I think I know what he means? He thinks that you are suggesting that some of her testimony was true? But he is wrong. What you believe is probably the same as what I believe as regards her testimony. That she lied, but there may be truth in some of it? Because a downright lie would probably not be believed. Therefore she possibly although not necessarily told a half truth? A half truth will be acknowledged by the prosecution and therefore be presumed to be the whole truth. So there may mave been certain things that were true, for example when she admitted to trying to strangle Jeremy.
But in any case that in no way presumes that you have defended her.
Grahame
Caroline can correct me if I'm wrong, but I take her to mean something like this: that she, personally, thinks that Jeremy, in some form or other, intimated to Julie that he was the killer, but while also admitting that Mugford's given testimony contains a number of lies.
I think Dan is looking Julie's evidence strictly from a “rules of the game” perspective. He appears to be saying that regardless of whether or not you think he did confess to her, the lies she told (like the description of Sheila's body on the bed)
discredit her as a witness, so opinons about her as an individual are not relevant. Of course supporters of Jeremy despise Julie Mugford, but that is not the real issue.
In american courtroom dramas a classic scene is one in which the defence expose a significant lie in the testimony of a prosecution witness and there's commotion in the court. The judge pounds his gavel to maintain order, then makes it clear to the jury that the evidence of that witness should be “stricken from the record”.
If that is what Dan is saying should have happened in Bamber's trial, then I agree with him. The guilty supporters evidently do not.
It's her status as a witness which is in question, not whether or not you feel support for her.
