Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?

[guest29835]

As if this is not regarded as a personal attack, but never any repercussions therefrom. How you cannot take Julie seriously in court and reject the silencer evidence to boot yet still believe Bamber guilty remains a mystery, how you can reject the inheritance motive is unclear, why you think he should be incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital for ten years as was customary in the former Soviet Union (are you accepting that if he denies culpability he is mentally ill?) is bizarre.

I will not engage with this person.  And, as an aside, I have actually answered all the questions he raises in this latest post from him.  Of course, for him, the questions are rhetorical.  He doesn't want my answers.  He just wants to needle people he takes a dislike to.

I will not engage.

Thank you.

[guest29835]

Trouble is when you have a case like this without both witnesses or a cast-iron alibi everything that happens becomes " sod's law " involving the person who is alleged to have committed the crime and it was no different for Jeremy in that everything he did appeared wrong so therefore it deemed him guilty in the eyes of many. Such as the timing of the phone-call to JM, which looked as though both had known what had happened or was about to happen when it couldn't have been further from the truth but how could it be proven otherwise ? Everything becomes coincidental so therefore " there must be a guilty conclusion " somewhere. Wrong !

Very many other " sod's law " situations followed throughout the case. Everything that JB did seemed to go against the grain though it was done without him giving a second thought, but others hadn't felt the same so this is how a case was built----on suspicion only without concrete proof that he'd even done anything. JB was completely oblivious to the world and his wife blaming him for the murders. He hadn't got an inkling that his cousin et al were suspicious of him from day one. An example were the thankyou flowers for AE for her help----she took it as a softener in her suspicious mind yet he was genuinely grateful for her help, so would it have been better if he hadn't have bothered ?

(If you are confused by this there's no other way of describing my thoughts but I can see the whole picture and find it difficult to describe from a mind-bending point of view.) I know what I mean  Which is why I can form an opinion of him without following the crowd.

I'm almost certain that we'd have seen a vast change in his character had he carried out the murders. It's been 35 years and there's not been any change in him whatsoever, he's remained focussed on his innocence and the difficult task of proving it when nobody believed his pleas of innocence with his side of the story.
 Afterall ,nobody least of all the police, likes a smart-arse which is how he'd been viewed in a derogatory way no doubt, pity they hadn't known the difference in self-assurance and the truth, which at times is stranger than fiction.
 

Thanks.  I accept all that you say in principle.

[Steve_uk]

I think it's her statement of 8th. September 1985 that is the relevant one.  She states that she was woken by a housemate, Douglas Dale, at roughly 3.15 a.m.  That partly explains what happened, but I'm still suspicious.  It just seems awfully convenient to be woken up in the early hours of the morning like that.  Does that happen often?

The precise issue I have here is that this whole business of the phone calls is extremely time-sensitive.  If you ring somebody at 3.15 a.m., or thereabouts, it's going to take a while for them to come to the phone, if they do so at all, and they'll be a whole fuss made by the person answering, this Mr Dale, about why you're calling at this hour and are you some sort of loony making a prank call, etc.?

It all seems a bit contrived to me.  It's all highly suspect.

On the other hand, in Jeremy and Julie's defence, there is no reason Jeremy would lie about making such a call, since his alibi is with the police.

I know why people who are emotionally-attached to Julie Mugford don't like this line of speculation.  I don't consider her evidence credible.  Nor, it seems, did the judge - ironically, it was the disruptive poster above who pointed this out to us!

Yet it is possible she was more involved in this than she is letting on and that her whole story to the second police investigation may have been a smokescreen.

This has been discussed many times on the Forum, but I will gladly recapitulate for the new arrivals. Julie had been in love with Jeremy Bamber for over a year, there had been talk of marriage around Christmastide, she did not want him to go to jail, she was threatened by him of being a co-conspirator, she thought she wouldn't be believed if she did come forward. Who knows which of these considerations was at the forefront of her mind?

