Julie Mugford's Strange Behaviour

[Erik Narramore]

Julie was an education student at Goldsmiths, University of London - i.e. she was studying for an undergraduate degree in education, with a view to a professional career as a primary school teacher.  As a prospective primary school teacher, Julie would be put in situations where she would interact with young children and be given experience of observing classroom teaching; and, the career she was committing herself to would eventually give her charge and influence over young children.

Before we even go into the incident itself, why would such a person stay in a serious relationship with somebody who had twice plotted to kill his parents and who talked on repeated occasions of wanting to murder his parents?  How does this square with her career choice?  One day she is discussing murder with the lunatic in Essex, the next she is doing finger-painting with little kids in class.

Julie says that she was prescribed sleeping tablets in October 1984, and that:

- she brought the tablets with her on a visit to Bourtree Cottage, where she was to stay;
- she showed the tablets to Jeremy;
- she left the tablets at the cottage (not explaining why she did this);
- Jeremy then rang her, and told her he was going to test the tablets on himself to see if they could viably be used as tranquilisers as part of a murder plot.

Jeremy is clearly a lunatic.  Julie ignores this because she is "besotted" with Jeremy and anyway she thinks it is all a "charade".  Then she claims that a week before the murders, loony Jeremy was strangling rats, again because he had murder in mind.  Like you do.

Julie in her statements relates how Jeremy discussed his murder plots with her with every indication that he was planning things carefully.  For instance, he'd decided not to burn the farmhouse down with the family in it because the home insurance was low and there were one or two high-value pieces among all the bric-a-brac.  How he came to this conclusion is not clear, but what is clear is that he was giving the whole enterprise some considerable thought.  Indeed, Julie says Jeremy had told her that killing his family required very careful planning indeed.  I'm sure it did.

At no point has it occurred to Julie that she should alert somebody in authority or mention to a friend that she is consorting with a potential murderer.  She did not tell her mother, or anybody.  She just dismisses it all as a "charade" on Jeremy's part, but that's not the point.  Even if it were a charade, we are left with the question of why somebody like Julie would have anything to do with somebody like Jeremy.

Then on the morning of 7th. August at Bourtree Cottage, Jeremy confesses that he is the killer.  Julie continues to treat this as a charade of some sort, not quite believing the grotesque hyper-reality she has been thrust into.

[Erik Narramore]

I don't dispute that they may have been gradually splitting-up anyway, but why does Jeremy tell her all about what he is doing if they are growing apart?

It was minor cheque book fraud, that is true, but despite this, she and Susan Battersby saw fit to then blame it all on Jeremy.  There is a theme running right up to her 2002 statement of Julie not taking responsibility for her own actions.  I accept what you say about her owning up to the cheque book fraud and the caravan park break-in, but she blamed all this on Jeremy, and if she was involved in the murder plot with Jeremy in some way, she may have been concerned to give her account of things more credibility by admitting past crimes, knowing that it could come out anyway if Jeremy confessed.

[Erik Narramore]

Jeremy asked another woman out in front of Julie.  This may have prompted or speeded up Julie's co-operation with the authorities.

Yet there is a contradiction.  If it speeded up her co-operation with the police, then it is the reason she approached the police.

[Erik Narramore]

It all seems curious.

If their relationship is in decline, then why does Jeremy tell her anything?

Let's consider this:

The prosecution have no explanation.  They say it is because Jeremy wanted to.

There is, however, a rational explanation, which is that although the romantic side of the relationship was in decline, Jeremy might tell her he was plotting to kill his family and ask for her assistance, or inveigle her into his plot - as he did with the drugs - and this might have kept the relationship going.

You could further interpret this one of two ways, either as:

(i). Jeremy and Julie as partners in crime. Julie might even have researched a murder plot for him and helped him plan what occurred that night.  Who was the junior partner of the two?  We chivalrously assume Jeremy was the dominant factor, but that assumption may be awry.  I see no reason why Julie could not have been the one who manipulated Jeremy.

(ii). Jeremy uses Julie as cover, manipulates her emotionally and exploits her immaturity.  This fits the dogma of the guilt camp better.  The 'Babe in the Wood' theory.  Essex Police then proceed to conceal Julie's culpability and help her construct a plausible cover story based on what she has already told her friends.

[Erik Narramore]

Jeremy had a teasing nature, but plotting in detail to murder your family and weighing up the different methods by which this could be done is a little bit different.  He even discussed the insurance implications with her.  I am sorry, but I don't buy the excuses for Julie.

The excuse Julie herself gave police for not reporting the earlier abortive murder plots was that she was "besotted" with him and that it was a "charade".  Both terms imply seriousness.  She would not use those terms if she just thought Jeremy was being teasing or boastful or jokey, and that is not the underlying theme of her evidence.  She does mention that Jeremy did joke about the subject tangentially.  For instance, he would say that it would be a shame to burn down such a beautiful old house, but that was part of a more serious intent to kill his family.  Perhaps the intent was not fully formed, but it was there.

I believe the excuses for Julie fall down flat.  On the one hand the guilt camp want to be able to say that Jeremy was telling everybody how he hated his family and sharing with Julie his plots to kill, these being a precursor for the main act.  On the other hand, the guilt camp want to reassure us that Julie didn't take the prior plots seriously because she thought he was joking or teasing or boasting or fooling around.  Julie must have been a poor judge of character and rather purblind to Jeremy.  What a pity she didn't take him more seriously.

If Jeremy is guilty, I think it's more likely that Julie was involved in some way and when, on or around the 12th. September 1985, she realised the family were on to Jeremy and the game was up, she turned.   What we know of developments from there can be explained in that context.  Jeremy and Julie became trapped in a 'prisoner's dilemma' and Julie got her version of events in first, anticipating that if Jeremy confessed and implicated her, she could plausibly deny it.  I also think that Essex Police realised all this, hence the non-disclosure, and they decided that her evidence would be of value in prosecuting Jeremy but could be of less value if she was prosecuted alongside him or in collateral proceedings.  The reason for the stupid stories about rats and sleeping tablets is because she needed to make something up to conceal what had actually occurred between them.