Why did the police frame Jeremy ?

[Dan Straker]

The answer to this is REALLY OBVIOUS! They thought he was guilty but didn't think they had enough evidence to convict him. Even WITH the silencer and JM's testimony, Stan Jones still wasn't confident they would get the go ahead from the CPS.

But, Caroline, can you give us some ideas of yours as to WHY they, the police, thought he was guilty. I can see why regular guilters like Adam see your input on the case as kind of undermining their position and as possibly helping the defense. You admit that the evidence used to convict Bamber was false evidence, yet you say that you still think he's guilty. You say that you think that there ought to be a retrial. But what evidence could be used without the silencer evidence and Julie Mugford's testimony?


I tend to think that in a retrial all we would hear from the prosecution would be a lot of psychological hogwash. You would have the prosecutor just trying to convince the jury that the idea that Nevill would have phoned Jeremy is just ridiculous and a lot of stuff like that. I think that they would need a really stupid jury to get another conviction. The first jury were convinced by the evidence you reject. Their verdict made sense at the time.

Does the defense in a british case have the right to peremtory challenge of jurors?
I'm pretty sure that Jeremy would have a better chance with a jury which includes academics and professionals than with a bunch of people on welfare. I know that sounds elitist, but that's the way lawyers think. The side who know their case is weak would prefer a dumb jury.

[Caroline]

But, Caroline, can you give us some ideas of yours as to WHY they, the police, thought he was guilty. I can see why regular guilters like Adam see your input on the case as kind of undermining their position and as possibly helping the defense. You admit that the evidence used to convict Bamber was false evidence, yet you say that you still think he's guilty. You say that you think that there ought to be a retrial. But what evidence could be used without the silencer evidence and Julie Mugford's testimony?


I tend to think that in a retrial all we would hear from the prosecution would be a lot of psychological hogwash. You would have the prosecutor just trying to convince the jury that the idea that Nevill would have phoned Jeremy is just ridiculous and a lot of stuff like that. I think that they would need a really stupid jury to get another conviction. The first jury were convinced by the evidence you reject. Their verdict made sense at the time.

Does the defense in a british case have the right to peremtory challenge of jurors?
I'm pretty sure that Jeremy would have a better chance with a jury which includes academics and professionals than with a bunch of people on welfare. I know that sounds elitist, but that's the way lawyers think. The side who know their case is weak would prefer a dumb jury.

No, I didn't say ALL of the evidence was false - I didn't say that at all - only the silencer Dan!! AND no, I don't think Julie spoke the whole truth but I believe her testimony as far Jeremy's involvement  and I believe that she believes he killed the family. I have explained in detail why I think the way I do, it's all there if you can bother yourself to read it.

I do think Jeremy should have a retrial but I also think he would be convicted a second time.

[Dan Straker]

No, I didn't say ALL of the evidence was false - I didn't say that at all - only the silencer Dan!! AND no, I don't think Julie spoke the whole truth but I believe her testimony as far Jeremy's involvement  and I believe that she believes he killed the family. I have explained in detail why I think the way I do, it's all there if you can bother yourself to read it.

I do think Jeremy should have a retrial but I also think he would be convicted a second time.

I know I've mentioned it a few times, but nobody seems able to answer this question. How can anybody believe Julie Mugford's story of Jeremy's confession when it contains a description of Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest and other details which correspond exactly to the description which the policeman gave to Ann Eaton? That should be seen as proof that she lied. Coincidences are possible but not realistic when it comes to a set of exact details. 

You said that Bamber would be likely to be re convicted if there were a retrial, but on what evidence?  You seem to suggest that there is a lot of evidence, but I can't see it in your posts interesting though they are.

By the way, I have read Julie Mugford's statements and also those of Ann Eaton. You can correct me if I'm wrong when I say that Julie's description of Sheila's body which she said Jeremy gave her follows exactly that given to Ann Eaton by that cop. 

