Why Did Mugford Pose In A Basque For The NOTW

[Jan]

If she could look after herself, good. She needed to.

She was as clean as a whistle. In Lewisham when the massacre happened. Then being brought over by police car to be whisked over the country, and Amsterdam by Bamber. For one month. Telling five people what she knew, before going to the police.

I made her even cleaner this week. Showing 24 massive reasons why she would not attempt to frame an innocent Bamber, a month after the massacre. Even if she was bothered about a break up. No one would be that stupid.

But appreciate why Jackie has created a thread asking why Julie wore a basque.

No YOU did not make her cleaner this week.

She herself admitted she felt guilty because she wondered if she had gone to the police earlier would she have stopped the murders. Well actually even if the police had not believed her story it would have done - because Jeremy would have had to abandon all his plans if there was anything on police records about him "allegedly" trying to drug ,murder,burn down the family house with the family inside - wouldn't he?

[maggie]

No YOU did not make her cleaner this week.

She herself admitted she felt guilty because she wondered if she had gone to the police earlier would she have stopped the murders. Well actually even if the police had not believed her story it would have done - because Jeremy would have had to abandon all his plans if there was anything on police records about him "allegedly" trying to drug ,murder,burn down the family house with the family inside - wouldn't he?

I know I bang on about this but 'strangely' although feeling so 'guilty' for not going to the police before the murders, she went with Jeremy to Colin's home for the weekend after the murders. She slept with Jeremy and commiserated with Colin knowing what she said she knew.  I understand she was only 20 but I find this unbelievable, so lacking in compassion, so much conniving with the murderer of Colin's little boys, 'words fail me.....
I do wonder if she actually understood the concept of 'guilty'.

[Jan]

I know I bang on about this but 'strangely' although feeling so 'guilty' for not going to the police before the murders, she went with Jeremy to Colin's home for the weekend after the murders. She slept with Jeremy and commiserated with Colin knowing what she said she knew.  I understand she was only 20 but I find this unbelievable, so lacking in compassion, so much conniving with the murderer of Colin's little boys, 'words fail me.....
I do wonder if she actually understood the concept of 'guilty'.

Its the one thing I think Colin left out of his book -what she actually said to him. Wonder why?

[Jane]

If she could look after herself, good. She needed to.

She was as clean as a whistle. In Lewisham when the massacre happened. Then being brought over by police car to be whisked over the country, and Amsterdam by Bamber. For one month. Telling five people what she knew, before going to the police.

I made her even cleaner this week. Showing 24 massive reasons why she would not attempt to frame an innocent Bamber, a month after the massacre. Even if she was bothered about a break up. No one would be that stupid.

But appreciate why Jackie has created a thread asking why Julie wore a basque.

Nothing you can say or do makes the Julie she was then, clean. She looked like a xxxx, she dressed like a xxxx, and she behaved like a xxxx. Is it any wonder she was labelled such? She did it all by herself. It has no bearing on Jeremy's innocence/guilt.

[Adam]

The important issue, is whether it is plausible that the police would ask Julie to create a false WS.  TAC.

Julie deciding by herself, to attempt to frame Bamber for a crime she knew he did not commit, a month afterwards,  did not happen. Everybody knows this.

At the moment, my thread on this shows the police did not ask Julie to do this. Her WS is not compatible with it being drawn up by the police.

Whether Julie should have told the police before the massacre, why she wore a basque, or when she signed the NOTW deal are all trivial issues.

[JackiePreece]

I need to know why Mugford  dressed like she did for the newspaper

It had to do with her obsession with money

How bad was her obsession with money?

There was no way the NOTW would have said you cannot do the interview unless you dress as we want you to

Or was it her final chance of revenge to Jeremy because she knew he would find out about the article

She certainly took 'if I can't have you nobody can'

To a whole new level

[JackiePreece]

I know I bang on about this but 'strangely' although feeling so 'guilty' for not going to the police before the murders, she went with Jeremy to Colin's home for the weekend after the murders. She slept with Jeremy and commiserated with Colin knowing what she said she knew.  I understand she was only 20 but I find this unbelievable, so lacking in compassion, so much conniving with the murderer of Colin's little boys, 'words fail me.....
I do wonder if she actually understood the concept of 'guilty'.

This is the whole reason I could never believe Julie

Does a women exist who could do this and would they sell their story and not be ashamed and Maggie I too wonder why Colin never spoke about the visit

[Jan]

The important issue, is whether it is plausible that the police would ask Julie to create a false WS.  TAC.

Julie deciding by herself, to attempt to frame Bamber for a crime she knew he did not commit, a month afterwards,  did not happen. Everybody knows this.

At the moment, my thread on this shows the police did not ask Julie to do this. Her WS is not compatible with it being drawn up by the police.

Whether Julie should have told the police before the massacre, why she wore a basque, or when she signed the NOTW deal are all trivial issues.

