Jeremy Bamber Forum

JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Smythe on September 26, 2020, 09:20:PM

Title: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Smythe on September 26, 2020, 09:20:PM
Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie? When was the decision made?
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: guest2181 on September 26, 2020, 09:38:PM
Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie? When was the decision made?

We don't  know, I think there may be documents relating to this which are witheld, that's just my guess though.

Personally, I think she should have been prosecuted as an accomplice. If JB is guilty.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 26, 2020, 09:51:PM
Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie? When was the decision made?

For what? 

She approached the police. Gave a 24 page WS & told them about the caravan break in & Bamber's trips to smuggle drugs.

They could prosecute her for the cheque book fraud, which would probably be a fine. But didn't & she paid back the money.

Be counter productive prosecuting her for not approaching the police straight away, while simultaneously having her as their main witness in the same case.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: guest2181 on September 26, 2020, 09:54:PM
For what? 

She approached the police. Gave a 24 page WS & told them about the caravan break in & Bamber's trips to smuggle drugs.

They could prosecute her for the cheque book fraud, which would probably be a fine. But didn't & she paid back the money.

Be counter productive prosecuting her for not approaching the police straight away, while simultaneously having her as their main witness in the same case.

Seriously?
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 26, 2020, 10:10:PM
Could the police prosecute Julie & have her as a prosecuting witness on the same case? Thought it would be one or the other.

Pretty obvious having her as a prosecuting witness is more important.

The bank could ask for charges to be pressed. This is not related to the trial. Julie would get a fine. They didn't & she paid the money back.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: guest29835 on September 26, 2020, 10:14:PM
It's not that Julie was blameless in the murders, the police just decided not to prosecute because her evidence was needed to convict Jeremy.

It's clear now.  Thanks Adam.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 26, 2020, 10:27:PM
It's not that Julie was blameless in the murders, the police just decided not to prosecute because her evidence was needed to convict Jeremy.

It's clear now.  Thanks Adam.

Agree with that.

They couldn't prosecute her for what Bamber told her pre massacre. She will just say she never thought Bamber was serious.

The other crimes would have just resulted in fines. So were dropped as first offences.  The police could then focus on her being a reliable witness in the massacre case.

Thanks QC.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 26, 2020, 10:33:PM
Bamber was prosecuted for the caravan break in. Julie wasn't as she told the police about it & was just a look out.

The police can't prosecute her for waiting a month before approaching them. As they wanted her as a prosecuting witness.

The cheque book fraud would have been a fine if prosecuted. It was agreed she would pay the money back instead.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD on September 26, 2020, 11:05:PM
Bamber was prosecuted for the caravan break in. Julie wasn't as she told the police about it & was just a look out.

The police can't prosecute her for waiting a month before approaching them. As they wanted her as a prosecuting witness.

The cheque book fraud would have been a fine if prosecuted. It was agreed she would pay the money back instead.


How about attempted murder?? How did she get away with that Adam?
What do you think would happen to a man if he tried to smother a women with a pillow???

There you go Adam
And this is the women that was ‘secretly’ allowed to go and work with children
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 26, 2020, 11:07:PM

How about attempted murder?? How did she get away with that Adam?
What do you think would happen to a man if he tried to smother a women with a pillow???

There you go Adam
And this is the women that was ‘secretly’ allowed to go and work with children

She said in her WS she put a pillow over Bamber. Then took it off. I don't believe she said she attempted to murder him.

Bamber did not prosecute.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD on September 26, 2020, 11:14:PM
She said in her WS she put a pillow over Bamber. Then took it off. I don't believe she said she attempted to murder him.

Bamber did not prosecute.

Why did she put a pillow over his head Adam?
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: guest2181 on September 26, 2020, 11:42:PM
Why did she put a pillow over his head Adam?

She probably got fed up of the DA and attempted to kill him. If it even happened.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 27, 2020, 12:01:AM
She probably got fed up of the DA and attempted to kill him. If it even happened.

I usually can follow the abreviations but what is the DA?
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: guest29835 on September 27, 2020, 12:02:AM
Agree with that.

They couldn't prosecute her for what Bamber told her pre massacre. She will just say she never thought Bamber was serious.

The other crimes would have just resulted in fines. So were dropped as first offences.  The police could then focus on her being a reliable witness in the massacre case.

Thanks QC.

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.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 27, 2020, 06:16:AM
Why did she put a pillow over his head Adam?

It's in her WS why.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam 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.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Smythe 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?
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Steve_uk 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..
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: guest29835 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.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Jane 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.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam 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.

Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD 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]
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD 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
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam 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.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam 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.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Steve_uk 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.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD 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
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: guest29835 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.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam 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.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam 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.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 27, 2020, 02:10:PM
Julie couldn't keep quiet & hope Bamber would not admit to his guilt & say he confided to Julie before & after the massacre. 

It was too late for that as she had already told 5 people.

The next logical step was to go into more detail with the police.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Jane on September 27, 2020, 02:19:PM
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.


You raise a valid point, Adam. It's very possible that she'd have been 'advised' that the withholding of information was a chargeable offence. It's also within the realms of possibility that noises were made about charging her, however, were they then going to charge those she'd already shared the information with?
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 27, 2020, 02:33:PM

You raise a valid point, Adam. It's very possible that she'd have been 'advised' that the withholding of information was a chargeable offence. It's also within the realms of possibility that noises were made about charging her, however, were they then going to charge those she'd already shared the information with?

The police could have said -

Bamber is a suspect

Withholding evidence is a criminal offence.

----------

Julie then had no option but to say what she knew. The reason she had no option is because she had already told 5 people.

The police may not have said this & Julie spoke without encouragment.

The police couldn't threaten to prosecute her for other crimes as they didn't know about them.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 27, 2020, 02:44:PM
Once Julie had told one person, she had to go to the police. Sooner rather than later. Five people & it became urgent.

If 6-12 months later,  one or more of the 5 people told the police what Julie had told them, then she was in danger of being prosecuted.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: lookout on September 27, 2020, 02:46:PM
It was not in the interests of EP to prosecute Julie because they wanted a conviction for Jeremy simply to please the " top brass " who'd not been too pleased about their performance as a force at that time.

Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 27, 2020, 03:04:PM
It was not in the interests of EP to prosecute Julie because they wanted a conviction for Jeremy simply to please the " top brass " who'd not been too pleased about their performance as a force at that time.

Agree with that. A murder trial was the priority.

Her other crimes were very minor in comparison, which she told them about while compiling her WS.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: lookout on September 27, 2020, 05:08:PM
Agree with that. A murder trial was the priority.

Her other crimes were very minor in comparison, which she told them about while compiling her WS.





She had no other option but to open up about her own criminal activities whilst standing as a prosecution witness.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD on September 27, 2020, 05:15:PM
Julie couldn't keep quiet & hope Bamber would not admit to his guilt & say he confided to Julie before & after the massacre. 

It was too late for that as she had already told 5 people.

The next logical step was to go into more detail with the police.

You are hilarious Adam, does anyone take you seriously. I bet you wished you had been friendly with Myra Hindley too. She got her kicks out of looking at dead bodies like Julie.
Peas in a pod.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on September 27, 2020, 06:07:PM
You are hilarious Adam, does anyone take you seriously. I bet you wished you had been friendly with Myra Hindley too. She got her kicks out of looking at dead bodies like Julie.
Peas in a pod.

No
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 27, 2020, 06:09:PM




She had no other option but to open up about her own criminal activities whilst standing as a prosecution witness.

She was the one who brought them up & included them in her WS.

The defence brought them up at trial to try to undermine her as what she said about Bamber was so convincing.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 27, 2020, 06:11:PM
You are hilarious Adam, does anyone take you seriously. I bet you wished you had been friendly with Myra Hindley too. She got her kicks out of looking at dead bodies like Julie.
Peas in a pod.

Do you believe Julie told 5 people for moral support prior to her approach to the police?
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: lookout on September 27, 2020, 06:13:PM
She was the one who brought them up & included them in her WS.

