Author Topic: The Jury and the Mugfords  (Read 5615 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #45 on: August 11, 2014, 06:00:PM »
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...


Yes let's

There is no evidence
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #46 on: August 11, 2014, 06:00:PM »
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

massive?  the amount was so small that she woudl face a fine or caution merely. One does wonder what planet you are from...
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #47 on: August 11, 2014, 06:03:PM »
 £800 in old money

That's thousands isn't it ?

You inspire me Skip I am firing off letters and emails and tweets all over the place

£800 enough for her NEVER to get a teaching job in England

Thank god for small mercies
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33781
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #48 on: August 11, 2014, 06:08:PM »
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.


Firstly Scipio, what you say implies that I'm not intelligent enough to have worked out for myself all that you've said OR perhaps it was that you didn't catch the irony. in which case, perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough..........................HOWever, you go on to echo WORD FOR WORD what many of us said of her appearance at the time. Might I also add that if that is the way she presented herself to her solicitor, I believe a member of an old and trusted family firm in a provincial Essex town, he could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that whilst her mouth said one thing, the way she presented herself said something entirely different. I fin d it strange that he didn't approach several publications to give her the options. But MAYBE he did.

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #49 on: August 11, 2014, 06:25:PM »
I always find the "guilters´" atempts at defending Julie hilarious!

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33781
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #50 on: August 11, 2014, 06:36:PM »
I always find the "guilters´" atempts at defending Julie hilarious!


Alias, even separated from anything Jeremy related, I find her behaviour reprehensible and distasteful.

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #51 on: August 11, 2014, 06:42:PM »

Alias, even separated from anything Jeremy related, I find her behaviour reprehensible and distasteful.

If only she could stop rubbing her own choices and behaviour off on others! It looks so incredibly bad an dcowardly!!! Also she tends to have vague memory whenever it comes to bad decicions she made and she doesn´t have the option to rub it off on others.
She is so transparent!

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #52 on: August 11, 2014, 06:50:PM »

Yes let's

There is no evidence

Jeremy admitted prior to the murders to replacing the kitchen phone with the bedroom phone.  He claimed it was because the kitchen phone was broken but in fact the kitchen phone worked fine he just hid it so noone would realize it wasn't broken like he claimed.

There is no evidence that Sheila killed loaded a gun let anyone else but if she actually had been the killer then such evidence would exist.  There would have been clothing with medium velocity spatter from Nevill and high velocity spatter from the victims.  There would have been GSR on her clothing as well.  She also would have had injuries from walking in the glass of the broken lampshade, crockery and on her hand from the broken rifle stock.  The claim she would have washed before killing herself is ridiculous but injuries can't be washed away nor can clothing simply vanish. If she changed the clothing with the spatter and GSR would have been there.  She still would have gotten GSR on the gown she died in and her hands if she fired the fatal shots. Had she hugged the wepaon to shoot herself the GSR woudl have been on her gown. None was found because Jeremy held the gun away from her with the moderator attached and thus the area of the gun where GSR is expelled wa sno where near her body for those 2 shots.   


There is no evidence Sheila knew how to use a gun of any kind let alone a semi-auto rifle (until November 30, 1984 they never had any semi-autos so growining up on the farm had not exposed her to any)

There is no evidence that Nevill could have made a call to Jeremy based on how the murders went down.  If he had been caught on the phone by Sheila then she would have shot him in the kitchen.  The shooting started in the master bedroom with both parents present and being shot. In the meantime he would have tried to disarm her himself not to call his weaker son to come do it.  Worse still his son had an asnwering machien and the phone was on a different level than his bedroom so even if he heard the phone the answering machine would have picket up before he could reach it. Nevill would have to have left a message but had not. Nor would Sheila have bothered to leave the phone in the kitchen off the hook so no one coudl use it, that is something Jeremy would do- the guy who made sure no phone was in the master bedroom.


There is no evidence that Nevill ever removed the scope and moderator from the weapon when storing it let alone used it without them.  In fact there is no evidence Nevill used the murder weapon more than a couple of times. There is no reason to remove the scope other than close quarter shooting like the murders.  Jeremy at one point admitted to removing the scope himself but when he became a suspect changed it to Neivll removing it.  He admitted he had not touched the rifle the week prior to the murders but after the last known user said it was put away with the moderator and scope attached he changed his story and made up the obvious lie that Nevill and himself had used it repeatedly over the course of the week prior to the murders and that during this period the scope and moderator were removed and reattached numerous times and the gun sometime was used without them.

There is no evidence that Jeremy ever shot rabbits, instead there is evidence that he was opposed to shooting them making his claim he took out the gun to shoot rabbits even more suspect than just suspect because of the time of day and absurdity of his claims that he would use it without the scope or moderator to shoot rabbits.

