Julie Mugford - contract with News of the World (trial)...

[jon]

N,  do you know exactly what the legal wranglings were that prevented the defence calling her during the 2001 appeal?  Thanks

The defence made an application to obtain a copy of the contract between Julie Mugford and the News of the World.  The defence had information 1) that the contract had been entered into before Julie Mugford gave evidence and 2) that the contract provided that payment would only be made in the event of a guilty verdict.  The Court of Appeal refused the defence application and defence counsel therefore took the view that it was not possible to explore this issue further since Julie Mugford would simply say what she said in her 2002 witness statement, that she could not remember when she had entered into the contract and had not read the contract in any detail.  Since this was the only issue in respect of which the Court of Appeal had agreed that Julie Mugford could be cross examined she was not called to give evidence.
That is disgraceful. A lack of memery sounds to me like I don't wish to be cross examined, and the defence were shameful.

 

I agree, Julie Mugford is simply not believable.  She must have remembered very well that she signed the contract before the trial.  Before she signed it her solicitor will have explained the terms to her.  She must have been very relieved not to have been cross examined about this before the Court of Appeal.

But surely even if she said she couldn't remember when she took out a contract the date on the contract would confirm whether she did it before the trial or or after the trial? But that would be irrelevant anyway since the wording of the contract would determine that it must've been before the trial anyway.

Yes, the contract itself would have settled the issue.  The problem was that it was never produced in court.  That is what the defence were trying to do, but the Court of Appeal would not agree to make the necessary order.

But that just doesn't make sense. A mans life was at stake. Why can't the anti's see all this corruption?

Fred West's appropriate adult, Janet Leach (I think) also made a deal with the tabloids and lied about it on the stand which was discovered during the trial..............still didn't change the verdict though.
What about the deal that Jeremy made with the tabloids?

Is that the best you can do ?

[lucy70]

N,  do you know exactly what the legal wranglings were that prevented the defence calling her during the 2001 appeal?  Thanks

The defence made an application to obtain a copy of the contract between Julie Mugford and the News of the World.  The defence had information 1) that the contract had been entered into before Julie Mugford gave evidence and 2) that the contract provided that payment would only be made in the event of a guilty verdict.  The Court of Appeal refused the defence application and defence counsel therefore took the view that it was not possible to explore this issue further since Julie Mugford would simply say what she said in her 2002 witness statement, that she could not remember when she had entered into the contract and had not read the contract in any detail.  Since this was the only issue in respect of which the Court of Appeal had agreed that Julie Mugford could be cross examined she was not called to give evidence.
That is disgraceful. A lack of memery sounds to me like I don't wish to be cross examined, and the defence were shameful.

 

I agree, Julie Mugford is simply not believable.  She must have remembered very well that she signed the contract before the trial.  Before she signed it her solicitor will have explained the terms to her.  She must have been very relieved not to have been cross examined about this before the Court of Appeal.

But surely even if she said she couldn't remember when she took out a contract the date on the contract would confirm whether she did it before the trial or or after the trial? But that would be irrelevant anyway since the wording of the contract would determine that it must've been before the trial anyway.

Yes, the contract itself would have settled the issue.  The problem was that it was never produced in court.  That is what the defence were trying to do, but the Court of Appeal would not agree to make the necessary order.

But that just doesn't make sense. A mans life was at stake. Why can't the anti's see all this corruption?

Fred West's appropriate adult, Janet Leach (I think) also made a deal with the tabloids and lied about it on the stand which was discovered during the trial..............still didn't change the verdict though.
What about the deal that Jeremy made with the tabloids?

Is that the best you can do ?

No is just what came to mind when I read this thread...............sorry if it doesn't live up to your high standards! 

[jon]

N,  do you know exactly what the legal wranglings were that prevented the defence calling her during the 2001 appeal?  Thanks

The defence made an application to obtain a copy of the contract between Julie Mugford and the News of the World.  The defence had information 1) that the contract had been entered into before Julie Mugford gave evidence and 2) that the contract provided that payment would only be made in the event of a guilty verdict.  The Court of Appeal refused the defence application and defence counsel therefore took the view that it was not possible to explore this issue further since Julie Mugford would simply say what she said in her 2002 witness statement, that she could not remember when she had entered into the contract and had not read the contract in any detail.  Since this was the only issue in respect of which the Court of Appeal had agreed that Julie Mugford could be cross examined she was not called to give evidence.
That is disgraceful. A lack of memery sounds to me like I don't wish to be cross examined, and the defence were shameful.

 

I agree, Julie Mugford is simply not believable.  She must have remembered very well that she signed the contract before the trial.  Before she signed it her solicitor will have explained the terms to her.  She must have been very relieved not to have been cross examined about this before the Court of Appeal.

But surely even if she said she couldn't remember when she took out a contract the date on the contract would confirm whether she did it before the trial or or after the trial? But that would be irrelevant anyway since the wording of the contract would determine that it must've been before the trial anyway.

