Why Rivlin QC rightly told the jury to dismiss Julie Mugfords testimony

[Admin]

I am not actually a very brave person.  But I wouldn't like to think that Jeremy Bamber is innocent and still convicted.

There is little chance of that Eleanor according to the facts of the case.

[Holly Goodhead]

A further reminder to those that have posted on this thread:

Can I remind all members of the 3 high level rules on the home page please:

* Posters are asked to keep to thread topics where possible
* Libellous or defamatory material will be removed on sight
* Abuse will not be tolerated. Break the rules expect a ban!

Providing members are adhering to the above they are entitled to post whatever views they hold about the case, however unlikely they might seem to others, without fear of any sort of intimidation.

[Holly Goodhead]

David has obviously decided to be a supporter.

He did say twice he was going to post an account of how Sheila committed the massacre. The second time in 2015, when he said he wanted to delay it to 2016 to make it detailed. Dispite repeated requests it has not been posted.

He then claimed authors steal his ideas and gave an example. His example had already been mentioned in 2011 by a journalist and discussed on another forum.

As Holly said, this thread would have taken a long time to compile. But again it didn't make any impact. Neither did his claim that he had sent something to Andrew Hunter. To prevent himself just becoming another Mike/Lookout esq supporter he secretly seeked out approval from another supporter. NGB was happy to post one dipomatic post regarding David's alleged finding.

The reason for saying why the alleged finding cannot be discussed on a forum is incredibly weak. There are actually a lot of advantages of posting new ideas, theories and evidence on forums.  Which is why people do it.

If David has documents which have never been released before, maybe these should not be posted. However this is very doubtful. There is no reason why he should have priviledged documents or witness testimony. I did twice ask how he came up with this alleged discovery, but got stonewalled.

Hopefully David will PM his findings to you.

Yes Holly did highlight David's efforts in pulling together various docs which he believes demonstrate JM's statements were based on coercion. 

I've made it clear on numerous occasions I find JM an unreliable prosecution witness.  Unfortunately we do not have access to her trial testimony.  However journalist David Connett who attended much of the trial and listened to JM's evidence found her unreliable:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html

[scipio_usmc]

Yes Holly did highlight David's efforts in pulling together various docs which he believes demonstrate JM's statements were based on coercion. 

I've made it clear on numerous occasions I find JM an unreliable prosecution witness.  Unfortunately we do not have access to her trial testimony.  However journalist David Connett who attended much of the trial and listened to JM's evidence found her unreliable:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html

Her testimony is discussed in the COA decision and we know wha she put in her statements had to be what she testified to.

David Connett's subjective opinion means little. If he articulated specific reasons and points those points could be discussed but he didn't really do that.

Neither he nor anyone else who says they doubt her claims have come up with any plausible reason for her to make up what she did and that is a huge problem in trying to suggest she made it up. Going by gut impressions means little.  A jury is supposed to carefully and rationally weigh evidence not just go by gut impressions.

Why would she make up that he told her he wanted to kill the family by burning them and all such details?  If she wanted to lie all she had to do was say he told her he planned to shoot the family.

Why would she lie about him talking about it for a long time and making up details?  All she had to do was say he recently decided to kill them and obviate the need to strain to make up details covering far more than a couple of months.

If she were lying why would she make up a hitman story and even ID him?  She would simply make up that he confessed to carrying out the murder himself.
 
Not only does it make no sense for her to make up such things her account is supported by the fact she was the last person he spoke to before committing the murders and the firth person he spoke to after the murders were carried out.  He never provided a good reason for calling her period in the middle of the night but even worse he called her before police. He tried to conceal this by lying and claiming he called police first because he had no plausible excuse for why he called her before police.  To call her before police and lie about doing so because he had no valid reason for doing so is supportive of her account.

In further support of her account the story about the Caravan breakin was true and she admitted to various bad acts which she had no need to admit to and could have omitted.  She said she was admitting to everything in an effort to come clean totally and nothing suggests she didn't. 

In addition other evidence supports Julie's accounts. Some of that is witness testimony confirming Jeremy said he would not share his inheritance with his sister and nephews and didn't get along with his family but other evidence was that Jeremy did in fact kill them and try to frame his sister. That comports with Julie's account and provides added support then. 

