could rwb have been psycic.

[Jane]

Playing the sympathy card never works with me anyway.

Wouldn't expect it to. It'd be wasted. Sentimentality, however................

[lookout]

Wouldn't expect it to. It'd be wasted. Sentimentality, however................

So you'll know next time not to try it won't you ?

[Roch]

Actually, that's not QUITE true. He may have been registering his dissatisfaction with the way the investigation was proceeding. He was within his rights to do so. HOWEVER, it was entirely down to the police if they allowed themselves to be influenced by anything he said. One reads statements such as "He/she made me do it". This is rarely true. We usually have a choice.  So whatever it was you imagine he may have been responsible for 'making' the police do, it would have been their choice.

The police did say 'no' to 'the relatives'.  The police explained to 'the relatives' how Sheila was the killer and 'the relatives' at least in-part, were able to come to a reluctant acceptance that she could have carried out the killings.  However 'the relatives' began an attempt to 'infiltrate' and influence various police ranks - some of whom were familar with the customs and historic relationships in that particular area of Essex.  The police again said 'no' - even at one point questioning whether they were prepared for a potentially innocent man to go to jail.  One particuilar relative replied in the affirmative.  Even when Robert Boutflour's chosen stooge was manovering in to position and asking for a case review, the police still came back and said 'no - the evidence indicates Sheila Caffell'.

'The relatives' had to resort to using a channel between themselves, Ainsley and Stan Jones (more than willing to do to Ainsley and the relatives' bidding), in order engineer a situation were Julie Mugford was facing a precipice and could be manipulated in to constantly changing statements with the aim of achieving a desired result.  They also had to collude in order to come up with a bogus physical exhibit!  This latter circumstance is even accepted by some who favour guilt!

The real police did say 'no' to the relatives.  The problem was that Jeremy lent himself to being framed, by virtue of three factors - his position vis-a-vis 'the relatives' and the relevant estate / financial / land matters, his own behaviour in the aftermath of the killings; and his perceived character among 'the relatives' prior to the killings.  The actual evidence regarding the crime had to be invented! 

[Caroline]

The police did say 'no' to 'the relatives'.  The police explained to 'the relatives' how Sheila was the killer and 'the relatives' at least in-part, were able to come to a reluctant acceptance that she could have carried out the killings.  However 'the relatives' began an attempt to 'infiltrate' and influence various police ranks - some of whom were familar with the customs and historic relationships in that particular area of Essex.  The police again said 'no' - even at one point questioning whether they were prepared for a potentially innocent man to go to jail.  One particuilar relative replied in the affirmative.  Even when Robert Boutflour's chosen stooge was manovering in to position and asking for a case review, the police still came back and said 'no - the evidence indicates Sheila Caffell'.

'The relatives' had to resort to using a channel between themselves, Ainsley and Stan Jones (more than willing to do to Ainsley and the relatives' bidding), in order engineer a situation were Julie Mugford was facing a precipice and could be manipulated in to constantly changing statements with the aim of achieving a desired result.  They also had to collude in order to come up with a bogus physical exhibit!  This latter circumstance is even accepted by some who favour guilt!

The real police did say 'no' to the relatives.  The problem was that Jeremy lent himself to being framed, by virtue of three factors - his position vis-a-vis 'the relatives' and the relevant estate / financial / land matters, his own behaviour in the aftermath of the killings; and his perceived character among 'the relatives' prior to the killings.  The actual evidence regarding the crime had to be invented!

So what did they threaten Julie with, to make her send a person she cared about to prison for murder? Prosecute her for the cheque book fraud? Something she openly admitted to, for the caravan park robbery? Something she also told them about - OR was it as an accessory? What did they actually have on Julie before SHE TOLD THEM about the events leading up the the murders? In your scenario THEY needed Julie, not the other way around. Without Julie, they could prosecute Bamber, which means they had less ability to tie her into anything. Any solicitor would have told her they had nothing.

[lookout]

JM still helped their cause though. I wonder if she received a gift like EP did ?

[Caroline]

JM still helped their cause though. I wonder if she received a gift like EP did ?

I'm not disputing that.

[lookout]

I'm not disputing that.

But at the same time,I'll bet anything that Julie had been unaware of their motive !

[Jane]

So you'll know next time not to try it won't you ?

Ha! In your dreams, maybe.

[Roch]

So what did they threaten Julie with, to make her send a person she cared about to prison for murder? Prosecute her for the cheque book fraud? Something she openly admitted to, for the caravan park robbery? Something she also told them about - OR was it as an accessory? What did they actually have on Julie before SHE TOLD THEM about the events leading up the the murders? In your scenario THEY needed Julie, not the other way around. Without Julie, they could prosecute Bamber, which means they had less ability to tie her into anything. Any solicitor would have told her they had nothing.

Did she have just any solicitor?

In the days and weeks following the killings, the relatives spread FUD about Jeremy.  A first, it was to various police officers - which as we know continued unabated.  They may have been furtive outside of this, but given their status and trusted band of 'retainers' etc., it would only be a matter of time before their conversational nuances caused 'Chinese whispers' to begin to spread.  'Guilt by association' would only need to be hinted at. The fact that Jeremy allowed their relationship to lapse is hardly likely to have rekindled her loyalty.  I think Julie was faced with an unnerving reappraisal of her situation, which is exactly what DS Jones wanted.  He was in on the FUD, telling witnesses that no phone call had occurred from Nevill to Jeremy, when in fact it could not be proven either way.  Imagine for one moment the doubt and suspicion this would have fostered in the rumour mill at the time?  The fact that Julie had in some part come clean regarding some offences simply played in to Jones' hands later on, while also presenting a challenge in that she would have to be 'cleaned' as a witness.

[Caroline]

Did she have just any solicitor?

In the days and weeks following the killings, the relatives spread FUD about Jeremy.  A first, it was to various police officers - which as we know continued unabated.  They may have been furtive outside of this, but given their status and trusted band of 'retainers' etc., it would only be a matter of time before their conversational nuances caused 'Chinese whispers' to begin to spread.  'Guilt by association' would only need to be hinted at. The fact that Jeremy allowed their relationship to lapse is hardly likely to have rekindled her loyalty.  I think Julie was faced with an unnerving reappraisal of her situation, which is exactly what DS Jones wanted.  He was in on the FUD, telling witnesses that no phone call had occurred from Nevill to Jeremy, when in fact it could not be proven either way.  Imagine for one moment the doubt and suspicion this would have fostered in the rumour mill at the time?  The fact that Julie had in some part come clean regarding some offences simply played in to Jones' hands later on, while also presenting a challenge in that she would have to be 'cleaned' as a witness.

I don't believe it happened like that - Julie came forward and they needed to know if there was anything in her past that Jeremy could tell the defence that might discredit her. Otherwise, she had no reason to tell them,