UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Admin on March 02, 2012, 01:48:19 PM
-
(http://i.imgur.com/GMyad.jpg)
Julie Mugford comforts Jeremy Bamber at his parents funeral.
Colin Caffell (RHS pic) looks on.
A police officer earlier overheard Bamber tell Mugford, "I could have been an actor".
-
What are people's views on Julie Mugford? I lurch between she must have been terrified to breathe a word... if he can wipe out his own parents, sister and his two little nephews, what more is he capable of? etc. However, then she accompanies him on his little 'trips' and to the funeral. Wouldn't any sane rational person ave run a bl**dy mile? or 500 miles! Don't get me wrong, she bravely took the stand and gave a creditable account, but still it all feels quite strange. She was very young and besotted by a man, but she was also an intelligent woman. I am certain the jury would have thought about this, and they still found him guilty, so it isn't for me a dealbreaker, but I have always wondered.
-
I don´t think Julie was terrified of Jeremy - she tried to suffocate him on one occacion. You just don´t do that to people you are terrified of. Well, you don´t do that under any circumstances. She also accepted his help moving her furniture for her after they broke up. You mentioned the trips they made.
She was not terrified at all. Julie was a strange girl/woman.
-
What are people's views on Julie Mugford? I lurch between she must have been terrified to breathe a word... if he can wipe out his own parents, sister and his two little nephews, what more is he capable of? etc. However, then she accompanies him on his little 'trips' and to the funeral. Wouldn't any sane rational person ave run a bl**dy mile? or 500 miles! Don't get me wrong, she bravely took the stand and gave a creditable account, but still it all feels quite strange. She was very young and besotted by a man, but she was also an intelligent woman. I am certain the jury would have thought about this, and they still found him guilty, so it isn't for me a dealbreaker, but I have always wondered.
One word amazon LOVE 8(0(*
-
I don´t think Julie was terrified of Jeremy - she tried to suffocate him on one occacion. You just don´t do that to people you are terrified of. Well, you don´t do that under any circumstances. She also accepted his help moving her furniture for her after they broke up. You mentioned the trips they made.
She was not terrified at all. Julie was a strange girl/woman.
She said she was scared in her statements and diary abs. Isn't that why she confided in her friend?
-
Why would she go on those trips with him and accept gifts, why would she STAY with him?? Why not go to the police immediately?!
I don´t think that Julie was a scaredy cat at all. She voluntered to identify the bodies of the Bamber family - afterwards she wondered why their heads were shaved. As far as I know, no other reaction.
-
Do you think she was in shock when she viewed the bodies because I don't see how she couldn't have been?
-
Do you think she was in shock when she viewed the bodies because I don't see how she couldn't have been?
I don´t know - why did she volunteer? She must have thought she could handled it, and she obviously did.
-
Do you think she was in shock when she viewed the bodies because I don't see how she couldn't have been?
Hello all. It would take a really special kind of young woman to have done what she did. I suspect she was in shock but also in confusion. Bamber told her that a hitman had did it so she wasn't too worried to be in Bamber's company. He had cultivated their relationship for months and was actually going to marry her but June got in the way.
-
Like I say, I think that the jury at the trial would have gone through all this, how could they not? They wouldn't have just accepted the evidence without asking why JM did this or didn't do that.... all very obvious questions to me. They still found him guilty. One could deduce from this, that JM's testimony wasn't the be all and end all that some would have us believe.
-
Like I say, I think that the jury at the trial would have gone through all this, how could they not? They wouldn't have just accepted the evidence without asking why JM did this or didn't do that.... all very obvious questions to me. They still found him guilty. One could deduce from this, that JM's testimony wasn't the be all and end all that some would have us believe.
It was a circumstantial case. There really wasn´t physical evidence, so Mugfords testimony was important in the conviction of JB, in my opinion.
-
Like I say, I think that the jury at the trial would have gone through all this, how could they not? They wouldn't have just accepted the evidence without asking why JM did this or didn't do that.... all very obvious questions to me. They still found him guilty. One could deduce from this, that JM's testimony wasn't the be all and end all that some would have us believe.
It was a circumstantial case. There really wasn´t physical evidence, so Mugfords testimony was important in the conviction of JB, in my opinion.
Well, I think the jury would have wondered why JM stayed with JB knowing what she did, slept with him, travelled abroad with him etc. so I think the jury would have weighed all this up. They must have thought there was other good evidence to counter this. I don't believe that JM's testimony was as crucial as many believe.
-
Like I say, I think that the jury at the trial would have gone through all this, how could they not? They wouldn't have just accepted the evidence without asking why JM did this or didn't do that.... all very obvious questions to me. They still found him guilty. One could deduce from this, that JM's testimony wasn't the be all and end all that some would have us believe.
It was a circumstantial case. There really wasn´t physical evidence, so Mugfords testimony was important in the conviction of JB, in my opinion.
Well, I think the jury would have wondered why JM stayed with JB knowing what she did, slept with him, travelled abroad with him etc. so I think the jury would have weighed all this up. They must have thought there was other good evidence to counter this. I don't believe that JM's testimony was as crucial as many believe.
That only leaves the silencer - and that had been in the possession of Jeremy´s relatives and had been tampered with, for instance, David Bourflour scraped a flake of blood from it because, according to him, it "fascinated" him. Problematic evidence, I´d say.
-
I think this is a useful summary. From [2002] EWCA Crim 2912
Julie Mugford
Julie Mugford was 21 years old at the time of the offences and a student at Goldsmiths College at the University of London. She met the appellant in 1983 whilst working in Colchester during one of the vacations and they became boyfriend and girlfriend. During the relationship she met the appellant's parents, his sister and her children. In December 1984 the appellant had proposed to her.
On the day after the killings, Miss Mugford made a statement to the police. In that statement she said nothing adverse to the appellant. She spoke of receiving a telephone call from him at about 3.30 a.m. on the night of the killings. She said that he "sounded disjointed and worried" and he said "There's something wrong at home." She had been sleepy and had not asked what it was.
On 7 September, Julie Mugford contacted the police and told them that she had omitted matters from her earlier statement. She then gave a very different account that she was to repeat to the jury in evidence.
She said that after she met the appellant, it quickly became obvious to her that the appellant disliked his family. He resented his parents whom he claimed, "tried to run his life" and he said he did not get on with Sheila Caffell. He was angry that she lived in an expensive flat in Maida Vale, which was maintained by his parents. Between July and October 1984, he said that his parents were getting him down and he said that he wished "he could get rid of them all". In evidence Miss Mugford said this included his sister and children because "if he was going to get rid of them it would have to be all of them". The appellant explained to her that his "father was getting old, his mother was mad … Sheila was mad as well … and in respect of the way the twins had been brought up, … they were emotionally disturbed and unbalanced". The appellant also told Julie Mugford he had seen copies of his parents' wills.
Miss Mugford's evidence was that the conversations about killing the appellant's family became more frequent between October and December 1984. At first he spoke of being at the house for supper and then drugging the family before driving back to Goldhanger in his car. He said that he then intended returning to the farmhouse on foot or on bicycle and burning the house down. The appellant then appeared to realise that it would be difficult to burn the premises down especially since it would have the consequent effect of destroying the valuables within the property.
Later the appellant said he had decided to shoot his family and he told her that he had discovered that the catch on the kitchen window did not work and he could gain access to the house in that way. The appellant said he planned to leave the address by a different window, which latched when it was shut from the outside. He spoke of Sheila Caffell being a good scapegoat because of her admission to hospital during Easter 1985 and said that afterwards he would make it seem as if Sheila had done it and then killed herself.
Julie Mugford spent the weekend before the killings with the appellant in Goldhanger. During that period he dyed his hair black and she saw his mother's bicycle at the address. Other witnesses saw the bicyle at the appellant's home following the killings. Robert Boutflour saw mud on the walls of the tyres but not on the tread, as if it had been through deep mud.
At about 9.50 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 August the appellant telephoned Miss Mugford. During their conversation that evening he said he was "pissed off" and had been thinking about the crime all day and that it was going to be "tonight or never". The following morning she was awoken by a telephone call from the appellant to her lodgings in London. The appellant said to her, "Everything is going well. Something is wrong at the farm. I haven't had any sleep all night … bye honey and I love you lots". Miss Mugford did not take him seriously and went back to sleep. As to the timing of this call, Miss Mugford said in evidence said that it was between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m.
A number of Miss Mugford's housemates were disturbed by the telephone call and provided additional evidence as to timing. One, Helen Eaton, had been consulted by Julie Mugford, when the latter was first making a statement to the police about it. She put the time at 3.00 a.m. in evidence but agreed in cross-examination that it might have been as late as 3.30 a.m.
Another flat mate, Sue Battersby, said that she was positive that when she was disturbed, she had looked at her clock and the time shown was 3.12 a.m. However, she pointed out that she was in the habit of keeping her clock about 10 minutes early and police checks made on the clock confirmed this to be the case. If her evidence was right and if the clock was, as the evidence suggested, ten minutes fast, the time was probably no more than a minute or two after 3 a.m.
Joanna Woad gave evidence that when she heard the telephone, she looked at her digital clock and all that she noted was that the time was 2 something. This meant that according to her clock the time was between 2.00 and 2.59 a.m. If it was at the end of that bracket, it differed very little from the time suggested by Susan Battersby's evidence.
Miss Mugford described how later during the morning of Wednesday, 7 August 1985, the appellant telephoned her again. He said he could not speak for long, Sheila had gone mad and he told her not to go to work because a police car would come and pick her up. Miss Mugford was then taken to the house in Goldhanger, where out of earshot of the police officers, the appellant told her, "I should have been an actor".
That evening when they were alone, Miss Mugford said that she asked the appellant whether he had done it. He said he had not, but that he had arranged for a friend of his, Matthew MacDonald, to kill his family. He spoke of what he had told MacDonald as to ways of getting in and out of the farmhouse undetected and he said that one of his instructions was for MacDonald to ring him from the farm on the telephone which had the memory redial facility so that if the telephone was checked by the police it would provide him with an alibi.
The appellant reported that MacDonald had said that everything had been done as instructed but there had been a bit of a struggle with the appellant's father. He said MacDonald had told him, "for an old man he was very strong and put up a fight" and that MacDonald had then become angry and shot seven bullets into Nevill Bamber . The appellant said that Sheila Caffell had been told to lie down and shoot herself last. He said that MacDonald had then placed a Bible on her chest to make it look as though she had killed in some sort of religious mania. The appellant said the children were shot in their sleep and so they had not felt anything and there was no pain. He told Julie Mugford that MacDonald had been paid £2,000 for the killings.
As a result of hearing this account, the police arrested not only the appellant but also MacDonald. Their inquiries showed that Macdonald could not have been at the farm that night and he was called by the prosecution to give evidence, that was not disputed, to confirm that he had nothing to do with the shootings.
In the course of her evidence Miss Mugford explained that initially she did not want to believe what the appellant had told her but then she became scared and the appellant had threatened her that if anything happened to him she would be implicated.
She and the appellant spent the following weekend with Colin Caffell and on 12 August she went to the house in Goldhanger with the appellant. There he told her that the police had been a bit slack because they had not done all the fingerprinting at White House Farm. On 16 August Miss Mugford attended the funerals of Nevill and June Bamber with the appellant and then on 19 August the funerals of Sheila Caffell and her children. During that period the witness spoke of the appellant taking her out for frequent meals, and buying expensive clothes for himself and for her. She described the appellant's mood during this period as "very happy". After one of the funerals they drank champagne and cocktails.
Miss Mugford spent the weekend of 17-18 August 1985 with the appellant in Eastbourne and it was then that she began to ask how he could behave as he was doing. She kept telling him "£2,000 for five lives". The following week the couple went to Amsterdam for two days, staying in expensive hotels and eating out. On 27 August Miss Mugford returned alone to her lodgings in London and she told her friend Susan Battersby of what the appellant had done.
On Saturday 31 August Julie Mugford asked the appellant whether he loved her. He said he did not know. Again they spoke about the murders. Miss Mugford said she could not cope with him behaving so normally and asked why he had told her what had happened. She said she felt guilt for the two of them. The appellant told her he was doing everybody a favour and there was nothing to feel guilty about. Later that night the appellant told her that she was the best friend he had ever had and he had entrusted his life to her.
On Tuesday 3 September the couple met again in London at the flat which had belonged to Sheila Caffell. Again Miss Mugford raised the question of their relationship and his part in the killing. During their conversation the appellant received a telephone call from an ex-girlfriend and Miss Mugford heard him asking her out. She became angry and threw an ornament box at a mirror and then slapped the appellant. He became very angry and twisted her arm up behind her back. Four days later, she went to the police.
During the course of making her witness statements in September, Julie Mugford admitted that at Easter 1985 she had helped the appellant steal money from the offices of the Osea Road Caravan site which was owned by the appellant and various members of the family. On this occasion he had stage-managed the scene to give it the appearance of a burglary by an outsider. Some £970-£980 had been stolen which was used in part to buy a lavish meal.
Miss Mugford also admitted that she had used a cheque book belonging to Susan Battersby which had been falsely reported as stolen to obtain some £700 of property in Oxford Street. She told the jury that she and Miss Battersby had repaid the money to the bank in October 1985 and that she had been cautioned for the offence.
-
There has always been the ring of truth about Juli's evidence. It appears that she was a very good witness n the court while Jeremy made a complete mess of his appearance. He came across as arrogant and cocky which did not go down well with the jury. He more or less took the view that he was innocent and that it was up to the Crown to prove otherwise.
They did just that!! ?>)()<
-
It seems Jackie Preece has a big problem with Julie Mugford or Julie Smerchanski as she now is. She squawks on the Bamber forum...
Evil vile witch as 'she knew them very well if Jeremy was allegedly the murderer who had supposedly confessed to him
I wonder if she thought of those twins bodies in the mortuary when she was @@@@ing Jeremy.
Or was it all a figment of her imagination?
Either way she doesnt deserve to be on this planet
I wonder if she thought of those beautiful innocent twins when she was downing champagne with her mother courtesy of NOTW
If Jeremy is proven innocent I will make sure the whole of Canada knows all about her
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,958.msg49891.html#msg49891
-
I love the way they keep posting that there's some massive case shattering news that's about to break that is going to get Bamber out in days and that everyone is invited to his freedom party!
It's a bit like the party and the News Of The World money Bamber had arranged for after his trial. Cloud cuckoo land!
-
you can be sure that they will come out with that bummer again in the near future. new evidence my ass.....love it.....love it.
seen a newspaper article by mrs smerchanski yesterday must look it out and post it. seems she is confident that bamber will never be released.....except in a box that is.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/umyxd.jpg)
Julie Mugford leaves court accompanied by
her police minder after having given
evidence against Jeremy Bamber.
-
I have been reading through your posts admin in which you have deciphered Julie Mugfords
statements. The first thing I should point out is the lie that there are 32 statements which
was promoted by the Bamber forum. Julie Mugford saw the police on at least 33 occasions
between 7 August 1985 and 30 September 1996 and these are all logged.
For the record Julie gave statements on 8th and 9th September 1985, 8th May 1986, and
on 11th and 12th April 2002.
A simple but excellent example of the lies being promote by those who advocate on behalf of Jeremy Bamber.
-
It would seem that her statement was taken over the course of two days namely the 8 and 9 September 1985 by Det Sgt Stanley Jones.
I find the statement intriguing and especially how naive Julie was of bad boy Bamber. She swallowed every lie he told her and he knew it. His biggest foopah seems to have been dumping her after he moved into Sheila's flat in Maida Vale in London. It seems he thought his murderous plan was watertight but in the event it leaked like a sieve.
There's a hole in your bucket dear Jeremy!
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o52APwVq2KE/Tfv2NmEcpzI/AAAAAAAAAK4/HIMScY24bkA/s1600/1_HoleInTheBucket.jpg)
-
I often see it said that Julie did it for the NOTW money, or out of revenge for getting dumped. But surely with the knowledge she had she must have been terrified of becoming victim number 6 once it became clear that Bamber had lost interest in her. The only surprising thing is that she did not come to that realisation sooner, given the amount of time he'd been saying those things. But then she was only 21 when she met him, and the same excuses pedalled for Bambers youth and naivity also apply to her.
-
I personally think the straw that broke the camels back was the realisation in Sheila's flat that Bamber was not all that she had thought he was up to that point. The violence and the brazen faced phone call to Victoria brought all the chicks home to roost at that very moment.
