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

[Jane]

There certainly appears to be a move afoot to compound Julie's minor crimes into something gargantuan. ie, the suggestion that there's more than meets the eye. The suggestion that she spent the holidays carrying out criminal acts.

If we look at the crimes she was involved in, out of three, Jeremy was involved in two. This leaves ONE, the cheque book fraud -which she didn't do alone- and she admitted to. It makes perfect sense that police wouldn't wish such to be revealed when she was on the witness stand, turning her from ther Crown's star witness to defence fodder.

[guest7363]

QC does confirm Bamber's guilt while trying to create his reasonable doubt. While simultaneously insulting other posters.

Coming up with new obstacles on my Bamber scemario, which were easily covered.

He then suggested Julie assisted Bamber more than she said she did & that Bamber was fit enough to jog to WHF & used the bike for scouting.

He's now accusing the bank manager of lying & that Julie committed more crimes than she mentioned. After she brought up her cheque book fraud and paid the money back.

Dovey wasn't even the bank manager, he was an accountant at the Bank acting as the Branch Manager. So it’s the Accountant that QC is accusing of lying. A statement from Mr Dovey recording this visit was served upon the defence. 

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.
I am authorised on behalf of the bank to say that in view of the fact that the girls have confessed and agreed to pay back the monies the bank do not wish to prosecute in this case."

[guest7363]

Where there's a will there's --always-- been a way in this case. You can't have a prosecuting witness in the stand who's committed fraud.

Its here Lookout, the jury knew about the Cheque book fraud.

The jury knew about the admissions made to the police. They further knew that neither of the girls had been prosecuted for these offences. Julie Mugford told the jury that she had "got a caution for it". When the judge summed the case up to the jury, he referred to her receiving "a police caution". Mr Turner's submission is that the jury were misled by being told that she had received a "police caution", and that the prosecution were under a duty to correct this wrong impression.

334. It is undoubtedly correct that Julie Mugford had not received a formal police caution in the sense that that expression is clearly understood by police officers and lawyers. It may be that the trial judge in translating Miss Mugford's reference to a caution into a formal police caution had misunderstood the position. However it seems unlikely to us that the jury would have understood the significance of a formal police caution as opposed to any other warning as to her future behaviour.

335. However, whether or not the jury understood the legal distinction of a formal police caution, we fail to see how this could have had any possible impact upon their considerations. What mattered in assessing the weight to be given to the witness's evidence was their own admitted dishonesty, and how they had behaved in relation to such dishonesty, not how the authorities had responded to their admissions. Any failure to correct the judge's reference to a formal police caution cannot be laid at the door of the police since the position was clearly understood by the lawyers and hence such a failure could not in any way taint the evidence of the police officers involved in the inquiry.

Sometimes it works in favour of the accused, he can have a past that the Jury don’t get to hear about, he could be a sex offender and the Jury wouldn't always get to hear about it? 

[guest7363]

Exactly, but it's not just that Lookout.  Remember, it was admitted that she had committed fraud and the trial judge misinformed the jury by telling them she had been cautioned for it.  This, I think, is why the 2002 appeal court didn't take the point very seriously, because they took the view that the jury had already been given the worst case scenario regarding Julie Mugford's offending, a caution being the normal disposal for minor cheque offences, and since Julie Mugford's evidence depended on her believability, there was no prejudice to Jeremy Bamber.

The point they overlook is that there was a wider scope of considerations for the jury.  It was not just whether she had committed dishonest acts in the past, but also whether she was entering into a deal with the police in which she was pressured to give certain evidence in return for various matters being dropped.  When the judge misled the jury on this point, it was part of a narrative, which is continued by guilters on here, in which Julie Mugford's trial evidence is naively regarded as voluntary and spontaneous and the organic outcome of her own conscience, rather than something she was pressured into doing by Essex Police.

How was she pressured into giving evidence, she offered this information after,

In order to consider these allegations it is necessary to look in more detail at what occurred. Julie Mugford went to the police on 7 September 1985 and gave them the account which she was to repeat in evidence. She made a detailed statement on the following two days, 8 and 9 September. On 10 September she made a further statement. In the course of the taking of that statement, she spoke about smoking cannabis that the appellant had purchased. She then spoke of other things that she suggested the appellant had done and she went on to say:

"I would like to tell you about the burglary I committed with Jeremy."

338. At that point she was cautioned and told that she did not have to say anything but she went on to give the police details of that burglary. Having dealt with that matter, she then revealed that she had also committed the cheque fraud with Susan Battersby.

[Jane]

Its here Lookout, the jury knew about the Cheque book fraud.

The jury knew about the admissions made to the police. They further knew that neither of the girls had been prosecuted for these offences. Julie Mugford told the jury that she had "got a caution for it". When the judge summed the case up to the jury, he referred to her receiving "a police caution". Mr Turner's submission is that the jury were misled by being told that she had received a "police caution", and that the prosecution were under a duty to correct this wrong impression.

334. It is undoubtedly correct that Julie Mugford had not received a formal police caution in the sense that that expression is clearly understood by police officers and lawyers. It may be that the trial judge in translating Miss Mugford's reference to a caution into a formal police caution had misunderstood the position. However it seems unlikely to us that the jury would have understood the significance of a formal police caution as opposed to any other warning as to her future behaviour.

