I don't disagree with you, but there is no evidence at all - in fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction - that Julie not being charged was in return for her giving testimony.
I think I can make my own mind up. I believe 100 per cent the bank manager was leaned on by the Police, Mugford and Battersby did not set the meeting up, it was set up by the Police, purely and simply by Essex Police for Mugford to give evidence.
why would the Police not charge Mugford, it was a straight forward charge, easy prosecution, the witness admitted the offence’s, she admitted to Burglary, to cheque book fraud, she admitted to selling and dealing in drugs, she admitted she new Bamber wanted to kill his family, she admitted she knew he had been involved with the killing of his family, it was in return so Mugford could give evidence. they needed Mugford as a witness and without a conviction to help her credibility on the stand.
When did Mugford Smuggle drugs into the UK from Canada, anyone know? She must have admitted to doing this?
North Essex: Court to hear bank manager evidence
Lawyers arguing the case for Jeremy Bamber are hoping the appeal will hear fresh evidence from a bank manager today. Yesterday the hearing in London into Bamber's conviction heard the fifth of 15 grounds, which Bamber's team of lawyers say will prove his conviction should be overturned.
Michael Turner QC, said a bank manager at what was then the Midland Bank had made a statement this year concerning Julie Mugford's involvement with cheque book fraud before the murders at White House Farm in 1985. He said the original trial had heard Julie Mugford and one of her flatmates at the time, Susan Battersby, had admitted acting together in spending Miss Battersby's cheques after reporting them stolen to the bank.
The trial was told the pair had admitted the offences to police following the White House murders and gone of their own volition, on their own, to speak to managers at the bank, which had decided not to press charges. But Mr Turner said this year a manager at the bank, Mr Dovey had made a statement saying a policeman had come with the two girls to the bank to talk to them and help sort out the problem, suggesting they had sought to protect Miss Mugford's credit as a key witness.
He said an officer had rung beforehand to set up the appointment and to warn him they were coming but both women said in the statements at the time that they had gone to the bank on the off-chance and waited until the could see a manager. He also heard Det Sgt Jones and another officer involved in looking after Miss Mugford and Miss Battersby had denied going with them to the bank.
Mr Turner said the notes the manager had made at the time had been destroyed due to a policy change at the bank but had the evidence been available to the defence at the time of the trial it would have given them an opportunity to look at the reliability of Julie Mugford as a witness. "If we are right, the credit of Julie Mugford was all a trick and if Julie Mugford was lying in relation to this, and being supported in that lie by Det Sgt Jones, who was the officer who had had the most contact with her, could it really be said that that would not have had heavy implications on this trial," said Mr Turner.
The case continues
lawyers have discovered Mugford testified against him after police decided to drop investigations into criminal offences she had allegedly committed before the trial. Documents only recently disclosed to Bamber detail how Mugford was accused of burglary, smuggling cannabis into the UK from Canada and cheque fraud.
The Guardian has seen a letter from the then assistant director of public prosecutions (DPP) , John Walker, to the chief constable of Essex, which stated: "With considerable hesitation I would suggest that Mugford be advised she will not be prosecuted in respect of these matters – burglary, cheque fraud and cannabis offences. Thereafter she will be called as a witness against Bamber." Further documents relating to the dealings between the DPP and Mugford remain undisclosed under public interest immunity rules.
