Entrapment strategy of coercive control employed by Bamber over Julie Mugford

[lebaleb]

What did she lie about. List what you think it is she lied about.

Well, if he is guilty [which he obviously is NOT] then she lied about what he said on the phone on the night of the murders. 'There's something wrong at the farm and he didn't know what to do'. If he is innocent, the rest of her statements were a total crock. It then became 'Everything is going well, there's something wrong at the farm'. A totally contradictory statement.

[lookout]

Then she dragged in an innocent man on the say-so that JB had mentioned him--MM.

[David1819]

Its has already been established that Julies testimony came from the police and the relatives.

Threads already created.

Why Rivlin QC rightly told the jury to dismiss Julie Mugfords testimony -
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.msg356435.html#msg356435

Proof Julie got information from Ann Eaton and not Jeremy - 
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7899.msg374667.html#msg374667

[Stephanie]

Well, if he is guilty [which he obviously is NOT] then she lied about what he said on the phone on the night of the murders. 'There's something wrong at the farm and he didn't know what to do'. If he is innocent, the rest of her statements were a total crock. It then became 'Everything is going well, there's something wrong at the farm'. A totally contradictory statement.

I believe it's highly likely he did say both to her. She was merely the messenger of the message. He knew if she repeated what he'd said it was unlikely she would be believed.  Thankfully the police eventually recognised Julie was a victim of psychological manipulation at the hands of Bamber.

That's one of the ways men like him confuse their victims. It a mind control tactic. It helps them to deplete their victim of reality. What is left behind is cognitive dissonance. Holding 2 conflicting thoughts.

She most possible also suffered something akin to stockholm syndrome.

[Stephanie]

Its has already been established that Julies testimony came from the police and the relatives.

Threads already created.

Why Rivlin QC rightly told the jury to dismiss Julie Mugfords testimony -
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.msg356435.html#msg356435

Proof Julie got information from Ann Eaton and not Jeremy - 
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7899.msg374667.html#msg374667

Only by you and your circular argument.

[Caroline]

Only by you and your circular argument.

Yep.

[Roch]

Only by you and your circular argument.

Steph, I think other posters have also reached the same conclusion, separate from and prior to David posting on this form.  One example being Martin.

[Stephanie]

Steph, I think other posters have also reached the same conclusion, separate from and prior to David posting on this form.  One example being Martin.

You'll have to remind me Roch as I don't recall Martin.

Davids argues Julie lied "Its has already been established that Julies testimony came from the police and the relatives. this is his interpretation based on what I believe are blinkered and cherry picked arguments of the case. Also based on his post,s are his inconsistencies regarding where he stands, he doesn't seem sure. Which convinces me he still has a lot to learn.

What also stands out to me in David's posts from when he joined is that he was too quick to blame Julie, almost suggestive that he was showing bias too soon, as if he too had been betrayed, like he perceived Bamber to have been, by a women.

I remember he quoted some barrister and it seemed as if he has hung on to these words and run with them.
 

[David1819]

Only by you and your circular argument.

Really? Just me? 

"There was other evidence from a former girlfriend of Jeremy Bamber, but this was highly factually inaccurate and tainted by both an immunity from prosecution and the receipt of reward money on conviction from a newspaper. It was discredited evidence and the Judge in fact warned the jury in relation to it." - David Martin-Sperry

"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"" - Rivlin QC

"Clearly, Miss Mugford's testimony was nothing more than a collection of invented newspaper stories, much of which held no credibility whatsoever, and were clearly untrue not only by newspapers and by Miss Mugford, but also put forward by her with the collusion of others".   -James Stevenson

[David1819]

You'll have to remind me Roch as I don't recall Martin.

Davids argues Julie lied "Its has already been established that Julies testimony came from the police and the relatives. this is his interpretation based on what I believe are blinkered and cherry picked arguments of the case. Also based on his post,s are his inconsistencies regarding where he stands, he doesn't seem sure. Which convinces me he still has a lot to learn.

