How would you greet Julie Mugford on her return visit to England?

[lookout]

For reasons unknown,Jan,JM wasn't needed ? This is more or less what I read.

[Alias]

I am sure I am on the right track. Just found Julie´s husband as he looks now. He looks nice enough - a bit boring though. 

[Mr. Gee]

For reasons unknown,Jan,JM wasn't needed ? This is more or less what I read.

I'm not sure and perhaps ngb could clarify. I may have got it wrong, but I think the appeal judge directed that she should not take the stand for some reason?

[lookout]

I'm not sure and perhaps ngb could clarify. I may have got it wrong, but I think the appeal judge directed that she should not take the stand for some reason?

Yes it was something like that,Mr G. I know it was a waste of time as nothing followed her visit/appearance

[Jane]

Yes it was something like that,Mr G. I know it was a waste of time as nothing followed her visit/appearance

I recall feeling very let down that she wasn't called.

[Jan]

I recall feeling very let down that she wasn't called.

That's what I felt when I read the newspaper reports.

I am not sure what she was there for except the visit to the bank "discrepancy"

I am not sure if the date of the N.O.W deal was still pending at that time.

[Jane]

That's what I felt when I read the newspaper reports.

I am not sure what she was there for except the visit to the bank "discrepancy"

I am not sure if the date of the N.O.W deal was still pending at that time.

I remember that there were questions I thought we'd finally get an answer to. That we didn't made me wonder if someone had whispered in to His Honour's ear about the deal the police MAY have had with her. She couldn't have been allowed to talk about it in court, I imagine.

[tyler]

Jeremy's team wanted to question JM about the contract that she had with the NOTW. As I understood it,Jeremy's solicitor did not have the contract to hand as evidence and so therefore the Judge ruled that JM could not be questioned/cross examined on the issue so therefore she did not have to take the stand after all. I'm certain that NGB could explain it all better when he is next on the forum.

[Mr. Gee]

Jeremy's team wanted to question JM about the contract that she had with the NOTW. As I understood it,Jeremy's solicitor did not have the contract to hand as evidence and so therefore the Judge ruled that JM could not be questioned/cross examined on the issue so therefore she did not have to take the stand after all. I'm certain that NGB could explain it all better when he is next on the forum.

Hi Tyler. What was the reason Jeremy's solicitor didn't have the contract?

[Patti]

Hi Tyler. What was the reason Jeremy's solicitor didn't have the contract?

I think one of the key questions was when was the contract actually signed! Was it prior to the verdict? If so this should not have taken place till after the verdict. No one seems to know to this day when it was signed. 

[Alias]

I think one of the key questions was when was the contract was actually signed! Was it prior to the verdict? If so this should not have taken place till after the verdict. No one seems to know to this day when it was signed. 

If it was after, I am sure we would have known, right!

[tyler]

Patti -  yes,that is what the solicitor was trying to prove! And Grahame, I don't entirely remember. I THINK they offered to go get it and the Judge wouldn't allow them to,but don't quote me on that. The info is somewhere here on the forum as it has been discussed before.

[lookout]

 There'd have been some jiggery-pokery somewhere,certainly not a valid explanation. One thing I don't remember seeing was JM kicking up a stink at having to travel all that way " for nothing ".?

[Patti]

If it was after, I am sure we would have known, right!

I am surprised the defence did not pursue this more.  In JM's statement she can recall her solicitor drafting up such a document. She said it would stop the all the journalist from other newspapers that were pursuing her at the time. Its obvious it was done prior, but I don't know how this would stand legally, today. 

[Steve_uk]

I am surprised the defence did not pursue this more.  In JM's statement she can recall her solicitor drafting up such a document. She said it would stop the all the journalist from other newspapers that were pursuing her at the time. Its obvious it was done prior, but I don't know how this would stand legally, today. 

Didn't Mr. Justice Drake pin a note on the board outside the court warning the Press not to approach any of the witnesses? I wonder if Julie could be subpoenaed today were there a retrial today?http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/city-woman-key-witness-if-uk-judge-allows-appeal-148056175.html