Was there any info in JM's testimony corroborated and unknown to others?

[scipio_usmc]

You are the king of strawmen arguments.  A strawman argument is an arguments that no one else made but you attribute to others anyway in order to deflect from the arguments they actually made which you possess zero ability to refute.

so much for Jeremy's detailed confession

Who claimed he gave a detailed confession?  Julie most certainly didn't nor did the prosecution or any of those referred to as guilters.  Far from confessing to Julie that he killed everyone, Julie said that he told her he hired MM to commit the murders and provided only a handful of details about how MM did it.  His lies to her about hiring a hitman are meaningless, Julie's most damning testimony was that he told her he was planning to kill his family and a couple of hours before the murders he called her telling her tonight was the night he was going to kill them and then after the murders phoning Julie before the police to tell her they were dead. You have no ability whatsoever to refute this testimony and thus completely ignore it and try to pretend the evidence she posted was about the aftermath only and try to pretend that she said Jeremy gave her a detailed confession though she made no such claim.  In those rare instances where you do dare to acknowledge such testimony you don't post anything that casts doubt on her claims just say say you refuse to believe it. You refusing to believe it doesn't amount to evidence to refute it and thus doesn't provide any basis for a rational objective person to doubt it.

Makes no difference, Its not unique information

Julie's account of Jeremy telling her he wanted to kill his family is indeed unique. Trying to pretend that other people posited this might have happened would amount to pure dishonesty.  Nor did they fathom that Jeremy told her before the murders tonight is the night and then called her before police to tell her it was done. This is solely from Julie and no one saw any of it coming. Nor did they anticipate Jeremy had hired a hitman let alone that he told Julie he hired a hitman. The family felt he carried out the murders himself.

Your argument is another variation of a strawman argument anyway.  You made the false argument that only if someone has unique information never thought up before can a claim be true. You thus make the false argument that it is impossible for people to share the same thought. This false position doesn't help you one bit in fact it does the opposite it simply undermines your credibility. The notion that we can't believe anything a witness said unless suggesting things no other human contemplated is absurd. But she did say things unique anyway and the most damning things of all were unique.

The evidence proves he did indeed call her before the murders when she said.  The evidence proves he did indeed call her after the murders prior to calling police.  This evidence supports her claim that he told her the murders were going to be carried out that night and after the murders called to say it had been carried out. That he called her before calling police is very damning even though you choose to ignore such.  Ignoring evidence doesn't make it go away.Why would he wake her up before calling the police?  The only reason to do such would be to tell her they were killed. If he had actually received the distress call he claimed then he would have either dialed 999 or rushed over or both he would not have woken Julie up period let alone done so before calling police. To make matters worse instead of dialing 999 after he got a phone book to look up police station numbers. After getting no response at Witham he still didn't dial 999 but instead decided to keep trying different stations till he got an answer.  Julie's claims are also corroborated by the fact that Sheila was murdered.  This proves someone else was at the scene. Evidence that would have been present on her had she been the one who killed the others was absent thus not only was she murdered quite clearly the same person murdered everyone else.  The scene was also staged to make it appear Sheila killed everyone including herself. 

The physical evidence in this case proves that someone killed everyone and tried to frame Sheila.  Julie's testimony helped establish the person who did such was Jeremy. Julie's testimony was not the only evidence that proved it was Jeremy. B Jeremy alerting the police and making up that he received a distress call implicating Sheila this demonstrated Jeremy was the killer. If he had not alerted police and let the victims be found naturally in the morning then Julie would have presented the only evidence that he was the one who did it. The only other evidence of sorts would be that he was the only one with motive/who would profit from the deaths. But he did alert police after making up receiving the distress call and this means Julie's testimony was simply extra. Even if she had not come forward they had him dead to rights anyway.

[adam]

I don't believe David's theories as a supporter will result in any supporters changing stance.

It was extremely hard work to get five hardcore and long term supporters to change stance when I joined. All putting up  ferocious and aggresive fights. Bamber's supporters certainly dig in.

If the remaining supporters are not changing stance now when reading Mike's theories, they won't with David's.

However claiming Julie somehow managed to secretly read AE's and RB's notes, or they both confided in Bamber's girlfriend during the month she was travelling around England and Holland, won't get any giilters changing stance.

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't believe David's theories as a supporter will result in any supporters changing stance.

It was extremely hard work to get five hardcore and long term supporters to change stance when I joined. All putting up  ferocious and aggresive fights. Bamber's supporters certainly dig in.

If the remaining supporters are not changing stance now when reading Mike's theories, they won't with David's.

However claiming Julie somehow managed to secretly read AE's and RB's notes, or they both confided in Bamber's girlfriend during the month she was travelling around England and Holland, won't get any giilters changing stance.

I don't see any comparisons whatsoever between Mike's mad incoherent ramblings complete with expletives and David's well thought out posts based on the facts of the case. 

Apparently a judge once referred to Mike as intelligent.  I beg to differ. 

If Mike really wanted to help JB he would manage to put his hatred of the police and authorities to one side.  He's unable to because he lacks any sort of emotional intelligence. 

Mike has been involved with the case for some 27 years and other than uploading docs to the forum he created I can't see how he has helped JB in any shape or form.  He's unorganised and lacks any sort of strategy.  Frankly he's a huge embarrassment and he just seems to get worse.

[Holly Goodhead]

I thought you were linking to a rule page not simply a post where you wrote the same exact thing lol

I'm currently working on a users manual which incorporates the Human Rights Act.  I'm up to chapter 30.  I anticipate another 20 chapters.  Every member will then be forwarded an electronic copy of the manual to ensure we are all familiar with the 12,534 micro rules which underpin the 3 macro rules.  In the event of Britain exiting the EU it may be necessary to make some amendments!

