Author Topic: A New Approach  (Read 55975 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #465 on: September 25, 2017, 11:08:PM »
I've already given you a good source.

From an acclaimed book. It is saying Julie testified this. So Bamber & dozens of people were there in court.

Has anyone denied it ? No.

Has Julie denied it ? No.

Has Bamber denied it ? No.
 
No further source needed. You are just trying to discredit it because it defeats you're criticism that Julie went to the funeral.

It's not a good source to me. Julie made lengthy statements, but I can't find anything where she says she didn't want to go to the funeral.

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #466 on: September 25, 2017, 11:09:PM »
Never said you're not allowed to speak. Just that everyone gets it.

You believe you would have acted diffetently to Julie in her situation & at her age.

Probably Adam because most of us are sticking to the facts of the case and have read the witness statements;

Here is more of Julie Mugfords evidence, as a reminder to those posters who are veering from the actual facts:



"I then continued telling him about my day and dropped the matter concerning his family. I was aware that when he said the word crime he was referring to the killing of his family. I did not believe he could carry it out. I remember that he told me that he had been on the phone 17 minutes and I said words to the effect ‘oh I am sorry do you want me to go now’ he just said that he hadn’t got anything else to say. We both said goodbye and put the phone down. I remember now that he said words to the effect that I might be hearing from him later. I thought nothing of this.
I believe that prior to Jeremy phoning me up I had been smoking marijuana and I suppose because of this I was quite flippant on the phone with Jeremy.
I suppose I went to be that night about 11:15pm time.
In the early hours of the morning, I have since found out from a friend of mine, Susan Battersby who was with me then, it was about 3:15am, I was woken up by another house mate Douglas Dale who told me that Jeremy was on the telephone. I got out of bed and went to the phone on the landing and said hello. I felt very dozy and I suppose I was only half awake. He said everything is going well, not to worry there is something wrong at the farm.
I told him sleepily to go back to bed and he said bye honey I love you lots. I then put the phone down. I particularly remember the phrase ‘everything is going well’ I then got into bed and laid there for a few minutes when I suddenly came to my senses and realised what he had said.

PAGE 13

In my view he was telling me they were all dead. I immediately got out of bed and I spoke to my friend Susan. I don’t know if she came into my room or we met on the landing. She was very cross and complained about Jeremy phoning at a stupid time. She asked me what was wrong as apparently I looked concerned. I told her that I didn’t know but there was something wrong at the farm.
She said again what was wrong. We then all went back to our beds. I have since spoken to Susan and I feel sure that she told me the time that Jeremy phoned was 3:12am.
I lay in bed but did not go to sleep as I knew that Jeremy had murdered his family.
About 5??? the same day Wednesday 7th August 1985 I again received a telephone call from a call box. I answered the phone in the house and Jeremy spoke.
He said to have only got the 10p don’t go to work. A police car will be coming to pick you up. He said I will explain to you later when I see you. I got showered and dressed, and later a police car picked me up and I went to Goldhanger. At the house I met Jeremy who appeared upset. DS Jones told me what had happened although I already knew. DS Jones allowed me a few minutes with Jeremy in the living room where we hugged and kissed. Whilst we were kissing he whispered in my ear and said ‘I should have been an actor’ he then gave a slight …???…
I didn't say anything to him then about him doing it. During the course of the day the police came to the house taking

PAGE 14

statements from Jeremy and other people.
About 8:30 the same day DS Jones and DC Clarke left the house leaving Jeremy and myself alone. We went and sat in the lounge and I think the first thing Jeremy said was that he was glad the day was over. I then said to Jeremy ‘Did you do it’
He said ‘ No I couldn’t have done it, Mathew did it’. I knew to whom he was referring
« Last Edit: September 25, 2017, 11:11:PM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44317
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #467 on: September 25, 2017, 11:09:PM »
You think that others aren't repeating themselves and/or guessing how she felt? If you and others continue to defend her, excuse her, and portray her as a victim, of course I'll contradict you.

As I said,  put a hundred 20 year old women in Julie's situation, there will be a 100 different reactions.

I just don't see how in you're view you would have acted differently to Julie, puts Bamber's guilt in doubt..
« Last Edit: September 25, 2017, 11:11:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #468 on: September 25, 2017, 11:10:PM »
Clearly not what? I think you've lost the plot.

What a great addition you are to the forum indeed!  ;D ;D ;D

Were you are Jackie separated at birth?

“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #469 on: September 25, 2017, 11:13:PM »
What a great addition you are to the forum indeed!  ;D ;D ;D

Were you are Jackie separated at birth?

Look, let me spell it out for you.

Here is maggie's post:
Quote
Well yes she might have been. I know at 20 we can have strange ideas about what love is but it's very difficult to believe at any age that a murderer of two children and three adults is worth loving.
Imo I think the only understandable explanation is that the belief of the relatives etc. that he did it got to Julie and started her thinking and wondering if he had done it. She started talking to friends about it and it grew in her mind until she convinced herself it was true.
Once the police got hold of her she had no choice but to go along with them.
Any other explanation is hard to excuse and shows Julie in a very poor light imo.

Here is my reply:

Quote
I agree, but why would she have told the police that Jeremy had told her he was responsible on 7th August?

I took maggie's post to mean that Julie was not told by Jeremy that he was responsible, and that she started to wonder whether he was responsible because of what the relatives were saying. That is why I asked my question. If Jeremy had told her on 7th August that he was responsible, she wouldn't need to wonder about anything - she would know.

