[Kazanne]

Anyone watching this on 5,just started looks interesting.

[Kizzy]

Is that the sexy serial killer?... ooh *puts telly on*

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Is that the sexy serial killer?... ooh *puts telly on*

I didn't realise they were adopted.

[fingers]

When does this "Human Rights" fiasco end?

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...sentences.html

[Kizzy]

Have it on now, at what age did they say they had been adopted kaz?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Have it on now, at what age did they say they had been adopted kaz?

Not sure Kiz,missed that bit,think they were quite young and he apparently resented the sister.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by fingers

When does this "Human Rights" fiasco end?

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...sentences.html

Yeah,it takes the piss fingers,where are the victims rights.Grr

[fingers]

He was 6 weeks old when they adopted him!

> http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co....biography.html

[Z]

Oh this guy..

[Kazanne]

Who could shoot kids asleep in bed!!! awful

[Z]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Who could shoot kids asleep in bed!!! awful

Reading more about the case now - he seems cold hearted

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Zee

Reading more about the case now - he seems cold hearted

I always thought this was an American crime,and yes a very cold hearted man

[joeysteele]

Playing the advocate for both sides here, I feel myself the evidence is strong against him,what came forward at the time anyway.
My own view is that he likely did carry out the murders.

Having said that, I felt this programme tonight was biased against him, I saw a documentary a few years ago that raised a lot of issues that could 'cloud' the certainty that he had committed the murders.

My Grandmother always believed he was innocent, she said had he not dumped the Julie Mugford woman,no way would he ever have stood trial, since in the main it was her testimony that hammered him after he had gone off with someone else leaving her behind.

There are 2 things relevant,in addition to the fact he has always maintained that he did not do the murders.
Despite all the evidence presented in court, 2 jurors could not agree to a guilty verdict and he was sentenced on a 10 to 2 vote of guilty.
We hear a lot of lie detectors on the likes of Jeremy Kyle,Bamber had a lie detector done on him in prison in 2007 which he passed!
Of course lie detectors are not admissable in court.

I still think he likely did the murders myself but also it seems there is room for some doubt no matter how small.
Even with 2 of the jurors at his trial, who, to stick to their position that he was innocent, must have been totally unconvinced of his guilt to hold out and split the jury decIsion.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Playing the advocate for both sides here, I feel myself the evidence is strong against him,what came forward at the time anyway.
My own view is that he likely did carry out the murders.

Having said that, I felt this programme tonight was biased against him, I saw a documentary a few years ago that raised a lot of issues that could 'cloud' the certainty that he had committed the murders.

My Grandmother always believed he was innocent, she said had he not dumped the Julie Mugford woman,no way would he ever have stood trial, since in the main it was her testimony that hammered him after he had gone off with someone else leaving her behind.

There are 2 things relevant,in addition to the fact he has always maintained that he did not do the murders.
Despite all the evidence presented in court, 2 jurors could not agree to a guilty verdict and he was sentenced on a 10 to 2 vote of guilty.
We hear a lot of lie detectors on the likes of Jeremy Kyle,Bamber had a lie detector done on him in prison in 2007 which he passed!
Of course lie detectors are not admissable in court.

I still think he likely did the murders myself but also it seems there is room for some doubt no matter how small.
Even with 2 of the jurors at his trial, who, to stick to their position that he was innocent, must have been totally unconvinced of his guilt to hold out and split the jury decIsion.

I hadn't heard any of that Joey,that puts another slant on it,gonna read up a bit more on this.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I hadn't heard any of that Joey,that puts another slant on it,gonna read up a bit more on this.

It is a fascinating case Kazanne, it all seemed almost obvious towards the adopted Sister,then is moved to him, of course he was the likely main beneficiary after they all were killed but this Julie Mugford was his girlfriend.
She said not a thing,even after attending the funerals with him.
She only said he had discussed this with her, after he left her here in the UK and went off on a trip with some other woman.

Then you got the Cousins and others adding flames to the fire.

As I said, despite all that, the jury still could not come to a unanimous verdict with 2 insisting he was not guilty even after all the evidence and the long trial.
Then in 2007,I am sure it was, he had a lie detector done on him in prison and it was reported he had passed that lie detector.

[Z]

I think his cavalier attitude after his family's death is what makes people think he's guilty of something, just like how people suspect the McCanns of being guilty of something because they were seen smiling and laughing just days after Madeleine disappeared. People deal with grief in different ways so of course people are going to be suspicious of someone who doesn't appear to be devastated at the loss of a part of their family, but not everybody is the same... my friend's brother died in an accident and she didn't even cry at his funeral - that doesn't mean she didn't care, it's just that she didn't express her grief through floods of tears.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Zee

I think his cavalier attitude after his family's death is what makes people think he's guilty of something, just like how people suspect the McCanns of being guilty of something because they were seen smiling and laughing just days after Madeleine disappeared. People deal with grief in different ways so of course people are going to be suspicious of someone who doesn't appear to be devastated at the loss of a part of their family, but not everybody is the same... my friend's brother died in an accident and she didn't even cry at his funeral - that doesn't mean she didn't care, it's just that she didn't express her grief through floods of tears.