Yes, the contract itself would have settled the issue.  The problem was that it was never produced in court.  That is what the defence were trying to do, but the Court of Appeal would not agree to make the necessary order.

But that just doesn't make sense. A mans life was at stake. Why can't the anti's see all this corruption?

Fred West's appropriate adult, Janet Leach (I think) also made a deal with the tabloids and lied about it on the stand which was discovered during the trial..............still didn't change the verdict though.
What about the deal that Jeremy made with the tabloids?

Is that the best you can do ?

No is just what came to mind when I read this thread...............sorry if it doesn't live up to your high standards! 

Julie Mugford is a liar , fact !!

[lucy70]

N,  do you know exactly what the legal wranglings were that prevented the defence calling her during the 2001 appeal?  Thanks

The defence made an application to obtain a copy of the contract between Julie Mugford and the News of the World.  The defence had information 1) that the contract had been entered into before Julie Mugford gave evidence and 2) that the contract provided that payment would only be made in the event of a guilty verdict.  The Court of Appeal refused the defence application and defence counsel therefore took the view that it was not possible to explore this issue further since Julie Mugford would simply say what she said in her 2002 witness statement, that she could not remember when she had entered into the contract and had not read the contract in any detail.  Since this was the only issue in respect of which the Court of Appeal had agreed that Julie Mugford could be cross examined she was not called to give evidence.
That is disgraceful. A lack of memery sounds to me like I don't wish to be cross examined, and the defence were shameful.

 

I agree, Julie Mugford is simply not believable.  She must have remembered very well that she signed the contract before the trial.  Before she signed it her solicitor will have explained the terms to her.  She must have been very relieved not to have been cross examined about this before the Court of Appeal.

But surely even if she said she couldn't remember when she took out a contract the date on the contract would confirm whether she did it before the trial or or after the trial? But that would be irrelevant anyway since the wording of the contract would determine that it must've been before the trial anyway.

Yes, the contract itself would have settled the issue.  The problem was that it was never produced in court.  That is what the defence were trying to do, but the Court of Appeal would not agree to make the necessary order.

But that just doesn't make sense. A mans life was at stake. Why can't the anti's see all this corruption?

Fred West's appropriate adult, Janet Leach (I think) also made a deal with the tabloids and lied about it on the stand which was discovered during the trial..............still didn't change the verdict though.
What about the deal that Jeremy made with the tabloids?

Is that the best you can do ?

No is just what came to mind when I read this thread...............sorry if it doesn't live up to your high standards! 

Julie Mugford is a liar , fact !!

Honestly? .......She's not exactly someone that I'd call a star witness either.
Neither is Jeremy.
They're both self serving liars in my opinion.

[VORTEX]

N,  do you know exactly what the legal wranglings were that prevented the defence calling her during the 2001 appeal?  Thanks

The defence made an application to obtain a copy of the contract between Julie Mugford and the News of the World.  The defence had information 1) that the contract had been entered into before Julie Mugford gave evidence and 2) that the contract provided that payment would only be made in the event of a guilty verdict. 
OThe Court of Appeal refused the defence application and defence counsel therefore took the view that it was not possible to explore this issue further since Julie Mugford would simply say what she said in her 2002 witness statement, that she could not remember when she had entered into the contract and had not read the contract in any detail.  Since this was the only issue in respect of which the Court of Appeal had agreed that Julie Mugford could be cross examined she was not called to give evidence.
That is disgraceful. A lack of memery sounds to me like I don't wish to be cross examined, and the defence were shameful.

 

I agree, Julie Mugford is simply not believable.  She must have remembered very well that she signed the contract before the trial.  Before she signed it her solicitor will have explained the terms to her.  She must have been very relieved not to have been cross examined about this before the Court of Appeal.

But surely even if she said she couldn't remember when she took out a contract the date on the contract would confirm whether she did it before the trial or or after the trial? But that would be irrelevant anyway since the wording of the contract would determine that it must've been before the trial anyway.

Yes, the contract itself would have settled the issue.  The problem was that it was never produced in court.  That is what the defence were trying to do, but the Court of Appeal would not agree to make the necessary
order.

But that just doesn't make sense. A mans life was at stake. Why can't the anti's see all this corruption?

Fred West's appropriate adult, Janet Leach (I think) also made a deal with the tabloids and lied about it on the stand which was discovered during the trial..............still didn't change the verdict though.
What about the deal that Jeremy made with the tabloids?

Is that the best you can do ?

No is just what came to mind when I read this thread...............sorry if it doesn't live up to your high
standards! 

Julie Mugford is a liar , fact !!

Honestly? .......She's not exactly someone that I'd call a star witness either.
Neither is Jeremy.
They're both self serving liars in my opinion.

