Did Sheila Suffer An Attachment Disorder Resulting In Affectionless Psychopathy?

[Jane]

You may well be a barrister but you'd have no hope of convicting Julie on drug trafficking if there were no drugs in her possession but only in Jeremy's bag,and it's about time a colleague of yours had a quiet word in your ear and told you so. You also made allegations about conspiracy to murder or accessory to murder which would be laughed out of court. I'm sorry to make it personal as this has not been my way on this site at least,but you should face reality.

Steve, IMO, because of a real or imagined relationship with Julie, this has never NOT been personal with you. YOU are, for the most part, treated with respect, unlike other forums where, again, IMO, you've been treated contemptuously but frankly, at the moment you're going a long way to deserve that sort of contempt. All you needed to do was apologise but it seems that you would rather present yourself as arrogant and as Neil says, thoroughly offensive.

[Caroline R]

You may well be a barrister but you'd have no hope of convicting Julie on drug trafficking if there were no drugs in her possession but only in Jeremy's bag,and it's about time a colleague of yours had a quiet word in your ear and told you so. You also made allegations about conspiracy to murder or accessory to murder which would be laughed out of court. I'm sorry to make it personal as this has not been my way on this site at least,but you should face reality.

You should take your own advice! If you 'actually' knew what you 'think' you do - you might be capable of a structured coherent argument - in the mean time, sparkler anyone?? 

[ngb1066]

You may well be a barrister but you'd have no hope of convicting Julie on drug trafficking if there were no drugs in her possession but only in Jeremy's bag,and it's about time a colleague of yours had a quiet word in your ear and told you so. You also made allegations about conspiracy to murder or accessory to murder which would be laughed out of court. I'm sorry to make it personal as this has not been my way on this site at least,but you should face reality.

You do not have a clue but your arrogance leads you to believe you are an expert in many fields.  I will not waste any more time trying to educate you as clearly you feel confident in your own comprehensive understanding of the law, psychology, criminology etc etc.

I can assure you that I have never been laughed out of court and I do not need anyone to have a quiet word thank you.

I have come to the conclusion that you are a thoroughly odious individual Steve_UK.  In the light of your connection with Julie Mugford I suppose that is not surprising.

[Steve_uk]

You do not have a clue but your arrogance leads you to believe you are an expert in many fields.  I will not waste any more time trying to educate you as clearly you feel confident in your own comprehensive understanding of the law, psychology, criminology etc etc.

I can assure you that I have never been laughed out of court and I do not need anyone to have a quiet word thank you.

I have come to the conclusion that you are a thoroughly odious individual Steve_UK.  In the light of your connection with Julie Mugford I suppose that is not surprising.

You made two allegations against Julie on a previous post which do not have a cat in hell's chance of standing up in a court of law. The first allegation was that Julie could be charged at Dover for smuggling in cannabis from Amsterdam when her boyfriend decides on the last day of the holiday to stuff a tube of toothpaste with cannabis,place it into his suitcase and carry this suitcase himself through customs. The second and far more serious allegation you made was that Julie could be charged as an accessory to murder because Jeremy used her sleeping pills in an attempt to drug Nevill by inserting the aforementioned pills into his gin and tonic.

I don't care whether you are a barrister or a binman. Nobody high up in law,neither Michael Howard nor the Director of Public Prosecutions would waste public money on such flimsy evidence,and it's about time you were told so.

[Jane]

You do not have a clue but your arrogance leads you to believe you are an expert in many fields.  I will not waste any more time trying to educate you as clearly you feel confident in your own comprehensive understanding of the law, psychology, criminology etc etc.

I can assure you that I have never been laughed out of court and I do not need anyone to have a quiet word thank you.

I have come to the conclusion that you are a thoroughly odious individual Steve_UK.  In the light of your connection with Julie Mugford I suppose that is not surprising.

Steve, might an apology from you have been so much more civilized than this mass condemnation. Nobody here is saying that you don't have every right to express your views, but the way in which you imply that none of us knows what we're talking about is objectionable.

[Jane]

You made two allegations against Julie on a previous post which do not have a cat in hell's chance of standing up in a court of law. The first allegation was that Julie could be charged at Dover for smuggling in cannabis from Amsterdam when her boyfriend decides on the last day of the holiday to stuff a tube of toothpaste with cannabis,place it into his suitcase and carry this suitcase himself through customs. The second and far more serious allegation you made was that Julie could be charged as an accessory to murder because Jeremy used her sleeping pills in an attempt to drug Nevill by inserting the aforementioned pills into his gin and tonic.

I don't care whether you are a barrister or a binman. Nobody high up in law,neither Michael Howard nor the Director of Public Prosecutions would waste public money on such flimsy evidence,and it's about time you were told so.