You have alluded to the conspiracy theory yet again at the Lewisham flat. You're quite at liberty to do so, yet float an idea without the slightest shred of evidence, which though entertaining does put your own credibility under scrutiny, however much you may wish at times to shove the blame onto others.

[guest29835]

Did this Mr Dale say at 3 o'clock in the morning: "Oh not you again, Jeremy.  You're always ringing up at 3 in the morning.  Give it a rest?"

OK, in Jeremy's favour is the fact that it's a putative emergency.  (And maybe he would ring his girlfriend before the emergency services - I'm not too worried about the order of the calls, actually).

But then he rings her again at 5.40 a.m. from nearby the scene (this being in the days before widespread mobile phones).

I can see how the whole sequence can be reasonably explained, but to me, it's just got that intangible/unspoken 'something' about it.  It doesn't quite hang together.  There's that sense of something staged and contrived about the whole thing.

[guest29835]

This has been discussed many times on the Forum, but I will gladly recapitulate for the new arrivals. Julie had been in love with Jeremy Bamber for over a year, there had been talk of marriage around Christmastide, she did not want him to go to jail, she was threatened by him of being a co-conspirator, she thought she wouldn't be believed if she did come forward. Who knows which of these considerations was at the forefront of her mind?

You have alluded to the conspiracy theory yet again at the Lewisham flat. You're quite at liberty to do so, yet float an idea without the slightest shred of evidence, which though entertaining does put your own credibility under scrutiny, however much you may wish to shove the blame onto others.

I am not interested in your posts.  You are not constructive.  You are an arrogant know-all, and I don't like that type of person.  That's personal of me - let me apologise in advance to you and the moderators.  I won't do it again, but I have cause to tell you what I think about you.  It arises due to your attitude, so it's fair.  I didn't provoke you.  You started it, as they say in the playground.   

I don't wish to engage with you.  Don't respond to me.  You're just trouble.  You're here to discourage and put-off any speculation and you're trying to drag me under with you.

[Steve_uk]

I will not engage with this person.  And, as an aside, I have actually answered all the questions he raises in this latest post from him.  Of course, for him, the questions are rhetorical.  He doesn't want my answers.  He just wants to needle people he takes a dislike to.

I will not engage.

Thank you.

Why don't you ask other members here? I've been here long enough. The problem here is that you won't be challenged on anything, do not understand the implications or the inherent contradictions in what you write.

[Roch]

Trouble is when you have a case like this without both witnesses or a cast-iron alibi everything that happens becomes " sod's law " involving the person who is alleged to have committed the crime and it was no different for Jeremy in that everything he did appeared wrong so therefore it deemed him guilty in the eyes of many. Such as the timing of the phone-call to JM, which looked as though both had known what had happened or was about to happen when it couldn't have been further from the truth but how could it be proven otherwise ? Everything becomes coincidental so therefore " there must be a guilty conclusion " somewhere. Wrong !

Very many other " sod's law " situations followed throughout the case. Everything that JB did seemed to go against the grain though it was done without him giving a second thought, but others hadn't felt the same so this is how a case was built----on suspicion only without concrete proof that he'd even done anything. JB was completely oblivious to the world and his wife blaming him for the murders. He hadn't got an inkling that his cousin et al were suspicious of him from day one. An example were the thankyou flowers for AE for her help----she took it as a softener in her suspicious mind yet he was genuinely grateful for her help, so would it have been better if he hadn't have bothered ?

(If you are confused by this there's no other way of describing my thoughts but I can see the whole picture and find it difficult to describe from a mind-bending point of view.) I know what I mean  Which is why I can form an opinion of him without following the crowd.

I'm almost certain that we'd have seen a vast change in his character had he carried out the murders. It's been 35 years and there's not been any change in him whatsoever, he's remained focussed on his innocence and the difficult task of proving it when nobody believed his pleas of innocence with his side of the story.
 Afterall ,nobody least of all the police, likes a smart-arse which is how he'd been viewed in a derogatory way no doubt, pity they hadn't known the difference in self-assurance and the truth, which at times is stranger than fiction.
 

