Who funded Julie Mugford between September 1985 and October 1986?

[Steve_uk]

Steve your post is well written.  A cynic might say, that after being cleaned and coached as a witness; after providing second-hand testimony from Ann Eaton & others; after being holed up for a year in police accommodation; after taking a cheque for 25K (a huge amount in 1986); and after posing in a basque for a salacious gutter-press article (very respectful to the dead victims), she finally cleared-off in the same year as COLP?

She could hardly retract her testimony, without landing herself in extremely hot water?  That's called self-preservation.

I wonder who coached her to rise to the highest echelons of the Canadian education system? The information about the hitman and the glove coming off in the fight with Nevill did not come from the Press or relatives. Sometimes when you're under intense pressure you can smile nervously to reduce tension. I'm not excusing Julie completely for her role in all of this but had she not gone to Police the case would have gone ahead anyway and with the weighting Mr. Justice Drake gave to the silencer evidence the same result would probably have been reached.

[guest7363]

I wonder who coached her to rise to the highest echelons of the Canadian education system? The information about the hitman and the glove coming off in the fight with Nevill did not come from the Press or relatives. Sometimes when you're under intense pressure you can smile nervously to reduce tension. I'm not excusing Julie completely for her role in all of this but had she not gone to Police the case would have gone ahead anyway and with the weighting Mr. Justice Drake gave to the silencer evidence the same result would probably have been reached.

Quite true Steve, the case would have changed direction even if Julie never came forward.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=728.0;attach=3153

[Roch]

Quite true Steve, the case would have changed direction even if Julie never came forward.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=728.0;attach=3153

With what we now know, that's a bit like saying, without questionable evidence procured from Mugford and altered to suit, Bamber would still have been prosecuted - because of a questionable exhibit having been produced by other interested parties in the Bamber estate, that the police actually thought were trying to frame Bamber.  Not even all guilters believe the sound moderator evidence is genuine.  All things considered, it's hardly reassuring or watertight.

[Jane]

With what we now know, that's a bit like saying, without questionable evidence procured from Mugford and altered to suit, Bamber would still have been prosecuted - because of a questionable exhibit having been produced by other interested parties in the Bamber estate, that the police actually thought were trying to frame Bamber.  Not even all guilters believe the sound moderator evidence is genuine.  All things considered, it's hardly reassuring or watertight.

Differentiate, please, between WHAT we know, what we THINK we know, and what we're being TOLD we know.

[lebaleb]

Differentiate, please, between WHAT we know, what we THINK we know, and what we're being TOLD we know.

One thing we do know is that JM lied under oath, either in her first statement or in subsequent statements and on the witness stand, which is a crime. We know she committed fraud. We know she was complicit in a burglary. We know she took drugs.

[Jane]

One thing we do know is that JM lied under oath, either in her first statement or in subsequent statements and on the witness stand, which is a crime. We know she committed fraud. We know she was complicit in a burglary. We know she took drugs.

So? It was never any secret. I believe the papers made much of it at the time. Are you suggesting that those without impeccable CV's should be excluded from the witness box? Actually we DON'T know that she "lied under oath". We are aware though, that some would like her to have and claim she did.

[Caroline]

So? It was never any secret. I believe the papers made much of it at the time. Are you suggesting that those without impeccable CV's should be excluded from the witness box? Actually we DON'T know that she "lied under oath". We are aware though, that some would like her to have and claim she did.

We know Jeremy took, sold and grew his own drugs and organised a burglary - however, for some, this has no bearing on his innocence or guilt and yet Julie should have been prosecuted even though her involvement in such activities was due to her involvement with Bamber. You're right Jane, we don't know that she lied at all - the majority of the jury found her story more credible that Jeremy's.

I'd have thought if Julie was all the things being peddled here, she'd have kept a low profile, however, she is very much high profile and has gone on to be successful 'in spite' of her passed.

[guest7363]

With what we now know, that's a bit like saying, without questionable evidence procured from Mugford and altered to suit, Bamber would still have been prosecuted - because of a questionable exhibit having been produced by other interested parties in the Bamber estate, that the police actually thought were trying to frame Bamber.  Not even all guilters believe the sound moderator evidence is genuine.  All things considered, it's hardly reassuring or watertight.

There is a difference, I said it would have changed direction, it had to if they found Sheila's blood in the moderator, the end result who knows?

