UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: adam on May 15, 2016, 08:54:10 PM
-
Julie testified for six hours I believe. Repeating what is in her witness statements.
Basically she said under oath that Bamber planned the massacre, told her 'tonights the night', told her 'everything is going well' at 3am and then admitted his involvement the following day.
I've previously posted dozens of obvious disadvantages of Julie accusing an innocent man of murdering his family. However she went full steam ahead in 1985 obviously not considering any of these.
The defence claimed she lied because she was apparently jilted.
Defendants such as Bamber will spend hours lying in court. They will plead 'not guilty' to try to prevent being sent to prison. No one wants to spend time in prison. Criminals hope to commit a crime and not get caught, and enjoy the rewards. Many feel no remorse. The last thing they want is punishment. So it's not surprising they lie in court and deny any involvement. Many look for a technicality, some are successful, a lot are found guilty.
Of course there is much less incentive for a star witness to telling huge lies over several hours in court. They are not the accused and under no threat of prison.
Is there a major case where a star prosecution witness has been outed as lying in court. Either during or after the trial? Not a little lie, fabrication, loss of memory, or innocent mistake. But a star witness spending hours in court accusing an innocent man of crime, which will result in a 20+ year sentence for the defendant.
Admin note.
I have edited this post slightly in
order to comply with forum rules.
80
-
It takes an extremely accomplished pergurer to be able to give evidence in a high profile trial for hour after hour and day after day and not be caught out. Julie Mugford by all accounts was an extremely credible witness who was more than able to fend off the searching questions put to her by the defence.
She was unshakable despite the pressures she was put under with Jeremy Bamber glaring at her across the courtroom. The jury certainly accepted Julie's version of events and rejected the defence rehearsed by Jeremy Bamber.
-
Julie testified for six hours I believe. Repeating what is in her witness statements.
Basically she said under oath that Bamber planned the massacre, told her 'tonights the night', told her 'everything is going well' at 3am and then admitted his involvement the following day.
I've previously posted dozens of obvious disadvantages of Julie accusing an innocent man of murdering his family. However she went full steam ahead in 1985 obviously not considering any of these.
The defence claimed she lied because she was apparently jilted.
Defendants such as Bamber will spend hours lying in court. They will plead 'not guilty' to try to prevent being sent to prison. No one wants to spend time in prison. Criminals hope to commit a crime and not get caught, and enjoy the rewards. Many feel no remorse. The last thing they want is punishment. So it's not surprising they lie in court and deny any involvement. Many look for a technicality, some are successful, a lot are found guilty.
Of course there is much less incentive for a star witness to telling huge lies over several hours in court. They are not the accused and under no threat of prison.
Is there a major case where a star prosecution witness has been outed as lying in court. Either during or after the trial? Not a little lie, fabrication, loss of memory, or innocent mistake. But a star witness spending hours in court accusing an innocent man of crime, which will result in a 20+ year sentence for the defendant.
Admin note.
I have edited this post slightly in
order to comply with forum rules.
Yes, Michael Carson in the West Memphis Three trial is a perfect example, He even admits he lied.
https://youtu.be/FlbkdM8G7Ys?t=40m9s (https://youtu.be/FlbkdM8G7Ys?t=40m9s)
-
In anwser to your question, I can't think off the top of my head of any cases where witnesses have been found guilty of perjury but I know of cases where prosecution witnesses have admitted to lying.
Is it in the courts interest to charge witnesses with perjury? If it does and witnesses are subsequently found guilty what would this say about the court process and judicial system?
-
One high profile perjury conviction was that of Tommy Sheridan, former convenor of the Scottish Socialist Party, who was sentenced to three years after being found to have lied in the defamation suit he brought against The News of the World. The SCCRC later refused to refer his case to the Court of Appeal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_Advocate_v_Sheridan_and_Sheridan
-
Yes, Michael Carson in the West Memphis Three trial is a perfect example, He even admits he lied.
https://youtu.be/FlbkdM8G7Ys?t=40m9s (https://youtu.be/FlbkdM8G7Ys?t=40m9s)
That was a supposed jailhouse confession claim. Those are notoriously unreliable anyway.
-
Thanks. Witnesses have been accused and found guilty of perjury before.
But has there been anything as serious as what Julie has been accused of by some Bamber supporters?
There won't be an example exactly like Julie's. But any murder trial where it was proven the main prosecution witness/accuser lied would be interesting.
-
If at trial or afterwards a witness either publically confessed to perjury or was found out, what would the punishment be ? Surely a long prison sentance.
They would have wasted the police and courts time and resources. As well as several lawyers time and the tax payers money. Jurors might have had to put their lives on hold for several weeks to listen to and deliberate a case which shouldn't be there.
-
If at trial or afterwards a witness either publically confessed to perjury or was found out, what would the punishment be ? Surely a long prison sentance.
They would have wasted the police and courts time and resources. As well as several lawyers time and the tax payers money. Jurors might have had to put their lives on hold for several weeks to listen to and deliberate a case which shouldn't be there.
I thought many of your threads, especially those with 'primary sources', along with your 'mountain of circumstantial evidence' and your 'forensic library' showed the case was about more than JM? &%+((£
-
Thanks. Witnesses have been accused and found guilty of perjury before.
But has there been anything as serious as what Julie has been accused of by some Bamber supporters?
There won't be an example exactly like Julie's. But any murder trial where it was proven the main prosecution witness/accuser lied would be interesting.
Yes four 13 year old girls, all friends, testified against Stefan Kiszko. Years later they all admitted they lied for "a laugh". At trial the judge praised them. Post verdict one girls mother called for SK to be hanged.
When the CoA quashed SK's conviction the girls went unpunished. Only one apologised.
-
If at trial or afterwards a witness either publically confessed to perjury or was found out, what would the punishment be ? Surely a long prison sentance.
They would have wasted the police and courts time and resources. As well as several lawyers time and the tax payers money. Jurors might have had to put their lives on hold for several weeks to listen to and deliberate a case which shouldn't be there.
Imo JM was coerced into providing the testimony she gave along with her housemates: Susan Battersby and James Richard. Many of the officers involved are now deceased.
