Why did Julie not contribute to the recent books ?

[Adam]

If the police did pressurise her to testify, that is not bad thing. Providing they were not asking her to lie.

Witnesses are often reluctant for various reasons. But that does not mean they are lying.

Anyway there is no evidence the police forced her to do anything.

[scipio_usmc]

found on site - "Ms Rimmington states in her 8th September 1985 statement that from the
1st September she had told Julie repeatedly to go to the Police. Julie had refused to go.

Ms Rimmington states in her 15th September statement that on the 6th of September she
and Julie had booked and paid to go on holiday to Malta together on the 8 th September for
seven days. Ms Rimmington does not explain why she then reported Julie to Essex Police for
withholding evidence in a murder enquiry on the 7th September, the day after paying for
their holiday and a day before they were due to fly off to Malta"

This goes back to what I have repeatedly said when people accused Julie of making up the claims in order to spite Jeremy.

She didn't rush to police on her own she was pushed to do so by Liz essentially ratting her out.

This is where the conspiracy claims come from where Jeremy supporters allege Liz wanted to punish MM and reported Julie so that Julie would be forced to finger MM. 

Jeremy supporters usually don't want to discuss this much because it hurts their narrative that after they broke up Jeremy hit on a girl in front of Julie and angered her so much she decided to lie to to police to get Jeremy in trouble.

This narrative is that Julie confided in a friend about what Jeremy had said, that such friend betrayed her by running to police and thus Julie didn't rat Jeremy out willingly but rather was forced to do so after her friend betrayed her confidences and at that point she either had to tell the truth and thus rat him out or be potentially charged with obstruction.

Julie going to police herself presents a better narrative for her lying to police in order to punish Jeremy so that is the one usually advanced.




 

[lookout]

 Julie was in no rush because of her knowing of her own shortcomings/crimes. Don't worry,if she'd been squeaky clean she'd have gone to the police like a shot. Her only reason for going was to offload her own crimes in case Jeremy got there first.

Why did it take 32 statements to get it right and present only one at trial ?
Why did she collapse in floods of tears when questioned,but was fine slagging him ( Jeremy ) off ?

[Jan]

This goes back to what I have repeatedly said when people accused Julie of making up the claims in order to spite Jeremy.

She didn't rush to police on her own she was pushed to do so by Liz essentially ratting her out.

This is where the conspiracy claims come from where Jeremy supporters allege Liz wanted to punish MM and reported Julie so that Julie would be forced to finger MM. 

Jeremy supporters usually don't want to discuss this much because it hurts their narrative that after they broke up Jeremy hit on a girl in front of Julie and angered her so much she decided to lie to to police to get Jeremy in trouble.

This narrative is that Julie confided in a friend about what Jeremy had said, that such friend betrayed her by running to police and thus Julie didn't rat Jeremy out willingly but rather was forced to do so after her friend betrayed her confidences and at that point she either had to tell the truth and thus rat him out or be potentially charged with obstruction.

Julie going to police herself presents a better narrative for her lying to police in order to punish Jeremy so that is the one usually advanced.




 

Do you know there are a LOT of people who lie to their friends just for attention. Allegedly the details of the  first call between Julie and the police has never been seen . A lot of posters say she did volunteer the information . If we could see details of that first call it would be interesting. 

But the above information from Liz is why other posters think that if he was guilty, she was more involved than she made out and in the end  testified to save herself.

Personally I think she was telling lies . That's my opinion only . But when people criticise Jeremy for his behaviour after the murders I think hers , allegedly knowing what she did, was just as bad. 

[Adam]

Julie was in no rush because of her knowing of her own shortcomings/crimes. Don't worry,if she'd been squeaky clean she'd have gone to the police like a shot. Her only reason for going was to offload her own crimes in case Jeremy got there first.

Why did it take 32 statements to get it right and present only one at trial ?
Why did she collapse in floods of tears when questioned,but was fine slagging him ( Jeremy ) off ?

Well the 1984 minor cheque book fraud was ages beforehand. She had got away with it.

So no reason to approach the police for that weak reason
 
It takes time to draw up a WS. It has to 100% to the witnesses satisfaction. As she will be testifying from it. A film director doesn't release every first take of a scene.

[Jan]

just to show I am not biased

It just goes to show that the smallest thing that could have been completely explainable can possibly be elaborated to paint a dark a picture as possible - or not as the case may be.

film of a certain persons heroine (lets hope its not misplaced)


http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1986/10/09/AS091086026/?s=bamber&st=0&pn=1

[Adam]

Do you know there are a LOT of people who lie to their friends just for attention. Allegedly the details of the  first call between Julie and the police has never been seen . A lot of posters say she did volunteer the information . If we could see details of that first call it would be interesting. 

But the above information from Liz is why other posters think that if he was guilty, she was more involved than she made out and in the end  testified to save herself.

Personally I think she was telling lies . That's my opinion only . But when people criticise Jeremy for his behaviour after the murders I think hers , allegedly knowing what she did, was just as bad.

Her WS is very believable. I will find my thread.

She spoke to several friends before approaching the police. Not just Liz Rimmington.

[Adam]

Bamber's highly paid defence went through Julie's WS brick by brick. Looking for a brick they could pull out to bring everything crashing down.

However they could not find anything. Admitting to each other her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.

Out of desperation, at trial the defence focused on the 1984 minor cheque book fraud. To try to show her as a dishonest person. The judge rightly poured scorn on this saying both Bamber & Julie had committed previous crime, but that does not mean either had lied at trial. He also said Julie had paid back the money ( Bamber had not). Bamber had also trusted Julie enough to tell her about the caravan break in, so may have trusted her enough to tell her about the massacre.