The defence brought them up at trial to try to undermine her as what she said about Bamber was so convincing.





Because she'd been told to  ::)
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 27, 2020, 06:21:PM
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?

Julie could not be prosecuted for not approaching the police prior to the massacre. Saying she didn't believe Bamber was serious is a sufficient reason.

She approached the police a month after the massacre with further information. The police couldn't prosecute her for waiting a month as she was now a vital police witness.

The other non related minor crimes were considered not worthy of prosecution. The likely punishments being a fine.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD on September 27, 2020, 07:19:PM
Do you believe Julie told 5 people for moral support prior to her approach to the police?

She tried to paint Jeremy as bad as possible to stop any of her ‘friends’ sleeping with him
Hence trying to kill Jeremy with a pillow
There is nothing normal about Julie
She is twisted and has shown a real fondness for looking at dead children and bodies
She carried out a serious cheque fraud when she came from a comfortable home
She carried out the fraud for kicks
She has shown she is a prolific liar
She apparently felt sorry for Colin but could have prevented the murder????
It’s all been a highly successful game for Mugford except by now everyone where she lives will know her story and will know about her NOTW deal

I cannot wait for the true facts of this case to be available for all the public to judge
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 27, 2020, 07:22:PM
The defences only option was to say Julie lied because according to Bamber, he jilted her.

The defence could not say the police threatened to prosecute Julie for her other minor crimes if she did not co operate. That is promoting an industrial frame which the jury would never swallow.

There was also the little matter that the police didn't know about her other minor crimes!

Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD on September 27, 2020, 07:41:PM
The defences only option was to say Julie lied because according to Bamber, he jilted her.

The defence could not say the police threatened to prosecute Julie for her other minor crimes if she did not co operate. That is promoting an industrial frame which the jury would never swallow.

There was also the little matter that the police didn't know about her other minor crimes!

Do you accept Julie was a prolific liar
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 27, 2020, 07:50:PM
Do you accept Julie was a prolific liar

I agree she committed three minor crimes prior to the massacre. Which she later told the police about.

Also agree she only gave a short but factually correct WS on the 8/8/85. Approaching the police a month later wanting to give more information.

Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD on September 27, 2020, 08:06:PM
So you have accepted Julie is a prolific liar.
You have also accepted that Julie carried out a very cunning deceptive crime a number of times

She was someone that could clearly turn on the tears at the drop of a hat

You must also admit then it would be no problem for her to be deceptive if there was a prize of £25,000 at the end of it
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 27, 2020, 08:11:PM
So you have accepted Julie is a prolific liar.
You have also accepted that Julie carried out a very cunning deceptive crime a number of times

She was someone that could clearly turn on the tears at the drop of a hat

You must also admit then it would be no problem for her to be deceptive if there was a prize of £25,000 at the end of it

Well two of her minor crimes were with Bamber. Selling the drugs he grew & being a lookout as Bamber robbed the caravan site.

She also told the truth when telling the police about her previous minor crimes.

What did you think of Bamber robbing from his family?
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD on September 27, 2020, 08:20:PM

Probably why Mugford went on the run to Canada


DBS and Barring Service


Enhanced check
An enhanced DBS check is suitable for people

working with children

or adults in certain circumstances such as those in receipt of healthcare or personal care. An enhanced check is also suitable for a small number of other roles such as taxi licence applications or people working in the Gambling Commission.

The certificate will contain the same details as a standard certificate and, if the role is eligible, an employer can request that one or both of the DBS barred lists are checked.

The certificate may also contain non-conviction information supplied by relevant police forces


, if it is deemed relevant and ought to be contained in the certificate.

An individual cannot apply for an enhanced check by themselves. There must be a recruiting organisation who needs the applicant to get the check. This is then sent to DBS through a registered body.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD on September 27, 2020, 08:28:PM
Well two of her minor crimes were with Bamber. Selling the drugs he grew & being a lookout as Bamber robbed the caravan site.

She also told the truth when telling the police about her previous minor crimes.

What did you think of Bamber robbing from his family?


Firstly cheque book fraud is not a minor crime you can go to prison

I don’t think the caravan robbery was very clever but definitely not as serious as cheque book fraud

Adam As an experienced criminal do you think it was Mugfords idea to rob the caravan park?

She must have told Jeremy it would have been easy to carry out without any consequences
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on September 27, 2020, 08:32:PM
"25- Despite a clear intention on the part of the DPP, in a letter to the Chief Constable of Essex Police dated 8th of May 1986 a copy of which is a appended, That the defence would have access " to all the evidence with the exception of the statement of Mary Mugford (13th January 1986 )", it was never revealed at trial that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby had been given immunity from prosecution, Julie Mugford in relation to a burglary at Osea Caravan Park and a cheque fraud and Susan Battersby in relation to the same cheque fraud.

26. Susan Battersby's handwritten statement of 10th September 1985, a copy of which is appended to this document, and which was withheld at trial, clearly sets out the fact that she has been offered Police Immunity in respect of the cheque fraud. In a letter from the DPP to DCI O'Connor of the City of London Police dated 21st June 1991, also appended, the immunity of Julie Mugford from prosecution and the intention to call her as a witness is also clearly stated.

27. The fact of immunity would have clearly been of paramount relevance to the defence attack upon both of these witnesses. The trial Judge, who it must be assumed was unaware of the fact of immunity used the fact that Julie Mugford had apparently volunteered her criminal conduct to bolster her credibility. At p 19 F H, of his summing up, he said this:

"In considering whether her past dishonesty affects your assessment of her as a witness in this case, no doubt you will bear one or two things in mind, namely that she volunteered her past offences to the bank, who had lost the money, when she went to them about a month after she had made her satement to the police in this case, and volunteered to them that if they looked back they would find frauds for which she was responsible. She told you that she went there voluntarily and repaid the money that she had obtained, and it seems, does it not that without her voluntarily revelation of her own part in those offences she would never have been caught for them."

This statement now appears to be utterly misleading. It is now clear that the police orchestrated her attendance at the bank and that DS Jones attended at the Midland bank New Cross with both Mugford and Battersby on 14th October ( see Jones note book at 64/13 ). From the edited versions of Jones note book, that appear elsewhere, it would appear that this note book entry was deliberately withheld at trial. "
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 27, 2020, 08:45:PM

Firstly cheque book fraud is not a minor crime you can go to prison

I don’t think the caravan robbery was very clever but definitely not as serious as cheque book fraud

Adam As an experienced criminal do you think it was Mugfords idea to rob the caravan park?

She must have told Jeremy it would have been easy to carry out without any consequences

Bamber has never said it was Julie's idea to rob the caravan site. He said he did it to show security was poor. However spent the money!"

The caravan site robbery was for a similar amount to the cheque book fraud. However it was robbing his family & the business he was involved in.

Don't believe minor cheque book fraud & selling Bamber's low grade drugs made Julie an experienced criminal.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD on September 27, 2020, 08:49:PM
Bamber has never said it was Julie's idea to rob the caravan site. He said he did it to show security was poor. However spent the money!"

The caravan site robbery was for a similar amount to the cheque book fraud. However it was robbing his family & the business he was involved in.

Don't believe minor cheque book fraud & selling Bamber's low grade drugs made Julie an experienced criminal.

It’s not up to you what you believe we are discussing what lies and misconceptions were fed to the jury just as David has pointed out above
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 27, 2020, 08:52:PM
It’s not up to you what you believe we are discussing what lies and misconceptions were fed to the jury just as David has pointed out above

The jury were aware of the caravan break in & cheque book fraud 
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on September 27, 2020, 08:55:PM
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?

If its any help, here is part of Julies cross examination on the pillow incident.

Q. That night when you put a pillow over his head and took it off and he asked you why you had done it, and you said this: "If you were dead you would always be with me"

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. Because at that time you knew he might not always be with you, because of this other woman?

