Jeremy made a deal with a newspaper

[Erik Narramore]

Maybe Jeremy acted in this way because he really was innocent and knew he would be acquitted?

Maybe when people are on trial for serious crimes and looking down a life sentence, the more eccentric (and sometimes, less attractive) aspects of their character come out and are expressed because they are nervous and not thinking straight?

The key issue is that a trial is not symmetrical.  The prosecution must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, not the defence, so if Jeremy had deals with a newspaper, it makes no difference to the reliability of his evidence or the trial as he can be counted on to deny the charges anyway; but if Julie Mugford, a prosecution witness, is in line for a conditional payment from a tabloid, that could be seen as potentially colouring her evidence.

As for Edmund Lawson, who is quoted as referring to Jeremy in derogatory terms, was he still alive when that article came out attributing those words to him?  I mention this because, I have noticed those comments before, and I also know that Edmund Lawson died before his time, and I further know that journalists tell lies about what people have said.

[Erik Narramore]

On just quickly re-checking, Edmund Lawson died in the year before publication of that article.

Is there any prior source from this journalist in which he attributes those words to Edmund Lawson while he is still alive, so that Lawson would have the opportunity to object if he had been reported inaccurately?

[Erik Narramore]

Why wouldn't an innocent person talk about money?  We haven't missed your point, really.  We've offered you an explanation of why.

Also, do you recognise that you are reliant on the word of a journalist who cannot corroborate this because, by 2010, Edmund Lawson was dead?  Can you provide an earlier source for what Edmund Lawson is claimed to have said?  If you can't then I am very sceptical, sorry.  There is a long record now of airy-fairly accusations intended to blacken Jeremy Bamber.

I take your point: he was money-obsessed.  I suppose we know that already.  Probably Jeremy himself would concede this.  Doesn't prove he is guilty.

[Erik Narramore]

If I was in Jeremy Bamber's place, I would not be talking about money.  But I am not Jeremy Bamber.  In a nervous state, and believing he would be acquitted, he may say all sorts of things.  Reading something into it is just speculation built on assumptions.

That's before we get into the unreliability of what you are relying on.  Is there a particular reason we should believe a journalist who only bothers to quote Edmund Lawson in this way after he is dead?  Maybe Lawson really did say this and the journalist has waited until Lawson's death so that he can't be sued, but if Lawson really did say this, then what would the journalist have to worry about?  And it may be within Jeremy's character to say something like that, but let's consider the opposite question: was it within Lawson's character to say this?  I don't know, because I never met him or knew him, but I do know that he was on the record as saying he absolutely believed in Jeremy's innocence.  Would a defence barrister at a major trial have a conversation like that with a journalist about the defendant?

In any event, even if true, we can't conclude anything about it concerning Jeremy's guilt and it can easily be explained away as the quirky psychological reaction of a young man who is somewhat money-obsessed.

[Erik Narramore]

The significance difference between the two being that Julie was a witness while Jeremy was the accused.  There was no prejudice in Jeremy entering into such a deal, whereas it was prejudicial for Julie to do so, given the nature of her evidence - though not in itself illegal, and whether it was contempt of the court is a matter of legal argument.

In any event, I assume we can agree that it would have been highly improper for Julie to mislead the court, or allow the court to be misled, regarding any aspect of her dealings with newspapers.  This, in itself, would be a contempt of court, of course - and arguably also perjury, depending on whether she was under oath at the time and how liberally you want to define the offence of perjury.

One point I think we have established in a previous thread is that the court was misled about Julie's criminal record.

Somebody mentioned above that the 2002 appeal court denied the defence an application for an order requiring production of Julie's contract with the News of the World.  I would assume this was because the judges did not consider any of these issues to be strictly pertinent to the safety of the conviction itself.