Author Topic: Julie Mugford's 'Verbal' agreement vs 'Signed' agreement prior to verdict.  (Read 8831 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6671

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
Fiction.

Not sure what you are saying.

Are you saying JM was not holed up in Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, London when verdict came in?
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6671
Not sure what you are saying.

Are you saying JM was not holed up in Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, London when verdict came in?

No, I am saying there was a written agreement.

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
No, I am saying there was a written agreement.

Holy moley!
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
We are on to you Love. MUGFORD.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 03:20:PM by Nigel »
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline buddy

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1296
Most of this was known and revealed at the last appeal.
The big problem is it would cost a lot of money if the conviction was overturned.
That is why I believe that evidence held under PII will never be disclosed. The establishment would rather keep an innocent JB behind bars than undermine the legal system and have to pay the heavy costs if he was acquitted.

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
Most of this was known and revealed at the last appeal.
The big problem is it would cost a lot of money if the conviction was overturned.
That is why I believe that evidence held under PII will never be disclosed. The establishment would rather keep an innocent JB behind bars than undermine the legal system and have to pay the heavy costs if he was acquitted.

MUGFORD is in the SH&* if she steps foot on UK soil.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 03:45:PM by Nigel »
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline buddy

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1296
Not sure what you mean by that post but I would advise you not to place threats on the internet.

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
Not sure what you mean by that post but I would advise you not to place threats on the internet.

I was referring to the fact MUGFORD would come across as lying, under Questioning.

What did you think I meant?
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline buddy

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1296
You said Mugford would be in trouble if she sets foot on UK soil and that is a threat.

Offline Nigel

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1197
You said Mugford would be in trouble if she sets foot on UK soil and that is a threat.

I said MUGFORD would be in the sh*T on UK soil (due to questioning) on UK soil.

what is your problem.?
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 03:56:PM by Nigel »
I slow down for a speeding police car, don't you?

6.01pm on Friday 6th September 1985 'Part 2' of the case began.

Offline buddy

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1296
I havn't got a problem Nigel. I was merely trying to attempt to caution you on your posts.
We sing from the same hymn sheet, but you need to be cautious on your posts.

Offline buddy

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1296
Okay. You reap what you sow. I hope others will advise you . In the meantime I will PIVE off.

Offline buddy

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1296
Are you intoxicated?