Author Topic: New article:  (Read 1881 times)

1 Member and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2485
Re: New article:
« Reply #165 on: February 23, 2021, 05:42:PM »
It was brought up in the 2002 appeal.

Thank you

At that appeal was the judge aware the deal was done before trial on condition Jeremy was convicted
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2485
Re: New article:
« Reply #166 on: February 23, 2021, 05:47:PM »
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.

???
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5219
Re: New article:
« Reply #167 on: February 23, 2021, 05:47:PM »
Thank you

At that appeal was the judge aware the deal was done before trial on condition Jeremy was convicted

No.  The defence were prevented from obtaining the necessary evidence.


Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 22379
Re: New article:
« Reply #168 on: February 23, 2021, 05:57:PM »
???

Do you believe Julie had an influence over the forensic evidence. What parts?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 22379
Re: New article:
« Reply #169 on: February 23, 2021, 06:01:PM »
No.  The defence were prevented from obtaining the necessary evidence.

Why were they prevented?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2485
Re: New article:
« Reply #170 on: February 23, 2021, 07:15:PM »
Do you believe Julie had an influence over the forensic evidence. What parts?

She didnt need to obviously
She had started a trail of destruction by telling tales to her friends after being dumped and once the police were involved she could have had numerous charges against her

Certainly the police had enough on her for her to end up with a prison sentence
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline Real Justice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5342
    • Trial related photographs
Re: New article:
« Reply #171 on: February 23, 2021, 07:23:PM »
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.
Where does it state NOTW approached Julie mid trial?  She first started having dealings with the media a month after Bamber’s arrest.  Peaks of her harassment  from the press were a month after Bamber being arrested and before the trial. She went to see Solicitor Mr Church and he told her to have contact with one press body only, this he sorted out with the NOTW. He made the deal for her until she signed the contract but she can’t remember the dates?  That’s all in her WS.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 22379
Re: New article:
« Reply #172 on: February 23, 2021, 07:39:PM »
Where does it state NOTW approached Julie mid trial?  She first started having dealings with the media a month after Bamber’s arrest.  Peaks of her harassment  from the press were a month after Bamber being arrested and before the trial. She went to see Solicitor Mr Church and he told her to have contact with one press body only, this he sorted out with the NOTW. He made the deal for her until she signed the contract but she can’t remember the dates?  That’s all in her WS.

Have you got a source that Julie started having dealings a month after Bamber's arrest?

It would be very surprising, if while under the supervision of Stan Jones & EP she started having dealings with the media. Only a month after Bamber's arrest. The trial was not for another year.

There is an article on the Red Forum. I will look for it.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 22379
Re: New article:
« Reply #173 on: February 23, 2021, 07:48:PM »
She didnt need to obviously
She had started a trail of destruction by telling tales to her friends after being dumped and once the police were involved she could have had numerous charges against her

Certainly the police had enough on her for her to end up with a prison sentence

So you believe the police created the Industrial Frame department.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Real Justice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5342
    • Trial related photographs
Re: New article:
« Reply #174 on: February 23, 2021, 07:56:PM »
Have you got a source that Julie started having dealings a month after Bamber's arrest?

It would be very surprising, if while under the supervision of Stan Jones & EP she started having dealings with the media. Only a month after Bamber's arrest. The trial was not for another year.

There is an article on the Red Forum. I will look for it.
Ive put it up today where she states this. I’ve put up all her witness statements about this in my reply post 162.

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11610
Re: New article:
« Reply #175 on: February 23, 2021, 08:17:PM »
Whenever Adam mentions 'industrial frame', I always think of some huge iron construction from about 1780.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 22379
Re: New article:
« Reply #176 on: February 23, 2021, 08:21:PM »
Ive put it up today where she states this. I’ve put up all her witness statements about this in my reply post 162.

Thanks.

Her lawyer & the NOTW lawyer would have got her to sign a contract at the appropriate time. Which would probably be during the trial but after her testimony.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2021, 08:59:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9041
Re: New article:
« Reply #177 on: February 23, 2021, 09:17:PM »
Thanks.

Her lawyer & the NOTW lawyer would have got her to sign a contract at the appropriate time. Which would probably be during the trial but after her testimony.

It was signed before the trial. NGB can confirm this.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 22379
Re: New article:
« Reply #178 on: February 23, 2021, 09:26:PM »
364. Mr Turner explained to the court that there was now evidence available to show that when Julie Mugford indicated through the prosecution that she had not sold her story to the press at the time of trial that this was simply untrue.

365. We can deal with this aspect of the case shortly because by the conclusion of the evidence, Mr Turner acknowledged that he was unable to establish on that this was so
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Real Justice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5342
    • Trial related photographs
Re: New article:
« Reply #179 on: February 23, 2021, 09:31:PM »
Thanks.

Her lawyer & the NOTW lawyer would have got her to sign a contract at the appropriate time. Which would probably be during the trial but after her testimony.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1569.0;attach=7409

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1569.0;attach=7410

It’s answered here from NGB, in a nutshell she can’t remember and didn’t read the small print so if she was brought in front of the appeal she would just repeat the same?

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.