Skip
How do you think the jury felt when they saw Mugford had been paid for an article in the NOW on condition she helped secure a guilty convicted
They must have all been disgusted and probably most of them thought they could have come to the wrong decision
Skip
How do you think the jury felt when they saw Mugford had been paid for an article in the NOW on condition she helped secure a guilty convicted
They must have all been disgusted and probably most of them thought they could have come to the wrong decision
She said no such thing. She said that NOTW wanted a story regardless of the outcome of the case.
Do you ever bother to read any of the statements you cite? Do you not read them and just make things up or do you read claims made by others and instead of researching to see if they are true you just run with the claims?
I have to say that given the story, you would think she would have shown a little common decency and refused to pose for those pictures. It looked more like a naughty victor shags barmaid type story the tragic deaths of five people which included two small children.
as the original contract went missing how do you know what it said?
especially ones she had seen in the mortuary.
And then to admit she tried to smother him as well :-\ glad she was not teaching my children.
Why didn't you ask that question to Jackie?
Here was the claim:
"How do you think the jury felt when they saw Mugford had been paid for an article in the NOW on condition she helped secure a guilty convicted"
How did the jury see that Mugford was paid for an article that required her to help secure a guilrty verdict? What evidence was offered.
You admit that she did not retain a copy becuase she had no need to retain it so could not show the copy when asked about it years later.
People who say Jeremy was approached with an offer for a story if he were found innocent made the stupid allegation the opposite deal was made to Julie. Such a contract would have been illegal. A lawyer negotiated the contract Mugford did not do so herself. The notion the lawyer would have negotiated such a contract is absurd.
The defense never found any evidence to establish Julie signed any deal before the trial was over let alone any evidence the contract required a conviction.
Jackie is claiming there was a public revelation an ilelgal contract had been signed and said she wonders what the jury thought of it. She is of course full of crap there was no such revelation just unsupported allegations.
to be fair , if I was on that jury and then I saw that article and the photos then I think I would have felt pretty sick, whether or not the contract was signed before. Perhaps I should not judge people my own morals , but as I said before she comes over as some kind of tart and definitely a person seeking attention and with an agenda. Extremely disrespectful to the victim and the family . IMO
It is standard procedure for the main players to give interviews after a high profile trial. Do you not read newspapers ?
Jeremy had a NOTW deal in place. Financially benefiting from his massacred immediate family.
Jeremy and his lawyers have tried to discredit Julie's court testimony and get it expunged. Meaning he gets released on a technicality. They have failed.
FGS Adam - you know the deal that Jeremy apparently set up was irrelevant to his trial - so you should do the same as you have asked us to do on the will. Just zip it.
And as has been said before I don't think any of us want him released on a technicality - don't treat us as if we are stupid .
In fact it would be the worse scenario for him and the rest of the family.
It is a combination of all the factors that are not right that makes everyone doubt the verdict - not just one thing.
I very much doubt that would ever happen anyway so don't know he keeps saying it.
to be fair , if I was on that jury and then I saw that article and the photos then I think I would have felt pretty sick, whether or not the contract was signed before. Perhaps I should not judge people my own morals , but as I said before she comes over as some kind of tart and definitely a person seeking attention and with an agenda. Extremely disrespectful to the victim and the family . IMO
She said no such thing. She said that NOTW wanted a story regardless of the outcome of the case.Had Jeremy been found not guilty then Mugford's story would have been worthless so of course it was dependent on a guilty verdict and to claim otherwise is absurd. Mugford claiming that they wanted a story regardless of the outcome makes no sense at all and is obviously a self serving lie.
Do you ever bother to read any of the statements you cite? Do you not read them and just make things up or do you read claims made by others and instead of researching to see if they are true you just run with the claims?
Why didn't you ask that question to Jackie?The jury need only have read the following week's News of the Screws to see that Mugford was paid to help secure a guilty verdict.
Here was the claim:
"How do you think the jury felt when they saw Mugford had been paid for an article in the NOW on condition she helped secure a guilty convicted"
How did the jury see that Mugford was paid for an article that required her to help secure a guilrty verdict? What evidence was offered.
You admit that she did not retain a copy becuase she had no need to retain it so could not show the copy when asked about it years later.
People who say Jeremy was approached with an offer for a story if he were found innocent made the stupid allegation the opposite deal was made to Julie. Such a contract would have been illegal. A lawyer negotiated the contract Mugford did not do so herself. The notion the lawyer would have negotiated such a contract is absurd.
