Author Topic: Is Julie Mugford relevant?  (Read 9968 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Luminous Wanderer

  • Guest
Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« on: April 01, 2018, 06:40:AM »
It is my view that the former Julie Mugford is no longer relevant to this case, if she ever was.  Remember that I am considering this case in the context of what is thought to be Jeremy Bamber's legal position now, which includes:

(a). A conviction for five murders following a jury trial, albeit only on a majority verdict.  No serious mitigation available, and had capital punishment still existed, we can assume he would have been hung.

(b). 33 years in custody, but he still vehemently denies he did it.

(c). A whole life order, meaning that unless the legal position changes, he will not be released on licence and he may even die in custody.

(d). Two failed appeals.

(e). At least one failed application to the CCRC that we know of, and that following very lengthy consideration of his case by the CCRC's investigators over a number of years.

(f). A failed judicial review challenging the CCRC's refusal to refer his case to the Court of Appeal.

In view of these facts, we can make the following observations:

(i). Bamber is no longer at trial.  That was more than 30 years ago.  The methods and approaches needed to secure a successful CCRC application are different to those needed to secure an acquittal by a jury.

(ii). Julie Mugford's evidence was largely hearsay and therefore cannot be disproved, as such.

(iii). The Crown's case stands with or without Julie Mugford.  Even if Julie Mugford's evidence could be eroded or undermined to some significant degree, that would not undermine the safety of Bamber's murder convictions. 

(iv). The converse of (iii) above is that these murder convictions can be quashed with or without Julie Mugford's evidence.

Let us consider what an appellate court has to accept in order to quash Bamber's conviction.

For our purposes, we can provisionally simplify the test this way:

The judges must ask themselves-

-If a jury had heard this evidence, could they have arrived at a different verdict?-

That, I admit, is not the be-all and end-all of the matter, and a lawyer who specialises in this area will probably dispute my wording, but it suffices for our practical purposes.  We don't need to be exact to the nth at this point.

If we apply that (admittedly, rough and ready) test, we can immediately see the basis of a misunderstanding about what needs to be done.  It is thought that by undermining Julie Mugford, that would present the judges with no option but to quash the conviction.  After all, the thinking goes, if the jury had concluded that the former Miss Mugford was lying or had no credibility, or whatever, then surely they could have come to a different verdict in view of such an appraisal?

Unfortunately, that's not the way it works.  The point is that Julie Mugford's evidence didn't amount to proof that Bamber had done the killings and, in this case, all the signs are the jury didn't rely on her evidence.  Furthermore, even if the jury had relied on her evidence, the convictions would stand without her evidence.  Therefore, any attempt to undermine Julie Mugford's evidence is futile because it can never satisfy the test - roughly summarised above - that must be applied by the appellate judges.

Julie Mugford is of no relevance or importance to Jeremy Bamber and she should be left to her life in Canada.  Quite apart from my view that her contribution to the trial was strictly for entertainment value - her evidence being a joke and not even accepted by the jury - the point is that attacking her evidence proves nothing.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2018, 06:53:AM by Luminous Wanderer »

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2018, 06:58:AM »
How dare you say 'MUGFORD is no longer relevant in this case' You are insulting the Bamber family who are not here to defend themselves.

I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Luminous Wanderer

  • Guest
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #2 on: April 01, 2018, 07:02:AM »
How dare you say 'MUGFORD is no longer relevant in this case' You are insulting the Bamber family who are not here to defend themselves.

I think if we're going to discuss this rationally, you need to take your blinkers off and stop being emotional.

I think this is a good forum, and members here are mostly polite and constructive, but as with the Red Forum, there are points when reason and logic goes out the window in favour of dogmas and emotive ranting and raving.

I have no interest in discussions with dogmatic and egotistical people.  That's because nothing can be achieved through such discussions.

Either address the points I make and show me why I am wrong - and if you do, I will gladly accept you are right, as I am not bringing my ego into this - or stop commenting on my posts.

