Jeremy Bamber Forum

JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Luminous Wanderer on April 01, 2018, 06:40:AM

Title: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 01, 2018, 06:40:AM
It is my view that the former Julie Mugford is no longer relevant to this case, if she ever was.  Remember that I am considering this case in the context of what is thought to be Jeremy Bamber's legal position now, which includes:

(a). A conviction for five murders following a jury trial, albeit only on a majority verdict.  No serious mitigation available, and had capital punishment still existed, we can assume he would have been hung.

(b). 33 years in custody, but he still vehemently denies he did it.

(c). A whole life order, meaning that unless the legal position changes, he will not be released on licence and he may even die in custody.

(d). Two failed appeals.

(e). At least one failed application to the CCRC that we know of, and that following very lengthy consideration of his case by the CCRC's investigators over a number of years.

(f). A failed judicial review challenging the CCRC's refusal to refer his case to the Court of Appeal.

In view of these facts, we can make the following observations:

(i). Bamber is no longer at trial.  That was more than 30 years ago.  The methods and approaches needed to secure a successful CCRC application are different to those needed to secure an acquittal by a jury.

(ii). Julie Mugford's evidence was largely hearsay and therefore cannot be disproved, as such.

(iii). The Crown's case stands with or without Julie Mugford.  Even if Julie Mugford's evidence could be eroded or undermined to some significant degree, that would not undermine the safety of Bamber's murder convictions. 

(iv). The converse of (iii) above is that these murder convictions can be quashed with or without Julie Mugford's evidence.

Let us consider what an appellate court has to accept in order to quash Bamber's conviction.

For our purposes, we can provisionally simplify the test this way:

The judges must ask themselves-

-If a jury had heard this evidence, could they have arrived at a different verdict?-

That, I admit, is not the be-all and end-all of the matter, and a lawyer who specialises in this area will probably dispute my wording, but it suffices for our practical purposes.  We don't need to be exact to the nth at this point.

If we apply that (admittedly, rough and ready) test, we can immediately see the basis of a misunderstanding about what needs to be done.  It is thought that by undermining Julie Mugford, that would present the judges with no option but to quash the conviction.  After all, the thinking goes, if the jury had concluded that the former Miss Mugford was lying or had no credibility, or whatever, then surely they could have come to a different verdict in view of such an appraisal?

Unfortunately, that's not the way it works.  The point is that Julie Mugford's evidence didn't amount to proof that Bamber had done the killings and, in this case, all the signs are the jury didn't rely on her evidence.  Furthermore, even if the jury had relied on her evidence, the convictions would stand without her evidence.  Therefore, any attempt to undermine Julie Mugford's evidence is futile because it can never satisfy the test - roughly summarised above - that must be applied by the appellate judges.

Julie Mugford is of no relevance or importance to Jeremy Bamber and she should be left to her life in Canada.  Quite apart from my view that her contribution to the trial was strictly for entertainment value - her evidence being a joke and not even accepted by the jury - the point is that attacking her evidence proves nothing.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 01, 2018, 06:58:AM
How dare you say 'MUGFORD is no longer relevant in this case' You are insulting the Bamber family who are not here to defend themselves.

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 01, 2018, 07:02:AM
How dare you say 'MUGFORD is no longer relevant in this case' You are insulting the Bamber family who are not here to defend themselves.

I think if we're going to discuss this rationally, you need to take your blinkers off and stop being emotional.

I think this is a good forum, and members here are mostly polite and constructive, but as with the Red Forum, there are points when reason and logic goes out the window in favour of dogmas and emotive ranting and raving.

I have no interest in discussions with dogmatic and egotistical people.  That's because nothing can be achieved through such discussions.

Either address the points I make and show me why I am wrong - and if you do, I will gladly accept you are right, as I am not bringing my ego into this - or stop commenting on my posts.

In other words - I'm asking you to behave like an adult.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 01, 2018, 07:10:AM
If the Jury had known MUGFORD was staying in the Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, London PAID FOR by the News of the World AT THE PECISE MOMENT they said "GUILTY."

Do you think they would have said "GUILTY"?.

Baring in mind she was at least 50% of the reason why they reached their conclusion.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 01, 2018, 07:40:AM
If the Jury had known MUGFORD was staying in the Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, London PAID FOR by the News of the World AT THE PECISE MOMENT they said "GUILTY."

Do you think they would have said "GUILTY"?.

Baring in mind she was at least 50% of the reason why they reached their conclusion.

I understand why you think this way, and I even agree with you to an extent, and you may also be right that, in reality, the jury's decision may have been different.

But....What you have to bear in mind here is that this is not at trial any more.  There is no actual jury.  Instead, assuming the CCRC ever refer this case again, we have a 'hypothetical jury' that exists in the minds of the would-be appellate judges.

In other words, what the judges are asking themselves is:

Could this evidence have affected the jury's decision?

Not - Would this evidence have affected the jury's decision?

The difference between 'could' and 'would' here is that the appellate judges have no idea what the jury would or would not have done in given circumstances.  They don't have second sight or any other paranormal abilities.  They're just ordinary men, like you and me, albeit a good deal more intelligent and better educated than we are. 

The judges cannot know what was going through the minds of the jury, they - like us - only have indicators, and even if the indications are that Julie Mugford's evidence was influential (which it wasn't anyway), it wouldn't matter because her evidence didn't prove he did it, any more than if you told me that you were going to kill Adam tomorrow because he's annoying, and Adam then dropped dead tomorrow, and then it turned out he'd been beaten round the head with a baseball bat, that would prove you'd killed Adam.  It would prove no such thing and my evidence against you, while no doubt of some relevance, would be of little or no help to a criminal jury in deciding whether to convict you of murdering Adam. 

Likewise, Julie Mugford's evidence is largely hearsay - and that's apart from the fact she repeatedly lied and then changed her story.  What we're talking about here is a double-edged sword - yes, it may be that her evidence added force to the Crown's case, but the weakness in her evidence now renders her irrelevant.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 01, 2018, 10:09:AM
I understand why you think this way, and I even agree with you to an extent, and you may also be right that, in reality, the jury's decision may have been different.

But....What you have to bear in mind here is that this is not at trial any more.  There is no actual jury.  Instead, assuming the CCRC ever refer this case again, we have a 'hypothetical jury' that exists in the minds of the would-be appellate judges.

In other words, what the judges are asking themselves is:

Could this evidence have affected the jury's decision?

Not - Would this evidence have affected the jury's decision?

The difference between 'could' and 'would' here is that the appellate judges have no idea what the jury would or would not have done in given circumstances.  They don't have second sight or any other paranormal abilities.  They're just ordinary men, like you and me, albeit a good deal more intelligent and better educated than we are. 

The judges cannot know what was going through the minds of the jury, they - like us - only have indicators, and even if the indications are that Julie Mugford's evidence was influential (which it wasn't anyway), it wouldn't matter because her evidence didn't prove he did it, any more than if you told me that you were going to kill Adam tomorrow because he's annoying, and Adam then dropped dead tomorrow, and then it turned out he'd been beaten round the head with a baseball bat, that would prove you'd killed Adam.  It would prove no such thing and my evidence against you, while no doubt of some relevance, would be of little or no help to a criminal jury in deciding whether to convict you of murdering Adam. 

Likewise, Julie Mugford's evidence is largely hearsay - and that's apart from the fact she repeatedly lied and then changed her story.  What we're talking about here is a double-edged sword - yes, it may be that her evidence added force to the Crown's case, but the weakness in her evidence now renders her irrelevant.

When did Julie 'repeatedly lie' & change her story ? Once she approached the police a month after the massacre she hasn't retracted a word and none of it has proven to be wrong. 

It is a good question relating to the current situation. Thirty three years on Bamber is still be looking for a technicality. It's very doubtful he will find it with Julie. However the OS will continue posting Youtube videos & internet articles about her as properganda.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 01, 2018, 10:13:AM
When did Julie 'repeatedly lie' & change her story ? Once she approached the police a month after the massacre she hasn't retracted a word and none of it has proven to be wrong. 

It is a good question relating to the current situation. Thirty three years on Bamber is still be looking for a technicality. It's doubtful he will find it with Julie. However the OS will continue posting Youtube videos & internet articles about her as properganda.

Why was MUGFORD 'laid up' in the Holiday Inn, Sloane Square London the second the word "GUILTY" .....?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 01, 2018, 10:26:AM
The 'News of the world' approached Julie during the trial.

They already had a deal with Bamber, but were given inside information that Bamber was going to be found guilty. So wanted a backup article.

Witnesses on famous trials have often made money afterwards. Kato Kalin got his own Television show after being a witness in the OJ Simpson case.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 01, 2018, 10:27:AM
The 'News of the world' approached Julie during the trial.

They already had a deal with Bamber, but were given inside information that Bamber was going to be found guilty. So wanted a backup article.

Witnesses on famous trials have often made money afterwards. Kato Kalin got his own Television show after being a witness in the OJ Simpson case.

Please see my post from other thread.

I stopped reading after your 'They already had a deal with Bamber,' please reply sans BAMBER.

nb
is you want to discuss whether Jeremy had a 'verbal' agreement in place, start your own thread, don't hijack this one.'
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 01, 2018, 10:29:AM
Bamber had also tried to profit from the massacre prior to being arrested. Offerring photos of Sheila and his story to The Sun for a substantial fee.

Nugs's view that Bamber offerred this for free but The Sun rejected Bamber's offer so they could post a false story falls flat. The Sun knew Bamber would shortly have the financial power to successfully sue them. A free story from Bamber was just as good anyway.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 01, 2018, 10:30:AM
Bamber had also tried to profit from the massacre prior to being arrested. Offerring photos of Sheila and his story to The Sun for a substantial fee.

Nugs's view that Bamber offerred this for free & The Sun rejected Bamber's offer so they could post a false story falls flat. The Sun knew Bamber would shortly have the financial power to successfully sue them.

nb
is you want to discuss whether Jeremy had a 'verbal' agreement in place, start your own thread, don't hijack this one.'
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 01, 2018, 10:39:AM
Anyway Julie is not relevant to Bamber getting released now. He needs to find new evidence.

Supporters will still write about Julie. To claim she lied to the police & courts to help convict an innocent man of murdering his family. Because, according to Bamber, he jilted her.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: ngb1066 on April 01, 2018, 10:52:AM
The 'News of the world' approached Julie during the trial.

They already had a deal with Bamber, but were given inside information that Bamber was going to be found guilty. So wanted a backup article.



How do you know any of this?  You are making it up!
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 01, 2018, 10:54:AM
How do you know any of this?  You are making it up!

not the first time by adam666
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 01, 2018, 10:55:AM
How do you know any of this?  You are making it up!

Don't be rude & goad.

You know the News of the World approached Julie.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: ngb1066 on April 01, 2018, 10:57:AM
Don't be rude & goad.

You know the News of the World approached Julie.

I know they did.  However, how do you know when they approached her, and when she concluded a deal for £25,000?

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 01, 2018, 10:58:AM
Don't be rude & goad.

You know the News of the World approached Julie.

Yes so MUGFORD, 'laid up' in Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, LONDON

IS IN "contempt of court"....agreed?...WITH HER 'VERBAL AGREEMENT'.

WHY WAS SHE THERE (Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, LONDON) OTHERWISE?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 01, 2018, 11:00:AM
I know they did.  However, how do you know when they approached her, and when she concluded a deal for £25,000?

So why did you goad me by saying 'I am making it up'.

When did they approach her ? It would have been after securing a deal with Bamber & after realising Bamber was then going to be convicted. So at the earliest half way through the trial. More likely nearer the end of the trial.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 01, 2018, 11:03:AM
So why did you goad me by saying 'I am making it up'.

When did they approach her ? It would have been after securing a deal with Bamber & after realising Bamber was then going to be convicted. So at the earliest half way through the trial. More likely nearer the end of the trial.

when, where, why.?
you are dodging my question

MUGFORD, 'laid up' in Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, LONDON

?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: ngb1066 on April 01, 2018, 11:04:AM
So why did you goad me by saying 'I am making it up'.

When did they approach her ? It would have been after securing a deal with Bamber & after realising Bamber was then going to be convicted. So at the earliest half way through the trial. More likely nearer the end of the trial.

You are making it up, because you do not have any information about when the agreement was concluded. 

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 01, 2018, 11:08:AM
You are making it up, because you do not have any information about when the agreement was concluded.

I gave my opinion in the last post.

If you know why don't you tell us. Unless you are making up you're inside knowledge claim of the case.

It's obvious the verbal agreement was during the trial.

Bamber was unable to prove the signed agreement was prior to the verdict. So it had to be after the verdict.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 01, 2018, 11:11:AM
The NOTW would not sign anything until after the verdict.

Julie would not be needed by the NOTW if Bamber was found 'not guilty'.  Besides which it was probably illegal to sign pre verdict.

Not surprising Bamber had no luck with this technicality.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 01, 2018, 11:13:AM
The NOTW would not sign anything until after the verdict.

Julie would not be needed by the NOTW if Bamber was found 'not guilty'.  Besides which it was probably illegal to sign pre verdict.

Not surprising Bamber had no luck with this technicality.

STILL NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

ARE YOU HOPING TO BECOME A politician?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: ngb1066 on April 01, 2018, 11:17:AM
I gave my opinion in the last post.

If you know why don't you tell us. Unless you are making up you're inside knowledge claim of the case.

It's obvious the verbal agreement was during the trial.

Bamber was unable to prove the signed agreement was prior to the verdict. So it had to be after the verdict.

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.

 
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 01, 2018, 11:17:AM
Anyway the common sense procedure between Julie & the NOTW was -

The NOTW approached Julie mid/end of trial. A verbal agreement was made.

The NOTW & Julie signed papers directly after the verdict.

Bamber's verbal agreement with the NOTW did not become a signed agreement as he was found guilty. 
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: ngb1066 on April 01, 2018, 11:18:AM
Anyway the common sense procedure between Julie & the NOTW was -

The NOTW approached Julie mid/end of trial. A verbal agreement was made.

The NOTW & Julie signed papers directly after the verdict.

Bamber's verbal agreement with the NOTW did not become a signed agreement as he was found guilty.

Pure speculation on your part, and incorrect.

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 01, 2018, 11:20: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.

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

Because Mugford was 'laid up' in Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, LONDON

Good God, even I can work that out!
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 01, 2018, 11:23: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.

You and Mike have a lot of inside knowledge you won't post on here.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 01, 2018, 11:26:AM
You and Mike have a lot of inside knowledge you won't post on here.

I wonder why. maybe you WILL look foolish.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: ngb1066 on April 01, 2018, 11:28:AM
"Why is it obvious the verbal agreement was during the trial?"

Because Mugford was 'laid up' in Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, LONDON

Good God, even I can work that out!

That does not mean the agreement was made during the trial, it could have been made before the trial.  As I have told you, it was a written agreement, negotiated on JM's behalf by her solicitor.  Even JM admits that!

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 01, 2018, 11:29:AM
Pure speculation on your part, and incorrect.

Well it's my view. Unless you post sourced evidence the verbal agreement was before the trial. You won't.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 01, 2018, 11:31:AM
That does not mean the agreement was made during the trial, it could have been made before the trial.  As I have told you, it was a written agreement, negotiated on JM's behalf by her solicitor.  Even JM admits that!

BEFORE or DURING it does not matter.

Why?

Because MUGFORD was there Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, LONDON PAID FOR BY NEWS OF THE WORLD ,  when 'guilty' verdict was passed.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 01, 2018, 11:32:AM
NGB if proof is found that Julie & the NOTW signed the contracts before the verdict, would that be sufficient to release Bamber on a technicality ?

However I don't believe the NOTW lawyers would make such a big mistake.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 01, 2018, 11:33:AM
BEFORE or DURING it does not matter.

Why?

Because MUGFORD was there Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, LONDON ,  when 'guilty' verdict was passed.

I agree it is not really important when a verbal agreement was made.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: ngb1066 on April 01, 2018, 11:33:AM
BEFORE or DURING it does not matter.

Why?

Because MUGFORD was there,  when 'guilty' verdict was passed.

The key thing is whether the agreement was concluded, or even being negotiated, before JM gave evidence in the trial. 

 
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 01, 2018, 11:35:AM
NGB if proof is found that Julie & the NOTW signed the contracts before the verdict, would that be sufficient to release Bamber on a technicality ?

However I don't believe the NOTW lawyers would make such a big mistake.

Not interested in 'signed contracts' thank you very much.

'Verbal agreement' is enough.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: ngb1066 on April 01, 2018, 11:35:AM
Well it's my view. Unless you post sourced evidence the verbal agreement was before the trial. You won't.

You are correct, I will not post it.  I am however confident that the information is correct as it comes from a very reliable and independent source, backed by documentary evidence.

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: ngb1066 on April 01, 2018, 11:37:AM
NGB if proof is found that Julie & the NOTW signed the contracts before the verdict, would that be sufficient to release Bamber on a technicality ?

However I don't believe the NOTW lawyers would make such a big mistake.

It would be sufficient to constitute a ground of appeal and taken with other new material could be sufficient to overturn the convictions, not on a technicality but because the convictions could no longer be regarded as safe.