No Adam - If you are going to use a character assassination against Jeremy ( which you often do) to back up your claims of his guilt then you have to accept that Julie as the KEY witness in the case must come under scrutiny.

If we don't understand some of her actions , EVEN if Jeremy is guilty then we are entitled to comment and they are NOT trivial.

The deal with NOW is not trivial it is as important as the meeting about photos of Sheila.

she could have been charged with contempt of court . She could have been charged with fraud,smuggling,burglary and perverting the course of justice by not going to the police for a month.

So she was either a weak naïve easily influenced young girl - or cunning and manipulative and all of that is relevant to the case.

[Caroline]

No Adam - If you are going to use a character assassination against Jeremy ( which you often do) to back up your claims of his guilt then you have to accept that Julie as the KEY witness in the case must come under scrutiny.

If we don't understand some of her actions , EVEN if Jeremy is guilty then we are entitled to comment and they are NOT trivial.

The deal with NOW is not trivial it is as important as the meeting about photos of Sheila.

she could have been charged with contempt of court . She could have been charged with fraud,smuggling,burglary and perverting the course of justice by not going to the police for a month.

So she was either a weak naïve easily influenced young girl - or cunning and manipulative and all of that is relevant to the case.

But that works both ways.

[Jane]

I need to know why Mugford  dressed like she did for the newspaper

It had to do with her obsession with money

How bad was her obsession with money?

There was no way the NOTW would have said you cannot do the interview unless you dress as we want you to

Or was it her final chance of revenge to Jeremy because she knew he would find out about the article

She certainly took 'if I can't have you nobody can'

To a whole new level

I think it may have been a 20 year old Julie's way of sticking her fingers up at Jeremy, as in "Look at me no. That'll teach you to dump me." There is a tendency to imbue her with one reason and one reason ONLY. You'd probably run out of fingers if you tried to list all her reasons/feelings.

[Jan]

But that works both ways.

exactly - which is what I am trying to explain to Adam.

[Jan]

Here is the 2001 press release I referred to earlier

THEN, she was the beautiful 21-year-old brunette whose evidence was vital in convicting her boyfriend Jeremy Bamber of the cold- blooded murder of his whole family.

Now, she is a respectable and matronly mother-of-two, a tireless charity worker and the deputy head of a primary school in Canada.

Everything about Julie Mugford's life has changed except for one crucial fact - she is still utterly convinced Bamber DID slaughter his adoptive parents Nevill and June, his sister Sheila Caffell and her twin six-year-old sons Nicholas and Daniel at the family's Essex farmhouse in 1985.

In 2001, Julie, then 36, said: "I thought this was long in the past. The last few weeks have been a nightmare. As far as I am concerned nothing has changed - I sincerely believe he is guilty. Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life.

"And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case I still believe he is guilty. He has a right to appeal, that is the law. It is just very hard for me to accept.

"At this stage the appeal process is so sketchy that I have no idea what is going on."

A friend added: "It is something Julie has never really recovered from. Ultimately it was her evidence that put him behind bars and it is something she still has nightmares about. She still grieves for his family and wonders if she could have averted the murders by telling the police about his scheming beforehand."

In 2001, Julie feared she could be called to give evidence at the appeal and consulted Canadian lawyers for advice.

"She dreads having to face Bamber again in court. She is afraid he could come after her and her family if he is freed. It's tragic. She has been so happy here in Canada."

Also in 2001, Julie was appointed vice-principal at John M King Elementary, an inner- city junior school. and later moved into a detached house with its own swimming pool in one of Winnipeg's best suburbs.

"Julie is a pillar of the community - you would never believe she was once tangled up in a mass murder," her friend said.

"The Bamber case was kept a complete secret. Only Glen and a handful of people knew about it."

Sandy-haired Glen, 40, said: "I've known about this for many years, but we only told a few family members and very close friends. Julie just wishes it would all go away and we could get on with our lives.

"We just can't believe this man could be freed. We are worried about our kids. We hope it never happens

[Caroline]

exactly - which is what I am trying to explain to Adam.

I think it extends to more than just Adam (no, I don't mean you).

[Jan]

"
"And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case I still believe he is guilty. He has a right to appeal, that is the law. It is just very hard for me to accept"



So if she thinks there is a possibility of NEW light on the case , and she was telling the truth, does she think Jeremy was winding her up or something? that he could have been boasting about the crime but did not do it?

[Caroline]

"
"And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case I still believe he is guilty. He has a right to appeal, that is the law. It is just very hard for me to accept"



So if she thinks there is a possibility of NEW light on the case , and she was telling the truth, does she think Jeremy was winding her up or something? that he could have been boasting about the crime but did not do it?

I think she makes it clear that she FULLY believes that he is guilty. Maybe she too doesn't believe the silencer evidence.