Author Topic: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)  (Read 71126 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline goatboy

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #105 on: August 13, 2012, 09:44:56 PM »
Bamber was a bigger liar than Julie IMO. Have you read the interview transcripts? Slippery, evasive, answering difficult questions with "no comment". I believe that is the hallmark of an innocent man. Further proof of your integrity is being accused of lying in a court of law, not countering this with a strenuous denial but by saying "that is what you have to establish".

Agreed, though, it is hard to understand why she was so unfazed by identifying the bodies. Though the reason why she had to do it is because Jeremy was busy seeing his solicitor to discuss his inheritance. But I guess everyone grieves in different ways.

Offline John

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #106 on: August 13, 2012, 10:36:49 PM »
Bamber was a bigger liar than Julie IMO. Have you read the interview transcripts? Slippery, evasive, answering difficult questions with "no comment". I believe that is the hallmark of an innocent man. Further proof of your integrity is being accused of lying in a court of law, not countering this with a strenuous denial but by saying "that is what you have to establish".

Agreed, though, it is hard to understand why she was so unfazed by identifying the bodies. Though the reason why she had to do it is because Jeremy was busy seeing his solicitor to discuss his inheritance. But I guess everyone grieves in different ways.

I still believe the police were quite happy to let Julie identify the bodies as they wanted to see if they would get a reaction from her.  At the end of the day this was a task which Robert Boutflour should have undertaken as head of the family but I have found over the years that many such people are often squeamish when push comes to shove and cannot face the dead.
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.

Dillon

  • Guest
Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #107 on: August 14, 2012, 08:05:27 AM »
No spculation on my part. You only have to read Alan Dovey's statement. He makes it plain that he had to make a phone call after the visit, to confirm that action would not be taken against the girls. The money was repaid within weeks. Wonder who paid that?

Dovey also makes it clear that after the girls left he had a conversation with the accompanying officer, yet strangly he failed to mention what the conversation was about Yet another reason for the prosecution not to call him to give evidence. This case is more to do with what was not said than visa versa.
I think Dovey said he had to phone the Chief inspecter, although without going back I will have to rely on my memory.
My only wish is posters state facts, and not jump on the bandwagon for the feel good factor, and placate this forum.
It is a joke sometimes when you all make out you are compassionate people one minute, and then come out with nasty remarks.
No one can accuse me of this, as I am happy to debate in a sensible manner, without being abusive, unless of course I am attacked first.




Perhaps he was not called because the matter had no direct relevance to the murder trial? After all, when a defendant is on trial any previous criminal activity is deliberately held back and only referred to when sentencing. The same would presumably be true regarding witness testimony.

Anyway, if they wanted to her to testify but she was discouraged by the possibility that she would be prosecuted for the cheque book fraud surely it would be better for the police to let it go? Cheque book fraud appears a pretty minor misdemeanour compared with multiple murder.

Regarding being complicit in the murders though, you may be onto something. Perhaps as the police realised Bamber was guilty (before Julie approached them) they told her they would look to prosecute her unless she told them what she knew about the murders. The only way of disproving her story would be for Bamber himself to admit his guilt which of course he did not do. Perhaps she was a "Lady Macbeth" figure who knew of his plans and perhaps actively encouraged him and would happily have shared his inheritance with him. I don't believe someone would testify against Bamber as Julie did just because she was a woman scorned. Whereas if she did it for self preservation this makes a lot more sense.
Regardless of guilt of Bamber the fact is the prosecution was aware of the Dovey statement, but this was not disclosed by the prosecution. This one of the reasons I am still a fence sitter. This being the case Bamber never got a fair trial The jury were unaware that Mugford had made ba newspapar deal. By the way I am aware that Jeremy had a deal in place, so don't thtow that old kipper my way.The fact is Mugford had the full power of the with her and JB had the full power of the law against him.
Regardless if JB is guilty Mugford is a liar.
I used to cast doubts on the family, but not now. I believe JM corrupted them. JM should be in prison.


