When the enquiry changed from a suicide to murder did the relatives have alibis?

[John]

Empty cans and all that comes to mind....

Bottom line is that there is no evidence which will ever clear Jeremy and after some 26 years I for one am not in the least surprised.

[John]

Yes, and if we could put differences of opinions aside for just a moment and stand in the neutral corner.

If they thought JB did it and it was looking like he was going to get away with it, then how else would you expect them to behave? Yes of course we can pick out inappropriate behaviour, from the relatives and from JB.
Perhaps they were desperate, but desperate to ensure JB didn't get away with it rather than desperate to have the inheritance themselves.

Perhaps the relatives did indeed plant evidence to frame JB; perhaps they framed JB, but in actual fact he was also guilty; or maybe they didn't frame him at all?

Either way as Grahame says, it doesn't make any difference to my life whatever happens, but we've all got an a*****e.

Yes I agree. We must stand neutral sometimes and even examine our own theries at times. Because we can become so involved with our own opinions that there is always the danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. So I find it useful sometimes to put myself in the shoes of those who have a different opinion than mine to try and see where they are coming from. Yes I agree also that the thoughts of the relatives was not primarily that of getting an inheritance. I should think the shock of such an event would have been overwhelming to any ordinary person, let alone those who were directly related to them?

I thought about that - it must have been a traumatic experience for the relatives as well; but we only hear about their sleuthing antics, stripping the house of valuables etc. And their behaviour WAS strange, it just was.  Jeremy's too.
The impression you have of the lot is that their family members are slaughtered and they immediately go into fighting-over-the-possessions-mode. Some of them must have grieved - surely?? Its just that we haven't really heard much about that.
Are there any indications that any of them were actually mourning apart from Jeremy obviously at the funerals?

Believe me abs, the farming community around these parts are strange. I deal with a lot of them. There was one bloke he wanted a bit "IF" Painted on his transporter unit. When I asked him what it stoof for he said "Well it made YOU ask didn't it?". I gathered it was his way of getting people to look. But some of them are very odd.

Reminds me of the guy who phoned his son to say that everyone was driving the wrong way up the M1.

Could it possibly be that it is you that are odd grahame??   

[grahameb]

Unfortunately for you John I am back and I don't agree with a lot of what has just been said


A major factor for me was this very hidden factor of land deals and death duties!

I want anyone to tell me if there was any reason for this to be held under PII

As far as I can see the relatives were in dire straights

Neville had tried to help them and ended up with a punch in the face

Who hid this under PII

Why has Jeremy only just found out this after 26 years
Does anyone on here not believe  it would have made a difference to the verdict if that information had it been available because I don't believe Jeremy would have been convicted

I asked John the question yesterday about the statement who fits the bill

If you are looking who fits the bill it's definately not Jeremy

Why not try looking closer to home

And these wonderful caring relatives what measures did they go to get Julie mugford charged with anything after she could have prevented there cherished family being wiped out including 2 beautiful children

In fact going by posts from the queens head she is welcomed back with open arms

It's obvious who doesn't fit the bill to me

Very relevant points Jackie. Yes rather than trying to get her charged as an accessory after the fact, they seemed to be sucking up to her?

[grahameb]

Unfortunately for you John I am back and I don't agree with a lot of what has just been said


A major factor for me was this very hidden factor of land deals and death duties!

I want anyone to tell me if there was any reason for this to be held under PII

As far as I can see the relatives were in dire straights

Neville had tried to help them and ended up with a punch in the face

Who hid this under PII

Why has Jeremy only just found out this after 26 years
Does anyone on here not believe  it would have made a difference to the verdict if that information had it been available because I don't believe Jeremy would have been convicted

I asked John the question yesterday about the statement who fits the bill

If you are looking who fits the bill it's definately not Jeremy

Why not try looking closer to home

And these wonderful caring relatives what measures did they go to get Julie mugford charged with anything after she could have prevented there cherished family being wiped out including 2 beautiful children

In fact going by posts from the queens head she is welcomed back with open arms

It's obvious who doesn't fit the bill to me

Unfortunately for you Jackie you don't have to agree with me but the fact is you are in a minority.

Oh I don't know John. She has a following on Twitter of over a 1000. Where is your majority?

[John]

Unfortunately for you John I am back and I don't agree with a lot of what has just been said


A major factor for me was this very hidden factor of land deals and death duties!

