Jeremy Bamber Discussion Forum

Quote from: Bill Robertson on October 02, 2023, 07:53:37 AMWhy was Mugford kept in a police house for a year prior to the trial? Who paid her expenses? Why did Stan Jones visit her 36 times during that period? Why would a young woman agree to such an egregious regime of self denial? What was the implied 'threat' to her if she had protested at such a loss of liberty?

I tried to get answers to these questions during my research but pretty much drew a blank. I feel that answers to these questions could reveal much about Mugford's role in the MOJ. This was a highly unusual situation for what was supposed to be a straightforward murder investigation. I'm not aware of any other case where a prosecution witness was treated in the same manner.

It was reported in the trash press that Mugford was guarded by armed police, however Mugford was in no danger as JB was on remand. I was left to conclude that it suited the police to keep her under 'house arrest' to prevent her talking to anyone, especially journalists, about the case. Perhaps she was not trusted to keep her version of events private for any length of time? I assume that she embarked on a sexual relationship with Stan Jones, she did after all disclose after the trial that she enjoyed adventurous sex with JB and I doubt she suddenly stopped when he was arrested. I wondered also if RB might have been slipping her money? My understanding is that she continued her studies in London; someone must have come up with the cash for commuting. Mugford must have had compelling reasons for agreeing to put her life on hold. In my view it was financial compensation; she knew that the trial and imprisonment of JB was her only hope of significant monetary gain from the WHF tragedy.

Neither EP or Essex County Council would divulge payments made to Mugford, though there was some documentation evidence that they did make payments. I suspect that there is much of interest in that year, not just her grooming as the star witness.

Very interesting Bill,I had no idea she was in a police safe house for a whole year.

Why was Mugford kept in a police house for a year prior to the trial? Who paid her expenses? Why did Stan Jones visit her 36 times during that period? Why would a young woman agree to such an egregious regime of self denial? What was the implied 'threat' to her if she had protested at such a loss of liberty?

I tried to get answers to these questions during my research but pretty much drew a blank. I feel that answers to these questions could reveal much about Mugford's role in the MOJ. This was a highly unusual situation for what was supposed to be a straightforward murder investigation. I'm not aware of any other case where a prosecution witness was treated in the same manner.

It was reported in the trash press that Mugford was guarded by armed police, however Mugford was in no danger as JB was on remand. I was left to conclude that it suited the police to keep her under 'house arrest' to prevent her talking to anyone, especially journalists, about the case. Perhaps she was not trusted to keep her version of events private for any length of time? I assume that she embarked on a sexual relationship with Stan Jones, she did after all disclose after the trial that she enjoyed adventurous sex with JB and I doubt she suddenly stopped when he was arrested. I wondered also if RB might have been slipping her money? My understanding is that she continued her studies in London; someone must have come up with the cash for commuting. Mugford must have had compelling reasons for agreeing to put her life on hold. In my view it was financial compensation; she knew that the trial and imprisonment of JB was her only hope of significant monetary gain from the WHF tragedy.

Neither EP or Essex County Council would divulge payments made to Mugford, though there was some documentation evidence that they did make payments. I suspect that there is much of interest in that year, not just her grooming as the star witness.

As for the injuries,they were certainly the work of a maniac.Beating,strangulation,stabbing and finally mutilation.So by no means a simple argument gone wrong.
But was Luke Mitchell really devious enough to pursue a girlfriend for the sole purpose of using her for a sick copycat type of killing?
The thing is,if he wanted to kill someone,wouldn't it have been wiser to kill a complete stranger in a different local/neighbourhood? I mean would you really let everyone around you know that you are going to meet your girl friend then kill her? Just doesn't seem to make much sense if he didn't want to get caught.
Then you could say why did someone else risk killing Jodi on her way to meet Luke eg,the stalky man? Mightn't Luke have caught HIM in the act? Unless of course Jodi was abducted and killed elsewhere of course,this would explain why there was apparently so little blood at the crime scene and no one heatd any screaming despite several witnesse's being present in the woods at the time.Could her body have been
dumped behind the wall later on when fewer people were about?
Unlikely I suppose,but just what did the police conclude about the lack of blood at the scene? The pathologist said she had lost most of her blood,almost five litres.Did it just seep into the ground?

