Is Julie Mugford relevant?

[Nigel]

That is not true. She gave a lot of evidence that Bamber didnt know.

Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"



Why was he allowed to tell this to the Jury? here's why

Jeremy's "confession"

Below is what Julie claims Jeremy confessed to her. This statement is false for two reasons. Jeremy's alleged confession of the crime as told by Julie Mugford does not correspond or coincide with the actual crime scene itself, as we all know Shelia was found on the floor not on the bed, the bible next to her also on the floor not on her chest. Had Jeremy committed the murders and given a detailed confession as Julie claims then Julies statements would corroborate the crime scene and they don't!



The second reason Julies statement is false is because her description of Jeremy's alleged confession is exactly the same as Ann Eaton and RWB's impression of events as seen in Ann Eatons notes and RWB's diary written in August. See below

Ann Eaton's note's second line down "Shelia on bed bible on chest"

RWB's Diary


So not only can we establish that Julies claims are false we can now narrow down were she actually got that information from. Either Police or Ann Eaton as Rivlin rightly told the jury.


More disturbing correlations

Windows and the Bike

In August RWB speculates that Jeremy used a bike then also in august RWB and AE speculate how Jeremy would enter the building 





Then come September the 8th Julie reveals how Jeremy "confessed" to her his method of travel and entry, exactly how RWB and AE predicted!


The Wet suit

On the 28th of August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy used a wet suit in the murders


This then appears in Julie Mugford's diary along with the bicycle


The £2000.00 payment

2nd of September RWB claims Jeremy lent a friend £2000



Julie then claims that Jeremy paid Macdonald £2000




The Fingerprints and the gun magazine

In August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy got Shelia to load the bullets into the magazine to get her fingerprints on them.



Then come September lo and behold Julie claims this is exactly what Jeremy had confessed to her.



This is why Julies statements are completely false, Her statements have direct parallels with Ann Eaton notes and RWBs diary both of which deviate from the facts of the crime scene and contradict other factual aspects surrounding the case. Therefore Jeremy did not and could not have confessed or told her anything in her statements, it is impossible!



Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record). I have shown you the trial transcripts and the very statements mentioned in those trial transcripts.

The fundamental point Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).

1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.

2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)

3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!

One only has to read Julie Mugfords statements and the cross examination of Ann Eaton to workout were Julie really got those false details from in order for her to make the bogus claim that Jeremy confessed to the killings. The devil is in the details, its just a matter of putting the puzzle together.

From Julie Mugford’s statement, page 23

"I have been asked if I have read or been told about a bible found on Sheila's
chest when she was found dead. I can definitely say I haven't but it was
told to me by Jeremy. I will add that some time after the 7th August 1985,
Ann EATON asked me if I knew about a bible which was near Sheila and I told
her that I did and that it was found on her chest. I think I told her it
was creepy. I think she asked me about the bible on the Friday of the week of the murders.”


This makes no sense. If Ann Eaton had asked Julie question of the bible some time after the 7th August then Julie answers to Ann that the bible was on Sheila's chest, Then she would have asked Julie how she got that information and Julie would have had to tell her that Jeremy told her the story about Matthew MacDonald. ?

In the trial transcript below. While cross examined by Rivlin QC, at first AE said that she thought she had first heard about the bible on Sheila's chest from Julie Mugford, but Rivlin QC was setting a trap to force AE to admit she actually got that information from the police  by showing her her own statement which she sais she got the information from the police at the house. Another interesting observation, is that AE seems to remember the police telling her all the details mentioned in the statement but when it comes to bible she just happens to forget. Selective memory loss at times most convenient when it comes to the big issues seems to occur often in AE. 

Ann Eaton trial testimony: cross examined 7th October 1986
RIVLIN. I would like to ask you another thing about Julie Mugford, and it is this
something I was going to ask you before the luncheon adjournment- there
came a stage shortly after the events when a police officer told you something
in confidence, did he not, about what had happened and what had been found?
Do you remember? He told you, amongst other things, that when 'Sheila had
been found there was a bible on her chest?

AE. I did hear there was a bible on her chest.

MR. JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): Did you hear it from the policeman is the
question?

AE. I cannot remember, but I heard it whilst in Jeremy's cottage.

MR. RIVLIN: Let remind you. Is it not right that one of the police officers
told you that Uncle Nevill was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle, that the
twins were in their beds, shot?

