outlandish Theory's

[Jane]

Try not to be so patronising to posters .

The fact is that it is illegal to approach a major witness in a crime and offer money  before or during a trial - and no one ever said it caused her evidence in the first place - work out for your self why it is against the law.

Julies evidence does not actually say Jeremy did it - it involved a hitman  a theory that was completely dismissed ( although funnily enough the police did seem to accept a hitman could have made the call from WHF ( wonder why?

Julie herself after the trial said Jeremy had NEVER told her he had done the murders - don't you find that odd? She also said in 2002 that she stood by her evidence and believed he was guilty but new forensics might shed new light on the case - hmmm ?

Reference the crimes she committed - don't you think the police ask all potential witnesses if there is anything in their background that might "tar" their reputation as a witness? That's when she probably told them about her history . Then she was given immunity in return for being the prime witness.

Actually Jan, I find that Julie never actually said Jeremy did it one of the believable parts of her testimony. HOW could she say she knew he was guilty? She wasn't there. She could only say what he'd told her. I don't believe she told them word for word how much she knew, but it's very possible she picked up on his advice of telling as much of the truth as possible.

[guest154]

Actually Jan, I find that Julie never actually said Jeremy did it one of the believable parts of her testimony. HOW could she say she knew he was guilty? She wasn't there. She could only say what he'd told her. I don't believe she told them word for word how much she knew, but it's very possible she picked up on his advice of telling as much of the truth as possible.

If she was going to frame Bamber and say he had told her things, then surely saying that he'd told her he was guilty is what she would go with - IMO her story does sound true and was fed to her by Bamber with enough 'mistakes' that if she ever told her story to others some of it wouldn't ring true.

Try not to be so patronising to posters .

The fact is that it is illegal to approach a major witness in a crime and offer money  before or during a trial - and no one ever said it caused her evidence in the first place - work out for your self why it is against the law.

Julies evidence does not actually say Jeremy did it - it involved a hitman  a theory that was completely dismissed ( although funnily enough the police did seem to accept a hitman could have made the call from WHF ( wonder why?

Julie herself after the trial said Jeremy had NEVER told her he had done the murders - don't you find that odd? She also said in 2002 that she stood by her evidence and believed he was guilty but new forensics might shed new light on the case - hmmm ?

Reference the crimes she committed - don't you think the police ask all potential witnesses if there is anything in their background that might "tar" their reputation as a witness? That's when she probably told them about her history . Then she was given immunity in return for being the prime witness.

That's a slight twist on what you posted the other day, Jan. Don't become like Lookout and the OS and twist what people have said to fit in with the point you're making. 

[Jane]

[quote author=Jan link=topic=7129.msg338970#msg338970 date=1449251988..................................... She also said in 2002 that she stood by her evidence and believed he was guilty but new forensics might shed new light on the case - hmm.................................
[/quote]


No, Jan. That isn't exactly what she said. I posted the exact sequence which gives a rather different slant.

[Caroline]

If she was going to frame Bamber and say he had told her things, then surely saying that he'd told her he was guilty is what she would go with - IMO her story does sound true and was fed to her by Bamber with enough 'mistakes' that if she ever told her story to others some of it wouldn't ring true.

That's a slight twist on what you posted the other day, Jan. Don't become like Lookout and the OS and twist what people have said to fit in with the point you're making. 

I totally believe that to be the case!

[Caroline]

Try not to be so patronising to posters .

The fact is that it is illegal to approach a major witness in a crime and offer money  before or during a trial - and no one ever said it caused her evidence in the first place - work out for your self why it is against the law.

Julies evidence does not actually say Jeremy did it - it involved a hitman  a theory that was completely dismissed ( although funnily enough the police did seem to accept a hitman could have made the call from WHF ( wonder why?

Julie herself after the trial said Jeremy had NEVER told her he had done the murders - don't you find that odd? She also said in 2002 that she stood by her evidence and believed he was guilty but new forensics might shed new light on the case - hmmm ?

Reference the crimes she committed - don't you think the police ask all potential witnesses if there is anything in their background that might "tar" their reputation as a witness? That's when she probably told them about her history . Then she was given immunity in return for being the prime witness.

That's a little different from

One other thing in CAL book Julie is quoted as saying she still thought Jeremey was guilty but that forensic evidence might prove otherwise.

