Jeremy Bamber Forum
OFF TOPIC => General => Topic started by: JackiePreece on May 20, 2012, 11:19:AM
-
I am a bit concerned that forum posts are being deleted for no reason and wondered if this could be investigated
Last night Aunt Agatha posted this
Off Topic / Re: Forum - split topic
« on: Today at 12:02 AM »
I do recall seeing the thread Mat......
And others on here may do also, but they are not replying at the moment....your thread was commented on......
It was definately up there!!
-
I am a bit concerned that forum posts are being deleted for no reason and wondered if this could be investigated
Last night Aunt Agatha posted this
Off Topic / Re: Forum - split topic
« on: Today at 12:02 AM »
I do recall seeing the thread Mat......
And others on here may do also, but they are not replying at the moment....your thread was commented on......
It was definately up there!!
I can find no record of this being deleted. I certainly did not delete it. As I think members realise I very rarely delete or censor posts.
-
Thanks, Jackie.
AA posted to say that I was telling the truth. People are deleting my topics when I try and give you details of the Bamber case that members will not know.
-
Quote from: Aunt Agatha on Today at 12:02 AM
I do recall seeing the thread Mat......
And others on here may do also, but they are not replying at the moment....your thread was commented on......
It was definately up there!!
Thanks! I have no reason to make this up. I did put a thread and other people saw it because when it was deleted members of the other forum posted on their board and told me to re-post it there.
Thanks again.
-
Thanks, Jackie.
AA posted to say that I was telling the truth. People are deleting my topics when I try and give you details of the Bamber case that members will not know.
Mat - as I have made clear I have not deleted your posts. I have invited you to post the information again.
-
Yes! That lower half was my reply to AA.
So, NGB?
My topics and posts are being deleted.
I did post it again!
-
Yes! That lower half was my reply to AA.
So, NGB?
My topics and posts are being deleted.
I did post it again!
When? Are you saying you have posted it twice and both times it has been deleted?
-
This is really concerning me now and I cannot work out whats happened
You wrote
33
Off Topic / Re: Forum - split topic
« on: Yesterday at 06:37 PM »
An admin can delete things from the mod log, so if it wasn't you NGB I guess I annoyed another admin with the post so don't want to re-post here just incase.
The post is on the other forum. People don't have to join to view it I don't think.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2640.msg89633.html#msg89633
-
Yes.
I posted it a second time sometime yesterday after AA said she'd seen the first one. This time I didn't include a scan or print screens because I wasn't going to all that bother in case it was deleted.
But this isn't all that has been deleted. I've been saying for a couple of weeks now on the open board that when a member goads me and I respond their posts magically dissappear and it looks like I am speaking to myself and causing trouble with someone out of nowhere.
-
At least you can verify you are telling the truth because AA saw the post
I hope it gets sorted soon Mat and AA
-
Yes.
I posted it a second time sometime yesterday after AA said she'd seen the first one. This time I didn't include a scan or print screens because I wasn't going to all that bother in case it was deleted.
But this isn't all that has been deleted. I've been saying for a couple of weeks now on the open board that when a member goads me and I respond their posts magically dissappear and it looks like I am speaking to myself and causing trouble with someone out of nowhere.
Bear in mind a members can delete their own posts and that does not show up on the moderation log.
-
Bridget. Can you find the topic I made?
-
Bridget. Can you find the topic I made?
No, I never saw it.
-
Bear in mind a members can delete their own posts and that does not show up on the moderation log.
ngb mat certainly knows members can delete their own posts. As you know
-
ngb mat certainly knows members can delete their own posts. As you know
Yes.
-
ngb mat certainly knows members can delete their own posts. As you know
You make it sound like I delete my own posts.
-
Mat are you 100% sure you didn't delete them by accident?
-
I didn't delete them. I left one over night and was looking forward to the replies in the morning. Can I delete a topic of mine that other people have posted in?
-
Mat who do you think is responsible for deleting your posts and do you think it is being done deliberately?
That's not right or fair
-
I didn't delete them. I left one over night and was looking forward to the replies in the morning. Can I delete a topic of mine that other people have posted in?
I believe that if the first post in a thread is deleted the entire thread is deleted.
-
You make it sound like I delete my own posts.
No I make it sound like you bully and threaten people to delete their own posts.
-
Neil when you start a topic you cannot delete it because I have tried it's impossible, I think a mod has to do it
-
I think you all know who would delete certain things I said about Ewen Smith/Bambers NOTW deal.
But I'm not going to say it. I don't think I need to.
-
Neil when you start a topic you cannot delete it because I have tried it's impossible, I think a mod has to do it
OK, thanks for clarifying that.
-
I think you all know who would delete certain things I said about Ewen Smith/Bambers NOTW deal.
But I'm not going to say it. I don't think I need to.
You are not suggesting I would, are you?
-
No.
-
Mat what time did you make the post it might be easier to check up on and AA must have been online to see it ?
I am sure NGB will get to the bottom of it so it doesn't happen again
-
Who then?
-
Mat what time did you make the post it might be easier to check up on and AA must have been online to see it ?
I am sure NGB will get to the bottom of it so it doesn't happen again
It would have been about 8pm. Could have been as late as 10pm though. It isn't a big deal to me - I just won't post things like that. I only posted it a second time because I was told to.
-
You are not suggesting I would, are you?
I wonder now..mmmmm...who could you have in mind mat??
-
Anyway, why don't you just post it again while we're all watching and we'll see if it disappears.
-
Because there was a lot of typing to it. It wasn't something I copied and pasted.
-
Anyway, why don't you just post it again while we're all watching and we'll see if it disappears.
Yes bridget that is realy sensible suggestion and then we can see what happens.
-
Because there was a lot of typing to it. It wasn't something I copied and pasted.
You said you posted it on the other forum didn't you? C&P it from there.
-
I posted the brief outline over there - yes. Why would I copy and paste something that's been deleted on me twice now?
People can just read it elsewhere.
-
I posted the brief outline over there - yes. Why would I copy and paste something that's been deleted on me twice now?
People can just read it elsewhere.
Not everyone wants to read over there.
-
You said you posted it on the other forum didn't you? C&P it from there.
Good idea Bridget
-
Not everyone wants to read over there.
Very true.
-
I posted the brief outline over there - yes. Why would I copy and paste something that's been deleted on me twice now?
People can just read it elsewhere.
Dont you want to find out whats happening mat. we need to see anyway in case something odd is happening. Anyway you have every right to post what you like withou it being deleted by someone else
-
Dont you want to find out whats happening mat. we need to see anyway in case something odd is happening. Anyway you have every right to post what you like withou it being deleted by someone else
Nope. I know what is happening.
I mentioned Ewen Smith and someone didn't like it.
-
Nope. I know what is happening.
I mentioned Ewen Smith and someone didn't like it.
oh go on mat. I would like to read it but worry about catching something over there. I like to keep away from bad energy.
-
Nope. I know what is happening.
I mentioned Ewen Smith and someone didn't like it.
You've been invited by an admin among others to repost it, do so or quit whinging :)
-
I did re-post.
I am not whinging. I didn't even bring it up.
-
Mat I don't really understand what you are getting at are you saying Mike or one of the mods deleted your posts because it was sensitive information about Ewen Smith and Jeremys NOTW deal
Why wouldn't the mods just own up
I am mystified
-
So Mat if one of us was brave enough to go over to the racist forum where would we find it on what thread
I don't mind going undercover
-
So Mat if one of us was brave enough to go over to the racist forum where would we find it on what thread
I don't mind going undercover
ThaTs a good idea jackie but be careful and shower after.
-
This is what you posted on the other board:
Sooooooooo.
As I promised on the other forum. I was going to make a call to Ewen Smith - he works at the CCRC now for those that do not know and although he isn't working the Bamber case - and isn't working the News International case I'm on so has bo contact with me .. he is high enough up in the CCRC that my firm can contact him.
Unofficially or officially. But I digress.
After the conversation, very awkward, I realised what he told me was soemthing I actually wouldn't be able to post on the other board.
I'd get banned by the admin there......Mike.
But I can talk about it here.. via PM. Feel free to PM me and ask!
So it appears you didn't post about Ewen here. I don't see a thread started by you there about the NOTW deal.
-
Nothing there bridget. How strange. The mystery of the disappearing posts. Something spooky going jon ere.
