Forum Members Posts Being Deleted For No Reason

[susan]

Hi Patti  It sounds to me like Julie had mental problems

[Nuala]

Hi Keira, but that is a pro bamber interpretation of events, not an actual account. Do we know what Liz actually said? Is there a copy of a statement by her, or the police record of her call? I don't recall seeing either of those myself.

Hi Bridget,

The piece I've quoted includes references from the Home Office's database: Holmes!

At least I've given attributions, you haven't given any. Let's see yours  :D

[Nuala]

That was the version presented at trial, but I do not believe it was true.  Liz Rimington made the first contact with the police.  Events moved swiftly from that point.

I believe so too, NGB. Jeremy's official website points out that there are numerous contradictions between the evidence as it was presented at trial and the evidence recorded on the Home Office database: Holmes.

[Nuala]

As a matter of interest, how would Jeremy have got access to the Home Office's database?

[Bridget]

Hi Bridget,

The piece I've quoted includes references from the Home Office's database: Holmes!

At least I've given attributions, you haven't given any. Let's see yours  :D

You mean about Susan battersby? It's from her statement dated 7th may 2002.

The Holmes thing doesn't actually say that Liz called saying that Julie was 'withholding evidence', does it?

[Nuala]

You mean about Susan battersby? It's from her statement dated 7th may 2002.

The Holmes thing doesn't actually say that Liz called saying that Julie was 'withholding evidence', does it?

Hi Bridget,

I stand to be corrected - I can't find Rimington's statement - but it's my belief that it was Rimington who, on 7/9/85  insisted that JM tell the police of her claims regarding Jeremy, Rimington who took JM to Malcom Waters' home in order to call the police from there:

5:00pm D.S. Stan Jones goes to the address of Malcolm Waters and takes Julie Mugford into
custody. (HOLMES 64/13 and 1/12)

It was Rimington who accompanied JM to the police station and who also made a statement there and Rimington who was accommodated with JM at a police training school whilst the two women made their statements.

JM and Rimington were, I believe, allowed home on 12th September

Battersby wasn't interviewed until the police went to her home on 10/9.85 was she?

As NGB has stated:

"there is now evidence to suggest that Julie Mugford may not, initially at least, have been a willing guest of the police."

[Nuala]

You mean about Susan battersby? It's from her statement dated 7th may 2002.

The Holmes thing doesn't actually say that Liz called saying that Julie was 'withholding evidence', does it?

Bridget, You queried the following too and I forgot to reply:

On the 7th September 1985 Elizabeth Rimmington telephoned Witham Police Station to say that Julie Mugford was withholding vital evidence in the White House Farm enquiry. This was at 4pm. This telephone call was documented as Telephone Report Number One

I don't know where this is from, it's stated above that it's Telephone Report Number One and I'm unsure what that is. Do you know?

[Patti]

I believe that's correct, Patti, that the two young woman had booked this holiday just the a day prior to Rimmington telephoning the police.

I believe the money JM used to pay for her holiday was given to her by Jeremy when he and JM reached the end of their relationship.

He wasn't tight with his money was he....giving her 400 quid.

Is there anyway we can find out where Stan Jones phoned JM to tell her about the verdict. He must have known where she was in order to have phoned her.  JM says she can't remember, but knows she was a neutral place.....

[Bridget]

Hi Bridget,

I stand to be corrected - I can't find Rimington's statement - but it's my belief that it was Rimington who, on 7/9/85  insisted that JM tell the police of her claims regarding Jeremy, Rimington who took JM to Malcom Waters' home in order to call the police from there:

5:00pm D.S. Stan Jones goes to the address of Malcolm Waters and takes Julie Mugford into
custody. (HOLMES 64/13 and 1/12)

It was Rimington who accompanied JM to the police station and who also made a statement there and Rimington who was accommodated with JM at a police training school whilst the two women made their statements.

JM and Rimington were, I believe, allowed home on 12th September

Battersby wasn't interviewed until the police went to her home on 10/9.85 was she?

As NGB has stated:

"there is now evidence to suggest that Julie Mugford may not, initially at least, have been a willing guest of the police."

Liz certainly encouraged her, but there's absolutely nothing to suggest that she either called the police and bubbled her up, or frog marched her down there, is there.

[Bridget]

Bridget, You queried the following too and I forgot to reply:

On the 7th September 1985 Elizabeth Rimmington telephoned Witham Police Station to say that Julie Mugford was withholding vital evidence in the White House Farm enquiry. This was at 4pm. This telephone call was documented as Telephone Report Number One

I don't know where this is from, it's stated above that it's Telephone Report Number One and I'm unsure what that is. Do you know?

No, I don't know what telephone report number  1 is, but the quote is clearly just an interpretation from one of JBs websites. If he had evidence of Liz saying that he'd have been shouting it from the rooftops for years.

[bloggs and son]

No, I don't know what telephone report number  1 is, but the quote is clearly just an interpretation from one of JBs websites. If he had evidence of Liz saying that he'd have been shouting it from the rooftops for years.

In actual fact he sent Julie a kind letter asking her to do the right thing. Or so I am informed? But don't ask me were the letter is? I think its on this forum somewhere?

[Bridget]

Hi Hartley, I can only guess at this. I suspect that a deal was cut prior to the verdict in 1986 and that deal was done by Church Solicitors.

My argument for thinking that is, things were in place a week after the trial. Photo shoot, 3 days in a hotel, clothes, deal, script and drafts etc.  It's pushing it bit fine to say all this happened within a week.   You know and I know that no solicitor works that quickly.

I would think that things were very much in place in the event that JB was found guilty. Then the go ahead was given.  Although Julie might not have been aware of dates etc, I feel certain that Ellison Church did know. There must be some paperwork on this somewhere...I'd like to ask where is it? 

I think if the deal had have been in place prior to the trial the story would have appeared in the first publication after the trial, which was 5 days later on the 2nd of November. It didn't appear until the 9th.

[Bridget]

In actual fact he sent Julie a kind letter asking her to do the right thing. Or so I am informed? But don't ask me were the letter is? I think its on this forum somewhere?

Well he would, wouldn't he. .

[bloggs and son]

Well he would, wouldn't he. .

Why?

[guest154]

Same reason he wrote to Colin. To give his defence and his supporters a reason to say "he's innocent, if he was guilty he wouldn't have written a letter to ..."