Quote from: Rob Garland on April 30, 2023, 12:01:30 AM

Quote from: Leslie Aalders on April 29, 2023, 11:30:23 PM

Quote from: Rob Garland on April 29, 2023, 10:19:58 PMMark Kane never wrote an essay Leslie it was a stunt by Forbes to try and make £50000 pounds. This is confirmed in a statement from the lecturer.

I don't understand all this DNA stuff, it was agreed at trail that DNA evidence would not be used as Luke and Jodie were in a relationship.

If Luke is innocent he has some serious questions to answer: Why did he phone the talking clock if he was supposedly home at the time, where did his coat go, and where was his knife which closely matched the description that the pathologist described as the murder weapon.

Hi Rob.If you watch the podcast that Tom posted at the start of this thread Forbes claims the essay's were found.I suppose the main things about the DNA is why Jodi's sisters boyfriends DNA was found on her T-shirt,and of course the lack of Jodi's blood on Luke,just how did he carry out the murder without getting a drop of blood on his clothes or his boots? Did it only land on the Parka jacket?

Forbes and Lean claim that Luke didn't even own a Parka jacket till after the murders anyway.I dont know what is fact and what is fiction at this stage Rob.It is claimed he phoned the speaking clock because his mobile phone was cracked obscuring the time,but as you rightly say if he was at home why not just look at the clock on the wall or whatever.
I think he had what is called a skunting knife with a four inch blade,would this be capable of inflicting such damage? His hands would have been close to the body and covered in blood,do you think he wore protective clothing and gloves Rob?
I just dont know what to think,but I definately have some doubt of his guilt at the moment.
And what do you make of the destruction of evidence Rob,echoes of the Bamber case?

It was a while ago that I looked at this case and to be honest my verdict was the jury's decision was correct.

I don't agree with destruction of evidence especially in a case where someone is protesting their innocence.

The coat Luke was wearing on the day (very distinctive) was never found, him mum bought him a identical one latter. I never knew this was now being challenged? The podcast is too long for me to watch though I watched the first bit.

From memory the pathologist said the knife was short stout etc. which I would say is similar to the shunting knife Luke had and again has not been found. I have seen pictures of the sheath.

I might look at the case again but the circumstantial evidence to me is quite strong.
 

According to Dr Lean the police had the knife from the start and that it was forensicly tested Rob.
Apparently the pathologist said it was too small to inflict the injuries anyway.

Now,you may be asking yourself,if both Jodi and the stalky man left the house at the same time then how can he be stalking her? Well,I presume Scott Forbes means Jodi left first then the stalky man about 30 seconds later. I presume it is all clearly explained in his book.

In the 2008 appeal it is stated that Andrina Bryson sees Luke and Jodi at the Easthouses end of the path at 4.50-55 and then two female wittnesse's see Luke at the Newbattle end about 50 minutes later,5.40-45.
This means that Luke was at the Newbattle end half an hour after the murder.
It is also claimed there was about 12 people in the woods at the time of the murder as well as those on the path eg.,the moped boys,so for Luke to negotiate a path home quickly without being seen would have been tricky.Even after he left the path or the woods he had to pass many houses in full view to get back home,even if he knew any short cuts.
It is also claimed that for the first week after the murder the newspapers claimed Jodi left her house at 5.30,it would be interesting to get access to contemporary newspapers to check this out.
There is also quite a few references to 'they have just left',Scott Forbes claims that this means the stalky man left with Jodi.Now a lot of posters refer to him as the stockey man as in well built or stout,this is not what Forbes is saying,he is saying stalky as in stalker,someone seen behind Jodi stalking her.I dont know what the evidence is regarding this claim,but I believe there are witnesse's.

