Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Steve_uk on March 04, 2013, 05:36:PM
-
Just how would you greet Julie Mugford on any return visit to England? Of course the question is a little misleading because Julie has returned since the 1986 trial which found her ex-boyfriend Jeremy Bamber guilty on five counts of murder (she returned in 2002 but it was all very hush hush),and the title is a misnomer in itself as Julie is now Julie Smerchanski née Mugford and has made a full success of her life with her husband and two children. From whatever perspective one approaches the issue: friend, foe, the legal angle or just out of plain curiosity the answer will differ widely according to the individuals you consult.
There is a saying East West Home's Best and Julie may well have this associated sense of excitement as she steps onto the blue and white Naples Metrolink tram and starts her journey in this eclectic city of Cottonopolis, with its remnants from philanthropist Richard Cobden's Harvest House library and the modern-day buff brick Arndale Centre, which Bill Bryson described as the biggest pissoir in Europe. Fortunately there are more diadems than eyesores in this beautiful city as Julie turns her neck to the left and spies Piccadilly Gardens, its greenery and Albert Memorial, though her tram will travel southwards down Mosley Street, lined with banks and convenience stores, until she reaches St. Peter's Square and the Central Reference Library on the right.
Should Julie wish to alight at this point and partake of the world-famous Elizabeth Gaskell collection she would be disappointed, as the establishment is closed for refurbishment for what has seemed like an eternity, as one hopes the heart has not been ripped out of the building akin to a new London popstar denuding the features of his newly acquired Georgian house in Muswell Hill. Julie can in fact see the beautiful neoclassical library with its white marble stone and Roman portico from the safety and comfort of her seat, and whether she momentarily imagines herself back at the threshold of White House Farm one can only guess.
Julie continues her journey past the Old Trafford football and cricket grounds, though one perceives only a gated exterior midweek, along the well-to-do wannabee stations of Brooklands and Timperley with its upwards of £1 million properties for those who are literally not quite in the Premier League bracket of Bowdon and Hale with footballers, Coronation Street stars and television and international business executives, who would no more think of hopping on the local Ringway jet than most of us would about our daily boarding a local train or bus.
And so into Altrincham Metrolink station where Julie, perhaps reminiscing of times gone by with hockey stick in hand, catches the orange and white Selnec double decker bus which wends its way out of suburbia to the grammar school on Bowden Road. Initial prosperity for this pretty, historic town has given way to boarded up shops as the masses have a day out in Manchester or take their business to the newly opened Trafford Centre, the Cheshire set ever concealed in their gleaming Wilmslow villages and surrounds as they look askance at the fortunately for them hidden from view largest council estate in Europe just up the road in Wythenshawe, where the chavs are alive as ever as they oftentimes venture out of their turf into a more attractive vicinage, whilst the well-heeled wannabees of Altrincham sip their machiattos in Rackham's, try on a Bowler Derby hat for their son's wedding and pray the working classes remain firmly outside.
-
Goodness me,how Manchester has changed since the old trams,chimneys billowing with smoke and noisy factories and cotton mills. L.S.Lowrey would turn in his grave. I miss the old characteristic town.
-
Goodness me,how Manchester has changed since the old trams,chimneys billowing with smoke and noisy factories and cotton mills. L.S.Lowrey would turn in his grave. I miss the old characteristic town.
I know someone who walks like a Lowrey figure.
-
I know someone who walks like a Lowrey figure.
I know a few who look like them,Lugg.
-
I had forgotten about this thread. I would say "Hello Julie,would you care to share a coffee in Waterstones?" and extend the invitation to her family should they be present.
-
I had forgotten about this thread. I would say "Hello Julie,would you care to share a coffee in Waterstones?" and extend the invitation to her family should they be present.
Would you greet me the same if I walked into Waterstones.? I thought they only sold books anyway.
-
I wouldn't! Don't know the woman and don't want to.
-
I had forgotten about this thread. I would say "Hello Julie,would you care to share a coffee in Waterstones?" and extend the invitation to her family should they be present.
So you do know her then.
-
Would you greet me the same if I walked into Waterstones.? I thought they only sold books anyway.
It's mainly books but there's a cafeteria on the third floor. I only have coffee but with people paying £17 for two soups and some sandwiches I think you'd understand why.
-
Steve, I bet Julie is "your type". ;) ;) ;)
-
It's mainly books but there's a cafeteria on the third floor. I only have coffee but with people paying £17 for two soups and some sandwiches I think you'd understand why.
I always pay through the nose for everything,Steve. I think people see me coming.
-
So you do know her then.
Yes April, he has walked many a walk with her (in his imagination!) :)
-
lol :)
-
It's good here,isn't it,PB.? ;D
-
It's good here,isn't it,PB.? ;D
For the most part! :)
-
:D greet Julie? nah I won't want to waste my breath on her, but Ann easton is another story.... :) :) :P
-
:D greet Julie? nah I won't want to waste my breath on her, but Ann easton is another story.... :) :) :P
Ann Eaton didn't say anything untoward at trial. She spoke the truth as she saw it.
-
How would i greet JM?
I wouldnt ask her about Bamber, no need to. I would invite her for Coffee and ask how life is in canada, i understand she's doing very well over there.
-
Would you greet me the same if I walked into Waterstones.? I thought they only sold books anyway.
The one in Chelmsford High Street serves coffee. I'm not sure if the one in The Meadows does though?
-
I don't think I would recognise her? And I'm sure she wouldn't know me from Adam. So I wouldn't say anything to her.
-
I have a couple of friends in the maple leaf country, you could be neutral and ask what ice hockey team she supports because as i hear if you dont follow it and dont like a beer you aint Canadian.
-
The one in Chelmsford High Street serves coffee. I'm not sure if the one in The Meadows does though?
Used to live in Halifax Nova Scotia for a while - there were Tim Horton coffee shops on every high street and retail park sites. They never took off here - least not yet!
-
Just how would you greet Julie Mugford on any return visit to England?
Steve, I do wonder whether you would greet her like this... ;)
-
Steve, I do wonder whether you would greet her like this... ;)
Nice one Roch ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Roch, that is how to treat a lady...lol
I'm not sure, how I would greet her to be honest. I don't think I would say anything to her. I am sure she came back for one of the appeals, but was never called. I doubt she would ever come back here, but no doubt she has visited her family over the years and its not been public knowledge. I might be wrong of course... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Nice one Roch ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hi Maggie :) He's a nice lad our Roch is.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Steve, I do wonder whether you would greet her like this... ;)
Lay your coat over a deep hole in the path. ;D
-
Never thought about meeting JM. I don´t think she would be particularly interesting, but I would ask her some questions. The first that comes to mind: Julie, how could you accept gifts from, travel with and sleep with Jeremy Bamber after you had seen all five dead bodies of the WHF murders? You say he had been talking about killing them for a year, he even told you he was behind it, so you must have known... - how could you even stand looking at him? Or were you in on it?
-
Steve, I do wonder whether you would greet her like this... ;)
This wouldn´t do it for Steve! I think he personally, on his hands and knees, with his own tongue, would lick the ground in her path. ;D
-
Julie deluded herself into believing Matthew McDonald had done it,albeit on Jeremy's instructions. Julie was wrong and I'm sure in her private moments judges herself very harshly. Her future husband knew Julie held a dark secret;he just sensed it and they discussed it together.
-
Julie deluded herself into believing Matthew McDonald had done it,albeit on Jeremy's instructions. Julie was wrong and I'm sure in her private moments judges herself very harshly. Her future husband knew Julie held a dark secret;he just sensed it and they discussed it together.
I sense a book quote here, but something here none the less, julie was wrong , quoting a duran duran track steve, " Is There Something I Should Know "
-
I sense a book quote here, but something here none the less, julie was wrong , quoting a duran duran track steve, " Is There Something I Should Know "
Strangely enough Matthew McDonald had been to White House Farm previously. Here is Jeremy stringing Julie along and Julie desperate to try and assuage her conscience and take it all in.
-
Strangely enough Matthew McDonald had been to White House Farm previously. Here is Jeremy stringing Julie along and Julie desperate to try and assuage her conscience and take it all in.
So once it was established that Matthew McDonald had no part in the murders,,,would/did Julie then have accused Jeremy outright.?
-
Re. the title of the thread :
Through a Medium.
-
Never thought about meeting JM. I don´t think she would be particularly interesting, but I would ask her some questions. The first that comes to mind: Julie, how could you accept gifts from, travel with and sleep with Jeremy Bamber after you had seen all five dead bodies of the WHF murders? You say he had been talking about killing them for a year, he even told you he was behind it, so you must have known... - how could you even stand looking at him? Or were you in on it?
I agree Alias I don't think she would be particularly interesting. I would have no desire whatsoever to meet her. In fact I would avoid meeting her as she would unnerve me. The fact that she put the twins to bed and read them a bedtime story on the Saturday before identifying their bodies in the morgue on the following Thursday and then leaving dry eyed ... no thanks!!! But lets not forget the tears in court!!!
I think Sheila would have been a far more interesting person and was/is misunderstood by many . Her best friend, Caroline Elston herself educated to degree level @ Liverpool uni, said "Those who thought Sheila was stupid were wrong she was not". She also said Sheila was talkative and was able to talk about anything (Wilkes book). Sorry I've gone off track a bit...
-
So once it was established that Matthew McDonald had no part in the murders,,,would/did Julie then have accused Jeremy outright.?
I think it dawned on her slowly that her perceptions of Jeremy had been wrong and she had been horribly betrayed.
-
I agree Alias I don't think she would be particularly interesting. I would have no desire whatsoever to meet her. In fact I would avoid meeting her as she would unnerve me. The fact that she put the twins to bed and read them a bedtime story on the Saturday before identifying their bodies in the morgue on the following Thursday and then leaving dry eyed ... no thanks!!! But lets not forget the tears in court!!!
I think Sheila would have been a far more interesting person and was/is misunderstood by many . Her best friend, Caroline Elston herself educated to degree level @ Liverpool uni, said "Those who thought Sheila was stupid were wrong she was not". She also said Sheila was talkative and was able to talk about anything (Wilkes book). Sorry I've gone off track a bit...
I believe this is also the april1 thesis,that Sheila was from academic stock. Judging from her school results this proves otherwise,and when she became afflicted with schizophrenia it became impossible for her to hold down a full-time job.
-
I believe this is also the april1 thesis,that Sheila was from academic stock. Judging from her school results this proves otherwise,and when she became afflicted with schizophrenia it became impossible for her to hold down a full-time job.
Hello Steve_uk. As my response is more adoption related I'm going to respond on the 'Adoption Debate' thread. Bye for now.
-
I believe this is also the april1 thesis,that Sheila was from academic stock. Judging from her school results this proves otherwise,and when she became afflicted with schizophrenia it became impossible for her to hold down a full-time job.
Well Steve, it sounds as if Sheila's and my own school reports may have been similar.
-
Don´t want to create a new thread :P :P :P soI´ll ask here (not that we should talk about this in detail or name names.)
Does Julie only have two children? I always thought she had two boys, but read she has a boy and a girl. Anyone?
-
I knew of children,but not how many,nor if they were boys or girls.
-
Don´t want to create a new thread :P :P :P soI´ll ask here (not that we should talk about this in detail or name names.)
Does Julie only have two children? I always thought she had two boys, but read she has a boy and a girl. Anyone?
Two boys, I believe, Alias.
-
I wonder,when JM was interviewed 32 times,that she received expenses commensurate to those 32 times,or as a " lump sum " from the police coffers ?
-
I just read she had a boy and a girl - their names was there. Then I googled and found them both. Thought someone here would know more - it isn´t important though.
-
Also when she came back for the 2002 appeal - did she ever appear? I found reports in the paper where it said
"tomorrow JM will face JB in court for the first time since the murders" But then there were no reports at all about whether she said anything at all?
-
For reasons unknown,Jan,JM wasn't needed ? This is more or less what I read.
-
I am sure I am on the right track. Just found Julie´s husband as he looks now. He looks nice enough - a bit boring though. :P
-
For reasons unknown,Jan,JM wasn't needed ? This is more or less what I read.
I'm not sure and perhaps ngb could clarify. I may have got it wrong, but I think the appeal judge directed that she should not take the stand for some reason?
-
I'm not sure and perhaps ngb could clarify. I may have got it wrong, but I think the appeal judge directed that she should not take the stand for some reason?
Yes it was something like that,Mr G. I know it was a waste of time as nothing followed her visit/appearance
-
Yes it was something like that,Mr G. I know it was a waste of time as nothing followed her visit/appearance
I recall feeling very let down that she wasn't called.
-
I recall feeling very let down that she wasn't called.
That's what I felt when I read the newspaper reports.
I am not sure what she was there for except the visit to the bank "discrepancy"
I am not sure if the date of the N.O.W deal was still pending at that time.
-
That's what I felt when I read the newspaper reports.
I am not sure what she was there for except the visit to the bank "discrepancy"
I am not sure if the date of the N.O.W deal was still pending at that time.
I remember that there were questions I thought we'd finally get an answer to. That we didn't made me wonder if someone had whispered in to His Honour's ear about the deal the police MAY have had with her. She couldn't have been allowed to talk about it in court, I imagine.
-
Jeremy's team wanted to question JM about the contract that she had with the NOTW. As I understood it,Jeremy's solicitor did not have the contract to hand as evidence and so therefore the Judge ruled that JM could not be questioned/cross examined on the issue so therefore she did not have to take the stand after all. I'm certain that NGB could explain it all better when he is next on the forum.
-
Jeremy's team wanted to question JM about the contract that she had with the NOTW. As I understood it,Jeremy's solicitor did not have the contract to hand as evidence and so therefore the Judge ruled that JM could not be questioned/cross examined on the issue so therefore she did not have to take the stand after all. I'm certain that NGB could explain it all better when he is next on the forum.
Hi Tyler. What was the reason Jeremy's solicitor didn't have the contract?
-
Hi Tyler. What was the reason Jeremy's solicitor didn't have the contract?
I think one of the key questions was when was the contract actually signed! Was it prior to the verdict? If so this should not have taken place till after the verdict. No one seems to know to this day when it was signed. :-\
-
I think one of the key questions was when was the contract was actually signed! Was it prior to the verdict? If so this should not have taken place till after the verdict. No one seems to know to this day when it was signed. :-\
If it was after, I am sure we would have known, right!
-
Patti - yes,that is what the solicitor was trying to prove! And Grahame, I don't entirely remember. I THINK they offered to go get it and the Judge wouldn't allow them to,but don't quote me on that. The info is somewhere here on the forum as it has been discussed before.
-
There'd have been some jiggery-pokery somewhere,certainly not a valid explanation. One thing I don't remember seeing was JM kicking up a stink at having to travel all that way " for nothing ".?
-
If it was after, I am sure we would have known, right!
