Ngb with all your experience were you surprised Julie Mugford didn't have to be at the 2002 Appeal?
Once again when you read all these inconsistances in JM statements I would be absolutely furious if I had been on the Jury
Do you think there's a possibility there wood be details of the Now deal held under PII showing the deal was done before trialI am thinking of getting hold of that copy of the notw even though it's £59
Or does anyone on here know who did the story if so is he contactable
Ngb would it make any difference to JB s case if we had absolute proof JM did the deal before trial
Jackie - Julie Mugford did attend the 2002 appeal and was expected to be called as a witness to answer questions about her deal with the NoW. Clear evidence existed that the deal with the NoW had been concluded in advance of the trial and that the £25,000 payment was conditional upon Jeremy Bamber being convicted. As a result of a ruling by the Court of Appeal judges that evidence was not made available and it was therefore not possible for Julie Mugford to be cross examined. She was protected by the Court of Appeal judges in relation to this and also in relation to the active intervention of the police in dealing with her involvement in the cheque frauds. The Court of Appeal judges in my view adopted this protective position towards Julie Mugford because if they had not done so they would have had little choice other than to allow the appeal, given her importance as a witness at trial. They appeared determined not to allow this appeal and in my view did not adopt a fair and balanced view towards the grounds of appeal argued by defence counsel.
I do not believe that the details of the NoW deal are being withheld under PII. I suspect that certain Essex Police officers may have known the truth but prosecution counsel, defence counsel and the judge were told lies about the position, as a result of which Julie Mugford was not cross examined at trial about this and the jury were therefore kept completely in the dark. The evidence relating to the NoW deal was not held by the prosecution but the defence knew where it was and could have obtained it if the Court of Appeal judges had accepted the arguments presented by defence counsel. However as a result of the Court of Appeal judges' ruling it was not possible for the evidence to be obtained and the issue therefore remained covered up at the appeal as it had been at trial. I find this appalling. It remains possible that if the evidence is obtained the point could be argued again on appeal but it will not be easy as it will be suggested that this is a subject which has already been covered and is therefore not strictly a new ground of appeal. As I have pointed out before, the odds are stacked against the defence on an appeal against conviction under our system.
Absolutely disgusting behaviour by these people who are supposed to uphold the law and to meet out justice. DISGRACEFUL the lot of them. The more I read about these OBNOXIOUS CHARACTERS who hold the highest positions in the legal system the more I feel physically sick. They are nothing but wicked pigs who need to be slung into gaol.
