Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Roch on March 14, 2025, 06:24:PM
-
Is anything known about Mary Mugford's husband?
-
Is anything known about Mary Mugford's husband?
Nothing, to my knowledge, which is publicly known, but..................!
-
Nothing, to my knowledge, which is publicly known, but..................!
... Privately you know something?
-
Is anything known about Mary Mugford's husband?
There's next to nothing in the literature on the case. Mary Mugford was divorced when she married Brian Mugford in 1974. But no information whatsoever on Julie's natural father. Not much information on Sheila's biological father come to that. https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/5460394.North_Essex__Family_welcome_Bamber_decision/
-
I thought I read somewhere, one of the books I think, that MM's husband was a manager at the Danish Bacon Co.
I think JB said somewhere that JM didn't get on with him because he hit her :o
-
I thought I read somewhere, one of the books I think, that MM's husband was a manager at the Danish Bacon Co.
I think JB said somewhere that JM didn't get on with him because he hit her :o
I haven't heard the snippets before. All I read online was that Julie and her mother's interviews were not disclosed to the Dickinson enquiry.
I thought she looked a bit like Edwina Currie or Gillian Shepherd. She would make a good prison wardress. https://imsvintagephotos.com/products/mrs-mary-mugford-and-daughter-julie-mugford-vintage-photograph-3107820?srsltid=AfmBOoppTotTcb19K1UuCWExaJVtCxe1-_0MKwVBcCPayp-iUAk3RL2w
-
I am aware from research Julie lost her husband to illness not so long ago.
-
I am aware from research Julie lost her husband to illness not so long ago.
Hmmm sounds like you've been snooping.
If JB is acquitted maybe they will get back together.
-
I am aware from research Julie lost her husband to illness not so long ago.
Do you mean Greg? Oh, that's terribly sad. He can't have been 60.
-
Do you mean Greg? Oh, that's terribly sad. He can't have been 60.
Glen Smerchanski https://passages.winnipegfreepress.com/passage-details/id-319623/SMERCHANSKI_GLEN
-
Glen Smerchanski https://passages.winnipegfreepress.com/passage-details/id-319623/SMERCHANSKI_GLEN
a) it doesn't look like JM's husband
b) they had two boys
-
Hmmm sounds like you've been snooping.
Snooping?
Grow up.
-
a) it doesn't look like JM's husband
b) they had two boys
👍
-
If JB is acquitted maybe they will get back together.
Maybe a nice walk on a Dorset beach.
-
Snooping?
Grow up.
Yes snooping! And not a very good one either!
-
Maybe a nice walk on a Dorset beach.
And share a pot noodle :)
-
Glen Smerchanski https://passages.winnipegfreepress.com/passage-details/id-319623/SMERCHANSKI_GLEN
I thought the man in the following image is JM's husband:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2358021.stm
-
Yes snooping! And not a very good one either!
Always spot on us northern lads.
-
Always spot on us northern lads.
Please do the decent thing and concede:
- JB did not "sleep over" at WHF evidenced by the phone calls
- You have the wrong Glen Smerchanski
-
a) it doesn't look like JM's husband
b) they had two boys
From memory I seem to recall they had one of each.
-
From memory I seem to recall they had one of each.
Two boys I thought although I can't recally where I read/heard about it.
-
Please do the decent thing and concede:
- JB did not "sleep over" at WHF evidenced by the phone calls
- You have the wrong Glen Smerchanski
No, because I am right reference Smerchanski and no proof of timed phonecalls exists in other instance.
The last trailer theory was put forward by another forum user
It's a good theory.
-
No, because I am right reference Smerchanski and no proof of timed phonecalls exists in other instance.
The last trailer theory was put forward by another forum user
It's a good theory.
If I remember correctly. JB was seen diving off from WHF that evening.
-
If I remember correctly. JB was seen diving off from WHF that evening.
Believe Len Fowkes wife Dorothy stated she heard his car bomb off
-
And share a pot noodle :)
Would suggest a row on a lake but given the circumstances temptation and revenge may overcome JB!
-
Would suggest a row on a lake but given the circumstances temptation and revenge may overcome JB!
Or she may fess up and my theory that DS Jones threatened her with accessory to murder might be correct. In those circumstances JB might find it within himself to forigive and forget especially since the blood evidence secured the conviction.
