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

[Hartley]

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.

Tried by a Jury is pot luck???

So now you are suggesting that the entire British legal system is flawed?

[Jackiepreece]

You have obviously never listened to the many discussions on why trial by jury might not be fair!

I am still waiting for Hartley or Peres observations as why Julie mugford was treated. So differently to someone else (example Maxine Carr) the police were quite prepared to offer her immunity although she was involved in this mass murder.  Desperate measures from Essex police I think

Observations on that point

Hartley or pete have you ever been a juror on a murder trial?
I have

[Hartley]

You have obviously never listened to the many discussions on why trial by jury might not be fair!

That really is stretching it, and quite frankly irrelevant.

I am still waiting for Hartley or Peres observations as why Julie mugford was treated.

Are you?

Observations on that point

Hartley or pete have you ever been a juror on a murder trial?
I have

No I have not, however, if you have been on jury service for such a case, what relevance does that have. Do you think suddenly you have a higher level of insight, based on your one time experience?

[Pete0001]

I find it amazing you keep bringing up your jury service and yet post the way you do!! Have you reread anything you've posted??

I've never stood for jury service as my circumstances won't allow it. But I've been brought up to think as an individual and base my opinion on things I can prove and/or understand.

Comparing Maxine Carr and julie mugford is quite frankly ridiculous and silly beyond reason. I really do want to understand your points and position but while your posting the way you are I can't see that happening!

[Jackiepreece]

I will give you an example of what happened while deliberating on the case I was a juror on.  I was in the minority and a couple of other jurors tried
to push me into pleading guilty as they said the accused was more than likely guilty and they wanted a decision because they were both doing different things that night.

Still waiting for your comments why the police treated Julie mugford differently to someone like Maxine Carr.  They make there own rules up as they go along

[Newbury1]

You have obviously never listened to the many discussions on why trial by jury might not be fair!

I can generally agree with jackiepreece on this point.

If a case is quite complicated (and this one certainly was/is) it takes some IQ to sort things out and come to the right conclusion. It has been suggested that complex fraud cases should just be tried by judges only.

It would appear here that Jury at JB's trial were swayed by several factors that were complex and maybe difficult to understand.

I don' believe the Defence put up as stronger case as I believe they could on existing evidence; however their hands were somewhat tied by nondisclosure of certain other information.

A retrial, with all information presented, would help clear up these anomalies (as long as the Jury were clever enough to assimilate all the information presented - and all of us are struggling!).

[Hartley]

I will give you an example of what happened while deliberating on the case I was a juror on.  I was in the minority and a couple of other jurors tried
to push me into pleading guilty as they said the accused was more than likely guilty and they wanted a decision because they were both doing different things that night.

Okay, deep breath ........ You can't relate your experience of a single jury service to the jury which served in 1986 in JB's trial.

And it doesn't matter anyway, that is the system we use in this country, whether you like it or not.

I'm not really sure what you are asking about people being treated differently, the jury watched and listened to the case put forward by the prosecution and the defence and came to a conclusion and passed a verdict. End of story.

Now for a retrial to be granted then it needs to be based on evidence and nothing else.

[Pete0001]

I will give you an example of what happened while deliberating on the case I was a juror on.  I was in the minority and a couple of other jurors tried
to push me into pleading guilty as they said the accused was more than likely guilty and they wanted a decision because they were both doing different things that night.

Still waiting for your comments why the police treated Julie mugford differently to someone like Maxine Carr.  They make there own rules up as they go along

Ive given you my comments... You are so far off the mark I've lost the will to reply to you... Maxine Carr and mugford can not be compared it's ridiculous, bizarre totally unrelated and bares no relevance to this case..


 

[Newbury1]

You have obviously never listened to the many discussions on why trial by jury might not be fair!

I can generally agree with jackiepreece on this point.

If a case is quite complicated (and this one certainly was/is) it takes some IQ to sort things out and come to the right conclusion. It has been suggested that complex fraud cases should just be tried by judges only.

It would appear here that Jury at JB's trial were swayed by several factors that were complex and maybe difficult to understand.

I don' believe the Defence put up as stronger case as I believe they could on existing evidence; however their hands were somewhat tied by nondisclosure of certain other information.

A retrial, with all information presented, would help clear up these anomalies (as long as the Jury were clever enough to assimilate all the information presented - and all of us are struggling!).

I just wanted to update my amendment

[Jackiepreece]

To newbury1
Thankyou much more eloquently put than me and a retrial is all Jeremy's asking for

I will never change my mind over the fact  that if Julie mugford went to the police and told the story of how she was involved she was never charged with anything

I bet the jury were disgusted when the girl they saw keep breaking down in the witness box has sold her story

I would have hidden away for ever if I thought I could have stopped the slaughter of a whole family which included two innocent little boys

[Kaldin]

The comparison to Maxine Carr is interesting, and I think there are some parallels. It wasn't quite the same thing because Julie Mugford didn't actually lie, but she did go around with Jeremy for a whole month, and she did withhold evidence from the police - ie, what Jeremy had told her (allegedly). Maxine Carr lied but she didn't know that Huntley had killed the girls.

Could they have prosecuted Julie Mugford for not coming forward earlier though? With Maxine Carr it was more straightforward I suppose.

I asked earlier if Julie Mugford was reviled by the press, and it was the issue of Maxine Carr that made me wonder about that.

[HMEssex]

To newbury1
Thankyou much more eloquently put than me and a retrial is all Jeremy's asking for

I will never change my mind over the fact 
I bet the jury were disgusted when the girl they saw keep breaking down in the witness box has sold her story

I would have hidden away for ever if I thought I could have stopped the slaughter of a whole family which included two innocent little boys

Jackie, in these two sentences you've implied that JM was involved with the crime and so therefore so was Jeremy!

"So differently to someone else (example Maxine Carr) the police were quite prepared to offer her immunity although she was involved in this mass murder."


that if Julie mugford went to the police and told the story of how she was involved she was never charged with anything

[curiousessex]

Yes....... I noted the implied contradiction also.

[mb1]

An analogy.

Chatting with my sister, she overhead a woman on the bus say to her child "If you don't b****y stop it I'm going to kill you".
Should my sister have gone to the police? And everyone else on the bus?
If this child went missing and something awful had happened and my sister went to the police a month later, should my sister then be arrested? And everyone on the bus?

Rightly or wrongly many people make idle threats. Should we all be reporting them?

If JB confessed to JM perhaps she was a combination of stunned and afraid - who knows? She told a friend - perhaps she should be charged as well.

I don't like the sound of JM either, but there's never been any evidence that she was actively involved in the planning or carrying out of the murders. Some people are talking about her as if she is a mass murderer. It's bordering on libel.

Her statement was only part of the prosecution. It was corroborated by evidence that Sheila did not kill herself. The silencer. Evidence Sheila did not use the gun - clean hands and feet. The only person who told the world that Sheila had the gun was JB. Money motive.

[mb1]

When JM went to the police she also revealed
          Her and JB's involvement with the Caravan site robbery
          Her involvement with JB's cannabis deals
          Her involvement in a £800 cheque fraud with her friend.

Hardly painting herself as Mother Teresa.