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

[mike tesko]

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

[grahameb]

The fact that she says she "skim read" the contract has no defence as far as contracts go. She signed it whilst she was in full control of her faculties. It was up to her whether she chose to use those faculties or not. Acontract is binding and presupposes that we have read it properly as by signing it we in effect agree with every word of it.

[ngb1066]

At the trial the judge, prosecution counsel and defence counsel were all given totally incorrect information about Julie Mugford's dealings with the media.  She stated that she had not entered into any agreement to sell her story.  Even if she had not read all of the details of her contract with the News of the World she certainly knew that she had signed a contract with them. 

   

[Gemini]

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

[ngb1066]

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.

   

[clifford]

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.

 

[chochokeira]

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, Cliff, this is an utter disgrace. Trials have been stopped because it has emerged that witnesses have done deals like this. Yet once again, no one among the powers that be will do the right thing and allow Jeremy's defence the information it has a right to and must have regarding the deal that was done here. Time after time Jeremy's right to a fair trial and to equitable treatment has been prejudiced by such scandalously withheld information.

[ngb1066]

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.

[Gemini]

Thanks N.   What grounds would the Appeal Court have given for this application to have been refused or do they not have to give a reason.   Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for the defence to ask for clarify this point.

[ngb1066]

Thanks N.   What grounds would the Appeal Court have given for this application to have been refused or do they not have to give a reason.   Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for the defence to ask for clarify this point.

I agree with you, the defence application was entirely reasonable.  I do not know what grounds were given as it does not appear in the judgement itself.  The application was made at a preliminary hearing. If you read the 2002 Court of Appeal judgement it is clear that the Court of Appeal judges had made their mind up that Jeremy Bamber was guilty and they approached each of the grounds of appeal from that viewpoint.  As I have posted before, the Court of Appeal have a very poor record in righting miscarriages of justice.


 

[clifford]

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.

Yet her testamony was allowed, why?
This is all to do with the " system" and cannot be questioned. Why.
The more that comes out from this case makes me feel unsure of our judicial system.
We have judges that are beyond reproach who blatently influence juries.
Judges should be impartial, not pro, or anti police.
They should hang their heads in shame. Instead of worrying about their next pay cheque, they should be taking care of justice
What a bunch of tossers. One can only hope that they find themselves in front of a court.
Hang on I think they have, and were found GUILTY.
WANKERS.

[grahameb]

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.

[ngb1066]

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.

[grahameb]

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?

[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?