In any event I am not convinced you have the right Greg.
-
a) it doesn't look like JM's husband
b) they had two boys
What are the odds that two couples of around the same age living in Winnipeg would have the same names - Glen and Julie Smerchanski?
Where is it stated they had two boys?
Obviously people change appearance and hair colouring as they age by twenty years. There are similarities in the nose, broad jawline and still-retained swept back hair -
-
What are the odds that two couples of around the same age living in Winnipeg would have the same names - Glen and Julie Smerchanski?
Where is it stated they had two boys?
Obviously people change appearance and hair colouring as they age by twenty years. There are similarities in the nose, broad jawline and still-retained swept back hair -
Well I don't think they look anything alike.
Someone who was very active on FB posted up a link once to JS's profile and ref was made to 2 x sons.
-
Well I don't think they look anything alike.
Someone who was very active on FB posted up a link once to JS's profile and ref was made to 2 x sons.
Ah yes, Farcebook - that fount of knowledge, truth and logical thinking.
-
... especially since the blood evidence secured the conviction.
No it didn't..
-
No it didn't..
Yes it did. Hence the judge told the jury they could convict on that alone. And hence the case went back to the CoA in 2002 based on LCN DNA evidence.
-
Ah yes, Farcebook - that fount of knowledge, truth and logical thinking.
It was a link to JS's Facebook page. This was years ago when no one seemed to give a damn about privacy settings. It wasn't something that I agreed with but I had a little snoop anyway :-[
-
Or she may fess up and my theory that DS Jones threatened her with accessory to murder might be correct. In those circumstances JB might find it within himself to forigive and forget especially since the blood evidence secured the conviction.
In any event I am not convinced you have the right Greg.
I am always right.
-
I am always right.
No. I am always right 8)
-
No. I am always right 8)
I guarantee you that's Julie's husband.
Didn't expect a debate to start about it to be honest haha
-
I guarantee you that's Julie's husband.
Didn't expect a debate to start about it to be honest haha
Prove it!
-
Prove it!
Prove otherwise 8)
-
Prove otherwise 8)
You are the one wanting to make guarantees.
-
Prove it!
On the memorial page of a local? paper, there are personal messages offering condolences to Julie and naming the children.
-
On the memorial page of a local? paper, there are personal messages offering condolences to Julie and naming the children.
Yes I appreciate this. I've read the memorial page I think you are referring to. But is the reference to Julie, Julie nee Mugford who testified at JB's trial? I have no idea of the names of her children. As I said I was led to believe she had two sons not a son and a daughter.
To my eye the man in the image with JM connected to her UK visit/2002 appeal looks nothing like the image of the man on the memorial page even allowing for ageing. But afaik there's no evidence the man in the image connected to the 2002 appeal was JM's husband, is there? He might have been someone acting on her behalf in a professional capacity or a friend/member of her family?
-
Prove it!
He's right, it is.
-
Yes it did. Hence the judge told the jury they could convict on that alone. And hence the case went back to the CoA in 2002 based on LCN DNA evidence.
That's interesting. On here it's been said a judge cannot tell a jury to convict and would not do so. Yet the foreman of the jury told a Bamber officer that the judge did exactly that, and furthermore, if the judge hadn't told them, Bamber would have walked free.
-
He's right, it is.
Well if it is then I doubt the man in the image with JS/M connected with the 2002 appeal is her husband as they look nothing alike even allowing for some two decades plus of ageing.
And I'm not really too sure why others are interested in JS/M's husband?
-
That's interesting. On here it's been said a judge cannot tell a jury to convict and would not do so. Yet the foreman of the jury told a Bamber officer that the judge did exactly that, and furthermore, if the judge hadn't told them, Bamber would have walked free.
But what evidence do you have that the foreman of the jury told the Bamber officer the judge told the jury to convict? You seem to take any old data if it suits your narrative without any consideration for the veracity.
This is what the judge told the jury and yes the blood/silencer was the linchpin:
The summing up 153. When Drake J. summed up to the jury, he suggested that there were three "crucial questions". The first, and he made clear that they were not in any order of importance, was whether they believed Julie Mugford? If they were sure that she had told the truth it meant the appellant had planned and carried out the killings. The second was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide? The third was whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill Bamber to his son? If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of the appellant's story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.
