Author Topic: Have prosecution witnesses ever been found guilty of perjury?  (Read 16526 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Have prosecution witnesses ever been found guilty of perjury?
« Reply #30 on: May 16, 2016, 11:22:10 PM »
Sounds very plausible to me, had he been the innocent guy after all there would have been no need for any of it.  Quite obviously Bamber took Julie somewhere he knew to be safe before supposedly confiding in her.

He told her in the lounge at Bourtree Cottage.
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?

david1819

  • Guest
Re: Have prosecution witnesses ever been found guilty of perjury?
« Reply #31 on: May 16, 2016, 11:28:18 PM »
He told her in the lounge at Bourtree Cottage.

As you do  @)(++(*

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Have prosecution witnesses ever been found guilty of perjury?
« Reply #32 on: May 17, 2016, 12:46:41 AM »
Your version of events relies on a unwary assumption of incorruptibility by the police.

On top of that if Julie is such a reliable witness and the circumstances around her statements are sound,  The CPS would not keep several of her police interviews and trial preparation documents under PII, and that they have done to this very day.

Far from assumption I posted what happened in chronological order. Doing so demonstrates that she went to someone else who went to the police and then they went to her.  It not only demonstrates that she told her account of what Jeremy told her prior to speaking to police but also that police did not believe the story at first.  One has to be extremely dense to believe that police would pressure her to make up a hitman story that they didn't even believe and shortly thereafter proved to be false. It requires a lack of common sense to believe such.

Your comment about not trusting police means you are willing to throw common sense out the window and to simply willing to believe they regularly doctor evidence and get witnesses to lie and must have done so here though there is zero evidence and it makes no sense.  This is a perfect example  of your bias driving you.

That same bias causes you to believe all the nonsense put out by Mike and the campaign team including the bogus claim that there are hidden interviews with police. All her statements were released.  Your claim there are hidden interviews is simply you repeating made up propaganda.  You do that with great frequency.



“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Have prosecution witnesses ever been found guilty of perjury?
« Reply #33 on: May 17, 2016, 12:56:00 AM »
The 33 meetings police has with Julie Mugford:

1) Interview day of the murders
2) 1st statement (Aug 8)
3) There while they spoke to Jeremy so spoke to her too (Aug 9)

2nd Statement done over the course of 4 days Sept 7-10
4) day one 2nd statement
5) day two 2nd statement
6) day three 2nd statement
7) day four second statement

8 ) Third statement (Sept 23)
9) Fourth statement and fingerprinted (Oct 14)
10) Go to her home to speak to her and her roommates for clarification of issues (Oct 25)
11) Fifth statement (Nov 18)
12) Visited to speak to Richard and to clarify things with her (Nov 25)
13) Spoke to her and Susan to clarify things (Dec 2)
14) Spoke to her and Liz to clarify things (Dec 9)
15) Saw her while visiting other witness (Dec 12)
16) Saw her while visiting other witnesses (Dec 13)
17) Reviewed and signed her statements as did her roommates (Dec 17)
18) Speak to her to clarify things (Jan 16)
19) Speak to her to clarify things (Feb 3)
20) Saw her while visiting other witnesses (Feb 17)
21)  Sixth Statement (March 10)
22) Speak to her to clarify things (Apr 15)
23) Speak to her and roommates to clarify things (Apr 23)
24) Seventh statement (May 8 )
25) Speak to her to clarify things (May 16)
26) Eighth statement (June 5)
27) Speak to her to clarify things (July 9)
28) Speak to her regarding information requested by Defense (Aug 6)
29) Speak to her regarding information requested by Defense (Aug 20)
30) Speak to her to clarify things while speaking to Richards (Aug 28)
31) Speak to her to clarify things (Sept 10)
32) Speak to her while seeing other witnesses (Sept 15)
33) Discuss trial arrangements (Sept 30)

“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Admin

Re: Have prosecution witnesses ever been found guilty of perjury?
« Reply #34 on: May 17, 2016, 02:04:07 AM »
You omitted the 4th October 1985, the day Jones, Mugford and Susan Battersby visited the Midland Bank to see manager Alan Dovey about the cheque fraud for which both she and Battersby were given immunity from prosecution?  This arrangement of course being dependent on her giving the police her full cooperation in the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2016, 02:45:10 AM by Admin »

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Have prosecution witnesses ever been found guilty of perjury?
« Reply #35 on: May 17, 2016, 02:14:36 AM »
You omitted the 4th Octoner 1985, the day Jones, Mugford and Susan Battersby visited the Midland Bank to see manager Alan Dovey about the cheque fraud for which both she and Battersby were given immunity from prosecution?  This of course being dependent on her giving the police her full cooperation in the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber.

She did not speak to police on that day. The list is meetings police had with her or with others and she was present as well so they also spoke to her.

