Julie Mugford's Midland Branch, Colchester account needs investigating by HMRC

[Nigel]

Julie Mugford's Midland, Colchester Branch, BANK ACCOUNT needs investigating by HMRC.

Please see Mike Tesko's uploads.

If HMRC can prove Miss Mugford accepted payments into her Bank account during or prior to trial, Jeremy will rightly be freed.

Very simple really.

[Nigel]

BANK and BRANCH: MIDLAND COLCHESTER
NOW KNOWN AS:
HSBC, Colchester
26 High Street
Colchester
Essex
CO1 1DQ
Telephone: 03457 404 404 (central customer services)

HSBC in Colchester Branch Opening Times:
https://www.bankopeningtimes.co.uk/hsbc/colchester.html


NAME: MISS JR MUGFORD

ACCOUNT NUMBER: 51147013

[Nigel]

HSBC, COLCHESTER:
NAME: MISS JR MUGFORD
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 51147013

[ngb1066]

Julie Mugford's Midland, Colchester Branch, BANK ACCOUNT needs investigating by HMRC.

Please see Mike Tesko's uploads.

If HMRC can prove Miss Mugford accepted payments into her Bank account during or prior to trial, Jeremy will rightly be freed.

Very simple really.

HMRC would not be interested.  In any event HSBC would not retain bank account records from so long ago.

[Nigel]

HMRC would not be interested.  In any event HSBC would not retain bank account records from so long ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2007/apr/03/consumernews.consumeraffairs
Q: "I was wondering how long banks are required to keep account records?"
A: ''The really simple answer here is: forever! ''

[ngb1066]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2007/apr/03/consumernews.consumeraffairs

'The really simple answer here is: forever! '

They do not need to keep details of transactions from over 30 years ago.  If money remains in an account obviously they need to maintain a record of that. 

[Nigel]

They do not need to keep details of transactions from over 30 years ago.  If money remains in an account obviously they need to maintain a record of that.

'They do not need to keep details of transactions from over 30 years ago'

but maybe they have......

[ngb1066]

'They do not need to keep details of transactions from over 30 years ago'

but maybe they have......

It is possible, but I believe details of JM's bank account were obtained in the run up to the 2002 appeal.

[Nigel]

It is possible, but I believe details of JM's bank account were obtained in the run up to the 2002 appeal.

thanks.
maybe more digging needed by staff at HSBC PLC, HIGH STREET, COLCHESTER, UK

[Luminous Wanderer]

It's doubtful her bank records are any longer held.  In fact, I would say it's a certainty that any production order or court order for such records will return a blank.

That's apart from the point that the former Julie Mugford's evidence didn't convict Bamber, and so any efforts to undermine her evidence - while emotionally-satisfying - are of no probative value.

Even if it could be shown that the former Miss Mugford had been accepting wedges of cash from John Poulson, who was the secret 'fixer' in the whole conspiracy and a member of an evil Satanic cult led by Ann Eaton and Robert Boutflour, with John Stonehouse acting as the intermediary at a service station car park in the West Midlands, after which she stashed the cash in her Midlands account with a 10% cut for the Chief Constable of Essex Police - none of that would prove that Jeremy Bamber is actually innocent. 

[Nigel]

It's doubtful her bank records are any longer held.  In fact, I would say it's a certainty that any production order or court order for such records will return a blank.

That's apart from the point that the former Julie Mugford's evidence didn't convict Bamber, and so any efforts to undermine her evidence - while emotionally-satisfying - are of no probative value.

Even if it could be shown that the former Miss Mugford had been accepting wedges of cash from John Poulson, who was the secret 'fixer' in the whole conspiracy and a member of an evil Satanic cult led by Ann Eaton and Robert Boutflour, with John Stonehouse acting as the intermediary at a service station car park in the West Midlands, after which she stashed the cash in her Midlands account with a 10% cut for the Chief Constable of Essex Police - none of that would prove that Jeremy Bamber is actually innocent.

Mugford would be 'in contempt of court' if she took payments and or had a 'verbal agreement' with NEWS OF THE WORLD during the trial.