It really does depend on the slant you put on that comment because I read it as that she 'believes' he's guilty but that future forensic evidence might be able to PROVE it.

[guest154]

That's a little different from
It really does depend on the slant you put on that comment because I read it as that she 'believes' he's guilty but that future forensic evidence might be able to PROVE it.

There is no doubt for me that Julie believes him guilty. You don't give police statements, testify against someone at trial and then talk about them in your press....and not be sure. I just see this as the same thing as people having "doubts" over Colin believing in Jeremy's guilt.

When it comes to Bambers guilt I doubt there is ANYONE on this earth more sure of Bambers guilt than Julie, other than Bamber himself of course.

[Caroline]

There is no doubt for me that Julie believes him guilty. You don't give police statements, testify against someone at trial and then talk about them in your press....and not be sure. I just see this as the same thing as people having "doubts" over Colin believing in Jeremy's guilt.

When it comes to Bambers guilt I doubt there is ANYONE on this earth more sure of Bambers guilt than Julie, other than Bamber himself of course.

I honestly think he has passed it off as justifiable homicide.

[maggie]

What is rather interesting is that the first study of the moderator did not lead to an arrest. Only after mugford came forward was Bamber then arrested, Then the second examination of the moderator made it a smoking gun. don't add up.

I agree the moderator evidence doesn't add up, I believe it was fabricated.

[lookout]

The moderator HAD been handled and possibly tried by Sheila who may have thought it would make a difference to the sound of the rifle. On trying to fit it,she'd have found herself dithering and cross-threading,so because there was blood on both ends of it means that she handled it while the mixture of June and Neville's blood on it would prove that it had been in contact with them but not necessarily fired while the moderator was fixed.

[Steve_uk]

There is no doubt for me that Julie believes him guilty. You don't give police statements, testify against someone at trial and then talk about them in your press....and not be sure. I just see this as the same thing as people having "doubts" over Colin believing in Jeremy's guilt.

When it comes to Bambers guilt I doubt there is ANYONE on this earth more sure of Bambers guilt than Julie, other than Bamber himself of course.

This is all true,but why she had to hitch up her skirt and extend a beaming smile is just yet another shocking aspect of the case.

[susan]

This is all true,but why she had to hitch up her skirt and extend a beaming smile is just yet another shocking aspect of the case.

Steve I thought Julie's behaviour was in very bad taste considering she was selling her story following the deaths of 5 innocent people two of them 6 year old boys I would have thought it would have been normal behaviour to feel very very sad over the whole incident.

[mike tesko]

Mugford was groomed on what to say and how to say it by Stan Jones and his gang - 31 separate times they interviewed her, and they charged her with no criminal offence. Even the Yorkshire ripper didn't get spoken too that number of times..,

[maggie]

This is all true,but why she had to hitch up her skirt and extend a beaming smile is just yet another shocking aspect of the case.

She seemed to not know what was acceptable behaviour in that situation. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[mike tesko]

Julies evidence does not actually say Jeremy did it - it involved a hitman  a theory that was completely dismissed ( although funnily enough the police did seem to accept a hitman could have made the call from WHF ( wonder why?

Essex police knew that (1) there was a call made from the farmhouse to Jeremy's cottage at Goldhanger, and that (2) there was a call to the police from the farmhouse, and further, (3) that there was a call from Jeremy's cottage to Witham police station, and (4)  a call from Jeremy's cottage to PC West...

Additionally, they know that at 03.29am, that a panic alarm which had been fitted at the farmhouse because of threats made against his and his families lives, by two unsavoury characters, one named Bell - had been activated...

[mike tesko]

In September 1985, when Jeremy was in custody on suspicion of being involved in the murders, they went to his cottage and removed his answer phone and six audio recording tapes, which they examined to see whether the tapes had recorded any information about that call. They reasoned that if Jeremy had hired a hitman then the hitman could have contacted Jeremy at his cottage to confirm the killings had been successfully executed. Alternatively, they looked at what Julie Mugford had told them, might simply have been a smoke screen, and that Jeremy had had some direct involvement in the killing of one or more of the victims, and that he had made the call himself from the farmhouse to his cottage, and that the answer machine might produce evidence supporting this, I.e. that if Jeremy had made a call to himself from the scene to his cottage, that the answer phone might have kicked in. But, no such evidence was found to support such a theory...