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

[Adam]

Julies WS is in different parts -


What happened after the massacre:

The eating out, hotels, trips around the country and abroad. There is no point in Julie lying here. A lot of other people joined them for some of these. Hotel bookings can be checked and relatives asked. So there was no reason to lie as everything can be easily checked.

What Bamber did does not highlight guilt or innocence anyway. Although Bamber's callous actions have come back to haunt him


Bamber's hatred, resentment and motive:

This could be her word against Bamber's. But was not.

Bamber himself testified he had a very poor/non existent relationship with June.

He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' on the massacre night. Saying they did not like each other and she had committed child abuse on the twins. Decades later saying he did not understand her illness.

There are also a lot of other people who said Bamber did not like his family or the raw deal he had. The facts back this up, Sheila living rent free in London, Bamber working long hours after reluctantly starting to work on the farm as a last resort.


The massacre plans:

This is again Julies word against Bamber's. However some of the things Julie said are backed up.

She said he planned to ride to WHF. This is backed up by the fact that the bike was brought over just before the massacre.

Julie also knew about the bible and kitchen fight. Which was not reported in the papers. And knew about the lockable from outside window.

The judge and appeal courts found it hard to understand Bamber's 3am call to Julie. Julie saying Bamber said 'he had not slept all night' and 'everything is going well'. When the police asked him about the call, he just said 'no comment'.

Julie also knew about the under insurance of WHF and the items inside.

Julies feelings:

Her feelings while things were evolving can only be changed by Julie herself, and cannot be disputed.

                                  ___________________

Overall Julie's statement does have a 'ring of truth' to it. She approached the police and was not forced to say anything.

Her reason to lie was also very weak. Bamber allegedly jilting her, after he said their relationship had been in decline/coming to a close for six months. Julie creating a false WS and lying under oath for this sole reason.

[Adam]

There is a lot of information in Julie's WS, which would not have been reported in the newspapers.

The reports in the media would have been the following day. The police would just say it was murder/suicide and not divulge anything further. The media would then just concentrate on Sheila's life and how crazy she was. Before moving onto their next big story the following day.

Unlike Bamber, I don't believe Julie would be avidly reading all the newspaper reports anyway.

Here are some of the things in Julie's WS.

There was a valuble pidgeon clock, valuable china and silver at WHF.

The outside doors were locked every night.

There was a downstairs window which latched shut when exiting.

There was a kitchen fight during the massacre.

Neville received seven shots.

The twins were shot in their sleep.

Sheila had a bible by her chest.

There was going to be a phone call from WHF to Bamber's cottage from MM.

There was a phone at WHF which had a last number redial record.

Bamber had started conversations at supper about fostering.

Sheila was shot last.

June was shot in her bed.

Everyone was asleep. Except Neville.

Sheila was shot under the chin.

[maggie]

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 David.

[Roch]

Steph,

Re Julie Mugford I always liked this post by Martin:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3458.0.html

[Caroline]

Steph,

Re Julie Mugford I always liked this post by Martin:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3458.0.html

Really? 

[Roch]

Really? 

Yeah, I like some of the old threads. Apart from the McDonald bit I thought there was some interesting stuff.  There's another Mugford thread somewhere entitled 'girlfriend from hell'.

[Stephanie]

Steph,

Re Julie Mugford I always liked this post by Martin:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3458.0.html

Yeah, I like some of the old threads. Apart from the McDonald bit I thought there was some interesting stuff.  There's another Mugford thread somewhere entitled 'girlfriend from hell'.

Thanks Roch though I thought Steve_UK's post below was more appropriate.

I'd like to hear more about the 'real' Jeremy Bamber. There are numerous witness statements missing - I've searched high and low..?

I'd also like to see his psychology reports; not snippets.

He would have other reports carried out in prison (On an annual basis) I'd like to see these too. 

As I've already stated, what is in the public domain isn't the full working case file. If Jeremy Bamber has nothing to hide then why doesn't he allow everything to be scrutinised by the public?

Here's the link to "Girlfriend from hell" http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1319.0.html

[Roch]

Here's the link to "Girlfriend from hell"

Not one of my proudest moments I'm ashamed to say. 

