Jeremy Bamber Forum

JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Roch on April 13, 2011, 11:31:PM

Title: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Roch on April 13, 2011, 11:31:PM
Mike,

if you have copies of different and differing statements by JM, within the evidence available to you, is it possible you could post these?  Perhaps in chronological order?  This would allow posters to test the theory that JM may have been 'coached'.  It might help posters to assess how far any alleged statements from JB to JM may have been 'adjusted'. 

Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: FredPerry on April 14, 2011, 11:04:AM
nn ink it has  been mentioned once before,but isn't it just possible JM wasn't in fact being "coached" but that the police wanted to ensure she was telling the truth and did not change details of her story, particularly under pressure etc ? After all they would hardly want their main witness to be lying, it would be a complete waste of their time to put her on the stand otherwise!
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: FredPerry on April 14, 2011, 11:05:AM
Sorry should say I think  at start
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Hartley on April 14, 2011, 11:21:AM
I think it has  been mentioned once before,but isn't it just possible JM wasn't in fact being "coached" but that the police wanted to ensure she was telling the truth and did not change details of her story, particularly under pressure etc ? After all they would hardly want their main witness to be lying, it would be a complete waste of their time to put her on the stand otherwise!

Of course it's possible and has been accepted by the courts.

The unsubstantiated claims of lying or being coached is just a theory without evidence.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: grahameb on April 14, 2011, 11:42:AM
nn ink it has  been mentioned once before,but isn't it just possible JM wasn't in fact being "coached" but that the police wanted to ensure she was telling the truth and did not change details of her story, particularly under pressure etc ? After all they would hardly want their main witness to be lying, it would be a complete waste of their time to put her on the stand otherwise!
That seems to be the logical line to take. To continually interview her to see if there are any inconsistencies in her story. I simply don't buy the theory that EP wanted to convict JB no matter what? Anyway it is the counsel's job to "coach" the witness. And they do it because they want what is said in the witness box to match what they have in her written statement. They all do it. It is normal practice. Every counsel wants to win a case and they will do it within the law. To hell with justice, as long as it is within the framework of the law. And so that is why not everything is brought out in court even vital evidence sometimes will be left out because it doesn't fit within their framework.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: lebaleb on April 21, 2011, 08:29:AM
Reading about JM's testemony
http://www.homepage-link.to/JUSTICE/judgements/Bamber/index.html
section 107,
She states that Jeremy told her that there was a bit of a problem with Neville putting up a fight and that Shiela had been told to lie down and shoot herself last. Strangely, no mention of the difficulties with the silencer. Since according to JM, Jeremy had no problem confessing to her all the details, why would he leave out the crucial part when he realised Shiela couldn't reach the trigger with the silencer attached? Plus why would he say the bible was on her chest when the photos show it on the floor next to her??
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Kaldin on April 21, 2011, 09:37:AM
Reading about JM's testemony
http://www.homepage-link.to/JUSTICE/judgements/Bamber/index.html
section 107,
She states that Jeremy told her that there was a bit of a problem with Neville putting up a fight and that Shiela had been told to lie down and shoot herself last. Strangely, no mention of the difficulties with the silencer. Since according to JM, Jeremy had no problem confessing to her all the details, why would he leave out the crucial part when he realised Shiela couldn't reach the trigger with the silencer attached? Plus why would he say the bible was on her chest when the photos show it on the floor next to her??

I agree. Also, if Sheila was told to shoot to herself and that's what she did, then there would be no reason for the killer to move her body afterwards or plant her hand on the gun.

I'm not at all convinced that the Bible was not moved - the blood stains on it are strange and at some point someone closed it and opened it again. You can see where the blood from one page is mirrored on the other page. Whether it was originally on her chest is not clear.

Jeremy apparently told Julie that Nevill had put up a fight so he had been shot seven times. There was no mention of him being shot in the bedroom first.