-
Mat on the NOTW deal:
Yes, Jeremy had a deal with the NOTW which pre-dated JM's deal. His deal was for £40,000 which was given because the NOTW didn't believe him to be guilty and thought it would be a big scoop for them to have the story of a someone who had faced trial on a case that had gotten a great deal of attention, the deal was put together by David Montgomery but then something happened. The higher ups at the NOTW realised Bamber was guilty, they'd been saying this in their paper that Bamber was guilty for some time previous but there was always a belief that there was a great chance that Jeremy would get away with it, even if he was guilty due to the evidence.
But then when the belief changed, they realsied that they wouldn't be paying £40,000 and wanted to have a story to print, an exlcusive - so who was the next best thing? Julie. Her agreement was signed AFTER Jeremy's which is somethnig most people don't know, in fact most people do not know Jeremy had a deal in place, he did. Montgomery worked with Julie too on her deal and found her to be much easier to deal with as Jeremy would often make phone calls to the news team in the lead up to him isnging his agreement and he would bitch and moan about the sum of £40,000 - he wanted more. Lotsd more.
-
I have just been over the dark side but I couldn't find what I was looking for but I found an interesting post by Abs
Jeremy Bamber and the murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case CLOSED by CCRC. NO APPEAL REFERRAL. / Re: Conversation with Ewen.
« Last post by abs on Today at 12:00:52 PM »
Why are there so many "guests" posting all the time? - Personally I find it a bit annoying, and isn´t it just another way of having multiple personas?
-
Bear in mind a members can delete their own posts and that does not show up on the moderation log.
That's what I was thinking.
-
I know how to sort this!
(1) Mat can post it again.
(2) Post the number of those witnesses who said they saw Mats post.
(3) Count the number of the witnesses who said they didn't see it.
(4) Let the witnesses who said they saw Mats post tell what they think Mat said in that post.
-
I didn't see it
Unfortunately :-*
-
I didn't see it
Unfortunately :-*
Nor me Jackie. I saw nothing. 8)
-
Grahame alias bloggs and son that is a good idea and that will clear it up once and for all.
-
Mat on the NOTW deal:
Yes, Jeremy had a deal with the NOTW which pre-dated JM's deal. His deal was for £40,000 which was given because the NOTW didn't believe him to be guilty and thought it would be a big scoop for them to have the story of a someone who had faced trial on a case that had gotten a great deal of attention, the deal was put together by David Montgomery but then something happened. The higher ups at the NOTW realised Bamber was guilty, they'd been saying this in their paper that Bamber was guilty for some time previous but there was always a belief that there was a great chance that Jeremy would get away with it, even if he was guilty due to the evidence.
But then when the belief changed, they realsied that they wouldn't be paying £40,000 and wanted to have a story to print, an exlcusive - so who was the next best thing? Julie. Her agreement was signed AFTER Jeremy's which is somethnig most people don't know, in fact most people do not know Jeremy had a deal in place, he did. Montgomery worked with Julie too on her deal and found her to be much easier to deal with as Jeremy would often make phone calls to the news team in the lead up to him isnging his agreement and he would bitch and moan about the sum of £40,000 - he wanted more. Lotsd more.
The big difference of course is that Julie Mugford was a material witness and that the court didn't know when the case went to trial. Let's face it they were both wasters, but that doesn't make him guilty. The fact that he demanded more money in a way is an indication of his confidence that he would get off. But the big no no was that she didn't reveal this deal before or at the trial. This in itself is evidence relevent to the accused, more even than Jeremy's own deal with the NOTW.
-
The big difference of course is that Julie Mugford was a material witness and that the court didn't know when the case went to trial. Let's face it they were both wasters, but that doesn't make him guilty. The fact that he demanded more money in a way is an indication of his confidence that he would get off. But the big no no was that she didn't reveal this deal before or at the trial. This in itself is evidence relevent to the accused, more even than Jeremy's own deal with the NOTW.
Yes bloggsey, because Julie was in effect being paid to support the guilty charge and therefore would benefit from it. Jeremy was being paid for a not guilty charge which he would obviously still want with or without the money. It made no difference to the outcome from Jeremy's perspective. Also Jeremy was probably a pretty spoilt and priviledged young man in the 1980's the Thatcher years when money was all. He was pretty much bound to be that way and had no doubt been brought up to be. It has no bearing at all on his ability to kill 5 members of his close family. The NOTW thing is all hot air IMO. Maybe that's why it disappeared. :D
-
The big difference of course is that Julie Mugford was a material witness and that the court didn't know when the case went to trial. Let's face it they were both wasters, but that doesn't make him guilty. The fact that he demanded more money in a way is an indication of his confidence that he would get off. But the big no no was that she didn't reveal this deal before or at the trial. This in itself is evidence relevent to the accused, more even than Jeremy's own deal with the NOTW.
I agree to that any deal JB did is irrelevant, his greatest incentive to lie would be to stay out of prison. I don't think JMs contract, or any evidence as to the date it was signed has emerged yet, has it?
-
I agree to that any deal JB did is irrelevant, his greatest incentive to lie would be to stay out of prison. I don't think JMs contract, or any evidence as to the date it was signed has emerged yet, has it?
The contract itself has never been disclosed.
-
I agree to that any deal JB did is irrelevant, his greatest incentive to lie would be to stay out of prison. I don't think JMs contract, or any evidence as to the date it was signed has emerged yet, has it?
No it hasn't unfortunately. But I think it came out later that she did the deal? But she said she couldn't remember if it was before the trial or after (If she could remember when she got 25,000 quid then how could we be so sure of her memory on other matters) But I think I remember someone posting here about the deal and they found out the date it was signed? I think? But in any case her confession that she made the deal makes seeing the actual agreement redundant I should think?
-
Just a thought on this with reference to things being deleted. There was a picture of 'I hate this place' on a thread elsewhere but it has since been removed. It is then referred to here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2593.750.html
What does the moderation log show for this one?
-
Just a thought on this with reference to things being deleted. There was a picture of 'I hate this place' on a thread elsewhere but it has since been removed. It is then referred to here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2593.750.html
What does the moderation log show for this one?
It may not have been deleted? It may just mean that you can't find it?
-
No it hasn't unfortunately. But I think it came out later that she did the deal? But she said she couldn't remember if it was before the trial or after (If she could remember when she got 25,000 quid then how could we be so sure of her memory on other matters) But I think I remember someone posting here about the deal and they found out the date it was signed? I think? But in any case her confession that she made the deal makes seeing the actual agreement redundant I should think?
She was hardly trying to hide the fact that she'd done the deal was she though? The story was all over the paper a week or so after the end of the trial. No one is going to believe that she gave the story for nothing. I would think she was paid after she gave the story, so that doesn't really help. I don't believe anyone has ever been able to determine when the deal was done.
-
She was hardly trying to hide the fact that she'd done the deal was she though? The story was all over the paper a week or so after the end of the trial. No one is going to believe that she gave the story for nothing. I would think she was paid after she gave the story, so that doesn't really help. I don't believe anyone has ever been able to determine when the deal was done.
The deal was negotiated before the trial. Payment was made after the trial. Julie Mugford lied about this during the trial. Not only did she say that she had not entered into any deal but she said she had no intention of doing so. This was a very serious matter and the prosecution, defence, judge and jury were deceived in relation to this.
-
The deal was negotiated before the trial. Payment was made after the trial. Julie Mugford lied about this during the trial. Not only did she say that she had not entered into any deal but she said she had no intention of doing so. This was a very serious matter and the prosecution, defence, judge and jury were deceived in relation to this.
I'm sure you don't mean this?
-
She was hardly trying to hide the fact that she'd done the deal was she though? The story was all over the paper a week or so after the end of the trial. No one is going to believe that she gave the story for nothing. I would think she was paid after she gave the story, so that doesn't really help. I don't believe anyone has ever been able to determine when the deal was done.
That is just it. She did hide it from the court and the jury were not aware of it at the trial. Also the very fact that it was all over the papers the next week proves to some extent that she did made the deal "before" the trial. Deals like that don't just materialise over night. She "clearly" mislead the court and in particularly the jury.
-
I'm sure you don't mean this?
Are you therefore defending her Hartley? She clearly mislead the court in relation to this newspaper deal. That in fact constitutes a criminal offence.
-
I'm sure you don't mean this?
I certainly do!
-
I certainly do!
