A statement from Julie Mugford of relevance...

[mike tesko]

A statement from Julie Mugford of relevance...

I would suggest that the contents of this witness statement, dated,  8th May 1986, were influenced by DS "Stan" Jones...

DS Jones, was the officer who took possession of the original silencer (SBJ/1) from the scene on the 7th August 1985, along with other exhibits, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4......

[andrea]

why didnt the reality of the situation hit her on the 7th august?

[mike tesko]

why didnt the reality of the situation hit her on the 7th august?

---------

She lies...

[Jerry]

A very good statement by Julie Mugford, explains exactly and to the point what I personally believe and that is that she was too terrified to speak out earlier.

Julie never lied and only repeated what Bamber had told her.  Why did Bamber implicate Matthew MacDonald in any event, did his conscience get the better of him in the end?

[mike tesko]

A very good statement by Julie Mugford, explains exactly and to the point what I personally believe and that is that she was too terrified to speak out earlier.

Julie never lied and only repeated what Bamber had told her.  Why did Bamber implicate Matthew MacDonald in any event, did his conscience get the better of him in the end?

------------

Words put into her mouth by DS "Stan" Jones, so if true, this somewhat undermines your point of view, does it not?

Why would Julie Mugford suddenly start talking about these things?

She was obviously targeted by DS Jones, and told what to put in the statement that she made on that occasion - it must be obvious to anyone who cares to know the truth, that when  police officer speaks to a witness or a person about anything, that they start off asking questions, and such questions are met by certain responses which the police officer records in his own words, or as the case may be, he paraphrases those replies using is own words...

Are you suggesting that Julie Mugford suddenly started talking, and that DS Jones, simply recorded everything that Mugford, said on this occasion?

Surely not...

[Jerry]

Not in the least, her recollection of events would have been discussed at length prior to a statement being written.

Normal practice in order to save on useless information being included as I understand.

[bob]

A very good statement by Julie Mugford, explains exactly and to the point what I personally believe and that is that she was too terrified to speak out earlier.

Julie never lied and only repeated what Bamber had told her.  Why did Bamber implicate Matthew MacDonald in any event, did his conscience get the better of him in the end?

This is a key point in making JM's testimony credible. If she wanted to frame JB, why implicate MacDonald?  And the same goes for the police - if they wanted to fit up JB why go the MacDonald route?

[Jerry]

She didn't want to implicate anyone.  Julie was only repeating what Bamber had already told her.

[bob]

She didn't want to implicate anyone.  Which part of she was only repeating what Bamber had already told her do you fail to comprehend?

Eh? What are you having a go at me for Jerry? I'm agreeing with you.

[Jerry]

Apologies Bob, I must have misread your post in my haste.

+1 for spotting the obvious.


Many attempts have been made to blacken Julie Mugford in an attempt to bring credibility to the Bamber campaign but the more we hear from Julie the more we can see that from the moment Julie realised that the information Bamber had been feeding had some substance in it she did her best to cooperate with the police.

I have said it and I will say it again, well done Julie Mugford.

[mike tesko]

Lets put things into perceptive, Mugford was seen and spoken to a total of 31 times between 7th August 198 and the time Jeremy came to trial in October 1986 - most witnesses would only make one witness statement, or two or three at the most, but Mugford, she was coached that much that any of her later witness statements need to be viewed with extreme caution...


In my view...

[mike tesko]

The views of DS "Stan" Jones, were so biased from theb outset, that it cannot be ignored that he saw Mugford and took various statements from her on many occasions between 7th August 18985 and October 1986, which tend support the the theories DS Jones held from a very early stage - now that cannot be just a coincidence...

[Jerry]

She could have made a thousand statements for all it mattered.  Statements are only a means to an end, a method whereby the CPS can decide whether a witness is credible or not.  Statements are not taken into account by jurors in any event, it is the sworn testimony which counts at the end of the day and Mugfords evidence was spot on.

DS Jones' theories are simply that, theories.

[mike tesko]

She could have made a thousand statements for all it mattered.  Statements are only a means to an end, a method whereby the CPS can decide whether a witness is credible or not.  Statements are not taken into account by jurors in any event, it is the sworn testimony which counts at the end of the day and Mugfords evidence was spot on.

DS Jones' theories are simply that, theories.

------------

What a of of garbage...

The contents of witness statements do matter, otherwise what is the point of making them, and relying upon their contents?

Stop being silly...

[Jerry]

Ask your legal expert, it is the evidence given in court that counts.