Author Topic: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.  (Read 385 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7221
Just two days after she went to the police implicating Matthew McDonald as Jeremys hitman. Complete with a story of how Jeremy instructed him to enter the farm. She admits she does not know if Matthew Mcdonald had ever been to the farm in the first place.


"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".



"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".

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27763
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2019, 10:40:AM »
Just two days after she went to the police implicating Matthew McDonald as Jeremys hitman. Complete with a story of how Jeremy instructed him to enter the farm. She admits she does not know if Matthew Mcdonald had ever been to the farm in the first place.


"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".



"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".


But all she did was repeat what had been told her by Jeremy, so it was unnecessary for her to know whether or not MM had previously been to the farm. With the acceptance that Jeremy had told her the truth would have been the assumption that he knew his way. It's highly unlikely that she'd have asked Jeremy how he'd found his way there.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24215
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2019, 01:05:PM »
Just two days after she went to the police implicating Matthew McDonald as Jeremys hitman. Complete with a story of how Jeremy instructed him to enter the farm. She admits she does not know if Matthew Mcdonald had ever been to the farm in the first place.


"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".



"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".

Jeremy implicated an innocent Matthew McDonald, someone who he already harbored a grudge against!

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40686
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2019, 01:27:PM »
This case was nothing but a hate-fuelled/filled session in court as each in turn had an axe to grind with the other and because of the reams of paperwork handed in by those with huge grudges, the actual crime itself, its cause and motive were put to one side making/treating any evidence on a circumstantial basis.

The crime, such as it was would certainly have been handled differently today, with better policing and also a far better understanding of this particular type of crime. An example being how much further on in 34 years that those involved in this particular case have found, with many anomalies which have been unearthed. It's going to be a huge embarrassment to the justice system eventually.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24215
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2019, 02:08:PM »
This case was nothing but a hate-fuelled/filled session in court as each in turn had an axe to grind with the other and because of the reams of paperwork handed in by those with huge grudges, the actual crime itself, its cause and motive were put to one side making/treating any evidence on a circumstantial basis.

The crime, such as it was would certainly have been handled differently today, with better policing and also a far better understanding of this particular type of crime. An example being how much further on in 34 years that those involved in this particular case have found, with many anomalies which have been unearthed. It's going to be a huge embarrassment to the justice system eventually.

It already has been when police officers missed the fact that it was no murder suicide. However, they put that right and justice was done.

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40686
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2019, 03:43:PM »
Justice can be undone too with the correct information.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24215
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2019, 04:14:PM »
Justice can be undone too with the correct information.

You want 'justice' undone?  ???

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7221
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2019, 04:34:PM »

But all she did was repeat what had been told her by Jeremy, so it was unnecessary for her to know whether or not MM had previously been to the farm. With the acceptance that Jeremy had told her the truth would have been the assumption that he knew his way. It's highly unlikely that she'd have asked Jeremy how he'd found his way there.

She believed that Jeremy has hired Mcdonald to commit the crime yet doesn't know if he has ever been to the crime scene?


PS: What was your explanation for this woman's behaviour when you believed Sheila carried out the shootings?
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 04:37:PM by David1819 »

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27763
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2019, 04:50:PM »
She believed that Jeremy has hired Mcdonald to commit the crime yet doesn't know if he has ever been to the crime scene?


PS: What was your explanation for this woman's behaviour when you believed Sheila carried out the shootings?


Why do you keep labouring that it's necessary for her to "know"? It's perfectly obvious that if she believed he'd committed the crime, he HAD to have been at the crime scene.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7221
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2019, 05:01:PM »

Why do you keep labouring that it's necessary for her to "know"? It's perfectly obvious that if she believed he'd committed the crime, he HAD to have been at the crime scene.

No Jane. If she believed what she was allegedly told (as she said she did) she would have been under the impression that he had been to the crime scene. Yet she did not know if he been to the crime scene.  Hence its obvious she is lying. Any claim to the contrary is willfull ignorance.

PS: What was your explanation for this woman's behaviour when you believed Sheila carried out the shootings?
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 05:17:PM by David1819 »

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24215
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2019, 05:08:PM »
No Jane. If she believed what she was allegedly told (as she said she did) she would have been under the impression that he had been to the crime scene. Yet she did not know if he been to the crime scene.  Hence its obvious she is lying. Any claim to the contrary is willfull ignorance.

PS: What was you explanation for this woman's behaviour when you believed Sheila carried out the shootings?

Utter bollox, anyone with half a brain can work out that she was talking about PRIOR to the murders!


Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27763
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2019, 05:18:PM »
No Jane. If she believed what she was allegedly told (as she said she did) she would have been under the impression that he had been to the crime scene. Yet she did not know if he been to the crime scene.  Hence its obvious she is lying. Any claim to the contrary is willfull ignorance.

PS: What was you explanation for this woman's behaviour when you believed Sheila carried out the shootings?


Ignorance is your lack of knowledge of the nuances of language. How could she have believed he'd committed a crime at a scene he'd been absent from. It's perfectly acceptable that, until she was told he'd committed the crime, she'd given no thought to whether, or not, he'd ever visited the farm. Why would she?

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7221
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2019, 05:26:PM »

Ignorance is your lack of knowledge of the nuances of language. How could she have believed he'd committed a crime at a scene he'd been absent from. It's perfectly acceptable that, until she was told he'd committed the crime, she'd given no thought to whether, or not, he'd ever visited the farm. Why would she?

Well put 2 and 2 together. Her allegation is a lie  ::)

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27763
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2019, 05:38:PM »
Well put 2 and 2 together. Her allegation is a lie  ::)


You're right! It was!! But the lie was NEVER hers. She simply repeated the lie that Jeremy had told her and as such she can't be held responsible for it.

I seem to recall that, at various times, to suit the situation? you've held to either knowing nothing about this case, OR having made in depth study of it. If I'd passed this information on, one of those claims will have been untrue but the untruth wouldn't have been mine, I'd have simply been passing on information.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7221
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2019, 05:50:PM »

You're right! It was!! But the lie was NEVER hers. She simply repeated the lie that Jeremy had told her and as such she can't be held responsible for it.

I seem to recall that, at various times, to suit the situation? you've held to either knowing nothing about this case, OR having made in depth study of it. If I'd passed this information on, one of those claims will have been untrue but the untruth wouldn't have been mine, I'd have simply been passing on information.



If I was told by Fred Bloggs that he hired Bob Bloggs to murder my next door neighbour at his house and I believe that to be true. Would I then say I don't know if Bob Bloggs has ever been to my next door neighbours house?

  ::)
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 05:51:PM by David1819 »