For Those That Believe JB Guilty...

[Holly Goodhead]

I lost an excellent friend in MikeG by suggesting the buck stops with fragrant delectable kitty heels in unlocking the clanging gates.
The buck absolutely stops with this devious piece of work.

Do you think this line is helpful?  I don't.  The UK's system and processes have been explained numerous times.  NZ is a completely different country: land mass, population and various economic data.  If kitty heels intervened over every grievance with the judicial system she would be incapable of running the country.  Why should she intervene over JB but ignore the plight of this couple:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/charlie-gard-high-court-ruling-doctors-life-support-withdraw-baby-rare-genetic-condition-parents-a7678436.html


 

[Holly Goodhead]

She had nothing to gain and almost everything to lose including her freedom if she didn't tell the whole truth.  In fact she lost her home in England and the freedom to live there because of Bamber's actions. She has had to live a life in exile in Canada but she has made the best of it, raised a family and risen to great heights in her chosen career.

Well 4 x 13 year old girls lied "for a laugh" at the trial of Stefan Kiszko and went unpunished:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed

I understand JM purchased a flat with the proceeds (25k) of her NoW deal:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=520.msg15271#msg15271

Is this the home, you refer to above, she lost? 

[steve_trousers]

Which of the following would cause you to reconsider your postion over JB's case:

a) Forensic testing undermining the silencer evidence to the extent the CCRC refer to the CoA.

b) Scene of crime reconstruction by experts showing NB was shot on the landing stairs and/or main stairs.

c) JM retracting her testimony.

d) Reports from psychologists showing SC in all probability suffered an 'attachment disorder' due to June's mental illness circa 1959 putting SC at greater risk of suicide and committing acts of aggression including filicide.

e) None of the above.

If you want to select more than one option please place in order of priority.  Thanks. 

31

E) all are red herrings in the end. c) would be worth a boost to their naive little campaign, and some renewed gutter column inches but in the end you would have to question her motives for waiting more than 3 decades to do so and that won't in the end be enough to free him.

[adam]

E) all are red herrings in the end. c) would be worth a boost to their naive little campaign, and some renewed gutter column inches but in the end you would have to question her motives for waiting more than 3 decades to do so and that won't in the end be enough to free him.

'C' would be a massive boost. It would also be headline news. If Julie said the police knew she was lying but encouraged her to do so I can't see how the frenzy would keep Bamber behind bars.

[steve_trousers]

Yes, perhaps your right massive boost would be more accurate.

But lets face it it's not going to happen because she told the truth on the stand in 1986. In my opinion there is a far greater chance that even a psychopath like Bamber will finally own up to what he has done, as he approaches his frail dotage and the realization that he's going to die behind bars then why not wipe the slate clean ?

That probably won't happen either, his sick followers being his only friends - but for me it's a reason I still keep tabs on the case, not because of any prospect of him actually being freed.

[Samson]

Yes, perhaps your right massive boost would be more accurate.

But lets face it it's not going to happen because she told the truth on the stand in 1986. In my opinion there is a far greater chance that even a psychopath like Bamber will finally own up to what he has done, as he approaches his frail dotage and the realization that he's going to die behind bars then why not wipe the slate clean ?

That probably won't happen either, his sick followers being his only friends - but for me it's a reason I still keep tabs on the case, not because of any prospect of him actually being freed.

So she told the truth once she had been dumped by a man she knew had drilled 8 bullets into sleeping 6 year olds, but was happy to consort with him till then?
I don't think so and neither does Julie or any sane case analyst.

[steve_trousers]

I'm afraid the way you describe it is nonsense, I have heard of this untruth before, it is the "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" myth.
She didn't go to the police because she had been dumped by bamber, their relationship had been going that way some time and he had more or less completely ignored her anyway since the funeral.
She went to the police as her conscience unravelled when the realization hit home of what he had done, and that there was no 3rd party involved.

Happy to assist with any questions you may have about the case.

[Samson]

I'm afraid the way you describe it is nonsense, I have heard of this untruth before, it is the "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" myth.
She didn't go to the police because she had been dumped by bamber, their relationship had been going that way some time and he had more or less completely ignored her anyway since the funeral.
She went to the police as her conscience unravelled when the realization hit home of what he had done, and that there was no 3rd party involved.