That's all very true too Zee.

[Kizzy]

I thought it was common for psychopaths to pass lie detectors as they can control their pulse rate under stress?

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I thought it was common for psychopaths to pass lie detectors as they can control their pulse rate under stress?

He isn't a proven psychopath though to be fair Kizzy, it is another issue of doubt, he has apparantly undergone in prison too,several psychological assessments and all results come back saying there is no evidence of him having psychopathic tendencies.
Which is likely why his lawyers were able to arrange a full lie detector test for him while in prison.
The lie detector however covers and relies on a lot more than just pulse rate.I would guess he went through all relevant checks before being allowed to take it.

I find this case fascinating at times,I read loads about it while at Uni too,it still for me hinges on the jury verdict and for so many murders and whatever evidence was presented at the time, 2 of 12 people could not believe and bring themselves to agree to a guilty verdict.

I've looked at this case from both from the defending him and prosecuting him angle just from what I learned about the case and all that was revealed at the trial too,that we know of and were told.
I also did that exercise after I watched the documentary a few years back which showed the prosecution case rather flawed to say the least.

I could come up with both results, slightly more strongly the one that he likely did do the murders but I couldn't say that with the exclusion of any doubt at all.
That as you know is a rule of law that someone must be considered guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, I think had I been on his jury, I would have likely leaned more to the 2 who couldn't 100% bring the guilty verdicts.

In fact, this case leaned almost totally on Julie Mugford, coming forward after she believed he had gone with someone else and ditched her.
Almost all the other evidence after that was presented after Julie Mugford's claims he had said he was going to arrange these murders to be done.
Had he stayed faithfull to her and inherited the full estate as he was likely to do, this may never have come to trial at all.

I preferred the more factual documentary from a few years back which covered the doubt on the newer evidence as well as looking at the facts of it too unlike the programme last night which didn't set out to look at all angles of this case in my view anyway.

[Nedusa]

I think most people connected with the case do feel he is guilty, although he protested his innocence and two members of the Jury could not be persuaded of his guilt , the general view was and still is that he did commit these atrocious murders.

In cases where there is a definite reasonable doubt you find there is a large group of people willing to take on the case as a possible miscarriage of justice and so start campaigns to fight for a re-trial. But in this case no such protestations were made.

And as no new evidence ever came to light, no other suspects were ever sought and no DNA evidence taken from the crime scene ever pointed the finger at a 3rd party.

So I think he did commit this crime for whatever reasons and the Conviction is safe.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I think most people connected with the case do feel he is guilty, although he protested his innocence and two members of the Jury could not be persuaded of his guilt , the general view was and still is that he did commit these atrocious murders.

In cases where there is a definite reasonable doubt you find there is a large group of people willing to take on the case as a possible miscarriage of justice and so start campaigns to fight for a re-trial. But in this case no such protestations were made.

And as no new evidence ever came to light, no other suspects were ever sought and no DNA evidence taken from the crime scene ever pointed the finger at a 3rd party.

So I think he did commit this crime for whatever reasons and the Conviction is safe.

That is true, he has however strongly insisted his innocence and there have been numerous attempts to get this case re-tried or reviewed, many specialists also from here and the USA have cast doubt on the newer evidence, however he is one of those cases where the Home Secretary of the time insisted in his case life has to mean life.

The other point is the newer evidence was not there at the time of the full original investigation by the police, he was not even a serious suspect by them until Julie Mugford made her statement.

His Lawyers have been consistent at looking at all ways of getting this case looked at again, they still are.

I doubt that will happen, for this case to be possibly looked at again with all the expert doubts on the evidence that convicted him well after the event, the miscarriage of justice after so long would be a massive embarrassment for the police, the justice system and Govts too where successive Home Secretary's have refused for it to be looked at again.

The evidence that came to light well after the major investigation by the police has the charge of being planted after Julie Mugford made her statement.
The Police searched the house and found nothing to incriminate him in their investigation, after Julie gave her account of things after he left her, then relatives supposedly found this and that in the house and then a case against him was built then.

As I said, I too lean that he likely did the murders but seeing how long he has insisted he did not and also the many efforts of his defence teams and lawyers,even to having outside experts analysise the evidence.
That leaves me after reading more about it and watching that documentary from a few years back,knowing that he also passed a lie detector, then I could not say 100% he was guilty.

I also doubt he would even have been ever in court for it, had Julie Mugford not turned on him due to thinking he had ditched her for someone else.