I am surprised the defence did not pursue this more. In JM's statement she can recall her solicitor drafting up such a document. She said it would stop the all the journalist from other newspapers that were pursuing her at the time. Its obvious it was done prior, but I don't know how this would stand legally, today. :-\
-
I am surprised the defence did not pursue this more. In JM's statement she can recall her solicitor drafting up such a document. She said it would stop the all the journalist from other newspapers that were pursuing her at the time. Its obvious it was done prior, but I don't know how this would stand legally, today. :-\
Didn't Mr. Justice Drake pin a note on the board outside the court warning the Press not to approach any of the witnesses? I wonder if Julie could be subpoenaed today were there a retrial today?http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/city-woman-key-witness-if-uk-judge-allows-appeal-148056175.html
-
Didn't Mr. Justice Drake pin a note on the board outside the court warning the Press not to approach any of the witnesses? I wonder if Julie could be subpoenaed today were there a retrial today?http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/city-woman-key-witness-if-uk-judge-allows-appeal-148056175.html
Hi Steve - Julie cannot have been pleased with the three comments to this article! :o
-
Didn't Mr. Justice Drake pin a note on the board outside the court warning the Press not to approach any of the witnesses? I wonder if Julie could be subpoenaed today were there a retrial today?http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/city-woman-key-witness-if-uk-judge-allows-appeal-148056175.html
She might have to give evidence because it was her evidence alone that got Bamber arrested in the first place. The silencer evidence came later.
Not sure about the judge re the notice board.
If the jury had known about a contract it has always been said on here that they would have viewed her testimony differently, because they might have thought she was doing it for the money? Was she? We don't know, but I dare bet if she was called back today her testimony would be teared apart, I'm sure.
Nice to see you back by the way. ;D
-
Hi Steve - Julie cannot have been pleased with the three comments to this article! :o
It just won't go away, will it?
-
Hi Steve - Julie cannot have been pleased with the three comments to this article! :o
Did you read the 3 comments left in answer to the article? Very interesting they were. ;D
-
I can't find the information.
-
Did you read the 3 comments left in answer to the article? Very interesting they were. ;D
Yes I did - I thought that was what I said, LOL!
-
I can't find the information.
Do you mean the comments Steve? I could copy and paste it, its in the public domain... ;D
-
Yes I did - I thought that was what I said, LOL!
I've lost it hahahahahaha :-[ ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Ah,it states there on the official site that the 'contract' was not available. Nobody no longer had a copy.
-
Yes I did - I thought that was what I said, LOL!
Somebody seemed to know all the ins and outs of the story, didn't they?
-
I can't find the information.
Steve, if you scroll down to the bottom of the article there's a box with the word "comments" or "see comments".
-
steve I can't find it either but that is quite usual for me :'(
-
I am extremely surprised that this woman Julie Smerchanski (nee Mugford) was allowed to have a 25 year career in elementary education, after her complicity with mass killer Jeremy Bamber.
To cut a very long story short, she, by her own admition http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html (94-115):
1. Knew of Bamber's desire to murder his entire family, many months' prior, yet did nothing, and continued the relationship.
2. Was contacted during the night of the crime by Bamber to let her know everything was going to plan, yet did nothing.
3. Continued the relationship with Bamber for over a month after the killings, during which time he repeatedly admitted the killings to her and she gave a false account to police of her knowledge.
4. In effect let the police believe it was Jeremy Bamber's sister who had committed the 5 killings.
5. Only went to the police after she discovered he was having an affair with a mutual friend.
6. Had committed burglary (£900 1986) and fraud (£700 1986) with him and others and dealt cannabis.
7. She was given immunity from prosecution and a caution, in exchange for her testimony against him in the 5 murder cases.
8. After her testimony at trial in 1986 she immediately sold her story for £25000 to the News of the World.
School Principal ?
No comments ?
Just Unbelievable.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
9:20 AM on 7/17/2012
http://jeremybamber.org/julie-mugford/
Report Abuse
Score: 0
9:23 AM on 7/17/2012
Why are Essex Police not getting a injunction stopping Mr Bamber from publishing this if it in not true?
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/what-really-happened
So many qestions
-
Somebody seemed to know all the ins and outs of the story, didn't they?
Yes.
About this not going away. Julie didn´t count on the internet catching up with her when she basically "fled" England.
-
In the words of the late Neville Bamber," It'll all come out in the wash " !
-
I am extremely surprised that this woman Julie Smerchanski (nee Mugford) was allowed to have a 25 year career in elementary education, after her complicity with mass killer Jeremy Bamber.
To cut a very long story short, she, by her own admition http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html (94-115):
1. Knew of Bamber's desire to murder his entire family, many months' prior, yet did nothing, and continued the relationship.
2. Was contacted during the night of the crime by Bamber to let her know everything was going to plan, yet did nothing.
3. Continued the relationship with Bamber for over a month after the killings, during which time he repeatedly admitted the killings to her and she gave a false account to police of her knowledge.
4. In effect let the police believe it was Jeremy Bamber's sister who had committed the 5 killings.
5. Only went to the police after she discovered he was having an affair with a mutual friend.
6. Had committed burglary (£900 1986) and fraud (£700 1986) with him and others and dealt cannabis.
7. She was given immunity from prosecution and a caution, in exchange for her testimony against him in the 5 murder cases.
8. After her testimony at trial in 1986 she immediately sold her story for £25000 to the News of the World.
School Principal ?
No comments ?
Just Unbelievable.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
9:20 AM on 7/17/2012
http://jeremybamber.org/julie-mugford/
Report Abuse
Score: 0
9:23 AM on 7/17/2012
Why are Essex Police not getting a injunction stopping Mr Bamber from publishing this if it in not true?
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/what-really-happened
So many questions
Strings were pulled you can bet on it. Strings by influential people.
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angelic006.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
I am extremely surprised that this woman Julie Smerchanski (nee Mugford) was allowed to have a 25 year career in elementary education, after her complicity with mass killer Jeremy Bamber.
To cut a very long story short, she, by her own admition http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html (94-115):
1. Knew of Bamber's desire to murder his entire family, many months' prior, yet did nothing, and continued the relationship.
2. Was contacted during the night of the crime by Bamber to let her know everything was going to plan, yet did nothing.
3. Continued the relationship with Bamber for over a month after the killings, during which time he repeatedly admitted the killings to her and she gave a false account to police of her knowledge.
4. In effect let the police believe it was Jeremy Bamber's sister who had committed the 5 killings.
5. Only went to the police after she discovered he was having an affair with a mutual friend.
6. Had committed burglary (£900 1986) and fraud (£700 1986) with him and others and dealt cannabis.
7. She was given immunity from prosecution and a caution, in exchange for her testimony against him in the 5 murder cases.
8. After her testimony at trial in 1986 she immediately sold her story for £25000 to the News of the World.
School Principal ?
No comments ?
Just Unbelievable.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
9:20 AM on 7/17/2012
http://jeremybamber.org/julie-mugford/
Report Abuse
Score: 0
9:23 AM on 7/17/2012
Why are Essex Police not getting a injunction stopping Mr Bamber from publishing this if it in not true?
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/what-really-happened
So many qestions
Thanks Patti. So sad that Jeremy dismissed the twins as "emotionally disturbed and unbalanced"(first link point 97) when we know that they were mature for their age and even upset at 6 years old seeing pictures of children from the Third World with swollen bellies. I don't accept the third link as truth because of the lack of blood down the front of Sheila's nightie
-
Hi Patti thank you so much for that now I can keep up ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes.
About this not going away. Julie didn´t count on the internet catching up with her when she basically "fled" England.
The only thing is, Alias, the dates of the comments suggest that this isn't a very recent article, however it does seem as if the space between Canada and England is shrinking.
-
The only thing is, Alias, the dates of the comments suggest that this isn't a very recent article, however it does seem as if the space between Canada and England is shrinking.
We are seeing it now, aren´t we?
-
I do agree however,that whole life tariffs are wrong.http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/without-hope-there-is-nothing
-
I do agree however,that whole life tariffs are wrong.http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/without-hope-there-is-nothing
I do too unless the convict is too dangerous to the public to ever set free. Unfortunately some are.
-
I do too unless the convict is too dangerous to the public to ever set free. Unfortunately some are.
They're still freed though,knowing this,then go on to re-offend. It's happened time out of number.
-
Thanks Patti. So sad that Jeremy dismissed the twins as "emotionally disturbed and unbalanced"(first link point 97) when we know that they were mature for their age and even upset at 6 years old seeing pictures of children from the Third World with swollen bellies. I don't accept the third link as truth because of the lack of blood down the front of Sheila's nightie
I can't find point 97 Steve.... :-[
-
I do too unless the convict is too dangerous to the public to ever set free. Unfortunately some are.
Don't they have indeterminate sentences now for many offences,meaning the prisoner can be assessed on the likelihood of reoffending? I'm against the whole life tariff for those who have repented(I suppose the authorities say if Jeremy hasn't admitted guilt then he hasn't shown remorse)because it does away with any chance of rehabilitation and some chance to start afresh far from the madding crowd.
-
They're still freed though,knowing this,then go on to re-offend. It's happened time out of number.
I know, and that is awful. Still, some are so obviously too dangerous to let out - like a Ted Bundy type, you´d never let such a killer out!
-
I can't find point 97 Steve.... :-[
She said that after she met the appellant, it quickly became obvious to her that the appellant disliked his family. He resented his parents whom he claimed, "tried to run his life" and he said he did not get on with Sheila Caffell. He was angry that she lived in an expensive flat in Maida Vale, which was maintained by his parents. Between July and October 1984, he said that his parents were getting him down and he said that he wished "he could get rid of them all". In evidence Miss Mugford said this included his sister and children because "if he was going to get rid of them it would have to be all of them". The appellant explained to her that his "father was getting old, his mother was mad … Sheila was mad as well … and in respect of the way the twins had been brought up, … they were emotionally disturbed and unbalanced". The appellant also told Julie Mugford he had seen copies of his parents' wills.
I can't find the recent comments someone alluded to.
-
I know, and that is awful. Still, some are so obviously too dangerous to let out - like a Ted Bundy type, you´d never let such a killer out!
I should hope that the powers that be realise that.
-
Steve, Patti copied the comments for you - they are here:
I am extremely surprised that this woman Julie Smerchanski (nee Mugford) was allowed to have a 25 year career in elementary education, after her complicity with mass killer Jeremy Bamber.
To cut a very long story short, she, by her own admition http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html (94-115):
1. Knew of Bamber's desire to murder his entire family, many months' prior, yet did nothing, and continued the relationship.
2. Was contacted during the night of the crime by Bamber to let her know everything was going to plan, yet did nothing.
3. Continued the relationship with Bamber for over a month after the killings, during which time he repeatedly admitted the killings to her and she gave a false account to police of her knowledge.
4. In effect let the police believe it was Jeremy Bamber's sister who had committed the 5 killings.
5. Only went to the police after she discovered he was having an affair with a mutual friend.
6. Had committed burglary (£900 1986) and fraud (£700 1986) with him and others and dealt cannabis.
7. She was given immunity from prosecution and a caution, in exchange for her testimony against him in the 5 murder cases.
8. After her testimony at trial in 1986 she immediately sold her story for £25000 to the News of the World.
School Principal ?
No comments ?
Just Unbelievable.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
9:20 AM on 7/17/2012
http://jeremybamber.org/julie-mugford/
Report Abuse
Score: 0
9:23 AM on 7/17/2012
Why are Essex Police not getting a injunction stopping Mr Bamber from publishing this if it in not true?
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/what-really-happened
So many qestions
If you want to see them on the site, they are below the article - not far down. It says:
"Have Your Say"
And beneath that, there is a button, which says:
"Display 3 comments"
Just click there, and you will see them.
-
I know, and that is awful. Still, some are so obviously too dangerous to let out - like a Ted Bundy type, you´d never let such a killer out!
I would agree that there are some prisoners who should never be released -like the Ted Bundy types- but if ALL hope of release is taken away there is no motivation for changes in behaviour. Guarding such prisoners must bring constant danger. I confess to total shock when I learned that people were released from Broadmoor. The very name evokes terror.
-
She said that after she met the appellant, it quickly became obvious to her that the appellant disliked his family. He resented his parents whom he claimed, "tried to run his life" and he said he did not get on with Sheila Caffell. He was angry that she lived in an expensive flat in Maida Vale, which was maintained by his parents. Between July and October 1984, he said that his parents were getting him down and he said that he wished "he could get rid of them all". In evidence Miss Mugford said this included his sister and children because "if he was going to get rid of them it would have to be all of them". The appellant explained to her that his "father was getting old, his mother was mad … Sheila was mad as well … and in respect of the way the twins had been brought up, … they were emotionally disturbed and unbalanced". The appellant also told Julie Mugford he had seen copies of his parents' wills.
I can't find the recent comments someone alluded to.
Thank you Steve. ;D
-
Strings were pulled you can bet on it. Strings by influential people.
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angelic006.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
It makes you wonder!!! ;D
-
Hi Patti thank you so much for that now I can keep up ;D ;D ;D ;D
Good ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Just been skimming through the " Compilation of JM's statements " I can't believe some of what she said. It's really forced if you're adept to reading between the lines.
-
I am extremely surprised that this woman Julie Smerchanski (nee Mugford) was allowed to have a 25 year career in elementary education, after her complicity with mass killer Jeremy Bamber.
To cut a very long story short, she, by her own admition http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html (94-115):
1. Knew of Bamber's desire to murder his entire family, many months' prior, yet did nothing, and continued the relationship.
2. Was contacted during the night of the crime by Bamber to let her know everything was going to plan, yet did nothing.
3. Continued the relationship with Bamber for over a month after the killings, during which time he repeatedly admitted the killings to her and she gave a false account to police of her knowledge.
4. In effect let the police believe it was Jeremy Bamber's sister who had committed the 5 killings.
5. Only went to the police after she discovered he was having an affair with a mutual friend.
6. Had committed burglary (£900 1986) and fraud (£700 1986) with him and others and dealt cannabis.
7. She was given immunity from prosecution and a caution, in exchange for her testimony against him in the 5 murder cases.
8. After her testimony at trial in 1986 she immediately sold her story for £25000 to the News of the World.
School Principal ?
No comments ?
Just Unbelievable.
Report Abuse
Score: 0
9:20 AM on 7/17/2012
http://jeremybamber.org/julie-mugford/
Report Abuse
Score: 0
9:23 AM on 7/17/2012
Why are Essex Police not getting a injunction stopping Mr Bamber from publishing this if it in not true?
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/what-really-happened
So many qestions
All these things have been discussed before. There have been lots of Julie threads.
Briefly -
1: Her own WS says she knew of Bamber's plans. When
interviewed on TV she said she did not believe he would do
anything.
2: What could she do in London ? She could not dial out from her
place. Lewisham is not the place to walk around at 3am.
Anyway it was Bamber's family.
3: There is a thread on why it took her a month.
4: Ditto point 3.
5: She spoke to several people before approaching the police.
6: The joint fraud using Susan Battersby's cheque book was in
1984. Bamber broke into the caravan site. Julie was lumbered
with being a lookout.