No, in all seriousness the link was simply to show the zero tolerance policy is not something new and has been applied previously.  Am I sounding like one of those interfering women you mentioned from your church 

[Holly Goodhead]

I was recently reading thru the Dickinson report  and noticed that points 305 - 322 are missing.  These points would amount to approx 6 pages and cover the time JM contacted EP via her friends, her police interviews, JB's interviews under caution and subsequent arrest. Also the blood/silencer results.  Dates would cover 6th Sept to time JB was charged on 29th Sept.

Any ideas anyone?

[puglove]

I don't see any comparisons whatsoever between Mike's mad incoherent ramblings complete with expletives and David's well thought out posts based on the facts of the case. 

Apparently a judge once referred to Mike as intelligent.  I beg to differ. 

If Mike really wanted to help JB he would manage to put his hatred of the police and authorities to one side.  He's unable to because he lacks any sort of emotional intelligence. 

Mike has been involved with the case for some 27 years and other than uploading docs to the forum he created I can't see how he has helped JB in any shape or form.  He's unorganised and lacks any sort of strategy.  Frankly he's a huge embarrassment and he just seems to get worse.

Bamber's Christmas, 1988 - mushy sprouts, a sore bumhole and six hours of Mike Tesko.   


And I'm beginning to wonder if Mike's really GOT an elk.     

[Myster]

Bamber's Christmas, 1988 - mushy sprouts, a sore bumhole and six hours of Mike Tesko.   


And I'm beginning to wonder if Mike's really GOT an elk.     

He's definitely got one... mooching aroond his hoose according to his latest video upload...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdFtQZ-FibM

[John]

So far no one has come up with any info in JM's testimony that was corroborated and unknown to others.

That's just not true Holly, several others spoke of Bamber's behaviour including Julie Mugford's mother who independently observed him and heard him speak of his family in less than admirable terms on many occasions.

Is there anything you can point to and categorically state that Julie lied?

[John]

I never considered Julie credible even when I beileved Jeremy guilty, that is why I tend to seldom mention her.  When I first became interested in the case I belived him guilty primarily due to the fact he was still in prison and had all his appeals rejected.

I will ask you the same question.  Can you point to a single entry in her statements or from her evidence given at trial and say categorically that she LIED?

If you can I would love to hear it as they call that PERJURY.

[John]

Julie's account of Jeremy telling her he wanted to kill his family is indeed unique. Trying to pretend that other people deposited this might have happened would amount to pure dishonesty.  Nor did they fathom that Jeremy told her before the murders tonight is the night and then called her before police to tell her it was done. This is solely from Julie and no one saw any of it coming. Nor did they anticipate Jeremy had hired a hitman let alone that he told Julie he hired a hitman. The family felt he carried out the murders himself.

The evidence proves he did indeed call her before the murders when she said.  The evidence proves he did indeed call her after the murders prior to calling police.  This evidence supports her claim that he told her the murders were going to be carried out that night and after the murders called to say it had been carried out. That he called her before calling police is very damning even though you choose to ignore such.  Ignoring evidence doesn't make it go away.Why would he wake her up before calling the police?  The only reason to do such would be to tell her they were killed. If he had actually received the distress call he claimed then he would have either dialed 999 or rushed over or both he would not have woken Julie up period let alone done so before calling police. To make matters worse instead of dialing 999 after he got a phone book to look up police station numbers. After getting no response at Witham he still didn't dial 999 but instead decided to keep trying different stations till he got an answer.  Julie's claims are also corroborated by the fact that Sheila was murdered.  This proves someone else was at the scene. Evidence that would have been present on her had she been the one who killed the others was absent thus not only was she murdered quite clearly the same person murdered everyone else.  The scene was also staged to make it appear Sheila killed everyone including herself. 

The physical evidence in this case proves that someone killed everyone and tried to frame Sheila.  Julie's testimony helped establish the person who did such was Jeremy. Julie's testimony was not the only evidence that proved it was Jeremy. B Jeremy alerting the police and making up that he received a distress call implicating Sheila this demonstrated Jeremy was the killer. If he had not alerted police and let the victims be found naturally in the morning then Julie would have presented the only evidence that he was the one who did it. The only other evidence of sorts would be that he was the only one with motive/who would profit from the deaths. But he did alert police after making up receiving the distress call and this means Julie's testimony was simply extra. Even if she had not come forward they had him dead to rights anyway.

Clearly, Julie's evidence was credible but most crucially was key to the prosecution. There is no way she could have invented this story and withstood no only the many police interviews but cross examination on the stand.  The jury believed her and disbelieved Bamber such was the strength of her testimony and the weakness of Bambers.

[scipio_usmc]

Clearly, Julie's evidence was credible but most crucially was key to the prosecution. There is no way she could have invented this story and withstood no only the many police interviews but cross examination on the stand.  The jury believed her and disbelieved Bamber such was the strength of her testimony and the weakness of Bambers.

Even if she had not come forward to rat Jeremy out the police he still would have been prosecuted and could have been convicted.  I would still believe he is guilty based on that evidence. Julie's testimony was extra.

The most significant evidence is the proof that Sheila didn't kill herself. That is the key evidence far and away. When the defense is claiming there was a suicide yet the prosecution is claiming the person was a murder victim the evidence proving whether the person could have committed suicide or not is key.  This case had the added complexity of whether evidence supported or failed to support Sheila beating Nevill and shooting the others.  The absence of scientific evidence that would exist had she beat Nevill, loaded the weapon and fired it as well as evidence that someone shot her with the moderator attached to the weapon then removed it and put it away in the closet and moved her body after she was shot and finally staged the weapon on her body establishes beyond question that someone else murdered her and everyone else yet attempted to frame her. This is the most significant evidence of all. 

With the proof that they were murdered and things staged to look like she did it the question then becomes who would kill them, why and why would such person try to frame Sheila.  The only reason to frame Sheila would be because the true killer will be a natural suspect and this is done so police will not suspect and will not investigate the true killer.  So this framing attempt alone establishes that the killer knew the victims and would be a logical suspect.

