Forum Members Posts Being Deleted For No Reason

[Patti]

158. With one exception, none of the grounds raised before us relate in any way to the matters put before the court on the earlier occasion. The one exception relates to the fact that stories emanating from Julie Mugford had appeared in the press shortly after the trial. This was despite the fact that the prosecution had informed the defence, following discussion with the witness, that she had not sold her story to the press nor was it her intention so to do. One of the grounds relates to the same matter and we will deal with it further when we come to consider that ground. In every other respect, the application for leave to appeal has no relevance to the issues we have to determine.

[Roch]

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.

I didn't mean to butt in on a conversation and by tactics, I meant the way you so often rebuff people instead of going with the flow.

[NewChilledOutHartley]

158. With one exception, none of the grounds raised before us relate in any way to the matters put before the court on the earlier occasion. The one exception relates to the fact that stories emanating from Julie Mugford had appeared in the press shortly after the trial. This was despite the fact that the prosecution had informed the defence, following discussion with the witness, that she had not sold her story to the press nor was it her intention so to do. One of the grounds relates to the same matter and we will deal with it further when we come to consider that ground. In every other respect, the application for leave to appeal has no relevance to the issues we have to determine.

FOLLOWED BY:

363. The final limb of ground 5 relates to the fact that Julie Mugford sold her story to the newspapers. As we made clear earlier in this judgment one ground of appeal raised before the court at the original appeal and rejected by the court as unarguable related to this same topic.

364. Mr Turner explained to the court that there was now evidence available to show that when Julie Mugford indicated through the prosecution that she had not sold her story to the press at the time of trial that this was simply untrue.

365. We can deal with this aspect of the case shortly because by the conclusion of the evidence, Mr Turner acknowledged that he was unable to establish on that this was so.

366. He, therefore, did not address us in his closing speech to argue that there was any significant difference between the ground that had earlier failed and the present ground and accordingly it must fail as it properly did before.

...............................................

[Bridget]

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'.

But she gave them the sword.  I imagine at some point someone advised her that if there were any skeletons in her closet she'd better reveal them now, otherwise they would be used in an effort to discredit her as a witness at trial. That's why she told them.

[JackiePreece]

Hartley I think a good course of action would be for Julie Mugford to sue anyone thats implies or states as fact she did  agree to the NOTW deal before trial

I think she should do that without delay

Why wouldnt she???

What do you think Hartley?

[NewChilledOutHartley]

I didn't mean to butt in on a conversation and by tactics, I meant the way you so often rebuff people instead of going with the flow.

My apologies, that is how it came across to me at the time.

I have a tendency to correct people when they are giving incorrect or misleading information, as I believe it serves no purpose other than to confuse people, it's one thing to refer to a contentious issue, it's quite another to be completely inaccurate. Granted I'm not immune to making an error myself, but I hardly think this reflects badly on me in the manner you suggest. 

[NewChilledOutHartley]

Hartley I think a good course of action would be for Julie Mugford to sue anyone thats implies or states as fact she did  agree to the NOTW deal before trial

I think she should do that without delay

Why wouldnt she???

What do you think Hartley?

I think this is precisely the type of confrontation, and in my opinion, pettiness, that I am trying so hard to avoid.

If you want a reaction, choose another member of the forum to obtain it from.

[JackiePreece]

We are just trying to get to the truth and if someone was telling such massive lies about me that would affect my home life and career I would expect she would take action

Everyone knows where she is now, so she is no longer hidden

I am sure if she took action against the people telling lies about her this would stop right now and scupper any chance of an appeal

[NewChilledOutHartley]

We are just trying to get to the truth and if someone was telling such massive lies about me that would affect my home life and career I would expect she would take action

Everyone knows where she is now, so she is no longer hidden

I am sure if she took action against the people telling lies about her this would stop right now and scupper any chance of an appeal

However, it has no bearing on the conversation which was taking place and does nothing other than highlight your confrontational manner.