-
Thanks. Witnesses have been accused and found guilty of perjury before.
But has there been anything as serious as what Julie has been accused of by some Bamber supporters?
There won't be an example exactly like Julie's. But any murder trial where it was proven the main prosecution witness/accuser lied would be interesting.
Martin Tankleff was wrongly convicted of killing his parents, when he stood trial for the murder of his adoptive parents, The real killer was a prosecution witness! he stood in the dock and testified
If at trial or afterwards a witness either publically confessed to perjury or was found out, what would the punishment be ? Surely a long prison sentance.
They would have wasted the police and courts time and resources. As well as several lawyers time and the tax payers money. Jurors might have had to put their lives on hold for several weeks to listen to and deliberate a case which shouldn't be there.
Its very unlikely that's how it would unfold. [ deleted - speculation ]
-
Martin Tankleff was wrongly convicted of killing his parents, when he stood trial for the murder of his adoptive parents, The real killer was a prosecution witness! he stood in the dock and testified
Its very unlikely that's how it would unfold. [ deleted - speculation ]
There is no point discussing why people believe Julie gave the evidence she did. Supporters will say she did so because she was jilted. Which is incredibly weak when up against the huge disadvantages.
Tankleff stood as a prosecution witness as he was the culprit. So had a reason to. As my thread post said, criminals will have no hesitation in lying under oath. Julie had no reason to.
Anyway, are there any examples of a star witness testifying for several hours that someone committed murder/s who was proved to have lied. It really is warped to accuse an innocent man of murder, why was it done ?
-
Tankleff stood as a prosecution witness as he was the culprit. So had a reason to. As my thread post said, criminals will have no hesitation in lying under oath. Julie had no reason to.
Anyway, are there any examples of a star witness testifying for several hours that someone committed murder/s who was proved to have lied. It really is warped to accuse an innocent man of murder, why was it done.
Yes, Michael Carson at the trials of Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin, I told you this yesterday.
-
Thanks. So one case, which Scipio is disputing.
It's fair to say that if Julie is ever found out to have lied and Bamber is innocent, it will be the biggest and most spectacular perjury in history. Testifying that a man who had just lost his family, actually killed them all would bring gasps around the world.
-
Yes four 13 year old girls, all friends, testified against Stefan Kiszko. Years later they all admitted they lied for "a laugh". At trial the judge praised them. Post verdict one girls mother called for SK to be hanged.
When the CoA quashed SK's conviction the girls went unpunished. Only one apologised.
That must rank amongst one of the most appalling examples of all time given what Mr Kiszko went through, those girls should have been jailed.
Stefan Ivan Kiszko, a 23-year-old local tax clerk of Ukrainian/Slovenian parentage, served 16 years in prison after he was wrongly convicted of her sexual assault and murder. His ordeal was described by one MP as "the worst miscarriage of justice of all time."
Kiszko was released in 1992 after forensic evidence showed that he could not have committed the murder. He died in December 1993. Ronald Castree (born 18 October 1953 in Littleborough, Lancashire) was found guilty of the crime on 12 November 2007.
-
Thanks. So one case, which Scipio is disputing.
It's fair to say that if Julie is ever found out to have lied and Bamber is innocent, it will be the biggest and most spectacular perjury in history. Testifying that a man who had just lost his family, actually killed them all would bring gasps around the world.
I don't think you need worry Adam, Julie told it as it was. Had she attempted to lie I'm quite sure the defence barrister would have torn her to shreds.
-
Martin Tankleff was wrongly convicted of killing his parents, when he stood trial for the murder of his adoptive parents, The real killer was a prosecution witness! he stood in the dock and testified
Its very unlikely that's how it would unfold. [ deleted - speculation ]
Such speculation doesn't make sense because it doesn't make sense for the the police to invent a hit man scenario when they were only after Jeremy. Having already admitted to one mistake, they would hardly make up another which would fall flat at the first hurdle. Also, they couldn't be sure that Julie wouldn't come clean and tell the court she had been threatened into testifying against Jeremy but that she wasn't prepared to lie and put away an innocent man.
-
Such speculation doesn't make sense because it doesn't make sense for the the police to invent a hit man scenario when they were only after Jeremy. Having already admitted to one mistake, they would hardly make up another which would fall flat at the first hurdle. Also, they couldn't be sure that Julie wouldn't come clean and tell the court she had been threatened into testifying against Jeremy but that she wasn't prepared to lie and put away an innocent man.
An excellent point Caroline, I think too many people have been reading Mike's nonsense.
-
Such speculation doesn't make sense because it doesn't make sense for the the police to invent a hit man scenario when they were only after Jeremy. Having already admitted to one mistake, they would hardly make up another which would fall flat at the first hurdle. Also, they couldn't be sure that Julie wouldn't come clean and tell the court she had been threatened into testifying against Jeremy but that she wasn't prepared to lie and put away an innocent man.
Yes but they also needed a credible prosecution witness and to account for her lengthy delay in 'spilling the beans'. Introducing a hit man creates some distance.
Depends how well EP sold it to JM that JB was responsible and/or how much filth they had on her and/or what sort of threats they might have used. Did JB say she could be an accessory to murder or did EP?
ETA: JB had a solicitor present during his interviews under caution. As far as I'm aware JM wasn't interviewed under caution but no solicitor or other independent wtiness was present during her interviews.
-
That must rank amongst one of the most appalling examples of all time given what Mr Kiszko went through, those girls should have been jailed.
Stefan Ivan Kiszko, a 23-year-old local tax clerk of Ukrainian/Slovenian parentage, served 16 years in prison after he was wrongly convicted of her sexual assault and murder. His ordeal was described by one MP as "the worst miscarriage of justice of all time."
Kiszko was released in 1992 after forensic evidence showed that he could not have committed the murder. He died in December 1993. Ronald Castree (born 18 October 1953 in Littleborough, Lancashire) was found guilty of the crime on 12 November 2007.
