Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackiePreece on July 29, 2014, 01:42:PM
-
Are details on this forum about the stolen cheque book and what was purchased with them?
Was Jeremy ever accused of theft before the caravan park robbery and how long after the cheque book fraud did the caravan robbery take place
I believe it was probably Julies idea as she already had a history of theft and deception
-
I rather think that it was the robbery at the caravan park which was Jeremys' first and only conviction as this is what the police used in order to arrest him for the murders.Nothing else was listed.
Once held for questioning about the robbery,he was then interrogated about the murders.
-
Thats what I think Lookout
-
I rather think that it was the robbery at the caravan park which was Jeremys' first and only conviction as this is what the police used in order to arrest him for the murders.Nothing else was listed.
Once held for questioning about the robbery,he was then interrogated about the murders.
Strange they never arrested Muggy for the burglary as well? Oh I forgot she was the prosecution's star witness. Silly me. ::)
-
Julie testified that June did not approve of Jeremy's relationship with Julie.
June offered to buy Julie a property in Essex or London. Julie was offended and rejected the offer. But I thought Julie was a gold digger ?
Julie was a teenager when she met Jeremy. Both working at Sloppy Joe's I believe, in low paid jobs. If she was looking for a meal ticket, Jeremy was not the answer.
Things changed slightly over the next couple of years. Jeremy being given a cottage, car, free petrol and a job. However he was only given a farmers wage for working long hours. Not exactly glamorous for Julie.
Rather than live off Jeremy, Julie lived in digs in Lewisham. Working towards being a teacher. Something she is now. A respected one as well.
She had no choice but to act as lookout when Jeremy robbed the caravan site. A year earlier she was involved in Susan Battersby's minor cheque book fraud. Done more for laugh than to live a life of luxury. Teenagers, tut.
After the massacre and in a state of shock she stayed with Jeremy for one month. Often because Jeremy asked her to. But they soon spilt, Julie was not dragged off Jeremy, despite his new found fortune
When approaching the police, she had no idea the NOTW would approach her. But they did, as well as approach Jeremy.
Julie also did have to approach the police. They knew nothing about Susan Battersby's minor cheque book fraud and Jeremy's caravan break in.
Julie testified that the break up was gradual and mutual process. Jeremy also said the relationship had been in decline for several months.
Does everyone agree the perception of Julie as a gold digger is wrong ?
-
Julie testified that June did not approve of Jeremy's relationship with Julie.
June offered to buy Julie a property in Essex or London. Julie was offended and rejected the offer. But I thought Julie was a gold digger ?
Julie was a teenager when she met Jeremy. Both working at Sloppy Joe's I believe, in low paid jobs. If she was looking for a meal ticket, Jeremy was not the answer.
Things changed slightly over the next couple of years. Jeremy being given a cottage, car, free petrol and a job. However he was only given a farmers wage for working long hours. Not exactly glamorous for Julie.
Rather than live off Jeremy, Julie lived in digs in Lewisham. Working towards being a teacher. Something she is now. A respected one as well.
She had no choice but to act as lookout when Jeremy robbed the caravan site. A year earlier she was involved in Susan Battersby's minor cheque book fraud. Done more for laugh than to live a life of luxury. Teenagers, tut.
After the massacre and in a state of shock she stayed with Jeremy for one month. Often because Jeremy asked her to. But they soon spilt, Julie was not dragged off Jeremy, despite his new found fortune
When approaching the police, she had no idea the NOTW would approach her. But they did, as well as approach Jeremy.
Julie also did have to approach the police. They knew nothing about Susan Battersby's minor cheque book fraud and Jeremy's caravan break in.
Julie testified that the break up was gradual and mutual process. Jeremy also said the relationship had been in decline for several months.
Does everyone agree the perception of Julie as a gold digger is wrong ?
Why didn´t she have a choice?
You keep saying it was Susan´s - it was mainly Julie´s. Her idea. She had to talk a very reluctant Susan into it (over several days). Julie forged Susan´s signature. It was not minor - or are you saying that the caravan burglary was minor too, it was pretty much the same amount?
Susan threw the "goods" they got out of the fraud in the garbage, she felt that bad about it. Julie "doesn´t remember what she did with the stolen items, probably gave some of it to Salvation Army" (<----BS!)
Don´t forget about the drug dealing and the very probably ACCESSORY TO MURDER. Yea, yea, very respectable! ::)
-
Are details on this forum about the stolen cheque book and what was purchased with them?
Was Jeremy ever accused of theft before the caravan park robbery and how long after the cheque book fraud did the caravan robbery take place
I believe it was probably Julies idea as she already had a history of theft and deception
Poor squeaky clean drug grower Jeremy was tricked into Robbing the caravan site by his rotten girlfriend...
How long does it take you to make up such stupid things?
-
Julie testified that June did not approve of Jeremy's relationship with Julie.
June offered to buy Julie a property in Essex or London. Julie was offended and rejected the offer. But I thought Julie was a gold digger ?
Julie was a teenager when she met Jeremy. Both working at Sloppy Joe's I believe, in low paid jobs. If she was looking for a meal ticket, Jeremy was not the answer.
Things changed slightly over the next couple of years. Jeremy being given a cottage, car, free petrol and a job. However he was only given a farmers wage for working long hours. Not exactly glamorous for Julie.
Rather than live off Jeremy, Julie lived in digs in Lewisham. Working towards being a teacher. Something she is now. A respected one as well.
She had no choice but to act as lookout when Jeremy robbed the caravan site. A year earlier she was involved in Susan Battersby's minor cheque book fraud. Done more for laugh than to live a life of luxury. Teenagers, tut.
After the massacre and in a state of shock she stayed with Jeremy for one month. Often because Jeremy asked her to. But they soon spilt, Julie was not dragged off Jeremy, despite his new found fortune
When approaching the police, she had no idea the NOTW would approach her. But they did, as well as approach Jeremy.
Julie also did have to approach the police. They knew nothing about Susan Battersby's minor cheque book fraud and Jeremy's caravan break in.
Julie testified that the break up was gradual and mutual process. Jeremy also said the relationship had been in decline for several months.
Does everyone agree the perception of Julie as a gold digger is wrong ?
As a matter of interest, have you worked out how long it would have taken Julie to get from Goldhanger ti Goldsmith College using public transport?
Have you any proof that it was ever suggested she should live with Jeremy on a permanent basis?
Are you suggesting Jeremy FORCED Julie to stand guard for him.
You don 't need reminding that Julie admitted the cheque book fraud was her idea and she accomplished it using her FRIEND, Susan Battersby's cheque book and forging her signature which goes some way beyond being a teenage prank.
