Something that is baffling me about this case is the relevance of Julie Mugford.
Bear in mind here that I am discussing relevance in the context of an application to the CCRC, not in the context of a criminal jury trial. Bamber stands convicted. The trial is over. That train has left the station. This is about relevancy qua Bamber's legal prognosis as a criminal appellant.
In that regard, the only evidence helpful to Bamber is evidence that undermines the murder conviction. It may be emotionally-satisfying and cathartic for him to go after a certain schools administrator in Manitoba, but it might not help him overturn his conviction.
Obviously I'm no expert on this case and at all times I am happy to be corrected on the facts and who said what in court, etc., but my own understanding about her evidence is that she said the following (here I am deliberately putting things in very general terms, to aid clarity):
(i). Bamber told her he wanted to kill his family.
(ii). Bamber told her he was going to kill his family.
(iii). Bamber told her he was planning to kill his family.
(iv). Bamber told her how he would kill his family.
(v). She assisted Bamber in an abortive/inchoate plot to kill his family.
(vi). Bamber told her he was about to kill his family.
(vii). Bamber rang her and told her something was happening at the Farm.
(viii). Bamber told her that he had killed his family, contracting-out the act to a known criminal.
(ix). The person Bamber named in fact had not carried out this act.
For the purposes of this thread, we will lean on the side of conservatism and accept the former Julie Mugford's evidence at face value. That being the case, we will assume that she was, more or less, telling the truth at trial.
On the basis of that working assumption, my view is that:
(a). none of the above facts involve or amount to a murder confession;
(b). none of the above facts prove that Bamber killed his family; and,
(c). while the above facts are of some relevance to a criminal trial as an indicator of Bamber's character and his attitude to his family, none of the facts mentioned could have assisted a hypothetical reasonable jury in determining whether Bamber had killed his family.
No doubt in discussions in this thread, the focus will be on point (viii) above. Certainly I accept that point (viii) above does not assist Bamber's defence and would be of grave concern to the police and to a jury, but I am clear in my mind that it is not a confession. First, it's hearsay, which means that even if we assume she was a truthful witness, we can't adduce her evidence and assess its reliability in the same way we could other types of evidence. Second, the basis of the evidence is wrong or false, a fact that in itself demands an explanation. Again, assuming that the former Miss Mugford was a truthful witness, it's as plausible that Bamber was just an idiotic and callous young man who disliked his adoptive parents and was privately glad and relieved they were dead and wanted to show off in front of his girlfriend. Or maybe he was just joking about having hired a hitman? The reality is that people say strange and upsetting things in these situations, and often show inappropriate emotions, especially if they are emotionally-stunted or haven't learned how to act in a normative manner.
I can speak slightly from personal experience, and what follows is just to illustrate the point. My father passed away during a period I was spending in prison. I was aware he was ill and was one morning called to see the prison chaplain, who then broke the news to me. For me, the passing of my father was very difficult to bear because I was never close to him, indeed I had a very poor relationship with him. That does tend to make it worse. In my case, when the chaplain told me, my initial response was numbness and then I started to smile and laugh a bit, then I realised consciously that that was not appropriate, then I started to get genuinely upset, and a minute later I was crying - the first time I had done so in years. I know that's not the same thing as the situation with Jeremy, but if Jeremy was chuckling or showing-off to Julie, that could have been a defence mechanism or explained by his emotionally-inert psyche. Or it could be that he just was relieved that his parents were gone. Or maybe he was wryly referring his girlfriend to his fulfilled anticipation of problems with Sheila? Or maybe he really did do it and he is a mass murderer? I can't say one way or the other, I just offer some possible explanations, based on general life experience.
But the main point is, I question the relevance of Mugford's evidence. There is no confession here from Jeremy. There is no proof of a confession, only hearsay about a factually-wrong claim that he had had his parents killed. I would go so far as to say that, in all the circumstances, her evidence should not have been heard, but we are where we are. It was heard, and that being the case, it's now a double-edged sword: on the one hand, despite having no probative value at trial, it was still evidence that may have persuasively helped the jury to convict Jeremy; on the other hand, it's now no longer of relevance because undermining it can't help undermine the murder conviction itself. Even if it can be showed that Julie Mugford lied about some minor transactional fact and has, in a technical sense, perverted the course of justice, that doesn't disturb Jeremy's conviction (and, just speculation, but I doubt the Canadian authorities will be happy to extradite her after all this time).
In other words: if we took Julie Mugford's evidence out of the picture, that would not help Jeremy on the main cause, regardless of the reason; and, conversely, if Julie Mugford' evidence was the only point standing against Jeremy, his convictions would be quashed anyway.
For that reason, my view is that Julie Mugford should stay where she belongs - in the past - and Julie Smerchanski should be left alone.
