Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackieD on July 30, 2017, 01:44:PM
-
A New Approach
There has been a number of documentaries and books made about the Whitehouse Farm Murders but I believe the standard of true crime documentaries has risen immensely and TVs companies are now commissioning true crime series as well as one offs.
I believe everyone on this forum would agree it is impossible to portray what happened at WHF, the aftermath, the trial and the conviction in one hour. I know that Mark Williams Thomas believes Jeremy Bamber is innocent but he had an impossible task to squeeze everything he wanted to highlight about the case in the 60 minutes (less ad breaks). He was also desperate to interview Julie Mugford and was quite happy to fly to Canada to do this.
Because this case is still discussed in the media and documentary makers are still interested in working with Jeremy there needs to be much detailed information available on a programme to gain more public interest
I believe a documentary should start with the conviction and work backwards starting with why the jury found Jeremy guilty
Part one and two
(1) The silencer, who found it, forensics etc
(2) Julie Mugford How she apparently
knew Jeremy was planning to
murder his family, how she apparently
knew from Jeremy the night before
the murders his plans and she knew
Jeremy was responsible straight after
the murders Jeremy was responsible
for the murders. How Julie volunteered
to identify the bodies of victims
murdered (including 2 small children)
when she knew her boyfriend was
responsible. How Julie stood shoulder
to shoulder with Colin Caffell (the
father of the two young children
murdered) at the funerals at the same
time comforting Jeremy Bamber.
How Julie Mugford carried on sleeping
and partying with Jeremy for weeks
after the murders and funerals.
Julie showed how dishonest she was
carrying out a number of cheque
frauds in London and being involved
in a robbery at the Bamber caravan
park
With any documentary it will be
important to show Julie did not speak
to the police to tell them she knew
Jeremy was responsible until Jeremy
finished their relationship
Probably one of the most important
factors that should be included is the
deal Julie Mugford did with the News
Of the world to get a £25,000 if
Jeremy was convicted. Julie Mugford
has never been convicted of any of her
crimes
With regard to the above most of this
has never been included in a
documentary before because of the
time factor and I am sure if the six part
documentary is commissioned the
general public will start to look at
the case differently
Could Julie Mugford be trusted? she
was a prolific liar and she made a lot of
money from the NOTW on Jeremy's
conviction and acted without a doubt
as a women scorned
If this documentary is made
accurately it might even push Julie
into saying what really happened in
all those police interviews and why
would she offer to identify 3 adults
and 2 children when she knew they
had been murdered by her
boyfriend
After details of the silencer and more information is broadcast about Julie Mugford then the severity of Sheila's illness needs dealing with and then the relatives and the money trail and the the altered statements and withheld evidence
That's a start, that should wet the appetite of the viewing audience
-
It would definitely have to be more than one hour and I think it would be difficult to untangle a definite time line of what happened on the day from statements but it should cover the time and what is supposed to have happened from the time they went into the house to when the bodies reached the morgue .
But it would be a massive undertaking to try and not be biased either way and try and use contemporary statements.
I don't think there is any chance that Julie would get involved. No chance at all .
-
The relatives found the silencer.
Julie knew because Bamber told her.
The NOTW offerred Julie a story because they realised Bamber wouldn't be giving them his.
Julie betrayed Bamber while still with him. Telling 5 people. The first within 20 days of the massacre.
Not sure that will cover 1 hour.
-
The relatives found the silencer.
Julie knew because Bamber told her.
The NOTW offerred Julie a story because they realised Bamber wouldn't be giving them his.
Julie betrayed Bamber while still with him. Telling 5 people. The first within 20 days of the massacre.
Not sure that will cover 1 hour.
So offering Julie the money because they knew Jeremy would not be giving his?
What exactly is your reasoning behind this.
-
So offering Julie the money because they knew Jeremy would not be giving his?
What exactly is your reasoning behind this.
The press got inside information Bamber was guilty. That is what they are paid to do, get inside information. So they offerred Julie 25k, which was less than the 40k Bamber had negotiated.
-
The press got inside information Bamber was guilty. That is what they are paid to do, get inside information. So they offerred Julie 25k, which was less than the 40k Bamber had negotiated.
Right so you are 1) agreeing the deal was made before the trial was over
2) stating that someone had told the press that Jeremy was going to be found guilty before the trial was over .
Really ?
Source ?
-
Right so you are 1) agreeing the deal was made before the trial was over
2) stating that someone had told the press that Jeremy was going to be found guilty before the trial was over .
Really ?
Source ?
The source is Bamber made a 40k deal with the NOTW. The NOTW then approached Julie as they realised Bamber would be found guilty. A verbal deal was made.
Newspapers cover all angles in order to get an exclusive.
-
intresting idea.
-
Right so you are 1) agreeing the deal was made before the trial was over
2) stating that someone had told the press that Jeremy was going to be found guilty before the trial was over .
Really ?
Source ?
Your patience Jan ;)
-
The source is Bamber made a 40k deal with the NOTW. The NOTW then approached Julie as they realised Bamber would be found guilty. A verbal deal was made.
Newspapers cover all angles in order to get an exclusive.
Bamber would have only been free to make a deal if he was found innocent and would have been perfectly entitled to do so .
To make a deal during a trial is illegal and immoral ? Would you not agree ? And you have not given your source that the newspaper had inside information?
Who on earth would think that they knew better than judge and jury? Unless they knew Jeremy did not stand a chance because they had set him up ?
Interesting theory Adam
-
The press got inside information Bamber was guilty. That is what they are paid to do, get inside information. So they offerred Julie 25k, which was less than the 40k Bamber had negotiated.
Jesus Christ
-
Bamber would have only been free to make a deal if he was found innocent and would have been perfectly entitled to do so .
To make a deal during a trial is illegal and immoral ? Would you not agree ? And you have not given your source that the newspaper had inside information?
Who on earth would think that they knew better than judge and jury? Unless they knew Jeremy did not stand a chance because they had set him up ?
Interesting theory Adam
I'm sure Bamber would have again tried to sell pictures of Sheila if released.
Deals are made during a trial. Nothing was signed by Julie until after the verdict.
-
It would definitely have to be more than one hour and I think it would be difficult to untangle a definite time line of what happened on the day from statements but it should cover the time and what is supposed to have happened from the time they went into the house to when the bodies reached the morgue .
But it would be a massive undertaking to try and not be biased either way and try and use contemporary statements.
I don't think there is any chance that Julie would get involved. No chance at all .
The next documentary has to be as good as Making of a Murder because that was a hit in this country
If the quality is good enough then it could become a hit in Canada
Julie might then decide she wants to talk about the case
-
I'm sure Bamber would have again tried to sell pictures of Sheila if released.
Deals are made during a trial. Nothing was signed by Julie until after the verdict.
Not quite true adam because conveniently we're all the documents showing the date of signature lost ?
-
Not quite true adam because conveniently we're all the documents showing the date of signature lost ?
I know. Bamber went after a technicality.
-
The next documentary has to be as good as Making of a Murder because that was a hit in this country
If the quality is good enough then it could become a hit in Canada
Julie might then decide she wants to talk about the case
I agree that previous programmes have been poor quality , but making of a murderer was filmed during the whole event happening . Now that cold case programme would be better .
-
I'm sure Bamber would have again tried to sell pictures of Sheila if released.
Deals are made during a trial. Nothing was signed by Julie until after the verdict.
Your sure are you Adam??? Another ridiculous statement
How are you sure? Provide a source for you being sure
Everything I have written in my first post about Mugford are cold hard facts. I don't have to make out I am sure
-
I agree that previous programmes have been poor quality , but making of a murderer was filmed during the whole event happening . Now that cold case programme would be better .
Your right Jan. The series would need to be good enough to been seen in America and Canada to make a real impact
-
I know. Bamber went after a technicality.
Are you still talking about the news of the world ?
-
The press got inside information Bamber was guilty. That is what they are paid to do, get inside information. So they offerred Julie 25k, which was less than the 40k Bamber had negotiated.
Adam can you show me a source for this please?
-
Your right Jan. The series would need to be good enough to been seen in America and Canada to make a real impact
Let me know when it's on. I will certainly watch.
-
I know. Bamber went after a technicality.
Adam there is no source to prove the deal was signed after the trial because in Julie's own statement she can not remember when she signed it ?
Source of the paper having inside knowledge of Jeremy's conviction please ?
-
Adam can you show me a source for this please?
The source is in the events. The NOTW approached Julie during the trial after they realised they would not get a story from Bamber.
-
Adam there is no source to prove the deal was signed after the trial because in Julie's own statement she can not remember when she signed it ?
Source of the paper having inside knowledge of Jeremy's conviction please ?
I know. Julie said this after Bamber went after a technicality.
-
The source is in the events. The NOTW approached Julie after they realised they would not get a story from Bamber.
She was approached before the end of the trial ? So again how did they know there would be no story from Jeremy ?
-
I know. Julie said this after Bamber went after a technicality.
No not a technicality it is a very bad move to negotiate financial reward with the press during a trial . For obvious reasons
-
She was approached before the end of the trial ? So again how did they know there would be no story from Jeremy ?
Because they were following the trial. As the public were.
They would have also sounded out people & realised Bamber was going to be found guilty. It's what newspapers do. You know what, they were right.
-
Because they were following the trial. As the public were.
They would have also sounded out people & realised Bamber was going to be found guilty. It's what newspapers do. You know what, they were right.
Who would those people be ? Those people who knew how the case would be judged?
-
The source is in the events. The NOTW approached Julie during the trial after they realised they would not get a story from Bamber.
Adam that is not a source just an event they approached her before the trial. When did she sign it !!!!
-
A New Approach
There has been a number of documentaries and books made about the Whitehouse Farm Murders but I believe the standard of true crime documentaries has risen immensely and TVs companies are now commissioning true crime series as well as one offs.
I believe everyone on this forum would agree it is impossible to portray what happened at WHF, the aftermath, the trial and the conviction in one hour. I know that Mark Williams Thomas believes Jeremy Bamber is innocent but he had an impossible task to squeeze everything he wanted to highlight about the case in the 60 minutes (less ad breaks). He was also desperate to interview Julie Mugford and was quite happy to fly to Canada to do this.
Because this case is still discussed in the media and documentary makers are still interested in working with Jeremy there needs to be much detailed information available on a programme to gain more public interest
I believe a documentary should start with the conviction and work backwards starting with why the jury found Jeremy guilty
Part one and two
(1) The silencer, who found it, forensics etc
(2) Julie Mugford How she apparently
knew Jeremy was planning to
murder his family, how she apparently
knew from Jeremy the night before
the murders his plans and she knew
Jeremy was responsible straight after
the murders Jeremy was responsible
for the murders. How Julie volunteered
to identify the bodies of victims
murdered (including 2 small children)
when she knew her boyfriend was
responsible. How Julie stood shoulder
to shoulder with Colin Caffell (the
father of the two young children
murdered) at the funerals at the same
time comforting Jeremy Bamber.
How Julie Mugford carried on sleeping
and partying with Jeremy for weeks
after the murders and funerals.
Julie showed how dishonest she was
carrying out a number of cheque
frauds in London and being involved
in a robbery at the Bamber caravan
park
With any documentary it will be
important to show Julie did not speak
to the police to tell them she knew
Jeremy was responsible until Jeremy
finished their relationship
Probably one of the most important
factors that should be included is the
deal Julie Mugford did with the News
Of the world to get a £25,000 if
Jeremy was convicted. Julie Mugford
has never been convicted of any of her
crimes
With regard to the above most of this
has never been included in a
documentary before because of the
time factor and I am sure if the six part
documentary is commissioned the
general public will start to look at
the case differently
Could Julie Mugford be trusted? she
was a prolific liar and she made a lot of
money from the NOTW on Jeremy's
conviction and acted without a doubt
as a women scorned
If this documentary is made
accurately it might even push Julie
into saying what really happened in
all those police interviews and why
would she offer to identify 3 adults
and 2 children when she knew they
had been murdered by her
boyfriend
After details of the silencer and more information is broadcast about Julie Mugford then the severity of Sheila's illness needs dealing with and then the relatives and the money trail and the the altered statements and withheld evidence
That's a start, that should wet the appetite of the viewing audience
Try the "Black Hands" approach, a truly disgraceful compendium of lies about the Bain case.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/201852320/murder-mysteries-on-demand-are-in-demand
Let me make it quite clear, Robin Bain did this crime almost exactly as Sheila Caffel did hers, unplanned after being stressed to the max by family members earlier. Van Beynen in episode 10 does a better xxxx xxxxxx of xxxxxxxxx than Adam here.
-
I will try and watch that as I am not really familiar with the case .
-
A New Approach
There has been a number of documentaries and books made about the Whitehouse Farm Murders but I believe the standard of true crime documentaries has risen immensely and TVs companies are now commissioning true crime series as well as one offs.
I believe everyone on this forum would agree it is impossible to portray what happened at WHF, the aftermath, the trial and the conviction in one hour. I know that Mark Williams Thomas believes Jeremy Bamber is innocent but he had an impossible task to squeeze everything he wanted to highlight about the case in the 60 minutes (less ad breaks). He was also desperate to interview Julie Mugford and was quite happy to fly to Canada to do this.
Because this case is still discussed in the media and documentary makers are still interested in working with Jeremy there needs to be much detailed information available on a programme to gain more public interest
I believe a documentary should start with the conviction and work backwards starting with why the jury found Jeremy guilty
Part one and two
(1) The silencer, who found it, forensics etc
(2) Julie Mugford How she apparently
knew Jeremy was planning to
murder his family, how she apparently
knew from Jeremy the night before
the murders his plans and she knew
Jeremy was responsible straight after
the murders Jeremy was responsible
for the murders. How Julie volunteered
to identify the bodies of victims
murdered (including 2 small children)
when she knew her boyfriend was
responsible. How Julie stood shoulder
to shoulder with Colin Caffell (the
father of the two young children
murdered) at the funerals at the same
time comforting Jeremy Bamber.
How Julie Mugford carried on sleeping
and partying with Jeremy for weeks
after the murders and funerals.
Julie showed how dishonest she was
carrying out a number of cheque
frauds in London and being involved
in a robbery at the Bamber caravan
park
With any documentary it will be
important to show Julie did not speak
to the police to tell them she knew
Jeremy was responsible until Jeremy
finished their relationship
Probably one of the most important
factors that should be included is the
deal Julie Mugford did with the News
Of the world to get a £25,000 if
Jeremy was convicted. Julie Mugford
has never been convicted of any of her
crimes
With regard to the above most of this
has never been included in a
documentary before because of the
time factor and I am sure if the six part
documentary is commissioned the
general public will start to look at
the case differently
Could Julie Mugford be trusted? she
was a prolific liar and she made a lot of
money from the NOTW on Jeremy's
conviction and acted without a doubt
as a women scorned
If this documentary is made
accurately it might even push Julie
into saying what really happened in
all those police interviews and why
would she offer to identify 3 adults
and 2 children when she knew they
had been murdered by her
boyfriend
After details of the silencer and more information is broadcast about Julie Mugford then the severity of Sheila's illness needs dealing with and then the relatives and the money trail and the the altered statements and withheld evidence
That's a start, that should wet the appetite of the viewing audience
Basically you want someone to make a documentary based completely on your one sided biased opinion which makes sure Julie Mugford is made out the be the evil one? Good luck with that! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Or this , which I had not read before
-
Basically you want someone to make a documentary based completely on your one sided biased opinion which makes sure Julie Mugford is made out the be the evil one? Good luck with that! ;D ;D ;D ;D
I have helped make it happen before and I am confident it will happen again but a series so the cold hard facts of Julie Mugfords part in this case are available to the general public here and abroad
People should be able to make their own mind about Julie Mugford and whether she was a credible witness, then we can move on to the silencer evidence
-
I have helped make it happen before and I am confident it will happen again but a series so the cold hard facts of Julie Mugfords part in this case are available to the general public here and abroad
People should be able to make their own mind about Julie Mugford and whether she was a credible witness, then we can move on to the silencer evidence
it won't happen - it's too biased.
-
I will try and watch that as I am not really familiar with the case .
It is podcasts, no pictures.
His approach is anti science, he is obsessed with arguments from incredulity. Yet it tops Itunes in NZ and Australia.
Ridiculous and very sad.
He is wrong at every turn. But hey, listen with an open mind if you have time and report back. There is the Bamber/Bain thread running right here.
-
it won't happen - it's too biased.
Who's saying that, you?
When have you had any influence in this case. You wouldn't know where to start
-
Either Julie was lying about Jeremy being responsible for the murders or she was a first class actress standing next to Colin Caffell
Holding on and comforting the person who murdered Colin's children
-
Who's saying that, you?
When have you had any influence in this case. You wouldn't know where to start
Prove me wrong then! You say you've done it before? Really? What documentary were you responsible for?
-
Either Julie was lying about Jeremy being responsible for the murders or she was a first class actress standing next to Colin Caffell
Holding on and comforting the person who murdered Colin's children
Maybe she was just in denial - eh?
-
Try the "Black Hands" approach, a truly disgraceful compendium of lies about the Bain case.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/201852320/murder-mysteries-on-demand-are-in-demand
Let me make it quite clear, Robin Bain did this crime almost exactly as Sheila Caffel did hers, unplanned after being stressed to the max by family members earlier. Van Beynen in episode 10 does a better xxxx xxxxxx of xxxxxxxxx than Adam here.
Yes and Robin's bobble cap stayed on his head throughout the rampage..
-
Prove me wrong then! You say you've done it before? Really? What documentary were you responsible for?
I will prove you wrong
-
Maybe she was just in denial - eh?
Or maybe Jeremy was not responsible
She hadn't been dumped at that point
-
Well as an excuse everyone says she was just a young easily influenced frightened girl . Well perhaps it was actually the police who finally influenced , frightened her , into doing what she "believed " to be the right thing .
Because otherwise I don't understand why in 2002 she said she sincerely believed he was guilty.
Surely if all she said was true , she knows he is .
-
I will prove you wrong
Yeah, you only answered half of that (won't be holding my breath!), which other documentary have you been involved with or are you talking about that home made effort which you posted here a few months back? ::)
-
Well as an excuse everyone says she was just a young easily influenced frightened girl . Well perhaps it was actually the police who finally influenced , frightened her , into doing what she "believed " to be the right thing .
Because otherwise I don't understand why in 2002 she said she sincerely believed he was guilty.
Surely if all she said was true , she knows he is .
C'mon Jan. Such is the hatred you and others bear this woman, it really wouldn't matter HOW she put it coz there's no way on God's earth that you're prepared to believe her.
-
C'mon Jan. Such is the hatred you and others bear this woman, it really wouldn't matter HOW she put it coz there's no way on God's earth that you're prepared to believe her.
No I don't belive verbatim what she said , but I am saying I am not sure of why she did it .
There could be several reasons or even a combination of reasons .
Why would I hate her ?
I am not personally connected to the case or her or Jeremy ?
-
No I don't belive verbatim what she said , but I am saying I am not sure of why she did it .
There could be several reasons or even a combination of reasons .
Why would I hate her ?
I am not personally connected to the case or her or Jeremy ?
Jan, if you have no emotional involvement with what you seem to think are the lies she told to help convict Jeremy, why are you SO certain that she'd have done A instead of B, or that she definitely wouldn't have done something else. You weren't in her shoes. You have no idea what it might have felt like to be her in that situation. You have no idea what sort of mental hold they may have had on each other. You have no idea of how she feared being implicated. The woman she is now would probably never find herself in such a situation. The girl was naive and wanting the carrot which had been dangled. Like you, I don't believe she told the entire truth but I think that would have been more about keeping her own involvement out of it rather that dropping Jeremy further in it. In this, if she only told police what he had told her, she can't be accused of lying. The lies would have been his.
-
No I don't belive verbatim what she said , but I am saying I am not sure of why she did it .
There could be several reasons or even a combination of reasons .
Why would I hate her ?
I am not personally connected to the case or her or Jeremy ?
Jan you have never come over as hating Julie or indeed anyone else either I don't hate her I think she behaved in such a manner she put Julie first at the expense of a man going to prison for a crime he did not commit I have often wondered if she thought he would walk free it is my understanding his Defence team thought that. Hate is a very strong word a word I don't like at all.
-
Jan, if you have no emotional involvement with what you seem to think are the lies she told to help convict Jeremy, why are you SO certain that she'd have done A instead of B, or that she definitely wouldn't have done something else. You weren't in her shoes. You have no idea what it might have felt like to be her in that situation. You have no idea what sort of mental hold they may have had on each other. You have no idea of how she feared being implicated. The woman she is now would probably never find herself in such a situation. The girl was naive and wanting the carrot which had been dangled. Like you, I don't believe she told the entire truth but I think that would have been more about keeping her own involvement out of it rather that dropping Jeremy further in it. In this, if she only told police what he had told her, she can't be accused of lying. The lies would have been his.
As I understand it her trepidation was such that a conviction interview with News Of The World was handled with perfect aplomb, and she purchased an apartment with the loot. I would have purchased the apartment, clever investment, clever young woman. Go forth Julie and work with children. After all you are something of an expert in managing difficult situations with composure and class.`
-
Jan you have never come over as hating Julie or indeed anyone else either I don't hate her I think she behaved in such a manner she put Julie first at the expense of a man going to prison for a crime he did not commit I have often wondered if she thought he would walk free it is my understanding his Defence team thought that. Hate is a very strong word a word I don't like at all.
I would imagine that she believed if he was innocent he would have walked free and therefore has no reason all these years on to doubt his guilt.
-
As I understand it her trepidation was such that a conviction interview with News Of The World was handled with perfect aplomb, and she purchased an apartment with the loot. I would have purchased the apartment, clever investment, clever young woman. Go forth Julie and work with children. After all you are something of an expert in managing difficult situations with composure and class.`
Thank you Samson perfectly putting
-
Personal attacks again
At no time has Jan said she hated Muggy
I have tried to excuse her behaviour if anything. Except the interview in the news of the world .
I may be a prude but I can not think of anything more inappropriate after such a tragic case . Whoever was responsible.
But I don't hate her or anyone else connected with the case.
-
Disadvantages of Julie trying to frame an innocent Bamber
She didn't know what evidence existed.
There would be no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.
There would be evidence showing Sheila was guilty. As she was.
She would be charged by the police. When caught lying.
Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.
To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?
Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?
There was no financial reward in approaching the police.
It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.
She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims.
Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.
She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.
It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.
She may quickly wilt under pressure. This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?
It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.
It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.
It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.
An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.
It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.
She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.
It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.
She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?
She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.
She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.
Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.
If an unsuccessful police approach became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.
-
Jan, if you have no emotional involvement with what you seem to think are the lies she told to help convict Jeremy, why are you SO certain that she'd have done A instead of B, or that she definitely wouldn't have done something else. You weren't in her shoes. You have no idea what it might have felt like to be her in that situation. You have no idea what sort of mental hold they may have had on each other. You have no idea of how she feared being implicated. The woman she is now would probably never find herself in such a situation. The girl was naive and wanting the carrot which had been dangled. Like you, I don't believe she told the entire truth but I think that would have been more about keeping her own involvement out of it rather that dropping Jeremy further in it. In this, if she only told police what he had told her, she can't be accused of lying. The lies would have been his.
Young naive women do not walk down oxford street carrying out multiple cheque frauds
She wasn't starving she didn't have a baby
She was greedy for money
The last discription you would use for Mugford is naive
She was jealous and vengeful and started a chain of events that proved how dangerous she was
-
ADam I don't understand any of your post it does not really make sense .What are you trying to say ?
In fewer words.
-
Young naive women do not walk down oxford street carrying out multiple cheque frauds
She wasn't starving she didn't have a baby
She was greedy for money
The last discription you would use for Mugford is naive
She was jealous and vengeful and started a chain of events that proved how dangerous she was
Multiple. Thought it was once with Susan Battersby.
-
ADam I don't understand any of your post it does not really make sense .What are you trying to say ?
In fewer words.
There are at least 26 huge disadvantages of a woman trying to frame an innocent man. A month after the massacre.
If she was actually devastated about apparently being jilted. Bit strange she started betraying Bamber while still with him.
-
I have tried to excuse her behaviour if anything. Except the interview in the news of the world .
I may be a prude but I can not think of anything more inappropriate after such a tragic case . Whoever was responsible.
But I don't hate her or anyone else connected with the case.
Jan I agree with you her pay out resulted indirectly from the deaths of 5 innocent people two of them wee boys how could she be flashing her thighs and grinning all over her face like she did in such a sad situation she came over as a very shallow uncaring young lady,
-
As I understand it her trepidation was such that a conviction interview with News Of The World was handled with perfect aplomb, and she purchased an apartment with the loot. I would have purchased the apartment, clever investment, clever young woman. Go forth Julie and work with children. After all you are something of an expert in managing difficult situations with composure and class.`
I don't know when I've ever said her behaviour was exemplary. I just SO love it when people, probably old enough now, to be her parents, bluster about what they, all paragons of virtue, naturally, would have done had they been her. As far as your own bluster is concerned, you've effectively managed to shut down the JB section of IA, PLEASE, don't do the same here.
-
ADam I don't understand any of your post it does not really make sense .What are you trying to say ?
In fewer words.
He uses a large amount of words deliberately.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
-
8). You learn something new every day
-
He uses a large amount of words deliberately.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
If there are 26 huge & obvious disadvantages in Julie trying to frame an innocent man, a month after the massacre, they have to be posted.
Feel free to refute them.
-
Disadvantages of Julie trying to frame an innocent Bamber
She didn't know what evidence existed.
There would be no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.
There would be evidence showing Sheila was guilty. As she was.
She would be charged by the police. When caught lying.
Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.
To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?
Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?
There was no financial reward in approaching the police.
It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.
She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims.
Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.
She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.
It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.
She may quickly wilt under pressure. This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?
It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.
It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.
It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.
An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.
It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.
She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.
It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.
She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?
She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.
She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.
Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.
If an unsuccessful police approach became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.
-
If there are 26 huge & obvious disadvantages in Julie trying to frame an innocent man, a month after the massacre, they have to be posted.
Feel free to refute them.
So why add a total inappropriate newspaper article to 26 items which otherwise would prove her in your eyes to be a heroine ?
-
8). You learn something new every day
Jan we are never to old to learn and we are so lucky we have people around us to highlight our faults hehehe :))
-
If there are 26 huge & obvious disadvantages in Julie trying to frame an innocent man, a month after the massacre, they have to be posted.
Feel free to refute them.
Your can make up 1000 disadvantages. It does not refute the proof that she did indeed do so.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8367.msg398537.html#msg398537 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8367.msg398537.html#msg398537)
-
Your can make up 1000 disadvantages. It does not refute the proof that she did indeed do so.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8367.msg398537.html#msg398537 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8367.msg398537.html#msg398537)
The £2000 was the sum Jeremy owed Nevill for the holiday in New Zealand. Of course after the massacre the loan was conveniently forgotten, but the figure stuck in Jeremy's mind.
-
The £2000 was the sum Jeremy owed Nevill for the holiday in New Zealand. Of course after the massacre the loan was conveniently forgotten, but the figure stuck in Jeremy's mind.
How did that exact figure end up in RWBs diary before Julie 'came forward'?
-
How did that exact figure end up in RWBs diary before Julie 'came forward'?
Possibly because Nevill discussed the amount of the loan with him whilst Jeremy was away sowing his wild oats.
-
How did that exact figure end up in RWBs diary before Julie 'came forward'?
An obvious answer is that RWB was present when Nevill gave Jeremy the money, OR told RWB that he'd done it. I don't imagine Nevill would have seen it as being a secret. I'm not certain what is your point about "the exact figure"? £2000 IS an exact figure?
-
A reminder of the power of a well made mini series
Chillenden Murders: Legal experts on BBC documentary to assist Michael Stone in fresh appeal against hammer killings of Lin and Megan
Fascinating TV documentary says no clear evidence convicted killer Stone was even at the scene of the crime
The Experts working with the brilliant Minnow Films on the mini series
Sheryl Nwosu, Jane Antrobus, Richard Hobbs, Stephen Kamlish, Des Thomas, Georgina Meakin - The team behind the BBC's documentary The Chillenden Murders (C) Minnow Films - Photographer: Andy Boag
A two-part TV documentary which saw experts re-examine the case files of the horrific Chillenden murder of Lin and Megan Russell 21 years ago, has seen two of them so convinced of the fragility of the conviction of Michael Stone, they intend to assist in his next appeal.
The BBC2 show The Chillenden Murders concluded on Tuesday night.
It aimed to uncover the truth about one of Kent’s most notorious cases which took place in July 1996.
Mother Lin Russell, 45, and her six-year-old daughter Megan were beaten to death on a quiet country path with a hammer as they walked home from a swimming gala in Chillenden, between Canterbury and Dover. Another daughter Josie suffered horrific injuries but somehow survived.
A year-long manhunt turned up nothing until a psychiatrist tipped off police about Stone, from Gillingham, after watching an appeal on TV show Crimewatch.
He was found guilty initially upon evidence provided by cellmates who claimed he confessed to them. After two admitted they had lied, a retrial was order but he was again found guilty on the evidence provided by Damien Daley who claimed a cell confession while he was on remand in Canterbury. Daley is now serving time for murder, while a former friend on the BBC programme claims Daley admitted to lying about Stone at both trials.
No forensic evidence has ever been found to link Stone to the scene and a key piece of evidence - a shoelace which apparently contained some DNA evidence thought to be from the attacker, went missing.
Now barrister Stephen Kamlish QC who appeared in the show is taking up the case along with fellow barrister Sheryl Nwosu.
They were particularly disturbed by the loss of the shoelace. The programme was told the forensic lab that did the original testing sent the lace back to a Kent police officer. Kent Police, however, say “exhaustive testing” meant there was nothing left of it.
Mr Kamlish was not impressed with the two conflicting claims, and said: “Kent say it doesn’t exist anymore, and the lab says we gave it to a Kent police officer. And now the bag is empty. There are two different accounts as to what happened to it. This one lace could contain the key to who killed this family.”
Part of the BBC programme team was former detective chief superintendent Jane Antrobus who ruled out robbery as a motive as Lin still had her watch and necklace.
She concluded: “There is no ID against Stone, there is no forensics against Stone.
“I am not saying he is not a dangerous man, and I am not saying the best place for him isn’t locked up, but I am saying to me, I don’t think there is enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict him.”
She said the case still needs a “golden nugget of information” to support or condemn Stone.
Kent Police has consistently said they are not looking for anyone else, and have also ruled out convicted serial killer Levi Bellfield, who murdered Millie Dowler and other girls.
Stephen Kamlish and Sheryl Nwosu, another legal expert in the documentary, are now actively working on Stone’s next legal appeal, as a direct result of examining the case files.
She said: “His conviction hung on a very delicate thread.”
Stone is currenly 20 years into a minimum 25 year prison term.
-
Your can make up 1000 disadvantages. It does not refute the proof that she did indeed do so.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8367.msg398537.html#msg398537 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8367.msg398537.html#msg398537)
There are not a 1000 disadvantages. But 26 huge disadvantages is a lot.
