"I haven't rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury." (JM)

[mertol22]

There never seems a week go by without Mugford not been among talk threads,
why do i think her payoff was all in to get Jeremy convicted, all seems staged to me and all started the moment she was dumped by Jeremy the offer of such back then a lot of money was all it took .

[ngb1066]

I think Julie Mugford was influenced by several factors which came into play at different stages and I also think that she was carried along by events which she was unable to control.  These factors were a need to bolster her self esteem, a desire for revenge, fear and, further down the line, money.

I believe that when jilted by Jeremy Julie told her friend in confidence that Jeremy was responsible for the murders.  Her motives at that stage were probably mixed and confused.  Possibly she wanted to bolster her self esteem by demonstrating that Jeremy was completely reprehensible and that she had therefore not lost anything of value as a result of the breakdown in their relationship. Having made the allegation it became hard for her to go back on it.  It was her friend who made the initial contact with the police so at that point I believe fear must have kicked in as a motive, coupled with a desire for revenge.  We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders.  She was offered immunity from prosecution on all matters, but only on condition that she followed through with her account and gave evidence against Jeremy. There was then no going back. Further down the line the News of the World deal was concluded which gave the additional incentive of money. 

 

[Roch]

We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders

The problem for the defence is that a weak point remains around the period the case turned.  If we follow Mike's arguments that the case turned after RWB went to see ACC Simpson, this mechanism seems to operate separately from whatever turned Julie Mugford against Bamber.  For two major players (Julie and police) to turn against Jeremy Bamber, seemingly separate from each other, creates quite a barrier for the defence.  If you knock one down with a 'conspiracy theory'... people fall back upon the other.  I've always wondered whether Julie got wind of the family's malice aforethought towards Jeremy and jumped ship accordingly?  This does not seem to be the case because nobody linked to the defence has ever suggested such.

[ngb1066]

We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders

The problem for the defence is that a weak point remains around the period the case turned.  If we follow Mike's arguments that the case turned after RWB went to see ACC Simpson, this mechanism seems to operate separately from whatever turned Julie Mugford against Bamber.  For two major players (Julie and police) to turn against Jeremy Bamber, seemingly separate from each other, creates quite a barrier for the defence.  If you knock one down with a 'conspiracy theory'... people fall back upon the other.  I've always wondered whether Julie got wind of the family's malice aforethought towards Jeremy and jumped ship accordingly?  This does not seem to be the case because nobody linked to the defence has ever suggested such.

There is no evidence that there was any collusion between Julie Mugford and the family and I think that this is unlikely.  ACC Simpson's intervention in the case and the changed focus of the police enquiry would in my view not have resulted in the prosecution of Jeremy had it not been for the bombshell of Julie Mugford's claims.

   

[Roch]

We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders

The problem for the defence is that a weak point remains around the period the case turned.  If we follow Mike's arguments that the case turned after RWB went to see ACC Simpson, this mechanism seems to operate separately from whatever turned Julie Mugford against Bamber.  For two major players (Julie and police) to turn against Jeremy Bamber, seemingly separate from each other, creates quite a barrier for the defence.  If you knock one down with a 'conspiracy theory'... people fall back upon the other.  I've always wondered whether Julie got wind of the family's malice aforethought towards Jeremy and jumped ship accordingly?  This does not seem to be the case because nobody linked to the defence has ever suggested such.

There is no evidence that there was any collusion between Julie Mugford and the family and I think that this is unlikely.  ACC Simpson's intervention in the case and the changed focus of the police enquiry would in my view not have resulted in the prosecution of Jeremy had it not been for the bombshell of Julie Mugford's claims.

 

Neil, do you think it's possible that the plan (for those in the know about the raid) may have been to allow an 'investigation' focusing upon Jeremy to take place, simply to placate the family and in the knowledge that the likely eventual outcome would be 'no further action'?  But then the bombshell of Mugford threw a massive spanner in the works?  If this is the case, then those police officers who were in the know about the raid must have felt that the case had spiraled out of their control. 

