Julie Mugford - the (lying) Criminal, exposed...

[andrea]

true, but her will was quite sizeable from what i can gather.

[mb1]

according to colin in his book, the money would have gone to him. i agree yes the family were greedy.

Wills and intestacy are complicated.

If it was assumed Neville and June died first, their wills come into play.

If Sheila had made a will, and was decreed to have died after N + J, this would have been included in her estate. Whoever she bequeathed her estate to would get it. As her sons were dead it would go to their nearest blood relatives on a percentile basis. If she died intestate, it would go to her nearest blood relatives - not her ex-husband.
Her natural mother and father and any half siblings would have been able to claim on Sheila's estate.

I don't think Sheila had made a will.

Colin wouldn't have got anything via Sheila, but if the twins died last he should have got it via them - because Sheila's estate would have gone to them.

I have read on here that the twins couldn't inherit because they were too young but I don't understand that at all - since when can children not inherit?

In England & Wales you can make a will and leave leave your estate to who or what you want. If you die intestate with 2 blood children it would be split 2 ways. If it was decided the children died after her, they would inherit her estate and it would go to their closest blood relative - their father. If the children died before, Sheila's half should go to her nearest blood relatives.

Does anyone have evidence of Mabel's will before it was changed following the murders?

[Kaldin]

according to colin in his book, the money would have gone to him. i agree yes the family were greedy.

Wills and intestacy are complicated.

If it was assumed Neville and June died first, their wills come into play.

If Sheila had made a will, and was decreed to have died after N + J, this would have been included in her estate. Whoever she bequeathed her estate to would get it. As her sons were dead it would go to their nearest blood relatives on a percentile basis. If she died intestate, it would go to her nearest blood relatives - not her ex-husband.
Her natural mother and father and any half siblings would have been able to claim on Sheila's estate.

I don't think Sheila had made a will.

Colin wouldn't have got anything via Sheila, but if the twins died last he should have got it via them - because Sheila's estate would have gone to them.

I have read on here that the twins couldn't inherit because they were too young but I don't understand that at all - since when can children not inherit?

In England & Wales you can make a will and leave leave your estate to who or what you want. If you die intestate with 2 blood children it would be split 2 ways. If it was decided the children died after her, they would inherit her estate and it would go to their closest blood relative - their father. If the children died before, Sheila's half should go to her nearest blood relatives.

Does anyone have evidence of Mabel's will before it was changed following the murders?

Yes, which is why I think that they assumed that Sheila died last.

[Jackiepreece]

So julie mugford knew before the killings knew the day of the killings and she knew when the murders had been carried out

As I have said before her behaviour never changed before or after the murders so she was either involved knew everything put on an Oscar winning performance at the funeral. Or it was a pack of lies and once she knew Jeremy was going to come into all that money she knew she didn't stand a chance of holding on to him she was hardly good looking and he was this good looking boy with all this money

[mb1]

Is this forum discussing evidence that might get JB a re-trial?

Or trying to convict JM?

[andrea]

well, jm was a star witness for the prosecution so i suppose she will get a mention on here but i personally find what she says a bit dodgy.

[bb2010]

Julie Mugford's credibility has already been tested by the courts. Her credibility was a specific grounds for appeal in 2002. You can find the information here.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html at paragraph 331

[Jackiepreece]

I cannot believe you just wrote that because if anything that makes the prosecution and police sound worse than I even thought. So Julie mugford knew about the murders before they were going to happen she knew the day they were going to happen she knew when they had happened let Colin caffell think his. Wife had killed her own children let the chance of the crime scene be contaminated and be useless for conclusive forensic tests and the police give her and her friend immunity from immunity. She the star witness giving evidence against Jeremy and not one single bit of proof that those conversations ever took place. Please can no one on this site ever make out that women was a credible witness I wouldn't be surprised the police didn't broker the deal with the newspaper and paid for her ticket to Canada. She must have been laughing all the way to the bank.  Let's get the cps star witness back for a lie detector test I am sure she would be happy to participate.  NOt

[Hartley]

I cannot believe you just wrote that because if anything that makes the prosecution and police sound worse than I even thought. So Julie mugford knew about the murders before they were going to happen she knew the day they were going to happen she knew when they had happened let Colin caffell think his. Wife had killed her own children let the chance of the crime scene be contaminated and be useless for conclusive forensic tests and the police give her and her friend immunity from immunity. She the star witness giving evidence against Jeremy and not one single bit of proof that those conversations ever took place. Please can no one on this site ever make out that women was a credible witness I wouldn't be surprised the police didn't broker the deal with the newspaper and paid for her ticket to Canada. She must have been laughing all the way to the bank.  Let's get the cps star witness back for a lie detector test I am sure she would be happy to participate.  NOt

The jury found her credible.

No matter how much character assassination you want to undertake now, it's irrelevant.

[Pete0001]

So julie mugford knew before the killings knew the day of the killings and she knew when the murders had been carried out

As I have said before her behaviour never changed before or after the murders so she was either involved knew everything put on an Oscar winning performance at the funeral. Or it was a pack of lies and once she knew Jeremy was going to come into all that money she knew she didn't stand a chance of holding on to him she was hardly good looking and he was this good looking boy with all this money

 ...and because of all this she accused McDonald because Jeremy told her that, as you put it, he was running around town picking up women with Jeremy.

