The ITV Drama

[Jane]

It was relevant in relation to her credibility as a witness.

But makes no difference to the gun being in Jeremy's hand. However, I'm capable of seeing that it MIGHT make some doubtful which COULD be said to make the conviction unsafe but it doesn't make him innocent.

[JackieD]

No they met him on more than one occasion .several in fact . They knew him and the family and i have spoken to them a few times .

in the same conclusion you should not prejudge someones behaviour at a funeral . My OH was called a cold hard bastsard at a funeral recently . He actually was in shock plus did his greiving in private, Horses for courses and all that .

I have met a guy called Warren Heslop who did the crop spraying for Neville for 3 years and knew Neville and Jeremy

I am trying to get him to post on here but he’s a bit reluctant at the moment but I think he will.


He can give an impartial impression of Neville and Jeremy’s relationship which is favourable.

[Jan]

It was relevant in relation to her credibility as a witness.

so if they could prove the date the deal was arranged then it would be admissible because up to now i think it was said the documents had been lost?

[Jane]

Usual rubbish from you Jane

I hope your joking

Tell me, from the position you favour, that of slagging off, twisting words, and lying, has there ever been a moment when you've contributed anything worthwhile or told the unadulterated truth? Mmm I thought not.

[guest7363]

Yes they can because there is new evidence on this available now.

Thanks NGB

[Steve_uk]

Nothing -but NOTHING- which may, or not, have gone on between her and NOTW had any bearing on what the jury came back with.

..and how desperate the Defence is to bring up this side issue.

[ngb1066]

..and how desperate the Defence is to bring up this side issue.

It is a valid appeal point.

[Steve_uk]

It was relevant in relation to her credibility as a witness.

..and what about Jeremy's deal? Was that relevant in relation to his credibility in testifying in his own defence?

[lookout]

But makes no difference to the gun being in Jeremy's hand. However, I'm capable of seeing that it MIGHT make some doubtful which COULD be said to make the conviction unsafe but it doesn't make him innocent.

I think we all know that an " unsafe conviction " doesn't necessarily spell innocence but I imagine that the legal team will go beyond using the unsafe process and instead plump for a MOJ involving a re-trial.

[Jane]

I think we all know that an " unsafe conviction " doesn't necessarily spell innocence but I imagine that the legal team will go beyond using the unsafe process and instead plump for a MOJ involving a re-trial.

Which, no doubt, is your dream scenario. However, the race has only just started. The first hurdle hasn't been arrived at.

[Jan]

..and what about Jeremy's deal? Was that relevant in relation to his credibility in testifying in his own defence?

How would a promise of money influence his evidence? He was on trial for the murders ? What could be offered to him that would affect his testimony?

The law  regarding inducements applies to those who appear as witnesses not the accused .

[lookout]

Which, no doubt, is your dream scenario. However, the race has only just started. The first hurdle hasn't been arrived at.

Well isn't it better to go through the whole process leaving no stone unturned ?

[Jan]

..and what about Jeremy's deal? Was that relevant in relation to his credibility in testifying in his own defence?

to be clear here is the law that applied at the time :


16. Witness payments in criminal trials:

(i) No payment or offer of payment to a witness or any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness ? should be made in any case once proceedings are active as defined by the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

(ii) Where proceedings are not yet active but are likely and foreseeable, editors must not make or offer payment to any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness unless the information concerned ought demonstrably to be published in the public interest and there is an over-riding need to make or promise payment for this to be done, and all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that no financial dealings influence the evidence those witnesses give.

(iii) Any payment or offer of payment made to persons later cited to give evidence in proceedings must be disclosed to the prosecution and defence. The witness must be advised of this requirement.?

Proceedings become active under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 with an arrest.

[Steve_uk]

How would a promise of money influence his evidence? He was on trial for the murders ? What could be offered to him that would affect his testimony?

The law  regarding inducements applies to those who appear as witnesses not the accused .

If the jury should have been informed about an alleged signing of a News of the World deal by Julie pre-trial then they should also have been made aware of a similar deal in place for Jeremy Bamber.

[lookout]

NOTW paid for JM's hotel accommodation too. EP paid JM for the 32 times she gave evidence on each of her attendances.