Julia Mugford and the media..
I have been asked to recount my dealings with the media in relation to this trial.
My first recollection of any direct involvement with the media was in the month following Jeremys arrest.
I was approached many times by persons claiming to be reporters.
They came to my house, they followed me. They approached me in a petrol station, in bus queues, one jumped on a bus to approach me, it was harrassment of me and my family. They knew where I was, there were many offers of money, they were very overt. I just wanted them to go away. Peaks of approach were after his arrest and before trial when it was intense. It did go quiet in between. I asked them to go away, I refused and even ran away on occasions. I couldn't have a normal life they turned up at my school.
The Headmistress considered it a detriment to the children due to my profile in that I was associated with an alleged murderer. I was given leave with pay. At this time I believe I went to a lawyer due to the press harassment and my enforced suspension from work.
I didn't have a lawyer so having received general advice to see one I believe I asked my mother to assist me. I eventually met Mr CHURCH of Ellisons Solicitors Colchester. This was not a family lawyer or someone I had spoken to previously. I went to the lawyer seeking two pieces of advice. Firstly, how to stop the press bothering me and my family, secondly, was it right that the school could prevent me from working.
I would like to make it clear that I had no financial motivation in relation to the press.
My only desire was to stop the harassment. However, after the consultation my lawyer advised me that the only way was in fact to contract to one press body exclusively, which by default would prevent others from making an approach.
I probably told him that monetary offers had been made and that the press had told me that they were interested in my story whatever the verdict.The lawyer made the deal until I was presented with the contract I had no ideas who the other party was. He made the deal in my personal interest. I gave no direction with regard to finance. He told me that getting the money was part of the contract even though I had no financial motivation. I was not involved in his discussions with the other party. I now understand that he took the highest bidder which was the News of the World Newspaper. He told me he negotiated to get the best financial reward. I have been asked to try and remember exactly when this happened. I cannot remember but I can say that media harassment continued during the trial.
I cannot identify specific dates for specific events i.e. signing the contract but I feel sure that the solicitors records would confirm this. I am confident that I told the police what I was doing at all times. I probably only saw the lawyer three times, I did have a moral dilemna. It was a consideration that this was somehow blood money but I was prepared to accept advice in order to get them off my back. In relation to contract details my memories are as follows:-
(a) This was a one - off
(b) They had rights to republish the material
(c) I had to sit for photographs
(d) I had editorial rights
(e) They could re - use the material
(f) I was not to talk to anyone
I do not believe there was any form of retainer or ongoing conditions.
In relation to the photographs I was very unhappy about there demands. But as pointed out to me I had to comply with contract details.
I clearly Skim read the contract and missed a lot of the detail; Today I read all the small print. I had editorial rights but the published article did not comply with my recollection of the agreed content. It seemed to read quite differently in the end, I obviously wasn't with it enough to contest it at the time.
The finacial aspect of the contract was a figure, of I believe ?25,000 but my lawyers fees were drawn from these monies.
I have often asked myself the question, why did I keep the money, why didn't I give it away.
All I can say is that I bought a flat.
Whilst reporters were attempting to trap me to talk they regularly indicated that Jeremy was selling his story and suggested I should reply. .
It was used as a carrot but it didn't attract me I just had knowlege of him negotiating with the press. Mr CHURCH may have reiterated to me but I have no idea about monies that Jeremy was being offerred. He, to my understanding would only get money if he was released.
In order that the contract could be fulfilled I was located in a hotel in Central LONDON which was adjacent to the studio for the photo shoot, and to allow interview. I stayed with my mum in Essex during the trial by Choice.
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 stage 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 of these offers.
On the release of the news of the appeal 2001 (00/00/01) 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 a consequence of the advice I was given.
A couple of months after the News of the World articles, I was approached by a reporter from SHE magazine.
I was so peeved with the News 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 - estreem, 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 influencial in this regard. At this time I was banking with the Midland Bank 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 the money promise 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. I did not want to sell my story: it was part of the process to stop the media from relentlessly harassing me and my family"[/b][/u]
Signed Julie SMERCHANKI (Mugford)
