Author Topic: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?  (Read 1282 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #75 on: April 05, 2018, 05:14:01 PM »
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.     

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #76 on: April 05, 2018, 05:21:17 PM »
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.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #77 on: April 05, 2018, 05:38:10 PM »
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. 



Offline Angelo222

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #78 on: April 05, 2018, 05:47:52 PM »
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.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Caroline

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #79 on: April 05, 2018, 09:49:50 PM »
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.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #80 on: April 06, 2018, 12:04:32 PM »
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.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #81 on: April 06, 2018, 12:18:15 PM »
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

Offline Caroline

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #82 on: April 06, 2018, 09:39:21 PM »
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.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #83 on: April 07, 2018, 09:35:10 PM »
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? 

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #84 on: April 08, 2018, 11:05:41 AM »
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.


Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: What is the relevance of Julie Mugford?
« Reply #85 on: April 08, 2018, 12:19:12 PM »