Author Topic: Why Did JB Have His Category Status Downgraded So Quickly By Prison Authoritys  (Read 2025 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline justice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2646
Yes it could.  It was what I touched upon in posts several years ago.  It was not only the NOW deal which was concealed from the jury, it was the circumstances surrounding the handling of Julie Mugford by the police in the key stages before the trial.  Overall the jury were presented with a very misleading impression and had they known the truth it is very likely they would have viewed her evidence in a very different light.
Thanks Neil you are such a great guy and one I hold with the utmost respect, I have taken your advice. 

Anyway, your last post I have to agree with, but it hasn't just happened in the Bamber case, it's an on going problem, evidence withheld or bartering is a natural process in the justice system.  How many times do we hear about criminals not having their past convictions revealed, or take my son in law, if he had gone to jury and not pleaded guilty he had a 50/50 chance of getting off with the police not having the privilege of using the second girl who came forward.  I'm not defending Julie here, my own personal opinion is I cannot defend how she acted and I think she should have got time herself, today I think she would have been dealt with differently, having said that, I think she was coached, aren't they all both defence and prosecution, more so back then, but I thought she was re living a lot of truth in her statements with coaching sorry Neil.

Envy kills,” the Pope said. “It does not tolerate others having something that I do not have. And it always suffers, because the heart of an envious or jealous person suffers. It is a suffering heart!” It is a suffering that desires “the death of others

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23970
I think your wrong Susan, I think she probably reads it frequently

In that case, Jackie, How's this?

Dear Julie,

I'm fully aware that it must have been a dreadful experience for you 30+ years ago. I feel sure you don't see your behaviour then as enhancing your reputation, but I feel sure we've all done things we're not exactly proud to own now. I perfectly well understand that it's something you probably wish to put behind you. I can only apologize for those members of this forum who wish to destroy the life you've made for yourself, as well as breaking up your marriage and the trust your children have in you. I hope your life continues without interruption.

Jane J.

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23970
Thanks Neil you are such a great guy and one I hold with the utmost respect, I have taken your advice. 

Anyway, your last post I have to agree with, but it hasn't just happened in the Bamber case, it's an on going problem, evidence withheld or bartering is a natural process in the justice system.  How many times do we hear about criminals not having their past convictions revealed, or take my son in law, if he had gone to jury and not pleaded guilty he had a 50/50 chance of getting off with the police not having the privilege of using the second girl who came forward.  I'm not defending Julie here, my own personal opinion is I cannot defend how she acted and I think she should have got time herself, today I think she would have been dealt with differently, having said that, I think she was coached, aren't they all both defence and prosecution, more so back then, but I thought she was re living a lot of truth in her statements with coaching sorry Neil.

Justice, I feel exactly the same. I can't condone ANYTHING of her behaviours at the time but because of the spite against her on this forum, I feel compelled to defend the person she is now. Much as her persecutors would have us believe she was in control, I don't believe a girl of her age would have had the experience to call the shots and I don't believe her to have been practiced in witchcraft and capable of hypnotizing EP, counsel, judge and jury. IF she pulled wool over anyone's eyes, it was due to the incompetency of the experts who allowed it to happen.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8873
I think you may have forgotten Jane.  Steve has been extremely offensive in the past to several members, not just to me, and has been rightly challenged on it by others, including by you.  Have a look at this thread - it is quite long I am afraid but it is worth reading to the end.  There are also some good points raised in it about the case which newer members might find interesting: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.510.html
This is what I wrote on 2nd May 2013, which you have described as "extremely offensive":

I'm afraid you've got carried away with your statement whoever you are; whilst making sense in the initial stages you drifted off into flights of fancy which make a mockery of your whole argument. It starts to go awry from the second paragraph after you assert that to be guilty Julie must "provide some positive assistance" when there was absolutely none to the Jeremy supporters' chagrin: she neither provided Jeremy with an alibi nor the infamous sleeping tablets which were for Julie's sole use during one of the most stressful periods of a teacher's career, namely teaching practice, and it is dishonourable of you if you hold a position in law to suggest otherwise. It was Jeremy who imported cannabis stuffed in toothpaste tubes from Amsterdam and not Julie, and though she sold the drug on university premises at Jeremy's behest this does not necessarily bar any teacher from a career; indeed there are male teachers who have abused female pupils who have appealed to the Secretary of State and have been further allowed to teach in an all-male environment, which I know anecdotally from colleagues.

