Christopher Irvine Bews - 19-9-1985

[Mr. Gee]

Lookout, despite a change in stance, I also adhere to my belief that he was a thorn in the side of the wider family.

Hi April. Were you following the trial at the time? I was and believe me when I say that the verdict was not based on anything near what we are discussing today on the forum. The trial was by no means so comprehensive. The prosecution case at trial was baded on the silencer that was reportedly found by the relatives and JM's testimony. That was basically what the entire evidence consisted of. So I hope you can appreciate where I am coming from when I say he did not have a fair trial. They never even dreamed of some of the stuff that is being discussed on the forum 29 years later.

[Jane]

Hi April. Were you following the trial at the time? I was and believe me when I say that the verdict was not based on anything near what we are discussing today on the forum. The trial was by no means so comprehensive. The prosecution case at trial was baded on the silencer that was reportedly found by the relatives and JM's testimony. That was basically what the entire evidence consisted of. So I hope you can appreciate where I am coming from when I say he did not have a fair trial. They never even dreamed of some of the stuff that is being discussed on the forum 29 years later.

Grahame, yes I did follow the trial but I'll confess now that much of the time my attention was taken up with looking at and commenting -perhaps unfairly- on Julie and her mother, who from my perspective and that of my fashionista friends, were dressed, by the standards then, more for a day at the races than a day in court. I -and my friends- were SO incensed by her behaviour that, quite naturally, I suppose, we believed that Jeremy was innocent  -by default?. If any more convincing was required, Julie, with her shameful post trial behaviour, not only provided it in spades, but showed she was all, and probably MORE than June accused her of.

[Adam]

Grahame, yes I did follow the trial but I'll confess now that much of the time my attention was taken up with looking at and commenting -perhaps unfairly- on Julie and her mother, who from my perspective and that of my fashionista friends, were dressed, by the standards then, more for a day at the races than a day in court. I -and my friends- were SO incensed by her behaviour that, quite naturally, I suppose, we believed that Jeremy was innocent  -by default?. If any more convincing was required, Julie, with her shameful post trial behaviour, not only provided it in spades, but showed she was all, and probably MORE than June accused her of.

So you thought Jeremy innocent because you did not like Julie and Mary Mugford's clothes at trial. And Julie made a NOTW deal.

The pictures I have seen of Julie at trial, she looked perfectly presentable.

You need to get over the fact she did a NOTW deal afterwards. It is routine procedure for the main witness in a high profile trial to do this. Deal with it.

The NOTW already had a deal with Jeremy. Which he constantly moaned about.  Probably because he had failed to get a deal with the Sun, before his arrest.

She was approached after they realised Jeremy may be found guilty. They needed a back up story to publish. Rather than nothing.

Why should she turn down the offer ? She would only get hounded by the press until she spoke.

I believe she has not sold her story since.

[Mr. Gee]

So you thought Jeremy innocent because you did not like Julie and Mary Mugford's clothes. And Julie made a NOTW deal.

The pictures I have seen of Julie at trial, she looked perfectly presentable.

You need to get over the fact she did a NOTW deal afterwards. It is routine procedure for the main witness in a high profile trial to do this. Deal with it.

The NOTW already had a deal with Jeremy. Which he constantly moaned about.  Probably because he had failed to get a deal with the Sun, before his arrest.

She was approached after they realised Jeremy may be found guilty. They needed a back up story to publish. Rather than nothing.

Why should she turn down the offer ? She would only get hounded by the press until she spoke.

I believe she has sold her story since.

Back then I wasn't aware that any deal was made between her and the NOTW. This is something that came out years later.
And again it was not so much that she made a deal, but the secret and underhanded way in which she did it. That was not a topic of conversation in those days.

[Jane]

So you thought Jeremy innocent because you did not like Julie and Mary Mugford's clothes. And Julie made a NOTW deal.

The pictures I have seen of Julie at trial, she looked perfectly presentable.

You need to get over the fact she did a NOTW deal afterwards. It is routine procedure for the main witness in a high profile trial to do this. Deal with it.

