Did JM ever really love Jeremy Bamber?

[ngb1066]

Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:

1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone).   It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.

and this:

Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue.  When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action.  Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.

That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.

Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.

One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.

So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.

This really is school boy law.

Gerald  - I do not know where you get your law from but it is rubbish, to put it as politely as I can.  To succeed in a libel case the aggrieved party needs to demonstrate that the statements complained of are not in fact true.  If the statements are true they are not defamatory.  The burden of proof is upon the claimant/aggrieved party to show that the statements are untrue.

As I have stated before Julie Mugford would have two obstacles to cross before succeeding in a libel action.  The first is as I have explained above for the second time.  The second obstacle is to show that her reputation has genuinely been damaged by the statements.  In assessing that the court takes into account her current reputation.  Given that if she is to be believed she had advance knowledge of the murders and did nothing to prevent them, then assisted the murderer for a considerable period, obstructing the course of justice and behaving in a callous way towards relatives.  The argument could and would no doubt be advanced that her character and reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the public is already at a very low ebb.

Before you ask, yes I have been involved in defamation cases.  I have also advised publishers on libel issues.

[ngb1066]

Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:

1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone).   It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.

and this:

Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue.  When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action.  Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.

That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.

Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.

One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.

So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.

This really is school boy law.

Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?

If she sued for libel and was successful in court she could recover considerably more than £25,000 in damages.  However, she has not sued and I strongly suspect that she will not do so.

[ngb1066]

Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:

1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone).   It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.

and this:

Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue.  When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action.  Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.

That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.

Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.

One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.

So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.

This really is school boy law.

Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?

I have no idea.

Very true!

[chochokeira]

Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:

1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone).   It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.

and this:

Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue.  When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action.  Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.

That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.

Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.

One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.

So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.

This really is school boy law.

Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?

If she sued for libel and was successful in court she could recover considerably more than £25,000 in damages.  However, she has not sued and I strongly suspect that she will not do so.

[law1]

But where is the "boasting of killing his whole family"?  Is some further rummaging necessary?

I think it's being taken out of context and referring to when JB allegedly stated that he could kill any member of his family (or words to that effect) during a caravan park meeting.

actually it was I could easily kill my parents,so no need to dramatize it furter.words supposedly spoken to his uncle robert.the same uncle that was desperate to lay his hands on the bamber estate to provide future stability for his own family

[hartley]

But where is the "boasting of killing his whole family"?  Is some further rummaging necessary?

I think it's being taken out of context and referring to when JB allegedly stated that he could kill any member of his family (or words to that effect) during a caravan park meeting.

actually it was I could easily kill my parents,so no need to dramatize it furter.words supposedly spoken to his uncle robert.the same uncle that was desperate to lay his hands on the bamber estate to provide future stability for his own family

Hence my brackets.

[Gerald]

Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:

1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone).   It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.

and this:

Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue.  When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action.  Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.

That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.

Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.

One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.

So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.

This really is school boy law.

Gerald  - I do not know where you get your law from but it is rubbish, to put it as politely as I can.  To succeed in a libel case the aggrieved party needs to demonstrate that the statements complained of are not in fact true.  If the statements are true they are not defamatory.  The burden of proof is upon the claimant/aggrieved party to show that the statements are untrue.

As I have stated before Julie Mugford would have two obstacles to cross before succeeding in a libel action.  The first is as I have explained above for the second time.  The second obstacle is to show that her reputation has genuinely been damaged by the statements.  In assessing that the court takes into account her current reputation.  Given that if she is to be believed she had advance knowledge of the murders and did nothing to prevent them, then assisted the murderer for a considerable period, obstructing the course of justice and behaving in a callous way towards relatives.  The argument could and would no doubt be advanced that her character and reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the public is already at a very low ebb.

Before you ask, yes I have been involved in defamation cases.  I have also advised publishers on libel issues.

I wasn't going to ask because clearly you haven't.

There is a laymans guide to defamation on the Liberty website, I suggest you read it.

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/defamation/index.html

[grahameb]

Jackie, is it true that Jeremy is godfather to your children?

I know this one. No he is not and what has this to to with the current thread? Me thinks that your words are calculated to provoke Jackie. Warning. Your supposed facts are indeed ERROR.

[ngb1066]

Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:

1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone).   It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.

and this:

Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue.  When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action.  Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.

That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.

Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.

One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.