On the day of the murders Julie was not warned in advance as you suggest; after a hard day's work she attempted to decipher yet another of Jeremy's riddles with the "tonight's the night..it's now or never" clue which was symptomatic of Jeremy's infantile manner of speaking for the two years she had known him with his "let's get the ball rolling" idiom used ad nauseum, his "bye honey, love you lots",his sending her roses and booking the bridal suite at a top London hotel interspersed with remarks of the crudest calibre, reminding us of Gresham's head Mr. Bruce Logie Lockhart's aphorism that Jeremy was "a relentless tease". If the head of a public school came to that conclusion then don't expect the product of an all girl's grammar school to be any the wiser in interpreting Jeremy's remarks.

Post-murders we have Julie realizing that Jeremy did have a hand in the murders, whether he was the sole perpetrator or proxy driver, which as Mike suggested the" trick of the light story" gave rise to, but it was Julie who carried the guilt for both of them as the murders for Jeremy were not much different than swatting flies. You misrepresent the chronology because Julie told several people including the Bishop's and Michael Deckers the manager of the Frog and Beans before she voluntarily agreed to visit the Police. Had she not done so of course the trial would have proceeded without Julie on the basis of the silencer and blood evidence pushed by the relatives and going on the summing up of the judge Julie's evidence anyway would not have been paramount.

Offline justice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2646
Justice, I feel exactly the same. I can't condone ANYTHING of her behaviours at the time but because of the spite against her on this forum, I feel compelled to defend the person she is now. Much as her persecutors would have us believe she was in control, I don't believe a girl of her age would have had the experience to call the shots and I don't believe her to have been practiced in witchcraft and capable of hypnotizing EP, counsel, judge and jury. IF she pulled wool over anyone's eyes, it was due to the incompetency of the experts who allowed it to happen.
Great post Jane, I do agree being such a young age who knows, the defence have a lot to answer for, they could have asked Julie lots of searching questions. The prosecution were on catch up and I would have thought that they realised Julie wasn't the star witness they thought hence the coaching, it happens all the time and will continue to happen.  At the end of the day I don't think Julie was good for them and would have been relieved how she survived the defence, the prosecution had the luxury in not only showing Bamber did it, i think the most damming was showing Sheila didn't do it.
Envy kills,” the Pope said. “It does not tolerate others having something that I do not have. And it always suffers, because the heart of an envious or jealous person suffers. It is a suffering heart!” It is a suffering that desires “the death of others

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 34959
I can't forgive anyone who was part and parcel of a plan to put someone away for the rest of their lives. The woman KNEW what she was doing and should have questioned the tactics that were put in place to have made JB's incarceration possible,and without proof !!

Offline justice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2646
I can't forgive anyone who was part and parcel of a plan to put someone away for the rest of their lives. The woman KNEW what she was doing and should have questioned the tactics that were put in place to have made JB's incarceration possible,and without proof !!
I think Lookout, she was frightened because the police could have built a case against her, it was a way out for her and they would have put pressure on her to cooperate, look how the police are using known sex offenders even now as snitches, favours will have to be given back in return for these despicable people. 
Envy kills,” the Pope said. “It does not tolerate others having something that I do not have. And it always suffers, because the heart of an envious or jealous person suffers. It is a suffering heart!” It is a suffering that desires “the death of others

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
If only a favoured few have access, how do you know if it's reaching 'professional people'? And how do YOU know if they're telling the truth?

Every time I tweet is reaches my 2000 followers also because these 2000 followers follow me I can private message every one of them

Online ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4590
Thanks Neil you are such a great guy and one I hold with the utmost respect, I have taken your advice. 

Anyway, your last post I have to agree with, but it hasn't just happened in the Bamber case, it's an on going problem, evidence withheld or bartering is a natural process in the justice system.  How many times do we hear about criminals not having their past convictions revealed, or take my son in law, if he had gone to jury and not pleaded guilty he had a 50/50 chance of getting off with the police not having the privilege of using the second girl who came forward.  I'm not defending Julie here, my own personal opinion is I cannot defend how she acted and I think she should have got time herself, today I think she would have been dealt with differently, having said that, I think she was coached, aren't they all both defence and prosecution, more so back then, but I thought she was re living a lot of truth in her statements with coaching sorry Neil.

