Video about Julie Mugford

[Mr. Gee]

Other people keep mentioning it. To suggest Julie lied to the police, lawyers & courts. Why ? Because according to Jeremy he jilted her.

All I did was to emphasise the fact that no cheque book fraud is MINOR.

[Jane]

Oh yes. Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud.

Something Jeremy's supporters cling on to.

The defence brought this up at trial. The jury knew all about it. If it is so damning on Julie, the other evidence against Jeremy must have been pretty damning. They voted... guilty.

I wonder what sort of petty, vicarious pleasure you derive from repeatedly misnaming that particular crime, however, as you say, "the evidence against Jeremy must have been pretty damning. They voted...guilty" So I guess your job here is done.

[JackiePreece]

Grahame I don't know where you got the idea Adam is young
Stupid I don't think so young, someone who sits on his computer all day tapping away trying to be controversial without any success

I have asked him for a list of all the different planned robberies Mugford carried out in Oxford Street
He flatly refused to acknowledge she did this
He also seems to forget this women admitted trying to murder Jeremy because she couldn't have him
Maybe she might have succeeded if Jeremy wasn't a young strong man
We are not talking about a normal girl here
She makes out she knew Jeremy was going to kill his family
So if he 'really' said everything is going well
What did she think that meant
Her many interviews were so she could do her best to bring Jeremy down without implicate herself.
Quite a feat but she pulled it off with the help of the police
She made sure Jeremy would never have another girlfriend and the police got a massive pat on the back for a botched stitch up
 

[Alias]

That is more or less what I am saying. You are very hard on her.

She was 20 years old. Dragged over to WHF, Eastbourne, funerals & Amsterdam within a few days.

She was caught up in an unexpected situation. Never expecting the massacre would happen.  Jeremy telling her it was MM and it was an 'open & shut' case. Jeremy is very persuasive. And charming.

Threads already created.

She also loved him and did not want to believe what had happened.

No one forced Julie to come up with the cheque book scheme, no one forced her to talk her friend into it, talked Susan into using her cheque book. No one forced Julie to forge Susan´s signature on the cheques; she practiced that for days and spent days trying to talk a reluctant Susan into it.
After the frauds, Susan felt very bad and threw away her loot. Julie "doesn´t remember" what she did with hers, "probably took it to Sally Army" (yeah, right!).
"Probably"? You´d remember a thing like that. Here we see Julie at her best. Turning her crime into a charitable action! Besides, according to her, she did it to impress Jeremy, so it is his fault!
Julie never takes responsibility for her own actions. What do you call people like that?

No one forced her to throw a piece of soap at Jeremy in the supermarket.
No one forcer her to hurl some box through Jeremy´s room and smash his mirror.
No one forced her to stab a teddy bear, which was a gift for her from Brett Collins.
No one forced her to sell drugs - a person studying to be a teacher of children!!!
No one forced her to pose half naked and take a large fee for a sleazy story in a sleazy magazine - on top of the gruesome murders of five people, two of them little children. Talk about dragging them through the mud!
No one forced Julie to try to strangle Jeremy.

Julie was (is?) a dodgy character. At twenty, she was a hardened as they come. I don´t know what made her that way. Wasn´t there something about sexual abuse in her childhood? She also claimed to have been raped when in France (think it was France.)
Both horrible things if true, and I feel bad for her; but that doesn´t change the fact that her moral compass was quite a bit off course.

[lookout]

That is because crooks and liars recognise their own brood lookout.

Never thought of that,but yes,it takes one to know one.

[Mr. Gee]

I wonder what sort of petty, vicarious pleasure you derive from repeatedly misnaming that particular crime, however, as you say, "the evidence against Jeremy must have been pretty damning. They voted...guilty" So I guess your job here is done.

The judge said he would accept a verdict of 10-2 because they could not decide on a unanimous verdict. We must always emphasise that the verdict was not unanimous because even then there were serious doubts about Bamber's guilt.