Are you suggesting that she actively lied about the sale of a story at the original trial in 1986? Rather than it simply not being mentioned?
-
Are you suggesting that she actively lied about the sale of a story at the original trial in 1986? Rather than it simply not being mentioned?
Have lies not been told about how she came to be a prosecution witness? Walking in to the police station because she could no longer bear the burden?
-
Have lies not been told about how she came to be a prosecution witness? Walking in to the police station because she could no longer bear the burden?
I have no idea, I'm not sure how that is relevant to the above.
I know this is off topic, but Julies 2002 statement is an interesting read if people haven't already seen it:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1210.0.html
As are the details concerning this particular aspect of the case contained in the 2002 Appeal Judgement: http://www.homepage-link.to/JUSTICE/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
Have lies not been told about how she came to be a prosecution witness? Walking in to the police station because she could no longer bear the burden?
Not unless you accept the latest defence spin as gospel.
-
I have no idea, I'm not sure how that is relevant to the above.
You like to deal in specifics, when it suits your arguments. However, on occasion you take recourse to wider aspects of the case also, when it suits your arguments. Both are aspects relevant to her overall credibility, as to how she became a prosecution witness, how she was 'handled' as a prosecution witness.
Not unless you accept the latest defence spin as gospel.
Are you referring to the Guardian article documents or something else?
-
Are you suggesting that she actively lied about the sale of a story at the original trial in 1986? Rather than it simply not being mentioned?
Yes I am. The defence received information that Julie Mugford had concluded a deal with the NoW. Geoffrey Rivlin raised this in chambers with the judge. The judge ordered the prosecution to make enquiries, which they did. They reported back to the judge and the defence that Julie Mugford stated that she had concluded no agreement with any newspaper, and had no intention of doing so. As a result of that Julie Mugford was not cross examined on this, upon the basis that she would have repeated her denial and under the rules of evidence and professional conduct she could not have been accused of lying about this because the defence did not have any admissible evidence to contradict it.
-
You like to deal in specifics, when it suits your arguments. However, on occasion you take recourse to wider aspects of the case also, when it suits your arguments. Both are aspects relevant to her overall credibility, as to how she became a prosecution witness, how she was 'handled' as a prosecution witness.
Are you referring to the Guardian article documents or something else?
Absolutely not Rochy, I was merely being pedantic towards Neils post in which he stated that Julie lied during the trial. I was not trying to force a wider argument to the credibility of Julie as a witness, I think if you reread my post I haven't actually made any arguments in her favour or against.
Yes, I do like to deal in specifics, but please stop trying to read things between the lines in my contributions, which do not exist.
-
You like to deal in specifics, when it suits your arguments. However, on occasion you take recourse to wider aspects of the case also, when it suits your arguments. Both are aspects relevant to her overall credibility, as to how she became a prosecution witness, how she was 'handled' as a prosecution witness.
Are you referring to the Guardian article documents or something else?
I thought you referring to the suggestion that she avoided prosecution for cheque fraud and caravan park burglary by giving evidence, which is based on some letters published in the Guardian, weren't you?
-
Yes I am. The defence received information that Julie Mugford had concluded a deal with the NoW. Geoffrey Rivlin raised this in chambers with the judge. The judge ordered the prosecution to make enquiries, which they did. They reported back to the judge and the defence that Julie Mugford stated that she had concluded no agreement with any newspaper, and had no intention of doing so. As a result of that Julie Mugford was not cross examined on this, upon the basis that she would have repeated her denial and under the rules of evidence and professional conduct she could not have been accused of lying about this because the defence did not have any admissible evidence to contradict it.
So Julie didn't lie then? If she wasn't questioned then when did she have the opportunity to lie?
I understand what you are saying and I am being pedantic. ;)
Is there any admissible evidence to contradict it now? Or anything available since this was dismissed in 2002?
-
Absolutely not Rochy, I was merely being pedantic towards Neils post in which he stated that Julie lied during the trial. I was not trying to force a wider argument to the credibility of Julie as a witness, I think if you reread my post I haven't actually made any arguments in her favour or against.
Yes, I do like to deal in specifics, but please stop trying to read things between the lines in my contributions, which do not exist.
I'm not. I'm merely pointing out your tactics. You rebuff people by an insistence in dealing in specifics. But on other occasions you your self bring wider issues in to your arguments, which you think are relevant.
-
So Julie didn't lie then? If she wasn't questioned then when did she have the opportunity to lie?
I understand what you are saying and I am being pedantic. ;)
Is there any admissible evidence to contradict it now? Or anything available since this was dismissed in 2002?
I think the confusion between us is the fact that she did not deal with the issue in evidence, for the reasons I have explained. However she did lie during the trial when the prosecution questioned her privately but quite formally about the matter at the request of the judge.
Further admissible evidence has now come to light and if the case is referred to the Court of Appeal an application will be made for Julie Mugford to attend the Court of Appeal to be cross examined on this issue, and on others.
-
Have lies not been told about how she came to be a prosecution witness? Walking in to the police station because she could no longer bear the burden?
Moreso because she had just been dumped by Bamber. ::)
-
Yes I am. The defence received information that Julie Mugford had concluded a deal with the NoW. Geoffrey Rivlin raised this in chambers with the judge. The judge ordered the prosecution to make enquiries, which they did. They reported back to the judge and the defence that Julie Mugford stated that she had concluded no agreement with any newspaper, and had no intention of doing so. As a result of that Julie Mugford was not cross examined on this, upon the basis that she would have repeated her denial and under the rules of evidence and professional conduct she could not have been accused of lying about this because the defence did not have any admissible evidence to contradict it.
She should have been held in contempt of court for that when it was discovered that she indeed had made such a deal when the article was published a week later. A thoroughly unscrupulous woman if ever there was one.
-
She should have been held in contempt of court for that when it was discovered that she indeed had made such a deal when the article was published a week later. A thoroughly unscrupulous woman if ever there was one.
It was quite disgraceful and clearly this is something the jury should have had an opportunity to consider when deciding whether to believe her evidence.
-
I thought you referring to the suggestion that she avoided prosecution for cheque fraud and caravan park burglary by giving evidence, which is based on some letters published in the Guardian, weren't you?
As far as I am aware, she did avoid prosecution for drugs importation, cheque fraud and burglary. I'm interested in how these issues came to light and how her role as a prosecution witness began. If she was brought in to play by any other method other than the one perpetuated by the official version, then that represents another alarm bell for me.
-
So Julie didn't lie then? If she wasn't questioned then when did she have the opportunity to lie?
I understand what you are saying and I am being pedantic. ;)
Is there any admissible evidence to contradict it now? Or anything available since this was dismissed in 2002?
They had no right to dismiss it. In fact they had the obligation to investigate it in the probability that a miscarriage of justice had taken place. But to their disgrace they did not do so.
-
As far as I am aware, she did avoid prosecution for drugs importation, cheque fraud and burglary. I'm interested in how these issues came to light and how her role as a prosecution witness began. If she was brought in to play by any other method other than the one perpetuated by the official version, then that represents another alarm bell for me.
I agree entirely. This is a further issue likely to be explored before the Court of Appeal.
-
I think the confusion between us is the fact that she did not deal with the issue in evidence, for the reasons I have explained. However she did lie during the trial when the prosecution questioned her privately but quite formally about the matter at the request of the judge.
Further admissible evidence has now come to light and if the case is referred to the Court of Appeal an application will be made for Julie Mugford to attend the Court of Appeal to be cross examined on this issue, and on others.
Okay, and I understand any reluctance to release 'privileged' information, so I will not ask.
But I will guess ;) I could only imagine that records from the solicitor (Mr Church of Ellisons) regarding the dates of the signing of any contracts, to be sufficient to force that course of action.
If that were the case, and given the number of years that have passed and the effects on witnesses memory, then I'd be surprised if Julie would be called as a witness again for an appeal, I don't see what could be gained from it. Of course I'm just speculating.
Another thing to consider, is what implications it would have, even if it was accepted that the 'NOTW deal' was in place before the trial. Obviously the defence would again question her motivation for giving evidence.
-
As far as I am aware, she did avoid prosecution for drugs importation, cheque fraud and burglary. I'm interested in how these issues came to light and how her role as a prosecution witness began. If she was brought in to play by any other method other than the one perpetuated by the official version, then that represents another alarm bell for me.
