Steve_UK - I am not sure what I have done to deserve such a damning condemnation not only of my analysis of the legal position but also of my integrity. I have, in response to Bridget's original request, provided a thumbnail sketch of the relevant criminal law and applied that to Julie Mugford in the context of her own witness statements and evidence. I am at a loss to understand why you should condemn me as dishonourable simply for expressing my honest opinion. I appreciate that you feel very defensive towards Julie Mugford (whether because you are related to her or otherwise is I accept none of my business). I am happy to enter into a debate about the legal implications of her actions, but using phrases such as "flights of fancy" and claiming that I "make a mockery" of my whole argument does not I suggest further debate on this.
I believe you are straining credulity in your attempts to whitewash Julie's conduct. The following are examples:
i) You have put an innocent spin on the episode of the sleeping tablets, but according to her own account Julie knew what Jeremy wanted them for and permitted him to use them.
ii) By her own admission Julie was involved in a joint enterprise with Jeremy and Brett Collins to import the cannabis from Amsterdam, most of which was to be supplied to others by Julie directly as well as by Jeremy. This was of course following the murders at a time when Julie was perfectly happy to accompany Jeremy on an expensive jaunt, on her account with full knowledge that he had wiped out his family. If she was telling the truth it is crystal clear that she had effectively condoned the murders and was looking forward to spending the rest of her life with the murderer.
iii) You claim an intimate knowledge of Julie's mental processes the day before the murders, during the night and immediately following. You even suggest that because she attended all girls' grammar school she was unable to understand the meaning of the words she claims were spoken by Jeremy. Are you serious?
iv) I do not misrepresent the chronology. I accept that Julie spoke to friends, including Liz Rimington, after splitting up with Jeremy, dropping increasingly powerful hints that Jeremy was responsible for the murders. However, she did not approach the police. Liz Rimington called the police suggesting that Julie had information. Julie was then arrested and held in custody. The way this was presented at trial, essentially that tormented by guilt she decided to come forward and tell the truth, was grossly misleading. She also lied to the prosecution, and therefore misled the judge, the defence and the jury, about her arrangements with the News of the World.
v) I do not accept that Julie's evidence was "not paramount". I also doubt whether the case would have proceeded to trial without Julie's evidence, but even if it had done so I have little doubt that Jeremy would have been acquitted.
I have no problem with being robustly challenged on any arguments I present but I do feel both the tone and content of your post was unfortunate.
i) Every one of us has left medication of some kind lying around the house in our lives whether it was the useless placebo sleeping tablets which Julie's London doctor prescribed for her or just a pack of Nurofen we've opened and tossed to one side. You cannot possibly know that Julie connived in their use for the purposes of drugging somebody else and I'm surprised that you open with what is one of your weakest arguments.
ii)Again you cannot possibly know that Julie was aware that Jeremy stuffed toothpaste tubes full of cannabis unless you were actually there and saw her pack them in what I assume what was his suitcase. Julie could easily as well have discovered this back at home or not known at all until Jeremy told her.
iii)What does "tonight's the night..it's now or never" mean? Do you know? The Headmaster of Gresham's public school described Jeremy Bamber as "a relentless tease" and Julie would have looked pretty stupid telephoning the Police if had been a false alarm,assuming that she knew the import of those words,which she did not,only realizing by the time of the second telephone call that the family were all dead.
iv)Why would Julie drop powerful hints as you call them to friends about Jeremy's involvement in the murders if she wanted to become Mrs. Bamber? Of course Julie did not want the involvement of the Police as she still held a candle for the man and didn't want him to go to jail,let alone her previous criminal activities induced by Jeremy. Cheque book journalism was a real problem in the 1980s and it was my understanding nothing was signed until the verdict. The point is irrelevant anyway as had it not been Julie flashing her thighs it would have been Anji Greaves.
v) I'm surprised as a lawyer that you give such weight to Julie's evidence,but again you were not the trial judge Mr. Justice Drake,who said "I advise you to treat Miss Mugford's evidence with a great deal of caution". It was quite evidently to my mind the silencer evidence which convicted Jeremy Bamber,evidence which Mike to his credit has done much to cast the shadow of doubt upon,though Julie did bring a human touch to the proceedings which made the trial more dramatic.
In your original submission you give the game away in the opening of your final paragraph by attempting to wash your hands of the whole of Julie's evidence and to stand above the fray. Well let me tell you: firstly it's the public school types like you who have done so much harm to Jeremy's cause in the first place by not having a clear grasp of the case as most of you have never experienced real life,your lackadaisical attitude was typical of that firm of so-called top notch lawyers who relied far too much on appearance and its intimidation effect and not enough on the bread and butter issues of character which Suzette Ford(rejected because she was French),Brett Collins(rejected because he was gay) or Freddi Immani(rejected because he was an ethnic minority immigrant) could have brought,whilst the white middle-class middle aged men had it all under their control and in their charge,didn't they?
One last thing about Julie's evidence. Of course you have to dissociate yourself from it,because any serious probing of her story would lose any last vestige of sympathy for Jeremy Bamber as his thought processes developed and in retrospect became clear. This was Jeremy's scheme not Julie's and to attempt to endow her with the same attributes will not work with me,or any other serious studier of the White House Murder crimes.
