Opium Poppies Grown at WHF?

[Holly Goodhead]

It seems likely JB was producing cannabis at his cottage and using and supplying but I can't recall any mention of this in his police interviews?  Mention is made of JM's cheque fraud and OCP burglary the latter of which he was charged with.  Were charges pressed re the cannabis?  If not why not?

I can't be bothered to read through JB's police interviews again but I'm pretty sure there's no mention of cannabis.

Just had a quick look at the CoA document.  The following is the section re JM.  I've highlighted in bold the sections re the trip to Amsterdam/drug run, OCP and cheque fraud.  Why no mention of the cannabis?

Julie Mugford 94. Julie Mugford was 21 years old at the time of the offences and a student at Goldsmiths College at the University of London. She met the appellant in 1983 whilst working in Colchester during one of the vacations and they became boyfriend and girlfriend. During the relationship she met the appellant's parents, his sister and her children. In December 1984 the appellant had proposed to her.

95. On the day after the killings, Miss Mugford made a statement to the police. In that statement she said nothing adverse to the appellant. She spoke of receiving a telephone call from him at about 3.30 a.m. on the night of the killings. She said that he "sounded disjointed and worried" and he said "There's something wrong at home." She had been sleepy and had not asked what it was.

96. On 7 September, Julie Mugford contacted the police and told them that she had omitted matters from her earlier statement. She then gave a very different account that she was to repeat to the jury in evidence.

97. She said that after she met the appellant, it quickly became obvious to her that the appellant disliked his family. He resented his parents whom he claimed, "tried to run his life" and he said he did not get on with Sheila Caffell. He was angry that she lived in an expensive flat in Maida Vale, which was maintained by his parents. Between July and October 1984, he said that his parents were getting him down and he said that he wished "he could get rid of them all". In evidence Miss Mugford said this included his sister and children because "if he was going to get rid of them it would have to be all of them". The appellant explained to her that his "father was getting old, his mother was mad … Sheila was mad as well … and in respect of the way the twins had been brought up, … they were emotionally disturbed and unbalanced". The appellant also told Julie Mugford he had seen copies of his parents' wills.

98. Miss Mugford's evidence was that the conversations about killing the appellant's family became more frequent between October and December 1984. At first he spoke of being at the house for supper and then drugging the family before driving back to Goldhanger in his car. He said that he then intended returning to the farmhouse on foot or on bicycle and burning the house down. The appellant then appeared to realise that it would be difficult to burn the premises down especially since it would have the consequent effect of destroying the valuables within the property.

99. Later the appellant said he had decided to shoot his family and he told her that he had discovered that the catch on the kitchen window did not work and he could gain access to the house in that way. The appellant said he planned to leave the address by a different window, which latched when it was shut from the outside. He spoke of Sheila Caffell being a good scapegoat because of her admission to hospital during Easter 1985 and said that afterwards he would make it seem as if Sheila had done it and then killed herself.

100. Julie Mugford spent the weekend before the killings with the appellant in Goldhanger. During that period he dyed his hair black and she saw his mother's bicycle at the address. Other witnesses saw the bicyle at the appellant's home following the killings. Robert Boutflour saw mud on the walls of the tyres but not on the tread, as if it had been through deep mud.

101. At about 9.50 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 August the appellant telephoned Miss Mugford. During their conversation that evening he said he was "pissed off" and had been thinking about the crime all day and that it was going to be "tonight or never". The following morning she was awoken by a telephone call from the appellant to her lodgings in London. The appellant said to her, "Everything is going well. Something is wrong at the farm. I haven't had any sleep all night … bye honey and I love you lots". Miss Mugford did not take him seriously and went back to sleep. As to the timing of this call, Miss Mugford said in evidence said that it was between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m.

102. A number of Miss Mugford's housemates were disturbed by the telephone call and provided additional evidence as to timing. One, Helen Eaton, had been consulted by Julie Mugford, when the latter was first making a statement to the police about it. She put the time at 3.00 a.m. in evidence but agreed in cross-examination that it might have been as late as 3.30 a.m.