The fact is she wasn't prosecuted. The suggestion is that she was threatened with prosecution unless she gave evidence (I think). But it seems clear to me that she went to them, she volunteered the information re the cheques and caravan park burglary, and they didn't make the decision not to prosecute until after she had given her statements about the murders.
-
I'm not. I'm merely pointing out your tactics. You rebuff people by an insistence in dealing in specifics. But on other occasions you your self bring wider issues in to your arguments, which you think are relevant.
I'm sorry Rochy, but you've referred to 'tactics' with me several times, and all I can say you are grossly mistaken. I have no tactics, I merely reply to posts based on what is running through my mind at the time, there is no grand strategy, there are no tactics.
Other than that, your above post has no relevance to the conversation which was taking place. Your comment was more about fighting for a particular team, yet you failed to understand that your 'team' wasn't being attacked, I was simply having a discussion without searching for conflict.
-
The fact is she wasn't prosecuted. The suggestion is that she was threatened with prosecution unless she gave evidence (I think). But it seems clear to me that she went to them, she volunteered the information re the cheques and caravan park burglary, and they didn't make the decision not to prosecute until after she had given her statements about the murders.
I'm not certain that this coming forward was entirely voluntary. I'm interested in anything that has come to light which gives an indication as to how she was interviewed. I don't think anything has been made public relating to this. Maybe it is tenuous and open to allegations of 'spin' or maybe not. Re your last sentence, it could be read as her having had a 'sword held over her head'.
-
158. With one exception, none of the grounds raised before us relate in any way to the matters put before the court on the earlier occasion. The one exception relates to the fact that stories emanating from Julie Mugford had appeared in the press shortly after the trial. This was despite the fact that the prosecution had informed the defence, following discussion with the witness, that she had not sold her story to the press nor was it her intention so to do. One of the grounds relates to the same matter and we will deal with it further when we come to consider that ground. In every other respect, the application for leave to appeal has no relevance to the issues we have to determine.
-
I'm sorry Rochy, but you've referred to 'tactics' with me several times, and all I can say you are grossly mistaken. I have no tactics, I merely reply to posts based on what is running through my mind at the time, there is no grand strategy, there are no tactics.
Other than that, your above post has no relevance to the conversation which was taking place. Your comment was more about fighting for a particular team, yet you failed to understand that your 'team' wasn't being attacked, I was simply having a discussion without searching for conflict.
I didn't mean to butt in on a conversation and by tactics, I meant the way you so often rebuff people instead of going with the flow.
-
158. With one exception, none of the grounds raised before us relate in any way to the matters put before the court on the earlier occasion. The one exception relates to the fact that stories emanating from Julie Mugford had appeared in the press shortly after the trial. This was despite the fact that the prosecution had informed the defence, following discussion with the witness, that she had not sold her story to the press nor was it her intention so to do. One of the grounds relates to the same matter and we will deal with it further when we come to consider that ground. In every other respect, the application for leave to appeal has no relevance to the issues we have to determine.
FOLLOWED BY:
363. The final limb of ground 5 relates to the fact that Julie Mugford sold her story to the newspapers. As we made clear earlier in this judgment one ground of appeal raised before the court at the original appeal and rejected by the court as unarguable related to this same topic.
364. Mr Turner explained to the court that there was now evidence available to show that when Julie Mugford indicated through the prosecution that she had not sold her story to the press at the time of trial that this was simply untrue.
365. We can deal with this aspect of the case shortly because by the conclusion of the evidence, Mr Turner acknowledged that he was unable to establish on that this was so.
366. He, therefore, did not address us in his closing speech to argue that there was any significant difference between the ground that had earlier failed and the present ground and accordingly it must fail as it properly did before.
...............................................
-
I'm not certain that this coming forward was entirely voluntary. I'm interested in anything that has come to light which gives an indication as to how she was interviewed. I don't think anything has been made public relating to this. Maybe it is tenuous and open to allegations of 'spin' or maybe not. Re your last sentence, it could be read as her having had a 'sword held over her head'.
But she gave them the sword. I imagine at some point someone advised her that if there were any skeletons in her closet she'd better reveal them now, otherwise they would be used in an effort to discredit her as a witness at trial. That's why she told them.
-
Hartley I think a good course of action would be for Julie Mugford to sue anyone thats implies or states as fact she did agree to the NOTW deal before trial
I think she should do that without delay
Why wouldnt she???
What do you think Hartley?
-
I didn't mean to butt in on a conversation and by tactics, I meant the way you so often rebuff people instead of going with the flow.
My apologies, that is how it came across to me at the time.
I have a tendency to correct people when they are giving incorrect or misleading information, as I believe it serves no purpose other than to confuse people, it's one thing to refer to a contentious issue, it's quite another to be completely inaccurate. Granted I'm not immune to making an error myself, but I hardly think this reflects badly on me in the manner you suggest. ???
-
Hartley I think a good course of action would be for Julie Mugford to sue anyone thats implies or states as fact she did agree to the NOTW deal before trial
I think she should do that without delay
Why wouldnt she???
What do you think Hartley?
I think this is precisely the type of confrontation, and in my opinion, pettiness, that I am trying so hard to avoid.
If you want a reaction, choose another member of the forum to obtain it from.
-
We are just trying to get to the truth and if someone was telling such massive lies about me that would affect my home life and career I would expect she would take action
Everyone knows where she is now, so she is no longer hidden
I am sure if she took action against the people telling lies about her this would stop right now and scupper any chance of an appeal
-
We are just trying to get to the truth and if someone was telling such massive lies about me that would affect my home life and career I would expect she would take action
Everyone knows where she is now, so she is no longer hidden
I am sure if she took action against the people telling lies about her this would stop right now and scupper any chance of an appeal
However, it has no bearing on the conversation which was taking place and does nothing other than highlight your confrontational manner.
-
FOLLOWED BY:
363. The final limb of ground 5 relates to the fact that Julie Mugford sold her story to the newspapers. As we made clear earlier in this judgment one ground of appeal raised before the court at the original appeal and rejected by the court as unarguable related to this same topic.
364. Mr Turner explained to the court that there was now evidence available to show that when Julie Mugford indicated through the prosecution that she had not sold her story to the press at the time of trial that this was simply untrue.
365. We can deal with this aspect of the case shortly because by the conclusion of the evidence, Mr Turner acknowledged that he was unable to establish on that this was so.
366. He, therefore, did not address us in his closing speech to argue that there was any significant difference between the ground that had earlier failed and the present ground and accordingly it must fail as it properly did before.
...............................................
Hi Hartley, I can only guess at this. I suspect that a deal was cut prior to the verdict in 1986 and that deal was done by Church Solicitors.
My argument for thinking that is, things were in place a week after the trial. Photo shoot, 3 days in a hotel, clothes, deal, script and drafts etc. It's pushing it bit fine to say all this happened within a week. You know and I know that no solicitor works that quickly.
I would think that things were very much in place in the event that JB was found guilty. Then the go ahead was given. Although Julie might not have been aware of dates etc, I feel certain that Ellison Church did know. There must be some paperwork on this somewhere...I'd like to ask where is it? :) :)
-
Hi Hartley, I can only guess at this. I suspect that a deal was cut prior to the verdict in 1986 and that deal was done by Church Solicitors.
My argument for thinking that is, things were in place a week after the trial. Photo shoot, 3 days in a hotel, clothes, deal, script and drafts etc. It's pushing it bit fine to say all this happened within a week. You know and I know that no solicitor works that quickly.
I would think that things were very much in place in the event that JB was found guilty. Then the go ahead was given. Although Julie might not have been aware of dates etc, I feel certain that Ellison Church did know. There must be some paperwork on this somewhere...I'd like to ask where is it? :) :)
You are extremely close to the truth here Patti. Are you a member of the defence legal team? ;D
-
You are extremely close to the truth here Patti. Are you a member of the defence legal team? ;D
If only ngb :o ;D
-
My apologies, that is how it came across to me at the time.
I have a tendency to correct people when they are giving incorrect or misleading information, as I believe it serves no purpose other than to confuse people, it's one thing to refer to a contentious issue, it's quite another to be completely inaccurate. Granted I'm not immune to making an error myself, but I hardly think this reflects badly on me in the manner you suggest. ???
You've completely lost me. I don't think I was giving misleading or inaccurate information. It's an issue which I've experienced with you on numerous occasions. It's a style or manner of posting which I have previously interpreted as a 'tactic'. Though I accept your assertion that it is not. It must therefore be down to misunderstanding and different posting styles. I will be more cautious when butting in to posts about specifics.
