Video about Julie Mugford

[guest154]

Jeremys' past incidents got him arrested !! Now't else. He should have manned up and opened his mouth about his ex-girlfriend,sod being loyal.

If that was the case, he would have been arrested straight away. But as usual, that isn't the case- Lookout hence why he was arrested long after the murders when the evidence came to light.

[lookout]

If that was the case, he would have been arrested straight away. But as usual, that isn't the case- Lookout hence why he was arrested long after the murders when the evidence came to light.

What evidence might that be--------------and not circumstantial either ?

[JackiePreece]

Why are you constantly asking people to list Julie's crimes? Colins affairs? You've done more research on these people than anyone, I'm sure you think you already know the answers. When you catch up with the rest of the forum and have gotten tot he nights of the murders, since you still seem to be talking about incidents that happened long before the night of the crime, then you'll have something to actually discuss.

New people join this forum everyday.  Julie Mugford was the main prosecution witness although she could not provide a single piece of evidence to back her story up

It's important for all the new people to know all about all the robberies and her behaviour before and after the murders to form an opinion if she is an honest and truthful person
People can then decide if this is a MOJ and decide if they want to support Jeremy in getting PII information released

[mertol22]

I know its been said well earlier but without JM  there is little else that said are we all supposed to believe the army of police going through the crime scene did not have any thoughts of foul play, its what I call consolidated thinking about Jeremy he would have had less than 24 hours to get everything done including a watertight statement without error the interval is simply too short the crime scenes to me do not show any advanced plan carried out everything is erratic.

[Caroline]

I know its been said well earlier but without JM  there is little else that said are we all supposed to believe the army of police going through the crime scene did not have any thoughts of foul play, its what I call consolidated thinking about Jeremy he would have had less than 24 hours to get everything done including a watertight statement without error the interval is simply too short the crime scenes to me do not show any advanced plan carried out everything is erratic.

But he didn't have a watertight statement and it falls to pieces under scrutiny - everything is erratic I agree but I believe he decided that day that he had had enough.

[mertol22]

But he didn't have a watertight statement and it falls to pieces under scrutiny - everything is erratic I agree but I believe he decided that day that he had had enough.

erratic I account to distortion inbalence  I see this in someone else than Jeremy.

[Caroline]

erratic I account to distortion inbalence  I see this in someone else than Jeremy.

Sorry Mertol, I don't understand?

[Adam]

Jeremy's defence team agreed that all of her statements appeared 'remarkably consistent'.

They said all her statements 'meshed convincingly' and had a 'ring of truth' to it.

The defence could not attack Julies actions after the massacre. She could simply say 'well what about Jeremy ?' Prior to the massacre they could not attack her actions, as she was spending a lot of time with Jeremy.

It was decided to focus on Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud. Together with the few inconsistencies in her statements.

[lookout]

 A " ring of truth " is no good. It HAS to be THE truth in a court of law !

[JackiePreece]

Jeremy's defence team agreed that all of her statements appeared 'remarkably consistent'.

They said all her statements 'meshed convincingly' and had a 'ring of truth' to it.

The defence could not attack Julies actions after the massacre. She could simply say 'well what about Jeremy ?' Prior to the massacre they could not attack her actions, as she was spending a lot of time with Jeremy.

It was decided to focus on Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud. Together with the few inconsistencies in her statements.

I agree Adam she was a convincing liar and she was remarkably consistent when she went robbing shops
She was well planned with a shopping list
Remind me Adam how many robberies did Mugford
Can you remind how many interviews Mugford had with the police and can you remind me is all this information witheld under PII
Adam tell me how do you know when Mugford was telling the truth or telling lies
Adam can you provide me with a source where anyone suspected Mugford was covering up for Jeremy after the murders

[JackiePreece]

As Holly from the other forum has again made the point Jeremy was badly let down by his defence

[Adam]

Julie could rightly say 'what about Jeremy' if the defence attacked her actions after the massacre.

She never asked to be woken up and whisked over to WHF at 5am.

Jeremy quickly whisked her away to stay in deluxe hotels in Eastbourne and Amsterdam. Sipping champagne pre, post and during the funeral.

[Adam]

Jeremy met Julie in November 83. So had plenty of time to vent his frustrations on his family to her.

Once he mentioned it once the damage was done. Julie could mention it to the police if the family came to harm. He might as well mention it a thousand times. Even if the relationship was in a nine month decline.

[Mr. Gee]

Jeremy's defence team agreed that all of her statements appeared 'remarkably consistent'.

They said all her statements 'meshed convincingly' and had a 'ring of truth' to it.

The defence could not attack Julies actions after the massacre. She could simply say 'well what about Jeremy ?' Prior to the massacre they could not attack her actions, as she was spending a lot of time with Jeremy.

It was decided to focus on Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud. Together with the few inconsistencies in her statements.

That to me, if indeed they did say that, indicates a very bad defence team. There is a big difference between justice and the law. The law courts do not usually care too much about justice. It was their job to get their client off the charge of murder and if they said those things it is a very big indication that they were not all that worried about doing the best that they could for their client.

[Mr. Gee]

As Holly from the other forum has again made the point Jeremy was badly let down by his defence

Who's Holly? Whoever she is I agree with her.