Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackiePreece on January 02, 2016, 04:20:PM
-
Was she forced
Not likely
She looked really proud of herself in those photos and probably heady from the champagne
-
for money
-
Because she was 21, free and wealthy.
-
Or because she was an immature 20 tesr old that didnt know any better,
-
June was right !!
-
Probably got more money from the NOTW.
-
Or because she was an immature 20 tesr old that didnt know any better,
I guess the same could have been said for most of us at that age. Most of us are allowed to be immature at 20. The only difference is we don't make the papers.
-
My mother would have wrapped the blooming basque around my neck.
-
Couldn't contain my goolies.
-
Couldn't contain my goolies.
TOO MUCH INFORMATION :o :o :o :o :o
-
She didn't ;D ;D ;D
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2580.0;attach=14905)
-
" I was under his spell "-----------my eye ! The same spell she was under when she accepted her" reward ?"
-
She didn't ;D ;D ;D
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2580.0;attach=14905)
I don't even know what a basque is. Is it a dated reference?
-
I don't even know what a basque is. Is it a dated reference?
It's in Spain Matt.
-
Was she forced
Not likely
She looked really proud of herself in those photos and probably heady from the champagne
It's not a basque, it's a toga.
-
A nightdress would be more fitting.
-
A nightdress would be more fitting.
A mask might have been better still. I don't imagine Adam was looking at her face when he implied he thought she was hot.
-
A mask might have been better still. I don't imagine Adam was looking at her face when he implied he thought she was hot.
I don't suppose he's fussy. You don't look at the mantlepiece when poking the fire.
-
It's in Spain Matt.
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't suppose he's fussy. You don't look at the mantlepiece when poking the fire.
And a ******* ******* has a mind of its own but no conscience ^-^ ^-^ ^-^
-
And a ******* ******* has a mind of its own but no conscience ^-^ ^-^ ^-^
I don't know that one.
-
I don't know that one.
Ya live 'n learn, Lookout ^-^ ^-^ ^-^
-
;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
And a ******* ******* has a mind of its own but no conscience ^-^ ^-^ ^-^
????? A what?
-
I don't know how a picture of Julie in the NOTW shows Bamber is innocent.
But I appreciate the campaign team and supporters must attempt to paint her in a bad light. Which is why there is a whole chapter on her on the OS and a recent 8 minute Youtube video.
Her minor 1984 crime is nothing to do with her WS. Her other crime was acting as a lookout when Bamber decided to rob his family of their hard earned money. Which she probably knew nothing about until Bamber took her there and told her to stand outside.
-
I don't know how a picture of Julie in the NOTW shows Bamber is innocent.
But I appreciate the campaign team and supporters must attempt to paint her in a bad light. Which is why there is a whole chapter on her on the OS and a recent 8 minute Youtube video.
Her minor 1984 crime is nothing to do with her WS. Her other crime was acting as a lookout when Bamber decided to rob his family of their hard earned money. Which she probably knew nothing about until Bamber took her there and told her to stand outside.
I do think people would take your arguments more seriously if you were less obsessive in your protection of Julie Mugford who showed herself to be very capable of looking after herself.
However much you argue to the contrary it is obvious to everybody that Julie Mugford didn't cover herself in glory however innocent she may have been concerning any of the crimes she was connected with. Insisting JM was clean as a whistle etc. Doesn't make Jeremy Bamber more guilty, you can't lengthen his sentence to continue after death.
-
I don't know how a picture of Julie in the NOTW shows Bamber is innocent.
But I appreciate the campaign team and supporters must attempt to paint her in a bad light. Which is why there is a whole chapter on her on the OS and a recent 8 minute Youtube video.
Her minor 1984 crime is nothing to do with her WS. Her other crime was acting as a lookout when Bamber decided to rob his family of their hard earned money. Which she probably knew nothing about until Bamber took her there and told her to stand outside.
who said it did ?
And do you think the article is appropriate in a case where 6 year old twins died , whoever is guilty?
She could have been influenced by Jeremy to sell drugs etc , but then again she may have been willing.
I personally still find her statements about identifying the bodies , when she said on the night she new HE had done it ( no mention of a hitman) very odd.
