"I haven't rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury." (JM)

[chochokeira]

"All of this business about him planning murders and doing these terrible things came into your mind when it was apparent that he was no longer going to be with you",

defence barrister, Geoffrey Rivlin, demanded of JM during her cross examination at Jeremy's trial, according to Claire Powell's book.

JM's reply, according to Powell, was the extraordinary statement:

"I haven't rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury."

Why did Rivlin not immediately challenge this totally untrue claim?

Why did he not tell JM: oh but you most certainly have rehearsed what you are telling us here - over and over and over again, haven't you? Please tell the jury, JM, was it some 31 or 32 sessions of rehearsals that you had in the months leading up this trial?

Why was JM not asked to describe each of those rehearsal sessions and exactly what she had rehearsed during the course of each one?

Why was this line of questioning not followed up? Why weren't the judge and jury made acutely aware that every single nuance of JM's testimony, every sob, every sympathy eliciting glance, every word of every answer, had been honed and rehearsed and cosmetically enhanced over and over and over again?

Why didn't Rivlin engrave on the judge and jury's memories that JM could only give the near word perfect performance they saw before them thanks to the astonishing number of rehearsals she had had?

[chochokeira]

Powell's book describes how JM, who had been reasonably composed during her examination by the prosecution, broke into 'violent sobbing' when the barrister for the defence, Geoffrey Rivlin, began to cross examine her.

This relentless sobbing made the cross examination hellishly difficult for Rivlin, at times it prompted breaks for JM to compose herself - breaks which relieved the pressure on JM wonderfully, breaks of up to 5 minutes that she should never had had. Did this sobbing prompt Rivlin to be too soft on JM?

Under cross examination, JM described how she was prompted to go to the police and how her relationship with Jeremy broke down - not because she had been humiliated and betrayed by this love of her life bedding her friend, not because he had jilted her - she went to the police, solely, she claimed, because her conscience had pricked her into it and because she wanted Jeremy to see what he had done.

In that case, it was JM's concience over the murders which pricked her into attempting to smother Jeremy in his sleep, was it?

Was her conscience too which prompted her to tell Jeremy, 'if I can't have you, no one will?

What utter rubbish! JM's claims were totally contradicted by her actions and the claims she made in court were totally contradicted too by her own words.

JM's statements to the police were even astonishingly contradicted by what JM, on her own admission, had said just days or weeks earlier.

JM should have been closely cross examined about these glaring contradictions between her actions and her words and between the statements she made in and out of court. She should have been confronted with these contradictions.

Yet this line of questioning which begged to be followed appears to have been ignored.

[chochokeira]

"I haven't rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury."


Even this statement implies a sort of precognition, that JM certainly has rehearsed what she aims to tell them.

[smiffy]

Look at what Choch posted with care;


"All of this business about him planning murders and doing these terrible things came into your mind when it was apparent that he was no longer going to be with you",

defence barrister, Geoffrey Rivlin, demanded of JM during her cross examination at Jeremy's trial, according to Claire Powell's book.

JM's reply, according to Powell, was the extraordinary statement:

"I haven't rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury."

Look at the question posed ....to which a yes or no answer should be given.
JM gives neither answer ...so she does not deny the accusation made by Rivlin. It therefore stands as being a correct accusation and is not denied in anyway shape or form.

Her avoidance is a strong indicator of deception and that is my opinion upon that. She was lying.
Her claim not to have rehearsed evidence when such a suggestion was not made to her can logically lead to the conclusion that indeed she had rehearsed the evidence as its an issue within her own mind she was concerned with.

[chochokeira]

Look at what Choch posted with care;


"All of this business about him planning murders and doing these terrible things came into your mind when it was apparent that he was no longer going to be with you",

defence barrister, Geoffrey Rivlin, demanded of JM during her cross examination at Jeremy's trial, according to Claire Powell's book.

JM's reply, according to Powell, was the extraordinary statement:

"I haven't rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury."

Look at the question posed ....to which a yes or no answer should be given.
JM gives neither answer ...so she does not deny the accusation made by Rivlin. It therefore stands as being a correct accusation and is not denied in anyway shape or form.

Her avoidance is a strong indicator of deception and that is my opinion upon that. She was lying.
Her claim not to have rehearsed evidence when such a suggestion was not made to her can logically lead to the conclusion that indeed she had rehearsed the evidence as its an issue within her own mind she was concerned with.

I agree, Smiffy. Why did the issue of 'rehearsal' even enter JM's mind at this juncture in the cross examination? Why did she give this completely incongruous reply, one which had nothing whatsoever to do with the question she'd been asked?

Unless she was sweating on the possibility of a question about all of those mysterious rehearsals?

Had the issue of the rehearsals even been addressed during those rehearsals themselves?
Was JM asked, what will you say if the defence asks you why you had so many meetings about your testimony?

Had a reply perhaps been rehearsed to this question - and did JM, when under pressure, blurt it out at the wrong time?

Or did JM decide to raise the issue herself, on her own terms, in the hope that this would prevent Rivlin asking her about these numerous rehearsals?

[nugnug]

well if you havent rehearsed what your going to say you don't mention the fact.

[grahameb]

Some very good points Keira.

[ngb1066]

Keira, you have made some very good points.  I suspect that Geoffrey Rivlin did not realise the extent to which Julie Mugford had been coached.  I believe that it was only as a result of the COLP enquiry that the full history of the numerous meeting with the police came to light.  Had Rivlin known of this he would undoubtedly have cross examined Julie Mugford and some of the police officers on this subject.