In other words - I'm asking you to behave like an adult.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2018, 07:03:AM by Luminous Wanderer »

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #3 on: April 01, 2018, 07:10:AM »
If the Jury had known MUGFORD was staying in the Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, London PAID FOR by the News of the World AT THE PECISE MOMENT they said "GUILTY."

Do you think they would have said "GUILTY"?.

Baring in mind she was at least 50% of the reason why they reached their conclusion.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2018, 07:11:AM by Nigel »
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Luminous Wanderer

  • Guest
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #4 on: April 01, 2018, 07:40:AM »
If the Jury had known MUGFORD was staying in the Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, London PAID FOR by the News of the World AT THE PECISE MOMENT they said "GUILTY."

Do you think they would have said "GUILTY"?.

Baring in mind she was at least 50% of the reason why they reached their conclusion.

I understand why you think this way, and I even agree with you to an extent, and you may also be right that, in reality, the jury's decision may have been different.

But....What you have to bear in mind here is that this is not at trial any more.  There is no actual jury.  Instead, assuming the CCRC ever refer this case again, we have a 'hypothetical jury' that exists in the minds of the would-be appellate judges.

In other words, what the judges are asking themselves is:

Could this evidence have affected the jury's decision?

Not - Would this evidence have affected the jury's decision?

The difference between 'could' and 'would' here is that the appellate judges have no idea what the jury would or would not have done in given circumstances.  They don't have second sight or any other paranormal abilities.  They're just ordinary men, like you and me, albeit a good deal more intelligent and better educated than we are. 

The judges cannot know what was going through the minds of the jury, they - like us - only have indicators, and even if the indications are that Julie Mugford's evidence was influential (which it wasn't anyway), it wouldn't matter because her evidence didn't prove he did it, any more than if you told me that you were going to kill Adam tomorrow because he's annoying, and Adam then dropped dead tomorrow, and then it turned out he'd been beaten round the head with a baseball bat, that would prove you'd killed Adam.  It would prove no such thing and my evidence against you, while no doubt of some relevance, would be of little or no help to a criminal jury in deciding whether to convict you of murdering Adam. 

Likewise, Julie Mugford's evidence is largely hearsay - and that's apart from the fact she repeatedly lied and then changed her story.  What we're talking about here is a double-edged sword - yes, it may be that her evidence added force to the Crown's case, but the weakness in her evidence now renders her irrelevant.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2018, 07:41:AM by Luminous Wanderer »

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20925
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #5 on: April 01, 2018, 10:09:AM »
I understand why you think this way, and I even agree with you to an extent, and you may also be right that, in reality, the jury's decision may have been different.

But....What you have to bear in mind here is that this is not at trial any more.  There is no actual jury.  Instead, assuming the CCRC ever refer this case again, we have a 'hypothetical jury' that exists in the minds of the would-be appellate judges.

In other words, what the judges are asking themselves is:

Could this evidence have affected the jury's decision?

Not - Would this evidence have affected the jury's decision?

The difference between 'could' and 'would' here is that the appellate judges have no idea what the jury would or would not have done in given circumstances.  They don't have second sight or any other paranormal abilities.  They're just ordinary men, like you and me, albeit a good deal more intelligent and better educated than we are. 

The judges cannot know what was going through the minds of the jury, they - like us - only have indicators, and even if the indications are that Julie Mugford's evidence was influential (which it wasn't anyway), it wouldn't matter because her evidence didn't prove he did it, any more than if you told me that you were going to kill Adam tomorrow because he's annoying, and Adam then dropped dead tomorrow, and then it turned out he'd been beaten round the head with a baseball bat, that would prove you'd killed Adam.  It would prove no such thing and my evidence against you, while no doubt of some relevance, would be of little or no help to a criminal jury in deciding whether to convict you of murdering Adam. 

