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

[Adam]

What was the law in 1986 ?

If newspaper deals were allowed after completed Witness Statements, then this discussion is not relevant.

There was a media block on the case pre verdict. The television and newspapers could only write about the day at trial.

Both Julie and Bamber may have been interviewed a few days prior to the verdict. So the NOTW could publish their story straight afterwards.

[Caroline]

What was the law in 1986 ?

If newspaper deals were allowed after completed Witness Statements, then this discussion is not relevant.

There was a media block on the case pre verdict. The television and newspapers could only write about the day at trial.

Both Julie and Bamber may have been interviewed a few days prior to the verdict. So the NOTW could publish their story straight afterwards.

I doubt it would have been illegal to agree to sell a story as long as nothing was leaked that might affect the trial.

[Jan]

What was the law in 1986 ?

If newspaper deals were allowed after completed Witness Statements, then this discussion is not relevant.

There was a media block on the case pre verdict. The television and newspapers could only write about the day at trial.

Both Julie and Bamber may have been interviewed a few days prior to the verdict. So the NOTW could publish their story straight afterwards.

As far as I have read the contempt of court would have applied because of the alleged discussion in chambers . That is what I was referring to.


"This was later ruled in breach of guidelines by the Press Complaints Council, though she was not made to pay the money back"

[lebaleb]

I doubt it would have been illegal to agree to sell a story as long as nothing was leaked that might affect the trial.

A prosecution witness being offered money for a story that depends on a guilty verdict is surely illegal or at least highly unethical.

[lookout]

Immoral comes top of the list.

[Caroline]

A prosecution witness being offered money for a story that depends on a guilty verdict is surely illegal or at least highly unethical.

It might be unethical, but I doubt it's illegal. I'm sure you can bet on the outcome of a case, yo only get paid if you bet on the right outcome.

[Jan]

It might be unethical, but I doubt it's illegal. I'm sure you can bet on the outcome of a case, yo only get paid if you bet on the right outcome.

I think at the time it was against press council guidelines that's why the NOW were in trouble but the law may have changed since 1985 .

I think Rivilin ? said he could not question her in court about the deal because she had said ( or her lawyer had) that she had NO deal and no intention of making a deal. Otherwise he would have used in court against her.

[lookout]

 I can't even imagine " deal " being mentioned at a time like that.
 I wonder what the suggestion of a deal was all about and who instigated it in the first place,besides what is surmised ? There can't be many cases with similarities like this.

[lebaleb]

It might be unethical, but I doubt it's illegal. I'm sure you can bet on the outcome of a case, yo only get paid if you bet on the right outcome.

Yes, you can bet on the outcome of a case, but in this case the promise of cash to a prosecution witness is an incentive to lie and make sure the outcome is guilty.

[Jane]

Yes, you can bet on the outcome of a case, but in this case the promise of cash to a prosecution witness is an incentive to lie and make sure the outcome is guilty.

How could she lie when her statement was already written. She couldn't stand in the witness box suddenly spring something entirely other than what she'd already said. They'd have stopped proceedings and asked what she was playing at.

[Caroline]

Yes, you can bet on the outcome of a case, but in this case the promise of cash to a prosecution witness is an incentive to lie and make sure the outcome is guilty.

how could it be an INCENTIVE TO LIE? She had already given her statements long before any contract was signed.

[lebaleb]

how could it be an INCENTIVE TO LIE? She had already given her statements long before any contract was signed.

Why do you think people give testimony in court if they are just going to parrot what was said in their statements? It is in court that witnesses are asked further questions not dealt with fully in their statements, or ask new ones. There is the opportunity to lie.

[Caroline]

Why do you think people give testimony in court if they are just going to parrot what was said in their statements? It is in court that witnesses are asked further questions not dealt with fully in their statements, or ask new ones. There is the opportunity to lie.

And such an instance would be picked up because the defence have access to what they originally said. They don't come to court which a clan slate and say whatever comes off the top of their heads. Statements are taken for a reason!

[gringo]

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 ?

Adam, as you agree that both JB and JM had deals in place pre trial and you are aware of JM's denial of this to the court then why do you need a source for JM having lied to the judge.
   Just read your own posts.

[lebaleb]

And such an instance would be picked up because the defence have access to what they originally said. They don't come to court which a clan slate and say whatever comes off the top of their heads. Statements are taken for a reason!

Had it been possible to cross examine JM they may well have found discrepancies with her witness statements. Especially considering they are contradictory. Thanks for enlightening me as to why witness statements are taken... that's patently obvious.