Author Topic: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?  (Read 20139 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #60 on: April 05, 2018, 08:45:19 AM »
Jurors at trial heard about JM's cheque fraud and involvement in OCP break-in so her credibility was somewhat dented in any event.  Plus the fact she didn't reveal to the police what she later claimed JB told her for over a month. 

So going back to your points about appellate judges asking themselves could a jury have reached a different verdict had they known she had a deal with NOTW they may decide no on the basis jurors were aware she had a history of dishonesty for financial gain.

Thinking about this further there is a subtle difference in that JM's previous crimes for financial gain were largely victimless.  Whereas the 25k deal struck with NOTW for her story if JB was found guilty was not victimless if she was being untruthful with her testimony.     
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #61 on: April 05, 2018, 09:16:21 AM »
I certainly can't see the CCRC making any further referral to the Appeal Court.  Bamber cooked his own goose the minute he attempted to put Sheila in the frame for the murders and invented the telephone call from his father.  His entire plan went wrong when he realised that his rifle wasn't powerful enough to kill a human being with one bullet allowing Nevill to challenge him in the kitchen, something we know Sheila could never have managed.

His only chance of freedom is to admit his guilt and hope that the Parole Board eventually look favourably on him some years in the future.  Failing that he will rot in prison until he dies.

The CCRC will only refer an application if it meets the criteria. 

IMO previous appeals and CCRC applications have failed as they don't strike at the heart of the conviction which is to unequivocally undermine the blood/silencer evidence and argue it was fabricated evidence. 
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #62 on: April 05, 2018, 09:50:52 AM »
I can't remember exactly what caused me to form that view, it's probably not very important, and I may even have been mistaken. 

On a different note, I've looked again at Julie's statements - just scanned over some of them - and her statements about McDonald do look like hearsay to me.  I do accept that hearsay evidence can be admissible, but I maintain my view that on this and other grounds, the admissibility of Mugford's statements should have been brought into question.  Even if not technically hearsay due to McDonald's evidence, I still think it looks dubious as the basis for a murder conviction, and I stand by the generality of what I have said: her evidence was irrelevant then, and it's even less relevant now.

Somebody over on the Blue Forum has pointed to Julie's conversations with Jeremy in the restaurant, and asked me if I might change my view in light of those, but I still don't believe that improves her evidence.  The fact that she is giving evidence of a false confession (which of course I accept is not her fault, it was Jeremy who lied in that respect, not her), means that anything said in the restaurant is discredited.  The simple point is that Jeremy could have made the whole thing up to impress her - and speaking as a neutral poster, without an axe to grind, I find that just as plausible as the idea that Jeremy was actually confessing and was just using McDonald as a proxy.

Julie Mugford was crucial to the investigation, I acknowledge that, but ultimately it wasn't her evidence that convicted Jeremy Bamber.  It was other facts and elements that implicated Jeremy, some of it mentioned by John above.

Re the claimed conversation in a restaurant this meeting took place about a week before JM 'fessed up' to EP.  According to JM she parted on amicable terms with JB.  Post separation JB helped her move home and asked if she wanted anything from the house (WHF).  JM requested June's bike which JB was due to drop off.  I don't understand why EP didn't attempt to either wire up JM or plant some listening devices in order to get a recorded confession out of JB.  According to JM he was very loose with his tongue! 

One reason EP may not have attempted this is that JM didn't fess up at all and her testimony was cooked up by EP.
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Nicholas

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #63 on: April 05, 2018, 11:16:35 AM »
Thinking about this further there is a subtle difference in that JM's previous crimes for financial gain were largely victimless.  Whereas the 25k deal struck with NOTW for her story if JB was found guilty was not victimless if she was being untruthful with her testimony.     

I disagree.

"Fraud has a real cost for all of us. This is a financial cost, which costs us extra taxes, adds to the cost of goods and service and makes the public and private sector organisations which we rely on less healthy and financially stable. This cost has been well researched recently in previous Reports which MacIntyre Hudson LLP and the Centre for Counter Fraud Studies have published2.
However, there is also a human cost of fraud. As this Report makes crystal clear fraud is not a victimless crime.
When perpetrated against corporate bodies, its’ victims are those who are employed, whose employment is less secure by virtue of the reduced financial health of their employer. Victims include those who are customers of goods and services which provided, who either pay more than they should or who receive worse quality provision. In the public sector, victims include those who pay higher than necessary taxes and who get a government and public service which are not as good as what they pay for.
Even worse, though, is the effect of fraud, when directly impacting on individual citizens http://www.port.ac.uk/media/contacts-and-departments/icjs/ccfs/cost-of-fraud.pdf


But didn't she pay the money back?
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #64 on: April 05, 2018, 11:50:31 AM »
I disagree.