I watched a film about the case a couple of years ago on YouTube. It was very moving especially seeing his mother, a demure figure, constantly stonewalled. The film seems to have disappeared from YouTube but it's available here for £79.99.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B0010TG1VW/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=all
-
Yes but they also needed a credible prosecution witness and to account for her lengthy delay in 'spilling the beans'. Introducing a hit man creates some distance.
Depends how well EP sold it to JM that JB was responsible and/or how much filth they had on her and/or what sort of threats they might have used. Did JB say she could be an accessory to murder or did EP?
ETA: JB had a solicitor present during his interviews under caution. As far as I'm aware JM wasn't interviewed under caution but no solicitor or other independent wtiness was present during her interviews.
Introducing a hit man creates an unnecessary complication. The very fact that the hit man was supposed to be MM makes it more likely it came from Jeremy. He had a grudge against MM for sleeping with Suzette Ford.
Witnesses don't need a solicitor present and she clearly didn't think one was necessary.
-
Introducing a hit man creates an unnecessary complication. The very fact that the hit man was supposed to be MM makes it more likely it came from Jeremy. He had a grudge against MM for sleeping with Suzette Ford.
Witnesses don't need a solicitor present and she clearly didn't think one was necessary.
The prosecution had an 'unnecessary complication' in that the main prosecution witness did not tell anyone about JB's 'revelations' until 27th Aug and the authorities were not involved until 8th Sept.
It seems to me that the prosecution read through JM's WS's in preparation for the forthcoming trial and homed in on the 'unnecessary complication' hence the following WS dated 8th May 1986.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=287.0;attach=1158
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=287.0;attach=1160
How do you know JB held a grudge against MM for sleeping with Suzette Ford? From CAL Page 67:
"While she and Jeremy were out in the car, Sue confessed to Jeremy that she had spent a night with Matthew McDonald, although they were both so drunk no sex was involved".
How far do you think they went Caro?
-
The prosecution had an 'unnecessary complication' in that the main prosecution witness did not tell anyone about JB's 'revelations' until 27th Aug and the authorities were not involved until 8th Sept.
It seems to me that the prosecution read through JM's WS's in preparation for the forthcoming trial and homed in on the 'unnecessary complication' hence the following WS date 8th May 1986.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=287.0;attach=1158
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=287.0;attach=1160
How do you know JB held a grudge against MM for sleeping with Suzette Ford? From CAL Page 67:
"While she and Jeremy were out in the car, Sue confessed to Jeremy that she had spent a night with Matthew McDonald, although they were both so drunk no sex was involved".
How far do you think they went Caro?
Far enough for Jeremy to hold a grudge. It makes no sense whatsoever for the police to have included MM in their fabricated story and trust that Julie wouldn't crumble when cross examined and reveal she had been coached. It also makes no sense for Julie to have included MM in her 'woman scorned' revenge plot. It does make sense that Jeremy might have told Julie that MM was involved, because 1. he held a grudge, 2. he may not have wanted Julie to know the whole truth, so that if she did go to the police, she would be quickly discredited. He just didn't think it through.
-
The prosecution had an 'unnecessary complication' in that the main prosecution witness did not tell anyone about JB's 'revelations' until 27th Aug and the authorities were not involved until 8th Sept.
It seems to me that the prosecution read through JM's WS's in preparation for the forthcoming trial and homed in on the 'unnecessary complication' hence the following WS dated 8th May 1986.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=287.0;attach=1158
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=287.0;attach=1160
How do you know JB held a grudge against MM for sleeping with Suzette Ford? From CAL Page 67:
"While she and Jeremy were out in the car, Sue confessed to Jeremy that she had spent a night with Matthew McDonald, although they were both so drunk no sex was involved".
How far do you think they went Caro?
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.
-
Far enough for Jeremy to hold a grudge. It makes no sense whatsoever for the police to have included MM in their fabricated story and trust that Julie wouldn't crumble when cross examined and reveal she had been coached. It also makes no sense for Julie to have included MM in her 'woman scorned' revenge plot. It does make sense that Jeremy might have told Julie that MM was involved, because 1. he held a grudge, 2. he may not have wanted Julie to know the whole truth, so that if she did go to the police, she would be quickly discredited. He just didn't think it through.
There's no firm evidence JB held a grudge against MM for a drunken fumble with his then girlfriend.
JM claimed she asked JB on 7th Aug if he carried out the murders and he claimed he didn't but he arranged for MM to do the deed. Without this what would the alternative be?
-
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.
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.
-
Yes but they also needed a credible prosecution witness and to account for her lengthy delay in 'spilling the beans'. Introducing a hit man creates some distance.
Depends how well EP sold it to JM that JB was responsible and/or how much filth they had on her and/or what sort of threats they might have used. Did JB say she could be an accessory to murder or did EP?
ETA: JB had a solicitor present during his interviews under caution. As far as I'm aware JM wasn't interviewed under caution but no solicitor or other independent wtiness was present during her interviews.
Julie was a witness, not a suspect. As for the McDonald story, the whole idea that Essex Police put Julie up to blaming him is quite ludicrous. Bamber needed a scape goat because he knew that if he confessed to shooting the family Julie might go to the police. It just shows how naive she really was back then to think someone would shoot five people for two grand. Julie was a silly girl and easily taken in by the looks of it.
-
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.
I choose not to believe JM's testimony based on the inconsistencies in her WS's. EG in her WS of 8th Sept she claims on 7th Aug, whilst at Bourtree Cottage, she asked JB if he carried out the murders. She claims he replied "Matthew (MM) did it". JB then proceeded to tell her how he planned the murders with MM. According to JM, JB then said "We should not talk about it in the house in case the house was being bugged":
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1112
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1114
This makes no sense whatsoever. JM claims JB confessed about how he arranged for MM to carry out the murders and then in the next sentence says we shouldn't talk about it in case the house was being bugged! If JB thought the house was being bugged why would he confess?
I'm sorry I just cannot take any of this seriously.