The genie was out of the bottle!
-
I personally think the straw that broke the camels back was the realisation in Sheila's flat that Bamber was not all that she had thought he was up to that point. The violence and the brazen faced phone call to Victoria brought all the chicks home to roost at that very moment.
The genie was out of the bottle!
Well that would suggest she was happy to suffer him being a murderer, but not a two-timing murderer, but i take your point that the phone call is probably what opened her eyes.
-
This issue has always bothered me. Julie Mugford is and was a smart grl by any standards.
For months Bamber was filling her head with information like he hates his family and that he
could kill his family.
Then one day in the middle of the night he phones her and tells her that there is something
astir at the farm and that he hadn't been to bed. Why had he not been to bed, was this something
quite normal for him?
Julies says in her statement that she remembers this as she told him to go to bed. Julie was
not told about what was going on at the farm and must have been shocked when Bamber later
phoned her again to tell her to be ready because the police were going to pick her up shortly.
What did she think then was going on I wonder?
-
i dont no why mugford thought her relationship with jeremy wood last anyway.
he has always attracted the female admirers even now.
a bit fatter and with lots more rinkles though.
-
i dont no why mugford thought her relationship with jeremy wood last anyway.
he has always attracted the female admirers even now.
a bit fatter and with lots more rinkles though.
That's what happens to groupies that are over 50 nugnug. You must be approaching that age now we reckon?
-
I have read mad Jackie's 32 statement comment a few times. Yesterday she was comparing Mugford to Hindley, Brady and Huntley. Shame on you Preece ..... the only name that should be top of that list is Jeremy Bamber.
I have often wondered what's worse ....... killing to satisfy some deviant sexual perversion or planning to kill in utter cold blood purely for financial gains.
Either way Bamber is up there with the worst of the worse.
-
I have read mad Jackie's 32 statement comment a few times. Yesterday she was comparing Mugford to Hindley, Brady and Huntley. Shame on you Preece ..... the only name that should be top of that list is Jeremy Bamber.
I have often wondered what's worse ....... killing to satisfy some deviant sexual perversion or planning to kill in utter cold blood purely for financial gains.
Either way Bamber is up there with the worst of the worse.
Even the worst of the worst invictus.
In my opinion...hmm...I have always considered Julie Mugford a reliable witness from the moment the cops got their mits on her. She had everything to lose at that moment in time if she told a pack of lies. She had a degree and was studying for an honours degree in education. Her ambition was to be a teacher and by all counts she has made an excellent teacher out in Canada.
It couldn't have been easy for her to up-stakes and move halfway across the world and all because of Bamber. If Julie had supported Bamber she would never have been able to carry on with a career, she would have been finished and probably have spent several years in prison as an accomplice.
-
And it is key that at the 2002 appeal Bamber tried to discredit Mugford as a key part of his strategy. Even though she was summonsed Bamber's lawyers didn't call her as they had nothing of any value to accuse her of. Bamber now can't try the same point of law again & Mugford, quite rightly in my opinion, won't ever have to listen to this nonsense in a court.
-
I have read mad Jackie's 32 statement comment a few times. Yesterday she was comparing Mugford to Hindley, Brady and Huntley. Shame on you Preece ..... the only name that should be top of that list is Jeremy Bamber.
I have often wondered what's worse ....... killing to satisfy some deviant sexual perversion or planning to kill in utter cold blood purely for financial gains.
Either way Bamber is up there with the worst of the worse.
Even the worst of the worst invictus.
In my opinion...hmm...I have always considered Julie Mugford a reliable witness from the moment the cops got their mits on her. She had everything to lose at that moment in time if she told a pack of lies. She had a degree and was studying for an honours degree in education. Her ambition was to be a teacher and by all counts she has made an excellent teacher out in Canada.
It couldn't have been easy for her to up-stakes and move halfway across the world and all because of Bamber. If Julie had supported Bamber she would never have been able to carry on with a career, she would have been finished and probably have spent several years in prison as an accomplice.
I agree with piece as well as to what you say David. Julie Mugford had everything to lose by telling lies. The poor girl didn't ask to be brought into all this in the middle of her honours degree course at University. I have no doubt the police laid it on the line with her, cooperate and tell the truth or you are going down for a long stretch too.
-
And it is key that at the 2002 appeal Bamber tried to discredit Mugford as a key part of his strategy. Even though she was summonsed Bamber's lawyers didn't call her as they had nothing of any value to accuse her of. Bamber now can't try the same point of law again & Mugford, quite rightly in my opinion, won't ever have to listen to this nonsense in a court.
On that same issue piece it should be remembered that there is evidence that was not allowed in 1986 and 2002 but can be used now if he were ever given a retrial. From what we now know about him and what he said to others about killing Nevill, i have no doubt he would be convicted all over again.
What do you think?
-
I think he would be convicted again. As for why he keeps saying he's innocent - I think he has two reasons a) that he has a nicer cell & a better prison environment while he claims he's innocent - remember that the 1986 appeal was based on the Judge's summing up rather than on any evidence that may show he was innocent. And b) he can keep saying he's innocent because he knows the police arsed up when they arrived and he knows that not everything is exactly how he left it!!
-
I think he would be convicted again. As for why he keeps saying he's innocent - I think he has two reasons a) that he has a nicer cell & a better prison environment while he claims he's innocent - remember that the 1986 appeal was based on the Judge's summing up rather than on any evidence that may show he was innocent. And b) he can keep saying he's innocent because he knows the police ar..d up when they arrived and he knows that not everything is exactly how he left it!!
As you say he can keep saying he is innocent and Sheila did it until the cows come home. I notice he is now accusing Ann Eaton and David Boutflour of conspiring against him. Wonder who will be next?
-
I have always been convinced Bamber is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt but I think that he has almost convinced himself he is innocent. I think if a video came to light showing what he did he would still claim innocense somehow.
He will never admit guilt because the assassination of the twins in their sleep is a crime with just no redemption. If the truth be shown he would only have Tesco and Preece still adoring him.
I agree that Julie Mugford is a very decent person caught up in Bamber's sick web. I am glad she has made a good life for herself; a respected teacher and a mum of two.
-
You will note a comment by Jackie Preece a while back when she made mention of Mugfords marriage being on the rocks.
Could someone tell me what exactly that has to do with Preece, let alone the public at large? I think Preece must have some strange personality disorder to be so vindictive to this woman. Its either that or she is just a nutter?
-
i think she is just lonely and has nobody to play with except jeremy.
well thats what i think.
-
On the issue of Julie Mugford, I believe Julie's evidence was totally
genuine. Remember that it is backed up by many other members of
the family and outsiders as well.
They can't all be wrong or mistaken or deluded!
-
If Julie was a woman scorned who lied thru her teeth about Bamber as his groupies suggest, she would hardly have made up that Bamber hired a hit man. Her detailed story would never have held up thru 32 police interviews and certainly not thru testimony and cross examination in a crown court; tested by Bamber's top notch defense team.
That's as ridiculous as the delicate 7 stone Sheila overpowering Neville without breaking a fingernail or assassinating her adored twin boys in their sleep. Or the remaining family conspiring to frame the cuckoo Bamber to grab his inheritance. Or the police conspiring to convict an innocent man and making themselves look incompetent by doing so!
If Bamber is innocent he is the unluckiest man ever born. And I am the Queen Of Sheba!
-
Up to page 4 of Julie Mugfords 32-page statement to police, is it just us or are things beginning to make sense at last?
What normal lad talks about killing his entire family in such terms and then when it happens nobody is really surprised??
What do you think and remember this is only page 4 !!
-
Here is a more up to date photograph of Julie who is now known as Julie Smerchanski.
(http://i.imgur.com/Vd9Yg.jpg)
-
Here is a more up to date photograph of Julie who is now known as Julie Smerchanski.
(http://i.imgur.com/Vd9Yg.jpg)
Julie has done very well for herself with her new life in Canada. She became the principal of a school and is now an Director in the Winnipeg Schools Division in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
-
i have always wondered if those she works with have the slightest clue as to her background?
-
i have always wondered if those she works with have the slightest clue as to her background?
They won't know her maiden name as Mugford so an internet search without that information would be a waste of time. In any event Milly, what does it matter, foolishness in ones youth has little bearing on ones later life as many a person has proven.
-
I see that you are going to make contact with her John. Can you ask her why she didn't say something earlier when Bamber was actively planning the murders. Did she not realise he was serious when he got her to get tranquillisers from the doctor?
-
Here is a more up to date photograph of Julie who is now known as Julie Smerchanski.
I can't see this, or any photos on the site. Does anyone know what would cause this?
-
i have always wondered if those she works with have the slightest clue as to her background?
They won't know her maiden name as Mugford so an internet search without that information would be a waste of time. In any event Milly, what does it matter, foolishness in ones youth has little bearing on ones later life as many a person has proven.
I think it would be easy to stumble upon her maiden name if you googled her current name. She is often mentioned by both names on the boards, so that would pop up.
I will give it a try.
-
OK, the very first thing that comes up in a Google search is this:
Did Julie Mugford (now Smerchanski) lie to the court?
-
Here is a more up to date photograph of Julie who is now known as Julie Smerchanski.
I can't see this, or any photos on the site. Does anyone know what would cause this?
Did you get the problems sorted out with the photographs?
-
John, I think you will have to start a new thread if you want to discuss Julie. I have much to say on this, but I doubt that many of your members have any knowledge on this. I would be more than happy to enlighten them.
This is the Julie Mugford thread. I don't think you can tell us anything that we haven't heard previously buddy but feel free to carry on.
You might be surprised just how much the girls on here know about the case and Julie in particular. 8(0(*
-
John, I think you will have to start a new thread if you want to discuss Julie. I have much to say on this, but I doubt that many of your members have any knowledge on this. I would be more than happy to enlighten them.
This is the Julie Mugford thread. I don't think you can tell us anything that we haven't heard previously buddy but feel free to carry on.
You might be surprised just how much the girls on here know about the case and Julie in particular. 8(0(*
Don't hold your breath John. There isn't anything which can change my mind at this stage unless she recants the entire testimony.
-
John, I think you will have to start a new thread if you want to discuss Julie. I have much to say on this, but I doubt that many of your members have any knowledge on this. I would be more than happy to enlighten them.
This is the Julie Mugford thread. I don't think you can tell us anything that we haven't heard previously buddy but feel free to carry on.
You might be surprised just how much the girls on here know about the case and Julie in particular. 8(0(*
Don't hold your breath John. There isn't anything which can change my mind at this stage unless she recants the entire testimony.
I think buddy is on a wind-up operation on behalf of the blue forum otherwise he wouldn't be allowed to post here and return. @)(++(*
-
I think you might be wrong there John. I reckon Buddy's straight down the line, he's a good fella, not like some of those silly sods. I hope he does start a discussion about Julie, it would be interesting. 8((()*/
-
Buddy you should get out of here while you can if I had my way this forum would be closed down as of yesterday. you should all hang your heads and leave the building while you can still walk
-
Go read a book, Mertol.
Mertol was debating with me on the blue forum about rigor mortis in the twins on the blue forum - I was participating until she revealed her source....Colins book.
Not exactly scientific.
-
I think you might be wrong there John. I reckon Buddy's straight down the line, he's a good fella, not like some of those silly sods. I hope he does start a discussion about Julie, it would be interesting. 8((()*/
I do hope so, I would love to hear what buddy has to say about Julie but as I said earlier, it has all been said before.
He is welcome to try though, I always look forward to a challenge. 8@??)(
-
Go read a book, Mertol.
Mertol was debating with me on the blue forum about rigor mortis in the twins on the blue forum - I was participating until she revealed her source....Colins book.
Not exactly scientific.
Mertol is male Mat, a real babe magnet. He doesn't seem to know much about his job though. He and preecey have been up all night talking about this forum, with him trying to deny that he's posted on here! And now preecey has to do a full day as ingham. Good job she's got nothing else to do!
-
Go read a book, Mertol.
Mertol was debating with me on the blue forum about rigor mortis in the twins on the blue forum - I was participating until she revealed her source....Colins book.
Not exactly scientific.
Mertol is male Mat, a real babe magnet. He doesn't seem to know much about his job though. He and preecey have been up all night talking about this forum, with him trying to deny that he's posted on here! And now preecey has to do a full day as ingham. Good job she's got nothing else to do!
jacie is worrn owt doing sosun ignum she is living on red bul and wotttsits her best frend mentol sent her a vvd abowt nuns he got at a car boott to sooooth her nurvs but wen she plaid it it was in jappanees
she is going to aks mat to go owt wiht her
-
You've got to love Mat. He's making preecey look like a PLONKER!!!!! 8@??)(
-
What are people's views on Julie Mugford? I lurch between she must have been terrified to breathe a word... if he can wipe out his own parents, sister and his two little nephews, what more is he capable of? etc. However, then she accompanies him on his little 'trips' and to the funeral. Wouldn't any sane rational person ave run a bl**dy mile? or 500 miles! Don't get me wrong, she bravely took the stand and gave a creditable account, but still it all feels quite strange. She was very young and besotted by a man, but she was also an intelligent woman. I am certain the jury would have thought about this, and they still found him guilty, so it isn't for me a dealbreaker, but I have always wondered.
One word amazon LOVE 8(0(*
Other words that could be used might be "denial" and "self-preservation". Nobody wants to believe that someone they love is capable of murdering their entire family, much less two sleeping children. I don't find it unbelievable that while one part of you might seem to be openly thinking it's a possibility, the other part might be doing all it can to suppress the thought. Having to confess to a robbery, however low grade, as part of the package probably didn't make it any easier, either.
The human brain is a funny old thing. Under pressure, I've done things that I would not ordinarily do, and I've seen enough over the years to know that you can never really judge someone's response to anything out of the ordinary.
-
Good morning. Just to let everyone know that I will be having one of my hissy fits on Wednesday, round about 11 in the morning. This will be due to a culmination of irritants that will result in me deleting my account and retiring to my shed to sob and write yet another letter to Linda Lusardi. And how do I know this? Because I'm a tw@t.
-
Good morning. Just to let everyone know that I will be having one of my hissy fits on Wednesday, round about 11 in the morning. This will be due to a culmination of irritants that will result in me deleting my account and retiring to my shed to sob and write yet another letter to Linda Lusardi. And how do I know this? Because I'm a tw@t.
We all send our best wishes to [Name removed]o and hope that she makes a full recovery from that awful affliction.
-
Preece reckons she knows Mercer the dog handler, she outed the poor sod working at the co-op. So go and ask him what happened. Simples.
-
Preece reckons she knows Mercer the dog handler, she outed the poor sod working at the co-op. So go and ask him what happened. Simples.
it can only get worse as the day of the judicial rewiew first hearing draws ever nearer. @)(++(*
-
Preece reckons she knows Mercer the dog handler, she outed the poor sod working at the co-op. So go and ask him what happened. Simples.
it can only get worse as the day of the judicial rewiew first hearing draws ever nearer. @)(++(*
Good times Mikey!
Livor mortis clearly visible on Sheila's arm, by the way.
-
WOMAN ATTACKED BY RED KITES WHILE WEEDING GARDEN.
susan ingham, 85, said "I thought they were just being my friends, we're all friendly here in Yorkshire ha ha!"
-
WOMAN ATTACKED BY RED KITES WHILE WEEDING GARDEN.
susan ingham, 85, said "I thought they were just being my friends, we're all friendly here in Yorkshire ha ha!"
There aint a word of truth in that cause she aint got a garden on her 2nd floor flat.
-
BRENTWOOD WOMAN GOOGLES "YORKSHIRE" OVER ONE MILLION TIMES IN ONE WEEKEND.
When asked to comment, Miss Preese (87) said "Are you Ann eaton?"
-
BRENTWOOD WOMAN GOOGLES "YORKSHIRE" OVER ONE MILLION TIMES IN ONE WEEKEND.
When asked to comment, Miss Preese (87) said "Are you Ann eaton?"
Best. Post. Ever.
Literally just laughed my head off.
-
BRENTWOOD WOMAN GOOGLES "YORKSHIRE" OVER ONE MILLION TIMES IN ONE WEEKEND.
When asked to comment, Miss Preese (87) said "Are you Ann eaton?"
Best. Post. Ever.
Literally just laughed my head off.