So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.

This really is school boy law.

Gerald  - I do not know where you get your law from but it is rubbish, to put it as politely as I can.  To succeed in a libel case the aggrieved party needs to demonstrate that the statements complained of are not in fact true.  If the statements are true they are not defamatory.  The burden of proof is upon the claimant/aggrieved party to show that the statements are untrue.

As I have stated before Julie Mugford would have two obstacles to cross before succeeding in a libel action.  The first is as I have explained above for the second time.  The second obstacle is to show that her reputation has genuinely been damaged by the statements.  In assessing that the court takes into account her current reputation.  Given that if she is to be believed she had advance knowledge of the murders and did nothing to prevent them, then assisted the murderer for a considerable period, obstructing the course of justice and behaving in a callous way towards relatives.  The argument could and would no doubt be advanced that her character and reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the public is already at a very low ebb.

Before you ask, yes I have been involved in defamation cases.  I have also advised publishers on libel issues.

I wasn't going to ask because clearly you haven't.

There is a laymans guide to defamation on the Liberty website, I suggest you read it.http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/defamation/index.html

You are as offensive as you are ignorant.  You accuse me of being a liar when you have no basis whatsoever for doing so.  That says far more about you than it does about me.  You have the arrogance to lecture me on a subject about which your extremely limited knowledge is based upon a quick internet search.  I on the other hand do know what I am talking about.  It is not worth spending more time trying to educate someone of your limited intellect.

 

[Gerald]

I am offensive? All I have said is that you are wrong. Did you read the Liberty site? Here is another one, the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/journalism/law/defamation/defamation-defences-justification.shtml

Where it says:

The claimant does not have to prove that your defamatory statement is false.

And again form the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A1183394

Where it says:

The burden of proof lies with the defendant
Almost uniquely in English law, in libel cases the burden of proof lies with the author / publisher and not the complainant. In other words, you have to prove that what you write is true. The person you?ve targeted does not have to prove that you?re wrong.


Can you find anything at all to back up your stance?

Touchy for a barrister aren't you.

[ngb1066]

I am offensive? All I have said is that you are wrong. Did you read the Liberty site? Here is another one, the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/journalism/law/defamation/defamation-defences-justification.shtml

Where it says:

The claimant does not have to prove that your defamatory statement is false.

And again form the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A1183394

Where it says:

The burden of proof lies with the defendant
Almost uniquely in English law, in libel cases the burden of proof lies with the author / publisher and not the complainant. In other words, you have to prove that what you write is true. The person you?ve targeted does not have to prove that you?re wrong.


Can you find anything at all to back up your stance?

Touchy for a barrister aren't you.

I can find plenty to back up my "stance".  The summaries you have posted are an oversimplification of the law for the benefit of lay people like yourself.  The burden of proof lies with the complainant, but in practice if a complainant states in evidence "I did not say x or did not do X" the burden of proving the contrary then effectively shifts back to the respondent. The burden of proving a particular point in any case can shift several times, for evidential reasons which are beyond the scope of this lecture and would certainly be beyond your comprehension.  Evidence is a complex area of the law. The position with Julie Mugford would would be far more difficult than for most complainants, if she were to bring an action for libel, in view of the circumstances surrounding her involvement in the case. 

What do you say about your original "learned" assertion that a statement can be libellous even if it is true?  Where did you find that bit of rubbish?

I am not particularly touchy but I do not like being called a liar. What gives you the right to say that I do not have the experience in this field which I do, as a matter of fact, have?

 

[Jackiepreece]

Ngb1066 you are awesome I could listen to you all day.

[Gerald]

I can find plenty to back up my "stance".

Go on then, case law will do. I’m sure as a barrister you will have access to reams of that.

Firstly, in English law it is claimant and defendant, or applicant and respondent in the case of an application.

The burden of proof lies with the complainant, but in practice if a complainant states in evidence "I did not say x or did not do X" the burden of proving the contrary then effectively shifts back to the respondent.

Good grief. Why would the claimant state in evidence "I did not say x or did not do X"? The claimant is complaining of the words of the defendant, not the other way around, do keep up.

When a defamation claim is brought the claimant must first persuade the court that the words are defamatory. The accepted legal definition of defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.

Once it is established that the words are defamatory it is up to the defendant to show that they have a defence to the claim. One such defence is “justification”, in other words, that the words published are true.