People who want to believe Jeremy is innocent use that bias to simply dismiss all the evidence in the case including Julie's claims instead of evaluating them in an objective way.

People are free to do that but should not be surprised that such gut impressions are considered totally worthless in the debate arena and should not be surprised so many others disagree.

[scipio_usmc]

I am trying really hard to follow this, because I think there is a distinct possibility that Jeremy Bamber is Innocent.  But you are such an incestuous bunch that makes it difficult to get a word in edgeways without being insulted.  Or watching you all insulting each other.

Is there an Appeal in the offering?  And if so, on what grounds?

Incestuous?  There is plenty of disagreement among us and we have no problem with new people contributing.

The problem is that we are well versed in the facts of this case and want to debate such not simply discuss subjective unsupported opinion of whether people think he is innocent or guilty.

You wrote elsewhere that you heard things that make you think he could be guilty but failed to specify what these things you heard were. In this post you said you think there is a distinct possibility he is innocent but do not explain why.  What people want to hear is the why and what evidence you base such upon.

The majority of people who are not well versed in this case get their impressions based on false claims that were posted in the press and by the campaign team. Much of the false claims posted by the press came fro the campaign team.  People want to know whether you are basing your position on disproved propaganda or something else.  Much of the propaganda has been refuted here but it would take a long time to read all the threads/posts.

If you seriously want to discuss the facts and evidence we love doing that.  If you want to know the real facts and evidence we love to discuss such. You don't have to be scared to discuss such.  You may not want to discuss the things that you base your impressions on in which case there is little to discuss because subjective gut impressions can't be debated in any useful way.

Raw opinions can't be debated but the things that form the basis of opinions can be provided there is actually something that forms a basis other than just gut feelings or whims.

[adam]

Not only did Julie say one plan Jeremy had was burning WHF down, but he also told Chris Marsden in December 1984 - 'If the house burnt down with everyone inside,  everything would be mine.

[adam]

Julies WS is in different parts -


What happened after the massacre:

The eating out, hotels, trips around the country and abroad.

There is no point in Julie lying here. A lot of other people joined them for some of these. Hotel bookings can be checked and relatives asked. So there was no reason to lie as everything can be easily verified. 

What Bamber did does not highlight guilt or innocence anyway. Although Bamber's callous actions have come back to haunt him


Bamber's hatred and resentment for the deceased:

This could be her word against Bamber's. But was not.

Bamber himself testified he had a very poor/non existent relationship with June.

He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' and 'should be locked up' on the massacre night. Saying they did not like each other and she had committed child abuse on the twins. Decades later saying he did not understand her illness.

There are also a lot of other people who said Bamber did not like his family or the raw deal he had. The facts back this up, Sheila living rent free in London, Bamber working long hours after reluctantly starting to work on the farm as a last resort.


The massacre plans:

This is again Julies word against Bamber's. However some of the things Julie said are backed up.

She said he planned to ride to WHF. This is backed up by the fact that the bike was brought over just before the massacre.

Julie also knew a lot about the massacre which was not in the newspapers. Of which I have already posted.

The judge and appeal courts found it hard to understand Bamber's 3am call to Julie. Julie saying Bamber said 'he had not slept all night' and 'everything is going well'. When the police asked him about the call, he just said 'no comment'.

Julie also knew about the under insurance of WHF and the items inside.


Julie's feelings and opinions:

Her feelings while things were evolving can only be changed by Julie herself, and cannot be disputed.

                                  ___________________

Overall Julie's statement does have a 'ring of truth' to it. She approached the police and was not forced to say anything.

Her reason to lie was also barely a reason at all. Bamber allegedly jilting her, after he said their relationship had been in decline/coming to a close for six months. Julie creating a false WS and lying under oath for this sole reason.

[Holly Goodhead]

Her testimony is discussed in the COA decision and we know wha she put in her statements had to be what she testified to.

David Connett's subjective opinion means little. If he articulated specific reasons and points those points could be discussed but he didn't really do that.

