UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: LuminousWanderer on April 03, 2018, 10:24:21 PM
-
Something that is baffling me about this case is the relevance of Julie Mugford.
Bear in mind here that I am discussing relevance in the context of an application to the CCRC, not in the context of a criminal jury trial. Bamber stands convicted. The trial is over. That train has left the station. This is about relevancy qua Bamber's legal prognosis as a criminal appellant.
In that regard, the only evidence helpful to Bamber is evidence that undermines the murder conviction. It may be emotionally-satisfying and cathartic for him to go after a certain schools administrator in Manitoba, but it might not help him overturn his conviction.
Obviously I'm no expert on this case and at all times I am happy to be corrected on the facts and who said what in court, etc., but my own understanding about her evidence is that she said the following (here I am deliberately putting things in very general terms, to aid clarity):
(i). Bamber told her he wanted to kill his family.
(ii). Bamber told her he was going to kill his family.
(iii). Bamber told her he was planning to kill his family.
(iv). Bamber told her how he would kill his family.
(v). She assisted Bamber in an abortive/inchoate plot to kill his family.
(vi). Bamber told her he was about to kill his family.
(vii). Bamber rang her and told her something was happening at the Farm.
(viii). Bamber told her that he had killed his family, contracting-out the act to a known criminal.
(ix). The person Bamber named in fact had not carried out this act.
For the purposes of this thread, we will lean on the side of conservatism and accept the former Julie Mugford's evidence at face value. That being the case, we will assume that she was, more or less, telling the truth at trial.
On the basis of that working assumption, my view is that:
(a). none of the above facts involve or amount to a murder confession;
(b). none of the above facts prove that Bamber killed his family; and,
(c). while the above facts are of some relevance to a criminal trial as an indicator of Bamber's character and his attitude to his family, none of the facts mentioned could have assisted a hypothetical reasonable jury in determining whether Bamber had killed his family.
No doubt in discussions in this thread, the focus will be on point (viii) above. Certainly I accept that point (viii) above does not assist Bamber's defence and would be of grave concern to the police and to a jury, but I am clear in my mind that it is not a confession. First, it's hearsay, which means that even if we assume she was a truthful witness, we can't adduce her evidence and assess its reliability in the same way we could other types of evidence. Second, the basis of the evidence is wrong or false, a fact that in itself demands an explanation. Again, assuming that the former Miss Mugford was a truthful witness, it's as plausible that Bamber was just an idiotic and callous young man who disliked his adoptive parents and was privately glad and relieved they were dead and wanted to show off in front of his girlfriend. Or maybe he was just joking about having hired a hitman? The reality is that people say strange and upsetting things in these situations, and often show inappropriate emotions, especially if they are emotionally-stunted or haven't learned how to act in a normative manner.
I can speak slightly from personal experience, and what follows is just to illustrate the point. My father passed away during a period I was spending in prison. I was aware he was ill and was one morning called to see the prison chaplain, who then broke the news to me. For me, the passing of my father was very difficult to bear because I was never close to him, indeed I had a very poor relationship with him. That does tend to make it worse. In my case, when the chaplain told me, my initial response was numbness and then I started to smile and laugh a bit, then I realised consciously that that was not appropriate, then I started to get genuinely upset, and a minute later I was crying - the first time I had done so in years. I know that's not the same thing as the situation with Jeremy, but if Jeremy was chuckling or showing-off to Julie, that could have been a defence mechanism or explained by his emotionally-inert psyche. Or it could be that he just was relieved that his parents were gone. Or maybe he was wryly referring his girlfriend to his fulfilled anticipation of problems with Sheila? Or maybe he really did do it and he is a mass murderer? I can't say one way or the other, I just offer some possible explanations, based on general life experience.
But the main point is, I question the relevance of Mugford's evidence. There is no confession here from Jeremy. There is no proof of a confession, only hearsay about a factually-wrong claim that he had had his parents killed. I would go so far as to say that, in all the circumstances, her evidence should not have been heard, but we are where we are. It was heard, and that being the case, it's now a double-edged sword: on the one hand, despite having no probative value at trial, it was still evidence that may have persuasively helped the jury to convict Jeremy; on the other hand, it's now no longer of relevance because undermining it can't help undermine the murder conviction itself. Even if it can be showed that Julie Mugford lied about some minor transactional fact and has, in a technical sense, perverted the course of justice, that doesn't disturb Jeremy's conviction (and, just speculation, but I doubt the Canadian authorities will be happy to extradite her after all this time).
In other words: if we took Julie Mugford's evidence out of the picture, that would not help Jeremy on the main cause, regardless of the reason; and, conversely, if Julie Mugford' evidence was the only point standing against Jeremy, his convictions would be quashed anyway.
For that reason, my view is that Julie Mugford should stay where she belongs - in the past - and Julie Smerchanski should be left alone.
-
SNIP
For that reason, my view is that Julie Mugford should stay where she belongs - in the past - and Julie Smerchanski should be left alone.
According to NGB on Blue (a non-practising barrister) there's some mileage in undermining her testimony on the basis she entered into an agreement with NOTW to sell her story prior to the trial. Evidence of this has apparently come to light since the 2002 appeal. I think NGB is saying this could provide a "powerful" appeal point but would not be sufficient for a referral to CCRC. Apart from this I agree with you.
It seems JB's and JM's examination in chief and cross-examination haven't survived so we have no idea of how the jury might have treated her testimony. According to former CCRC commissioner and solicitor, Ewan Smith, who at one time represented JB, the trial judge warned jurors about the reliability of JM's testimony. He went on to say, words to the effect, the silencer/blood evidence underpins JB's conviction.
I find a lot of the Jeremy supporters, particularly the females, become very emotional and irrational about JM's testimony.
-
Re my last para the following might give some idea. Cringeworthy IMO:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JuiXtdq51Bg
-
Julie Mugford's evidence was extremely important and was not 'hearsay' (as you have indicated elsewhere). Julie's account was first-hand evidence and presented to the court under oath.
-
Julie Mugford's evidence was extremely important and was not 'hearsay' (as you have indicated elsewhere). Julie's account was first-hand evidence and presented to the court under oath.
I take it this thread has just been moderated in order for it to appear on the board? It wasn't here a few minutes ago?
-
Re my last para the following might give some idea. Cringeworthy IMO:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JuiXtdq51Bg
I take it by cringeworthy you mean the way in which the author has interpreted her findings and presented them in the video?
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1063.msg453737#msg453737
-
Something that is baffling me about this case is the relevance of Julie Mugford.
Bear in mind here that I am discussing relevance in the context of an application to the CCRC, not in the context of a criminal jury trial. Bamber stands convicted. The trial is over. That train has left the station. This is about relevancy qua Bamber's legal prognosis as a criminal appellant.
In that regard, the only evidence helpful to Bamber is evidence that undermines the murder conviction. It may be emotionally-satisfying and cathartic for him to go after a certain schools administrator in Manitoba, but it might not help him overturn his conviction.
Obviously I'm no expert on this case and at all times I am happy to be corrected on the facts and who said what in court, etc., but my own understanding about her evidence is that she said the following (here I am deliberately putting things in very general terms, to aid clarity):
(i). Bamber told her he wanted to kill his family.
(ii). Bamber told her he was going to kill his family.
(iii). Bamber told her he was planning to kill his family.
(iv). Bamber told her how he would kill his family.
(v). She assisted Bamber in an abortive/inchoate plot to kill his family.
(vi). Bamber told her he was about to kill his family.
(vii). Bamber rang her and told her something was happening at the Farm.
(viii). Bamber told her that he had killed his family, contracting-out the act to a known criminal.
(ix). The person Bamber named in fact had not carried out this act.
For the purposes of this thread, we will lean on the side of conservatism and accept the former Julie Mugford's evidence at face value. That being the case, we will assume that she was, more or less, telling the truth at trial.
On the basis of that working assumption, my view is that:
(a). none of the above facts involve or amount to a murder confession;
(b). none of the above facts prove that Bamber killed his family; and,
(c). while the above facts are of some relevance to a criminal trial as an indicator of Bamber's character and his attitude to his family, none of the facts mentioned could have assisted a hypothetical reasonable jury in determining whether Bamber had killed his family.
No doubt in discussions in this thread, the focus will be on point (viii) above. Certainly I accept that point (viii) above does not assist Bamber's defence and would be of grave concern to the police and to a jury, but I am clear in my mind that it is not a confession. First, it's hearsay, which means that even if we assume she was a truthful witness, we can't adduce her evidence and assess its reliability in the same way we could other types of evidence. Second, the basis of the evidence is wrong or false, a fact that in itself demands an explanation. Again, assuming that the former Miss Mugford was a truthful witness, it's as plausible that Bamber was just an idiotic and callous young man who disliked his adoptive parents and was privately glad and relieved they were dead and wanted to show off in front of his girlfriend. Or maybe he was just joking about having hired a hitman? The reality is that people say strange and upsetting things in these situations, and often show inappropriate emotions, especially if they are emotionally-stunted or haven't learned how to act in a normative manner.
I can speak slightly from personal experience, and what follows is just to illustrate the point. My father passed away during a period I was spending in prison. I was aware he was ill and was one morning called to see the prison chaplain, who then broke the news to me. For me, the passing of my father was very difficult to bear because I was never close to him, indeed I had a very poor relationship with him. That does tend to make it worse. In my case, when the chaplain told me, my initial response was numbness and then I started to smile and laugh a bit, then I realised consciously that that was not appropriate, then I started to get genuinely upset, and a minute later I was crying - the first time I had done so in years. I know that's not the same thing as the situation with Jeremy, but if Jeremy was chuckling or showing-off to Julie, that could have been a defence mechanism or explained by his emotionally-inert psyche. Or it could be that he just was relieved that his parents were gone. Or maybe he was wryly referring his girlfriend to his fulfilled anticipation of problems with Sheila? Or maybe he really did do it and he is a mass murderer? I can't say one way or the other, I just offer some possible explanations, based on general life experience.