Glad you liked it, mate! 8((()*/
-
Isn't it time something was done about that Preece woman? Everyone knows that her attacks have nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with jealousy and sexual frustration.
-
MALVERN MAN MYSTIFIES MEDICS.
A Malvern man has puzzled the medical profession by being diagnosed with PMT.
"Yes, that's right," said Mr Bellton (89) "I've got PMT. How do I know? My hormonal swings are uncontrollable, I'm a nightmare once a month. Could you help me do my bra up?"
-
You forgot mertol!
Everyone forgets mertol... 8(8-))
-
Mr Bellton! We all know that you are over here all the time!
@)(++(*
-
MALVERN MAN MYSTIFIES MEDICS.
A Malvern man has puzzled the medical profession by being diagnosed with PMT.
"Yes, that's right," said Mr Bellton (89) "I've got PMT. How do I know? My hormonal swings are uncontrollable, I'm a nightmare once a month. Could you help me do my bra up?"
And it's MALDON. Peasant.
-
John, I think you will have to start a new thread if you want to discuss Julie. I have much to say on this, but I doubt that many of your members have any knowledge on this. I would be more than happy to enlighten them.
This is the Julie Mugford thread. I don't think you can tell us anything that we haven't heard previously buddy but feel free to carry on.
You might be surprised just how much the girls on here know about the case and Julie in particular.
Don't hold your breath John. There isn't anything which can change my mind at this stage unless she recants the entire testimony.
I think buddy is on a wind-up operation on behalf of the blue forum otherwise he wouldn't be allowed to post here and return. @)(++(*
Alan. G Dovey the bank manager of the Barclays bank that Battersby, and Mugford tried to defraud made a statement that was never used at trial.
He stated that he recieved a call from the Chief Inspectors Dept.
The gist of the message was I was to exspect Miss Battersby in relation to a loss in her account.
On the the arrival of Miss Battersby I also met Miss Julie Mugford, and a man identifying himself as a police officer.
The officer was in plain clothes.
All three of us sat down and the officer then suggested that Miss battersby had something to say.
She then admitted to the cheque book theft, The officer [Stan Jones] made it clear that the girls were pivitol in a murder inquiry. The bank took no further action. The bank manager was never called to give evidence.
The debt was cleared within weeks according to the manager.
Now Mugford never went to the police in the first place . it was Battersby. It was only after the rejection by jeremy that she decided ko come clean. Bah.
All charges were dropped with this pair, and a handsome price was given to Mugford.
Now Mugford, and battersby insisted that they went to to the bank because they were wracked with guilt, and e than happywanted to wipe the slate clean is obvioustly a lie, as is the police claim they had no involvememnt.
If any of you guilty camp can disprove me than I welcome your comments.
You had better read up before you post. I am more tha happy to answer.
remember of course that Julie was complisite in the caravan burgerly, and drug smuggling, and supplying drugs, so she was no angel
-
No wind up. The bamber forum are fully suppotive.
-
Alan. G Dovey the bank manager of the Barclays bank that Battersby, and Mugford tried to defraud made a statement that was never used at trial.
He stated that he recieved a call from the Chief Inspectors Dept.
The gist of the message was I was to exspect Miss Battersby in relation to a loss in her account.
On the the arrival of Miss Battersby I also met Miss Julie Mugford, and a man identifying himself as a police officer.
The officer was in plain clothes.
All three of us sat down and the officer then suggested that Miss battersby had something to say.
She then admitted to the cheque book theft, The officer [Stan Jones] made it clear that the girls were pivitol in a murder inquiry. The bank took no further action. The bank manager was never called to give evidence.
The debt was cleared within weeks according to the manager.
Now Mugford never went to the police in the first place . it was Battersby. It was only after the rejection by jeremy that she decided ko come clean. Bah.
All charges were dropped with this pair, and a handsome price was given to Mugford.
Now Mugford, and battersby insisted that they went to to the bank because they were wracked with guilt, and e than happywanted to wipe the slate clean is obvioustly a lie, as is the police claim they had no involvememnt.
If any of you guilty camp can disprove me than I welcome your comments.
You had better read up before you post. I am more tha happy to answer.
remember of course that Julie was complisite in the caravan burgerly, and drug smuggling, and supplying drugs, so she was no angel
This is no secret Buddy but thank you for reminding us.
Lets just say Julie was left in no doubt what would happen to her if she told any lies. 8(0(*
-
John, I think you will have to start a new thread if you want to discuss Julie. I have much to say on this, but I doubt that many of your members have any knowledge on this. I would be more than happy to enlighten them.
This is the Julie Mugford thread. I don't think you can tell us anything that we haven't heard previously buddy but feel free to carry on.
You might be surprised just how much the girls on here know about the case and Julie in particular.
Don't hold your breath John. There isn't anything which can change my mind at this stage unless she recants the entire testimony.
I think buddy is on a wind-up operation on behalf of the blue forum otherwise he wouldn't be allowed to post here and return. @)(++(*
Alan. G Dovey the bank manager of the Barclays bank that Battersby, and Mugford tried to defraud made a statement that was never used at trial.
He stated that he recieved a call from the Chief Inspectors Dept.
The gist of the message was I was to exspect Miss Battersby in relation to a loss in her account.
On the the arrival of Miss Battersby I also met Miss Julie Mugford, and a man identifying himself as a police officer.
The officer was in plain clothes.
All three of us sat down and the officer then suggested that Miss battersby had something to say.
She then admitted to the cheque book theft, The officer [Stan Jones] made it clear that the girls were pivitol in a murder inquiry. The bank took no further action. The bank manager was never called to give evidence.
The debt was cleared within weeks according to the manager.
Now Mugford never went to the police in the first place . it was Battersby. It was only after the rejection by jeremy that she decided ko come clean. Bah.
All charges were dropped with this pair, and a handsome price was given to Mugford.
Now Mugford, and battersby insisted that they went to to the bank because they were wracked with guilt, and e than happywanted to wipe the slate clean is obvioustly a lie, as is the police claim they had no involvememnt.
If any of you guilty camp can disprove me than I welcome your comments.
You had better read up before you post. I am more tha happy to answer.
remember of course that Julie was complisite in the caravan burgerly, and drug smuggling, and supplying drugs, so she was no angel
JM has claimed in a written statement that she herself and Battersby went to the bank on their own - that there was no policeman with them. That is in direct contrast to the bank manager´s detailed statement. A police officer arranged this meeting and accompanied the girls to the bank, was in on the meeting and even stayed and talked some more to the bank manager after the girls had left.
How can I trust anything else she has said?
-
John, I think you will have to start a new thread if you want to discuss Julie. I have much to say on this, but I doubt that many of your members have any knowledge on this. I would be more than happy to enlighten them.
This is the Julie Mugford thread. I don't think you can tell us anything that we haven't heard previously buddy but feel free to carry on.
You might be surprised just how much the girls on here know about the case and Julie in particular.
Don't hold your breath John. There isn't anything which can change my mind at this stage unless she recants the entire testimony.
I think buddy is on a wind-up operation on behalf of the blue forum otherwise he wouldn't be allowed to post here and return. @)(++(*
Alan. G Dovey the bank manager of the Barclays bank that Battersby, and Mugford tried to defraud made a statement that was never used at trial.
He stated that he recieved a call from the Chief Inspectors Dept.
The gist of the message was I was to exspect Miss Battersby in relation to a loss in her account.
On the the arrival of Miss Battersby I also met Miss Julie Mugford, and a man identifying himself as a police officer.
The officer was in plain clothes.
All three of us sat down and the officer then suggested that Miss battersby had something to say.
She then admitted to the cheque book theft, The officer [Stan Jones] made it clear that the girls were pivitol in a murder inquiry. The bank took no further action. The bank manager was never called to give evidence.
The debt was cleared within weeks according to the manager.
Now Mugford never went to the police in the first place . it was Battersby. It was only after the rejection by jeremy that she decided ko come clean. Bah.
All charges were dropped with this pair, and a handsome price was given to Mugford.
Now Mugford, and battersby insisted that they went to to the bank because they were wracked with guilt, and e than happywanted to wipe the slate clean is obvioustly a lie, as is the police claim they had no involvememnt.
If any of you guilty camp can disprove me than I welcome your comments.
You had better read up before you post. I am more tha happy to answer.
remember of course that Julie was complisite in the caravan burgerly, and drug smuggling, and supplying drugs, so she was no angel
JM has claimed in a written statement that she herself and Battersby went to the bank on their own - that there was no policeman with them. That is in direct contrast to the bank manager´s detailed statement. A police officer arranged this meeting and accompanied the girls to the bank, was in on the meeting and even stayed and talked some more to the bank manager after the girls had left.
How can I trust anything else she has said?
Why ever not? Was there a police officer with her when Bamber told her he wanted to kill his parents or when she received a telephone call from him on the morning of the murders. You are being somewhat selective here abs.
-
I don´t think I am being selective, I just have a problem with believing what proven liars say- in real life too. 8(0(*
-
I think I can say I speak for everyone on this board when I say that anyone from the blue forum is more than welcome here-if they are willing to provide coherent arguments rather than wild conjecture (which I think even Buddy would admit that forum has been guilty of from time to time!). I'm sure no one thinks of JM as an angel, I think opinion is divided here about how involved she was. Some say she was just a naive young girl who fell in love with a murderer and eventually managed to break free. I personally think if she lied in her statements it was purely to cover up her own possible involvement-perhaps she was willing to lie to protect him and gain from the crime financially with him but when she realised Bamber was going down the only way to save her own skin was to implicate him. He could hardly then use her involvement as his defence, that he wasn't acting alone. I don't buy the whole "woman scorned" argument that she wanted to get back at the partner who had spurned her-how convenient that his whole family had been murdered and she could frame him for this? I don't think your average jilted lover would go as far as to commit perjury in a high profile murder case just to annoy their ex. And if the story of Bamber's confession was a work of fiction from start to finish, knowing that the prosecution argued that Bamber committed the murders, why invent a story about a hitman? Why not just say he had done it?
-
Somebody mentioned on another thread yesterday that Julie could still be faced with the serious charge of perjury if she was ever found out to have lied at Jeremy Bamber's trial. Given that she was terrified in relation to the consequences which could have overtaken her following her part in the cheque frauds I find it impossible to believe that she would set herself up for a potential perjury charge and all that that would bring for her.
Julie was too scared of the repercussions to tell lies.
-
Somebody mentioned on another thread yesterday that Julie could still be faced with the serious charge of perjury if she was ever found out to have lied at Jeremy Bamber's trial. Given that she was terrified in relation to the consequences which could have overtaken her following her part in the cheque frauds I find it impossible to believe that she would set herself up for a potential perjury charge and all that that would bring for her.
Julie was too scared of the repercussions to tell lies.
Absoluetly right John. Julie Mugford would not have lied on the stand. The law courts take a very dim view of perjury and this would be something both Essex Police and Julie Mugford would have been highly aware of.
It makes it far more likely that she told the absolute truth on the stand. Her evidence has stood the test of time - Bamber's most certainly did not.
-
Somebody mentioned on another thread yesterday that Julie could still be faced with the serious charge of perjury if she was ever found out to have lied at Jeremy Bamber's trial. Given that she was terrified in relation to the consequences which could have overtaken her following her part in the cheque frauds I find it impossible to believe that she would set herself up for a potential perjury charge and all that that would bring for her.
Julie was too scared of the repercussions to tell lies.
Absoluetly right John. Julie Mugford would not have lied on the stand. The law courts take a very dim view of perjury and this would be something both Essex Police and Julie Mugford would have been highly aware of.
It makes it far more likely that she told the absolute truth on the stand. Her evidence has stood the test of time - Bamber's most certainly did not.
Its not as if Julie wouldn't have been well aware of the repercussions. There can be no doubt that Julie spent a lot of time with Essex Police and in the company of Stan Jones. Julie was his star witness and there can be no question of this. She stayed in a dorm belonging to the Police College while she was being interrogated over those several days when her 32 page statement was put together. Stan Jones was experienced enough to know if he was being sold a pack of lies, he would have sussed her within hours.
I have no doubt that Stan laid it on the line for her and left her in no doubt what would be the consequences for her if she was found to be telling lies. She would have been absolutely petrified of falling foul of the police.
For Jackie to keep saying that she was lying just indicates to me that Jackie hasn't really thought through what was going on at this point. Does Jackie really expect us to believe that young Julie would have jeopardised her career and indeed her freedom just to get back at a murderer? Not in a million years Jackie!!
-
John how about if she started off accusing Jeremy because the relationship ended but didn't realise how serious perjury was.
If Julie had been caught for the cheque fraud wouldn't that have affected her future career plans. Doesn't something like cheque book fraud go straight to crown court
-
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?
-
If a boyfriend of mine had said he had executed 3 adults and 2 children or paid to have that done I would have left him rightaway away, I wouldn't have ever slept in the same house as him, got in the same car as him, never let him come anywhere near me again.
You could be right about Mugford John or I could be right but I will never make out I understood what went on in her head when Jeremy used to say he was going to kill his parents or tonight's the night
-
Joanne
I think Mugford was let off the cheque fraud for giving evidence at Bambers trial
-
Joanne
I think Mugford was let off the cheque fraud for giving evidence at Bambers trial
I have no doubt she was Jackie just as I have no doubt whatsoever that she then had to tell the truth of what went on with her and Jeremy Bamber in the lead up to the 5 murders.
Julie Mugford didn't need to tell anyone about these events Jackie but she chose to do so, firstly with Liz Rimington and then with Stan Jones.
-
Ok, thank you.
-
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.
-
I see. How longs she been abroad? I'm guessing it must be a long time.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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-)(--)
-
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?
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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
-
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...
-
Er....
-
Never a dull moment!
-
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!
-
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.
-
Of course you can leave. Just log out. And then click the X in the corner of your screen.
-
Try and leave with some "dignaty" Cluddy!
-
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.
We don't collect members like they do on the blue forum as some sort of trophy. Any accounts which have never posted or which have been dormant for more than 3 months are automatically expunged.
-
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
Buddy. You make some reasonable points so why spoil it with the side show? I for one want to hear more of your views on the Bamber case so that we can see if there is any common ground.
You are right about Julie not going to the police however as the police in the form of DS Stan Jones went to see her following a telephone call by a female informant to Witham police station. Jones drove all the way to Colchester to see Julie Mugford who was staying in a house owned by Liz Rimmington's ex boyfriend, Malcolm Waters.
Julie had confided in both Rimmington and Waters in relation to Jeremy's involvement in the murders, if she had not done so then the police would never have been any the wiser.
So in reality it was Julie who brought about a police response by her own actions. She didn't have to but she did...she made the right choice in the end.
-
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
Buddy. You make some reasonable points so why spoil it with the side show? I for one want to hear more of your views on the Bamber case so that we can see if there is any common ground.
You are right about Julie not going to the police however as the police in the form of DS Stan Jones went to see her following a telephone call by a female informant to Witham police station. Jones drove all the way to Colchester to see Julie Mugford who was staying in a house owned by Liz Rimmington's ex boyfriend, Malcolm Waters.
Julie had confided in both Rimmington and Waters in relation to Jeremy's involvement in the murders, if she had not done so then the police would never have been any the wiser.
So in reality it was Julie who brought about a police response by her own actions. She didn't have to but she did...she made the right choice in the end.
It would be good if we could discuss these issues without it turning into a slanging match, which can be very off putting for other members.
-
I wonder how many times since the trial (probably a thousand), Julie has been approached by the newspapers, glossy's (as I call them, magazines like take a break, chat, hello etc) and possibly book publishers offering her thousands for 'her story and life after the WHF tragedy' stories or even a film deal since it seems every major event seems to be a film (Amanda Knox story, JonBenet Ramsey, Craigslist killer, 911 etc).
I think the fact she chose to move out of the country probably speaks volumes-this is something I had asked about when I joined-why did Julie move? She has maintained a dignified silence, I wonder how much 'rubbish' she's had to cope with like 'Could she have stopped it?' etc?
-
I wonder how many times since the trial (probably a thousand), Julie has been approached by the newspapers, glossy's (as I call them, magazines like take a break, chat, hello etc) and possibly book publishers offering her thousands for 'her story and life after the WHF tragedy' stories or even a film deal since it seems every major event seems to be a film (Amanda Knox story, JonBenet Ramsey, Craigslist killer, 911 etc).
