An Alternative Theory Regarding Julie Mugford

[guest29835]

This is moot, and I don't even necessarily say I believe it, but I have an alternative theory regarding Julie Mugford. 

In his closing speech for the accused, Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C., told the jury that they had to decide if Jeremy Bamber was an actor or Julie Mugford was an actress.

But why shouldn't it be both?

Why not Jeremy the actor and Julie the actress, operating in concert?

It can be explained this way:

1. Jeremy did it.
2. Julie was his accomplice to some extent.
3. Jeremy and Julie were in cahoots.
4. Jeremy and Julie recognised that the arrest of one or both of them was inevitable.
5. Julie gleaned this from her contact with the relatives, who tried to turn her against Jeremy.
6. Jeremy and Julie decided on a cunning scheme: Julie would be seen to co-operate with the police.
7. Her story would be deliberately exaggerated/over-blown and would involve a hitman.
8. The aim would be to discredit Julie's evidence, thereby nullifying any suspicion of Jeremy.
9. It got out of hand.  Julie realised she had to turn on Jeremy to save herself.
10. Jeremy is convicted.  The Crown use PII to protect Julie from exposure. 
11. Julie relies on the comfort letter from the Assistant DPP, resting on estoppel, and whatever other assurances and comforts the authorities have provided to her in secret.
12. Jeremy could not - and cannot - expose her for obvious reasons.

Facts that potentially lend weight to this:

(i). The 9.50 p.m. phone call.

(ii).  Julie mentions the 9.50 p.m. phone call in her very first witness statement but Jeremy doesn't.  Initially, there is nothing suspicious about this, but then Jeremy is cagey about it and his account of it doesn't tally with Julie's, yet you would expect it to prior to her going to the police.

(iii). The 3 a.m. phone call.  I don't believe it can be explained.  It's even possible that the phone call never took place.

(iv). Jeremy's second call to Julie at 5.40 a.m.

(v). The decision of Essex Police to convey Julie from London to Goldhanger.

(vi). June's bicycle, lent to Julie.

(vii). Julie's lengthy and rather unusual sojourn at police headquarters, and her 31 statements, or whatever number it was.

(viii). The hitman allegation, which in retrospect is fantastical and laughable, and easily discredited.

(ix). The failure of the DPP to disclose to the defence the nature of Julie's arrangements with the Crown and all her evidence.

(x). The defence strategy at trial, which on reflection seems a bit Manichean.  Even if Julie was lying barefacedly, realistically I would expect the defence to accept some of Julie's story and argue that she was merely exaggerating and/or had misconstrued things; instead he denied it altogether and (in the words of Drake J.) painted Julie as a "brazen liar".

(xi). The continuing failure to disclose the matters in (ix) above, I assume some of it under the auspices Public Interest Immunity.  This is despite there being no hitman or organised crime element involved, despite Julie having had no serious or organised criminal associations, and despite the fact the prisoner is on a whole life tariff as a double child murderer with no active criminal associations.

(xii). Julie moves abroad. 

(xiii). Jeremy is put on a whole life order, despite not being a predatory killer or terrorist.  Admittedly, he is a mass murderer and double child killer, but there are comparable (even worse) offenders who are not subject to a whole life order.

[guest29835]

In the context of a criminal trial, there are four major ways to lie, which I understand can form a basis for perjury:

1. Fabrication.
2. Misconstruction
3. Exaggeration.
4. Omission.

In putting Bamber's defence to Julie Mugford's evidence, Geoffrey Rivlin went for 1 and, if I understand correctly, did not emphasise any of the others.

That, at least to me, doesn't seem very smart, yet Rivlin was an experienced criminal barrister, with good experience as a prosecutor.  He would know what to do, which suggests that he was acting on Bamber's instructions: Bamber told him that Julie was simply making it all up.

Did Rivlin wonder to himself about that? 

Perhaps Julie really was making it all up, but was it a 'smart' defence strategy to allege that?  Was it realistic?  In the heat of a trial, without the benefit that we have of time to read through statements and think and reflect on things, would a jury really conclude that Julie was just lying full stop?

Personally, I think not.  I think it more likely that a jury would conclude that Julie was misconstruing and exaggerating incidents and conversations that had actually taken place.  It follows that they would conclude that Jeremy was either a bit nutty or guilty, or both.  (I tentatively fall into the 'both' camp on Jeremy).

The question I ask is: Was there some sort of intelligent planning behind this?  Did Julie and Jeremy decide to put forward a fantastical story via Julie, and it all got out of hand?

[David1819]

lol

Julie started spreading malicious gossip about Jeremy Bamber and Mathew McDonald because she disliked them both.

[Steve_uk]

Now let me see if I've got this fairytale right (do correct me if I go wrong): Jeremy telephones Julie in Lewisham telling her "tonight's the night", so Julie hurries down to Goldhanger on a magic carpet, takes June's bicycle from the yard and cycles to Tolleshunt D'Arcy leaving it outside the Queen's Head. She then returns to London via British Rail and waits for the 3am telephone call, ensuring she has roped in Douglas Dale as a confirmatory witness. Jeremy picks up the bicycle and proceeds to White House Farm, where he kills all five, though Crispy begs for his life and is saved.

Julie dislikes dogs and so she and Jeremy have a falling out, and the scuffing of the settee which he helped her move is the final straw. She throws an ornament at a dressing table mirror and Jeremy tells her she will now have seven years bad luck, though proceeds to entertain her at Blazer's Restaurant, Blackheath ( Rishi Sunak gives them a 50% discount) whereupon he confesses to her saying "I know there's something wrong with me..don't blame yourself..I would have gone ahead with it anyway.."

Julie decides on a court case and secures a £25000 newspaper deal with Jeremy, who declares: "I'm not sharing any of my money with Julie.." Meanwhile Jeremy is convicted, much to everyone's horror, but fortunately Anji Greaves will wait 25 years for this now prospectless gentleman and in another fortunate stroke of serendipity a man whom Jeremy met on one of his round the world trips falls in love with Julie and whisks her off to Winnipeg, where she lives happily ever after..

[Adam]

Now let me see if I've got this fairytale right (do correct me if I go wrong): Jeremy telephones Julie in Lewisham telling her "tonight's the night", so Julie hurries down to Goldhanger on a magic carpet, takes June's bicycle from the yard and cycles to Tolleshunt D'Arcy leaving it outside the Queen's Head. She then returns to London via British Rail and waits for the 3am telephone call, ensuring she has roped in Douglas Dale as a confirmatory witness. Jeremy picks up the bicycle and proceeds to White House Farm, where he kills all five, though Crispy begs for his life and is saved.

Julie dislikes dogs and so she and Jeremy have a falling out, and the scuffing of the settee which he helped her move is the final straw. She throws an ornament at a dressing table mirror and Jeremy tells her she will now have seven years bad luck, though proceeds to entertain her at Blazer's Restaurant, Blackheath ( Rishi Sunak gives them a 50% discount) whereupon he confesses to her saying "I know there's something wrong with me..don't blame yourself..I would have gone ahead with it anyway.."

Julie decides on a court case and secures a £25000 newspaper deal with Jeremy, who declares: "I'm not sharing any of my money with Julie.." Meanwhile Jeremy is convicted, much to everyone's horror, but fortunately Anji Greaves will wait 25 years for this now prospectless gentleman and in another fortunate stroke of serendipity a man whom Jeremy met on one of his round the world trips falls in love with Julie and whisks her off to Winnipeg, where she lives happily ever after..

That is more believable than 'Sheila did it'.

[guest29835]

Just for the people above, when I suggest that Julie could have been an accomplice, I don't mean that she was there.  Thus, I disregard the three responses above, which don't relate to what I said.

Perhaps I should have made this clearer, but I'd assumed that nobody would seriously suggest that Julie was actually there.  I wasn't suggesting that. Indeed, I pointed out the late evening and early morning phone calls to Julie in London that buttressed Jeremy's actions.

[guest29835]

Moving on, it seems to me that the Crown's case is that Julie Mugford was some sort of pseudo-accessory, before and after the fact.  It's difficult to pin it down in legalistic terms, and I note from the cross-examination of Julie that Rivlin cornered her right near the end in a muddled explanation for her thought processes and actions.

It leaves me confused and suspicious.  I'm sure the jury must have been perplexed.

The idea that she was an accomplice praesens, i.e. an abettor, can be reasonably discounted, but can we dismiss the idea of her as a constructive accomplice?

We have the 3 a.m. phone call.  We have her assisting Jeremy with the break-in at Osea Caravan Park, as it then was.  We have her admissions, on her own revised evidence, that she knew he had murder in mind and she also surmised he was the murderer after the fact; furthermore, she says he admitted it and she claims he made a confession to her in the form of relating a conversation with Matthew MacDonald, the supposed hitman.  The hitman story looks ridiculous and I can't help but wonder it is was just squid ink.  The Crown would say it was squid ink from Jeremy, but shouldn't Julie have realised it was an unrealistic account she was giving? 

Then we have DS Jones suspicious of Jeremy from the off and Essex Police immediately convey Julie to the county, even though she has no locus standi in the matter.

I sense that in the police and DPP's treatment of Julie, they have taken the instrumental approach of over-sympathising with her and over-compensating for her actions as a way of cornering Jeremy.  As a result, possibly the trial itself was a whitewash of the truth.  This dichotomy was necessary for the Crown in order to have a hope of securing a conviction, due to the lack of direct forensic evidence and the weakness of the silencer as evidence.  The Manichean narrative also became necessary for Jeremy's defence, as it was decided he could not make any concessions to Julie's story.

Another possibility is that Julie and Jeremy were not accomplices, but Julie's story of the hitman was squid ink in an effort to save Jeremy.  She knew that if Jeremy was acquitted, she would not be prosecuted for perjury and she never believed Matthew MacDonald would be a threat to her.

[Steve_uk]

I'm reminded of the phrase: Le cœur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point, and of course this may be apposite here, given that it emanates from a French mathematician and Julie was later active in that field.  Whether all deponents were guilty of omission at trial only they themselves know. The Agatha Christie Witness for the Prosecution defence (I recommend the Marlene Dietrich film for the uninitiated) was precarious at best, and I doubt concocted beforehand.

[guest29835]

Just speculation, but I'm good at reading people and I sense that the poster immediately above belongs to the teaching profession or something closely similar.  The didactic posting style and deeply condescending manner suggests it.

Anyway, the more I consider it, the more I think the theory I outline above has facts and evidence to commend it.  You could accept one of the two variations: either 'Jerry' and Julie in cahoots, with Julie as a constructive accomplice of some sort; or, Jeremy as the killer and Julie covering her own back while also cleverly spouting a load of rubbish in an effort to save Jeremy. 

Which is not to say any of this is what I think.  It's all moot.  Personally, I feel sorry for everybody caught up in this - including Jeremy.  I would not support the extradition of Julie Smerchanski back to Britain, even if cause was found for it.  But the questions still remain - at least, for me, it all doesn't add up.

Did the DPP and Essex Police enter into a Faustian pact with Julie Mugford of a kind that they would prefer to keep hidden under the spurious auspices of PII?  True or not, it is not far-fetched.  I do think the Manichean structure of Julie Mugford's evidence and the defence case strategy in hindsight seem quite naive.  Was she really fabricating everything?  Even if she was, could we realistically expect a jury in the heat of a trial, without the benefit of much opportunity to reflect, to go along with that?  More likely, I think, the jury came to the conclusion that both 'Jerry' and Julie were off their rockers, and maybe Jeremy did it, and if so, maybe Julie was caught up in it and they, the jury, were having the wool pulled over their eyes by both the Crown and the defence in what was, in effect, a sham trial.

I think the wool has been pulled over my eyes - and I don't appreciate it.  This case needs fresh eyes, broad-spectrum disclosure and honest discussion, and less of the egos, spitefulness, moral grandstanding and tribalism.

[Steve_uk]

Just speculation, but I'm good at reading people and I sense that the poster immediately above belongs to the teaching profession or something closely similar.  The didactic posting style and deeply condescending manner suggests it.

Anyway, the more I consider it, the more I think the theory I outline above has facts and evidence to commend it.  You could accept one of the two variations: either 'Jerry' and Julie in cahoots, with Julie as a constructive accomplice of some sort; or, Jeremy as the killer and Julie covering her own back while also cleverly spouting a load of rubbish in an effort to save Jeremy. 

Which is not to say any of this is what I think.  It's all moot.  Personally, I feel sorry for everybody caught up in this - including Jeremy.  I would not support the extradition of Julie Smerchanski back to Britain, even if cause was found for it.  But the questions still remain - at least, for me, it all doesn't add up.

Did the DPP and Essex Police enter into a Faustian pact with Julie Mugford of a kind that they would prefer to keep hidden under the spurious auspices of PII?  True or not, it is not far-fetched.  I do think the Manichean structure of Julie Mugford's evidence and the defence case strategy in hindsight seem quite naive.  Was she really fabricating everything?  Even if she was, could we realistically expect a jury in the heat of a trial, without the benefit of much opportunity to reflect, to go along with that?  More likely, I think, the jury came to the conclusion that both 'Jerry' and Julie were off their rockers, and maybe Jeremy did it, and if so, maybe Julie was caught up in it and they, the jury, were having the wool pulled over their eyes by both the Crown and the defence in what was, in effect, a sham trial.

I think the wool has been pulled over my eyes - and I don't appreciate it.  This case needs fresh eyes, broad-spectrum disclosure and honest discussion, and less of the egos, spitefulness, moral grandstanding and tribalism.

I'm sorry, but you're not going to be allowed to get away with this whoever you are and whatever the Moderator's opinions are. I would rather leave this site after eight years than let this comment pass. Say whatever you like about me in the first paragraph: I've heard it all before and I'm looking forward to retirement, or at least am keeping a positive outlook on what will be a new experience when the time comes.