But the main point is, I question the relevance of Mugford's evidence. There is no confession here from Jeremy. There is no proof of a confession, only hearsay about a factually-wrong claim that he had had his parents killed. I would go so far as to say that, in all the circumstances, her evidence should not have been heard, but we are where we are. It was heard, and that being the case, it's now a double-edged sword: on the one hand, despite having no probative value at trial, it was still evidence that may have persuasively helped the jury to convict Jeremy; on the other hand, it's now no longer of relevance because undermining it can't help undermine the murder conviction itself. Even if it can be showed that Julie Mugford lied about some minor transactional fact and has, in a technical sense, perverted the course of justice, that doesn't disturb Jeremy's conviction (and, just speculation, but I doubt the Canadian authorities will be happy to extradite her after all this time).
In other words: if we took Julie Mugford's evidence out of the picture, that would not help Jeremy on the main cause, regardless of the reason; and, conversely, if Julie Mugford' evidence was the only point standing against Jeremy, his convictions would be quashed anyway.
For that reason, my view is that Julie Mugford should stay where she belongs - in the past - and Julie Smerchanski should be left alone.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8523.msg455331#msg455331
-
Julie Mugford's evidence was extremely important and was not 'hearsay' (as you have indicated elsewhere). Julie's account was first-hand evidence and presented to the court under oath.
I think it is considered hearsay? Ie she was relaying what she claims JB told her. It wasn't something she had direct evidence of unlike say the OCP break-in where she acted as a lookout.
-
I think it is considered hearsay? Ie she was relaying what she claims JB told her. It wasn't something she had direct evidence of unlike say the OCP break-in where she acted as a lookout.
But hearsay evidence in criminal trials is complex Holly. Take a look at the Omar Benguit case.
-
I take it by cringeworthy you mean the way in which the author has interpreted her findings and presented them in the video?
Yes. And all the stuff about JM being lower class than JB and stabbing? a teddy bear!
-
Yes. And all the stuff about JM being lower class than JB and stabbing? a teddy bear!
Yes. It shows immense ignorance and indeed bias. But on reflection, have you never done anything that would appear irrational and out of character to outsiders? I have
I didn't actually re watch the video - just clicked on the link and clicked off again after about 5 seconds
I should add that it also shows how Bambers victims have put him on a pedastal - he's better than her sort of thing. Which tells us more about them than anything imo
-
Thank you for the various responses.
Caroline may be right actually that Mugford's testimony was NOT hearsay.
But that doesn't change my point about the probative value of her evidence at trial and the relevance of her evidence now. I do stand by what I have said.
I actually doubt Mrs Smerchanski could be convicted of perverting the course of justice - there are too many hurdles - but even if she were, I simply don't see how that would undermine the conviction. I am looking at this objectively, I have no axe to grind.
Of course, we must also take into account that even appellate judges look at these cases with some element of bias and 'greyzone' thinking, and it may well be that if Mugford's evidence is undermined, then moral pressure will be brought to bear to quash Bamber's conviction. I appreciate that what happens in the courts isn't always strictly in accordance with evidence.
-
But hearsay evidence in criminal trials is complex Holly. Take a look at the Omar Benguit case.
Yes it seems that way.
Had she provided testimony unknown to others which was then corroborated this would surely make her testimony more compelling? Eg had she said JB told me he was able to leave the window he exited locked by using a piece of string which he threw in an outside bin and this was subsequently found containing his DNA and microscopic particles of brass and paint from the window this might make for more compelling evidence. Or had the police wired her up to record JB discussing the murders which she said he did post event then this would nail him. As it stands it seems her testimony is based on hearsay evidence which seems to originate from police and relatives' theories and press reports.
-
Yes it seems that way.
Had she provided testimony unknown to others which was then corroborated this would surely make her testimony more compelling? Eg had she said JB told me he was able to leave the window he exited locked by using a piece of string which he threw in an outside bin and this was subsequently found containing his DNA and microscopic particles of brass and paint from the window this might make for more compelling evidence.
I think she did well to remember all she did. I imagine her head was scrambled.
-
I think it is considered hearsay? Ie she was relaying what she claims JB told her. It wasn't something she had direct evidence of unlike say the OCP break-in where she acted as a lookout.
No, it's not - I used to think the same until someone posted a definition on the blue forum - here is some info on it.
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/hearsay-evidence-in-criminal-cases/
-
Thank you for the various responses.
Caroline may be right actually that Mugford's testimony was NOT hearsay.
But that doesn't change my point about the probative value of her evidence at trial and the relevance of her evidence now. I do stand by what I have said.
I actually doubt Mrs Smerchanski could be convicted of perverting the course of justice - there are too many hurdles - but even if she were, I simply don't see how that would undermine the conviction. I am looking at this objectively, I have no axe to grind.
Of course, we must also take into account that even appellate judges look at these cases with some element of bias and 'greyzone' thinking, and it may well be that if Mugford's evidence is undermined, then moral pressure will be brought to bear to quash Bamber's conviction. I appreciate that what happens in the courts isn't always strictly in accordance with evidence.
To what hurdles do you refer?
Months prior to Hall's admission of guilt he admitted to having burgled with a friend on the night of the murders. The friend he grassed up was also a main prosecution witness.
Halls mothers gave her son an alibi.
The police decided to not press charges in relation to the omittance of new evidence - no further action, and nothing, as far as I know, has been pursued in relation to his mothers evidence given under oath.
-
Thank you for the various responses.
Caroline may be right actually that Mugford's testimony was NOT hearsay.
But that doesn't change my point about the probative value of her evidence at trial and the relevance of her evidence now. I do stand by what I have said.
I actually doubt Mrs Smerchanski could be convicted of perverting the course of justice - there are too many hurdles - but even if she were, I simply don't see how that would undermine the conviction. I am looking at this objectively, I have no axe to grind.
Of course, we must also take into account that even appellate judges look at these cases with some element of bias and 'greyzone' thinking, and it may well be that if Mugford's evidence is undermined, then moral pressure will be brought to bear to quash Bamber's conviction. I appreciate that what happens in the courts isn't always strictly in accordance with evidence.
I thought you said you had a good understanding of the different types of evidence?
I try to focus on aspects that potentially are black and white so to speak! Aspects like JM's testimony, phone calls, windows I try to avoid.
4 x 13 year old teenage girls admitted lying "for a laugh" at Stefan Kiszko's trial. They faced no punishment.
Also that month, the four girls involved in the court trial admitted that the evidence they had given which had led to Kiszko's arrest and conviction was false, and that they had lied for "a laugh" and because "at the time it was funny". Burke said she wished she had not said anything but refused to apologise, saying she did not think it would go as far as it did. Buckley said it was not Kiszko who had exposed himself to her and that he had not been stalking them, but they had seen a taxi driver (not Ronald Castree) urinating behind a bush on the day of Molseed's murder. She also refused to apologise. Brown refused to make a statement. Hind was the most remorseful of the four, saying that what they did was "foolish but we were young" and that, had she appeared in court, she would have told the truth about Kiszko, unlike her friends, who all had committed perjury. She herself did not think Kiszko would be convicted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
You have previously said you want to see elite male judges privately educated with double firsts from Oxbridge but maybe these sorts, or a high %, are low on emotional intelligence and struggle with testimony from young females? I find it worrying that David Waddington QC was unable to break the four young girls. The trial judge commented as follows:
"The judge praised the three girls who had made the exposure claims, Buckley in particular, for their "bravery and honesty" in giving evidence in court and their "sharp observations".
-
I thought you said you had a good understanding of the different types of evidence?
I try to focus on aspects that potentially are black and white so to speak! Aspects like JM's testimony, phone calls, windows I try to avoid.
4 x 13 year old teenage girls admitted lying "for a laugh" at Stefan Kiszko's trial. They faced no punishment.
Also that month, the four girls involved in the court trial admitted that the evidence they had given which had led to Kiszko's arrest and conviction was false, and that they had lied for "a laugh" and because "at the time it was funny". Burke said she wished she had not said anything but refused to apologise, saying she did not think it would go as far as it did. Buckley said it was not Kiszko who had exposed himself to her and that he had not been stalking them, but they had seen a taxi driver (not Ronald Castree) urinating behind a bush on the day of Molseed's murder. She also refused to apologise. Brown refused to make a statement. Hind was the most remorseful of the four, saying that what they did was "foolish but we were young" and that, had she appeared in court, she would have told the truth about Kiszko, unlike her friends, who all had committed perjury. She herself did not think Kiszko would be convicted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
You have previously said you want to see elite male judges privately educated with double firsts from Oxbridge but maybe these sorts, or a high %, are low on emotional intelligence and struggle with testimony from young females? I find it worrying that David Waddington QC was unable to break the four young girls. The trial judge commented as follows:
"The judge praised the three girls who had made the exposure claims, Buckley in particular, for their "bravery and honesty" in giving evidence in court and their "sharp observations".
FYI Campbell Malone also represented Hall on appeal in 2010 https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/nov/11/ukcrime.duncancampbell
-
FYI Campbell Malone also represented Hall on appeal in 2010 https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/nov/11/ukcrime.duncancampbell
In the case of Stefan Kiszko he was proved 100% to be factually innocent. Subsequent to his acquittal the perp, Ronald Castree, was caught using DNA evidence, tried and found guilty.
