Author Topic: Is Julie Mugford relevant?  (Read 3554 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27416
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #180 on: February 12, 2019, 07:43:AM »
I plan to delete my account here very soon. I have no more unanswered questions for myself. With over 5000 posts to date, I think it’s long overdue.  :-\


"I think it's long overdue" That's possibly the most considered and honest statement you've made since you've been here. You have confused quantity with quality and by so doing have revealed highly questionable aspects of your character, thus it's highly probable that because of your thought processes you've been giving yourself entirely wrong answers to those questions you've asked. "Very soon" can't be soon enough.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 09:01:AM by Jane »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6463
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #181 on: February 12, 2019, 09:40:AM »

"I think it's long overdue" That's possibly the most considered and honest statement you've made since you've been here. You have confused quantity with quality and by so doing have revealed highly questionable aspects of your character, thus it's highly probable that because of your thought processes you've been giving yourself entirely wrong answers to those questions you've asked. "Very soon" can't be soon enough.

For someone that's made twenty seven thousand contradictory posts on this forum and is not honest enough to admit they believe JB is guilty purely and simply because Caroline does. I don't think you are in any position to lecture me on quantity, quality or honesty.  :P

Very soon can't be soon enough? Be carefull what you wish for. Me being the last person here to even bother talking to you and Caroline, I think you will find this forum very uneventful without me. You two wont have anyone left to argue with.  ;D
« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 09:50:AM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23412
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #182 on: February 12, 2019, 10:20:AM »
For someone that's made twenty seven thousand contradictory posts on this forum and is not honest enough to admit they believe JB is guilty purely and simply because Caroline does. I don't think you are in any position to lecture me on quantity, quality or honesty.  :P

Very soon can't be soon enough? Be carefull what you wish for. Me being the last person here to even bother talking to you and Caroline, I think you will find this forum very uneventful without me. You two wont have anyone left to argue with.  ;D

Only YOU push te notion that Jane changed her mind because of me and you are highly dishonest in doing so!
Without you? You won't be missed!

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27416
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #183 on: February 12, 2019, 01:04:PM »
For someone that's made twenty seven thousand contradictory posts on this forum and is not honest enough to admit they believe JB is guilty purely and simply because Caroline does. I don't think you are in any position to lecture me on quantity, quality or honesty.  :P

Very soon can't be soon enough? Be carefull what you wish for. Me being the last person here to even bother talking to you and Caroline, I think you will find this forum very uneventful without me. You two wont have anyone left to argue with.  ;D


Just how much more pathetic can you get? So bloody desperate to avoid taking responsibility for your own behaviours that you have to resort to shifting focus onto why you believe I changed my mind, and numbering my posts, the quantity of which is hardly surprising as I've been here rather longer than you, the quality of which, for the most part, I can stand by confidently. As for honesty, it's you, as I've previously highlighted, who is in no position to question mine.

I don't actually recall us ever having a 'conversation' OR a real debate. All that's ever emanated from your fingers regarding myself has been derision and insult, all untrue, but you never let that stop you. It MAY be that it's only yourself who answers our posts -incidentally, WHO, but we, respond to yours?- but I imagine Caroline and I will find it a happy loss, and whilst it MAY be that the forum will be "uneventful" without you, it's survived the loss of Scipio -something I have reason to believe you may have had a hand in- whose academic ability and skills of comprehension far outstripped your own, so don't flatter yourself that it will mourn your loss. Despite what you appear to believe and the steps you've taken to try to prove it, you're of no greater importance here than any other poster.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 01:54:PM by Jane »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10764
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #184 on: February 12, 2019, 07:05:PM »
I plan to delete my account here very soon. I have no more unanswered questions for myself. With over 5000 posts to date, I think it’s long overdue.  :-\

This sums up your whole egotistical, self-serving agenda, which many of us have tolerated over the years despite your confrontational style and orthographical errors. No more unanswered questions: the telephone call which Jeremy claims to have received from his father which in all likelihood never happened and was just a pretext for him to establish an alibi for himself, the smashed ceiling light in the kitchen indicative of some fight yet not a scratch on Sheila, the nature of her illness where she was so much more a danger to herself than to anybody else, the death of twin 6-year-old boys who had never harmed any other person in their lives and who loved the excitement of rushing out of the house to check how much the sunflowers had grown, the death of two hardworking individuals who had given their lives to offer their children the best yet had received only heartache in return, Nevill still sticking with Jeremy out of loyalty despite the misgivings and the premonition he would be killed.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 07:08:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6463
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #185 on: February 13, 2019, 05:45:PM »
No more unanswered questions: the telephone call which Jeremy claims to have received from his father which in all likelihood never happened and was just a pretext for him to establish an alibi for himself

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

the smashed ceiling light in the kitchen indicative of some fight yet not a scratch on Sheila,

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.

