The Jury and the Mugfords

[lookout]

Though there's a limit to how many lies you can tell. She'd pretty well exhausted them all in the courtroom. Don't worry,if she could have dreamed up anything else to say,she'd have grabbed the hand off the media. It just so happened that what she said in court had been well rehearsed !!

[lookout]

I'm surprised she hasn't written a book before now. Not enough to say against Jeremy It would seem.

[Alias]

In a nutshell: Blood Money.

[scipio_usmc]

She didn't moan about the press when they handed her £25,000 though,did she ?

She moaned about their presentation and didn't do anymore paid gigs after that though she coudl have done so many times after it.

So your attempt to paint her as only out for money fails miserably because if that were the case she would have taken every dime offered.

I don't care what she did with the press, it has no bearing on whether her testimony is true or not and the only reaosn I am responding at all is to correct lies from you and others.  The lies are not from me but from you.

She was offered money before and since and refused.  She took one single deal which her lawyer negotiated and she did based on his advice.  The only press interview she gave after that was a free one which she wanted to rectify what she perceived to be a distorted picture presented by the NOTW spread. She could have done that through a paid gig but chose to do it for free.

Why did she do that if all she cared about was money?

You and Jackie suggesting she cared only about money and corrupted Jeremy is so stupid and ridiculous one has to wonder how you can think that anyone would consider either of you even remotely credible ever when you are so biased and irraitonal.

[scipio_usmc]

Though there's a limit to how many lies you can tell. She'd pretty well exhausted them all in the courtroom. Don't worry,if she could have dreamed up anything else to say,she'd have grabbed the hand off the media. It just so happened that what she said in court had been well rehearsed !!

There is evidence which corroborates many of the things she said.  WHat you call lies are things you refuse to believe not things you have evidence to establish are lies.  You refuse to believe any of the evidence against Jeremy though and to believe Sheila did it depsite ZERO evidence Sheila did anything beyond get killed that night.

You rant and rave but never seem to actually contribute anything else beyond that to this forum.  Never any constructive discussion of the evidence just ranting and raving with your absurd views.  How sad you are.

[lookout]

Ballcocks ! If the woman had dreamt any more lies up,for sure she wouldn't have turned the media away. I'm not stupid ! Neither was she by the sound of it.

[Alias]

She moaned about their presentation and didn't do anymore paid gigs after that though she coudl have done so many times after it.

So your attempt to paint her as only out for money fails miserably because if that were the case she would have taken every dime offered.

I don't care what she did with the press, it has no bearing on whether her testimony is true or not and the only reaosn I am responding at all is to correct lies from you and others.  The lies are not from me but from you.

She was offered money before and since and refused.  She took one single deal which her lawyer negotiated and she did based on his advice.  The only press interview she gave after that was a free one which she wanted to rectify what she perceived to be a distorted picture presented by the NOTW spread. She could have done that through a paid gig but chose to do it for free.

Why did she do that if all she cared about was money?

You and Jackie suggesting she cared only about money and corrupted Jeremy is so stupid and ridiculous one has to wonder how you can think that anyone would consider either of you even remotely credible ever when you are so biased and irraitonal.

She clearly only did that after she saw the reactions to the tasteless NOTW article. Remember she had editorial rights - she must have been happy enough with the whole thing - until the reactions..... Wouldn´t have looked good if she took money for a second article....

[Alias]

Julie was happy with this, she had editorial rights.

[Jane]

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)

How good an advert is the above for this particular firm of solicitors?

They are approached by this young, vulnerable, impressionable girl who is desperate to get the press off her back. Solicitor suggests the best way forward is to do a deal with one paper. The girl agrees, stressing that money ISN 'T her prime motivation. We are then asked to believe that said solicitor, without consultation with her, signs her up with the scummiest publication in the country because it offers the most lucrative deal. I am FULLY aware that a solicitor does what is in his client's best interests but I wonder if it may not have been better to sign her up to a more respectable publication which offered less OR was his instruction to get the most possible and that particular fact has been omitted.

[lookout]

More's the pity she hadn't taken another bite at the cherry. She'd have been crafty enough to have seen that coming,hence the refusal. Just imagine,she lost out on possibly becoming a millionairess,what with the tacky pics and all that.

[scipio_usmc]

I am FULLY aware that a solicitor does what is in his client's best interests but I wonder if it may not have been better to sign her up to a more respectable publication which offered less OR was his instruction to get the most possible and that particular fact has been omitted.

What do you mean you wonder?  There is no question that signing her up with a more reputable publicaiton woudl have been netter for her image.  Her lawyer made it rather plain he was only looking at her interests in terms of money. That is how he evaluated the deal not looking after her image.  Many lawyers look at thing sin dollars not any other issue.  For one thing because they get a cut so the bigger the payout the more money they make.  But the whole structure of the system with monetary damages places the import on money. 

By rights a lawyer should also think about image and other considerations but frequently do not.  She had no relationship with the lawyer before this and that was a big problem, all he saw was dollar signs.

I wish I could read the article to see how it was worded and how bad it came out. The photos are typical of tabloids so nothing unexpected.  She still doesn't look feminine to me, it might be unkind to say but her face makes her look kind of like a tranny. I don't see a very feminine face in her. Maybe Jeremy didn't either and that was what he liked in her who knows. I have noticed a number of bi guys go for women who are in my view butch.

[JackiePreece]

You rant and rave but never seem to actually contribute anything else beyond that to this forum.  Never any constructive discussion of the evidence just ranting and raving with your absurd views.  How sad you are.

You obviously have issues and are lonely sitting most days tapping into your laptop when you are aware hardly anyone reads your posts, you have been told enough times

I know what you are like, I know how you think and I know what makes you tick and You disgust me by saying Julie's ok because she only did one article

I hope Colin never reads this!

[JackiePreece]

I really like the way she said she's worried about her job the school when she had just carried out a massive cheque fraud

[scipio_usmc]

You rant and rave but never seem to actually contribute anything else beyond that to this forum.  Never any constructive discussion of the evidence just ranting and raving with your absurd views.  How sad you are.

You obviously have issues and are lonely sitting most days tapping into your laptop when you are aware hardly anyone reads your posts, you have been told enough times

I know what you are like, I know how you think and I know what makes you tick and You disgust me by saying Julie's ok because she only did one article

I hope Colin never reads this!

You and lookout say all she cared about was making money off things and yet she refused to do anymore deals though she could have been paid for dozens of articles over the years.  SO obviously you and lookout have no idea what you are tlaking about as always.

Let's debate real issues- the evidenc ein the case.  Oh I forgot the evidence all proves Jeremy guilty so you don't want to discuss that...

[JackiePreece]

Ngb

2 things

Have we got a statement from her solicitor and why wasn't this dealt with straight after trial when the article appeared when nobody could have made out the documents had gone missing