the hitman

[Jan]

If you cant be broadminded enough to answer from both sides then please don't comment

1) if Jeremy was guilty and Julie was telling the truth - why would he tell her the story about the hit man? He previously had no problem with telling her he was going to kill his family by drugging them  and burning the house down. He had told her on the phone that "tonight is the night" . She had lain in bed and in her own words she knew he had done it. So why would he tell her that a hit man was involved . In the eyes of the law  the intent was the same So why would he do that?

2) If he is innocent who came up with the hit man story and why? Did it fit the crime in some way? And especially to come up with a name ? 

[No-Bits]

If you cant be broadminded enough to answer from both sides then please don't comment

1) if Jeremy was guilty and Julie was telling the truth - why would he tell her the story about the hit man? He previously had no problem with telling her he was going to kill his family by drugging them  and burning the house down. He had told her on the phone that "tonight is the night" . She had lain in bed and in her own words she knew he had done it. So why would he tell her that a hit man was involved . In the eyes of the law  the intent was the same So why would he do that?

2) If he is innocent who came up with the hit man story and why? Did it fit the crime in some way? And especially to come up with a name ?

Okay, in the scenario where Jeremy is guilty, I believe that he would soften the blow to Julie by making out that it was not actually him that carried out the murders. It's one thing fantasising about doing it, but a very different matter to have actually murdered five people, including two young children. He was passing the actual horrific deeds on to somebody else.

I don't believe there is any plausible scenario for a hitman to actually have been involved.

In a Jeremy innocent scenario, I guess there are a couple of possibilities, the most obvious being that Julie made the whole thing up. The alternative is that Jeremy did give an account to Julie involving a hitman, but it was an ill advised joke.

That's about the best I can think of just at the moment. 

[lookout]

If you cant be broadminded enough to answer from both sides then please don't comment

1) if Jeremy was guilty and Julie was telling the truth - why would he tell her the story about the hit man? He previously had no problem with telling her he was going to kill his family by drugging them  and burning the house down. He had told her on the phone that "tonight is the night" . She had lain in bed and in her own words she knew he had done it. So why would he tell her that a hit man was involved . In the eyes of the law  the intent was the same So why would he do that?

2) If he is innocent who came up with the hit man story and why? Did it fit the crime in some way? And especially to come up with a name ?

1) I imagine Jeremy had told Julie that it was " probably " a hitman,because he himself couldn't fathom out what,or who had done this dreadful thing. Then between the two of them,they " possibly " rattled off a few names and came up with MM,simply because he'd done the dirty on Julies' friend,so it was a revenge thing. But,,did either of them consider what the REAL outcome of it would have been by blaming/naming MM ? I don't think so. It's something that wasn't thought through,so like it or not,his name was put forward ( did he ever sue,because I would have done ?)

How did Julie know that it was Jeremy ? Had he told her to keep certain things to herself ? Did she tell EVERYTHING there was to tell in court. Is,or has she been holding anything back all these years ?
Do we know the exact meaning of " tonight's the night ",from Jeremy himself ?

There were plenty of sleeping tablets at WHF which belonged to June,so why weren't just the mother and father murdered ? Why wait until the rest of the family were there ?
Why did Julie ask a deceased Sheila who'd done it ? Apparently both Julie and Sheila used to see a clairvoyant,so Julie was looking for an answer------------which I thought she already had !!
 

[scipio_usmc]

If you cant be broadminded enough to answer from both sides then please don't comment

1) if Jeremy was guilty and Julie was telling the truth - why would he tell her the story about the hit man? He previously had no problem with telling her he was going to kill his family by drugging them  and burning the house down. He had told her on the phone that "tonight is the night" . She had lain in bed and in her own words she knew he had done it. So why would he tell her that a hit man was involved . In the eyes of the law  the intent was the same So why would he do that?

Those situations where killers claimed a hitman or friend did it and they jsut watched lied in order to convince their friends or loved ones that they are not as cold blooded as they actually are.  Rather than have her fear him he would tell her so that she would not relaize he was cold blooded enough to kill his innocent nephews.  There is a difference between having someone do it and doing it yourself.  You are more cold blooded and deadly to do it yourself.  Julie was disturbed about the bodys being killed and supposedly was not in favor of any of family being killed.  He wanted to talk about it with her so invented the hitman account to distance himself enough so she would not be able to attack him as a child killer and be in as much fear of him.