Who had a motive and would be a logical suspect?  Jeremy.  Who else?  No one else would have a motive to kill the adults let alone the adults and even the children.  The children were killed while sleeping they can't have been killed as witnesses.  They were executed intentionally because the killer set about to execute all of them. Jeremy told co-workers he would never share his inheritance with his nephews. Thus killing his parents for the inheritance provides him with motive to kill not only his parents but his sister and nephews since he wanted it all and didn't want to share.

This is circumstantial evidence to support Jeremy did it. While decent there is evidence superior to this.  That evidence is that Jeremy himself told various lies to police in an effort to frame Sheila.  This evidence supports that Jeremy was the one who killed them and was trying to frame Sheila.  One such lie was that Sheila knew how to use all weapons in the house because he trained her and she fired them all which he later recanted when speaking to investigators.  A much more damning lie is the lie that Nevill called him and fingered Sheila as running crazy with the murder rifle.  The evidence proves Nevill can't have conveyed such to him because Nevill was attacked in the bedroom where there was no phone and one such injury received in the bedroom prevented him from being able to speak intelligibly to others so even if he had called Jeremy then Jeremy would not have understood who called or why.  Moreover, since evidence proves that Sheila didn't kill them or herself but rather was framed then why would Nevill call Jeremy and lie fingering Sheila as attacking them instead of announcing the real attacker?  Jeremy's lie that he received a distress call establishes 1) he knew the murders had taken place and 2) that he was the one out to frame Sheila by lying about Nevill implicating her. This effectively proves he is the killer. 

Moreover, it was established that even before he phoned police that he phoned Julie.  He had no reason to call her period let alone to do so before phoning police.  This is totally inconsistent with what someone who received a distress call would do. Calling various police stations instead of calling 999 is also inconsistent.  Someone who genuinely received such a call would believe time is of the essence and call 999 and/or rush over as quickly as possible.  Furthermore while at the scene he was extremely calm and not pressing the police to take action like someone would do if truly concerned.

This is all more than sufficient to convict Jeremy.  Julie's testimony wasn't the key to the case it was extra testimony that just further sunk him by corroborating the other evidence and further setting the background of things for us. While useful it didn't make the case there was still sufficient evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.

In order to have avoided liability Jeremy needed to not only not tell Julie anything he should not have alerted police to the incident but rather should have made the bodies be found naturally.  That still might not have been enough though to avoid liability.

Since he is the only one who would benefit from an execution of everyone even the kids he still could be convicted of murdering them. He needed to set the scene to suggest someone else did it.

Burglary gone wrong fails to account for executing everyone in bed so would not work.  He settled upon framing Sheila. To be successful he needed to kill Sheila in a way that it could indeed be suicide and left no evidence she was murdered. He botched it though by not removing the silencer before killing her and not managing to get GSR on her hands etc. Admittedly firing a gun in a dead person's hands to get GSR on them can present other problems like trying to make the bullets go in a location where it doesn't become obvious that you did such but it needs to properly be done for things to be truly effective.

Killing her with the moderator attached and moving her body after she died were big mistakes that gave away she was murdered. That is what proves someone else was there who murdered her and is the true key evidence because objectively establishes someone else was a murderer. If they didn't have this then Julie's testimony would have been critical.  Her testimony would have been critical in establishing Sheila was murdered as opposed to committing suicide. The evidence that she didn't beat Neivll or load the gun or shoot anyone else naturally would help corroborate Julie's claims so still be important but Julie would be the main proof she didn't kill herself.     

That they had Julie as well as the physical evidence proving Sheila was murdered plus Jeremy setting about to frame Sheila with a fake distress call.  This was a defense attorney's nightmare.  There are so many prongs the defense needed to attack but could not effectively do so.  While defenders say it is a close case the reality is that it is not close at all which is why there is no hope in hell of him ever winning an appeal. Defenders refuse to accept the evidence but have no way to disprove it which is what is required to win an appeal.

[david1819]

You are the king of strawmen arguments.  A strawman argument is an arguments that no one else made but you attribute to others anyway in order
to deflect from the arguments they actually made which you possess zero ability to refute.

While It may seem like that to you because you assume I am going by a static undeviating conspiracy theory, That way you can find many faults in what you believe I am trying to get across, However I am open to many possibilities of how Julie got this information and built on her testimony.

She could have got the information from relatives or she could have got the information from the police either by being deliberately told the information or by police coercion and poor interrogation techniques were by they unwittingly give over information during the interrogation process. I can only speculate, it could be from one of those sources I mentioned or could be a combination of all some more than others. This combined with the information circulating in the media, being put into a corner by police, having charges dropped in exchange for testimony and the fact Jeremy had left her makes all the essential ingredients needed for her to produce the counterfeit testimony she did
 

Who claimed he gave a detailed confession?

The prosecution, her testimony contains many details of the crime over 20 pages infact and how everyone was killed ect. The fact the details of the crime are totally false proves she did not get this information from the alleged killer because the alleged killer would know that they murdered Shelia on the floor and the alleged killer would know they placed the bible by her side. Yet according to Julie the alleged killer told her that he killed her on the bed and put the bible on her chest, Thus she could not have got that information from the alleged killer, however we know who else that information she produced and were she likely got it from.

From Julie Mugford’s statement, page 23

"I have been asked if I have read or been told about a bible found on Sheila's
chest when she was found dead. I can definitely say I haven't but it was
told to me by Jeremy. I will add that some time after the 7th August 1985,
Ann EATON asked me if I knew about a bible which was near Sheila and I told
her that I did and that it was found on her chest. I think I told her it
was creepy. I think she asked me about the bible on the Friday of the week of the murders.”

This makes no sense. If Ann Eaton had been told about the bible on Sheila's chest by Julie, she would have asked how Julie knew and Julie would have had to tell her that Jeremy told her the story about Matthew MacDonald. ?