My position is unequivocal in considering that the late Sheila Caffell was innocent. This is backed up by the evidence which is well laid out in the relevant thread on this forum. By default this means that Jeremy is complicit to the crime even if some other person(s) actually pulled the trigger, although I think that scenario is unlikely. Buddy understandably raises question marks about the validity of JM's evidence, but this is speculation and to state that, for example,  JM corrupted the family, is not backed up by any evidence that is available to us. Although JM's evidence formed a significant element in the original trial. it really amounts to a sideshow from the perspective of Jeremy's guilt. IMO the original prosecution and trial were flawed and perhaps not entirely fair. But, the subsequent 2 appeals, reinvestigation of the case prior to the 2002 appeal and substantial reconsideration of the safety of the conviction by the CCRC since then have addressed the balance. Was JM carefully coached ? Were deals done with her by the Police and prosecution ? Was she pressurised ?
What sort of complex relationship did she have with Bamber ? It is all speculation and unless she decided to write the book which is unlikely, then we will never know. It concerns me, Buddy, that actually your speculation amounts to a very serious libel. This is a public forum, not just academic debate. I have the impression that you have sincere and almost passionate feelings about the role of JM but with respect, I think that you and the forum should take care not to step beyond the boundaries of reasonable debate.   

Offline Angelo222

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #108 on: August 14, 2012, 12:02:43 PM »
The events relating to Alan Dovey and the Midland Bank are unfortunate.  Here we have two contradictory versions of events which call into question Julie's credibility at the time of the murders.

If we go back to the root of this story we will find that Julie and Susan perpetrated a cheque fraud on the bank, there is no disputing this and they should have suffered the consequences including being handed down criminal records.  Alan Dovey was not mistaken about events which occurred that day, he spoke with the plain clothed police officer so there is no dispute that this event ever took place.  We can only surmise that Essex Police spoke with senior officers of the Midland Bank and basically did a deal with them in order to get their two witnesses off the hook.  The police knew that Mugford and Battesby would be discredited at trial if it was ever revealed that they had defrauded the Midland Bank in such a manner.

The other issue we must look at is how the police became aware of the cheque fraud perpetrated by Julie Mugford and her flatmate pal Susan Battesby.  Nobody knew about this except the two of them, it was a fait complis!   Again, we must surmise that when they were being questioned it must have been put to one or both of them about any outstanding criminal activity which could jeopardise their evidence if uncovered.  She or they must have been put in such a position by the police that non cooperation was a non starter.  In any event, at the end of the day one of them squealed like a pig and revealed what they had done.  This crime was quite insignificant compared to 5 murders. The police would have been left in such a dilemma, prosecute the two girls or a 5-time murderer.  No contest.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Tim Invictus

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #109 on: August 14, 2012, 12:25:56 PM »
Buddy tends to drink himself stupid during the day so readers should excuse his posts becoming more and more incoherent almost by the hour. Hopefully Buddy will start using the spell check button so at least we can understand the words if not the order they should be placed in!

Buddy hated Robert Boutflour for about a year and then it was David and Anne and Pargenter who were all the arch villains who stitched up his darling Jeremy. Now he has moved on to Julie Mugford who quote "should be in prison"! One day he might even start looking at the evidence and indeed the character of his darling Jeremy and perhaps the penny will drop! We live in hope!

 8-)(--)
     

Offline John

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #110 on: August 14, 2012, 12:59:05 PM »
Buddy tends to drink himself stupid during the day so readers should excuse his posts becoming more and more incoherent almost by the hour. Hopefully Buddy will start using the spell check button so at least we can understand the words if not the order they should be placed in!

Buddy hated Robert Boutflour for about a year and then it was David and Anne and Pargenter who were all the arch villains who stitched up his darling Jeremy. Now he has moved on to Julie Mugford who quote "should be in prison"! One day he might even start looking at the evidence and indeed the character of his darling Jeremy and perhaps the penny will drop! We live in hope!

 8-)(--)
   

I know that Jeremy was prosecuted for the burglary and theft from Osea as well as the murders but I have never seen any reference to any prosecution for drug dealing?