[ngb1066]

No one forced Julie to come up with the cheque book scheme, no one forced her to talk her friend into it, talked Susan into using her cheque book. No one forced Julie to forge Susan´s signature on the cheques; she practiced that for days and spent days trying to talk a reluctant Susan into it.
After the frauds, Susan felt very bad and threw away her loot. Julie "doesn´t remember" what she did with hers, "probably took it to Sally Army" (yeah, right!).
"Probably"? You´d remember a thing like that. Here we see Julie at her best. Turning her crime into a charitable action! Besides, according to her, she did it to impress Jeremy, so it is his fault!
Julie never takes responsibility for her own actions. What do you call people like that?

No one forced her to throw a piece of soap at Jeremy in the supermarket.
No one forcer her to hurl some box through Jeremy´s room and smash his mirror.
No one forced her to stab a teddy bear, which was a gift for her from Brett Collins.
No one forced her to sell drugs - a person studying to be a teacher of children!!!
No one forced her to pose half naked and take a large fee for a sleazy story in a sleazy magazine - on top of the gruesome murders of five people, two of them little children. Talk about dragging them through the mud!
No one forced Julie to try to strangle Jeremy.

Julie was (is?) a dodgy character. At twenty, she was a hardened as they come. I don´t know what made her that way. Wasn´t there something about sexual abuse in her childhood? She also claimed to have been raped when in France (think it was France.)
Both horrible things if true, and I feel bad for her; but that doesn´t change the fact that her moral compass was quite a bit off course.

Very good post.

[Adam]

The judge said he would accept a verdict of 10-2 because they could not decide on a unanimous verdict. We must always emphasise that the verdict was not unanimous because even then there were serious doubts about Bamber's guilt.

It was surprising that it was a 10-2 verdict.

There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence against him. Together with a motive and opportunity.

It was him or Sheila. My thread yesterday shows it was impossible for it to be Sheila. Even experts hired by the defence said it could not be Sheila.

Stan Jones says he was not surprised two females said 'not guilty'. Jeremy in court was dapper, charming and handsome. Not looking like a psychopath at all.

[Alias]

Very good post.

Thank you! 

[Mr. Gee]

It was surprising that it was a 10-2 verdict.

There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence against him. Together with a motive and opportunity.

It was him or Sheila. My thread yesterday shows it was impossible for it to be Sheila. Even experts hired by the defence said it could not be Sheila.

Stan Jones says he was not surprised two females said 'not guilty'. Jeremy in court was dapper, charming and handsome. Not looking like a psychopath at all.

Adam you must realise that the case they judged was not the one we are looking at on the forum. You must appreciate that it has become more and more embellished over the years. I rememember the case and quite frankly I did wonder how they could have brought in a guilty verdict on the small amount of evidence they had. Even now most of the stuff being discussed on this forum is mostly conjecture dressed up as truth.

[Adam]

Adam you must realise that the case they judged was not the one we are looking at on the forum. You must appreciate that it has become more and more embellished over the years. I rememember the case and quite frankly I did wonder how they could have brought in a guilty verdict on the small amount of evidence they had. Even now most of the stuff being discussed on this forum is mostly conjecture dressed up as truth.

The jury reached their verdict quickly for such a long trial.

Well most of the evidence since has incriminated Jeremy further. Jeremy's 'Campaign for Freedom' team come up with strange accusations. None of which carry any weight.

[Adam]

She should be left alone to get on with her life, she's done well for herself becoming Headteacher at the school she works at. She's clearly worked hard at her career to get where she is now, and good for her.

He wasn't convicted on her evidence alone. there were other factors, obviously. And we all know what they are.


A post from someone else today on red.

[Alias]

She should be left alone to get on with her life, she's done well for herself becoming Headteacher at the school she works at. She's clearly worked hard at her career to get where she is now, and good for her.

He wasn't convicted on her evidence alone. there were other factors, obviously. And we all know what they are.


A post from someone else today on red.

Wonder what her views on drug use among her pupils is. A former drug dealer.

[JackiePreece]

Or taking your kit off for the Newspapers

[lookout]

Wonder what her views on drug use among her pupils is. A former drug dealer.

Interesting question. Double standards is usually the way to go. A bit like non-smokers.