2) If he is innocent who came up with the hit man story and why? Did it fit the crime in some way? And especially to come up with a name ?

It is not credible that Julie would have made up the tale of the hitman.  She knew Jeremy had no alibi, people make up a hit man account to harrass someone if you know they have a solid alibi so could not have done it themselves.  She would have said he admitted he had done it if she were making it up.

She especially would not have named a hitman if she were making ti up because police would be able to easily prove the hitman was not invovled and the whole tale would end up flaling apart and accomplish nothing.  Her account was very detailed and it woudl have taken a long time to make up such account.  She would not have wasted all that time only to name a guy as a hitman who police could prove was not involved and thus make all that effort wasted.

Exlcusiding Julie entirely there is so much evidence proving Sheila could not have killed anyone and that Jeremy tried to frame her that his innocence is out of the question anyway.   

[Roch]

One theory could be that...

Innocent
The 'hitman scenario' was concocted by DS 'Stan' Jones to get over the barrier presented by there having been a sighting of a person moving at one of the upstairs windows during the earliest recce of the farmhouse from a distance, by Bews, Myall and Jeremy Bamber. 

Bamber was with police so it could not have been him seen moving at the window.  Therefore, for Bamber to have been implicated in the killings, he would need to have had involvement with that whoever cast that figure / movement.  Searching for a potential person to pin it on, somebody (possibly one of Julie Mugford's aquaintences) decided that it would be a good idea to dob Matthew McDonald right in it.  Julie Mugford her self was under extreme pressure at this time. 

Perhaps if McDonald had not had his alibi, he too would have been 'framed'.  Once McDonald was in the clear due to an alibi, there was a problem.  Namely, the recorded info as it stood, presented Jeremy Bamber himself with an alibi.  So the sighting was edited out of the logs to facilitate the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber as the (sole) killer him self.

Another theory...
Guilty
He tried to absolve some of the stain of such a heinous act by becoming detatched from it (in the form of an imaginary hitman).

[guest154]

Guilty - to try and make himself seem less of a monster.  A back up plan incase Julie did go to the police all her information wouldn't be spot on.

Innocent.    Julie made it up? But I'm not sure why she would do that when she is trying to make Bamber look guilty.

Best I can think of.

[Jan]

Those situations where killers claimed a hitman or friend did it and they jsut watched lied in order to convince their friends or loved ones that they are not as cold blooded as they actually are.  Rather than have her fear him he would tell her so that she would not relaize he was cold blooded enough to kill his innocent nephews.  There is a difference between having someone do it and doing it yourself.  You are more cold blooded and deadly to do it yourself.  Julie was disturbed about the bodys being killed and supposedly was not in favor of any of family being killed.  He wanted to talk about it with her so invented the hitman account to distance himself enough so she would not be able to attack him as a child killer and be in as much fear of him.


It is not credible that Julie would have made up the tale of the hitman.  She knew Jeremy had no alibi, people make up a hit man account to harrass someone if you know they have a solid alibi so could not have done it themselves.  She would have said he admitted he had done it if she were making it up.

She especially would not have named a hitman if she were making ti up because police would be able to easily prove the hitman was not invovled and the whole tale would end up flaling apart and accomplish nothing.  Her account was very detailed and it woudl have taken a long time to make up such account.  She would not have wasted all that time only to name a guy as a hitman who police could prove was not involved and thus make all that effort wasted.

Exlcusiding Julie entirely there is so much evidence proving Sheila could not have killed anyone and that Jeremy tried to frame her that his innocence is out of the question anyway.   

sorry part two is not looking at from the possibility that Jeremy was innocent . you failed I am afraid

[Jan]

guilty - I am not sure that hiring a hitman is really any less awful than doing it yourself to be honest - the intention is still to murder your family including the children and as he had been so up front with her before I can really fathom that - unless it would make her less likely to look for evidence around  his house etc?  Or perhaps he thought it made him look like some kind of gangster ?


innocent - I don't suppose there is any chance the police had after inspecting the silencer asked Julie to spy on Jeremy or ask him questions? Him not realising why she was asking questions got annoyed that she was doubting him and made up some cock and bull story just to annoy her?

