Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?

[Jane]

I remember that we debated this a long time ago but I don't understand how this could undermine her testimony because she had already made her statements long before any deal was made. In other words, she couldn't be accused of going to the police and making her statements in order to obtain money from the NOTW.

It also crosses my mind that, whoever was acting legally, on her behalf. would surely have made sure that it was watertight and couldn't come back to bite her.

[Caroline]

There are several strands to this issue, only two of which has been extensively discussed here.  The credibility of JM as a witness was a very important aspect of the case.  The way she was presented to the jury in my view gave a seriously misleading view.  First, in relation to the circumstances in which she "came forward" and changed her account to implicate JB.  Second, in relation to the circumstances in which the cheque book frauds were resolved with the bank.  Third, the improper NOW deal which had been concluded before JM gave evidence and about which she lied in answering questions administered at the instigation of the trial judge.  The defence at trial were seriously hampered in their cross examination of JM as a result of the failure to disclose the full and correct facts about each of these issues.  Remember that this was a bare majority verdict.  JM's evidence was crucial and her credibilty was something the jury had to assess.  They were denied the ability to do that properly in the circumstances.

Yes, i get all of that, but have you personally seen evidence to show she was arrested rather than coming forward of her own accord or is this a suspicion based on other issues? The reason I ask is because if true, then Liz Rimmington, Susan Battersby and Malcolm Waters all lied too and for the life of me, I can't think of a reason why they would and maintain it to this day.

[lookout]

It also crosses my mind that, whoever was acting legally, on her behalf. would surely have made sure that it was watertight and couldn't come back to bite her.

How would they know anyway ? They took her at her word didn't they ?

[lookout]

Maybe, instead of EP hanging on to files, that if they'd released JM's then there'd have been no need for this 34 years later ? It's clearly the fault of EP that this has now come to the fore and if Steve had given it enough thought he wouldn't be blaming NGB or anyone else !

[Jane]

How would they know anyway ? They took her at her word didn't they ?

Certainly my solicitor accepts my word NOW because we've become friends, but Julie wasn't known to hers. I feel that, under the circumstances, it was his responsibility to do double checks.

[lookout]

Certainly my solicitor accepts my word NOW because we've become friends, but Julie wasn't known to hers. I feel that, under the circumstances, it was his responsibility to do double checks.

There again, she used the same firm of solicitors which RWB used. Maybe not the same solicitor but they talk !

[lookout]

It was RWB who'd put her on to them, so doubtless he'd have told her to mention him.

[Caroline]

Maybe, instead of EP hanging on to files, that if they'd released JM's then there'd have been no need for this 34 years later ? It's clearly the fault of EP that this has now come to the fore and if Steve had given it enough thought he wouldn't be blaming NGB or anyone else !

Steve has a soft spot for Julie, I think it's because he identifies with her a little having followed the same career path. I think it clouds his judgment somewhat. If information was withheld about the NOTW deal, that would be the prosecution and not EP and as far as I know, they don't have to show all their hand?

[Jane]

It was RWB who'd put her on to them, so doubtless he'd have told her to mention him.

Did he? I'd thought she'd picked one randomly.

[Jane]

Steve has a soft spot for Julie, I think it's because he identifies with her a little having followed the same career path. I think it clouds his judgment somewhat. If information was withheld about the NOTW deal, that would be the prosecution and not EP and as far as I know, they don't have to show all their hand?

It's beginning to sound like there was some manipulation going on.

[lookout]

Steve has a soft spot for Julie, I think it's because he identifies with her a little having followed the same career path. I think it clouds his judgment somewhat. If information was withheld about the NOTW deal, that would be the prosecution and not EP and as far as I know, they don't have to show all their hand?

Well after 34 years, it's totally unacceptable, particularly in cases such as this, though my guess is that it's the only one of its kind.
I realise how Steve thinks of JM because of them both attending the same college/teacher training but at this stage he shouldn't be blaming anyone here for this " latest " finding.

[Caroline]

Well after 34 years, it's totally unacceptable, particularly in cases such as this, though my guess is that it's the only one of its kind.
I realise how Steve thinks of JM because of them both attending the same college/teacher training but at this stage he shouldn't be blaming anyone here for this " latest " finding.

Of course he shouldn't. None of us have control of the case, we're not involved with it. Some people forget that we're just a bunch or people debating on a case we're interested in. The next time someone uses the word 'agenda' we should ALL object!

[Caroline]

Well after 34 years, it's totally unacceptable, particularly in cases such as this, though my guess is that it's the only one of its kind.
I realise how Steve thinks of JM because of them both attending the same college/teacher training but at this stage he shouldn't be blaming anyone here for this " latest " finding.

Holding back information isn't illegal and this case isn't unique in that respect. That doesn't mean I agree with it, I think everything should be shared. However by the same token, the defence doesn't have to share everything either.

[lookout]

It also crosses my mind that, whoever was acting legally, on her behalf. would surely have made sure that it was watertight and couldn't come back to bite her.

If it was someone named Swan, then he didn't remember a blooming thing, like a CPS  Essex file relating to Julie Mugford. Or a file of complaint towards police officers made by Jeremy Bamber.

[lookout]

Holding back information isn't illegal and this case isn't unique in that respect. That doesn't mean I agree with it, I think everything should be shared. However by the same token, the defence doesn't have to share everything either.

I can't imagine the defence being in the category of tomes when it comes to withheld documents.