Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on December 30, 2010, 09:07:PM
-
Julie Mugford - the (lying) Criminal, exposed...
In order to fully appreciate the extent to which Mugford was prepared to go, in order to testify at Jeremy's trial, in favor of the prosecutions case against him, you will need to read two witness statements, one made by herself to COLP, ( in the name of J. Smerchanski, dated, 12th April 2002), another witness statement made by Susan Battersby (dated 7th may 2002), and the other, by the Bank Manager, (Alan George Dovey, dated 20th March 2002), which was also made to COLP...
You will be able to view the aforementioned witness statements, at the following links:-
Bank Manager, Alan George Dovey, dated, 20th March 2002:-
(1) http://www.flickr.com/photos/miketeskowski/5309019477/in/set-72157625713336710/
Julie Mugford / SMERCHANSKI
(2) http://www.flickr.com/photos/miketeskowski/sets/72157625587945001/
K. Baxter, Press Complaints Commisssion
(3) http://www.flickr.com/photos/miketeskowski/5309064807/in/set-72157625713464040/
Susan Battesby - friend of Julie Mugford, and former lover of Jeremy Bamber
(4) http://www.flickr.com/photos/miketeskowski/5309064807/in/set-72157625713464040/
-
Court misled, about motives behind Mugford evidence
So, as it it turns out, she lied about her motives for wanting to give evidence, against Jeremy at his trioal - she was motivated by greed, and self-preservation, and in the pay of the News of the World. She and her mother, were even put up, during the trial, in a five star hotel, courtesy of the News of the World - what price Justice?
Mugford is a disgrace, and a significant burr, against the criminal justice system - Guided by greed, and the desire to inflict as much hurt as possible, upon Jeremy, because she truly was a woman scorned...
Her evidence has truly, now been seriously undermined and discredited...
-
Julie Mugford didn't suddenly turn on Jeremy did she?
She spend the weekend before the murders with Jeremy at Goldhanger
It seems that things began to build up after the murders. I got all this info from the Appeal document so I assume it's correct.
The murders happened in the early hours of Wednesday 7th August.
Julie was taken to Goldhanger that morning, and Jeremy allegedly told her he should have been an actor. That same evening Julie allegedly asked Jeremy if he'd done it, and that's when she claimed he told her the story about Matthew MacDonald.
The weekend after the murders, Jeremy and Julie went to see Colin Caffell, and on Monday 12th she went back to Goldhanger with Jeremy.
The funeral for June and Neville was on the Friday 16th and Julie attended that.
On Saturday 17th August Jeremy and Julie went to Eastbourne for the weekend, and Julie claimed that she kept asking how he could have done all that and was concerned about how he was behaving.
The funeral for Sheila and the boys was on Monday 19th August which Julie attended. I'm not sure where that funeral took place.
Some time during that week Jeremy and Julie went to Amsterdam - possibly on Tuesday 20th. They came back on Tuesday 27th and Julie went to her own flat and told Susan Battersby what Jeremy had done.
On Saturday 31st August they met - not sure where - and Julie asked Jeremy if he loved her, and he said he didn't know. She said she felt bad about the murders and couldn't cope with his behaviour but he reassured her.
On Tuesday 3rd September they met at Sheila Caffell's flat for some reason. Julie once again brought up the murders and his behavior. Then an ex-girlfriend of Jeremy's phoned the flat and Julie heard him ask her out. They had a row.
On Saturday 7th September she went to the police and told them her story.
-
Once again, I'm 50/50 regarding the evidence of Julie Mugford. On the one hand, I find it hard to beleive that she would just carry on seeing someone who she thought had arranged the murder of his entire family, and that she would visit Colin Caffell, go to Eastbourne and Amsterdam, and appear so supportive at the funerals.
On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that she would up an entire story to get him sent down because he dumped her.
It's been assumed by many that Julie came up with this story because Jeremy dumped her, but according to the Appeal document she told Susan Battersby about it about ten days before she went to the police - before Jeremy dumped her.
On 27 August Miss Mugford returned alone to her lodgings in London and she told her friend Susan Battersby of what the appellant had done.
Did Susan Battersby say that Julie had told her the story?
If Julie did tell her that Jeremy had arranged the murders, why did she do so? She had just been to Amsterdam with him - did something happen there?
-
Article I found.. interview with Mugford 2001.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20010401/ai_n14524991/ (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20010401/ai_n14524991/)
-
sheilas funeral was held along with june and nevilles at st nicholas church on the friday,Daniel and nicholas's funerals took place on the monday at highgate cemetary and was arranged by their father colin.
-
sheilas funeral was held along with june and nevilles at st nicholas church on the friday,Daniel and nicholas's funerals took place on the monday at highgate cemetary and was arranged by their father colin.
Thanks. I wasn't sure about that. They were on 16th August and 19th August though weren't they?
-
carry2 i agree, also when mugford was cross examined by the defence in court she was making the situation as difficult as possible for the defence by breaking down into hysterics at the drop of a hat, only to immediately regain composure when questioned by the prosecution. shes a liar and knows it, awoman scorned!
-
hi kaldin,, im not sure of the dates, but the days are correct. sheilas ashes are actually buried with the twins at highgate cemetery.the twins also were interred in the same casket with sheilas ashes placed on top of the casket at their heads.
-
What about the psychology of it?
Let's just say that Jeremy did tell Julie before the murders that he wanted to kill his family. She wouldn't have taken much notice of that - she would just think he was being daft.
Let's say that he did tell her right after the murders that he got someone to do it. How would a reasonable person react to that? Remember that she said he didn't do it himself - he paid MacDonald to do it.
How would she react when the police told her that MacDonald couldn't have done it? Would she have just thought Jeremy had made it up, or would she think he'd done it himself?
-
hi kaldin,, im not sure of the dates, but the days are correct. sheilas ashes are actually buried with the twins at highgate cemetery.the twins also were interred in the same casket with sheilas ashes placed on top of the casket at their heads.
Thanks andrea.
The dates are correct I think, so it's just an indication of what Julie Mugford was doing between the day of the murders and the day she went to the police.
-
if u can kaldin try and get colin caffells book titled "in search of the rainbows end" its a very good book, it tells his personal journey through the tragedy, apart from jeremy, colin lost the most, his twins and sheila whom he still deeply cared for.
-
if u can kaldin try and get colin caffells book titled "in search of the rainbows end" its a very good book, it tells his personal journey through the tragedy, apart from jeremy, colin lost the most, his twins and sheila whom he still deeply cared for.
Sounds good andrea. I think Colin Caffell gets forgotten about a bit in all this. He lost his two little boys after all.
If Julie did think Jeremy had got someone to murder the boys, I wonder how she could go and see Colin and look him in the face a few days later.
-
I don't think it's unnatural to be upset one minute and then composed the next. That would depend on the questions. Remember that the prosecution would be much more gentle with her than the defence.
If Julie had made up the story though, it would take a will of iron to stick to it throughout a lot of interviews, and tell the same story in court.
Why would she say Matthew MacDonald had done it if he didn't? Why not just say that Jeremy did it?
-
i will have another look through the book and let you know when the police broke the news to colin, i know that he was at home at the time, then his world fell apart.its an excellent book and colin is such an understanding person he is now a full time sculpture but did visit prisons round the country helping prisoners come to terms with their offences and that included murderers and sex offenders.
personally kaldin i think julie mugford knew all along jeremy was innocent and so was able to look and speak to colin without feeling guilt. she only went to the police when jeremy dumped her.i personally couldnt have slept and been near a man who had just wiped out 5 of his family especially the children, hence she knew he was innocent
-
i will have another look through the book and let you know when the police broke the news to colin, i know that he was at home at the time, then his world fell apart.its an excellent book and colin is such an understanding person he is now a full time sculpture but did visit prisons round the country helping prisoners come to terms with their offences and that included murderers and sex offenders.
personally kaldin i think julie mugford knew all along jeremy was innocent and so was able to look and speak to colin without feeling guilt. she only went to the police when jeremy dumped her.i personally couldnt have slept and been near a man who had just wiped out 5 of his family especially the children, hence she knew he was innocent
I kind of agree. I think you'd have to be very strange to do that, but then I find it strange that someone could continue to insist their ex-boyfriend was a murderer if he wasn't and make up a whole story about it.
Remember that she didn't think he'd done it personally and that he'd got someone else to do it. Of course that would still make him guilty but perhaps it made a difference to her that he didn't actually shoot them himself.
I'm still interested in this bit from the Appeal document where it says that Julie told Susan Battersby what Jeremy had done on 27th August. I can't find anything to corroborate that.
-
Briefly back to the book. I would like to read it too. I first heard of it only the other day when I read this about it.
"He has written a moving book In Search of the Rainbow’s End about the loss of his two six year old boys, in which he included the text of a rather nasty letter, written entirely in block capitals, that Bamber wrote to him from prison. It does not appear that anyone who knew Jeremy Bamber when he was at liberty believes in his innocence.
A detail often overloooked is that the twin boys who were murdered did not live at the farm. Because of their mother’s illness, they were being brought up by their father, who allowed them to visit their grandparents. A few days before the killings, Bamber visited Colin Caffell with the apparent aim of checking when the boys would be there. If they had not been killed, Jeremy Bamber would not have been the sole heir to the family fortune.
There is another rather creepy detail in Caffell’s book, that he later came to believe that Jeremy Bamber was studying him in the immediate aftermath of the murders to see how someone genuinely grief stricken behaved, in order to mimic him."
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/01/30/the-strange-case-of-jeremy-bamber/
-
Briefly back to the book. I would like to read it too. I first heard of it only the other day when I read this about it.
"He has written a moving book In Search of the Rainbow’s End about the loss of his two six year old boys, in which he included the text of a rather nasty letter, written entirely in block capitals, that Bamber wrote to him from prison. It does not appear that anyone who knew Jeremy Bamber when he was at liberty believes in his innocence.
A detail often overloooked is that the twin boys who were murdered did not live at the farm. Because of their mother’s illness, they were being brought up by their father, who allowed them to visit their grandparents. A few days before the killings, Bamber visited Colin Caffell with the apparent aim of checking when the boys would be there. If they had not been killed, Jeremy Bamber would not have been the sole heir to the family fortune.
There is another rather creepy detail in Caffell’s book, that he later came to believe that Jeremy Bamber was studying him in the immediate aftermath of the murders to see how someone genuinely grief stricken behaved, in order to mimic him."
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/01/30/the-strange-case-of-jeremy-bamber/
Jeremy visited Colin a few days before the murders?
I wonder how much contact Jeremy had with Colin and the boys generally. He didn't live near his sister or Colin and the boys. I suppose he went to London to visit Julie, but it sounds like she usually went to see him instead.
-
"He has written a moving book In Search of the Rainbow’s End about the loss of his two six year old boys, in which he included the text of a rather nasty letter, written entirely in block capitals, that Bamber wrote to him from prison.
That book appears to be out of print now... do yuo know what the letter was about?
-
No, that's why I wanted to read it. Andrea may be able to tell us?
-
Briefly back to the book. I would like to read it too. I first heard of it only the other day when I read this about it.
"He has written a moving book In Search of the Rainbow’s End about the loss of his two six year old boys, in which he included the text of a rather nasty letter, written entirely in block capitals, that Bamber wrote to him from prison. It does not appear that anyone who knew Jeremy Bamber when he was at liberty believes in his innocence.
A detail often overloooked is that the twin boys who were murdered did not live at the farm. Because of their mother’s illness, they were being brought up by their father, who allowed them to visit their grandparents. A few days before the killings, Bamber visited Colin Caffell with the apparent aim of checking when the boys would be there. If they had not been killed, Jeremy Bamber would not have been the sole heir to the family fortune.
There is another rather creepy detail in Caffell’s book, that he later came to believe that Jeremy Bamber was studying him in the immediate aftermath of the murders to see how someone genuinely grief stricken behaved, in order to mimic him."
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/01/30/the-strange-case-of-jeremy-bamber/
Re this visit by Jeremy to Colin Caffell, could it be this incident? This is from the Appeal document - para 389.
In the statement dated 11 September 1985, Colin Caffell dealt with the general background and history of his relationship with his ex-wife and with other members of the Bamber family. In the course of this statement he referred to a discussion that he had had with the appellant on the 3 August 1985, after a party.
"After he'd dropped Sheila off he returned and we talked. During the course of which he mentioned that he also had been the subject of pressure to marry from his parents as I had been. He felt that I'd had a rough deal all along in respect of Sheila's illness and the attitude of the Bamber family to me. I've always been treated like an outsider."
It doesn't say where the party was but it seems that Jeremy took Sheila home and then went back to wherever the party had been and talked to Colin. Was the party at Colin's place?
-
There was an issue about that part of the typed statement being different to the hand-written version - Colin Caffell complained to the police about it
It was a minor point. The typist typed one word wrong.
He felt that I'd had a rough deal all along in respect of Sheila's illness and the attitude of the Bamber family to me. I've always been treated like an outsider."
The typist typed "he'd" instead of "I'd".
-
Someone must have read the book or atleast knows what was contained in the nasty letter.
-
hello to all on this thread, i have the book by colin caffell and i will copy the correspondence between colin and jeremy on here, but i would just like to say that colin caffell lost his 2 kids that morning at whf (as we all know) and colin could only write the book based on the official investigation, he has taken no part what so ever in the cover up.He has been totally honest in the writing of his book, and comes across as a very compassionate man, lets face it he went through hell, and i for one wish to take nothing away from him.
colinn wrote to jeremy whilst jeremy was in wormwood scrubs, jeremy replied on the 16th august 1988
dear colin
i read the articles in yesterdays independence with much sadness, the same sadness i always feel when i read about you and what youve been through in the last 3 years. your letter today, colin, was a touch premature.your writing to me, hoping, i guess, for the last few pieces of the jigsaw so that you may hold the picture of what happened is not possible.if i could furnish you with what you wanted then i would gladly do so-whatever happened that fatefull night will never be fully explained, in factyou could probably tell me more than i could you.
the paper did mention in the article yesterday that i was appealing, and no doubt you knew that anyway.how are you going to react when they quash my conviction colin,because its very probable they will do so? you may believe me guilty, you may not,but i hope that if nothing else youlltry and keep an open mind because at my appeal i will prove my innocence and by doing that the corner stone of the prosecutionevidence was fabricated, by whome i cant prove yet and its noty necessary to do sofor my appeal, but eventually ill find out because it can only be one of five people.it sounds like im talking riddles, and im sorry i cant explain in a letter to you. it seems so pointless me sending you this letter as it will oonly add to your confusion but for you to write to me must have taken a great deal, so my replying is the least i can do.
jeremy continues in the same block capital style for another page or so and then closes wih these paragraphs.
in the same that you question what was written about shiela in the newspapers so you should question what was said wbout me.im not gay or bisexual, i wasnt a cocaine smuggler, i didnt know half the people i had been associated with, i didnt break someones arm at school, i didnt kite cheques and i didnt rape julie.what other odious stuff they wrote i cant recall-even during my trial they couldnt get it right.
i wont go on, you know me and wht i was like and i didnt write to you to convince you nof my innocence even though i am, just well whatever.
love jeremy
p.s i truly wish i could help you
-
Interesting letter - thank you for that andrea.
I take it that Colin had written to Jeremy and asked him to confess or something?
One of five people? Interesting.
At the time Jeremy obviously thought he would be cleared and out of prison soon. It's strange to think that 24 years after he wrote that he's still there.
By the way, it seems to me that Jeremy does tend to write in capitals. There's a letter somewhere on here from him and that's in capitals too.
-
yes, the letters i have personally recieved from jeremy have been in capitals. i will put more letters up if anyone wants me to? and try answer any question regarding the book
-
I wouldn't call it nasty either - more assertive. Of course Colin Caffell was desperate to know what happened, but in so doing he probably implied that Jeremy was guilty. It's hard to say without seeing the letter from Colin to Jeremy really.
-
yes it is just his style of writing, there is more correspondence i will put them up
-
colin hasnt published the letters he sent to jeremy in the book. the responses from jeremy later on do get a bit "scathing" however, it must be frustrating for both of them.with jeremy pleading his innocence and colin devastated by the loss of his kids
-
I've been thinking about this Julie Mugford business. It's the old classic one person's word against another's but what if there's a middle ground? I think it's too easy to just dismiss Julie as a liar. Remember that ultimately she stuck to her story and the defence at trial couldn't get her to admit she was lying.
Jeremy allegedly told her this story about Matthew MacDonald the night after the murders. He said he didn't of course, but what if he did? I can imagine how that could have happened.
Perhaps Jeremy has made disparaging remarks about his parents prior to the murders. Julie said he did, and that he'd talked about shooting them. Let's say he did say something like that. It's not a nice thing to say of course but I reckon some people might say something like that in a temper if they had rows with their family, and they don't really mean it.
After the murders, Julie would have remembered what Jeremy had said and that's why she asked him if he'd done it. Perhaps that shocked him, so he told her that story about MacDonald in a sarcastic way. By then he would have known roughly what had happened, and that there had been a struggle in the kitchen and all that stuff. Perhaps Julie thought he was making it up and that's why she carried on seeing him. In the weeks afterwards perhaps she became a bit disturbed by his behavior so she kept bringing the subject up, and again he let her think what she liked - perhaps he has a sinister sense of humour or something.
She allegedly told Susan Battersby this story after she came back from Amsterdam. I can find no other other references to that, but it would be interesting to know how Susan reacted to that.
Then when Jeremy and Julie had the final row, in her rage and upset she convinced herself that he hadn't made the story up, and that's how she could tell the police what he said without actually lying.
-
Thing is Kaldin, Julie didn't stick to her story, it evolved over 30+ statements then she stuck to her final story when it came to court. When she was first interviewed she said absolutely nothing to implicate him, then her story evolved. If she was telling the truth about him bragging about killing his family, she would have told all then surely? Anyway, it's all in the hands of the CCRC and the media now (waiting for the nod to go ahead publishing), they have proof he's innocent, so by definition, her final story that she told the court cannot be relied on, in my opinion.
I understand what you mean, but her basic story after she went to the police didn't change fundamentally did it? That story was that Jeremy was guilty of murder (or conspiracy to murder).
At first, she didn't implicate Jeremy - it was only after he dumped her that she did that. She stuck to her guns after that and said that Jeremy told her he'd done one way or another. Perhaps she didn't tell the police what he'd said at first because she thought he was bragging or being sarcastic. It was only later that she became angry with him, and in her mind his story became the truth rather than sarcasm?
There is no proof that he's innocent - they have things which throw doubt on it, that's all.
-
How do you know what the defence team have?
I mean I've seen nothing on here or in the press to prove he is innocent. Do you have anything more?
-
How do you know what the defence team have?
I mean I've seen nothing on here or in the press to prove he is innocent. Do you have anything more?
I understand the press have stuff and they're waiting for the CCRC announcement, and obviously all JB's team's evidence is with them/the CCRC - you're not likely to see it on here
OK, thanks. I hope it's good because the stuff on here and the stuff the press have published as "proof" so far has not been very credible to me.
-
One thing that bothers me about Julie Mugford's story is this:
She went to the police in September and told them Jeremy had told her that he paid Matthew MacDonald to commit the murders.
Why would she say that if Jeremy did not tell her that? If she wanted to lie and drop Jeremy in it, why would she say that Matthew MacDonad did it? Did she have some kind of grudge against Matthew MacDonald as well?
-
Good question. Matthew MacDonald was said to be a hitman - a myth he apparently did nothing to dispel (but when questioned by the police). Assuming Julie was lying, her intention was presumably to cause trouble for Jeremy. Perhaps she believed it would sound more convincing to say that a hitman did it. Perhaps it did not seem so implausible that a professional hitman might be able to enter and exit the house without leaving a trace.
-
Just out of interest, how did the police and press react to Julie Mugford suddenly coming forward the way she did? Did they give her a hard time? After all, she had concealed her knowledge of a serious crime for a month - one which included the murder of children. She went around with Jeremy afterwards and even went on holiday with him twice.
She's lucky she wasn't charged with perverting the course of justice I suppose - she could have prevented the police from messing up the crime scene if she had come forward earlier.
-
One thing that bothers me about Julie Mugford's story is this:
She went to the police in September and told them Jeremy had told her that he paid Matthew MacDonald to commit the murders.
Why would she say that if Jeremy did not tell her that? If she wanted to lie and drop Jeremy in it, why would she say that Matthew MacDonad did it? Did she have some kind of grudge against Matthew MacDonald as well?
Exactly!
Why mention MacDonald if she wanted to get back at Bamber? Unless she believed it to be true, for whatever reason.
Also, when she went to the police - and her friend Susan - the News of the World was nowhere in sight. And couldn't be guaranteed whatsover in those days, especially as she was talking about MacDonald as the killer.
If I had been her friend I would have said you have to tell. perhaps she really loved him and found if difficult (?!) but her friend kept saying this is murder. One day it might be you.
Actually, had I been her friend, I would have told the police immediately, unless Bamber had a reputation as a bit of a fantasist and braggard. Did he?
-
One thing that bothers me about Julie Mugford's story is this:
She went to the police in September and told them Jeremy had told her that he paid Matthew MacDonald to commit the murders.
Why would she say that if Jeremy did not tell her that? If she wanted to lie and drop Jeremy in it, why would she say that Matthew MacDonad did it? Did she have some kind of grudge against Matthew MacDonald as well?
Exactly!
Why mention MacDonald if she wanted to get back at Bamber? Unless she believed it to be true, for whatever reason.
Also, when she went to the police - and her friend Susan - the News of the World was nowhere in sight. And couldn't be guaranteed whatsover in those days, especially as she was talking about MacDonald as the killer.
If I had been her friend I would have said you have to tell. perhaps she really loved him and found if difficult (?!) but her friend kept saying this is murder. One day it might be you.
Actually, had I been her friend, I would have told the police immediately, unless Bamber had a reputation as a bit of a fantasist and braggard. Did he?
I can understand Julie Mugford not wanting to tell the police at first but I can't understand why she carried on seeing him as if nothing had happened. I would have thought she would distance herself or something.
-
She's a liar it's a disgrace that she benefitted out of all this and she probably tried to blame the hitman because maybe him and Jeremy maybe went out picking up girls together. If definitive prove comes out (say undisclosed documents) I hope that she can still be bought back to England and charged. If she was telling the truth she could have given the money to Colin caffell to help him start a new life without his two sons she could have prevented getting killed (remember when she said Jeremy told her tonights the night).
Think about it if Jeremy got out of prison tomorrow he probably might not have the chance to have children.
So this is Julie mugford she either
Lied and made the whole thing up and ruined someones life could she couldn't have them
Went along even on the day thinking two little boys would be slaughtered and she would have known they would be killed if Jeremy wanted all the inheritance
British justice makes me sick
She is the most vile and disgusting human being
-
One thing that bothers me about Julie Mugford's story is this:
She went to the police in September and told them Jeremy had told her that he paid Matthew MacDonald to commit the murders.
Why would she say that if Jeremy did not tell her that? If she wanted to lie and drop Jeremy in it, why would she say that Matthew MacDonad did it? Did she have some kind of grudge against Matthew MacDonald as well?
Exactly!
Why mention MacDonald if she wanted to get back at Bamber? Unless she believed it to be true, for whatever reason.
Also, when she went to the police - and her friend Susan - the News of the World was nowhere in sight. And couldn't be guaranteed whatsover in those days, especially as she was talking about MacDonald as the killer.
If I had been her friend I would have said you have to tell. perhaps she really loved him and found if difficult (?!) but her friend kept saying this is murder. One day it might be you.
Actually, had I been her friend, I would have told the police immediately, unless Bamber had a reputation as a bit of a fantasist and braggard. Did he?
That's a very good point... why Bring McDonald into the equation? Did she know him well enough to consider dropping his name as a reasonable accusation? Or did she get the information from Jeremy? Any thoughts?
-
Re Colin Caffell. Did the family offer him any of the inheritance? I know that money can't make up for losing your two children but I would have thought they would offer something considering that they believed that their relative had killed Colin's children.
-
She's a liar it's a disgrace that she benefitted out of all this and she probably tried to blame the hitman because maybe him and Jeremy maybe went out picking up girls together.
So she's dumped by Jeremy so she tries to frame someone who knows Jeremy for murder.. that's what you are saying?
Purely cause they may have gone cruising for girls together... she claims McDonald was hired by Bamber.
-
She's a liar it's a disgrace that she benefitted out of all this and she probably tried to blame the hitman because maybe him and Jeremy maybe went out picking up girls together. If definitive prove comes out (say undisclosed documents) I hope that she can still be bought back to England and charged. If she was telling the truth she could have given the money to Colin caffell to help him start a new life without his two sons she could have prevented getting killed (remember when she said Jeremy told her tonights the night).
Think about it if Jeremy got out of prison tomorrow he probably might not have the chance to have children.
So this is Julie mugford she either
Lied and made the whole thing up and ruined someones life could she couldn't have them
Went along even on the day thinking two little boys would be slaughtered and she would have known they would be killed if Jeremy wanted all the inheritance
British justice makes me sick
She is the most vile and disgusting human being
It would make her a terrible, amoral human being, but not the most vile and disgusting.
Nowhere near the same par as Ian Brady or Fred West.
Or whoever did kill the Bamber family.
-
But IF she was telling the truth, she could have saved their lives...
Yes, but as unpleasant as it is... Jeremy would not of been the first lad who felt he was being short changed by his parents to say things like I hate my parents or I wish they were dead.. etc etc... i dont think people's, especially close lovers etc, first reaction to a claim like that is... "oh my god he means it I must call the police!"
