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

[tyler]

Thank you for clarifying NGB and...Cliff,hope you are keeping well x

[Adam]

JM returned to England for the 2002 appeal because the Court of Appeal had given leave for her to be cross examined about the NoW contract.  The defence had information that the contract had in fact been concluded before the trial and that JM had therefore lied when she gave assurances during the trial that she had not concluded any deal with the press and had no intention of doing so.  The defence had information that a copy of the contract itself was held by the solicitor who had acted for JM.  The defence applied to the Court of Appeal for an order requiring the solicitor to produce the document.  This application was refused.  On her arrival in England JM provided a statement to the prosecution (it is posted here) in which she said she could not remember when the contract had been agreed with the NoW.  Faced with the refusal of the application the defence would not have been able to challenge JM upon the basis of having proof on the basis of the document itself.  There was therefore no benefit in cross examining her.

I do understand that more recently a copy of the contract, or at least a letter from the NoW referring to it, has been obtained.  If there is a referral to the Court of Appeal I am sure there will be a further application for JM to be called for cross examination.  That was certainly the intention of Simon McKay.  He wanted to cross examine her in relation to the NoW contract, the circumstances in which she was initially interviewed and handled by the police, and the circumstances surrounding the deal with the bank not to prosecute her for fraud.

 

Was Jeremy trying to get off on a technicality ? Sneaking boy.

Julie flew over to the UK. It was not her fault that the courts ruled she should not testify.

It's no secret she had agreed a deal prior to the verdict. It is doubtful she signed papers. The NOTW are not going to commit until the verdict.

[Jan]

yes of course the N.O.W would have made an agreement put her and her mother up in a hotel and left it unsigned - course they would - In your world.

[Jane]

yes of course the N.O.W would have made an agreement put her and her mother up in a hotel and left it unsigned - course they would - In your world.

How interesting that they got her to sign something which said her memory had deserted her. It let her off the hook very nicely. She could spend the time with her family instead.

[JackiePreece]

JM returned to England for the 2002 appeal because the Court of Appeal had given leave for her to be cross examined about the NoW contract.  The defence had information that the contract had in fact been concluded before the trial and that JM had therefore lied when she gave assurances during the trial that she had not concluded any deal with the press and had no intention of doing so.  The defence had information that a copy of the contract itself was held by the solicitor who had acted for JM.  The defence applied to the Court of Appeal for an order requiring the solicitor to produce the document.  This application was refused.  On her arrival in England JM provided a statement to the prosecution (it is posted here) in which she said she could not remember when the contract had been agreed with the NoW.  Faced with the refusal of the application the defence would not have been able to challenge JM upon the basis of having proof on the basis of the document itself.  There was therefore no benefit in cross examining her.

I do understand that more recently a copy of the contract, or at least a letter from the NoW referring to it, has been obtained.  If there is a referral to the Court of Appeal I am sure there will be a further application for JM to be called for cross examination.  That was certainly the intention of Simon McKay.  He wanted to cross examine her in relation to the NoW contract, the circumstances in which she was initially interviewed and handled by the police, and the circumstances surrounding the deal with the bank not to prosecute her for fraud.

 

There we go, in black and white !!
Yet some people still believe Jeremy was convicted fairly
It was always about Julie and as they say a women scorned
How does she live with the lies she told?  Whatever happens the truth about the NOTW contract needs to be out in the public domain once and for all.  I know MWT thought strongly about this
Julie Mugford main prosecution witness completely discredited

[Adam]

The NOTW had verbal deals with both Bamber and Julie.

Whoever was available after the verdict would sign on the dotted line.

If Julie was asked if she had signed an agreement with the NOTW pre verdict, she could say 'no'.

[Jan]

The NOTW had verbal deals with both Bamber and Julie.

Whoever was available after the verdict would sign on the dotted line.

If Julie was asked if she had signed an agreement with the NOTW pre verdict, she could say 'no'.

You think.

unless you have some inside knowledge I would say that is rubbish.

[Adam]

You think.

unless you have some inside knowledge I would say that is rubbish.

No one knows the exact wording of what she was asked in 1986 regarding this.

I have not even seen a source she was asked anything at all regarding this at trial, in 1986.

[Jan]

No one knows the exact wording of what she was asked in 1986 regarding this.

I have not even seen a source she was asked anything at all regarding this at trial, in 1986.

yes you have - it was discussed in private in chambers .

[JackiePreece]

The NOTW had verbal deals with both Bamber and Julie.