If Jeremy really did tell Julie that story he got a lot of it wrong considering he was supposed to have been there carrying out the murders himself.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: grahameb on April 21, 2011, 10:37:AM
Reading about JM's testemony
http://www.homepage-link.to/JUSTICE/judgements/Bamber/index.html
section 107,
She states that Jeremy told her that there was a bit of a problem with Neville putting up a fight and that Shiela had been told to lie down and shoot herself last. Strangely, no mention of the difficulties with the silencer. Since according to JM, Jeremy had no problem confessing to her all the details, why would he leave out the crucial part when he realised Shiela couldn't reach the trigger with the silencer attached? Plus why would he say the bible was on her chest when the photos show it on the floor next to her??
If anyone reading this was told by someone to lie down and shoot yourself how many would do it?
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: clifford on April 21, 2011, 10:48:AM
Reading about JM's testemony
http://www.homepage-link.to/JUSTICE/judgements/Bamber/index.html
section 107,
She states that Jeremy told her that there was a bit of a problem with Neville putting up a fight and that Shiela had been told to lie down and shoot herself last. Strangely, no mention of the difficulties with the silencer. Since according to JM, Jeremy had no problem confessing to her all the details, why would he leave out the crucial part when he realised Shiela couldn't reach the trigger with the silencer attached? Plus why would he say the bible was on her chest when the photos show it on the floor next to her??
If anyone reading this was told by someone to lie down and shoot yourself how many would do it?
If she had just seen the slaughter of her family, especually her children she may of just wanted to die.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: smiffy on April 21, 2011, 10:57:AM
Grahame posted;

If anyone reading this was told by someone to lie down and shoot yourself how many would do it?


hmm very few I would think...however who knows what any particular person with a schizophrenic condition may do...especially unpredictable if having a delusion brought on ...say if a killer was killing the others??

someone who hands you a firearm  ..loaded......after they killed others in your family..or before...why not shoot the person telling you what to do!!!!
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Alias on April 21, 2011, 11:50:AM
Grahame posted;

If anyone reading this was told by someone to lie down and shoot yourself how many would do it?


hmm very few I would think...however who knows what any particular person with a schizophrenic condition may do...especially unpredictable if having a delusion brought on ...say if a killer was killing the others??

someone who hands you a firearm  ..loaded......after they killed others in your family..or before...why not shoot the person telling you what to do!!!!

Personally I find that very, very unlikely!
It could be interesting to start a thread about inconsistencies, unlikely claims and perhaps even lies in Julie Mugford´s testimony, going through it systematically and meticulously. To me there seem to be many. I don´t want to start such a thread, since as a noob, I don´t know if it has already been done. Has it?
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Jackiepreece on April 21, 2011, 12:42:PM
Cliff i disagree with you i cant think of a single women that would lay down and shoot herself if her children had just been killed more likely completely flip out and have the strength of an ox

There is no way she would do that if her children had been killed
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Alias on April 21, 2011, 12:51:PM
Cliff i disagree with you i cant think of a single women that would lay down and shoot herself if her children had just been killed more likely completely flip out and have the strength of an ox

There is no way she would do that if her children had been killed

I agree. She would have fought to try to save her kids. People are in denial right after a loved one passes away - I don´t think it would have sunk in that her kids were really dead. She would have put up one hell of a resistance - yet she is lying there looking almost peaceful - that is strange!
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: sandy on April 21, 2011, 12:51:PM
It is the same old story, making comments without knowing the facts.  Sheila was taking medication for her condition which left her sedated. What would you do if a gun was pushed in your face hero??

Sheila would not have know anyone was dead, let alone her two sons.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Jackiepreece on April 21, 2011, 01:05:PM
I dont know anything about suicide but she seemed a really troubled soul maybe she felt at peace before killing herself

I hate it when people say suicide victims are selfish because you would not really know what you were doing I used to work with a nice guy he had only got married a year before and he was an only child and he was only 23 he started a new job at a hotel in Colchester as a trainee manager and he was only there 3 months and one night he went into the hotel garage and hung himself and before he had hung himself he had tried to cut his wrists.  He left no note and i think of sheila shooting herself twice if the first bullet hadnt killed her.  In her head she just wanted some peace i know colin thought she was capable of suicide so was her doctor
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Jackiepreece on April 21, 2011, 01:09:PM
Sandy its the same old story pot  kettle


Sheila wasnt sedated when she frightened the meter man

As you know all about Sheila could you post copies of her medical notes it might help us make up our mind if jb is guilty

You must have some compelling hidden evidence

I bet the ccrc are waiting with bated breath
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: sandy on April 21, 2011, 01:25:PM
Sandy its the same old story pot  kettle


Sheila wasnt sedated when she frightened the meter man

As you know all about Sheila could you post copies of her medical notes it might help us make up our mind if jb is guilty

You must have some compelling hidden evidence

I bet the ccrc are waiting with bated breath

I have no need for medical notes to know that Sheila was on as it is all there but you choose to ignore the facts since you are obviously be-smitten by everything Jeremy.

