Julie Mugford and the Stolen Cheque Books

[grahameb]

Poor squeaky clean drug grower Jeremy was tricked into Robbing the caravan site by his rotten girlfriend...

How long does it take you to make up such stupid things?

Now don't be silly scipio. No one forced Muggy to be his accomplice. You at least with all your law degrees that the law doesn't recognise the fact that she was an accomplice in crime and that being "ignorant" of a crime is no excuse. You really surprise me sometimes. There am I of very low intelligence and even I get it. But you still appear to show your overwhelming ignorance sometimes.

[grahameb]

There is a plethora of evidence that June was opposed to people living together unmarried, which Christianity considers a sin and until very recently was frowned on by society as a whole (also opposed to premarital sex), and thus that they wanted to find a place for her to live separate from Jeremy and that is also why they welcomed the idea of Julie and Jeremy marrying.   

How much of it was because of appearance sake and how much because of religion is anyone's guess and not particularly relevant.

Julie and Susan made it sound like a prank done to impress Jeremy and it seems credible.

Those trying to pretend Jeremy was squeaky clean and so forth are just embarrassing themselves and tryin gto pretend that nothing Julie says is credible because of the checkbook robbery are the same peopel saying Jeremy should be trusted despite being caught lying repeatedly and even want to pretend some lies were not lies.

WHy is it that you always try to defend Jeremy so vigiorously and Jeremy supporters even when the claims are so absurd like the nonsense about Julie causing Jeremy to commit the Caravan robbery?

Do you intentionally like to sabotage your own credibility?

If it's not relevant then why go to the trouble of mentioning it?

[grahameb]

Why are you answering points I haven't raised?

I didn't bring June and her beliefs in to the post because I didn't think it relevant.

Perhaps you can tell me how long it would have taken Julie to travel by public transport from Goldhanger to Goldsmith College.

It really matters not a JOT what Julie and Susan made their jolly SOUND like. They broke the law which USUALLY doesn't take into consideration that it was a prank carried out to impress a boyfriend.

I don't recall ever having VIGOUROUSLY defended Jeremy. Please try to differentiate between us in stead of labeling us idiots and liars.

He always does that and then accuses you of saying things you haven't said. It id his way of spreading the dirt on you. It takes a filthy mind to do that kind of thing.

[Jane]

Susuan claims she decided on her own at a later date what the hell and to do it for kicks.

The same manipulation you describe from Julie to Susan is what Julie describes from Jeremy.

It certainly sounds like peer pressure combined with getting kicks to me not some major crime effort where Julie wanted some material object badly and resorted to crime to get it.

It matters not an iota that you think of it as a harmless prank to get kicks from. The law says it's a crime.

[Adam]

Is there any documentation about Julies Scarface esq life at Goldsmiths college ?

There is nothing in her WS and no record of her being questioned about it in court. Jeremy told his lawyers about Susan Battersby's 1984 cheque book fraud. So don't know why he would not tell them about drug dealing. She admitted the caravan break in and her knowledge of Jeremy's plans to the police straight away. But never said she was a drug dealer.

I know Jeremy grew drugs and went on a cannabis buying trip to Amsterdam directly after the massacre. That was either for his personal use, or to sell. Not for Julie.

[Alias]

Julie even lied about what she did with the "loot". Susan threw hers in the garbage, Julie remembers that very well (it is in her statement); but she cannot remember what she did with hers - she never mentioned that part of what she stole, she gave to Jeremy as gifts.
"Probably gave it to Sally Army", yeah, right!  Julie is a liar.

[scipio_usmc]

Now don't be silly scipio. No one forced Muggy to be his accomplice. You at least with all your law degrees that the law doesn't recognise the fact that she was an accomplice in crime and that being "ignorant" of a crime is no excuse. You really surprise me sometimes. There am I of very low intelligence and even I get it. But you still appear to show your overwhelming ignorance sometimes.

You are changing the subject.  Instead of having the balls to tell Jackie she is being silly in suggesting Julie was behind the Caravan robbery and put Jeremy up to it, which I just did, you try changing the subject completely to the issue of whether Julie was an accomplice.

To be an accomplice requires telling the person you are committing a crime and having them do something to assist.  That means Jeremy would have to testify he told her he was goign to tob the place and she went with him knowingly to rob it.  hat is what the law requires and his claims have to be so credible that his word will be believed over hers.

But again not the subject of this thread.  This thread's topic is about the absurd allegation that Jeremy was squaky clean and rotten julie put him up to the Caravan robbery.  Something the truth seeking jeremy supporters here don't want to challenge though they should if they were actually the objective truth seekers they claim to be.

[nugnug]

well she put someone else up to comiting check book fraud so she capable of planning crimes herself.

[Adam]

It is a bit desperate to claim Julie lied in court because she committed a minor cheque book fraud a year earlier with a friends cheque book. 

Shall we discard all witnesses in future trials if they have previously committed a crime ?

[nugnug]

that would be a very good idea.

[Jane]

Julie testified that June offered to buy her a property in London or Essex. Is there proof. No. Only a testimony. June cannot confirm or deny. Sheila shot her 8 times after June invited her over for a free holiday.

SO WE ONLY HAVE JULIE'S WORD FOR IT THAT SUCH AN OFFER WAS MADE.

Susan Battersby's WS does not say she was forced into using her own cheque book. She does not even say it was Julies idea.

BUT JULIE SAID IT WAS HER IDEA. POSSIBLY THE FIRST TIME SHE'D TAKEN AN Y RESPONSIBILITY,BUT THE LESSER EVIL, I IMAGINE.

Jeremy took Julie to the caravan site and told her to wait outside as a lookout. Jeremy would only be a few minutes.

SO ACCORDING TO THAT, JEREMY NEVER ASKED HER TO BE A LOOKOUT.

[Alias]

We don´t know who got the idea of the caravan site break-in. It could have been Jeremy, but it could just as well have been Julie. She already had an idea for a pretty crafty cheque book fraud and carried it out with an accomplice. So there.

[nugnug]

well she allready had form for puting people up to things.

[grahameb]

You are changing the subject.  Instead of having the balls to tell Jackie she is being silly in suggesting Julie was behind the Caravan robbery and put Jeremy up to it, which I just did, you try changing the subject completely to the issue of whether Julie was an accomplice.

To be an accomplice requires telling the person you are committing a crime and having them do something to assist.  That means Jeremy would have to testify he told her he was goign to tob the place and she went with him knowingly to rob it.  hat is what the law requires and his claims have to be so credible that his word will be believed over hers.

But again not the subject of this thread.  This thread's topic is about the absurd allegation that Jeremy was squaky clean and rotten julie put him up to the Caravan robbery.  Something the truth seeking jeremy supporters here don't want to challenge though they should if they were actually the objective truth seekers they claim to be.

Of course I'm not changing the subject. I was answering your post. You've even repeated it in your answer to my post.
Indeed I and no one else has ever presented Jeremy as "squeeky clean". On the contrary it is you and the other guilters who are trying to present JM as squeeky clean. Silly boy.

[scipio_usmc]

Julie even lied about what she did with the "loot". Susan threw hers in the garbage, Julie remembers that very well (it is in her statement); but she cannot remember what she did with hers - she never mentioned that part of what she stole, she gave to Jeremy as gifts.
"Probably gave it to Sally Army", yeah, right!  Julie is a liar.

Susan mentioned some things were purchased for Jeremy.

Prove that Julie lied about doing it because she wanted to impress Jeremy.  Her claim is one difficult to disprove since it deals with her mental thought process.

You are the same person who didnd't want to believe Jeremy could have used a window he admitted he used so you are not exactly the best judge...