Forum Members Posts Being Deleted For No Reason

[NewChilledOutHartley]

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.

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

Absolutely not Rochy, I was merely being pedantic towards Neils post in which he stated that Julie lied during the trial. I was not trying to force a wider argument to the credibility of Julie as a witness, I think if you reread my post I haven't actually made any arguments in her favour or against.

Yes, I do like to deal in specifics, but please stop trying to read things between the lines in my contributions, which do not exist.

[Bridget]

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.

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

I thought you referring to the suggestion that she avoided prosecution for cheque fraud and caravan park burglary by giving evidence, which is based on some letters published in the Guardian, weren't you?

[NewChilledOutHartley]

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.

So Julie didn't lie then? If she wasn't questioned then when did she have the opportunity to lie?

I understand what you are saying and I am being pedantic. 

Is there any admissible evidence to contradict it now? Or anything available since this was dismissed in 2002?

[Roch]

Absolutely not Rochy, I was merely being pedantic towards Neils post in which he stated that Julie lied during the trial. I was not trying to force a wider argument to the credibility of Julie as a witness, I think if you reread my post I haven't actually made any arguments in her favour or against.

Yes, I do like to deal in specifics, but please stop trying to read things between the lines in my contributions, which do not exist.

I'm not.  I'm merely pointing out your tactics.  You rebuff people by an insistence in dealing in specifics.  But on other occasions you your self bring wider issues in to your arguments, which you think are relevant. 

[ngb1066]

So Julie didn't lie then? If she wasn't questioned then when did she have the opportunity to lie?

I understand what you are saying and I am being pedantic. 

Is there any admissible evidence to contradict it now? Or anything available since this was dismissed in 2002?

I think the confusion between us is the fact that she did not deal with the issue in evidence, for the reasons I have explained.  However she did lie during the trial when the prosecution questioned her privately but quite formally about the matter at the request of the judge.

Further admissible evidence has now come to light and if the case is referred to the Court of Appeal an application will be made for Julie Mugford to attend the Court of Appeal to be cross examined on this issue, and on others.

[bloggs and son]

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?

Moreso because she had just been dumped by Bamber.

[bloggs and son]

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.

She should have been held in contempt of court for that when it was discovered that she indeed had made such a deal when the article was published a week later. A thoroughly unscrupulous woman if ever there was one.

[ngb1066]

She should have been held in contempt of court for that when it was discovered that she indeed had made such a deal when the article was published a week later. A thoroughly unscrupulous woman if ever there was one.

It was quite disgraceful and clearly this is something the jury should have had an opportunity to consider when deciding whether to believe her evidence. 

[Roch]

I thought you referring to the suggestion that she avoided prosecution for cheque fraud and caravan park burglary by giving evidence, which is based on some letters published in the Guardian, weren't you?

As far as I am aware, she did avoid prosecution for drugs importation, cheque fraud and burglary.  I'm interested in how these issues came to light and how her role as a prosecution witness began.  If she was brought in to play by any other method other than the one perpetuated by the official version, then that represents another alarm bell for me.

[bloggs and son]

So Julie didn't lie then? If she wasn't questioned then when did she have the opportunity to lie?

I understand what you are saying and I am being pedantic. 

Is there any admissible evidence to contradict it now? Or anything available since this was dismissed in 2002?

They had no right to dismiss it. In fact they had the obligation to investigate it in the probability that a miscarriage of justice had taken place. But to their disgrace they did not do so.

[ngb1066]

As far as I am aware, she did avoid prosecution for drugs importation, cheque fraud and burglary.  I'm interested in how these issues came to light and how her role as a prosecution witness began.  If she was brought in to play by any other method other than the one perpetuated by the official version, then that represents another alarm bell for me.

I agree entirely.  This is a further issue likely to be explored before the Court of Appeal.

 

[NewChilledOutHartley]

I think the confusion between us is the fact that she did not deal with the issue in evidence, for the reasons I have explained.  However she did lie during the trial when the prosecution questioned her privately but quite formally about the matter at the request of the judge.

Further admissible evidence has now come to light and if the case is referred to the Court of Appeal an application will be made for Julie Mugford to attend the Court of Appeal to be cross examined on this issue, and on others.

Okay, and I understand any reluctance to release 'privileged' information, so I will not ask.

But I will guess  I could only imagine that records from the solicitor (Mr Church of Ellisons) regarding the dates of the signing of any contracts, to be sufficient to force that course of action.

If that were the case, and given the number of years that have passed and the effects on witnesses memory, then I'd be surprised if Julie would be called as a witness again for an appeal, I don't see what could be gained from it. Of course I'm just speculating.

Another thing to consider, is what implications it would have, even if it was accepted that the 'NOTW deal' was in place before the trial. Obviously the defence would again question her motivation for giving evidence.

[Bridget]

As far as I am aware, she did avoid prosecution for drugs importation, cheque fraud and burglary.  I'm interested in how these issues came to light and how her role as a prosecution witness began.  If she was brought in to play by any other method other than the one perpetuated by the official version, then that represents another alarm bell for me.

The fact is she wasn't prosecuted. The suggestion is that she was threatened with prosecution unless she gave evidence (I think). But it seems clear to me that she went to them, she volunteered the information re the cheques and caravan park burglary, and they didn't make the decision not to prosecute until after she had given her statements about the murders.

[NewChilledOutHartley]

I'm not.  I'm merely pointing out your tactics.  You rebuff people by an insistence in dealing in specifics.  But on other occasions you your self bring wider issues in to your arguments, which you think are relevant.

I'm sorry Rochy, but you've referred to 'tactics' with me several times, and all I can say you are grossly mistaken. I have no tactics, I merely reply to posts based on what is running through my mind at the time, there is no grand strategy, there are no tactics.

Other than that, your above post has no relevance to the conversation which was taking place. Your comment was more about fighting for a particular team, yet you failed to understand that your 'team' wasn't being attacked, I was simply having a discussion without searching for conflict.

[Roch]

The fact is she wasn't prosecuted. The suggestion is that she was threatened with prosecution unless she gave evidence (I think). But it seems clear to me that she went to them, she volunteered the information re the cheques and caravan park burglary, and they didn't make the decision not to prosecute until after she had given her statements about the murders.

I'm not certain that this coming forward was entirely voluntary.  I'm interested in anything that has come to light which gives an indication as to how she was interviewed.  I don't think anything has been made public relating to this.  Maybe it is tenuous and open to allegations of 'spin' or maybe not.  Re your last sentence, it could be read as her having had a 'sword held over her head'.