Hi from undecided

[Undecided]

Someone trying to work out at what point, Julie Mugford the self confessed liar, began telling the truth.
When I have worked that out, I will be able to follow the trial judges direction, and choosing between Mugford or Bamber, convict or acquit accordingly.

Edited as unfair comment Undecided
an unnecessary addition and thinking about it , it wwasnt a cause I was even prepared to support myself.

[susan]

Hello Undecided  Good point I had never looked at it that way before but I supose because she had no criminal record and would have done had she not testified against Jeremy then she would not have been able to work with children.

[Jane]

Someone trying to work out at what point, Julie Mugford the self confessed liar, began telling the truth.
When I have worked that out, I will be able to follow the trial judges direction, and choosing between Mugford or Bamber, convict or acquit accordingly.

Isn’t it strange that someone who, by her own admission, condoned the brutal murder of two children , can be allowed to work as a teacher, never mind a children’s teacher !!!

HaHa :D Nice one, undecided, and welcome.

[Steve_uk]

Someone trying to work out at what point, Julie Mugford the self confessed liar, began telling the truth.
When I have worked that out, I will be able to follow the trial judges direction, and choosing between Mugford or Bamber, convict or acquit accordingly.

Isn’t it strange that someone who, by her own admission, condoned the brutal murder of two children , can be allowed to work as a teacher, never mind a children’s teacher !!!

You have much to learn newbie,though admittedly you are a self-confessed novice as your chosen name for this site implies and you purport to be nothing else.

I suggest that you begin with reading the post below from August 8 2012. It is a brief synopsis which may stimulate your interest in the case and lead to you reading the Statements and Transcripts section amongst others who have trodden this weary and winding road before yourself,after which I'm sure all members would welcome any revised comments you may wish to make.

Julie Mugford was not out for all she could get. She first met Jeremy at a London bar in November 1983 where they were both working and they felt a mutual attraction. It wasn't until a few months later that she realized the farming connection, and at that time Jeremy didn't even have the cottage at Goldhanger. Here is Jeremy back from his working holiday in New Zealand, not wanting to enter the farming way of life, feeling his way around maybe at a bit of a loss, whereupon he meets Julie.

Julie would stay at the cottage in Goldhanger during the holidays and it was then that she would come to meet June Bamber. Again the atmosphere would have been tense whenever June called, sometimes with Sheila and the twins but mostly alone. Again Julie sensed June's disapproval of her relationship with Jeremy and June made it clear that biblically they were living in sin together and that Julie was a harlot. June's hypocrisy is manifested because June is not good enough to marry her son, a view she would have imparted to Jeremy, but again Julie is not in this relationship for short-term gain as she rejects June's offer of buying them a flat if they would leave the village and thereby stop the rumours flowing at the Queen's Head, which were damaging to Ralph's status as the local magistrate.

Jeremy had a strange view of relationships which he had learnt from his parents having employed farm staff: people were used for what they could offer and in return they received payment. There was no emotion involved and Jeremy accepted this as normal;when he one time visited Julie's relations he couldn't understand the tactile nature and the feeling of benevolence in the family was quite alien to him. It was this feeling of warmth and loyalty which kept him in the relationship with an older woman, Suzette Ford, for a number of years.

Julie was also learning fast in Thatcherite Britain;the lesson that money talks. Why, she inquired, did Jeremy not just cut loose, leave his family behind and move on? Because, retorted Jeremy, he had too much to lose. It was in this atmosphere that Julie became cocooned, and it is one explanation that inured her to Jeremy's unpleasant and cruel streak.

At the turn of the year 1985 Jeremy had been harbouring thoughts about harming his family. The farming lifestyle didn't suit, Sheila was living it up in London whilst the agricultural life was hard physical labour, June was unreliable and might easily change her will and leave money to the Church. Jeremy was a disappointment to Ralph who wanted an heir to take over the managerial responsibility the farm as a business entailed. Jeremy wasn't a natural leader, he didn't inspire confidence around him, and Jeremy was restless. If only his family would disappear Jeremy could receive his inheritance and move on. Spurred by a chance conversation with Colin Caffell and believing that the twins were "a millstone round his neck" Jeremy began to conceive ways that his family might disappear. He made hints to Julie, who busy with the fatigue of teaching practice and giving of herself in a way not demanded by other jobs, did not take him seriously and preoccupied herself with her immediate future gaining the necessary qualifications to make something of her life. Jeremy himself had never looked far ahead in a constructive way, having failed his first attempt at gaining qualifications. As a product of a public school it was others who occupied themselves with the menial tasks and as long as Jeremy had a cheque book he felt security thereby.

It was this callous disregard for people over money which set Jeremy on his evil course. He at first borrowed some of Julie's sleeping pills and drugged his parents' bedtime drinks one night but upon inquiring the following morning as to their slumber realized that they had experienced no detrimental effects. Jeremy was becoming desperate, especially when he saw the bills for Sheila's psychiatric care in March 1985 which were running into thousands of pounds and cutting into his inheritance. He discussed burning the house down with Julie but was talked out of this when he discovered the house was underinsured and many valuable heirlooms would be irreparably lost. It was then that he realized the solution that had been in the back of his mind all along, but even callous Jeremy had rejected it as an extreme solution for one so squeamish about guns. He would have to personally execute the family and make it look as if Sheila had killed them all.