“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Admin

Re: Have prosecution witnesses ever been found guilty of perjury?
« Reply #36 on: May 17, 2016, 02:46:10 AM »
She did not speak to police on that day. The list is meetings police had with her or with others and she was present as well so they also spoke to her.

Somehow I doubt that very much.  DS Jones set up the meeting and arrived at the bank before her.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Have prosecution witnesses ever been found guilty of perjury?
« Reply #37 on: May 17, 2016, 03:05:49 AM »
Somehow I doubt that very much.  DS Jones set up the meeting and arrived at the bank before her.

According to Jones he was not there with them, according to Julie and Susan he was not there with them and contemporaneous statements from the bank agent he was not there.  Dovey changed his account when giving it 16 years later but the notes he used during the trial he know longer possessed and his memory was naturally shaky.
 
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

david1819

  • Guest
Re: Have prosecution witnesses ever been found guilty of perjury?
« Reply #38 on: May 17, 2016, 03:51:06 AM »
Far from assumption I posted what happened in chronological order. Doing so demonstrates that she went to someone else who went to the police and then they went to her.  It not only demonstrates that she told her account of what Jeremy told her prior to speaking to police but also that police did not believe the story at first.  One has to be extremely dense to believe that police would pressure her to make up a hitman story that they didn't even believe and shortly thereafter proved to be false. It requires a lack of common sense to believe such.

Your comment about not trusting police means you are willing to throw common sense out the window and to simply willing to believe they regularly doctor evidence and get witnesses to lie and must have done so here though there is zero evidence and it makes no sense.  This is a perfect example  of your bias driving you.

That same bias causes you to believe all the nonsense put out by Mike and the campaign team including the bogus claim that there are hidden interviews with police. All her statements were released.  Your claim there are hidden interviews is simply you repeating made up propaganda.  You do that with great frequency.

I reject your opinions

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Have prosecution witnesses ever been found guilty of perjury?
« Reply #39 on: May 17, 2016, 05:09:24 AM »
I reject your opinions

That just validates them. You advance the positions of Mike and the campaign team.  I don't need or want your support.  I posted evidence in support of my position. The evidence contradicts your position as does logic.  It is totally illogical to claim police pressure Julie to lie about Jeremy telling her he hired MM as a hitman.  On top of being illogical there is evidence that indicates she told this story to Susan before she told it to the police. This precludes police getting her to make up such a story.  What do you offer to contradict the evidence and logic?  Nothing at all except your bias against police where you say you don't trust them. You disagree because of your bias against police.  That doesn't help establish your opinion is reasonable or has any rational basis let alone is right.  While some object to the words reasonable or rational they are legal terms.  "Rational basis" is a standard of legal review. The reasonable person standard is a theoretical standard and reasonable doubt also evaluates reasonableness.

I will stick with evaluating through the lens of what is reasonable based on logic and facts and you can be happy being guided by your biases.


 

“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline adam

Re: Have prosecution witnesses ever been found guilty of perjury?
« Reply #40 on: May 17, 2016, 06:50:33 AM »
Let's go through it:

1) Police didn't go to her and try to get her to say anything but rather she told a friend about Jeremy.

2) This friend told police what Julie said because even though Julie decided to help Jeremy by not telling all she knew the friend felt no such loyalty and was horrified.

3) Police contacted Julie in response to the story she told her friend

4) She said she decided to come clean to police rather than to say she lied to her friend and continue with the charade. If she was still with him intending to get married then him going to jail would screw up her plans and she would still have a reason to try to lie to protect him but since Since she was not with him anymore that motive to protect him no longer existed so she told them what happened.

5) Police were initially skeptical- particularly about the hitman story- but the level of detail she provided as well as her mother backing up some of the things she said about Jeremy having issues with his family convinced them she was telling the truth.

6) Julie admitted to various wrong things she did that she had no need to admit and that police would never have known about without her admission so her claim she was fully coming clean is supported.

There is no way to try suggesting police made up a story and pressured Julie to advance it. The evidence establishes she advanced this account to someone on her own before speaking to police so how could they have been the source?  Police didn't even believer her hitman story because it sounded ridiculous to them so the notion they made it up and had her say it is absurd. 

Even if she had lied about everything there is nothing to suggest police asked her to make up such lies let alone helped construct what lies she should tell.

But there is no evidence that she did lie. You choose not to believe her mainly because you say Jeremy is innocent and there is no way for him to be innocent unless she lied.

Julie told five people before telling the police. Thread already created. This shows she was planning to go to the police. There is no way all five people would have kept silent.

Liz Rimmington telephoned Stan Jones, Julie was in the room at the time. If Julie had not agreed to this, Liz Rimmington would have telephoned the police in secret. 

Once with the police, they could not force her to say anything. They knew nothing about her.

