Author Topic: Why Did JB Have His Category Status Downgraded So Quickly By Prison Authoritys  (Read 2068 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
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.

Jeremy Bamber was not asked about any deal.  Had he been asked he would have had no reason to deny it as there was nothing improper in a defendant making a deal with the press before trial.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
If it is true, then the idea of bringing the subject up now as something new, appears somewhat ludicrous.

As I have already said, the defence did try to raise this at trial, but were prevented from taking it further because of Julie Mugford's lies about the matter.  The defence tried to raise it again at the 2002 appeal as they had further information, but the Court of Appeal would not grant the order for third party disclosure requested.  There has more recently been further evidence relating to this which could form part of a future appeal.
 

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
So how can the defence now complain that Julie had this deal in place that was unknown to them, yet they and Jeremy appears to be fully aware of the deal at the original trial?

I have explained this in my posts above.


Offline Hartley.

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2415
As I have already said, the defence did try to raise this at trial, but were prevented from taking it further because of Julie Mugford's lies about the matter.  The defence tried to raise it again at the 2002 appeal as they had further information, but the Court of Appeal would not grant the order for third party disclosure requested.  There has more recently been further evidence relating to this which could form part of a future appeal.

What does the further evidence consist of? Documentation from Ellison's perhaps?

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
What does the further evidence consist of? Documentation from Ellison's perhaps?

It is documentary evidence but I do not think I should say more because it has not been made public.  I received the information from a very reliable - and independent - source.   

Offline Hartley.

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2415
It is documentary evidence but I do not think I should say more because it has not been made public.  I received the information from a very reliable - and independent - source.

That's fair enough.

It does seem odd that any evidence is even required. If it was known about at the original trial and even referred to the judge, then surely the published NOW article is evidence in itself?
« Last Edit: August 12, 2017, 02:11:PM by Hartley. »

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
By keeping Bamber behind bars. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-took-my-little-boys-647185

How very interesting
So you don't really believe Jeremy is guilty then if your worried about Jeremy getting out of prison

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8878
How very interesting
So you don't really believe Jeremy is guilty then if your worried about Jeremy getting out of prison
No I believe he is guilty. Some people don't. Some would have liked him hanged; I would not. If I could put mass murderers, rapists and paedophiles on a remote Scottish island away from the general public and nullify the threat they pose I would. That's the best compromise I can offer for Bamber, stuck behind the walls of Monster Mansions Wakefield Prison. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britains-most-dangerous-convicts-reveal-reality-of-life-in-highly-restricted-jails-within-jails-10470130.html

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8878
It is documentary evidence but I do not think I should say more because it has not been made public.  I received the information from a very reliable - and independent - source.
This has once again gone down like a lead balloon. As Bill Robertson suggested we'll give you until Christmas, and that's being magnanimous after thirty-two years.

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
By keeping Bamber behind bars. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-took-my-little-boys-647185

You obviously think there is a chance of Jeremy coming out prison then

Therefore you don't know he is guilt

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
By keeping Bamber behind bars. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-took-my-little-boys-647185


And I am on here to see Julie Smerchanski(nee Mugfords) lies are made public knowledge

Offline buddy

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1079

And I am on here to see Julie Smerchanski(nee Mugfords) lies are made public knowledge
Afraid you wont Jackie, PPI

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 35033
Once her lies are made public,everything else should automatically fall into place about this whole shambolic case.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
That's fair enough.

It does seem odd that any evidence is even required. If it was known about at the original trial and even referred to the judge, then surely the published NOW article is evidence in itself?

The NOW article published so soon after the trial is suggestive of a deal having been made earlier, but it is not conclusive in the absence of some firm evidence about the date the deal was made. That additional evidence was not available at trial.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8878
The NOW article published so soon after the trial is suggestive of a deal having been made earlier, but it is not conclusive in the absence of some firm evidence about the date the deal was made. That additional evidence was not available at trial.
And this is going to get Jeremy off? Pull the other one..