UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: david1819 on November 28, 2015, 06:54:38 PM
-
If it makes you feel better to see it that way fine, However the fact of the matter is harder for you to swallow. Over and over again you get things wrong and wont admit or realise it.
Mugford had her criminal charges dropped by the director of public prosecutions in exchange for being a prosecution witness against Jeremy.
(http://s16.postimg.org/6tpk71nqd/mugforddcadams.jpg)
How you can read the above evidence and see it differently is testimony to [ moderated ]
-
If it makes you feel better to see it that way fine, However the fact of the matter is harder for you to swallow. Over and over again you get things wrong and wont admit or realise it.
Mugford had her criminal charges dropped by the director of public prosecutions in exchange for being a prosecution witness against Jeremy.
(http://s16.postimg.org/6tpk71nqd/mugforddcadams.jpg)
How you can read the above evidence and see it differently is testimony to [ moderated ]
Nothing you posted establishes the charges were dropped in exchange for her agreeing to testify. Indeed the reaosn for the charges being dropped was related SPECIFICALLY to the charges. That she was to be called as a witness was a separate issue. The judges know this as does everyone who is both objective and informed. You are not in the least bit objective and just keep spouting the same nonsense the COA and others rejected long ago. You take nonsense form Jeremy's lawyers then say it is true because you say so. You are a legend in your own mind.
-
Nothing you posted establishes the charges were dropped in exchange for her agreeing to testify. Indeed the reaosn for the charges being dropped was related SPECIFICALLY to the charges. That she was to be called as a witness was a separate issue. The judges know this as does everyone who is both objective and informed. You are not in the least bit objective and just keep spouting the same nonsense the COA and others rejected long ago. You take nonsense form Jeremy's lawyers then say it is true because you say so. You are a legend in your own mind.
But the very act of "advising her of the Directors decision 'NOT' to prosecute" must surely suggest that it HAD, at some point, been a possibility they'd made her aware of.
-
Julie had completed her WS before anyone knew about the the 1984 joint minor cheque book fraud.
If you approach the police and complete a WS, don't you have to testify at trial ?
Seems a bit pointless in Julie approaching the police and completing a WS, then refusing to testify.
If Julie wanted to retract and decided she did not want to testify, the police threatening her with prosecution over a joint minor cheque book fraud from 1984 will not change her mind. Committing perjury at trial or Bamber being found 'not guilty' is much worse for her.
-
Julie had completed her WS before anyone knew about the the 1984 joint minor cheque book fraud.
If you approach the police and complete a WS, don't you have to testify at trial ?
Seems a bit pointless in Julie approaching the police and completing a WS, then refusing to testify.
If Julie wanted to retract and decided she did not want to testify, the police threatening her with prosecution over a joint minor cheque book fraud from 1984 will not change her mind. Committing perjury at trial or Bamber being found 'not guilty' is much worse for her.
You seem not to have taken into account what the potential threat of losing her future career would have meant. You've pushed a picture on an innocent, naive, totally unstreet wise girl. I imagine that person would have been shaking in her shoes. I think the police knew how important her testimony would be and did a softly, softly act, whilst reminding her that it was possible that there may be a prosecution, which although out of their hands, they'd put a good word in for her. Clearly, the DPP must have known about the cheque book fraud. How else could the Director have "taken the decision 'NOT' to prosecute"?
-
But the very act of "advising her of the Directors decision 'NOT' to prosecute" must surely suggest that it HAD, at some point, been a possibility they'd made her aware of.
By law they must notify someone when a decision is made. She knew at that point that she would not be prosecuted. If she refused to testify she could face contempt of court charges only. This is not immunity. Immunity is being given a contractual agreement where if you do what the government asks then in exchange they won't prosecute you and if you fail to comply with your contractual requirements then the deal is void and they are free to prosecute you.
They had no leverage so far as an immunity deal is concerned. Her crimes were minor, she at most would face a police caution/low community order. This is less severe than the punishment that could be meted out by contempt of court. So an immunity deal would be quite pointless. Immunity deals are where someone faces something rather significant so is reluctant to talk and incriminate themselves. Immunity deals are sought BEFORE people will talk to police. She told the police everything already. They had no need to offer her immunity to get her to tell police what she knew. They already knew what she knew, she signed sworn statements already.
-
You seem not to have taken into account what the potential threat of losing her future career would have meant. You've pushed a picture on an innocent, naive, totally unstreet wise girl. I imagine that person would have been shaking in her shoes. I think the police knew how important her testimony would be and did a softly, softly act, whilst reminding her that it was possible that there may be a prosecution, which although out of their hands, they'd put a good word in for her. Clearly, the DPP must have known about the cheque book fraud. How else could the Director have "taken the decision 'NOT' to prosecute"?
