Author Topic: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?  (Read 641 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12590
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #15 on: July 06, 2020, 08:48:PM »
In principle. Im inclined to say that it would not bear much weight if she had recieved a caution or hadn't. There is still the proven element of bad character there. It can't confuse a juror either way looking at it logically
The judge told the jury to take Julie's evidence "with a great deal of caution", which effectively nullified it if you have to convict a defendant on a murder charge beyond reasonable doubt. I suppose lawyers like to talk shop, and as long as there is accuracy here I let it pass.

Offline ilovebooze

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2020, 08:59:PM »
She did not receive a police caution.  The Judge misled the jury on this.  It is not clear whether he was misled by the prosecution or merely jumped to an incorrect conclusion.  The defence did not challenge it so I suspect they also believed at that time that a formal caution had been administered.  The jury were misled not only on this but also on the circumstances in which the bank agreed (reluctantly and under police pressure) not to prosecute when in normal circumstances their policy would be to prosecute.  They were also misled about the circumstances of JM "coming forward" to police and her handling by police following her arrest (the fact of her arrest was not disclosed to the jury).  There has been a lot posted here in the past about this topic, including by me.  The other aspect of JM of course the News of the World deal, where again the jury were seriously misled as a result of the lies told by JM about the subject.  This again has been extensively covered in many posts here.

 

 
A prosecution or a conviction in my view does not have to add any weight or substance though towards the person's character. I think personally, the same inference would have still been drawn. Just to use an example  If you, I, or any other indivdual go on record saying. Or if it is even discovered, and portrayed by a third party that we have been Involved in some kind of illegal activity. Then speaking in simple laymen terms. Then to a jury. There is the option garnered for them to distrust us. (just an example)

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43683
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2020, 06:04:PM »
Without Julie. There wasnt a case





I agree.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8584
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2020, 11:17:PM »
Without Julie. There wasnt a case

Incorrect. You have the sound moderator also, that's what the conviction has always rested on.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43683
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2020, 01:49:PM »
Incorrect. You have the sound moderator also, that's what the conviction has always rested on.





That was in case JM's efforts weren't believed  ;)

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2020, 02:56:PM »
Incorrect. You have the sound moderator also, that's what the conviction has always rested on.

You also have the phone calls, which anchor both the Crown and defence to Jeremy or Sheila as suspects.  People focus on Jeremy's claim of a call from Nevill, Jeremy's call to the police and supposition about a call from Nevill to the police or '999', but I think Jeremy's admission of a call to Julie at roughly this time is of at least equal significance, if not more.

Someone here may be able to quickly clear this up for me.  What I want to know is: How did Julie know to answer a communal phone in the middle of the night?  Never mind that it was 3 a.m. or 3.15 a.m. or whatever time, I want to know how she managed to answer the phone at all?  I can see why Jeremy might answer the phone at that time when he claims Nevill rang, because the phone ringing would almost act like an alarm clock.  It would wake you up, we just need to accept that Nevill may have been waiting for a while.

But which light sleeper answered the phone for Julie?  Or did Julie answer it herself?  And if she did, isn't that rather a striking coincidence?  And isn't it rather coincidental that key witnesses were also on hand to verify that she took that call and then argue over what time it was?

And then he calls her again at 5 40 a.m. from a public payphone.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2020, 02:57:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12590
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #21 on: July 08, 2020, 05:18:PM »
You also have the phone calls, which anchor both the Crown and defence to Jeremy or Sheila as suspects.  People focus on Jeremy's claim of a call from Nevill, Jeremy's call to the police and supposition about a call from Nevill to the police or '999', but I think Jeremy's admission of a call to Julie at roughly this time is of at least equal significance, if not more.

Someone here may be able to quickly clear this up for me.  What I want to know is: How did Julie know to answer a communal phone in the middle of the night?  Never mind that it was 3 a.m. or 3.15 a.m. or whatever time, I want to know how she managed to answer the phone at all?  I can see why Jeremy might answer the phone at that time when he claims Nevill rang, because the phone ringing would almost act like an alarm clock.  It would wake you up, we just need to accept that Nevill may have been waiting for a while.