Analysis of samples of Sheila’s blood and urine taken during the post mortem examination indicated that she had consumed cannabis some days before her death and she had made therapeutic use of the prescribed anti-psychotic drug, haloperidol.

Read and learn dear!
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Jackiepreece on April 21, 2011, 01:32:PM
Can you not call me dear it is really pissing me off now it might be alright for the people you mix with but i am not your dear

Every bloody time I back someone in to a corner the person in question says i am just saying things in defence of JB because i am smitten with him

You dont know me and you are once again jumping on the bandwagon of i am only helping someone because i fancy them

When I get time i am going to list everyone that has said that it is hilarious

Dont be a wanker Sandy just answer the questions
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: sandy on April 21, 2011, 01:43:PM
Hit a nerve have we Jackie dear??    :-*
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Jackiepreece on April 21, 2011, 04:17:PM
No Sandy I havent hit a nerve if I fancied JB or was in a relationship with him i would quite happily shout it from the rooftops why wouldnt I because I think he is innocent

I definately would not hide it
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: smiffy on April 21, 2011, 05:21:PM
I have noticed sandy's evasiveness and refusal to answer simple questions.
In my view it shows a weakness in the arguments or claims he wishes to make.

hmm I have found the word "compelling" is far to frequently used in courts to make the flimsiest  and weakest and unreliable and credible claims seem better than they really are.

I am satisfied that JM's evidence is heavily fabricated and has little credibility and virtually no reliabity.


People can accept or reject anyones evidence in part or in total.
Just because a witness lies in some parts of their evidence does not mean it all should be automatically rejected as some of the things they say may be true.






Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Roch on April 21, 2011, 05:24:PM
The reason why I used 'compelling' in this thread was because I have read on several occasions that people who were in court found her testimony compelling.  No response from Mike about the statements prior to the trial so it looks like he can't post them. 
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Kaldin on April 21, 2011, 06:35:PM
Reading about JM's testemony
http://www.homepage-link.to/JUSTICE/judgements/Bamber/index.html
section 107,
She states that Jeremy told her that there was a bit of a problem with Neville putting up a fight and that Shiela had been told to lie down and shoot herself last. Strangely, no mention of the difficulties with the silencer. Since according to JM, Jeremy had no problem confessing to her all the details, why would he leave out the crucial part when he realised Shiela couldn't reach the trigger with the silencer attached? Plus why would he say the bible was on her chest when the photos show it on the floor next to her??
If anyone reading this was told by someone to lie down and shoot yourself how many would do it?
If she had just seen the slaughter of her family, especually her children she may of just wanted to die.

She'd be more likely to want to kill the murderer I would have thought.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: sandy on April 21, 2011, 07:25:PM
The reason why I used 'compelling' in this thread was because I have read on several occasions that people who were in court found her testimony compelling.  No response from Mike about the statements prior to the trial so it looks like he can't post them.

No he can't post them or a copy of Jeremy's evidence in chief as such does not exist apparently.  :o
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: smiffy on April 22, 2011, 09:02:AM
Rochford Sheilds posted;

The reason why I used 'compelling' in this thread was because I have read on several occasions that people who were in court found her testimony compelling.  No response from Mike about the statements prior to the trial so it looks like he can't post them.   

I was not having a go at yourself for the title of the thread Rochford. In fact your highlighting of "compelling evidence" itself shows a belief that it may be as compelling as it was made out to be.

Your answer of reading about people in court finding her evidence compelling appears more to be from  journalistic sources or similar rather than from the horses mouth. 

