Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: guest29835 on July 06, 2020, 12:17:PM
-
An extract from the judge's summing-up:
"It is the defendant's case, of course, that Julie Mugford's evidence in this case is fabricated, and that she is a brazen, blatant liar, so Mr Rivlin introduced the matter of her previous cheque offences in order to suggest to you then that it was shown that she has been dishonest in the past and so that you can bear in mind that part of her character when assessing whether to believe her not on the evidence she has given in this trial. That is the degree to which that evidence is relevant. Of course, the fact that a person has committed some offence, or has at some time lied in the past, in no way proves that they can never again tell the truth and you might think particularly so, on oath in a murder trial. It does not prove that at all. It is merely there for you to have in mind when you come to weigh up her evidence. In considering whether her past dishonesty affects your assessment of her as a witness in this case, no doubt you will bear one or two things in mind, namely that she volunteered her past offences to the bank who had lost the money when she went to them about a month after she had made her statement to the police in this case, and volunteered to them that if they look back they would find frauds for which she was responsible. She told you that she went there voluntarily and re-paid the money that had obtained, and it seems, does it not, that without her voluntary revelation of her own part in those offences, she would never have been caught for them. They would have never come to light, and it was in those circumstances that she was not in fact prosecuted for them. She received a police caution."
At the end, the judge states that Julie Mugford received a police caution, but my understanding is that a decision was taken by the police not to prosecute her and this was agreed to in a letter from the DPP. Did the trial judge mislead the jury on this point? Or should we take it that the issuance of a police caution is consistent with a decision not to prosecute? In today's language it wouldn't be, but perhaps cautions were treated less seriously back then. And what does the judge mean precisely by a "police caution"?
My source for the summing-up extract is not reliable. Do we have the full summing-up here on the site somewhere? Can't find it in the archive.
I have also in the past seen the DPP letter in which they confirm that they will not proceed against Julie Mugford and she will be giving evidence against Jeremy Bamber. Is there a copy of that here too?
-
An extract from the judge's summing-up:
"It is the defendant's case, of course, that Julie Mugford's evidence in this case is fabricated, and that she is a brazen, blatant liar, so Mr Rivlin introduced the matter of her previous cheque offences in order to suggest to you then that it was shown that she has been dishonest in the past and so that you can bear in mind that part of her character when assessing whether to believe her not on the evidence she has given in this trial. That is the degree to which that evidence is relevant. Of course, the fact that a person has committed some offence, or has at some time lied in the past, in no way proves that they can never again tell the truth and you might think particularly so, on oath in a murder trial. It does not prove that at all. It is merely there for you to have in mind when you come to weigh up her evidence. In considering whether her past dishonesty affects your assessment of her as a witness in this case, no doubt you will bear one or two things in mind, namely that she volunteered her past offences to the bank who had lost the money when she went to them about a month after she had made her statement to the police in this case, and volunteered to them that if they look back they would find frauds for which she was responsible. She told you that she went there voluntarily and re-paid the money that had obtained, and it seems, does it not, that without her voluntary revelation of her own part in those offences, she would never have been caught for them. They would have never come to light, and it was in those circumstances that she was not in fact prosecuted for them. She received a police caution."
At the end, the judge states that Julie Mugford received a police caution, but my understanding is that a decision was taken by the police not to prosecute her and this was agreed to in a letter from the DPP. Did the trial judge mislead the jury on this point? Or should we take it that the issuance of a police caution is consistent with a decision not to prosecute? In today's language it wouldn't be, but perhaps cautions were treated less seriously back then. And what does the judge mean precisely by a "police caution"?
My source for the summing-up extract is not reliable. Do we have the full summing-up here on the site somewhere? Can't find it in the archive.
I have also in the past seen the DPP letter in which they confirm that they will not proceed against Julie Mugford and she will be giving evidence against Jeremy Bamber. Is there a copy of that here too?
I found this old article but it seems the actual documents are missing. Not sure why - because I have seen the documents in The Guardian before.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/interactive/2012/mar/29/jeremy-bamber-prosecutor-police-documents
-
I found this old article but it seems the actual documents are missing. Not sure why - because I have seen the documents in The Guardian before.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/interactive/2012/mar/29/jeremy-bamber-prosecutor-police-documents
Thanks. Although I lean towards Guilty, I've always taken the view that Julie Mugford's evidence can't be taken seriously. However, when I noticed that the trial judge had said she had received a police caution, I must admit, I started to wonder if I should change that view.
It seems to me that if she did receive a formal police caution of the kind that is entered on one's criminal record, that does afford slightly more credence to her evidence - for the obvious reason that it would mean she was not acting under the auspice of criminal immunity, at least not in regard to the second-order offences.
The intriguing questions, at least for me, are whether she really did receive a police caution, or did the judge mislead the jury? If the judge did mislead the jury, I cannot imagine he would have done this intentionally. Maurice Drake was a very eminent judge, albeit of the knock-about type. Thus, the next question is who misled him? Was it Arlidge? And who misled Arlidge? How did the misleading information affect Jeremy's defence?
Then we need to ask what, if any, was the scope of Julie Mugford's criminal immunity? Was it merely the de facto type of immunity that rests on estoppel, involving a comfort letter from the DPP, and an informal understanding of 'you scratch our back, we'll scratch yours'?
That's before we get into the News of the World deal, a separate topic.
-
Thanks. Although I lean towards Guilty, I've always taken the view that Julie Mugford's evidence can't be taken seriously. However, when I noticed that the trial judge had said she had received a police caution, I must admit, I started to wonder if I should change that view.
It seems to me that if she did receive a formal police caution of the kind that is entered on one's criminal record, that does afford slightly more credence to her evidence - for the obvious reason that it would mean she was not acting under the auspice of criminal immunity, at least not in regard to the second-order offences.
The intriguing questions, at least for me, are whether she really did receive a police caution, or did the judge mislead the jury? If the judge did mislead the jury, I cannot imagine he would have done this intentionally. Maurice Drake was a very eminent judge, albeit of the knock-about type. Thus, the next question is who misled him? Was it Arlidge? And who misled Arlidge? How did the misleading information affect Jeremy's defence?
Then we need to ask what, if any, was the scope of Julie Mugford's criminal immunity? Was it merely the de facto type of immunity that rests on estoppel, involving a comfort letter from the DPP, and an informal understanding of 'you scratch our back, we'll scratch yours'?
That's before we get into the News of the World deal, a separate topic.
She did not receive a police caution. The Judge misled the jury on this. It is not clear whether he was misled by the prosecution or merely jumped to an incorrect conclusion. The defence did not challenge it so I suspect they also believed at that time that a formal caution had been administered. The jury were misled not only on this but also on the circumstances in which the bank agreed (reluctantly and under police pressure) not to prosecute when in normal circumstances their policy would be to prosecute. They were also misled about the circumstances of JM "coming forward" to police and her handling by police following her arrest (the fact of her arrest was not disclosed to the jury). There has been a lot posted here in the past about this topic, including by me. The other aspect of JM of course the News of the World deal, where again the jury were seriously misled as a result of the lies told by JM about the subject. This again has been extensively covered in many posts here.