"Fraud has a real cost for all of us. This is a financial cost, which costs us extra taxes, adds to the cost of goods and service and makes the public and private sector organisations which we rely on less healthy and financially stable. This cost has been well researched recently in previous Reports which MacIntyre Hudson LLP and the Centre for Counter Fraud Studies have published2.
However, there is also a human cost of fraud. As this Report makes crystal clear fraud is not a victimless crime.
When perpetrated against corporate bodies, its’ victims are those who are employed, whose employment is less secure by virtue of the reduced financial health of their employer. Victims include those who are customers of goods and services which provided, who either pay more than they should or who receive worse quality provision. In the public sector, victims include those who pay higher than necessary taxes and who get a government and public service which are not as good as what they pay for.
Even worse, though, is the effect of fraud, when directly impacting on individual citizens http://www.port.ac.uk/media/contacts-and-departments/icjs/ccfs/cost-of-fraud.pdf


But didn't she pay the money back?

I agree that's why I said largely victimless.  Nicking a bar of chocolate will add to a statistic pushing costs up for others. 

However I do think there's a difference between issuing duff cheques in the likes of Top Shop to the tune of £800 and assisting JB steal £900 from his family's firm and providing false testimony (if this is what it is) at a murder trial to secure a 25k deal with NOTW. 
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Nicholas

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #65 on: April 05, 2018, 11:57:05 AM »
I agree that's why I said largely victimless.  Nicking a bar of chocolate will add to a statistic pushing costs up for others. 

However I do think there's a difference between issuing duff cheques in the likes of Top Shop to the tune of £800 and assisting JB steal £900 from his family's firm and providing false testimony (if this is what it is) at a murder trial to secure a 25k deal with NOTW.

You said:
"Thinking about this further there is a subtle difference in that JM's previous crimes for financial gain were largely victimless.  Whereas the 25k deal struck with NOTW for her story if JB was found guilty was not victimless if she was being untruthful with her testimony


Have I taken it out of context or have you?

You were alluding to Bamber being a victim of JM's. We weren't discussing statistics or costs; you were specific, you referred to victims and now appear to have back tracked?
« Last Edit: April 05, 2018, 12:11:14 PM by Stephanie »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #66 on: April 05, 2018, 12:24:08 PM »
You said:
"Thinking about this further there is a subtle difference in that JM's previous crimes for financial gain were largely victimless.  Whereas the 25k deal struck with NOTW for her story if JB was found guilty was not victimless if she was being untruthful with her testimony


Have I taken it out of context or have you?

You were alluding to Bamber being a victim of JM's. We weren't discussing statistics or costs; you were specific, you referred to victims and now appear to have back tracked?

It goes back to how appellate judges might view fresh evidence that JM entered into a 25k deal with NOTW before a verdict was reached.  I said the jury were aware JM had a history of dishonesty for financial gain.  Then I thought about it further and realised there is a difference in that the crimes the jury were aware of were largely victimless ie a small financial cost borne by many.  If her testimony is false JB was and remains very much a victim of her crime ie perjury.
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Nicholas

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #67 on: April 05, 2018, 01:33:04 PM »
Something that is baffling me about this case is the relevance of Julie Mugford.

Bear in mind here that I am discussing relevance in the context of an application to the CCRC, not in the context of a criminal jury trial.  Bamber stands convicted.  The trial is over.  That train has left the station.  This is about relevancy qua Bamber's legal prognosis as a criminal appellant.

In that regard, the only evidence helpful to Bamber is evidence that undermines the murder conviction.  It may be emotionally-satisfying and cathartic for him to go after a certain schools administrator in Manitoba, but it might not help him overturn his conviction.

Obviously I'm no expert on this case and at all times I am happy to be corrected on the facts and who said what in court, etc., but my own understanding about her evidence is that she said the following (here I am deliberately putting things in very general terms, to aid clarity):

(i). Bamber told her he wanted to kill his family.

(ii). Bamber told her he was going to kill his family.

(iii). Bamber told her he was planning to kill his family.

(iv). Bamber told her how he would kill his family.

(v). She assisted Bamber in an abortive/inchoate plot to kill his family.

(vi). Bamber told her he was about to kill his family.

(vii). Bamber rang her and told her something was happening at the Farm.

(viii). Bamber told her that he had killed his family, contracting-out the act to a known criminal.

(ix). The person Bamber named in fact had not carried out this act.

