julie mugford

[HMEssex]

She named Macdonald as the killer.

Did Julie name Macdonald as in accusing him (i.e. I think it is Macdonald) or did she repeat what she said she was told?

Repeated what she was told.

Yep, she kept up a charade for a while.

Now she's accused of keeping up a charade for even longer, 25+ years longer.

Yes, she repeated what she was told, alright, but told by whom?

Well certainly not the police, she'd have made things far easier if she named JB.

Putting the lovers tiff aside and playing devils advocate.........

So all Julie did during her testimony and witness statements is repeat what she said Jeremy said to her in conversations.

Correct or Incorrect?

Correct

Again being devils advocate

Julie technically has not accused anyone of being the murderer. In fact the one name mentioned from a repeated conversation had an alibi and was eliminated from enquiries.

Did Julie know Macdonald or was Macdonald just a name to her?

I think just a name, but i'm not 100% sure.

Did Jeremy know Macdonald?

Yes

I understand that one of Jeremy's former girlfriends was pals with Mcdonald's girlfriend.

But thats just your take on their relationship, as you don't know what is being said etc.

I'd suggest JM had gone cold towards him, forcing JB to go looking up ex's for his pleasure, there's evidence to suggest this, no?

I'd suggest the opposite.  JB had gone cold towards JM.  She overheard him arranging to meet an ex, so threw an ornament at him etc, etc...

Yes, but why was JB arranging to meet an ex?

Who knows?  Just a drink with an old friend, maybe?  It was JM who got all possessive and jealous.

[paulg]

Are there any men on here who can kill five people , then jump into bed with the missus or girlfriend and have sex ? JM allowed Jeremy bamber too !!

She thought Macdonald was the killer? no?

So it would be alright if you paid for them to be killed ? Your missus have that Paul ?

Without knowing JM's mind through the month of August 1985-September 1985, its impossible to comment on her actions. When did she believe what JB told her? i don't know.

Do i think she was a money grabbing .....(put in there what you like)?  Then yes, but i think the same of JB, two peas in a pod.

[chochokeira]

She named Macdonald as the killer.

Did Julie name Macdonald as in accusing him (i.e. I think it is Macdonald) or did she repeat what she said she was told?

Repeated what she was told.

Yep, she kept up a charade for a while.

Now she's accused of keeping up a charade for even longer, 25+ years longer.

Yes, she repeated what she was told, alright, but told by whom?

Well certainly not the police, she'd have made things far easier if she named JB.

Putting the lovers tiff aside and playing devils advocate.........

So all Julie did during her testimony and witness statements is repeat what she said Jeremy said to her in conversations.

Correct or Incorrect?

Correct

Again being devils advocate

Julie technically has not accused anyone of being the murderer. In fact the one name mentioned from a repeated conversation had an alibi and was eliminated from enquiries.

Did Julie know Macdonald or was Macdonald just a name to her?

I think just a name, but i'm not 100% sure.

Did Jeremy know Macdonald?

Yes

I understand that one of Jeremy's former girlfriends was pals with Mcdonald's girlfriend.

Didn't donkeyDave say they went shooting together, JB and Macdonald?

Jeremy didn't like shooting or killing things. He is said to have never used any gun other than an air rifle.

[HMEssex]

Are there any men on here who can kill five people , then jump into bed with the missus or girlfriend and have sex ? JM allowed Jeremy bamber too !!

Hope not 

[paulg]

She named Macdonald as the killer.

Did Julie name Macdonald as in accusing him (i.e. I think it is Macdonald) or did she repeat what she said she was told?

Repeated what she was told.

Yep, she kept up a charade for a while.

Now she's accused of keeping up a charade for even longer, 25+ years longer.

Yes, she repeated what she was told, alright, but told by whom?

Well certainly not the police, she'd have made things far easier if she named JB.

Putting the lovers tiff aside and playing devils advocate.........

So all Julie did during her testimony and witness statements is repeat what she said Jeremy said to her in conversations.

Correct or Incorrect?