A further issue which the jury never heard about was the News of the World deal.  The defence received information that a deal had been done and brought it to the attention of the judge in the absence of the jury.  The judge directed the prosecution to investigate this.  They did so and were informed by Julie Mugford that no deal had been entered into.  This was discussed in chambers with the judge.  As a result of the assurances given Julie Mugford was not cross examined about the clear and substantial financial interest she had in guilty verdicts being returned.

If both of these important facts had been explored by Geoffrey Rivlin in cross examination it is likely that the jury's assessment of Julie Mugford's evidence would have been very different.

 

[nugnug]

well if she said that then shes clearly guilty of perjury.

[campion]

I have just found this about geoffrey rivlin qc involvement with corruption. In 1969 after having been a police officer for 15 years, John Alexander Symonds was one of three officers charged with corruption, following a newspaper investigation into bribery at Scotland Yard. I think its operation Countryman. He skipped bail and fled to Morocco. Symonds claimed that he had been 'fitted up' and forced to leave under pain of death, after threatening to expose during any trial "the endemic and systemic corruption within the metroplitan police. The barrister involved with his trial was Geoffrey Rivlin qc, Later to become Justice Rivlin. Your eyes will bang together when you read what John Alexander Symonds says. As I am hopeless on a computer its over to you Bamberista's.

Admin note:  I have felt it necessary to censor part of this post for legal reasons.

[ngb1066]

well if she said that then shes clearly guilty of perjury.

As I understand it Julie Mugford was not asked about the NOW deal under oath and did not make a formal witness statement about it, so her lies about the matter did not constitute perjury.  It would have been better if this had been tested in cross examination in the absence of the jury, as Julie Mugford would have been under far greater pressure to reveal the truth.  However, Geoffrey Rivlin accepted what was reported by prosecution counsel as he presumably was satisfied that proper enquiries had been made. 

[chochokeira]

Keira, you have made some very good points.  I suspect that Geoffrey Rivlin did not realise the extent to which Julie Mugford had been coached.  I believe that it was only as a result of the COLP enquiry that the full history of the numerous meeting with the police came to light.  Had Rivlin known of this he would undoubtedly have cross examined Julie Mugford and some of the police officers on this subject.

A further issue which the jury never heard about was the News of the World deal. The defence received information that a deal had been done and brought it to the attention of the judge in the absence of the jury.  The judge directed the prosecution to investigate this.  They did so and were informed by Julie Mugford that no deal had been entered into.  This was discussed in chambers with the judge.  As a result of the assurances given Julie Mugford was not cross examined about the clear and substantial financial interest she had in guilty verdicts being returned.

If both of these important facts had been explored by Geoffrey Rivlin in cross examination it is likely that the jury's assessment of Julie Mugford's evidence would have been very different.

 

Thank you, NGB. You make good points regarding the withholding of information of NOW deal too.

One further issue which I believe the jury was denied knowledge of was the sweeping immunity from prosecution given to JM, immunity which I regard as astonishing.

JM claimed to have been told by Jeremy that he intended to commit five murders and she gave various - conflicting? - explanations regarding why she had failed to notify the police or the family, including the strange claim that she dismissed the murder threats as 'tittle tattle.' 

JM admitted to taking part in theft from the caravan park.

She admitted that she and her friend had been involved in a cheque fraud.

Instead of her crimes landing her in court, JM was given immunity from prosecution and was paid the, then, substantial sum of £25,000, sufficient money to purchase a flat and to travel to Australia for an expensive overseas holiday.

Had the jury known of JM's deal with the NOW, of the eye popping immunity she had been given and of the 32 rehearsals JM had had prior to the hearing, isn't it highly likely that this knowledge would have shaken the jury's confidence in JM's testimony to the core?

[ngb1066]

Keira, you have made some very good points.  I suspect that Geoffrey Rivlin did not realise the extent to which Julie Mugford had been coached.  I believe that it was only as a result of the COLP enquiry that the full history of the numerous meeting with the police came to light.  Had Rivlin known of this he would undoubtedly have cross examined Julie Mugford and some of the police officers on this subject.

A further issue which the jury never heard about was the News of the World deal. The defence received information that a deal had been done and brought it to the attention of the judge in the absence of the jury.  The judge directed the prosecution to investigate this.  They did so and were informed by Julie Mugford that no deal had been entered into.  This was discussed in chambers with the judge.  As a result of the assurances given Julie Mugford was not cross examined about the clear and substantial financial interest she had in guilty verdicts being returned.

If both of these important facts had been explored by Geoffrey Rivlin in cross examination it is likely that the jury's assessment of Julie Mugford's evidence would have been very different.

 

Thank you, NGB. You make good points regarding the withholding of information of NOW deal too.

One further issue which I believe the jury was denied knowledge of was the sweeping immunity from prosecution given to JM, immunity which I regard as astonishing.

JM claimed to have been told by Jeremy that he intended to commit five murders and she gave various - conflicting? - explanations regarding why she had failed to notify the police or the family, including the strange claim that she dismissed the murder threats as 'tittle tattle.' 

JM admitted to taking part in theft from the caravan park.

She admitted that she and her friend had been involved in a cheque fraud.

Instead of her crimes landing her in court, JM was given immunity from prosecution and was paid the, then, substantial sum of £25,000, sufficient money to purchase a flat and to travel to Australia for an expensive overseas holiday.

Had the jury known of JM's deal with the NOW, of the eye popping immunity she had been given and of the 32 rehearsals JM had had prior to the hearing, isn't it highly likely that this knowledge would have shaken the jury's confidence in JM's testimony to the core?

Yes, I agree with you that this knowledge would have given the 10 jury members who accepted Julie Mugford's evidence cause to reflect upon whether they could be sure she was telling the truth.



 

[grahameb]

I really am at a loss that her evidence was not rejected?

[chochokeira]

I really am at a loss that her evidence was not rejected?

All of this information was withheld from the Jury, Grahame.