When the enquiry changed from a suicide to murder did the relatives have alibis?

[Hartley]

"If just one of the ten jurors had wavered, Bamber would have walked away a free man."

Andrew Hunter MP

He may well have said that, but unfortunately it is not the case.

In a Crown Court case if the jury are unable to reach a unanimous or majority verdict in a case which involves significant public interest then there is an assumption in law that the prosecution will seek a re-trial.

Hunters statement is premature.

In fact reading up a bit more, if a retrial took place and a majority verdict failed a second time, it is even conceivable that the prosecution would seek a second retrial.

That is extremely unlikely.  The legal convention is that the prosecution agree that it is not in the public interest for there to be a third trial following two trials with a hung jury.

Yes I didn't say it was likely, but it is conceivable.

[ngb1066]

"If just one of the ten jurors had wavered, Bamber would have walked away a free man."

Andrew Hunter MP

He may well have said that, but unfortunately it is not the case.

In a Crown Court case if the jury are unable to reach a unanimous or majority verdict in a case which involves significant public interest then there is an assumption in law that the prosecution will seek a re-trial.

Hunters statement is premature.

In fact reading up a bit more, if a retrial took place and a majority verdict failed a second time, it is even conceivable that the prosecution would seek a second retrial.

That is extremely unlikely.  The legal convention is that the prosecution agree that it is not in the public interest for there to be a third trial following two trials with a hung jury.

Yes I didn't say it was likely, but it is conceivable.

It is a theoretical possibility but I am not aware of any case where that has happened.  I suspect the only situation in which a further trial would take place following two trials resulting in a hung jury would be if compelling new evidence came to light immediately after the last trial which assisted the prosecution and had not previously been available.

[Hartley]

Okay, the book I read talked about nobbled juries as well, and it did say it would be rare.

But as a direct response to comments stating that if just one more juror swung the other way, JB would walk free, that's not the case. A 9-3 verdict would have, from what I understand resulted in a retrial.

[paulg]

If ifs and ands were pots and pans.

If the 2 not guilties were borderline, it could have been a 12-0 whitewash with a bit more jury discussion.

  How long did the jury retire for, does anyone know?

[Jackiepreece]

That's just what we need on here this afternoon Ngb someone who knows exactly what they are talking about!

[paulg]

That's just what we need on here this afternoon Ngb someone who knows exactly what they are talking about!

Lol, +1 Jackie

[grahameb]

Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder

Why don't they?

What makes you think that they don't? Enlighten me please.

Lets be clear about this, Muggy wasn't involved as Jackie likes to put it but by alleging such she has just admitted that Jeremy did murder his family.

Nice own goal Jacks!   

Yes I saw that.  There's a wood around here somewhere but I can't see it because of all these god damn trees!!!

Jackie was playing on your own prejudices there. She wasn't admitting that Jeremy had committed the murders. She was saying that if the relatives believed that Jeremy had committed the murders then why did they not act accordingly with Julie Mugford and make sure she was done as well for accessory after the fact. As far as I can see that is all Jackie is saying here.

But she came forward and that's what makes the difference.

So a person will be let off a serious crime if they dob someone else in. Is that how the police work John?

Believe it or not that is exactly how it works mate.  I am surprised that you haven't grasped this yet.

In one example I can give, a girl murdered a guy in Edinburgh some years ago and later blamed her boyfriend who was sleeping in the flat at the time.  The COPFS gave her immunity and prosecuted the boyfriend who is now doing 20 years in the same prison as Luke Mitchell.

How's that??

It's referred to as 'Turning Queen's Evidence'.

Oh I grasped it ages ago John. I also knew a few in the force and the police corruption that goes on. Not saying they're all corrupt. That would be stupid. I've known some good coppers and some bad coppers. And it ain't all the uniformed either. I think it's disgraceful that people can be let off very serious crimes just because they turn Queen's evidence. What kind of message does that put out to people like Julie Mugford.

[grahameb]

Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder

Why don't they?

What makes you think that they don't? Enlighten me please.

Lets be clear about this, Muggy wasn't involved as Jackie likes to put it but by alleging such she has just admitted that Jeremy did murder his family.

Nice own goal Jacks!   

Yes I saw that.  There's a wood around here somewhere but I can't see it because of all these god damn trees!!!

Jackie was plaing on your own prejudices there. She wasn't admitting that Jeremy had committed the murders. She was saying that if the relatives believed that Jeremy had committed the murders then why did they not act accordingly with Julie Mugford and make sure she was done as well for accessory after the fact. As far as I can see that is all Jackie is saying here.

But she came forward and that's what makes the difference.

So a person will be let off a serious crime if they dob someone else in. Is that how the police work John?

Believe it or not that is exactly how it works mate.  I am surprised that you haven't grasped this yet.

In one example I can give, a girl murdered a guy in Edinburgh some years ago and later blamed her boyfriend who was sleeping in the flat at the time.  The COPFS gave her immunity and prosecuted the boyfriend who is now doing 20 years in the same prison as Luke Mitchell.

How's that??

It's referred to as 'Turning Queen's Evidence'.

I think that John is a very revealing story John and one that should cast doubts in your mind about the Jeremy Bamber case.