Julie's primary school experience and training kicked in. How could he possibly kill the twins? And here, reader, how could a prospective teacher of small children who must have seen children like them on a regular basis in an educational setting sitting on those tiny plywood chairs with their uncorrupted faces not recoil at such a wicked scheme? Did Julie plead with Jeremy to save the twins, to spare them from this murder ritual, as frightening as any religious ritual that June had made her children and now her grandchildren endure at church and at the farm? No, replied Jeremy heartlessly, the twins would have to go, they were stopping Colin from obtaining regular employment and he would be able to move on with a life and make a fresh start, just as he, Jeremy was planning to do.

Is it this thought, the thought that she could have saved the family, the spectre of Sheila's boys which haunts Julie every day, the new day which dawns in the backdrop of that bleak Canadian landscape?  Sheila's boys, Jeremy's future rivals in the profit-driven culture of the time, were not to be spared. Julie's way of making amends is to put her life and soul into her own children, her immediate family, to please her husband and to provide enrichment for other people's children, thousands of miles away, the geographical distance numbing somewhat the ramifications of those events twenty seven years ago, though the universality of childhood must bring the tears flooding back on occasion after the school bell has rung.

[Jane]

You have much to learn newbie,though admittedly you are a self-confessed novice as your chosen name for this site implies and you purport to be nothing else.

I suggest that you begin with reading the post below from August 8 2012. It is a brief synopsis which may stimulate your interest in the case and lead to you reading the Statements and Transcripts section amongst others who have trodden this weary and winding road before yourself,after which I'm sure all members would welcome any revised comments you may wish to make.

Julie Mugford was not out for all she could get. She first met Jeremy at a London bar in November 1983 where they were both working and they felt a mutual attraction. It wasn't until a few months later that she realized the farming connection,and at that time Jeremy didn't even have the cottage at Goldhanger. Here is Jeremy back from his working holiday in New Zealand,not wanting to enter the farming way of life,feeling his way around maybe at a bit of a loss,whereupon he meets Julie.

Julie would stay at the cottage in Goldhanger during the holidays and it was then that she would come to meet June Bamber. Again the atmosphere would have been tense whenever June called,sometimes with Sheila and the twins but mostly alone. Again Julie sensed June's disapproval of her relationship with Jeremy and June made it clear that biblically they were living in sin together and that Julie was a harlot. June's hypocrisy is manifested because Sheila is not good enough to marry her son,a view she would have imparted to Jeremy,but again Julie is not in this relationship for short-term gain as she rejects June's offer of buying them a flat if they would leave the village and thereby stop the rumours flowing at the Queen's Head,which were damaging to Ralph's status as the local magistrate.

Jeremy had a strange view of relationships which he had learnt from his parents having employed farm staff: people were used for what they could offer and in return they received payment. There was no emotion involved and Jeremy accepted this as normal;when he one time visited Julie's relations he couldn't understand the tactile nature and the feeling of benevolence in the family was quite alien to him. It was this feeling of warmth and loyalty which kept him in the relationship with an older woman,Suzette Ford for a number of years.

Julie was also learning fast in Thatcherite Britain;the lesson that money talks. Why,she inquired,did Jeremy not just cut loose,leave his family behind and move on? Because,retorted Jeremy,he had too much to lose. It was in this atmosphere that Julie became cocooned,and it is one explanation that inured her to Jeremy's unpleasant and cruel streak.

At the turn of the year 1985 Jeremy had been harbouring thoughts about harming his family. The farming lifestyle didn't suit,Sheila was living it up in London whilst the agricultural life was hard physical labour,June was unreliable and might easily change her will and leave money to the Church. Jeremy was a disappointment to Ralph who wanted an heir to take over the managerial responsibility the farm as a business entailed. Jeremy wasn't a natural leader,he didn't inspire confidence around him,and Jeremy was restless. If only his family would disappear Jeremy could receive his inheritance and move on. Spurred by a chance conversation with Colin Caffell that the twins were "a millstone round his neck" Jeremy began to conceive ways that his family might disappear. He made hints to Julie,who busy with the fatigue of teaching practice and giving of herself in a way not demanded by other jobs,did not take him seriously and preoccupied herself with her immediate future gaining the necessary qualifications to make something of her life. Jeremy himself had never looked far ahead in a constructive way,having failed his first attempt at gaining qualifications. As a product of a public school it was others who occupied themselves with the menial tasks and as long as Jeremy had a cheque book he felt security thereby.

