Mugford file suppressed...

[mike tesko]

Mugford file suppressed...

[mike tesko]

I wonder if Mugfords current employers have ever seen the contents of the withheld file (above)?

[mike tesko]

I wonder if Mugfords current employers have ever seen the contents of the withheld file (above)?

Is children's safety being put into jeopardy, by the withholding of such a confidential file, based upon Mugfords involvement in the commissioning of criminal offences, and as an accessory to five murders, including the killing of two children, in their sleep?

[mike tesko]

The jury were entitled to know the truth about any motive for Julie Mugford to testify during the trial in favour of the prosecutions case:-

[Roch]

Is children's safety being put into jeopardy, by the withholding of such a confidential file, based upon Mugfords involvement in the commissioning of criminal offences, and as an accessory to five murders, including the killing of two children, in their sleep?

We don't know what's in the file Mike.  I don't believe they would have let an accessory to murder off the hook.  Accusing her of being such and her being such are two separate things.  What if she is not an accessory but is accused of being such, merely to apply pressure and gain leverage?

[mike tesko]

We don't know what's in the file Mike.  I don't believe they would have let an accessory to murder off the hook.  Accusing her of being such and her being such are two separate things.  What if she is not an accessory but is accused of being such, merely to apply pressure and gain leverage?

In my mind, and to my way of thinking, she was an accomplice,(if what she had to say had any truth to it) in the same way that Myra Hindley, was an accomplice of Ian Brady, in the same way that Rose West was an accomplice of Fred West, and in the same way as Ian Huntleys girlfriend, Maxine Carr, was/is an accomplice. In all three cases, the female part of the relationships could have prevented any deaths having occurred or at least ensured the swift arrest of their partners. If what Mugford had to say had any truth to it, she waited a month before she decided to come forward, and this coincided with the fact that Jeremy dumped her for good...

[lookout]

In my mind, and to my way of thinking, she was an accomplice,(if what she had to say had any truth to it) in the same way that Myra Hindley, was an accomplice of Ian Brady, in the same way that Rose West was an accomplice of Fred West, and in the same way as Ian Huntleys girlfriend, Maxine Carr, was/is an accomplice. In all three cases, the female part of the relationships could have prevented any deaths having occurred or at least ensured the swift arrest of their partners. If what Mugford had to say had any truth to it, she waited a month before she decided to come forward, and this coincided with the fact that Jeremy dumped her for good...

Absolutely,Mike,,and if she still states that Jeremy committed the murders,then she is no doubt an accessory and should have been tried as such. Why is she so different from the rest of the partners in crime.? Why didn't she sit a polygraph test.?

[Buddy]

Absolutely,Mike,,and if she still states that Jeremy committed the murders,then she is no doubt an accessory and should have been tried as such. Why is she so different from the rest of the partners in crime.? Why didn't she sit a polygraph test.?

She didn't need to Lookout. She admitted they she was aware that JB was going to murder the family, yet did nothing. Would you? I don't think so.
Mugford was an accomplice, but turned to give evidence to the crown.
If the jury were aware that she was to recieve £25,000 on conviction I believe they would have discarded her testimony. As it was Two members of the jury werte not convinced. If they had known of the newspaper deal I think it would have been greater.
The night of the telephone call from Jeremy sheadmitted that she had been taking drugs, along with the rest of the household. How can any evidence from this mob be taken seriously.

[lookout]

She didn't need to Lookout. She admitted they she was aware that JB was going to murder the family, yet did nothing. Would you? I don't think so.
Mugford was an accomplice, but turned to give evidence to the crown.
If the jury were aware that she was to recieve £25,000 on conviction I believe they would have discarded her testimony. As it was Two members of the jury werte not convinced. If they had known of the newspaper deal I think it would have been greater.
The night of the telephone call from Jeremy sheadmitted that she had been taking drugs, along with the rest of the household. How can any evidence from this mob be taken seriously.

No wonder she's fearful of Jeremy's release.!

[mike tesko]

She didn't need to Lookout. She admitted they she was aware that JB was going to murder the family, yet did nothing. Would you? I don't think so.
Mugford was an accomplice, but turned to give evidence to the crown.
If the jury were aware that she was to recieve £25,000 on conviction I believe they would have discarded her testimony. As it was Two members of the jury werte not convinced. If they had known of the newspaper deal I think it would have been greater.
The night of the telephone call from Jeremy sheadmitted that she had been taking drugs, along with the rest of the household. How can any evidence from this mob be taken seriously.

Yeah, the mob from the bedsits where Julie was staying were all on drugs, and many had got criminal convictions for drug dealing and usage - I have copies of their criminal records to prove it...

[Roch]

How can any evidence from this mob be taken seriously.

'mob' as in crooks?  I have wondered this my self.   I'm not referring to her friends.

[mike tesko]

It was rather convenient for the prosecution to keep it quiet about Mugford and her pals all being druggies, who mostly have previous convictions for taking or supplying drugs, and all manner of other criminal offences - the prosecution did not want the jury to know about the background of some of their witnesses, because it was an important part of their case that Jeremy got the timing of his call to Julie wrong, in relation to his call from his father, and to the police...

It was al-right for the prosecution to try and paint Jeremy in a poor light, but when it came down to the background of its own witnesses, it left a lot to be desired, since most of them were druggies, and they lived in a building full of bedsits, that could best be described, as a drugs den...

[lookout]

Yeah, the mob from the bedsits where Julie was staying were all on drugs, and many had got criminal convictions for drug dealing and usage - I have copies of their criminal records to prove it...

That doesn't surprise me Mike.

[mike tesko]

That doesn't surprise me Mike.

Prosecution had evidence that not only was Julie Mugford an active criminal engaged in cheque book frauds, she was also a drug taker, a drugs dealer, and she lived amongst, and associated with other drug users, other drug dealers, and other criminals - and what would her current employer have to say about that, if they got to know about it?

[mike tesko]

another witness statement made by Julie Mugford:-