7: She had completed her WS before the police knew anything
about the fraud. She confessed to the caravan break in before
completing her WS. Anyway the police had to look at the big
picture.
8: The NOTW approached Julie after inside information said
Bamber was guilty. Bamber had approached the NOTW and
the Sun. Offering an explosive story. He complained about his
NOTW deal.
-
All these things have been discussed before. There have been lots of Julie threads.
Briefly -
1: Her own WS says she knew of Bamber's plans. When
interviewed on TV she said she did not believe he would do
anything.
2: What could she do in London ? She could not dial out from her
place. Lewisham is not the place to walk around at 3am.
Anyway it was Bamber's family.
3: There is a thread on why it took her a month.
4: Ditto point 3.
5: She spoke to several people before approaching the police.
6: The joint fraud using Susan Battersby's cheque book was in
1984. Bamber broke into the caravan site. Julie was lumbered
with being a lookout.
7: She had completed her WS before the police knew anything
about the fraud. She confessed to the caravan break in before
completing her WS. Anyway the police had to look at the big
picture.
8: The NOTW approached Julie after inside information said
Bamber was guilty. Bamber had approached the NOTW and
the Sun. Offering an explosive story. He complained about his
NOTW deal.
Oh shut up Adam ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh shut up Adam ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
He treats up like idiots doesn't he. ;D
-
He treats up like idiots doesn't he. ;D
Hey Mr Gee. Adam knows I am joking. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hey Mr Gee. Adam knows I am joking. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Maybe, but he wasn't.
-
Just been skimming through the " Compilation of JM's statements " I can't believe some of what she said. It's really forced if you're adept to reading between the lines.
Reading between the lines is just opinion Lookout.
-
We are seeing it now, aren´t we?
It's an old article, when that was written in 2012 (Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition April 19, 2012 A9) Simon McKay was still his solicitor.
-
Just been skimming through the " Compilation of JM's statements " I can't believe some of what she said. It's really forced if you're adept to reading between the lines.
One word for that: "Coached". ;)
-
Reading between the lines is just opinion Lookout.
As most things are on this forum Caroline. :)
-
As most things are on this forum Caroline. :)
Of course they are,Mr G. The same as all the books. ;D
-
As most things are on this forum Caroline. :)
There are also a lot of assuptions that get weaved in as fact - the panic button, the monestery, EP posing bodies etc.
-
There are also a lot of assuptions that get weaved in as fact - the panic button, the monestery, EP posing bodies etc.
All of which are either in books or on links which are copied. Doesn't say much for the rest of the information that's given in whatever form,as it's mainly spin given in whatever direction,guilty or innocent.
Why are we hear if the investigation was done by the book ? Worse still,why a red forum when those who are on it say that the guy's guilty with the appropriate prison sentence ? Now that's illogical.
-
All of which are either in books or on links which are copied. Doesn't say much for the rest of the information that's given in whatever form,as it's mainly spin given in whatever direction,guilty or innocent.
Why are we hear if the investigation was done by the book ? Worse still,why a red forum when those who are on it say that the guy's guilty with the appropriate prison sentence ? Now that's illogical.
The examples I gave have been perpetuated here, not from outside sources. I can't speak for the Red Forum but I think we should ALL (guilty or innocent supporters) be interested in dispelling myths because perpetuationg them doesn't help anyone - least of all Jeremy.
-
It's an old article, when that was written in 2012 (Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition April 19, 2012 A9) Simon McKay was still his solicitor.
I know - I think you misunderstand.
-
Jeremy's team wanted to question JM about the contract that she had with the NOTW. As I understood it,Jeremy's solicitor did not have the contract to hand as evidence and so therefore the Judge ruled that JM could not be questioned/cross examined on the issue so therefore she did not have to take the stand after all. I'm certain that NGB could explain it all better when he is next on the forum.
JM returned to England for the 2002 appeal because the Court of Appeal had given leave for her to be cross examined about the NoW contract. The defence had information that the contract had in fact been concluded before the trial and that JM had therefore lied when she gave assurances during the trial that she had not concluded any deal with the press and had no intention of doing so. The defence had information that a copy of the contract itself was held by the solicitor who had acted for JM. The defence applied to the Court of Appeal for an order requiring the solicitor to produce the document. This application was refused. On her arrival in England JM provided a statement to the prosecution (it is posted here) in which she said she could not remember when the contract had been agreed with the NoW. Faced with the refusal of the application the defence would not have been able to challenge JM upon the basis of having proof on the basis of the document itself. There was therefore no benefit in cross examining her.
I do understand that more recently a copy of the contract, or at least a letter from the NoW referring to it, has been obtained. If there is a referral to the Court of Appeal I am sure there will be a further application for JM to be called for cross examination. That was certainly the intention of Simon McKay. He wanted to cross examine her in relation to the NoW contract, the circumstances in which she was initially interviewed and handled by the police, and the circumstances surrounding the deal with the bank not to prosecute her for fraud.
-
quite right too.Thanks NGB
-
JM returned to England for the 2002 appeal because the Court of Appeal had given leave for her to be cross examined about the NoW contract. The defence had information that the contracty had in fact been concluded before the trial and that JM had therefore lied when she gave assurances during the trial that she had not concluded any deal with the press and had no intention of doing so. The defence had information that a copy of the contract itself was held by the solicitor who had acted for JM. The defence applied to the Court of Appeal for an order requiring the solicitor to produce the document. This application was refused. On her arrival in England JM provided a statement to the prosecution (it is posted here) in which she said she could not remember when the contract had been agreed with the NoW. Faced with the refusal of the application the defence would not have been able to challenge JM upon the basis of having proof on the basis of the document itself. There was therefore no benefit in cross examining her.
I do understand that more recently a copy of the contract, or at least a letter from the NoW referring to it, has been obtained. If there is a referral to the Court of Appeal I am sure there will be a further application for JM to be called for cross examination. That was certainly the intention of Simon McKay. He wanted to cross examine her in relation to the NoW contract, the circumstances in which she was initially interviewed and handled by the police, and the circumstances surrounding the deal with the bank not to prosecute her for fraud.
Ngb do we have the name of the judge who refused the application for the contract. For these men should not be above the law themselves.
-
All of which are either in books or on links which are copied. Doesn't say much for the rest of the information that's given in whatever form,as it's mainly spin given in whatever direction,guilty or innocent.
Why are we hear if the investigation was done by the book ? Worse still,why a red forum when those who are on it say that the guy's guilty with the appropriate prison sentence ? Now that's illogical.
Lookout, I've only read Colin's and Wilkes' books but I feel certain that apart from Colin saying something incredible about a robin, NEITHER of them gave any information regarding the Monastery, a panic button or sexual positioning of bodies. It seems highly likely such myths had their inception on THIS forum.
-
Hello ngb thanks for that information on JM very interesting. I guess she would buckle under intensive questioning by the Defence lets hope it happens.
-
The only one who wouldn't be afraid of giving evidence again,is Jeremy.
-
Ngb do we have the name of the judge who refused the application for the contract. For these men should not be above the law themselves.
Grahame - I am not sure if the application was heard by a single judge in advance of the appeal, or by the full court of three judges at the appeal itself.
-
Grahame - I am not sure if the application was heard by a single judge in advance of the appeal, or by the full court of three judges at the appeal itself.
It would just be a good thing if we knew the reason for the denial of the application.
-
JM never went to the police, her friend did.
-
JM never went to the police, her friend did.
Buddy, It's really good to hear a NEW voice :) and you're correct but it wouldn't have been difficult to organize. Lay the transgression on with a trowel to the point where someone else is so incensed they'll do the job on someone else's behalf. I'm not saying this IS how it happened but it IS a possibility.
-
JM never went to the police, her friend did.
Hi Cliff. How are you?
-
JM never went to the police, her friend did.
Liz Rimminton rang Stan Jones after Julie told her what Bamber had said. Where was Julie ? In the same room.
-
Thank you for clarifying NGB and...Cliff,hope you are keeping well x
-
JM returned to England for the 2002 appeal because the Court of Appeal had given leave for her to be cross examined about the NoW contract. The defence had information that the contract had in fact been concluded before the trial and that JM had therefore lied when she gave assurances during the trial that she had not concluded any deal with the press and had no intention of doing so. The defence had information that a copy of the contract itself was held by the solicitor who had acted for JM. The defence applied to the Court of Appeal for an order requiring the solicitor to produce the document. This application was refused. On her arrival in England JM provided a statement to the prosecution (it is posted here) in which she said she could not remember when the contract had been agreed with the NoW. Faced with the refusal of the application the defence would not have been able to challenge JM upon the basis of having proof on the basis of the document itself. There was therefore no benefit in cross examining her.
I do understand that more recently a copy of the contract, or at least a letter from the NoW referring to it, has been obtained. If there is a referral to the Court of Appeal I am sure there will be a further application for JM to be called for cross examination. That was certainly the intention of Simon McKay. He wanted to cross examine her in relation to the NoW contract, the circumstances in which she was initially interviewed and handled by the police, and the circumstances surrounding the deal with the bank not to prosecute her for fraud.
Was Jeremy trying to get off on a technicality ? Sneaking boy.
Julie flew over to the UK. It was not her fault that the courts ruled she should not testify.
It's no secret she had agreed a deal prior to the verdict. It is doubtful she signed papers. The NOTW are not going to commit until the verdict.
-
yes of course the N.O.W would have made an agreement put her and her mother up in a hotel and left it unsigned - course they would - In your world.
-
yes of course the N.O.W would have made an agreement put her and her mother up in a hotel and left it unsigned - course they would - In your world.
How interesting that they got her to sign something which said her memory had deserted her. It let her off the hook very nicely. She could spend the time with her family instead.
-
JM returned to England for the 2002 appeal because the Court of Appeal had given leave for her to be cross examined about the NoW contract. The defence had information that the contract had in fact been concluded before the trial and that JM had therefore lied when she gave assurances during the trial that she had not concluded any deal with the press and had no intention of doing so. The defence had information that a copy of the contract itself was held by the solicitor who had acted for JM. The defence applied to the Court of Appeal for an order requiring the solicitor to produce the document. This application was refused. On her arrival in England JM provided a statement to the prosecution (it is posted here) in which she said she could not remember when the contract had been agreed with the NoW. Faced with the refusal of the application the defence would not have been able to challenge JM upon the basis of having proof on the basis of the document itself. There was therefore no benefit in cross examining her.
I do understand that more recently a copy of the contract, or at least a letter from the NoW referring to it, has been obtained. If there is a referral to the Court of Appeal I am sure there will be a further application for JM to be called for cross examination. That was certainly the intention of Simon McKay. He wanted to cross examine her in relation to the NoW contract, the circumstances in which she was initially interviewed and handled by the police, and the circumstances surrounding the deal with the bank not to prosecute her for fraud.
There we go, in black and white !!
Yet some people still believe Jeremy was convicted fairly
It was always about Julie and as they say a women scorned
How does she live with the lies she told? Whatever happens the truth about the NOTW contract needs to be out in the public domain once and for all. I know MWT thought strongly about this
Julie Mugford main prosecution witness completely discredited
-
The NOTW had verbal deals with both Bamber and Julie.
Whoever was available after the verdict would sign on the dotted line.
If Julie was asked if she had signed an agreement with the NOTW pre verdict, she could say 'no'.
-
The NOTW had verbal deals with both Bamber and Julie.
Whoever was available after the verdict would sign on the dotted line.
If Julie was asked if she had signed an agreement with the NOTW pre verdict, she could say 'no'.
You think.
unless you have some inside knowledge I would say that is rubbish.
-
You think.
unless you have some inside knowledge I would say that is rubbish.
No one knows the exact wording of what she was asked in 1986 regarding this.
I have not even seen a source she was asked anything at all regarding this at trial, in 1986.
-
No one knows the exact wording of what she was asked in 1986 regarding this.
I have not even seen a source she was asked anything at all regarding this at trial, in 1986.
yes you have - it was discussed in private in chambers .
-
The NOTW had verbal deals with both Bamber and Julie.
Whoever was available after the verdict would sign on the dotted line.
If Julie was asked if she had signed an agreement with the NOTW pre verdict, she could say 'no'.
We are talking about Mugford and another of her money making ideas
There is probably not a single person anywhere that would not be horrified to learn the NOTW deal was made before trial
Her testimony was worthless and the appeal judges should have made sure the information about the deal was available for them
I am sure they could have if they really wanted to
What a farce of a justice system
-
yes you have - it was discussed in private in chambers .
Source please. And make it 'primary'.
-
Was Jeremy trying to get off on a technicality ? Sneaking boy.
Julie flew over to the UK. It was not her fault that the courts ruled she should not testify.
It's no secret she had agreed a deal prior to the verdict. It is doubtful she signed papers. The NOTW are not going to commit until the verdict.
Now Adam it is something like this which dictates how you must judge as to why an appeal fails sometimes. So people such as yourself don't go making sweeping statements like, "Oh two failed appeals. He must be guilty then". But when you actually bother to read what "really" happened and it was because of what actually happened that made that appeal fail you find that it was not that he was found guilty yet again, but that the appeal failed because of the judges ruling.
If you read ngb's post, which is very enlightening you will see that it wasn't Bamber trying to get off on a technicality at all. But that the defense hoped to show that which was actually hindered by the appeal court judge/s him/themselves.
You see it was not just a technicality that Bamber was appealing for, but rather the defense counsel trying to prove that Mugford's whole testimony was to be called in question because she had incentive to lie.
Now I know for a fact that you will not understand all this because of your challenged intellect. But because they could not obtain a copy of the cantract that she made with the paper because the solicitor "said" that he didn't have a copy and the judge's ruling that it was not to be obtained all Mugford had to say was, "I don't remember". Now I don't know about you but if I made such a contract with a newspaper I would certainly remember whether it was before the trial or after it.
I just hope that now that his defense team have obtained a copy of it and that it will form one of the next application for an appeal that she will at last be found out to be the liar that many think she is.
But having said that I bet you any amount that you care to offer that the CCRC will somehow put a block on this next application being the kind of people they have shown themselves to be.
But of course as I said you won't understand one word of what I have said because trying to reason with you is about as successful as talking to a mule.
-
The NOTW had verbal deals with both Bamber and Julie.
Whoever was available after the verdict would sign on the dotted line.
If Julie was asked if she had signed an agreement with the NOTW pre verdict, she could say 'no'.
Yes she could say no and I'd expect a liar to be true to their nature.
Bamber's deal if a deal existed was a gamble on his own life. Mugford's deal would have been quite different, it was a gamble on someone else's life.
-
No one knows the exact wording of what she was asked in 1986 regarding this.
I have not even seen a source she was asked anything at all regarding this at trial, in 1986.
Have you seen a source for Bambers deal?