-
I choose not to believe JM's testimony based on the inconsistencies in her WS's. EG in her WS of 8th Sept she claims on 7th Aug, whilst at Bourtree Cottage, she asked JB if he carried out the murders. She claims he replied "Matthew (MM) did it". JB then proceeded to tell her how he planned the murders with MM. According to JM, JB then said "We should not talk about it in the house in case the house was being bugged":
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1112
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1114
This makes no sense whatsoever. JM claims JB confessed about how he arranged for MM to carry out the murders and then in the next sentence says we shouldn't talk about it in case the house was being bugged! If JB thought the house was being bugged why would he confess?
I'm sorry I just cannot take any of this seriously.
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.
-
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.
-
He told her in the lounge at Bourtree Cottage.
As you do @)(++(*
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://i.imgur.com/umyxd.jpg)
(http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000xWHY4ZBJaF0/s/750/750/133977-3.jpg)
Julie Mugford is escorted from Court by police minder DS Stan Jones.
-
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.
(http://s32.postimg.org/vlavzabr9/jmthedead.jpg)
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.
-
Not only that, her statements are contradictory.
(http://s32.postimg.org/vlavzabr9/jmthedead.jpg)
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.
-
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.
(http://i.imgur.com/umyxd.jpg)
(http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000xWHY4ZBJaF0/s/750/750/133977-3.jpg)
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.
-
Not only that, her statements are contradictory.
(http://s32.postimg.org/vlavzabr9/jmthedead.jpg)
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.
-
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!!! %#&%%5 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/)
-
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.
(http://i.imgur.com/V2j7o.jpg)
Essex Police Press Conference. Deputy Chief Constable Ronald Stone (second from left), Ron Cook (far right).
-
While we're on a photofest... Mike Ainsley, ACI in the Bamber case in 1985...
http://simonwilkinson.photoshelter.com/image/I00001KZ8TRp80eE (http://simonwilkinson.photoshelter.com/image/I00001KZ8TRp80eE)
-
... and Deputy Chief Constable Ronald Stone, second from the left in the above joint press conference photo.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
I agree April, I also believe she would never have squealed on him had they not fallen out.
-
Dunno... but you'll be saying you fancy the pants off him next!!! %#&%%5 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/)
He looks professional and thoughtful unlike some of them!
-
Dunno, but it looks as if Julie may have had designs on him.
Maybe or she could be looking beyond him at the waiting press.
-
Not sure Holly, what I can tell you however is that it isn't Ron Cook and DCI Taff Jones died before the trial.
(http://i.imgur.com/V2j7o.jpg)
Essex Police Press Conference. Deputy Chief Constable Ronald Stone (second from left), Ron Cook (far right).
Is that def DI Cook? He looks so different in the CTSB prog albeit this was filmed years later. I'm not even sure they look alike in film footage from the trial?
(http://i.imgur.com/dCznj.jpg)
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1986/10/06/AS061086012/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1
Could the officer with glasses be Chief Sup George Harris page 3:
http://www.essex.police.uk/museum/thelaw/n_8306lw.pdf
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZOzB6ImixTY/UuVouuaS6oI/AAAAAAAAKNo/f2ClSYST6WI/s1600/Ronald+Cook+(detective).jpg)
Former DI Ron Cook.
-
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.
They were not given immunity. They went to the bank and told them what they did and said they wanted to pay the money back. The bank decided that since it would not be aware of the crime without the admission and it would suffer no harm if paid back that it would thus not press charges. They had no need to mention their crime to police or the bank and would have gotten away with it but for admitting their wrongdoing and paying the money back. The maximum punishment they faced if they had admitted it but not paid the money back and simply were prosecuted would have been a low community order. It was not a major crime.
The story she had was because of her relationship with Jeremy. She had a story to tell because for months Jeremy told her he wanted to kill his family and after killing them he told her he hired a hitman to do it. The press wasn't content with simply her trial testimony they wanted to interview her and do stories on her and threw money at her to try to get such. Their willingness to pay is why she was able to get paid.
She could have milked it for all it was worth, there were many chances after the first story to get paid more for follow-ups. She chose to do a free interview to clear up the distortions from the NOTW article and then to fade away rather than make efforts to remain in the limelight and prosper from having been Jeremy's former girlfriend.
The only issue I have with her is that she didn't tell police right away about Jeremy saying he wanted to kill his family and tonight is the night etc. Obviously saying such to them would end her relationship with Jeremy and he would not have told her anything after about how it went down but he didn't tell her much anyway about how it went down and lied about how it went down. Had she come forward immediately police might have done a better job. I say might have because Taff Jones could potentially have ignored her. We have no way to know for sure what his reaction would have been. We don't know what his reaction was in September when she came forward. He was no longer in charge at that point so we have no idea what he would have done if she came forward under his watch. Coming clean a month later was far superior to doing it too late to matter or not doing it at all.
-
Gif removed as could be considered goading.
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!
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.
One day you will realise the opposite is the case.
Big deal you reject some of Mike's most outrageous claims but you still advance many other claims of his including some absurd ones like suggesting multiple moderators were doctored and multiple rifles used. You spent weeks insisting that Jeapes supported the murder weapon being in the masterbedroom window like Mike insisted even though compelling evidence proved she was looking at the kitchen side of the house and could not have seen in the bedroom window and her own account described the boxroom window. Rejecting some of the most absurd ones doesn't save you from making many of the same arguments Mike does nor does such make your allegations reasonable/supported by evidence.
Contrary to your claim not a single material claim made by Julie has been proven false. Julie's testimony consisted of 2 categories. 1) what Jeremy told her before the murders and 2) what Jeremy told her after the murders. She didn't say that Jeremy hired a hitman she said that Jeremy told her he hired a hitman. In order to prove she lied you need to prove that Jeremy didin't tell her such. You have provided zilch to discredit Julie's accounts of Jeremy telling her he wanted to kill his family and what he was planning to do. You have produced nothing to discredit her claim that he said tonight is the night to her during the phone call before the murders. Her testimony about his plotting was the most important testimony she gave. he claims he made after the murders were not nearly as significant because he didn't tell her much and largely lied.