-
In the case of Stefan Kiszko he was proved 100% to be factually innocent. Subsequent to his acquittal the perp, Ronald Castree, was caught using DNA evidence, tried and found guilty.
Taken from the above link - "Stefan Kiszko will be remembered not for what he did but for what he didn't do - and what was done to him. Along with his modest grave, with its vase of plastic roses, a fitting memorial might be an acknowledgement that a frightened, vengeful society can still lock up the wrong man."
This case is far removed from cases like Bamber's (even from a pro point of view).
-
In the case of Stefan Kiszko he was proved 100% to be factually innocent. Subsequent to his acquittal the perp, Ronald Castree, was caught using DNA evidence, tried and found guilty.
Yes, this is one of the saddest instances of a MOJ - such an easy target!
-
I thought you said you had a good understanding of the different types of evidence?
I try to focus on aspects that potentially are black and white so to speak! Aspects like JM's testimony, phone calls, windows I try to avoid.
4 x 13 year old teenage girls admitted lying "for a laugh" at Stefan Kiszko's trial. They faced no punishment.
Also that month, the four girls involved in the court trial admitted that the evidence they had given which had led to Kiszko's arrest and conviction was false, and that they had lied for "a laugh" and because "at the time it was funny". Burke said she wished she had not said anything but refused to apologise, saying she did not think it would go as far as it did. Buckley said it was not Kiszko who had exposed himself to her and that he had not been stalking them, but they had seen a taxi driver (not Ronald Castree) urinating behind a bush on the day of Molseed's murder. She also refused to apologise. Brown refused to make a statement. Hind was the most remorseful of the four, saying that what they did was "foolish but we were young" and that, had she appeared in court, she would have told the truth about Kiszko, unlike her friends, who all had committed perjury. She herself did not think Kiszko would be convicted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
You have previously said you want to see elite male judges privately educated with double firsts from Oxbridge but maybe these sorts, or a high %, are low on emotional intelligence and struggle with testimony from young females? I find it worrying that David Waddington QC was unable to break the four young girls. The trial judge commented as follows:
"The judge praised the three girls who had made the exposure claims, Buckley in particular, for their "bravery and honesty" in giving evidence in court and their "sharp observations".
Slightly off-topic, might have to take myself in hand 8)-))), but maybe this is the reason family lawyer to the rich and famous, Fiona Shackleton, with a 3rd in law from Exeter is successful ie she is able to apply the law/intellect with other skills equally important in family matters ie emotional intelligence.
-
Yes, this is one of the saddest instances of a MOJ - such an easy target!
Yes I agree but putting aside the personal tragedy for Stefan and his family, particularly his mother, it offers up an excellent example of how the judicial system can get it so wrong.
-
Yes I agree but putting aside the personal tragedy for Stefan and his family, particularly his mother, it offers up an excellent example of how the judicial system can get it so wrong.
Did you read the link above? See Campbell Malones statement!
-
No, it's not - I used to think the same until someone posted a definition on the blue forum - here is some info on it.
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/hearsay-evidence-in-criminal-cases/
Thanks. I'll have to read further. I was a bit confused as several articles said hearsay evidence isn't admissible in criminal trials.
-
Did you read the link above? See Campbell Malones statement!
Yes, thanks. I watched a film about the case on YouTube a few years ago. It was very sad.
-
Yes, thanks. I watched a film about the case on YouTube a few years ago. It was very sad.
Oh, only you didn't acknowledge the fact the judiciary has changed since cases like this
-
Oh, only you didn't acknowledge the fact the judiciary has changed since cases like this
Do you mean with regard to PACE?
-
Taken from the above link - "Stefan Kiszko will be remembered not for what he did but for what he didn't do - and what was done to him. Along with his modest grave, with its vase of plastic roses, a fitting memorial might be an acknowledgement that a frightened, vengeful society can still lock up the wrong man."
This case is far removed from cases like Bamber's (even from a pro point of view).
What makes you think this?
-
I thought you said you had a good understanding of the different types of evidence?
I don't follow. I've said it is possible it might not be hearsay evidence - it depends on how you want to construe it. For the purposes of this issue, I'm perfectly happy to assume it's not hearsay. So let's assume that. It doesn't change my point one iota. The issue is relevancy. Julie Mugford's evidence is irrelevant. Even the individual on the Blue Forum you referred to earlier admits that tacitly when he says you need other grounds for appeal. Well if you need other grounds for appeal, then that means Julie Mugford isn't relevant, if you stop and think about it.
Of course, in reality, it may be that undermining Julie Mugford's evidence gives Bamber's case moral force and the judges may just decide that they have to quash the conviction anyway, even though the evidentiary position doesn't justify that. But again, my point stands. At the least, a barrister advising Bamber would surely warn him of the dangers of using weak arguments to prop up an appeal. You could be left in a situation where the conviction looks stronger, not weaker.
My view (admittedly as a layman) is that a good appeal should be focused on the strongest points.
-
What makes you think this?
It's my opinion Holly based on how I perceive the 2 cases
-
I don't follow. I've said it is possible it might not be hearsay evidence - it depends on how you want to construe it. For the purposes of this issue, I'm perfectly happy to assume it's not hearsay. So let's assume that. It doesn't change my point one iota. The issue is relevancy. Julie Mugford's evidence is irrelevant. Even the individual on the Blue Forum you referred to earlier admits that tacitly when he says you need other grounds for appeal. Well if you need other grounds for appeal, then that means Julie Mugford isn't relevant, if you stop and think about it.
Of course, in reality, it may be that undermining Julie Mugford's evidence gives Bamber's case moral force and the judges may just decide that they have to quash the conviction anyway, even though the evidentiary position doesn't justify that. But again, my point stands. At the least, a barrister advising Bamber would surely warn him of the dangers of using weak arguments to prop up an appeal. You could be left in a situation where the conviction looks stronger, not weaker.
My view (admittedly as a layman) is that a good appeal should be focused on the strongest points.
Yes I agree. My view as a laywoman is that the points raised at 2002 appeal were on a hiding to nothing. I believe I have 9 rock solid points with 3 or 4 potentially good points.
-
It's my opinion Holly based on how I perceive the 2 cases
Fair enough.
It would be interesting to go back and look at press coverage of the case and subsequent appeals.
-
Fair enough.
It would be interesting to go back and look at press coverage of the case and subsequent appeals.
That's a good starting point. Though if possible I'd start with the case papers, trial transcripts, witness statements etc. I'd look at the news coverage after.
-
No, it's not - I used to think the same until someone posted a definition on the blue forum - here is some info on it.
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/hearsay-evidence-in-criminal-cases/
I understand what hearsay is in the context of English criminal proceedings: e.g. Mr. Smith testifies that Professor Plumb told him that Mrs Green had confessed to the murder of Colonel Mustard.
The reason I think (viii) is hearsay is down to the following points:
- the evidence consisted of relating a conversation Jeremy had with somebody else in which the third party claimed to have carried out the murders; and,
- it was a pseudo-confession of murder, as it is accepted there was no actual murder as described. Therefore in strict terms, it doesn't rise above the level of somebody relaying to the jury a disproved hypothesis or failed theory.
Possibly this falls down on the fact that McDonald did give evidence at trial - it would depend on what he actually said - but it doesn't matter anyway, as I maintain that her evidence is irrelevant now. For me, the point about Mugford's evidence is that it was used for the rather surreptitious purpose of moral force and persuasion, not to actually prove Jeremy had killed anybody.
-
I understand what hearsay is in the context of English criminal proceedings: e.g. Mr. Smith testifies that Professor Plumb told him that Mrs Green had confessed to the murder of Colonel Mustard.
The reason I think (viii) is hearsay is down to the following points:
- the evidence consisted of relating a conversation Jeremy had with somebody else in which the third party claimed to have carried out the murders; and,
- it was a pseudo-confession of murder, as it is accepted there was no actual murder as described. Therefore in strict terms, it doesn't rise above the level of somebody relaying to the jury a disproved hypothesis or failed theory.
Possibly this falls down on the fact that McDonald did give evidence at trial - it would depend on what he actually said - but it doesn't matter anyway, as I maintain that her evidence is irrelevant now. For me, the point about Mugford's evidence is that it was used for the rather surreptitious purpose of moral force and persuasion, not to actually prove Jeremy had killed anybody.
(viii). "Bamber told her that he had killed his family, contracting-out the act to a known criminal"
Have you considered he may have told her more than what she disclosed to the police?
-
Something that is baffling me about this case is the relevance of Julie Mugford.
Bear in mind here that I am discussing relevance in the context of an application to the CCRC, not in the context of a criminal jury trial. Bamber stands convicted. The trial is over. That train has left the station. This is about relevancy qua Bamber's legal prognosis as a criminal appellant.
In that regard, the only evidence helpful to Bamber is evidence that undermines the murder conviction. It may be emotionally-satisfying and cathartic for him to go after a certain schools administrator in Manitoba, but it might not help him overturn his conviction.
Obviously I'm no expert on this case and at all times I am happy to be corrected on the facts and who said what in court, etc., but my own understanding about her evidence is that she said the following (here I am deliberately putting things in very general terms, to aid clarity):
(i). Bamber told her he wanted to kill his family.
(ii). Bamber told her he was going to kill his family.
(iii). Bamber told her he was planning to kill his family.
(iv). Bamber told her how he would kill his family.
(v). She assisted Bamber in an abortive/inchoate plot to kill his family.
(vi). Bamber told her he was about to kill his family.
