Jeremy Bamber's story - NOTW deal

[curiousessex]

The defence, at the time of the trial, probably did not make any issues with regard to their knowledge of Julie Mugford's negotiations with the NOTW because their client was in the same boat so there was no moral or principled high ground to be gained.

Page 272, 'Blood Relations' - Outside, it was dark. At two minutes to six, the jury returned to court on the judge's orders. The jury foreman announced that they had reached no unanimous verdict on any of the five murder indictments. Neither was a majority verdict likely in the time available that evening. The judge decided to call it a day, and sent the jury to a hotel for the night. Downstairs in his cell, Jeremy Bamber was keeping an iron grip on his emotions. One observer found him 'discerningly composed'. He was discussing what he would do when released the following day. He was bandying figures for which he planned to sell his story to the newspapers - somewhat unattractive behaviour, in the opinion of one of his legal team. A group of them sat with Jeremy, trying to buoy up his spirits but feeling increasingly uncomfortable about his obsession with a newspaper deal. The best offer he'd had, he said, was £40,000. Couldn't they get him a better offer than that? After all, he was pointing out, if he was convicted, Julie had been promised £15,000 for her story. She was already ensconced at the Chelsea Holiday Inn in Sloane Street, closeted with two reporters from the News of the World.

Page 277 details - The deal that Julie Mugford had struck with the News of the World gave the newspaper exclusive rights to her story and pictures in return for £15,000, but the deal only stood if Bamber was convicted. (The same paper had secured exclusive rights to Jeremy Bamber's own story had he been found not guilty. That deal would have earned Bamber the sum of £40,000, a figure Bamber himself had complained was hardly adequate given the explosive nature of the revelations he was promising about his relations.)

Why does Jeremy not produce his contract with NOTW and say Julie had a similar contract which stood if there was a conviction? Julie's evidence must therefore be considered unreliable?

The reason, I suspect, is that such an argument when the same tests are applied to Jeremy's position would undermine his own evidence in court.

[-Harters-]

I do wonder if there is a pinch of poetic licence added into the various books. 

[curiousessex]

I do wonder if there is a pinch of poetic licence added into the various books. 

And in the threads on the forum?

[-Harters-]

And in the threads on the forum?

Well yes, of course.

[Bridget]

I don't think the NOTW stories did either of them any favours given the context of how the stories had arisen. But surely the main issue which surrounds them is that of incentive to lie. JM's sale of her story, had the contract been signed prior to her giving evidence at trial, could be seen by the jury as an incentive, even if she's actually truthful when she says it wasn't about the money. JB had a far greater incentive to lie than the £40k on offer (staying out of prison), and so his deal becomes something of an irrelevance.

Going back to JM's contract, I'm not sure I see the date of signing being important for any other reason than showing her to have lied about the contract itself. The jury already knew she was capable of lying, they'd heard about the caravan burglary and the cheque fraud. Even if she hadn't signed a contract prior to trial she, and the jury, could be in no doubt that there would be many deals offered, and so the incentive would still be there whether the contract had already been signed or not.

[curiousessex]

I do wonder if there is a pinch of poetic licence added into the various books. 

It must also be considered Jeremy participated in the preparation of the book 'Blood Relations'. I think also Aunt Agatha has stated previously she has an original manuscript of the book which was given fto Jeremy for proof reading prior to publication.

The book was first published in 1994 which is prior to the second Appeal.

[curiousessex]

I don't think the NOTW stories did either of them any favours given the context of how the stories had arisen. But surely the main issue which surrounds them is that of incentive to lie. JM's sale of her story, had the contract been signed prior to her giving evidence at trial, could be seen by the jury as an incentive, even if she's actually truthful when she says it wasn't about the money. JB had a far greater incentive to lie than the £40k on offer (staying out of prison), and so his deal becomes something of an irrelevance.

