0 Members and 30 Guests are viewing this topic.
Dearest April - It is indeed Friday & the start of the weekend.. My husband is not here to defend himself and I object to Bridget's constant goading. I get pulled up the moment I mention her case, yet she is allowed to drop Simon's name into her posts whenever it suits.I do not have a problem playing nicely, when and that's a big when - my opponent plays fair. Have a good day...
Dearest Steph. It's good to know that at least one of you is willing. It means there's only one to go
I have never been a party to a case, until you understand that you're never going to get it. April, I would be more than happy to ignore her indefinitely, if she would agree to do the same.
Dear Bridget, WOW, SO many choices or more correctly A choice and several alternatives. You could decide that because it's Friday, you'd rather have a few drinks(I'll join you in that one) You could agree to DISagree. You could agree to totally ignore each other.......... or you COULD take it "Off Topic".
If you check back you will notice that it is never me who instigates these 'discussions'.
The way I look at it is.You can be sat in the park, midning your own business, talking to someone - and BOOM Steph pops up with her ramblings.You can be in the supermarket, browsing the food, BOOM Hall pops up with her ramblings.And then you're both told to behave.
And then on cue Mat turns up and puts in his two penn'orth....
Thank you to all members who have made kind comments about my posts on this thread. I do my best to give answers on aspects of the case when asked or where I feel I may be able to add something of value and I try to present an objective assessment. I suspect my assessment of Julie Mugford's position may even find some resonance with members who believe Jeremy to be guilty. I would be interested to hear from Vidvic on this.
I just see Bridget going through what Petey, Patti, Susie, Roch and myself went through. It's annoying.
Steve_UK - I am not sure what I have done to deserve such a damning condemnation not only of my analysis of the legal position but also of my integrity. I have, in response to Bridget's original request, provided a thumbnail sketch of the relevant criminal law and applied that to Julie Mugford in the context of her own witness statements and evidence. I am at a loss to understand why you should condemn me as dishonourable simply for expressing my honest opinion. I appreciate that you feel very defensive towards Julie Mugford (whether because you are related to her or otherwise is I accept none of my business). I am happy to enter into a debate about the legal implications of her actions, but using phrases such as "flights of fancy" and claiming that I "make a mockery" of my whole argument does not I suggest further debate on this.I believe you are straining credulity in your attempts to whitewash Julie's conduct. The following are examples:i) You have put an innocent spin on the episode of the sleeping tablets, but according to her own account Julie knew what Jeremy wanted them for and permitted him to use them. ii) By her own admission Julie was involved in a joint enterprise with Jeremy and Brett Collins to import the cannabis from Amsterdam, most of which was to be supplied to others by Julie directly as well as by Jeremy. This was of course following the murders at a time when Julie was perfectly happy to accompany Jeremy on an expensive jaunt, on her account with full knowledge that he had wiped out his family. If she was telling the truth it is crystal clear that she had effectively condoned the murders and was looking forward to spending the rest of her life with the murderer.iii) You claim an intimate knowledge of Julie's mental processes the day before the murders, during the night and immediately following. You even suggest that because she attended all girls' grammar school she was unable to understand the meaning of the words she claims were spoken by Jeremy. Are you serious? iv) I do not misrepresent the chronology. I accept that Julie spoke to friends, including Liz Rimington, after splitting up with Jeremy, dropping increasingly powerful hints that Jeremy was responsible for the murders. However, she did not approach the police. Liz Rimington called the police suggesting that Julie had information. Julie was then arrested and held in custody. The way this was presented at trial, essentially that tormented by guilt she decided to come forward and tell the truth, was grossly misleading. She also lied to the prosecution, and therefore misled the judge, the defence and the jury, about her arrangements with the News of the World.v) I do not accept that Julie's evidence was "not paramount". I also doubt whether the case would have proceeded to trial without Julie's evidence, but even if it had done so I have little doubt that Jeremy would have been acquitted.I have no problem with being robustly challenged on any arguments I present but I do feel both the tone and content of your post was unfortunate.
Lol....have a good weekend Neil !!
