Why Does Mugford Refuse To Say When She Signed The NOTW Deal

[Jan]

Actually I have just read JM 2002 statement and she said she was offered the deal whatever the verdict - but not sure how she would know because she did not read the small print .


However in that statement she quite clearly sets out when and why she approached her lawyer and she said she had to go to the hotel room to fulfil the contract - so that indicates the contract had at least been drawn up and in place - so we have to consider what she told the judge during the trial



"  The defence received information that Julie Mugford had concluded a deal with the NoW.  Geoffrey Rivlin raised this in chambers with the judge.  The judge ordered the prosecution to make enquiries, which they did.  They reported back to the judge and the defence that Julie Mugford stated that she had concluded no agreement with any newspaper, and had no intention of doing so.  As a result of that Julie Mugford was not cross examined on this, upon the basis that she would have repeated her denial and under the rules of evidence and professional conduct she could not have been accused of lying about this because the defence did not have any admissible evidence to contradict it."

[Jan]

I didn't know that. Have you got a source ?

If this was the deal, there is a slim chance she signed a deal during the trial. If several lawyers from both parties made a horrendous mistake. Although I don't know what the laws were on this in 1986.

Otherwise, going by my last post, there is no way the NOTW and Julie would have signed deals pre verdict.

Well if she did - she lied to the judge then.

[Adam]

It's common knowledge that both Julie and Bamber had deals in place, pre verdict.

It's in Wilkes's book. Bamber complaining to his lawyers about the amount of Julie's deal.

I'm sure everything was signed at the correct time. After 30 years there really is no mileage in this technicality attempt.

[Jan]

It's common knowledge that both Julie and Bamber had deals in place, pre verdict.

It's in Wilkes's book. Bamber complaining to his lawyers about the amount of Julie's deal.

I'm sure everything was signed at the correct time. After 30 years there really is no mileage in this technicality attempt.

How do you know if the documents were lost ? That is one huge assumption. And if even the deal was in place - Julie lied to the judge? But I suppose that's ok too?

[Adam]

How do you know if the documents were lost ? That is one huge assumption. And if even the deal was in place - Julie lied to the judge? But I suppose that's ok too?

Where did I say documents were lost ?

Have you got sources for the deal being dependent on Bamber getting a not guilty verdict.

And a source that Julie lied to the judge. I saw you're post just now, is that from the OS ?

[Jan]

found this as well - I wondered why JM had not given evidence in the appeal



The defence made an application to obtain a copy of the contract between Julie Mugford and the News of the World.  The defence had information 1) that the contract had been entered into before Julie Mugford gave evidence and 2) that the contract provided that payment would only be made in the event of a guilty verdict.  The Court of Appeal refused the defence application and defence counsel therefore took the view that it was not possible to explore this issue further since Julie Mugford would simply say what she said in her 2002 witness statement, that she could not remember when she had entered into the contract and had not read the contract in any detail.  Since this was the only issue in respect of which the Court of Appeal had agreed that Julie Mugford could be cross examined she was not called to give evidence.

[Jan]

Where did I say documents were lost ?

Have you got sources for the deal being dependent on Bamber getting a not guilty verdict.

And a source that Julie lied to the judge. I saw you're post just now, is that from the OS ?

you didn't - her lawyer did.

[Jane]

found this as well - I wondered why JM had not given evidence in the appeal



The defence made an application to obtain a copy of the contract between Julie Mugford and the News of the World.  The defence had information 1) that the contract had been entered into before Julie Mugford gave evidence and 2) that the contract provided that payment would only be made in the event of a guilty verdict.  The Court of Appeal refused the defence application and defence counsel therefore took the view that it was not possible to explore this issue further since Julie Mugford would simply say what she said in her 2002 witness statement, that she could not remember when she had entered into the contract and had not read the contract in any detail.  Since this was the only issue in respect of which the Court of Appeal had agreed that Julie Mugford could be cross examined she was not called to give evidence.

Jan, if that came from the OS, I really don't feel inclined to give credence to it.

[JackiePreece]

 'They reported back to the judge and the defence that Julie Mugford stated that she had concluded no agreement with any newspaper, and had no intention of doing so'

So Mugford continued her lies right through the trial and one way or another that point must be proved and documentation found

[Jane]

'They reported back to the judge and the defence that Julie Mugford stated that she had concluded no agreement with any newspaper, and had no intention of doing so'

So Mugford continued her lies right through the trial and one way or another that point must be proved and documentation found

And if they are located and found to be dated POST trial, I suppose it will be claimed that they're forgeries.

[lookout]

Well if some of the statements aren't what they seem--------------------------

[ngb1066]

Jan, if that came from the OS, I really don't feel inclined to give credence to it.

I think it came from a post of mine, as with the earlier quote.

[Caroline]

found this as well - I wondered why JM had not given evidence in the appeal



The defence made an application to obtain a copy of the contract between Julie Mugford and the News of the World.  The defence had information 1) that the contract had been entered into before Julie Mugford gave evidence and 2) that the contract provided that payment would only be made in the event of a guilty verdict.  The Court of Appeal refused the defence application and defence counsel therefore took the view that it was not possible to explore this issue further since Julie Mugford would simply say what she said in her 2002 witness statement, that she could not remember when she had entered into the contract and had not read the contract in any detail.  Since this was the only issue in respect of which the Court of Appeal had agreed that Julie Mugford could be cross examined she was not called to give evidence.

I don't see the problem, even if she did sign the contract before she gave evidence. What she had to say was set in stone long before that so you can't argue that it was an incentive to lie about Jeremy. If I were on the jury, it would have made no difference to me unless she was approached before she initially contacted the police.

[buddy]

I think it was Adam that said that JM was studying on the night that the murders happened.
Julie said that they were drinking, and smoking pot.
Studying the affects of drugs!

[maggie]

Say when it came to court and she was waivering because she knew some of the information was not true - could she have been persuaded to carry on regardless because the money was a carrot to keep on track? As it turns out apparently she was a hard witness to question anyway . So I do think the money was relevant .

Of course it was not to Jeremy - he wasnot going to say he was guilty to get 25000 was he. But the papers should not have made deals with anyone at ALL .

I think the guilters should acknowledge it was important because if the deal was signed before the trial and it had been revealed to all the jurors then a guilty man could have walked free?

I certainly agree, cheque book journalism was always questionable can remember there being a lot of controversy around them and I'm pretty sure it's not acceptable at all these days.  NOTW, The People etc. were the worst offenders.