103. Another flat mate, Sue Battersby, said that she was positive that when she was disturbed, she had looked at her clock and the time shown was 3.12 a.m. However, she pointed out that she was in the habit of keeping her clock about 10 minutes early and police checks made on the clock confirmed this to be the case. If her evidence was right and if the clock was, as the evidence suggested, ten minutes fast, the time was probably no more than a minute or two after 3 a.m.

104. Joanna Woad gave evidence that when she heard the telephone, she looked at her digital clock and all that she noted was that the time was 2 something. This meant that according to her clock the time was between 2.00 and 2.59 a.m. If it was at the end of that bracket, it differed very little from the time suggested by Susan Battersby's evidence.

105. Miss Mugford described how later during the morning of Wednesday, 7 August 1985, the appellant telephoned her again. He said he could not speak for long, Sheila had gone mad and he told her not to go to work because a police car would come and pick her up. Miss Mugford was then taken to the house in Goldhanger, where out of earshot of the police officers, the appellant told her, "I should have been an actor".

106. That evening when they were alone, Miss Mugford said that she asked the appellant whether he had done it. He said he had not, but that he had arranged for a friend of his, Matthew MacDonald, to kill his family. He spoke of what he had told MacDonald as to ways of getting in and out of the farmhouse undetected and he said that one of his instructions was for MacDonald to ring him from the farm on the telephone which had the memory redial facility so that if the telephone was checked by the police it would provide him with an alibi.

107. The appellant reported that MacDonald had said that everything had been done as instructed but there had been a bit of a struggle with the appellant's father. He said MacDonald had told him, "for an old man he was very strong and put up a fight" and that MacDonald had then become angry and shot seven bullets into Nevill Bamber. The appellant said that Sheila Caffell had been told to lie down and shoot herself last. He said that MacDonald had then placed a Bible on her chest to make it look as though she had killed in some sort of religious mania. The appellant said the children were shot in their sleep and so they had not felt anything and there was no pain. He told Julie Mugford that MacDonald had been paid £2,000 for the killings.

108. As a result of hearing this account, the police arrested not only the appellant but also MacDonald. Their inquiries showed that Macdonald could not have been at the farm that night and he was called by the prosecution to give evidence, that was not disputed, to confirm that he had nothing to do with the shootings.

109. In the course of her evidence Miss Mugford explained that initially she did not want to believe what the appellant had told her but then she became scared and the appellant had threatened her that if anything happened to him she would be implicated.

110. She and the appellant spent the following weekend with Colin Caffell and on 12 August she went to the house in Goldhanger with the appellant. There he told her that the police had been a bit slack because they had not done all the fingerprinting at White House Farm. On 16 August Miss Mugford attended the funerals of Nevill and June Bamber with the appellant and then on 19 August the funerals of Sheila Caffell and her children. During that period the witness spoke of the appellant taking her out for frequent meals, and buying expensive clothes for himself and for her. She described the appellant's mood during this period as "very happy". After one of the funerals they drank champagne and cocktails.

111. Miss Mugford spent the weekend of 17-18 August 1985 with the appellant in Eastbourne and it was then that she began to ask how he could behave as he was doing. She kept telling him "£2,000 for five lives". The following week the couple went to Amsterdam for two days, staying in expensive hotels and eating out. On 27 August Miss Mugford returned alone to her lodgings in London and she told her friend Susan Battersby of what the appellant had done.

112. On Saturday 31 August Julie Mugford asked the appellant whether he loved her. He said he did not know. Again they spoke about the murders. Miss Mugford said she could not cope with him behaving so normally and asked why he had told her what had happened. She said she felt guilt for the two of them. The appellant told her he was doing everybody a favour and there was nothing to feel guilty about. Later that night the appellant told her that she was the best friend he had ever had and he had entrusted his life to her.

113. On Tuesday 3 September the couple met again in London at the flat which had belonged to Sheila Caffell. Again Miss Mugford raised the question of their relationship and his part in the killing. During their conversation the appellant received a telephone call from an ex-girlfriend and Miss Mugford heard him asking her out. She became angry and threw an ornament box at a mirror and then slapped the appellant. He became very angry and twisted her arm up behind her back. Four days later, she went to the police.

114. During the course of making her witness statements in September, Julie Mugford admitted that at Easter 1985 she had helped the appellant steal money from the offices of the Osea Road Caravan site which was owned by the appellant and various members of the family. On this occasion he had stage-managed the scene to give it the appearance of a burglary by an outsider. Some £970-£980 had been stolen which was used in part to buy a lavish meal.

