Why Rivlin QC rightly told the jury to dismiss Julie Mugfords testimony

[guest154]

how did they all know he dident use his car or walk.

They don't. No one knows how he got there exactly, but that doesn't mean anything.  They don't have to prove HOW he got there, but just that it was possible. They don't have to prove that he could get inside, just that it was possible.

The relatives found it strange that Junes bikes was borrowed and at Jeremy's cottage, so it makes sense that they would wonder if it had been used.

[nugnug]

but its rather wierd that there all coming up with exactly the same theorys.

[Caroline]

but its rather wierd that there all coming up with exactly the same theorys.

There was nothing unusual about his car being there, nor the fact that he had two legs. However, the additional bicycle that wasn't there before would be the things to arouse suspicion.

[nugnug]

and a wetsuit a well they come to that conclusion independantly.

[guest2181]

and a wetsuit a well they come to that conclusion independantly.

Who came up with the wet suit independently?

[John]

It was Rivlin's job to ask the jury to discard Julie's evidence but unfortunately for him her testimony was both credible and persuasive.  Julie had everything to lose by lying so I see no possible reason for doing so.

Julie was best placed to put the meat on the bones, the only thing she can be held in contempt for is delaying doing so.

[sherlock]

I doubt Julie engaged much with RB or AE prior to Bamber's arrest.

Bamber had whisked her over to be by his side early in the morning of the massacre. After that she spent most of her time with Bamber being whisked around Europe. Mainly at Bamber's request.

Julie did engage with the police a lot. After one month. It's what happens when witnesses complie witness statements.

You "doubt" but you don't know for sure - do you Adam ?

[notsure]

The hit man story doesn't prove Julie was lying at all - one of them was but it could just as easily have been Jeremy. Why? Because it is so different from what actually happened that you might assume she would be discredited by telling it. No? Well, you're using it for that very reason now!

AE was told by a police officer about how June and Sheila were found, she no doubt told RWB. They both mention that the bible was on Sheila's chest which as we know, it wasn't when she was discovered. However, perhaps it was when Jeremy left her and it slid off.

Not sure what point you're trying to make by 'the method of travel' as was pointed out to you on the red forum, he had to get there somehow and the bicycle was found in his garden - this supports what Julie said rather than contradicts. The family also saw the bike! He also had to get in the house and the windows are the obvious choice.

The wetsuit was no doubt mentioned to Julie when questioned by Jones  "Did Jeremy ever mention anything about a wetsuit" so, Julie notes it down.

The £2000.00 ic clearly a coincidence given that Jeremy went to New Zealand years before the murders.

I don't agree Caroline.  I don't think David is using anything.  He is clearly pointing out from written statement/notes how Julie could have lied. I find his argument very convincing. I am very uneasy about the way the family did there own investigation and the police rather than do their own investigations used theirs. 

[notsure]

They don't. No one knows how he got there exactly, but that doesn't mean anything.  They don't have to prove HOW he got there, but just that it was possible. They don't have to prove that he could get inside, just that it was possible.

The relatives found it strange that Junes bikes was borrowed and at Jeremy's cottage, so it makes sense that they would wonder if it had been used.

Bloom in heck it's frightening isn't it to think that they can just prove something is possible to put a man in prison for 30 years

[Jane]

I don't agree Caroline.  I don't think David is using anything.  He is clearly pointing out from written statement/notes how Julie could have lied. I find his argument very convincing. I am very uneasy about the way the family did there own investigation and the police rather than do their own investigations used theirs.

The key word here being "could". It could equally have been COULDN'T which is what the jury believed, as they were entitled to.

[Adam]

Rivlin was the prosecuting QC. So not surprised he told the jury this.

The judge didn't.

If the jury didn't believe Julie, there must have been enough forensic and circumstantial evidence to convict anyway. It was just coincidence that Julie decided to lie a month after the massacre. Well who wouldn't seek revenge ? Bamber had just (apparently) jilted her.

[Jan]

Thank you David for putting that side by side . It is interesting

The comment about the glove coming off and accidentally wiping the prints off is the most ridiculous one of all. It's so obvious they are trying to cover things they did not understand at the scene.

I am pretty sure EP did not want to get criticised by the public or press again so they had to sling as much mud as possible hoping it would stick. after all there was No forensic evidence to suggest gloves were used , not one little fibre. But they had to explain the lack of prints didn't they?

[Caroline]

I don't agree Caroline.  I don't think David is using anything.  He is clearly pointing out from written statement/notes how Julie could have lied. I find his argument very convincing. I am very uneasy about the way the family did there own investigation and the police rather than do their own investigations used theirs.

That's your opinion but David doesn't use words like 'could'.

[Jan]

That's your opinion but David doesn't use words like 'could'.

Well she did lie at one stage . Obviously . Because her first statements are completely different so she was capable of blatant lies. I won't go into all of that again ,I have made my opinion of Julie quite clear.

[David1819]

Well she did lie at one stage . Obviously . Because her first statements are completely different so she was capable of blatant lies. I won't go into all of that again ,I have made my opinion of Julie quite clear.

There is a factual discrepancy in JM and AE statements, that shows JM got the info form AE. I will post it later today.