Going back to JM's contract, I'm not sure I see the date of signing being important for any other reason than showing her to have lied about the contract itself. The jury already knew she was capable of lying, they'd heard about the caravan burglary and the cheque fraud. Even if she hadn't signed a contract prior to trial she, and the jury, could be in no doubt that there would be many deals offered, and so the incentive would still be there whether the contract had already been signed or not.

It would appear both parties were capable of lying. In many respects they were in the same boat.

As the judge had pointed out in his summing up it was up to the jury to decide, within the context of 5 murders or 4 muders and a suicide.

The jury decided 'guilty' on a 10-2 majority.

And here we are 26 years later.

[ngb1066]

The defence, at the time of the trial, probably did not make any issues with regard to their knowledge of Julie Mugford's negotiations with the NOTW because their client was in the same boat so there was no moral or principled high ground to be gained.

Page 272, 'Blood Relations' - Outside, it was dark. At two minutes to six, the jury returned to court on the judge's orders. The jury foreman announced that they had reached no unanimous verdict on any of the five murder indictments. Neither was a majority verdict likely in the time available that evening. The judge decided to call it a day, and sent the jury to a hotel for the night. Downstairs in his cell, Jeremy Bamber was keeping an iron grip on his emotions. One observer found him 'discerningly composed'. He was discussing what he would do when released the following day. He was bandying figures for which he planned to sell his story to the newspapers - somewhat unattractive behaviour, in the opinion of one of his legal team. A group of them sat with Jeremy, trying to buoy up his spirits but feeling increasingly uncomfortable about his obsession with a newspaper deal. The best offer he'd had, he said, was £40,000. Couldn't they get him a better offer than that? After all, he was pointing out, if he was convicted, Julie had been promised £15,000 for her story. She was already ensconced at the Chelsea Holiday Inn in Sloane Street, closeted with two reporters from the News of the World.

Page 277 details - The deal that Julie Mugford had struck with the News of the World gave the newspaper exclusive rights to her story and pictures in return for £15,000, but the deal only stood if Bamber was convicted. (The same paper had secured exclusive rights to Jeremy Bamber's own story had he been found not guilty. That deal would have earned Bamber the sum of £40,000, a figure Bamber himself had complained was hardly adequate given the explosive nature of the revelations he was promising about his relations.)

Why does Jeremy not produce his contract with NOTW and say Julie had a similar contract which stood if there was a conviction? Julie's evidence must therefore be considered unreliable?

The reason, I suspect, is that such an argument when the same tests are applied to Jeremy's position would undermine his own evidence in court.

I am afraid your analysis of this is deeply flawed Curious.

First, Jeremy Bamber's deal to sell his story is in a completely different category to that of Julie Mugford.  It is illegal for a witness to conclude such a deal before giving evidence, for obvious reasons.  The witness should not have a financial interest in a conviction of the accused.  There is no such restriction on defendants entering into such arrangements.  Before the advent of legal aid in criminal cases it was very common for a defendant's legal representation to be funded by a newspaper which had secured exclusive rights to the defendant's story.  Common sense also indicates that Jeremy bamber needed no financial incentive to secure his acquittal on 5 counts of murder!

Second, the reason that Julie Mugford was not cross examined on this point was because of the false assurances given by Julie Mugford when she was privqately questioned by the prosecution at the Judge's request.  Had those assurances not been given Julie Mugford would certainly have been questioned about this.

   

[gringo]

I am afraid your analysis of this is deeply flawed Curious.

First, Jeremy Bamber's deal to sell his story is in a completely different category to that of Julie Mugford.  It is illegal for a witness to conclude such a deal before giving evidence, for obvious reasons.  The witness should not have a financial interest in a conviction of the accused.  There is no such restriction on defendants entering into such arrangements.  Before the advent of legal aid in criminal cases it was very common for a defendant's legal representation to be funded by a newspaper which had secured exclusive rights to the defendant's story.  Common sense also indicates that Jeremy bamber needed no financial incentive to secure his acquittal on 5 counts of murder!

