Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?

[maggie]

But the statement has been gone over many times with a fine tooth comb by Kingsley Napley or whoever is representing him now pro bono..

I'm sure it has but I still question Julie and her behaviour.

[scipio_usmc]

Sorry to disagree with you scip but I find much of her statement and behaviour questionable. This has nothing to do with whether I believe JB guilty or not.

I don't buy for one second that your past support of Jeremy doesn't affect how you view Julie.  If your views were objective you would be able to articulate the reasons why her claims are not credible.  Your views seem to have formed based upon your views of Jeremy's innocence. 

Claims that police got her to lie for them are absurd and claims she decided to frame him out of anger that they broke up fare no better. These are the only reasons why she would lie to frame him.

If she were trying to frame Jeremy she would have simply stated he confessed to killing them himself.  She would not make up a hitman claim let alone name someone who would be able to establish the claim false. This alone makes it obvious she didn't make the claims up. But the fact her claims about the Caravan breakin were corroborated and the level of details she provided about when he told her he wanted to kill them is such that it is not likely she made it up.

Anytime I ask people to explain why they think Julie lied I get the runaround and essentially reading between the lines they say it is just their gut feeling nothing more.  Gut feelings definitely involve how one views Jeremy.

[scipio_usmc]

I'm sure it has but I still question Julie and her behaviour.

You have this view that if she was telling the truth about what he told her then she had to have known he was going to kill them so she should have warned someone.

The reality though is that someone in her place could indeed think he was just blowing off steam and not seriously going to do it.  Someone in her place could intentionally close their eyes because they don't want to believe their loved one is so bad.   Someone in her place could even think he is serious but not care if he does it or even hope he does anticipating enjoying the spoils. 

None of these would make her claims against Jeremy not credible, at worst she simply understated what she knew, understated her role or failed to mention her hope he would so she could prosper as well. 

 

 

[Neil]

I don't buy for one second that your past support of Jeremy doesn't affect how you view Julie.  If your views were objective you would be able to articulate the reasons why her claims are not credible.  Your views seem to have formed based upon your views of Jeremy's innocence. 

Claims that police got her to lie for them are absurd and claims she decided to frame him out of anger that they broke up fare no better. These are the only reasons why she would lie to frame him.

If she were trying to frame Jeremy she would have simply stated he confessed to killing them himself.  She would not make up a hitman claim let alone name someone who would be able to establish the claim false. This alone makes it obvious she didn't make the claims up. But the fact her claims about the Caravan breakin were corroborated and the level of details she provided about when he told her he wanted to kill them is such that it is not likely she made it up.

Anytime I ask people to explain why they think Julie lied I get the runaround and essentially reading between the lines they say it is just their gut feeling nothing more.  Gut feelings definitely involve how one views Jeremy.

I totally understand why some people might dismiss Julie's evidence.  Her own character and behaviour at the time was, at the very least, questionable.  The sale of her story to the press, speaks volumes.

However, I would tend to agree with the comment made at the time, that her evidence had the ring of truth about it. 

[Neil]

You have this view that if she was telling the truth about what he told her then she had to have known he was going to kill them so she should have warned someone.

The reality though is that someone in her place could indeed think he was just blowing off steam and not seriously going to do it.  Someone in her place could intentionally close their eyes because they don't want to believe their loved one is so bad.   Someone in her place could even think he is serious but not care if he does it or even hope he does anticipating enjoying the spoils. 

None of these would make her claims against Jeremy not credible, at worst she simply understated what she knew, understated her role or failed to mention her hope he would so she could prosper as well.

The problem I have is, once Julie was fully aware that he wasn't just 'blowing off steam' and he had in fact just orchestrated the murder of five relatives, two of whom were children, she still delayed informing the Police!

[Steve_uk]

You have this view that if she was telling the truth about what he told her then she had to have known he was going to kill them so she should have warned someone.

The reality though is that someone in her place could indeed think he was just blowing off steam and not seriously going to do it.  Someone in her place could intentionally close their eyes because they don't want to believe their loved one is so bad.   Someone in her place could even think he is serious but not care if he does it or even hope he does anticipating enjoying the spoils. 

None of these would make her claims against Jeremy not credible, at worst she simply understated what she knew, understated her role or failed to mention her hope he would so she could prosper as well.

The problem though,Scipio is her job as a primary school teacher,where one might think that someone in such a profession has an empathy with human nature,and whether she has reached her elevated status subsequently through dint of hard work or cerebral competency one cannot maintain the defence of simpleton,however juvenile she may have been at the time.