A. I was totally unaware that there was any other woman involved. He told me Virginia Greaves was a friend who was coming to share the flat. He did not specify any sort of emotional involvement with her whatsoever. I had no idea any other woman had been on the scene.

Q. But you put the pillow over his head?

A. I did.

Q. Because you wanted him to be always with you?

A. I preceded it with the comment "He would be better off dead."
I wanted him to be with me because both he and I knew something nobody
else knew, and I could not cope with it. I could not speak normally to other
people because it was haunting me. That is why I informed him there at that
present moment.

Q. Have you ever previously said anything to the effect that you thought he
might be better off dead?

A. Not as far as I can recollect, no.

Q. It is the first time you have ever mentioned that in Court this afternoon?

A. No. I mentioned it in my statement earlier. Sorry, I misunderstood.

Q. Did you not say, after he had asked you why you did it, if he were dead he
would always be with you?

A. I said that earlier in court and I said it at the time in my statement. Definitely.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: lookout on September 27, 2020, 08:58:PM
Anyone with half an eye can see that one phrase has been twisted----shocking.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: guest29835 on September 27, 2020, 09:17:PM
“You see this creature with her kerbstone English: the English that will keep her in the gutter to the end of her days. Well, sir, in three months I could pass that girl off as a duchess at an ambassador’s garden party.”

The Note Taker in Pygmalion, by George Bernard Shaw.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD on September 27, 2020, 09:49:PM
“You see this creature with her kerbstone English: the English that will keep her in the gutter to the end of her days. Well, sir, in three months I could pass that girl off as a duchess at an ambassador’s garden party.”

The Note Taker in Pygmalion, by George Bernard Shaw.

Exactly
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD on September 27, 2020, 09:54:PM
"25- Despite a clear intention on the part of the DPP, in a letter to the Chief Constable of Essex Police dated 8th of May 1986 a copy of which is a appended, That the defence would have access " to all the evidence with the exception of the statement of Mary Mugford (13th January 1986 )", it was never revealed at trial that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby had been given immunity from prosecution, Julie Mugford in relation to a burglary at Osea Caravan Park and a cheque fraud and Susan Battersby in relation to the same cheque fraud.

26. Susan Battersby's handwritten statement of 10th September 1985, a copy of which is appended to this document, and which was withheld at trial, clearly sets out the fact that she has been offered Police Immunity in respect of the cheque fraud. In a letter from the DPP to DCI O'Connor of the City of London Police dated 21st June 1991, also appended, the immunity of Julie Mugford from prosecution and the intention to call her as a witness is also clearly stated.

27. The fact of immunity would have clearly been of paramount relevance to the defence attack upon both of these witnesses. The trial Judge, who it must be assumed was unaware of the fact of immunity used the fact that Julie Mugford had apparently volunteered her criminal conduct to bolster her credibility. At p 19 F H, of his summing up, he said this:

"In considering whether her past dishonesty affects your assessment of her as a witness in this case, no doubt you will bear one or two things in mind, namely that she volunteered her past offences to the bank, who had lost the money, when she went to them about a month after she had made her satement to the police in this case, and volunteered to them that if they looked back they would find frauds for which she was responsible. She told you that she went there voluntarily and repaid the money that she had obtained, and it seems, does it not that without her voluntarily revelation of her own part in those offences she would never have been caught for them."

This statement now appears to be utterly misleading. It is now clear that the police orchestrated her attendance at the bank and that DS Jones attended at the Midland bank New Cross with both Mugford and Battersby on 14th October ( see Jones note book at 64/13 ). From the edited versions of Jones note book, that appear elsewhere, it would appear that this note book entry was deliberately withheld at trial. "



Absolutely and Adam continues to ignore what information Ngb has posted frequently the truth about the bank and the cheque book fraud
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 27, 2020, 10:03:PM

Absolutely and Adam continues to ignore what information Ngb has posted frequently the truth about the bank and the cheque book fraud

What truth? She said she did it & paid the money back.

How does that escalate to making a lone attempt to get an innocent man of being convicted of murdering 5 members of his family?
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD on September 27, 2020, 10:28:PM
What truth? She said she did it & paid the money back.

How does that escalate to making a lone attempt to get an innocent man of being convicted of murdering 5 members of his family?


You need to go back and read all the posts regarding the visit to the bank because I have got better things to do than correct you every time you fail to accept the truth.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Steve_uk on September 28, 2020, 06:34:PM

You need to go back and read all the posts regarding the visit to the bank because I have got better things to do than correct you every time you fail to accept the truth.
..and you're wrong about the bank visit. In the 2002 appeal it's clearly stated by Alan Dovey that no pressure was brought to bear on him one way or the other.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 28, 2020, 07:32:PM
..and you're wrong about the bank visit. In the 2002 appeal it's clearly stated by Alan Dovey that no pressure was brought to bear on him one way or the other.

Not sure how Julie committing cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby means months later she would go on a crazy, serious lying rampage trying to implicate an innocent man of 5x murder. A month after the massacre.

Too much to lose & too slim chance of success.

But Jackie is entitled to believe this.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 28, 2020, 07:41:PM
Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie? When was the decision made?

I hope this thread has answered your question.

The police could not prosecute Julie for anything -

Cheque book fraud - Bank did not prosecute.

Caravan break in - Julie told the police. Bamber prosecuted.

Selling low grade drugs - Julie told the police. Too minor to prosecute.

Putting pillow on Bamber - Bamber did not prosecute.

Not approaching the police pre massacre - Police unable to prosecute.

Withholding information for a month -  Police unable to prosecute.





Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 28, 2020, 07:52:PM
The police could not force Julie to co operate with them by threatening to prosecute her for these -

Cheque book fraud.

Caravan break in.

Selling low grade drugs.

Putting pillow on Bamber.

----------

They didn't know about these until Julie told them!
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 28, 2020, 08:02:PM
The police would have encouraged Julie to give further information. That is what they are supposed to do with a potential major witness.

They may have told her that Bamber is a suspect.

I doubt they had to scare her by saying continuing to withhold information could result in prosecution. Julie had already told 5 people & approached the police.

Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD on September 28, 2020, 08:02:PM
Not sure how Julie committing cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby means months later she would go on a crazy, serious lying rampage trying to implicate an innocent man of 5x murder. A month after the massacre.

Too much to lose & too slim chance of success.

But Jackie is entitled to believe this.

You clearly do not have a grip on reality??


Going on the rampage do you mean when Mugford tried to smother Jeremy

I don’t know what world you live in but I can categorically state none on my female friends have ever tried to smother there boyfriends after being dumped

I have also made it clear that the police would most probably have warned Mugford perjury carries a sentence up to a life term

She clearly run away with her mouth with her friends and got into something she couldn’t get out of.

Please supply just one piece of information Jeremy told Mugford that nobody else new and was truthful

You cannot supply a single piece of evidence
It’s all rubbish and you need to except the truth
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Steve_uk on September 28, 2020, 08:05:PM
You clearly do not have a grip on reality??


Going on the rampage do you mean when Mugford tried to smother Jeremy

I don’t know what world you live in but I can categorically state none on my female friends have ever tried to smother there boyfriends after being dumped

I have also made it clear that the police would most probably have warned Mugford perjury carries a sentence up to a life term

She clearly run away with her mouth with her friends and got into something she couldn’t get out of.

Please supply just one piece of information Jeremy told Mugford that nobody else new and was truthful

You cannot supply a single piece of evidence
It’s all rubbish and you need to except the truth
A glove came off in the fight with Nevill. "I'm glad she's dead, but I do miss the old man occasionally." The Matthew MacDonald story.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 28, 2020, 08:05:PM
You clearly do not have a grip on reality??


Going on the rampage do you mean when Mugford tried to smother Jeremy

I don’t know what world you live in but I can categorically state none on my female friends have ever tried to smother there boyfriends after being dumped

I have also made it clear that the police would most probably have warned Mugford perjury carries a sentence up to a life term

She clearly run away with her mouth with her friends and got into something she couldn’t get out of.

