Author Topic: Julie Mugford's NOW contract and the new evidence ?  (Read 31137 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Julie Mugford's NOW contract and the new evidence ?
« Reply #30 on: September 10, 2012, 10:58:PM »
Oh blinkin heck! Another one...lol  :) :) :) :) Dare I ask where? On second thoughts it might be wrong of me to ask... :o :o :) :)
Hey cheeky Patti....what are you saying about northerners??

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Julie Mugford's NOW contract and the new evidence ?
« Reply #31 on: September 10, 2012, 11:02:PM »
Hey cheeky Patti....what are you saying about northerners??

Humph,,,and I'm supposed to be her friend.!

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: Julie Mugford's NOW contract and the new evidence ?
« Reply #32 on: September 10, 2012, 11:07:PM »
How can you have witnesses to most of JM's testimony being true as the most damning is what JB allegedly said to her where there were no witnesses.
  The matter of whether she would have testified anyway is unknown and cannot be known .
  This information was withheld from the jury for the very reason that the prosecution knew it would fatally undermine their case . The jury made clear that they were considering financial motivations of witnesses by enquiring during deliberations about the relatives possible financial incentives . They never asked about JM's possible financial incentives because they had no reason to . This IMO is "lying by omission" . Should the defence have documentation to raise this then I believe it could lead to a great unravelling .
  If as you believe this is a non issue then why are the prosecution and JM being so evasive . They appear to understand the importance .
 
 

The most damning may have been what Jeremy said to Julie behind closed doors,but look what other witnesses had to say:

Jeremy to James Richards:"I hate my f***ing parents".
Jeremy to Doris Foakes:"I'm not sharing any of my money with Sheila"
Jeremy to Robert Boutflour:"I could easily kill my parents"
Jeremy to Charles Marsden:"If the farm burned down at Christmas I would get everything".
Ralph(Nevill) to Barbara Wilson:"I must never turn my back on that young man".
Jeremy to Liz Rimington:"It's important to have money whilst you're young".
Jeremy to Colin Caffell:"The twins are a millstone round your neck".

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Julie Mugford's NOW contract and the new evidence ?
« Reply #33 on: September 10, 2012, 11:11:PM »
Humph,,,and I'm supposed to be her friend.!
Hey lookout am watching the Hillsborough Doc on channel 3.  If ever anyone does not believe in police corruption they need to watch this doc.  Everytime I see these programmes it breaks my heart at the cynical cruelty and corruption of the police, the tabloid press and the establishment.  Big week for Justice for Hillsborough.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2012, 11:13:PM by maggie »

mertol22

  • Guest
Re: Julie Mugford's NOW contract and the new evidence ?
« Reply #34 on: September 10, 2012, 11:17:PM »
Hey cheeky Patti....what are you saying about northerners??
100% in agreement maggie Oi patti  nowt wrong with Northerners !

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: Julie Mugford's NOW contract and the new evidence ?
« Reply #35 on: September 10, 2012, 11:20:PM »
The most damning may have been what Jeremy said to Julie behind closed doors,but look what other witnesses had to say:

Jeremy to James Richards:"I hate my f***ing parents".
Jeremy to Doris Foakes:"I'm not sharing any of my money with Sheila"
Jeremy to Robert Boutflour:"I could easily kill my parents"
Jeremy to Charles Marsden:"If the farm burned down at Christmas I would get everything".
Ralph(Nevill) to Barbara Wilson:"I must never turn my back on that young man".
Jeremy to Liz Rimington:"It's important to have money whilst you're young".
Jeremy to Colin Caffell:"The twins are a millstone round your neck".
If that's the best "evidence" you have to corroborate JM's "evidence" it is weak . It is at best ambivalent .
  It is beside the point anyway . All of what you have quoted was known at trial, the details or in fact existence of the contract wasn't

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Julie Mugford's NOW contract and the new evidence ?
« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2012, 11:22:PM »
Hey lookout am watching the Hillsborough Doc on channel 3.  If ever anyone does not believe in police corruption they need to watch this doc.  Everytime I see these programmes it breaks my heart at the cynical cruelty and corruption of the police, the tabloid press and the establishment.  Big week for Justice for Hillsborough.