-
You've completely lost me. I don't think I was giving misleading or inaccurate information. It's an issue which I've experienced with you on numerous occasions. It's a style or manner of posting which I have previously interpreted as a 'tactic'. Though I accept your assertion that it is not. It must therefore be down to misunderstanding and different posting styles. I will be more cautious when butting in to posts about specifics.
I didn't say you did give misleading or inaccurate information. ???
I'm not taking the mick here, but you've completely lost me, I have no idea what you are going on about. ???
-
But she gave them the sword. I imagine at some point someone advised her that if there were any skeletons in her closet she'd better reveal them now, otherwise they would be used in an effort to discredit her as a witness at trial. That's why she told them.
But they used the sword to nail Bamber and let her off scott free because of it. She was the corner stone of the whole case. Without her testimony nothing would put him behind bars. Who knows? It might have been they who advised her to get out of the country double quick in case they found further skeletons in her very spacious closet?
-
I didn't say you did give misleading or inaccurate information. ???
I'm not taking the mick here, but you've completely lost me, I have no idea what you are going on about. ???
We're like two UBoats in the Atlantic. Let's forget it and move on. I think I know how to solve the issue if it arises again
-
My apologies, that is how it came across to me at the time.
I have a tendency to correct people when they are giving incorrect or misleading information, as I believe it serves no purpose other than to confuse people, it's one thing to refer to a contentious issue, it's quite another to be completely inaccurate. Granted I'm not immune to making an error myself, but I hardly think this reflects badly on me in the manner you suggest. ???
As this concerns the information that ngb gave you, are you implying that he did give you incorrect information?
-
We're like two UBoats in the Atlantic. Let's forget it and move on. I think I know how to solve the issue if it arises again
Tactics? Are we playing battleships now? ;D
I agree, let's move on.
-
As this concerns the information that ngb gave you, are you implying that he did give you incorrect information?
My god, what is wrong with people. ??? Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo it doesn't.
-
Tactics? Are we playing battleships now? ;D
I agree, let's move on.
I was thinking of that film Das Boot :D
-
I was thinking of that film Das Boot :D
Aaaaah, that works also. ;D
-
Aaaaah, that works also. ;D
Wasn't there also a Reeves & Mortimer sketch where they used to say "I think we're at cross purposes"? Something to do with Bra's ;D The UBoat thing was a reference to when the captain is trying to rendevous with another captain, Thompsen.
-
Wasn't there also a Reeves & Mortimer sketch where they used to say "I think we're at cross purposes"? Something to do with Bra's ;D The UBoat thing was a reference to when the captain is trying to rendevous with another captain, Thompsen.
Sorry, you've lost me again. :-[ ;D
It's not really my thing. I got the Das Boot reference though, so at least that's something to feel proud about. :)
-
I'm not certain that this coming forward was entirely voluntary. I'm interested in anything that has come to light which gives an indication as to how she was interviewed. I don't think anything has been made public relating to this. Maybe it is tenuous and open to allegations of 'spin' or maybe not. Re your last sentence, it could be read as her having had a 'sword held over her head'.
Neither am I, Rochford. JM could have faced a string of very serious charges, not least in relation to the murders, the police would have had her over a barrel in respect of these. That JM was instead given sweeping immunity against prosecution may well suggest that JM a very interesting deal was done.
-
EXTRACT FROM 2002 APPEAL JUDGEMENT: http://www.homepage-link.to/JUSTICE/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Ground 5 – evidence relevant to the credibility of Julie Mugford
331. Ground 5 raises issues relating to Julie Mugford. When she had given a statement to the police in September 1985, she had made admissions of dishonest conduct in which she had been involved. She referred to a burglary offence committed jointly with the appellant and to a cheque book fraud committed jointly with Susan Battersby. She was not prosecuted for either offence nor was Susan Battersby prosecuted for the cheque book fraud which she too had admitted to the police. The first limb of ground 5 is a complaint that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby were given immunity.
332. As Mr Temple points out, in answer to that aspect of the matter, Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby were not granted immunity as such but a decision was taken by the DPP not to prosecute. We therefore read this ground as being a complaint that the documentation relating to the decision not to prosecute each of the witnesses was not disclosed to the defence.
333. The jury knew about the admissions made to the police. They further knew that neither of the girls had been prosecuted for these offences. Julie Mugford told the jury that she had "got a caution for it". When the judge summed the case up to the jury, he referred to her receiving "a police caution". Mr Turner's submission is that the jury were misled by being told that she had received a "police caution", and that the prosecution were under a duty to correct this wrong impression.
334. It is undoubtedly correct that Julie Mugford had not received a formal police caution in the sense that that expression is clearly understood by police officers and lawyers. It may be that the trial judge in translating Miss Mugford's reference to a caution into a formal police caution had misunderstood the position. However it seems unlikely to us that the jury would have understood the significance of a formal police caution as opposed to any other warning as to her future behaviour.
335. However, whether or not the jury understood the legal distinction of a formal police caution, we fail to see how this could have had any possible impact upon their considerations. What mattered in assessing the weight to be given to the witness's evidence was their own admitted dishonesty, and how they had behaved in relation to such dishonesty, not how the authorities had responded to their admissions. Any failure to correct the judge's reference to a formal police caution cannot be laid at the door of the police since the position was clearly understood by the lawyers and hence such a failure could not in any way taint the evidence of the police officers involved in the inquiry.
-
The fact is she wasn't prosecuted. The suggestion is that she was threatened with prosecution unless she gave evidence (I think). But it seems clear to me that she went to them, she volunteered the information re the cheques and caravan park burglary, and they didn't make the decision not to prosecute until after she had given her statements about the murders.
No she did not go to the police, Battersby did after her tearful confession in the cafe, so Julie never approached the police.
As for paying off of the fraud to the bank, Julie was accompanied by DS Jones, and the bank manager was never asked to give evidence, even though he was aware that the girls were escorted by police officers, and said that this was Julies decision, and nothing to do with them
This is IMO a lie.
Mugford got away with drug smuggling, bank fraud, and robbery, and got £25,000 for her troubles.
I do not know if Jeremy is innocent, but I am quite clear that Mugford is not telling the truth.
-
Her credibility is flawed no matter how you look at it.....It was a mixture of truths and false information made up from hearsay, what might have been and how she interpreted it all.....and how we perceive it.
I had no idea of the money Jeremy would get. It was my understanding that he would be paid if he was released.
JM was aware....otherwise how did she know this?
When the verdict was given I was in a neutral place, I don't think I was at the hotel?
Come on gal surely you must have known where you were on verdict day? Stan Jones knew where you were...he told you the verdict.
Jeremy told me that he paid 2000 to Matthew M.
But, juile he had an alibi.....was this made up?
Jeremy told me that the bible was on her chest
Oh dear! lol ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
It goes on and on...........
-
No she did not go to the police, Battersby did after her tearful confession in the cafe, so Julie never approached the police.
As for paying off of the fraud to the bank, Julie was accompanied by DS Jones, and the bank manager was never asked to give evidence, even though he was aware that the girls were escorted by police officers, and said that this was Julies decision, and nothing to do with them
This is IMO a lie.
Mugford got away with drug smuggling, bank fraud, and robbery, and got £25,000 for her troubles.
I do not know if Jeremy is innocent, but I am quite clear that Mugford is not telling the truth.
5 Stars Buddy....Hope you are alright. :)
-
If I was JM and had that deal in place before the trial. The last place I would want to be would be in that court room giving evidence. I think she was used by the papers and didn't realise the dangers she was actually in.
-
No she did not go to the police, Battersby did after her tearful confession in the cafe, so Julie never approached the police.
As for paying off of the fraud to the bank, Julie was accompanied by DS Jones, and the bank manager was never asked to give evidence, even though he was aware that the girls were escorted by police officers, and said that this was Julies decision, and nothing to do with them
This is IMO a lie.
Mugford got away with drug smuggling, bank fraud, and robbery, and got £25,000 for her troubles.
I do not know if Jeremy is innocent, but I am quite clear that Mugford is not telling the truth.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. Julie confided in Susan, who advised her to go to the police. She then went on holiday with her boyfriend. It wasn't until she returned from her trip that she learned that Julie had indeed gone to the police, and JB was now under arrest. Julie approached the police herself.