-
Now Adam it is something like this which dictates how you must judge as to why an appeal fails sometimes. So people such as yourself don't go making sweeping statements like, "Oh two failed appeals. He must be guilty then". But when you actually bother to read what "really" happened and it was because of what actually happened that made that appeal fail you find that it was not that he was found guilty yet again, but that the appeal failed because of the judges ruling.
If you read ngb's post, which is very enlightening you will see that it wasn't Bamber trying to get off on a technicality at all. But that the defense hoped to show that which was actually hindered by the appeal court judge/s him/themselves.
You see it was not just a technicality that Bamber was appealing for, but rather the defense counsel trying to prove that Mugford's whole testimony was to be called in question because she had incentive to lie.
Now I know for a fact that you will not understand all this because of your challenged intellect. But because they could not obtain a copy of the cantract that she made with the paper because the solicitor "said" that he didn't have a copy and the judge's ruling that it was not to be obtained all Mugford had to say was, "I don't remember". Now I don't know about you but if I made such a contract with a newspaper I would certainly remember whether it was before the trial or after it.
I just hope that now that his defense team have obtained a copy of it and that it will form one of the next application for an appeal that she will at last be found out to be the liar that many think she is.
But having said that I bet you any amount that you care to offer that the CCRC will somehow put a block on this next application being the kind of people they have shown themselves to be.
But of course as I said you won't understand one word of what I have said because trying to reason with you is about as successful as talking to a mule.
Cantract ? You are the one with the challenged intellect.
It was a high profile case. Of course she had a verbal deal. So did Bamber. So did every witness in the OJ case, before they testified.
-
Have you seen a source for Bambers deal?
Wilkes's book.
He complained about the fee to his lawyers. And tried to sell pictures of Sheila to the Sun.
Have you got a source of this mysterious in chambers 1986 conversation ?
-
We are talking about Mugford and another of her money making ideas
There is probably not a single person anywhere that would not be horrified to learn the NOTW deal was made before trial
Her testimony was worthless and the appeal judges should have made sure the information about the deal was available for them
I am sure they could have if they really wanted to
What a farce of a justice system
As far as I am concerned Jackie I have absolutely no respect for a man in such a responsible position in life should have made such a ruling against ordering a copy of that deal. And you wonder why I am on the side of defending Bamber. Most of those on the other side are sheer bastards and people with no scruples at all. British justice sucks at the moment. Not because the system is wrong. But because of the majority of those in the system are corrupt and rotten to the core. The justice system in this coubtry will remain totally corrupt until righteous men and women have the guts to stand up against these wicked people.
-
Source please. And make it 'primary'.
And there you go again. Not believing ngb's testimony. How can we have a primary source? It is like looking for the primary source that you came from monkey's. But continue to call good honest people liars til your heart's content.
-
Cantract ? You are the one with the challenged intellect.
It was a high profile case. Of course she had a verbal deal. So did Bamber. So did every witness in the OJ case, before they testified.
There you are I told you that it would be lost on your feeble mind. ::)
-
Wilkes's book.
He complained about the fee to his lawyers. And tried to sell pictures of Sheila to the Sun.
Have you got a source of this mysterious in chambers 1986 conversation ?
Primary source please.Cor blimey you are a **** one aren't you. Just a minute whilst I go and talk to the monkey down the road. I really don't know why I even bother to try and explain things to you, all I get in response is, "Dah doh oh arrh ehh? wot? I'm opening a boutique hur hur hur".
-
Here is a transcript of Julie's 2002 statement:
In October 1986 I attended Chelmsford Crown Court and gave evidence at the trial of Jeremy Bamber. I have been asked to recount my dealings with the media in relation to this trial. My first recollection of any direct involvement with the media was in the month following Jeremy Bamber's arrest. I was approached many times by persons claiming to be reporters. They came to my house,they followed me,they approached me in a petrol station,in bus queues,one jumped on a bus to approach me. It was harrassment of me and my family. They knew where I was,there were many offers of money,they were very overt. I just wanted them to go away. Peaks of approach were after his arrest and before trial,when it was intense. It did go quiet in between. I asked them to go away. I refused and even ran away on occasions. I couldn't have a normal life: they turned up at my school. The Headmistress considered it a detriment to the children due to my profile in that I was associated with an alleged murderer. I was given leave with pay.
At this time I believe I went to a lawyer due to the Press harassment and my enforced suspension from work. I didn't have a lawyer so having received general advice to see one I believe I asked my mother to assist me. I eventually met Mr. Church of Ellisons Solicitors,Colchester. This was not a family lawyer or someone I had spoken to previously. I went to the lawyer seeking two pieces of advice. Firstly,how to stop the Press bothering me and my family,secondly was it right that the school could prevent me from working?
I would like to make it clear that I had no financial motivation in relation to the Press. My only desire was to stop harassment. However,after consultation my lawyer advised me that the only way was in fact to contract to one Press body exclusively,which by default would prevent others from making an approach. I probably told him that monetary offers had been made and that the Press had told me they were interested in my story whatever the verdict.
-
Steve do you believe the deal was done before trial?
-
If Julie was not motivated by money why did she not give the £25.000 to a local Charity after all had 5 innocent people not lost their lives two of them being wee boys she would not have been approached by the press and offered such a sum of money.
-
Steve do you believe Mugford would have sold her story if she could have prevented the murder of two small children?
-
(Part Two)
The lawyer made the deal. Until I was presented with the contract I had no idea who the other party was. He made the deal in my personal interest. I gave no direction with regard to finance. He told me that getting money was part of the contract even though I had no financial motivation. I was not involved with his discussions with the other party. I now understand that he took the highest bidder,which was the News Of The World newspaper. He told me he negotiated to get the best financial reward. I have been asked to try and remember exactly when this happened. I cannot remember,but I can say that media harassment continued during the trial. I cannot identify specific dates for specific events-i.e. signing the contract,but I feel sure that the solicitor's records would confirm this. I am confident that I told Police what I was doing at all times. I probably only saw the lawyer three times. I did have a moral dilemma. It was a consideration that this was somehow blood money but I was prepared to accept advice in order to get them off my back. In relation to contract details my memories are:
a) This was a one-off.
b) They had rights to republish the material.
c) I had to sit for photographs.
d) I had editorial rights.
e) They could reuse the material.
f) I was not to talk to anyone else.
-
Steve do you believe Mugford would have sold her story if she could have prevented the murder of two small children?
I can't remember reading anything about her feeling so concerned that she didn't tell the police earlier (any normal person would feel very bad for a long time afterwards I should think?) So she didn't give anything to a childrens charity or the NSPCC?
-
(Part Two)
The lawyer made the deal. Until I was presented with the contract I had no idea who the other party was. He made the deal in my personal interest. I gave no direction with regard to finance. He told me that getting money was part of the contract even though I had no financial motivation. I was not involved with his discussions with the other party. I now understand that he took the highest bidder,which was the News Of The World newspaper. He told me he negotiated to get the best financial reward. I have been asked to try and remember exactly when this happened. I cannot remember,but I can say that media harassment continued during the trial. I cannot identify specific dates for specific events-i.e. signing the contract,but I feel sure that the solicitor's records would confirm this. I am confident that I told Police what I was doing at all times. I probably only saw the lawyer three times. I did have a moral dilemma. It was a consideration that this was somehow blood money but I was prepared to accept advice in order to get them off my back. In relation to contract details my memories are:
a) This was a one-off.
b) They had rights to republish the material.
c) I had to sit for photographs.
d) I had editorial rights.
e) They could reuse the material.
f) I was not to talk to anyone else.
Steve you did not answer my question
Do you believe Mugford made the deal before trial?
-
(Part Three)
I do not believe there was any form of retainer or ongoing conditions. In relation to the photographs I was very unhappy about their demands. But as pointed out to me I had to comply with contract details. I clearly skim-read the contract and missed a lot of the detail;today I read all of the small print. I had editorial rights,but the published article did not comply with my recollection of the agreed content. It seemed to read quite differently in the end. I obviously wasn't with it enough to contest it at the time. The financial aspect of the contract was a figure of I believe £25,000,but my lawyer's fees were drawn from these monies. I have often asked myself the question: "Why did I keep the money..why didn't I give it away?" All I can say is that I bought a flat. Whilst reporters were attempting to trap me to talk they regularly indicated that Jeremy was selling his story and suggested I should reply. It was used as a carrot but it didn't attract me-I just had knowledge of him negotiating with the Press. Mr. Church may have reiterated that to me but I have no idea about the monies that Jeremy was being offered. He,to my understanding would only get money if he were released. In order that the contract could be fulfilled I was located in a hotel in central London,which was adjacent to the studio for the photo shoot and to allow interview. I stayed with my Mum in Essex during trial by choice.
-
steve I am sorry to say I do not believe one word of what Julie said in that statement was it a condition that she posed in such a provocative manner taking into consideration to use her words it was blood money she was being paid The photographs were a total insult to the Bamber family who lost their lives through no fault of their own. .
-
Where is Alias.
She usually posts Julies NOTW article whenever it is mentioned. Well she has at least three times.
-
(Part Four)
I believe the Policeman Stan Jones informed me of the verdict. I know I wasn't at home in London or Essex:I believe I was in a neutral place. I don't believe it was the hotel. At some stages in the trial the Police arranged accommodation for us. When I was in the hotel it was for two or three days,possibly a couple of nights-certainly not a week. The News Of The World paid for the hotel. In the years since the trial I have had the opportunity to earn money through interviews,articles and television rights. I have refused all these offers. On the release of news of the Appeal in 2001 I have been approached many times to encourage me to sell my story. I have continued to refuse all such offers. Money was never my drive: it was the consequence of the advice I was given. A couple of months after the New Of The World articles I was approached by a reporter from SHE magazine. I was so peeved with the New Of The World that I agreed to an interview and photographs. I know I was living in Hither Green at the time and the lady came to my house. It was non-sensational,I was not paid. It was intended to balance the image for my self-esteem-it was more representative of me.
I have been asked about my financial position at the time of the incident. I can say that as a student I did have some debts but I always worked to pay them off during my studies:indeed that is how I met Jeremy. The offer of money was not influential in this regard. At this time I was banking with the Midland in Colchester and I give my authority for the Metropolitan Police to examine my account records including the News Of The World transfer. I would like to say that money promise or receipt did not impact in any way on the evidence I gave at court. No amount of money would influence what I had to say in a Court of Law. I would not lie when swearing to tell the truth. In summary,I had no intention of selling my story,but followed advice from my solicitor. I did not want to sell my story:it was part of a process to stop the media from relentlessly harassing me and my family.
-
Steve do you believe the deal was done before trial?
It was probably out of Julie's hands Jackie,with the solicitors getting their cut and no money forthcoming for either of them had Jeremy been acquitted. Agreed before the trial is my guess,but nothing signed by Julie until afterwards.
-
Steve do you believe Mugford would have sold her story if she could have prevented the murder of two small children?
I think she felt very bad about the whole thing, the main motivation in going to the Police being how well Colin was treating both Jeremy and Julie post-murders when she knew the dreadful truth..
-
If Julie was not motivated by money why did she not give the £25.000 to a local Charity after all had 5 innocent people not lost their lives two of them being wee boys she would not have been approached by the press and offered such a sum of money.
She should have done Susan. My guess is that Julie's mother told her she'd been through it and deserved the money as some kind of compensation.
-
steve I am sorry to say I do not believe one word of what Julie said in that statement was it a condition that she posed in such a provocative manner taking into consideration to use her words it was blood money she was being paid The photographs were a total insult to the Bamber family who lost their lives through no fault of their own. .
Yes I don't think Julie had any control over them by that stage,which is why she gave the follow-up interview to SHE magazine.
-
It was probably out of Julie's hands Jackie,with the solicitors getting their cut and no money forthcoming for either of them had Jeremy been acquitted. Agreed before the trial is my guess,but nothing signed by Julie until afterwards.
Yes. Nothing signed until after the verdict.
Firstly it was probably illegal. Secondly the NOTW are not going to sign anything themselves until after the verdict.
-
Yes. Nothing signed until after the verdict.
Firstly it was probably illegal. Secondly the NOTW are not going to sign anything themselves until after the verdict.
Actually that is an assumption as Julie could not find her copy and the solicitor never produced his copy . SO that may not be factual.
If she wanted to dismiss all speculation she just had to go to the solicitor and produce a copy.
Simples.
-
Trial by media---------media driven-------public swayed by the media. Bribery and corruption/coercion.
So we all know that nothing was signed until after the verdict,do we ?
I didn't see any" expenses paid by EP" to JM on the statement. Cost of hotel expenses ?
All her own work ? I don't think so.!
-
Trial by media---------media driven-------public swayed by the media. Bribery and corruption/coercion.
So we all know that nothing was signed until after the verdict,do we ?
I didn't see any" expenses paid by EP" to JM on the statement. Cost of hotel expenses ?
All her own work ? I don't think so.!
The media could only report on the events at trial.
After the verdict they had a field day. The police did not get off lightly either.
-
The media could only report on the events at trial
What ? You've got a lot to learn.!
-
According to the much missed campion it might not even matter if the contract was not signed :
"Cheque Book Journalism, Press Council Report 1981. News Corp/ News Group/ News International are in breach of Declaration of Principle regarding speaking to Julie Mugford. It states that this is the case even if a Journalist offers a bid on a hand written note. Did the NotW approach a third party who would not be a witness, some like Julie Mugfords Mother. The 1981 report clearly states that payments should not be offered by Newspapers/Media Groups to the Relatives or Associates of persons Accused of Crime, I take this then must include Police. The Price of the Story on the day the trial ends to its value some months later would be £1,000,000 Sunday after trial £100,000 three months later. Julie Mugfords testimony is worthless, what you have found proves this, this should be highlighted by Simon McKay at Leveson this week.
-
The NOTW approached Julie over a year after she first went to the police. A verbal agreement was made, dependent on the verdict.
There is a mysterious behind closed doors meeting no one has a source for. Where Julie was asked a question. Quite what this question exactly was in this alleged meeting, no one knows.
-
Where is Alias.
She usually posts Julies NOTW article whenever it is mentioned. Well she has at least three times.
Yes, we mustn´t forget how tasteless the whole thing was. Do you have a problem with it? I mean, that Julie posed with her bare bum on the back of a whole family having been murdered, including two little innocent boys?
I´d say it takes a certain type of person!!
-
According to the much missed campion it might not even matter if the contract was not signed :
"Cheque Book Journalism, Press Council Report 1981. News Corp/ News Group/ News International are in breach of Declaration of Principle regarding speaking to Julie Mugford. It states that this is the case even if a Journalist offers a bid on a hand written note. Did the NotW approach a third party who would not be a witness, some like Julie Mugfords Mother. The 1981 report clearly states that payments should not be offered by Newspapers/Media Groups to the Relatives or Associates of persons Accused of Crime, I take this then must include Police. The Price of the Story on the day the trial ends to its value some months later would be £1,000,000 Sunday after trial £100,000 three months later. Julie Mugfords testimony is worthless, what you have found proves this, this should be highlighted by Simon McKay at Leveson this week.
