For Those That Believe JB Guilty...

[Holly Goodhead]

Touche Holly.

Either way, Julie Mugford's testimony certainly had the ring of truth about it and she was a credible and excellent witness and not a liar as Mr Samson asserted.

Well even 2 of the 12 jurors didn't find JM a credible and excellent witness. 

Personally I find her testimony unreliable although I do find myself having quite a lot of sympathy for her as I feel she was used and abused by EP. 

[steve_trousers]

Indeed 2 of the Jurors wept openly as the verdict was delivered, I'm sorry but that tells you all you need to know about these persons in the face of a mountain of other evidence which was presented to them, pointing to Jeremy Bamber as the perpetrator.

I too feel sympathy for Julie Mugford, this thoroughly decent and conscionable young woman told the truth in the end, if that's what you call being used by the Essex police.

[Holly Goodhead]

Indeed 2 of the Jurors wept openly as the verdict was delivered, I'm sorry but that tells you all you need to know about these persons in the face of a mountain of other evidence which was presented to them, pointing to Jeremy Bamber as the perpetrator.

I too feel sympathy for Julie Mugford, this thoroughly decent and conscionable young woman told the truth in the end, if that's what you call being used by the Essex police.

I'm interested in the mountain of other evidence which wasn't presented to the jury, pointing to SC as the perp namely a soc reconstruction and a visit to WHF where experts talk through the evidence:

Dr Vanezis - trajectories and wound tracks
Malcolm Fletcher - casings and distance of shots
John Hayward - interpretation of bloodstaining

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8094.msg401293#msg401293

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8094.msg401301#msg401301

[Samson]

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"

 

On the one point, Bamber raising the possibility there was a third party intruder, why not some time in 30 years? The lunatic fringe are asserting Sheila could not have done it, Bamber knows he didn't dunnit, so a 3rd party is all that is left. Of course he is down the rabbit hole and learns like Alice everything is possible.

 But it is not.

[Samson]

Are you able to provide a source for the "ring of truth about it" comment? 

The four 13 year old female prosecution witnesses mentioned above "lied for a laugh" at Stefan Kiszko's trial and yet the trial judge referred to their "bravery" and "honesty". 

Samson and I believe JM was 'groomed' by EP.

And indeed Holly you are superbly highlighting that judges are not remotely separated from the common citizenry in their ability to see only what they wish to see.

I have found this from studying  a score of cases, it never ceases to astonish.

[Samson]

Again, you can't compare witnesses on 2 different cases. Your comparing Julies testimony with witnesses on a totally unrelated case which turned out to be a miscarriage of Justice. Something we know the Bamber case is not as he implicated himself with his insistence on the 3 am call from Nevill at the farm.

I don't need to provide sources, the judges comments are in the public domain. The jury were asked to weigh up the evidence and believed her, the same conclusion I would have reached had I been a juror. The same Evidence she repeated at the 2002 appeal.

You seem obsessed by this 3 am call. Somehow you wield this as proof he is a liar, but my understanding is the call was confirmed by the phone exchange, the only question being whether Nevill to Jeremy or Jeremy to Jeremy.

[John]

You seem obsessed by this 3 am call. Somehow you wield this as proof he is a liar, but my understanding is the call was confirmed by the phone exchange, the only question being whether Nevill to Jeremy or Jeremy to Jeremy.

The latter definately.

[steve_trousers]

Your understanding again is wrong. BT were not able in 1985 to log calls and tell who called who and when like they can now, so Jeremy's claim could not be corroborated.

If you do not understand the significance of Nevill's call then may I suggest you read the following in it's entirety

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=922.0

[Samson]

Your understanding again is wrong. BT were not able in 1985 to log calls and tell who called who and when like they can now, so Jeremy's claim could not be corroborated.

If you do not understand the significance of Nevill's call then may I suggest you read the following in it's entirety

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=922.0

A lot of unnecessary confusion surrounds the call.
I would like you to present the key datapoint that persuades you a telephone call was not initiated by Nevill about 3 am.
Then we can discuss it.
I always start by taking claims at face value, such as Jeremy's claim, and wait for the claim to be disproved with hard science.

[david1819]

Either way, Julie Mugford's testimony certainly had the ring of truth about it and she was a credible and excellent witness and not a liar as Mr Samson asserted.

Anyone who is prepared to dig deep enough can work out for themselves that Julie's  testimony may have been obtained not from Jeremy but from elsewhere. 


Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"

Why was he allowed to tell this to the Jury? here's why

Jeremy's "confession"

Below is what Julie claims Jeremy confessed to her. This statement is questionable for two reasons. Jeremy's alleged confession of the crime as told by Julie Mugford does not correspond or coincide with the actual crime scene itself, as we all know Shelia was found on the floor not on the bed, the bible next to her also on the floor not on her chest. Had Jeremy committed the murders and given a detailed confession as Julie claims then Julies statements would corroborate the crime scene and they don't!