Second, the reason that Julie Mugford was not cross examined on this point was because of the false assurances given by Julie Mugford when she was privqately questioned by the prosecution at the Judge's request.  Had those assurances not been given Julie Mugford would certainly have been questioned about this.

   

The defence, at the time of the trial, probably did not make any issues with regard to their knowledge of Julie Mugford's negotiations with the NOTW because their client was in the same boat so there was no moral or principled high ground to be gained.

Page 272, 'Blood Relations' - Outside, it was dark. At two minutes to six, the jury returned to court on the judge's orders. The jury foreman announced that they had reached no unanimous verdict on any of the five murder indictments. Neither was a majority verdict likely in the time available that evening. The judge decided to call it a day, and sent the jury to a hotel for the night. Downstairs in his cell, Jeremy Bamber was keeping an iron grip on his emotions. One observer found him 'discerningly composed'. He was discussing what he would do when released the following day. He was bandying figures for which he planned to sell his story to the newspapers - somewhat unattractive behaviour, in the opinion of one of his legal team. A group of them sat with Jeremy, trying to buoy up his spirits but feeling increasingly uncomfortable about his obsession with a newspaper deal. The best offer he'd had, he said, was £40,000. Couldn't they get him a better offer than that? After all, he was pointing out, if he was convicted, Julie had been promised £15,000 for her story. She was already ensconced at the Chelsea Holiday Inn in Sloane Street, closeted with two reporters from the News of the World.

Page 277 details - The deal that Julie Mugford had struck with the News of the World gave the newspaper exclusive rights to her story and pictures in return for £15,000, but the deal only stood if Bamber was convicted. (The same paper had secured exclusive rights to Jeremy Bamber's own story had he been found not guilty. That deal would have earned Bamber the sum of £40,000, a figure Bamber himself had complained was hardly adequate given the explosive nature of the revelations he was promising about his relations.)

Why does Jeremy not produce his contract with NOTW and say Julie had a similar contract which stood if there was a conviction? Julie's evidence must therefore be considered unreliable?

The reason, I suspect, is that such an argument when the same tests are applied to Jeremy's position would undermine his own evidence in court.

To put a slightly different spin on this steve.
  1. Imagine as an innocent man you had been tried on murder charges and acquitted after months on remand and constant sensational muck raking  press stories . Under those circumstances would you consider it wrong to already have a deal in place, pre trial, to sell your side of the story ?
  2. Imagine now that you are a prosecution witness instead in a murder trial . Under those circumstances would you consider it wrong to have a deal in place, pre trial, to sell your side of the
story ?
  3. Even if you believe both are wrong . Do you honestly draw a moral equivalence between the two .

[Steve_uk]

Well I'm not sure that was my contribution to the debate but it's pretty obvious to me that Julie was going to sell her story on the conviction of Jeremy Bamber so I don't see what real difference it made whether arrangements were made before of after the verdict. Blame the cheque book journalism culture,the "last chance saloon" comment of David Mellor MP so far back I've lost track of the year,and that same merry-go-round keeps on spinning with Levinson.

Call me cynical but I've seen all this before..

[Roch]

Well I'm not sure that was my contribution to the debate but it's pretty obvious to me that Julie was going to sell her story on the conviction of Jeremy Bamber so I don't see what real difference it made whether arrangements were made before of after the verdict. Blame the cheque book journalism culture,the "last chance saloon" comment of David Mellor MP so far back I've lost track of the year,and that same merry-go-round keeps on spinning with Levinson.

Call me cynical but I've seen all this before..

Are you not missing the point regarding the relationship between Police and the press?  The police can wave in front of Julie Mugford, the prospect of a big fat juicy deal, together with immunity from prosecution, whether it be for the kind of petty crime that would ruin her career aspirations or an accessory to murder.

Carrot and Stick.   Do as we say or you've had it.  Do as we say and you're made.  Safe.  Better off.  Elsewhere.  We'll take you to the bank.  We'll pave the way for your immunity.  You provide us with what we want.  All's well that ends well.