We know this is a complete lie because Ann wrote down and admitted in court she got it from the police

MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows:
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near
the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila
Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her
chest with the gun beside her"?

A. Yes.

Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?

A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember

Not only can it be established her testimony is bogus it also explains her behaviour in court

Mr Rivlin said, but when he had cross-examined Miss Mugford she had cried almost immediately, and let slip "droplets of poison" throughout her evidence. When being re-examined by the prosection, however, her tears had dried up "as if by magic" and she had been able to answer questions,

Why would an honest witness be so blatantly evasive to cross examination? Its because she has something to hide

Julie's account of Jeremy telling her he wanted to kill his family is indeed unique.

And one that is easily made up

The evidence proves he did indeed call her before the murders when she said.  The evidence proves he did indeed call her after the murders prior to calling police.

On the contrary, the evidence proves that Julie changed the times of the call after a discussion with Ann Eaton as written down herself in her notes.

21.
The Police's own contemporaneous record of the Appellant's call on 7th August 1985, appended to this document, has now come to light. It reveals that the Appellant's initial call to Chelmsford Police station was recorded, in error as conceded at trial, as 3.36am. More importantly it shows that having first spoken to the Appellant and established the nature of the problem in some detail the officer at Chelmsford phoned Witham Police station at 3.26am, that being undisputedly a correct time. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant's initial call to the Police must have been some minutes before 3.26am.
Ann Eaton's Notes In Relation to The Call to Julie Mugford:

22. Ann Eaton's allegedly contemporaneous notes regarding 8th August disclosed at trial stated that there had been a "muddle about the right time of the 3.15 phone call - a London friend was called".

A further note has since been found which reveals that in her original note she stated "talked to Julie about the phone calls Julie said re flatmate (our emphasis - photocopy is poor here exact wording should be clear on viewing of the original) 3.30am". It is submitted that this discrepancy shows that not only was Ann Eaton's note deliberately changed to undermine the appellant's case but that Julie Mugford and Susan Batteresby lied when they gave evidence that the telephone call was 3.15am or earlier, as it was Susan Battersby who was the flatmate referred to it the undisclosed Ann Eaton note.

Julie Mugford's Evidence:
23. In her original statement to the Police dated 81h August 1985 stated at p345:
next time I heard front Jeremy was at about 3.30am on Wednesday morning the th August 1985."
This then changes in her statement of e September 1985 when she states :
" I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan Battersby who lives with
me that it was about 3.15am."
At trial when she was cross examined as to the fact that she had told the police that the telephone call was received at 3.30am, she stated at p38 on 8th October:

In those rare instances where you do dare to acknowledge such testimony you don't post anything that casts doubt on her claims just say say you refuse to believe it.

Sounds like you are getting me mixed up with yourself?

Julie's claims are also corroborated by the fact that Sheila was murdered.

Only in your mind is it a fact "Sheila was murdered" 

Infrangible Laws of the Scipio Universe 101
Scipio never ever gets anything wrong or thinks anything wrong! So if Scipio thinks Jeremy killed his family therefore sound moderator must be authentic and therefore Julie must be telling the truth
Scipio's mentality in a nut shell

Even if she had not come forward they had him dead to rights anyway.

That is no certainty at all. Jeremy was only arrested once Julie had "come forward" and only after that did they "discover" the blood in the sound moderator with the initial tests carried out a month before not warranting any arrest what so ever with the police still confident Shelia was responsible even after the initial submissions to the lab.

[scipio_usmc]

While It may seem like that to you because you assume I am going by a static undeviating conspiracy theory, That way you can find many faults in what you believe I am trying to get across, However I am open to many possibilities of how Julie got this information and built on her testimony.

She could have got the information from relatives or she could have got the information from the police either by being deliberately told the information or by police coercion and poor interrogation techniques were by they unwittingly give over information during the interrogation process. I can only speculate, it could be from one of those sources I mentioned or could be a combination of all some more than others. This combined with the information circulating in the media,

All you are doing is saying that you decided Julie lied though you have no proof and that she had to have gotten the information she provided from someone other than Jeremy.  Just because you believe she got the information she attributed to Jeremy from someone else doesn't make it so. You can believe anything you want but just because you choose to believe something doesn't mean it must be true let alone that you have any proof to support your position.  You have zero proof Julie lied you just insist she did because you don't find her credible.  That means nothing at all.  You have no proof of any kind.  since you have no proof you make up bogus arguments in support of what you choose to believe.

Your argument at its core is that you personally CHOOSE not to believe her because Jeremy didn't convey any details to her about how the murders were carried out that only the killer would have known and the only way you would ever believe her is if Jeremy conveyed details about how he committed the murders that only the killer would know.  You completely ignore the significance of what he told  her before the murders and the phonecall right after the murders before he called police and make up an absurd requirement that only if a killer tells someone details of how they committed the murders that only the killer would know can we believe the person.  By your standard anyone who says someone confessed generally to them about committing a crime must be disbelieved and we must assume they made the claim up.  Only if someone confesses a detail that only the criminal would know can we believe the person confessed.  This made up standard of yours is ludicrous.

Far from being a rational position it is a position that is contrary to law and contrary to logic.   Your standard is not only flawed from a logical standpoint it fails to provide a basis to deal with the most damning evidence Julie provided.  Her most damning evidence was regarding what he told her about his desire to kill them and plans he was making to kill them. You don't look at such at all and simply ignore it saying that doesn't matter all that matters is that he didn't tell her things that only the killer would have known.

In any event he did provide her with a few details that only the killer would have known. He told her the killer's glove came off during the struggle with Nevill.

being put into a corner by police, having charges dropped in exchange for testimony and the fact Jeremy had left her makes all the essential ingredients needed for her to produce the counterfeit testimony she did

The evidence suggests that their breakup was mutual but in any event even if true he dumped her that is not evidence she lied.  That you choose to believe she would lie in order to hurt him is not proof she did. You have no proof she did.

