Forum Members Posts Being Deleted For No Reason

[ngb1066]

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Julie confided in Susan, who advised her to go to the police. She then went on holiday with her boyfriend. It wasn't until she returned from her trip that she learned that Julie had indeed gone to the police, and JB was now under arrest. Julie approached the police herself.

That was the version presented at trial, but I do not believe it was true.  Liz Rimington made the first contact with the police.  Events moved swiftly from that point. 

[tyler]

That was the version presented at trial, but I do not believe it was true.  Liz Rimington made the first contact with the police.  Events moved swiftly from that point.

Wasnt Mugford at Rimmingtons home and Rimmington called the police.?The police contacted Stan Jones who was off duty and cancelled a dinner date with his wife and rushed straight to Rimmingtons home where from he took them both to a safe house?

[ngb1066]

Wasnt Mugford at Rimmingtons home and Rimmington called the police.?The police contacted Stan Jones who was off duty and cancelled a dinner date with his wife and rushed straight to Rimmingtons home where from he took them both to a safe house?

That was the official line I believe and the basic facts are correct.  However there is now evidence to suggest that Julie Mugford may not, initially at least, have been a willing guest of the police.

   

[Bridget]

That was the official line I believe and the basic facts are correct.  However there is now evidence to suggest that Julie Mugford may not, initially at least, have been a willing guest of the police.

 

Would you have been if you were in her position?

[ngb1066]

Would you have been if you were in her position?

Probably not, but the significance of this is that it is another important matter about which the jury were misled.

[Bridget]

Probably not, but the significance of this is that it is another important matter about which the jury were misled.

In what way were they misled?

[bloggs and son]

EXTRACT FROM 2002 APPEAL JUDGEMENT: http://www.homepage-link.to/JUSTICE/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Ground 5 – evidence relevant to the credibility of Julie Mugford

331. Ground 5 raises issues relating to Julie Mugford. When she had given a statement to the police in September 1985, she had made admissions of dishonest conduct in which she had been involved. She referred to a burglary offence committed jointly with the appellant and to a cheque book fraud committed jointly with Susan Battersby. She was not prosecuted for either offence nor was Susan Battersby prosecuted for the cheque book fraud which she too had admitted to the police. The first limb of ground 5 is a complaint that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby were given immunity.

332. As Mr Temple points out, in answer to that aspect of the matter, Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby were not granted immunity as such but a decision was taken by the DPP not to prosecute. We therefore read this ground as being a complaint that the documentation relating to the decision not to prosecute each of the witnesses was not disclosed to the defence.

333. The jury knew about the admissions made to the police. They further knew that neither of the girls had been prosecuted for these offences. Julie Mugford told the jury that she had "got a caution for it". When the judge summed the case up to the jury, he referred to her receiving "a police caution". Mr Turner's submission is that the jury were misled by being told that she had received a "police caution", and that the prosecution were under a duty to correct this wrong impression.

334. It is undoubtedly correct that Julie Mugford had not received a formal police caution in the sense that that expression is clearly understood by police officers and lawyers. It may be that the trial judge in translating Miss Mugford's reference to a caution into a formal police caution had misunderstood the position. However it seems unlikely to us that the jury would have understood the significance of a formal police caution as opposed to any other warning as to her future behaviour.

335. However, whether or not the jury understood the legal distinction of a formal police caution, we fail to see how this could have had any possible impact upon their considerations. What mattered in assessing the weight to be given to the witness's evidence was their own admitted dishonesty, and how they had behaved in relation to such dishonesty, not how the authorities had responded to their admissions. Any failure to correct the judge's reference to a formal police caution cannot be laid at the door of the police since the position was clearly understood by the lawyers and hence such a failure could not in any way taint the evidence of the police officers involved in the inquiry.

How nicely and legally that is worded. It is this kind of legal twisting of the law that gives me absolutely no reason whatsoever to have any kind of trust in our legal system. I would rather rurm these legal men wicked beyond belief. They utterly disgust me.

[Nuala]

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Julie confided in Susan, who advised her to go to the police. She then went on holiday with her boyfriend. It wasn't until she returned from her trip that she learned that Julie had indeed gone to the police, and JB was now under arrest. Julie approached the police herself.

Hi Bridget,

I have the following.

"Essex Police were convinced on the basis of all available evidence that Sheila had killed the family and committed suicide.

On the 7th September 1985 Elizabeth Rimmington telephoned Witham Police Station to say that Julie Mugford was withholding vital evidence in the White House Farm enquiry. This was at 4pm. This telephone call was documented as Telephone Report Number One.

The exact content of this telephone call from Ms Rimmington is still a mystery as Essex
Police continue to withhold this document from the Defence.