I want anyone to tell me if there was any reason for this to be held under PII

As far as I can see the relatives were in dire straights

Neville had tried to help them and ended up with a punch in the face

Who hid this under PII

Why has Jeremy only just found out this after 26 years
Does anyone on here not believe  it would have made a difference to the verdict if that information had it been available because I don't believe Jeremy would have been convicted

I asked John the question yesterday about the statement who fits the bill

If you are looking who fits the bill it's definately not Jeremy

Why not try looking closer to home

And these wonderful caring relatives what measures did they go to get Julie mugford charged with anything after she could have prevented there cherished family being wiped out including 2 beautiful children

In fact going by posts from the queens head she is welcomed back with open arms

It's obvious who doesn't fit the bill to me

Unfortunately for you Jackie you don't have to agree with me but the fact is you are in a minority.

Oh I don't know John. She has a following on Twitter of over a 1000. Where is your majority?

I wonder how many of them even know what it all about?  1000 twits...says it all!

In fact if Jackie is filling their heads with the nonsense she spouts here, I am not in the least surprised. 

[grahameb]

Rochford Sheilds talking about Hartley and John put yourself in your place you are the relatives then one month  after the murders you find out this mugford character had known before the murders after the murders (viewing the bodies) going on holiday with the murders. How would you feel about her because I would have been after her blood.

I am talking about thick people not realising how bad the behaviour is when they big up Mugford


I am convinced in my opinion they worked together to convict Jeremy for there own personal separate reasons


Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder

Why don't they?

If she didn't realise she was in bed with a murderer after a very short time perioid she must be one of the thickest in the world?

[grahameb]

Rochford shields if you were one of the relatives would you have wanted mugford charged with something

Would you be welcoming mugford back to the queens head pub

What on earth are you on about, who has welcomed JM back to the Head?

After all, it was Muggy who completed the jigsaw, wasn't it?

Yes, with a hammer and a monkey wrench.

[John]

Rochford shields if you were one of the relatives would you have wanted mugford charged with something

Would you be welcoming mugford back to the queens head pub

What on earth are you on about, who has welcomed JM back to the Head?

After all, it was Muggy who completed the jigsaw, wasn't it?

Yes, with a hammer and a monkey wrench.

26 years on I think it was money well spent...don't you?

[grahameb]

Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder

Why don't they?

What makes you think that they don't? Enlighten me please.

Lets be clear about this, Muggy wasn't involved as Jackie likes to put it but by alleging such she has just admitted that Jeremy did murder his family.

Nice own goal Jacks!   

Yes I saw that.  There's a wood around here somewhere but I can't see it because of all these god damn trees!!!

Jackie was plaing on your own prejudices there. She wasn't admitting that Jeremy had committed the murders. She was saying that if the relatives believed that Jeremy had committed the murders then why did they not act accordingly with Julie Mugford and make sure she was done as well for accessory after the fact. As far as I can see that is all Jackie is saying here.

[John]

Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder

Why don't they?

What makes you think that they don't? Enlighten me please.

Lets be clear about this, Muggy wasn't involved as Jackie likes to put it but by alleging such she has just admitted that Jeremy did murder his family.

Nice own goal Jacks!   

Yes I saw that.  There's a wood around here somewhere but I can't see it because of all these god damn trees!!!

Jackie was plaing on your own prejudices there. She wasn't admitting that Jeremy had committed the murders. She was saying that if the relatives believed that Jeremy had committed the murders then why did they not act accordingly with Julie Mugford and make sure she was done as well for accessory after the fact. As far as I can see that is all Jackie is saying here.

But she came forward and that's what makes the difference.

[grahameb]

Yes, and if we could put differences of opinions aside for just a moment and stand in the neutral corner.

If they thought JB did it and it was looking like he was going to get away with it, then how else would you expect them to behave? Yes of course we can pick out inappropriate behaviour, from the relatives and from JB.
Perhaps they were desperate, but desperate to ensure JB didn't get away with it rather than desperate to have the inheritance themselves.

Perhaps the relatives did indeed plant evidence to frame JB; perhaps they framed JB, but in actual fact he was also guilty; or maybe they didn't frame him at all?

Either way as Grahame says, it doesn't make any difference to my life whatever happens, but we've all got an a*****e.

Yes I agree. We must stand neutral sometimes and even examine our own theries at times. Because we can become so involved with our own opinions that there is always the danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. So I find it useful sometimes to put myself in the shoes of those who have a different opinion than mine to try and see where they are coming from. Yes I agree also that the thoughts of the relatives was not primarily that of getting an inheritance. I should think the shock of such an event would have been overwhelming to any ordinary person, let alone those who were directly related to them?

I thought about that - it must have been a traumatic experience for the relatives as well; but we only hear about their sleuthing antics, stripping the house of valuables etc. And their behaviour WAS strange, it just was.  Jeremy's too.
The impression you have of the lot is that their family members are slaughtered and they immediately go into fighting-over-the-possessions-mode. Some of them must have grieved - surely?? Its just that we haven't really heard much about that.
Are there any indications that any of them were actually mourning apart from Jeremy obviously at the funerals?