I think the fact she chose to move out of the country probably speaks volumes-this is something I had asked about when I joined-why did Julie move? She has maintained a dignified silence, I wonder how much 'rubbish' she's had to cope with like 'Could she have stopped it?' etc?
Good post, Joanne. Julie made the original deal with the NOTW after taking legal advice to stop the press hounding her - she then kept out of the public eye, there is no way that Julie hasn't been offered NUMEROUS book deals.
-
I wonder how many times since the trial (probably a thousand), Julie has been approached by the newspapers, glossy's (as I call them, magazines like take a break, chat, hello etc) and possibly book publishers offering her thousands for 'her story and life after the WHF tragedy' stories or even a film deal since it seems every major event seems to be a film (Amanda Knox story, JonBenet Ramsey, Craigslist killer, 911 etc).
I think the fact she chose to move out of the country probably speaks volumes-this is something I had asked about when I joined-why did Julie move? She has maintained a dignified silence, I wonder how much 'rubbish' she's had to cope with like 'Could she have stopped it?' etc?
Very well put Joanne. Julie has indeed maintained a dignified silence all these years when she could have milked it for £1000's had she wanted to. I believe deep down she is a good person, her family certainly think so. 8((()*/
-
I wonder how many times since the trial (probably a thousand), Julie has been approached by the newspapers, glossy's (as I call them, magazines like take a break, chat, hello etc) and possibly book publishers offering her thousands for 'her story and life after the WHF tragedy' stories or even a film deal since it seems every major event seems to be a film (Amanda Knox story, JonBenet Ramsey, Craigslist killer, 911 etc).
I think the fact she chose to move out of the country probably speaks volumes-this is something I had asked about when I joined-why did Julie move? She has maintained a dignified silence, I wonder how much 'rubbish' she's had to cope with like 'Could she have stopped it?' etc?
Good points as always Jo. Muggers should never have done that NOTW spread and made herself look so cheap but since then her behaviour has been beyond reproach. She has had an excellent career in an honourable profession (teaching)and hasn't sought to make any capital out of being the star witness in such a high profile crime.
I bet Julie hates that NOTW article and regrets ever doing it.
-
I wonder how many times since the trial (probably a thousand), Julie has been approached by the newspapers, glossy's (as I call them, magazines like take a break, chat, hello etc) and possibly book publishers offering her thousands for 'her story and life after the WHF tragedy' stories or even a film deal since it seems every major event seems to be a film (Amanda Knox story, JonBenet Ramsey, Craigslist killer, 911 etc).
I think the fact she chose to move out of the country probably speaks volumes-this is something I had asked about when I joined-why did Julie move? She has maintained a dignified silence, I wonder how much 'rubbish' she's had to cope with like 'Could she have stopped it?' etc?
Good points as always Jo. Muggers should never have done that NOTW spread and made herself look so cheap but since then her behaviour has been beyond reproach. She has had an excellent career in an honourable profession (teaching)and hasn't sought to make any capital out of being the star witness in such a high profile crime.
I bet Julie hates that NOTW article and regrets ever doing it.
The NOTW feature and the photoshoot in particular was probably a mistake in hindsight but as has been said, the only way to get journalists off her back was to sell her story, after that she could be left alone. Anyway, she probably had little or no say in what actually would end up in the final piece.
The blue forum would have us believe that her refusal to court the press and carry on selling her story since the trial is a sign that she was suddenly stricken by her conscience and she couldn't cope with the guilt of sending an innocent man to prison. Whereas presumably if she had sold her story to the highest bidder at the drop of a hat every year since, that would be proof of her conviction in her story? And the Bamber supporters wouldn't say her testimony was meaningless because it would be motivated by pure greed?
I don't believe for a second that someone would put their whole life on the line and risk being convicted of perjury just to get even with a man who apparently jilted them. I just cannot see that would be motivation enough. And while £25,000 may have been a fortune in 1986 it certainly wasn't enough to retire on. If money was her motivating factor she would have milked her experience for more I'm sure.
Another thing I read on Tesko's site the other day is that they could have called Julie at the appeal in 2002 (and remember she made the long journey to the court when she was under no legal obligation to do so), but chose not to as this would jeopardize any chances of producing her as a witness in court during a later appeal. This beggars belief in my opinion. If your case has gone to the Court of Appeal wouldn't you throw absolutely everything you had in to get a result? After all there would be no guarantees of any further appeals (he is still waiting, remember). The only reason that makes sense as to why she was not called as a defence witness is that she simply was of no further use to them to further his cause. Perhaps they were bluffing when they called her and would have implied her refusal or failure to attend was proof of her testimony being untrue. In Mike Tesko's world you might sit on evidence for years which could get someone out of jail in an instant. I doubt the legal profession works that way.
-
No matter how you choose to look at it, there was something majorly skewed about this girl, Julie Mugford, back in the eighties.
One of the things I have the hardest time wrapping my head around is that she SAW the five victims dead, including the little boys, and she still chose to have a relationship with Bamber for a month, knowing he was behind the HORRIFIC murders (don't care whether she thought they were committed by a hitman or not - makes little difference, doesn't it!)?? And I cannot imagine what goes through your head - keeping in mind she had actually seen the victims - to allow NOTW to use that half-sleazy photo of her; or maybe even giving it to them.
I don't know how she is now, but it is clear she had some issues back then.
-
I wonder why JB called JM (recorded, Mike) before he languidly leafed through the phone book, instead of calling 999, when his dad had said "come quick, your sister has gone crazy with the gun."
Cocky, but not very bright. 8-)(--)
-
I wonder why JB called JM (recorded, Mike) before he languidly leafed through the phone book, instead of calling 999, when his dad had said "come quick, your sister has gone crazy with the gun."
Cocky, but not very bright. 8-)(--)
Phoning Julie at 3.00am was an unusual thing to do and more or less caught her off guard. Why did she tell him to go to bed if there was an emergency at the farm? I don't think he told Julie the entire story.
-
The time of call to Julie was independently confirmed by other witnesses in Julie's house (none of whom had anything to gain by lying to the police remember-unless they were part of this conspiracy too?). I can well believe their testimony on this, remember if you were fast asleep and woken by a ringing phone in the middle of the night your first thought would be "who the hell is calling at this hour?" and looking at the clock. Though of course Mike Tesko says her housemates' testimony cannot be trusted as they were all drug takers or dealers. I agree Mike, we should completely disregard and ignore anyone's views if they have committed crimes at one stage of their lives 8(0(*
-
Your views John are the polar opposite of my own so we will have to agree to disagree. There seems little point in going round in circles debating points that have been done to death.
It strikes me that the beliefs about WHF are akin to religion, ie some believe in gods and some don't, but there's no direct evidence to support the existence of any god or that none exist and so the debate rages on.
I prefer to look at the evidence Holly and see where that takes me. Jeremy had been threatening to get rid of his family for months before he eventually did it, even persuading Julie to get tranquillisers from her GP so that he could investigate how effective they were. That in itself was by no means normal healthy behaviour for a young man, I really don't know why Julie humoured him for so long.
-
I prefer to look at the evidence Holly and see where that takes me. Jeremy had been threatening to get rid of his family for months before he eventually did it, even persuading Julie to get tranquillisers from her GP so that he could investigate how effective they were. That in itself was by no means normal healthy behaviour for a young man, I really don't know why Julie humoured him for so long.
I'm afraid John I can't accept JM as being a reliable witness. Any 'normal' woman would surely have dumped a boyfriend who discussed outline plans to murder his family? I can understand a boyfriend saying something like 'I could murder my family for committing me to xyz; I wanted to watch the football/rugby/cricket final' but anything more than this and I would be out the door quicker than a rat up a drain pipe. JM claims she was on occasion so distressed by his verbal plans that she became tearful. I can't buy into this idea that JB had some sort of mystical hold over her. JM was not an unattractive woman and she had a bright future ahead of her with or without JB. She was a well educated woman with a promising career to look forward to in the teaching profession. She did not need JB as a meal ticket. She was not a vulnerable young woman in this regard. I think she was used and abused by EP. I would like to know if she received any independent legal advice and where was her birth father or step-father during the trial? We only see pics of her mother accompanying her to court.
On the Sat before the murders she put the twins to bed at Colin's. This incl a bedtime story. She then identified them at the morgue on the following Thursday. She then continued an intimate relationship with JB: sleeping with him, weekends away, hols, eating out. If he really said the things she claims he said about murdering his family surely she must have had an inkling from day 1 especially given that she ended up as chief prosecution witness? So why wait until JB ended the relationship to 'come clean'. Her WS of 8th Aug completley contradicts those thereafter.
I respect your views and those of others who see JM as a credible witness but I absolutely do not.
-
What was her motivation for making the entire thing up (including some details which to me seem too specific for someone to have invented)?
Also Holly, have you read the police interviews with Jeremy? Do you think he comes across as a genuinely innocent person? Compare and contrast his numerous "no comment" responses to Matthew MacDonald's police interviews (a genuinely innocent man) who is eager to answer every question to rebut accusations that he was involved in the murders. Don't you think Jeremy refused to answer certain questions because the answers to these questions would incriminate him? What other possible reasons could there have been to be evasive when helping the police with their inquries?
I don't believe you have addressed the following point before either. It is a fact that during the trial the prosecution alleged to Jeremy that he was lying. How would you expect an innocent man to respond during a murder trial to such a slur? A simple statement that he was telling the truth? A furious rebuttal saying how dare you accuse me of lying? Or "that is what you have to establish"? The fact is, no innocent man accused of murder would ever respond to an allegation that they were lying in a court of law with such a statement.
-
I'm afraid John I can't accept JM as being a reliable witness. Any 'normal' woman would surely have dumped a boyfriend who discussed outline plans to murder his family? I can understand a boyfriend saying something like 'I could murder my family for committing me to xyz; I wanted to watch the football/rugby/cricket final' but anything more than this and I would be out the door quicker than a rat up a drain pipe. JM claims she was on occasion so distressed by his verbal plans that she became tearful. I can't buy into this idea that JB had some sort of mystical hold over her. JM was not an unattractive woman and she had a bright future ahead of her with or without JB. She was a well educated woman with a promising career to look forward to in the teaching profession. She did not need JB as a meal ticket. She was not a vulnerable young woman in this regard. I think she was used and abused by EP. I would like to know if she received any independent legal advice and where was her birth father or step-father during the trial? We only see pics of her mother accompanying her to court.
On the Sat before the murders she put the twins to bed at Colin's. This incl a bedtime story. She then identified them at the morgue on the following Thursday. She then continued an intimate relationship with JB: sleeping with him, weekends away, hols, eating out. If he really said the things she claims he said about murdering his family surely she must have had an inkling from day 1 especially given that she ended up as chief prosecution witness? So why wait until JB ended the relationship to 'come clean'. Her WS of 8th Aug completley contradicts those thereafter.
I respect your views and those of others who see JM as a credible witness but I absolutely do not.
Whether he ended it or she did is unclear. She suggests that a combination of his lack of commitment as well as the killings weighed on her and convinced her to end the relationship.
In any event it is common for people to tell the truth about things that boyfriends/spouses did while together as a couple. While a couple there is a natural desire to protect them and not reveal bad things they did because it could result in the relationship ending which why spusal immunity was created and stilll exists in some jurisdictions. You can't be forced to testify against your will against a spouse because it can harm your relationship and would chill candor between spuses if such could be forced.
Far from the ending making it unreliable that fits when people usually come clean and the timing alone is not able to render the claims unreliable.
The nature of the claims including the level of detail matters. The level of detail was tremendous and would have taken many hours if not days to make up. Someone making it up who knew he had no alibi woudl simply have claimed he confessed to doing it himself not make up a hitman story let alone ID a supposed hitman who could be rapidly cleared and thus ruin lies that took days to make up about when he said he wanted to kill his family.
The fact that Sheila could not have killed herself and was framed adds corroboration to the account as does AE stating Jeremy told her he would soon own his parents' share.
-
What was her motivation for making the entire thing up (including some details which to me seem too specific for someone to have invented)?
Also Holly, have you read the police interviews with Jeremy? Do you think he comes across as a genuinely innocent person? Compare and contrast his numerous "no comment" responses to Matthew MacDonald's police interviews (a genuinely innocent man) who is eager to answer every question to rebut accusations that he was involved in the murders. Don't you think Jeremy refused to answer certain questions because the answers to these questions would incriminate him? What other possible reasons could there have been to be evasive when helping the police with their inquries?
I don't believe you have addressed the following point before either. It is a fact that during the trial the prosecution alleged to Jeremy that he was lying. How would you expect an innocent man to respond during a murder trial to such a slur? A simple statement that he was telling the truth? A furious rebuttal saying how dare you accuse me of lying? Or "that is what you have to establish"? The fact is, no innocent man accused of murder would ever respond to an allegation that they were lying in a court of law with such a statement.
Hello Goatboy long time no see 8**8:/:
I think EP knew the case against JB was weak. The silencer added weight for sure but they needed something jury friendly and I believe they found this in JM's testimony. Although JM was far from perfect with her somewhat dodgy background she was unlikely to have had any previous dealings with the police. So holed up in the 'safe' house arranged by DS Jones I believe she was putty in their hands. All verbal communication should be recroded and a solicitor present throughout. I don't believe this happened? It could be argued her motivation to 'cooperate' was not being charged as an accessory to murder and/or perverting the course of justice. The other bits were a bonus ie immunity against a criminal record for cheque book fraud allowing her to pursue her chosen career in the teaching profession and a newspaper deal with NoW to sell her STORY for 25k.
Yes I have read all JB's police interviews. MM's too. JB's style/attitude in latter interviews was different from the initial one. If he is innocent how awful to be interviewed so aggressively about murdering his family when coming to terms with the loss and grieving. We now know that 1980's police interviews achieved many false confessions from police wrongdoing eg those charged with IRA terror offences, Stefan Kizsko, Stephen Downing and I am sure many more. NB had a low opinion of the police likening them to Dads Army. If JB was familiar with NB criticising EP perhaps this shaped his attitude to them:
According to RB's wit stats he states "he (NB) commented that if they were like the police at Witham they were no more good than Dad's Army":
(bottom of 1st, top of 2nd)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=513.0;attach=1651
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=513.0;attach=1652
(Incidentally the above is the reason I believe NB phone JB and not EP)
I personally don't think anything can be read into "that's what you've got to establish". It could mean anything: bemused as he knew he was innocent, nerves, embarrassment. As an adopted person if I was on trial for murdering my immediate adoptive family and my extended adoptive family turned against me me I think this would weigh heavily on my mind. I would be thinking they think I am capable of doing this because I am not their birth daughter. And had I have been born to this family they would not be treating me like this. I would be thinking that the whole world and his dog were thinking the same: jury, judiciary, media etc, etc. Yes I would feel very uncomfortable. Its alright for others to dismiss this who haven't been adopted but I fail to see how any adoptee would not think something along these lines. Very few actually murder to fast forward an inheritance and imo the only reason it is believed JB could is that he was not the flesh and blood of NB, June, SC and the twins.
-
Hello Goatboy long time no see 8**8:/:
I think EP knew the case against JB was weak. The silencer added weight for sure but they needed something jury friendly and I believe they found this in JM's testimony. Although JM was far from perfect with her somewhat dodgy background she was unlikely to have had any previous dealings with the police. So holed up in the 'safe' house arranged by DS Jones I believe she was putty in their hands. All verbal communication should be recroded and a solicitor present throughout. I don't believe this happened? It could be argued her motivation to 'cooperate' was not being charged as an accessory to murder and/or perverting the course of justice. The other bits were a bonus ie immunity against a criminal record for cheque book fraud allowing her to pursue her chosen career in the teaching profession and a newspaper deal with NoW to sell her STORY for 25k.