-
DPP John Walker had stated, I quote " With considerable hesitation I would suggest that Mugford be advised that she will not be prosecuted in respect of these matters------burglary, cheque fraud, and cannabis offences. Thereafter she will be called as a witness against Bamber ", unquote.
Further documents relating to the dealings between the DPP and Mugford remain undisclosed under public interest immunity rules.
-
DPP John Walker had stated, I quote " With considerable hesitation I would suggest that Mugford be advised that she will not be prosecuted in respect of these matters------burglary, cheque fraud, and cannabis offences. Thereafter she will be called as a witness against Bamber ", unquote.
Further documents relating to the dealings between the DPP and Mugford remain undisclosed under public interest immunity rules.
Thanks. I have seen that letter from the DPP somewhere online but now can't lay my eyes on it. Subject to what is being withheld under PII rules, I would suggest that the letter from the Assistant DPP, John Walker, is a comfort letter, which she could rely on under estoppel, and she was not granted any sort of formal criminal immunity.
-
She did not receive a police caution. The Judge misled the jury on this. It is not clear whether he was misled by the prosecution or merely jumped to an incorrect conclusion. The defence did not challenge it so I suspect they also believed at that time that a formal caution had been administered. The jury were misled not only on this but also on the circumstances in which the bank agreed (reluctantly and under police pressure) not to prosecute when in normal circumstances their policy would be to prosecute. They were also misled about the circumstances of JM "coming forward" to police and her handling by police following her arrest (the fact of her arrest was not disclosed to the jury). There has been a lot posted here in the past about this topic, including by me. The other aspect of JM of course the News of the World deal, where again the jury were seriously misled as a result of the lies told by JM about the subject. This again has been extensively covered in many posts here.
That's a pretty serious thing to mislead the jury about. If I was on the jury and I heard that, I would grant her evidence a little bit more credibility than otherwise on the basis that she had received a recorded rebuke for some of the offences, albeit ones of lesser seriousness. Having said that, I probably would dismiss what she says anyway. To be frank, her evidence comes across as comical.
Another issue I have with her is whether her evidence was even admissible in the first place. Her statements, in so far as they have any substance, seem to be a mixture of hearsay and quasi-hearsay.
I am assuming that her report of conversations between Jeremy Bamber and Matthew MacDonald was considered admissible hearsay on the basis that she was reporting what amounted to a criminal confession, but it turned out that Mr MacDonald had an alibi that was acceptable to the police and they eliminated him from consideration, so how can it be a confession and how can it be admissible?
Furthermore, the rest of what she had to say consisted of facts that could be surmised from the police and relatives, and so it seems to me that this evidence of hers was unduly prejudicial. It simply cannot be shown that she obtained this information from the accused alone, and even if we give her the benefit of the doubt on that point, it remains the case that Jeremy himself may have obtained the information innocently from the police or relatives.
Surely her whole evidence should have been struck-out and she should have been excluded from the trial? Shouldn't Rivlin at the least have requested a voir dire?
-
Thanks. I have seen that letter from the DPP somewhere online but now can't lay my eyes on it. Subject to what is being withheld under PII rules, I would suggest that the letter from the Assistant DPP, John Walker, is a comfort letter, which she could rely on under estoppel, and she was not granted any sort of formal criminal immunity.
Julie Mugford herself is 21 years of age and is described as- an intelligent
young lady, presently studying for an honours degree In education at
Goldsmith's College, London. To her detriment however, Julie Mugford
has now confessed to the police in a third statement dated 10th September,
1985, her involvement in drug abuse, selling about £100* s worth «*«x>i*«g
of cannabls, at the. instance of Jeremy B amber, her involvement in the burglary
with which Jeremy B amber is presently charged and i&nS her 'cheque frauds'
involving a sum in the region of £800 committed ' to prove herself 'to her
then boyfriend. (As already stated, Julie Mugford' s third statement dated
10th September, 1985, pages 370-386 refer to this criminality.) The question
now arises as 1 to what, if any, action should be taken against Mugford in
respect of these admissions. All of which, to a greater -or lesser degree,
involve corruption of her by Jeremy Bamber.
Save for her. admission, there is no direct evidence against Julie Mugford
to justify her prosecution for the drugs offence. She would be a first
offender and as such the police of the Essex police in such circumstances
would be to administer a caution. As to the burglary, Julie Mugford' a
involvement, save for an unsuccessful attempt' to get the key hanging behind
the door, appears to have been that of a bystander.
The police have advised us that so far as the cheque offences are concerned,
both Mugford and her accomplice, Battersby, have since repaid the money and
the bank, who were the losers, have stated that they would not agree to, or
support a prosecution. In these circumstances and with considerable hesitation,
X would suggest that Mugford be advised that she will not be prosecuted in
respect of these matters. Thereafter she will be called as a witness in
the case against Bamber.
-
Without Julie. There wasnt a case
-
She did not receive a police caution. The Judge misled the jury on this. It is not clear whether he was misled by the prosecution or merely jumped to an incorrect conclusion. The defence did not challenge it so I suspect they also believed at that time that a formal caution had been administered. The jury were misled not only on this but also on the circumstances in which the bank agreed (reluctantly and under police pressure) not to prosecute when in normal circumstances their policy would be to prosecute. They were also misled about the circumstances of JM "coming forward" to police and her handling by police following her arrest (the fact of her arrest was not disclosed to the jury). There has been a lot posted here in the past about this topic, including by me. The other aspect of JM of course the News of the World deal, where again the jury were seriously misled as a result of the lies told by JM about the subject. This again has been extensively covered in many posts here.
When you say "the bank agreed" I assume you mean Alan Dovey. This was dealt with in the 2002 appeal when Mr. Dovey is adamant that the decision not to prosecute was his (point 346):
346. Mr Dovey said that he had made the decision not to prosecute himself and then had discussed the matter with someone in the Chief Inspector's Department who had given approval for the course of action he proposed. Arrangements were then made for the repayment of the money over the following weeks and the girls then left.
-
Without Julie. There wasnt a case
It was Robert Boutflour's case, not Julie's. The force exerted by the former acted as a catalyst to Julie coming forward and giving her statement, warts and all.
-
It was Robert Boutflour's case, not Julie's. The force exerted by the former acted as a catalyst to Julie coming forward and giving her statement, warts and all.
how was it Robert bout flours case?
-
how was it Robert bout flours case?
He wrote to the Essex Chief Constable Robert Bunyard, complaining how the investigation was being mishandled. This was still whilst Jeremy and Brett were holidaying abroad. As a result Boutflour was granted a meeting with ACC Peter Simpson and things moved on from there.
