Julie Charged As An Accomplice To Murder?

[ILB]

Sensible posters from both sides will agree Julie's WS is true.

No woman would perjure herself so seriously with a 23 page WS and several days testifying in court.

Even the defence at trial had to resort to bringing up a totally unrelated minor cheque book fraud from 2 years earlier.

Can't prove or disprove it.

Can't make fleeting statements that people won't lie on oath.

It's been happening since the beginning of time.

Whether a totally innocent Julie or julie the bonnie to Bambers Clyde.

[ILB]

Just by going through the 8.9.85 statement of Julie the discrepancies are blaringly obvious. Amongst other things.

I think we are all in agreement that this wasn't a " damsel in distress "

[ILB]

Her claims are factually inaccurate and contains within it false information she could only have got from either the police or Ann Eaton.

Those who believe Julie is telling the truth subscribe to a coincidence theory whereby Jeremy confesses with all the false details that Ann Eaton and DC Clarke happened to believe at the time.

I suggest you read the following posts -

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8753.msg419820.html#msg419820

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg458825.html#msg458825

There is also in existence a copy of a NTOW agreement signed and dated by Julie pre trial. Despite telling the jury she had made no such agreement. Why the defence at trial never looked into finding such paperwork to begin with is rather astonishing.

I have always suspected Robert Boutflour. From his incessant self proclaimed dislike of Jeremy.

This is not conspiracy. This is fact. He didn't like him one little bit.

I also believe that Robert Boutflour was intensely jealous of Nevill Bamber. Despite on the face of it the two men having a amicable relationship. The latter a more successful businessman.

[Adam]

Just by going through the 8.9.85 statement of Julie the discrepancies are blaringly obvious. Amongst other things.

I think we are all in agreement that this wasn't a " damsel in distress "

What discrepancies?

[ngb1066]

There was no signed NOTW contract pre verdict.

I have posted about this many times over the years.  There was a concluded contract pre verdict (in fact I believe before the start of the trial) and JM lied about it during the trial. This is serious.

 

[Jane]

Just by going through the 8.9.85 statement of Julie the discrepancies are blaringly obvious. Amongst other things.

I think we are all in agreement that this wasn't a " damsel in distress "

I was under the impression that Julie had stuck to her story. Her only "discrepancies", as I see it, are in some posters not knowing the difference between what Julie claims as her own knowledge, and what she 'knows' resulting from information given her by JB.

[ILB]

What discrepancies?

Many.

[Jane]

I have posted about this many times over the years.  There was a concluded contract pre verdict (in fact I believe before the start of the trial) and JM lied about it during the trial. This is serious.

Julie had her own solicitor, and so, I imagine, did the NOTW. She was barely 21. Was she expected to know the law? Was she not told by those whose job it was to understand the law, that she could be in deep water if she signed a document from which she stood to gain, prior to trial?

[Adam]

I have posted about this many times over the years.  There was a concluded contract pre verdict (in fact I believe before the start of the trial) and JM lied about it during the trial. This is serious.

It was discussed during her testimony.

Nothing since.

[Adam]

Many.

Please list them.

[ILB]

Its scripted to fuck. For a starters Bamber would just say he would be killing the family, at a push mention his methods. She says stuff like " how he would say goodnight to everybody " Bamber wouldn't say that. It's an add on by Julie or perhaps EP.

Also he

The excellent memory for dates. She would simply just say " he's been talking about it for a while, her recalling Xmas 84 and January 85 whilst maintaining a heavy schedule in her own life and at the same time being " flippant " of what Bamber is saying doesn't reflect the true picture she'd be able to recollect precise dates. Nobody would. Everyone is too wrapped up in their own affairs. Me, you, Mr Jones at number 10. Accept it may have come at prompting from the coppers. But it's not a true picture of what Julie is remembering.

[ILB]

That's just one page.

[ILB]

Julie had her own solicitor, and so, I imagine, did the NOTW. She was barely 21. Was she expected to know the law? Was she not told by those whose job it was to understand the law, that she could be in deep water if she signed a document from which she stood to gain, prior to trial?

Be that as it may Jane.

The criminal age of responsibility in the UK is ten.

[ngb1066]

Julie had her own solicitor, and so, I imagine, did the NOTW. She was barely 21. Was she expected to know the law? Was she not told by those whose job it was to understand the law, that she could be in deep water if she signed a document from which she stood to gain, prior to trial?

Serious money was involved.  She crossed the line and thought she would not be found out.  She is very lucky because although JB's team knew what had happened at the time of the 2002 appeal they did not have the proof required and were prevented by a very unsympathetic Court of Appeal from obtaining that proof.  I have posted on this subject before.  What HB has posted about Julie Mugford is very valid.  Whatever your view on the case, she comes out of it very badly indeed. 

 

[ngb1066]

It was discussed during her testimony.

Nothing since.

A lot since.  The evidence has become available.  She lied.