There is no evidence that the killer would use 20 bullets from the supply Jeremy left in the kitchen but to go get 5 addiitonal rounds from the closet though 30 remained in the kitchen.  QUite obviously those bullets were staged by Jeremy after the murders.  Neither during his interviews nor at trial coudl jeremy even think of a lie to account for this problem.

There is evidence that the moderator was used during the murders.  DUring the scuffle with Nevill the moderator broke the ceiling lampshade, scratched underneath the mante in a zigzag patterns and knocked things onto the floor.  The gun would have been too short to break the ceiling lampshade without the moderator attached.  Someone just dropping the gun or walking by and scratching the mantle would have left a lateral scratch.  The scratches on the mantle indicate a struggle over control of the weapon was taking place.  It was still attached when Sheila was shot because the fatal shot was a contact shot and resulted in drawback into the moderator, had the moderator not been attached instead the muzzle of the weapon would have had blood in it.

In a crazy rage Sheila would not have gone to the closet to get the moderator to attach to the gun let alone would she be able to remove it and put it away after killing herself. Nor after she was dead could she have moved her body flat and then opened and closed the bible in a pool of blood that formed after her death.  Someone else had to be there doing these things and that person would be the killer.
 
There is no evidence that Jeremy acted in any way shape or form like someone would act if they actually received a call that he claimed to received. Instead of rushing there to help or calling police then rushing there he called Julie and woke her up just so he could use her to support his alibi.  His plan was to tell police he called her to demonstrate his concern and this proves he really did receive a call.  He had no valid reason to wake her up that is why he did it.  He called her again at 6AM telling her not to go to work because she would need to talk to police and tell them about his call to her. This was 1.5 hours before they found any bodies.  In the meantime police had to tell him to go meet them there.  He drove there as slow as he could to avoid beating police there.  As police approached the last mile they observed a car driving very slowly as as they caught up to it the car pulled over on the side of the road.  this was only a mile form WHF. That car was being driven by Jeremy.  He waited on the side of the road for 3 minutes he didn't simply get out of the way for police to pass. After waiting on the side of the road for 3 minutes he finally drove the last mile to WHF.  Police recognized his car and asked what took him so long to drive a mile and he was doing on the side of the road.  He gave the excuse that he got cold and stopped to put on a sweater.  He wanted to make sure they could say they beat him there to back up his alibi that he had been home leeping when he received a call from Nevill.

Upon meeting them he told them his sister was a nutter and the whopper of a lie that there was an arsenal of weapons is the house and that his sister was proficient with all of them expecially a rifle he had left on the kitchen table.  He made no effort to go investigate himself and scare dthem so tha they woudl not do so either instead they requested armed support.  He calm sat around tlakign to them about cars and guy stuff.

Nothing he did comported with someone who left a rifle out and such rifle was used to commit murder.

Last there was Julie's very detailed and specific testimony of how long he had been planning to kill his family, the phone call to her around 10PM the night of the murders where he said tonight is the night and his admisisons that he was responsible after the murders.

This is all proof Jeremy did it.

There of course is more but this is the main evidence.

There is no evidence at all to support that Sheila did anything but plenty to convict Jeremy.
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33781
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #53 on: August 11, 2014, 06:54:PM »
If only she could stop rubbing her own choices and behaviour off on others! It looks so incredibly bad an dcowardly!!! Also she tends to have vague memory whenever it comes to bad decicions she made and she doesn´t have the option to rub it off on others.
She is so transparent!


Alias, it's convoluted, isn't it. She apparently went to a solicitor voicing her distress at the attention she was receiving from the press, but when we look at it more closely, what she ended up with was magnified attention, NOT just from the press, but national and INTERnational. It seems she felt comfortable enough with their attentions to freely talk about her sex life. I have always suspected her to be on the HPD spectrum. Her behaviour during this particular period and what I gleaned from what she has said do nothing to persuade me otherwise.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #54 on: August 11, 2014, 06:57:PM »

Firstly Scipio, what you say implies that I'm not intelligent enough to have worked out for myself all that you've said OR perhaps it was that you didn't catch the irony. in which case, perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough..........................HOWever, you go on to echo WORD FOR WORD what many of us said of her appearance at the time. Might I also add that if that is the way she presented herself to her solicitor, I believe a member of an old and trusted family firm in a provincial Essex town, he could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that whilst her mouth said one thing, the way she presented herself said something entirely different. I fin d it strange that he didn't approach several publications to give her the options. But MAYBE he did.

How did I call you not intelligent?  All I did was stress that your suspicions are definitely correct and not merely speculation.

In hindsight it is not a question that the NOTW coverage was less tasteful than a real outlet would give, it's obvious tha tis the case.  But even beforehand anyone with half a brian could have figured that out.  The lawyer didn't care about her reputation only money and she was stupid.  She had to know it was a tabloid rag and if she didn't because she wa sunfamiliar with them she was stupid for not researchign them first.

 
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #55 on: August 11, 2014, 07:01:PM »
I always find the "guilters´" atempts at defending Julie hilarious!