-
Sorry, but that is incorrect. Julie confided in Susan, who advised her to go to the police. She then went on holiday with her boyfriend. It wasn't until she returned from her trip that she learned that Julie had indeed gone to the police, and JB was now under arrest. Julie approached the police herself.
That was the version presented at trial, but I do not believe it was true. Liz Rimington made the first contact with the police. Events moved swiftly from that point.
-
That was the version presented at trial, but I do not believe it was true. Liz Rimington made the first contact with the police. Events moved swiftly from that point.
Wasnt Mugford at Rimmingtons home and Rimmington called the police.?The police contacted Stan Jones who was off duty and cancelled a dinner date with his wife and rushed straight to Rimmingtons home where from he took them both to a safe house?
-
Wasnt Mugford at Rimmingtons home and Rimmington called the police.?The police contacted Stan Jones who was off duty and cancelled a dinner date with his wife and rushed straight to Rimmingtons home where from he took them both to a safe house?
That was the official line I believe and the basic facts are correct. However there is now evidence to suggest that Julie Mugford may not, initially at least, have been a willing guest of the police.
-
That was the official line I believe and the basic facts are correct. However there is now evidence to suggest that Julie Mugford may not, initially at least, have been a willing guest of the police.
Would you have been if you were in her position?
-
Would you have been if you were in her position?
Probably not, but the significance of this is that it is another important matter about which the jury were misled.
-
Probably not, but the significance of this is that it is another important matter about which the jury were misled.
In what way were they misled?
-
EXTRACT FROM 2002 APPEAL JUDGEMENT: http://www.homepage-link.to/JUSTICE/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Ground 5 – evidence relevant to the credibility of Julie Mugford
331. Ground 5 raises issues relating to Julie Mugford. When she had given a statement to the police in September 1985, she had made admissions of dishonest conduct in which she had been involved. She referred to a burglary offence committed jointly with the appellant and to a cheque book fraud committed jointly with Susan Battersby. She was not prosecuted for either offence nor was Susan Battersby prosecuted for the cheque book fraud which she too had admitted to the police. The first limb of ground 5 is a complaint that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby were given immunity.
332. As Mr Temple points out, in answer to that aspect of the matter, Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby were not granted immunity as such but a decision was taken by the DPP not to prosecute. We therefore read this ground as being a complaint that the documentation relating to the decision not to prosecute each of the witnesses was not disclosed to the defence.
333. The jury knew about the admissions made to the police. They further knew that neither of the girls had been prosecuted for these offences. Julie Mugford told the jury that she had "got a caution for it". When the judge summed the case up to the jury, he referred to her receiving "a police caution". Mr Turner's submission is that the jury were misled by being told that she had received a "police caution", and that the prosecution were under a duty to correct this wrong impression.
334. It is undoubtedly correct that Julie Mugford had not received a formal police caution in the sense that that expression is clearly understood by police officers and lawyers. It may be that the trial judge in translating Miss Mugford's reference to a caution into a formal police caution had misunderstood the position. However it seems unlikely to us that the jury would have understood the significance of a formal police caution as opposed to any other warning as to her future behaviour.
335. However, whether or not the jury understood the legal distinction of a formal police caution, we fail to see how this could have had any possible impact upon their considerations. What mattered in assessing the weight to be given to the witness's evidence was their own admitted dishonesty, and how they had behaved in relation to such dishonesty, not how the authorities had responded to their admissions. Any failure to correct the judge's reference to a formal police caution cannot be laid at the door of the police since the position was clearly understood by the lawyers and hence such a failure could not in any way taint the evidence of the police officers involved in the inquiry.
How nicely and legally that is worded. It is this kind of legal twisting of the law that gives me absolutely no reason whatsoever to have any kind of trust in our legal system. I would rather rurm these legal men wicked beyond belief. >:( They utterly disgust me.
-
Sorry, but that is incorrect. Julie confided in Susan, who advised her to go to the police. She then went on holiday with her boyfriend. It wasn't until she returned from her trip that she learned that Julie had indeed gone to the police, and JB was now under arrest. Julie approached the police herself.
Hi Bridget,
I have the following.
"Essex Police were convinced on the basis of all available evidence that Sheila had killed the family and committed suicide.
On the 7th September 1985 Elizabeth Rimmington telephoned Witham Police Station to say that Julie Mugford was withholding vital evidence in the White House Farm enquiry. This was at 4pm. This telephone call was documented as Telephone Report Number One.
The exact content of this telephone call from Ms Rimmington is still a mystery as Essex
Police continue to withhold this document from the Defence.
This is the sequence of events
5:00pm D.S. Stan Jones goes to the address of Malcolm Waters and takes Julie Mugford into
custody. (HOLMES 64/13 and 1/12)
While in custody at Witham Julie asked that her father is contacted so she can talk to him.
(HOLMES 5/10)
Julie Mugford was interviewed under caution. (HOLMES 1/49)
(Official Blogger site. Jeremy Bamber: My Review of the Tonight Programme)
*HOLMES: These quotes are taken from the HOLMES 2 computer system which is the Home Office
Database. The references are those designated by the Police
-
Hi Bridget,
I have the following.
"Essex Police were convinced on the basis of all available evidence that Sheila had killed the family and committed suicide.
On the 7th September 1985 Elizabeth Rimmington telephoned Witham Police Station to say that Julie Mugford was withholding vital evidence in the White House Farm enquiry. This was at 4pm. This telephone call was documented as Telephone Report Number One.
The exact content of this telephone call from Ms Rimmington is still a mystery as Essex
Police continue to withhold this document from the Defence.
This is the sequence of events
5:00pm D.S. Stan Jones goes to the address of Malcolm Waters and takes Julie Mugford into
custody. (HOLMES 64/13 and 1/12)
While in custody at Witham Julie asked that her father is contacted so she can talk to him.
(HOLMES 5/10)
Julie Mugford was interviewed under caution. (HOLMES 1/49)
(Official Blogger site. Jeremy Bamber: My Review of the Tonight Programme)
*HOLMES: These quotes are taken from the HOLMES 2 computer system which is the Home Office
Database. The references are those designated by the Police
Hi Keira, but that is a pro bamber interpretation of events, not an actual account. Do we know what Liz actually said? Is there a copy of a statement by her, or the police record of her call? I don't recall seeing either of those myself.
-
Her credibility is flawed no matter how you look at it.....It was a mixture of truths and false information made up from hearsay, what might have been and how she interpreted it all.....and how we perceive it.
I had no idea of the money Jeremy would get. It was my understanding that he would be paid if he was released.
JM was aware....otherwise how did she know this?
When the verdict was given I was in a neutral place, I don't think I was at the hotel?
Come on gal surely you must have known where you were on verdict day? Stan Jones knew where you were...he told you the verdict.
Jeremy told me that he paid 2000 to Matthew M.
But, juile he had an alibi.....was this made up?
Jeremy told me that the bible was on her chest
Oh dear! lol ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
It goes on and on...........
The plain fact was Patti the cops and the prosecution jumped legal hurdles to get JM to testify, even to the extent of "deciding" not to charge her. But if it was any other person who had nothing to trade with they would be dealt with by the full force of the law. Utterly disgraceful actions by men who had been entrusted to uphold the law. But they it appears rode roughshot over the law in order to accomplish their objective. This is one of the reasons I distrust the law and police in general.
-
http://youtu.be/PS5MrfYVnyM?t=13s
This is how it was presented on CTSB. According to Bob Miller, Julie needed to unburden herself to police.
-
Lets also remember that this call to police by Liz R was made the following day after she and JM had booked an holiday to Malta on the 6th of September
Where did JM get her money from for that? She had not worked since March that year? She had admitted to having reached her overdraft....So where did she find the money from?
-
The plain fact was Patti the cops and the prosecution jumped legal hurdles to get JM to testify, even to the extent of "deciding" not to charge her. But if it was any other person who had nothing to trade with they would be dealt with by the full force of the law. Utterly disgraceful actions by men who had been entrusted to uphold the law. But they it appears rode roughshot over the law in order to accomplish their objective. This is one of the reasons I distrust the law and police in general.
Hi G. It must have been very difficult to have cross-examine JM due to the fact she was crying a lot.....
I think the only time I see a report of her crying was in court. She did not cry when she went to identify 5 bodies, or at the funerals...
