Author Topic: Is Julie Mugford relevant?  (Read 3569 times)

1 Member and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6463
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #150 on: February 06, 2019, 03:30:AM »
According to Julie, Jeremy had proposed to her just prior to Christmas 1984 and she agreed.
According to Julie, Jeremy's parents told him it was time to get married.
According to Julie, June didnt approve of her being with Jeremy.

If we assume that Julie is being truthfull here or at least this was her end of the stick. Then I can make an educated guess that Jeremys parents prevented the marriage, or at leased persuaded him otherwise.

Then the only person who would have thoughts about killing his parents around this time would be Julie. Julie claims that Jeremy was thinking about killing his family around this time. But are they actually Julie's own thoughts that she is attributing to Jeremy?

"I asked him why as I could understand him talking about his parents like that, not Sheila and the twins"

Freudian slip. She could understand why his parents had do die.  ::)

Its very possible that Julie fantasied about Jermey killing them so they could be together. 

Now fast forward to August 7th. Maybe Julie didnt think twice about Sheila being the shooter.
However once she realised people suspected him. Did she rationalise this by thinking he could have
done it so he his parents would not get between them?

Now you might say she would rubbish that idea once he split up with her. However Julie does not think straight and thats the last thing she would do (think straight) once Jeremy had left her.


« Last Edit: February 06, 2019, 11:01:AM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10764
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #151 on: February 06, 2019, 07:05:AM »
According to Julie, Jeremy had proposed to her just prior to Christmas 1984 and she agreed.
According to Julie, Jeremy's parents told him it was time to get married.
According to Julie, June didnt approve of her being with Jeremy.

If we assume that Julie is being truthfull or at least this was her end of the stick. Then I can make an educated guess that Jeremys parents prevented the marriage, or at leased persuaded him otherwise.

Then the only person who would have thoughts about killing his parents around this time would be Julie. Julie claims that Jeremy was thinking about killing his family around this time. But are they actually Julie's own thoughts that she is attributing to Jeremy?

"I asked him why as I could understand him talking about his parents like that, not Sheila and the twins"

Freudian slip. She could understand why his parents had do die.  ::)

Its very possible that Julie fantasied about Jermey killing them so they could be together. 

Now fast forward to August 7th. Maybe Julie didnt think twice about Sheila being the shooter.
However once she realised people suspected him. Did she rationalise this by thinking he could have
done it so he his parents would not get between them?

Now you might say she would rubbish that idea once he split up with her. However Julie does not think straight and thats the last thing she would do (think straigh) one Jeremy had left her.
It's you whose thought processes are muddled. Nevill and June were warming to Julie on Boxing Day 1984 and it's then that they discussed marriage with him, but because the suggestion came from them he procrastinated. It's my belief that the whole time he was with Julie he was on the rebound from Suzette, the ramifications being terrible as he blamed his parents for their split up, just one more reason to hasten their demise.


It's strange how a warts and all picture of Julie's evidence, which does not paint herself in a good light, should be described by you as a "Freudian slip". It's exactly why the truth is rarely pure, and never simple, or to coin another phrase: truth is stranger than fiction, that her evidence is so compelling. There was no scheming post-murders, Julie realized the damage had been done and she was caught between Jeremy's threat to tie her into the murders as an accessory and the Boutflour family determined to flush out the truth, however much Julie herself would be damaged in the process.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2019, 07:09:AM by Steve_uk »

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27416
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #152 on: February 06, 2019, 09:07:AM »
According to Julie, Jeremy had proposed to her just prior to Christmas 1984 and she agreed.
According to Julie, Jeremy's parents told him it was time to get married.
According to Julie, June didnt approve of her being with Jeremy.

If we assume that Julie is being truthfull or at least this was her end of the stick. Then I can make an educated guess that Jeremys parents prevented the marriage, or at leased persuaded him otherwise.

Then the only person who would have thoughts about killing his parents around this time would be Julie. Julie claims that Jeremy was thinking about killing his family around this time. But are they actually Julie's own thoughts that she is attributing to Jeremy?

"I asked him why as I could understand him talking about his parents like that, not Sheila and the twins"

Freudian slip. She could understand why his parents had do die.  ::)

Its very possible that Julie fantasied about Jermey killing them so they could be together. 

Now fast forward to August 7th. Maybe Julie didnt think twice about Sheila being the shooter.
However once she realised people suspected him. Did she rationalise this by thinking he could have
done it so he his parents would not get between them?

Now you might say she would rubbish that idea once he split up with her. However Julie does not think straight and thats the last thing she would do (think straigh) one Jeremy had left her.


