An Alternative Theory Regarding Julie Mugford

[Steve_uk]

It might be worth reading this statement.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4575.0.html

Yes it might:

I never liked Jeremy because I could see what he was doing to Julie.

[guest29835]

Yes I know, but the theory has no legs. Julie began talking about Jeremy being guilty to Sue Battersby in Lewisham Pizza Hut after they split up.

Thanks, but it doesn't disprove it.  If anything, it could be regarded as reinforcement of the theory, if you stop and think about it.  Not that I'm saying the theory does have legs.  It's just an idea, really.  Perhaps it doesn't even rise to being a theory.  It comes out of trying to make sense of her actions.  It's all baffling to me.

One factor in this is that Julie would not be able to maintain the front.  She would eventually turn against Jeremy and the plan unravelled.  Alternatively, it could be that there is no 'plan' and they're not accomplices, it's more of a muddle in which Julie covers herself and also tries to save Jeremy with an overblown story that she starts circulating around, knowing that the net is drawing in on Jeremy, but then that goes wrong. 

Can I point that, if we're going to start relying on Susan Battersby, then we'll also have to conclude that Julie may have been telling lies about her cannabis use.  See page 4 of the Battersby statement linked above.  She says Julie didn't approve of Jeremy's cannabis habit, but she also saw them using cannabis together.  It's at least inconsistent with what Julie has claimed.

[Steve_uk]

Thanks.  I haven't even bothered reading it.  He's not worth my time.

One thing, though: It's not that I believe Jeremy is guilty.  I don't know that.  I think only an arrogant person would believe that 100%, though I think we must make allowances for the family and people like Colin Caffell, whose firm views are entirely understandable.

I do lean towards guilt, for various good reasons, but as I have already said, I fall into the neutral/reasonable doubt camp and if I was hearing this evidence, my decision would very likely be 'Not Guilty'.

Most probably, I would have been in the minority of 2 against the other 10 at Chelmsford.

I also take the view that Jeremy has served his time and should now be considered for release on some basis.

Disgusting. Maybe with the lockdown easing he can now take a holiday cottage in Cornwall.

[guest29835]

Disgusting. Maybe with the lockdown easing he can now take a holiday cottage in Cornwall.

Let's hope so.  Perhaps he could keep you company?  Get you off the internet.

[JackieD]

Thanks, but it doesn't disprove it.  If anything, it could be regarded as reinforcement of the theory, if you stop and think about it.  Not that I'm saying the theory does have legs.  It's just an idea, really.  Perhaps it doesn't even rise to being a theory.  It comes out of trying to make sense of her actions.  It's all baffling to me.

One factor in this is that Julie would not be able to maintain the front.  She would eventually turn against Jeremy and the plan unravelled.  Alternatively, it could be that there is no 'plan' and they're not accomplices, it's more of a muddle in which Julie covers herself and also tries to save Jeremy with an overblown story that she starts circulating around, knowing that the net is drawing in on Jeremy, but then that goes wrong. 

Can I point that, if we're going to start relying on Susan Battersby, then we'll also have to conclude that Julie may have been telling lies about her cannabis use.  See page 4 of the Battersby statement linked above.  She says Julie didn't approve of Jeremy's cannabis habit, but she also saw them using cannabis together.  It's at least inconsistent with what Julie has claimed.

What do you make of Julie offering and going to identity all the bodies in the mortuary when she ‘knew’ her boyfriend was responsible for the murders

[Steve_uk]

Let's hope so.  Perhaps he could keep you company?  Get you off the internet.

Do you think you're unique in the eight years I've been here? Luminous Wanderer was far more erudite.

[guest29835]

What do you make of Julie offering and going to identity all the bodies in the mortuary when she ‘knew’ her boyfriend was responsible for the murders

I find it very strange.  If she knew he had done it, why would she do that?  And why would she continue to consort with him after?  It doesn't add up, does it.  Why was she silent about Jeremy's culpability with Essex Police when they were conveying her to Goldhanger?

We must believe that she spills the beans to her female friend in a Pizza Hut.  This is a quintuple murder, not a bit of idle gossip.

If she was worried about being implicated with Jeremy, does that mean she was implicated?  Or does it mean Jeremy had some sort of Svengali sway over her?  If he had a sway over her, does this explain why Essex Police had her holed up at their HQ rather in the manner of a cult victim under 'decompression'.

Her at the mortuary is also strange for a mundane reason, in that she had no formal link to the family.  There were plenty of family members who could have done it, and there was no need to separately identify the twins.  It's also strange in that she explained it at trial in reference to the paranormal, saying that she could communicate with dead people.  What did the victims tell her?  Did they say Jeremy did it?  I don't believe in that sort of thing at all, but I wonder whether Julie gives an account of this, since she claims to believe in it.

To be brutally honest, I think the jury were entitled to conclude the two of them were a couple of loonies.

Maybe the thing of greatest significance is that Ann Eaton was there as well.  What did Ann tell her about the investigation?  Is that the real reason she went?  Or is it the reverse: is it the reason Ann went along with Julie?  It is strange that Ann goes but then decides not to identify the bodies (assuming I have the story right).