It is logical to assume that she was approached by the NOTW before the trial. In fact this can easily be established, because the newspaper paid for the room for her and her mother at a hotel. This must have been arranged in advance. The very fact that she was offered money, whether a contract was signed or not is an incentive for her to lie in court.
-
Yes, we mustn´t forget how tasteless the whole thing was. Do you have a problem with it? I mean, that Julie posed with her bare bum on the back of a whole family having been murdered, including two little innocent boys?
I´d say it takes a certain type of person!!
Here it is again with Mugford playing the tart erm part. ::)
-
It is logical to assume that she was approached by the NOTW before the trial. In fact this can easily be established, because the newspaper paid for the room for her and her mother at a hotel. This must have been arranged in advance. The very fact that she was offered money, whether a contract was signed or not is an incentive for her to lie in court.
Both Bamber and Julie had NOTW verbal deals in place before the verdict. Which is standard practice in high profile trials.
The NOTW had to post their story while it was still hot news. Rather than spend weeks negotiating after the verdict.
Julie would be questioned in court on her WS. Which was drawn up a year before when she had no idea the NOTW would approach her.
-
Here it is again with Mugford playing the tart erm part. ::)
She should not have done this Mr. Gee and it's truly shocking. But remember she was 20 years old at the time of the murders and haven't we all been wet behind the ears at some stage during those years.
-
Here it is again with Mugford playing the tart erm part. ::)
LOL ;D ;) ;)
-
She should not have done this Mr. Gee and it's truly shocking. But remember she was 20 years old at the time of the murders and haven't we all been wet behind the ears at some stage during those years.
I know I wouldn´t have done it, but then, I wouldn´t have committed cheque fraud either.
All things put together, and it is very hard to put any trust in her word.
-
Both Bamber and Julie had NOTW verbal deals in place before the verdict. Which is standard practice in high profile trials.
The NOTW had to post their story while it was still hot news. Rather than spend weeks negotiating after the verdict.
Julie would be questioned in court on her WS. Which was drawn up a year before when she had no idea the NOTW would approach her.
don't you read anything?.
Question 1 - how could a newspaper deal possibly affect jeremys testimony? And you have not a clue what his interview would have been . And the N.O.W should have been in trouble for this as well.
Question 2- Why do you think the N.O.W got into trouble for trying to make such deals ?
Question 3- Why is it against press guidance principles to even offer money to anyone associated with a case such as this? Why do you think ?
-
Like you said Alias the Internet has caught up with her and her family and any
Pupils and colleagues she associates.
I am sure she now has the attention she craved in those photos but what a horrific past selling smiling photos of herself for cash
Was any amount of money worth what she did
Steve as you believe Mugford made the deal before trial dependent on the verdict do you believe her testimony was worthless
-
I know I wouldn´t have done it, but then, I wouldn´t have committed cheque fraud either.
All things put together, and it is very hard to put any trust in her word.
Would you rob you're own family ?
Then boast ' I will be the number one suspect but they will never be able to prove it'.
But Bamber did it to highlight security problems. After such sterling work he deserved to spend the money ( out of greed).
-
Like you said Alias the Internet has caught up with her and her family and any
Pupils and colleagues she associates.
I am sure she now has the attention she craved in those photos but what a horrific past selling smiling photos of herself for cash
Was any amount of money worth what she did
Steve as you believe Mugford made the deal before trial dependent on the verdict do you believe her testimony was worthless
No because this was always Robert Boutflour's trial not Julie's.
-
It was a 21 day trial. Lots of witnesses. A year of preparation.
Julie was an important witness. But there were lots of others.
-
don't you read anything?.
Question 1 - how could a newspaper deal possibly affect jeremys testimony? And you have not a clue what his interview would have been . And the N.O.W should have been in trouble for this as well.
Question 2- Why do you think the N.O.W got into trouble for trying to make such deals ?
Question 3- Why is it against press guidance principles to even offer money to anyone associated with a case such as this? Why do you think ?
i have reported this to the moderators.
When did the NOTW get into trouble on this case ? Bamber has been banging on about Julies NOTW for 20 years. Forgetting his own. But nothing illegal has been proved.
-
She should not have done this Mr. Gee and it's truly shocking. But remember she was 20 years old at the time of the murders and haven't we all been wet behind the ears at some stage during those years.
If that is so with her then why is it different with Bamber. Some keep rabbitting on about his caravan park robbery now even. But why should Mugford be let off just because she was "wet behind the ears"
-
Both Bamber and Julie had NOTW verbal deals in place before the verdict. Which is standard practice in high profile trials.
The NOTW had to post their story while it was still hot news. Rather than spend weeks negotiating after the verdict.
Julie would be questioned in court on her WS. Which was drawn up a year before when she had no idea the NOTW would approach her.
No it is not standard practice. But if it were then why according to you is Bamber's deal worse that Mugford's? And if it were standard practice why then did Mugford lie about the timing of her deal and why did she lie in saying to the judge that she did not have a deal with any newspaper and hadn't even planned to do so, knowing all the time that she did have a deal even if it was a verbal one (which it wasn't of course).
-
No it is not standard practice. But if it were then why according to you is Bamber's deal worse that Mugford's? And if it were standard practice why then did Mugford lie about the timing of her deal and why did she lie in saying to the judge that she did not have a deal with any newspaper and hadn't even planned to do so, knowing all the time that she did have a deal even if it was a verbal one (which it wasn't of course).
I never said her testimony was better or worse than Bamber's. They both had a verbal deal in place pre verdict.
What was said in this mysterious behind closed doors conversation in the judges chamber I do not know.
The judge has never said Julie lied to him, after seeing her NOTW article.
-
Julie certainly had a verbal agreement in place before the verdict.
Part of Bamber's complaint to his lawyers about his fee was the size of Julie's fee.
-
I never said her testimony was better or worse than Bamber's. They both had a verbal deal in place pre verdict.
What was said in this mysterious behind closed doors conversation in the judges chamber I do not know.
The judge has never said Julie lied to him, after seeing her NOTW article.
But it is very clear that she did.
-
Julie certainly had a verbal agreement in place before the verdict.
Part of Bamber's complaint to his lawyers about his fee was the size of Julie's fee.
Bamber's alleged deal does not vindicate Mugford.
-
I suspect the statement Steve kindly posted for us contained the words Julie would like to have said-unchallenged- in court, and for those words to be accepted as truth. I'm inclined to read them as constructed to paint her -and her motives- in the best possible light.
How odd, that all those years on, she STILL clings to the phrase "I have been asked if............" Her words are guarded. She INSISTS that as a student who has always worked to pay off her loans, she wasn't prompted by the thought of money. I cannot imagine that there's a student anywhere who wouldn't jump at the chance to be free of financial restraint. She very systematically puts the responsibility for the whole thing onto others -pictures were a prerequisite of the contract. Was it ALSO a prerequisite that she should pose semi-nude?- and is speaking from the perspective of a 40 year old woman who is trying to distance herself from the shocking, attention seeking behaviour of the 20 year old she'd once been.
-
I suspect the statement Steve kindly posted for us contained the words Julie would like to have said-unchallenged- in court, and for those words to be accepted as truth. I'm inclined to read them as constructed to paint her -and her motives- in the best possible light.
How odd, that all those years on, she STILL clings to the phrase "I have been asked if............" Her words are guarded. She INSISTS that as a student who has always worked to pay off her loans, she wasn't prompted by the thought of money. I cannot imagine that there's a student anywhere who wouldn't jump at the chance to be free of financial restraint. She very systematically puts the responsibility for the whole thing onto others -pictures were a prerequisite of the contract. Was it ALSO a prerequisite that she should pose semi-nude?- and is speaking from the perspective of a 40 year old woman who is trying to distance herself from the shocking, attention seeking behaviour of the 20 year old she'd once been.
As she did regarding the caravan park robbery. She acted like someone who had been dumped. Suddenly none of it is her fault. It is entirely the fault of others around her.
-
As she did regarding the caravan park robbery. She acted like someone who had been dumped. Suddenly none of it is her fault. It is entirely the fault of others around her.
And as she did regarding the cheque fraud. Even though Jeremy had not a thing to do with THAT, she claimed it was his fault because she wanted to impress him! ::)
Typical Julie.
-
And as she did regarding the cheque fraud. Even though Jeremy had not a thing to do with THAT, she claimed it was his fault because she wanted to impress him! ::)
Typical Julie.
She had nothing to do with finding a solicitor. Her mother found one -NOT the family solicitor? Is that not strange?- and she had nothing to do with the arrangements he made. She just wanted to get the press off her back. Odd, because the impression she gave was that she was rather like Diana, who was having her own problems with the press. She appeared to be courting their attention. It seems that, around that time, one couldn't pick up a paper without seeing pictures of either Julie or Diana. Given what was going on, press wise, it would seem somewhat ingenuous for her solicitor to advise her that by talking to ONE newspaper, she'd be free of harassment from others.
-
She had nothing to do with finding a solicitor. Her mother found one -NOT the family solicitor? Is that not strange?- and she had nothing to do with the arrangements he made. She just wanted to get the press off her back. Odd, because the impression she gave was that she was rather like Diana, who was having her own problems with the press. She appeared to be courting their attention. It seems that, around that time, one couldn't pick up a paper without seeing pictures of either Julie or Diana. Given what was going on, press wise, it would seem somewhat ingenuous for her solicitor to advise her that by talking to ONE newspaper, she'd be free of harassment from others.
Just an excuse, and easy to see through too!
I hope that later in life she learned to own up to her own actions.
-
Just an excuse, and easy to see through too!
I hope that later in life she learned to own up to her own actions.
It's not over yet,Alias. 8)
-
i have reported this to the moderators.
When did the NOTW get into trouble on this case ? Bamber has been banging on about Julies NOTW for 20 years. Forgetting his own. But nothing illegal has been proved.
Source - tonight programme and trial
The 'Tonight' programme said that Julie Mugford had sold her story to 'The News of the World'. On the 9th October 1986, Anthony Arlidge Q.C. told the Trial Judge and Defence Council in Chambers, and this was repeated to the jury in open Court that, “Julie Mugford has given me her assurance that she has not sold her story to a newspaper, and she has no intention of doing so.”
This was wholly misleading. Julie Mugford in her 11th April 2002 witness statement admitted that she had sold her story to 'The News of the World' for Twenty-Five Thousand pounds. This was later ruled in breach of guidelines by the Press Complaints Council, though she was not made to pay the money back. Julie Mugford swore in 2002 under oath that on the day of the verdict she was in a Hotel paid for by 'The News of the World.' Her solicitor had drawn up the contract a month after arrest . This is consistent with 'The News of the World' naming Julie Mugford as being interviewed by them on the 29th September 1985
So Adam - if you say she had made an agreement before the trial - then it does appear she told lies - because that is not what the jury were told.
-
Source - tonight programme and trial
The 'Tonight' programme said that Julie Mugford had sold her story to 'The News of the World'. On the 9th October 1986, Anthony Arlidge Q.C. told the Trial Judge and Defence Council in Chambers, and this was repeated to the jury in open Court that, “Julie Mugford has given me her assurance that she has not sold her story to a newspaper, and she has no intention of doing so.”
This was wholly misleading. Julie Mugford in her 11th April 2002 witness statement admitted that she had sold her story to 'The News of the World' for Twenty-Five Thousand pounds. This was later ruled in breach of guidelines by the Press Complaints Council, though she was not made to pay the money back. Julie Mugford swore in 2002 under oath that on the day of the verdict she was in a Hotel paid for by 'The News of the World.' Her solicitor had drawn up the contract a month after arrest . This is consistent with 'The News of the World' naming Julie Mugford as being interviewed by them on the 29th September 1985
So Adam - if you say she had made an agreement before the trial - then it does appear she told lies - because that is not what the jury were told.
So those who say that she wasn't a liar and told the truth are 100% wrong and here is the proof. She told the judge or her solicitor did, that she had no intention of selling her story when not only had she already done so, but clearly shown the intention to do so however you like to look at it.
So the argument of those who say she was a liar has clearly been won. Except of course for those with blinkers on and those who are in love with her. ;D
-
If that is so with her then why is it different with Bamber. Some keep rabbitting on about his caravan park robbery now even. But why should Mugford be let off just because she was "wet behind the ears"
The jury were aware of Julie's past. But her devastating testimony overrode what in comparison were minor misdemeanours. I'm not sure what you mean by asking why it was different with Jeremy. He had also admitted to the caravan park robbery.
-
The jury were aware of Julie's past. But her devastating testimony overrode what in comparison were minor misdemeanours. I'm not sure what you mean by asking why it was different with Jeremy. He had also admitted to the caravan park robbery.
Well that which was considered a "minor" mistemeanour with Mugford. With Bamber who's only other crime was the caravan park robbery was used at court to demonstrate what a wicked man he was and it is still chucked at him at every opportunity, whilst Mugford's crimes are glossed over and even justified by some of the guilters.
-
I suspect the statement Steve kindly posted for us contained the words Julie would like to have said-unchallenged- in court, and for those words to be accepted as truth. I'm inclined to read them as constructed to paint her -and her motives- in the best possible light.
How odd, that all those years on, she STILL clings to the phrase "I have been asked if............" Her words are guarded. She INSISTS that as a student who has always worked to pay off her loans, she wasn't prompted by the thought of money. I cannot imagine that there's a student anywhere who wouldn't jump at the chance to be free of financial restraint. She very systematically puts the responsibility for the whole thing onto others -pictures were a prerequisite of the contract. Was it ALSO a prerequisite that she should pose semi-nude?- and is speaking from the perspective of a 40 year old woman who is trying to distance herself from the shocking, attention seeking behaviour of the 20 year old she'd once been.
But can you really blame her April when she has a husband and children to consider,let alone her work colleagues? Of course she must reproach herself for her dilatory behaviour 16 years previously and what goes on behind closed doors we will never know. Can you really expect a 21 year-old to stand up to the London press,when all they are interested in is any sensationalist aspect of the story,and I'm sure some of the more unscrupulous hacks equated the loss of lives in this case with the more prurient aspect of Julie and Jeremy's relationship.
-
She had nothing to do with finding a solicitor. Her mother found one -NOT the family solicitor? Is that not strange?- and she had nothing to do with the arrangements he made. She just wanted to get the press off her back. Odd, because the impression she gave was that she was rather like Diana, who was having her own problems with the press. She appeared to be courting their attention. It seems that, around that time, one couldn't pick up a paper without seeing pictures of either Julie or Diana. Given what was going on, press wise, it would seem somewhat ingenuous for her solicitor to advise her that by talking to ONE newspaper, she'd be free of harassment from others.
But I don't see what was wrong with that advice if the Press was preventing her from conducting her main employment by harassing her at her workplace. The last thing she needs is this mentioned on any future reference should she wish to change schools.
