Thoughts On The Case

[John]

Julie Mugford's conscience didn't worry her until 4th September 1985. The fraud was committed the previous year. The bank manager was told they were coming by someone in the bank's fraud department. Three people arrived; the two girls and a plain clothes policeman. The policeman made it clear that the girls were going to be witnesses in court and they didn't want to be prosecuted by the bank. The manager reported back to the fraud department and was authorised to accept a payment plan. It was clear to him that the fraud department had prior knowledge of the details.
[Mr Dovey w/s 20/3/2002]

A suspicious person might think there was a carrot and stick situation here. By helping the girls to avoid being prosecuted for the bank fraud and by not charging Julie with the caravan site robbery the police made it possible for both girls to give evidence without being discredited by their own crimes.

These type of arrangements occur all the time. Det Sgt Stan Jones was the mastermind behind the plan to have Julie exonerated as long as she apologised to the bank and paid back the money. Jones was in the bank while the girls pled for mercy from the bank manager. It was all agreed well in advance of course by the head bummers in both organisations.  The police needed Julie's testimony and she had to be seen to be white as white.

There is no doubt Julie got off lightly, had she been prosecuted for cheque fraud she would have been kicked out of college too and the Canadian government would today be missing a very capable manager in their education department. 

[ISpyWithMyEye]

By using the phone before he got shot?

Gunit, forensics and ballistics proved that Nevill was FIRST shot upstairs on the landing and top of the stairs

He’d been asleep in bed with June when the shootings began and was shot four times in the mouth and arm as he reached the stairs on the landing after rushing out the bedroom; he managed to get downstairs into the kitchen to phone for urgent help.  He wasn’t able to reach the phone, but had he, he would have called 999 as he must have seen June being shot. She needed URGENT medical help from paramedics; even though he probably knew she was dead. He was in SHOCK.

Are you suggesting that the gunman didn’t shoot Nevill as he tried to make it downstairs? Why would he have left Nevill free to phone the police from the kitchen? He chased after Nevill and that’s when he beat him to a pulp because he’d run out of bullets.

Think about it: How did Nevill’s smear of blood get onto the wallpaper INTO the kitchen before he tried  to get to the phone if he wasn’t bleeding?

Nevill never left that kitchen after entering it, so that smear of blood just outside the kitchen could have only got there when Nevill was going INTO it?

Which means conclusively that Nevill had been shot BEFORE entering the kitchen.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Julie Mugford's conscience didn't worry her until 4th September 1985. The fraud was committed the previous year. The bank manager was told they were coming by someone in the bank's fraud department. Three people arrived; the two girls and a plain clothes policeman. The policeman made it clear that the girls were going to be witnesses in court and they didn't want to be prosecuted by the bank. The manager reported back to the fraud department and was authorised to accept a payment plan. It was clear to him that the fraud department had prior knowledge of the details.
[Mr Dovey w/s 20/3/2002]

A suspicious person might think there was a carrot and stick situation here. By helping the girls to avoid being prosecuted for the bank fraud and by not charging Julie with the caravan site robbery the police made it possible for both girls to give evidence without being discredited by their own crimes.

Thank you, Gunit

Can you please give me an actual link to that? 

You’ve just put “Mr Dovey w/s 20/03/2002” but haven’t given me the source

TYI

[Caroline]

Julie Mugford's conscience didn't worry her until 4th September 1985. The fraud was committed the previous year. The bank manager was told they were coming by someone in the bank's fraud department. Three people arrived; the two girls and a plain clothes policeman. The policeman made it clear that the girls were going to be witnesses in court and they didn't want to be prosecuted by the bank. The manager reported back to the fraud department and was authorised to accept a payment plan. It was clear to him that the fraud department had prior knowledge of the details.
[Mr Dovey w/s 20/3/2002]

A suspicious person might think there was a carrot and stick situation here. By helping the girls to avoid being prosecuted for the bank fraud and by not charging Julie with the caravan site robbery the police made it possible for both girls to give evidence without being discredited by their own crimes.

More like she was asked if there was anything that Bamber knew about her that might discredit her as a witness and it was cleared up for that reason.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Why would he hide the moderator in the house at all? Is it because it was generally known that one existed?
But then if that was the case then, as you say, why didn't the police find it?

Jeremy hid it in as much as he put it in a box and tucked it deep inside the cupboard right at the very back where it would barely be noticed

AP’s silencer was kept in the cupboard too, and JB made sure that was on show inside.


Naturally, when the initial police team searched, and they were sloppy, there’s no denying that, they assumed AP’s silencer was the one for the .22

In that respect, JB had a degree of foresight, but the police got severely reprimanded for their incompetence  and even today police use that case for training purposes to show officers what mistakes not to make.


Oh, forgot to add, Jeremy had to leave it in the house in case the police eventually realised there was one missing. He had washed it, forensics said, but he was unable to see the microscopical spatter of blood INSIDE, and also missed the small particles of blood and paint that was left on there before he put it at the back of the cupboard — including the single grey hair attached to it which could have only been Nevill’s, and was sadly lost before forensics could study it. But as the only person there had grey hair it was obvious it was Nevill’s anyway.

[Caroline]

Why would he hide the moderator in the house at all? Is it because it was generally known that one existed?
But then if that was the case then, as you say, why didn't the police find it?