Thank you for your kind words justice.

You make good points about what goes on in the criminal justice system.  I agree that just because Julie Mugford was coached (and pressured) by the police, and had other incentives, does not prove that her evidence was false, but my own view is that if the jury had known the full facts they would have been very wary about relying upon the evidence.


Offline Aunt Agatha

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
Great post Jane, I do agree being such a young age who knows, the defence have a lot to answer for, they could have asked Julie lots of searching questions. The prosecution were on catch up and I would have thought that they realised Julie wasn't the star witness they thought hence the coaching, it happens all the time and will continue to happen.  At the end of the day I don't think Julie was good for them and would have been relieved how she survived the defence, the prosecution had the luxury in not only showing Bamber did it, i think the most damming was showing Sheila didn't do it.






But, what if the police and family 'needed' her to play ball?

Imagine she received no phone call from Jeremy, she slept with him after the murders.... he dumped her!

She had stood by him through the funeral etc, he's about to inherit a huge sum and power... with her support, and he dumps her?   She'd be so upset.

Both the police and family knew she was vulnerable, emotionally and financially.

What if Jeremy had to be convicted at any cost?

Both the Police and the family had Julie.  Pay to play.  It's a common practice especially in government and practised so often amongst the higher echelons in life.   It's a cover up from start to finish.

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
So how do you suss out the -allegedly- genuine, from those who aren't?


Very easily by checking out the people who follow them and checking email addresses to which company they are associated with

If someone makes up a fake profile with not many followers I spot it immediately

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23970
Every time I tweet is reaches my 2000 followers also because these 2000 followers follow me I can private message every one of them

Hmm,but I only have your word for that and your reputation as a reinventor of truth precedes you.

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23970





But, what if the police and family 'needed' her to play ball?

Imagine she received no phone call from Jeremy, she slept with him after the murders.... he dumped her!

She had stood by him through the funeral etc, he's about to inherit a huge sum and power... with her support, and he dumps her?   She'd be so upset.

Both the police and family knew she was vulnerable, emotionally and financially.

What if Jeremy had to be convicted at any cost?

Both the Police and the family had Julie.  Pay to play.  It's a common practice especially in government and practised so often amongst the higher echelons in life.   It's a cover up from start to finish.

"What if's" are hypothetical, though, aren't they?

Offline Aunt Agatha

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511





But, what if the police and family 'needed' her to play ball?

Imagine she received no phone call from Jeremy, she slept with him after the murders.... he dumped her!

She had stood by him through the funeral etc, he's about to inherit a huge sum and power... with her support, and he dumps her?   She'd be so upset.

Both the police and family knew she was vulnerable, emotionally and financially.

What if Jeremy had to be convicted at any cost?

Both the Police and the family had Julie.  Pay to play.  It's a common practice especially in government and practised so often amongst the higher echelons in life.   It's a cover up from start to finish.







They certainly could not afford for her to be on Jeremy's side and tell the truth.   They were left with no choice but to use her.... so the coaching began and upon his conviction was paid by all three.
Whether her statement was deemed convincing enough, I don't think was an issue so much as whether or not she told the truth and was supported by Jeremy.  He had not offered her money or a new life as the others had.   If he had some foresight, or was guilty, I do believe he would have paid anything to get her on his side.  But he didn't! Because he didn't need to buy her - he trusted she would just tell the truth.


Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
In that case, Jackie, How's this?

Dear Julie,

I'm fully aware that it must have been a dreadful experience for you 30+ years ago. I feel sure you don't see your behaviour then as enhancing your reputation, but I feel sure we've all done things we're not exactly proud to own now. I perfectly well understand that it's something you probably wish to put behind you. I can only apologize for those members of this forum who wish to destroy the life you've made for yourself, as well as breaking up your marriage and the trust your children have in you. I hope your life continues without interruption.

Jane J.

Dear Julie,

You obviously have a spiteful jealous wicked nature to set someone up who you claim to have loved
You have had 30 years to put the record straight but you decided you would keep Jeremy in prison for the rest of his life.
There is no punishment harsh enough for you to be given unless it's 30 years like Jeremy has done.  May you rot in prison for taking away the chance for Jeremy never being able to have children and when you sit in your cell maybe then you will realise what you have done to an innocent man and the shame you have bought on your own family