Do they only speak out when one of their own is mentioned?
www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/12350...emy-bamber-itv-video
Jeremy was convicted on the kitchen window evidence. It is unsound. I am annoyed at how the police and officials are dragging this out.
It isn't just about this case anymore, it is about the whole ethos of media and police.
The Guardian is at the forefront of this case and the evidence discrepancies, but I am not sure if that is a genuine
duty of care or because Murdoch's paper was involved.
The media sling so much shit covertly, it is hard to get the truth.
It is no longer simply about whether he has done it or not. It is about the evidence used to convict him and the reluctance of officials to comply over 3 decades. This case never featured in the hacking inquiry and press ethics investigations.
I class the evidence in both this case and Barry Georges's conviction as 'Schroedinger's evidence'.
What was used to convict can also be used not to convict? It is right down the middle.
Mugford lied about a hitman.
She had not only the beauty of hindsight but the beauty of
foresight as she claimed she knew he was plotting to kill his family.
She did nothing to warn them. She went to the police when he cheated.
It is also claimed she received two phone calls on that night. One to say it was going down and another from Jeremy to say "He was worried something was wrong at the farm". The two calls contradict the nature of each other.
Jeremy himself isn't picking the best points to fight his corner.