AE. Yes.

Rivlin. That Aunt June Bamber and Sheila were both on the bed, shot, with Sheila having
a bible on her chest, with the gun beside her?

AE. Yes.

Rivlin. And is it right that shortly after that information had been imparted to you,
you had a conversation with Julie Mugford, and you told Julie that when Sheila.
had been found there had been a bible found on her chest?

AE. I really cannot remember who told me the bible was on the chest.

MR JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): That is not the question now, but it is right
you should tell us. You do not remember who told you that Sheila was found
with the bible on her chest, but the question now is, whoever it was who told
you that, did you pass that on to Julie?

AE. I do not remember. I did have a conversation with Julie about the same time.
She said to me Sheila kept saying, I thought she said she was a "white wedge", or perhaps it was a “white
witch", but I do not remember who told me that the bible was on the chest.

MR. JUSTICE Drake: I do not think we have the full answer yet, Mr. Rivlin.

MR. RIVLIN: Would you accept that it was, in fact, one of the officers who told
you that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest and the gun beside her?

AE. I cannot remember who told me the bible was on her chest, so I am saying
it could have been Julie. I cannot remember who told me.

RIVLIN. In those circumstances I think that I must show the document to the witness.

MR. JUSTICE DRAKE: What the witness just said is “it could have been Julie who
told me that" - that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest. (To the
witness): Wherereas the question you are being asked is put the other way around
That someone told you and you told Julie that she had been found with a bible
on her chest. That is the question. If you cannot answer, you cannot?

AE. I cannot remember. I just remember Julie saying something about Sheila
said she was a “white wedge", which I thought she said, but it turned out she
thought she was a "white witch", but I cannot remember who told me about the
bible.

MR. RIVLIN: Could you remember at the time who told you about the bible?

AE. I cannot remember.

RIVLIN. You made statements to the police officers, did you not, in this case, and I
would like you to look, please, at a statement which is dated 8th September
1985. (Same handed). Your signature appears on this document. Is it a
typewritten document? Does it bear your signature?

AE. No.

MR RIVLIN: I am told that the original is outside.

MR. ARLIDGE: I will have it checked with the original.

MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows:
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near
the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila
Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her
chest with the gun beside her"?


AE. Yes.

Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?

A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember
the policeman telling me Uncle Nevill was beside the coal scuttle, the twins
were in their beds, shot, Auntie June and Sheila were on the bed with the gun
between them, and I asked how they were shot, and he went like this. I do
not know who told me. I am sorry. Maybe it was a mistake. Asking me now.
I cannot remember who told me.



This is a fantastic post from Hermann over at IA

1 Julie Mugford is a proven liar.

Here's some background information from Robin Cox.

"Ann Eaton said herself in a statement that a police officer told her Sheila and June were found on the bed and that Sheila had the bible on her chest and the gun by her side which was not the prosecution's case at all. Did this give the family leverage in their arguments with Assistant Chief Inspector Simpson? The relatives didn’t like Jeremy, whom they called ‘Cuckoo’ on account of both he and Sheila being adopted but I won’t digress into that here."
http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/robin-cox

The idea is that the relatives were told that Sheila's body was on the bed at one stage and therefore also knew that it must have been the police who stage managed it on the floor. Robert Boutflour was convinced that Bamber was the killer. Some supporters of Bamber think that the police had to go along with the relatives and prosecute Bamber because the relatives knew Sheila's body was on the bed before it was moved to the floor by the police. That is what Cox means by leverage.

Bamber's confession to Julie Mugford

Julie Mugford account of Jeremy's confession includes a story of how Matthew MacDonald put a bible on Sheila's chest after telling her to shoot herself on the bed. So the description of the position of Sheila's body which the policeman gave to Ann Eaton turns up in Julie Mugford's story almost verbatim. It corresponds exactly to how Matthew MacDonald is supposed to have left the body. Mugford tells how Jeremy told her that MacDonald left Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest. It's in Mugford's statment. The police had not told Jeremy that story and it's dismissed as a mistake anyway. So it's impossible that Mugford had gotten it from Bamber.

Here's what Ann Eaton says in her statement of 08/09/85 when told where the bodies were found.

