Julie Mugford - the (lying) Criminal, exposed...

[lookout]

I'm afraid Mr Rivlin wasn't forceful enough given the enormity of such a case such as Jeremys'. Against the prosecution,the defense had very little. I'd have shouted my lungs out over a few things.
It's high time that the defense shouted as loud,if not louder than the prosecution to avoid MOJ's.

[Beanie]

Was Jeremy a suspect before Julie Mugford said anything to police?

[lookout]

Was Jeremy a suspect before Julie Mugford said anything to police?

Not particularly,Beanie. It was her and the relatives who " solved the crime " you know." !

[ngb1066]

Was Jeremy a suspect before Julie Mugford said anything to police?

Yes he was.  The police view of the case changed after about a month, as a result of representations made by members of the family.

[Stephanie]

Look at this picture of her. See how elegantly she's dressed. She must surely have gone out and bought that hat with the little veil. What was going through her head when she did that, and when she got dressed for the funeral? What was going through her head when she applied that eyeliner?



What was going through her head when she went to the funeral for the boys knowing that Colin thought his ex-wife had killed his two little boys and that Jeremy was spending all that money on champagne and holidays?

* The dress she wore to the funerals she describes as having been bought by JB from Miss Selfridges for about £38/39; whereas JB spends a couple of hundred pounds on his clothing.

Having re-visited Julie Mugfords original statements I find it difficult to see why they are so hard to believe?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1119.0.html

She appears to be describing a man (Jeremy Bamber) who is extremely cunning and calculated and whom as a 20/21 year old girl appears besotted with; as she states.

If posters read about relationships with toxic/disordered people like JB and/or psychopaths, JM's statements reveal numerous clues into his psychological make-up. http://www.curejoy.com/content/6-signs-youre-arguing-psychopath/

"psychopaths just want to paint you with their own flaws, to piss you off enough that they can just call you ‘crazy’ and make you look like the culprit in front of others.

Although my experiences were very different to JM's, there are some similarities, in that there weren't many who believed me when I told them Simon Hall had confessed. In fact I can count the number of people who believed me on one hand (This obviously doesn't include those people who had believed him to be guilty in the first instance).

Posters only need look at some of my previous posts about SH from the point of his confession.

It's clear from JM's witness statements that JB had been planning to murder his family for quite some time.

Prior to and following SH's confession he chose to tell me, and me only, many details about himself, his past, his childhood and the murder. I asked him why he was disclosing so much to me and not to the prison. He told me it was because he trusted me? It should also be remembered he was aware of a lot of the online abuse being aimed at me and how my character had been assassinated.

Jeremy Bamber says during his interview with the police, when confronted with the fact JM has told them he had murdered his family; that JM had a "fertile imagination"

When SH redacted his confession in the October 2013 he spoke very similarly about me..

[Stephanie]

Julie Mugford's witness statements also give details/clues into how Jeremy Bamber carried out the murders. Though it appears obvious he has told her half truths and lies, most probably in order to convince others, if she were to repeat what he has told her, she is a scorned women/crazy or had a "fertile imagination."

[Stephanie]

I would be interested in seeing Susan Battersby' boyfriends witness statement. According to her statement she tells police after JM told her JB was responsible for the murders, she told her boyfriend. Although she had promised JM she wouldn't tell anyone.

I'd also like to see Charles Marsden's statement along with Sarah's; both of whom JM refers to in her witness statement - exhibit 187 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1932

And did the police ever track down and interview 'Ray' from New Zealand? According to JM, JB had a photo of him on the dresser in the dining room and JB had confirmed he had previously had a 'gay relationship' with Ray.

[David1819]

Julie Mugford's witness statements also give details/clues into how Jeremy Bamber carried out the murders. Though it appears obvious he has told her half truths and lies, most probably in order to convince others, if she were to repeat what he has told her, she is a scorned women/crazy or had a "fertile imagination."

Everything in her statements can be linked to either the police or the relatives before she even "came forward"

As a matter of fact the information she gives the at the time happens to conveniently fill many gaps the police needed at the time. Yet later in the investigation those areas needed revising thus harming her credibility later on.

[Stephanie]

Everything in her statements can be linked to either the police or the relatives before she even "came forward"

As a matter of fact the information she gives the at the time happens to conveniently fill many gaps the police needed at the time. Yet later in the investigation those areas needed revising thus harming her credibility later on.

That may be so David but it doesn't make the contents of her statements any less true.

You say her credibility has been harmed but the original trial/jury did not.

