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

[Adam]

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.

Both Bamber and Julie had NOTW verbal deals in place before the verdict. Which is standard practice in high profile trials.

The NOTW had to post their story while it was still hot news. Rather than spend weeks negotiating after the verdict.

Julie would be questioned in court on her WS. Which was drawn up a year before when she had no idea the NOTW would approach her.

[Steve_uk]

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

She should not have done this Mr. Gee and it's truly shocking. But remember she was 20 years old at the time of the murders and haven't we all been wet behind the ears at some stage during those years.

[Alias]

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

LOL 

[Alias]

She should not have done this Mr. Gee and it's truly shocking. But remember she was 20 years old at the time of the murders and haven't we all been wet behind the ears at some stage during those years.

I know I wouldn´t have done it, but then, I wouldn´t have committed cheque fraud either.
All things put together, and it is very hard to put any trust in her word.

[Jan]

Both Bamber and Julie had NOTW verbal deals in place before the verdict. Which is standard practice in high profile trials.

The NOTW had to post their story while it was still hot news. Rather than spend weeks negotiating after the verdict.

Julie would be questioned in court on her WS. Which was drawn up a year before when she had no idea the NOTW would approach her.

don't you read anything?.

Question 1 - how could a newspaper deal possibly affect jeremys testimony?  And you have not a clue what his interview would have been . And the N.O.W should have been in trouble for this as well.
Question 2- Why do you think the N.O.W got into trouble for trying to make such deals ?
Question 3- Why is it against press guidance principles to even offer money to anyone associated with a case such as this?  Why do you think ?

[JackiePreece]

Like you said Alias the Internet has caught up with her and her family and any
Pupils and colleagues she associates.
I am sure she now has the attention she craved in those photos but what a horrific past selling smiling photos of herself for cash
Was any amount of money worth what she did

Steve as you believe Mugford made the deal before trial dependent on the verdict do you believe her testimony was worthless

[Adam]

I know I wouldn´t have done it, but then, I wouldn´t have committed cheque fraud either.
All things put together, and it is very hard to put any trust in her word.

Would you rob you're own family ?

Then boast ' I will be the number one suspect but they will never be able to prove it'.

But Bamber did it to highlight security problems. After such sterling work he deserved to spend the money ( out of greed).

[Steve_uk]

Like you said Alias the Internet has caught up with her and her family and any
Pupils and colleagues she associates.
I am sure she now has the attention she craved in those photos but what a horrific past selling smiling photos of herself for cash
Was any amount of money worth what she did

Steve as you believe Mugford made the deal before trial dependent on the verdict do you believe her testimony was worthless

No because this was always Robert Boutflour's trial not Julie's.

[Adam]

It was a 21 day trial. Lots of witnesses. A year of preparation.

Julie was an important witness. But there were lots of others.

[Adam]

don't you read anything?.

Question 1 - how could a newspaper deal possibly affect jeremys testimony?  And you have not a clue what his interview would have been . And the N.O.W should have been in trouble for this as well.
Question 2- Why do you think the N.O.W got into trouble for trying to make such deals ?
Question 3- Why is it against press guidance principles to even offer money to anyone associated with a case such as this?  Why do you think ?

i have reported this to the moderators.


When did the NOTW get into trouble on this case ? Bamber has been banging on about Julies NOTW for 20 years. Forgetting his own. But nothing illegal has been proved.

[Mr. Gee]

She should not have done this Mr. Gee and it's truly shocking. But remember she was 20 years old at the time of the murders and haven't we all been wet behind the ears at some stage during those years.

If that is so with her then why is it different with Bamber. Some keep rabbitting on about his caravan park robbery now even. But why should Mugford be let off just because she was "wet behind the ears"

[Mr. Gee]

Both Bamber and Julie had NOTW verbal deals in place before the verdict. Which is standard practice in high profile trials.

The NOTW had to post their story while it was still hot news. Rather than spend weeks negotiating after the verdict.

Julie would be questioned in court on her WS. Which was drawn up a year before when she had no idea the NOTW would approach her.

No it is not standard practice. But if it were then why according to you is Bamber's deal worse that Mugford's? And if it were standard practice why then did Mugford lie about the timing of her deal and why did she lie in saying to the judge that she did not have a deal with any newspaper and hadn't even planned to do so, knowing all the time that she did have a deal even if it was a verbal one (which it wasn't of course).

[Adam]

No it is not standard practice. But if it were then why according to you is Bamber's deal worse that Mugford's? And if it were standard practice why then did Mugford lie about the timing of her deal and why did she lie in saying to the judge that she did not have a deal with any newspaper and hadn't even planned to do so, knowing all the time that she did have a deal even if it was a verbal one (which it wasn't of course).

I never said her testimony was better or worse than Bamber's. They both had a verbal deal in place pre verdict.

What was said in this mysterious behind closed doors conversation in the judges chamber I do not know.

The judge has never said Julie lied to him, after seeing her NOTW article.

[Adam]

Julie certainly had a verbal agreement in place before the verdict.

Part of Bamber's complaint to his lawyers about his fee was the size of Julie's fee.

[Mr. Gee]

I never said her testimony was better or worse than Bamber's. They both had a verbal deal in place pre verdict.

What was said in this mysterious behind closed doors conversation in the judges chamber I do not know.

The judge has never said Julie lied to him, after seeing her NOTW article.

But it is very clear that she did.