Even if Jeremy is guilty - I find them strange.
.
-
I don't get what JM did either. One day reading them bedtime stories,next time visiting a mortuary.
-
If she could look after herself, good. She needed to.
She was as clean as a whistle. In Lewisham when the massacre happened. Then being brought over by police car to be whisked over the country, and Amsterdam by Bamber. For one month. Telling five people what she knew, before going to the police.
I made her even cleaner this week. Showing 24 massive reasons why she would not attempt to frame an innocent Bamber, a month after the massacre. Even if she was bothered about a break up. No one would be that stupid.
But appreciate why Jackie has created a thread asking why Julie wore a basque.
-
who said it did ?
And do you think the article is appropriate in a case where 6 year old twins died , whoever is guilty?
She could have been influenced by Jeremy to sell drugs etc , but then again she may have been willing.
I personally still find her statements about identifying the bodies , when she said on the night she new HE had done it ( no mention of a hitman) very odd.
Even if Jeremy is guilty - I find them strange.
.
Well Bamber trying to sell pictures of Sheila to the Sun was worse. He also had a deal with the NOTW.
I prefer to discuss issues which highlight guilt or innocence.
Not why Julie wore a basque
Why would Julie know about a hit man, when she was in Lewisham ?
Bamber's WS is full of holes. TAC. It certainly does not have a 'ring of truth' to it.
-
If she could look after herself, good. She needed to.
She was as clean as a whistle. In Lewisham when the massacre happened. Then being brought over by police car to be whisked over the country, and Amsterdam by Bamber. For one month. Telling five people what she knew, before going to the police.
I made her even cleaner this week. Showing 24 massive reasons why she would not attempt to frame an innocent Bamber, a month after the massacre. Even if she was bothered about a break up. No one would be that stupid.
But appreciate why Jackie has created a thread asking why Julie wore a basque.
No YOU did not make her cleaner this week.
She herself admitted she felt guilty because she wondered if she had gone to the police earlier would she have stopped the murders. Well actually even if the police had not believed her story it would have done - because Jeremy would have had to abandon all his plans if there was anything on police records about him "allegedly" trying to drug ,murder,burn down the family house with the family inside - wouldn't he?
-
No YOU did not make her cleaner this week.
She herself admitted she felt guilty because she wondered if she had gone to the police earlier would she have stopped the murders. Well actually even if the police had not believed her story it would have done - because Jeremy would have had to abandon all his plans if there was anything on police records about him "allegedly" trying to drug ,murder,burn down the family house with the family inside - wouldn't he?
I know I bang on about this but 'strangely' although feeling so 'guilty' for not going to the police before the murders, she went with Jeremy to Colin's home for the weekend after the murders. She slept with Jeremy and commiserated with Colin knowing what she said she knew. I understand she was only 20 but I find this unbelievable, so lacking in compassion, so much conniving with the murderer of Colin's little boys, 'words fail me.....
I do wonder if she actually understood the concept of 'guilty'.
-
I know I bang on about this but 'strangely' although feeling so 'guilty' for not going to the police before the murders, she went with Jeremy to Colin's home for the weekend after the murders. She slept with Jeremy and commiserated with Colin knowing what she said she knew. I understand she was only 20 but I find this unbelievable, so lacking in compassion, so much conniving with the murderer of Colin's little boys, 'words fail me.....
I do wonder if she actually understood the concept of 'guilty'.
Its the one thing I think Colin left out of his book -what she actually said to him. Wonder why?
-
If she could look after herself, good. She needed to.
She was as clean as a whistle. In Lewisham when the massacre happened. Then being brought over by police car to be whisked over the country, and Amsterdam by Bamber. For one month. Telling five people what she knew, before going to the police.
I made her even cleaner this week. Showing 24 massive reasons why she would not attempt to frame an innocent Bamber, a month after the massacre. Even if she was bothered about a break up. No one would be that stupid.
But appreciate why Jackie has created a thread asking why Julie wore a basque.
Nothing you can say or do makes the Julie she was then, clean. She looked like a xxxx, she dressed like a xxxx, and she behaved like a xxxx. Is it any wonder she was labelled such? She did it all by herself. It has no bearing on Jeremy's innocence/guilt.
