Author Topic: Is Julie Mugford relevant?  (Read 5044 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27425
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #195 on: February 14, 2019, 12:31:PM »
David is trying to suggest that the word 'actor' came from several sources therefore they all collaborated. However, he fails to take into account the fact that Jeremy just over egged each situation one moment then acted like a callous fool the next - leaving the on-lookers with no alternative than to realise he was acting a part - badly!. His so called grief was in contrast to the rest of his behavious i.e wanting WHF to be a shrine to his family, then flogging off whatever he could get his hands on and throwing his parents clothes into the farm fire pit. No doubt he had good reason to keep that fire going, so much so, that he forgot all about the shrine and his grief.

I guess they were wrong when they called him an 'actor' he was a 'bad actor'

Of course. He was simply playing a role which he couldn't continue because -as he didn't feel the emotion it required- he had no idea how. He became a "ham". This behaviour is evidenced again in his reaction to the alleged call from Nevill. Irrelevant of what he SAID he did, the fact remains it took him some 20 minutes to do it. First he says he didn't think it was urgent. Then he says his father sounded "panicked". Still later he says he thinks his father was already injured!!!! How does this equate with the call -at silly o'clock- being non urgent?

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23428
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #196 on: February 14, 2019, 01:41:PM »
Of course. He was simply playing a role which he couldn't continue because -as he didn't feel the emotion it required- he had no idea how. He became a "ham". This behaviour is evidenced again in his reaction to the alleged call from Nevill. Irrelevant of what he SAID he did, the fact remains it took him some 20 minutes to do it. First he says he didn't think it was urgent. Then he says his father sounded "panicked". Still later he says he thinks his father was already injured!!!! How does this equate with the call -at silly o'clock- being non urgent?

Perhaps Nevill regularly called at 3am for a chat?  ::) Jeremy gives himself away when he tries to make his story fit in with whoever is asking the question. He apparently didn't k ow the situation was serious but didn't go over there in case he was 'shot too'. At that time, he supposedly didn't know anyone had been shot - but we know know he did and as such, no need to rush over!

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27425
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #197 on: February 14, 2019, 02:08:PM »
Perhaps Nevill regularly called at 3am for a chat?  ::) Jeremy gives himself away when he tries to make his story fit in with whoever is asking the question. He apparently didn't k ow the situation was serious but didn't go over there in case he was 'shot too'. At that time, he supposedly didn't know anyone had been shot - but we know know he did and as such, no need to rush over!

Not out of the question given how close was their relationship!!!! ::) We constantly see Jeremy's conflicting statements and contradictory behaviours but they're brushed aside as being part of the grieving process. Yet Julie, who, for the most part is only repeating what Jeremy had told her, is accused of being a liar.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10805
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #198 on: February 14, 2019, 07:38:PM »
It's highly likely he did!!! THINK, David. You're trying to define each and every incident, however small, as if it has no background. I feel certain that if you're going out of your way to impress someone, you're going to "put on an act". It sounds as if Ann had Jeremy's character sussed for a long time -she was many years his senior and had known him since childhood and had probably seen his acting talents put to use on several occasions - I think she had his measure, and I think he knew it. He probably thought if he could convince her he would be home and dry.
Of course Jane, which is why he sent her a birthday card and offered her the use of a sunbed. On which other occasions had he ever done anything freely for anyone?


Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10805
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #199 on: February 14, 2019, 07:43:PM »
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

It was a broken lamp shade actually. The ceiling light was still on and lit up when the police arrived. Nevil was already fatally shot and could only use one arm prior to when this "fight" could have take place. This explains no scratches on Sheila and in your case Jeremy also.

No more unanswered questions indeed.

Why did Jeremy's alleged confessions to Julie contain the same false information that the police gave the relative's and the newspapers? She made it up. 

Why did Julie tell Susan Battersby in Lewisham Pizza Hut (of all places) that Jeremy hired Mathew McDonald to kill the family? Because she and Jeremy had just split up and she was creating malicious gossip. Good thing Brett Collins was away in Greece when the tragedy unfolded, otherwise there probably would have been not two but three innocent people arrested.