If I was a police officer investigating the case I would be concentrating on what the usual course of events were and if they differed in any way on the day of the murder.I mean things like which end of the path did Luke and Jodi meet? Always the Easthouses end,sometimes the Easthouses end or never that end.That is a very important question for me and would have been the first thing to get clarrified,after all Sandra Lean keeps repeating that Luke was waiting for Jodi to turn up at the Newbattle side.You will also read that Jodi was not aloud to walk along the path on her own,so this would rule out Jodi going to meet Luke at the Newbattle end.
So this is the first vital question that I would have needed clarrified by interviewing both Lukes family and friends and also Jodi's.
The question is obviously vital because the defence have to claim that Luke was not at the Easthouses side of the path at 4.55 or any other time that day,that he was at the Newbattle side all evening.

Now the second vital question,again which family and friends should have been asked is,was it normal for Luke and Jodi to meet up BEFORE supper/tea time? What was the norm?
Well,from personal experience as a child/school boy,we all went home from school changed into our old clothes to play in [does that bring back memories,did you do that?] Then wait till the supper was ready,we never went out to play till after we had our supper,your parents wouldn't allow this surely.
In my day,you may remember,there was always something on TV from 5.40-6.00,sometimes it was Laurel and Hardy or Harold Lloyd,and quite often it was an old black and white seriel like Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers,remember?

Anyway,the point I am making is from personal experience we went home from school had supper then went out with our friends about 6.00 o'clock.Of course Luke may have been eager to see Jodi earlier that day,but you still need your supper dont you? You still have to eat.So,from my point of view it was an odd time to be seen with Jodi at the Easthouses end of the path ie,4.55 just before supper time.
Of course we know Jodi left her house about 4.50,so is this also odd you may ask.Well I suppose it depends what the arrangements were in the Jones house,did her mother work? If not,maybe she had the supper made slightly earlier.
We know that Luke and Jodi exchanged texts sometime around 4.30=4.45 to arrange things,now there are two possibilities of what was said,If guilty Luke told Jodi he would meet her at the Easthouses end of the path,or if innocent he told her that he wouldnt be able to meet her till about 5.30 after he had his supper.Now,if guilty we know Luke met Jodi at the Easthouses end of the path and subsequently murdered her in the woods about 5.15.Now apparently 5.15 was normally about the time he would be at home eating his supper,so what happened when Luke arrived home about 5.30-5.45? Or did he go home at all?
I say this because he was seen by some boys at the Newbattle end before 6.00 0'clock.
So had Luke actually time to kill Jodi at 5.15,get home and walk back down to the Newbattle end of Roans Dyke path by 6.00 o'clock? Tight,very tight! So did he go home at all?
We know he was with friends from that time on that evening.
So lets take a closer look at the possibilities of what happened after the murder,ok,if Luke
 decided to go back home he would arrive no earlier that 5.30.Now what was his condition and what was said? According to the prosecution Luke's mum aided and abetted him by burning his Parka jacket,so what was said between Luke and his mum? Did Luke simply say 'the reason that I missed supper was because I decided to murder Jodi instead' ? And did his mum make the snap decision to help him get away with the crime there and then?
Must have,must have been something like that,then within minutes Luke is off out again for the evening. 
This is getting outrageous!
The time frame here is very tight,kill Jodi,walk home,discuss crime with mother,clean up? and walk back down to the Newbattle end of Roans Dyke,all within 45 minutes MAX.
I think it was Erik that said,doesn't Luke being at the Newbattle end of the path give him an alibi?
I am inclined to agree.
But what if he didn't go home at all after the murder you say,well lets look at that possibility.
OK he walks to the Newbattle end of the path after the murder,what is he wearing? Is he still wearing his Parka? What did the witnesse's say,the two boys and his friends he was mucking about with at the Abbey?
This must be documented.Did he leave his blood stained jacket in the woods to be picked up later? Very dodgy,Jodi's body could have been found at any time and the police would be there searching the area.
Was the Parka allegedly burned on the night of the murder? What time? This should let us know if Luke returned home immediately after the murder or not.He was apparently out with his friends till about nine,so was the Parka allegedly burned before or after this time?

