Julie Mugford's NOW contract and the new evidence ?

[gringo]

The subject of JM's contract has been discussed before I know but in light of ngb revealing that new information has become available to the defence and that it would be a ground in any possible appeal I wondered what other members views were particularly on the matters of :
1. When (before or after trial) do others believe the contract was signed ? and what do we base this belief on ?
2. What could this new information be ? All we know is that the information was in documents previously held under pii .
3. Anything else that anyone believes relevant .
I have my own views and am interested in what others think and why ?

[Patti]

The subject of JM's contract has been discussed before I know but in light of ngb revealing that new information has become available to the defence and that it would be a ground in any possible appeal I wondered what other members views were particularly on the matters of :
1. When (before or after trial) do others believe the contract was signed ? and what do we base this belief on ?
2. What could this new information be ? All we know is that the information was in documents previously held under pii .
3. Anything else that anyone believes relevant .
I have my own views and am interested in what others think and why ?

Gringoooooooooooooo

I think the contract was dealt with prior to the trial by JM's solicitor.  The reason I think this is because JM was in a hotel room paid for by the NOTW before the verdict was disclosed.  I know Jones rang her at the hotel...that to is documented....

NGB did make it clear that the contract might not exist; he went on to say that the matter was discussed in chambers and both CPS and defence were aware of it, but the jury was not.  Had they been aware of this, then it might have changed how they perceived her testimony.  I suppose we will have to wait and see.....

[Steve_uk]

The subject of JM's contract has been discussed before I know but in light of ngb revealing that new information has become available to the defence and that it would be a ground in any possible appeal I wondered what other members views were particularly on the matters of :
1. When (before or after trial) do others believe the contract was signed ? and what do we base this belief on ?
2. What could this new information be ? All we know is that the information was in documents previously held under pii .
3. Anything else that anyone believes relevant .
I have my own views and am interested in what others think and why ?

It's my understanding that the News of the World approached Julie Mugford before the trial but that nothing was signed until after the verdict. Julie would have testified whether she was to receive £15,000 or not,in the same way that Jeremy stood to make £40,000 for his story of innocence and Anji Greaves had allegedly been signed up by The Sun. Funny that she dumped him after she realized he wouldn't inherit. Jeremy has been in prison 27 years and the idiom "flogging a dead horse" springs to mind.

[Patti]

It's my understanding that the News of the World approached Julie Mugford before the trial but that nothing was signed until after the verdict. Julie would have testified whether she was to receive £15,000 or not,in the same way that Jeremy stood to make £40,000 for his story of innocence and Anji Greaves had allegedly been signed up by The Sun. Funny that she dumped him after she realized he wouldn't inherit. Jeremy has been in prison 27 years and the idiom "flogging a dead horse" springs to mind.

Hi Steve I don't think that is true. Julie was approached by all the press and was fed up with them, that is way she went to a solicitor on two matters...The first matter was to ask advice on how to stop the press from harassing her; the second matter was to find out about her current employment, for she had claimed to have been laid off with pay.

Mr Church of Ellison's solicitors advised her to make a deal with a newspaper, for this would stop the other papers harassing her....She also states that it did go quiet in-between Jeremy's arrest and the trial......this might suggest that the deal had been in place also. 

[-Harters-]

It was 25k anyway wasn't it?

I seem to recall that the claims of new evidence was being made on this forum about a year ago, if it's as amazing and clear cut as is being made out then why hasn't it been used already?

It's also worth bearing in mind that even if a contract was already signed before the end of the trial, it obviously doesn't indicate that Jeremy is innocent, it would clearly be an attempt by the defence to claim that the trial was unfair rather than trying to prove innocence.

[Jane]

Having read her witness statement, in which June calls her a "harlot or loose woman". How humiliating must that have been? Had presumably, been further humiliated when Jeremy retracted his marriage proposal, possibly because the bride June was urging him to take was not Julie, felt intimidated by his family and seen her "comfortable" future disappear before her eyes, and I imagine she felt resentful and angry. I rather feel that her court testimony revenged her on Jeremy, and her deal with NOTW revenged, and rewarded her, on the family.