As for your claims about police dropping charges in exchange for her talking you are both factually wrong and your claims are totally devoid of logic. 
 
She told Liz what happened. Liz ran to the police and the police then asked to question her. So first of all if you want to claim she lied then you need a motive for her to lie to Liz.  All police knew is that Liz claimed she told her certain things.  They had nothing else against Julie. When she spoke to police Julie could have told them that Liz was wrong or lying or could have told them she lied to Liz. If she had done such the police could not have done anything to her. You want to pretend they knew she was guilty of crimes and made up the story in exchange for them dropping such crimes but they had zilch on her. During the course of telling them everything about Jeremy she confessed to crimes committed for him be it at his insistence or to impress him. But for telling police everything they would not have known about such crimes.  So claiming they knew she committed crimes and she she made up the account of Jeremy saying he wanted to kill his family in order to escape liability for such fails miserably.  To argue she made up the account of Jeremy to avoid liability for other crimes police didn't even know about until she provided the Jeremy account fails miserably. It is a completely illogical argument.  If one looks at it logically the fact she confessed to other crimes during the confession actually supports that she was telling the truth and fully coming clean.  She could have scrubbed her own illicit actions from the confession and merely told them about the murders.  Instead she decided to tell them about the caravan burglary and drugs as well and even told them about the check fraud though it only implicated Jeremy in the sense of her explaining how his peer pressure affected her not in any legal sense so it only harmed her in a legal sense. That she did such supports her telling the truth not lying.

Someone lying to hurt him would not confess to crimes during the course of such.

They didn't even know about these crimes so didn't offer to drop charges for such crimes in exchange for any dirt she may have had on Jeremy. She told them what Jeremy said and also confessed to the crimes and that was how they learned about them. They didn't tell her that if she agreed to testify to what she told them that they would not prosecute her. She was told they made a decision not to prosecute her.  They also told her they wanted her to testify. If she failed to testify they could not prosecute her for those crimes they already made a decision not to prosecute there was no agreement whereby the charges would only be dropped if she testified.

Not only is there a legal distinction but one of great significance for evaluating credibility.  When someone is caught doing wrong and then they offer up evidence against someone else to avoid liability that provides a good reason  to be skeptical and want to look for some strong corroboration before believing them. That is not the case here she was neither sitting in jail convicted of a crime nor facing a prosecution for a crime and exchange for freedom or a lighter sentence notified them she had information about Jeremy and wanted a deal.  You want ot pretend that is the case because you have no valid reason to doubt Julie but desire to not believe her and desperately try to spin to come up with justifications for discounting her.

All your justifications fail in a legal and logical sense and are totally worthless except to you. You are able to delude yourself with such but that's about it.

The prosecution, her testimony contains many details of the crime over 20 pages infact and how everyone was killed ect. The fact the details of the crime are totally false proves she did not get this information from the alleged killer because the alleged killer would know that they murdered Shelia on the floor and the alleged killer would know they placed the bible by her side. Yet according to Julie the alleged killer told her that he killed her on the bed and put the bible on her chest, Thus she could not have got that information from the alleged killer, however we know who else that information she produced and were she likely got it from.

From Julie Mugford’s statement, page 23

"I have been asked if I have read or been told about a bible found on Sheila's
chest when she was found dead. I can definitely say I haven't but it was
told to me by Jeremy. I will add that some time after the 7th August 1985,
Ann EATON asked me if I knew about a bible which was near Sheila and I told
her that I did and that it was found on her chest. I think I told her it
was creepy. I think she asked me about the bible on the Friday of the week of the murders.”

This makes no sense. If Ann Eaton had been told about the bible on Sheila's chest by Julie, she would have asked how Julie knew and Julie would have had to tell her that Jeremy told her the story about Matthew MacDonald. ?

We know this is a complete lie because Ann wrote down and admitted in court she got it from the police

MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows:
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near
the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila
Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her
chest with the gun beside her"?

A. Yes.

Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?

A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember

Not only can it be established her testimony is bogus it also explains her behaviour in court

Mr Rivlin said, but when he had cross-examined Miss Mugford she had cried almost immediately, and let slip "droplets of poison" throughout her evidence. When being re-examined by the prosection, how-ever, her tears had dned up "as if by magic" and she had been able to answer questions,


And one that is easily made up

On the contrary, the evidence proves that Julie changed the times of the call after a discussion with Ann Eaton as written down herself in her notes.

21.
The Police's own contemporaneous record of the Appellant's call on 7th August 1985, appended to this document, has now come to light. It reveals that the Appellant's initial call to Chelmsford Police station was recorded, in error as conceded at trial, as 3.36am. More importantly it shows that having first spoken to the Appellant and established the nature of the problem in some detail the officer at Chelmsford phoned Witham Police station at 3.26am, that being undisputedly a correct time. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant's initial call to the Police must have been some minutes before 3.26am.
Ann Eaton's Notes In Relation to The Call to Julie Mugford:

22. Ann Eaton's allegedly contemporaneous notes regarding 8th August disclosed at trial stated that there had been a "muddle about the right time of the 3.15 phone call - a London friend was called".

A further note has since been found which reveals that in her original note she stated "talked to Julie about the
phone calls Julie said re flatmate (our emphasis - photocopy is poor here exact wording should be clear on viewing of the original) 3.30am". It is submitted that this discrepancy shows that not only was Ann Eaton's note deliberately changed to undermine the appellant's case but that Julie Mugford and Susan Batteresby lied when they gave evidence that the telephone call was 3.15am or earlier, as it was Susan Battersby who was the flatmate referred to it the undisclosed Ann Eaton note.
Julie Mugford's Evidence:
23. In her original statement to the Police dated 81h August 1985 stated at p345:
next time I heard front Jeremy was at about 3.30am on Wednesday morning the th August 1985."
This then changes in her statement of e September 1985 when she states :
" I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan Battersby who lives with
me that it was about 3.15am."
At trial when she was cross examined as to the fact that she had told the police that the telephone call was received at 3.30am, she stated at p38 on 8th October:

Sounds like you are getting me mixed up with yourself?

