The Jury and the Mugfords

[Jane]

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.

Jasus, as point (F) in her statement says she isn't to speak to anyone, I suspect you're right about the "scoop" being an exclusive.

[Jan]

Jasus, as point (F) in her statement says she isn't to speak to anyone, I suspect you're right about the "scoop" being an exclusive.

Quite - so here refusal to speak to others was not quite so moral was it?

I was trying to find newspaper archives at the time of the trial - but I think you have to register with web sites . Did any other family members give interviews?

[Jane]

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.

Jansus has raised the point that what she gave the NOTW may have been an exclusive. I think her point, rereading the statement, is valid. It's that Julie actually STATES that the solicitor tells her he's negotiated the best financial deal that I find so ironic -although I understand why- given that she stresses more than once that the money wasn't what was driving her. I DON'T think she made up the tale with the idea of going to the press to get rich, but by 1985 standards, that's exactly what happened. My first house, bought the previous year was £16,000. I imagine the £25,000 Julie spent on a flat became a nice little nest egg.

[scipio_usmc]

Jasus, as point (F) in her statement says she isn't to speak to anyone, I suspect you're right about the "scoop" being an exclusive.

"exclusive" deals are to prevent someone from scooping you.  It doesn't prevent future interviews. That is why she was able to do the subsequent interview where she tried to correct the record.  What good is a deal if someone else is able to get the story out before you can?  Hence why you get an exclusive so that you are the first one to get the story out. 

That rush to be first is why you see so many media mistakes including posting an obit before someone actually dies. 

You can sign a deal where they have to wait a period of time before they can do other interviews or where they actually become your agent of sorts and you get to do many stories on them but you only do tha twith someone very famous because otherwise it is not financially worth it to the publisher.

Her lawyer essentually got the publications to bid on who would get her story first.  They kept hounding her because she had not yet signed a deal.  After the trial he had her sign the NOTW deal and then from that point on until the spread was published other outlets could not try to get her to sign with them otherwise they could be sued for tortious interference of contract. 

While there is still some demand after the first story comes out it is certainlly lesser because the whole rush to see who is first is gone.  The individual money offers for any fllow up interviews will not usually be as substantial as the first offer unless some new event casts things in the spotlight again like each time his appeals came up or some new allegation made to journalists by the defense.



 

[JackiePreece]

Comments like this is why you are a laughing stock (I will deal with the rest when I am not on my iPhone )


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  where he said tonight is the night and his admisisons that he was responsible after the murders.


You prove to me when you know Mugford wasn't telling lies

[scipio_usmc]

Jansus has raised the point that what she gave the NOTW may have been an exclusive. I think her point, rereading the statement, is valid. It's that Julie actually STATES that the solicitor tells her he's negotiated the best financial deal that I find so ironic -although I understand why- given that she stresses more than once that the money wasn't what was driving her. I DON'T think she made up the tale with the idea of going to the press to get rich, but by 1985 standards, that's exactly what happened. My first house, bought the previous year was £16,000. I imagine the £25,000 Julie spent on a flat became a nice little nest egg.

The real estate market there must have been pretty low there.  In late 1984 my parents bought a house for $180,000 and even if you take into account the lesser value of the dollar to the pound that is a big difference.  Houses in the city were way higher that was a suburban area mind you.  Still whatever she got after the lawyer took his fees would be a lot  to a student.

The exclusivity of such deals are that you can't provide your story to other outlets until the party publishes their interview.  It is to stop you from signing multiple deals and someone else being able to get an interview to market faster.

I have the first story anyone who wants to read her story buy my paper...and they figure they will sell more copies than they otherwise would.   

 

[scipio_usmc]

Comments like this is why you are a laughing stock (I will deal with the rest when I am not on my iPhone )


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  where he said tonight is the night and his admisisons that he was responsible after the murders.


You prove to me when you know Mugford wasn't telling lies

Prove that she made up that very detailed testimony.  She had no reaosn to make it up nore would anyone be likely to make up anything so detailed.  In the meantime Jeremy's own actions of calling her to support his tale that Nevill called supports her story as does the fact that Sheila can't have killed herself and can't have killed anyone else without getting evidence on her clothing to prove she did it.

[Alias]

How would it prevent the rest of the press from harrassing Julie that she made a deal with NOTW (which is her excuse)?
I can only see it making sense with a clause in the contract with NOTW, which stipulated that she was not allowed to talk to other media, say, for a month after the verdict.

