Interview with Peter Tatchell

[BarefootDanC]

Jez is saying he hasn't got all the disclosure he wants.

But that doesn't make it true. It just serves to create an impression that the police are hiding stuff.

[Bubo bubo]

But that doesn't make it true. It just serves to create an impression that the police are hiding stuff.

That is because they are hiding stuff. The CT produced a dossier outlining the documentation that is missing based on existing paperwork. It is on the CT website. How can you be taken seriously when your knowledge of key issues surrounding this case appears so limited.

[Steve_uk]

That is because they are hiding stuff. The CT produced a dossier outlining the documentation that is missing based on existing paperwork. It is on the CT website. How can you be taken seriously when your knowledge of key issues surrounding this case appears so limited.

Maybe you could outline here what you wish to be disclosed.

[BarefootDanC]

That is because they are hiding stuff. The CT produced a dossier outlining the documentation that is missing based on existing paperwork. It is on the CT website. How can you be taken seriously when your knowledge of key issues surrounding this case appears so limited.

Hi Bubo bubo,

I have only just seen your reply.

Similarly, just because the CT claim something on their website, doesn't mean it is true either.

Are you referring to this? https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/h

Much of what they are requesting or saying they don't have is the "original". If they have a copy, that's disclosure.

Lets have a look a number 9:

"Public Interest Immunity file on Julie Mugford referring to a ‘deal’ with the Crown Prosecution Service in exchange for immunity from prosecution for five criminal offences, three of which were unknown to the jury."
This was gone over at the 2002 appeal. There was no "deal" with the Crown Prosecution Service. The defence argument was/is that Julie Mugford made up her story out of jealousy - now they want to say there were other motives as well or instead - that the police some how pressured her into giving evidence, or that Julie had sex with one of the officers, or gave evidence for £25,000.

"Plus disclosure of the Essex Police file on the £25,000 News of the World deal, agreed to in November/December 1985 (pre-trial) by Julie Mugford via her solicitors."

Again, this was gone over at the two appeals in the 80s and at the 2002 appeal. The defence have no evidence that the deal was agreed prior to trial, so that ground was dismissed.

If she made a deal through a solicitor, the solicitor would have made sure that everything was above board, otherwise the solicitor himself/herself would be in trouble with its regulators and/or be in Contempt of Court!

[ngb1066]

Hi Bubo bubo,

I have only just seen your reply.

Similarly, just because the CT claim something on their website, doesn't mean it is true either.

Are you referring to this? https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/h

Much of what they are requesting or saying they don't have is the "original". If they have a copy, that's disclosure.

Lets have a look a number 9:

"Public Interest Immunity file on Julie Mugford referring to a ‘deal’ with the Crown Prosecution Service in exchange for immunity from prosecution for five criminal offences, three of which were unknown to the jury."
This was gone over at the 2002 appeal. There was no "deal" with the Crown Prosecution Service. The defence argument was/is that Julie Mugford made up her story out of jealousy - now they want to say there were other motives as well or instead - that the police some how pressured her into giving evidence, or that Julie had sex with one of the officers, or gave evidence for £25,000.

"Plus disclosure of the Essex Police file on the £25,000 News of the World deal, agreed to in November/December 1985 (pre-trial) by Julie Mugford via her solicitors."

Again, this was gone over at the two appeals in the 80s and at the 2002 appeal. The defence have no evidence that the deal was agreed prior to trial, so that ground was dismissed.

If she made a deal through a solicitor, the solicitor would have made sure that everything was above board, otherwise the solicitor himself/herself would be in trouble with its regulators and/or be in Contempt of Court!

You are completely wrong on everything you say about this.  I have detailed knowledge of the material related to this.  I do not have time to repeat it here but if you look at my posts from 2012 you will see what I have said.