Author Topic: The Jury and the Mugfords  (Read 5607 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #90 on: August 12, 2014, 06:41:PM »
she gave the gist of the conversation not everything said.  She admitted she could not remember everything.  The gist was that he didn't go to sleep yet, that the plan to kill them was going well and thus there was trouble at the farm.  Far from "guilters" twisting her words that is what she said he conveyed to her. She characterized it as such not guilters.



 

The illogical sentence is quoted often enough to make Jeremy sound guilty.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33781
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #91 on: August 12, 2014, 06:45:PM »
Jeremy didn´t know what "was wrong" at the farm. Julie clearly didn´t think it was serious.



But Julie supposedly knew he had murder in mind.

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #92 on: August 12, 2014, 06:47:PM »
This obviously does not make sense, no matter which way you turn it.

The sentence: Everything is going well, something is wrong at the farm - does not make sense no matter how you look at it
We have been there before, but I feel like repeating. What does make sense is this:
Nevill had called Jeremy, and Jeremy, not used to making decisions on his own, afraid of angering his father, opted to call Julie for advise.
Je "Hello darling, it´s me, Jeremy."
Ju "Why are you calling now, it´s in the middle of the night?! Is something wrong?"
Je "Everything is going well (with me, but) there is something wrong at the farm."
Ju "Oh, Gosh, Jeremy, are you waking me up in the middle of the night to tell me THIS?! What´s wrong with you, GO BACK TO BED!"

THIS makes sense - not the weird, incoherent mess, which has been twisted and bent to fit with what guilters want it to mean. Another myth.


That's what I would go with

If Jeremy got the call from his father I think he was worried what he was walking into and that's why he would obviously want the police to get there before him

There is nothing in Jeremy's character that I can see him barging into the house before the police
Plenty of men but not him
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #93 on: August 14, 2014, 01:33:PM »
Revisiting again the NOTW deal

This was wholly misleading. Julie Mugford in her 11th April 2002 witness statement admitted that she had sold her story to 'The News of the World' for Twenty-Five Thousand pounds.  This was later ruled in breach of guidelines by the Press Complaints Council, though she was not made to pay the money back.
Julie Mugford swore in 2002 under oath that on the day of the verdict she was in a Hotel paid for by 'The News of the World.
[/color]'  Her solicitor had drawn up the contract a month after I was arrested.  This is consistent with 'The News of the World' naming Julie Mugford as being interviewed by them on the 29th September 1985. It is also telling that Julie must have known she was going to receive a large cash payout in due course as she stopped work in March 1986 and ran up an overdraft until the trial in October 1986.



Julie Mugford’s bank statements also reveal that the £400 cheque I had given her in August 1985, to help pay for a holiday, was cashed on the 17th September 1985, 7 days after Julie had been taken into custody accusing me of hiring a hit man to murder my family, yet she was happy to go on to spend the money I had given her
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #94 on: August 14, 2014, 01:35:PM »
During this Media outcry Essex Police trying to gather evidence against me.
Julie Mugford Charged with Burglary D.S. Jones explained in his 16th June 2002 statement that Julie was not arrested or charged.  “In Essex at the time we either arrested and charged people or we reported them for process and they were bailed.”  “Julie was reported for cheque frauds, burglary and for growing cannabis.”

In a fax dated 5th December 1985 from Chief Crown Prosecutor Mr. Adams to Mr. East it states in a handwritten addendum, “I agree that she should not be prosecuted. I also agree that the burglary charge can be withdrawn.”  This makes D.S. Jones out to be misleading, as Julie was arrested and charged with burglary and the jury were entitled to have known of this inducement.

In a fax to Anthony Arlidge Q.C. for the Crown, dated 27th January 1986, it states, 'Miss Mugford has now been advised of the Director’s decision not to prosecute her, and warned he that she will be required as a witness against Bamber.'  The C.P.S. wrote on the 19th July 1991,  'I set out in a note that Mugford should be used as a prosecution witness. This resulted in the decision that Julie Mugford would not be prosecuted for offences disclosed against her, but would be used as a prosecution witness.'

The Judge, had he known about this deal to withdraw criminal proceedings against Julie in exchange for her testimony against me, would have been required to give the equivalent direction to the jury that later became known as the:- 'MAKAM JOULA 1995- DIRECTION.'
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #95 on: August 14, 2014, 01:40:PM »
What explanation is there for Jeremy giving Julie 400 pounds in August 1985? It has always struck me as a quite lavish gift - it was a relatively large sum of money.

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #96 on: August 14, 2014, 01:44:PM »
I expect its quite simple Jeremy had quite a lot of savings
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
Re: The Jury and the Mugfords
« Reply #97 on: August 14, 2014, 01:49:PM »
From Julie Mugford in 2002

Julie, now 36, said: "I thought this was long in the past. The last few weeks have been a nightmare. As far as I am concerned nothing has changed - I sincerely believe he is guilty. Do I stand by my original story? Yes, absolutely. I always assumed he would be in jail for life.

1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2 To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3 To expect or suppose
4 To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
3To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
5 To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.
6 To trust what one has heard.

Why didnt Mugford say she knew Jeremy was responsible for the murders
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44410
'Only I know what really happened that night'.