-
But can you really blame her April when she has a husband and children to consider,let alone her work colleagues? Of course she must reproach herself for her dilatory behaviour 16 years previously and what goes on behind closed doors we will never know. Can you really expect a 21 year-old to stand up to the London press,when all they are interested in is any sensationalist aspect of the story,and I'm sure some of the more unscrupulous hacks equated the loss of lives in this case with the more prurient aspect of Julie and Jeremy's relationship.
to be fair I am more surprised at her mother letting her do that interview.
And to be fair Julie was an educated girl with her career mapped out in front of her. She was past her naïve teenage years - So I do think in the months before the trial she did have time to consider her actions.
My one proviso is that from Colins book the press intrusion to ALL involved or even associated with those involved was quite horrific.
-
Well that which was considered a "minor" mistemeanour with Mugford. With Bamber who's only other crime was the caravan park robbery was used at court to demonstrate what a wicked man he was and it is still chucked at him at every opportunity, whilst Mugford's crimes are glossed over and even justified by some of the guilters.
But they are hardly in the same league. In any case Jeremy stole money from his own family business,which showed the ingratitude he felt for being pushed out to Bourtree Cottage and having to furnish it himself. He just wasn't the type to shoulder any responsibility,which I don't blame him for in itself,just he was living beyond his means and looking for some way out to have his cake and eat it.
-
What did Julie do between approaching the police and the verdict ?
It was a year long period. Could she continue to work and study as before. Or did she have to put her (second) degree and job on hold ?
No doubt the whole thing was very stressful for her. And for the rest of her family.
The Bambers were not Julies relatives.
The NOTW offered her 25k. Good luck with it Julie.
-
What did Julie do between approaching the police and the verdict ?
It was a year long period. Could she continue to work and study as before. Or did she have to put her (second) degree and job on hold ?
No doubt the whole thing was very stressful for her. And for the rest of her family.
The Bambers were not Julies relatives.
The NOTW offered her 25k. Good luck with it Julie.
But she was still a liar.
-
The school didn't want her near because of her involvement with a " murderer " ! Quite right too don't you think.?
-
What did Julie do between approaching the police and the verdict ?
It was a year long period. Could she continue to work and study as before. Or did she have to put her (second) degree and job on hold ?
No doubt the whole thing was very stressful for her. And for the rest of her family.
The Bambers were not Julies relatives.
The NOTW offered her 25k. Good luck with it Julie.
Gosh, sometimes I wonder if you have any feelings at all!
-
But can you really blame her April when she has a husband and children to consider,let alone her work colleagues? Of course she must reproach herself for her dilatory behaviour 16 years previously and what goes on behind closed doors we will never know. Can you really expect a 21 year-old to stand up to the London press,when all they are interested in is any sensationalist aspect of the story,and I'm sure some of the more unscrupulous hacks equated the loss of lives in this case with the more prurient aspect of Julie and Jeremy's relationship.
Steve, your post certainly made me think. I guess in her position, I'd have moved heaven and earth to prevent my children from finding out what I'd done. I like to think I'd have told my husband. In my experience, relationships formed on lies tend to flounder.
I do appreciate that she was only 21 but there was more than a touch of Diana about her in that she often appeared to love the camera. It WAS felt that sometimes she was playing up to the press and at such times it seemed that the murders might not have happened. I think what REALLY sealed her fate with the public were THOSE poses, in which she appeared to be swept away by her own celebrity and possibly thinking she could give up teaching and go into glamour modelling. Pictures were part of the deal, OK, but did they HAVE to be semi-nude, soft porn?
-
The school didn't want her near because of her involvement with a " murderer " ! Quite right too don't you think.?
But there is far too much "guilt by association",whether it is Julie or Prince Andrew. In the end the Inner London Education Authority did find her another school,where she taught for a further two years. Her conduct since the unfortunate photographs has anyway been exemplary and it would have been churlish to hound her out of employment on the guilt by association basis.
-
But there is far too much "guilt by association",whether it is Julie or Prince Andrew. In the end the Inner London Education Authority did find her another school,where she taught for a further two years. Her conduct since the unfortunate photographs has anyway been exemplary and it would have been churlish to hound her out of employment on the guilt by association basis.
She has clearly demonstrated that she knew (or says she knew) perfectly well that Jeremy was going to kill his family. She chose to just let it happen.
Not a minor thing - insane in fact.
-
She has clearly demonstrated that she knew (or says she knew) perfectly well that Jeremy was going to kill his family. She chose to just let it happen.
Not a minor thing - insane in fact.
No:after the second telephone call she said she knew that Jeremy was telling her that he had killed his family.
-
However I'm perfectly prepared to admit that after call 1 (the tonight's the night call),Julie's reticence may have been interpreted by Jeremy as a green light to go ahead with his plan.
-
The other thing Julie had to consider before deciding to tell loads of serious lies about Bamber, was her own family. It would be a very stressful time for them as well. Especially if she got found out.
But love god Bamber had apparently jilted her. She was not going to wilt.
-
Because Julie " knew " that the murders had been " arranged ",and being friendly with Sheila,why didn't she warn Sheila so that they'd BOTH been prepared to have torn Jeremy to shreds ? Sheila would also have told her father.
I really,really cannot understand why this " THREAT " wasn't broadcast,and this is why I say that Jeremy is innocent.
Julie was NOT a person to have kept anything to herself,as has been proved, so anyone with the thought of children being involved because of Jeremys' so-called " chain-reaction " of greed ( beneficiaries ),WOULD have stopped that murder in its tracks.
Why didn't Julie tell Neville ? Strange how she had believed everything after the event !
Why didn't BW and RWB go straight to the police after they were purported to have heard Jeremy say that " he could kill his parents ?". Again---------why have waited until it was too late ?
If these " threats " had been reported to the police beforehand,then Jeremy would then have been roped in for questioning,as they were SERIOUS threats.
The first thing anyone does is go to the police,even if it's unfounded.
I'm damn sure if I heard tell from someone that they could kill someone,I'd report it asap.
-
However I'm perfectly prepared to admit that after call 1 (the tonight's the night call),Julie's reticence may have been interpreted by Jeremy as a green light to go ahead with his plan.
Steve, have you considered that Julie was party -by association- to Jeremy's plan and went along with it because she assumed they'd be married. On discovering that marriage isn't on the cards, she tells just enough of the story to incense her friend, who goes to the police. Julie then gets her own story in, obviously leaving out her full involvement. Jeremy can't tell the police how involved Julie is without admitting his own guilt, something he's always denied and Julie can't reveal all she knows because it COULD upset her new life. COULD it be that each is holding the other to ransom?
-
Steve, have you considered that Julie was party -by association- to Jeremy's plan and went along with it because she assumed they'd be married. On discovering that marriage isn't on the cards, she tells just enough of the story to incense her friend, who goes to the police. Julie then gets her own story in, obviously leaving out her full involvement. Jeremy can't tell the police how involved Julie is without admitting his own guilt, something he's always denied and Julie can't reveal all she knows because it COULD upset her new life. COULD it be that each is holding the other to ransom?
I have thought about that - especially after reading a letter Jeremy wrote Julie after the verdict (don´t remember how long after, could be years). It came back unopened.
What he wrote - and din´t write - gave me an uneasy feeling.
-
The other thing Julie had to consider before deciding to tell loads of serious lies about Bamber, was her own family. It would be a very stressful time for them as well. Especially if she got found out.
But love god Bamber had apparently jilted her. She was not going to wilt.
You think a girl who is prepared to pose for the NOTW in the way she did was remotely concerned about what it would do to her family?
-
You think a girl who is prepared to pose for the NOTW in the way she did was remotely concerned about what it would do to her family?
So now she does not care about her family.
Well she approached the police a year earlier.
The NOTW approached her during the trial after getting inside knowledge that Bamber was guilty.
So yes, she would have considered a lot before deciding to live a big and serious lie in 1985.
-
I have thought about that - especially after reading a letter Jeremy wrote Julie after the verdict (don´t remember how long after, could be years). It came back unopened.
What he wrote - and din´t write - gave me an uneasy feeling.
What did/didn't it say?
-
Steve, have you considered that Julie was party -by association- to Jeremy's plan and went along with it because she assumed they'd be married. On discovering that marriage isn't on the cards, she tells just enough of the story to incense her friend, who goes to the police. Julie then gets her own story in, obviously leaving out her full involvement. Jeremy can't tell the police how involved Julie is without admitting his own guilt, something he's always denied and Julie can't reveal all she knows because it COULD upset her new life. COULD it be that each is holding the other to ransom?
Well they had been together 18 months. Living in separate parts of the country. The relationship being in decline for the last six months.
Both were young going in different directions. Julie getting her second degree. Bamber on the farm
So not sure she was desperate to marry Bamber.
Full involvement ? Did she steal June's bike ?
-
Steve, have you considered that Julie was party -by association- to Jeremy's plan and went along with it because she assumed they'd be married. On discovering that marriage isn't on the cards, she tells just enough of the story to incense her friend, who goes to the police. Julie then gets her own story in, obviously leaving out her full involvement. Jeremy can't tell the police how involved Julie is without admitting his own guilt, something he's always denied and Julie can't reveal all she knows because it COULD upset her new life. COULD it be that each is holding the other to ransom?
Anything is possible April,but Jeremy's nickname being Tommy Rot Talker of d'Arcy did she just go with the flow and ignore what was coming from his mouth? Lookout makes valid points in her post and of course Julie should have protected herself by informing the intended victims. I can't understand why she can throw a bar of soap at him in a supermarket yet not risk his ire by challenging him at every turn of this monstrous plot.
-
Anything is possible April,but Jeremy's nickname being Tommy Rot Talker of d'Arcy did she just go with the flow and ignore what was coming from his mouth? Lookout makes valid points in her post and of course Julie should have protected herself by informing the intended victims. I can't understand why she can throw a bar of soap at him in a supermarket yet not risk his ire by challenging him at every turn of this monstrous plot.
Steve, it does rather raise the question of what her priorities were.
-
What did/didn't it say?
To me it seemed he was dancing around someting which he didn´t say straight out. It is a long time since I read that letter, I wouldn´t know where to look for it.
As far as I remember, he did not say, stress, emphasize that he was innocent. The letter was in a comprehensive, soft tone, not angry as you would expect.
Nothing really palpable, just gave me pause for thought. And doubt.
-
Well they had been together 18 months. Living in separate parts of the country. The relationship being in decline for the last six months.
Both were young going in different directions. Julie getting her second degree. Bamber on the farm
So not sure she was desperate to marry Bamber.
Full involvement ? Did she steal June's bike ?
Adam, perhaps we can continue this conversation when you have something sensible to contribute without making wild and meaningless statements.
-
To me it seemed he was dancing around someting which he didn´t say straight out. It is a long time since I read that letter, I wouldn´t know where to look for it.
As far as I remember, he did not say, stress, emphasize that he was innocent. The letter was in a comprehensive, soft tone, not angry as you would expect.
Nothing really palpable, just gave me pause for thought. And doubt.
I wonder if it is on the forum?
-
Adam, perhaps we can continue this conversation when you have something sensible to contribute without making wild and meaningless statements.
I am just going to discuss the case from now on April.
You can make digs at me. Because you have nothing to say on the case. You gave up arguing Bamber's innocence after I battered you when I joined.
It was flattering when I became you're new 'only' purpose in life. Now it's boring. In fact I will call you 'boring' April from now on.
Of course I will PM the moderators and report you if appropriate.
-
I wonder if it is on the forum?
Caroline, I can recall knowing about it, but then I remember knowing about the Monastery incident too. Not AT ALL saying it's the same thing, but being taken for a ride DOES tend to make one a little wary :-[
-
Anything is possible April,but Jeremy's nickname being Tommy Rot Talker of d'Arcy did she just go with the flow and ignore what was coming from his mouth? Lookout makes valid points in her post and of course Julie should have protected herself by informing the intended victims. I can't understand why she can throw a bar of soap at him in a supermarket yet not risk his ire by challenging him at every turn of this monstrous plot.
I thought Julie said she was throwing the soap to him. And it hit him on the head ?
-
I thought Julie said she was throwing the soap to him. And it hit him on the head ?
I think you're forgetting that Julie had a vile temper.
-
I think you're forgetting that Julie had a vile temper.
Best not become a teacher then.
-
I thought Julie said she was throwing the soap to him. And it hit him on the head ?
My reading of it was they had some tiff about what brand to buy and Julie threw a bar of soap at him. It just makes me wonder why she risked getting his back up on this incident(they made up outside in the car park)yet didn't feel moved to tell him she wouldn't stand for any kind of murder plot. To be charitable to her I believe every time he brought it up she told him she didn't want to hear it,and her statement was a condensation of almost two years they had spent together.
-
I think you're forgetting that Julie had a vile temper.
Remember her putting the pillow over the head of a " murderer " and saying that if she couldn't have him nobody else would ? She meant it too !
-
My reading of it was they had some tiff about what brand to buy and Julie threw a bar of soap at him. It just makes me wonder why she risked getting his back up on this incident(they made up outside in the car park)yet didn't feel moved to tell him she wouldn't stand for any kind of murder plot. To be charitable to her I believe every time he brought it up she told him she didn't want to hear it,and her statement was a condensation of almost two years they had spent together.
Arguing about soap ?
Julie's WS says she threw it to him and it hit his head.
-
I wonder if it is on the forum?
As far as I recall I read it on the forum.
-
As far as I recall I read it on the forum.
I'll have a good look over the weekend and see if I can find it - it sounds intriguing!!
-
I'll have a good look over the weekend and see if I can find it - it sounds intriguing!!
Others might remember seeing that letter - and Mike certainly.
-
Others might remembering seeing that letter - and Mike certainly.
Alias, I feel certain that he asked her why she was lying although I don't recall feeling that there was anything vindictive about the letter. Perhaps I dreamed it.
-
Others might remembering seeing that letter - and Mike certainly.
Yes, it does ring a bell, I think I also read it but it was a while ago.
-
Others might remembering seeing that letter - and Mike certainly.
From memory there was a quite innocuous letter quoted in Clare Powell's book to Julie from Stinko. I also believe there was a second letter which was threatening in nature,which not even Clare got her hands on.
-
Ohhh, I hate seeing that quoted so many times - remembering seeing.... ::) Oh well, it is a sign of intelligence if you think ahead while writing 8) - BUT sloppyness for not proof reading....v ;D
April, I don´t remember the letter being vindictive either. The tone was quite soft. Maybe to make her do or say something - I don´t know. Would be interesting to re-read it.
-
From memory there was a quite innocuous letter quoted in Clare Powell's book to Julie from Stinko. I also believe there was a second letter which was threatening in nature,which not even Clare got her hands on.
At trial.
The jury also heard about a note Jeremy tried to send Julie after she had approached the police -
'Hi darling. Hope this gets to you from Stalag 13. Thinking about you. Sorry we're splitting up. I love you. Stinker.
-
Correction. This note was sent the day after Julie denounced him.
-
If it is from him its the first time I have seen his hand writing - not in capitals
-
Yes,that's Jeremys' writing.