Julie was 20 & studying for her second degree. So would not be stupid enough to try to frame an innocent man a month after the massacre. Assumming she was jilted, bothered & madly vindictive.
-
It is strange that with over 200 pieces of incriminating forensic & circumstantial evidence, people who have never met Bamber are so passionate about his innocence.
EP are corrupt, experts lied, the relatives greedy, Julie was jealous, Mary Mugford was protective, the judge was biased, the COA are outdated, the CCRC are scared.
The only innocent person in all this is Bamber.
-
There are not a 1000 disadvantages. But 26 huge disadvantages is a lot.
Julie was 20 & studying for her second degree. So would not be stupid enough to try to frame an innocent man a month after the massacre. Assumming she was jilted, bothered & madly vindictive.
How could Sheila be 20 and studying for her second degree? Julie went to Teacher's Training College at 18 and the general course lasted 3 years. She may have been studying for a 4 year BEd which was an alternative course equivalent to a degree. Sorry to be picky but can't help it. :'(
-
How could Sheila be 20 and studying for her second degree? Julie went to Teacher's Training College at 18 and the general course lasted 3 years. She may have been studying for a 4 year BEd which was an alternative course equivalent to a degree. Sorry to be picky but can't help it. :'(
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1647
First paragraph of WS. Amending my previous post, she was 21.
-
How could Sheila be 20 and studying for her second degree? Julie went to Teacher's Training College at 18 and the general course lasted 3 years. She may have been studying for a 4 year BEd which was an alternative course equivalent to a degree. Sorry to be picky but can't help it. :'(
I, too, have raised this, previously. I certainly don't think it would have been possible for her to have left school at 18, completed a Ba/Bsc and gone on to do a Masters at 20. She didn't even become 21 until the August of 1985, around the time of her breakup with Jeremy.
-
How did that exact figure end up in RWBs diary before Julie 'came forward'?
The two sums are for two different incidents. Don't know why you keep bringing this up? Jeremy borrowed the two grand from Nevil YEARS before the murders. There is no suggestion that Jeremy used this money to pay a hit man - that would be stupid given the time between his trip and the deaths of his family.
-
A reminder of the power of a well made mini series
Chillenden Murders: Legal experts on BBC documentary to assist Michael Stone in fresh appeal against hammer killings of Lin and Megan
Fascinating TV documentary says no clear evidence convicted killer Stone was even at the scene of the crime
The Experts working with the brilliant Minnow Films on the mini series
Sheryl Nwosu, Jane Antrobus, Richard Hobbs, Stephen Kamlish, Des Thomas, Georgina Meakin - The team behind the BBC's documentary The Chillenden Murders (C) Minnow Films - Photographer: Andy Boag
A two-part TV documentary which saw experts re-examine the case files of the horrific Chillenden murder of Lin and Megan Russell 21 years ago, has seen two of them so convinced of the fragility of the conviction of Michael Stone, they intend to assist in his next appeal.
The BBC2 show The Chillenden Murders concluded on Tuesday night.
It aimed to uncover the truth about one of Kent’s most notorious cases which took place in July 1996.
Mother Lin Russell, 45, and her six-year-old daughter Megan were beaten to death on a quiet country path with a hammer as they walked home from a swimming gala in Chillenden, between Canterbury and Dover. Another daughter Josie suffered horrific injuries but somehow survived.
A year-long manhunt turned up nothing until a psychiatrist tipped off police about Stone, from Gillingham, after watching an appeal on TV show Crimewatch.
He was found guilty initially upon evidence provided by cellmates who claimed he confessed to them. After two admitted they had lied, a retrial was order but he was again found guilty on the evidence provided by Damien Daley who claimed a cell confession while he was on remand in Canterbury. Daley is now serving time for murder, while a former friend on the BBC programme claims Daley admitted to lying about Stone at both trials.
No forensic evidence has ever been found to link Stone to the scene and a key piece of evidence - a shoelace which apparently contained some DNA evidence thought to be from the attacker, went missing.
Now barrister Stephen Kamlish QC who appeared in the show is taking up the case along with fellow barrister Sheryl Nwosu.
They were particularly disturbed by the loss of the shoelace. The programme was told the forensic lab that did the original testing sent the lace back to a Kent police officer. Kent Police, however, say “exhaustive testing” meant there was nothing left of it.
Mr Kamlish was not impressed with the two conflicting claims, and said: “Kent say it doesn’t exist anymore, and the lab says we gave it to a Kent police officer. And now the bag is empty. There are two different accounts as to what happened to it. This one lace could contain the key to who killed this family.”
Part of the BBC programme team was former detective chief superintendent Jane Antrobus who ruled out robbery as a motive as Lin still had her watch and necklace.
She concluded: “There is no ID against Stone, there is no forensics against Stone.
“I am not saying he is not a dangerous man, and I am not saying the best place for him isn’t locked up, but I am saying to me, I don’t think there is enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict him.”
She said the case still needs a “golden nugget of information” to support or condemn Stone.
Kent Police has consistently said they are not looking for anyone else, and have also ruled out convicted serial killer Levi Bellfield, who murdered Millie Dowler and other girls.
Stephen Kamlish and Sheryl Nwosu, another legal expert in the documentary, are now actively working on Stone’s next legal appeal, as a direct result of examining the case files.
She said: “His conviction hung on a very delicate thread.”
Stone is currenly 20 years into a minimum 25 year prison term.
So which documentary have you been involved with previously?
-
There are not a 1000 disadvantages. But 26 huge disadvantages is a lot.
Julie was 20 & studying for her second degree. So would not be stupid enough to try to frame an innocent man a month after the massacre. Assumming she was jilted, bothered & madly vindictive.
but she was stupid enough to get involved in fraud , theft and smuggling cannabis ? ( source city of London police) any of which would prevent her from carrying on in her chosen career?
What is your reasoning behind that ?
-
but she was stupid enough to get involved in fraud , theft and smuggling cannabis ? ( source city of London police) any of which would prevent her from carrying on in her chosen career?
What is your reasoning behind that ?
Yes, she was, but whom of us, at 20, haven't become involved with things we'd sooner not come back to haunt us?
-
Yes, she was, but whom of us, at 20, haven't become involved with things we'd sooner not come back to haunt us?
I can't agree with you there Jane, I know at 20 we are only learning and can make all kind of mistakes but this was hardcore imo. Most 20 year old girls could not and would not do anything so blatant and criminal. By the time we get to 20 most of us have boundaries that we know we mustn't cross, some people would call them morals but whatever name you choose imo JM lacked these boundaries. I am not particularly blaming JM but you do have to wonder why she was so lacking.
-
but she was stupid enough to get involved in fraud , theft and smuggling cannabis ? ( source city of London police) any of which would prevent her from carrying on in her chosen career?
What is your reasoning behind that ?
Yes her & Susan Battersby did commit minor cheque book fraud once. Smuggling cannabis. I thought she just dealt with it at Goldsmiths college. Although I've never seen a source.
Neither of those crimes relate to the massacre. However Bamber's caravan break in does.
Anyway, there is no possibility of a 21 year old woman doing her second degree trying to frame an innocent man of killing his family. A month after the massacre. On the assumption she was jilted, devastated, mad & savagely vindictive in the first place.
There are too many huge & obvious disadvantages.
-
Yes her & Susan Battersby did commit minor cheque book fraud once. Smuggling cannabis. I thought she just dealt with it at Goldsmiths college. Although I've never seen a source.
Neither of those crimes are relate to the massacre. However Bamber's caravan break in does.
Anyway, there is no possibility of a 21 year old woman doing her second degree trying to frame an innocent man of killing his family. A month after the massacre. On the assumption she was jilted, devastated, mad & savagely vindictive.
There are too many huge disadvantages.
You are minimising what she did to suit your own argument, Adam. You now say she was 21 however JB was only 23/24 during their relationship so he wasn't mature either. It is accepted that she committed cheque fraud in Oxford Street, do you think that's ok behaviour? Is that the way you would behave? She was also involved in the caravan park break in, you can say JB made her but that is your spin, she aided and abetted him to steal from his parents and as she was often a guest in their house that was pretty dreadful behaviour. I give her the benefit of the doubt about her part in the massacre but if he killed his family and she knew as much as she claimed to have then it is very worrying imo. However bad his behaviour may have been, she was pretty suspect as well.
-
I can't agree with you there Jane, I know at 20 we are only learning and can make all kind of mistakes but this was hardcore imo. Most 20 year old girls could not and would not do anything so blatant and criminal. By the time we get to 20 most of us have boundaries that we know we mustn't cross, some people would call them morals but whatever name you choose imo JM lacked these boundaries. I am not particularly blaming JM but you do have to wonder why she was so lacking.
Hmm. It was SUCH hardcore that I imagine it would have been beyond her frame of reference. I do, however, get your point about a moral compass. We have know idea what Julie's might have been, do we? What we've never been shown it's unlikely that we'll do instinctively. She may, if she'd been made to feel responsible, have thought she could control the situation she was in.
-
You are minimising what she did to suit your own argument, Adam. It is accepted that she committed cheque fraud in Oxford Street, is that the way you would behave? She was also involved in the caravan park breakin, you can say JB made her but that is your spin, she aided and abetted him to steal from his parents and as she was often a guest in their house that was pretty dreadful behaviour. I give her the benefit of the doubt about her part in the massacre but if he killed his family and she knew as much as she claimed to have then it is very worrying imo. However bad his behaviour may have been, she was pretty suspect as well.
To the best of my memory, at the time,m such was her reputation, she may as well have committed the murders herself.
-
You are minimising what she did to suit your own argument, Adam. It is accepted that she committed cheque fraud in Oxford Street, is that the way you would behave? She was also involved in the caravan park breakin, you can say JB made her but that is your spin, she aided and abetted him to steal from his parents and as she was often a guest in their house that was pretty dreadful behaviour. I give her the benefit of the doubt about her part in the massacre but if he killed his family and she knew as much as she claimed to have then it is very worrying imo. However bad his behaviour may have been, she was pretty suspect as well.
What has the cheque book fraud got to do with the huge & obvious disadvantages of Julie trying to frame an innocent man of killing his family. A month after the massacre. On the assumption she was jilted, devastated, mad & savagely vindictive.
Feel free to refute my 26 disadvantages. Unless you can't. In that case keep talking about a cheque book fraud in 1984.
-
I'm not sure what a 1984 cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby has got to do with huge & obvious disadvantages Julie had in trying to frame an innocent man of killing his family. A month afterwards.
The 26 huge & obvious disadvantages would be there whether she did that in 1984 or not.
Her reaction to these disadvantages would be no different regardless of what she did in 1984. Which would be to not attempt anything.
-
Hmm. It was SUCH hardcore that I imagine it would have been beyond her frame of reference. I do, however, get your point about a moral compass. We have know idea what Julie's might have been, do we? What we've never been shown it's unlikely that we'll do instinctively. She may, if she'd been made to feel responsible, have thought she could control the situation she was in.
I know we cannot take our own experiences and upbringing to judge others, I would have been terrified at the thought of cheque fraud and stealing but I accept that is me at 20 not Julie. By the time I was 20 I was a Student Nurse with no energy for anything but work and sleep ;D. I can't help wondering what was in her head, she was intelligent enough to get into Goldsmith's which was the top Teachers Training College before it became part of the university system. This makes me wonder where she learned her morals, makes me wonder about her mother, I'm afraid, we do tend to learn our morals and our behaviour by the example of those closest to us.
-
I'm not sure what a 1984 cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby has got to do with huge & obvious disadvantages Julie had in trying to frame an innocent man of killing his family. A month afterwards.
The 26 huge & obvious disadvantages would be there whether she did that in 1984 or not.
Her reaction to these disadvantages would be no different regardless of what she did in 1984. Which would be to not attempt anything.
Apologies Adam but don't understand your post. :o
-
To the best of my memory, at the time,m such was her reputation, she may as well have committed the murders herself.
I'm sure Jane but surely this is local gossip and rumour which would have affected anyone connected with the crime at that time. :-\
-
The two sums are for two different incidents. Don't know why you keep bringing this up? Jeremy borrowed the two grand from Nevil YEARS before the murders. There is no suggestion that Jeremy used this money to pay a hit man - that would be stupid given the time between his trip and the deaths of his family.
That's beside the point. RWB does not know the full circumstances behind the money. He comes up with stupid ideas.
Back to the question. How does the sum of £2000 end up on his radar before Julie 'comes forward'?
-
I know we cannot take our own experiences and upbringing to judge others, I would have been terrified at the thought of cheque fraud and stealing but I accept that is me at 20 not Julie. By the time I was 20 I was a Student Nurse with no energy but work and sleep ;D. I can't help wondering what was in her head, she was intelligent enough to get into Goldsmith's which was the top Teachers Training College before it became part of the university system. This makes me wonder where she learned her morals, makes me wonder about her mother, I'm afraid, we do tend to learn our morals and our behaviour by the example of those closest to us.
Hello Maggie
Good post IMO morals I believe we learn from our parents especially our Mothers and they mould us throughout our lives and the way Julie behaved would have horrified me even when I was 20 not just now in my later years.
-
Would the 1984 minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby have negated Julie's disadvantages below in trying to frame an innocent Bamber ?
She didn't know what evidence existed.
There would be no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.
There would be evidence showing Sheila was guilty. As she was.
She would be charged by the police. When caught lying.
Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.
To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?
Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?
There was no financial reward in approaching the police.
It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.
She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims.
Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.
She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.
It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.
She may quickly wilt under pressure. This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?
It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.
It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.
It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.
An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.
It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.
She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.
It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.
She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?
She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.
She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.
Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.
If an unsuccessful police approach became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.
Thanks for that Adam but I'm afraid it doesn't really make any difference to my reasoning although I am sure it makes perfect sense to you. :)
-
That's beside the point. RWB does not know the full circumstances behind the money. He comes up with stupid ideas.
Back to the question. How does the sum of £2000 end up on his radar before Julie 'comes forward'?
I imagine you are thinking that RWB is insinuating the £2000 he borrowed was used to pay the hitman?
How naive was RWB? I do get the impression he lived in a different time but of course that is just an impression. :)
-
I know we cannot take our own experiences and upbringing to judge others, I would have been terrified at the thought of cheque fraud and stealing but I accept that is me at 20 not Julie. By the time I was 20 I was a Student Nurse with no energy for anything but work and sleep ;D. I can't help wondering what was in her head, she was intelligent enough to get into Goldsmith's which was the top Teachers Training College before it became part of the university system. This makes me wonder where she learned her morals, makes me wonder about her mother, I'm afraid, we do tend to learn our morals and our behaviour by the example of those closest to us.
Well, that was the direction I was attempting to guide posters to. Not for one moment am I suggesting there was anything immoral about Mary Mugford, but if the necessity to have money was her raison d'etre, A) she'd have passed it on to Julie, B) she'd have thoroughly approved Julie's choice in Jeremy, MAYBE encouraging her to hang on to him so that her future was secured?
-
Yes, she was, but whom of us, at 20, haven't become involved with things we'd sooner not come back to haunt us?
Its no excuse using Mugfords age to excuse what she did, at 20 she can be married she can vote and she can be incarcerated in a womens prison
She was involved in cheque book fraud, robbery and drug dealing, she was aware a serious crime was going to happen 'supposedly', she was aware her boyfriend was responsible for the murders of 2 children and three adults 'supposedly', she volunteered to identify the bodies of two children and three adults her boyfriend had 'supposedly' murdered, she tried to smother Jeremy when he finished their relationship,
she stood shoulder to shoulder with Colin Caffell at the funeral 'knowing' Jeremy had murdered his two children and just to rub salt in everyone's wounds she agreed to pose for the News of the World to get a bonus of £25,000 without a thought for Colin or any of Neville and Junes close friends
She has never been punished for any of her crimes and must have been laughing all the way to the bank
-
I'm sure Jane but surely this is local gossip and rumour which would have affected anyone connected with the crime at that time. :-\
Oh absolutely. No evidence, was there. Just people's opinion...............bit like here, really ;D
-
Well, that was the direction I was attempting to guide posters to. Not for one moment am I suggesting there was anything immoral about Mary Mugford, but if the necessity to have money was her raison d'etre, A) she'd have passed it on to Julie, B) she'd have thoroughly approved Julie's choice in Jeremy, MAYBE encouraging her to hang on to him so that her future was secured?
Exactly except it is quite extreme imo and it does lead me further in that direction which makes me seriously question Mary Mugford's attitudes. I am just following a thought process but it does make me think and begs some questions. Goes to show without knowing the true characters of all the people involved in his crime it's hard to know where the whole thing begins and ends. :-\
-
Hello Maggie
Good post IMO morals I believe we learn from our parents especially our Mothers and they mould us throughout our lives and the way Julie behaved would have horrified me even when I was 20 not just now in my later years.
I do agree Bron, the mother figure is very powerful and can in some instances be very destructive. Makes you think....
-
Exactly except it is quite extreme imo and it does lead me further in that direction which makes me seriously question Mary Mugford's attitudes. I am just following a thought process but it does make me think and begs some questions. Goes to show without knowing the true characters of all the people involved in this crime it's hard to know where the whole thing begins and ends. :-\
None of it started with any of the characters as they were the day it happened.
-
Oh absolutely. No evidence, was there. Just people's opinion...............bit like here, really ;D
True. ;D
-
Still not sure what Julie did once as a 19 year old has got to do with her ignoring at least 26 huge & obvious disadvantages in trying to frame an innocent man of killing his family. A month after the massacre.
-
Well as I believe Jeremy is 100% innocent my feeling towards her is quite natural. Anyone that is as deceitful and greedy as Mugford will always get their comeuppance in the end.
Hi Jackie I agree with your post but IMO HATE is a very strong emotion and to feel it you have to be personally involved with that person just like to LOVE you have to be involved with the person. I c an understand how you feel about her she IMO was a shameful greedy selfish person. She will get her comeuppance no doubt about that.
-
Poor Mary Mugford, imagine the shame when she saw her daughter on the front of the News of the World
I bet she hid for months
I was actually just wondering if JM's mother encouraged her to do that interview and dress the way she did? It is possible she hoped there may be more in it for her daughter if she showed some flesh?
We will never know the answer but it is a possibility.
-
I was actually just wondering if JM's mother encouraged her to do that interview and dress the way she did? It is possible she hoped there may be more in it for her daughter if she showed some flesh?
We will never know the answer but it is a possibility.
It's very much a possibility, Maggie, especially as she'd lost her financially secure future to one of HM's holiday camps.
-
It's very much a possibility, Maggie, especially as she'd lost her financially secure future to one of HM's holiday camps.
Sorry to be thick who was HM?
-
I imagine you are thinking that RWB is insinuating the £2000 he borrowed was used to pay the hitman?
How naive was RWB? I do get the impression he lived in a different time but of course that is just an impression. :)
Considering he came up with the idea of Jeremy riding Junes bike dead in the night wearing a wetsuit. Despite being told of Sheila's prints being found on the shell casings. I think his entire judgment was clouded by dollar signs.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8339.msg397057.html#msg397057 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8339.msg397057.html#msg397057)
-
Sorry to be thick who was HM?
Maggie hahaha Her Majesty's prison :))
-
Sorry to be thick who was HM?
Heheheee ;D Her Majesty ;D ;D ;D
-
Heheheee ;D Her Majesty ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Oh sorry!! Got you!! ;D ;D ;D I was trying to think of a Holiday camp with the initial's HM. :o :o
-
Maggie hahaha Her Majesty's prison :))
;D ;D ;D ;D you as well susan!! ;D ;D ;D ;D nothing embarrassing about that!! ::) ::) ::)
-
I do agree Bron, the mother figure is very powerful and can in some instances be very destructive. Makes you think....
Obviously if you bring you children up properly and with a lot of love they won't have problems in later lives
It's nearly always the way the parents behave that affects children. Badly
-
Obviously if you bring you children up properly and with a lot of love they won't have problems in later lives
It's nearly always the way the parents behave that affects children. Badly
The way parents behave ALWAYS affects the children. Badly or well.
-
Obviously if you bring you children up properly and with a lot of love they won't have problems in later lives
It's nearly always the way the parents behave that affects children. Badly
Jackie I think there may be hope for you yet. Very few people are arguing that there are not special circumstances involved when you delve into his (or David Bain's) past. What we can see is the wool being pulled over our eyes for the past 32 years.
-
C'mon Jan. Such is the hatred you and others bear this woman, it really wouldn't matter HOW she put it coz there's no way on God's earth that you're prepared to believe her.
she ethere lied to put an innocent man in prison or coluded in the murder of 2 young children if you cant hate some one for ethere of those things what the hell can you hate them for.
-
she ethere lied to put an innocent man in prison or coluded in the murder of 2 young children if you hate some one for ethere of those things what the hell can you hate them for.
I really don't understand hatred of a person not personally known to one. Although I CAN understand hatred for their action.
-
Jackie I think there may be hope for you yet. Very few people are arguing that there are not special circumstances involved when you delve into his (or David Bain's) past. What we can see is the wool being pulled over our eyes for the past 32 years.
is that a joke, I think you need to look closely at yourself Steve and wonder why you get taken in by all the books you read
-
she ethere lied to put an innocent man in prison or coluded in the murder of 2 young children if you cant hate some one for ethere of those things what the hell can you hate them for.
thank you NUG Nug
-
Yes her & Susan Battersby did commit minor cheque book fraud once. Smuggling cannabis. I thought she just dealt with it at Goldsmiths college. Although I've never seen a source.
Neither of those crimes relate to the massacre. However Bamber's caravan break in does.
Anyway, there is no possibility of a 21 year old woman doing her second degree trying to frame an innocent man of killing his family. A month after the massacre. On the assumption she was jilted, devastated, mad & savagely vindictive in the first place.
There are too many huge & obvious disadvantages.
It might be balancing one set of disadvantages against another .
Career ruined , criminal charges , perhaps being accused of perverting the course of justice , perhaps being accused of being an accessory , versus a clean slate and being hailed a heroine for helping to jail a suspected child killer.
If you are going to hypothesise you should consider both angles .
-
is that a joke, I think you need to look closely at yourself Steve and wonder why you get taken in by all the books you read
I take the gossip with a pinch of salt, but the authors have researched the documents, which have footnotes in the text for ease of access. It's a shortcut really.
-
I take the gossip with a pinch of salt, but the authors have researched the documents, which have footnotes in the text for ease of access and which give me quick access to them. It's a shortcut really.
Then you read carol lees book then ? And some of the interviews about Sheila's demeanour before the murders ?
-
Then you read carol lees book then ? And some of the interviews about Sheila's demeanour before the murders ?
Well surely not everybody can be lying..
-
Well surely not everybody can be lying..
Did not say that , it seemed to indicate that her mood was up and down , not in a permanent zombie state . It was possible they were all telling the truth .
-
Did not say that , it seemed to indicate that her mood was up and down , not in a permanent zombie state . It was possible they were all telling the truth .
I was referring to June's mood altering after the Vaulty Manor visit. There's not much evidence to suggest that Sheila was acting normally at all those last few hours.
-
Then you read carol lees book then ? And some of the interviews about Sheila's demeanour before the murders ?
Specifically?
-
Specifically?
In one of the books and I read two close together there were comments by different people from the party and other situations that varied quite a lot . Some said she seemed cheerful and normal and participating and socialising others that said she seemed depressed and vacant .
-
I have already created a recent thread on Sheila's final days/hours -
Sheila was on a high dosage of Haloperidol. Haloperidol has 60+ side effects which effect mental & physical co ordination as well as having strong sedative effects.
Sheila's best friend said Sheila needed help getting off sofa's a week before the massacre.
Sheila smiled at Leonard Foakes earlier in the day. He did not say Sheila seemed agitated or aggressive.
Michael Horsnell saw Sheila walking on the massacre day and noticed clear body co ordination problems. He did not say Sheila seemed agitated or aggressive.
Sheila walked to Bamber's tractor with the twins. Bamber cannot remember what they spoke about. Bamber has never said Sheila seemed agitated or aggressive.
Sheila was'vacant', non responsive & not paying attention to alleged supper conversations about fostering according to Bamber. He did not say Sheila seemed agitated or aggressive.
Sheila spent 3 minutes just saying "yes/no" to Pamela Boutflour on the telephone. She did not say Sheila seemed agitated or aggressive.
Sheila was going to bed at 10pm according to Pamela Boutflour. Supporting this is she was found in her nightdress in the exact same condition you would expect someone to be in who had been killed seconds after getting out of bed.
-----------------
If anyone has any other witnesses in the days or hours before the massacre, please post.
-
Still not sure what Julie did once as a 19 year old has got to do with her ignoring at least 26 huge & obvious disadvantages in trying to frame an innocent man of killing his family. A month after the massacre.
Revising my post yesterday.
Julie committing minor cheque book fraud in 1984 with Susan Battersby would influence her decision on whether to attempt to frame Bamber.
It would make her less willing to attempt to frame Bamber. She knew that Bamber knew about the 1984 fraud & would inform the police if Julie turned on him. Which is what happened.
-
Revising my post yesterday.
Julie committing minor cheque book fraud in 1984 with Susan Battersby would influence her decision on whether to attempt to frame Bamber.
It would make her less willing to attempt to frame Bamber. She knew that Bamber knew about the 1984 fraud & would inform the police if Julie turned on him. Which is what happened.
You still insist on calling it 'minor' cheque fraud. They reported the cheque book stolen and then blatantly used it to buy goods in Oxford Street. That takes some nerve imo. Speaks volumes to me..... the young JM wanted possessions and was prepared to steal for them. She was tough enough to carry through such a scam. She didn't appear to have moral boundaries, she was 21, not 12 and was training to be a teacher.
It's sometimes suggested JB put her up to it and ineffective little Julie couldn't say no to him. That's a poor argument as she was in life and in the eyes of the law a grown up and quite capable of making her own decisions.
-
You still insist on calling it 'minor' cheque fraud. They reported the cheque book stolen and then blatantly used it to buy goods in Oxford Street. That takes some nerve imo. Speaks volumes to me..... the young JM wanted possessions and was prepared to steal for them. She was tough enough to carry through such a scam. She didn't appear to have moral boundaries, she was 21, not 12 and was training to be a teacher.
It's sometimes suggested JB put her up to it and ineffective little Julie couldn't say no to him. That's a poor argument as she was in life and in the eyes of the law a grown up and quite capable of making her own decisions.
I'm not excusing them but I think they did it more for a dare and a giggle. Jeremy had chidden them for being a "goody two shoes" and it wasn't as if they purposefully targeted luxury goods. As Julie herself said most of the stuff was put into bags and given to charity or thrown away after the event.
-
I'm not excusing them but I think they did it more for a dare and a giggle. Jeremy had chidden them for being a "goody two shoes" and it wasn't as if they purposefully targeted luxury goods. As Julie herself said most of the stuff was put into bags and given to charity or thrown away after the event.
I'm inclined to agree, Steve. I somehow don't see her as having the potential to be the arch criminal some present her as being.
-
I'm inclined to agree, Steve. I somehow don't see her as having the potential to be the arch criminal some present her as being.
Combine the fraud, drugs, robbery and then because of the calls and then not telling the police of Jeremy's plans (alleged) she could have been in an awful lot of trouble . And awful lot .
-
Combine the fraud, drugs, robbery and then because of the calls and then not telling the police of Jeremy's plans (alleged) she could have been in an awful lot of trouble . And awful lot .
But leaving the Oxford Street fraud aside Jeremy was involved in the lot.
-
Combine the fraud, drugs, robbery and then because of the calls and then not telling the police of Jeremy's plans (alleged) she could have been in an awful lot of trouble . And awful lot .
There seem to be an awful lot of "could haves", many of which sound like wishful thinking. Thing is, whatever predictions COULD have occurred, didn't.
-
But leaving the Oxford Street fraud aside Jeremy was involved in the lot.
I would have to check the city of London police report but I thought there was talk of drug smuggling from Canada ? Before she met Jeremy ? But I am prepared to be corrected
-
I would have to check the city of London police report but I thought there was talk of drug smuggling from Canada ? Before she met Jeremy ? But I am prepared to be corrected
This is Poppy Meze's allegation, which is uncorroborated.
-
I would have to check the city of London police report but I thought there was talk of drug smuggling from Canada ? Before she met Jeremy ? But I am prepared to be corrected
That's not true.
-
Combine the fraud, drugs, robbery and then because of the calls and then not telling the police of Jeremy's plans (alleged) she could have been in an awful lot of trouble . And awful lot .
She sold Jeremy's drugs and the robbery was down to him.
-
I would have to check the city of London police report but I thought there was talk of drug smuggling from Canada ? Before she met Jeremy ? But I am prepared to be corrected
Smuggling from Canada. Julie was a 19/20 year old student at Goldsmiths college. If she did sell cannabis, it would have been to friends within college.
-
That's not true.
Unlike some I will apologise if that is not true , however there was a document on here that contained that information . I did not realise it was forged .
-
Unlike some I will apologise if that is not true , however there was a document on here that contained that information . I did not realise it was forged .
Which document?
-
Unlike some I will apologise if that is not true , however there was a document on here that contained that information . I did not realise it was forged .
Would this not be where you read it? https://jeremybamber.org/julie-mugford/
-
Really this says it all
In her 17th December 1985 statement she states that by the 1st September she had said to Jeremy; “I would really love to hurt him and told him that I tried to stab the teddy bear that he had given me as a present.” Julie goes on to state that that night “We didn’t sleep well and at one point I got a pillow and put it over his head, I took it off and he asked me why I did it, and I said if he were dead he would always be with me.”
Abnormal behaviour from the prolific liar and a actress
The poor members of the jury when they saw Mugford was set to receive £25,000 if she convinced the jury Jeremy was responsible for the murders
-
Really this says it all
In her 17th December 1985 statement she states that by the 1st September she had said to Jeremy; “I would really love to hurt him and told him that I tried to stab the teddy bear that he had given me as a present.” Julie goes on to state that that night “We didn’t sleep well and at one point I got a pillow and put it over his head, I took it off and he asked me why I did it, and I said if he were dead he would always be with me.”
Abnormal behaviour from the prolific liar and a actress
The poor members of the jury when they saw Mugford was set to receive £25,000 if she convinced the jury Jeremy was responsible for the murders
Well, I doubt that there was anything too sinister about the bear stabbing -it was actually a very safe and healing way to vent her anger- and it doesn't seem that Jeremy was unduly concerned about her putting the pillow over his face when we have his only reaction -after she'd removed it- as asking her why she'd done it. There is nothing there about him struggling for breath or having to fight her off. At this point I think she was probably still in love with him and was scared of losing him. It must also be remembered that she confessed to having done these things suggesting lack of evil intent. Did she not tell counsel "I was very much in love with him. I'd hoped to marry him"?
Perhaps you could back up that statement by producing the document, the conditions of which state that Julie only would receive £25,000 on condition that "she convinced the jury Jeremy was responsible for the murders".