The second reason Julies statement is questionable is because her description of Jeremy's alleged confession is exactly the same as Ann Eaton and RWB's impression of events as seen in Ann Eatons notes and RWB's diary written in August. See below

Ann Eaton's note's second line down "Shelia on bed bible on chest"

RWB's Diary


So not only can we establish that Julies claims are suspect we can now narrow down were she actually got that information from. Either Police or Ann Eaton as Rivlin rightly told the jury.


More disturbing correlations

Windows and the Bike

In August RWB speculates that Jeremy used a bike then also in august RWB and AE speculate how Jeremy would enter the building 





Then come September the 8th Julie reveals how Jeremy "confessed" to her his method of travel and entry, exactly how RWB and AE predicted!


The Wet suit

On the 28th of August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy used a wet suit in the murders


This then appears in Julie Mugford's diary along with the bicycle


The £2000.00 payment

2nd of September RWB claims Jeremy lent a friend £2000



Julie then claims that Jeremy paid Macdonald £2000




The Fingerprints and the gun magazine

In August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy got Shelia to load the bullets into the magazine to get her fingerprints on them.



Then come September lo and behold Julie claims this is exactly what Jeremy had confessed to her.



Julies statements have direct parallels with Ann Eaton notes and RWBs diary both of which deviate from the facts of the crime scene and contradict other factual aspects surrounding the case. Therefore in my view, Jeremy did not and could not have confessed or told her anything in her statements, it is impossible!

One only has to read Julie Mugfords statements and the cross examination of Ann Eaton to workout were Julie really got those details from in order for her to make the claim that Jeremy confessed to the killings. The devil is in the details, its just a matter of putting the puzzle together.

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 asked Julie question of the bible some time after the 7th August then Julie answers to Ann that the bible was on Sheila's chest, Then she would have asked Julie how she got that information and Julie would have had to tell her that Jeremy told her the story about Matthew MacDonald.

In the trial transcript below. While cross examined by Rivlin QC, at first AE said that she thought she had first heard about the bible on Sheila's chest from Julie Mugford, but Rivlin QC was setting a trap to force AE to admit she actually got that information from the police  by showing her her own statement which she said she got the information from the police at the house. Another interesting observation, is that AE seems to remember the police telling her all the details mentioned in the statement but when it comes to bible she just happens to forget. Selective memory loss at times most convenient when it comes to the big issues seems to occur often in AE.  ::)

Ann Eaton trial testimony: cross examined 7th October 1986
RIVLIN. I would like to ask you another thing about Julie Mugford, and it is this
something I was going to ask you before the luncheon adjournment- there
came a stage shortly after the events when a police officer told you something
in confidence, did he not, about what had happened and what had been found?
Do you remember? He told you, amongst other things, that when 'Sheila had
been found there was a bible on her chest?

AE. I did hear there was a bible on her chest.

MR. JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): Did you hear it from the policeman is the
question?

AE. I cannot remember, but I heard it whilst in Jeremy's cottage.

MR. RIVLIN: Let remind you. Is it not right that one of the police officers
told you that Uncle Nevill was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle, that the
twins were in their beds, shot?

AE. Yes.

Rivlin. That Aunt June Bamber and Sheila were both on the bed, shot, with Sheila having
a bible on her chest, with the gun beside her?

AE. Yes.

Rivlin. And is it right that shortly after that information had been imparted to you,
you had a conversation with Julie Mugford, and you told Julie that when Sheila.
had been found there had been a bible found on her chest?

AE. I really cannot remember who told me the bible was on the chest.

MR JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): That is not the question now, but it is right
you should tell us. You do not remember who told you that Sheila was found
with the bible on her chest, but the question now is, whoever it was who told
you that, did you pass that on to Julie?

AE. I do not remember. I did have a conversation with Julie about the same time.
She said to me Sheila kept saying, I thought she said she was a "white wedge", or perhaps it was a “white
witch", but I do not remember who told me that the bible was on the chest.

MR. JUSTICE Drake: I do not think we have the full answer yet, Mr. Rivlin.

MR. RIVLIN: Would you accept that it was, in fact, one of the officers who told
you that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest and the gun beside her?

AE. I cannot remember who told me the bible was on her chest, so I am saying
it could have been Julie. I cannot remember who told me.

RIVLIN. In those circumstances I think that I must show the document to the witness.

MR. JUSTICE DRAKE: What the witness just said is “it could have been Julie who
told me that" - that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest. (To the
witness): Wherereas the question you are being asked is put the other way around
That someone told you and you told Julie that she had been found with a bible
on her chest. That is the question. If you cannot answer, you cannot?

