julie mugford

[chochokeira]

i'm sorry if you've already talked about this but can i ask what julie mugford's position will be if jeremy bamber has an appeal?
i've read that several people would be in danger of being charged with perjury so would this apply to her as well?

It is unusual in a case where a defendant succeeds on appeal for there to be perjury charges brought against those who gave evidence for the prosecution at trial.  However it is certainly possible where an appeal succeeds upon the basis of demonstrating that a witness or group of witnesses gave false (rather than mistaken) evidence at trial, with the intention of securing the conviction of an innocent man, for the DPP to consider prosecutions for perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  However the burden and standard of proof in such a case is just the same as in any criminal case so success in an appeal upon the basis of "fit up" does not automatically result in prosecutions of the police and other witnesses involved.

   

I would have thought Julie would be OK. From what I have read most of the evidence between Jeremy and Julie was he said versus she said. In parts some of it corroborates and in parts some of does not corroborate.

I am sure Julie would maintain what she said at the original trial was correct.

How does one prove otherwise?

Julie can maintain she was only repeating what Jeremy said to her in conversation. It remains a possibility that Jeremy could still have told Julie what Julie detailed to the Court that Jeremy had said and still be innocent.......

Am I right in thinking that JM had upwards of thirty interviews to get her story right.

Good point, Cliff. That's what I've read. David Shaw provides the reference numbers for every one of JM's 32 coaching sessions.

[S.Grant]

it seems odd to me that julie mugford was allowed to be free and to collect so much money when if her story is to be believed she
could have prevented the tragedy.
i think if someone told me they were going to kill their family i would go to the police.
strange to me that she got away with that.

[chochokeira]

i'm sorry if you've already talked about this but can i ask what julie mugford's position will be if jeremy bamber has an appeal?
i've read that several people would be in danger of being charged with perjury so would this apply to her as well?

It is unusual in a case where a defendant succeeds on appeal for there to be perjury charges brought against those who gave evidence for the prosecution at trial.  However it is certainly possible where an appeal succeeds upon the basis of demonstrating that a witness or group of witnesses gave false (rather than mistaken) evidence at trial, with the intention of securing the conviction of an innocent man, for the DPP to consider prosecutions for perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  However the burden and standard of proof in such a case is just the same as in any criminal case so success in an appeal upon the basis of "fit up" does not automatically result in prosecutions of the police and other witnesses involved.

   

I can't recall whether I gave you a burst of applause for this excellent post or not, ngb. I'm giving you another burst regardless as I must still owe you around 90 now.

[Alias]

i'm sorry if you've already talked about this but can i ask what julie mugford's position will be if jeremy bamber has an appeal?
i've read that several people would be in danger of being charged with perjury so would this apply to her as well?

It is unusual in a case where a defendant succeeds on appeal for there to be perjury charges brought against those who gave evidence for the prosecution at trial.  However it is certainly possible where an appeal succeeds upon the basis of demonstrating that a witness or group of witnesses gave false (rather than mistaken) evidence at trial, with the intention of securing the conviction of an innocent man, for the DPP to consider prosecutions for perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  However the burden and standard of proof in such a case is just the same as in any criminal case so success in an appeal upon the basis of "fit up" does not automatically result in prosecutions of the police and other witnesses involved.

   

I would have thought Julie would be OK. From what I have read most of the evidence between Jeremy and Julie was he said versus she said. In parts some of it corroborates and in parts some of does not corroborate.

I am sure Julie would maintain what she said at the original trial was correct.

How does one prove otherwise?

Julie can maintain she was only repeating what Jeremy said to her in conversation. It remains a possibility that Jeremy could still have told Julie what Julie detailed to the Court that Jeremy had said and still be innocent.......

Am I right in thinking that JM had upwards of thirty interviews to get her story right.

Good point, Cliff. That's what I've read. David Shaw provides the reference numbers for every one of JM's 32 coaching sessions.

DS also says that JM was paid for every second of those interviews. People had/have that right apparently, but not many claim that money. Probably because no one tells them about it.
Someone must have told Julie - if this is accurate. I know, I know: that every time you cite DS, people come after you!!

[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?

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?

Aah, i see why you posted this, went over my head at first.

JB has seriously stated this, or words to this effect?  "Jeremy didn't like shooting or killing things. He is said to have never used any gun other than an air rifle.
"

[chochokeira]

ngb1066 - if i've understood you correctly (and not with specific reference to this case) doesn't that rather undermine the
whole purpose of the whole oath when giving evidence? 
The law seems to be something of a game (not meaning any disrespect here) in that it's not absolute.  maybe i'm naive though.

You are absolutely right.... In a very crude sense it is all a game but the stakes are very high.

It all depends on how well you play the game in front of the jury within the court who ultimately decide the outcome.

Just because someone is found guilty before a court of law does not mean to say they are guilty of the offence and just because somebody may be found not guilty before a court of law does not mean to say they are innocent of the offence.

I believe that is very true. As a former Master of the Rolls said, the law is a rich hotel. He might have added that a disproportionate number those with the best lawyers get to stay in the penthouse of innocence. Jeremy Bamber perhaps wasn't rich enough and of course he lost all of his money, so would have depended on legal aid, I imagine.