-
I'm still waiting for proof Jeremy helped himself to potatoes without Nevilles consent
-
I'm still waiting for proof Jeremy helped himself to potatoes without Nevilles consent
Still waiting for you to tell us which documentary you were involved with?
-
Still waiting for you to tell us which documentary you were involved with?
For clarification ask
Ngb that should shut you up and just so you are aware I am talking to two companies that are both interested interested in putting together a mini series on the WHF murders because of the amount of evidence that is NOT in the public arena
-
I'm still waiting for proof Jeremy helped himself to potatoes without Nevilles consent
Cat got your tongue Jane
-
Would this not be where you read it? https://jeremybamber.org/julie-mugford/
nope .
It was a letter about her immunity - found another one which lists drug abuse, fraud, drug dealing and burglary .
-
For clarification ask
Ngb that should shut you up and just so you are aware I am talking to two companies that are both interested interested in putting together a mini series on the WHF murders because of the amount of evidence that is NOT in the public arena
I'm asking YOU! You live in fantasy land! Don't believe a word of it! ::)
-
I'm still waiting for proof Jeremy helped himself to potatoes without Nevilles consent
I don't know if I am included in your question as I did comment on the original post. As far as I was concerned I didn't claim Jeremy 'helped himself' to potatoes or anything else without Nevill's consent. I'm sure Nevill was well aware of what Jeremy did and if he didn't like it he was quite capable of stopping it., as far as we know he didn't stop it therefore he can't have been bothered about it. :-\
-
I don't know if I am included in your question as I did comment on the original post. As far as I was concerned I didn't claim Jeremy 'helped himself' to potatoes or anything else without Nevill's consent. I'm sure Nevill was well aware of what Jeremy did and if he didn't like it he was quite capable of stopping it., as far as we know he didn't stop it therefore he can't have been bothered about it. :-\
Thank you Maggie it was obviously to Jane
-
I'm asking YOU! You live in fantasy land! Don't believe a word of it! ::)
I don't live in a fantasy that's you Mrs forum hopper
If you had any intelligence you would know the answer
-
I don't know what Julie committing minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby as a 19 year old in 1984 , has got to do with Bamber massacring his family. Apart from it would deter Julie from approaching the police after the massacre, as Bamber knew about the cheque book fraud.
Ditto the caravan break in which Bamber got Julie to be a look out. Julie told the police about the caravan break in. The judge also said that the caravan break in showed Bamber trusted Julie enough to involve him in his crimes.
-
Really this says it all
In her 17th December 1985 statement she states that by the 1st September she had said to Jeremy; “I would really love to hurt him and told him that I tried to stab the teddy bear that he had given me as a present.” Julie goes on to state that that night “We didn’t sleep well and at one point I got a pillow and put it over his head, I took it off and he asked me why I did it, and I said if he were dead he would always be with me.”
Abnormal behaviour from the prolific liar and a actress
The poor members of the jury when they saw Mugford was set to receive £25,000 if she convinced the jury Jeremy was responsible for the murders
Jackie
Just my opinion but I would have thought that if Jeremy was not convicted Julie would have got nothing Jeremy would have got the big handout not her
-
I don't know what Julie committing minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby as a 19 year old in 1984 , has got to do with Bamber massacring his family. Apart from it would deter Julie from approaching the police after the massacre, as Bamber knew about the cheque book fraud.
Ditto the caravan break in which Bamber got Julie to be a look out. Julie told the police about the caravan break in. The judge also said that the caravan break in showed Bamber trusted Julie enough to involve him in his crimes.
Adam why do you introduce the word "minor" into the cheque book fraud.? Fraud is fraud and that is the end of that and quite a serious criminal offence I may add. Maybe Julie was the instigated of the caravan robbery and she trusted Jeremy enough to confide in him none of us know the answer as most of what is written and spoken about on here is either hearsay or a persons opinion.
-
I don't live in a fantasy that's you Mrs forum hopper
If you had any intelligence you would know the answer
I do know the answer ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I do know the answer ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
We'll post it then
-
Adam why do you introduce the word "minor" into the cheque book fraud.? Fraud is fraud and that is the end of that and quite a serious criminal offence I may add. Maybe Julie was the instigated of the caravan robbery and she trusted Jeremy enough to confide in him none of us know the answer as most of what is written and spoken about on here is either hearsay or a persons opinion.
Totally agree with you Susan.
-
I don't know what Julie committing minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby as a 19 year old in 1984 , has got to do with Bamber massacring his family. Apart from it would deter Julie from approaching the police after the massacre, as Bamber knew about the cheque book fraud.
Ditto the caravan break in which Bamber got Julie to be a look out. Julie told the police about the caravan break in. The judge also said that the caravan break in showed Bamber trusted Julie enough to involve him in his crimes.
There you go minimizing Julie's behaviour to prove your point. Whichever way you look at it and whatever JB may or may not have done I would bet Julie was no shrinking violet. She was probably quite a tough cookie who for some reason didn't seem to be able to make good choices.
-
We'll post it then
I'm waiting for you to reveal it to the forum.
-
nope .
It was a letter about her immunity - found another one which lists drug abuse, fraud, drug dealing and burglary .
Do you have a link Jan?
-
Adam why do you introduce the word "minor" into the cheque book fraud.? Fraud is fraud and that is the end of that and quite a serious criminal offence I may add. Maybe Julie was the instigated of the caravan robbery and she trusted Jeremy enough to confide in him none of us know the answer as most of what is written and spoken about on here is either hearsay or a persons opinion.
It was Bamber's choice to rob his family & stage the scene.
He said he would be the number one suspect but no one will be able to prove it. He also said he did it to highlight poor security. However then contradicted himself by saying he shouldn't have spent all the money.
Julie was just dragged along in the middle of the night to act as look out.
-
Not sure what security Bamber thought he was protecting at the caravan site.
Why would burglars rob a caravan site office ? Chances are there would be nothing of any value. Anything of any value would be in a safe.
-
I'm waiting for you to reveal it to the forum.
I have revealed everything on the forum and I will not be posting anymore and most of the communications regarding the documentary are private including the backlash but I would have copied Ngb as I alway do because I respect his opinion
I have no obligation to reveal anything to you so you will just have to deal with that
-
Jackie
Just my opinion but I would have thought that if Jeremy was not convicted Julie would have got nothing Jeremy would have got the big handout not her
I know Susan, luckily I have never experienced meeting someone as wicked as Mugford before
-
There you go minimizing Julie's behaviour to prove your point. Whichever way you look at it and whatever JB may or may not have done I would bet Julie was no shrinking violet. She was probably quite a tough cookie who for some reason didn't seem to be able to make good choices.
Well she smoked & dealt Cannabis although I have not seen a source. Committed minor cheque book fraud as a teenager & acted as look out when Bamber robbed the caravan site.
Only the minor cheque book fraud & caravan break in relate to the massacre. Both would have deterred Julie from approaching the police. Bamber trusting Julie enough to assist him with the caravan break in shows he trusted her enough to involve her in his criminal activities.
-
You still insist on calling it 'minor' cheque fraud. They reported the cheque book stolen and then blatantly used it to buy goods in Oxford Street. That takes some nerve imo. Speaks volumes to me..... the young JM wanted possessions and was prepared to steal for them. She was tough enough to carry through such a scam. She didn't appear to have moral boundaries, she was 21, not 12 and was training to be a teacher.
It's sometimes suggested JB put her up to it and ineffective little Julie couldn't say no to him. That's a poor argument as she was in life and in the eyes of the law a grown up and quite capable of making her own decisions.
I quite agree Maggie she was no shrinking violet Adam would have us think that JM was taken in but she said she knew from day one that JB was guilty but said nothing even after viewing the bodies.
She was probably smoking cannabis long before she met Jeremy imo.
I wonder if she is as liberal with drug taking now she is a headmistress?
-
I'm still waiting for proof Jeremy helped himself to potatoes without Nevilles consent
Who said he did? You're the one who's planting the thought.
-
I quite agree Maggie she was no shrinking violet Adam would have us think that JM was taken in but she said she knew from day one that JB was guilty but said nothing even after viewing the bodies.
She was probably smoking cannabis long before she met Jeremy imo.
I wonder if she is as liberal with drug taking now she is a headmistress?
Julie betrayed Bamber after 20 days. She didn't have much chance before that as Bamber was whisking her to Eastbourne, Pevensey, London & Amsterdam.
Maybe she was smoking cannabis before meeting Bamber. So what ?
-
It was Bamber's choice to rob his family & stage the scene.
He said he would be the number one suspect but no one will be able to prove it. He also said he did it to highlight poor security. However then contradicted himself by saying he shouldn't have spent all the money.
Julie was just dragged along in the middle of the night to act as look out.
Adam source please for all the points you raised you speak as if you were Julie and that is how you know exactly what Jeremy said I find this so creepy.
-
Can someone provide a source that Julie smoked & dealt in cannabis. I have only read it on here from supporters ? Not that it has anything to do with the massacre.
Bamber including Julie in his drug buying trip to Amsterdam again shows Bamber was prepared to involve Julie in his criminal activities. This explains Bamber's 3 phone calls in 7 hours either side of the massacre.
-
Adam source please for all the points you raised you speak as if you were Julie and that is how you know exactly what Jeremy said I find this so creepy.
You are always asking people for sources, but never provide any yourself. Which is creepy.
The source is Bamber's court testimony.
-
I know Susan, luckily I have never experienced meeting someone as wicked as Mugford before
Surely you look in a mirror? ;)
-
Julie betrayed Bamber after 20 days. She didn't have much chance before that as Bamber was whisking her to Eastbourne, Pevensey, London & Amsterdam.
Maybe she was smoking cannabis before meeting Bamber. So what ?
Adam what you are saying is Julie was enjoying herself so much tripping off with Jeremy she put the dreadful murders he had committed to the back of her mind then he dumped her and she remembered then. Oh dear
-
Thank you Maggie it was obviously to Jane
It was YOU!!!!!!!!!
-
Can someone provide a source that Julie smoked & dealt in cannabis. I have only read it on here from supporters ? Not that it has anything to do with the massacre.
Bamber including Julie in his drug buying trip to Amsterdam again shows Bamber was prepared to involve Julie in his criminal activities. This explains Bamber's 3 phone calls in 7 hours either side of the massacre.
It explains nothing.... try harder Adam. ;D
-
Adam what you are saying is Julie was enjoying herself so much tripping off with Jeremy she put the dreadful murders he had committed to the back of her mind then he dumped her and she remembered then. Oh dear
Julie betrayed Bamber after 20 days. Telling 5 people what she knew.
She was still with Bamber.
-
I quite agree Maggie she was no shrinking violet Adam would have us think that JM was taken in but she said she knew from day one that JB was guilty but said nothing even after viewing the bodies.
She was probably smoking cannabis long before she met Jeremy imo.
I wonder if she is as liberal with drug taking now she is a headmistress?
Hello buddy, bet there aren't many Headteachers who have a past quite like hers. ::)
-
Obviously Bamber getting Julie involved in his caravan break in & drug smuggling from Amsterdam shows he believed she was suffiently under his spell.
This explains Bamber's 10pm, 3am & 5.30am phone calls to Julie either side of the massacre. Once again he needed her by his side until things blew over.
-
Hello buddy, bet there aren't many Headteachers who have a past quite like hers. ::)
No Maggie that is why she left these shores. British would not have been very forgiving.
-
Hello buddy, bet there aren't many Headteachers who have a past quite like hers. ::)
Maggie she would not have got where she is today with a criminal record. I have wondered if she has fleeting thoughts about the Court proceedings and the love of her life still in prison makes me shudder.
-
Obviously Bamber getting Julie involved in his caravan break in & drug smuggling from Amsterdam shows he believed she was suffiently under his spell.
This explains Bamber's 10pm, 3am & 5.30am phone calls to Julie either side of the massacre. Once again he needed her by his side until things blew over.
Adam do you think Jeremy and Julie planned the murders together and she was not able to be by his side because she would have no alibi.
-
Surely you look in a mirror? ;)
Another vile comment from the most twisted person on the forum
How dare you compare me with one of the most wicked women that got her kicks from visiting forums
-
You are always asking people for sources, but never provide any yourself. Which is creepy.
The source is Bamber's court testimony.
Adam you know I don't do sources or links you are the man for that and when you provide them I read them I will pop along and read Jeremy's Court testimony I learn so much from you :)
-
Adam do you think Jeremy and Julie planned the murders together and she was not able to be by his side because she would have no alibi.
No. Bamber told Julie of his plans. She did not believe he would do anything. Don't blame her, 5X massacres are non existent.
-
No Maggie that is why she left these shores. British would not have been very forgiving.
I would love to see her NOTW article on the front of every newspaper in Canada then she wouldn't have that smug look on her face anymore
Karma
-
Another vile comment from the most twisted person on the forum
How dare you compare me with one of the most wicked women that got her kicks from visiting forums
The only reason you've STOPPED visiting the other forum is because you were chucked off. Now we're stuck with your fantasies.
-
I would love to see her NOTW article on the front of every newspaper in Canada then she wouldn't have that smug look on her face anymore
Karma
I'm surprised you haven't already supplied it..............or perhaps you have and they declined your offer?
-
I don't know what Julie committing minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby as a 19 year old in 1984 , has got to do with Bamber massacring his family. Apart from it would deter Julie from approaching the police after the massacre, as Bamber knew about the cheque book fraud.
Ditto the caravan break in which Bamber got Julie to be a look out. Julie told the police about the caravan break in. The judge also said that the caravan break in showed Bamber trusted Julie enough to involve him in his crimes.
Involve him in his crimes? That's interesting.
-
It was Bamber's choice to rob his family & stage the scene.
He said he would be the number one suspect but no one will be able to prove it. He also said he did it to highlight poor security. However then contradicted himself by saying he shouldn't have spent all the money.
Julie was just dragged along in the middle of the night to act as look out.
She did not know the word no then?
-
The only reason you've STOPPED visiting the other forum is because you were chucked off. Now we're stuck with your fantasies.
I find it quite pathetic to keep attacking Jackie for her views. She was chucked off for her views did not follow that forums stance. It is not a fantisy but her take on things which she is entitled to.
-
Adam you know I don't do sources or links you are the man for that and when you provide them I read them I will pop along and read Jeremy's Court testimony I learn so much from you :)
He doesn't have nor has he read Jeremy's court testimony.
-
I find it quite pathetic to keep attacking Jackie for her views. She was chucked off for her views did not follow that forums stance. It is not a fantisy but her take on things which she is entitled to.
I think you have it the wrong way round, buddy. It's Jackie who comes at me, all guns blazing. I have NEVER fired the first bullet. I've told her publicly, if she leaves me alone, I'll be delighted to ignore her, but it seems she gets some sort of perverted pleasure in continuing to have digs at me. It concerns me not a JOT. For every dig she takes at me, I'll return it. Believe me, she's no innocent. This is a woman who has caused more mischief than most of us have had hot dinners, nevertheless, as you say, she's entitled to her take on things, but for those who want the truth, fantasies create a barrier.
-
I think you have it the wrong way round, buddy. It's Jackie who comes at me, all guns blazing. I have NEVER fired the first bullet. I've told her publicly, if she leaves me alone, I'll be delighted to ignore her, but it seems she gets some sort of perverted pleasure in continuing to have digs at me. It concerns me not a JOT. For every dig she takes at me, I'll return it. Believe me, she's no innocent. This is a woman who has caused more mischief than most of us have had hot dinners, nevertheless, as you say, she's entitled to her take on things, but for those who want the truth, fantasies create a barrier.
We all need the truth Jane. One way or another.
-
Do you have a link Jan?
Topic: Mugford Charges withdrawn before the courts (13 pages of scanned documents) (Read 4829 times)
-
We all need the truth Jane. One way or another.
We do indeed, buddy, The trouble is, some don't recognize it.
-
He doesn't have nor has he read Jeremy's court testimony.
David I did wonder about that guess I wont waste my time looking then ;)
-
He doesn't have nor has he read Jeremy's court testimony.
Just wanted to say I found your comparisons with what the family were saying and what Julie was saying very interesting.
It seems like the family were trying everything to work out a scenario of how Jeremy could have committed the murders , trying to cover every angle that the police had "not yet worked out". And all of a sudden Julie comes up with the same scenarios.
It sort of answers a few questions I had in my mind .
-
We all need the truth Jane. One way or another.
Buddy you are indeed quite correct but what members must do is recognise that all our truths maybe different and we must respect that and accept many think Jeremy is innocent others he is guilty none of us know for sure either way.
-
He doesn't have nor has he read Jeremy's court testimony.
There is a whole chapter on Bamber's testimony in Wilkes's book.
I have told you this before.
-
Julie betrayed Bamber after 20 days. Telling 5 people what she knew.
She was still with Bamber.
Not what she knew though was it ? A lot of it was a load of rubbish to try and make the crime fit what the police knew .
And she clearly says he was even planning to kill them with even cyanide and then did not connect his intricate plans , even mentioning why he would kill the TWINS , with the actual deed . Really ?
-
Not what she knew though was it ? A lot of it was a load of rubbish to try and make the crime fit what the police knew .
And she clearly says he was even planning to kill them with even cyanide and then did not connect his intricate plans , even mentioning why he would kill the TWINS , with the actual deed . Really ?
How did Julie know what the police knew, she only spoke to them once on the massacre morning.
-
How did Julie know what the police knew, she only spoke to them once on the massacre morning.
Hmm perhaps she didn't . :)
-
Adam that post about Jackie is very unkind and NGB will decide who is banned and who is not and it will not be on your recommendation I am sure.
I must add also that the Red Forum is mostly made up of posters who think Jeremy is guilty they may have one or two who think he is innocent.
-
I was searching the web to try and find some older pictures of White House Farm. (1920s etc)
I found this ;D
(https://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/White-House-Sheep.jpg.600x315_q90_crop-smart.jpg)
-
I was searching the web to try and find some older pictures of White House Farm. (1920s etc)
I found this ;D
(https://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/White-House-Sheep.jpg.600x315_q90_crop-smart.jpg)
Thank you David
-
Yep it shows I will not put up with your bullying and insults particularly to Lookout
You should have grasped that by now
Simon said my video was very powerful
Such praise from the man
But I learned it all from you when I first joined, Jackie. Your old posts, coupled with your being banned from two forums, plus the number of posters who warned me about you, backs up what I'm saying.
I guess it cost Simon nothing whatsoever to say nice things about your video. He simply told you what you wanted to hear.
-
I was searching the web to try and find some older pictures of White House Farm. (1920s etc)
I found this ;D
(https://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/White-House-Sheep.jpg.600x315_q90_crop-smart.jpg)
Animal farm springs to mind sometimes .
-
But I learned it all from you when I first joined, Jackie. Your old posts, coupled with your being banned from two forums, plus the number of posters who warned me about you, backs up what I'm saying.
I guess it cost Simon nothing whatsoever to say nice things about your video. He simply told you what you wanted to hear.
Can you make yourself look even stupider
You have excelled yourself tonight
Now you know what Simon McKay the barrister thinks
I bet everyone is having good laugh at your expense
-
Can you make yourself look even stupider
You have excelled yourself tonight
Now you know what Simon McKay the barrister thinks
I bet everyone is having good laugh at your expense
You're looking in that mirror and talking to yourself again, aren't you? There appears to be NO depths you won't sink to in order to extricate yourself from the responsibilities of your own behaviour. Perhaps you'd care to tell me -and everyone else- why it's I who look foolish for revealing what you are. I'm not in the least bit interested in what you tell me that SM said...............but I would be interested to hear what he believes. Oh, and for future reference, correctly said, it "more stupid" NOT "stupider".
-
Kaldin there is a lots on the thread about Julie Mugford offering to identify the bodies Of The 3 adults and two babies although she wasn't a close relative and there were numerous other people who could have done this
Teachers, social workers, foster parents
A defining moment in the case
We are led to believe she is an intelligent human being???
Can anyone really believe she would do this if they knew the person she was sleeping with was responsible
As we know Julie was a prolific liar and if this points strongly to the fact Julie lied about what she knew and witnessed what else is left in this case to point at Jeremy
-
Kaldin there is a lots on the thread about Julie Mugford offering to identify the bodies Of The 3 adults and two babies although she wasn't a close relative and there were numerous other people who could have done this
Teachers, social workers, foster parents
A defining moment in the case
We are led to believe she is an intelligent human being???
Can anyone really believe she would do this if they knew the person she was sleeping with was responsible
As we know Julie was a prolific liar and if this points strongly to the fact Julie lied about what she knew and witnessed what else is left in this case to point at Jeremy
You've been told why Julie identified the bodies, they wouldn't ask teachers and social workers FFS!
-
You've been told why Julie identified the bodies, they wouldn't ask teachers and social workers FFS!
Told by you, another one of your 'stories'
There were numerous other people who could identify the bodies other that Jeremy's bit on side who was in for months and went along with the 'planned murders'
It's a fact and you have not posted a single piece of evidence to prove otherwise
Not one
-
Told by you, another one of your 'stories'
There were numerous other people who could identify the bodies other that Jeremy's bit on side who was in for months and went along with the 'planned murders'
It's a fact and you have not posted a single piece of evidence to prove otherwise
Not one
surely one of the relatives could of inditified the bodys dident any of them know what the twins looked like,
-
Told by you, another one of your 'stories'
There were numerous other people who could identify the bodies other that Jeremy's bit on side who was in for months and went along with the 'planned murders'
It's a fact and you have not posted a single piece of evidence to prove otherwise
Not one
Why would EP go to the trouble of contacting and picking up teachers and social workers from London, driving them to Essex when Julie Mugford was there at the scene, (she could tell them apart and was willing to do so)?
Grow up Jackie!
-
Foster parents ?
-
Why would EP go to the trouble of contacting and picking up teachers and social workers from London, driving them to Essex when Julie Mugford was there at the scene, (she could tell them apart and was willing to do so)?
Grow up Jackie!
No you grow up and get real
If 'was' involved in the murder plan she would never had offered to view the bodies
Are you suggesting she went straight from shagging Jeremy just down the road to the mortuary?
-
Why would EP go to the trouble of contacting and picking up teachers and social workers from London, driving them to Essex when Julie Mugford was there at the scene, (she could tell them apart and was willing to do so)?
Grow up Jackie!
Right so how far in miles were the foster parents (you obviously know)
-
Why would EP go to the trouble of contacting and picking up teachers and social workers from London, driving them to Essex when Julie Mugford was there at the scene, (she could tell them apart and was willing to do so)?
Grow up Jackie!
Another ridiculous post, are you suggesting that Mugford knew the twins better than the foster parents and social workers
-
Right so how far in miles were the foster parents (you obviously know)
How far in meters was Julie Mugford? Your suggestion as per usual, is ludicrous.
-
Another ridiculous post, are you suggesting that Mugford knew the twins better than the foster parents and social workers
why dident Jeremy or the relatives do it.
-
why dident Jeremy or the relatives do it.
The relatives couldn't tell the twins apart - don't know why Jeremy didn't. Someone would have to ask him.
-
The relatives couldn't tell the twins apart - don't know why Jeremy didn't. Someone would have to ask him.
You obviously know that ????? Or another guess
No the relatives didn't bother much with the Bamber family until they saw money up for grabs
-
How far in meters was Julie Mugford? Your suggestion as per usual, is ludicrous.
Answer the bloody question as you are suggesting all people capable of identifying the bodies were two far away
Or are you making stuff up as usual
-
Answer the bloody question as you are suggesting all people capable of identifying the bodies were two far away
Or are you making stuff up as usual
I have answered the question, you don't seem to be able to grasp the simple concept of 'Julie was there in front of them, willing and able to identify the twins'. She was THERE!!!!!!!!!
-
You obviously know that ????? Or another guess
No the relatives didn't bother much with the Bamber family until they saw money up for grabs
Jeremy was unlucky that the relatives tried to & succeeded in framing him.
-
Kaldin there is a lots on the thread about Julie Mugford offering to identify the bodies Of The 3 adults and two babies although she wasn't a close relative and there were numerous other people who could have done this
Teachers, social workers, foster parents
A defining moment in the case
We are led to believe she is an intelligent human being???
Can anyone really believe she would do this if they knew the person she was sleeping with was responsible
As we know Julie was a prolific liar and if this points strongly to the fact Julie lied about what she knew and witnessed what else is left in this case to point at Jeremy
I agree that it was a very strange thing to do. Apparently, she wanted to make sure they didn't "suffer" presumably so she could carry on protecting Jeremy and tell herself that it was fine to overlook a few murders.
-
I agree that it was a very strange thing to do. Apparently, she wanted to make sure they didn't "suffer" presumably so she could carry on protecting Jeremy and tell herself that it was fine to overlook a few murders.
I still find this an odd way to look at things. If Julie is all that, then Jeremy is guilty and you (and a few others) are vilifying her more than him. I can understand someone defending Bamber because they think he's innocent, but not the above approach. ???
-
I agree that it was a very strange thing to do. Apparently, she wanted to make sure they didn't "suffer" presumably so she could carry on protecting Jeremy and tell herself that it was fine to overlook a few murders.
You have got it in for Julie -
She wore a veil at the funeral.
She wasn't interested in Bamber's 3am call to her.
She started telling other people after 20 days. Rather than within 1 minute of arriving at WHF.
Now you are on the identifying the bodies bandwagon.
Thought you were going to discuss the evidence. Or rather hoped. Obviously Julie's actions makes Bamber innocent. And the unluckiest man ever.
-
I have answered the question, you don't seem to be able to grasp the simple concept of 'Julie was there in front of them, willing and able to identify the twins'. She was THERE!!!!!!!!!
You don't seem to grasp the implications of the word 'willing'
-
You don't seem to grasp the implications of the word 'willing'
Then you had better explain them to me?
-
Answer the bloody question as you are suggesting all people capable of identifying the bodies were two far away
Or are you making stuff up as usual
Answer the question
-
I still find this an odd way to look at things. If Julie is all that, then Jeremy is guilty and you (and a few others) are vilifying her more than him. I can understand someone defending Bamber because they think he's innocent, but not the above approach. ???
It's very simple really Caroline; H G TUdor sums it up well in his work...
"Hello,
Welcome to Knowing the Narcissist.
I am H G Tudor. I am a narcissistic sociopath (some state psychopath – this remains a matter of debate by the profession concerning the current application of sociopath or psychopath).
By my terminology I am a Greater Elite Narcissist. You will learn here what that means along with all about the other types of narcissists and empaths too.
I convey this is an effective manner based on my perspective. I know what I am and I know the best way to communicate this to you. I am a very effective communicator.
I write extensively about what this means and what I am. I have practised this dark art for many years, I have honed and crafted my abilities. I am aware of what I am and I am engaged in understanding why I am this way and why I act as I do. I am sharing these ongoing revelations.
I know my kind in considerable detail. I have several family members who are narcissists and have engaged with numerous in my life. I know the way my kind think, why we act as we do, say what we say and so much more. I understand why we target our victims and how we go about it. I comprehend why our victims think and act as they do. I have had many, watched many and listened to many. This allows me to build a formidable body of knowledge about not only my kind, but the people we engage with. https://narcsite.com/about/
-
You have got it in for Julie -
She wore a veil at the funeral.
She wasn't interested in Bamber's 3am call to her.
She started telling other people after 20 days. Rather than within 1 minute of arriving at WHF.
Now you are on the identifying the bodies bandwagon.
Thought you were going to discuss the evidence. Or rather hoped. Obviously Julie's actions makes Bamber innocent. And the unluckiest man ever.
Why shouldn't I disapprove of her? She covered up for him for a whole month and she carried on sharing her life with him. If she'd run off to London in a state, not seen him after that, and then come forward a month later, I might have understood that, but she didn't.
-
Answer the question
Jesus woman! Whats wrong with you? I have answered the bloody question - you don't seem to know what the hell you're talking about. It's a dumb question to start with and the answer is obvious unless you're a card carrying Julie hater!
-
Then you had better explain them to me?
The vast majority of people on this forum believe Julie lied from start to finish about Jeremy's involvement in the murders
A highly intelligent person like Julie would never have stepped foot in that mortuary knowing what she supposedly knew
It never happened.
-
I still find this an odd way to look at things. If Julie is all that, then Jeremy is guilty and you (and a few others) are vilifying her more than him. I can understand someone defending Bamber because they think he's innocent, but not the above approach. ???
I just don't like the way she's portrayed as a "victim" and/or a heroine.
-
I have answered the question, you don't seem to be able to grasp the simple concept of 'Julie was there in front of them, willing and able to identify the twins'. She was THERE!!!!!!!!!
Answer the question for gods sake
Answer how far away the others were located
The people were dead, stone dead and did not need to be identify Ed immediately
Try grasping that
-
I have answered the question, you don't seem to be able to grasp the simple concept of 'Julie was there in front of them, willing and able to identify the twins'. She was THERE!!!!!!!!!
She didn't just happen to be there, she put in a request to see the bodies.
-
She didn't just happen to be there, she put in a request to see the bodies.
Exactly
-
Answer the question for gods sake
Answer how far away the others were located
The people were dead, stone dead and did not need to be identify Ed immediately
Try grasping that
Seriously, it's pointless even answering you. They needed someone to identify the twins, someone was willing to do so at the scene - end of! She didn't put her hand up screaming 'pick me' - you're (as usual) making something out of nothing!
-
She didn't just happen to be there, she put in a request to see the bodies.
No she didn't!
-
Why shouldn't I disapprove of her? She covered up for him for a whole month and she carried on sharing her life with him. If she'd run off to London in a state, not seen him after that, and then come forward a month later, I might have understood that, but she didn't.
You can disapprove & say you believe you would have acted differently in her situation & at her age.
Obviously because you believe this is not a valid reason for having any kind of stance on the case.
-
Seriously, it's pointless even answering you. They needed someone to identify the twins, someone was willing to do so at the scene - end of! She didn't put her hand up screaming 'pick me' - you're (as usual) making something out of nothing!
You provide the proof the twins had to be identified immediately
-
It wasn't a murder scene there was no rush you provide the proof
-
You provide the proof the twins had to be identified immediately
The autopsies! ::)
-
You can disapprove & say you believe you would have acted differently in her situation & at her age.
Obviously because you believe this is not a valid reason for having any kind of stance on the case.
I don't need your permission to disapprove of her. Any decent person would have acted differently to her - she must have been as hard as nails.
-
It wasn't a murder scene there was no rush you provide the proof
In order to carry out an autopsy, you have to identify the deceased - they needed to tell the twins apart!
-
Julie requested to go and identify them. She wasn't asked to.
-
Julie requested to go and identify them. She wasn't asked to.
So what ?
-
No she didn't!
Yes she did - it's in her statement.
-
Julie requested to go and identify them. She wasn't asked to.
I didn't say she was 'asked' to, she 'offered' ONLY after Colin and Jeremy has refused. You make it sound like she couldn't wait.
-
I didn't say she was 'asked' to, she 'offered' ONLY after Colin and Jeremy has refused. You make it sound like she couldn't wait.
