Did JM ever really love Jeremy Bamber?

[ngb1066]

1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?

Likewise, why would you so matter of factly state it as significant? I am merely pointing out that it is not significant at all.

2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible .  She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman.  An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court.  Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber.  In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.

That's not the point and not what I said.

JM gave evidence stating what JB had told her.

She did not give evidence stating what JB had done, unless what JB had done coincided with what he had told JM.

Anyway we're moving into the territory of arguing for the sake of it, it seems.

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.

I agree that there is no point in arguing any further about the other point.

 

 

[ngb1066]

It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue. 

I disagree, it simply shows that she is trying to move on with her life, the fact that she hasn't tried to sue is not an indication that she lied, if by reading between the lines, that is what you are suggesting?

 

Julie Mugford did say that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, by hiring a hitman.

That is not true either. She said that Jeremy told her, that he had hired a hitman who then murdered his family, a distinct difference.

1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?

2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible .  She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman.  An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court.  Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber.  In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.

Didn't he tell other witnesses that he could kill his family. It all adds up to one thing in my estimation.

Sorry, two things, he also could be psychotic and delusional.

None of the many psychiatrists and psychologists who have examined Jeremy Bamber over the past 26 years support your view.

So what do you call a guy who boasts about killing his family?

I could think of some choice words to describe someone who did that.

 

[Jackiepreece]

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


Or
Is it mere speculation

[grahameb]

1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?

Likewise, why would you so matter of factly state it as significant? I am merely pointing out that it is not significant at all.

2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible .  She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman.  An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court.  Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber.  In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.

That's not the point and not what I said.

JM gave evidence stating what JB had told her.

She did not give evidence stating what JB had done, unless what JB had done coincided with what he had told JM.

Anyway we're moving into the territory of arguing for the sake of it, it seems.

Didn't Julie say when she came over on the last appeal, "I put him there (in prison) and there he will stay", or words to that effect? So however way you choose to look at it, the court certainly took it as her evidence that convicted Bamber, therefore it was her testimony in "saying" what she said what JB said to her that convicted Bamber not the words of Bamber, but "her" words and therefore the court chose to believe "her" testimony. Unfortunately none of us have the luxury of not being responsible for our own words whether they be truth or lies by sitting back claiming that they were not our words. You cannot play with words like that. Either her testimony was hers or it was not. If it was her testimony then she is responsible for her own words. Moreover if those words turn out in the end to be lies, then she will be judged by that same testimony that sent JB to prison.

[Jerry]

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


Or
Is it mere speculation

Read the statements.

[ngb1066]

1. How do you know why Julie Mugford has not chosen to sue for libel?

Likewise, why would you so matter of factly state it as significant? I am merely pointing out that it is not significant at all.

2. There is no difference whatsoever in law between saying that Jeremy "told her" he was responsible and saying that he was responsible .  She gave evidence that Jeremy Bamber admitted planning the murders and then carrying them out by hiring a hitman.  An admission by a defendant is direct evidence of guilt in court.  Julie Mugford's evidence was the only evidence of any admission made by Jeremy Bamber.  In his police interviews he consistently denied being involved in any way with the murders.

That's not the point and not what I said.

JM gave evidence stating what JB had told her.

She did not give evidence stating what JB had done, unless what JB had done coincided with what he had told JM.

Anyway we're moving into the territory of arguing for the sake of it, it seems.

Didn't Julie say when she came over on the last appeal, "I put him there (in prison) and there he will stay", or words to that effect? So however way you choose to look at it, the court certainly took it as her evidence that convicted Bamber, therefore it was her testimony in "saying" what she said what JB said to her that convicted Bamber not the words of Bamber, but "her" words and therefore the court chose to believe "her" testimony. Unfortunately none of us have the luxury of not being responsible for our own words whether they be truth or lies by sitting back claiming that they were not our words. You cannot play with words like that. Either her testimony was hers or it was not. If it was her testimony then she is responsible for her own words. Moreover if those words turn out in the end to be lies, then she will be judged by that same testimony that sent JB to prison.

Grahame  - you have put this across very well and made my point more clearly than I managed to do.  You ought to be a lawyer!

   

[Jackiepreece]

Jerry do you support everything being released under PII


Jerry so it is mere speculation after reading statements

[Jerry]

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/

[Jackiepreece]

Grahame woop woop!!!
You must be chuffed by that statement and you are poorly x

[ngb1066]

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.

[Jerry]

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.

You would like to think so but have a rummage and you will find he said it to others.

[ngb1066]

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.

You would like to think so but have a rummage and you will find he said it to others.

Would you care to do the rummaging and enlighten us all?

[Jerry]

Jeremy was known to his relatives as a ruthless operator obsessed with obtaining money. Since he’d returned from various overseas jaunts and settled into a job on the farm, he’d complained bitterly about being paid a labourer’s wage, comparing Nevill and June’s treatment of him unfavourably with Sheila’s subsidised existence in Maida Vale (Bamber enjoyed much in the way of subsidy himself – he lived rent free in the Goldhanger cottage and had access to a car and as much free petrol as he wanted). At a meeting to discuss dealing with trespassers at a family-owned caravan site in which he held an 8% share, Jeremy had shocked his Uncle Bobby with the observation “I’d have no trouble killing anyone. I could easily kill my own parents”. (Bamber later admitted robbing the premises in March 1985, stealing nearly £1,000 from a safe).

[Jackiepreece]

What amazing supporters JB has!!!!!!!

[ngb1066]

Jeremy was known to his relatives as a ruthless operator obsessed with obtaining money. Since he’d returned from various overseas jaunts and settled into a job on the farm, he’d complained bitterly about being paid a labourer’s wage, comparing Nevill and June’s treatment of him unfavourably with Sheila’s subsidised existence in Maida Vale (Bamber enjoyed much in the way of subsidy himself – he lived rent free in the Goldhanger cottage and had access to a car and as much free petrol as he wanted). At a meeting to discuss dealing with trespassers at a family-owned caravan site in which he held an 8% share, Jeremy had shocked his Uncle Bobby with the observation “I’d have no trouble killing anyone. I could easily kill my own parents”. (Bamber later admitted robbing the premises in March 1985, stealing nearly £1,000 from a safe).

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