could rwb have been psycic.

[Caroline]

Don't worry,I'll find it somewhere. It's good to search you never know what you find !

Wouldn't you have thought it odd that RWB's solicitor sorted out Mabel's will as well as overseeing JM's NOTW deal ? Perhaps you don't now but once upon a time you did 

Find me the source, then I will tell you what I think.

[lookout]

Source Lookout? Do back up your claims!

In JM's Witstat of 11/4/2002 she states that she sought " general advice " on furnishing a lawyer-------strange how her " advice " led her to the same solicitors as RWB. Of all the solicitors there must have been in Colchester and she chose Ellisons. Too much of a coincidence for me.

[lookout]

Why,in her statement,did JM have to say about her choice of solicitor,that " this is not a family lawyer or someone I had spoken to previously ?"
Her visit was to stop press harassment and her suspension from teaching,among other things.
She hadn't minded the press being there when she was posing though.

If/when someone complains about having been suspended and they fight its cause it's usually a valid point.
Whereas,if you know you've wronged and are suspended,you accept the result,so either JM knew that JB wasn't the murderer ( and who would never have associated with him on account of her career ) or she was as thick as a plank to think a school would employ someone who had been involved with a " murderer "

[Caroline]

In JM's Witstat of 11/4/2002 she states that she sought " general advice " on furnishing a lawyer-------strange how her " advice " led her to the same solicitors as RWB. Of all the solicitors there must have been in Colchester and she chose Ellisons. Too much of a coincidence for me.

You haven't shown that she used the same solicitor yet.

[lookout]

You haven't shown that she used the same solicitor yet.

A Mr Church who also oversaw the changing of Mabel Speakman's Will. You must already know this from 2013 !

[Caroline]

A Mr Church who also oversaw the changing of Mabel Speakman's Will. You must already know this from 2013 !

That would just prove it was RWB's solicitor now where is the PROOF that Julie used the same one?

[lookout]

That would just prove it was RWB's solicitor now where is the PROOF that Julie used the same one?

What more proof do you need ? Try looking in your 2012 posts as it's bound to be there.

[Jane]

What more proof do you need ? Try looking in your 2012 posts as it's bound to be there.

 I believe it was Mary Mugford who picked the solicitor her daughter used. Given that the majority of her time was spent in London, it's unlikely that Julie would have known one Colchester solicitor from another.

[Caroline]

What more proof do you need ? Try looking in your 2012 posts as it's bound to be there.

Someone’s post isn’t proof!

[Caroline]

I believe it was Mary Mugford who picked the solicitor her daughter used. Given that the majority of her time was spent in London, it's unlikely that Julie would have known one Colchester solicitor from another.

This is my understanding also and as their is no official source to Lookouts claim and unless one is forthcoming, I think it can be dismissed.

[lookout]

Someone’s post isn’t proof!

The same solicitor is named in JM's 2002 witness statement-------then again as having been RWB's.

[Jane]

The same solicitor is named in JM's 2002 witness statement-------then again as having been RWB's.

As Julie's mother found a solicitor on Julie's behalf, her choice can hardly be Julie's responsibility, which ever solicitor she used. The firm could have been recommended by the practice where Mary worked.

[Caroline]

The same solicitor is named in JM's 2002 witness statement-------then again as having been RWB's.

Thanks! Found it! I guess it depends on how many solicitors were in the area  - bit of a conflict of interests though and admittedly, it doesn't look good.

[Jane]

Thanks! Found it! I guess it depends on how many solicitors were in the area  - bit of a conflict of interests though and admittedly, it doesn't look good.

I'd say there were solicitor's aplenty in a large town like Colchester. It would have taken collusion -with RWB- on Mary Mugford's part to have set her daughter up with his solicitor.

[Roch]

Thanks! Found it! I guess it depends on how many solicitors were in the area  - bit of a conflict of interests though and admittedly, it doesn't look good.

I'd say there were solicitor's aplenty in a large town like Colchester. It would have taken collusion -with RWB- on Mary Mugford's part to have set her daughter up with his solicitor.

With the greatest respect... this hardly makes JB innocent though does it?