as the original contract went missing how do you know what it said?
Why didn't you ask that question to Jackie?
Here was the claim:
"How do you think the jury felt when they saw Mugford had been paid for an article in the NOW on condition she helped secure a guilty convicted"
How did the jury see that Mugford was paid for an article that required her to help secure a guilrty verdict? What evidence was offered.
You admit that she did not retain a copy becuase she had no need to retain it so could not show the copy when asked about it years later.
People who say Jeremy was approached with an offer for a story if he were found innocent made the stupid allegation the opposite deal was made to Julie. Such a contract would have been illegal. A lawyer negotiated the contract Mugford did not do so herself. The notion the lawyer would have negotiated such a contract is absurd.
The defense never found any evidence to establish Julie signed any deal before the trial was over let alone any evidence the contract required a conviction.
Jackie is claiming there was a public revelation an ilelgal contract had been signed and said she wonders what the jury thought of it. She is of course full of crap there was no such revelation just unsupported allegations.