No way could I mix up myself with you.  I make competent arguments supported by evidence while you make bogus arguments that are meaningless and constantly engage in projection.

You devote a great deal of time to Sheila's claims about the Bible though her claims about the Bible were not used by the prosecution to convict.  Her claims about the Bible were meaningless and bringing them up time and again is a red herring.  I already recounted the universe of possibilities with respect to this issue:

1) Jeremy could not remember where he left the Bible and believed reports it was left on her body so told Julie he left it on Sheila's chest

2) Jeremy remembered he did not leave it on Sheila's chest and intentionally provided false information to her just like his false claim about hiring a hitman so that if she ratted him out people would say the evidence didn't match the scene and she made it up

3) Jeremy told her he laid it by her chest and Julie misremembered that he told her on because of the other reports that it had been on her chest.

4) Jeremy talked to her about the Bible but didn't specify where it was left and after the passage of time her conversations with others became confused together and she mistakenly thought Jeremy told her the Bible was left on her chest though he failed to tell her where it had been left

5) She knew he didn't tell her about the Bible but made up that he did and made up that he told her it was on her chest even though the family knew at this point it was at her side.

These are the universe of possibilities.  You CHOOSE to believe the 5th possibility is what happened but have no proof. You try to pretend the first 4 possibilities are not possible and the only one possible is number 5.  Ignoring the other possibilities just demonstrates your bias nothing more.

I believe one of the first 4 possibilities is the truth.  Which of these 4 is the case is not important because the result is the same. There is no evidence to support that she intentionally made up that Jeremy told her the Bible was on Sheila's chest. If she were conspiring with the family and police to lie as you contend then she would have been aware the Bible was at his side.  This actually works against your conspiracy claims.

So too does the false hitman story which you keep trying to spin as proof she lied. If she were out to lie to get Jeremy in trouble she would have said he confessed to committing the crimes himself not make up a hitman and worse to name someone.  To name someone who could prove he was not given 2000 pounds to murder anyone and didn't murder anyone would be a very stupid thing to make up. Jeremy had a motive to lie to Julie and make up the hitman story so when evaluating this issue it supports her story it doesn't harm her credibility. Moreover it harms your conspiracy claims because no way would police suggest she should make up a hitman account.

Only in your mind is it a fact "Sheila was murdered" 

Infrangible Laws of the Scipio Universe 101
Scipio never ever gets anything wrong or thinks anything wrong! So if Scipio thinks Jeremy killed his family therefore sound moderator must be authentic and therefore Julie must be telling the truth
Scipio's mentality in a nut shell That is no certainty at all. Jeremy was only arrested once Julie had "come forward" and only after that did they "discover" the blood in the sound moderator with the initial tests carried out a month before not warranting any arrest what so ever with the police still confident Shelia was responsible even after the initial submissions to the lab.

Your claim that only in my mind was Sheila murdered is sheer nonsense.  There is a substantial amount of evidence proving Sheila was murdered.  That you choose to ignore such evidence means nothing that is just in keeping with your nature.

You insist the blood in the moderator was planted but have no proof.  Saying blood was not discovered inside until after Sheila came forward is not proof it was planted and worse it is not even true.

The truth is that blood was found inside the moderator on August 13, 1985.  Howard found blood on and in the moderator.  She noted such finding on her forms, in her statements and furthermore there is proof that on August 14 police were notified that the lab found paint on the moderator and human blood on as well as inside the moderator. Because the moderator was going to be fingerprinted it was not disassembled at that point. 

It was sent back to the lab on August 30, 1985 to be disassembled and fully processed, along with a great deal of other evidence to be processed.  When Julie came forward it was sitting at the lab but was not yet fully processed by the lab. This was not the only case they were working on and it took them time to process all the evidence that was sent to them on August 30.

That is was sitting at the lab awaiting full processing in no way harms the integrity of the item anymore than it harms the integrity to wait months before DNA testing is done on items. That you and other conspiracy theorists are suspicious is not a legal or logical basis to discount the blood evidence.  It can only be discounted if you can show it was planted but you have no way to do that.

Ignoring that blood was found inside immediately when tested by Howard doesn't help you any it just undermines your credibility.

Your claim that only in my mind is it a fact that Sheila was murdered is laughable. It is a proven fact according to the courts not just me. I have gone though the evidence that establishes such many times and you have not undermined any of it except in your wildest fantasies:

 
1) Blood evidence in the moderator establishes someone shot Sheila with the moderator attached and then put it away in the closet
2) blood evidence on and near Sheila establishes sheila was shot while seated propped against something resulting in the blood flowing down her shoulder, upper arm and side of her breast. If she were not propped against something she would have fallen back and the blood would not have flowed down her body but rather to the side of her neck instead. She was subsequently moved flat which resulted in the blood flow changing down the side of her neck and side of her upper arm. She can't have moved herself she was dead, someone else had to be there still to move her body.  After being moved flat the gun was placed across her body.
3) After she was flat blood ran down the side of her neck and pooled on the floor.  The Bible was was closed after some blood got on it and reopened to the same exact page creating a mirror image. It was then placed in the pool of blood that formed after she died.  She was dead quite clearly someone else did it.     

Aside from this evidence proving she was murdered there is evidence proving someone else killed the others.  In addition there is evidence that proves Nevill could not have made the distress call that Jeremy claimed he received.  This is the evidence that only the killer would have known thus proving he was the killer.

The evidence of his guilt is ironclad.  Saying it is in my mind only is simply more evidence of you projecting. Little wonder why you won't post your supposed breakthrough you know we could dash it in 5 minutes.