Believe me abs, the farming community around these parts are strange. I deal with a lot of them. There was one bloke he wanted a bit "IF" Painted on his transporter unit. When I asked him what it stoof for he said "Well it made YOU ask didn't it?". I gathered it was his way of getting people to look. But some of them are very odd.

Reminds me of the guy who phoned his son to say that everyone was driving the wrong way up the M1.

Could it possibly be that it is you that are odd grahame??   

Probably John probably

[grahameb]

Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder

Why don't they?

What makes you think that they don't? Enlighten me please.

Lets be clear about this, Muggy wasn't involved as Jackie likes to put it but by alleging such she has just admitted that Jeremy did murder his family.

Nice own goal Jacks!   

Yes I saw that.  There's a wood around here somewhere but I can't see it because of all these god damn trees!!!

Jackie was plaing on your own prejudices there. She wasn't admitting that Jeremy had committed the murders. She was saying that if the relatives believed that Jeremy had committed the murders then why did they not act accordingly with Julie Mugford and make sure she was done as well for accessory after the fact. As far as I can see that is all Jackie is saying here.

But she came forward and that's what makes the difference.

So a person will be let off a serious crime if they dob someone else in. Is that how the police work John?

[John]

Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder

Why don't they?

What makes you think that they don't? Enlighten me please.

Lets be clear about this, Muggy wasn't involved as Jackie likes to put it but by alleging such she has just admitted that Jeremy did murder his family.

Nice own goal Jacks!   

Yes I saw that.  There's a wood around here somewhere but I can't see it because of all these god damn trees!!!

Jackie was plaing on your own prejudices there. She wasn't admitting that Jeremy had committed the murders. She was saying that if the relatives believed that Jeremy had committed the murders then why did they not act accordingly with Julie Mugford and make sure she was done as well for accessory after the fact. As far as I can see that is all Jackie is saying here.

But she came forward and that's what makes the difference.

So a person will be let off a serious crime if they dob someone else in. Is that how the police work John?

Believe it or not that is exactly how it works mate.  I am surprised that you haven't grasped this yet.

In one example I can give, a girl murdered a guy in Edinburgh some years ago and later blamed her boyfriend who was sleeping in the flat at the time.  The COPFS gave her immunity and prosecuted the boyfriend who is now doing 20 years in the same prison as Luke Mitchell.

How's that??

It's referred to as 'Turning Queen's Evidence'.

[Jackiepreece]

So once again John remind me of what evidence there was that Jeremy was buying a porche you definately know that is a lie
Remind me again John what bit of information was it that Jeremy agreed to that mugford told the police

I am timing you now john see how long it takes you to answer

Hartley you have stated on numerous  occasions you are friends with the relatives can you confirm or deny  if the relatives (and we know how much they were in contact with the police)tried to get Mugford charged with something

Hartley are you saying in their disgust of mugfords behaviour they have had no contact with her since the trial

[Hartley]

Jackie was plaing on your own prejudices there. She wasn't admitting that Jeremy had committed the murders.

Yes I know, that's why I responded somewhat flippantly.

She was saying that if the relatives believed that Jeremy had committed the murders then why did they not act accordingly with Julie Mugford and make sure she was done as well for accessory after the fact. As far as I can see that is all Jackie is saying here.

I have no idea, I wasn't there.

But let's just, for the sake of discussion only, say that JM was telling the truth, she had asked JB several times after the murders if it was him, he said no.
So before and after the murders JM was not sure, she perhaps put JB's previous comments down to him being a bit fantastical, story telling.
Then afterwards she started having more doubts, not wanting to believe that the man she loved was capable of such an act she didn't act on her doubts.
As time passed the doubts increased, then others (them pesky, greedy good for nothing relatives) started to consider JB was responsible, the doubts increased further and she went to the police.
(Yes I know there's other bits in there about being jilted etc.)

If something like the above occurred, then perhaps the relatives would be grateful towards JM rather than going hammer and tongs to get her banged up as well. After all she was also the star witness and ultimately her statements were responsible in part for allowing EP to charge JB and then secure conviction against him. Something the relatives were clearly happy about as they were convinced he was responsible.

So why would they hate her?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't black and white and just because somebody doesn't think or act the way  in which you would expect, it doesn't mean that the assumptions that you make and the conclusions you draw are the only realistic possibility.

Likewise you could apply that to JB and some of his actions, but that's why were all here discussing the case and going round in circles.