115. Miss Mugford also admitted that she had used a cheque book belonging to Susan Battersby which had been falsely reported as stolen to obtain some £700 of property in Oxford Street. She told the jury that she and Miss Battersby had repaid the money to the bank in October 1985 and that she had been cautioned for the offence.

Mention of trip to Amsterdam no mention of cannabis smuggled into UK?

Mention of OCP burglary no mention of cannabis

Mention of JM's cheque fraud no mention of cannabis

The plot thickens 

[scipio_usmc]

I can't be bothered to read through JB's police interviews again but I'm pretty sure there's no mention of cannabis.

Just had a quick look at the CoA document.  The following is the section re JM.  I've highlighted in bold the sections re the trip to Amsterdam/drug run, OCP and cheque fraud.  Why no mention of the cannabis?

Julie Mugford 94. Julie Mugford was 21 years old at the time of the offences and a student at Goldsmiths College at the University of London. She met the appellant in 1983 whilst working in Colchester during one of the vacations and they became boyfriend and girlfriend. During the relationship she met the appellant's parents, his sister and her children. In December 1984 the appellant had proposed to her.

95. On the day after the killings, Miss Mugford made a statement to the police. In that statement she said nothing adverse to the appellant. She spoke of receiving a telephone call from him at about 3.30 a.m. on the night of the killings. She said that he "sounded disjointed and worried" and he said "There's something wrong at home." She had been sleepy and had not asked what it was.

96. On 7 September, Julie Mugford contacted the police and told them that she had omitted matters from her earlier statement. She then gave a very different account that she was to repeat to the jury in evidence.

97. She said that after she met the appellant, it quickly became obvious to her that the appellant disliked his family. He resented his parents whom he claimed, "tried to run his life" and he said he did not get on with Sheila Caffell. He was angry that she lived in an expensive flat in Maida Vale, which was maintained by his parents. Between July and October 1984, he said that his parents were getting him down and he said that he wished "he could get rid of them all". In evidence Miss Mugford said this included his sister and children because "if he was going to get rid of them it would have to be all of them". The appellant explained to her that his "father was getting old, his mother was mad … Sheila was mad as well … and in respect of the way the twins had been brought up, … they were emotionally disturbed and unbalanced". The appellant also told Julie Mugford he had seen copies of his parents' wills.

98. Miss Mugford's evidence was that the conversations about killing the appellant's family became more frequent between October and December 1984. At first he spoke of being at the house for supper and then drugging the family before driving back to Goldhanger in his car. He said that he then intended returning to the farmhouse on foot or on bicycle and burning the house down. The appellant then appeared to realise that it would be difficult to burn the premises down especially since it would have the consequent effect of destroying the valuables within the property.

99. Later the appellant said he had decided to shoot his family and he told her that he had discovered that the catch on the kitchen window did not work and he could gain access to the house in that way. The appellant said he planned to leave the address by a different window, which latched when it was shut from the outside. He spoke of Sheila Caffell being a good scapegoat because of her admission to hospital during Easter 1985 and said that afterwards he would make it seem as if Sheila had done it and then killed herself.

100. Julie Mugford spent the weekend before the killings with the appellant in Goldhanger. During that period he dyed his hair black and she saw his mother's bicycle at the address. Other witnesses saw the bicyle at the appellant's home following the killings. Robert Boutflour saw mud on the walls of the tyres but not on the tread, as if it had been through deep mud.

101. At about 9.50 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 August the appellant telephoned Miss Mugford. During their conversation that evening he said he was "pissed off" and had been thinking about the crime all day and that it was going to be "tonight or never". The following morning she was awoken by a telephone call from the appellant to her lodgings in London. The appellant said to her, "Everything is going well. Something is wrong at the farm. I haven't had any sleep all night … bye honey and I love you lots". Miss Mugford did not take him seriously and went back to sleep. As to the timing of this call, Miss Mugford said in evidence said that it was between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m.

