Is Julie Mugford relevant?

[guest154]

Yes the one on page 420 is just Carol Ann Lee expressing gratitude to the people who provided sources for her book. David is being a little disingenuous though because there's further information on the shooting trip in Scotland:

The party had stopped for coffee and sandwiches on a mountainside: "And she said, "Oh we girls haven't ever shot a gun, would you mind if I tried, just tried, to shoot it?" And so I gave her the 12-bore and told her to hold it very tightly into her shoulder. (She) fired it vertically in the air, virtually."

I think you're being kind with the "little disingenuous" comment. I've looked into it today and asked around about it.  Page 420 isn't saying that the comments are a quote from 2010 from DJS - because they are not.

Nor do the quotes say that DB trained Sheila on the shotgun.

Quite surprsied NGB even replied to the possibility of these "quotes" being used to undermine DB's testimony.  Probably best to check the supposed source out first before talking about what could and couldn't undermine someomes sworn testimony.

[Roch]

Probably best to check the supposed source out first before talking about what could and couldn't undermine someone's sworn testimony.

Presumably his sworn testimony on the finding of the sound moderator should marry up with case documents then? 

[ngb1066]

I think you're being kind with the "little disingenuous" comment. I've looked into it today and asked around about it.  Page 420 isn't saying that the comments are a quote from 2010 from DJS - because they are not.

Nor do the quotes say that DB trained Sheila on the shotgun.

Quite surprsied NGB even replied to the possibility of these "quotes" being used to undermine DB's testimony.  Probably best to check the supposed source out first before talking about what could and couldn't undermine someomes sworn testimony.

Thanks for the advice!  I replied upon the basis of what was quoted, and was quite guarded in my response.  I do not have time to research everything quoted to me before replying to a direct question.

 

[Luminous Wanderer]

Julie Mugford's evidence was very important and alongside the evidence relating to the sound moderator was one of the two central planks of the prosecution case. 

That does not tell me that her evidence proved the Crown's case and I rest on the equation I outlined in my original post, which I will repeat below.  I remain unconvinced that Julie Mugford's evidence is crucial to Jeremy Bamber's position as matters stand today.

Her evidence in essence was that JB admitted to her his guilt. 

No, that wasn't her evidence.  I have seen her evidence.  I know what she said.  The relevant part of her evidence was that Bamber had told her (which is hearsay, by the way) that he had solicited somebody to kill his family.  Of course, if true, that would be murder, but it is common ground - even the Crown accepts this - that Bamber had done no such thing, ergo Bamber had not confessed to murder, ergo Mugford's evidence is of no probative value. 

That is not to say her evidence was completely irrelevant in 1986.  Her evidence was of relevance in indicating Bamber's possible attitude to his adoptive parents and aspects of his character, yes, but my question - which still hasn't really been answered - is how can such evidence be relevant to overturning Bamber's conviction? I think this is a reasonable question!

If her evidence can be undermined to a significant extent, particularly in conjunction with other new evidence casting doubt on the sound moderator evidence and in relation to other evidence, the convictions might be overturned.  That is what I have been saying, no more and no less.

But that makes no sense.  Either Bamber's conviction is safe or it is not.  To demonstrate that his conviction is unsafe, you need evidence that undermines his conviction.  If Mugford's evidence didn't prove that he killed his family, how can that same evidence be relevant now?  You almost answer this question yourself when you admit that any such evidence undermining Mugford is only of value in conjunction with other evidence.  My question is: Why not just chuck Mugford out altogether and just concentrate on the evidence that undermines the conviction?

If you want to learn more about these points you could use the search facility here to review some of the old threads.  Early 2012 would be a very good place to start.  A lot of this was covered in far greater detail then.

Thank you - in fairness, I have done some reading already.  Obviously I am not as familiar with the case as others.

[Luminous Wanderer]

Just to repeat, the equation that I believe rules out Julie Mugford's evidence is as follows:

Julie Mugford's evidence does not prove that Jeremy Bamber killed his family.

Therefore:

- if Julie Mugford's evidence were excluded, Jeremy Bamber would still be guilty; and,

- if all the evidence were excluded except for Julie Mugford's, then Jeremy Bamber's convictions would be quashed.

Ergo, Julie Mugford's evidence is not relevant to Jeremy Bamber's appeal.

[Adam]

Just to repeat, the equation that I believe rules out Julie Mugford's evidence is as follows:

Julie Mugford's evidence does not prove that Jeremy Bamber killed his family.