[Steve_uk]

What do you make of Julie offering and going to identity all the bodies in the mortuary when she ‘knew’ her boyfriend was responsible for the murders

She said she didn't want him to go to jail. It's easy to judge from the comfort of an armchair 35 years later. All individuals are different: some write maths textbooks and can identify dead bodies without hesitation, others are naturally more squeamish and apprehensive about life.

Why is this point so important to you anyway? You've been harping on about it for years..

[Steve_uk]

I find it very strange.  If she knew he had done it, why would she do that?  And why would she continue to consort with him after?  It doesn't add up, does it.  Why was she silent about Jeremy's culpability with Essex Police when they were conveying her to Goldhanger?

We must believe that she spills the beans to her female friend in a Pizza Hut.  This is a quintuple murder, not a bit of idle gossip.

If she was worried about being implicated with Jeremy, does that mean she was implicated?  Or does it mean Jeremy had some sort of Svengali sway over her?  If he had a sway over her, does this explain why Essex Police had her holed up at their HQ rather in the manner of a cult victim under 'decompression'.

Her at the mortuary is also strange for a mundane reason, in that she had no formal link to the family.  There were plenty of family members who could have done it, and there was no need to separately identify the twins.  It's also strange in that she explained it at trial in reference to the paranormal, saying that she could communicate with dead people.  What did the victims tell her?  Did they say Jeremy did it?  I don't believe in that sort of thing at all, but I wonder whether Julie gives an account of this, since she claims to believe in it.

To be brutally honest, I think the jury were entitled to conclude the two of them were a couple of loonies.

Maybe the thing of greatest significance is that Ann Eaton was there as well.  What did Ann tell her about the investigation?  Is that the real reason she went?  Or is it the reverse: is it the reason Ann went along with Julie?  It is strange that Ann goes but then decides not to identify the bodies (assuming I have the story right).

An amateur's musings:

1. She said she didn't want him to go to jail.

2. Exactly. It's why he will die in prison.

3. Of course this was part of the reason. Jeremy tried to tie her in as an accessory with the telephone calls and the use of her sleeping pills.

4. No there were not. Julie was the only one apart from Colin who could tell the twins apart.

[JackieD]

She said she didn't want him to go to jail. It's easy to judge from the comfort of an armchair 35 years later. All individuals are different: some write maths textbooks and can identify dead bodies without hesitation, others are naturally more squeamish and apprehensive about life.

Why is this point so important to you anyway? You've been harping on about it for years..

To me it’s always been one of the most important points. As a highly intelligent women she wouldn’t have gone anywhere near that mortuary if she knew her boyfriend was responsible. From her own words she said Jeremy said something like tonight’s the night so she could potentially have stopped the murders

If her story was true she is as sick as Myra Hindley who had photos taken at the places where children were buried.

Who would offer to see children with bullet holes in their heads

[guest29835]

An amateur's musings:

1. She said she didn't want him to go to jail.

2. Exactly. It's why he will die in prison.

3. Of course this was part of the reason. Jeremy tried to tie her in as an accessory with the telephone calls and the use of her sleeping pills.

4. No there were not. Julie was the only one apart from Colin who could tell the twins apart.

Thanks for your input, it's helpful to have things first hand, from a real professional.

It's quite obvious this is an area in which you have experience, and I think we need to hear more about it from you.

[Steve_uk]

To me it’s always been one of the most important points. As a highly intelligent women she wouldn’t have gone anywhere near that mortuary if she knew her boyfriend was responsible. From her own words she said Jeremy said something like tonight’s the night so she could potentially have stopped the murders

If her story was true she is as sick as Myra Hindley who had photos taken at the places where children were buried.

Who would offer to see children with bullet holes in their heads

I don't think she could quite believe the way events were unfolding. How does anyone in their right mind think someone you've known for nearly two years is guilty of mass murder?

[Steve_uk]

Thanks for your input, it's helpful to have things first hand, from a real professional.

It's quite obvious this is an area in which you have experience, and I think we need to hear more about it from you.

By all means. What do you wish to know? I've never been reticent when it comes to posting, encouraging others to do so, or answering queries.

[guest29835]

By all means. What do you wish to know? I've never been reticent when it comes to posting, encouraging others to do so, or answering queries.

Well, thank you Mrs Smerchanski.  However, I think my questions would put you in legal jeopardy and I'm not a malicious person, so let's leave it.

[guest29835]

Do any of you seriously think that Julie really believed the hitman story?

Maybe she did.  Maybe she didn’t.  We can’t see in her head.  But is it likely?

If you accept it is unlikely she held this belief, then there are two major possibilities before us:

(i). She made it all up.

(ii). Jeremy made it all up.

Now, (ii) is effectively the same as (i), because she should have realised that Jeremy was making it up, thus she was misleading the court in any event.

That means (i) is the situation by default.  That leads us to ask a further question:

Realistically, would she have made the whole thing up on her own?

Maybe she did.  Maybe she didn’t.  Again, we can’t see in her head.  But is it likely?

I think the reasonable conclusion from all this is:

1. Her evidence did not fall within the exception to the rule against hearsay.  This is because, while she was reporting a purported confession, it was either a false confession or the confession was itself a body of fiction.

2. If we do accept her evidence on any basis at all, it is because it is evidence not of collusion between Jeremy and a third party, but of collusion between Jeremy and Julie.

Now, this may all be wrong.  It is only a theory, at most.  But wrong or not, it is logical.