Julie Smerchanski Statement - 12/4/2002

[Hartley]

Thanks for putting these statements out Hartley.
I never really had an opinion on Julie before.But now I can see for myself that she is an out and out liar!

No worries, hopefully they are of interest. I'd like every single document made available, regardless of their implications, and regardless which campsite I'm pitched in.

[Alias]

Great you put those up Hartley!!

[smiffy]

Lots of deceptive indicators in JM's story and many contradictions between her and Batterbys accounts.

Of interest is that JM claims that Battersby reported the loss/theft of card and cheque book to her bank BUT there is no mention of whether the police were informed of this said loss/theft.

Was the loss/theft reported to the police (strange if it was not). If it was it should have been logged into records kept by the relevant police.
A search of records when checking out witnesses such as Battersby may have flagged up the reporting of a lost/stolen cheque book etc and this may have came to the attention of EP prior to any claimed admission to the frauds being allegedly admitted to by JM and Battersby.

Did EP , particularly DS Stan Jones , know something about the cheque frauds, prior to the claimed admissions by JM and Battersby which by their accounts cannot have been before the 10th september 1985?
DS Jones first seems to make mention of this to JB when he mentions the percolator when interviewing JB on the 11th of September.  Until the claimed admissions by the 2 females ..which appear to be on the 10th september then DS Jones would have no reason to mention the percolator.

However its not all as straighforward as that.
JM mentions she only spoke of the fraud after accidentally sighting Battersby at the police training centre as sighting Battersby prompted her to making the admission. But Battersby only went to the police training centre for the first time on the 10th of september and claims not to have seen JM that day.

[grahameb]

Lots of deceptive indicators in JM's story and many contradictions between her and Batterbys accounts.

Of interest is that JM claims that Battersby reported the loss/theft of card and cheque book to her bank BUT there is no mention of whether the police were informed of this said loss/theft.

Was the loss/theft reported to the police (strange if it was not). If it was it should have been logged into records kept by the relevant police.
A search of records when checking out witnesses such as Battersby may have flagged up the reporting of a lost/stolen cheque book etc and this may have came to the attention of EP prior to any claimed admission to the frauds being allegedly admitted to by JM and Battersby.

Did EP , particularly DS Stan Jones , know something about the cheque frauds, prior to the claimed admissions by JM and Battersby which by their accounts cannot have been before the 10th september 1985?
DS Jones first seems to make mention of this to JB when he mentions the percolator when interviewing JB on the 11th of September.  Until the claimed admissions by the 2 females ..which appear to be on the 10th september then DS Jones would have no reason to mention the percolator.

However its not all as straighforward as that.
JM mentions she only spoke of the fraud after accidentally sighting Battersby at the police training centre as sighting Battersby prompted her to making the admission. But Battersby only went to the police training centre for the first time on the 10th of september and claims not to have seen JM that day.

Welcome back Smiffy.

[smiffy]

LOL GRAHAME.

Battersby can only have arrived at the training centre (?) for an overnight stay fairly late on the 10th of september and seems to only have stayed the one night with some interviews going on on the 11th september. She does not mention seeing JM at the centre.
JB in his interview on the 11th september is asked about the percolator (related to the 2 females fraud) by mid afternoon on the 11th.
The admission claims fall on whether the 2 females volunteered the admissions and were not prompted by EP gaining knowledge about the 2 females joint crime prior to the admissions.
Obviously one females must have spoken before the other which makes it look a little dodgy and it is possible on the details given that EP may have spoken and known about the fraud with JB before the admissions from the girls.

Battersby herself questions the statement dated the 10th of september attributed to her which itself creates doubt on whether some of it or part of it is misleading or untrue. It does leave room for her admission to have been made later and differently to as described.

That JM claimed to see Battersby but not the other way round...also raises doubt at to whether this claim is false but is introduced to give a false reason for an admission when it was extracted by other means  but alos locks a time factor into the story prior to DS Jones raising the issue with JB on the afternoon of the 11th september.

