New article:

[Adam]

Jackie rarely posts about the forensic and circumstantial evidence.

Her main defence of Bamber is that Julie identified the bodies.

[Adam]

Julie identifying the bodies did not convict Bamber. The mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence did.

So will be interesting to see if Jackie believes there was an industrial frame. Or whether the evidence is correct but Bamber should still be released.

[guest7363]

You know what relatives.

Yes but there are more than me here.  Relatives is plural meaning more than one are you saying they all contributed to fabrication of the silencer? 

[David1819]

Julie identifying the bodies did not convict Bamber. The mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence did.

The Jury never read your gish gallop of nonsense. And if they did they would have acquitted him.

[David1819]

I think she knew he was going to do it before he did it and this statement proves it, I said to him ‘you sound pissed off’. He said I have been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never.  He never mentions what crime and she never asks him,  she just said don’t be stupid go back to bed.  She never asked him what crime because she knew.

How does malicious gossip made up buy a bitter ex-girlfriend in a Lewisham Pizza Hut prove anything?

[guest7363]

How does malicious gossip made up buy a bitter ex-girlfriend in a Lewisham Pizza Hut prove anything?

Its the same gossip you always rely on and spew out as fact!

[guest7363]

How does malicious gossip made up buy a bitter ex-girlfriend in a Lewisham Pizza Hut prove anything?

The quote  in question you’ve made in your reply to me is totally untrue, the conversation happened between Bamber and Julie in the 10pm call on the 6th of August 1985 and she says she was at Home in Lewisham in her statement

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10043.0;attach=55443

[JackieD]

I think she knew he was going to do it before he did it and this statement proves it, I said to him ‘you sound pissed off’. He said I have been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never.  He never mentions what crime and she never asks him,  she just said don’t be stupid go back to bed.  She never asked him what crime because she knew.

There in lies the problem ‘you think’ regarding Julie Mugford
Julie was a chief prosecution witness in a murder trial not someone disputing a parking ticket??

Nobody knows when Julie Mugford is telling the truth. It’s a fact she has a history of diception

Maybe a question you should answer on this subject is what difference would it have made to the outcome of the trial if the jury had known Julie Mugford would get a huge payout if she persuaded the jury Jeremy was guilty

You might want to discuss this point with Ngb

She was either a reliable witness or not?

[Adam]

Julie identifying the bodies did not convict Bamber. The mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence did.

So will be interesting to see if Jackie believes there was an industrial frame. Or whether the evidence is correct but Bamber should still be released.

Sorry I should re phrase this.

Julie identifying the bodies does not make Bamber innocent. Or will it get him released. This was brought up during Julie's testimony. The jury still convicted Bamber.

So it would interesting to know how Jackie believes the industrial frame was organised for the incriminating forensic & circumstantial evidence.

[guest7363]

There in lies the problem ‘you think’ regarding Julie Mugford
Julie was a chief prosecution witness in a murder trial not someone disputing a parking ticket??

Nobody knows when Julie Mugford is telling the truth. It’s a fact she has a history of diception

Maybe a question you should answer on this subject is what difference would it have made to the outcome of the trial if the jury had known Julie Mugford would get a huge payout if she persuaded the jury Jeremy was guilty

You might want to discuss this point with Ngb

She was either a reliable witness or not?

To be honest I think they are both liars and I don’t think no  one knows when Bamber is truthful as well.

I can’t answer your second Question because it’s hard to tell, i watched a Programme with a similar situation where a witness had been paid for her story and it got brought up at trial and it didn’t change the verdict so unless I speak to the jurors we won’t know.  I think it’s been brought up on appeals ect and it could possibly be brought up in another appeal and if like NGB said they missed evidence out maybe it could change things?

[JackieD]

Which appeal was it bought up about when the NOTW deal was signed Ngb1066

[guest7363]

Which appeal was it bought up about when the NOTW deal was signed Ngb1066

The defence made an application to obtain a copy of the contract between Julie Mugford and the News of the World.  The defence had information 1) that the contract had been entered into before Julie Mugford gave evidence and 2) that the contract provided that payment would only be made in the event of a guilty verdict.  The Court of Appeal refused the defence application and defence counsel therefore took the view that it was not possible to explore this issue further since Julie Mugford would simply say what she said in her 2002 witness statement, that she could not remember when she had entered into the contract and had not read the contract in any detail.  Since this was the only issue in respect of which the Court of Appeal had agreed that Julie Mugford could be cross examined she was not called to give evidence.

[guest7363]

Which appeal was it bought up about when the NOTW deal was signed Ngb1066

And here's her witness statement.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1569.0;attach=7411

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1569.0;attach=7412

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1569.0;attach=7413

[Adam]

Both Bamber & Julie had NOTW deals. Depending on the verdict.

The NOTW approached Julie mid trial as they realised Bamber is likely to get convicted.

Again this did not convict Bamber or will it get him released.

So be interesting to hear Jackie's view on how and why EP created so much false incriminating evidence.

All posters agree Julie had no influence over any evidence.

[ngb1066]

Which appeal was it bought up about when the NOTW deal was signed Ngb1066

It was brought up in the 2002 appeal.