She couldn't. She wanted to go and see them as she felt "she had to see the bodies, and she specifically asked DS Jones if she could.
-
She couldn't. She wanted to go and see them as she felt "she had to see the bodies, and she specifically asked DS Jones if she could.
No she didn't - she offered when Colin and Jeremy refused - If you have proof that she asked, then post it!
-
No she didn't - she offered when Colin and Jeremy refused - If you have proof that she asked, then post it!
Here you are. She asked DS Jones and the arrangements were made.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1932
-
Here you are. She asked DS Jones and the arrangements were made.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1932
That just says she did it. Not that she was asked or offerred.
-
That just says she did it. Not that she was asked or offerred.
It says that she requested to see the bodies.
-
In fact, she thought about requesting to see them a second time, but she thought that might look suspicious and that questions would be asked.
-
It says that she requested to see the bodies.
Where does it state that she requested to see them?
-
Where does it state that she requested to see them?
Page 7/8 of her statement dated 10th September.
-
'At.....I attended the mortuary where I viewed the bodies'.
Still can't see the word requested.
But if she did offer to help Bamber, the police & the relatives, so what ?
-
'At.....I attended the mortuary where I viewed the bodies'.
Still can't see the word requested.
But if she did offer to help Bamber, the police & the relatives, so what ?
Try reading the correct bit.
So what? So she wanted to see the bodies of the people she allegedly knew Jeremy had murdered. Do you not find that bizarre?
-
Try reading the correct bit.
So what? So she wanted to see the bodies of the people she allegedly knew Jeremy had murdered. Do you not find that bizarre?
Who said she wanted to ? She never asked to be at WHF in the first place. Bamber whisking her over after his third call to her.
She identified the bodies to try to be helpful as she could identify them apart. As well as several other reasons I have given a list of.
-
Try reading the correct bit.
So what? So she wanted to see the bodies of the people she allegedly knew Jeremy had murdered. Do you not find that bizarre?
Fair enough, it does state that, but if you read all of the documents concerning ID'ing the bodies. Colin was asked first and refused, Jeremy also refused so she didn't just request to ID them off the cuff.
-
Try reading the correct bit.
So what? So she wanted to see the bodies of the people she allegedly knew Jeremy had murdered. Do you not find that bizarre?
I just read it again. It only mentions the visit in the last 4 lines. But does not say 'requested'.
-
Yes she did. She said she wanted to see if they'd suffered.
Look, even if she did to spare Jeremy, what was she thinking? Was she thinking - awww, the poor lamb has just had his family murdered and he's too upset to see them, so I'll do it to spare his feelings? I mean, what sort of person thinks that way?
-
Yes she did. She said she wanted to see if they'd suffered.
Look, even if she did to spare Jeremy, what was she thinking? Was she thinking - awww, the poor lamb has just had his family murdered and he's too upset to see them, so I'll do it to spare his feelings? I mean, what sort of person thinks that way?
Alright. You believe Julie shouldn't have identified the bodies. After Bamber had whisked her to WHF and just told her MM had committed the massacre.
Although there are several reasons why she did.
How does that negate the evidence that Bamber committed the massacre ?
-
Alright. You believe Julie shouldn't have identified the bodies. After Bamber had whisked her to WHF and just told her MM had committed the massacre.
Although there are several reasons why she did.
How does that negate the evidence that Bamber committed the massacre ?
Why do you think she should have done it?
-
Yes she did. She said she wanted to see if they'd suffered.
Look, even if she did to spare Jeremy, what was she thinking? Was she thinking - awww, the poor lamb has just had his family murdered and he's too upset to see them, so I'll do it to spare his feelings? I mean, what sort of person thinks that way?
Well she was still in love with him, the paradox of human emotion. She must have dissociated herself from the act by telling her alter ego that they weren't family, as mentioned in the part quoted. It's very distressing and I can understand why the Defence hones in on this particular aspect of the case. I don't know why but there was a modicum of solace for me that she was born in Middlesex, so not a true Northerner, though of course we don't know so much about her upbringing and nothing of her natural father.
-
Why do you think she should have done it?
She wanted to be helpful.
She was not as upset as everyone else. As was not related to any of the deceased.
She still didn't believe or was not sure Bamber was guilty. Bamber said he had not committed the massacre 'he couldn't have'. And that 'Mathew had done it'.
She was asked to.
She was not doing anything useful or constructive, as had been whisked over by Bamber. So offered, or was asked.
Bamber seemed to be coping well, and could cope for a short period while Julie went to identify the bodies.
She went with another relative to give moral support.
If she didn't go with another relative, then she would have originally assumed she would be accompanied.
She believed Bamber was guilty, identifying the twins is no worse than being by his side as he acted.
She knew the twins and could identify them apart.
Bamber didn't offer to do this.
CC refused to identify the bodies.
Her WS was true and she felt she could communicate with them.
She offered in error. But couldn't withdraw once the offer had been made.
She wanted a break from the crime scene and police. Which was a situation she had not asked to be a part of.
She believed seeing the twins would help her come to terms with what had happened.
She was in the room when discussions about who would do this started. So not surprising she ended up doing this.
If not in the room, Bamber or someone else recommended to the police Julie could do this.
The police felt Julie was the best person. She could identify the twins but had least emotional attachment.
She had little attachment to the twins. They were her boyfriends sisters, sons.
Bamber had brought her over in a police car. She assumed this was so she could be helpful. Identifying the bodies is being helpful.
No one tried to stop her identifying the twins.
Another person offerred but the police turned her down.
A combination of several of the above.
-
None of that is valid IMO. She went out of her way to request to see the bodies. Maybe she did want to see if they suffered, although I would have thought that having 7 or 8 bullets pumped into you would mean that you suffered. Even then, she wasn't moved by what had happened - she still continued to protect Jeremy and she still carried on partying with him.
-
None of that is valid IMO. She went out of her way to request to see the bodies. Maybe she did want to see if they suffered, although I would have thought that having 7 or 8 bullets pumped into you would mean that you suffered. Even then, she wasn't moved by what had happened - she still continued to protect Jeremy and she still carried on partying with him.
I agree. Julie did accompany Bamber for 20 days while he partied & spent lots of money.
Bamber could have left Julie in bed on the massacre morning. Then chosen to party without her. But didn't.
Anyway, you don't agree any of the 24 reasons Julie help identify the bodies applied to her. Although only Julie knows her reasons. Some of which she has said.
-
None of that is valid IMO. She went out of her way to request to see the bodies. Maybe she did want to see if they suffered, although I would have thought that having 7 or 8 bullets pumped into you would mean that you suffered. Even then, she wasn't moved by what had happened - she still continued to protect Jeremy and she still carried on partying with him.
No that's not true. She was the only one who could tell them apart, which makes their deaths all the more shocking the level of intimacy it suggests. Some people do have a frozen persona which doesn't mean they are not hurting inside.
-
No that's not true. She was the only one who could tell them apart, which makes their deaths all the more shocking the level of intimacy it suggests. Some people do have a frozen persona which doesn't mean they are not hurting inside.
Please read what she said about feeling she had to see the bodies, and how she specifically asked DS Jones if she could do so.
-
Please read what she said about feeling she had to see the bodies, and how she specifically asked DS Jones if she could do so.
These words coming out of the mouth of a 20-year-old. I suggest that you don't analyse them too deeply.
-
These words coming out of the mouth of a 20-year-old. I suggest that you don't analyse them too deeply.
Why not? It was a statement - a very lengthy one. She spells it out for you, and now you think she didn't mean what she was saying?
Oh, and she was 21 by then.
-
No that's not true. She was the only one who could tell them apart, which makes their deaths all the more shocking the level of intimacy it suggests. Some people do have a frozen persona which doesn't mean they are not hurting inside.
That's a xxx. Please Steve do not keep making stuff up
There were numerous people who could identify the bodies
There was NO immediate need to identify the bodies
-
It seems that we have a new possibility here - that on 7th Auguest Jeremy did indeed tell Julie at some length about how the murders were done and that she thought he was joking. Is that possible? Is it possible that she merely thought he was showing off and trying to impress her? Is it possible that she forgot what he said for at least 20 days?
-
Why not? It was a statement - a very lengthy one. She spells it out for you, and now you think she didn't mean what she was saying?
Oh, and she was 21 by then.
But she had known Jeremy Bamber for almost two years. Young people say a lot of things about many subjects-spiritualism, politics, animal welfare. But I'm not sure this scrutiny adds anything to her mindset, unless you can convince me otherwise.
-
But she had known Jeremy Bamber for almost two years. Young people say a lot of things about many subjects-spiritualism, politics, animal welfare. But I'm not sure this scrutiny adds anything to her mindset, unless you can convince me otherwise.
Well she said it, so you'd need to convince me that she didn't mean it.
-
That's a xxx. Please Steve do not keep making stuff up
There were numerous people who could identify the bodies
There was NO immediate need to identify the bodies
Jackie this has been discussed many times before. Colin was asked to identify the bodies and refused point blank. His girlfriend Heather offered and was declined by DS Jones. It was then that Julie stepped forward and volunteered, I assume because she knew Nicholas had a slight scar on his ear which marked him out from Daniel. No other figures either past or present could identify this pair of identical twins apart.
Now have you got that..
-
Jackie this has been discussed many times before. Colin was asked to identify the bodies and refused point blank. His girlfriend Heather offered and was declined by DS Jones. It was then that Julie stepped forward and volunteered, I assume because she knew Nicholas had a slight scar on his ear which marked him out from Daniel. No other figures either past or present could identify this pair of identical twins apart.
Now have you got that..
Are there any statements you can link to?
-
Are there any statements you can link to?
It's in Colin's book.
-
It's in Colin's book.
How does he know why Julie wanted to see the bodies? If it's not in a statement, he could be mistaken.
-
How does he know why Julie wanted to see the bodies? If it's not in a statement, he could be mistaken.
That part is not in and I cannot conjecture what spiritual reasons Julie proffered.
-
That part is not in and I cannot conjecture what spiritual reasons Julie proffered.
She put it in her statement.
-
Have removed some posts from the above thread.
Could you please stick to the subject and cut out the personal insults.
-
Told by you, another one of your 'stories'
There were numerous other people who could identify the bodies other that Jeremy's bit on side who was in for months and went along with the 'planned murders'
It's a fact and you have not posted a single piece of evidence to prove otherwise
Not one
Well, go on, clever clogs. Your starter for 10. Name those persons -other than Julie- who fitted ALL the criteria for identifying the twins.
-
You obviously know that ????? Or another guess
No the relatives didn't bother much with the Bamber family until they saw money up for grabs
[/o one whole group ruled out of identifying the twins. Teachers and social workers were far more likely to have lived in close proximity to where the children lived/went to school, don't you think? WHY would EP bother to go out of county when what they were looking for was there on their doorstep?
-
The vast majority of people on this forum believe Julie lied from start to finish about Jeremy's involvement in the murders
A highly intelligent person like Julie would never have stepped foot in that mortuary knowing what she supposedly knew
It never happened.
How would you know what "A highly intelligent person................." would do, and what have the beliefs of ANY of us on this forum have to do with anything?
-
Answer the question for gods sake
Answer how far away the others were located
The people were dead, stone dead and did not need to be identify Ed immediately
Try grasping that
OK, Guys, we can relax. Some woman on a forum in 30+ years is gonna say immediate ID ain't necessary.
-
Having read, quite objectively, what's been said on this thread, it appears to me that the majority of it is borne out of undiluted hatred -oh, and jealousy- of Julie. We are told that, despite that there was only ONE other offer, which was declined, there were COUNTLESS 'others' who could have done it (never mind that they were unwilling or unable or couldn't tell which twin was which, and lived miles away) This has become nothing more than about a personal vendetta against Julie.
-
I did agree with Kaldin yesterday.
That Julie covered for a murderer for 20 days. Although the police hadn't exactly detained her for 48 hours & interrogated her gestapo style during this time.
Bamber didn't need to bring Julie over on the massacre morning & testified he was wrong to do so. Ditto asking Julie to accompany him during his partying. However he did this, which gave Julie
no chance of approaching the police.
-
Having read, quite objectively, what's been said on this thread, it appears to me that the majority of it is borne out of undiluted hatred -oh, and jealousy- of Julie. We are told that, despite that there was only ONE other offer, which was declined, there were COUNTLESS 'others' who could have done it (never mind that they were unwilling or unable or couldn't tell which twin was which, and lived miles away) This has become nothing more than about a personal vendetta against Julie.
I agree Jane.
I have read numerous posts on here regarding the effects of grief and how people behave differently. Why are posters now choosing to ignore this fact I wonder?
If you read some of the posts (projections) made re JM's behaviours I think you'll find they are more telling about the author than of JM.
JM couldn't win either way with certain folks. If she hadn't identified the bodies and strangers had (ie; social workers) she would have been vilified for that.
My circumstances were different to JM's but simarly we were both duped by dangerous con men who murdered.
You only have to read back through some of the comments made following SH's confession to see this kind of behaviour by certain people is common theme. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4548.30.html
-
Having read, quite objectively, what's been said on this thread, it appears to me that the majority of it is borne out of undiluted hatred -oh, and jealousy- of Julie. We are told that, despite that there was only ONE other offer, which was declined, there were COUNTLESS 'others' who could have done it (never mind that they were unwilling or unable or couldn't tell which twin was which, and lived miles away) This has become nothing more than about a personal vendetta against Julie.
exactly who on here is jealous of mugford and give me any reasons why for god sake?
i will put her at the very least on a par with Maxine Carr
Jane J where on earth did you get this
(never mind that they were unwilling or unable or couldn't tell which twin was which, and lived miles away)
You obviously made this up or would you like to tell the forum how you KNOW all these people were miles away or did you make it up again
I think she couldnt wait to look at the bodies, I think she is a very warped charter however much Steve likes to stick up for her and if she did lie I hope she spends the rest of her life looking over her shoulder
-
I agree Jane.
I have read numerous posts on here regarding the effects of grief and how people behave differently. Why are posters now choosing to ignore this fact I wonder?
If you read some of the posts (projections) made re JM's behaviours I think you'll find they are more telling about the author than of JM.
JM couldn't win either way with certain folks. If she hadn't identified the bodies and strangers had (ie; social workers) she would have been vilified for that.
My circumstances were different to JM's but simarly we were both duped by dangerous con men who murdered.
You only have to read back through some of the comments made following SH's confession to see this kind of behaviour by certain people is common theme. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4548.30.html
JM couldn't win either way with certain folks. If she hadn't identified the bodies and strangers had (ie; social workers) she would have been vilified for that.
Absolute xxxxxxxx have you lost your mind
Please do not keep mentioning Simon Hall you are obviously still obsessed
-
exactly who on here is jealous of mugford and give me any reasons why for god said
i will put her at the very least on a par with Maxine Carr
Jane J where on earth did you get this
(never mind that they were unwilling or unable or couldn't tell which twin was which, and lived miles away)
You obviously made this up or would you like to tell the forum how you KNOW all these people were miles away or did you make it up again
I think she couldnt wait to look at the bodies, I think she is a very warped charter however much Steve likes to stick up for her and if she did lie I hope she spends the rest of her life looking over her shoulder
You seem to be jealous of her because you never shut up about her.
Seriously Jackie, you really haven't thought out your ideas about Julie ID'ing the bodies. Teachers, were in London, social workers were in London, anyone who looked after them as a so called 'foster carer' did so when they were younger. They needed someone who could tell them apart, Jones was pushing for someone to ID the bodies, Colin refused, Jeremy refused, Heather was discounted so Julie offered.
I won't even bother commenting on the last point, because if Julie ID'd the bodies knowing that Jeremy killed them, then he's guilty and had done far worse than she!
-
exactly who on here is jealous of mugford and give me any reasons why for god said
i will put her at the very least on a par with Maxine Carr
Jane J where on earth did you get this
(never mind that they were unwilling or unable or couldn't tell which twin was which, and lived miles away)
You obviously made this up or would you like to tell the forum how you KNOW all these people were miles away or did you make it up again
I think she couldnt wait to look at the bodies, I think she is a very warped charter however much Steve likes to stick up for her and if she did lie I hope she spends the rest of her life looking over her shoulder
Well, it doesn't exactly take a WHOLE brain to work out that anyone LOCAL who COULD have, WOULD have come forward. Undoubtedly, there MAY have been those from further afield who MAY have been able to tell them apart, IF they'd been asked, IF they'd known -we're talking about something that wouldn't actually occur to outsiders here- and IF they'd been willing. Ya know, for ALL the vitriol you can muster, for ALL the green venom you can spew, you won't change the fact that Julie identified those boys because A) no one else was willing B) why would the police look further when there was someone on their doorstep. IF they'd have taken the trouble to look further afield, perhaps, but there were autopsies waiting to be done. You don't like it, TOUGH! Get over it.
-
You seem to be jealous of her because you never shut up about her.
Seriously Jackie, you really haven't thought out your ideas about Julie ID'ing the bodies. Teachers, were in London, social workers were in London, anyone who looked after them as a so called 'foster carer' did so when they were younger. They needed someone who could tell them apart, Jones was pushing for someone to ID the bodies, Colin refused, Jeremy refused, Heather was discounted so Julie offered.
I won't even bother commenting on the last point, because if Julie ID'd the bodies knowing that Jeremy killed them, then he's guilty and had done far worse than she!
this was not a murder enquiry and the police accepted sheila was responsible at that time
just to make it crystal clear there was no need for the bodies to identified immediately
there was plenty of time to bring any number of people to identify the bodies
if the trainee school teacher knew of any murder plans she would NOT have offered to view 2 babies with gun shots in their heads
mugford wanted to view these babies for some sick reason only some head doctor would understand
-
this was not a murder enquiry and the police accepted sheila was responsible at that time
just to make it crystal clear there was no need for the bodies to identified immediately
there was plenty of time to bring any number of people to identify the bodies
if the trainee school teacher knew of any murder plans she would NOT have offered to view 2 babies with gun shots in their heads
mugford wanted to view these babies for some sick reason only some head doctor would understand
SO Jeremy has to be released because some woman on a forum says it wasn't necessary for the boys to be identified at the time. An unknown female demands that it was wrong to allow Julie to identify them. I mean, who the hell would care if the pathologist was kept waiting, and all because an unknown woman 30+ years down the line will be jealous of Julie's one time closeness to Jeremy.
Stop referring to them as "babies". They were schoolboys and I'll bet they'd have hated to be referred to as "babies".
-
SO Jeremy has to be released because some woman on a forum says it wasn't necessary for the boys to be identified at the time. An unknown female demands that it was wrong to allow Julie to identify them. I mean, who the hell would care if the pathologist was kept waiting, and all because an unknown woman 30+ years down the line will be jealous of Julie's one time closeness to Jeremy.
Stop referring to them as "babies". They were schoolboys and I'll bet they'd have hated to be referred to as "babies".
if i want to call them babies i will
-
if i want to call them babies i will
'COURSE you will..................don't know what you think it adds to anything, though, other than playing the "playing on sentiments" card. IF it has any effect, it'll be the one of making Jeremy's crime infinitely more vile.
-
this was not a murder enquiry and the police accepted sheila was responsible at that time
just to make it crystal clear there was no need for the bodies to identified immediately
there was plenty of time to bring any number of people to identify the bodies
if the trainee school teacher knew of any murder plans she would NOT have offered to view 2 babies with gun shots in their heads
mugford wanted to view these babies for some sick reason only some head doctor would understand
You think there was no need, but you aren't qualified to make such a claim and Jones was pushing for it. Venenzis would have needed the twins identified before he could do their autopsy. I won't even comment on your last point, it's not worthy of a response!
-
I did agree with Kaldin yesterday.
That Julie covered for a murderer for 20 days. Although the police hadn't exactly detained her for 48 hours & interrogated her gestapo style during this time.
Bamber didn't need to bring Julie over on the massacre morning & testified he was wrong to do so. Ditto asking Julie to accompany him during his partying. However he did this, which gave Julie
no chance of approaching the police.
Julie didn't need to accept his invitations though.
-
I agree Jane.
I have read numerous posts on here regarding the effects of grief and how people behave differently. Why are posters now choosing to ignore this fact I wonder?
If you read some of the posts (projections) made re JM's behaviours I think you'll find they are more telling about the author than of JM.
JM couldn't win either way with certain folks. If she hadn't identified the bodies and strangers had (ie; social workers) she would have been vilified for that.
My circumstances were different to JM's but simarly we were both duped by dangerous con men who murdered.
You only have to read back through some of the comments made following SH's confession to see this kind of behaviour by certain people is common theme. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4548.30.html
She wasn't duped though - according to her, he told her the same day that he'd hired someone to do the murders. How is that duping her?
-
You seem to be jealous of her because you never shut up about her.
Seriously Jackie, you really haven't thought out your ideas about Julie ID'ing the bodies. Teachers, were in London, social workers were in London, anyone who looked after them as a so called 'foster carer' did so when they were younger. They needed someone who could tell them apart, Jones was pushing for someone to ID the bodies, Colin refused, Jeremy refused, Heather was discounted so Julie offered.
I won't even bother commenting on the last point, because if Julie ID'd the bodies knowing that Jeremy killed them, then he's guilty and had done far worse than she!
Julie requested that she went to see the bodies, and her reason was quite different to the one you're offering up.
-
She wasn't duped though - according to her, he told her the same day that he'd hired someone to do the murders. How is that duping her?
He didn't hire anybody though. ???
How is that not duping her?
-
He didn't hire anybody though. ???
How is that not duping her?
She wasn't duped into thinking that he was not responsible, and he didn't dupe her into thinking that Sheila had done it.
-
She wasn't duped into thinking that he was not responsible, and he didn't dupe her into thinking that Sheila had done it.
But he did dupe her in to 'possibly' thinking that MM did it.
-
She wasn't duped into thinking that he was not responsible, and he didn't dupe her into thinking that Sheila had done it.
Her rationale was that she wanted to keep him out of prison, pure and simple. Of course in her alter ego there may have been other considerations.
-
Her rationale was that she wanted to keep him out of prison, pure and simple. Of course in her alter ego there may have been other considerations.
Fine, but it's not true to say that she was duped, as was claimed.
-
But he did dupe her in to 'possibly' thinking that MM did it.
What difference does it make? Are you saying it would have been fine if MM had done it on the instructions of Jeremy?
-
Julie didn't need to accept his invitations though.
Your world comes over as being one which is very strictly black or white. That being so, it's understandable that you believe "Julie didn't need to.................." Life is rarely that simple where human emotions are involved. Taken into account must be out past experiences ie what we were told we should do, balanced against what we saw being demonstrated. How we value ourselves ie what we learned of ourselves from our parents. Once again, it's probably necessary for me to stress that I'M NOT CONDONING, I'm simply looking rather deeper than the surface in order to understand.
-
What difference does it make? Are you saying it would have been fine if MM had done it on the instructions of Jeremy?
No I'm not saying anything of the sort.
At what stage do you think Julie realised that JB actually committed the murders himself?
-
Your world comes over as being one which is very strictly black or white. That being so, it's understandable that you believe "Julie didn't need to.................." Life is rarely that simple where human emotions are involved. Taken into account must be out past experiences ie what we were told we should do, balanced against what we saw being demonstrated. How we value ourselves ie what we learned of ourselves from our parents. Once again, it's probably necessary for me to stress that I'M NOT CONDONING, I'm simply looking rather deeper than the surface in order to understand.
I just object to the way some people think that her accepting Jeremy's invitations was Jeremy's fault. Whatever else he's done, she was a grown woman and she wasn't forced to go anywhere with him.
-
I just object to the way some people think that her accepting Jeremy's invitations was Jeremy's fault. Whatever else he's done, she was a grown woman and she wasn't forced to go anywhere with him.
Interesting as this may be isn't it rather a side issue in the scheme of things?
-
No I'm not saying anything of the sort.
At what stage do you think Julie realised that JB actually committed the murders himself?
An interesting question, and I don't know the answer. I do wonder if she felt completely sick when she found out as opposed to slightly perturbed when she thought he paid someone to do it.
-
Interesting as this may be isn't it rather a side issue in the scheme of things?
Perhaps you should everyone that - I'm not the only one discussing it.
-
I just object to the way some people think that her accepting Jeremy's invitations was Jeremy's fault. Whatever else he's done, she was a grown woman and she wasn't forced to go anywhere with him.
Who is it that you are suggesting thinks that?
-
An interesting question, and I don't know the answer. I do wonder if she felt completely sick when she found out as opposed to slightly perturbed when she thought he paid someone to do it.
Possibly so, I don't know.
-
I just object to the way some people think that her accepting Jeremy's invitations was Jeremy's fault. Whatever else he's done, she was a grown woman and she wasn't forced to go anywhere with him.
You're still not getting how she was -in all probability- groomed and you appear -either- not to have the remotest idea of how coercive relationships work, OR to be determined to make Julie responsible for Jeremy's behaviour.
-
You're still not getting how she was -in all probability- groomed and you appear -either- not to have the remotest idea of how coercive relationships work, OR to be determined to make Julie responsible for Jeremy's behaviour.
She's responsible for her own behaviour - Jeremy is not responsible for her behaviour.
-
Who is it that you are suggesting thinks that?
Adam for a start.
-
She's responsible for her own behaviour - Jeremy is not responsible for her behaviour.
Not in a coercive relationship where there always exists a puppet and a puppet-master.
-
Not in a coercive relationship where there always exists a puppet and a puppet-master.
I don't think it was coercive. What is your evidence that it was?
-
I just object to the way some people think that her accepting Jeremy's invitations was Jeremy's fault. Whatever else he's done, she was a grown woman and she wasn't forced to go anywhere with him.
Julie couldn't exactly turn down a police car picking her up - Bamber's fault.
After that Bamber could have asked to be left alone while he grieved. However he partied & invited Julie along - Bamber's fault.
Julie in a state of disbelief went along with Bamber. For 20 days.
-
Julie couldn't exactly turn down a police car picking her up - Bamber's fault.
After that Bamber could have asked to be left alone while he grieved. However he partied & invited Julie along - Bamber's fault.
Julie in a state of disbelief went along with Bamber. For 20 days.
I don't blame her for going over there at first, but after that, when he allegedly told her that he was responsible, it was entirely her fault that she carried on partying with him. It's not Jeremy's fault that she accepted any of his invitations to party, to go for meals, to go away for weekends - that was down to her.
-
I don't think it was coercive. What is your evidence that it was?
What make YOU think it wasn't?
-
Stephanie made the point that you can't see into the mind of a psychopath, though put it more eloquently than myself.
-
What make YOU think it wasn't?
You're the one who made the claim, so back it up. In what way was Jeremy coercive?
-
I don't blame her for going over there at first, but after that, when he allegedly told her that he was responsible, it was entirely her fault that she carried on partying with him. It's not Jeremy's fault that she accepted any of his invitations to party, to go for meals, to go away for weekends - that was down to her.
I agree it was her choice to stay with Bamber for 20 days. Although pressurised by a persuasive Bamber.
She was young, in love, in a state of disbelief & invited by Bamber.
You believe in her situation & at her age you would have immediately cut off from Bamber.
Luckily you have never been in her situation.
-
I agree it was her choice to stay with Bamber for 20 days. Although pressurised by a persuasive Bamber.
She was young, in love, in a state of disbelief & invited by Bamber.
You believe in her situation & at her age you would have immediately cut off from Bamber.
Luckily you have never been in her situation.
I doubt that he pressurised her at all. After all, didn't he want his freedom, as she said? I think she made sure that she stayed with him.
-
I don't blame her for going over there at first, but after that, when he allegedly told her that he was responsible, it was entirely her fault that she carried on partying with him. It's not Jeremy's fault that she accepted any of his invitations to party, to go for meals, to go away for weekends - that was down to her.
She went through the motions, certainly. It doesn't guarantee how she was feeling. It's highly possible she believed that she'd be involved, in which case, she may have felt safer being with him. It's equally possible that, for his part, his insistence on her being there was so he could be certain she WOULDN'T go to the police.
-
I doubt that he pressurised her at all. After all, didn't he want his freedom, as she said? I think she made sure that she stayed with him.
No she left Bourtree Cottage and returned to Caterham Road, Lewisham. By this time Jeremy had moved into Moreshead Mansions with Brett and may well have asked Virginia Greaves to move in as well.
-
Adam for a start.
Fair enough. :-X
-
No she left Bourtree Cottage and returned to Caterham Road, Lewisham. By this time Jeremy had moved into Moreshead Mansions with Brett and may well have asked Virginia Greaves to move in as well.
Eh? How does any of that mean that Jeremy did all the running and asked her to be with him?
-
You're the one who made the claim, so back it up. In what way was Jeremy coercive?
YOu made the claim that she wanted to go to the funeral - you didn't back that up.
-
YOu made the claim that she wanted to go to the funeral - you didn't back that up.
Of course she wanted to go, otherwise she wouldn't have gone. Nobody forced her to go.
-
Of course she wanted to go, otherwise she wouldn't have gone. Nobody forced her to go.
The is a BIG difference between going and wanting to go - forced or not!
-
The is a BIG difference between going and wanting to go - forced or not!
How do you know she didn't want to go? People who don't want to go to a funeral don't generally help out with the arrangements or go and buy a new frock and a pretty little hat and veil.
-
Of course she wanted to go, otherwise she wouldn't have gone. Nobody forced her to go.
So you've NEVER done anything -for anyone- you haven't wanted to? Simply because you felt you should?
-
Eh? How does any of that mean that Jeremy did all the running and asked her to be with him?
He had bounced his macabre ideas off Julie for months, who wasn't paying as much attention to them as she should, being distracted by teaching practice, he used her to maintain appearances at the funeral, and then dispensed with her when he realized he wished to explore other avenues. It's the typical idealize, devalue and discard scenario as related by our member Stephanie here. He told Liz Rimington quite openly his life might have taken a different turn with Julie had it not been for the murders.
-
I doubt that he pressurised her at all. After all, didn't he want his freedom, as she said? I think she made sure that she stayed with him.
Julie said she didn't want to go to the funeral & other places. But Bamber pleaded with her.
As said Bamber brought Julie to WHF first thing in the morning & was then perfectly capable of telling her he wanted to be left alone. He didn't which suggests he persuaded Julie to accompany him. So he was able to keep an eye on her.
Bamber did later say he 'wanted to live his own life'. Probably because he believed everything had blown over & Julie's mentioning of the massacre was irritating him.
-
Julie said she didn't want to go to the funeral & other places. But Bamber pleaded with her.
As said Bamber brought Julie to WHF first thing in the morning & was then perfectly capable of telling Julie he wanted to be left alone. He didn't which suggests he persuaded Julie to accompany him. So he was able to keep an eye on her.
Bamber did later say he 'wanted to live his own life'. Probably because he believed everything had blown over & Julie's mentioning of the massacre was irritating him.
Well she would say that, wouldn't she? One can only be persuaded if one lets oneself be persuaded. I wouldn't have thought it would be difficult to refuse - after all, he had told her that he had his family murdered (allegedly).
