0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What for ?Chequebook offences or his accomplice ?
Either or both.
Believe the judge had the power to suggest the police charge Julie for her role. After the verdict. As a stand alone crime it is unlikely the judge would recommend Julie is prosecuted for the cheque book fraud. It was a first offence and she had paid the money back. The bank had not prosecuted.
Think DPP and EP only cared about sending Bamber down for life in the grand scheme of things.
That was the main crime and Julie the main witness. The judge didn't recommend Julie was prosecuted seperately after the verdict.Thought that was agreed pre trial But yes agree
It's hard to call that one Adam, i don't think she wanted to
" everything is going well, something is wrong at the farm " is weird terminology to use.I would expect something along the lines of " Job complete, I've done what I've needed to do "Or " Yes he's done it, Ive spoken to him "
Adam, we've now had it confirmed by an ex barister one one side of the case and HB on the other side of the case, a meticulous researcher himself on here, that Mugford should have been incarcerated.
The 'something is wrong at the farm' quote is not incriminating. However the 'everything is going well' and 'I haven't slept all night' are both incriminating. Sadly all we have from Bamber on this is his court testimony - 'I wanted to hear a friendly voice'.
Do you think Julie should have approached the police on a guilty Bamber pre massacre?