[Stephanie]

Does anyone know where the following statements can be found and/or why JB hasn't publicised them?
 
Susan Battersby' then boyfriend

Ray = photo on the dresser in dining room (Jeremy Bamber apparently had a gay relationship with him)

Sarah = Apparently told JM her and Charles had a threesome with JB

Charles Marsden = As above

Brett Collins

Liz Rimmington


The above statements would help put JM's statements into more perspective imo

[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.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7855.msg372382.html#msg372382

I'm unsure if you are aware of this David, but you are doing what you accuse other posters of doing?

You state: "Jeremy did not say anything that Julie claimed. Her testimony is false and full of contradictions, evidence she could only have got from police or Ann Eaton.

There is a wealth of evidence contained within JM's statement that could not have come from AE or the police - can you explain this?

And 'If' & that's a BIG 'if' JM has made everything in her statement up; WHY has JB never detailed what she has said in her statements and given his side of the story? Why has he left people like yourself to speculate?

Can I ask why you favour Jeremy Bamber's word over Julie Mugford's?

Ps: Can you post copies of the above statements please; if you have them.. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7855.msg372670.html#msg372670

[Stephanie]

Does anyone know where the following statements can be found and/or why JB hasn't publicised them?
 
Susan Battersby' then boyfriend

Ray = photo on the dresser in dining room (Jeremy Bamber apparently had a gay relationship with him)

Sarah = Apparently told JM her and Charles had a threesome with JB

Charles Marsden = As above

Brett Collins

Liz Rimmington


The above statements would help put JM's statements into more perspective imo

Why hasn't Jeremy Bamber released these statements and all other statements? Why has he cherry picked what he's given to other people and what has been put into the public domain?

JB has allowed his family members and people like Julie Mugford to come under immense scrutiny, which in turn keeps the heat off of him.

[David1819]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7855.msg372382.html#msg372382

I'm unsure if you are aware of this David, but you are doing what you accuse other posters of doing?

You state: "Jeremy did not say anything that Julie claimed. Her testimony is false and full of contradictions, evidence she could only have got from police or Ann Eaton.

There is a wealth of evidence contained within JM's statement that could not have come from AE or the police - can you explain this?

And 'If' & that's a BIG 'if' JM has made everything in her statement up; WHY has JB never detailed what she has said in her statements and given his side of the story? Why has he left people like yourself to speculate?

Can I ask why you favour Jeremy Bamber's word over Julie Mugford's?

Ps: Can you post copies of the above statements please; if you have them.. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7855.msg372670.html#msg372670

I have copied and pasted below a compliation of my answers from another forum. To save me typing it all over again.


Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record).

The fundamental point is Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).

1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.

2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)

3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!

You cannot get round these points no matter how much you bring up the sleeping pills or fire. Its rather obvious the police zeroed in on those pills and did not buy her original innocent explanation for them, thus she made up something they wanted to hear from her.

I am not quoting word for word here but it goes like this

Julie Mugford - "Jeremy told me that Sheila was told to lay on the bed and was ordered to shoot herself under the supervision of Mathew Macdonald he then left the bible on the her chest" (Jeremy is supposed to have told her this on the 7th of August at his cottage while the house was occupied by many other people  )

Julie Mugford - "On the 7th I told Ann Eaton about the bible on her chest"

Anne Eaton - "On the 7th Police told me Sheila was found laying on the bed with a bible on her chest"

Ann Eaton - " I cant remember who told me on the 7th" (Just after confirming the police told her various details she obviously remembers. problem being she was told about the bible in the exact same conversation)

The idea of the bible being a "meme" is not credible because there are too many similarities with her statement as a whole. The probability of it being coincidental, you are looking at almost jackpot lottery odds. (Bible on chest + Sheila on Bed + Exiting windows + Cycling to the farm + Fingerprints on gun + wetsuit + 2000 pounds + a McDonald mentioned in police meeting + Hitman to explain the reported movement)

All of these can either be found in Julies testimony or her "diary". Most importantly Jeremy is supposed to have told her all this. This means that what Jeremy told her in his alleged "confessions" he deliberately falsified how he killed everyone so it just so happens to be the same as Ann Eatons and RWBs erroneous information. Not only that but he also falsifies his "confessions" so what he tells her just so happens to explain the gaps and problems the police were facing at that moment in time! gaps and problems that later turned out to be wrong! Then Jeremy decides not to tell her about the silencer, the one piece of crucial evidence that was only discovered to be incriminating in the weeks AFTER Julie made her statements.

Its just not possible for Jeremy to have told her all this in the way its been presented by her coinciding with the circumstances of the police investigation and the relatives suspicions in that instance of time. With some of those circumstances and ideas backfiring, thus harming her credibility later on.

Lets look at Mathew Mcdoanld for example.

1. Robert Boutflour speculates if Jeremy had assistance on the night - See Diary

2. Robert Boutflour zeros in on the £2000 that Neville lent to Jeremy - See Diary

3. The £2000 of course has an innocent explanation and is totally unrelated to the event. but RWB believes he is onto something (Tunnel vision)

4. Jeremy is supposed to have lent this £2000 to a friend - See Diary

5. 20th of August police have a meeting with RWB present. During that meeting a question is put forward in relation to a drug deal (from a man called McDonald??) See Barlow's note book

6. Jeremy has a friend called Mathew Mcdonald they both do drugs together - See MMs statement

7. Mathew Mcdonald happens to a fantasist who goes around telling people he is a mercenary and has done missions in Libya. People believe the rumours - see MMs statement

According to Julie. Jeremy told her that he paid £2000 to Mathew Mcdonald to help him carry out the killings. The fact of the matter is a sum of £2000 went somewhere else. Mathew Macdonald is a mercenary only in his imagination plus he was miles away from the farm that night. Robert Bouflour and Stand Jones ignorant of the facts at the time. To them this theory would make perfect sense to them. Jeremy's "mercenary" friend and drug associate complete with a money trail and can explain the reported movement in the farm while Jeremy was outside with the police.

I will leave you to decide where Julie got the story from. If you conclude its from Jeremy then you have no hope of understanding this case.

[Stephanie]

I've posted this link on another thread but think it's relevant to this thread:

"Because they use every single bit of information they learn about us, to control us, they assume that everyone else, is doing that same thing. They think we would poison their favorite food and cut their brake lines. After all, if they think that way, doesn’t everyone? When psychopaths lie, they are protecting themselves from being known and being vulnerable.   All psychopaths are paranoid.  One psychopath I know, fears and hates Google  with a passion. He knows Google is collecting information on him. I can’t imagine what he thinks Google is planning to do to him! Instead of Google, he uses Duckduckgo as his search engine. In addition to using Duckduckgo, psychopaths handle their paranoia by giving disinformation at every opportunity. That disinformation will generally point in the 180 degree opposite direction to the truth and it creates their mask. There is only one thing that a psychopath really values and that is, his or her mask.  Because most people can’t imagine lying about everything that they are, this mask enables psychopaths to con and manipulate, to cheat and to steal, even to kill and get away with it because nobody ever imagined what they were really like. They view life as a game to win and they want to win by lying, cheating and manipulating.
It’s ironic that empathic people trust the psychopath because we can’t imagine being so duplicitous. Yet the psychopath, who relies on our trust and naivety, still feels paranoia, thinking that we will do unto them as they would do unto us.  The psychopath actually has good reason to feel this way. He or she, knows that you might find out what they really are. You might realize that everything they’ve ever presented to you was a malicious lie. They believe that people will want revenge or will try to hold them responsible for their evil deeds. For psychopaths, that’s a very good reason to keep their identities, locations , “friends” and habits, secret from you.

In the past, psychopaths have gotten away with evil by playing this game of lies, deceit and manipulation. Most of us observed some aspects of it, but didn’t know what it meant. Now the tide is turning. As knowledge of psychopaths and their machinations becomes more common, the lies that once hid these abusers, now reveal them. I wonder where they will hide next?
http://180rule.com/why-do-psychopaths-lie/

[Stephanie]

I have copied and pasted below a compliation of my answers from another forum. To save me typing it all over again.


Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record).

The fundamental point is Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).

1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.

2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)

3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!

You cannot get round these points no matter how much you bring up the sleeping pills or fire. Its rather obvious the police zeroed in on those pills and did not buy her original innocent explanation for them, thus she made up something they wanted to hear from her.

I am not quoting word for word here but it goes like this

Julie Mugford - "Jeremy told me that Sheila was told to lay on the bed and was ordered to shoot herself under the supervision of Mathew Macdonald he then left the bible on the her chest" (Jeremy is supposed to have told her this on the 7th of August at his cottage while the house was occupied by many other people  )

Julie Mugford - "On the 7th I told Ann Eaton about the bible on her chest"

Anne Eaton - "On the 7th Police told me Sheila was found laying on the bed with a bible on her chest"

Ann Eaton - " I cant remember who told me on the 7th" (Just after confirming the police told her various details she obviously remembers. problem being she was told about the bible in the exact same conversation)

The idea of the bible being a "meme" is not credible because there are too many similarities with her statement as a whole. The probability of it being coincidental, you are looking at almost jackpot lottery odds. (Bible on chest + Sheila on Bed + Exiting windows + Cycling to the farm + Fingerprints on gun + wetsuit + 2000 pounds + a McDonald mentioned in police meeting + Hitman to explain the reported movement)

All of these can either be found in Julies testimony or her "diary". Most importantly Jeremy is supposed to have told her all this. This means that what Jeremy told her in his alleged "confessions" he deliberately falsified how he killed everyone so it just so happens to be the same as Ann Eatons and RWBs erroneous information. Not only that but he also falsifies his "confessions" so what he tells her just so happens to explain the gaps and problems the police were facing at that moment in time! gaps and problems that later turned out to be wrong! Then Jeremy decides not to tell her about the silencer, the one piece of crucial evidence that was only discovered to be incriminating in the weeks AFTER Julie made her statements.

Its just not possible for Jeremy to have told her all this in the way its been presented by her coinciding with the circumstances of the police investigation and the relatives suspicions in that instance of time. With some of those circumstances and ideas backfiring, thus harming her credibility later on.

Lets look at Mathew Mcdoanld for example.

1. Robert Boutflour speculates if Jeremy had assistance on the night - See Diary

2. Robert Boutflour zeros in on the £2000 that Neville lent to Jeremy - See Diary

3. The £2000 of course has an innocent explanation and is totally unrelated to the event. but RWB believes he is onto something (Tunnel vision)

4. Jeremy is supposed to have lent this £2000 to a friend - See Diary

5. 20th of August police have a meeting with RWB present. During that meeting a question is put forward in relation to a drug deal (from a man called McDonald??) See Barlow's note book

6. Jeremy has a friend called Mathew Mcdonald they both do drugs together - See MMs statement

7. Mathew Mcdonald happens to a fantasist who goes around telling people he is a mercenary and has done missions in Libya. People believe the rumours - see MMs statement

According to Julie. Jeremy told her that he paid £2000 to Mathew Mcdonald to help him carry out the killings. The fact of the matter is a sum of £2000 went somewhere else. Mathew Macdonald is a mercenary only in his imagination plus he was miles away from the farm that night. Robert Bouflour and Stand Jones ignorant of the facts at the time. To them this theory would make perfect sense to them. Jeremy's "mercenary" friend and drug associate complete with a money trail and can explain the reported movement in the farm while Jeremy was outside with the police.

I will leave you to decide where Julie got the story from. If you conclude its from Jeremy then you have no hope of understanding this case.

I've skim read the above David but if you were to make comment on each and every fact in all of JM's Witness statement; then we will have more of an accurate, albeit bias, summary.

You have cherry picked the parts that suit your theory, most of which I do not agree with.

[Steve_uk]

I have copied and pasted below a compliation of my answers from another forum. To save me typing it all over again.


Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record).

The fundamental point is Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).

1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.

2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)

3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!

You cannot get round these points no matter how much you bring up the sleeping pills or fire. Its rather obvious the police zeroed in on those pills and did not buy her original innocent explanation for them, thus she made up something they wanted to hear from her.

I am not quoting word for word here but it goes like this

Julie Mugford - "Jeremy told me that Sheila was told to lay on the bed and was ordered to shoot herself under the supervision of Mathew Macdonald he then left the bible on the her chest" (Jeremy is supposed to have told her this on the 7th of August at his cottage while the house was occupied by many other people  )

Julie Mugford - "On the 7th I told Ann Eaton about the bible on her chest"

Anne Eaton - "On the 7th Police told me Sheila was found laying on the bed with a bible on her chest"

Ann Eaton - " I cant remember who told me on the 7th" (Just after confirming the police told her various details she obviously remembers. problem being she was told about the bible in the exact same conversation)

The idea of the bible being a "meme" is not credible because there are too many similarities with her statement as a whole. The probability of it being coincidental, you are looking at almost jackpot lottery odds. (Bible on chest + Sheila on Bed + Exiting windows + Cycling to the farm + Fingerprints on gun + wetsuit + 2000 pounds + a McDonald mentioned in police meeting + Hitman to explain the reported movement)

All of these can either be found in Julies testimony or her "diary". Most importantly Jeremy is supposed to have told her all this. This means that what Jeremy told her in his alleged "confessions" he deliberately falsified how he killed everyone so it just so happens to be the same as Ann Eatons and RWBs erroneous information. Not only that but he also falsifies his "confessions" so what he tells her just so happens to explain the gaps and problems the police were facing at that moment in time! gaps and problems that later turned out to be wrong! Then Jeremy decides not to tell her about the silencer, the one piece of crucial evidence that was only discovered to be incriminating in the weeks AFTER Julie made her statements.

Its just not possible for Jeremy to have told her all this in the way its been presented by her coinciding with the circumstances of the police investigation and the relatives suspicions in that instance of time. With some of those circumstances and ideas backfiring, thus harming her credibility later on.

Lets look at Mathew Mcdoanld for example.

1. Robert Boutflour speculates if Jeremy had assistance on the night - See Diary

2. Robert Boutflour zeros in on the £2000 that Neville lent to Jeremy - See Diary

3. The £2000 of course has an innocent explanation and is totally unrelated to the event. but RWB believes he is onto something (Tunnel vision)

4. Jeremy is supposed to have lent this £2000 to a friend - See Diary

5. 20th of August police have a meeting with RWB present. During that meeting a question is put forward in relation to a drug deal (from a man called McDonald??) See Barlow's note book

6. Jeremy has a friend called Mathew Mcdonald they both do drugs together - See MMs statement

7. Mathew Mcdonald happens to a fantasist who goes around telling people he is a mercenary and has done missions in Libya. People believe the rumours - see MMs statement

According to Julie. Jeremy told her that he paid £2000 to Mathew Mcdonald to help him carry out the killings. The fact of the matter is a sum of £2000 went somewhere else. Mathew Macdonald is a mercenary only in his imagination plus he was miles away from the farm that night. Robert Bouflour and Stand Jones ignorant of the facts at the time. To them this theory would make perfect sense to them. Jeremy's "mercenary" friend and drug associate complete with a money trail and can explain the reported movement in the farm while Jeremy was outside with the police.

I will leave you to decide where Julie got the story from. If you conclude its from Jeremy then you have no hope of understanding this case.

Julie's statement formed 32 pages representing a summary of her association with Jeremy for the preceding eighteen months or so. Had she been able to tell her account as a story to the jurors I feel that she would have won over the two remaining women who held out against conviction. The story about Sheila having died with a bible on her chest was circulating that first morning at Goldhanger as far as I can gather, when Julie said that she didn't quiz Jeremy on the murders until all had left that day. Why on earth did an intelligent young girl like Julie concoct the story of a hitman to Police if, at that stage, she is desperate to ingratiate herself with them and be believed, when it's obvious that this story is bound to be checked?

Far more likely it is Jeremy who has given the bare bones of the story whilst sparing the details of this gruesome crime in an attempt to mollify Julie.  Why should she question her boyfriend as to fingerprints or silencers or indeed scrutinize the murder plan in any way?