Author Topic: Is Julie Mugford relevant?  (Read 3562 times)

1 Member and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10764
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #135 on: April 07, 2018, 12:27:PM »
NONE of you,apart from Roch,are anywhere near the sorry event that went on at WHF.

In the words of Shakespeare and in my way of thinking,the case was " Much ado about nothing " in that the full background of Sheila was never studied indepth and the smug attitude of EP whose main goal was to secure a conviction at that particular time,after the Doctor Jones fiasco, saw JB as their quarry.

How quick was it to pin a murder charge on the recent case of the elderly man who'd been protecting his sick wife and his home from intruders when the backgrounds of the dead individual came to light ?
Backgrounds ofa case/individual are as important as discussing " trajectories " and such like which only bolster a self-opinionated attitude of that person who thinks they know it all. The psychology of a murder/murderer goes much deeper !

Sheila was an unpredictable person,which the family were presumably always used to until her mood changed as time went on.I imagine her mother had been aware having had mental health issues herself but she herself hadn't beenstrong mentally to hide that fact and it had rubbed off on Sheila unfortunately.

I'm also convinced that JB himself knew nothing of the tragedy that night nor was he up to speed on Sheila's overall problems which he'd put down to her as being a " nutter " . Such ignorance would have been and still is the norm with some when it comes to a lack of understanding in mental health,but certainly not always a malicious description and by no means a cue for a would-be " murderer ".

Julie Mugford had been well aware at the time that it hadn't been JB who murdered his family. Her thoughts on being dumped were exacerbated by the hype of EP and the determination of the relatives to also seal a conviction whatever it took and I firmly believe that JM had gone too far to pull out,having been encouraged from all directions. I bet she often wonders !!
By the end of her life Sheila was rather a pathetic figure, with no real friends to speak of, condemned to demeaning cleaning jobs at the beck and call of the owners of rich houses in the vicinity of Maida Vale. Her goal when she was lucid was to attract a wealthy benefactor, but her mental state meant she was slovenly in dress and personal hygiene, which proved she was no schemer as these were just symptoms of her illness but which had the effect of excluding her from her dream.

Ironically it was Jeremy who saw rich pickings in the properties around him and boasted to Liz Rimington among others that he had considered burglarizing them. In fact many murderers start out on the road to crime with minor offences, which escalate when they're punished with a limp slap on the wrist only.

You talk about the psychology of a murder. I've just watched a programme on youtube on the Menendez brothers and the parallels are striking. A strong father whom the children could not hope to emulate, the lack of any consistent discipline as the children were growing up and the final insult as far as the brothers were concerned in the parents threatening to change their wills.

Julie is relevant because she has not wavered in her evidence in 33 years. She believes Bamber to be guilty after all this time as she stated at the 2002 appeal, she is now a model citizen in Canada and has learned from her past mistakes, that for most of us there are no shortcuts in life. It would be churlish and vindictive in the extreme to attempt to prove an unprovable hypothesis by hammering away at this woman directly and risk the stability she has so assiduously worked  for personally and professionally over those past years.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2018, 12:30:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10565
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #136 on: April 07, 2018, 01:12:PM »
NONE of you,apart from Roch, are anywhere near the sorry event that went on at WHF.

Thanks.  However, I think the giant intellect of Holly would probably not agree (probably using prosecution evidence to explain why).

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40043
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #137 on: April 07, 2018, 01:36:PM »
Thanks.  However, I think the giant intellect of Holly would probably not agree (probably using prosecution evidence to explain why).





Roch,I'm afraid that nothing which Holly has to say interests me whatsoever whether in agreeance or not,,we each have our own individual thoughts on this subject and I'm not interested in how any individual reaches their own conclusion providing their answer/explanation doesn't degrade that person/poster on a personal basis if their thoughts/theories don't match their own.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40043
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #138 on: April 07, 2018, 02:31:PM »
By the end of her life Sheila was rather a pathetic figure, with no real friends to speak of, condemned to demeaning cleaning jobs at the beck and call of the owners of rich houses in the vicinity of Maida Vale. Her goal when she was lucid was to attract a wealthy benefactor, but her mental state meant she was slovenly in dress and personal hygiene, which proved she was no schemer as these were just symptoms of her illness but which had the effect of excluding her from her dream.

Ironically it was Jeremy who saw rich pickings in the properties around him and boasted to Liz Rimington among others that he had considered burglarizing them. In fact many murderers start out on the road to crime with minor offences, which escalate when they're punished with a limp slap on the wrist only.

You talk about the psychology of a murder. I've just watched a programme on youtube on the Menendez brothers and the parallels are striking. A strong father whom the children could not hope to emulate, the lack of any consistent discipline as the children were growing up and the final insult as far as the brothers were concerned in the parents threatening to change their wills.

Julie is relevant because she has not wavered in her evidence in 33 years. She believes Bamber to be guilty after all this time as she stated at the 2002 appeal, she is now a model citizen in Canada and has learned from her past mistakes, that for most of us there are no shortcuts in life. It would be churlish and vindictive in the extreme to attempt to prove an unprovable hypothesis by hammering away at this woman directly and risk the stability she has so assiduously worked  for personally and professionally over those past years.






