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

[Steve_uk]

(Part Four)

I believe the Policeman Stan Jones informed me of the verdict. I know I wasn't at home in London or Essex:I believe I was in a neutral place. I don't believe it was the hotel. At some stages in the trial the Police arranged accommodation for us. When I was in the hotel it was for two or three days,possibly a couple of nights-certainly not a week. The News Of The World paid for the hotel. In the years since the trial I have had the opportunity to earn money through interviews,articles and television rights. I have refused all these offers. On the release of news of the Appeal in 2001 I have been approached many times to encourage me to sell my story. I have continued to refuse all such offers. Money was never my drive: it was the consequence of the advice I was given. A couple of months after the New Of The World articles I was approached by a reporter from SHE magazine. I was so peeved with the New Of The World that I agreed to an interview and photographs. I know I was living in Hither Green at the time and the lady came to my house. It was non-sensational,I was not paid. It was intended to balance the image for my self-esteem-it was more representative of me.

I have been asked about my financial position at the time of the incident. I can say that as a student I did have some debts but I always worked to pay them off during my studies:indeed that is how I met Jeremy. The offer of money was not influential in this regard. At this time I was banking with the Midland in Colchester and I give my authority for the Metropolitan Police to examine my account records including the News Of The World transfer. I would like to say that money promise or receipt did not impact in any way on the evidence I gave at court. No amount of money would influence what I had to say in a Court of Law. I would not lie when swearing to tell the truth. In summary,I had no intention of selling my story,but followed advice from my solicitor. I did not want to sell my story:it was part of a process to stop the media from relentlessly harassing me and my family.

[Steve_uk]

Steve do you believe the deal was done before trial?

It was probably out of Julie's hands Jackie,with the solicitors getting their cut and no money forthcoming for either of them had Jeremy been acquitted. Agreed before the trial is my guess,but nothing signed by Julie until afterwards.

[Steve_uk]

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

I think she felt very bad about the whole thing, the main motivation in going to the Police being how well Colin was treating both Jeremy and Julie post-murders when she knew the dreadful truth..

[Steve_uk]

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.

She should have done Susan. My guess is that Julie's mother told her she'd been through it and deserved the money as some kind of compensation.

[Steve_uk]

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. .

Yes I don't think Julie had any control over them by that stage,which is why she gave the follow-up interview to SHE magazine.

[Adam]

It was probably out of Julie's hands Jackie,with the solicitors getting their cut and no money forthcoming for either of them had Jeremy been acquitted. Agreed before the trial is my guess,but nothing signed by Julie until afterwards.

Yes. Nothing signed until after the verdict.

Firstly it was probably illegal. Secondly the NOTW are not going to sign anything themselves until after the verdict.

[Jan]

Yes. Nothing signed until after the verdict.

Firstly it was probably illegal. Secondly the NOTW are not going to sign anything themselves until after the verdict.

Actually that is an assumption as Julie could not find her copy and the solicitor never produced his copy . SO that may not be factual.

If she wanted to dismiss all speculation she just had to go to the solicitor and produce a copy.

Simples.

[lookout]

Trial by media---------media driven-------public swayed by the media. Bribery and corruption/coercion.

So we all know that nothing was signed until after the verdict,do we ?

I didn't see any" expenses paid by EP" to JM on the statement. Cost of hotel expenses ?

All her own work ? I don't think so.!

[Adam]

Trial by media---------media driven-------public swayed by the media. Bribery and corruption/coercion.

So we all know that nothing was signed until after the verdict,do we ?

I didn't see any" expenses paid by EP" to JM on the statement. Cost of hotel expenses ?

All her own work ? I don't think so.!

The media could only report on the events at trial.

After the verdict they had a field day. The police did not get off lightly either.

[lookout]

The media could only report on the events at trial


What ?  You've got a lot to learn.!

[Jan]

According to the much missed campion it might not even matter if the contract was not signed :


"Cheque Book Journalism, Press Council Report 1981. News Corp/ News Group/ News International are in breach of Declaration of Principle regarding speaking to Julie Mugford. It states that this is the case even if a Journalist offers a bid on a hand written note. Did the NotW approach a third party who would not be a witness, some like Julie Mugfords Mother. The 1981 report clearly states that payments should not be offered by Newspapers/Media Groups to the Relatives or Associates of persons Accused of Crime, I take this then must include Police. The Price of the Story on the day the trial ends to its value some months later would be £1,000,000 Sunday after trial £100,000 three months later. Julie Mugfords testimony is worthless, what you have found proves this, this should be highlighted by Simon McKay at Leveson this week.   

[Adam]

The NOTW approached Julie over a year after she first went to the police. A verbal agreement was made, dependent on the verdict.

There is a mysterious behind closed doors meeting no one has a source for. Where Julie was asked a question. Quite what this question exactly was in this alleged meeting, no one knows.

[Alias]

Where is Alias.

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

Yes, we mustn´t forget how tasteless the whole thing was. Do you have a problem with it? I mean, that Julie posed with her bare bum on the back of a whole family having been murdered, including two little innocent boys?
I´d say it takes a certain type of person!!

[Mr. Gee]

According to the much missed campion it might not even matter if the contract was not signed :


"Cheque Book Journalism, Press Council Report 1981. News Corp/ News Group/ News International are in breach of Declaration of Principle regarding speaking to Julie Mugford. It states that this is the case even if a Journalist offers a bid on a hand written note. Did the NotW approach a third party who would not be a witness, some like Julie Mugfords Mother. The 1981 report clearly states that payments should not be offered by Newspapers/Media Groups to the Relatives or Associates of persons Accused of Crime, I take this then must include Police. The Price of the Story on the day the trial ends to its value some months later would be £1,000,000 Sunday after trial £100,000 three months later. Julie Mugfords testimony is worthless, what you have found proves this, this should be highlighted by Simon McKay at Leveson this week.

It is logical to assume that she was approached by the NOTW before the trial. In fact this can easily be established, because the newspaper paid for the room for her and her mother at a hotel. This must have been arranged in advance. The very fact that she was offered money, whether a contract was signed or not is an incentive for her to lie in court.

[Mr. Gee]

Yes, we mustn´t forget how tasteless the whole thing was. Do you have a problem with it? I mean, that Julie posed with her bare bum on the back of a whole family having been murdered, including two little innocent boys?
I´d say it takes a certain type of person!!

Here it is again with Mugford playing the tart erm part.