AE. I cannot remember. I just remember Julie saying something about Sheila
said she was a “white wedge", which I thought she said, but it turned out she
thought she was a "white witch", but I cannot remember who told me about the
bible.

MR. RIVLIN: Could you remember at the time who told you about the bible?

AE. I cannot remember.

RIVLIN. You made statements to the police officers, did you not, in this case, and I
would like you to look, please, at a statement which is dated 8th September
1985. (Same handed). Your signature appears on this document. Is it a
typewritten document? Does it bear your signature?

AE. No.

MR RIVLIN: I am told that the original is outside.

MR. ARLIDGE: I will have it checked with the original.

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"?


AE. 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
the policeman telling me Uncle Nevill was beside the coal scuttle, the twins
were in their beds, shot, Auntie June and Sheila were on the bed with the gun
between them, and I asked how they were shot, and he went like this. I do
not know who told me. I am sorry. Maybe it was a mistake. Asking me now.
I cannot remember who told me.



Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record). I have shown you the trial transcripts and the very statements mentioned in those trial transcripts.

The fundamental point (this I have explained multiple times) Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).

1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.

2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)

3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!


This post has been edited in order to comply with forum rules

[steve_trousers]

Jeremy shot himself in the foot by sticking with his s.o.s call from the farm. Nevill could not have made that call stating "Sheila had gone crazy and got the gun" as it precludes a 3rd party involvement, and narrows it down to either Sheila or Jeremy as the murderer.

You will recall the mountain of physical, forensic and circumstantial evidence left at the scene, which proves Sheila could not possibly have been the perpetrator. Therefore Jeremy Bamber is guilty. Case closed.

[Samson]

Jeremy shot himself in the foot by sticking with his s.o.s call from the farm. Nevill could not have made that call stating "Sheila had gone crazy and got the gun" as it precludes a 3rd party involvement, and narrows it down to either Sheila or Jeremy as the murderer.

You will recall the mountain of physical, forensic and circumstantial evidence left at the scene, which proves Sheila could not possibly have been the perpetrator. Therefore Jeremy Bamber is guilty. Case closed.

Okay I understand your position. You have invoked simple modal logic.
One of your premises appears to be that Sheila could not do this crime and remain unsullied. This premise is false, so you should use hard science as requested to prove Nevill did not phone Jeremy.

Obviously this crime can be replicated using actors to show how Sheila could pick up a loaded gun, go upstairs and shoot her mother, shoot her father in the mouth as he came upstairs to investigate, then when he is incapacitated swing the gun by the barrel to bludgeon him, reload the cartridge with her fingernails remote from the cartridge, and shoot again.
Then we can have her lying down and shooting herself twice, after realising the first shot missed her brain.

If necessary she can wash herself before her suicide.

[Samson]

And to understand the context of David's detailed post.

" 'I realised that I was listening to the horrific truth,’ Acting Chief Superintendent Mike Ainsley said of Julie’s interview. He was in no doubt that Jeremy had carried out the murders himself, ‘but in view of what had occurred in the previous month, including the findings of the coroner’s court, it was essential to establish the veracity of what Julie Mugford was now saying.’

She and Liz were taken into protective custody at the force training school in Chelmsford. ‘I was encouraged not to talk to anyone outside while I was there,’ Julie remembered, ‘and that included my mum."

[adam]

No one's claiming Bamber gave Julie a detailed confession. He even said MM committed the massacre as a proxy.

Bamber would have spent more time telling Julie he was 'watertight' & there was 'nothing she could do'. That was when he wasn't talking to Brett Collins or other friends.

Julie said Sheila was on the bed when she was on the floor. So what ?

I don't know when Julie got information from AE. She was Bamber's girlfriend after the massacre & being whisked around England & Amsterdam after he dragged her over to WHF at 5am on the massacre morning. 

If AE suspected Bamber, she's not going to tell his girlfriend as it will alert Bamber.

Yes Julie did say Bamber cycled there. He brought the bike over to WHF just before the massacre. So she would not need AE to think up this lie.

Julie said the bible was on Sheila when it was next to her. So what ?

Supporters are just ignoring the several & huge amounts of disadvantages Julie would have in single handedly deciding to try to frame an innocent man. A month after the massacre.

[adam]

Disadvantages Julie had in approaching the police and accusing an innocent man of a 5x massacre.

Bamber would deny everything.

There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.

She would be charged by the police. When caught lying.

Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.

To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?

Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?

There was no financial reward in approaching the police.

It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.

She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims.

Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.

She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.

It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.

She may quickly wilt under pressure.  This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?

It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.

It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.

It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.

An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.

It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.

She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.

It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.

She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?

She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.

She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.

Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.

If an unsuccessful police approach  became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.