Is Julie Mugford relevant?

[Adam]

Pure speculation on your part, and incorrect.

Well it's my view. Unless you post sourced evidence the verbal agreement was before the trial. You won't.

[Nigel]

That does not mean the agreement was made during the trial, it could have been made before the trial.  As I have told you, it was a written agreement, negotiated on JM's behalf by her solicitor.  Even JM admits that!

BEFORE or DURING it does not matter.

Why?

Because MUGFORD was there Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, LONDON PAID FOR BY NEWS OF THE WORLD ,  when 'guilty' verdict was passed.

[Adam]

NGB if proof is found that Julie & the NOTW signed the contracts before the verdict, would that be sufficient to release Bamber on a technicality ?

However I don't believe the NOTW lawyers would make such a big mistake.

[Adam]

BEFORE or DURING it does not matter.

Why?

Because MUGFORD was there Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, LONDON ,  when 'guilty' verdict was passed.

I agree it is not really important when a verbal agreement was made.

[ngb1066]

BEFORE or DURING it does not matter.

Why?

Because MUGFORD was there,  when 'guilty' verdict was passed.

The key thing is whether the agreement was concluded, or even being negotiated, before JM gave evidence in the trial. 

 

[Nigel]

NGB if proof is found that Julie & the NOTW signed the contracts before the verdict, would that be sufficient to release Bamber on a technicality ?

However I don't believe the NOTW lawyers would make such a big mistake.

Not interested in 'signed contracts' thank you very much.

'Verbal agreement' is enough.

[ngb1066]

Well it's my view. Unless you post sourced evidence the verbal agreement was before the trial. You won't.

You are correct, I will not post it.  I am however confident that the information is correct as it comes from a very reliable and independent source, backed by documentary evidence.

[ngb1066]

NGB if proof is found that Julie & the NOTW signed the contracts before the verdict, would that be sufficient to release Bamber on a technicality ?

However I don't believe the NOTW lawyers would make such a big mistake.

It would be sufficient to constitute a ground of appeal and taken with other new material could be sufficient to overturn the convictions, not on a technicality but because the convictions could no longer be regarded as safe.

 

[Nigel]

You are correct, I will not post it.  I am however confident that the information is correct as it comes from a very reliable and independent source, backed by documentary evidence.

YES, because MUGFORD was at Holiday Inn, Sloane Square, LONDON when 'guilty' VERDICT WAS GIVEN.....

...rather than at home or a friends house.

Good God, I may not be 'the sharpest tool in the box' but even I can work this out.

[Adam]

It would be sufficient to constitute a ground of appeal and taken with other new material could be sufficient to overturn the convictions, not on a technicality but because the convictions could no longer be regarded as safe.

So this technicality may be what Bamber is going to present to the CCRC. If ever there is another submission.

If the signed contracts were after Julie's testimony but before the verdict, is that still illegal ?

Signing contracts before Julie's testimony could motivate her to lie under oath to attempt to get a conviction. However after her testimony, she can't influence the trial.

As mentioned, I don't believe Julie's or the NOTW's lawyers would make such a huge error with contract signing dates. Espescially as Julie won't be needed if there was a not guilty verdict.

[Nigel]

So this technicality may be what Bamber is going to present to the CCRC. If ever there is another submission.

If the signed contracts were after Julie's testimony but before the verdict, is that still illegal ?

Signing contracts before Julie's testimony could motivate her to lie under oath to attempt to get a conviction. However after her testimony, she can't influence the trial.

As mentioned, I don't believe Julie's or the NOTW's lawyers would make such a huge error with contract signing dates. Espescially as Julie won't be needed if there was a not guilty verdict.

You harp on about  "written contracts'.

THIS WAS A VERBAL CONTRACT

[ngb1066]

You harp on about  "written contracts'.

THIS WAS A VERBAL CONTRACT

It was recorded in a written agreement.

[Luminous Wanderer]

It would be sufficient to constitute a ground of appeal and taken with other new material could be sufficient to overturn the convictions, not on a technicality but because the convictions could no longer be regarded as safe.

Sorry, with respect (and I have no dog in this hunt), it's not a ground of appeal.  It won't overturn the conviction.  Your post above is really just a way of admitting that, if you stop and think about it.  You're flogging a dead horse.

[ngb1066]

Sorry, with respect (and I have no dog in this hunt), it's not a ground of appeal.  It won't overturn the conviction.  Your post above is really just a way of admitting that, if you stop and think about it.  You're flogging a dead horse.

I did not say on its own it would overturn the conviction.  It would be a valid ground of appeal, taken with others.  I do know what I am talking about.  I have conducted many cases in the Court of Appeal in the past. 

[Luminous Wanderer]

I did not say on its own it would overturn the conviction.  It would be a valid ground of appeal, taken with others.  I do know what I am talking about.  I have conducted many cases in the Court of Appeal in the past.

I know you said that it would be in conjunction with other points.  My other post points to that as a basis for saying that your own post is just a way of admitting that it ISN'T a ground for appeal.  And it isn't.  Her evidence proved nothing.  But I don't care about Julie Mugford, go ahead.

I think I'm done here. I've learned what I want to learn about this case.