Lomax discusses the call situation re Mugford, flatmates and Ann Eaton in his book. It is worth a read.

[Steve_uk]

It is claimed that Jeremy Bamber telephoned Julie Mugford 11 minutes before he contacted Police (source Blood Relations). Any comment?

[Steve_uk]

I am not interested in your posts.  You are not constructive.  You are an arrogant know-all, and I don't like that type of person.  That's personal of me - let me apologise in advance to you and the moderators.  I won't do it again, but I have cause to tell you what I think about you.  It arises due to your attitude, so it's fair.  I didn't provoke you.  You started it, as they say in the playground.   

I don't wish to engage with you.  Don't respond to me.  You're just trouble. You're here to discourage and put-off any speculation and you're trying to drag me under with you.

I welcome all new members.

[Steve_uk]

Trouble is when you have a case like this without both witnesses or a cast-iron alibi everything that happens becomes " sod's law " involving the person who is alleged to have committed the crime and it was no different for Jeremy in that everything he did appeared wrong so therefore it deemed him guilty in the eyes of many. Such as the timing of the phone-call to JM, which looked as though both had known what had happened or was about to happen when it couldn't have been further from the truth but how could it be proven otherwise ? Everything becomes coincidental so therefore " there must be a guilty conclusion " somewhere. Wrong !

Very many other " sod's law " situations followed throughout the case. Everything that JB did seemed to go against the grain though it was done without him giving a second thought, but others hadn't felt the same so this is how a case was built----on suspicion only without concrete proof that he'd even done anything. JB was completely oblivious to the world and his wife blaming him for the murders. He hadn't got an inkling that his cousin et al were suspicious of him from day one. An example were the thankyou flowers for AE for her help----she took it as a softener in her suspicious mind yet he was genuinely grateful for her help, so would it have been better if he hadn't have bothered ?

(If you are confused by this there's no other way of describing my thoughts but I can see the whole picture and find it difficult to describe from a mind-bending point of view.) I know what I mean  Which is why I can form an opinion of him without following the crowd.

I'm almost certain that we'd have seen a vast change in his character had he carried out the murders. It's been 35 years and there's not been any change in him whatsoever, he's remained focussed on his innocence and the difficult task of proving it when nobody believed his pleas of innocence with his side of the story.
 Afterall ,nobody least of all the police, likes a smart-arse which is how he'd been viewed in a derogatory way no doubt, pity they hadn't known the difference in self-assurance and the truth, which at times is stranger than fiction.
 

This is well-written and argued lookout and it's a credit to you, but there was a change in Bamber's character post-murders as he realized he had accomplished his mission and was no longer the whipping boy he perceived himself to be for so many years. From his nasty, snide remarks at relatives at the funerals ( he had pre-murders tried to get cousin Ann onside by sending her a birthday card and offer of sunbed) to his putting his feet up on Nevill's desk and barking orders to Barbara Wilson it's quite clear the reason was the inheritance he expected to receive. There were witnesses such as James Richards who had no reason to lie on oath, even if you think there was a huge conspiracy as there must have been for your version of events to be true.

[guest29835]

Why don't you ask other members here? I've been here long enough. The problem here is that you won't be challenged on anything, do not understand the implications or the inherent contradictions in what you write.

I don't mind being challenged on anything.  The issue I have with you is that you use "public discussion and debate" as an auspice to work out your own personal issues and attack people.  I see through it all.  When somebody like me calls you out on it, you gaslight and fall back on the "well, it's a public discussion forum." It's a form of abuse, and it's vile.

Others may put up with it, but I won't.  If need be, I'll simply stop posting and just read through the documents and threads.

I think I have failed on this thread because I've fallen into the mire with you.  I've called you an "arrogant know-all".  I should not have done that.  That arose from your posting style, but I shouldn't have muddied myself.  It means you've won because your whole objective here on this Forum is to deter and discourage discussion and turn every thread into a series of personal attacks, boring missives based on received opinion, and gossipy posts about what people have read in books.

