Did JM ever really love Jeremy Bamber?

[Jerry]

I think one would remember the day their entire family was wiped out, don't you?

[hartley]

I think one would remember the day their entire family was wiped out, don't you?

Indeed.

[Jerry]

That's a joke right?

No I'm very serious as I have this on very good authority.  Maybe Jackie will confirm this?

That answers my question nicely.

[hartley]

Jac?

[smiffy]

Jerry where is the proof JB boasted of killing his whole family


Or
Is it mere speculation

Read the statements.

The only "proof" of JB's "boast" is in the evidence given by Julie Mugford.

Exactly, and what a tangled web that 'proof' was.

JM told three different stories of these murders.


Story 1.

When she was first interviewed - in early August, before she was jilted -  JM's first story supported Jeremy's account of what happened on the night of the murders and during the period leading up to the that night.
JM, for example, said in her first statement that Jeremy was disorientated and worried when he rang her at her digs.

Story 2.

When she was was interviewed a month later, in September - after JM had been jilted - JM's then story had dramatically changed. JM then alleged that Jeremy had been planning for some time to kill his entire immediate family and had told her that he had hired a hitman, Mathew Macdonald, to kill five members of his family.
JM further stated that Jeremy had told her during telephone conversations on the night/morning of the murders, "tonight's the night" and "all's going well, there's trouble at the farm".

Story 3.

At the time of Jeremy's Appeal, JM claimed "I sincerely believe he is guilty". As it was established at the trial that, among so many other glaring errors in her testimony, JM was wrong about the hitman, who proved to have an alibi, and as Jeremy was found guilty of murdering his family in person, then JM could only mean that her latest story was that Jeremy Bamber had himself committed the murders.

I find the consistency in her statement quite compelling.  As time went on she revealed more and more which is quite normal in such circumstances.

What you are interpreting as changes in her statements is merely a progression towards the truth as time went by.

one statement in isolation will be consistent with itself....THATS NO BIG DEAL JERRY!  so you find that compelling. ...the same could be said for any statement in isolation..  so there is nothing compelling at all so your claim of finding it compelling has no basis and your claims appear to be foolish and unreasoned.


Changes between statements are changes between statements and not "Interpretations" ....such changes cannot on their own be deemed as progression towards the truth automatically. They may be changes to the fabrication being offered by JM as she obtains more information to make the fabrication hold together and to deal with holes in her story when it became apparent to her that some lies had to be changed to new lies to overcome problems in the story.

JM  ...changes to statements appear to support her story as being a fabrication. Her record of deception cannot be ignored. 

[andrea]

if jb is godfather to jacks kids, what doesthat have to do with the case?

dont drag peoples family onto the forum its not on.





smite away

[grahameb]

I PUT BAMBER IN PRISON ... AND THAT'S WHERE HE SHOULD STAY

THEN, she was the beautiful 21-year-old brunette whose evidence was vital in convicting her boyfriend Jeremy Bamber of the cold- blooded murder of his whole family.

Now, she is a respectable and matronly mother-of-two, a tireless charity worker and the deputy head of a primary school in Canada.

Everything about Julie Mugford's life has changed except for one crucial fact - she is still utterly convinced Bamber DID slaughter his adoptive parents Nevill and June, his sister Sheila Caffell and her twin six-year-old sons Nicholas and Daniel at the family's Essex farmhouse in 1985.

Bamber, 39, was given five life sentences for the killings. At the trial, Julie's evidence that he had bragged to her about committing the perfect murder and phoned her before the slaughter to say: "It's tonight or never" was vital in securing a guilty verdict.

He is now relying on DNA evidence not available 15 years ago to fight his conviction, and if successful could be free by Christmas.

Julie, now 36, said: "I thought this was long in the past. The last few weeks have been a nightmare. As far as I am concerned nothing has changed - I sincerely believe he is guilty. Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life.

"And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case I still believe he is guilty. He has a right to appeal, that is the law. It is just very hard for me to accept.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20010401/ai_n14524991/

Oh well. That ok then, as long as she's respectable now. 

[Roch]

I PUT BAMBER IN PRISON ... AND THAT'S WHERE HE SHOULD STAY

THEN, she was the beautiful 21-year-old brunette whose evidence was vital in convicting her boyfriend Jeremy Bamber of the cold- blooded murder of his whole family.

Now, she is a respectable and matronly mother-of-two, a tireless charity worker and the deputy head of a primary school in Canada.

Everything about Julie Mugford's life has changed except for one crucial fact - she is still utterly convinced Bamber DID slaughter his adoptive parents Nevill and June, his sister Sheila Caffell and her twin six-year-old sons Nicholas and Daniel at the family's Essex farmhouse in 1985.

Bamber, 39, was given five life sentences for the killings. At the trial, Julie's evidence that he had bragged to her about committing the perfect murder and phoned her before the slaughter to say: "It's tonight or never" was vital in securing a guilty verdict.

He is now relying on DNA evidence not available 15 years ago to fight his conviction, and if successful could be free by Christmas.

Julie, now 36, said: "I thought this was long in the past. The last few weeks have been a nightmare. As far as I am concerned nothing has changed - I sincerely believe he is guilty. Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life.

"And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case I still believe he is guilty. He has a right to appeal, that is the law. It is just very hard for me to accept.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20010401/ai_n14524991/

Oh well. That ok then, as long as she's respectable now. 

This is what I dont get... and my video is weak on Mugford.   I wonder whether comments were made by Jeremy in some form, in the year leading up to the killings.  I do feel something has been said to Mugford, somewhere along the line.  Paradoxically I think Sheila had her own agenda, which tragically, nobody realised in time to prevent. 

[Roch]

Jerry, you're not going to like my video. 

But the case is vast enough and has so many strands and aspects, that there is room for all of us to portray our stance.

As long as it is based on fact and not fiction I will like it.

I'm afraid that 'facts' in this case appear to be a bone of contention Jerry.  But you have seen the logs for your self.  The logs which were buried.

[Gerald]

Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:

1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone).   It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.

and this:

Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue.  When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action.  Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.

That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.

Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.

One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.

So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.

This really is school boy law.

[andrea]

cant wait to see the vid u made roch, when can we see it ?

[jon]

Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:

1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone).   It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.

and this:

Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue.  When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action.  Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.

That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.

Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.

One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.

So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.

This really is school boy law.

Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?

[Jackiepreece]

Morning Andrea
Brilliant can I sell my story to the NOW now it's revealed JB is the "godfather" to my children

Gerard friend of the Mugfords bring it on this is just the sort of publicity this case needs in the next few weeks

lovely mugfords character being put to the test

[Gerald]

Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:

1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone).   It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.

and this:

Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue.  When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action.  Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.

That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.

Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.

One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.

So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.

This really is school boy law.

Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?

I have no idea.

[hartley]

But where is the "boasting of killing his whole family"?  Is some further rummaging necessary?

I think it's being taken out of context and referring to when JB allegedly stated that he could kill any member of his family (or words to that effect) during a caravan park meeting.