Thanks for response. I tried to read it but the handwriting isn't the easiest. I've been trying to work out whether the page of the logs that the defence claim has been 'misplaced' by EP, could have been 'misplaced' after it had become clear, that McDonald was a non-starter. The alleged sighting would have suited a prosecution that involved a third party. But when it became focused upon JB being the shooter, the alleged sighting became a potential hindrance. I was trying to work out if there was an attempt by police to shoehorn in a third party, due the sighting having been real, as alleged by JB. But I cannot understand wht McDonald would be picked on and the only thing I could come up with was JM falling apart under duress and naming somebody, i.e. him. 'mercenary'.
Here’s a suggestion based upon the way plausibility becomes an important consideration when it comes to building a case when real evidence lacking. My basic theory concerning Julie Mugford’s evidence is that she was far less imaginative than Jeremy’s supporters think.
Assuming that nobody doubts that the relatives suspected Jeremy before he fell out with Julie, it’s more than just likely that they communicated their suspicions to her and, given that they had suspicions, its likely that they would have tried to put together a plausible narrative.
Jeremy was regarded as a bit of Nancy boy, so they say. It would have been hard for them to imagine him carrying out the shootings himself, so perhaps one of them just suggested that he probably hired a hitman, and MacDonald’s name was mentioned, just because the idea seemed plausible. Or, maybe they just said “hired killer” or words to that effect and Julie herself just thought it would probably be MacDonald.
Julie was a working class girl. She would have seen Jeremy’s relatives as “posh” and with an air of authority about them. She would have taken their suspicions very seriously. At any rate the likes of Roger Wilkes and more recently Bob Woffinden certainly did.
