Another biased video intended to smear Julie Mugford.

[John]

This is the latest propaganda offering from official camp Bamber.   Yet another video intended merely to smear Jeremy Bamber's former girlfriend and main witness against him, Julie Mugford.

The comments which accompanied the video are as follows...

Published on Oct 6, 2014

Julie Mugford was nothing more than a woman scorned when, in 1985, she gave false information to police that would go on to help send her ex-boyfriend, Jeremy Bamber, to prison for life. Julie knows more than most that Jeremy did not kill his family and this video touches on her character and actions before and after the tragedies and Jeremy's arrest.

If I didn't know any better I would say that she has a very good case for libel against the producers of that video as she is being accused of perjury and of perverting the course of justice.

I must say ngb, I am really surprised that a barrister would condone such conduct.

[Holly Goodhead]

I couldn't agree more John.  I listened to it yesterday for the first time and found myself CRINGING. 

I see JM a victim of EP: young woman; no previous dealings with police; no legal representation during interviews; no adult independent male at trial only her mother and DS Jones.

In fairness to NGB he has no input to the so-called 'official site'.  A poster has simply lifted it from there onto the forum.  As to whether NGB should pull it  &%+((£

FAO JB SUPPORTERS:

Why is your wrath/criticism always directed at prosecution witnesses and never JB's defence who imo are responsible for this MoJ?  Imo many of the prosecution witnesses were 'unreliable' but a decent defence team will show them to be just that.  May I suggest you look at the prosecution witnesses and defence in the Stefan Kiszko case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed

[Andrea]

This is the latest propaganda offering from official camp Bamber.   Yet another video intended merely to smear Jeremy Bamber's former girlfriend and main witness against him, Julie Mugford.

The comments which accompanied the video are as follows...

Published on Oct 6, 2014

Julie Mugford was nothing more than a woman scorned when, in 1985, she gave false information to police that would go on to help send her ex-boyfriend, Jeremy Bamber, to prison for life. Julie knows more than most that Jeremy did not kill his family and this video touches on her character and actions before and after the tragedies and Jeremy's arrest.

If I didn't know any better I would say that she has a very good case for libel against the producers of that video as she is being accused of perjury and of perverting the course of justice.

I must say ngb, I am really surprised that a barrister would condone such conduct.

She should be left alone to get on with her life, she's done well for herself becoming Headteacher at the school she works at. She's clearly worked hard at her career to get where she is now, and good for her.

He wasn't convicted on her evidence alone. there were other factors, obviously. And we all know what they are.

[Mr Moderator]

She should be left alone to get on with her life, she's done well for herself becoming Headteacher at the school she works at. She's clearly worked hard at her career to get where she is now, and good for her.

He wasn't convicted on her evidence alone. there were other factors, obviously. And we all know what they are.

She has gone very much higher than that in fact and is a Director and one of the top ten highest earners within the Manitoba Schools Division.  She has the potential to go much higher too.

[Andrea]

Wow, she has done well.

Mind you, she was obviously determined to go into the teaching profession, that determination has paid off.

I'm glad for her. Bet she has a nice life over in Canada. My friend lives there and she loves it.

[John]

Wow, she has done well.

Mind you, she was obviously determined to go into the teaching profession, that determination has paid off.

I'm glad for her. Bet she has a nice life over in Canada. My friend lives there and she loves it.

She has done well despite what went on in 1985 and 1986.  I have always said that although Julie had her faults as a student she did come through in the end even though some of Bamber's supporters still contend that she was compelled to testify by Essex Police.  Lets not forget that Julie was never part of Bamber's treacherous plan to do away with his family and when she realised in the end that the man she adored was in reality a monster, she did the right thing and testified against him.

[Andrea]

She has done well despite what went on in 1985 and 1986.  I have always said that although Julie had her faults as a student she did come through in the end even though some of Bamber's supporters still contend that she was compelled to testify by Essex Police.  Lets not forget that Julie was never part of Bamber's treacherous plan to do away with his family and when she realised in the end that the man she adored was in reality a monster, she did the right thing and testified against him.

I agree. At least that evil child killing b........ is locked up.

[John]

I agree. At least that evil child killing b........ is locked up.

He's a reformed character according to some on blue not that he has anything to reform from according to others.  No longer a danger to his family appears to be the mantra.  This is probably the next campaign ie to get him out on parole.

[Caroline]

He's a reformed character according to some on blue not that he has anything to reform from according to others.  No longer a danger to his family appears to be the mantra.  This is probably the next campaign ie to get him out on parole.

Unless he makes a confession, or something proves him innocent, I don't think he will ever be released.

[Holly Goodhead]

Given that JB has been inside for over 29 years and hasn't confessed I can't see him ever doing so especially when he maintains he's the victim of a MoJ.

