Why did the police frame Jeremy ?

[Mr. Gee]

Thanks, Gemma. That is my basic point. Sounds like you've been watching reruns of Perry Mason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA9t1nSGXXE

Unfortunately Perry Mason will not help here. Raymond Burr who played Mason tried to defend himself in his own court case and failed. The judge said that he didn't follow proper courtroom procedure. But I do agree with you on the issue of Mugford's evidence, that because of the inconsistencies in her testimony it should not have been allowed to be given in court. Instead what happened is that they attributed the lies in her testimony to Bamber and came to the conclusion that it was he who mislead her and that she did not lie.

[lookout]

So a conviction by " word of mouth ".Whatever next ?

[lookout]

He said " he could kill his family "---------------------right,lock him up.

[Caroline]

Grahame

Caroline can correct me if I'm wrong, but I take her to mean something like this: that she, personally, thinks that Jeremy, in some form or other, intimated to Julie that he was the killer, but while also admitting that Mugford's given testimony contains a number of lies.

I think Dan is looking Julie's evidence strictly from a “rules of the game”  perspective. He appears to be saying that regardless of whether or not you think he did confess to her, the lies she told (like the description of Sheila's body on the bed) discredit her as a witness, so  opinons about her as an individual are not relevant. Of course supporters of Jeremy despise Julie Mugford, but that is not the real issue.

In american courtroom dramas a classic scene is one in which the defence expose a significant lie in the testimony of a prosecution witness and there's commotion in the court. The judge pounds his gavel to maintain order, then makes it clear to the jury that the evidence of that witness should be “stricken from the record”. 

If that is what Dan is saying should have happened in Bamber's trial, then I agree with him. The guilty supporters evidently do not.

It's her status as a witness which is in question, not whether or not you feel support for her.

The defense had ample time and opportunity to destroy Mugford as a witness, it was their job to discredit her. The judge asked the jury to consider who they most believed, Jeremy or Mugford and they chose Mugford (or 10 of them did). This isn't a court and I am not a lawyer, my (or your) opinion will NOT affect Jeremy's position. We can talk about how fair the trail was (and I do think it was stacked against him) but I still think he's guilty. Are you saying that even if Jeremy is guilty, we should be more concerned whether Mugford lied and if she did, a killer should have been set free?

I'm not arguing my point from a legal position, that's for those more qualified to decide. Whether or not Mugford lied and the silencer was planted, I still think Jeremy is guilt but I will also say that I believe Jeremy deliberately told her certain incorrect information as insurance, because if she did talk, in his mind, she could be easily discredited.

[Mr. Gee]

The defense had ample time and opportunity to destroy Mugford as a witness, it was their job to discredit her. The judge asked the jury to consider who they most believed, Jeremy or Mugford and they chose Mugford (or 10 of them did). This isn't a court and I am not a lawyer, my (or your) opinion will NOT affect Jeremy's position. We can talk about how fair the trail was (and I do think it was stacked against him) but I still think he's guilty. Are you saying that even if Jeremy is guilty, we should be more concerned whether Mugford lied and if she did, a killer should have been set free?

I'm not arguing my point from a legal position, that's for those more qualified to decide. Whether or not Mugford lied and the silencer was planted, I still think Jeremy is guilt but I will also say that I believe Jeremy deliberately told her certain incorrect information as insurance, because if she did talk, in his mind, she could be easily discredited.

If he was guilty why would Mugford need to lie?

[Caroline]

If he was guilty why would Mugford need to lie?

To cover her own arse.

[Mr. Gee]

To cover her own arse.

Or to frame him?

[Caroline]

Or to frame him?

Or not  . Is it lying if you just repeat what you were told, but the person who told you, deliberately fed you incorrect information?

[lookout]

What/who else would there have been without JM's lies ? Because there was no forensic evidence of any kind in which to pin the murders on Jeremy.
JM was coerced by the police,particularly SJ,to go as a prosecution witness,with a sweetner of £25,000 to go with it pending a conviction.
I bet that JM was very uncomfortable with this " arrangement" and it was only the thought of the financial gain that kept her going.
Without the encouragement from SJ,she'd have fallen flat on her face.
EVERYONE likes money,and JM was no different,being in the position at the time to like it even more after splitting up with Jeremy, so looked upon it as a means to an end and also as a form of " compensation " against her loss/dream of becoming mistress of WHF one day.
If only we'd been privy to her 32 statements,eh ?

[Caroline]

What/who else would there have been without JM's lies ? Because there was no forensic evidence of any kind in which to pin the murders on Jeremy.
JM was coerced by the police,particularly SJ,to go as a prosecution witness,with a sweetner of £25,000 to go with it pending a conviction.
I bet that JM was very uncomfortable with this " arrangement" and it was only the thought of the financial gain that kept her going.
Without the encouragement from SJ,she'd have fallen flat on her face.
EVERYONE likes money,and JM was no different,being in the position at the time to like it even more after splitting up with Jeremy, so looked upon it as a means to an end and also as a form of " compensation " against her loss/dream of becoming mistress of WHF one day.
If only we'd been privy to her 32 statements,eh ?

I think you're forgetting the silencer? 

[Mr. Gee]

Or not  . Is it lying if you just repeat what you were told, but the person who told you, deliberately fed you incorrect information?

But that is the question Caroline isn't it? That is the view the prosecution took. But at the end of the day they were her words that Jeremy swore he never told her. So logically the words are hers and not his, as no one can prove that Bamber told her anything?

[lookout]

I think you're forgetting the silencer? 

Like AE did,you mean ? 

[Patti]

The defense had ample time and opportunity to destroy Mugford as a witness, it was their job to discredit her. The judge asked the jury to consider who they most believed, Jeremy or Mugford and they chose Mugford (or 10 of them did). This isn't a court and I am not a lawyer, my (or your) opinion will NOT affect Jeremy's position. We can talk about how fair the trail was (and I do think it was stacked against him) but I still think he's guilty. Are you saying that even if Jeremy is guilty, we should be more concerned whether Mugford lied and if she did, a killer should have been set free?

I'm not arguing my point from a legal position, that's for those more qualified to decide. Whether or not Mugford lied and the silencer was planted, I still think Jeremy is guilt but I will also say that I believe Jeremy deliberately told her certain incorrect information as insurance, because if she did talk, in his mind, she could be easily discredited.

If that was the case then why was she not easily discredited? 

[Mr. Gee]

I think you're forgetting the silencer? 

If of course at best it was contaminated which was indicated by the police officer who picked it up from the Eatons and testified that it was not in "that state" when he got it.
And at worst was not found by any independent people (those who have no personal  interest) ande in reality should not e received as evidence. Just why the defense did not object to it I don't know? It appears that they took far too much for granted that the prosecution's evidence was true?

[lookout]

If of course at best it was contaminated which was indicated by the police officer who picked it up from the Eatons and testified that it was not in "that state" when he got it.
And at worst was not found by any independent people (those who have no personal  interest) ande in reality should not e received as evidence. Just why the defense did not object to it I don't know? It appears that they took far too much for granted that the prosecution's evidence was true?

I agree Mr G. Imagine if it had been found by a member of EP ? Now that would have called for far more investigating on a wider scale than was carried out.