Please supply just one piece of information Jeremy told Mugford that nobody else new and was truthful

You cannot supply a single piece of evidence
It’s all rubbish and you need to except the truth


Low house insurance.

Bible by Sheila.

Sheila's shot locations.

Kitchen fight.

Twins asleep.

Sheila putting up no resistance.

Nevill's multiple shots.

June shot in bed.

Kitchen windows.

Portable phone.

Mason clock.

Twins shot first.

Sheila shot last.

June's sleeping pills.

Sheila & the twins sleeping in different rooms on different nights.

Kitchen argument.

Shooting rabbits.

Sheila shot on parents bed
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on September 28, 2020, 08:36:PM


Sheila's shot locations.



Julie knew this from looking at her in the mortuary.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD on September 28, 2020, 08:40:PM
A glove came off in the fight with Nevill. "I'm glad she's dead, but I do miss the old man occasionally." The Matthew MacDonald story.

I take it that’s a joke

What kind of proof is that??

Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 28, 2020, 08:47:PM
Julie knew this from looking at her in the mortuary.

Yeah right. She went there to distinguish between the twins. Not check shot locations.

Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD on September 28, 2020, 08:50:PM
Yeah right. She went there to distinguish between the twins. Not check shot locations.

Don’t be ridiculous, it was a sick move on her part

She had no proof to back up her lies

Fact
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on September 28, 2020, 09:03:PM
Yeah right. She went there to distinguish between the twins. Not check shot locations.

It documented that Julie mentioned seeing "one shot" under Sheila's chin in the mortuary. This is either in Julie or Ann statements IIRC.

Julie overlooking the second shot is what becomes part of her "one shot" tale. And has also resulted in Mikes conspiracy theories.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 28, 2020, 09:15:PM
It documented that Julie mentioned seeing "one shot" under Sheila's chin in the mortuary. This is either in Julie or Ann statements IIRC.

Julie overlooking the second shot is what becomes part of her "one shot" tale. And has also resulted in Mikes conspiracy theories.

You need to locate the section of the WS.

Page 9 of Susan Battersby's WS confirms Julie knew Sheila's bullet locations.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4575.0.html
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 28, 2020, 09:23:PM
Susan Battersby told her boyfriend Mark. So that is 6 people who knew prior to her approaching the police. Although there is no confirmation whether Julie knew SB had done this.

Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD on September 28, 2020, 10:08:PM
Still waiting of this one piece of actual proof that Jeremy told Julie about the murder


You, Steve or your little gang cannot provide any proof whatsoever


Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 28, 2020, 10:38:PM
Still waiting of this one piece of actual proof that Jeremy told Julie about the murder


You, Steve or your little gang cannot provide any proof whatsoever

Reply 69 has 18 pieces which Julie would not have read in the newspapers.

So she only got these from Bamber. Or the police if they were coordinating an industrial frame.

Do you believe there was an industrial frame?
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Steve_uk on September 28, 2020, 10:43:PM
Still waiting of this one piece of actual proof that Jeremy told Julie about the murder


You, Steve or your little gang cannot provide any proof whatsoever
..and you can't prove Jeremy Bamber is innocent, which is why he's been languishing in prison for 35 years.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on September 28, 2020, 11:27:PM
You need to locate the section of the WS.

Page 9 of Susan Battersby's WS confirms Julie knew Sheila's bullet locations.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4575.0.html

In Ann Eatons notes (written days after the murder) it’s stated were Sheila was shot and the twins shot in bed.

 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1677.0;attach=7846 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1677.0;attach=7846)
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Steve_uk on September 29, 2020, 12:03:AM
In Ann Eatons notes (written days after the murder) it’s stated were Sheila was shot and the twins shot in bed.

 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1677.0;attach=7846 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1677.0;attach=7846)
Why is this link relevant David?
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on September 30, 2020, 07:47:PM


Shooting rabbits.



Ann Eaton also knew about the rabbits.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 30, 2020, 08:14:PM
Ann Eaton also knew about the rabbits.

So did Bamber.

The newspapers wouldn't report that or the other things.

There is no chance the relatives would find out information from the police. Then ring up Bamber's girlfriend & feed her it. She may warn Bamber.

Besides which they wouldn't know how to contact her. There was no mobile phones or internet then.

Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on September 30, 2020, 08:20:PM
Julie could only get detailed information from Bamber or the police if there was an industrial frame.

Only Lookout & NGB believes there was police corruption. Roch believes Ainsley was brought in to oversee a cover up.

I did ask Jackie yesterday if she believed there was an industrial frame. But she did not answer. I believe her main reason for support is because Julie identified the twins.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: lookout on September 30, 2020, 08:24:PM
It doesn't state how many times he visited the bathroom ?
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on September 30, 2020, 08:26:PM
Julie could only get detailed information from Bamber or the police if there was an industrial frame.



There was no "industrial frame". Julie learned various things from conversations and gossip with relatives ect. After Jeremy split up with her, she concocted a malicious story in Lewisham Pizza Hut.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on September 30, 2020, 08:44:PM
There was no "industrial frame". Julie learned various things from conversations and gossip with relatives ect. After Jeremy split up with her, she concocted malicious story in Lewisham Pizza Hut.

The "industrial frame" does not work, for the same reason Bamber confessing to Julie does not work.

Bamber confessing or an "industrial frame" would result in Julies witness statement consisting of - Jeremy shooting Sheila twice with silencer attached and placing the bible beside her body on the floor where found. However that is not what Julies witness statement consists of. It claims one shot, body on the bed and bible on her chest, no silencer and Mathew McDonald.

Any reasonable person can only arrive at the conclusion that Julies latter WS is a pack of lies.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Roch on September 30, 2020, 08:53:PM
There was no "industrial frame".

Bill Robertson agreed. I posted up his views a good while back.

How Jeremy's conviction was obtained:

The first rule is always to restrict the number of persons directly involved in the conspiracy to a bare minimum; to divulge information strictly on a ‘need to know’ basis.

There would perhaps have been 6 or fewer police officers who knew for certain that a conspiratorial plot was being enacted to convict Jeremy Bamber. 

The core team was DCI Michael Ainsley, DS Stan Jones, DI Miller and DI Ron Cook.  They would have manipulated other police officers such as DS Barlow, who fabricated the evidence about the kitchen window at WHF.

The strategy is to formulate a ‘team’ ethos.  In the WHF case it was the characterisation of Jeremy Bamber as extremely cunning, devious and manipulative.  So, the core team would say to a witness, “Help us or this horrible man might get set free”. 

They would play on somewhat mythical fears that the Court system was rigged against the police and the police had a far greater burden of proof than was fair or reasonable.  Alternatively, the police would simply lie to the witness.  The situation regarding Colin Caffell’s witness statement serves as a good example.

On 9th September 1986 Colin Caffell, Sheila’s ex-husband, wrote a letter of complaint to DCI Ainsley voicing his concerns about an alteration which had been made to his witness statement.  “I am writing to you because there are a few things which have been on my mind recently which I would like to bring to your attention.  The main point I would like to raise concerns a sentence in either my first or second statement.  It is the part where I am talking about my conversation with Jeremy at my party prior to the shooting.  It refers to an opinion of Jeremy's where he says that he has always felt that I (referring to me) had always had a rough deal with regards his family etc. When the typed, edited statement was presented to me to read and sign, I noticed that the reference Jeremy had made to me, was changed to him, altering the whole inflection of the sentence.  The 'I' which is underlined above was changed to 'he'.

When I commented to Stan Jones on this, he said something like: "Oh, it's only a typing error, don't worry about it. It's correct on the hand written statement isn't it?  That's all that matters, so just sign it- If you change it, we'll have to have it all typed out again." This has been niggling me for some time and feel it must be important to have been included in the typed statement.  When I asked Stan Jones about it again last week he said, "Leave it, whatever you do don't say anything about it in the witness box, it'll cause all sorts of trouble if you do."  Unfortunately I can't accept that and feel I have to say something about it now, before it's too late.”