This is the sequence of events

5:00pm D.S. Stan Jones goes to the address of Malcolm Waters and takes Julie Mugford into
custody. (HOLMES 64/13 and 1/12)

While in custody at Witham Julie asked that her father is contacted so she can talk to him.
(HOLMES 5/10)

Julie Mugford was interviewed under caution. (HOLMES 1/49)

(Official Blogger site. Jeremy Bamber: My Review of the Tonight Programme)

*HOLMES: These quotes are taken from the HOLMES 2 computer system which is the Home Office
Database. The references are those designated by the Police

[Bridget]

Hi Bridget,

I have the following.

"Essex Police were convinced on the basis of all available evidence that Sheila had killed the family and committed suicide.

On the 7th September 1985 Elizabeth Rimmington telephoned Witham Police Station to say that Julie Mugford was withholding vital evidence in the White House Farm enquiry. This was at 4pm. This telephone call was documented as Telephone Report Number One.

The exact content of this telephone call from Ms Rimmington is still a mystery as Essex
Police continue to withhold this document from the Defence.

This is the sequence of events

5:00pm D.S. Stan Jones goes to the address of Malcolm Waters and takes Julie Mugford into
custody. (HOLMES 64/13 and 1/12)

While in custody at Witham Julie asked that her father is contacted so she can talk to him.
(HOLMES 5/10)

Julie Mugford was interviewed under caution. (HOLMES 1/49)

(Official Blogger site. Jeremy Bamber: My Review of the Tonight Programme)

*HOLMES: These quotes are taken from the HOLMES 2 computer system which is the Home Office
Database. The references are those designated by the Police

Hi Keira, but that is a pro bamber interpretation of events, not an actual account. Do we know what Liz actually said? Is there a copy of a statement by her, or the police record of her call? I don't recall seeing either of those myself.

[bloggs and son]

Her credibility is flawed no matter how you look at it.....It was a mixture of truths and false information made up from hearsay, what might have been and how she interpreted  it all.....and how we perceive it.

I had no idea of the money Jeremy would get. It was my understanding that he would be paid if he was released. 

JM was aware....otherwise how did she know this?

When the verdict was given I was in a neutral place, I don't think I was at the hotel?

Come on gal surely you must have known where you were on verdict day? Stan Jones knew where you were...he told you the verdict.

Jeremy told me that he paid 2000 to Matthew M.

But, juile he had an alibi.....was this made up?

Jeremy told me that the bible was on her chest

Oh dear! lol 

It goes on and on...........

The plain fact was Patti the cops and the prosecution jumped legal hurdles to get JM to testify, even to the extent of "deciding" not to charge her. But if it was any other person who had nothing to trade with they would be dealt with by the full force of the law. Utterly disgraceful actions by men who had been entrusted to uphold the law. But they it appears rode roughshot over the law in order to accomplish their objective. This is one of the reasons I distrust the law and police in general.

[Roch]

http://youtu.be/PS5MrfYVnyM?t=13s

This is how it was presented on CTSB.  According to Bob Miller, Julie needed to unburden herself to police.

[Patti]

Lets also remember that this call to police by Liz R was made the following day after she and JM had booked an holiday to Malta on the 6th of September 

Where did JM get her money from for that? She had not worked since March that year? She had admitted to having reached her overdraft....So where did she find the money from?

[Patti]

The plain fact was Patti the cops and the prosecution jumped legal hurdles to get JM to testify, even to the extent of "deciding" not to charge her. But if it was any other person who had nothing to trade with they would be dealt with by the full force of the law. Utterly disgraceful actions by men who had been entrusted to uphold the law. But they it appears rode roughshot over the law in order to accomplish their objective. This is one of the reasons I distrust the law and police in general.

Hi G. It must have been very difficult to have cross-examine JM due to the fact she was crying a lot.....

I think the only time I see a report of her crying was in court.  She did not cry when she went to identify 5 bodies, or at the funerals...

In fact she states, I was never frightened of Jeremy, I tried to smother him with a pillow,  if I couldn't have him then no one else could, he never told me he had done it....I did not believe him, I never really took any notice of what he said.   

[susan]

Hi Patti  I have read that Jeremy gave her a cheque for £400 she cashed the cheque then she spilled the beans on him. :'(

[Nuala]

Lets also remember that this call to police by Liz R was made the following day after she and JM had booked an holiday to Malta on the 6th of September 

Where did JM get her money from for that? She had not worked since March that year? She had admitted to having reached her overdraft....So where did she find the money from?

I believe that's correct, Patti, that the two young woman had booked this holiday just the a day prior to Rimmington telephoning the police.

I believe the money JM used to pay for her holiday was given to her by Jeremy when he and JM reached the end of their relationship.