Anglolawyer's theory

[Jane]

She said she didn't want to talk and told him to go back to bed.  That certainly sounds to me how someone would react if called in the middle of the night.

I don't recall that she said she didn't want to talk to him but I DO recall she told him to go back to bed which I'd say was a VERY mild reaction to his call -along the lines of "OK. Thanks for telling me"- and convinces me even more that if she wasn't expecting THAT call, THAT night, she WAS expecting it.

[scipio_usmc]

I disagree with this.   First because she did make an untrue statement when she said he had made no further reference to his family during the evening call on 06 Aug.   In fact, he had said the crime will have to be 'tonight or never' and she knew what he meant by that.   That was a reference to his family.   Second, while there may be no duty to speak to the police at all, whether as a witness or a suspect, once you choose to do so, you do have a duty not to mislead deliberately, which is what she did by eliding from her account of the evening call that the crime had to be 'tonight or never' and by refraining from including in her account of the early hours call that he had said 'everything is going well' a statement which completely alters the nature of his message.

I assume you don't practice criminal law because if you did then you would understand that this theory of yours is totally flawed and would not support a criminal indictment.  You are trying to re-frame her actions of failing to tell police incriminating evidence she was aware of as her telling affirmative lies that impeded the investigation.  Such re-framing fails miserably.  No matter what spin you try to put on it the reality is she simply didn't tell police everything she knew.  As a matter of law that can't be the basis of a charge for impeding an investigation.

Provide an example where something like that was the basis of an indictment let alone conviction in the UK.  You will be searching for a long time...

[scipio_usmc]

I don't recall that she said she didn't want to talk to him but I DO recall she told him to go back to bed which I'd say was a VERY mild reaction to his call -along the lines of "OK. Thanks for telling me"- and convinces me even more that if she wasn't expecting THAT call, THAT night, she WAS expecting it.

Is Adam rubbing off on you?  You just effectively wrote, "if she wasn't expecting the call then she was expecting it".

[Jane]

I do think the call is likely to have been pre-arranged.   As she was expecting to benefit from the slaughter, becoming in one bound the lady of the manor as it were, it may have been the price she had to pay by providing him with an alibi (sort of).

I am perfectly certain that she WAS expecting that particular benefit but have been ridiculed for suggesting it by a member who uses the fact that she was doing a second degree as reason for her not wishing to be Jeremy's wife. I believe it was ascertained, in court, that she "had been very much in love with him and was hoping to marry him."  I'm convinced that HAD he married her, she'd have said nothing.

[maggie]

Oh but he did know because apparently, "Sheila has gone crazy, she's got the gun". He didn't mention Sheila or the gun though did he?

No he didn't and that is what is missing in her statement, surely he should have said, 'there's something wrong at the farm, dad just phoned and said Sheila has got hold of a gun and is acting crazy, don't know whether to phone 999 or just go over' or words to that effect.  Because he didn't fill in the details it sounds false, I could never understand if she was lying why she didn't fill in the gaps and make a better job of it.  It seems she chose to tell the truth, remember it's always best to tell the truth if you can, and repeated the words they had agreed on.

[Jane]

Is Adam rubbing off on you?  You just effectively wrote, "if she wasn't expecting the call then she was expecting it".

Who's this Adam person?  Ooops, VERY remiss of me to be so unclear. What I meant was, it had been a call that she was expecting AT SOME TIME and when it happened, it wouldn't be a surprise. I think he'd told her enough to start a niggle which which she found increasingly difficult to ignore......................but there were the potential benefits to think about, too.

[Anglolawyer]

I assume you don't practice criminal law because if you did then you would understand that this theory of yours is totally flawed and would not support a criminal indictment.  You are trying to re-frame her actions of failing to tell police incriminating evidence she was aware of as her telling affirmative lies that impeded the investigation.  Such re-framing fails miserably.  No matter what spin you try to put on it the reality is she simply didn't tell police everything she knew.  As a matter of law that can't be the basis of a charge for impeding an investigation.

Provide an example where something like that was the basis of an indictment let alone conviction in the UK.  You will be searching for a long time...

I can't provide an example.   This would probably be charged as perverting the course of justice anyway.   The precise charge is not really the point, is it?   My argument is that, in telling the story she did, she exposed herself to the risk of prosecution for diverting the enquiry.

I still say that giving a deliberately selective, slanted account knowing and intending that it will mislead with a view to assisting an offender, falls squarely within the section.   If I come across a case, I'll post it here.   Your idea that a contrived account which itself contains no lies cannot constitute the offence, or some equally serious offence (if that is your argument) is plainly misconceived IMO.

And FWIW, I have about 10 years of criminal practise under my belt from the time when these offences occurred and I still dabble in regulatory crime today.