Here is a simple example:

Dave writes an article for a magazine which asserts that Clive (founder of a childrens charity) is a paedophile.

Clive sues Dave in defamation.

Clive successfully shows that Dave’s words are defamatory.

Dave pleads a defence of justification.

Dave now has to prove that Clive is a paedophile. Clive is not required to prove that he isn’t a paedophile (that would be absurd!).

Is that simple enough?

for evidential reasons which are beyond the scope of this lecture and would certainly be beyond your comprehension.

Careful, you’re starting to sound desperate.

[ngb1066]

I can find plenty to back up my "stance".

Go on then, case law will do. I’m sure as a barrister you will have access to reams of that.

Firstly, in English law it is claimant and defendant, or applicant and respondent in the case of an application.

The burden of proof lies with the complainant, but in practice if a complainant states in evidence "I did not say x or did not do X" the burden of proving the contrary then effectively shifts back to the respondent.

Good grief. Why would the claimant state in evidence "I did not say x or did not do X"? The claimant is complaining of the words of the defendant, not the other way around, do keep up.

When a defamation claim is brought the claimant must first persuade the court that the words are defamatory. The accepted legal definition of defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.

Once it is established that the words are defamatory it is up to the defendant to show that they have a defence to the claim. One such defence is “justification”, in other words, that the words published are true.

Here is a simple example:

Dave writes an article for a magazine which asserts that Clive (founder of a childrens charity) is a paedophile.

Clive sues Dave in defamation.

Clive successfully shows that Dave’s words are defamatory.

Dave pleads a defence of justification.

Dave now has to prove that Clive is a paedophile. Clive is not required to prove that he isn’t a paedophile (that would be absurd!).

Is that simple enough?

for evidential reasons which are beyond the scope of this lecture and would certainly be beyond your comprehension.

Careful, you’re starting to sound desperate.

Whatever I am I am not desperate.  Calmly confident might be a better description. You are totally out of your depth but also obnoxious in the way you attempt to mount an argument.  I cannot be bothered to spend the time necessary to demolish your points individually.  You have no knowledge of the law other than snippets taken from the internet, in some cases out of date and taken out of context. You are similar to another poster now barred from this site - in fact similar in many ways.  Apart from calling me a liar and refusing either to support that allegation or retract it, your tone and use of language and sentence construction appear familiar. 

   

[Gerald]

I can find plenty to back up my "stance".

Go on then, case law will do. I’m sure as a barrister you will have access to reams of that.

Firstly, in English law it is claimant and defendant, or applicant and respondent in the case of an application.

The burden of proof lies with the complainant, but in practice if a complainant states in evidence "I did not say x or did not do X" the burden of proving the contrary then effectively shifts back to the respondent.

Good grief. Why would the claimant state in evidence "I did not say x or did not do X"? The claimant is complaining of the words of the defendant, not the other way around, do keep up.

When a defamation claim is brought the claimant must first persuade the court that the words are defamatory. The accepted legal definition of defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.

Once it is established that the words are defamatory it is up to the defendant to show that they have a defence to the claim. One such defence is “justification”, in other words, that the words published are true.

Here is a simple example:

Dave writes an article for a magazine which asserts that Clive (founder of a childrens charity) is a paedophile.

Clive sues Dave in defamation.

Clive successfully shows that Dave’s words are defamatory.

Dave pleads a defence of justification.

Dave now has to prove that Clive is a paedophile. Clive is not required to prove that he isn’t a paedophile (that would be absurd!).

Is that simple enough?

for evidential reasons which are beyond the scope of this lecture and would certainly be beyond your comprehension.

Careful, you’re starting to sound desperate.

Whatever I am I am not desperate.  Calmly confident might be a better description. You are totally out of your depth but also obnoxious in the way you attempt to mount an argument.  I cannot be bothered to spend the time necessary to demolish your points individually.  You have no knowledge of the law other than snippets taken from the internet, in some cases out of date and taken out of context. You are similar to another poster now barred from this site - in fact similar in many ways.  Apart from calling me a liar and refusing either to support that allegation or retract it, your tone and use of language and sentence construction appear familiar. 

   

I'll make it simple for you then. Post the authority (I'm sure you know what I mean by "authority" don't you?) for your argument that the claimant must prove that the words of the defendant are untrue.