Author Topic: Julie Mugford - After the trial  (Read 17345 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Julie Mugford - After the trial
« on: July 15, 2012, 09:00:28 PM »
Julie Mugford, afraid for her life.
Sunday Mirror 21st April 2001. Report from Winnipeg, Canada.

THEN, she was the beautiful 21-year-old brunette whose evidence was vital in convicting her boyfriend Jeremy Bamber of the cold- blooded murder of his whole family.

Now, she is a respectable and matronly mother-of-two, a tireless charity worker and the deputy head of a primary school in Canada.

Everything about Julie Mugford's life has changed except for one crucial fact - she is still utterly convinced Bamber DID slaughter his adoptive parents Nevill and June, his sister Sheila Caffell and her twin six-year-old sons Nicholas and Daniel at the family's Essex farmhouse in 1985.

Bamber, 39, was given five life sentences for the killings. At the trial, Julie's evidence that he had bragged to her about committing the perfect murder and phoned her before the slaughter to say: "It's tonight or never" was vital in securing a guilty verdict.

He is now relying on DNA evidence not available 15 years ago to fight his conviction, and if successful could be free by Christmas.

Julie, now 36, said: "I thought this was long in the past. The last few weeks have been a nightmare. As far as I am concerned nothing has changed - I sincerely believe he is guilty. Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life.
"And while I fully accept that new forensic techniques could throw new light on the case I still believe he is guilty. He has a right to appeal, that is the law. It is just very hard for me to accept.
"At this stage the appeal process is so sketchy that I have no idea what is going on."

A friend added: "It is somethingJulie has never really recovered from. Ultimately it was her evidence that put him behind bars and it is something she still has nightmares about. She still grieves for his family and wonders if she could have averted the murders by telling the police about his scheming beforehand."

Julie now fears she could be called to give evidence at the appeal - and last week she consulted Canadian lawyers for advice.

"She dreads having to face Bamber again in court. And she's afraid he could come after her and her family if he is freed. It's tragic. She has been so happy here in Canada."

Initially, police accepted Bamber's claim that ex-model Sheila, suffering from depression in the wake of her marriage break-up, killed the family then turned the gun on herself.

But as he attracted attention by spending his pounds 500,000 inheritance on champagne, drugs and a lavish lifestyle, police pressed his girlfriend of three years to tell them what she knew.

Julie,  who stood alongside Bamber at the family funeral as he cried what prosecutors called "crocodile tears," finally gave in when he humiliated her by asking out another girl in front of her.

After giving her evidence, Julie fled Britain to travel the world.

In Australia in 1990 she met Canadian Glen Smerchanski.

"They fell in love but it was a long, long time before she could bring herself to tell him about her life," the friend said. "It was only after he asked her to marry him and move to his home town of Winnipeg that she began to open up.

"He knew she was running away from something but it took her a long time to tell him. Gradually Glen coaxed it out of her and, bit by bit, the whole sorry story came out.

"Glen reassured her constantly, telling her the past didn't matter. Even so, she didn't want his family to know. He even kept it from his mother."

When Julie first left Britain in 1986 she promised her mother Mary she would return for a big white wedding. So after briefly setting up home with Glen in Winnipeg, the couple married in Essex in July 1991. The following month they had an church blessing in Canada.
Julie worked as a special needs teacher while Glen built up a career as a computer salesman, then she also began doing volunteer work for a charity for sick children and helping Glen collect money door-to-door for the Salvation Army.

Five years ago the couple's son Benjamin was born, followed by Hannah, now two.
Julie continued working and was recently appointed vice-principal at John M King Elementary, an inner- city junior school. Only two weeks ago they moved into a detached house with its own swimming pool in one of Winnipeg's best suburbs.

"Julie is a pillar of the community - you would never believe she was once tangled up in a mass murder," her friend said.

"The Bamber case was kept a complete secret. Only Glen and a handful of people knew about it."

Sandy-haired Glen, 40, said: "I've known about this for many years, but we only told a few family members and very close friends. Julie just wishes it would all go away and we could get on with our lives.

