Author Topic: Jeremy's phone call to Julie Mugford on 6th August  (Read 4263 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Jeremy's phone call to Julie Mugford on 6th August
« on: February 03, 2011, 05:07:PM »
In the Appeal document it says that Jeremy called Julie at about 9.50 on the evening of 6th August.

Quote
At about 9.50 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 August the appellant telephoned Miss Mugford. During their conversation that evening he said he was "pissed off" and had been thinking about the crime all day and that it was going to be "tonight or never".


In the same document it also says that Jeremy said he left the farm at around 10pm. If he did ring her at 9.50 and he's telling the truth about when he left the farm, it means that he must have called Julie from the farm. Would he really have stood there and pretty much told her he was going to murder his entire family when any of then could have heard him say that?

If he did ring her and say that, was he at the farm at all? In fact, did any other witnesses say they knew he was at the farm that evening?


Offline curiousessex

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1418
  • ROCH INDEX 70
Re: Jeremy's phone call to Julie Mugford on 6th August
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2011, 05:14:PM »
Does Jeremy at any point mention or draw reference to any of the telphone calls from the Farm Secretary at 9.30 pm and Pamela Boutflour at 10.00 pm?

The first response to my posting on The timing and sequence of telephone calls etc. details

The farm secretary, Barbara Wilson, phoned Neville at about 9.30 pm, and said he was "short" with her.

Pamela Boutflour called her sister June at about 10 pm. She apparently spoke to Sheila first and said she was "quiet". Then she spoke to June. I'm not sure what they talked about. I've seen speculation that they talked about Sheila, but I don't know if that's a fact.

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Jeremy's phone call to Julie Mugford on 6th August
« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2011, 05:19:PM »
Does Jeremy at any point mention or draw reference to any of the telphone calls from the Farm Secretary at 9.30 pm and Pamela Boutflour at 10.00 pm?

The first response to my posting on The timing and sequence of telephone calls etc. details

The farm secretary, Barbara Wilson, phoned Neville at about 9.30 pm, and said he was "short" with her.

Pamela Boutflour called her sister June at about 10 pm. She apparently spoke to Sheila first and said she was "quiet". Then she spoke to June. I'm not sure what they talked about. I've seen speculation that they talked about Sheila, but I don't know if that's a fact.


Good question - some research needed I think.

Offline Reader

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
Re: Jeremy's phone call to Julie Mugford on 6th August
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2011, 10:54:AM »
See this page in the GDS forum for some details of Pamela's statement.

Offline TheBrilliantMistake

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 720
Re: Jeremy's phone call to Julie Mugford on 6th August
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2011, 11:03:AM »
From Pamela's account -

There is some suggestion of 'concern' about Sheila, but I wouldn't go so far as to say disharmony in the family.
There may have been a row, but that's not coming through from Pamela's account. It comes across as a normal family chat about who's seeing who whilst Sheila's in the area with the kids, and a mother (June) who's always going to have some opinion about her daughter - that's mother's for you!

I don't see a "I'm VERY worried about her" type call. Other's might read more into it.

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Jeremy's phone call to Julie Mugford on 6th August
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2011, 11:07:AM »
From Pamela's account -

There is some suggestion of 'concern' about Sheila, but I wouldn't go so far as to say disharmony in the family.
There may have been a row, but that's not coming through from Pamela's account. It comes across as a normal family chat about who's seeing who whilst Sheila's in the area with the kids, and a mother (June) who's always going to have some opinion about her daughter - that's mother's for you!

I don't see a "I'm VERY worried about her" type call. Other's might read more into it.

It was Pamela who said that June was very worried about Sheila.

By all accounts, Sheila was very quiet. Colin Caffell said she was quiet on the way to the farm, and Pamela said she was quiet too. June was worried about her and said she had no interest in the children or housework.

I've read an account of Sheila's psychotic episode in March 1985, but I haven't read one about the episode in 1983. I wonder if her episodes were preceded by her being quiet and lacking interest in anything.

Offline TheBrilliantMistake

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 720
Re: Jeremy's phone call to Julie Mugford on 6th August
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2011, 11:15:AM »
I stand corrected

She does indeed use the term 'very worried'.

Although reading the statement, I still didn't feel a sense of utter urgency. But it's there 'very worried'.


To me though, this whole statement doesn't have a ring of trying to make Jeremy look bad, if it does anything at all, it highlights the unusual mood of Sheila, and the concern of her mother (and presumably father).

Certainly doesn't put Pamela in the 'out to get Jeremy' team.
Wouldn't you think other members of the family (e.g Pamela and Robert) might think "hold on Ann and David, we know what you're after, and you need to stop it now". Would they all just stand by and let Ann and David claim everything for themselves and put Jeremy behind bars for life"?


Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Jeremy's phone call to Julie Mugford on 6th August
« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2011, 11:19:AM »
I stand corrected

She does indeed use the term 'very worried'.

Although reading the statement, I still didn't feel a sense of utter urgency. But it's there 'very worried'.


To me though, this whole statement doesn't have a ring of trying to make Jeremy look bad, if it does anything at all, it highlights the unusual mood of Sheila, and the concern of her mother (and presumably father).

Certainly doesn't put Pamela in the 'out to get Jeremy' team.
Wouldn't you think other members of the family (e.g Pamela and Robert) might think "hold on Ann and David, we know what you're after, and you need to stop it now". Would they all just stand by and let Ann and David claim everything for themselves and put Jeremy behind bars for life"?

Pamela doesn't seem to have been too involved in the aftermath. I think she went to the police station with Robert once, but I'm not sure what she said. She was perhaps more grief stricken than the rest of them - after all June was her only sister, and they sounded close. Robert Boutflour on the other hand seemed very determined right from the start to pin it on Jeremy. I wonder what Pamela said about that.

I also wonder if June had mentioned to Pamela that Jeremy had been there that evening. If he was habitually there in the evenings perhaps she wouldn't have.

Offline TheBrilliantMistake

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 720
Re: Jeremy's phone call to Julie Mugford on 6th August
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2011, 11:42:AM »
I stand corrected

She does indeed use the term 'very worried'.

Although reading the statement, I still didn't feel a sense of utter urgency. But it's there 'very worried'.


To me though, this whole statement doesn't have a ring of trying to make Jeremy look bad, if it does anything at all, it highlights the unusual mood of Sheila, and the concern of her mother (and presumably father).

Certainly doesn't put Pamela in the 'out to get Jeremy' team.
Wouldn't you think other members of the family (e.g Pamela and Robert) might think "hold on Ann and David, we know what you're after, and you need to stop it now". Would they all just stand by and let Ann and David claim everything for themselves and put Jeremy behind bars for life"?

Pamela doesn't seem to have been too involved in the aftermath. I think she went to the police station with Robert once, but I'm not sure what she said. She was perhaps more grief stricken than the rest of them - after all June was her only sister, and they sounded close. Robert Boutflour on the other hand seemed very determined right from the start to pin it on Jeremy. I wonder what Pamela said about that.

I also wonder if June had mentioned to Pamela that Jeremy had been there that evening. If he was habitually there in the evenings perhaps she wouldn't have.

You're right about Robert, but in his defence he did also seem to say (between the lines) "I was sure he was involved, or even did it, and a looked damned hard to prove it!... but couldn't see any traces of his path to / from the house". He could, had he a mind to do it, have 'found' *wink wink* something. But he never did.
I can only conclude from this that he believed in playing by the rules.

I'm also not sure if his suspicions started before the silencer, or after. If it was once the silencer was found, then I can understand him starting his own little investigations... I'd be inclined to do the same.


The other thing with the silencer....
So they found it... in a cupboard, in a box - what made them start looking at it closely? and thinking "oh there are fleck of paint on it, and what looks like blood?" Perhaps the marks were quite noticeable, but I'd always envisaged that you'd have to be looking for them to see them (could be totally wrong).

So here's my problem with it.
a) Why start having a good look at it? (at WHF OR at home)
b) If you found it, and thought it important - why take it home at all, and not do the 'don't touch it - call the police' routine (as every movie, even mid 80's always showed).
c) It's not clear how much gun stuff the police ever took away. Did they take it ALL away and just left the silencer? in which case, yes I can see how they thought it important because it had been missed. But if the police had left lots of other gun related stuff at the house, then why deem that silencer to be especially noteworthy?


Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Jeremy's phone call to Julie Mugford on 6th August
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2011, 11:51:AM »
I stand corrected

She does indeed use the term 'very worried'.

Although reading the statement, I still didn't feel a sense of utter urgency. But it's there 'very worried'.


To me though, this whole statement doesn't have a ring of trying to make Jeremy look bad, if it does anything at all, it highlights the unusual mood of Sheila, and the concern of her mother (and presumably father).

Certainly doesn't put Pamela in the 'out to get Jeremy' team.
Wouldn't you think other members of the family (e.g Pamela and Robert) might think "hold on Ann and David, we know what you're after, and you need to stop it now". Would they all just stand by and let Ann and David claim everything for themselves and put Jeremy behind bars for life"?

Pamela doesn't seem to have been too involved in the aftermath. I think she went to the police station with Robert once, but I'm not sure what she said. She was perhaps more grief stricken than the rest of them - after all June was her only sister, and they sounded close. Robert Boutflour on the other hand seemed very determined right from the start to pin it on Jeremy. I wonder what Pamela said about that.

I also wonder if June had mentioned to Pamela that Jeremy had been there that evening. If he was habitually there in the evenings perhaps she wouldn't have.

You're right about Robert, but in his defence he did also seem to say (between the lines) "I was sure he was involved, or even did it, and a looked damned hard to prove it!... but couldn't see any traces of his path to / from the house". He could, had he a mind to do it, have 'found' *wink wink* something. But he never did.
I can only conclude from this that he believed in playing by the rules.

I'm also not sure if his suspicions started before the silencer, or after. If it was once the silencer was found, then I can understand him starting his own little investigations... I'd be inclined to do the same.


The other thing with the silencer....
So they found it... in a cupboard, in a box - what made them start looking at it closely? and thinking "oh there are fleck of paint on it, and what looks like blood?" Perhaps the marks were quite noticeable, but I'd always envisaged that you'd have to be looking for them to see them (could be totally wrong).

So here's my problem with it.
a) Why start having a good look at it? (at WHF OR at home)
b) If you found it, and thought it important - why take it home at all, and not do the 'don't touch it - call the police' routine (as every movie, even mid 80's always showed).
c) It's not clear how much gun stuff the police ever took away. Did they take it ALL away and just left the silencer? in which case, yes I can see how they thought it important because it had been missed. But if the police had left lots of other gun related stuff at the house, then why deem that silencer to be especially noteworthy?

They took other stuff as well that day. They took the telescopic sights and some ammunition. I don't know when the other guns had been taken.

It is strange that David Boutflour looked so closely at the silencer.

Offline HMEssex

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1501
Re: Jeremy's phone call to Julie Mugford on 6th August
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2011, 11:56:AM »
I stand corrected

She does indeed use the term 'very worried'.

Although reading the statement, I still didn't feel a sense of utter urgency. But it's there 'very worried'.


To me though, this whole statement doesn't have a ring of trying to make Jeremy look bad, if it does anything at all, it highlights the unusual mood of Sheila, and the concern of her mother (and presumably father).

Certainly doesn't put Pamela in the 'out to get Jeremy' team.
Wouldn't you think other members of the family (e.g Pamela and Robert) might think "hold on Ann and David, we know what you're after, and you need to stop it now". Would they all just stand by and let Ann and David claim everything for themselves and put Jeremy behind bars for life"?

Pamela doesn't seem to have been too involved in the aftermath. I think she went to the police station with Robert once, but I'm not sure what she said. She was perhaps more grief stricken than the rest of them - after all June was her only sister, and they sounded close. Robert Boutflour on the other hand seemed very determined right from the start to pin it on Jeremy. I wonder what Pamela said about that.

I also wonder if June had mentioned to Pamela that Jeremy had been there that evening. If he was habitually there in the evenings perhaps she wouldn't have.





Regarding the other members of the family, I feel that from the moment that the family had been killed, they felt that as Jeremy was adopted he did not belong to their family anymore and therefore was not entitled to any inheritance - he wasn't 'blood'.  The motive given to Jeremy for his alleged involvement was the inheritance and this motive was behind the family's and JM's testimonies.  The hypocrisy in this case is that he was incriminated by the motives of his family/accusers.  They are living off the proceeds of what they wish to see as his crime.