The NOTW already had a deal with Jeremy. Which he constantly moaned about.  Probably because he had failed to get a deal with the Sun, before his arrest.

She was approached after they realised Jeremy may be found guilty. They needed a back up story to publish. Rather than nothing.

Why should she turn down the offer ? She would only get hounded by the press until she spoke.

I believe she has sold her story since.

I THINK I may be forgiven for thoughts I held some 30 years ago.

By today's standards you're entitled to think Julie looked reasonable.

How dare you presume to tell me anything.

What Jeremy DIDN'T do is of no concern.

WHEN she was approached isn't my concern.

She behaved like a slut.

Perhaps she eventually recognized that enough was enough...............and she now has a husband and children to consider.

[Adam]

Back then I wasn't aware that any deal was made between her and the NOTW. This is something that came out years later.
And again it was not so much that she made a deal, but the secret and underhanded way in which she did it. That was not a topic of conversation in those days.

Came out later ?

The article was published the following day.

[Adam]

I THINK I may be forgiven for thoughts I held some 30 years ago.

By today's standards you're entitled to think Julie looked reasonable.

How dare you presume to tell me anything.

What Jeremy DIDN'T do is of no concern.

WHEN she was approached isn't my concern.

She behaved like a slut.

Perhaps she eventually recognized that enough was enough...............and she now has a husband and children to consider.

I can dare quite easily thanks.

You're reason for thinking Jeremy innocent for 29 years - you did not like Julie and Mary's clothes at trial. And Julie made a NOTW deal, are laughable.

Slut ? A strong word. There is one picture of her in the NOTW. Better than being a murderer anyway.

[Jane]

I can dare quite easily thanks.

You're reason for thinking Jeremy innocent for 29 years - you did not like Julie and Mary's clothes at trial. And Julie made a NOTW deal, are laughable.

Slut ? A strong word. There is one picture of her in the NOTW. Better than being a murderer anyway.

Yes, they are now. Get over it.

There is one picture with her skirt raised. There is another with her wearing a toga which revealed her pubic area under which was the legend "He taught me to enjoy sex like never before." She s*****d a murderer knowing what he was. In my eyes it makes her almost as guilty.

[Mr. Gee]

Came out later ?

The article was published the following day.

You have misunderstood me Adam. What I meant was that any kind of deal that JM made with the NOTW was not a topic of conversation at the time. No one even considered the that the deal was in fact underhanded. It simply wasn't discussed at the time. The question that she had made a deal with the NOTW before the trial (and there are strong indications that she did) was never questioned
I mentioned the deal because you said to Aptil,

And Julie made a NOTW deal

My point in posting what I did about the deal was that April didn't judge JM because she made a deal with the NOTW. It was you who assumed that she said that.

ps: correction. The article was published the following week not the following day. But indeed if it were published the following day then that would indeed be more proof that the deal was made before the trial.

[Adam]

Grahame, yes I did follow the trial but I'll confess now that much of the time my attention was taken up with looking at and commenting -perhaps unfairly- on Julie and her mother, who from my perspective and that of my fashionista friends, were dressed, by the standards then, more for a day at the races than a day in court. I -and my friends- were SO incensed by her behaviour that, quite naturally, I suppose, we believed that Jeremy was innocent  -by default?. If any more convincing was required, Julie, with her shameful post trial behaviour, not only provided it in spades, but showed she was all, and probably MORE than June accused her of.

[Mr. Gee]

Sorry Adam am I missing something here. It must be my bad eyesight? But I can't see anywhere where April mentioned a NOTW deal?

[Adam]

Sorry Adam am I missing something here. It must be my bad eyesight? But I can't see anywhere where April mentioned a NOTW deal?

Post trial behaviour ?

[Jane]

Post trial behaviour ?

POST trial behaviour!!!!!

[Mr. Gee]

Post trial behaviour ?

I think it will be wasted on you? But no one even questioned the NOTW deal just after the trial. The doubts concerning this deal didn't arise until many years later. As I said in my post the trial and indeed the prosecution's case rested upon only those two things basically. The silencer and JM's testimony. There was none of this stuff we are talking about these 29 years later.