It is indeed possible that all along , prior to any claimed voluntary admissions, EP did suspect a fraud by the 2 females and arranged the situation at the training centre in which JM and Battersby may encounter each other  in a situation when the pressure they were under may prompt a confession.

[smiffy]

hmm

Battersby in her statement makes it clear that she reported the loss/theft of her card and cheque book to the police ...but is vague about whether she reported it to the bank!

EP when checking witnesses over may well have found out about this report to the police. With her buddy ,JM's, prior admissions about the caravan site burglary and highly likely later knowledge that the lost/stolen card and cheque were used to purchase items it would not have taken EP long to suspect JM and Battersby of some involvement prior to any claimed voluntary admissions.

EP need only claim ignorance to then create the situation in which they can portray the dodgy duo as being more credible than they really were and at the same time put them under pressure and compliant and easy to manipulate to give evidence EP wanted them to give.

[chochokeira]

Lots of deceptive indicators in JM's story and many contradictions between her and Batterbys accounts.

Of interest is that JM claims that Battersby reported the loss/theft of card and cheque book to her bank BUT there is no mention of whether the police were informed of this said loss/theft.

Was the loss/theft reported to the police (strange if it was not). If it was it should have been logged into records kept by the relevant police.
A search of records when checking out witnesses such as Battersby may have flagged up the reporting of a lost/stolen cheque book etc and this may have came to the attention of EP prior to any claimed admission to the frauds being allegedly admitted to by JM and Battersby.

Did EP , particularly DS Stan Jones , know something about the cheque frauds, prior to the claimed admissions by JM and Battersby which by their accounts cannot have been before the 10th september 1985?
DS Jones first seems to make mention of this to JB when he mentions the percolator when interviewing JB on the 11th of September.  Until the claimed admissions by the 2 females ..which appear to be on the 10th september then DS Jones would have no reason to mention the percolator.

However its not all as straighforward as that.
JM mentions she only spoke of the fraud after accidentally sighting Battersby at the police training centre as sighting Battersby prompted her to making the admission. But Battersby only went to the police training centre for the first time on the 10th of september and claims not to have seen JM that day.

Welcome back, smiffy.

[Jackiepreece]

Smiffy don't let pb wind you up and be nice to Shona

[Jackiepreece]

Ngb with all your experience were you surprised Julie Mugford didn't have to be at the 2002 Appeal?

Once again when you read all these inconsistances in JM statements I would be absolutely furious if I had been on the Jury

Do you think there's a possibility there wood be details of the Now deal held under PII showing the deal was done before trial


I am thinking of getting hold of that copy of the notw even though it's £59

Or does anyone on here know who did the story if so is he contactable

Ngb would it make any difference to JB s case if we had absolute proof JM did the deal before trial

[Hartley]

Jackie, she was at the 2002 appeal hearing, just wasn't questioned by the defence.

[chochokeira]

Ngb with all your experience were you surprised Julie Mugford didn't have to be at the 2002 Appeal?

Once again when you read all these inconsistances in JM statements I would be absolutely furious if I had been on the Jury

Do you think there's a possibility there wood be details of the Now deal held under PII showing the deal was done before trial


I am thinking of getting hold of that copy of the notw even though it's £59

Or does anyone on here know who did the story if so is he contactable

Ngb would it make any difference to JB s case if we had absolute proof JM did the deal before trial

I believe both JM and her solicitor have admitted that an agreement was reached prior to the trial, Jackie.

[ngb1066]

Ngb with all your experience were you surprised Julie Mugford didn't have to be at the 2002 Appeal?

