Author Topic: Mugfords statements.  (Read 7694 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44380
Re: Mugfords statements.
« Reply #90 on: May 23, 2017, 04:26:PM »
Julie betrayed Bamber after only 20 days. When she started telling 5 other people what she knew.

Identifying the twins does not make Bamber innocent. But appreciate supporters have not got much to go on.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3879
Re: Mugfords statements.
« Reply #91 on: May 23, 2017, 04:27:PM »
In her statement JM said she knew from day one that Jeremy was responsible. Not a hitman but Jeremy.
For years I thought that AE had convinced JM to identify the twins but no she didn't. JM asked permission to identify the twins, but wait a minute the poor traumatised JM asked for a second viewing why?
Did she want to gloat over her boyfriends handywork? No she knew that Jeremy wasn't responsible or she would have shopped him in on day one if she knew.
It is beyond belief that she taught children after the tragedy. JM is a liar IMO.

Spot on Buddy
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline buddy

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1296
Re: Mugfords statements.
« Reply #92 on: May 23, 2017, 04:28:PM »
There's "knowing" and hoping like hell one's mistaken and then there's KNOWING and there's no doubt. I guess IF it was actually permission she sought, it was probably about her suitability, as a non family member -none of whom DID offer and none of whom could tell the twins apart- to do what should have been the family's job. I don't recall that she made an official request for a second viewing.
Sorry Jane JM said she knew, not hoping she was wrong.
You may not recall Jane, but in her WS she said she asked for a second viewing. Again why?

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44380
Re: Mugfords statements.
« Reply #93 on: May 23, 2017, 04:32:PM »
Sorry Jane JM said she knew, not hoping she was wrong.
You may not recall Jane, but in her WS she said she asked for a second viewing. Again why?

To make sure she had correctly identified the twins apart. Which was the reason why she had gone in the first place.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline buddy

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1296
Re: Mugfords statements.
« Reply #94 on: May 23, 2017, 04:37:PM »
Fact is all gained  money wise.  JM 25 grand, family security.

Offline Bill Robertson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 429
  • In my opinion
Re: Mugfords statements.
« Reply #95 on: May 26, 2017, 07:44:AM »
To make sure she had correctly identified the twins apart. Which was the reason why she had gone in the first place.
Her desire to return was not related to identifying the twins. What she said was, "Whilst I was there I felt I should touch the bodies to see if they could give me guidance on what I should do but I could not summon up the courage to do it. I left and once outside made up my mind to go back and seek guidance from the bodies. However I thought that if I requested to see the bodies again someone may have started asking questions which I could not answer.”
Mugford - 10 September 1985

So, allegedly, she thought the bodies might tell her something, which seems odd if she was so convinced that Jeremy had carried out the killings, or paid a hit man to do so. Essentially, just more lies from Mugford.

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3879
Re: Mugfords statements.
« Reply #96 on: May 26, 2017, 04:22:PM »
Her desire to return was not related to identifying the twins. What she said was, "Whilst I was there I felt I should touch the bodies to see if they could give me guidance on what I should do but I could not summon up the courage to do it. I left and once outside made up my mind to go back and seek guidance from the bodies. However I thought that if I requested to see the bodies again someone may have started asking questions which I could not answer.”
Mugford - 10 September 1985

So, allegedly, she thought the bodies might tell her something, which seems odd if she was so convinced that Jeremy had carried out the killings, or paid a hit man to do so. Essentially, just more lies from Mugford.

Thank you Bill for putting everyone straight on that
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Mugfords statements.
« Reply #97 on: May 26, 2017, 04:25:PM »
Her desire to return was not related to identifying the twins. What she said was, "Whilst I was there I felt I should touch the bodies to see if they could give me guidance on what I should do but I could not summon up the courage to do it. I left and once outside made up my mind to go back and seek guidance from the bodies. However I thought that if I requested to see the bodies again someone may have started asking questions which I could not answer.”
Mugford - 10 September 1985

So, allegedly, she thought the bodies might tell her something, which seems odd if she was so convinced that Jeremy had carried out the killings, or paid a hit man to do so. Essentially, just more lies from Mugford.

No but her initial intention was to identify the bodies.

"Tell her something" meaning - whether it was actually Jeremy and NOT a hit man.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Mugfords statements.
« Reply #98 on: May 26, 2017, 04:33:PM »
Thank you Bill for putting everyone straight on that

Hi Jackie

I thought that Julie wanted to see the bodies again in order to communicate with Sheila as to why she had committed this horrendous crime  I have no source as such but did read it somewhere on the forum.