There does not appear to be a written response from DCI Ainsley to Colin Caffell regarding his concerns, however DS Jones visited him again on 15 September 1986.  The only recorded reference to what was discussed is in a note attached to the action which states: “Caffell seen 15/09/86 – Got his facts wrong”. The statement was never corrected to read in the original wording contained in Caffell’s hand written original version of this statement and, of course, the defence only ever saw the typed, inaccurate, version.

For the detectives working on the WHF incident, the primary benefit to them of being involved was financial.  This was an investigation that would result in hundreds of hours of overtime payments.  To hard-up police officers the ‘murder’ case was a godsend.  To rock the boat by questioning whether Jeremy Bamber was guilty would jeopardise the financial rewards of many colleagues.

Very few witnesses would be asked to lie outright.  Julie Mugford being the most obvious example of one who was.

A witness such as Ann Eaton could however be ‘advised’ that certain truths would be unhelpful - if the aim was to convict a vicious murderer. 

For example, if Ann Eaton barely knew Sheila Caffell, it would not lend her testimony credibility.  Thus, Eaton might be persuaded to say that she knew Sheila well, or fairly well, and she could testify with alleged accuracy as to Sheila’s supposed scatty and uncoordinated nature, or that Sheila could not possibly know how to fire a gun. 

For the witness, this form of deceit was not regarded as conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, this was just being helpful to the prosecution when the odds were stacked so highly against them (according to the police themselves).

For the professional witnesses the situation was slightly different.

The Home Office appointed forensic scientists were, in effect, part of the prosecution team.  They were not expected to demonstrate scientific impartiality.  Their role was to use scientific arguments to bolster the prosecution case.  They were paid by the government and they were expected to support the police, not undermine them.  Thus, they were highly susceptible to police pressure for them to overlook the submission of forensic evidence that did not comply with regulatory requirements, such as hand swabs taken from Sheila Caffell that were transported along with firearms and bullets, which could have caused cross-contamination.  Ainsley regarded the rejection of the hand swabs with utter disdain and raged against the decision to reject them, causing them to be examined again at the first opportunity.

Thus, for a forensic scientist, being asked to work on two different ‘silencers’ was not problematical - as long as they were never asked directly to perjure themselves.  They may have realised that there were two diverse silencers being examined but their role was not to question why – it was simply to report on what they found.  The shenanigans surrounding falsifying exhibit labels were not the concern of the forensic scientists, as long as nobody knew.

For independent experts such as Dr Peter Vanezis, other considerations could be used to influence him. Primarily, the great financial rewards for being regarded as a prosecution-friendly pathologist.  He has reaped huge financial reward and professional kudos over the years from being a Home Office pathologist, and an OBE with certain celebrity status.  All that was required was for Ainsley to point out the testimony that would be good for Vanezis’ career, and again, to play on the need to convict a cunning and devious murderer who had, somehow, been clever enough to slaughter his entire family without so much as receiving a scratch.

The conspiracy was aided greatly by the decision of the DPP to allow Ainsley’s team to edit and amalgamate witness statements.  The end result was cherry-picked testimony in statements that were not dated or seen and signed by the witnesses.  Very few witnesses were aware that their words had been ‘twisted’ and those such as Colin Caffell who did notice, were fobbed off by the police.  The defence protested about the production of undated and unsigned witness statements and Ainsley was forced to promise that he would get them signed, but he never did.

Thus, by the time papers were submitted to the defence prior to Jeremy’s trial, a careful case had been constructed that omitted a vast amount of information.  The nature of the evidence was such that Jeremy’s defence conceded before the trial began that he was guilty, but didn’t tell Jeremy this.

Ultimately, it was a conspiracy between a handful of police officers and a few professionals who knew what was going on.  The majority of civilian witnesses just thought they were being helpful to the police, although several of Jeremy’s relatives lied on oath so as to ensure that they inherited large sums of money.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on September 30, 2020, 08:56:PM
Bill Robertson agreed. I posted up his views a good while back.

He is wrong
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Roch on September 30, 2020, 09:20:PM
He is wrong

He was to all intents and purposes an 'insider'.  I will weigh his opinion and research against your own and a good few others. Sometimes you put up a decent argument to the contrary. But at other times, your dismissals seem knee-jerk and impulsive.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: lookout on September 30, 2020, 09:53:PM
David can you bring an old thread forward please ? It's from 2012 and the heading is :" Two killers, two weapons, two lots of ammunition ".

There are some interesting letters of JB's which were written in 2010 re. the scratched fireplace among other things.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on September 30, 2020, 10:06:PM
He was to all intents and purposes an 'insider'.  I will weigh his opinion and research against your own and a good few others. Sometimes you put up a decent argument to the contrary. But at other times, your dismissals seem knee-jerk and impulsive.

That’s because I simply cannot be bothered to yet again debunk these claims.

Bill has made claims he cannot substantiate, the burden is on him to show the evidence not me.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 01, 2020, 01:36:AM
Ann Eaton also knew about the rabbits.
She wasn't a psychic, so she had to be told what was going on, and who could have told her about shooting the rabbits?  There was only Jeremy wasn't there?
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on October 01, 2020, 01:44:AM
She wasn't a psychic, so she had to be told what was going on, and who could have told her about shooting the rabbits?  There was only Jeremy wasn't there?

She was listening in on Jeremy give his statement to police.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 01, 2020, 03:53:AM
She was listening in on Jeremy give his statement to police.
Yes it comes from Jeremy, but does she believe Jeremy?   Pick and choose the bits she likes.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on October 01, 2020, 06:56:AM
She was listening in on Jeremy give his statement to police.

Bamber's WS is 7 pages long. It would be done in private and take a long time. AE would not be present.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on October 01, 2020, 07:05:AM
Bamber didn't tell Julie what had happened & give her the option of going to WHF at a convinient time to give him moral support. Although she did have work that day.

He just rang her with 10p at 5am, telling her not to go to work & a police car was picking her up. He wanted her right by him straight away until he felt safe.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Roch on October 01, 2020, 07:36:AM
That’s because I simply cannot be bothered to yet again debunk these claims.

Bill has made claims he cannot substantiate, the burden is on him to show the evidence not me.

Which bit of the above post are you waiting to be substantiated. Police don't tend to deliberately leave behind evidence of collusion in framing somebody.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 01, 2020, 07:53:AM
Bamber's WS is 7 pages long. It would be done in private and take a long time. AE would not be present.
I think she admits to being present.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on October 01, 2020, 11:29:AM
Bamber's WS is 7 pages long. It would be done in private and take a long time. AE would not be present.

Wrong.

Page 21 of AEs September WS

(https://i.ibb.co/TKjVDz2/ae21.png)


Once again you demonstrate your lack of research on this case.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on October 01, 2020, 11:39:AM
Wrong.

Page 21 of AEs September WS

(https://i.ibb.co/TKjVDz2/ae21.png)


Once again you demonstrate your lack of research on this case.

Of course AE wasn't present while Bamber and the police got together his 7 page WS.  It would have taken hours.

Stick to putting up pictures of yourself. Makes me feel handsome.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on October 01, 2020, 11:40:AM
Which bit of the above post are you waiting to be substantiated. Police don't tend to deliberately leave behind evidence of collusion in framing somebody.

More or less the whole thing. You wont accomplish anything believing a giant police conspiracy fantasy simply because you find that avenue more entertaining.



Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on October 01, 2020, 11:41:AM
Actually it was a 9 page WS. Bamber added on a seperate 2 page WS. Saying not very much.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on October 01, 2020, 11:46:AM
Julie knew -

Low house insurance.

Bible by Sheila.

Sheila's shot locations.

Kitchen fight.

Caravan break in.

Twins asleep.

Sheila putting up no resistance.

Nevill's multiple shots.

June shot in bed.

Kitchen windows.

Portable phone.

Mason clock.

Twins shot first.

Sheila shot last.

June's sleeping pills.

Bamber wanted her sleeping pills.

Bike brought over just before the massacre.