You totally ignore the most significant testimony about how he was planning the murders and said tonight is the night. You ignore that Jeremy called her before he even called police which supports her. It supports her in 2 distinct ways. 1) if Jeremy genuinely received the distress call he claimed then he would have immediately rushed over or immediately have dialed 999 not have called Julie. 2) that he did call Julie first supported that he was confiding in her. Both of these support Julie.
Now let's look at the lie that you erroneously claim proves Julie a liar. Julie said that after the murders Jeremy told her he didn't carry out the murders personally as he had been planning but rather hired MM to kill them. Police investigated and determined it was a lie that Jeremy had hired MM to kill them. The police said that Jeremy lied to Julie. Julie also says that Jeremy must have lied to her when he said MM did it. You say that Julie had to be lying about Jeremy telling her such and made it up herself.
You have zero evidence that she is the one who made up the lie as opposed to Jeremy making it up and telling it to her as she claimed. Your position is simply that since it is a lie that MM was involved that she must have made up the lie herself. You totally ignore the possibility of Jeremy making up the lie and just declare she made it up.
A rational inquiry though would be to look at who would have a reason to make up the lie and why one would make it up.
You say Julie lied to get Jeremy in trouble. If she wanted to lie to get Jeremy in trouble she would say he admitted he carried out the murders himself. She knew he had no alibi so had no need to make up that he had hired a hitman. If she were going to make up the lie he hired a hitman she would have said he failed to name a hitman. Making up that he took money out of the bank to give to a hitman would be bad enough since bank records would prove it never happened but it would be even more foolish to name someone who would be able to prove they had an alibi and thus prove you a liar. So there is no advantage of any kind in her making up the story. On the other hand there are several advantages to Jeremy to make up such a lie.
1) Jeremy didn't want her to know how cold blooded he truly was so said he hired someone he didn't personally do it
2) Jeremy told her that she had better keep quiet because the hitman would get her if she talked. He used the lie to try to keep her quiet.
3) If the fear of the hitman failed to silence her and she did come forward with the story it would not hurt him because it was a lie. He could prove he didn't take out 2500 pounds from his account to give to anyone, MM would deny it and would be able to alibi himself and Jeremy would allege Julie was just lying to get back at him for breaking up with her and hopefully police would believe nothing else she said about the planning prior to the murders.
Quite clearly the only one with a reason to make up the story about MM was Jeremy. You have not come forward with any reason why Julie would make up such. she simply would have said Jeremy told her he committed the murders himself not made up a hitman story that would easily be proven false.
You are doing exactly what Jeremy wanted. He hoped that people would believe she made up the lie about MM and that nothing else she said was credible either even though he is the one who clearly made it up. That you fall for Jeremy's nonsense hook line and sinker is one reason why I doubt your supposed scientific breakthrough is anything more than your biased imagination at work.
-
Yes four 13 year old girls, all friends, testified against Stefan Kiszko. Years later they all admitted they lied for "a laugh". At trial the judge praised them. Post verdict one girls mother called for SK to be hanged.
When the CoA quashed SK's conviction the girls went unpunished. Only one apologised.
The girls in question didn't testify they saw Kiszko commit the crime for which he was being charged. They didn't testify that he admitted to them that he had committed the crime or other crimes. They were not the main reason he was convicted they didn't present any evidence that established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They didn't expect their testimony would in any way lead to his conviction.
What they told police was that he flashed them and urinated in public around them and was following them. Three of them testified at trial the 4th did not and said that if she had been forced to testify she would have told the truth. She said the truth is that someone else had flashed them and someone else had urinated in front of them in public. The part about him following them they made up for fun. So they took things that did happen and changed the actor to him and made up he followed them around. Kiszko's confession is what did him in the most not them.
Making up that he followed them around is a far cry from making up detailed accounts of him telling them he was planning to kill someone and someone died saying he had hired someone to do it. It is apples and oranges.
-
Big deal you reject some of Mike's most outrageous claims but you still advance many other claims of his including some absurd ones like suggesting multiple moderators were doctored and multiple rifles used. You spent weeks insisting that Jeapes supported the murder weapon being in the masterbedroom window like Mike insisted even though compelling evidence proved she was looking at the kitchen side of the house and could not have seen in the bedroom window and her own account described the boxroom window. Rejecting some of the most absurd ones doesn't save you from making many of the same arguments Mike does nor does such make your allegations reasonable/supported by evidence.
Contrary to your claim not a single material claim made by Julie has been proven false. Julie's testimony consisted of 2 categories. 1) what Jeremy told her before the murders and 2) what Jeremy told her after the murders. She didn't say that Jeremy hired a hitman she said that Jeremy told her he hired a hitman. In order to prove she lied you need to prove that Jeremy didin't tell her such. You have provided zilch to discredit Julie's accounts of Jeremy telling her he wanted to kill his family and what he was planning to do. You have produced nothing to discredit her claim that he said tonight is the night to her during the phone call before the murders. Her testimony about his plotting was the most important testimony she gave. he claims he made after the murders were not nearly as significant because he didn't tell her much and largely lied.
You totally ignore the most significant testimony about how he was planning the murders and said tonight is the night. You ignore that Jeremy called her before he even called police which supports her. It supports her in 2 distinct ways. 1) if Jeremy genuinely received the distress call he claimed then he would have immediately rushed over or immediately have dialed 999 not have called Julie. 2) that he did call Julie first supported that he was confiding in her. Both of these support Julie.
Now let's look at the lie that you erroneously claim proves Julie a liar. Julie said that after the murders Jeremy told her he didn't carry out the murders personally as he had been planning but rather hired MM to kill them. Police investigated and determined it was a lie that Jeremy had hired MM to kill them. The police said that Jeremy lied to Julie. Julie also says that Jeremy must have lied to her when he said MM did it. You say that Julie had to be lying about Jeremy telling her such and made it up herself.
You have zero evidence that she is the one who made up the lie as opposed to Jeremy making it up and telling it to her as she claimed. Your position is simply that since it is a lie that MM was involved that she must have made up the lie herself. You totally ignore the possibility of Jeremy making up the lie and just declare she made it up.
A rational inquiry though would be to look at who would have a reason to make up the lie and why one would make it up.