(vii). Bamber rang her and told her something was happening at the Farm.
(viii). Bamber told her that he had killed his family, contracting-out the act to a known criminal.
(ix). The person Bamber named in fact had not carried out this act.
For the purposes of this thread, we will lean on the side of conservatism and accept the former Julie Mugford's evidence at face value. That being the case, we will assume that she was, more or less, telling the truth at trial.
On the basis of that working assumption, my view is that:
(a). none of the above facts involve or amount to a murder confession;
(b). none of the above facts prove that Bamber killed his family; and,
(c). while the above facts are of some relevance to a criminal trial as an indicator of Bamber's character and his attitude to his family, none of the facts mentioned could have assisted a hypothetical reasonable jury in determining whether Bamber had killed his family.
No doubt in discussions in this thread, the focus will be on point (viii) above. Certainly I accept that point (viii) above does not assist Bamber's defence and would be of grave concern to the police and to a jury, but I am clear in my mind that it is not a confession. First, it's hearsay, which means that even if we assume she was a truthful witness, we can't adduce her evidence and assess its reliability in the same way we could other types of evidence. Second, the basis of the evidence is wrong or false, a fact that in itself demands an explanation. Again, assuming that the former Miss Mugford was a truthful witness, it's as plausible that Bamber was just an idiotic and callous young man who disliked his adoptive parents and was privately glad and relieved they were dead and wanted to show off in front of his girlfriend. Or maybe he was just joking about having hired a hitman? The reality is that people say strange and upsetting things in these situations, and often show inappropriate emotions, especially if they are emotionally-stunted or haven't learned how to act in a normative manner.
I can speak slightly from personal experience, and what follows is just to illustrate the point. My father passed away during a period I was spending in prison. I was aware he was ill and was one morning called to see the prison chaplain, who then broke the news to me. For me, the passing of my father was very difficult to bear because I was never close to him, indeed I had a very poor relationship with him. That does tend to make it worse. In my case, when the chaplain told me, my initial response was numbness and then I started to smile and laugh a bit, then I realised consciously that that was not appropriate, then I started to get genuinely upset, and a minute later I was crying - the first time I had done so in years. I know that's not the same thing as the situation with Jeremy, but if Jeremy was chuckling or showing-off to Julie, that could have been a defence mechanism or explained by his emotionally-inert psyche. Or it could be that he just was relieved that his parents were gone. Or maybe he was wryly referring his girlfriend to his fulfilled anticipation of problems with Sheila? Or maybe he really did do it and he is a mass murderer? I can't say one way or the other, I just offer some possible explanations, based on general life experience.
But the main point is, I question the relevance of Mugford's evidence. There is no confession here from Jeremy. There is no proof of a confession, only hearsay about a factually-wrong claim that he had had his parents killed. I would go so far as to say that, in all the circumstances, her evidence should not have been heard, but we are where we are. It was heard, and that being the case, it's now a double-edged sword: on the one hand, despite having no probative value at trial, it was still evidence that may have persuasively helped the jury to convict Jeremy; on the other hand, it's now no longer of relevance because undermining it can't help undermine the murder conviction itself. Even if it can be showed that Julie Mugford lied about some minor transactional fact and has, in a technical sense, perverted the course of justice, that doesn't disturb Jeremy's conviction (and, just speculation, but I doubt the Canadian authorities will be happy to extradite her after all this time).
In other words: if we took Julie Mugford's evidence out of the picture, that would not help Jeremy on the main cause, regardless of the reason; and, conversely, if Julie Mugford' evidence was the only point standing against Jeremy, his convictions would be quashed anyway.
For that reason, my view is that Julie Mugford should stay where she belongs - in the past - and Julie Smerchanski should be left alone.
You seem to have grasped the case extremely well. I agree with most of your observations including your assertion that what transpired did not amount to a confession. However, that is where it ends. I disagree totally with your assertion that Julie Mugford's evidence should not have been heard. She was Jeremy Bamber's partner up to and including the time of the murders, she was privy to his activities, his thoughts and his actions. She was therefore a material witness for the prosecution and a key one at that.
It has been suggested many times that Julie invented the entire story in order to get back at Jeremy for dumping her but that claim does not have any ring of truth about it. Julie was caught out participating in a cheque fraud so had much to lose by lying. Had she been prosecuted she could have lost her university place and ended up on the scrapheap. The police offered her the chance to make amends and she took it. Anyone who thinks that she could invent a 30 page statement of lies is surely deluded, she would have been caught out instantly. I think we can be pretty sure that Julie wasn't going to take any chances with her career and told the police everything she knew about Bamber. She was reported to have been an extremely confident witness during the trial and could not be challenged by defence counsel.
Taking Julie Mugford's evidence at its highest reveals a young man unhappy about his lot. He resented having been adopted, he was bullied at school and often teased by his adoptive older sister. He got a taste of freedom in New Zealand but was unable to support himself there, he had to run back to mummy for more funds. When he returned home to the farm things only got worse, he hated his family, he knew that his meagre inheritance could very well be diluted between his sister and her twin sons, his relationship with his father had deteriorated. He told Julie Mugford that it was now or never, the ideal opportunity presented itself while Sheila and the twins were staying at the farmhouse.
I can't see any way that Bamber could possibly be innocent, I don't believe in coincidences.
-
(viii). "Bamber told her that he had killed his family, contracting-out the act to a known criminal"
Have you considered he may have told her more than what she disclosed to the police?
I'm reasonably convinced that he did, Steph. (If) it's true that he told her she'd be found guilty as an accomplice? I think she'd have wanted to get her version in first and I imagine it may have been somewhat sanitized. She probably thought it was time to save her own bacon.
-
I don't follow. I've said it is possible it might not be hearsay evidence - it depends on how you want to construe it. For the purposes of this issue, I'm perfectly happy to assume it's not hearsay. So let's assume that. It doesn't change my point one iota. The issue is relevancy. Julie Mugford's evidence is irrelevant. Even the individual on the Blue Forum you referred to earlier admits that tacitly when he says you need other grounds for appeal. Well if you need other grounds for appeal, then that means Julie Mugford isn't relevant, if you stop and think about it.
Of course, in reality, it may be that undermining Julie Mugford's evidence gives Bamber's case moral force and the judges may just decide that they have to quash the conviction anyway, even though the evidentiary position doesn't justify that. But again, my point stands. At the least, a barrister advising Bamber would surely warn him of the dangers of using weak arguments to prop up an appeal. You could be left in a situation where the conviction looks stronger, not weaker.
My view (admittedly as a layman) is that a good appeal should be focused on the strongest points.
There are no stronger points, just Scotch mist. Bamber did it or facilitated someone else to do it, either way he is guilty as hell!!
Julie's statement might contain some hearsay remarks but her trial testimony would have been restricted to non hearsay evidence. It was partly on that evidence that Bamber was convicted.
-
I'm reasonably convinced that he did, Steph. (If) it's true that he told her she'd be found guilty as an accomplice? I think she'd have wanted to get her version in first and I imagine it may have been somewhat sanitized. She probably thought it was time to save her own bacon.
I know we are speculating April but he is one evil b......../beast and I feel sorry for all those people who are playing catch up/in denial (incidentally I don't believe all his supporters are in denial).
If I had any doubts, I would express them. I have none! I've looked at this case from every angle possible as I know many of you have. All I see is a cold blooded murderer, quite clearly without conscience who has run out of options and who chances his luck with any poor sod who will give him the time of day.
-
I know we are speculating April but he is one evil b......../beast and I feel sorry for all those people who are playing catch up/in denial (incidentally I don't believe all his supporters are in denial).
If I had any doubts, I would express them. I have none! I've looked at this case from every angle possible as I know many of you have. All I see is a cold blooded murderer, quite clearly without conscience who has run out of options and who chances his luck with any poor sod who will give him the time of day.
I'm certain that some of those who claim him innocent -if their views on Julie are anything to go by- are looking at him through emotional eyes. I can't help but feel if he'd been middle aged, poor and plain, several mightn't be clamouring for his release in the same way.
-
I'm certain that some of those who claim him innocent -if their views on Julie are anything to go by- are looking at him through emotional eyes. I can't help but feel if he'd been middle aged, poor and plain, several mightn't be clamouring for his release in the same way.
As I've said before, his supporters should put their money where their mouth is and petition Bamber to have a brain scan and allow someone like Prof Fallon to give his expert opinion.
-
I'm certain that some of those who claim him innocent -if their views on Julie are anything to go by- are looking at him through emotional eyes. I can't help but feel if he'd been middle aged, poor and plain, several mightn't be clamouring for his release in the same way.
He shot two defenceless young boys in the head, can one think of a more callous monstrous thing to do? Julie is most definitely not an irrelevance. She came back to testify at his appeal hearing some years back and that takes guts. She obviously has no doubts whatsoever as to his guilt.
-
He shot two defenceless young boys in the head, can one think of a more callous monstrous thing to do? Julie is most definitely not an irrelevance. She came back to testify at his appeal hearing some years back and that takes guts. She obviously has no doubts whatsoever as to his guilt.
Actually, it's been questioned. Her use of the word "believe" -as in "I still believe he's guilty"- quoted as proof she wasn't certain. It's been claimed she'd have said she KNEW he was guilty if she'd been certain. Her evidence has been torn apart more than his.
-
LM you posted on blue
"The best it would achieve is perhaps to give moral force to Jeremy's side in the minds of appellate judges. I will, however, concede that that in itself might be enough. Who knows? I suppose that's a tactical equation - but it doesn't disturb the logical equations above.
