Julie Mugford 'telling' Susan Battersby

[anglolawyer]

Why?  As I've already explained I believe JM and SB were coached by EP to come up with the testimony which was later used in court in part to convict JB so it should be obvious inconsistencies are an inenvitable outcome.  In other words EP, JM and SB didn't get their stories right.  If there are disadvantages to telling the truth and advantages to lying why tell the truth especially when a) you're not averse to a bit of dishonesty and b) you're being encouraged along a certain road by officialdom and possibly others? 

"I wasn't actually ever frightened of Jeremy.  I didn't think he'd actually do anything to hurt me":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo&feature=youtu.be&t=19m50s

You're right it wasn't a JB specific thing but as far as I'm aware SB hadn't recently been told that any of the other party goers had recently arranged for a mercenary to murder their immediate families!  Subtle difference 

In your link to JM saying she was not afraid of Bamber, if you listen right through, she says words to this effect: I was not afraid of him but he became afraid of me which is why I became afraid of him.

The supposedly 'subtle difference' you refer to at the party is not a relevant one.   It may well have been that not inviting or disinviting JB to the party would have seemed strange to him and put him on his guard.   They certainly would not want that.  If that is so, then treating him normally once he was there simply followed and if SB was going at it with the foam, why not include him?   This is really nothing.

[anglolawyer]

Which aspects of the statement?

This:

As far as I can see the WS's are littered with inconsistencies.  It's as though they were being coached by someone not too bright but sadly it appears bright enough to hoodwink JB's lazy and inept defence. 

[anglolawyer]

Any views on the above contradictions in WS's anglolawyer?

No, not really.   SB also fails to mention in one of her statements that JM came into see her after the 3.00 a.m. phone call (a visit I believe was planned between JB and JM to make sure his call to JM had registered within JM's house).   I tend to attribute these things to ordinary forgetfulness and to be suggestive of truthfulness rather than the opposite.   You would probably be suspicious if their stories exactly tallied.   It's always useful when you consider something to be a lie to try to work out what purpose the lie serves.   You don't seem too bothered by that part.

[Holly Goodhead]

In your link to JM saying she was not afraid of Bamber, if you listen right through, she says words to this effect: I was not afraid of him but he became afraid of me which is why I became afraid of him.

The supposedly 'subtle difference' you refer to at the party is not a relevant one.   It may well have been that not inviting or disinviting JB to the party would have seemed strange to him and put him on his guard.   They certainly would not want that.  If that is so, then treating him normally once he was there simply followed and if SB was going at it with the foam, why not include him?   This is really nothing.

Yes she starts off saying she wasn't ever [def of ever = any time] frightened of JB and then goes on to say JB became frightened of her and she became frightened of him  &%+((£

Would that be in the court of anglolawyer   

I'm sorry but if your best mate tells you her boyfriend recently arranged for a mercenary to murder 5 members of his family, all of whom had in fact recently been murdered, the norm would be to report the incident to the police straight away ie on the 27th/28th when they ate at the Pizza Hut.  Not to invite him to a 21st birthday party a couple of days later and fool about with him, in effect a mass murderer, spraying dairy cream.  They were not undercover cops carrying out a covert operation.  If you want to find ways to justify their actions. or lack of them, so be it.  I will not be going round in circles with you.   

I've given you lots of reasons for JM to lie some of which are applicable to SB:

- Pressurised to 'cooperate' by EP and possibly others
- Threat of perverting the course of justice
- Threat of criminal record over cheque book fraud, OCP and cannabis dealing which was likely to impact on their teaching careers
- Angry over being dumped
- 25k NoW deal

I've no doubt it will all come out in the end with a judge led inquiry after JB's conviction has been quashed.  In this day and age of accountability and transparency I don't think it will be brushed under the carpet like it was in Stefan Kizsko's case. 

[Holly Goodhead]

This:

I was referring to all the WS's not just the ones dated 2002.

[Holly Goodhead]

On the statement.   What else?

I thought you said you didn't understand my post  &%+((£

[Holly Goodhead]

No, not really.   SB also fails to mention in one of her statements that JM came into see her after the 3.00 a.m. phone call (a visit I believe was planned between JB and JM to make sure his call to JM had registered within JM's house).   I tend to attribute these things to ordinary forgetfulness and to be suggestive of truthfulness rather than the opposite.   You would probably be suspicious if their stories exactly tallied.   It's always useful when you consider something to be a lie to try to work out what purpose the lie serves.   You don't seem too bothered by that part.

Forgetting you entered a bedroom at 3am is surely a bit different to saying you didn't see your best friend and her boyfriend for about two weeks after such a tragedy when in fact 4 days after the tragedy they actually stayed overnight in your home? 