[mike tesko]

There is clearly something wrong with the silencer / blood evidence relied upon in this case. There is something not quite right, about where police originally found the bodies downstairs and upstairs. Something wrong with the claim that there was only one rifle used in the shootings. Something wholly unsatisfactory about senior officers taking control of the crime scene before handing it over to SOCO more than an hour later, after bodies had quite literally been used like props in a stage production. Everywhere you look in this case, you find discrepancies, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and conflict. Nothing quite adds up like it should do and would do if it were all true. Exhibirs have been tampered with, substituted in many instances with similar items, exhibit labels have been altered and changed making it nigh on impossible to follow. Relatives who were jealous of Jeremy since long before the murders. The list of things which are wrong is lengthy. Then we gave the snubbed girlfriend scenario. She had been jilted. She did not want anybody else to have him, if she couldn't have him. She tried to suffocate him with a pillow, she wanted him dead. The next best thing to killing him physically, was to make up a story using facts and details she had got from other people or had read it in the newspapers, or seen it on TV news. She did not bring anything new to the investigation other than to introduce the hitman scenario. She only introduced that because she had heard local people talk about Mathew McDonald as being a mercenary, and she knew in her heart that Jeremy wouldn't have the nerve to carry out such a henious crime. Other people put ideas into her head, and words into her mouth. She made no mention of the use of the sound moderator, or even what type of gun had been used in the shootings. Nothing she said proved that Jeremy had killed anyone. If Jeremys convictions get quashed there won't be a retrial, because all the most impirtant exhibits in tge case have all long since been destroyed or disposed of...

[Dan Straker]

There is clearly something wrong with the silencer / blood evidence relied upon in this case. There is something not quite right, about where police originally found the bodies downstairs and upstairs. Something wrong with the claim that there was only one rifle used in the shootings. Something wholly unsatisfactory about senior officers taking control of the crime scene before handing it over to SOCO more than an hour later, after bodies had quite literally been used like props in a stage production. Everywhere you look in this case, you find discrepancies, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and conflict. Nothing quite adds up like it should do and would do if it were all true. Exhibirs have been tampered with, substituted in many instances with similar items, exhibit labels have been altered and changed making it nigh on impossible to follow. Relatives who were jealous of Jeremy since long before the murders. The list of things which are wrong is lengthy. Then we gave the snubbed girlfriend scenario. She had been jilted. She did not want anybody else to have him, if she couldn't have him. She tried to suffocate him with a pillow, she wanted him dead. The next best thing to killing him physically, was to make up a story using facts and details she had got from other people or had read it in the newspapers, or seen it on TV news. She did not bring anything new to the investigation other than to introduce the hitman scenario. She only introduced that because she had heard local people talk about Mathew McDonald as being a mercenary, and she knew in her heart that Jeremy wouldn't have the nerve to carry out such a heinious crime. Other people put ideas into her head, and words into her mouth. She made no mention of the use of the sound moderator, or even what type of gun had been used in the shootings. Nothing she said proved that Jeremy had killed anyone. If Jeremy's convictions get quashed there won't be a retrial, because all the most important exhibits in the case have all long since been destroyed or disposed of...

I have to agree Mike. And if Julie Mugford was put on the stand a second time, Jeremy's defense would be hardly likely to slip up again. If ever there was a discredited witness, it's Julie.

[Dan Straker]

Hey Mike, I have noticed that I can't visit the site without logging in. I know it's not my connection, since I've tried others. Maybe it's those gremlins again! Or is there a simple explanation?

[mike tesko]

Hey Mike, I have noticed that I can't visit the site without logging in. I know it's not my connection, since I've tried others. Maybe it's those gremlins again! Or is there a simple explanation?

No, I have to sign in each time, as well, I don't know why...

[lookout]

Am I the only one who can just" walk" onto the forum,no questions asked ? 

[lookout]

Can everyone imagine the chain-reaction that would follow a successful appeal ? I can't wait. .

[Mr. Gee]

Can everyone imagine the chain-reaction that would follow a successful appeal ? I can't wait. .

I think there is a bombshell coming along that will astonish us all?

[lookout]

I think there is a bombshell coming along that will astonish us all?

Great.

[lookout]

Great.

I think the word "coercion" will perhaps feature a lot.

[Mr. Gee]

I think the word "coercion" will perhaps feature a lot.

I think there will be a lot of red faces and back tracking amongst the guilters when the ruth will come out. I can't wait ti see it myself.

[ngb1066]

Does the defense in a british case have the right to peremtory challenge of jurors?I'm pretty sure that Jeremy would have a better chance with a jury which includes academics and professionals than with a bunch of people on welfare. I know that sounds elitist, but that's the way lawyers think. The side who know their case is weak would prefer a dumb jury.

Not any longer.  There was until the late 1970s the right for the defence to challenge up to 7 jurors without cause, subsequently reduced to 4, then removed completely.  It was a very retrograde step in my opinion.

[lookout]

I think there will be a lot of red faces and back tracking amongst the guilters when the ruth will come out. I can't wait ti see it myself.

 Red faces or not,they'll still find fault and argue the toss. Even when given the absolute truth.