« Last Edit: February 13, 2019, 06:39:PM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10764
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #186 on: February 13, 2019, 08:17:PM »
But there's no evidence of the telephone call, just as there's no evidence that Sheila was on the hard stuff, that she had a psychotic episode, that she ever shot anyone that night. Had Nevill been confronting Sheila and not competent shooter Jeremy he would have stopped her before she was able to reload.

As for Julie's evidence, why lead Police on a wild goose chase by mentioning Matthew MacDonald in the first place, when it must have been plain to her that the story would be checked and fail to pass scrutiny? Similarly with the detail about a glove coming off in the fight, which was not mentioned in any of the newspapers. Julie voluntarily furnished details about the bank fraud and I believe met Police on the premises. The CPS dropped charges looking at the bigger picture of five murders, which you fail to do.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23412
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #187 on: February 13, 2019, 08:46:PM »
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


That's never stopped you!
 
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. 

Jeremy most likely made it look as though there was a struggle and just smashed the shade for effect.

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. 

What? That he left Sheila on the side of the bed with the rifle and a bible? Because he did. The newspapers and the relatives never mentioned a hit man!

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.
Julie and Jeremy splitting up have nothing to do with MM, there is no reason for her to have mentioned him. Jeremy though, didn't like him because he slept with one of his ex's.

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.

She didn't know and the exert you posted read like she was referring to pre-murders!

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.

Bit like your posts!

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.

Because the cops told her to!

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.

I have made this point myself many times and I doubt that it is unique to this case.

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.

Probably because Jeremy didn't!

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.

The underwear is an unlikely source for the blood.

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.

Tampon 'stuff'? You mean cardboard tube?  ::)
Lots of women sleep without underwear!

How does a cardboard tube and two buckets of washing spell MURDER?

Who does washing for herself prior to suicide and not only that, washes two pairs of joggers for her soon to be victims?

Perhaps it's best you don't ask any more questions because you ask the wrong ones and to the wrong people. Ask Bamber about the buckets!

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6463
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #188 on: February 14, 2019, 01:23:AM »
But there's no evidence of the telephone call, just as there's no evidence that Sheila was on the hard stuff, that she had a psychotic episode, that she ever shot anyone that night. Had Nevill been confronting Sheila and not competent shooter Jeremy he would have stopped her before she was able to reload.

Now you are just making things up in order to preclude Sheila from the crime. "Nevil would have taken the gun away" "Sheila would not have shot herself in that spot" blah blah blah.

As for Julie's evidence, why lead Police on a wild goose chase by mentioning Matthew MacDonald in the first place, when it must have been plain to her that the story would be checked and fail to pass scrutiny?

It was never her intention to go to the police with the bullshit she made up in Pizza Hut in the first place. Once she had told Susan and rumour got round to Liz ect who then called the police for Julie. She either had to admit she was lying or stick to what she had now said.

Similarly with the detail about a glove coming off in the fight, which was not mentioned in any of the newspapers.

This alleged fight between Nevill and Mathew MacDonald were a glove supposedly comes off, is comming from the same person that does not know if Mathew MacDonald has ever been to the farm where its supposed to have happend. This in itself shows Julie is making this up. Are you saying a woman cannot make something up? How did JK Rowling write Harry Potter? did someone have to give her all her ideas also?

Moreover they never found a glove on the kitchen floor and neither did they ever recover any gloves from JBs place either.

As for Charles Marsden. How can we possibly make anything of his statements when we have never seen them? If we did see them we would probably understand why he was never called to testify.

The main point being is that Julie never told Susan about this fire plot. Reason being beacuse she hadn't made it at that point. I think you will find that Charles Marsden told his girlfriend Liz Rimmington about this and she then told Julie not long after the malicious gossip in Lewisham Pizza Hut.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2019, 01:30:AM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23412
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #189 on: February 14, 2019, 05:00:AM »
Now you are just making things up in order to preclude Sheila from the crime. "Nevil would have taken the gun away" "Sheila would not have shot herself in that spot" blah blah blah.

It was never her intention to go to the police with the bullshit she made up in Pizza Hut in the first place. Once she had told Susan and rumour got round to Liz ect who then called the police for Julie. She either had to admit she was lying or stick to what she had now said.

And you say Steve is making things up!  ::)

This alleged fight between Nevill and Mathew MacDonald were a glove supposedly comes off, is comming from the same person that does not know if Mathew MacDonald has ever been to the farm where its supposed to have happend. This in itself shows Julie is making this up. Are you saying a woman cannot make something up? How did JK Rowling write Harry Potter? did someone have to give her all her ideas also?