The defense never found any evidence to establish Julie signed any deal before the trial was over let alone any evidence the contract required a conviction.
Jackie is claiming there was a public revelation an ilelgal contract had been signed and said she wonders what the jury thought of it. She is of course full of crap there was no such revelation just unsupported allegations.
Julie had the option to contribute to Wilkes's book, which Jeremy contributed to.
This would have been without a fee so people could not accuse her of doing it for money. However she could have twisted the knife, but chose not to.
To her the matter is closed, she approached the police, gave a WS & testified. Not retracting a word of her statement. The jury made their verdict.
Really is that so Adam?
She did that interview before the wonderful invention of the www web
She thought she could make money out of someone else's heartbreak and tragedy
Well one day her children will see that article and see what there mother did
She thought she would forgotton, never
Had Jeremy been found not guilty then Mugford's story would have been worthless so of course it was dependent on a guilty verdict and to claim otherwise is absurd. Mugford claiming that they wanted a story regardless of the outcome makes no sense at all and is obviously a self serving lie.
She didn't moan about the press when they handed her £25,000 though,did she ?
Though there's a limit to how many lies you can tell. She'd pretty well exhausted them all in the courtroom. Don't worry,if she could have dreamed up anything else to say,she'd have grabbed the hand off the media. It just so happened that what she said in court had been well rehearsed !!
She moaned about their presentation and didn't do anymore paid gigs after that though she coudl have done so many times after it.
So your attempt to paint her as only out for money fails miserably because if that were the case she would have taken every dime offered.
I don't care what she did with the press, it has no bearing on whether her testimony is true or not and the only reaosn I am responding at all is to correct lies from you and others. The lies are not from me but from you.
She was offered money before and since and refused. She took one single deal which her lawyer negotiated and she did based on his advice. The only press interview she gave after that was a free one which she wanted to rectify what she perceived to be a distorted picture presented by the NOTW spread. She could have done that through a paid gig but chose to do it for free.
Why did she do that if all she cared about was money?
You and Jackie suggesting she cared only about money and corrupted Jeremy is so stupid and ridiculous one has to wonder how you can think that anyone would consider either of you even remotely credible ever when you are so biased and irraitonal.
Julia Mugford and the media..
I have been asked to recount my dealings with the media in relation to this trial.
My first recollection of any direct involvement with the media was in the month following Jeremys arrest.
I was approached many times by persons claiming to be reporters.
They came to my house, they followed me. They approached me in a petrol station, in bus queues, one jumped on a bus to approach me, it was harrassment of me and my family. They knew where I was, there were many offers of money, they were very overt. I just wanted them to go away. Peaks of approach were after his arrest and before trial when it was intense. It did go quiet in between. I asked them to go away, I refused and even ran away on occasions. I couldn't have a normal life they turned up at my school.
The Headmistress considered it a detriment to the children due to my profile in that I was associated with an alleged murderer. I was given leave with pay. At this time I believe I went to a lawyer due to the press harassment and my enforced suspension from work.
I didn't have a lawyer so having received general advice to see one I believe I asked my mother to assist me. I eventually met Mr CHURCH of Ellisons Solicitors Colchester. This was not a family lawyer or someone I had spoken to previously. I went to the lawyer seeking two pieces of advice. Firstly, how to stop the press bothering me and my family, secondly, was it right that the school could prevent me from working.
I would like to make it clear that I had no financial motivation in relation to the press.
My only desire was to stop the harassment. However, after the consultation my lawyer advised me that the only way was in fact to contract to one press body exclusively, which by default would prevent others from making an approach.
I probably told him that monetary offers had been made and that the press had told me that they were interested in my story whatever the verdict.The lawyer made the deal until I was presented with the contract I had no ideas who the other party was. He made the deal in my personal interest. I gave no direction with regard to finance. He told me that getting the money was part of the contract even though I had no financial motivation. I was not involved in his discussions with the other party. I now understand that he took the highest bidder which was the News of the World Newspaper. He told me he negotiated to get the best financial reward. I have been asked to try and remember exactly when this happened. I cannot remember but I can say that media harassment continued during the trial.
