The Hyper-Reality Of Julie Mugford

[Adam]

A newbie giving a hero member info Adam!

Thanks. Had not seen that before.

As said, impossible to tell. Don't believe it was discussed at trial. Certainly never an appeal ground.

[Rob_]

Thanks. Had not seen that before.

As said, impossible to tell. Don't believe it was discussed at trial. Certainly never an appeal ground.

Now for once Adam as I went to the trouble of finding it for you, look at the picture and be honest and say has anyone slept under the covers?

[Adam]

Now for once Adam as I went to the trouble of finding it for you, look at the picture and be honest and say has anyone slept under the covers?

How would I know.

Do you believe Sheila was out of bed all night. Bare footed & in a nightie?

[Rob_]

How would I know.

Do you believe Sheila was out of bed all night. Bare footed & in a nightie?

Well her bed has to my eyes anyway not been slept in, so my guess is she was walking round in turmoil getting more and more distressed.

[guest29835]

You also continue to use the word "charade" when discussing Julie's statements, and even put it in quotation marks, yet she never used that word. But don't let truth become a casualty of your long-winded, irrelevant and fanciful posts, even though I point things out which might deceive the rookie member

She most certainly did use the word "charade".  I hope you're not going to ask me to tell you the source and help me make you look an even bigger fool than you already are.

I also have not "run her down professionally" - quite the opposite, actually. 

I could go on, but why bother?  It's not as if you'd pay any notice.

[Jane]

Well her bed has to my eyes anyway not been slept in, so my guess is she was walking round in turmoil getting more and more distressed.

I don't think it can be dismissed so easily. If you compare beds, you can see that the frilled cover on  Sheila's bed has been pulled down to allow access to the bed. The pillow appears to me, to have an indent where a head has been. We can't tell how crumpled the sheet and bed cover may have been because a garment has been placed over it.

[killingeve]

Yes, Ferguson knew she was a heavy smoker of the waccy baccy.

Wrong as usual. 

Dr Ferguson was aware Sheila smoked cocaine in a social context. 

You might recall Bamber admitted during his interview with journalist David James Smith that he and Sheila used cocaine together.   

Do you never feel the need to check the veracity of what it is your posting?

[Adam]

Well her bed has to my eyes anyway not been slept in, so my guess is she was walking round in turmoil getting more and more distressed.

Distressed about what?

What were Nevill, June, Daniel & Nicholas doing while Sheila was getting more distressed?

[killingeve]

She most certainly did use the word "charade".  I hope you're not going to ask me to tell you the source and help me make you look an even bigger fool than you already are.

I also have not "run her down professionally" - quite the opposite, actually. 

I could go on, but why bother?  It's not as if you'd pay any notice.

You run everyone down: Mr and Mrs Bamber, Gresham's, Sheila, Colin, Julie, Lorraine (Kelly), Tom and Ben (producers of a podcast). 

[guest29835]

You run everyone down: Mr and Mrs Bamber, Gresham's, Sheila, Colin, Julie, Lorraine (Kelly), Tom and Ben (producers of a podcast).

Everybody has strengths and faults.  I have criticised all the people you mention (not 'run them down'), but also said good things about some of them.  That's what happens in any honest discussion of people.  Don't see what your point is.

What is it you are trying to say?  Are you saying I should dish out unalloyed praise to everybody in the case all the time in discussions about them?  You're not making any sense.

Tom and Ben, the producers of the podcast, come across to me as a bit light and juvenile, and that seems to be consistent with them, not just a bit of occasional fun and banter.  Their podcasts appeal to frivolous, unserious people.  I'm just being honest in my impressions.

Lorraine Kelly is clearly a very successful person, so she must at least be quite shrewd and talented, but her type of interviewing is not for me because it is not very honest.  I prefer it when there is more honesty about things.

[killingeve]

Everybody has strengths and faults.  I have criticised all the people you mention (not 'run them down'), but also said good things about some of them.  That's what happens in any honest discussion of people.  Don't see what your point is.

What is it you are trying to say?  Are you saying I should dish out unalloyed praise to everybody in the case all the time in discussions about them?  You're not making any sense.

Tom and Ben, the producers of the podcast, come across to me as a bit light and juvenile, and that seems to be consistent with them, not just a bit of occasional fun and banter.  Their podcasts appeal to frivolous, unserious people.  I'm just being honest in my impressions.

Lorraine Kelly is clearly a very successful person, so she must at least be quite shrewd and talented, but her type of interviewing is not for me because it is not very honest.  I prefer it when there is more honesty about things.

I prefer strengths and weaknesses as opposed to faults.  Anyway, not only were you running down the individuals but huge swathes of society by mocking 'suburbia'.  As I said pseudo-intelligence. 

The time for serious debate was 35 years ago.  It was referred to as a trial and resulted in Bamber's conviction. Who do you think is going to get involved now?  Emily Maitlis, Andrew Marr, Stephen Sakur, Jeremy Paxman wheeled out of retirement? 

[guest29835]

I prefer strengths and weaknesses as opposed to faults.  Anyway, not only were you running down the individuals but huge swathes of society by mocking 'suburbia'.  As I said pseudo-intelligence. 

The time for serious debate was 35 years ago.  It was referred to as a trial and resulted in Bamber's conviction. Who do you think is going to get involved now?  Emily Maitlis, Andrew Marr, Stephen Sakur, Jeremy Paxman wheeled out of retirement?