Yes I have read all JB's police interviews. MM's too. JB's style/attitude in latter interviews was different from the initial one. If he is innocent how awful to be interviewed so aggressively about murdering his family when coming to terms with the loss and grieving. We now know that 1980's police interviews achieved many false confessions from police wrongdoing eg those charged with IRA terror offences, Stefan Kizsko, Stephen Downing and I am sure many more. NB had a low opinion of the police likening them to Dads Army. If JB was familiar with NB criticising EP perhaps this shaped his attitude to them:
According to RB's wit stats he states "he (NB) commented that if they were like the police at Witham they were no more good than Dad's Army":
(bottom of 1st, top of 2nd)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=513.0;attach=1651
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=513.0;attach=1652
(Incidentally the above is the reason I believe NB phone JB and not EP)
I personally don't think anything can be read into "that's what you've got to establish". It could mean anything: bemused as he knew he was innocent, nerves, embarrassment. As an adopted person if I was on trial for murdering my immediate adoptive family and my extended adoptive family turned against me me I think this would weigh heavily on my mind. I would be thinking they think I am capable of doing this because I am not their birth daughter. And had I have been born to this family they would not be treating me like this. I would be thinking that the whole world and his dog were thinking the same: jury, judiciary, media etc, etc. Yes I would feel very uncomfortable. Its alright for others to dismiss this who haven't been adopted but I fail to see how any adoptee would not think something along these lines. Very few actually murder to fast forward an inheritance and imo the only reason it is believed JB could is that he was not the flesh and blood of NB, June, SC and the twins.
You completely avoided the issue at hand as usual. The question was why Julie would take the time to make up such detailed lies and the chance of such happening.
You call the case weak simply because you refuse to face Jeremy is guilty. The public at large and the Appeal courts do not consider it weak or even close. The concensus is that he is guilty because the case against him was strong.
You live in a world of denail merely, but living in a world of denial simply means you don't face things tha tothers do not that you are correct.
-
Hello Goatboy long time no see 8**8:/:
I think EP knew the case against JB was weak. The silencer added weight for sure but they needed something jury friendly and I believe they found this in JM's testimony. Although JM was far from perfect with her somewhat dodgy background she was unlikely to have had any previous dealings with the police. So holed up in the 'safe' house arranged by DS Jones I believe she was putty in their hands. All verbal communication should be recroded and a solicitor present throughout. I don't believe this happened? It could be argued her motivation to 'cooperate' was not being charged as an accessory to murder and/or perverting the course of justice. The other bits were a bonus ie immunity against a criminal record for cheque book fraud allowing her to pursue her chosen career in the teaching profession and a newspaper deal with NoW to sell her STORY for 25k.
Yes I have read all JB's police interviews. MM's too. JB's style/attitude in latter interviews was different from the initial one. If he is innocent how awful to be interviewed so aggressively about murdering his family when coming to terms with the loss and grieving. We now know that 1980's police interviews achieved many false confessions from police wrongdoing eg those charged with IRA terror offences, Stefan Kizsko, Stephen Downing and I am sure many more. NB had a low opinion of the police likening them to Dads Army. If JB was familiar with NB criticising EP perhaps this shaped his attitude to them:
According to RB's wit stats he states "he (NB) commented that if they were like the police at Witham they were no more good than Dad's Army":
(bottom of 1st, top of 2nd)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=513.0;attach=1651
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=513.0;attach=1652
(Incidentally the above is the reason I believe NB phone JB and not EP)
I personally don't think anything can be read into "that's what you've got to establish". It could mean anything: bemused as he knew he was innocent, nerves, embarrassment. As an adopted person if I was on trial for murdering my immediate adoptive family and my extended adoptive family turned against me me I think this would weigh heavily on my mind. I would be thinking they think I am capable of doing this because I am not their birth daughter. And had I have been born to this family they would not be treating me like this. I would be thinking that the whole world and his dog were thinking the same: jury, judiciary, media etc, etc. Yes I would feel very uncomfortable. Its alright for others to dismiss this who haven't been adopted but I fail to see how any adoptee would not think something along these lines. Very few actually murder to fast forward an inheritance and imo the only reason it is believed JB could is that he was not the flesh and blood of NB, June, SC and the twins.
Well, thanks for answering that question but I'm fascinated that you pursue such red herrings as the issue of Sheila's adoption but see nothing in Jeremy's "that is what you have to establish" comment. No innocent person in a court of law accused of a crime they genuinely did not commit would answer the question in that way. Absolutely not. Not even if they were nervous (and by all accounts he showed little or no nerves at any time during the trial).
-
You completely avoided the issue at hand as usual. The question was why Julie would take the time to make up such detailed lies and the chance of such happening.
You call the case weak simply because you refuse to face Jeremy is guilty. The public at large and the Appeal courts do not consider it weak or even close. The concensus is that he is guilty because the case against him was strong.
You live in a world of denail merely, but living in a world of denial simply means you don't face things tha tothers do not that you are correct.
I have explained numerous times that I find JM a totally unreliable prosecution witness and I have stated my reasons why.
The public are largely ignorant of the full facts surrounding the WHF case. The judiciary/appeal courts have a long track record of calling it wrong: Sally Clark, Stephen Downing, Stefan Kiszko, Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, Maguire Seven to name but a few high profile cases.
The Stefan Kiszko case illustrates both of the above perfectly. Four young female prosecution witnesses lied and the CoA upheld the conviction. It has all the hallmarks of what I consider is JB's MoJ: poor defence, unreliable prosecution witnesses and conviction upheld at appeal.
-
Well, thanks for answering that question but I'm fascinated that you pursue such red herrings as the issue of Sheila's adoption but see nothing in Jeremy's "that is what you have to establish" comment. No innocent person in a court of law accused of a crime they genuinely did not commit would answer the question in that way. Absolutely not. Not even if they were nervous (and by all accounts he showed little or no nerves at any time during the trial).
Hello Goatboy. Hope you have nice sunny weather where you are. Its lovely here in Herts.
I personally don't think anything can be read into JB saying "That is what you have to establish" during his trial. There's no evidence showing that JB was skilled in public speaking or had any sort of training in presentation skills so I would imagine he felt quite nervous taking centre stage. Although I accept that many perceive it as an odd statement to make including JB's junior qc at trial the late Edmund Lawson.
David Woods, Former Chief Reporter at the Evening Gazette Colchester, who attended every day of the trial stated the following in the 'Crimes that shook Britain' programme:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-OlvzCVrmc
28.40
"It was like nothing I've ever experienced there was a buzz you could feel it in your stomach you know the court was packed, packed with journalists, packed with spectators it was probably the most memorable day of my journalistic career".
27.18
"The big moment was when he came into court. My recollection is of him standing there being very polite, very attentive, not humble but trying to portray this image of someone who is quiet nice, charming , decent fella".
27.50
"He didn't show much emotion at times he seemed a little bit amused by the proceedings I suspect he thought he was really going to get off".
In addition to the above a docu aired on a French tv channel states the following:
(Copied from Blue. Link provided by HMEssex . Translation by Abs/Google - Well done girls 8((()*/ 8@??)()
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1167.msg35992.html?PHPSESSID=e98830efa9b0ea5e0193baf2f2c60a85#msg35992
JB becomes emotional in court when a letter is read to the court from June
October 11, was read into the room of the foundations of a letter from June Bamber, on which were inscribed the words "Not to be opened before my death":
"My darlings. If something were to happen to me and I leave you, I write these words to tell you I love you and thank you for everything you gave me. Everything I'm asking is that God loves you and protects you throughout the years to come, and we can be together one day, my darlings. eternal love. Mom. "
In the dock, Jeremy burst into tears.
Excerpts of JB's testimony at trial
October 16, Bamber spoke in turn. His lawyer called one after the other five victims of the massacre of the White House, before asking if he had killed Bamber.
For each question, Bamber made the same answer, delivered in a soft voice: "No". He drank frequent sips of water, and the beginning of his testimony the judge had to ask repeatedly to speak up.
Bamber said that relationships of love bound him to his parents.
He then had to face the direct testimony of his uncle, Robert Boutflour and that of his former girlfriend Julie Mugford. Bamber went on the offensive without hesitation, saying they both perjuring.
"There are only two people who lie, I think," says Bamber. "Julie, it is especially telling stories, and Robert Boutflour, which can not be fooled."
The arrogance of Bamber broke lorsqu'Arlidge, representing the prosecution, said simply: "You do not tell the truth."
"This is what you need to establish," said Bamber.
Deny, deny always
Arlidge continued: "You killed the first four people with quiet, is not it?"
"That's not true," said Bamber.
"So you killed the muffler with Sheila?"
"Wrong."
"When you have staged the" suicide ", you realized that he had not been possible to kill with the silencer?"
"Wrong."
"At this time you change your plans and down the silent res floor?"
"No, that's not it."
"You've killed them all, is not it?"
"No, no."
Bamber was found to safer ground when he spoke of his sister, referring to his depression and religious delusions.
"She wanted to be with God," he told the court. "She wanted to go to Paradise. She wanted to take people with her, she wanted to save the world."
Bamber said his sister was much more harsh with their children than had been said - "but we in the family, we never talked about it with others." The ordeal ended after eight to Bamber hours on the witness stand. His lawyer stood up to speak for the last time the jurors
-
Isn't nice to read a pro/anti guilty debate without personal enmity!
If this was on Blue, Tesko would have told everyone to feck off by now. Clappy would have posted some 'poor Jeremy' nonsense and Nugnug would be nipping at heels ..... assuming you could understand what he was saying! And Gladys would be straight in there with a 'witty' one liner further establishing his (imagined) legendary insightfulness!
Anyway! It's difficult to judge peoples' behaviour from third party reports ... it's a shame there are no complete trial transcripts. Julie by all accounts was a highly believable witness and Bamber not or he would have convinced more than two jurors to acquit him.
Bamber came so close to getting away with murder!
-
I have explained numerous times that I find JM a totally unreliable prosecution witness and I have stated my reasons why.
The public are largely ignorant of the full facts surrounding the WHF case. The judiciary/appeal courts have a long track record of calling it wrong: Sally Clark, Stephen Downing, Stefan Kiszko, Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, Maguire Seven to name but a few high profile cases.
The Stefan Kiszko case illustrates both of the above perfectly. Four young female prosecution witnesses lied and the CoA upheld the conviction. It has all the hallmarks of what I consider is JB's MoJ: poor defence, unreliable prosecution witnesses and conviction upheld at appeal.
Your reasoning for your opinion is not valid though.
You have a right to stupid unsupported opinions but that doesn't render them vlaid.
Instead of evaluating her claims by looking at the claims and whether such claims are credible or not you go off on tangents about other cases of wrongdoing tha thave no bearing at all on the matter.
If she wer egoing to lie she would make up a different story.
If she were going to lie she would not make up a tale that is extremely invovled and extremely detailed.
The whole reason lies in other cases are known to be lies is because they fell apart and were not corroborated.
You completely ignore the proper inquiry for evaluating veracity of claims.
I don't care if you want to believe nonsense but don't try telling me the ridiculous reasoining you give means you are correct, you have revealed that you are the one living a fools paradise not those you erronously call ignorant.
-
Oi Scipio be a tad less aggressive with Holly if you please .... she is one of the decent Bamberettes and is entitled to her opinion. I don't agree with her reasoning either but wouldn't call her arguments 'invalid and stupid' .... she is patently not stupid and validity is pretty much a matter of opinion!
Stupid and invalid, not to mention perverse and disgusting, is the M.O. of Tesco's forum!
When there is a lack of support for one's claims then they ar einvalid.
The reasoning she provides for why Julie is not telling the are as irrational as anything posted by other Bamber supporters.
-
When there is a lack of support for one's claims then they ar einvalid.
The reasoning she provides for why Julie is not telling the are as irrational as anything posted by other Bamber supporters.
Scipio I can't see JM as anything other than a TOTALLY unreliable prosecution witness. Her statement of 8th August contradicts her statements of 8th September. At the time of providing her 8th August statement, according to her, JB had already told her MM had carried out the murders. Whether you believe her earlier statement or the later ones either way she is a proven liar.
JM's Statement 8th August 1985:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=282.0;attach=1010
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=282.0;attach=1012
JM's statement 8th September 1985:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1112
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1114
Her later statements are lengthy. This does not make them factual. (Incidentally the same applies to your posts). It is only usually possible to determine whether WS's are truthful when they are put under scrutiny by say being cross-examined in a court of law. Unfortunately Geoffrey Rivlin QC had great difficulty carrying out this task as she kept breaking down in tears. No tears when she left the morgue having identified the victims. No tears at the funerals. Lots of tears when she was cross examined >@@(*&) I have some sympathy for her as I think she was used and abused by EP. There's no evidence she received any independent legal advice.
The dates in her earlier statement are all wrong too:
http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/?year=1985&country=9
Scipio I am not going round in circles with you. I've given what imo are sound reasons for writing off JM as a totally unreliable prosecution witness. If you think that makes me stupid, in need of a shrink, incapable of logic and reason etc, etc then so be it.
-
It's ridiculous to suggest a naive young girl would perjure herself in a High Court multiple murder trial to frame her ex-boyfriend because (according to Bamber) he dumped her! I suggest no one would be that cruel and Julie's very detailed story would never have stood up to cross examination if it was a pack of lies!
Imo Julie would never have 'invented' the third party Bamber told her he had paid to commit the murders if she was making it up.
And very importantly, Julie had told her friend what Bamber had told her in the week before the final bust up of their relationship.
Does anyone really believe Stan Jones would have risked not only his own career but going to prison himself by coaching a young girl to lie in Crown Court to convict an innocent man? Why on earth would DS Jones want to risk that to convict an innocent man and, even if he did, he would never trust a young girl's lies to hold up in a high pressure court case!
If Bamber's story is true and he did get an urgent call from his Dad at 3.20am then why on God's good earth would he call Julie 60 miles away in London before calling the police and rushing to his father's aid? Then again if Bamber was just returning from murdering his family I can quite understand him wanting to hear a friendly voice before calling the police and lighting the blue touch paper!
Of course Bamber didn't call 999 urgently did he! He looked up the local police's direct number! And he didn't rush to WHF to help his family in supposed mortal danger did he? Police driving from much further away overtook him en route!
And to top it all, the phone call to Julie took place 20 minutes or more BEFORE Bamber said he was woken up by his dad's frantic call! Not only did Julie testify to that but so did her flatmates who were woken up by Bamber's call!
Come on Holly stop being sooooo stubborn! Every fact known in the case screams Bamber is guilty beyond any doubt .... I would call the evidence against him 'compelling' .... just as you did very recently!
-
Scipio I can't see JM as anything other than a TOTALLY unreliable prosecution witness. Her statement of 8th August contradicts her statements of 8th September. At the time of providing her 8th August statement, according to her, JB had already told her MM had carried out the murders. Whether you believe her earlier statement or the later ones either way she is a proven liar.
JM's Statement 8th August 1985:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=282.0;attach=1010
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=282.0;attach=1012
JM's statement 8th September 1985:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1112
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1114
Her later statements are lengthy. This does not make them factual. (Incidentally the same applies to your posts). It is only usually possible to determine whether WS's are truthful when they are put under scrutiny by say being cross-examined in a court of law. Unfortunately Geoffrey Rivlin QC had great difficulty carrying out this task as she kept breaking down in tears. No tears when she left the morgue having identified the victims. No tears at the funerals. Lots of tears when she was cross examined >@@(*&) I have some sympathy for her as I think she was used and abused by EP. There's no evidence she received any independent legal advice.
The dates in her earlier statement are all wrong too:
http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/?year=1985&country=9
Scipio I am not going round in circles with you. I've given what imo are sound reasons for writing off JM as a totally unreliable prosecution witness. If you think that makes me stupid, in need of a shrink, incapable of logic and reason etc, etc then so be it.
I have been through all her statements Holly and I don't recall having seen any date errors, maybe you can elaborate on your claim please.
As for Julie's reliability as a witness, nobody was ever able to challenge any of her evidence whether it was about Osea Caravan Park, the telephone call to the flat or anything else. Jeremy was shown up for what he was, a scoundrel who delighted in bringing turmoil to the family by trashing the caravan park office and stealing £980 in cash and that after everything Nevill and June had done for him. Clearly the loving son act was purely a charade.
-
I have been through all her statements Holly and I don't recall having seen any date errors, maybe you can elaborate on your claim please.
As for Julie's reliability as a witness, nobody was ever able to challenge any of her evidence whether it was about Osea Caravan Park, the telephone call to the flat or anything else. Jeremy was shown up for what he was, a scoundrel who delighted in bringing turmoil to the family by trashing the caravan park office and stealing £980 in cash and that after everything Nevill and June had done for him. Clearly the loving son act was purely a charade.
Even though Julie voluntarily admitted cheque fraud, low level drug dealing for Jeremy and being party to the Osea burglary she only 'came clean' to then commit a far more serious crime of perjury in a Crown Court murder trial! This career teacher is obviously a master manipulator with a vicious streak and has no conscience!