-
How do you know she didn't want to go? People who don't want to go to a funeral don't generally help out with the arrangements or go and buy a new frock and a pretty little hat and veil.
Just how do you arrive at that conclusion? This was a 'society' funeral. All the great and good of the county were there. Why would she not want to look the part, especially if she felt it would give her some courage?
-
Julie said she didn't want to go to the funeral & other places. But Bamber pleaded with her.
As said Bamber brought Julie to WHF first thing in the morning & was then perfectly capable of telling her he wanted to be left alone. He didn't which suggests he persuaded Julie to accompany him. So he was able to keep an eye on her.
Bamber did later say he 'wanted to live his own life'. Probably because he believed everything had blown over & Julie's mentioning of the massacre was irritating him.
Yes it's hard for the Defence to explain the telephone calls if they want to claim Julie was somehow complicit. It says to me that at that stage Julie was still very much part of his plans, despite his assertion in September to Police that his relationship with her had been cooling for months.
-
Of course she wanted to go, otherwise she wouldn't have gone. Nobody forced her to go.
She was still with Bamber then. What was she supposed to do ?
If she did not go to the funeral, what would you have thought ?
-
She was still with Bamber then. What was she supposed to do ?
If she did not go to the funeral, what would you have thought ?
Eh? They weren't joined at the hip you know. She had free will, and she was only his girlfriend. Why would I have thought anything? I know lots of people who couldn't go to funerals - she could easily have made an excuse.
-
Just how do you arrive at that conclusion? This was a 'society' funeral. All the great and good of the county were there. Why would she not want to look the part, especially if she felt it would give her some courage?
Society funeral? You mean it was being filmed by the press. You are constantly excusing her for covering up for him.
-
Well she would say that, wouldn't she? One can only be persuaded if one lets oneself be persuaded. I wouldn't have thought it would be difficult to refuse - after all, he had told her that he had his family murdered (allegedly).
I think you're being deliberately obtuse. I don't believe you're as lacking in intelligence as you appear to be pretending. I don't actually know what it is you believe, I just have the feeling that you're arguing for argument's sake.
-
Society funeral? You mean it was being filmed by the press. You are constantly excusing her for covering up for him.
I mean exactly what I said. Women DO cover for men they're in love with..................especially those in coercive relationships.
-
I think you're being deliberately obtuse. I don't believe you're as lacking in intelligence as you appear to be pretending. I don't actually know what it is you believe, I just have the feeling that you're arguing for argument's sake.
Do you? I think you are, unless you habitually defend those who cover up for someone who committed a terrible crime.
-
Society funeral? You mean it was being filmed by the press. You are constantly excusing her for covering up for him.
Excusing/accusing.
Why Julie didn't mention something to the police immediately, is not known.
I think people are willing to be more forgiving to her, for doing the right thing eventually. JB on the other hand, is a different prospect, if guilty then it's quite difficult to excuse his actions.
-
I mean exactly what I said. Women DO cover for men they're in love with..................especially those in coercive relationships.
Prove that it was coercive. Who says that women do that? Some of them do, but do they go out partying and socialising, and do they go and stay for the weekend with the victims' nearest and dearest?
-
Excusing/accusing.
Why Julie didn't mention something to the police immediately, is not known.
I think people are willing to be more forgiving to her, for doing the right thing eventually. JB on the other hand, is a different prospect, if guilt then quite quite difficult to excuse his actions.
But if he's guilty, his actions afterwards are more understandable aren't they? Of course, he might have had an attack of remorse, but he had allegedly planned this for a long time. Julie Mugford was allegedly not evil, or a psychopath, as he's been accused of being.
-
Eh? They weren't joined at the hip you know. She had free will, and she was only his girlfriend. Why would I have thought anything? I know lots of people who couldn't go to funerals - she could easily have made an excuse.
You would have been all over Julie if she had not gone.
-
You would have been all over Julie if she had not gone.
Why would I? I wouldn't - if I was convinced that she was telling the truth in the end. In fact, I would have expected her to stay as far away as possible and sob for a month.
-
Prove that it was coercive. Who says that women do that? Some of them do, but do they go out partying and socialising, and do they go and stay for the weekend with the victims' nearest and dearest?
D'ya know what, Kaldin? I'm not going to waste my hard worked for knowledge on you. I could quote every psychologist who's written a paper on it but I don't believe you want to know. In fact, each subsequent post of yours is becoming ever more as if you're determined NOT to know. I've explained that what one does ISN'T always a clear indication of how one feels about doing it. You've chosen to dismiss it. Find someone else to play games with.
-
Here's something I've wondered - and dismissed - but I'll ask anyway.
Is it possible that Jeremy did tell Julie all that stuff, but he was making it up? After all, if he'd talked about killing his family all that time, and then Sheila beat him to it, maybe he wanted Julie to think that he'd arranged it - sort of showing off.
I dismissed the idea eventually because I think he would have told her in the end that he hadn't really done it. Perhaps he did tell her that, but she didn't mention that.
-
D'ya know what, Kaldin? I'm not going to waste my hard worked for knowledge on you. I could quote every psychologist who's written a paper on it but I don't believe you want to know. In fact, each subsequent post of yours is becoming ever more as if you're determined NOT to know. I've explained that what one does ISN'T always a clear indication of how one feels about doing it. You've chosen to dismiss it. Find someone else to play games with.
Feel free to ignore my posts then - I'm not forcing you to read them, and I didn't invited you to "play". I feel that you're being quite aggressive anyway. You have no more right to your opinion that I have to mine. I've also researched this case you know. I'm not particular interested in the generalities of pychologists unless you can show they pertain to this scenario.
-
Why would I? I wouldn't - if I was convinced that she was telling the truth in the end. In fact, I would have expected her to stay as far away as possible and sob for a month.
Look she was still with Bamber & was Bamber's closest confidant.
He pleaded with her to go & she went.
That's it.
-
Look she was still with Bamber & was Bamber's closest confidant.
He pleaded with her to go & she went.
That's it.
Where does she say he pleaded with her?
Anyway, so what? Did she not have a mind of her own? Being with Jeremy was a voluntary thing - you make it sound like she had no choice.
-
Here's something I've wondered - and dismissed - but I'll ask anyway.
Is it possible that Jeremy did tell Julie all that stuff, but he was making it up? After all, if he'd talked about killing his family all that time, and then Sheila beat him to it, maybe he wanted Julie to think that he'd arranged it - sort of showing off.
I dismissed the idea eventually because I think he would have told her in the end that he hadn't really done it. Perhaps he did tell her that, but she didn't mention that.
Insofar as he made up the hitman to dissociate himself from the impact of the crime on Julie yes. But this invention precludes him from showing off as you put it because that would have counteracted the invention.
-
Where does she say he pleaded with her?
Anyway, so what? Did she not have a mind of her own? Being with Jeremy was a voluntary thing - you make it sound like she had no choice.
I have already told you she didn't want to go to the funeral. But Bamber persuaded her.
She had a choice & chose to go.
And ?
-
Where does she say he pleaded with her?
Anyway, so what? Did she not have a mind of her own? Being with Jeremy was a voluntary thing - you make it sound like she had no choice.
You make it sound as if she was loving it.
-
I have already told you she didn't want to go to the funeral. But Bamber persuaded her.
She had a choice & chose to go.
And ?
Where did she say she didn't want to go but Jeremy persuaded her? Do you have a link?
-
Insofar as he made up the hitman to dissociate himself from the impact of the crime on Julie yes. But this invention precludes him from showing off as you put it because that would have counteracted the invention.
Maybe, but maybe he thought it would be pushing it a bit to say he'd done it himself.
-
Feel free to ignore my posts then - I'm not forcing you to read them, and I didn't invited you to "play". I feel that you're being quite aggressive anyway. You have no more right to your opinion that I have to mine. I've also researched this case you know. I'm not particular interested in the generalities of pychologists unless you can show they pertain to this scenario.
You're perfectly correct. You have no less right to your opinion than I to mine. You didn't force me to read your posts. I took my eye of the ball and momentarily allowed myself to be coerced into "playing". You may call me aggressive. I choose to see it as being assertive about things I feel passionately about, and that which I'm involved with on an almost daily basis.
-
Where did she say she didn't want to go but Jeremy persuaded her? Do you have a link?
Page 219 Wilkes's book.
'She agreed that she had comforted & supported him. Even to the extent of being at his side for the funerals. Despite having begged him not to make her go.'
-
Look she was still with Bamber & was Bamber's closest confidant.
He pleaded with her to go & she went.
That's it.
Says you, Adam but that is just your opinion.
I have to agree with much of Kaldin's reasoning and don't believe that means I am blaming JM more than JB.
I have always found JM's behavour hard to get to grips with, I am aware that if JB is a psychopathic type of personality then he would have the ability to hypnotise/put her in a trance state.... 'The Reptilian Stare'. This is what a true psychopath can do and she would be unaware of it happening.
As we don't know if JB is a psychopath I cannot see how we can know for sure that this happened to JM but it is a possibility which has to be considered imo.
-
Page 219 Wilkes's book.
'She agreed that she had comforted & supported him. Even to the extent of being at his side for the funerals. Despite having begged him not to make her go.'
That's someone else's words. Does she say it in any of her statements? If not, then it's just hearsay.
-
Says you, Adam but that is just your opinion.
I have to agree with much of Kaldin's reasoning and don't believe that means I am blaming JM more than JB.
I have always found JM's behavour hard to get to grips with, I am aware that if JB is a psychopathic type of personality then he would have the ability to hypnotise/put her in a trance state. This is what a true psychopath can do and she would be unaware of it happening.
As we don't know if JB is a psychopath I cannot see how we can know for sure that this happened to JM but it is a possibility which has to be considered imo.
I don't think anyone has ever suggested it wasn't. Seeking to understand it makes it no LESS reprehensible, however, I have some sympathy with the situation in which she found herself. It matters very little that he'd said he wanted his parents dead -no more than mouthing off, wasn't it? Maybe. Perhaps- I can only imagine that there may have been two distinct personalities at work, one of which was genuinely horrified when it happened. The other envisioning a life of luxury as Mrs Jeremy Bamber.
-
You're perfectly correct. You have no less right to your opinion than I to mine. You didn't force me to read your posts. I took my eye of the ball and momentarily allowed myself to be coerced into "playing". You may call me aggressive. I choose to see it as being assertive about things I feel passionately about, and that which I'm involved with on an almost daily basis.
Fine by me, although I'm not "playing". I don't know about your personal life - I'm here to discuss the Bamber case.
-
Says you, Adam but that is just your opinion.
I have to agree with much of Kaldin's reasoning and don't believe that means I am blaming JM more than JB.
I have always found JM's behavour hard to get to grips with, I am aware that if JB is a psychopathic type of personality then he would have the ability to hypnotise/put her in a trance state. This is what a true psychopath can do and she would be unaware of it happening.
As we don't know if JB is a psychopath I cannot see how we can know for sure that this happened to JM but it is a possibility which has to be considered imo.
What reasoning ?
Kaldin just keeps repeating that she would have acted differently to Julie.
Apparently cut off from him from day one, not worn a veil at the funeral, acted differently when Bamber rang her at 3am, not identified the twins & not allowed herself to be whisked around by Bamber for 20 days.
It's good that someone can be so certain of what they would do at the age of 20 in a situation they have never been in before.
Not that Kaldin's different reactions overturns Bamber's conviction, represents everyone or means Julie is wrong.
-
Says you, Adam but that is just your opinion.
I have to agree with much of Kaldin's reasoning and don't believe that means I am blaming JM more than JB.
I have always found JM's behavour hard to get to grips with, I am aware that if JB is a psychopathic type of personality then he would have the ability to hypnotise/put her in a trance state.... 'The Reptilian Stare'. This is what a true psychopath can do and she would be unaware of it happening.
As we don't know if JB is a psychopath I cannot see how we can know for sure that this happened to JM but it is a possibility which has to be considered imo.
Thank you maggie. I think some people are attributing a lot of skills to Jeremy that he probably didn't possess. As well as going out a lot, they also did ordinary things like go to the supermarket. Julie also had her own life - she wasn't with him day in, day out, she had friends and a different life in London.
-
That's someone else's words. Does she say it in any of her statements? If not, then it's just hearsay.
I knew you would say that.
That's Julie's court testimony. If it's in her WS, you will just say she was lying.
-
I knew you would say that.
That's Julie's court testimony. If it's in her WS, you will just say she was lying.
I'm sorry but I can't accept what someone else said unless she said it herself. After all, I showed you proof that she requested to see the bodies - I didn't take someone else's word for it.
-
Thank you maggie. I think some people are attributing a lot of skills to Jeremy that he probably didn't possess. As well as going out a lot, they also did ordinary things like go to the supermarket. Julie also had her own life - she wasn't with him day in, day out, she had friends and a different life in London.
That is true. They weren't together all the time.
That soon changed after Bamber whisked her over to WHF, stopped working & commenced his jolly ups.
-
That is true. They weren't together all the time.
That soon changed after Bamber whisked her over to WHF & stopped working.
Against her will I suppose.
-
Thank you maggie. I think some people are attributing a lot of skills to Jeremy that he probably didn't possess. As well as going out a lot, they also did ordinary things like go to the supermarket. Julie also had her own life - she wasn't with him day in, day out, she had friends and a different life in London.
I agree which makes it hard to believe she was in a hypnotic state. People in such a situation find it impossible to function away from their psychopath, it is like an addiction and all consuming. The fact that JM was able to attend college and get through her Teaching Practice makes it unlikely that she was a victim of such behavour by JB.
-
I'm sorry but I can't accept what someone else said unless she said it herself. After all, I showed you proof that she requested to see the bodies - I didn't take someone else's word for it.
I knew you would say that as well.
Both supporters & guilters use books as a source.
If you haven't read any books so can't quote any, that is you're problem.
-
I agree which makes it hard to believe she was in a hypnotic state. People in such a situation find it impossible to function away from their psychopath, it is like an addiction and all consuming. The fact that JM was able to attend college and get through her Teaching Practice makes it unlikely that she was a victim of such behavour by JB.
Julie in a hypnotic state ;D
-
I agree which makes it hard to believe she was in a hypnotic state. People in such a situation find it impossible to function away from their psychopath, it is like an addiction and all consuming. The fact that JM was able to attend college and get through her Teaching Practice makes it unlikely that she was a victim of such behavour by JB.
But the greatest strain occurred during the holiday period.
-
What reasoning ?
Kaldin just keeps repeating that she would have acted differently to Julie.
Apparently cut off from him from day one, not worn a veil at the funeral, acted differently when Bamber rang her at 3am, not identified the twins & not allowed herself to be whisked around by Bamber for 20 days.
It's good that someone can be so certain of what they would do at the age of 20 in a situation they have never been in before.
Not that Kaldin's different reactions overturns Bamber's conviction, represents everyone or means Julie is wrong.
Funny that Adam as you never cease telling us what you believe JB did or didn't do at the age of 24/25 in situations I would hope you have never been in. :)
I think Kaldin is weighing up the various arguments and is actually an asset to the forum.
-
I knew you would say that as well.
Both supporters & guilters use books as a source.
If you haven't read any books so can't quote any, that is you're problem.
Did Julie write a book about it then?
-
Funny that Adam as you never cease telling us what you believe JB did or didn't do at the age of 24/25 in situations I would hope you have never been in. :)
I think Kaldin is weighing up the various arguments and is actually an asset to the forum.
I've just said how Bamber could have committed the massacre which matched the crime scene.
Although Nugs put a spanner in the works by saying Bamber could have got lost when travelling the 3 miles to/from where he lived & where he used to live.
-
Funny that Adam as you never cease telling us what you believe JB did or didn't do at the age of 24/25 in situations I would hope you have never been in. :)
I think Kaldin is weighing up the various arguments and is actually an asset to the forum.
Thank you - that's very kind of you. :)
-
Julie in a hypnotic state ;D
You may find the 'Reptilian Stare' amusing Adam but it is a fact. Many partners/victims of psychopaths say afterwards that their time with the psychopath was like being in a dream state or bubble. Julie could not have functioned in the world the way she did if she was in a dreamlike state.
JM apparently dismissed JB's late night phone call and told him to go back to sleep which is hardly the actions of a woman in thrall and obsession to him.
-
You may find the 'Reptilian Stare' amusing Adam but it is a fact. Many partners/victims of psychopaths say afterwards that their time with the psychopath was like being in a dream state or bubble. Julie could not have functioned in the world the way she did if she was in a dreamlike state.
JM apparently dismissed JB's late night phone call and told him to go back to sleep which is hardly the actions of a woman in thrall and obsessed by him.
Exactly!
-
I agree which makes it hard to believe she was in a hypnotic state. People in such a situation find it impossible to function away from their psychopath, it is like an addiction and all consuming. The fact that JM was able to attend college and get through her Teaching Practice makes it unlikely that she was a victim of such behavour by JB.
That's rather a generalisation and how one reacts to a psychopath depends on individual differences. Also, Julie didn't live with Jeremy so she was able to break away on a regular basis.
I don't think any of us can say why she didn't report Jeremy straight away - fact is she didn't but she was instrumental in his conviction and that's the main thing.
-
That's rather a generalisation and how one reacts to a psychopath depends on individual differences. Also, Julie didn't live with Jeremy so she was able to break away on a regular basis.
I don't think any of us can say why she didn't report Jeremy straight away - fact is she didn't but she was instrumental in his conviction and that's the main thing.
I can understand her not reporting him straightaway, what I can't understand is why she carried on with their relationship as if nothing bad had happened. She could have gone back to London and stayed there - made excuses or gone away somewhere. Wasn't it the summer holidays?
-
I can understand her not reporting him straightaway, what I can't understand is why she carried on with their relationship as if nothing bad had happened. She could have gone back to London and stayed there - made excuses or gone away somewhere. Wasn't it the summer holidays?
But she didn't carry on as if nothing had happened, she was on his case about whenever possible.
-
Supporters believe Julie should have told the police within 10 minutes of arriving at WHF.
While everyone was greiving & saying Sheila was the culprit.
-
I can understand her not reporting him straightaway, what I can't understand is why she carried on with their relationship as if nothing bad had happened. She could have gone back to London and stayed there - made excuses or gone away somewhere. Wasn't it the summer holidays?
She could have. But didn't. Then started telling people what she knew after 20 days.
No one can change that.
How is that relevant to Bamber's guilt ?
-
But she didn't carry on as if nothing had happened, she was on his case about whenever possible.
Pursuading him to turn himself in? No she wasn't.
-
Pursuading him to turn himself in? No she wasn't.
Well, unless you were a third wheel in the love nest - it's really not for you to say what they discussed.
-
Pursuading him to turn himself in? No she wasn't.
She wasn't going to try to persuade him to turn himself in. However she does mention discussions with Bamber in her WS about the massacre.
-
She wasn't going to try to persuade him to turn himself in. However she does mention discussions with Bamber in her WS about the massacre.
Lots of them
-
Well, unless you were a third wheel in the love nest - it's really not for you to say what they discussed.
Of course it is - if she'd tried to get him to turn himself in, she would have told the police that.
-
Of course it is - if she'd tried to get him to turn himself in, she would have told the police that.
I agree Julie would not have tried to get Bamber to turn himself in.
And she has never said she did.
-
I agree Julie would not have tried to get Bamber to turn himself in.
And she has never said she did.
Exactly. It didn't seem to occur to her.
-
Exactly. It didn't seem to occur to her.
There was zero chance of Bamber turning himself in.
Although he did say to Liz Rimmington 'only I know what really happened that night'.
His insinuations that he was a master criminal would have continued if he wasn't arrested.
-
There was zero chance of Bamber turning himself in.
Although he did say to Liz Rimmington 'only I know what really happened that night'.
His insinuations that he was a master criminal would have continued if he wasn't arrested.
So what was she talking to him about then? Why he did it? That was fairly obvious - for money. In fact, there was a lot of money at stake.
-
Of course it is - if she'd tried to get him to turn himself in, she would have told the police that.
It's not your opinion I find unacceptable. It's your cast iron, immovable belief that you 'know' what Julie thought and felt, what her motives were, and what she WOULD have done. Such an immutable and entrenched mindset as you're displaying is nothing short of aggressive, yet you apply the label to me.
-
So what was she talking to him about then? Why he did it? That was fairly obvious - for money. In fact, there was a lot of money at stake.
Read her WS.
-
It's not your opinion I find unacceptable. It's your cast iron, immovable belief that you 'know' what Julie thought and felt, what her motives were, and what she WOULD have done. Such an immutable and entrenched mindset as you're displaying is nothing short of aggressive, yet you apply the label to me.
I thought you were ignoring my posts.
You are also immovable in your defence of her, and your view that she was a "victim".
-
That's rather a generalisation and how one reacts to a psychopath depends on individual differences. Also, Julie didn't live with Jeremy so she was able to break away on a regular basis.
I don't think any of us can say why she didn't report Jeremy straight away - fact is she didn't but she was instrumental in his conviction and that's the main thing.
Of course it's a generalisation however it is the way psychopaths operate.
Either JB had Julie under his control or he did not.
If he did that would be a reason and an excuse for her behaviour imo. I question the claim that he did because she was fully functioning getting through teaching practice as Steve tells us and generally living her own life.
She does not appear to have been obsessively addicted to JB, living in a bubble at this time.
-
Of course it's a generalisation however it is the way psychopaths operate.
Either JB had Julie under his control or he did not.
If he did that would be a reason and an excuse for her behaviour imo. I question the claim that he did because she was fully functioning getting through teaching practice as Steve tells us and generally living her own life.
She does not appear to have been obsessively addicted to JB, living in a bubble at this time.
No but she might have been in love, for all we know..
-
No but she might have been in love, for all we know..
..which reminds me of two Carpenters records, but I digress.
-
That's rather a generalisation and how one reacts to a psychopath depends on individual differences. Also, Julie didn't live with Jeremy so she was able to break away on a regular basis.
I don't think any of us can say why she didn't report Jeremy straight away - fact is she didn't but she was instrumental in his conviction and that's the main thing.
It also depends of the levels of psychopathy.
There are numerous reasons I firmly believe Jeremy Bamber to be a psychopath but more importantly if any of us go back and read his police interviews, evidence given in court etc - in other words his factual evidence; if he were telling the truth the facts would have remained the same. They haven't.
There are numerous factual inaccuracies that Jeremy Bamber has clearly manufactured in order to suit his end at that given moment.
And let's not forget, Jeremy Bamber has never publicly commented on Julie Mugfords wealth of evidence against him. Why not?
He's had 32 years to pull apart her witness statements but he's never done so.. He says he has been through his case files with a fine tooth comb and let's not forget he's had decades in which to so.
-
I thought you were ignoring my posts.
You are also immovable in your defence of her, and your view that she was a "victim".
But I'M not saying what she may have thought or felt, OR what he motives may have been because I'm not arrogant enough to think I know. All I can do is offer applicable possibilities. Surely the opposite of victim is perpetrator? Are you suggesting the crime was her idea? That she persuaded him to do it? OR are you suggesting that they were co criminals? Would that not make her...................WHAT would it make her? I guess the words which finish the sentence are;- guilty as him, aren't they?
-
Of course it's a generalisation however it is the way psychopaths operate.
Either JB had Julie under his control or he did not.
If he did that would be a reason and an excuse for her behaviour imo. I question the claim that he did because she was fully functioning getting through teaching practice as Steve tells us and generally living her own life.
She does not appear to have been obsessively addicted to JB, living in a bubble at this time.
It may be the way 'some' psychopaths operate, but not all. I think Jeremy liked the fact that he only saw Julie now and again as it gave him some freedom. I don't believe that Julie was under his control as such - to be honest, they were both pretty dysfunctional and seemed to enjoy living on the edge a little. I think Jeremy went too far and it knocked the stuffing out of her - she didn't know what to do.
If they had stayed together, she may never have told or she would have, we just can't know.
-
No but she might have been in love, for all we know..
Well yes she might have been. I know at 20 we can have strange ideas about what love is but it's very difficult to believe at any age that a murderer of two children and three adults is worth loving.
Imo I think the only understandable explanation is that the belief of the relatives etc. that he did it got to Julie and started her thinking and wondering if he had done it. She started talking to friends about it and it grew in her mind until she convinced herself it was true.
Once the police got hold of her she had no choice but to go along with them.
Any other explanation is hard to excuse and shows Julie in a very poor light imo.
-
It may be the way 'some' psychopaths operate, but not all. I think Jeremy liked the fact that he only saw Julie now and again as it gave him some freedom. I don't believe that Julie was under his control as such - to be honest, they were both pretty dysfunctional and seemed to enjoy living on the edge a little. I think Jeremy went too far and it knocked the stuffing out of her - she didn't know what to do.
If they had stayed together, she may never have told or she would have, we just can't know.
I don't disagree with that Caroline, it makes sense as a possibility.
-
Well yes she might have been. I know at 20 we can have strange ideas about what love is but it's very difficult to believe at any age that a murderer of two children and three adults is worth loving.
Imo I think the only understandable explanation is that the belief of the relatives etc. that he did it got to Julie and started her thinking and wondering if he had done it. She started talking to friends about it and it grew in her mind until she convinced herself it was true.
Once the police got hold of her she had no choice but to go along with them.
Any other explanation is hard to excuse and shows Julie in a very poor light imo.
I agree, but why would she have told the police that Jeremy had told her he was responsible on 7th August?
-
Well yes she might have been. I know at 20 we can have strange ideas about what love is but it's very difficult to believe at any age that a murderer of two children and three adults is worth loving.
Imo I think the only understandable explanation is that the belief of the relatives etc. that he did it got to Julie and started her thinking and wondering if he had done it. She started talking to friends about it and it grew in her mind until she convinced herself it was true.
Once the police got hold of her she had no choice but to go along with them.
Any other explanation is hard to excuse and shows Julie in a very poor light imo.
When did the relatives get to Julie during the 20 days after the massacre ? I thought she was partying with Bamber.
The police did get hold of her. After she told 5 people & contacted them.
-
Posts #413 and #414 are very incisive.
-
I agree, but why would she have told the police that Jeremy had told her he was responsible on 7th August?
Well he distanced himself somewhat by using proxy Matthew. No excuse I know..
-
It also depends of the levels of psychopathy.
There are numerous reasons I firmly believe Jeremy Bamber to be a psychopath but more importantly if any of us go back and read his police interviews, evidence given in court etc - in other words his factual evidence; if he were telling the truth the facts would have remained the same. They haven't.
There are numerous factual inaccuracies that Jeremy Bamber has clearly manufactured in order to suit his end at that given moment.
And let's not forget, Jeremy Bamber has never publicly commented on Julie Mugfords wealth of evidence against him. Why not?
He's had 32 years to pull apart her witness statements but he's never done so.. He says he has been through his case files with a fine tooth comb and let's not forget he's had decades in which to so.
And say for arguments sake we ignore the label "psychopath" I find Bambers behaviour to be predatory.
An example of this is when he wrote to Caroline after learning she no longer believed he was innocent.
-
I suppose he's been told to say by Defence counsel that it's all lies. The easiest course of action to take really.
-
And say for arguments sake we ignore the label "psychopath" I find Bambers behaviour to be predatory.
An example of this is when he wrote to Caroline after learning she no longer believed he was innocent.
Bamber contacts people like Woffinden & Hunter to get more publicity. I assume he contacted Eric Alison as well.
-
You're still not getting how she was -in all probability- groomed and you appear -either- not to have the remotest idea of how coercive relationships work, OR to be determined to make Julie responsible for Jeremy's behaviour.
Groomed
What absolute rubbish
She was a fully fledged thief and fraudster with absolutely no conscience
Do you know what conscience means
-
Groomed
What absolute rubbish
She was a fully fledged thief and fraudster with absolutely no conscience
Do you know what conscience means
I do, but clearly, you don't. I wonder just how much conscience your 'gorgeous fit boy' showed when he robbed his family and involved Julie? THAT'S how she learned the fine art of stealing.
-
Just how do you arrive at that conclusion? This was a 'society' funeral. All the great and good of the county were there. Why would she not want to look the part, especially if she felt it would give her some courage?
This is getting beyond ridiculous
Julie had been involved in a 'murder plot' allegedly and she was propping up the murderer who was crying and your saying it's ok for her to want to look good
She should have been at that funeral on her knees
Keep taking the pills Jane J
-
This is getting beyond ridiculous
Julie had been involved in a 'murder plot' allegedly and she was propping up the murderer who was crying and your saying it's ok for her to want to look good
She should have been at that funeral on her knees
Keep taking the pills Jane J
Jealous because it wasn't you who was propping him up? You must remember that Julie is much younger than you.
-
I don't get why some people think Julie didn't have a mind of her own. She committed the cheque fraud without the help of Jeremy, so why would anyone think she robbed the caravan park on the orders of Jeremy? Obviously, it was his idea but could have said no. I just don't understand why some people talk about her as if she was a little child, incapable of making up her own mind. She also sold cannabis at college - that's really not the action of an innocent little victim.
-
Jealous because it wasn't you who was propping him up? You must remember that Julie is much younger than you.
You have completely lost the plot now
Why don't you go and play with Stephanie as you two are so a like
-
This is getting beyond ridiculous
Julie had been involved in a 'murder plot' allegedly and she was propping up the murderer who was crying and your saying it's ok for her to want to look good
She should have been at that funeral on her knees
Why wasn't Jeremy Bamber "at that funeral on his knees?
Interestingly extreme narcissists (which I believe Bamber to be) are pragmatists.
In the words of H G Tudor;
"It is the practical need of fuel which governs all that we do. Contradiction and hypocrisy do not concern us. We can perform a 180 degree turn, a volte face or a complete turnaround and it matters not. Those were yesterday’s words.
-
Maggie I completely agree, Kaldin is a wonderful asset to the forum. Now we just need Jan back
-
I don't get why some people think Julie didn't have a mind of her own. She committed the cheque fraud without the help of Jeremy, so why would anyone think she robbed the caravan park on the orders of Jeremy? Obviously, it was his idea but could have said no. I just don't understand why some people talk about her as if she was a little child, incapable of making up her own mind. She also sold cannabis at college - that's really not the action of an innocent little victim.
She did have a mind of her own.
She used it to spend 20 days with Bamber. Upon his request & pleading.
Then told 5 people, completed a WS & testified.
Oh & she has 'made up her mind' not to retract a word of what she said.
-
I don't get why some people think Julie didn't have a mind of her own. She committed the cheque fraud without the help of Jeremy, so why would anyone think she robbed the caravan park on the orders of Jeremy? Obviously, it was his idea but could have said no. I just don't understand why some people talk about her as if she was a little child, incapable of making up her own mind. She also sold cannabis at college - that's really not the action of an innocent little victim.
But all of it was FOR Jeremy, or to IMPRESS Jeremy.
-
Why wasn't Jeremy Bamber "at that funeral on his knees?
Interestingly extreme narcissists (which I believe Bamber to be) are pragmatists.