[scipio_usmc]

I can't provide an example.   This would probably be charged as perverting the course of justice anyway.   The precise charge is not really the point, is it?   My argument is that, in telling the story she did, she exposed herself to the risk of prosecution for diverting the enquiry.

I still say that giving a deliberately selective, slanted account knowing and intending that it will mislead with a view to assisting an offender, falls squarely within the section.   If I come across a case, I'll post it here.   Your idea that a contrived account which itself contains no lies cannot constitute the offence, or some equally serious offence (if that is your argument) is plainly misconceived IMO.

And FWIW, I have about 10 years of criminal practise under my belt from the time when these offences occurred and I still dabble in regulatory crime today.

The legal issue is very simple.  You are trying to cast Julie not telling police everything incriminating that Jeremy told to her - which is an omission of evidence- as the basis of a charge for "impeding an investigation".  You can't find a single example of an indictment for any crimes that cover impeding an investigation on such legal theory because there are none.  In order for a lie to suffice as an act intended to interfere with an investigation the government must prove it was a lie- not an omission of evidence but an actual lie that created a false impression that was meant to mislead.

An eyewitness to a crime falsely saying they saw nothing is one thing.  An eyewitness lying about what they saw to give a false impression that something different occurred than what actually occurred is a totally different matter. The former can't be a basis for an "obstruction" charge because the the law doesn't impose the legal liability to tell everything you know or face charges for obstruction.  The latter does impose liability because you are actively misleading police as opposed to simply not providing them with all information you have.

What you are doing is trying to take Julie's false claims that she knew nothing and say that is a basis for an obstruction charge though it is insufficient to form a basis for the charge under case law and that is why you can't find an example of such.

[lookout]

Howz about, "Dad says Sheila's gone mad with a gun. What shall I do?" -allegedly what he'd phoned for AND to hear a friendly voice/talk to a friendly ear when his father might be getting killed!!!!!- instead of the somewhat laissez faire words he used.

It's easy to say something that you would have assumed he should have said when he's already been convicted. You're bound to doubt what he actually said because it doesn't gel nor fit the side of the guilty.

[Anglolawyer]

The legal issue is very simple.  You are trying to cast Julie not telling police everything incriminating that Jeremy told to her - which is an omission of evidence- as the basis of a charge for "impeding an investigation".  You can't find a single example of an indictment for any crimes that cover impeding an investigation on such legal theory because there are none.  In order for a lie to suffice as an act intended to interfere with an investigation the government must prove it was a lie- not an omission of evidence but an actual lie that created a false impression that was meant to mislead.

An eyewitness to a crime falsely saying they saw nothing is one thing.  An eyewitness lying about what they saw to give a false impression that something different occurred than what actually occurred is a totally different matter. The former can't be a basis for an "obstruction" charge because the the law doesn't impose the legal liability to tell everything you know or face charges for obstruction.  The latter does impose liability because you are actively misleading police as opposed to simply not providing them with all information you have.

What you are doing is trying to take Julie's false claims that she knew nothing and say that is a basis for an obstruction charge though it is insufficient to form a basis for the charge under case law and that is why you can't find an example of such.

The reason I can't find you an example has more to do with not having access to a criminal law database.   If I find an example, I'll post it.

I disagree with your analysis of the law but don't intend to bore everybodys' pants off by repeating myself or getting drawn into a tangential debate.   There is enough in Julie's account to raise the distinct possibility that her involvement went much further than she disclosed and the relevance of that is mainly to account for her hesitancy in coming forward.   What particular crimes she might have ended up getting charged with is not that important.

[Steve_uk]

What I am suggesting really happened is this: that Bamber and Mugford agreed what she would say he told her when he called her.   And what they agreed she would say is in her witness statement 'there is something wrong at the farm', which makes perfect sense in the assumed conspiracy.

When she later, in Sep '85, came to say what he really said, she claimed it was this:

'everything is going well, not to worry, there is something wrong at the farm'.

The point I am making is that there is something wrong with this version in that, given what he had told her in his earlier call (the crime will have to be tonight or never) and given he had been talking about killing his parents for months, she must have taken 'everything is going well' to mean the murders have been/are being carried out as planned.   'There is something wrong at the farm' does not fit.  And I am suggesting this discordance is an instance of the effect of her true position (as an accomplice to murder) on what she told the police.

Wasn't Julie put on the line by one of her flatmates? Jeremy realized he may have been in danger of being overheard so had to pretend to feign concern.

[scipio_usmc]

The reason I can't find you an example has more to do with not having access to a criminal law database.   If I find an example, I'll post it.

I disagree with your analysis of the law but don't intend to bore everybodys' pants off by repeating myself or getting drawn into a tangential debate.   There is enough in Julie's account to raise the distinct possibility that her involvement went much further than she disclosed and the relevance of that is mainly to account for her hesitancy in coming forward.   What particular crimes she might have ended up getting charged with is not that important.