102. A number of Miss Mugford's housemates were disturbed by the telephone call and provided additional evidence as to timing. One, Helen Eaton, had been consulted by Julie Mugford, when the latter was first making a statement to the police about it. She put the time at 3.00 a.m. in evidence but agreed in cross-examination that it might have been as late as 3.30 a.m.

103. Another flat mate, Sue Battersby, said that she was positive that when she was disturbed, she had looked at her clock and the time shown was 3.12 a.m. However, she pointed out that she was in the habit of keeping her clock about 10 minutes early and police checks made on the clock confirmed this to be the case. If her evidence was right and if the clock was, as the evidence suggested, ten minutes fast, the time was probably no more than a minute or two after 3 a.m.

104. Joanna Woad gave evidence that when she heard the telephone, she looked at her digital clock and all that she noted was that the time was 2 something. This meant that according to her clock the time was between 2.00 and 2.59 a.m. If it was at the end of that bracket, it differed very little from the time suggested by Susan Battersby's evidence.

105. Miss Mugford described how later during the morning of Wednesday, 7 August 1985, the appellant telephoned her again. He said he could not speak for long, Sheila had gone mad and he told her not to go to work because a police car would come and pick her up. Miss Mugford was then taken to the house in Goldhanger, where out of earshot of the police officers, the appellant told her, "I should have been an actor".

106. That evening when they were alone, Miss Mugford said that she asked the appellant whether he had done it. He said he had not, but that he had arranged for a friend of his, Matthew MacDonald, to kill his family. He spoke of what he had told MacDonald as to ways of getting in and out of the farmhouse undetected and he said that one of his instructions was for MacDonald to ring him from the farm on the telephone which had the memory redial facility so that if the telephone was checked by the police it would provide him with an alibi.

107. The appellant reported that MacDonald had said that everything had been done as instructed but there had been a bit of a struggle with the appellant's father. He said MacDonald had told him, "for an old man he was very strong and put up a fight" and that MacDonald had then become angry and shot seven bullets into Nevill Bamber. The appellant said that Sheila Caffell had been told to lie down and shoot herself last. He said that MacDonald had then placed a Bible on her chest to make it look as though she had killed in some sort of religious mania. The appellant said the children were shot in their sleep and so they had not felt anything and there was no pain. He told Julie Mugford that MacDonald had been paid £2,000 for the killings.

108. As a result of hearing this account, the police arrested not only the appellant but also MacDonald. Their inquiries showed that Macdonald could not have been at the farm that night and he was called by the prosecution to give evidence, that was not disputed, to confirm that he had nothing to do with the shootings.

109. In the course of her evidence Miss Mugford explained that initially she did not want to believe what the appellant had told her but then she became scared and the appellant had threatened her that if anything happened to him she would be implicated.

110. She and the appellant spent the following weekend with Colin Caffell and on 12 August she went to the house in Goldhanger with the appellant. There he told her that the police had been a bit slack because they had not done all the fingerprinting at White House Farm. On 16 August Miss Mugford attended the funerals of Nevill and June Bamber with the appellant and then on 19 August the funerals of Sheila Caffell and her children. During that period the witness spoke of the appellant taking her out for frequent meals, and buying expensive clothes for himself and for her. She described the appellant's mood during this period as "very happy". After one of the funerals they drank champagne and cocktails.

111. Miss Mugford spent the weekend of 17-18 August 1985 with the appellant in Eastbourne and it was then that she began to ask how he could behave as he was doing. She kept telling him "£2,000 for five lives". The following week the couple went to Amsterdam for two days, staying in expensive hotels and eating out. On 27 August Miss Mugford returned alone to her lodgings in London and she told her friend Susan Battersby of what the appellant had done.

112. On Saturday 31 August Julie Mugford asked the appellant whether he loved her. He said he did not know. Again they spoke about the murders. Miss Mugford said she could not cope with him behaving so normally and asked why he had told her what had happened. She said she felt guilt for the two of them. The appellant told her he was doing everybody a favour and there was nothing to feel guilty about. Later that night the appellant told her that she was the best friend he had ever had and he had entrusted his life to her.

113. On Tuesday 3 September the couple met again in London at the flat which had belonged to Sheila Caffell. Again Miss Mugford raised the question of their relationship and his part in the killing. During their conversation the appellant received a telephone call from an ex-girlfriend and Miss Mugford heard him asking her out. She became angry and threw an ornament box at a mirror and then slapped the appellant. He became very angry and twisted her arm up behind her back. Four days later, she went to the police.