Happy to assist with any questions you may have about the case.

I obviously don't understand you. We know factually
1. Mugford identified the bodies soon after the shooting.
2. She can imagine Bamber, Matthew MacDonald or Sheila as being responsible.
3. It can't be Sheila because Bamber has said he is organising the massacre, he phoned her earlier and said it must be tonight, and afterwards phoned her at 3 30 saying it's all going well.
4. By the time she is in court she claims it was Bamber.

So any dawning realisation must be that it wasn't MacDonald, it was Bamber. Either way she knows Bamber paid someone to put 8 bullets in the heads of the sleeping 6 year olds, or Bamber put 8 bullets in the heads of sleeping 6 year olds.
Somewhere along the way she is lying, and the only lie that fits is that he told her he was planning it.

Since we all know that she would not plan holidays with a child killer, she most assuredly did not know he had organised it, so she lied in court when claiming foreknowledge he had. She was a groomed witness.

[steve_trousers]

yes your sequence of events is broadly correct, but I don't agree with your assertion that she is a liar and not simply a scared, naive young woman not being honest with the police at the outset then coming to her senses.

She could never have imagined for a second that Bamber would go through with his frequent and boorish threats to murder his family, and most likely felt somehow culpable for not going to the police earlier. She was scared.

[Samson]

yes your sequence of events is broadly correct, but I don't agree with your assertion that she is a liar and not simply a scared, naive young woman not being honest with the police at the outset then coming to her senses.

She could never have imagined for a second that Bamber would go through with his frequent and boorish threats to murder his family, and most likely felt somehow culpable for not going to the police earlier. She was scared.

I just added to my post above, so that is my reasoning. There are irreconcilable problems with Mugford's testimony, and judge Drake at least understood that when telling the jury to not rely on her. So essentially Mugford is out, and the case relies on other evidence, which in my opinion is also out.

[APRIL]

I obviously don't understand you. We know factually
1. Mugford identified the bodies soon after the shooting.
2. She can imagine Bamber, Matthew MacDonald or Sheila as being responsible.
3. It can't be Sheila because Bamber has said he is organising the massacre, he phoned her earlier and said it must be tonight, and afterwards phoned her at 3 30 saying it's all going well.
4. By the time she is in court she claims it was Bamber.

So any dawning realisation must be that it wasn't MacDonald, it was Bamber. Either way she knows Bamber paid someone to put 8 bullets in the heads of the sleeping 6 year olds, or Bamber put 8 bullets in the heads of sleeping 6 year olds.
Somewhere along the way she is lying, and the only lie that fits is that he told her he was planning it.

Since we all know that she would not plan holidays with a child killer, she most assuredly did not know he had organised it, so she lied in court when claiming foreknowledge he had. She was a groomed witness.

You don't seem to have a grasp on the difference between voicing that one "knows" and knowing that one "knows".
1) Did Julie have to fight off others who wanted to identify the twins?
2) I guess we'd all "imagine" whatever we were told.
3) Either that, or he phoned her at silly o'clock to have phone sex.
4) By the time she was in court,having witness his callous behaviour, she'd have been certain of his guilt.

Nor do you seem to have a grasp on how women act when they're scared. Many go with the idea that if they pretend everything is 'normal' it will be. What exactly makes you think JULIE 'planned' their holidays? She was a student who had to work to fund her degree.

I'll concur that she told as much of the truth as she needed -something Jeremy himself said was necessary- to secure her own future. In court, she answered questions she was asked. To the best of my knowledge, one isn't allowed to volunteer information from the witness box. It's not her fault if the defense didn't push their questions until they got an answer. You can go on bleating about what you THINK she knew until you're blue in the face. Two words. PROVE IT!

[Angelo222]

I obviously don't understand you. We know factually
1. Mugford identified the bodies soon after the shooting.
2. She can imagine Bamber, Matthew MacDonald or Sheila as being responsible.
3. It can't be Sheila because Bamber has said he is organising the massacre, he phoned her earlier and said it must be tonight, and afterwards phoned her at 3 30 saying it's all going well.
4. By the time she is in court she claims it was Bamber.

So any dawning realisation must be that it wasn't MacDonald, it was Bamber. Either way she knows Bamber paid someone to put 8 bullets in the heads of the sleeping 6 year olds, or Bamber put 8 bullets in the heads of sleeping 6 year olds.
Somewhere along the way she is lying, and the only lie that fits is that he told her he was planning it.