Could there also be a nasty surprise awaiting him in the form of charges from Australia and New Zealand as well given the allegations surrounding the robbery at the jewellers and the Cartier watches? 
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 Joanne

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #111 on: August 14, 2012, 02:55:12 PM »
Jeremy Bamber in new challenge to conviction for murdering family
Bamber lawyers claim charges against ex-girlfriend Julie Mugford were dropped to induce her to give evidence for prosecution

The Guardian, Thursday 29 March 2012 

Jeremy Bamber in 1986. He has always denied killing five members of his family at their Essex farmhouse.
Jeremy Bamber, who was jailed for 26 years for killing five members of his own family, is launching another bid for freedom after evidence emerged that the assistant director of public prosecutions decided not to proceed with drug trafficking and fraud allegations against a key prosecution witness.

His legal team is expected to argue that this raises the possibility that she was induced to give evidence against Bamber in return for the allegations being abandoned.

Bamber, now 51, was found guilty in October 1986 of shooting his adoptive parents, June and Nevill, his sister Sheila Caffell and her six-year-old twins, Daniel and Nicholas, at their Essex farmhouse. He has always maintained his innocence.

The prosecution witness Julie Mugford was Bamber's girlfriend in the runup to the killings. After their relationship broke down following the murders, Mugford told police Bamber had confessed to hiring a hitman to kill his family. That theory collapsed when the man named was found to have a cast-iron alibi, but Mugford's evidence was crucial to the prosecution's case. The trial judge told the jury they could convict Bamber on her evidence alone.

Now Bamber's lawyers have discovered Mugford testified against him after police decided to drop investigations into criminal offences she had allegedly committed before the trial. Documents only recently disclosed to Bamber detail how Mugford was accused of burglary, smuggling cannabis into the UK from Canada and cheque fraud.

The Guardian has seen a letter from the then assistant director of public prosecutions (DPP) , John Walker, to the chief constable of Essex, which stated: "With considerable hesitation I would suggest that Mugford be advised she will not be prosecuted in respect of these matters – burglary, cheque fraud and cannabis offences. Thereafter she will be called as a witness against Bamber." Further documents relating to the dealings between the DPP and Mugford remain undisclosed under public interest immunity rules.

Bamber's lawyers have sent the new evidence to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) in an attempt to get his case back to the court of appeal for a third time.

Bamber's lawyers have also asked the CCRC to consider evidence from eminent ballistic experts indicating the family were killed by a rifle without a silencer attached to the barrel. The silencer was crucial to the prosecution case against Bamber. It was found days after the killings and the Crown's case was that Caffell, who police initially believed had killed her family before shooting herself, could not have done so and then removed the silencer from the gun.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2012, 03:03:48 PM by Joanne »

Offline ActualMat

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #112 on: August 14, 2012, 02:59:02 PM »
"Bamber's lawyers have also asked the CCRC to consider evidence from eminent ballistic experts indicating the family were killed by a rifle without a silencer attached to the barrel."


That should read INCOMPLETE/PARTIAL evidence that showed neither guilt nor innocence.

Offline buddy

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #113 on: August 14, 2012, 04:01:16 PM »
The events relating to Alan Dovey and the Midland Bank are unfortunate.  Here we have two contradictory versions of events which call into question Julie's credibility at the time of the murders.

If we go back to the root of this story we will find that Julie and Susan perpetrated a cheque fraud on the bank, there is no disputing this and they should have suffered the consequences including being handed down criminal records.  Alan Dovey was not mistaken about events which occurred that day, he spoke with the plain clothed police officer so there is no dispute that this event ever took place.  We can only surmise that Essex Police spoke with senior officers of the Midland Bank and basically did a deal with them in order to get their two witnesses off the hook.  The police knew that Mugford and Battesby would be discredited at trial if it was ever revealed that they had defrauded the Midland Bank in such a manner.

The other issue we must look at is how the police became aware of the cheque fraud perpetrated by Julie Mugford and her flatmate pal Susan Battesby.  Nobody knew about this except the two of them, it was a fait complis!   Again, we must surmise that when they were being questioned it must have been put to one or both of them about any outstanding criminal activity which could jeopardise their evidence if uncovered.  She or they must have been put in such a position by the police that non cooperation was a non starter.  In any event, at the end of the day one of them squealed like a pig and revealed what they had done.  This crime was quite insignificant compared to 5 murders. The police would have been left in such a dilemma, prosecute the two girls or a 5-time murderer.  No contest.