[guest29835]

I welcome all new members.

No.  You don't.

I see through people.  I see through you.

[Steve_uk]

I don't mind being challenged on anything.  The issue I have with you is that you use "public discussion and debate" as an auspice to work out your own personal issues and attack people.  I see through it all.  When somebody like me calls you out on it, you gaslight and fall back on the "well, it's a public discussion forum." It's a form of abuse, and it's vile.

Others may put up with it, but I won't.  If need be, I'll simply stop posting and just read through the documents and threads.

I think I have failed on this thread because I've fallen into the mire with you.  I've called you an "arrogant know-all".  I should not have done that.  That arose from your posting style, but I shouldn't have muddied myself.  It means you've won because your whole objective here on this Forum is to deter and discourage discussion and turn every thread into a series of personal attacks, boring missives based on received opinion, and gossipy posts about what people have read in books.

At one time I would have stayed on this Forum 24/7. It's had its ups and downs and several people whom I thought were good posters have been banned, to its detriment. I do have a little more time on my hands currently due to circumstances. I'm sorry if I have caused you (or any other member come to that) offence.

[guest29835]

I will not engage the creep.

Going back to the issue I latterly raised, I think a core problem of the Crown’s case is that it supposedly relies on Julie Mugford but at the same time seeks to deoderise her from close involvement.  To me, that’s a paradox. This is difficult to explain, but it kind of gives me the sense of Julie straddling two camps.  We think of her as in the Crown’s camp, but was she entirely?

If I’m wrong and Julie Mugford’s evidence contains substantial truth, that raises the natural question of what the extent of her involvement was.  If she was more involved than she pretends, then that means I’m wrong for the right reasons: her evidence is a synecdoche and can’t be relied as it is defective.  The alternatives are that she wasn’t involved but Jeremy was, or she wasn’t involved and nor was Jeremy.

The thought that is developing in my mind – I only moot this at the moment – is that Julie Mugford’s evidence right up to the trial might have been a smokescreen for both her and Jeremy, especially the fanciful hitman story.  Maybe it all got out of hand?  Maybe they thought nobody would believe it?  I only moot this, though. 

Here we have a phone call at 3.15 a.m., or thereabouts.  I don’t doubt the call took place, but I’m quite surprised nobody probes further.  If you call somebody at that time of the morning, you will be waiting a while for it to be answered, you’ll probably have to explain yourself at length to whoever answers, and you’ll be asked what can be so important to be ringing at this time; then, you’re maybe waiting a while more for the person you are seeking to be rusticated out of bed and come to the phone, if they bother at all.  Then you have to explain yourself to them and so on, and the script we have in the statements won’t be the entirety of it.

Remember that this is a time-sensitive situation, and now I think about it more, I will have to go back on something I said: I am suddenly interested in the order of the calls, and I can see why the police were (though maybe their interest was for a slightly different reason to mine).  We’re expected to believe also that shortly after this call, Jeremy was thumbing through the phone book or Yellow Pages for the police station.  Or did he ring them before? 

Then at 5.40 a.m., we have Jeremy ringing Julie Mugford again on a public payphone.  Julie must have been an early riser, but the pertinent question is why did he ring her at 3.15 a.m. in the first place?  Why not wait until later to call, when he was apprised as to what was going on?

It all looks contrived.  It looks dodgy.

[ILB]

At one time I would have stayed on this Forum 24/7. It's had its ups and downs and several people whom I thought were good posters have been banned, to its detriment. I do have a little more time on my hands currently due to circumstances. I'm sorry if I have caused you (or any other member come to that) offence.

I don't judge you Stephen. I am aware we have clashed in the past. Maybe it is due to the fact that I am an ex con who met Jeremy bamber in prison. Maybe other purposes
Either way I'm not bothered