 
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 01, 2018, 11:39:AM
You are correct, I will not post it.  I am however confident that the information is correct as it comes from a very reliable and independent source, backed by documentary evidence.

YES, because MUGFORD was at Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, LONDON when 'guilty' VERDICT WAS GIVEN.....

...rather than at home or a friends house.

Good God, I may not be 'the sharpest tool in the box' but even I can work this out.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 01, 2018, 11:48:AM
It would be sufficient to constitute a ground of appeal and taken with other new material could be sufficient to overturn the convictions, not on a technicality but because the convictions could no longer be regarded as safe.

So this technicality may be what Bamber is going to present to the CCRC. If ever there is another submission.

If the signed contracts were after Julie's testimony but before the verdict, is that still illegal ?

Signing contracts before Julie's testimony could motivate her to lie under oath to attempt to get a conviction. However after her testimony, she can't influence the trial.

As mentioned, I don't believe Julie's or the NOTW's lawyers would make such a huge error with contract signing dates. Espescially as Julie won't be needed if there was a not guilty verdict.

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 01, 2018, 11:53:AM
So this technicality may be what Bamber is going to present to the CCRC. If ever there is another submission.

If the signed contracts were after Julie's testimony but before the verdict, is that still illegal ?

Signing contracts before Julie's testimony could motivate her to lie under oath to attempt to get a conviction. However after her testimony, she can't influence the trial.

As mentioned, I don't believe Julie's or the NOTW's lawyers would make such a huge error with contract signing dates. Espescially as Julie won't be needed if there was a not guilty verdict.

You harp on about  "written contracts'.

THIS WAS A VERBAL CONTRACT
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: ngb1066 on April 01, 2018, 11:58:AM
You harp on about  "written contracts'.

THIS WAS A VERBAL CONTRACT


It was recorded in a written agreement.

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 01, 2018, 12:39:PM
It would be sufficient to constitute a ground of appeal and taken with other new material could be sufficient to overturn the convictions, not on a technicality but because the convictions could no longer be regarded as safe.

Sorry, with respect (and I have no dog in this hunt), it's not a ground of appeal.  It won't overturn the conviction.  Your post above is really just a way of admitting that, if you stop and think about it.  You're flogging a dead horse.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: ngb1066 on April 01, 2018, 12:43:PM
Sorry, with respect (and I have no dog in this hunt), it's not a ground of appeal.  It won't overturn the conviction.  Your post above is really just a way of admitting that, if you stop and think about it.  You're flogging a dead horse.

I did not say on its own it would overturn the conviction.  It would be a valid ground of appeal, taken with others.  I do know what I am talking about.  I have conducted many cases in the Court of Appeal in the past. 

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 01, 2018, 12:50:PM
I did not say on its own it would overturn the conviction.  It would be a valid ground of appeal, taken with others.  I do know what I am talking about.  I have conducted many cases in the Court of Appeal in the past.

I know you said that it would be in conjunction with other points.  My other post points to that as a basis for saying that your own post is just a way of admitting that it ISN'T a ground for appeal.  And it isn't.  Her evidence proved nothing.  But I don't care about Julie Mugford, go ahead.

I think I'm done here. I've learned what I want to learn about this case.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: nugnug on April 01, 2018, 12:52:PM
well it doesn't really matter how many times here evidence is discredited I found it that credible to begin with unless she retracts it or evidence of her admitting she made it up is found it still stands.

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: ngb1066 on April 01, 2018, 12:58:PM
I know you said that it would be in conjunction with other points.  My other post points to that as a basis for saying that your own post is just a way of admitting that it ISN'T a ground for appeal.  And it isn't.  Her evidence proved nothing.  But I don't care about Julie Mugford, go ahead.

I think I'm done here. I've learned what I want to learn about this case.

Julie Mugford's evidence was very important and alongside the evidence relating to the sound moderator was one of the two central planks of the prosecution case.  Her evidence in essence was that JB admitted to her his guilt.  If her evidence can be undermined to a significant extent, particularly in conjunction with other new evidence casting doubt on the sound moderator evidence and in relation to other evidence, the convictions might be overturned.  That is what I have been saying, no more and no less.
If you want to learn more about these points you could use the search facility here to review some of the old threads.  Early 2012 would be a very good place to start.  A lot of this was covered in far greater detail then. 
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 01, 2018, 01:23:PM
Julie Mugford's evidence was very important and alongside the evidence relating to the sound moderator was one of the two central planks of the prosecution case.  Her evidence in essence was that JB admitted to her his guilt.  If her evidence can be undermined to a significant extent, particularly in conjunction with other new evidence casting doubt on the sound moderator evidence and in relation to other evidence, the convictions might be overturned.  That is what I have been saying, no more and no less.
If you want to learn more about these points you could use the search facility here to review some of the old threads.  Early 2012 would be a very good place to start.  A lot of this was covered in far greater detail then.

It ain't working Mike...we are on the route to The Light....see other threads.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: buddy on April 01, 2018, 02:43:PM
I agree with ngb on this. The conviction was secured on the testimony of JM and the dodgy evidence of the moderator.
As I have already mentioned in the past why were there so few fingerprints found on the rifle?
From memory there was one print from Sheila and one from JB. It is clear that the rifle had been wiped clean by EP.
Why would JB wipe the rifle clean as he already said he handled the rifle on the night of the murders and why would Sheila?
The police investigation was botched from the beginning, and JBs conviction is unsafe imo.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 02, 2018, 11:56:AM
well it doesn't really matter how many times here evidence is discredited I found it that credible to begin with unless she retracts it or evidence of her admitting she made it up is found it still stands.
Yes I agree that if Julie were to admit that she lied the Establishment (who must be sick of this case by now) would find some grounds to release him, probably before the August holiday or Christmas when people's attention is distracted.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 02, 2018, 12:24:PM
I don't believe Bamber will ever make a third CCRC application. Espescially based on when Julie signed a contract with the NOTW. Even though NGB said yesterday he has information he won't disclose.

It would be disappointing if this did happen. Julie's & the NOTW lawyers getting Julie to sign a contract at the wrong time is hardly 'fresh evidence' showing Bamber is innocent,  or that Julie's WS completed a year earlier is wrong.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 02, 2018, 12:41:PM
I don't believe Bamber will ever make a third CCRC application. Espescially based on when Julie signed a contract with the NOTW. Even though NGB said yesterday he has information he won't disclose.

It would be disappointing if this did happen. Julie's & the NOTW lawyers getting Julie to sign a contract at the wrong time is hardly 'fresh evidence' showing Bamber is innocent,  or that Julie's WS completed a year earlier is wrong.
Yes I despair, and not for the first time.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: maggie on April 02, 2018, 01:09:PM
Yes I despair, and not for the first time.
I don't understand why you despair Steve, is it because of the secrecy?  Surely if something is told to you in confidence I am sure you would not post it up on a public forum for all the world to see? There are obviously reasons why such information needs to remain private at the moment.  :-\
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: maggie on April 02, 2018, 01:14:PM
Yes I agree that if Julie were to admit that she lied the Establishment (who must be sick of this case by now) would find some grounds to release him, probably before the August holiday or Christmas when people's attention is distracted.
Whether the proof JMugford lied has any effect on JB's sentence or not it is still unacceptable. I find it strange how some think anything goes in the criminal justice system as long as it supports their own fixed beliefs.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 on April 02, 2018, 04:57:PM
I did not say on its own it would overturn the conviction.  It would be a valid ground of appeal, taken with others.  I do know what I am talking about.  I have conducted many cases in the Court of Appeal in the past.

NGB. David Boutflour told David James Smith in 2010 that he showed Sheila how to fire a shotgun and that she fired it while in Scotland. Back in 1986 at trial DB denied this.

Should this not be ground for appeal also, considering DB was a prosecution witness and also handled the sound moderator? It brings everything he told the jury into question.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: ngb1066 on April 02, 2018, 05:26:PM
NGB. David Boutflour told David James Smith in 2010 that he showed Sheila how to fire a shotgun and that she fired it while in Scotland. Back in 1986 at trial DB denied this.

Should this not be ground for appeal also, considering DB was a prosecution witness and also handled the sound moderator? It brings everything he told the jurt into question.

In itself this would not be sufficient to overturn the conviction because it does not directly undermine the key tenets of the prosecution case at trial.  However it is a matter which could be raised in an appeal, alongside other grounds.

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 on April 02, 2018, 05:58:PM
In itself this would not be sufficient to overturn the conviction because it does not directly undermine the key tenets of the prosecution case at trial.  However it is a matter which could be raised in an appeal, alongside other grounds.

But it was DB that discovered and handled the linchpin of the prosecution case. The essence of the case rests on his integrity.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: ngb1066 on April 02, 2018, 06:20:PM
But it was DB that discovered and handled the linchpin of the prosecution case. The essence of the case rests on his integrity.

His evidence was important and undermining his credibility would assist the defence but this discrepancy on its own would not result in the convictions being overturned.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 on April 02, 2018, 07:11:PM
His evidence was important and undermining his credibility would assist the defence but this discrepancy on its own would not result in the convictions being overturned.

On its own no. But there is so much more that has come to light since the verdict. Combined it changes the whole picture.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: guest154 on April 02, 2018, 08:46:PM
NGB. David Boutflour told David James Smith in 2010 that he showed Sheila how to fire a shotgun and that she fired it while in Scotland. Back in 1986 at trial DB denied this.

Should this not be ground for appeal also, considering DB was a prosecution witness and also handled the sound moderator? It brings everything he told the jury into question.

Where?
Let's look at what David Smith said in 2010.


Sheila
had been treated for depression and recently
diagnosed with schizophrenia. Her mother had
been treated for depression, too. At different
times they had been patients at the same private
psychiatric hospital.


The blood evidence was inconclusive, but the
paint matched the underside of the shelf above
the Aga in the kitchen. There were fresh scratches
on the shelf, so it seemed likely the silencer had
been on the gun during the struggle between
Nevill and his killer. If the silencer was on the gun
at the time of the shootings, the gun became too
long for Sheila to put the nozzle at her throat and
still reach the trigger. It was not credible to
imagine her killing everyone else before removing
the silencer, going downstairs, putting the silencer
back in the cupboard, going back up to the
bedroom and then shooting herself. If the silencer
was genuine evidence, the killer could not have
been Sheila, Bamber’s story of the phone call was
a lie, and he must have been the killer


It was found
lying across Sheila’s
body, the silencer was
elsewhere. Bamber has
built up thousands of
pieces of ‘evidence’,
including this original
note from the forensic
study of the silencer


When David Boutflour,
Ann Eaton and Anthony Pargeter went to
raise their suspicions of Bamber with him, he
was having none of it. Eaton was dubbed an
interfering Miss Marple. Boutflour recalled
the meeting for me and how Pargeter had said
they really weren’t pointing the finger at anybody, but they didn’t think it was Sheila,
and Jones had stood up and said, I’m not
listening to this rubbish, out you go! Eaton had
persisted and he had again stood up, I’m going
to have to ask you to leave. He wasn’t going to
listen to a lot of old nonsense.
Some junior detectives doubted it was Sheila,
but they couldn’t speak to Jones either. Eventually
he was effectively overruled and other senior
officers took charge. Jones went home and was
up a ladder doing house repairs when he fell and
suffered injuries that eventually led to his death, on
May 11, 1986. It’s more than a little coincidental
that the only officer who always believed Bamber’s
account of events should have died in a freak
accident, but there is nothing obviously untoward
in the incident, which I investigated thoroughly.
It was without doubt a genuine accident, as the
inquest into Jones’s death confirmed


Jeremy believes Sheila was the other “body”,
still alive downstairs and that she then roused
herself and went upstairs to shoot herself. Then,
too, there is that open telephone line and,
according to the police log, a sound recording was
made. The recordings have never been disclosed
and cannot be traced by Bamber and his legal
team.


I had said on the way in that I feared I would
find him repulsive, but in the event, I found him
all too human and understandable. Except for
the part of him that I felt was hidden. The corner
of his soul that carried the knowledge of what
had really happened that night 25 years ago,
and who really had killed his family.
He knows the truth. And he is the only person
in the world who does.
Was it Sheila? Was it Jeremy?
Reader, I have no idea
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: guest154 on April 02, 2018, 08:47:PM
and about David Doutflour.


Bamber claims that David Boutflour found
the silencer on September 11, not August 10, and
was “prevailed upon” to engage in a conspiracy
and backdate it. Boutflour, of course, says this
is nonsense, and everything happened just as
he said it did at the time and repeated in court.
“Just to put it clearly,” Boutflour said at the
end of our meeting, “I have never had any
doubts that Jeremy is guilty.”

He says that the scratch marks were
deliberately made to incriminate him
later‚ all part of a plan to frame him for
the murders and ensure that he did not
receive his rightful inheritance. His
cousin David Boutflour dismisses his
claim as ‘absolute piffle’


When David Boutflour,
Ann Eaton and Anthony Pargeter went to
raise their suspicions of Bamber with him, he
was having none of it

Jones conducted a bare minimum of
forensic inquiry and returned the house keys
to the family after two days so that Jeremy’s
cousins David Boutflour and Ann Eaton could
go in and have a clean-up. David and Ann’s
father, Robert, was there too that day. He was
married to June Bamber’s sister Pamela. (Robert
is now in his nineties and suffering from
Alzheimer’s.) Nowadays, of course, the property
would be sealed for weeks and the forensic
inquiries would be painstaking, but in the 1980s,
senior officers were often a law unto themselves,
and once they — some of them — had made their
minds up, that was that.

20
what had happened. Boutflour ignored the letter
and insisted to me when we met that there was no
conspiracy, no perjuring, no fit-up.
Ann Eaton moved into the farm not long after
the murders and still lives there with her family.
Bamber told me he thought she was a “sick
puppy” for doing that. Eaton would not talk to me
for this article — indeed, after I wrote her a polite
letter I received a “warning” call from an Essex
police detective superintendent asking me to
leave her alone, which I did — but David Boutflour
was generous and spoke to me at length. It is clear
he doesn’t understand his sister’s actions either.
How could she? Boutflour told me he knew Ann’s
children had suffered nightmares. As well you
might. Bamber said she was “as cold as ice”.
At the very least, the killings created lasting
schisms across the family, mostly to do with
money and inheritance. A third, more distant
cousin, Anthony Pargeter, has waged his own
long legal struggle against the estate, to claim
what he believes is his share. I was told he had
suffered his own mental anguish as a result.
amber was downgraded some years
ago from a Category-A prisoner to
Category-B, meaning he was not such a
risk of escape and his conditions could be slightly
relaxed. He was upgraded again to Cat-A,
apparently after his cousins complained, having
received guidance from Essex police on how they
might make their feelings about his change of
status known. It was apparent he feels very
resentful about that. Of course the police advice
might be seen as perfectly proper, but Bamber
insists the cousins were simply being vindictive.
While Bamber began living it large after the
killings, spending money on holidays, meals and
drinks for him and his girlfriend, 21-year-old Julie
Mugford, and other friends, his relatives — Ann,
David and their father, Robert — quickly became
suspicious. They doubted Sheila was capable of
the shootings and watched Bamber carefully for
signs of suspect behaviour, imagining all kinds of
fancy theories about how he might have got to and
from the farm undetected, using a bicycle to get
there and a small unlatched window to gain entry.
During the clean-up on August 10, by his own
account David Boutflour picked up some
ammunition that was lying around and went to
return it to the gun cupboard where he found
hidden away the sound moderator — we can call
it the “silencer” — of the murder weapon. It was
sticky as if it had been hurriedly cleaned, and
appeared to show spots of blood and flecks of
red paint, and a single hair.
Boutflour told me: “I remember some things like
it was yesterday. I remember finding the silencer.
He’s suggesting that we fraudulently shoved
the paint and the blood in to make it appear he
had done it. Well, that’s a load of rubbish. What
would be the point? There was enough evidence
anyway. What an absolute load of piffle.”

Bamber was
disinherited on conviction and the estate passed
to the Boutflours. He believes David Boutflour
might “admit” his part in this conspiracy
and wrote to him not long ago asking him to
“play the white man” and be honest about what had happened. Boutflour ignored the letter
and insisted to me when we met that there was no
conspiracy, no perjuring, no fit-up.


But David Boutflour
was generous and spoke to me at length. It is clear
he doesn’t understand his sister’s actions either.
How could she? Boutflour told me he knew Ann’s
children had suffered nightmares. As well you
might. Bamber said she was “as cold as ice”.
At the very least, the killings created lasting
schisms across the family, mostly to do with
money and inheritance. A third, more distant
cousin, Anthony Pargeter, has waged his own
long legal struggle against the estate, to claim
what he believes is his share. I was told he had
suffered his own mental anguish as a result.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: guest154 on April 02, 2018, 08:48:PM
That's the article by DJS from 2010. If Boutflour said to DJS as you claim, then why didn't DJS put that in his article?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 on April 02, 2018, 10:45:PM
Where?

Carol Ann Lee - The Murders at White House Farm: Page 50

"But in the aftermath of the murders, it was the expedition to Scotland which became the focus of discussion, regarding whether or not Sheila had used a gun during the trip. Jeremy was adamant that she had, but initially his relatives demurred. More recently, David Boutflour recalled that Sheila had in fact fired his shotgun."