[chochokeira]

"If just one of the ten jurors had wavered, Bamber would have walked away a free man."

Andrew Hunter MP

He may well have said that, but unfortunately it is not the case.

In a Crown Court case if the jury are unable to reach a unanimous or majority verdict in a case which involves significant public interest then there is an assumption in law that the prosecution will seek a re-trial.

Hunters statement is premature.

In fact reading up a bit more, if a retrial took place and a majority verdict failed a second time, it is even conceivable that the prosecution would seek a second retrial.

That is extremely unlikely.  The legal convention is that the prosecution agree that it is not in the public interest for there to be a third trial following two trials with a hung jury.

Yes I didn't say it was likely, but it is conceivable.

It is a theoretical possibility but I am not aware of any case where that has happened.  I suspect the only situation in which a further trial would take place following two trials resulting in a hung jury would be if compelling new evidence came to light immediately after the last trial which assisted the prosecution and had not previously been available.

+1 nbg

[grahameb]

Jackie was playing on your own prejudices there. She wasn't admitting that Jeremy had committed the murders.

Yes I know, that's why I responded somewhat flippantly.

She was saying that if the relatives believed that Jeremy had committed the murders then why did they not act accordingly with Julie Mugford and make sure she was done as well for accessory after the fact. As far as I can see that is all Jackie is saying here.

I have no idea, I wasn't there.

But let's just, for the sake of discussion only, say that JM was telling the truth, she had asked JB several times after the murders if it was him, he said no.
So before and after the murders JM was not sure, she perhaps put JB's previous comments down to him being a bit fantastical, story telling.
Then afterwards she started having more doubts, not wanting to believe that the man she loved was capable of such an act she didn't act on her doubts.
As time passed the doubts increased, then others (them pesky, greedy good for nothing relatives) started to consider JB was responsible, the doubts increased further and she went to the police.
(Yes I know there's other bits in there about being jilted etc.)

If something like the above occurred, then perhaps the relatives would be grateful towards JM rather than going hammer and tongs to get her banged up as well. After all she was also the star witness and ultimately her statements were responsible in part for allowing EP to charge JB and then secure conviction against him. Something the relatives were clearly happy about as they were convinced he was responsible.

So why would they hate her?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't black and white and just because somebody doesn't think or act the way  in which you would expect, it doesn't mean that the assumptions that you make and the conclusions you draw are the only realistic possibility.

Likewise you could apply that to JB and some of his actions, but that's why were all here discussing the case and going round in circles.

I know you said the other bits like being jilted, as if they were not important. But in my opinion that was the key to her whole confession. That it seems was the driving force behind her going to the police. As she only went to the police after they broke up.

[grahameb]

Colchester is the nearest I have been, what about you?

WHF

[John]

Chochokeira I don't think we are dealing with a normal person here and I don't think he ever really reads the posts or he wouldn't keep posting his lies and fantasies.

I do question if he is even safe to be around such hate and venom for someone he doesn't even know god knows what he's capable of

Imagine if JB was released he might try to harm him

It's a real worry

You don't like the truth do you Jackie about your wonderfully innocent Jeremy.  Maybe I should post every single rotten episode that he was involved in...little wonder Nevill broke down and cried over such an idiot!

Your penultimate comment just shows your own state of mind Jackie and why on earth would I want to know a child killer exactly? 

[John]

"If just one of the ten jurors had wavered, Bamber would have walked away a free man."

Andrew Hunter MP

He may well have said that, but unfortunately it is not the case.

In a Crown Court case if the jury are unable to reach a unanimous or majority verdict in a case which involves significant public interest then there is an assumption in law that the prosecution will seek a re-trial.

Hunters statement is premature.

In fact reading up a bit more, if a retrial took place and a majority verdict failed a second time, it is even conceivable that the prosecution would seek a second retrial.

That is extremely unlikely.  The legal convention is that the prosecution agree that it is not in the public interest for there to be a third trial following two trials with a hung jury.

Tell Sion Jenkins that then.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article728984.ece

[grahameb]

Chochokeira I don't think we are dealing with a normal person here and I don't think he ever really reads the posts or he wouldn't keep posting his lies and fantasies.

I do question if he is even safe to be around such hate and venom for someone he doesn't even know god knows what he's capable of

Imagine if JB was released he might try to harm him

It's a real worry

You don't like the truth do you Jackie about your wonderfully innocent Jeremy.  Maybe I should post every single rotten episode that he was involved in...little wonder Nevill broke down and cried over such an idiot!

Your penultimate comment just shows your own state of mind Jackie and why on earth would I want to know a child killer exactly? 

Yes he was involved in a lot of stuff and he wasn't that lilly white. But John, haven't you changed over the years and grown up a lot? People do change and get older and wiser. Would you like it if people kept dragging up all the mistakes you made when you were young?

ps: I don't think Jackie would want to know a child killer. She thinks he's innocent. I for one wouldn't be defending him if I thought he was guilty. This is the kind of remark I seem to get from most of those who think he is guilty. That all those who think he isn't are all fools?

[John]

I accept that grahame but that doesn't mean he didn't do it.  Whether he is a nice chappie now is totally irrelevant to his conviction.

We are not all on here to accrue brownie points like besotted Jackie.