-
The important issue, is whether it is plausible that the police would ask Julie to create a false WS. TAC.
Julie deciding by herself, to attempt to frame Bamber for a crime she knew he did not commit, a month afterwards, did not happen. Everybody knows this.
At the moment, my thread on this shows the police did not ask Julie to do this. Her WS is not compatible with it being drawn up by the police.
Whether Julie should have told the police before the massacre, why she wore a basque, or when she signed the NOTW deal are all trivial issues.
-
I need to know why Mugford dressed like she did for the newspaper
It had to do with her obsession with money
How bad was her obsession with money?
There was no way the NOTW would have said you cannot do the interview unless you dress as we want you to
Or was it her final chance of revenge to Jeremy because she knew he would find out about the article
She certainly took 'if I can't have you nobody can'
To a whole new level
-
I know I bang on about this but 'strangely' although feeling so 'guilty' for not going to the police before the murders, she went with Jeremy to Colin's home for the weekend after the murders. She slept with Jeremy and commiserated with Colin knowing what she said she knew. I understand she was only 20 but I find this unbelievable, so lacking in compassion, so much conniving with the murderer of Colin's little boys, 'words fail me.....
I do wonder if she actually understood the concept of 'guilty'.
This is the whole reason I could never believe Julie
Does a women exist who could do this and would they sell their story and not be ashamed and Maggie I too wonder why Colin never spoke about the visit
-
The important issue, is whether it is plausible that the police would ask Julie to create a false WS. TAC.
Julie deciding by herself, to attempt to frame Bamber for a crime she knew he did not commit, a month afterwards, did not happen. Everybody knows this.
At the moment, my thread on this shows the police did not ask Julie to do this. Her WS is not compatible with it being drawn up by the police.
Whether Julie should have told the police before the massacre, why she wore a basque, or when she signed the NOTW deal are all trivial issues.
No Adam - If you are going to use a character assassination against Jeremy ( which you often do) to back up your claims of his guilt then you have to accept that Julie as the KEY witness in the case must come under scrutiny.
If we don't understand some of her actions , EVEN if Jeremy is guilty then we are entitled to comment and they are NOT trivial.
The deal with NOW is not trivial it is as important as the meeting about photos of Sheila.
she could have been charged with contempt of court . She could have been charged with fraud,smuggling,burglary and perverting the course of justice by not going to the police for a month.
So she was either a weak naïve easily influenced young girl - or cunning and manipulative and all of that is relevant to the case.
-
No Adam - If you are going to use a character assassination against Jeremy ( which you often do) to back up your claims of his guilt then you have to accept that Julie as the KEY witness in the case must come under scrutiny.
If we don't understand some of her actions , EVEN if Jeremy is guilty then we are entitled to comment and they are NOT trivial.
The deal with NOW is not trivial it is as important as the meeting about photos of Sheila.
she could have been charged with contempt of court . She could have been charged with fraud,smuggling,burglary and perverting the course of justice by not going to the police for a month.
So she was either a weak naïve easily influenced young girl - or cunning and manipulative and all of that is relevant to the case.
But that works both ways.
-
I need to know why Mugford dressed like she did for the newspaper
It had to do with her obsession with money
How bad was her obsession with money?
There was no way the NOTW would have said you cannot do the interview unless you dress as we want you to
Or was it her final chance of revenge to Jeremy because she knew he would find out about the article
She certainly took 'if I can't have you nobody can'
To a whole new level
I think it may have been a 20 year old Julie's way of sticking her fingers up at Jeremy, as in "Look at me no. That'll teach you to dump me." There is a tendency to imbue her with one reason and one reason ONLY. You'd probably run out of fingers if you tried to list all her reasons/feelings.
-
But that works both ways.
exactly - which is what I am trying to explain to Adam.
-
Here is the 2001 press release I referred to earlier
THEN, she was the beautiful 21-year-old brunette whose evidence was vital in convicting her boyfriend Jeremy Bamber of the cold- blooded murder of his whole family.