You say Julie lied to get Jeremy in trouble. If she wanted to lie to get Jeremy in trouble she would say he admitted he carried out the murders himself. She knew he had no alibi so had no need to make up that he had hired a hitman. If she were going to make up the lie he hired a hitman she would have said he failed to name a hitman. Making up that he took money out of the bank to give to a hitman would be bad enough since bank records would prove it never happened but it would be even more foolish to name someone who would be able to prove they had an alibi and thus prove you a liar. So there is no advantage of any kind in her making up the story. On the other hand there are several advantages to Jeremy to make up such a lie.
1) Jeremy didn't want her to know how cold blooded he truly was so said he hired someone he didn't personally do it
2) Jeremy told her that she had better keep quiet because the hitman would get her if she talked. He used the lie to try to keep her quiet.
3) If the fear of the hitman failed to silence her and she did come forward with the story it would not hurt him because it was a lie. He could prove he didn't take out 2500 pounds from his account to give to anyone, MM would deny it and would be able to alibi himself and Jeremy would allege Julie was just lying to get back at him for breaking up with her and hopefully police would believe nothing else she said about the planning prior to the murders.
Quite clearly the only one with a reason to make up the story about MM was Jeremy. You have not come forward with any reason why Julie would make up such. she simply would have said Jeremy told her he committed the murders himself not made up a hitman story that would easily be proven false.
You are doing exactly what Jeremy wanted. He hoped that people would believe she made up the lie about MM and that nothing else she said was credible either even though he is the one who clearly made it up. That you fall for Jeremy's nonsense hook line and sinker is one reason why I doubt your supposed scientific breakthrough is anything more than your biased imagination at work.
I have explained the situation before its in the link below, I am not going round in circles
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7127.0 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7127.0)
Your long-winded lengthy posts as usual prove nothing and consist of a concoction of half-truths mixed in with your own opinions and assumptions to fill the gaps.
you say my breakthrough is my biased imagination at work, Well iv had two Barristers tell me otherwise.
-
Big deal you reject some of Mike's most outrageous claims but you still advance many other claims of his including some absurd ones like suggesting multiple moderators were doctored and multiple rifles used. You spent weeks insisting that Jeapes supported the murder weapon being in the masterbedroom window like Mike insisted even though compelling evidence proved she was looking at the kitchen side of the house and could not have seen in the bedroom window and her own account described the boxroom window. Rejecting some of the most absurd ones doesn't save you from making many of the same arguments Mike does nor does such make your allegations reasonable/supported by evidence.
Contrary to your claim not a single material claim made by Julie has been proven false. Julie's testimony consisted of 2 categories. 1) what Jeremy told her before the murders and 2) what Jeremy told her after the murders. She didn't say that Jeremy hired a hitman she said that Jeremy told her he hired a hitman. In order to prove she lied you need to prove that Jeremy didin't tell her such. You have provided zilch to discredit Julie's accounts of Jeremy telling her he wanted to kill his family and what he was planning to do. You have produced nothing to discredit her claim that he said tonight is the night to her during the phone call before the murders. Her testimony about his plotting was the most important testimony she gave. he claims he made after the murders were not nearly as significant because he didn't tell her much and largely lied.
You totally ignore the most significant testimony about how he was planning the murders and said tonight is the night. You ignore that Jeremy called her before he even called police which supports her. It supports her in 2 distinct ways. 1) if Jeremy genuinely received the distress call he claimed then he would have immediately rushed over or immediately have dialed 999 not have called Julie. 2) that he did call Julie first supported that he was confiding in her. Both of these support Julie.
Now let's look at the lie that you erroneously claim proves Julie a liar. Julie said that after the murders Jeremy told her he didn't carry out the murders personally as he had been planning but rather hired MM to kill them. Police investigated and determined it was a lie that Jeremy had hired MM to kill them. The police said that Jeremy lied to Julie. Julie also says that Jeremy must have lied to her when he said MM did it. You say that Julie had to be lying about Jeremy telling her such and made it up herself.
You have zero evidence that she is the one who made up the lie as opposed to Jeremy making it up and telling it to her as she claimed. Your position is simply that since it is a lie that MM was involved that she must have made up the lie herself. You totally ignore the possibility of Jeremy making up the lie and just declare she made it up.
A rational inquiry though would be to look at who would have a reason to make up the lie and why one would make it up.
You say Julie lied to get Jeremy in trouble. If she wanted to lie to get Jeremy in trouble she would say he admitted he carried out the murders himself. She knew he had no alibi so had no need to make up that he had hired a hitman. If she were going to make up the lie he hired a hitman she would have said he failed to name a hitman. Making up that he took money out of the bank to give to a hitman would be bad enough since bank records would prove it never happened but it would be even more foolish to name someone who would be able to prove they had an alibi and thus prove you a liar. So there is no advantage of any kind in her making up the story. On the other hand there are several advantages to Jeremy to make up such a lie.
1) Jeremy didn't want her to know how cold blooded he truly was so said he hired someone he didn't personally do it
2) Jeremy told her that she had better keep quiet because the hitman would get her if she talked. He used the lie to try to keep her quiet.
3) If the fear of the hitman failed to silence her and she did come forward with the story it would not hurt him because it was a lie. He could prove he didn't take out 2500 pounds from his account to give to anyone, MM would deny it and would be able to alibi himself and Jeremy would allege Julie was just lying to get back at him for breaking up with her and hopefully police would believe nothing else she said about the planning prior to the murders.
Quite clearly the only one with a reason to make up the story about MM was Jeremy. You have not come forward with any reason why Julie would make up such. she simply would have said Jeremy told her he committed the murders himself not made up a hitman story that would easily be proven false.
You are doing exactly what Jeremy wanted. He hoped that people would believe she made up the lie about MM and that nothing else she said was credible either even though he is the one who clearly made it up. That you fall for Jeremy's nonsense hook line and sinker is one reason why I doubt your supposed scientific breakthrough is anything more than your biased imagination at work.
There have already been threads on -
Why Bamber would tell Julie he hired MM.
Disadvantages in Julie and the police introducing MM as a fake hit man.
But supporters still bring it up.