It is your legal theory that is flawed.

Fact pattern:

Bob witnesses Jill suddenly run up to Jack screaming at him that he is a cheating bastard, Jill shooting Jack dead and then driving away in a red Honda Civic.   

A) Police arrive and Bob tells police he didn't get a good look at the shooter, how the shooter got away or what happened.

B) Police arrive and Bob tells police a black man tried to rob Jack but he refused to give up his wallet so the robber shot him dead then fled on foot

C) Police arrive and Bob tells police a white man shot Jack for some unknown reason then got into a blue Chevy and fled.

In scenario A is Bob guilty of any impeding justice charge on the basis of failing to disclose what he knows?  No

Is Bob guilty in scenario B or C?  Yes in both he is guilty because he provided false information with the intention of throwing police off the trail of the real killer.

In scenario A police are no worse off for having spoke to Bob than they were prior to speaking to him.

In scenario B and C though police are worse off because they were fed misinformation.

Your legal theory is that in scenario A Bob could also be found guilty because he lied saying he knew nothing when he actually did know something that would be useful to police and held that information back.  But this legal theory has no support at all in case law which refuses to hold people liable simply for refusing to provide information they are aware of.  In order to support a charge of impeding an investigation on the basis of a lie the lie must consist of disinformation intended to mislead not simply refusing to tell everything you know. 

My fact pattern is not overly technical it is very simple so that even laymen can easily understand it.

[Anglolawyer]

It is your legal theory that is flawed.

Fact pattern:

Bob witnesses Jill suddenly run up to Jack screaming at him that he is a cheating bastard, Jill shooting Jack dead and then driving away in a red Honda Civic.   

A) Police arrive and Bob tells police he didn't get a good look at the shooter, how the shooter got away or what happened.

B) Police arrive and Bob tells police a black man tried to rob Jack but he refused to give up his wallet so the robber shot him dead then fled on foot

C) Police arrive and Bob tells police a white man shot Jack for some unknown reason then got into a blue Chevy and fled.

In scenario A is Bob guilty of any impeding justice charge on the basis of failing to disclose what he knows?  No

Is Bob guilty in scenario B or C?  Yes in both he is guilty because he provided false information with the intention of throwing police off the trail of the real killer.

In scenario A police are no worse off for having spoke to Bob than they were prior to speaking to him.

In scenario B and C though police are worse off because they were fed misinformation.

Your legal theory is that in scenario A Bob could also be found guilty because he lied saying he knew nothing when he actually did know something that would be useful to police and held that information back.  But this legal theory has no support at all in case law which refuses to hold people liable simply for refusing to provide information they are aware of.  In order to support a charge of impeding an investigation on the basis of a lie the lie must consist of disinformation intended to mislead not simply refusing to tell everything you know. 

My fact pattern is not overly technical it is very simple so that even laymen can easily understand it.

He's guilty in all three cases assuming in A he is concealing what he clearly saw.   If he doesn't want to incur liability he must tell the truth or shut up completely.   Since it's so simple, maybe you should say what distinguishes your three cases.   He lies in all three to the advantage of the offender.

[Caroline]

I assume you don't practice criminal law because if you did then you would understand that this theory of yours is totally flawed and would not support a criminal indictment.  You are trying to re-frame her actions of failing to tell police incriminating evidence she was aware of as her telling affirmative lies that impeded the investigation.  Such re-framing fails miserably.  No matter what spin you try to put on it the reality is she simply didn't tell police everything she knew.  As a matter of law that can't be the basis of a charge for impeding an investigation.

Provide an example where something like that was the basis of an indictment let alone conviction in the UK.  You will be searching for a long time...

We're not having a 'lawyer stand-off' are we? To be fair Scip, you're not a criminal lawyer either.

[Caroline]

Not to defend lookout's claims that WHF was a glorified medicine storage closet, but she is correct about it being said that there sleeping pills at WHF. Julie's claims were that Jeremy contemplated using his mother's sleeping pills:







Her timing of things are as follows:

1) Between July and September 1984, prior to her moving Jeremy had told her he would like to kill everyone so he could inherit all their property and thought about using June's sleeping pills to knock them out, to shoot them and burn the place down.

2) In October she was prescribed sleeping pills because she couldn't sleep.  The weekend after she got them she brought them with her to Goldhanger and complained to Jeremy about how they were big and hard to swallow and didn't help and how she was unhappy with the doctor. 

3) She left them at Goldhanger and Jeremy decided to taste them to see if he could use them and told her they were no good and when he told her they were no good he said the pills she brought him to use on the family was no good so this showed he was under the impression she brought them for him to use on the family though she didn't.

She said in retrospect she should have realized by this he was actually serious about his desire to kill them but she said she didn't want to believe that at the time so closed her eyes to it as a warning sign.

Yes, that's what she said - you are of course welcome to believe her.