julie mugford

[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.

TBH, its still over my head. I thought you going on about me thinking you a man, and serving in jail suggested it came from JB.

Care to explain?

Sorry paul, trying to catch up too quickly I completely misread the following from you:

"where did that come from, Jeremy?"

as meaning that this was calling me Jeremy  Just ignore me... (whistles in embarrassment)

[paulg]

On these points, where can i find all these incidents logged, by whom

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'

Thanks, HM.

, and JM's reponse etc?

[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.
"

I don't follow your meaning here.

TBH, its still over my head. I thought you going on about me thinking you a man, and serving in jail suggested it came from JB.

Care to explain?

Sorry paul, trying to catch up too quickly I completely misread the following from you:

"where did that come from, Jeremy?"

as meaning that this was calling me Jeremy  Just ignore me... (whistles in embarrassment)

Phew, i know i'm thick, but i thought i was really acting stupid. I thought i'd missed something, normally do.

[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?

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.

God forbid, paul, if your family were gunned down I am as certain as anyone can be that you would find yourself behaving in the strangest manner.

The effect of a 'normal' death sends most people into clinical shock and for a time they behave entirely uncharacteristically. How much worse must the shock resulting from the traumatic deaths of an entire immediate family be!

Remember what I said of the effect of my much loved father's death: my mother and I giggling in the kitchen as we tucked in to breakfast. It was a week or two before we really felt anything and could grieve, we were in complete denial. I could even cry at his funeral. I recognise the same symptoms of Shock in the descriptions of Jeremy Bamber's behaviour.

Absolutely, and when someone you love drops a bombshell on you, how an individual deals with it is not an open and shut case.

We all interpret behaviour in different ways, so i'm sure you'll agree that JM's behaviour is open to interpretation?

Btw, could you show me JM's statement with regards to JB's cheating, and accusation of smothering him with a pillow?

+1 Excellent point, Paul. One that tends to become clouded and glossed over due to the focus on Jeremy too. Regarding JM's statement, it is on here somewhere - it's a very long and windy statement to read. I'll have a look for you.

[chochokeira]

Chochy.. you're fightin a loosin battle with the gbros.  Their vote isn't up grabs.  The dye is cast in that neck of Essex Woods*  Stick to quizzing them about other 80's stuff.

Anyone heard of Hockley Woods?

Btw Rochy, show me 100% bonafide evidence, and my vote will swing, its as simple as that.

Using interpretation of peoples behaviour works both ways, as i've suggested in this thread.

If this investigation was done correctly from the very start, then there would be no shadow of doubt either way.

And yes i do have doubts, but not about JM's statement, i have doubts about the silencer.

Yes mate, wasn't a criticism.  Sorry if it read like that. 
'Complex case' doesn't begin to describe this one paul.

I second that!

[HMEssex]

On these points, where can i find all these incidents logged, by whom

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'

Thanks, HM.

, and JM's reponse etc?

To 'help' get him convicted for murdering his family.


On Sleuthing for Justice there is a report that in 1985 whilst on holiday in France with a friend, JM was the victim of a rape, and she blamed Jeremy for NOT being with her on that holiday.  Does this perhaps suggest that she had unresolved issues herself as a result of this episode?

[curiousessex]

WOW it seems like the Julie Mugford thread has been quite busy tonight. Obviously a very sensitive and controversial topic with some.... especially as her testimony appears only to include repetition of conversation according to her.

[simong]

A few things that have impressed me tonight are, 1. Everyone has debated with respect, 2. Jackie has restrained from posting on a subject she is passionate about.

Been a good thread to read, +1's for all involved and i will give Jackie +2.  :D


Just read again, whilst plussing. She did post but not hysterically so she still gets +2.

[chochokeira]

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?

Shaw suggests that EP, the judge and jury were so impressed with JM's testimony because it was so detailed and revealed some facts which had not even been released to the press. He suggests, however, that JM's knowledge in these areas could have been gleaned from someone with insider knowledge. As Stan Jones, EP, the judge and jury would have been completely unaware of this insider knowledge or that JM had access to it, they mistook her detailed accounts for JM simply recalling what Jeremy had told her. Shaw is very compelling on this, I recomen his account.

JM did nevertheless got some points wildly wrong. She was wrong about the hitman, wrong about how many bullets killed Nevill, wrong about the position of some of the bodies - all basic details which a killer's confessional would be expected to get right.