From the knowledge of JM's evidence that I am aware of I cannot possibly form the view of it being compelling towards JB's guilt..but find convincing of JM's deceptive nature and unreliablity and credibility.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: sandy on April 22, 2011, 03:23:PM
The reason why I used 'compelling' in this thread was because I have read on several occasions that people who were in court found her testimony compelling.  No response from Mike about the statements prior to the trial so it looks like he can't post them.

She indeed, Julie Mugfords evidence was checked out in as much as it could be before the trial and police were quite certain that her testimony was true and accurate.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Roch on April 22, 2011, 03:41:PM
The reason why I used 'compelling' in this thread was because I have read on several occasions that people who were in court found her testimony compelling.  No response from Mike about the statements prior to the trial so it looks like he can't post them.

She indeed, Julie Mugfords evidence was checked out in as much as it could be before the trial and police were quite certain that her testimony was true and accurate.

After 30 odd attempts I would hope so.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: sandy on April 22, 2011, 04:03:PM
I think you will find that the statements were taken in order to be absolutely sure that Julie knew what she was talking about. Better to take 30 than to take one or two if the information is so crucial that a man's life depended upon it validity.

Full marks to Julie for telling it as it was, I am quite sure that the whole ordeal haunts her to this very day.

Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Jackiepreece on April 22, 2011, 04:55:PM
I bet it haunts Colin as well the sight of two faced lieing mugford standing next to him at the funeral

I would love to know what Colin would feel like if her met her now especially knowing about her blood money


Sandy what do you thinks Colin feels about mugford and the fact she made money out of talking about his dead children

Do you think Colin would give her full marks Sandy

Keep coming out with rubbish like that the Wanker label will stick

You sound almost proud of her like a proud mother or father
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: sandy on April 22, 2011, 04:57:PM
I bet it haunts Colin as well the sight of two faced lieing mugford standing next to him at the funeral

I would love to know what Colin would feel like if her met her now especially knowing about her blood money


Sandy what do you thinks Colin feels about mugford and the fact she made money out of talking about his dead children

Do you think Colin would give her full marks Sandy

Keep coming out with rubbish like that the Wanker label will stick

You sound almost proud of her like a proud mother or father

She reminds me of you Jackie, all hot air!!   ;D ;D ;D

What's wrong Jackie, did Jeremy not reply??
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: sandy on April 22, 2011, 05:02:PM
I bet it haunts Colin as well the sight of two faced lieing mugford standing next to him at the funeral

I would love to know what Colin would feel like if her met her now especially knowing about her blood money


Sandy what do you thinks Colin feels about mugford and the fact she made money out of talking about his dead children

Do you think Colin would give her full marks Sandy

Keep coming out with rubbish like that the Wanker label will stick

You sound almost proud of her like a proud mother or father

Colin has every right to hate Mugford since if she had spoken to the authorities soon the whole thing would have been prevented and Jeremy would now be a free man.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Jackiepreece on April 22, 2011, 05:15:PM
First of all anything that I was told in confidence i would not repeat unless I was told it was ok

You might get a little teaser like you get for a movie or I might decide to share it by private message to people I trust

The relationship I have with Jeremy is about as good as it could get and I am 100% behind him

As for your stupid ridiculous comment full marks for speaking out

I take it you mean the news of the world

I am trying to think of a word to describe you

Oh that's it

Prick
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: chochokeira on April 22, 2011, 05:19:PM
It is the same old story, making comments without knowing the facts.  Sheila was taking medication for her condition which left her sedated. What would you do if a gun was pushed in your face hero??

Sheila would not have know anyone was dead, let alone her two sons.


I'm sure you're aware that Sheila had stopped taking her medication, sandy.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Kaldin on April 22, 2011, 05:26:PM
It is the same old story, making comments without knowing the facts.  Sheila was taking medication for her condition which left her sedated. What would you do if a gun was pushed in your face hero??

Sheila would not have know anyone was dead, let alone her two sons.


I'm sure you're aware that Sheila had stopped taking her medication, sandy.

Sheila didn't need to take haliperidol because she had injections. Her last last injection was on 11th July and it was half her usual dose. I think she had been prescribed other drugs earlier in the year, but I'm not sure if she was taking any of them. There was nothing found at the post mortem.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: sandy on April 22, 2011, 05:29:PM
It is the same old story, making comments without knowing the facts.  Sheila was taking medication for her condition which left her sedated. What would you do if a gun was pushed in your face hero??

