when it's owner is struggling to contain emotions ?

JB stated during an telephone conversation with a Guardian reporter that he smiled when he saw a number of his mates who had gone to the court to support him and to cheer him up. They stood on the pavement outside and cheered as he came out of the court.

Little wonder he smiled.

[Hartley]

A face can appear to smile or smirk when it's owner is struggling to contain emotions ?

JB stated during an telephone conversation with a Guardian reporter that he smiled when he saw a number of his mates who had gone to the court to support him and to cheer him up. They stood on the pavement outside and cheered as he came out of the court.

Little wonder he smiled.

They are referring to a smirk at the funeral though, not coming out of court.

[Jackiepreece]

Could I have an opinion on why Julie Mugford offered to identify the bodies (I don't think she had to identify the children) why didn't any of the relatives identify when they were so proactive in everything else to do with the murders.

Why would she offer considering all she knew!

I am trying to understand this poor young 21 year old girl!!!!!

Thoughts please on the star hearsay witness

[Hartley]

Could I have an opinion on why Julie Mugford offered to identify the bodies (I don't think she had to identify the children) why didn't any of the relatives identify when they were so proactive in everything else to do with the murders.

Why would she offer considering all she knew!

I am trying to understand this poor young 21 year old girl!!!!!

Thoughts please on the star hearsay witness

Just out of curiosity where does it say that she offered to identify the bodies? I don't get why she would either, unless she was at the police station and they had asked her to.

I don't know the protocol for official identification of bodies but isn't it normally a family member who is required to do so?

[HMEssex]

Well here is is - see for yourselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbviIWnw3S8&feature=player_embedded

It looks to me like he just gave a quick, polite smile to the people waiting to greet him, not a smirk.  There are other people in the video amongst the mourners, though, who are definitely laughing and joking.

[Newbury1]

Could I have an opinion on why Julie Mugford offered to identify the bodies (I don't think she had to identify the children) why didn't any of the relatives identify when they were so proactive in everything else to do with the murders.

Why would she offer considering all she knew!

I am trying to understand this poor young 21 year old girl!!!!!

Thoughts please on the star hearsay witness

Just out of curiosity where does it say that she offered to identify the bodies? I don't get why she would either, unless she was at the police station and they had asked her to.

I don't know the protocol for official identification of bodies but isn't it normally a family member who is required to do so?

If Julie did offer she may have been prompted by Jeremy who was either "too upset" to go or did not want to see his handy work again! 

If JB had prompted her it may have been to tie her further into the plot  - just an opinion.

Mike T is there a comment you have from JB on this?

[chochokeira]

A face can appear to smile or smirk when it's owner is struggling to contain emotions ?

JB stated during an telephone conversation with a Guardian reporter that he smiled when he saw a number of his mates who had gone to the court to support him and to cheer him up. They stood on the pavement outside and cheered as he came out of the court.

Little wonder he smiled.

Which begs the questions: why didn't the media show that part of the film?

Why did they choose to edit out the reason JB smiled: in response to the love, loyalty and support of his friends who did not believe he was guilty?

Why did the press and media depict largely only JB apparently smirking to himself when that was so far from the truth?

Why did they create such a distorted and one dimensional image of Jeremy Bamber's behaviour outside the court?

Why did they subtly condition the public's perception of JB in this manner?

Because this didn't fit 'evil beyond belief' stereotype that so many of the press and media seemed by then determined to run with?

[TheBrilliantMistake]

WHOA WHOA!!!!!

It's a passing comment 'looked like a smirk'

at this stage she'd committed suicide. He wasn't a suspect (certainly not to the outside world)

And yes, there's other smiling / joking etc (as people do trying to keep emotions in check).

There's no suggestion at all that he's done a thing wrong from the videos, or anything in his manner was wrong.

Once you think he MAY have been the killer, you can look back and see something very differently.

[Hartley]

Which begs the questions: why didn't the media show that part of the film?

Why did they choose to edit out the reason JB smiled: in response to the love, loyalty and support of his friends who did not believe he was guilty?

Why did the press and media depict largely only JB apparently smirking to himself when that was so far from the truth?

Why did they create such a distorted and one dimensional image of Jeremy Bamber's behaviour outside the court?

Why did they subtly condition the public's perception of JB in this manner?

Because this didn't fit 'evil beyond belief' stereotype that so many of the press and media seemed by then determined to run with?

