Have prosecution witnesses ever been found guilty of perjury?

[Holly Goodhead]

A polite reminder please that we have a zero tolerance to any text, emoticons, gifs or the like which have the potential to cause any conflict on the forum.  Please respect each others views when disagreeing.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[John]

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.

In some aspects yes, Julie was adept at repeating what she was told, in that she was very naive.

[Holly Goodhead]

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.

It's unfortunate that we don't have access to JM's trial testimony to see for ourselves exactly what was said.

How do we know whether jurors found her credible or not?  The fact JB was found guilty by a majority 10 - 2 doesn't tell us anything about the individual aspects of the case and on what basis individual jurors arrived at their verdicts.

Also we have no idea how good, bad or indifferent Geoffrey Rivlin was at cross-examining and whether for whatever reason(s) he might have been awkward around opposite members of the sex whether in the witness box or not.  We do know Geoffrey Rivlin quit advocacy a year of so after the WHF case to take on the role of full-time judge.

[John]

It's unfortunate that we don't have access to JM's trial testimony to see for ourselves exactly what was said.

How do we know whether jurors found her credible or not?  The fact JB was found guilty by a majority 10 - 2 doesn't tell us anything about the individual aspects of the case and on what basis individual jurors arrived at their verdicts.

Also we have no idea how good, bad or indifferent Geoffrey Rivlin was at cross-examining and whether for whatever reason(s) he might have been awkward around opposite members of the sex whether in the witness box or not.  We do know Geoffrey Rivlin quit advocacy a year of so after the WHF case to take on the role of full-time judge.

The background details given by Julie at the trial would have set the scene, much of it corroborated by Julie's mother and others.  Even admitting that she was an accomplice in that she obtained sleeping pills on Jeremy's behalf must have been quite damning.  Of anyone, Julie was best placed to reveal Jeremy Bamber's innermost thoughts, I have no doubt her testimony went a long way to see him convicted.  No wonder therefore that the police bent over backwards to accommodate her.





Julie Mugford is escorted from Court by police minder DS Stan Jones.

[david1819]

In some aspects yes, Julie was adept at repeating what she was told, in that she was very naive.

Not only that, her statements are contradictory.



If she already knew Jeremy done it why would she need to consult the dead?

Also Julies testimony about Jeremy's alleged confession has allot of details yet no mention of a silencer. The blood was not "discovered" inside the silencer until a few weeks after Julie "came forward" thus its not mentioned in her statements because the police did know its significance thus could not coerce her into discussing it.
 

[John]

Not only that, her statements are contradictory.



If she already knew Jeremy done it why would she need to consult the dead?

Also Julies testimony about Jeremy's alleged confession has allot of details yet no mention of a silencer. The blood was not "discovered" inside the silencer until a few weeks after Julie "came forward" thus its not mentioned in her statements because the police did know its significance thus could not coerce her into discussing it.

To be honest I don't think she knew what was happening.  She must have felt so alone and isolated.

[Holly Goodhead]

The background details given by Julie at the trial would have set the scene, much of it corroborated by Julie's mother and others.  Even admitting that she was an accomplice in that she obtained sleeping pills on Jeremy's behalf must have been quite damning.  Of anyone, Julie was best placed to reveal Jeremy Bamber's innermost thoughts, I have no doubt her testimony went a long way to see him convicted.  No wonder therefore that the police bent over backwards to accommodate her.





Julie Mugford is escorted from Court by police minder DS Stan Jones.

But the same could be said of the four 13 year old female prosecution witnesses in the case of Stefan Kiszko.  Their stories were quite elaborate involving stalking over a month and indecent exposure.  The defending QC was David Waddington who went on to become Home Secretary.  As I said yesterday the girls admitted years later they lied simply for "a laugh".  They made the whole thing up.

My view is that the likes of David Waddington and Geoffrey Rivlin were really out of touch with members of the opposite sex.  They attended all boys schools.  Followed by university and the law at a time when there were very few females around.  There's no evidence of either man marrying.  If they had same sex siblings it may well be the case they barely spoke with any females other than their mothers until they found themselves cross-examining them in the witness box.

Who is the officer in the second photo bottom left hand corner?  He also appears in the police press conference photo post trial.

[Caroline]

Not only that, her statements are contradictory.



If she already knew Jeremy done it why would she need to consult the dead?

Also Julies testimony about Jeremy's alleged confession has allot of details yet no mention of a silencer. The blood was not "discovered" inside the silencer until a few weeks after Julie "came forward" thus its not mentioned in her statements because the police did know its significance thus could not coerce her into discussing it.

You have mentioned this before, the reason she didn't know Jeremy had done it is because he said he hired MM.

[Myster]

Who is the officer in the second photo bottom left hand corner?  He also appears in the police press conference photo post trial.

Dunno... but you'll be saying you fancy the pants off him next!!! 

[John]

Who is the officer in the second photo bottom left hand corner?  He also appears in the police press conference photo post trial.

Not sure Holly, what I can tell you however is that it isn't Ron Cook and DCI Taff Jones died before the trial.



Essex Police Press Conference. Deputy Chief Constable Ronald Stone (second from left), Ron Cook (far right).

[Myster]

While we're on a photofest... Mike Ainsley, ACI in the Bamber case in 1985...

http://simonwilkinson.photoshelter.com/image/I00001KZ8TRp80eE

[Myster]

... and Deputy Chief Constable Ronald Stone, second from the left in the above joint press conference photo.

[APRIL]

But the same could be said of the four 13 year old female prosecution witnesses in the case of Stefan Kiszko.  Their stories were quite elaborate involving stalking over a month and indecent exposure.  The defending QC was David Waddington who went on to become Home Secretary.  As I said yesterday the girls admitted years later they lied simply for "a laugh".  They made the whole thing up.

My view is that the likes of David Waddington and Geoffrey Rivlin were really out of touch with members of the opposite sex.  They attended all boys schools.  Followed by university and the law at a time when there were very few females around.  There's no evidence of either man marrying.  If they had same sex siblings it may well be the case they barely spoke with any females other than their mothers until they found themselves cross-examining them in the witness box.

Who is the officer in the second photo bottom left hand corner?  He also appears in the police press conference photo post trial.

Dunno, but it looks as if Julie may have had designs on him.

[APRIL]

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.

It's the pictures accompanying her story which I find so distasteful. I can see -FEEL- her relief that her ordeal was over, but such behaviour was tantamount to dancing on the victims' graves and making mockery of their deaths. It may also be one of the reasons that I hung on so long to Jeremy being innocent.

[david1819]

You have mentioned this before, the reason she didn't know Jeremy had done it is because he said he hired MM.

Where does Julie specify this?