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

[ngb1066]

if julia mugford is telling the whole and complete truth about jermy bamber doesnt that make her an acomplice to murder.

acording to her she knew for months in advance that jeremy bamber was planing to kill his family so why did she not inform the police before he did it.

Because she didn't think he was serious, so she's not an accomplice to murder. She could possibly have been charged with perverting the course of justice for witholding information when questioned, but that's about it I should think.

I agree.  There was not enough evidence to charge her as an accomplice to murder.  Nevertheless perverting the course of justice in a case such as this would be a very serious matter and would have led to a substantial prison sentence.

 

[grahameb]

if julia mugford is telling the whole and complete truth about jermy bamber doesnt that make her an acomplice to murder.

acording to her she knew for months in advance that jeremy bamber was planing to kill his family so why did she not inform the police before he did it.

Because she didn't think he was serious, so she's not an accomplice to murder. She could possibly have been charged with perverting the course of justice for witholding information when questioned, but that's about it I should think.

I agree.  There was not enough evidence to charge her as an accomplice to murder.  Nevertheless perverting the course of justice in a case such as this would be a very serious matter and would have led to a substantial prison sentence.

This in itself is an indocation that she did a deal with the police.

[ngb1066]

if julia mugford is telling the whole and complete truth about jermy bamber doesnt that make her an acomplice to murder.

acording to her she knew for months in advance that jeremy bamber was planing to kill his family so why did she not inform the police before he did it.

Because she didn't think he was serious, so she's not an accomplice to murder. She could possibly have been charged with perverting the course of justice for witholding information when questioned, but that's about it I should think.

I agree.  There was not enough evidence to charge her as an accomplice to murder.  Nevertheless perverting the course of justice in a case such as this would be a very serious matter and would have led to a substantial prison sentence.

This in itself is an indocation that she did a deal with the police.

She undoubtedly did make a deal with the police.  In addition to being given immunity in relation to the very serious potential charge of perverting the course of justice, it included the police assisting in persuading her bank not to press charges in relation to the cheque fraud, and not charging her with the burglary at the caravan site.  These were of course less serious matters, but any criminal conviction could have seriously affected her career plans.

   

[nugnug]

correct me if i am wrong but i believe she went to the police 6 weeks after the murder.

now if he had been talking about killing his family for months before they were killed.

as soon as the murders happened the penny must have dropped.

why did she wait 6 weeks before going to the police.

[VORTEX]

I would agree with a charge of perverting the course of justice in some form as she withheld information for a month afterwards. Maybe she would have kept quiet if the case hadn't turned around in JB's direction? Taken the money and enjoyed the holidays and fast living with JB. She would have a painted a much whiter picture of herself if on the morning of the 7th August she informed the Police of all the information she knew about this being a planned crime. People threaten things without the intention of actually carrying them out but when EXACTLY what they have threatened happens you are witholding key information from the point of the crime onwards. From the time of being informed of the what had happened at WHF she was in the wrong, if what she later said in her statements was true. This is one of the reasons I have serious doubts about her evidence - it would take nerves of steel to hide information you knew to be true in the aftermath of a crime this size. I just don't buy the fact that she continued to be with Jeremy for a month afterwards if she knew he did it or arranged someone else to. The fact she needed so much coaching before the court case speaks volumes and discredits her appearance as a prosecution witness. Real evidence is best served raw and unrehearsed.

[Kaldin]

correct me if i am wrong but i believe she went to the police 6 weeks after the murder.

now if he had been talking about killing his family for months before they were killed.

as soon as the murders happened the penny must have dropped.

why did she wait 6 weeks before going to the police.

It was about four weeks. She went to the police after she had a row with Jeremy and they split up. Not sure if he dumped her as such, but apparently that's what happened.

[clifford]

Well said Vortex.

[Alias]

I agree, well said, Vortex.
I think that what Sheila did by withholding crucial information (IF her story is true - personally I have doubts), is a crime in itself.
Partly because of Julie´s silence,  Sheila was buried away from her children, she was buried with a heavily stained name. That is something to contemplate!
Julie was there at the funerals. Julie met the little boys´ father. Julie accepted gifts from a supposed mass murderer. Julie went on holiday with same mass murderer. Julie waited for a month to tell the truth.
IF that is the truth. If she lied and helped send an innocent man behind bars, she is even a worse person.
No matter how you look at this case, Julie is, at least WASN`T, a nice person at all!

[Kaldin]

I agree, well said, Vortex.
I think that what Sheila did by withholding crucial information (IF her story is true - personally I have doubts), is a crime in itself.
Partly because of Julie´s silence,  Sheila was buried away from her children, she was buried with a heavily stained name. That is something to contemplate!
Julie was there at the funerals. Julie met the little boys´ father. Julie accepted gifts from a supposed mass murderer. Julie went on holiday with same mass murderer. Julie waited for a month to tell the truth.
IF that is the truth. If she lied and helped send an innocent man behind bars, she is even a worse person.
No matter how you look at this case, Julie is, at least WASN`T, a nice person at all!

