Forum Members Posts Being Deleted For No Reason

[bloggs and son]

I agree to that any deal JB did is irrelevant, his greatest incentive to lie would be to stay out of prison. I don't think JMs contract, or any evidence as to the date it was signed has emerged yet, has it?

No it hasn't unfortunately. But I think it came out later that she did the deal? But she said she couldn't remember if it was before the trial or after (If she could remember when she got 25,000 quid then how could we be so sure of her memory on other matters) But I think I remember someone posting here about the deal and they found out the date it was signed? I think? But in any case her confession that she made the deal makes seeing the actual agreement redundant I should think?

[elphick]

Just a thought on this with reference to things being deleted. There was a picture of 'I hate this place' on a thread elsewhere but it has since been removed. It is then referred to here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2593.750.html

What does the moderation log show for this one?

[bloggs and son]

Just a thought on this with reference to things being deleted. There was a picture of 'I hate this place' on a thread elsewhere but it has since been removed. It is then referred to here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2593.750.html

What does the moderation log show for this one?

It may not have been deleted? It may just mean that you can't find it?

[Bridget]

No it hasn't unfortunately. But I think it came out later that she did the deal? But she said she couldn't remember if it was before the trial or after (If she could remember when she got 25,000 quid then how could we be so sure of her memory on other matters) But I think I remember someone posting here about the deal and they found out the date it was signed? I think? But in any case her confession that she made the deal makes seeing the actual agreement redundant I should think?

She was hardly trying to hide the fact that she'd done the deal was she though? The story was all over the paper a week or so after the end of the trial. No one is going to believe that she gave the story for nothing. I would think she was paid after she gave the story, so that doesn't really help. I don't believe anyone has ever been able to determine when the deal was done.

[ngb1066]

She was hardly trying to hide the fact that she'd done the deal was she though? The story was all over the paper a week or so after the end of the trial. No one is going to believe that she gave the story for nothing. I would think she was paid after she gave the story, so that doesn't really help. I don't believe anyone has ever been able to determine when the deal was done.

The deal was negotiated before the trial. Payment was made after the trial.  Julie Mugford lied about this during the trial.  Not only did she say that she had not entered into any deal but she said she had no intention of doing so.  This was a very serious matter and the prosecution, defence, judge and jury were deceived in relation to this.

[NewChilledOutHartley]

The deal was negotiated before the trial. Payment was made after the trial.  Julie Mugford lied about this during the trial.  Not only did she say that she had not entered into any deal but she said she had no intention of doing so.  This was a very serious matter and the prosecution, defence, judge and jury were deceived in relation to this.

I'm sure you don't mean this?

[bloggs and son]

She was hardly trying to hide the fact that she'd done the deal was she though? The story was all over the paper a week or so after the end of the trial. No one is going to believe that she gave the story for nothing. I would think she was paid after she gave the story, so that doesn't really help. I don't believe anyone has ever been able to determine when the deal was done.

That is just it. She did hide it from the court and the jury were not aware of it at the trial. Also the very fact that it was all over the papers the next week proves to some extent that she did made the deal "before" the trial. Deals like that don't just materialise over night. She "clearly" mislead the court and in particularly the jury.

[bloggs and son]

I'm sure you don't mean this?

Are you therefore defending her Hartley? She clearly mislead the court in relation to this newspaper deal. That in fact constitutes a criminal offence.

[ngb1066]

I'm sure you don't mean this?

I certainly do!

[NewChilledOutHartley]

I certainly do!

Are you suggesting that she actively lied about  the sale of a story at the original trial in 1986? Rather than it simply not being mentioned?

[Roch]

Are you suggesting that she actively lied about  the sale of a story at the original trial in 1986? Rather than it simply not being mentioned?

Have lies not been told about how she came to be a prosecution witness?  Walking in to the police station because she could no longer bear the burden?

[NewChilledOutHartley]

Have lies not been told about how she came to be a prosecution witness?  Walking in to the police station because she could no longer bear the burden?

I have no idea, I'm not sure how that is relevant to the above.

I know this is off topic, but Julies 2002 statement is an interesting read if people haven't already seen it:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1210.0.html

As are the details concerning this particular aspect of the case contained in the 2002 Appeal Judgement: http://www.homepage-link.to/JUSTICE/judgements/Bamber/index.html

[Bridget]

Have lies not been told about how she came to be a prosecution witness?  Walking in to the police station because she could no longer bear the burden?

Not unless you accept the latest defence spin as gospel.

[Roch]

I have no idea, I'm not sure how that is relevant to the above.

You like to deal in specifics, when it suits your arguments.  However, on occasion you take recourse to wider aspects of the case also, when it suits your arguments.  Both are aspects relevant to her overall credibility, as to how she became a prosecution witness, how she was 'handled' as a prosecution witness.

Not unless you accept the latest defence spin as gospel.

Are you referring to the Guardian article documents or something else?

[ngb1066]

Are you suggesting that she actively lied about  the sale of a story at the original trial in 1986? Rather than it simply not being mentioned?

Yes I am.  The defence received information that Julie Mugford had concluded a deal with the NoW.  Geoffrey Rivlin raised this in chambers with the judge.  The judge ordered the prosecution to make enquiries, which they did.  They reported back to the judge and the defence that Julie Mugford stated that she had concluded no agreement with any newspaper, and had no intention of doing so.  As a result of that Julie Mugford was not cross examined on this, upon the basis that she would have repeated her denial and under the rules of evidence and professional conduct she could not have been accused of lying about this because the defence did not have any admissible evidence to contradict it.