Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002

[Hartley]

Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002

[grahameb]

It just seems a strange coincidence that these two girls were taken to the bank to apologise and to recompense them just as they were to become prime witnesses in a murder trial. Why would the police officer tell the bank manager about this and why did the bank manager stress that there was no collusion between the police and the girls?

[tyler]

Doesnt this statement make a mockery of Julies statement,where she states that she went to the bank of her own accord and Jones did not know about it?When he in fact accompanied her?

[grahameb]

Doesnt this statement make a mockery of Julies statement,where she states that she went to the bank of her own accord and Jones did not know about it?When he in fact accompanied her?

Yes. Talk about inaccuracies in Jeremy's statement?

[ngb1066]

Doesnt this statement make a mockery of Julies statement,where she states that she went to the bank of her own accord and Jones did not know about it?When he in fact accompanied her?

Yes. Talk about inaccuracies in Jeremy's statement?

This is more than just an "inaccuracy".  The police managed the situation with the bank as part of the deal with Julie Mugford for her evidence against Jeremy Bamber and in order to sanitise her character before the jury.  They then covered up what had happened, hiding it from the defence and the court.  This aspect of the case stinks.

 

[grahameb]

Doesnt this statement make a mockery of Julies statement,where she states that she went to the bank of her own accord and Jones did not know about it?When he in fact accompanied her?

Yes. Talk about inaccuracies in Jeremy's statement?

This is more than just an "inaccuracy".  The police managed the situation with the bank as part of the deal with Julie Mugford for her evidence against Jeremy Bamber and in order to sanitise her character before the jury.  They then covered up what had happened, hiding it from the defence and the court.  This aspect of the case stinks.

Very well spotted ngb. Corrupt lot.

[ngb1066]

Doesnt this statement make a mockery of Julies statement,where she states that she went to the bank of her own accord and Jones did not know about it?When he in fact accompanied her?

Yes. Talk about inaccuracies in Jeremy's statement?

This is more than just an "inaccuracy".  The police managed the situation with the bank as part of the deal with Julie Mugford for her evidence against Jeremy Bamber and in order to sanitise her character before the jury.  They then covered up what had happened, hiding it from the defence and the court.  This aspect of the case stinks.

Very well spotted ngb. Corrupt lot.

To make things worse, the Court of Appeal in 2002 completely whitewashed the issue.  Julie Mugford's credibility (and that of some police officers) was critical at trial to Jeremy Bamber's convictions and on this issue and the NoW contract the Court of Appeal simply blocked the defence and brushed everything under the carpet.  Every time I reread the 2002 judgement I am amazed at how determined the judges were to block off every solid point raised on behalf of Jeremy Bamber.  I hope that in the future the judges involved will be as embarrassed about their performance here as were certain other Court of Appeal judges involved in cases such as the Birmingham 6.  As I have posted before, in my view our criminal appeal system is really poor.

[HMEssex]

Doesnt this statement make a mockery of Julies statement,where she states that she went to the bank of her own accord and Jones did not know about it?When he in fact accompanied her?

Yes. Talk about inaccuracies in Jeremy's statement?

This is more than just an "inaccuracy".  The police managed the situation with the bank as part of the deal with Julie Mugford for her evidence against Jeremy Bamber and in order to sanitise her character before the jury.  They then covered up what had happened, hiding it from the defence and the court.  This aspect of the case stinks.

Very well spotted ngb. Corrupt lot.

To make things worse, the Court of Appeal in 2002 completely whitewashed the issue.  Julie Mugford's credibility (and that of some police officers) was critical at trial to Jeremy Bamber's convictions and on this issue and the NoW contract the Court of Appeal simply blocked the defence and brushed everything under the carpet.  Every time I reread the 2002 judgement I am amazed at how determined the judges were to block off every solid point raised on behalf of Jeremy Bamber.  I hope that in the future the judges involved will be as embarrassed about their performance here as were certain other Court of Appeal judges involved in cases such as the Birmingham 6.  As I have posted before, in my view our criminal appeal system is really poor.