-
But IF she was telling the truth, she could have saved their lives...
Yes, but as unpleasant as it is... Jeremy would not of been the first lad who felt he was being short changed by his parents to say things like I hate my parents or I wish they were dead.. etc etc... i dont think people's, especially close lovers etc, first reaction to a claim like that is... "oh my god he means it I must call the police!"
I don't think she could have prevented the murders, it's her behaviour afterwards which is dodgy.
-
Re Colin Caffell. Did the family offer him any of the inheritance? I know that money can't make up for losing your two children but I would have thought they would offer something considering that they believed that their relative had killed Colin's children.
i dont think colin got a penny, and if the twins had died last (which i dont think they did) the money left fro the other wills would have gone to them, when they died , the money would have gone to their next of kin which would haver been colin. but colin caffell should have got something, it was he who lost the most that day.
-
But IF she was telling the truth, she could have saved their lives...
Yes, but as unpleasant as it is... Jeremy would not of been the first lad who felt he was being short changed by his parents to say things like I hate my parents or I wish they were dead.. etc etc... i dont think people's, especially close lovers etc, first reaction to a claim like that is... "oh my god he means it I must call the police!"
like i mentioned on a previous post, jeremy had been tellin jm for some time of his intentions to kill his family, but when he rings her in the early hrs and tells her theres something wrong at the farm she tells him not to worry and to go back to bed? now, shouldnt that have sent alarm bells off along the lines of "my god hes gone and done it" nope, it didnt. something not right.
I don't think she could have prevented the murders, it's her behaviour afterwards which is dodgy.
-
Really vile and disgusting are too good a word for anyone in on a supposed plan like that
I bet Colin Caffell was never given a penny
Something I wondered as well how soon did jm go to Canada and did she go when she realised Jeremy would be appealing
-
Re Colin Caffell. Did the family offer him any of the inheritance? I know that money can't make up for losing your two children but I would have thought they would offer something considering that they believed that their relative had killed Colin's children.
i dont think colin got a penny, and if the twins had died last (which i dont think they did) the money left fro the other wills would have gone to them, when they died , the money would have gone to their next of kin which would haver been colin. but colin caffell should have got something, it was he who lost the most that day.
It seems to me that it was assumed that Sheila died last, and therefore her inheritance went to her grandmother - Pamela Boutflour's mother, who in turn left her money to Pamela. They did some kind of deal with Neville's relatives so they got some of the money too I think.
Regardless of who should have had the money legally, you'd think that the relatives would have offered Colin something as he'd lost his children. They all sound a bit greedy to me. If the murders hadn't happened, they wouldn't have seen a penny of it, but they seemed to think it was theirs anyway.
-
according to colin in his book, the money would have gone to him. i agree yes the family were greedy.
-
But IF she was telling the truth, she could have saved their lives...
Yes, but as unpleasant as it is... Jeremy would not of been the first lad who felt he was being short changed by his parents to say things like I hate my parents or I wish they were dead.. etc etc... i dont think people's, especially close lovers etc, first reaction to a claim like that is... "oh my god he means it I must call the police!"
like i mentioned on a previous post, jeremy had been tellin jm for some time of his intentions to kill his family, but when he rings her in the early hrs and tells her theres something wrong at the farm she tells him not to worry and to go back to bed? now, shouldnt that have sent alarm bells off along the lines of "my god hes gone and done it" nope, it didnt. something not right.
I don't think she could have prevented the murders, it's her behaviour afterwards which is dodgy.
But why in the middle of the night when you are called and told "somethings wrong at the farm" would your first reaction be... He's murdered everyone?
Being told someones intentions for sometime (we have no time period here or how many times he said it to quote) doesn't mean that at 3am or 3.30am a call to say something is wrong (especially when there is someone with mental health problems staying there) would be that big a deal...
-
Really vile and disgusting are too good a word for anyone in on a supposed plan like that
I bet Colin Caffell was never given a penny
Something I wondered as well how soon did jm go to Canada and did she go when she realised Jeremy would be appealing
There was all that stuff about her selling her story to the News of the World too, but I've never seen that.
I wonder what she did after Jeremy was arrested. Finished her course I suppose, and then went to Canada after the trial. Must have been quite stressful really whichever way you look at it. I wonder what she would have done if he'd got off.
-
according to colin in his book, the money would have gone to him. i agree yes the family were greedy.
Mind you, he wrote a book so presumably he expected to make money out of that. I'm not sure I like the sound of any of them really.
-
because hadnt he supposedly told her earlier in the night "tonights the night". it should have sent alarm bells ringing.
-
according to colin in his book, the money would have gone to him. i agree yes the family were greedy.
Wills and intestacy are complicated.
If it was assumed Neville and June died first, their wills come into play.
If Sheila had made a will, and was decreed to have died after N + J, this would have been included in her estate. Whoever she bequeathed her estate to would get it. As her sons were dead it would go to their nearest blood relatives on a percentile basis. If she died intestate, it would go to her nearest blood relatives - not her ex-husband.
Her natural mother and father and any half siblings would have been able to claim on Sheila's estate.
-
because hadnt he supposedly told her earlier in the night "tonights the night". it should have sent alarm bells ringing.
I don't know andrea - it's all a bit odd really.
If Jeremy was saying all this stuff to her beforehand I can understand it if she didn't believe him. If someone talks about killing their family, you'd just think they were a bit of a prat or something or you'd tell them not to be so stupid. However, Jeremy was a handsome man so perhaps she was a bit in awe of him and she put up with it.
-
after the murders colin spent time working with criminals including murderers and sex offenders, he also went on a course ran by elizabeth kubler ross in order to help other bereaved parents. colin is now a full time sculpture, ive been on his website and his work is fantastic. there is a piece he sculptered, which is beautiful but quite sad, it shows colin holding the twins its hard to tell if theyre sleeping or dead and his head on one of their chests, as if listening for a hearbeat.he did that sculpture just after the twins had died.
-
according to colin in his book, the money would have gone to him. i agree yes the family were greedy.
Wills and intestacy are complicated.
If it was assumed Neville and June died first, their wills come into play.
If Sheila had made a will, and was decreed to have died after N + J, this would have been included in her estate. Whoever she bequeathed her estate to would get it. As her sons were dead it would go to their nearest blood relatives on a percentile basis. If she died intestate, it would go to her nearest blood relatives - not her ex-husband.
Her natural mother and father and any half siblings would have been able to claim on Sheila's estate.
I don't think Sheila had made a will.
Colin wouldn't have got anything via Sheila, but if the twins died last he should have got it via them - because Sheila's estate would have gone to them.
I have read on here that the twins couldn't inherit because they were too young but I don't understand that at all - since when can children not inherit?
-
the money from mabel speakmans will (junes mother) would have gone to june, when june died the money would then be passed to jeremy and shiela. ms speakman died only weeks after the murders, when boutflour realised this he went and sought legal advise and got ms speakman to change the will in their favour.with ms speakmans consent of course.
-
the money from mabel speakmans will (junes mother) would have gone to june, when june died the money would then be passed to jeremy and shiela. ms speakman died only weeks after the murders, when boutflour realised this he went and sought legal advise and got ms speakman to change the will in their favour.with ms speakmans consent of course.
Mabel Speakman left everything to June? What about Pamela?
The Bambers had their own money and property so it wasn't just about Mabel Speakman's estate.
-
true, but her will was quite sizeable from what i can gather.
-
according to colin in his book, the money would have gone to him. i agree yes the family were greedy.
Wills and intestacy are complicated.
If it was assumed Neville and June died first, their wills come into play.
If Sheila had made a will, and was decreed to have died after N + J, this would have been included in her estate. Whoever she bequeathed her estate to would get it. As her sons were dead it would go to their nearest blood relatives on a percentile basis. If she died intestate, it would go to her nearest blood relatives - not her ex-husband.
Her natural mother and father and any half siblings would have been able to claim on Sheila's estate.
I don't think Sheila had made a will.
Colin wouldn't have got anything via Sheila, but if the twins died last he should have got it via them - because Sheila's estate would have gone to them.
I have read on here that the twins couldn't inherit because they were too young but I don't understand that at all - since when can children not inherit?
In England & Wales you can make a will and leave leave your estate to who or what you want. If you die intestate with 2 blood children it would be split 2 ways. If it was decided the children died after her, they would inherit her estate and it would go to their closest blood relative - their father. If the children died before, Sheila's half should go to her nearest blood relatives.
Does anyone have evidence of Mabel's will before it was changed following the murders?
-
according to colin in his book, the money would have gone to him. i agree yes the family were greedy.
Wills and intestacy are complicated.
If it was assumed Neville and June died first, their wills come into play.
If Sheila had made a will, and was decreed to have died after N + J, this would have been included in her estate. Whoever she bequeathed her estate to would get it. As her sons were dead it would go to their nearest blood relatives on a percentile basis. If she died intestate, it would go to her nearest blood relatives - not her ex-husband.
Her natural mother and father and any half siblings would have been able to claim on Sheila's estate.
I don't think Sheila had made a will.
Colin wouldn't have got anything via Sheila, but if the twins died last he should have got it via them - because Sheila's estate would have gone to them.
I have read on here that the twins couldn't inherit because they were too young but I don't understand that at all - since when can children not inherit?
In England & Wales you can make a will and leave leave your estate to who or what you want. If you die intestate with 2 blood children it would be split 2 ways. If it was decided the children died after her, they would inherit her estate and it would go to their closest blood relative - their father. If the children died before, Sheila's half should go to her nearest blood relatives.
Does anyone have evidence of Mabel's will before it was changed following the murders?
Yes, which is why I think that they assumed that Sheila died last.
-
So julie mugford knew before the killings knew the day of the killings and she knew when the murders had been carried out
As I have said before her behaviour never changed before or after the murders so she was either involved knew everything put on an Oscar winning performance at the funeral. Or it was a pack of lies and once she knew Jeremy was going to come into all that money she knew she didn't stand a chance of holding on to him she was hardly good looking and he was this good looking boy with all this money
-
Is this forum discussing evidence that might get JB a re-trial?
Or trying to convict JM?
-
well, jm was a star witness for the prosecution so i suppose she will get a mention on here ;) but i personally find what she says a bit dodgy.
-
Julie Mugford's credibility has already been tested by the courts. Her credibility was a specific grounds for appeal in 2002. You can find the information here.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html at paragraph 331
-
I cannot believe you just wrote that because if anything that makes the prosecution and police sound worse than I even thought. So Julie mugford knew about the murders before they were going to happen she knew the day they were going to happen she knew when they had happened let Colin caffell think his. Wife had killed her own children let the chance of the crime scene be contaminated and be useless for conclusive forensic tests and the police give her and her friend immunity from immunity. She the star witness giving evidence against Jeremy and not one single bit of proof that those conversations ever took place. Please can no one on this site ever make out that women was a credible witness I wouldn't be surprised the police didn't broker the deal with the newspaper and paid for her ticket to Canada. She must have been laughing all the way to the bank. Let's get the cps star witness back for a lie detector test I am sure she would be happy to participate. NOt
-
I cannot believe you just wrote that because if anything that makes the prosecution and police sound worse than I even thought. So Julie mugford knew about the murders before they were going to happen she knew the day they were going to happen she knew when they had happened let Colin caffell think his. Wife had killed her own children let the chance of the crime scene be contaminated and be useless for conclusive forensic tests and the police give her and her friend immunity from immunity. She the star witness giving evidence against Jeremy and not one single bit of proof that those conversations ever took place. Please can no one on this site ever make out that women was a credible witness I wouldn't be surprised the police didn't broker the deal with the newspaper and paid for her ticket to Canada. She must have been laughing all the way to the bank. Let's get the cps star witness back for a lie detector test I am sure she would be happy to participate. NOt
The jury found her credible.
No matter how much character assassination you want to undertake now, it's irrelevant.
-
So julie mugford knew before the killings knew the day of the killings and she knew when the murders had been carried out
As I have said before her behaviour never changed before or after the murders so she was either involved knew everything put on an Oscar winning performance at the funeral. Or it was a pack of lies and once she knew Jeremy was going to come into all that money she knew she didn't stand a chance of holding on to him she was hardly good looking and he was this good looking boy with all this money
...and because of all this she accused McDonald because Jeremy told her that, as you put it, he was running around town picking up women with Jeremy.
-
I cannot believe you just wrote that because if anything that makes the prosecution and police sound worse than I even thought. So Julie mugford knew about the murders before they were going to happen she knew the day they were going to happen she knew when they had happened let Colin caffell think his. Wife had killed her own children let the chance of the crime scene be contaminated and be useless for conclusive forensic tests and the police give her and her friend immunity from immunity. She the star witness giving evidence against Jeremy and not one single bit of proof that those conversations ever took place. Please can no one on this site ever make out that women was a credible witness I wouldn't be surprised the police didn't broker the deal with the newspaper and paid for her ticket to Canada. She must have been laughing all the way to the bank. Let's get the cps star witness back for a lie detector test I am sure she would be happy to participate. NOt
Wow... so you think the Police brokered the deal for the newspapers, McDonald was accused because he liked picking up women with Jeremy and anyone that disagrees with accepting theories posted on this website is in favour of the dealth penalty... you are just a walk, talking sweeping statement! :)
-
Let's get the cps star witness back for a lie detector test I am sure she would be happy to participate. NOt
Do you actually know how lie detector tests work? As many people that think they are worth while just as many think they are useless and easily defeated.
One APA explanation: "If 10 polygraph examinations are administered and the examiner is correct in 7 decisions, wrong in 1 and has 2 inconclusive test results, we calculate the accuracy rate as 87.5% (8 definitive results, 7 of which were correct.) Critics of the polygraph technique would calculate the accuracy rate in this example as 70%, (10 examinations with 7 correct decisions.)" This argument is not entirely unreasonable, since there are several ways to measure accuracy.
What is interesting here, is that even in an argument from the biggest promoters of the polygraph, the example given is of of 87.5% accuracy, and 20% "inconclusive" results. This means that of a 100 people tested in a murder case, about 10 innocent people would be found to be "lying," and 20 with an "inconclusive" reading. Those with inconclusive results might include both murderers and innocent people.
Lets look at this another way. Of a 100 murderers, 10 would be found to be telling the truth, and 20 would have inconclusive results from their lie detector results. In other words, out of 100 murders, 30 would not be identified, according to the accuracy assumed in the example above.
-
?Polygraphs detect lies.
Polygraphs measure physiological changes in the body: they do not detect lies. Physiological responses do not directly translate into proof of lying, nor is the process an objective way of testing for lies; the results of polygraph tests are subjectively interpreted by the polygrapher who then decides whether the examinee was lying.
?Polygraphs are infallible.
There are varying claims for the accuracy of polygraph testing. Some claim up to 99% accuracy, some say that they are closer to 50% accurate - pure chance. The truth is likely to be somewhere in between.
The true accuracy of polygraph testing is difficult to ascertain. Polygraph testing is often done in cases where other evidence is insubstantial, so there’s often no other way to validate the findings. However, most attempts to ascertain the true accuracy, including scientific tests where the 'ground truth' is known, usually give answers in the 60-70% range. This means that polygraph testing is better than guessing (50% accurate) but it's nowhere near as accurate as its proponents claim nor is it accurate enough to be considered a valid and reliable method.
Sometimes people “crack” and confess; again this does not validate the process; many people give confessions, and even false confessions, under duress. John A. Larson, a pioneer of polygraphic lie detection stated, "The lie detector, as used in many places, is nothing more than a psychological third-degree aimed at extorting confessions as the old physical beatings were."
One important fact to consider is that polygraphers interpret results. This means that their findings can be influenced by their preconceptions; if they believe a person to be guilty before testing, they could be more likely to interpret the test results to reflect that belief. and vice versa - edit by me
In 1986, the US television programme 60 minutes did an exposé on private polygraph companies. Three different companies were told that a camera and lens had been stolen from the offices of a magazine publisher. There were four employees who were all suspects. Each polygrapher was asked to test the employees and in each case they were told, "It might have been ___," with a different employee being weakly accused in each case.
The three different companies each found that the person who had been accused by the magazine was indeed the guilty party, and they were all very confident in their findings. The fact that there never was a crime, that no theft really took place, and that no one was guilty of anything, shows just how strongly the polygraphers' preconceptions can influence the way that they interpret the results of their tests.
Taken from a Uk Polygraph site.
-
As far as I know lie detectors are used within the legal system I am sure probation officers have used them
As far as Julie mugford and a jury believing her I had the unfortunate of being part of a jury on a murder case at Chelmsford crown court and a frightening fact I observed was a number of the jurors made it quite clear they thought he looked guilty and a few really didn't understand the case, when you are tried by jury it is pot luck Jeremy was convicted on 10-2 majority from what I have read I have no doubt that the jury would have felt different if more information had been disclosed. I will never understand the way Julie mugford was treated look at the way Maxine Carr was treated she got a prison sentence and she wasn't involved as much as Julie mugford and there were two girls involved there, not 5 murdered. I am quite sure she didn't sell her story either. I believe the police had a very flimsy case against Jeremy and were quite happy to let jm off anything as long as they got a conviction on Jeremy and it looked like well done Essex police.
-
As far as I know lie detectors are used within the legal system I am sure probation officers have used them
As far as Julie mugford and a jury believing her I had the unfortunate of being part of a jury on a murder case at Chelmsford crown court and a frightening fact I observed was a number of the jurors made it quite clear they thought he looked guilty and a few really didn't understand the case, when you are tried by jury it is pot luck Jeremy was convicted on 10-2 majority from what I have read I have no doubt that the jury would have felt different if more information had been disclosed. I will never understand the way Julie mugford was treated look at the way Maxine Carr was treated she got a prison sentence and she wasn't involved as much as Julie mugford and there were two girls involved there, not 5 murdered. I am quite sure she didn't sell her story either. I believe the police had a very flimsy case against Jeremy and were quite happy to let jm off anything as long as they got a conviction on Jeremy and it looked like well done Essex police.
You are doing the same thing you are accusing your co-jury members of doing!! can you not see that?
-
As far as I know lie detectors are used within the legal system I am sure probation officers have used them
As far as Julie mugford and a jury believing her I had the unfortunate of being part of a jury on a murder case at Chelmsford crown court and a frightening fact I observed was a number of the jurors made it quite clear they thought he looked guilty and a few really didn't understand the case, when you are tried by jury it is pot luck Jeremy was convicted on 10-2 majority from what I have read I have no doubt that the jury would have felt different if more information had been disclosed. I will never understand the way Julie mugford was treated look at the way Maxine Carr was treated she got a prison sentence and she wasn't involved as much as Julie mugford and there were two girls involved there, not 5 murdered. I am quite sure she didn't sell her story either. I believe the police had a very flimsy case against Jeremy and were quite happy to let jm off anything as long as they got a conviction on Jeremy and it looked like well done Essex police.
Tried by a Jury is pot luck??? :o
So now you are suggesting that the entire British legal system is flawed?
-
You have obviously never listened to the many discussions on why trial by jury might not be fair!
I am still waiting for Hartley or Peres observations as why Julie mugford was treated. So differently to someone else (example Maxine Carr) the police were quite prepared to offer her immunity although she was involved in this mass murder. Desperate measures from Essex police I think
Observations on that point
Hartley or pete have you ever been a juror on a murder trial?
I have
-
You have obviously never listened to the many discussions on why trial by jury might not be fair!
That really is stretching it, and quite frankly irrelevant.
I am still waiting for Hartley or Peres observations as why Julie mugford was treated.
Are you?
Observations on that point
Hartley or pete have you ever been a juror on a murder trial?
I have
No I have not, however, if you have been on jury service for such a case, what relevance does that have. Do you think suddenly you have a higher level of insight, based on your one time experience?
-
I find it amazing you keep bringing up your jury service and yet post the way you do!! Have you reread anything you've posted??
I've never stood for jury service as my circumstances won't allow it. But I've been brought up to think as an individual and base my opinion on things I can prove and/or understand.
Comparing Maxine Carr and julie mugford is quite frankly ridiculous and silly beyond reason. I really do want to understand your points and position but while your posting the way you are I can't see that happening!
-
I will give you an example of what happened while deliberating on the case I was a juror on. I was in the minority and a couple of other jurors tried
to push me into pleading guilty as they said the accused was more than likely guilty and they wanted a decision because they were both doing different things that night.
Still waiting for your comments why the police treated Julie mugford differently to someone like Maxine Carr. They make there own rules up as they go along
-
You have obviously never listened to the many discussions on why trial by jury might not be fair!
I can generally agree with jackiepreece on this point.
If a case is quite complicated (and this one certainly was/is) it takes some IQ to sort things out and come to the right conclusion. It has been suggested that complex fraud cases should just be tried by judges only.
It would appear here that Jury at JB's trial were swayed by several factors that were complex and maybe difficult to understand.
I don' believe the Defence put up as stronger case as I believe they could on existing evidence; however their hands were somewhat tied by nondisclosure of certain other information.
A retrial, with all information presented, would help clear up these anomalies (as long as the Jury were clever enough to assimilate all the information presented - and all of us are struggling!).
-
I will give you an example of what happened while deliberating on the case I was a juror on. I was in the minority and a couple of other jurors tried
to push me into pleading guilty as they said the accused was more than likely guilty and they wanted a decision because they were both doing different things that night.
Okay, deep breath ........ You can't relate your experience of a single jury service to the jury which served in 1986 in JB's trial.
And it doesn't matter anyway, that is the system we use in this country, whether you like it or not.
I'm not really sure what you are asking about people being treated differently, the jury watched and listened to the case put forward by the prosecution and the defence and came to a conclusion and passed a verdict. End of story.
Now for a retrial to be granted then it needs to be based on evidence and nothing else.
-
I will give you an example of what happened while deliberating on the case I was a juror on. I was in the minority and a couple of other jurors tried
to push me into pleading guilty as they said the accused was more than likely guilty and they wanted a decision because they were both doing different things that night.
Still waiting for your comments why the police treated Julie mugford differently to someone like Maxine Carr. They make there own rules up as they go along
Ive given you my comments... You are so far off the mark I've lost the will to reply to you... Maxine Carr and mugford can not be compared it's ridiculous, bizarre totally unrelated and bares no relevance to this case..
-
You have obviously never listened to the many discussions on why trial by jury might not be fair!
I can generally agree with jackiepreece on this point.
If a case is quite complicated (and this one certainly was/is) it takes some IQ to sort things out and come to the right conclusion. It has been suggested that complex fraud cases should just be tried by judges only.
It would appear here that Jury at JB's trial were swayed by several factors that were complex and maybe difficult to understand.
I don' believe the Defence put up as stronger case as I believe they could on existing evidence; however their hands were somewhat tied by nondisclosure of certain other information.
A retrial, with all information presented, would help clear up these anomalies (as long as the Jury were clever enough to assimilate all the information presented - and all of us are struggling!).
I just wanted to update my amendment
-
To newbury1
Thankyou much more eloquently put than me and a retrial is all Jeremy's asking for
I will never change my mind over the fact that if Julie mugford went to the police and told the story of how she was involved she was never charged with anything
I bet the jury were disgusted when the girl they saw keep breaking down in the witness box has sold her story
I would have hidden away for ever if I thought I could have stopped the slaughter of a whole family which included two innocent little boys
-
The comparison to Maxine Carr is interesting, and I think there are some parallels. It wasn't quite the same thing because Julie Mugford didn't actually lie, but she did go around with Jeremy for a whole month, and she did withhold evidence from the police - ie, what Jeremy had told her (allegedly). Maxine Carr lied but she didn't know that Huntley had killed the girls.
Could they have prosecuted Julie Mugford for not coming forward earlier though? With Maxine Carr it was more straightforward I suppose.
I asked earlier if Julie Mugford was reviled by the press, and it was the issue of Maxine Carr that made me wonder about that.
-
To newbury1
Thankyou much more eloquently put than me and a retrial is all Jeremy's asking for
I will never change my mind over the fact
I bet the jury were disgusted when the girl they saw keep breaking down in the witness box has sold her story
I would have hidden away for ever if I thought I could have stopped the slaughter of a whole family which included two innocent little boys
Jackie, in these two sentences you've implied that JM was involved with the crime and so therefore so was Jeremy!
"So differently to someone else (example Maxine Carr) the police were quite prepared to offer her immunity although she was involved in this mass murder."
that if Julie mugford went to the police and told the story of how she was involved she was never charged with anything
-
Yes....... I noted the implied contradiction also.
-
An analogy.
Chatting with my sister, she overhead a woman on the bus say to her child "If you don't b****y stop it I'm going to kill you".
Should my sister have gone to the police? And everyone else on the bus?
If this child went missing and something awful had happened and my sister went to the police a month later, should my sister then be arrested? And everyone on the bus?
Rightly or wrongly many people make idle threats. Should we all be reporting them?
If JB confessed to JM perhaps she was a combination of stunned and afraid - who knows? She told a friend - perhaps she should be charged as well.
I don't like the sound of JM either, but there's never been any evidence that she was actively involved in the planning or carrying out of the murders. Some people are talking about her as if she is a mass murderer. It's bordering on libel.
Her statement was only part of the prosecution. It was corroborated by evidence that Sheila did not kill herself. The silencer. Evidence Sheila did not use the gun - clean hands and feet. The only person who told the world that Sheila had the gun was JB. Money motive.
-
When JM went to the police she also revealed
Her and JB's involvement with the Caravan site robbery
Her involvement with JB's cannabis deals
Her involvement in a £800 cheque fraud with her friend.
Hardly painting herself as Mother Teresa.
-
When JM went to the police she also revealed
Her and JB's involvement with the Caravan site robbery
Her involvement with JB's cannabis deals
Her involvement in a £800 cheque fraud with her friend.