I cannot identify specific dates for specific events i.e. signing the contract but I feel sure that the solicitors records would confirm this. I am confident that I told the police what I was doing at all times. I probably only saw the lawyer three times, I did have a moral dilemna. It was a consideration that this was somehow blood money but I was prepared to accept advice in order to get them off my back. In relation to contract details my memories are as follows:-
(a) This was a one - off
(b) They had rights to republish the material
(c) I had to sit for photographs
(d) I had editorial rights
(e) They could re - use the material
(f) I was not to talk to anyone
I do not believe there was any form of retainer or ongoing conditions.
In relation to the photographs I was very unhappy about there demands. But as pointed out to me I had to comply with contract details.
I clearly Skim read the contract and missed a lot of the detail; Today I read all the small print. I had editorial rights but the published article did not comply with my recollection of the agreed content. It seemed to read quite differently in the end, I obviously wasn't with it enough to contest it at the time.
The finacial aspect of the contract was a figure, of I believe ?25,000 but my lawyers fees were drawn from these monies.
I have often asked myself the question, why did I keep the money, why didn't I give it away.
All I can say is that I bought a flat.
Whilst reporters were attempting to trap me to talk they regularly indicated that Jeremy was selling his story and suggested I should reply. .
It was used as a carrot but it didn't attract me I just had knowlege of him negotiating with the press. Mr CHURCH may have reiterated to me but I have no idea about monies that Jeremy was being offerred. He, to my understanding would only get money if he was released.
In order that the contract could be fulfilled I was located in a hotel in Central LONDON which was adjacent to the studio for the photo shoot, and to allow interview. I stayed with my mum in Essex during the trial by Choice.
I believe the policeman Stan JONES informed me of the verdict.
I know I wasn't at home in London or Essex, I believe I was in a neutral place. I don't believe it was the hotel. At some stage in the trial the police arranged accommodation for us.
When I was in the hotel it was for two or three days, possibly a couple of nights, certainly not a week. The News of the World paid for the hotel.
In the years since the trial I have had the opportunity to earn money through interviews, articles and television rights. I have refused all of these offers.
On the release of the news of the appeal 2001 (00/00/01) I have been approached many times to encourage me to sell my story. I have continued to refuse all such offers. Money was never my drive it was a consequence of the advice I was given.
A couple of months after the News of the World articles, I was approached by a reporter from SHE magazine.
I was so peeved with the News of the World that I agreed to an interview and photographs. I know I was living in HITHER GREEN at the time and the lady came to my house. It was non - sensational, I was not paid it was intended to balance the image for my self - estreem, it was more representative of me
I have been asked about my financial position at the time of the incident. I can say that as a student I did have some debts but I always worked to pay them off during my studies, indeed that is how I met Jeremy.
The offer of money was not influencial in this regard. At this time I was banking with the Midland Bank in Colchester and I give my authority for the Metropolitan Police to examine my account records including the News of the World transfer.
I would like to say that the money promise did not impact in any way on the evidence I gave at court. No amount of money would influence what I had to say in a court of law. I would not lie when swearing to tell the truth. I did not want to sell my story: it was part of the process to stop the media from relentlessly harassing me and my family"[/b][/u]
Signed Julie SMERCHANKI (Mugford)
I am FULLY aware that a solicitor does what is in his client's best interests but I wonder if it may not have been better to sign her up to a more respectable publication which offered less OR was his instruction to get the most possible and that particular fact has been omitted.
You rant and rave but never seem to actually contribute anything else beyond that to this forum. Never any constructive discussion of the evidence just ranting and raving with your absurd views. How sad you are.
You obviously have issues and are lonely sitting most days tapping into your laptop when you are aware hardly anyone reads your posts, you have been told enough times
I know what you are like, I know how you think and I know what makes you tick and You disgust me by saying Julie's ok because she only did one article
I hope Colin never reads this!
You and lookout say all she cared about was making money off things and yet she refused to do anymore deals though she could have been paid for dozens of articles over the years. SO obviously you and lookout have no idea what you are tlaking about as always.
Let's debate real issues- the evidenc ein the case. Oh I forgot the evidence all proves Jeremy guilty so you don't want to discuss that...
I really like the way she said she's worried about her job the school when she had just carried out a massive cheque fraud
What do you mean you wonder? There is no question that signing her up with a more reputable publicaiton woudl have been netter for her image. Her lawyer made it rather plain he was only looking at her interests in terms of money. That is how he evaluated the deal not looking after her image. Many lawyers look at thing sin dollars not any other issue. For one thing because they get a cut so the bigger the payout the more money they make. But the whole structure of the system with monetary damages places the import on money.