-
In principle. Im inclined to say that it would not bear much weight if she had recieved a caution or hadn't. There is still the proven element of bad character there. It can't confuse a juror either way looking at it logically
-
He wrote to the Essex Chief Constable Robert Bunyard, complaining how the investigation was being mishandled. This was still whilst Jeremy and Brett were holidaying abroad. As a result Boutflour was granted a meeting with ACC Peter Simpson and things moved on from there.
OK. Things might have moved on. But fundamentally what Mr boutflour did or thought bears no weight bringing a prosecution or let alone evidence against Jeremy bamber. It was Julie.
-
In principle. Im inclined to say that it would not bear much weight if she had recieved a caution or hadn't. There is still the proven element of bad character there. It can't confuse a juror either way looking at it logically
The judge told the jury to take Julie's evidence "with a great deal of caution", which effectively nullified it if you have to convict a defendant on a murder charge beyond reasonable doubt. I suppose lawyers like to talk shop, and as long as there is accuracy here I let it pass.
-
She did not receive a police caution. The Judge misled the jury on this. It is not clear whether he was misled by the prosecution or merely jumped to an incorrect conclusion. The defence did not challenge it so I suspect they also believed at that time that a formal caution had been administered. The jury were misled not only on this but also on the circumstances in which the bank agreed (reluctantly and under police pressure) not to prosecute when in normal circumstances their policy would be to prosecute. They were also misled about the circumstances of JM "coming forward" to police and her handling by police following her arrest (the fact of her arrest was not disclosed to the jury). There has been a lot posted here in the past about this topic, including by me. The other aspect of JM of course the News of the World deal, where again the jury were seriously misled as a result of the lies told by JM about the subject. This again has been extensively covered in many posts here.
A prosecution or a conviction in my view does not have to add any weight or substance though towards the person's character. I think personally, the same inference would have still been drawn. Just to use an example If you, I, or any other indivdual go on record saying. Or if it is even discovered, and portrayed by a third party that we have been Involved in some kind of illegal activity. Then speaking in simple laymen terms. Then to a jury. There is the option garnered for them to distrust us. (just an example)
-
Without Julie. There wasnt a case
I agree.
-
Without Julie. There wasnt a case
Incorrect. You have the sound moderator also, that's what the conviction has always rested on.
-
Incorrect. You have the sound moderator also, that's what the conviction has always rested on.
That was in case JM's efforts weren't believed ;)
-
Incorrect. You have the sound moderator also, that's what the conviction has always rested on.
You also have the phone calls, which anchor both the Crown and defence to Jeremy or Sheila as suspects. People focus on Jeremy's claim of a call from Nevill, Jeremy's call to the police and supposition about a call from Nevill to the police or '999', but I think Jeremy's admission of a call to Julie at roughly this time is of at least equal significance, if not more.
Someone here may be able to quickly clear this up for me. What I want to know is: How did Julie know to answer a communal phone in the middle of the night? Never mind that it was 3 a.m. or 3.15 a.m. or whatever time, I want to know how she managed to answer the phone at all? I can see why Jeremy might answer the phone at that time when he claims Nevill rang, because the phone ringing would almost act like an alarm clock. It would wake you up, we just need to accept that Nevill may have been waiting for a while.
But which light sleeper answered the phone for Julie? Or did Julie answer it herself? And if she did, isn't that rather a striking coincidence? And isn't it rather coincidental that key witnesses were also on hand to verify that she took that call and then argue over what time it was?
And then he calls her again at 5 40 a.m. from a public payphone.
-
You also have the phone calls, which anchor both the Crown and defence to Jeremy or Sheila as suspects. People focus on Jeremy's claim of a call from Nevill, Jeremy's call to the police and supposition about a call from Nevill to the police or '999', but I think Jeremy's admission of a call to Julie at roughly this time is of at least equal significance, if not more.
Someone here may be able to quickly clear this up for me. What I want to know is: How did Julie know to answer a communal phone in the middle of the night? Never mind that it was 3 a.m. or 3.15 a.m. or whatever time, I want to know how she managed to answer the phone at all? I can see why Jeremy might answer the phone at that time when he claims Nevill rang, because the phone ringing would almost act like an alarm clock. It would wake you up, we just need to accept that Nevill may have been waiting for a while.
But which light sleeper answered the phone for Julie? Or did Julie answer it herself? And if she did, isn't that rather a striking coincidence? And isn't it rather coincidental that key witnesses were also on hand to verify that she took that call and then argue over what time it was?
And then he calls her again at 5 40 a.m. from a public payphone.
You are insinuating quite a lot here, with your usual cunning and often disingenuous legerdemain. It is apparently fine for Jeremy to answer a telephone call in the middle of the night from his father, but not for Julie to do so. I suspect that you're a young man like David (say mid-30s) and don't recall the ring of the old Rotary Dial telephones, which were quite loud and insistent, and of course before the advent of mobile telephones, which have become so obtrusive in our daily lives. I'm also surmising that you've never lived in London, or you wouldn't be questioning why someone on a student grant has to flat-share.
Julie answered the telephone, whereupon Jeremy proceeded to tell her that "all is going well". She realized the import of this and didn't sleep at all before the next telephone call in the series you mention. She made a grave error, admittedly, in not contacting Police until Friday 6th September, but redeemed herself at Chelmsford Crown Court the following year.
-
You are insinuating quite a lot here, with your usual cunning and often disingenuous legerdemain.
Again, this poster is attacking me personally.
I should add that the substance of his post also does not deal with the point I raise and he also misconstrues my motives for making the post.
I would prefer not to engage him. He (or she?) is an obtuse, rude, abusive bully hiding behind a computer.
Thank you.
-
You are insinuating quite a lot here, with your usual cunning and often disingenuous legerdemain. It is apparently fine for Jeremy to answer a telephone call in the middle of the night from his father, but not for Julie to do so. I suspect that you're a young man like David (say mid-30s) and don't recall the ring of the old Rotary Dial telephones, which were quite loud and insistent, and of course before the advent of mobile telephones, which have become so obtrusive in our daily lives. I'm also surmising that you've never lived in London, or you wouldn't be questioning why someone on a student grant has to flat-share.
Julie answered the telephone, whereupon Jeremy proceeded to tell her that "all is going well". She realized the import of this and didn't sleep at all before the next telephone call in the series you mention. She made a grave error, admittedly, in not contacting Police until Friday 6th September, but redeemed herself at Chelmsford Crown Court the following year.
You might try to be more polite and less personally aggressive in your replies.
-
Again, this poster is attacking me personally.
I should add that the substance of his post also does not deal with the point I raise and he also misconstrues my motives for making the post.
I would prefer not to engage him. He (or she?) is an obtuse, rude, abusive bully hiding behind a computer.
Thank you.
You have joined a public debating forum and should be prepared for scrutiny. You have impugned Julie's credibility so you're a fair target. Actually I don't know what you believe-you're all over the place in so many matters.
I always deal with the points, not usually the person, so you'd better make yourself clearer.
-
You have joined a public debating forum and should be prepared for scrutiny. You have impugned Julie's credibility so you're a fair target. Actually I don't know what you believe-you're all over the place in so many matters.