For the purposes of this thread, we will lean on the side of conservatism and accept the former Julie Mugford's evidence at face value.  That being the case, we will assume that she was, more or less, telling the truth at trial. 

On the basis of that working assumption, my view is that:

(a). none of the above facts involve or amount to a murder confession;

(b). none of the above facts prove that Bamber killed his family; and,

(c). while the above facts are of some relevance to a criminal trial as an indicator of Bamber's character and his attitude to his family, none of the facts mentioned could have assisted a hypothetical reasonable jury in determining whether Bamber had killed his family.

No doubt in discussions in this thread, the focus will be on point (viii) above.  Certainly I accept that point (viii) above does not assist Bamber's defence and would be of grave concern to the police and to a jury, but I am clear in my mind that it is not a confession.  First, it's hearsay, which means that even if we assume she was a truthful witness, we can't adduce her evidence and assess its reliability in the same way we could other types of evidence.  Second, the basis of the evidence is wrong or false, a fact that in itself demands an explanation.  Again, assuming that the former Miss Mugford was a truthful witness, it's as plausible that Bamber was just an idiotic and callous young man who disliked his adoptive parents and was privately glad and relieved they were dead and wanted to show off in front of his girlfriend.  Or maybe he was just joking about having hired a hitman?  The reality is that people say strange and upsetting things in these situations, and often show inappropriate emotions, especially if they are emotionally-stunted or haven't learned how to act in a normative manner.

I can speak slightly from personal experience, and what follows is just to illustrate the point.  My father passed away during a period I was spending in prison.  I was aware he was ill and was one morning called to see the prison chaplain, who then broke the news to me.  For me, the passing of my father was very difficult to bear because I was never close to him, indeed I had a very poor relationship with him.  That does tend to make it worse.  In my case, when the chaplain told me, my initial response was numbness and then I started to smile and laugh a bit, then I realised consciously that that was not appropriate, then I started to get genuinely upset, and a minute later I was crying - the first time I had done so in years.  I know that's not the same thing as the situation with Jeremy, but if Jeremy was chuckling or showing-off to Julie, that could have been a defence mechanism or explained by his emotionally-inert psyche.  Or it could be that he just was relieved that his parents were gone.  Or maybe he was wryly referring his girlfriend to his fulfilled anticipation of problems with Sheila?  Or maybe he really did do it and he is a mass murderer?  I can't say one way or the other, I just offer some possible explanations, based on general life experience.

But the main point is, I question the relevance of Mugford's evidence.  There is no confession here from Jeremy.  There is no proof of a confession, only hearsay about a factually-wrong claim that he had had his parents killed.  I would go so far as to say that, in all the circumstances, her evidence should not have been heard, but we are where we are.  It was heard, and that being the case, it's now a double-edged sword: on the one hand, despite having no probative value at trial, it was still evidence that may have persuasively helped the jury to convict Jeremy; on the other hand, it's now no longer of relevance because undermining it can't help undermine the murder conviction itself.  Even if it can be showed that Julie Mugford lied about some minor transactional fact and has, in a technical sense, perverted the course of justice, that doesn't disturb Jeremy's conviction (and, just speculation, but I doubt the Canadian authorities will be happy to extradite her after all this time).

In other words: if we took Julie Mugford's evidence out of the picture, that would not help Jeremy on the main cause, regardless of the reason; and, conversely, if Julie Mugford' evidence was the only point standing against Jeremy, his convictions would be quashed anyway.

For that reason, my view is that Julie Mugford should stay where she belongs - in the past - and Julie Smerchanski should be left alone.

"Criminal appellant" therefore criminally minded. JM does not appear to have been "criminally minded."

30 plus years supports the above

Essex police told Bamber in 2016 he hadn't carefully planned or considered his public campaign. That's they way I read it anyway. I agree with Essex police btw. Bambers showed his hand so to speak. It is for this reason any future appeal will not be forthcoming.

Any technicality available to him before has been lost due to his lack of careful planning and consideration. He"s no way out in other words.

« Last Edit: April 05, 2018, 01:41:37 PM by Stephanie »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Angelo222

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #68 on: April 05, 2018, 02:34:31 PM »
"Criminal appellant" therefore criminally minded. JM does not appear to have been "criminally minded."

30 plus years supports the above

Essex police told Bamber in 2016 he hadn't carefully planned or considered his public campaign. That's they way I read it anyway. I agree with Essex police btw. Bambers showed his hand so to speak. It is for this reason any future appeal will not be forthcoming.