Hardly painting herself as Mother Teresa.
--------------------------------------------------
No, but paving the way for her not to be charged so that she could give evidence on behalf of the prosecutions case...
-
When JM went to the police she also revealed
Her and JB's involvement with the Caravan site robbery
Her involvement with JB's cannabis deals
Her involvement in a £800 cheque fraud with her friend.
Hardly painting herself as Mother Teresa.
--------------------------------------------------
No, but paving the way for her not to be charged so that she could give evidence on behalf of the prosecutions case...
But the police didn't know about her involvement before she mentioned it. So she wasn't trading...
-
I am obviously not making myself clear but I believe jb is innocent
Now Julie mugford can only be one of these two things
(1) she made the whole thing up because she was jealous about Jeremy and put an innocent man in prison for the rest of his life
(2) jb told her weeks before the murders he wanted to kill his whole family (maybe at that time she might have thought he was joking) the day of the murders jb told her tonights the night (and she would have probably known the whole family were at whf) she was with Jeremy after the murders obviously knowing he has carried out the murders from his comments the day before. Was quite happy with the murder was not sealed off as the police thought it was suicide (that's called perverting the course of justice) attended the funerals, 2 holidays (all this time knowing he was responsible after the tonights the night comment
It's too far fetched I do not believe Jeremy told her about the murders if he had killed all his family he might kill her next
My believe what I personally believe she made the whole thing up and the police went with story couldn't believe their luck helped swing the balance of a weak case with no decent forensics left because the murder site previously believed suicide. I will never accept that Julie mugford would be allowed to work with children because of her involvement after the murders. I think the police would have been more than grateful to organise her new life in Canada which made their job incredibly easy solving this mass murder / suicide?
Why not run a poll on here and ask any women if they would stay with someone after they had carried out a mass murder including two children let alone go on holiday with him
You will not find one
It never happened
Can everyone just use some commonsense girls don't like mass murderers
She was a nasty jealous liar. Poor jb
-
I think that I must have Horseydave's bit between my teeth, because I'm starting to feel like we're all in an episode of the Twilight Zone. As I've already posted, there is very little tangible evidence left, but lots of wild supposition, conspiracy theories, gut reactions and tons of conflicting facts. And I've asked this question twice before - why did the murderer return to shoot the children again, when the initial shots to their temples obviously kill them immediately?
-
Perhaps because it was Sheila and she obviously would not really understand what she was doing that night. If it was her she must have been in a desperate state poor thing
-
Jackie, I really do understand where you're coming from, but having seen the pictures of her body, do you think that she could have "rampaged" through the house, naked except for her nightdress, and wrestled with Ralph? So much of this doesn't add up. I came to this forum with an open mind, I'm the same age as Jeremy and remember the case very well, but now I have come to the conclusion that someone much bigger, stronger and more organised that Sheila murdered the family that night.
-
I think that I must have Horseydave's bit between my teeth, because I'm starting to feel like we're all in an episode of the Twilight Zone. As I've already posted, there is very little tangible evidence left, but lots of wild supposition, conspiracy theories, gut reactions and tons of conflicting facts. And I've asked this question twice before - why did the murderer return to shoot the children again, when the initial shots to their temples obviously kill them immediately?
Because they had to be absolutely sure everyone was dead?
Because they thought others would associate 'overkill' with 'madness'?
Jackie, I really do understand where you're coming from, but having seen the pictures of her body, do you think that she could have "rampaged" through the house, naked except for her nightdress, and wrestled with Ralph? So much of this doesn't add up. I came to this forum with an open mind, I'm the same age as Jeremy and remember the case very well, but now I have come to the conclusion that someone much bigger, stronger and more organised that Sheila murdered the family that night.
Been thinking of this, following the other thread.
My Father may be 70, but he's in very good health, and Neville's stature. Those first couple of shots would have to be really good and involve large blood loss. Without that, I think he'd wrestle the gun from most women, I really do. And, in a battle for his life, he would certainly injure them, woman/daughter or not.
-
I think so,too. Ralph was a big bloke, and also knew how to placate Sheila under normal circumstances. How can the barrel marks on the back of his neck be explained? The 6 million dollar question is - who called the police? I know that this has been discussed many times before, but if Jeremy commited the murders on his own, surely he would have left the scene to be discovered by a member of staff the next morning? I've said this before, but the more I learn, the less I understand. And Jackie, if you're still out there, can you tell me why you think that Jeremy is innocent?
-
Why were the police quite happy with everything as a suicide until the relatives and jm got involved if you are right and someone involved must have some expertise to be sure Sheila carried out the murders and they certainly would not have started burning evidence.
I am quite small but can control a very large horse and if I really lost my mind I think I could cause some serious damage
If you are swinging the blame back to jb it has got to be someone seriously mad to carry out those type of murders. I have seen plenty about him being this arrogant rich kid but not too much about him being this mad psycho that you could imagine killing his whole family and I have read lots about people who know him from prison. I even thought maybe the govener of the prison thinks he is innocent because I think it was up to him to let the test go ahead why help. Then there was an article in the times I think where the paper said he got favourable treatment in prison would they do that if they thought he was guilty.
I am trying to look at everything to get a fair opinion what I feel about jb because at this moment nobody has absolute proof of guilt and innocence
But I do know from what I have read I would definitely have gone not guilty on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt
-
I think so,too. Ralph was a big bloke, and also knew how to placate Sheila under normal circumstances. How can the barrel marks on the back of his neck be explained? The 6 million dollar question is - who called the police? I know that this has been discussed many times before, but if Jeremy commited the murders on his own, surely he would have left the scene to be discovered by a member of staff the next morning? I've said this before, but the more I learn, the less I understand. And Jackie, if you're still out there, can you tell me why you think that Jeremy is innocent?
I think Kaldin has proved there was 1 phone call to the police.
Some of us read what was implied by JB's phone:
JB at home not WHF
Current situation at WHF - everyone alive
If anything happens, Sheila's to blame (has gun and is mentally ill)
JB's phone call simultaneously provides an alibi and points the finger.
If a charade, it was very clever, very cunning.
If the police had been called the following morning by staff etc, they would have gone in cold, without preconceptions, They would have followed the evidence instead of the (phone call) suggestion of suicide/murder. Likelihood is that they would have made a more thorough investigation thinking they might be trying to find a murderer. Instead, they were slipshod, thinking there was little to prove as the murderer was in a body bag.
-
If you are swinging the blame back to jb it has got to be someone seriously mad to carry out those type of murders.
Morning Jackie, You see i would say the opposite that this is someone who is reasonably controlled. Even if there were 50 shell casings they have a 50% strike rate. This is someone who has hit the target with nearly if not every shot they have fired. If this is Sheila and she has hit someone with nearly every shot why did she need 2 shots to kill herself.
Shonapugs, I don't think the kids were shot with 1 bullet and then returned to. The post mortem on Daniel at the 2002 appeal says '5 shots to the head in an arc in quick succession'
-
So is everyone of the opinion Sheila was not physically capable of the killings and the police messed up with the investigation. You also said about the shot success rate but wouldn't that be the case because of the close range
-
I am sure she is physically capable of the killings but i do think it is highly unlikely. The injuries to Nevill are pretty horrific. I don't think there was a struggle, i think he tried but got battered before he could.
Surely someone going nuts would be firing on entering a room not at close range. Ask yourself , JB has said his father called him saying Sheila is going beserk with one of his guns. At what point would he have called JB? When she started loading it? After she had shot him and June? or after she shot her twin boys? She obviously has possession of the weapon and is using it before he makes the call. So, at what point? The whole phonecall thing is completely nonsensical in my opinion.
-
I see your point also
-
I am sure she is physically capable of the killings but i do think it is highly unlikely. The injuries to Nevill are pretty horrific. I don't think there was a struggle, i think he tried but got battered before he could.
Surely someone going nuts would be firing on entering a room not at close range. Ask yourself , JB has said his father called him saying Sheila is going beserk with one of his guns. At what point would he have called JB? When she started loading it? After she had shot him and June? or after she shot her twin boys? She obviously has possession of the weapon and is using it before he makes the call. So, at what point? The whole phonecall thing is completely nonsensical in my opinion.
I think she would have been mentally and physically capable of it, but some things don't add up. If that fight with Neville happened before he was shot at all, maybe there wouldn't be signs of it, but then I would expect Neville to have been able to overpower her. If he had been shot before it happened I would at least expect his blood to be on her.
-
The shots to the children - surely the MOST emotive for a Mother - were the MOST controlled.
Could Sheila have calmly put a shot in the back of the head, moving closer as that 'arc' was created? Then repeated it with the second child?
According to the family, Sheila had bad co-ordination. Would mania have improved this? Plus she didn't know one end of a gun from another, having never been known to shoot in her adult life.
The clinical nature of the children's death doesn't tie in with a mother on the rampage, trying to rid her children of the devil (her earlier preoccupation).
Yes, on paper, any of us are capable, but...
-
The shots to the children - surely the MOST emotive for a Mother - were the MOST controlled.
Could Sheila have calmly put a shot in the back of the head, moving closer as that 'arc' was created? Then repeated it with the second child?
According to the family, Sheila had bad co-ordination. Would mania have improved this? Plus she didn't know one end of a gun from another, having never been known to shoot in her adult life.
The clinical nature of the children's death doesn't tie in with a mother on the rampage, trying to rid her children of the devil (her earlier preoccupation).
Yes, on paper, any of us are capable, but...
This troubles me too. I could almost see Sheila capable of pulling the trigger of a pre-loaded gun, but to have the knowledge of how to take off the magazine, reload and reinstate, then re-cock the mechanism to fire again? I can't see it if she had no experience with guns beforehand.
-
What does "arc" mean in this context?
-
I am still struggling to believe the stories of Julie mugford
Let's just say she was telling the truth (and to confirm once again I do not believe her) Julie mugford apparently knew the murders were happening weeks before the event she knew about the murders the morning of the event and she believed Jeremy was responsible for the murders after they happened (it would be a billion to one Jeremy didn't carry out the murders if he had told her before on that morning). She showed no guilt in that month after. No body could pull that off. She faced no charges although her actions would almost definately stopped the police having the forensic evidence to prove conclusively how the family died. She was given immunity and became a teacher with children in Canada. My believe is the police knew she was lieing all along or she would never have been allowed to teach. She perverted the course of justice in 5 murders compared to another famous face Maxine Carr who perverted the course of justice in two murders. Can someone explain why she was not charged please
Maxine Ann Carr
Born 16 February 1977 (age 33)
Grimsby, Lincolnshire, England
Conviction(s) Perverting the course of justice, Benefit fraud & Deception
Penalty 42 months imprisonment & 36 month rehabilitation order
Status Released
Occupation Teaching assistant
[edit]Maxine Carr
Maxine Carr had initially provided a false alibi to police for Huntley, claiming to be with him at the time of the murders when she was actually in Grimsby. She was charged with perverting the course of justice and assisting an offender. She pleaded guilty to the first charge and not guilty to the second.
Her failure to expose Huntley's lies in the early stages of the investigation (before either of them was arrested) meant that police initially eliminated Huntley as a suspect. The police who investigated the disappearance and murder of the two girls later said they would have quickly established that Ian Huntley was the abductor (and ultimately the murderer) of the two girls had Maxine Carr told the truth about their whereabouts at the time the girls went missing. But, due to her lies, the police were left waiting nearly two weeks before finally being able to arrest and charge him[14]
The court accepted that Carr had only lied to the police to protect Huntley because she believed his claims of innocence and so found her not guilty of assisting an offender. She was sentenced to three and a half years in prison and was released on probation on 14 May 2004 after serving 21 months (including 16 months on remand). She was given a new secret identity to protect her from threats of attack from members of the public that had been made during her remand, as well as during and after the trial.
-
What does "arc" mean in this context?
I thought in was in a semi-circle or curve. That was from Daniels exit wound diagram that mike posted though.
-
What does "arc" mean in this context?
I thought in was in a semi-circle or curve. That was from Daniels exit wound diagram that mike posted though.
Afraid I can't bring myself to look at the stuff of the children - I'm going from text in court papers/appeals.
'Arc' also means each bullet makes its own entry - creates it's own wound, path and damage. The evidence is the killer moved closer, while shooting, as the damage was done in quick succession - not a shot and come back later. Moving and shooting precisely is skilled. Standing still and shooting accurately is pretty skilled. Shooting quickly is an acquired skill - as anyone who occasionally goes on a clay shoot will know.
-
What does "arc" mean in this context?
I thought in was in a semi-circle or curve. That was from Daniels exit wound diagram that mike posted though.
How does one shoot in a curve? Excuse my ignorance about such things.
-
I am still struggling to believe the stories of Julie mugford
Let's just say she was telling the truth (and to confirm once again I do not believe her) Julie mugford apparently knew the murders were happening weeks before the event she knew about the murders the morning of the event and she believed Jeremy was responsible for the murders after they happened (it would be a billion to one Jeremy didn't carry out the murders if he had told her before on that morning). She showed no guilt in that month after. No body could pull that off. She faced no charges although her actions would almost definately stopped the police having the forensic evidence to prove conclusively how the family died. She was given immunity and became a teacher with children in Canada. My believe is the police knew she was lieing all along or she would never have been allowed to teach. She perverted the course of justice in 5 murders compared to another famous face Maxine Carr who perverted the course of justice in two murders. Can someone explain why she was not charged please
Maxine Ann Carr
Born 16 February 1977 (age 33)
Grimsby, Lincolnshire, England
Conviction(s) Perverting the course of justice, Benefit fraud & Deception
Penalty 42 months imprisonment & 36 month rehabilitation order
Status Released
Occupation Teaching assistant
[edit]Maxine Carr
Maxine Carr had initially provided a false alibi to police for Huntley, claiming to be with him at the time of the murders when she was actually in Grimsby. She was charged with perverting the course of justice and assisting an offender. She pleaded guilty to the first charge and not guilty to the second.
Her failure to expose Huntley's lies in the early stages of the investigation (before either of them was arrested) meant that police initially eliminated Huntley as a suspect. The police who investigated the disappearance and murder of the two girls later said they would have quickly established that Ian Huntley was the abductor (and ultimately the murderer) of the two girls had Maxine Carr told the truth about their whereabouts at the time the girls went missing. But, due to her lies, the police were left waiting nearly two weeks before finally being able to arrest and charge him[14]
The court accepted that Carr had only lied to the police to protect Huntley because she believed his claims of innocence and so found her not guilty of assisting an offender. She was sentenced to three and a half years in prison and was released on probation on 14 May 2004 after serving 21 months (including 16 months on remand). She was given a new secret identity to protect her from threats of attack from members of the public that had been made during her remand, as well as during and after the trial.
Hello Jackie. I know you've brought up the issue of Maxine Carr before, and I have to say I agree with you. Maxine said she was at the house when she wasn't, which was a lie, but she didn't cover up for Huntley knowingly - she was found not guilty of that. She didn't provide a false alibi as such, she just said she was there. She has been reviled by many people for that to the extent that she has to hide her identity now.
Julie Mugford did a similar thing in some ways - worse really as she claimed that she knew Jeremy had done it, and yet I've seen nothing about her getting a hard time in the press or from the police or general public. She was not prosecuted for any of it. One could say that the prosecution needed her as a witness, but then Maxine Carr also testified against Huntley and was not given immunity.
-
What does "arc" mean in this context?
I thought in was in a semi-circle or curve. That was from Daniels exit wound diagram that mike posted though.
Afraid I can't bring myself to look at the stuff of the children - I'm going from text in court papers/appeals.
'Arc' also means each bullet makes its own entry - creates it's own wound, path and damage. The evidence is the killer moved closer, while shooting, as the damage was done in quick succession - not a shot and come back later. Moving and shooting precisely is skilled. Standing still and shooting accurately is pretty skilled. Shooting quickly is an acquired skill - as anyone who occasionally goes on a clay shoot will know.
Thank you. I do think that the boys were killed quickly rather than being shot once and then being shot again later. Mike's theory about the double-marked bullets is interesting but not very conclusive.
-
What does "arc" mean in this context?
I thought in was in a semi-circle or curve. That was from Daniels exit wound diagram that mike posted though.
How does one shoot in a curve? Excuse my ignorance about such things.
Have two fairly expert brains here right now (military).
You either move the gun gently to get an arc from a set position - which requires small arm/shoulder movements - or you keep stance and move position, usually sideways, but slightly forward would work.
They have just given me some info re gun, which I'll add to sights.
-
What does "arc" mean in this context?
I thought in was in a semi-circle or curve. That was from Daniels exit wound diagram that mike posted though.
How does one shoot in a curve? Excuse my ignorance about such things.
Have two fairly expert brains here right now (military).
You either move the gun gently to get an arc from a set position - which requires small arm/shoulder movements - or you keep stance and move position, usually sideways, but slightly forward would work.
They have just given me some info re gun, which I'll add to sights.
Cheers. ;D
-
I am still struggling to believe the stories of Julie mugford
Let's just say she was telling the truth (and to confirm once again I do not believe her) Julie mugford apparently knew the murders were happening weeks before the event she knew about the murders the morning of the event and she believed Jeremy was responsible for the murders after they happened (it would be a billion to one Jeremy didn't carry out the murders if he had told her before on that morning). She showed no guilt in that month after. No body could pull that off. She faced no charges although her actions would almost definately stopped the police having the forensic evidence to prove conclusively how the family died. She was given immunity and became a teacher with children in Canada. My believe is the police knew she was lieing all along or she would never have been allowed to teach. She perverted the course of justice in 5 murders compared to another famous face Maxine Carr who perverted the course of justice in two murders. Can someone explain why she was not charged please
Maxine Ann Carr
Born 16 February 1977 (age 33)
Grimsby, Lincolnshire, England
Conviction(s) Perverting the course of justice, Benefit fraud & Deception
Penalty 42 months imprisonment & 36 month rehabilitation order
Status Released
Occupation Teaching assistant
[edit]Maxine Carr
Maxine Carr had initially provided a false alibi to police for Huntley, claiming to be with him at the time of the murders when she was actually in Grimsby. She was charged with perverting the course of justice and assisting an offender. She pleaded guilty to the first charge and not guilty to the second.
Her failure to expose Huntley's lies in the early stages of the investigation (before either of them was arrested) meant that police initially eliminated Huntley as a suspect. The police who investigated the disappearance and murder of the two girls later said they would have quickly established that Ian Huntley was the abductor (and ultimately the murderer) of the two girls had Maxine Carr told the truth about their whereabouts at the time the girls went missing. But, due to her lies, the police were left waiting nearly two weeks before finally being able to arrest and charge him[14]
The court accepted that Carr had only lied to the police to protect Huntley because she believed his claims of innocence and so found her not guilty of assisting an offender. She was sentenced to three and a half years in prison and was released on probation on 14 May 2004 after serving 21 months (including 16 months on remand). She was given a new secret identity to protect her from threats of attack from members of the public that had been made during her remand, as well as during and after the trial.
Hello Jackie. I know you've brought up the issue of Maxine Carr before, and I have to say I agree with you. Maxine said she was at the house when she wasn't, which was a lie, but she didn't cover up for Huntley knowingly - she was found not guilty of that. She didn't provide a false alibi as such, she just said she was there. She has been reviled by many people for that to the extent that she has to hide her identity now.
Julie Mugford did a similar thing in some ways - worse really as she claimed that she knew Jeremy had done it, and yet I've seen nothing about her getting a hard time in the press or from the police or general public. She was not prosecuted for any of it. One could say that the prosecution needed her as a witness, but then Maxine Carr also testified against Huntley and was not given immunity.
In addition to the false alibi, Maxine Carr cleaned every surface in the house. She destroyed evidence.
JM did not give JB an alibi. She did not destroy evidence. She gave information on 4 things, 3 were proved true by corroboration of others.
Caravan robbery
Cheque fraud
Drug growing/dealing
Murders
-
I am still struggling to believe the stories of Julie mugford
Let's just say she was telling the truth (and to confirm once again I do not believe her) Julie mugford apparently knew the murders were happening weeks before the event she knew about the murders the morning of the event and she believed Jeremy was responsible for the murders after they happened (it would be a billion to one Jeremy didn't carry out the murders if he had told her before on that morning). She showed no guilt in that month after. No body could pull that off. She faced no charges although her actions would almost definately stopped the police having the forensic evidence to prove conclusively how the family died. She was given immunity and became a teacher with children in Canada. My believe is the police knew she was lieing all along or she would never have been allowed to teach. She perverted the course of justice in 5 murders compared to another famous face Maxine Carr who perverted the course of justice in two murders. Can someone explain why she was not charged please
Maxine Ann Carr
Born 16 February 1977 (age 33)
Grimsby, Lincolnshire, England
Conviction(s) Perverting the course of justice, Benefit fraud & Deception
Penalty 42 months imprisonment & 36 month rehabilitation order
Status Released
Occupation Teaching assistant
[edit]Maxine Carr
Maxine Carr had initially provided a false alibi to police for Huntley, claiming to be with him at the time of the murders when she was actually in Grimsby. She was charged with perverting the course of justice and assisting an offender. She pleaded guilty to the first charge and not guilty to the second.
Her failure to expose Huntley's lies in the early stages of the investigation (before either of them was arrested) meant that police initially eliminated Huntley as a suspect. The police who investigated the disappearance and murder of the two girls later said they would have quickly established that Ian Huntley was the abductor (and ultimately the murderer) of the two girls had Maxine Carr told the truth about their whereabouts at the time the girls went missing. But, due to her lies, the police were left waiting nearly two weeks before finally being able to arrest and charge him[14]
The court accepted that Carr had only lied to the police to protect Huntley because she believed his claims of innocence and so found her not guilty of assisting an offender. She was sentenced to three and a half years in prison and was released on probation on 14 May 2004 after serving 21 months (including 16 months on remand). She was given a new secret identity to protect her from threats of attack from members of the public that had been made during her remand, as well as during and after the trial.
Hello Jackie. I know you've brought up the issue of Maxine Carr before, and I have to say I agree with you. Maxine said she was at the house when she wasn't, which was a lie, but she didn't cover up for Huntley knowingly - she was found not guilty of that. She didn't provide a false alibi as such, she just said she was there. She has been reviled by many people for that to the extent that she has to hide her identity now.
Julie Mugford did a similar thing in some ways - worse really as she claimed that she knew Jeremy had done it, and yet I've seen nothing about her getting a hard time in the press or from the police or general public. She was not prosecuted for any of it. One could say that the prosecution needed her as a witness, but then Maxine Carr also testified against Huntley and was not given immunity.
In addition to the false alibi, Maxine Carr cleaned every surface in the house. She destroyed evidence.
JM did not give JB an alibi. She did not destroy evidence. She gave information on 4 things, 3 were proved true by corroboration of others.
Caravan robbery
Cheque fraud
Drug growing/dealing
Murders
Yes but Maxine didn't clean the house in order to cover up the crime - she was cleared of assisting an offender. She didn't destroy evidence on purpose.
If what Julie said is true, she did nothing to stop police officers destroying evidence and she lied in order to protect Jeremy. If the verdict had gone in his favour, that would partly be because she didn't come forward earlier.
-
if nevill did make that phone call "come quickly, sheila has gone crazy and has got the gun" she may not have fired the gun at all at this stage (if it was sheila), but she may have attacked him with it, struck him with it, before firing any bullets. I think that had neville been shot at this stage he would have said so when he made that telephone call.
-
if nevill did make that phone call "come quickly, sheila has gone crazy and has got the gun" she may not have fired the gun at all at this stage (if it was sheila), but she may have attacked him with it, struck him with it, before firing any bullets. I think that had neville been shot at this stage he would have said so when he made that telephone call.
Good point.
-
if nevill did make that phone call "come quickly, sheila has gone crazy and has got the gun" she may not have fired the gun at all at this stage (if it was sheila), but she may have attacked him with it, struck him with it, before firing any bullets. I think that had neville been shot at this stage he would have said so when he made that telephone call.
I agree, plus I don't think he'd hang about phoning Jeremy if she'd just shot him and/or June and the boys.
-
Bearing in mind that Ralph said that Sheila had already got the gun, and that we assume it was loaded, I find it hard to reconcile that the close quarters combat then takes place (the battle whereby Ralph gets battered and Sheila hardly gets scratched). Regardless of my view on that, however late the last phonecall to the outside world purportedly was, the timescale for the fight, the reloading, the shootings (in whatever order) become tight before the police arrive at around ten to four.
-
if nevill did make that phone call "come quickly, sheila has gone crazy and has got the gun" she may not have fired the gun at all at this stage (if it was sheila), but she may have attacked him with it, struck him with it, before firing any bullets. I think that had neville been shot at this stage he would have said so when he made that telephone call.
I agree, plus I don't think he'd hang about phoning Jeremy if she'd just shot him and/or June and the boys.
If we take Sarann's idea further, Nevill would presumably then have the gun, as he's controlled the situation sufficiently to phone. So Sheila has to remove it from him...
Plus, if the damage had been done to his face, the expert said Nevill wouldn't not have been able to speak clearly - broken jaw, larynx damage etc
So it's either no damage to his face pre-phone call
or
no phone call
-
if nevill did make that phone call "come quickly, sheila has gone crazy and has got the gun" she may not have fired the gun at all at this stage (if it was sheila), but she may have attacked him with it, struck him with it, before firing any bullets. I think that had neville been shot at this stage he would have said so when he made that telephone call.
I agree, plus I don't think he'd hang about phoning Jeremy if she'd just shot him and/or June and the boys.