[Alias]

Guilty: Because there was a hitman involved, but in "collaboration" with Jeremy. I have said this often, I think that if Jeremy is guilty, he could not have counted on pulling this off by himself.

I don´t think a hitman did this alone for many reasons, one being that 2000 pounds was a ridiculously small amount for killing five people, but makes sense if the "deal" was to assist Jeremy and perhaps only kill one, hold Sheila or whomever might wake up, things of that nature.

Innocent: Julie made it up - but why would she if she was out to "get" Jeremy?

I think my Guilty version makes more sense.... Remember I am on the fence about the case, and believe Jeremy might very well have done the murders - but with an accomplice; that is where I differ from most "guilters", and it is hardly ever discussed.

[lookout]

If Jeremy had murdered the family at around midnight,why didn't he go to Brett Collins to " use " him as an alibi ? Under whatever pretext a pre-planned murderer would concoct. Late night drink,etc,after a heavy days ' work. I'm sure Jeremy would have thought of something.
Instead,he stayed at home-------and phoned the police,d'oh !

[Jan]

Guilty: Because there was a hitman involved, but in "collaboration" with Jeremy. I have said this often, I think that if Jeremy is guilty, he could not have counted on pulling this off by himself.

I don´t think a hitman did this alone for many reasons, one being that 2000 pounds was a ridiculously small amount for killing five people, but makes sense if the "deal" was to assist Jeremy and perhaps only kill one, hold Sheila or whomever might wake up, things of that nature.

Innocent: Julie made it up - but why would she if she was out to "get" Jeremy?

I think my Guilty version makes more sense.... Remember I am on the fence about the case, and believe Jeremy might very well have done the murders - but with an accomplice; that is where I differ from most "guilters", and it is hardly ever discussed.

I sort of agree with you on the guilty one - because I still can not get my head round him planning to stand next to the police just a couple of hours after committing such a crime himself - if a hitman had done it then he would not have evidence to destroy either .But the police themselves were the ones in a way who ruled that out because of stating how the house was secured - but in theory if it was " assumed that Jeremy could get out then he could have told someone else how to do it.


Innocent - yes get your point - if she was out for revenge she would just pin it all on Jeremy right from the beginning. But did the story come from the police who perhaps wanted to kill two birds with one stone. I Just can not understand someone being named when apparently there was a watertight alibi?or perhaps the police  did suspect another person was involved and the name was the only one that Julie could come up with of who she thought they knew that would be capable?

[Alias]

If Jeremy had murdered the family at around midnight,why didn't he go to Brett Collins to " use " him as an alibi ? Under whatever pretext a pre-planned murderer would concoct. Late night drink,etc,after a heavy days ' work. I'm sure Jeremy would have thought of something.
Instead,he stayed at home-------and phoned the police,d'oh !

Brett Collins was in Greece at the time of the murders, wasn´t he?

[No-Bits]

Brett Collins was in Greece at the time of the murders, wasn´t he?

It would have been a fantastic alibi then.  :D

[Jan]

I should clarify my last point

when questioning Julie  " we know Jeremy is involved but we think someone helped him. Is there anyone in your group of friends who might have knowledge of weapons or the ability to do this ? Could Jeremy have paid this person?

JM - There is one person I can think of   MM -  and then the police rush to question him?

[Alias]

I sort of agree with you on the guilty one - because I still can not get my head round him planning to stand next to the police just a couple of hours after committing such a crime himself - if a hitman had done it then he would not have evidence to destroy either .But the police themselves were the ones in a way who ruled that out because of stating how the house was secured - but in theory if it was " assumed that Jeremy could get out then he could have told someone else how to do it.


Innocent - yes get your point - if she was out for revenge she would just pin it all on Jeremy right from the beginning. But did the story come from the police who perhaps wanted to kill two birds with one stone. I Just can not understand someone being named when apparently there was a watertight alibi?or perhaps the police  did suspect another person was involved and the name was the only one that Julie could come up with of who she thought they knew that would be capable?

But jamsus, I didn´t say I think a hitman did it alone - I said a hitman (accomplice) could have been involved ALONG WITH JEREMY.