I will register. The only thing that immediately jumps out at me is I do not believe Julie Mugfords innocence for one second. She was involved deeper than we will ever know. She was a clever and calculating young woman, not the innocent girlfriend that we were lead to believe she was. Of course she played a blinder and we will never know the truth. I hope it haunts her for the rest of her life.
Takeshi, While I respect your stance on Julie Mugford I do not think she was as culpable as you suggest. It may seem that way due to her close relationship with Bamber she must have had some sort of involvement. However, there is absolutely no evidence that she took any role whatsoever in the murders at White House Farm. If it cannot be proven - circumstantially or otherwise - any of these scenarios then it is just a suspicion, nothing more. Moreover, there is no evidence either explicit or implicit to prove that Julie Mugford suggested, coerced, implied or told Bamber to carry out the killings. Even Bamber himself - no stranger at suggestion-planting and pointing fingers at everyone but himself - has yet to suggest Julie may have had a role in the killings. I also doubt very much that Mugford would have committed purgery in such a high-profile and deeply analysed case as this.
The punishment for purgery - which the law courts take a very dim view of - is is a custodial sentence of up to 10 years. I do not believe that Mugford -whom you have already called 'very clever and calculating' - would allow herself to be open to such a charge, should it be known.
Her reasons for not coming forward sooner than she did are plausible and the testimony she gave at Bamber's trial had the ring of truth about it. Since this testimony was one that ultimately decided Bamber's fate, it needed to be succinct, clear and more importantly, beyond reproach. I strongly believe that Julie Mugford had nothing to do with the murders.
However, what I will say is that she may have known more details about the killings than she was letting on. She was aware that she was in a position that could, if interpreted by some, lead to her being arrested as an accomplice of sorts. Her desire to avoid this probably led her to non-disclosure of certain details that she may have known. Details that Bamber probably told her. Who knows? It is mere speculation as this can probably never be proved satisfactorily. But this in no way suggests that she played any part in the crime - active or otherwise.
I do believe strongly, however, in the power of suggestion. An inference made often enough, and loud enough and by the right people soon becomes an established fact to the listener - Mugford must have known, she is devious, she is a scorned woman, etc etc. However, no-one stops to think that there is absolutely NO evidence for any of this but rather inference, guess work and hearsay. Not something that would secure a conviction of any kind.
I would like to ask why you think she is involved in some way? In what way was she involved?
I look forward to your reply.