"We just can't believe this man could be freed. We are worried about our kids. We hope it never happens."
« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 04:37:35 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposť of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Angelo222

Re: Julie Mugford - After the trial
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2012, 03:56:39 PM »
Julie Mugford or Julie Smerchanski as she now is may be many things to many people but she did not ask to be involved in any of what happened.  She has been accused of being a gold digger but I feel that such a label is also unfair.  She didn't know much about Jeremy before she started to go out with him.  Julie was attracted to Jeremy, not what he was potentially worth in monetary terms.  That said though she quite probably quite quickly got used to the idea that he would come into some wealth some day.

Julie tried to get Jeremy to see sense but she ultimately failed.  Jeremy was besotted with the idea of being master but he was not prepared to wait for it.  He was also very aware of his potential competitors in Sheila's twin boys whom he could see coming into favour with Nevill and June as he himself was losing favour because of his behaviour with married women.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Joanne

Re: Julie Mugford - After the trial
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2012, 04:10:57 PM »
'Julie, now 36, said: "I thought this was long in the past. The last few weeks have been a nightmare. As far as I am concerned nothing has changed - I sincerely believe he is guilty.'
That can't be right can it, in a newspaper dated 21st April 2011, they've knocked about 10 years off or it's a badly worded report!
« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 04:17:22 PM by Joanne »

Offline John

Re: Julie Mugford - After the trial
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2012, 04:25:57 PM »
'Julie, now 36, said: "I thought this was long in the past. The last few weeks have been a nightmare. As far as I am concerned nothing has changed - I sincerely believe he is guilty.'
That can't be right can it, in a newspaper dated 21st April 2011, they've knocked about 10 years off or it's a badly worded report!

You're spot on, I will change the date of the article.  8((()*/
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposť of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline starryian

Re: Julie Mugford - After the trial
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2012, 06:59:58 PM »
It must be such a difficult thing to live with. The fact that you were once close and a lover of a notorious mass murderer and shared a dreadful secret. Not only a mass killer but a killer of family members AND a child murderer. This is probably as bad as it can get. How on earth does one ever get over that? You can change your job, name and even your country; but you can't change the memory.
My sympathies are with Julie in the hope that she can live her life the best she can.
Starryian..

Offline Joanne

Re: Julie Mugford - After the trial
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2012, 07:18:04 PM »
I don't know if you ever do and I think theres possibly a 'stigma' attached to it and the worry that people will think 'You must have known' etc.
I chat to Nick Castree (his dad is Ronald Castree, he killed Lesley Molseed), I tried to help him (unsucessfully because I'm not good with ipetitions) to get the families of crimes like this a proper 'help' group because really they are victims in all of this too, they had the extra burden of the wrong man serving a long time (Stefan Kiczko) and I know Bev (their mum) was devestated and so scared because she had to face the familiy of both lesley and Stefan and member of her family disowned her for giving evidence AGAINST her ex husband.
Thankfully, they're all ok now but what a horrific situation to be in but it's even worse to be in denial I think, when you know someone has done it but you plead for their innocence, even when it is them who did it.

Offline devils advocate

Re: Julie Mugford - After the trial
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2012, 07:22:13 PM »
It must be such a difficult thing to live with. The fact that you were once close and a lover of a notorious mass murderer and shared a dreadful secret. Not only a mass killer but a killer of family members AND a child murderer. This is probably as bad as it can get. How on earth does one ever get over that? You can change your job, name and even your country; but you can't change the memory.
My sympathies are with Julie in the hope that she can live her life the best she can.

It doesn't help when people like our very own Jackie Preece made it her business to inflame the situation a while back when she went out of her way to blacken Julie's name with the Winnipeg Press. Shame on her.   ?8)@)-)

Dillon

  • Guest
Re: Julie Mugford - After the trial
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2012, 07:22:30 PM »
I think that she deserves to be left to get on with her life after all these years and has suffered enough. I bet a lot of us did things we now regret when we were at the age Julie was in 1985. Those involved in exposing her to the local media where she lives are no better then sewer rats IMO .

