Anglolawyer's theory

[nugnug]

Well, while I am no expert, I would expect her to have a good shot at having any prosecution struck out as an abuse.   There is no justification for the delay, firstly.   Its not like the cops have just come into possession of evidence they have been lacking all along despite the exercise of due diligence.   Furthermore, she gave her statements without being cautioned.   She may also have testified without being properly advised about the right not to incriminate herself and on the strength of an understanding or even an explicit agreement with the DPP that she would face no charges.   There is also the question whether she could receive a fair trial now, the case having been subjected to intense and widespread scrutiny over many years.   A prosecution of her might also open a can of worms regarding the safety of Bamber's conviction as it might reveal undisclosed connivance between her and the cops which, had the jury known of it, might have affected the outcome.

it might do if there was pressure for it to reach court even if it was thrown out on a techicalty i think it should at least maybe be tried.

For all these, and perhaps other, reasons I doubt very much whether we shall ever see her hauled back to court.

[Caroline]

well as far as i can see her own statements are an admission of guilt it just depends if the cps will proscute.

What has she actually admitted to? She has NEVER admitted to being part of the murders, just that he had discussed his plan to kill the family but she didn't believe he would go through with it and that after, she was basically in shock - but eventually came good. What can you prosecute from that?

[nugnug]

by her own amission she is an acesary to murder no ifs no butts  planing to drug the victems so they could be more easly killed shes bang to rights.

an acomplice before the fact not after meaning eqaul guilt to the person who did the deed.

[Anglolawyer]

What has she actually admitted to? She has NEVER admitted to being part of the murders, just that he had discussed his plan to kill the family but she didn't believe he would go through with it and that after, she was basically in shock - but eventually came good. What can you prosecute from that?

She may not have explicitly admitted to anything but her initial statement exposed her to prosecution for assisting an offender under s.4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 for which the maximum sentence is 10 years.   See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/section/4

Where a person has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the offence or of some other arrestable offence, does without lawful authority or reasonable excuse any act with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence.

[maggie]

I think he's already realised that in view of the antiquated system that prevents those who are innocent be allowed a voice.I'm sure that up and coming new lawyers etc would like to see a change in the system particularly as regards the prosecution which from the outset is a foregone conclusion that there'll be a charge of sorts which in many cases result in wrongful convictions and subsequently MOJ's.

At least Jeremy can read and write,but what of the ones who are innocent and can't do either ? He's worked damned hard over the years putting reams of paperwork in some semblance of order,looking for anything at all that will give him his proof of innocence and I admire his fight to get justice .
Unless anyone has been up against the " establishment " of a closed shop,then they have no idea what it's like being on the receiving end of bureaucracy.

Hi Lookout
One of the problems which has always bothered me is Julie Mugford and her statement.  I found myself almost thinking she committed the crime because of her subsequent behaviour but we know for a fact she couldn't have done it because apart from anything she has a perfect alibi. 

I came to believe she may have a personality disorder as her behaviour is not 'normal', how could she have stayed with JB after the crime knowing what she knew, how did she dare to stay with him?   I have been a 20 year old girl and have had two daughters who have both been that age quite recently, they were far from shrinking violets but they could never have behaved the way she did, all the excuses in the world don't make me see it any differently and the nail for me was the weekend she spent with Jeremy at Colin's home after the twins were dead  In a way her behaviour has also sealed my belief that JB is almost definitely guilty otherwise none of her behaviour makes any sense but of course this is nly my opinion and I am not accusing JM of anything.

[nugnug]

her cliam that she dident belive he was going to do it would be vaguely beliveble if she hadent kept silent after it happend.

[maggie]

her cliam that she dident belive he was going to do it would be vaguely beliveble if she hadent kept silent after it happend.

Exactly nugs.  It's been an evolving thought process for me from JB totally innocent and it is the only answer which makes any sense imo

[maggie]

Yes, that was the awful problem he gave himself.   The pro-innocent view (in which Julie is simply a liar) has the good point that Jeremy did not really need her.   It's not as if her taking a call at 3.00 a.m. (or whenever it was) would prove he had not committed the murders and then cycled home like crazy afterwards.   By including her in his plans he only made it more likely he would be caught and he tied himself to her needlessly.