Bamber blew it long ago in this respect and he knows it! As I said before, he's tucked himself up like a kipper. He has no where to go. His campaign team have a lot of catching up to do. But they will catch up, eventually.
-
What I'm getting at there is that we could - just about - imagine a scenario where poor old Julie Smerchanski is dragged over from Canada in shackles and convicted of perverting the course of justice or attempting to do so. Let's imagine that, and then let's imagine Bamber's lawyers roll up at the Old Bailey and cite Mugford's conduct at trial and the circumstances surrounding it as a major ground for overturning the conviction.
The judges will say among themselves:
"Well, we've got a right situation here! This bloke probably did it, but this woman lied about her business dealings while giving evidence and it was material to the trial, albeit not really in a very probative way. What are we going to do now? The fact she perverted the course of justice doesn't actually upset Bamber's conviction, but what are the public going to think if they see him still in prison after this? There's a moral impetus here and there's an issue of public perception and public confidence in the judiciary. Maybe we should quash the conviction and let him go? We know it's pointless to remand him, as there won't be a re-trial, which then strictly leaves open the question of his guilt. What a mess! We're a laughing stock over this in every law office from Berlin to Winnipeg, but he's done nearly four decades inside, that's enough anyway. Yeah, let him go. We'll get our Oxbridge-educated clerks to contrive a legal reason for it that'll pass muster."
I'm not saying that'll happen, but it might.
And if it did, would it make him innocent? If he's not deemed to be so but is released on a technicality, how would it place him re compensation? I've heard he won't contemplate release on a technicality. That he only wants freedom if his innocence is proved.
-
Having made a deal with the news of the world really doesn't put her evidence into question, that would only happen if she had made the deal before coming forward at all. The deal didn't influence her testimony given that she had made her statements to police before any such deal was even thought of.
-
He shot two defenceless young boys in the head, can one think of a more callous monstrous thing to do? Julie is most definitely not an irrelevance. She came back to testify at his appeal hearing some years back and that takes guts. She obviously has no doubts whatsoever as to his guilt.
If I assume JB is guilty what incentive exists for a confession? He's serving a life tariff with no prospect of parole. He has a merry band of followers most believing him innocent or at the very least he received an unfair trial. He might also avoid the extreme reactions most child killers face from inmates. His campaign gives him notoriety and keeps his mug in the papers, occupies his time etc.
Likewise for JM where's the incentive for her to hold her hands up if her testimony was untruthful? She would run the risk of criminal charges being brought along with being ostracised by her friends, family, work colleagues and society at large. The tabloids would have a field day: 'Is this woman more evil than Myra Hindley'? She would probably have to go into hiding from vigilante groups.
I don't think it's a case she has no doubts rather she's stuck between a rock and a hard place.
-
And if it did, would it make him innocent? If he's not deemed to be so but is released on a technicality, how would it place him re compensation? I've heard he won't contemplate release on a technicality. That he only wants freedom if his innocence is proved.
Beggars can't be choosers.
If he were to be released merely on a technicality, he would not benefit from a judicial declaration of innocence, no, and I imagine he would only be entitled to damages for his lost earnings, not compensation - but I'm not sure how the financial aspects of the system work. I haven't boned-up on the compensation scheme, it's not of interest to me.
My point, though, is that - in fairness to Bamber's supporters - I am not convinced that the courts make decisions purely according to the relevant law and evidence. I think wider politics, public opinion and the moral force of the situation do come into it, even if they deny that. There may be something in what Bamber's supporters are saying, in that it may be that if Smerchanki can be shown to have lied, it does add moral impetus to the situation. People will, naturally, be saying: How can you keep a man in prison under those circumstances? The nuance that Smerchanki's alleged "lie" was not crucial to her evidence will not be widely understood by ordinary people.
A similar point can be made about other prominent cases that have been shown to be miscarriages of justice. One thing I have noticed is that often the successful appellants will claim they have been "proved innocent", when the reality is very far removed from that and often even the opposite - either their conviction has been quashed on technical grounds only, or even the technical arguments are quite weak but the case has a lot of moral and political pressure behind it to which the appellate judiciary has eventually succumbed. The Birmingham Six case is quite a good example of the latter: they were never shown to be innocent.
-
Beggars can't be choosers.
If he were to be released merely on a technicality, he would not benefit from a judicial declaration of innocence, no, and I imagine he would only be entitled to damages for his lost earnings, not compensation - but I'm not sure how the system works. I haven't boned-up on the compensation scheme, it's not of interest to me.
My point, though, is that - in fairness to Bamber's supporters - I am not convinced that the courts make decisions purely according to the relevant law and evidence. I think wider politics, public opinion and the moral force of the situation do come into it, even if they deny that. There may be something in what Bamber's supporters are saying, in that it may be that if Smerchanki can be shown to have lied, it does add moral impetus to the situation. People will, naturally, be saying: How can you keep a man in prison under those circumstances? The nuance that Smerchanki's alleged "lie" was not crucial to her evidence will not be widely understood by ordinary people.
A similar point can be made about other prominent cases that have been shown to be miscarriages of justice. One thing I have noticed is that often the successful appellants will claim they have been "proved innocent", when the reality is very far removed from that and often even the opposite - either their conviction has been quashed on technical grounds only, or even the technical arguments are quite weak but the case has a lot of moral and political pressure behind it to which the appellate judiciary has eventually succumbed. The Birmingham Six case is quite a good example of the latter: they were never shown to be innocent.
Jurors at trial heard about JM's cheque fraud and involvement in OCP break-in so her credibility was somewhat dented in any event. Plus the fact she didn't reveal to the police what she later claimed JB told her for over a month.
So going back to your points about appellate judges asking themselves could a jury have reached a different verdict had they known she had a deal with NOTW they may decide no on the basis jurors were aware she had a history of dishonesty for financial gain.
-
The mans a coward. He wouldn't last 5 minutes out here. Does anyone really think he wants freedom? He's a leech who enjoys sucking the life blood out of anyone he can sink his teeth into. He thrives on the attention his infamy brings him. What would he do if he didn't have his supporters? He's already been attacked in prison. There would be public outcry if his case were to even be considered for appeal. Many supporters have fallen by the way side or he's wronged them in some way. He's institutionalised. Look at the carnage he's caused out here these past 30 years. Do you really think the government and law lords would waste more money on an appeal for Jeremy Bamber? I don't.
-
Jurors at trial heard about JM's cheque fraud and involvement in OCP break-in so her credibility was somewhat dented in any event. Plus the fact she didn't reveal to the police what she later claimed JB told her for over a month.
So going back to your points about appellate judges asking themselves could a jury have reached a different verdict had they known she had a deal with NOTW they may decide no on the basis jurors were aware she had a history of dishonesty for financial gain.
Yes, an excellent observation, but remember that the point isn't just that the jury would have been ignorant about a deal with the tabloids, it's also that the former Miss Mugford had (so Bamber's supporters allege) lied about the existence of such a deal and there is the question of what a hypothetical reasonable jury might decide knowing that too. My view [strictly as a layman] is that it can't affect Bamber's conviction. The appellate judges, if it gets that far again, will heavily deprecate her, but the case still stands.
-
If it hasn't happened yet, I doubt it ever will. Having made a deal with the news of the world really doesn't put her evidence into question, that would only happen if she had made the deal before coming forward at all. The deal didn't influence her testimony given that she had made her statements to police before any such deal was even thought of.
He's a chancer and his tactics are see through
History of The News of the World
"Crime, too, was a big seller, and occasionally got the paper into trouble. During the trial of the Moors murderers Ian Brady and Myra Hindley in 1966, it emerged during cross-examination that the key prosecution witness, David Smith, had been paid £1,000 and treated to a holiday in France by the paper in return for his story. The judge asked the attorney general to investigate what "seemed to be a gross interference in the course of justice". The paper escaped contempt charges only narrowly.
By the late 1960s the Carr family was eager to sell, but desperate to avoid doing so to chief suitor Robert Maxwell, who they feared, as a Labour MP, would challenge the paper's conservative politics. He was also a Czech Jew while the News of the World, the paper said in a pointed front page editorial, was "as English as roast beef and yorkshire pudding". Enter a young Australian newspaperman who was eager to make his first inroad into the British market, whose offer on the paper in January 1969, of £34m, was gratefully seized. Rupert Murdoch, then 37, had inherited his wealth and early newspaper interests from his father, but had an expansionist ambition. The Sun, then a broadsheet, would be acquired that year and turned into a tabloid, a change instituted at the News of the World in 1984.
It was to be business as usual and then some. A further exposι of Keeler's story, seven years after the Profumo scandal, won him censure from the Press Council for its unethical exploitation of sex. Murdoch's response: "People can sneer all they like, but I'll take the 150,000 extra copies we are going to sell." It was a formula from which he has never wavered.
In 1986, News of the World staff followed the example of their colleagues at the Sun in voting overwhelmingly to move to Murdoch's new Wapping plant, breaking the strike of their printworking colleagues.
The paper increased its focus on women launching Sunday magazine in 1980, and appointing Wendy Henry as its first female editor seven years later. But its core preoccupations sport, scandal and sex never varied. Under a succession of combative and hugely influential editors David Montgomery, Stuart Higgins, Piers Morgan, Phil Hall, Rebekah Wade, Andy Coulson the Screws scored scoop after scandalous scoop, exposing David Mellor's affair with Antonia de Sancha, David Beckham's relationship with Rebecca Loos, Max Mosley's sado-masochistic sex sessions, and corruption in the Pakistani cricket squad.
