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

[David1819]

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

Because the evidence demonstrates very clearly that she is. I have once believed Jeremy was probably was guilty and at the same time acknowledged Julie as a liar. I follow the evidence my stance cannot change because the evidence does not change.

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.

If you believe Jeremy is guilty and you believe Julie is truthful then she is an accomplice to the crime, not a victim. One way or another she is a liar. Then you have the cheque fraud she committed without any known influence from Jeremy. The woman's testimony is reprehensible whatever way you look at it.

[Stephanie]

Because the evidence demonstrates very clearly that she is. I have once believed Jeremy was probably was guilty and at the same time acknowledged Julie as a liar. I follow the evidence my stance cannot change because the evidence does not change.

If you believe Jeremy is guilty and you believe Julie is truthful then she is an accomplice to the crime, not a victim. One way or another she is a liar. Then you have the cheque fraud she committed without any known influence from Jeremy. The woman's testimony is reprehensible whatever way you look at it.

I agree that it appears she is an accomplice to the crime. She can also be seen to be a victim of a very calculated and cunning man.

This isn't the first case where a possible accomplice has turned "Queens evidence."

Current guidelines state; "Only in the most exceptional cases will it be appropriate to offer full immunity." 

Maybe it was decided this case was exceptional? http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/queen_s_evidence_-_immunities_undertakings_and_agreements_under_the_serious_organised_crime_and_police_act_2005/

Assessing reliability and credibility
11. A prosecutor should endeavour to assess, in cooperation with the investigating agency, the reliability and credibility of the potential witness. In doing so, prosecutors should consider, amongst other things, the following:

a. the consistency and accuracy of the accounts provided (this should be assessed by analysing the debrief material against other available evidence, information and/or intelligence);
b. the readiness of the potential witness to change their account (consider also the frequency of change and any explanation provided);
c. any deliberate distortion of the roles of others;
d. whether the potential witness is minimising their own role;
e. the scale of Bad Character - have they led a 'life of crime' and is there material to demonstrate a propensity to lie?
f. the honesty, motivation and demeanour of the potential witness (this should be explored in debriefing and the views of the investigator will be important in making this assessment);
g. any tendency to confuse (although might this just be a consequence of the potential witness' long-term criminality);
h. any issues around the medical health of the potential witness, following any assessment made of their medical records. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/queen_s_evidence_-_immunities_undertakings_and_agreements_under_the_serious_organised_crime_and_police_act_2005/#a04a

It does not appear Julie Mugford "coerced or incited" Jeremy Bamber to take part in the murders.

[Stephanie]

I would like to hear Jeremy Bamber's views on witnesses turning Queens evidence. Maybe he will be so kind as to blog about it?

[Steve_uk]

I would like to hear Jeremy Bamber's views on witnesses turning Queens evidence. Maybe he will be so kind as to blog about it?

The mystery is why he entrusted Julie with the secret of his intentions, why he asked for her presence within hours of the murders committed and why given that he dumped her only weeks later.

[Stephanie]

Why haven't Brett Collins statements been put in the public domain and why doesn't Jeremy Bamber talk about him in his blogs etc?

[Stephanie]

The mystery is why he entrusted Julie with the secret of his intentions, why he asked for her presence within hours of the murders committed and why given that he dumped her only weeks later.

Indeed Steve, I have to agree though by him telling her about wanting to kill his family this quite possibley may have been a way to excerpt power and control over her?

[Steve_uk]

Indeed Steve, I have to agree though by him telling her about wanting to kill his family this quite possibley may have been a way to excerpt power and control over her?

..or bragging to her that although he may have been under his parents' thumb materially it was he who ultimately could control their destiny.

[Stephanie]

The mystery is why he entrusted Julie with the secret of his intentions, why he asked for her presence within hours of the murders committed and why given that he dumped her only weeks later.

He hadn't finished with her - idealise, devalue, discard..


