I'm afraid you've got carried away with your statement whoever you are;whilst making sense in the initial stages you drifted off into flights of fancy which make a mockery of your whole argument. It starts to go awry from the second paragraph after you assert that to be guilty Julie must "provide some positive assistance" when there was absolutely none to the Jeremy supporters' chagrin:she neither provided Jeremy with an alibi nor the infamous sleeping tablets which were for Julie's sole use during one of the most stressful periods of a teacher's career,namely teaching practice,and it is dishonourable of you if you hold a position in law to suggest otherwise. It was Jeremy who imported cannabis stuffed in toothpaste tubes from Amsterdam and not Julie,and though she sold the drug on university premises at Jeremy's behest this does not necessarily bar any teacher from a career;indeed there are male teachers who have abused female pupils who have appealed to the Secretary of State and have been further allowed to teach in an all-male environment,which I know anecdotally from colleagues.
On the day of the murders Julie was not warned in advance as you suggest;after a hard day's work she attempted to decipher yet another of Jeremy's riddles with the "tonight's the night..it's now or never" clue which was symptomatic of Jeremy's infantile manner of speaking for the two years she had known him with his "let's get the ball rolling" idiom used ad nauseum,his "bye honey,love you lots",his sending her roses and booking the bridal suite at a top London hotel interspersed with remarks of the crudest calibre,reminding us of Gresham's head Mr. Bruce Logie Lockhart's aphorism that Jeremy was "a relentless tease". If the head of a public school came to that conclusion then don't expect the product of an all girl's grammar school to be any the wiser in interpreting Jeremy's remarks.Post-murders we have Julie realizing that Jeremy did have a hand in the murders,whether he was the sole perpetrator or proxy driver,which as Mike suggested the" trick of the light story" gave rise to,but it was Julie who carried the guilt for both of them as the murders for Jeremy were not much different than swatting flies. You misrepresent the chronology because Julie told several people including the Bishop's and Michael Deckers the manager of the Frog and Beans before she voluntarily agreed to visit the Police. Had she not done so of course the trial would have proceeded without Julie on the basis of the silencer and blood evidence pushed by the relatives and going on the summing up of the judge Julie's evidence anyway would not have been paramount.
Steve_UK - I am not sure what I have done to deserve such a damning condemnation not only of my analysis of the legal position but also of my integrity. I have, in response to Bridget's original request, provided a thumbnail sketch of the relevant criminal law and applied that to Julie Mugford in the context of her own witness statements and evidence. I am at a loss to understand why you should condemn me as dishonourable simply for expressing my honest opinion. I appreciate that you feel very defensive towards Julie Mugford (whether because you are related to her or otherwise is I accept none of my business). I am happy to enter into a debate about the legal implications of her actions, but using phrases such as "flights of fancy" and claiming that I "make a mockery" of my whole argument does not I suggest further debate on this.
I believe you are straining credulity in your attempts to whitewash Julie's conduct. The following are examples:
i) You have put an innocent spin on the episode of the sleeping tablets, but according to her own account Julie knew what Jeremy wanted them for and permitted him to use them.
ii) By her own admission Julie was involved in a joint enterprise with Jeremy and Brett Collins to import the cannabis from Amsterdam, most of which was to be supplied to others by Julie directly as well as by Jeremy. This was of course following the murders at a time when Julie was perfectly happy to accompany Jeremy on an expensive jaunt, on her account with full knowledge that he had wiped out his family. If she was telling the truth it is crystal clear that she had effectively condoned the murders and was looking forward to spending the rest of her life with the murderer.
iii) You claim an intimate knowledge of Julie's mental processes the day before the murders, during the night and immediately following. You even suggest that because she attended all girls' grammar school she was unable to understand the meaning of the words she claims were spoken by Jeremy. Are you serious?
iv) I do not misrepresent the chronology. I accept that Julie spoke to friends, including Liz Rimington, after splitting up with Jeremy, dropping increasingly powerful hints that Jeremy was responsible for the murders. However, she did not approach the police. Liz Rimington called the police suggesting that Julie had information. Julie was then arrested and held in custody. The way this was presented at trial, essentially that tormented by guilt she decided to come forward and tell the truth, was grossly misleading. She also lied to the prosecution, and therefore misled the judge, the defence and the jury, about her arrangements with the News of the World.
v) I do not accept that Julie's evidence was "not paramount". I also doubt whether the case would have proceeded to trial without Julie's evidence, but even if it had done so I have little doubt that Jeremy would have been acquitted.
I have no problem with being robustly challenged on any arguments I present but I do feel both the tone and content of your post was unfortunate.