Therefore:

- if Julie Mugford's evidence were excluded, Jeremy Bamber would still be guilty; and,

- if all the evidence were excluded except for Julie Mugford's, then Jeremy Bamber's convictions would be quashed.

Ergo, Julie Mugford's evidence is not relevant to Jeremy Bamber's appeal.

As a juror, I would find Julie's evidence very influential.

There is no way a 20 year woman would approach the police, give a 34 page false WS & then falsely testify that an innocent man killed his family.  Just because according to Bamber, she was jilted.

[Roch]

As a juror, I would find Julie's evidence very influential.

There is no way a 20 year woman would approach the police, give a 34 page false WS & then falsely testify that an innocent man killed his family.  Just because according to Bamber, she was jilted.

I think it's more likely that the jurors would not have been expecting her to tell a well rehearsed pack of lies.  They would therefore have to weigh-up any unease they felt re her testimony, within that expectation.  I think it would have been confusing for them.

[Luminous Wanderer]

As a juror, I would find Julie's evidence very influential.

I would probably be influenced as well.  But that's exactly my point.  Her evidence doesn't actually prove anything.  It's just there to influence a jury in their attitude to Bamber.

And anyway, whether her evidence was relevant at trial at not, probative or not, and whether or not the evidence of the pseudo-confession could be considered hearsay, my view is that it is no longer relevant now and defeating her evidence now will not upset the conviction. 

The best it would achieve is perhaps to give moral force to Jeremy's side in the minds of appellate judges.  I will, however, concede that that in itself might be enough.  Who knows?  I suppose that's a tactical equation - but it doesn't disturb the logical equations above.

There is no way a 20 year woman would approach the police, give a 34 page false WS & then falsely testify that an innocent man killed his family.  Just because according to Bamber, she was jilted.

You may well be right, but remember, she didn't give evidence that Bamber had killed his family.  She wasn't able to do. 

[JackieD]

She gave evidence that Jeremy was responsible for the murders.  It is a fact she is a prolific liar and that is not in dispute

[Luminous Wanderer]

She gave evidence that Jeremy was responsible for the murders.  It is a fact she is a prolific liar and that is not in dispute

You may be right that she is a prolific liar, but for me at least, the question isn't whether she was lying in her evidence, rather the question is whether her evidence is relevant to an appeal.  I've explained why, in my view, it isn't.  Her evidence never proved anything in the first place. 

[guest2181]

You may be right that she is a prolific liar, but for me at least, the question isn't whether she was lying in her evidence, rather the question is whether her evidence is relevant to an appeal.  I've explained why, in my view, it isn't.  Her evidence never proved anything in the first place.

With that reasoning, it could be that JM's evidence was accurate and true, but JB is innocent?

[Adam]

Julie is just relevant to supporters. JackieD once again saying Julie's evidence should not be believed because she identified the twins.

I do not believe the CCRC would refer the case to the COA if documentation has miraculously appeared over 30 years later, which shows she signed a document before the end of the trial.

[Adam]

I would probably be influenced as well.  But that's exactly my point.  Her evidence doesn't actually prove anything.  It's just there to influence a jury in their attitude to Bamber.

And anyway, whether her evidence was relevant at trial at not, probative or not, and whether or not the evidence of the pseudo-confession could be considered hearsay, my view is that it is no longer relevant now and defeating her evidence now will not upset the conviction. 

The best it would achieve is perhaps to give moral force to Jeremy's side in the minds of appellate judges.  I will, however, concede that that in itself might be enough.  Who knows?  I suppose that's a tactical equation - but it doesn't disturb the logical equations above.

You may well be right, but remember, she didn't give evidence that Bamber had killed his family.  She wasn't able to do.

She gave a lot of evidence only Bamber would have known. Thread already created.

[Luminous Wanderer]

With that reasoning, it could be that JM's evidence was accurate and true, but JB is innocent?

Exactly.  That might well be the case.

Or could be that Mugford continued lying all the way through (remember she did lie initially).

Or could be something else.

Personally I no longer believe it matters, because Bamber is no longer at trial.  He has been convicted.  The question is, what evidence is relevant now at appeal?  In my view, Mugford is no longer relevant.

[Luminous Wanderer]

I do not believe the CCRC would refer the case to the COA if documentation has miraculously appeared over 30 years later, which shows she signed a document before the end of the trial.

It would be a verbal arrangement, in all probability.  However I agree with your legal forecast: undermining Mugford doesn't undermine the conviction.