Anyway,if Luke didn't go home after the murder and stayed out till after nine,wasn't this absolute stupidity? If he wanted to secure an alibi with his mother,why leave it till after nine? How did he know she would help him at all? And worse,how did he know when Jodi's body would be found? She could have quite easily been found while Luke was out with his friends for heavens sake and the police could have tracked him down before he got home to burn the Parka or secure an alibi.Doesn't make any sense.
So what we are left with is either Luke killed Jodi,went home,cleaned up,told his mum that he had just carried out a brutal murder and ask her to secure an alibi for him, arrange for his jacket to be burned,then walk 600 metres to the end of Roans Dyke path.As I say,if this is the case he could only have been home for about 15 minutes.Fifteen minutes to explain to your mother what had happened before going on your way to meet friends,really?

Or,if he didn't go home after the murder till 9.00,risk Jodi's body being found and duly being apprehended by the police before he got home to clean up,burn the Parka and arrange an alibi.
Personally,I dont think either of the two possibilities stand up very well at all!

The thing is,Luke couldn't have killed Jodi later on because he was with friends and he couldn't have carried it out much earlier because she didn't leave her house till about 4.50.
So,there you are,a credible Luke Mitchell scenario doesn't seem to hold up very well,does it?

Quote from: Rob Garland on April 30, 2023, 12:01:30 AM

Quote from: Leslie Aalders on April 29, 2023, 11:30:23 PM

Quote from: Rob Garland on April 29, 2023, 10:19:58 PMMark Kane never wrote an essay Leslie it was a stunt by Forbes to try and make £50000 pounds. This is confirmed in a statement from the lecturer.

I don't understand all this DNA stuff, it was agreed at trail that DNA evidence would not be used as Luke and Jodie were in a relationship.

If Luke is innocent he has some serious questions to answer: Why did he phone the talking clock if he was supposedly home at the time, where did his coat go, and where was his knife which closely matched the description that the pathologist described as the murder weapon.

Hi Rob.If you watch the podcast that Tom posted at the start of this thread Forbes claims the essay's were found.I suppose the main things about the DNA is why Jodi's sisters boyfriends DNA was found on her T-shirt,and of course the lack of Jodi's blood on Luke,just how did he carry out the murder without getting a drop of blood on his clothes or his boots? Did it only land on the Parka jacket?

Forbes and Lean claim that Luke didn't even own a Parka jacket till after the murders anyway.I dont know what is fact and what is fiction at this stage Rob.It is claimed he phoned the speaking clock because his mobile phone was cracked obscuring the time,but as you rightly say if he was at home why not just look at the clock on the wall or whatever.
I think he had what is called a skunting knife with a four inch blade,would this be capable of inflicting such damage? His hands would have been close to the body and covered in blood,do you think he wore protective clothing and gloves Rob?
I just dont know what to think,but I definately have some doubt of his guilt at the moment.
And what do you make of the destruction of evidence Rob,echoes of the Bamber case?

It was a while ago that I looked at this case and to be honest my verdict was the jury's decision was correct.

I don't agree with destruction of evidence especially in a case where someone is protesting their innocence.

The coat Luke was wearing on the day (very distinctive) was never found, him mum bought him a identical one latter. I never knew this was now being challenged? The podcast is too long for me to watch though I watched the first bit.

From memory the pathologist said the knife was short stout etc. which I would say is similar to the shunting knife Luke had and again has not been found. I have seen pictures of the sheath.

I might look at the case again but the circumstantial evidence to me is quite strong.
 

