Julie Mugford and the Stolen Cheque Books

[grahameb]

Susan mentioned some things were purchased for Jeremy.

Prove that Julie lied about doing it because she wanted to impress Jeremy.  Her claim is one difficult to disprove since it deals with her mental thought process.

You are the same person who didnd't want to believe Jeremy could have used a window he admitted he used so you are not exactly the best judge...

So this thief presented Jeremy with stolen gifts then?

[Jane]

You are changing the subject..........................................

A trait he must have learned from you.

[Adam]

It is a bit desperate to claim Julie lied in court because she committed a minor cheque book fraud a year earlier with a friends cheque book. 

Shall we discard all witnesses in future trials if they have previously committed a crime ?

[Adam]

Jeremy's defence brought this up in court.

Why ? Because Jeremy told them about it. They also realised that her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.

So they focused on Julie to try to discredit her. And put reasonable doubt into the jury.

Julie never retracted a word of her WS.

[grahameb]

A trait he must have learned from you.

That's another trick this man has. He changes the subject and when we answer him he blames us for changing the subject. I dislike double tongued deceivers.

[scipio_usmc]

A trait he must have learned from you.

hardly I stay on course which is why I brought it back to the subject at hand.  It is jeremy supporters who always defelct because a debate of the core evidence ends up proving Jeremy is guiolty and tha this supporters have no leg to stand on.

[Alias]

Susan mentioned some things were purchased for Jeremy.

Prove that Julie lied about doing it because she wanted to impress Jeremy.  Her claim is one difficult to disprove since it deals with her mental thought process.

You are the same person who didnd't want to believe Jeremy could have used a window he admitted he used so you are not exactly the best judge...

You shouldn´t talk; you are the person who was perfectly willing to accept that Jeremy had crawled through that tiny fan window at the top, when that would have been impossible. You were willing to accept that because it served your agenda.

[grahameb]

Jeremy's defence brought this up in court.

Why ? Because Jeremy told them about it. They also realised that her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.

So they focused on Julie to try to discredit her. And put reasonable doubt into the jury.

Julie never retracted a word of her WS.

Adam could you please show us where his defence team said JM's statement had a "ring of truth"? Because it doesn't sound like something a defense counsel would do? If they did then they were not representing their client properly.

[Jane]

Jeremy's defence brought this up in court.

Why ? Because Jeremy told them about it. They also realised that her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.

So they focused on Julie to try to discredit her. And put reasonable doubt into the jury.

Julie never retracted a word of her WS.

Julie affirms that Jeremy told her that it was important to tell as much of the truth as possible. On reflection, it's perfectly possible that it was she who said it to him. It sounds as if it may have been a maxim she was happy to live by.

[Adam]

Adam could you please show us where his defence team said JM's statement had a "ring of truth"? Because it doesn't sound like something a defense counsel would do? If they did then they were not representing their client properly.

I have recently provided the source after Grahame asked me.

[scipio_usmc]

That's another trick this man has. He changes the subject and when we answer him he blames us for changing the subject. I dislike double tongued deceivers.

That's funny because you and other Jeremy supporters always change the subjects of threads to hide from the evidence especially threads liek the ones about the order of the shots and how coudl Nevill have mad e acall inlight of the order of the shots.

I try to keep the subject on track when they are off course already I do comment and help the tangent to go further but I don't try to change the topics to deflect like Jeremy supporters.

I don't need ot run form anything because Jeremy supporters have nothing that needs to be run from I cna refute anything that anytually matters that Jeremy supporters claim.  The reaosn why is not merely because the facts are against Jeremy and I am informed enough to know it so can't be fooled the way jeremy supporters manage to decieve some.

[grahameb]

hardly I stay on course which is why I brought it back to the subject at hand.  It is jeremy supporters who always defelct because a debate of the core evidence ends up proving Jeremy is guiolty and tha this supporters have no leg to stand on.

I didn't deflect you I answered you directly. You claimed that the supporters portray Jeremy as as squeeky clean. I said they don't. On the contrary it is you as wiley as you are who are portraying JM as squeeky clean when all she was was a downright thief acting on her own volition. Fce it, don't show yourself up as a numpty. Go on, or don't you have the balls to admit you're wrong?

[nugnug]

Adam could you please show us where his defence team said JM's statement had a "ring of truth"? Because it doesn't sound like something a defense counsel would do? If they did then they were not representing their client properly.

no half decent defence barrister would ever say something like that.

[grahameb]

I have recently provided the source after Grahame asked me.

Go on Adam humour me. You know I'm a person of low intelligence.

[grahameb]

That's funny because you and other Jeremy supporters always change the subjects of threads to hide from the evidence especially threads liek the ones about the order of the shots and how coudl Nevill have mad e acall inlight of the order of the shots.

I try to keep the subject on track when they are off course already I do comment and help the tangent to go further but I don't try to change the topics to deflect like Jeremy supporters.

I don't need ot run form anything because Jeremy supporters have nothing that needs to be run from I cna refute anything that anytually matters that Jeremy supporters claim.  The reaosn why is not merely because the facts are against Jeremy and I am informed enough to know it so can't be fooled the way jeremy supporters manage to decieve some.

I'm not arguing with you scipio you old fart. What I posted is true. Go check it out. You are the deceiver not I.