She cites. David James Smith full interview transcript, 2010

On page 419 she writes.

"Journalist and author David James Smith very kindly made the transcript of his 2010 interviews with Jeremy Bamber and David and Karen Boutflour available to me."


Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: guest154 on April 02, 2018, 10:47:PM
Carol Ann Lee - The Murders at White House Farm: Page 50

"But in the aftermath of the murders, it was the expedition to Scotland which became the focus of discussion, regarding whether or not Sheila had used a gun during the trip. Jeremy was adamant that she had, but initially his relatives demurred. More recently, David Boutflour recalled that Sheila had in fact fired his shotgun."


She cites. David James Smith full interview transcript, 2010

On page 419 she writes.

"Journalist and author David James Smith very kindly made the transcript of his 2010 interviews with Jeremy Bamber and David and Karen Boutflour available to me."

If that's the case. Why didn't David Smith put that in the article that he wrote, regarding his interviews with Boutflour at that time?

Seems like quite the glaring thing to leave out, don't you think?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: guest154 on April 03, 2018, 12:10:AM
If that's the case. Why didn't David Smith put that in the article that he wrote, regarding his interviews with Boutflour at that time?

Seems like quite the glaring thing to leave out, don't you think?

Also, is that the FULL quote from the book?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 03, 2018, 12:56:AM
Also, is that the FULL quote from the book?
Yes the one on page 420 is just Carol Ann Lee expressing gratitude to the people who provided sources for her book. David is being a little disingenuous though because there's further information on the shooting trip in Scotland:

The party had stopped for coffee and sandwiches on a mountainside: "And she said, "Oh we girls haven't ever shot a gun, would you mind if I tried, just tried, to shoot it?" And so I gave her the 12-bore and told her to hold it very tightly into her shoulder. (She) fired it vertically in the air, virtually."
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Harry on April 03, 2018, 07:47:AM
and about David Doutflour.


Bamber claims that David Boutflour found
the silencer on September 11, not August 10, and
was “prevailed upon” to engage in a conspiracy
and backdate it. Boutflour, of course, says this
is nonsense, and everything happened just as
he said it did at the time and repeated in court.
“Just to put it clearly,” Boutflour said at the
end of our meeting, “I have never had any
doubts that Jeremy is guilty.”....

He says that the scratch marks were
deliberately made to incriminate him
later‚ all part of a plan to frame him for
the murders and ensure that he did not
receive his rightful inheritance. His
cousin David Boutflour dismisses his
claim as ‘absolute piffle’


One might well ask are the police documents listed below (and one might add, documents which are consistent in the information they provide) "absolute piffle." 

Bamber's claim is backed up by solid evidence. There isn't just one report of the relatives handing in a silencer after September 11th but several mutually corroborative references involving different police officers.

This is an interesting article. The evidence appears to be clear cut.
http://jeremybamberinnocent.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/case-of-jeremy-bamber.html

(Doc P31) Telephone Message Log 38, 11th September 1985 reads:
‘David Boutflour has found a silencer with blood on it’

(Doc P35) Action Report 88 reads: ‘Collection of silencer AE (Ann Eaton) 11th September to Wright items obtained by DC Oakey’

(Doc P34) Action Report 181 allocated to DS Davidson, 13th September 1985: “Examine the following for blood fibres and finger prints. 2/ cardboard box containing silencer and ammunition. 3/ Check silencer for fibres”


In addition a statement from Robert Boutflour (Doc P29) states that the accountant Basil Cock was complaining about fingerprint dust when the silencer was found and paid no interest to it.

White House Farm was not fingerprinted until after September 7th. Therefore it must have been found after this date.

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Harry on April 03, 2018, 07:56:AM
One might well ask are the police documents listed below (and one might add, documents which are consistent in the information they provide) "absolute piffle." 

Bamber's claim is backed up by solid evidence. There isn't just one report of the relatives handing in a silencer after September 11th but several mutually corroborative references involving different police officers.

This is an interesting article. The evidence appears to be clear cut.
http://jeremybamberinnocent.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/case-of-jeremy-bamber.html

(Doc P31) Telephone Message Log 38, 11th September 1985 reads:
‘David Boutflour has found a silencer with blood on it’

(Doc P35) Action Report 88 reads: ‘Collection of silencer AE (Ann Eaton) 11th September to Wright items obtained by DC Oakey’

(Doc P34) Action Report 181 allocated to DS Davidson, 13th September 1985: “Examine the following for blood fibres and finger prints. 2/ cardboard box containing silencer and ammunition. 3/ Check silencer for fibres”

In addition a statement from Robert Boutflour (Doc P29) states that the accountant Basil Cock was complaining about fingerprint dust when the silencer was found and paid no interest to it.

White House Farm was not fingerprinted until after September 7th. Therefore it must have been found after this date.


http://jeremybamberinnocent.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/case-of-jeremy-bamber.html

"That evening (11th Sept) DC Oakey goes to Ann Eaton’s House and takes possession of a sound moderator DRB/1 and 350 rounds of ammunition for a .22 rifle. DC Oakey logs these items into the miscellaneous property book.

On September 12 1985 Ann Eaton contacts DI Cook making a fuss about the Police not finding DRB/1 the sound moderator, or of seeing the scratch marks made by this sound moderator on the underside of the mantle shelf. DI Cook, DC Bird and DS Davidson agree to meet Ann at White House Farm as a PR exercise. On arrival Ann shows DI Cook the scratch marks. DI Cook takes a second paint sample which he hands to DS Davidson. DC Bird takes photographs of the mantle shelf’s underside."


It is apparent from the above that Ann Eaton showed DI Cook the scratch marks and made that fuss with the police after she contacted them on September 12th. Assuming that these references are correct, it would appear to constitute proof that DI Cook and his colleagues forged the document in which he claimed that he had engaged in the above conversation with Ann Eaton on August 14th.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9278.0;attach=52143;image
(https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9278.0;attach=52143;image)

It looks very much like the supposed "finding" of the silencer on Sept 11th by David Boutflour was set up (with the intention of changing the dates already established in the minds of the policemen involved).

This is material for a front page headline in a national daily. There is proof that the silencer evidence was faked. It is police documentation which proves it.

The problem for Bamber is that his enemies control the media.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 03, 2018, 08:19:AM
someone needs to update the typo DATE mistake in second paragraph
http://jeremybamberinnocent.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/case-of-jeremy-bamber.html
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Harry on April 03, 2018, 08:41:AM
someone needs to update the typo DATE mistake in second paragraph
http://jeremybamberinnocent.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/case-of-jeremy-bamber.html


"07/07/85 DC Bird Photographs interior of White House Farm, photograph strip 7, negative one shows mantle shelf unscratched. The house is forensically examined. The Sound Moderator SBJ/1 and .22 Anshultz rifle are found at this time and are taken to Huntingdon Forensic Laboratory."

Yes, it says  July 7th, and not August 7th.

It also correctly says that a silencer was found on that date and that it was given the reference SBJ/1. That was, in fact, the silencer sent to the laboratory to be examined  by Glynis Howard on August 13th.
 
When Jeremy was interviewed by the police on 9th of August he was questioned about the silencer which the police had found.

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 03, 2018, 08:46:AM

"07/07/85 DC Bird Photographs interior of White House Farm, photograph strip 7, negative one shows mantle shelf unscratched. The house is forensically examined. The Sound Moderator SBJ/1 and .22 Anshultz rifle are found at this time and are taken to Huntingdon Forensic Laboratory."

Yes, it says  July 7th, and not August 7th.

It also correctly says that the a silencer was found on that date and that it was given the reference SBJ/1. That was in fact the silencer sent to the laboratory to be examined  by Glynis Howard on August 13th.
 
When Jeremy was interviewed by the police on 9th of August he was questioned about the silencer which the police had found.

Is the typo DATE error 'Hannah's' or DC Bird ?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Harry on April 03, 2018, 08:54:AM
Is the typo DATE error 'Hannah's' or DC Bird ?

I think we need to see copies of the documents Hannah is quoting from. Assuming nothing is amiss apart from an obvious typo, the evidence of a conspiracy would appear to be conclusive.
 
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 03, 2018, 09:26:AM
I think we need to see copies of the documents Hannah is quoting from. Assuming nothing is amiss apart from an obvious typo, the evidence of a conspiracy would appear to be conclusive.
 

Something else which does not make sense.

'09/08/85 DI Cook takes a paint sample from AGA surround to match against paint on the barrel of the gun found downstairs that the Police had seized from the scene. DS Davidson was actioned to take the sound moderator (SBJ/1), and magazines for the .22 rifle, to be fingerprinted and examined. '

http://jeremybamberinnocent.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/case-of-jeremy-bamber.html

If they found paint of the barrel of the gun, then surely the 'moderator' wasn't used during the struggle. Also what gun found downstairs had paint on the barrel they wanted to match against Aga paint?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 03, 2018, 10:46:AM
The long straight shooting tube aka 'barrel' could not have made the 'scratches' the end of the barrel must not have had 'moderator' fitted if they were testing for 'paint'.
I note the 'sound moderator' is mentioned separately.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: buddy on April 03, 2018, 02:42:PM
and about David Doutflour.


Bamber claims that David Boutflour found
the silencer on September 11, not August 10, and
was “prevailed upon” to engage in a conspiracy
and backdate it. Boutflour, of course, says this
is nonsense, and everything happened just as
he said it did at the time and repeated in court.
“Just to put it clearly,” Boutflour said at the
end of our meeting, “I have never had any
doubts that Jeremy is guilty.”

He says that the scratch marks were
deliberately made to incriminate him
later‚ all part of a plan to frame him for
the murders and ensure that he did not
receive his rightful inheritance. His
cousin David Boutflour dismisses his
claim as ‘absolute piffle’


When David Boutflour,
Ann Eaton and Anthony Pargeter went to
raise their suspicions of Bamber with him, he
was having none of it

Jones conducted a bare minimum of
forensic inquiry and returned the house keys
to the family after two days so that Jeremy’s
cousins David Boutflour and Ann Eaton could
go in and have a clean-up. David and Ann’s
father, Robert, was there too that day. He was
married to June Bamber’s sister Pamela. (Robert
is now in his nineties and suffering from
Alzheimer’s.) Nowadays, of course, the property
would be sealed for weeks and the forensic
inquiries would be painstaking, but in the 1980s,
senior officers were often a law unto themselves,
and once they — some of them — had made their
minds up, that was that.

20
what had happened. Boutflour ignored the letter
and insisted to me when we met that there was no
conspiracy, no perjuring, no fit-up.
Ann Eaton moved into the farm not long after
the murders and still lives there with her family.
Bamber told me he thought she was a “sick
puppy” for doing that. Eaton would not talk to me
for this article — indeed, after I wrote her a polite
letter I received a “warning” call from an Essex
police detective superintendent asking me to
leave her alone, which I did — but David Boutflour
was generous and spoke to me at length. It is clear
he doesn’t understand his sister’s actions either.
How could she? Boutflour told me he knew Ann’s
children had suffered nightmares. As well you
might. Bamber said she was “as cold as ice”.
At the very least, the killings created lasting
schisms across the family, mostly to do with
money and inheritance. A third, more distant
cousin, Anthony Pargeter, has waged his own
long legal struggle against the estate, to claim
what he believes is his share. I was told he had
suffered his own mental anguish as a result.
amber was downgraded some years
ago from a Category-A prisoner to
Category-B, meaning he was not such a
risk of escape and his conditions could be slightly
relaxed. He was upgraded again to Cat-A,
apparently after his cousins complained, having
received guidance from Essex police on how they
might make their feelings about his change of
status known. It was apparent he feels very
resentful about that. Of course the police advice
might be seen as perfectly proper, but Bamber
insists the cousins were simply being vindictive.
While Bamber began living it large after the
killings, spending money on holidays, meals and
drinks for him and his girlfriend, 21-year-old Julie
Mugford, and other friends, his relatives — Ann,
David and their father, Robert — quickly became
suspicious. They doubted Sheila was capable of
the shootings and watched Bamber carefully for
signs of suspect behaviour, imagining all kinds of
fancy theories about how he might have got to and
from the farm undetected, using a bicycle to get
there and a small unlatched window to gain entry.
During the clean-up on August 10, by his own
account David Boutflour picked up some
ammunition that was lying around and went to
return it to the gun cupboard where he found
hidden away the sound moderator — we can call
it the “silencer” — of the murder weapon. It was
sticky as if it had been hurriedly cleaned, and
appeared to show spots of blood and flecks of
red paint, and a single hair.
Boutflour told me: “I remember some things like
it was yesterday. I remember finding the silencer.
He’s suggesting that we fraudulently shoved
the paint and the blood in to make it appear he
had done it. Well, that’s a load of rubbish. What
would be the point? There was enough evidence
anyway. What an absolute load of piffle.”

Bamber was
disinherited on conviction and the estate passed
to the Boutflours. He believes David Boutflour
might “admit” his part in this conspiracy
and wrote to him not long ago asking him to
“play the white man” and be honest about what had happened. Boutflour ignored the letter
and insisted to me when we met that there was no
conspiracy, no perjuring, no fit-up.


But David Boutflour
was generous and spoke to me at length. It is clear
he doesn’t understand his sister’s actions either.
How could she? Boutflour told me he knew Ann’s
children had suffered nightmares. As well you
might. Bamber said she was “as cold as ice”.
At the very least, the killings created lasting
schisms across the family, mostly to do with
money and inheritance. A third, more distant
cousin, Anthony Pargeter, has waged his own
long legal struggle against the estate, to claim
what he believes is his share. I was told he had
suffered his own mental anguish as a result.

According to Hartley it was years after the murders the Eatons moved into WHF
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: guest154 on April 03, 2018, 05:29:PM
Yes the one on page 420 is just Carol Ann Lee expressing gratitude to the people who provided sources for her book. David is being a little disingenuous though because there's further information on the shooting trip in Scotland:

The party had stopped for coffee and sandwiches on a mountainside: "And she said, "Oh we girls haven't ever shot a gun, would you mind if I tried, just tried, to shoot it?" And so I gave her the 12-bore and told her to hold it very tightly into her shoulder. (She) fired it vertically in the air, virtually."

I think you're being kind with the "little disingenuous" comment. I've looked into it today and asked around about it.  Page 420 isn't saying that the comments are a quote from 2010 from DJS - because they are not.

Nor do the quotes say that DB trained Sheila on the shotgun.

Quite surprsied NGB even replied to the possibility of these "quotes" being used to undermine DB's testimony.  Probably best to check the supposed source out first before talking about what could and couldn't undermine someomes sworn testimony.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Roch on April 03, 2018, 06:06:PM
Probably best to check the supposed source out first before talking about what could and couldn't undermine someone's sworn testimony.

Presumably his sworn testimony on the finding of the sound moderator should marry up with case documents then? 
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: ngb1066 on April 03, 2018, 06:54:PM
I think you're being kind with the "little disingenuous" comment. I've looked into it today and asked around about it.  Page 420 isn't saying that the comments are a quote from 2010 from DJS - because they are not.

Nor do the quotes say that DB trained Sheila on the shotgun.

Quite surprsied NGB even replied to the possibility of these "quotes" being used to undermine DB's testimony.  Probably best to check the supposed source out first before talking about what could and couldn't undermine someomes sworn testimony.

Thanks for the advice!  I replied upon the basis of what was quoted, and was quite guarded in my response.  I do not have time to research everything quoted to me before replying to a direct question.

 
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 04, 2018, 02:04:AM
Julie Mugford's evidence was very important and alongside the evidence relating to the sound moderator was one of the two central planks of the prosecution case. 

That does not tell me that her evidence proved the Crown's case and I rest on the equation I outlined in my original post, which I will repeat below.  I remain unconvinced that Julie Mugford's evidence is crucial to Jeremy Bamber's position as matters stand today.

Her evidence in essence was that JB admitted to her his guilt. 

No, that wasn't her evidence.  I have seen her evidence.  I know what she said.  The relevant part of her evidence was that Bamber had told her (which is hearsay, by the way) that he had solicited somebody to kill his family.  Of course, if true, that would be murder, but it is common ground - even the Crown accepts this - that Bamber had done no such thing, ergo Bamber had not confessed to murder, ergo Mugford's evidence is of no probative value. 

That is not to say her evidence was completely irrelevant in 1986.  Her evidence was of relevance in indicating Bamber's possible attitude to his adoptive parents and aspects of his character, yes, but my question - which still hasn't really been answered - is how can such evidence be relevant to overturning Bamber's conviction? I think this is a reasonable question!

If her evidence can be undermined to a significant extent, particularly in conjunction with other new evidence casting doubt on the sound moderator evidence and in relation to other evidence, the convictions might be overturned.  That is what I have been saying, no more and no less.

But that makes no sense.  Either Bamber's conviction is safe or it is not.  To demonstrate that his conviction is unsafe, you need evidence that undermines his conviction.  If Mugford's evidence didn't prove that he killed his family, how can that same evidence be relevant now?  You almost answer this question yourself when you admit that any such evidence undermining Mugford is only of value in conjunction with other evidence.  My question is: Why not just chuck Mugford out altogether and just concentrate on the evidence that undermines the conviction?