Thanks Rob.Take your time to view the latest developments,Erik has most of the info on the forum here,although trying to understand what Scott Forbes is saying is a task in its self [no offence if your reading this Scott,besides you will probably agree]

Quote from: Leslie Aalders on April 29, 2023, 11:30:23 PM

Quote from: Rob Garland on April 29, 2023, 10:19:58 PMMark Kane never wrote an essay Leslie it was a stunt by Forbes to try and make £50000 pounds. This is confirmed in a statement from the lecturer.

I don't understand all this DNA stuff, it was agreed at trail that DNA evidence would not be used as Luke and Jodie were in a relationship.

If Luke is innocent he has some serious questions to answer: Why did he phone the talking clock if he was supposedly home at the time, where did his coat go, and where was his knife which closely matched the description that the pathologist described as the murder weapon.

Hi Rob.If you watch the podcast that Tom posted at the start of this thread Forbes claims the essay's were found.I suppose the main things about the DNA is why Jodi's sisters boyfriends DNA was found on her T-shirt,and of course the lack of Jodi's blood on Luke,just how did he carry out the murder without getting a drop of blood on his clothes or his boots? Did it only land on the Parka jacket?

Forbes and Lean claim that Luke didn't even own a Parka jacket till after the murders anyway.I dont know what is fact and what is fiction at this stage Rob.It is claimed he phoned the speaking clock because his mobile phone was cracked obscuring the time,but as you rightly say if he was at home why not just look at the clock on the wall or whatever.
I think he had what is called a skunting knife with a four inch blade,would this be capable of inflicting such damage? His hands would have been close to the body and covered in blood,do you think he wore protective clothing and gloves Rob?
I just dont know what to think,but I definately have some doubt of his guilt at the moment.
And what do you make of the destruction of evidence Rob,echoes of the Bamber case?

It was a while ago that I looked at this case and to be honest my verdict was the jury's decision was correct.

I don't agree with destruction of evidence especially in a case where someone is protesting their innocence.

The coat Luke was wearing on the day (very distinctive) was never found, him mum bought him a identical one latter. I never knew this was now being challenged? The podcast is too long for me to watch though I watched the first bit.

From memory the pathologist said the knife was short stout etc. which I would say is similar to the shunting knife Luke had and again has not been found. I have seen pictures of the sheath.

I might look at the case again but the circumstantial evidence to me is quite strong.
 

Quote from: Rob Garland on April 29, 2023, 10:19:58 PMMark Kane never wrote an essay Leslie it was a stunt by Forbes to try and make £50000 pounds. This is confirmed in a statement from the lecturer.

I don't understand all this DNA stuff, it was agreed at trail that DNA evidence would not be used as Luke and Jodie were in a relationship.

If Luke is innocent he has some serious questions to answer: Why did he phone the talking clock if he was supposedly home at the time, where did his coat go, and where was his knife which closely matched the description that the pathologist described as the murder weapon.

Hi Rob.If you watch the podcast that Tom posted at the start of this thread Forbes claims the essay's were found.I suppose the main things about the DNA is why Jodi's sisters boyfriends DNA was found on her T-shirt,and of course the lack of Jodi's blood on Luke,just how did he carry out the murder without getting a drop of blood on his clothes or his boots? Did it only land on the Parka jacket?

Forbes and Lean claim that Luke didn't even own a Parka jacket till after the murders anyway.I dont know what is fact and what is fiction at this stage Rob.It is claimed he phoned the speaking clock because his mobile phone was cracked obscuring the time,but as you rightly say if he was at home why not just look at the clock on the wall or whatever.
I think he had what is called a skunting knife with a four inch blade,would this be capable of inflicting such damage? His hands would have been close to the body and covered in blood,do you think he wore protective clothing and gloves Rob?
I just dont know what to think,but I definately have some doubt of his guilt at the moment.
And what do you make of the destruction of evidence Rob,echoes of the Bamber case?