Author Topic: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)  (Read 45126 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline goatboy

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #135 on: June 01, 2014, 09:47:02 PM »
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.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #136 on: June 02, 2014, 04:12:45 PM »
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.

“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Online Holly Goodhead

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #137 on: June 07, 2014, 02:19:42 PM »
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. 
England Women's National Football Team:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xyZlw6nFJ4

Sir David Attenborough added: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #138 on: June 10, 2014, 06:17:41 PM »
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.
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline goatboy

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #139 on: June 10, 2014, 08:30:47 PM »
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).


Online Holly Goodhead

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #140 on: June 11, 2014, 04:07:17 PM »
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.
England Women's National Football Team:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xyZlw6nFJ4

Sir David Attenborough added: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

Online Holly Goodhead

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #141 on: June 12, 2014, 01:18:59 PM »
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
England Women's National Football Team:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xyZlw6nFJ4

Sir David Attenborough added: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

Offline Tim Invictus

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #142 on: June 12, 2014, 01:44:18 PM »
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!


Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #143 on: June 12, 2014, 04:27:31 PM »
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.
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #144 on: June 12, 2014, 07:02:41 PM »
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.
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Online Holly Goodhead

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #145 on: June 13, 2014, 09:53:44 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2014, 10:37:01 AM by Holly Goodhead »
England Women's National Football Team:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xyZlw6nFJ4

Sir David Attenborough added: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

Offline Tim Invictus

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #146 on: June 13, 2014, 01:30:13 PM »
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!

 

Offline John

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #147 on: June 15, 2014, 04:53:10 AM »
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.

« Last Edit: June 15, 2014, 05:44:42 AM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Tim Invictus

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #148 on: June 15, 2014, 03:12:30 PM »
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-)(--)






Online Holly Goodhead

Re: Julie Mugford (girlfriend)
« Reply #149 on: June 16, 2014, 12:19:18 PM »
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. 
England Women's National Football Team:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xyZlw6nFJ4

Sir David Attenborough added: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."