Offline adam

Re: Have prosecution witnesses ever been found guilty of perjury?
« Reply #41 on: May 17, 2016, 06:56:02 AM »
The 33 meetings police has with Julie Mugford:

1) Interview day of the murders
2) 1st statement (Aug 8)
3) There while they spoke to Jeremy so spoke to her too (Aug 9)

2nd Statement done over the course of 4 days Sept 7-10
4) day one 2nd statement
5) day two 2nd statement
6) day three 2nd statement
7) day four second statement

8 ) Third statement (Sept 23)
9) Fourth statement and fingerprinted (Oct 14)
10) Go to her home to speak to her and her roommates for clarification of issues (Oct 25)
11) Fifth statement (Nov 18)
12) Visited to speak to Richard and to clarify things with her (Nov 25)
13) Spoke to her and Susan to clarify things (Dec 2)
14) Spoke to her and Liz to clarify things (Dec 9)
15) Saw her while visiting other witness (Dec 12)
16) Saw her while visiting other witnesses (Dec 13)
17) Reviewed and signed her statements as did her roommates (Dec 17)
18) Speak to her to clarify things (Jan 16)
19) Speak to her to clarify things (Feb 3)
20) Saw her while visiting other witnesses (Feb 17)
21)  Sixth Statement (March 10)
22) Speak to her to clarify things (Apr 15)
23) Speak to her and roommates to clarify things (Apr 23)
24) Seventh statement (May 8 )
25) Speak to her to clarify things (May 16)
26) Eighth statement (June 5)
27) Speak to her to clarify things (July 9)
28) Speak to her regarding information requested by Defense (Aug 6)
29) Speak to her regarding information requested by Defense (Aug 20)
30) Speak to her to clarify things while speaking to Richards (Aug 28)
31) Speak to her to clarify things (Sept 10)
32) Speak to her while seeing other witnesses (Sept 15)
33) Discuss trial arrangements (Sept 30)

That was interesting.

Supporters complain it took several interviews to complile Julie's WS. This is no doubt normal practice. Especially for a main witness.  It is a murder trial and Julie spent 18 months with Bamber. So a lot to get down, amend and add.  The defence will spend hours grilling her on it at trial. So it's not going to be completed in one interview.

How many interviews did Bamber have to complete his WS ?

Offline John

Re: Have prosecution witnesses ever been found guilty of perjury?
« Reply #42 on: May 17, 2016, 09:09:15 AM »
That was interesting.

Supporters complain it took several interviews to complile Julie's WS. This is no doubt normal practice. Especially for a main witness.  It is a murder trial and Julie spent 18 months with Bamber. So a lot to get down, amend and add.  The defence will spend hours grilling her on it at trial. So it's not going to be completed in one interview.

How many interviews did Bamber have to complete his WS ?

Had Julie lied I'm quite sure it would have been revealed during cross examination at the trial.  Any chink in her armour would have been exposed and the case would have fallen apart.  It didn't happen that way though, Julie was a most credible witness, the defence failed to find any weakness or inconsistency in her story.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2016, 10:17:27 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 John

Re: Have prosecution witnesses ever been found guilty of perjury?
« Reply #43 on: May 17, 2016, 09:29:55 AM »
According to Jones he was not there with them, according to Julie and Susan he was not there with them and contemporaneous statements from the bank agent he was not there.  Dovey changed his account when giving it 16 years later but the notes he used during the trial he know longer possessed and his memory was naturally shaky.

This is one of the aspects of this case which bothers me.  We know Mugford and Battersby were given immunity from prosecution from the police documents available to us, they effectively turned Queen's Evidence.  They both got off Scot free after committing cheque fraud and Mugford in particular was allowed to get on with her life without a stain on her record and to benefit from a substantial sum of cash by selling her story to the Press.  I find that very distasteful in the circumstances regardless of Jeremy Bamber.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2016, 10:12:31 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.

david1819

  • Guest
Re: Have prosecution witnesses ever been found guilty of perjury?
« Reply #44 on: May 17, 2016, 09:52:06 AM »
That just validates them.

Gif removed as could be considered goading.

You advance the positions of Mike

Do I believe the police shot Shelia? No! Do I believe Shelia was found on the bed? No! Do I Believe Jeremy has a daughter? No!

It is totally illogical to claim police pressure Julie to lie about Jeremy telling her he hired MM as a hitman.  On top of being illogical there is evidence that indicates she told this story to Susan before she told it to the police. This precludes police getting her to make up such a story.

Julies testimony contradicts the facts of the crime, its the same false information police gave AE and Robert Boutflour. You know this and you still try to peddle Julie as a credible witness, I simply cannot take you seriously while you attempt to do this.

I will stick with evaluating through the lens of what is reasonable based on logic and facts and you can be happy being guided by your biases.

One day you will realise the opposite is the case.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2016, 09:59:01 AM by Holly Goodhead »