A statement from Julie Mugford of relevance...

[mike tesko]

Ask your legal expert, it is the evidence given in court that counts.

-------------

Evidence in court, also includes what a witness said in a witness statement they made in connection with the proceedings - if there is a discrepancy, it matters...

[andrea]

statements are relevent at a trial because dont the lawyers quote from them when questioning witnesses, defendants etc ?

[Jerry]

A witness statement is a statement summarising the oral evidence that a witness will give at trial.

Ultimately it is what they say in the witness box that counts.

[mike tesko]

statements are relevent at a trial because dont the lawyers quote from them when questioning witnesses, defendants etc ?

.............

Yes, lets get the facts right, Mugford was seen 31 times between 7th August 1985 and the time of the trial in October 1986, and she changed her story  as many times as she changed her knickers in that period, she is just a charlatan, out to make herself look good and prevent herself from being prosecuted - I don't trust a word she spoke about, she should have been a co-accused if what she said had any truth to it - simple as that...

[Jerry]

She never changed her story, she added to it and most effectively if I may say so.

[mike tesko]

She never changed her story, she added to it and most effectively if I may say so.

-----------

Sorry, she did not add to it, she changed her story as the time progressed, first it was a hitman killed the family, and that JB paid him 2000 pounds, then it turned into JB doing it himself - now if that isn't changing her story, I don't know what to say?

According to her in her original statements, a hitman did it, but no sooner does McDonald get cleared by a reliance upon an alibi, Mugford changes her story, and makes out JB was the person who actually carried out the murders, now if that isn't changing her story, then you need urgently to educate me...

[curiousessex]

She could have made a thousand statements for all it mattered.  Statements are only a means to an end, a method whereby the CPS can decide whether a witness is credible or not.  Statements are not taken into account by jurors in any event, it is the sworn testimony which counts at the end of the day and Mugfords evidence was spot on.

DS Jones' theories are simply that, theories.

------------

What a of of garbage...

The contents of witness statements do matter, otherwise what is the point of making them, and relying upon their contents?

Stop being silly...

Mike

NGB did state that what is given in evidence in court under oath and cross examination is what really counts.

Can you also clear up if it is true whether Jeremy had a deal with a newspaper for circa £40,000 if he was found not guilty? (I beelieve this has been mentioned in another thread.)

[mike tesko]

She could have made a thousand statements for all it mattered.  Statements are only a means to an end, a method whereby the CPS can decide whether a witness is credible or not.  Statements are not taken into account by jurors in any event, it is the sworn testimony which counts at the end of the day and Mugfords evidence was spot on.

DS Jones' theories are simply that, theories.

------------

What a of of garbage...

The contents of witness statements do matter, otherwise what is the point of making them, and relying upon their contents?

Stop being silly...

Mike

NGB did state that what is given in evidence in court under oath and cross examination is what really counts.

Can you also clear up if it is true whether Jeremy had a deal with a newspaper for circa £40,000 if he was found not guilty? (I beelieve this has been mentioned in another thread.)

-----------

Yes, there was some sort of deal whereby if Jeremy got fond not guilty, he would be paid for an exclusive story, and of course if he got found guilty, then Julie got paid for her story...

[curiousessex]

She could have made a thousand statements for all it mattered.  Statements are only a means to an end, a method whereby the CPS can decide whether a witness is credible or not.  Statements are not taken into account by jurors in any event, it is the sworn testimony which counts at the end of the day and Mugfords evidence was spot on.

DS Jones' theories are simply that, theories.

------------

What a of of garbage...

The contents of witness statements do matter, otherwise what is the point of making them, and relying upon their contents?

Stop being silly...

Mike

NGB did state that what is given in evidence in court under oath and cross examination is what really counts.

Can you also clear up if it is true whether Jeremy had a deal with a newspaper for circa £40,000 if he was found not guilty? (I beelieve this has been mentioned in another thread.)

-----------

Yes, there was some sort of deal whereby if Jeremy got fond not guilty, he would be paid for an exclusive story, and of course if he got found guilty, then Julie got paid for her story...

Mike

Thank you.

Do you know the amount..... was it £40,000 as has been reported?

[smiffy]

JM was lying pure and simple.

[vidvic]

She never changed her story, she added to it and most effectively if I may say so.

-----------

Sorry, she did not add to it, she changed her story as the time progressed, first it was a hitman killed the family, and that JB paid him 2000 pounds, then it turned into JB doing it himself - now if that isn't changing her story, I don't know what to say?

According to her in her original statements, a hitman did it, but no sooner does McDonald get cleared by a reliance upon an alibi, Mugford changes her story, and makes out JB was the person who actually carried out the murders, now if that isn't changing her story, then you need urgently to educate me...

I don't believe that's true Mike? She didn't change her story. Mcdonald was even in court. Surely she wouldn't have even thought of the Mcdonald story if she hadn't been told it by JB. If she'd wanted to 'frame' JB she would have just done it from the outset. She lied to the family though, seemingly to cover for JB, especially when she identified the bodies.

[mike tesko]

She never changed her story, she added to it and most effectively if I may say so.

-----------

Sorry, she did not add to it, she changed her story as the time progressed, first it was a hitman killed the family, and that JB paid him 2000 pounds, then it turned into JB doing it himself - now if that isn't changing her story, I don't know what to say?