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Jeremy's phone call to Julie Mugford on 6th August
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2011, 11:58:AM »
David Boutflour made a statement in which he said he did take some guns from the farmhouse on the same day. It's on SFJ though so I can't post it here.

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: Jeremy's phone call to Julie Mugford on 6th August
« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2011, 11:59:AM »
I stand corrected

She does indeed use the term 'very worried'.

Although reading the statement, I still didn't feel a sense of utter urgency. But it's there 'very worried'.


To me though, this whole statement doesn't have a ring of trying to make Jeremy look bad, if it does anything at all, it highlights the unusual mood of Sheila, and the concern of her mother (and presumably father).

Certainly doesn't put Pamela in the 'out to get Jeremy' team.
Wouldn't you think other members of the family (e.g Pamela and Robert) might think "hold on Ann and David, we know what you're after, and you need to stop it now". Would they all just stand by and let Ann and David claim everything for themselves and put Jeremy behind bars for life"?

Pamela doesn't seem to have been too involved in the aftermath. I think she went to the police station with Robert once, but I'm not sure what she said. She was perhaps more grief stricken than the rest of them - after all June was her only sister, and they sounded close. Robert Boutflour on the other hand seemed very determined right from the start to pin it on Jeremy. I wonder what Pamela said about that.

I also wonder if June had mentioned to Pamela that Jeremy had been there that evening. If he was habitually there in the evenings perhaps she wouldn't have.





Regarding the other members of the family, I feel that from the moment that the family had been killed, they felt that as Jeremy was adopted he did not belong to their family anymore and therefore was not entitled to any inheritance - he wasn't 'blood'.  The motive given to Jeremy for his alleged involvement was the inheritance and this motive was behind the family's and JM's testimonies.  The hypocrisy in this case is that he was incriminated by the motives of his family/accusers.  They are living off the proceeds of what they wish to see as his crime.

That's the impression that's been given, yes. It's one of the reasons I'm a bit biased against the relatives - they seemed very keen to get their hands on the dosh themselves.

Offline TheBrilliantMistake

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 720
Re: Jeremy's phone call to Julie Mugford on 6th August
« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2011, 12:05:PM »
There's some logic to elements of that, and some truth to other parts too...

but his conviction was not PURELY down to family testimony, and it's still one thing to object to his inheritance, quite another to see him go down for murder.
Sheila was adopted too - perhaps they didn't really care too much for her either? who knows.

So, back to him being convicted not ONLY on their evidence.
Yes, in a convoluted way, they stood to inherit / gain from it.
But they still had to 'plan' a way to get him convicted, and they still had to be sure THEY wouldn't be caught doing so, and they still didn't have long to hatch their cunning plan even if they had a full month (and not 3 days).

At that stage they couldn't be SURE Jeremy wouldn't be able to produce irrefutable proof. BT might have come up with a log, or some witness coming forward to say he'd seen Bamber at his Goldhanger home through his window. And they couldn't have banked on Mugford's testimony.


Offline TheBrilliantMistake

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 720
Re: Jeremy's phone call to Julie Mugford on 6th August
« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2011, 12:15:PM »
My family has 'estranged' this and that... I think most families do.
Some where there is a real bitterness.

Usually it's between one small group and another, or between individuals and a group (or two individuals) when the animosity is truly intense. When it's one side of an entire family against another, it's not usually THAT intense (it's still a couple of folks at the heart, with the rest offering moral support, but their own anger isn't as great per se)

When I've seen bitterness come to the fore, someone might say "I hate that b'stard, he's never seeing the kids again" etc etc. But other members who are even on their side will say "well, I can't stand him either, but...."

And it's that part of the 'plot' I can't buy into. That they could all sit round the table and say "That scheming young Jeremy's going to get all that money, and he never gave a jot about them, let's make sure he goes down for life and we get the money" - and not one member thought "hold on a minute Ann, he's a tosser but...."

Maybe it was just David and Ann though. Would a brother and sister do that, at their ages? Man and wife, two lovers, maybe, brother and sister? I just don't know.