you can chill here

[Tyler]

Mike,those photos are absolutely beautiful!

[Tyler]

Sorry I butted in BOB.I didnt realise you was in the middle of a debate   

[bob]

Sorry I butted in BOB.I didnt realise you was in the middle of a debate   

No worries Tyler- not in the middle of the debate - just responding to old posts! Plus this thread is supposed to be for chilling  :D

[Roch]

The thing with the Shaw account and especially for me, the private communications thread.  This only my own opinion.  bob is right of course when he points out it's not it's sourced.  Bloody compelling reading though.  I was thinking that if someone has sang to Shaw from EP or possibly COLP, then it cannot be a sourced document in some respects, unless the source themselves are willing to come out in to the open.  If Shaw's account and / or the private communications with Mike T are genuine then it would appear that person/s unknown with inside knowledge were keen for that knowledge to be channelled, via Shaw, but anonymously. Regardless of what the defence officially state re 'conspiracy theories' ...maybe the Shaw info provided a backbone for channelling further investigations by the defence?

If it's not a clever bluff, then it is certainly shocking.

[Jackiepreece]

Bob
I think with this case you cant really tell the difference between fact and fiction I have read tons of the factual stuff and I have read the David Shaw manuscript and anything I find in the David Shaw manuscript that I find important I try to verify the facts like the purchase of a "porche" car


In a case where the trial judge said you either believe Mugford or Jeremy the whole conviction looks to be unsafe.  Jeremy was clearly not acting in the witness box shown by the way he answered things.  On the other hand everything I have read points to Julie Mugford putting on the performance of her life in the witness box.  If you take on board what Ngb said about Mugford selling her story to the NOTW and it was unlikely she could have sold her story about JB if he was found not guilty as she could have been sued for libel or slander.  Julie Mugford was an expert at pulling the wool over peoples eyes and quite confidently carried out a serious case of fraud.  Everything worked out very well for her because getting her £25,000 bonus for helping in the conviction of Jeremy only took a few hours in the witness box compared to the hard slog of walking up and down Oxford Street getting goods by deception with a cheque book for a paltry sum of £700
Fact
Carried out cheque fraud to the tune of £700
Put on a show at the funeral
Put on a show to the police
Put on a show identifying the bodies

David Shaws manuscript is probably as true as Julie Mugfords statements to the police.
If someone has lied and stolen to get £700 of goods then without doubt the same person would lie to get £25,000

What is fact or fiction none of us know thats why Jeremys case is with the ccrc

[Hartley]

The difference ie that JM's testimony has been heard and accepted by a Jury, David Shaws account has not.

[Roch]

The difference ie that JM's testimony has been heard and accepted by a Jury, David Shaws account has not.

    What makes you think that a jury in 1986, railroaded with a hugely one-sided case*, is more clued up than the posters on this forum, who are being presented with a far less one-sided than the original purported to be?

*A case that has never stopped being controversial for 26 years and a case in which the prosecuting authorities held considerable power, control and influence.  Are 26 years of controversy a compete fantasy fabricated by people who have nothing better to do?

[Jackiepreece]

Hartley were the jury aware of Mugfords bonus on conviction?

Hartley I think you know the answer to that one

Another fact or fiction

[mike tesko]

I am considering posting all my communications with David Shaw, out of interest to members and any other interested parties...

[Hartley]

The difference ie that JM's testimony has been heard and accepted by a Jury, David Shaws account has not.

    What makes you think that a jury in 1986, railroaded with a hugely one-sided case*, is more clued up than the posters on this forum, who are being presented with a far less one-sided than the original purported to be?

*A case that has never stopped being controversial for 26 years and a case in which the prosecuting authorities held considerable power, control and influence.  Are 26 years of controversy a compete fantasy fabricated by people who have nothing better to do?