-
As a matter of interest, have you worked out how long it would have taken Julie to get from Goldhanger ti Goldsmith College using public transport?
Have you any proof that it was ever suggested she should live with Jeremy on a permanent basis?
Are you suggesting Jeremy FORCED Julie to stand guard for him.
You don 't need reminding that Julie admitted the cheque book fraud was her idea and she accomplished it using her FRIEND, Susan Battersby's cheque book and forging her signature which goes some way beyond being a teenage prank.
There is a plethora of evidence that June was opposed to people living together unmarried, which Christianity considers a sin and until very recently was frowned on by society as a whole (also opposed to premarital sex), and thus that they wanted to find a place for her to live separate from Jeremy and that is also why they welcomed the idea of Julie and Jeremy marrying.
How much of it was because of appearance sake and how much because of religion is anyone's guess and not particularly relevant.
Julie and Susan made it sound like a prank done to impress Jeremy and it seems credible.
Those trying to pretend Jeremy was squeaky clean and so forth are just embarrassing themselves and tryin gto pretend that nothing Julie says is credible because of the checkbook robbery are the same peopel saying Jeremy should be trusted despite being caught lying repeatedly and even want to pretend some lies were not lies.
WHy is it that you always try to defend Jeremy so vigiorously and Jeremy supporters even when the claims are so absurd like the nonsense about Julie causing Jeremy to commit the Caravan robbery?
Do you intentionally like to sabotage your own credibility?
-
There is a plethora of evidence that June was opposed to people living together unmarried, which Christianity considers a sin and until very recently was frowned on by society as a whole (also opposed to premarital sex), and thus that they wanted to find a place for her to live separate from Jeremy and that is also why they welcomed the idea of Julie and Jeremy marrying.
How much of it was because of appearance sake and how much because of religion is anyone's guess and not particularly relevant.
Julie and Susan made it sound like a prank done to impress Jeremy and it seems credible.
Those trying to pretend Jeremy was squeaky clean and so forth are just embarrassing themselves and tryin gto pretend that nothing Julie says is credible because of the checkbook robbery are the same peopel saying Jeremy should be trusted despite being caught lying repeatedly and even want to pretend some lies were not lies.
WHy is it that you always try to defend Jeremy so vigiorously and Jeremy supporters even when the claims are so absurd like the nonsense about Julie causing Jeremy to commit the Caravan robbery?
Do you intentionally like to sabotage your own credibility?
That is convenient for you to claim, but I am not buying that. It shows Julie as a person who does not own up to her own wrongdoings, but wipes them off on others. If you read her statements thoroughly (also the one from 2002), you clearly see that that is a pattern with her.
But ANYTHING to blacken Jeremy - even a fraud he had nothing to do with. That is bias. Do you intentionally like to make yourself look biased?
-
As a matter of interest, have you worked out how long it would have taken Julie to get from Goldhanger ti Goldsmith College using public transport?
Have you any proof that it was ever suggested she should live with Jeremy on a permanent basis?
Are you suggesting Jeremy FORCED Julie to stand guard for him.
You don 't need reminding that Julie admitted the cheque book fraud was her idea and she accomplished it using her FRIEND, Susan Battersby's cheque book and forging her signature which goes some way beyond being a teenage prank.
There is a plethora of evidence that June was opposed to people living together unmarried, which Christianity considers a sin and until very recently was frowned on by society as a whole (also opposed to premarital sex), and thus that they wanted to find a place for her to live separate from Jeremy and that is also why they welcomed the idea of Julie and Jeremy marrying.
How much of it was because of appearance sake and how much because of religion is anyone's guess and not particularly relevant.
Julie and Susan made it sound like a prank done to impress Jeremy and it seems credible.
Those trying to pretend Jeremy was squeaky clean and so forth are just embarrassing themselves and tryin gto pretend that nothing Julie says is credible because of the checkbook robbery are the same peopel saying Jeremy should be trusted despite being caught lying repeatedly and even want to pretend some lies were not lies.
WHy is it that you always try to defend Jeremy so vigiorously and Jeremy supporters even when the claims are so absurd like the nonsense about Julie causing Jeremy to commit the Caravan robbery?
Do you intentionally like to sabotage your own credibility?
Why are you answering points I haven't raised?
I didn't bring June and her beliefs in to the post because I didn't think it relevant.
Perhaps you can tell me how long it would have taken Julie to travel by public transport from Goldhanger to Goldsmith College.
It really matters not a JOT what Julie and Susan made their jolly SOUND like. They broke the law which USUALLY doesn't take into consideration that it was a prank carried out to impress a boyfriend.
I don't recall ever having VIGOUROUSLY defended Jeremy. Please try to differentiate between us in stead of labeling us idiots and liars.
-
That is convenient for you to claim, but I am not buying that. It shows Julie as a person who does not own up to her own wrongdoings, but wipes them off on others. If you read her statements thoroughly (also the one from 2002), you clearly see that that is a pattern with her.
But ANYTHING to blacken Jeremy - even a fraud he had nothing to do with. That is bias. Do you intentionally like to make yourself look biased?
I totally agree, the bank fraud was (by her own admission) the idea of Julie Mugford - it actually shows that she can be quite manipulative, in that she talked Susan into using HER cheque book. Her mention of Jeremy was simply to make sure Jeremy's name was never far from the negative aspects in her life. I might think Jeremy is probably guilty, BUT when something is OFF it's no good trying to make it smell sweet and mentioning Jeremy in the cheque book fraud stinks!!
-
That is convenient for you to claim, but I am not buying that. It shows Julie as a person who does not own up to her own wrongdoings, but wipes them off on others. If you read her statements thoroughly (also the one from 2002), you clearly see that that is a pattern with her.
But ANYTHING to blacken Jeremy - even a fraud he had nothing to do with. That is bias. Do you intentionally like to make yourself look biased?
It's not bias, the claim that Jeremy teased her about being squeaky clean ad trying to get her involved in criminal activities is credible. Explain why it is not credible and that instead you believe she was out to just profit economicially- what did she buy- oh things for Jeremy to impress him with what she had done...
In the meantime I don't cite this issue to establish he is dirty and thus likely guilty. Rather biased peopel liek yourself and the other Bamberettes as the red baord clals you try anythign to say nothing Julie says should be trusted and we should believe she lied in total and try pretending that is the main evidence against Jeremy not the true heart of the case which is that ther eis no way Sheila could have killed everyone else or killed herself and thus Jeremy did it and simply tried to frame her.
-
As a matter of interest, have you worked out how long it would have taken Julie to get from Goldhanger ti Goldsmith College using public transport?
Have you any proof that it was ever suggested she should live with Jeremy on a permanent basis?
Are you suggesting Jeremy FORCED Julie to stand guard for him.
