Thoughts On The Case

[mrswah]

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.

Why not a third party acting on behalf of Jeremy?

[barrier]

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.

Given she gave evidence under oath and hasn't been done for perjury, her testimony is solid.

[Brancher]

Why not a third party acting on behalf of Jeremy?

Yes, but then Jeremy's guilty, isn't he.

[Brancher]

Given she gave evidence under oath and hasn't been done for perjury, her testimony is solid.

That's not very convincing. 

Shall we move on?  Best to, I think.

[Caroline]

Why not a third party acting on behalf of Jeremy?

Who would you ask to kill your family which would include two sleeping six years olds?

[Myster]

That's not very convincing. 

Shall we move on?  Best to, I think.

Why?!... simply because you don't agree with the answer?

[Myster]

That's not very convincing. 

Shall we move on?  Best to, I think.

What explanation have you got for the absence of any of the victims' blood, especially that of Nevill's, on Sheila's face, chest, arms or hands?

Or the fact Bamber had no response when questioned as to the odd bullet count remaining on the kitchen worktop?

[Aunt Agatha]

Why not a third party acting on behalf of Jeremy?

That theory is being looked into under the topic paedophiles in Westminster.

[Aunt Agatha]

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.

You don’t have to be a part of any group to know or have evidence of misdealings

[Aunt Agatha]

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

A liar does not make him a muderer

[Aunt Agatha]

Who would you ask to kill your family which would include two sleeping six years olds?

I do not believe this request came from within the immediate household.

[Aunt Agatha]

Why?!... simply because you don't agree with the answer?

Because it’s misleading....she lied but has not yet been brought to justice....and won’t whilst Jeremy remains in prison.

[Caroline]

You don’t have to be a part of any group to know or have evidence of misdealings

If MM is guilty, then so is Jeremy. I don't believe that MM had any part of it though.

[Caroline]

I do not believe this request came from within the immediate household.

I know you don't but that is the premis.

[Aunt Agatha]

If MM is guilty, then so is Jeremy. I don't believe that MM had any part of it though.

Forget MM.  ITS ANOTHER RED HERRING