This scenario doesn't make it easy for the defence because to the outside world, you still have two separate players gunning for Bamber.  Not to mention the relatives, which makes three.   

[ngb1066]

We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders

The problem for the defence is that a weak point remains around the period the case turned.  If we follow Mike's arguments that the case turned after RWB went to see ACC Simpson, this mechanism seems to operate separately from whatever turned Julie Mugford against Bamber.  For two major players (Julie and police) to turn against Jeremy Bamber, seemingly separate from each other, creates quite a barrier for the defence.  If you knock one down with a 'conspiracy theory'... people fall back upon the other.  I've always wondered whether Julie got wind of the family's malice aforethought towards Jeremy and jumped ship accordingly?  This does not seem to be the case because nobody linked to the defence has ever suggested such.

There is no evidence that there was any collusion between Julie Mugford and the family and I think that this is unlikely.  ACC Simpson's intervention in the case and the changed focus of the police enquiry would in my view not have resulted in the prosecution of Jeremy had it not been for the bombshell of Julie Mugford's claims.

 

Neil, do you think it's possible that the plan (for those in the know about the raid) may have been to allow an 'investigation' focusing upon Jeremy to take place, simply to placate the family and in the knowledge that the likely eventual outcome would be 'no further action'?  But then the bombshell of Mugford threw a massive spanner in the works?  If this is the case, then those police officers who were in the know about the raid must have felt that the case had spiraled out of their control. 

This scenario doesn't make it easy for the defence because to the outside world, you still have two separate players gunning for Bamber.  Not to mention the relatives, which makes three.

I think your suggestion is likely to be correct.  There would almost certainly have been "no further action" had Julie Mugford not come forward, despite Stan Jones believing from very early on that Jeremy was guilty. 

   

[Roch]

We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders

The problem for the defence is that a weak point remains around the period the case turned.  If we follow Mike's arguments that the case turned after RWB went to see ACC Simpson, this mechanism seems to operate separately from whatever turned Julie Mugford against Bamber.  For two major players (Julie and police) to turn against Jeremy Bamber, seemingly separate from each other, creates quite a barrier for the defence.  If you knock one down with a 'conspiracy theory'... people fall back upon the other.  I've always wondered whether Julie got wind of the family's malice aforethought towards Jeremy and jumped ship accordingly?  This does not seem to be the case because nobody linked to the defence has ever suggested such.

There is no evidence that there was any collusion between Julie Mugford and the family and I think that this is unlikely.  ACC Simpson's intervention in the case and the changed focus of the police enquiry would in my view not have resulted in the prosecution of Jeremy had it not been for the bombshell of Julie Mugford's claims.

 

Neil, do you think it's possible that the plan (for those in the know about the raid) may have been to allow an 'investigation' focusing upon Jeremy to take place, simply to placate the family and in the knowledge that the likely eventual outcome would be 'no further action'?  But then the bombshell of Mugford threw a massive spanner in the works?  If this is the case, then those police officers who were in the know about the raid must have felt that the case had spiraled out of their control. 

This scenario doesn't make it easy for the defence because to the outside world, you still have two separate players gunning for Bamber.  Not to mention the relatives, which makes three.

I think your suggestion is likely to be correct.  There would almost certainly have been "no further action" had Julie Mugford not come forward, despite Stan Jones believing from very early on that Jeremy was guilty. 

 

Curious Essex once questioned would it not have been easier simply to remove DS Stan Jones from the case?  I can see the point he is making.  I cannot understand how those who were not in the know regarding the raid, were able to effectively wrestle control of the case from those who knew what had happened.  This to me looks like Jones was allowed to cause mayhem and panic among his knowledgeable colleagues, who were as a consequence forced to implement a massive cover up.  Why was Jones not simply removed?

[Roch]

The thing is, I suppose the relatives would have got wind of Mugford coming forward.  So even if Jones had been removed, RWB would have stepped up a gear and demanded to see the Home Secretary.