"In their book on psychopaths in the workplace, entitled Snakes in Suits, Babiak and Hare state that the psychopathic bond follows certain predictable stages: idealize, devalue and discard. This process may take several years or only a few hours. It all depends on what the psychopath wants from you and whether or not you present a challenge to him. If the psychopath wants the semblance of respectability–a screen behind which he can hide his perverse nature and appear harmless and normal–he may establish a long-term partnership with you or even marry you. If all he wants is to have some fun, it will be over within a couple of hours. If he wants the stimulation and diversion of an affair, he may stay with you for as long as you excite him. Despite the differences in timeline, what remains constant is this: eventually, sooner or later, you’ll be discarded (or be led by the psychopath’s bad behavior to discard him) as soon as you no longer serve his needs.
Babiak and Hare explain that although psychopaths are highly manipulative, the process of idealize, devalue and discard is a natural outgrowth of their personalities. In other words, it’s not necessarily calculated at every moment in the relationship. Overall, however, whether consciously or not, psychopaths assess and drain the use-value out of their romantic partners. (Snakes in Suits, 42) During the assessment phase, psychopaths interact closely with their targets to see what makes them tick. They ask probing questions, to discover their unfulfilled needs and weaknesses. They also commonly lure their targets with promises to offer them whatever’s been missing from their lives. If you’re recovering from a recent divorce, they offer you friendship and an exciting new romantic relationship. If you’ve suffered a death in the family, they appear to be sympathetic friends. If you’re going through financial difficulties, they lend you money to seem generous.
During the manipulation phase, Babiak and Hare go on to explain, psychopaths construct the “psychopathic fiction.” They pour on the charm to hook their victims emotionally and gain their trust. They present themselves as kind-hearted individuals. Of course, in order to do so, psychopaths resort to outrageous lies since, in reality, they’re just the opposite. In romantic relationships in particular, they depict themselves as not only compatible with you, but also as your soul mate. While seeming your complement, they also present themselves as your mirror image. They claim to share your interests and sensibilities. Babiak and Hare observe: “This psychological bond capitalizes on your inner personality, holding out the promise of greater depth and possibly intimacy, and offering a relationship that is special, unique, equal–forever.” (Snakes in Suits, 78)
Because psychopaths are great manipulators and convincing liars, as we’ve seen, many of their victims don’t heed the warning signals. During the early phases of a romantic relationship, people in general tend to be too blinded by the euphoria of falling in love to focus on noticing red flags. Also, during this period, the psychopaths themselves are on their best behavior. Yet, generally speaking, they get bored too easily to be able to maintain their mask of sanity consistently for very long. The honeymoon phase of the relationship usually lasts until the psychopath intuitively senses that he’s got you on the hook or until he’s gotten bored by the relationship and moved on to other targets. He shows his true colors when he’s got no incentive left to pretend anymore. As Babiak and Hare note, “Once psychopaths have drained all the value from a victim—that is, when the victim is no longer useful—they abandon the victim and move on to someone else.” (Snakes in Suits, 53)
This raises the question of why a psychopath idealizes his targets in the first place. Why do psychopaths invest so much effort, time and energy into giving the illusion of intimacy and meaning in a relationship, given that they never really bond with other human beings in the first place? One obvious response would be that they do it for the sport of it. They enjoy both the chase and the kill; the seduction and the betrayal. They relish creating the illusion that they’re something they’re not. They also enjoy observing how they dupe others into believing this fiction. Moreover, whenever a psychopath expresses admiration, flattery or enthusiasm for someone, it’s always because he wants something from that person. I think, however, that this explanation is somewhat reductive. Many psychopaths experience powerful obsessions that resemble intense passions. Besides, this explanation doesn’t distinguish conmen, who fake their credentials and interest in a person, from psychopaths “in love,” who are pursuing their targets for what initially seems even to them as “romantic” reasons.
A broader explanation, which would include both kinds of psychopaths, might look something like this: as research confirms, all psychopaths suffer from a shallowness of emotion that makes their bonding ephemeral and superficial, at best. When they want something–or someone–they pursue that goal with all their might. They concentrate all of their energies upon it. When that goal is your money or a job or something outside of yourself, their pursuit may appear somewhat fake. You’re a means to an end. You were never idealized for yourself, but for something else. But when their goal is actually you–seducing you or even marrying you–then their pursuit feels like an idealization. Temporarily, you represent the object of their desire, the answer to their needs, the love of their life and the key to their happiness. But this feeling of euphoria doesn’t last long because it’s empty to the core. As we’ve observed, once psychopaths feel they have you in their grasp—once your identity, hopes and expectations are pinned on them—they get bored with you and move on to new sources of pleasure and diversion. We’ve also seen in Cleckley’s study that the same logic applies to their other goals as well. Psychopaths tire rather quickly of their jobs, their geographic location, their hobbies and their educational endeavors. But it hurts so much more, and it feels so much more personal, when what they get tired of is you, yourself.
