Author Topic: Mugford supporters  (Read 697 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9387
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2017, 04:57:PM »
The relatives never mentioned the hitman. It seems as if Julie is damned either way.

Did they not ? Hmmm not sure they did not think there was something odd about the call from the house ?

So Julie could have got the bit about the bible on the chest from Anne or the police .

The hitman theory is still a mystery .

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4627
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2017, 05:05:PM »
NGB, what is Bamber's stance with all the published incriminating forensic & circumstantial evidence ? Some of it below. He hasn't publically disputed nearly all of it.

Is he focusing on one or two pieces to try to get a technicality ? Surely this is his only option.

However I've read 360 is going through all evidence to try to get a release. Which must take years.


Perfectly clean front of hands on Sheila.   

One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila. 

Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila.  Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected.

Well manicured nails on Sheila. 

No broken nails.

Nails in tact.

No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers. 

No blood on finger tips.

No dirt on finger tips.

No powder on finger tips.

No trace of any lead dust coating.

No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice.

Very clean feet.

Feet free from significant blood staining.

No debris such as sugar on feet.

No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight.

Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress.

No presence of firearm residue on nightdress.

No presense of firearm residue on arms.

No trace of rifle oil on nightdress

No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight.

Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila.

Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself.

Nevill being bare footed in pyjamas.

Sheila being bare footed in pyjamas.

Paint in silencer.

Aga scratch's.

Blood in silencer.

No blood in the rifle end.

Sheila's legs pulled after second shot.

Sheila's blood underneath the bible.

A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed.

Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol.

Sheila having Haloperidol in her body.

Sheila's condition hours before the massacre.

Sheila under sedation.

Easy window entrance into WHF.

Shutting kitchen window from outside. 

Murder weapon options.

Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell.

Items around the kitchen window being moved after housekeeper had left. 

Easy bike route to WHF.

Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre.

June not waking/getting shot in bed.

Nevill's back burns.

2012 CCRC court judgement.

The twins not waking.

Bamber's call to the police.

Nevill's horrific injuries.

Huge kitchen fight.

Sheila's time limits.

No valid Sheila scenario.

Jeremy does not have to worry about your Gish Gallops. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4627
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #17 on: August 05, 2017, 05:12:PM »
Did they not ? Hmmm not sure they did not think there was something odd about the call from the house ?

So Julie could have got the bit about the bible on the chest from Anne or the police .

The hitman theory is still a mystery .

No it isn't.
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9387
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #18 on: August 05, 2017, 05:13:PM »
The relatives never mentioned the hitman. It seems as if Julie is damned either way.

Unfortunately it seems she is.

If he is guilty she knew it all along and was happy to cover for him until she found out about Virginia.

If he is innocent then when she found out she was on the way out she made up an attention seeking story to damage him and then got caught up in helping the police get their man , her only defence being someone convinced her he could have done it ?

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9387
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2017, 05:14:PM »
No it isn't.

So who do you think gave her the hitman theory that she relayed to her friends ?

Offline buddy

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2017, 05:18:PM »
Yes when I was on my first teaching practice in the 1980s my Head of Department said: "Stephen..there's only one job harder-a miner."
Never been in northern Ireland then?

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4627
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2017, 06:21:PM »
So who do you think gave her the hitman theory that she relayed to her friends ?

1. Robert Boutflour speculates if Jeremy had assistance on the night - See Diary

2. Robert Boutflour zeros in on the £2000 that Neville lent to Jeremy - See Diary

3. The £2000 of course has an innocent explanation and is totally unrelated to the event. but RWB believes he is onto something (Tunnel vision)

4. Jeremy is supposed to have lent this £2000 to a friend - See Diary

5. 20th of August police have a meeting with RWB present. During that meeting a question is put forward in relation to a drug deal (from a man called McDonald??) See Barlow's note book

6. Jeremy has a friend called Mathew Mcdonald they both do drugs together - See MMs statement

7. Mathew Mcdonald happens to a fantasist who goes around telling people he is a mercenary and has done missions in Libya. People believe the rumours - see MMs statement

According to Julie. Jeremy told her that he paid £2000 to Mathew Mcdonald to help him carry out the killings. The fact of the matter is a sum of £2000 went somewhere else. Mathew Macdonald is a mercenary only in his imagination plus he was miles away from the farm that night. Robert Bouflour and Stand Jones ignorant of the facts at the time. To them this theory would make perfect sense to them. Jeremy's "mercenary" friend and drug associate complete with a money trail and can explain the reported movement in the farm while Jeremy was outside with the police.
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9387
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2017, 06:34:PM »
1. Robert Boutflour speculates if Jeremy had assistance on the night - See Diary

2. Robert Boutflour zeros in on the £2000 that Neville lent to Jeremy - See Diary

3. The £2000 of course has an innocent explanation and is totally unrelated to the event. but RWB believes he is onto something (Tunnel vision)

4. Jeremy is supposed to have lent this £2000 to a friend - See Diary

5. 20th of August police have a meeting with RWB present. During that meeting a question is put forward in relation to a drug deal (from a man called McDonald??) See Barlow's note book

6. Jeremy has a friend called Mathew Mcdonald they both do drugs together - See MMs statement

7. Mathew Mcdonald happens to a fantasist who goes around telling people he is a mercenary and has done missions in Libya. People believe the rumours - see MMs statement

According to Julie. Jeremy told her that he paid £2000 to Mathew Mcdonald to help him carry out the killings. The fact of the matter is a sum of £2000 went somewhere else. Mathew Macdonald is a mercenary only in his imagination plus he was miles away from the farm that night. Robert Bouflour and Stand Jones ignorant of the facts at the time. To them this theory would make perfect sense to them. Jeremy's "mercenary" friend and drug associate complete with a money trail and can explain the reported movement in the farm while Jeremy was outside with the police.