-
Jan, good job! That must be it - I just don´t remember it in detail - at all. He does mention that he is convicted of something he didn´t do.
What gave me the uneasy feeling must be the lack of anger - I don´t understand that if she lied about him on the witness stand.
-
How very sad.
-
Jan, good job! That must be it - I just don´t remember it in detail - at all. He does mention that he is convicted of something he didn´t do.
What gave me the uneasy feeling must be the lack of anger - I don´t understand that if she lied about him on the witness stand.
But the second letter is more guarded. It's interesting though to read normal handwriting as he must have written at Gresham's. The first letter is more incriminating as it doesn't profess innocence but does stress that his fate is in her hands. I wonder if he knew about the silencer evidence at this stage?
-
But the second letter is more guarded. It's interesting though to read normal handwriting as he must have written at Gresham's. The first letter is more incriminating as it doesn't profess innocence but does stress that his fate is in her hands. I wonder if he knew about the silencer evidence at this stage?
Is the other letter on here as well?
-
Is the other letter on here as well?
Sorry I misunderstood if it was one and the same.
-
But the second letter is more guarded. It's interesting though to read normal handwriting as he must have written at Gresham's. The first letter is more incriminating as it doesn't profess innocence but does stress that his fate is in her hands. I wonder if he knew about the silencer evidence at this stage?
Steve - the first letter?
Anyway, why is he so soft with her?
Can he find it in his heart to hate her twenty eight years on, I wonder.
-
If it is from him its the first time I have seen his hand writing - not in capitals
Well that's one up the jaxy for the source demanders. ;D
-
Steve - the first letter?
Anyway, why is he so soft with her?
Can he find it in his heart to hate her twenty eight years on, I wonder.
I don't think he had much choice. A retracted statement by Julie would also open the prison gates.
-
I don't think he had much choice. A retracted statement by Julie would also open the prison gates.
Not true. He could have shown great anger against her for fitting him up. But he didn't.
-
Not true. He could have shown great anger against her for fitting him up. But he didn't.
Julie was the only one he had confided his murder plans to. Maybe he had marked her out as special in some way.
-
Julie was the only one he had confided his murder plans to. Maybe he had marked her out as special in some way.
Allegedly. If that was so then he wouldn't be urging her to tell the truth.
-
I don't think he had much choice. A retracted statement by Julie would also open the prison gates.
Also every letter would be read .
TBH he was not angry with Colin in his first letters - but he did get angry later. I am not going to make assumptions or excuses because they were not nice. He sounded at the end of his tether , that he felt he had been let down again.
-
Also every letter would be read .
TBH he was not angry with Colin in his first letters - but he did get angry later. I am not going to make assumptions or excuses because they were not nice. He sounded at the end of his tether , that he felt he had been let down again.
If it were me who had been send to the slammer for something I didn't do I would probably be as mad as hell and planning every day on how to get out and get my revenge. Bamber has shown incredible restraint if you ask me.
-
Julie was the only one he had confided his murder plans to. Maybe he had marked her out as special in some way.
It strikes me that he speaks to her on equal terms. He puts her freedom up against his incarceration. Between the lines you can tell that he obviously has a problem with that.
I interpret it as: either they planned this together and are both guilty - or Jeremy had nothing to do with the murders, he is innocent, but Julie guilty of setting him up.
I just don´t understand his soft tone if he is innocent; but of course he could have been seething in his little cell trying to convince her to retract her (false) testimony.
I think I am pretty much left with the same feeling as when I read it the first time: they share something - and that is where my uneasy feeling sets in.
-
I don't know about him being a violent murderer. I think he's soft in the head.
You can feel the pleas in the letter/s,but it's nothing to what I'd feel or write if I was in the same predicament. It would have been censored. ;D
-
Allegedly. If that was so then he wouldn't be urging her to tell the truth.
There was always a scintilla of doubt as Julie didn't want to face up to the fact that the man she loved was a mass murderer. She clung on to the slim hope that at least he had not pulled the trigger but that somehow Matthew Macdonald might have instigated the whole thing. But the terrifying truth slowly dawned on her and was confirmed at Blazer's restaurant,Blackheath, as Jeremy showed no remorse and told her not to blame herself,but he would have gone ahead with it anyway. Julie wanted their relationship to be as unsullied as it had been before the crimes,but this relationship had metastasised and there was no trust left,just the remnants of what once was as Julie took Jeremy's words that "maybe there is something wrong with me" to heart.
-
It strikes me that he speaks to her on equal terms. He puts her freedom up against his incarceration. Between the lines you can tell that he obviously has a problem with that.
I interpret it as: either they planned this together and are both guilty - or Jeremy had nothing to do with the murders, he is innocent, but Julie guilty of setting him up.
I just don´t understand his soft tone if he is innocent; but of course he could have been seething in his little cell trying to convince her to retract her (false) testimony.
I think I am pretty much left with the same feeling as when I read it the first time: they share something - and that is where my uneasy feeling sets in.
Alias this is one of your best posts and many people would agree that there is something concealed in their relationship,which words possibly cannot express. I think Jeremy resented his parents for keeping him under their thumb,for adopting him then sending him away for eight years,for feeling an utter failure when in effect he was a hardworking young man who just wanted a job with less responsibilities. In Julie he found a confidante who would listen to him unreservedly,who would cook,iron,clean and decorate for him and rarely answer back. He opened up to her in a way he could never do with Suzette or his one night stands. She made him feel better and believe in himself. But I doubt Julie ever egged him on in anything,but was more of a doormat until it was too late,and she realized she was the one who had been badly let down.
-
Steve,I think she knows he didn't do it,and he didn't want to make too much of a fuss to draw attention otherwise he may have felt he'd be ignored altogether. Plus,I think he also knows that she knows he didn't do it as well,but was just living in hope that she would finally open up.
-
Thank you, Steve, that was kind. :)
-
Agreed,good post Alias. But then you are probably one of the most deepest thinking posters here. I always enjoy reading your thoughts.
-
Agreed,good post Alias. But then you are probably one of the most deepest thinking posters here. I always enjoy reading your thoughts.
Ditto. :)
-
There was always a scintilla of doubt as Julie didn't want to face up to the fact that the man she loved was a mass murderer. She clung on to the slim hope that at least he had not pulled the trigger but that somehow Matthew Macdonald might have instigated the whole thing. But the terrifying truth slowly dawned on her and was confirmed at Blazer's restaurant,Blackheath, as Jeremy showed no remorse and told her not to blame herself,but he would have gone ahead with it anyway. Julie wanted their relationship to be as unsullied as it had been before the crimes,but this relationship had metastasised and there was no trust left,just the remnants of what once was as Julie took Jeremy's words that "maybe there is something wrong with me" to heart.
Steve, I concur, absolutely with everything you say. I COULD leave it right there but I guess you know I can't :)
I'm certain that I'm looking at it through FAR less rose tinted glass than are you. I have the impression that you see Julie as experiencing the pure and sweet naivety of first love with Jeremy as her knight in shining armour. We love for diverse reasons, ALL coloured by past experiences and I suspect Julie loved him because he appeared to offer everything she believed necessary for a good life. Top of the list being financial security. COULD be it had ALWAYS been her family's top priority.
I have NO doubts that in the days and weeks following the massacre -during which she witnessed the disintegration of their relationship and MAY have hastened it by trying to cling to it- that she wished things could be magicked back to where they'd been before she found herself caught up in the nightmare that she hadn't walked away from because she'd perhaps rather ENJOYED the frisson of danger that she experienced from being with Jeremy.
-
It strikes me that he speaks to her on equal terms. He puts her freedom up against his incarceration. Between the lines you can tell that he obviously has a problem with that.
I interpret it as: either they planned this together and are both guilty - or Jeremy had nothing to do with the murders, he is innocent, but Julie guilty of setting him up.
I just don´t understand his soft tone if he is innocent; but of course he could have been seething in his little cell trying to convince her to retract her (false) testimony.
I think I am pretty much left with the same feeling as when I read it the first time: they share something - and that is where my uneasy feeling sets in.
TOTALLY agree, Alias. It's almost as if the letter is written in code. That the two of them are enmeshed in something secret. I wonder if his soft tone is about his expectation of her stepping up to the mark and doing, what he considers to be, the right thing for them both.
-
Alias this is one of your best posts and many people would agree that there is something concealed in their relationship,which words possibly cannot express. I think Jeremy resented his parents for keeping him under their thumb,for adopting him then sending him away for eight years,for feeling an utter failure when in effect he was a hardworking young man who just wanted a job with less responsibilities. In Julie he found a confidante who would listen to him unreservedly,who would cook,iron,clean and decorate for him and rarely answer back. He opened up to her in a way he could never do with Suzette or his one night stands. She made him feel better and believe in himself. But I doubt Julie ever egged him on in anything,but was more of a doormat until it was too late,and she realized she was the one who had been badly let down.
Steve, everything you say makes perfect sense. There is something undermining and demoralizing in the discovery that one's only purpose in life is to fulfill someone else's plan without one's OWN hopes and dreams being taken into account or acknowledged. It's entirely possible that, because he was the embodiment of ALL Julie's dreams and MET all her expectations, he didn't feel pressured by her. He may have felt free to be himself for the first time in his life.
-
I can't imagine that Jeremy would have been taken for a ride in this way. Who's going to be daft enough to carry out a " plan ",knowing that a crime like this was going to result in spending the rest of your life in prison. ?
Neither Jeremy nor Julie " knew " this was going to happen and because Jeremy wrote the way he did as opposed to losing his temper,was far from an admission of his guilt. He probably thought that he was going to be left out in the cold altogether with his family gone and the only other person who'd been in his life the longest was Julie,who he thought would have believed that he was telling the truth.
Yes,I don't doubt that they'd BOTH made plans for the future and will have BOTH spoken of the day when Jeremys' parents were too old to carry on,leaving BOTH Julie and Jeremy to run WHF,while his parents sought an easier and more relaxed life-style,possibly a swap to live at Goldhanger themselves.
But-------------not to end in this way.
I'm of the belief that as things unfolded the way they did,that it was purely coincidental that Jeremy had spoken about " killing his family " then sadly it did happen.
Much the same as a passenger on the ill-fated, second Air Malaysia flight had posted a tweet to his pal to say " this is what I look like in case you don't see me again " ,until the worst happened. Did that poor passenger know what was going to happen so suddenly after the first tragedy ? I think not,or he wouldn't have boarded that flight,or would he ? These things don't happen because you will them to,as it IS a coincidence when you speak of something and it does happen,but it doesn't mean to say that you had anything to do with it.
Exactly the same goes for the murders at WHF. Because Jeremy may,or may not have spoken about such a thing,doesn't make him a murderer,nor is it meant as an auto-suggestive ploy for anyone else to carry them out.
As I've already stated,had Jeremy made such a remark,then the world and his wife would have got to know,beforehand,and a tragedy could have been averted. Particularly RWB having known,everyone in the area would have been aware,especially the police at that stage,as it was a" death threat ". Back then it would have been broadcast a lot more than it is today with threats of death being an everyday occurrence.
IF it had been said by Jeremy,then nobody took any notice which can only mean one thing,that he wasn't capable of carrying out his " threats ",which to my mind doesn't make him culpable.
Of the two of them,it was Sheila who protected Jeremy in their younger years.It was she who sorted the bullies out who mocked Jeremy on their way to school,so she was more than capable in her older years,coupled with problems, and drugs to block out her miserable life, to build up enough adrenaline to fight back,except that she couldn't have done it any other way than with the guns which were kept at the farm.
-
Julie working on the farm with Bamber ?
So that is why she was studying for her second degree.
-
I can't imagine that Jeremy would have been taken for a ride in this way. Who's going to be daft enough to carry out a " plan ",knowing that a crime like this was going to result in spending the rest of your life in prison. ?
Neither Jeremy nor Julie " knew " this was going to happen and because Jeremy wrote the way he did as opposed to losing his temper,was far from an admission of his guilt. He probably thought that he was going to be left out in the cold altogether with his family gone and the only other person who'd been in his life the longest was Julie,who he thought would have believed that he was telling the truth.
Yes,I don't doubt that they'd BOTH made plans for the future and will have BOTH spoken of the day when Jeremys' parents were too old to carry on,leaving BOTH Julie and Jeremy to run WHF,while his parents sought an easier and more relaxed life-style,possibly a swap to live at Goldhanger themselves.
But-------------not to end in this way.
I'm of the belief that as things unfolded the way they did,that it was purely coincidental that Jeremy had spoken about " killing his family " then sadly it did happen.
Much the same as a passenger on the ill-fated, second Air Malaysia flight had posted a tweet to his pal to say " this is what I look like in case you don't see me again " ,until the worst happened. Did that poor passenger know what was going to happen so suddenly after the first tragedy ? I think not,or he wouldn't have boarded that flight,or would he ? These things don't happen because you will them to,as it IS a coincidence when you speak of something and it does happen,but it doesn't mean to say that you had anything to do with it.
Exactly the same goes for the murders at WHF. Because Jeremy may,or may not have spoken about such a thing,doesn't make him a murderer,nor is it meant as an auto-suggestive ploy for anyone else to carry them out.
As I've already stated,had Jeremy made such a remark,then the world and his wife would have got to know,beforehand,and a tragedy could have been averted. Particularly RWB having known,everyone in the area would have been aware,especially the police at that stage,as it was a" death threat ". Back then it would have been broadcast a lot more than it is today with threats of death being an everyday occurrence.
IF it had been said by Jeremy,then nobody took any notice which can only mean one thing,that he wasn't capable of carrying out his " threats ",which to my mind doesn't make him culpable.
Of the two of them,it was Sheila who protected Jeremy in their younger years.It was she who sorted the bullies out who mocked Jeremy on their way to school,so she was more than capable in her older years,coupled with problems, and drugs to block out her miserable life, to build up enough adrenaline to fight back,except that she couldn't have done it any other way than with the guns which were kept at the farm.
If that were true Lookout, no one would be serving life for murder!
-
Julie working on the farm with Bamber ?
So that is why she was studying for her second degree.
So did Sheila. Look in the photo section. Not sure about Mugford though?
-
So did Sheila. Look in the photo section. Not sure about Mugford though?
Purely the business side of things,Mr G, you understand. ;)
-
Can anyone picture what life would have been like for JM if Jeremy had walked free ?
Taking into consideration that EP already knew about the cheque fraud,accessory to the caravan park break-in and also the drugs ?
-
When JM received immunity,there was just one other thing that would have added to her list of crimes,and that was " KNOWING THAT THE MURDERS WERE GOING TO TAKE PLACE " !! Were the jury aware of this ?
-
Sorry,but I would never feel sorry for anyone with £25,000 in their back pocket who'd knowingly received it under false pretences !!
-
Sorry,but I would never feel sorry for anyone with £25,000 in their back pocket who'd knowingly received it under false pretences !!
Does my bum look big in this £25,000 in my back pocket? ;D
-
Does my bum look big in this £25,000 in my pack pocket? ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Yes,indeed.
