A New Approach

[Caroline]

   As you have reasonably pointed out , Kaldin, this is not even a debate about JB's guilt or innocence. If JB is guilty then JM's actions in the lead up to, during and in the aftermath of the killings defy explanation, other than that she was a willing accessory.
     Quite why this view is attacked by so many guilters is inexplicable. It makes no difference to JB's guilt or innocence but it should be apparent to all that if JB is guilty then it is self evident that Mugford was a willing accomplice.
     
   

noun
1.
a person who knowingly helps another in a crime or wrongdoing, often as a subordinate.

[maggie]

CAN POSTERS PLEASE STOP THE PERSONAL ABUSE.  THE POINT OF THIS FORUM IS TO DEBATE THE CASE NOT TO ATTACK OTHER POSTERS IN A PERSONAL MANNER.

I HAVE REMOVED SOME POSTS AND SHALL BE BACK LATER TO REMOVE MORE.

PLEASE REMEMBER EVERY POSTER HAS A RIGHT TO THEIR OPINIONS AND THEY SHOULD BE RESPECTED.

[David1819]

CAN POSTERS PLEASE STOP THE PERSONAL ABUSE.  THE POINT OF THIS FORUM IS TO DEBATE THE CASE NOT TO ATTACK OTHER POSTERS IN A PERSONAL MANNER.

I HAVE REMOVED SOME POSTS AND SHALL BE BACK LATER TO REMOVE MORE.

PLEASE REMEMBER EVERY POSTER HAS A RIGHT TO THEIR OPINIONS AND THEY SHOULD BE RESPECTED.

I disagree

Debates can only be resolved by presenting sound arguments with supporting evidence. Stating one's rights and entitlements adds nothing to the debating process.

Having a right to an opinion does not make that opinion right.

http://www.critical-thinking.org.uk/critical-thinking/bad-arguments/entitled-to-an-opinion.php

[Caroline]

I disagree

Debates can only be resolved by presenting sound arguments with supporting evidence. Stating one's rights and entitlements adds nothing to the debating process.

Having a right to an opinion does not make that opinion right.

http://www.critical-thinking.org.uk/critical-thinking/bad-arguments/entitled-to-an-opinion.php

You would do well to remember that!

[Steve_uk]

   As you have reasonably pointed out , Kaldin, this is not even a debate about JB's guilt or innocence. If JB is guilty then JM's actions in the lead up to, during and in the aftermath of the killings defy explanation, other than that she was a willing accessory.
     Quite why this view is attacked by so many guilters is inexplicable. It makes no difference to JB's guilt or innocence but it should be apparent to all that if JB is guilty then it is self evident that Mugford was a willing accomplice.
     
   

Or she dithered, or was brainwashed, or was frightened lest her cannabis selling at the Goldsmiths hall of residence came to light.

Nobody is excusing Julie, but I'm sure there are several other explanations.

[JackieD]

Or she dithered, or was brainwashed, or was frightened lest her cannabis selling at the Goldsmiths hall of residence came to light.

Nobody is excusing Julie, but I'm sure there are several other explanations.

Well she should have received a severe punishment

[guest2181]

Well she should have received a severe punishment

Perhaps so, but only if JB is guilty.

[Caroline]

Perhaps so, but only if JB is guilty.

Not sure how but this point is repeatedly being overlooked.

[Steve_uk]

Not sure how but this point is repeatedly being overlooked.

Yes true,I think because society finds it difficult to perceive females as associated with violence, Julie had foreknowledge of the crime, the heinousness of the crimes themselves and the insensitive interview she gave post-murders.

[guest2181]

Not sure how but this point is repeatedly being overlooked.

I think people are so motivated to kick their point home that they don't see the ramifications.

Personally, I believe JM should have been charged, but that's because I believe JB to be guilty.

[maggie]

No she wouldn't IF that's what happened, however, Julie didn't mix with the relatives and they hardly going to tell Jeremy's girlfriend that they suspected him! She knew he was involved, because he told her.

I was giving Julie the benefit of the doubt, otherwise imo she behaved really badly.  Maybe she didn't mix with the relatives but maybe she heard whispers from various sources which caused her to start to question and discuss her thoughts with friends.  I would think that would be quite natural behavour at that age.
The alternative is that she knew he was guilty as she told the police and chose to party and sleep with him, even going as far as to deceive Colin into believing she was supportive of him.  I understand all the arguments about her being under his spell, young, in love but for all that she seemed bereft of the natural boundaries which tell us where the line is drawn. 

[maggie]

Perhaps so, but only if JB is guilty.

Well of course. 

[gringo]

I think people are so motivated to kick their point home that they don't see the ramifications.

Personally, I believe JM should have been charged, but that's because I believe JB to be guilty.

   The ramifications are obvious, Hartley, and the point has been made repeatedly throughout this thread that it is a JB guilty scenario.
     It isn't a difficult concept to grasp. If JB is guilty then JM was an accomplice. If he is innocent then she is a liar. Whichever way you cut it JM comes out badly.
    What it does show is that JM is a wholly unreliable witness and this can be concluded from her behaviour, whether JB is guilty or not.

[gringo]

I have no idea why you keep bothering me if you don't like my posts. Of course I'm on the fence. I've been discussing Julie Mugford's behaviour from the viewpoint that Jeremy was guilty and she knew he was guilty. Now I wouldn't mind discussing it from the viewpoint that he's not guilty and her story was not true.

  Which way do you lean on this, Kaldin, or are you genuinely ambivalent?

[Steve_uk]

   The ramifications are obvious, Hartley, and the point has been made repeatedly throughout this thread that it is a JB guilty scenario.
     It isn't a difficult concept to grasp. If JB is guilty then JM was an accomplice. If he is innocent then she is a liar. Whichever way you cut it JM comes out badly.
    What it does show is that JM is a wholly unreliable witness and this can be concluded from her behaviour, whether JB is guilty or not.

This has already been discussed and never proved.