Why did the police choose not to prosecute Julie?

[JackieD]

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

[Adam]

Do you accept Julie was a prolific liar

I agree she committed three minor crimes prior to the massacre. Which she later told the police about.

Also agree she only gave a short but factually correct WS on the 8/8/85. Approaching the police a month later wanting to give more information.

[JackieD]

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

[Adam]

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?

[JackieD]

Probably why Mugford went on the run to Canada


DBS and Barring Service


Enhanced check
An enhanced DBS check is suitable for people

working with children

or adults in certain circumstances such as those in receipt of healthcare or personal care. An enhanced check is also suitable for a small number of other roles such as taxi licence applications or people working in the Gambling Commission.

The certificate will contain the same details as a standard certificate and, if the role is eligible, an employer can request that one or both of the DBS barred lists are checked.

The certificate may also contain non-conviction information supplied by relevant police forces


, if it is deemed relevant and ought to be contained in the certificate.

An individual cannot apply for an enhanced check by themselves. There must be a recruiting organisation who needs the applicant to get the check. This is then sent to DBS through a registered body.

[JackieD]

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

[David1819]

"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. "

[Adam]

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.

[JackieD]

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

[Adam]

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

The jury were aware of the caravan break in & cheque book fraud 

[David1819]

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?

If its any help, here is part of Julies cross examination on the pillow incident.

Q. That night when you put a pillow over his head and took it off and he asked you why you had done it, and you said this: "If you were dead you would always be with me"

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. Because at that time you knew he might not always be with you, because of this other woman?

A. I was totally unaware that there was any other woman involved. He told me Virginia Greaves was a friend who was coming to share the flat. He did not specify any sort of emotional involvement with her whatsoever. I had no idea any other woman had been on the scene.

Q. But you put the pillow over his head?

A. I did.

Q. Because you wanted him to be always with you?

A. I preceded it with the comment "He would be better off dead."
I wanted him to be with me because both he and I knew something nobody
else knew, and I could not cope with it. I could not speak normally to other
people because it was haunting me. That is why I informed him there at that
present moment.

Q. Have you ever previously said anything to the effect that you thought he
might be better off dead?

A. Not as far as I can recollect, no.

Q. It is the first time you have ever mentioned that in Court this afternoon?

A. No. I mentioned it in my statement earlier. Sorry, I misunderstood.

Q. Did you not say, after he had asked you why you did it, if he were dead he
would always be with you?

A. I said that earlier in court and I said it at the time in my statement. Definitely.

[lookout]

Anyone with half an eye can see that one phrase has been twisted----shocking.

[guest29835]

“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.

[JackieD]

“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.

Exactly

[JackieD]

"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