"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her chest with the gun beside her"

Here's what Julie Mugford says in her statement of 08/08/1985 page 14

"I asked Jeremy if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were sound asleep and didn’t wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Mathew who then put a bible on her chest."

The devil is in the detail

I find it strange that people ignore this telling detail and that when somebody mentions it, even people who are fence sitters just ignore it and get back to talking about Julie and saying that her evidence has "the ring of truth about it". But how can it have the ring of truth when you can point to virtual proof that she lied. I have a theory as to why that kind of thing tends to happen.

Some people like talking about Julie Mugford just like others like talking about Amanda Knox. Of course anybody familiar with the scientific evidence knows that Knox and Solecito are innocent, but people like having something to talk about. They like the element of mystery. Hayden Panettiere undersood that when, talking about Amanda, she said to a bunch of reporters "Did she or didn't she?" So in just the same way, they like the discussion about Julie Mugford which has at it's basis the question "Who is telling the truth Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber."

When the Judge put the question to the jury "It depends on whether you believe Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber" he was being a prima donna. He was going for saying something catchy for the popular press. But he shouldn't have been doing that. You can excuse Hayden for a little lapse of judgement, but you can't make excuses for a judge misdirecting a jury. He should have drawn the jury's attention to the bible on the chest detail which was examined in court. He could have said. "Are we to believe that it's just a coincidence that Jeremy Bamber made up a story which just happens to have in it exactly the same description of a scene with Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest." But he didn't. He apparently wanted to help the prosecution and to hinder the defense. It happens a lot.

The devil is in the detail

There is a saying, the devil is in the detail. Such a detail is to me proof that Julie Mugford's story of Bamber's confession is a fabrication. It has bits and pieces which come from here and there. But I admit that a person sympathetic to Mugford could argue in the manner

" Well OK, she embellished the story a little with that description of the body on the bed which she had obviously gotten from Ann Eaton, probably because she thought people might not believe her, but I still believe she was telling the truth when she said that Jeremy told her he had paid Matthew MacDonald. There is no proof that she made that up."
Hermann



Evidence was withheld at trial, alternatively fresh evidence is now available which indicates that Jeremy Bamber telephoned his then girlfriend Julie Mugford at 3.30am in the morning of 7th August and that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby lied in evidence when they timed the called at 3.15am and 3.12 am respectively.

The 3.30am Phone Call Overview:
20. The timing of Jeremy Bamber's phone call to Julie Mugford in the early hours of 71h August 1985 was also of "crucial importance- at trial, His Honour Mr Justice Drake's summing, up at p.12 B. Much evidence was adduced to show that the call had been made at or about 3,15um. This meant that the eau must have been made prior to the Appellant's call to the Chelmsford police station

21.
The Police's own contemporaneous record of the Appellant's call on 7th August 1985, appended to this document, has now come to light. It reveals that the Appellant's initial call to Chelmsford Police station was recorded, in error as conceded at trial, as 3.36am. More importantly it shows that having first spoken to the Appellant and established the nature of the problem in some detail the officer at Chelmsford phoned Witham Police station at 3.26am, that being undisputedly a correct time. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant's initial call to the Police must have been some minutes before 3.26am.

Ann Eaton's Notes In Relation to The Call to Julie Mugford:

22. Ann Eaton's allegedly contemporaneous notes regarding 8th August disclosed at trial stated that there had been a "muddle about the right time of the 3.15 phone call - a London friend was called".

A further note has since been found which reveals that in her original note she stated "talked to Julie about the phone calls Julie said re flatmate (our emphasis - photocopy is poor here exact wording should be clear on viewing of the original) 3.30am". It is submitted that this discrepancy shows that not only was Ann Eaton's note deliberately changed to undermine the appellant's case but that Julie Mugford and Susan Batteresby lied when they gave evidence that the telephone call was 3.15am or earlier, as it was Susan Battersby who was the flatmate referred to it the undisclosed Ann Eaton note.

Julie Mugford's Evidence:
23. In her original statement to the Police dated 81h August 1985 stated at p345:
next time I heard front Jeremy was at about 3.30am on Wednesday morning the th August 1985."
This then changes in her statement of e September 1985 when she states :
" I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan Battersby who lives with
me that it was about 3.15am."
At trial when she was cross examined as to the fact that she had told the police that the telephone call was received at 3.30am, she stated at p38 on 8th October:



Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record).