Offline devils advocate

Re: Julie Mugford - After the trial
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2012, 07:56:53 PM »
I don't know if you ever do and I think theres possibly a 'stigma' attached to it and the worry that people will think 'You must have known' etc.
I chat to Nick Castree (his dad is Ronald Castree, he killed Lesley Molseed), I tried to help him (unsucessfully because I'm not good with ipetitions) to get the families of crimes like this a proper 'help' group because really they are victims in all of this too, they had the extra burden of the wrong man serving a long time (Stefan Kiczko) and I know Bev (their mum) was devestated and so scared because she had to face the familiy of both lesley and Stefan and member of her family disowned her for giving evidence AGAINST her ex husband.
Thankfully, they're all ok now but what a horrific situation to be in but it's even worse to be in denial I think, when you know someone has done it but you plead for their innocence, even when it is them who did it.


Well that certainly cannot be said of Julie Mugford.  She may have taken a while to come forward but she never denied that he was guilty and in fact was the first one to own up to the robbery at Osea Caravans.

jackiepreece

  • Guest
Re: Julie Mugford - After the trial
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2012, 08:03:40 PM »
Devils Advocate take a chill pill, this is a forum where you debate!!!
I have no idea what you are talking about anyway 8-)(--)

Offline devils advocate

Re: Julie Mugford - After the trial
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2012, 08:31:12 PM »
Devils Advocate take a chill pill, this is a forum where you debate!!!
I have no idea what you are talking about anyway 8-)(--)


There is no point denying that you went out of your way to publicise the fact that Julie Mugford was now known as Julie Smerchanski and that she worked as a director in the Winnipeg Education Department.  You went to great lengths to post this information and even boasted about talking to the Press about her.  As Dillon says that was out of order.  You have no right trying to discredit and embarrass Julie in her chosen country after all these years.

Offline Jerry

Re: Julie Mugford - After the trial
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2012, 08:33:42 PM »
Devils Advocate take a chill pill, this is a forum where you debate!!!
I have no idea what you are talking about anyway 8-)(--)


There is no point denying that you went out of your way to publicise the fact that Julie Mugford was now known as Julie Smerchanski and that she worked as a director in the Winnipeg Education Department.  You went to great lengths to post this information and even boasted about talking to the Press about her.  As Dillon says that was out of order.  You have no right trying to discredit and embarrass Julie in her chosen country after all these years.
I assume this was on the blue forum mate?   If that is true that was an unnecessary and cowardly thing to do. Jackie is well entitled to dislike Julie but doing that was a low thing to do.   >@@(*&)

Offline devils advocate

Re: Julie Mugford - After the trial
« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2012, 08:39:13 PM »
It was and it happened just before the CCRC made their decision about a referral to the Appeal Court.  If I recall properly Simon McKay and some others from the blue forum telephoned the Winnipeg Free Press and filled them in on a few details including where Julie worked and the relevance of her involvement in the case.  An article was published the next day which could only have damaged Julie's reputation and standing in her community.  Jackie was at the head of the posse just as she was in her condemnation of Ann Eaton.

Offline Jerry

Re: Julie Mugford - After the trial
« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2012, 08:41:56 PM »
Devils Advocate take a chill pill, this is a forum where you debate!!!
I have no idea what you are talking about anyway 8-)(--)
You must have a short memory by the looks of it Jackie??   >@@(*&)

Dillon

  • Guest
Re: Julie Mugford - After the trial
« Reply #14 on: July 27, 2012, 09:02:36 PM »
It was and it happened just before the CCRC made their decision about a referral to the Appeal Court.  If I recall properly Simon McKay and some others from the blue forum telephoned the Winnipeg Free Press and filled them in on a few details including where Julie worked and the relevance of her involvement in the case.  An article was published the next day which could only have damaged Julie's reputation and standing in her community.  Jackie was at the head of the posse just as she was in her condemnation of Ann Eaton.

I must admit that I did not know who was responsible for telling the Winnipeg Free Press about Julie's involvement but I stick to my view that this was nasty, vindictive and unnecessary. IF Bamber's current lawyer was actually involved then IMO his conduct brings his profession into disrepute and should be investigated by the professional regulatory body for solicitors.