Yes, and I wonder sometimes if all the "Jeremy is innocent" stuff is partly a way of disapproving of what Julie did. She got away with it, and maybe some people are annoyed about that.

[Jackiepreece]

Does anyone on this forum believe jeremy would have been convicted without JM s statements because I am very curious?

[Kaldin]

Does anyone on this forum believe jeremy would have been convicted without JM s statements because I am very curious?

I think that without Julie Mugford's statements the police wouldn't have known what to make of the silencer business, so probably not.

[ngb1066]

Does anyone on this forum believe jeremy would have been convicted without JM s statements because I am very curious?

He was convicted on the minimum majority verdict, 10 - 2.  In my view any weakening of the prosecution case would have resulted in either a not guilty verdict or a hung jury.  Without the evidence of JM I strongly suspect there would have been a not guilty verdict.

[Roch]

Does anyone on this forum believe jeremy would have been convicted without JM s statements because I am very curious?

He was convicted on the minimum majority verdict, 10 - 2.  In my view any weakening of the prosecution case would have resulted in either a not guilty verdict or a hung jury.  Without the evidence of JM I strongly suspect there would have been a not guilty verdict.

Is it possible that an arrogant, impatient, young Jeremy made flippant remarks about his somewhat dysfunctional family, to the effect that they'd be better of dead or 'out of the way'.  The kind of thing that could be said in the heat of the moment, during frustrations.. but has no real substance behind it?  If so, then that's still a shocking coincidence, considering the events of 7th Aug '85.  Yet frustation and anger which flares up and leads to such remarks, could also feed in to the "compelling" evidence of Julie Mugford.  In other words, he may have made comments about certain family members, the family were subsequently killed... but there's no real connection between his comments and the killings.  His frustrated comments would then be a red herring (that ironically helped to convict him).

[ngb1066]

Does anyone on this forum believe jeremy would have been convicted without JM s statements because I am very curious?

He was convicted on the minimum majority verdict, 10 - 2.  In my view any weakening of the prosecution case would have resulted in either a not guilty verdict or a hung jury.  Without the evidence of JM I strongly suspect there would have been a not guilty verdict.

Is it possible that an arrogant, impatient, young Jeremy made flippant remarks about his somewhat dysfunctional family, to the effect that they'd be better of dead or 'out of the way'.  The kind of thing that could be said in the heat of the moment, during frustrations.. but has no real substance behind it?  If so, then that's still a shocking coincidence, considering the events of 7th Aug '85.  Yet frustation and anger which flares up and leads to such remarks, could also feed in to the "compelling" evidence of Julie Mugford.  In other words, he may have made comments about certain family members, the family were subsequently killed... but there's no real connection between his comments and the killings.  His frustrated comments would then be a red herring (that ironically helped to convict him).

What you suggest is of course possible, but the specific admissions alleged by JM to have been made by JB went far beyond this both on the night of the killings itself and subsequently.  There is no real scope for misunderstandings between JB and JM here, either JM told the truth or she lied.

 

[Roch]

Does anyone on this forum believe jeremy would have been convicted without JM s statements because I am very curious?

He was convicted on the minimum majority verdict, 10 - 2.  In my view any weakening of the prosecution case would have resulted in either a not guilty verdict or a hung jury.  Without the evidence of JM I strongly suspect there would have been a not guilty verdict.

Is it possible that an arrogant, impatient, young Jeremy made flippant remarks about his somewhat dysfunctional family, to the effect that they'd be better of dead or 'out of the way'.  The kind of thing that could be said in the heat of the moment, during frustrations.. but has no real substance behind it?  If so, then that's still a shocking coincidence, considering the events of 7th Aug '85.  Yet frustation and anger which flares up and leads to such remarks, could also feed in to the "compelling" evidence of Julie Mugford.  In other words, he may have made comments about certain family members, the family were subsequently killed... but there's no real connection between his comments and the killings.  His frustrated comments would then be a red herring (that ironically helped to convict him).

What you suggest is of course possible, but the specific admissions alleged by JM to have been made by JB went far beyond this both on the night of the killings itself and subsequently.  There is no real scope for misunderstandings between JB and JM here, either JM told the truth or she lied.

My theory: The previous, flippant, arrogant, frustrated, heat of the moment-type remarks were enough to plant a seed of doubt in Julie Mugford's mind after the killings.  The remarks were not strong enough to make an impact for the prosecution in a court of law.  Hence the alleged 'coaching'.  The remarks, if there were any, were 'sexed up'.