Julie Mugford (girlfriend)

[Joanne]

Ok, thank you.

[starryian]

Why did Julie Mugford emigrate? I say emigrate, I don't know if she has but why has she left the country was it anything to do with Jeremby Bamber? Why didn't the cheque fraud go to court?

Joanne, Julie Mugford was being persistently harrassed both at work and at home by the press. It got so bad that her headteacher at the school she worked at suspended her due to her association with Bamber and the lurid details that the press later published. She was hounded in the street by tabloid journalists and rejected by work colleagues because of her association with a child-murderer. It is then, small wonder that she wanted to leave the country and start a new life free from it all.
She was not prosecuted for bank fraud as part of the agreement that she testify, moreover the bank were unwilling to prosecute as long as she paid every penny back. This she did.

[Joanne]

I see. How longs she been abroad? I'm guessing it must be a long time.

[John]

I see. How longs she been abroad? I'm guessing it must be a long time.

You might be interested in this article which should answer most of your questions about Julie after the trial.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=516.msg15167#msg15167

[buddy]

Why did Julie Mugford emigrate? I say emigrate, I don't know if she has but why has she left the country was it anything to do with Jeremby Bamber? Why didn't the cheque fraud go to court?

Joanne, Julie Mugford was being persistently harrassed both at work and at home by the press. It got so bad that her headteacher at the school she worked at suspended her due to her association with Bamber and the lurid details that the press later published. She was hounded in the street by tabloid journalists and rejected by work colleagues because of her association with a child-murderer. It is then, small wonder that she wanted to leave the country and start a new life free from it all.
She was not prosecuted for bank fraud as part of the agreement that she testify, moreover the bank were unwilling to prosecute as long as she paid every penny back. This she did
No no no. The police asked that the bank did not prosecute, as this would have tarnished her reputation.
The police escorted Battersby, and Mugford to the bank,
at the least Mugford should have been prosecuted with Bamber It matters not a jot whether you think that Bamber is/was guilty. The fact is Mugford was an accomplice, as she was in the caravan burglary, and the drug running, which she sold to her friends in London.
Please do not insult me by telling me that Mugford was some sort of a hero.
Mugford got off scot free, and got £25,000 for her trouble.
Tell me this! Why was Dovey [the bank manager] never called to testify for the prosecution. Bearing in mind of course that the defence were unaware of this.

[sika]

Why did Julie Mugford emigrate? I say emigrate, I don't know if she has but why has she left the country was it anything to do with Jeremby Bamber? Why didn't the cheque fraud go to court?

Joanne, Julie Mugford was being persistently harrassed both at work and at home by the press. It got so bad that her headteacher at the school she worked at suspended her due to her association with Bamber and the lurid details that the press later published. She was hounded in the street by tabloid journalists and rejected by work colleagues because of her association with a child-murderer. It is then, small wonder that she wanted to leave the country and start a new life free from it all.
She was not prosecuted for bank fraud as part of the agreement that she testify, moreover the bank were unwilling to prosecute as long as she paid every penny back. This she did
No no no. The police asked that the bank did not prosecute, as this would have tarnished her reputation.
The police escorted Battersby, and Mugford to the bank,
at the least Mugford should have been prosecuted with Bamber It matters not a jot whether you think that Bamber is/was guilty. The fact is Mugford was an accomplice, as she was in the caravan burglary, and the drug running, which she sold to her friends in London.
Please do not insult me by telling me that Mugford was some sort of a hero.
Mugford got off scot free, and got £25,000 for her trouble.
Tell me this! Why was Dovey [the bank manager] never called to testify for the prosecution. Bearing in mind of course that the defence were unaware of this.

Hello Buddy, on what do you base the assertion that the police asked the bank not to prosecute?  Is this just more, wild speculation?

[buddy]

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.

[sika]

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 remar





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.

Thanks for that Buddy,  you do seem to be making quite a lot of assumptions here.  Whilst there is no documentary evidence to support this claim, it is just guess work on your behalf.  The fact that Mr Dovey confirmed to Essex Police that he did not intend to commence a prosecution against Mugford, is not an admission that he was requested not to do so.  In any case, I don't really see that this issue makes Bamber's conviction unsafe.

[sika]

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.

With reference to your final couple of sentences.  Unfortunately, I find that my mood subtly changes from time to time and therefor my posts probably appear inconsistent.   I don't think that I am unique in this respect.  You must find that you're in a bad mood sometimes!

[buddy]

I agree Sika. My point is that one can not be selective You cannot accept one theory , and discard another.
I am not talking about the guilt or otherwise of Jeremy, but more to do with was JM comlicate, and in MHO she was, but was excused her sins for the conviction of Bamber. JM knew months before the murders, but did nothing. In fact she did nothing after the murders. She did nothing till she was dumped. Even then she did nothing. Battersby went to the cops after JM blabbed in the cafe. Don't sound right to me. Mugford is up to her neck in it, but got £25,000 for her trouble. NO one can tell me that Mugford never made a deal.
It does not clear Jeremy, but it shows the lies of Mugford, and Jones.
It really irritates me when people call Mugford a hero, when after veiwing the bodies of the twins, she still said NOTHING.
I think most here would have reacted entirely opposite. IMHO

[sika]

I agree Sika. My point is that one can not be selective You cannot accept one theory , and discard another.
I am not talking about the guilt or otherwise of Jeremy, but more to do with was JM comlicate, and in MHO she was, but was excused her sins for the conviction of Bamber. JM knew months before the murders, but did nothing. In fact she did nothing after the murders. She did nothing till she was dumped. Even then she did nothing. Battersby went to the cops after JM blabbed in the cafe. Don't sound right to me. Mugford is up to her neck in it, but got £25,000 for her trouble. NO one can tell me that Mugford never made a deal.
It does not clear Jeremy, but it shows the lies of Mugford, and Jones.
It really irritates me when people call Mugford a hero, when after veiwing the bodies of the twins, she still said NOTHING.
I think most here would have reacted entirely opposite. IMHO

I totally share your sentiments Buddy. 

[goatboy]

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.

[Andrea]

Mugford is no hero, far from it. She could have prevented what happened at WHF that night/morning by speaking out and saying something.
Also, IMO, she was just as greedy as Bamber, and just as heartless.

[buddy]

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.

[buddy]

Mugford is no hero, far from it. She could have prevented what happened at WHF that night/morning by speaking out and saying something.
Also, IMO, she was just as greedy as Bamber, and just as heartless.

I quite agree Andy. How could she have identified them poor b....rs, and said nothing. Not only that but was still happy to sleep with him.