Sheila would not have know anyone was dead, let alone her two sons.


I'm sure you're aware that Sheila had stopped taking her medication, sandy.

Sheila didn't need to take haliperidol because she had injections. Her last last injection was on 11th July and it was half her usual dose. I think she had been prescribed other drugs earlier in the year, but I'm not sure if she was taking any of them. There was nothing found at the post mortem.

Sorry but it was detected in her bloodstream at post mortem.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Kaldin on April 22, 2011, 05:32:PM
It is the same old story, making comments without knowing the facts.  Sheila was taking medication for her condition which left her sedated. What would you do if a gun was pushed in your face hero??

Sheila would not have know anyone was dead, let alone her two sons.


I'm sure you're aware that Sheila had stopped taking her medication, sandy.

Sheila didn't need to take haliperidol because she had injections. Her last last injection was on 11th July and it was half her usual dose. I think she had been prescribed other drugs earlier in the year, but I'm not sure if she was taking any of them. There was nothing found at the post mortem.

Sorry but it was detected in her bloodstream at post mortem.

I meant the other drugs she'd been prescribed earlier that year. I know they found haloperidol and cannabis.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: sandy on April 22, 2011, 06:08:PM
Ah so.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Kaldin on April 22, 2011, 06:30:PM
By the way, here's Julie's statement to the police which she made on 8th August.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=556.0;attach=1890;image

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=556.0;attach=1891;image
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Alias on April 22, 2011, 06:38:PM
By the way, here's Julie's statement to the police which she made on 8th August.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=556.0;attach=1890;image

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=556.0;attach=1891;image

Interesting.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: sandy on April 22, 2011, 06:43:PM
By the way, here's Julie's statement to the police which she made on 8th August.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=556.0;attach=1890;image

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=556.0;attach=1891;image

Interesting.

Do you have her final statements in which she opened up to the police?
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Kaldin on April 22, 2011, 07:56:PM
By the way, here's Julie's statement to the police which she made on 8th August.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=556.0;attach=1890;image

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=556.0;attach=1891;image

Interesting.

Do you have her final statements in which she opened up to the police?

No I don't I'm afraid. They may be around somewhere but I don't recall seeing them. I've seen a statement from her about the cheque book fraud and about her selling her story. Those are on Sleuthing for Justice, which is a private forum so you need to be a member to read it. Some of her statements might be on here - if you don't mind trawling through a lot of threads, or maybe Mike has them.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: sandy on April 22, 2011, 08:00:PM
Why do you think her statements are so hard to find?   Could it be that they don't now exist in the same way that Jeremy's evidence in chief does not now apparently exist?
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Kaldin on April 22, 2011, 08:02:PM
Why do you think her statements are so hard to find?   Could it be that they don't now exist in the same way that Jeremy's evidence in chief does not now apparently exist?

They may have been posted somewhere, I don't know. All I know is that I haven't seen them.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: sandy on April 22, 2011, 08:07:PM
I think they don't exist and if they do I suspect mike doesn't have them.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Kaldin on April 22, 2011, 08:07:PM
I think they don't exist and if they do I suspect mike doesn't have them.

Do you mean the statements she gave when she shopped Jeremy? They must exist or there would have been no case.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: sandy on April 22, 2011, 08:57:PM
I mean they no longer exist just like the transcript of Jeremy's evidence in chief.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Kaldin on April 22, 2011, 09:03:PM
I mean they no longer exist just like the transcript of Jeremy's evidence in chief.

OK. I don't know why they would have been destroyed though.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: sandy on April 22, 2011, 09:05:PM
or lost maybe??
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: Kaldin on April 22, 2011, 09:11:PM
or lost maybe??

Maybe. Shame really as I would like to have seen those.
Title: Re: From Julie Mugford's statements to her 'compelling evidence'
Post by: sandy on April 25, 2011, 01:37:AM
The reason why I used 'compelling' in this thread was because I have read on several occasions that people who were in court found her testimony compelling.  No response from Mike about the statements prior to the trial so it looks like he can't post them.

Her evidence was compelling and extremely to the point.  Even the maestro himself couldn't trip her up.