Just like Robert, Ann, David, Colin etc. are a bunch of lying, greedy thieves again with no conscience willing to risk serious criminal charges to frame an innocent family member who they know just lost his mum, dad, sister and nephews to murder/suicide!
Just like Stan Jones, Bewes and half of Essex Police are all bent corrupt coppers willing to risk their careers and lengthy prison sentences for perjury and perverting the course of justice to frame an innocent man for the worst possible crime!
Many Bamberettes believe these coppers are also murderers too who knocked off their boss Taff Jones for not going along with their dastardly plan! I haven't quite established why all these coppers would take such personal risks!
Obviously many others including Julie's flatmates, the SOCO officers, the armed police response team, the trial judge, the forensic laboratory scientists, the COLP, the CCRC, the Appeal Court judges, Dr. Ferguson, Barbara Wilson, Brett Collins, various Fleet Street journalists and most of the trial jury are complicit in the frame up to various degrees!
This must be one of the worst miscarriages of justice in criminal history involving over a 100 miscreants with no conscience whatsoever and with no fear of losing their careers and/or reputations and/or their liberty!
Either this is all true or Jetemy Bamber is a murdering sociopath!
Errrrmmmm .... that's a tough one, isn't it? 8-)(--)
-
I have been through all her statements Holly and I don't recall having seen any date errors, maybe you can elaborate on your claim please.
As for Julie's reliability as a witness, nobody was ever able to challenge any of her evidence whether it was about Osea Caravan Park, the telephone call to the flat or anything else. Jeremy was shown up for what he was, a scoundrel who delighted in bringing turmoil to the family by trashing the caravan park office and stealing £980 in cash and that after everything Nevill and June had done for him. Clearly the loving son act was purely a charade.
The error seems pretty innocent but it does show how if she got the dates wrong she could just as easily be mistaken by the timing of the phone calls. I continue to maintain that in the absence of digital/satellite technology it is all hopelessly unreliable with students dead to the world and clocks running fast/slow for an extra 10 mins kip etc.
I haven't seen any evidence of any challenge to JM's testimony. I understand the only time this happened was at trial by Geoffrey Rivlin QC but I don't believe any transcript exists so I wouldn't like to comment on whether or not it was capable of standing up to scrutiny. I believe GR asked the jury to consider whether they were dealing with a consummate actor or actress. Unfortunately we don't know what weight the jury gave to her testimony. As far as I can see from the jury's deliberations and request for further direction from the judge it appears the emphasis was on the silencer evidence 8-)(--)
Her WS of 8th August makes reference to "Friday 1st August" when in fact it should be Friday 2nd August. She continues with this train of dates ie Saturday 2nd August etc, etc.
-
The error seems pretty innocent but it does show how if she got the dates wrong she could just as easily be mistaken by the timing of the phone calls. I continue to maintain that in the absence of digital/satellite technology it is all hopelessly unreliable with students dead to the world and clocks running fast/slow for an extra 10 mins kip etc.
I haven't seen any evidence of any challenge to JM's testimony. I understand the only time this happened was at trial by Geoffrey Rivlin QC but I don't believe any transcript exists so I wouldn't like to comment on whether or not it was capable of standing up to scrutiny. I believe GR asked the jury to consider whether they were dealing with a consummate actor or actress. Unfortunately we don't know what weight the jury gave to her testimony. As far as I can see from the jury's deliberations and request for further direction from the judge it appears the emphasis was on the silencer evidence 8-)(--)
Her WS of 8th August makes reference to "Friday 1st August" when in fact it should be Friday 2nd August. She continues with this train of dates ie Saturday 2nd August etc, etc.
But it wasn't just Julie giving the time of Jeremy's call ... 2 other housemates gave sworn statements it was 20 minutes plus before Bamber said his father called him and he called the police! This is just one more damning piece of evidence against Bamber!
We know for a fact JB did call JM around that time! It makes no sense to me for Bamber to call Julie after the frantic call from his father needing help. But it makes perfect sense to me that Bamber would call her upon his return from his murder spree.
My guess is JB needed a friendly voice and support after the killings and to warn her that the sh1t was about to hit the fan! Perhaps too to stop her leaving the flat that morning as he wanted her with him and a few hours later she was indeed driven to Goldhanger by the police at Bamber's request!
Bamber's 'story' is incredulous to me and has nothing to support it whereas Julie's story makes perfect sense and has independent witness support!
-
Even though Julie voluntarily admitted cheque fraud, low level drug dealing for Jeremy and being party to the Osea burglary she only 'came clean' to then commit a far more serious crime of perjury in a Crown Court murder trial! This career teacher is obviously a master manipulator with a vicious streak and has no conscience!
Just like Robert, Ann, David, Colin etc. are a bunch of lying, greedy thieves again with no conscience willing to risk serious criminal charges to frame an innocent family member who they know just lost his mum, dad, sister and nephews to murder/suicide!
Just like Stan Jones, Bewes and half of Essex Police are all bent corrupt coppers willing to risk their careers and lengthy prison sentences for perjury and perverting the course of justice to frame an innocent man for the worst possible crime!
Many Bamberettes believe these coppers are also murderers too who knocked off their boss Taff Jones for not going along with their dastardly plan! I haven't quite established why all these coppers would take such personal risks!
Obviously many others including Julie's flatmates, the SOCO officers, the armed police response team, the trial judge, the forensic laboratory scientists, the COLP, the CCRC, the Appeal Court judges, Dr. Ferguson, Barbara Wilson, Brett Collins, various Fleet Street journalists and most of the trial jury are complicit in the frame up to various degrees!
This must be one of the worst miscarriages of justice in criminal history involving over a 100 miscreants with no conscience whatsoever and with no fear of losing their careers and/or reputations and/or their liberty!
Either this is all true or Jetemy Bamber is a murdering sociopath!
Errrrmmmm .... that's a tough one, isn't it? 8-)(--)
What you have described above are features of a MoJ:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2001/life_of_crime/miscarriages.stm
"A miscarriage of justice can result from non-disclosure of evidence by police or prosecution, fabrication of evidence, poor identification, overestimation of the evidential value of expert testimony, unreliable confessions due to police pressure or psychological instability and misdirection by a judge during trial"
http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/other_material/law_and_justice/4_miscarriages.htm
"How do miscarriages of justice occur?
• Deliberate fabrication of evidence
• Human error, mistake, both police and lay witnesses may prove to be unreliable when attempting to identify an offender.
• Scientific evidence unreliable. This can occur because of incompetent scientists or genuine error. Expert evidence may not have been properly researched or there may have been a deliberate attempt to undermine the system by giving false evidence. In R v Dallager (2002), ear print identification was wrong.
• Jury problems. The evidential value of expert testimony can be overestimated. If there is a conflict of evidence, there is no way of ensuring the jury will always get it right. No human system can expect to be perfect.
• Unreliable confessions, as a result of police pressure or mental instability
• Non-disclosure of relevant evidence to the defence
• The conduct of the trial, particularly the judges summing up, this was dramatically demonstrated in R v Bentley.
• Jury and magistrates can be prejudice. The accused may be viewed in a prejudicial manner because be is of a different race, or other reasons,
• There are problems with the appeal process; there are limited grounds for appeal
• Institutions are inadequate. State agencies fail to protect or vindicate rights, or laws, which are inherently contradictory to the concept of individual rights"
-
I am not sure if you're just stubborn or it's a feature of your OCD Holly, but there must be a reason a smart bird like you refuses to see the wood for the trees! The mountain of evidence against Bamber is so compelling !
-
What you have described above are features of a MoJ:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2001/life_of_crime/miscarriages.stm
"A miscarriage of justice can result from non-disclosure of evidence by police or prosecution, fabrication of evidence, poor identification, overestimation of the evidential value of expert testimony, unreliable confessions due to police pressure or psychological instability and misdirection by a judge during trial"
http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/other_material/law_and_justice/4_miscarriages.htm
"How do miscarriages of justice occur?
• Deliberate fabrication of evidence
• Human error, mistake, both police and lay witnesses may prove to be unreliable when attempting to identify an offender.
• Scientific evidence unreliable. This can occur because of incompetent scientists or genuine error. Expert evidence may not have been properly researched or there may have been a deliberate attempt to undermine the system by giving false evidence. In R v Dallager (2002), ear print identification was wrong.
• Jury problems. The evidential value of expert testimony can be overestimated. If there is a conflict of evidence, there is no way of ensuring the jury will always get it right. No human system can expect to be perfect.
• Unreliable confessions, as a result of police pressure or mental instability
• Non-disclosure of relevant evidence to the defence
• The conduct of the trial, particularly the judges summing up, this was dramatically demonstrated in R v Bentley.
• Jury and magistrates can be prejudice. The accused may be viewed in a prejudicial manner because be is of a different race, or other reasons,
• There are problems with the appeal process; there are limited grounds for appeal
• Institutions are inadequate. State agencies fail to protect or vindicate rights, or laws, which are inherently contradictory to the concept of individual rights"
You ignore that in known MOJ cases the aforementioned were proven. You make unsubstantiated allegations merely.
You claim evidence is unreliable but failed miserably at demonstrating it. When challenged for proof you say you have the right to believe anything you desire so need no proof.
Anytime push comes to shove you run for cover claiming you have the right to believe as you like.
You have articulated no valid basis for your suppoes beliefs and at the end decided you will take leaps of faith for Jeremy merely.
So there is no eivdence of an MOJ here you just choose to believe there was.
-
The following has recently been posted by Jane J on the Blue forum:
"So you don't find it odd, that having whittered on about the relatives -at one point, I believe, taking them to court- he has never ONCE said anything regarding Julie's part, equally damning, in getting him convicted. One HAS to ask why he hasn't screamed her betrayal from the roof-tops. Could this be:-
A) He's being chivalrous
B) There's no money involved
C) She's got him by the short and curlies and the moment he starts talking about what may have been her part in what happened, he risks dropping himself in it big time."
Jane J if you happen to read this forum may I point you in the direction of JB's 'official' website where I think you will find much evidence of JB condemning JM for her part in his conviction.
-
It seems Jackie Preece has a big problem with Julie Mugford or Julie Smerchanski as she now is. She squawks on the Bamber forum...
Evil vile witch as 'she knew them very well if Jeremy was allegedly the murderer who had supposedly confessed to him
I wonder if she thought of those twins bodies in the mortuary when she was @@@@ing Jeremy.
Or was it all a figment of her imagination?
Either way she doesnt deserve to be on this planet
I wonder if she thought of those beautiful innocent twins when she was downing champagne with her mother courtesy of NOTW
If Jeremy is proven innocent I will make sure the whole of Canada knows all about her
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,958.msg49891.html#msg49891
-
What are people's views on Julie Mugford? I lurch between she must have been terrified to breathe a word... if he can wipe out his own parents, sister and his two little nephews, what more is he capable of? etc. However, then she accompanies him on his little 'trips' and to the funeral. Wouldn't any sane rational person ave run a bl**dy mile? or 500 miles! Don't get me wrong, she bravely took the stand and gave a creditable account, but still it all feels quite strange. She was very young and besotted by a man, but she was also an intelligent woman. I am certain the jury would have thought about this, and they still found him guilty, so it isn't for me a dealbreaker, but I have always wondered.
Julie Mugford was involved with an extremely dangerous and highly disordered man. IMO, leading up to and following the murders she would not have been able to see the wood through the trees due to Jeremy Bamber's pathological mind games and all that comes with these types of relationships. I speak from my own experiences.
I'm sure with hindsight she'd wished she'd have run a bloody mile but she was under Bamber's spell, also referred to as the psychopathic bond. http://psychopathsandlove.com/stages-of-the-psychopathic-relationship/
And as I've pointed out before, Julie would have had a trauma bond with Bamber https://victimsofpsychopaths.wordpress.com/stockholm-syndrome/
"Pathological mind games. Covert and overt put-downs. Triangulation. Gaslighting. Projection. These are the manipulative tactics survivors of malignant narcissists are unfortunately all too familiar with. As victims of silent crimes where the perpetrators are rarely held accountable, survivors of narcissistic abuse have lived in a war zone of epic proportions, enduring an abuse cycle of love-bombing and devaluation—psychological violence on steroids." quote by Shahida Arabi a Narcissitic abuse expert
Narcissistic Abuse Syndrome is a condition that’s triggered by being in a warzone with a Narcisisstic personality in command (or multiple ones). "Unlike physical abuse where a single strike or blow, often leaves marks or bruises and qualifies an act of domestic violence, narcissistic abuse is invisible. Narcissistic abuse is the sum of many unseen injuries. It’s an indiscernible assault on the spirit, identity, and the psyche of the victim. The impact is cumulative, and its full effect isn't felt until the damage is extensive. Although bruises and broken bones heal much faster than a broken spirit, narcissistic abuse tends to go unnoticed because there aren’t any laws prohibiting mind games, browbeating, or name calling." http://narcissisticvictimsyndrome.com
NAS often develops as the result of psychological and emotional abuse, spiritual abuse, gaslighting, baiting and bashing, belittiling, hidden abuse, shaming, projection, smear campaigns, a false narrative, threats, distortion of conversations, circular conversations, word salad games, exploitative games, refusal to ever have a normal conversation, diversion and false accusations, omition of facts for the benefit of one person and the destruction of another. It is a type of PTSD. It often causes victims to feel defenseless and beaten down.
"When the victim has been romantically targeted by a psychopath, others may sincerely try to empathize with the victim, but as experts point out, most people really can’t understand what the victim has been through in a relationship with a psychopath unless they have been the victim of a psychopath themselves. The depth and level of the mind f*ck of a without conscience psychopath is really indescribable. Sandra L Brown
Thankfully Essex police recognised this!
-
What are people's views on Julie Mugford? I lurch between she must have been terrified to breathe a word... if he can wipe out his own parents, sister and his two little nephews, what more is he capable of? etc. However, then she accompanies him on his little 'trips' and to the funeral. Wouldn't any sane rational person ave run a bl**dy mile? or 500 miles! Don't get me wrong, she bravely took the stand and gave a creditable account, but still it all feels quite strange. She was very young and besotted by a man, but she was also an intelligent woman. I am certain the jury would have thought about this, and they still found him guilty, so it isn't for me a dealbreaker, but I have always wondered.
With reference to Julie Mugford, I should add,
"Survivors also ‘bond’ with their abusers through intense, traumatic experiences, which makes them likely to protect their abusers due to their own sense of cognitive dissonance about the abuser’s true self. They are conflicted due to the nature of the trauma, the dependence they developed as an effort to survive, as well as the fear of retaliation from their often more powerful partners. As a result, by the time survivors speak their truth, society may doubt their credibility.
http://www.shaktiyogijournal.com/how-society-enables-malignant-narcissists-and-gaslights-their-victims/
-
The Guardian, Thursday 29 March 2012
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/29/jeremy-bamber-appeal-evidence-itv
Who was Bamber’s solicitor at this time ?
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/29/jeremy-bamber-appeal-evidence-itv
Who was Bamber’s solicitor at this time ?
The above article was written by Eric Allison and published on the 29th March 2012
The following was published on 7th May 2012 https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/07/jeremy-bamber-lawyers-challenge-refusal-appeal
The names of Bamber’s legal team again appear to be anonymous ?
The byline of the article reads,
‘Criminal Cases Review Commission acted 'unlawfully and overstepped its powers' say lawyers for the convicted murderer’
‘In a letter of claim to the CCRC, seen by the Guardian, Bamber's lawyers describe this reference as a "gross misrepresentation of the nature and content of the submissions". They say the commission should not dismiss expert evidence without calling for expert opinion countering it. They accuse the CCRC of "advancing expert opinion which, in the absence of the relevant expertise, it is not equipped to do".
The lawyers say the basis of a judicial review of the CCRC's decision will be that it acted unlawfully in applying the wrong test in determining whether to refer the case back to appeal, and failed to provide reasons why the correct test was not carried out.
What evidence was there/is there that JM had allegedly been accused of ‘smuggling cannabis into the UK from Canada‘ ?
-
The above article was written by Eric Allison and published on the 29th March 2012
The following was published on 7th May 2012 https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/07/jeremy-bamber-lawyers-challenge-refusal-appeal
The names of Bamber’s legal team again appear to be anonymous ?