[Pete0001]

I cannot believe you just wrote that because if anything that makes the prosecution and police sound worse than I even thought. So Julie mugford knew about the murders before they were going to happen she knew the day they were going to happen she knew when they had happened let Colin caffell think his. Wife had killed her own children let the chance of the crime scene be contaminated and be useless for conclusive forensic tests and the police give her and her friend immunity from immunity. She the star witness giving evidence against Jeremy and not one single bit of proof that those conversations ever took place. Please can no one on this site ever make out that women was a credible witness I wouldn't be surprised the police didn't broker the deal with the newspaper and paid for her ticket to Canada. She must have been laughing all the way to the bank.  Let's get the cps star witness back for a lie detector test I am sure she would be happy to participate.  NOt

Wow... so you think the Police brokered the deal for the newspapers, McDonald was accused because he liked picking up women with Jeremy and anyone that disagrees with accepting theories posted on this website is in favour of the dealth penalty... you are just a walk, talking sweeping statement!

[Pete0001]

Let's get the cps star witness back for a lie detector test I am sure she would be happy to participate.  NOt

Do you actually know how lie detector tests work? As many people that think they are worth while just as many think they are useless and easily defeated.

One APA explanation: "If 10 polygraph examinations are administered and the examiner is correct in 7 decisions, wrong in 1 and has 2 inconclusive test results, we calculate the accuracy rate as 87.5% (8 definitive results, 7 of which were correct.) Critics of the polygraph technique would calculate the accuracy rate in this example as 70%, (10 examinations with 7 correct decisions.)" This argument is not entirely unreasonable, since there are several ways to measure accuracy.

What is interesting here, is that even in an argument from the biggest promoters of the polygraph, the example given is of of 87.5% accuracy, and 20% "inconclusive" results. This means that of a 100 people tested in a murder case, about 10 innocent people would be found to be "lying," and 20 with an "inconclusive" reading. Those with inconclusive results might include both murderers and innocent people.

Lets look at this another way. Of a 100 murderers, 10 would be found to be telling the truth, and 20 would have inconclusive results from their lie detector results. In other words, out of 100 murders, 30 would not be identified, according to the accuracy assumed in the example above.

[Pete0001]

?Polygraphs detect lies.

Polygraphs measure physiological changes in the body: they do not detect lies. Physiological responses do not directly translate into proof of lying, nor is the process an objective way of testing for lies; the results of polygraph tests are subjectively interpreted by the polygrapher who then decides whether the examinee was lying.


?Polygraphs are infallible.

There are varying claims for the accuracy of polygraph testing. Some claim up to 99% accuracy, some say that they are closer to 50% accurate - pure chance. The truth is likely to be somewhere in between.

The true accuracy of polygraph testing is difficult to ascertain. Polygraph testing is often done in cases where other evidence is insubstantial, so there’s often no other way to validate the findings. However, most attempts to ascertain the true accuracy, including scientific tests where the 'ground truth' is known, usually give answers in the 60-70% range. This means that polygraph testing is better than guessing (50% accurate) but it's nowhere near as accurate as its proponents claim nor is it accurate enough to be considered a valid and reliable method.

Sometimes people “crack” and confess; again this does not validate the process; many people give confessions, and even false confessions, under duress. John A. Larson, a pioneer of polygraphic lie detection stated, "The lie detector, as used in many places, is nothing more than a psychological third-degree aimed at extorting confessions as the old physical beatings were."

One important fact to consider is that polygraphers interpret results. This means that their findings can be influenced by their preconceptions; if they believe a person to be guilty before testing, they could be more likely to interpret the test results to reflect that belief. and vice versa - edit by me

In 1986, the US television programme 60 minutes did an exposé on private polygraph companies. Three different companies were told that a camera and lens had been stolen from the offices of a magazine publisher. There were four employees who were all suspects. Each polygrapher was asked to test the employees and in each case they were told, "It might have been ___," with a different employee being weakly accused in each case.

The three different companies each found that the person who had been accused by the magazine was indeed the guilty party, and they were all very confident in their findings. The fact that there never was a crime, that no theft really took place, and that no one was guilty of anything, shows just how strongly the polygraphers' preconceptions can influence the way that they interpret the results of their tests.

Taken from a Uk Polygraph site.

[Jackiepreece]

As far as I know lie detectors are used within the legal system I am sure probation officers have used them

As far as Julie mugford and a jury believing her I had the unfortunate of being part of a jury on a murder case at Chelmsford crown court and a frightening fact I observed was a number of the jurors made it quite clear they thought he looked guilty and a few really didn't understand the case, when you are tried by jury it is pot luck Jeremy was convicted on 10-2 majority from what I have read I have no doubt that the jury would have felt different if more information had been disclosed.  I will never understand the way Julie mugford was treated look at the way Maxine Carr was treated she got a prison sentence and she wasn't involved as much as Julie mugford and there were two girls involved there, not 5 murdered.  I am quite sure she didn't sell her story either.  I believe the police had a very flimsy case against Jeremy and were quite happy to let jm off anything as long as they got a conviction on Jeremy and it looked like well done Essex police.
 

[Pete0001]

As far as I know lie detectors are used within the legal system I am sure probation officers have used them

As far as Julie mugford and a jury believing her I had the unfortunate of being part of a jury on a murder case at Chelmsford crown court and a frightening fact I observed was a number of the jurors made it quite clear they thought he looked guilty and a few really didn't understand the case, when you are tried by jury it is pot luck Jeremy was convicted on 10-2 majority from what I have read I have no doubt that the jury would have felt different if more information had been disclosed.  I will never understand the way Julie mugford was treated look at the way Maxine Carr was treated she got a prison sentence and she wasn't involved as much as Julie mugford and there were two girls involved there, not 5 murdered.  I am quite sure she didn't sell her story either.  I believe the police had a very flimsy case against Jeremy and were quite happy to let jm off anything as long as they got a conviction on Jeremy and it looked like well done Essex police.

You are doing the same thing you are accusing your co-jury members of doing!! can you not see that?