Neither he nor anyone else who says they doubt her claims have come up with any plausible reason for her to make up what she did and that is a huge problem in trying to suggest she made it up. Going by gut impressions means little.  A jury is supposed to carefully and rationally weigh evidence not just go by gut impressions.

Why would she make up that he told her he wanted to kill the family by burning them and all such details?  If she wanted to lie all she had to do was say he told her he planned to shoot the family.

Why would she lie about him talking about it for a long time and making up details?  All she had to do was say he recently decided to kill them and obviate the need to strain to make up details covering far more than a couple of months.

If she were lying why would she make up a hitman story and even ID him?  She would simply make up that he confessed to carrying out the murder himself.
 
Not only does it make no sense for her to make up such things her account is supported by the fact she was the last person he spoke to before committing the murders and the firth person he spoke to after the murders were carried out.  He never provided a good reason for calling her period in the middle of the night but even worse he called her before police. He tried to conceal this by lying and claiming he called police first because he had no plausible excuse for why he called her before police.  To call her before police and lie about doing so because he had no valid reason for doing so is supportive of her account.

In further support of her account the story about the Caravan breakin was true and she admitted to various bad acts which she had no need to admit to and could have omitted.  She said she was admitting to everything in an effort to come clean totally and nothing suggests she didn't. 

In addition other evidence supports Julie's accounts. Some of that is witness testimony confirming Jeremy said he would not share his inheritance with his sister and nephews and didn't get along with his family but other evidence was that Jeremy did in fact kill them and try to frame his sister. That comports with Julie's account and provides added support then. 

People who want to believe Jeremy is innocent use that bias to simply dismiss all the evidence in the case including Julie's claims instead of evaluating them in an objective way.

People are free to do that but should not be surprised that such gut impressions are considered totally worthless in the debate arena and should not be surprised so many others disagree.

Why is David Connett's opinion any more subjective than yours?  He actually heard JM testify in court.  He found her testimony unreliable and for all we know jurors may have thought similar.

There could be numerous reasons for JM to be economical with the truth.  Four female teenage prosecuction witnesses in the Stefan Kiszko case years later admitted "lying for a laugh". 

In the following WS's JM states when DS Jones and DC Clarke left Bourtree Cottage on 7th Aug JB told her he arranged for MM to carry out the murders.  She then claims JB elaborated further and then went on to say they shouldn't talk about it in the house in case it was bugged!  And yet according to JM they had in fact done just that as the conversation took place in the lounge!  Why would JB incriminate himself if he thought the house was bugged?  This clearly makes no sense whatsover.  Why not say he pulled me in close and whispered....Or he said lets go for a walk/to the pub and he told me....

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1112

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1114

Anyway I don't propose to go round in circles discussing JM's testimony.  I've read the WS's numerous times and  as far as I am concerned I find her unreliable.  If that makes me bias etc then so be it.

[Holly Goodhead]

Not only did Julie say one plan Jeremy had was burning WHF down, but he also told Chris Marsden in December 1984 - 'If the house burnt down with everyone inside,  everything would be mine.

We don't know the full context of the conversation with Charles Marsden.  The problem I have with these prosecution witnesses is that we only hear random sentences and not the before and after.  Eg James Richard "I hate my f-----g parents" and Doris Foakes "I'm not going to share my money with my sister".  Unless he was really socially inept he was hardly likely to walk up to these individuals blurt out those sentences and walk off again  &%+((£

[Holly Goodhead]

Julies WS is in different parts -


What happened after the massacre:

The eating out, hotels, trips around the country and abroad.

There is no point in Julie lying here. A lot of other people joined them for some of these. Hotel bookings can be checked and relatives asked. So there was no reason to lie as everything can be easily verified. 

What Bamber did does not highlight guilt or innocence anyway. Although Bamber's callous actions have come back to haunt him


Bamber's hatred and resentment for the deceased:

This could be her word against Bamber's. But was not.

Bamber himself testified he had a very poor/non existent relationship with June.

He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' and 'should be locked up' on the massacre night. Saying they did not like each other and she had committed child abuse on the twins. Decades later saying he did not understand her illness.