Further, there are numerous details in her witness statements that the police and relatives could not have known.

[Stephanie]

Everything in her statements can be linked to either the police or the relatives before she even "came forward"

Where is the statement of Susan Battersby' boyfriend? That evidence wouldn't have come from the police or relatives!

And her colleague 'Steve' who she says was gay and who she says JB teased?

[Stephanie]

Although some posters may not want to see it, there are many similarities in JB behaviours/psychological make up as there were in SH's.

The same applies to the information (Witness statements etc) which has been placed into the public domain and the information that has not been placed into the public domain

As I've already stated in relation to the SH case, there were numerous references to homosexual liaisons in the original case files. During trial and over the years SH denied these and made similar excuses as referred to by JM in her statements about JB.

Whilst investigating the SH case the police obtained letters he had written to a girlfriend when he was in a YOI. SH was then aged around 17. One of the letters refers to SH having carried out homosexual activities with another lad.

SH also disclosed in 2013 (Following confession) that he had been having a secret homosexual relationship with the pub landlord of the pub where he kept his car on the night of 15th/16th December 2001.

However, according to SH, during his trial the pub landlord was asked about this, as was SH, and both denied it. Although there is evidence in another girlfriends witness statement suggesting she knew about it. SH disclosed in 2013 this relationship had continued right up until he was arrested in mid 2002 during which time he was living with another girlfriend.

In/around 2011/12 SH excused his homosexual liaisons as experimentation but in 2013 (Prior to his confession) he disclosed he thought he may be bisexual. He also said he was gay. His letters around this time are self explanatory. He flits between gay/straight/bisexual over a period of time.

In the SH case, Jamie Barker was a main prosecution witness, not dissimilar to Julie Mugford.

According to SH's disclosures at the end of 2012 he states he and JBarker were committing a burglary at Zenith windows on the night in question. Would this evidence not make JBarker an unreliable witness?None of JBarkers witness statements or other disclosed material refers to JBarker's involvement in a burglary?

It was also discovered in early 2013 that JBarker's police interview/transcripts had not been requested/or disclosed. JBarker was arrested at the same time as SH. Both were questioned under caution in relation to the murder.

Similarly the pub landlord (and his then boyfriend) moved from the one pub (Where SH kept his car that fateful night) to another. Later in the year of 2012,  following SH's arrest, the new pub was raided by the police investigating the murder. Much of the material regarding this raid was not requested or disclosed, though it appears drugs may have been found by the police?

[David1819]

That may be so David but it doesn't make the contents of her statements any less true.

You say her credibility has been harmed but the original trial/jury did not.

Further, there are numerous details in her witness statements that the police and relatives could not have known.

Don't get me wrong Stephanie. I was once very satisfied to believe Jeremy was guilty on a balance of probability and I simultaneously accepted Julie was a coerced/lying witness. My position on Julie has never changed. If he is guilty he told her nothing. I have always been totally impartial on this subject.

Of course there are details in her witness statements that the police and relatives could not have known, however they are not details that directly involve the crime and accusations.

[Stephanie]

Don't get me wrong Stephanie. I was once very satisfied to believe Jeremy was guilty on a balance of probability and I simultaneously accepted Julie was a coerced/lying witness. My position on Julie has never changed. If he is guilty he told her nothing. I have always been totally impartial on this subject.

Of course there are details in her witness statements that the police and relatives could not have known, however they are not details that directly involve the crime and accusations.

How can you say you have always been totally impartial when you state you have always believed Julie Mugford to have lied?

Why wouldn't he have told her about his crimes? You obviously do not know the lengths disordered individuals will go to; nor understand the power and control they so desperately seek and have over their victims.

[Stephanie]

Don't get me wrong Stephanie. I was once very satisfied to believe Jeremy was guilty on a balance of probability and I simultaneously accepted Julie was a coerced/lying witness.

Further you cannot possible know or state otherwise that JM was coerced by the police.

It's obvious from the evidence in her statement she was in a predicament. She clearly made poor choices (As we have all done) but she appears to have gone into quite some detail with regards her poor choices, regardless of how they made her appear to others. 

[Stephanie]

It's been suggested Julie Mugford was a scorned 21 year old who turned on Jeremy Bamber after he dumped her but it's clear from her statements she didn't really know what was going on with their relationship.

Maybe common sense finally prevailed and it is this that encouraged her to offload to the police.

We cannot know for sure all of the emotions JM was experiencing back then. She appears to have been carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders.

How does what JM did differ to say for example mothers who protect their children in similar circumstances (Cases of murder)?