Their loss of interest appears as a devaluation. From the center of their life, you suddenly become just an obstacle to their next pursuit. Since psychopaths are intuitively skilled at “dosing,” or giving you just enough validation and attention to keep you on the hook, you may not immediately notice the devaluation. It’s as if the psychopath intuitively knows when to be charming again (in order not to lose you) and when to push your boundaries, further and lower. Your devaluation occurs gradually yet steadily. One day you finally notice it and wonder how you have allowed yourself to sink so low. Occasionally, he throws you a bone–takes you out, plans a romantic evening, says kind and loving things—to lead you to dismiss your healthy intuitions that you’re being mistreated. If the psychopath allows himself to treat you worse and worse it’s not only because you’re much less exciting in his eyes. It’s also because he’s conditioned you to think less highly of yourself and to accept his dubious behavior. Because you want to hold on to the fantasy of the ideal relationship he cultivated, you go into denial. You accept his implausible excuses. You put up with your growing fears and doubts. You rationalize his inexplicable absences, his increasingly frequent emotional withdrawals, his curt and icy replies, his petty and mean-spirited ways of “punishing” you for asserting your needs or for not bending to his will.
But at some point, when he sinks to a new low or when you catch him in yet another lie, you slip out of the willful denial which has been your way of adjusting to the toxic relationship. Because he has lowered your self-esteem, you ask yourself why this has happened and what you did wrong. If he cheated on you, you blame the other woman or women involved. The psychopath encourages you to pursue such false leads. In fact, he encourages anything that deflects attention from his responsibility in whatever goes wrong with your relationship. He leads you to blame yourself. He also inculpates the other women. He implies that you were not good enough for him. He claims that the other women tempted or pursued him. But that’s only a diversionary tactic. You have flaws and you made mistakes, but at least you were honest and real. The other women involved may have been decent human beings, the scum of the Earth or anything in between. Think about it. Does it really matter who and what they were? You are not involved with the other women. They are not your life partners, your spouses, your lovers or your friends. What matters to you most is how your own partner behaves. He is primarily accountable for his actions. Not you, not the other women.
Also, keep in mind that psychopaths twist the truth to fit their momentary goals and to play mind games. When you actually pay attention to what they say instead of being impressed by how sincere they may appear, their narratives often sound inconsistent and implausible. What they say about other women, both past and present, is most likely a distortion too. Psychopaths commonly project their own flaws upon others. If they tell you they were seduced, it was most likely the other way around. If they tell you that their previous girlfriends mistreated them, cheated on them, got bored with them, abandoned them, listen carefully, since that’s probably what they did to those women. Their lies serve a dual function. They help establish credibility with you as well as giving them the extra thrill of deceiving you yet again.
So why were you discarded? you may wonder. You were devalued and discarded because you were never really valued for yourself. As we’ve seen, for psychopaths relationships are temporary deals, or rather, scams. Analogously, for them, other human beings represent objects of diversion and control. The most flattering and pleasant phase of their control, the only one that feels euphoric and magical, is the seduction/idealization phase. That’s when they pour on the charm and do everything they possibly can to convince you that you are the only one for them and that they’re perfect for you. It’s very easy to mistake this phase for true love or passion. However, what inevitably follows in any intimate relationship with a psychopath is neither pleasant nor flattering. Once they get bored with you because the spell of the initial conquest has worn off, the way they maintain control of you is through deception, isolation, abuse, gaslighting and undermining your self-confidence.
That’s when you realize that the devaluation phase has set in. You do whatever you can to regain privileged status. You try to recapture the excitement and sweetness of the idealization phase. You want to reclaim your rightful throne as the queen you thought you were in his eyes. But that’s an impossible goal, an ever-receding horizon. Every women’s shelter tells victims of domestic violence that abuse usually gets worse, not better, over time. For abusers, power is addictive. It works like a drug. The dosage needs to be constantly increased to achieve the same effect. Control over others, especially sexual control, gives psychopaths pleasure and meaning in life. To get the same rush from controlling you, over time, they need to tighten the screws. Increase the domination. Increase the manipulation. Isolate you further from those who care about you. Undermine your confidence and boundaries more, so that you’re left weaker and less prepared to stand up for yourself. The more you struggle to meet a psychopath’s demands, the more he’ll ask of you. Until you have nothing left to give. Because you have pushed your moral boundaries as low as they can go. You have alienated your family and friends, at the psychopath’s subtle manipulation or overt urging. You have done everything you could to satisfy him. Yet, after the initial idealization phase, nothing you did was ever good enough for him.