By rights a lawyer should also think about image and other considerations but frequently do not. She had no relationship with the lawyer before this and that was a big problem, all he saw was dollar signs.
I wish I could read the article to see how it was worded and how bad it came out. The photos are typical of tabloids so nothing unexpected. She still doesn't look feminine to me, it might be unkind to say but her face makes her look kind of like a tranny. I don't see a very feminine face in her. Maybe Jeremy didn't either and that was what he liked in her who knows. I have noticed a number of bi guys go for women who are in my view butch.
I always find the "guilters´" atempts at defending Julie hilarious!
Alias, even separated from anything Jeremy related, I find her behaviour reprehensible and distasteful.
Yes let's
There is no evidence
If only she could stop rubbing her own choices and behaviour off on others! It looks so incredibly bad an dcowardly!!! Also she tends to have vague memory whenever it comes to bad decicions she made and she doesn´t have the option to rub it off on others.
She is so transparent!
Firstly Scipio, what you say implies that I'm not intelligent enough to have worked out for myself all that you've said OR perhaps it was that you didn't catch the irony. in which case, perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough..........................HOWever, you go on to echo WORD FOR WORD what many of us said of her appearance at the time. Might I also add that if that is the way she presented herself to her solicitor, I believe a member of an old and trusted family firm in a provincial Essex town, he could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that whilst her mouth said one thing, the way she presented herself said something entirely different. I fin d it strange that he didn't approach several publications to give her the options. But MAYBE he did.
I always find the "guilters´" atempts at defending Julie hilarious!
How did I call you not intelligent? All I did was stress that your suspicions are definitely correct and not merely speculation.
In hindsight it is not a question that the NOTW coverage was less tasteful than a real outlet would give, it's obvious tha tis the case. But even beforehand anyone with half a brian could have figured that out. The lawyer didn't care about her reputation only money and she was stupid. She had to know it was a tabloid rag and if she didn't because she wa sunfamiliar with them she was stupid for not researchign them first.
If she was seeking attention then why did she refuse to do anymore deals when the press continued to hound her? She could have made a lot more money and have had a lot more exposure. Why did she refuse all deals thrown at her each time he was in the news? From 1989 to the present there have been at least 6 different times the media gave a lot of coverage to the case and they would have loved to have interviewed her.
It seems to me the people with the agenda are those to try to discredit her testimony because she gave a single paid interview. Who would have such an agenda? Jeremy's advocates of course because they can't discredit what she said about Jeremy plotting the murders in any competent manner they call her crediiblity into question with the stupid claim she made a deal to convict him and made up lies to accomplish same though she told her story well before that.
My apologies. I hadn't realized you were reiterating what I'd said. It appears to me that, throughout the statement, she takes no responsibility for anything. I find it hard to believe that A. the solicitor failed to dot "I's" and cross "T's" without her, an intelligent woman, asking questions and B. that she didn't stipulate that she wouldn't do a deal with the tabloids. She can't NOT have known what the NOTW was but if she could deny any responsibility in the deal, I guess she felt exonerated.
perhaps the deal was an exclusive to N.O.W
But as the contracts went "missing" I can prove that one way or the other.
Jasus, as point (F) in her statement says she isn't to speak to anyone, I suspect you're right about the "scoop" being an exclusive.
Clients rarely ask us questions they should ask. They ask stupid things. The assumption that all lawyers will protect all interests fo their client is wrong, those who perosnally know someone and have a relationship have a reaosn to protect their integrity. Those in a one shot deal who have no personal interest will often care only about their financial interests which in this case he stated amount to him solicitng the highest bid.
Did she have no issue with that because she was just clueless or thought as long as she was going to do it she might as well be well paid? If you were told you should pose nude would you be worried about doing it in the most tasteful way possible or getting the most money? That would depend, someone who recognizes the way it is done could make them look trashy or to be perceived in a negative light and who cares about tha tperception is going to be the kind of person who cares more about how it is done while still trying to maximize the payout for it being done tastefully. Someone who either doesn't care or doesn't recognize the risks will be more apt to just go for the most money.
This is not a case where the lawyer didn't tell her he negoatiated the best financial deal, he did tell her that. She either didn't think about the chance of them doing a rag story like they did or didn't care and after seeing it then she was horrified and at that point it was too late.