[ngb1066]

It's doubtful her bank records are any longer held.  In fact, I would say it's a certainty that any production order or court order for such records will return a blank.

That's apart from the point that the former Julie Mugford's evidence didn't convict Bamber, and so any efforts to undermine her evidence - while emotionally-satisfying - are of no probative value.

I agree with your first point but not your second.  JM's evidence was one of the central planks of the prosecution case and if that evidence can now be undermined it would be a powerful ground of appeal.  There is material available now, and further material that may well be available if further disclosure is obtained of some files withheld under PII, which could undermine that evidence.

[Luminous Wanderer]

Mugford would be 'in contempt of court' if she took payments and or had a 'verbal agreement' with NEWS OF THE WORLD during the trial.

Yes, in fact it could possibly be perjury, depending on what was said at trial.

But the point that sometimes needs to be made is this:

In English criminal evidence, there is no strong adherence to the doctrine of the 'poisoned tree'.  Just because evidence, or even a whole prosecution case, is built on corrupted actions, it doesn't (at least, in and of itself) follow that the evidence is inadmissible. 

This is in stark contrast to countries like the United States, where criminal defendants have certain legal and constitutional protections and even a well-proved criminal case can be dismissed on the basis of a procedural or technical irregularity.  (However, even in the United States, these protections are tempered by pragmatism and exigency and therefore not always adhered to fully or at all.  An example would be the Neil Entwistle case in Massachusetts, where early in the inquiry the police patrol officers had conducted an illegal search of Entwistle's home.  Entwistle's lawyers tried to have his conviction overturned on that basis, but this argument was rejected).

Of course, I'm not trying to discourage you in undermining Mugford's evidence, as it might lead to something anyway, but personally it wouldn't be my focus.  I just don't think she's very important.
Her evidence isn't probative, at least so far as I can see, and I always laugh when I see 'anti-Bamber' commenters cite something she said.  Her evidence is a joke.  Undermining her achieves nought.

[Luminous Wanderer]

I agree with your first point but not your second.  JM's evidence was one of the central planks of the prosecution case and if that evidence can now be undermined it would be a powerrful ground of appeal.

If that's true, then I regard this case as a sick joke.  How could they rely on anything that woman said?  You'd have to be blind or stupid.  If that woman gave me the time of day, I'd look for a clock just to double check.

But anyway, we are where we are.  I think my point does stand: that even if Mugford was completely undermined, it doesn't undermine the conviction.  I personally think this case is going to be decided ultimately on the forensic evidence.

[Nigel]

Yes, in fact it could possibly be perjury, depending on what was said at trial.

But the point that sometimes needs to be made is this:

In English criminal evidence, there is no strong adherence to the doctrine of the 'poisoned tree'.  Just because evidence, or even a whole prosecution case, is built on corrupted actions, it doesn't (at least, in and of itself) follow that the evidence is inadmissible. 

This is in stark contrast to countries like the United States, where criminal defendants have certain legal and constitutional protections and even a well-proved criminal case can be dismissed on the basis of a procedural or technical irregularity.  (However, even in the United States, these protections are tempered by pragmatism and exigency and therefore not always adhered to fully or at all.  An example would be the Neil Entwistle case in Massachusetts, where early in the inquiry the police patrol officers had conducted an illegal search of Entwistle's home.  Entwistle's lawyers tried to have his conviction overturned on that basis, but this argument was rejected).

Of course, I'm not trying to discourage you in undermining Mugford's evidence, as it might lead to something anyway, but personally it wouldn't be my focus.  I just don't think she's very important.
Her evidence isn't probative, at least so far as I can see, and I always laugh when I see 'anti-Bamber' commenters cite something she said.  Her evidence is a joke.  Undermining her achieves nought.

I'm a simple 'Northern lad', we had slide rules at school, but even I know if Mugford took payment from a National Newspaper and / or had a 'verbal agreement' from a National Newspaper PRIOR TO VERDICT
Mugford would be / is 'in contempt of Court'.