Thoughts On The Case

[Aunt Agatha]

Why would I be offended? Anyway ........ why would 'a woman scorned' (as people generally regard her), mention one Matthew McDonald as the actual killer - a man hired by Jeremy to kill his family? The story of McDonald makes no sense from a purely Julie perspective and if she was coached by the police (as some believe), it makes no sense from that perspective either.

Oh yes it does, if you watch the video I’ve just posted.

[puglove]

I agree with a lot of what you say, Brancher. 

I sit on the fence regarding this case, and nobody has yet been able to persuade me either way, although I suppose I lean slightly more towards JB being guilty.

I suspect too many years have passed to get to 100% certainty now.

I'm 100% certain that it wasn't Sheila, so.......

[Caroline]

Oh yes it does, if you watch the video I’ve just posted.

I haven't watched the video yet but in this particular instance is doesn't make sense for Julie to mention the hitman if she was trying to frame Jeremy. MM was not an elite person, he was just a bloke that relished in being thought of as a mercenary - plus he had an alibi and if he was the killer - he was hired by Bamber, which still makes him guilty.

[Aunt Agatha]

I'm 100% certain that it wasn't Sheila, so.......

I do not believe it was either of them.


The courts proved quite conclusively in my opinion that Sheila didn’t do it...and Jeremy was found guilty only by default...directed by the judge.

Check out my video I just posted.

[Nicholas]

The courts proved quite conclusively in my opinion that Sheila didn’t do it...and Jeremy was found guilty only by default...directed by the judge.

It was his lies that caught him out AA and you know he’s a liar

I would like to add that Jeremy does lie......but not that much.  However, I could tell when Jeremy was lying to me over the phone.....for all that you may believe, he is not that good a liar!!

[Aunt Agatha]

It was his lies that caught him out AA and you know he’s a liar

This was solely around the time of the Bamberettes and he lied to protect me.

I just didn’t know how much he tried to protect me at the time and what he gave up to protect me.
I was hurt and angry at the time. 
Over the years more info has been revealed and I can understand fully now his actions and the course he took.

Can we stop with the questions now.

I’m not a liar, I have never knowingly lied on here.

I’ve made errors, which once brought to my attention I have corrected and apologised for.   To err is human.

[Nicholas]

I’ve made errors, which once brought to my attention I have corrected and apologised for. 

Is this what you are referring to when you say you’ve ‘apologised‘ ?

I've just read that and you're right. I must have posted it briefly then deleted it immediately afterwards.

I know for certain, unless you've copied it Nicholas, that no photos other than what I put on here recently, exist.

I apologise for my error.

Wasn’t an effective apology AA

[Nicholas]

This was solely around the time of the Bamberettes and he lied to protect me.

I just didn’t know how much he tried to protect me at the time and what he gave up to protect me.
I was hurt and angry at the time. 
Over the years more info has been revealed and I can understand fully now his actions and the course he took.

Can we stop with the questions now.

I’m not a liar, I have never knowingly lied on here.

I’ve made errors, which once brought to my attention I have corrected and apologised for.   To err is human.

What are you claiming Bamber gave up to protect you ?

[barrier]

Not at all.  I would go as far as to say Julie Mugford's evidence was a redundancy.  The only reason I've even added Julie Mugford to my list is that, in their wisdom, the Crown decided to admit her evidence and the Defence decided not to object, so I must assume she did influence the jury, and that being the case, the convictions look unsafe/unsatisfactory (though I think Jeremy more than likely did do it). 

She was thrown up as a red herring by the Crown to bolster a weak-ish case by adding an emotional dimension to things.  Her evidence wasn't strictly essential to the Crown's case as far as it went.  Think about it: what did her evidence actually prove?  She says this and that, but it's just uncorroborated claims of conversations and doesn't actually prove he killed anybody.   The part where she makes a specific allegation of a confession to her by Jeremy turned out not even to be true.  That in itself doesn't mean she was lying (though I do think she was), but it does mean her evidence, while certainly making a dramatic impression, wouldn't have been of much help to the jury. 

Let's say I'm wrong about her truthfulness and she was straight down the line, all the way. Even if we accept everything Julie Mugford said and believe she was telling the truth 150%, you could still find Bamber Guilty or Not Guilty, as you please, and put what he told her down to bravado/boasting/teasing. 

But why should we believe what she said?  First, she was a criminal herself, not just as an accomplice to Bamber in burglary, but in her right.  Obviously that doesn't mean she was lying, and people can change and move on, but her own bad character casts doubt on her because she had a specific incentive to accept an offer of immunity and give evidence against Bamber.  She also misled the court about her business arrangements with a newspaper - in itself, a very serious matter.

Finally, consider the contradiction here, that you are believing Julie Mugford, herself a proven liar and criminal, but disbelieving Jeremy Bamber, also a proven liar and criminal.  Wouldn't it be more rational (and also a lot fairer) to disregard them both and just look at the evidence, such as it is?  It's not like I'm coming on here and telling you something like: "You know, Jeremy - I call him Uncle Jezza - is definitely, definitely, for sure, innocent as the pure driven snow, honest, because, after all, he did receive that phone call from Nevill".  How naive would that be?  I wouldn't blame you if you laughed me off the Forum.  Yet you are doing something equivalent when you protest the truthfulness of the former Miss. Mugford.  Really, that's how naive it looks to me when people say they believe Julie Mugford.  Why should I?  More to the point: why is it even necessary?

