Bamber had a trial run with sleeping pills

[Leanne]

We could try and do justice for at least one case that is 2012 and not 1980's.

[John]

We could try and do justice for at least one case that is 2012 and not 1980's.

Would the 1990's count Kevin?   

[John]

I always wondered why Mike didnt take the picture and run! I dont believe Mike has such a pic or the itemised bill for WHF. I certainly dont believe in Z!

I agree. He seems to believe that he has something like itemised billing and that he was able to get it but the police, BT and the defence all couldn't! 

I was trying to remember back to 1985 and what my own telephone billing was like.  If I remember correctly you were billed by the units for most local and long distance calls while the International ones were listed separately but not itemised as such.

[abs]

About Julie Mugford. I am of the opinion that if Bamber is guilty, she was in on it. Her statements give me no choice.
She was a morally corrupt young girl. No matter what your viewpoint on the case is, that is the only conclusion. And let´s call a spade a spade, she was a criminal - with AND without Jeremy Bamber.
I find it hard to put importance into anything she said. No wonder she grabbed the money and basically fled England. She basically got away with her crimes, and I have to wonder if she made up stories to further that agenda.
BTW, how many 22 year olds need sleeping pills?

P.S. Don´t worry Mat, I am John too - according to Ms. Hall.  8-)(--)

[puglove]

It's all bullshit, Andrea. Mike had it described to him, either in person or over the phone and he has used that small piece of information to claim he actually SAW it with his own two eyes..and then of course he has gone one step further and claimed it shows one wound.


 

Terrible, isn't he?

He certainly seems to be tying himself up in knots, lately. And I hope this doesn't jeopardise the truce, but I'd like to thank Vidvic for explaining the silencer issue today, in terms that I could understand. I've struggled with it from day one, but now I get it.   

[frank50]

Just as well then that you werent on the jury back in 1985 as they believed her and I can assure you that the defence threw the kitchen sink at her to discredit her. And of course later the Court of Appeal believed her too. Its all water under the bridge now anyhow -  shes never going to have to come back here to face Bamber again,

About Julie Mugford. I am of the opinion that if Bamber is guilty, she was in on it. Her statements give me no choice.
She was a morally corrupt young girl. No matter what your viewpoint on the case is, that is the only conclusion. And let´s call a spade a spade, she was a criminal - with AND without Jeremy Bamber.
I find it hard to put importance into anything she said. No wonder she grabbed the money and basically fled England. She basically got away with her crimes, and I have to wonder if she made up stories to further that agenda.
BTW, how many 22 year olds need sleeping pills?

P.S. Don´t worry Mat, I am John too - according to Ms. Hall.  8-)(--)

[goatboy]

I'm inclined to think that Mugford was telling part of the truth but probably omitted some important facts as to her involvement or perhaps even encouragement. I think she was probably forced to choose between testifying against Bamber or being tried herself as an accessory. So self preservation was her motive, not being "a woman scorned" which is nowhere near enough motivation to go into court in a high profile murder trial and run the risk of imprisonment for perjury IMO.

[Angelo222]

Just as well then that you werent on the jury back in 1985 as they believed her and I can assure you that the defence threw the kitchen sink at her to discredit her. And of course later the Court of Appeal believed her too. Its all water under the bridge now anyhow -  shes never going to have to come back here to face Bamber again,

Did you see that French video about the case Frank?   Julie's comment that Bamber was a "SAD MAN" says it all in my opinion.

[Angelo222]

I'm inclined to think that Mugford was telling part of the truth but probably omitted some important facts as to her involvement or perhaps even encouragement. I think she was probably forced to choose between testifying against Bamber or being tried herself as an accessory. So self preservation was her motive, not being "a woman scorned" which is nowhere near enough motivation to go into court in a high profile murder trial and run the risk of imprisonment for perjury IMO.

Its called 'Turning Queens Evidence' and quite usual in such cases.  The cops and the CPS needed her testimony to nail Bamber.

[puglove]

I'm inclined to think that Mugford was telling part of the truth but probably omitted some important facts as to her involvement or perhaps even encouragement. I think she was probably forced to choose between testifying against Bamber or being tried herself as an accessory. So self preservation was her motive, not being "a woman scorned" which is nowhere near enough motivation to go into court in a high profile murder trial and run the risk of imprisonment for perjury IMO.