154. In dealing with the second question, whether Sheila Caffell may have killed the others and then committed suicide, the judge made clear that answering this question involved a number of different considerations. He suggested that one was "clearly of paramount importance", namely whether the second and fatal shot to Sheila Caffell was fired with the silencer on. If it was, she could not have fired that shot. He made clear that there were other considerations and the jury could come to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell did not carry out the killings "even without reference to the sound moderator". He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
But what evidence do you have that the foreman of the jury told the Bamber officer the judge told the jury to convict? You seem to take any old data if it suits your narrative without any consideration for the veracity.
This is what the judge told the jury and yes the blood/silencer was the linchpin:
The summing up 153. When Drake J. summed up to the jury, he suggested that there were three "crucial questions". The first, and he made clear that they were not in any order of importance, was whether they believed Julie Mugford? If they were sure that she had told the truth it meant the appellant had planned and carried out the killings. The second was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide? The third was whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill Bamber to his son? If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of the appellant's story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.
154. In dealing with the second question, whether Sheila Caffell may have killed the others and then committed suicide, the judge made clear that answering this question involved a number of different considerations. He suggested that one was "clearly of paramount importance", namely whether the second and fatal shot to Sheila Caffell was fired with the silencer on. If it was, she could not have fired that shot. He made clear that there were other considerations and the jury could come to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell did not carry out the killings "even without reference to the sound moderator". He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
There are four options. CAL made it up. The detective made it up. The foreman of the jury made it up. None of the above made it up.
-
That's interesting. On here it's been said a judge cannot tell a jury to convict and would not do so. Yet the foreman of the jury told a Bamber officer that the judge did exactly that, and furthermore, if the judge hadn't told them, Bamber would have walked free.
There's also something about how words are interpreted. How many times are words read wrongly on this forum? Rarely is it asked what's meant? Who's going to ask that of a judge?
-
There are four options. CAL made it up. The detective made it up. The foreman of the jury made it up. None of the above made it up.
No idea what you're talking about Roch. I've taken an extract from Bamber v Regina 2002 which quotes from the judge's summing up. What do you think is likely to be more reliable? Official court docs, CAL, an unnamed detective, an unnamed foreman of the jury? The latter two based on hearsay.
I think you fall into the trap William Clegg KC describes in his vid ie you spend an inordinate amount of time listening to Bamber/supporters without considering what the other side are saying and whether or not they can actually establish what they claim.
-
There's also something about how words are interpreted. How many times are words read wrongly on this forum? Rarely is it asked what's meant? Who's going to ask that of a judge?
It's in black and white. Unless you mean her interpretation.
-
No idea what you're talking about Roch. I've taken an extract from Bamber v Regina 2002 which quotes from the judge's summing up. What do you think is likely to be more reliable? Official court docs, CAL, an unnamed detective, an unnamed foreman of the jury? The latter two based on hearsay.
I think you fall into the trap William Clegg KC describes in his vid ie you spend an inordinate amount of time listening to Bamber/supporters without considering what the other side are saying and whether or not they can actually establish what they claim.
CAL isn't a JB supporter.
-
It's in black and white. Unless you mean her interpretation.
Whose interpretation?
-
Whose interpretation?
CAL's.
-
CAL's.
But she gleaned her opinion from a person closer to the judge than herself, ergo, said person will, presumably along with fellow jury members, already have interpreted his words, passing that interpretation to CAL.
-
But she gleaned her opinion from a person closer to the judge than herself, ergo, said person will, presumably along with fellow jury members, already have interpreted his words, passing that interpretation to CAL.
The line of communication is Foreman of the Jury - Detective - CAL. In that order. The Foreman of the Jury would know from deliberations, what the jury's position was. It's not brain surgery. He was walking until the judge's summing up - which the jury interpreted as a direction they should find him guilty. Two members must have refused to do so, despite the said interpreted direction (hence 10/2). None of this is complex.
-
The line of communication is Foreman of the Jury - Detective - CAL. In that order. The Foreman of the Jury would know from deliberations, what the jury's position was. It's not brain surgery. He was walking until the judge's summing up - which the jury interpreted as a direction they should find him guilty. Two members must have refused to do so, despite the said interpreted direction (hence 10/2). None of this is complex.