The fundamental point is Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).

1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.

2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)

3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!

You cannot get round these points no matter how much you bring up the sleeping pills or fire. Its rather obvious the police zeroed in on those pills and did not buy her original innocent explanation for them, thus she made up something they wanted to hear from her.

I am not quoting word for word here but it goes like this

Julie Mugford - "Jeremy told me that Sheila was told to lay on the bed and was ordered to shoot herself under the supervision of Mathew Macdonald he then left the bible on the her chest" (Jeremy is supposed to have told her this on the 7th of August at his cottage while the house was occupied by many other people  )

Julie Mugford - "On the 7th I told Ann Eaton about the bible on her chest"

Anne Eaton - "On the 7th Police told me Sheila was found laying on the bed with a bible on her chest"

Ann Eaton - " I cant remember who told me on the 7th" (Just after confirming the police told her various details she obviously remembers. problem being she was told about the bible in the exact same conversation)

The idea of the bible being a "meme" is not credible because there are too many similarities with her statement as a whole. The probability of it being coincidental, you are looking at almost jackpot lottery odds. (Bible on chest + Sheila on Bed + Exiting windows + Cycling to the farm + Fingerprints on gun + wetsuit + 2000 pounds + a McDonald mentioned in police meeting + Hitman to explain the reported movement)

All of these can either be found in Julies testimony or her "diary". Most importantly Jeremy is supposed to have told her all this. This means that what Jeremy told her in his alleged "confessions" he deliberately falsified how he killed everyone so it just so happens to be the same as Ann Eatons and RWBs erroneous information. Not only that but he also falsifies his "confessions" so what he tells her just so happens to explain the gaps and problems the police were facing at that moment in time! gaps and problems that later turned out to be wrong! Then Jeremy decides not to tell her about the silencer, the one piece of crucial evidence that was only discovered to be incriminating in the weeks AFTER Julie made her statements.

Its just not possible for Jeremy to have told her all this in the way its been presented by her coinciding with the circumstances of the police investigation and the relatives suspicions in that instance of time. With some of those circumstances and ideas backfiring, thus harming her credibility later on.

Lets look at Mathew Mcdoanld for example.

1. Robert Boutflour speculates if Jeremy had assistance on the night - See Diary

2. Robert Boutflour zeros in on the £2000 that Neville lent to Jeremy - See Diary

3. The £2000 of course has an innocent explanation and is totally unrelated to the event. but RWB believes he is onto something (Tunnel vision)

4. Jeremy is supposed to have lent this £2000 to a friend - See Diary

5. 20th of August police have a meeting with RWB present. During that meeting a question is put forward in relation to a drug deal (from a man called McDonald??) See Barlow's note book

6. Jeremy has a friend called Mathew Mcdonald they both do drugs together - See MMs statement

7. Mathew Mcdonald happens to a fantasist who goes around telling people he is a mercenary and has done missions in Libya. People believe the rumours - see MMs statement

According to Julie. Jeremy told her that he paid £2000 to Mathew Mcdonald to help him carry out the killings. The fact of the matter is a sum of £2000 went somewhere else. Mathew Macdonald is a mercenary only in his imagination plus he was miles away from the farm that night. Robert Bouflour and Stand Jones ignorant of the facts at the time. To them this theory would make perfect sense to them. Jeremy's "mercenary" friend and drug associate complete with a money trail and can explain the reported movement in the farm while Jeremy was outside with the police.

I will leave you to decide where Julie got the story from.

Brilliant post.

Does this not prove there was Collusion between Julie Mugford > Ann Eaton and or Essex Police and does this not undermine the entire case?

Baring in mind Ann Eaton was there when the moderator was found, and the moderator was key evidence.

It appears to a layman like myself they were 'ganging up' on Jeremy.

Mugford's evidence may be even more important than we thought?

[Steve_uk]

Steve,

This thread is about the relevance of Julie Mugford's evidence to an appeal by Jeremy Bamber. The relevant statement of the former Miss Julie Mugford, of date 8th. September 1985, changes nothing that I have already said.

In that statement, she states (among other things) that:

(i). Jeremy confessed to her that he had solicited Matthew McDonald to do the killing; and,
(ii). at some restaurant, they talked about what Jeremy had done.

