Author Topic: Why Did JB Have His Category Status Downgraded So Quickly By Prison Authoritys  (Read 2027 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8873
Julie did make a verbal deal with the NOTW prior to the verdict. The NOTW apptoached her.

Nothing was signed until after the verdict. The NOTW were only going to sign a contract with Julie if Bamber was found guilty.
Yes but the guilty verdict was not conditional on the jury believing Julie's evidence. The jury asked the judge about the blood in the silencer but not for a summary of her evidence, which in his summing up Mr. Justice Drake advised them to "treat with a good deal of caution".

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8873
Adam you obviously did not read the post made by NGB yesterday the contract was a contract whether signed or not it was made before the trial.
That's a possible interpretation but even on Jeremy Bamber's official website they don't claim that this was illegal.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18110
Adam you obviously did not read the post made by NGB yesterday the contract was a contract whether signed or not it was made before the trial.

Obviously making a verbal agreement during a trial is not enough to give Bamber a technicality.

Did Bamber approach the NOTW like he did with The Sun ?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15858
Obviously making a verbal agreement during a trial is not enough to give Bamber a technicality.

Did Bamber approach the NOTW like he did with The Sun ?

have not got a clue what you are talking about please relate to Julie making a contract before the trial.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18110
have not got a clue what you are talking about please relate to Julie making a contract before the trial.

Are you not aware Bamber tried to sell his life story & sordid pictures of Sheila to the Sun. Before he was arrested ?

Julie made a verbal agreement before the verdict. Nothing can change that.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15858
That's a possible interpretation but even on Jeremy Bamber's official website they don't claim that this was illegal.

Steve I would take the word of a highly qualified Barrister.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15858
Are you not aware Bamber tried to sell his life story & sordid pictures of Sheila to the Sun. Before he was arrested ?

Julie made a verbal agreement before the verdict. Nothing can change that.

Adam I am aware Jeremy may have sold semi nude pictures of Sheila what has that got to do with what we were discussing they were only minor nude pictures. Not a verbal agreement either stop trying to change the facts it will not work.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18110
Adam I am aware Jeremy may have sold semi nude pictures of Sheila what has that got to do with what we were discussing they were only minor nude pictures. Not a verbal agreement either stop trying to change the facts it will not work.

I'm not trying to change the fact that Julie made a verbal agreement with the NOTW, pre verdict. They approached her.

What are you trying to say ?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Online ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4590
That's not the point, which is whether the jury should be privy to all such deals, whether concluded by a prosecution witness or the defendant.

It certainly is the point.  A deal should not be concluded by a prosecution witness, whereas there is no problem with a defendant concluding a deal.  A deal does not give a defendant any incentive to lie; a defendants imperative is to be acquitted and an additional financial incentive from a newspaper makes no difference whatsoever.  For a prosecution witness however a financial incentive may create pressure to lie in order to secure a conviction.

Online ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4590
Julie did make a verbal deal with the NOTW prior to the verdict. The NOTW apptoached her.

Nothing was signed until after the verdict. The NOTW were only going to sign a contract with Julie if Bamber was found guilty.

There was a concluded deal with the NOW before the trial.  The deal was conditional upon a conviction.


Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18110
There was a concluded deal with the NOW before the trial.  The deal was conditional upon a conviction.

Good. All legal & above board. Otherwise Bamber would have been all over it trying to get a technicality.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Online ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4590
Good. All legal & above board. Otherwise Bamber would have been all over it trying to get a technicality.

What are you trying to say???

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8873
It certainly is the point.  A deal should not be concluded by a prosecution witness, whereas there is no problem with a defendant concluding a deal.  A deal does not give a defendant any incentive to lie; a defendants imperative is to be acquitted and an additional financial incentive from a newspaper makes no difference whatsoever.  For a prosecution witness however a financial incentive may create pressure to lie in order to secure a conviction.
I'm not arguing that. What I am saying is that if there are any deals at all then the jury should know both sides, not just the let's-blacken-Julie-at-every-opportunity brigade.

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
I just thought that I will now only refer to Mugford as Julie Smerchanski(nee Mugford), I think it's better to use her married name now in case new members would like to research the case in detail and see if they believe she was a reliable witness

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8873
There was a concluded deal with the NOW before the trial.  The deal was conditional upon a conviction.
Yes it was, but the trial was not solely about Julie Mugford, much as you would like to portray it as such. Even the official site does not claim the deal broke the law. https://jeremybamber.org/julie-mugford/