Mugfords statements.

[Adam]

I cannot supply links to 'similar' examples because I said 'possibly' for that reason. I meant that as nothing in this world is new it no doubt has happened again somewhere at sometime.  Life is not the internet although much modern life is recorded on here.
With respect no one has to accept my arguments or anyone else's which are generally just personal or borrowed opinions.
I don't argue my point soley from a subjective point of view although we all use our own experiences and knowledge of human behaviour to form our own opinions. I argue my point from a common sense and reasoning point of view based on human behaviour.
You may be right Adam as I wasn't there but what JM said on video or wherever doesnt prove anything particularly to me as we know she had questionable morals. I.e.. lying, stealing .....

On tape & in WS's she's said why she didn't believe Bamber would do anything. And why she didn't do anything for a month.

You're last post backs this up. As there are no other examples of boyfriends carrying out boasts to girlfriends to kill their family. So why should Julie believe Bamber would be different ?

The evidence of Bamber keeping a tight reign on Julie & whisking her around England & Amsterdam for a month, meant she didn't get the chance to engage with the police.

[JackiePreece]

On tape & in WS's she's said why she didn't believe Bamber would do anything. And why she didn't do anything for a month.

You're last post backs this up. As there are no other examples of boyfriends carrying out boasts to girlfriends to kill their family. So why should Julie believe Bamber would be different ?

The evidence of Bamber keeping a tight reign on Julie & whisking her around England & Amsterdam for a month, meant she didn't get the chance to engage with the police.

There are many things written  about Mugford ie police pushing Julie into saying Jeremy is guilty but I think there is also another motive why Mugford 'stitched up' Jeremy
It is very clear Mugford was furious and obsessively jealous when Jeremy finished with her. Mugfords behaviour at the time was far from normal and she made it clear she did not want Jeremy to be with anyone else

1. Motive for telling lies to the police, to stop Jeremy being with anyone else
2. The other motive for telling lies to the police which is never talked about so much.  When the family were all dead Julie was Jeremy's partner and knowing how rich the Bambers were Julie obviously took it to believe she would now we rich beyond her wildest dreams and enjoy the money and lifestyle alongside Jeremy. Julie had already shown her lust for money with the cheque book frauds. Jeremy was going to inherit the Bamber fortunes anyway. He was always going to be rich. Julie had not only lost the person she was obsessed with but all the money that went with it

[Roch]

2. The other motive for telling lies to the police which is never talked about so much.  When the family were all dead Julie was Jeremy's partner and knowing how rich the Bambers were Julie obviously took it to believe she would now we rich beyond her wildest dreams and enjoy the money and lifestyle alongside Jeremy. Julie had already shown her lust for money with the cheque book frauds. Jeremy was going to inherit the Bamber fortunes anyway. He was always going to be rich. Julie had not only lost the person she was obsessed with but all the money that went with it

You mean if she couldn't enjoy the inheritance spoils - she certainly wasn't just going to allow some other floozy (or a succession of floozy's) to take her place?

[JackiePreece]

You mean if she couldn't enjoy the inheritance spoils - she certainly wasn't just going to allow some other floozy (or a succession of floozy's) to take her place?

Spot on Roch

[guest7363]

His interview transcripts are very interesting which are online.  He couldn't be that evasive when testifying. But did struggle a lot in court.

Some of the book has Bamber's testimony in transcript form. Such as the build up to when he says 'that is what you have to establish'.

Thanks Adam, I've got the book coming from Amazon

[Adam]

You mean if she couldn't enjoy the inheritance spoils - she certainly wasn't just going to allow some other floozy (or a succession of floozy's) to take her place?

So why did Julie turn down the offer of a free flat in London ?

[Adam]

Disadvantages of Julie single handedly accusing an innocent Bamber:


There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.

Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.

To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?

Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?

There was no financial reward in approaching the police.

It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.

She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims.

Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.

She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.

It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.

She may quickly wilt under pressure.  This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?

It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.

It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.

It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.

An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.

It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.

She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.

It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.

She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?

She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.

She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.

Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.

If an unsuccessful police approach  became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.

[maggie]

On tape & in WS's she's said why she didn't believe Bamber would do anything. And why she didn't do anything for a month.

You're last post backs this up. As there are no other examples of boyfriends carrying out boasts to girlfriends to kill their family. So why should Julie believe Bamber would be different ?

The evidence of Bamber keeping a tight reign on Julie & whisking her around England & Amsterdam for a month, meant she didn't get the chance to engage with the police.

In Your Opinion.

[lookout]

According to sources JM had been very calm and collected when given the news of the tragedy.

[Caroline]

According to sources JM had been very calm and collected when given the news of the tragedy.

Yeah, because she already knew who was responsible.

[JackiePreece]

Yeah, because she already knew who was responsible.

And that would make her calm and collected ??

[Caroline]

And that would make her calm and collected ??

It's hardly going to be a shock if she already knew. There would be a lot going on in her head.

[lookout]

Yeah, because she already knew who was responsible.

You've already stated that she wasn't an accessory in law unless she'd already known ? Which is it to be,an accessory because she already knew ?

[Jane]

You've already stated that she wasn't an accessory in law unless she'd already known ? Which is it to be,an accessory because she already knew ?

Clarification. She didn't actually 'know' anything other than what he'd told her.

[David1819]

Disadvantages of Julie single handedly accusing an innocent Bamber:


There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.

Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.

To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?

Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?

There was no financial reward in approaching the police.

It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.

She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims.

Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.

She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.

It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.

She may quickly wilt under pressure.  This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?

It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.

It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.

It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.

An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.

It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.

She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.

It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.

She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?

She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.

She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.

Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.

If an unsuccessful police approach  became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.

"The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity and the Trump Tirade)"

"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.

Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad of component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop