The 3 o'clock phone calls & what Mugford knew.

[Caroline R]

Didn't Ann Eaton originally write down on one of her contemporaneous note cards that one of JM's flatmates had confirmed to JM that the call was at the later time, as per both JM and JB originally claimed?  AE then altered this time when giving a statement (about having witnessed JM check the time of the call with the said flat mate). 

Neither defence nor Jury ever saw AE's note card prior to or during trial.

Indeed Roch, it was initially confirmed as 03:30 but SJ wasn't happy with that and we all know what happens when he isn't happy with events!

[Caroline R]

Why these writers words are taken on face value never ceases to amaze me?

Nor me! This site is a goldmine of information - I would rather read the statements and make my own mind up.

[Caroline R]

You know Adam, I really can't begin to put into forum suitable words just HOW sick I am of hearing about the SUPPOSED full/hearty breakfast. I find myself wondering if he was ever up in time to eat anything other than a slice of toast and probably any left over bacon was what may have been a bacon butty lunch yet the implication is ALWAYS eggs, sausages, bacon, mushrooms, beans, black pudding followed by toast and marmalade.

You and me both April but to be fair to Adam, he's not to know that Steve had repeated the 'hearty breakfast' at every opportunity - even though it has been long disputed. Like I said before - lots of myths!! 

[grahameb]

You and me both April but to be fair to Adam, he's not to know that Steve had repeated the 'hearty breakfast' at every opportunity - even though it has been long disputed. Like I said before - lots of myths!! 

All these tails of this so called "fully hearty breakfast" just confirms to me that those coppers who put this story about are themselves full hearty liars.

[maggie]

Nor me! This site is a goldmine of information - I would rather read the statements and make my own mind up.

I agree I was very wary about reading the books but was given Lomax's book for Christmas and was surprised that he simply stuck to facts and as it was a later book he included quite a bit of newer evidence which had come to light.  I was a bit cautious about reading Wilkes because I see no enjoyment in reading anything which is just an assassination of someone's character but was pleasantly surprised that while there was more hearsay involved it still seemed a fair comment on the case.  I draw the line at Claire Powell which seems to be muck raking and hearsay which is constantly quoted by SteveUK. 
Either of these books can be interesting imo but are only part of the picture, the real and invaluable information is on this site and  I believe that should be the first port of call.

[Jane]

I agree I was very wary about reading the books but was given Lomax's book for Christmas and was surprised that he simply stuck to facts and as it was a later book he included quite a bit of newer evidence which had come to light.  I was a bit cautious about reading Wilkes because I see no enjoyment in reading anything which is just an assassination of someone's character but was pleasantly surprised that while there was more hearsay involved it still seemed a fair comment on the case.  I draw the line at Claire Powell which seems to be muck raking and hearsay which is constantly quoted by SteveUK. 
Either of these books can be interesting imo but are only part of the picture, the real and invaluable information is on this site and  I believe that should be the first port of call.

Maggie, a problem is always created when people have preconceived ideas and agendas which, because they fit with what they WANT to have occurred, they refuse to put aside.

[Adam]

I read the reviews of the different books. Wilke's book got the best reviews & was considered the most impartial.

Lomax's book is supposed to be very pro Jeremy. Which is fine, writers can write what they wish.

I read the Wilkes book. A good read but the book is now quite old. The internet has a lot more new information, forums & documents.

[Roch]

Lomax's book is supposed to be very pro Jeremy. Which is fine, writers can write what they wish.

That being said, Anne Eaton either originally recorded on her note card that Julie's flatmate confirmed the call occurred at the later time... Or she did not. 

She either later distorted this to an earlier time.... or she did not. 

The note card was either available for defence pre-trial... Or it was not.

The sympathies of Lomax and the balance of Wilkes don't really come in to it.

[Jan]

I just started to read JM statements and how much they changed between the dates in august and Sept. What I did find interesting is the statement about the hit man making SB lie on the bed and shoot herself and put the bible on her chest. Which "fitted" what the original scene may have been ( according to photos that may have been seen by certain people on here) and yet in court the body was on the floor. I will read some more but that stood out as being strange. Does anyone know why she did the ID of the bodies and not one of the other relatives?

[Jane]

I just started to read JM statements and how much they changed between the dates in august and Sept. What I did find interesting is the statement about the hit man making SB lie on the bed and shoot herself and put the bible on her chest. Which "fitted" what the original scene may have been ( according to photos that may have been seen by certain people on here) and yet in court the body was on the floor. I will read some more but that stood out as being strange. Does anyone know why she did the ID of the bodies and not one of the other relatives?

The story goes that she wanted to communicate with Sheila to find out what had happened!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jan]

Just seems a bit odd although I am sure not connected with the cover up - why did the other relatives not do it. Also strange that she told relatives about only one wound on Sheila instead of two. Although I am sure it must have been a harrowing  thing for anyone to do. especially a relatively young girl of her age.

[Jane]

Just seems a bit odd although I am sure not connected with the cover up - why did the other relatives not do it. Also strange that she told relatives about only one wound on Sheila instead of two. Although I am sure it must have been a harrowing  thing for anyone to do. especially a relatively young girl of her age.

It MAY have been a case of someone having to. Familiy members can and DO behave oddly at such times. I recall that after my ex brother in law was pulled from a burning car in which the driver died, my then mother in law was asked to go through the clothes he'd been wearing. She collapsed in a heap screaming that she couldn't do it so I said I would. Her response to me, infront of the nurse and policeman was "You would you bitch, wouldn't you"......................she then made a miraculous recovery and did it herself

[Caroline R]

It MAY have been a case of someone having to. Familiy members can and DO behave oddly at such times. I recall that after my ex brother in law was pulled from a burning car in which the driver died, my then mother in law was asked to go through the clothes he'd been wearing. She collapsed in a heap screaming that she couldn't do it so I said I would. Her response to me, infront of the nurse and policeman was "You would you bitch, wouldn't you"......................she then made a miraculous recovery and did it herself

Charming!! She wasn't Welsh was she? Sounds like my ex's mother - complete cow!! 

[Steve_uk]

Susan Battersby said the phone rang at around 3.12am. Or even earlier as she had her phone 10 minutes fast so she could have a lay in. She has no reason to lie. This is a long time before the other phone calls.

The police interview with Bamber in Wilkes book states that Mugford knew about the kitchen fight & bible. At the time this has not been reported in the media. If correct it can only mean
one thing.

To what other telephone calls are you alluding?

[Alias]

I just started to read JM statements and how much they changed between the dates in august and Sept. What I did find interesting is the statement about the hit man making SB lie on the bed and shoot herself and put the bible on her chest. Which "fitted" what the original scene may have been ( according to photos that may have been seen by certain people on here) and yet in court the body was on the floor. I will read some more but that stood out as being strange. Does anyone know why she did the ID of the bodies and not one of the other relatives?

Julie M. volunteered to identify the bodies. As far as I remember, Jeremy said he couldn´t do it, it would be too much for him, Ann Eaton said that she wouldn´t be able to tell the twins apart, so Julie did it. I don´t think anyone else from the family was in the picture at all.
Julie also wanted to go back inside to see the bodies again - she hadn´t got the "message" she wanted. According to Ann Eaton (who was waiting in her car outside the morgue), Julie seemed calm about the whole thing when she returned, lit a cigarette and wondered why the bodies´ heads had been shaved.