Why Rivlin QC rightly told the jury to dismiss Julie Mugfords testimony

[David1819]

Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"

Why was he allowed to tell this to the Jury? here's why

Jeremy's "confession"

Below is what Julie claims Jeremy confessed to her. This statement is false for two reasons. Jeremy's alleged confession of the crime as told by Julie Mugford does not correspond or coincide with the actual crime scene itself, as we all know Shelia was found on the floor not on the bed, the bible next to her also on the floor not on her chest. Had Jeremy committed the murders and given a detailed confession as Julie claims then Julies statements would corroborate the crime scene and they don't!



The second reason Julies statement is false is because her description of Jeremy's alleged confession is exactly the same as Ann Eaton and RWB's impression of events as seen in Ann Eatons notes and RWB's diary written in August. See below

Ann Eaton's note's second line down "Shelia on bed bible on chest"

RWB's Diary


So not only can we establish that Julies claims are false we can now narrow down were she actually got that information from. Either Police or Ann Eaton as Rivlin rightly told the jury.


More disturbing correlations

Windows and the Bike

In August RWB speculates that Jeremy used a bike then also in august RWB and AE speculate how Jeremy would enter the building 





Then come September the 8th Julie reveals how Jeremy "confessed" to her his method of travel and entry, exactly how RWB and AE predicted!


The Wet suit

On the 28th of August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy used a wet suit in the murders


This then appears in Julie Mugford's diary along with the bicycle


The £2000.00 payment

2nd of September RWB claims Jeremy lent a friend £2000



Julie then claims that Jeremy paid Macdonald £2000




The Fingerprints and the gun magazine

In August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy got Shelia to load the bullets into the magazine to get her fingerprints on them.



Then come September lo and behold Julie claims this is exactly what Jeremy had confessed to her.



This is why Julies statements are completely false, Her statements have direct parallels with Ann Eaton notes and RWBs diary both of which deviate from the facts of the crime scene and contradict other factual aspects surrounding the case. Therefore Jeremy did not and could not have confessed or told her anything in her statements, it is impossible!

[lookout]

Erm,you've missed out the " robin " who showed everyone how "Jeremy got inside the farmhouse."

[Caroline]

Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"

Why was he allowed to tell this to the Jury? here's why

Jeremy's "confession"

Below is what Julie claims Jeremy confessed to her. This statement is false for two reasons. Jeremy's alleged confession of the crime as told by Julie Mugford does not correspond or coincide with the actual crime scene itself, as we all know Shelia was found on the floor not on the bed, the bible next to her also on the floor not on her chest. Had Jeremy committed the murders and given a detailed confession as Julie claims then Julies statements would corroborate the crime scene and they don't!



The second reason Julies statement is false is because her description of Jeremy's alleged confession is exactly the same as Ann Eaton and RWB's impression of events as seen in Ann Eatons notes and RWB's diary written in August. See below

Ann Eaton's note's second line down "Shelia on bed bible on chest"

RWB's Diary


So not only can we establish that Julies claims are false we can now narrow down were she actually got that information from. Either Police or Ann Eaton as Rivlin rightly told the jury.


More disturbing correlations

Windows and the Bike

In August RWB speculates that Jeremy used a bike then also in august RWB and AE speculate how Jeremy would enter the building 





Then come September the 8th Julie reveals how Jeremy "confessed" to her his method of travel and entry, exactly how RWB and AE predicted!


The Wet suit

On the 28th of August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy used a wet suit in the murders


This then appears in Julie Mugford's diary along with the bicycle


The £2000.00 payment

2nd of September RWB claims Jeremy lent a friend £2000



Julie then claims that Jeremy paid Macdonald £2000




The Fingerprints and the gun magazine

In August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy got Shelia to load the bullets into the magazine to get her fingerprints on them.



Then come September lo and behold Julie claims this is exactly what Jeremy had confessed to her.



This is why Julies statements are completely false, Her statements have direct parallels with Ann Eaton notes and RWBs diary both of which deviate from the facts of the crime scene and contradict other factual aspects surrounding the case. Therefore Jeremy did not and could not have confessed or told her anything in her statements, it is impossible!

The hit man story doesn't prove Julie was lying at all - one of them was but it could just as easily have been Jeremy. Why? Because it is so different from what actually happened that you might assume she would be discredited by telling it. No? Well, you're using it for that very reason now!

AE was told by a police officer about how June and Sheila were found, she no doubt told RWB. They both mention that the bible was on Sheila's chest which as we know, it wasn't when she was discovered. However, perhaps it was when Jeremy left her and it slid off.

