If we are to believe the evidence given by Julie MUGFORD to Essex police about knowing of plans to kill the family by Jeremy Bamber for up to a year before they were shot dead, and we are to take into condsideration her additional claims that Jeremy was supposed to have told her after the family had been shot that he had paid a local hitman by the name of Mathwew MacDonald the sum of ?2000 to kill everyone, and or, that Bamber himself had been responsible for the deaths, be it by planning to burn the house down after he had drugged everyone or by shooting them all, one is left to wonder why she kept quiet and did not try to warn the family that Jeremy intended to kill them all, she did not inform any of the relatives about Jeremys plans or any of her friends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, when she went to identify the bodies of the victims at the Morgue she held a belief that she could communiticate with the spirit of the deceased, and in particular, Sheila Caffell, to find out what had happened and for her to be advised on what to do for the best? Julie Mugford kept all this information back from the family, the relatives and the police on occasions before the shootings and afterwrads..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was not until a month after the shootings that she may have been coerced by someone to speak to the police (7th September 1985) which as I have previously commented upon was the exact same date that another relative started to type up his diary entries where he describes his thoughts about Jeremy being the killer and more imporatnatly, how Jeremy had done it.
-------------------
According to the contents of a police action report she reported the so called confessions of Jeremy to the police in the third person on that date (7th September 1985) a clear indiaction that she had been told what to say be somebody else..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets put things into perspective, what I would like to know is why wasn't Julie MUGFORD charged with aiding and abbetting Jeremy Bamber in the killings and trying to cover it up and with attempting to pervert the course of justice, or with being an accomplice?
-----------------
Myra HINDLEY, Rose WEST and Maxine CARR were implicated and stood trial for the parts they played in the crimes their partners committed, and so what was so very different about the suggested role that Julie MUGFORD played in the case of the White house farm murders?
--------------------
Julie MUGFORDS evidence was tainted as far as I am concerned, "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", she lied about the monies she had been promised by the News of the World for her exclusive story in the event that Bamber was convicted and she kept information from the family about plans to kill them and then after the family had been shot she kept information back from the police and the relatives for a whole month - and sandwiched in between all of this she had been seeking to try and communiticate with the spirit of Sheila Caffell to find out what had happened?
She also apparently went to the police (7th September 1985) to tell them all of these stories on the same date that another relative started to draft up his diary entries which contained his thoughts about how he believed that Jeremy had been the killer and not Sheila, and most importantly of all, when she went to the police on that occasion she reported Bambers so called confessions to the police in the third person (a clear sign that she had been put up to say what she apparently said on that occasion)..
------------------------------------------------------------
HINDLEY, WEST, CARR and MUGFORD, all have something in common, if the roles they played in their respestive cases is true, they should have been charged with criminal offences and been sentenced to terms of imprisonment, but in the case of MUGFORD, she was not even apparently arrested and interviewed under caution let alone charged, and she was never at risk of being convicted of any criminal offence. Could this be because the evidence and information she had to give was not the truth and that Essex police knew that it was not the truth and this is why they did not arrest her, interview her under caution and charge her, and why she was never at risk of being convicted of anything?
--------------
The evidence of Julie MUGFORD was totally unreliable and misleading.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question that everyobody should be asking is "WHY WASN't Julie MUGFORD CHARGED with criminal offences connected with this case"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was she really an accomplice (if her accounts were true)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Should her evidence have been treated differently and should the trial judge have warned the jury or cautioned them about the content of MUGFORDS testimony and the danger of relying upon it to convict Jeremy BAMBER of the five murders, and asked them to take into account the reason why she was not charged and standing in the dock with BAMBER, if what she had to say was true?
--------------------------------------------------------
YES (at least that is my opinion)...
http://www.studiolegaleinternazionale.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=311&sid=9c3883d95deb9500465df8fa160b61d7
