The missing boxes poll:

[David1819]

Mist admit Jan that I haven't heard of any 'confidential file' on Julie?

Much of Julie is held under PII. her later police interviews cannot be found anywhere online.

Jeremy Supporters are playing with a double edged sword here, Julies files may well raise more doubt on Jeremy's Guilt or they may prove that Julie was more involved ultimately proving Jeremy's guilt.

[Adam]

Much of Julie is held under PII. her later police interviews cannot be found anywhere online.

Jeremy Supporters are playing with a double edged sword here, Julies files may well raise more doubt on Jeremy's Guilt or they may prove that Julie was more involved ultimately proving Jeremy's guilt.

Have you got a source ?

Just because her later police interviews are not online, doesn't mean they are hidden away.

No one else's police interviews are online, except Bamber's.

[Jan]

This is one of several references to it on the forum and I guess it could be checked out


"Dickinson had interviewed Julie Mugford and her mother in 1986 after the trial but the interviews have never been disclosed to the Defence. The City of London Police suspected that Julie Mugford was given immunity from prosecution and after they followed the paper trail to the CPS they discovered that there were documents not to be disclosed to the Defence. Indeed the CPS had in their possession a file known as the “Confidential Crown Prosecution Service File relating to Julie Mugford and Trial preparation by Essex Police.” This file was passed to the Senior Crown Prosecutor known as Mr Stephen Swan. For the 2002 appeal the Metropolitan police tried to trace this file and took a statement from Mr Swan who stated that “I cannot remember who gave me the file, or who I gave it to after I had finished reading it.” The mystery remains: What happened to the confidential file and what was in it and is it right that the Defence should be denied access to these materials"

[guest154]

You know very well there is a confidential file on Julie - there haven been references to it several times on the forum. And they are asking for the original call logs  not copies.

Never heard this before, don't think I have ever read it on here.

[Jan]

See the first post on this thread it ties in with my post above - I cant down load it

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3092.msg118628.html#msg118628

[Jan]

Never heard this before, don't think I have ever read it on here.

it has been mentioned since 2012

[Caroline]

See the first post on this thread it ties in with my post above - I cant down load it

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3092.msg118628.html#msg118628

Cheers Jan, but that just says that the file was confidential, which I would expect it to be, just as any other witness file would be. I found the passage you posted and will provide the link to it. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5624.msg247552.html#msg247552

It looks like it's from the OS and given who posted it I would say that's 100% likely. The person who posted it, isn't much of a JM fan. 

[Adam]

So in other words no mysterious documents of Julie the police are withholding.

What would Julie's Dickinson report reveal ? She had already been interviewed by the police and cross examined at court. She wasn't going to crack.

The campaign team seem to know what documents the police are holding. How ?

[Adam]

The problem the police have is if they say everything has been released, the campaign team will automatically refute it. Which would suggest EP are lying.

So EP have to keep silent.

A good move by the campaign team. But also there only move as the released evidence highlights guilt.

I am surprised other convicted criminals protesting innocence have not tried this. Then again Bamber's campaign for freedom is unprecedented.

Or maybe other criminals have tried this, but it has not been reported.

[Jan]

Cheers Jan, but that just says that the file was confidential, which I would expect it to be, just as any other witness file would be. I found the passage you posted and will provide the link to it. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5624.msg247552.html#msg247552

It looks like it's from the OS and given who posted it I would say that's 100% likely. The person who posted it, isn't much of a JM fan. 

Yes I know who posted it. It is a Crown prosecution file though so not as far as I can see to do with her witness statements? More to do with her previous criminal activity. I am pretty sure mike posted another document that referred to it as well. So all we know is it existed and allegedly no one has seen the contents. Presumably they are hoping it will refer to her initial interviews and the "deal"

[Jan]

The problem the police have is if they say everything has been released, the campaign team will automatically refute it. Which would suggest EP are lying.

So EP have to keep silent.

A good move by the campaign team. But also there only move as the released evidence highlights guilt.

I am surprised other convicted criminals protesting innocence have not tried this. Then again Bamber's campaign for freedom is unprecedented.

Or maybe other criminals have tried this, but it has not been reported.

I think you will find that EP have not said he has the PII info - have you ever seen them admit he has all the files?  In their email they said they would not be released.

I don't know why you are so obsessed  you are 100% convinced there is nothing in them anyway.

 

[Adam]

Yes I know who posted it. It is a Crown prosecution file though so not as far as I can see to do with her witness statements? More to do with her previous criminal activity. I am pretty sure mike posted another document that referred to it as well. So all we know is it existed and allegedly no one has seen the contents. Presumably they are hoping it will refer to her initial interviews and the "deal"

I thought you agreed with CAL that Bamber had all documents ?

Oh yes, the mysterious indexing.

[Adam]

I think you will find that EP have not said he has the PII info - have you ever seen them admit he has all the files?  In their email they said they would not be released.

I don't know why you are so obsessed  you are 100% convinced there is nothing in them anyway.

 

As I said, they won't say this.

Firstly because it is responding and getting into a war of words with a convicted criminal. Giving Bamber more publicity.

Secondly, the campaign team will automatically refute it. Putting the police in a bad light, and giving Bamber more publicity.

[Adam]

I think you will find that EP have not said he has the PII info - have you ever seen them admit he has all the files?  In their email they said they would not be released.

I don't know why you are so obsessed  you are 100% convinced there is nothing in them anyway.

 

If they were trying to frame him, anything highlighting this will be shredded.

If they are not attempting to frame him, there will be nothing of any note.

So yes, I don't believe there is anything in them.

But Bamber probably has all documentation anyway. The campaign team have nowhere else to go at present.

[Caroline]

Yes I know who posted it. It is a Crown prosecution file though so not as far as I can see to do with her witness statements? More to do with her previous criminal activity. I am pretty sure mike posted another document that referred to it as well. So all we know is it existed and allegedly no one has seen the contents. Presumably they are hoping it will refer to her initial interviews and the "deal"

If they did offer her a deal, I don't think it's unusual. The thing is, Julie didn't come forward until after Liz Rimmington informed the police that she might have information relating to the murders. So, she clearly told both Liz Rimmington and Susan Battersby that Jeremy was guilty before any deal could have been offered by EP. I think EP had to play down her chequered past to make her a more credible witness and she was a key witness. It would be wrong if they made her lie but she had already told her story to two people (at least) before ever going to the police and neither Susan Battersby or Liz Rimmington have cause to lie. If you get what I mean?