Whoever was available after the verdict would sign on the dotted line.

If Julie was asked if she had signed an agreement with the NOTW pre verdict, she could say 'no'.

We are talking about Mugford and another of her money making ideas

There is probably not a single person anywhere that would not be horrified to learn the NOTW deal was made before trial

Her testimony was worthless and the appeal judges should have made sure the information about the deal was available for them

I am sure they could have if they really wanted to

What a farce of a justice system

[Adam]

yes you have - it was discussed in private in chambers .

Source please. And make it 'primary'.

[Mr. Gee]

Was Jeremy trying to get off on a technicality ? Sneaking boy.

Julie flew over to the UK. It was not her fault that the courts ruled she should not testify.

It's no secret she had agreed a deal prior to the verdict. It is doubtful she signed papers. The NOTW are not going to commit until the verdict.

Now Adam it is something like this which dictates how you must judge as to why an appeal fails sometimes. So people such as yourself don't go making sweeping statements like, "Oh two failed appeals. He must be guilty then". But when you actually bother to read what "really" happened and it was because of what actually happened that made that appeal fail you find that it was not that he was found guilty yet again, but that the appeal failed because of the judges ruling.

If you read ngb's post, which is very enlightening you will see that it wasn't Bamber trying to get off on a technicality at all. But that the defense hoped to show that which was actually hindered by the appeal court judge/s him/themselves.

You see it was not just a technicality that Bamber was appealing for, but rather the defense counsel trying to prove that Mugford's whole testimony was to be called in question because she had incentive to lie.

Now I know for a fact that you will not understand all this because of your challenged intellect. But because they could not obtain a copy of the cantract that she made with the paper because the solicitor "said" that he didn't have a copy and the judge's ruling that it was not to be obtained all Mugford had to say was, "I don't remember". Now I don't know about you but if I made such a contract with a newspaper I would certainly remember whether it was before the trial or after it.
 
I just hope that now that his defense team have obtained a copy of it and that it will form one of the next application for an appeal that she will at last be found out to be the liar that many think she is.

But having said that I bet you any amount that you care to offer that the CCRC will somehow put a block on this next application being the kind of people they have shown themselves to be.
But of course as I said you won't understand one word of what I have said because trying to reason with you is about as successful as talking to a mule.

[Mr. Gee]

The NOTW had verbal deals with both Bamber and Julie.

Whoever was available after the verdict would sign on the dotted line.

If Julie was asked if she had signed an agreement with the NOTW pre verdict, she could say 'no'.

Yes she could say no and I'd expect a liar to be true to their nature.
Bamber's deal if a deal existed was a gamble on his own life. Mugford's deal would have been quite different, it was a gamble on someone else's life.

[Mr. Gee]

No one knows the exact wording of what she was asked in 1986 regarding this.

I have not even seen a source she was asked anything at all regarding this at trial, in 1986.

Have you seen a source for Bambers deal?

[Adam]

Now Adam it is something like this which dictates how you must judge as to why an appeal fails sometimes. So people such as yourself don't go making sweeping statements like, "Oh two failed appeals. He must be guilty then". But when you actually bother to read what "really" happened and it was because of what actually happened that made that appeal fail you find that it was not that he was found guilty yet again, but that the appeal failed because of the judges ruling.

If you read ngb's post, which is very enlightening you will see that it wasn't Bamber trying to get off on a technicality at all. But that the defense hoped to show that which was actually hindered by the appeal court judge/s him/themselves.

You see it was not just a technicality that Bamber was appealing for, but rather the defense counsel trying to prove that Mugford's whole testimony was to be called in question because she had incentive to lie.

Now I know for a fact that you will not understand all this because of your challenged intellect. But because they could not obtain a copy of the cantract that she made with the paper because the solicitor "said" that he didn't have a copy and the judge's ruling that it was not to be obtained all Mugford had to say was, "I don't remember". Now I don't know about you but if I made such a contract with a newspaper I would certainly remember whether it was before the trial or after it.
 
I just hope that now that his defense team have obtained a copy of it and that it will form one of the next application for an appeal that she will at last be found out to be the liar that many think she is.

But having said that I bet you any amount that you care to offer that the CCRC will somehow put a block on this next application being the kind of people they have shown themselves to be.
But of course as I said you won't understand one word of what I have said because trying to reason with you is about as successful as talking to a mule.

Cantract ? You are the one with the challenged intellect.

It was a high profile case. Of course she had a verbal deal. So did Bamber. So did every witness in the OJ case, before they testified.