Author Topic: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.  (Read 160 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27470
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2019, 06:01:PM »


If I was told by Fred Bloggs that he hired Bob Bloggs to murder my next door neighbour at his house and I believe that to be true. Would I then say I don't know if Bob Bloggs has ever been to my next door neighbours house?

  ::)


Why would you not had you NOT known he'd been there prior to being told he'd been there? I really don't know why you feel the need to keep plugging this?

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6747
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #16 on: August 12, 2019, 06:12:PM »

Why would you not had you NOT known he'd been there prior to being told he'd been there? I really don't know why you feel the need to keep plugging this?

If I tell people that Fred Bloggs told me that he hired Bob Bloggs to murder my next door neighbour at his house and I believe this to be true. Then I say I don't know if Bob Bloggs has ever been to my next door neighbours house. You cannot blame Fred Bloggs for that discrepancy. I was not repeating Fred Bloggs lie, it was me that would be lying.

PS. What was your explanation for this woman's behaviour prior to your chance of stance in chorus with Paul Harrison and Caroline?  ;D
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23663
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2019, 06:22:PM »
If I tell people that Fred Bloggs told me that he hired Bob Bloggs to murder my next door neighbour at his house and I believe this to be true. Then I say I don't know if Bob Bloggs has ever been to my next door neighbours house. You cannot blame Fred Bloggs for that discrepancy. I was not repeating Fred Bloggs lie, it was me that would be lying.

PS. What was your explanation for this woman's behaviour prior to your chance of stance in chorus with Paul Harrison and Caroline?  ;D

You're off your head!

And you would be lying idiot because YOU didn't have first hand knowledge of them ever being there - you would be misleading if you said yes!
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 06:28:PM by Caroline »

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27470
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2019, 06:23:PM »
If I tell people that Fred Bloggs told me that he hired Bob Bloggs to murder my next door neighbour at his house and I believe this to be true. Then I say I don't know if Bob Bloggs has ever been to my next door neighbours house. You cannot blame Fred Bloggs for that discrepancy. I was not repeating Fred Bloggs lie, it was me that would be lying.

PS. What was your explanation for this woman's behaviour prior to your chance of stance in chorus with Paul Harrison and Caroline?  ;D


If you repeat what someone else told you -be it truth or lie- the responsibility for those words aren't yours..........................HOWEVER! Should you choose to embellish them with your own words, the responsibility for them is yours.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23663
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #19 on: August 13, 2019, 12:17:AM »

If you repeat what someone else told you -be it truth or lie- the responsibility for those words aren't yours..........................HOWEVER! Should you choose to embellish them with your own words, the responsibility for them is yours.

Julie stopped believing MM had any part in the murders long before she told police about Jeremy  ;D ;D

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27470
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #20 on: August 13, 2019, 07:27:AM »
Julie stopped believing MM had any part in the murders long before she told police about Jeremy  ;D ;D


But David puts it in a way in which the reader might believe her words were said within 24 hours of the crime being committed. Much has been made, over the years, about what Julie may have felt. All are different. ALL, in my opinion, are probably right. She'd have gone through a gamut of differing emotions, but she was an intelligent girl and unlikely to have accepted -for long- Jeremy's explanation of hiring a hit man, especially as he'd previously discussed, with her, ways in which he might rid himself of the encumbrance of his family.

 So if we come back to her words, which David holds to be a lie, we can clearly see that for the first part she is simply telling them, the police, what Jeremy said -any lie, therefore being Jeremy's- BUT the claim that she doesn't know if MM had ever visited the farm are her own thoughts. By voicing them and owning responsibility for them -and I have NO reason to doubt them- she's hinting that she doesn't believe what Jeremy has said.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23663
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #21 on: August 13, 2019, 12:44:PM »

But David puts it in a way in which the reader might believe her words were said within 24 hours of the crime being committed. Much has been made, over the years, about what Julie may have felt. All are different. ALL, in my opinion, are probably right. She'd have gone through a gamut of differing emotions, but she was an intelligent girl and unlikely to have accepted -for long- Jeremy's explanation of hiring a hit man, especially as he'd previously discussed, with her, ways in which he might rid himself of the encumbrance of his family.

