The mysterious meeting in the judges chambers:

[Jan]

Can you not say what I will or won't accept please.

I asked a straight forward question as there is nothing in any online articles, witness statements, books or Youtube videos about this meeting.

You are having a laugh!!!

You use those sources all the time.

I am not going to bother NGB with this because I believe what he posts .

[Adam]

You are having a laugh!!!

You use those sources all the time.

I am not going to bother NGB with this because I believe what he posts .

Do you not bother to read anything ?

I said thank you on page 1. For you're 'primary' source of a post from a supporter.

Do you know where the 'Official' source is Grahame just mentioned ? Which was posted this week.  I must have missed it.

[lookout]

In fact,I'm quite angry about it as it proves MANIPULATION has/is going on and I don't like that. It's not nice,it's not clever and above all it DOES show a certain amount of desperation in those posts about getting THEIR points,which could be wrong,across.
I don't want to be force-fed ALL their misinformed information. I have a mind of my own and for the most part,have used my mind instead of having to refer to others just because they think and say that they're right.

Pretty soon,there'll be nothing else to refer to but posts made by Scipio and Adam.So where does that leave us if new members should join and just see their posts ?

[Adam]

In fact,I'm quite angry about it as it proves MANIPULATION has/is going on and I don't like that. It's not nice,it's not clever and above all it DOES show a certain amount of desperation in those posts about getting THEIR points,which could be wrong,across.
I don't want to be force-fed ALL their misinformed information. I have a mind of my own and for the most part,have used my mind instead of having to refer to others just because they think and say that they're right.

Pretty soon,there'll be nothing else to refer to but posts made by Scipio and Adam.So where does that leave us if new members should join and just see their posts ?

Feel free to create threads. You never have.

Scipio has not posted on here for a long time.

[Caroline]

In fact,I'm quite angry about it as it proves MANIPULATION has/is going on and I don't like that. It's not nice,it's not clever and above all it DOES show a certain amount of desperation in those posts about getting THEIR points,which could be wrong,across.
I don't want to be force-fed ALL their misinformed information. I have a mind of my own and for the most part,have used my mind instead of having to refer to others just because they think and say that they're right.

Pretty soon,there'll be nothing else to refer to but posts made by Scipio and Adam.So where does that leave us if new members should join and just see their posts ?

I get JUST as angry about misinformation Lookout and it's not just coming from one side - it's BOTH albeit intentionally or unintentionally.

[lookout]

Feel free to create threads. You never have.

Scipio has not posted on here for a long time.

Why should it matter that I have or haven't created any threads ? Aren't there already enough to be going on with ? Afterall,it's only going over old ground.
You just create them when you can't answer or reply to those put by others. You make sure that you make it as easy as you can for yourself.

I'm well aware that Scipio hasn't posted for a while,but his intentions were made more than clear by filling up reference areas of the search facility on the forum.

[Caroline]

I think everyone will agree that the NOTW were pretty harsh on poor Julie. She said she didn't want ANY money for the article and they made her take by writing it into the contract!!  I guess in the shock of things. she just didn't think to ask them to donate it to charity. That money must have been such a burden - I guess it was her penance and the heavy price she had to pay for not going to the police sooner. 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1210.0.html

[lookout]

Then why doesn't she come forward and say something then ? Surely it must have been bugging her for the past 30 years ? Afterall,she didn't hang on to her £25,000 for long,did she,before buying a flat,which is never really an overnight decision ?
Maybe it was after a short while that she saw the error of her ways and realised that she'd have to scarper--------------and quick ? Whether she made a killing on the sale of her flat before she fled,we don't know,but if not,it would have indicated the speed in which she wanted to leave the country ?

[Caroline]

Then why doesn't she come forward and say something then ? Surely it must have been bugging her for the past 30 years ? Afterall,she didn't hang on to her £25,000 for long,did she,before buying a flat,which is never really an overnight decision ?
Maybe it was after a short while that she saw the error of her ways and realised that she'd have to scarper--------------and quick ? Whether she made a killing on the sale of her flat before she fled,we don't know,but if not,it would have indicated the speed in which she wanted to leave the country ?

Are you asking me that Lookout?

[lookout]

 She could even have held on to that money to use at a later date to help Jeremy if,as it's been said,that they were in a " joint arrangement " as regards the murders ?? Legal costs,etc ?
If she'd been partly to blame,then her conscience would have swayed her to do that ? Well you would,wouldn't you if you were that way inclined ?

But Julie wasn't----------------------was she ?

[Mr. Gee]

Do you not bother to read anything ?

I said thank you on page 1. For you're 'primary' source of a post from a supporter.

Do you know where the 'Official' source is Grahame just mentioned ? Which was posted this week.  I must have missed it.

Adam you have just acknowledged that the meeting did take place so why do keep on asking for sources?

Here is where you accepted that the meeting did take place.

Quote from: Jan on Yesterday at 10:14 PM

    well I have found 5 sources today - so it must be true

    Just ask NGB

    this was from him in 2012

    Yes I am.  The defence received information that Julie Mugford had concluded a deal with the NoW.  Geoffrey Rivlin raised this in chambers with the judge.  The judge ordered the prosecution to make enquiries, which they did.  They reported back to the judge and the defence that Julie Mugford stated that she had concluded no agreement with any newspaper, and had no intention of doing so.  As a result of that Julie Mugford was not cross examined on this, upon the basis that she would have repeated her denial and under the rules of evidence and professional conduct she could not have been accused of lying about this because the defence did not have any admissible evidence to contradict it.

Thank you for you're 'primary' source Jan. Of a post from a supporter.

For a while I thought the meeting may not have taken place. Silly me.

[Adam]

Adam you have just acknowledged that the meeting did take place so why do keep on asking for sources?

Here is where you accepted that the meeting did take place.

Did you miss my request in post 13 ?

It would be good to the official source you mentioned. Which was apparently posted earlier this week. I was working so must have missed it.

Jan must have missed my request as well in post 16.

Thank you.

[Mr. Gee]

Did you miss my request in post 13 ?

It would be good to the official source you mentioned. Which was apparently posted earlier this week. I was working so must have missed it.

Jan must have missed my request as well in post 16.

Thank you.

No I didn't miss it and if you would like to find it, it was posted on the forum a couple of days ago. But since you now believe the meeting took place then there is obviously no need for me to continue posting about it. You are convinced at last, so job done.

[Adam]

No I didn't miss it and if you would like to find it, it was posted on the forum a couple of days ago. But since you now believe the meeting took place then there is obviously no need for me to continue posting about it. You are convinced at last, so job done.

Thank you Grahame.

Obviously I have to conclude the source of Julie lying to the judge is the source Jan gave me on page one. Which is a post from another poster from this site.

[Mr. Gee]

Thank you Grahame.

Obviously I have to conclude the source of Julie lying to the judge is the source Jan gave me on page one. Which is a post from another poster from this site.

Thank you Adam.