It didn´t make a difference anyway, the press kept after her.
Just a lame excuse.

[scipio_usmc]

How would it prevent the rest of the press from harrassing Julie that she made a deal with NOTW (which is her excuse)?
I can only see it making sense with a clause in the contract with NOTW, which stipulated that she was not allowed to talk to other media, say, for a month after the verdict.

It didn´t make a difference anyway, the press kept after her.
Just a lame excuse.

Once you sign the deal the rest of the press has to leave you alone until the story comes out so you have peace during that period of time between signing and publication at minimum.  A deal that covers a month after publication is still not long.

The press still hounded her after the story came uout but less severely to be sure, the intenstiy to be first to market was gone.  They woudl be the biggest hassle in the future when his story reappeared and he claimed to be innocent.  At that point they would come looking for her again to see her response to his claims.

There is no such thing as being free from the press completely unless you don't have any story the press cares about. When you have a story they don't care about they won't return your calls even if you have something you think is worth being published so offer it to them for free.  Such is the nature of the beast.

It would be interesting to know what, if anything, the prosecutors and her lawyer talked about regarding these matters. 

[Jan]

The real estate market there must have been pretty low there.  In late 1984 my parents bought a house for $180,000 and even if you take into account the lesser value of the dollar to the pound that is a big difference.  Houses in the city were way higher that was a suburban area mind you.  Still whatever she got after the lawyer took his fees would be a lot  to a student.

The exclusivity of such deals are that you can't provide your story to other outlets until the party publishes their interview.  It is to stop you from signing multiple deals and someone else being able to get an interview to market faster.

I have the first story anyone who wants to read her story buy my paper...and they figure they will sell more copies than they otherwise would.   

Well I bought a three bedroom terrace house in 1980 and it cost £18,000. And the property market in the UK varies a huge amount depending on the region . So she easily could have bought a property with that money .

my house now would be worth in todays money approximately £270,000

[JackiePreece]

Ngb


When did the Jury find out about Mugfords history of dishonesty (see below)



She admitted to a brief background of dishonesty.

She was cautioned in 1985 for having used a friend's chequebook, after it had been reported stolen, to obtain goods worth £700; when they were discovered, she said she and the friend repaid the money to the bank.

 She also said that in March or April 1985 she had helped Bamber steal just under £1,000 from the office of the Osea Road caravan site his family owned. She said he had stage-managed the break-in to make it seem as though strangers had done it. The admission added both to the picture of her own dishonesty and to Bamber's.[22] After Bamber's trial, Mugford left Britain and later started a new life in Canada, where she married in 1991, works in education, and has two children

[JackiePreece]

Prove that she made up that very detailed testimony. She had no reaosn to make it up nore would anyone be likely to make up anything so detailed.  In the meantime Jeremy's own actions of calling her to support his tale that Nevill called supports her story as does the fact that Sheila can't have killed herself and can't have killed anyone else without getting evidence on her clothing to prove she did it.

Julie was a master at lies and deception.  I expect her testimony is long and detailed because she had 32 different interviews with the police

Skip

Please explain this

Julie Mugford's allegations can possibly be rejected by also considering further comments she made during her testimony at Bamber's trial.
 
She told that on the night of the massacre, Bamber had called her saying, "Tonight's the night."
 
 There was allegedly a later telephone call from him, at around the time he called the police, in which he said, "Everything's going well."
 
 This contradicts an earlier statement she made, in which she admitted that she could not remember anything about the telephone call as she had been smoking marijuana and drinking that evening.
 
She had simply told Bamber to go to sleep when he had telephoned to express his concerns. The contradictions in her statements and trial evidence have called in to question her credibility as a witness.

The alleged fight with Neville


Ralph had no defence injuries consistent with the view that he had been involved in any struggle. With the only injuries, upon his body, being those resulting from the gunshots, it is hard to conceive that he had been subjected to a fierce attack. Additionally Bamber had no injuries suggesting he had fought with his father. The police had carefully inspected his hands in particular and noticed nothing unusual. Even Mugford did not comment on the presence of any injuries or marks upon Bamber's body. If she was aware of such marks then, in her lengthy statements and trial evidence, she would have mentioned them. The fact that this witness, who following the tragedy had seen Bamber naked, did not notice any indications that he had been in a fight strongly suggests that no such indications had ever existed.
 
In light of the above details, it is logical to believe that no struggle occurred, and therefore one of the prosecution's arguments has been destroyed.







