Jury convicted Jeremy of the murders, on the basis that police touched nowt...

[lookout]

Do you know,,there's every possibility that JM knows that Jeremy didn't commit the murders,,but because the relationship came to an end,,over another woman,,JM turned tail,out of spite and had decided to dig as much dirt as she could. I'm almost certain that JM got as big a shock as Jeremy did when he was convicted,because I think what JM was trying to do,was to put the frighteners on Jeremy,as a way of getting her own back.
JM was the violent one in that relationship,not Jeremy.
I'd skip the country too if all I'd wanted to do was to scare someone. JM didn't visualise what really would happen. I'm sure she thought he'd walk free.
Spite and scorn knows no bounds. No wonder she won't face anyone.

[susan]

Ho lookout I agree I think Julie saw a chance of making money £25,000 was alot of money then but I read she only got it if he was convicted.  She had criminal charges dropped she would never have got into Canada with a criminal record or come a teacher.  I think she knew before hand she had lost Jeremy and would not share his inheritance so she was ruthless and thought of number one and hang the rest that is the only way I see it.  Hope she sleeps at night.

[Jane]

Ho lookout I agree I think Julie saw a chance of making money £25,000 was alot of money then but I read she only got it if he was convicted.  She had criminal charges dropped she would never have got into Canada with a criminal record or come a teacher.  I think she knew before hand she had lost Jeremy and would not share his inheritance so she was ruthless and thought of number one and hang the rest that is the only way I see it.  Hope she sleeps at night.

She traded, metaphorically, a life for a life.

[lookout]

She traded, metaphorically, a life for a life.

She did exactly that,,April. I bet,,deep down,it frightened the life out of her knowing what she'd done.
That alone tells you what sort of a person she was. Then once she'd fled the country,,it was too late to do anything about it. Well I hope her conscience weighs heavy for the rest of her life,,because between her tale-telling,then the catalyst was the moderator/silencer. What a thing to do 26/7 years for. Lies and tales.

[Moe Cassani]

Do you know,,there's every possibility that JM knows that Jeremy didn't commit the murders,,but because the relationship came to an end,,over another woman,,JM turned tail,out of spite and had decided to dig as much dirt as she could. I'm almost certain that JM got as big a shock as Jeremy did when he was convicted,because I think what JM was trying to do,was to put the frighteners on Jeremy,as a way of getting her own back.
JM was the violent one in that relationship,not Jeremy.
I'd skip the country too if all I'd wanted to do was to scare someone. JM didn't visualise what really would happen. I'm sure she thought he'd walk free.
Spite and scorn knows no bounds. No wonder she won't face anyone.

I am flabberghasted by what you're saying. Does it not dawn on you that you are reaching and guessing and in so doing just reinforcing your own delusions? Do you honestly think that Julie Mugford would risk a 10 year prison sentence for purgery just in order to get her own back???
Incidently your comment about 'skipping the country' doesnt hold any water either. I read that Julie Mugford comes back to the UK regularly to see her family. She returned to the UK her own free will in 2002 to testify in Bamber appeal hearing. In the event she wasnt needed.
Why are you trying to twist things like this without so much as a scrap of evidence? May I ask would you like to be treated like that by someone you didn't even know? I am truly astonished by the levels of supposition and invention that is going on.
Ask youself lookout. Could you use what you have stated above in a court of law?
Sorry but your sentiments beggar belief. You seem like a good person lookout and have some good ideas and theories. I admire you dedication but there should be a limit to how far you are prepared to go and come up with all manner of things to paint Bamber in a light of innocence.

[lookout]

I am flabberghasted by what you're saying. Does it not dawn on you that you are reaching and guessing and in so doing just reinforcing your own delusions? Do you honestly think that Julie Mugford would risk a 10 year prison sentence for purgery just in order to get her own back???
Incidently your comment about 'skipping the country' doesnt hold any water either. I read that Julie Mugford comes back to the UK regularly to see her family. She returned to the UK her own free will in 2002 to testify in Bamber appeal hearing. In the event she wasnt needed.
Why are you trying to twist things like this without so much as a scrap of evidence? May I ask would you like to be treated like that by someone you didn't even know? I am truly astonished by the levels of supposition and invention that is going on.
Ask youself lookout. Could you use what you have stated above in a court of law?
Sorry but your sentiments beggar belief. You seem like a good person lookout and have some good ideas and theories. I admire you dedication but there should be a limit to how far you are prepared to go and come up with all manner of things to paint Bamber in a light of innocence.

Erm,,what do you mean by a limit.? Have I said anything out of place.? The answer is no. Just because you don't agree with my opinions doesn't give you the right to question whether I'm off limits or not. This is a forum specially prepared/mapped-out in which to discuss all aspects of this case,,and this is exactly what I'm doing. What do you mean by asking if I'd use what I've stated in a court of law.? Would you,,with what you have to say.? Only perhaps because what you say has been said before ( nothing new there ) What I have to say,,and what I've already stated,wouldn't be out of place in a court of law. It beats being repetative.
I'm certainly not twisting anything at all.On the contrary,,I'm going at it from different slants/angles,,using a bit of thought and logic. At least I'm coming up with different aspects about the case and not " nit-picking " toward any individual whose posts I don't agree with.

If you think you can do any better by proving Jeremys' guilt,,then carry on,,,but without personal attacks on someone who has a mind of their own instead of following in a sheep-like fashion.

[Jane]

I am flabberghasted by what you're saying. Does it not dawn on you that you are reaching and guessing and in so doing just reinforcing your own delusions? Do you honestly think that Julie Mugford would risk a 10 year prison sentence for purgery just in order to get her own back???
Incidently your comment about 'skipping the country' doesnt hold any water either. I read that Julie Mugford comes back to the UK regularly to see her family. She returned to the UK her own free will in 2002 to testify in Bamber appeal hearing. In the event she wasnt needed.
Why are you trying to twist things like this without so much as a scrap of evidence? May I ask would you like to be treated like that by someone you didn't even know? I am truly astonished by the levels of supposition and invention that is going on.
Ask youself lookout. Could you use what you have stated above in a court of law?
Sorry but your sentiments beggar belief. You seem like a good person lookout and have some good ideas and theories. I admire you dedication but there should be a limit to how far you are prepared to go and come up with all manner of things to paint Bamber in a light of innocence.

Moe, just suppose for one moment what may have happened had the police prosecuted Julie for passing fraudulent cheques (nothing to do with Jeremy), drugs and the robbery at the caravan park. Nothing very major on a scale of 1-10 but enough, if convicted to ensure she never got a job as a teacher and never got a work permit, let alone a residency permit to be in Canada. On top of this, when it became known what she had done, there would be the disgrace to her family within the community and degree or not, who would employ her with a criminal record.

I think she may have ended up hoist by her own petard and because she was probably aware of what could happen to her, IMO, metaphorically, and possibly because she never believed he would be found guilty, she traded a life for a life.

[lookout]

Maybe I'm closer to the truth. Tuff.

[Roch]

Do you honestly think that Julie Mugford would risk a 10 year prison sentence for purjery just in order to get her own back??? save her own skin

She's hardly risking anything, if the side that dishes out 10 year prison sentences happens to be on the side as her and pulling all the strings to boot. 

[susan]

Hi lookout as I stated yesterday it is beyond my comprehension why people come onto this forum purely to rubbish our members theories on Jeremy innocent.  They know him to be guilty he has been in prison for 27 years what more do they want why do they wish to argue they have the verdict they believe in. Can they not let other people have their own views although different than theirs. 

[lookout]

Hi lookout as I stated yesterday it is beyond my comprehension why people come onto this forum purely to rubbish our members theories on Jeremy innocent.  They know him to be guilty he has been in prison for 27 years what more do they want why do they wish to argue they have the verdict they believe in. Can they not let other people have their own views although different than theirs.

Hi Susan,,they can carry on. If all they can do is attack,personally,then there's nothing down for them,,,and what's more,it means that they've lost the argument too and have to dig deep for answers,,so instead they lose all reasoning and become abusive. Doesn't bother me. I shall continue defending an innocent man.

[Patti]

Ok I will tell you all something you don't know.

I do drugs.
I encourage my friends to steal.
I  have committed a burglary.
I also tells lies in order to defend my self....

Do you think the court will believe it if I told them 

Had the jury known all of the above, I doubt very much that they would believe her...

It was said that good character references for Jeremy were rejected because of their past....It stinks...

[grahameb]

I am flabberghasted by what you're saying. Does it not dawn on you that you are reaching and guessing and in so doing just reinforcing your own delusions? Do you honestly think that Julie Mugford would risk a 10 year prison sentence for purgery just in order to get her own back???
Incidently your comment about 'skipping the country' doesnt hold any water either. I read that Julie Mugford comes back to the UK regularly to see her family. She returned to the UK her own free will in 2002 to testify in Bamber appeal hearing. In the event she wasnt needed.
Why are you trying to twist things like this without so much as a scrap of evidence? May I ask would you like to be treated like that by someone you didn't even know? I am truly astonished by the levels of supposition and invention that is going on.
Ask youself lookout. Could you use what you have stated above in a court of law?
Sorry but your sentiments beggar belief. You seem like a good person lookout and have some good ideas and theories. I admire you dedication but there should be a limit to how far you are prepared to go and come up with all manner of things to paint Bamber in a light of innocence.

The question still remains. Why was JM never charged as an accessory after the fact? If she was charged and found guilty, then that criminal record would have scuppered her dreams of becoming a teacher. A deal was struck wuth the cops. FACT. She testifies against JB she gets off scott free.
So why doesn't she tell the truth now you may say? Well if she did that would spell disaster to her, her reputation and her job as assistant head at the school in Canada. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can't help but think it rather strange that as soon as the trial was done she was off to Canada as fast as her little pegs could carry her. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly that she was putting as much distance between her and English law as possible?

[lookout]

Ok I will tell you all something you don't know.

I do drugs.
I encourage my friends to steal.
I  have committed a burglary.
I also tells lies in order to defend my self....

Do you think the court will believe it if I told them 

Had the jury known all of the above, I doubt very much that they would believe her...

It was said that good character references for Jeremy were rejected because of their past....It stinks...

Hi Patti,,it's strange,but when there's little or no evidence to come up with,,,the digging starts,and a case can be built on something that happened years prior to the one in hand,,,as a means of justifying,whether there's any relevance or not. You bet it stinks.

[Buddy]

Julie never went to the police in the first place. It was Battersby. Julie was caught in a lie and had to carry on, at risk of being an accessery after the fact. The wet suit is absolute nonsense. Just try and imagine someone cycling along the Goldhanger road dressed in that attire If the wetsuit top was discarded in the grounds of the farm, then Jeremy cycled home bare chested as a wetsuit cannot be put on over clothes.julie was not a good witness as far as the defence were concerned as she kept breaking down under questioning, yet made a remarkable recovery when questioned by the prosecution, that was the reason she was never called to testify at the appeal. I supposed it was down to who's lies the jury believed, and we know that 2 did not believe Julie anyway.
I suspect Jeremy donned his speedo's, and goggles and swam the river, murdered his family then breaststroked his way back home. It is just as plausable as the wetsuit theory.
Utter B******S.