One very interesting error JM made was in stating that Sheila's body was found on the bed with the Bible on her chest, which was clearly not the case.

Oddly enough, AE made exactly the same error.

Would JM not get some details from identifying the bodies?

But i thought it was a confession from someone that hired a killer, not the murderer, so JB would not know the details?

Those are rather moot points. Jeremy was convicted of killing the family, not of hiring a hitman, so aren't you wanting it all ways there - exactly the accusation you make of us Jb is innocenters? If you rely on Jeremy's conviction for having committed the murders as a fair indication of his guilt, can you really fall back on the discredited hitman claim to explain the contradictions in the JB dun it case? I don't believe so.

I don't believe JM's identification of the bodies told her anywhere near enough. It would have helped her though, so that's a good point. What she could not have got from seeing the bodies is the scene of crime stuff - and it's often there where her claims contradicted the facts.

How wrong JM was in respect of Sheila's body is a particularly telling error, especially since AE made exactly the same error. Shaw says that JM and AE also made identical errors about the position of the Bible. As far as I am aware, no one else made those particular errors.

Does that tell us something?

[chochokeira]

A few things that have impressed me tonight are, 1. Everyone has debated with respect, 2. Jackie has restrained from posting on a subject she is passionate about.

Been a good thread to read, +1's for all involved and i will give Jackie +2.  :D


Just read again, whilst plussing. She did post but not hysterically so she still gets +2.

Thanks, simong, +1 for you too for the comments about respectful debate.

[curiousessex]

One thing does come across to me when reading the responses having been away for a few hours is that there is definately an emotional passion apparent within the subject matter of Julie Mugford. One can almost sense the subject instills different levels of emotion / passion from responses posted by female versus male contribution posts.

Interesting in its own right.

[simong]

Totally agree CE and you make another excellent point.

I have never really been a fan of fence sitters and devils advocates but i do like the way you approach this case. You come across really well and hope you contribute a lot more to this forum, as you are an asset.

[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?

Shaw suggests that EP, the judge and jury were so impressed with JM's testimony because it was so detailed and revealed some facts which had not even been released to the press. He suggests, however, that JM's knowledge in these areas could have been gleaned from someone with insider knowledge. As Stan Jones, EP, the judge and jury would have been completely unaware of this insider knowledge or that JM had access to it, they mistook her detailed accounts for JM simply recalling what Jeremy had told her. Shaw is very compelling on this, I recomen his account.

JM did nevertheless got some points wildly wrong. She was wrong about the hitman, wrong about how many bullets killed Nevill, wrong about the position of some of the bodies - all basic details which a killer's confessional would be expected to get right.

One very interesting error JM made was in stating that Sheila's body was found on the bed with the Bible on her chest, which was clearly not the case.

Oddly enough, AE made exactly the same error.

Would JM not get some details from identifying the bodies?

But i thought it was a confession from someone that hired a killer, not the murderer, so JB would not know the details?

Those are rather moot points. Jeremy was convicted of killing the family, not of hiring a hitman, so aren't you wanting it all ways there - exactly the accusation you make of us Jb is innocenters? If you rely on Jeremy's conviction for having committed the murders as a fair indication of his guilt, can you really fall back on the discredited hitman claim to explain the contradictions in the JB dun it case? I don't believe so.

I don't believe JM's identification of the bodies told her anywhere near enough. It would have helped her though, so that's a good point. What she could not have got from seeing the bodies is the scene of crime stuff - and it's often there where her claims contradicted the facts.

How wrong JM was in respect of Sheila's body is a particularly telling error, especially since AE made exactly the same error. Shaw says that JM and AE also made identical errors about the position of the Bible. As far as I am aware, no one else made those particular errors.

Does that tell us something?

Aaah, Keira.

I love the hit man scenario, so i still like to cling to it. Maybe i do want my cake and eat it, but maybe you do too?

After 32 groomed interviews, she still gets in badly wrong, maybe we should ignore the amount of interviews, as EP may have been doing their job?

[curiousessex]

Totally agree CE and you make another excellent point.

I have never really been a fan of fence sitters and devils advocates but i do like the way you approach this case. You come across really well and hope you contribute a lot more to this forum, as you are an asset.

Thank you and respect to you too.

[Alias]

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?

Do you thinkJulie Mugford was convincing comfortin Jeremy at the funerals?