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

[chelmsey]

There are many ways to get back at somebody who has dumped you.If she lied then it is a pretty extreme way of revenge by getting someone sent to prison for life.Deep down,she must have still loved him after-all. But then again,with her anything is possible.After-all she kept all this so-called information to herself prior to the murders,went along with it for weeks afterwards and even identified the dead bodies! What kind of woman is she? Actually I believe she could well have lied.She was that obsessed with him,maybe she really did do it so nobody else could have him!

[nugnug]

i know sailing to the wind with this post and if admin wants to remove thats fine.

but were was julie mugford on the night of the murder.

does anybody know.

[Newbury1]

i know sailing to the wind with this post and if admin wants to remove that's fine.

but were was Julie mugford on the night of the murder.

does anybody know.

Hi nugnug, my understanding is that she was in London (as JB called her at her flat that night and the call was witnessed by some flatmates). The police then went to her flat to pick her up.

[chelmsey]

Apparantly she and her flat mates had spent the evening drinking and smoking cannabis

[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.

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'.

Yes that sounds plausible.  In addition JM confided first in her friend and her friend then put pressure on JM to go to the police. I may be wrong but I believe I have read somewhere that the first contact with the police was by JM's friend.  Once JM had become involved with the police it would have been very difficult for her to back out of what she had started. She was undoubtedly put under a lot of pressure by the police and may have regarded herself as being trapped between a rock and a hard place.  If she retracted what she said initially she faced prosecution, the alternative required her to substantiate the allegations she had made against JB with more detail.  We are unlikely ever to know what took place in the numerous meetings between the police and JM before the trial, but I suspect that if that information could be obtained it would be very helpful to JB's case.

[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'.

Yes that sounds plausible.  In addition JM confided first in her friend and her friend then put pressure on JM to go to the police. I may be wrong but I believe I have read somewhere that the first contact with the police was by JM's friend.  Once JM had become involved with the police it would have been very difficult for her to back out of what she had started. She was undoubtedly put under a lot of pressure by the police and may have regarded herself as being trapped between a rock and a hard place.  If she retracted what she said initially she faced prosecution, the alternative required her to substantiate the allegations she had made against JB with more detail.  We are unlikely ever to know what took place in the numerous meetings between the police and JM before the trial, but I suspect that if that information could be obtained it would be very helpful to JB's case.

I still cant get my head around how she has maintained her stance - rock solid, outwardly at least.  After all this time.  She must believe he did it.  If he didn't do it then he must have literally damned himself in the eyes of others by his own actions and remarks, prior to and after the killings.   Crass, unlucky or naive.  Maybe a combination of all of those.

[Alias]

i know sailing to the wind with this post and if admin wants to remove that's fine.

but were was Julie mugford on the night of the murder.

does anybody know.

Hi nugnug, my understanding is that she was in London (as JB called her at her flat that night and the call was witnessed by some flatmates). The police then went to her flat to pick her up.

What was the reason for bringing Julie to the crime scene, does anyone know?

[grahameb]

these words of Julie Mugford's keep coming back to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she say Bamber phoned her and said, "It's working. Sheila's got the gun".?

[clifford]

Never heard of that.

[Kaldin]

these words of Julie Mugford's keep coming back to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she say Bamber phoned her and said, "It's working. Sheila's got the gun".?

I haven't heard that before.

[Kaldin]

i know sailing to the wind with this post and if admin wants to remove that's fine.

but were was Julie mugford on the night of the murder.

does anybody know.

Hi nugnug, my understanding is that she was in London (as JB called her at her flat that night and the call was witnessed by some flatmates). The police then went to her flat to pick her up.

What was the reason for bringing Julie to the crime scene, does anyone know?

I think Jeremy asked if she could be brought there - or to his house anyway. I presume they agreed so he had some moral support or something.

[clifford]

I think JM said he phoned and said tonights the night, and everthing was going to plan.
Bearing in mind this is only what she said

[clifford]

Remember 20 odd grand is a lot of money.

[clifford]

I,m knocking the head now, or you buggers will have me up all night again
Thanks Kaldin, I,ll get you back.[I hope].

[chelmsey]

these words of Julie Mugford's keep coming back to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she say Bamber phoned her and said, "It's working. Sheila's got the gun".?

In his 10pm phonecall to JM he is alleged to have said "tonights the night,its now or never"
In his early hours of the morning call to JM he is alleged to have said "its all going well,theres something wrong at the farm"