There are also a lot of other people who said Bamber did not like his family or the raw deal he had. The facts back this up, Sheila living rent free in London, Bamber working long hours after reluctantly starting to work on the farm as a last resort.


The massacre plans:

This is again Julies word against Bamber's. However some of the things Julie said are backed up.

She said he planned to ride to WHF. This is backed up by the fact that the bike was brought over just before the massacre.

Julie also knew a lot about the massacre which was not in the newspapers. Of which I have already posted.

The judge and appeal courts found it hard to understand Bamber's 3am call to Julie. Julie saying Bamber said 'he had not slept all night' and 'everything is going well'. When the police asked him about the call, he just said 'no comment'.

Julie also knew about the under insurance of WHF and the items inside.


Julie's feelings and opinions:

Her feelings while things were evolving can only be changed by Julie herself, and cannot be disputed.

                                  ___________________

Overall Julie's statement does have a 'ring of truth' to it. She approached the police and was not forced to say anything.

Her reason to lie was also barely a reason at all. Bamber allegedly jilting her, after he said their relationship had been in decline/coming to a close for six months. Julie creating a false WS and lying under oath for this sole reason.

We don't know who made the initial move.  EP may well have bugged all the phones and properties and been on to JM like a rat up a drainpipe the moment they heard the relationship had ended.  EP would know full well JM's credibility would be reduced by such a lengthy delay in coming forward so to counter this EP might well have 'helped' JM engineer the 'telling' to the friend and all that went with it.

Adam you also claim JB said the following on the "massacre night" which I believe are true or similar was said:

"He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' and 'should be locked up' "

And yet if he staged the bible surely he would include derogatory terms about SC and religion eg religious nut or whatever. 

[adam]

We don't know the full context of the conversation with Charles Marsden.  The problem I have with these prosecution witnesses is that we only hear random sentences and not the before and after.  Eg James Richard "I hate my f-----g parents" and Doris Foakes "I'm not going to share my money with my sister".  Unless he was really socially inept he was hardly likely to walk up to these individuals blurt out those sentences and walk off again  &%+((£

Well he would have said these extreme and incriminating things in the course of  two way conversation. At the end of the day, he said them.

[adam]

We don't know who made the initial move.  EP may well have bugged all the phones and properties and been on to JM like a rat up a drainpipe the moment they heard the relationship had ended.  EP would know full well JM's credibility would be reduced by such a lengthy delay in coming forward so to counter this EP might well have 'helped' JM engineer the 'telling' to the friend and all that went with it.

Adam you also claim JB said the following on the "massacre night" which I believe are true or similar was said:

"He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' and 'should be locked up' "

And yet if he staged the bible surely he would include derogatory terms about SC and religion eg religious nut or whatever.

Julie told five people before going to the police. She didn't need to speak to the police.

The police couldn't bug all the places Julie went to. In the few days after she had split up with Bamber. Not sure if they allowed to anyway. She was not a suspect.

Bamber didn't mention Sheila's religious views. He had said enough, and left a bible out as a little something extra for the police.  He saved the 'religious maniac accusations for June.

[Myster]

We don't know the full context of the conversation with Charles Marsden.  The problem I have with these prosecution witnesses is that we only hear random sentences and not the before and after.  Eg James Richard "I hate my f-----g parents" and Doris Foakes "I'm not going to share my money with my sister".  Unless he was really socially inept he was hardly likely to walk up to these individuals blurt out those sentences and walk off again  &%+((£

Not just once, but two or three times... and "It really did sound like hate!", said James Richards when cross-examined.

How does that square with the recent sycophantic graveside eulogy?   Much too late to make amends, methinks.

[Holly Goodhead]

Well he would have said these extreme and incriminating things in the course of  two way conversation. At the end of the day, he said them.

He may well have said them but in what context? Random sentences from proseuction witnesses that JB wasn't particuarly close to or spent much time with doesn't really do it for me.

[adam]

Not just once, but two or three times... and "It really did sound like hate!", said James Richards when cross-examined.

How does that square with the recent sycophantic graveside eulogy?   Much too late to make amends, methinks.

Have you read Mary Mugford's (Julies mother) testimony ?