Phone call to police

[Steve_uk]

Have you read Mugford's News of the World Article in which she states 'he never admmited his guilt, not even to me. Not even later in court"

As I say,I haven't ruled out the hitman theory,just he might have given himself a better alibi had he hired one. Re-reading the reports about the life and death struggle Ralph(Nevill) had in the kitchen with his assailant it was suggested that this person might have been left with scratches,yet there were no marks found on either Sheila or Jeremy.

[Jane]

She said he told her he'd paid a hitman to do it.

So over a period of-Sorry Bridget, hi-months he gets her used to the idea that he could kill his parents by employing various methods. He quite openly shares these macabre fantasies with her,...... so she says. The day of the tragedy he calls her early with something along the lines of "Tonights the night" or "It's now or never" and later calls her with something like "Something's wrong at the farm"....... or so she says, all of which, on its' own may have been enough to convict. But let's suppose, having vented her spleen to revenge herself on his affair, she doesn't feel quite so confident about the thought of him receiving a life sentence because of her, and because she may well, despite being furious at his betrayal, still have been in love with him, so she decided to bring in the hitman to remove Jeremy's hand from the gun.

Nobody can verify what was said in these phone conversations. EVERYTHING she says is about what he supposedly said and heard by nobody else. I'm not surprised she cried whilst giving evidence, if nothing else, she knew she wasn't entirely innocent, and but for the ineptitude of Jeremy's team her evidence could have been challenged and broken.

[Patti]

So over a period of-Sorry Bridget, hi-months he gets her used to the idea that he could kill his parents by employing various methods. He quite openly shares these macabre fantasies with her,...... so she says. The day of the tragedy he calls her early with something along the lines of "Tonights the night" or "It's now or never" and later calls her with something like "Something's wrong at the farm"....... or so she says, all of which, on its' own may have been enough to convict. But let's suppose, having vented her spleen to revenge herself on his affair, she doesn't feel quite so confident about the thought of him receiving a life sentence because of her, and because she may well, despite being furious at his betrayal, still have been in love with him, so she decided to bring in the hitman to remove Jeremy's hand from the gun.

Nobody can verify what was said in these phone conversations. EVERYTHING she says is about what he supposedly said and heard by nobody else. I'm not surprised she cried whilst giving evidence, if nothing else, she knew she wasn't entirely innocent, and but for the ineptitude of Jeremy's team her evidence could have been challenged and broken.

Hi april I think they only believed the bits they wanted to believe in. Well said! btw. 

[Bridget]

So over a period of-Sorry Bridget, hi-months he gets her used to the idea that he could kill his parents by employing various methods. He quite openly shares these macabre fantasies with her,...... so she says. The day of the tragedy he calls her early with something along the lines of "Tonights the night" or "It's now or never" and later calls her with something like "Something's wrong at the farm"....... or so she says, all of which, on its' own may have been enough to convict. But let's suppose, having vented her spleen to revenge herself on his affair, she doesn't feel quite so confident about the thought of him receiving a life sentence because of her, and because she may well, despite being furious at his betrayal, still have been in love with him, so she decided to bring in the hitman to remove Jeremy's hand from the gun.

Nobody can verify what was said in these phone conversations. EVERYTHING she says is about what he supposedly said and heard by nobody else. I'm not surprised she cried whilst giving evidence, if nothing else, she knew she wasn't entirely innocent, and but for the ineptitude of Jeremy's team her evidence could have been challenged and broken.

How would introducing a hitman (expecially one with an alibi) prevent him from getting a life sentance?

[Jane]

How would introducing a hitman (expecially one with an alibi) prevent him from getting a life sentance?

Presumably she wasn't aware he had one as it was possibly about make it up as you go along. Had she been right Jeremy could only have been convicted of the crime by proxy. A life sentence seems to come in all sizes from a few years to throw away the key, if he hadn't laid a finger on the victims, the onus of responsibility would surely have fallen on the hitman, who could have absconded and retired on the £2000 Jeremy had paid him,.......so JM said he said, without firing a shot, his, not Jeremy's would have been the deciding factor . It seems unlikely to me that, HAD that been the scenario, Jeremy would have received the "life" he did. That may well have been what JM hoped for as an outcome.

