Why did Julie not contribute to the recent books ?

[Adam]

It seems that Julie has not contributed to either of the recent books. Otherwise PH or CAL would have boasted about it.

This is similar to other respected books from Claire Powell and Roger Wilkes where she also did not contribute.

Julie has said virtually nothing since 1986. She accepted a 25k offer to give her version of events, if there was a guilty verdict. Apart from this she has not cashed in on the massacre, although she could have done so.  Several times.

Supporters say she does not speak because she has something to hide. But surely after 30 years, that would have been found by now. Lots of people have tried hard enough. Anyway newspaper reporters are hardly going to cross examine her. They just want some quotes, sound bites and new information.

You couldn't blame her for speaking to a book writer. Only last year Jeremy's campaign team posted up an 8 minute Youtube video against her. She has had to suffer regular unjustified attacks by supporters and Jeremy.

Despite the attacks,  it seems from 1986 she wanted to move on. Get her second degree, start a family and have a successful teaching career. She completed her WS, testified and has since let the courts decide. Which makes a refreshing change from Bamber's constant 'bake off's' articles and Youtube videos.

Why do other people think Julie did not contribute ?

[Roch]

Possibly because she was advised to keep her mouth shut: she might be averse to opening it.  Anything she said would be scrutinised (for example if further info has come to light that doesn't support her version of whatever she chose to discuss).  Therefore she would have to be very careful about what she chose to discuss.

[maggie]

Possibly because she was advised to keep her mouth shut: she might be averse to opening it.  Anything she said would be scrutinised (for example if further info has come to light that doesn't support her version of whatever she chose to discuss).  Therefore she would have to be very careful about what she chose to discuss.

I agree Roch, should think it's one of two things.  Either she told the complete truth and that's the end of it for her, or she's keeping her head down and her mouth closed to protect herself from the slightest chance of putting her foot in it.

[scipio_usmc]

It seems that Julie has not contributed to either of the recent books. Otherwise PH or CAL would have boasted about it.

This is similar to other respected books from Claire Powell and Roger Wilkes where she also did not contribute.

Julie has said virtually nothing since 1986. She accepted a 25k offer to give her version of events, if there was a guilty verdict. Apart from this she has not cashed in on the massacre, although she could have done so.  Several times.

Supporters say she does not speak because she has something to hide. But surely after 30 years, that would have been found by now. Lots of people have tried hard enough. Anyway newspaper reporters are hardly going to cross examine her. They just want some quotes, sound bites and new information.

You couldn't blame her for speaking to a book writer. Only last year Jeremy's campaign team posted up an 8 minute Youtube video against her. She has had to suffer regular unjustified attacks by supporters and Jeremy.

Despite the attacks,  it seems from 1986 she wanted to move on. Get her second degree, start a family and have a successful teaching career. She completed her WS, testified and has since let the courts decide. Which makes a refreshing change from Bamber's constant 'bake off's' articles and Youtube videos.

Why do other people think Julie did not contribute ?

Why would she reach out to authors?  She already said all that needed to be said in the past.  She said it at trial, in the NOTW article and in the subsequent article she did for free to set the record straight after the NOTW rag story.

Why should she trust the authors to be accurate and not do a hatchet job?  Why would she want to reach out to them when she already said her peace?

[Roch]

I agree Roch, should think it's one of two things.  Either she told the complete truth and that's the end of it for her, or she's keeping her head down and her mouth closed to protect herself from the slightest chance of putting her foot in it.

Yeah I think that covers both the genuinely guilty scenario and both of the 'fitted up' scenarios.  I wouldn't expect Ron Cook to suddenly wax lyrical about the silencer any more than I would expect Julie Mugford to say anything at all.

Both have gone with the stance that 'the right man is behind bars' (immaterial of how he got there).

[Adam]

Possibly because she was advised to keep her mouth shut: she might be averse to opening it.  Anything she said would be scrutinised (for example if further info has come to light that doesn't support her version of whatever she chose to discuss).  Therefore she would have to be very careful about what she chose to discuss.

I don't see that why she would be advised to keep her mouth shut.

Her testimony is her word against Jeremy's. So can't really be proved wrong.

She could just expand on what she said in her WS -

What was his voice like when he expressed his hatred and plans.

Why didn't she believe he would do it.

Was it a cough or a laugh Stan Jones heard.

Did he show any remorse afterwards.

Whose idea was it to rob the caravan site.

Did she have no choice but to go around with Bamber for a month afterwards.

Was she aware Bamber was a suspect when she approached the police.

Why did she wait a month before going to the police.

Why did she cry at trial.

Why did she accept the NOTW offer.

All would make interesting reading. And enhance the book. It wouldn't put Julie in a bad light either.

[scipio_usmc]

Possibly because she was advised to keep her mouth shut: she might be averse to opening it.  Anything she said would be scrutinised (for example if further info has come to light that doesn't support her version of whatever she chose to discuss).  Therefore she would have to be very careful about what she chose to discuss.

There is a much more basic reason.  She decided to put this behind her and move on with her life.  Her testimony and claims have all ready been publicly released.  Long ago, she did a complete free interview telling her full account to the press on her own terms.

There is no reason for her to seek out the authors to open old wounds to go over the same ground they can read what she said and use that. You reach out to authors when your version has not been publicly released and you want your version to get out there so the truth can be known or your propaganda can be espoused for free without needing to pay to put it out there.  Julie doesn't have any reason to care about these books and to try to get the authors to post things in a certain way.