You don 't need reminding that Julie admitted the cheque book fraud was her idea and she accomplished it using her FRIEND, Susan Battersby's cheque book and forging her signature which goes some way beyond being a teenage prank.
Julie testified that June offered to buy her a property in London or Essex. Is there proof. No. Only a testimony. June cannot confirm or deny. Sheila shot her 8 times after June invited her over for a free holiday.
Susan Battersby's WS does not say she was forced into using her own cheque book. She does not even say it was Julies idea.
Jeremy took Julie to the caravan site and told her to wait outside as a lookout. Jeremy would only be a few minutes.
-
I totally agree, the bank fraud was (by her own admission) the idea of Julie Mugford - it actually shows that she can be quite manipulative, in that she talked Susan into using HER cheque book. Her mention of Jeremy was simply to make sure Jeremy's name was never far from the negative aspects in her life. I might think Jeremy is probably guilty, BUT when something is OFF it's no good trying to make it smell sweet and mentioning Jeremy in the cheque book fraud stinks!!
Susuan claims she decided on her own at a later date what the hell and to do it for kicks.
The same manipulation you describe from Julie to Susan is what Julie describes from Jeremy.
It certainly sounds like peer pressure combined with getting kicks to me not some major crime effort where Julie wanted some material object badly and resorted to crime to get it.
-
Poor squeaky clean drug grower Jeremy was tricked into Robbing the caravan site by his rotten girlfriend...
How long does it take you to make up such stupid things?
Now don't be silly scipio. No one forced Muggy to be his accomplice. You at least with all your law degrees that the law doesn't recognise the fact that she was an accomplice in crime and that being "ignorant" of a crime is no excuse. You really surprise me sometimes. There am I of very low intelligence and even I get it. But you still appear to show your overwhelming ignorance sometimes. ::)
-
There is a plethora of evidence that June was opposed to people living together unmarried, which Christianity considers a sin and until very recently was frowned on by society as a whole (also opposed to premarital sex), and thus that they wanted to find a place for her to live separate from Jeremy and that is also why they welcomed the idea of Julie and Jeremy marrying.
How much of it was because of appearance sake and how much because of religion is anyone's guess and not particularly relevant.
Julie and Susan made it sound like a prank done to impress Jeremy and it seems credible.
Those trying to pretend Jeremy was squeaky clean and so forth are just embarrassing themselves and tryin gto pretend that nothing Julie says is credible because of the checkbook robbery are the same peopel saying Jeremy should be trusted despite being caught lying repeatedly and even want to pretend some lies were not lies.
WHy is it that you always try to defend Jeremy so vigiorously and Jeremy supporters even when the claims are so absurd like the nonsense about Julie causing Jeremy to commit the Caravan robbery?
Do you intentionally like to sabotage your own credibility?
If it's not relevant then why go to the trouble of mentioning it?
-
Why are you answering points I haven't raised?
I didn't bring June and her beliefs in to the post because I didn't think it relevant.
Perhaps you can tell me how long it would have taken Julie to travel by public transport from Goldhanger to Goldsmith College.
It really matters not a JOT what Julie and Susan made their jolly SOUND like. They broke the law which USUALLY doesn't take into consideration that it was a prank carried out to impress a boyfriend.
I don't recall ever having VIGOUROUSLY defended Jeremy. Please try to differentiate between us in stead of labeling us idiots and liars.
He always does that and then accuses you of saying things you haven't said. It id his way of spreading the dirt on you. It takes a filthy mind to do that kind of thing. ;)
-
Susuan claims she decided on her own at a later date what the hell and to do it for kicks.
The same manipulation you describe from Julie to Susan is what Julie describes from Jeremy.
It certainly sounds like peer pressure combined with getting kicks to me not some major crime effort where Julie wanted some material object badly and resorted to crime to get it.
It matters not an iota that you think of it as a harmless prank to get kicks from. The law says it's a crime.
-
Is there any documentation about Julies Scarface esq life at Goldsmiths college ?
There is nothing in her WS and no record of her being questioned about it in court. Jeremy told his lawyers about Susan Battersby's 1984 cheque book fraud. So don't know why he would not tell them about drug dealing. She admitted the caravan break in and her knowledge of Jeremy's plans to the police straight away. But never said she was a drug dealer.
I know Jeremy grew drugs and went on a cannabis buying trip to Amsterdam directly after the massacre. That was either for his personal use, or to sell. Not for Julie.
-
Julie even lied about what she did with the "loot". Susan threw hers in the garbage, Julie remembers that very well (it is in her statement); but she cannot remember what she did with hers - she never mentioned that part of what she stole, she gave to Jeremy as gifts.
"Probably gave it to Sally Army", yeah, right! ::) Julie is a liar.
-
Now don't be silly scipio. No one forced Muggy to be his accomplice. You at least with all your law degrees that the law doesn't recognise the fact that she was an accomplice in crime and that being "ignorant" of a crime is no excuse. You really surprise me sometimes. There am I of very low intelligence and even I get it. But you still appear to show your overwhelming ignorance sometimes. ::)
You are changing the subject. Instead of having the balls to tell Jackie she is being silly in suggesting Julie was behind the Caravan robbery and put Jeremy up to it, which I just did, you try changing the subject completely to the issue of whether Julie was an accomplice.
To be an accomplice requires telling the person you are committing a crime and having them do something to assist. That means Jeremy would have to testify he told her he was goign to tob the place and she went with him knowingly to rob it. hat is what the law requires and his claims have to be so credible that his word will be believed over hers.
But again not the subject of this thread. This thread's topic is about the absurd allegation that Jeremy was squaky clean and rotten julie put him up to the Caravan robbery. Something the truth seeking jeremy supporters here don't want to challenge though they should if they were actually the objective truth seekers they claim to be.
-
well she put someone else up to comiting check book fraud so she capable of planning crimes herself.
-
It is a bit desperate to claim Julie lied in court because she committed a minor cheque book fraud a year earlier with a friends cheque book.
Shall we discard all witnesses in future trials if they have previously committed a crime ?
-
that would be a very good idea.
-
Julie testified that June offered to buy her a property in London or Essex. Is there proof. No. Only a testimony. June cannot confirm or deny. Sheila shot her 8 times after June invited her over for a free holiday.
SO WE ONLY HAVE JULIE'S WORD FOR IT THAT SUCH AN OFFER WAS MADE.
Susan Battersby's WS does not say she was forced into using her own cheque book. She does not even say it was Julies idea.
BUT JULIE SAID IT WAS HER IDEA. POSSIBLY THE FIRST TIME SHE'D TAKEN AN Y RESPONSIBILITY,BUT THE LESSER EVIL, I IMAGINE.