[Steve_uk]

Julie only gets the £25000 from the News of the World if he is convicted;additionally she has to be careful to be shown as a sympathetic character and not as an accessory to murder,hence the floods of tears. As I have said before,she doesn't come out of the trial pristine,but the fact that Jeremy did not cut off all involvement with her before the murders suggests her connivance has become requisite,and makes her evidence all the more damning.

[Bridget]

Presumably she wasn't aware he had one as it was possibly about make it up as you go along. Had she been right Jeremy could only have been convicted of the crime by proxy. A life sentence seems to come in all sizes from a few years to throw away the key, if he hadn't laid a finger on the victims, the onus of responsibility would surely have fallen on the hitman, who could have absconded and retired on the £2000 Jeremy had paid him,.......so JM said he said, without firing a shot, his, not Jeremy's would have been the deciding factor . It seems unlikely to me that, HAD that been the scenario, Jeremy would have received the "life" he did. That may well have been what JM hoped for as an outcome.

He may have avoided the whole life tariff (or maybe not) but she didn't know he was going to get that anyway. I don't think hiring a hitman would have avoided a life sentance, but maybe NGB could help clear that up.

[Jane]

Julie only gets the £25000 from the News of the World if he is convicted;additionally she has to be careful to be shown as a sympathetic character and not as an accessory to murder,hence the floods of tears. As I have said before,she doesn't come out of the trial pristine,but the fact that Jeremy did not cut off all involvement with her before the murders suggests her connivance has become requisite,and makes her evidence all the more damning.

Calculating female that she appears to have been, she may well have thought to hedge her bets and go for damage limitation. If she had managed to insinuate herself back into his life she could have ended up with more than £25000 and possibly a new deal on "How I stood by my convicted lover."

[Steve_uk]

I think Julie Mugford at this point is just wanting to extricate herself from the whole business which is why she might break down spasmodically thereby giving herself more time to think in the witness box. I'm also wondering about Jeremy's decision to testify,as he does not need to,yet if he chooses so to do he can be cross-examined by the Prosecution. For an innocent man his answers ever since that first morning have been evasive and taciturn,and as we subsequently discovered,not believed by the jury.

[Patti]

Hi Bridget  I thought the hitman theory had been thrown out as the MacDonald guy had a cast iron alibi this was before it got to Court come on in Patti I need your help

Hi Susan

His cast iron albi was that he was with another woman, the same woman he married in 1992...Hardly cast iron is it? He wasn't with the wife...that's for sure.

[Jane]

I think Julie Mugford at this point is just wanting to extricate herself from the whole business which is why she might break down spasmodically thereby giving herself more time to think in the witness box. I'm also wondering about Jeremy's decision to testify,as he does not need to,yet if he chooses so to do he can be cross-examined by the Prosecution. For an innocent man his answers ever since that first morning have been evasive and taciturn,and as we subsequently discovered,not believed by the jury.

Just my thoughts, Steve, but i think, if I was guilty, I would choose to say as little as possible(a hard one for me) in case I was asked a question I wasn't prepared for and it tripped me up. Jeremy probably believed his innocence was obvious to all and may have been irritated by what he saw as pointless questions.

[grahameb]

Just my thoughts, Steve, but i think, if I was guilty, I would choose to say as little as possible(a hard one for me) in case I was asked a question I wasn't prepared for and it tripped me up. Jeremy probably believed his innocence was obvious to all and may have been irritated by what he saw as pointless questions.

He said that it had never crossed his mind that he would ever be convicted. Because he was innocent.

[Caroline R]

She said he told her he'd paid a hitman to do it.

And that would mean he was still guilty!

[Bridget]

Remember that she volunteered the information about her offences. As to her motives for saying what she did, I'm sure the jury were invited to believe that, and didn't.

[Jane]

Remember that she volunteered the information about her offences. As to her motives for saying what she did, I'm sure the jury were invited to believe that, and didn't.

I wonder what sort of conversations she may have had and with whom before she volunteered the information. Methinks that whilst there may have been several agendas going on, they weren't all compatible and whilst I would not question that the jury was told the truth, I doubt very much that they were told ALL of the truth.