Video about Julie Mugford

[Jane]

I just think she was trying to help.

It has been known for people to try to help when someone's relatives die.

Did Jeremy ask her to identify the bodies ? No. There was nothing in it for him.

Can't see what advantage Julie was trying to get from identifying the bodies. The massacre had just happened and everyone was in shock.

I have yet to meet anyone who does ANYTHING for 100% altruistic reasons. I'm inclined to think that Julie liked anything which put her centre stage. If it looked as if she was doing it for altruistic reasons, it was to her advantage.

[susan]

Hello april Julie certainly liked to be centre stage that is for sure she craved attention whatever kind it was. Wonder if she had a low self esteem.

[Jane]

Hello april Julie certainly liked to be centre stage that is for sure she craved attention whatever kind it was. Wonder if she had a low self esteem.

Susan, I'm certain she imagined enormous kudos being bestowed on her for her apparently selfless act.

[Jan]

I think for some reason Adam will not hear anything against Julie - so whatever we post he will not believe it.

But he also will not entertain the idea that she was possibly fed all the information to help convict Jeremy later  - and felt she was "doing the right thing" that does in fact match up a lot more with her newspaper interview saying that he had never confessed to her. It would also explain her behaviour after the crimes and at the funeral

I can see a person that liked attention , was capable of crime including drug crime , was capable of telling lies and was  possibly an attention seeker . Perhaps she saw her and Jeremy as a modern day bonnie and clyde. I think when she was dumped she MAY have made up what she said to the flat mates and possibly that fell neatly into the police hands as they were changing track because of pressure. She then became the star witness.

Would the NOW deal made a difference? Well say as it came to the trial she was changing her mind about what she was going to say in the dock ? then it does become relevant because enough money to buy a flat could have persuaded her to carry on.

After all despite what some posters said it was concluded that the only real swaying evidence in court was the silencer and JM.


Of course this is all IMO before anyone starts on about my opinion being deliberate lies.

[Jane]

I think for some reason Adam will not hear anything against Julie - so whatever we post he will not believe it.

But he also will not entertain the idea that she was possibly fed all the information to help convict Jeremy later  - and felt she was "doing the right thing" that does in fact match up a lot more with her newspaper interview saying that he had never confessed to her. It would also explain her behaviour after the crimes and at the funeral

I can see a person that liked attention , was capable of crime including drug crime , was capable of telling lies and was  possibly an attention seeker . Perhaps she saw her and Jeremy as a modern day bonnie and clyde. I think when she was dumped she MAY have made up what she said to the flat mates and possibly that fell neatly into the police hands as they were changing track because of pressure. She then became the star witness.

Would the NOW deal made a difference? Well say as it came to the trial she was changing her mind about what she was going to say in the dock ? then it does become relevant because enough money to buy a flat could have persuaded her to carry on.

After all despite what some posters said it was concluded that the only real swaying evidence in court was the silencer and JM.


Of course this is all IMO before anyone starts on about my opinion being deliberate lies.

If it's any consolation, Scipio HAS been asked to refrain from his extravagant overuse of that expression

[Jan]

yes I know he has bee asked to refrain. We shall see.

[Adam]

Hello april Julie certainly liked to be centre stage that is for sure she craved attention whatever kind it was. Wonder if she had a low self esteem.

Attention ? It was Jeremy who whisked her here,  there and everywhere from 5am on the massacre night.

She did one NOTW interview after the trial. After they approached her.

Jeremy liked to be the centre of attention. He still does and his campaign team are always laying into her.

[Adam]

Julie never said he confessed.

But she said about his plans, hatred, resentment and trial runs.

Then said he said MM did it. Which is untrue and shows Jeremy did do it. Otherwise he would not bother giving a proxy.

There are lots of reasons why he told her. Thread already created.

[Jan]

Attention ? It was Jeremy who whisked her here,  there and everywhere from 5am on the massacre night.

She did one NOTW interview after the trial. After they approached her.

Jeremy liked to be the centre of attention. He still does and his campaign team are always laying into her.

And everyone lays into Jeremys character as well.

Of course they are going to query her testimony and statements - if he is is fighting because he is innocent then her testimony can not be correct can it? What I was saying is that she was possibly persuaded by the police to help convict him - You have made up hundreds of scenarios about him so you can not say we are not allowed to have an  opinion. It then means that her not coming forward immediately is because she did not know he did it. And it also explains why the phone calls don't make sense. Its no more than opinion - the same as all your assumptions .

[Adam]

And everyone lays into Jeremys character as well.

Of course they are going to query her testimony and statements - if he is is fighting because he is innocent then her testimony can not be correct can it? What I was saying is that she was possibly persuaded by the police to help convict him - You have made up hundreds of scenarios about him so you can not say we are not allowed to have an  opinion. It then means that her not coming forward immediately is because she did not know he did it. And it also explains why the phone calls don't make sense. Its no more than opinion - the same as all your assumptions .

Her statement has a 'ring of truth'. Said Jeremy's lawyers.

Janus. It's time.

[Jan]

Her statement has a 'ring of truth'. Said Jeremy's lawyers.

Janus. It's time.

Of course it does - for example - Jeremy at times had problems with his mother ( admitted by him and others)  He says ( like millions of other people) God I hate my mum and dad


She then turns that into - I hate my mum and dad I wish they were dead - If they were all gone I could get it all .


See where the ring of truth comes in?

Its elaboration of stories and character to paint the bigger picture.


Nothing like this will ever convince me Adam - you are wasting your time.

The  answer lies elsewhere.

[Jane]

Her statement has a 'ring of truth'. Said Jeremy's lawyers.

Janus. It's time.

And if, within the month she held her tongue, he'd put a ring on her finger, it's very doubtful there'd have been ANY statement.

[Alias]

And if, within the month she held her tongue, he'd put a ring on her finger, it's very doubtful there'd have been ANY statement.

She would if (WHEN!) they divorced! 

[lookout]

 I would be very wary of anyone who said " there's a ring of truth in it ".

[Jane]

She would if (WHEN!) they divorced! 

By which time she may have had a VERY hard job convincing the police that she'd never known anything about it.