Jeremy took Julie to the caravan site and told her to wait outside as a lookout. Jeremy would only be a few minutes.
SO ACCORDING TO THAT, JEREMY NEVER ASKED HER TO BE A LOOKOUT.
-
We don´t know who got the idea of the caravan site break-in. It could have been Jeremy, but it could just as well have been Julie. She already had an idea for a pretty crafty cheque book fraud and carried it out with an accomplice. So there.
-
well she allready had form for puting people up to things.
-
You are changing the subject. Instead of having the balls to tell Jackie she is being silly in suggesting Julie was behind the Caravan robbery and put Jeremy up to it, which I just did, you try changing the subject completely to the issue of whether Julie was an accomplice.
To be an accomplice requires telling the person you are committing a crime and having them do something to assist. That means Jeremy would have to testify he told her he was goign to tob the place and she went with him knowingly to rob it. hat is what the law requires and his claims have to be so credible that his word will be believed over hers.
But again not the subject of this thread. This thread's topic is about the absurd allegation that Jeremy was squaky clean and rotten julie put him up to the Caravan robbery. Something the truth seeking jeremy supporters here don't want to challenge though they should if they were actually the objective truth seekers they claim to be.
Of course I'm not changing the subject. I was answering your post. You've even repeated it in your answer to my post.
Indeed I and no one else has ever presented Jeremy as "squeeky clean". On the contrary it is you and the other guilters who are trying to present JM as squeeky clean. Silly boy.
-
Julie even lied about what she did with the "loot". Susan threw hers in the garbage, Julie remembers that very well (it is in her statement); but she cannot remember what she did with hers - she never mentioned that part of what she stole, she gave to Jeremy as gifts.
"Probably gave it to Sally Army", yeah, right! ::) Julie is a liar.
Susan mentioned some things were purchased for Jeremy.
Prove that Julie lied about doing it because she wanted to impress Jeremy. Her claim is one difficult to disprove since it deals with her mental thought process.
You are the same person who didnd't want to believe Jeremy could have used a window he admitted he used so you are not exactly the best judge...
-
Susan mentioned some things were purchased for Jeremy.
Prove that Julie lied about doing it because she wanted to impress Jeremy. Her claim is one difficult to disprove since it deals with her mental thought process.
You are the same person who didnd't want to believe Jeremy could have used a window he admitted he used so you are not exactly the best judge...
So this thief presented Jeremy with stolen gifts then?
-
You are changing the subject..........................................
A trait he must have learned from you.
-
It is a bit desperate to claim Julie lied in court because she committed a minor cheque book fraud a year earlier with a friends cheque book.
Shall we discard all witnesses in future trials if they have previously committed a crime ?
-
Jeremy's defence brought this up in court.
Why ? Because Jeremy told them about it. They also realised that her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.
So they focused on Julie to try to discredit her. And put reasonable doubt into the jury.
Julie never retracted a word of her WS.
-
A trait he must have learned from you.
That's another trick this man has. He changes the subject and when we answer him he blames us for changing the subject. I dislike double tongued deceivers.
-
A trait he must have learned from you.
hardly I stay on course which is why I brought it back to the subject at hand. It is jeremy supporters who always defelct because a debate of the core evidence ends up proving Jeremy is guiolty and tha this supporters have no leg to stand on.
-
Susan mentioned some things were purchased for Jeremy.
Prove that Julie lied about doing it because she wanted to impress Jeremy. Her claim is one difficult to disprove since it deals with her mental thought process.
You are the same person who didnd't want to believe Jeremy could have used a window he admitted he used so you are not exactly the best judge...
You shouldn´t talk; you are the person who was perfectly willing to accept that Jeremy had crawled through that tiny fan window at the top, when that would have been impossible. You were willing to accept that because it served your agenda.
-
Jeremy's defence brought this up in court.
Why ? Because Jeremy told them about it. They also realised that her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.
So they focused on Julie to try to discredit her. And put reasonable doubt into the jury.
Julie never retracted a word of her WS.
Adam could you please show us where his defence team said JM's statement had a "ring of truth"? Because it doesn't sound like something a defense counsel would do? If they did then they were not representing their client properly.
-
Jeremy's defence brought this up in court.
Why ? Because Jeremy told them about it. They also realised that her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.
So they focused on Julie to try to discredit her. And put reasonable doubt into the jury.
Julie never retracted a word of her WS.
Julie affirms that Jeremy told her that it was important to tell as much of the truth as possible. On reflection, it's perfectly possible that it was she who said it to him. It sounds as if it may have been a maxim she was happy to live by.
-
Adam could you please show us where his defence team said JM's statement had a "ring of truth"? Because it doesn't sound like something a defense counsel would do? If they did then they were not representing their client properly.
I have recently provided the source after Grahame asked me.
-
That's another trick this man has. He changes the subject and when we answer him he blames us for changing the subject. I dislike double tongued deceivers.
That's funny because you and other Jeremy supporters always change the subjects of threads to hide from the evidence especially threads liek the ones about the order of the shots and how coudl Nevill have mad e acall inlight of the order of the shots.
I try to keep the subject on track when they are off course already I do comment and help the tangent to go further but I don't try to change the topics to deflect like Jeremy supporters.
I don't need ot run form anything because Jeremy supporters have nothing that needs to be run from I cna refute anything that anytually matters that Jeremy supporters claim. The reaosn why is not merely because the facts are against Jeremy and I am informed enough to know it so can't be fooled the way jeremy supporters manage to decieve some.
-
hardly I stay on course which is why I brought it back to the subject at hand. It is jeremy supporters who always defelct because a debate of the core evidence ends up proving Jeremy is guiolty and tha this supporters have no leg to stand on.
I didn't deflect you I answered you directly. You claimed that the supporters portray Jeremy as as squeeky clean. I said they don't. On the contrary it is you as wiley as you are who are portraying JM as squeeky clean when all she was was a downright thief acting on her own volition. Fce it, don't show yourself up as a numpty. Go on, or don't you have the balls to admit you're wrong? ::)
-
Adam could you please show us where his defence team said JM's statement had a "ring of truth"? Because it doesn't sound like something a defense counsel would do? If they did then they were not representing their client properly.
no half decent defence barrister would ever say something like that.
-
I have recently provided the source after Grahame asked me.
Go on Adam humour me. You know I'm a person of low intelligence.
-
That's funny because you and other Jeremy supporters always change the subjects of threads to hide from the evidence especially threads liek the ones about the order of the shots and how coudl Nevill have mad e acall inlight of the order of the shots.
I try to keep the subject on track when they are off course already I do comment and help the tangent to go further but I don't try to change the topics to deflect like Jeremy supporters.