Why would she lose her future career ? It was a first offence, joint minor cheque book fraud from over a year earlier. She would get a police caution or community charge. She paid back the money straight away, so the bank may decide not to prosecute anyway.
Well she was innocent, and naive in the situation she found herself in.
Agree the police realised how important her testimony was. I doubt they needed to persuade her to testify. She approached the police after telling five people. Then completed a WS. The police worked with her, Stan Jones being the main person. Whether he took a soft approach is up to him.
There were other things that would effect future employment. As Scipio said if she refused to testify she would be in contempt of court. She would be more worried about that, or perjury if exposed as lying in court. Or Bamber getting off and spending the next 30 years attacking her in public. Mind you he does that anyway.
-
Why would she lose her future career ? It was a first offence, joint minor cheque book fraud from over a year earlier. She would get a police caution or community charge. She paid back the money straight away, so the bank may decide not to prosecute anyway.
Well she was innocent, and naive in the situation she found herself in.
Agree the police realised how important her testimony was. I doubt they needed to persuade her to testify. She approached the police after telling five people. Then completed a WS. The police worked with her, Stan Jones being the main person. Whether he took a soft approach is up to him.
There were other things that would effect future employment. As Scipio said if she refused to testify she would be in contempt of court. She would be more worried about that, or perjury if exposed as lying in court. Or Bamber getting off and spending the 30 years attacking her in public. Mind you he does that anyway.
Adam, why do you think certain professions require that police checks are done before any hiring is done? It probably was in her favour that she'd repaid the money, but whether or not she was prosecuted was out of her hands. It was IN the hands of the DPP. It had NOTHING to do with the bank whether or not she was prosecuted.
You may be totally convinced that they'd have let her off with a smacked wrist but perhaps if it had been you who had committed the crime at such a young, naive and innocent age, AND find yourself being questioned by the police regarding one of the biggest crimes in recent British history, you wouldn't feel quite as confident.
-
even without her testimony there is enough evidence that sheila could not have committed the crime.master scipio usmc is right but sometimes is very rude when answering peoples posts 8()(((@#.but he is the master
-
even without her testimony there is enough evidence that sheila could not have committed the crime.master scipio usmc is right but sometimes is very rude when answering peoples posts 8()(((@#.but he is the master
Ha!! Yes, scipio is indeed the master and, thanks to him, I now sometimes find myself telling people that "I am handing them their ass."
It feels great! ?>)()<
-
Ha!! Yes, scipio is indeed the master and, thanks to him, I now sometimes find myself telling people that "I am handing them their ass."
It feels great! ?>)()<
@)(++(*i think he is one of only a few on here that has seen every statement and photo;relating to the case.hence the master. i can put up with his rudeness as long as he doesn't mind some in return;and he doesn't &%+((£
-
@)(++(*i think he is one of only a few on here that has seen every statement and photo;relating to the case.hence the master. i can put up with his rudeness as long as he doesn't mind some in return;and he doesn't &%+((£
No, he doesn't give a monkey's (or, as he would say, a rat's ass.) He's rude, but funny, and has actually taken the trouble (unlike some I could mention) to do his homework. You can't best him!
-
No, he doesn't give a monkey's (or, as he would say, a rat's ass.) He's rude, but funny, and has actually taken the trouble (unlike some I could mention) to do his homework. You can't best him!
totally agree.lets hope we can agree on a few other things pugi 8((()*/
-
totally agree.lets hope we can agree on a few other things pugi 8((()*/
Hopefully! But not the Diana thing! Please spell her name correctly. She was a nightmare, but only because she was used as a broodmare by that horrible, weird family. She wasn't murdered, she was just, again not very bright, and in the wrong place at the wrong time. Massively sad, and it shouldn't have happened.
-
Hopefully! But not the Diana thing! Please spell her name correctly. She was a nightmare, but only because she was used as a broodmare by that horrible, weird family. She wasn't murdered, she was just, again not very bright, and in the wrong place at the wrong time. Massively sad, and it shouldn't have happened.
pugi'lets agree to disagree on this one &%+((£
-
pugi'lets agree to disagree on this one &%+((£
We'll see!!
-
even without her testimony there is enough evidence that sheila could not have committed the crime.master scipio usmc is right but sometimes is very rude when answering peoples posts 8()(((@#.but he is the master
That's half the case. That Sheila can't have killed herself (and the others) simply proves someone else killed her and the others and framed her.