Any technicality available to him before has been lost due to his lack of careful planning and consideration. He"s no way out in other words.

Very true, Julie was forced to go abroad to avoid being tainted by Jeremy Bamber's conviction for what was really a monstrous crime.  Julie now has an exemplary career record and has risen to the highest echelons of the Canadian education system...fair play to her.

I have no doubt she regrets the crazy things she did in her youth but there are few among us who cannot say the same. The attempts by Bamber supporters involved in the CT to bring her down are pathetic really.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2018, 02:37:45 PM by Angelo222 »
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline John

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #69 on: April 05, 2018, 03:49:08 PM »
It goes back to how appellate judges might view fresh evidence that JM entered into a 25k deal with NOTW before a verdict was reached.  I said the jury were aware JM had a history of dishonesty for financial gain.  Then I thought about it further and realised there is a difference in that the crimes the jury were aware of were largely victimless ie a small financial cost borne by many.  If her testimony is false JB was and remains very much a victim of her crime ie perjury.

I am still undecided on that NOTW deal which saw those inappropriate photos of Julie spread across the centre pages. On the one hand she needed the cash and did very little to earn it but on the other hand her moral judgement could be questioned.  After all, five people were dead, four shot in the head including two children.

One could argue her judgement was severely impaired.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #70 on: April 05, 2018, 04:44:59 PM »
The CCRC will only refer an application if it meets the criteria. 

IMO previous appeals and CCRC applications have failed as they don't strike at the heart of the conviction which is to unequivocally undermine the blood/silencer evidence and argue it was fabricated evidence.

Exactly - and I agree the moderator is crucial to the case.  But I doubt Bamber could argue that it was fabricated or contaminated.  Fabrication or some other criminal conspiracy does not fit within the equation of facts.  Contamination is unlikely given the way the evidence was recovered.  At this point, my view (which is liable to change as I find out more) is that the only way Bamber will upset the conviction, short of completely new evidence, is if it can be demonstrated that the blood and DNA tests are unreliable.  This could happen either through a re-analysis of the known facts or through new scientific or methodological advances, or some combination thereof.

This is what happened in the Birmingham Six case: one of the grounds for appeal was that the nitroglycerin test that supposedly 'proved' the men had handled explosives was flawed due to the potential for false positives resulting from innocent activity.  The Court of Appeal agreed, deciding that the relevant test results had to be considered unreliable.

Offline Angelo222

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #71 on: April 05, 2018, 04:54:01 PM »
I am still undecided on that NOTW deal which saw those inappropriate photos of Julie spread across the centre pages. On the one hand she needed the cash and did very little to earn it but on the other hand her moral judgement could be questioned.  After all, five people were dead, four shot in the head including two children.

One could argue her judgement was severely impaired.

The fact that the Murdoch rag called The News of the World has been consigned to the dustbin says it all imo.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Caroline

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #72 on: April 05, 2018, 04:59:06 PM »
I agree that's why I said largely victimless.  Nicking a bar of chocolate will add to a statistic pushing costs up for others. 

However I do think there's a difference between issuing duff cheques in the likes of Top Shop to the tune of £800 and assisting JB steal £900 from his family's firm and providing false testimony (if this is what it is) at a murder trial to secure a 25k deal with NOTW.

That;s not quite true, when she made her statement to police, she had no NOTW deal. So any testimony, false or otherwise, wasn't motivated by 25K.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #73 on: April 05, 2018, 05:03:29 PM »
I am still undecided on that NOTW deal which saw those inappropriate photos of Julie spread across the centre pages. On the one hand she needed the cash and did very little to earn it but on the other hand her moral judgement could be questioned.  After all, five people were dead, four shot in the head including two children.

One could argue her judgement was severely impaired.

But did she "need" the money?  She claimed a solicitor struck a deal with the press on her behalf to put an end to harassment. 

Would she have been able to lead a 'normal' life in UK post trial including pursuing a career in her chosen profession teaching? 

She was due to start a master's degree academic year start '85.  I've no idea if she started/completed this.

Maybe the trip to Oz was intended to be the sort of experience lots of young people have with the intention of returning to her native country but she met her husband to be, a Canadian, and ended up in Canada. 

I think NOTW are just as much responsible, if not more so, for the tasteless article. 
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #74 on: April 05, 2018, 05:07:15 PM »
That;s not quite true, when she made her statement to police, she had no NOTW deal. So any testimony, false or otherwise, wasn't motivated by 25K.

Yes I appreciate this but according to others it was in place when she testified under oath. 

IMO I don't see JM as being particularly relevant pre or post trial. 
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?