It's a fact she lied so the real question is are any of her versions the truth? If her final story were true a good time to cough the lot would have been 9am on the 7th of August 1985. The fact she didn't speaks volumes and paints an awful picture of her. If she knew about the plans and kept it all up for over a month? unbelievable - any women would have dropped him like a stone within hours.

[Alias]

VORTEX, Julie looks bad no matter how you view the case.

[grahameb]

She should never have been used as a witness at all let alone a "star" witness. By the way you can't use the same argument for Jeremy. He cannot be termed a witness, because he was the accused. The accused is never obliged to say anything at all. It is entirely up to the prosecution to prove him guilty. In my view that was not done. The jury made their decision on incomplete evidence. In fact they made their decision on the testimony of a proven lier and a dodgy contaminated silencer.

[Gemini]

At least Janet Leech admitted the truth on the stand and therefore the jury were allowed to take into account this fact.   The Bamber jury never got that chance.  It was shameful behaviour.

[lucy70]

At least Janet Leech admitted the truth on the stand and therefore the jury were allowed to take into account this fact.   The Bamber jury never got that chance.  It was shameful behaviour.

This article says she lied on the stand when asked.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035800/Appropriate-Adult-Police-forgive-serial-killer-Fred-Wests-confidante-Janet-Leach.html

[boheme]

Does anyone have a copy of the New of the World article by any chance please ? - It would be interesting to see what they wrote as she was apparently not very happy with the article as published.

[ngb1066]

Does anyone have a copy of the New of the World article by any chance please ? - It would be interesting to see what they wrote as she was apparently not very happy with the article as published.

Nobody on the forum has been able to find a copy of the News of the World article.  it would be interesting to see it.

[chochokeira]

Does anyone have a copy of the New of the World article by any chance please ? - It would be interesting to see what they wrote as she was apparently not very happy with the article as published.

Nobody on the forum has been able to find a copy of the News of the World article.  it would be interesting to see it.

I believe the ERO (Essex Records Office) have one, along with a box of newspaper cuttings (containing national and local Blackwater articles) on the case. A local man collected these during the 80s and his family donated them to the ERO on his death.

However, I've already hotfooted it to the ERO to have a look at these gems and have copies made.

"Sorry", said the searchroom assistant, "we've looked at them and they're too fragile to be produced. They're mostly on cheap paper and that quickly disintegrates"

I don't accept this excuse, NGB, I have newspapers that are well over a 100 years old in my collection and these can still be can still be handled with care.

I appealled to the senior archivist and tried to persuade her to see the logic of allowing me to pay for what may well be a unique collection to be copied now, to save a record of it before the entire contents of the box turns to confetti, but she wouldn't have any of it. She told me the ERO would only copy the collection if there was higher demand for these records.

Might a solicitor's letter do the trick, I wonder, if this were to mention that it would be cheaper for the ERO to volunteer to accept payment for copying these documents rather than to go through the time consuming process of being required to do so under a court order? Jeremy's defence should write to the ERO and try to get copies of these articles, most of which are likely to be unavailable anywhere else.

[Alias]

Does anyone have a copy of the New of the World article by any chance please ? - It would be interesting to see what they wrote as she was apparently not very happy with the article as published.

Nobody on the forum has been able to find a copy of the News of the World article.  it would be interesting to see it.

I believe the ERO (Essex Records Office) have one, along with a box of newspaper cuttings (containing national and local Blackwater articles) on the case. A local man collected these during the 80s and his family donated them to the ERO on his death.

However, I've already hotfooted it to the ERO to have a look at these gems and have copies made.

"Sorry", said the searchroom assistant, "we've looked at them and they're too fragile to be produced. They're mostly on cheap paper and that quickly disintegrates"

I don't accept this excuse, NGB, I have newspapers that are well over a 100 years old in my collection and these can still be can still be handled with care.

I appealled to the senior archivist and tried to persuade her to see the logic of allowing me to pay for what may well be a unique collection to be copied now, to save a record of it before the entire contents of the box turns to confetti, but she wouldn't have any of it. She told me the ERO would only copy the collection if there was higher demand for these records.

Might a solicitor's letter do the trick, I wonder, if this were to mention that it would be cheaper for the ERO to volunteer to accept payment for copying these documents rather than to go through the time consuming process of being required to do so under a court order? Jeremy's defence should write to the ERO and try to get copies of these articles, most of which are likely to be unavailable anywhere else.

This is BS. All information should be available in a democracy. I know it is here (Denmark). Newspapers from 17hundred something to this day. ALL. And all Danish citizens have a right to see them if they ask for it.
There must be some rules for this in England as well.
I would ask the relevant ministery.

[grahameb]

So if they're too fragile to look at what's the point of keeping them then?

[Roch]

So if they're too fragile to look at what's the point of keeping them then?

It's not in the public's interest to see them.  And they are exempt from FOI due their fragility.