But which light sleeper answered the phone for Julie?  Or did Julie answer it herself?  And if she did, isn't that rather a striking coincidence?  And isn't it rather coincidental that key witnesses were also on hand to verify that she took that call and then argue over what time it was?

And then he calls her again at 5 40 a.m. from a public payphone.
You are insinuating quite a lot here, with your usual cunning and often disingenuous legerdemain. It is apparently fine for Jeremy to answer a telephone call in the middle of the night from his father, but not for Julie to do so. I suspect that you're a young man like David (say mid-30s) and don't recall the ring of the old Rotary Dial telephones, which were quite loud and insistent, and of course before the advent of mobile telephones, which have become so obtrusive in our daily lives. I'm also surmising that you've never lived in London, or you wouldn't be questioning why someone on a student grant has to flat-share.

Julie answered the telephone, whereupon Jeremy proceeded to tell her that "all is going well". She realized the import of this and didn't sleep at all before the next telephone call in the series you mention. She made a grave error, admittedly, in not contacting Police until Friday 6th September, but redeemed herself at Chelmsford Crown Court the following year.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2020, 05:21:PM »
You are insinuating quite a lot here, with your usual cunning and often disingenuous legerdemain.

Again, this poster is attacking me personally.

I should add that the substance of his post also does not deal with the point I raise and he also misconstrues my motives for making the post. 

I would prefer not to engage him.  He (or she?) is an obtuse, rude, abusive bully hiding behind a computer.

Thank you.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2020, 05:22:PM by QCChevalier »

Online ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5107
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #23 on: July 08, 2020, 05:25:PM »
You are insinuating quite a lot here, with your usual cunning and often disingenuous legerdemain. It is apparently fine for Jeremy to answer a telephone call in the middle of the night from his father, but not for Julie to do so. I suspect that you're a young man like David (say mid-30s) and don't recall the ring of the old Rotary Dial telephones, which were quite loud and insistent, and of course before the advent of mobile telephones, which have become so obtrusive in our daily lives. I'm also surmising that you've never lived in London, or you wouldn't be questioning why someone on a student grant has to flat-share.

Julie answered the telephone, whereupon Jeremy proceeded to tell her that "all is going well". She realized the import of this and didn't sleep at all before the next telephone call in the series you mention. She made a grave error, admittedly, in not contacting Police until Friday 6th September, but redeemed herself at Chelmsford Crown Court the following year.

You might try to be more polite and less personally aggressive in your replies.

 

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12590
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2020, 05:28:PM »
Again, this poster is attacking me personally.

I should add that the substance of his post also does not deal with the point I raise and he also misconstrues my motives for making the post. 

I would prefer not to engage him.  He (or she?) is an obtuse, rude, abusive bully hiding behind a computer.

Thank you.
You have joined a public debating forum and should be prepared for scrutiny. You have impugned Julie's credibility so you're a fair target. Actually I don't know what you believe-you're all over the place in so many matters.

I always deal with the points, not usually the person, so you'd better make yourself clearer.

Online ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5107
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #25 on: July 08, 2020, 05:34:PM »
You have joined a public debating forum and should be prepared for scrutiny. You have impugned Julie's credibility so you're a fair target. Actually I don't know what you believe-you're all over the place in so many matters.

I always deal with the points, not usually the person, so you'd better make yourself clearer.

I am afraid I have to disagree on the highlighted point.  You get quite personal whenever a member posts negative comments about Julie Mugford.  Please try to play the ball rather than the man.


Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #26 on: July 08, 2020, 05:35:PM »
You have joined a public debating forum and should be prepared for scrutiny. You have impugned Julie's credibility so you're a fair target. Actually I don't know what you believe-you're all over the place in so many matters.

I always deal with the points, not usually the person, so you'd better make yourself clearer.