If you want to learn more about these points you could use the search facility here to review some of the old threads.  Early 2012 would be a very good place to start.  A lot of this was covered in far greater detail then.

Thank you - in fairness, I have done some reading already.  Obviously I am not as familiar with the case as others.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 04, 2018, 02:23:AM
Just to repeat, the equation that I believe rules out Julie Mugford's evidence is as follows:

Julie Mugford's evidence does not prove that Jeremy Bamber killed his family.

Therefore:

- if Julie Mugford's evidence were excluded, Jeremy Bamber would still be guilty; and,

- if all the evidence were excluded except for Julie Mugford's, then Jeremy Bamber's convictions would be quashed.

Ergo, Julie Mugford's evidence is not relevant to Jeremy Bamber's appeal.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 04, 2018, 10:19:AM
Just to repeat, the equation that I believe rules out Julie Mugford's evidence is as follows:

Julie Mugford's evidence does not prove that Jeremy Bamber killed his family.

Therefore:

- if Julie Mugford's evidence were excluded, Jeremy Bamber would still be guilty; and,

- if all the evidence were excluded except for Julie Mugford's, then Jeremy Bamber's convictions would be quashed.

Ergo, Julie Mugford's evidence is not relevant to Jeremy Bamber's appeal.

As a juror, I would find Julie's evidence very influential.

There is no way a 20 year woman would approach the police, give a 34 page false WS & then falsely testify that an innocent man killed his family.  Just because according to Bamber, she was jilted.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Roch on April 04, 2018, 11:55:AM
As a juror, I would find Julie's evidence very influential.

There is no way a 20 year woman would approach the police, give a 34 page false WS & then falsely testify that an innocent man killed his family.  Just because according to Bamber, she was jilted.

I think it's more likely that the jurors would not have been expecting her to tell a well rehearsed pack of lies.  They would therefore have to weigh-up any unease they felt re her testimony, within that expectation.  I think it would have been confusing for them.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 04, 2018, 05:36:PM
As a juror, I would find Julie's evidence very influential.

I would probably be influenced as well.  But that's exactly my point.  Her evidence doesn't actually prove anything.  It's just there to influence a jury in their attitude to Bamber.

And anyway, whether her evidence was relevant at trial at not, probative or not, and whether or not the evidence of the pseudo-confession could be considered hearsay, my view is that it is no longer relevant now and defeating her evidence now will not upset the conviction. 

The best it would achieve is perhaps to give moral force to Jeremy's side in the minds of appellate judges.  I will, however, concede that that in itself might be enough.  Who knows?  I suppose that's a tactical equation - but it doesn't disturb the logical equations above.

There is no way a 20 year woman would approach the police, give a 34 page false WS & then falsely testify that an innocent man killed his family.  Just because according to Bamber, she was jilted.

You may well be right, but remember, she didn't give evidence that Bamber had killed his family.  She wasn't able to do. 
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: JackieD on April 04, 2018, 06:48:PM
She gave evidence that Jeremy was responsible for the murders.  It is a fact she is a prolific liar and that is not in dispute
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 04, 2018, 06:58:PM
She gave evidence that Jeremy was responsible for the murders.  It is a fact she is a prolific liar and that is not in dispute

You may be right that she is a prolific liar, but for me at least, the question isn't whether she was lying in her evidence, rather the question is whether her evidence is relevant to an appeal.  I've explained why, in my view, it isn't.  Her evidence never proved anything in the first place. 
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Hartley. on April 04, 2018, 07:13:PM
You may be right that she is a prolific liar, but for me at least, the question isn't whether she was lying in her evidence, rather the question is whether her evidence is relevant to an appeal.  I've explained why, in my view, it isn't.  Her evidence never proved anything in the first place.

With that reasoning, it could be that JM's evidence was accurate and true, but JB is innocent?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 04, 2018, 07:24:PM
Julie is just relevant to supporters. JackieD once again saying Julie's evidence should not be believed because she identified the twins.

I do not believe the CCRC would refer the case to the COA if documentation has miraculously appeared over 30 years later, which shows she signed a document before the end of the trial.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 04, 2018, 07:28:PM
I would probably be influenced as well.  But that's exactly my point.  Her evidence doesn't actually prove anything.  It's just there to influence a jury in their attitude to Bamber.

And anyway, whether her evidence was relevant at trial at not, probative or not, and whether or not the evidence of the pseudo-confession could be considered hearsay, my view is that it is no longer relevant now and defeating her evidence now will not upset the conviction. 

The best it would achieve is perhaps to give moral force to Jeremy's side in the minds of appellate judges.  I will, however, concede that that in itself might be enough.  Who knows?  I suppose that's a tactical equation - but it doesn't disturb the logical equations above.

You may well be right, but remember, she didn't give evidence that Bamber had killed his family.  She wasn't able to do.

She gave a lot of evidence only Bamber would have known. Thread already created.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 04, 2018, 08:00:PM
With that reasoning, it could be that JM's evidence was accurate and true, but JB is innocent?

Exactly.  That might well be the case.

Or could be that Mugford continued lying all the way through (remember she did lie initially).

Or could be something else.

Personally I no longer believe it matters, because Bamber is no longer at trial.  He has been convicted.  The question is, what evidence is relevant now at appeal?  In my view, Mugford is no longer relevant.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 04, 2018, 08:02:PM
I do not believe the CCRC would refer the case to the COA if documentation has miraculously appeared over 30 years later, which shows she signed a document before the end of the trial.

It would be a verbal arrangement, in all probability.  However I agree with your legal forecast: undermining Mugford doesn't undermine the conviction.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 04, 2018, 08:02:PM
Exactly.  That might well be the case.

Or could be that Mugford continued lying all the way through (remember she did lie initially).

Or could be something else.

Personally I no longer believe it matters, because Bamber is no longer at trial.  He has been convicted.  The question is what evidence is relevant now at appeal?  In my view, Mugford is no longer relevant.

Do you agree with Bamber. That Julie lied because in his view 'he jilted her' ?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 04, 2018, 08:03:PM
She gave a lot of evidence only Bamber would have known. Thread already created.

That's true, but it still doesn't prove that Bamber killed anybody.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 04, 2018, 08:04:PM
Do you agree with Bamber. That Julie lied because in his view 'he jilted her' ?

I don't care one way or the other.  It's irrelevant.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 04, 2018, 08:05:PM
It would be a verbal arrangement, in all probability.  However I agree with your legal forecast: undermining Mugford doesn't undermine the conviction.

Verbal agreements between Julie/NOTW & Bamber/NOTW pre verdict.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 04, 2018, 08:06:PM
That's true, but it still doesn't prove that Bamber killed anybody.

Guess there was no point having her testify.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 04, 2018, 08:12:PM
Guess there was no point having her testify.

Not my point.  From the Crown's perspective, there was a lot of point to it.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 04, 2018, 08:16:PM
There were a lot of disadvantages of Julie lying to the police & committing perjury if Bamber was innocent -

There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.

She had waited a month.

She would be charged by the police. When caught lying.

Having a criminal record will effect her teaching career.

To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?

Her own 1984 minor crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?

At the time there was no financial reward in approaching the police.

It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.

She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims.

Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.

She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.

It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.

She may quickly wilt under pressure.  This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?

It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.

It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.

It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.

An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.

It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.

She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.

It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.

She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?

She had already given a short WS on the massacre day and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.

She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.

Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's sick attempt for revenge.

If an unsuccessful police approach  became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.

Perjury can result in prison.

Julie would be condidered sick & unhinged when exposed.

-----------

JackieD still believes Julie lied because she identified the twins.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 on April 04, 2018, 08:38:PM
She gave a lot of evidence only Bamber would have known. Thread already created.
That's true, but it still doesn't prove that Bamber killed anybody.


That is not true. She gave a lot of evidence that Bamber didnt know.

Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"

Why was he allowed to tell this to the Jury? here's why

Jeremy's "confession"

Below is what Julie claims Jeremy confessed to her. This statement is false for two reasons. Jeremy's alleged confession of the crime as told by Julie Mugford does not correspond or coincide with the actual crime scene itself, as we all know Shelia was found on the floor not on the bed, the bible next to her also on the floor not on her chest. Had Jeremy committed the murders and given a detailed confession as Julie claims then Julies statements would corroborate the crime scene and they don't!

(http://s30.postimg.org/4co0gw6ht/mugford1.png)

The second reason Julies statement is false is because her description of Jeremy's alleged confession is exactly the same as Ann Eaton and RWB's impression of events as seen in Ann Eatons notes and RWB's diary written in August. See below

Ann Eaton's note's second line down "Shelia on bed bible on chest"
(http://s23.postimg.org/v7c6huou3/AEnotes1.png)
RWB's Diary
(http://s23.postimg.org/eegx5omrf/rwbdiary1.jpg)

So not only can we establish that Julies claims are false we can now narrow down were she actually got that information from. Either Police or Ann Eaton as Rivlin rightly told the jury.


More disturbing correlations


Windows and the Bike

In August RWB speculates that Jeremy used a bike then also in august RWB and AE speculate how Jeremy would enter the building 

(http://s21.postimg.org/mc273onk7/rwbbike.png)

(http://s10.postimg.org/kmegatna1/rwbwindows.png)

Then come September the 8th Julie reveals how Jeremy "confessed" to her his method of travel and entry, exactly how RWB and AE predicted!
(http://s8.postimg.org/nc7pjvf5x/jmbikewindow.png)

The Wet suit

On the 28th of August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy used a wet suit in the murders
(http://s29.postimg.org/fu9qvz293/rwbwetsuit.png)

This then appears in Julie Mugford's diary along with the bicycle
(http://s30.postimg.org/iq197ubc1/jmwetsuitdiary.png)

The £2000.00 payment

2nd of September RWB claims Jeremy lent a friend £2000

(http://s13.postimg.org/q3t1pks7b/rwb2000.png)

Julie then claims that Jeremy paid Macdonald £2000

(http://s22.postimg.org/64wqetcg1/JM2000.png)


The Fingerprints and the gun magazine


In August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy got Shelia to load the bullets into the magazine to get her fingerprints on them.

(http://s18.postimg.org/urhcc1fgp/rwbfingerprints.jpg)

Then come September lo and behold Julie claims this is exactly what Jeremy had confessed to her.
(http://s8.postimg.org/f3y3s6tyd/jmfingerprints.png)


This is why Julies statements are completely false, Her statements have direct parallels with Ann Eaton notes and RWBs diary both of which deviate from the facts of the crime scene and contradict other factual aspects surrounding the case. Therefore Jeremy did not and could not have confessed or told her anything in her statements, it is impossible!



Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record). I have shown you the trial transcripts and the very statements mentioned in those trial transcripts.

The fundamental point Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).

1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.

2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)

3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!

One only has to read Julie Mugfords statements and the cross examination of Ann Eaton to workout were Julie really got those false details from in order for her to make the bogus claim that Jeremy confessed to the killings. The devil is in the details, its just a matter of putting the puzzle together.

From Julie Mugford’s statement, page 23

"I have been asked if I have read or been told about a bible found on Sheila's
chest when she was found dead. I can definitely say I haven't but it was
told to me by Jeremy. I will add that some time after the 7th August 1985,
Ann EATON asked me if I knew about a bible which was near Sheila and I told
her that I did and that it was found on her chest.
I think I told her it
was creepy. I think she asked me about the bible on the Friday of the week of the murders.”



This makes no sense. If Ann Eaton had asked Julie question of the bible some time after the 7th August then Julie answers to Ann that the bible was on Sheila's chest, Then she would have asked Julie how she got that information and Julie would have had to tell her that Jeremy told her the story about Matthew MacDonald. ?

In the trial transcript below. While cross examined by Rivlin QC, at first AE said that she thought she had first heard about the bible on Sheila's chest from Julie Mugford, but Rivlin QC was setting a trap to force AE to admit she actually got that information from the police  by showing her her own statement which she sais she got the information from the police at the house. Another interesting observation, is that AE seems to remember the police telling her all the details mentioned in the statement but when it comes to bible she just happens to forget. Selective memory loss at times most convenient when it comes to the big issues seems to occur often in AE.  ::)

Ann Eaton trial testimony: cross examined 7th October 1986
RIVLIN. I would like to ask you another thing about Julie Mugford, and it is this
something I was going to ask you before the luncheon adjournment- there
came a stage shortly after the events when a police officer told you something
in confidence, did he not, about what had happened and what had been found?
Do you remember? He told you, amongst other things, that when 'Sheila had
been found there was a bible on her chest?

AE. I did hear there was a bible on her chest.

MR. JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): Did you hear it from the policeman is the
question?

AE. I cannot remember, but I heard it whilst in Jeremy's cottage.

MR. RIVLIN: Let remind you. Is it not right that one of the police officers
told you that Uncle Nevill was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle, that the
twins were in their beds, shot?

AE. Yes.

Rivlin. That Aunt June Bamber and Sheila were both on the bed, shot, with Sheila having
a bible on her chest, with the gun beside her?

AE. Yes.

Rivlin. And is it right that shortly after that information had been imparted to you,
you had a conversation with Julie Mugford, and you told Julie that when Sheila.
had been found there had been a bible found on her chest?

AE. I really cannot remember who told me the bible was on the chest.

MR JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): That is not the question now, but it is right
you should tell us. You do not remember who told you that Sheila was found
with the bible on her chest, but the question now is, whoever it was who told
you that, did you pass that on to Julie?

AE. I do not remember. I did have a conversation with Julie about the same time.
She said to me Sheila kept saying, I thought she said she was a "white wedge", or perhaps it was a “white
witch", but I do not remember who told me that the bible was on the chest.

MR. JUSTICE Drake: I do not think we have the full answer yet, Mr. Rivlin.

MR. RIVLIN: Would you accept that it was, in fact, one of the officers who told
you that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest and the gun beside her?

AE. I cannot remember who told me the bible was on her chest, so I am saying
it could have been Julie. I cannot remember who told me.

RIVLIN. In those circumstances I think that I must show the document to the witness.

MR. JUSTICE DRAKE: What the witness just said is “it could have been Julie who
told me that" - that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest. (To the
witness): Wherereas the question you are being asked is put the other way around
That someone told you and you told Julie that she had been found with a bible
on her chest. That is the question. If you cannot answer, you cannot
?

AE. I cannot remember. I just remember Julie saying something about Sheila
said she was a “white wedge", which I thought she said, but it turned out she
thought she was a "white witch", but I cannot remember who told me about the
bible.

MR. RIVLIN: Could you remember at the time who told you about the bible?

AE. I cannot remember.

RIVLIN. You made statements to the police officers, did you not, in this case, and I
would like you to look, please, at a statement which is dated 8th September
1985. (Same handed). Your signature appears on this document. Is it a
typewritten document? Does it bear your signature?

AE. No.

MR RIVLIN: I am told that the original is outside.

MR. ARLIDGE: I will have it checked with the original.

MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows:
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near
the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila
Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her
chest with the gun beside her"?


AE. Yes.

Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?

A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember
the policeman telling me Uncle Nevill was beside the coal scuttle, the twins
were in their beds, shot, Auntie June and Sheila were on the bed with the gun
between them, and I asked how they were shot, and he went like this. I do
not know who told me. I am sorry. Maybe it was a mistake. Asking me now.
I cannot remember who told me.



This is a fantastic post from Hermann over at IA

1 Julie Mugford is a proven liar.

Here's some background information from Robin Cox.

"Ann Eaton said herself in a statement that a police officer told her Sheila and June were found on the bed and that Sheila had the bible on her chest and the gun by her side which was not the prosecution's case at all. Did this give the family leverage in their arguments with Assistant Chief Inspector Simpson? The relatives didn’t like Jeremy, whom they called ‘Cuckoo’ on account of both he and Sheila being adopted but I won’t digress into that here."
http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/robin-cox

The idea is that the relatives were told that Sheila's body was on the bed at one stage and therefore also knew that it must have been the police who stage managed it on the floor. Robert Boutflour was convinced that Bamber was the killer. Some supporters of Bamber think that the police had to go along with the relatives and prosecute Bamber because the relatives knew Sheila's body was on the bed before it was moved to the floor by the police. That is what Cox means by leverage.

Bamber's confession to Julie Mugford

Julie Mugford account of Jeremy's confession includes a story of how Matthew MacDonald put a bible on Sheila's chest after telling her to shoot herself on the bed. So the description of the position of Sheila's body which the policeman gave to Ann Eaton turns up in Julie Mugford's story almost verbatim. It corresponds exactly to how Matthew MacDonald is supposed to have left the body. Mugford tells how Jeremy told her that MacDonald left Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest. It's in Mugford's statment. The police had not told Jeremy that story and it's dismissed as a mistake anyway. So it's impossible that Mugford had gotten it from Bamber.

Here's what Ann Eaton says in her statement of 08/09/85 when told where the bodies were found.

"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her chest with the gun beside her"

Here's what Julie Mugford says in her statement of 08/08/1985 page 14

"I asked Jeremy if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were sound asleep and didn’t wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Mathew who then put a bible on her chest."