I don't need ot run form anything because Jeremy supporters have nothing that needs to be run from I cna refute anything that anytually matters that Jeremy supporters claim. The reaosn why is not merely because the facts are against Jeremy and I am informed enough to know it so can't be fooled the way jeremy supporters manage to decieve some.
I'm not arguing with you scipio you old fart. What I posted is true. Go check it out. You are the deceiver not I.
-
no half decent defence barrister would ever say something like that.
They did not say it at trial. They said it behind closed doors. They have to be realistic.
-
Forging signatures is a pretty serious crime.
-
Julie affirms that Jeremy told her that it was important to tell as much of the truth as possible. On reflection, it's perfectly possible that it was she who said it to him. It sounds as if it may have been a maxim she was happy to live by.
When did she claim he told her such? Are you referring to this because if so your characterization is way off:
(http://s7.postimg.org/vuvvwadtn/julie.jpg)
-
I'm not arguing with you scipio you old fart. What I posted is true. Go check it out. You are the deceiver not I.
In your mind it is true maybe but as you admitted yourself yesterdya you ar eusually wrong...
-
In your mind it is true maybe but as you admitted yourself yesterdya you ar eusually wrong...
Too proud to go and look are you. Well I'm not surprised. No balls to admit you're wrong. ;)
-
Forging signatures is a pretty serious crime.
I know someone at work who did this. Twice.
He was demoted. Twice. But worked his way back up to management level.
-
I know someone at work who did this. Twice.
He was demoted. Twice. But worked his way back up to management level.
Just goes to show that crafty psychopaths are normally in management.....
-
That's funny because you and other Jeremy supporters always change the subjects of threads to hide from the evidence especially threads liek the ones about the order of the shots and how coudl Nevill have mad e acall inlight of the order of the shots.
I try to keep the subject on track when they are off course already I do comment and help the tangent to go further but I don't try to change the topics to deflect like Jeremy supporters.
I don't need ot run form anything because Jeremy supporters have nothing that needs to be run from I cna refute anything that anytually matters that Jeremy supporters claim. The reaosn why is not merely because the facts are against Jeremy and I am informed enough to know it so can't be fooled the way jeremy supporters manage to decieve some.
Just WHO do you think you are? It seems that in your eyes, you're incapable of doing or saying anything wrong. It appears that in your eyes you hold yourself superior even to those who agree that Jeremy is guilty. You're NOT God Almighty. You're NOT the fount of all knowledge and on this forum you're just another voice with an opinion which has no more important than any other opinion. The only area in which you supersede, apart, that is, from changing the subject in your response to a previous post and twisting what the poster has said, is that of being loud mouthed and arrogant which is hardly a commendation.
-
Just WHO do you think you are? It seems that in your eyes, you're incapable of doing or saying anything wrong. It appears that in your eyes you hold yourself superior even to those who agree that Jeremy is guilty. You're NOT God Almighty. You're NOT the fount of all knowledge and on this forum you're just another voice with an opinion which has no more important than any other opinion. The only area in which you supersede, apart, that is, from changing the subject in your response to a previous post and twisting what the poster has said, is that of being loud mouthed and arrogant which is hardly a commendation.
Those my dear April are the exact symptoms of a psychopath or at least a sociopath. Don't you recognise it?
-
Just WHO do you think you are? It seems that in your eyes, you're incapable of doing or saying anything wrong. It appears that in your eyes you hold yourself superior even to those who agree that Jeremy is guilty. You're NOT God Almighty. You're NOT the fount of all knowledge and on this forum you're just another voice with an opinion which has no more important than any other opinion. The only area in which you supersede, apart, that is, from changing the subject in your response to a previous post and twisting what the poster has said, is that of being loud mouthed and arrogant which is hardly a commendation.
I'm someone who has no need to change a subject to avoid discussing it because I can discuss any issue with competence and without fear unlikely Jeremy supporters who well know the evidence is agains tthem and they can't actually defend their positions with evidence so have to distort and change the subject to avoid dealing with evidence they can't refute.
-
I need to check this with Ngb because I don't think there is 'a minor cheque book fraud'
I believe anything relating to fraud goes straight to Crown Court and cannot be dealt with at magistrates court
-
I'm someone who has no need to change a subject to avoid discussing it because I can discuss any issue with competence and without fear unlikely Jeremy supporters who well know the evidence is agains tthem and they can't actually defend their positions with evidence so have to distort and change the subject to avoid dealing with evidence they can't refute.
You unfortunately are acting rather like a numpty in denial aren't you. You can't even find where I "changed the subject" as you said.
-
I'm someone who has no need to change a subject to avoid discussing it because I can discuss any issue with competence and without fear unlikely Jeremy supporters who well know the evidence is agains tthem and they can't actually defend their positions with evidence so have to distort and change the subject to avoid dealing with evidence they can't refute.
But you do it anyway. In fact just moments ago it was you who introduced June into a discussion which had nothing to do with her. If I was the only one who said it, it COULD be that I'm mistaken, but many posters say the same of you. If you're so clever there's no need for it. It seems that how you see yourself and how others see you is vastly different. We are, perhaps, better judges than you, of how we experience you.
-
What is the punishment for cheque fraud in UK?
1 Answer • Law & Ethics
Best Answer (Chosen by Voter)
There are many types of "fraud". Benefit fraud, tax fraud, mortgage fraud, obtaining money by deception etc. Generally, large scale frauds and tax frauds are dealt with more seriously.
Obtaining money transfer by deception generally attracts around an 18 month sentence. The Fraud Act 2006 re-stated the law on fraud, and what constitutes fraud.
A person is guilty of fraud if he uses a false representation, or fails to disclose information, or abuses his position, to dishonestly gain.
If tried in the magistrates court, fraud carries a maximum prison term of 12 months. If heard in the Crown Court, the maximum sentence is 10 years. Owning an item to be used in a fraudulent act (such as a forged cheque book) can result in 5 years imprisonment (Fraud Act 2006 S6 (2)(b))
A court will consider various things in the sentencing. Defendants are usually given credit for an early guilty plea. They are also given credit for anything in mitigation, such as previous character etc. A heavier sentence will result from defrauding HMRC (the tax man) or government agencies, especially over a long period of time, using the money frivolously, or defrauding somebody in a vulberable position (eg banker defrauding customer, carer defrauding elderly) etc. A large scale fraud will yield a higher penalty.
-
Hardly a minor crime!!!
-
there allso given a lot of mitagation for telling the police what they want to hear.
-
I need to check this with Ngb because I don't think there is 'a minor cheque book fraud'
I believe anything relating to fraud goes straight to Crown Court and cannot be dealt with at magistrates court
for the amount involved the usual sentence is a fine. Particularly when it is a first offense and a one time thing. The young age also factors into merely being given a fine. To get any jailtime yo uneed to steal in excess of 5000 pounds and even then there are mitigating factors that could end up resulting in little to no actual jailtime.