You are attacking the person, not the points.  Meanwhile, when I criticise Julie Mugford (to the extent I do), I refer to her actions only, thus I rest on fair comment.

The fact you cannot discern this important distinction reinforces my view that you are obtuse. 

You are clearly emotionally invested in the case - it is very plain for all to see. 

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #27 on: July 08, 2020, 05:47:PM »
I think it's her statement of 8th. September 1985 that is the relevant one.  She states that she was woken by a housemate, Douglas Dale, at roughly 3.15 a.m.  That partly explains what happened, but I'm still suspicious.  It just seems awfully convenient to be woken up in the early hours of the morning like that.  Does that happen often?

The precise issue I have here is that this whole business of the phone calls is extremely time-sensitive.  If you ring somebody at 3.15 a.m., or thereabouts, it's going to take a while for them to come to the phone, if they do so at all, and they'll be a whole fuss made by the person answering, this Mr Dale, about why you're calling at this hour and are you some sort of loony making a prank call, etc.?

It all seems a bit contrived to me.  It's all highly suspect.

On the other hand, in Jeremy and Julie's defence, there is no reason Jeremy would lie about making such a call, since his alibi is with the police.

I know why people who are emotionally-attached to Julie Mugford don't like this line of speculation.  I don't consider her evidence credible.  Nor, it seems, did the judge - ironically, it was the disruptive poster above who pointed this out to us!

Yet it is possible she was more involved in this than she is letting on and that her whole story to the second police investigation may have been a smokescreen.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2020, 05:49:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12590
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #28 on: July 08, 2020, 05:49:PM »
You are attacking the person, not the points.  Meanwhile, when I criticise Julie Mugford (to the extent I do), I refer to her actions only, thus I rest on fair comment.

The fact you cannot discern this important distinction reinforces my view that you are obtuse. 

You are clearly emotionally invested in the case - it is very plain for all to see.
As if this is not regarded as a personal attack, but never any repercussions therefrom. How you cannot take Julie seriously in court and reject the silencer evidence to boot yet still believe Bamber guilty remains a mystery, how you can reject the inheritance motive is unclear, why you think he should be incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital for ten years as was customary in the former Soviet Union (are you accepting that if he denies culpability he is mentally ill?) is bizarre.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43683
Re: Did Julie Mugford Receive A Police Caution?
« Reply #29 on: July 08, 2020, 05:53:PM »
Trouble is when you have a case like this without both witnesses or a cast-iron alibi everything that happens becomes " sod's law " involving the person who is alleged to have committed the crime and it was no different for Jeremy in that everything he did appeared wrong so therefore it deemed him guilty in the eyes of many. Such as the timing of the phone-call to JM, which looked as though both had known what had happened or was about to happen when it couldn't have been further from the truth but how could it be proven otherwise ? Everything becomes coincidental so therefore " there must be a guilty conclusion " somewhere. Wrong !

Very many other " sod's law " situations followed throughout the case. Everything that JB did seemed to go against the grain though it was done without him giving a second thought, but others hadn't felt the same so this is how a case was built----on suspicion only without concrete proof that he'd even done anything. JB was completely oblivious to the world and his wife blaming him for the murders. He hadn't got an inkling that his cousin et al were suspicious of him from day one. An example were the thankyou flowers for AE for her help----she took it as a softener in her suspicious mind yet he was genuinely grateful for her help, so would it have been better if he hadn't have bothered ?

(If you are confused by this there's no other way of describing my thoughts but I can see the whole picture and find it difficult to describe from a mind-bending point of view.) I know what I mean  ;D Which is why I can form an opinion of him without following the crowd.

I'm almost certain that we'd have seen a vast change in his character had he carried out the murders. It's been 35 years and there's not been any change in him whatsoever, he's remained focussed on his innocence and the difficult task of proving it when nobody believed his pleas of innocence with his side of the story.
 Afterall ,nobody least of all the police, likes a smart-arse which is how he'd been viewed in a derogatory way no doubt, pity they hadn't known the difference in self-assurance and the truth, which at times is stranger than fiction.