Julie Mugford's NOW contract and the new evidence ?

[-Harters-]

I have never claimed that the defence have a copy of the contract and I have never suggested that I know whether the police were aware of the NOW deal, so I do not "admit" anything.  The new evidence is not evidence from police officers but that does not make it any less credible.

I'm not sure how people can state the 'new' evidence is, or is not credible, without having any idea what it is.  Wait and see if anything comes of it I guess.

[ngb1066]

I'm not sure how people can state the 'new' evidence is, or is not credible, without having any idea what it is.  Wait and see if anything comes of it I guess.

I take your point but I do know what it is so I can express an opinion on it.  However I accept that I cannot expect anyone else to agree with me because they do not have sufficient information.  I hope the information is made public so that members can comment on it.

 

[susan]

Morning ngb  Does not matter whether forum members think the new evidence is credible or not.  What is important is what Jeremy's Legal Team think.

[ngb1066]

Morning ngb  Does not matter whether forum members think the new evidence is credible or not.  What is important is what Jeremy's Legal Team think.

I agree with you Susan, although I suppose ultimately it depends upon what the Court of Appeal think of it.  What the new evidence does is to support the defence case that Julie Mugford did enter into the NoW contract before the trial, and it lays the basis for tough cross examination of her on this point.  If the defence had been in possession of this material at the time of the 2002 appeal julie Mugford would undoubtedly have been called as a witness and cross examined on it.

 

[guest154]

Morning ngb  Does not matter whether forum members think the new evidence is credible or not.  What is important is what Jeremy's Legal Team think.

I agree, Susan. What I was doing was mentally ticking off boxes in my head as to where this evidence hasn't come from. Please forgive me for being dubious when it comes to 'new evidence' in the Bamber case. 

[susan]

Hi Mat  as you will know I don't have boxes in my head but I do put so much faith in what ngb posts on the forum he is a man of tremendous integrity and what he says goes with me.  If further evidence is available it will be of no help to the defence team members on here knowing about. it. But you obviously think much deeper than me about these things probably because of the kind of job you have.  Me just a little old housewife

[lookout]

I agree, Susan. What I was doing was mentally ticking off boxes in my head as to where this evidence hasn't come from. Please forgive me for being dubious when it comes to 'new evidence' in the Bamber case. 

When people talk of " new evidence ",it isn't new at all. It's evidence that has been there ALL the time,but hidden.

[guest154]

When people talk of " new evidence ",it isn't new at all. It's evidence that has been there ALL the time,but hidden.

So it's new evidence then.

[lookout]

So it's new evidence then.

No. It's vital evidence that's been buried from the past and is now unearthed.

[guest154]

But.....as evidence, it's new.

Or at least that is what the defence call it. New evidence.

[lookout]

No. It's vital evidence that's been buried from the past and is now unearthed.

Old evidence that  has surfaced .How can it be new from 27 years ago.?

[guest154]

It is OLD information. But NEW evidence.

[-Harters-]

When people talk of " new evidence ",it isn't new at all. It's evidence that has been there ALL the time,but hidden.

When people talk about new evidence, it is any evidence which has not previously been considered, for whatever reason. Whether it is something that has been withheld or it is due to advances in science/technology.

[lookout]

When people talk about new evidence, it is any evidence which has not previously been considered, for whatever reason. Whether it is something that has been withheld or it is due to advances in science/technology.

So why not just say that it's evidence that was previously withheld.?

[-Harters-]

So why not just say that it's evidence that was previously withheld.?

Because it's not an accurate definition.