If we take Sarann's idea further, Nevill would presumably then have the gun, as he's controlled the situation sufficiently to phone. So Sheila has to remove it from him...
Plus, if the damage had been done to his face, the expert said Nevill wouldn't not have been able to speak clearly - broken jaw, larynx damage etc
So it's either no damage to his face pre-phone call
or
no phone call
Agreed. The prosecution said he was shot in the bedroom and that he couldn't have spoken after that.
-
the police, after the case got intouch with the german manufacturers of the rifle, and they saif to their knowledge that loading the gun shouldnt have been difficult, even loading the last bullet shouldnt have posed a problem and indeed no problem of that kind hadnt been reported to them by any one who purchased that particular model.
-
the police, after the case got intouch with the german manufacturers of the rifle, and they saif to their knowledge that loading the gun shouldnt have been difficult, even loading the last bullet shouldnt have posed a problem and indeed no problem of that kind hadnt been reported to them by any one who purchased that particular model.
2002 Appeal....
69. The rifle was a German made Anschutz model 525 .22 self-loading rifle in good working order. Cartridges are loaded into a magazine, which has a capacity of 10. It is, as the jury found when they conducted the exercise themselves, progressively harder to load as the number of cartridges increases. Loading the tenth is exceptionally hard. Assuming a full capacity at the commencement of the shooting at the farm, the discharge of the rifle twenty-five times would require it to be re-loaded a minimum of two more times
Not sure how experienced the jury were with guns but maybe it is easier if you had had experience of loading it previously.
-
Thankyou Kaldin for that and mb1 I wonder when Maxine Carr is going back to her little teaching assistant job because what she wasn't too bad was it !!!!!!
Don't compare petty crime with mass murder and was jb involved in the cheque book fraud
For Julie mugford crime certainly did pay it bought her a flat and while we are on the subject Julie mugfords dad said in an interview around the time of the 2002 appeal said he was disgusted jb was allowed to appeal and said jb should stay in prison for the rest of his life.
Julie mugford great daughter he must be so proud
-
Thankyou Kaldin for that and mb1 I wonder when Maxine Carr is going back to her little teaching assistant job because what she wasn't too bad was it !!!!!!
Don't compare petty crime with mass murder and was jb involved in the cheque book fraud
For Julie mugford crime certainly did pay it bought her a flat and while we are on the subject Julie mugfords dad said in an interview around the time of the 2002 appeal said he was disgusted jb was allowed to appeal and said jb should stay in prison for the rest of his life.
Julie mugford great daughter he must be so proud
-------------------------------------------------------
It took many visits by Essex police (mainly by DS Jones) to prepare, Juile Mugford, for giving evidence at the time of trial - she was interviewed, and spoken to, by the police about 30 times or more - ample time for her to learn, and to be advised, what needed to be said, so that she could appear to be convincing...
-
I don't think it's unnatural to be upset one minute and then composed the next. That would depend on the questions. Remember that the prosecution would be much more gentle with her than the defence.
If Julie had made up the story though, it would take a will of iron to stick to it throughout a lot of interviews, and tell the same story in court.
Why would she say Matthew MacDonald had done it if he didn't? Why not just say that Jeremy did it?
Which is why she needed many hours of coaching: i.e. 34 rehearsals?
-
hi mike
I have spoken to one of the officers on the case last week during the conservation he made a statement that she was not given any choice of staying around after the trial he said that the choice was either that of be convicted with Jeremy too.he said how could she refuse with cheque thing and the park break in also being used to help make up her mind.
I quote his words "she was more afraid of Essex police than of bamber"
He also made comments about the evidence being destroyed,he gave me a web address of a local fingerprint specialist in colchester and,it seemed to add up what he was saying.
i am still looking for peter Woodcocks address if you know where he is it would help.
Most of the officers I have contacted are not too happy to be found,but I think its time to decide which side of the fence they want to be on.it is either Jeremy who is Evil beyond belief for killing his family or the people who have kept quiet while a innocent man gets convicted,i do not see any middle ground.
I see it as the simplest way to sort this out, as we are sure that it is not only that Jeremy knows the truth but also the police officers that entered the farm that morning.
The officer alsomade me aware that some of those guys do read this forum
come on lets all dig up the past
-
hi mike
I have spoken to one of the officers on the case last week during the conservation he made a statement that she was not given any choice of staying around after the trial he said that the choice was either that of be convicted with Jeremy too.he said how could she refuse with cheque thing and the park break in also being used to help make up her mind.
I quote his words "she was more afraid of Essex police than of bamber"
He also made comments about the evidence being destroyed,he gave me a web address of a local fingerprint specialist in colchester and,it seemed to add up what he was saying.
i am still looking for peter Woodcocks address if you know where he is it would help.
Most of the officers I have contacted are not too happy to be found,but I think its time to decide which side of the fence they want to be on.it is either Jeremy who is Evil beyond belief for killing his family or the people who have kept quiet while a innocent man gets convicted,i do not see any middle ground.
I see it as the simplest way to sort this out, as we are sure that it is not only that Jeremy knows the truth but also the police officers that entered the farm that morning.
The officer alsomade me aware that some of those guys do read this forum
come on lets all dig up the past
Good points, Ron +1
-
"i am still looking for peter Woodcocks address if you know where he is it would help." (Ron Cook)
Do you have any information about where he might be?
-
hi mike
I have spoken to one of the officers on the case last week during the conservation he made a statement that she was not given any choice of staying around after the trial he said that the choice was either that of be convicted with Jeremy too.he said how could she refuse with cheque thing and the park break in also being used to help make up her mind.
I quote his words "she was more afraid of Essex police than of bamber"
He also made comments about the evidence being destroyed,he gave me a web address of a local fingerprint specialist in colchester and,it seemed to add up what he was saying.
i am still looking for peter Woodcocks address if you know where he is it would help.
Most of the officers I have contacted are not too happy to be found,but I think its time to decide which side of the fence they want to be on.it is either Jeremy who is Evil beyond belief for killing his family or the people who have kept quiet while a innocent man gets convicted,i do not see any middle ground.
I see it as the simplest way to sort this out, as we are sure that it is not only that Jeremy knows the truth but also the police officers that entered the farm that morning.
The officer alsomade me aware that some of those guys do read this forum
come on lets all dig up the past
Afternoon Mr Cook. I have no idea if you're for real or not. I suspect not, but never mind, you make some interesting points. ;D
Re Julie Mugford, you think there was a possibility she might have been charged? Would that be for the burglary, the cheque book fraud, perverting the course of justice, or accessory to murder?
-
hi mike
I have spoken to one of the officers on the case last week during the conservation he made a statement that she was not given any choice of staying around after the trial he said that the choice was either that of be convicted with Jeremy too.he said how could she refuse with cheque thing and the park break in also being used to help make up her mind.
I quote his words "she was more afraid of Essex police than of bamber"
He also made comments about the evidence being destroyed,he gave me a web address of a local fingerprint specialist in colchester and,it seemed to add up what he was saying.
i am still looking for peter Woodcocks address if you know where he is it would help.
Most of the officers I have contacted are not too happy to be found,but I think its time to decide which side of the fence they want to be on.it is either Jeremy who is Evil beyond belief for killing his family or the people who have kept quiet while a innocent man gets convicted,i do not see any middle ground.
I see it as the simplest way to sort this out, as we are sure that it is not only that Jeremy knows the truth but also the police officers that entered the farm that morning.
The officer alsomade me aware that some of those guys do read this forum
come on lets all dig up the past
One of the many issues I have with JM's evidence: she claimed to be afraid of JB because she knew that he was the murder. So what does she do?
She tries to smother the dangerous serial murderer she fears with a pillow!
Hands up anyone who would have taken that risk.
-
hi mike
I have spoken to one of the officers on the case last week during the conservation he made a statement that she was not given any choice of staying around after the trial he said that the choice was either that of be convicted with Jeremy too.he said how could she refuse with cheque thing and the park break in also being used to help make up her mind.
I quote his words "she was more afraid of Essex police than of bamber"
He also made comments about the evidence being destroyed,he gave me a web address of a local fingerprint specialist in colchester and,it seemed to add up what he was saying.
i am still looking for peter Woodcocks address if you know where he is it would help.
Most of the officers I have contacted are not too happy to be found,but I think its time to decide which side of the fence they want to be on.it is either Jeremy who is Evil beyond belief for killing his family or the people who have kept quiet while a innocent man gets convicted,i do not see any middle ground.
I see it as the simplest way to sort this out, as we are sure that it is not only that Jeremy knows the truth but also the police officers that entered the farm that morning.
The officer alsomade me aware that some of those guys do read this forum
come on lets all dig up the past
Afternoon Mr Cook. I have no idea if you're for real or not. I suspect not, but never mind, you make some interesting points. ;D
Re Julie Mugford, you think there was a possibility she might have been charged? Would that be for the burglary, the cheque book fraud, perverting the course of justice, or accessory to murder?
Why do you think he's not real, Kaldin?
-
hi mike
I have spoken to one of the officers on the case last week during the conservation he made a statement that she was not given any choice of staying around after the trial he said that the choice was either that of be convicted with Jeremy too.he said how could she refuse with cheque thing and the park break in also being used to help make up her mind.
I quote his words "she was more afraid of Essex police than of bamber"
He also made comments about the evidence being destroyed,he gave me a web address of a local fingerprint specialist in colchester and,it seemed to add up what he was saying.
i am still looking for peter Woodcocks address if you know where he is it would help.
Most of the officers I have contacted are not too happy to be found,but I think its time to decide which side of the fence they want to be on.it is either Jeremy who is Evil beyond belief for killing his family or the people who have kept quiet while a innocent man gets convicted,i do not see any middle ground.
I see it as the simplest way to sort this out, as we are sure that it is not only that Jeremy knows the truth but also the police officers that entered the farm that morning.
The officer alsomade me aware that some of those guys do read this forum
come on lets all dig up the past
One of the many issues I have with JM's evidence: she claimed to be afraid of JB because she knew that he was the murder. So what does she do?
She tries to smother the dangerous serial murderer she fears with a pillow!
Hands up anyone who would have taken that risk.
Well yes. It's kind of risky trying to do that to a mass murderer. :P
-
hi mike
I have spoken to one of the officers on the case last week during the conservation he made a statement that she was not given any choice of staying around after the trial he said that the choice was either that of be convicted with Jeremy too.he said how could she refuse with cheque thing and the park break in also being used to help make up her mind.
I quote his words "she was more afraid of Essex police than of bamber"
He also made comments about the evidence being destroyed,he gave me a web address of a local fingerprint specialist in colchester and,it seemed to add up what he was saying.
i am still looking for peter Woodcocks address if you know where he is it would help.
Most of the officers I have contacted are not too happy to be found,but I think its time to decide which side of the fence they want to be on.it is either Jeremy who is Evil beyond belief for killing his family or the people who have kept quiet while a innocent man gets convicted,i do not see any middle ground.
I see it as the simplest way to sort this out, as we are sure that it is not only that Jeremy knows the truth but also the police officers that entered the farm that morning.
The officer alsomade me aware that some of those guys do read this forum
come on lets all dig up the past
Afternoon Mr Cook. I have no idea if you're for real or not. I suspect not, but never mind, you make some interesting points. ;D
Re Julie Mugford, you think there was a possibility she might have been charged? Would that be for the burglary, the cheque book fraud, perverting the course of justice, or accessory to murder?
Why do you think he's not real, Kaldin?
Oh you know - people often claim to be someone they're not on the internet.
-
hi mike
I have spoken to one of the officers on the case last week during the conservation he made a statement that she was not given any choice of staying around after the trial he said that the choice was either that of be convicted with Jeremy too.he said how could she refuse with cheque thing and the park break in also being used to help make up her mind.
I quote his words "she was more afraid of Essex police than of bamber"
He also made comments about the evidence being destroyed,he gave me a web address of a local fingerprint specialist in colchester and,it seemed to add up what he was saying.
i am still looking for peter Woodcocks address if you know where he is it would help.
Most of the officers I have contacted are not too happy to be found,but I think its time to decide which side of the fence they want to be on.it is either Jeremy who is Evil beyond belief for killing his family or the people who have kept quiet while a innocent man gets convicted,i do not see any middle ground.
I see it as the simplest way to sort this out, as we are sure that it is not only that Jeremy knows the truth but also the police officers that entered the farm that morning.
The officer alsomade me aware that some of those guys do read this forum
come on lets all dig up the past
Afternoon Mr Cook. I have no idea if you're for real or not. I suspect not, but never mind, you make some interesting points. ;D
Re Julie Mugford, you think there was a possibility she might have been charged? Would that be for the burglary, the cheque book fraud, perverting the course of justice, or accessory to murder?
Why do you think he's not real, Kaldin?
Oh you know - people often claim to be someone they're not on the internet.
That's true, but it doesn't explain why you believe Ron is one of them.
-
Kaldin trust me on this one!
-
That's true, but it doesn't explain why you believe Ron is one of them.
Well I assume that he's claiming to be DI Ron Cook who was part of the SOC team at the farm that day. If he is, then I have some questions for him, and I'm sure Mike does too. ;D
I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that the people involved read this forum. If I had been associated with such a high-profile murder case, I'd be glued to it. I'm just not convinced that Ron Cook is who he implies he is.
-
Kaldin trust me on this one!
Jackie, I would love it to be the real Ron Cook, I really would. I would also love it if the entire firearms team posted here too, but anyone can use any name on any forum ....
-
hi mike
I have spoken to one of the officers on the case last week during the conservation he made a statement that she was not given any choice of staying around after the trial he said that the choice was either that of be convicted with Jeremy too.he said how could she refuse with cheque thing and the park break in also being used to help make up her mind.
I quote his words "she was more afraid of Essex police than of bamber"
He also made comments about the evidence being destroyed,he gave me a web address of a local fingerprint specialist in colchester and,it seemed to add up what he was saying.
i am still looking for peter Woodcocks address if you know where he is it would help.
Most of the officers I have contacted are not too happy to be found,but I think its time to decide which side of the fence they want to be on.it is either Jeremy who is Evil beyond belief for killing his family or the people who have kept quiet while a innocent man gets convicted,i do not see any middle ground.
I see it as the simplest way to sort this out, as we are sure that it is not only that Jeremy knows the truth but also the police officers that entered the farm that morning.
The officer alsomade me aware that some of those guys do read this forum
come on lets all dig up the past
Kaldin thinks you're using the name of, or posing as, former DI Ron Cook who attended the murder scene, Ron. Is that so?
-
Kaldin trust me on this one!
Jackie, I would love it to be the real Ron Cook, I really would. I would also love it if the entire firearms team posted here too, but anyone can use any name on any forum ....
Good point, I didn't notice that. Well, I've just asked him.
-
I meant trust me when I know something is true and I just hope the whole truth comes out because I know that although you tend to go with JB being guilty there are things that don't add up. All I want is the right conclusion to 26 years of wild speculation.
-
I meant trust me when I know something is true and I just hope the whole truth comes out because I know that although you tend to go with JB being guilty there are things that don't add up. All I want is the right conclusion to 26 years of wild speculation.
What's true though Jackie? Are you referring to Mr Cook's post?
I know there are things which don't add up - that's partly why I'm here, to try to get them to add up. I'm also trying to cut through the wild speculation - that's why I question Mike so much. ;D
-
When everyone read JB s letter to mike a lot of people thought it wasn't very nice but I didn't at all I totally understand what he was saying and I am sure mike knows lots more than he puts on here but if JB asks him not to he can't and he wouldn't. JB even gives the impression that the ccrc are trying to point out exactly what he needs to get an appeal. I know nothing in depth about the legal system except my horrendous experience as a juror. But I know stuff is happening but I don't even ask anything anymore in case I say something that I shouldn't but as I have saud before the best thing ever to come out of this would be the whole thing was a tragic accident. I am confused now when I read people saying it's too late for new evidence to be considered even if it's significant. I couldn't say something on here when I have been told something in confidance and Mike must find it so difficult when he can't put certain things on here because he has been asked not too. I did find the reaction to JB s letter to mike very strange because I am sure they disagree on a number of points but mike and JB were locked up together for a long time and mike probably understands JB better than anyone and has absolute belief there has been a miscarriage of justice so I trust mike when he cannot answer everything
-
When everyone read JB s letter to mike a lot of people thought it wasn't very nice but I didn't at all I totally understand what he was saying and I am sure mike knows lots more than he puts on here but if JB asks him not to he can't and he wouldn't. JB even gives the impression that the ccrc are trying to point out exactly what he needs to get an appeal. I know nothing in depth about the legal system except my horrendous experience as a juror. But I know stuff is happening but I don't even ask anything anymore in case I say something that I shouldn't but as I have saud before the best thing ever to come out of this would be the whole thing was a tragic accident. I am confused now when I read people saying it's too late for new evidence to be considered even if it's significant. I couldn't say something on here when I have been told something in confidance and Mike must find it so difficult when he can't put certain things on here because he has been asked not too. I did find the reaction to JB s letter to mike very strange because I am sure they disagree on a number of points but mike and JB were locked up together for a long time and mike probably understands JB better than anyone and has absolute belief there has been a miscarriage of justice so I trust mike when he cannot answer everything
I had no objections to the letter and I said so at the time.
I understand there might be things that Mike can't put on here, but if that's so, then he shouldn't really state things he can't back up. It's best if he doesn't mention such things because that invariably leads to people questionning him and a lot of frustration that he can't or won't produce evidence.
I'm not sure you could call the murders a tragic accident. There was nothing accidental about them, even if Sheila did do it.
-
Thankyou Kaldin for that and mb1 I wonder when Maxine Carr is going back to her little teaching assistant job because what she wasn't too bad was it !!!!!!
Don't compare petty crime with mass murder and was jb involved in the cheque book fraud
For Julie mugford crime certainly did pay it bought her a flat and while we are on the subject Julie mugfords dad said in an interview around the time of the 2002 appeal said he was disgusted jb was allowed to appeal and said jb should stay in prison for the rest of his life.
Julie mugford great daughter he must be so proud
You seem very angry at Miss Mugford, have you ever tried Yoga Jackie?
-
Thankyou Kaldin for that and mb1 I wonder when Maxine Carr is going back to her little teaching assistant job because what she wasn't too bad was it !!!!!!
Don't compare petty crime with mass murder and was jb involved in the cheque book fraud
For Julie mugford crime certainly did pay it bought her a flat and while we are on the subject Julie mugfords dad said in an interview around the time of the 2002 appeal said he was disgusted jb was allowed to appeal and said jb should stay in prison for the rest of his life.
Julie mugford great daughter he must be so proud
You seem very angry at Miss Mugford, have you ever tried Yoga Jackie?
Silly comment tut tut and unworthy of you. ;D
-
Kaldin trust me on this one!
Take Mugfords evidenceout the picture then as she is a liar and a thief, does that men we can't believe a word Bamber says as he is a liar and a thief too?
-
Kaldin
I definately agree on certain points it's frustrating for me to and yes I am wrong to call it an accident I can't seem to say I think Sheila was a murderer.
Oh god another relative of the Boutflours they must be running out of strange names now and I didn't think I had said anything controversial I'm out of here I think an hour run to clear my head.
-
Thankyou Kaldin for that and mb1 I wonder when Maxine Carr is going back to her little teaching assistant job because what she wasn't too bad was it !!!!!!
Don't compare petty crime with mass murder and was jb involved in the cheque book fraud
For Julie mugford crime certainly did pay it bought her a flat and while we are on the subject Julie mugfords dad said in an interview around the time of the 2002 appeal said he was disgusted jb was allowed to appeal and said jb should stay in prison for the rest of his life.
Julie mugford great daughter he must be so proud
You seem very angry at Miss Mugford, have you ever tried Yoga Jackie?
Silly comment tut tut and unworthy of you. ;D
only coping Jackies reponce to someone else the other day as there is a clear hatred for Mugford from her, so not silly, infact if she knows anything just say or shut up about it as what is the point??
-
Kaldin
I definately agree on certain points it's frustrating for me to and yes I am wrong to call it an accident I can't seem to say I think Sheila was a murderer.
Oh god another relative of the Boutflours they must be running out of strange names now and I didn't think I had said anything controversial I'm out of here I think an hour run to clear my head.
Either put up or shut up if you know anything as it's becoming quite boring now.
-
Thankyou Kaldin for that and mb1 I wonder when Maxine Carr is going back to her little teaching assistant job because what she wasn't too bad was it !!!!!!
Don't compare petty crime with mass murder and was jb involved in the cheque book fraud
For Julie mugford crime certainly did pay it bought her a flat and while we are on the subject Julie mugfords dad said in an interview around the time of the 2002 appeal said he was disgusted jb was allowed to appeal and said jb should stay in prison for the rest of his life.
Julie mugford great daughter he must be so proud
You seem very angry at Miss Mugford, have you ever tried Yoga Jackie?
Silly comment tut tut and unworthy of you. ;D
only coping Jackies reponce to someone else the other day as there is a clear hatred for Mugford from her, so not silly, infact if she knows anything just say or shut up about it as what is the point??
I don't know about hatred, but Julie Mugford didn't behave too well did she? By her own admission, she went around with someone who she later said was a murderer for a whole month - going out for dinner, going on holiday, etc. By her own admission she witheld evidence from the police and shielded someone she later said was a murderer, thereby allowing a lot of evidence to be destroyed, and allowing a lot of people to think that Sheila had killed her own family. By her own admission, she sold her story to a newspaper, and no matter what her excuse for doing so, she used the money to buy a flat. It's not a great biography is it?
-
She's a liar it's a disgrace that she benefitted out of all this and she probably tried to blame the hitman because maybe him and Jeremy maybe went out picking up girls together. If definitive prove comes out (say undisclosed documents) I hope that she can still be bought back to England and charged. If she was telling the truth she could have given the money to Colin caffell to help him start a new life without his two sons she could have prevented getting killed (remember when she said Jeremy told her tonights the night).
Think about it if Jeremy got out of prison tomorrow he probably might not have the chance to have children.
So this is Julie mugford she either
Lied and made the whole thing up and ruined someones life could she couldn't have them
Went along even on the day thinking two little boys would be slaughtered and she would have known they would be killed if Jeremy wanted all the inheritance
British justice makes me sick
She is the most vile and disgusting human being
now who's being nasty, your comments i find vile and she is not lying and you are a disgrace. Try the Yoga you keep putting out dear. To blame a young girl with mental health problems for the killings is the most sickest thing in the world, Evidence has been look at by experts over and over again and still he's found guilty, He's still lying about Police logs that show they were just passing his message on to make it look like the father called, .
My God you want to grow up.
-
Thankyou Kaldin for that and mb1 I wonder when Maxine Carr is going back to her little teaching assistant job because what she wasn't too bad was it !!!!!!
Don't compare petty crime with mass murder and was jb involved in the cheque book fraud
For Julie mugford crime certainly did pay it bought her a flat and while we are on the subject Julie mugfords dad said in an interview around the time of the 2002 appeal said he was disgusted jb was allowed to appeal and said jb should stay in prison for the rest of his life.
Julie mugford great daughter he must be so proud
You seem very angry at Miss Mugford, have you ever tried Yoga Jackie?
Silly comment tut tut and unworthy of you. ;D
only coping Jackies reponce to someone else the other day as there is a clear hatred for Mugford from her, so not silly, infact if she knows anything just say or shut up about it as what is the point??
I don't know about hatred, but Julie Mugford didn't behave too well did she? By her own admission, she went around with someone who she later said was a murderer for a whole month - going out for dinner, going on holiday, etc. By her own admission she witheld evidence from the police and shielded someone she later said was a murderer, thereby allowing a lot of evidence to be destroyed, and a allowing a lot of people to think that Sheila had killed her own family. By her own admission, she sold her story to a newspaper, and no matter what her excuse for doing so, she used the money to buy a flat. It's not a great biography is it?
No but it doesn't mean she is lying and nothing is as bad as trying to sell topless photos of his dead sistr is it. How Vile is that.
-
Thankyou Kaldin for that and mb1 I wonder when Maxine Carr is going back to her little teaching assistant job because what she wasn't too bad was it !!!!!!
Don't compare petty crime with mass murder and was jb involved in the cheque book fraud
For Julie mugford crime certainly did pay it bought her a flat and while we are on the subject Julie mugfords dad said in an interview around the time of the 2002 appeal said he was disgusted jb was allowed to appeal and said jb should stay in prison for the rest of his life.
Julie mugford great daughter he must be so proud
You seem very angry at Miss Mugford, have you ever tried Yoga Jackie?
Silly comment tut tut and unworthy of you. ;D
only coping Jackies reponce to someone else the other day as there is a clear hatred for Mugford from her, so not silly, infact if she knows anything just say or shut up about it as what is the point??
I don't know about hatred, but Julie Mugford didn't behave too well did she? By her own admission, she went around with someone who she later said was a murderer for a whole month - going out for dinner, going on holiday, etc. By her own admission she witheld evidence from the police and shielded someone she later said was a murderer, thereby allowing a lot of evidence to be destroyed, and allowing a lot of people to think that Sheila had killed her own family. By her own admission, she sold her story to a newspaper, and no matter what her excuse for doing so, she used the money to buy a flat. It's not a great biography is it?
Bamber already had the idea about making things look like a crime, remember how he made up the Caravan park break in and that was against his own family then, was this start of things to come. Why shouldn't she sell he story, everyone does and at least she has got her head down and got on with life as everyone makes mistakes in life and she has come good. Why is it Bamber says everyone else is lying like the Police etc, what had they to gain from it, would have been easy for them just to leave it as suicide. Yes 100's are lying apart from him.
-
What's the capital of Norway?