[gringo]

Hi Steve I don't think that is true. Julie was approached by all the press and was fed up with them, that is way she went to a solicitor on two matters...The first matter was to ask advice on how to stop the press from harassing her; the second matter was to find out about her current employment, for she had been claimed to have been laid off with pay.

Mr Church of Ellison's solicitors advised her to make a deal with a newspaper, for this would stop the other papers harassing her....She also states that it did go quiet in-between Jeremy's arrest and the trial......this might suggest that the deal had been in place also. 

It's my understanding that the News of the World approached Julie Mugford before the trial but that nothing was signed until after the verdict. Julie would have testified whether she was to receive £15,000 or not,in the same way that Jeremy stood to make £40,000 for his story of innocence and Anji Greaves had allegedly been signed up by The Sun. Funny that she dumped him after she realized he wouldn't inherit. Jeremy has been in prison 27 years and the idiom "flogging a dead horse" springs to mind.

I do think that your refusal to acknowledge the difference between Jeremy and Julie having a deal in place is unreasonable steve. If your understanding is correct regarding the contract not being signed until after the trial then what do you believe the agreement beforehand was ? Would there be just a verbal understanding in place or was some agreement signed ?
  Surely something must have been signed or how did the rest of the press know to lay off (thanks Patti)
 as it seems that they did .
  It's not a dead horse steve it's just pining for the fields 

[gringo]

It was 25k anyway wasn't it?

I seem to recall that the claims of new evidence was being made on this forum about a year ago, if it's as amazing and clear cut as is being made out then why hasn't it been used already?

It's also worth bearing in mind that even if a contract was already signed before the end of the trial, it obviously doesn't indicate that Jeremy is innocent, it would clearly be an attempt by the defence to claim that the trial was unfair rather than trying to prove innocence.

Having read her witness statement, in which June calls her a "harlot or loose woman". How humiliating must that have been? Had presumably, been further humiliated when Jeremy retracted his marriage proposal, possibly because the bride June was urging him to take was not Julie, felt intimidated by his family and seen her "comfortable" future disappear before her eyes, and I imagine she felt resentful and angry. I rather feel that her court testimony revenged her on Jeremy, and her deal with NOTW revenged, and rewarded her, on the family.

I agree that it doesn't make Jeremy innocent Hartley and concur that it would be used by the defence as you suggest .
 Interesting take into Julie's possible motivations there lookout .

[Patti]

It was 25k anyway wasn't it?

I seem to recall that the claims of new evidence was being made on this forum about a year ago, if it's as amazing and clear cut as is being made out then why hasn't it been used already?

It's also worth bearing in mind that even if a contract was already signed before the end of the trial, it obviously doesn't indicate that Jeremy is innocent, it would clearly be an attempt by the defence to claim that the trial was unfair rather than trying to prove innocence.

Please don't quote me Hartley, but I seem to recall that the defence did not wish to interview her in 2002 appeal...They decided that if they did this then, then they could not do it later on....

No it doesn't make him innocent, but the jury did not know and therefore could not make a proper judgement about Julie's testimony.....of whether they believed her or not and IMHO this should have been disclosed at the original trial.....

[Jane]

....................
 Interesting take into Julie's possible motivations there lookout .

Except I'm not lookout

[-Harters-]

Please don't quote me Hartley, but I seem to recall that the defence did not wish to interview her in 2002 appeal...They decided that if they did this then, then they could not do it later on....

No it doesn't make him innocent, but the jury did not know and therefore could not make a proper judgement about Julie's testimony.....of whether they believed her or not and IMHO this should have been disclosed at the original trial.....

I'm not making an argument for or against.

I don't think they called JM as a witness because they didn't have any evidence at the time to make it worth while, it wasn't simply a case of saving her until a later appeal.

[Patti]

I'm not making an argument for or against.

I don't think they called JM as a witness because they didn't have any evidence at the time to make it worth while, it wasn't simply a case of saving her until a later appeal.

That is correct, that is what I wanted to say Hartley, but we northerners are a tad slow..

[-Harters-]

That is correct, that is what I wanted to say Hartley, but we northerners are a tad slow..

You are probably a Southerner to me though. 

[Patti]

Except I'm not lookout

Lol......................

[Patti]

You are probably a Southerner to me though. 

Are you from up here too?....I am South Yorkshire on the Derbyshire boarder. I suspect you are a Lancashire lad....