julie mugford

[curiousessex]

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?

Either way, from what I have read and from what has since happened re civil court cases over inheritance etc post the tragedy I have to say I would not, even now, like to have been a member of the jury.

The jury has to make a decision on what it hears at the time.

[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....?

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?

JM was just not the one for Jeremy or he would have stayed with her. Sometimes it takes a while to recognise that when you're young. Couples can be bound together by strong physical attraction when they've absolutely nothing in common and quite dislike each other. Jeremy was very good looking, he would have had lots of women chasing him - they still do chase him and fight over him even though he's an HM prisoner. We can hardly criticise a 24 year old love machine like Jeremy Bamber for doing what he was designed to do. 

[simong]

Abs, In my opinion i don't read anything into the reactions of anyone at any of the funerals. It must have been horrific to have the media in all its pomp around whilst burying people you know. You can bet that the paparazzi were taking pictures nigh on every second. It would have been impossible to have maintained an act in that scenario as well as grieved in any comfort. The press should not have been near those funerals.

[curiousessex]

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?

Either way, from what I have read and from what has since happened re civil court cases over inheritance etc post the tragedy I have to say I would not, even now, like to have been a member of the jury.

The jury has to make a decision on what it hears at the time.

.......... and if I am being honest I would say Jeremy's inconsistancy with regard to the times and sequence of telephone calls in the early hours of the morning of 7th August when compared to the rigidity of Julie sticking to her testimony does not do Jeremy any favours.

Most particulary as it was, in effect, Jeremy whose telephone call to the Police meant it was either Sheila or Jeremy who pulled the trigger.

Julie's testimony also appears to be all about what Jeremy told her in conversation.

Jeremy just appears to be central to everything.

[Jackiepreece]

Paulg would you have taken the moderator job that vidvic has taken because he seems a strange choicebut I do think its good to have one person pro bamber and one anti bamber

I wonder if Hartley has left because he wanted to be a moderator or maybe John his mate has been banned
Has he been banned?

[Jackiepreece]

Paulg one of the things I feel strongly about I do not think JB would have been found guilty if the jury knew about the NOTW £25,000.  They knew all about her cover up for a whole month, funerals etc but if they knew she had already brokered a deal before she went in the box they would have definately thought that was blood money.
I think the case would have collapsed then on top of the fact the jury were led to believe the relatives would not have inherited

[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 innocenter? 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?

I still have a secret hunch that the killer was a third party too. Shaw has something interesting to say about this, though I need to check the details of that claim again before I post it here.

When I was a tribunal representative I would have considered that to  spend 10% of the time Jones spent on preparatory work with JM was far too much time with any one client. It would not be cost effective. I can't see how jones got away with it, his bosses must have been very keen for JM to be word perfect.

On the other hand, did they they have serious doubts about JM's testimony and did Jones spend frantic hours plugging the holes? That would be my guess.

[simong]

Paulg would you have taken the moderator job that vidvic has taken because he seems a strange choicebut I do think its good to have one person pro bamber and one anti bamber

I wonder if Hartley has left because he wanted to be a moderator or maybe John his mate has been banned
Has he been banned?

We disussed this on the phone tonight Jackie. I think Paul would have been ideal for a Mod role on here, if we are appointing a mod from each camp. I feel he has been judged on my attitude towards Mike and others.

Maybe i am on the Witchhunt list as a disruptive poster  and Paul as a mod would be a hindrance to that 

[Jackiepreece]

Simong
I think its more someone doesnt like me so they put in the person I really dont like

Vidvic know the family

Most of the people on here do not so it should have been someone else I am not saying me because I really would be no good but I think someone else would have been fairer

[simong]

To be fair to you it does seem a very odd choice if the idea was to appoint mods from both sides. I had never heard of this Vidvic until Paul filled me in on the details tonight. Any non JB innocent posters like Hartley or myself will upset more people the longer we are members so maybe appointing the newest sceptic made sense to Mike. 

[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?

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

Either way, from what I have read and from what has since happened re civil court cases over inheritance etc post the tragedy I have to say I would not, even now, like to have been a member of the jury.

The jury has to make a decision on what it hears at the time.

.......... and if I am being honest I would say Jeremy's inconsistency with regard to the times and sequence of telephone calls in the early hours of the morning of 7th August when compared to the rigidity of Julie sticking to her testimony does not do Jeremy any favours.

Most particulary as it was, in effect, Jeremy whose telephone call to the Police meant it was either Sheila or Jeremy who pulled the trigger.

Julie's testimony also appears to be all about what Jeremy told her in conversation.

Jeremy just appears to be central to everything.

I believe the apparent contrast between Jeremy's inconsistency and JM's consistency is a false one which is more apparent than real.

Both JM and JB made errors. JM made a number of significant errors such as claiming Sheila was shot on the bed with the Bible on her chest.

JM had 32 coaching sessions in a benign environment. The police seemed intent on helping her. Interrogation of JB was hostile, intensely pressured and perhaps guaranteed to confuse anyone. Much of JM's confusion may have been resolved pretrial, whereas Jeremy's was perhaps exacerbated.

JM was guaranteed immunity from prosecution for all of her crimes: credit card fraud/ break in/ theft and all crimes related to the murders.
     
Whereas JB faced a life sentence if found guilty, JM faced zero sentence
and £25,000 reward.
     
The jury appear to have been unaware of JM's immunity and of the arrangement for her to sell her story - press payments to witnesses have stopped trials in recent times.

If Shaw's claim that JM could have benefited from insider knowledge of EP's case, both in respect of the methodology of the murders and of details of the scene of crime, is true, this would have created a false illusion of consistency. The jury would have been unaware of this.

[paulg]

Paulg would you have taken the moderator job that vidvic has taken because he seems a strange choicebut I do think its good to have one person pro bamber and one anti bamber

I wonder if Hartley has left because he wanted to be a moderator or maybe John his mate has been banned
Has he been banned?

I think its a tough doing a mod job, but yes, i would have considered the job.

And Jackie, i'm not anti Bamber, i just like putting a different spin sometimes on things.

I'm sure vidvic will do a good job, lets give him/her a chance.

And i think Hartley left again because of the smites, they cut him deep.

And thanks btw for considering me for the mod job. x

[paulg]

Paulg one of the things I feel strongly about I do not think JB would have been found guilty if the jury knew about the NOTW £25,000.  They knew all about her cover up for a whole month, funerals etc but if they knew she had already brokered a deal before she went in the box they would have definately thought that was blood money.
I think the case would have collapsed then on top of the fact the jury were led to believe the relatives would not have inherited

And yes, i don't think he had a fair trial, but can't change that.

If only EP had done their job properly from the start, we wouldn't be here discussing the case 26 years on.

[andrea]

theres a lot of ifs and buts about this case, too bleeding many.

[Jerry]

Paulg one of the things I feel strongly about I do not think JB would have been found guilty if the jury knew about the NOTW £25,000.  They knew all about her cover up for a whole month, funerals etc but if they knew she had already brokered a deal before she went in the box they would have definately thought that was blood money.
I think the case would have collapsed then on top of the fact the jury were led to believe the relatives would not have inherited

And yes, i don't think he had a fair trial, but can't change that.

If only EP had done their job properly from the start, we wouldn't be here discussing the case 26 years on.

You cannot blame the police altogether.  How many of you know for example that it was Jeremy who encouraged the police to get rid of the carpets and the bloodstained clothing?