Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?

[ngb1066]

It also crosses my mind that, whoever was acting legally, on her behalf. would surely have made sure that it was watertight and couldn't come back to bite her.

Yes, you would have thought so and of course so far she has got away with it.  He of course was not responsible for the answers JM gave in relation to questions about this.  There were two distinct aspects the NOW deal, the first entering into a deal before giving evidence and the second lying about it when asked during the trial on behalf of the judge.

 

[ngb1066]

Yes, i get all of that, but have you personally seen evidence to show she was arrested rather than coming forward of her own accord or is this a suspicion based on other issues? The reason I ask is because if true, then Liz Rimmington, Susan Battersby and Malcolm Waters all lied too and for the life of me, I can't think of a reason why they would and maintain it to this day.

I have not personally seen the material but I have discussed what has been seen so far, and also discussed material which has been withheld dealing with the interaction between the police, JM and her mother in the period immediately after she "came forward"  I accept that there is currently not enough to prove my view on this but if the relevant documents could be obtained I think it is very likely that they would confirm what I have suggested.  A problem in the case has been that the CCRC have been very reluctant to use their powers of disclosure fully. 
 

[Jane]

Yes, you would have thought so and of course so far she has got away with it.  He of course was not responsible for the answers JM gave in relation to questions about this.  There were two distinct aspects the NOW deal, the first entering into a deal before giving evidence and the second lying about it when asked during the trial on behalf of the judge.

 If part of the NOW deal was to make certain claims I can see she'd be in deep trouble, but if her evidence, at trial, wasn't other than she'd said when she made her WS why would it matter if the deal was already signed? From recollection, most of it was personal stuff at basic NOW level. We'd probably call it soft porn, now. She took a huge risk in lying to the judge. Hardly surprising that she cried!

[Caroline]

I have not personally seen the material but I have discussed what has been seen so far, and also discussed material which has been withheld dealing with the interaction between the police, JM and her mother in the period immediately after she "came forward"  I accept that there is currently not enough to prove my view on this but if the relevant documents could be obtained I think it is very likely that they would confirm what I have suggested.  A problem in the case has been that the CCRC have been very reluctant to use their powers of disclosure fully.

OK, personally, I think it's likely that she did go without police intervention BUT that she was coerced by Liz Rimmington and Malcolm Waters. I don't think she would have gotten a softly approach from EP either - certainly not initially. I think they probably threatened to implicate her and possibly charge them as a pair. I'm sure such tactics are used quite often and certainly back then. I honestly don't think we will ever know what initially went on when she came forward and many of those involved, are no longer here to tell.

[ngb1066]

If part of the NOW deal was to make certain claims I can see she'd be in deep trouble, but if her evidence, at trial, wasn't other than she'd said when she made her WS why would it matter if the deal was already signed? From recollection, most of it was personal stuff at basic NOW level. We'd probably call it soft porn, now. She took a huge risk in lying to the judge. Hardly surprising that she cried!

A deal such as this with a witness is improper.  The deal and £25,000 payment were conditional on there being guilty verdicts.

[Caroline]

A deal such as this with a witness is improper.  The deal and £25,000 payment were conditional on there being guilty verdicts.

But Julie couldn't control the verdict. Her payment depended on them, not the other way around? I could understand if she went to the papers before going to the police, then it could be argued that she was motivated by the cash, but having already done so, the verdict was still 50/50?

[Caroline]

For anyone interested, there is an article on the new Drama in this weeks Radio Times. It's based on CAL's book so well done to her!

[Jane]

A deal such as this with a witness is improper.  The deal and £25,000 payment were conditional on there being guilty verdicts.

So who'd have been most guilty? NOW -who must have been aware of the illegality- for making the offer, or Julie -who may not have been aware- for accepting? Are we to assume she made changes in her testimony to ensure the £25,000? There's also the the point that the jury, unless they were 'got at', had a choice.

[Kaldin]

Hadn't the issue of the NOTW payment been raised before? It was mentioned in the 2002 appeal.

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.

[lookout]

Fighting a losing battle springs to mind. I don't hold much hope at all from what I can sense and it's another sheer waste of time.

[Steve_uk]

May I apologize to members for any offence last night. I accept that this is the Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion and of course Julie is a part of that. What I find hard to stomach is the repercussions raking over this newspaper deal may have amongst Julie's family life, a privilege which she has earned. As far as her credibility is concerned I would have thought the main body of her evidence concerning her almost two years spent with the defendant would be better scrutinized, or maybe having drawn a blank there they have to descend on easier prey?

[Caroline]

May I apologize to members for any offence last night. I accept that this is the Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion and of course Julie is a part of that. What I find hard to stomach is the repercussions raking over this newspaper deal may have amongst Julie's family life, a privilege which she has earned. As far as her credibility is concerned I would have thought the main body of her evidence concerning her almost two years spent with the defendant would be better scrutinized, or maybe having drawn a blank there they have to descend on easier prey?

Steve, I very much doubt any of them read the forum.

[Steve_uk]

Steve, I very much doubt any of them read the forum.

It's where this could lead Caroline. I for one would not return again to England after the 2002 incident.

[Jane]

May I apologize to members for any offence last night. I accept that this is the Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion and of course Julie is a part of that. What I find hard to stomach is the repercussions raking over this newspaper deal may have amongst Julie's family life, a privilege which she has earned. As far as her credibility is concerned I would have thought the main body of her evidence concerning her almost two years spent with the defendant would be better scrutinized, or maybe having drawn a blank there they have to descend on easier prey?

Steve, for my part, I was more shocked, rather than offended. You were a Steve I'd never previously experienced. I know you have huge empathy with Julie and see something more in her than just the person many believe her to be. You, more than any of us, would understand what are the difficulties student teachers face and how easy it can be for them to slip from the path if an easier one appears to be on offer.

[Kaldin]

Aren't student teachers supposed to be dedicated? They should know that they have to be squeaky clean because they're going to setting an example to young people or children. Why is it harder than being any other kind of student?