-
Thankyou Kaldin for that and mb1 I wonder when Maxine Carr is going back to her little teaching assistant job because what she wasn't too bad was it !!!!!!
Don't compare petty crime with mass murder and was jb involved in the cheque book fraud
For Julie mugford crime certainly did pay it bought her a flat and while we are on the subject Julie mugfords dad said in an interview around the time of the 2002 appeal said he was disgusted jb was allowed to appeal and said jb should stay in prison for the rest of his life.
Julie mugford great daughter he must be so proud
You seem very angry at Miss Mugford, have you ever tried Yoga Jackie?
Silly comment tut tut and unworthy of you. ;D
only coping Jackies reponce to someone else the other day as there is a clear hatred for Mugford from her, so not silly, infact if she knows anything just say or shut up about it as what is the point??
I don't know about hatred, but Julie Mugford didn't behave too well did she? By her own admission, she went around with someone who she later said was a murderer for a whole month - going out for dinner, going on holiday, etc. By her own admission she witheld evidence from the police and shielded someone she later said was a murderer, thereby allowing a lot of evidence to be destroyed, and allowing a lot of people to think that Sheila had killed her own family. By her own admission, she sold her story to a newspaper, and no matter what her excuse for doing so, she used the money to buy a flat. It's not a great biography is it?
+1 Kaldin, good post
-
its oslo hartley
-
She's a liar it's a disgrace that she benefitted out of all this and she probably tried to blame the hitman because maybe him and Jeremy maybe went out picking up girls together. If definitive prove comes out (say undisclosed documents) I hope that she can still be bought back to England and charged. If she was telling the truth she could have given the money to Colin caffell to help him start a new life without his two sons she could have prevented getting killed (remember when she said Jeremy told her tonights the night).
Think about it if Jeremy got out of prison tomorrow he probably might not have the chance to have children.
So this is Julie mugford she either
Lied and made the whole thing up and ruined someones life could she couldn't have them
Went along even on the day thinking two little boys would be slaughtered and she would have known they would be killed if Jeremy wanted all the inheritance
British justice makes me sick
She is the most vile and disgusting human being
now who's being nasty, your comments i find vile and she is not lying and you are a disgrace. Try the Yoga you keep putting out dear. To blame a young girl with mental health problems for the killings is the most sickest thing in the world, Evidence has been look at by experts over and over again and still he's found guilty, He's still lying about Police logs that show they were just passing his message on to make it look like the father called, .
My God you want to grow up.
Tut Tut, if anyone is spouting anger and hate around here, it seems to me it's you.
-
Aaaah I just found out It's Oslo.
Everybody being friendly to each other tonight?
-
its oslo hartley
Thanks Andrea, I'm just being daft though. ;)
-
oh, ive just logged on after waking up and saw the question :)
-
When everyone read JB s letter to mike a lot of people thought it wasn't very nice but I didn't at all I totally understand what he was saying and I am sure mike knows lots more than he puts on here but if JB asks him not to he can't and he wouldn't. JB even gives the impression that the ccrc are trying to point out exactly what he needs to get an appeal. I know nothing in depth about the legal system except my horrendous experience as a juror. But I know stuff is happening but I don't even ask anything anymore in case I say something that I shouldn't but as I have saud before the best thing ever to come out of this would be the whole thing was a tragic accident. I am confused now when I read people saying it's too late for new evidence to be considered even if it's significant. I couldn't say something on here when I have been told something in confidance and Mike must find it so difficult when he can't put certain things on here because he has been asked not too. I did find the reaction to JB s letter to mike very strange because I am sure they disagree on a number of points but mike and JB were locked up together for a long time and mike probably understands JB better than anyone and has absolute belief there has been a miscarriage of justice so I trust mike when he cannot answer everything
I agree with you, Jackie, Mike simply cannot reveal everything he knows or all of the data he has, Jeremy Bamber's legal team will almost certainly have stipulated that and Mike must respect that.
With the prosecution having access to thousands of documents to which the defence are denied access, it's not hard to understand why the defence would not wish to reveal all aspects of their case. The prosecution, thanks to the much abused system of pii, are holding most of the aces. So the defence would be crazy to reveal all of theirs.
-
oh, ive just logged on after waking up and saw the question :)
Not surprised you're tired ;D
-
oh, ive just logged on after waking up and saw the question :)
You won a point though ;) I was just trying to diffuse things. What about Sweden?
-
stockholm, good job i have a globe infront of me ;)
-
oh, ive just logged on after waking up and saw the question :)
Not surprised you're tired ;D
From the 2002 judgment...(Using a radio link PC West contacted Malcolm Bonnet at the Chelmsford H/Q Information Room. PC West then spoke to the appellant again, who complained at the time the officer was taking. He said, “When my father rang he sounded terrified”. The appellant was told to go to the farm and to wait there for the police. PC West described the appellant as sounding “very laconic” and calm during the first part of their conversation and said that there was no sense of urgency. When he spoke to him again the appellant appeared “more urgent and distressed in his manner”).
The only one lying i believe is Bamber, he said my father sounded terrified yet his father called at 3-10 and took Bamber 10 minutes to find the number instead of dialing 999 and he also rang his girlfriend first, although when questioned again he said he rang the Police first, yet he drove that slow to the farm he nearly stopped. liars must have a Good memory, obviously he didn't.
-
So the police took ten minutes to send a couple of police cars (with unarmed police) to WHF? What made them change their mind and send armed police? What's ten minutes when Julie saw no need to tell all to the police for several weeks?
-
The timing of the telephone calls is a very interesting feature of this case, and it depends which references you refer to, on whether or not, you say for example, that JB contacted the police, at 3:36am, or 3:26am, or 3:10am, or even earlier...
Similarly, when looking at the question of when JB contacted JM that morning, it again would depend upon which references you chose to rely upon, as to the timing of that call, for example, 3:30am, 3:15am, or earlier at 3am?
There appear to be so many inconsistence and discrepancies surrounding these phone calls that no-one can accurately pinpoint when either of these calls were made, not the police, not Julie Mugford or her friends, and neither JB...
If JB is lying about the timing of the calls, then so are the police and Julie Mugford, and the others who refer to them - You cannot just single JB out and say that he is and has lied about the timing of the calls...
At, least not in my opinion...
-
The timing of the telephone calls is a very interesting feature of this case, and it depends which references you refer to, on whether or not, you say for example, that JB contacted the police, at 3:36am, or 3:26am, or 3:10am, or even earlier...
Similarly, when looking at the question of when JB contacted JM that morning, it again would depend upon which references you chose to rely upon, as to the timing of that call, for example, 3:30am, 3:15am, or earlier at 3am?
There appear to be so many inconsistence and discrepancies surrounding these phone calls that no-one can accurately pinpoint when either of these calls were made, not the police, not Julie Mugford or her friends, and neither JB...
If JB is lying about the timing of the calls, then so are the police and Julie Mugford, and the others who refer to them - You cannot just single JB out and say that he is and has lied about the timing of the calls...
At, least not in my opinion...
Concur with that. And what kind of police station has a clock allegedly running 10 minutes out of sync? 'Dixon of Dock Green' would turn in his grave.
-
Concur with that. And what kind of police station has a clock allegedly running 10 minutes out of sync? 'Dixon of Dock Green' would turn in his grave.
The digital clock was not running ten minutes fast.
West stated that he misread the digital clock, there is no mention of a clock running fast.
-
Julie Mugford - the (lying) Criminal, exposed...
In order to fully appreciate the extent to which Mugford was prepared to go, in order to testify at Jeremy's trial, in favor of the prosecutions case against him, you will need to read two witness statements, one made by herself to COLP, ( in the name of J. Smerchanski, dated, 12th April 2002), another witness statement made by Susan Battersby (dated 7th may 2002), and the other, by the Bank Manager, (Alan George Dovey, dated 20th March 2002), which was also made to COLP...
You will be able to view the aforementioned witness statements, at the following links:-
Bank Manager, Alan George Dovey, dated, 20th March 2002:-
(1) http://www.flickr.com/photos/miketeskowski/5309019477/in/set-72157625713336710/
Julie Mugford / SMERCHANSKI
(2) http://www.flickr.com/photos/miketeskowski/sets/72157625587945001/
K. Baxter, Press Complaints Commisssion
(3) http://www.flickr.com/photos/miketeskowski/5309064807/in/set-72157625713464040/
Susan Battesby - friend of Julie Mugford, and former lover of Jeremy Bamber
(4) http://www.flickr.com/photos/miketeskowski/5309064807/in/set-72157625713464040/
Are these links still available?
-
Julie Mugford - the (lying) Criminal, exposed...
In order to fully appreciate the extent to which Mugford was prepared to go, in order to testify at Jeremy's trial, in favor of the prosecutions case against him, you will need to read two witness statements, one made by herself to COLP, ( in the name of J. Smerchanski, dated, 12th April 2002), another witness statement made by Susan Battersby (dated 7th may 2002), and the other, by the Bank Manager, (Alan George Dovey, dated 20th March 2002), which was also made to COLP...
You will be able to view the aforementioned witness statements, at the following links:-
Bank Manager, Alan George Dovey, dated, 20th March 2002:-
(1) http://www.flickr.com/photos/miketeskowski/5309019477/in/set-72157625713336710/
Julie Mugford / SMERCHANSKI
(2) http://www.flickr.com/photos/miketeskowski/sets/72157625587945001/
K. Baxter, Press Complaints Commisssion
(3) http://www.flickr.com/photos/miketeskowski/5309064807/in/set-72157625713464040/
Susan Battesby - friend of Julie Mugford, and former lover of Jeremy Bamber
(4) http://www.flickr.com/photos/miketeskowski/5309064807/in/set-72157625713464040/
Are these links still available?
I'm having the same problem finding Sue Batersby's statement??
-
None of the four links seem to work. Maybe Mike has other links he can give us?
-
None of the four links seem to work. Maybe Mike has other links he can give us?
any news on this?
-
When JM went to the police she also revealed
Her and JB's involvement with the Caravan site robbery
Her involvement with JB's cannabis deals
Her involvement in a £800 cheque fraud with her friend.
Hardly painting herself as Mother Teresa.
--------------------------------------------------
No, but paving the way for her not to be charged so that she could give evidence on behalf of the prosecutions case...
I think that point is interesting.
-
if julia mugford is telling the whole and complete truth about jermy bamber doesnt that make her an acomplice to murder.
acording to her she knew for months in advance that jeremy bamber was planing to kill his family so why did she not inform the police before he did it.
-
if julia mugford is telling the whole and complete truth about jermy bamber doesnt that make her an acomplice to murder.
acording to her she knew for months in advance that jeremy bamber was planing to kill his family so why did she not inform the police before he did it.
Because she didn't think he was serious, so she's not an accomplice to murder. She could possibly have been charged with perverting the course of justice for witholding information when questioned, but that's about it I should think.
-
if julia mugford is telling the whole and complete truth about jermy bamber doesnt that make her an acomplice to murder.
acording to her she knew for months in advance that jeremy bamber was planing to kill his family so why did she not inform the police before he did it.
Because she didn't think he was serious, so she's not an accomplice to murder. She could possibly have been charged with perverting the course of justice for witholding information when questioned, but that's about it I should think.
I agree. There was not enough evidence to charge her as an accomplice to murder. Nevertheless perverting the course of justice in a case such as this would be a very serious matter and would have led to a substantial prison sentence.
-
if julia mugford is telling the whole and complete truth about jermy bamber doesnt that make her an acomplice to murder.
acording to her she knew for months in advance that jeremy bamber was planing to kill his family so why did she not inform the police before he did it.
Because she didn't think he was serious, so she's not an accomplice to murder. She could possibly have been charged with perverting the course of justice for witholding information when questioned, but that's about it I should think.
I agree. There was not enough evidence to charge her as an accomplice to murder. Nevertheless perverting the course of justice in a case such as this would be a very serious matter and would have led to a substantial prison sentence.
This in itself is an indocation that she did a deal with the police.
-
if julia mugford is telling the whole and complete truth about jermy bamber doesnt that make her an acomplice to murder.
acording to her she knew for months in advance that jeremy bamber was planing to kill his family so why did she not inform the police before he did it.
Because she didn't think he was serious, so she's not an accomplice to murder. She could possibly have been charged with perverting the course of justice for witholding information when questioned, but that's about it I should think.
I agree. There was not enough evidence to charge her as an accomplice to murder. Nevertheless perverting the course of justice in a case such as this would be a very serious matter and would have led to a substantial prison sentence.
This in itself is an indocation that she did a deal with the police.
She undoubtedly did make a deal with the police. In addition to being given immunity in relation to the very serious potential charge of perverting the course of justice, it included the police assisting in persuading her bank not to press charges in relation to the cheque fraud, and not charging her with the burglary at the caravan site. These were of course less serious matters, but any criminal conviction could have seriously affected her career plans.
-
correct me if i am wrong but i believe she went to the police 6 weeks after the murder.
now if he had been talking about killing his family for months before they were killed.
as soon as the murders happened the penny must have dropped.
why did she wait 6 weeks before going to the police.
-
I would agree with a charge of perverting the course of justice in some form as she withheld information for a month afterwards. Maybe she would have kept quiet if the case hadn't turned around in JB's direction? Taken the money and enjoyed the holidays and fast living with JB. She would have a painted a much whiter picture of herself if on the morning of the 7th August she informed the Police of all the information she knew about this being a planned crime. People threaten things without the intention of actually carrying them out but when EXACTLY what they have threatened happens you are witholding key information from the point of the crime onwards. From the time of being informed of the what had happened at WHF she was in the wrong, if what she later said in her statements was true. This is one of the reasons I have serious doubts about her evidence - it would take nerves of steel to hide information you knew to be true in the aftermath of a crime this size. I just don't buy the fact that she continued to be with Jeremy for a month afterwards if she knew he did it or arranged someone else to. The fact she needed so much coaching before the court case speaks volumes and discredits her appearance as a prosecution witness. Real evidence is best served raw and unrehearsed.
-
correct me if i am wrong but i believe she went to the police 6 weeks after the murder.
now if he had been talking about killing his family for months before they were killed.
as soon as the murders happened the penny must have dropped.
why did she wait 6 weeks before going to the police.
It was about four weeks. She went to the police after she had a row with Jeremy and they split up. Not sure if he dumped her as such, but apparently that's what happened.
-
Well said Vortex.
-
I agree, well said, Vortex.
I think that what Sheila did by withholding crucial information (IF her story is true - personally I have doubts), is a crime in itself.
Partly because of Julie´s silence, Sheila was buried away from her children, she was buried with a heavily stained name. That is something to contemplate!
Julie was there at the funerals. Julie met the little boys´ father. Julie accepted gifts from a supposed mass murderer. Julie went on holiday with same mass murderer. Julie waited for a month to tell the truth.
IF that is the truth. If she lied and helped send an innocent man behind bars, she is even a worse person.
No matter how you look at this case, Julie is, at least WASN`T, a nice person at all!
-
I agree, well said, Vortex.
I think that what Sheila did by withholding crucial information (IF her story is true - personally I have doubts), is a crime in itself.
Partly because of Julie´s silence, Sheila was buried away from her children, she was buried with a heavily stained name. That is something to contemplate!
Julie was there at the funerals. Julie met the little boys´ father. Julie accepted gifts from a supposed mass murderer. Julie went on holiday with same mass murderer. Julie waited for a month to tell the truth.
IF that is the truth. If she lied and helped send an innocent man behind bars, she is even a worse person.
No matter how you look at this case, Julie is, at least WASN`T, a nice person at all!
Yes, and I wonder sometimes if all the "Jeremy is innocent" stuff is partly a way of disapproving of what Julie did. She got away with it, and maybe some people are annoyed about that.
-
Does anyone on this forum believe jeremy would have been convicted without JM s statements because I am very curious?
-
Does anyone on this forum believe jeremy would have been convicted without JM s statements because I am very curious?
I think that without Julie Mugford's statements the police wouldn't have known what to make of the silencer business, so probably not.
-
Does anyone on this forum believe jeremy would have been convicted without JM s statements because I am very curious?
He was convicted on the minimum majority verdict, 10 - 2. In my view any weakening of the prosecution case would have resulted in either a not guilty verdict or a hung jury. Without the evidence of JM I strongly suspect there would have been a not guilty verdict.
-
Does anyone on this forum believe jeremy would have been convicted without JM s statements because I am very curious?
He was convicted on the minimum majority verdict, 10 - 2. In my view any weakening of the prosecution case would have resulted in either a not guilty verdict or a hung jury. Without the evidence of JM I strongly suspect there would have been a not guilty verdict.
Is it possible that an arrogant, impatient, young Jeremy made flippant remarks about his somewhat dysfunctional family, to the effect that they'd be better of dead or 'out of the way'. The kind of thing that could be said in the heat of the moment, during frustrations.. but has no real substance behind it? If so, then that's still a shocking coincidence, considering the events of 7th Aug '85. Yet frustation and anger which flares up and leads to such remarks, could also feed in to the "compelling" evidence of Julie Mugford. In other words, he may have made comments about certain family members, the family were subsequently killed... but there's no real connection between his comments and the killings. His frustrated comments would then be a red herring (that ironically helped to convict him).
-
Does anyone on this forum believe jeremy would have been convicted without JM s statements because I am very curious?
He was convicted on the minimum majority verdict, 10 - 2. In my view any weakening of the prosecution case would have resulted in either a not guilty verdict or a hung jury. Without the evidence of JM I strongly suspect there would have been a not guilty verdict.
Is it possible that an arrogant, impatient, young Jeremy made flippant remarks about his somewhat dysfunctional family, to the effect that they'd be better of dead or 'out of the way'. The kind of thing that could be said in the heat of the moment, during frustrations.. but has no real substance behind it? If so, then that's still a shocking coincidence, considering the events of 7th Aug '85. Yet frustation and anger which flares up and leads to such remarks, could also feed in to the "compelling" evidence of Julie Mugford. In other words, he may have made comments about certain family members, the family were subsequently killed... but there's no real connection between his comments and the killings. His frustrated comments would then be a red herring (that ironically helped to convict him).
What you suggest is of course possible, but the specific admissions alleged by JM to have been made by JB went far beyond this both on the night of the killings itself and subsequently. There is no real scope for misunderstandings between JB and JM here, either JM told the truth or she lied.
-
Does anyone on this forum believe jeremy would have been convicted without JM s statements because I am very curious?
He was convicted on the minimum majority verdict, 10 - 2. In my view any weakening of the prosecution case would have resulted in either a not guilty verdict or a hung jury. Without the evidence of JM I strongly suspect there would have been a not guilty verdict.
Is it possible that an arrogant, impatient, young Jeremy made flippant remarks about his somewhat dysfunctional family, to the effect that they'd be better of dead or 'out of the way'. The kind of thing that could be said in the heat of the moment, during frustrations.. but has no real substance behind it? If so, then that's still a shocking coincidence, considering the events of 7th Aug '85. Yet frustation and anger which flares up and leads to such remarks, could also feed in to the "compelling" evidence of Julie Mugford. In other words, he may have made comments about certain family members, the family were subsequently killed... but there's no real connection between his comments and the killings. His frustrated comments would then be a red herring (that ironically helped to convict him).
What you suggest is of course possible, but the specific admissions alleged by JM to have been made by JB went far beyond this both on the night of the killings itself and subsequently. There is no real scope for misunderstandings between JB and JM here, either JM told the truth or she lied.
My theory: The previous, flippant, arrogant, frustrated, heat of the moment-type remarks were enough to plant a seed of doubt in Julie Mugford's mind after the killings. The remarks were not strong enough to make an impact for the prosecution in a court of law. Hence the alleged 'coaching'. The remarks, if there were any, were 'sexed up'.
-
There are many ways to get back at somebody who has dumped you.If she lied then it is a pretty extreme way of revenge by getting someone sent to prison for life.Deep down,she must have still loved him after-all. But then again,with her anything is possible.After-all she kept all this so-called information to herself prior to the murders,went along with it for weeks afterwards and even identified the dead bodies! What kind of woman is she? Actually I believe she could well have lied.She was that obsessed with him,maybe she really did do it so nobody else could have him!
-
i know sailing to the wind with this post and if admin wants to remove thats fine.
but were was julie mugford on the night of the murder.
does anybody know.
-
i know sailing to the wind with this post and if admin wants to remove that's fine.
but were was Julie mugford on the night of the murder.
does anybody know.
Hi nugnug, my understanding is that she was in London (as JB called her at her flat that night and the call was witnessed by some flatmates). The police then went to her flat to pick her up.
-
Apparantly she and her flat mates had spent the evening drinking and smoking cannabis
-
Does anyone on this forum believe jeremy would have been convicted without JM s statements because I am very curious?
He was convicted on the minimum majority verdict, 10 - 2. In my view any weakening of the prosecution case would have resulted in either a not guilty verdict or a hung jury. Without the evidence of JM I strongly suspect there would have been a not guilty verdict.
Is it possible that an arrogant, impatient, young Jeremy made flippant remarks about his somewhat dysfunctional family, to the effect that they'd be better of dead or 'out of the way'. The kind of thing that could be said in the heat of the moment, during frustrations.. but has no real substance behind it? If so, then that's still a shocking coincidence, considering the events of 7th Aug '85. Yet frustation and anger which flares up and leads to such remarks, could also feed in to the "compelling" evidence of Julie Mugford. In other words, he may have made comments about certain family members, the family were subsequently killed... but there's no real connection between his comments and the killings. His frustrated comments would then be a red herring (that ironically helped to convict him).
What you suggest is of course possible, but the specific admissions alleged by JM to have been made by JB went far beyond this both on the night of the killings itself and subsequently. There is no real scope for misunderstandings between JB and JM here, either JM told the truth or she lied.
My theory: The previous, flippant, arrogant, frustrated, heat of the moment-type remarks were enough to plant a seed of doubt in Julie Mugford's mind after the killings. The remarks were not strong enough to make an impact for the prosecution in a court of law. Hence the alleged 'coaching'. The remarks, if there were any, were 'sexed up'.
Yes that sounds plausible. In addition JM confided first in her friend and her friend then put pressure on JM to go to the police. I may be wrong but I believe I have read somewhere that the first contact with the police was by JM's friend. Once JM had become involved with the police it would have been very difficult for her to back out of what she had started. She was undoubtedly put under a lot of pressure by the police and may have regarded herself as being trapped between a rock and a hard place. If she retracted what she said initially she faced prosecution, the alternative required her to substantiate the allegations she had made against JB with more detail. We are unlikely ever to know what took place in the numerous meetings between the police and JM before the trial, but I suspect that if that information could be obtained it would be very helpful to JB's case.
-
Does anyone on this forum believe jeremy would have been convicted without JM s statements because I am very curious?
He was convicted on the minimum majority verdict, 10 - 2. In my view any weakening of the prosecution case would have resulted in either a not guilty verdict or a hung jury. Without the evidence of JM I strongly suspect there would have been a not guilty verdict.
Is it possible that an arrogant, impatient, young Jeremy made flippant remarks about his somewhat dysfunctional family, to the effect that they'd be better of dead or 'out of the way'. The kind of thing that could be said in the heat of the moment, during frustrations.. but has no real substance behind it? If so, then that's still a shocking coincidence, considering the events of 7th Aug '85. Yet frustation and anger which flares up and leads to such remarks, could also feed in to the "compelling" evidence of Julie Mugford. In other words, he may have made comments about certain family members, the family were subsequently killed... but there's no real connection between his comments and the killings. His frustrated comments would then be a red herring (that ironically helped to convict him).
What you suggest is of course possible, but the specific admissions alleged by JM to have been made by JB went far beyond this both on the night of the killings itself and subsequently. There is no real scope for misunderstandings between JB and JM here, either JM told the truth or she lied.
My theory: The previous, flippant, arrogant, frustrated, heat of the moment-type remarks were enough to plant a seed of doubt in Julie Mugford's mind after the killings. The remarks were not strong enough to make an impact for the prosecution in a court of law. Hence the alleged 'coaching'. The remarks, if there were any, were 'sexed up'.
Yes that sounds plausible. In addition JM confided first in her friend and her friend then put pressure on JM to go to the police. I may be wrong but I believe I have read somewhere that the first contact with the police was by JM's friend. Once JM had become involved with the police it would have been very difficult for her to back out of what she had started. She was undoubtedly put under a lot of pressure by the police and may have regarded herself as being trapped between a rock and a hard place. If she retracted what she said initially she faced prosecution, the alternative required her to substantiate the allegations she had made against JB with more detail. We are unlikely ever to know what took place in the numerous meetings between the police and JM before the trial, but I suspect that if that information could be obtained it would be very helpful to JB's case.
I still cant get my head around how she has maintained her stance - rock solid, outwardly at least. After all this time. She must believe he did it. If he didn't do it then he must have literally damned himself in the eyes of others by his own actions and remarks, prior to and after the killings. Crass, unlucky or naive. Maybe a combination of all of those.
-
i know sailing to the wind with this post and if admin wants to remove that's fine.
but were was Julie mugford on the night of the murder.
does anybody know.
Hi nugnug, my understanding is that she was in London (as JB called her at her flat that night and the call was witnessed by some flatmates). The police then went to her flat to pick her up.
What was the reason for bringing Julie to the crime scene, does anyone know?
-
these words of Julie Mugford's keep coming back to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she say Bamber phoned her and said, "It's working. Sheila's got the gun".?
-
Never heard of that.
-
these words of Julie Mugford's keep coming back to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she say Bamber phoned her and said, "It's working. Sheila's got the gun".?
I haven't heard that before.
-
i know sailing to the wind with this post and if admin wants to remove that's fine.
but were was Julie mugford on the night of the murder.
does anybody know.
