Sheila not fighting back. Why ?

[Jan]

It was not dark either !!!!

[scipio_usmc]

Skip:

You forget accessory to murder or obstruction of justice. That is not minor, it is major! If Jeremy did it, she was in on it. Reading her statements that is what you have to conclude. She had every opportunity to warn the Bamber family and Sheila, but she chose not to. A serious offence.

If Jeremy is innocent, police could have threatened her into testifying against him - otherwise she would be prosecuted for being accessory to murder and/or obstruction of justice.

1) She wasn't granted immunity from prosecution for accessory to murder so could have been charged after his conviction if they actually had evidence of that.

2) Not warning someone doesn't make you an accessory.  She had to take part in the planning or commission in some manner to be involved.  Knowing someone is going to do something and not warning them is being a scumbag.  But she avoided admitting to being a scumbag by saying she didn't think he was serious which also undercuts any claim she was involved in the planning.  The only evidence that could establish she played a role would have to come from Jeremy. 

There is no reason to think Jeremy was going to confess and that she ran to confess first to eliminate her role in the murders.  He might have confessed after she ratted him out and confessed her role out of spite so it would actually be more dangerous to rat him out than remain silent if she had been involved.

3) Similar analysis applies to the obstruction claims. The only way they could even attempt to prove obstruction would be if they could prove he was guilty and that she had lied to police to protect him. Her admission could actually be used as evidence she lied earlier so it was actually dangerous for her to come forward.  She tried to minimize that threat by saying she failed to give them information she had not that she lied.  There is no legal duty that you have to tell someone everything you know. 

The best chance of prosecuting her for obstruction would have been in relation to her statements about the 2 phone calls after the murders because some of what she initially claims is pretty close to lying and can be argued was lying not just her failing to disclose all she knew.

The only time they prosecute people for obstruction is pretty much when the person never comes clean and helped in other ways than just lying especially it they think they helped the criminal in other ways they can't prove.  Especially family members or friends who they think played an even more active role than police can prove or who helped actively dispose of evidence.

The had no immunity deal with her so could have attempted to try her for obstruction after his conviction but saw no reason to do so since she did come clean voluntarily and that helped convict him plus it would be an iffy case.  Obstruction requires more than just not telling everything you know. 

If you want to argue she made up the story then you need to come up with a reason why she made up the story at the time she first told it and evidence to support she made it up.  Saying the motivation was that she made it up to save her own skin doesn't work because her skin was not on the line when she told it.  Saying she made it up in order to get a magazine deal doesn't work either. 

The best anyone can posit for a reason would be to punish him for their breakup. That is the only motivation defenders have put forth that actually could potentially be a reason. But there is no evidence to support that.  In fact the evidence cuts against it because someone making it up would not make up such a detailed account.  Worse yet someone making it up would not have cited a hitman tale. Someone making it up would say he confessed to doing it himself.  making up tha the slowly revealed more details to her over time makes no sense.  She would just make up he confessed and told him everything.

If she had made it up then the facts would not support her claims and there would be evidence Sheila was responsible.  The evidence establishing she can't have killed anyone else or herself supports Julie's account.  That evidence is more important than Julie's account and undermining it is the only way J the only way people aware of all the relevant facts and evidence who view such in an objective rational manner will read such as not establishing Jeremy guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and thus the only way he will ever be freed.

[scipio_usmc]

That was a lot of words when the only thing you needed to say was the above to which I would have  given the answer that had she known that, she probably WOULDN'T have, but as a 21 year old who just may have been scared of what the future held for her, who's to say?

You haven't addressed my point that it was recognized that she was offered immunity, or does THAT come under your heading of a technicality of little consequence.

She was too young to know that if she never told them about crimes they were unaware of then she would not be able to be charged for said crimes?

Too young to know that if she didn't rat out Jeremy he would not tell the authorities about his drug crimes and burglary that he involved her in?

In the meantime she was not granted any immunity. 