Unlike CC, I haven't looked at Bamber v Regina 2002, so I don't have the judges exact words, but unless there was 100% exactness about them, they may have been open to interpretation................from Foreman to Detective to CAL?
-
Unlike CC, I haven't looked at Bamber v Regina 2002, so I don't have the judges exact words, but unless there was 100% exactness about them, they may have been open to interpretation................from Foreman to Detective to CAL?
Anyway, getting back to the original question, JB has expressed that when he and JM split, either JM or Mary (not sure which), lost their protection (JB) from Mary's abusive husband. He thinks this was a motivating factor for JM in the year up to the trial.
-
Anyway, getting back to the original question, JB has expressed that when he and JM split, either JM or Mary (not sure which), lost their protection (JB) from Mary's abusive husband. He thinks this was a motivating factor for JM in the year up to the trial.
I don't know where you're getting this from. It sounds like tittle-tattle to me.
-
I don't know where you're getting this from. It sounds like tittle-tattle to me.
[/quote
Roch involved in tittle-tattle...no...I don't believe it ;)
-
Well if it is then I doubt the man in the image with JS/M connected with the 2002 appeal is her husband as they look nothing alike even allowing for some two decades plus of ageing.
And I'm not really too sure why others are interested in JS/M's husband?
Nor am I, he has nothing to do with the case.
-
The line of communication is Foreman of the Jury - Detective - CAL. In that order. The Foreman of the Jury would know from deliberations, what the jury's position was. It's not brain surgery. He was walking until the judge's summing up - which the jury interpreted as a direction they should find him guilty. Two members must have refused to do so, despite the said interpreted direction (hence 10/2). None of this is complex.
You have no evidence for your assertion. The evidence suggests the blood evidence weighed heavily in the minds of jurors hence the question to the judge about this very matter which is documented here in the library.
-
CAL isn't a JB supporter.
I never said she was. But she was capable of writing a book which in the main was objective and left the reader wondering...
-
You have no evidence for your assertion. The evidence suggests the blood evidence weighed heavily in the minds of jurors hence the question to the judge about this very matter which is documented here in the library.
Why would there be evidence for my assertion? You clearly haven't thought this through. And it's not my assertion. Read the paragraph yourself.
-
Why would there be evidence for my assertion? You clearly haven't thought this through. And it's not my assertion. Read the paragraph yourself.
Unlike you I am capable of carrying out due diligence on data. I place little/next to no weight on hearsay about what the jury foreman told a detective who told CAL.
The judge correctly, imo, directed the jury to the silencer evidence. At face value this is by far the most compelling evidence that the verdict was the correct one. It is clear the blood aspect of the silencer weighed heavily on the minds of jurors hence the question to the judge for clarification. Even MT agrees it was the turning point in the case:
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,381.msg5351.html#msg5351
-
Unlike you I am capable of carrying out due diligence on data. I place little/next to no weight on hearsay about what the jury foreman told a detective who told CAL.
The judge correctly, imo, directed the jury to the silencer evidence. At face value this is by far the most compelling evidence that the verdict was the correct one. It is clear the blood aspect of the silencer weighed heavily on the minds of jurors hence the question to the judge for clarification. Even MT agrees it was the turning point in the case:
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,381.msg5351.html#msg5351
Were you in the jury? The foreman was. He says it was the judge.
-
Were you in the jury? The foreman was. He says it was the judge.
Where are your claims documeted?
I have supplied you with a link (please read) which provides a robust audit trail of my claim. The jury asked the judge to clarify the blood evidence. This was done. The jury retired to consider and returned with their verdicts.
-
Where are your claims documeted?
I have supplied you with a link (please read) which provides a robust audit trail of my claim. The jury asked the judge to clarify the blood evidence. This was done. The jury retired to consider and returned with their verdicts.
Why would my claims be officially documented? Under what remit? Within which framework? The foreman of the jury has told a detective that if it wasn't for the judge 'telling' them to convict Bamber, he would have walked. The jury interpreted the judge's summing up as an instruction. Two refused to join the others in adhering to the instruction.