In fact she states, I was never frightened of Jeremy, I tried to smother him with a pillow, if I couldn't have him then no one else could, he never told me he had done it....I did not believe him, I never really took any notice of what he said. :-\
-
Hi Patti I have read that Jeremy gave her a cheque for £400 she cashed the cheque then she spilled the beans on him. :'( ???
-
Lets also remember that this call to police by Liz R was made the following day after she and JM had booked an holiday to Malta on the 6th of September
Where did JM get her money from for that? She had not worked since March that year? She had admitted to having reached her overdraft....So where did she find the money from?
I believe that's correct, Patti, that the two young woman had booked this holiday just the a day prior to Rimmington telephoning the police.
I believe the money JM used to pay for her holiday was given to her by Jeremy when he and JM reached the end of their relationship.
-
Hi Patti It sounds to me like Julie had mental problems ???
-
Hi Keira, but that is a pro bamber interpretation of events, not an actual account. Do we know what Liz actually said? Is there a copy of a statement by her, or the police record of her call? I don't recall seeing either of those myself.
Hi Bridget,
The piece I've quoted includes references from the Home Office's database: Holmes!
At least I've given attributions, you haven't given any. Let's see yours :D
-
That was the version presented at trial, but I do not believe it was true. Liz Rimington made the first contact with the police. Events moved swiftly from that point.
I believe so too, NGB. Jeremy's official website points out that there are numerous contradictions between the evidence as it was presented at trial and the evidence recorded on the Home Office database: Holmes.
-
As a matter of interest, how would Jeremy have got access to the Home Office's database?
-
Hi Bridget,
The piece I've quoted includes references from the Home Office's database: Holmes!
At least I've given attributions, you haven't given any. Let's see yours :D
You mean about Susan battersby? It's from her statement dated 7th may 2002.
The Holmes thing doesn't actually say that Liz called saying that Julie was 'withholding evidence', does it?
-
You mean about Susan battersby? It's from her statement dated 7th may 2002.
The Holmes thing doesn't actually say that Liz called saying that Julie was 'withholding evidence', does it?
Hi Bridget,
I stand to be corrected - I can't find Rimington's statement - but it's my belief that it was Rimington who, on 7/9/85 insisted that JM tell the police of her claims regarding Jeremy, Rimington who took JM to Malcom Waters' home in order to call the police from there:
5:00pm D.S. Stan Jones goes to the address of Malcolm Waters and takes Julie Mugford into
custody. (HOLMES 64/13 and 1/12)
It was Rimington who accompanied JM to the police station and who also made a statement there and Rimington who was accommodated with JM at a police training school whilst the two women made their statements.
JM and Rimington were, I believe, allowed home on 12th September
Battersby wasn't interviewed until the police went to her home on 10/9.85 was she?
As NGB has stated:
"there is now evidence to suggest that Julie Mugford may not, initially at least, have been a willing guest of the police."
-
You mean about Susan battersby? It's from her statement dated 7th may 2002.
The Holmes thing doesn't actually say that Liz called saying that Julie was 'withholding evidence', does it?
Bridget, You queried the following too and I forgot to reply:
On the 7th September 1985 Elizabeth Rimmington telephoned Witham Police Station to say that Julie Mugford was withholding vital evidence in the White House Farm enquiry. This was at 4pm. This telephone call was documented as Telephone Report Number One
I don't know where this is from, it's stated above that it's Telephone Report Number One and I'm unsure what that is. Do you know?
-
I believe that's correct, Patti, that the two young woman had booked this holiday just the a day prior to Rimmington telephoning the police.
I believe the money JM used to pay for her holiday was given to her by Jeremy when he and JM reached the end of their relationship.
He wasn't tight with his money was he....giving her 400 quid.
Is there anyway we can find out where Stan Jones phoned JM to tell her about the verdict. He must have known where she was in order to have phoned her. JM says she can't remember, but knows she was a neutral place.....:)
-
Hi Bridget,
I stand to be corrected - I can't find Rimington's statement - but it's my belief that it was Rimington who, on 7/9/85 insisted that JM tell the police of her claims regarding Jeremy, Rimington who took JM to Malcom Waters' home in order to call the police from there:
5:00pm D.S. Stan Jones goes to the address of Malcolm Waters and takes Julie Mugford into
custody. (HOLMES 64/13 and 1/12)
It was Rimington who accompanied JM to the police station and who also made a statement there and Rimington who was accommodated with JM at a police training school whilst the two women made their statements.
JM and Rimington were, I believe, allowed home on 12th September
Battersby wasn't interviewed until the police went to her home on 10/9.85 was she?
As NGB has stated:
"there is now evidence to suggest that Julie Mugford may not, initially at least, have been a willing guest of the police."
Liz certainly encouraged her, but there's absolutely nothing to suggest that she either called the police and bubbled her up, or frog marched her down there, is there.
-
Bridget, You queried the following too and I forgot to reply:
On the 7th September 1985 Elizabeth Rimmington telephoned Witham Police Station to say that Julie Mugford was withholding vital evidence in the White House Farm enquiry. This was at 4pm. This telephone call was documented as Telephone Report Number One
I don't know where this is from, it's stated above that it's Telephone Report Number One and I'm unsure what that is. Do you know?
No, I don't know what telephone report number 1 is, but the quote is clearly just an interpretation from one of JBs websites. If he had evidence of Liz saying that he'd have been shouting it from the rooftops for years.
-
No, I don't know what telephone report number 1 is, but the quote is clearly just an interpretation from one of JBs websites. If he had evidence of Liz saying that he'd have been shouting it from the rooftops for years.
In actual fact he sent Julie a kind letter asking her to do the right thing. Or so I am informed? But don't ask me were the letter is? I think its on this forum somewhere?
-
Hi Hartley, I can only guess at this. I suspect that a deal was cut prior to the verdict in 1986 and that deal was done by Church Solicitors.
My argument for thinking that is, things were in place a week after the trial. Photo shoot, 3 days in a hotel, clothes, deal, script and drafts etc. It's pushing it bit fine to say all this happened within a week. You know and I know that no solicitor works that quickly.
I would think that things were very much in place in the event that JB was found guilty. Then the go ahead was given. Although Julie might not have been aware of dates etc, I feel certain that Ellison Church did know. There must be some paperwork on this somewhere...I'd like to ask where is it? :) :)
I think if the deal had have been in place prior to the trial the story would have appeared in the first publication after the trial, which was 5 days later on the 2nd of November. It didn't appear until the 9th.
-
In actual fact he sent Julie a kind letter asking her to do the right thing. Or so I am informed? But don't ask me were the letter is? I think its on this forum somewhere?
Well he would, wouldn't he. .
-
Well he would, wouldn't he. .
Why?
-
Same reason he wrote to Colin. To give his defence and his supporters a reason to say "he's innocent, if he was guilty he wouldn't have written a letter to ..."
-
I think if the deal had have been in place prior to the trial the story would have appeared in the first publication after the trial, which was 5 days later on the 2nd of November. It didn't appear until the 9th.
Not necessarily. I think ngb posted something that showed that the agreement was in place already before the trial. I think it came out at the 2002 appeal?
-
Not necessarily. I think ngb posted something that showed that the agreement was in place already before the trial. I think it came out at the 2002 appeal?
No he blinking well has not! He seems to think that there is new evidence which has come to light, but for obvious reasons isn't willing to reveal what that actually is. He has posted nothing.
-
No he blinking well has not! He seems to think that there is new evidence which has come to light, but for obvious reasons isn't willing to reveal what that actually is. He has posted nothing.
In actual fact I think it was campion who posted it if I remember rightly? By the way. I do not believe ngb is a liar, if that is what you are implying?
-
In actual fact I think it was campion who posted it if I remember rightly? By the way. I do not believe ngb is a liar, if that is what you are implying?
No Grahame, I am not implying that. I am stating very clearly that you are innaccurate in your assertion that NGB has provided evidence indicating that a deal was in place.
Please stop trying to suggest that I am calling people liars! >:( That's twice now!
-
No Grahame, I am not implying that. I am stating very clearly that you are innaccurate in your assertion that NGB has provided evidence indicating that a deal was in place.
Please stop trying to suggest that I am calling people liars! >:( That's twice now!
What did campion post grahame?
-
Hi Keira, but that is a pro bamber interpretation of events, not an actual account. Do we know what Liz actually said? Is there a copy of a statement by her, or the police record of her call? I don't recall seeing either of those myself.