Burning down WHF idea - corresponding with James Richards.

Sheila & the twins sleeping in different rooms on different nights.

Kitchen argument.

Shooting rabbits.

Sheila shot on parents bed.

-----------

David is saying AE got all this information and passed it to Bamber's girlfriend. By telepathy! Although Julie may warn him.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 01, 2020, 12:47:PM
Of course AE wasn't present while Bamber and the police got together his 7 page WS.  It would have taken hours.

Stick to putting up pictures of yourself. Makes me feel handsome.
I had a feeling Jeremy thout of Ann Eaton as his support person.  She may have been present the whole time, as his support person.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Jane on October 01, 2020, 12:55:PM
I had a feeling Jeremy thout of Ann Eaton as his support person.  She may have been present the whole time, as his support person.


I don't know how Jeremy viewed Ann, but I thought that in the beginning, she thought of herself as being his support person. I'm minded of his comment to her during a phone call, "I have no one -or words to that effect- her response , "I'm here, you've got me" -again, words to that effect.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on October 01, 2020, 02:28:PM
Of course AE wasn't present while Bamber and the police got together his 7 page WS.  It would have taken hours.

Stick to putting up pictures of yourself. Makes me feel handsome.

When the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Roch on October 01, 2020, 06:22:PM
More or less the whole thing. You wont accomplish anything believing a giant police conspiracy fantasy simply because you find that avenue more entertaining.

You obviously haven't read the post. It claims there was no giant conspiracy. 

He gives an insight in to 1980's police thinking, attitude and tactics. I'll wager he's closer to the truth in that post than you are in your dismissal of it.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on October 01, 2020, 08:25:PM
You obviously haven't read the post. It claims there was no giant conspiracy. 

He gives an insight in to 1980's police thinking, attitude and tactics. I'll wager he's closer to the truth in that post than you are in your dismissal of it.

I’ve gone over this enough times already. Posted enough evidence to the contrary in the past. I have no interest in going over it again.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Roch on October 01, 2020, 08:36:PM
I’ve gone over this enough times already. Posted enough evidence to the contrary in the past. I have no interest in going over it again.

What you do is find a specific aspect you disagree with and can argue to the contrary; and then use that to dismiss literally everything.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on October 02, 2020, 02:45:PM
What you do is find a specific aspect you disagree with and can argue to the contrary; and then use that to dismiss literally everything.

Much like a house of cards. If a theory has a weak structure or foundation you only need to remove one card for it all to fall down.  8)
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 02, 2020, 06:00:PM
Much like a house of cards. If a theory has a weak structure or foundation you only need to remove one card for it all to fall down.  8)
Not always, some theories are flexible enough for cards to replaced as other faulty ones are removed.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on October 03, 2020, 02:19:PM
Not always, some theories are flexible enough for cards to replaced as other faulty ones are removed.

Like i said "If a theory has a weak structure or foundation"
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 03, 2020, 07:35:PM
Like i said "If a theory has a weak structure or foundation"
You then strengthen it. 
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on October 03, 2020, 07:52:PM
You then strengthen it.

If a theory has a weak structure or no foundation, it’s often because it is wrong and there is no evidence to support it. In that case, no you can’t strengthen it because you can’t obtain evidence that does not exist. Moreover there is evidence against such theories and in this case the counter argument is always that the documents have been faked by Ainsley etc etc with no evidence to support the claim.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Robittybob1 on October 03, 2020, 08:01:PM
If a theory has a weak structure or no foundation, it’s often because it is wrong and there is no evidence to support it. In that case, no you can’t strengthen it because you can’t obtain evidence that does not exist. Moreover there is evidence against such theories and in this case the counter argument is always that the documents have been faked by Ainsley etc etc with no evidence to support the claim.
Without going into specifics "If a theory has a weak structure or no foundation, it’s often because it is wrong and there is no evidence to support it. In that case, no you can’t strengthen it because you can’t obtain evidence that does not exist", and I'd have to agree.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Roch on October 03, 2020, 09:35:PM
If a theory has a weak structure or no foundation, it’s often because it is wrong and there is no evidence to support it. In that case, no you can’t strengthen it because you can’t obtain evidence that does not exist. Moreover there is evidence against such theories and in this case the counter argument is always that the documents have been faked by Ainsley etc etc with no evidence to support the claim.

Who has said Ainsley faked documents? He had oversight of the typing up of composite statements. He therefore had oversight of editing statements. He would have struck out any statements unhelpful to the prosecution. As Head of investigation, he would have had oversight any exhibit reference changes, though this work may have been delegated. Why do you always misrepresent things like this?
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on October 03, 2020, 10:08:PM
Who has said Ainsley faked documents? He had oversight of the typing up of composite statements. He therefore had oversight of editing statements. He would have struck out any statements unhelpful to the prosecution. As Head of investigation, he would have had oversight any exhibit reference changes, though this work may have been delegated. Why do you always misrepresent things like this?

It has been claimed that the relatives statements and the 1991 colp statements are all fake and backdated. Advocates of the industrial frame theory have to believe this since those documents preclude a police frame up as far as the silencer is concerned.


It might be worth reading this

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9379.15.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9379.15.html)

Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: buddy on October 04, 2020, 09:02:AM
JM should supposedly knew months before the murders,and could have prevented them.
In fact she even supplied her own drugs to JB, JB said they didn’t work.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on October 04, 2020, 09:27:AM
JM should supposedly knew months before the murders,and could have prevented them.
In fact she even supplied her own drugs to JB, JB said they didn’t work.

Yes Julie would have prevented Bamber committing the massacre, if she approached the police beforehand.

Bamber then couldn't commit the massacre as the circumstances would match what Julie told the police his plans were.

However she didn't believe he was serious.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on October 04, 2020, 09:34:AM
Bamber trusted Julie enough to involve her in other crimes against his family & his cannabis growing.

Spending so much time with her before & after the massacre, it is no surprise he also told her of his plans & then his responsibilty afterwards.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Jane on October 04, 2020, 09:56:AM
JM should supposedly knew months before the murders,and could have prevented them.
In fact she even supplied her own drugs to JB, JB said they didn’t work.


If we look more closely at what you've said, "her own drugs" weren't illicit, they'd been prescribed by her doctor because she'd been having trouble sleeping. Is it likely that a doctor would have prescribed, to a 20yr old, medication so toxic it would kill? In fact, had she taken the whole lot -a month's supply?- in one hit it MAY have, but how was Jeremy going to force a month's worth of sleeping pills down his father's throat. And how would he then have dealt with his mother?
It's when we start to strip away the cant attached to some of the stories associated with the murders that something rather different starts to show.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: lookout on October 04, 2020, 10:59:AM
There'd have been enough sleeping pills of June's to have knocked out an elephant so why bother about a prescription. ? 
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on October 04, 2020, 11:12:AM
If they were to prosecute Julie, she would no longer stick to her second story and in her own defense she would claim she made it up. When you consider all the factual inaccuracies in her statements, I cannot see how any jury would convict.

The CPS would not only have a very weak case against Julie, they would be jeopardizing their case against Jeremy also.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Jane on October 04, 2020, 11:27:AM
There'd have been enough sleeping pills of June's to have knocked out an elephant so why bother about a prescription. ?


It would have been rather injudicious of Jeremy to request sleeping pills of his mother to kill his father with. Much better to use Julie's prescription ;D ;D
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on October 04, 2020, 11:33:AM
If they were to prosecute Julie, she would no longer stick to her second story and in her own defense she would claim she made it up. When you consider all the factual inaccuracies in her statements, I cannot see how any jury would convict.

The CPS would not only have a very weak case against Julie, they would be jeopardizing their case against Jeremy also.

Prosecute her for what?

What factual inaccuracies?
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on October 04, 2020, 11:37:AM
JM should supposedly knew months before the murders,and could have prevented them.
In fact she even supplied her own drugs to JB, JB said they didn’t work.

If she was telling the truth then she was complicit in a conspiracy to attempt murder by burning the house down.

