Julie Mugford's 'Verbal' agreement vs 'Signed' agreement prior to verdict.

[Luminous Wanderer]

Yes, but she should not have lied about it when asked during the trial.  This is a serious matter.

Lying under oath about a matter that is material to the outcome of the case being heard is perjury.

[Nigel]

Don't tell me that in the climate of the 1980s nobody could foresee that Julie Mugford was going to sell her story, general public or legal fraternity. Of course it was wrong, as were all the others, but once negotiated she could at least walk the streets freely without being pestered by any Tom, Dick or Harry who wanted to use her presence in the court case to gain an exclusive story.

Does that make it okay then?

[maggie]

Does that make it okay then?

Lying under oath is always wrong isn't it?

[ngb1066]

Lying under oath about a matter that is material to the outcome of the case being heard is perjury.

She did not lie under oath at trial about the NOW contract, she gave answers to the police at the request of the trial judge when the defence raised the matter in chambers.  She would not therefore be guilty of perjury because of this, but could be guilty of perverting the course of justice.   In advance of the 2002 appeal she gave a formal witness statement about the matter.  If she lied in that (she said she could not remember when the contract with NOW had been concluded) that would be perjury.

[Steve_uk]

Does that make it okay then?

No but the lawyers pleading ignorance on the matter beggars belief. From my understanding anyway there was just a piece of paper pinned to the wall inside Chelmsford Crown Court by Mr. Justice Drake saying the Press should not approach anyone involved in the trial, but I bow on this occasion to ngb1066's superior knowledge on the matter, even though he seems to see no contradiction whatsoever in Bamber possibly getting off on a technicality then living high on the hog on his ill-gotten gains of inheritance and newspaper money.

[Luminous Wanderer]

She did not lie under oath at trial about the NOW contract, she gave answers to the police at the request of the trial judge when the defence raised the matter in chambers.  She would not therefore be guilty of perjury because of this, but be guilty of perverting the course of justice.   In advance of the 2002 appeal she gave a formal witness statement about the matter.  If she lied in that (she said she could not remember when the contract with NOW had been concluded) that would be perjury.

Yes, as long as she was not asked to affirm under oath anything she had previously said to the police, then it would appear not to be perjury.

What was the question she was asked by the police and what was her answer?

[Nigel]

She did not lie under oath at trial about the NOW contract, she gave answers to the police at the request of the trial judge when the defence raised the matter in chambers.  She would not therefore be guilty of perjury because of this, but be guilty of perverting the course of justice.   In advance of the 2002 appeal she gave a formal witness statement about the matter.  If she lied in that (she said she could not remember when the contract with NOW had been concluded) that would be perjury.

But if she (MUGFORD) was laid up in Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, London PAID FOR BY NEWS OF THE WORLD, WOULD SHE NOT BE IN 'CONTEMPT OF COURT"?
as she would have a 'verbal' agreement with News Paper.

[ngb1066]

Yes, as long as she was not asked to affirm under oath anything she had previously said to the police, then it would appear not to be perjury.

What was the question she was asked by the police and what was her answer?

She was asked whether she had concluded a deal with a newspaper, or was in negotiations with a newspaper.  She replied that she had concluded no deal and had no intention of concluding a deal. 

[Luminous Wanderer]

She was asked whether she had concluded a deal with a newspaper, or was in negotiations with a newspaper.  She replied that she had concluded no deal and had no intention of concluding a deal.

OK, but where's your evidence:

- that such an exchange took place between Mugford and the police? and,
- that she had indeed concluded a deal with a newspaper or initiated negotiations with a view to such?

[Nigel]

She was asked whether she had concluded a deal with a newspaper, or was in negotiations with a newspaper.  She replied that she had concluded no deal and had no intention of concluding a deal.

are you 'havin' a laff'?

SHE  WAS IN 'HOLIDAY INN', SLOANE SQUARE, LONDON  PAID FOR BY NEWS OF THE WORLD.

good God!

VERBAL AGREEMENT

[ngb1066]

OK, but where's your evidence:

- that such an exchange took place between Mugford and the police? and,
- that she had indeed concluded a deal with a newspaper or initiated negotiations with a view to such?

It is a matter of record that the exchange took place during the trial and was reported to the judge and defence.  I believe there is some material in the archives here which documents it but it is certainly not something in dispute between the prosecution and the defence.

The evidence that she had indeed concluded a deal with the NOW is documentary evidence finally uncovered in 2012. 

 

[ngb1066]

are you 'havin' a laff'?

SHE  WAS IN 'HOLIDAY INN', SLOANE SQUARE, LONDON  PAID FOR BY NEWS OF THE WORLD.

good God!

VERBAL AGREEMENT

It was not just a verbal agreement, it had in fact been incorporated in a written document.

[Steve_uk]

It was not just a verbal agreement, it had in fact been incorporated in a written document.

Yes but not signed until Bamber was convicted.

[Nigel]

Yes but not signed until Bamber was convicted.

if you don't understand the difference between 'verbal agreement' (AGREED PRIOR TO VERDICT) and 'signed agreement' then there is no hope for you.

[Luminous Wanderer]

Yes but not signed until Bamber was convicted.

If what is being said above is true, then the fact the written agreement wasn't signed doesn't matter.  She was asked whether she had either concluded a deal or was in negotiations with a view to such.