Once again when you read all these inconsistances in JM statements I would be absolutely furious if I had been on the Jury

Do you think there's a possibility there wood be details of the Now deal held under PII showing the deal was done before trialI am thinking of getting hold of that copy of the notw even though it's £59

Or does anyone on here know who did the story if so is he contactable

Ngb would it make any difference to JB s case if we had absolute proof JM did the deal before trial

Jackie  -  Julie Mugford did attend the 2002 appeal and was expected to be called as a witness to answer questions about her deal with the NoW.  Clear evidence existed that the deal with the NoW had been concluded in advance of the trial and that the £25,000 payment was conditional upon Jeremy Bamber being convicted.  As a result of a ruling by the Court of Appeal judges that evidence was not made available and it was therefore not possible for Julie Mugford to be cross examined.  She was protected by the Court of Appeal judges in relation to this and also in relation to the active intervention of the police in dealing with her involvement in the cheque frauds.  The Court of Appeal judges in my view adopted this protective position towards Julie Mugford because if they had not done so they would have had little choice other than to allow the appeal, given her importance as a witness at trial.  They appeared determined not to allow this appeal and in my view did not adopt a fair and balanced view towards the grounds of appeal argued by defence counsel.

I do not believe that the details of the NoW deal are being withheld under PII.  I suspect that certain Essex Police officers may have known the truth but prosecution counsel, defence counsel and the judge were told lies about the position, as a result of which Julie Mugford was not cross examined at trial about this and the jury were therefore kept completely in the dark.  The evidence relating to the NoW deal was not held by the prosecution but the defence knew where it was and could have obtained it if the Court of Appeal judges had accepted the arguments presented by defence counsel. However as a result of the Court of Appeal judges' ruling it was not possible for the evidence to be obtained and the issue therefore remained covered up at the appeal as it had been at trial.  I find this appalling.  It remains possible that if the evidence is obtained the point could be argued again on appeal but it will not be easy as it will be suggested that this is a subject which has already been covered and is therefore not strictly a new ground of appeal.  As I have pointed out before, the odds are stacked against the defence on an appeal against conviction under our system.

     

 

[chochokeira]

Ngb with all your experience were you surprised Julie Mugford didn't have to be at the 2002 Appeal?

Once again when you read all these inconsistances in JM statements I would be absolutely furious if I had been on the Jury

Do you think there's a possibility there wood be details of the Now deal held under PII showing the deal was done before trialI am thinking of getting hold of that copy of the notw even though it's £59

Or does anyone on here know who did the story if so is he contactable

Ngb would it make any difference to JB s case if we had absolute proof JM did the deal before trial

Jackie  -  Julie Mugford did attend the 2002 appeal and was expected to be called as a witness to answer questions about her deal with the NoW.  Clear evidence existed that the deal with the NoW had been concluded in advance of the trial and that the £25,000 payment was conditional upon Jeremy Bamber being convicted.  As a result of a ruling by the Court of Appeal judges that evidence was not made available and it was therefore not possible for Julie Mugford to be cross examined.  She was protected by the Court of Appeal judges in relation to this and also in relation to the active intervention of the police in dealing with her involvement in the cheque frauds.  The Court of Appeal judges in my view adopted this protective position towards Julie Mugford because if they had not done so they would have had little choice other than to allow the appeal, given her importance as a witness at trial.  They appeared determined not to allow this appeal and in my view did not adopt a fair and balanced view towards the grounds of appeal argued by defence counsel.

I do not believe that the details of the NoW deal are being withheld under PII.  I suspect that certain Essex Police officers may have known the truth but prosecution counsel, defence counsel and the judge were told lies about the position, as a result of which Julie Mugford was not cross examined at trial about this and the jury were therefore kept completely in the dark.  The evidence relating to the NoW deal was not held by the prosecution but the defence knew where it was and could have obtained it if the Court of Appeal judges had accepted the arguments presented by defence counsel. However as a result of the Court of Appeal judges' ruling it was not possible for the evidence to be obtained and the issue therefore remained covered up at the appeal as it had been at trial.  I find this appalling.  It remains possible that if the evidence is obtained the point could be argued again on appeal but it will not be easy as it will be suggested that this is a subject which has already been covered and is therefore not strictly a new ground of appeal.  As I have pointed out before, the odds are stacked against the defence on an appeal against conviction under our system.