If she was telling the truth then she got a significant pussy pass.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pussypass (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pussypass)
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on October 04, 2020, 11:40:AM
If she was telling the truth then she was complicit in a conspiracy to attempt murder by burning the house down.

If she was telling the truth then she got a significant pussy pass.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pussypass (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pussypass)

Bamber didn't burn down WHF. She also advised against it.

But agree Bamber brought up the idea to Julie & James Richards.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: buddy on October 04, 2020, 12:08:PM

If we look more closely at what you've said, "her own drugs" weren't illicit, they'd been prescribed by her doctor because she'd been having trouble sleeping. Is it likely that a doctor would have prescribed, to a 20yr old, medication so toxic it would kill? In fact, had she taken the whole lot -a month's supply?- in one hit it MAY have, but how was Jeremy going to force a month's worth of sleeping pills down his father's throat. And how would he then have dealt with his mother?
It's when we start to strip away the cant attached to some of the stories associated with the murders that something rather different starts to show.
I did not say the drugs were to kill. JM said they were to knock them out, perhaps they worked that night.
JM didn’t persuade JM not to use them according to her he told her they didn’t work, and she said there were
Valuables that he didn’t wat to destroy.
Either way she agreed to be an accomplice so was guilty of aiding and abetting.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: lookout on October 04, 2020, 12:19:PM

It would have been rather injudicious of Jeremy to request sleeping pills of his mother to kill his father with. Much better to use Julie's prescription ;D ;D




There would also have been plenty of paraquat on the farm---much less messy than using a firearm.  ;D
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Jane on October 04, 2020, 12:50:PM
I did not say the drugs were to kill. JM said they were to knock them out, perhaps they worked that night.
JM didn’t persuade JM not to use them according to her he told her they didn’t work, and she said there were
Valuables that he didn’t wat to destroy.
Either way she agreed to be an accomplice so was guilty of aiding and abetting.


I don't know how successful you've been in talking someone out of something they've set their mind on.....
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Jane on October 04, 2020, 12:59:PM



There would also have been plenty of paraquat on the farm---much less messy than using a firearm.  ;D


In hot chocolate or milk? It would certainly add a certain je ne sais quoi to a G&T :)) :))
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: buddy on October 04, 2020, 01:58:PM

I don't know how successful you've been in talking someone out of something they've set their mind on.....
I don’t know what you mean Jane.
I am not trying to talk anyone out of anything.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Jane on October 04, 2020, 02:16:PM
I don’t know what you mean Jane.
I am not trying to talk anyone out of anything.


It was your comment about Julie not talking Jeremy out of using her sleeping pills which triggered a response, from me, which had its inception in other suggestions that she could have stopped him committing murder -something of which he must have been aware when he reassured her that there was nothing she could have done to prevent it- other than walking away from him, I don't believe it was possible for her to have changed his mind.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: guest7363 on October 04, 2020, 04:21:PM
I’ve often said that I’m no fan of Julie, the more I read her witness statement the more I cringe.  She talks in her witness statement about the conversations she had with Bamber pre murder, about him killing his mum and Dad, Sheila and the twins as though it’s a walk in the park.  She knew all along that he had done it and was happy to go along with his MM story.

I’ve looked at why she would say these sort of things in the first place, or ask these sort of things or put up with a boyfriend that threatened these sort of killings?  I CANNOT COME UP WITH AN ANSWER TO DEFEND HER

(1)
I remember now that it was just after Christmas 1984 he expanded on how he could kill the whole family. We came ……??… round the farm and he stated that he would like to kill his parents. He also said that he would have to kill Sheila and the twins as well. I asked him why as I could understand him talking about his parents like that but not about Sheila and the twins.

She could understand him talking about killing his parents like that?  WHAT, get out Woman!  who could understand anyone talking of killing their parents

(2)
At White House Farm when he used to come to collect the twins. I then continued talking to Jeremy and asked him what would Colin feel if the twins were killed.

So now She’s picturing in her head the twins killed and Colin’s feelings


(3)

He said he would like to commit the perfect murder. He told me that he would have to do it when all the family were there,

If he’s told you this before why didn’t you suspect him when it happened, this one sentence says she knew it was him.






Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Adam on October 04, 2020, 05:08:PM
I’ve often said that I’m no fan of Julie, the more I read her witness statement the more I cringe.  She talks in her witness statement about the conversations she had with Bamber pre murder, about him killing his mum and Dad, Sheila and the twins as though it’s a walk in the park.  She knew all along that he had done it and was happy to go along with his MM story.

I’ve looked at why she would say these sort of things in the first place, or ask these sort of things or put up with a boyfriend that threatened these sort of killings?  I CANNOT COME UP WITH AN ANSWER TO DEFEND HER

(1)
I remember now that it was just after Christmas 1984 he expanded on how he could kill the whole family. We came ……??… round the farm and he stated that he would like to kill his parents. He also said that he would have to kill Sheila and the twins as well. I asked him why as I could understand him talking about his parents like that but not about Sheila and the twins.

She could understand him talking about killing his parents like that?  WHAT, get out Woman!  who could understand anyone talking of killing their parents

(2)
At White House Farm when he used to come to collect the twins. I then continued talking to Jeremy and asked him what would Colin feel if the twins were killed.

So now She’s picturing in her head the twins killed and Colin’s feelings


(3)

He said he would like to commit the perfect murder. He told me that he would have to do it when all the family were there,

If he’s told you this before why didn’t you suspect him when it happened, this one sentence says she knew it was him.

Doubt that Julie believed the MM story. But she had to tell the police what he had told her.

Pre massacre Bamber had always spoken about committing the massacre himself.

She said herself she knew he didn't have £2,000. As well as said to Bamber '£2,000 for 5 lives', suggesting it waa very cheap.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Jane on October 04, 2020, 05:41:PM
I’ve often said that I’m no fan of Julie, the more I read her witness statement the more I cringe.  She talks in her witness statement about the conversations she had with Bamber pre murder, about him killing his mum and Dad, Sheila and the twins as though it’s a walk in the park.  She knew all along that he had done it and was happy to go along with his MM story.

I’ve looked at why she would say these sort of things in the first place, or ask these sort of things or put up with a boyfriend that threatened these sort of killings?  I CANNOT COME UP WITH AN ANSWER TO DEFEND HER

(1)
I remember now that it was just after Christmas 1984 he expanded on how he could kill the whole family. We came ……??… round the farm and he stated that he would like to kill his parents. He also said that he would have to kill Sheila and the twins as well. I asked him why as I could understand him talking about his parents like that but not about Sheila and the twins.

She could understand him talking about killing his parents like that?  WHAT, get out Woman!  who could understand anyone talking of killing their parents

(2)
At White House Farm when he used to come to collect the twins. I then continued talking to Jeremy and asked him what would Colin feel if the twins were killed.

So now She’s picturing in her head the twins killed and Colin’s feelings


(3)

He said he would like to commit the perfect murder. He told me that he would have to do it when all the family were there,

If he’s told you this before why didn’t you suspect him when it happened, this one sentence says she knew it was him.



I concur. 100%. There's no point in me repeating the reasons why.

What I find interesting, in how you've said it, is how she seems to be trying to detach herself from it. As if, in her recall of it, she was talking about someone else. Maybe it was her way of offloading a belated sense of responsibility?

Whilst I can't imagine that she wasn't certain, I'm certain enough that she knew it to be a possibility.

BUT!.... whatever we think of Julie's reprehensibly shameful behaviour, whatever lies we believe she may have told, whatever it may be in her testimony which could cause JB's conviction to be unsafe, it has to be remembered that it doesn't make him innocent.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: guest7363 on October 04, 2020, 06:11:PM


I concur. 100%. There's no point in me repeating the reasons why.

What I find interesting, in how you've said it, is how she seems to be trying to detach herself from it. As if, in her recall of it, she was talking about someone else. Maybe it was her way of offloading a belated sense of responsibility?

