How would you greet Julie Mugford on her return visit to England?

[Adam]

Have you seen a source for Bambers deal?

Wilkes's book.

He complained about the fee to his lawyers. And tried to sell pictures of Sheila to the Sun.

Have you got a source of this mysterious in chambers 1986 conversation ?

[Mr. Gee]

We are talking about Mugford and another of her money making ideas

There is probably not a single person anywhere that would not be horrified to learn the NOTW deal was made before trial

Her testimony was worthless and the appeal judges should have made sure the information about the deal was available for them

I am sure they could have if they really wanted to

What a farce of a justice system

As far as I am concerned Jackie I have absolutely no respect for a man in such a responsible position in life should have made such a ruling against ordering a copy of that deal. And you wonder why I am on the side of defending Bamber. Most of those on the other side are sheer bastards and people with no scruples at all. British justice sucks at the moment. Not because the system is wrong. But because of the majority of those in the system are corrupt and rotten to the core. The justice system in this coubtry will remain totally corrupt until righteous men and women have the guts to stand up against these wicked people.

[Mr. Gee]

Source please. And make it 'primary'.

And there you go again. Not believing ngb's testimony. How can we have a primary source? It is like looking for the primary source that you came from monkey's. But continue to call good honest people liars til your heart's content.

[Mr. Gee]

Cantract ? You are the one with the challenged intellect.

It was a high profile case. Of course she had a verbal deal. So did Bamber. So did every witness in the OJ case, before they testified.

There you are I told you that it would be lost on your feeble mind.

[Mr. Gee]

Wilkes's book.

He complained about the fee to his lawyers. And tried to sell pictures of Sheila to the Sun.

Have you got a source of this mysterious in chambers 1986 conversation ?

Primary source please.Cor blimey you are a **** one aren't you. Just a minute whilst I go and talk to the monkey down the road. I really don't know why I even bother to try and explain things to you, all I get in response is, "Dah doh oh arrh ehh? wot? I'm opening a boutique hur hur hur".

[Steve_uk]

Here is a transcript of Julie's 2002 statement:

In October 1986 I attended Chelmsford Crown Court and gave evidence at the trial of Jeremy Bamber. I have been asked to recount my dealings with the media in relation to this trial. My first recollection of any direct involvement with the media was in the month following Jeremy Bamber's arrest. I was approached many times by persons claiming to be reporters. They came to my house,they followed me,they approached me in a petrol station,in bus queues,one jumped on a bus to approach me. It was harrassment of me and my family. They knew where I was,there were many offers of money,they were very overt. I just wanted them to go away. Peaks of approach were after his arrest and before trial,when it was intense. It did go quiet in between. I asked them to go away. I refused and even ran away on occasions. I couldn't have a normal life: they turned up at my school. The Headmistress considered it a detriment to the children due to my profile in that I was associated with an alleged murderer. I was given leave with pay.

At this time I believe I went to a lawyer due to the Press harassment and my enforced suspension from work. I didn't have a lawyer so having received general advice to see one I believe I asked my mother to assist me. I eventually met Mr. Church of Ellisons Solicitors,Colchester. This was not a family lawyer or someone I had spoken to previously. I went to the lawyer seeking two pieces of advice. Firstly,how to stop the Press bothering me and my family,secondly was it right that the school could prevent me from working? 

I would like to make it clear that I had no financial motivation in relation to the Press. My only desire was to stop harassment. However,after consultation my lawyer advised me that the only way was in fact to contract to one Press body exclusively,which by default would prevent others from making an approach. I probably told him that monetary offers had been made and that the Press had told me they were interested in my story whatever the verdict.

[JackiePreece]

Steve do you believe the deal was done before trial?

[susan]

If Julie was not motivated by money why did she not give the £25.000 to a local Charity after all had 5 innocent people not lost their lives two of them being wee boys she would not have been approached by the press and offered such a sum of money.

[JackiePreece]

Steve do you believe Mugford would have sold her story if she could have prevented the murder of two small children?

