Have prosecution witnesses ever been found guilty of perjury?

[John]

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.

[John]

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.

[Caroline]

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.

[John]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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

[Caroline]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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? 

[Caroline]

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.

[scipio_usmc]

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. 

[Holly Goodhead]

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?   

[david1819]

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.

[Admin]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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. 

[Admin]

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.