Whilst I can't imagine that she wasn't certain, I'm certain enough that she knew it to be a possibility.

BUT!.... whatever we think of Julie's reprehensibly shameful behaviour, whatever lies we believe she may have told, whatever it may be in her testimony which could cause JB's conviction to be unsafe, it has to be remembered that it doesn't make him innocent.
I agree Jane, I’ve looked if there is any control from Bamber, there isn’t, she is in a relationship that would have been easy to walk away from, she stops for her own choosing.  She’s tried to water down her own involvement/Guilt, it doesn’t work though.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Jane on October 04, 2020, 06:28:PM
I agree Jane, I’ve looked if there is any control from Bamber, there isn’t, she is in a relationship that would have been easy to walk away from, she stops for her own choosing.  She’s tried to water down her own involvement/Guilt, it doesn’t work though.


Controlling behaviour isn't necessarily overt, so it's possible that he was able to exercise some sort of Svengali/Machiavellian influence over her, but is also possible that there was a Hindley/Brady, or Fred and Rose West thing going on........................on the other hand, MAYBE she didn't truly believe he'd go through with it until the fateful moment she could no longer deny it, by which time he was telling her she was as involved in it as was he, which rather blocked her escape route.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: guest7363 on October 04, 2020, 07:21:PM

Controlling behaviour isn't necessarily overt, so it's possible that he was able to exercise some sort of Svengali/Machiavellian influence over her, but is also possible that there was a Hindley/Brady, or Fred and Rose West thing going on........................on the other hand, MAYBE she didn't truly believe he'd go through with it until the fateful moment she could no longer deny it, by which time he was telling her she was as involved in it as was he, which rather blocked her escape route.
I was thinking more in terms of coercive control Jane,
Some common examples of coercive behaviour are:

Isolating you from friends and family
Depriving you of basic needs, such as food
Monitoring your time
Monitoring you via online communication tools or spyware
Taking control over aspects of your everyday life, such as where you can go, who you can see, what you can wear and when you can sleep
Depriving you access to support services, such as medical services
Repeatedly putting you down, such as saying you’re worthless
Humiliating, degrading or dehumanising you
Controlling your finances
Making threats or intimidating you

These are the main types of control, I can’t match any?  Maybe the last one, but she could walk away or tell someone, she didn’t live with him or depend entirely of him?

This leads me to why I don’t think the police coaxed her statement as much as we think, why would they allow her to put all her involvement into the statement if it was rehearsed, why didn’t they encourage her to just say “He always talked about killing his family” or “He always wished his family dead” ect, instead she goes into great detail of their conversations. They then could have added the phone call the night before “ tonight’s the night” and the phone call the next day “ everything is going well”. I think the police were took aback with her and didn’t know what, or how, or if to use her. 

The Cheque book fraud and NOW deal is another matter though, NGB doesn’t believe the police were aware of a pre signed deal for the NOW?
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Jane on October 04, 2020, 07:52:PM
I was thinking more in terms of coercive control Jane,
Some common examples of coercive behaviour are:

Isolating you from friends and family
Depriving you of basic needs, such as food
Monitoring your time
Monitoring you via online communication tools or spyware
Taking control over aspects of your everyday life, such as where you can go, who you can see, what you can wear and when you can sleep
Depriving you access to support services, such as medical services
Repeatedly putting you down, such as saying you’re worthless
Humiliating, degrading or dehumanising you
Controlling your finances
Making threats or intimidating you

These are the main types of control, I can’t match any?  Maybe the last one, but she could walk away or tell someone, she didn’t live with him or depend entirely of him?

This leads me to why I don’t think the police coaxed her statement as much as we think, why would they allow her to put all her involvement into the statement if it was rehearsed, why didn’t they encourage her to just say “He always talked about killing his family” or “He always wished his family dead” ect, instead she goes into great detail of their conversations. They then could have added the phone call the night before “ tonight’s the night” and the phone call the next day “ everything is going well”. I think the police were took aback with her and didn’t know what, or how, or if to use her. 

The Cheque book fraud and NOW deal is another matter though, NGB doesn’t believe the police were aware of a pre signed deal?



Mmm. Intimidation is the only possibility that appears likely. He could have used her involvement in his cannabis 'business', the burglary, and the cheque fraud to do it.

Re her statement. It appears she not only gave them the cake, but the icing, too. I think they were probably surprised by how much she gave them. From her perspective, it was backing up basic facts.

I haven't given any thought to who knew what, but as the police were unaware of the cheque-book fraud, it's very likely that they wouldn't have known if the NOW deal was pre signed.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD on October 04, 2020, 09:35:PM
JM should supposedly knew months before the murders,and could have prevented them.
In fact she even supplied her own drugs to JB, JB said they didn’t work.


Buddy Mugford clearly made the whole thing up she is known as a pathological liar and experienced at fraud. She spun a story to her mates with not an ounce of proof in case any of them planned to sleep with Jeremy and it all went out of control
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: lookout on October 05, 2020, 11:48:AM

Buddy Mugford clearly made the whole thing up she is known as a pathological liar and experienced at fraud. She spun a story to her mates with not an ounce of proof in case any of them planned to sleep with Jeremy and it all went out of control




Yes, she did go out of her way to put people off Jeremy but it backfired on her in a way when she became carried away with it all that she believed it herself which is why she was more than able to stand firm in court for the prosecution. She really must have felt so brave----until it came for her to be questioned by his defence. What a let-down for that team to be taken in by a woman's tears, her knowing that it would be halted.   
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: David1819 on October 05, 2020, 03:48:PM

Buddy Mugford clearly made the whole thing up she is known as a pathological liar and experienced at fraud. She spun a story to her mates with not an ounce of proof in case any of them planned to sleep with Jeremy and it all went out of control

Yeah. It was all a malicious tale she concocted after they split up.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Roch on October 05, 2020, 10:29:PM
She spun a story to her mates with not an ounce of proof in case any of them planned to sleep with Jeremy and it all went out of control

That's an interesting take on things.  I hadn't considered that as a motivation.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD on October 05, 2020, 11:15:PM
That's an interesting take on things.  I hadn't considered that as a motivation.

Question your sources, it’s so obvious
There’s always fact in fiction
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: Roch on October 06, 2020, 10:08:AM
Question your sources, it’s so obvious
There’s always fact in fiction

I'm not sure what you mean here - is it your theory that Mugford tried to put off friends from sleeping with Jeremy or has somebody else suggested it? I certainly think it's feasible and that in those circs her intentions may have backfired spectacularly. But then, could she not have told police that she only said those things because she was feeling vulnerable about people sleeping with Jeremy in the wake of them having split?  However, I suppose that wouldn't stop the police from applying pressure and telling her that there was no proof of any phone call from Nevill to Jeremy etc.
Title: Re: Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?
Post by: JackieD on October 06, 2020, 12:05:PM
I'm not sure what you mean here - is it your theory that Mugford tried to put off friends from sleeping with Jeremy or has somebody else suggested it? I certainly think it's feasible and that in those circs her intentions may have backfired spectacularly. But then, could she not have told police that she only said those things because she was feeling vulnerable about people sleeping with Jeremy in the wake of them having split?  However, I suppose that wouldn't stop the police from applying pressure and telling her that there was no proof of any phone call from Nevill to Jeremy etc.

I have always thought that started the ball rolling. Jeremy was a very good looking young man and I am sure popular with the girls. Small town and that’s what happens. Julie definitely showed the depths of her jealousy with the pillow incident.

Everything was planned in her head when the murders happened, move into the farm and plenty of money (Julie has proved how much she loved money)

Then in a split second everything changed and Jeremy could have the time of his life doing whatever he wanted with whoever he wanted.

By making up stories to her friends she knew nobody would touch him but everything spun out of control

She could have changed her mind when she ended up at the police station but I am pretty sure she still had revenge on her mind

She might have tried to remove some of the blame making up the mm story but the police had Jeremy in there sights by then

Maybe her final get back at Jeremy was the way she was dressed for the NOW photo