I don't think proof of innocence is required, is it?  I thought the criteria at trial was based on 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt

I don't know where all this 'innocence' talk comes from?  The verdict is based on guilty OR not guilty (beyond reasonable doubt).  It's not based on innocence as far as I'm aware.

My understanding of the judicial system in the English courts is that no one other than the jurors actually knows what weight was applied to the various aspects of the prosecution's case.  Eg the supporters bang on about JM but it may well be that jurors gave little or no weight to her testimony.  This follows through to the appeal courts ie it is not necessary to overcome the prosecution's case as no one knows what aspects of the case jurors gave weight to.  What is necessary is some new evidence or legal argument as per the CoA's criteria below.  As far as new evidence goes I think this can probably best be summarised by saying ok had this been presented to the jury would they have reached a different verdict and if the 3 appeal court judges think maybe then the conviction will be quashed.  Simples  *&*%£

CCRC's Criteria for referral to COA

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/criminal-cases-review/policies-and-procedures/ccrc-q-and-a.pdf

What is “new evidence or legal argument”?

If we are going to be able to refer your case for an appeal we will
usually need to find some important new evidence or legal argument. Usually this means something that was not covered at your trial or your
appeal. For example it may be new evidence not known about at the
time, or something that has changed since your trial, like the
appearance of a new witness or a new development in science. We can’t usually look again at things that were known about by the jury,
the judge or the magistrates, even if you believe that they made the
wrong decision in your case. We need to identify something new that
wasn’t raised back then, and that the judges at your appeal didn’t
know either, that makes your case look significantly different now. In some cases it might be a new legal argument, rather than new
evidence, that means we can refer a case. New legal argument is
usually some significant new point of law that has not been made before, such as a complaint that the judge’s summing-up was faulty, or
that the prosecution applied the law incorrectly

COA criteria for quashing convinction

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/19/section/23

The Court of Appeal shall, in considering whether to receive any evidence, have regard in particular to—
.

(a)

whether the evidence appears to the Court to be capable of belief;
.

(b)

whether it appears to the Court that the evidence may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
.

(c)

whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings from which the appeal lies on an issue which is the subject of the appeal; and
.

(d)

whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in those proceedings.

[adam]

Given that JB has been inside for over 29 years and hasn't confessed I can't see him ever doing so especially when he maintains he's the victim of a MoJ.

I don't think proof of innocence is required, is it?  I thought the criteria at trial was based on 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt

I don't know where all this 'innocence' talk comes from?  The verdict is based on guilty OR not guilty (beyond reasonable doubt).  It's not based on innocence as far as I'm aware.

My understanding of the judicial system in the English courts is that no one other than the jurors actually knows what weight was applied to the various aspects of the prosecution's case.  Eg the supporters bang on about JM but it may well be that jurors gave little or no weight to her testimony.  This follows through to the appeal courts ie it is not necessary to overcome the prosecution's case as no one knows what aspects of the case jurors gave weight to.  What is necessary is some new evidence or legal argument as per the CoA's criteria below.  As far as new evidence goes I think this can probably best be summarised by saying ok had this been presented to the jury would they have reached a different verdict and if the 3 appeal court judges think maybe then the conviction will be quashed.  Simples  *&*%£

CCRC's Criteria for referral to COA

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/criminal-cases-review/policies-and-procedures/ccrc-q-and-a.pdf

What is “new evidence or legal argument”?

If we are going to be able to refer your case for an appeal we will
usually need to find some important new evidence or legal argument. Usually this means something that was not covered at your trial or your
appeal. For example it may be new evidence not known about at the
time, or something that has changed since your trial, like the
appearance of a new witness or a new development in science. We can’t usually look again at things that were known about by the jury,
the judge or the magistrates, even if you believe that they made the
wrong decision in your case. We need to identify something new that
wasn’t raised back then, and that the judges at your appeal didn’t
know either, that makes your case look significantly different now. In some cases it might be a new legal argument, rather than new
evidence, that means we can refer a case. New legal argument is
usually some significant new point of law that has not been made before, such as a complaint that the judge’s summing-up was faulty, or
that the prosecution applied the law incorrectly

COA criteria for quashing convinction

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/19/section/23

The Court of Appeal shall, in considering whether to receive any evidence, have regard in particular to—
.

(a)

whether the evidence appears to the Court to be capable of belief;
.

(b)

whether it appears to the Court that the evidence may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
.

(c)

whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings from which the appeal lies on an issue which is the subject of the appeal; and
.

(d)

whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in those proceedings.

That was interesting.

There was a ten year gap between the 2002 & 2012 appeals. A long time. But it would still be hard to come up with compelling new evidence to get a release.

As if happened there was not enough to get referred to the COA. Jeremy's relatives actually stated their dismay that the case was referred to the COA in 2002.