Why Does Mugford Refuse To Say When She Signed The NOTW Deal

[lookout]

Jeremy does not talk about hatred of ANYONE involved
Family or Mugford and I had many conversations

Maybe any of the people who believe him to be guilty and have corresponded with him could prove otherwise

Poor Pamela had the " temerity " to ask after Jeremy. Now then,this is the sister of one of those who were killed. Would ANYONE who had been certain that Jeremy was the killer,ask after the health of " said killer " who'd not only murdered their own flesh and blood but also two innocent little boys ?? I certainly wouldn't have taken Pam to have been non compus mentis when she'd asked that question.

[Jane]

Poor Pamela had the " temerity " to ask after Jeremy. Now then,this is the sister of one of those who were killed. Would ANYONE who had been certain that Jeremy was the killer,ask after the health of " said killer " who'd not only murdered their own flesh and blood but also two innocent little boys ?? I certainly wouldn't have taken Pam to have been non compus mentis when she'd asked that question.

Lookout, you've made it abundantly clear that you have your emotions under such rigid control that they wouldn't dare allow you to feel anything you thought it wasn't correct to feel.

[JackiePreece]

I can only say, that at 20, under the circumstances of having to give evidence in a murder trial, I'd certainly have waivered. I'd have doubted the truth I was telling. I wouldn't have been alone in the witness box. There'd have been me, plus all my psychological baggage. It would have been the same for 20 year old Julie.

Shame she didn't manage to come up with any unique murder plans only Jeremy and her had discussed

[JackiePreece]

I wonder if JM gave Liz a cut of the 25 grand, after all it was her that got JM to go to the cops.

I wonder if they still talk to each other

[lookout]

Lookout, you've made it abundantly clear that you have your emotions under such rigid control that they wouldn't dare allow you to feel anything you thought it wasn't correct to feel.

Surely that's my prerogative if I,myself feel that what I say is correct otherwise I wouldn't be saying it.
I'm not doing anyone any harm,nor am I controlling anyone to agree with my thoughts and views,so what is the problem that you seem to have with me ?

[Jane]

Surely that's my prerogative if I,myself feel that what I say is correct otherwise I wouldn't be saying it.
I'm not doing anyone any harm,nor am I controlling anyone to agree with my thoughts and views,so what is the problem that you seem to have with me ?

What I was trying to say is, that not everyone has the ability -or even desire- to cut off feelings. Just because Pam asked after Jeremy, it doesn't mean she thought he was innocent. Undoubtedly, if she believed him guilty, she'd have hated what he'd done, but if her love for him had been unconditional, she wouldn't have been able to easily switch those feelings off. It may be a concept you find difficult to comprehend.

[Adam]

She was asked and so was the lawyer . The money would have been paid after the trial but neither could find the original  documents .

I agree.

The NOTW would not pay money to either Bamber or Julie, until after the verdict.

Firstly because it is probably illegal to pay the money during the trial.

Secondly, the NOTW won't pay Bamber for a future story he may not be able to give, if convicted. And won't pay Julie for a story she may not be able to give if Bamber is found innocent.

Ditto signing the deals. Signing deals is the NOTW committing to payment although they don't know the verdict. Which is stupid as they will certainly be losing £40,000 or £25,000. Dependant on the verdict.

All this is simple. So I don't know why supporters always look for this technicality.

[lookout]

What I was trying to say is, that not everyone has the ability -or even desire- to cut off feelings. Just because Pam asked after Jeremy, it doesn't mean she thought he was innocent. Undoubtedly, if she believed him guilty, she'd have hated what he'd done, but if her love for him had been unconditional, she wouldn't have been able to easily switch those feelings off. It may be a concept you find difficult to comprehend.

Yes,I am different. Even different from Jeremy himself who stated that he had no bitterness and that he'd forgiven Sheila for what she'd done.
I'm different inasmuch as if someone murdered my g/grandchildren whether in sound mind or not I certainly wouldn't be asking after the health of a murderer,even if it was one of the family.
I did note that the rest of the relatives weren't so impressed with Pam's question,so I daresay they feel the same way as I do.
You forget that each one of us is an individual and are not programmed to do or to think the same way as others.

[Jan]

I agree.

The NOTW would not pay money to either Bamber or Julie, until after the verdict.

Firstly because it is probably illegal to pay the money during the trial.

Secondly, the NOTW won't pay Bamber for a future story he may not be able to give, if convicted. And won't pay Julie for a story she may not be able to give if Bamber is found innocent.

Ditto signing the deals. Signing deals is the NOTW committing to payment although they don't know the verdict. Which is stupid as they will certainly be losing £40,000 or £25,000. Dependant on the verdict.

The deal was if he was found guilty - no deal if he was found innocent - hence why it is believed it was signed before the trial finished. But as the documents are lost we will never know for sure will we ? Or perhaps we will one day.

[buddy]

Yes,I am different. Even different from Jeremy himself who stated that he had no bitterness and that he'd forgiven Sheila for what she'd done.
I'm different inasmuch as if someone murdered my g/grandchildren whether in sound mind or not I certainly wouldn't be asking after the health of a murderer,even if it was one of the family.
I did note that the rest of the relatives weren't so impressed with Pam's question,so I daresay they feel the same way as I do.
You forget that each one of us is an individual and are not programmed to do or to think the same way as others.

If someone murdered my sister I certainly wouldn't be asking after his health, unless of course I thought him innocent.

[Jane]

Yes,I am different. Even different from Jeremy himself who stated that he had no bitterness and that he'd forgiven Sheila for what she'd done.
I'm different inasmuch as if someone murdered my g/grandchildren whether in sound mind or not I certainly wouldn't be asking after the health of a murderer,even if it was one of the family.
I did note that the rest of the relatives weren't so impressed with Pam's question,so I daresay they feel the same way as I do.
You forget that each one of us is an individual and are not programmed to do or to think the same way as others.

I imbue Pam -rightly or wrongly- with being the one member of the family who DIDN'T from the outset, view Jeremy as the person who would steal the family fortune from under them. I think it possible she may have been the only family member to love him unconditionally. If none of the other family members had ever had any positive feelings about him, it would have been no hardship to them to feel the way you do.

[Adam]

The deal was if he was found guilty - no deal if he was found innocent - hence why it is believed it was signed before the trial finished. But as the documents are lost we will never know for sure will we ? Or perhaps we will one day.

I didn't know that. Have you got a source ?

If this was the deal, there is a slim chance she signed a deal during the trial. If several lawyers from both parties made a horrendous mistake. Although I don't know what the laws were on this in 1986.

Otherwise, going by my last post, there is no way the NOTW and Julie would have signed deals pre verdict.

[notsure]

The deal was if he was found guilty - no deal if he was found innocent - hence why it is believed it was signed before the trial finished. But as the documents are lost we will never know for sure will we ? Or perhaps we will one day.

no one throws away documents like that jan, they knew the date they were signed but deliberately witheld it. It was too risky to let that come out in the open .

[buddy]

I didn't know that. Have you got a source ?

If this was the deal, there is a slim chance she signed a deal during the trial. If several lawyers from both parties made a horrendous mistake. Although I don't know what the laws were on this in 1986.

Otherwise, going by my last post, there is no way the NOTW and Julie would have signed deals pre verdict.

Oh come on Adam of course it was signed pre-trial, or they could have got the story for free.

[Adam]

Oh come on Adam of course it was signed pre-trial, or they could have got the story for free.

I don't understand.

If Bamber is convicted, the NOTW desperately  needs a story from elsewhere, straight away. Why would Julie give it to them for free ?