What is funny is how Team Jeremy lies about her, that we are forced to set the record striaght and then setting the record straight is misrepresented is defending her.

If Team Jeremy would not lie about her being out to make money doing interviews then it would not be necessary to set the record straight about hwo she declined the opportunity to make money that she could have made over the years.

That is not defending her it is being accurate.

But you have shown your true cloros and your claims of objectivity had gone to the wayside just like Grohama's. 
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33781
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #56 on: August 11, 2014, 07:11:PM »
How did I call you not intelligent?  All I did was stress that your suspicions are definitely correct and not merely speculation.

In hindsight it is not a question that the NOTW coverage was less tasteful than a real outlet would give, it's obvious tha tis the case.  But even beforehand anyone with half a brian could have figured that out.  The lawyer didn't care about her reputation only money and she was stupid.  She had to know it was a tabloid rag and if she didn't because she wa sunfamiliar with them she was stupid for not researchign them first.

My apologies. I hadn't realized you were reiterating what I'd said. It appears to me that, throughout the statement, she takes no responsibility for anything. I find it hard to believe that  A. the solicitor failed to dot "I's" and cross "T's" without her, an intelligent woman, asking questions and B. that she didn't stipulate that she wouldn't do a deal with the tabloids. She can't NOT have known what the NOTW was but if she could deny any responsibility in the deal, I guess she felt exonerated.

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #57 on: August 11, 2014, 07:26:PM »
It is hilarious to see guilters defend "that" picture of JM, she approved of it: she was happy about it.
In fact I think this is exactly what she wanted. She did it as a revenge to Jeremy." Look Jeremy, you didn´t want me! Here is what you are missing out on, I am so hot! Got money too and my freedom. F you!"

Something like that....

Anyway, that deal didn´t stop the press from harrassing Julie - why would it? Stupid to claim that that was the reason. It was just an excuse.

April, absolutely, HPD, she has all the signs.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #58 on: August 11, 2014, 07:34:PM »
If she was seeking attention then why did she refuse to do anymore deals when the press continued to hound her?  She could have made a lot more money and have had a lot more exposure. Why did she refuse all deals thrown at her each time he was in the news?  From 1989 to the present there have been at least 6 different times the media gave a lot of coverage to the case and they would have loved to have interviewed her.

It seems to me the people with the agenda are those to try to discredit her testimony because she gave a single paid interview.  Who would have such an agenda?  Jeremy's advocates of course because they can't discredit what she said about Jeremy plotting the murders in any competent manner they call her crediiblity into question with the stupid claim she made a deal to convict him and made up lies to accomplish same though she told her story well before that.

perhaps the deal was an exclusive to N.O.W

But as the contracts went "missing" I can prove that one way or the other.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #59 on: August 11, 2014, 07:41:PM »
My apologies. I hadn't realized you were reiterating what I'd said. It appears to me that, throughout the statement, she takes no responsibility for anything. I find it hard to believe that  A. the solicitor failed to dot "I's" and cross "T's" without her, an intelligent woman, asking questions and B. that she didn't stipulate that she wouldn't do a deal with the tabloids. She can't NOT have known what the NOTW was but if she could deny any responsibility in the deal, I guess she felt exonerated.

Clients rarely ask us questions they should ask.  They ask stupid things. The assumption that all lawyers will protect all interests fo their client is wrong, those who perosnally know someone and have a relationship have a reaosn to protect their integrity.  Those in a one shot deal who have no personal interest will often care only about their financial interests which in this case he stated amount to him solicitng the highest bid.

Did she have no issue with that because she was just clueless or thought as long as she was going to do it she might as well be well paid?  If you were told you should pose nude would you be worried about doing it in the most tasteful way possible or getting the most money?  That would depend, someone who recognizes the way it is done could make them look trashy or to be perceived in a negative light and who cares about tha tperception is going to be the kind of person who cares more about how it is done while still trying to maximize the payout for it being done tastefully.  Someone who either doesn't care or doesn't recognize the risks will be more apt to just go for the most money.

This is not a case where the lawyer didn't tell her he negoatiated the best financial deal, he did tell her that.  She either didn't think about the chance of them doing a rag story like they did or didn't care and after seeing it then she was horrified and at that point it was too late.

In any event if her motivation was out to make money just she would have continued selling her story but instead has been reclusive.

The appeal lawyers were using this issue as a technicality to try to get a new trial.   The notion she testified jsut so she could get a paid gig out of it was never something they could seriously hope to convince anyone of.  It was always intended as a vehicle to get a second bite at the apple.  It is always better to try a second chance before another  jury than to be stuck in jail convcted by the first. 

So this issue is a waste of time to talk about if one is trying to discuss whether or not Jeremy is guilty. It's not really relevant to that discussion. The argument she made up the tale about Jeremy so she could become rich selling her story to the press is a silly one.



Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry