Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie? When was the decision made?
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.
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.
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
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?
She probably got fed up of the DA and attempted to kill him. If it even happened.
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.
Why did she put a pillow over his head Adam?
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.
I see, so Julie was Jeremy's accomplice. Yes, it's all making sense now.Oh dear. You've started this again, haven't you..
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..
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?
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.
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
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]
As usual, I sense that Steve and Adam are rather missing the point.Actually I rather fancy being the Reverend Green. You, on the other hand, would be Monsieur Brunette, who is described on Wikipedia thus:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
She had no other option but to open up about her own criminal activities whilst standing as a prosecution witness.
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.
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.
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?
Do you believe Julie told 5 people for moral support prior to her approach to the police?
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
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?
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.
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
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?
“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.
"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
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?
..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.
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.
Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie? When was the decision made?
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??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.
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
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
Sheila's shot locations.
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.
Julie knew this from looking at her in the mortuary.
Yeah right. She went there to distinguish between the twins. Not check shot locations.
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.
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
Still waiting of this one piece of actual proof that Jeremy told Julie about the murder..and you can't prove Jeremy Bamber is innocent, which is why he's been languishing in prison for 35 years.
You, Steve or your little gang cannot provide any proof whatsoever
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.Why is this link relevant David?
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)
Shooting rabbits.
Ann Eaton also knew about the rabbits.
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 malicious story in Lewisham Pizza Hut.
There was no "industrial frame".
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.
Bill Robertson agreed. I posted up his views a good while back.
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.
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?
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.Yes it comes from Jeremy, but does she believe Jeremy? Pick and choose the bits she likes.
She was listening in on Jeremy give his statement to police.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Of course AE wasn't present while Bamber and the police got together his 7 page WS. It would have taken hours.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"You then strengthen it.
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.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.
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?
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.
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.
There'd have been enough sleeping pills of June's to have knocked out an elephant so why bother about a prescription. ?
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.
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)
I did not say the drugs were to kill. JM said they were to knock them out, perhaps they worked that night.
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.
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
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.
There would also have been plenty of paraquat on the farm---much less messy than using a firearm. ;D
I don’t know what you mean Jane.
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.
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’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 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.
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.
I was thinking more in terms of coercive control Jane,
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?
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
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
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.
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.