Correct

Again being devils advocate

Julie technically has not accused anyone of being the murderer. In fact the one name mentioned from a repeated conversation had an alibi and was eliminated from enquiries.

Did Julie know Macdonald or was Macdonald just a name to her?

I think just a name, but i'm not 100% sure.

Did Jeremy know Macdonald?

Yes

I understand that one of Jeremy's former girlfriends was pals with Mcdonald's girlfriend.

Didn't donkeyDave say they went shooting together, JB and Macdonald?

Jeremy didn't like shooting or killing things. He is said to have never used any gun other than an air rifle.

Bloody hell, so he loaded the rifle for a hit man?

[HMEssex]

She named Macdonald as the killer.

Not quite. JM told three very different stories.

First, JM behaved as though Sheila was the killer. JM was then clearly delighted to be Jeremy's girlfriend, going on holiday, out for meals and out drinking with him, with no qualms whatosever.

Only after she was jilted by Jeremy did JM name McDonald as the killer, claiming that he was Jeremy's hitman.

Later, when that proved to be untrue because Mathew McDonald had a water tight alibi, JM changed her mind yet again.

JM then told the Daily Mirror, "I sincerely believe" that Jeremy killed his family. JM said much the same to the News of the World", who paid her £25,000 for her story - once the police had given her immunity from prosecution.

Yes i also find it strange how woman can be attracted to mass murderers, i think thats what you're hinting at?

I don't think 'woman' is attracted to mass murderers per se! 

JM was perfectly happy with Jeremy until he ditched her and then she exacted her revenge.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not privy to any of their conversations at the time. Yes JM may well have decided to go with the flow, keep stum.

Or, she was struggling with her conscience, with the break up the final straw.

We don't know, and can only guess.

JM's concience didn't stuggle one iota while she was holidaying in the best hotels in Amersterdam and elsewhere with Jeremy.

It didn't struggle when she was out wining and dining with him.

It didn't bat an eyelid when he gave her the money for designer clothes.

It didn't give her a moment's grief when, before they broke up she accepted £400 from him - yet if JM really believed Jeremy was a killer or hirer of a hitman she would surely have considered that blood money, wouldn't she?

The evidence of JM's actions as opposed to her claims suggests that JM was happy as Larry to live the high life with jeremy and hadn't a qualm...until he jilted her.

You have had some really good posts on this thread, chocho! +1

I would like to add that Julie had no problem visiting Colin Caffell with Jeremy. Colin, the devastated and grieving father.
She had no problem identifying the supposed victims of her lover´s brutal slayings! Not at all... she volunteered!
She had no problem attending the funerals of all of the victims - and no problem with that Sheila didn´t get the service she deserved if she was only a victim! To my understanding, Sheila got very few words from the minister before being laid to rest. No, no problem: Julie was there comforting the alleged killer!
Julie Mugford had no problem that Sheila and her sons were buried far away from each other, because Sheila was the alleged killer.

No matter how you look at this case, Julie Mugford is a... hmm, strange woman and comes out of it looking very, very bad! Can´t blame her for fleeing to Australia, then Canada! 

Totally agree with this Abs.

[chochokeira]

Are there any men on here who can kill five people , then jump into bed with the missus or girlfriend and have sex ? JM allowed Jeremy bamber too !!

She thought Macdonald was the killer? no?

So it would be alright if you paid for them to be killed ? Your missus have that Paul ?

Without knowing JM's mind through the month of August 1985-September 1985, its impossible to comment on her actions. When did she believe what JB told her? i don't know.

Do i think she was a money grabbing .....(put in there what you like)?  Then yes, but i think the same of JB, two peas in a pod.

The difference was, Jeremy had money, he was wealthy (good salary, shares in family business, own cottage provided free, free petrol, free food at his parents house), he had the life of Reilly and was shortly due to inherit a substantial sum from his rich gran who was at death's door. His gran died within months.

Jeremy Bamber had no incentive to kill his family and every incentive not to. He lost everything due to being accused of the murders, his gran was told and cut him out of her Will, and due to being convicted, as his inheritance was given to his extended family. All Jeremy had needed to do was wait to a few months to become even richer.