Not sure. To sell newspapers? More recent articles lean to add weight to the "he's innocent" view because it would be a big story about a man wrongly convicted. They'll sensationalise anything that fits their needs or suits their purposes. Other than that it means nothing (to me anyway).

That particular tactic if used can be attached to lot's of different things, half the posts on this forum are presented in such a way that they try to force persuade people around to a particular way of thinking.

I guess it's the old adage "don't believe everything you read", or in our youtube world of cleverly edited videos, "don't believe everything you see".

[Jackiepreece]

Going back to Julie Mugford and the possibility of someone holding a made up story

I remember a case of Tracey Andrews who stabbed her boyfriend to death and made out it was road rage.  She even sat in a press conference with the victims family appealing for witnesses. She stuck to that story all through the trial.

Incidentally I read a story that she is due out of prison soon after 12 years and the victims family have protested to try to keep her in prison longer to no avail. 
It's fully how the relatives if JB seem to influence what happens to him as a prisoner.

[Roch]

Which begs the questions: why didn't the media show that part of the film?

Why did they choose to edit out the reason JB smiled: in response to the love, loyalty and support of his friends who did not believe he was guilty?

Why did the press and media depict largely only JB apparently smirking to himself when that was so far from the truth?

Why did they create such a distorted and one dimensional image of Jeremy Bamber's behaviour outside the court?

Why did they subtly condition the public's perception of JB in this manner?

Because this didn't fit 'evil beyond belief' stereotype that so many of the press and media seemed by then determined to run with?

Not sure. To sell newspapers? More recent articles lean to add weight to the "he's innocent" view because it would be a big story about a man wrongly convicted. They'll sensationalise anything that fits their needs or suits their purposes. Other than that it means nothing (to me anyway).

That particular tactic if used can be attached to lot's of different things, half the posts on this forum are presented in such a way that they try to force persuade people around to a particular way of thinking.

I guess it's the old adage "don't believe everything you read", or in our youtube world of cleverly edited videos, "don't believe everything you see".

Does anyone have any info on who JB's supporters were? I've just read on another thread that even the WHF Housekeeper thought in her heart of hearts that he'd done it.  There seems to be consistant theme that jeremy was a 'wrong'un'.  Think he definately has become damned in the minds of the wider general public for those caddish looks on the smiling photos.  Was his support vocal and did they muster any kind of defence of his character?

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Which begs the questions: why didn't the media show that part of the film?

Why did they choose to edit out the reason JB smiled: in response to the love, loyalty and support of his friends who did not believe he was guilty?

Why did the press and media depict largely only JB apparently smirking to himself when that was so far from the truth?

Why did they create such a distorted and one dimensional image of Jeremy Bamber's behaviour outside the court?

Why did they subtly condition the public's perception of JB in this manner?

Because this didn't fit 'evil beyond belief' stereotype that so many of the press and media seemed by then determined to run with?

Not sure. To sell newspapers? More recent articles lean to add weight to the "he's innocent" view because it would be a big story about a man wrongly convicted. They'll sensationalise anything that fits their needs or suits their purposes. Other than that it means nothing (to me anyway).

That particular tactic if used can be attached to lot's of different things, half the posts on this forum are presented in such a way that they try to force persuade people around to a particular way of thinking.

I guess it's the old adage "don't believe everything you read", or in our youtube world of cleverly edited videos, "don't believe everything you see".

Does anyone have any info on who JB's supporters were? I've just read on another thread that even the WHF Housekeeper thought in her heart of hearts that he'd done it.  There seems to be consistant theme that jeremy was a 'wrong'un'.  Think he definately has become damned in the minds of the wider general public for those caddish looks on the smiling photos.  Was his support vocal and did they muster any kind of defence of his character?

Just be careful of all that - 25 years on it's very easy for folks to start slipping in little unsubstantiated facts. Very few were actually privy to any of this information really.

If you go in a pub tonight and mention Bamber (for those that can recall the case) most will say "oh yes, he's the bloke that did this, or that" and all their info will have come from newspapers, hearsay and memory. Very few will have actually done much research into it. Some might, but generally most won't have.

Some might even say "oh he's the bloke that's just found proof he's innocent" - another headline from the press.

I expect he had some on his side, some not.
The rumours COULD be right, but it's just so easy to say stuff and it be wrong.

You get a lot of "I lived in the next village" They all KNEW he'd done it etc. (yeah, after the fact) funny how none of them went to the police though eh?