Author Topic: Why Did JB Have His Category Status Downgraded So Quickly By Prison Authoritys  (Read 2026 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
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.


You still don't get it Steve do you? Jeremy had every right to sell his story if he is innocent and had been locked up for months on trial

On the other hand Julie Smerchanski(nee Mugford) on her own admission was guilty of numerous crimes including perverting the course of justice

Why should Julie Smerchanski(nee Mugford) get paid for being on the front page of a newspaper wearing no knickers after committing such serious crimes

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8873

You still don't get it Steve do you? Jeremy had every right to sell his story if he is innocent and had been locked up for months on trial

On the other hand Julie Smerchanski(nee Mugford) on her own admission was guilty of numerous crimes including perverting the course of justice

Why should Julie Smerchanski(nee Mugford) get paid for being on the front page of a newspaper wearing no knickers after committing such serious crimes
Because if Jeremy were guilty the press deal fell through, just as it would with Julie if he were found innocent. Whichever way the cookie crumbled one might think the jury were entitled to know.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2017, 10:45:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8873
Steve I would take the word of a highly qualified Barrister.
Susan I'm taking Jeremy Bamber's official site.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18110
Because if Jeremy were guilty the press deal fell through, just as it would with Julie if he were found innocent. Whichever way the cookie crumbled one might think the jury were entitled to know.

The jury were not told about Bamber trying to sell his story & tasteless pictures of Sheila to the Sun. Which were related to the massacre.

However they were told about Julie's minor 1984 minor cheque book fraud. Which was nothing to do with the massacre.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
Because if Jeremy were guilty the press deal fell through, just as it would with Julie if he were found innocent. Whichever way the cookie crumbled one might think the jury were entitled to know.

Jeremy never said at any point that he was involved in planning the murders , carrying out the murders etc etc

 Julie Smerchanski(nee Mugford On the other hand admitted her part in planning the murders and covering up the murders


Completely different

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
However how much people have tried to dig to find out if Jeremy tried to sell nude pictures there is not a shred of evidence this is true

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
The jury were not told about Bamber trying to sell his story & tasteless pictures of Sheila to the Sun. Which were related to the massacre.

However they were told about Julie's minor 1984 minor cheque book fraud. Which was nothing to do with the massacre.


Provide a source regarding the nude photos
Contact the reporter

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8873
The jury were not told about Bamber trying to sell his story & tasteless pictures of Sheila to the Sun. Which were related to the massacre.

However they were told about Julie's minor 1984 minor cheque book fraud. Which was nothing to do with the massacre.
Yes that's another good point which the Defence wishes to gloss over. For goodness sake can't they see through this evil con man?

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8873
Jeremy never said at any point that he was involved in planning the murders , carrying out the murders etc etc

 Julie Smerchanski(nee Mugford On the other hand admitted her part in planning the murders and covering up the murders


Completely different
She didn't plan but she did equivocate on occasion, which may have seemed like tacit approval to Bamber's warped mind.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12964
I have removed a couple of posts from this thread.  Personal remarks and comments on other posters behaviour on other sites is irrelevant to the thread. Cheers

Offline Hartley.

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2415
It is perfectly permissible for a defendant to conclude a deal with the press at any stage, but totally illegal for a prosecution witness to conclude a deal before a verdict in a trial.  There are very good reasons for the distinction between the two which have been explained in earlier posts on this forum.

 

That does make perfect sense. JB's incentive was not to be convicted, any financial bonus would not have affected his preferred outcome.

So many things are posted which turn out not to be factual, but I recall it being said that JB was aware of JM's deal at trial, do you think this is true?

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8873
However how much people have tried to dig to find out if Jeremy tried to sell nude pictures there is not a shred of evidence this is true
Again the Defence is in denial.

Offline Hartley.

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2415
Again the Defence is in denial.

The allegations do not stem from this forum, they came to light in a national newspaper.

Offline Hartley.

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2415
That does make perfect sense. JB's incentive was not to be convicted, any financial bonus would not have affected his preferred outcome.

So many things are posted which turn out not to be factual, but I recall it being said that JB was aware of JM's deal at trial, do you think this is true?

Page 272, 'Blood Relations' - Outside, it was dark. At two minutes to six, the jury returned to court on the judge's orders. The jury foreman announced that they had reached no unanimous verdict on any of the five murder indictments. Neither was a majority verdict likely in the time available that evening. The judge decided to call it a day, and sent the jury to a hotel for the night. Downstairs in his cell, Jeremy Bamber was keeping an iron grip on his emotions. One observer found him 'discerningly composed'. He was discussing what he would do when released the following day. He was bandying figures for which he planned to sell his story to the newspapers - somewhat unattractive behaviour, in the opinion of one of his legal team. A group of them sat with Jeremy, trying to buoy up his spirits but feeling increasingly uncomfortable about his obsession with a newspaper deal. The best offer he'd had, he said, was £40,000. Couldn't they get him a better offer than that? After all, he was pointing out, if he was convicted, Julie had been promised £15,000 for her story. She was already ensconced at the Chelsea Holiday Inn in Sloane Street, closeted with two reporters from the News of the World.

Page 277 details - The deal that Julie Mugford had struck with the News of the World gave the newspaper exclusive rights to her story and pictures in return for £15,000, but the deal only stood if Bamber was convicted. (The same paper had secured exclusive rights to Jeremy Bamber's own story had he been found not guilty. That deal would have earned Bamber the sum of £40,000, a figure Bamber himself had complained was hardly adequate given the explosive nature of the revelations he was promising about his relations.)

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8873
The allegations do not stem from this forum, they came to light in a national newspaper.
I was referring to Sun journalist Michael Fielder's allegation that Jeremy Bamber and Brett Collins attempted to sell nude pictures of Sheila in the Nag's Head, Chelmsford, shortly after her death.