Julie Mugford's 'Verbal' agreement vs 'Signed' agreement prior to verdict.

[Luminous Wanderer]

if you don't understand the difference between 'verbal agreement' (AGREED PRIOR TO VERDICT) and 'signed agreement' then there is no hope for you.

One point to make about that, though, in fairness to Steve - and I think this may be what he is getting at - is that if the agreement was purely verbal, you may have a difficulty proving its existence at the point when she is supposed to have given the misleading answers to the police.

[maggie]

It is a matter of record that the exchange took place during the trial and was reported to the judge and defence.  I believe there is some material in the archives here which documents it but it is certainly not something in dispute between the prosecution and the defence.

The evidence that she had indeed concluded a deal with the NOW is documentary evidence finally uncovered in 2012. 

 

Think that answers your point Luminous Wanderer

[Nigel]

It is a matter of record that the exchange took place during the trial and was reported to the judge and defence.  I believe there is some material in the archives here which documents it but it is certainly not something in dispute between the prosecution and the defence.

The evidence that she had indeed concluded a deal with the NOW is documentary evidence finally uncovered in 2012. 

 

correct.

[Adam]

One point to make about that, though, in fairness to Steve - and I think this may be what he is getting at - is that if the agreement was purely verbal, you may have a difficulty proving its existence at the point when she is supposed to have given the misleading answers to the police.

What misleading answers to the police ? She had approached them and completed her WS a year before the trial.

[Luminous Wanderer]

What misleading answers to the police ? She had approached them and completed her WS a year before the trial.

You need to read back through the thread.  I'm not the one making the allegation.

[Luminous Wanderer]

Think that answers your point Luminous Wanderer

Well, it does to an extent.  I would rather not come to an opinion about this without actually seeing some evidence.  That's because these things tend to turn on the exact phrasing of the questions and answers.

That's quite apart from the question of why people are still looking into Wonderful Julie when it won't actually affect the safety of Jeremy Bamber's conviction one way or the other.

[Nigel]

One point to make about that, though, in fairness to Steve - and I think this may be what he is getting at - is that if the agreement was purely verbal, you may have a difficulty proving its existence at the point when she is supposed to have given the misleading answers to the police.

Why was MUGFORD 'laid up' in Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, London?

Was she discussing the Essex Ladies Hockey score?, or the News of the World's readership and circulation?. or maybe Clive Radley's 54 in the 1986 Benson & Hedges Cup Final.

Good God, I maybe not be 'the sharpest tool in the box' but even I can work this one out.

[ngb1066]

Yes but not signed until Bamber was convicted.

How do you know that?   Even if that were true (which I do not accept)  an agreement need not be signed to be binding.

[Luminous Wanderer]

Why was MUGFORD 'laid up' in Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, London?

Was she discussing the Essex Ladies Hockey score?, or the News of the World's readership and circulation?. or maybe Clive Radley's 54 in the 1986 Benson & Hedges Cup Final.

Good God, I maybe not be 'the sharpest tool in the box' but even I can work this one out.

Nigel,

That's a perfectly fair point.  Please don't think I am being difficult or obstinate about this, but I tend to want to see proofs before I make allegations. 

You assert she was at the Holiday Inn, etc., paid for by a tabloid.  OK, I agree with your premise that that is an incriminating situation that would prove that a verbal agreement - at the very least - had been concluded.  Right, fine.

But can you prove each of those facts?  Have you established beyond doubt that she was at the Holiday Inn at the time you allege and that this was paid for by a tabloid?

[Nigel]

Nigel,

That's a perfectly fair point.  Please don't think I am being difficult or obstinate about this, but I tend to want to see proofs before I make allegations. 

You assert she was at the Holiday Inn, etc., paid for by a tabloid.  OK, I agree with your premise that that is an incriminating situation that would prove that a verbal agreement - at the very least - had been concluded.  Right, fine.

But can you prove each of those facts?  Have you we established beyond doubt that she was at the Holiday Inn at the time you allege and that this was paid for by a tabloid?

@ngb
or would you rather wait?...

okay do not disclose.

[Luminous Wanderer]

@ngb
or would you rather wait?...

okay do not disclose.

Fine, Nigel, don't disclose - but then please don't condescend to me and presume what I should know and not know, thank you.

I will stick to facts and proofs, Nigel, if you don't mind!

It's exactly your attitude, Nigel, that leads to people being wrongly convicted in the first place.

Will Julie Mugford be next?  Will she be wrongly-convicted now, by you and the other witch-finders?

Sorry if you find this patronising, but I tend to think that even unpopular people deserve to have the case proven against them before we find them guilty, Nigel.

[Steve_uk]

The background to the News of the World deal is discussed by Julie here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1210.0.html

[Nigel]

bump

[lookout]

Nigel,none of this is relevant to the case. In fact very little is relevant to the case as a lot has been fabricated along the way.

[Nigel]

'Verbal' agreement

FACT