If that was the case you would be able to follow the case evidence and provide a counter argument based on that evidence. Yet you don't. Prove me wrong, prove that Julie did in fact provide factual evidence that only the alleged murder could possibly know. You can't because there is no such testimony. You have no evidence to prove Julie is a credible witness, but want to pretend she is credible so you just claim she is credible. That just illustrates you are a xxxxx

[Stephanie]

Really? Just me? 

"There was other evidence from a former girlfriend of Jeremy Bamber, but this was highly factually inaccurate and tainted by both an immunity from prosecution and the receipt of reward money on conviction from a newspaper. It was discredited evidence and the Judge in fact warned the jury in relation to it." - David Martin-Sperry This was clearly made after Bamber's trial - The clue being, the jury believed her

"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"" - Rivlin QC The jury didn't believe it though David

"Clearly, Miss Mugford's testimony was nothing more than a collection of invented newspaper stories, much of which held no credibility whatsoever, and were clearly untrue not only by newspapers and by Miss Mugford, but also put forward by her with the collusion of others".   -James Stevenson Maybe you should be reminded of how Jeremy told police he learned the details of how his father died from newspapers. Julie's evidence shows clearly only Bamber could have told her most of what she recalled.

Following my own experiences of being accused of making up SH's confession and having read not dissimilar statements to those above, also by supposed experts in their field; these can be dismissed in the same way as those from 2013 re SH's confession

[Stephanie]

Really? Just me? 

"Clearly, Miss Mugford's testimony was nothing more than a collection of invented newspaper stories, much of which held no credibility whatsoever, and were clearly untrue not only by newspapers and by Miss Mugford, but also put forward by her with the collusion of others".   -James Stevenson

You still can't see it can you David.

It was Bamber who brought this up during his interviews with police. He told them he had read in the papers his father had been shot..

More importantly, it was Bamber's collection of invented stories and indeed his convoluted mind that got him banged to rights! He was the abuser not Julie!!

We know he didn't learn anything from the newspapers about how his father died because it was he who murdered him!

There were too many finer details in Julie's statements to have come from AE and the papers. Her contradictions strengthen her evidence, not weaken it.

Who are James Stevenson and David Martin-Perry btw?

[Stephanie]

If that was the case you would be able to follow the case evidence and provide a counter argument based on that evidence. Yet you don't. Prove me wrong, prove that Julie did in fact provide factual evidence that only the alleged murder could possibly know. You can't because there is no such testimony. You have no evidence to prove Julie is a credible witness, but want to pretend she is credible so you just claim she is credible. That just illustrates you are a xxxxx.

Stop insulting me David or I will put you back on ignore.

If you want a further counter argument to your apparent bias, maybe you should read up on Dr Jane Monckton Smith, who is an expert in the field of homicide. In particular domestic type murders, like the WHF murders.

Her research is extensive as indeed are her experiencess and she states the perps of these crimes are almost always male.

[Stephanie]

Julie Mugford had a lucky escape with her life. I feel certain had she not have not gone to the police when she did, Bamber may have tried to kill her too, because she knew too much and clearly in the end wasn't playing ball.


"And the most risky situation is when several factors collide. These include the psychology of the perpetrator.

Are they showing traits of obsessive behaviour? Are they making threats to kill or potentially lethally assault, such as threatened strangulation.

If these psychological factors combine with a 'trigger', the situation becomes potentially fatal.

"The trigger is nearly always the victim wanting to leave the abuser," said Jane.

All too often there has been a failure to understand why it is so hard for victims to leave an abusive relationship.

Jane said: "The quick answer is that she doesn't have a choice.

"They have a very real fear that they will be killed. She needs a safety plan and support network around her and that might mean providing housing and a safety plan around children.

"Quite often an abuser will have taken their money or their ability to get money.

"You can't just expect a woman to leave. It's not that simple. Imagine having a very real fear of this person chasing after you. These abusers are at the most dangerous when you leave.

"They exert a huge amount of control on that person so they don't have the choice to leave, that's not love."


Read more at http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/university-gloucestershire-criminologist-aims/story-27872828-detail/story.html#3xgU6Vr6Bfl1KXqR.99

[lookout]

Stop telling the truth David,or you'll go on ignore !!