Author Topic: julie mugford  (Read 36818 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6600
Re: julie mugford
« Reply #180 on: October 12, 2011, 07:02:PM »
Why is everyone so upset that Mugford got 25k from The News Of The World - they paid for a story- JB innocent or guilty she would still have had the cash..... She stuck to the hit-man story - in my opinion it is the only possible explaination - no wounds on JB, no wounds on Sheila... Of course JB has to stick to the Sheila guilty outcome as the hit-man theory would not help his cause either.......

The payment was only to be made in the event of a conviction.  The reason this is important is that the trial judge as well as both defence and prosecution counsel were informed that no deal had been made with any newspaper by Julie Mugford.  As a result of this false information the matter was not raised before the jury.  In fact Julie Mugford had a direct financial incentive for Jeremy Bamber to be convicted.  We do not know what the jury would have made of this information if it had been presented to them.  Given that the guilty verdicts were by the minimum 10-2 majority this is a very important point.

 

jackiepreece

  • Guest
Re: julie mugford
« Reply #181 on: October 12, 2011, 07:12:PM »
Exactly Ngb the evil witch in the likelyhood she was telling the truth which most people on here don't believe she was got a bonus of £25,000 when she had perverted the course of justice

If the great train robbers got 30 years so should she when the truth comes out

Let's get her and Anne eaton banged up together.

Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
Re: julie mugford
« Reply #182 on: October 12, 2011, 11:53:PM »
I would have thought that it would have been easy to spot the difference with the children, as one of them had a visible scar of the left side on his cheek, IIRC. 18 months could be considered a long time, but I dont think that JM seen the twins on regular occassions in that time period, it is possible that she had seen them just as little in time as the family did. 

It is bad enough seeing an adult body in the mortuary, never mind a child's body, but to identify 3 adults and 2 children, very sad indeed. :(

Sheila and the twins spent a lot of time with Julie when she stayed at Jeremys house and Jeremy was at work, in Julies own words 'she got to know them very well'.

That's according to her statement on 08/09/85.

It's worth a read if you can understand her handwriting:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,572.msg11528.html#msg11528

Thanks for the link. The handwriting is appalling.  I will have another go at trying to decipher it tomorrow.

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: julie mugford
« Reply #183 on: October 13, 2011, 08:48:AM »
I would have thought that it would have been easy to spot the difference with the children, as one of them had a visible scar of the left side on his cheek, IIRC. 18 months could be considered a long time, but I dont think that JM seen the twins on regular occassions in that time period, it is possible that she had seen them just as little in time as the family did. 

It is bad enough seeing an adult body in the mortuary, never mind a child's body, but to identify 3 adults and 2 children, very sad indeed. :(

Sheila and the twins spent a lot of time with Julie when she stayed at Jeremys house and Jeremy was at work, in Julies own words 'she got to know them very well'.

That's according to her statement on 08/09/85.

It's worth a read if you can understand her handwriting:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,572.msg11528.html#msg11528

Thanks for the link. The handwriting is appalling.  I will have another go at trying to decipher it tomorrow.
Blimey! I thought mine was bad?

Hartley

  • Guest
Re: julie mugford
« Reply #184 on: October 13, 2011, 10:18:AM »
If there's any volunteers for typing it out that would be good.  ;D
 
 I did actually make a start but only got to page 5 out of 32 before going cross eyed.  :-[

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: julie mugford
« Reply #185 on: October 13, 2011, 10:43:AM »
If there's any volunteers for typing it out that would be good.  ;D
 
 I did actually make a start but only got to page 5 out of 32 before going cross eyed.  :-[
I think we may need the Rosetta stone first of all?

Offline OnceSaid

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
Re: julie mugford
« Reply #186 on: October 13, 2011, 07:01:PM »
If there's any volunteers for typing it out that would be good.  ;D
 
 I did actually make a start but only got to page 5 out of 32 before going cross eyed.  :-[

I would if I could, but miracle worker I am not  ;D

It looks like a drunk doctor has written it  :o


jackiepreece

  • Guest
Re: julie mugford
« Reply #187 on: October 13, 2011, 08:01:PM »
I heard a rumour yesterday Muggys been dumped by the husband maybe she will end up here to face the music
Justice at last

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: julie mugford
« Reply #188 on: April 30, 2018, 08:26:PM »
Evil vile witch as 'she knew them very well  if Jeremy was allegedly the murderer who had supposedly confessed to him

I wonder if she thought of those twins bodies in the mortuary when she was @@@@ing Jeremy.

Or was it all a figment of her imagination?

Either way she doesnt deserve to be on this planet

I wonder if she thought of those beautiful innocent twins when she was downing champagne with her mother courtesy of NOTW

If Jeremy is proven innocent I will make sure the whole of Canada knows all about her

Perfectly worded, I could not have put it better myself.

Air Canada for retrial, hopefully before September.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 08:29:PM by Nigel »
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: julie mugford
« Reply #189 on: April 30, 2018, 08:36:PM »
Perfectly worded, I could not have put it better myself.

Air Canada for retrial, hopefully before September.

I wonder if MUGFORD will be staying in the Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, London for retrial?

Wouldn't that be ironic!
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.