Maggie,I'm both livid and upset. It was police corruption at its worst. Absolutely horrendous.
Yes,,give all those people answers because they deserve them.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: Julie Mugford's NOW contract and the new evidence ?
« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2012, 11:25:PM »
If that's the best "evidence" you have to corroborate JM's "evidence" it is weak . It is at best ambivalent .
  It is beside the point anyway . All of what you have quoted was known at trial, the details or in fact existence of the contract wasn't

I don't know what more evidence you require:you are,in my opinion,perverse.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Julie Mugford's NOW contract and the new evidence ?
« Reply #38 on: September 10, 2012, 11:28:PM »
100% in agreement maggie Oi patti  nowt wrong with Northerners !
I have to say that people who argue that a cover up could not happen in the EP police over 5 peoples deaths need to look at the Hillsborough disaster...the cover up which involved the South Yorkshire Police against LFC and the thousands of fans who were there that day but it is only the courage of the relations of the people who died and their friends who are managing slowly to drag this truth out.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Julie Mugford's NOW contract and the new evidence ?
« Reply #39 on: September 10, 2012, 11:33:PM »
I have to say that people who argue that a cover up could not happen in the EP police over 5 peoples deaths need to look at the Hillsborough disaster...the cover up which involved the South Yorkshire Police against LFC and the thousands of fans who were there that day but it is only the courage of the relations of the people who died and their friends who are managing slowly to drag this truth out.

I knew Carl Rimmer,and went to the lads' funeral.He was 21. Heartbreaking.We'd been to a christening the Sunday before. Those poor relatives,Maggie,the mothers who weren't allowed to kiss their sons.Let's hope the truth comes out once and for all.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Julie Mugford's NOW contract and the new evidence ?
« Reply #40 on: September 10, 2012, 11:43:PM »
I knew Carl Rimmer,and went to the lads' funeral.He was 21. Heartbreaking.We'd been to a christening the Sunday before. Those poor relatives,Maggie,the mothers who weren't allowed to kiss their sons.Let's hope the truth comes out once and for all.
Indeed lookout, I have always remembered the Hicks family...they weren't from Liverpool I think they were from Kent.  After the death of their girls they moved to Liverpool and gained some solace there amongst the other greiving relatives...I think they did move back to Kent (probably missed their close relatives) but found it impossible to live away from the other peple who had suffered the same fate and moved back again.  Any loss is a tragedy...your two teenage daughters  too much. imo

-Harters-

  • Guest
Re: Julie Mugford's NOW contract and the new evidence ?
« Reply #41 on: September 11, 2012, 12:28:AM »
I have to say that people who argue that a cover up could not happen in the EP police over 5 peoples deaths need to look at the Hillsborough disaster...the cover up which involved the South Yorkshire Police against LFC and the thousands of fans who were there that day but it is only the courage of the relations of the people who died and their friends who are managing slowly to drag this truth out.

I think the argument is that there is no evidence that a cover up took place, rather than a cover up couldn't take place. Although with the number of people who would have to have been involved you must surely see why some people don't consider it to have been possible?

guest154

  • Guest
Re: Julie Mugford's NOW contract and the new evidence ?
« Reply #42 on: September 11, 2012, 12:41:AM »
IMO the ferocity that the defence are now concentrating on the NOTW deal, shows that they have nothing else left, or at least very little.

Neil

  • Guest
Re: Julie Mugford's NOW contract and the new evidence ?
« Reply #43 on: September 11, 2012, 01:04:AM »
IMO the ferocity that the defence are now concentrating on the NOTW deal, shows that they have nothing else left, or at least very little.
Julies evidence formed a major part of the prosecutions case, now that is beyond dispute...agreed?
It appears highly likely that she had agreed a deal with the NotW before she appeared in court....agreed?
Frustratingly, the piece of paper that the defence need in order to prove this beyond doubt, remains elusive.

I don't find it surprising or desperate, as you seem to imply, that they are perusing this line, rigorously.

guest154

  • Guest
Re: Julie Mugford's NOW contract and the new evidence ?
« Reply #44 on: September 11, 2012, 01:07:AM »
Julies evidence formed a major part of the prosecutions case, now that is beyond dispute...agreed?
It appears highly likely that she had agreed a deal with the NotW before she appeared in court....agreed?
Frustratingly, the piece of paper that the defence need in order to prove this beyond doubt, remains elusive.

I don't find it surprising or desperate, as you seem to imply, that they are perusing this line, rigorously.

Although I do agree - I think that the defence are making a bigger deal out of this than they should. Because - well Hartley put it perfectly above.