Author Topic: What Rivlin told the Jury about Julie Mugford  (Read 13804 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13782
What Rivlin told the Jury about Julie Mugford
« on: January 17, 2016, 09:14:PM »
Here is an extract from a newspaper in 1986 as the trial was on going.

Its quoting Rivlin QCs comments about Julie Mugford that was presented to the Jury.

Very interesting, I wish I had a trial transcript  :-\
« Last Edit: January 17, 2016, 09:15:PM by david1819 »

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33776
Re: What Rivlin told the Jury about Julie Mugford
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2016, 09:25:PM »
Here is an extract from a newspaper in 1986 as the trial was on going.

Its quoting Rivlin QCs comments about Julie Mugford that was presented to the Jury.

Very interesting, I wish I had a trial transcript  :-\


Rivlin would have been the last person you could have expected to announce to the world that he believed she was telling the truth, whatEVER he may have believed personally.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13782
Re: What Rivlin told the Jury about Julie Mugford
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2016, 09:33:PM »

Rivlin would have been the last person you could have expected to announce to the world that he believed she was telling the truth, whatEVER he may have believed personally.

What is most interesting that Mugford gave evidence that she only could have got from Police or Ann Eaton.  ???


Mike Please upload a transcript if you have it   ;D

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44394
Re: What Rivlin told the Jury about Julie Mugford
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2016, 09:44:PM »
Julie is in a no win situation.

If her WS has information about the massacre that is not in the newspapers, then the police have told her about it.

If her WS has nothing in it, that had not already been in the papers, then Julie is just repeating what she read.

Her WS is about her and Bamber before the massacre. Then the phone calls. Then what they did afterwards. Bamber giving himself MM as a proxy.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2016, 10:19:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44394
Re: What Rivlin told the Jury about Julie Mugford
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2016, 09:59:PM »
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. 


Julies 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. 
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13782
Re: What Rivlin told the Jury about Julie Mugford
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2016, 10:31:PM »
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.


Julies 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.

Your efforts to distort the 'ring of truth' quote fools no one. It was the Judge that said that not Rivlin

CAL describes the judge as follows "Turning to Julie, asking them to consider whether her testimony had 'the ring of truth'."

Try reading what Rivlin QC actually told the Jury instead of copying and pasting your opinions you have already posted elsewhere

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=6331.0

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5874.0

« Last Edit: January 17, 2016, 10:32:PM by david1819 »

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44394
Re: What Rivlin told the Jury about Julie Mugford
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2016, 10:42:PM »
Your efforts to distort the 'ring of truth' quote fools no one. It was the Judge that said that not Rivlin

CAL describes the judge as follows "Turning to Julie, asking them to consider whether her testimony had 'the ring of truth'."

Try reading what Rivlin QC actually told the Jury instead of copying and pasting your opinions you have already posted elsewhere

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=6331.0

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5874.0

Bamber's lawyers pre trial said her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it. Source Wilkes book.

Are you saying Julie worked with the police to frame Bamber ? This is what Rivlin is suggesting. There is already a recent thread on this showing how preposterous the idea is.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2016, 10:51:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13782
Re: What Rivlin told the Jury about Julie Mugford
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2016, 10:54:PM »
Bamber's lawyers pre trial said her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it. Source Wilkes book.

Are you saying Julie worked with the police to frame Bamber ? This is what Rivlin is saying. There is already a recent thread on this showing hos preposterous the idea is.

In case you don't know Rivlin QC was one of Bambers lawyers, He was the one who presented the defence to the Jury that is why I find this newspaper article significant. 
« Last Edit: January 17, 2016, 10:54:PM by david1819 »

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: What Rivlin told the Jury about Julie Mugford
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2016, 11:16:PM »
In case you don't know Rivlin QC was one of Bambers lawyers, He was the one who presented the defence to the Jury that is why I find this newspaper article significant.

Perhaps he did say that but he also said that Julies story 'had a ring of truth about it'.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13782
Re: What Rivlin told the Jury about Julie Mugford
« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2016, 11:52:PM »
Perhaps he did say that but he also said that Julies story 'had a ring of truth about it'.

That quote is not from Rivlin QC. According to CAL it was Justice Drake who said it and According to Roger Wilkes is was Paul Terzeon that said it  :-\

« Last Edit: January 17, 2016, 11:57:PM by david1819 »

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44394
Re: What Rivlin told the Jury about Julie Mugford
« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2016, 05:50:AM »
I'm not sure what the thread is trying to say.

Rivlin is saying what Julie knew, she could have been told. He also said in court, that what she knew , she could have read in the newspapers.

What else is Bamber's defence lawyer going to say to her ?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: What Rivlin told the Jury about Julie Mugford
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2016, 09:06:AM »
That quote is not from Rivlin QC. According to CAL it was Justice Drake who said it and According to Roger Wilkes is was Paul Terzeon that said it  :-\

It was still said and Rivlin is hardly going to tell a newspaper that he thought she was an excellent witness, who was telling the truth.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline buddy

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1296
Re: What Rivlin told the Jury about Julie Mugford
« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2016, 11:36:AM »
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.


Julies 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.
Trusted Julie enough to tell her about the caravan park burglary? SHE was there with him.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: What Rivlin told the Jury about Julie Mugford
« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2016, 11:54:AM »
Is there a thread on Drakes final speech ? As I reckon it was this guy who turned the case on its head.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13782
Re: What Rivlin told the Jury about Julie Mugford
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2016, 11:59:AM »
It was still said and Rivlin is hardly going to tell a newspaper that he thought she was an excellent witness, who was telling the truth.

It's not Rivlin telling the newspaper its journalists at the trial quoting what he said to the jury