julie mugford

[Jackiepreece]

Paulg you suggested that jm was the one that went off and lost interest in JB

I thought it was well documented she tried to smother JB and said if I can't have you no one can

[paulg]

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

I honestly can not say, i wasn't there. Transcript wouldn't do it for me, being there puts things into context.

I'll turn the question round though Jackie, people say that JM was very convincing, do you think she was convincing?

[Roch]

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.

That is a fair point.

[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.

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....?

But you're using JB's word against JM here, no?

Why was he looking elsewhere, after lavishing all this money on her? Why did he need this woman on the morning of the murders, but one month later idn't?

[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.

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! 

Thanks, abs, good post from you too! +1

[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.

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.

That's the point Paulg, she didn't go straight to the police. She wasn't scared for her well being.

As has been said before, on this thread, she volunteered to identify the bodies, notwithstanding so she could 'communicate' with Sheila to discover what had happened.  But if she already knew (via Jeremy), she would have no need to do this...

On one occasion JM threw an ornament at him, and on another occasion she tried to smother him with a pillow.  Not the actions you would associate with someone being scared of a supposed mass murderer, however much in love.

She's just not credible in my opinion.

[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?

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.

I am sure that Shaw claims that Jeremy had already slept with his ex and was about to move her in with him.

Mighty risky conduct by an alleged mass murderer in respect of the woman we are led to believe he confessed all to...isn't it?

[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.

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

A hitman would have brought his own weapon of choice...no?

[paulg]

Not if he's going to stage a suicide.

[Jackiepreece]

Paulg if you look at the caravan robbery jm and JB together it wasn't really a risky crime to commit as it was like an inside job

The crime jm committed before cheque fraud £700 maybe £4000 today and maybe enough to get a small prison sentence.  Jm went from shop to shop using a cheque book that had been reported stolen
She had to stand in front of a shop assistant on every occasion knowing there was a chance she could get caught if shops had been informed

There is not a single thing I have seen to suggest she had no money couldn't pay her rent etc

The cheque book fraud was not necessaty it was pure GREED

I would hazard a guess it was her idea about the caravan park JB had no previous for theft she was an experienced theif first

I have absolutely no reason to believe she could put on the Oscar winning performance of her life with that 25000 dangled in front of her

No conviction no money

She would also probably never have been a teacher because her name would have been blackened

[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?

His gree was best served by waiting for his inheritance from his gran, paul.

[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.

I am sure that Shaw claims that Jeremy had already slept with his ex and was about to move her in with him.

Mighty risky conduct by an alleged mass murderer in respect of the woman we are led to believe he confessed all to...isn't it?

Mmmm! Indeed it is!

[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.

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!!

You are so right, abs, but I don't care. Do your worst, mad smiter, see if I care.

[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?

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.
"

I don't follow your meaning here.

[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?

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....?

Excellent Keira!  Missed this before I posted.  I mean, what does it take to realise 'you are (JM) not the 'one'