It is stupid to suggest she would have a reason to seek out the authors. 

As for whether she should speak if they reached out to her- journalists have reached out to me for information.  The only time I responded is when I wanted to make sure things favorable to my clients were told that was not already out there in the public discourse.  There is no reason to be bothered wasting your time speaking to them and risking them distort things unless there is something specific you want to try to get out and use their interest in an attempt to do so.  Often they refuse to publish everything you say or the things you want them to say most.  Journalists often have an agenda.
 

[Adam]

Why would she reach out to authors?  She already said all that needed to be said in the past.  She said it at trial, in the NOTW article and in the subsequent article she did for free to set the record straight after the NOTW rag story.

Why should she trust the authors to be accurate and not do a hatchet job?  Why would she want to reach out to them when she already said her peace?

She is not reaching out to the authors.

They would have approached her. Just as they approached everyone connected to the case.

She has a right to speak to authors, free of charge, or not.
Bamber is only too willing to speak to the likes of CAL and Wilkes. Wilkes saying he interviewed everyone connected to the case, except Julie.

Thought after 30 years and with Bamber now able to give her internet and Youtube digs, she may want to speak.

[Roch]

There is a much more basic reason....

Aye, it's probably this: Any journalist worth their salt who interviews her - would be looking to...

(1) Catch her out

Or

(2) Encourage / facilitate her spilling the beans about the fit-up

[Adam]

Julie actually comes across very well in Wilkes's book.

Once you remove the properganda,  Youtube videos and OS claims, her account does seem totally plausible. However much Bamber may have tried to persuade Wilkes and no doubt CAL otherwise. Those authors are not stupid.

Supporters will always have it in for her. They have to and she cannot change that, no matter how much she spoke.  However she probably trusts a good author to put her in a good light, without her having to become the authors buddy.

[scipio_usmc]

Aye, it's probably this: Any journalist worth their salt who interviews her - would be looking to...

(1) Catch her out

Or

(2) Encourage / facilitate her spilling the beans about the fit-up

She has nothing to hide which is why she did past interviews. The defense already tried to catch her out and suggest she lied.  But why woulf she bother fending off their BS when she has no need to?

[Roch]

She has nothing to hide which is why she did past interviews. The defense already tried to catch her out and suggest she lied.  But why woulf she bother fending off their BS when she has no need to?

Touche...

I suppose it depends on the true circs of her becoming a witness in the first place. 

It is known that a decision was made to discontinue charges against her, in conjunction with her also being "warned" that her testimony was required against Bamber.  Would be interesting to find out whether her testimony was triggered by the arrest, potential charges and interviewing; as opposed to the official version of events whereby she volunteered (with the arrest and charges following suit). 

Personally I thought her diary was an awful piece of retrospective fiction (probably the idea of whoever coached her and possibly a result of notes or diaries having been kept by other prosecution witnesses). 

In other words, they attempted to bolster her testimony by introducing other people's good practice.

[Jan]

Touche...

I suppose it depends on the true circs of her becoming a witness in the first place. 

It is known that a decision was made to discontinue charges against her, in conjunction with her also being "warned" that her testimony was required against Bamber.  Would be interesting to find out whether her testimony was triggered by the arrest, potential charges and interviewing; as opposed to the official version of events whereby she volunteered (with the arrest and charges following suit). 

Personally I thought her diary was an awful piece of retrospective fiction (probably the idea of whoever coached her and possibly a result of notes or diaries having been kept by other prosecution witnesses). 

In other words, they attempted to bolster her testimony by introducing other people's good practice.

found on site - "Ms Rimmington states in her 8th September 1985 statement that from the
1st September she had told Julie repeatedly to go to the Police. Julie had refused to go.

Ms Rimmington states in her 15th September statement that on the 6th of September she
and Julie had booked and paid to go on holiday to Malta together on the 8 th September for
seven days. Ms Rimmington does not explain why she then reported Julie to Essex Police for
withholding evidence in a murder enquiry on the 7th September, the day after paying for
their holiday and a day before they were due to fly off to Malta"

[scipio_usmc]

Touche...

I suppose it depends on the true circs of her becoming a witness in the first place. 

It is known that a decision was made to discontinue charges against her, in conjunction with her also being "warned" that her testimony was required against Bamber.  Would be interesting to find out whether her testimony was triggered by the arrest, potential charges and interviewing; as opposed to the official version of events whereby she volunteered (with the arrest and charges following suit). 

Personally I thought her diary was an awful piece of retrospective fiction (probably the idea of whoever coached her and possibly a result of notes or diaries having been kept by other prosecution witnesses). 

In other words, they attempted to bolster her testimony by introducing other people's good practice.

She wasn't told that the charges would be dropped if she testified.  They decided the only thing they could do to her was to give her a police caution and decided not to bother because it would be pointless.  They said they would need her testimony but if she refused at best they could have tried forcing her to testify by using normal practices not to then charge her for the things they already decided they could not get anything more than a police caution out of. 

[Adam]

She wasn't told that the charges would be dropped if she testified.  They decided the only thing they could do to her was to give her a police caution and decided not to bother because it would be pointless.  They said they would need her testimony but if she refused at best they could have tried forcing her to testify by using normal practices not to then charge her for the things they already decided they could not get anything more than a police caution out of.

The police didn't need to do any persuading.

She approached the police and had wrapped up her WS before they knew about the bank fraud. They did know about the caravan break in. Julie told them.