In the words of H G Tudor;
"It is the practical need of fuel which governs all that we do. Contradiction and hypocrisy do not concern us. We can perform a 180 degree turn, a volte face or a complete turnaround and it matters not. Those were yesterday’s words.
Either because he killed them and so wouldn't be upset, or he was just grieving as anyone would at the loss of his family. If he did kill them and Julie knew that (as she later claimed) she should indeed have been on her knees, not holding on to his arm comforting him - she would have known that he wasn't really grieving.
-
But all of it was FOR Jeremy, or to IMPRESS Jeremy.
How do you know that? She made money from the cannabis, and she got some nice things from the cheque fraud. That was nothing to do with Jeremy - she did it with her mate, Susan.
-
You have completely lost the plot now
Why don't you go and play with Stephanie as you two are so a like
But you're not denying it, are you?
-
Maggie I completely agree, Kaldin is a wonderful asset to the forum. Now we just need Jan back
Kaldin just goes on about Julie. As you do.
I have given Kaldin a list of incriminating evidence but still only Julie is discussed. Ditto you.
-
She did have a mind of her own.
She used it to spend 20 days with Bamber. Upon his request & pleading.
Then told 5 people, completed a WS & testified.
Oh & she has 'made up her mind' not to retract a word of what she did.
This business of him pleading with her doesn't ring true to me. How come he then dumped her, or at least suddenly decided he didn't want her around any more?
-
How do you know that? She made money from the cannabis, and she got some nice things from the cheque fraud. That was nothing to do with Jeremy - she did it with her mate, Susan.
You know for sure she kept the money, do you? Yes she bought something nice for Jeremy. Jeremy had dared her to do it. Said she was a "goody goody"?
-
This business of him pleading with her doesn't ring true to me. How come he then dumped her, or at least suddenly decided he didn't want her around any more?
Well he rang her 3 times in 7 hours. Then whisked her over to WHF.
As you said Julie accompanied Bamber on his jolly ups. She certainly didn't plead with him to go. As you have said about Julie, Bamber could have just said 'no'.
Anyway I gave you a source that Bamber 'begged' Julie to attend the funeral. You did not accept it.
-
JM apparently dismissed JB's late night phone call and told him to go back to sleep which is hardly the actions of a woman in thrall and obsession to him.
She did but according to her statement, and the facts, she ended the phone call with words to the effect "bye honey" to which Jeremy replied "love you lots" (or words to that effect).
But by around 5.50 in the morning - just a couple of hours later - she was dressed and ready for the police to pick her up.
These actions could indeed suggest she was under Bambers spell.
-
She did but according to her statement she ended the phone call with words to the effect "bye honey" to which Jeremy replied "love you lots" (or words to that effect).
But by around 5.50 in the morning - just a couple of hours later - she was dressed and ready for the police to pick her up.
These actions could indeed suggest she was under Bambers spell.
If Bamber rings her & says 'don't go to work. A police car is coming to pick you up', it's not surprising Julie would get dressed.
-
You know for sure she kept the money, do you? Yes she bought something nice for Jeremy. Jeremy had dared her to do it. Said she was a "goody goody"?
She spent some of the cannabis money on herself. She said Jeremy asked her sell it, but yet again she could have said no. I don't get why you seem to think that he was controlling her - he didn't have some kind of probe attached to her you know.
She got the idea of the cheque fraud from someone at college, and it was Susan who decided they should do it. Was Julie just a complete idiot who just did what everyone else told her? I don't think so. She virtually stole items from shops and was proud of what she did.
-
Well he rang her 3 times in 7 hours. Then whisked her over to WHF.
As you said Julie accompanied Bamber on his jolly ups. She certainly didn't plead with him to go. As you have said about Julie, Bamber could have just said 'no'.
Anyway I gave you a source that Bamber 'begged' Julie to attend the funeral. You did not accept it.
Why would Jeremy have said no? You didn't give a proper source - you said it came from a book.
-
Kaldin just goes on about Julie. As you do.
I have given Kaldin a list of incriminating evidence but still only Julie is discussed. Ditto you.
This thread is about Julie isn't it? Why wouldn't I discuss her? You're going on about her as well.
-
Why would Jeremy have said no? You didn't give a proper source - you said it came from a book.
He would have said no so he can live his dream of being a play boy on his jolly ups. But needed Julie close by in the immediate aftermath of the massacre.
I gave you the page number & quote. As I said both guilters & supporters quote & accept books on here as sources. You should as well.
-
He would have said no so he can live his dream of being a play boy on his jolly ups. But needed Julie close by in the immediate aftermath of the massacre.
I gave you the page number & quote. As I said both guilters & supporters quote & accept books on here as sources. You should as well.
Why should I accept "evidence" from books just because others do? I'm my own person. Did Julie say that or not? If she did, can you point to a statement where she said it?
-
I agree, but why would she have told the police that Jeremy had told her he was responsible on 7th August?
Julie Mugford stated -
8th August
"Killing his family again. He not mentioned this for about 2 months. He said that his original plan was not fool proof because of the drugs and he didn’t know how to administer it. He said he thought about getting cyanide but wherever he got it would be recorded. He then said that as they lived on a farm it might be acceptable but then he dismissed that idea. I remember that I made a joke about the house saying that he couldn’t burn it down because it was so beautiful. He said he had changed his mind about burning it down because it might have been seen too quickly and the evidence would not have been destroyed.
He also dismissed the fire because there were valuables in the house which would be lost. He told me the house insurance was low. He mentioned about a pigeon clock and china and silver which he thought were valuable. He said that the only other way that he could do it was to shoot them. He told me that he was always thinking about it on his tractor.
He said he had to plan it so it was fool proof. He was trying to find a way of getting in and out of the house without trace as the outside doors were always locked. This was all he said at that stage and he would have to think more about itWhy should I accept "evidence" from books just because others do? I'm my own person. Did Julie say that or not? If she did, can you point to a statement where she said it?
.
About June 1985 whilst I was out in the car with Jeremy he told me that he was being pressurised by his parents and he hoped that Sheila was coming to stay. He said that he would use a cycle to do it and would do a trial run to see how long it would take. He thought it would take………..?? (The rest of this page is missing, it looks like she could be saying 15 minutes to me)."http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1647
You are clearly cherry picking parts of the evidence to suit your agenda
-
She spent some of the cannabis money on herself. She said Jeremy asked her sell it, but yet again she could have said no. I don't get why you seem to think that he was controlling her - he didn't have some kind of probe attached to her you know.
She got the idea of the cheque fraud from someone at college, and it was Susan who decided they should do it. Was Julie just a complete idiot who just did what everyone else told her? I don't think so. She virtually stole items from shops and was proud of what she did.
Why don't you read the statement re the cheque book fraud. It was Julie who persuaded Susan. Jeremy said she was a goody two shoes who would never do anything dishonest. She did it to impress him. She was in love. Women in love have been known to do stupid things. Your comment on the probe may NOT be as far fetched as you think, after all, she said, quite openly that he'd taught her sex like never before!
-
This thread is about Julie isn't it? Why wouldn't I discuss her? You're going on about her as well.
Well over the last few days you've made you're point.
In you're view you would have acted differently to Julie at her age & in her situation -
Not gone to the funeral.
Not worn a veil.
Not bought a dress.
Acted diffetently when Bamber woke her at 3am.
Totally cut off from Bamber on the 7th August 1985.
Obviously what you believe you would have done means nothing. Put 100 20 year old women in her situation & there will ne a 100 different reactions.
-
Julie Mugford stated -
8th August
"Killing his family again. He not mentioned this for about 2 months. He said that his original plan was not fool proof because of the drugs and he didn’t know how to administer it. He said he thought about getting cyanide but wherever he got it would be recorded. He then said that as they lived on a farm it might be acceptable but then he dismissed that idea. I remember that I made a joke about the house saying that he couldn’t burn it down because it was so beautiful. He said he had changed his mind about burning it down because it might have been seen too quickly and the evidence would not have been destroyed.
He also dismissed the fire because there were valuables in the house which would be lost. He told me the house insurance was low. He mentioned about a pigeon clock and china and silver which he thought were valuable. He said that the only other way that he could do it was to shoot them. He told me that he was always thinking about it on his tractor.
He said he had to plan it so it was fool proof. He was trying to find a way of getting in and out of the house without trace as the outside doors were always locked. This was all he said at that stage and he would have to think more about it.
About June 1985 whilst I was out in the car with Jeremy he told me that he was being pressurised by his parents and he hoped that Sheila was coming to stay. He said that he would use a cycle to do it and would do a trial run to see how long it would take. He thought it would take………..?? (The rest of this page is missing, it looks like she could be saying 15 minutes to me)."http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1647
You are clearly cherry picking parts of the evidence to suit your agenda
What are you talking about? My post was addressing a post where it was suggested that Julie gradually became suspicious about Jeremy - that's why I asked that question. I don't understand your post at all.
-
And say for arguments sake we ignore the label "psychopath" I find Bambers behaviour to be predatory.
An example of this is when he wrote to Caroline after learning she no longer believed he was innocent.
Ha, ha! He said I was 'naughty' :o ;D
-
Why don't you read the statement re the cheque book fraud. It was Julie who persuaded Susan. Jeremy said she was a goody two shoes who would never do anything dishonest. She did it to impress him. She was in love. Women in love have been known to do stupid things. Your comment on the probe may NOT be as far fetched as you think, after all, she said, quite openly that he'd taught her sex like never before!
I have read it. Julie said she tried to persuade Susan to do it (not the actions of an easily-led person IMO), but they decided not to do it, but then Susan came into her room and said they should do it. It was nothing to do with Jeremy - it was not his idea.
-
Why should I accept "evidence" from books just because others do? I'm my own person. Did Julie say that or not? If she did, can you point to a statement where she said it?
Alright you're going to be different to everyone else & not accept books as a source. Probably because you haven't got any books yourself.
Books are also quoted by supporters. You won't be able to support these future posts.
-
I have read it. Julie said she tried to persuade Susan to do it (not the actions of an easily-led person IMO), but they decided not to do it, but then Susan came into her room and said they should do it. It was nothing to do with Jeremy - it was not his idea.
Nor were the murders Julie Mugfords idea!
Julie Mugford states -
"He said he had found a way in through a downstairs window which I think he might have said was a kitchen window. He said they would all be shot. He told me he could get out of the house through a window which the latch would close when the window was closed. He said as you close the window the latch drops down making it look as if the window had never been opened.
I got very upset and insisted that he did not mention it again.
Jeremy did not mention to me about killing his family until Tuesday 6th August 1985.
I was at my home in Lewisham when Jeremy phoned me about 10pm.
He said to me ‘ Hi honey’ I’ve just phoned up to ask how you are. I said to him I have had a wonderful day at work and that I was really happy and I wanted to make him happy. I asked him how his day had been and he said ‘ As best as can be expected’ as he had spent all day on the tractor; …???… it had been sunny and he had spent all day inside. I assume that he meant he was inside the cab of the tractor all day.
I said to him ‘you sound pissed off’. He said I have been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never. I told him not to be so stupid and that he was only saying this because he had had a bad day on the tractor. He also told me that he had only just got back from work and had had supper with his parents and Sheila and the twins and that was why he late in phoning me.
PAGE 12
I then continued telling him about my day and dropped the matter concerning his family. I was aware that when he said the word crime he was referring to the killing of his family. I did not believe he could carry it out. I remember that he told me that he had been on the phone 17 minutes and I said words to the effect ‘oh I am sorry do you want me to go now’ he just said that he hadn’t got anything else to say. We both said goodbye and put the phone down. I remember now that he said words to the effect that I might be hearing from him later. I thought nothing of this.
I believe that prior to Jeremy phoning me up I had been smoking marijuana and I suppose because of this I was quite flippant on the phone with Jeremy.
I suppose I went to be that night about 11:15pm time.
In the early hours of the morning, I have since found out from a friend of mine, Susan Battersby who was with me then, it was about 3:15am, I was woken up by another house mate Douglas Dale who told me that Jeremy was on the telephone. I got out of bed and went to the phone on the landing and said hello. I felt very dozy and I suppose I was only half awake. He said everything is going well, not to worry there is something wrong at the farm.
I told him sleepily to go back to bed and he said bye honey I love you lots. I then put the phone down. I particularly remember the phrase ‘everything is going well’ I then got into bed and laid there for a few minutes when I suddenly came to my senses and realised what he had said
-
Well over the last few days you've made you're point.
In you're view you would have acted differently to Julie at her age & in her situation -
Not gone to the funeral.
Not worn a veil.
Not bought a dress.
Acted diffetently when Bamber woke her at 3am.
Totally cut off from Bamber on the 7th August 1985.
Obviously what you believe you would have done means nothing. Put 100 20 year old women in her situation & there will ne a 100 different reactions.
Anything you've said is just your opinion, and I disagree with your opinion. Why do you think you're allowed to talk about it and I'm not?
-
Alright you're going to be different to everyone else & not accept books as a source. Probably because you haven't got any books yourself.
Books are also quoted by supporters. You won't be able to support these future posts.
I can't help what other people do. I have access to a lot of statements, which are actually the words of the people involved. Books are largely based on the opinion of others who weren't involved.
-
Nor were the murders Julie Mugfords idea!
Julie Mugford states -
"He said he had found a way in through a downstairs window which I think he might have said was a kitchen window. He said they would all be shot. He told me he could get out of the house through a window which the latch would close when the window was closed. He said as you close the window the latch drops down making it look as if the window had never been opened.
I got very upset and insisted that he did not mention it again.
Jeremy did not mention to me about killing his family until Tuesday 6th August 1985.
I was at my home in Lewisham when Jeremy phoned me about 10pm.
He said to me ‘ Hi honey’ I’ve just phoned up to ask how you are. I said to him I have had a wonderful day at work and that I was really happy and I wanted to make him happy. I asked him how his day had been and he said ‘ As best as can be expected’ as he had spent all day on the tractor; …???… it had been sunny and he had spent all day inside. I assume that he meant he was inside the cab of the tractor all day.
I said to him ‘you sound pissed off’. He said I have been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never. I told him not to be so stupid and that he was only saying this because he had had a bad day on the tractor. He also told me that he had only just got back from work and had had supper with his parents and Sheila and the twins and that was why he late in phoning me.
PAGE 12
I then continued telling him about my day and dropped the matter concerning his family. I was aware that when he said the word crime he was referring to the killing of his family. I did not believe he could carry it out. I remember that he told me that he had been on the phone 17 minutes and I said words to the effect ‘oh I am sorry do you want me to go now’ he just said that he hadn’t got anything else to say. We both said goodbye and put the phone down. I remember now that he said words to the effect that I might be hearing from him later. I thought nothing of this.
I believe that prior to Jeremy phoning me up I had been smoking marijuana and I suppose because of this I was quite flippant on the phone with Jeremy.
I suppose I went to be that night about 11:15pm time.
In the early hours of the morning, I have since found out from a friend of mine, Susan Battersby who was with me then, it was about 3:15am, I was woken up by another house mate Douglas Dale who told me that Jeremy was on the telephone. I got out of bed and went to the phone on the landing and said hello. I felt very dozy and I suppose I was only half awake. He said everything is going well, not to worry there is something wrong at the farm.
I told him sleepily to go back to bed and he said bye honey I love you lots. I then put the phone down. I particularly remember the phrase ‘everything is going well’ I then got into bed and laid there for a few minutes when I suddenly came to my senses and realised what he had said
I have no idea why you're telling me all that - it's nothing to do with what I said.
-
I can't help what other people do. I have access to a lot of statements, which are actually the words of the people involved. Books are largely based on the opinion of others who weren't involved.
Everyone has access to statements.
A lot have acclaimed books to.
-
Everyone has access to statements.
A lot have acclaimed books to.
Well if you have access to a statement by Julie Mugford saying that she didn't want to go to the funeral, please link to it.
-
Anything you've said is just your opinion, and I disagree with your opinion. Why do you think you're allowed to talk about it and I'm not?
Never said you're not allowed to speak. Just that everyone gets it.
You believe you would have acted diffetently to Julie in her situation & at her age.
-
What are you talking about? My post was addressing a post where it was suggested that Julie gradually became suspicious about Jeremy - that's why I asked that question. I don't understand your post at all.
Clearly not, as your numerous posts show ::)
-
Never said you're not allowed to speak. Just that everyone gets it.
You believe you would have acted diffetently to Julie in her situation & at her age.
You think that others aren't repeating themselves and/or guessing how she felt? If you and others continue to defend her, excuse her, and portray her as a victim, of course I'll contradict you.
-
Clearly not, as your numerous posts show ::)
Clearly not what? I think you've lost the plot.
-
Well if you have access to a statement by Julie Mugford saying that she didn't want to go to the funera, please link to it.
I've already given you a good source.
From an acclaimed book. It is saying Julie testified this. So Bamber & dozens of people were there in court.
Has anyone denied it ? No.
Has Julie denied it ? No.
Has Bamber denied it ? No.
No further source needed. You are just trying to discredit it because it defeats you're criticism that Julie went to the funeral.
-
I've already given you a good source.
From an acclaimed book. It is saying Julie testified this. So Bamber & dozens of people were there in court.
Has anyone denied it ? No.
Has Julie denied it ? No.
Has Bamber denied it ? No.
No further source needed. You are just trying to discredit it because it defeats you're criticism that Julie went to the funeral.
It's not a good source to me. Julie made lengthy statements, but I can't find anything where she says she didn't want to go to the funeral.
-
Never said you're not allowed to speak. Just that everyone gets it.
You believe you would have acted diffetently to Julie in her situation & at her age.
Probably Adam because most of us are sticking to the facts of the case and have read the witness statements;
Here is more of Julie Mugfords evidence, as a reminder to those posters who are veering from the actual facts:
"I then continued telling him about my day and dropped the matter concerning his family. I was aware that when he said the word crime he was referring to the killing of his family. I did not believe he could carry it out. I remember that he told me that he had been on the phone 17 minutes and I said words to the effect ‘oh I am sorry do you want me to go now’ he just said that he hadn’t got anything else to say. We both said goodbye and put the phone down. I remember now that he said words to the effect that I might be hearing from him later. I thought nothing of this.
I believe that prior to Jeremy phoning me up I had been smoking marijuana and I suppose because of this I was quite flippant on the phone with Jeremy.
I suppose I went to be that night about 11:15pm time.
In the early hours of the morning, I have since found out from a friend of mine, Susan Battersby who was with me then, it was about 3:15am, I was woken up by another house mate Douglas Dale who told me that Jeremy was on the telephone. I got out of bed and went to the phone on the landing and said hello. I felt very dozy and I suppose I was only half awake. He said everything is going well, not to worry there is something wrong at the farm.
I told him sleepily to go back to bed and he said bye honey I love you lots. I then put the phone down. I particularly remember the phrase ‘everything is going well’ I then got into bed and laid there for a few minutes when I suddenly came to my senses and realised what he had said.
PAGE 13
In my view he was telling me they were all dead. I immediately got out of bed and I spoke to my friend Susan. I don’t know if she came into my room or we met on the landing. She was very cross and complained about Jeremy phoning at a stupid time. She asked me what was wrong as apparently I looked concerned. I told her that I didn’t know but there was something wrong at the farm.
She said again what was wrong. We then all went back to our beds. I have since spoken to Susan and I feel sure that she told me the time that Jeremy phoned was 3:12am.
I lay in bed but did not go to sleep as I knew that Jeremy had murdered his family.
About 5??? the same day Wednesday 7th August 1985 I again received a telephone call from a call box. I answered the phone in the house and Jeremy spoke.
He said to have only got the 10p don’t go to work. A police car will be coming to pick you up. He said I will explain to you later when I see you. I got showered and dressed, and later a police car picked me up and I went to Goldhanger. At the house I met Jeremy who appeared upset. DS Jones told me what had happened although I already knew. DS Jones allowed me a few minutes with Jeremy in the living room where we hugged and kissed. Whilst we were kissing he whispered in my ear and said ‘I should have been an actor’ he then gave a slight …???…
I didn't say anything to him then about him doing it. During the course of the day the police came to the house taking
PAGE 14
statements from Jeremy and other people.
About 8:30 the same day DS Jones and DC Clarke left the house leaving Jeremy and myself alone. We went and sat in the lounge and I think the first thing Jeremy said was that he was glad the day was over. I then said to Jeremy ‘Did you do it’
He said ‘ No I couldn’t have done it, Mathew did it’. I knew to whom he was referring
-
You think that others aren't repeating themselves and/or guessing how she felt? If you and others continue to defend her, excuse her, and portray her as a victim, of course I'll contradict you.
As I said, put a hundred 20 year old women in Julie's situation, there will be a 100 different reactions.
I just don't see how in you're view you would have acted differently to Julie, puts Bamber's guilt in doubt..
-
Clearly not what? I think you've lost the plot.
What a great addition you are to the forum indeed! ;D ;D ;D
Were you are Jackie separated at birth?
-
What a great addition you are to the forum indeed! ;D ;D ;D
Were you are Jackie separated at birth?
Look, let me spell it out for you.
Here is maggie's post:
Well yes she might have been. I know at 20 we can have strange ideas about what love is but it's very difficult to believe at any age that a murderer of two children and three adults is worth loving.
Imo I think the only understandable explanation is that the belief of the relatives etc. that he did it got to Julie and started her thinking and wondering if he had done it. She started talking to friends about it and it grew in her mind until she convinced herself it was true.
Once the police got hold of her she had no choice but to go along with them.
Any other explanation is hard to excuse and shows Julie in a very poor light imo.
Here is my reply:
I agree, but why would she have told the police that Jeremy had told her he was responsible on 7th August?
I took maggie's post to mean that Julie was not told by Jeremy that he was responsible, and that she started to wonder whether he was responsible because of what the relatives were saying. That is why I asked my question. If Jeremy had told her on 7th August that he was responsible, she wouldn't need to wonder about anything - she would know.
-
As I said, put a hundred 20 year old women in Julie's situation, there will be a 100 different reactions.
I just don't see how in you're view you would have acted differently to Julie, puts Bamber's guilt in doubt..
Plenty of other people here have decided how Julie would feel and/or behave. They've said she was coerced, she was under his spell, she was in love, she was this or that. You don't seem to mind that.
I haven't said it put Bamber's guilt in doubt, I'm merely discussing her behavior - I told you that before. We haven't even touched on the possibility that she was lying, or where she could have got her information from re stuff like the Bible and windows, etc.
-
Look, let me spell it out for you.
Here is maggie's post:
Here is my reply:
I took maggie's post to mean that Julie was not told by Jeremy that he was responsible, and that she started to wonder whether he was responsible because of what the relatives were saying. That is why I asked my question. If Jeremy had told her on 7th August that he was responsible, she wouldn't need to wonder about anything - she would know.
See my post above ^ ^ ^
-
Plenty of other people here have decided how Julie would feel and/or behave. They've said she was coerced, she was under his spell, she was in love, she was this or that. You don't seem to mind that.
I haven't said it put Bamber's guilt in doubt, I'm merely discussing her behavior - I told you that before. We haven't even touched on the possibility that she was lying, or where she could have got her information from re stuff like the Bible and windows, etc.
If you stuck to the wealth of evidence she gave there would be no need for the rest of us to pick up on your apparent errors and bias
-
See my post above ^ ^ ^
Which one? The stupid one about Jackie and I?
I don't know why you're quoting all that stuff at me - I know what she said. The question is - if she didn't know on 7th August that Jeremy was responsible, why would she say that she did? I was addressing maggie's post, and you seemed to read much more into it.
-
Plenty of other people here have decided how Julie would feel and/or behave. They've said she was coerced, she was under his spell, she was in love, she was this or that. You don't seem to mind that.
I haven't said it put Bamber's guilt in doubt, I'm merely discussing her behavior - I told you that before. We haven't even touched on the possibility that she was lying, or where she could have got her information from re stuff like the Bible and windows, etc.
Well she said she was in love. So to an extent under his spell.
I don't believe she was coerced. More like swept along at speed after being whisked over to WHF. Intially in shock & disbelief as well as scared & unsure what to do.
Julie got information which wasn't in the papers from Bamber. There was a lot of it.
-
If you stuck to the wealth of evidence she gave there would be no need for the rest of us to pick up on your apparent errors and bias
I'm not biased, I'm on the fence. You're the one who's biased. I've read the evidence, and I still don't know what your point is. Do you even have one?
-
Well she said she was in love. So to an extent under his spell. I don't believe she was coerced. More like swept along at speed after being whisked over to WHF. Intially in shock & disbelief.
Julie got information which wasn't in the papers from Bamber. There was a lot of it.
Like what? She didn't say any of this until a month later, so she would have heard about the Bible, the number of shots, the fight in the kitchen, etc.
-
Look, let me spell it out for you.
Here is maggie's post:
Here is my reply:
I took maggie's post to mean that Julie was not told by Jeremy that he was responsible, and that she started to wonder whether he was responsible because of what the relatives were saying. That is why I asked my question. If Jeremy had told her on 7th August that he was responsible, she wouldn't need to wonder about anything - she would know.
No she wouldn't IF that's what happened, however, Julie didn't mix with the relatives and they hardly going to tell Jeremy's girlfriend that they suspected him! She knew he was involved, because he told her.
-
Like what? She didn't say any of this until a month later, so she would have heard about the Bible, the number of shots, the fight in the kitchen, etc.
There was a valuble pidgeon clock, valuable china and silver at WHF.
The outside doors were locked every night.
There was a downstairs window which latched shut when exiting.
There was a kitchen fight during the massacre.
Neville received seven shots.
The twins were shot in their sleep.
Sheila had a bible by her chest.
There was going to be a phone call from WHF to Bamber's cottage from MM.
There was a phone at WHF which had a last number redial record.
Bamber had started conversations at supper about fostering.
Sheila was shot last.
June was shot in her bed.
Everyone was asleep. Except Neville.
Sheila was shot under the chin.
-------------------
Why would she have heard of these things. I thought she just spent all her time at Bamber's jolly ups.
-
I'm not biased, I'm on the fence. You're the one who's biased. I've read the evidence, and I still don't know what your point is. Do you even have one?
No idea why you keep using that idiom as you clearly do not understand its meaning!
As already pointed out by others your quite apparent bias and vitriol towards Julie Mugford is written in black and white by your very own hand.
-
No she wouldn't IF that's what happened, however, Julie didn't mix with the relatives and they hardly going to tell Jeremy's girlfriend that they suspected him! She knew he was involved, because he told her.
Well yes - allegedly. Like maggie, I could have understood Julie's actions a lot more if she claimed that he hadn't told her, and that she gradually realised that he was involved. However, that's not what she said, so therefore, I don't understand her actions.
-
There was a valuble pidgeon clock, valuable china and silver at WHF.
The outside doors were locked every night.
There was a downstairs window which latched shut when exiting.
There was a kitchen fight during the massacre.
Neville received seven shots.
The twins were shot in their sleep.
Sheila had a bible by her chest.
There was going to be a phone call from WHF to Bamber's cottage from MM.
There was a phone at WHF which had a last number redial record.
Bamber had started conversations at supper about fostering.
Sheila was shot last.
June was shot in her bed.
Everyone was asleep. Except Neville.
Sheila was shot under the chin.
-------------------
Why would she have heard of these things. I thought she just spent all her time at Bamber's jolly ups.
Why wouldn't she know about valuable stuff at the farm? She knew about a phone call to Jeremy's house because Jeremy could have told her that his father rang. A month after the murders I'm sure she would know a lot of that stuff - Jeremy could have told her, or the relatives could have told her. Colin could also have told her about the twins being shot in bed. She also saw the bodies, remember. Don't forget that she was relaying all this to the police a month after the murders - she didn't tell them the day of the murders. If she had done, of course she wouldn't have known a lot of that stuff.
-
Why wouldn't she know about valuable stuff at the farm? She knew about a phone call to Jeremy's house because Jeremy told her that her father rang. A month after the murders I'm sure she would know a lot of that stuff - Jeremy could have told her, or the relatives could have told her. Colin could also have told her about the twins being shot in bed. She also saw the bodies, remember. Don't forget that she was relaying all this to the police a month after the murders - she didn't tell them the day of the murders. If she had done, of course she wouldn't have known a lot of that stuff.
On the fence ? It seems you fire fighting a forest fire.
I'm sorry but Julie knowing all this from people other than Bamber is not credible.
Who else would tell her these things. She was outside of Essex with Bamber all of the time ?
Well you've been quoting Julie's WS. Now you're complaining it was written a month later. As it happens, her WS was completed very quickly after her police approach.
-
On the fence ? It seems you fire fighting a forest fire.
I'm sorry but Julie knowing all this from people other than Bamber is not credible.
Who else would tell her these things. She was outside of Essex with Bamber all of the time ?
Well you've been quoting Julie's WS. Now you're complaining it was written a month later. As it happens, her WS was completed very quickly after her police approach.
The stuff she told the police about what Jeremy allegedly said on 7th August was not relayed to the police until a month later. In that month, she could easily have found out loads of stuff about the murder scene. Jeremy would have been told about it for a start. Colin would know as well. The Bible was mentioned quite early on I think.
-
On the fence ? It seems you fire fighting a forest fire.
I'm sorry but Julie knowing all this from people other than Bamber is not credible.
Who else would tell her these things. She was outside of Essex with Bamber all of the time ?
Well you've been quoting Julie's WS. Now you're complaining it was written a month later. As it happens, her WS was completed very quickly after her police approach.
Couldn't agree with you more Adam!
But you are wasting your time attempting to debate with Kaldin; who keeps attempting to change the goals posts and veers from the factual evidence of JM's statements.
-
Couldn't agree with you more Adam!
But you are wasting your time attempting to debate with Kaldin; who keeps attempting to change the goals posts and veers from the factual evidence of JM's statements.
No I'm not - I'm simply on the fence. I'm sure it's probably been discussed during my six-year absence, but I don't mind having a look at what Julie could have found out during that month before she went to the police.
-
The stuff she told the police about what Jeremy allegedly said on 7th August was not relayed to the police until a month later. In that month, she could easily have found out loads of stuff about the murder scene. Jeremy would have been told about it for a start. Colin would know as well. The Bible was mentioned quite early on I think.
Ok you believe Julie got all this information from other people. Although have been complaining she stayed with Bamber after the massacre.
Again, if Julie was somehow a person everyone was slipping information to for some reason, it makes no difference to Bamber's guilt.
Julie also said Bamber planned to cycle to WHF. Which was easy to do. Do you think it was a coincidence Bamber brought Junes bike to the cottage just before the massacre ?
-
No idea why you keep using that idiom as you clearly do not understand its meaning!
As already pointed out by others your quite apparent bias and vitriol towards Julie Mugford is written in black and white by your very own hand.
I have no idea why you keep bothering me if you don't like my posts. Of course I'm on the fence. I've been discussing Julie Mugford's behaviour from the viewpoint that Jeremy was guilty and she knew he was guilty. Now I wouldn't mind discussing it from the viewpoint that he's not guilty and her story was not true.
