Jeremy Bamber's story - NOTW deal

[guest154]

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.

Great post Bridget! (As usual!)
Even if the defence had the contract, which they don't, they wouldn't get grounds to appeal because of it. As you say Julie was capabale of lying and this was well known, the judge made it clear in his statements to the jury - but they still chose to convict Bamber.

[Roch]

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

Thank you.

[HMEssex]

Great post Bridget! (As usual!)
Even if the defence had the contract, which they don't, they wouldn't get grounds to appeal because of it. As youJulie was capabale of lying and thiswell known say was   , the judge made it clear in his statements to the jury - but they still chose to convict Bamber.

The way I see it is that JM's 'testimony' should be discounted to say the least; the silencer evidence is dodgy; the records of phone calls received that night show that a police car was despatched 1 minute before Jeremy made his call and the jury was misled by RB when he said hewould not inherit.

[guest154]

 the silencer evidence is dodgy;

The defence have failed time and time again to discredit this, they've tried many angles.

the records of phone calls received that night show that a police car was despatched 1 minute before Jeremy made his call

Depending on who you believe.

[Patti]

Great post Bridget! (As usual!)
Even if the defence had the contract, which they don't, they wouldn't get grounds to appeal because of it. As you say Julie was capabale of lying and this was well known, the judge made it clear in his statements to the jury - but they still chose to convict Bamber.

Hi mat, even though they don't have the contract they can still question her if an appeal goes ahead and have a right to do so...That's how I look at it...

ngb has said that the jury was not privy to the NOTW contract, it was only discussed in chambers....Had they known this then they might and I only say might, have had a different outcome in whether they believed her story or not...

[guest154]

Hi mat, even though they don't have the contract they can still question her if an appeal goes ahead and have a right to do so...That's how I look at it...

ngb has said that the jury was not privy to the NOTW contract, it was only discussed in chambers....Had they known this then they might and I only say might, have had a different outcome in whether they believed her story or not...

Hi, Patti. 
Yeah, they can call Julie but they will need good grounds to do so - and I'm not sure if they will get these grounds. She shouldn't be forced to come over here and talk about the case when she has already given her statements unless something new comes up that undermines her original testimony. Even with a date contract I don't think they will have enough, since I've read Julie saying that she wasn't sure if she had signed it or not at the time of the trial- I don't see how someone can be accused of lying when they said they are not sure.

[Patti]

Hi, Patti. 
Yeah, they can call Julie but they will need good grounds to do so - and I'm not sure if they will get these grounds. She shouldn't be forced to come over here and talk about the case when she has already given her statements unless something new comes up that undermines her original testimony. Even with a date contract I don't think they will have enough, since I've read Julie saying that she wasn't sure if she had signed it or not at the time of the trial- I don't see how someone can be accused of lying when they said they are not sure.

Hi Mat, but she was in an hotel on the day of the verdict paid for by the News of the World. Jones rang her at that hotel.....Surely if there was a fresh appeal then this matter would surface? 

[guest154]

Hi Mat, but she was in an hotel on the day of the verdict paid for by the News of the World. Jones rang her at that hotel.....Surely if there was a fresh appeal then this matter would surface? 

I think that the NOTW knew they'd be working with her in the future, most people began to become wise to the fact that Jeremy Bamber had actually odne the killings and that Julie had a story to tell, the NOTW wanted the story - so they kept her on side.

I don't recall Julie saying that she had never stayed in a hotel paid for by the  NOTW so I don't think it will be a problem.

Also, even if the defence did manage to get Julie in the U.K (which I can't see them doing) I don't even think they'd know what to do with her.

[Patti]

I think that the NOTW knew they'd be working with her in the future, most people began to become wise to the fact that Jeremy Bamber had actually odne the killings and that Julie had a story to tell, the NOTW wanted the story - so they kept her on side.

I don't recall Julie saying that she had never stayed in a hotel paid for by the  NOTW so I don't think it will be a problem.

Also, even if the defence did manage to get Julie in the U.K (which I can't see them doing) I don't even think they'd know what to do with her.

And then she told the NOTW that Jeremy never admitted that he had killed his family.....

[Bridget]

And then she told the NOTW that Jeremy never admitted that he had killed his family.....

Well he didn't, did he - her evidence was that he told her Matthew MacDonald (or whatever his name was) did it.

[guest154]

And then she told the NOTW that Jeremy never admitted that he had killed his family.....

Which is what she said all along.

[Roch]

Does Matthew McDonald appear early on in JM's statements?  Does anybody know where he is first mentioned?

[-Harters-]

Does Matthew McDonald appear early on in JM's statements?  Does anybody know where he is first mentioned?

I haven't checked it, but her first statement when changing her story and pointing the finger at JB was on 8/9/85, I'd like to think he was mentioned in that statement.

[Roch]

I haven't checked it, but her first statement when changing her story and pointing the finger at JB was on 8/9/85, I'd like to think he was mentioned in that statement.

Thanks for response.  I tried to read it but the handwriting isn't the easiest.  I've been trying to work out whether the page of the logs that the defence claim has been 'misplaced' by EP, could have been 'misplaced' after it had become clear, that McDonald was a non-starter.  The alleged sighting would have suited a prosecution that involved a third party.  But when it became focused upon JB being the shooter, the alleged sighting became a potential hindrance.  I was trying to work out if there was an attempt by police to shoehorn in a third party, due the sighting having been real, as alleged by JB.  But I cannot understand wht McDonald would be picked on and the only thing I could come up with was JM falling apart under duress and naming somebody, i.e. him. 'mercenary'.

[-Harters-]

Thanks for response.  I tried to read it but the handwriting isn't the easiest.  I've been trying to work out whether the page of the logs that the defence claim has been 'misplaced' by EP, could have been 'misplaced' after it had become clear, that McDonald was a non-starter.  The alleged sighting would have suited a prosecution that involved a third party.  But when it became focused upon JB being the shooter, the alleged sighting became a potential hindrance.  I was trying to work out if there was an attempt by police to shoehorn in a third party, due the sighting having been real, as alleged by JB.  But I cannot understand wht McDonald would be picked on and the only thing I could come up with was JM falling apart under duress and naming somebody, i.e. him. 'mercenary'.

There is a typed version, I wrote out the first half before I realised, I'll put up a link.