In any event if her motivation was out to make money just she would have continued selling her story but instead has been reclusive.
The appeal lawyers were using this issue as a technicality to try to get a new trial. The notion she testified jsut so she could get a paid gig out of it was never something they could seriously hope to convince anyone of. It was always intended as a vehicle to get a second bite at the apple. It is always better to try a second chance before another jury than to be stuck in jail convcted by the first.
So this issue is a waste of time to talk about if one is trying to discuss whether or not Jeremy is guilty. It's not really relevant to that discussion. The argument she made up the tale about Jeremy so she could become rich selling her story to the press is a silly one.
Jasus, as point (F) in her statement says she isn't to speak to anyone, I suspect you're right about the "scoop" being an exclusive.
Jansus has raised the point that what she gave the NOTW may have been an exclusive. I think her point, rereading the statement, is valid. It's that Julie actually STATES that the solicitor tells her he's negotiated the best financial deal that I find so ironic -although I understand why- given that she stresses more than once that the money wasn't what was driving her. I DON'T think she made up the tale with the idea of going to the press to get rich, but by 1985 standards, that's exactly what happened. My first house, bought the previous year was £16,000. I imagine the £25,000 Julie spent on a flat became a nice little nest egg.
Comments like this is why you are a laughing stock (I will deal with the rest when I am not on my iPhone )
Last there was Julie's very detailed and specific testimony of how long he had been planning to kill his family, the phone call to her around 10PM the where he said tonight is the night and his admisisons that he was responsible after the murders.
You prove to me when you know Mugford wasn't telling lies
How would it prevent the rest of the press from harrassing Julie that she made a deal with NOTW (which is her excuse)?
I can only see it making sense with a clause in the contract with NOTW, which stipulated that she was not allowed to talk to other media, say, for a month after the verdict.
It didn´t make a difference anyway, the press kept after her.
Just a lame excuse.
The real estate market there must have been pretty low there. In late 1984 my parents bought a house for $180,000 and even if you take into account the lesser value of the dollar to the pound that is a big difference. Houses in the city were way higher that was a suburban area mind you. Still whatever she got after the lawyer took his fees would be a lot to a student.
The exclusivity of such deals are that you can't provide your story to other outlets until the party publishes their interview. It is to stop you from signing multiple deals and someone else being able to get an interview to market faster.
I have the first story anyone who wants to read her story buy my paper...and they figure they will sell more copies than they otherwise would.
Prove that she made up that very detailed testimony. She had no reaosn to make it up nore would anyone be likely to make up anything so detailed. In the meantime Jeremy's own actions of calling her to support his tale that Nevill called supports her story as does the fact that Sheila can't have killed herself and can't have killed anyone else without getting evidence on her clothing to prove she did it.
Julie was a master at lies and deception. I expect her testimony is long and detailed because she had 32 different interviews with the police
Skip
Please explain this
Julie Mugford's allegations can possibly be rejected by also considering further comments she made during her testimony at Bamber's trial.
She told that on the night of the massacre, Bamber had called her saying, "Tonight's the night."
There was allegedly a later telephone call from him, at around the time he called the police, in which he said, "Everything's going well."
This contradicts an earlier statement she made, in which she admitted that she could not remember anything about the telephone call as she had been smoking marijuana and drinking that evening.
She had simply told Bamber to go to sleep when he had telephoned to express his concerns. The contradictions in her statements and trial evidence have called in to question her credibility as a witness.
The alleged fight with Neville
Ralph had no defence injuries consistent with the view that he had been involved in any struggle. With the only injuries, upon his body, being those resulting from the gunshots, it is hard to conceive that he had been subjected to a fierce attack. Additionally Bamber had no injuries suggesting he had fought with his father. The police had carefully inspected his hands in particular and noticed nothing unusual. Even Mugford did not comment on the presence of any injuries or marks upon Bamber's body. If she was aware of such marks then, in her lengthy statements and trial evidence, she would have mentioned them. The fact that this witness, who following the tragedy had seen Bamber naked, did not notice any indications that he had been in a fight strongly suggests that no such indications had ever existed.
In light of the above details, it is logical to believe that no struggle occurred, and therefore one of the prosecution's arguments has been destroyed.