Hi nugnug, my understanding is that she was in London (as JB called her at her flat that night and the call was witnessed by some flatmates). The police then went to her flat to pick her up.
What was the reason for bringing Julie to the crime scene, does anyone know?
I think Jeremy asked if she could be brought there - or to his house anyway. I presume they agreed so he had some moral support or something.
-
I think JM said he phoned and said tonights the night, and everthing was going to plan.
Bearing in mind this is only what she said
-
Remember 20 odd grand is a lot of money.
-
I,m knocking the head now, or you buggers will have me up all night again
Thanks Kaldin, I,ll get you back.[I hope].
-
these words of Julie Mugford's keep coming back to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she say Bamber phoned her and said, "It's working. Sheila's got the gun".?
In his 10pm phonecall to JM he is alleged to have said "tonights the night,its now or never"
In his early hours of the morning call to JM he is alleged to have said "its all going well,theres something wrong at the farm"
-
these words of Julie Mugford's keep coming back to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she say Bamber phoned her and said, "It's working. Sheila's got the gun".?
In his 10pm phonecall to JM he is alleged to have said "tonights the night,its now or never"
In his early hours of the morning call to JM he is alleged to have said "its all going well,theres something wrong at the farm"
See, those last words kind of imply that a third party did the killing, don't you think?
-
these words of Julie Mugford's keep coming back to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she say Bamber phoned her and said, "It's working. Sheila's got the gun".?
In his 10pm phonecall to JM he is alleged to have said "tonights the night,its now or never"
In his early hours of the morning call to JM he is alleged to have said "its all going well,theres something wrong at the farm"
See, those last words kind of imply that a third party did the killing, don't you think?
It seems rather an odd thing to make out he said? If Julie Mugford wasn't lying then it looks as if Jeremy left the loaded gun out on purpose hoping Sheila would do what she did? All speculation of course. But you would think that if she was lying she could have thought of something better than that?
-
these words of Julie Mugford's keep coming back to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she say Bamber phoned her and said, "It's working. Sheila's got the gun".?
In his 10pm phonecall to JM he is alleged to have said "tonights the night,its now or never"
In his early hours of the morning call to JM he is alleged to have said "its all going well,theres something wrong at the farm"
See, those last words kind of imply that a third party did the killing, don't you think?
It seems rather an odd thing to make out he said? If Julie Mugford wasn't lying then it looks as if Jeremy left the loaded gun out on purpose hoping Sheila would do what she did? All speculation of course. But you would think that if she was lying she could have thought of something better than that?
Yes - that tonights the night bit, or it's now or never is a bit of a cliche. Sounds fake to me really.
-
these words of Julie Mugford's keep coming back to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she say Bamber phoned her and said, "It's working. Sheila's got the gun".?
In his 10pm phonecall to JM he is alleged to have said "tonights the night,its now or never"
In his early hours of the morning call to JM he is alleged to have said "its all going well,theres something wrong at the farm"
See, those last words kind of imply that a third party did the killing, don't you think?
Yes it does.But wasnt he trying to give her that impression all along? If guilty,he either worried what she really thought about it or it was his way of trying to seperate himself from the crime in order not to feel so guilty.
-
So what does "all is going well" and "something is wrong at the farm" mean?
These are contradictory statements, surely?
Either something is going well or is wrong, it can't be both!
-
these words of Julie Mugford's keep coming back to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she say Bamber phoned her and said, "It's working. Sheila's got the gun".?
In his 10pm phonecall to JM he is alleged to have said "tonights the night,its now or never"
In his early hours of the morning call to JM he is alleged to have said "its all going well,theres something wrong at the farm"
See, those last words kind of imply that a third party did the killing, don't you think?
Yes it does.But wasnt he trying to give her that impression all along? If guilty,he either worried what she really thought about it or it was his way of trying to seperate himself from the crime in order not to feel so guilty.
If he was worried about how she'd react, why tell her anything in the first place though?
-
these words of Julie Mugford's keep coming back to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she say Bamber phoned her and said, "It's working. Sheila's got the gun".?
In his 10pm phonecall to JM he is alleged to have said "tonights the night,its now or never"
In his early hours of the morning call to JM he is alleged to have said "its all going well,theres something wrong at the farm"
See, those last words kind of imply that a third party did the killing, don't you think?
Yes it does.But wasnt he trying to give her that impression all along? If guilty,he either worried what she really thought about it or it was his way of trying to seperate himself from the crime in order not to feel so guilty.
If he was worried about how she'd react, why tell her anything in the first place though?
Exactly! It doesn´t ring true to me.
-
We only have JMs word that she thought JB wasnt serious when he was allegedly planning the murders.She had already shown herself to be a liar.For all we know,she could have been in it all with him and then bottled it on the night of the murders.It wouldnt surprise me if hed asked her to stay at the cottage that night as an alibi.Funny how she only went home the day before the murders!
-
We only have JMs word that she thought JB wasnt serious when he was allegedly planning the murders.She had already shown herself to be a liar.For all we know,she could have been in it all with him and then bottled it on the night of the murders.It wouldnt surprise me if hed asked her to stay at the cottage that night as an alibi.Funny how she only went home the day before the murders!
She must have had a very slow mind. Didn't she suddenly realise and put two and two together when the murders happened? Didn't he say something to her on the lines of "I should have been an actor". ?
-
If she was telling the truth,then she is as guilty as he is.She could have warned the family! I think that she liked the idea of the inheritance too. :(
-
If she was telling the truth,then she is as guilty as he is.She could have warned the family! I think that she liked the idea of the inheritance too. :(
Yes. It's all very well her saying that she didn't take it seriously but if someone is repeatedly saying such things I think one would start to worry about it. She said he talked about it so often that it distressed her and she asked him to stop it. If someone made a random remark one day about wishing their family dead, one would probably put that down to temper or whatever, but if they went on about it to the extent that she claimed Jeremy did, I would have thought she'd take it seriously.
-
Yes and no matter how much I loved my boyfriend,if he phoned me and said "tonight the night", I would have threatened him that if he went anywhere near the family that night that Id go straight to the police! Even more bizzare is how she states that in the early morning call when he allegedly tells her that "all is going well,theres something wrong at the farm" - she tells him to go back to bed!!!!
-
Yes and no matter how much I loved my boyfriend,if he phoned me and said "tonight the night", I would have threatened him that if he went anywhere near the family that night that Id go straight to the police! Even more bizzare is how she states that in the early morning call when he allegedly tells her that "all is going well,theres something wrong at the farm" - she tells him to go back to bed!!!!
Yes. It's been said that she was infatuated with him and yet she was rather dismissive when he phoned her in the early hours.
I could accept that she didn't take him seriously when he talked about killing his family if they hadn't been murdered later, and I could accept that she might not have taken him seriously when he claimed he had them killed if he hadn't talked about killing them previously, but for her to virtually ignore all that for a whole month afterwards is just bizarre.
-
I agree.She was happy enough to go along with it all the time she was his girlfriend and he was spending money on her! On the other hand,when people say that they cant believe he confessed all this to her,only to go on to dump her,he possibly kidded himself that if she told on him - who would believe her? After-all,it was effectively her word against his.She never had any concrete proof did she.Only what she had learned from the relatives/police/media.
-
I agree.She was happy enough to go along with it all the time she was his girlfriend and he was spending money on her! On the other hand,when people say that they cant believe he confessed all this to her,only to go on to dump her,he possibly kidded himself that if she told on him - who would believe her? After-all,it was effectively her word against his.She never had any concrete proof did she.Only what she had learned from the relatives/police/media.
I could just about understand why she might not spill the beans after the murders - she might have thought that doing so wouldn't bring them all back and that maybe it was best just to let it go, but I simply can't understand her going about with him afterwards - she went on two holidays with him, and she even went to see Colin Caffell with him. Did she stand there and look Colin Caffell in the face whilst he talked about his ex-wife killing their two little boys? Did she stand there and listen to him saying he couldn't understand it and how his life had been torn apart (and surely he must have said something along those lines). She'd seen those two little boys riddled with bullets and yet she felt nothing?
I can't understand why she wouldn't distance herself from it or tell her friends or something. I can't understand why she grabbed Jeremy's hand as soon as they got out of the car at the funeral and why she behaved as if he was another victim.
Re this News of the World story, did it every get published and did she ever explain why on earth she remained devoted to Jeremy until he dumped her?
-
Look at this picture of her. See how elegantly she's dressed. She must surely have gone out and bought that hat with the little veil. What was going through her head when she did that, and when she got dressed for the funeral? What was going through her head when she applied that eyeliner?
(http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/15776/user/307671/442448.jpg)
What was going through her head when she went to the funeral for the boys knowing that Colin thought his ex-wife had killed his two little boys and that Jeremy was spending all that money on champagne and holidays?
-
If he should have been an actor........................then surely she should have been an actress!!!
-
If he should have been an actor........................then surely she should have been an actress!!!
I wonder if the family ever had a word of reproach for Julie. She lied to them - or at least she let them think that Sheila had killed their relatives. Robert Boutflour described her later as a "frightened girl" but he didn't seem to wonder why such a "frightened girl" carried on seeing Jeremy, went on two holidays with him, and stood there at two funerals playing the part of the supportive girlfriend.
Did Julie tell Pamela she was sorry about the death of June? If so, how did Pamela feel when she later found out that Julie believed Jeremy had organised the murder of her sister? How did Ann Eaton feel when she found out that the conversations she had with Julie were fake? How did any of them feel later about Julie identifying the bodies of the people who she thought had been murdered by her boyfriend?
-
If he should have been an actor........................then surely she should have been an actress!!!
I wonder if the family ever had a word of reproach for Julie. She lied to them - or at least she let them think that Sheila had killed their relatives. Robert Boutflour described her later as a "frightened girl" but he didn't seem to wonder why such a "frightened girl" carried on seeing Jeremy, went on two holidays with him, and stood there at two funerals playing the part of the supportive girlfriend.
Did Julie tell Pamela she was sorry about the death of June? If so, how did Pamela feel when she later found out that Julie believed Jeremy had organised the murder of her sister? How did Ann Eaton feel when she found out that the conversations she had with Julie were fake? How did any of them feel later about Julie identifying the bodies of the people who she thought had been murdered by her boyfriend?
She doesn't look too frightened to me.
-
If he should have been an actor........................then surely she should have been an actress!!!
I wonder if the family ever had a word of reproach for Julie. She lied to them - or at least she let them think that Sheila had killed their relatives. Robert Boutflour described her later as a "frightened girl" but he didn't seem to wonder why such a "frightened girl" carried on seeing Jeremy, went on two holidays with him, and stood there at two funerals playing the part of the supportive girlfriend.
Did Julie tell Pamela she was sorry about the death of June? If so, how did Pamela feel when she later found out that Julie believed Jeremy had organised the murder of her sister? How did Ann Eaton feel when she found out that the conversations she had with Julie were fake? How did any of them feel later about Julie identifying the bodies of the people who she thought had been murdered by her boyfriend?
She doesn't look too frightened to me.
No she doesn't. Robert Boutflour was obsessed with Jeremy and Brett Collins, and yet he had nothing whatsoever to say about Julie Mugford's behaviour.
How did she go on to live a new life with all that guilt on her shoulders?
-
Kaldin...............I think the only feelings the relatives have for Julie are gratefulness.Whatever she did or didnt do,in the end she came through for them by testifying against JB.It was all about the money and they got what they wanted.I have never once heard the relatives talk about wanting justice for their loved ones.Indeed I have only heard the word "love" mentioned once.And that was RB refering to his wife Pamelas love for June.
-
Kaldin...............I think the only feelings the relatives have for Julie are gratefulness.Whatever she did or didnt do,in the end she came through for them by testifying against JB.It was all about the money and they got what they wanted.I have never once heard the relatives talk about wanting justice for their loved ones.Indeed I have only heard the word "love" mentioned once.And that was RB refering to his wife Pamelas love for June.
Yes, I daresay they were grateful, but even so she looked them in the face and lied. She went to see the bodies of their family and said nothing. She went to the funerals and said nothing. Did she ever say sorry to them for that? Did they never consider that she could have prevented the murders if she'd spoken up when Jeremy told her he wanted them dead and when he was apparently experimenting with her own prescription drugs to see if he could drug them all?
-
she did none of that kaldin, she didnt need to because she lied about the fact that jeremy told her anything in the first place.Shes a disgrace in my opinion.
wether jb is guilty or innocent, i dont believe he told her thing. She enjoyed the expensive meals, champagne, hollidays and even had sex with him after it had happened. A "frightened girl" belting joke that one.
suddenly shes dumped, along with the lifestyle she was getting accustomed to, and goes straight to the police. nice one jm ;)
-
Kaldin...............I think the only feelings the relatives have for Julie are gratefulness.Whatever she did or didnt do,in the end she came through for them by testifying against JB.It was all about the money and they got what they wanted.I have never once heard the relatives talk about wanting justice for their loved ones.Indeed I have only heard the word "love" mentioned once.And that was RB refering to his wife Pamelas love for June.
Good point ba lady. ;)
-
i wonder why she told the first story about the hitman.
-
she did none of that kaldin, she didnt need to because she lied about the fact that jeremy told her anything in the first place.Shes a disgrace in my opinion.
wether jb is guilty or innocent, i dont believe he told her thing. She enjoyed the expensive meals, champagne, hollidays and even had sex with him after it had happened. A "frightened girl" belting joke that one.
suddenly shes dumped, along with the lifestyle she was getting accustomed to, and goes straight to the police. nice one jm ;)
Yes, but even if she lied about what Jeremy said to her, I presume the relatives don't know she lied, so why did they not reproach her at all? I find that more than a bit strange.
-
........ I presume the relatives don't know she lied, so why did they not reproach her at all? I find that more than a bit strange.
Because there is nothing so blind as prejudice. It only sees what it wants to see.
-
Good points, Kaldin and Lady chelmsey!
-
i wonder why she told the first story about the hitman.
My theory is that Julie was aware that the relatives suspected Jeremy and that they suspected that a hitman was involved. The part that Mugford herself invented was Jeremy’s confession. What the alleged confession contained were the mistaken assumptions of other people including the notion that Macdonald was involved.
I think it unlikely that Mugford would have simply invented it from nothing. It was probably somebody’s offhand guess which turned into a rumour. Mugford half believed it, so when the time came, it was a small step rather than a giant leap. At any rate, the confession contains other proven inaccuracies, so the hitman idea is, in my opinion, best regarded as being of the same status as the rest.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19861024&id=GoJDAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q6UMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2005,5924099
From The Glasgow Herald (copied using GT Text)
Mr Rivlin also told the
jury that Mr Bamber’s for-
mer girlfriend Miss Julia
Mugford, who gave evi-
dence against him, had a
“convoluted mind,” was
jealous and had got her in-
formation about the shoot-
ings from the police, news
papers and others.
“There is not one single
thing that Mr Bamber ever
told her that she could only
have got from him,” he
said.
“ln all that time they
were together after the
dreadful incident, you
could expect that she
would have heard one thing
that only the murderer
could have told her, but she
didn’t."
The court has heard that
'police arrested Mr Bamber
after Miss Mugford went to
them claiming he had told
her he had hired a mercen-
ary, Matthew MacDonald,
to carry out the killings for
£2000.
Mr Rlvlin told the jury:
“The prosecution said Miss
Mugford would have had to
have had a convoluted
mind to have made all this
up. We say that she has.
“That Matthew (Mac-
Donald) story is not only
wrong in itself, but con-
tains in it a number of
details which can be
proved to be untrue and
which she can only have
got from the police or Ann
Eaton (a family friend)."
The trial continues.
-
My theory is that Julie was aware that the relatives suspected Jeremy and that they suspected that a hitman was involved. The part that Mugford herself invented was Jeremy’s confession. What the alleged confession contained were the mistaken assumptions of other people including the notion that Macdonald was involved.
I think it unlikely that Mugford would have simply invented it from nothing. It was probably somebody’s offhand guess which turned into a rumour. Mugford half believed it, so when the time came, it was a small step rather than a giant leap. At any rate, the confession contains other proven inaccuracies, so the hitman idea is, in my opinion, best regarded as being of the same status as the rest.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19861024&id=GoJDAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q6UMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2005,5924099
From The Glasgow Herald (copied using GT Text)
Mr Rivlin also told the
jury that Mr Bamber’s for-
mer girlfriend Miss Julia
Mugford, who gave evi-
dence against him, had a
“convoluted mind,” was
jealous and had got her in-
formation about the shoot-
ings from the police, news
papers and others.
“There is not one single
thing that Mr Bamber ever
told her that she could only
have got from him,” he
said.
“ln all that time they
were together after the
dreadful incident, you
could expect that she
would have heard one thing
that only the murderer
could have told her, but she
didn’t."
The court has heard that
'police arrested Mr Bamber
after Miss Mugford went to
them claiming he had told
her he had hired a mercen-
ary, Matthew MacDonald,
to carry out the killings for
£2000.
Mr Rlvlin told the jury:
“The prosecution said Miss
Mugford would have had to
have had a convoluted
mind to have made all this
up. We say that she has.
“That Matthew (Mac-
Donald) story is not only
wrong in itself, but con-
tains in it a number of
details which can be
proved to be untrue and
which she can only have
got from the police or Ann
Eaton (a family friend)."
The trial continues.
Well said Martin - I am of the same thoughts!
-
I'm afraid Mr Rivlin wasn't forceful enough given the enormity of such a case such as Jeremys'. Against the prosecution,the defense had very little. I'd have shouted my lungs out over a few things.
It's high time that the defense shouted as loud,if not louder than the prosecution to avoid MOJ's.
-
Was Jeremy a suspect before Julie Mugford said anything to police?
-
Was Jeremy a suspect before Julie Mugford said anything to police?
Not particularly,Beanie. It was her and the relatives who " solved the crime " you know." !
-
Was Jeremy a suspect before Julie Mugford said anything to police?
Yes he was. The police view of the case changed after about a month, as a result of representations made by members of the family.
-
Look at this picture of her. See how elegantly she's dressed. She must surely have gone out and bought that hat with the little veil. What was going through her head when she did that, and when she got dressed for the funeral? What was going through her head when she applied that eyeliner?
(http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/15776/user/307671/442448.jpg)
What was going through her head when she went to the funeral for the boys knowing that Colin thought his ex-wife had killed his two little boys and that Jeremy was spending all that money on champagne and holidays?
* The dress she wore to the funerals she describes as having been bought by JB from Miss Selfridges for about £38/39; whereas JB spends a couple of hundred pounds on his clothing.
Having re-visited Julie Mugfords original statements I find it difficult to see why they are so hard to believe?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1119.0.html
She appears to be describing a man (Jeremy Bamber) who is extremely cunning and calculated and whom as a 20/21 year old girl appears besotted with; as she states.
If posters read about relationships with toxic/disordered people like JB and/or psychopaths, JM's statements reveal numerous clues into his psychological make-up. http://www.curejoy.com/content/6-signs-youre-arguing-psychopath/
"psychopaths just want to paint you with their own flaws, to piss you off enough that they can just call you ‘crazy’ and make you look like the culprit in front of others.
Although my experiences were very different to JM's, there are some similarities, in that there weren't many who believed me when I told them Simon Hall had confessed. In fact I can count the number of people who believed me on one hand (This obviously doesn't include those people who had believed him to be guilty in the first instance).
Posters only need look at some of my previous posts about SH from the point of his confession.
It's clear from JM's witness statements that JB had been planning to murder his family for quite some time.
Prior to and following SH's confession he chose to tell me, and me only, many details about himself, his past, his childhood and the murder. I asked him why he was disclosing so much to me and not to the prison. He told me it was because he trusted me? It should also be remembered he was aware of a lot of the online abuse being aimed at me and how my character had been assassinated.
Jeremy Bamber says during his interview with the police, when confronted with the fact JM has told them he had murdered his family; that JM had a "fertile imagination"
When SH redacted his confession in the October 2013 he spoke very similarly about me..
-
Julie Mugford's witness statements also give details/clues into how Jeremy Bamber carried out the murders. Though it appears obvious he has told her half truths and lies, most probably in order to convince others, if she were to repeat what he has told her, she is a scorned women/crazy or had a "fertile imagination."
-
I would be interested in seeing Susan Battersby' boyfriends witness statement. According to her statement she tells police after JM told her JB was responsible for the murders, she told her boyfriend. Although she had promised JM she wouldn't tell anyone.
I'd also like to see Charles Marsden's statement along with Sarah's; both of whom JM refers to in her witness statement - exhibit 187 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1932
And did the police ever track down and interview 'Ray' from New Zealand? According to JM, JB had a photo of him on the dresser in the dining room and JB had confirmed he had previously had a 'gay relationship' with Ray.
-
Julie Mugford's witness statements also give details/clues into how Jeremy Bamber carried out the murders. Though it appears obvious he has told her half truths and lies, most probably in order to convince others, if she were to repeat what he has told her, she is a scorned women/crazy or had a "fertile imagination."
Everything in her statements can be linked to either the police or the relatives before she even "came forward"
As a matter of fact the information she gives the at the time happens to conveniently fill many gaps the police needed at the time. Yet later in the investigation those areas needed revising thus harming her credibility later on.
-
Everything in her statements can be linked to either the police or the relatives before she even "came forward"
As a matter of fact the information she gives the at the time happens to conveniently fill many gaps the police needed at the time. Yet later in the investigation those areas needed revising thus harming her credibility later on.
That may be so David but it doesn't make the contents of her statements any less true.
You say her credibility has been harmed but the original trial/jury did not.
Further, there are numerous details in her witness statements that the police and relatives could not have known.
-
Everything in her statements can be linked to either the police or the relatives before she even "came forward"
Where is the statement of Susan Battersby' boyfriend? That evidence wouldn't have come from the police or relatives!
And her colleague 'Steve' who she says was gay and who she says JB teased?
-
Although some posters may not want to see it, there are many similarities in JB behaviours/psychological make up as there were in SH's.
The same applies to the information (Witness statements etc) which has been placed into the public domain and the information that has not been placed into the public domain
As I've already stated in relation to the SH case, there were numerous references to homosexual liaisons in the original case files. During trial and over the years SH denied these and made similar excuses as referred to by JM in her statements about JB.
Whilst investigating the SH case the police obtained letters he had written to a girlfriend when he was in a YOI. SH was then aged around 17. One of the letters refers to SH having carried out homosexual activities with another lad.
SH also disclosed in 2013 (Following confession) that he had been having a secret homosexual relationship with the pub landlord of the pub where he kept his car on the night of 15th/16th December 2001.
However, according to SH, during his trial the pub landlord was asked about this, as was SH, and both denied it. Although there is evidence in another girlfriends witness statement suggesting she knew about it. SH disclosed in 2013 this relationship had continued right up until he was arrested in mid 2002 during which time he was living with another girlfriend.
In/around 2011/12 SH excused his homosexual liaisons as experimentation but in 2013 (Prior to his confession) he disclosed he thought he may be bisexual. He also said he was gay. His letters around this time are self explanatory. He flits between gay/straight/bisexual over a period of time.
In the SH case, Jamie Barker was a main prosecution witness, not dissimilar to Julie Mugford.
According to SH's disclosures at the end of 2012 he states he and JBarker were committing a burglary at Zenith windows on the night in question. Would this evidence not make JBarker an unreliable witness?None of JBarkers witness statements or other disclosed material refers to JBarker's involvement in a burglary?
It was also discovered in early 2013 that JBarker's police interview/transcripts had not been requested/or disclosed. JBarker was arrested at the same time as SH. Both were questioned under caution in relation to the murder.
Similarly the pub landlord (and his then boyfriend) moved from the one pub (Where SH kept his car that fateful night) to another. Later in the year of 2012, following SH's arrest, the new pub was raided by the police investigating the murder. Much of the material regarding this raid was not requested or disclosed, though it appears drugs may have been found by the police?
-
That may be so David but it doesn't make the contents of her statements any less true.
You say her credibility has been harmed but the original trial/jury did not.
Further, there are numerous details in her witness statements that the police and relatives could not have known.
Don't get me wrong Stephanie. I was once very satisfied to believe Jeremy was guilty on a balance of probability and I simultaneously accepted Julie was a coerced/lying witness. My position on Julie has never changed. If he is guilty he told her nothing. I have always been totally impartial on this subject.
Of course there are details in her witness statements that the police and relatives could not have known, however they are not details that directly involve the crime and accusations.
-
Don't get me wrong Stephanie. I was once very satisfied to believe Jeremy was guilty on a balance of probability and I simultaneously accepted Julie was a coerced/lying witness. My position on Julie has never changed. If he is guilty he told her nothing. I have always been totally impartial on this subject.
Of course there are details in her witness statements that the police and relatives could not have known, however they are not details that directly involve the crime and accusations.
How can you say you have always been totally impartial when you state you have always believed Julie Mugford to have lied?
Why wouldn't he have told her about his crimes? You obviously do not know the lengths disordered individuals will go to; nor understand the power and control they so desperately seek and have over their victims.
-
Don't get me wrong Stephanie. I was once very satisfied to believe Jeremy was guilty on a balance of probability and I simultaneously accepted Julie was a coerced/lying witness.
Further you cannot possible know or state otherwise that JM was coerced by the police.
It's obvious from the evidence in her statement she was in a predicament. She clearly made poor choices (As we have all done) but she appears to have gone into quite some detail with regards her poor choices, regardless of how they made her appear to others.
-
It's been suggested Julie Mugford was a scorned 21 year old who turned on Jeremy Bamber after he dumped her but it's clear from her statements she didn't really know what was going on with their relationship.