[Holly Goodhead]

All you are doing is saying that you decided Julie lied though you have no proof and that she had to have gotten the information she provided from someone other than Jeremy.  Just because you believe she got the information she attributed to Jeremy from someone else doesn't make it so. You can believe anything you want but just because you choose to believe something doesn't mean it must be true let alone that you have any proof to support your position.  You have zero proof Julie lied you just insist she did because you don't find her credible.  That means nothing at all.  You have no proof of any kind.  since you have no proof you make up bogus arguments in support of what you choose to believe.

Your argument at its core is that you personally CHOOSE not to believe her because Jeremy didn't convey any details to her about how the murders were carried out that only the killer would have known and the only way you would ever believe her is if Jeremy conveyed details about how he committed the murders that only the killer would know.  You completely ignore the significance of what he told  her before the murders and the phonecall right after the murders before he called police and make up an absurd requirement that only if a killer tells someone details of how they committed the murders that only the killer would know can we believe the person.  By your standard anyone who says someone confessed generally to them about committing a crime must be disbelieved and we must assume they made the claim up.  Only if someone confesses a detail that only the criminal would know can we believe the person confessed.  This made up standard of yours is ludicrous.

Far from being a rational position it is a position that is contrary to law and contrary to logic.   Your standard is not only flawed from a logical standpoint it fails to provide a basis to deal with the most damning evidence Julie provided.  Her most damning evidence was regarding what he told her about his desire to kill them and plans he was making to kill them. You don't look at such at all and simply ignore it saying that doesn't matter all that matters is that he didn't tell her things that only the killer would have known.

In any event he did provide her with a few details that only the killer would have known. He told her the killer's glove came off during the struggle with Nevill.
 

The evidence suggests that their breakup was mutual but in any event even if true he dumped her that is not evidence she lied.  That you choose to believe she would lie in order to hurt him is not proof she did. You have no proof she did.

As for your claims about police dropping charges in exchange for her talking you are both factually wrong and your claims are totally devoid of logic. 
 
She told Liz what happened. Liz ran to the police and the police then asked to question her. So first of all if you want to claim she lied then you need a motive for her to lie to Liz.  All police knew is that Liz claimed she told her certain things.  They had nothing else against Julie. When she spoke to police Julie could have told them that Liz was wrong or lying or could have told them she lied to Liz. If she had done such the police could not have done anything to her. You want to pretend they knew she was guilty of crimes and made up the story in exchange for them dropping such crimes but they had zilch on her. During the course of telling them everything about Jeremy she confessed to crimes committed for him be it at his insistence or to impress him. But for telling police everything they would not have known about such crimes.  So claiming they knew she committed crimes and she she made up the account of Jeremy saying he wanted to kill his family in order to escape liability for such fails miserably.  To argue she made up the account of Jeremy to avoid liability for other crimes police didn't even know about until she provided the Jeremy account fails miserably. It is a completely illogical argument.  If one looks at it logically the fact she confessed to other crimes during the confession actually supports that she was telling the truth and fully coming clean.  She could have scrubbed her own illicit actions from the confession and merely told them about the murders.  Instead she decided to tell them about the caravan burglary and drugs as well and even told them about the check fraud though it only implicated Jeremy in the sense of her explaining how his peer pressure affected her not in any legal sense so it only harmed her in a legal sense. That she did such supports her telling the truth not lying.

Someone lying to hurt him would not confess to crimes during the course of such.

They didn't even know about these crimes so didn't offer to drop charges for such crimes in exchange for any dirt she may have had on Jeremy. She told them what Jeremy said and also confessed to the crimes and that was how they learned about them. They didn't tell her that if she agreed to testify to what she told them that they would not prosecute her. She was told they made a decision not to prosecute her.  They also told her they wanted her to testify. If she failed to testify they could not prosecute her for those crimes they already made a decision not to prosecute there was no agreement whereby the charges would only be dropped if she testified.

Not only is there a legal distinction but one of great significance for evaluating credibility.  When someone is caught doing wrong and then they offer up evidence against someone else to avoid liability that provides a good reason  to be skeptical and want to look for some strong corroboration before believing them. That is not the case here she was neither sitting in jail convicted of a crime nor facing a prosecution for a crime and exchange for freedom or a lighter sentence notified them she had information about Jeremy and wanted a deal.  You want ot pretend that is the case because you have no valid reason to doubt Julie but desire to not believe her and desperately try to spin to come up with justifications for discounting her.

All your justifications fail in a legal and logical sense and are totally worthless except to you. You are able to delude yourself with such but that's about it.


No way could I mix up myself with you.  I make competent arguments supported by evidence while you make bogus arguments that are meaningless and constantly engage in projection.

You devote a great deal of time to Sheila's claims about the Bible though her claims about the Bible were not used by the prosecution to convict.  Her claims about the Bible were meaningless and bringing them up time and again is a red herring.  I already recounted the universe of possibilities with respect to this issue:

1) Jeremy could not remember where he left the Bible and believed reports it was left on her body so told Julie he left it on Sheila's chest

2) Jeremy remembered he did not leave it on Sheila's chest and intentionally provided false information to her just like his false claim about hiring a hitman so that if she ratted him out people would say the evidence didn't match the scene and she made it up

3) Jeremy told her he laid it by her chest and Julie misremembered that he told her on because of the other reports that it had been on her chest.

4) Jeremy talked to her about the Bible but didn't specify where it was left and after the passage of time her conversations with others became confused together and she mistakenly thought Jeremy told her the Bible was left on her chest though he failed to tell her where it had been left

5) She knew he didn't tell her about the Bible but made up that he did and made up that he told her it was on her chest even though the family knew at this point it was at her side.

These are the universe of possibilities.  You CHOOSE to believe the 5th possibility is what happened but have no proof. You try to pretend the first 4 possibilities are not possible and the only one possible is number 5.  Ignoring the other possibilities just demonstrates your bias nothing more.