It turns out that he’s completely forgotten about the qualities he once saw in you. If and when he talks about you to others, it’s as if he were ashamed of you. That’s not only because he lost interest in you. It’s also the instinctive yet strategic move of a predator. If your family, his family, your mutual friends have all lost respect for you–if you’re alone with him in the world–he can control you so much easier than if you have external sources of validation and emotional support. Psychopaths construct an “us versus them” worldview. They initially depict your relationship as privileged and better than the ordinary love bonds normal people form. This is of course always a fiction. In fact, the opposite holds true. An intimate relationship with a psychopath is far inferior to any normal human relationship, where both people care about each other. Such a relationship is necessarily one-sided and distorted. It’s a sham on both sides. Being a consummate narcissist, he loves no one but himself and cares about nothing but his selfish desires.
If and when he does something nice, it’s always instrumental: a means to his ends or to bolster his artificial good image. Dr. Jekyll is, in fact, always Mr. Hyde on the inside. And even though you may be capable of love, you’re not in love with the real him–the cheater, the liar, the manipulator, the player, the hollow, heartless being that he is–but with the charming illusion he created, which you initially believed but which becomes increasingly implausible over time. From beginning to end, all this phony relationship can offer you is a toxic combination of fake love and real abuse. He constructs the psychopathic bond through deception and manipulation. You maintain it through self-sacrifice and denial.
But pretty soon, when you find yourself alone with the psychopath, you see it’s not us versus them, your couple above and against everyone else. It’s him versus you. He will act like your worst enemy, which is what he really is, not as the best friend and adoring partner he claimed to be. If he criticizes you to others–or, more subtly, fosters antagonisms between you and family members and friends–it’s to further wear you down and undermine your social bonds. Once he tires of you, he induces others to see you the same way that he does: as someone not worthy of him; as someone to use, demean and discard. Before you were beautiful and no woman could compare to you. Now you’re at best plain in his eyes. Before you were cultured and intelligent. Now you’re the dupe who got played by him. Before you were dignified and confident. Now you’re isolated and abject. In fact, right at the point when you feel that you should be rewarded for your sacrifice of your values, needs, desires and human bonds–all for him–the psychopath discards you.
He’s had enough. He’s gotten everything he wanted out of you. Bent you out of shape. Taken away, demand by demand, concession by concession, your dignity and happiness. As it turns out, the reward you get for all your devotion and efforts is being nearly destroyed by him. Ignoring your own needs and fulfilling only his–or fulfilling yours to gain his approval–has transformed you into a mere shadow of the lively, confident human being you once were.
He uses your weaknesses against you. He also turns your qualities into faults. If you are faithful, he sees your fidelity as a weakness, a sign you weren’t desirable enough to cheat. Nobody else really wanted you. If you are virtuous, he exploits your honesty while he lies and cheats on you. If you are passionate, he uses your sensuality to seduce you, to entrap you through your own desires, emotions, hopes and dreams. If you are reserved and modest, he describes you as asocial and cold-blooded. If you are confident and outgoing, he views you as flirtatious and untrustworthy. If you are hard working, unless he depends on your money, he depicts you as a workhorse exploited by your boss. If you are artistic and cultured, he undermines your merit. He makes you feel like everything you create is worthless and cannot possibly interest others. You’re lucky that it ever interested him. After the idealization phase is over, there’s no way to please a psychopath. Heads you lose, tails he wins. But remember that his criticisms are even less true than his initial exaggerated flattery. When all is said and done, the only truth that remains is that the whole relationship was a fraud.
The process of the psychopathic bond is programmatic. It’s astonishingly elegant and simple given the complexity of human behavior. Idealize, devalue and discard. Each step makes sense once you grasp the psychological profile of a psychopath, of an (in)human being who lives for the pleasure of controlling and harming others. 1) Idealize: not you, but whatever he wanted from you and only for however long he wanted it. 2) Devalue: once he has you in his clutches, the boredom sets in and he loses interest. 3) Discard: after he’s gotten everything he wanted from you and has probably secured other targets.
For you, this process is excruciatingly personal. It may have cost you your time, your heart, your friends, your family, your self-esteem or your finances. You may have put everything you had and given everything you could to that relationship. It may have become your entire life. For the psychopath, however, the whole process isn’t really personal. He could have done the same thing to just about anyone who allowed him into her intimate life. He will do it again and again to everyone he seduces. It’s not about you. It’s not about the other woman or women who were set against you to compete for him, to validate his ego, to give him pleasure, to meet his fickle needs. He wasn’t with them because they’re superior to you. He was with them for the same reason that he was with you. To use them, perhaps for different purposes than he used you, but with the same devastating effect. He will invariably treat others in a similar way to how he treated you. Idealize, devalue and discard. Rinse and repeat. This process was, is and will always be only about the psychopath for as long as you stay with him.