Against that, she had become his partner in crime and some kind of bond may have developed.   On her account, she must have been very devoted indeed to prop him up in that performance at the funeral in the full glare of the media   I have even encountered the wonderful suggestion that the whole thing was her idea, which I am disinclined to believe but which enriches the irony muchly.

I wouldn't discount the question as to who's idea it was, there is no reason why it had to be his, depends who was the 'main man' in that relationship........  We don't know who suggested the caravan park break in, she was possibly the brains behind the cheque fraud.....

[Caroline]

She may not have explicitly admitted to anything but her initial statement exposed her to prosecution for assisting an offender under s.4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 for which the maximum sentence is 10 years.   See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/section/4

In what respect did she assist? I suspect you're talking about the pills and I agree because her story was weak - however, she has never admitted to supplying the pills for Jeremy to use in any offense and Jeremy can't admit that that's what they were for.

[Caroline]

I wouldn't discount the question as to who's idea it was, there is no reason why it had to be his, depends who was the 'main man' in that relationship........  We don't know who suggested the caravan park break in, she was possibly the brains behind the cheque fraud.....

She admitted the cheque book fraud was her idea Maggie.

[Anglolawyer]

In what respect did she assist? I suspect you're talking about the pills and I agree because her story was weak - however, she has never admitted to supplying the pills for Jeremy to use in any offense and Jeremy can't admit that that's what they were for.

She assisted by backing up his story about the phone calls, while knowing the truth, thereby corroborating his false account of events.   

[nugnug]

In what respect did she assist? I suspect you're talking about the pills and I agree because her story was weak - however, she has never admitted to supplying the pills for Jeremy to use in any offense and Jeremy can't admit that that's what they were for.

knowing that a murder is going to be comited and failing to inform the police is a crime anyway.

[Jane]

Thanks for this and the other comments.

I wanted to add that Mugford and Bamber were in a Mexican stand off by the beginning of September.   He might be arrested at any point and decide to drag her down with him, his erratic and inappropriate behaviour becoming perhaps alarming (such as offering to sell intimate photographs of Sheila to the NotW).   In that scenario it would be curtains for her.   She certainly could not say 'oh, I was meaning to tell you what really happened but I just hadn't got round to it'.

In one of her interviews she can be heard to say something like 'I was not afraid of Jeremy, but he became afraid of me and then I became afraid of him'.   That puts it very well.   IMO she had to go to the police to save herself.   He (allegedly) threatened her that he would take her with him if she grassed.   I find that credible too.   She royally stitched him up with the avid and credulous assistance of DS Jones et al, the CPS and the DPP.

AL, WOW!!! Can't believe it!!! I and many others have said exactly that. It's good to have verified the correctness of our thinking.

[lookout]

Hi Lookout
One of the problems which has always bothered me is Julie Mugford and her statement.  I found myself almost thinking she committed the crime because of her subsequent behaviour but we know for a fact she couldn't have done it because apart from anything she has a perfect alibi. 

I came to believe she may have a personality disorder as her behaviour is not 'normal', how could she have stayed with JB after the crime knowing what she knew, how did she dare to stay with him?   I have been a 20 year old girl and have had two daughters who have both been that age quite recently, they were far from shrinking violets but they could never have behaved the way she did, all the excuses in the world don't make me see it any differently and the nail for me was the weekend she spent with Jeremy at Colin's home after the twins were dead  In a way her behaviour has also sealed my belief that JB is almost definitely guilty otherwise none of her behaviour makes any sense but of course this is nly my opinion and I am not accusing JM of anything.

Maggie I'd have put JM's behaviour down to the fact that he was wholly innocent and she knew that. This was pure spite at its worst but I don't believe that she'd realised that the case would go as far as it did and it was too late to retract what she'd already said. Some people can live with that.

[susan]

Hello Anglolawyer.

excellent post and my thoughts exactly.