The Hitman Story

[Erik Narramore]

If Jeremy is the killer, then it wasn't a 'pack of lies', and why would Jeremy need to lie in such circumstances when he had supposedly already told her of his plans before-the-fact, and even confessed to her, in so many words, after-the-fact at Bourtree Cottage, with Stan Jones only yards away?  Perhaps, as you will no doubt say, it was because Jeremy didn't want her to know that he had done it himself, but it seems to me there is little difference between one or the other.

[Erik Narramore]

Why would the grounds on which Julie Mugford might have gone to the police be so shaky, if she was telling the truth?  Surely a normal person, on receiving Jeremy's confession, would have alerted the police pretty much immediately?  Same goes for Sue Battersby, who frolicked with Jeremy at a party immediately after hearing Julie tell her what Jeremy had supposedly done.

The official position is that Julie went to the police (Liz Rimmington rang the police, but she did so on Julie's behalf and in her presence).  The Campaign Team are now saying that in fact Malcolm Waters went to the police independently of Julie and they claim to have a document proving this.  I've no idea if this stands up or what its relevance is, even if true.

[Erik Narramore]

Both the prosecution and defence put it like this to the jury: Who do you believe?  They had to, because there was nobody to corroborate what Julie had said.  It was her word against Jeremy's, and Jeremy refuted it all, which means one of them is a liar.

By her own admission, Julie had already lied to the police before she gave statements incriminating Jeremy.
Thus, in reference to your own arguments, Julie was willing to risk her freedom and career to protect her boyfriend.  Why, then, do you say it is far-fetched or nonsensical that she should risk the same for the opposite motive?

Liars tell lies, sometimes with no conscious motive.  People can tell all sorts of nasty lies for no reason.  Young women tell lies about men.  This is well known.  It's not difficult to imagine a scenario in which Julie has backed herself into a corner, maybe for emotional reasons or to garner attention, and finds she has to maintain a story.  She may even come to believe her own story, under encouragement from the police and relatives, especially if it is based on a bit of truth: Jeremy may well have indulged in some leg-pulling.

The hitman aspect is a sign that the story is fabricated, but by who?  Julie or Jeremy?  You are saying that reasonably it has to be Jeremy because you think there is no reason for a mendacious Julie to invent a hitman, but surely you can see your own contradiction?  If Julie is lying, then why wouldn't she add to the lie?  This is especially plausible if her underlying intention is to cause trouble for Jeremy but not necessarily to land him in prison. Thus, it could be that the hitman motif reflects her complex psychological motives.  She is lying to get back at Jeremy but doesn't want him to get into trouble, so of instead of inventing a story in which he carried out the shootings, she brings Matthew Macdonald into it in the belief that the story can be easily disproven.

Another point to consider is that if Julie has invented it all, the use of the hitman makes it easier because it is then a second-hand story for which she does not have to provide details that might be contradicted by the police, whereas if she was relating a story in which Jeremy had carried out the shootings himself, there is a greater risk that she might mention something that is contradicted by the evidence already known.

[Erik Narramore]

Do any of you seriously think that Julie really believed the hitman story?

Maybe she did.  Maybe she didn't.  We can't see in her head.  But is it likely?

If you accept it is unlikely she held this belief, then there are two major possibilities before us:

(i). She made it all up.

(ii). Jeremy made it all up.

Now, (ii) is effectively the same as (i), because she should have realised that Jeremy was making it up, thus she was misleading the court in any event.

That means (i) is the situation by default.  That leads us to ask a further question:

Realistically, would she have made the whole thing up on her own?

Maybe she did.  Maybe she didn't.  Again, we can't see in her head.  But is it likely?

I think the reasonable conclusion from all this is:

1. Her evidence did not fall within the exception to the rule against hearsay.  This is because, while she was reporting a purported confession, it was either a false confession or the confession was itself a body of fiction.

2. If we do accept her evidence on any basis at all, it is because it is evidence not of collusion between Jeremy and a third party, but of collusion between Jeremy and Julie.

Now, this may all be wrong.  It is only a theory, at most.  But wrong or not, it is logical.

[Erik Narramore]

Julie clearly must have believed the hitman story was true (assuming Jeremy did tell her it).  Why would she report it otherwise?

She clearly reported it for one of two reasons:

1. She believed it to be true.
2. She did not believe it to be true.

Either has further permutations to it.  Personally I think the answer is more likely to be 2.

[Erik Narramore]

A confession or an admission?  And was this in the presence of anybody else?  I think it was just to Julie, if I'm not mistaken?  Even so, were statements obtained from third parties confirming the surrounding circumstances?

Interesting that all these spillages of information are only to Julie and nobody else.  Jeremy didn't tell Brett Collins, for instance.  I'm sure the Australian would have rushed forward.

Then 'Jerry' breaks up with Julie, apparently.  Breaks up with his confessor.  All most peculiar.