https://psychopathyawareness.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/the-psychopaths-relationship-cycle-idealize-devalue-and-discard/

[David1819]

The mystery is why he entrusted Julie with the secret of his intentions, why he asked for her presence within hours of the murders committed and why given that he dumped her only weeks later.

He never told her anything there is no mystery.

[Stephanie]

He never told her anything there is no mystery.

I don't buy your theory David.

[David1819]

I don't buy your theory David.

Its not my theory. This was established at trial before I was even born lol

Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"

[Stephanie]

Its not my theory. This was established at trial before I was even born lol

Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"

It's still a theory David, whether you were born or not.. A theory not believed by the jury! That's a fact!

[David1819]

It's still a theory David, whether you were born or not.. A theory not believed by the jury! That's a fact!

Its not a theory. All the details of Jeremy's alleged "confessions" not only fail to corroborate the scene of the crime but they can be traced back to the police or the relatives long before she even "came forward" Its in all the notes, statements and transcripts for all to see.

Besides the jury could not reach a marjority majority verdict and asked to go over the blood/silencer evidence again only then did they make their minds up, Thus Mugfords testimony was not pivotal.

[Stephanie]

Its not a theory. All the details of Jeremy's alleged "confessions" not only fail to corroborate the scene of the crime but they can be traced back to the police or the relatives long before she even "came forward" Its in all the notes, statements and transcripts for all to see.

Besides the jury could not reach a marjority majority verdict and asked to go over the blood/silencer evidence again only then did they make their minds up, Thus Mugfords testimony was not pivotal.

David, not all of the notes, statements and transcripts are in the public domain. The only evidence in the public domain is the evidence Jeremy Bamber has cherry picked to be allowed to be seen by the public. There is a wealth of evidence missing.

It took the jury 9 hours 24 minutes to reach their verdict, hardly a long time.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cd1AAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6qYMAAAAIBAJ&dq=brett+collins+bamber&pg=5839,6644530&hl=en

[Adam]

* 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..

I've said the same thing in threads. Her WS does have a 'Ring of Truth' to it. She could also not have got all this information from the newspapers, as alleged at trial.