     

 

Excellent points, ngb, which go to the heart of this case. You deserve a huge round of applause for raising these issues. It is indeed appalling that JM's deal with the NOW, which gave her an incentive to help convict Jeremy, was covered up. This makes me so angry. There must surely be something that can be done to right this huge wrong, ngb?

[ngb1066]

Ngb with all your experience were you surprised Julie Mugford didn't have to be at the 2002 Appeal?

Once again when you read all these inconsistances in JM statements I would be absolutely furious if I had been on the Jury

Do you think there's a possibility there wood be details of the Now deal held under PII showing the deal was done before trialI am thinking of getting hold of that copy of the notw even though it's £59

Or does anyone on here know who did the story if so is he contactable

Ngb would it make any difference to JB s case if we had absolute proof JM did the deal before trial

Jackie  -  Julie Mugford did attend the 2002 appeal and was expected to be called as a witness to answer questions about her deal with the NoW.  Clear evidence existed that the deal with the NoW had been concluded in advance of the trial and that the £25,000 payment was conditional upon Jeremy Bamber being convicted.  As a result of a ruling by the Court of Appeal judges that evidence was not made available and it was therefore not possible for Julie Mugford to be cross examined.  She was protected by the Court of Appeal judges in relation to this and also in relation to the active intervention of the police in dealing with her involvement in the cheque frauds.  The Court of Appeal judges in my view adopted this protective position towards Julie Mugford because if they had not done so they would have had little choice other than to allow the appeal, given her importance as a witness at trial.  They appeared determined not to allow this appeal and in my view did not adopt a fair and balanced view towards the grounds of appeal argued by defence counsel.

I do not believe that the details of the NoW deal are being withheld under PII.  I suspect that certain Essex Police officers may have known the truth but prosecution counsel, defence counsel and the judge were told lies about the position, as a result of which Julie Mugford was not cross examined at trial about this and the jury were therefore kept completely in the dark.  The evidence relating to the NoW deal was not held by the prosecution but the defence knew where it was and could have obtained it if the Court of Appeal judges had accepted the arguments presented by defence counsel. However as a result of the Court of Appeal judges' ruling it was not possible for the evidence to be obtained and the issue therefore remained covered up at the appeal as it had been at trial.  I find this appalling.  It remains possible that if the evidence is obtained the point could be argued again on appeal but it will not be easy as it will be suggested that this is a subject which has already been covered and is therefore not strictly a new ground of appeal.  As I have pointed out before, the odds are stacked against the defence on an appeal against conviction under our system.

     

 

Excellent points, ngb, which go to the heart of this case. You deserve a huge round of applause for raising these issues. It is indeed appalling that JM's deal with the NOW, which gave her an incentive to help convict Jeremy, was covered up. This makes me so angry. There must surely be something that can be done to right this huge wrong, ngb?

keira  -  I would like to think that something could still be done on this but it will not be easy.  The defence team are as I understand it focussing on other grounds arising from evidence obtained since the 2002 appeal, as these are on any view new grounds and therefore fulfil the criteria necessary for a new appeal.  I would like to see the evidence surrounding Julie Mugford canvassed properly before the Court of Appeal as I believe that this was a significant part of the injustice surrounding this case. 

 

[Jackiepreece]

Those appeal judges should be ashamed of themselves along with the trial judge and his summing up.

Imagine their glittering careers to get to have that much power they must know they behaved badly in this case I don't know if the trial job was a Mason or he just didn't like this slightly arrogant 24 year old boy that could have this fantastic lifestyle but I have read books and spoken to people journos and legal people and everyone has criticised the summing up and then for JB to get to appeal and JM s newspaper deal not to have any impact on any decision.

Julie Mugford has a lot to answer to I bet she was loving all the attention from the police and the newspapers what a nasty lying individual I really feel JB had a lucky escape probably 26 years inside is better than ending up with that

JB telling JM he should have been an actor because of his performance in speaking to the police and then JM just popping along to the mortuary to see the bodies and check how many bullet holes everyone had in them

If there is any justice in this world every single person in this case who has either lied or acted unfairly should be held accountable