Jeremys second phone call to Julie:

[Adam]

Interesting section from the 2002 appeal.

The following morning she was awoken by a telephone call from the appellant to her lodgings in London. The appellant said to her, "Everything is going well. Something is wrong at the farm. I haven't had any sleep all night … bye honey and I love you lots". Miss Mugford did not take him seriously and went back to sleep.As to the timing of this call, Miss Mugford said in evidence said that it was between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m.

A number of Miss Mugford's housemates were disturbed by the telephone call and provided additional evidence as to timing.

One, Helen Eaton, had been consulted by Julie Mugford, when the latter was first making a statement to the police about it. She put the time at 3.00 a.m. in evidence but agreed in cross-examination that it might have been as late as 3.30 a.m.

Another flat mate, Sue Battersby, said that she was positive that when she was disturbed, she had looked at her clock and the time shown was 3.12 a.m. However, she pointed out that she was in the habit of keeping her clock about 10 minutes early and police checks made on the clock confirmed this to be the case. If her evidence was right and if the clock was, as the evidence suggested, ten minutes fast, the time was probably no more than a minute or two after 3 a.m.

Joanna Wood gave evidence that when she heard the telephone, she looked at her digital clock and all that she noted was that the time was 2 something. This meant that according to her clock the time was between 2.00 and 2.59 a.m. If it was at the end of that bracket, it differed very little from the time suggested by Susan Battersby's evidence.

...........

So it seems that Jeremys phone call was at 3.00am. The most damning evidence from Joanna Wood.

However there is a slim chance it was at 3.30am. Hang on, didn't Jeremy ring the police at 3.26am. The call lasting several minutes after being put on hold ? So he couldn't have rang Julie at 3.30am.

Maybe Jeremy rang Julie at 3.40. Hang on, he was driving to WHF at that time after getting smartly dressed. And none of the witnesses said the call was that late.

If this evidence & the 4 witnesses are correct & Jeremy phoned Julie around 3am, that is over 20 minutes before 'dad' rang Jeremy. But Jeremy said he was sleeping like a log with his answering machine switched off. 'Dad's' call waking him.

Julies much discussed diary has the call at 3.00am.

I will leave the last words to Jeremy when asked why he phoned Julie at that unsocial hour - 'No comment'. That was after intially saying he phoned Julie first.

Do other people beleive Jeremy phoning Julie at 3.00am is conclusive of his guilt ?

[Adam]

One of the officers told him to call to keep his mind occupied with some thing else!! He didn't just wander off  . You haven't read any of the statements which is why you have no clue what you're talking about and hence the massive blunders!!

Can you not get personal again. It makes you look clueless.

I have read lots of statements. And Jeremys interview transcripts where he refused to answer questions. Oh sorry I forgot, Jeremy was fed up assisting the police investigating the massacre of his family.

I have also read Julies statement which of course is all lies according to you.

[lookout]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[Adam]

Just as damning was the testimony of his former girlfriend Julie Mugford, who told the police that he had talked of his hatred for his family and his plans to kill them.

‘It’s tonight or never,’ he reportedly said on the day of the murders. Pro-Bamber campaigners have always tried to dismiss Mugford’s evidence, arguing that she was a tainted witness because not only had he apparently jilted her soon after the murders but also she sold her story to the press after the trial. But it is highly unlikely that she would have dared to perjure herself on such trivial grounds, particularly not in such a serious trial.

Nor has she ever retracted a word of her testimony.

From journalist Leo Mckinsty.

[Adam]

Why is it so strange that Jeremy needed his girlfriend at his side at such upsetting circumstances? To me that is perfectly natural!
So sick of that EVERYTHING Jeremy did and said is being twisted into something sinister, even down to his way of dressing, his getting hungry, his "chuckling", which most likely was sobbing - what person would be chuckling after killing five people, seriously! So sick of it.

That's it, Jeremy was sobbing. Sheila had massacred five people.

[Neil]

Just as damning was the testimony of his former girlfriend Julie Mugford, who told the police that he had talked of his hatred for his family and his plans to kill them.

‘It’s tonight or never,’ he reportedly said on the day of the murders. Pro-Bamber campaigners have always tried to dismiss Mugford’s evidence, arguing that she was a tainted witness because not only had he apparently jilted her soon after the murders but also she sold her story to the press after the trial. But it is highly unlikely that she would have dared to perjure herself on such trivial grounds, particularly not in such a serious trial.

Nor has she ever retracted a word of her testimony.

From journalist Leo Mckinsty.

I, personally have now disregarded Julie's evidence.  Who would seek to make a huge financial gain, out of such a tragedy?  If her intention was to then donate the profits to charity, then I would have to reconsider. 

[Adam]

I, personally have now disregarded Julie's evidence.  Who would seek to make a huge financial gain, out of such a tragedy?  If her intention was to then donate the profits to charity, then I would have to reconsider.

Jeremy also at a 40k NOTW deal. Which is more distasteful.

Jeremy would have enjoyed being a weird sort of celebrity upon acquital. He is a weird sort of celebrity now with his 'Campaign for Freedom' & regular press statements.

[Neil]

Jeremy also at a 40k NOTW deal. Which is more distasteful.

Jeremy would have enjoyed being a weird sort of celebrity upon acquital. He is a weird sort of celebrity now with his 'Campaign for Freedom' & regular press statements.

That's as maybe, but I was questioning whether Julie was a credible witness.  I will have to go back and refresh my memory, as to what the Judges made of her media deal when the appeal was heard.  How, with that deal in place, can her evidence be viewed as credible?

[lookout]

Nothing weird about wanting to be free. For something you haven't done.

[susan]

Adam  think Julie enjoyed being a weird sort of a celebrity after Jeremy was sentenced posing for the newspaper showing her thighs how distasteful is that the money she was paid for her story was only due to 5 people being murdered two of them being little boys how distasteful is that!!!!

[Adam]

That's as maybe, but I was questioning whether Julie was a credible witness.  I will have to go back and refresh my memory, as to what the Judges made of her media deal when the appeal was heard.  How, with that deal in place, can her evidence be viewed as credible?

Was Jeremy a credible witness then ?

Julie was not called to give evidence in 2002.

[Neil]

Jeremy also at a 40k NOTW deal. Which is more distasteful.

Jeremy would have enjoyed being a weird sort of celebrity upon acquital. He is a weird sort of celebrity now with his 'Campaign for Freedom' & regular press statements.

I think it would be more 'weird' if he were innocent and didn't 'Campaign for Freedom'.

[Adam]

Adam  think Julie enjoyed being a weird sort of a celebrity after Jeremy was sentenced posing for the newspaper showing her thighs how distasteful is that the money she was paid for her story was only due to 5 people being murdered two of them being little boys how distasteful is that!!!!

Where is Julie now ? Oh yes, a teacher living abroad.

[Adam]

I think it would be more 'weird' if he were innocent and didn't 'Campaign for Freedom'.

There are lots of reasons why Jeremy has protested his innocence.

I feel a thread coming.

[Neil]

Was Jeremy a credible witness then ?

Julie was not called to give evidence in 2002.

The jury obviously concluded that Jeremy was not a credible witness.

The jury concluded that Julie was, but crucially....they didn't know about the media deal.
Had the judge been aware, her evidence would have been inadmissible, wouldn't it?