I agree memories fade, people forget the sequence of events especially if they are mundane and have no particular reason to remember them at the time etc and yet many who believe JB guilty think he should have perfect recall and seize on any anything less as indicative of guilt.

[anglolawyer]

Yes she starts off saying she wasn't ever [def of ever = any time] frightened of JB and then goes on to say JB became frightened of her and she became frightened of him  &%+((£

Would that be in the court of anglolawyer   

I'm sorry but if your best mate tells you her boyfriend recently arranged for a mercenary to murder 5 members of his family, all of whom had in fact recently been murdered, the norm would be to report the incident to the police straight away ie on the 27th/28th when they ate at the Pizza Hut.  Not to invite him to a 21st birthday party a couple of days later and fool about with him, in effect a mass murderer, spraying dairy cream.  They were not undercover cops carrying out a covert operation.  If you want to find ways to justify their actions. or lack of them, so be it.  I will not be going round in circles with you.   

I've given you lots of reasons for JM to lie some of which are applicable to SB:

- Pressurised to 'cooperate' by EP and possibly others
- Threat of perverting the course of justice
- Threat of criminal record over cheque book fraud, OCP and cannabis dealing which was likely to impact on their teaching careers
- Angry over being dumped
- 25k NoW deal

I've no doubt it will all come out in the end with a judge led inquiry after JB's conviction has been quashed.  In this day and age of accountability and transparency I don't think it will be brushed under the carpet like it was in Stefan Kizsko's case.

I completely agree Mugford had reasons to lie.   I don't think I have suggested otherwise.   Nevertheless, I believe her, with the important gloss that she had a vastly more compelling reason to throw him under a bus and save herself.

Your list of her reasons for lying needs a little work btw.

[anglolawyer]

snip

I've given you lots of reasons for JM to lie some of which are applicable to SB:

- Pressurised to 'cooperate' by EP and possibly others
- Threat of perverting the course of justice
- Threat of criminal record over cheque book fraud, OCP and cannabis dealing which was likely to impact on their teaching careers
- Angry over being dumped
- 25k NoW deal

snip

Let's look at that list of yours:
- Pressurised to 'cooperate' by EP and possibly others No.   She went to the police without any pressure from them.
Threat of perverting the course of justice - again, no.   She went to the police voluntarily.
- Threat of criminal record over cheque book fraud, OCP and cannabis dealing which was likely to impact on their teaching careers   Well, no.   She got away with the cheque book fraud.   No one was on her trail about that.   It only became a bargaining chip (if at all) because she confessed to it as part of her getting clear of her past.   Same with the burglary and the drugs.
- Angry over being dumped - very likely but an inadequate motive for condemning an innocent man to life imprisonment, risking a charge of perjury and much worse in the process
- 25k NoW deal - poppycock.   This deal was many months down the road when she committed herself by giving the cops a statement in Sep '85.

You have not properly grasped her situation at all since you include things which are irrelevant and exclude the one over-powering driver which accounts for the whole shebang - her own exposure to prosecution for murder and/or concealing.    And responses punctuated by emoticons don't compensate for argument.

[John]

Something which has always intrigued me is the question as to when Julie realised that Jeremy wasn't the man she thought he was.   Or to put it another way, when did she realise that he was indeed serious and very capable of murder and not murder by proxy as he had originally admitted to.

That for me was the moment she became afraid of him.

[John]

I figure she was useful to Bamber and proved her worth in the Osea Road job as well as in fixing him up with temazapam and probably doing all kinds of things that did not surface.   She was a thief, burglar and fraudster who expected to marry him and get her share, but once her usefulness had been exhausted, thus dull, unattractive woman became a mill stone.   He had better offers, plenty of money, his ruse had been swallowed by the media and the cops so he thought no one would believe her.   I have no doubt he also threatened to take her down with him and that is why she thought so long and hard before taking the plunge, risking all as it were.   She called his bluff.   And even then he still nearly got off - a 10-2 majority with a biased summing up.   So even in the worst possible case he nearly made it.

A good post describing exactly what occurred imo.  Once exposed, Julie and Susan had everything to lose by lying to police so both had no choice but cooperate.  They had no reason to lie after that.

[anglolawyer]

Something which has always intrigued me is the question as to when Julie realised that Jeremy wasn't the man she thought he was.   Or to put it another way, when did she realise that he was indeed serious and very capable of murder and not murder by proxy as he had originally admitted to.

That for me was the moment she became afraid of him.

Some time in 1984 would be my guess and she was up to her armpits in it with him too, most likely.   I simply find it incredible that she would just shrug as the evidence of his intentions mounted up:   'He wants to test the temazapam on himself to see if it will work when he burns the house down killing his entire family?   Sure.   Why not?   It can't possibly mean he's serious.'   What?