Wade, now Brooks, was appointed in 2000, launching a campaign to name and shame paedophiles that was heavily criticised for leading to mobs target people they suspected of being offenders including, in one case, a paediatrician. The then chief constable of Gloucestershire, Tony Butler, labelled it "grossly irresponsible" journalism.
Coulson succeeded her after three years, but resigned in 2007 when Clive Goodman, the paper's royal correspondent, was jailed for phone hacking. Coulson claimed no knowledge of the illegal practice, saying it was limited to one "rogue reporter", but he bore overall responsibility. Doubtless he, and Murdoch, thought that would be the end of the matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-world-history
-
Yes, an excellent observation, but remember that the point isn't just that the jury would have been ignorant about a deal with the tabloids, it's also that the former Miss Mugford had (so Bamber's supporters allege) lied about the existence of such a deal and there is the question of what a hypothetical reasonable jury might decide knowing that too. My view [strictly as a layman] is that it can't affect Bamber's conviction. The appellate judges, if it gets that far again, will heavily deprecate her, but the case still stands.
Agreed
Who is the consummate actor - him or her? The damage is already done. He's scuppered any chances he may have had.
-
I understand what hearsay is in the context of English criminal proceedings: e.g. Mr. Smith testifies that Professor Plumb told him that Mrs Green had confessed to the murder of Colonel Mustard.
The reason I think (viii) is hearsay is down to the following points:
- the evidence consisted of relating a conversation Jeremy had with somebody else in which the third party claimed to have carried out the murders; and,
- it was a pseudo-confession of murder, as it is accepted there was no actual murder as described. Therefore in strict terms, it doesn't rise above the level of somebody relaying to the jury a disproved hypothesis or failed theory.
Possibly this falls down on the fact that McDonald did give evidence at trial - it would depend on what he actually said - but it doesn't matter anyway, as I maintain that her evidence is irrelevant now. For me, the point about Mugford's evidence is that it was used for the rather surreptitious purpose of moral force and persuasion, not to actually prove Jeremy had killed anybody.
It's still not hearsay because she didn't testify that McDonald killed anyone, simply that Bamber told her he was involved. She is relaying what Bamber told her - that's all.
-
It's still not hearsay because she didn't testify that McDonald killed anyone, simply that Bamber told her he was involved. She is relaying what Bamber told her - that's all.
I would have to look again at what was said, but it's not important one way or the other.
-
I would have to look again at what was said, but it's not important one way or the other.
I note that you said Julie lied initially? Where did she lie? She left a lot out but she didn't actually lie in her statement - she just left out the part where Bamber later said he was 'responsible'.
-
The mans a coward. He wouldn't last 5 minutes out here. Does anyone really think he wants freedom? He's a leech who enjoys sucking the life blood out of anyone he can sink his teeth into. He thrives on the attention his infamy brings him. What would he do if he didn't have his supporters? He's already been attacked in prison. There would be public outcry if his case were to even be considered for appeal. Many supporters have fallen by the way side or he's wronged them in some way. He's institutionalised. Look at the carnage he's caused out here these past 30 years. Do you really think the government and law lords would waste more money on an appeal for Jeremy Bamber? I don't.
I certainly can't see the CCRC making any further referral to the Appeal Court. Bamber cooked his own goose the minute he attempted to put Sheila in the frame for the murders and invented the telephone call from his father. His entire plan went wrong when he realised that his rifle wasn't powerful enough to kill a human being with one bullet allowing Nevill to challenge him in the kitchen, something we know Sheila could never have managed.
His only chance of freedom is to admit his guilt and hope that the Parole Board eventually look favourably on him some years in the future. Failing that he will rot in prison until he dies.
-
I note that you said Julie lied initially? Where did she lie? She left a lot out but she didn't actually lie in her statement - she just left out the part where Bamber later said he was 'responsible'.
I can't remember exactly what caused me to form that view, it's probably not very important, and I may even have been mistaken.
On a different note, I've looked again at Julie's statements - just scanned over some of them - and her statements about McDonald do look like hearsay to me. I do accept that hearsay evidence can be admissible, but I maintain my view that on this and other grounds, the admissibility of Mugford's statements should have been brought into question. Even if not technically hearsay due to McDonald's evidence, I still think it looks dubious as the basis for a murder conviction, and I stand by the generality of what I have said: her evidence was irrelevant then, and it's even less relevant now.
Somebody over on the Blue Forum has pointed to Julie's conversations with Jeremy in the restaurant, and asked me if I might change my view in light of those, but I still don't believe that improves her evidence. The fact that she is giving evidence of a false confession (which of course I accept is not her fault, it was Jeremy who lied in that respect, not her), means that anything said in the restaurant is discredited. The simple point is that Jeremy could have made the whole thing up to impress her - and speaking as a neutral poster, without an axe to grind, I find that just as plausible as the idea that Jeremy was actually confessing and was just using McDonald as a proxy.
Julie Mugford was crucial to the investigation, I acknowledge that, but ultimately it wasn't her evidence that convicted Jeremy Bamber. It was other facts and elements that implicated Jeremy, some of it mentioned by John above.
-
Jurors at trial heard about JM's cheque fraud and involvement in OCP break-in so her credibility was somewhat dented in any event. Plus the fact she didn't reveal to the police what she later claimed JB told her for over a month.
So going back to your points about appellate judges asking themselves could a jury have reached a different verdict had they known she had a deal with NOTW they may decide no on the basis jurors were aware she had a history of dishonesty for financial gain.
Thinking about this further there is a subtle difference in that JM's previous crimes for financial gain were largely victimless. Whereas the 25k deal struck with NOTW for her story if JB was found guilty was not victimless if she was being untruthful with her testimony.
-
I certainly can't see the CCRC making any further referral to the Appeal Court. Bamber cooked his own goose the minute he attempted to put Sheila in the frame for the murders and invented the telephone call from his father. His entire plan went wrong when he realised that his rifle wasn't powerful enough to kill a human being with one bullet allowing Nevill to challenge him in the kitchen, something we know Sheila could never have managed.
His only chance of freedom is to admit his guilt and hope that the Parole Board eventually look favourably on him some years in the future. Failing that he will rot in prison until he dies.
The CCRC will only refer an application if it meets the criteria.
IMO previous appeals and CCRC applications have failed as they don't strike at the heart of the conviction which is to unequivocally undermine the blood/silencer evidence and argue it was fabricated evidence.
-
I can't remember exactly what caused me to form that view, it's probably not very important, and I may even have been mistaken.
On a different note, I've looked again at Julie's statements - just scanned over some of them - and her statements about McDonald do look like hearsay to me. I do accept that hearsay evidence can be admissible, but I maintain my view that on this and other grounds, the admissibility of Mugford's statements should have been brought into question. Even if not technically hearsay due to McDonald's evidence, I still think it looks dubious as the basis for a murder conviction, and I stand by the generality of what I have said: her evidence was irrelevant then, and it's even less relevant now.
Somebody over on the Blue Forum has pointed to Julie's conversations with Jeremy in the restaurant, and asked me if I might change my view in light of those, but I still don't believe that improves her evidence. The fact that she is giving evidence of a false confession (which of course I accept is not her fault, it was Jeremy who lied in that respect, not her), means that anything said in the restaurant is discredited. The simple point is that Jeremy could have made the whole thing up to impress her - and speaking as a neutral poster, without an axe to grind, I find that just as plausible as the idea that Jeremy was actually confessing and was just using McDonald as a proxy.
Julie Mugford was crucial to the investigation, I acknowledge that, but ultimately it wasn't her evidence that convicted Jeremy Bamber. It was other facts and elements that implicated Jeremy, some of it mentioned by John above.
Re the claimed conversation in a restaurant this meeting took place about a week before JM 'fessed up' to EP. According to JM she parted on amicable terms with JB. Post separation JB helped her move home and asked if she wanted anything from the house (WHF). JM requested June's bike which JB was due to drop off. I don't understand why EP didn't attempt to either wire up JM or plant some listening devices in order to get a recorded confession out of JB. According to JM he was very loose with his tongue!
One reason EP may not have attempted this is that JM didn't fess up at all and her testimony was cooked up by EP.
-
Thinking about this further there is a subtle difference in that JM's previous crimes for financial gain were largely victimless. Whereas the 25k deal struck with NOTW for her story if JB was found guilty was not victimless if she was being untruthful with her testimony.
I disagree.
"Fraud has a real cost for all of us. This is a financial cost, which costs us extra taxes, adds to the cost of goods and service and makes the public and private sector organisations which we rely on less healthy and financially stable. This cost has been well researched recently in previous Reports which MacIntyre Hudson LLP and the Centre for Counter Fraud Studies have published2.
However, there is also a human cost of fraud. As this Report makes crystal clear fraud is not a victimless crime.
When perpetrated against corporate bodies, its victims are those who are employed, whose employment is less secure by virtue of the reduced financial health of their employer. Victims include those who are customers of goods and services which provided, who either pay more than they should or who receive worse quality provision. In the public sector, victims include those who pay higher than necessary taxes and who get a government and public service which are not as good as what they pay for.
Even worse, though, is the effect of fraud, when directly impacting on individual citizens http://www.port.ac.uk/media/contacts-and-departments/icjs/ccfs/cost-of-fraud.pdf
But didn't she pay the money back?
-
I disagree.
"Fraud has a real cost for all of us. This is a financial cost, which costs us extra taxes, adds to the cost of goods and service and makes the public and private sector organisations which we rely on less healthy and financially stable. This cost has been well researched recently in previous Reports which MacIntyre Hudson LLP and the Centre for Counter Fraud Studies have published2.
However, there is also a human cost of fraud. As this Report makes crystal clear fraud is not a victimless crime.
