Witheld Docs

[lookout]

You are wrong, it just shows how LITTLE you do know, the cheque boor fraud and her part in the Osea road robbery were discussed in court.

And the drugs ?

[Caroline]

And the drugs ?

Drugs were discussed also. So you're wrong. Something else reported that the court and the jury were never told, turns out, they were!

[Jane]

And the drugs ?

Well, given that Jeremy didn't that Jeremy wasn't exactly Mr Big in the chain of drug suppliers, it suggests that the amount Julie could have sold was extremely limited, and Yes, you HAVE told us how, prior to knowing Jeremy, Julie -allegedly- flew out to Canada and bought drugs back, but left out the fact that as she had to work to pay her way through college, a flight to Canada, at around 19 years of age was probably a little beyond her means.

[Caroline]

Well, given that Jeremy didn't that Jeremy wasn't exactly Mr Big in the chain of drug suppliers, it suggests that the amount Julie could have sold was extremely limited, and Yes, you HAVE told us how, prior to knowing Jeremy, Julie -allegedly- flew out to Canada and bought drugs back, but left out the fact that as she had to work to pay her way through college, a flight to Canada, at around 19 years of age was probably a little beyond her means.

I bet no evidence of it was posted alongside? 

[Jane]

I bet no evidence of it was posted alongside? 

Just like there was no evidence that Julie's -allegedly- soon to be, EX husband had -allegedly- corresponded with someone connected to this site to say he was divorcing Julie because he'd discovered that she'd lied in court!!!!!!.....................some 3 or 4 years before they ever met!!!! I think the lesson here is as follows:- IF IT AIN'T THE TRUTH OR THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO BACK IT, DON'T POST IT.

[Caroline]

Just like there was no evidence that Julie's -allegedly- soon to be, EX husband had -allegedly- corresponded with someone connected to this site to say he was divorcing Julie because he'd discovered that she'd lied in court!!!!!!.....................some 3 or 4 years before they ever met!!!! I think the lesson here is as follows:- IF IT AIN'T THE TRUTH OR THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO BACK IT, DON'T POST IT.

Yep, another gem that turned out to be just gossip.

[Caroline]

Tracked it down - the Canada drugs claim is from the OS (posted below), they make reference to a COLP document BUT haven't posted it. Again, it's who do you believe and without evidence to back it up, it's just words. Canada isn't a usual place to smuggle drugs from and having worked there for quite some time, I know that they have a strict drugs security at the airports and everyone gets to meet the sniffer dogs! Although they may not do so at EVERY airport and of course it may have been less secure in 1985.

"Back in 1991 the City of London Police had investigated Essex Police they detailed a list of crimes which Julie had confessed to carrying out undetected These included, taking cannabis, selling cannabis, accessory to burglary at the caravan park, smuggling drugs back into the UK from Canada, and cheque book fraud. (11) Julie Mugford was never charged with any of these offences officially, but documents newly surfaced show that she was charged with burglary and this was withdrawn with permission from the DPP’s office, in the same document Julie is also advised she will be called as a prosecution witness. At the 2002 appeal the Defence put forward the suggestion that Julie Mugford and her friend and co-fraudster Susan Battersby had been given immunity from prosecution as a trade off for Julie’s testimony against Jeremy Bamber but the documents relating to this were under Public Interest Immunity. (12)"

[Jane]

Tracked it down - the Canada drugs claim is from the OS (posted below), they make reference to a COLP document BUT haven't posted it. Again, it's who do you believe and without evidence to back it up, it's just words. Canada isn't a usual place to smuggle drugs from and having worked there for quite some time, I know that they have a strict drugs security at the airports and everyone gets to meet the sniffer dogs! Although they may not do so at EVERY airport and of course it may have been less secure in 1985.

"Back in 1991 the City of London Police had investigated Essex Police they detailed a list of crimes which Julie had confessed to carrying out undetected These included, taking cannabis, selling cannabis, accessory to burglary at the caravan park, smuggling drugs back into the UK from Canada, and cheque book fraud. (11) Julie Mugford was never charged with any of these offences officially, but documents newly surfaced show that she was charged with burglary and this was withdrawn with permission from the DPP’s office, in the same document Julie is also advised she will be called as a prosecution witness. At the 2002 appeal the Defence put forward the suggestion that Julie Mugford and her friend and co-fraudster Susan Battersby had been given immunity from prosecution as a trade off for Julie’s testimony against Jeremy Bamber but the documents relating to this were under Public Interest Immunity. (12)"

And would Canada not have seemed a rather expensive trip to take -for a penniless student- when Holland is much closer and their drug laws somewhat looser?

[Caroline]

And would Canada not have seemed a rather expensive trip to take -for a penniless student- when Holland is much closer and their drug laws somewhat looser?

I'd have said so.

[Adam]

Come off it. It's no lie. You know full well that JM,the PRIME prosecution witness,along with the relatives helped put JB behind bars with their hearsay. So therefore you go along with all that they had to say because there's nothing else to go on.
Where would EP have been without them ? What did EP have on JB,except for USING the previous theft at Osea site ? Thieving doesn't amount to murdering.
Why weren't the jury shown JM's convictions ? Because EP were hard-up for a witness for the prosecution and if I remember rightly,a court won't entertain a person in the jury who's got/had convictions.

The jury were told about Julie's cheque book fraud.

All the relatives did was hand over a silencer. The suggestion that RB knew he had similar blood to Sheila and shot himself to expertly put back splatter blood into the silencer,  has been dismissed.

The conviction was due to the forensic evidence. A lot of which is in the library. Together with the equally important circumstantial evidence.

[Roch]

No call and no conversation. Bews called the armed police, it had nothing to do with any call from WHF.

According to logs:

04.02 Recce of the farmhouse from the exterior commenced

04.04 Preparation for armed police and the standing down of FSU in Colchester commenced.

04.09 The two officers and Jeremy are recorded as backing away from the premises (towards CA7).

04:11 Request for firearms from CA7 is noted.

04:16 Harris is recorded as providing authority.

Preparations for armed police began prior to any situation report from Bews.   

[Caroline]

According to logs:

04.02 Recce of the farmhouse from the exterior commenced

04.04 Preparation for armed police and the standing down of FSU in Colchester commenced.

04.09 The two officers and Jeremy are recorded as backing away from the premises (towards CA7).

04:11 Request for firearms from CA7 is noted.

04:16 Harris is recorded as providing authority.

Preparations for armed police began prior to any situation report from Bews.

So nothing to do with seeing someone at a window then.

[Roch]

So nothing to do with seeing someone at a window then.

Do you mean Bews' request or the commencement of preparations? 

The three are described in one statement as having ran back to CA7.  Jeremy has also written of Bews scarpering, leaving him and Myall looking at each other in surprise, before following Bews.

One other thing to consider is whether there was more than one recce.

[Caroline]

Do you mean Bews' request or the commencement of preparations? 

The three are described in one statement as having ran back to CA7.  Jeremy has also written of Bews scarpering, leaving him and Myall looking at each other in surprise, before following Bews.

One other thing to consider is whether there was more than one recce.

Yes, Jeremy has written a lot of things but given his position - I don't think his word can be relied upon.

[Roch]

Yes, Jeremy has written a lot of things but given his position - I don't think his word can be relied upon.

To be fair though - you have relied upon it yourself (if I am not mistaken).  He confirmed about the panic alarm.  He may have genuinely helped to confirm other aspects for you as well (I'm guessing).

Facts come from all people and all walks of life, imho.