This is abysmal and scary (and plenty of other adjectives).  Perhaps they were under the illusion that none of 'us' would be able to read for ourselves.

[grahameb]

Doesnt this statement make a mockery of Julies statement,where she states that she went to the bank of her own accord and Jones did not know about it?When he in fact accompanied her?

Yes. Talk about inaccuracies in Jeremy's statement?

This is more than just an "inaccuracy".  The police managed the situation with the bank as part of the deal with Julie Mugford for her evidence against Jeremy Bamber and in order to sanitise her character before the jury.  They then covered up what had happened, hiding it from the defence and the court.  This aspect of the case stinks.

Very well spotted ngb. Corrupt lot.

To make things worse, the Court of Appeal in 2002 completely whitewashed the issue.  Julie Mugford's credibility (and that of some police officers) was critical at trial to Jeremy Bamber's convictions and on this issue and the NoW contract the Court of Appeal simply blocked the defence and brushed everything under the carpet.  Every time I reread the 2002 judgement I am amazed at how determined the judges were to block off every solid point raised on behalf of Jeremy Bamber.  I hope that in the future the judges involved will be as embarrassed about their performance here as were certain other Court of Appeal judges involved in cases such as the Birmingham 6.  As I have posted before, in my view our criminal appeal system is really poor.

This is abysmal and scary (and plenty of other adjectives).  Perhaps they were under the illusion that none of 'us' would be able to read for ourselves.

Absolutely outrageous. The word heads and axe and shall roll quickly spring to my mind with these CORRUPT INDIVIDUALS. Wicked men whose end is near. Great power brings with it great responsibility and one hopes of a natural justice that will take its toll on these excuses for mankind.

[Alias]

I am truly disgusted by this. This whole case stinks to high heaven. Both Julie and Susan lied in their statements.
I am now convinced that the girls were given a deal to not be prosecuted for their fraud IF THEY TESTIFIED AGAINST JEREMY - especially Julie, of course.
This is just sick.

[HMEssex]

I am truly disgusted by this. This whole case stinks to high heaven. Both Julie and Susan lied in their statements.
I am now convinced that the girls were given a deal to not be prosecuted for their fraud IF THEY TESTIFIED AGAINST JEREMY - especially Julie, of course.
This is just sick.

You're right Abs.  It's so bloomin' obvious!

[shonapugs]

It is obvious. Plod wanted JM to have maximum crediblity when she testified. It doesn't mean that JM lied about JB, but it does look decidedly shonky.

[Alias]

It is obvious. Plod wanted JM to have maximum crediblity when she testified. It doesn't mean that JM lied about JB, but it does look decidedly shonky.

I think it is more than a question of the credibility of a witness. For Julie Mugford it also was a question about her going to trial for cheque fraud, falsifying signatures and burglary. It would be devastating for her future as a teacher: she would get no employment.
I am now totally convinced that she and EP made a deal: Julie testified against Jeremy and got away with her crimes scott free - and she lied in the process.

[tyler]

We have to remember though,that JM had nothing of any substance to tell the police/ court.It all seemed to be stuff that had either been in the media,or information that the relatives had gleaned from the police.I wouldnt be surprised if it was the relatives that convinced Mugford that Jeremy could have been responsible.I do have a couple of valid reasons for believing this.I think it suited her to go that route so as to avoid prosecution for the thefts that she was involved in (as this would have ruined her chosen career),and revenge for JB.I dont think she could bear the thought of someone else being with Jeremy and sharing any new found wealth with him.

[tyler]

Every time I read Mr.Dovey's statement I seethe   

In JM's 2002 statement she makes a HUGE point of saying that herself and Battersby were not expected at the bank,and yet Mr.Dovey explains how the Police phoned AHEAD and AFTER the visit.
And JM blatantly states that they were not accompanied by a police officer and yet how many times does Mr.Dovey say in his statement that a Police Officer was present!
Mugford was STILL lying in statements in 2002,how are we supposed to believe ANYTHING she has ever said!