The devil is in the detail

I find it strange that people ignore this telling detail and that when somebody mentions it, even people who are fence sitters just ignore it and get back to talking about Julie and saying that her evidence has "the ring of truth about it". But how can it have the ring of truth when you can point to virtual proof that she lied. I have a theory as to why that kind of thing tends to happen.

Some people like talking about Julie Mugford just like others like talking about Amanda Knox. Of course anybody familiar with the scientific evidence knows that Knox and Solecito are innocent, but people like having something to talk about. They like the element of mystery. Hayden Panettiere undersood that when, talking about Amanda, she said to a bunch of reporters "Did she or didn't she?" So in just the same way, they like the discussion about Julie Mugford which has at it's basis the question "Who is telling the truth Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber."

When the Judge put the question to the jury "It depends on whether you believe Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber" he was being a prima donna. He was going for saying something catchy for the popular press. But he shouldn't have been doing that. You can excuse Hayden for a little lapse of judgement, but you can't make excuses for a judge misdirecting a jury. He should have drawn the jury's attention to the bible on the chest detail which was examined in court. He could have said. "Are we to believe that it's just a coincidence that Jeremy Bamber made up a story which just happens to have in it exactly the same description of a scene with Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest." But he didn't. He apparently wanted to help the prosecution and to hinder the defense. It happens a lot.

The devil is in the detail

There is a saying, the devil is in the detail. Such a detail is to me proof that Julie Mugford's story of Bamber's confession is a fabrication. It has bits and pieces which come from here and there. But I admit that a person sympathetic to Mugford could argue in the manner

" Well OK, she embellished the story a little with that description of the body on the bed which she had obviously gotten from Ann Eaton, probably because she thought people might not believe her, but I still believe she was telling the truth when she said that Jeremy told her he had paid Matthew MacDonald. There is no proof that she made that up.
"

Hermann



Evidence was withheld at trial, alternatively fresh evidence is now available which indicates that Jeremy Bamber telephoned his then girlfriend Julie Mugford at 3.30am in the morning of 7th August and that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby lied in evidence when they timed the called at 3.15am and 3.12 am respectively.

The 3.30am Phone Call Overview:
20. The timing of Jeremy Bamber's phone call to Julie Mugford in the early hours of 71h August 1985 was also of "crucial importance- at trial, His Honour Mr Justice Drake's summing, up at p.12 B. Much evidence was adduced to show that the call had been made at or about 3,15um. This meant that the eau must have been made prior to the Appellant's call to the Chelmsford police station

21.
The Police's own contemporaneous record of the Appellant's call on 7th August 1985, appended to this document, has now come to light. It reveals that the Appellant's initial call to Chelmsford Police station was recorded, in error as conceded at trial, as 3.36am. More importantly it shows that having first spoken to the Appellant and established the nature of the problem in some detail the officer at Chelmsford phoned Witham Police station at 3.26am, that being undisputedly a correct time. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant's initial call to the Police must have been some minutes before 3.26am.

Ann Eaton's Notes In Relation to The Call to Julie Mugford:

22. Ann Eaton's allegedly contemporaneous notes regarding 8th August disclosed at trial stated that there had been a "muddle about the right time of the 3.15 phone call - a London friend was called".

A further note has since been found which reveals that in her original note she stated "talked to Julie about the phone calls Julie said re flatmate (our emphasis - photocopy is poor here exact wording should be clear on viewing of the original) 3.30am". It is submitted that this discrepancy shows that not only was Ann Eaton's note deliberately changed to undermine the appellant's case but that Julie Mugford and Susan Batteresby lied when they gave evidence that the telephone call was 3.15am or earlier, as it was Susan Battersby who was the flatmate referred to it the undisclosed Ann Eaton note.

Julie Mugford's Evidence:
23. In her original statement to the Police dated 81h August 1985 stated at p345:
next time I heard front Jeremy was at about 3.30am on Wednesday morning the th August 1985."
This then changes in her statement of e September 1985 when she states :
" I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan Battersby who lives with
me that it was about 3.15am."
At trial when she was cross examined as to the fact that she had told the police that the telephone call was received at 3.30am, she stated at p38 on 8th October:



Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record).

The fundamental point is Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).

1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.

2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)

3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!

You cannot get round these points no matter how much you bring up the sleeping pills or fire. Its rather obvious the police zeroed in on those pills and did not buy her original innocent explanation for them, thus she made up something they wanted to hear from her.

I am not quoting word for word here but it goes like this

Julie Mugford - "Jeremy told me that Sheila was told to lay on the bed and was ordered to shoot herself under the supervision of Mathew Macdonald he then left the bible on the her chest" (Jeremy is supposed to have told her this on the 7th of August at his cottage while the house was occupied by many other people  )

Julie Mugford - "On the 7th I told Ann Eaton about the bible on her chest"

Anne Eaton - "On the 7th Police told me Sheila was found laying on the bed with a bible on her chest"

Ann Eaton - " I cant remember who told me on the 7th" (Just after confirming the police told her various details she obviously remembers. problem being she was told about the bible in the exact same conversation)

The idea of the bible being a "meme" is not credible because there are too many similarities with her statement as a whole. The probability of it being coincidental, you are looking at almost jackpot lottery odds. (Bible on chest + Sheila on Bed + Exiting windows + Cycling to the farm + Fingerprints on gun + wetsuit + 2000 pounds + a McDonald mentioned in police meeting + Hitman to explain the reported movement)

All of these can either be found in Julies testimony or her "diary". Most importantly Jeremy is supposed to have told her all this. This means that what Jeremy told her in his alleged "confessions" he deliberately falsified how he killed everyone so it just so happens to be the same as Ann Eatons and RWBs erroneous information. Not only that but he also falsifies his "confessions" so what he tells her just so happens to explain the gaps and problems the police were facing at that moment in time! gaps and problems that later turned out to be wrong! Then Jeremy decides not to tell her about the silencer, the one piece of crucial evidence that was only discovered to be incriminating in the weeks AFTER Julie made her statements.

Its just not possible for Jeremy to have told her all this in the way its been presented by her coinciding with the circumstances of the police investigation and the relatives suspicions in that instance of time. With some of those circumstances and ideas backfiring, thus harming her credibility later on.

Lets look at Mathew Mcdoanld for example.

1. Robert Boutflour speculates if Jeremy had assistance on the night - See Diary

2. Robert Boutflour zeros in on the £2000 that Neville lent to Jeremy - See Diary

3. The £2000 of course has an innocent explanation and is totally unrelated to the event. but RWB believes he is onto something (Tunnel vision)

4. Jeremy is supposed to have lent this £2000 to a friend - See Diary

5. 20th of August police have a meeting with RWB present. During that meeting a question is put forward in relation to a drug deal (from a man called McDonald??) See Barlow's note book

6. Jeremy has a friend called Mathew Mcdonald they both do drugs together - See MMs statement

7. Mathew Mcdonald happens to a fantasist who goes around telling people he is a mercenary and has done missions in Libya. People believe the rumours - see MMs statement

According to Julie. Jeremy told her that he paid £2000 to Mathew Mcdonald to help him carry out the killings. The fact of the matter is a sum of £2000 went somewhere else. Mathew Macdonald is a mercenary only in his imagination plus he was miles away from the farm that night. Robert Bouflour and Stand Jones ignorant of the facts at the time. To them this theory would make perfect sense to them. Jeremy's "mercenary" friend and drug associate complete with a money trail and can explain the reported movement in the farm while Jeremy was outside with the police.

I will leave you to decide where Julie got the story from.



Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 04, 2018, 08:50:PM
David & Mike can write as many theories as they want. In red, black or pink.

However nothing can change the fact there was a mountain of huge disadvantages in 20 year old Julie single handedly trying to achieve some monumentous & sick revenge. Because according to Bamber, 'he jilted her'.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 04, 2018, 09:20:PM
Thanks for that post, David.  I have seen that information before and I assure you I will be taking a closer look at it.  It doesn't affect my argument about Julie Mugford's relevancy, but it's still of general interest and, you never know, looking at these things might lead on to new points.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 04, 2018, 09:38:PM
What a lot of trouble David and Luminous Wanderer have gone to, only to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick yet again:

1) Ann Eaton states that she heard the story about Sheila being found dead with a bible on her chest circulating that first morning August 7 in Jeremy's cottage. How can Julie possibly be blamed for something which may have started as a rumour from Police at the scene of the crime and which Jeremy may have embellished his story with when later recounting it to her?

2) The sum of £2000 was in Jeremy's mind because it was what he owed Nevill for the foreign trips he had taken over the last two years. He had possibly held this over Jeremy's head as a negotiating tactic to keep him in line and expect him to put more hours in at the Farm. With the death of his parents this debt was cancelled, along with the terms of both wills.

3) Jeremy went much further than the creation of a proxy killer. He told Julie at Blazer's Restaurant, Blackheath that "maybe there is something wring with me..don't blame yourself, I would have gone ahead with it anyway.". This is tantamount to admitting that Matthew was a convenient scapegoat to distance himself from the crime.

4) Why mention that "a glove came off in the struggle with Nevill". This appeared in none of the newspaper cuttings Julie was accused of avidly reading. How was she to know the situation regarding the fingerprints, namely that there were only a couple each from Sheila and Jeremy and that they proved nothing either way.

5) You still haven't successfully explained why Jeremy telephoned his girlfriend in the middle of the night when an emergency situation was developing at White House Farm. We subsequently know that their relationship "had been cooling for months" (Jeremy's own words) and that "he had been trying to dump her " (Angie Greaves), yet suddenly he turns to her for support or more likely, is trying to rope her in as an accessory.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 04, 2018, 09:56:PM
Steve, just to ensure there's no misunderstanding, I need to reiterate that I'm neutral as to Jeremy Bamber's guilt or innocence and the purpose of this thread is to discuss the relevance of Julie Mugford's evidence as matters stand today.

What a lot of trouble David and Luminous Wanderer have gone to, only to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick yet again:

1) Ann Eaton states that she heard the story about Sheila being found dead with a bible on her chest circulating that first morning August 7 in Jeremy's cottage. How can Julie possibly be blamed for something which may have started as a rumour from Police at the scene of the crime and which Jeremy may have embellished his story with when later recounting it to her?

This is not germane to my argument/point, so I need not reply.

2) The sum of £2000 was in Jeremy's mind because it was what he owed Nevill for the foreign trips he had taken over the last two years. He had possibly held this over Jeremy's head as a negotiating tactic to keep him in line and expect him to put more hours in at the Farm. With the death of his parents this debt was cancelled, along with the terms of both wills.

Again, not germane.

3) Jeremy went much further than the creation of a proxy killer. He told Julie at Blazer's Restaurant, Blackheath that "maybe there is something wring with me..don't blame yourself, I would have gone ahead with it anyway.". This is tantamount to admitting that Matthew was a convenient scapegoat to distance himself from the crime.

Before I agree with your conclusion about Jeremy's alleged statement, I'd like you to post a link to the statement of Julie's from which you have got this, so that I can read that first. 

4) Why mention that "a glove came off in the struggle with Nevill". This appeared in none of the newspaper cuttings Julie was accused of avidly reading. How was she to know the situation regarding the fingerprints, namely that there were only a couple each from Sheila and Jeremy and that they proved nothing either way.

Again, this needs to be contextualised.  When and where was Jeremy supposed to have said this?  Where's Julie's statement for us to look at? 

5) You still haven't successfully explained why Jeremy telephoned his girlfriend in the middle of the night when an emergency situation was developing at White House Farm. We subsequently know that their relationship "had been cooling for months" (Jeremy's own words) and that "he had been trying to dump her " (Angie Greaves), yet suddenly he turns to her for support or more likely, is trying to rope her in as an accessory.

That's not germane to the point/argument I make here about Julie's evidence, and anyway, it's been discussed endlessly and the common ground is (or should be) that it doesn't indicate Jeremy's guilt given that, within Jeremy's account of events, Nevill had not clearly stated that there was an emergency at the farm.  Of course, that won't be a "successful explanation" for you because you are biased!
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 04, 2018, 10:41: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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Hartley. on April 04, 2018, 10:45:PM
Exactly.  That might well be the case.

Or could be that Mugford continued lying all the way through (remember she did lie initially).

Or could be something else.

Personally I no longer believe it matters, because Bamber is no longer at trial.  He has been convicted.  The question is, what evidence is relevant now at appeal?  In my view, Mugford is no longer relevant.

I again agree. I do think she is an easy target though, for those who want to push their views forward beyond the actual facts of the case.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 05, 2018, 05:09:AM
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.

Steve,

This thread is about the relevance of Julie Mugford's evidence to an appeal by Jeremy Bamber. The relevant statement of the former Miss Julie Mugford, of date 8th. September 1985, changes nothing that I have already said.

In that statement, she states (among other things) that:

(i). Jeremy confessed to her that he had solicited Matthew McDonald to do the killing; and,
(ii). at some restaurant, they talked about what Jeremy had done.

Point (i) above is not a murder confession, as it is accepted that McDonald was not solicited by Jeremy.  That fact discredits point (ii).

The crucial part of Mugford's evidence is hearsay because she is relating a conversation of Jeremy's with McDonald.  This means that the strongest part of Mugford's evidence is also paradoxically the weakest.
Without that element, the entirety of Mugford's evidence - such as it is - falls.  What we are being asked to believe is that there was progressive thinking, planning and acting on Jeremy's part towards murder, but without the solicitation of McDonald, any prior conversations with Jeremy look like dead-ends.  Therefore, we have to believe that Jeremy had this conversation with McDonald: we have to accept as incriminating what amounts to a bit of salacious gossip.  It's not good enough.

You could argue that this flaw doesn't matter because McDonald gave evidence, but that question in itself is of no importance: the point is that Mugford's evidence proves nothing and is of of no value.  Undermining Mugford would not, in my opinion, alter Jeremy's position very significantly, at least not on a strict view of the evidence. 

You are free to disagree of course, and we may well ask: Why on earth would Jeremy have such conversations?  Well, instantly we can come up with several innocent explanations. In all seriousness, he may have been showing-off and trying to get her sexually-aroused.  It's plausible.  We don't need to assume Julie was lying - and that's certainly not my position - to explain Jeremy's conduct with her.

What actually incriminates Jeremy are a number of minor facts and elements that, cumulatively, point to his guilt on the basis of circumstantial inference.  Julie Mugford's evidence doesn't come into it, and the Crown could have proved their case without her.  She was a witness only because they calculated (perhaps rightly) that her testimony would influence the jury by painting Jeremy in a bad light.  In effect, Mugford evidence is bad character evidence.

Anyway, that's what I think.  I hope that answers your concerns.

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 05, 2018, 06:18:AM

That is not true. She gave a lot of evidence that Bamber didnt know.

Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"



Why was he allowed to tell this to the Jury? here's why

Jeremy's "confession"

Below is what Julie claims Jeremy confessed to her. This statement is false for two reasons. Jeremy's alleged confession of the crime as told by Julie Mugford does not correspond or coincide with the actual crime scene itself, as we all know Shelia was found on the floor not on the bed, the bible next to her also on the floor not on her chest. Had Jeremy committed the murders and given a detailed confession as Julie claims then Julies statements would corroborate the crime scene and they don't!

(http://s30.postimg.org/4co0gw6ht/mugford1.png)

The second reason Julies statement is false is because her description of Jeremy's alleged confession is exactly the same as Ann Eaton and RWB's impression of events as seen in Ann Eatons notes and RWB's diary written in August. See below

Ann Eaton's note's second line down "Shelia on bed bible on chest"
(http://s23.postimg.org/v7c6huou3/AEnotes1.png)
RWB's Diary
(http://s23.postimg.org/eegx5omrf/rwbdiary1.jpg)

So not only can we establish that Julies claims are false we can now narrow down were she actually got that information from. Either Police or Ann Eaton as Rivlin rightly told the jury.


More disturbing correlations


Windows and the Bike

In August RWB speculates that Jeremy used a bike then also in august RWB and AE speculate how Jeremy would enter the building 

(http://s21.postimg.org/mc273onk7/rwbbike.png)

(http://s10.postimg.org/kmegatna1/rwbwindows.png)

Then come September the 8th Julie reveals how Jeremy "confessed" to her his method of travel and entry, exactly how RWB and AE predicted!
(http://s8.postimg.org/nc7pjvf5x/jmbikewindow.png)

The Wet suit

On the 28th of August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy used a wet suit in the murders
(http://s29.postimg.org/fu9qvz293/rwbwetsuit.png)

This then appears in Julie Mugford's diary along with the bicycle
(http://s30.postimg.org/iq197ubc1/jmwetsuitdiary.png)

The £2000.00 payment

2nd of September RWB claims Jeremy lent a friend £2000

(http://s13.postimg.org/q3t1pks7b/rwb2000.png)

Julie then claims that Jeremy paid Macdonald £2000

(http://s22.postimg.org/64wqetcg1/JM2000.png)


The Fingerprints and the gun magazine


In August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy got Shelia to load the bullets into the magazine to get her fingerprints on them.