It was this callous disregard for people over money which set Jeremy on his evil course. He at first borrowed some of Julie's sleeping pills and drugged his parents' bedtime drinks one night but upon inquiring the following morning as to their slumber realized that they had experienced no detrimental effects. Jeremy was becoming desperate,especially when he saw the bills for Sheila's psychiatric care in March 1985 which were running into thousands of pounds and cutting into his inheritance. He discussed burning the house down with Julie but was talked out of this when he discovered the house was underinsured and many valuable heirlooms would be irreparably lost. It was then that he realized the solution that had been in the back of his mind all along,but even callous Jeremy had rejected it as an extreme solution for one so squeamish about guns. He would have to personally execute the family and make it look as if Sheila had killed them all.

Julie's primary school experience and training kicked in. How could he possibly kill the twins? And here,reader,how could a prospective teacher of small children who must have seen children like them on a regular basis in an educational setting sitting on those tiny plywood chairs with their uncorrupted faces not recoil at such a wicked scheme? Did Julie plead with Jeremy to save the twins,to spare them from this murder ritual,as frightening as any religious ritual that June had made her children and now her grandchildren endure at church and at the farm? No,replied Jeremy heartlessly,the twins would have to go,they were stopping Colin from obtaining regular employment and he would be able to move on with a life and make a fresh start,just as he,Jeremy was planning to do.

Is it this thought,the thought that she could have saved the family,the spectre of Sheila's boys which haunts Julie every day, the new day which dawns in the backdrop of that bleak Canadian landscape?  Sheila's boys,Jeremy's future rivals in the profit-driven culture of the time,were not to be spared. Julie's way of making amends is to put her life and soul into her own boys,her immediate family,to please her husband and to provide enrichment for other people's children,thousands of miles away, the geographical distance numbing somewhat the ramifications of those events twenty seven years ago,though the universality of childhood must bring the tears flooding back on occasion after the school bell has rung.

Undecided, I WOULD like to point out that other, less biased/fantasized versions of Julie ARE available. :D

[Steve_uk]

Undecided has already decided that Julie is a self-confessed liar. Perhaps he might pluck up courage to back this up..

[Jane]

Undecided has already decided that Julie is a self-confessed liar. Perhaps he might pluck up courage to back this up..

Steve, there were many who believed that of her at the time of the trial.

[Undecided]

Undecided has already decided that Julie is a self-confessed liar. Perhaps he might pluck up courage to back this up..

Munford’s statement to the police of the 8th /9th September confirms that she had withheld the information of Bambers (supposed) confession to her on the night of the murders.
Surely sufficient proof that she had been lying during the previous 5 weeks.

[Steve_uk]

Munford’s statement to the police of the 8th /9th September confirms that she had withheld the information of Bambers (supposed) confession to her on the night of the murders.
Surely sufficient proof that she had been lying during the previous 5 weeks.

But she didn't lie:she omitted certain facts to protect her boyfriend of almost two years from the onslaught which by that stage Jeremy had unleashed by his own actions.

[grahameb]

But she didn't lie:she omitted certain facts to protect her boyfriend of almost two years from the onslaught which by that stage Jeremy had unleashed by his own actions.

Until he dumped her of course. From then on she was bleeting out a different story. Oh dear. Hell hath no fury than a woman scorned.

[Steve_uk]

Until he dumped her of course. From then on she was bleeting out a different story. Oh dear. Hell hath no fury than a woman scorned.

A phrase from the David Shaw manuscript of course:well-written but misguided.

[Steve_uk]

Who are all these flibbertigibbet new members? Please:prove me wrong.

[Undecided]

But she didn't lie:she omitted certain facts to protect her boyfriend of almost two years from the onslaught which by that stage Jeremy had unleashed by his own actions.

I can understand her predicament, but at some stage during the 5 weeks, a reasonable person, informed of the confession as she had been, must have reached a conclusion. It is odd that the epiphany occurred coincident with her being told of Bambers infidelity.

[Jane]

I can understand her predicament, but at some stage during the 5 weeks, a reasonable person, informed of the confession as she had been, must have reached a conclusion. It is odd that the epiphany occurred coincident with her being told of Bambers infidelity.

Undecided, MAYBE it was a case of whilst they were together, she was committed to him -whatever were her reasons- heart and soul, AND, and this is what I find so difficult, would have supported and defended whatever story he was telling. So we now have a situation, where, under a set of given circumstances, she was FULLY prepared to LIE for him. However, those circumstances changed. He dumped her for another. She MAY have felt uncomfortable going along with the story, but he was hers and she was clearly prepared, for whatever reason, to support him. Finding herself cast aside, her fury must have known no bounds. SHE HAD LIED FOR HIM. It wouldn't have been unreasonable, and I imagine it would have been enormously satisfying, had she thought "I'll make you pay".

[Steve_uk]

I can understand her predicament, but at some stage during the 5 weeks, a reasonable person, informed of the confession as she had been, must have reached a conclusion. It is odd that the epiphany occurred coincident with her being told of Bambers infidelity.

It wasn't an epiphany,but an organic development following the hitman story,which Julie eventually saw was the pack of lies which epitomized Jeremy's Walter Mitty character in so many ways. The net was closing in with the introduction of the silencer into the equation and the case would have proceeded anyway with or without Julie's evidence,damning as it was.