[Steve_uk]

The problem I have is, once Julie was fully aware that he wasn't just 'blowing off steam' and he had in fact just orchestrated the murder of five relatives, two of which were children, she still didn't inform the Police!

I would also assert in retrospect that Jeremy was sounding her out for the murders and however vocal her protests at the time they were evidently not strong enough for her boyfriend to be dissuaded from the enterprise.

[maggie]

You have this view that if she was telling the truth about what he told her then she had to have known he was going to kill them so she should have warned someone.

The reality though is that someone in her place could indeed think he was just blowing off steam and not seriously going to do it.  Someone in her place could intentionally close their eyes because they don't want to believe their loved one is so bad.   Someone in her place could even think he is serious but not care if he does it or even hope he does anticipating enjoying the spoils. 

None of these would make her claims against Jeremy not credible, at worst she simply understated what she knew, understated her role or failed to mention her hope he would so she could prosper as well.

I can work all that out, I don't know why you're so protective of Julie Mugford she has nothing to be proud of and her behaviour was questionable for various reasons. Imo

[maggie]

I would also assert in retrospect that Jeremy was sounding her out for the murders and however vocal her protests at the time they were evidently not strong enough for her boyfriend to be dissuaded from the enterprise.

Apart from anything else, no one can surely believe there is any excuse for her to go with Jeremy to Colin's house for the weekend after the twins had died and offer support when she knew JB had murdered his beloved boys?

[Steve_uk]

Does Julie have the right to be forgiven and start a new life? Does Jeremy have any rights? Does Colin have the right to keep Jeremy behind bars?

[Steve_uk]

Apart from anything else, no one can surely believe there is any excuse for her to go with Jeremy to Colin's house for the weekend after the twins had died and offer support when she knew JB had murdered his beloved boys?

She must have desperately wanted to keep him out of prison. They do say love is blind. Did Jeremy offer to buy her a wine bar in the West End to shut her up? We may never know.

[maggie]

She must have desperately wanted to keep him out of prison. They do say love is blind. Did Jeremy offer to buy her a wine bar in the West End to shut her up? We may never know.

I don't believe most people would behave in such a way. Imo there's no excuse even at 20, how could anyone do such a thing?

[Steve_uk]

I don't believe most people would behave in such a way. Imo there's no excuse even at 20, how could anyone do such a thing?

I suppose she could have pushed to be set up as manageress of a wine bar had she so desired. I also think she deserved a fresh start,but at what cost?

[scipio_usmc]

The problem I have is, once Julie was fully aware that he wasn't just 'blowing off steam' and he had in fact just orchestrated the murder of five relatives, two of whom were children, she still delayed informing the Police!

She loved him and initially still wanted to be with him in spite of what he did. She didn't rat him out until:

1) they broke up- so she no longer had a need to remain silent
2) her friend told police what Julie had told her so police summoned her

When people have a falling out that is when they are willing to stab them in the back so the timing is not in the least bit surprising.

I can list plenty of women who got divorced then ratted out their husbands criminal actions.  Just because they chose to stay silent while married and still wanted to be married to them doesn't mean that they lied about the things they said after the divorce.  Most of them waited until police approached them and asked because they found evidence and then wanted to see what the ex-wives had to say. 

The simple reality is that people who want to chalk up her claims to lies can't come up with any reason she would lie.  The claim she did so for money holds no water at all.  It is ludicrous to say she did it figuring after he got convicted she could get a big payday and  since she declined so many paid opportunities after the NOTW deal it is even more obvious that line won't go anywhere.

Suggesting she made it up just to cause him trouble makes no sense either. She would not have made up a hit man story if intending to cause him problems and the notion she fed the story to her friend so her friend would contact the police and get police to contact her is also not credible.     

He told her about his drugs crimes and even recruited her for them and he let her know about his theft of the caravan site.  he thus trusted her.  It is thus easy to see how he could trust her with his desire to kill his family.  She didn't rat him out after he told her of his plans o burn it down and each time he spoke to her she didn't betray his confidence so he trusted her.

I have patiently waited for people to come up with something to undermine her claims but no one has been able to come up with any good reason to doubt her testimony. 

[Steve_uk]

He told her about his drugs crimes and even recruited her for them and he let her know about his theft of the caravan site.  he thus trusted her.  It is thus easy to see how he could trust her with his desire to kill his family.  She didn't rat him out after he told her of his plans o burn it down and each time he spoke to her she didn't betray his confidence so he trusted her.

That was big of him,since she acted as lookout on the sea wall.