The game worked perfectly for her, which was not at all inevitable.   For different reasons, neither the crown nor the defence had any reason to challenge her claim that she did not think he was serious.   

[APRIL]

Some time in 1984 would be my guess and she was up to her armpits in it with him too, most likely.   I simply find it incredible that she would just shrug as the evidence of his intentions mounted up:   'He wants to test the temazapam on himself to see if it will work when he burns the house down killing his entire family?   Sure.   Why not?   It can't possibly mean he's serious.'   What?

The game worked perfectly for her, which was not at all inevitable.   For different reasons, neither the crown nor the defence had any reason to challenge her claim that she did not think he was serious.

I wonder if there was ever a moment when she was terrified he might be (serious) OR did she convince herself that because of how much she knew they were joined at the hip for ever?

[anglolawyer]

I wonder if there was ever a moment when she was terrified he might be (serious) OR did she convince herself that because of how much she knew they were joined at the hip for ever?

I am less charitable toward her than you.   I can only interpret her behaviour as willingly complicit in the murders.   The call from Bamber to her at 3.00 a.m. (or thereabouts) had a purpose in providing some form of corroboration of the call from Nevill.   She made a point of going into SB's room to talk about it, I believe to make completely sure SB had heard the telephone too.   All their evidence would be useful in proving that Bamber's claim.   I see no point in the call otherwise, especially as it doesn't make a lot of sense to be wasting time when his entire family was in danger.   It even looks as though he called JM before he called the police - his story vacillated on that.   He needed something to cover the gap between Nevill's call to him and his call to the cops.   On his own timing that period started at 3.00 a.m. and ended (per the police) at 3.26 a.m.   26 minutes to explain away.   Wow.   He said 'ten minutes at the outside' to look up the nos. and get through.   That still leaves 16 minutes.   IMO the call to Julie was supposed to fill that up but that then created the problem that he was calling Julie first, which is suspicious, so he went all vague about it and, luckily, no one gave him a hard time.   I would dearly like to read his cross examination at trial on that part of the case because to me it's a key element.

Whatever, JM had a role to play and she played it well and to the full.   Including, comforting the grieving JB at the funerals of course, while knowing full well, on her own account, that he was a mass murderer guilty of the most heinous crimes.

I further believe her notice was not so much love as status and wealth.   As the new Mrs Bamber she would rise to far greater heights than she could ever hope for as a teacher.   She would be the lady of the manor, replacing June Bamber at the heart of a country community or living it up in the sun spots of Europe.   It was having that dream crushed that motivated her to destroy him and save herself (an equally powerful and compelling motive)

[APRIL]

I am less charitable toward her than you.   I can only interpret her behaviour as willingly complicit in the murders.   The call from Bamber to her at 3.00 a.m. (or thereabouts) had a purpose in providing some form of corroboration of the call from Nevill.   She made a point of going into SB's room to talk about it, I believe to make completely sure SB had heard the telephone too.   All their evidence would be useful in proving that Bamber's claim.   I see no point in the call otherwise, especially as it doesn't make a lot of sense to be wasting time when his entire family was in danger.   It even looks as though he called JM before he called the police - his story vacillated on that.   He needed something to cover the gap between Nevill's call to him and his call to the cops.   On his own timing that period started at 3.00 a.m. and ended (per the police) at 3.26 a.m.   26 minutes to explain away.   Wow.   He said 'ten minutes at the outside' to look up the nos. and get through.   That still leaves 16 minutes.   IMO the call to Julie was supposed to fill that up but that then created the problem that he was calling Julie first, which is suspicious, so he went all vague about it and, luckily, no one gave him a hard time.   I would dearly like to read his cross examination at trial on that part of the case because to me it's a key element.

Whatever, JM had a role to play and she played it well and to the full.   Including, comforting the grieving JB at the funerals of course, while knowing full well, on her own account, that he was a mass murderer guilty of the most heinous crimes.

I further believe her notice was not so much love as status and wealth.   As the new Mrs Bamber she would rise to far greater heights than she could ever hope for as a teacher.   She would be the lady of the manor, replacing June Bamber at the heart of a country community or living it up in the sun spots of Europe.   It was having that dream crushed that motivated her to destroy him and save herself (an equally powerful and compelling motive)

Good Heavens!! I had no idea that I sounded charitable. It most certainly hadn't been my intention. Believe me, I hold no brief for Julie.One of my more polite adjectives, describing her, is conniving. I believe it not impossible that Julie had a clue as to what would occur after they'd taken Sheila home from the party at the weekend. I believe she was half expecting Jeremy's call.

Like you, I believe her aim was to be Mrs Bamber -for the reasons you give- flaunting the largest diamond she could find.I think that by getting her story in first, she was able to leave out anything which would reveal just how much she knew. I wonder if their fantasy was Bonny and Clyde.