Now, she is a respectable and matronly mother-of-two, a tireless charity worker and the deputy head of a primary school in Canada.
Everything about Julie Mugford's life has changed except for one crucial fact - she is still utterly convinced Bamber DID slaughter his adoptive parents Nevill and June, his sister Sheila Caffell and her twin six-year-old sons Nicholas and Daniel at the family's Essex farmhouse in 1985.
In 2001, Julie, then 36, said: "I thought this was long in the past. The last few weeks have been a nightmare. As far as I am concerned nothing has changed - I sincerely believe he is guilty. Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life.
"And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case I still believe he is guilty. He has a right to appeal, that is the law. It is just very hard for me to accept.
"At this stage the appeal process is so sketchy that I have no idea what is going on."
A friend added: "It is something Julie has never really recovered from. Ultimately it was her evidence that put him behind bars and it is something she still has nightmares about. She still grieves for his family and wonders if she could have averted the murders by telling the police about his scheming beforehand."
In 2001, Julie feared she could be called to give evidence at the appeal and consulted Canadian lawyers for advice.
"She dreads having to face Bamber again in court. She is afraid he could come after her and her family if he is freed. It's tragic. She has been so happy here in Canada."
Also in 2001, Julie was appointed vice-principal at John M King Elementary, an inner- city junior school. and later moved into a detached house with its own swimming pool in one of Winnipeg's best suburbs.
"Julie is a pillar of the community - you would never believe she was once tangled up in a mass murder," her friend said.
"The Bamber case was kept a complete secret. Only Glen and a handful of people knew about it."
Sandy-haired Glen, 40, said: "I've known about this for many years, but we only told a few family members and very close friends. Julie just wishes it would all go away and we could get on with our lives.
"We just can't believe this man could be freed. We are worried about our kids. We hope it never happens
-
exactly - which is what I am trying to explain to Adam.
I think it extends to more than just Adam (no, I don't mean you).
-
"
"And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case I still believe he is guilty. He has a right to appeal, that is the law. It is just very hard for me to accept"
So if she thinks there is a possibility of NEW light on the case , and she was telling the truth, does she think Jeremy was winding her up or something? that he could have been boasting about the crime but did not do it?
-
"
"And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case I still believe he is guilty. He has a right to appeal, that is the law. It is just very hard for me to accept"
So if she thinks there is a possibility of NEW light on the case , and she was telling the truth, does she think Jeremy was winding her up or something? that he could have been boasting about the crime but did not do it?
I think she makes it clear that she FULLY believes that he is guilty. Maybe she too doesn't believe the silencer evidence.
-
She believes he is guilty
Why doesn't she say she know he is guilty if he really told her tonight's the night etc
-
She believes he is guilty
Why doesn't she say she know he is guilty if he really told her tonight's the night etc
Actually, I find "believing" far more emphatic than "knowing".
-
sames as Bewes.
But to be fair she said after the trial that he NEVER admitted he had done it . So deep down she does not know 100% does she ? But the chances of him making up all the plots and stories and then not being guilty must be quite remote?
-
sames as Bewes.
But to be fair she said after the trial that he NEVER admitted he had done it . So deep down she does not know 100% does she ? But the chances of him making up all the plots and stories and then not being guilty must be quite remote?
She can only know if she was there but he also told her he hired someone. I completely agree with your last sentence.
-
Although it is 30 years it would be interesting to know who many other newspapers were approached to buy Mugfords story
It's something a good investigative journalist could look into and I wonder if Carol tried going down that path
Someone who contacted me a long while ago with regard to writing to Jeremy and her interest was her mother was part of the press who covered the Bamber trial
She might be able to help with some names
-
She can only know if she was there but he also told her he hired someone. I completely agree with your last sentence.
which is why it is important that her testimony is 100% not embellished in order to fit the crime scene and circumstances.
In some ways I hope it is not , because how could you live with yourself.
-
Although it is 30 years it would be interesting to know who many other newspapers were approached to buy Mugfords story
It's something a good investigative journalist could look into and I wonder if Carol tried going down that path
Someone who contacted me a long while ago with regard to writing to Jeremy and her interest was her mother was part of the press who covered the Bamber trial
She might be able to help with some names
I think they were all approaching her and we do know her stories about press harassment were true.
she only gave one other magazine interview as she was unhappy with the NOW one. Is that on the forum?