-
Ok you believe Julie got all this information from other people. Although have been complaining she stayed with Bamber after the massacre.
Again, if Julie was somehow a person everyone was slipping information to for some reason, it makes no difference to Bamber's guilt.
Julie also said Bamber planned to cycle to WHF. Which was easy to do. Do you think it was a coincidence Bamber brought Junes bike to the cottage just before the massacre ?
She probably got most of it from Jeremy. The police would have told him a lot of it, and he would have told Julie. She would also get info from the press and other people.
It didn't need to be a coincidence that the bike was at Jeremy's house. That could be where she got the idea from.
-
She probably got most of it from Jeremy. The police would have told him a lot of it, and he would have told Julie. She would also get info from the press and other people.
It didn't need to be a coincidence that the bike was at Jeremy's house. That could be where she got the idea from.
You've now said it. Suggesting Julie lied.
Bamber was 'unlucky' that he brought the bike over just before the massacre. It gave Julie an open goal.
-
You've now said it. Suggesting Julie lied.
Bamber was 'unlucky' that he brought the bike over just before the massacre. It gave Julie an open goal.
I'm merely saying it's a possibility. After all, that's what the defence claimed isn't it?
-
Couldn't agree with you more Adam!
But you are wasting your time attempting to debate with Kaldin; who keeps attempting to change the goals posts and veers from the factual evidence of JM's statements.
factual evidence from JM statements? There are none.
-
Well yes - allegedly. Like maggie, I could have understood Julie's actions a lot more if she claimed that he hadn't told her, and that she gradually realised that he was involved. However, that's not what she said, so therefore, I don't understand her actions.
She was fooled into believing Jeremy killed the family. Then told she would go down with him if she did not testify against him. Not difficult to work out.
-
Well yes - allegedly. Like maggie, I could have understood Julie's actions a lot more if she claimed that he hadn't told her, and that she gradually realised that he was involved. However, that's not what she said, so therefore, I don't understand her actions.
As you have reasonably pointed out , Kaldin, this is not even a debate about JB's guilt or innocence. If JB is guilty then JM's actions in the lead up to, during and in the aftermath of the killings defy explanation, other than that she was a willing accessory.
Quite why this view is attacked by so many guilters is inexplicable. It makes no difference to JB's guilt or innocence but it should be apparent to all that if JB is guilty then it is self evident that Mugford was a willing accomplice.
-
Well yes - allegedly. Like maggie, I could have understood Julie's actions a lot more if she claimed that he hadn't told her, and that she gradually realised that he was involved. However, that's not what she said, so therefore, I don't understand her actions.
If you don't, you don't. I guess that's said about a lot of people - perhaps even yourself.
-
As you have reasonably pointed out , Kaldin, this is not even a debate about JB's guilt or innocence. If JB is guilty then JM's actions in the lead up to, during and in the aftermath of the killings defy explanation, other than that she was a willing accessory.
Quite why this view is attacked by so many guilters is inexplicable. It makes no difference to JB's guilt or innocence but it should be apparent to all that if JB is guilty then it is self evident that Mugford was a willing accomplice.
noun
1.
a person who knowingly helps another in a crime or wrongdoing, often as a subordinate.
-
CAN POSTERS PLEASE STOP THE PERSONAL ABUSE. THE POINT OF THIS FORUM IS TO DEBATE THE CASE NOT TO ATTACK OTHER POSTERS IN A PERSONAL MANNER.
I HAVE REMOVED SOME POSTS AND SHALL BE BACK LATER TO REMOVE MORE.
PLEASE REMEMBER EVERY POSTER HAS A RIGHT TO THEIR OPINIONS AND THEY SHOULD BE RESPECTED.
-
CAN POSTERS PLEASE STOP THE PERSONAL ABUSE. THE POINT OF THIS FORUM IS TO DEBATE THE CASE NOT TO ATTACK OTHER POSTERS IN A PERSONAL MANNER.
I HAVE REMOVED SOME POSTS AND SHALL BE BACK LATER TO REMOVE MORE.
PLEASE REMEMBER EVERY POSTER HAS A RIGHT TO THEIR OPINIONS AND THEY SHOULD BE RESPECTED.
I disagree
Debates can only be resolved by presenting sound arguments with supporting evidence. Stating one's rights and entitlements adds nothing to the debating process.
Having a right to an opinion does not make that opinion right.
http://www.critical-thinking.org.uk/critical-thinking/bad-arguments/entitled-to-an-opinion.php (http://www.critical-thinking.org.uk/critical-thinking/bad-arguments/entitled-to-an-opinion.php)
-
I disagree
Debates can only be resolved by presenting sound arguments with supporting evidence. Stating one's rights and entitlements adds nothing to the debating process.
Having a right to an opinion does not make that opinion right.
http://www.critical-thinking.org.uk/critical-thinking/bad-arguments/entitled-to-an-opinion.php (http://www.critical-thinking.org.uk/critical-thinking/bad-arguments/entitled-to-an-opinion.php)
You would do well to remember that!
-
As you have reasonably pointed out , Kaldin, this is not even a debate about JB's guilt or innocence. If JB is guilty then JM's actions in the lead up to, during and in the aftermath of the killings defy explanation, other than that she was a willing accessory.
Quite why this view is attacked by so many guilters is inexplicable. It makes no difference to JB's guilt or innocence but it should be apparent to all that if JB is guilty then it is self evident that Mugford was a willing accomplice.
Or she dithered, or was brainwashed, or was frightened lest her cannabis selling at the Goldsmiths hall of residence came to light.
Nobody is excusing Julie, but I'm sure there are several other explanations.
-
Or she dithered, or was brainwashed, or was frightened lest her cannabis selling at the Goldsmiths hall of residence came to light.
Nobody is excusing Julie, but I'm sure there are several other explanations.
Well she should have received a severe punishment
-
Well she should have received a severe punishment
Perhaps so, but only if JB is guilty.
-
Perhaps so, but only if JB is guilty.
Not sure how but this point is repeatedly being overlooked.
-
Not sure how but this point is repeatedly being overlooked.
Yes true,I think because society finds it difficult to perceive females as associated with violence, Julie had foreknowledge of the crime, the heinousness of the crimes themselves and the insensitive interview she gave post-murders.
-
Not sure how but this point is repeatedly being overlooked.
I think people are so motivated to kick their point home that they don't see the ramifications.
Personally, I believe JM should have been charged, but that's because I believe JB to be guilty.
-
No she wouldn't IF that's what happened, however, Julie didn't mix with the relatives and they hardly going to tell Jeremy's girlfriend that they suspected him! She knew he was involved, because he told her.
I was giving Julie the benefit of the doubt, otherwise imo she behaved really badly. Maybe she didn't mix with the relatives but maybe she heard whispers from various sources which caused her to start to question and discuss her thoughts with friends. I would think that would be quite natural behavour at that age.
The alternative is that she knew he was guilty as she told the police and chose to party and sleep with him, even going as far as to deceive Colin into believing she was supportive of him. I understand all the arguments about her being under his spell, young, in love but for all that she seemed bereft of the natural boundaries which tell us where the line is drawn.
-
Perhaps so, but only if JB is guilty.
Well of course. :)
-
I think people are so motivated to kick their point home that they don't see the ramifications.
Personally, I believe JM should have been charged, but that's because I believe JB to be guilty.
The ramifications are obvious, Hartley, and the point has been made repeatedly throughout this thread that it is a JB guilty scenario.
It isn't a difficult concept to grasp. If JB is guilty then JM was an accomplice. If he is innocent then she is a liar. Whichever way you cut it JM comes out badly.
What it does show is that JM is a wholly unreliable witness and this can be concluded from her behaviour, whether JB is guilty or not.
-
I have no idea why you keep bothering me if you don't like my posts. Of course I'm on the fence. I've been discussing Julie Mugford's behaviour from the viewpoint that Jeremy was guilty and she knew he was guilty. Now I wouldn't mind discussing it from the viewpoint that he's not guilty and her story was not true.
Which way do you lean on this, Kaldin, or are you genuinely ambivalent?
-
The ramifications are obvious, Hartley, and the point has been made repeatedly throughout this thread that it is a JB guilty scenario.
It isn't a difficult concept to grasp. If JB is guilty then JM was an accomplice. If he is innocent then she is a liar. Whichever way you cut it JM comes out badly.
What it does show is that JM is a wholly unreliable witness and this can be concluded from her behaviour, whether JB is guilty or not.
This has already been discussed and never proved.
-
I was giving Julie the benefit of the doubt, otherwise imo she behaved really badly. Maybe she didn't mix with the relatives but maybe she heard whispers from various sources which caused her to start to question and discuss her thoughts with friends. I would think that would be quite natural behavour at that age.
The alternative is that she knew he was guilty as she told the police and chose to party and sleep with him, even going as far as to deceive Colin into believing she was supportive of him. I understand all the arguments about her being under his spell, young, in love but for all that she seemed bereft of the natural boundaries which tell us where the line is drawn.
They didn't mix in the same circles to hear each others whispers, they didn't even live close. The only times that Julie saw the relatives is when she was with Jeremy.
I think she did the latter not because she was under any spell, but simply because she didn't know what else to do. The secret kept them bonded for a while but the Brett turned up.
-
They didn't mix in the same circles to hear each others whispers, they didn't even live close. The only times that Julie saw the relatives is when she was with Jeremy.
You don't have any evidence to support this. The circumstances surrounding her evidence points to the contrary. Unless you want to go with an absurd coincidence theory.
-
You don't have any evidence to support this. The circumstances surrounding her evidence points to the contrary. Unless you want to go with an absurd coincidence theory.
Boutflour wasn't saying anything that many could have worked out.
-
I was giving Julie the benefit of the doubt, otherwise imo she behaved really badly. Maybe she didn't mix with the relatives but maybe she heard whispers from various sources which caused her to start to question and discuss her thoughts with friends. I would think that would be quite natural behavour at that age.
The alternative is that she knew he was guilty as she told the police and chose to party and sleep with him, even going as far as to deceive Colin into believing she was supportive of him. I understand all the arguments about her being under his spell, young, in love but for all that she seemed bereft of the natural boundaries which tell us where the line is drawn.
Her behaviour. We talk about it regularly and frequently. I find myself wondering exactly what course her changed pattern of behaviour took and when it began. I can only assume that it would have changed somewhat from the time he first mentioned ridding himself of his family. Might there have been the odd -perhaps barely perceptible- moment when she became quiet as she thought about what he'd said. I wonder how she'd have coped with daily life as he became more vociferous? I find that I can identify with her thoughts in the snippet of her trial testimony that David posted. Surely I'm not the only one who can admit to having felt conflicted at some point?
Of course, it must all pale into insignificance, compared with how she coped POST murders. Were her friends all so tied up in their own worlds that NONE of them saw a change in her. Did no one notice that she may have appeared to have her mind somewhere other. Did she laugh more loudly? Cry more readily? Did she distance herself from her friends, OR did she want to be with them more? Several here would have us believe that she acted as if nothing had happened. I find it hard to believe -as it was something which was out of her control- that such would have been possible.
-
Her behaviour. We talk about it regularly and frequently. I find myself wondering exactly what course her changed pattern of behaviour took and when it began. I can only assume that it would have changed somewhat from the time he first mentioned ridding himself of his family. Might there have been the odd -perhaps barely perceptible- moment when she became quiet as she thought about what he'd said. I wonder how she'd have coped with daily life as he became more vociferous? I find that I can identify with her thoughts in the snippet of her trial testimony that David posted. Surely I'm not the only one who can admit to having felt conflicted at some point?
Of course, it must all pale into insignificance, compared with how she coped POST murders. Were her friends all so tied up in their own worlds that NONE of them saw a change in her. Did no one notice that she may have appeared to have her mind somewhere other. Did she laugh more loudly? Cry more readily? Did she distance herself from her friends, OR did she want to be with them more? Several here would have us believe that she acted as if nothing had happened. I find it hard to believe -as it was something which was out of her control- that such would have been possible.
I don't know Jane however I do agree that she could have been conflicted. I always thought Maxine Carr was treated harshly because she was a victim too. I am aware that Julie may also have been a victim I cannot look at it as black or white as there are many possibilities.
-
I don't know Jane however I do agree that she could have been conflicted. I always thought Maxine Carr was treated harshly because she was a victim too. I am aware that Julie may also have been a victim I cannot look at it as black or white as there are many possibilities.
I concur re Maxine Carr, but the difference between her and Julie is that, whilst Maxine, like Julie, prevented police from making an early arrest, she had nothing to 'barter' with, ie she hadn't been privy to Huntley's plan, whereas Julie had something very worthwhile as an exchange, albeit, it was a gamble.
-
Julie refers to being "very frightened" and "suicidal" hardly a young women without a care in the world; I'd suggest quite the opposite.
-
Julie refers to being "very frightened" and "suicidal" hardly a young women without a care in the world; I'd suggest quite the opposite.
I imagine I'd have been pulverized by fear and throwing up constantly. I could never have maintained whatever it was which passed for 'normal' behaviour. I'd have been too scared to do something and too scared to do anything.
-
As you have reasonably pointed out , Kaldin, this is not even a debate about JB's guilt or innocence. If JB is guilty then JM's actions in the lead up to, during and in the aftermath of the killings defy explanation, other than that she was a willing accessory.
Quite why this view is attacked by so many guilters is inexplicable. It makes no difference to JB's guilt or innocence but it should be apparent to all that if JB is guilty then it is self evident that Mugford was a willing accomplice.
Thank you gringo. As you say, we don't always have to discuss this with a view to deciding if Jeremy is guilty or not, we can discuss the whole situation generally.
-
Perhaps so, but only if JB is guilty.
How so? If he's not guilty, then she lied to the police. I don't know if she lied or not - her story was very detailed - too detailed maybe, but it could be true. The jury seemed to believe her.
-
Which way do you lean on this, Kaldin, or are you genuinely ambivalent?
I'd like to know more about what she said to Susan on 27 August, and to other people, although I can't remember who else Adam said she told. I'll also say that the details of what Jeremy allegedly told her aren't really accurate in some ways.
On the one hand, it's quite a feat to come out with a story like that and stick to it if it's not true. On the other hand, her behaviour is a puzzle to me, and her story seems rather too detailed.
-
How so? If he's not guilty, then she lied to the police. I don't know if she lied or not - her story was very detailed - too detailed maybe, but it could be true. The jury seemed to believe her.
But I'm not sure whether the judge did. The trial hinged on the silencer and that is the weakest link, not Julie.
-
Julie refers to being "very frightened" and "suicidal" hardly a young women without a care in the world; I'd suggest quite the opposite.
Where is the suicidal bit mentioned?
-
But I'm not sure whether the judge did. The trial hinged on the silencer and that is the weakest link, not Julie.
Possibly. The jury never said what made them convict him. They might all have disbelieved her.
-
Disadvantages in Julie lying if Bamber was innocemt:
There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.
She had waited a month.
She would be charged by the police. When caught lying.
Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.
To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?
Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?
There was no financial reward in approaching the police.
It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.
She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims.
Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.
She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.
It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.
She may quickly wilt under pressure. This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?
It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.
It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.
It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.
An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.
It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.
She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.
It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.
She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?
She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.
She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.
Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.
If an unsuccessful police approach became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.
-
I imagine I'd have been pulverized by fear and throwing up constantly. I could never have maintained whatever it was which passed for 'normal' behaviour. I'd have been too scared to do something and too scared to do anything.
I agree I am pretty sure I would have been terrified. Being a natural coward and lucky enough to have caring and supportive parents I think I would have gone to them for help. I do understand not everybody is lucky enough to be able to do that which is why I have often wondered about her background. I would guess although I don't know for certain that Julie may not have had that security. I also wonder if this could account for her lack of moral judgement at times.
Having said that we all make mistakes when growing up but if this what it was it is one humdinger of a 'mistake'.
-
Where is the suicidal bit mentioned?
In her diaries http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5230.0.html
There's also mention of Bamber wanting to go the morgue.
-
I imagine I'd have been pulverized by fear and throwing up constantly. I could never have maintained whatever it was which passed for 'normal' behaviour. I'd have been too scared to do something and too scared to do anything.
Which, in a round about way, is how JM refers to her feelings/emotions in her diary entries.
-
I agree I am pretty sure I would have been terrified. Being a natural coward and lucky enough to have caring and supportive parents I think I would have gone to them for help. I do understand not everybody is lucky enough to be able to do that which is why I have often wondered about her background. I would guess although I don't know for certain that Julie may not have had that security. I also wonder if this could account for her lack of moral judgement at times.
Having said that we all make mistakes when growing up but if this what it was it is one humdinger of a 'mistake'.
To what moral judgements do you refer Maggie, can you be specific?
Having done some considerable research on the subject matter and having been through a similar ish experience to JM, whilst I can't talk for her, I do have some idea of how she may have felt and believe you me, no amount of caring or support would have stopped her from feeling terrified to some degree.
Realising your "partner" is a murderer is indescribable and unless you've walked in the shoes of someone who has been in that position it's unlikely you will ever truly comprehend what it feels like.
-
To what moral judgements do you refer Maggie, can you be specific?
Having done some considerable research on the subject matter and having been through a similar ish experience to JM, whilst I can't talk for her, I do have some idea of how she may have felt and believe you me, no amount of caring or support would have stopped her from feeling terrified to some degree.
Realising your "partner" is a murderer is indescribable and unless you've walked in the shoes of someone who has been in that position it's unlikely you will ever truly comprehend what it feels like.
I don't believe it would have stopped her feeling terrified, that is not what I said. I was referring to the fact that if she h a d not had a safe and secure upbringing she may not have had anywhere to go when she was terrified and it may have affected her judgement and her behaavour.
I would never claim to know how she felt as I have never claimed to have walked in her shoes or yours.
-
I don't believe it would have stopped her feeling terrified, that is not what I said. I was referring to the fact that if she h a d not had a safe and secure upbringing she may not have had anywhere to go when she was terrified and it may have affected her judgement and her behaavour.
I would never claim to know how she felt as I have never claimed to have walked in her shoes or yours.
She often refers to speaking to her Mum and Dad in her diary entries?
Infact her diary entries give an insight into how she was struggling to cope. She refers to Jeremy at one point as the "devil incarnate."
Imo Julie may well have been trauma bonded to Jeremy at this point. This is often the case in psychologically abusive relationships; especially where one partner has a PD.
-
She often refers to speaking to her Mum and Dad in her diary entries?
I know she does, her parents were separated and her Mother had remarried. She had talked of being abused by either her natural father or her step father amongst other things.
-
I don't believe it would have stopped her feeling terrified, that is not what I said. I was referring to the fact that if she h a d not had a safe and secure upbringing she may not have had anywhere to go when she was terrified and it may have affected her judgement and her behaavour.
I would never claim to know how she felt as I have never claimed to have walked in her shoes or yours.
She was a prolific liar and nobody could tell how many lies she to
Jealous and vindictive and very dangerous
-
I know she does, her parents were separated and her Mother had remarried. She had talked of being abused by either her natural father or her step father amongst other things.
Arh right. Do you then mean she may have been codependent? https://downtherabbitholeblog.org/2016/08/08/h-g-tudors-theory-of-narcissism-and-codependency/
"HG Tudor […] poses a theory that the codependent who is bound to a narcissist is actually a person who was set up in childhood to be a narcissist him/herself, but was arrested in development at some point along the way, and unable to develop the necessary skills to “blossom” into full blown narcissism. This is why, he theorizes, the codependent needs the narcissist, because their inner beasts are the same, and the codependent actually needs the narcissist in order to keep their beast at bay in the same way the narcissist does with his/her own mask, which the codependent is unable to do on his own.
-
Arh right. Do you then mean she may have been codependent? https://downtherabbitholeblog.org/2016/08/08/h-g-tudors-theory-of-narcissism-and-codependency/
Possibly or disordered to some degree herself. :-\ I am speculating as I don't know enough about her background.
-
Possibly or disordered to some degree herself. :-\ I am speculating as I don't know enough about her background.
Obviously you don't
-
You don't have any evidence to support this. The circumstances surrounding her evidence points to the contrary. Unless you want to go with an absurd coincidence theory.
Nothing points to Julie mixing with the relatives only some silly little theory of yours.
-
Possibly or disordered to some degree herself. :-\ I am speculating as I don't know enough about her background.
Do you know where I can read about JM allegedly being abused by her father/step father; or could this be a part of Bambers smear campaign?
-
Nothing points to Julie mixing with the relatives only some silly little theory of yours.
You know that's not true.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,106.msg125580.html#msg125580 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,106.msg125580.html#msg125580)
Why waste my time debating when you know the problems and circumstances around Julie's evidence inside out?
-
I know she does, her parents were separated and her Mother had remarried. She had talked of being abused by either her natural father or her step father amongst other things.
And, as I've said, many, MANY times, PATTERNS REPEAT.
-
And, as I've said, many, MANY times, PATTERNS REPEAT.
And I have agreed Jane, unless the circle is broken this passes from one generation to the next. Julie may very well have been a victim of her own upbringing and genes.
The JB experience and realisation of the dangerous line she had been treading may have changed her direction and attitude for the better. For all that in this world the law does not judge people on their backgrounds (well that's not strictly true), they are certainly not looked on more kindly because their upbringing was abusive or lacking in security, the prisons are full of abused and damaged people.
In the eyes of the law Julie was definitely an adult and therefore responsible for her actions which are understandably still being questioned on this forum.
-
Do you know where I can read about JM allegedly being abused by her father/step father; or could this be a part of Bambers smear campaign?
I cannot I'm afraid but I am sure it came from Julie however as I read it a few years ago I simply can't remember. Because I have no proof that this is definitely true I have not stated it as fact but rather as a possibility. I am aware that her parents and step father are still alive so I am careful in my wording as I don't want to appear to be accusing anyone of abuse or bad parenting. As far as I am aware it didn't come via JB but we can never be sure of anything as so much is hearsay etc. I do know that her background was not great
-
I cannot I'm afraid but I am sure it came from Julie however as I read it a few years ago I simply can't remember. Because I have no proof that this is definitely true I have not stated it as fact but rather as a possibility. I am aware that her parents and step father are still alive so I am careful in my wording as I don't want to appear to be accusing anyone of abuse or bad parenting. As far as I am aware it didn't come via JB but we can never be sure of anything as so much is hearsay etc. I do know that her background was not great
Not to worry; think I found it http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4522.0
It did come from JB apparently?!?
During his police interviews he's asked whether JM is close to her family, he says "to her mother yes, she didn't like her father because he used to beat her. In the last year she had not spent much time with her family."
-
Obviously you don't
No I don't Jackie, I know as much as most but as I didn't know her, I didn't know her parents or anything about her childhood I am always interested to find out more. Maybe you could fill me in.
-
Not to worry; think I found it http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4522.0
It did come from JB apparently?!?
Maybe but that may not have been the only source. I do not know if her step father beat her or not but I have been told by someone from the area that her background was not great.
-
Maybe but that may not have been the only source. I do not know if her step father beat her or not but I have been told by someone from the area that her background was not great.
In other words hearsay.
-
The most recent news I could find where JM makes a statement regarding her evidence is 2001 and by all accounts it suggests she is still haunted by what happened.
Sunday Mirror -
"Julie, now 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 somethingJulie 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
-
The most recent news I could find where JM makes a statement regarding her evidence is 2011 and by all accounts it suggests she is still haunted by what happened.
Sunday Mirror -
"Julie, now 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 somethingJulie 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
Interestingly the same article suggests JM finally went to the police after Bamber humiliated her?
"Julie, who stood alongside Bamber at the family funeral as he cried what prosecutors called "crocodile tears," finally gave in when he humiliated her by asking out another girl in front of her
-
Interestingly the same article suggests JM finally went to the police after Bamber humiliated her.
"Julie, who stood alongside Bamber at the family funeral as he cried what prosecutors called "crocodile tears," finally gave in when he humiliated her by asking out another girl in front of her
That is correct.
They had spilt up but Bamber was helping Julie move. Doesn't sound much like a devastated former girlfriend to me.
Bamber asked another woman out in front of her & Julie went to the police shortly afterwards.
Although she had already told 5 people & would certainly have gone to the police, this may have speeded things up.
-
That is correct.
They had spilt up but Bamber was helping Julie move. Doesn't sound much like a devastated former girlfriend to me.
Bamber asked another woman out in front of her & Julie went to the police shortly afterwards.
Although she had already told 5 people & would certainly have gone to the police, this may have speeded things up.
In other words Adam it was most possibly coincidental that she went to police at that time.
-
No I don't Jackie, I know as much as most but as I didn't know her, I didn't know her parents or anything about her childhood I am always interested to find out more. Maybe you could fill me in.
I know all about this because Jeremy talked at length about this and there is loads more that involves her mother and stepfather which does not appear on this forum and involves her mother and stepfather but will make no difference to this case so there is no need to post anything
I just hate this constant speculation
I do know why Mary Mugford didn't like Jeremy and her behaviour has been disgraceful to him
-
I know all about this because Jeremy talked at length about this and there is loads more that involves her mother and stepfather which does not appear on this forum and involves her mother and stepfather but will make no difference to this case so there is no need to post anything
I just hate this constant speculation
I do know why Mary Mugford didn't like Jeremy and her behaviour has been disgraceful to him
It was more than likely all part of his smear campaign against her.
Even NN couldn't find any reference to the claims; though she'd previously quoted a source? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4522.msg186095.html#msg186095
The fact is Jackie you only know what Jeremy told you, that doesn't mean there's any truth in his claims
-
I know all about this because Jeremy talked at length about this and there is loads more that involves her mother and stepfather which does not appear on this forum and involves her mother and stepfather but will make no difference to this case so there is no need to post anything
I just hate this constant speculation
I do know why Mary Mugford didn't like Jeremy and her behaviour has been disgraceful to him
Thanks Jackie
-
In other words hearsay.
I am not claiming it to be anything else. So much on the forum is hearsay.
-
I know all about this because Jeremy talked at length about this and there is loads more that involves her mother and stepfather which does not appear on this forum and involves her mother and stepfather but will make no difference to this case so there is no need to post anything
I just hate this constant speculation
I do know why Mary Mugford didn't like Jeremy and her behaviour has been disgraceful to him
Yet it's you who is speculating ::)
-
I am not claiming it to be anything else. So much on the forum is hearsay.
But you suggested you felt sure it came from Julie and stated as far as you were aware it hadn't come from Bamber? When it seems clear that's exactly where it came from.
I cannot I'm afraid but I am sure it came from Julie however as I read it a few years ago I simply can't remember. Because I have no proof that this is definitely true I have not stated it as fact but rather as a possibility. I am aware that her parents and step father are still alive so I am careful in my wording as I don't want to appear to be accusing anyone of abuse or bad parenting. As far as I am aware it didn't come via JB but we can never be sure of anything as so much is hearsay etc. I do know that her background was not great
How do you know her background wasn't great?
And now Jackie is claiming to know "all about it" ::) ::)
I know all about this because Jeremy talked at length about this and there is loads more that involves her mother and stepfather which does not appear on this forum and involves her mother and stepfather but will make no difference to this case so there is no need to post anything
I just hate this constant speculation
I do know why Mary Mugford didn't like Jeremy and her behaviour has been disgraceful to him
-
But you suggested you felt sure it came from Julie and stated as far as you were aware it hadn't come from Bamber? When it seems clear that's exactly where it came from.
How do you know her background wasn't great?
And now Jackie is claiming to know "all about it" ::) ::)
I have told you I have heard this from someone from the area who I trust however this is personal information. NN may have quoted JB but that may not be the only reference to it. Even if it is from JB it does not necessarily mean it isn't true. I am not in the habit of making false claims on here.
-
I know all about this because Jeremy talked at length about this and there is loads more that involves her mother and stepfather which does not appear on this forum and involves her mother and stepfather but will make no difference to this case so there is no need to post anything
I just hate this constant speculation
I do know why Mary Mugford didn't like Jeremy and her behaviour has been disgraceful to him
If it will make no difference to his case have you never then considered what motivated him to "talk at length" about what he alleges?
Could it be he wants to infuriate you yet further and and hopes you will do his dirty work for him by smearing JM's name yet further?
-
I have told you I have heard this from someone from the area who I trust however this is personal information. NN may have quoted JB but that may not be the only reference to it. Even if it is from JB it does not necessarily mean it isn't true. I am not in the habit of making false claims on here.
I have not suggested you are in the habit of making false claims on here; I've clearly stated the source to be Jeremy Bamber. I'm merely attempting to separate facts from myths in order to further debate.
But you appear to be confirming the allegations are fact but can't confirm because you've been told it's "personal information?"
-
I know all about this because Jeremy talked at length about this and there is loads more that involves her mother and stepfather which does not appear on this forum and involves her mother and stepfather but will make no difference to this case so there is no need to post anything
I just hate this constant speculation
I do know why Mary Mugford didn't like Jeremy and her behaviour has been disgraceful to him
Did Jeremy tell you Mary Mugford didn't like him?
-
Mary Mugford did not testify that she didn't like Bamber.
-
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
-
Did Jeremy tell you Mary Mugford didn't like him?
I suspect Jackie may have mis-typed her post and meant to say "I do not know..etc". I believe Jeremy in fact got on well with Mary Mugford and helped her in a way which caused her to be grateful to him.
-
Bit creepy calling you're girlfriends mother 'mummy'.
'Mrs Mugford' or 'Mary' would be more normal.
-
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
Is that from the book verbatim? If so its not in the format of a trial transcript.
The more this book is used as a source, the more unreliable it seems to become.
-
Is that from the book verbatim? If so its not in the format of a trial transcript.
The more this book is used as a source, the more unreliable it seems to become.
The books do make use of witness statements. I don't think there's a full transcript of the 1986 trial anyway.
-
Arh right. Do you then mean she may have been codependent? https://downtherabbitholeblog.org/2016/08/08/h-g-tudors-theory-of-narcissism-and-codependency/
"HG Tudor […] poses a theory that the codependent who is bound to a narcissist is actually a person who was set up in childhood to be a narcissist him/herself, but was arrested in development at some point along the way, and unable to develop the necessary skills to “blossom” into full blown narcissism. This is why, he theorizes, the codependent needs the narcissist, because their inner beasts are the same, and the codependent actually needs the narcissist in order to keep their beast at bay in the same way the narcissist does with his/her own mask, which the codependent is unable to do on his own.
I'm not sure I see Julie as a narcissist. She didn't seem to be the type for constant self-examination or deep reflection. Far likelier the case I read about today of a young man who murdered his wife before committing suicide, thirty always being a difficult age as it marks the end of one's youth, possibly losing friends from a younger age group whilst shouldering commitments and the acknowledgement of unrealizable dreams. He had posted a picture of their wedding day only hours before their deaths, suggesting that the tragedy had been pre-planned, the perpetrator reminiscing on happier times. His love of Captain America and computer games suggested a conflict where the dichotomy of past and modern times had not been resolved, there may have been a financial burden with outstanding tuition fees from university studies, and the ultimate act of narcissism as James Barnes vowed to take her with him on their final journey together, so no other man would be able to possess her..
