Julie Charged As An Accomplice To Murder?

[Adam]

Suspect Fieldings front page article in The Sun was in late August.

Also suspect it said the police were not convinced it was murder/suicide. Which was true.

This together with Julie being back in London having left Bamber and friends encouraging her to approach the police, helped motivate her. 

[Adam]

Can't grass her. Would be pointless for him.

Nothing to gain. Putting Julie away won't bring him freedom. He's whole life tariff.

Agree with that.

My post was about how pro active Julie was in encouraging Bamber.

Her WS shows she was re active. Just responding when Bamber brought up the subject & answering his 3 phone calls on the night.

If she was actually pro active and persuaded a hesitant Bamber to go ahead, he will be gutted he did all the dirty work only to be quickly abandoned & receive all the punishment. But he was the one who pulled the trigger.

[ILB]

Agree with that.

My post was about how pro active Julie was in encouraging Bamber.

Her WS shows she was re active. Just responding when Bamber brought up the subject & answering his 3 phone calls on the night.

If she was actually pro active and persuaded a hesitant Bamber to go ahead, he will be gutted he did all the dirty work only to be quickly abandoned & receive all the punishment. But he was the one who pulled the trigger.

Think he would be gutted either way even if Julie was totally innocent. He was caught and jailed for life.

Maybe he took a calculated risk and after hedging his bets knew it wouldn't be wise to admit his guilt and highlight Julie's involvement as it wouldn't help himself out.

Reference her WS, it's self serving of course. Even if it describes what Bamber truly did it may minimise and overlook her own involvement.

If Bamber had confessed in 1985, he may have took Julie down with him. As far as EP would be concerned the case would be solved. Bamber pleading guilty would mean no trial. And if he brought up Julie's involvement fictious or what, she would have probably faced charges as well.

Julie was utilised because the man was denying guilt. Suspect many in EP believed Julie to have some involvement but they needed her

[Adam]

Think he would be gutted either way even if Julie was totally innocent. He was caught and jailed for life.

Maybe he took a calculated risk and after hedging his bets knew it wouldn't be wise to admit his guilt and highlight Julie's involvement as it wouldn't help himself out.

Reference her WS, it's self serving of course. Even if it describes what Bamber truly did it may minimise and overlook her own involvement.

If Bamber had confessed in 1985, he may have took Julie down with him. As far as EP would be concerned the case would be solved. Bamber pleading guilty would mean no trial. And if he brought up Julie's involvement fictious or what, she would have probably faced charges as well.

Julie was utilised because the man was denying guilt. Suspect many in EP believed Julie to have some involvement but they needed her

Would be interesting what he would have said about Julie if he had admitted guilt.

He could say it was all her idea & she persuaded him. She would deny it.

Don't think it would have made much difference to his sentence.

Julie approaching the police first would have helped her avoid a prison sentence.

[ILB]

Would be interesting what he would have said about Julie if he had admitted guilt.

He could say it was all her idea & she persuaded him. She would deny it.

Don't think it would have made much difference to his sentence.

Julie approaching the police first would have helped her avoid a prison sentence.

Don't think the " she persuaded me to do it spiel " would go down well in all honesty.

He was the one who made the initial phonecall in the early hours of 7.8.85. Julie was in London. He could never claim a backseat approach if he admitted guilt.

It was Bambers family, not Julie's. Any information she received about them would have come from him. It's my belief that if charges had been brought against the two, Bamber would have been seen as the prime mover and Mugford a willing accomplice albeit playing no part in the actual shooting.

[Adam]

Once he admitted it he could spend the next 39 years laying into Julie.

But no one would be listening as he was a self confessed killer.

When do you think he has been closest to admitting guilt? Stan Jones believes he would have during his police interviews if the Q & A's were recorded rather than written down. This I do believe. Getting a 'not guilty' at trial was now the aim.

[Adam]

Read that 69% of prisoners plead guilty at trial because there is a lot of evidence against them.

This is to get a lesser sentence - 3 years instead of 5. Or a lesser charge - manslaugter instead of murder.

Wasting court time & money in going through a trial will not go down well when a judge passes sentence.

There was no point Bamber being one of the 69% to get a lesser sentence. The crime was so serious he would still get 25 years.

[Adam]

Read that the Brinks Mat robbers offerred to turn grasses after there convictions.

They wanted there convictions reduced from 25 years to 10 years in return.