I always deal with the points, not usually the person, so you'd better make yourself clearer.
I am afraid I have to disagree on the highlighted point. You get quite personal whenever a member posts negative comments about Julie Mugford. Please try to play the ball rather than the man.
-
You have joined a public debating forum and should be prepared for scrutiny. You have impugned Julie's credibility so you're a fair target. Actually I don't know what you believe-you're all over the place in so many matters.
I always deal with the points, not usually the person, so you'd better make yourself clearer.
You are attacking the person, not the points. Meanwhile, when I criticise Julie Mugford (to the extent I do), I refer to her actions only, thus I rest on fair comment.
The fact you cannot discern this important distinction reinforces my view that you are obtuse.
You are clearly emotionally invested in the case - it is very plain for all to see.
-
I think it's her statement of 8th. September 1985 that is the relevant one. She states that she was woken by a housemate, Douglas Dale, at roughly 3.15 a.m. That partly explains what happened, but I'm still suspicious. It just seems awfully convenient to be woken up in the early hours of the morning like that. Does that happen often?
The precise issue I have here is that this whole business of the phone calls is extremely time-sensitive. If you ring somebody at 3.15 a.m., or thereabouts, it's going to take a while for them to come to the phone, if they do so at all, and they'll be a whole fuss made by the person answering, this Mr Dale, about why you're calling at this hour and are you some sort of loony making a prank call, etc.?
It all seems a bit contrived to me. It's all highly suspect.
On the other hand, in Jeremy and Julie's defence, there is no reason Jeremy would lie about making such a call, since his alibi is with the police.
I know why people who are emotionally-attached to Julie Mugford don't like this line of speculation. I don't consider her evidence credible. Nor, it seems, did the judge - ironically, it was the disruptive poster above who pointed this out to us!
Yet it is possible she was more involved in this than she is letting on and that her whole story to the second police investigation may have been a smokescreen.
-
You are attacking the person, not the points. Meanwhile, when I criticise Julie Mugford (to the extent I do), I refer to her actions only, thus I rest on fair comment.
The fact you cannot discern this important distinction reinforces my view that you are obtuse.
You are clearly emotionally invested in the case - it is very plain for all to see.
As if this is not regarded as a personal attack, but never any repercussions therefrom. How you cannot take Julie seriously in court and reject the silencer evidence to boot yet still believe Bamber guilty remains a mystery, how you can reject the inheritance motive is unclear, why you think he should be incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital for ten years as was customary in the former Soviet Union (are you accepting that if he denies culpability he is mentally ill?) is bizarre.
-
Trouble is when you have a case like this without both witnesses or a cast-iron alibi everything that happens becomes " sod's law " involving the person who is alleged to have committed the crime and it was no different for Jeremy in that everything he did appeared wrong so therefore it deemed him guilty in the eyes of many. Such as the timing of the phone-call to JM, which looked as though both had known what had happened or was about to happen when it couldn't have been further from the truth but how could it be proven otherwise ? Everything becomes coincidental so therefore " there must be a guilty conclusion " somewhere. Wrong !
Very many other " sod's law " situations followed throughout the case. Everything that JB did seemed to go against the grain though it was done without him giving a second thought, but others hadn't felt the same so this is how a case was built----on suspicion only without concrete proof that he'd even done anything. JB was completely oblivious to the world and his wife blaming him for the murders. He hadn't got an inkling that his cousin et al were suspicious of him from day one. An example were the thankyou flowers for AE for her help----she took it as a softener in her suspicious mind yet he was genuinely grateful for her help, so would it have been better if he hadn't have bothered ?
(If you are confused by this there's no other way of describing my thoughts but I can see the whole picture and find it difficult to describe from a mind-bending point of view.) I know what I mean ;D Which is why I can form an opinion of him without following the crowd.
I'm almost certain that we'd have seen a vast change in his character had he carried out the murders. It's been 35 years and there's not been any change in him whatsoever, he's remained focussed on his innocence and the difficult task of proving it when nobody believed his pleas of innocence with his side of the story.
Afterall ,nobody least of all the police, likes a smart-arse which is how he'd been viewed in a derogatory way no doubt, pity they hadn't known the difference in self-assurance and the truth, which at times is stranger than fiction.
-
As if this is not regarded as a personal attack, but never any repercussions therefrom. How you cannot take Julie seriously in court and reject the silencer evidence to boot yet still believe Bamber guilty remains a mystery, how you can reject the inheritance motive is unclear, why you think he should be incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital for ten years as was customary in the former Soviet Union (are you accepting that if he denies culpability he is mentally ill?) is bizarre.
I will not engage with this person. And, as an aside, I have actually answered all the questions he raises in this latest post from him. Of course, for him, the questions are rhetorical. He doesn't want my answers. He just wants to needle people he takes a dislike to.
I will not engage.
Thank you.
-
Trouble is when you have a case like this without both witnesses or a cast-iron alibi everything that happens becomes " sod's law " involving the person who is alleged to have committed the crime and it was no different for Jeremy in that everything he did appeared wrong so therefore it deemed him guilty in the eyes of many. Such as the timing of the phone-call to JM, which looked as though both had known what had happened or was about to happen when it couldn't have been further from the truth but how could it be proven otherwise ? Everything becomes coincidental so therefore " there must be a guilty conclusion " somewhere. Wrong !
Very many other " sod's law " situations followed throughout the case. Everything that JB did seemed to go against the grain though it was done without him giving a second thought, but others hadn't felt the same so this is how a case was built----on suspicion only without concrete proof that he'd even done anything. JB was completely oblivious to the world and his wife blaming him for the murders. He hadn't got an inkling that his cousin et al were suspicious of him from day one. An example were the thankyou flowers for AE for her help----she took it as a softener in her suspicious mind yet he was genuinely grateful for her help, so would it have been better if he hadn't have bothered ?
(If you are confused by this there's no other way of describing my thoughts but I can see the whole picture and find it difficult to describe from a mind-bending point of view.) I know what I mean ;D Which is why I can form an opinion of him without following the crowd.
I'm almost certain that we'd have seen a vast change in his character had he carried out the murders. It's been 35 years and there's not been any change in him whatsoever, he's remained focussed on his innocence and the difficult task of proving it when nobody believed his pleas of innocence with his side of the story.
Afterall ,nobody least of all the police, likes a smart-arse which is how he'd been viewed in a derogatory way no doubt, pity they hadn't known the difference in self-assurance and the truth, which at times is stranger than fiction.
Thanks. I accept all that you say in principle.
-
I think it's her statement of 8th. September 1985 that is the relevant one. She states that she was woken by a housemate, Douglas Dale, at roughly 3.15 a.m. That partly explains what happened, but I'm still suspicious. It just seems awfully convenient to be woken up in the early hours of the morning like that. Does that happen often?
