The Week of the Murders

[No-Bits]

Adam the posts Harters put up had a tremendous influence on my change of stance.  Have you ever thought Julie knew exactly what he planned and how he planned to do it but could not say outright as it would incriminate her and she would have been off to prison along with him.  Yes why are you arguing with me I thought we were on the same side You just want to be the dominant male I guess

Just to be clear though, Susan has her own mind and is entirely welcome to agree or disagree with me on any aspect of the case.

I'm interested in the case simply for the fact that it's an interesting case. I have not set out to change anybodies mind or influence other people in any way.

I certainly don't take any credit or pleasure if people have changed their mind because of things that I have said (typed).

I'm as capable as the next person of making mistakes or errors of judgement.

[No-Bits]

I think this is what Caroline has implied as well - by saying it is not so much what she says but what she doesn't say.

I must admit I would like to see her testimony in full  and all the statements she made.

Yes that is one difficulty, the majority,  if not all, of the documents released to the public domain have have originated from Jeremy's supporters.

[Jan]

Yes I was very upset that my posts and threads did not persuade Susan. But she is friends with Caroline. Maybe if I had cooked her a meal.

Liz Rimmington rang Stan Jones.  Julie was in the room so obviously in agreement.

Liz's phone call was simply to arrange for Julie to meet the police. In the meeting/interview Julie told the police everything. She did not need to.

Adam what is your source for your information - because this is what I have read on the forum


Julie Mugford and Elizabeth Rimmington
 Essex Police were convinced on the basis of all available evidence that Sheila had killed the family and committed suicide. 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.  The exact content of this telephone call from Ms Rimmington is still a mystery as Essex Police continue to withhold this document from the Defence.

This is the sequence of events:
 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).
Whilst in custody


So why would they take her into custody? sounds to me more like Liz was dobbing her in?

[nugnug]

witneses dont normaly get taken into custody well not willing ones anyway.

[Jan]

plus if the details of the call have not been released how do we know Julie was in the room?

[susan]

Harters I quite agree I very much have a mind of my own and it is entirely my own thoughts and feelings that have made me change my stance.  The reason I brought you and Caroline into it because you have with some of your posts made me see things differently.  Sorry I did not mean to imply you had converted me.  I must admit I have discussed the case in depth with posters by pm and have been greatly influenced by their comments.  Sorry Adam.

[No-Bits]

Harters I quite agree I very much have a mind of my own and it is entirely my own thoughts and feelings that have made me change my stance.  The reason I brought you and Caroline into it because you have with some of your posts made me see things differently.  Sorry I did not mean to imply you had converted me.  I must admit I have discussed the case in depth with posters by pm and have been greatly influenced by their comments.  Sorry Adam.

Haha, no need to Susan, I wasn't implying that at all. 

[susan]

Harters   

[No-Bits]

I think it's become a little bit of a pantomime, you have 'certain posters' on both sides of the guilt divide who are actively trying to convince other people and change their minds.

You then have a whole bunch of other posters, who don't care either way and are just interested in the case. Regardless of some people's accusations, I firmly, very firmly, fit in to the latter.

I think the forum is interesting to kick ideas around, but I don't think anybody should be deluded enough to think any difference is being made one way or the other.

Barring the mad one's (and you know who you are) there is a nice bunch of folk on the forum.

[Jan]

in a civilised debate ( gosh that makes a change) no one has to apologise for their opinions - because that's all they are .

And I am interested in what makes people change their minds . Whether it be a combination of factors or just one small thing.

 The thing that got me interested in the first place is a man that during all his time in jail has fought so hard to prove his innocence.  And it obviously is not a straightforward case otherwise no books would have been written . And as the Dickinson report said there were really only two things that put him there , the moderator and Julies evidence. So when Adam accuses me of always going back to Julie when in doubt - that is my reason. And I think that most people would agree that today the way the moderator was handled would not be accepted in court as a piece of evidence that was handled correctly.

[Jan]

I think it's become a little bit of a pantomime, you have 'certain posters' on both sides of the guilt divide who are actively trying to convince other people and change their minds.

You then have a whole bunch of other posters, who don't care either way and are just interested in the case. Regardless of some people's accusations, I firmly, very firmly, fit in to the latter.

I think the forum is interesting to kick ideas around, but I don't think anybody should be deluded enough to think any difference is being made one way or the other.

Barring the mad one's (and you know who you are) there is a nice bunch of folk on the forum.

good post .  That's why I think personal posts should  be avoided where at all possible .

[lookout]

Ah well,the " real " Jack the Ripper has been revealed after 126 years. DNA from an old shawl identifies him. Case remains open while the Met solves the mystery. I suppose 126 years isn't so bad to get your man. There's hope for Jeremy yet.

[No-Bits]

Ah well,the " real " Jack the Ripper has been revealed after 126 years. DNA from an old shawl identifies him. Case remains open while the Met solves the mystery. I suppose 126 years isn't so bad to get your man. There's hope for Jeremy yet.

No there isn't.

[lookout]

Harters,I'm being facetious meaning another 97 years to go. Will any of us care ?

[nugnug]

well theres another 96 years to go then.