According to her in her original statements, a hitman did it, but no sooner does McDonald get cleared by a reliance upon an alibi, Mugford changes her story, and makes out JB was the person who actually carried out the murders, now if that isn't changing her story, then you need urgently to educate me...

I don't believe that's true Mike? She didn't change her story. Mcdonald was even in court. Surely she wouldn't have even thought of the Mcdonald story if she hadn't been told it by JB. If she'd wanted to 'frame' JB she would have just done it from the outset. She lied to the family though, seemingly to cover for JB, especially when she identified the bodies.

... Well, I look at this matter from a different perspective - since, Mugford knew more than you or I give her credit for? By the time she was coerced to come forward, she was already in possession of information, which depending upon which way you choose to look at it, either proved Jeremy could not have been responsible for killing his entire family and then stage managing Shiela's body in the bedroom to make it appear as though she had taken her own life, or that because there had been a sighting of a person at the bedroom window, a sighting which had been witnessed by Jeremy, PC Myall and PS Bews, there must have been an accomplice, or as the case may be, somebody who was hired by Jeremy to kill his family - the only other alternative, was that Shiela really did kill the others, and then herself. These were the options available to Mugford at the time she decided to put Jeremy in the frame. Mtgford was a wounded animal at the time she was plotting jeremy's downfall, and with the cunning nature, akin to a vixen, she knew what to say, and how to say it - she didn't need to get any information about McDONALD, from Jeremy at all, it was commonly known in Jeremy's circle of friends and associates, that Mathew McDONALD had a bit of a reputation of being a mercenary (hitman), and somebody with the guile that Mugford possessed, would readily be able to piece together a story to fit the occasion, and this is precisely what she has done...

[smiffy]

She never changed her story, she added to it and most effectively if I may say so.

-----------

Sorry, she did not add to it, she changed her story as the time progressed, first it was a hitman killed the family, and that JB paid him 2000 pounds, then it turned into JB doing it himself - now if that isn't changing her story, I don't know what to say?

According to her in her original statements, a hitman did it, but no sooner does McDonald get cleared by a reliance upon an alibi, Mugford changes her story, and makes out JB was the person who actually carried out the murders, now if that isn't changing her story, then you need urgently to educate me...

I don't believe that's true Mike? She didn't change her story. Mcdonald was even in court. Surely she wouldn't have even thought of the Mcdonald story if she hadn't been told it by JB. If she'd wanted to 'frame' JB she would have just done it from the outset. She lied to the family though, seemingly to cover for JB, especially when she identified the bodies.

JM did changer her story...
the hitman claim was her way to pass off why she kept seeing JB and seeing him against the backdrop of him being a killer....which she would not have done...or so she says ...so she had to find a reason to cover that angle when framing JB.
JM could not frame JB from the outset as (HE DID NOT DO IT) she did not have anything to hand to fabricate her false story with. Only as time went on and police and others contributed information could the fabrication come into being that would morph into the evidence given in court.

[mike tesko]

She never changed her story, she added to it and most effectively if I may say so.

-----------

Sorry, she did not add to it, she changed her story as the time progressed, first it was a hitman killed the family, and that JB paid him 2000 pounds, then it turned into JB doing it himself - now if that isn't changing her story, I don't know what to say?

According to her in her original statements, a hitman did it, but no sooner does McDonald get cleared by a reliance upon an alibi, Mugford changes her story, and makes out JB was the person who actually carried out the murders, now if that isn't changing her story, then you need urgently to educate me...

I don't believe that's true Mike? She didn't change her story. Mcdonald was even in court. Surely she wouldn't have even thought of the Mcdonald story if she hadn't been told it by JB. If she'd wanted to 'frame' JB she would have just done it from the outset. She lied to the family though, seemingly to cover for JB, especially when she identified the bodies.

JM did changer her story...
the hitman claim was her way to pass off why she kept seeing JB and seeing him against the backdrop of him being a killer....which she would not have done...or so she says ...so she had to find a reason to cover that angle when framing JB.
JM could not frame JB from the outset as (HE DID NOT DO IT) she did not have anything to hand to fabricate her false story with. Only as time went on and police and others contributed information could the fabrication come into being that would morph into the evidence given in court.

... Mugford could not target Jeremy directly from the outset, as the killer, because Jeremy told her about the figure which he and the police had seen at the bedroom window - at the time Jeremy told JM about this sighting, both would have been satisfied, that one of the victims was still very much alive by that stage, and so Mugford, would have been on dodgy ground making direct allegations that Jeremy killed the family himself. So, she went for the other option, she made up a story that Jeremy had paid a hitman, a local mercenary, two thousand pounds to kill his family - she knew Mathew McDONALD and the reputation he had got locally, and she gambled that even if Jeremy got arrested as a result of the information she was prepared to give to the police at that early stage, and hd was releasf without charge, she gambled that Jeremy would end up with McDONALD on his case. All that Mugford was concerned with at that early stage, was to disrupt Jeremy's lifestyle - it almost backfired on her, because McDONALD had an alibi, and Jeremy got bailed on a burglary charge.,

[Jerry]

Mike

NGB did state that what is given in evidence in court under oath and cross examination is what really counts.

Can you also clear up if it is true whether Jeremy had a deal with a newspaper for circa £40,000 if he was found not guilty? (I beelieve this has been mentioned in another thread.)

Thank you curious, we did get there in the end albeit the circuitous route.