Steve,Sheila's situation would have tried the patience of a saint albeit a very sad situation to have been in but I remain adamant that there'd been no understanding of her " frustrations " which appeared frequently when she wasn't able to speak or explain to anyone how she was feeling at the time. Her only line of defence was to hit out or shout and scream.
Not once have I read about anyone sitting down on a one to one during her treatment in order to get to the root of her problem.
I know someone who'd " unknowingly " suffered PND for 17 years ! until,left untreated, manifested itself into paranoia and 3+ months in a mental health clinic. It's never a guaranteed treatment !
We know Sheila suffered the loss of babies--------but was she ever treated ?? I doubt it.

As for JB knowing the full extent of Sheila's problems-----he hadn't got a clue and that's the bottom line. At the age he was at the time,his life had been too full to bother about anyone other than himself let alone a sister who'd probably have given her right arm to have confided in her brother about their mother's behaviour towards her and the twins.
Imagine being as Sheila was,with nobody to confide in ? I firmly believe that anyone in such a situation would eventually succumb to their bottled-up frustrations in some way. People have taken their own lives for far less than the problems Sheila had ! So why wasn't her background investigated ?

The only ones who'd been interested in Wills had been the relatives. JB's possible interest was to be armed and ready for the onslaught at the thought of what his relatives would have to say when it was read out. I can imagine and also appreciate both sides at this point,that's the winners and also the losers,thoughJB did himself no favours with his own attitude at becoming " Lord and Master " of all he surveyed-------which clearly showed his immaturity.

In a way,JM has to be relevant inasmuch as should anything come about that a further appeal is granted,then we'll get to see whether her side of this sorry saga holds water. We more or less know that the silencer was a red-herring-------so what else was there ?


Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10764
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #139 on: April 07, 2018, 02:40:PM »





Steve,Sheila's situation would have tried the patience of a saint albeit a very sad situation to have been in but I remain adamant that there'd been no understanding of her " frustrations " which appeared frequently when she wasn't able to speak or explain to anyone how she was feeling at the time. Her only line of defence was to hit out or shout and scream.
Not once have I read about anyone sitting down on a one to one during her treatment in order to get to the root of her problem.
I know someone who'd " unknowingly " suffered PND for 17 years ! until,left untreated, manifested itself into paranoia and 3+ months in a mental health clinic. It's never a guaranteed treatment !
We know Sheila suffered the loss of babies--------but was she ever treated ?? I doubt it.

As for JB knowing the full extent of Sheila's problems-----he hadn't got a clue and that's the bottom line. At the age he was at the time,his life had been too full to bother about anyone other than himself let alone a sister who'd probably have given her right arm to have confided in her brother about their mother's behaviour towards her and the twins.
Imagine being as Sheila was,with nobody to confide in ? I firmly believe that anyone in such a situation would eventually succumb to their bottled-up frustrations in some way. People have taken their own lives for far less than the problems Sheila had ! So why wasn't her background investigated ?

The only ones who'd been interested in Wills had been the relatives. JB's possible interest was to be armed and ready for the onslaught at the thought of what his relatives would have to say when it was read out. I can imagine and also appreciate both sides at this point,that's the winners and also the losers,thoughJB did himself no favours with his own attitude at becoming " Lord and Master " of all he surveyed-------which clearly showed his immaturity.

In a way,JM has to be relevant inasmuch as should anything come about that a further appeal is granted,then we'll get to see whether her side of this sorry saga holds water. We more or less know that the silencer was a red-herring-------so what else was there ?
Well the whole thing was a process which germinated in Jeremy's mind from Autumn 1984, which is when the first half-hearted attempt was made to do away with his parents by means of using Julie's tablets. Jeremy didn't understand schizophrenia at that time like many of us, and I'm sure even today the professionals don't understand it fully. It's a good point you make about Sheila and her miscarriages, which may have made her feel empty in many senses and no friend at all to turn to apart from Colin, who eventually became the only person she could rely on.

« Last Edit: April 07, 2018, 02:41:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40043
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #140 on: April 07, 2018, 02:48:PM »
Well the whole thing was a process which germinated in Jeremy's mind from Autumn 1984, which is when the first half-hearted attempt was made to do away with his parents by means of using Julie's tablets. Jeremy didn't understand schizophrenia at that time like many of us, and I'm sure even today the professionals don't understand it fully. It's a good point you make about Sheila and her miscarriages, which may have made her feel empty in many senses and no friend at all to turn to apart from Colin, who eventually became the only person she could rely on.






JB was the " Billy Liar " of his day who enjoyed jesting and bragging to those who he thought or knew would know that this was part of his make-up. Again another show of immaturity who the likes of JM would ignore anyway as she knew what he was like-----------but she also sadly used this quirk when it best suited her to. No wonder she broke down during questioning because she knew deep down that what she was supposed to have said wasn't true. You don't cry when you know you're telling the truth !!

