Author Topic: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?  (Read 1318 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 22278
Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2020, 06:26:AM »
I see, so Julie was Jeremy's accomplice.  Yes, it's all making sense now.

That means you and Steve are coming on here every day to defend a double child killer.

Thanks Adam.  Thanks Steve.

Not sure how Julie was Bamber's accomplice. She did not believe his plans & was in Lewisham when he committed the massacre.

She did wait around two weeks before telling other people & a month before approaching the police. Mainly because Bamber was all over her staight away.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Smythe

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 47
Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
« Reply #16 on: September 27, 2020, 06:43:AM »
I wasn't referring to the robberies or drug offences, or to the pillow incident. According to her statements, Julie withheld information before and after the crime. Judging from her testimony in court, she would have been more useful to the prosecution as a defendant than a witness.

Do we know when the police decided not to prosecute her?

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12962
Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2020, 07:36:AM »
I see, so Julie was Jeremy's accomplice.  Yes, it's all making sense now.

That means you and Steve are coming on here every day to defend a double child killer.

Thanks Adam.  Thanks Steve.
Oh dear. You've started this again, haven't you..

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1482
Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
« Reply #18 on: September 27, 2020, 10:11:AM »
Oh dear. You've started this again, haven't you..

As usual, I sense that Steve and Adam are rather missing the point.

Everybody accepts that, sometimes, in order to convict a serious criminal the police may have to obtain the co-operation of a lesser criminal, including accomplices. 

If Jeremy is guilty and if that is what happened here between the police and Julie, then personally I don't necessarily object to an arrangement of that kind in order to convict the primary offender.  I'm also sure there are ways of rationalising it: she was sucked into the situation, she was not present at the shootings, etc.

However, the point here is that until this thread, both you and Adam had denied it was a Faustian pact and instead defended Julie as if she had no culpability and was an innocent person.  In reality she is very probably not.  The early morning phone call suggests as much, but we can put that to one side.  The point is that Julie was being held up by you and Adam as some sort of heroine.

Yet in this thread, Adam now quite clearly concedes that indeed it was a Faustian pact between the police and Julie.

I know Steve doesn't like to hear any adverse discussion about his unrequited love, but I am hardly the first person to consider the possibility that Julie was Jeremy's accomplice.   It has been discussed on here before many times before, and without your unwelcome interruptions from Steve.  I suggest that, for his own good, Steve goes back to playing at Cluedo with Myster.  I hear that Myster is missing a Reverend Green.  He's already got a Plum - Real Justice fits that role very well.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2020, 10:14:AM by QCChevalier »

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 30002
Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
« Reply #19 on: September 27, 2020, 10:25:AM »
I wasn't referring to the robberies or drug offences, or to the pillow incident. According to her statements, Julie withheld information before and after the crime. Judging from her testimony in court, she would have been more useful to the prosecution as a defendant than a witness.

Do we know when the police decided not to prosecute her?


They certainly could, had they chosen, if only because the law allows it, ie the withholding of information is unlawful and the law makes no allowances. Allowances are human prerogatives. I can well see that they may have wanted to prosecute her -it would be along the same lines as Julie placing a pillow over Jeremy's face. I feel very certain that the law might say doing such is tantamount to attempting murder and makes no allowances for it's removal, OR that it may have been part of a sex game!!!- if she'd have spilled ther beans in the car whilst being conveyed from Lewisham to Essex, it would have saved the police SO much trouble, not to mention tax payers' money. A HUGE plus would have been that she'd have prevented them from making an horrendous blunder. Whether or not Taff would have been willing to take the information on board, is, of course, another question. The problem for Julie would have been supposing she was wrong.

I wonder, does anyone, other than perhaps, the letter of the law, believe her intention was to murder Jeremy when she placed the pillow over his face? Is it the act, itself which makes it a chargeable offence, or the length of time it's held there? Was Jeremy required to struggle? Might it have been part of their sexual repertoire? Were his hands free? Was he in a position which made it impossible for him to react? Was it mentioned in his WS that she'd attempted to kill him?

