Wow! You certainly put some heavy reliance on what I used to believe. I guess I should be flattered. Do you have any theories of your own to add or are you just going to repost my old posts?
Believing Bamber is innocent, leads you to make assumptions in order to explain some really odd behaviour. You have to believe that Julie is a monster and capable of sending an innocent man who she once loved, to prison for the rest of his life. They had nothing on Julie - she told them about the cheque book fraud and the Osea robbery and she was nowhere near WHF on the night of the murders.
When the fog lifted, I had to ask what I would do - no matter how much I resented someone, I'd never do that. I don't imagine she's that much different to the rest of us on that score. However, boot on the other foot, if she had done that to me, I have to ask what kind of letter I would have sent to her - it certainly wouldn't end 'love you stinker'. Odd thing is, I can put myself in Julie's shoes to a certain extent and understand some of the behaviours she expressed - can't do that with Bamber.
They are not your theories. I came to certain conclusions before you did.
I don't think Jeremy hates Julie Mugford, the reason being that he realises fully that she agreed to co-operate because she was threatened with a long jail sentence if she didn't. Demonising Julie Mugford is a basic mistake. The whole woman scorned seeking revenge thing is a myth. According to Liz Rimmington, Julie did not want to go to the police and had to be pushed into it.
What probably happened is something like this. Once Liz Rimmington had betrayed her trust, Julie faced the prospects of a long jail term as an accomplice of Bamber. Suppose for the sake of argument she had tried to back out saying "But I just made up those things, because I was angry with Jeremy". It would not have worked. The police had gained the advantage that they had been looking for and were not going to let it slip. DS Jones would have explained to Mugford that her only chance of avoiding prison was to co-operate fully, so what you basically have in Mugford is a puppet witness who was terrified and literally fighting for her life.
The way that Mugford and Battersby lied on the instructions of the police in describing the vist to the bank shows what had been going on right from the beginning. The girls were told to say that they had gone there of their own volition and not accompanied by a police officer (as was attested by the manager Alan Dovey).
Earlier, the police had told Battersby to say that Mugford had told her she knew that Jeremy was the culprit even before she had told Liz Rimmington. That incident with Battersby larking about at a party and squeezing cream on Jeremy gives the lie to that story. It is predated by the time Julie allegedly told her friend that she knew Jeremy was the killer.
Susan would not have been laughing and joking with Jeremy if she knew he was a child killer. To comprehend the real status of Mugford and Battersby as witnesses, you should start with the visit to the bank. Their "evidence" was the result of intructions from dodgy Stan Jones.
The Court of Appeal in 2002 rejected the claim by Bamber's defence that Dovey's account proves that Mugford and Battersby were lying.