-
What is the punishment for cheque fraud in UK?
1 Answer • Law & Ethics
Best Answer (Chosen by Voter)
There are many types of "fraud". Benefit fraud, tax fraud, mortgage fraud, obtaining money by deception etc. Generally, large scale frauds and tax frauds are dealt with more seriously.
Obtaining money transfer by deception generally attracts around an 18 month sentence. The Fraud Act 2006 re-stated the law on fraud, and what constitutes fraud.
A person is guilty of fraud if he uses a false representation, or fails to disclose information, or abuses his position, to dishonestly gain.
If tried in the magistrates court, fraud carries a maximum prison term of 12 months. If heard in the Crown Court, the maximum sentence is 10 years. Owning an item to be used in a fraudulent act (such as a forged cheque book) can result in 5 years imprisonment (Fraud Act 2006 S6 (2)(b))
A court will consider various things in the sentencing. Defendants are usually given credit for an early guilty plea. They are also given credit for anything in mitigation, such as previous character etc. A heavier sentence will result from defrauding HMRC (the tax man) or government agencies, especially over a long period of time, using the money frivolously, or defrauding somebody in a vulberable position (eg banker defrauding customer, carer defrauding elderly) etc. A large scale fraud will yield a higher penalty.
It wasn't only a cheque book fraud Jackie. It was obtaining goods by deceit and handling stolen goods. Remember they didn't return any of the goods they obtained through the cheque book scam. So in effect those businesses lost valuable revenue as well as Muggy said she either gave them to a charity shop (some gift!) or threw them away.
I does of course depend on many things. But I sat in court one day and saw a girl who committed a similar crime as Muggy and cher friend and she went down for about two years. But of course Essex Police needed her to testify against Bamber. She was their STAR witness and so she wasn't charged. Can you really see anyone else get away with such a crime? Of course not.
-
well some people are treated less harshly than others but very few people get of scot free.
-
for the amount involved the usual sentence is a fine. Particularly when it is a first offense and a one time thing. The young age also factors into merely being given a fine. To get any jailtime yo uneed to steal in excess of 5000 pounds and even then there are mitigating factors that could end up resulting in little to no actual jailtime.
It wasn´t quite a one time thing. There was the Osea Park robbery, the drug dealing and possible accessory to murder.
-
she was looking at few years in jail if the police had on her in an unfaverable light.
-
well some people are treated less harshly than others but very few people get of scot free.
Remember nugnug this was no ordinary chequbook fraud. It was obtaining good by deceit as well. Which included theft of clothing which she either gave away to others or threw away. The law does not recognise the excuse of being influenced by others. But very odd that the cops did not prosecut old Muggy isn't it.
-
well no its that odd at all when you think of it.
they dont want to descredit there star witness by convicting her of a serious crime.
-
Not minor
her idea
End of her teaching career as well then.
-
oh thats the sure but i think it pretty much ended anyway.
-
It wasn´t quite a one time thing. There was the Osea Park robbery, the drug dealing and possible accessory to murder.
A one time fraud.
Only convictions matter as to sentencing.
What evidence could have convicted her of drug dealing?
What evidence of accessory to murder?
What evidence of accessory to the caravan robbery?
Jeremy would have to admit his guilt and provide credible testimony to establish she helped with the murders. Same with respect to the caravan robbery.
-
A one time fraud.
Only convictions matter as to sentencing.
What evidence could have convicted her of drug dealing?
What evidence of accessory to murder?
What evidence of accessory to the caravan robbery?
Jeremy would have to admit his guilt and provide credible testimony to establish she helped with the murders. Same with respect to the caravan robbery.
But not a one time crime. All criminal activity counts.
-
Not minor
her idea
End of her teaching career as well then.
And that is possibly what they threatened her with.
-
A one time fraud.
Only convictions matter as to sentencing.
What evidence could have convicted her of drug dealing?
What evidence of accessory to murder?
What evidence of accessory to the caravan robbery?
Jeremy would have to admit his guilt and provide credible testimony to establish she helped with the murders. Same with respect to the caravan robbery.
they had more than enough from her own mouth to chardge her as an acessery to murder.
-
there is something else that strikes me as odd.
We have been told recently that apparently Anne Eaton could be a credible witness .
So if Julie in her own words lay on the bed on the night of the murders and KNEW that Jeremy had done the murders , then how come Anne said she was so composed and not upset at all after going to ID the family ?
Apparently at that time she knew Jeremy had done it , she could have been charged herself as she knew of the plans before hand and then she had to see the bodies of the poor children and yet no emotion ? No nerves? No feeling ill with shock ? No qualms about being with Jeremy and supporting him?
Bit strange really.
-
And that is possibly what they threatened her with.
im sure they threatend her with everything possble under the sun.
-
A one time fraud. Doesn't count
Only convictions matter as to sentencing.
What evidence could have convicted her of drug dealing?
What evidence of accessory to murder?You said it yourself. She covered up for her boyfriend
What evidence of accessory to the caravan robbery? She admitted it
Jeremy would have to admit his guilt and provide credible testimony to establish she helped with the murders. Same with respect to the caravan robbery.
-
They did not say it at trial. They said it behind closed doors. They have to be realistic.
So have they admitted to some other source that those words were actually said because if they were "realistic" enough to say them behind closed doors it would appear that they didn't want them to be heard.
-
What shows time and time again is lie after lie and then deception
How could she face Colin at the funerals if she knew Jeremy was responsible
She thought she was facing a life of luxury as lady of the manor and then it all fell apart when Jeremy dumped
-
What shows time and time again is lie after lie and then deception
How could she face Colin at the funerals if she knew Jeremy was responsible
She thought she was facing a life of luxury as lady of the manor and then it all fell apart when Jeremy dumped
Actually I wonder what other behaviour she exhibited in the first days after the event?
-
What shows time and time again is lie after lie and then deception
How could she face Colin at the funerals if she knew Jeremy was responsible
She thought she was facing a life of luxury as lady of the manor and then it all fell apart when Jeremy dumped
Colin Caffell writes in his book that Julie visited him after Jeremy´s arrest. She was very nervous, and he writes that some of what she told him, he can never reveal. Why would he write that? He could just keep his mouth shut if he cannot talk about it; but he chose to say it anyway.
Wonder what it is.
-
Actually I wonder what other behaviour she exhibited in the first days after the event?
Well, as she is the "story teller/watcher" we're unlikely ever to know, but we can rest assured she'd have airbrushed her own behaviour.
-
Julie Mugford
Information on this web site was first uploaded to the internet in December 2011.