I believe one of the first 4 possibilities is the truth.  Which of these 4 is the case is not important because the result is the same. There is no evidence to support that she intentionally made up that Jeremy told her the Bible was on Sheila's chest. If she were conspiring with the family and police to lie as you contend then she would have been aware the Bible was at his side.  This actually works against your conspiracy claims.

So too does the false hitman story which you keep trying to spin as proof she lied. If she were out to lie to get Jeremy in trouble she would have said he confessed to committing the crimes himself not make up a hitman and worse to name someone.  To name someone who could prove he was not given 2000 pounds to murder anyone and didn't murder anyone would be a very stupid thing to make up. Jeremy had a motive to lie to Julie and make up the hitman story so when evaluating this issue it supports her story it doesn't harm her credibility. Moreover it harms your conspiracy claims because no way would police suggest she should make up a hitman account.

Your claim that only in my mind was Sheila murdered is sheer nonsense.  There is a substantial amount of evidence proving Sheila was murdered.  That you choose to ignore such evidence means nothing that is just in keeping with your nature.

You insist the blood in the moderator was planted but have no proof.  Saying blood was not discovered inside until after Sheila came forward is not proof it was planted and worse it is not even true.

The truth is that blood was found inside the moderator on August 13, 1985.  Howard found blood on and in the moderator.  She noted such finding on her forms, in her statements and furthermore there is proof that on August 14 police were notified that the lab found paint on the moderator and human blood on as well as inside the moderator. Because the moderator was going to be fingerprinted it was not disassembled at that point. 

It was sent back to the lab on August 30, 1985 to be disassembled and fully processed, along with a great deal of other evidence to be processed.  When Julie came forward it was sitting at the lab but was not yet fully processed by the lab. This was not the only case they were working on and it took them time to process all the evidence that was sent to them on August 30.

That is was sitting at the lab awaiting full processing in no way harms the integrity of the item anymore than it harms the integrity to wait months before DNA testing is done on items. That you and other conspiracy theorists are suspicious is not a legal or logical basis to discount the blood evidence.  It can only be discounted if you can show it was planted but you have no way to do that.

Ignoring that blood was found inside immediately when tested by Howard doesn't help you any it just undermines your credibility.

Your claim that only in my mind is it a fact that Sheila was murdered is laughable. It is a proven fact according to the courts not just me. I have gone though the evidence that establishes such many times and you have not undermined any of it except in your wildest fantasies:

 
1) Blood evidence in the moderator establishes someone shot Sheila with the moderator attached and then put it away in the closet
2) blood evidence on and near Sheila establishes sheila was shot while seated propped against something resulting in the blood flowing down her shoulder, upper arm and side of her breast. If she were not propped against something she would have fallen back and the blood would not have flowed down her body but rather to the side of her neck instead. She was subsequently moved flat which resulted in the blood flow changing down the side of her neck and side of her upper arm. She can't have moved herself she was dead, someone else had to be there still to move her body.  After being moved flat the gun was placed across her body.
3) After she was flat blood ran down the side of her neck and pooled on the floor.  The Bible was was closed after some blood got on it and reopened to the same exact page creating a mirror image. It was then placed in the pool of blood that formed after she died.  She was dead quite clearly someone else did it.     

Aside from this evidence proving she was murdered there is evidence proving someone else killed the others.  In addition there is evidence that proves Nevill could not have made the distress call that Jeremy claimed he received.  This is the evidence that only the killer would have known thus proving he was the killer.

The evidence of his guilt is ironclad.  Saying it is in my mind only is simply more evidence of you projecting. Little wonder why you won't post your supposed breakthrough you know we could dash it in 5 minutes.

Scipio I've highlighted the following in your post above 7th para down:

"She [JM] told Liz what happened" And "All police knew is that Liz claimed she [JM] told her certain things".

I can't find anywhere in JM's WS's where she refers to telling Liz anything about JB's involvement?  Unlike SB where JM states where, when and what she told her in relations to JB's involvement.

JM produced a detailed WS in chronological order but absolutely nothing in her WS re telling Liz  &%+((£  As I said in an earlier post CAL's book refers to Liz being told but this is in Liz's WS's and trial testimony only.

 &%+((£

[Holly Goodhead]

That's just not true Holly, several others spoke of Bamber's behaviour including Julie Mugford's mother who independently observed him and heard him speak of his family in less than admirable terms on many occasions.

Is there anything you can point to and categorically state that Julie lied?

I think it's a case of either seeing JM as a reliable prosecution witness or not.  Personally I don't see her as reliable.  I have found a number of inconsistencies in her WS's.  A couple of examples are as follows:

1.  It was JM's 21st birthday on 26th Aug '85.  Her mother arranged a family dinner at a restaurant near Colchester.  JB and BC attended. 

JM's WS's provide brief details of most days in chronological order.  However in her 8th/9th Sept WS she states "On the Bank Holiday Monday, 26th August nothing of interest happened":

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1126

Then in her WS of 23rd Sept she states "I have been asked about my movements on 26th August 1985, I can say that I did not go to the Whitehouse on that day. I believe that during the early part of the morning Jeremy went to the Whitehouse alone, returning around lunchtime.  He made no comment about who he saw or what he done there.  As far as I am aware he did not go back to the Whitehouse that day as we left between 2pm and 2.30pm and went to London.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=286.0;attach=1150

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=286.0;attach=1152

2.  Also in the bottom of the two WS's above she states "I can say that when Jeremy telephoned me at 10pm on the 6th August, Sue Battersby was in the flat and would have heard me speaking on the phone."

The property she shared with Sue Battersby was in fact a house not a flat.  From SB's WS:

"The premises are a semi-detached three bedroom house".

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=529.0;attach=1649

I believe JM was coerced into providing the WS's/testimony she gave.  Much of which was drafted up by EP. 

I don't believe there's anything in her WS's which was corroborated and at the same time unknown to others.