The police could have persuaded Julie to amend her WS slightly. To not include MM. They would know early on that MM had an alibi. They didn't because they wanted her true WS released, with and without flaws.
-
The police could have persuaded Julie to amend her WS slightly. To not include MM. They would know early on that MM had an alibi. They didn't because they wanted her true WS released, with and without flaws.
Good point Adam. A statement is supposed to reflect the witness's own experience regardless of what appears to be rubbish. It is testimony in Court which counts at the end of the day and not any statement. Statements are provided so that both prosecution and defence are reading from the same Hymn sheet. If a statement is required to be presented in Court it is upgraded to a sworn statement ie an affidavit.
-
Good point Adam. A statement is supposed to reflect the witness's own experience regardless of what appears to be rubbish. It is testimony in Court which counts at the end of the day and not any statement. Statements are provided so that both prosecution and defence are reading from the same Hymn sheet. If a statement is required to be presented in Court it is upgraded to a sworn statement ie an affidavit.
Bamber bringing up MM as a proxy makes sense.
Julie bringing up MM because that is what Bamber said, and then honest police including it in her WS makes sense.
A lot more sense than the police dreaming it up, and asking her to lie about something which was not true in the first place.
-
The girls in question didn't testify they saw Kiszko commit the crime for which he was being charged. They didn't testify that he admitted to them that he had committed the crime or other crimes. They were not the main reason he was convicted they didn't present any evidence that established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They didn't expect their testimony would in any way lead to his conviction.
What they told police was that he flashed them and urinated in public around them and was following them. Three of them testified at trial the 4th did not and said that if she had been forced to testify she would have told the truth. She said the truth is that someone else had flashed them and someone else had urinated in front of them in public. The part about him following them they made up for fun. So they took things that did happen and changed the actor to him and made up he followed them around. Kiszko's confession is what did him in the most not them.
Making up that he followed them around is a far cry from making up detailed accounts of him telling them he was planning to kill someone and someone died saying he had hired someone to do it. It is apples and oranges.
The young girls' exposure claims formed a significant part of the case against SK and were highly relevant. The perp (Ronald Castree) posed the victim's body, a young girl, and ejaculated on her underwear.
The trial judge, Sir Hugh Park, said:
"The judge praised the three girls who had made the exposure claims, Buckley in particular, for their "bravery and honesty" in giving evidence in court and their "sharp observations". Pamela Hind's evidence was read out in court. Park said that Buckley's "sharp eyes set this train of inquiry into motion"
My main reason for highlighting this case is to show that highly trained and experienced QC's can easily be hoodwinked by young women.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
-
Bamber bringing up MM as a proxy makes sense.
Julie bringing up MM because that is what Bamber said, and then honest police including it in her WS makes sense.
A lot more sense than the police dreaming it up, and asking her to lie about something which was not true in the first place.
Bamber committing the perfect murder then implicating himself after convincingly framing Shelia makes no sense.
Robert Boultflour in his diary speculates if Jeremy had an accomplice and considers if Brett Collins was involved. It turns out Brett was out the country at the time but the idea of an accomplice was on his mind. What is interesting about Mathew Macdonald is he was some sort of a fantasist that built a false persona telling people he was some kind of muscle for hire / Hitman who had done missions in Africa. Rumors spread locally long before the murders, And Mathew kept the rumors going because he enjoyed the attention. Its very possible that Robert Boutflour and the police got in the loop about the rumors and since he was friends with Jeremy they joined the dots (in their minds)
-
Bamber committing the perfect murder then implicating himself after convincingly framing Shelia makes no sense.
Robert Boultflour in his diary speculates if Jeremy had an accomplice and considers if Brett Collins was involved. It turns out Brett was out the country at the time but the idea of an accomplice was on his mind. What is interesting about Mathew Macdonald is he was some sort of a fantasist that built a false persona telling people he was some kind of muscle for hire / Hitman who had done missions in Africa. Rumors spread locally long before the murders, And Mathew kept the rumors going because he enjoyed the attention. Its very possible that Robert Boutflour and the police got in the loop about the rumors and since he was friends with Jeremy they joined the dots (in their minds)
It makes sense that Bamber would decide on MM as his proxy. For the reasons you mentioned.
Julie would know Bamber wouldn't know where to find a hit man. Or afford one. The only person they both knew who Julie may believe Bamber hired, was MM.
-
The young girls' exposure claims formed a significant part of the case against SK and were highly relevant. The perp (Ronald Castree) posed the victim's body, a young girl, and ejaculated on her underwear.
The trial judge, Sir Hugh Park, said:
"The judge praised the three girls who had made the exposure claims, Buckley in particular, for their "bravery and honesty" in giving evidence in court and their "sharp observations". Pamela Hind's evidence was read out in court. Park said that Buckley's "sharp eyes set this train of inquiry into motion"
My main reason for highlighting this case is to show that highly trained and experienced QC's can easily be hoodwinked by young women.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
Cumming on underwear doesn't implicate one who flashes or urinates in public. If that was the only evidence in the case it would have lead no where it would not even be able to justify a trial. The main reason he was convicted was because of his confession. His defense did a horrible job in the suppression of the confession and worse by missing evidence that made it impossible for him to be the criminal namely an alibi and the fact that he was infertile so it can't have been his sperm. The girls lies should have meant nothing and he should have been acquitted if he had a decent defense. What they claimed and what Julie claimed are not comparable at all.
-
Cumming on underwear doesn't implicate one who flashes or urinates in public. If that was the only evidence in the case it would have lead no where it would not even be able to justify a trial. The main reason he was convicted was because of his confession. His defense did a horrible job in the suppression of the confession and worse by missing evidence that made it impossible for him to be the criminal namely an alibi and the fact that he was infertile so it can't have been his sperm. The girls lies should have meant nothing and he should have been acquitted if he had a decent defense. What they claimed and what Julie claimed are not comparable at all.