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #470 on: September 25, 2017, 11:16:PM »
As I said,  put a hundred 20 year old women in Julie's situation, there will be a 100 different reactions.

I just don't see how in you're view you would have acted differently to Julie, puts Bamber's guilt in doubt..

Plenty of other people here have decided how Julie would feel and/or behave. They've said she was coerced, she was under his spell, she was in love, she was this or that. You don't seem to mind that.

I haven't said it put Bamber's guilt in doubt, I'm merely discussing her behavior - I told you that before. We haven't even touched on the possibility that she was lying, or where she could have got her information from re stuff like the Bible and windows, etc.

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #471 on: September 25, 2017, 11:18:PM »
Look, let me spell it out for you.

Here is maggie's post:
Here is my reply:

I took maggie's post to mean that Julie was not told by Jeremy that he was responsible, and that she started to wonder whether he was responsible because of what the relatives were saying. That is why I asked my question. If Jeremy had told her on 7th August that he was responsible, she wouldn't need to wonder about anything - she would know.

See my post above ^ ^ ^
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #472 on: September 25, 2017, 11:20:PM »
Plenty of other people here have decided how Julie would feel and/or behave. They've said she was coerced, she was under his spell, she was in love, she was this or that. You don't seem to mind that.

I haven't said it put Bamber's guilt in doubt, I'm merely discussing her behavior - I told you that before. We haven't even touched on the possibility that she was lying, or where she could have got her information from re stuff like the Bible and windows, etc.

If you stuck to the wealth of evidence she gave there would be no need for the rest of us to pick up on your apparent errors and bias
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #473 on: September 25, 2017, 11:20:PM »
See my post above ^ ^ ^

Which one? The stupid one about Jackie and I?

I don't know why you're quoting all that stuff at me - I know what she said. The question is - if she didn't know on 7th August that Jeremy was responsible, why would she say that she did? I was addressing maggie's post, and you seemed to read much more into it.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44317
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #474 on: September 25, 2017, 11:21:PM »
Plenty of other people here have decided how Julie would feel and/or behave. They've said she was coerced, she was under his spell, she was in love, she was this or that. You don't seem to mind that.

I haven't said it put Bamber's guilt in doubt, I'm merely discussing her behavior - I told you that before. We haven't even touched on the possibility that she was lying, or where she could have got her information from re stuff like the Bible and windows, etc.

Well she said she was in love. So to an extent under his spell.

I don't believe she was coerced. More like swept along at speed after being whisked over to WHF. Intially in shock & disbelief as well as scared & unsure what to do.

Julie got information which wasn't in the papers from Bamber. There was a lot of it.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2017, 11:22:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #475 on: September 25, 2017, 11:21:PM »
If you stuck to the wealth of evidence she gave there would be no need for the rest of us to pick up on your apparent errors and bias

I'm not biased, I'm on the fence. You're the one who's biased. I've read the evidence, and I still don't know what your point is. Do you even have one?

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #476 on: September 25, 2017, 11:22:PM »
Well she said she was in love. So to an extent under his spell. I don't believe she was coerced. More like swept along at speed after being whisked over to WHF. Intially in shock & disbelief.

Julie got information which wasn't in the papers from Bamber. There was a lot of it.

Like what? She didn't say any of this until a month later, so she would have heard about the Bible, the number of shots, the fight in the kitchen, etc.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #477 on: September 25, 2017, 11:26:PM »
Look, let me spell it out for you.

Here is maggie's post:
Here is my reply:

I took maggie's post to mean that Julie was not told by Jeremy that he was responsible, and that she started to wonder whether he was responsible because of what the relatives were saying. That is why I asked my question. If Jeremy had told her on 7th August that he was responsible, she wouldn't need to wonder about anything - she would know.

No she wouldn't IF that's what happened, however, Julie didn't mix with the relatives and they hardly going to tell Jeremy's girlfriend that they suspected him! She knew he was involved, because he told her.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44317
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #478 on: September 25, 2017, 11:27:PM »
Like what? She didn't say any of this until a month later, so she would have heard about the Bible, the number of shots, the fight in the kitchen, etc.


There was a valuble pidgeon clock, valuable china and silver at WHF. 

The outside doors were locked every night. 

There was a downstairs window which latched shut when exiting. 

There was a kitchen fight during the massacre. 

Neville received seven shots. 

The twins were shot in their sleep. 

Sheila had a bible by her chest. 

There was going to be a phone call from WHF to Bamber's cottage from MM. 

There was a phone at WHF which had a last number redial record. 

Bamber had started conversations at supper about fostering. 

Sheila was shot last. 

June was shot in her bed. 

Everyone was asleep. Except Neville. 

Sheila was shot under the chin. 

                                           -------------------

Why would she have heard of these things. I thought she just spent all her time at Bamber's jolly ups.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: A New Approach
« Reply #479 on: September 25, 2017, 11:27:PM »
I'm not biased, I'm on the fence. You're the one who's biased. I've read the evidence, and I still don't know what your point is. Do you even have one?

No idea why you keep using that idiom as you clearly do not understand its meaning!

As already pointed out by others your quite apparent bias and vitriol towards Julie Mugford is written in black and white by your very own hand.


« Last Edit: September 25, 2017, 11:31:PM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"