[Steve_uk]

(Part Two)

The lawyer made the deal. Until I was presented with the contract I had no idea who the other party was. He made the deal in my personal interest. I gave no direction with regard to finance. He told me that getting money was part of the contract even though I had no financial motivation. I was not involved with his discussions with the other party. I now understand that he took the highest bidder,which was the News Of The World newspaper. He told me he negotiated to get the best financial reward. I have been asked to try and remember exactly when this happened. I cannot remember,but I can say that media harassment continued during the trial. I cannot identify specific dates for specific events-i.e. signing the contract,but I feel sure that the solicitor's records would confirm this. I am confident that I told Police what I was doing at all times. I probably only saw the lawyer three times. I did have a moral dilemma. It was a consideration that this was somehow blood money but I was prepared to accept advice in order to get them off my back. In relation to contract details my memories are:

a) This was a one-off.

b) They had rights to republish the material.

c) I had to sit for photographs.

d) I had editorial rights.

e) They could reuse the material.

f) I was not to talk to anyone else.

[Mr. Gee]

Steve do you believe Mugford would have sold her story if she could have prevented the murder of two small children?

I can't remember reading anything about her feeling so concerned that she didn't tell the police earlier (any normal person would feel very bad for a long time afterwards I should think?) So she didn't give anything to a childrens charity or the NSPCC?

[JackiePreece]

(Part Two)

The lawyer made the deal. Until I was presented with the contract I had no idea who the other party was. He made the deal in my personal interest. I gave no direction with regard to finance. He told me that getting money was part of the contract even though I had no financial motivation. I was not involved with his discussions with the other party. I now understand that he took the highest bidder,which was the News Of The World newspaper. He told me he negotiated to get the best financial reward. I have been asked to try and remember exactly when this happened. I cannot remember,but I can say that media harassment continued during the trial. I cannot identify specific dates for specific events-i.e. signing the contract,but I feel sure that the solicitor's records would confirm this. I am confident that I told Police what I was doing at all times. I probably only saw the lawyer three times. I did have a moral dilemma. It was a consideration that this was somehow blood money but I was prepared to accept advice in order to get them off my back. In relation to contract details my memories are:

a) This was a one-off.

b) They had rights to republish the material.

c) I had to sit for photographs.

d) I had editorial rights.

e) They could reuse the material.

f) I was not to talk to anyone else.

Steve you did not answer my question
Do you believe Mugford made the deal before trial?

[Steve_uk]

(Part Three)

I do not believe there was any form of retainer or ongoing conditions. In relation to the photographs I was very unhappy about their demands. But as pointed out to me I had to comply with contract details. I clearly skim-read the contract and missed a lot of the detail;today I read all of the small print. I had editorial rights,but the published article did not comply with my recollection of the agreed content. It seemed to read quite differently in the end. I obviously wasn't with it enough to contest it at the time. The financial aspect of the contract was a figure of I believe £25,000,but my lawyer's fees were drawn from these monies. I have often asked myself the question: "Why did I keep the money..why didn't I give it away?" All I can say is that I bought a flat. Whilst reporters were attempting to trap me to talk they regularly indicated that Jeremy was selling his story and suggested I should reply. It was used as a carrot but it didn't attract me-I just had knowledge of him negotiating with the Press. Mr. Church may have reiterated that to me but I have no idea about the monies that Jeremy was being offered. He,to my understanding would only get money if he were released. In order that the contract could be fulfilled I was located in a hotel in central London,which was adjacent to the studio for the photo shoot and to allow interview. I stayed with my Mum in Essex during trial by choice.

[susan]

steve I am sorry to say I do not believe one word of what Julie said in that statement was it a condition that she posed in such a provocative manner taking into consideration to use her words it was blood money she was being paid  The photographs were a total insult to the Bamber family who lost their lives through no fault of their own. .

[Adam]

Where is Alias.

She usually posts Julies NOTW article whenever it is mentioned. Well she has at least three times.