114. During the course of making her witness statements in September, Julie Mugford admitted that at Easter 1985 she had helped the appellant steal money from the offices of the Osea Road Caravan site which was owned by the appellant and various members of the family. On this occasion he had stage-managed the scene to give it the appearance of a burglary by an outsider. Some £970-£980 had been stolen which was used in part to buy a lavish meal.

115. Miss Mugford also admitted that she had used a cheque book belonging to Susan Battersby which had been falsely reported as stolen to obtain some £700 of property in Oxford Street. She told the jury that she and Miss Battersby had repaid the money to the bank in October 1985 and that she had been cautioned for the offence.

Mention of trip to Amsterdam no mention of cannabis smuggled into UK?

Mention of OCP burglary no mention of cannabis

Mention of JM's cheque fraud no mention of cannabis

The plot thickens 

Because it had no relevance at all to the legal issues.  A court summary of the facts doesn't mention anything and everything.  The lawyers on both sides present their own brief recitation of the facts in their briefs and the court draws from one or both.  Most things quoted in court decisions are lifted from briefs. While some of the product is unique from judges a majority is not.  Most lay people reading court decisions have never seen the briefs and are thus unaware of this practice.

 

[Holly Goodhead]

Because it had no relevance at all to the legal issues.  A court summary of the facts doesn't mention anything and everything.  The lawyers on both sides present their own brief recitation of the facts in their briefs and the court draws from one or both.  Most things quoted in court decisions are lifted from briefs. While some of the product is unique from judges a majority is not.  Most lay people reading court decisions have never seen the briefs and are thus unaware of this practice.

But why mention OCP, JM's cheque fraud and going to Amsterdam staying in expensive hotels and eating out?

[Holly Goodhead]

My pleasure.

I like a bit of horticulture.

There are lots of different strains of cannabis plant, just like any other plant species, they all have slightly different looking flowers, different tastes and smells.

White Rhino, for instance, is one variety that's very sort after, has a very high THC content.

There are other interesetingly named varietys like Cheese , Purple Haze, Strawberry Chronic or Mango, to name a few.

I love all of natures beautiful fruits 

Sounds interesting but I thinks its safer all round if I stick to my beer and wine!  I do recall in the early 90's I worked with a guy who was into cannabis.  Another guy in the office who was a smoker but not into cannabis bought some and we smoked it together round my place.  I think I made the cigarettes up but had no idea about the quantity of cannabis to use.  I've never smoked apart from a couple of packets when I was about 16.  Anyway the smoker was puffing away inhaling deeply.  I've never been able to inhale smoke properly so was obviously taking in far less than my friend.  Within say 30 mins my friend was sick and sitting on the loo with his head over the sink    Then he started shivering like crazy.  I run a bath for him.  He then went to bed and in the morning was absolutely fine.  I assume it was strong stuff and too much was used? 

[scipio_usmc]

But why mention OCP, JM's cheque fraud and going to Amsterdam staying in expensive hotels and eating out?

Because it pertained to a timeline of what occurred after the murders.  The prosecution was in part discussing how he was living it up afterwards because that played into his guilt. They were arguing he did it for greed.

One of the defense allegations pertained to the issue of the check fraud. They had to discuss the alleged facts related to such in the summary.

The drugs issues were not relevant to any appeal issues or really anything else. If the drugs somehow could have been parlayed into suggesting Jeremy's guilt then the prosecution would have had a motive to try to mention them somehow.  Each side shapes the summary to their own advantage.

When you have a long trial it is impossible to mention anything and everything in a summary of the facts. Lawyers craft the narrative around what they want to suggest. You provide a citation for any claim with a reference to where you took the claim from be it testimony in court, a deposition, affidavit etc and then the court decides what they will believe or adopt.

Here is how you write in a brief, anytime you make a factual claim you must support it with a source:

There was no blood inside Sheila's hands or fingers (Vanesis Trial Testimony P17-18) therefore Sheila could not have left a bloody print at the scene and the fact one was not found (Hammersley Trial Testimony, Davidson Trial Testimony yada yada) is not surprising.