335. However, whether or not the jury understood the legal distinction of a formal police caution, we fail to see how this could have had any possible impact upon their considerations. What mattered in assessing the weight to be given to the witness's evidence was their own admitted dishonesty, and how they had behaved in relation to such dishonesty, not how the authorities had responded to their admissions. Any failure to correct the judge's reference to a formal police caution cannot be laid at the door of the police since the position was clearly understood by the lawyers and hence such a failure could not in any way taint the evidence of the police officers involved in the inquiry.

Sometimes it works in favour of the accused, he can have a past that the Jury don’t get to hear about, he could be a sex offender and the Jury wouldn't always get to hear about it?

Well, if we want hypocrisy look no further. A sex offender's past crimes can't be revealed because it could be prejudicial to the verdict against them, but a witness's past crimes have to be laid open with i's dotted and t's crossed. So what if subsequent prejudice against them allows the guilty to go free?

[guest7363]

Well, if we want hypocracy look no further. A sex offender's past crimes can't be revealed because it could be prejudicial to the verdict against them, but a witness's past crimes have to be laid open with i's dotted and t's crossed. So what if subsequent prejudice against them allows the guilty to go free?

Yep, that’s how the Law works Jane.

If we look at the Accountant, not even a Branch Manager, he had the Authority to decide whether to press charges or not, so what possible pressure could the police have put him under? Shut the Bank down, Do him for opening after time, check his books, or a Shot in the Dark 😂😂😂😂

[guest7363]

The thing to bear in mind here is that, irrespective of whether Jeremy is guilty, he was already involved in unrelated criminal activity.  This means he will have been coy with the police about his girlfriend, Julie, as some of what he was up to would have involved Julie or Julie would have known about it.  This is why I am inclined to take the view that Julie did volunteer the cheque offences to the police, but there is a caveat I must add.

It could well be (I rather suspect it is the case) that Julie's criminality was much more extensive than has been admitted and the only reason we know about the cheque offences is because she happened to mention it to Jeremy and, for this reason, realised that she had to confess it to the police.

QC suggests Julie had more crimes behind her, I don’t think she had, she would have told Jeremy all about her past, he wouldn’t be bothered one bit, not only that, the police would have told her under no uncertain terms, she tells everything or the case would collapse.  Any other person who new Julie had a past criminal activity would have come forward, I would say this information would be worth a fortune especially against Julie.

[Roch]

QC suggests Julie had more crimes behind her, I don’t think she had, she would have told Jeremy all about her past, he wouldn’t be bothered one bit, not only that, the police would have told her under no uncertain terms, she tells everything or the case would collapse.  Any other person who new Julie had a past criminal activity would have come forward, I would say this information would be worth a fortune especially against Julie.

Vic, the former spokesperson for the family expressed the opinion that they (Jeremy and Julie) were up to all  sorts. I believe this was in the context of petty criminal activity. He did not go in to detail.

[guest7363]

Vic, the former spokesperson for the family expressed that they (Jeremy and Julie) were up to all  sorts. I believe this was in the context of petty criminal activity.

Like I said, if it was there it would have been used, I couldn’t see Bamber and the CT keeping quite on this?  I’m not suggesting Julie is whiter than white and to be honest I’m no fan, but with the mud Bamber and the CT sling, I’m sure something would have been said?  Depends what and how one see’s petty i suppose?  Of little importance?

[Jane]

Vic, the former spokesperson for the family expressed the opinion that they (Jeremy and Julie) were up to all  sorts. I believe this was in the context of petty criminal activity. He did not go in to detail.

Which rather fits with Ann's claim that "Jeremy did other things". She didn't go into detail, either.

[Jane]

Like I said, if it was there it would have been used, I couldn’t see Bamber and the CT keeping quite on this?  I’m not suggesting Julie is whiter than white and to be honest I’m no fan, but with the mud Bamber and the CT sling, I’m sure something would have been said?  Depends what and how one see’s petty i suppose?  Of little importance?

I agree. I just think there's an attempt afoot to blacken Julie's name further. It has to sicken some that her misdemeanours have been revealed. They can't hang any of those over her head, so they hint that there are more.

[Roch]

Which rather fits with Ann's claim that "Jeremy did other things". She didn't go into detail, either.

Yes Ann seemed to be an 'expert' on anything potentially damning towards Jeremy. Certainly showed dedication or as Lookout might say 'gumption'.

[Jane]

Yes Ann seemed to be an 'expert' on anything potentially damning towards Jeremy. Certainly showed dedication or as Lookout might say 'gumption'.

Then why say anything at all, Roch? I'd get it if she'd listed his misdeads, but just telling a group of friends that he'd done "other things" is hardly damning in the light of what he was convicted of.

[guest7363]

I agree. I just think there's an attempt afoot to blacken Julie's name further. It has to sicken some that her misdemeanours have been revealed. They can't hang any of those over her head, so they hint that there are more.

Ha Ha it’s laughable really, getting up to all sorts when I was younger would make me and most of the public career criminals 😂😂😂. Nah, they can’t be anything serious or damaging there Jane, else that Canary would have squealed.

[Roch]

Then why say anything at all, Roch? I'd get it if she'd listed his misdeads, but just telling a group of friends that he'd done "other things" is hardly damning in the light of what he was convicted of.

If I recollect it correctly, I interpreted what Vic was saying as the family regarded Jeremy and Julie to be up to all sorts, a kind of petty crime wave.