All withheld under PII. The account given on the official website is based up a careful analysis of material obtained recently by the defence.
-
In what way were they misled?
They were misled into believing that Julie Mugford conscience had got the better of her so she came forward voluntarily and gave the police her account. In fact she did not come forward voluntarily and was put under intense pressure by the police. That is very material and had the jury known the facts it is very likely that the assessment of her evidence would have been different.
-
All withheld under PII. The account given on the official website is based up a careful analysis of material obtained recently by the defence.
Then why do they themselves say that the contents of the phone call are still a mystery?
-
They were misled into believing that Julie Mugford conscience had got the better of her so she came forward voluntarily and gave the police her account. In fact she did not come forward voluntarily and was put under intense pressure by the police. That is very material and had the jury known the facts it is very likely that the assessment of her evidence would have been different.
What is the evidence for that?
-
No Grahame, I am not implying that. I am stating very clearly that you are innaccurate in your assertion that NGB has provided evidence indicating that a deal was in place.
Please stop trying to suggest that I am calling people liars! >:( That's twice now!
Hi Hartley I'm not meaning to do that. But I will defend ngb's honesty. As I said in my post after my first post I think it was campion who posted it. I'll have to phone him up and ak him in order to verify what he said? I know he spoke to me about it. I will just have to ask him what he actually said. Sorry. :)
-
Hi Hartley I'm not meaning to do that. But I will defend ngb's honesty. As I said in my post after my first post I think it was campion who posted it. I'll have to phone him up and ak him in order to verify what he said? I know he spoke to me about it. I will just have to ask him what he actually said. Sorry. :)
There are no accusations for you to defend against. If ever there were, then Neil is quite capable of defending himself.
With regards to Campions posts on the subject, then you are also inaccurate. It's my own burden, and I even add to all by myself at times, but I personally find it quite annoying that people post information without even pretending to check that it is accurate. I don't mean the contentious issues which can be interpreted in a number of ways, I mean quite blatant inaccurate information.
-
Hearters, Calm Down O.C. What doth precipitate your outburst ?? You are reminiscent of a Porkupine or a Hedgehog in a Wiccawork basket.
'I can say that' re: Stan Jones 1st interview with JM, was at Malcom Waters house, promulgated by her il
lustrious friend Lizzzzz Rimington. This is described in Wikes' definitive tome, in Chapter 15.
Additionally in that reference work, at page 277 you will ascertain that Julie was staying at a hotel overlooking Sloane square, courtesy of NOTW, with reporters and photographers. Her Mother informed her, that Jeremy had been convicted. Julie was upset.......!
-
All withheld under PII. The account given on the official website is based up a careful analysis of material obtained recently by the defence.
Neil - out of interest... when something is witheld under PII is there a requirement for an internal record to be kept justifying the decision at the time, such that if the evidence is later released (say, under some 30-year-rule or some such equivalent) that the justification used internally at the time could then be seen?
-
Hearters, Calm Down O.C. What doth precipitate your outburst ?? You are reminiscent of a Porkupine or a Hedgehog in a Wiccawork basket.
'I can say that' re: Stan Jones 1st interview with JM, was at Malcom Waters house, promulgated by her il
lustrious friend Lizzzzz Rimington. This is described in Wikes' definitive tome, in Chapter 15.
Additionally in that reference work, at page 277 you will ascertain that Julie was staying at a hotel overlooking Sloane square, courtesy of NOTW, with reporters and photographers. Her Mother informed her, that Jeremy had been convicted. Julie was upset.......!
I'm quite calm Campion. Yes I saw your post and that is certainly an interesting observation, however what it is not, is proof that contracts etc were signed and sealed before the trial. If it were, then the defence would be able to take JM's statement straight to the CCRC.
Having said that, I'm not arguing that the deal was or was not in place, I'm just a little exasperated by the 'Chinese whispers' for want of a better description.
For example, somebody will probably now read this post and claim that I have said Campion was with Julie when the verdict came in. :P
-
campion going off topic Grahame told me to speak to you about red kites I have 4 visit my garden and I was told you are very well versed on the kites and they have some kind of connection to the Bamber case. Anytime when you can come off the topic you are on.
-
There are no accusations for you to defend against. If ever there were, then Neil is quite capable of defending himself.
With regards to Campions posts on the subject, then you are also inaccurate. It's my own burden, and I even add to all by myself at times, but I personally find it quite annoying that people post information without even pretending to check that it is accurate. I don't mean the contentious issues which can be interpreted in a number of ways, I mean quite blatant inaccurate information.
Let's focus then on one of Anne Eatons statements
'Granny Speakman had photos of all the family but I don't think she had a photo of Jeremy amongst them'
Hartley what was the point of that statement other than trying to show Jeremy in a bad light'
No proof that Jeremys photo wasn't there so what was the purpose of Annes statement Hartley
Please explain I am dying to know?
-
Neil - out of interest... when something is witheld under PII is there a requirement for an internal record to be kept justifying the decision at the time, such that if the evidence is later released (say, under some 30-year-rule or some such equivalent) that the justification used internally at the time could then be seen?
I do not know of any specific rule Bob, but for PII to be claimed there has to be a formal decision taken, usually within the office of the DPP at a senior level, possibly the Director himself. Such a decision would define the specific witness statements and exhibits covered. The decision would be recorded in writing and that recorsdshould be retained in accordance with the DPP's internal policies. In addition there will be correspondence between the DPP's office and those involved in the prosecution. There will therefore be a paper trail and it is therefore possible that the reasons could in due course be made public.
-
Then why do they themselves say that the contents of the phone call are still a mystery?
Because they have not seen a record of the contents of the phone call.
-
NGB has a DPP ever been prosecuted over a decision to withold evidence that leads to a conviction being overturned
Could you also explain the 30 year rule as we are not far off it now
-
Ngb just roughly in your experience what % of MOJ cases are overturned when witheld evidence is released
I bet it's over 50%
-
I do not know of any specific rule Bob, but for PII to be claimed there has to be a formal decision taken, usually within the office of the DPP at a senior level, possibly the Director himself. Such a decision would define the specific witness statements and exhibits covered. The decision would be recorded in writing and that recorsdshould be retained in accordance with the DPP's internal policies. In addition there will be correspondence between the DPP's office and those involved in the prosecution. There will therefore be a paper trail and it is therefore possible that the reasons could in due course be made public.
Thakns Neil - it would be interesting to see that paper trail one day!
-
Ngb just roughly in your experience what % of MOJ cases are overturned when witheld evidence is released
I bet it's over 50%
I do not know the percentage but I would say in a large majority of MOJ cases withheld evidence is an important feature.
-
Thanks Neil that's exactly what I guessed
-
NGB has a DPP ever been prosecuted over a decision to withold evidence that leads to a conviction being overturned
Could you also explain the 30 year rule as we are not far off it now
No DPP has ever been prosecuted whilst in office. The closest was the DPP at the time of Jeremy Bamber's trial, who had to resign subsequently after being arresterd for kerb crawling at King's Cross. Another DPP more recently had previous convictions for drugs offences. There is no likelihood of a DPP being prosecuted for an incorrect PII decision.
-
Thakns Neil - it would be interesting to see that paper trail one day!
I agree Bob, it would make interesting reading!
-
What is the evidence for that?
Bridget, you may be referring specifically to the jury (?). Did you see the clip of Bob Miller I posted up for you? That is the official version is it not? She came forward to unberden her self.
-
Bridget, you may be referring specifically to the jury (?). Did you see the clip of Bob Miller I posted up for you? That is the official version is it not? She came forward to unberden her self.
What I'm asking is what is the evidence for this:
They were misled into believing that Julie Mugford conscience had got the better of her so she came forward voluntarily and gave the police her account. In fact she did not come forward voluntarily and was put under intense pressure by the police.
I did see the link you posted to Miller, thanks for that, I don't think I've seen that before.
-
Unfortunately for you Bridget you don't have access to all the privileged evidence/information that Ngb has but I would trust his word
-
Unfortunately for you Bridget you don't have access to all the privileged evidence/information that Ngb has but I would trust his word
Neither do you, and I'm not questioning his word.
-
Unfortunately for you Bridget you don't have access to all the privileged evidence/information that Ngb has but I would trust his word
Are you claiming NGB has any access to any PII material? I don't think NGB has claimed this?