[Steve_uk]

Are you not missing the point regarding the relationship between Police and the press?  The police can wave in front of Julie Mugford, the prospect of a big fat juicy deal, together with immunity from prosecution, whether it be for the kind of petty crime that would ruin her career aspirations or an accessory to murder.

Carrot and Stick.   Do as we say or you've had it.  Do as we say and you're made.  Safe.  Better off.  Elsewhere.  We'll take you to the bank.  We'll pave the way for your immunity.  You provide us with what we want.  All's well that ends well.

Well wasn't it Liz Rimington who contacted the Police first? The DPP I believe concurred reluctantly that Julie should receive anonymity,but they had to take a look at the wider picture given the nature of Julie's evidence,which was put before a jury and the jury believed her story.

[HMEssex]

The defence, at the time of the trial, probably did not make any issues with regard to their knowledge of Julie Mugford's negotiations with the NOTW because their client was in the same boat so there was no moral or principled high ground to be gained.

Page 272, 'Blood Relations' - Outside, it was dark. At two minutes to six, the jury returned to court on the judge's orders. The jury foreman announced that they had reached no unanimous verdict on any of the five murder indictments. Neither was a majority verdict likely in the time available that evening. The judge decided to call it a day, and sent the jury to a hotel for the night. Downstairs in his cell, Jeremy Bamber was keeping an iron grip on his emotions. One observer found him 'discerningly composed'. He was discussing what he would do when released the following day. He was bandying figures for which he planned to sell his story to the newspapers - somewhat unattractive behaviour, in the opinion of one of his legal team. A group of them sat with Jeremy, trying to buoy up his spirits but feeling increasingly uncomfortable about his obsession with a newspaper deal. The best offer he'd had, he said, was £40,000. Couldn't they get him a better offer than that? After all, he was pointing out, if he was convicted, Julie had been promised £15,000 for her story. She was already ensconced at the Chelsea Holiday Inn in Sloane Street, closeted with two reporters from the News of the World.

Page 277 details - The deal that Julie Mugford had struck with the News of the World gave the newspaper exclusive rights to her story and pictures in return for £15,000, but the deal only stood if Bamber was convicted. (The same paper had secured exclusive rights to Jeremy Bamber's own story had he been found not guilty. That deal would have earned Bamber the sum of £40,000, a figure Bamber himself had complained was hardly adequate given the explosive nature of the revelations he was promising about his relations.)

Why does Jeremy not produce his contract with NOTW and say Julie had a similar contract which stood if there was a conviction? Julie's evidence must therefore be considered unreliable?

The reason, I suspect, is that such an argument when the same tests are applied to Jeremy's position would undermine his own evidence in court.

I'm assuming this sentence is poetic licence?!

[lookout]

Are you not missing the point regarding the relationship between Police and the press?  The police can wave in front of Julie Mugford, the prospect of a big fat juicy deal, together with immunity from prosecution, whether it be for the kind of petty crime that would ruin her career aspirations or an accessory to murder.

Carrot and Stick.   Do as we say or you've had it.  Do as we say and you're made.  Safe.  Better off.  Elsewhere.  We'll take you to the bank.  We'll pave the way for your immunity.  You provide us with what we want.  All's well that ends well.

There's no honour among thieves,Roch.  Another good post.

[gringo]

Well I'm not sure that was my contribution to the debate but it's pretty obvious to me that Julie was going to sell her story on the conviction of Jeremy Bamber so I don't see what real difference it made whether arrangements were made before of after the verdict. Blame the cheque book journalism culture,the "last chance saloon" comment of David Mellor MP so far back I've lost track of the year,and that same merry-go-round keeps on spinning with Levinson.

Call me cynical but I've seen all this before..

The difference is apparent or should be steve . Having a vested interest in a guilty verdict and making this deal before the trial , surely taints your testimony . The jury clearly understood this difference hence their questions to the trial judge during deliberations about possible financial motivations of witnesses .