[guest7363]

One thing we do know is that JM lied under oath, either in her first statement or in subsequent statements and on the witness stand, which is a crime. We know she committed fraud. We know she was complicit in a burglary. We know she took drugs.

Is this what you are referring to lebaleb?

Ground 5 – evidence relevant to the credibility of Julie Mugford 331. Ground 5 raises issues relating to Julie Mugford. When she had given a statement to the police in September 1985, she had made admissions of dishonest conduct in which she had been involved. She referred to a burglary offence committed jointly with the appellant and to a cheque book fraud committed jointly with Susan Battersby. She was not prosecuted for either offence nor was Susan Battersby prosecuted for the cheque book fraud which she too had admitted to the police. The first limb of ground 5 is a complaint that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that both Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby were given immunity.

332. As Mr Temple points out, in answer to that aspect of the matter, Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby were not granted immunity as such but a decision was taken by the DPP not to prosecute. We therefore read this ground as being a complaint that the documentation relating to the decision not to prosecute each of the witnesses was not disclosed to the defence.

333. The jury knew about the admissions made to the police. They further knew that neither of the girls had been prosecuted for these offences. Julie Mugford told the jury that she had "got a caution for it". When the judge summed the case up to the jury, he referred to her receiving "a police caution". Mr Turner's submission is that the jury were misled by being told that she had received a "police caution", and that the prosecution were under a duty to correct this wrong impression.

334. It is undoubtedly correct that Julie Mugford had not received a formal police caution in the sense that that expression is clearly understood by police officers and lawyers. It may be that the trial judge in translating Miss Mugford's reference to a caution into a formal police caution had misunderstood the position. However it seems unlikely to us that the jury would have understood the significance of a formal police caution as opposed to any other warning as to her future behaviour.

[David1819]

The information about the hitman and the glove coming off in the fight with Nevill did not come from the Press or relatives.

Wrong.

Macdonald and the £2000 can be traced back to the police and Robert Boutflour weeks before Julie came forward. Read RWB'sS diary notes and Barlows notes from the Dickinson inquiry.

There was no fight in the kitchen with Neville for various reasons. Read Vanezis trail transcript and DI Cooks 1991 COLP interview.

[Caroline]

With what we now know, that's a bit like saying, without questionable evidence procured from Mugford and altered to suit, Bamber would still have been prosecuted - because of a questionable exhibit having been produced by other interested parties in the Bamber estate, that the police actually thought were trying to frame Bamber.  Not even all guilters believe the sound moderator evidence is genuine.  All things considered, it's hardly reassuring or watertight.

Altered to suit who? I don't understand how you can say her statements were altered when she herself has never come forward to accuse the police of tampering with her evidence. You're right, I do have questions over the moderator but more questions that hang over Jeremy's story both before and after his conviction.

[Stephanie]

Altered to suit who? I don't understand how you can say her statements were altered when she herself has never come forward to accuse the police of tampering with her evidence. You're right, I do have questions over the moderator but more questions that hang over Jeremy's story both before and after his conviction.

His supporters ruminate on details that may never be known until such time that Bamber confesses. By ruminating on things like the sound moderator, in their minds they keep the argument alive.

[nugnug]

Altered to suit who? I don't understand how you can say her statements were altered when she herself has never come forward to accuse the police of tampering with her evidence. You're right, I do have questions over the moderator but more questions that hang over Jeremy's story both before and after his conviction.

for a start it would depend if she knew her statement had  if she dident read the final transcript she wouldent of done.

[lebaleb]

So? It was never any secret. I believe the papers made much of it at the time. Are you suggesting that those without impeccable CV's should be excluded from the witness box? Actually we DON'T know that she "lied under oath". We are aware though, that some would like her to have and claim she did.

In the first statement she says 'he didn't know what to do'. In the second that becomes 'everything is going well'. Present continuous tense. One of them has to be a lie.

[lebaleb]

We know Jeremy took, sold and grew his own drugs and organised a burglary - however, for some, this has no bearing on his innocence or guilt and yet Julie should have been prosecuted even though her involvement in such activities was due to her involvement with Bamber. You're right Jane, we don't know that she lied at all - the majority of the jury found her story more credible that Jeremy's.

I'd have thought if Julie was all the things being peddled here, she'd have kept a low profile, however, she is very much high profile and has gone on to be successful 'in spite' of her passed.

You mean 'past'.