The relatives passing information to Julie:

[Adam]

It seems the defence holding up Newspapers at trial & saying Julie got all her information from these, was just for show.

The defence knew her WS was much too detailed & accused AE of passing on two bits of information to Julie. AE did not confirm she did this.

Where Julie got the rest of her exclusive information,  they never said.

[Adam]

The defence at trial were never going to go down the industrial frame route. The jury would never swallow that. Even now, only Lookout & NGB believe there was police corruption.

They would just have to hope the prosecution didn't hammer home Julie's 'ring of truth' WS & highlight everything she could have only got from Bamber.

[lookout]

Can you also include gross incompetence to my description please Adam.

[Adam]

Can you also include gross incompetence to my description please Adam.

The defence being incompetent is a bit strong. But people are entitled to say this.

The police were not incompetent as the industrial frame department did it's job.

[David1819]

The defence at trial were never going to go down the industrial frame route. The jury would never swallow that. Even now, only Lookout & NGB believe there was police corruption.

They would just have to hope the prosecution didn't hammer home Julie's 'ring of truth' WS & highlight everything she could have only got from Bamber.

There was nothing to highlight. As for the 'ring of truth' once again you grossly take the summing up out of context.

"Approach the evidence of Julie Mugford with a great degree of caution. Ask yourselves whether her evidence generally had the ring of truth about it."

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9404.msg438059.html#msg438059

[JackieD]

There was nothing to highlight. As for the 'ring of truth' once again you grossly take the summing up out of context.

"Approach the evidence of Julie Mugford with a great degree of caution. Ask yourselves whether her evidence generally had the ring of truth about it."

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9404.msg438059.html#msg438059

Thank you David

[Adam]

There was nothing to highlight. As for the 'ring of truth' once again you grossly take the summing up out of context.

"Approach the evidence of Julie Mugford with a great degree of caution. Ask yourselves whether her evidence generally had the ring of truth about it."

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9404.msg438059.html#msg438059

You obviously have not read Wilkes's book. They couldn't break down Julie's 'Ring of Truth' WS

I am not quoting the summing up.

[lookout]

The defence being incompetent is a bit strong. But people are entitled to say this.

The police were not incompetent as the industrial frame department did it's job.

The defence were weak. EP were the incompetent ones.

[Adam]

The defence were weak. EP were the incompetent ones.

What do believe the defence should have done differently?

[guest29835]

The defence being incompetent is a bit strong. But people are entitled to say this.

The police were not incompetent as the industrial frame department did it's job.

Thanks Adam.  I didn't realise Jeremy wore glasses even back then.  I suppose you're right though, as someone with good fashion sense, he would have gone for industrial-style frames.

[lookout]

What do believe the defence should have done differently?

Ignored Julie's acting and carried on questioning her as she was perfectly alright when it came to dishing the dirt for the prosecution, but when it came to the real questioning she turned the taps on.

[Jane]

Ignored Julie's acting and carried on questioning her as she was perfectly alright when it came to dishing the dirt for the prosecution, but when it came to the real questioning she turned the taps on.

Her behaviour was hardly something new to the defence. They'd have come across it fairly frequently in the course of their careers, and I imagine there to be time honoured ways of negotiating it. I don't imagine they'd have allowed a slip of a girl to outrun them..................unless, of course, there had already been an agreement arrived at between prosecution and defence?

[lookout]

Her behaviour was hardly something new to the defence. They'd have come across it fairly frequently in the course of their careers, and I imagine there to be time honoured ways of negotiating it. I don't imagine they'd have allowed a slip of a girl to outrun them..................unless, of course, there had already been an agreement arrived at between prosecution and defence?

That last paragraph has made me wonder for long enough.

[Jane]

That last paragraph has made me wonder for long enough.

It opens up possibilities.

[JackieD]

That last paragraph has made me wonder for long enough.

That’s not the way it works Lookout and certainly not a case made up of circumstancial evidence