It seems we have two counts on which, according to the letter of the law, Julie could have been charged for her misappropriation of it. The first, withholding information, given that she'd shared the information with her friends prior to the police, suggests, arguably, that her friends, too, could have been charged with withholding information. The second? That no attempt to bring charges appears to have been made says much.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 22278
Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
« Reply #20 on: September 27, 2020, 10:42:AM »
Possible prosecutions of Julie -

Selling low grade drugs outside a school - No prosecution. 

Being a lookout as Bamber robbed the caravan site - Only Bamber prosecuted.

Holding a pillow on Bamber - Bamber did not prosecute.

Cheque book fraud - Bank did not prosecute.

Not informing the police of Bamber's plans - Unable to prosecute.

Not approaching the police straight away after the massacre - Police did not prosecute as she was a witness.

----------

All of these would be a fine if she was prosecuted. No one is seriously saying Julie putting a pillow on Bamber's head was attempted murder.

'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2386
Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
« Reply #21 on: September 27, 2020, 10:46:AM »
Possible prosecutions of Julie -

Selling low grade drugs outside a school - No prosecution. 

Being a lookout as Bamber robbed the caravan site - Only Bamber prosecuted.

Holding a pillow on Bamber - Bamber did not prosecute.

Cheque book fraud - Bank did not prosecute.

Not informing the police of Bamber's plans - Unable to prosecute.

Not approaching the police straight away after the massacre - Police did not prosecute as she was a witness.

----------

All of these would be a fine if she was prosecuted. No one is seriously saying Julie putting a pillow on Bamber's head was attempted murder.


Perverting the course of justice is an offence committed when a person prevents justice from being served on him/herself or on another party. In England and Wales it is a common law offence, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Statutory versions of the offence exist in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, and New Zealand. The Scottish equivalent is defeating the ends of justice,[1] while the South African counterpart is defeating or obstructing the course of justice.[2]
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2386
Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
« Reply #22 on: September 27, 2020, 10:52:AM »
There was NEVER enough evidence to convict Jeremy Bamber or any motive but when the police learnt of Julie Mugfords stories all there Christmases came at once

All the evidence continues to be held under PII
When this is released it will be clear how the relatives lied to get there hands on money that never did or would belong to them
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 22278
Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
« Reply #23 on: September 27, 2020, 10:55:AM »
There was NEVER enough evidence to convict Jeremy Bamber or any motive but when the police learnt of Julie Mugfords stories all there Christmases came at once

All the evidence continues to be held under PII
When this is released it will be clear how the relatives lied to get there hands on money that never did or would belong to them

The police, DPP, jury, CCRC & COA disagree.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 22278
Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
« Reply #24 on: September 27, 2020, 10:58:AM »

Perverting the course of justice is an offence committed when a person prevents justice from being served on him/herself or on another party. In England and Wales it is a common law offence, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Statutory versions of the offence exist in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, and New Zealand. The Scottish equivalent is defeating the ends of justice,[1] while the South African counterpart is defeating or obstructing the course of justice.[2]

Well she gave a two page WS on the 8/8/85. Which is all factually correct.

Then approached other people and the police over the next 4 weeks as she digested what had happened. Giving a more detailed 24 page WS.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2020, 10:59:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12962
Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
« Reply #25 on: September 27, 2020, 11:17:AM »
As usual, I sense that Steve and Adam are rather missing the point.

Everybody accepts that, sometimes, in order to convict a serious criminal the police may have to obtain the co-operation of a lesser criminal, including accomplices. 

If Jeremy is guilty and if that is what happened here between the police and Julie, then personally I don't necessarily object to an arrangement of that kind in order to convict the primary offender.  I'm also sure there are ways of rationalising it: she was sucked into the situation, she was not present at the shootings, etc.