Jeremy Bamber not only killed loving parents who offered him a home, he blamed the death of his twin nephews on his mentally-ill sister, and worst of all deprived Colin Caffell of their company whilst they were growing up. How Colin kept on an even keel and didn't go round the twist I do not know. I often wonder how creative Daniel and Nicholas would have become, what ornaments or trinkets they would have created and what flora and fauna would have aroused their imagination.

Instead their brains were spattered on the bedhead behind one summer's night in 1985, and you have sympathy for Jeremy Bamber?

You really are a pathetic individual.

[JackieD]

I'm sorry, but you're not going to be allowed to get away with this whoever you are and whatever the Moderator's opinions are. I would rather leave this site after eight years than let this comment pass. Say whatever you like about me in the first paragraph: I've heard it all before and I'm looking forward to retirement, or at least am keeping a positive outlook on what will be a new experience when the time comes.

Jeremy Bamber not only killed loving parents who offered him a home, he blamed the death of his twin nephews on his mentally-ill sister, and worst of all deprived Colin Caffell of their company whilst they were growing up. How Colin kept on an even keel and didn't go round the twist I do not know. I often wonder how creative Daniel and Nicholas would have become, what ornaments or trinkets they would have created and what flora and fauna would have aroused their imagination.

Instead their brains were spattered on the bedhead behind one summer's night in 1985, and you have sympathy for Jeremy Bamber?

You really are a pathetic individual.

He is quite the opposite and you are rude on numerous occasions.
I’m not being rude to him because he believes Jeremy is guilty.
You just cannot defend Mugford.

[David1819]

Just speculation, but I'm good at reading people and I sense that the poster immediately above belongs to the teaching profession or something closely similar.  The didactic posting style and deeply condescending manner suggests it.

Anyway, the more I consider it, the more I think the theory I outline above has facts and evidence to commend it.  You could accept one of the two variations: either 'Jerry' and Julie in cahoots, with Julie as a constructive accomplice of some sort; or, Jeremy as the killer and Julie covering her own back while also cleverly spouting a load of rubbish in an effort to save Jeremy. 

Which is not to say any of this is what I think.  It's all moot.  Personally, I feel sorry for everybody caught up in this - including Jeremy.  I would not support the extradition of Julie Smerchanski back to Britain, even if cause was found for it.  But the questions still remain - at least, for me, it all doesn't add up.

Did the DPP and Essex Police enter into a Faustian pact with Julie Mugford of a kind that they would prefer to keep hidden under the spurious auspices of PII?  True or not, it is not far-fetched.  I do think the Manichean structure of Julie Mugford's evidence and the defence case strategy in hindsight seem quite naive.  Was she really fabricating everything?  Even if she was, could we realistically expect a jury in the heat of a trial, without the benefit of much opportunity to reflect, to go along with that?  More likely, I think, the jury came to the conclusion that both 'Jerry' and Julie were off their rockers, and maybe Jeremy did it, and if so, maybe Julie was caught up in it and they, the jury, were having the wool pulled over their eyes by both the Crown and the defence in what was, in effect, a sham trial.

I think the wool has been pulled over my eyes - and I don't appreciate it.  This case needs fresh eyes, broad-spectrum disclosure and honest discussion, and less of the egos, spitefulness, moral grandstanding and tribalism.

It might be worth reading this statement.

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

[guest29835]

It might be worth reading this statement.

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

Thanks.  I will take a look, but to emphasise again, the theory is not that she was an accomplice praesens.  (Also, I have already perused most of the statements.  I am not new to the case).

[guest29835]

He is quite the opposite and you are rude on numerous occasions.
I’m not being rude to him because he believes Jeremy is guilty.
You just cannot defend Mugford.

Thanks.  I haven't even bothered reading it.  He's not worth my time.

One thing, though: It's not that I believe Jeremy is guilty.  I don't know that.  I think only an arrogant person would believe that 100%, though I think we must make allowances for the family and people like Colin Caffell, whose firm views are entirely understandable.

I do lean towards guilt, for various good reasons, but as I have already said, I fall into the neutral/reasonable doubt camp and if I was hearing this evidence, my decision would very likely be 'Not Guilty'.

Most probably, I would have been in the minority of 2 against the other 10 at Chelmsford.

I also take the view that Jeremy has served his time and should now be considered for release on some basis.

[David1819]

Thanks.  I will take a look, but to emphasise again, the theory is not that she was an accomplice praesens.  (Also, I have already perused most of the statements.  I am not new to the case).

Yes I know, but the theory has no legs. Julie began talking about Jeremy being guilty to Sue Battersby in Lewisham Pizza Hut after they split up.