Entrapment strategy of coercive control employed by Bamber over Julie Mugford

[Caroline]

Stop insulting me David or I will put you back on ignore.

If you want a further counter argument to your apparent bias, maybe you should read up on Dr Jane Monckton Smith, who is an expert in the field of homicide. In particular domestic type murders, like the WHF murders.

Her research is extensive as indeed are her experiencess and she states the perps of these crimes are almost always male.

Bamber didn't tell Julie the full story, he invented a hit man, which is why her story started with that. No one else spoke of a hit man, only Julie and this is where her evidence differs from anyone else.

[Stephanie]

Bamber didn't tell Julie the full story, he invented a hit man, which is why her story started with that. No one else spoke of a hit man, only Julie and this is where her evidence differs from anyone else.

I totally agree Caroline.

Her evidence was accepted by the jury therefore why David keeps quoting from the trial I don't know. And his burden of proof rubbish is pointless. It was proven in a court of law Jeremy was lying. Meaning any doubt was erased.

[Steve_uk]

If that was the case you would be able to follow the case evidence and provide a counter argument based on that evidence. Yet you don't. Prove me wrong, prove that Julie did in fact provide factual evidence that only the alleged murder could possibly know. You can't because there is no such testimony. You have no evidence to prove Julie is a credible witness, but want to pretend she is credible so you just claim she is credible. That just illustrates you are a clown.

A glove came off in the fight with Nevill.

[Stephanie]

A glove came off in the fight with Nevill.

And the evidence given during his police interviews supports he was wearing gloves.

I'm not going to type it word for word and post it up. It's in the interviews when he's asked about wearing gloves when he went to allegedly shoot the rabbits.

He slipped up yet again....

His fingerprints weren't found on the gun yet he'd picked it up, loaded it blah blah..

[lookout]

A glove came off in the fight with Nevill.

Was the glove ever tested/exhibited,etc ? Or is that a daft question ?

[Stephanie]

Was the glove ever tested/exhibited,etc ? Or is that a daft question ?

Daft question

[Caroline]

A glove came off in the fight with Nevill.

Is him saying that of any real significance? That could never be determined either way. It seems like a detail that Bamber might include to add detail - nothing more.

[Stephanie]

Is him saying that of any real significance? That could never be determined either way. It seems like a detail that Bamber might include to add detail - nothing more.

It's most probably true imo

[Caroline]

It's most probably true imo

It may or may nor be but either way, it couldn't be be proven.

[Steve_uk]

Is him saying that of any real significance? That could never be determined either way. It seems like a detail that Bamber might include to add detail - nothing more.

The point is that Julie included it in her statement as well as the Matthew McDonald story. Why embellish when you have a blockbuster story to begin with?

[Caroline]

The point is that Julie included it in her statement as well as the Matthew McDonald story. Why embellish when you have a blockbuster story to begin with?

I don't think 'she' did. He did.

[Steve_uk]

I don't think 'she' did. He did.

Who is he?

[lookout]

What's to stop a woman from wearing a glove to protect her nails ? Perhaps that's why her manicure appeared pristine ??

[Caroline]

Who is he?

Jeremy!

[Caroline]

What's to stop a woman from wearing a glove to protect her nails ? Perhaps that's why her manicure appeared pristine ??

So Jeremy would know that one of Sheila's gloves came off and add it to his story for Julie?