It doesn't really much hold with me that he would have confided such information to Julie Mugford and then so soon to risk all by dumping her and I would also be strongly asking the following question.
If he did confide to her that he was planning to arrange the murders, why did she say not a word all the time she thought he was her boyfriend even around the time and after the initial police investigation,she even attended the funerals with him.

It was and is a fascinating case,unfortunately full of tragedy and it would be far worse if the wrong person has been in prison all these years for it.
I personally doubt it will ever get a full review, however I myself would actually more likely be someone who would support a new trial as to this one.

[arista]

He is a Evil Killer

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

That is true, he has however strongly insisted his innocence and there have been numerous attempts to get this case re-tried or reviewed, many specialists also from here and the USA have cast doubt on the newer evidence, however he is one of those cases where the Home Secretary of the time insisted in his case life has to mean life.

The other point is the newer evidence was not there at the time of the full original investigation by the police, he was not even a serious suspect by them until Julie Mugford made her statement.

His Lawyers have been consistent at looking at all ways of getting this case looked at again, they still are.

I doubt that will happen, for this case to be possibly looked at again with all the expert doubts on the evidence that convicted him well after the event, the miscarriage of justice after so long would be a massive embarrassment for the police, the justice system and Govts too where successive Home Secretary's have refused for it to be looked at again.

The evidence that came to light well after the major investigation by the police has the charge of being planted after Julie Mugford made her statement.
The Police searched the house and found nothing to incriminate him in their investigation, after Julie gave her account of things after he left her, then relatives supposedly found this and that in the house and then a case against him was built then.

As I said, I too lean that he likely did the murders but seeing how long he has insisted he did not and also the many efforts of his defence teams and lawyers,even to having outside experts analysise the evidence.
That leaves me after reading more about it and watching that documentary from a few years back,knowing that he also passed a lie detector, then I could not say 100% he was guilty.

I also doubt he would even have been ever in court for it, had Julie Mugford not turned on him due to thinking he had ditched her for someone else.

It doesn't really much hold with me that he would have confided such information to Julie Mugford and then so soon to risk all by dumping her and I would also be strongly asking the following question.
If he did confide to her that he was planning to arrange the murders, why did she say not a word all the time she thought he was her boyfriend even around the time and after the initial police investigation,she even attended the funerals with him.

It was and is a fascinating case,unfortunately full of tragedy and it would be far worse if the wrong person has been in prison all these years for it.
I personally doubt it will ever get a full review, however I myself would actually more likely be someone who would support a new trial as to this one.

Thanks Joey, interesting post. It really would be an absolute tragedy for this man if after having his whole family murdered he is wrongly convicted of all their murders. It would be the miscarriage of all miscarriages of Justice if he was actually totally innocent.

It is hardly worth even thinking about..... try and put yourself into his position if that were indeed the case, no wonder his mental health has taken such a battering...!!!

I almost wish he was guilty because I cannot believe our great Justice system could fail so spectacularly.

In fact as you say in your post what if the utter and absolute embarrassment this miscarriage would cause to the state that they prefer instead to keep an innocent man locked away, sacrificed on the alter of juidicial mistakes the whole story kept out of the media lest people start asking questions.

It's frightening it really is, as I said before I hope he is guilty because to suffer this torture is truly beyond the pale...............!!!!!!

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Thanks Joey, interesting post. It really would be an absolute tragedy for this man if after having his whole family murdered he is wrongly convicted of all their murders. It would be the miscarriage of all miscarriages of Justice if he was actually totally innocent.

It is hardly worth even thinking about..... try and put yourself into his position if that were indeed the case, no wonder his mental health has taken such a battering...!!!

I almost wish he was guilty because I cannot believe our great Justice system could fail so spectacularly.

In fact as you say in your post what if the utter and absolute embarrassment this miscarriage would cause to the state that they prefer instead to keep an innocent man locked away, sacrificed on the alter of juidicial mistakes the whole story kept out of the media lest people start asking questions.

It's frightening it really is, as I said before I hope he is guilty because to suffer this torture is truly beyond the pale...............!!!!!!

My Grandmother who was around when this case was on,( I wasn't even born then), she was convinced of his innocence.
She said being the only one left after the murders,he was almost sure to be likely suspect number one,he stood to gain everything. She added that no way after supposedly planning this,if he was the one that really did it, would he then confide in anyone else about it.
She always thought it odd that his supposed girlfriend said not a word to anyone until after he had gone away with another woman so thought he had dumped her.

Along with my Dad's influence,this case and story was what got me interested in the law.
I just hope someday it is thoroughly looked into again as his lawyers keep trying to have it done.
On such a case,of multiple murders,with a long trial and the evidence that was submitted,for 2 people selected to judge the case,to then make a firm stand and say he was not guilty,does not leave me that comfortable with the conviction.

Will we ever know,I doubt it after 25 years now.
The mess to sort out as to the estate,compensation and all else would be massive were he ever to be shown not to be guilty.