Since we all know that she would not plan holidays with a child killer, she most assuredly did not know he had organised it, so she lied in court when claiming foreknowledge he had. She was a groomed witness.

Inevitably Julie knew different things at different times.  Weeks before the massacre she was aware that Jeremy wasn't content with his lot and was planning to do something about it. I don't accept for a moment however that Julie took him seriously to the extent that his plans involved murder.

The sleeping pills story however is worrying, what did Julie really think he was playing at?

On the night of the murders Jeremy told Julie that it was Sheila who was out of control. Sheila was the patsy initially but at some stage this changed and Jeremy had to invent the hitman story to appease her.  Thus Jeremy had admitted that the family were murdered not by Sheila but by Matthew MacDonald.  There then arises some difficulty for Julie because at that point she was in possession of information which she should have provided to the police.  For whatever reason she failed to do so initially and so could have been prosecuted for withholding evidence.

In the end she did come forward albeit indirectly.  Thereafter she cooperated fully with the police and saw the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber through to the end. One must remember that had Julie Mugford not spoken out, a mass murderer might very well have got away with his dastardly deed.  For that at least Julie must be commended.

[steve_trousers]

I just added to my post above, so that is my reasoning. There are irreconcilable problems with Mugford's testimony, and judge Drake at least understood that when telling the jury to not rely on her. So essentially Mugford is out, and the case relies on other evidence, which in my opinion is also out.

No, your reasoning is flawed. There are no irreconcilable problems at all with Mugford's testimony, and the trial judge himself commented that her testimony had the ring of truth about it. You are distorting the truth when you say the judge told the jury not to rely on her. Another myth put out there by the sick few.

So to use your turn of phrase Mugford is most definitely in, along with the other evidence from the scene both forensic and physical. Then there is the smoking gun in the case in my opinion - Jeremy Bamber's own insistence of the 3 am call from Nevill at white house farm.

Bamber himself raised the possibility years later of a 3rd party intruder, someone who if he is innocent knows could not possibly exist as Nevill himself rang him and told him on the night that Shelia "had gone crazy and got the gun"

 

[Holly Goodhead]

No, your reasoning is flawed. There are no irreconcilable problems at all with Mugford's testimony, and the trial judge himself commented that her testimony had the ring of truth about it. You are distorting the truth when you say the judge told the jury not to rely on her. Another myth put out there by the sick few.

So to use your turn of phrase Mugford is most definitely in, along with the other evidence from the scene both forensic and physical. Then there is the smoking gun in the case in my opinion - Jeremy Bamber's own insistence of the 3 am call from Nevill at white house farm.

Bamber himself raised the possibility years later of a 3rd party intruder, someone who if he is innocent knows could not possibly exist as Nevill himself rang him and told him on the night that Shelia "had gone crazy and got the gun"

Hi Steve.  I recently posted the following on another thread.  @ 3 mins in JB's former solicitor, Ewen Smith, who went on to become a CCRC commissioner stated that JB's trial judge advised and directed the jury not to convict on JM's evidence alone as it wasn't good enough:

http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2001/03/12/BSP120301024/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1

Despite all our various views on the case it seems JB's conviction was/is underpinned by the blood and silencer?

As an aside does anyone know the current whereabouts of Ewen Smith?  The following CCRC publication dated 5th Sept 2016 indicates he was still with the commission then but he's not on the current website?

 https://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CCRC-Candidate-Pack-30-June.pdf

[Holly Goodhead]

Hi Steve.  I recently posted the following on another thread.  @ 3 mins in JB's former solicitor, Ewen Smith, who went on to become a CCRC commissioner stated that JB's trial judge advised and directed the jury not to convict on JM's evidence alone as it wasn't good enough:

http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2001/03/12/BSP120301024/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1

Despite all our various views on the case it seems JB's conviction was/is underpinned by the blood and silencer?

As an aside does anyone know the current whereabouts of Ewen Smith?  The following CCRC publication dated 5th Sept 2016 indicates he was still with the commission then but he's not on the current website?

 https://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CCRC-Candidate-Pack-30-June.pdf

I phoned the CCRC and apparently he's no longer with the commission albeit The Law Society's register has him at the CCRC.