Not sure what point you're trying to make by 'the method of travel' as was pointed out to you on the red forum, he had to get there somehow and the bicycle was found in his garden - this supports what Julie said rather than contradicts. The family also saw the bike! He also had to get in the house and the windows are the obvious choice.

The wetsuit was no doubt mentioned to Julie when questioned by Jones  "Did Jeremy ever mention anything about a wetsuit" so, Julie notes it down.

The £2000.00 ic clearly a coincidence given that Jeremy went to New Zealand years before the murders.

[Steve_uk]

How was the glove coming off in the fight with Nevill connected with Sheila's fingerprints on the bullets? And why are you taking Jeremy's word on anything to do with the sequence of events that night when we know he has lied from the outset?

[Caroline]

How was the glove coming off in the fight with Nevill connected with Sheila's fingerprints on the bullets? And why are you taking Jeremy's word on anything to do with the sequence of events that night when we know he has lied from the outset?

It doesn't have any relevance Steve - but once conspiracy sets it, it spreads like a disease. 

[Adam]

I doubt Julie engaged much with RB or AE prior to Bamber's arrest.

Bamber had whisked her over to be by his side early in the morning of the massacre. After that she spent most of her time with Bamber being whisked around Europe. Mainly at Bamber's request.

Julie did engage with the police a lot. After one month. It's what happens when witnesses complie witness statements.

[Adam]

The main way Julie could have engaged with the family prior to Bamber's arrest, was by phone.

However she was Bamber's girlfriend, so unlikely to be phoning people behind Bamber's back. The relatives would not be able to get hold of Julie, as she was being whisked around Europe by Bamber
 

[lookout]

 I'm surprised that Rivlin didn't have the clout as he normally would have done with his more well-known stance as a prosecuting judge ( was ) He'd appeared very tame,especially when it came to JM.

[lookout]

Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"

Why was he allowed to tell this to the Jury? here's why

Jeremy's "confession"

Below is what Julie claims Jeremy confessed to her. This statement is false for two reasons. Jeremy's alleged confession of the crime as told by Julie Mugford does not correspond or coincide with the actual crime scene itself, as we all know Shelia was found on the floor not on the bed, the bible next to her also on the floor not on her chest. Had Jeremy committed the murders and given a detailed confession as Julie claims then Julies statements would corroborate the crime scene and they don't!



The second reason Julies statement is false is because her description of Jeremy's alleged confession is exactly the same as Ann Eaton and RWB's impression of events as seen in Ann Eatons notes and RWB's diary written in August. See below

Ann Eaton's note's second line down "Shelia on bed bible on chest"

RWB's Diary


So not only can we establish that Julies claims are false we can now narrow down were she actually got that information from. Either Police or Ann Eaton as Rivlin rightly told the jury.


More disturbing correlations

Windows and the Bike

In August RWB speculates that Jeremy used a bike then also in august RWB and AE speculate how Jeremy would enter the building 





Then come September the 8th Julie reveals how Jeremy "confessed" to her his method of travel and entry, exactly how RWB and AE predicted!


The Wet suit

On the 28th of August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy used a wet suit in the murders


This then appears in Julie Mugford's diary along with the bicycle


The £2000.00 payment

2nd of September RWB claims Jeremy lent a friend £2000



Julie then claims that Jeremy paid Macdonald £2000




The Fingerprints and the gun magazine

In August Robert Boutflour speculates that Jeremy got Shelia to load the bullets into the magazine to get her fingerprints on them.



Then come September lo and behold Julie claims this is exactly what Jeremy had confessed to her.



This is why Julies statements are completely false, Her statements have direct parallels with Ann Eaton notes and RWBs diary both of which deviate from the facts of the crime scene and contradict other factual aspects surrounding the case. Therefore Jeremy did not and could not have confessed or told her anything in her statements, it is impossible!

I've never seen so many lies in my life.It's more than" quite sickening ".It's  downright evil. !

[nugnug]

a lot of rather remarkable coincedences here arnt there.

[lebaleb]

Without a doubt lying through her teeth.

[nugnug]

well whats the chances of them all coming to those conclusions independantly.

[lookout]

That'd be the test,nugs.

[Caroline]

well whats the chances of them all coming to those conclusions independantly.

Lets see;

He had to get there and his mothers bike was in his garden.

He had to get in, doors were locked and bolted from the inside - had to be a window.

Boutflour came up with the notion of the wetsuit, Julie was interviewed at length and Jones may have asked her about it - she noted it down.

Fingerprints on the bullets, finger prints on the rifle - two DIFFERENT things.

£2000.00 years apart? Hardly relevant.

[nugnug]

how did they all know he dident use his car or walk.