Likewise, Julie Mugford's evidence is largely hearsay - and that's apart from the fact she repeatedly lied and then changed her story.  What we're talking about here is a double-edged sword - yes, it may be that her evidence added force to the Crown's case, but the weakness in her evidence now renders her irrelevant.

When did Julie 'repeatedly lie' & change her story ? Once she approached the police a month after the massacre she hasn't retracted a word and none of it has proven to be wrong. 

It is a good question relating to the current situation. Thirty three years on Bamber is still be looking for a technicality. It's very doubtful he will find it with Julie. However the OS will continue posting Youtube videos & internet articles about her as properganda.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2018, 10:12:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #6 on: April 01, 2018, 10:13:AM »
When did Julie 'repeatedly lie' & change her story ? Once she approached the police a month after the massacre she hasn't retracted a word and none of it has proven to be wrong. 

It is a good question relating to the current situation. Thirty three years on Bamber is still be looking for a technicality. It's doubtful he will find it with Julie. However the OS will continue posting Youtube videos & internet articles about her as properganda.

Why was MUGFORD 'laid up' in the Holiday Inn, Sloane Square London the second the word "GUILTY" .....?
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20925
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #7 on: April 01, 2018, 10:26:AM »
The 'News of the world' approached Julie during the trial.

They already had a deal with Bamber, but were given inside information that Bamber was going to be found guilty. So wanted a backup article.

Witnesses on famous trials have often made money afterwards. Kato Kalin got his own Television show after being a witness in the OJ Simpson case.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #8 on: April 01, 2018, 10:27:AM »
The 'News of the world' approached Julie during the trial.

They already had a deal with Bamber, but were given inside information that Bamber was going to be found guilty. So wanted a backup article.

Witnesses on famous trials have often made money afterwards. Kato Kalin got his own Television show after being a witness in the OJ Simpson case.

Please see my post from other thread.

I stopped reading after your 'They already had a deal with Bamber,' please reply sans BAMBER.

nb
is you want to discuss whether Jeremy had a 'verbal' agreement in place, start your own thread, don't hijack this one.'
« Last Edit: April 01, 2018, 10:30:AM by Nigel »
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20925
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #9 on: April 01, 2018, 10:29:AM »
Bamber had also tried to profit from the massacre prior to being arrested. Offerring photos of Sheila and his story to The Sun for a substantial fee.

Nugs's view that Bamber offerred this for free but The Sun rejected Bamber's offer so they could post a false story falls flat. The Sun knew Bamber would shortly have the financial power to successfully sue them. A free story from Bamber was just as good anyway.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2018, 10:51:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #10 on: April 01, 2018, 10:30:AM »
Bamber had also tried to profit from the massacre prior to being arrested. Offerring photos of Sheila and his story to The Sun for a substantial fee.

Nugs's view that Bamber offerred this for free & The Sun rejected Bamber's offer so they could post a false story falls flat. The Sun knew Bamber would shortly have the financial power to successfully sue them.

nb
is you want to discuss whether Jeremy had a 'verbal' agreement in place, start your own thread, don't hijack this one.'
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20925
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2018, 10:39:AM »
Anyway Julie is not relevant to Bamber getting released now. He needs to find new evidence.

Supporters will still write about Julie. To claim she lied to the police & courts to help convict an innocent man of murdering his family. Because, according to Bamber, he jilted her.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4874
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #12 on: April 01, 2018, 10:52:AM »
The 'News of the world' approached Julie during the trial.

They already had a deal with Bamber, but were given inside information that Bamber was going to be found guilty. So wanted a backup article.



How do you know any of this?  You are making it up!

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2018, 10:54:AM »
How do you know any of this?  You are making it up!

not the first time by adam666
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20925
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #14 on: April 01, 2018, 10:55:AM »
How do you know any of this?  You are making it up!

Don't be rude & goad.

You know the News of the World approached Julie.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.