Of course they can but Julie had no reason to rope in MM - Jeremy did!

Moreover they never found a glove on the kitchen floor and neither did they ever recover any gloves from JBs place either.

Why would they when it was one of the little details that Bamber added to make his story seem  more convincing!

As for Charles Marsden. How can we possibly make anything of his statements when we have never seen them? If we did see them we would probably understand why he was never called to testify. 

You mean the guy that Bamber called a liar but now admits there was a conversation about a fire?  ::)


The main point being is that Julie never told Susan about this fire plot. Reason being because she hadn't made it at that point. I think you will find that Charles Marsden told his girlfriend Liz Rimmington about this and she then told Julie not long after the malicious gossip in Lewisham Pizza Hut.

But Jeremy denied the conversation took place - he's changed his mind in recent years! Funny that!

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27416
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #190 on: February 14, 2019, 08:55:AM »
Now you are just making things up in order to preclude Sheila from the crime. "Nevil would have taken the gun away" "Sheila would not have shot herself in that spot" blah blah blah.

It was never her intention to go to the police with the bullshit she made up in Pizza Hut in the first place. Once she had told Susan and rumour got round to Liz ect who then called the police for Julie. She either had to admit she was lying or stick to what she had now said.

This alleged fight between Nevill and Mathew MacDonald were a glove supposedly comes off, is comming from the same person that does not know if Mathew MacDonald has ever been to the farm where its supposed to have happend. This in itself shows Julie is making this up. Are you saying a woman cannot make something up? How did JK Rowling write Harry Potter? did someone have to give her all her ideas also?

Moreover they never found a glove on the kitchen floor and neither did they ever recover any gloves from JBs place either.

As for Charles Marsden. How can we possibly make anything of his statements when we have never seen them? If we did see them we would probably understand why he was never called to testify.

The main point being is that Julie never told Susan about this fire plot. Reason being beacuse she hadn't made it at that point. I think you will find that Charles Marsden told his girlfriend Liz Rimmington about this and she then told Julie not long after the malicious gossip in Lewisham Pizza Hut.


Can you not see? You accuse Caroline of "Making things up to................Blah, blah, blah" yet, without her insight into behaviours, you do exactly the same ie you make sweeping statements regarding Julie's behaviour without having the slightest knowledge of what it must have felt like to be her. You invest her with statements and actions which simply are unlikely to fit because you're not allowing for her feelings and clearly have no understanding of how conflicted she'd have been. Actually, I, too, don't believe she'd had any intentions of going to the police, but NOT for the reasons you give.

The honeymoon period was long over. She believed - at least, hoped-  they were in it for the long haul. I don't believe she'd have confided in anyone when things started to go wrong -as in the man she loved showing signs of being different from the person she'd believed him to be. Wanting to murder his family, for instance- in general, women DON'T confide when their relationships implode, in part, because they feel ashamed. However, when they do, it's a relief to rid themselves of it. It's unlikely to all come out in one sitting -JKRowling will have written down her ideas before she sorted them out into a story and the only emotions her characters have are the ones imbued in them by readers- more often than not, things are left out because other things take priority. It could easily be that the "fire plot" was left out for this reason.

Returning to MM. Time and again, you have accused her of lying regarding him being at WHF. How COULD she be lying if he hadn't been present there on the few occasions she had? Given that she only repeated what Jeremy had told her, surely, if there were lies, they were his?

This wasn't a fantasy story written by JKR -or any other author- all the characters were flesh and blood, and experienced a similar range of emotions and needs as the rest of us. It was due to these emotions and needs that they acted the way they did. You paint a picture of Julie as being devoid of them.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6463
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #191 on: February 14, 2019, 10:47:AM »
According to Julie. Jeremy had put an act on for Ann on the 14th of August. Isnt he supposed to putting an act on for everyone 24/7?

Anyway where did she get this from? Ann Eaton.

In Ann's notes dated the 14th of August. "Good actor he must be"

"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23412
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #192 on: February 14, 2019, 11:48:AM »
According to Julie. Jeremy had put an act on for Ann on the 14th of August. Isnt he supposed to putting an act on for everyone 24/7?

Anyway where did she get this from? Ann Eaton.

In Ann's notes dated the 14th of August. "Good actor he must be"



Errrr from the fact that he was laying it on thick one minute and then right as rain the next!  ::)

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27416
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #193 on: February 14, 2019, 11:57:AM »
According to Julie. Jeremy had put an act on for Ann on the 14th of August. Isnt he supposed to putting an act on for everyone 24/7?

Anyway where did she get this from? Ann Eaton.

In Ann's notes dated the 14th of August. "Good actor he must be"



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.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23412
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #194 on: February 14, 2019, 12:09: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.

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'