The precise issue I have here is that this whole business of the phone calls is extremely time-sensitive. If you ring somebody at 3.15 a.m., or thereabouts, it's going to take a while for them to come to the phone, if they do so at all, and they'll be a whole fuss made by the person answering, this Mr Dale, about why you're calling at this hour and are you some sort of loony making a prank call, etc.?
It all seems a bit contrived to me. It's all highly suspect.
On the other hand, in Jeremy and Julie's defence, there is no reason Jeremy would lie about making such a call, since his alibi is with the police.
I know why people who are emotionally-attached to Julie Mugford don't like this line of speculation. I don't consider her evidence credible. Nor, it seems, did the judge - ironically, it was the disruptive poster above who pointed this out to us!
Yet it is possible she was more involved in this than she is letting on and that her whole story to the second police investigation may have been a smokescreen.
This has been discussed many times on the Forum, but I will gladly recapitulate for the new arrivals. Julie had been in love with Jeremy Bamber for over a year, there had been talk of marriage around Christmastide, she did not want him to go to jail, she was threatened by him of being a co-conspirator, she thought she wouldn't be believed if she did come forward. Who knows which of these considerations was at the forefront of her mind?
You have alluded to the conspiracy theory yet again at the Lewisham flat. You're quite at liberty to do so, yet float an idea without the slightest shred of evidence, which though entertaining does put your own credibility under scrutiny, however much you may wish at times to shove the blame onto others.
-
Did this Mr Dale say at 3 o'clock in the morning: "Oh not you again, Jeremy. You're always ringing up at 3 in the morning. Give it a rest?"
OK, in Jeremy's favour is the fact that it's a putative emergency. (And maybe he would ring his girlfriend before the emergency services - I'm not too worried about the order of the calls, actually).
But then he rings her again at 5.40 a.m. from nearby the scene (this being in the days before widespread mobile phones).
I can see how the whole sequence can be reasonably explained, but to me, it's just got that intangible/unspoken 'something' about it. It doesn't quite hang together. There's that sense of something staged and contrived about the whole thing.
-
This has been discussed many times on the Forum, but I will gladly recapitulate for the new arrivals. Julie had been in love with Jeremy Bamber for over a year, there had been talk of marriage around Christmastide, she did not want him to go to jail, she was threatened by him of being a co-conspirator, she thought she wouldn't be believed if she did come forward. Who knows which of these considerations was at the forefront of her mind?
You have alluded to the conspiracy theory yet again at the Lewisham flat. You're quite at liberty to do so, yet float an idea without the slightest shred of evidence, which though entertaining does put your own credibility under scrutiny, however much you may wish to shove the blame onto others.
I am not interested in your posts. You are not constructive. You are an arrogant know-all, and I don't like that type of person. That's personal of me - let me apologise in advance to you and the moderators. I won't do it again, but I have cause to tell you what I think about you. It arises due to your attitude, so it's fair. I didn't provoke you. You started it, as they say in the playground.
I don't wish to engage with you. Don't respond to me. You're just trouble. You're here to discourage and put-off any speculation and you're trying to drag me under with you.
-
I will not engage with this person. And, as an aside, I have actually answered all the questions he raises in this latest post from him. Of course, for him, the questions are rhetorical. He doesn't want my answers. He just wants to needle people he takes a dislike to.
I will not engage.
Thank you.
Why don't you ask other members here? I've been here long enough. The problem here is that you won't be challenged on anything, do not understand the implications or the inherent contradictions in what you write.
-
Trouble is when you have a case like this without both witnesses or a cast-iron alibi everything that happens becomes " sod's law " involving the person who is alleged to have committed the crime and it was no different for Jeremy in that everything he did appeared wrong so therefore it deemed him guilty in the eyes of many. Such as the timing of the phone-call to JM, which looked as though both had known what had happened or was about to happen when it couldn't have been further from the truth but how could it be proven otherwise ? Everything becomes coincidental so therefore " there must be a guilty conclusion " somewhere. Wrong !
Very many other " sod's law " situations followed throughout the case. Everything that JB did seemed to go against the grain though it was done without him giving a second thought, but others hadn't felt the same so this is how a case was built----on suspicion only without concrete proof that he'd even done anything. JB was completely oblivious to the world and his wife blaming him for the murders. He hadn't got an inkling that his cousin et al were suspicious of him from day one. An example were the thankyou flowers for AE for her help----she took it as a softener in her suspicious mind yet he was genuinely grateful for her help, so would it have been better if he hadn't have bothered ?
(If you are confused by this there's no other way of describing my thoughts but I can see the whole picture and find it difficult to describe from a mind-bending point of view.) I know what I mean ;D Which is why I can form an opinion of him without following the crowd.
I'm almost certain that we'd have seen a vast change in his character had he carried out the murders. It's been 35 years and there's not been any change in him whatsoever, he's remained focussed on his innocence and the difficult task of proving it when nobody believed his pleas of innocence with his side of the story.
Afterall ,nobody least of all the police, likes a smart-arse which is how he'd been viewed in a derogatory way no doubt, pity they hadn't known the difference in self-assurance and the truth, which at times is stranger than fiction.
Lomax discusses the call situation re Mugford, flatmates and Ann Eaton in his book. It is worth a read.
-
It is claimed that Jeremy Bamber telephoned Julie Mugford 11 minutes before he contacted Police (source Blood Relations). Any comment?
-
I am not interested in your posts. You are not constructive. You are an arrogant know-all, and I don't like that type of person. That's personal of me - let me apologise in advance to you and the moderators. I won't do it again, but I have cause to tell you what I think about you. It arises due to your attitude, so it's fair. I didn't provoke you. You started it, as they say in the playground.
I don't wish to engage with you. Don't respond to me. You're just trouble. You're here to discourage and put-off any speculation and you're trying to drag me under with you.
I welcome all new members.
-
Trouble is when you have a case like this without both witnesses or a cast-iron alibi everything that happens becomes " sod's law " involving the person who is alleged to have committed the crime and it was no different for Jeremy in that everything he did appeared wrong so therefore it deemed him guilty in the eyes of many. Such as the timing of the phone-call to JM, which looked as though both had known what had happened or was about to happen when it couldn't have been further from the truth but how could it be proven otherwise ? Everything becomes coincidental so therefore " there must be a guilty conclusion " somewhere. Wrong !
Very many other " sod's law " situations followed throughout the case. Everything that JB did seemed to go against the grain though it was done without him giving a second thought, but others hadn't felt the same so this is how a case was built----on suspicion only without concrete proof that he'd even done anything. JB was completely oblivious to the world and his wife blaming him for the murders. He hadn't got an inkling that his cousin et al were suspicious of him from day one. An example were the thankyou flowers for AE for her help----she took it as a softener in her suspicious mind yet he was genuinely grateful for her help, so would it have been better if he hadn't have bothered ?
(If you are confused by this there's no other way of describing my thoughts but I can see the whole picture and find it difficult to describe from a mind-bending point of view.) I know what I mean ;D Which is why I can form an opinion of him without following the crowd.