I'm confident that Julie DID fantasize. Who of us haven't? Exactly WHAT are fantasies, though? Basically thoughts and daydreams, and the means by which we live happier, highly successful, wealthier, fulfilled lives without having to make efforts to achieve it. They're about immediacy rather than the bigger picture. Our goals achieved with no ramifications. So if Julie, totally focused on a career and understanding the work and commitment she'd need to put into it, SUDDENLY, is given a glimpse of a world, quite outside of those parameters, which she was being encouraged to believe COULD be hers, we shouldn't be surprised that she fantasized. There is NOTHING wrong with fantasies................whilst they remain in our heads they hurt no one and may help to alleviate mundane lives. Even better if a significant other is feeding the belief that the fantasy can become reality. So if Julie saw herself as being Jeremy's wife and living in the big house, in the fantasy/daydream, his parents were simply 'not there', not part of it.

"I asked him why as I could understand him talking about his parents like that, not Sheila and the twins" This suggests that Jeremy had regaled her with stories about how his parents were holding him back from fulfilling his dreams, keeping him short of money, not understanding him. Is there any wonder that she "could understand him talking about his parents like that"? It MAY have been the reason for her initially accepting the story that Sheila was responsible? However, it's doubtful that she had any real influence as he'd determined to upset the parental apple-cart any way possible. I think it unlikely that, once he had it all, he ever intended for Julie to be a major part of his life.

It's perfectly obvious that whilst she was with him and being fed his take on things, she was unlikely to have been thinking "straight"-she was in love!- but there was probably a point in their relationship at which the "in love switch" was turned off. It's likely to have been at that point when, perhaps reluctantly because her fantasy had been smashed?, that she started thinking "straight".

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6463
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #153 on: February 06, 2019, 10:57:AM »
Last night I read through the DPP pre trial notes. Charles Marsden was never called to give evidence. Perhaps because, like I said yesterday, it’s their job to prosecute not get laughed at.



 
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23412
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #154 on: February 06, 2019, 11:14:AM »
Last night I read through the DPP pre trial notes. Charles Marsden was never called to give evidence. Perhaps because, like I said yesterday, it’s their job to prosecute not get laughed at.

It seems to be your remit to dismiss anything that doesn't fit into your own ideas and that's a dangerous position to be in. What you are NOT understanding, is that Jeremy called him a liar at the time but now isn't denying the conversation too place - however, he is now saying the conversation happened after the murders. CM isn't changing his story!

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6463
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #155 on: February 06, 2019, 01:51:PM »
As Luminous Wanderer correctly pointed out in this topic. Julies word does not prove anything, hence there is nothing to disprove.

Luminous Wanderer also correctly pointed that Steve's attempts to defend her is "genuinely hilarious entertainment." i.e "Julie told the truth and nothing but the truth! but Julie never supplied those pills to assist Jeremy with his murder plot even though that's what she said she done" Steve logic 101
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23412
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #156 on: February 06, 2019, 02:23:PM »
As Luminous Wanderer correctly pointed out in this topic. Julies word does not prove anything, hence there is nothing to disprove.

Luminous Wanderer also correctly pointed that Steve's attempts to defend her is "genuinely hilarious entertainment." i.e "Julie told the truth and nothing but the truth! but Julie never supplied those pills to assist Jeremy with his murder plot even though that's what she said she done" Steve logic 101

So if Jeremy hadn't planned to kill the family, what were the pills for?

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10764
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #157 on: February 06, 2019, 06:09:PM »
As Luminous Wanderer correctly pointed out in this topic. Julies word does not prove anything, hence there is nothing to disprove.

Luminous Wanderer also correctly pointed that Steve's attempts to defend her is "genuinely hilarious entertainment." i.e "Julie told the truth and nothing but the truth! but Julie never supplied those pills to assist Jeremy with his murder plot even though that's what she said she done" Steve logic 101
I don't mention this in #101 so I don't know where it came from.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27416
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #158 on: February 06, 2019, 06:38:PM »
I don't mention this in #101 so I don't know where it came from.


No Steve, you didn't..................and incidentally, in 101 I can find no reference to LW having made ANY of the claims David is saying he made. However, as LW is convinced that Julie's evidence had no worth, I guess she is now free of the guilt of being responsible for Jeremy's conviction.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10764
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #159 on: February 06, 2019, 07:14:PM »

No Steve, you didn't..................and incidentally, in 101 I can find no reference to LW having made ANY of the claims David is saying he made. However, as LW is convinced that Julie's evidence had no worth, I guess she is now free of the guilt of being responsible for Jeremy's conviction.
Yes that's a good point Jane. I suppose they would counter by saying now they have demolished Julie's evidence (in their own minds) they are free to move onto the silencer.


A pity LW couldn't take the pressure and left.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27416
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #160 on: February 06, 2019, 07:23:PM »
Yes that's a good point Jane. I suppose they would counter by saying now they have demolished Julie's evidence (in their own minds) they are free to move onto the silencer.


A pity LW couldn't take the pressure and left.


There is still David, though, who appears to be making use of LW's absence by crediting him with words he didn't say?

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6463
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #161 on: February 07, 2019, 10:58:PM »
The more I read though Julie's statements the more problems I find with it.

Julie said this on September 10th 1985.