I'm starting to wonder at how pivotal DS Stan Jones is in all of this.  He seems to be a hub between the two aspects of Mugford's testimony and the relatives bogus silencer evidence.

[Roch]

The thing is, I suppose the relatives would have got wind of Mugford coming forward.  So even if Jones had been removed, RWB would have stepped up a gear and demanded to see the Home Secretary.

I'm starting to wonder at how pivotal DS Stan Jones is in all of this.  He seems to be a hub between the two aspects of Mugford's testimony and the relatives bogus silencer evidence.

I think we need a time line thread.  key events happening in the case as per the date that they happened.  I could put one together but I'm working on a video?  Any other takers?

[ngb1066]

We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders

The problem for the defence is that a weak point remains around the period the case turned.  If we follow Mike's arguments that the case turned after RWB went to see ACC Simpson, this mechanism seems to operate separately from whatever turned Julie Mugford against Bamber.  For two major players (Julie and police) to turn against Jeremy Bamber, seemingly separate from each other, creates quite a barrier for the defence.  If you knock one down with a 'conspiracy theory'... people fall back upon the other.  I've always wondered whether Julie got wind of the family's malice aforethought towards Jeremy and jumped ship accordingly?  This does not seem to be the case because nobody linked to the defence has ever suggested such.

There is no evidence that there was any collusion between Julie Mugford and the family and I think that this is unlikely.  ACC Simpson's intervention in the case and the changed focus of the police enquiry would in my view not have resulted in the prosecution of Jeremy had it not been for the bombshell of Julie Mugford's claims.

 

Neil, do you think it's possible that the plan (for those in the know about the raid) may have been to allow an 'investigation' focusing upon Jeremy to take place, simply to placate the family and in the knowledge that the likely eventual outcome would be 'no further action'?  But then the bombshell of Mugford threw a massive spanner in the works?  If this is the case, then those police officers who were in the know about the raid must have felt that the case had spiraled out of their control. 

This scenario doesn't make it easy for the defence because to the outside world, you still have two separate players gunning for Bamber.  Not to mention the relatives, which makes three.

I think your suggestion is likely to be correct.  There would almost certainly have been "no further action" had Julie Mugford not come forward, despite Stan Jones believing from very early on that Jeremy was guilty. 

 

Curious Essex once questioned would it not have been easier simply to remove DS Stan Jones from the case?  I can see the point he is making.  I cannot understand how those who were not in the know regarding the raid, were able to effectively wrestle control of the case from those who knew what had happened.  This to me looks like Jones was allowed to cause mayhem and panic among his knowledgeable colleagues, who were as a consequence forced to implement a massive cover up.  Why was Jones not simply removed?

It is very difficult now to work out how this played out within Essex Police.  Stan Jones was very vocal about his views.  The pressure brought to bear by the family created real problems for the police.  It was clear that the family were not going to be fobbed off.  They had confidence in Stan Jones and he seemed to regard this case as his personal crusade.  ACC Simpson may have felt he had little choice other than to let Stan Jones run with it.

[Roch]

The thing is, I suppose the relatives would have got wind of Mugford coming forward.  So even if Jones had been removed, RWB would have stepped up a gear and demanded to see the Home Secretary.

I'm starting to wonder at how pivotal DS Stan Jones is in all of this.  He seems to be a hub between the two aspects of Mugford's testimony and the relatives bogus silencer evidence.

I think we need a time line thread.  key events happening in the case as per the date that they happened.  I could put one together but I'm working on a video?  Any other takers?

The Brilliant Mistake tried to put a time line together in painstaking detail.  However he stopped early in on in his project. 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,532.0.html

[chochokeira]

The thing is, I suppose the relatives would have got wind of Mugford coming forward.  So even if Jones had been removed, RWB would have stepped up a gear and demanded to see the Home Secretary.

I'm starting to wonder at how pivotal DS Stan Jones is in all of this.  He seems to be a hub between the two aspects of Mugford's testimony and the relatives bogus silencer evidence.

