For Those That Believe JB Guilty...

[APRIL]

According to CC, his father was in just as bad a state as he was on hearing news about the twins.

I fully understand that neither Colin nor his parents would have wanted to witness the destruction of the boys. Colin said he wanted to remember them as they had been. If the Boutflowers couldn't bring themselves to identify their adult relatives, it stands to reason that Colin and his father couldn't identify the children.

[Holly Goodhead]

Undoubtedly. But there must have been reticence on everyone's parts for the task to have fallen to Julie.

According to AE Robert Howie volunteered but as his mother, Betty, had spoken to the press and as a result of this EP wanted someone else.  No idea why talking to the press would change things. 

I can't recall the relationship between the Howies and the wider family.  I think they were the orphaned children of June's aunt or uncle and the Speakmans brought them up.  Something like that.  Its in CAL's book. 

Was RH going to identify the twins too or just NB, June and SC?  If I remember correctly I think SC was friendly with a Sarah Howie so maybe the Howies were able to identify the twins.  No idea of the relationship between RH and SH. 

It seems the Howies were quite supportive towards JB.  At one stage offering to put up bail money.  RWB said something like he had enough to see JB off! 

[adam]

According to AE Robert Howie volunteered but as his mother, Betty, had spoken to the press and as a result of this EP wanted someone else.  No idea why talking to the press would change things. 

I can't recall the relationship between the Howies and the wider family.  I think they were the orphaned children of June's aunt or uncle and the Speakmans brought them up.  Something like that.  Its in CAL's book. 

Was RH going to identify the twins too or just NB, June and SC?  If I remember correctly I think SC was friendly with a Sarah Howie so maybe the Howies were able to identify the twins.  No idea of the relationship between RH and SH. 

It seems the Howies were quite supportive towards JB.  At one stage offering to put up bail money.  RWB said something like he had enough to see JB off!

Do you agree Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins ?

Other posters believe if they were Julie's age & in her situation,  they would have refused to do this. Although no one has ever been in her situation.

These other posters believe everyone else will act in the exact same way they would, therefore Bamber is innocent.

[Holly Goodhead]

According to CC, his father was in just as bad a state as he was on hearing news about the twins.

I'm sure he was but the norm is for a member of the family to carry out this task?

"If the Coroner orders a post-mortem examination then a member of the family will be asked to formally identify the body".

https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/coroners-post-mortems-and-inquests

At the time JM was only 20 years of age and just JB's girlfriend of 18 months.  It seems strange to my mind this task fell on her shoulders.   

[Holly Goodhead]

Do you agree Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins ?

Other posters believe if they were Julie's age & in her situation,  they would have refused to do this. Although no one has ever been in her situation.

These other posters believe everyone else will act in the exact same way they would, therefore Bamber is innocent.

I believe JB is innocent based mainly on the 3 reasons stated in the following post:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8016.msg389770#msg389770

I find JM an unreliable prosecution witness regardless of whether or not she identified the twins.

[Samson]

Do you agree Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins ?

Other posters believe if they were Julie's age & in her situation,  they would have refused to do this. Although no one has ever been in her situation.

These other posters believe everyone else will act in the exact same way they would, therefore Bamber is innocent.

Of course Julie would want to admire Jeremy's handiwork. What young woman would not be proud of their boyfriend for drilling bullets in the heads of sleeping 6 year old angels. Now she could get on with planning the joint holidays and partying with her noble paramour.

In fact I am pointing out how nonsensical it is to believe a word that appalling woman ever said.

[Caroline]

Of course Julie would want to admire Jeremy's handiwork. What young woman would not be proud of their boyfriend for drilling bullets in the heads of sleeping 6 year old angels. Now she could get on with planning the joint holidays and partying with her noble paramour.

In fact I am pointing out how nonsensical it is to believe a word that appalling woman ever said.

But I thought you thought he was innocent??

[Samson]

But I thought you thought he was innocent??

I have no doubt at all he is innocent.
Don't forget that guilters rely on Mugford for the position they hold, and he would never have been arrested without her revelations. But I have yet to see the calculations that have her evidence being reconciled with any real world narrative.

[Caroline]

I have no doubt at all he is innocent.
Don't forget that guilters rely on Mugford for the position they hold, and he would never have been arrested without her revelations. But I have yet to see the calculations that have her evidence being reconciled with any real world narrative.

No, you're wrong.

[steve_trousers]

Of course Julie would want to admire Jeremy's handiwork. What young woman would not be proud of their boyfriend for drilling bullets in the heads of sleeping 6 year old angels. Now she could get on with planning the joint holidays and partying with her noble paramour.

In fact I am pointing out how nonsensical it is to believe a word that appalling woman ever said.

Julie Mugford's testimony was the nail in Bamber's coffin that the innocent camp can't explain away, so you resort to defamation of her character. There is no justification at all for describing her as 'appalling'

The fact is this thoroughly decent and conscionable young woman told the truth on the stand, the very reason that despite your best efforts and all your diagrams Jeremy Bamber will never be released.

Unless of course he confesses, which is a real possibility now that the glory days of his sick little campaign are well and truly over.
 

[Holly Goodhead]

Can we refrain from personal comments re lay prosecution witnesses and the use of emotive language.  It is sufficient to refer to the witness/testimony as reliable or unreliable setting out your reasons why.  Thanks.  

[Samson]

Can we refrain from personal comments re lay prosecution witnesses and the use of emotive language.  It is sufficient to refer to the witness/testimony as reliable or unreliable setting out your reasons why.  Thanks. 

Holly, I am aware of your forgiveness of this woman from a sense of 20 year old vulnerability, but she delivered elaborate and questionable testimony in a court of law for which she was paid 25,000 pounds and delivered a man to live in a cage for life without parole.
Knowingly.
To call her appalling is a kindness of sorts.

[steve_trousers]

Holly, I am aware of your forgiveness of this woman from a sense of 20 year old vulnerability, but she delivered elaborate and questionable testimony in a court of law for which she was paid 25,000 pounds and delivered a man to live in a cage for life without parole.
Knowingly.
To call her appalling is a kindness of sorts.

Again, you have no justification at all to smudge her character.

There was nothing questionable at all about her testimony, this brave woman took the stand and what she told the court had the ring of truth about it.


 

[steve_trousers]

I have no doubt at all he is innocent.
Don't forget that guilters rely on Mugford for the position they hold, and he would never have been arrested without her lies. But I have yet to see the calculations that have her evidence being reconciled with any real world narrative.

This, along with the mountain of forensic, physical and circumstantial evidence which proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Sheila could not have been the perpetrator.

As for your last sentence. Her evidence is a big problem for your camp as no diagrams can explain it away. You are left with no option other than attempting to destroy her character with all these untruths.

[steve_trousers]

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.

Please can anyone questioning Julie's evidence please refer to this excellent post by Adam.

I couldn't have put it any better.