Author Topic: Is Julie Mugford relevant?  (Read 3558 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4771
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #15 on: April 01, 2018, 10:57:AM »
Don't be rude & goad.

You know the News of the World approached Julie.

I know they did.  However, how do you know when they approached her, and when she concluded a deal for £25,000?

« Last Edit: April 01, 2018, 10:57:AM by ngb1066 »

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #16 on: April 01, 2018, 10:58:AM »
Don't be rude & goad.

You know the News of the World approached Julie.

Yes so MUGFORD, 'laid up' in Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, LONDON

IS IN "contempt of court"....agreed?...WITH HER 'VERBAL AGREEMENT'.

WHY WAS SHE THERE (Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, LONDON) OTHERWISE?
« Last Edit: April 01, 2018, 11:00:AM by Nigel »
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20564
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #17 on: April 01, 2018, 11:00:AM »
I know they did.  However, how do you know when they approached her, and when she concluded a deal for £25,000?

So why did you goad me by saying 'I am making it up'.

When did they approach her ? It would have been after securing a deal with Bamber & after realising Bamber was then going to be convicted. So at the earliest half way through the trial. More likely nearer the end of the trial.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2018, 11:01:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #18 on: April 01, 2018, 11:03:AM »
So why did you goad me by saying 'I am making it up'.

When did they approach her ? It would have been after securing a deal with Bamber & after realising Bamber was then going to be convicted. So at the earliest half way through the trial. More likely nearer the end of the trial.

when, where, why.?
you are dodging my question

MUGFORD, 'laid up' in Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, LONDON

?
« Last Edit: April 01, 2018, 11:04:AM by Nigel »
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4771
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #19 on: April 01, 2018, 11:04:AM »
So why did you goad me by saying 'I am making it up'.

When did they approach her ? It would have been after securing a deal with Bamber & after realising Bamber was then going to be convicted. So at the earliest half way through the trial. More likely nearer the end of the trial.

You are making it up, because you do not have any information about when the agreement was concluded. 


Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20564
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #20 on: April 01, 2018, 11:08:AM »
You are making it up, because you do not have any information about when the agreement was concluded.

I gave my opinion in the last post.

If you know why don't you tell us. Unless you are making up you're inside knowledge claim of the case.

It's obvious the verbal agreement was during the trial.

Bamber was unable to prove the signed agreement was prior to the verdict. So it had to be after the verdict.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2018, 11:12:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20564
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #21 on: April 01, 2018, 11:11:AM »
The NOTW would not sign anything until after the verdict.

Julie would not be needed by the NOTW if Bamber was found 'not guilty'.  Besides which it was probably illegal to sign pre verdict.

Not surprising Bamber had no luck with this technicality.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #22 on: April 01, 2018, 11:13:AM »
The NOTW would not sign anything until after the verdict.

Julie would not be needed by the NOTW if Bamber was found 'not guilty'.  Besides which it was probably illegal to sign pre verdict.

Not surprising Bamber had no luck with this technicality.

STILL NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

ARE YOU HOPING TO BECOME A politician?
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4771
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #23 on: April 01, 2018, 11:17:AM »
I gave my opinion in the last post.

If you know why don't you tell us. Unless you are making up you're inside knowledge claim of the case.

It's obvious the verbal agreement was during the trial.

Bamber was unable to prove the signed agreement was prior to the verdict. So it had to be after the verdict.

I do have knowledge of this but I am not willing to give details here.  This could be important in a future appeal.   

Why is it obvious the verbal agreement was during the trial?

The defence could not prove at trial or in the later appeal appeals when the agreement was concluded.  However, evidence has since been uncovered.

 

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20564
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #24 on: April 01, 2018, 11:17:AM »
Anyway the common sense procedure between Julie & the NOTW was -

The NOTW approached Julie mid/end of trial. A verbal agreement was made.

The NOTW & Julie signed papers directly after the verdict.

Bamber's verbal agreement with the NOTW did not become a signed agreement as he was found guilty. 
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4771
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #25 on: April 01, 2018, 11:18:AM »
Anyway the common sense procedure between Julie & the NOTW was -

The NOTW approached Julie mid/end of trial. A verbal agreement was made.

The NOTW & Julie signed papers directly after the verdict.

Bamber's verbal agreement with the NOTW did not become a signed agreement as he was found guilty.

Pure speculation on your part, and incorrect.


Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #26 on: April 01, 2018, 11:20:AM »
I do have knowledge of this but I am not willing to give details here.  This could be important in a future appeal.   

Why is it obvious the verbal agreement was during the trial?

The defence could not prove at trial or in the later appeal appeals when the agreement was concluded.  However, evidence has since been uncovered.

"Why is it obvious the verbal agreement was during the trial?"

Because Mugford was 'laid up' in Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, LONDON

Good God, even I can work that out!
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20564
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #27 on: April 01, 2018, 11:23:AM »
I do have knowledge of this but I am not willing to give details here.  This could be important in a future appeal.   

Why is it obvious the verbal agreement was during the trial?

The defence could not prove at trial or in the later appeal appeals when the agreement was concluded.  However, evidence has since been uncovered.

You and Mike have a lot of inside knowledge you won't post on here.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #28 on: April 01, 2018, 11:26:AM »
You and Mike have a lot of inside knowledge you won't post on here.

I wonder why. maybe you WILL look foolish.
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4771
Re: Is Julie Mugford relevant?
« Reply #29 on: April 01, 2018, 11:28:AM »
"Why is it obvious the verbal agreement was during the trial?"

Because Mugford was 'laid up' in Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, LONDON

Good God, even I can work that out!

That does not mean the agreement was made during the trial, it could have been made before the trial.  As I have told you, it was a written agreement, negotiated on JM's behalf by her solicitor.  Even JM admits that!