The ITV Drama

[Jane]

Where's that new phrase come from ? I would say that judging by prints found on the shotgun ( Sheila's ) and prints from an unknown male that Jeremy wasn't the only one who handled guns.

 Not in any way difficult to have got Sheila's prints on it. Unknown male?

[ngb1066]

I think she's an easy target, the weakest link in the chain, I suspect ulterior motives and I'd like ngb1066 to explain how he came to the conclusion that the claim Jeremy Bamber made that he received a telephone call from his father in the middle of the night was genuine.

JB has consistently stated that he received the telephone call from his father.  There is no direct evidence to contradict this.  In view of this it is not possible to analyse this further in isolation.  If you take the view that the evidence overall is conclusive of JB's guilt then obviously you take the view that notwithstanding there being no direct evidence on the matter the call from NB cannot have taken place.  It is somewhat a circular analysis.  If on the other hand you take the view that the evidence overall does not establish JB's guilt there is no reason to disbelieve JB's account.

 

[Caroline]

It could not stand as a sole ground of appeal.  However taken with other material it could seriously undermine JM's credibility which would give additional weight to submissions that the convictions could no longer be regarded as safe.  The Court of Appeal obviously considers the individual grounds of appeal and assesses them individually, then looks at the case overall in the round to decide whether the convictions are safe, in other words whether there must be at least a reasonable doubt about guilt.

Yes, I see that but as far as the rest of the stuff goes, it all seems very weak and that BS about what time he called the police is a laughing stock - especially as just a few years ago he argued the opposite. I can't say for sure, but I bet that was part of the stuff that SM refused to present.

[Steve_uk]

JB has consistently stated that he received the telephone call from his father.  There is no direct evidence to contradict this.  In view of this it is not possible to analyse this further in isolation.  If you take the view that the evidence overall is conclusive of JB's guilt then obviously you take the view that notwithstanding there being no direct evidence on the matter the call from NB cannot have taken place.  It is somewhat a circular analysis.  If on the other hand you take the view that the evidence overall does not establish JB's guilt there is no reason to disbelieve JB's account.

It's quite evident that you don't take this view, so you have dismissed all the evidence against Jeremy Bamber in your mind.

[Jan]

It's quite evident that you don't take this view, so you have dismissed all the evidence against Jeremy Bamber in your mind.

but what is the evidence against Jeremy ? Julie mugfords testimony ? Not the silencer surely ?

The rest is opinion and hearsay and assumption?

[Steve_uk]

but what is the evidence against Jeremy ? Julie mugfords testimony ? Not the silencer surely ?

The rest is opinion and hearsay and assumption?

The whole scenario from the spotting of the rabbits to Jeremy Bamber's interrogation by Police. It's all a tissue of lies on his part.

[Jan]

The whole scenario from the spotting of the rabbits to Jeremy Bamber's interrogation by Police. It's all a tissue of lies on his part.
[/quote


at the moemnt as he is guilty in jail of course you can assume that to be the case .

Lets see what happens in the future.


if he is proven innocent all of a sudden it becomes true . thats the problem with scenarios

[Kaldin]

As we don't know why the jury convicted Jeremy, it could indeed be very relevant that Julie Mugford was paid for her story, on condition that there was a guilty verdict. This has surely been addressed by previous appeals though.

[Jan]

As we don't know why the jury convicted Jeremy, it could indeed be very relevant that Julie Mugford was paid for her story, on condition that there was a guilty verdict. This has surely been addressed by previous appeals though.

I don't think they could prove when the deal was made though .

the papers were "missing"

[maggie]

I don't think they could prove when the deal was made though .

the papers were "missing"

Hello Jan, good to see you back. 😀. Big surprise the papers were missing 

[Kaldin]

I don't think they could prove when the deal was made though .

the papers were "missing"

It was discussed before the trial though wasn't it? I would have thought that was enough.

[Jan]

Hello Jan, good to see you back. 😀. Big surprise the papers were missing 

Hi Maggie

hope all is ok with you .

I am back waiting for the reaction to the "drama " really and to see if sensible discussions were being had (:

[Jan]

It was discussed before the trial though wasn't it? I would have thought that was enough.

well with the law at the time if it had of been proved I think there would have been a prosecution - tbh recall the deal was discussed at the appeal but was dismissed - I think - sorry bit rusty as I have not been on here for a while

[Jan]

It was discussed before the trial though wasn't it? I would have thought that was enough.

sorry do you mean before the trial or the appeal .

I think that there was a warning not to speak to the press during the trial ? But  not sure . I would have to check.

[Jan]

It was discussed before the trial though wasn't it? I would have thought that was enough.

I found this from a while ago :


he defence received information that Julie Mugford had concluded a deal with the NoW.  Geoffrey Rivlin raised this in chambers with the judge.  The judge ordered the prosecution to make enquiries, which they did.  They reported back to the judge and the defence that Julie Mugford stated that she had concluded no agreement with any newspaper, and had no intention of doing so.  As a result of that Julie Mugford was not cross examined on this, upon the basis that she would have repeated her denial and under the rules of evidence and professional conduct she could not have been accused of lying about this because the defence did not have any admissible evidence to contradict it.