[Jan]

The best anyone can posit for a reason would be to punish him for their breakup. That is the only motivation defenders have put forth that actually could potentially be a reason. But there is no evidence to support that.  In fact the evidence cuts against it because someone making it up would not make up such a detailed account.  Worse yet someone making it up would not have cited a hitman tale. Someone making it up would say he confessed to doing it himself.  making up tha the slowly revealed more details to her over time makes no sense.  She would just make up he confessed and told him everything.


Why is it unreasonable to assume it was because she had just found out he had slept with her friend?

Why is it unreasonable to assume that is was done after she tried to smother him?

why was it unreasonable to assume that when it only happened that she shopped him AFTER their relationship broke down.

And was it not her friend liz who told the police anyway and not her ?

Of course the NOW contract was not the reason for her statements - but I said before it could have influenced her testimony in court - hence the RULES regarding the press paying witnesses.

[Jane]

She was too young to know that if she never told them about crimes they were unaware of then she would not be able to be charged for said crimes?

Too young to know that if she didn't rat out Jeremy he would not tell the authorities about his drug crimes and burglary that he involved her in?

In the meantime she was not granted any immunity.

Well, it seems that you know better than those who know. There is a document/letter here -I can only think it relates to COLP- which says it understands she was.

[Jan]

He is splitting hairs


they were not given immunity as such - but the DPP decided not to prosecute to allow her to be a witness.

[Jane]

He is splitting hairs


they were not given immunity as such - but the DPP decided not to prosecute to allow her to be a witness.

Thanks for that, Jan. I knew I'd seen it somewhere and that it was official.

[David1819]

Well, it seems that you know better than those who know. There is a document/letter here -I can only think it relates to COLP- which says it understands she was.

On planet Scippy there is a magical fountain of knowledge where once you drink the water it gives you  unparalleled information on the Jeremy Bamber case! How else do you think he comes up with all his information? I am surprised us mere mortals can catch up!

[scipio_usmc]

Well, it seems that you know better than those who know. There is a document/letter here -I can only think it relates to COLP- which says it understands she was.

You mean the document that said they decided not to prosecute? The decision was made late 1985 or January 1986 and far from saying she was granted immunity if she agreed to testify it declared she would not be prosecuted because they had no basis to do so.  How does notifying her they had no basis to charge her translate into testify or we will charge you?

From such document (worst typing errors fixed):

"Julie Mugford herself is 21 years of age and is described as- as intelligent young lady, presently studying for an honours degree In education at Goldsmith's College, London.   To her detriment however, Julie Mugford has now confessed to the police in a third statement dated 10th September, 1985, her Involvement in drug abuse, selling about £100 worth of cum able, her involvement din a burglary and cheque frauds. All these offences appear to have been committed since  her involvement with Jeremy Bamber and appear to have been at his instigation.

The Director was obliged to consider the question of prosecuting Miss Mugford for her involvement in the above mentioned matters , but decided against this course, bearing in mind, in particular, the following

a. to a greater or lesser degree, all the offences committed, by Miss Mugford were as a result of her being, corrupted "by Jeremy Bamber,

b. save for her admission, there is no direct evidence against Julie Mugford to justify her prosecution for the drugs offence . As a first offender following the policy adopted by the Essex Police in drug matters, she would have received a caution.

c. as to the burglary, Julie Mugford's involvement, save for an unsuccessful attempt to get the key hanging behind the door,, appears to have been that of a bystander.

d. so far as the cheque offences are concerned, both Mugford and her accomplisee Suzann Battersby have repaid the sum lost by the bank, who were the losers, have stated that they would not support a criminal proceeding."

It was a decision not to prosecute not a grant of immunity.

[Alias]

You mean the document that said they decided not to prosecute? The decision was made late 1985 or January 1986 and far from saying she was granted immunity if she agreed to testify it declared she would not be prosecuted because they had no basis to do so.  How does notifying her they had no basis to charge her translate into testify or we will charge you?

