Encounters With Evil - CBS Reality

[Caroline]

Thanks Caroline, I was looking for it last night but couldn't see it. I thought that was second episode showing other crimes x

The description mentions Jeremy - I will double check but did a search on Sky and it's in the listings for midnight on Sunday.

[Caroline]

Just checked again and it is definitely on this coming Sunday at midnight.

[JackiePreece]

I really want to see this. Has anyone recorded this yet? 

All the interviews are from the 2003 ITV true crime episode. It's basically a rehash of an old documentary. Nevertheless I would like to see it.

David and Roch
This is a must see
If ever there was evidence of a stitch up its watching Ann Eaton and David Boutflour

Absolute lies throughout

There were only three people showing jealousy
The three that lied the whole way Anne , Robert and Mugford

What a vile creature Anne Eaton is for everyone to see

[lookout]

The woman had vile and spite written all over her face,Jackie. One of her pics,I can't even stand looking at. Then there's her husband with a fixed supercilious grin. Rogues Gallery springs to mind.!

[David1819]

What time is it on today? Is anyone going to record it?

[Jane]

The woman had vile and spite written all over her face,Jackie. One of her pics,I can't even stand looking at. Then there's her husband with a fixed supercilious grin. Rogues Gallery springs to mind.!

Strange, is it not, that whilst Ann's face marks her out as guilty, Jeremy's supercilious arrogance isn't a sign of guilt.

[Roch]

I have a suspicion that the biggest error they made - was to not sufficiently question the validity of their own opinions. Instead, they appear to have been unbridled in pursuing their suspicions and theories. Perhaps they fed off each other in this. I can't help feeling that underneath any justifiable suspicions, they harboured selfish motives regarding inheritance. The ends justified the means and sadly, there was no restraint.

[Jane]

I have a suspicion that the biggest error they made - was to not sufficiently question the validity of their own opinions. Instead, they appear to have been unbridled in pursuing their suspicions and theories. Perhaps they fed off each other in this. I can't help feeling that underneath any justifiable suspicions, they harboured selfish motives regarding inheritance. The ends justified the means and sadly, there was no restraint.

Whilst the above is hardly altruistic -Christian?- it doesn't make Jeremy innocent.

[Samson]

Talking of Julie Mugford I have been reading her diaries on the Red Forum. No doubt they are here also.
I am trying to get my head around them.
If programs are really interesting, videoing them on a smart phone then posting to youtube would work.

[Roch]

Whilst the above is hardly altruistic -Christian?- it doesn't make Jeremy innocent.

Well, given that they provided the main physical exhibit in the case - and pursued the window, bike theories etc. etc., personally, I think you might be applying the wrong reasoning to the case. It's a bit like saying, 'no matter what the relatives did, provided, lied about, theorised... it doesn't mean Jeremy is innocent'.

[Jane]

Well, given that they provided the main physical exhibit in the case - and pursued the window, bike theories etc. etc., personally, I think you might be applying the wrong reasoning to the case. It's a bit like saying, 'no matter what the relatives did, provided, lied about, theorised... it doesn't mean Jeremy is innocent'.

You can call it which ever way you choose to see it, Roch, but I'm getting the very strong impression here that it's not innocence that trying to be proved -although there are one or two who believe it- as much as a get out clause being looked for, and ONE that offers possibilities is the stance of the relatives.

[David1819]

Talking of Julie Mugford I have been reading her diaries on the Red Forum. No doubt they are here also.
I am trying to get my head around them.
If programs are really interesting, videoing them on a smart phone then posting to youtube would work.

The "diary" is not written how one would typically write a diary. The "diary" contains false details about the crime that originated from Robert Boutflour's theories.

It's a retrospective diary with BS mixed into it. For what purpose it was created I do not know. It builds an even bigger paper trail of information back to the relatives and away from Jeremy.

[lookout]

Strange, is it not, that whilst Ann's face marks her out as guilty, Jeremy's supercilious arrogance isn't a sign of guilt.

First of all I hadn't said " guilt " when referring to AE's face.
Secondly,Jeremy's arrogance doesn't point towards guilt.I knew a LOT of arrogant people in my profession,but murderers they weren't,they were life-savers ! Sure of themselves and confident !!
A broad grin/smile,such as Jeremy displayed,was a long way from being supercilious.

[Samson]

The "diary" is not written how one would typically write a diary. The "diary" contains false details about the crime that originated from Robert Boutflour's theories.

It's a retrospective diary with BS mixed into it. For what purpose it was created I do not know. It builds an even bigger paper trail of information back to the relatives and away from Jeremy.

I have seen the pdfs of her writing which look genuine.
Is there some proof/common knowledge they are retrospective?
I come from the position it is scientifically impossible for JB to be at the crime scene in every way to Rome, settled.
Therefore I am trying to understand Mugford as a case study.

[Jane]

First of all I hadn't said " guilt " when referring to AE's face.
Secondly,Jeremy's arrogance doesn't point towards guilt.I knew a LOT of arrogant people in my profession,but murderers they weren't,they were life-savers ! Sure of themselves and confident !!
A broad grin/smile,such as Jeremy displayed,was a long way from being supercilious.

You may not have used the word "guilty", Lookout, but every time you mention Ann, GUILT is strongly implied.
The arrogant of your acquaintance had not, presumably, been involved in horrendous multiple murders?
I agree that Jeremy's broad grin suggested that he was sure of himself and confident. Wasn't he EVER!!! It was a smirk of the "Up yours. You think I've done it but you can't prove it" variety.