[paulg]

But he still supplemented his income with a burglary and drug dealing, i'd suggest he was greedy, just like his girlfriend.

Anyway, i'm more interested in your comment about JB and guns, where did that come from, Jeremy?

[HMEssex]

Are there any men on here who can kill five people , then jump into bed with the missus or girlfriend and have sex ? JM allowed Jeremy bamber too !!

She thought Macdonald was the killer? no?

So it would be alright if you paid for them to be killed ? Your missus have that Paul ?

Without knowing JM's mind through the month of August 1985-September 1985, its impossible to comment on her actions. When did she believe what JB told her? i don't know.

Do i think she was a money grabbing .....(put in there what you like)?  Then yes, but i think the same of JB, two peas in a pod.

The difference was, Jeremy had money, he was wealthy (good salary, shares in family business, own cottage provided free, free petrol, free food at his parents house), he had the life of Reilly and was shortly due to inherit a substantial sum from his rich gran who was at death's door. His gran died within months.

Jeremy Bamber had no incentive to kill his family and every incentive not to. He lost everything due to being accused of the murders, his gran was told and cut him out of her Will, and due to being convicted, as his inheritance was given to his extended family. All Jeremy had needed to do was wait to a few months to become even richer.

Exactly, he had no motive.

[chochokeira]

She named Macdonald as the killer.

Did Julie name Macdonald as in accusing him (i.e. I think it is Macdonald) or did she repeat what she said she was told?

Repeated what she was told.

Yep, she kept up a charade for a while.

Now she's accused of keeping up a charade for even longer, 25+ years longer.

Yes, she repeated what she was told, alright, but told by whom?

Well certainly not the police, she'd have made things far easier if she named JB.

Putting the lovers tiff aside and playing devils advocate.........

So all Julie did during her testimony and witness statements is repeat what she said Jeremy said to her in conversations.

Correct or Incorrect?

Correct

Again being devils advocate

Julie technically has not accused anyone of being the murderer. In fact the one name mentioned from a repeated conversation had an alibi and was eliminated from enquiries.

Did Julie know Macdonald or was Macdonald just a name to her?

"Julie, now 36, said: "I thought this was long in the past. The last few weeks have been a nightmare. As far as I am concerned nothing has changed - I sincerely believe he is guilty.

Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life."

This begs the question: which original story does the former JM stand by?

The discredited story with which she supported Jeremy's account?

The discredited story with which she claimed that he'd hired a hitman?

Or the story, discredited by the evidence, according to Shaw and others, where JM now suggests that Jeremy is guilty of the murder?

Jeremy Bamber, remember was found guilty of personally killing his family, not of hiring a hitman. If JM says he is guilty, that is what she must believe he is guilty of.


"And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case I still believe he is guilty. He has a right to appeal, that is the law. It is just very hard for me to accept.

"At this stage the appeal process is so sketchy that I have no idea what is going on."  (Sunday Mirror)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20010401/ai_n14524991/

[paulg]

Are there any men on here who can kill five people , then jump into bed with the missus or girlfriend and have sex ? JM allowed Jeremy bamber too !!

She thought Macdonald was the killer? no?

So it would be alright if you paid for them to be killed ? Your missus have that Paul ?

Without knowing JM's mind through the month of August 1985-September 1985, its impossible to comment on her actions. When did she believe what JB told her? i don't know.

Do i think she was a money grabbing .....(put in there what you like)?  Then yes, but i think the same of JB, two peas in a pod.

The difference was, Jeremy had money, he was wealthy (good salary, shares in family business, own cottage provided free, free petrol, free food at his parents house), he had the life of Reilly and was shortly due to inherit a substantial sum from his rich gran who was at death's door. His gran died within months.

Jeremy Bamber had no incentive to kill his family and every incentive not to. He lost everything due to being accused of the murders, his gran was told and cut him out of her Will, and due to being convicted, as his inheritance was given to his extended family. All Jeremy had needed to do was wait to a few months to become even richer.