From such document (worst typing errors fixed):

"Julie Mugford herself is 21 years of age and is described as- as intelligent young lady, presently studying for an honours degree In education at Goldsmith's College, London.   To her detriment however, Julie Mugford has now confessed to the police in a third statement dated 10th September, 1985, her Involvement in drug abuse, selling about £100 worth of cum able, her involvement din a burglary and cheque frauds. All these offences appear to have been committed since  her involvement with Jeremy Bamber and appear to have been at his instigation.

The Director was obliged to consider the question of prosecuting Miss Mugford for her involvement in the above mentioned matters , but decided against this course, bearing in mind, in particular, the following

a. to a greater or lesser degree, all the offences committed, by Miss Mugford were as a result of her being, corrupted "by Jeremy Bamber,

b. save for her admission, there is no direct evidence against Julie Mugford to justify her prosecution for the drugs offence . As a first offender following the policy adopted by the Essex Police in drug matters, she would have received a caution.

c. as to the burglary, Julie Mugford's involvement, save for an unsuccessful attempt to get the key hanging behind the door,, appears to have been that of a bystander.

d. so far as the cheque offences are concerned, both Mugford and her accomplisee Suzann Battersby have repaid the sum lost by the bank, who were the losers, have stated that they would not support a criminal proceeding."

It was a decision not to prosecute not a grant of immunity.

Julie´s lies! She is incredible!!!
The cheque book fraud was her idea alone, she says  that, BUT she did it to impress Jeremy, so it´s really his fault.
This is Julie in a nutshell!

P.S. you could as well say that Jeremy started his criminal activities after meeting Julie - there was none prior.

[scipio_usmc]

He is splitting hairs


they were not given immunity as such - but the DPP decided not to prosecute to allow her to be a witness.

The prosecutor wrote they could not prosecute her for the bank charge because the bank would not file a criminal complaint, that for the drug charges the would normally just give a caution under such circumstances and that there was nothing they could charge in relation to the caravan break in because she was just a bystander with the exception of the unsuccessful attempt to get the key for him.

[Jan]

"If she had made it up then the facts would not support her claims"


What are the FACTS?

There was no hit man?

Most of her evidence was conversations between her and Jeremy with no collaboration from independent witnesses.

The odd person who said he did not get on with his parents? I challenge you to find many teenagers who have not gone through similar feelings and similar words - it means nothing because there were other people who said he did get on with his family . Even CC never claimed JB hated his parents and neither did BW in her first statement.

[Jane]

On planet Scippy there is a magical fountain of knowledge where once you drink the water it gives you  unparalleled information on the Jeremy Bamber case! How else do you think he comes up with all his information? I am surprised us mere mortals can catch up!

David, do you think that knowledge extends beyond the case?!!!!! I can 't think of anything more awful. We all need to know that there's something we're good at. Perhaps, are BETTER at, than others but to be better at EVERYTHING than others!!!!! One would have no tolerance. No compassion. No empathy.  OMG!!! No wonder he sees us all as ignorant idiots. Planet Scippy must be a very lonely place. Think I'd rather be here.

[Jan]

The prosecutor wrote they could not prosecute her for the bank charge because the bank would not file a criminal complaint, that for the drug charges the would normally just give a caution under such circumstances and that there was nothing they could charge in relation to the caravan break in because she was just a bystander with the exception of the unsuccessful attempt to get the key for him.

Well I can pretty much tell you that without the police organising the appointment and going with her it is very "reasonable" to assume they would have prosecuted.

How do I know that ? Because I worked for a bank for 10 years and have seen similar cases. Fraud is serious .

[Alias]

David, do you think that knowledge extends beyond the case?!!!!! I can 't think of anything more awful. We all need to know that there's something we're good at. Perhaps, are BETTER at, than others but to be better at EVERYTHING than others!!!!! One would have no tolerance. No compassion. No empathy.  OMG!!! No wonder he sees us all as ignorant idiots. Planet Scippy must be a very lonely place. Think I'd rather be here.

I agree. His whole persona comes across as flawed; not strong and knowledgable as he thinks! In reality the man is clueless about a lot of things. To be pitied when you think about it.