It is even worse when making a statement about the law.  One must cite the statute and any case law that supports the proposition you assert.  That is why you will see large string court citations.  Those citations you see in a court decision were lifted from the briefs, the lawyers made the courts aware of such citations. 

How annoying would it be if I did this in every single sentence I write when posting here?  Obviously it is much more difficult to read. 

Since the appeal decision doesn't discuss all the facts and evidence that is why you can't exclusively look to it to learn everything about this case.  The best use of that decision is to figure out what will be needed in order for a court to vacate Jeremy's conviction. You can see how the judges view the issues.

In the old days you had to go to the courthouse to see filings including briefs.  Now they are often scanned and available on the net. They provide extra info than a court decision will contain. We are fortunate that we have so many statements and trial transcripts in this case considering the age. So we are in a pretty strong position if we actually utilize them.

It is too bad CAL didn't utilize them more completely especially when interviewing people.  She should have showed Vanezis his testimony and then asked questions related to such seeing if it jogged his memory.  Many times after a long time passes people will forget things and even have false memories. It is one reason why statutes of limitations need to exist. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Because it had no relevance at all to the legal issues.  A court summary of the facts doesn't mention anything and everything.  The lawyers on both sides present their own brief recitation of the facts in their briefs and the court draws from one or both.  Most things quoted in court decisions are lifted from briefs. While some of the product is unique from judges a majority is not.  Most lay people reading court decisions have never seen the briefs and are thus unaware of this practice.

Penalties for possession, supply and production of cannabis:

https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing

I don't understand why JM's cheque fraud, the OCP burglary and the visit to Amsterdam with the emphasis on staying in an expensive hotel and eating out are all mentioned in the 2002 CoA doc but no mention of the cannabis  &%+((£

I think EP threatened JM, SB, LR and JR with drug related offences unless they cooperated.  This is the reason we don't hear about it.  JB was bailed over OCP.  Why were charges not pressed about the cannabis?  Why didn't EP make reference to the cannabis production, supply and possession in JB's interviews?  The maximum penalties are severe - see above link.

It is relevant to the case because he was producing and supplying for financial gain.

[scipio_usmc]

Penalties for possession, supply and production of cannabis:

https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing

I don't understand why JM's cheque fraud, the OCP burglary and the visit to Amsterdam with the emphasis on staying in an expensive hotel and eating out are all mentioned in the 2002 CoA doc but no mention of the cannabis  &%+((£

I think EP threatened JM, SB, LR and JR with drug related offences unless they cooperated.  This is the reason we don't hear about it.  JB was bailed over OCP.  Why were charges not pressed about the cannabis?  Why didn't EP make reference to the cannabis production, supply and possession in JB's interviews?  The maximum penalties are severe - see above link.

It is relevant to the case because he was producing and supplying for financial gain.

1) "Miss Mugford spent the weekend of 17-18 August 1985 with the appellant in Eastbourne and it was then that she began to ask how he could behave as he was doing. She kept telling him "£2,000 for five lives". The following week the couple went to Amsterdam for two days, staying in expensive hotels and eating out. On 27 August Miss Mugford returned alone to her lodgings in London and she told her friend Susan Battersby of what the appellant had done."

This is part of a chronological summary of what transpired after the murders. You can't see how it would play to the states case against him that he stopped working immediately after the murders and was living it up on his parent's money?  Come now you well understand this doesn't look good and supports the motive presented at trial.

2) One of the defense arguments on appeal pertained to the check fraud.  That is why they had to mention facts related to it.

"We turn, therefore, to consider the second aspect of this ground. After revealing these matters to the police, Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby went to Susan Battersby's bank, the victim of their cheque book fraud, to inform the bank of their dishonesty. The second limb of this ground contends that the prosecution failed to disclose the action of DS Jones and other unidentified officers in respect of the cheque fraud perpetrated by Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby on the Midland Bank."

3) "During the course of making her witness statements in September, Julie Mugford admitted that at Easter 1985 she had helped the appellant steal money from the offices of the Osea Road Caravan site which was owned by the appellant and various members of the family. On this occasion he had stage-managed the scene to give it the appearance of a burglary by an outsider. Some £970-£980 had been stolen which was used in part to buy a lavish meal."