I really do not understand why you go out of your way to be obtuse in certain situations.
-
Why would my claims be officially documented? Under what remit? Within which framework? The foreman of the jury has told a detective that if it wasn't for the judge 'telling' them to convict Bamber, he would have walked. The jury interpreted the judge's summing up as an instruction. Two refused to join the others in adhering to the instruction.
I really do not understand why you go out of your way to be obtuse in certain situations.
Actually, all the foreman could say, truthfully, was that it sounded, to most of them, as if the judge was 'telling' them/giving them permission to convict. It maybe that such was the clarification most of them were seeking, albeit, two chose not to.
-
Why would my claims be officially documented? Under what remit? Within which framework? The foreman of the jury has told a detective that if it wasn't for the judge 'telling' them to convict Bamber, he would have walked. The jury interpreted the judge's summing up as an instruction. Two refused to join the others in adhering to the instruction.
I really do not understand why you go out of your way to be obtuse in certain situations.
You are relying on a claim that the foreman of the jury told a detective what you claim above. Where is the evidence? The link I provided you with documents the conversations between the judge, jury and jury foreman.
-
Actually, all the foreman could say, truthfully, was that it sounded, to most of them, as if the judge was 'telling' them/giving them permission to convict. It maybe that such was the clarification most of them were seeking, albeit, two chose not to.
It is documented in the link I provided the conversation between judge, jury and jury foreman.
-
Actually, all the foreman could say, truthfully, was that it sounded, to most of them, as if the judge was 'telling' them/giving them permission to convict. It maybe that such was the clarification most of them were seeking, albeit, two chose not to.
Why would they be seeking permission to convict, if he was going to walk?
-
You are relying on a claim that the foreman of the jury told a detective what you claim above. Where is the evidence? The link I provided you with documents the conversations between the judge, jury and jury foreman.
Again I ask again, within which framework would the foreman's information have been officially recorded? Under what remit?
-
Why would they be seeking permission to convict, if he was going to walk?
Possibly because, up to that point, they weren't quite sure? Really, Roch, can you say, with 100% truthfulness, that you've never been persuaded to change your mind?
-
Unlike you I am capable of carrying out due diligence on data. I place little/next to no weight on hearsay about what the jury foreman told a detective who told CAL.
The judge correctly, imo, directed the jury to the silencer evidence. At face value this is by far the most compelling evidence that the verdict was the correct one. It is clear the blood aspect of the silencer weighed heavily on the minds of jurors hence the question to the judge for clarification. Even MT agrees it was the turning point in the case:
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,381.msg5351.html#msg5351
Completely agree.
-
I have never doubted that justice drakes directions reference the silencer were damning to Bamber. It's blatantly obvious. He gave a route to verdict on this instance alone.
However from a more relatable perspective I do agree with the prosecution counsel the late Anthony Arlidge that the evidence of JM was the strongest. ( or on par with the silencer) She whether you believe she was brainwashed or not came across well in the witness box and never faltered despite attempts by Rivlin. As a juror a simple question I would say to myself is Would I believe this young woman would perjure herself so badly to put a man she was in love away for life?
Jurors are human and I believe found JM very credible.
-
Jurors are human and I believe found JM very credible.
They didn't, according to one jury member who voted guilty.
-
They didn't, according to one jury member who voted guilty.
A sweeping statement, that! I have serious doubts about the entire jury not finding Julie credible, especially as it's the opinion of just "one jury member".
-
A sweeping statement, that! I have serious doubts about the entire jury not finding Julie credible, especially as it's the opinion of just "one jury member".
You need to read the paragraph. Clearly it isn't just the view of one member he is referring to.
-
You need to read the paragraph. Clearly it isn't just the view of one member he is referring to.
I always remember this statement from David Connett a journalist at the trial Roch
He did establish that she (Julie Mugford) went to the police after Bamber had upset her by ending the relationship. Personally, I couldn't understand how she could be relied upon as a witness, but others, particularly women, thought the contradictions in her evidence made her more compelling.
Julie Mugford would not have been a credible witness in my view Roch, if true, she knew of his plans she knew of his involvement in it, and she chose to cover for him, either way, depending how you look at things, she’s a guilty party in this by her own admission and she did it because he had jilted her.
