Maxine Carr/Julie Mugford. Differences.

[Adam]

Mr Latham said.

"Within minutes of talking to Maxine Carr, he was outside doing a thorough clean of the Fiesta.

"Just minutes, after talking to her that night, he is making a report of the man with the bin liner."

The case continues.

[Adam]

why do you think she only spent 18 months becouse she was only convicted of lying

She gave a false alibi & kept to it for several weeks, even after being arrested.

She also helped clean the crime scene & spoke to the media.

She also let Huntley speak to the media & give the police false leads.

Voluntarily. To apparently keep her teaching job.

[nugnug]

what do you think carline.

[Jane]

why do you think she only spent 18 months becouse she was only convicted of lying

Why do you think it wasn't considered appropriate to convict Julie of anything?

[nugnug]

Why do you think it wasn't considered appropriate to convict Julie of anything?

becouse theres was no evdence what she was true for a start so she could of retracted it.

thats the only reason.

[Jane]

becouse theres was no evdence what she was true for a start so she could of retracted it.

thats the only reason.

And none that what she said wasn't, either.

[Adam]

Anyway there was no point in the police going for a double conviction of 25 years for Bamber & a 3 month suspended sentence for Julie.

They may have failed on both counts as Julie would have clamed up & failed to co operate with the police.

After Julie approached the police, it was in everyone's best interests to focus on who committed the 5x massacre. Julie giving a 24 page long WS & long testimony.

[lookout]

JM should have come in for far more serious questioning at the time of the tragedies and because that didn't happen the fact being that should another appeal be forthcoming she will surely be called upon for her "part in the crime ." The question has to be asked is why she was able to off-load these crimes without fear of prosecution. Interesting !!
What she'd committed was more serious than people imagine and does carry a sentence, as there were a number of crimes involved . Also,what she got away with wouldn't happen today.
 

[Jane]

JM should have come in for far more serious questioning at the time of the tragedies and because that didn't happen the fact being that should another appeal be forthcoming she will surely be called upon for her "part in the crime ." The question has to be asked is why she was able to off-load these crimes without fear of prosecution. Interesting !!
What she'd committed was more serious than people imagine and does carry a sentence, as there were a number of crimes involved . Also,what she got away with wouldn't happen today.

I see mounds of hair being pulled out by supporters because Julie wasn't prosecuted for  -well, just about- ANYTHING! Anyone would think it was the first time someone had been given immunity from prosecution by turning Queen's Counsel. It's not "interesting". It's common practice. Her previous 'crimes', altogether, weren't as heinous as the murder of three generations of one family, so balanced against the information she gave them, what was to be gained by charging her with anything?

[lookout]

I see mounds of hair being pulled out by supporters because Julie wasn't prosecuted for  -well, just about- ANYTHING! Anyone would think it was the first time someone had been given immunity from prosecution by turning Queen's Counsel. It's not "interesting". It's common practice. Her previous 'crimes', altogether, weren't as heinous as the murder of three generations of one family, so balanced against the information she gave them, what was to be gained by charging her with anything?

But hers was like a different case on its own and should have been treated as such ?

[Jane]

But hers was like a different case on its own and should have been treated as such ?

Hmm, but unless she'd owned up, they wouldn't have known anything about it, and the law always shows leniency to those who admit to their crimes, even more when they seek to make recompense, which Julie and Susan did. What their motives may have been isn't relevant. It wasn't their motives which could have been put on trial.

[Adam]

Supporters say the police made mistakes.

Surely the biggest mistake of all would have been if the police had turned down Julie's approach & offer of a mountain of witness evidence. Just so the police could attempt to obtain a 3 month suspended sentence on Julie for not telling them straight away.

[buddy]

But hers was like a different case on its own and should have been treated as such ?

It's no use Lookout, The JM lovers will continue to make excuses for her. She knew from day one for F---s sake, and said nothing. Unless of course she knew nothing, and decided to frame JB.

[nugnug]

i dont see how this thread is even vaguely relvant to the bamber case you can find simlariates in any murder if you look hard enough.


if the only you can make somone look guilty is to try and compare them with ian huntley thats shows you havent got a very good case.

[Steve_uk]

It's no use Lookout, The JM lovers will continue to make excuses for her. She knew from day one for F---s sake, and said nothing. Unless of course she knew nothing, and decided to frame JB.

I don't think anyone on this site does love her, but at 20 years old aren't you entitled to love and want to be loved back..