Quite simply because there isn't a single person on here has has listened to all the witnesses and cross examiners, nobody on here has even read the entire court transcript.
That and 26 years indicate to me that the jury were in a somewhat better position to comment on JM's evidence.

[ngb1066]

The difference ie that JM's testimony has been heard and accepted by a Jury, David Shaws account has not.

    What makes you think that a jury in 1986, railroaded with a hugely one-sided case*, is more clued up than the posters on this forum, who are being presented with a far less one-sided than the original purported to be?

*A case that has never stopped being controversial for 26 years and a case in which the prosecuting authorities held considerable power, control and influence.  Are 26 years of controversy a compete fantasy fabricated by people who have nothing better to do?

Quite simply because there isn't a single person on here has has listened to all the witnesses and cross examiners, nobody on here has even read the entire court transcript.
That and 26 years indicate to me that the jury were in a somewhat better position to comment on JM's evidence.

But the jury were not aware that JM had signed a contract with the News of the World entitling her to £25,000 in the event of a conviction of Jeremy Bamber.  Do you not agree that their view of JM's evidence might have been affected by that knowledge?

[Hartley]

Hartley were the jury aware of Mugfords bonus on conviction?

Hartley I think you know the answer to that one

Another fact or fiction

Whilst you are spitting feathers in your anger, consider the 2002 appeal and JM's evidence, the defence having the opportunity to question her, declined to do so.

Not so long ago you wanted her dragged back to the UK gor questioning, it's already been done love, and her evidence stands.

[Hartley]

The difference ie that JM's testimony has been heard and accepted by a Jury, David Shaws account has not.

    What makes you think that a jury in 1986, railroaded with a hugely one-sided case*, is more clued up than the posters on this forum, who are being presented with a far less one-sided than the original purported to be?

*A case that has never stopped being controversial for 26 years and a case in which the prosecuting authorities held considerable power, control and influence.  Are 26 years of controversy a compete fantasy fabricated by people who have nothing better to do?

Quite simply because there isn't a single person on here has has listened to all the witnesses and cross examiners, nobody on here has even read the entire court transcript.
That and 26 years indicate to me that the jury were in a somewhat better position to comment on JM's evidence.

But the jury were not aware that JM had signed a contract with the News of the World entitling her to £25,000 in the event of a conviction of Jeremy Bamber.  Do you not agree that their view of JM's evidence might have been affected by that knowledge?

The appeal Judges in 2002 however were aware.

[ngb1066]

The difference ie that JM's testimony has been heard and accepted by a Jury, David Shaws account has not.

    What makes you think that a jury in 1986, railroaded with a hugely one-sided case*, is more clued up than the posters on this forum, who are being presented with a far less one-sided than the original purported to be?

*A case that has never stopped being controversial for 26 years and a case in which the prosecuting authorities held considerable power, control and influence.  Are 26 years of controversy a compete fantasy fabricated by people who have nothing better to do?

Quite simply because there isn't a single person on here has has listened to all the witnesses and cross examiners, nobody on here has even read the entire court transcript.
That and 26 years indicate to me that the jury were in a somewhat better position to comment on JM's evidence.

But the jury were not aware that JM had signed a contract with the News of the World entitling her to £25,000 in the event of a conviction of Jeremy Bamber.  Do you not agree that their view of JM's evidence might have been affected by that knowledge?

The appeal Judges in 2002 however were aware.

They were and they rejected every ground of appeal in an unusually lengthy and detailed judgement.  That is one of the reasons in my view why the CCRC appear now to be very resistant to a second referral back to the Court of Appeal and have been, to say the least, less than helpful in using the powers at their disposal to obtain evidence still witheld, and very unhelpful towards the defence for example in relation to the release of photographic negatives.  However, getting back to the original point I made, do you not accept that the jury's assessment of JM's evidence might have been different had they been aware of the NOW contract?

[jon]

I am considering posting all my communications with David Shaw, out of interest to members and any other interested parties...

ASAP please !!