Who owned this site?  His family. He stole from his family prior to killing them. What did he use the money for- lavish meals just like he did after killing them.  You don't see why the prosecution would raise this as damaging evidence? 

What relevance to the murders did the drugs hold?  None.  If there were evidence that Nevill found out Jeremy was using to property for drugs and going to turn him in then drugs would be relevant.  But they failed to hold any relevance if anything testimony about drugs would be more prejudicial than probative. Jeremy was so greedy he was into drugs but failed to make enough money to decided to kill his family.  Would that be a fair argument to make? Of course not.  The drug issue was of no relevance.

[Holly Goodhead]

JM claims during the summer of '85 a neighbour called JB advising him the police or drug squad called at his property to look at his cannabis plants in the garden.  As a result of this JB destroyed them?!  &%+((£

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=283.0;attach=1060

[scipio_usmc]

JM claims during the summer of '85 a neighbour called JB advising him the police or drug squad called at his property to look at his cannabis plants in the garden.  As a result of this JB destroyed them?!  &%+((£

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=283.0;attach=1060

Even if they did what relevance would that be to the murders?

Holly is suspected of killing her parents for their inheritance.

Though Holly was employed she was known to turn tricks for extra money and fun.

If the prosecution wanted to argue that you were an immoral person because you turned tricks and this supports you would kill your family would you try to keep it out of court?

It would be a BS argument that is akin to the drug issue to Jeremy.  It would not be relevant at all just prejudicial.

[Holly Goodhead]

1) "Miss Mugford spent the weekend of 17-18 August 1985 with the appellant in Eastbourne and it was then that she began to ask how he could behave as he was doing. She kept telling him "£2,000 for five lives". The following week the couple went to Amsterdam for two days, staying in expensive hotels and eating out. On 27 August Miss Mugford returned alone to her lodgings in London and she told her friend Susan Battersby of what the appellant had done."

This is part of a chronological summary of what transpired after the murders. You can't see how it would play to the states case against him that he stopped working immediately after the murders and was living it up on his parent's money?  Come now you well understand this doesn't look good and supports the motive presented at trial.

2) One of the defense arguments on appeal pertained to the check fraud.  That is why they had to mention facts related to it.

"We turn, therefore, to consider the second aspect of this ground. After revealing these matters to the police, Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby went to Susan Battersby's bank, the victim of their cheque book fraud, to inform the bank of their dishonesty. The second limb of this ground contends that the prosecution failed to disclose the action of DS Jones and other unidentified officers in respect of the cheque fraud perpetrated by Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby on the Midland Bank."

3) "During the course of making her witness statements in September, Julie Mugford admitted that at Easter 1985 she had helped the appellant steal money from the offices of the Osea Road Caravan site which was owned by the appellant and various members of the family. On this occasion he had stage-managed the scene to give it the appearance of a burglary by an outsider. Some £970-£980 had been stolen which was used in part to buy a lavish meal."

Who owned this site?  His family. He stole from his family prior to killing them. What did he use the money for- lavish meals just like he did after killing them.  You don't see why the prosecution would raise this as damaging evidence? 

What relevance to the murders did the drugs hold?  None.  If there were evidence that Nevill found out Jeremy was using to property for drugs and going to turn him in then drugs would be relevant.  But they failed to hold any relevance if anything testimony about drugs would be more prejudicial than probative. Jeremy was so greedy he was into drugs but failed to make enough money to decided to kill his family.  Would that be a fair argument to make? Of course not.  The drug issue was of no relevance.

I think the cannabis is as relevant to the case as the OCP burglary and the cheque fraud.  They were all crimes for financial gain all of which JM was involved in and two of which JB was involved in.  Cannabis is mood altering.  JM said JB spent the proceeds for the cannabis sales and didn't bank the money.  EP asked JB to sign an authority for EP to access his bank stats.  JB told JM he needed 2k to pay MM without anyone finding out.

[Holly Goodhead]

Even if they did what relevance would that be to the murders?

Holly is suspected of killing her parents for their inheritance.

Though Holly was employed she was known to turn tricks for extra money and fun.

If the prosecution wanted to argue that you were an immoral person because you turned tricks and this supports you would kill your family would you try to keep it out of court?