 So if we come back to her words, which David holds to be a lie, we can clearly see that for the first part she is simply telling them, the police, what Jeremy said -any lie, therefore being Jeremy's- BUT the claim that she doesn't know if MM had ever visited the farm are her own thoughts. By voicing them and owning responsibility for them -and I have NO reason to doubt them- she's hinting that she doesn't believe what Jeremy has said.

By then, she wasn't hinting, she didn't believe that MM was responsible so she wouldn't know if he'd been to WHF or not and even if she had still believed it could be true - she still wouldn't know for sure if he'd been.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6747
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #22 on: August 13, 2019, 02:28:PM »

If you repeat what someone else told you -be it truth or lie- the responsibility for those words aren't yours..........................HOWEVER! Should you choose to embellish them with your own words, the responsibility for them is yours.

But she is not repeating this from anyone. She has made this up herself

- Claims JB said he hired MM to kill the family at WHF
- Claims she believes what JB has told her.
- Says she does not know if MM has ever been to WHF

Same goes with what she said about the bank fraud

- Claims she went to the bank on her own to repay the money she stole.
- Bank manager says the police brought her in and the whole thing was all pre-arrainged.

You cannot blame JB for these lies how ever much you try.

Do you have any intention of answering the question as to what your explanation was for this woman's behaviour prior to changing your mind along with Paul Harrison and Caroline?
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40142
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #23 on: August 13, 2019, 02:40:PM »
JM must have been trembling as each remark/accusation she made she was clutching at straws because she'd been peeved by JB's behaviour with another woman but also comparing £25,000 and the truth. Under such circumstances the former seemed more acceptable.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23663
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #24 on: August 13, 2019, 02:56:PM »
But she is not repeating this from anyone. She has made this up herself

- Claims JB said he hired MM to kill the family at WHF
- Claims she believes what JB has told her.
- Says she does not know if MM has ever been to WHF

Same goes with what she said about the bank fraud

- Claims she went to the bank on her own to repay the money she stole.
- Bank manager says the police brought her in and the whole thing was all pre-arrainged.

You cannot blame JB for these lies how ever much you try.

Do you have any intention of answering the question as to what your explanation was for this woman's behaviour prior to changing your mind along with Paul Harrison and Caroline?

Do you have any intention of answering the question about your report being one of the 5 submitted to the CCRC because you implied it yesterday!

You don't seem to be able to grasp that by the time Julie was asked about MM, she believed that Jeremy had LIED about him being responsible. It really is quite simple!

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6747
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #25 on: August 13, 2019, 03:04:PM »
JM must have been trembling as each remark/accusation she made she was clutching at straws because she'd been peeved by JB's behaviour with another woman but also comparing £25,000 and the truth. Under such circumstances the former seemed more acceptable.

Hi Lookout

Jeremy's trial was a Joke.

JM got £25,000 and her fraud charges dropped.
AE got control of the caravan park and her debts to JB eliminated.
DB and RWB got all the rest of the £500,000 worth of assets.

It would be funny if it weren't so serious.  :-\
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6747
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #26 on: August 13, 2019, 03:49:PM »
Hi Lookout

Jeremy's trial was a Joke.

JM got £25,000 and her fraud charges dropped.
AE got control of the caravan park and her debts to JB eliminated.
DB and RWB got all the rest of the £500,000 worth of assets.

It would be funny if it weren't so serious.  :-\


« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 03:49:PM by David1819 »
"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23663
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #27 on: August 13, 2019, 04:07:PM »
Hi Lookout

Jeremy's trial was a Joke.

JM got £25,000 and her fraud charges dropped.
AE got control of the caravan park and her debts to JB eliminated.
DB and RWB got all the rest of the £500,000 worth of assets.

It would be funny if it weren't so serious.  :-\

And Jeremy got a whole life tariff for murdering his whole family which included two six year old children!

None of that's funny!!

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27470
Re: Julie Mugford knowingly implicated an innocent Matthew Mcdonald.
« Reply #28 on: August 13, 2019, 05:15:PM »
And Jeremy got a whole life tariff for murdering his whole family which included two six year old children!

None of that's funny!!


No accounting for what some see as "funny".