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10764
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #141 on: April 07, 2018, 02:52:PM »





JB was the " Billy Liar " of his day who enjoyed jesting and bragging to those who he thought or knew would know that this was part of his make-up. Again another show of immaturity who the likes of JM would ignore anyway as she knew what he was like-----------but she also sadly used this quirk when it best suited her to. No wonder she broke down during questioning because she knew deep down that what she was supposed to have said wasn't true. You don't cry when you know you're telling the truth !!
It might have been a tactic to use in the witness box, but Julie knew alright that Jeremy was involved, if not au fait with all the details. She also knew her role in the affair left a very unpleasant taste in the mouth yet had been backed into that corner by ex-boyfriend and evil if not psychopathic Jeremy Bamber.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2018, 03:32:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40043
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #142 on: April 07, 2018, 03:11:PM »
It might have been a tactic to use in the witness box, but Julie knew alright that Jeremy was involved, if not au fait with all the details. She also knew her role in the affair left a very unpleasant taste in the mouth yet had been backed into that corner by ex-boyfriend and evil if not psychopathic Jeremy Bamber.





A lot of coercing went on Steve and JM in her state of mind must have eagerly gone along with it as a revengeful woman would do in her position. She must have felt real rejection at having been replaced by someone else so her mind would also have been all over the place. Regrettably she was now in it up to her neck through her moment of madness and as I've said,backing down wasn't an option.
JM had known JB through and through and she also knew that he wasn't the cruel person that he'd been made out to be.
Crying IS a tactic which is used during questioning,you've only to look at the evil Philpotts !!

Even BW in her first statement had favoured JB against her own son------but everyone changed tack as soon as the " heavy mob " ( relatives ) showed interest after the Will reading.

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10565
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #143 on: April 10, 2018, 11:34:AM »
I have amended my reply no. 130.  It was inaccurate of me to claim that Jane had 'followed' Caroline in refraining from posting on here and choosing to post on UK Justice forum instead.  While they may agree on many aspects of the case, it was inaccurate and therefore unfair of me to express that Jane always mirror's what Caroline says / does.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10764
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #144 on: April 10, 2018, 05:48:PM »
I have amended my reply no. 130.  It was inaccurate of me to claim that Jane had 'followed' Caroline in refraining from posting on here and choosing to post on UK Justice forum instead.  While they may agree on many aspects of the case, it was inaccurate and therefore unfair of me to express that Jane always mirror's what Caroline says / does.
Caroline and Jane have not left us, surely?

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10565
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #145 on: April 10, 2018, 05:52:PM »
Caroline and Jane have not left us, surely?

I don't think they have deleted their accounts and may still be looking in - but are not posting here at present. 

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23412
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #146 on: February 05, 2019, 10:23:PM »
But he told PC West that "my father sounded terrified when he called" so I don't accept that Jeremy didn't think it was an emergency. Colin also said that Bamber told him he thought his father had been shot. The statement about the glove coming off in the fight with Nevill was made on 10 September 1985.

Have you ever wondered why the killings occurred when the whole family were under one roof? Wouldn't Julie's statement be supported by Charles Marsden, who in December 1984 had a conversation with Jeremy Bamber in which the latter said: "If the house should burn down at Christmas everything would be mine."

This to my mind is indicative of how his mind was working in the run-up to the murders.

Hmmmmm, just found something in which Jeremy states this conversation with Charles Marsden happend AFTER the murders. Now ain't that odd?  :o

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10764
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #147 on: February 05, 2019, 11:21:PM »
Hmmmmm, just found something in which Jeremy states this conversation with Charles Marsden happend AFTER the murders. Now ain't that odd?  :o
He never had a confidant all those years at Gresham's, though the message he came away with after attending that school was that money talks. In the light of this it's not surprising that with Julie he began to open up his inner self, evil as those thoughts were.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23412
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #148 on: February 05, 2019, 11:47:PM »
He never had a confidant all those years at Gresham's, though the message he came away with after attending that school was that money talks. In the light of this it's not surprising that with Julie he began to open up his inner self, evil as those thoughts were.

The point is, that he was asked about the conversation with Charles Marsden during his interview - he said that he didn't remember ever discussing the house burning down and that Marsden was a liar. Now he says that he discussed it AFTER the murders with Marsden after talking to his accountant. Marsden has stated this conversation took place in 1984! How can anyone believe this man is innocent?  :-\

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10764
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #149 on: February 05, 2019, 11:54:PM »
The point is, that he was asked about the conversation with Charles Marsden during his interview - he said that he didn't remember ever discussing the house burning down and that Marsden was a liar. Now he says that he discussed it AFTER the murders with Marsden after talking to his accountant. Marsden has stated this conversation took place in 1984! How can anyone believe this man is innocent?  :-\
Because they are obsessed with Sheila's knickers, this tunnel vision pervading the case unfortunately. It's quite clear how Jeremy's thought processes materialized, which is why Julie is relevant, albeit her character evincing ambivalence in retrospect.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2019, 11:55:PM by Steve_uk »