Why did Julie not know if Matthew McDonald had ever entered White House Farm despite claiming to believe he was involved in a crime that takes place inside White House Farm? She made the Mathew McDonald story up.

Why did Julie let Liz call the police? She couldn't admit she was telling lies and as a result let them get out of hand.

Why did Julie say she went to the Bank on her own voluntarily to pay back the money she defrauded from them. When in actual fact she was taken to them by the police and the whole affair was pre-arraigned for her? She is a liar.

Why did the CPS do the above and cleanse her image and not charge her for anything before the trial? They knew she was a problematic witness.

Thats all the key aspects of Julies evidence done and dusted for me. The only unanswered question I have is why Julie disliked Matthew McDonald.  But thats not important and wont be wasting any time pondering over it.

As for the silencer. Ann Eaton by her own admission decided in her own mind that JB was guilty by as early as the 8th of August. On the 9th of August she was taken round WHF and shown where Nevil was found. On this occasion she would have seen the jacket hanging up in the kitchen over a part of the mantle that would have made crime scene photos of that spot unlikley. And that is where she alerts the police to the scratch marks the following week after having taken the silencer home with her along with Sheila's bloody underwear and god knows what else.

If the relatives were not so blinded by their own self interest, they would have realised that the bloody underwear in the kitchen along with the tampon stuff left out in the lounge combined with Sheila being found with no underwear and just a tampon demonstates the prologue of the tragedy. But instead Ann Eaton tells the jury she left the knickers at the crime scene and Robert Boutflour thinks the tampon stuff in the lounge is there because Jeremy used tampons the clean the silencer.

The reason Nevill was fatally shot at such an early stage was that the shots were discharged with pinpoint accuracy. How can you possibly associate Sheila with this?


As for Julie you should do more research. Nobody is saying she comes out of the affair smelling of roses, but try for once to put yourself in someone else's position. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5528.msg240818.html#msg240818

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14188
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #200 on: February 19, 2019, 05:35:PM »
The reason Nevill was fatally shot at such an early stage was that the shots were discharged with pinpoint accuracy. How can you possibly associate Sheila with this?


As for Julie you should do more research. Nobody is saying she comes out of the affair smelling of roses, but try for once to put yourself in someone else's position. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5528.msg240818.html#msg240818

I think its hard for some of us to put her selves in hr postion because at no point would we even contemplate doing the things shs done.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27425
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #201 on: February 19, 2019, 06:29:PM »
I think its hard for some of us to put her selves in hr postion because at no point would we even contemplate doing the things shs done.

Until/unless we find our selves where she was we don't know what we'd do.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14188
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #202 on: February 19, 2019, 07:41:PM »
Until/unless we find our selves where she was we don't know what we'd do.

if somone asked me to hlp them kill there family I'm pretty Certan my answer would be no I don't think id even have to think about it for long.

or alternatively if someone asked my to frame ex partner and send them down for life I still I would say no

I think most people on the forum would have any real dilemma about those 2 questions.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23428
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #203 on: February 19, 2019, 07:53:PM »
if somone asked me to hlp them kill there family I'm pretty Certan my answer would be no I don't think id even have to think about it for long.

or alternatively if someone asked my to frame ex partner and send them down for life I still I would say no

I think most people on the forum would have any real dilemma about those 2 questions.

I agree - very few people would consider either and just as unlikely for Julie.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14188
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #204 on: February 19, 2019, 08:19:PM »
I agree - very few people would consider either and just as unlikely for Julie.

she there did one or the other.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23428
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #205 on: February 19, 2019, 08:40:PM »
she there did one or the other.

Not necessarily!

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10805
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #206 on: February 20, 2019, 07:48:AM »
Nugnug does have a point, though it's unclear what the process was, but that's what psychopaths like Jeremy Bamber do, if only the Bamber supporters could recognize this.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2019, 01:36:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline Aunt Agatha

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #207 on: March 12, 2019, 11:10:AM »
I do have knowledge of this but I am not willing to give details here.  This could be important in a future appeal.   

Why is it obvious the verbal agreement was during the trial?

The defence could not prove at trial or in the later appeal appeals when the agreement was concluded.  However, evidence has since been uncovered.






Didn’t I tell you all this many years ago!