-
I always remember this statement from David Connett a journalist at the trial Roch
He did establish that she (Julie Mugford) went to the police after Bamber had upset her by ending the relationship. Personally, I couldn't understand how she could be relied upon as a witness, but others, particularly women, thought the contradictions in her evidence made her more compelling.
Julie Mugford would not have been a credible witness in my view Roch, if true, she knew of his plans she knew of his involvement in it, and she chose to cover for him, either way, depending how you look at things, she’s a guilty party in this by her own admission and she did it because he had jilted her.
According to Vic the relatives' former spokesperson, the relatives regarded Julie in a bad light. Now why would that be?
-
According to Vic the relatives' former spokesperson, the relatives regarded Julie in a bad light. Now why would that be?
Hi Roch, yes I remember Vic saying such, and if I was a family member I would have the same view as well.
-
They didn't, according to one jury member who voted guilty.
Weren't the two jury members who voted not guilty female? A young man in a smart suit, well-presented, clean cut, the man who claimed he could get anyone to believe anything, the alter ego of the farmer labelled Stinko and who was dependent on his parents' largesse.
So many youngsters these days living in a fantasy world, dependent on central nervous system stimulants to break the perceived monotony of the working week, yet who in reality do not know how lucky they really are.
-
According to Vic the relatives' former spokesperson, the relatives regarded Julie in a bad light. Now why would that be?
I recall David Boutflour stating he didn't understand why Julie didn't tell him what she knew when they both went from Bourtree Cottage to the Chequers for lunch. Of course in retrospect the relatives and Colin had a right to question Julie's role in the affair.
-
Again I ask again, within which framework would the foreman's information have been officially recorded? Under what remit?
It is clear to see if you read the information I uploaded. It even contains timings. The jury, justifiably so, aksed for clarification around the blood evidence. This was provided. You might argue that the information provided was not entirely accurate. Nevertheless it was provided and the jury returned a verdict.
-
I have never doubted that justice drakes directions reference the silencer were damning to Bamber. It's blatantly obvious. He gave a route to verdict on this instance alone.
However from a more relatable perspective I do agree with the prosecution counsel the late Anthony Arlidge that the evidence of JM was the strongest.( or on par with the silencer) She whether you believe she was brainwashed or not came across well in the witness box and never faltered despite attempts by Rivlin. As a juror a simple question I would say to myself is Would I believe this young woman would perjure herself so badly to put a man she was in love away for life?
Jurors are human and I believe found JM very credible.
Please provide your evidence for this.
-
I have never doubted that justice drakes directions reference the silencer were damning to Bamber. It's blatantly obvious. He gave a route to verdict on this instance alone.
However from a more relatable perspective I do agree with the prosecution counsel the late Anthony Arlidge that the evidence of JM was the strongest. ( or on par with the silencer) She whether you believe she was brainwashed or not came across well in the witness box and never faltered despite attempts by Rivlin. As a juror a simple question I would say to myself is Would I believe this young woman would perjure herself so badly to put a man she was in love away for life?
Jurors are human and I believe found JM very credible.
If from a judicial perspective this was true then how come the CCRC referred the case to CoA in 2002 on the back of the blood evidence? If JM's testimony is as strong as you make out then why didn't the CCRC trot this out to take precedence?
If from the jurors perspective this was true then how come they sought clarification from the judge about the blood evidence and shortly afterwards returned a verdict?
-
If from a judicial perspective this was true then how come the CCRC referred the case to CoA in 2002 on the back of the blood evidence? If JM's testimony is as strong as you make out then why didn't the CCRC trot this out to take precedence?
If from the jurors perspective this was true then how come they sought clarification from the judge about the blood evidence and shortly afterwards returned a verdict?
It was DNA evidence in 2002.
Both the relatives and COA were disappointed it was referred.
-
It was DNA evidence in 2002.
Both the relatives and COA were disappointed it was referred.
It was LCN DNA evidence in 2002 in an attempt to undermine the flake of blood. Still the lawyers were caught up in the mixed blood theory and not getting to the heart of the issue ie fabrication.
Whatever happens the relatives will be disappointed. They want JB to fade away. That's not going to happen.
The CoA will not be disappointed if it is presented with material that meets the CPS criteria for appeals.