They had no reason to look for it.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

They had no reason to look for it.

Good point, Caroline

Why would police officers who had no/little knowledge of firearms think to look for a silencer, especially as the rifle on Sheila’s lap appeared intact?

They even admitted they didn’t do a thorough search; they just took what they spotted when they looked around

[G-Unit]

Thank you, Gunit

Can you please give me an actual link to that? 

You’ve just put “Mr Dovey w/s 20/03/2002” but haven’t given me the source

TYI

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=1165.0

[The General]

Good point, Caroline

Why would police officers who had no/little knowledge of firearms think to look for a silencer, especially as the rifle on Sheila’s lap appeared intact?

They even admitted they didn’t do a thorough search; they just took what they spotted when they looked around

Did you hear that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, they 'didn't do a thorough search'. What a pathetic response. Who else should we get to do a thorough search, I wonder? An open day maybe? Bring a cake and search a room? Now why would that be, you may ask yourselves, no thorough search? Could it be, perhaps, that the police were BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE (shouting like Ispy does for effect) for many. many days. And then, ladies and gentlemen, members of the accused's family turn up mob handed during those intervening days, rifle through the house, taking any baubles they thought might make a few quid, and stumble upon a PIVOTAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE (more shouting) that the police apparently WEREN'T LOOKING FOR because they thought Sheila overpowered Nevill, killed everyone and shot herself TTWWIICCEE!!
No further questions, your honour.

[G-Unit]

These type of arrangements occur all the time. Det Sgt Stan Jones was the mastermind behind the plan to have Julie exonerated as long as she apologised to the bank and paid back the money. Jones was in the bank while the girls pled for mercy from the bank manager. It was all agreed well in advance of course by the head bummers in both organisations.  The police needed Julie's testimony and she had to be seen to be white as white.

There is no doubt Julie got off lightly, had she been prosecuted for cheque fraud she would have been kicked out of college too and the Canadian government would today be missing a very capable manager in their education department.

The arrangements may occur all the time but are they acceptable? No-one knows whether the police are helping a witness or blackmailing them, do they?

[Nicholas]

No, but under Joint Enterprise, if it had existed then, she could have been prosecuted too

What foresight do you think JM would have had regarding the murders AA ?

[Nicholas]

(i). I regard both Julie Mugford's testimony and the moderator as red herrings in the case.

JM’s testimony was hardly a red herring - it appears to have also exposed Bamber’s emotional and psychologically abusive nature

Julie Mugford’s witness statements evidence Bamber’s gaslighting of her

"Survivors also ‘bond’ with their abusers through intense, traumatic experiences, which makes them likely to protect their abusers due to their own sense of cognitive dissonance about the abuser’s true self. They are conflicted due to the nature of the trauma, the dependence they developed as an effort to survive, as well as the fear of retaliation from their often more powerful partners. As a result, by the time survivors speak their truth, society may doubt their credibility.

https://www.theshaktijournal.com/how-society-enables-malignant-narcissists-and-gaslights-their-victims/

‘Malignant narcissists display a severe lack of empathy, a penchant for exploiting others and an excessive sense of entitlement. Given the nature of their pathological, hard-wired behavior, many are unlikely to change. Millions of survivors around the world are affected by their cruel and callous mistreatment, a form of insidious, psychological torment we call narcissistic abuse.

Covert malignant narcissists don’t just charm their relationship partners; they also fool law enforcement, lawyers, ADAs, judges, friends, family members and bosses every day. They are able to obtain followers and build harems that carry out their dirty work for them. They can sabotage, stalk, harass and retraumatize their victims even after they’ve supposedly ‘discarded’ them. They become enraged and vindictive should their victims leave first. They can even make their victims look like the abusers. How can this be?

[Holly Goodhead]

They had no reason to look for it.

The rifle was found on SC's body sans thread protector with the muzzle resting close to blood.  If the muzzle didn't contain any obvious signs of blood staining the officer responsible for removing the rifle and making safe might have wondered why?!  He might have thought 'ah no thread protector, no blood present was a silencer attached' ?! 

[Nicholas]

The rifle was found on SC's body sans thread protector with the muzzle resting close to blood.  If the muzzle didn't contain any obvious signs of blood staining the officer responsible for removing the rifle and making safe might have wondered why?!  He might have thought 'ah no thread protector, no blood present was a silencer attached' ?!

Why would he have thought that - how would SC have shot herself with ‘a silencer attached’ ?   

[ISpyWithMyEye]

The rifle was found on SC's body sans thread protector with the muzzle resting close to blood.  If the muzzle didn't contain any obvious signs of blood staining the officer responsible for removing the rifle and making safe might have wondered why?!  He might have thought 'ah no thread protector, no blood present was a silencer attached' ?!

The police officers only collect evidence: they don’t closely inspect it. In fact, they handle it carefully and put it in a sealed bag.

A PC having to collect all the evidence isn’t going to scrutinise each item. They just bag everything up. Besides, they aren’t experienced in firearms and even if they were it wouldn’t occur to them that the small thread protector was unattached.

That’s a real “clutching at straws” wish....

Anyway, I thought you had fresh evidence that he’s innocent: don’t you feel confident with this new revelation you have?