Lest We Forget...................

[guest7363]

RJ, the cheque book fraud thing has been blown out of all proportion. I KNOW it was wrong. I know it was a crime, but let's at least TRY to keep a sense of proportion about it. It was hardly so great an occurrence that it sent the bank into lock-down. It appears they weren't even aware of it until she admitted to having done it. Okay, so had the police not suggested that she come clean, she may not have, BUT!!! had she not been with Jeremy, she most probably wouldn't have (done it) in the first instant. In fact, it can surely be said that, had Jeremy not convinced her that he'd murdered his entire family, there'd have been no need for her to have been anywhere near a police station. If one weighs up the balance between a very minor cheque fraud and a multiple murder, the cheque fraud pales into insignificance, doesn't it?

Excellent post Jane.  I thought long and hard on this one, at first I thought she could have kept quite about both these events, especially the Cheque book fraud,  but Bamber would have told any way, hoping to eliminate Julie’s testimony, so she was in a no win situation once she came forward.

[JackieD]

Who labelled him that? Someone on the forum? I've learned not to listen to those kind of opinions - unless it was was written by someone who knew him well - what value is it?

Same value as the dishonest mortuary loving Julie

[Jane]

Excellent post Jane.  I thought long and hard on this one, at first I thought she could have kept quite about both these events, especially the Cheque book fraud,  but Bamber would have told any way, hoping to eliminate Julie’s testimony, so she was in a no win situation once she came forward.

Exactly! Which would have been worse, being slagged of as a thief when she admitted it, or, if she didn't, being slagged off as a devious thief when she was found out?

[Jane]

The CBF was merely a version of what Jeremy had done in Australia with his travelers cheques. He was a bad influence who met someone who was also a bad influence.

Bit like all the elements coming together to create the perfect storm, really. It took someone of Julie's character to stay with him knowing what was potentially on the cards.

[guest7363]

Exactly! Which would have been worse, being slagged of as a thief when she admitted it, or, if she didn't, being slagged off as a devious thief when she was found out?

I think there was a lot of confusion caused by her coming forward Jane, Julie thought she had received a caution, when in fact it was the DPP who decided not to prosecute them, so she didn’t actually get a caution.

[Jane]

I think there was a lot of confusion caused by her coming forward Jane, Julie thought she had received a caution, when in fact it was the DPP who decided not to prosecute them, so she didn’t actually get a caution.

She became the proverbial sprat to catch a mackeral. So? Nothing new, is it? It's a ploy which has been used since time immemorial and will go on being used. It works. They were hardly going to charge her with a cheque fraud the bank knew nothing about, and risk letting a murderer go free. Ignore the lesser crime to nail the serious one. Can't see much wrong with that.

[guest7363]

She became the proverbial sprat to catch a mackeral. So? Nothing new, is it? It's a ploy which has been used since time immemorial and will go on being used. It works. They were hardly going to charge her with a cheque fraud the bank knew nothing about, and risk letting a murderer go free. Ignore the lesser crime to nail the serious one. Can't see much wrong with that.

When you think about it Jane, it was a Bold/Risky decision by Julie, she could have wrecked her chance of working in Schools with a conviction/caution?  I say risky also, she could have lost her friend Susan Battersby because she now had to tell the police Susan was involved.

This is Mr Dovey’s statement

I can say that on 4 October 1985 Miss Battersby came to the bank to see me with another girl who I know as a Miss Julie Mugford. Miss Battersby then informed me that she had not lost her cheque book but had been dishonest. Both stated that they were involved in the passing of the cheques. As a result of what they said I accepted their offer of paying the money back to the bank. In fact £320 has been paid to date and arrangements have been made for the outstanding amount to be paid at the rate of £50 per week. I can say that the bank was the loser in this matter and not the shops who accepted the cheques.

[Jane]

When you think about it Jane, it was a Bold/Risky decision by Julie, she could have wrecked her chance of working in Schools with a conviction/caution?  I say risky also, she could have lost her friend Susan Battersby because she now had to tell the police Susan was involved.

This is Mr Dovey’s statement

I can say that on 4 October 1985 Miss Battersby came to the bank to see me with another girl who I know as a Miss Julie Mugford. Miss Battersby then informed me that she had not lost her cheque book but had been dishonest. Both stated that they were involved in the passing of the cheques. As a result of what they said I accepted their offer of paying the money back to the bank. In fact £320 has been paid to date and arrangements have been made for the outstanding amount to be paid at the rate of £50 per week. I can say that the bank was the loser in this matter and not the shops who accepted the cheques.

It maybe that she didn't see herself as having many options -and here it's possible that the police played it up- and went for what she believed was the lesser of two evils. Despite her move to Canada, I don't think she and her family could have been castigated more had the gun been in her hand.

[guest7363]

It maybe that she didn't see herself as having many options -and here it's possible that the police played it up- and went for what she believed was the lesser of two evils. Despite her move to Canada, I don't think she and her family could have been castigated more had the gun been in her hand.

Forgot to add Jane,

Mr Dovey in his statement finally repeated that he had not been put under any pressure to reach a conclusion one way or the other.

So, it was him after all who decided not to press charges, I think he admired their honesty in the end?

[Caroline]

No, not someone on the forum. It's an anecdote relayed via the forum. It's how he was supposed to have been viewed by contemporaries. Such a description is hardly going to feature in 'The Force' is it? Or whatever the EP publication was called.

Nevertheless, the author who claimed to have interviewed him quite liked him.

So no substance then.

[Roch]

So no substance then.

Hardly going to be in a statement?

[Jane]

Forgot to add Jane,

Mr Dovey in his statement finally repeated that he had not been put under any pressure to reach a conclusion one way or the other.

So, it was him after all who decided not to press charges, I think he admired their honesty in the end?

You're probably right. It would have seemed like a considerable sum back then, but balanced against what a bank takes in, and compared with what they lose and never get back, they probably thought it wasn't worth their while, or time spent on paperwork, to bother with prosecution, especially as they hadn't known anything about it. I imagine the police supported that decision.

[guest29835]

Forgot to add Jane,

Mr Dovey in his statement finally repeated that he had not been put under any pressure to reach a conclusion one way or the other.

So, it was him after all who decided not to press charges, I think he admired their honesty in the end?

I wonder why the trial judge misinformed the jury on this point?

[Caroline]

Hardly going to be in a statement?

You clearly have some basis to believe it that hasn't been documented here?

[guest7363]

I wonder why the trial judge misinformed the jury on this point?

In what way QC?