When perpetrated against corporate bodies, its victims are those who are employed, whose employment is less secure by virtue of the reduced financial health of their employer. Victims include those who are customers of goods and services which provided, who either pay more than they should or who receive worse quality provision. In the public sector, victims include those who pay higher than necessary taxes and who get a government and public service which are not as good as what they pay for.
Even worse, though, is the effect of fraud, when directly impacting on individual citizens http://www.port.ac.uk/media/contacts-and-departments/icjs/ccfs/cost-of-fraud.pdf
But didn't she pay the money back?
I agree that's why I said largely victimless. Nicking a bar of chocolate will add to a statistic pushing costs up for others.
However I do think there's a difference between issuing duff cheques in the likes of Top Shop to the tune of £800 and assisting JB steal £900 from his family's firm and providing false testimony (if this is what it is) at a murder trial to secure a 25k deal with NOTW.
-
I agree that's why I said largely victimless. Nicking a bar of chocolate will add to a statistic pushing costs up for others.
However I do think there's a difference between issuing duff cheques in the likes of Top Shop to the tune of £800 and assisting JB steal £900 from his family's firm and providing false testimony (if this is what it is) at a murder trial to secure a 25k deal with NOTW.
You said:
"Thinking about this further there is a subtle difference in that JM's previous crimes for financial gain were largely victimless. Whereas the 25k deal struck with NOTW for her story if JB was found guilty was not victimless if she was being untruthful with her testimony
Have I taken it out of context or have you?
You were alluding to Bamber being a victim of JM's. We weren't discussing statistics or costs; you were specific, you referred to victims and now appear to have back tracked?
-
You said:
"Thinking about this further there is a subtle difference in that JM's previous crimes for financial gain were largely victimless. Whereas the 25k deal struck with NOTW for her story if JB was found guilty was not victimless if she was being untruthful with her testimony
Have I taken it out of context or have you?
You were alluding to Bamber being a victim of JM's. We weren't discussing statistics or costs; you were specific, you referred to victims and now appear to have back tracked?
It goes back to how appellate judges might view fresh evidence that JM entered into a 25k deal with NOTW before a verdict was reached. I said the jury were aware JM had a history of dishonesty for financial gain. Then I thought about it further and realised there is a difference in that the crimes the jury were aware of were largely victimless ie a small financial cost borne by many. If her testimony is false JB was and remains very much a victim of her crime ie perjury.
-
Something that is baffling me about this case is the relevance of Julie Mugford.
Bear in mind here that I am discussing relevance in the context of an application to the CCRC, not in the context of a criminal jury trial. Bamber stands convicted. The trial is over. That train has left the station. This is about relevancy qua Bamber's legal prognosis as a criminal appellant.
In that regard, the only evidence helpful to Bamber is evidence that undermines the murder conviction. It may be emotionally-satisfying and cathartic for him to go after a certain schools administrator in Manitoba, but it might not help him overturn his conviction.
Obviously I'm no expert on this case and at all times I am happy to be corrected on the facts and who said what in court, etc., but my own understanding about her evidence is that she said the following (here I am deliberately putting things in very general terms, to aid clarity):
(i). Bamber told her he wanted to kill his family.
(ii). Bamber told her he was going to kill his family.
(iii). Bamber told her he was planning to kill his family.
(iv). Bamber told her how he would kill his family.
(v). She assisted Bamber in an abortive/inchoate plot to kill his family.
(vi). Bamber told her he was about to kill his family.
(vii). Bamber rang her and told her something was happening at the Farm.
(viii). Bamber told her that he had killed his family, contracting-out the act to a known criminal.
(ix). The person Bamber named in fact had not carried out this act.
For the purposes of this thread, we will lean on the side of conservatism and accept the former Julie Mugford's evidence at face value. That being the case, we will assume that she was, more or less, telling the truth at trial.
On the basis of that working assumption, my view is that:
(a). none of the above facts involve or amount to a murder confession;
(b). none of the above facts prove that Bamber killed his family; and,
(c). while the above facts are of some relevance to a criminal trial as an indicator of Bamber's character and his attitude to his family, none of the facts mentioned could have assisted a hypothetical reasonable jury in determining whether Bamber had killed his family.
No doubt in discussions in this thread, the focus will be on point (viii) above. Certainly I accept that point (viii) above does not assist Bamber's defence and would be of grave concern to the police and to a jury, but I am clear in my mind that it is not a confession. First, it's hearsay, which means that even if we assume she was a truthful witness, we can't adduce her evidence and assess its reliability in the same way we could other types of evidence. Second, the basis of the evidence is wrong or false, a fact that in itself demands an explanation. Again, assuming that the former Miss Mugford was a truthful witness, it's as plausible that Bamber was just an idiotic and callous young man who disliked his adoptive parents and was privately glad and relieved they were dead and wanted to show off in front of his girlfriend. Or maybe he was just joking about having hired a hitman? The reality is that people say strange and upsetting things in these situations, and often show inappropriate emotions, especially if they are emotionally-stunted or haven't learned how to act in a normative manner.
I can speak slightly from personal experience, and what follows is just to illustrate the point. My father passed away during a period I was spending in prison. I was aware he was ill and was one morning called to see the prison chaplain, who then broke the news to me. For me, the passing of my father was very difficult to bear because I was never close to him, indeed I had a very poor relationship with him. That does tend to make it worse. In my case, when the chaplain told me, my initial response was numbness and then I started to smile and laugh a bit, then I realised consciously that that was not appropriate, then I started to get genuinely upset, and a minute later I was crying - the first time I had done so in years. I know that's not the same thing as the situation with Jeremy, but if Jeremy was chuckling or showing-off to Julie, that could have been a defence mechanism or explained by his emotionally-inert psyche. Or it could be that he just was relieved that his parents were gone. Or maybe he was wryly referring his girlfriend to his fulfilled anticipation of problems with Sheila? Or maybe he really did do it and he is a mass murderer? I can't say one way or the other, I just offer some possible explanations, based on general life experience.
But the main point is, I question the relevance of Mugford's evidence. There is no confession here from Jeremy. There is no proof of a confession, only hearsay about a factually-wrong claim that he had had his parents killed. I would go so far as to say that, in all the circumstances, her evidence should not have been heard, but we are where we are. It was heard, and that being the case, it's now a double-edged sword: on the one hand, despite having no probative value at trial, it was still evidence that may have persuasively helped the jury to convict Jeremy; on the other hand, it's now no longer of relevance because undermining it can't help undermine the murder conviction itself. Even if it can be showed that Julie Mugford lied about some minor transactional fact and has, in a technical sense, perverted the course of justice, that doesn't disturb Jeremy's conviction (and, just speculation, but I doubt the Canadian authorities will be happy to extradite her after all this time).
In other words: if we took Julie Mugford's evidence out of the picture, that would not help Jeremy on the main cause, regardless of the reason; and, conversely, if Julie Mugford' evidence was the only point standing against Jeremy, his convictions would be quashed anyway.
For that reason, my view is that Julie Mugford should stay where she belongs - in the past - and Julie Smerchanski should be left alone.
"Criminal appellant" therefore criminally minded. JM does not appear to have been "criminally minded."
30 plus years supports the above
Essex police told Bamber in 2016 he hadn't carefully planned or considered his public campaign. That's they way I read it anyway. I agree with Essex police btw. Bambers showed his hand so to speak. It is for this reason any future appeal will not be forthcoming.
Any technicality available to him before has been lost due to his lack of careful planning and consideration. He"s no way out in other words.
-
"Criminal appellant" therefore criminally minded. JM does not appear to have been "criminally minded."
30 plus years supports the above
Essex police told Bamber in 2016 he hadn't carefully planned or considered his public campaign. That's they way I read it anyway. I agree with Essex police btw. Bambers showed his hand so to speak. It is for this reason any future appeal will not be forthcoming.
Any technicality available to him before has been lost due to his lack of careful planning and consideration. He"s no way out in other words.
Very true, Julie was forced to go abroad to avoid being tainted by Jeremy Bamber's conviction for what was really a monstrous crime. Julie now has an exemplary career record and has risen to the highest echelons of the Canadian education system...fair play to her.
I have no doubt she regrets the crazy things she did in her youth but there are few among us who cannot say the same. The attempts by Bamber supporters involved in the CT to bring her down are pathetic really.
-
It goes back to how appellate judges might view fresh evidence that JM entered into a 25k deal with NOTW before a verdict was reached. I said the jury were aware JM had a history of dishonesty for financial gain. Then I thought about it further and realised there is a difference in that the crimes the jury were aware of were largely victimless ie a small financial cost borne by many. If her testimony is false JB was and remains very much a victim of her crime ie perjury.
I am still undecided on that NOTW deal which saw those inappropriate photos of Julie spread across the centre pages. On the one hand she needed the cash and did very little to earn it but on the other hand her moral judgement could be questioned. After all, five people were dead, four shot in the head including two children.
One could argue her judgement was severely impaired.
-
The CCRC will only refer an application if it meets the criteria.
IMO previous appeals and CCRC applications have failed as they don't strike at the heart of the conviction which is to unequivocally undermine the blood/silencer evidence and argue it was fabricated evidence.
Exactly - and I agree the moderator is crucial to the case. But I doubt Bamber could argue that it was fabricated or contaminated. Fabrication or some other criminal conspiracy does not fit within the equation of facts. Contamination is unlikely given the way the evidence was recovered. At this point, my view (which is liable to change as I find out more) is that the only way Bamber will upset the conviction, short of completely new evidence, is if it can be demonstrated that the blood and DNA tests are unreliable. This could happen either through a re-analysis of the known facts or through new scientific or methodological advances, or some combination thereof.