I'm almost certain that we'd have seen a vast change in his character had he carried out the murders. It's been 35 years and there's not been any change in him whatsoever, he's remained focussed on his innocence and the difficult task of proving it when nobody believed his pleas of innocence with his side of the story.
Afterall ,nobody least of all the police, likes a smart-arse which is how he'd been viewed in a derogatory way no doubt, pity they hadn't known the difference in self-assurance and the truth, which at times is stranger than fiction.
This is well-written and argued lookout and it's a credit to you, but there was a change in Bamber's character post-murders as he realized he had accomplished his mission and was no longer the whipping boy he perceived himself to be for so many years. From his nasty, snide remarks at relatives at the funerals ( he had pre-murders tried to get cousin Ann onside by sending her a birthday card and offer of sunbed) to his putting his feet up on Nevill's desk and barking orders to Barbara Wilson it's quite clear the reason was the inheritance he expected to receive. There were witnesses such as James Richards who had no reason to lie on oath, even if you think there was a huge conspiracy as there must have been for your version of events to be true.
-
Why don't you ask other members here? I've been here long enough. The problem here is that you won't be challenged on anything, do not understand the implications or the inherent contradictions in what you write.
I don't mind being challenged on anything. The issue I have with you is that you use "public discussion and debate" as an auspice to work out your own personal issues and attack people. I see through it all. When somebody like me calls you out on it, you gaslight and fall back on the "well, it's a public discussion forum." It's a form of abuse, and it's vile.
Others may put up with it, but I won't. If need be, I'll simply stop posting and just read through the documents and threads.
I think I have failed on this thread because I've fallen into the mire with you. I've called you an "arrogant know-all". I should not have done that. That arose from your posting style, but I shouldn't have muddied myself. It means you've won because your whole objective here on this Forum is to deter and discourage discussion and turn every thread into a series of personal attacks, boring missives based on received opinion, and gossipy posts about what people have read in books.
-
I welcome all new members.
No. You don't.
I see through people. I see through you.
-
I don't mind being challenged on anything. The issue I have with you is that you use "public discussion and debate" as an auspice to work out your own personal issues and attack people. I see through it all. When somebody like me calls you out on it, you gaslight and fall back on the "well, it's a public discussion forum." It's a form of abuse, and it's vile.
Others may put up with it, but I won't. If need be, I'll simply stop posting and just read through the documents and threads.
I think I have failed on this thread because I've fallen into the mire with you. I've called you an "arrogant know-all". I should not have done that. That arose from your posting style, but I shouldn't have muddied myself. It means you've won because your whole objective here on this Forum is to deter and discourage discussion and turn every thread into a series of personal attacks, boring missives based on received opinion, and gossipy posts about what people have read in books.
At one time I would have stayed on this Forum 24/7. It's had its ups and downs and several people whom I thought were good posters have been banned, to its detriment. I do have a little more time on my hands currently due to circumstances. I'm sorry if I have caused you (or any other member come to that) offence.
-
I will not engage the creep.
Going back to the issue I latterly raised, I think a core problem of the Crown’s case is that it supposedly relies on Julie Mugford but at the same time seeks to deoderise her from close involvement. To me, that’s a paradox. This is difficult to explain, but it kind of gives me the sense of Julie straddling two camps. We think of her as in the Crown’s camp, but was she entirely?
If I’m wrong and Julie Mugford’s evidence contains substantial truth, that raises the natural question of what the extent of her involvement was. If she was more involved than she pretends, then that means I’m wrong for the right reasons: her evidence is a synecdoche and can’t be relied as it is defective. The alternatives are that she wasn’t involved but Jeremy was, or she wasn’t involved and nor was Jeremy.
The thought that is developing in my mind – I only moot this at the moment – is that Julie Mugford’s evidence right up to the trial might have been a smokescreen for both her and Jeremy, especially the fanciful hitman story. Maybe it all got out of hand? Maybe they thought nobody would believe it? I only moot this, though.
Here we have a phone call at 3.15 a.m., or thereabouts. I don’t doubt the call took place, but I’m quite surprised nobody probes further. If you call somebody at that time of the morning, you will be waiting a while for it to be answered, you’ll probably have to explain yourself at length to whoever answers, and you’ll be asked what can be so important to be ringing at this time; then, you’re maybe waiting a while more for the person you are seeking to be rusticated out of bed and come to the phone, if they bother at all. Then you have to explain yourself to them and so on, and the script we have in the statements won’t be the entirety of it.
Remember that this is a time-sensitive situation, and now I think about it more, I will have to go back on something I said: I am suddenly interested in the order of the calls, and I can see why the police were (though maybe their interest was for a slightly different reason to mine). We’re expected to believe also that shortly after this call, Jeremy was thumbing through the phone book or Yellow Pages for the police station. Or did he ring them before?
Then at 5.40 a.m., we have Jeremy ringing Julie Mugford again on a public payphone. Julie must have been an early riser, but the pertinent question is why did he ring her at 3.15 a.m. in the first place? Why not wait until later to call, when he was apprised as to what was going on?
It all looks contrived. It looks dodgy.
-
At one time I would have stayed on this Forum 24/7. It's had its ups and downs and several people whom I thought were good posters have been banned, to its detriment. I do have a little more time on my hands currently due to circumstances. I'm sorry if I have caused you (or any other member come to that) offence.
I don't judge you Stephen. I am aware we have clashed in the past. Maybe it is due to the fact that I am an ex con who met Jeremy bamber in prison. Maybe other purposes
Either way I'm not bothered
-
I will not engage the creep.
Going back to the issue I latterly raised, I think a core problem of the Crown’s case is that it supposedly relies on Julie Mugford but at the same time seeks to deoderise her from close involvement. To me, that’s a paradox. This is difficult to explain, but it kind of gives me the sense of Julie straddling two camps. We think of her as in the Crown’s camp, but was she entirely?
If I’m wrong and Julie Mugford’s evidence contains substantial truth, that raises the natural question of what the extent of her involvement was. If she was more involved than she pretends, then that means I’m wrong for the right reasons: her evidence is a synecdoche and can’t be relied as it is defective. The alternatives are that she wasn’t involved but Jeremy was, or she wasn’t involved and nor was Jeremy.
The thought that is developing in my mind – I only moot this at the moment – is that Julie Mugford’s evidence right up to the trial might have been a smokescreen for both her and Jeremy, especially the fanciful hitman story. Maybe it all got out of hand? Maybe they thought nobody would believe it? I only moot this, though.
Here we have a phone call at 3.15 a.m., or thereabouts. I don’t doubt the call took place, but I’m quite surprised nobody probes further. If you call somebody at that time of the morning, you will be waiting a while for it to be answered, you’ll probably have to explain yourself at length to whoever answers, and you’ll be asked what can be so important to be ringing at this time; then, you’re maybe waiting a while more for the person you are seeking to be rusticated out of bed and come to the phone, if they bother at all. Then you have to explain yourself to them and so on, and the script we have in the statements won’t be the entirety of it.