The byline of the article reads,
‘Criminal Cases Review Commission acted 'unlawfully and overstepped its powers' say lawyers for the convicted murderer’
‘In a letter of claim to the CCRC, seen by the Guardian, Bamber's lawyers describe this reference as a "gross misrepresentation of the nature and content of the submissions". They say the commission should not dismiss expert evidence without calling for expert opinion countering it. They accuse the CCRC of "advancing expert opinion which, in the absence of the relevant expertise, it is not equipped to do".
The lawyers say the basis of a judicial review of the CCRC's decision will be that it acted unlawfully in applying the wrong test in determining whether to refer the case back to appeal, and failed to provide reasons why the correct test was not carried out.
What evidence is there that JM allegedly ‘smuggled drugs from Canada’ ?
I think it was Ewan smith at the time. He’s had so many I’ve lost count.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/29/jeremy-bamber-appeal-evidence-itv
Who was Bamber’s solicitor at this time ?
This article names Simon McKay but the other two appear to have omitted his name?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/26/jeremy-bamber-murder-appeal-thrown-out
So where’s the evidence to support the allegations JM was accused of ‘smuggling cannabis into the UK from Canada’ ?
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.
And if she’d not been to Canada until she moved over there after marrying, how was it possible for her to be accused of such in the first instance ?
-
This article names Simon McKay but the other two appear to have omitted his name?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/26/jeremy-bamber-murder-appeal-thrown-out
So where’s the evidence to support the allegations JM was accused of ‘smuggling cannabis into the UK from Canada’ ?
And if she’d not been to Canada until she moved over there after marrying, how was it possible for her to be accused of such in the first instance ?
You’re probably right. Ewan was around when I was, which is well befor McKay and the bamberettes.
-
But it wasn't just Julie giving the time of Jeremy's call ... 2 other housemates gave sworn statements it was 20 minutes plus before Bamber said his father called him and he called the police! This is just one more damning piece of evidence against Bamber!
We know for a fact JB did call JM around that time! It makes no sense to me for Bamber to call Julie after the frantic call from his father needing help. But it makes perfect sense to me that Bamber would call her upon his return from his murder spree.
My guess is JB needed a friendly voice and support after the killings and to warn her that the sh1t was about to hit the fan! Perhaps too to stop her leaving the flat that morning as he wanted her with him and a few hours later she was indeed driven to Goldhanger by the police at Bamber's request!
Bamber's 'story' is incredulous to me and has nothing to support it whereas Julie's story makes perfect sense and has independent witness support!
That’s an excellent post, Tim 8@??)(
Particularly this point of yours:
“ Perhaps too to stop her leaving the flat that morning as he wanted her with him and a few hours later she was indeed driven to Goldhanger by the police at Bamber's request!”
I’ve wondered about that unnecessary phone call to Julie, and what you say makes perfect sense!
-
That’s an excellent post, Tim 8@??)(
Particularly this point of yours:
“ Perhaps too to stop her leaving the flat that morning as he wanted her with him and a few hours later she was indeed driven to Goldhanger by the police at Bamber's request!”
I’ve wondered about that unnecessary phone call to Julie, and what you say makes perfect sense!
But what motivated Bamber to go to a pay phone down the road & call JM on the morning of the 7th Aug 1985 and get her picked up by the police and brought back to Essex ?
Was he using her as a cover of normalcy for example
He told Anji Greaves less than 11 days later he’d had enough of her
Anji Greaves
“He told me he had been getting fed up of Julie and asked me how to tell her they were finished.
(The Sun 29th Oct 1986)
He also told Anji ‘he wanted to get married’
-
But what motivated Bamber to go to a pay phone down the road & call JM on the morning of the 7th Aug 1985 and get her picked up by the police and brought back to Essex ?
Was he using her as a cover of normalcy for example
He told Anji Greaves less than 11 days later he’d had enough of her
Anji Greaves
“He told me he had been getting fed up of Julie and asked me how to tell her they were finished.
(The Sun 29th Oct 1986)
He also told Anji ‘he wanted to get married’
What time did Bamber phone JM from the pay phone and what time were the media tipped off about the ‘situation’ at WHF?
-
But what motivated Bamber to go to a pay phone down the road & call JM on the morning of the 7th Aug 1985 and get her picked up by the police and brought back to Essex ?
Was he using her as a cover of normalcy for example
He told Anji Greaves less than 11 days later he’d had enough of her
Anji Greaves
“He told me he had been getting fed up of Julie and asked me how to tell her they were finished.
(The Sun 29th Oct 1986)
He also told Anji ‘he wanted to get married’
Of course he was using Julie to make him look like he needed her at such a horrific time...he’s a cold-blooded psychopath
-
This article names Simon McKay but the other two appear to have omitted his name?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/26/jeremy-bamber-murder-appeal-thrown-out
So where’s the evidence to support the allegations JM was accused of ‘smuggling cannabis into the UK from Canada’ ?
And if she’d not been to Canada until she moved over there after marrying, how was it possible for her to be accused of such in the first instance ?
Have the Guardian, Eric Allison or Simon McKay been approached over the false allegations made publicly re JM ‘smuggling drugs from Canada’ ?
Would like to hear what they have to say
-
Of course he was using Julie to make him look like he needed her at such a horrific time...he’s a cold-blooded psychopath
You’re oh so repetitive! Do you think if you keep repeating the same old thing, eventually people might come to believe you?
The psychos are the ones who are part of this cover up and are taking an innocent mans life away.
They as good as killed him. They’re the real psychos!
-
You’re oh so repetitive! Do you think if you keep repeating the same old thing, eventually people might come to believe you?
The psychos are the ones who are part of this cover up and are taking an innocent mans life away.
They as good as killed him. They’re the real psychos!
It’s clear you do not know what a ‘psycho’ is AA
-
You’re oh so repetitive! Do you think if you keep repeating the same old thing, eventually people might come to believe you?
The psychos are the ones who are part of this cover up and are taking an innocent mans life away.
They as good as killed him. They’re the real psychos!
What Ispywithmybigeye posts is true AA
Of course he was using Julie to make him look like he needed her at such a horrific time...he’s a cold-blooded psychopath
Bamber used Julie as a front
Anji Greaves
“He told me he had been getting fed up of Julie and asked me how to tell her they were finished.
(The Sun 29th Oct 1986)
He also told Anji ‘he wanted to get married’
Do you think it’s normal Bamber discussed marriage with Anji Greaves days after the funerals ?
-
You’re oh so repetitive! Do you think if you keep repeating the same old thing, eventually people might come to believe you?
Are these your projections AA ?
-
The psychos are the ones who are part of this cover up and are taking an innocent mans life away.
They as good as killed him. They’re the real psychos!
Who are you claiming are the ‘psychos’ and what is a psycho?
-
It is disappointing to note that despite numerous warnings, some members continue to use crude and totally uncalled-for language when responding to other members. This will no longer be allowed to continue.
I have instructed the moderation team to clamp down heavily on rule breakers from now on.
There will be no exceptions!
-
You’re oh so repetitive! Do you think if you keep repeating the same old thing, eventually people might come to believe you?
The psychos are the ones who are part of this cover up and are taking an innocent mans life away.
They as good as killed him. They’re the real psychos!
But Jeremy Bamber IS a psychopath — he’s been diagnosed.
Even the psychiatrist his defence team brought in to assess him had to give the “disappointing “ news to him that they couldn’t use the psychiatrist’s assessment in court, as he TOO classified Jeremy as a psychopath.
I’m not interested in whether people like you believe me or not, Ag, because I don’t think you’re rational. I’ve spotted your discrepancies more times than I can count, and I’m not convinced you have twin sons. I suspect you’ve made that up. I think somewhere in that mind of yours, your misguided admiration for Jeremy goes far deeper than you realise, and it’s actually Sheila who you hold in esteem. The tragic beauty with twin boys — gunned down by her own brother — your fixation lies more with her.
What year did you give birth to your twin boys, Ag? Hmm?
-
What Ispywithmybigeye posts is true AA
Bamber used Julie as a front
Do you think it’s normal Bamber discussed marriage with Anji Greaves days after the funerals ?
Isn’t it strange how Ag (and other supporters) don’t respond to questions they’re stumped to answer?
Let’s ask her again
Ag, if Jeremy “needed” Julie, loved her, as he claimed — and tried to show the police and the world how very much he adored/needed Julie as he leaned on her while he followed the coffins, sobbing, buckling at the knees — why did he tell Angi Greaves just DAYS after the funerals that he wanted to get rid of Julie, and that he’d like to marry Angi?
Awaiting your response with baited breath
-
Isn’t it strange how Ag (and other supporters) don’t respond to questions they’re stumped to answer?
Let’s ask her again
Ag, if Jeremy “needed” Julie, loved her, as he claimed — and tried to show the police and the world how very much he adored/needed Julie as he leaned on her while he followed the coffins, sobbing, buckling at the knees — why did he tell Angi Greaves just DAYS after the funerals that he wanted to get rid of Julie, and that he’d like to marry Angi?
Awaiting your response with baited breath
I thought you weren't bothered about asking a psychopaths questions?
Wait 'til the engineer arrives to fix my Stannah Stairlift; I'll ruddy well come down there. On Thursday maybe.
-
But Jeremy Bamber IS a psychopath — he’s been diagnosed.
Even the psychiatrist his defence team brought in to assess him had to give the “disappointing “ news to him that they couldn’t use the psychiatrist’s assessment in court, as he TOO classified Jeremy as a psychopath.
I’m not interested in whether people like you believe me or not, Ag, because I don’t think you’re rational. I’ve spotted your discrepancies more times than I can count, and I’m not convinced you have twin sons. I suspect you’ve made that up. I think somewhere in that mind of yours, your misguided admiration for Jeremy goes far deeper than you realise, and it’s actually Sheila who you hold in esteem. The tragic beauty with twin boys — gunned down by her own brother — your fixation lies more with her.
What year did you give birth to your twin boys, Ag? Hmm?
D'you know, something, Spy? When it comes to passion and enthusiasm, I see little -if ANY- difference between you and Auntie A. and when I read some of your obnoxious posts, I almost feel ashamed to be on the same side as you! You frequently and happily accuse "Ag" of lying, but guess what, I imagine huge swathes of your posts are embroidered prior to your embellishment of them. An immediate ie is your recent claim that a psychiatrist bought in to assess him had to apologize to him for not being able to use the assessment in court? Is that so? You know this psychiatrist personally, do you? Along with all the other characters you use to back up some of your preposterous claims and spoutings? Is there NOTHING about this case you don't claim to have expert -indeed, INSIDE- knowledge of? It seems not. It appears you can back up everything you claim -or so you say- but, as yet, you've provided no proof of ANY of what you say. You claim to have hundreds -maybe thousands?- of documents which will take you too long to trawl through to fine the evidence you're asked to provide, but you appear to have a photographic memory when it comes to quoting them. Other than your hobby appearing to be hatred of Jeremy, why would you need all the documents you claim to have? One can be forgiven, having heard this mantra repeated so many times, for believing that you make a wild claim and hope it will be substantiated by saying you can back it up.
Frankly, I don't know why you're here. You clearly, from all the hints you drop of having inside information -and knowing every fly which farted in connection with it- wish us to believe you have superior/inside/personal knowledge of the case. I wonder, do you need to do that simply to uphold any untruths/embellishments you throw out? I wonder, too, what it is you seem to think you're campaigning for? He was convicted and given a minimum term of 25 years, 35 years ago. I, and others who believe his conviction to be safe, accept him as being all those things you say -shout, SPIT- about him. Your rallying cries, so frequently reminiscent of Tom Moseley's anti Jewish/pro Nazi diatribe, can do nothing to change that. Your vitriolic rants can't add any more time to his life means life sentence.
-
D'you know, something, Spy? When it comes to passion and enthusiasm, I see little -if ANY- difference between you and Auntie A. and when I read some of your obnoxious posts, I almost feel ashamed to be on the same side as you! You frequently and happily accuse "Ag" of lying, but guess what, I imagine huge swathes of your posts are embroidered prior to your embellishment of them. An immediate ie is your recent claim that a psychiatrist bought in to assess him had to apologize to him for not being able to use the assessment in court? Is that so? You know this psychiatrist personally, do you? Along with all the other characters you use to back up some of your preposterous claims and spoutings? Is there NOTHING about this case you don't claim to have expert -indeed, INSIDE- knowledge of? It seems not. It appears you can back up everything you claim -or so you say- but, as yet, you've provided no proof of ANY of what you say. You claim to have hundreds -maybe thousands?- of documents which will take you too long to trawl through to fine the evidence you're asked to provide, but you appear to have a photographic memory when it comes to quoting them. Other than your hobby appearing to be hatred of Jeremy, why would you need all the documents you claim to have? One can be forgiven, having heard this mantra repeated so many times, for believing that you make a wild claim and hope it will be substantiated by saying you can back it up.
Frankly, I don't know why you're here. You clearly, from all the hints you drop of having inside information -and knowing every fly which farted in connection with it- wish us to believe you have superior/inside/personal knowledge of the case. I wonder, do you need to do that simply to uphold any untruths/embellishments you throw out? I wonder, too, what it is you seem to think you're campaigning for? He was convicted and given a minimum term of 25 years, 35 years ago. I, and others who believe his conviction to be safe, accept him as being all those things you say -shout, SPIT- about him. Your rallying cries, so frequently reminiscent of Tom Moseley's anti Jewish/pro Nazi diatribe, can do nothing to change that. Your vitriolic rants can't add any more time to his life means life sentence.
Best post I've read on this forum, hands down.
-
D'you know, something, Spy? When it comes to passion and enthusiasm, I see little -if ANY- difference between you and Auntie A. and when I read some of your obnoxious posts, I almost feel ashamed to be on the same side as you! You frequently and happily accuse "Ag" of lying, but guess what, I imagine huge swathes of your posts are embroidered prior to your embellishment of them. An immediate ie is your recent claim that a psychiatrist bought in to assess him had to apologize to him for not being able to use the assessment in court? Is that so? You know this psychiatrist personally, do you? Along with all the other characters you use to back up some of your preposterous claims and spoutings? Is there NOTHING about this case you don't claim to have expert -indeed, INSIDE- knowledge of? It seems not. It appears you can back up everything you claim -or so you say- but, as yet, you've provided no proof of ANY of what you say. You claim to have hundreds -maybe thousands?- of documents which will take you too long to trawl through to fine the evidence you're asked to provide, but you appear to have a photographic memory when it comes to quoting them. Other than your hobby appearing to be hatred of Jeremy, why would you need all the documents you claim to have? One can be forgiven, having heard this mantra repeated so many times, for believing that you make a wild claim and hope it will be substantiated by saying you can back it up.
Frankly, I don't know why you're here. You clearly, from all the hints you drop of having inside information -and knowing every fly which farted in connection with it- wish us to believe you have superior/inside/personal knowledge of the case. I wonder, do you need to do that simply to uphold any untruths/embellishments you throw out? I wonder, too, what it is you seem to think you're campaigning for? He was convicted and given a minimum term of 25 years, 35 years ago. I, and others who believe his conviction to be safe, accept him as being all those things you say -shout, SPIT- about him. Your rallying cries, so frequently reminiscent of Tom Moseley's anti Jewish/pro Nazi diatribe, can do nothing to change that. Your vitriolic rants can't add any more time to his life means life sentence.
Well said. Every nail has been hit on it's head.
-
Well said. Every nail has been hit on it's head.
Yep.
-
G-Unit, The General, and Mrswah, Thank-you ?{)(**
-
Best post I've read on this forum, hands down.
HHERE! HERE!
-
Isn’t it strange how Ag (and other supporters) don’t respond to questions they’re stumped to answer?
Let’s ask her again
Ag, if Jeremy “needed” Julie, loved her, as he claimed — and tried to show the police and the world how very much he adored/needed Julie as he leaned on her while he followed the coffins, sobbing, buckling at the knees — why did he tell Angi Greaves just DAYS after the funerals that he wanted to get rid of Julie, and that he’d like to marry Angi?
Awaiting your response with baited breath
According to Anji Greaves Sun interview (29th Oct 1986)
‘Bamber’s lust for her also led to his downfall. For it aroused jealous hatred in his scorned former girlfriend Julie Mugford’
-
According to Anji Greaves Sun interview (29th Oct 1986)
‘Bamber’s lust for her also led to his downfall. For it aroused jealous hatred in his scorned former girlfriend Julie Mugford’
Does anyone know what happened between Anji Greaves and Bamber and did she end up believing him to be guilty ?
-
I thought you weren't bothered about asking a psychopaths questions?
Wait 'til the engineer arrives to fix my Stannah Stairlift; I'll ruddy well come down there. On Thursday maybe.
That question was directed at Ag; it wasn’t meant for psychopath Jeremy Bamber
I don’t waste my time asking pathological liars questions...😙
If you’re planning on coming down on Thursday you’d better get a wiggle on...it’ll take you about 12 hours to get up my road with a Zimmer frame — I’m at the top of a very steep hill. And bring a spare battery for your hearing aid..I don’t have any in the house, I’m afraid😌🦻
-
D'you know, something, Spy? When it comes to passion and enthusiasm, I see little -if ANY- difference between you and Auntie A. and when I read some of your obnoxious posts, I almost feel ashamed to be on the same side as you! You frequently and happily accuse "Ag" of lying, but guess what, I imagine huge swathes of your posts are embroidered prior to your embellishment of them. An immediate ie is your recent claim that a psychiatrist bought in to assess him had to apologize to him for not being able to use the assessment in court? Is that so? You know this psychiatrist personally, do you? Along with all the other characters you use to back up some of your preposterous claims and spoutings? Is there NOTHING about this case you don't claim to have expert -indeed, INSIDE- knowledge of? It seems not. It appears you can back up everything you claim -or so you say- but, as yet, you've provided no proof of ANY of what you say. You claim to have hundreds -maybe thousands?- of documents which will take you too long to trawl through to fine the evidence you're asked to provide, but you appear to have a photographic memory when it comes to quoting them. Other than your hobby appearing to be hatred of Jeremy, why would you need all the documents you claim to have? One can be forgiven, having heard this mantra repeated so many times, for believing that you make a wild claim and hope it will be substantiated by saying you can back it up.
Frankly, I don't know why you're here. You clearly, from all the hints you drop of having inside information -and knowing every fly which farted in connection with it- wish us to believe you have superior/inside/personal knowledge of the case. I wonder, do you need to do that simply to uphold any untruths/embellishments you throw out? I wonder, too, what it is you seem to think you're campaigning for? He was convicted and given a minimum term of 25 years, 35 years ago. I, and others who believe his conviction to be safe, accept him as being all those things you say -shout, SPIT- about him. Your rallying cries, so frequently reminiscent of Tom Moseley's anti Jewish/pro Nazi diatribe, can do nothing to change that. Your vitriolic rants can't add any more time to his life means life sentence.
Did you feel the same way with Matt/Actual Mat ?
-
Did you feel the same way with Matt/Actual Mat ?
It's no secret that Mat and I didn't get on - reason being someone spread a rumour that I was a returning poster who had somewhat of a reputation. It was of course ........ bollocks. There is also a lot of rubbish talked about Matt, probably originating from the same rumour monger. I got to know him well and I like him a lot. Others may have a problem with him but I speak as I find and there are a LOT worse. He's getting on with his life now and has put the forums behind him. He pops back once in a blue moon just to say hello - if you're out there and reading this - hello mate! ()678%
-
Hello Matt ()678%
-
Did you feel the same way with Matt/Actual Mat ?
I don't recall having such feelings about Matt, but until I got to know him for myself, my impression of him was coloured by what others told me. Why do you ask?
-
but until I got to know him for myself
Do you think it’s possible to really get to know someone on a forum April ?
-
Do you think it’s possible to really get to know someone on a forum April ?
Do you think it's possible?
-
Do you think it’s possible to really get to know someone on a forum April ?
Do you think it's possible?
You stated,
but until I got to know him for myself, my impression of him was coloured by what others told me.
How did you get to know him April ?
-
Do you think it's possible?
Think it’s helpful to stay open minded
-
According to Anji Greaves Sun interview (29th Oct 1986)
‘Bamber’s lust for her also led to his downfall. For it aroused jealous hatred in his scorned former girlfriend Julie Mugford’
What lead to Bamber’s ‘downfall‘ were his own actions.
What evidence is there of ‘jealous hatred’ in Julie ?
-
According to Anji Greaves Sun interview (29th Oct 1986)
‘Bamber’s lust for her also led to his downfall. For it aroused jealous hatred in his scorned former girlfriend Julie Mugford’
Does anyone know if Bamber encouraged or discouraged Anji Greaves in speaking with the newspaper ?
-
Does anyone know if Bamber encouraged or discouraged Anji Greaves in speaking with the newspaper ?
And was it Anji or Virginia who was on the phone with him the night Julie broke the mirror in SC’s bedroom with the Chinese trick box supposedly belonging to Bamber?
Where was Virginia Greaves the night she allegedly phoned Bamber at SC’s flat?
Did she live with her sister Anji in Kensington?
-
What lead to Bamber’s ‘downfall‘ were his own actions.
What evidence is there of ‘jealous hatred’ in Julie ?
Jeremy Bamber loved to taunt Julie, I suppose he was trying to establish how far he could go without driving her away completely. Sitting stroking Brett Collins' hair was one such episode.
What sort of a Muppet does that in front of his girlfriend?
-
D'you know, something, Spy? When it comes to passion and enthusiasm, I see little -if ANY- difference between you and Auntie A. and when I read some of your obnoxious posts, I almost feel ashamed to be on the same side as you! You frequently and happily accuse "Ag" of lying, but guess what, I imagine huge swathes of your posts are embroidered prior to your embellishment of them. An immediate ie is your recent claim that a psychiatrist bought in to assess him had to apologize to him for not being able to use the assessment in court? Is that so? You know this psychiatrist personally, do you? Along with all the other characters you use to back up some of your preposterous claims and spoutings? Is there NOTHING about this case you don't claim to have expert -indeed, INSIDE- knowledge of? It seems not. It appears you can back up everything you claim -or so you say- but, as yet, you've provided no proof of ANY of what you say. You claim to have hundreds -maybe thousands?- of documents which will take you too long to trawl through to fine the evidence you're asked to provide, but you appear to have a photographic memory when it comes to quoting them. Other than your hobby appearing to be hatred of Jeremy, why would you need all the documents you claim to have? One can be forgiven, having heard this mantra repeated so many times, for believing that you make a wild claim and hope it will be substantiated by saying you can back it up.
Frankly, I don't know why you're here. You clearly, from all the hints you drop of having inside information -and knowing every fly which farted in connection with it- wish us to believe you have superior/inside/personal knowledge of the case. I wonder, do you need to do that simply to uphold any untruths/embellishments you throw out? I wonder, too, what it is you seem to think you're campaigning for? He was convicted and given a minimum term of 25 years, 35 years ago. I, and others who believe his conviction to be safe, accept him as being all those things you say -shout, SPIT- about him. Your rallying cries, so frequently reminiscent of Tom Moseley's anti Jewish/pro Nazi diatribe, can do nothing to change that. Your vitriolic rants can't add any more time to his life means life sentence.
Firstly, April...I take exception at you calling me obnoxious. If I’m disgusted by these warped supporters of the psychopath Jeremy Bamber, I’m just one of THOUSANDS in the UK who feel the same way too.
I’ll get back to you in a short while, but meanwhile I’ve taken the effort to find, highlight and then screenshot the excerpt from CAL’s book where she speaks about the defence bringing in a psychiatrist.
I made one error: I wrote that the psychiatrist had to give JB the bad news: I meant to write “his defence team”
Other than that, April — it’s a FACT
Back soon to reply to your post...😌
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Firstly, April...I take exception at you calling me obnoxious. If I’m disgusted by these warped supporters of the psychopath Jeremy Bamber, I’m just one of THOUSANDS in the UK who feel the same way too.
I’ll get back to you in a short while, but meanwhile I’ve taken the effort to find, highlight and then screenshot the excerpt from CAL’s book where she speaks about the defence bringing in a psychiatrist.
I made one error: I wrote that the psychiatrist had to give JB the bad news: I meant to write “his defence team”
Other than that, April — it’s a FACT
Back soon to reply to your post...😌
Now here's another example before I finish your first sentence. I never called you obnoxious. I said -and I stand by- that some of your posts are. Is that clear?
I hear, loud and clear, because you leave no room for doubt, that you're "disgusted by these warped (it appears you believe it to be perfectly correct and in order for you to slur them) supporters of the psychopath Jeremy Bamber" but they're as entitled to put their point over as are you. The difference is that generally, they don't post obnoxiously, and generally don't attack you in the way you attack them.
And as you're keen to point out FACTS, here's another. I agree that there are probably "THOUSANDS in the UK who feel the same way too" but it's not they who produce the obnoxious posts that you do.
-
D'you know, something, Spy? When it comes to passion and enthusiasm, I see little -if ANY- difference between you and Auntie A. and when I read some of your obnoxious posts, I almost feel ashamed to be on the same side as you! You frequently and happily accuse "Ag" of lying, but guess what, I imagine huge swathes of your posts are embroidered prior to your embellishment of them. An immediate ie is your recent claim that a psychiatrist bought in to assess him had to apologize to him for not being able to use the assessment in court? Is that so? You know this psychiatrist personally, do you? Along with all the other characters you use to back up some of your preposterous claims and spoutings? Is there NOTHING about this case you don't claim to have expert -indeed, INSIDE- knowledge of? It seems not. It appears you can back up everything you claim -or so you say- but, as yet, you've provided no proof of ANY of what you say. You claim to have hundreds -maybe thousands?- of documents which will take you too long to trawl through to fine the evidence you're asked to provide, but you appear to have a photographic memory when it comes to quoting them. Other than your hobby appearing to be hatred of Jeremy, why would you need all the documents you claim to have? One can be forgiven, having heard this mantra repeated so many times, for believing that you make a wild claim and hope it will be substantiated by saying you can back it up.
Frankly, I don't know why you're here. You clearly, from all the hints you drop of having inside information -and knowing every fly which farted in connection with it- wish us to believe you have superior/inside/personal knowledge of the case. I wonder, do you need to do that simply to uphold any untruths/embellishments you throw out? I wonder, too, what it is you seem to think you're campaigning for? He was convicted and given a minimum term of 25 years, 35 years ago. I, and others who believe his conviction to be safe, accept him as being all those things you say -shout, SPIT- about him. Your rallying cries, so frequently reminiscent of Tom Moseley's anti Jewish/pro Nazi diatribe, can do nothing to change that. Your vitriolic rants can't add any more time to his life means life sentence.
Back again, April 😌
I’ve no “need” to embroider or embellish what that heinous creature did: tell me of ONE case in history where a man has shot dead both his parents; his sister; and his two six-year-old nephews — simply to get his vile, greedy paws on their inheritance? Name me ONE.
If you think THAT needs embellishing you must must have an exceptionally strong constitution!
I’ve already shown you PROOF regarding the defence psychiatrist — yet you accused me of lying. You called my claim “preposterous”, but it’s there in black and white. You owe me an apology.
I have no NEED to lie; no DESIRE to lie; but his supporters do.
It’s up to you whether you believe me or not: I’m not fussed either way, and that’s one reason I don’t hunt for extracts to back my claims up. But don’t call me a liar because I don’t post cites up — that’s really bad form, April. I’m not here to prove anything to anyone, and when I HAVE posted the occasional proof, it’s ignored! I’m not working on here, you know...and as for suggesting this is a hobby, you’re starting to sound as strange as his supporters.
And what’s it got to do with you why I’m here? I wouldn’t ask you why you’re here, or anyone else. It isn’t my business and I wouldn’t have the temerity (or interest) to ask. I thought this site was a discussion forum: I didn’t know we had to have a connection to the victims or murderers? What’s your connection?
This isn’t the first time you’ve had a go at me, but I let the others go as I couldn’t be bothered to get into a debate with you. However, I won’t allow you to call me a liar when I’m certainly not!
-
Did you feel the same way with Matt/Actual Mat ?
Who’s Mat, Nicholas?
-
Now here's another example before I finish your first sentence. I never called you obnoxious. I said -and I stand by- that some of your posts are. Is that clear?
I hear, loud and clear, because you leave no room for doubt, that you're "disgusted by these warped (it appears you believe it to be perfectly correct and in order for you to slur them) supporters of the psychopath Jeremy Bamber" but they're as entitled to put their point over as are you. The difference is that generally, they don't post obnoxiously, and generally don't attack you in the way you attack them.
And as you're keen to point out FACTS, here's another. I agree that there are probably "THOUSANDS in the UK who feel the same way too" but it's not they who produce the obnoxious posts that you do.
You’ve seen the PROOF — you wanted.
Now apologise .
You really got into a tailspin in your post, didn’t you? Accusing me of making embellishments; inferring I was lying about the defence psychiatrist
Now, I’ve posted the PROOF.
WHAT do you have to say about that, eh?
Are you going to apologise?
-
Back again, April 😌
I’ve no “need” to embroider or embellish what that heinous creature did: tell me of ONE case in history where a man has shot dead both his parents; his sister; and his two six-year-old nephews — simply to get his vile, greedy paws on their inheritance? Name me ONE.
If you think THAT needs embellishing you must must have an exceptionally strong constitution!
I’ve already shown you PROOF regarding the defence psychiatrist — yet you accused me of lying. You called my claim “preposterous”, but it’s there in black and white. You owe me an apology.
I have no NEED to lie; no DESIRE to lie; but his supporters do.
It’s up to you whether you believe me or not: I’m not fussed either way, and that’s one reason I don’t hunt for extracts to back my claims up. But don’t call me a liar because I don’t post cites up — that’s really bad form, April. I’m not here to prove anything to anyone, and when I HAVE posted the occasional proof, it’s ignored! I’m not working on here, you know...and as for suggesting this is a hobby, you’re starting to sound as strange as his supporters.
And what’s it got to do with you why I’m here? I wouldn’t ask you why you’re here, or anyone else. It isn’t my business and I wouldn’t have the temerity (or interest) to ask. I thought this site was a discussion forum: I didn’t know we had to have a connection to the victims or murderers? What’s your connection?
This isn’t the first time you’ve had a go at me, but I let the others go as I couldn’t be bothered to get into a debate with you. However, I won’t allow you to call me a liar when I’m certainly not!
Yes. So I see. Or perhaps that should be, read.
Regarding your florid descriptions of Jeremy and his crimes, there isn't a single person here, irrelevant of whether or not they believe in guilt or innocence, who isn't aware of the crime itself. There's no need to lay it on with a trowel.
The mistake was your own initially and as I very much doubt you'd have confessed it had I not pointed it out, I don't feel compelled to offer an apology. Apart from which, it was only one instance.
However bad you claim to be the behaviour of his supporters, it doesn't give you carte blanche to reciprocate.
I don't recall ever having used the term "liar" of you, but I'll stand by my belief that where you throw out something questionable, unless it's picked up on, you won't change it. If you want an example, the times you tell us, with confidence, what Jeremy was thinking or doing. The glaring mistakes you've made in you character assassination of the Bambers, especially June.
You're perfectly correct. It's not my business why you're here, but given that you profess to know so much more, of how Jeremy ticks, than the rest of us put together, I find myself wondering why it is you haven't offered your skills in character assessment to a psychologist.
Again, you're correct in that it's not the first time I've had a gentle word about your 'enthusiasm'. It clearly fell on deaf ears. However, if you check, you'll find that two or three of your fellow detractors supported what I'd said, so it appears I'm not alone in this. Hopefully, it may give you pause for reflection? The day you see me attach the description "liar" to you, you may feel free to disallow it.
-
You’ve seen the PROOF — you wanted.
Now apologise .
You really got into a tailspin in your post, didn’t you? Accusing me of making embellishments; inferring I was lying about the defence psychiatrist
Now, I’ve posted the PROOF.
WHAT do you have to say about that, eh?
Are you going to apologise?
As I said, the error was yours initially, or I wouldn't have been able to use it as an example. I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that you owe ME an apology for claiming that I labeled you as a "liar" and "obnoxious"?
No tailspin here, incidentally. Just sitting here, reading posts, with a glass of wine, enjoying the evening sunshine.
-
Bamber and his campaign team continue with their libel
Jeremy Bamber
@Bambertweets20h
Prosecution Witness: Julie Mugford - ex-girlfriend of #JeremyBamber
Julie confessed to carrying out: taking & selling cannabis, smuggling drugs from Canada to the UK, accessory to burglary & cheque book fraud.
All charges dropped...
https://jeremybamber.org/julie-mugford/ #WhiteHouseFarm
12:36 PM · Jun 11, 2020·Twitter Web App
https://mobile.twitter.com/Bambertweets/status/1271043694913871873