Why Rivlin QC rightly told the jury to dismiss Julie Mugfords testimony

[Jane]

Good God,you sound like a pair of pantomime dames.

RUDE!!!!!!!

[Jan]

No they're all in her statement.

Back to the thread . I think the distractions are deliberate.

I think it was also reported that her testimony in court was presented in quite a different way to the defence and prosecution. She became quite hard to understand at times and her testimony was hard to comprehend but only when questioned by the defence . But she did not seem unconfident when it came to the papers.

[Steve_uk]

Back to the thread . I think the distractions are deliberate.

I think it was also reported that her testimony in court was presented in quite a different way to the defence and prosecution. She became quite hard to understand at times and her testimony was hard to comprehend but only when questioned by the defence . But she did not seem unconfident when it came to the papers.

All the Defence could argue was that she was making the story up and Julie stuck to her guns. If you think they could and should have asked her different questions I wish you'd say so.

[Jan]

All the Defence could argue was that she was making the story up and Julie stuck to her guns. If you think they could and should have asked her different questions I wish you'd say so.

To be honest without seeing the full trial transcript that is difficult for me to judge. But there are some other things that I think should have been done that should not have relied on he said she said scenarios.

[guest154]

All the Defence could argue was that she was making the story up and Julie stuck to her guns. If you think they could and should have asked her different questions I wish you'd say so.

She could have been seriously grilled during the trial, sadly we don't know fully what was said. There may have been more she said that hasn't come out or Jeremy is hoping isn't discovered. He is always silent on Julie.

[Jan]

She could have been seriously grilled during the trial, sadly we don't know fully what was said. There may have been more she said that hasn't come out or Jeremy is hoping isn't discovered. He is always silent on Julie.

Surely we could see the full transcript now under the freedom of information act , or does that not apply to this sort of case?

[guest154]

Surely we could see the full transcript now under the freedom of information act , or does that not apply to this sort of case?

I doubt it has been saved.

[Steve_uk]

She could have been seriously grilled during the trial, sadly we don't know fully what was said. There may have been more she said that hasn't come out or Jeremy is hoping isn't discovered. He is always silent on Julie.

There was something about "you're trying to make it look as black as possible for the Defendant, aren't you.."

Julie to Defence counsel: "The evidence is black enough already.."

[Jan]

I doubt it has been saved.

That's a shame really because it would be interesting to compare some of the information it was claimed was not available at trial as to what was actually shown . I think it als may give the bigger picture about witnesses because I am sure we all realise books are not always that accurate

[Caroline]

Reading some of this, you would think Rivilin turned  up to court with only his sandwiches and a chewed biro for company! 

[Jan]

There was something about "you're trying to make it look as black as possible for the Defendant, aren't you.."

Julie to Defence counsel: "The evidence is black enough already.."

Yes well she was in court as a prosecution witness . So she would be doing her job so to speak.

But apparently some of her evidence was incompressible at times.

[Steve_uk]

Yes well she was in court as a prosecution witness . So she would be doing her job so to speak.

But apparently some of her evidence was incompressible at times.

Had Julie had more time to tell her story as she wished the two female jurors who were swayed by Jeremy Bamber's charm might just have changed their minds..

[Adam]

Don't waste your time arguing with Caroline over this. She has already dissected this evidence herself and she knows the answers, but just wants to turn every conversation in a never ending loop to prevent any constructive debate. Just refer her to her own posts if she asks the questions 

Lol. Yes the 2012 post shows a lot of current guilters used to  argue just as passionately for innocence. Caroline changing stance after Bamber didn't answer her question about the last trailer.

You are the only person I know who has gone from guilty to innocent, which seemed to happen after you made you're forensic evidence breakthrough. Although we have both said Scipio may have changed stance after watching Mike's latest video.

https://youtu.be/mmCART1vcCo

[lookout]

Do we know if the two jurors were women,or is it just another slight on Jeremy ?

[Adam]

Do we know if the two jurors were women,or is it just another slight on Jeremy ?

It was two women.