"I have been asked what I know about Matthew. I have only met him a couple of times, always at Head Street, Coldhanger. He made me feel very nervous although I do not know why. I am aware that Jeremy met him through a previous relationship, in fact whilst he was living with Sue FORD in Colchester. I do not know if Matthew has ever been to White House Farm".

Julie believed Jeremy's Matthew Macdonald story. That means she must have believed Mathew Macdonald entered and exited the farm under Jeremys instructions as she described to the police just two days prior to this. So In another statement when the subject is on more on Jeremys drugs and not so much the murders, she slips up saying she does not know if Mathew had ever been to the farm! This was before Macdonald's alibi was established.

"I have been asked why I did not make known to any other person, particularly to the authorities the contents of the conversations between myself and Jeremy BAMBER for 20 days, namely the 27th August 1985 when I then told Susan BATTERSBY. In answer to this I can say that in my subconscious I believed what Jeremy had said was true and I would qualify this by stating that I believed Jeremy when he said he had hired Mathew to kill the family".

If you believed that then how could you possibly not know if Mathew had ever been to the farm house in the first place? You lying piece of ****
« Last Edit: February 08, 2019, 07:26:AM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27416
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #162 on: February 08, 2019, 07:39:AM »
The more I read though Julie's statements the more problems I find with it.

Julie said this on September 10th 1985.

"I have been asked what I know about Matthew. I have only met him a couple of times, always at Head Street, Coldhanger. He made me feel very nervous although I do not know why. I am aware that Jeremy met him through a previous relationship, in fact whilst he was living with Sue FORD in Colchester. I do not know if Matthew has ever been to White House Farm".

Julie believed Jeremy's Matthew Macdonald story. That means she must have believed Mathew Macdonald entered and exited the farm under Jeremys instructions as she described to the police just two days prior to this. So In another statement when the subject is on more on Jeremys drugs and not so much the murders, she slips up saying she does not know if Mathew had ever been to the farm! This was before Macdonald's alibi was established.

"I have been asked why I did not make known to any other person, particularly to the authorities the contents of the conversations between myself and Jeremy BAMBER for 20 days, namely the 27th August 1985 when I then told Susan BATTERSBY. In answer to this I can say that in my subconscious I believed what Jeremy had said was true and I would qualify this by stating that I believed Jeremy when he said he had hired Mathew to kill the family".

If you belived that then how could you possibly not know if Mathew had ever been to the farm house in the first place? You lying piece of ****


Were these statements made at the same time? It strikes me there's a likelihood of them not being. Still, at the very least, a FULL STOP separates them.

 If we look at the first, if Julie had never seen Matthew at WHF, she had no personal experience of him every being there. She was therefore, perfectly correct in saying she didn't know if he'd been there ie she relied on Jeremy saying he was there.

In her her second, she's saying that, gut deep, possibly from a place of denial, she accepted the unacceptable, ie Jeremy had been involved in the murder of his family. At that moment, she may even have breathed a sigh of relief that it hadn't been his finger on the trigger.

She doesn't NEED to have seen Matthew at WHF to accept Jeremy's word for it that he was there. 

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23412
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #163 on: February 08, 2019, 11:40:AM »
The more I read though Julie's statements the more problems I find with it.

Julie said this on September 10th 1985.

"I have been asked what I know about Matthew. I have only met him a couple of times, always at Head Street, Coldhanger. He made me feel very nervous although I do not know why. I am aware that Jeremy met him through a previous relationship, in fact whilst he was living with Sue FORD in Colchester. I do not know if Matthew has ever been to White House Farm".

Julie believed Jeremy's Matthew Macdonald story. That means she must have believed Mathew Macdonald entered and exited the farm under Jeremys instructions as she described to the police just two days prior to this. So In another statement when the subject is on more on Jeremys drugs and not so much the murders, she slips up saying she does not know if Mathew had ever been to the farm! This was before Macdonald's alibi was established.

"I have been asked why I did not make known to any other person, particularly to the authorities the contents of the conversations between myself and Jeremy BAMBER for 20 days, namely the 27th August 1985 when I then told Susan BATTERSBY. In answer to this I can say that in my subconscious I believed what Jeremy had said was true and I would qualify this by stating that I believed Jeremy when he said he had hired Mathew to kill the family".

If you believed that then how could you possibly not know if Mathew had ever been to the farm house in the first place? You lying piece of ****

WOW! You're grasping at straws!! She doesn't and didn't KNOW if he had been to WHF - again, she only KNOWS what Bamber is telling her!  ::) Like everyone else!

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23412
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #164 on: February 08, 2019, 11:46:AM »
Last night I read through the DPP pre trial notes. Charles Marsden was never called to give evidence. Perhaps because, like I said yesterday, it’s their job to prosecute not get laughed at.

Why would Jeremy LIE about his conversation with CM? Initially denying it but later suggest it happened AFTER the murders. CM didn't feel the need to change his story! Jeremy was so adamant that this conversation didn't happen that he called CM a liar. Now he does recall it - odd don't you think?