Its called 'Turning Queens Evidence' and quite usual in such cases.  The cops and the CPS needed her testimony to nail Bamber.

Obviously, Julie wasn't blameless. But throughout the trial she was brave and mature, and ultimately credible. Thank goodness.

[abs]

Just as well then that you werent on the jury back in 1985 as they believed her and I can assure you that the defence threw the kitchen sink at her to discredit her. And of course later the Court of Appeal believed her too. Its all water under the bridge now anyhow -  shes never going to have to come back here to face Bamber again,

About Julie Mugford. I am of the opinion that if Bamber is guilty, she was in on it. Her statements give me no choice.
She was a morally corrupt young girl. No matter what your viewpoint on the case is, that is the only conclusion. And let´s call a spade a spade, she was a criminal - with AND without Jeremy Bamber.
I find it hard to put importance into anything she said. No wonder she grabbed the money and basically fled England. She basically got away with her crimes, and I have to wonder if she made up stories to further that agenda.
BTW, how many 22 year olds need sleeping pills?

P.S. Don´t worry Mat, I am John too - according to Ms. Hall.  8-)(--)

Well, the jury never knew that she got off for her crimes by testifying against Jeremy Bamber. It makes sense that they believed her.

[ActualMat]

I'm inclined to think that Mugford was telling part of the truth but probably omitted some important facts as to her involvement or perhaps even encouragement. I think she was probably forced to choose between testifying against Bamber or being tried herself as an accessory. So self preservation was her motive, not being "a woman scorned" which is nowhere near enough motivation to go into court in a high profile murder trial and run the risk of imprisonment for perjury IMO.

I sense a lot of turth in this, it's always been my belief that she knew more than she ever let on. But still - Bamber is guilty.

[John]

I'm inclined to think that Mugford was telling part of the truth but probably omitted some important facts as to her involvement or perhaps even encouragement. I think she was probably forced to choose between testifying against Bamber or being tried herself as an accessory. So self preservation was her motive, not being "a woman scorned" which is nowhere near enough motivation to go into court in a high profile murder trial and run the risk of imprisonment for perjury IMO.

I sense a lot of Truth in this, it's always been my belief that she knew more than she ever let on. But still - Bamber is guilty.

I also believe she knew more than she let on but this developed over time.  The bit I would like to have an answer to is when she realised that Jeremy was serious about committing murder, why she didn't do anything about it?

She is a smart girl by all accounts so there were two possibilities open to her.  He either was a raving looney or he was about to commit murder.  Did she really want to marry this guy and spent her life with him?

Was the thought of all that money an incentive for Julie?

[abs]

I'm inclined to think that Mugford was telling part of the truth but probably omitted some important facts as to her involvement or perhaps even encouragement. I think she was probably forced to choose between testifying against Bamber or being tried herself as an accessory. So self preservation was her motive, not being "a woman scorned" which is nowhere near enough motivation to go into court in a high profile murder trial and run the risk of imprisonment for perjury IMO.

I sense a lot of Truth in this, it's always been my belief that she knew more than she ever let on. But still - Bamber is guilty.

I also believe she knew more than she let on but this developed over time.  The bit I would like to have an answer to is when she realised that Jeremy was serious about committing murder, why she didn't do anything about it?

She is a smart girl by all accounts so there were two possibilities open to her.  He either was a raving looney or he was about to commit murder.  Did she really want to marry this guy and spent her life with him?

Was the thought of all that money an incentive for Julie?

Could have been. People do terrible things for money all the time - but going along with/ turning the blind eye on/help plan the elimination of a whole family including two innocent, lovely little boys? It is hard to fathom, but it SEEMS like it.
If you assume Jeremy is guilty, I have to add.

[John]

It is an extremely difficult one to fathom abs.  Undoubtedly, Julie could see herself as lady of the house at some time or other and she must have been chuffed at Jeremy's marriage proposal and then angered by June's reaction to it.  Could this reaction by June have created a situation whereby her attitude to Jeremy's plan changed?