So are you trying to tell us that the defence of Julie is of far greater importance to you than the rest of the case. I'd be really interested to know why that is, Steve, because her reputation seems to matter to you in a way which is beyond simple interest.

[Lugg]

I've had two experiences with solicitors in the past 20 years or so: one was a custody battle which cost my family an arm and a leg,kept being put back by the courts and was heard eighteen months late..the second was a compensation claim for a member of the family whom I accompanied to a solicitor's office only to see him watching the cricket scores on the computer,glance up from the screen to look at us,take a book from a shelf and quote a sum to which both parties had agreed,then shoo us out of the office again..

ngb is not a solicitor. He was a barrister. Perhaps your judgment of him has been clouded somewhat because of your past experiences with 2 solicitors?

[Lugg]

You may well be a barrister but you'd have no hope of convicting Julie on drug trafficking if there were no drugs in her possession but only in Jeremy's bag,and it's about time a colleague of yours had a quiet word in your ear and told you so. You also made allegations about conspiracy to murder or accessory to murder which would be laughed out of court. I'm sorry to make it personal as this has not been my way on this site at least,but you should face reality.

According to her own testimony she was certainly an accessory to the murders, if of course Jeremy is guilty. If he is not guilty then neither is she and by her own admission she was a druggy and it should not take too much effort with the right digging to convict her of drug trafficking, even if it was only by association.

[Lugg]

You made two allegations against Julie on a previous post which do not have a cat in hell's chance of standing up in a court of law. The first allegation was that Julie could be charged at Dover for smuggling in cannabis from Amsterdam when her boyfriend decides on the last day of the holiday to stuff a tube of toothpaste with cannabis,place it into his suitcase and carry this suitcase himself through customs. The second and far more serious allegation you made was that Julie could be charged as an accessory to murder because Jeremy used her sleeping pills in an attempt to drug Nevill by inserting the aforementioned pills into his gin and tonic.

I don't care whether you are a barrister or a binman. Nobody high up in law,neither Michael Howard nor the Director of Public Prosecutions would waste public money on such flimsy evidence,and it's about time you were told so.

So where did you get this information from?

[Jane]

ngb is not a solicitor. He was a barrister. Perhaps your judgment of him has been clouded somewhat because of your past experiences with 2 solicitors?

Lugg, you will see that in Post 350 I expressed sympathy for his undoubtedly horrid and expensive experiences but I also pointed out that it wasn't Neil's fault. It would have been good to have received acknowledgement. Thankfully, I wasn't expecting one.

[Steve_uk]

According to her own testimony she was certainly an accessory to the murders, if of course Jeremy is guilty. If he is not guilty then neither is she and by her own admission she was a druggy and it should not take too much effort with the right digging to convict her of drug trafficking, even if it was only by association.

She was not..had she been on the premises at White House Farm I would agree with you..had she given Jeremy an alibi and vouched for the non-existent telephone call from Nevill she would have been. She was neither.

[Jane]

She was not..had she been on the premises at White House Farm I would agree with you..had she given Jeremy an alibi and vouched for the non-existent telephone call from Nevill she would have been. She was neither.

Steve, you can stamp your feet, throw your toys out of the pram and scream until the cows come home that Julie is innocent of ALL charges, but it makes not the happeth of difference. Everything Lugg said is correct. I think you must have taken over where Jeremy left off. He was fixated by her for a time. With you it seems never ending..............and I think if the trial were to take place again today she wouldn't have been treated as leniently

[Caroline R]

You made two allegations against Julie on a previous post which do not have a cat in hell's chance of standing up in a court of law. The first allegation was that Julie could be charged at Dover for smuggling in cannabis from Amsterdam when her boyfriend decides on the last day of the holiday to stuff a tube of toothpaste with cannabis,place it into his suitcase and carry this suitcase himself through customs. The second and far more serious allegation you made was that Julie could be charged as an accessory to murder because Jeremy used her sleeping pills in an attempt to drug Nevill by inserting the aforementioned pills into his gin and tonic.

I don't care whether you are a barrister or a binman. Nobody high up in law,neither Michael Howard nor the Director of Public Prosecutions would waste public money on such flimsy evidence,and it's about time you were told so.

Wow!! That's one hell of a chip you have there Steve!! BUT you're forgetting that she GAVE him the pills AFTER finding out his intentions (that is if you believe her ridiculous story in the first place!!).

[Lugg]

Lugg, you will see that in Post 350 I expressed sympathy for his undoubtedly horrid and expensive experiences but I also pointed out that it wasn't Neil's fault. It would have been good to have received acknowledgement. Thankfully, I wasn't expecting one.

Quite possibly because I didn't see your post April? I apologise.

[Jane]

Quite possibly because I didn't see your post April? I apologise.

Dear Lugg xxxxx