Thoughts On The Case

[Myster]

No.  It's because I DO agree with the answer.  The answer is merely a truism.  It doesn't convince me on the point: which is why I should believe her evidence.

The question still stands: Why should I?

You weren't at the the trial, neither was any one of us here, but after intense grilling by the Defence, the jury were convinced that Julie Mugford was telling the truth, and they would have heard far more than what you think.  Why would Julie put herself under such pressure simply because their relationship had ended and she wanted to see her boyfriend imprisoned for life because he finished with her?  Your reasoning that "Julie lied" is simply too dismissive and makes no sense at all.

[Admin]

Would posters please calm down and about all, please refrain from criticising others opinions.

Admin

[Caroline]

?????

I can't tell you what you should and you shouldn't discuss, but I've suggested we move on because you and others can't come up with any strong reason to counter what I have said, and there are other points to discuss.

What's the point of going over and over it when you're telling me the same thing over and over again: that you believe her, even though she was a proven liar and criminal, had immunity, had an incentive to give evidence against Bamber, and was being paid by a newspaper and concealed the fact?

Would you rely on such evidence to convict somebody?  Really?

You only wrote the post yesterday but you're the one who mentioned her, you knew when you wrote it that nothing would change your mind so it was kind of a waste of your time and ours.

To be honest, I don't come here to convince anyone of anything, it's not my job. You don't believe her and that's fine but don't tell me I shouldn't. Most of what she did, she did because of Jeremy - even the cheque book fraud was born from the mind of Jeremy Bamber, only he did it years before in NZ with travellers cheques and got caught.

[Holly Goodhead]

You only wrote the post yesterday but you're the one who mentioned her, you knew when you wrote it that nothing would change your mind so it was kind of a waste of your time and ours.

To be honest, I don't come here to convince anyone of anything, it's not my job. You don't believe her and that's fine but don't tell me I shouldn't. Most of what she did, she did because of Jeremy - even the cheque book fraud was born from the mind of Jeremy Bamber, only he did it years before in NZ with travellers cheques and got caught.

Do you have any evidence of a scam with travellers cheques? 

[Caroline]

You weren't at the the trial, neither was any one of us here, but after intense grilling by the Defence, the jury were convinced that Julie Mugford was telling the truth, and they would have heard far more than what you think.  Why would Julie put herself under such pressure simply because their relationship had ended and she wanted to see her boyfriend imprisoned for life because he finished with her?  Your reasoning that "Julie lied" is simply too dismissive and makes no sense at all.

And why drag in Matthew McDonald? Why would she cunjure his name up out of the ether. Bamber didn't like him because he had a liaison with Suzette Ford, he probably thought it was funny to make him the hitman.

[Myster]

?????

I can't tell you what you should and you shouldn't discuss, but I've suggested we move on because you and others can't come up with any strong reason to counter what I have said, and there are other points to discuss.

What's the point of going over and over it when you're telling me the same thing over and over again: that you believe her, even though she was a proven liar and criminal, had immunity, had an incentive to give evidence against Bamber, and was being paid by a newspaper and concealed the fact?

Would you rely on such evidence to convict somebody?  Really?

Oh, so Bamber wasn't a proven liar and criminal either when he broke into the Osea office to satisy his monetary greed as he admitted at trial.  And wasn't it Bamber's intention to get a hefty payout should he have been declared innocent?

[Holly Goodhead]

And why drag in Matthew McDonald? Why would she cunjure his name up out of the ether. Bamber didn't like him because he had a liaison with Suzette Ford, he probably thought it was funny to make him the hitman.

Maybe it was put to JM JB must have had an accomplice and MM was his only associate with previous.

[Myster]

Do you have any evidence of a scam with travellers cheques?

Not all the evidence is in the public domain, as you well know.

[Caroline]

Do you have any evidence of a scam with travellers cheques?

What evidence would you expect me to have Holly? I have a site from CAL's book - p75-76 Kindle Version. Pointless reading it though because it will just be dismissed and that's fine but I would be worried about the amount of dismissing I was doing.

[Caroline]

Not all the evidence is in the public domain, as you well know.

EP confirmed that NZ detectives suspected him of a scam but he scarpered before they could speak to him.

[Nicholas]

even though she was a proven liar and criminal

JM wasn’t found guilty of any crime - she wasn’t prosecuted either and re the accusation of her being accused of ‘smuggling cannabis from Canada’ this appears to have been made up ?

[Nicholas]

You only wrote the post yesterday but you're the one who mentioned her, you knew when you wrote it that nothing would change your mind so it was kind of a waste of your time and ours.

To be honest, I don't come here to convince anyone of anything, it's not my job. You don't believe her and that's fine but don't tell me I shouldn't. Most of what she did, she did because of Jeremy - even the cheque book fraud was born from the mind of Jeremy Bamber, only he did it years before in NZ with travellers cheques and got caught.

 

Bamber’s a master manipulator

Aunt Agatha is evidence of that

[Nicholas]

Do you have any evidence of a scam with travellers cheques?

Carol Ann Lee doesn’t strike me as the type of person to make something up Holly

What’s the reference in the book re Bambers scam with travellers cheques ?

[Caroline]

Maybe it was put to JM JB must have had an accomplice and MM was his only associate with previous.

Maybe it was put to JM by Bamber who didn't like him very much because he tried it on with SF.

[Nicholas]

and was being paid by a newspaper and concealed the fact?

Bamber's then girlfriend Anji Greaves appears to have been paid by a newspaper and concealed the fact ?

What evidence did her witness statement or interviews with the police produce - or did Bamber keep her ‘private’ as Aunt Agatha claims he did her ?