Maybe common sense finally prevailed and it is this that encouraged her to offload to the police.
We cannot know for sure all of the emotions JM was experiencing back then. She appears to have been carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders.
How does what JM did differ to say for example mothers who protect their children in similar circumstances (Cases of murder)?
-
How can you say you have always been totally impartial when you state you have always believed Julie Mugford to have lied?
Because the evidence demonstrates very clearly that she is. I have once believed Jeremy was probably was guilty and at the same time acknowledged Julie as a liar. I follow the evidence my stance cannot change because the evidence does not change.
Why wouldn't he have told her about his crimes? You obviously do not know the lengths disordered individuals will go to; nor understand the power and control they so desperately seek and have over their victims.
If you believe Jeremy is guilty and you believe Julie is truthful then she is an accomplice to the crime, not a victim. One way or another she is a liar. Then you have the cheque fraud she committed without any known influence from Jeremy. The woman's testimony is reprehensible whatever way you look at it.
-
Because the evidence demonstrates very clearly that she is. I have once believed Jeremy was probably was guilty and at the same time acknowledged Julie as a liar. I follow the evidence my stance cannot change because the evidence does not change.
If you believe Jeremy is guilty and you believe Julie is truthful then she is an accomplice to the crime, not a victim. One way or another she is a liar. Then you have the cheque fraud she committed without any known influence from Jeremy. The woman's testimony is reprehensible whatever way you look at it.
I agree that it appears she is an accomplice to the crime. She can also be seen to be a victim of a very calculated and cunning man.
This isn't the first case where a possible accomplice has turned "Queens evidence."
Current guidelines state; "Only in the most exceptional cases will it be appropriate to offer full immunity."
Maybe it was decided this case was exceptional? http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/queen_s_evidence_-_immunities_undertakings_and_agreements_under_the_serious_organised_crime_and_police_act_2005/
Assessing reliability and credibility
11. A prosecutor should endeavour to assess, in cooperation with the investigating agency, the reliability and credibility of the potential witness. In doing so, prosecutors should consider, amongst other things, the following:
a. the consistency and accuracy of the accounts provided (this should be assessed by analysing the debrief material against other available evidence, information and/or intelligence);
b. the readiness of the potential witness to change their account (consider also the frequency of change and any explanation provided);
c. any deliberate distortion of the roles of others;
d. whether the potential witness is minimising their own role;
e. the scale of Bad Character - have they led a 'life of crime' and is there material to demonstrate a propensity to lie?
f. the honesty, motivation and demeanour of the potential witness (this should be explored in debriefing and the views of the investigator will be important in making this assessment);
g. any tendency to confuse (although might this just be a consequence of the potential witness' long-term criminality);
h. any issues around the medical health of the potential witness, following any assessment made of their medical records. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/queen_s_evidence_-_immunities_undertakings_and_agreements_under_the_serious_organised_crime_and_police_act_2005/#a04a
It does not appear Julie Mugford "coerced or incited" Jeremy Bamber to take part in the murders.
-
I would like to hear Jeremy Bamber's views on witnesses turning Queens evidence. Maybe he will be so kind as to blog about it?
-
I would like to hear Jeremy Bamber's views on witnesses turning Queens evidence. Maybe he will be so kind as to blog about it?
The mystery is why he entrusted Julie with the secret of his intentions, why he asked for her presence within hours of the murders committed and why given that he dumped her only weeks later.
-
Why haven't Brett Collins statements been put in the public domain and why doesn't Jeremy Bamber talk about him in his blogs etc?
-
The mystery is why he entrusted Julie with the secret of his intentions, why he asked for her presence within hours of the murders committed and why given that he dumped her only weeks later.
Indeed Steve, I have to agree though by him telling her about wanting to kill his family this quite possibley may have been a way to excerpt power and control over her?
-
Indeed Steve, I have to agree though by him telling her about wanting to kill his family this quite possibley may have been a way to excerpt power and control over her?
..or bragging to her that although he may have been under his parents' thumb materially it was he who ultimately could control their destiny.
-
The mystery is why he entrusted Julie with the secret of his intentions, why he asked for her presence within hours of the murders committed and why given that he dumped her only weeks later.
He hadn't finished with her - idealise, devalue, discard..
"In their book on psychopaths in the workplace, entitled Snakes in Suits, Babiak and Hare state that the psychopathic bond follows certain predictable stages: idealize, devalue and discard. This process may take several years or only a few hours. It all depends on what the psychopath wants from you and whether or not you present a challenge to him. If the psychopath wants the semblance of respectability–a screen behind which he can hide his perverse nature and appear harmless and normal–he may establish a long-term partnership with you or even marry you. If all he wants is to have some fun, it will be over within a couple of hours. If he wants the stimulation and diversion of an affair, he may stay with you for as long as you excite him. Despite the differences in timeline, what remains constant is this: eventually, sooner or later, you’ll be discarded (or be led by the psychopath’s bad behavior to discard him) as soon as you no longer serve his needs.
Babiak and Hare explain that although psychopaths are highly manipulative, the process of idealize, devalue and discard is a natural outgrowth of their personalities. In other words, it’s not necessarily calculated at every moment in the relationship. Overall, however, whether consciously or not, psychopaths assess and drain the use-value out of their romantic partners. (Snakes in Suits, 42) During the assessment phase, psychopaths interact closely with their targets to see what makes them tick. They ask probing questions, to discover their unfulfilled needs and weaknesses. They also commonly lure their targets with promises to offer them whatever’s been missing from their lives. If you’re recovering from a recent divorce, they offer you friendship and an exciting new romantic relationship. If you’ve suffered a death in the family, they appear to be sympathetic friends. If you’re going through financial difficulties, they lend you money to seem generous.
During the manipulation phase, Babiak and Hare go on to explain, psychopaths construct the “psychopathic fiction.” They pour on the charm to hook their victims emotionally and gain their trust. They present themselves as kind-hearted individuals. Of course, in order to do so, psychopaths resort to outrageous lies since, in reality, they’re just the opposite. In romantic relationships in particular, they depict themselves as not only compatible with you, but also as your soul mate. While seeming your complement, they also present themselves as your mirror image. They claim to share your interests and sensibilities. Babiak and Hare observe: “This psychological bond capitalizes on your inner personality, holding out the promise of greater depth and possibly intimacy, and offering a relationship that is special, unique, equal–forever.” (Snakes in Suits, 78)
Because psychopaths are great manipulators and convincing liars, as we’ve seen, many of their victims don’t heed the warning signals. During the early phases of a romantic relationship, people in general tend to be too blinded by the euphoria of falling in love to focus on noticing red flags. Also, during this period, the psychopaths themselves are on their best behavior. Yet, generally speaking, they get bored too easily to be able to maintain their mask of sanity consistently for very long. The honeymoon phase of the relationship usually lasts until the psychopath intuitively senses that he’s got you on the hook or until he’s gotten bored by the relationship and moved on to other targets. He shows his true colors when he’s got no incentive left to pretend anymore. As Babiak and Hare note, “Once psychopaths have drained all the value from a victim—that is, when the victim is no longer useful—they abandon the victim and move on to someone else.” (Snakes in Suits, 53)
This raises the question of why a psychopath idealizes his targets in the first place. Why do psychopaths invest so much effort, time and energy into giving the illusion of intimacy and meaning in a relationship, given that they never really bond with other human beings in the first place? One obvious response would be that they do it for the sport of it. They enjoy both the chase and the kill; the seduction and the betrayal. They relish creating the illusion that they’re something they’re not. They also enjoy observing how they dupe others into believing this fiction. Moreover, whenever a psychopath expresses admiration, flattery or enthusiasm for someone, it’s always because he wants something from that person. I think, however, that this explanation is somewhat reductive. Many psychopaths experience powerful obsessions that resemble intense passions. Besides, this explanation doesn’t distinguish conmen, who fake their credentials and interest in a person, from psychopaths “in love,” who are pursuing their targets for what initially seems even to them as “romantic” reasons.
A broader explanation, which would include both kinds of psychopaths, might look something like this: as research confirms, all psychopaths suffer from a shallowness of emotion that makes their bonding ephemeral and superficial, at best. When they want something–or someone–they pursue that goal with all their might. They concentrate all of their energies upon it. When that goal is your money or a job or something outside of yourself, their pursuit may appear somewhat fake. You’re a means to an end. You were never idealized for yourself, but for something else. But when their goal is actually you–seducing you or even marrying you–then their pursuit feels like an idealization. Temporarily, you represent the object of their desire, the answer to their needs, the love of their life and the key to their happiness. But this feeling of euphoria doesn’t last long because it’s empty to the core. As we’ve observed, once psychopaths feel they have you in their grasp—once your identity, hopes and expectations are pinned on them—they get bored with you and move on to new sources of pleasure and diversion. We’ve also seen in Cleckley’s study that the same logic applies to their other goals as well. Psychopaths tire rather quickly of their jobs, their geographic location, their hobbies and their educational endeavors. But it hurts so much more, and it feels so much more personal, when what they get tired of is you, yourself.
Their loss of interest appears as a devaluation. From the center of their life, you suddenly become just an obstacle to their next pursuit. Since psychopaths are intuitively skilled at “dosing,” or giving you just enough validation and attention to keep you on the hook, you may not immediately notice the devaluation. It’s as if the psychopath intuitively knows when to be charming again (in order not to lose you) and when to push your boundaries, further and lower. Your devaluation occurs gradually yet steadily. One day you finally notice it and wonder how you have allowed yourself to sink so low. Occasionally, he throws you a bone–takes you out, plans a romantic evening, says kind and loving things—to lead you to dismiss your healthy intuitions that you’re being mistreated. If the psychopath allows himself to treat you worse and worse it’s not only because you’re much less exciting in his eyes. It’s also because he’s conditioned you to think less highly of yourself and to accept his dubious behavior. Because you want to hold on to the fantasy of the ideal relationship he cultivated, you go into denial. You accept his implausible excuses. You put up with your growing fears and doubts. You rationalize his inexplicable absences, his increasingly frequent emotional withdrawals, his curt and icy replies, his petty and mean-spirited ways of “punishing” you for asserting your needs or for not bending to his will.
But at some point, when he sinks to a new low or when you catch him in yet another lie, you slip out of the willful denial which has been your way of adjusting to the toxic relationship. Because he has lowered your self-esteem, you ask yourself why this has happened and what you did wrong. If he cheated on you, you blame the other woman or women involved. The psychopath encourages you to pursue such false leads. In fact, he encourages anything that deflects attention from his responsibility in whatever goes wrong with your relationship. He leads you to blame yourself. He also inculpates the other women. He implies that you were not good enough for him. He claims that the other women tempted or pursued him. But that’s only a diversionary tactic. You have flaws and you made mistakes, but at least you were honest and real. The other women involved may have been decent human beings, the scum of the Earth or anything in between. Think about it. Does it really matter who and what they were? You are not involved with the other women. They are not your life partners, your spouses, your lovers or your friends. What matters to you most is how your own partner behaves. He is primarily accountable for his actions. Not you, not the other women.
Also, keep in mind that psychopaths twist the truth to fit their momentary goals and to play mind games. When you actually pay attention to what they say instead of being impressed by how sincere they may appear, their narratives often sound inconsistent and implausible. What they say about other women, both past and present, is most likely a distortion too. Psychopaths commonly project their own flaws upon others. If they tell you they were seduced, it was most likely the other way around. If they tell you that their previous girlfriends mistreated them, cheated on them, got bored with them, abandoned them, listen carefully, since that’s probably what they did to those women. Their lies serve a dual function. They help establish credibility with you as well as giving them the extra thrill of deceiving you yet again.
So why were you discarded? you may wonder. You were devalued and discarded because you were never really valued for yourself. As we’ve seen, for psychopaths relationships are temporary deals, or rather, scams. Analogously, for them, other human beings represent objects of diversion and control. The most flattering and pleasant phase of their control, the only one that feels euphoric and magical, is the seduction/idealization phase. That’s when they pour on the charm and do everything they possibly can to convince you that you are the only one for them and that they’re perfect for you. It’s very easy to mistake this phase for true love or passion. However, what inevitably follows in any intimate relationship with a psychopath is neither pleasant nor flattering. Once they get bored with you because the spell of the initial conquest has worn off, the way they maintain control of you is through deception, isolation, abuse, gaslighting and undermining your self-confidence.
That’s when you realize that the devaluation phase has set in. You do whatever you can to regain privileged status. You try to recapture the excitement and sweetness of the idealization phase. You want to reclaim your rightful throne as the queen you thought you were in his eyes. But that’s an impossible goal, an ever-receding horizon. Every women’s shelter tells victims of domestic violence that abuse usually gets worse, not better, over time. For abusers, power is addictive. It works like a drug. The dosage needs to be constantly increased to achieve the same effect. Control over others, especially sexual control, gives psychopaths pleasure and meaning in life. To get the same rush from controlling you, over time, they need to tighten the screws. Increase the domination. Increase the manipulation. Isolate you further from those who care about you. Undermine your confidence and boundaries more, so that you’re left weaker and less prepared to stand up for yourself. The more you struggle to meet a psychopath’s demands, the more he’ll ask of you. Until you have nothing left to give. Because you have pushed your moral boundaries as low as they can go. You have alienated your family and friends, at the psychopath’s subtle manipulation or overt urging. You have done everything you could to satisfy him. Yet, after the initial idealization phase, nothing you did was ever good enough for him.
It turns out that he’s completely forgotten about the qualities he once saw in you. If and when he talks about you to others, it’s as if he were ashamed of you. That’s not only because he lost interest in you. It’s also the instinctive yet strategic move of a predator. If your family, his family, your mutual friends have all lost respect for you–if you’re alone with him in the world–he can control you so much easier than if you have external sources of validation and emotional support. Psychopaths construct an “us versus them” worldview. They initially depict your relationship as privileged and better than the ordinary love bonds normal people form. This is of course always a fiction. In fact, the opposite holds true. An intimate relationship with a psychopath is far inferior to any normal human relationship, where both people care about each other. Such a relationship is necessarily one-sided and distorted. It’s a sham on both sides. Being a consummate narcissist, he loves no one but himself and cares about nothing but his selfish desires.
If and when he does something nice, it’s always instrumental: a means to his ends or to bolster his artificial good image. Dr. Jekyll is, in fact, always Mr. Hyde on the inside. And even though you may be capable of love, you’re not in love with the real him–the cheater, the liar, the manipulator, the player, the hollow, heartless being that he is–but with the charming illusion he created, which you initially believed but which becomes increasingly implausible over time. From beginning to end, all this phony relationship can offer you is a toxic combination of fake love and real abuse. He constructs the psychopathic bond through deception and manipulation. You maintain it through self-sacrifice and denial.
But pretty soon, when you find yourself alone with the psychopath, you see it’s not us versus them, your couple above and against everyone else. It’s him versus you. He will act like your worst enemy, which is what he really is, not as the best friend and adoring partner he claimed to be. If he criticizes you to others–or, more subtly, fosters antagonisms between you and family members and friends–it’s to further wear you down and undermine your social bonds. Once he tires of you, he induces others to see you the same way that he does: as someone not worthy of him; as someone to use, demean and discard. Before you were beautiful and no woman could compare to you. Now you’re at best plain in his eyes. Before you were cultured and intelligent. Now you’re the dupe who got played by him. Before you were dignified and confident. Now you’re isolated and abject. In fact, right at the point when you feel that you should be rewarded for your sacrifice of your values, needs, desires and human bonds–all for him–the psychopath discards you.
He’s had enough. He’s gotten everything he wanted out of you. Bent you out of shape. Taken away, demand by demand, concession by concession, your dignity and happiness. As it turns out, the reward you get for all your devotion and efforts is being nearly destroyed by him. Ignoring your own needs and fulfilling only his–or fulfilling yours to gain his approval–has transformed you into a mere shadow of the lively, confident human being you once were.
He uses your weaknesses against you. He also turns your qualities into faults. If you are faithful, he sees your fidelity as a weakness, a sign you weren’t desirable enough to cheat. Nobody else really wanted you. If you are virtuous, he exploits your honesty while he lies and cheats on you. If you are passionate, he uses your sensuality to seduce you, to entrap you through your own desires, emotions, hopes and dreams. If you are reserved and modest, he describes you as asocial and cold-blooded. If you are confident and outgoing, he views you as flirtatious and untrustworthy. If you are hard working, unless he depends on your money, he depicts you as a workhorse exploited by your boss. If you are artistic and cultured, he undermines your merit. He makes you feel like everything you create is worthless and cannot possibly interest others. You’re lucky that it ever interested him. After the idealization phase is over, there’s no way to please a psychopath. Heads you lose, tails he wins. But remember that his criticisms are even less true than his initial exaggerated flattery. When all is said and done, the only truth that remains is that the whole relationship was a fraud.
The process of the psychopathic bond is programmatic. It’s astonishingly elegant and simple given the complexity of human behavior. Idealize, devalue and discard. Each step makes sense once you grasp the psychological profile of a psychopath, of an (in)human being who lives for the pleasure of controlling and harming others. 1) Idealize: not you, but whatever he wanted from you and only for however long he wanted it. 2) Devalue: once he has you in his clutches, the boredom sets in and he loses interest. 3) Discard: after he’s gotten everything he wanted from you and has probably secured other targets.
For you, this process is excruciatingly personal. It may have cost you your time, your heart, your friends, your family, your self-esteem or your finances. You may have put everything you had and given everything you could to that relationship. It may have become your entire life. For the psychopath, however, the whole process isn’t really personal. He could have done the same thing to just about anyone who allowed him into her intimate life. He will do it again and again to everyone he seduces. It’s not about you. It’s not about the other woman or women who were set against you to compete for him, to validate his ego, to give him pleasure, to meet his fickle needs. He wasn’t with them because they’re superior to you. He was with them for the same reason that he was with you. To use them, perhaps for different purposes than he used you, but with the same devastating effect. He will invariably treat others in a similar way to how he treated you. Idealize, devalue and discard. Rinse and repeat. This process was, is and will always be only about the psychopath for as long as you stay with him.
https://psychopathyawareness.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/the-psychopaths-relationship-cycle-idealize-devalue-and-discard/
-
The mystery is why he entrusted Julie with the secret of his intentions, why he asked for her presence within hours of the murders committed and why given that he dumped her only weeks later.
He never told her anything there is no mystery.
-
He never told her anything there is no mystery.
I don't buy your theory David.
-
I don't buy your theory David.
Its not my theory. This was established at trial before I was even born lol
Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
-
Its not my theory. This was established at trial before I was even born lol
Rivlin QC told the jury: "The prosecution said Miss Mugford would have had to have had a convoluted mind to have made all this up. We say that she has."That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
It's still a theory David, whether you were born or not.. A theory not believed by the jury! That's a fact!
-
It's still a theory David, whether you were born or not.. A theory not believed by the jury! That's a fact!
Its not a theory. All the details of Jeremy's alleged "confessions" not only fail to corroborate the scene of the crime but they can be traced back to the police or the relatives long before she even "came forward" Its in all the notes, statements and transcripts for all to see.
Besides the jury could not reach a marjority majority verdict and asked to go over the blood/silencer evidence again only then did they make their minds up, Thus Mugfords testimony was not pivotal.
-
Its not a theory. All the details of Jeremy's alleged "confessions" not only fail to corroborate the scene of the crime but they can be traced back to the police or the relatives long before she even "came forward" Its in all the notes, statements and transcripts for all to see.
Besides the jury could not reach a marjority majority verdict and asked to go over the blood/silencer evidence again only then did they make their minds up, Thus Mugfords testimony was not pivotal.
David, not all of the notes, statements and transcripts are in the public domain. The only evidence in the public domain is the evidence Jeremy Bamber has cherry picked to be allowed to be seen by the public. There is a wealth of evidence missing.
It took the jury 9 hours 24 minutes to reach their verdict, hardly a long time.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cd1AAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6qYMAAAAIBAJ&dq=brett+collins+bamber&pg=5839,6644530&hl=en
-
* The dress she wore to the funerals she describes as having been bought by JB from Miss Selfridges for about £38/39; whereas JB spends a couple of hundred pounds on his clothing.
Having re-visited Julie Mugfords original statements I find it difficult to see why they are so hard to believe?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1119.0.html
She appears to be describing a man (Jeremy Bamber) who is extremely cunning and calculated and whom as a 20/21 year old girl appears besotted with; as she states.
If posters read about relationships with toxic/disordered people like JB and/or psychopaths, JM's statements reveal numerous clues into his psychological make-up. http://www.curejoy.com/content/6-signs-youre-arguing-psychopath/
"psychopaths just want to paint you with their own flaws, to piss you off enough that they can just call you ‘crazy’ and make you look like the culprit in front of others.
Although my experiences were very different to JM's, there are some similarities, in that there weren't many who believed me when I told them Simon Hall had confessed. In fact I can count the number of people who believed me on one hand (This obviously doesn't include those people who had believed him to be guilty in the first instance).
Posters only need look at some of my previous posts about SH from the point of his confession.
It's clear from JM's witness statements that JB had been planning to murder his family for quite some time.
Prior to and following SH's confession he chose to tell me, and me only, many details about himself, his past, his childhood and the murder. I asked him why he was disclosing so much to me and not to the prison. He told me it was because he trusted me? It should also be remembered he was aware of a lot of the online abuse being aimed at me and how my character had been assassinated.
Jeremy Bamber says during his interview with the police, when confronted with the fact JM has told them he had murdered his family; that JM had a "fertile imagination"
When SH redacted his confession in the October 2013 he spoke very similarly about me..
I've said the same thing in threads. Her WS does have a 'Ring of Truth' to it. She could also not have got all this information from the newspapers, as alleged at trial.
-
Julies WS is in different parts -
What happened after the massacre:
The eating out, hotels, trips around the country and abroad. There is no point in Julie lying here. A lot of other people joined them for some of these. Hotel bookings can be checked and relatives asked. So there was no reason to lie as everything can be easily checked.
What Bamber did does not highlight guilt or innocence anyway. Although Bamber's callous actions have come back to haunt him
Bamber's hatred, resentment and motive:
This could be her word against Bamber's. But was not.
Bamber himself testified he had a very poor/non existent relationship with June.
He also called Sheila a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally' & 'pychotic depressive' on the massacre night. Saying they did not like each other and she had committed child abuse on the twins. Decades later saying he did not understand her illness.
There are also a lot of other people who said Bamber did not like his family or the raw deal he had. The facts back this up, Sheila living rent free in London, Bamber working long hours after reluctantly starting to work on the farm as a last resort.
The massacre plans:
This is again Julies word against Bamber's. However some of the things Julie said are backed up.
She said he planned to ride to WHF. This is backed up by the fact that the bike was brought over just before the massacre.
Julie also knew about the bible and kitchen fight. Which was not reported in the papers. And knew about the lockable from outside window.
The judge and appeal courts found it hard to understand Bamber's 3am call to Julie. Julie saying Bamber said 'he had not slept all night' and 'everything is going well'. When the police asked him about the call, he just said 'no comment'.
Julie also knew about the under insurance of WHF and the items inside.
Julies feelings:
Her feelings while things were evolving can only be changed by Julie herself, and cannot be disputed.
___________________
Overall Julie's statement does have a 'ring of truth' to it. She approached the police and was not forced to say anything.
Her reason to lie was also very weak. Bamber allegedly jilting her, after he said their relationship had been in decline/coming to a close for six months. Julie creating a false WS and lying under oath for this sole reason.
-
There is a lot of information in Julie's WS, which would not have been reported in the newspapers.
The reports in the media would have been the following day. The police would just say it was murder/suicide and not divulge anything further. The media would then just concentrate on Sheila's life and how crazy she was. Before moving onto their next big story the following day.
Unlike Bamber, I don't believe Julie would be avidly reading all the newspaper reports anyway.
Here are some of the things in Julie's WS.
There was a valuble pidgeon clock, valuable china and silver at WHF.
The outside doors were locked every night.
There was a downstairs window which latched shut when exiting.
There was a kitchen fight during the massacre.
Neville received seven shots.
The twins were shot in their sleep.
Sheila had a bible by her chest.
There was going to be a phone call from WHF to Bamber's cottage from MM.
There was a phone at WHF which had a last number redial record.
Bamber had started conversations at supper about fostering.
Sheila was shot last.
June was shot in her bed.
Everyone was asleep. Except Neville.
Sheila was shot under the chin.
-
Because the evidence demonstrates very clearly that she is. I have once believed Jeremy was probably was guilty and at the same time acknowledged Julie as a liar. I follow the evidence my stance cannot change because the evidence does not change.
If you believe Jeremy is guilty and you believe Julie is truthful then she is an accomplice to the crime, not a victim. One way or another she is a liar. Then you have the cheque fraud she committed without any known influence from Jeremy. The woman's testimony is reprehensible whatever way you look at it.
I agree David.
-
Steph,
Re Julie Mugford I always liked this post by Martin:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3458.0.html
-
Steph,
Re Julie Mugford I always liked this post by Martin:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3458.0.html
Really? :-\
-
Really? :-\
Yeah, I like some of the old threads. Apart from the McDonald bit I thought there was some interesting stuff. There's another Mugford thread somewhere entitled 'girlfriend from hell'.
-
Steph,
Re Julie Mugford I always liked this post by Martin:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3458.0.html
Yeah, I like some of the old threads. Apart from the McDonald bit I thought there was some interesting stuff. There's another Mugford thread somewhere entitled 'girlfriend from hell'.
Thanks Roch though I thought Steve_UK's post below was more appropriate.
I'd like to hear more about the 'real' Jeremy Bamber. There are numerous witness statements missing - I've searched high and low..?
