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

[Adam]

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.

To be fair, the attempt to blacken Julie's name further has only been going on for 35 years.

[Adam]

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.

QC has no source. But suggest this as she told the police about the 3 crimes people know about.

Julie would have told the police about anything else. Knowing Bamber or someone else might otherwise bring it up.

[guest29835]

QC has no source. But suggest this as she told the police about the 3 crimes people know about.

Julie would have told the police about anything else. Knowing Bamber or someone else might otherwise bring it up.

Thanks Adam.  You must be right.  We can trust Julie.  Thanks.

[guest7363]

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

And I would be the same if he trashed and Robbed part of a Buisness I was a director of.

[lookout]

How did the police know about the CBF in order to pressure her in the first place? Unless she told them, they wouldn't have known.

It would have been SJ who'd told the rest of his squad to " keep it under their hat "----the fact that there had been a deal struck for her to stand prosecution witness so eliminating any further details on the matter. SJ was a cunning individual. Not a character I'd have trusted.

[lookout]

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?

Yes,RJ but what a pity the jury hadn't known the full story of what SJ had in mind.

[lookout]

Julie had already completed her WS by the time she mentioned the cheque book fraud.

So the police could not use this to pressurise her.

Pity Jeremy hadn't been afforded 32 visits to have written his side of the sorry saga. Instead, he'd have been pressurised  into a confession for something he clearly didn't do but wasn't given a chance. He knew nothing and neither did his defence team.

[lookout]

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

Most unusual for AE, I wonder why ?

[lookout]

And I would be the same if he trashed and Robbed part of a Buisness I was a director of.

Not forgetting that Julie was keeping tabs RJ. Accessory to his petty crimes ? There's a young man in prison for being with those who murdered Gary Newlove---and he was only the driver ? Didn't know someone was going to be murdered, but he was sent to jail all the same.

[Caroline]

Not forgetting that Julie was keeping tabs RJ. Accessory to his petty crimes ? There's a young man in prison for being with those who murdered Gary Newlove---and he was only the driver ? Didn't know someone was going to be murdered, but he was sent to jail all the same.

But isn't that what people would have loved to have seen in respect to Julie Mugford?

[lookout]

But isn't that what people would have loved to have seen in respect to Julie Mugford?

So for JM it was a silly petty crime worth dismissing. For Jeremy it was a hanging offence.

[Jane]

To be fair, the attempt to blacken Julie's name further has only been going on for 35 years.

Yes Adam. You're right. I guess they have to keep trying.

[Jane]

QC has no source. But suggest this as she told the police about the 3 crimes people know about.

Julie would have told the police about anything else. Knowing Bamber or someone else might otherwise bring it up.

I imagine, once it was impressed on her what could happen if she withheld any misdemeanour, she'd have told them she'd once managed to slip into a public loo without paying the proverbial penny to gain entrance.

[Roch]

Yes Adam. You're right. I guess they have to keep trying.

Yours, and Adam's posts here, misrepresent some JB supporters. It has been said that Julie was placed in an impossible position by police and that her 'cooperation' came about as a result of that coercion. She is in those circs, a victim of EP and the relatives - who incidentally are 'no fan' of hers. 

[Jane]

Not forgetting that Julie was keeping tabs RJ. Accessory to his petty crimes ? There's a young man in prison for being with those who murdered Gary Newlove---and he was only the driver ? Didn't know someone was going to be murdered, but he was sent to jail all the same.

"......and he was only the driver" implies you to believe he shouldn't be in prison because he "Didn't know someone was going to be murdered..........." Yet you seem to emphatically believe Julie should be in prison even though she wasn't there. Is there to be a completely different set of rules specifically for Julie?