Text only | Text with Images

Jeremy Bamber Discussion Forum

The Case for Reasonable Doubt: the lost posts of Blue Forum user 'QCChevalier'/'Gascoigne'/'Guest29835' => Julie Mugford => Topic started by: Erik Narramore on January 30, 2022, 02:14:24 AM

Title: Could The Convictions Stand With Or Without Julie Mugford, Or Only With Her?
Post by: Erik Narramore on January 30, 2022, 02:14:24 AM
A question for the guilt camp:

Even if Julie retracted her evidence, Jeremy's conviction would still stand because of the silencer, is that right?
Title: Re: Could The Convictions Stand With Or Without Julie Mugford, Or Only With Her?
Post by: Erik Narramore on January 30, 2022, 02:14:39 AM
Conversely, if the silencer were discredited but Julie's evidence remained in place, can I assume you would still consider the conviction safe?  After all, Julie's word can be utterly relied on, can it not?
Title: Re: Could The Convictions Stand With Or Without Julie Mugford, Or Only With Her?
Post by: Erik Narramore on January 30, 2022, 02:14:58 AM
Let me put it a different way:

If the case against Jeremy depended on Julie's word alone, would you still stand by it?
Title: Re: Could The Convictions Stand With Or Without Julie Mugford, Or Only With Her?
Post by: Erik Narramore on January 30, 2022, 02:16:13 AM
Or are you saying that the police didn't need Julie's evidence or the silencer?  They could have convicted Jeremy without these things?
Text only | Text with Images