A Very Important Question

[nugnug]

and of course that must be true becouse at the news of the world said it.

[Adam]

Jeremy had a deal with the NOTW which pre-dated JM's deal.

His deal was for £40,000 which was given because the NOTW didn't believe him to be guilty and thought it would be a big scoop for them to have the story of a someone who had faced trial on a case that had gotten a great deal of attention.

The deal was put together by David Montgomery but then something happened. The higher ups at the NOTW realised Bamber was guilty, they'd been saying this in their paper that Bamber was guilty for some time previous but there was always a belief that there was a great chance that Jeremy would get away with it, even if he was guilty due to the evidence.

But then when the belief changed and that Bamber may get found guilty, they realsied that they wouldn't be paying £40,000 and wanted to have a story to print, an exlcusive - so who was the next best thing? Julie.

Her agreement was signed AFTER Jeremy's which is something most people don't know, in fact most people do not know Jeremy had a deal in place, he did. 

Montgomery worked with Julie too on her deal and found her to be much easier to deal with as Jeremy would often make phone calls to the news team in the lead up to him signing his agreement and he would bitch and moan about the sum of £40,000. Even on the verdict day he moaned to his lawyers.

Jeremy wanted more - 100k. He told the NOTW it would be an explosive story. Julie settled for a lot less.

[Adam]

In short, if the jury were aware of Julie's deal, they would be aware of Jeremy's. So they would negate each other.

It is normal for the main players in high profile cases to have exclusive deals in place. Otherwise they will just get hounded.

Even the minor players in the OJ case had deals in place. Jurors in that trial who were taken off the case in the long 9 month trial also made deals.

[Adam]

OJ released a book and audio tapes during his 9 month trial. To help pay for his lawyers.

Julie having a deal in place is nothing unusual.

Jeremy and his lawyers spent a lot of time trying to negate her testimony by claiming the NOTW deal made her testimony invalid. Which would result in Jeremy walking on a technicality. But there is no mileage in it.

[scipio_usmc]

The notion that NOTW would not have paid to get Julie's account of things unless Jeremy was convicted is ludicrous. 

It is also ludicrous to claim that Julie told the police the story she did in anticipation of eventually securing a paid interview form a tabloid.

The deal doesn't impact the credibity of her claims at all which are corroborated by a great deal of evidence.

She had the opportunity to make more money by giving interviews but chose not to and instead to fad away.

[nugnug]

In short, if the jury were aware of Julie's deal, they would be aware of Jeremy's. So they would negate each other.

It is normal for the main players in high profile cases to have exclusive deals in place. Otherwise they will just get hounded.

Even the minor players in the OJ case had deals in place. Jurors in that trial who were taken off the case in the long 9 month trial also made deals.

not in england it isnt.

[nugnug]

The notion that NOTW would not have paid to get Julie's account of things unless Jeremy was convicted is ludicrous. 

It is also ludicrous to claim that Julie told the police the story she did in anticipation of eventually securing a paid interview form a tabloid.

The deal doesn't impact the credibity of her claims at all which are corroborated by a great deal of evidence.

She had the opportunity to make more money by giving interviews but chose not to and instead to fad away.

of course they wouldent they couldent of run the story if he had been found innocent.

[lookout]

Does anyone know if Jeremy used a duty solicitor when he was arrested both times ? As opposed to a solicitor of his choice.

[Mr. Gee]

Jeremy had a deal with the NOTW which pre-dated JM's deal.

His deal was for £40,000 which was given because the NOTW didn't believe him to be guilty and thought it would be a big scoop for them to have the story of a someone who had faced trial on a case that had gotten a great deal of attention.

The deal was put together by David Montgomery but then something happened. The higher ups at the NOTW realised Bamber was guilty, they'd been saying this in their paper that Bamber was guilty for some time previous but there was always a belief that there was a great chance that Jeremy would get away with it, even if he was guilty due to the evidence.

But then when the belief changed and that Bamber may get found guilty, they realsied that they wouldn't be paying £40,000 and wanted to have a story to print, an exlcusive - so who was the next best thing? Julie.

Her agreement was signed AFTER Jeremy's which is something most people don't know, in fact most people do not know Jeremy had a deal in place, he did. 

Montgomery worked with Julie too on her deal and found her to be much easier to deal with as Jeremy would often make phone calls to the news team in the lead up to him signing his agreement and he would bitch and moan about the sum of £40,000. Even on the verdict day he moaned to his lawyers.

Jeremy wanted more - 100k. He told the NOTW it would be an explosive story. Julie settled for a lot less.

I know that you have mentioned this before, but is there any documentation to prove that this was true, other than books that is? I mean have you actually checked it out yourself, or did you just read it second hand?

[nugnug]

well it all comes from the notw hardly a reliable source.

[Mr. Gee]

The notion that NOTW would not have paid to get Julie's account of things unless Jeremy was convicted is ludicrous. 

It is also ludicrous to claim that Julie told the police the story she did in anticipation of eventually securing a paid interview form a tabloid.

The deal doesn't impact the credibity of her claims at all which are corroborated by a great deal of evidence.

She had the opportunity to make more money by giving interviews but chose not to and instead to fad away.

Well maybe it is not as ludicrous as it sounds? If Bamber was found not guilty then the whole story that would have told them would have fallen flat and it may have made her look bad. I'm sure the NOTW would have had some clause in place to protect their own interests if the story was not not going to be the scoop that they wanted?

[nugnug]

they couldent of printed if he had been found innocent it would be libelous and there in house lawers would of told them that.

[scipio_usmc]

Well maybe it is not as ludicrous as it sounds? If Bamber was found not guilty then the whole story that would have told them would have fallen flat and it may have made her look bad. I'm sure the NOTW would have had some clause in place to protect their own interests if the story was not not going to be the scoop that they wanted?

A killer who escaped liability is an even more exciting story.

At any rate you seem to have missed the baot.

The main point is that there is no evidence she made up the claims and told them to police in order ot make money.  Evidence of that would undercut the credibility of her claims.  Looking for deals before she went to police or evidence she planned to solicit deals and tha tis why she went to police would be a VERY different story.  That is evidence the story could have been fabricated for monetary reasons. 

A lawyer negotiating a deal well after the claims have been made at worst suggests trying to be opportunistic given the situation not lying to make money.  The lawyer has not denied that she went to him trying to find a way to get the press off her back which even hurts the opportunistic claims and makes the lawyer out as the opportunist.

If you had evidence that she wesnt to police so the press woudl want her sotry this would be a very different discussion.

[nugnug]

theirs no way any editor would of been allowed to print a story like that about someone who had just been found innocent.

[Adam]

A killer who escaped liability is an even more exciting story.

At any rate you seem to have missed the baot.

The main point is that there is no evidence she made up the claims and told them to police in order ot make money.  Evidence of that would undercut the credibility of her claims.  Looking for deals before she went to police or evidence she planned to solicit deals and tha tis why she went to police would be a VERY different story.  That is evidence the story could have been fabricated for monetary reasons. 

A lawyer negotiating a deal well after the claims have been made at worst suggests trying to be opportunistic given the situation not lying to make money.  The lawyer has not denied that she went to him trying to find a way to get the press off her back which even hurts the opportunistic claims and makes the lawyer out as the opportunist.

If you had evidence that she wesnt to police so the press woudl want her sotry this would be a very different discussion.

Julie was a naive 20 year old.

She would have no idea whether the public would have any interest in the trial. Or whether she would get any offer at all from the media.

To say she went through all that for 25k is wrong.