More contradictions which the forum has discussed many times


A few hours later, at 3:00–3:30 am, she said he phoned her again to say: "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".

It is a fact this simply does not make sense.  I would think without a doubt the actual words were 'Something is wrong at the farm@

[lookout]

She didn't show much concern considering she'd allegedly known that Jeremy was going to blast the family to Kingdom Come ? The least she could have done was to have sorted her addled brain out and rang him back.
Strange how she showed GREAT concern in the courtroom though ! How can anyone speak the truth after a skinful ? Because she'd have not remembered much,she'd have grasped at straws to deliver snippets of bits that she did remember,but only as it suited. These people are dangerous twisters.

[scipio_usmc]

Julie was a master at lies and deception.  I expect her testimony is long and detailed because she had 32 different interviews with the police

Skip

Please explain this

Julie Mugford's allegations can possibly be rejected by also considering further comments she made during her testimony at Bamber's trial.
 
She told that on the night of the massacre, Bamber had called her saying, "Tonight's the night."
 
 There was allegedly a later telephone call from him, at around the time he called the police, in which he said, "Everything's going well."
 
 This contradicts an earlier statement she made, in which she admitted that she could not remember anything about the telephone call as she had been smoking marijuana and drinking that evening.
 
She had simply told Bamber to go to sleep when he had telephoned to express his concerns. The contradictions in her statements and trial evidence have called in to question her credibility as a witness.

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.  Post a statement where she claims she was high and thus remembered nothing. 

Her initial statement referenced the 10OM call and 3AM call but was off as to the time of each call and mor eimportantly she didn't tell police everything Jeremy said.  In her Spetember statement she said the reason why she didn't tell them everything is she was unsure what Jeremy told them so didn't want to say too much and didn't want to say anything incriminating.  She thus said omitted many things in her August statement to help him.

The alleged fight with Neville


Ralph had no defence injuries consistent with the view that he had been involved in any struggle. With the only injuries, upon his body, being those resulting from the gunshots, it is hard to conceive that he had been subjected to a fierce attack. Additionally Bamber had no injuries suggesting he had fought with his father. The police had carefully inspected his hands in particular and noticed nothing unusual. Even Mugford did not comment on the presence of any injuries or marks upon Bamber's body. If she was aware of such marks then, in her lengthy statements and trial evidence, she would have mentioned them. The fact that this witness, who following the tragedy had seen Bamber naked, did not notice any indications that he had been in a fight strongly suggests that no such indications had ever existed.
 
In light of the above details, it is logical to believe that no struggle occurred, and therefore one of the prosecution's arguments has been destroyed.

WHy do you lie?  You accuse Julie of lying but you are the one lying at every turn.  Nevill had defensive wounds on his arms.  In addition his face was beaten, he had a broken ose, 2 black eyes and various lcerations.  His head was bashed in so hard that the rfile stock broke.  The weapon had spatter on it from being used to strike him.  The ceiling light was broken during the struggle and the underneath of the mantle scratched.  Various things were knocked onto the floor and turned over.  There was indeed a struggle and to try to pretend otherwise you flat out lied about the wounds on Nevill and completely ignored the state of the kitchen. Far from refuting anything all you did was harm your own credibility.

More contradictions which the forum has discussed many times


A few hours later, at 3:00–3:30 am, she said he phoned her again to say: "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".

It is a fact this simply does not make sense.  I would think without a doubt the actual words were 'Something is wrong at the farm@

In other words dishonest, biased Jackie who wants to pretend Jeremy is innocent chooses not to believe that Jeremy admitted he didn't go to sleep or that he said tonight is the night because they are incriminating and anything incriminating you refuse to accept.  Jeremy saying those things to her makes sense and is credible.  That you refuse to face that means veyr little because you are too biased to face the issue rationally and your biased opinions in no way restricts others from believing her craims.  You didn't disprove them all you did was say you refuse to believe them.

[Jane]

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.  Post a statement where she claims she was high and thus remembered nothing.................................................

At this point I don't think it's important whether we believe Jeremy to be guilty or innocent. The truth, however IS important. I don't know if it's the truth YOU want but if you look at Page 12 of Julie's statement -in the archives- you will see that she says she had been smoking marijuana. I'm n ot certain  of the exact words but she intimates that she may not have been thinking clearly. I haven't seen a statement in which she admits to being "high" but that was your expression.