(http://s18.postimg.org/urhcc1fgp/rwbfingerprints.jpg)

Then come September lo and behold Julie claims this is exactly what Jeremy had confessed to her.
(http://s8.postimg.org/f3y3s6tyd/jmfingerprints.png)


This is why Julies statements are completely false, Her statements have direct parallels with Ann Eaton notes and RWBs diary both of which deviate from the facts of the crime scene and contradict other factual aspects surrounding the case. Therefore Jeremy did not and could not have confessed or told her anything in her statements, it is impossible!



Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record). I have shown you the trial transcripts and the very statements mentioned in those trial transcripts.

The fundamental point Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).

1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.

2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)

3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!

One only has to read Julie Mugfords statements and the cross examination of Ann Eaton to workout were Julie really got those false details from in order for her to make the bogus claim that Jeremy confessed to the killings. The devil is in the details, its just a matter of putting the puzzle together.

From Julie Mugford’s statement, page 23

"I have been asked if I have read or been told about a bible found on Sheila's
chest when she was found dead. I can definitely say I haven't but it was
told to me by Jeremy. I will add that some time after the 7th August 1985,
Ann EATON asked me if I knew about a bible which was near Sheila and I told
her that I did and that it was found on her chest.
I think I told her it
was creepy. I think she asked me about the bible on the Friday of the week of the murders.”



This makes no sense. If Ann Eaton had asked Julie question of the bible some time after the 7th August then Julie answers to Ann that the bible was on Sheila's chest, Then she would have asked Julie how she got that information and Julie would have had to tell her that Jeremy told her the story about Matthew MacDonald. ?

In the trial transcript below. While cross examined by Rivlin QC, at first AE said that she thought she had first heard about the bible on Sheila's chest from Julie Mugford, but Rivlin QC was setting a trap to force AE to admit she actually got that information from the police  by showing her her own statement which she sais she got the information from the police at the house. Another interesting observation, is that AE seems to remember the police telling her all the details mentioned in the statement but when it comes to bible she just happens to forget. Selective memory loss at times most convenient when it comes to the big issues seems to occur often in AE.  ::)

Ann Eaton trial testimony: cross examined 7th October 1986
RIVLIN. I would like to ask you another thing about Julie Mugford, and it is this
something I was going to ask you before the luncheon adjournment- there
came a stage shortly after the events when a police officer told you something
in confidence, did he not, about what had happened and what had been found?
Do you remember? He told you, amongst other things, that when 'Sheila had
been found there was a bible on her chest?

AE. I did hear there was a bible on her chest.

MR. JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): Did you hear it from the policeman is the
question?

AE. I cannot remember, but I heard it whilst in Jeremy's cottage.

MR. RIVLIN: Let remind you. Is it not right that one of the police officers
told you that Uncle Nevill was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle, that the
twins were in their beds, shot?

AE. Yes.

Rivlin. That Aunt June Bamber and Sheila were both on the bed, shot, with Sheila having
a bible on her chest, with the gun beside her?

AE. Yes.

Rivlin. And is it right that shortly after that information had been imparted to you,
you had a conversation with Julie Mugford, and you told Julie that when Sheila.
had been found there had been a bible found on her chest?

AE. I really cannot remember who told me the bible was on the chest.

MR JUSTICE DRAKE (To the witness): That is not the question now, but it is right
you should tell us. You do not remember who told you that Sheila was found
with the bible on her chest, but the question now is, whoever it was who told
you that, did you pass that on to Julie?

AE. I do not remember. I did have a conversation with Julie about the same time.
She said to me Sheila kept saying, I thought she said she was a "white wedge", or perhaps it was a “white
witch", but I do not remember who told me that the bible was on the chest.

MR. JUSTICE Drake: I do not think we have the full answer yet, Mr. Rivlin.

MR. RIVLIN: Would you accept that it was, in fact, one of the officers who told
you that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest and the gun beside her?

AE. I cannot remember who told me the bible was on her chest, so I am saying
it could have been Julie. I cannot remember who told me.

RIVLIN. In those circumstances I think that I must show the document to the witness.

MR. JUSTICE DRAKE: What the witness just said is “it could have been Julie who
told me that" - that Sheila was found with a bible on her chest. (To the
witness): Wherereas the question you are being asked is put the other way around
That someone told you and you told Julie that she had been found with a bible
on her chest. That is the question. If you cannot answer, you cannot
?

AE. I cannot remember. I just remember Julie saying something about Sheila
said she was a “white wedge", which I thought she said, but it turned out she
thought she was a "white witch", but I cannot remember who told me about the
bible.

MR. RIVLIN: Could you remember at the time who told you about the bible?

AE. I cannot remember.

RIVLIN. You made statements to the police officers, did you not, in this case, and I
would like you to look, please, at a statement which is dated 8th September
1985. (Same handed). Your signature appears on this document. Is it a
typewritten document? Does it bear your signature?

AE. No.

MR RIVLIN: I am told that the original is outside.

MR. ARLIDGE: I will have it checked with the original.

MR RIVLIN: Do you see that? The third paragraph. Does it read as follows:
"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near
the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila
Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her
chest with the gun beside her"?


AE. Yes.

Q. Does that help you to remember, Mrs. Eaton? You did say that to the police?

A. Yes, I must have done, because it is written down here. I can remember
the policeman telling me Uncle Nevill was beside the coal scuttle, the twins
were in their beds, shot, Auntie June and Sheila were on the bed with the gun
between them, and I asked how they were shot, and he went like this. I do
not know who told me. I am sorry. Maybe it was a mistake. Asking me now.
I cannot remember who told me.



This is a fantastic post from Hermann over at IA

1 Julie Mugford is a proven liar.

Here's some background information from Robin Cox.

"Ann Eaton said herself in a statement that a police officer told her Sheila and June were found on the bed and that Sheila had the bible on her chest and the gun by her side which was not the prosecution's case at all. Did this give the family leverage in their arguments with Assistant Chief Inspector Simpson? The relatives didn’t like Jeremy, whom they called ‘Cuckoo’ on account of both he and Sheila being adopted but I won’t digress into that here."
http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/robin-cox

The idea is that the relatives were told that Sheila's body was on the bed at one stage and therefore also knew that it must have been the police who stage managed it on the floor. Robert Boutflour was convinced that Bamber was the killer. Some supporters of Bamber think that the police had to go along with the relatives and prosecute Bamber because the relatives knew Sheila's body was on the bed before it was moved to the floor by the police. That is what Cox means by leverage.

Bamber's confession to Julie Mugford

Julie Mugford account of Jeremy's confession includes a story of how Matthew MacDonald put a bible on Sheila's chest after telling her to shoot herself on the bed. So the description of the position of Sheila's body which the policeman gave to Ann Eaton turns up in Julie Mugford's story almost verbatim. It corresponds exactly to how Matthew MacDonald is supposed to have left the body. Mugford tells how Jeremy told her that MacDonald left Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest. It's in Mugford's statment. The police had not told Jeremy that story and it's dismissed as a mistake anyway. So it's impossible that Mugford had gotten it from Bamber.

Here's what Ann Eaton says in her statement of 08/09/85 when told where the bodies were found.

"One of the officers told me that Uncle Nevill Bamber was in the kitchen near the coal scuttle. The twins were in their bed, shot, Aunt June and Sheila Bamber both on the bed, shot, with Sheila Bamber having a bible on her chest with the gun beside her"

Here's what Julie Mugford says in her statement of 08/08/1985 page 14

"I asked Jeremy if the twins and Sheila had felt anything and he told me the boys were sound asleep and didn’t wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Mathew who then put a bible on her chest."

The devil is in the detail

I find it strange that people ignore this telling detail and that when somebody mentions it, even people who are fence sitters just ignore it and get back to talking about Julie and saying that her evidence has "the ring of truth about it". But how can it have the ring of truth when you can point to virtual proof that she lied. I have a theory as to why that kind of thing tends to happen.

Some people like talking about Julie Mugford just like others like talking about Amanda Knox. Of course anybody familiar with the scientific evidence knows that Knox and Solecito are innocent, but people like having something to talk about. They like the element of mystery. Hayden Panettiere undersood that when, talking about Amanda, she said to a bunch of reporters "Did she or didn't she?" So in just the same way, they like the discussion about Julie Mugford which has at it's basis the question "Who is telling the truth Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber."

When the Judge put the question to the jury "It depends on whether you believe Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber" he was being a prima donna. He was going for saying something catchy for the popular press. But he shouldn't have been doing that. You can excuse Hayden for a little lapse of judgement, but you can't make excuses for a judge misdirecting a jury. He should have drawn the jury's attention to the bible on the chest detail which was examined in court. He could have said. "Are we to believe that it's just a coincidence that Jeremy Bamber made up a story which just happens to have in it exactly the same description of a scene with Sheila's body on the bed with a bible on her chest." But he didn't. He apparently wanted to help the prosecution and to hinder the defense. It happens a lot.

The devil is in the detail

There is a saying, the devil is in the detail. Such a detail is to me proof that Julie Mugford's story of Bamber's confession is a fabrication. It has bits and pieces which come from here and there. But I admit that a person sympathetic to Mugford could argue in the manner

" Well OK, she embellished the story a little with that description of the body on the bed which she had obviously gotten from Ann Eaton, probably because she thought people might not believe her, but I still believe she was telling the truth when she said that Jeremy told her he had paid Matthew MacDonald. There is no proof that she made that up.
"

Hermann



Evidence was withheld at trial, alternatively fresh evidence is now available which indicates that Jeremy Bamber telephoned his then girlfriend Julie Mugford at 3.30am in the morning of 7th August and that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby lied in evidence when they timed the called at 3.15am and 3.12 am respectively.

The 3.30am Phone Call Overview:
20. The timing of Jeremy Bamber's phone call to Julie Mugford in the early hours of 71h August 1985 was also of "crucial importance- at trial, His Honour Mr Justice Drake's summing, up at p.12 B. Much evidence was adduced to show that the call had been made at or about 3,15um. This meant that the eau must have been made prior to the Appellant's call to the Chelmsford police station

21.
The Police's own contemporaneous record of the Appellant's call on 7th August 1985, appended to this document, has now come to light. It reveals that the Appellant's initial call to Chelmsford Police station was recorded, in error as conceded at trial, as 3.36am. More importantly it shows that having first spoken to the Appellant and established the nature of the problem in some detail the officer at Chelmsford phoned Witham Police station at 3.26am, that being undisputedly a correct time. It is therefore submitted that the Appellant's initial call to the Police must have been some minutes before 3.26am.

Ann Eaton's Notes In Relation to The Call to Julie Mugford:

22. Ann Eaton's allegedly contemporaneous notes regarding 8th August disclosed at trial stated that there had been a "muddle about the right time of the 3.15 phone call - a London friend was called".

A further note has since been found which reveals that in her original note she stated "talked to Julie about the phone calls Julie said re flatmate (our emphasis - photocopy is poor here exact wording should be clear on viewing of the original) 3.30am". It is submitted that this discrepancy shows that not only was Ann Eaton's note deliberately changed to undermine the appellant's case but that Julie Mugford and Susan Batteresby lied when they gave evidence that the telephone call was 3.15am or earlier, as it was Susan Battersby who was the flatmate referred to it the undisclosed Ann Eaton note.

Julie Mugford's Evidence:
23. In her original statement to the Police dated 81h August 1985 stated at p345:
next time I heard front Jeremy was at about 3.30am on Wednesday morning the th August 1985."
This then changes in her statement of e September 1985 when she states :
" I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan Battersby who lives with
me that it was about 3.15am."
At trial when she was cross examined as to the fact that she had told the police that the telephone call was received at 3.30am, she stated at p38 on 8th October:



Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record).

The fundamental point is Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).

1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.

2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)

3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!

You cannot get round these points no matter how much you bring up the sleeping pills or fire. Its rather obvious the police zeroed in on those pills and did not buy her original innocent explanation for them, thus she made up something they wanted to hear from her.

I am not quoting word for word here but it goes like this

Julie Mugford - "Jeremy told me that Sheila was told to lay on the bed and was ordered to shoot herself under the supervision of Mathew Macdonald he then left the bible on the her chest" (Jeremy is supposed to have told her this on the 7th of August at his cottage while the house was occupied by many other people  )

Julie Mugford - "On the 7th I told Ann Eaton about the bible on her chest"

Anne Eaton - "On the 7th Police told me Sheila was found laying on the bed with a bible on her chest"

Ann Eaton - " I cant remember who told me on the 7th" (Just after confirming the police told her various details she obviously remembers. problem being she was told about the bible in the exact same conversation)

The idea of the bible being a "meme" is not credible because there are too many similarities with her statement as a whole. The probability of it being coincidental, you are looking at almost jackpot lottery odds. (Bible on chest + Sheila on Bed + Exiting windows + Cycling to the farm + Fingerprints on gun + wetsuit + 2000 pounds + a McDonald mentioned in police meeting + Hitman to explain the reported movement)

All of these can either be found in Julies testimony or her "diary". Most importantly Jeremy is supposed to have told her all this. This means that what Jeremy told her in his alleged "confessions" he deliberately falsified how he killed everyone so it just so happens to be the same as Ann Eatons and RWBs erroneous information. Not only that but he also falsifies his "confessions" so what he tells her just so happens to explain the gaps and problems the police were facing at that moment in time! gaps and problems that later turned out to be wrong! Then Jeremy decides not to tell her about the silencer, the one piece of crucial evidence that was only discovered to be incriminating in the weeks AFTER Julie made her statements.

Its just not possible for Jeremy to have told her all this in the way its been presented by her coinciding with the circumstances of the police investigation and the relatives suspicions in that instance of time. With some of those circumstances and ideas backfiring, thus harming her credibility later on.

Lets look at Mathew Mcdoanld for example.

1. Robert Boutflour speculates if Jeremy had assistance on the night - See Diary

2. Robert Boutflour zeros in on the £2000 that Neville lent to Jeremy - See Diary

3. The £2000 of course has an innocent explanation and is totally unrelated to the event. but RWB believes he is onto something (Tunnel vision)

4. Jeremy is supposed to have lent this £2000 to a friend - See Diary

5. 20th of August police have a meeting with RWB present. During that meeting a question is put forward in relation to a drug deal (from a man called McDonald??) See Barlow's note book

6. Jeremy has a friend called Mathew Mcdonald they both do drugs together - See MMs statement

7. Mathew Mcdonald happens to a fantasist who goes around telling people he is a mercenary and has done missions in Libya. People believe the rumours - see MMs statement

According to Julie. Jeremy told her that he paid £2000 to Mathew Mcdonald to help him carry out the killings. The fact of the matter is a sum of £2000 went somewhere else. Mathew Macdonald is a mercenary only in his imagination plus he was miles away from the farm that night. Robert Bouflour and Stand Jones ignorant of the facts at the time. To them this theory would make perfect sense to them. Jeremy's "mercenary" friend and drug associate complete with a money trail and can explain the reported movement in the farm while Jeremy was outside with the police.

I will leave you to decide where Julie got the story from.

Brilliant post.

Does this not prove there was Collusion between Julie Mugford > Ann Eaton and or Essex Police and does this not undermine the entire case?

Baring in mind Ann Eaton was there when the moderator was found, and the moderator was key evidence.

It appears to a layman like myself they were 'ganging up' on Jeremy.

Mugford's evidence may be even more important than we thought?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 05, 2018, 05:48:PM
Steve,

This thread is about the relevance of Julie Mugford's evidence to an appeal by Jeremy Bamber. The relevant statement of the former Miss Julie Mugford, of date 8th. September 1985, changes nothing that I have already said.

In that statement, she states (among other things) that:

(i). Jeremy confessed to her that he had solicited Matthew McDonald to do the killing; and,
(ii). at some restaurant, they talked about what Jeremy had done.

Point (i) above is not a murder confession, as it is accepted that McDonald was not solicited by Jeremy.  That fact discredits point (ii).

The crucial part of Mugford's evidence is hearsay because she is relating a conversation of Jeremy's with McDonald.  This means that the strongest part of Mugford's evidence is also paradoxically the weakest.
Without that element, the entirety of Mugford's evidence - such as it is - falls.  What we are being asked to believe is that there was progressive thinking, planning and acting on Jeremy's part towards murder, but without the solicitation of McDonald, any prior conversations with Jeremy look like dead-ends.  Therefore, we have to believe that Jeremy had this conversation with McDonald: we have to accept as incriminating what amounts to a bit of salacious gossip.  It's not good enough.

You could argue that this flaw doesn't matter because McDonald gave evidence, but that question in itself is of no importance: the point is that Mugford's evidence proves nothing and is of of no value.  Undermining Mugford would not, in my opinion, alter Jeremy's position very significantly, at least not on a strict view of the evidence. 

You are free to disagree of course, and we may well ask: Why on earth would Jeremy have such conversations?  Well, instantly we can come up with several innocent explanations. In all seriousness, he may have been showing-off and trying to get her sexually-aroused.  It's plausible.  We don't need to assume Julie was lying - and that's certainly not my position - to explain Jeremy's conduct with her.

What actually incriminates Jeremy are a number of minor facts and elements that, cumulatively, point to his guilt on the basis of circumstantial inference.  Julie Mugford's evidence doesn't come into it, and the Crown could have proved their case without her.  She was a witness only because they calculated (perhaps rightly) that her testimony would influence the jury by painting Jeremy in a bad light.  In effect, Mugford evidence is bad character evidence.

Anyway, that's what I think.  I hope that answers your concerns.
We don't have to believe anything of the sort. Bamber is a congenital liar: let's get that straight.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Nigel on April 05, 2018, 05:51:PM
We don't have to believe anything of the sort. Bamber is a congenital liar: let's get that straight.

JEREMY is not a liar.

But having read your posts these last few months its obvious xxx xxx.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: maggie on April 05, 2018, 06:37:PM
Have removed a few posts can posters please avoid personal attacks, they will always be removed. Thanks
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 05, 2018, 11:49:PM
We don't have to believe anything of the sort. Bamber is a congenital liar: let's get that straight.

Have you met Jeremy Bamber?

I'm just interested to know how you could know this?

Perhaps you could fill us all in.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 on April 06, 2018, 12:14:AM
Have you met Jeremy Bamber?

I'm just interested to know how you could know this?

Perhaps you could fill us all in.

Steve looks at this case from a fictitious universe where he is omnipotent to create whatever ‘facts’ he wishes.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 06, 2018, 03:03:PM
Steve looks at this case from a fictitious universe where he is omnipotent to create whatever ‘facts’ he wishes.

LOL.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Roch on April 06, 2018, 03:10:PM
Don't be rude & goad.

I think you're playing with fire.  Whinging on like a baby on the red, about how badly treated you are over here.  You're extremely lucky to have had the run you've had, all down to maggie and ngb's high level of tolerance.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 06, 2018, 04:34:PM
I think you're playing with fire.  Whinging on like a baby on the red, about how badly treated you are over here.  You're extremely lucky to have had the run you've had, all down to maggie and ngb's high level of tolerance.

Putting aside Steve's buffoonery, the serious point here is that if Jeremy Bamber is a congenital liar, then why should we rely on Julie Mugford's hearsay evidence about a pseudo-confession by that very same Jeremy Bamber?  And why did the court admit her statements into evidence at trial?  And why should the CCRC or the Court of Appeal give any credence to her now?

Surely the serious answer to this dilemma is simply for all parties to say: whatever the truth or otherwise of what one person said to another, Julie Mugford evidence proved nothing and was never reliable and should be thrown in the bin.  That way, everyone, whether pro- or anti-Bamber, or neutral like me, can focus on the real points and stop wasting time.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Adam on April 06, 2018, 05:09:PM
I think you're playing with fire.  Whinging on like a baby on the red, about how badly treated you are over here.  You're extremely lucky to have had the run you've had, all down to maggie and ngb's high level of tolerance.

Roch trying to goad again.

Quoting a 6 day old post to try to liven up the forum. After everyone left due to creepy posters such as Roch and Nigel.

Roch is lucky he is a former moderator and fiercely protected by former collegues. And yes I have mentioned the Blue forum on the red forum recently. Everyone has been. You are also free to join that forum. Unless you have been banned.

What's happened to the evidence you have seen which shows Sheila is definately the killer ? Or is it still a secret.



Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 06, 2018, 05:39:PM
Putting aside Steve's buffoonery, the serious point here is that if Jeremy Bamber is a congenital liar, then why should we rely on Julie Mugford's hearsay evidence about a pseudo-confession by that very same Jeremy Bamber?  And why did the court admit her statements into evidence at trial?  And why should the CCRC or the Court of Appeal give any credence to her now?

Surely the serious answer to this dilemma is simply for all parties to say: whatever the truth or otherwise of what one person said to another, Julie Mugford evidence proved nothing and was never reliable and should be thrown in the bin.  That way, everyone, whether pro- or anti-Bamber, or neutral like me, can focus on the real points and stop wasting time.
..because there's truth intermingled with fiction, and it does take painstaking effort to sift through it all.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 06, 2018, 05:40:PM
Roch trying to goad again.

Quoting a 6 day old post to try to liven up the forum. After everyone left due to creepy posters such as Roch and Nigel.

Roch is lucky he is a former moderator and fiercely protected by former collegues. And yes I have mentioned the Blue forum on the red forum recently. Everyone has been. You are also free to join that forum. Unless you have been banned.

What's happened to the evidence you have seen which shows Sheila is definately the killer ? Or is it still a secret.
I must say the atmosphere on the forum has been rather unpleasant this past couple of days.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 06, 2018, 06:31:PM
I must say the atmosphere on the forum has been rather unpleasant this past couple of days.

And you have made no contribution to that?  You are an obvious buffoon.  You make statements that you can't support.  Why do you think miscarriages of justice happen in the first place?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 06, 2018, 06:32:PM
..because there's truth intermingled with fiction, and it does take painstaking effort to sift through it all.

We have to base this on facts and legal reasoning, not on your half-witted speculations about the "truth".  You don't know what the truth is, you buffoon.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 06, 2018, 08:45:PM
We have to base this on facts and legal reasoning, not on what your half-witted speculations about the "truth".  You don't know what the truth is, you buffoon.
I have been Julie Smerchanski's harshest critic, but I do believe her evidence. In private so did the Defence, which is why they remained so pessimistic throughout the trial. The Jeremy Bamber case contains within a microcosm of the society through which I lived in the 1980s (from your writings you profess to be learned but it is you who is the callow youth here), a society redolent with all its brickbats and bouquets, and maybe in the final analysis Julie was prepared to sacrifice five lives on the altar of materialism, but this horrific fact of human nature does not change the power of her evidence, nor exculpate Jeremy Bamber because you unilaterally have decided to disregard it.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=5528.0

My threads are created partly from invention or intelligent guessing as I would call it, but also from original documentation, and where this original documentation is not at my fingertips I have used footnotes in the various books on the case which does furnish it to supplement them with.

You and several others here seem to think that five people were murdered out of the blue, that everything in the Bamber household was lovely (as Jeremy asserts) until the tragedy occurred, that you can somehow produce diagrams of White House Farm to exculpate him or rubbish every other Prosecution witness and those who sincerely believe him guilty won't notice what you are doing. You even make allegations that Crispy the dog or the position of the dustpan and brush proves him innocent. I could go on.

The plain and terribly sad fact is that a young chronic schizophrenic woman (I use the word chronic because she was liable at intervals to relapse and may well have been on medication for life) was told to lie down at Jeremy's behest, a rifle was thrust into her hands and before she knew what was happening a report was discharged to the throat, shortly followed by another bullet to her brain, which instantly killed her.

She was used as a scapegoat because she could not fight back, her experience of life had made her bitter at times as she railed against human nature and reflected on how in her opinion she had been used and abused, mostly by men, the only power she did once hold against Colin as wife having dissipated once he found another partner and moved on, though a part of him always loved her, which is why he remained on good terms with her and she wanted him back.

As far as Jeremy Bamber is concerned he was the bitter individual if ever there was one. He was bitter at his status in the pecking order at White House Farm, bitter that his parents had sent him away to boarding school, where he endured eight long years, only to ascend the lowest rung of the ladder upon return. He indulged in two foreign trips pre-murders and never truly settled down to farm work apart from the last few months of his parents' life, with his own ulterior motive of fulfilling the terms of his parents' wills, knowing full well that on the death of five they would be overturned and he would become sole beneficiary.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: ngb1066 on April 06, 2018, 08:49:PM
Roch trying to goad again.

Quoting a 6 day old post to try to liven up the forum. After everyone left due to creepy posters such as Roch and Nigel.

Roch is lucky he is a former moderator and fiercely protected by former collegues. And yes I have mentioned the Blue forum on the red forum recently. Everyone has been. You are also free to join that forum. Unless you have been banned.

What's happened to the evidence you have seen which shows Sheila is definately the killer ? Or is it still a secret.

Be very careful Adam.  I suggest you read carefully the forum rules.  Just because the forum is moderated with a light touch - some may say too light a touch - does not mean you can continue to ignore forum rules.



Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 06, 2018, 08:55:PM
This forum is devalued because we are not privy to the latest developments. Is it any wonder that sometimes posters do attempt entertainment in an attempt to fill the lacuna?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 06, 2018, 08:56:PM
I have been Julie Smerchanski's harshest critic, but I do believe her evidence. In private so did the Defence, which is why they remained so pessimistic throughout the trial. The Jeremy Bamber case contains within a microcosm of the society through which I lived in the 1980s (from your writings you profess to be learned but it is you who is the callow youth here), a society redolent with all its brickbats and bouquets, and maybe in the final analysis Julie was prepared to sacrifice five lives on the altar of materialism, but this horrific fact of human nature does not change the power of her evidence, nor exculpate Jeremy Bamber because you unilaterally have decided to disregard it.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=5528.0

My threads are created partly from invention or intelligent guessing as I would call it, but also from original documentation, and where this original documentation is not at my fingertips I have used footnotes in the various books on the case which does furnish it to supplement them with.

You and several others here seem to think that five people were murdered out of the blue, that everything in the Bamber household was lovely (as Jeremy asserts) until the tragedy occurred, that you can somehow produce diagrams of White House Farm to exculpate him or rubbish every other Prosecution witness and those who sincerely believe him guilty won't notice what you are doing. You even make allegations that Crispy the dog or the position of the dustpan and brush proves him innocent. I could go on.

The plain and terribly sad fact is that a young chronic schizophrenic woman (I use the word chronic because she was liable at intervals to relapse and may well have been on medication for life) was told to lie down at Jeremy's behest, a rifle was thrust into her hands and before she knew what was happening a report was discharged to the throat, shortly followed by another bullet to her brain, which instantly killed her.

She was used as a scapegoat because she could not fight back, her experience of life had made her bitter at times as she railed against human nature and reflected on how in her opinion she had been used and abused, mostly by men, the only power she did once hold against Colin as wife having dissipated once he found another partner and moved on, though a part of him always loved her, which is why he remained on good terms with her and she wanted him back.

As far as Jeremy Bamber is concerned he was the bitter individual if ever there was one. He was bitter at his status in the pecking order at White House Farm, bitter that his parents had sent him away to boarding school, where he endured eight long years, only to ascend the lowest rung of the ladder upon return. He indulged in three foreign trips pre-murders and never truly settled down to farm work apart from the last few months of his parents life, with his own ulterior motive of fulfilling the terms of his parents' wills, knowing full well that on the death of five they would be overturned and he would become sole beneficiary.

Nothing that you have said here has anything to do with the subject-matter of the thread, the question I ask in the thread, what the thread is about: which is the relevance of her evidence.

With the greatest respect, I don't care if you believe her or not.  It's not germane to what I'm asking.

Also, where did I say, imply, suggest or infer that five people were murdered out of the blue?  Nowhere have I suggested a thing.

The basic problem with you is that you go beyond the known facts.  You don't know what happened.  You don't know that Jeremy Bamber is a congenital liar.  That's what makes you irrational.

As far as I can tell, you have nothing to contribute here as you are treating this case as an article of faith.  Why are you here if you're so sure you know everything?  Is it some sort of sadistic sexual delight for you to discuss the case?  I really don't get people like you.  Why can't we just stick to facts?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 06, 2018, 08:58:PM
This forum is devalued because we are not privy to the latest developments. Is it any wonder that sometimes posters do attempt entertainment in an attempt to fill the lacuna?

No, what devalues forums like this is human nature: 98% of the population are unintelligent and irrational.  That's why miscarriages of justice happen.  It's why forums like this can't sustain rational discussion for very long, because some people are driven by their egos and need to make assertions beyond the facts.  It also explains why religious belief and superstition persist on a mass level.  The bottom line is that the brain is not, primarily, a facilitator for rational engagement.  The brain a hormone factory.  Human beings aren't rational, but ego-driven.  You're a case in point, whether you recognise it or not.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: ngb1066 on April 06, 2018, 09:00:PM
This forum is devalued because we are not privy to the latest developments. Is it any wonder that sometimes posters do attempt entertainment in an attempt to fill the lacuna?

That is a fair point.

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 06, 2018, 09:18:PM
Nothing that you have said here has anything to do with the subject-matter of the thread, the question I ask in the thread, what the thread is about: which is the relevance of her evidence.

With the greatest respect, I don't care if you believe her or not.  It's not germane to what I'm asking.

Also, where did I say, imply, suggest or infer that five people were murdered out of the blue?  Nowhere have I suggested a thing.

The basic problem with you is that you go beyond the known facts.  You don't know what happened.  You don't know that Jeremy Bamber is a congenital liar. That's what makes you irrational.

As far as I can tell, you have nothing to contribute here as you are treating this case as an article of faith.  Why are you here if you're so sure you know everything?  Is it some sort of sadistic sexual delight for you to discuss the case?  I really don't get people like you.  Why can't we just stick to facts?
You have already said that you don't believe Julie Mugford's evidence and you are not alone amongst the membership here in so asserting. What I am saying to you is that if you follow her statement through it provides the backdrop to the crime and the rationale behind it. Without her evidence you have to rely on claiming that the relatives deliberately inserted Sheila's blood by means of a pipette into a silencer so as to sufficiently arouse Police interest in a case which heretofore DCI Jones had regarded as over and done with.

I don't really know what you are asking. You say Julie's evidence is not relevant, but then in the same breath we are compelled to believe that Jeremy Bamber had a conversation with Matthew Macdonald about arranging to murder his family, when we are not obliged to believe anything of the sort.

I have read from the various books enough about Jeremy Bamber to know he is not a truthful person, from his stealing Cartier watches in a jeweller's shop in New Zealand to him conning people out of their rings to his desire to break into rich people's houses in London with the justification that it would teach them a lesson, just as was his rationale with the Osea Road break-in. He swept Julie off her feet with extravagant romantic gestures such as hiring the bridal suite at a top London hotel, and you think the girl is not entitled to dream that one day he won't offer marriage?

As for my sexual proclivities it really is none of your business, but you may be disappointed at how mundane they really are. I have lived through Jeffrey Archer, John Major, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Savile and the rest and compared to them I'm as pure as the driven snow.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 06, 2018, 09:21:PM
That is a fair point.

Anybody who says they definitely know Bamber is innocent or guilty is a buffoon.  It's self-evident that you just can't know, and therefore, I regard nearly everybody posting on here and on the Red Forum as an idiot.  Go ahead and ban me.

How can you regard yourself as rational when you're commenting beyond your own knowledge?  That's what religious people do.  I'm genuinely confused by this.  How am I supposed to know what happened in that house on that night?  It's not a case on which it's possible to take an informed view of his culpability.  This is partly because the only other suspect is dead and there are two independent possible matrices of fact leading to two different suspects.

Sorry but I'm just honest.  One of the reasons forums like this sometimes break down is because people are taking sides when they shouldn't be.  This particular case is not amenable to tribalism.  It's really just a question of whether his conviction is safe.  Any other discussion is futile and akin to arguing over whether Manchester United are better than Manchester City.  Hence the insults and all the tension - it's not primarily a rational discussion because the people involved are prioritising loyalty to one side or the other.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk on April 06, 2018, 09:25:PM
Anybody who says they definitely know Bamber is innocent or guilty is a buffoon.  It's self-evident that you just can't know, and therefore, I regard nearly everybody posting on here and on the Red Forum as an idiot.  Go ahead and ban me.

How can you regard yourself as rational when you're commenting beyond your own knowledge?  That's what religious people do.  I'm genuinely confused by this.  How am I supposed to know what happened in that house on that night?  It's not a case on which it's possible to take an informed view of his culpability.  This is partly because the only other suspect is dead and there are two independent possible matrices of fact leading to two different suspects.

Sorry but I'm just honest.  One of the reasons forums like this sometimes break down is because people are taking sides when they shouldn't be.  This particular case is not amenable to tribalism.  It's really just a question of whether his conviction is safe.  Any other discussion is futile and akin to arguing over whether Manchester United are better than Manchester City.  Hence the insults and all the tension - it's not primarily a rational discussion because the people involved are prioritising loyalty to one side or the other.
This forum was functioning quite adequately before your arrival and will I'm sure survive your departure, should it come to that.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 06, 2018, 09:28:PM
You have already said that you don't believe Julie Mugford's evidence and

No, I haven't said that Steve.

Steve, you are a case in point of what I am saying is the flaw in these forums.  You're not reading my posts.  You haven't understood my position.  I have not at any point doubted Mugford's truthfulness.  That's because her truthfulness is not germane.

you are not alone amongst the membership here in so asserting. What I am saying to you is that if you follow her statement through it provides the backdrop to the crime and the rationale behind it. Without her evidence you have to rely on claiming that the relatives deliberately inserted Sheila's blood by means of a pipette into a silencer so as to sufficiently arouse Police interest in a case which heretofore DCI Jones had regarded as over and done with.

No, Steve, you don't have to rely on that to prove the case against Bamber.  Have long have you been commenting on this forum and you still don't understand the basics?

I don't really know what you are asking. You say Julie's evidence is not relevant, but then in the same breath we are compelled to believe that Jeremy Bamber had a conversation with Matthew Macdonald about arranging to murder his family, when we are not obliged to believe anything of the sort.