This is what happened in the Birmingham Six case: one of the grounds for appeal was that the nitroglycerin test that supposedly 'proved' the men had handled explosives was flawed due to the potential for false positives resulting from innocent activity. The Court of Appeal agreed, deciding that the relevant test results had to be considered unreliable.
-
I am still undecided on that NOTW deal which saw those inappropriate photos of Julie spread across the centre pages. On the one hand she needed the cash and did very little to earn it but on the other hand her moral judgement could be questioned. After all, five people were dead, four shot in the head including two children.
One could argue her judgement was severely impaired.
The fact that the Murdoch rag called The News of the World has been consigned to the dustbin says it all imo.
-
I agree that's why I said largely victimless. Nicking a bar of chocolate will add to a statistic pushing costs up for others.
However I do think there's a difference between issuing duff cheques in the likes of Top Shop to the tune of £800 and assisting JB steal £900 from his family's firm and providing false testimony (if this is what it is) at a murder trial to secure a 25k deal with NOTW.
That;s not quite true, when she made her statement to police, she had no NOTW deal. So any testimony, false or otherwise, wasn't motivated by 25K.
-
I am still undecided on that NOTW deal which saw those inappropriate photos of Julie spread across the centre pages. On the one hand she needed the cash and did very little to earn it but on the other hand her moral judgement could be questioned. After all, five people were dead, four shot in the head including two children.
One could argue her judgement was severely impaired.
But did she "need" the money? She claimed a solicitor struck a deal with the press on her behalf to put an end to harassment.
Would she have been able to lead a 'normal' life in UK post trial including pursuing a career in her chosen profession teaching?
She was due to start a master's degree academic year start '85. I've no idea if she started/completed this.
Maybe the trip to Oz was intended to be the sort of experience lots of young people have with the intention of returning to her native country but she met her husband to be, a Canadian, and ended up in Canada.
I think NOTW are just as much responsible, if not more so, for the tasteless article.
-
That;s not quite true, when she made her statement to police, she had no NOTW deal. So any testimony, false or otherwise, wasn't motivated by 25K.
Yes I appreciate this but according to others it was in place when she testified under oath.
IMO I don't see JM as being particularly relevant pre or post trial.
-
Exactly - and I agree the moderator is crucial to the case. But I doubt Bamber could argue that it was fabricated or contaminated. Fabrication or some other criminal conspiracy does not fit within the equation of facts. Contamination is unlikely given the way the evidence was recovered. At this point, my view (which is liable to change as I find out more) is that the only way Bamber will upset the conviction, short of completely new evidence, is if it can be demonstrated that the blood and DNA tests are unreliable. This could happen either through a re-analysis of the known facts or through new scientific or methodological advances, or some combination thereof.
This is what happened in the Birmingham Six case: one of the grounds for appeal was that the nitroglycerin test that supposedly 'proved' the men had handled explosives was flawed due to the potential for false positives resulting from innocent activity. The Court of Appeal agreed, deciding that the relevant test results had to be considered unreliable.
I'm not suggesting it's necessary even if it was possible to explain the 6 w's but by undermining the silencer and blood I do think it will be necessary to assert fabrication. If not how does one explain the evidence presented at trial? I don't see this as a problem as I think other aspects can be undermined showing a combination of fabrication, incompetence and negligence too.
-
I'm not suggesting it's necessary even if it was possible to explain the 6 w's but by undermining the silencer and blood I do think it will be necessary to assert fabrication. If not how does one explain the evidence presented at trial? I don't see this as a problem as I think other aspects can be undermined showing a combination of fabrication, incompetence and negligence too.
OK, thanks - I'll have to think about that. I assume Geoffrey Rivlin cross-examined David Boutflour and Ann Eaton very thoroughly and rigorously? I'm amazed that, according to a comment you made on another thread, there was no court visit to the farm.
-
OK, thanks - I'll have to think about that. I assume Geoffrey Rivlin cross-examined David Boutflour and Ann Eaton very thoroughly and rigorously? I'm amazed that, according to a comment you made on another thread, there was no court visit to the farm.
I've only read snippets of trial testimony from DB and AE contained in books.
If you consider other high profile crimes juries visited soc. I'm thinking Huntley, Wests, Bridger etc. Barry George's trial involved 1 gsw but the jury visited Jill Dando's home. WHF involved 25 or 26 gsw's but no visit. Seems very odd to me.
-
Yes I appreciate this but according to others it was in place when she testified under oath.
IMO I don't see JM as being particularly relevant pre or post trial.
I can't see how you can arrive at that conclusion Holly. Mugford's testimony was extremely damning towards Bamber, she provided the means, motive and opportunity for this sorry tale.
-
Yes I appreciate this but according to others it was in place when she testified under oath.
IMO I don't see JM as being particularly relevant pre or post trial.
Perhaps it was (or wasn't) but it can't be argued that the money was the reason for testifying when she came forward long before any deal.
I doubt that defence/prosecution would agree with you there.
-
I can't see how you can arrive at that conclusion Holly. Mugford's testimony was extremely damning towards Bamber, she provided the means, motive and opportunity for this sorry tale.
I don't see anything of evidential value in JM's testimony. I find it unreliable. I put more weight on the forensic aspects and I think many of the tests/results produced by FSS will eventually be undermined resulting in an acquittal.
-
Perhaps it was (or wasn't) but it can't be argued that the money was the reason for testifying when she came forward long before any deal.
I doubt that defence/prosecution would agree with you there.
I'm relying on NGB's claims that it is capable of forming a "powerful" appeal point. I'm not a lawyer. As a layperson I tend to share your views on this.
IMO MT QC put forward some incredibly weak points about JM at JB's 2002 appeal needless to say they were dismissed out of hand by the appeal judges.
Old ITN footage (no longer available) of JB's former solicitor and now retired CCRC commissioner, Ewan Smith, stated the central plank of the prosecution case against JB is the silencer/blood evidence. According to him the trial judge warned jurors about the reliability of JM's testimony.
Does anyone know if these clips are now available elsewhere?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=81.msg613#msg613
-
I'm relying on NGB's claims that it is capable of forming a "powerful" appeal point. I'm not a lawyer. As a layperson I tend to share your views on this.
IMO MT QC put forward some incredibly weak points about JM at JB's 2002 appeal needless to say they were dismissed out of hand by the appeal judges.
Old ITN footage (no longer available) of JB's former solicitor and now retired CCRC commissioner, Ewan Smith, stated the central plank of the prosecution case against JB is the silencer/blood evidence. According to him the trial judge warned jurors about the reliability of JM's testimony.
Does anyone know if these clips are now available elsewhere?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=81.msg613#msg613
Her testimony is always going to be her word against his but I can't see how anyone can argue that her testimony isn't relevant because she had a deal with the NOTW lined up because it wasn't lined up when she came forward.
-
Her testimony is always going to be her word against his but I can't see how anyone can argue that her testimony isn't relevant because she had a deal with the NOTW lined up because it wasn't lined up when she came forward.
Even without NOTW, cheque fraud, OCP, cannabis dealing and claims of providing tablets for JB to drug his family I find her testimony irrelevant in forming my opinion. The reason I say this is that she didn't provide her testimony for over a month, although I don't buy the 'scorned woman' theory, but more importantly for me there's nothing of evidential value to it plus I have identified what I consider to be inconsistencies:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7313.msg338510#msg338510
I think NGB is saying it could provide an appeal point alongside other points but that it isn't enough in itself for a referral. I get what you're saying that she provided her testimony before NOTW featured. I guess there's some argument re the fact the trial judge warned jurors about cheque fraud and they were aware of OCP but not NOTW:
"It is the defendant's case, of course, that Julie Mugford's evidence in this case is fabricated, and that she is a brazen, blatant liar, so Mr Rivlin introduced the matter of her previous cheque offences in order to suggest to you then that it was shown that she has been dishonest in the past and so that you can bear in mind that part of her character when assessing whether to believe her not on the evidence she has given in this trial. That is the degree to which that evidence is relevant. Of course, the fact that a person has committed some offence, or has at some time lied in the past, in no way proves that they can never again tell the truth and you might think particularly so, on oath in a murder trial. It does not prove that at all. It is merely there for you to have in mind when you come to weigh up her evidence.
In considering whether her past dishonesty affects your assessment of her as a witness in this case, no doubt you will bear one or two things in mind, namely that she volunteered her past offences to the bank who had lost the money when she went to them about a month after she had made her statement to the police in this case, and volunteered to them that if they look back they would find frauds for which she was responsible. She told you that she went there voluntarily and re-paid the money that had obtained, and it seems, does it not, that without her voluntary revelation of her own part in those offences, she would never have been caught for them. They would have never come to light, and it was in those circumstances that she was not in fact prosecuted for them. She received a police caution."
It seems at the previous 2 appeals NOTW was raised and dismissed as there was insufficient evidence to show the deal was in place at the time of the trial.
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've always been puzzled about why recreational drugs were left out?
-
Re the post above if nelly.com is correct about the existence of verifiable evidence that JM entered into a deal with NOTW pre/during trial CoA might rule her evidence inadmissible on the basis she misled the prosecution let alone defence, trial judge and jurors:
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.
-
JM's WS dated 11th April 2002 re NOTW deal:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=288.msg4966#msg4966
-
But hearsay evidence in criminal trials is complex Holly. Take a look at the Omar Benguit case.
https://bylinetimes.com/2019/05/07/the-justice-trap-no-forensics-no-cctv-17-years-in-prison-on-the-evidence-of-an-admitted-liar/