Right so Steve was wrong and the family did have that as part of their theory which is what I said . So we know dates and conversations between the family and the police about all their theories and motives before Jeremy's arrest . But what we don't have , or rather you may have and I don't, is the connection between them and Julie before she suddenly changes her mind and starts relaying her fears to her friends .

Have you seen Liz rimmingtons statement ?

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9387
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2017, 07:01:PM »
Interesting posts back from 2011.


I think Julie Mugford was influenced by several factors which came into play at different stages and I also think that she was carried along by events which she was unable to control.  These factors were a need to bolster her self esteem, a desire for revenge, fear and, further down the line, money.

I believe that when jilted by Jeremy Julie told her friend in confidence that Jeremy was responsible for the murders.  Her motives at that stage were probably mixed and confused.  Possibly she wanted to bolster her self esteem by demonstrating that Jeremy was completely reprehensible and that she had therefore not lost anything of value as a result of the breakdown in their relationship. Having made the allegation it became hard for her to go back on it.  It was her friend who made the initial contact with the police so at that point I believe fear must have kicked in as a motive, coupled with a desire for revenge.  We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders.  She was offered immunity from prosecution on all matters, but only on condition that she followed through with her account and gave evidence against Jeremy. There was then no going back. Further down the line the News of the World deal was concluded which gave the additional incentive of money. 

 
Report to moderator     Logged
 Offline Roch
Veteran Member
*****
 
Posts: 9773
View Profile  Personal Message (Offline)

Re: "I haven't rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury." (JM)
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2011, 11:29:AM »
Quote
Quote
We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders

The problem for the defence is that a weak point remains around the period the case turned.  If we follow Mike's arguments that the case turned after RWB went to see ACC Simpson, this mechanism seems to operate separately from whatever turned Julie Mugford against Bamber.  For two major players (Julie and police) to turn against Jeremy Bamber, seemingly separate from each other, creates quite a barrier for the defence.  If you knock one down with a 'conspiracy theory'... people fall back upon the other.  I've always wondered whether Julie got wind of the family's malice aforethought towards Jeremy and jumped ship accordingly?  This does not seem to be the case because nobody linked to the defence has ever suggested such.
Report to moderator     Logged

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9387
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2017, 07:02:PM »
So in a review on 6th sept it was decided Jeremy was responsible and Julie involved

On 7th in comes the call from Liz .

What a coincidence .


Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18110
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #25 on: August 05, 2017, 07:07:PM »
Reasons why Bamber used MM as a proxy.


Julie would know Bamber was involved after the previous 18 months. 

It admits indirect involvement as there was no point in him denying it after 3 calls & 18 months of threats.   

He wanted to boast about his brilliant plan, but distance himself from actually being there pulling the trigger. 

He knew Julie was not not going to see MM in the near future. 

It shows he is not so bad as to carry out the massacre himself. Which may deter her from going to the police. 

It will highlight Julie being wrong if she tells the police MM did it. Which will undermine her whole accusation. This is what happened. 

If MM did it, Julie would be accusing two people. Who would both deny it and cover for each other. This would deter Julie from approaching the police. 

If MM was involved, there may be other people involved. Who would cover for each other. This would deter Julie from going to the police. 

Julie may believe MM did it, as he had a reputation of a mercenary. 

Julie may believe MM did it, as the alleged 2k payment was not impossible to acquire. 

If MM did it, there would be no forensic evidence linking Bamber to the crime. A jilted lover seeking revenge may only end up convicting MM. Or neither. 

If MM did it, Bamber may have an alibi. He could easily get an ex girlfriend to stay the night with him. 

If MM did it, it would mean Bamber was at home all night. Which he may be able to prove. No one would have certainly seen him leave his cottage. 

Julie may go to the police anyway. Based on what Bamber had told her pre massacre. Julie doing this and then bringing up MM, undermines her statement.

Julie asked him. He gave an answer

'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18110
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #26 on: August 05, 2017, 07:11:PM »
David knows there is no way Julie would mention MM if she was trying to frame Bamber.

So has come up some concoction about RB phoning Julie within 20 days of the massacre & suggesting a hit man. Julie believing RB.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9387
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #27 on: August 05, 2017, 07:17:PM »
David knows there is no way Julie would mention MM if she was trying to frame Bamber.

So has come up some concoction about RB phoning Julie within 20 days of the massacre & suggesting a hit man. Julie believing RB.


She would if she did not really know what had happened and had been fed some info.



Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18110
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2017, 07:23:PM »

She would if she did not really know what had happened and had been fed some info.

RB would have to certain MM committed the massacre. I have no idea whether he even knew him. Or why he would be so certain.

RB would then have to make Julie certain MM was involved. Otherwise Julie would not risk using MM in an attempted frame.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2017, 07:34:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4627
Re: Mugford supporters
« Reply #29 on: August 05, 2017, 07:28:PM »
RB would have to certain MM committed the massacre. I have no idea whether he even knew him. Or why he would be so certain.

RB would then have to make Julie certain MM was involved. Otherwise Julie would risk using MM in an attempted frame.

She did. But luckily MM had an alibi.
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."