-
The books do make use of witness statements. I don't think there's a full transcript of the 1986 trial anyway.
An investigative author like Wilkes will also speak to people who were in court when MM testified. He would have about 30 people to chose from.
-
I'm not sure I see Julie as a narcissist. She didn't seem to be the type for constant self-examination or deep reflection. Far likelier the case I read about today of a young man who murdered his wife before committing suicide, thirty always being a difficult age as it marks the end of one's youth, possibly losing friends from a younger age group whilst shouldering commitments and the acknowledgement of unrealizable dreams. He had posted a picture of their wedding day only hours before their deaths, suggesting that the tragedy had been pre-planned, the perpetrator reminiscing on happier times. His love of Captain America and computer games suggested a conflict where the dichotomy of past and modern times had not been resolved, there may have been a financial burden with outstanding tuition fees from university studies, and the ultimate act of narcissism as James Barnes vowed to take her with him on their final journey together, so no other man would be able to possess her..
Steve, I believe HG Tudor's theory to be a furtherance of the widely accepted theory that when we first lock eyes with our significant other, in that second we recognize them as being the missing part we've been seeking to make us complete. I don't mean this -necessarily- in a romantic way. The outcome isn't always a happy one. The relationship may be toxic, but we will each know/fall in with the steps of this particular 'dance' without having to be taught them. Romantics might label it as falling in love at first sight. Cynics will recognize that it may have a more Machiavellian quality.
-
Steve, I believe HG Tudor's theory to be a furtherance of the widely accepted theory that when we first lock eyes with our significant other, in that second we recognize them as being the missing part we've been seeking to make us complete. I don't mean this -necessarily- in a romantic way. The outcome isn't always a happy one. The relationship may be toxic, but we will each know/fall in with the steps of this particular 'dance' without having to be taught them. Romantics might label it as falling in love at first sight. Cynics will recognize that it may have a more Machiavellian quality.
Yes I thought we seek out from others what we lack in ourselves. I'm not sure if this alleged deficiency lasts into middle age, however. Whatever Julie was she was a grafter, and what 20-year-old is not entitled to fall in love, one might ask?
-
An investigative author like Wilkes will also speak to people who were in court when MM testified. He would have about 30 people to chose from.
If it is not from the transcript then it is not a primary source. It is not Mary Mugfords testimony. We can also deduce that the chapter on Jeremy's cross examination is also not based on a primary source since there is no surviving transcript of it to go on.
I recommend you stop reading that book and go by the documents posted on this forum.
-
Yes I thought we seek out from others what we lack in ourselves. I'm not sure if this alleged deficiency lasts into middle age, however. Whatever Julie was she was a grafter, and what 20-year-old is not entitled to fall in love, one might ask?
Hmm. Perhaps I should have used a jigsaw with a missing piece as my analogy. If the relationship is a healthy one, I see no reason why it shouldn't last into middle age and beyond. For many reasons, a toxic one is less likely to stay the course. It must have been a hell of a learning curve for Julie -I'm not certain she could have come this far without some sort of therapeutic intervention- but I get the impression that she may have seen, all her life, that there's no such thing as a free lunch, other, perhaps in dreams or fantasies. 20 is horribly young to learn that being in love is not all it's cracked up to be.
-
I suspect Jackie may have mis-typed her post and meant to say "I do not know..etc". I believe Jeremy in fact got on well with Mary Mugford and helped her in a way which caused her to be grateful to him.
That's the way I understood it too - why would Jeremy say they didn't get on?
-
Hmm. Perhaps I should have used a jigsaw with a missing piece as my analogy. If the relationship is a healthy one, I see no reason why it shouldn't last into middle age and beyond. For many reasons, a toxic one is less likely to stay the course. It must have been a hell of a learning curve for Julie -I'm not certain she could have come this far without some sort of therapeutic intervention- but I get the impression that she may have seen, all her life, that there's no such thing as a free lunch, other, perhaps in dreams or fantasies. 20 is horribly young to learn that being in love is not all it's cracked up to be.
How many people on this forum believe being 20 is an excuse for Mugfords vile behaviour mwhy don't you make a list
How do you think Mugford would come across in a documentary focused on her
It doesn't wash
She was old enough to be married
She was old enough to vote
She was old enough to drive
She was old enough to have sex
And she was old enough to know exactly what she was doing
If the two 10 year old boys who murdered James bulger were held responsible so should she
She will be famous one day for sure
-
If it is not from the transcript then it is not a primary source. It is not Mary Mugfords testimony. We can also deduce that the chapter on Jeremy's cross examination is also not based on a primary source since there is no surviving transcript of it to go on.
I recommend you stop reading that book and go by the documents posted on this forum.
:) I'll decide what to use as a source.
Just as you do when quoting CAL's book.
Feel free to use another source on what Mary Mugford testified.
-
How many people on this forum believe being 20 is an excuse for Mugfords vile behaviour mwhy don't you make a list
How do you think Mugford would come across in a documentary focused on her
It doesn't wash
She was old enough to be married
She was old enough to vote
She was old enough to drive
She was old enough to have sex
And she was old enough to know exactly what she was doing
If the two 10 year old boys who murdered James bulger were held responsible so should she
She will be famous one day for sure
Why would Jeremy tell you he didn't get on with Mary Mugford?
-
How many people on this forum believe being 20 is an excuse for Mugfords vile behaviour mwhy don't you make a list
How do you think Mugford would come across in a documentary focused on her
It doesn't wash
She was old enough to be married
She was old enough to vote
She was old enough to drive
She was old enough to have sex
And she was old enough to know exactly what she was doing
If the two 10 year old boys who murdered James bulger were held responsible so should she
She will be famous one day for sure
Those who understand that searching for reasons for someone's actions isn't condoning them, but certainly not those who speak of the perpetrator of one of the most evil crimes in history, in terms reminiscent of a love-sick teenager -"gorgeous, fit boy"?
How Julie would come across, in a documentary, would depend heavily on the bias of who's behind it, ie, whether they're approaching it from a position of fairness, OR whether they're simply using it as an excuse to do a character assassination.
You state:-
Julie was old enough to marry. Since when were 16 year olds renown for having common sense?
Julie was old enough to vote. SO? What have politics to do with emotions?
Julie was old enough to drive. What's that got to do with anything?
Julie was old enough to have sex -yeah, that one always hits the spot, doesn't it? 11/12/13 year olds have sex.
Julie was old enough to know what she was doing. So are you, but it doesn't prevent you from doing it, in a cause which is probably no closer to your heart, than it was to Julie's. Remember her words, do you? "I was very much in love with him. I'd hoped to marry him".
Your extreme bias screams at us when you compare Julie with two children who took pleasure in torturing another child -a toddler.
-
:) I'll decide what to use as a source.
Just as you do when quoting CAL's book.
Feel free to use another source on what Mary Mugford testified.
considring you dont actully know what the word means id suggest you stop using it.
-
considring you dont actully know what the word means id suggest you stop using it.
Books are legitimate sources of information.
-
Books are legitimate sources of information.
I have book that claims Hitler escaped and lived in Argentina till the 1970s. It even includes a picture of his house!
Guess it must be true then.
-
Those who understand that searching for reasons for someone's actions isn't condoning them, but certainly not those who speak of the perpetrator of one of the most evil crimes in history, in terms reminiscent of a love-sick teenager -"gorgeous, fit boy"?
How Julie would come across, in a documentary, would depend heavily on the bias of who's behind it, ie, whether they're approaching it from a position of fairness, OR whether they're simply using it as an excuse to do a character assassination.
You state:-
Julie was old enough to marry. Since when were 16 year olds renown for having common sense?
Julie was old enough to vote. SO? What have politics to do with emotions?
Julie was old enough to drive. What's that got to do with anything?
Julie was old enough to have sex -yeah, that one always hits the spot, doesn't it? 11/12/13 year olds have sex.
Julie was old enough to know what she was doing. So are you, but it doesn't prevent you from doing it, in a cause which is probably no closer to your heart, than it was to Julie's. Remember her words, do you? "I was very much in love with him. I'd hoped to marry him".
Your extreme bias screams at us when you compare Julie with two children who took pleasure in torturing another child -a toddler.
I would be more than happy if the documentary/ film on Julie Mugford was just based on pure facts
Just a programme completely focused on her and using her statements and other statements from people who knew her
-
I would be more than happy if the documentary/ film on Julie Mugford was just based on pure facts
Just a programme completely focused on her and using her statements and other statements from people who knew her
None of her friends at the time have spoken badly of her, though a co-worker of Jeremy's, Timothy Ernest, didn't like her, apparently.
-
I have book that claims Hitler escaped and lived in Argentina till the 1970s. It even includes a picture of his house!
Guess it must be true then.
I have read some forensic books on blood splatter analysis. If I can find the names il let you know
4-5% of gunshot suicides have multiple shots
In Vincent J.M. Di Maio book Gunshot Wounds - Practical Aspects Of Firearms Ballistics & Forensic Technique. I quote
Suicides in which multiple gunshot wounds are present are uncommon, but
not rare. These wounds may involve only one area, e.g., the head, or multiple
areas, such as the head and chest. Multiple gunshot wounds confined exclusively
to the head are the least common, whereas those of the chest are the
most common. A lack of knowledge of anatomy, flinching at the time the
trigger is pulled, defective ammunition, ammunition of the wrong caliber,
or just missing a vital organ, account for such multiple wounds.Occasionally,
individuals have shot themselves simultaneously in the head with two different
weapon
I am not sick if you cant handle crime scene photos why get involved in true crime?
yes but .22 calibre is very low not high. I found similar claims in other forensic books about relation to calibre, barrel length and backsplatter that you criticised me for just making up. They first done some experiments in 1977 on this but I cannot find more information it :(
The link I provided is one on googlebooks. Googlebooks brings me up a limited PDF of the Book. does it really matter? what difference does it make
Yeah, books! Who would ever quote them! ::)
-
David has also been quoting CAL's book recently. Although complained yesterday when I quoted Wilkes's book.
A book is a good source & certainly better than no source.
Nugs never provides sources but today made a bizarre claim I didn't know what a source is.
-
David has also been quoting CAL's book recently. Although complained yesterday when I quoted Wilkes's book.
A book is a good source & certainly better than no source.
Nugs never provides sources but today made a bizarre claim I didn't know what a source was.
if you actually knew what a source was you would know I do provide them when I need to.
-
if you actually knew what a source was you would know I do provide them when I need to.
I have never seen you provide any source for anything you have written. A source is simply a link or reference to where you originally saw the information.
-
David has also been quoting CAL's book recently. Although complained yesterday when I quoted Wilkes's book.
A book is a good source & certainly better than no source.
Nugs never provides sources but today made a bizarre claim I didn't know what a source was.
I think it's quite apparent that David thinks anything he does is beyond reproach.
-
I have never seen you provide any source for anything you have written. A source is simply a link or reference to where you originally saw the information.
that's because you ignore any source that doesn't fit your view.
-
that's because you ignore any source that doesn't fit your view.
No, it's because you don't supply any!
-
I have never seen you provide any source for anything you have written. A source is simply a link or reference to where you originally saw the information.
Nugs did provide a source about Barry George recently.
To back up his theory that The Sun turned down Bamber's offer of a big, free exclusive. So they could print a false front page story about photos.
Apart from that, nothing.
-
I would be more than happy if the documentary/ film on Julie Mugford was just based on pure facts
Just a programme completely focused on her and using her statements and other statements from people who knew her
What do you think that would achieve?
The facts are that "her statements and other statements from people who knew her" were used as evidence during the original trial - therefore not new evidence!
And Bamber was found guilty in a court of law and is serving a whole life tariff, therefore JM is another of his victims and any documentary maker would find be hard pressed to concentrate solely on JM without being seen to be re-victimising her.
I don't think you've thought this through
-
Yeah, books! Who would ever quote them! ::)
Haha you weren't alone regarding this observation
-
Which way do you lean on this, Kaldin, or are you genuinely ambivalent?
Ambivalence is a state of mind Gringo, don't forget http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8662.msg414289.html#msg414289
-
As you have reasonably pointed out , Kaldin, this is not even a debate about JB's guilt or innocence. If JB is guilty then JM's actions in the lead up to, during and in the aftermath of the killings defy explanation, other than that she was a willing accessory.
Quite why this view is attacked by so many guilters is inexplicable. It makes no difference to JB's guilt or innocence but it should be apparent to all that if JB is guilty then it is self evident that Mugford was a willing accomplice.
if an explanation is not required for JM's actions, why are you still looking for one?
And if JM's behaviour "defies an explanation" please describe the actions of Jeremy Bamber
-
Well yes - allegedly. Like maggie, I could have understood Julie's actions a lot more if she claimed that he hadn't told her, and that she gradually realised that he was involved. However, that's not what she said, so therefore, I don't understand her actions.
As you have reasonably pointed out , Kaldin, this is not even a debate about JB's guilt or innocence. If JB is guilty then JM's actions in the lead up to, during and in the aftermath of the killings defy explanation, other than that she was a willing accessory.
Quite why this view is attacked by so many guilters is inexplicable. It makes no difference to JB's guilt or innocence but it should be apparent to all that if JB is guilty then it is self evident that Mugford was a willing accomplice.
JM was a victim!
As stated elsewhere your double standards know no bounds.
No one is attacking this view, simple bringing some common sense to the debate. JM murdered no one nor indeed did she plot to murder anyone. She merely didn't believe Bamber would carry out his plans, nor could she comprehend it when he did; as per her evidence.
I could have understood Bambers claims to innocence if, as one example, he'd not given permission for evidence to have been destroyed from WHF not long after the murders.
Another example, as previously stated, he'd had a decade to request testing on the exhibits that were destroyed! Better still, if he were innocent, he could have asked for them to be tested during his trial. He did not!
Quite why supporters attack JM is what's inexplicable!
-
JM was a victim!
As stated elsewhere your double standards know no bounds.
No one is attacking this view, simple bringing some common sense to the debate. JM murdered no one nor indeed did she plot to murder anyone. She merely didn't believe Bamber would carry out his plans, nor could she comprehend it when he did; as per her evidence.
I could have understood Bambers claims to innocence if, as one example, he'd not given permission for evidence to have been destroyed from WHF not long after the murders.
Another example, as previously stated, he'd had a decade to request testing on the exhibits that were destroyed! Better still, if he were innocent, he could have asked for them to be tested during his trial. He did not!
Quite why supporters attack JM is what's inexplicable!
And indeed Bamber had a whole decade to write to the police directly or via a legal representative to request no exhibits were destroyed!! He did not!
Read "what exhibits were destroyed" thread here; http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5802.0.html
-
And indeed Bamber had a whole decade to write to the police directly or via a legal representative to request no exhibits were destroyed!! He did not!
Jeremy's requested for those exhibits to be handed over to his legal team for more testing BEFORE Essex Police destroyed them.
-
Jeremy's requested for those exhibits to be handed over to his legal team for more testing BEFORE Essex Police destroyed them.
Adam, among others, has made numerous valid posts regarding the destruction of evidence but it appears he's been derailed each time he does.
How about you provide evidence from Jeremy Bamber where he explicitly asks that police do not destroy exhibits, along with dates etc.. Dates are important. Letters would be a good source. And of course they need to show he requested exhibits not be destroyed.
I
-
Yeah, books! Who would ever quote them! ::)
Those are textbooks.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/textbook (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/textbook)
-
David has also been quoting CAL's book recently. Although complained yesterday when I quoted Wilkes's book.
A book is a good source & certainly better than no source.
Nugs never provides sources but today made a bizarre claim I didn't know what a source is.
Difference being I actually paste the relevant parts of the book verbatim and CAL lists all her sources. You on the other hand type out a scewed interpretation of the book and don't show Wilkes sources.
-
How can books,in this case particularly,provide relevant sources when everything is by word of mouth ??
-
Difference being I actually paste the relevant parts of the book verbatim and CAL lists all her sources. You on the other hand type out a scewed interpretation of the book and don't show Wilkes sources.
So you believe quoting a book is only acceptable if you copy the page number. Not surprising considering you use you're own diagrams as sources.
I give the book page number & then post the extract of the book. Word for word.
As several other posters have the book, from both sides, there is no way I could misquote the book.
-
Some of those authors haven't even met Jeremy ? It's one thing discussing a stranger online but it's another when you start writing about them in a book !!
-
Some of those authors haven't even met Jeremy ? It's one thing discussing a stranger online but it's another when you start writing about them in a book !!
Wilkes met Bamber.
-
Wilkes met Bamber.
Oh well,he'll have to write another one to excuse anything he's written which is out of place. Same goes for the others,both his and CAL's are biased towards guilt,aren't they ?
-
Those are textbooks.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/textbook (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/textbook)
You didn't distinguish between any kind of books and you have quoted other books. Difference is, when you do it it's OK - in your mind. Many times you have posted part of an article with no reference to where it's from and when tracked down, it's evident that you have been selective.
Fact is books are relevant sources, it's doesn't mean that what is written there is 100% factual, but that is for others to decide. Just as information in text books is also open to debate, for every significant result in a piece of scientific research, there is usually a counter piece of research which is also compelling.
-
Oh well,he'll have to write another one to excuse anything he's written which is out of place. Same goes for the others,both his and CAL's are biased towards guilt,aren't they ?
I wouldn't say either one is biased towards guilt. They are simply matter of fact.
-
Oh well,he'll have to write another one to excuse anything he's written which is out of place. Same goes for the others,both his and CAL's are biased towards guilt,aren't they ?
Why don't you read them ?
-
Difference being I actually paste the relevant parts of the book verbatim and CAL lists all her sources. You on the other hand type out a scewed interpretation of the book and don't show Wilkes sources.
No! Difference is, you insinuated that books weren't relevant sources and yet you admit here to using them yourself. ::)
-
So if something isn't 100% fact and it's left to the reader to decide,there is BOUND to be conflicting views.
This is exactly what this case is made up of,so each dividing side in their argument doesn't make it any less feasible to whichever side you're on. In other words what each one of us debates about shouldn't be seen as " wrong " in our personal views.
-
So if something isn't 100% fact and it's left to the reader to decide,there is BOUND to be conflicting views.
This is exactly what this case is made up of,so each dividing side in their argument doesn't make it any less feasible to whichever side you're on. In other words what each one of us debates about shouldn't be seen as " wrong " in our personal views.
No, there are facts in the case, things that are open to interpretation and absolute myths. If you promote the myths or things that are simply without foundation and claim they are true, then that is wrong. None of the books do that BUT people here have done.
-
No, there are facts in the case, things that are open to interpretation and absolute myths. If you promote the myths or things that are simply without foundation and claim they are true, then that is wrong. None of the books do that BUT people here have done.
Well I'm glad to hear that books are never judged on face value.
-
So you believe quoting a book is only acceptable if you copy the page number. Not surprising considering you use you're own diagrams as sources.
I give the book page number & then post the extract of the book. Word for word.
As several other posters have the book, from both sides, there is no way I could misquote the book.
No I believe quoting a book is only acceptable if the author provides a verifiable and credible source. Much of CALs sources can be found on this forum and can be checked.
-
No I believe quoting a book is only acceptable if the author provides a verifiable and credible source. Much of CALs sources can be found on this forum and can be checked.
Well, you don't make the rules and Wilkes's book has been acceptable long before you arrived and the information in it can be easily checked out.
-
No! Difference is, you insinuated that books weren't relevant sources and yet you admit here to using them yourself. ::)
A book is only as credible as the sources it provides.
-
A book is only as credible as the sources it provides.
So what part of Wilkes isn't credible?
-
You didn't distinguish between any kind of books and you have quoted other books. Difference is, when you do it it's OK - in your mind. Many times you have posted part of an article with no reference to where it's from and when tracked down, it's evident that you have been selective.
You often accuse me of this with no proof. Well then, page 326 of "Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics and Forensic Techniques - 3rd Edition" is one I often post. But only the first of three paragraphs. Tell me why I should include the last two paragraphs and what relevance they have to this case. ???
-
David's trying to say it's ok to quote CAL's book but not Wilkes's. Probably because he has access to CAL's book & not Wilkes's.
Although he has never quoted CAL's sources when quoting her.
As I said, Wilkes is an investigative author who had written two previous real life crime books. He interviewed everyone except Julie.
And I'm still waiting for David's alternative source of Mary Mugford's court testimony.
-
David's trying to say it's ok to quote CAL's book but not Wilkes's. Probably because he has access to CAL's book & not Wilkes's.
Although he has never quoted CAL's sources when quoting her.
As I said, Wilkes is an investigative author who had written two previous real life crime books. He interviewed everyone except Julie.
And I'm still waiting for David's alternative source of Mary Mugford's court testimony.
What do you mean "alternative source of Mary Mugford's court testimony" There is only one source for her court testimony and that is the court trial transcript.
-
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
----------------------
Did CAL's book not mention her testimony ? Shame.
-
Adam, among others, has made numerous valid posts regarding the destruction of evidence but it appears he's been derailed each time he does.
How about you provide evidence from Jeremy Bamber where he explicitly asks that police do not destroy exhibits, along with dates etc.. Dates are important. Letters would be a good source. And of course they need to show he requested exhibits not be destroyed.
I've bumped this post as I'm still waiting on the evidence.
-
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
----------------------
Did CAL's book not mention her testimony ? Shame.
That is not a trial transcript.
-
Sheila hated boarding school so much that she left,having already had one expulsion.!!
-
That is not a trial transcript.
I know.
I guess this & the other 90 pages on the trial in the book should be dismissed then.
Someone like you or the publisher should have told Wilkes before he wrote the book.
-
God loves a trier. :-[
-
I know.
I guess this & the other 90 pages on the trial in the book should be dismissed then.
If Wilkes has not used the trial transcripts as a source for the trial chapters then absolutely it should be dismissed.
In the back of the book there should be an index of sources with corresponding citation numbers. Have a look and what does it say?
-
If Wilkes has not used the trial transcripts as a source for the trial chapters then absolutely it should be dismissed.
In the back of the book there should be an index of sources with corresponding citation numbers. Have a look and what does it say?
You dismiss what you want. Everyone else will use books as a source. Which is much better than using you're 3D diagrams.
In the front of Wilkes book is a list of sources. He also said he interviewed everyone except Julie. I assume some of these hundreds of people attended court.
How do you know Wilkes didn't see Mary Mugfords trial transcript ? Just because it's not online doesn't mean he didn't see it. He was an investigative author.
Anyway whenever you print from CAL's or other peoples books from now on, I look forward to an accompanying print out the authors source. You're choice.
-
You dismiss what you want. Everyone else will use books as a source. Which is much better than using you're 3D diagrams.
In the front of Wilkes book is a list of sources. He also said he interviewed everyone except Julie. I assume some of these hundreds of people attended court.
How do you know Wilkes didn't see Mary Mugfords trial transcript ? Just because it's not online doesn't mean he didn't see it. He was an investigative author.
Anyway whenever you print from CAL's or other peoples books from now on, I look forward to an accompanying print out the authors source. You're choice.
What is the list of sources?
-
If Wilkes has not used the trial transcripts as a source for the trial chapters then absolutely it should be dismissed.
In the back of the book there should be an index of sources with corresponding citation numbers. Have a look and what does it say?
Read the introduction of his book.
-
Read the introduction of his book.
I don't have the book. Otherwise I would not be asking.
-
Sheila hated boarding school so much that she left,having already had one expulsion.!!
No she wasn't expelled from Moira House, but couldn't fit in when Nevill packed her off mid-term. At Hethersett the whole class was expelled on Sheila's 17th birthday on the last day of term for ripping up their uniforms.
-
Is anyone going to bother posting Roger Wilkes citation index :-\
-
Is anyone going to bother posting Roger Wilkes citation index :-\
Is anyone going to post a proposed 3D reconstruction of the kitchen fight ?
Is anyone going to say what a forensic evidence breakthrough was from 18 months ago ?
Is anyone going to post Bamber's 6 received letters ?
Is anyone going to give details of his meeting with Bamber's legal advisors ?
Is anyone going to provide his committed 5th scenario ?
Is anyone going to provide proof Bamber's conviction was due to 'forgery & perjury' ?
Is anyone going to provide an alternative source to what Mary Mugford testified ?
Is anyone going to provide proof that it takes 30 minutes longer to walk 3 miles in the dark ?
Is anyone going to provide proof it takes 100 minutes to walk 3 miles ?
Is anyone going to provide proof the police put the bible onto Sheila's arm prior to photographs being taken ?
-
Is anyone going to post a proposed 3D reconstruction of the kitchen fight ?
Is anyone going to say what a forensic evidence was from 18 months ago ?
Is anyone going to post Bamber's 6 received letters ?
Is anyone going to give details of his meeting with Bamber's legal advisors ?
Is anyone going to provide his committed 5th scenario ?
Is anyone going to provide proof Bamber's conviction was due to 'forgery & perjury' ?
Is anyone going to provide an alternative source to what Mary Mugford testified ?
Is anyone going to provide proof that it takes 30 minutes longer to walk 3 miles in the dark ?
Is anyone going to provide proof it takes 100 minutes to walk 3 miles ?
Is anyone going to provide proof the police put the bible onto Sheila's arm prior to photographs being taken ?
I take it you don't want to post it as the sources given are either not credible or there are none ::)
-
Anyway I'm not going to get into David's game. Firstly because Wilkes's sources are a long list I'm not going to copy out. Secondly the book is available to buy.
I suspect CAL's book has not got much on the trial. So he is trying to say Wilkes's 90 pages on the trial is not a good enough source. Although Wilkes had hundreds of people he could have interviewed who attended the trial & he may have had access to court transcripts.
It has been known for a respected investigative crime author to acquire information & put correct information into factual crime book.
-
I take it you don't want to post it as the sources given are either not credible or there are none ::)
Sources are;
Bamber himself
Trial transcripts
Statements depositions and reports
Documentation from The Manchester McKenzie Organization
The Boutflour's
The Eaton's
B Wilson
Stan Jones
There is no index as you very well know but that isn't necessary, the account of th trial is clearly from transcripts- unless you want to call Wilkes a liar too?
-
Sources are;
Bamber himself
Trial transcripts
Statements depositions and reports
Documentation from The Manchester McKenzie Organization
The Boutflour's
The Eaton's
B Wilson
Stan Jones
There is no index as you very well know but that isn't necessary, the account of th trial is clearly from transcripts- unless you want to call Wilkes a liar too?
The 'Acknowledgements' at the front is also a long list. Most of the people I have never heard of.
-
The 'Acknowledgements' at the front is also a long list. Most of the people I have never heard of.
Yep but there are a few we all know
John Arkell - Gresham Head
A Aldridge QC
Ewen Smith
Edmund Lawson QC
Paul Terzeon .......
-
Sources are;
Bamber himself
Trial transcripts
Statements depositions and reports
Documentation from The Manchester McKenzie Organization
The Boutflour's
The Eaton's
B Wilson
Stan Jones
There is no index as you very well know but that isn't necessary, the account of th trial is clearly from transcripts- unless you want to call Wilkes a liar too?
There is no Index and no citation numbers? how am I supposed know that if I don't have the book? I assumed there was.
There is no transcript of Rivlins examination of Jeremy at trial. That is how I know Wilkes book is not based on the transcripts for a start. By not citing his sources in an index with corresponding citation numbers he can write whatever he wants unconstrained by the factual evidence.
xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
-
Do you know where I can read about JM allegedly being abused by her father/step father; or could this be a part of Bambers smear campaign?
Nothing has yet convinced me that the allegations made about JM re abuse/rape were all part of Bambers original smear campaign against her in order to bolster his claims that she was a "scorned women" etc.
I have found the following link http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4527.0.html though it's not clear who started it, nor indeed do any of the posts refer to the thread title.
I have also found a link where Caroline has kindly posted the Mckensie report http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4779.msg200880.html#msg200880
-
There is no Index and no citation numbers? how am I supposed know that if I don't have the book? I assumed there was.
There is no transcript of Rivlins examination of Jeremy at trial. That is how I know Wilkes book is not based on the transcripts for a start. By not citing his sources in an index with corresponding citation numbers he can write whatever he wants unconstrained by the factual evidence.
xxxxxxxxx xxxx xx xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx
I have a similar point of view about the majority of claims you make on here. When Asked direct questions to support the claims you often make you appear shy away and seemingly prefer to use any method of distraction in order to avoid backing up your claims.
-
There is no Index and no citation numbers? how am I supposed know that if I don't have the book? I assumed there was.
There is no transcript of Rivlins examination of Jeremy at trial. That is how I know Wilkes book is not based on the transcripts for a start. By not citing his sources in an index with corresponding citation numbers he can write whatever he wants unconstrained by the factual evidence.
xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx.
I just went back into my previous post to highlight the last statememt made by David in bold but it's gone, making my above post unclear and indeed imo could quite easily be misinterpreted leaving me open to critism!?
-
Nothing has yet convinced me that the allegations made about JM re abuse/rape were all part of Bambers original smear campaign against her in order to bolster his claims that she was a "scorned women" etc.
I have found the following link http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4527.0.html though it's not clear who started it, nor indeed do any of the posts refer to the thread title.
I have also found a link where Caroline has kindly posted the Mckensie report http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4779.msg200880.html#msg200880
Does a thread exist solely relating to the Mckensie report?
I've found a thread entitled "fraudulent" http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4779.0.html but have also read the report has been referred to, or signed off, as "fraudulent?"
There also this thread http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6690.msg304722.html#msg304722
-
Does a thread exist solely relating to the Mckensie report?
I've found a thread entitled "fraudulent" http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4779.0.html but have also read the report has been referred to, or signed off, as "fraudulent?"
There also this thread http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6690.msg304722.html#msg304722
Did Jeremy Bamber start these allegations? To whom is the source of this report?
-
JB's wit stat page 4. ref.abusive stepfather
JM's brutal rape in France ref. Justice for all--1996.
-
JB's wit stat page 4. ref.abusive stepfather
JM's brutal rape in France ref. Justice for all--1996.
Yes Lookout, I've already confirmed in a previous post that Jeremy Bamber was the source of the allegation.
And re the rape claim, "justice for all" appears to be the same people behind the Mckensie report.
""Justice For All has used the typing, faxing, copying and binding services for Torplan Ltd for many years now, often in the preparation of letters to MPs and reports for appeals against miscarriage of justice. We have always found them to provide an excellent service, well worth the money, friendly staff and fast delivery." [Mr James Stevenson and Dr Peter Wright Justice For All-The Manchester McKenzie Organisation - Criminal Appeal Experts & Legal Advisors] http://www.torplan.co.uk/company.htm
My point is WHO is the source of the allegations in the report?
-
I've found the following re a Peter Wright https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/blog/authors/peter-wright/ though to re-iterate I wish to find the source of the allegations made in the report.
(http://www.digitallawuk.com)
Also have supporters or the campaign team members ever bothered to speak directly to the originators of the report in order to establish the facts?