Author Topic: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?  (Read 20359 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #45 on: April 04, 2018, 08:08:36 PM »
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.
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline APRIL

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #46 on: April 04, 2018, 08:33:45 PM »
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.

Offline Caroline

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #47 on: April 04, 2018, 08:38:12 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2018, 01:26:45 AM by John »

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #48 on: April 04, 2018, 08:38:28 PM »
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.
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #49 on: April 04, 2018, 08:41:45 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2018, 08:52:59 PM by LuminousWanderer »

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #50 on: April 04, 2018, 08:54:50 PM »
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.
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline Nicholas

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #51 on: April 04, 2018, 08:58:37 PM »
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. 
« Last Edit: April 05, 2018, 01:29:43 AM by John »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #52 on: April 04, 2018, 09:05:25 PM »
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.

« Last Edit: April 05, 2018, 01:34:18 AM by John »

Offline Nicholas

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #53 on: April 04, 2018, 09:08:13 PM »
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 exposé 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


« Last Edit: April 04, 2018, 09:13:04 PM by Stephanie »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #54 on: April 04, 2018, 09:20:32 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2018, 01:34:54 AM by John »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Caroline

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #55 on: April 04, 2018, 09:29:52 PM »
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.

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #56 on: April 04, 2018, 09:40:33 PM »
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.

Offline Caroline

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #57 on: April 04, 2018, 10:14:51 PM »
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'.

Offline John

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #58 on: April 05, 2018, 01:32:20 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2018, 01:39:42 AM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #59 on: April 05, 2018, 05:29:02 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2018, 05:31:38 AM by LuminousWanderer »