I'm just being honest in what I think.  I'm not attacking or insulting you, so I don't see what your issue is with me.  Why do you take my posts so personally?

I once lived in suburbia.  I'm not suggesting that everybody in a suburb is boring.  That is not implied in what I say.  It's called a generalisation, which is applied to one individual, based on impressions of her.  If Mrs Smerchanski happens to be on the Forum and wishes to take issue with me, by all means she can.  She's a public figure because she posed half-naked for a newspaper.

I'm still not clear what it is you're driving at here.  If you just don't think my posts are up to much, you're free to criticise my posts without taking digs at me.  The problem with taking digs at me is that it makes it very difficult for me not to respond in kind, since I'm only human, and then the whole Forum goes in to war mode (which is maybe what you want).  It also creates bad feeling and makes me less sympathetic to anything you have to say.

In short, there are consequences and ramifications for this 'attitude' you bring here.

There seems to be lively discussion in some quarters about who you really are.  I have discussed it with people in PMs, but at the end of the day, personally I don't care.  I take posters as I find them and evaluate what you say on its merits.  So far, it is difficult for me to do that, though, because you're still stuck in this feminine, childish mode in which you preoccupy yourself with point-scoring and taking personal digs at people.

[killingeve]

I'm just being honest in what I think.  I'm not attacking or insulting you, so I don't see what your issue is with me.  Why do you take my posts so personally?

Not taking them personally at all.  Just highlighting how ridiculous I think they are.

I once lived in suburbia.  I'm not suggesting that everybody in a suburb is boring.  That is not implied in what I say.  It's called a generalisation, which is applied to one individual, based on impressions of her.  If Mrs Smerchanski happens to be on the Forum and wishes to take issue with me, by all means she can.  She's a public figure because she posed half-naked for a newspaper.

A public figure because she appeared in a tabloid some 35 years ago when she was 21 years old.  Try telling that to a libel lawyer in 2021.  She did actually produce an article in Good Housekeeping late 80's/early 90's. 

I'm still not clear what it is you're driving at here.  If you just don't think my posts are up to much, you're free to criticise my posts without taking digs at me.  The problem with taking digs at me is that it makes it very difficult for me not to respond in kind, since I'm only human, and then the whole Forum goes in to war mode (which is maybe what you want).  It also creates bad feeling and makes me less sympathetic to anything you have to say.

That's exactly what I'm doing criticising your posts.

In short, there are consequences and ramifications for this 'attitude' you bring here.

Is that a threat?

There seems to be lively discussion in some quarters about who you really are.  I have discussed it with people in PMs, but at the end of the day, personally I don't care.  I take posters as I find them and evaluate what you say on its merits.  So far, it is difficult for me to do that, though, because you're still stuck in this feminine, childish mode in which you preoccupy yourself with point-scoring and taking personal digs at people.

Who I really am?  I'm Cambridgecutie and you're QCCheavalier    We all discuss others and gossip in pm's and we're no exception.  However, no one with any sense would divulge anything they wouldn't want repeated even if the pm's then extended to any other means of communication. 

[killingeve]

I prefer strengths and weaknesses as opposed to faults.  Anyway, not only were you running down the individuals but huge swathes of society by mocking 'suburbia'.  As I said pseudo-intelligence. 

The time for serious debate was 35 years ago.  It was referred to as a trial and resulted in Bamber's conviction. Who do you think is going to get involved now?  Emily Maitlis, Andrew Marr, Stephen Sakur, Jeremy Paxman wheeled out of retirement?

The only time any of the above will be involved is in the very unikley event Bamber's conviction is quashed.  I guess it would be fun to see Emily Maitlis interview the learned Justice Henriques and HJJ Rivlin.  I don't think I've ever seen a judge interviewed about any failings in the justice system?

[guest29835]

I'm not going to reply to you line-by-line and get sucked into your game.  The issue I take with you is more a general pattern of behaviour in which you seem to want to personalise things and take digs at people.  It's a bit off-putting.  I think you and Steve need to move out of that mode and just stick to content.  By all means, criticise, but try not to take offence and lash out just because somebody differs in their views from your own.  Try giving somebody the benefit of the doubt first.  Consider also that this is an internet forum, so we don't have the benefit of things like tone of voice, etc., so when you launch into these attacks and digs, it will come across in the worst way possible.  It's unavoidable.

You could argue that the 'pseudo-intellectual' jibe is a comment on posting and style and so not strictly an insult, but something doesn't have to be strictly ad hominem to be personal.  To me, the distinction between being personal and relevant comment is clear.  Moreover, I'm not clear where all these personal digs are getting us, as opposed to discussing what people say.  You think I'm a pseudo-intellectual.  Marvellous, I'll make a note of that.  Thanks.  But where does it get us?  I could say you're lots of things, but what does it achieve?

When I talk about ramifications and consequences, I'm not making threats, I'm simply saying what is right there in that post you just read.  If you and Steve want to continue in this obnoxious mode of posting, then clearly it makes it difficult for me to sympathise with anything you have to say or treat you convivially as a fellow poster.  I'm only human.  This in turn will affect the atmosphere on the Forum.  This is only to be expected.

You think my posts are ridiculous, but your attempt to pull me up on a fact ended with you flat on your face after I pointed out that your understanding of the facts is wrong.  Your understanding of the case isn't as good as it needs to be for somebody who comes on here with all this swagger and attitude.