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 and resentment:

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.


Julie's 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]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6331.msg279608.html#msg279608

[Jan]

QUOTE FROM official site- pS are given

"I would like to revisit again why Julie Mugford cashed a cheque Jeremy had given her for holiday AFTER she had revealed Jeremy was responsible for the WHF murders



Extract

Julie Mugford’s bank statements also reveal that the £400 cheque I had given her in August 1985, to help pay for a holiday, was cashed on the 17th September 1985, 7 days after Julie had been taken into custody accusing me of hiring a hit man to murder my family, yet she was happy to go on to spend the money I had given her.



.

Julie Mugford and Elizabeth Rimmington

Essex Police were convinced on the basis of all available evidence that Sheila had killed the family and committed suicide. On the 7th September 1985 Elizabeth Rimmington telephoned Witham Police Station to say that Julie Mugford was withholding vital evidence in the White House Farm enquiry. This was at 4pm. This telephone call was documented as Telephone Report Number One. The exact content of this telephone call from Ms Rimmington is still a mystery as Essex Police continue to withhold this document from the Defence.

This is the sequence of events


5:00pm D.S. Stan Jones goes to the address of Malcolm Waters and takes Julie Mugford into custody. (HOLMES 64/13 and 1/12)

While in custody at Witham Julie asked that her father is contacted so she can talk to him. (HOLMES 5/10)

Julie Mugford was interviewed under caution. (HOLMES 1/49)

Page 3 of 8

7:00pm to 10:40pm D.S. Jones and D.I. Miller interviewed Juilie together. 11:00pm to 02:00am D.C.I. Jones interviewed Julie.

The taped record and written record of Julie Mugford’s interviews on 7th September 1985 remain undisclosed.

Brett Collins, Mathew MacDonald, Christine Bacon and I were all arrested on the 8th September with:-

“Suspicion of being concerned with the murder of June and Nevill Bamber, Sheila, Daniel and Nicholas Caffell.”


So, there is every reason to suspect that Julie was taken into custody for the same reason. Whilst in Police Custody, Julie confessed to cultivating and selling cannabis, burglary, a bank fraud, and to possession of drugs. Other documents from the City of London Police detail that she admitted smuggling cannabis into the UK from Canada. The majority of the offences she confessed to were not connected with me in any way. She admitted to using cocaine in her 10th September 1985 statement, when she and Ms Rimmington had gone back to a hotel with two men they had just met.

Around the same time, Ms Rimmington stated that Julie had told her she’d broken up with me and “you don’t know the half of it.” Liz said “that Julie was lucky you’ve broken up” as she went on to tell Julie that she had been sleeping me with her behind Julie’s back.

Julie says she told Ms Rimmington “that Jeremy had told her he’d paid a hit man to kill the family.” Ms Rimmington states in her 8th September 1985 statement that from the 1st September she had told Julie repeatedly to go to the Police. Julie had refused to go.

Ms Rimmington states in her 15th September statement that on the 6th of September she and Julie had booked and paid to go on holiday to Malta together on the 8th September for seven days. Ms Rimmington does not explain why she then reported Julie to Essex Police for withholding evidence in a murder enquiry on the 7th September, the day after paying for their holiday and a day before they were due to fly off to Malta

[scipio_usmc]

Do you know there are a LOT of people who lie to their friends just for attention. Allegedly the details of the  first call between Julie and the police has never been seen . A lot of posters say she did volunteer the information . If we could see details of that first call it would be interesting. 

But the above information from Liz is why other posters think that if he was guilty, she was more involved than she made out and in the end  testified to save herself.

Personally I think she was telling lies . That's my opinion only . But when people criticise Jeremy for his behaviour after the murders I think hers , allegedly knowing what she did, was just as bad.

Making up the story to Liz makes no sense but it makes even less sense to continue with a made up story to police. making up a hitman is absurd and identifying one makes even less sense.  If she made up the story the level of detail would have been far less and she would simply have said he admitted to killing them all not have made up a hitman.

The only greater role she could have had would have been to tell him she thought his ideas were good when he told her he wanted to kill them and to encourage him to do it.  She was home for him to call her.  She can't have done anything to help carry the murders out. 

People who want to believe Jeremy is innocent believe Julie lied simply because it is necessary in order for Jeremy to be innocent the arguments are all contrived in order to justify their beliefs and that is what you do as well even though you want to pretend otherwise.

Julie didn't get an immunity deal. If Jeremy claimed she played a role and police believed it they could have charged her. That is why people who take part in crimes seek immunity deals before talking.

[Jan]

JUST IN CASE ADAM quotes any of my posts - this is just to say you are wasting your time - you are on ignore as far as I am concerned. End of. If you want to apologise it will have to be by pm as I can not be bothered in engaging with you at all.

[lookout]

 Oh he's added some of your post,Jan. How bloody annoying is that ? If ever there was a narcissist-------
Likes to be centre of attention,or else !

[Caroline]

JUST IN CASE ADAM quotes any of my posts - this is just to say you are wasting your time - you are on ignore as far as I am concerned. End of. If you want to apologise it will have to be by pm as I can not be bothered in engaging with you at all.

I think that's a brilliant idea - think I'll join you

[scipio_usmc]

Her WS is very believable. I will find my thread.

She spoke to several friends before approaching the police. Not just Liz Rimmington.

Rimmington is the only one she told about Jeremy admitting he was responsible.