Remember that this is a time-sensitive situation, and now I think about it more, I will have to go back on something I said: I am suddenly interested in the order of the calls, and I can see why the police were (though maybe their interest was for a slightly different reason to mine). We’re expected to believe also that shortly after this call, Jeremy was thumbing through the phone book or Yellow Pages for the police station. Or did he ring them before?
Then at 5.40 a.m., we have Jeremy ringing Julie Mugford again on a public payphone. Julie must have been an early riser, but the pertinent question is why did he ring her at 3.15 a.m. in the first place? Why not wait until later to call, when he was apprised as to what was going on?
It all looks contrived. It looks dodgy.
fundamentally, if Jeremy can wake Julie by phone in the wee hours. Vice versa can apply in regards to nevill phoning Jeremy in a tiny cottage
-
I will not engage the creep.
Going back to the issue I latterly raised, I think a core problem of the Crown’s case is that it supposedly relies on Julie Mugford but at the same time seeks to deoderise her from close involvement. To me, that’s a paradox. This is difficult to explain, but it kind of gives me the sense of Julie straddling two camps. We think of her as in the Crown’s camp, but was she entirely?
If I’m wrong and Julie Mugford’s evidence contains substantial truth, that raises the natural question of what the extent of her involvement was. If she was more involved than she pretends, then that means I’m wrong for the right reasons: her evidence is a synecdoche and can’t be relied as it is defective. The alternatives are that she wasn’t involved but Jeremy was, or she wasn’t involved and nor was Jeremy.
The thought that is developing in my mind – I only moot this at the moment – is that Julie Mugford’s evidence right up to the trial might have been a smokescreen for both her and Jeremy, especially the fanciful hitman story. Maybe it all got out of hand? Maybe they thought nobody would believe it? I only moot this, though.
Here we have a phone call at 3.15 a.m., or thereabouts. I don’t doubt the call took place, but I’m quite surprised nobody probes further. If you call somebody at that time of the morning, you will be waiting a while for it to be answered, you’ll probably have to explain yourself at length to whoever answers, and you’ll be asked what can be so important to be ringing at this time; then, you’re maybe waiting a while more for the person you are seeking to be rusticated out of bed and come to the phone, if they bother at all. Then you have to explain yourself to them and so on, and the script we have in the statements won’t be the entirety of it.
Remember that this is a time-sensitive situation, and now I think about it more, I will have to go back on something I said: I am suddenly interested in the order of the calls, and I can see why the police were (though maybe their interest was for a slightly different reason to mine). We’re expected to believe also that shortly after this call, Jeremy was thumbing through the phone book or Yellow Pages for the police station. Or did he ring them before?
Then at 5.40 a.m., we have Jeremy ringing Julie Mugford again on a public payphone. Julie must have been an early riser, but the pertinent question is why did he ring her at 3.15 a.m. in the first place? Why not wait until later to call, when he was apprised as to what was going on?
It all looks contrived. It looks dodgy.
QCChevalier
You are clearly intrigued by the case so I wondered why you wouldn’t write to Jeremy? After conversations with him on the phone I just found this side of him that was so naive and definitely find it difficult to believe he especially on his own could have planned these murders and also carrying out the actual physical act of shooting all his family when he wouldn’t take part in blood sports.
We have all read seen or heard about Jeremy’s arrogant behaviour many times but that is a million miles away from being a cold blooded killer.
Jeremy had his category downgraded quite quickly considering his crime although the relatives had that decision reversed. What did the prison know and why would they take those steps?? Surely he would be one of the last people to have that treatment
It’s all a mystery?
-
I will not engage the creep.
In your account settings. You have the option to add members to an Ignore list. That way you will never see what they post. :)
-
fundamentally, if Jeremy can wake Julie by phone in the wee hours. Vice versa can apply in regards to nevill phoning Jeremy in a tiny cottage
That's true and I already accept it. The distinction I'm making, and what I find suspicious, is that Julie was roused from bed at 3.15 a.m. in a shared house. That's much more difficult, especially when you're also supposed to be making an emergency call and holding for several minutes while a police officer rings somebody else.
And we are led to believe her involvement in the whole thing was limited and, at most, passive.
At the kernel of this case is the paradox outlined above: if she really is a witness of truth, is she a witness of whole truth or partial truth? Is her evidence a synecdoche, concealing her own deeper involvement? If so, was this for her own purposes only or also for Jeremy's?
-
QCChevalier
You are clearly intrigued by the case so I wondered why you wouldn’t write to Jeremy? After conversations with him on the phone I just found this side of him that was so naive and definitely find it difficult to believe he especially on his own could have planned these murders and also carrying out the actual physical act of shooting all his family when he wouldn’t take part in blood sports.
I respect your loyalty to Jeremy. However, you hit a nail on the head here. You have just articulated quite well one of the reasons I doubt he planned it all out. There's lots of discussion about Sheila's mental condition, but little sophisticated probing into Jeremy's mental world. Instead, we have from the pro-guilt people what I call the Robot Theory, inaugurated by Wilkes, in which we have Jeremy as rather like The Terminator, sent from the future, to kill Sarah Connor and then kill his family at the farm, all because he is a greedy psychopathic neo-thatcherite.
We have all read seen or heard about Jeremy’s arrogant behaviour many times but that is a million miles away from being a cold blooded killer.
Of course. I think anybody with any sense would acknowledge this. But why did he act like that? What was the role of cannabis in it? What happened to him at that school? What was going on inside the family?
Jeremy had his category downgraded quite quickly considering his crime although the relatives had that decision reversed. What did the prison know and why would they take those steps?? Surely he would be one of the last people to have that treatment
It’s all a mystery?
I agree. The prison re-categorisation happened because his offending was thought to be narrowly-focused, then the relatives intervened - or at least, that's the story. If true, they don't come out of this well, in my view.
-
I've discovered that this Douglas Dale gave a statement to the police and also gave evidence at the trial, which means there must be a statement of truth from him somewhere. I assume his witness statement was around the same time as Julie's. Unless I'm purblind, I can't see anything in the Archives on here.
I would be very interested to see his various statements and evidence.
I also found this in the 2002 appeal judgment:
307. Douglas Dale was in the house at the time. He made a statement on 9 September saying that he had heard the phone at about 3 a.m. He also gave that evidence at trial. But when cross-examined he said that it could have been about 3.30 a.m. He said that he had never looked at the time and had probably been told the time the next morning by others.
[Source: http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html]
I see in Sheet 10 of her own statement of 8th. September 1985, Julie Mugford claims the following [the poor grammar, I assume, is down to the police]:
"I suppose I went to bed that night at about 11.15 p.m. time.
In the early hours of the morning, I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan BATTERSBY who lives with me that it was about 3.15 a.m. I was woken by another housemate Douglas DALE who told me that Jerry was on the telephone. I got out of bed and went to the phone on the landing and said 'Hello'. I felt very dozy and I suppose I was only half awake."