I've always seen Jones as the lynch pin of this.

[jackiepreece]

Ngb as a criminal barrister have you had to contend with the problem of not being able to cross examine because someone keeps breaking down and crying.

Did you believe they were faking it?

Can't they be kept in the witness box until you can cross examine them even if it is days?

Is it common knowledge that police sometimes tell witnesses cross examination has to stop if witnesses get too upset?

Or would you think Mugford herself would you use this tactic



Great thread Keira and one more reason this forum is so valuable

[Roch]

We do not know the pressure which was brought to bear on Julie by the police, but my guess is that she was told in no uncertain terms that she risked being charged herself with being an accessory to the murders

The problem for the defence is that a weak point remains around the period the case turned.  If we follow Mike's arguments that the case turned after RWB went to see ACC Simpson, this mechanism seems to operate separately from whatever turned Julie Mugford against Bamber.  For two major players (Julie and police) to turn against Jeremy Bamber, seemingly separate from each other, creates quite a barrier for the defence.  If you knock one down with a 'conspiracy theory'... people fall back upon the other.  I've always wondered whether Julie got wind of the family's malice aforethought towards Jeremy and jumped ship accordingly?  This does not seem to be the case because nobody linked to the defence has ever suggested such.

There is no evidence that there was any collusion between Julie Mugford and the family and I think that this is unlikely.  ACC Simpson's intervention in the case and the changed focus of the police enquiry would in my view not have resulted in the prosecution of Jeremy had it not been for the bombshell of Julie Mugford's claims.

 

Neil, do you think it's possible that the plan (for those in the know about the raid) may have been to allow an 'investigation' focusing upon Jeremy to take place, simply to placate the family and in the knowledge that the likely eventual outcome would be 'no further action'?  But then the bombshell of Mugford threw a massive spanner in the works?  If this is the case, then those police officers who were in the know about the raid must have felt that the case had spiraled out of their control. 

This scenario doesn't make it easy for the defence because to the outside world, you still have two separate players gunning for Bamber.  Not to mention the relatives, which makes three.

I think your suggestion is likely to be correct.  There would almost certainly have been "no further action" had Julie Mugford not come forward, despite Stan Jones believing from very early on that Jeremy was guilty. 

 

Curious Essex once questioned would it not have been easier simply to remove DS Stan Jones from the case?  I can see the point he is making.  I cannot understand how those who were not in the know regarding the raid, were able to effectively wrestle control of the case from those who knew what had happened.  This to me looks like Jones was allowed to cause mayhem and panic among his knowledgeable colleagues, who were as a consequence forced to implement a massive cover up.  Why was Jones not simply removed?

It is very difficult now to work out how this played out within Essex Police.  Stan Jones was very vocal about his views.  The pressure brought to bear by the family created real problems for the police.  It was clear that the family were not going to be fobbed off.  They had confidence in Stan Jones and he seemed to regard this case as his personal crusade.  ACC Simpson may have felt he had little choice other than to let Stan Jones run with it.

On the one hand I can see how three seemingly separate strands of suspicion coming together regarding Bamber's guilt looks bad for the defence and presents massive hurdles for the defence to get over.  They're still trying to climb over these hurdles 26 years on.  On the other I see a split police force regarding knowledge of what took place at WHF, being forced in to the dynamics of working against each other, by a bent copper who is also doing his utmost to merge the other two separate strands of suspicion together (Mugford + Relatives / Silencer).  The figure of DS Stan Jones really does seem crucial to this case. 

[Roch]

The thing is, I suppose the relatives would have got wind of Mugford coming forward.  So even if Jones had been removed, RWB would have stepped up a gear and demanded to see the Home Secretary.

I'm starting to wonder at how pivotal DS Stan Jones is in all of this.  He seems to be a hub between the two aspects of Mugford's testimony and the relatives bogus silencer evidence.

I've always seen Jones as the lynch pin of this.

I now agree.