-
sames as Bewes.
But to be fair she said after the trial that he NEVER admitted he had done it . So deep down she does not know 100% does she ? But the chances of him making up all the plots and stories and then not being guilty must be quite remote?
And did he not tell her, in a restaurant, that there was nothing she could have done to stop it...............or words to that effect?
-
which is why it is important that her testimony is 100% not embellished in order to fit the crime scene and circumstances.
In some ways I hope it is not , because how could you live with yourself.
But it doesn't fit the crime scene, he told her a hit man was responsible. I believe he thought she would be discredited because he didn't tell her the full truth.
-
I think they were all approaching her and we do know her stories about press harassment were true.
she only gave one other magazine interview as she was unhappy with the NOW one. Is that on the forum?
I think it's an important point if Mugford spoke to other newspapers about deals before trial as its proof she lied during trial
Was the NOTW the highest bidder
-
But it doesn't fit the crime scene, he told her a hit man was responsible. I believe he thought she would be discredited because he didn't tell her the full truth.
still put himself in the frame as being involved though.
-
still put himself in the frame as being involved though.
Yes, but if part of it is seen to be untrue, I think the thought they would just believe she was seeking revenge for being dumped.
-
What is the difference in organising for 2 children and 3 adults to be murdered or murdering 2 children and 3 adults
Does Mugford really expect us to believe one is better than the other
Very clever way to implicate Jeremy but make herself not look so bad herself for staying with him
-
I think it's an important point if Mugford spoke to other newspapers about deals before trial as its proof she lied during trial
Was the NOTW the highest bidder
She might have behaved like a xxxx but I don't see her avariciously poring over deals offered by diverse publications. Her solicitor told her he'd get the best deal he could.
-
It's the timing of the negotiations with each newspaper I am interested
I am just interested in the truth and facts
-
It's the timing of the negotiations with each newspaper I am interested
I am just interested in the truth and facts
I think it's understood that whilst it may be morally reprehensible, because what she gave by way of testimony was previously set in stone, nothing illegal happened.
-
It's not your opinion that I am interested in
-
I think it's understood that whilst it may be morally reprehensible, because what she gave by way of testimony was previously set in stone, nothing illegal happened.
if she lied to the judge and that was proven that would be contempt of court- so she could have been charged.
-
if she lied to the judge and that was proven that would be contempt of court- so she could have been charged.
If.
-
if she lied to the judge and that was proven that would be contempt of court- so she could have been charged.
Jan I am absolutely sure there is evidence Mugford lied in court re NOTW contract
She would remember when she signed the contract, she is just not prepared to say
-
Jan I am absolutely sure there is evidence Mugford lied in court re NOTW contract
She would remember when she signed the contract, she is just not prepared to say
Your OPINION that she would remember when she signed the contract isn't evidence of anything.
-
Mata Hari.
-
Mata Hari.
What about her?
-
Your OPINION that she would remember when she signed the contract isn't evidence of anything.
It's an opinion until it's available to his legal team
You are naive if you think that information is IMPOSSIBLE to find
-
What about her?
She was a " harlot " too.
-
It's an opinion until it's available to his legal team
You are naive if you think that information is IMPOSSIBLE to find
You're confused on what you are trying to prove. Finding a document that is signed and dated BEFORE the trial, which is apparently what has come up, doesn't prove she lied about forgetting when it was signed.
Finding the signed dated document would only prove her a liar if she had said she'd signed it AFTER the trial. But she didn't, she said she didn't remember.
-
You're confused on what you are trying to prove. Finding a document that is signed and dated BEFORE the trial, which is apparently what has come up, doesn't prove she lied about forgetting when it was signed.
Finding the signed dated document would only prove her a liar if she had said she'd signed it AFTER the trial. But she didn't, she said she didn't remember.
She quite clearly was speaking to her lawyer about it before the trial - she says that in her statements ,so to say she had no intention of selling her story was certainly stretching the truth a bit though.