It would be a BS argument that is akin to the drug issue to Jeremy.  It would not be relevant at all just prejudicial.

I don't see why OCP and cheque fraud are relevant but the cannabis possession, production and supplying isn't?

Why is it relevant for the 2002 appeal to make reference to staying in an expensive hotel and eating out but not purchasing cannabis and smuggling it into UK?

[scipio_usmc]

I don't see why OCP and cheque fraud are relevant but the cannabis possession, production and supplying isn't?

Why is it relevant for the 2002 appeal to make reference to staying in an expensive hotel and eating out but not purchasing cannabis and smuggling it into UK?

1) ONE OF THE DEFENSE GROUNDS of the appeal was based on the check fraud.  HOW could the check fraud not be mentioned unless the court decided to ignore the ground?  Ignoring it instead of addressing it would just create an issue for appealing.  I don't know how to say it any plainer.

2) If you were a prosecutor and you knew that he stole from the family and used the money for expensive meals and trips and were arguing he killed the family in order to use the family's money for expensive meals and trips would you take advantage of the similarity and highlight it to a jury and appeal court to try to get them on your side?  The similarity is just enough to get it in as opposed to prior bad acts that have no relation whatsoever and thus are not admissible.  You frame issues here all the time to support your agenda you have to know that lawyers do the same.

[Holly Goodhead]

As far as we know prior to JB and JM carrying out OCP and cheque fraud neither had previous convictions or any history of any other crimes.  As such the penalties were unlikely to involve any sort of custodial sentence had charges been pressed.  However using, producing and supplying cannabis carry much higher penalties.  It seem likely that others such as Susan Battersby, James Richard and Elizabeth Rimmington were involved in some shape or form with the cannabis and imo EP were able to use the threat of drug charges against prosecution witnesses in order to get them to cooperate.

[Holly Goodhead]

1) ONE OF THE DEFENSE GROUNDS of the appeal was based on the check fraud.  HOW could the check fraud not be mentioned unless the court decided to ignore the ground?  Ignoring it instead of addressing it would just create an issue for appealing.  I don't know how to say it any plainer.

I didn't highlight the appeal point just the general background to trial and the fact cheque fraud and OCP was used but not the cannabis.

Potentially the defence could use the fact JM was using and supplying cannabis to further reduce her credibility with jurors.

2) If you were a prosecutor and you knew that he stole from the family and used the money for expensive meals and trips and were arguing he killed the family in order to use the family's money for expensive meals and trips would you take advantage of the similarity and highlight it to a jury and appeal court to try to get them on your side?  The similarity is just enough to get it in as opposed to prior bad acts that have no relation whatsoever and thus are not admissible.  You frame issues here all the time to support your agenda you have to know that lawyers do the same.

I don't see the difference between the prosecution arguing JB burgled OCP for financial gain and he used a property owned by his parents which he occupied rent free and was using to produce cannabis plants and supplying for financial gain?  Especially when according to JM the police or drug squad had called at his property to look at the plants. 

Did JB destroy the plants after he was tipped off by his neighbour that the police or drug squad had visited pre murders or did EP destroy them post murders?

[scipio_usmc]

I didn't highlight the appeal point just the general background to trial and the fact cheque fraud and OCP was used but not the cannabis.

Potentially the defence could use the fact JM was using and supplying cannabis to further reduce her credibility with jurors.

I don't see the difference between the prosecution arguing JB burgled OCP for financial gain and he used a property owned by his parents which he occupied rent free and was using to produce cannabis plants and supplying for financial gain?  Especially when according to JM the police or drug squad had called at his property to look at the plants. 

Did JB destroy the plants after he was tipped off by his neighbour that the police or drug squad had visited pre murders or did EP destroy them post murders?

I find it hard to believe that you can't see the difference between:

A) Growing pot on property you rent

and

B) Going to other property owned by your landlord and breaking in to steal from your landlord

Just like I would find it hard to believe you can't see the difference between:

C) Killing a landlord to steal their money/property

and

D) Killing a landlord who stumbled upon you doing something illegal and was planning to either evict you out or turn you in to police.

You are smart enough to recognize that they are factually different and thus the types of evidence relevant to proving guilt would be different.