Further developments regarding phone calls:

[Caroline]

I must admit....Adam, I admire your spirit, but it reads like men against boys.  Jeremy should count himself extremely lucky, to have Maggie and Caroline fighting his corner, making extremely balanced, fair and compelling arguments.

Thanks Neil but recently I'm leaning toward a guilty stance  . I DO still believe he was fitted up though.

[lookout]

I can understand how you feel Caroline,,having realised that a mild-mannered and non-violent person can,,and does carry out murders,,albeit on a whim ( if pushed over the edge ),  as opposed to any pre-planning or foreward thinking.
 I doubt very much that if Jeremy had actually spoken about murdering his family,,,chances are,that he wouldn't have,,,especially having allegedly told both RWB and Julie beforehand.
When asked by Susan,,JM's friend, if it was Jeremy,,JM had answered no,,he got Matthew to do it,,so in a way she was still protective of Jeremy by putting the blame onto someone else,,,knowing in her own mind that Jeremy didn't do it.

[Neil]

Thanks Neil but recently I'm leaning toward a guilty stance  . I DO still believe he was fitted up though.

I very much believe that he is guilty also, but there is no doubt in my mind that evidence was embellished/made up, in order to secure a conviction.  It would just be nice if people would look at the evidence piece by piece and judge them on their own merits, rather than taking a holistic view, and automatically dismissing any 'pro' viewpoint. 

Having said all that, since Adam has been 'on the scene', I have read more compelling evidence in Jeremy's favour, than I have read in a long time. 

[Caroline]

I very much believe that he is guilty also, but there is no doubt in my mind that evidence was embellished/made up, in order to secure a conviction.  It would just be nice if people would look at the evidence piece by piece and judge them on their own merits, rather than taking a holistic view, and automatically dismissing any 'pro' viewpoint. 

Having said all that, since Adam has been 'on the scene', I have read more compelling evidence in Jeremy's favour, than I have read in a long time.

Hi Neil,

I agree, a piece by piece approach is a good idea -I will try and think of a way to do that in a thread. Trouble is it doesn't take long for the conversation to go off topic and that would kill any such thread. However, that doesn't mean to say we shouldn't try!! I agree that Adam has actually done Jeremy more favours than harm because the points mentioned in his favour have been very valid. Perhaps Adam is actually an innocent supporter? 

[Caroline]

I can understand how you feel Caroline,,having realised that a mild-mannered and non-violent person can,,and does carry out murders,,albeit on a whim ( if pushed over the edge ),  as opposed to any pre-planning or foreward thinking.
 I doubt very much that if Jeremy had actually spoken about murdering his family,,,chances are,that he wouldn't have,,,especially having allegedly told both RWB and Julie beforehand.
When asked by Susan,,JM's friend, if it was Jeremy,,JM had answered no,,he got Matthew to do it,,so in a way she was still protective of Jeremy by putting the blame onto someone else,,,knowing in her own mind that Jeremy didn't do it.

Hi Lookout, I find it VERY unlikely that he would have discussed such a plan in great detail - although he may have 'joked about it'. You make yourself VERY vulnerable if you tell someone. I don't think he's that stupid.

[Jan]

Caroline - can I ask you why you think he may be guilty? And why do you think he would have fought do hard for so long trying to prove his innocence?

[Caroline]

Caroline - can I ask you why you think he may be guilty? And why do you think he would have fought do hard for so long trying to prove his innocence?

Hi Jansus, I don't want to say at the moment why I have doubts - I haven't thought it all out myself yet, but to answer the second part; IF he is guilty, it would probably do him no favours now to admit it. He is serving a  whole life tariff so his only real hope of freedom is to win an appeal. As I said before, I do think he was well and truly set up and I would like to see the truth come out - he deserves a retrial which would still never be fair because they destroyed much of the evidence.

[guest154]

Thanks Neil but recently I'm leaning toward a guilty stance  . I DO still believe he was fitted up though.

 

Really?

[Caroline]

 

Really?

Lets just say I'm not as certain as I used to be.

[Patti]

Interesting section from the 2002 appeal.

The following morning she was awoken by a telephone call from the appellant to her lodgings in London. The appellant said to her, "Everything is going well. Something is wrong at the farm. I haven't had any sleep all night … bye honey and I love you lots". Miss Mugford did not take him seriously and went back to sleep.

As to the timing of this call, Miss Mugford said in evidence said that it was between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m.

A number of Miss Mugford's housemates were disturbed by the telephone call and provided additional evidence as to timing. One, Helen Eaton, had been consulted by Julie Mugford, when the latter was first making a statement to the police about it. She put the time at 3.00 a.m. in evidence but agreed in cross-examination that it might have been as late as 3.30 a.m.

Another flat mate, Sue Battersby, said that she was positive that when she was disturbed, she had looked at her clock and the time shown was 3.12 a.m. However, she pointed out that she was in the habit of keeping her clock about 10 minutes early and police checks made on the clock confirmed this to be the case. If her evidence was right and if the clock was, as the evidence suggested, ten minutes fast, the time was probably no more than a minute or two after 3 a.m.

Joanna Woad gave evidence that when she heard the telephone, she looked at her digital clock and all that she noted was that the time was 2 something. This meant that according to her clock the time was between 2.00 and 2.59 a.m. If it was at the end of that bracket, it differed very little from the time suggested by Susan Battersby's evidence.

Why would Jeremy call Julie to tell her that everything was going well and then in the next breath he tells her something is wrong at the farm, this does not makes much sense to me.

The times the calls were made are irrelevant because the times alone do not make Jeremy the killer and not only that, the original times quoted were changed when the trial began, therefore this means the times are unsafe and not to be classed as correct.

If for example the witness had said it was 3am at the onset and stuck to those times, then that's a different kettle of fish, but this did not happen. 

[susan]

Hello Patti  I am so so happy to see you on the forum we reallly need you.  I agree with the points you have made to Adam and hope he takes them on board.  Don't wander off again

[Patti]

Hello Patti  I am so so happy to see you on the forum we reallly need you.  I agree with the points you have made to Adam and hope he takes them on board.  Don't wander off again

Morning Susan

The facts don't change they simply get twisted. If I told you I was at Meadowhall on Saturday, then told someone else it was Monday and that person told you it was Monday, and you told them I had said Saturday then you and the other person would think I had lied.....But, the probability is that I might have forgot which day I was there 6 weeks later.....Hope you get that lol 

[susan]

Ha Ha Patti I will take your word for it as to where you were on Saturday

[Patti]

Ha Ha Patti I will take your word for it as to where you were on Saturday

The point is I don't really know. hahaha 

[Jane]

Morning Susan

The facts don't change they simply get twisted. If I told you I was at Meadowhall on Saturday, then told someone else it was Monday and that person told you it was Monday, and you told them I had said Saturday then I you and the other person would think I had lied.....But, the probability is that I might have forgot which day I was there 6 weeks later.....Hope you get that lol 

Patti, welcome back I think it's possible that Julie and her living companions eventually got together to come up with an average time to fit the crime. Originally their times were all over the place.