Thoughts On The Case

[Caroline]

Do you  mean 'it  suddenly snook up on her?'  hmm!

Sorry AA, I don't understand you post?

[mrswah]

Julie was unaware, Gunit

I don’t believe you yourself are au fait with all the case, are you? Yet you’re stating Julie knew what they were about to do.

You’re wrong.

Before making allegations please get your facts correct.

I do believe that Jeremy was a bad influence on Julie, but she had a choice: she could have chosen to be nowhere near the caravan site while he was committing the burglary. She could have said she wanted nothing to do with it. But, she didn't. She chose to be there, acting as a lookout. He didn't carry her there!!!

[ISpyWithMyEye]

For someone who claims to be knowledgeable you make plenty of mistakes, Ispy. I know Jeremy burgled the Caravan Park but I was speaking of Julie's involvement.

They went to the Campsite with the intention of committing the crime, she told the police, so she agreed to it before they left the house. Julie did it without a doubt. After they'd done it they walked back to the Mill Beach Hotel where his car was parked. They went in, had a drink and a few games of pool. [JM w/s 10/9/85]

If you’re going to correct my error, at least do it without cherry picking, and withholding facts which shows what JB is

Yes, I agree I did make a mistake — but considering how much I’ve ploughed through — and this isn’t a courtroom — there’s bound to be the odd error when posting quickly on a forum. You yourself make them frequently...

I fast-read and scan quickly, and it’s only when I need to make a solid official letter/document that I edit after checking my source, cross referencing and correcting my typos etc.

Whatever, you’re right in that Julie did indeed know what Jeremy TOLD HER he planned to do — and she stupidly went along with it, obviously,  as she was naive and besotted.

He told her to stay outside the campsite as a lookout, and then spent 15 minutes inside stealing the money.

Whilst Julie was outside, at his orders, she said she was frightened.

It’s clear he was controlling her.

Julie gained nothing from the burglary he committed , except a meal he bought her with the money he stole from his family.

I’m pleased you’ve brought this up, as we can now put to bed the desperate accusations some people have made.

1)  Julie was never arrested or even implicated in this crime he coerced her into

2)  Julie VOLUNTEERED this information to the police

3)  It’s worth noting by what she said in her statement, that she was incredibly naive, stupid, and gullible — and it’s   obvious that Jeremy was using her and stringing her along, knowing she was besotted and under his spell.

4) I’ve found even more revelations which I shall remind you of later


[attachment deleted by admin]

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Would it really matter if cites were provided? You would still find excuses. I searched the house yesterday for my copy of Wilkes's book and then spent all night (as John will confirm), trying to post it to answer your question and still more excuses - not even a 'thanks for that' 

Doesn’t surprise me, Caroline

April accused me today of lying about the psychiatrist who the defence brought in to assess Jeremy

When I did post the evidence — spending time looking though CAL’s book — April didn’t even apologise

I’m starting to wonder who’s who on here...

I know you’re 100% genuine, you’ve admitted you weren’t sure at first, and corresponded with him until you realised he wasn’t being truthful. Sadly, not everyone can see through his fake persona, and even if they do have suspicions they tell themselves they must be wrong and he’s innocent.

[Caroline]

It may have been his idea, but Julie left the house with him knowing full well where they were going and what they were going to do. [JM w/s 10/8/85]

There is no 'may' about it, that said, how does she become the main focus for vilification?

Interesting that he staged that C/S too!

[G-Unit]

If you’re going to correct my error, at least do it without cherry picking, and withholding facts which shows what JB is

Yes, I agree I did make a mistake — but considering how much I’ve ploughed through — and this isn’t a courtroom — there’s bound to be the odd error when posting quickly on a forum. You yourself make them frequently...

I fast-read and scan quickly, and it’s only when I need to make a solid official letter/document that I edit after checking my source, cross referencing and correcting my typos etc.

Whatever, you’re right in that Julie did indeed know what Jeremy TOLD HER he planned to do — and she stupidly went along with it, obviously,  as she was naive and besotted.