Point (i) above is not a murder confession, as it is accepted that McDonald was not solicited by Jeremy.  That fact discredits point (ii).

The crucial part of Mugford's evidence is hearsay because she is relating a conversation of Jeremy's with McDonald.  This means that the strongest part of Mugford's evidence is also paradoxically the weakest.
Without that element, the entirety of Mugford's evidence - such as it is - falls.  What we are being asked to believe is that there was progressive thinking, planning and acting on Jeremy's part towards murder, but without the solicitation of McDonald, any prior conversations with Jeremy look like dead-ends.  Therefore, we have to believe that Jeremy had this conversation with McDonald: we have to accept as incriminating what amounts to a bit of salacious gossip.  It's not good enough.

You could argue that this flaw doesn't matter because McDonald gave evidence, but that question in itself is of no importance: the point is that Mugford's evidence proves nothing and is of of no value.  Undermining Mugford would not, in my opinion, alter Jeremy's position very significantly, at least not on a strict view of the evidence. 

You are free to disagree of course, and we may well ask: Why on earth would Jeremy have such conversations?  Well, instantly we can come up with several innocent explanations. In all seriousness, he may have been showing-off and trying to get her sexually-aroused.  It's plausible.  We don't need to assume Julie was lying - and that's certainly not my position - to explain Jeremy's conduct with her.

What actually incriminates Jeremy are a number of minor facts and elements that, cumulatively, point to his guilt on the basis of circumstantial inference.  Julie Mugford's evidence doesn't come into it, and the Crown could have proved their case without her.  She was a witness only because they calculated (perhaps rightly) that her testimony would influence the jury by painting Jeremy in a bad light.  In effect, Mugford evidence is bad character evidence.

Anyway, that's what I think.  I hope that answers your concerns.

We don't have to believe anything of the sort. Bamber is a congenital liar: let's get that straight.

[Nigel]

We don't have to believe anything of the sort. Bamber is a congenital liar: let's get that straight.

JEREMY is not a liar.

But having read your posts these last few months its obvious xxx xxx.

[maggie]

Have removed a few posts can posters please avoid personal attacks, they will always be removed. Thanks

[Luminous Wanderer]

We don't have to believe anything of the sort. Bamber is a congenital liar: let's get that straight.

Have you met Jeremy Bamber?

I'm just interested to know how you could know this?

Perhaps you could fill us all in.

[David1819]

Have you met Jeremy Bamber?

I'm just interested to know how you could know this?

Perhaps you could fill us all in.

Steve looks at this case from a fictitious universe where he is omnipotent to create whatever ‘facts’ he wishes.

[Luminous Wanderer]

Steve looks at this case from a fictitious universe where he is omnipotent to create whatever ‘facts’ he wishes.

LOL.

[Roch]

Don't be rude & goad.

I think you're playing with fire.  Whinging on like a baby on the red, about how badly treated you are over here.  You're extremely lucky to have had the run you've had, all down to maggie and ngb's high level of tolerance.

[Luminous Wanderer]

I think you're playing with fire.  Whinging on like a baby on the red, about how badly treated you are over here.  You're extremely lucky to have had the run you've had, all down to maggie and ngb's high level of tolerance.

Putting aside Steve's buffoonery, the serious point here is that if Jeremy Bamber is a congenital liar, then why should we rely on Julie Mugford's hearsay evidence about a pseudo-confession by that very same Jeremy Bamber?  And why did the court admit her statements into evidence at trial?  And why should the CCRC or the Court of Appeal give any credence to her now?

Surely the serious answer to this dilemma is simply for all parties to say: whatever the truth or otherwise of what one person said to another, Julie Mugford evidence proved nothing and was never reliable and should be thrown in the bin.  That way, everyone, whether pro- or anti-Bamber, or neutral like me, can focus on the real points and stop wasting time.

[Adam]

I think you're playing with fire.  Whinging on like a baby on the red, about how badly treated you are over here.  You're extremely lucky to have had the run you've had, all down to maggie and ngb's high level of tolerance.

Roch trying to goad again.

Quoting a 6 day old post to try to liven up the forum. After everyone left due to creepy posters such as Roch and Nigel.

Roch is lucky he is a former moderator and fiercely protected by former collegues. And yes I have mentioned the Blue forum on the red forum recently. Everyone has been. You are also free to join that forum. Unless you have been banned.