[Patti]

FOLLOWED BY:

363. The final limb of ground 5 relates to the fact that Julie Mugford sold her story to the newspapers. As we made clear earlier in this judgment one ground of appeal raised before the court at the original appeal and rejected by the court as unarguable related to this same topic.

364. Mr Turner explained to the court that there was now evidence available to show that when Julie Mugford indicated through the prosecution that she had not sold her story to the press at the time of trial that this was simply untrue.

365. We can deal with this aspect of the case shortly because by the conclusion of the evidence, Mr Turner acknowledged that he was unable to establish on that this was so.

366. He, therefore, did not address us in his closing speech to argue that there was any significant difference between the ground that had earlier failed and the present ground and accordingly it must fail as it properly did before.

...............................................

Hi Hartley, I can only guess at this. I suspect that a deal was cut prior to the verdict in 1986 and that deal was done by Church Solicitors.

My argument for thinking that is, things were in place a week after the trial. Photo shoot, 3 days in a hotel, clothes, deal, script and drafts etc.  It's pushing it bit fine to say all this happened within a week.   You know and I know that no solicitor works that quickly.

I would think that things were very much in place in the event that JB was found guilty. Then the go ahead was given.  Although Julie might not have been aware of dates etc, I feel certain that Ellison Church did know. There must be some paperwork on this somewhere...I'd like to ask where is it? 

[ngb1066]

Hi Hartley, I can only guess at this. I suspect that a deal was cut prior to the verdict in 1986 and that deal was done by Church Solicitors.

My argument for thinking that is, things were in place a week after the trial. Photo shoot, 3 days in a hotel, clothes, deal, script and drafts etc.  It's pushing it bit fine to say all this happened within a week.   You know and I know that no solicitor works that quickly.

I would think that things were very much in place in the event that JB was found guilty. Then the go ahead was given.  Although Julie might not have been aware of dates etc, I feel certain that Ellison Church did know. There must be some paperwork on this somewhere...I'd like to ask where is it? 

You are extremely close to the truth here Patti.  Are you a member of the defence legal team?   

[Patti]

You are extremely close to the truth here Patti.  Are you a member of the defence legal team?   

If only ngb 

[Roch]

My apologies, that is how it came across to me at the time.

I have a tendency to correct people when they are giving incorrect or misleading information, as I believe it serves no purpose other than to confuse people, it's one thing to refer to a contentious issue, it's quite another to be completely inaccurate. Granted I'm not immune to making an error myself, but I hardly think this reflects badly on me in the manner you suggest. 

You've completely lost me.  I don't think I was giving misleading or inaccurate information.  It's an issue which I've experienced with you on numerous occasions.  It's a style or manner of posting which I have previously interpreted as a 'tactic'.  Though I accept your assertion that it is not.  It must therefore be down to misunderstanding and different posting styles.  I will be more cautious when butting in to posts about specifics.

[NewChilledOutHartley]

You've completely lost me.  I don't think I was giving misleading or inaccurate information.  It's an issue which I've experienced with you on numerous occasions.  It's a style or manner of posting which I have previously interpreted as a 'tactic'.  Though I accept your assertion that it is not.  It must therefore be down to misunderstanding and different posting styles.  I will be more cautious when butting in to posts about specifics.

I didn't say you did give misleading or inaccurate information. 

I'm not taking the mick here, but you've completely lost me, I have no idea what you are going on about. 

[bloggs and son]

But she gave them the sword.  I imagine at some point someone advised her that if there were any skeletons in her closet she'd better reveal them now, otherwise they would be used in an effort to discredit her as a witness at trial. That's why she told them.

But they used the sword to nail Bamber and let her off scott free because of it. She was the corner stone of the whole case. Without her testimony nothing would put him behind bars. Who knows? It might have been they who advised her to get out of the country double quick in case they found further skeletons in her very spacious closet?