More contradictions which the forum has discussed many times
A few hours later, at 3:00–3:30 am, she said he phoned her again to say: "Everything is going well. Something is wrong at the farm. I haven't had any sleep all night … bye honey and I love you lots".
It is a fact this simply does not make sense. I would think without a doubt the actual words were 'Something is wrong at the farm@
As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. Post a statement where she claims she was high and thus remembered nothing.................................................
At this point I don't think it's important whether we believe Jeremy to be guilty or innocent. The truth, however IS important. I don't know if it's the truth YOU want but if you look at Page 12 of Julie's statement -in the archives- you will see that she says she had been smoking marijuana. I'm n ot certain of the exact words but she intimates that she may not have been thinking clearly. I haven't seen a statement in which she admits to being "high" but that was your expression.
I know exactly what she said and as usual she lied
Her statement makes no sense
Does it not strike anyone else as odd, that having been told by Julie not to say such things about his parents, and Julie apparently registering her distaste at his thoughts of murdering them, Jeremy ignores this and rings to tell her that something is wrong at the farm and later, that things are going well. At NO point does Julie ask him what the hell he's talking about. At no time does she tell him that whatever is going on she wants no part of. She just went back to bed
Does it not strike anyone else as odd, that having been told by Julie not to say such things about his parents, and Julie apparently registering her distaste at his thoughts of murdering them, Jeremy ignores this and rings to tell her that something is wrong at the farm and later, that things are going well. At NO point does Julie ask him what the hell he's talking about. At no time does she tell him that whatever is going on she wants no part of. She just went back to bed
Does it not strike anyone else as odd, that having been told by Julie not to say such things about his parents, and Julie apparently registering her distaste at his thoughts of murdering them, Jeremy ignores this and rings to tell her that something is wrong at the farm and later, that things are going well. At NO point does Julie ask him what the hell he's talking about. At no time does she tell him that whatever is going on she wants no part of. She just went back to bed
This obviously does not make sense, no matter which way you turn it.
The sentence: Everything is going well, something is wrong at the farm - does not make sense no matter how you look at it
We have been there before, but I feel like repeating. What does make sense is this:
Nevill had called Jeremy, and Jeremy, not used to making decisions on his own, afraid of angering his father, opted to call Julie for advise.
Je "Hello darling, it´s me, Jeremy."
Ju "Why are you calling now, it´s in the middle of the night?! Is something wrong?"
Je "Everything is going well (with me, but) there is something wrong at the farm."
Ju "Oh, Gosh, Jeremy, are you waking me up in the middle of the night to tell me THIS?! What´s wrong with you, GO BACK TO BED!"
THIS makes sense - not the weird, incoherent mess, which has been twisted and bent to fit with what guilters want it to mean. Another myth.
she gave the gist of the conversation not everything said. She admitted she could not remember everything. The gist was that he didn't go to sleep yet, that the plan to kill them was going well and thus there was trouble at the farm. Far from "guilters" twisting her words that is what she said he conveyed to her. She characterized it as such not guilters.
Scipio, I'm not twisting her words. I'm just saying that it's very strange that at no point did she challenge his reasons for phoning her, not just once, but several times. He delivers what can only be taken as cryptic messages yet she reveals no natural curiosity as to what they mean.
she gave the gist of the conversation not everything said. She admitted she could not remember everything. The gist was that he didn't go to sleep yet, that the plan to kill them was going well and thus there was trouble at the farm. Far from "guilters" twisting her words that is what she said he conveyed to her. She characterized it as such not guilters.
Jeremy didn´t know what "was wrong" at the farm. Julie clearly didn´t think it was serious.
This obviously does not make sense, no matter which way you turn it.
The sentence: Everything is going well, something is wrong at the farm - does not make sense no matter how you look at it
We have been there before, but I feel like repeating. What does make sense is this:
Nevill had called Jeremy, and Jeremy, not used to making decisions on his own, afraid of angering his father, opted to call Julie for advise.
Je "Hello darling, it´s me, Jeremy."
Ju "Why are you calling now, it´s in the middle of the night?! Is something wrong?"
Je "Everything is going well (with me, but) there is something wrong at the farm."
Ju "Oh, Gosh, Jeremy, are you waking me up in the middle of the night to tell me THIS?! What´s wrong with you, GO BACK TO BED!"
THIS makes sense - not the weird, incoherent mess, which has been twisted and bent to fit with what guilters want it to mean. Another myth.