-
Joking apart,and on a more serious note, what JM did puts her in the same category as Maxine Carr,except that Carr hadn't" known" beforehand that her boyfriend was going to commit murder. Carr was then imprisoned for perverting the course of justice for giving a false alibi,which JM tried to do when blaming MM. JM was either trying to " shield " Jeremy,or she'd still felt something for him and knew in her mind that he couldn't do such a thing.
JM's credibility would have suffered tremendously to those who read forums,etc such as this one,and she has to live with that.
Will JM ever admit one way or the other ? Truthfully ?
It'll take a person of great strength to admit to their mistakes. In fact,at this late stage,it would be far easier,and certainly would have been before now,to tell the world " he's guilty "than to admit that he's where he is because of her. It would have shut everyone up. So why doesn't she ? JM's the only one that'll know,besides himself, if he committed the crime or not,having professed to have known him well.
Her family will be of an age to now know what goes on and doubtless will have the internet. There'd have been questions asked,school pupils to contend with,etc etc,the case goes beyond the fact that it happened all those years ago and because of uncertainties which have arisen,it'll never go away.
-
I can't imagine that Jeremy would have been taken for a ride in this way. Who's going to be daft enough to carry out a " plan ",knowing that a crime like this was going to result in spending the rest of your life in prison. ?
Neither Jeremy nor Julie " knew " this was going to happen and because Jeremy wrote the way he did as opposed to losing his temper,was far from an admission of his guilt. He probably thought that he was going to be left out in the cold altogether with his family gone and the only other person who'd been in his life the longest was Julie,who he thought would have believed that he was telling the truth.
Yes,I don't doubt that they'd BOTH made plans for the future and will have BOTH spoken of the day when Jeremys' parents were too old to carry on,leaving BOTH Julie and Jeremy to run WHF,while his parents sought an easier and more relaxed life-style,possibly a swap to live at Goldhanger themselves.
But-------------not to end in this way.
I'm of the belief that as things unfolded the way they did,that it was purely coincidental that Jeremy had spoken about " killing his family " then sadly it did happen.
Much the same as a passenger on the ill-fated, second Air Malaysia flight had posted a tweet to his pal to say " this is what I look like in case you don't see me again " ,until the worst happened. Did that poor passenger know what was going to happen so suddenly after the first tragedy ? I think not,or he wouldn't have boarded that flight,or would he ? These things don't happen because you will them to,as it IS a coincidence when you speak of something and it does happen,but it doesn't mean to say that you had anything to do with it.
Exactly the same goes for the murders at WHF. Because Jeremy may,or may not have spoken about such a thing,doesn't make him a murderer,nor is it meant as an auto-suggestive ploy for anyone else to carry them out.
As I've already stated,had Jeremy made such a remark,then the world and his wife would have got to know,beforehand,and a tragedy could have been averted. Particularly RWB having known,everyone in the area would have been aware,especially the police at that stage,as it was a" death threat ". Back then it would have been broadcast a lot more than it is today with threats of death being an everyday occurrence.
IF it had been said by Jeremy,then nobody took any notice which can only mean one thing,that he wasn't capable of carrying out his " threats ",which to my mind doesn't make him culpable.
Of the two of them,it was Sheila who protected Jeremy in their younger years.It was she who sorted the bullies out who mocked Jeremy on their way to school,so she was more than capable in her older years,coupled with problems, and drugs to block out her miserable life, to build up enough adrenaline to fight back,except that she couldn't have done it any other way than with the guns which were kept at the farm.
Lookout, you have labeled Jeremy EVERY kind of stupid, gullible, impressionable and naive. NOW it seems you can't believe he'd be taken for a ride OR be "daft enough to carry out a plan" that might result in him doing a life sentence. You can't have it all ways.
-
Lookout, you have labeled Jeremy EVERY kind of stupid, gullible, impressionable and naive. NOW it seems you can't believe he'd be taken for a ride OR be "daft enough to carry out a plan" that might result in him doing a life sentence. You can't have it all ways.
It just goes to show how stupid he really was. If he was gormless to start with,he'd have remained so whether or not.
-
I would say,for the most part about Julie,that EP used her to their own advantage.
-
I can't imagine that Jeremy would have been taken for a ride in this way. Who's going to be daft enough to carry out a " plan ",knowing that a crime like this was going to result in spending the rest of your life in prison. ?
It just goes to show how stupid he really was. If he was gormless to start with,he'd have remained so whether or not.
;D
-
Joking apart,and on a more serious note, what JM did puts her in the same category as Maxine Carr,except that Carr hadn't" known" beforehand that her boyfriend was going to commit murder. Carr was then imprisoned for perverting the course of justice for giving a false alibi,which JM tried to do when blaming MM. JM was either trying to " shield " Jeremy,or she'd still felt something for him and knew in her mind that he couldn't do such a thing.
JM's credibility would have suffered tremendously to those who read forums,etc such as this one,and she has to live with that.
Will JM ever admit one way or the other ? Truthfully ?
It'll take a person of great strength to admit to their mistakes. In fact,at this late stage,it would be far easier,and certainly would have been before now,to tell the world " he's guilty "than to admit that he's where he is because of her. It would have shut everyone up. So why doesn't she ? JM's the only one that'll know,besides himself, if he committed the crime or not,having professed to have known him well.
Her family will be of an age to now know what goes on and doubtless will have the internet. There'd have been questions asked,school pupils to contend with,etc etc,the case goes beyond the fact that it happened all those years ago and because of uncertainties which have arisen,it'll never go away.
But Julie's first statement was the one where she attempted to shield Jeremy with a cover-up. Admittedly now it looks like a stalemate with neither Julie nor Jeremy blinking first.
-
But Julie's first statement was the one where she attempted to shield Jeremy with a cover-up. Admittedly now it looks like a stalemate with neither Julie nor Jeremy blinking first.
How did she shield him Steve?
-
How did she shield him Steve?
More to the point-------why ?
-
How did she shield him Steve?
Because initially, she backed his story.
-
Because initially, she backed his story.
Why ?
-
Because initially, she backed his story.
What alibi did she give him Caroline?
-
What alibi did she give him Caroline?
She didn't (and couldn't) but she backed up the notion of the call from Nevill and that was Jeremy's alibi.
-
She didn't (and couldn't) but she backed up the notion of the call from Nevill and that was Jeremy's alibi.
She was the only one among thousands who believed that one. ;D ;D ;D ;D Still puzzling.
-
Information had been suppressed in order for JM to act for the prosecution ( and act,she did ) as during the hearing it had been claimed that she'd sold her story to the NOTW before the trial and not after.
JM has a lot to answer for,methinks.
-
How did she shield him Steve?
She shielded him by not making reference to his desire to want to kill his family.http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1932
-
She shielded him by not making reference to his desire to want to kill his family.http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1932
Just thinking out loud here but I wonder if it's possible that she didn't go the whole hog because she was partly warning Jeremy what it was possible for her to do and partly hoping that there was still a chance for them to be together. I remain unconvinced that she'd have said anything if he'd put a (HUGE) ring on her finger...........................which isn't to say the relationship would have lasted.
-
It's funnier still that she didn't get herself pregnant,which would have been one way of securing her future.
-
It's funnier still that she didn't get herself pregnant,which would have been one way of securing her future.
Best to keep all options open, perhaps.
-
Julie was studying for a future career. That must have meant that she was prepared to support herself financially - even though a teacher´s job is not the most lucrative, you can easily live a decent life on the wages.
-
She didn't (and couldn't) but she backed up the notion of the call from Nevill and that was Jeremy's alibi.
Steve used the word "cover-up". How could supporting his father's telephone call do that? Hardly a Maxine Carr type crime.
-
Steve used the word "cover-up". How could supporting his father's telephone call do that? Hardly a Maxine Carr type crime.
Did she support Jeremy's story of a telephone call from Nevill? How could she when she was in Lewisham and not Bourtree Cottage?
-
Maybe she had no choice,Steve,if she too was in it up to her neck. After all,it was she who answered Jeremys call in the early hours-----------nobody else. Was she expecting it ?
-
Maybe she had no choice,Steve,if she too was in it up to her neck. After all,it was she who answered Jeremys call in the early hours-----------nobody else. Was she expecting it ?
No she didn't. A housemate answered it.
-
No she didn't. A housemate answered it.
That would have made the situation less suspicious then. At least Julie had an alibi.
-
But as DS Jones asked in interrogation on 11 September 1985: "Why telephone Julie at all?" There's really no satisfactory answer..
-
But as DS Jones asked in interrogation on 11 September 1985: "Why telephone Julie at all?" There's really no satisfactory answer..
'No comment'. Said Jeremy. When interviewed.
When testifying he said he 'wanted to hear a friendly voice'.
Not sure how friendly Julie would be at 3am.
-
Steve,if there'd been any rapport with the relatives,then he would obviously have rang one of them,which,if I didn't know differently,would have said that JM would have been expectant of the call ?
-
Nothing strange in him calling Julie. In fact, the only natural thing to do. This was an extreme situation, wouldt you agree? You´d need someone close to come and be with you!
-
Nothing strange in him calling Julie. In fact, the only natural thing to do. This was an extreme situation, wouldt you agree? You´d need someone close to come and be with you!
Yes ok,but "all is going well..there's something wrong at the Farm". I suppose this is just more of Julie's lies..
-
If he wanted to hear a friendly voice, what did he say to Julie ?
'Hi, dad's just phoned. He said ' Come quickly, Sheila has gone crazy and she's got the gun'. I am worried and want to hear a friendly voice, which is why I am phoning you.
-
Your words,Adam.Your words.
-
Yes ok,but "all is going well..there's something wrong at the Farm". I suppose this is just more of Julie's lies..
I think some words are missing. The sentence does not make sense as it is.
I think it was like this (I have said this before, sorry to bore....)
Julie: (Why on Earth are you calling me at this hour, are you OK?)
Jeremy: All is going well (with me, but) there's something wrong at the Farm.
That makes sense - just three little words and it makes sense, otherwise not!
-
I think some words are missing. The sentence does not make sense as it is.
I think it was like this (I have said this before, sorry to bore....)
Julie: (Why on Earth are you calling me at this hour, are you OK?)
Jeremy: All is going well (with me, but) there's something wrong at the Farm.
That makes sense - just three little words and it makes sense, otherwise not!
That's quite possible Alias. It's also possible that Jeremy wants to impart to Julie the knowledge that he has gone ahead with his plan as discussed in call no.1 but realizes that she is on a shared line and does not want to be blatant in case he is overheard.
-
Meaning that the harvesting was going well through the long days and hours he was putting in.
-
Meaning that the harvesting was going well through the long days and hours he was putting in.
But that was all discussed for twenty minutes in call 1 lookout,so why start the conversation at 2am on that subject?
-
Meaning that the harvesting was going well through the long days and hours he was putting in.
;D
-
Meaning that the harvesting was going well through the long days and hours he was putting in.
At 3 (ISH!!)in the morning after already having called her at around 10 when he'd finished work, he gets someone out of bed to get Julie out of bed to tell her what he could have said 5 hours earlier!!!!!!!!! Yeh, right!!!!! ::) ::) ::)
-
That's quite possible Alias. It's also possible that Jeremy wants to impart to Julie the knowledge that he has gone ahead with his plan as discussed in call no.1 but realizes that she is on a shared line and does not want to be blatant in case he is overheard.
Or uses that phrase to distance himself and allow him to shift the blame onto 'a hit man'
-
;D
;D to you too.
-
Or uses that phrase to distance himself and allow him to shift the blame onto 'a hit man'
He could always do that. Why call her in the middle of the night? It wouldn´t provide any kind of alibi for him.
I think he called her because he didn´t quite know what to do.
-
He could always do that. Why call her in the middle of the night? It wouldn´t provide any kind of alibi for him.
I think he called her because he didn´t quite know what to do.
Perhaps she was 'expecting' the call.
-
He could always do that. Why call her in the middle of the night? It wouldn´t provide any kind of alibi for him.
I think he called her because he didn´t quite know what to do.
;D
-
Did she support Jeremy's story of a telephone call from Nevill? How could she when she was in Lewisham and not Bourtree Cottage?
So what did you mean by the word "cover-up"?
-
So what did you mean by the word "cover-up"?
Well she was obviously shielding him from the Police at this early stage. As Lookout intimated it might have been a coincidence that the family had been slaughtered whilst Jeremy mused that he wished they were dead. Julie did not want to believe the horrible truth until Jeremy confessed over the hors d'oeuvres at Blazer's restaurant,Blackheath.
-
Well she was obviously shielding him from the Police at this early stage. As Lookout intimated it might have been a coincidence that the family had been slaughtered whilst Jeremy mused that he wished they were dead. Julie did not want to believe the horrible truth until Jeremy confessed over the hors d'oeuvres at Blazer's restaurant,Blackheath.
I think she may have been in denial, Steve.
-
Well she was obviously shielding him from the Police at this early stage. As Lookout intimated it might have been a coincidence that the family had been slaughtered whilst Jeremy mused that he wished they were dead. Julie did not want to believe the horrible truth until Jeremy confessed over the hors d'oeuvres at Blazer's restaurant,Blackheath.
But she always held that Jeremy hadn't told her outright that he did it. And in what possible way could she shield him?
-
But she always held that Jeremy hadn't told her outright that he did it. And in what possible way could she shield him?
Well if she gave a verbatim account of Jeremy's desire to kill his family the pressure would have been on him from 8th August, instead of his first interrogation on 10th September. It's true that Jeremy used a proxy as the scapegoat,but "don't blame yourself..I would have gone ahead with it anyway" is tantamount to a confession,don't you think,especially after Matthew Macdonald had been ruled out by enquiries.
-
Well if she gave a verbatim account of Jeremy's desire to kill his family the pressure would have been on him from 8th July,instead of his first interrogation on 10th September. It's true that Jeremy used a proxy as the scapegoat,but "don't blame yourself..I would have gone ahead with it anyway" is tantamount to a confession,don't you think,especially after Malcolm Macdonald had been ruled out by enquiries.
I'd have said it was as near as makes no difference to a confession.
-
Well if she gave a verbatim account of Jeremy's desire to kill his family the pressure would have been on him from 8th July,instead of his first interrogation on 10th September. It's true that Jeremy used a proxy as the scapegoat,but "don't blame yourself..I would have gone ahead with it anyway" is tantamount to a confession,don't you think,especially after Matthew Macdonald had been ruled out by enquiries.
Good answer.
-
Well if she gave a verbatim account of Jeremy's desire to kill his family the pressure would have been on him from 8th July,instead of his first interrogation on 10th September. It's true that Jeremy used a proxy as the scapegoat,but "don't blame yourself..I would have gone ahead with it anyway" is tantamount to a confession,don't you think,especially after Matthew Macdonald had been ruled out by enquiries.
Julie's word against his as as the hit man story that 'Julie' told police was discredited, he was probably arrogant enough to believe the police would believe him.