The police turned them down.

[Adam]

Don't believe Bamber being offerred 10 years instead of 25 pre trial would have tempted him.

He would have nothing to come out to after 10 years & always be labelled a child killer. 

He would lose the chance of getting a 'not guilty'. If found guilty, he could be released within 10 years anyway if successful in an appeal.

It would mean giving up on the riches he felt he deserved soon after the massacre after all his planning and motivation.

Anyway 10 years instead of 25 was never on the table as the crime was too serious.

[ILB]

I have heard of immunity from prosecution but I've never heard of anybody in my experience " get a deal " I think plea bargains happen In the US not UK. For a crime or murder you are getting a life sentence. In the old days the home secretary made a recommendation how long you served. The 2003 criminal justice act means you know get a tariff set.

However charges can be dropped to lesses charges. This has happened to myself from a section 47 ABH to a common assault. I don't believe sentencing plea bargains happen over here. Sentencing guidelines are set by parliament and the judge goes over the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before handing down sentence.

[ILB]

Once he admitted it he could spend the next 39 years laying into Julie.

But no one would be listening as he was a self confessed killer.

When do you think he has been closest to admitting guilt? Stan Jones believes he would have during his police interviews if the Q & A's were recorded rather than written down. This I do believe. Getting a 'not guilty' at trial was now the aim.

I don't think he would have admitted guilt. I think Stan just made this assumption as he probably felt he had Bamber on the ropes and was putting him under pressure.

Agree if it had been tape recorded he may have been under more pressure. But he may have just gone more no comment.

Bamber may have just thought he would convince a jury at trial. He had taken a gamble with the massacre. So would takeva gamble at trial.

If he had confessed I don't think he would just have said " yes I did it Julie had nothing to do with it guv, he would have admitted it and tried to bring Julie down with him out of spite. ( Even if was true )

Not many people will plead guilty to murder. The implication is obvious. You are going down for a long time. People will run trial because they have nothing to lose. Even if your case is a hopeless case. You are still getting a mandatory life sentence whether you plead guilty or not gulity. Although you will receive credit for a gulity plea. But whose thinking of limited credit when you know you are going down for a long time anyway? Many defendants just delay the inevitable.

In Bambers case it was X5 murder. When you look at today's sentencing his original tariff back in 1986 was 25 years minimum. People get that in this day and age for a single victim on a murder charge. The Yorkshire ripper back in 81 got a recommendation of 30 years at trial for the murder of 13 women. How sentencing has changed!

Albeit both men later got upgraded to whole life tariff.

[ILB]

There was no point Bamber being one of the 69% to get a lesser sentence. The crime was so serious he would still get 25 years.

Minimum tariff of 25 years is what he got in 1986. It meant exactly that. I highly doubt that had he not been upgraded to whole life tariff  it's unlikely he would have been released at the 25 year point in 2010. Many lifers serve well over their minimum tariff.

There are prisoners who are still in jail after been given the now defunct IPP sentence. Many who were only given a three year recommendation.

[Adam]

Since conviction I don't believe he has considered admitting guilt.

Maybe early 90's when Mike was his only supporter.

But once his sentence was increased from 25 years to 'whole life' there is no point.

If he won an appeal, wonder what his legal rights would be regarding reclaiming the 1985 inheritance?

[ILB]

If he won an appeal, wonder what his legal rights would be regarding reclaiming the 1985 inheritance?

Not to sure to be honest. I believe he would put a claim in for the caravan site. In regards to the inheritance it may have well been spent up.

He would be a wealthy man anyway, a minor celebrity. TV interviews, columns, book deals,  piers Morgan life stories perhaps even! Compensation from the state.

But like anything eventually he would just fade into obscurity after the hype died down.

He would probably have his own battles as well adjusting to the outside world after 40 years in the nick.

[Adam]

Not to sure to be honest. I believe he would put a claim in for the caravan site. In regards to the inheritance it may have well been spent up.

He would be a wealthy man anyway, a minor celebrity. TV interviews, columns, book deals,  piers Morgan life stories perhaps even! Compensation from the state.

But like anything eventually he would just fade into obscurity after the hype died down.

He would probably have his own battles as well adjusting to the outside world after 40 years in the nick.

Couldn't he try to get WHF?

If he got it, he could sell. Be worth a few million.

He could then live the lifestyle he wanted in 1985. Although now a man in his 60's.