I think that was a balanced view of what I was trying to explain David.
The police needed to get all the skeletons out of the cupboard so to speak. It should also be remembered that JM never went to the police in the first place. The question must be asked would she have ever done so, knowing she was aware that JB was going to murder his entire family. Surely it follows that she was not to bothered as long as she became the lady of the manor.
I repeat this does not clear JB, but make JM an accessory
« Last Edit: August 14, 2012, 11:13:34 PM by David »

Offline buddy

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #114 on: August 14, 2012, 04:22:43 PM »
Buddy tends to drink himself stupid during the day so readers should excuse his posts becoming more and more incoherent almost by the hour. Hopefully Buddy will start using the spell check button so at least we can understand the words if not the order they should be placed in!

Buddy hated Robert Boutflour for about a year and then it was David and Anne and Pargenter who were all the arch villains who stitched up his darling Jeremy. Now he has moved on to Julie Mugford who quote "should be in prison"! One day he might even start looking at the evidence and indeed the character of his darling Jeremy and perhaps the penny will drop! We live in hope!

 8-)(--)

   

Tit Inflation I have had enough of your abuse. Whoever the Fxxx made you a moderator need their heads testing.
I have never met a more ignorant pig in my life.
I have tried to be open and honest, but all you do is slag off any opposing views you a no nothing Cxxx.
You can get fxxxxxx stuffed.
You can have your wish, and I will delete my account, so you can all chatter amongst yourselves without hinderance.
I am fed up with your constant abuse.
Listen Tit youare one bigotted tw...
« Last Edit: August 14, 2012, 11:14:08 PM by David »

only me

  • Guest
Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #115 on: August 14, 2012, 04:23:31 PM »
Er....

Offline ActualMat

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #116 on: August 14, 2012, 04:30:46 PM »
Never a dull moment!

Offline Tim Invictus

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #117 on: August 14, 2012, 05:00:03 PM »
Buddy tends to drink himself stupid during the day so readers should excuse his posts becoming more and more incoherent almost by the hour. Hopefully Buddy will start using the spell check button so at least we can understand the words if not the order they should be placed in!

Buddy hated Robert Boutflour for about a year and then it was David and Anne and Pargenter who were all the arch villains who stitched up his darling Jeremy. Now he has moved on to Julie Mugford who quote "should be in prison"! One day he might even start looking at the evidence and indeed the character of his darling Jeremy and perhaps the penny will drop! We live in hope!

 8-)(--)


Tit Inflation I have had enough of your abuse. Whoever the Fxxx made you a moderator need their heads testing.
I have never met a more ignorant pig in my life.
I have tried to be open and honest, but all you do is slag off any opposing views you a no nothing Cxxx.
You can get fxxxxxx stuffed.
You can have your wish, and I will delete my account, so you can all chatter amongst yourselves without hinderance.
I am fed up with your constant abuse.
Listen Tit youare one bigotted tw...

 @)(++(*  8((()*/ See ya Cluddy!

I have absolutely no problem talking with Bamber supporters (ask Abs or Aunt A.) in a respectful manner but I draw the line when talking to Bamber 'fans' like you Cluddy, especially when you can barely write a coherent sentence!   

"...  need their heads testing".  @)(++(*  8)><( @)(++(*

And besides being a moron you're always to drunk to even get your posts in the right place! You get back to kissing Mike Tesko's ring little man!

« Last Edit: August 14, 2012, 11:16:11 PM by David »

Offline buddy

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #118 on: August 14, 2012, 06:20:58 PM »
What a suprise. You cannot delete your account unless the admin authorise it. No wonder you have so many members, you cannot leave. You really are a tit, and a abusive one at that. Twunt.

Offline ActualMat

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #119 on: August 14, 2012, 07:10:24 PM »
Of course you can leave. Just log out. And then click the X in the corner of your screen.