I'd also like to see his psychology reports; not snippets.
He would have other reports carried out in prison (On an annual basis) I'd like to see these too.
As I've already stated, what is in the public domain isn't the full working case file. If Jeremy Bamber has nothing to hide then why doesn't he allow everything to be scrutinised by the public?
Here's the link to "Girlfriend from hell" http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1319.0.html
-
Here's the link to "Girlfriend from hell"
Not one of my proudest moments I'm ashamed to say.
-
Does anyone know where the following statements can be found and/or why JB hasn't publicised them?
Susan Battersby' then boyfriend
Ray = photo on the dresser in dining room (Jeremy Bamber apparently had a gay relationship with him)
Sarah = Apparently told JM her and Charles had a threesome with JB
Charles Marsden = As above
Brett Collins
Liz Rimmington
The above statements would help put JM's statements into more perspective imo
-
Its not a theory. All the details of Jeremy's alleged "confessions" not only fail to corroborate the scene of the crime but they can be traced back to the police or the relatives long before she even "came forward" Its in all the notes, statements and transcripts for all to see.
Besides the jury could not reach a marjority majority verdict and asked to go over the blood/silencer evidence again only then did they make their minds up, Thus Mugfords testimony was not pivotal.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7855.msg372382.html#msg372382
I'm unsure if you are aware of this David, but you are doing what you accuse other posters of doing?
You state: "Jeremy did not say anything that Julie claimed. Her testimony is false and full of contradictions, evidence she could only have got from police or Ann Eaton.
There is a wealth of evidence contained within JM's statement that could not have come from AE or the police - can you explain this?
And 'If' & that's a BIG 'if' JM has made everything in her statement up; WHY has JB never detailed what she has said in her statements and given his side of the story? Why has he left people like yourself to speculate?
Can I ask why you favour Jeremy Bamber's word over Julie Mugford's?
Ps: Can you post copies of the above statements please; if you have them.. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7855.msg372670.html#msg372670
-
Does anyone know where the following statements can be found and/or why JB hasn't publicised them?
Susan Battersby' then boyfriend
Ray = photo on the dresser in dining room (Jeremy Bamber apparently had a gay relationship with him)
Sarah = Apparently told JM her and Charles had a threesome with JB
Charles Marsden = As above
Brett Collins
Liz Rimmington
The above statements would help put JM's statements into more perspective imo
Why hasn't Jeremy Bamber released these statements and all other statements? Why has he cherry picked what he's given to other people and what has been put into the public domain?
JB has allowed his family members and people like Julie Mugford to come under immense scrutiny, which in turn keeps the heat off of him.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7855.msg372382.html#msg372382
I'm unsure if you are aware of this David, but you are doing what you accuse other posters of doing?
You state: "Jeremy did not say anything that Julie claimed. Her testimony is false and full of contradictions, evidence she could only have got from police or Ann Eaton.
There is a wealth of evidence contained within JM's statement that could not have come from AE or the police - can you explain this?
And 'If' & that's a BIG 'if' JM has made everything in her statement up; WHY has JB never detailed what she has said in her statements and given his side of the story? Why has he left people like yourself to speculate?
Can I ask why you favour Jeremy Bamber's word over Julie Mugford's?
Ps: Can you post copies of the above statements please; if you have them.. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7855.msg372670.html#msg372670
I have copied and pasted below a compliation of my answers from another forum. To save me typing it all over again.
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record).
The fundamental point is Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
You cannot get round these points no matter how much you bring up the sleeping pills or fire. Its rather obvious the police zeroed in on those pills and did not buy her original innocent explanation for them, thus she made up something they wanted to hear from her.
I am not quoting word for word here but it goes like this
Julie Mugford - "Jeremy told me that Sheila was told to lay on the bed and was ordered to shoot herself under the supervision of Mathew Macdonald he then left the bible on the her chest" (Jeremy is supposed to have told her this on the 7th of August at his cottage while the house was occupied by many other people )
Julie Mugford - "On the 7th I told Ann Eaton about the bible on her chest"
Anne Eaton - "On the 7th Police told me Sheila was found laying on the bed with a bible on her chest"
Ann Eaton - " I cant remember who told me on the 7th" (Just after confirming the police told her various details she obviously remembers. problem being she was told about the bible in the exact same conversation)
The idea of the bible being a "meme" is not credible because there are too many similarities with her statement as a whole. The probability of it being coincidental, you are looking at almost jackpot lottery odds. (Bible on chest + Sheila on Bed + Exiting windows + Cycling to the farm + Fingerprints on gun + wetsuit + 2000 pounds + a McDonald mentioned in police meeting + Hitman to explain the reported movement)
All of these can either be found in Julies testimony or her "diary". Most importantly Jeremy is supposed to have told her all this. This means that what Jeremy told her in his alleged "confessions" he deliberately falsified how he killed everyone so it just so happens to be the same as Ann Eatons and RWBs erroneous information. Not only that but he also falsifies his "confessions" so what he tells her just so happens to explain the gaps and problems the police were facing at that moment in time! gaps and problems that later turned out to be wrong! Then Jeremy decides not to tell her about the silencer, the one piece of crucial evidence that was only discovered to be incriminating in the weeks AFTER Julie made her statements.
Its just not possible for Jeremy to have told her all this in the way its been presented by her coinciding with the circumstances of the police investigation and the relatives suspicions in that instance of time. With some of those circumstances and ideas backfiring, thus harming her credibility later on.
Lets look at Mathew Mcdoanld for example.
1. Robert Boutflour speculates if Jeremy had assistance on the night - See Diary
2. Robert Boutflour zeros in on the £2000 that Neville lent to Jeremy - See Diary
3. The £2000 of course has an innocent explanation and is totally unrelated to the event. but RWB believes he is onto something (Tunnel vision)
4. Jeremy is supposed to have lent this £2000 to a friend - See Diary
5. 20th of August police have a meeting with RWB present. During that meeting a question is put forward in relation to a drug deal (from a man called McDonald??) See Barlow's note book
6. Jeremy has a friend called Mathew Mcdonald they both do drugs together - See MMs statement
7. Mathew Mcdonald happens to a fantasist who goes around telling people he is a mercenary and has done missions in Libya. People believe the rumours - see MMs statement
According to Julie. Jeremy told her that he paid £2000 to Mathew Mcdonald to help him carry out the killings. The fact of the matter is a sum of £2000 went somewhere else. Mathew Macdonald is a mercenary only in his imagination plus he was miles away from the farm that night. Robert Bouflour and Stand Jones ignorant of the facts at the time. To them this theory would make perfect sense to them. Jeremy's "mercenary" friend and drug associate complete with a money trail and can explain the reported movement in the farm while Jeremy was outside with the police.
I will leave you to decide where Julie got the story from. If you conclude its from Jeremy then you have no hope of understanding this case.
-
I've posted this link on another thread but think it's relevant to this thread:
"Because they use every single bit of information they learn about us, to control us, they assume that everyone else, is doing that same thing. They think we would poison their favorite food and cut their brake lines. After all, if they think that way, doesn’t everyone? When psychopaths lie, they are protecting themselves from being known and being vulnerable. All psychopaths are paranoid. One psychopath I know, fears and hates Google with a passion. He knows Google is collecting information on him. I can’t imagine what he thinks Google is planning to do to him! Instead of Google, he uses Duckduckgo as his search engine. In addition to using Duckduckgo, psychopaths handle their paranoia by giving disinformation at every opportunity. That disinformation will generally point in the 180 degree opposite direction to the truth and it creates their mask. There is only one thing that a psychopath really values and that is, his or her mask. Because most people can’t imagine lying about everything that they are, this mask enables psychopaths to con and manipulate, to cheat and to steal, even to kill and get away with it because nobody ever imagined what they were really like. They view life as a game to win and they want to win by lying, cheating and manipulating.
It’s ironic that empathic people trust the psychopath because we can’t imagine being so duplicitous. Yet the psychopath, who relies on our trust and naivety, still feels paranoia, thinking that we will do unto them as they would do unto us. The psychopath actually has good reason to feel this way. He or she, knows that you might find out what they really are. You might realize that everything they’ve ever presented to you was a malicious lie. They believe that people will want revenge or will try to hold them responsible for their evil deeds. For psychopaths, that’s a very good reason to keep their identities, locations , “friends” and habits, secret from you.
In the past, psychopaths have gotten away with evil by playing this game of lies, deceit and manipulation. Most of us observed some aspects of it, but didn’t know what it meant. Now the tide is turning. As knowledge of psychopaths and their machinations becomes more common, the lies that once hid these abusers, now reveal them. I wonder where they will hide next?
http://180rule.com/why-do-psychopaths-lie/
-
I have copied and pasted below a compliation of my answers from another forum. To save me typing it all over again.
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record).
The fundamental point is Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
You cannot get round these points no matter how much you bring up the sleeping pills or fire. Its rather obvious the police zeroed in on those pills and did not buy her original innocent explanation for them, thus she made up something they wanted to hear from her.
I am not quoting word for word here but it goes like this
Julie Mugford - "Jeremy told me that Sheila was told to lay on the bed and was ordered to shoot herself under the supervision of Mathew Macdonald he then left the bible on the her chest" (Jeremy is supposed to have told her this on the 7th of August at his cottage while the house was occupied by many other people )
Julie Mugford - "On the 7th I told Ann Eaton about the bible on her chest"
Anne Eaton - "On the 7th Police told me Sheila was found laying on the bed with a bible on her chest"
Ann Eaton - " I cant remember who told me on the 7th" (Just after confirming the police told her various details she obviously remembers. problem being she was told about the bible in the exact same conversation)
The idea of the bible being a "meme" is not credible because there are too many similarities with her statement as a whole. The probability of it being coincidental, you are looking at almost jackpot lottery odds. (Bible on chest + Sheila on Bed + Exiting windows + Cycling to the farm + Fingerprints on gun + wetsuit + 2000 pounds + a McDonald mentioned in police meeting + Hitman to explain the reported movement)
All of these can either be found in Julies testimony or her "diary". Most importantly Jeremy is supposed to have told her all this. This means that what Jeremy told her in his alleged "confessions" he deliberately falsified how he killed everyone so it just so happens to be the same as Ann Eatons and RWBs erroneous information. Not only that but he also falsifies his "confessions" so what he tells her just so happens to explain the gaps and problems the police were facing at that moment in time! gaps and problems that later turned out to be wrong! Then Jeremy decides not to tell her about the silencer, the one piece of crucial evidence that was only discovered to be incriminating in the weeks AFTER Julie made her statements.
Its just not possible for Jeremy to have told her all this in the way its been presented by her coinciding with the circumstances of the police investigation and the relatives suspicions in that instance of time. With some of those circumstances and ideas backfiring, thus harming her credibility later on.
Lets look at Mathew Mcdoanld for example.
1. Robert Boutflour speculates if Jeremy had assistance on the night - See Diary
2. Robert Boutflour zeros in on the £2000 that Neville lent to Jeremy - See Diary
3. The £2000 of course has an innocent explanation and is totally unrelated to the event. but RWB believes he is onto something (Tunnel vision)
4. Jeremy is supposed to have lent this £2000 to a friend - See Diary
5. 20th of August police have a meeting with RWB present. During that meeting a question is put forward in relation to a drug deal (from a man called McDonald??) See Barlow's note book
6. Jeremy has a friend called Mathew Mcdonald they both do drugs together - See MMs statement
7. Mathew Mcdonald happens to a fantasist who goes around telling people he is a mercenary and has done missions in Libya. People believe the rumours - see MMs statement
According to Julie. Jeremy told her that he paid £2000 to Mathew Mcdonald to help him carry out the killings. The fact of the matter is a sum of £2000 went somewhere else. Mathew Macdonald is a mercenary only in his imagination plus he was miles away from the farm that night. Robert Bouflour and Stand Jones ignorant of the facts at the time. To them this theory would make perfect sense to them. Jeremy's "mercenary" friend and drug associate complete with a money trail and can explain the reported movement in the farm while Jeremy was outside with the police.
I will leave you to decide where Julie got the story from. If you conclude its from Jeremy then you have no hope of understanding this case.
I've skim read the above David but if you were to make comment on each and every fact in all of JM's Witness statement; then we will have more of an accurate, albeit bias, summary.
You have cherry picked the parts that suit your theory, most of which I do not agree with.
-
I have copied and pasted below a compliation of my answers from another forum. To save me typing it all over again.
Rivlins point was that Julies testimony could only have come from either the police or Ann Eaton (His words are on record).
The fundamental point is Julies statements claim that Jeremy has confessed to her in much detail. How he entered and exited who he killed in what order and what "mistakes" he had made (basically everything).
1. If her words are true, her words would be corroborated with the scene of crime (and they are not) they are identical to the false impressions AE and RWB had.
2. If her words are true she would not have mentioned anything about the state of the fingerprints on the gun. Only the police (and whoever else they told) would know about that situation via the tests they done)
3. If her word are true she WOULD have mentioned the silencer. Why is the silencer absent from her statements? Because she "came forward" on the 8th of September BUT the blood was not discovered inside the silencer until LATE September when Hayward and fletcher dismantled it and found blood. The information has not been reported yet thus she cannot be fed that information hence that is why it is absent!
You cannot get round these points no matter how much you bring up the sleeping pills or fire. Its rather obvious the police zeroed in on those pills and did not buy her original innocent explanation for them, thus she made up something they wanted to hear from her.
I am not quoting word for word here but it goes like this
Julie Mugford - "Jeremy told me that Sheila was told to lay on the bed and was ordered to shoot herself under the supervision of Mathew Macdonald he then left the bible on the her chest" (Jeremy is supposed to have told her this on the 7th of August at his cottage while the house was occupied by many other people )
Julie Mugford - "On the 7th I told Ann Eaton about the bible on her chest"
Anne Eaton - "On the 7th Police told me Sheila was found laying on the bed with a bible on her chest"
Ann Eaton - " I cant remember who told me on the 7th" (Just after confirming the police told her various details she obviously remembers. problem being she was told about the bible in the exact same conversation)
The idea of the bible being a "meme" is not credible because there are too many similarities with her statement as a whole. The probability of it being coincidental, you are looking at almost jackpot lottery odds. (Bible on chest + Sheila on Bed + Exiting windows + Cycling to the farm + Fingerprints on gun + wetsuit + 2000 pounds + a McDonald mentioned in police meeting + Hitman to explain the reported movement)
All of these can either be found in Julies testimony or her "diary". Most importantly Jeremy is supposed to have told her all this. This means that what Jeremy told her in his alleged "confessions" he deliberately falsified how he killed everyone so it just so happens to be the same as Ann Eatons and RWBs erroneous information. Not only that but he also falsifies his "confessions" so what he tells her just so happens to explain the gaps and problems the police were facing at that moment in time! gaps and problems that later turned out to be wrong! Then Jeremy decides not to tell her about the silencer, the one piece of crucial evidence that was only discovered to be incriminating in the weeks AFTER Julie made her statements.
Its just not possible for Jeremy to have told her all this in the way its been presented by her coinciding with the circumstances of the police investigation and the relatives suspicions in that instance of time. With some of those circumstances and ideas backfiring, thus harming her credibility later on.
Lets look at Mathew Mcdoanld for example.
1. Robert Boutflour speculates if Jeremy had assistance on the night - See Diary
2. Robert Boutflour zeros in on the £2000 that Neville lent to Jeremy - See Diary
3. The £2000 of course has an innocent explanation and is totally unrelated to the event. but RWB believes he is onto something (Tunnel vision)
4. Jeremy is supposed to have lent this £2000 to a friend - See Diary
5. 20th of August police have a meeting with RWB present. During that meeting a question is put forward in relation to a drug deal (from a man called McDonald??) See Barlow's note book
6. Jeremy has a friend called Mathew Mcdonald they both do drugs together - See MMs statement
7. Mathew Mcdonald happens to a fantasist who goes around telling people he is a mercenary and has done missions in Libya. People believe the rumours - see MMs statement
According to Julie. Jeremy told her that he paid £2000 to Mathew Mcdonald to help him carry out the killings. The fact of the matter is a sum of £2000 went somewhere else. Mathew Macdonald is a mercenary only in his imagination plus he was miles away from the farm that night. Robert Bouflour and Stand Jones ignorant of the facts at the time. To them this theory would make perfect sense to them. Jeremy's "mercenary" friend and drug associate complete with a money trail and can explain the reported movement in the farm while Jeremy was outside with the police.
I will leave you to decide where Julie got the story from. If you conclude its from Jeremy then you have no hope of understanding this case.
Julie's statement formed 32 pages representing a summary of her association with Jeremy for the preceding eighteen months or so. Had she been able to tell her account as a story to the jurors I feel that she would have won over the two remaining women who held out against conviction. The story about Sheila having died with a bible on her chest was circulating that first morning at Goldhanger as far as I can gather, when Julie said that she didn't quiz Jeremy on the murders until all had left that day. Why on earth did an intelligent young girl like Julie concoct the story of a hitman to Police if, at that stage, she is desperate to ingratiate herself with them and be believed, when it's obvious that this story is bound to be checked?
Far more likely it is Jeremy who has given the bare bones of the story whilst sparing the details of this gruesome crime in an attempt to mollify Julie. Why should she question her boyfriend as to fingerprints or silencers or indeed scrutinize the murder plan in any way?
-
Julie's statement formed 32 pages representing a summary of her association with Jeremy for the preceding eighteen months or so. Had she been able to tell her account as a story to the jurors I feel that she would have won over the two remaining women who held out against conviction. The story about Sheila having died with a bible on her chest was circulating that first morning at Goldhanger as far as I can gather, when Julie said that she didn't quiz Jeremy on the murders until all had left that day. Why on earth did an intelligent young girl like Julie concoct the story of a hitman to Police if, at that stage, she is desperate to ingratiate herself with them and be believed, when it's obvious that this story is bound to be checked?
Far more likely it is Jeremy who has given the bare bones of the story whilst sparing the details of this gruesome crime in an attempt to mollify Julie. Why should she question her boyfriend as to fingerprints or silencers or indeed scrutinize the murder plan in any way?
Couldn't agree with you more Steve. Again I can only speak from my own experiences but some posters may recall when I posted on here as Truthseeker?
My reasoning for not posting under my own name at that time was fear. Fear it would get back to SH (Which it did) and fear the media would pick up on it.
However, around the same time I made allegations of childhood sexual abuse, told to me by SH. The truth is, I do not know if SH was sexually abused as a child, only he and whoever else may have been involved know the truth. It wasn't fair of me then to post what I did but I was tired of being called a liar and more importantly - I was moritifed for SH's victim and surviving relatives and that family members had the audacity to make public statements to support innocence.
I should add - earlier in the year (2013 - pre confession) I was required to give a witness statement in relation to the disclosure made by SH of historic sexual abuse. I gave a statement and included in it what was told to me by SH and what I had myself witnessed over the years in relation to others. I didn't concoct this story. Though unlike Julie Mugford, what I was told was done over a recorded prison telephone. Although, as far as I am aware the police never listened to these recordings and required me to give a statement instead.
-
Julie's statement formed 32 pages representing a summary of her association with Jeremy for the preceding eighteen months or so. Had she been able to tell her account as a story to the jurors I feel that she would have won over the two remaining women who held out against conviction. The story about Sheila having died with a bible on her chest was circulating that first morning at Goldhanger as far as I can gather, when Julie said that she didn't quiz Jeremy on the murders until all had left that day. Why on earth did an intelligent young girl like Julie concoct the story of a hitman to Police if, at that stage, she is desperate to ingratiate herself with them and be believed, when it's obvious that this story is bound to be checked?
Far more likely it is Jeremy who has given the bare bones of the story whilst sparing the details of this gruesome crime in an attempt to mollify Julie. Why should she question her boyfriend as to fingerprints or silencers or indeed scrutinize the murder plan in any way?
If posters re-read Julie Mugfords statements, along with Jeremy Bamber's interviews, they may see the shameless techniques he attempted to use in order to keep her, and others, in line, prior to and following his crimes.
http://www.lovefraud.com/beware-the-sociopath/how-to-spot-a-con/the-pity-play/
Charm
Risk-taking, and convincing others to do it with them
Recognizing a person who is decent and trusting—the perfect target
Sexual seduction
Crocodile tears—especially when sociopaths are about to be confronted
Righteous indignation—Plan B when sociopaths are about to be confronted
Exploiting social and professional roles
Gaslighting—making victims doubt their own perceptions
For a sociopath, winning is all
A sociopath has no conscience, no emotional attachment to others, and no ability to love. For a sociopath, Stout says, “life is reduced to a contest, and other human beings seem to be nothing more than game pieces, to be moved about, used as shields or ejected.”
-
Dr. Stout begins by asking the reader to imagine a world where they have no conscience thereby freeing them from, among other downers, guilt, shame, remorse and concern for others. She then asks the reader to imagine, if they were able to conceal this psychological flaw from others, how they might live. They would, after all, be free to seek all the power, money and influence they desired, in the quickest, crudest and most ruthless way without the nagging burden of doing what is right. Or, maybe, Dr. Stout says, you are not ambitious, but seek only to relax and live as carefree as possible from the goodwill of others. Without conscience, you would be free from the guilt and shame that traditionally comes from being a freeloader.
The world Dr. Stout is asking the reader to imagine is the world of a Sociopath. This is not Hollywood's version of a Sociopath, the social recluse with the transparently frightening demeanor, but a real snake in the grass. It is your beautiful and tormented best friend, your overworked and stressed out spouse or your down on her luck mother. Dr. Stout upends the reader's notion of a Sociopath; warning that the real tell tale sign is not fear but pity. She states, "The most reliable sign, the most universal behavior of unscrupulous people is not directed, as one might imagine, at our fearfulness. It is, perversely, an appeal to our sympathy."
The pity play or attempt to appeal to the sympathy of others was also addressed in research conducted by the Minnesota Department of Corrections and The Hazelden Foundation (2002). There, researchers concluded that criminal thinkers most often attempt to control others by portraying themselves as a victim, turning to fear tactics only when the victim stance fails to get them what they want.
The act of eliciting pity from another unequivocally makes the elicitor something to be pitied, a victim, per se. It is human nature to aid the pitied. Hence, the pity play, or victim stance, stands to get the Sociopath what he or she wants easily and without being found out as a bad guy. This is manipulation. Manipulation is the tool of choice for smart criminal thinkers and, according to Dr. Stout, the Sociopaths amongst us. She says, "Sociopaths have no regard whatsoever for the social contract, but they do know how to use it to their advantage. And all in all, I am sure that if the devil existed, he would want us to feel very sorry for him."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/take-all-prisoners/200912/your-conscience-the-sociopaths-weapon-choice
-
If you conclude its from Jeremy then you have no hope of understanding this case.
David I think I have a good understanding of this case, having read numerous documents, debates and arguments over many years. I've also spoken directly to several people who have had direct contact with JB over a number of years.
It is my firm belief Julie Mugford was duped by Jeremy Bamber and much of her behaviour, before speaking with the police, could be described as that of an "enabler."
"The only remarkable thing about Bulger is his luck to be surrounded by so many that bought his lies, looked other way, or were too terrified to speak.
Everyday, reasonably healthy people forgive violent behavior, believe lies, and give habitual second chances to predators who have lied and hurt them before. Why are so many of us so easily “duped” into enabling predators?
Are we taking “seeing the best in others” too far, or are we driven by self-interest - ignoring the signs for the possibility of a winning team, making money or “keeping the peace” in a family or relationship?
The most common explanation I have heard is: “I hoped/wanted to believe this time things would be different, he/she would do the right thing.” Our hope is the lifeblood that keeps the predator going.
Police and psychiatrists see these cases all the time, and the predator almost never stops. There will be periods of calm, or they might move on to someone else, but the hardly ever stop. There is therapy, but most predators won’t go, or just lie if they do go. There are no known cures sexual predators, sociopaths or psychopaths. I was told the only things that work are no contact and/or restraining orders (sometimes).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-delaney/have-you-ever-been-duped-_b_3618497.html
-
David I think I have a good understanding of this case, having read numerous documents, debates and arguments over many years.
It is my firm belief Julie Mugford was duped by Jeremy Bamber and much of her behaviour, before speaking with the police, could be described as that of an "enabler."
That would mean the lies Jeremy told her just so happene to be the same erroneous information the police told the relatives. And the exact same information only the police would have known at that point in time. Its just not plausible.
Then you have Julies diary full of Robert Bouflour's theories. Information she could only have got directly from him or indirectly via Stan Jones.
Her entire testimony has a paper trail leading to either the police or the relatives. Non of it leads to Jeremy or the facts of the crime.
-
That would mean the lies Jeremy told her just so happene to be the same erroneous information the police told the relatives. And the exact same information only the police would have known at that point in time. Its just not plausible.
Then you have Julies diary full of Robert Bouflour's theories. Information she could only have got directly from him or indirectly via Stan Jones.
Her entire testimony has a paper trail leading to either the police or the relatives. Non of it leads to Jeremy or the facts of the crime.
You are wrong David. I don't understand why you continue to make these statements. Re-read her witness statements, re read her diary entries and compare it to the other evidence available at the time and you will see your theory is wrong.
It will be a time consuming task but it may help you see your bias?
-
Police records confirm that Sheila was present in the kitchen (7.37and 7.38am), and that her body was not upstairs in any bedroom by 8.10am. Additionally the rifle which was later photographed in Sheila's possession by 'DC 'Oakey (25) and PC Bird (26, onward) was confirmed resting against a first floor window by 7.15am...
No lies, no bullshit, but good old fashioned police records, containing information which the cops and the CPS daren't risk informing the jury which tried the matter about...
Why?