"It was a spur of the moment, one day white collar crime spree"

[Erik Narramore]

The words of someone in the guilt camp on the Blue Forum, when excusing Julie Mugford:

"...it was a spur of the moment, one day white collar crime spree."

The point of all this criticism of Julie Mugford is that her evidence requires us to rely on things she says that Jeremy told her when no-one else was present or could hear.  It is not to say her own criminality means she was lying, but it is to say that it must be a factor for consideration in the round, together with other personal factors, such as Jeremy's decision to split up with her.

The guilt camp make the argument that it was just one criminal act and it was minor.  Even if that is accepted, it still raises questions about her judgement and moral character.  She was of mature age at this point - I think she was 20.  People don't go on 'white collar crime sprees' at the age of 20 unless they have serious moral defects or broad psychological issues (wanting attention, etc.).  The guilt camp say it was 'spur-of-the-moment', but this is disingenuous.  The plan itself may have been spur-of-the-moment, but you don't do something like that unless you have an inclination to do it.

Also, her criminal career did not just consist of one crime.  The guilt camp mislead people on here about this, and since you don't want new members "brainwashed", I think we should make it clear that she committed other offences.  She assisted Jeremy with the robbery and also with smuggling drugs from the Netherlands. The guilt camp will say that these escapades were Jeremy's idea.  Maybe, but it is unclear how much Jeremy was influenced by Julie.  It is also alleged that she was involved in other things on her own account, including smuggling drugs from Canada.  I completely accept that Julie Smerchanski is an upstanding lady.  We're not talking about her.  We're talking about Julie Mugford, who in a sense was a completely different person, and hardly an upstanding character.

At trial, there was nothing in her evidence that only the killer could have told her.  (Adam has attempted to demonstrate otherwise, but I was able to take that apart effortlessly. Not that he took any notice).

There was also the part in her evidence when she claimed that she volunteered to identify the bodies in the morgue because she wanted to channel their spirits.  What was that all about?

Julie also mislead the court about her deal with the News of the World.  I now know what the evidence is for that.  I haven't actually seen it myself, but a summary of it has been imparted to me, and it sounds very credible indeed.

She also allowed the court to be misled about her criminal record.

A truthful picture is not quite how you present it, though at the same time, I can understand why you would want to defend her.  If Jeremy is guilty, then she helped to convict him.

Yet let us not forget what she did after Jeremy was convicted (or maybe before, who knows?).  She posed for a rather racy snap that was published the next day in a scummy tabloid.

I repeat again that I do not airily dismiss Julie or her evidence.  I am sceptical of her evidence, but I have thought-through reasons for that position.  I add these remarks for balance, as I cannot abide the disingenuousness of both agenda-riven camps in this case.  In the Bamber case, the truth is the first victim

[Erik Narramore]

Some further points for Julie Mugford's excuse-makers to consider:

Julie sold drugs for Jeremy on campus.

Julie was suspected by Essex Police of international drug trafficking, if you don't mind.  Jeremy had no involvement in this.

Julie committed multiple retail frauds with Susan Battersby.  Jeremy also had no involvement in this, but that didn't stop Julie and Susan pouring more slime over him anyway and suggesting it was all his fault.

Julie assisted Jeremy in the robbery of the Osea Road shop/office.  Or was it the other way round?  Was Julie the one who put Jeremy up to it?  It's an interesting question I explore in one of those essays of mine that caused you an emotional breakdown.

Julie allowed the trial to be misled about her criminal record and about her arrangements with a tabloid newspaper.

In her 2002 witness statement, Julie failed to take responsibility for her own actions, instead blaming everything on Jeremy and claiming he corrupted her.

On her own evidence, Julie at the very least was involved in discussions about murdering Jeremy's parents.  I will say that if she is telling the truth, then it stands to her credit that she would come forward and admit this.  However, one also has to acknowledge the plain implication of all this: she had the opportunity to warn people about Jeremy and prevent the murders of five people and the waste of Jeremy's life.  She could have approached a trustworthy person, perhaps at her university, on a caring basis with concern for Jeremy's mental state.  He would then have been stopped and received the help and treatment he clearly badly needed, and those two little boys would be here with us now.

So, yes, if she told the truth, then hats off to her for bringing a mass murdering double child killer to justice, but we must praise her with the above caveats in mind, and we must never forget what she did immediately after the trial, bringing filth into the case.  We must also be forever mindful that to accept Julie's story, we have to accept a number of rather improbable things, including the improbability that she knew as little as she claims while also knowing as much as she claims.  Her story is a paradox.

You may now come on and give us some drivel, as usual, or you may claim that you have criticised Julie in the past, pointing to a single back-covering post you made years ago.  None of this can wipe out your record on this Forum in defending somebody who, in my opinion, is either a liar or an accomplice to murder, and none of it can wipe out your appalling inhuman and insensitive attitude to other members of this Forum over the years, who you have been driven off here or left in disgust due to your cowardly, selfish bullying while you sit safely behind a computer under, I may say, a rather indulgent moderator.