The other half is proving who killed them and tried to frame her. Jeremy's claim he received a phone call blaming Sheila was a big fat gift to the prosecution. But Julie's testimony accomplished the same thing. Either one alone would suffice but together they are even more powerful. Jurors might be willing to disregard one thing but when you have multiple pieces of evidence proving the same thing they are more reluctant to ignore all of them.
Without both the case would have been someone tried to execute the entire family in their sleep and staged it to make it look like Sheila did it and that the only one with a motive to do such would be Jeremy and he had no alibi so it had to be him. Some would find that sufficient to convict but some would not so it would depend heavily on who made up the jury.
With both Julie's testimony and the phone call claim he would have to be extremely lucky and get a jury full of fools to acquit. Once in a while someone gets lucky and gets such a jury- look at Robert Dursk. The jury bought that he killed someone in self defense then instead of calling police to say he killed the persons in self defense he dismembered the body and disposed of it. Once in a while defendants get lucky and get a large group of morons. But the law of averages are against it. The law of averages are that out of a body of 12 who pass through jury selection no more than 2 will be utter morons, biased beyond belief or susceptible to bribery. What is required to convict in majority cases- 10 of the 12...
Note the small number of cases where there is a hung jury because 3 or more disagree with their counterparts.
-
Once in a while someone gets lucky and gets such a jury- look at Robert Dursk. The jury bought that he killed someone in self defense then instead of calling police to say he killed the persons in self defense he dismembered the body and disposed of it. Once in a while defendants get lucky and get a large group of morons. But the law of averages are against it. The law of averages are that out of a body of 12 who pass through jury selection no more than 2 will be utter morons, biased beyond belief or susceptible to bribery. What is required to convict in majority cases- 10 of the 12...
Note the small number of cases where there is a hung jury because 3 or more disagree with their counterparts.
Don't forget to mention that once in a while defendants get unlucky and a unanimous jury find them guilty when they are infact innocent. Mind you its not always the Jury's fault, police corruption, ineffective defence counsel or prosecution misconduct will precipitate such outcome not always a foolish Jury.
Robert Durst and OJ Simpson are a classic example of reasonable doubt at a reasonable price.
-
Don't forget to mention that once in a while defendants get unlucky and a unanimous jury find them guilty when they are infact innocent. Mind you its not always the Jury's fault, police corruption, ineffective defence counsel or prosecution misconduct will precipitate such outcome not always a foolish Jury.
Robert Durst and OJ Simpson are a classic example of reasonable doubt at a reasonable price.
Neither is a good example of illustrating reasonable doubt at work. They are examples of juries that were horrible.
The Russ Faria case is an example of a jury being delusional the opposite way. He had multiple witnesses giving him an alibi, receipts proving he was far away and the body was cold when he found it. The prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it under such circumstances. One of the witnesses against him clearly was the real killer and the defense was not allowed to go after her. If the defense had been allowed to do so they maybe have acquitted but should have anyway even absent such because objectively the state failed to prove its case. They needed to establish the time of death and that he had opportunity but could not. That alone should have been the end of things.
Because the judge improperly denied the right to go after the key prosecution witness he was granted a new trial and was acquitted. But that doesn't mean the jury had enough evidence to convict. The jury failed to do their duty. Cases like this are rare though. Most convictions are based on sufficient evidence. Juries don't usually choose to ignore 4 witnesses giving an alibi and a body being cold when found.
The prosecution in that case was so horrible it looks like they are not going to go after the real killer though it is obvious who the real killer is.
-
Neither is a good example of illustrating reasonable doubt at work. They are examples of juries that were horrible.
The Russ Faria case is an example of a jury being delusional the opposite way. He had multiple witnesses giving him an alibi, receipts proving he was far away and the body was cold when he found it. The prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it under such circumstances. One of the witnesses against him clearly was the real killer and the defense was not allowed to go after her. If the defense had been allowed to do so they maybe have acquitted but should have anyway even absent such because objectively the state failed to prove its case. They needed to establish the time of death and that he had opportunity but could not. That alone should have been the end of things.
Because the judge improperly denied the right to go after the key prosecution witness he was granted a new trial and was acquitted. But that doesn't mean the jury had enough evidence to convict. The jury failed to do their duty. Cases like this are rare though. Most convictions are based on sufficient evidence. Juries don't usually choose to ignore 4 witnesses giving an alibi and a body being cold when found.
The prosecution in that case was so horrible it looks like they are not going to go after the real killer though it is obvious who the real killer is.
wow fantastic .master.knowledge is power 8((()*/