Julie Smerchanski (nee Mugford) was Jeremy Bamber’s girlfriend at the time of the tragedy. Originally from a working class background she must have felt that she had done very well on the social scale when she dated the good looking, intelligent, wealthy and public school educated Jeremy Bamber. At the time Julie was studying to be a teacher at Goldsmith’s college in London, during the summer she worked with young children on a nursery project.(1) After the shootings she even went to the mortuary to identify the bodies of Nevill, June, Sheila and Nicholas and Daniel Caffell on the 7th of August 1985. (2)
Julie had not been very happy in her relationship with Jeremy and towards the end of August she had realized that it was all but over after Jeremy had publicly announced that he would not be getting engaged to her when Brett Collins had jokingly announced that they would be betrothed. Collins was a Homosexual friend of Jeremy’s whom Julie disliked intensely. Collin’s believed that Julie wanted the relationship with Jeremy to move on to a commitment and that Jeremy had not felt the same way. (3)
In her 17th December 1985 statement she states that by the 1st September she had said to Jeremy; “I would really love to hurt him and told him that I tried to stab the teddy bear that he had given me as a present.” Julie goes on to state that that night “We didn’t sleep well and at one point I got a pillow and put it over his head, I took it off and he asked me why I did it, and I said if he were dead he would always be with me.”
By the 4th of September 1985 the reality of the relationship ending had become all too real for Julie when she discovered Jeremy talking on the phone to another woman called Virginia, with whom he had planned to start a relationship with. He was making arrangements to meet her and Julie was furious. Julie had realized that her relationship with Jeremy was over and smashed a mirror by throwing an ornament at it in a fit of rage, she then physically attacked Jeremy. Jeremy finished their relationship and Julie found this difficult to accept and denied that it ever happened. After this she saw Jeremy only once more when he and Brett helped her move house in London and she described the parting as being on a “reasonable happy note.” Although clearly Julie had not felt happy about the parting at all. (4)
On the 8th September attended witham police station, after Stan Jones had ensured she was “reported for process” she was charged with burglary as detailed by Mr Adams of the DPP the charge was then curiously withdrawn on the 5th of December 1985, he said in a handwritten addendum: “I also agree the burglary charge can be withdrawn”.
She went from Witham police station to the police training School in Chelmsford, in the process claiming expenses from police, where she made statements claiming that Jeremy had told her he had hired a hit man called Matthew McDonald to kill the family for the payment of £2,000. (5) But previously on the 8th August 1985 she made a statement to the police saying quite the opposite. Her story now shifted to say that Jeremy had called her at home after the hit man had called him to tell him he had committed the killings. She said that when Jeremy rang he just said that there was something wrong at the farm. She took that to mean that the murders had been committed. The tone of the call had changed in Julie’s new description, and in this version the time of the call had now shifted from 3:30am in her original statement to 3:12am. The Defence believe this was done to put Jeremy’s call to her prior to him calling the police. (6)
Julie now claimed that Jeremy had mentioned many times that he intended to kill his family, and yet according to her – she did nothing, even after the killings were carried out, she did nothing. Julie, a trainee school teacher, who had been working with children went and identified the bodies of 6 year old murdered children and said nothing. For a whole month Julie Mugford did nothing. She would have us believe that she still loved, slept with, ate with and took money off of a man who had murdered his whole family in cold blood and her excuse for this was that she “felt sorry for him” and that she “couldn’t believe it was real.” (7)
Julie Mugford told the court that the hit man told Jeremy that Nevill Bamber had been shot 7 times.(8). The newspapers had reported that Nevill Bamber had been shot 7 times and yet the truth was that Nevill Bamber had been shot 8 times. Julie Mugford’s evidence came from local gossip about the tragedy, newspaper articles, and from Ann Eaton who had been given information by police officers. The court was aware of this, and unconvinced by her evidence the trial jury could not reach a verdict. After deliberations the judge asked if they wanted to see any evidence again which might help them make a decision,(9) they asked to see the evidence of the blood in the moderator, when they did they found Jeremy Bamber guilty by a 10-2 majority.
Julie Mugford had been approached by various newspapers with offers of money for her story. She instructed a solicitor months before the trial to negotiate a deal with the highest bidder which was the News of The World. She was already in a hotel with (DS Jones and another police officer) paid for by The News of The World as the verdict was given, where she posed for photographs provocatively dressed and smiling for the camera then accepting a cool sum of £25,000 for her story which even by today’s standards is a lot of money, in 1985 this would have been a princely sum. She states that she spent the money on an apartment. If Julie Mugford had signed the contract before giving her evidence she would have been in contempt of court. The fact that she arranged this contract pre-trial did not break the letter of the law. It shows that Mugford had pre-meditated to obtain money, and all but signed a contract for her story upon a guilty verdict this in an unsuitable action by a key prosecution witness.(10)
In 2002 for the appeal (the Metropolitain police investigation being headed under the supervision of John Yates), the Defence tried to obtain a copy of the contract she signed. Apparently her solicitor no longer held a copy of the document and neither did the News of The World. Nevertheless, she made a statement to the police about this contract under her married name of Julie Smerchanski, and states “I clearly skim read the contract and missed a lot of the detail today I read all the small print.” This would be interpreted by you or I that on the day she wrote the statement she read a copy of the contract. But the CPS argued that this is not what she meant. Paul Close of the CPS states in a letter on the 22nd of July 2002 to Jeremy’s Defence lawyer:
‘The witness is clearly saying that in 1986 she “skim read” the document but today (as she is no doubt older and wiser) she would always read the small print. “I read” is clearly in the present tense and a general observation. She is not saying “today I have read”.’
The CPS maintains that the contract was NOT in existence in 2002 and that it could not be established when Julie signed the contract, indeed Julie herself says that she “couldn’t remember when it was signed.”
Back in 1987 the Press Council had ruled that the News of the World had broken their declaration of principle on cheque book journalism. Anyone can see that in this instance the media interfered with the judicial process as Julie’s money spinning deal was signed upon a guilty verdict.
After the trial Julie Mugford went on to live in Canada and in 2006 she even took up a post as the Vice Principal of a primary school in Winnipeg. She is currently Director of Assessment and instructional support services for the Winnipeg School Division.