However, the point here is that until this thread, both you and Adam had denied it was a Faustian pact and instead defended Julie as if she had no culpability and was an innocent person.  In reality she is very probably not.  The early morning phone call suggests as much, but we can put that to one side.  The point is that Julie was being held up by you and Adam as some sort of heroine.

Yet in this thread, Adam now quite clearly concedes that indeed it was a Faustian pact between the police and Julie.

I know Steve doesn't like to hear any adverse discussion about his unrequited love, but I am hardly the first person to consider the possibility that Julie was Jeremy's accomplice.   It has been discussed on here before many times before, and without your unwelcome interruptions from Steve. I suggest that, for his own good, Steve goes back to playing at Cluedo with Myster.  I hear that Myster is missing a Reverend Green.  He's already got a Plum - Real Justice fits that role very well.
Actually I rather fancy being the Reverend Green. You, on the other hand, would be Monsieur Brunette, who is described on Wikipedia thus:

Monsieur Brunette: A con artist, M. Brunette is usually a Frenchman intent on personal gain. His name is derived from "Mr. Brown", one of the game's oldest patented player names but not previously used.

That is if you were playing Cluedo at all. I rather suspect Monopoly would be more up your street.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2020, 11:19:AM by Steve_uk »

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2386
Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
« Reply #26 on: September 27, 2020, 11:19:AM »
Well she gave a two page WS on the 8/8/85. Which is all factually correct.

Then approached other people and the police over the next 4 weeks as she digested what had happened. Giving a more detailed 24 page WS.

Of course the threat of life imprisonment would not make Mugford go along with what the police has in mind for Jeremy Bamber

Let’s all see the notes and evidence surrounding the questioning of Mugford

Very strange those notes were not passed onto Carol Ann Lee
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1482
Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
« Reply #27 on: September 27, 2020, 12:49:PM »
Actually I rather fancy being the Reverend Green. You, on the other hand, would be Monsieur Brunette, who is described on Wikipedia thus:

Monsieur Brunette: A con artist, M. Brunette is usually a Frenchman intent on personal gain. His name is derived from "Mr. Brown", one of the game's oldest patented player names but not previously used.

That is if you were playing Cluedo at all. I rather suspect Monopoly would be more up your street.

Thanks Steve.  I knew you'd like being Reverend Green, that's why I mentioned the role. Myster is a bit of a spoil sport for not letting us join in, don't you think?  I already had a sulk on at Adam for not recognising the brilliance of my Crispy theory, which I'd doggedly pursued, and now this.

I'm not sure why you think I'd like Monopoly.  I have no involvement in property.  There again, I can also speak French, and I have that Celtic-Gallic look about me, so I suppose I would be quite good in the role of Monsieur Brunette.  Yes, I think that would be up my street.  Thanks Steve.  Do I get a fake French passport, too?  Though I'm not really one for board games, to be honest.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 22278
Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
« Reply #28 on: September 27, 2020, 01:46:PM »
Possible prosecutions of Julie -

Selling low grade drugs outside a school - No prosecution. 

Being a lookout as Bamber robbed the caravan site - Only Bamber prosecuted.

Holding a pillow on Bamber - Bamber did not prosecute.

Cheque book fraud - Bank did not prosecute.

Not informing the police of Bamber's plans - Unable to prosecute.

Not approaching the police straight away after the massacre - Police did not prosecute as she was a witness.

----------

All of these would be a fine if she was prosecuted. No one is seriously saying Julie putting a pillow on Bamber's head was attempted murder.

The police could not threaten to prosecute Julie for any of the above, in order to make her lie.

They didn't know about any of the above until Julie told them!

The police could advise her that withholding information is a criminal offence. They would not have to try very hard as she approached them.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 22278
Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
« Reply #29 on: September 27, 2020, 01:51:PM »
Suspect the police told her that Bamber was a suspect and any information she had would be of great importance.

Realising that she would be not a lone voice & believed by the police, would have given her the confidence to compile her WS.

This may not have happened. Julie approached the police & may have started talking straight away. She had had a month to pluck up the courage.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2020, 01:55:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.