To make matters worse Kiszko's defence lawyer went on to become the Home Secretary
-
To make matters worse Kiszko's defence lawyer went on to become the Home Secretary
The Home Secretary is a politician. Whether one is a skilled attorney is meaningless for such a position. Political positions are mainly about who you know not what you know and at most involve making overall policy though they usually do little by way of actually supervising let alone leading those in the trenches below them. Politicians are largely worthless in my experience. That he is no longer defending anyone is a good thing if the kiszko case is representative of his work, maybe it was an aberration I don't know I never looked at any of his other work. Failing to research an alibi is pretty ridiculous by any standard.
-
The Home Secretary is a politician. Whether one is a skilled attorney is meaningless for such a position. Political positions are mainly about who you know not what you know and at most involve making overall policy though they usually do little by way of actually supervising let alone leading those in the trenches below them. Politicians are largely worthless in my experience. That he is no longer defending anyone is a good thing if the kiszko case is representative of his work, maybe it was an aberration I don't know I never looked at any of his other work. Failing to research an alibi is pretty ridiculous by any standard.
The Home Secretary is in charge of law enforcement. before the CCRC was established it was them that you had to apply for appeals or reviews.
Kiszko was an outrageous MOJ. They found the real killer in 2007, fifteen years after Kliszko died.
"First, that the additional unused material disclosed to the defence on the first day of the trial included crucial evidence, but the late disclosure had made it impossible for the defence team to pursue the ramifications of that evidence; the evidence, if pursued, would have cast doubt on the reliability of the confession.
Second, the matter of the two girls who identified Kiszko as the person who had exposed himself to them. Their statements had been read to the Court; they were not cross-examined. During the investigation in 1990, the girls (by then they were mature women) admitted that they had made up the story: they had simply seen the taxi driver urinating behind a bush.
Third, that the pathologist who examined Lesley Molseed’s clothing had found sperm in the semen stains on the underwear. This fact had not been disclosed to the defence or the Court.
Fourth,that the police had taken a sample of Kiszko’s semen at the time of the investigation: it contained no sperm at all. This fact had not been disclosed to the defence or the Court."
-
Cumming on underwear doesn't implicate one who flashes or urinates in public. If that was the only evidence in the case it would have lead no where it would not even be able to justify a trial. The main reason he was convicted was because of his confession. His defense did a horrible job in the suppression of the confession and worse by missing evidence that made it impossible for him to be the criminal namely an alibi and the fact that he was infertile so it can't have been his sperm. The girls lies should have meant nothing and he should have been acquitted if he had a decent defense. What they claimed and what Julie claimed are not comparable at all.
Of course the claims are not comparable.
I identified a case where four 13 year old girls, all friends, provided false testimony at a criminal trial. They lied simply for "a laugh". The defending QC, David Waddington, was unable to expose their lies during cross examination. The assumption that if prosecution witnesses lie the judicial system will expose them by careful and skilled cross-examination by highly trained and experienced QC's is wrong.
-
The Home Secretary is in charge of law enforcement. before the CCRC was established it was them that you had to apply for appeals or reviews.
Kiszko was an outrageous MOJ. They found the real killer in 2007, fifteen years after Kliszko died.
"First, that the additional unused material disclosed to the defence on the first day of the trial included crucial evidence, but the late disclosure had made it impossible for the defence team to pursue the ramifications of that evidence; the evidence, if pursued, would have cast doubt on the reliability of the confession.
Second, the matter of the two girls who identified Kiszko as the person who had exposed himself to them. Their statements had been read to the Court; they were not cross-examined. During the investigation in 1990, the girls (by then they were mature women) admitted that they had made up the story: they had simply seen the taxi driver urinating behind a bush.
Third, that the pathologist who examined Lesley Molseed’s clothing had found sperm in the semen stains on the underwear. This fact had not been disclosed to the defence or the Court.
Fourth,that the police had taken a sample of Kiszko’s semen at the time of the investigation: it contained no sperm at all. This fact had not been disclosed to the defence or the Court."
Being in charge of the various law enforcement agencies among other things is broad supervision of the heads below them and they usually don't even do much in that regard. His ineptitude as a defense attorney means little in that regard.
He should have fought for suppression of the confession outside of the presence of the jury. To argue in front of the jury was absurd. Regardless of whether or not he thought the state examined the semen and sperm he should have had independent experts examine them. In any event while speaking to his client he should have been able to find out they took his sperm and figured out it was to examine it. He should have been able to learn about the people who saw he and his aunt in the cemetery and knew he had a medical condition which would have prevented him from dumping the body but failed to raise it. He didn't put much effort in the case it seems his main strategy was to argue diminished capacity.
-
Being in charge of the various law enforcement agencies among other things is broad supervision of the heads below them and they usually don't even do much in that regard. His ineptitude as a defense attorney means little in that regard.
He should have fought for suppression of the confession outside of the presence of the jury. To argue in front of the jury was absurd. Regardless of whether or not he thought the state examined the semen and sperm he should have had independent experts examine them. In any event while speaking to his client he should have been able to find out they took his sperm and figured out it was to examine it. He should have been able to learn about the people who saw he and his aunt in the cemetery and knew he had a medical condition which would have prevented him from dumping the body but failed to raise it. He didn't put much effort in the case it seems his main strategy was to argue diminished capacity.
The late David Waddington was made a life peer you know and very highly decorated shouldn't we be showing him the respect he deserves 8(0(*
The Right Honourable
The Lord Waddington
GCVO PC QC DL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Waddington,_Baron_Waddington
What a complete travesty. David Waddington should have been stripped off everything for ruining the lives of Stefan Kiszko and his mother, Charlotte Kiszko, through his own ineptness.
"In February 1992, Kiszko's mother said that it was David Waddington who ought to be "strung up" for his pro-capital punishment views and for the way he had handled her son's defence at the 1976 trial."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
-
That's the age old problem with lawyers, they just aren't accountable for their mistakes. They get paid handsomely win or lose.
-
That's the age old problem with lawyers, they just aren't accountable for their mistakes. They get paid handsomely win or lose.
I agree. How are they measured? Who would know if they were abysmal?
-
That's the age old problem with lawyers, they just aren't accountable for their mistakes. They get paid handsomely win or lose.
Malpractice lawsuits...