What's happened to the evidence you have seen which shows Sheila is definately the killer ? Or is it still a secret.

[Steve_uk]

Putting aside Steve's buffoonery, the serious point here is that if Jeremy Bamber is a congenital liar, then why should we rely on Julie Mugford's hearsay evidence about a pseudo-confession by that very same Jeremy Bamber?  And why did the court admit her statements into evidence at trial?  And why should the CCRC or the Court of Appeal give any credence to her now?

Surely the serious answer to this dilemma is simply for all parties to say: whatever the truth or otherwise of what one person said to another, Julie Mugford evidence proved nothing and was never reliable and should be thrown in the bin.  That way, everyone, whether pro- or anti-Bamber, or neutral like me, can focus on the real points and stop wasting time.

..because there's truth intermingled with fiction, and it does take painstaking effort to sift through it all.

[Steve_uk]

Roch trying to goad again.

Quoting a 6 day old post to try to liven up the forum. After everyone left due to creepy posters such as Roch and Nigel.

Roch is lucky he is a former moderator and fiercely protected by former collegues. And yes I have mentioned the Blue forum on the red forum recently. Everyone has been. You are also free to join that forum. Unless you have been banned.

What's happened to the evidence you have seen which shows Sheila is definately the killer ? Or is it still a secret.

I must say the atmosphere on the forum has been rather unpleasant this past couple of days.

[Luminous Wanderer]

I must say the atmosphere on the forum has been rather unpleasant this past couple of days.

And you have made no contribution to that?  You are an obvious buffoon.  You make statements that you can't support.  Why do you think miscarriages of justice happen in the first place?

[Luminous Wanderer]

..because there's truth intermingled with fiction, and it does take painstaking effort to sift through it all.

We have to base this on facts and legal reasoning, not on your half-witted speculations about the "truth".  You don't know what the truth is, you buffoon.

[Steve_uk]

We have to base this on facts and legal reasoning, not on what your half-witted speculations about the "truth".  You don't know what the truth is, you buffoon.

I have been Julie Smerchanski's harshest critic, but I do believe her evidence. In private so did the Defence, which is why they remained so pessimistic throughout the trial. The Jeremy Bamber case contains within a microcosm of the society through which I lived in the 1980s (from your writings you profess to be learned but it is you who is the callow youth here), a society redolent with all its brickbats and bouquets, and maybe in the final analysis Julie was prepared to sacrifice five lives on the altar of materialism, but this horrific fact of human nature does not change the power of her evidence, nor exculpate Jeremy Bamber because you unilaterally have decided to disregard it.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=5528.0

My threads are created partly from invention or intelligent guessing as I would call it, but also from original documentation, and where this original documentation is not at my fingertips I have used footnotes in the various books on the case which does furnish it to supplement them with.

You and several others here seem to think that five people were murdered out of the blue, that everything in the Bamber household was lovely (as Jeremy asserts) until the tragedy occurred, that you can somehow produce diagrams of White House Farm to exculpate him or rubbish every other Prosecution witness and those who sincerely believe him guilty won't notice what you are doing. You even make allegations that Crispy the dog or the position of the dustpan and brush proves him innocent. I could go on.

The plain and terribly sad fact is that a young chronic schizophrenic woman (I use the word chronic because she was liable at intervals to relapse and may well have been on medication for life) was told to lie down at Jeremy's behest, a rifle was thrust into her hands and before she knew what was happening a report was discharged to the throat, shortly followed by another bullet to her brain, which instantly killed her.

She was used as a scapegoat because she could not fight back, her experience of life had made her bitter at times as she railed against human nature and reflected on how in her opinion she had been used and abused, mostly by men, the only power she did once hold against Colin as wife having dissipated once he found another partner and moved on, though a part of him always loved her, which is why he remained on good terms with her and she wanted him back.

As far as Jeremy Bamber is concerned he was the bitter individual if ever there was one. He was bitter at his status in the pecking order at White House Farm, bitter that his parents had sent him away to boarding school, where he endured eight long years, only to ascend the lowest rung of the ladder upon return. He indulged in two foreign trips pre-murders and never truly settled down to farm work apart from the last few months of his parents' life, with his own ulterior motive of fulfilling the terms of his parents' wills, knowing full well that on the death of five they would be overturned and he would become sole beneficiary.