He told her to stay outside the campsite as a lookout, and then spent 15 minutes inside stealing the money.

Whilst Julie was outside, at his orders, she said she was frightened.

It’s clear he was controlling her.

Julie gained nothing from the burglary he committed , except a meal he bought her with the money he stole from his family.

I’m pleased you’ve brought this up, as we can now put to bed the desperate accusations some people have made.

1)  Julie was never arrested or even implicated in this crime he coerced her into

2)  Julie VOLUNTEERED this information to the police

3)  It’s worth noting by what she said in her statement, that she was incredibly naive, stupid, and gullible — and it’s   obvious that Jeremy was using her and stringing her along, knowing she was besotted and under his spell.

4) I’ve found even more revelations which I shall remind you of later

The fact is that you post in a very dogmatic manner, but many of your posts are not correct. Please make sure you that you check the facts before you post and only claim things are facts when you can provide evidence. If you have no evidence to offer please make it clear that you are posting your opinion.

[Aunt Agatha]

Sorry AA, I don't understand you post?

Do you really believe, having read Julie's statement that during their journey, the walk to the office from the car, that she had absolutely no idea whatsoever what was going to hepoen next.
A bit like a lamb to the slaughter.

She knew! She knew exactly what was happening and she was game just as much as Jeremy.  It might have been his idea, well thats what she states, and she was not willing in any way, even though she could of stopped the whole thing at any point.


I don't believe her. However you wish to describe it, it was a 50/50 premeditated crime that they both are guilty of.  Equally guilty.  Jeremy stooped low, but she could stoop just as low, no problem.

[Caroline]

Do you really believe, having read Julie's statement that during their journey, the walk to the office from the car, that she had absolutely no idea whatsoever what was going to hepoen next.
A bit like a lamb to the slaughter.

She knew! She knew exactly what was happening and she was game just as much as Jeremy.  It might have been his idea, well thats what she states, and she was not willing in any way, even though she could of stopped the whole thing at any point.


I don't believe her. However you wish to describe it, it was a 50/50 premeditated crime that they both are guilty of.  Equally guilty.  Jeremy stooped low, but she could stoop just as low, no problem.

I don't think it was 50/50 at all, more like 80/20. It was his own family he was stealing from and even in that crime, he stanged the scene. She couldn't have stopped him, he'd have dine it anyway.

[Aunt Agatha]

The fact is that you post in a very dogmatic manner, but many of your posts are not correct. Please make sure you that you check the facts before you post and only claim things are facts when you can provide evidence. If you have no evidence to offer please make it clear that you are posting your opinion.

****and opinions are just like arseholes - everyone's got one.

Some just don't recognise the sh*t that comes out of the venomous orafices.

[Holly Goodhead]

EDIT: I've added another important ground contributing to an overall conclusion of 'reasonable doubt' [unsure], which is the fact the telephone was found without blood on it.
___________________________________________________________________________________

I looked at this in some depth a few years ago and concluded then that Bamber was likely to be involved in the killings but that the case against him was not proven beyond reasonable doubt – in other words, these are unsafe convictions, but perhaps he is not innocent.

My purpose in joining the Forum is to see if I can now come to a final settled view on the case, either pro- or against guilt.  I list below some of my reasons for thinking the convictions are unsafe.  I see that this Forum has discussed the case in detail, so it may be that you can immediately reject/dismiss some of my reasons.  Please bear in mind that it is some time since I looked at the evidence, so I may have forgotten certain details and some of my reasons may be off-key.

If anybody can respond constructively and politely with points rebutting or undermining any or all of these, that would be welcomed.

Among the reasons the convictions are unsafe/unsatisfactory: 

1. Essex Police messed up the crime scene, and so the forensic evidence and photographs cannot be relied on.

2. There is no reliable evidence that the moderator was ever used in the killings, and it didn’t need to be. 

3. The circumstances that brought the moderator into evidence also cast doubt on it.

4. I think Julie Mugford lied, but in any event, her evidence was unreliable.

5. The most important part of Mugford's evidence was hearsay (i.e. relating a conversation between Bamber and third parties), and this also turned out to be at least partly untrue and therefore unhelpful to the case.

6. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Sheila’s body was moved by anybody other than the police.

7. There was blood on the Bible.  At first, I thought this was a point against Bamber, but thinking about it more, I realised it points in his favour.

8. Lack of blood on the kitchen phone.  Again, most people seem to think this points to Bamber.  I take a different view.  I think a phone without blood on it is consistent with Bamber's narrative and points to Sheila.

9. It is plausible that Sheila could have done this (though I have to say, it is at the lower end of the range of plausibility).  Facts that point to Sheila are:

9.1. She was mentally-ill.
9.2. She was set against June.
9.3. Her psychotropic dosage had been lowered by half.
9.4. She did have a history of violent tantrums and she had made ominous/adverse statements.
9.5. She was found with the rifle.   
9.6. Her gunshot wounds are not consistent with use of a moderator.
9.7. She could have shot herself twice – the autopsy report implies that was possible, and two-shot suicides do occur. 
9.8. The apparent absence of forensic traces on her hands and feet doesn’t exclude her, because, first, we can't rely on the police; second, even if we can rely on the police, it is plausible that there simply were no traces and/or she cleaned herself before committing suicide.
9.9. A lack of complete fingerprints on the rifle proves nothing in itself and doesn't exclude Sheila.

Notes:

(i). I regard both Julie Mugford's testimony and the moderator as red herrings in the case.  Both should have been excluded at trial, and the Crown should have relied on the rest of the circumstantial evidence.  I think, on a balance of probabilities [civil standard], Bamber looks guilty, but I do not believe the case against him reaches the criminal standard of proof.

(ii). Let us say Julie Mugford lied.  It doesn't follow that Bamber is innocent.

(iii). Let us say the moderator was not used in the killings.  Again, it does not follow that Bamber is innocent.  It may be that it wasn't that moderator.  Or it may be no moderator was used at all.  I think the latter is most likely, but in either case, it does not follow that the moderator was planted maliciously.  It may have been introduced into evidence wrongly but innocently as a result of confirmation bias on the part of the family and police.  Even if so, Bamber may still be guilty.  People can be biased/prejudiced and right at the same time.

(iv). I’m of the view that if Sheila did do it, it would have involved two rifles rather than one as I doubt she would have been able to re-load.

Brancher I would recommend you would get more out of the forum and assist the moderating team in keeping 'law and order' if you either start up new threads with a narrow theme or retrieve old ones, again with a narrow theme.

As G-Unit said your OP raises some good points but it is very unwieldy.

[The General]

Julie didn't know in advance what he was planning to do. He didn't even need to force his way in as he knew how to retrieve the door key from a string behind the door. All Julie knew was that he gained entry to Osea Caravan Park site office, something he was entitled to do as member of the family. She was not to know he intended to rob cash from the place and trash it so as to make it look like a burglar had done it. Julie didn't partake in the robbery, she was effectively a bystander.

Julie was keeping dixie, John. I think she knew what he was going to do.

[Holly Goodhead]

Brancher I would recommend you would get more out of the forum and assist the moderating team in keeping 'law and order' if you either start up new threads with a narrow theme or retrieve old ones, again with a narrow theme.

As G-Unit said your OP raises some good points but it is very unwieldy.

The Sun is shining; we have a partial lifting of Lockdown allowing us to meet others outside (heyday for the doggers); tennis and golf resumed with restrictions; garden centres have reopened.  I want narrow themed threads I can dip in and out of 

[Myster]

Julie was keeping dixie, John. I think she knew what he was going to do.

Yep...

[Myster]

The Sun is shining; we have a partial lifting of Lockdown allowing us to meet others outside (heyday for the doggers); tennis and golf resumed with restrictions; garden centres have reopened.  I want narrow themed threads I can dip in and out of 

You mean dog-walkers... hopefully!

[Holly Goodhead]

Yep...

But we know OCP mgr James Carr had already put his suspicions to DS Jones re JB's involvement.