Back in 1991 the City of London Police had investigated Essex Police they detailed a list of crimes which Julie had confessed to carrying out undetected These included, taking cannabis, selling cannabis, accessory to burglary at the caravan park, smuggling drugs back into the UK from Canada, and cheque book fraud. (11) Julie Mugford was never charged with any of these offences officially, but documents newly surfaced show that she was charged with burglary and this was withdrawn with permission from the DPP’s office, in the same document Julie is also advised she will be called as a prosecution witness. At the 2002 appeal the Defence put forward the suggestion that Julie Mugford and her friend and co-fraudster Susan Battersby had been given immunity from prosecution as a trade off for Julie’s testimony against Jeremy Bamber but the documents relating to this were under Public Interest Immunity. (12)
DCI Dickinson had interviewed Julie Mugford and her mother in 1986 after the trial but the interviews have never been disclosed to the Defence. The City of London Police suspected that Julie Mugford was given immunity from prosecution and after they followed the paper trail to the CPS they discovered that there were documents not to be disclosed to the Defence. Indeed the CPS had in their possession a file known as the “Confidential Crown Prosecution Service File relating to Julie Mugford and Trial preparation by Essex Police.” This file was passed to the Senior Crown Prosecutor known as Mr Stephen Swan. For the 2002 appeal the Metropolitan police tried to trace this file and took a statement from Mr Swan who stated that “I cannot remember who gave me the file, or who I gave it to after I had finished reading it.” The mystery remains: What happened to the confidential file and what was in it and is it right that the Defence should be denied access to these materials?
The Defence has also suggested that Julie’s statements were not written in the first person, senior police officers even questioned why she was writing in the third person. The grammar used in many of the statements is well below the standard of a student doing a degree at Masters level which further suggests that Julie didn’t write all of the statements herself. For example she told police “Matthew done it.” (13) During the period when Julie and her friend gave statements she was put up by police at their training centre and claimed expenses.Quite incredibly she was also seen by DS Jones the principal detective in this case no less than 32 times. (14)
We will leave the reader to draw their own conclusions about the reliability of evidence supplied by Julie Mugford. Whatever you decide, there can be no doubt about how much financial benefit she gained from the conviction of Jeremy Bamber, money she would not have received had the jury’s verdict been ‘not guilty.’
-
DCI Dickinson had interviewed Julie Mugford and her mother in 1986 after the trial but the interviews have never been disclosed to the Defence. The City of London Police suspected that Julie Mugford was given immunity from prosecution and after they followed the paper trail to the CPS they discovered that there were documents not to be disclosed to the Defence. Indeed the CPS had in their possession a file known as the “Confidential Crown Prosecution Service File relating to Julie Mugford and Trial preparation by Essex Police.” This file was passed to the Senior Crown Prosecutor known as Mr Stephen Swan. For the 2002 appeal the Metropolitan police tried to trace this file and took a statement from Mr Swan who stated that “I cannot remember who gave me the file, or who I gave it to after I had finished reading it.” The mystery remains: What happened to the confidential file and what was in it and is it right that the Defence should be denied access to these materials
-
DCI Dickinson had interviewed Julie Mugford and her mother in 1986 after the trial but the interviews have never been disclosed to the Defence. The City of London Police suspected that Julie Mugford was given immunity from prosecution and after they followed the paper trail to the CPS they discovered that there were documents not to be disclosed to the Defence. Indeed the CPS had in their possession a file known as the “Confidential Crown Prosecution Service File relating to Julie Mugford and Trial preparation by Essex Police.” This file was passed to the Senior Crown Prosecutor known as Mr Stephen Swan. For the 2002 appeal the Metropolitan police tried to trace this file and took a statement from Mr Swan who stated that “I cannot remember who gave me the file, or who I gave it to after I had finished reading it.” The mystery remains: What happened to the confidential file and what was in it and is it right that the Defence should be denied access to these materials
thank you for your post . why were Julie and her mother interviewed after the trial?
Also I was not aware the jury could not come to a decision the first time and they had to re-hear the evidence about the moderator.
-
They were put up in a hotel I think,Jansus.
-
They were put up in a hotel I think,Jansus.
They were put up in a hotel by the NOTW newspaper. In dications of a deal, or not? And then she had the gall to say to the judge in his chambers that she had not made any deal with any newspaper and does not intend to. Enough evidence?
-
They were put up in a hotel I think,Jansus.
No why did DCI dickinson interview them after the trial?
-
I think if Mugford had been strong enough attempted murder could have been listed as another one of her crimes
I expect Jeremy was too strong to be suffocated with a pillow
-
They were put up in a hotel by the NOTW newspaper. In dications of a deal, or not? And then she had the gall to say to the judge in his chambers that she had not made any deal with any newspaper and does not intend to. Enough evidence?
lying to a judge isnt that a crime in itself.
-
lying to a judge isnt that a crime in itself.
It is counted as contempt of court I believe nugnug?
-
It is counted as contempt of court I believe nugnug?
What do you call it when a judge falls asleep? :o
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28498362
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28498362)
-
A disaster. ;D
-
What do you call it when a judge falls asleep? :o
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28498362
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28498362)
A person who should be fired and who should be prosecuted for contempt of court!
-
Harters the poor Judge was tired or bored ;D
-
It is counted as contempt of court I believe nugnug?
so the poor old judge is telling the jury a load of rubbish and he does not even know it.
-
That's how it's done,nugs----------even when they're awake !
-
no wonder she left the country.
-
What do you call it when a judge falls asleep? :o
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28498362
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28498362)
Tired. :)
-
Harters the poor Judge was tired or bored ;D
How do we know that ALL judges don't fall asleep? They only noticed him because he forgot to paint eyes on his eyelids. ;)
-
Ha Ha Grahame maybe the Judges are just cardboard cut outs and just sit and nod ;D
-
How do we know that ALL judges don't fall asleep? They only noticed him because he forgot to paint eyes on his eyelids. ;)
Some people close their eyes but are still listening. Just say somethign they don't like and see them react...When they snore then you know they are asleep and often laughter wakes them up because it is hard not to laugh at someone snoring (unless they ar ein bed next to you in which case you want to cry or beat them).
-
Some people close their eyes but are still listening. Just say somethign they don't like and see them react...When they snore then you know they are asleep and often laughter wakes them up because it is hard not to laugh at someone snoring (unless they ar ein bed next to you in which case you want to cry or beat them).
Or invest in ear plugs OR move into another room :D
-
My friend with whom I worked used to get to the workshop very early in the morning so he could read aloud to himself. One day I painted a couple of eyes on the inside of the letterbox on the door. That freaked him out so much that he couldn't read anymore. ;D
-
Some people close their eyes but are still listening. Just say somethign they don't like and see them react...When they snore then you know they are asleep and often laughter wakes them up because it is hard not to laugh at someone snoring (unless they ar ein bed next to you in which case you want to cry or beat them).
LOL
-
My friend with whom I worked used to get to the workshop very early in the morning so he could read aloud to himself. One day I painted a couple of eyes on the inside of the letterbox on the door. That freaked him out so much that he couldn't read anymore. ;D
;D