[chochokeira]

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.

Good post Keira. 

JM was hardly a credible 'witness' in my opinion.

Thanks. I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding JM's credibility.

[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.

Howabout, that really obscure motive called greed?

I don't think this was about greed at all, not in JB's case anyhow.  Look at Keira's post at 9.40.  I agree with this. 

Unfortunately, people did (and do) dabble with growing drugs for their own use, such as marijuana etc., so that it, perhaps, saves them from going to dealers and whatnot.  So, I feel in that respect JB was no different from hundreds of others, and this doesn't make him a killer.

[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?

I don't think this was about greed at all, not in JB's case anyhow.  Look at Keira's post at 9.40.  I agree with this. 

Unfortunately, people did (and do) dabble with growing drugs for their own use, such as marijuana etc., so that it, perhaps, saves them from going to dealers and whatnot.  So, I feel in that respect JB was no different from hundreds of others, and this doesn't make him a killer.

And the money he got from selling to friends he gave to charity?

And the money from the burglary went to the homeless?

And for the short amount of time he had access to everything, he started to live the lifestyle he craved.

[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.

Howabout, that really obscure motive called greed?

I don't think this was about greed at all, not in JB's case anyhow.  Look at Keira's post at 9.40.  I agree with this. 

Unfortunately, people did (and do) dabble with growing drugs for their own use, such as marijuana etc., so that it, perhaps, saves them from going to dealers and whatnot.  So, I feel in that respect JB was no different from hundreds of others, and this doesn't make him a killer.

And the money he got from selling to friends he gave to charity?

And the money from the burglary went to the homeless?

And for the short amount of time he had access to everything, he started to live the lifestyle he craved.

That still doesn't make him a killer.

And in the short time JB was free, he wouldn't have had access to everything.  Wills, inheritance and such takes months to sort out.

[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?

I don't think this was about greed at all, not in JB's case anyhow.  Look at Keira's post at 9.40.  I agree with this. 

Unfortunately, people did (and do) dabble with growing drugs for their own use, such as marijuana etc., so that it, perhaps, saves them from going to dealers and whatnot.  So, I feel in that respect JB was no different from hundreds of others, and this doesn't make him a killer.

And the money he got from selling to friends he gave to charity?

And the money from the burglary went to the homeless?

And for the short amount of time he had access to everything, he started to live the lifestyle he craved.

That still doesn't make him a killer.

And in the short time JB was free, he wouldn't have had access to everything.  Wills, inheritance and such takes months to sort out.

Whooaa there, we're talking about motive, i've highlighted character traits that indicate motive.

No he wouldn't have access to the lot, but he got his hands on enough to start showering luxuries on JM, the same things that you guys slate her for accepting.

So we always get back to this. You question JM's actions, why do you not question JB's actions before JM went to the police?

If my brother Simon and his family was gunned down, i'd likely not leave the house for months, i'd be distraught.JB acted like a playboy having a good time.

And before anyone comes back with the reply " people grieve in different ways", i'd suggest people would all act differently if their boyfriend confided in them that they had hired a hit man to kill their family

I'd suggest some would go straight to the police, some would be scared for their own well being, some would be in denial, especially if they were head over heels in love.

[Jackiepreece]

Paulg I want your honest opinion Jeremy was questioned for 2 days without a solicitor
He was asked if he wanted one and he said no

What do you make of that

[Jackiepreece]

Paulg would you say Jeremys actions in the witness box were those of someone fighting for his life if he was guilty

[paulg]

Paulg I want your honest opinion Jeremy was questioned for 2 days without a solicitor
He was asked if he wanted one and he said no

What do you make of that

Honest truth Jackie, bloody foolish.

I know that for you it indicates confidence in his innocence, this also can be interpreted as confidence that he's covered his tracks.

Still a stupid choice, and one i bet he regrets.

[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.

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?

On the cntrary, I believe the evidence suggests that JM was clinging like a limpet as Jeremy went cold on JM.

Consider what we know. JM admitted that when she asked Jeremy whether or not he loved her, he told her that he wasn't sure. Did JM recognise this for the red flag of the impending end of the relationship that it was? No, she hung on, waiting for the end.

Shaw claims that when when Jeremy's Australian Friend toasted the "engaged couple" during a meal they all shared, Jeremy was so shaken that he refused to drink the toast. Did JM then get the message? No. She still hung on.

When Jeremy slept with JM's best friend, Susan whatsername (Battersby?), was he attempting to take the coward's way out of his relationship with clingy Julie as well as playing the field? If so, that didn't work at first as Susan failed to dish the dirt to JM until the relationship had ended. He was sleeping with her friend and still JM hung on.

Did Jeremy give JM the final, harder prod in desperation? This was when, following a row which Jeremy suggested signalled the end of their relationship, limpet-like JM asked Jeremy what he was saying to an old girlfriend on the phone. "I'm asking her out", Jeremy replied, doubtless thinking: have you got the message now, please, Julie?

Yet still Julie clung on. Wasn't it that evening that she attempted to smother Jeremy, saying, "If I can't have you, no one will have you?", or words to that effect?

This is, of course, the sort of conduct that we would expect from a murderer in respect of the one person in the world he has confessed his crime too, isn't it....?