No, I'm not saying that.  You're just in a muddle.  You're confused about the thread.  It would be better if you stop commenting on my posts.

I have read from the various books enough about Jeremy Bamber to know he is not a truthful person, from his stealing Cartier watches in a jeweller's shop in New Zealand to him conning people out of their rings to his desire to break into rich people's houses in London with the justification that it would teach them a lesson, just as was his rationale with the Osea Road break-in. He swept Julie off her feet with extravagant romantic gestures such as hiring the bridal suite at a top London hotel, and you think the girl is not entitled to dream that one day he won't offer marriage?

Assuming all this is true, then this part of what you say is very fair in forming a view about Bamber as an innately dishonest individual.  OK, good.  I'm neutral here, so that's helpful information for me.  Thanks.  But....None of it establishes that he killed his family and in the context of an appeal, it's not relevant.  Remember the purpose of the thread is to discuss how an appeal might be framed, not to rake over the issues at trial.

As for my sexual proclivities it really is none of your business, but you may be disappointed at how mundane they really are. I have lived through Jeffrey Archer, John Major, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Saville and the rest and compared to them I'm as pure as the driven snow.

What is this gibberish?  I've mentioned nothing about your sexual proclivities: my comment to Nigel before was obviously just a joke and it was aimed at him, not you.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Luminous Wanderer on April 06, 2018, 09:31:PM
This forum was functioning quite adequately before your arrival and will I'm sure survive your departure, should it come to that.

Oh, I'm sorry that I have an inclination to actually think and ask questions.  Maybe I should go then and leave the forum to half-wits like you who think you know what happened 33 years ago at a farmhouse in Essex?  Would that represent an improvement in understanding the case?

And of course, lest we forget that your own behaviour is absolutely perfect and beyond the reproach.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Roch on April 06, 2018, 10:44:PM
Roch trying to goad again.

Quoting a 6 day old post to try to liven up the forum. After everyone left due to creepy posters such as Roch and Nigel.

Roch is lucky he is a former moderator and fiercely protected by former collegues. And yes I have mentioned the Blue forum on the red forum recently. Everyone has been. You are also free to join that forum. Unless you have been banned.


Don't think I've ever tried to register on their latest forum.  They are obsessed with here and hang off our every word.  Although I go through phases of scanning it, I find their scoffing tone a real bore.  They are all so obsequious with each other as well - pass the sick bucket.  The only moderator there with any ability is in the innocent camp - but is so busy trying to flatter and accommodate all the guilters, you'd hardly notice.  They've effectively shackled and blinkered her without her even realising.    Then there's  Steph who is absolutely xxxxxxx clueless about the Bamber case but has free reign to spew out utter nonsense - a bit like your self.
As for people leaving here.  You left, except you haven't (unfortunately).  Caroline is there (hope she posts here again) and Jane/April has also left.  Mat ferrets back and forth with his 'hit and run' posts.  Hardly a mass exodus Adam  :))

What's happened to the evidence you have seen which shows Sheila is definately the killer ? Or is it still a secret.

As you know already, it was evidence of Sheila having been in a violent struggle with the other two adults.  All three adult victims sustained attack/defence wounds which are not referred to by PV.  I also mentioned the earring, also not referred to by PV.  You were given a snippet (back of Sheila's right hand), which I think was quite generous. 
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Roch on April 06, 2018, 11:44:PM
Anybody who says they definitely know Bamber is innocent or guilty is a buffoon.  It's self-evident that you just can't know, and therefore, I regard nearly everybody posting on here and on the Red Forum as an idiot. 

The way I see the case has developed.  I 100% believe Sheila was involved in the killings. I take this view because I have become aware of various wounds and circumstances that strongly indicate a fight between all three of the adults who became deceased.  A life or death struggle to thwart / contain Sheila.   

However, I cannot say 100% for certain that Jeremy had no foreknowledge, influence or involvement in what took place that night.  In any scenario where Sheila experiences a severe psychotic episode, Jeremy's involvement can only have taken place pre-incident (as how would it be possible for him to assist, influence and safeguard himself, while Sheila is raving and hallucinating?).  So for example, he got wind of what was going to happen or even encouraged it and facilitated the rifle being left out for her by using the ruse of the rabbits.  Therefore he assisted in the preparation and had foreknowledge - but he did not participate.  He could only physically participate alongside Sheila in a scenario where she is not hallucinating, IMO.  However, unlike the other three adults, he is not marked, so I think this scenario is unlikely.

I 100% believe the sound moderator is concocted.  It is a bogus exhibit.  If in order to convict somebody, you have to literally concoct a physical exhibit, how likely is it that person was never involved in the first place? 

Thus, using this reasoning, I think it's unlikely he had foreknowledge, influence, involvement.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 on April 07, 2018, 12:49:AM


Don't think I've ever tried to register on their latest forum.  They are obsessed with here and hang off our every word.  Although I go through phases of scanning it, I find their scoffing tone a real bore.  They are all so obsequious with each other as well - pass the sick bucket.  The only moderator there with any ability is in the innocent camp - but is so busy trying to flatter and accommodate all the guilters, you'd hardly notice.  They've effectively shackled and blinkered her without her even realising.    Then there's  Steph who is absolutely xxxxxxx clueless about the Bamber case but has free reign to spew out utter nonsense - a bit like your self.
As for people leaving here.  You left, except you haven't (unfortunately).  Caroline is there (hope she posts here again) and Jane/April has followed, as she follows whatever Caroline says / does.  Mat ferrets back and forth with his 'hit and run' posts.  Hardly a mass exodus Adam  :))

As you know already, it was evidence of Sheila having been in a violent struggle with the other two adults.  All three adult victims sustained attack/defence wounds which are not referred to by PV.  I also mentioned the earring, also not referred to by PV.  You were given a snippet (back of Sheila's right hand), which I think was quite generous.

What about the Mythster?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: lookout on April 07, 2018, 12:06: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 !!



Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: lookout on April 07, 2018, 12:11:PM
----------Goodness me,a lot of catching up to do !!
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk 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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Roch 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).
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: lookout 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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: lookout 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 ?

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk 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.

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: lookout 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 !!
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk 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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: lookout 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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Roch 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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk 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?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Roch 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. 
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Caroline 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
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk 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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Caroline 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?  :-\
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk 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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 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.


Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk 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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Jane 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".
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 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.



 
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Caroline 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!
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 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
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Caroline 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?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk 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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Jane 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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk 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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Jane 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?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 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 ****
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Jane 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. 
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Caroline 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!
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Caroline 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?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 on February 10, 2019, 02:49:AM
I have just read through Susan Battersbys statements in more detail the first time. The situation now becomes more farcical than I first thought.

"I asked her how Jeremy had found a Mercenary it was then that she told me he was an ex-friend of Jeremy's she had met him and disliked him. He was in fact the boyfriend of a girl who was friendly with Sue FORD, Jeremy's ex girlfriend. She did tell me his name but I cannot remember it now."


This puts Mathew McDonald in the same category as Jeremy Bamber and Brett Collins. That being Julie doesn't like them.

What else do Mathew McDonald, Jeremy Bamber and Brett Collins have in common? Julie implicates them all in serious crimes to her friend Susan. McDonald & Bamber doing the WHF killings and Brett killing someone in an armed robbery.

This is just an immature 20 year old girl in a Pizza Hut spreading nasty rumors about people she don't like.

Small lies lead to big lies. As Julie found out once Liz called the police for her.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Jane on February 10, 2019, 08:59:AM
I have just read through Susan Battersbys statements in more detail the first time. The situation now becomes more farcical than I first thought.

"I asked her how Jeremy had found a Mercenary it was then that she told me he was an ex-friend of Jeremy's she had met him and disliked him. He was in fact the boyfriend of a girl who was friendly with Sue FORD, Jeremy's ex girlfriend. She did tell me his name but I cannot remember it now."


This puts Mathew McDonald in the same category as Jeremy Bamber and Brett Collins. That being Julie doesn't like them.

What else do Mathew McDonald, Jeremy Bamber and Brett Collins have in common? Julie implicates them all in serious crimes to her friend Susan. McDonald & Bamber doing the WHF killings and Brett killing someone in an armed robbery.

This is just an immature 20 year old girl in a Pizza Hut spreading nasty rumors about people she don't like.

Small lies lead to big lies. As Julie found out once Liz called the police for her.


But surely that describes you, David? An immature male on a discussion forum spreading nasty rumours about people he doesn't like? You have no doubt experienced for yourself how "small lies lead to bigger lies" and the tendency they have to come back to bite?

Let's allow that 20 year old's can be immature -it's all part of the maturing process- and often insecure, too. So if we look at the various reasons why Julie may have "disliked" him, the first MAY be that he was very different from other males she'd met and she was out of her comfort zone. This may have led her to come to conclusions about his character -surely, as it's something you have a penchant for, you can see that?- added to which, he was a link between Jeremy and his previous girlfriend and represented a threat, as did Brett Collins who was influencing Jeremy in a way which excluded her. It seems to me that her self preservation instincts were kicking in -a sign, actually, of a maturing character- and she was heeding them.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Caroline on February 10, 2019, 12:02:PM
I have just read through Susan Battersbys statements in more detail the first time. The situation now becomes more farcical than I first thought.

"I asked her how Jeremy had found a Mercenary it was then that she told me he was an ex-friend of Jeremy's she had met him and disliked him. He was in fact the boyfriend of a girl who was friendly with Sue FORD, Jeremy's ex girlfriend. She did tell me his name but I cannot remember it now."


This puts Mathew McDonald in the same category as Jeremy Bamber and Brett Collins. That being Julie doesn't like them.

What else do Mathew McDonald, Jeremy Bamber and Brett Collins have in common? Julie implicates them all in serious crimes to her friend Susan. McDonald & Bamber doing the WHF killings and Brett killing someone in an armed robbery.

This is just an immature 20 year old girl in a Pizza Hut spreading nasty rumors about people she don't like.

Small lies lead to big lies. As Julie found out once Liz called the police for her.

I believe she disliked Brett Collins even more - why didn't she rope him in? This isn't a theory David it's just 'he said, she said'.

"They didn't bring up what you keep bringing up here because its their job to prosecute, not get laughed at"
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 on February 10, 2019, 06:31:PM
Also while reading this statement of Susan Battersby, if one scrolls down further the page you can find Caroline and her sidekick making critical observations on the subject.


So, Julie didn't tell Susan Battersby that she had known about the plan to kill his parents long before they were killed??


She obviously hadn't thought up the story yet ;D

Well done Caroline and Jane!  ;D
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk on February 10, 2019, 07:58:PM
I have just read through Susan Battersbys statements in more detail the first time. The situation now becomes more farcical than I first thought.

"I asked her how Jeremy had found a Mercenary it was then that she told me he was an ex-friend of Jeremy's she had met him and disliked him. He was in fact the boyfriend of a girl who was friendly with Sue FORD, Jeremy's ex girlfriend. She did tell me his name but I cannot remember it now."


This puts Mathew McDonald in the same category as Jeremy Bamber and Brett Collins. That being Julie doesn't like them.

What else do Mathew McDonald, Jeremy Bamber and Brett Collins have in common? Julie implicates them all in serious crimes to her friend Susan. McDonald & Bamber doing the WHF killings and Brett killing someone in an armed robbery.

This is just an immature 20 year old girl in a Pizza Hut spreading nasty rumors about people she don't like.

Small lies lead to big lies. As Julie found out once Liz called the police for her.
She was an ex-Altrincham Grammar School girl, who went on to study at university in an age when 1 in 10 did. In some ways it makes the forthcoming drama all the more shocking, but that is a point you did not make.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 on February 10, 2019, 08:58:PM
She was an ex-Altrincham Grammar School girl, who went on to study at university in an age when 1 in 10 did. In some ways it makes the forthcoming drama all the more shocking, but that is a point you did not make.

Grammar school? I guess John Cannan must be innocent also!  Gee Steve you do crack me up  ;D

On a serious note, how do you explain this discrepancy?

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".

How could she not know that MM had ever entered WHF? The only logical explanation is that she is lying.


Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk on February 11, 2019, 01:12:AM
Grammar school? I guess John Cannan must be innocent also!  Gee Steve you do crack me up  ;D

On a serious note, how do you explain this discrepancy?

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".

How could she not know that MM had ever entered WHF? The only logical explanation is that she is lying.
I think because she gradually came to realize that he had told her a pack of lies all along, and so her default position was what Jeremy had told her of Matthew since they first met in Sloppy Joe's in November 1983.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Jane on February 11, 2019, 08:30:AM
Also while reading this statement of Susan Battersby, if one scrolls down further the page you can find Caroline and her sidekick making critical observations on the subject.


Well done Caroline and Jane!  ;D


Thank-you for that, David. I think I've done remarkably well, too. I do understand, though, your own need to vilify and ridicule -I see you've now included Steve in your list of those who must be put down- but with your track record...........

.........Let's see. It started off with theft, didn't it? Or, at the very least, the use of another's ground work without having the courtesy to inform them of your intentions.

 Exactly what did you say to whom that rid the forum of one of it's best contributors, and what were your reasons for so doing?

 Then there were stories about 'scientific breakthroughs' which would lead to Jeremy's release. Was it to cover the humiliation of that particular failure that you directed attention away from you by suggesting a sexual relationship between Caroline and me?...............

.................and slinking away -before you were pushed?- from another forum for accusing a moderator of having an alcohol problem and dementia.

 It appears there are no limits to how low you're prepared to go. You can't have failed to notice that your last boast -leaving aside the details you gave of your appalling sexual manners- could easily be construed as having been a very serious sexual assault..................

................and if all the about isn't enough to call into EXTREME doubt the integrity of your character, it appears there maybe the possibility that stalker can be added.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Caroline on February 11, 2019, 11:15:AM
Also while reading this statement of Susan Battersby, if one scrolls down further the page you can find Caroline and her sidekick making critical observations on the subject.


Well done Caroline and Jane!  ;D

You can't handle criticism can you David? Rather than accept that your argument is weak, you trawl through old posts in order to find something as revenge. It's no wonder that you found posts which support Bamber (or did the unnamed forum member gather these old posts for you?  ::)) - that's because both Jane and I foolishly used to think he was innocent. You have MANY contradictory posts on the forum yourself - these have been highlighted by Adam but when highlighted, you make ridiculous excuses and cry like a baby  ;D ;D ;D.

Your argument is rubbish - I used to be blinkered like you and look for any loophole - then I woke up - I doubt you ever will though because you don't have the capacity to admit you were ever wrong in the first place and frankly, the way you carry on with the personal BS, you would look like a prize idiot!
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Caroline on February 11, 2019, 11:25:AM
Grammar school? I guess John Cannan must be innocent also!  Gee Steve you do crack me up  ;D

On a serious note, how do you explain this discrepancy?

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".

How could she not know that MM had ever entered WHF? The only logical explanation is that she is lying.

She didn't KNOW! Plus it sounds like she is talking prior to the murders - as usual, you post stuff in isolation to try and pull the wool. As previously stated .....

This isn't a theory David it's just 'he said, she said'.

"They didn't bring up what you keep bringing up here because its their job to prosecute, not get laughed at"


Your own words can be applied right back at you!
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 on February 11, 2019, 08:43:PM
Also while reading this statement of Susan Battersby, if one scrolls down further the page you can find Caroline and her sidekick making critical observations on the subject.


Well done Caroline and Jane!  ;D

Caroline and her sidekick once had a very factually coherent perspective on the case. But all that changed once Caroline had an "exchange of ideas" with the "honest and honourable" Paul Harrison.  :(
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Caroline on February 11, 2019, 09:11:PM
Caroline and her sidekick once had a very factually coherent perspective on the case. But all that changed once Caroline had an "exchange of ideas" with the "honest and honourable" Paul Harrison.  :(

David is full of it and throws his toys out of the pram when no one agree's with him - needless to say, David never has ANY toys in his pram. I bet your eyes stung something rotten when you typed the word 'honourable' because you wouldn't know it if it bit you on the arse! Just for the record, I have nothing to do with PH - you're the one who stalks him on the internet and has an unhealthy interest in what he's doing! You're acting like some kind of nutty cult follower - react at all costs when someone criticises the object of your worship! Weird!  ??? You should expect that when you hero worship a mass murderer!

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 on February 11, 2019, 09:20: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.  :-\
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Roch on February 11, 2019, 09:22: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.  :-\

What's your final verdict on the likely course of events?  Take your time.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Caroline on February 11, 2019, 09:52:PM
What's your final verdict on the likely course of events?  Take your time.

He doesn't have a clue.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Jane 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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 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
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Caroline 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!
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Jane 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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk 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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 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.

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk 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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Caroline 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!
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Caroline 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!
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Jane 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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: David1819 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"

(https://i.ibb.co/P56wG3C/AEnote.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Caroline 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"

(https://i.ibb.co/P56wG3C/AEnote.jpg)

Errrr from the fact that he was laying it on thick one minute and then right as rain the next!  ::)
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Jane 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"

(https://i.ibb.co/P56wG3C/AEnote.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Caroline 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'
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Jane 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?
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Caroline 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!
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Jane 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.
Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk 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?

Title: Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
Post by: Steve_uk 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