I say all this with due respect and you should not be offended.  Also, I mean no ill-intent towards Julie Smerchanski, a responsible middle-aged lady who has left her past far behind.  As far as I'm concerned, Julie Mugford and Julie Smerchanski are two different people.  Julie Mugford was an abominable individual (just like Jeremy Bamber), but also probably frightened and drawn into circumstances well outside her comfort zone.  If Jeremy really did this (and I think he probably did), and if we assume Julie Mugford was not involved, then it's hardly her fault and you can't blame her for lying/exaggerating in order to preserve herself.  It's not a nice or honourable thing to do, and does her no credit, but it's a human thing to do.

Saying that JM testimony is redundant only works in isolation,seen as a part of the whole then it has its relevance or do you think Bamber would have been convicted in spite of it?

[The General]

Is this what you are referring to when you say you’ve ‘apologised‘ ?

Wasn’t an effective apology AA

Yeh, now you're just a bully. Have a go at bullying me, yer big shitbag.

[G-Unit]

Is this what you are referring to when you say you’ve ‘apologised‘ ?

Wasn’t an effective apology AA

What's wrong with AA's apology?

[Brancher]

I do not believe it was either of them.


The courts proved quite conclusively in my opinion that Sheila didn’t do it...and Jeremy was found guilty only by default...directed by the judge.

Check out my video I just posted.

If it were true that the courts proved conclusively that Sheila didn't do it (they didn't, in my view, but let's assume they did), then it would have to be Jeremy.  Sorry.  This must follow on Jeremy's own evidence: the phone call he claims he received from Nevill narrows down the suspects to Jeremy or Sheila.

The only other possibility is that it was a third party who was not acting on behalf of Jeremy or Sheila and the phone call was made by Nevill at the point of a gun.  I think that's very unlikely, but that discussion is outside the scope of this thread.

[Caroline]

If it were true that the courts proved conclusively that Sheila didn't do it (they didn't, in my view, but let's assume they did), then it would have to be Jeremy.  Sorry.  This must follow on Jeremy's own evidence: the phone call he claims he received from Nevill narrows down the suspects to Jeremy or Sheila.

The only other possibility is that it was a third party who was not acting on behalf of Jeremy or Sheila and the phone call was made by Nevill at the point of a gun.  I think that's very unlikely, but that discussion is outside the scope of this thread.

Although (as you mentioned earlier) Sheila suffered from mental illness, she was medicated and although (as you also mentioned earlier) her meds were reduced, this was because she had symptoms over being over medicated and after her death, she was found to have a moderate dose of her meds still in her system. I have challenged others to find an example of a medicated schizophrenic who  killed in a psychotic episode; so far we have no examples. I sure they do exist but they seem to be like hens teeth.

[Brancher]

Saying that JM testimony is redundant only works in isolation,seen as a part of the whole then it has its relevance

I'm not looking at her evidence only in isolation.  If Julie Mugford had relayed facts that were consistent with those reported by other people, that would be one thing.  Or if she had reported a confession by Jeremy under specific circumstances that could be verified with somebody else, it wouldn't prove it, but it would be useful to know.  Julie Mugford did not do these things.  She also lied.  That is fact.  Even Julie Mugford herself admitted she had lied, at some point, but she wanted the court to believe she was now telling the truth, about a boyfriend who had ended their relationship, something that had upset her.  She was a serious criminal in her own right.  And she was being threatened with prosecution and had to rely on immunity. 

Why should I believe her?  Also, I repeat my earlier question to you: why do you believe her but not Jeremy?  Why not dismiss the evidence of both and just look at the facts?

Nobody corroborated what she had said.  She stated that Bamber had told her that he had hired a named hitman, and this turned out not to be true.  She reported no other admissions from Bamber, which means her evidence was useless and not believable anyway.

or do you think Bamber would have been convicted in spite of it?

That's close to what I am saying.  What I am saying is that Bamber could have been convicted or acquitted, as it pleased the jury, without Julie Mugford or the moderator. 

In my view, the case is not proven, and if you add in Julie Mugford and the moderator, it looks even weaker.  If anything, Julie Mugford and the moderator undermine the Crown's efforts.  Julie Mugford's evidence was an attempt to manipulate the court and should have been deprecated by the trial judge.  The moderator was joke evidence and smacked of 'throwing everything but the kitchen sink at it'.

Of course, a super-majority of the jury seems to have thought otherwise (though we don't know the precise reasons for their decision) and the Court of Appeal has decided otherwise on two occasions.

[Brancher]

I haven't watched the video yet but in this particular instance is doesn't make sense for Julie to mention the hitman if she was trying to frame Jeremy. MM was not an elite person, he was just a bloke that relished in being thought of as a mercenary - plus he had an alibi and if he was the killer - he was hired by Bamber, which still makes him guilty.

Or it could be that Julie Mugford was deliberately giving wrong information to send the police off track and protect Jeremy?

Anyway, I'd like to move on from the topic of Julie Mugford, if possible.  Unless somebody can provide solid objections, I see no reason to believe anything she said and I think her evidence should be dismissed. 

One point to Jeremy.