Julie Mugford Witness Statement Dated 08/09/1985

[Roch]

Phone call recording were destroyed/recorded over.

Isn't that claim contested?  I think there are schedules which list audio recordings being taped?  Someone is going to have to put the mona lisa button to use.  Jam, you're the best person for finding stuff on here... 

Also, why on earth in an incident of this magnitude would destruction or re-recording take place?  The official version is that it was routine re-recording?  A cynic might suggest that given the track record for this case, the absence of audio material is beneficial to the prosecution but not the defence.     

[-Harters-]

Isn't that claim contested?  I think there are schedules which list audio recordings being taped?  Someone is going to have to put the mona lisa button to use.  Jam, you're the best person for finding stuff on here... 

Also, why on earth in an incident of this magnitude would destruction or re-recording take place?  The official version is that it was routine re-recording?  A cynic might suggest that given the track record for this case, the absence of audio material is beneficial to the prosecution but not the defence.   

I'm not sure Rochy, that is what was listed in the Dickinson report. It says recordings kept for a month, if they are not requested by then they get destroyed/recorded over.

I'm not sure I recall seeing this contested, I'll have a dig around.

I'm sure you would say it is somewhat convenient that the case changed exactly one month later on 07/09/85 to five murders rather than four murders and a suicide. 

[Roch]

I'm not sure Rochy, that is what was listed in the Dickinson report. It says recordings kept for a month, if they are not requested by then they get destroyed/recorded over.

I'm not sure I recall seeing this contested, I'll have a dig around.

I'm sure you would say it is somewhat convenient that the case changed exactly one month later on 07/09/85 to five murders rather than four murders and a suicide. 

Have you been seconded to the innocent camp or something?     You're doing my work for me.

[-Harters-]

Have you been seconded to the innocent camp or something?     You're doing my work for me.

Just trying to save time. 

[-Harters-]

Isn't that claim contested?  I think there are schedules which list audio recordings being taped?  Someone is going to have to put the mona lisa button to use.  Jam, you're the best person for finding stuff on here... 

It seems it is contested by Mike and in GDS's wireless log and echoed by Andrew Hunter, although like everything else, it's simply defence allegations without supporting evidence.

The defence appear to be arguing that they didn't know about the recordings until Bonnett made a statement in 2001 indicating that calls were routinely recorded, the defence then goes on to complain that the tapes should be disclosed, alleging that they are being withheld in order to keep Jeremy in prison.
The police (as mentioned above), indicate in the Dickinson report that the recordings were destroyed/recorded over as they were not requested within one month.

Mike has then produced this document below, citing it as proof that the recordings were still around a month and six days after the murders, although the reality is that it simply indicates that the police first sought the tapes a month and six days after the murders, which fits in with the explanation that they were destroyed/recorded over as they were not requested within one month.


That's about all I can dig up at the moment. 

[Roch]

It seems it is contested by Mike and in GDS's wireless log and echoed by Andrew Hunter, although like everything else, it's simply defence allegations without supporting evidence.

The defence appear to be arguing that they didn't know about the recordings until Bonnett made a statement in 2001 indicating that calls were routinely recorded, the defence then goes on to complain that the tapes should be disclosed, alleging that they are being withheld in order to keep Jeremy in prison.
The police (as mentioned above), indicate in the Dickinson report that the recordings were destroyed/recorded over as they were not requested within one month.

Mike has then produced this document below, citing it as proof that the recordings were still around a month and six days after the murders, although the reality is that it simply indicates that the police first sought the tapes a month and six days after the murders, which fits in with the explanation that they were destroyed/recorded over as they were not requested within one month.


That's about all I can dig up at the moment. 

Efficient as ever 'H'.  Thanks for digging this up.  I seemed to recall that I had read somewhere it stated copies had been made of the recording and that it was these copies which the defence were after.

[-Harters-]

Efficient as ever 'H'.  Thanks for digging this up.  I seemed to recall that I had read somewhere it stated copies had been made of the recording and that it was these copies which the defence were after.

You may be thinking of video recordings?

I don't believe there are any references to copies of the audio tapes, if you can find any then it would be big hit against what is being claimed in the Dickinson Report.

[Roch]

You may be thinking of video recordings?

I don't believe there are any references to copies of the audio tapes, if you can find any then it would be big hit against what is being claimed in the Dickinson Report.

They'd be worth a few bob? 

[-Harters-]

They'd be worth a few bob?

I'm not sure that comparing our Bob to a few cassette tapes is very fair. 

They probably wouldn't be worth anything, if they still existed then they would simply confirm what has already been documented by Bonnett, West and Jeremy.

[Roch]

I'm not sure that comparing our Bob to a few cassette tapes is very fair. 

They probably wouldn't be worth anything, if they still existed then they would simply confirm what has already been documented by Bonnett, West and Jeremy.

Possibly, possibly not.

[-Harters-]

Possibly, possibly not.

Well Jeremys version matches Wests, and Wests version matches Bonnetts, so what could possibly be different to what has been recorded?

[Roch]

Well Jeremys version matches Wests, and Wests version matches Bonnetts, so what could possibly be different to what has been recorded?

We'll never know.  Which document is classed as page one of the event log?  Is that one of the documents that the defence allege the FSS state has been tampered with?

[-Harters-]

We'll never know.  Which document is classed as page one of the event log?  Is that one of the documents that the defence allege the FSS state has been tampered with?

That might all sound plausable on this forum, but it's not going to be taken seriously anywhere else.

[Roch]

That might all sound plausable on this forum, but it's not going to be taken seriously anywhere else.

I'm not sure what you mean 

[mike tesko]

That might all sound plausable on this forum, but it's not going to be taken seriously anywhere else.

Of course it is going to be taken seriously elsewhere, that's why people come to this forum, to find things out, you are talking nonsense, you do not know what you are talking about...