Exactly, he had no motive.

Howabout, that really obscure motive called greed?

[chochokeira]

But he still supplemented his income with a burglary and drug dealing, i'd suggest he was greedy, just like his girlfriend.

Anyway, i'm more interested in your comment about JB and guns, where did that come from, Jeremy?

Oh, thank you very much, paulg. Are you seriously suggesting that I'm a man? Do I really sound like a man - and one who has languished in prison for 25 years? Oh, come on, you can't believe that?

[chochokeira]

Are there any men on here who can kill five people , then jump into bed with the missus or girlfriend and have sex ? JM allowed Jeremy bamber too !!

She thought Macdonald was the killer? no?

So it would be alright if you paid for them to be killed ? Your missus have that Paul ?

Without knowing JM's mind through the month of August 1985-September 1985, its impossible to comment on her actions. When did she believe what JB told her? i don't know.

Do i think she was a money grabbing .....(put in there what you like)?  Then yes, but i think the same of JB, two peas in a pod.

The difference was, Jeremy had money, he was wealthy (good salary, shares in family business, own cottage provided free, free petrol, free food at his parents house), he had the life of Reilly and was shortly due to inherit a substantial sum from his rich gran who was at death's door. His gran died within months.

Jeremy Bamber had no incentive to kill his family and every incentive not to. He lost everything due to being accused of the murders, his gran was told and cut him out of her Will, and due to being convicted, as his inheritance was given to his extended family. All Jeremy had needed to do was wait to a few months to become even richer.

Exactly, he had no motive.

Howabout, that really obscure motive called greed?

Exactly. How about it. Tell me, paul, who benefitted in spades from Jeremy Bamber's conviction - and why is it that you never mention greed in relation to them?

[Alias]

just a bit about the funerals.


sheilas funeral was held seperate to the twins, but on the day of the twins funeral in london colin made sure that sheilas ashes were at the service and her ashes were then interred with the twins.

ann eaton suggested sheila should only have black flowers at her funeral, she claims she only said this to get a reaction from jeremy.


and yes at  sheilas and her parents funerals sheila was hardly mentioned the twins were not mentioned at all, it was mostly about june, that left colin fuming (understandable)

Good evening, Andrea (saw your greeting earlier - you're so polite, moi so rude!  )
Thanks for the info. I did not know that part of Sheila is with her boys. Nor did I know about Ann Eaton's odd remark. And then trying to cover up her bi***y and inappropriate remark by wiping it off on Jeremy!
I am beginning to think that she was obsessed with Jeremy - even in love with him. JUST ME!! Or..., not quite just me - one of the police officers (Jones?) asked her if she had had an affair with Jeremy.

[paulg]

Are there any men on here who can kill five people , then jump into bed with the missus or girlfriend and have sex ? JM allowed Jeremy bamber too !!

She thought Macdonald was the killer? no?

So it would be alright if you paid for them to be killed ? Your missus have that Paul ?

Without knowing JM's mind through the month of August 1985-September 1985, its impossible to comment on her actions. When did she believe what JB told her? i don't know.

Do i think she was a money grabbing .....(put in there what you like)?  Then yes, but i think the same of JB, two peas in a pod.

The difference was, Jeremy had money, he was wealthy (good salary, shares in family business, own cottage provided free, free petrol, free food at his parents house), he had the life of Reilly and was shortly due to inherit a substantial sum from his rich gran who was at death's door. His gran died within months.

Jeremy Bamber had no incentive to kill his family and every incentive not to. He lost everything due to being accused of the murders, his gran was told and cut him out of her Will, and due to being convicted, as his inheritance was given to his extended family. All Jeremy had needed to do was wait to a few months to become even richer.

Exactly, he had no motive.

Howabout, that really obscure motive called greed?

Exactly. How about it. Tell me, paul, who benefitted in spades from Jeremy Bamber's conviction - and why is it that you never mention greed in relation to them?

Erm, we're talking about the motive of a convicted killer, his surviving family didn't shoot anyone, or are you suggesting they did?