Some brief observations on the above [this may be pedantry on my part]:
(i). In the actual statement (can be viewed in the Archives), there is a gap between the words 'housemate' and 'Douglas'.
(ii). I find it odd that she uses the word 'telephone' at one point. Wouldn't she more naturally say: "...Jerry was on the phone..." or "it was Jerry"?
There are other points to make, but I don't have time right now. The full statement is in the Archive.
Among the questions I would like to ask Douglas Dale, just to focus on him for the moment:
1. How was Julie dressed before she went to bed that night and what was she doing?
2. How would you assess Julie's manner and demeanour prior to her retiring to bed?
3. Why were you awake at 3.15 a.m. and what were you doing?
4. How were you dressed?
5. Were you aware at any point during the night of Julie also being awake?
6. In relation to you, where was the phone that you answered at roughly 3.15 a.m.?
7. Where was the same phone in relation to Julie's room?
8. What did you say to Jeremy and what did Jeremy say to you?
9. Did you know who Jeremy was? Had you ever met him? Did you recognise his voice?
10. If you knew Jeremy, did you like him? If so, why? If not, why not?
11. Had he ever rung in the middle of the night before? Had he ever behaved in any other odd, strange or erratic way that you can recall?
12. Where was Julie at this point?
13. If she was in her room, what steps did you have to take to alert her to the phone call and what were her responses?
14. Roughly how long did it take for Julie to reach the phone from the point you first alerted her to the call?
15. Did you stay by the phone while waiting for Julie? Did you speak to Jeremy again while waiting for Julie? If so, what was said?
16. How was Julie dressed when she answered the phone?
17. Did you hear Julie on the phone? If so, what did you hear?
18. What do you remember about what happened after the call finished?
-
I have now found another statement from this woman dated 23rd. September 1985, in which she admits that it wasn't Mr Dale who answered the call at roughly 3.15 a.m. [she now says 3 a.m.]. She now claims she answered it herself. See Sheet 5 of that statement.
I knew I was right to be sceptical.
She says Mr Dale woke her for the 6 a.m. call. (Minor point: I thought it was 5.40 a.m.?).
If I was investigating this, I would be very keen to speak to this Mr Dale. I have some serious questions for him!
On the subject of cannabis, I suspect Julie Mugford lies outright in her statement of 18th. November 1985 when she claims she was not a cannabis user. She does this because the police need her to be of entirely sober deportment whenever the Evil One is confessing.
This woman's entire evidence should have been excluded from the trial.
-
One possible explanation for Julie being alert to the call at 3 a.m. is that, she says, Jeremy rang her earlier. This may have induced anticipation of another call. But I thought she was supposed to be asleep? The problem is that in her later corrective statement she doesn't re-elaborate on what she was doing when she takes the call. Was she asleep or not?
This is where I am so far with it and then I'll probably leave it for now:
1. I take the view that he may not have planned it out. There was a genuine call from the father, Nevill, and that catalysed a psychotic rage. He's got a vague idea in his head about leaving a rifle by Sheila's body and he's then elaborated from there, and got 'lucky'. He may also have blacked-out and genuinely believes himself to be innocent.
2. But....that may well be wrong. The whole phone call business bothers me. It's not the call from Nevill to him that I'm worried about so much, it's the call from him to Julie. Obviously when things don't make sense, we need to be careful that we're not reading into it that it's suspicious. In reality, people do strange things and things don't make sense or add up. Nevertheless, this phone call to Julie at 3.15 a.m. [or whatever time it was] looks suspect to me. And she changed her story about it fundamentally.
3. If in fact that call was staged, then that upturns my whole viewpoint about Jeremy's motivations and mindset. But it also upturns the 1986 trial. It means that the trial itself was a sham and Julie Mugford's evidence was a synecdoche, the jury were misled, we've all been misled, and she has been protected by the police under Public Interest Immunity.
It's all moot, though.
-
JM and her house-mates by all account enjoyed an evening of spliffs and alcohol so is it any wonder she appeared fuzzy when JB rang ?
-
JM and her house-mates by all account enjoyed an evening of spliffs and alcohol so is it any wonder she appeared fuzzy when JB rang ?
She denies taking cannabis other than on two isolated occasions. I suspect that's a bare-faced lie, at the instigation of the police. It's common for the police/Crown/prosecution side to engage in dissembling of that kind. It's not clever.
Can't remember if she was questioned about drink. That's a very good point [I'll add it to the questions above].
-
There is an explanation for the 3 a.m./3.15 a.m./3.30 a.m. phone call that incorporates Julie as innocent. That is, apart from Julie's own explanation. Possibly Jeremy rang her with a Machiavellian motive, trying to drag her into his criminal actions.
Yet:
(i). How does Julie come to answer the phone if it's not answered by Douglas Dale or somebody else?
(ii). In his original statements to the police, Jeremy makes no mention of the late-night call to Julie on the 6th., but Julie does mention this, even in her earliest statements. Were those statements of hers back-edited?
Another interesting thing I've noticed is that the police chauffeured her to Essex. That's nice of them.
She wasn't his wife. Why didn't the police just implicitly expect her to make her own way there? And she didn't seem to object when Jeremy, having only 10p in the payphone, insisted. Was this entirely at Jeremy's will or was there already a suspicion forming among some of the detectives that Julie and Jeremy were both culpable in all this and they decided to get them both together at Goldhanger and observe? Does this explain DS Jones' heightened detective senses per Jeremy's behaviour?
If I continue down this train of thought, I wonder if DS Stan Jones' evidence is going to unravel and reveal something rather murky?
Observations:
The official position of Julie Mugford was vague and tentative. It was one of those situations where she knew but she didn't know, he was going to and she knew it, but he might not have done and she didn't know what to do. She did commit cheque fraud, but somehow Jeremy was her Svengali and it was his fault.
This was a woman of majority age, yet it's as if the woman had no agency. If we believe her, then we must believe that her involvement wasn't deeper, yet we have this strange phone call, that she tried to explain by roping in Douglas Dale. Did he realise what she had done and object?
-
That's true and I already accept it. The distinction I'm making, and what I find suspicious, is that Julie was roused from bed at 3.15 a.m. in a shared house. That's much more difficult, especially when you're also supposed to be making an emergency call and holding for several minutes while a police officer rings somebody else.
And we are led to believe her involvement in the whole thing was limited and, at most, passive.
At the kernel of this case is the paradox outlined above: if she really is a witness of truth, is she a witness of whole truth or partial truth? Is her evidence a synecdoche, concealing her own deeper involvement? If so, was this for her own purposes only or also for Jeremy's?
These are serious allegations, which to my mind go to the heart of the matter. Julie was guilty of being led astray by a cunning conman who turned into a murderer. Who knows what he may or may not have promised her during the almost two years they were acquainted? I reject the notion that she was complicit. The problem for the Jeremy supporters is that they are walking a tightrope in blackening Julie without inculpating him at the same time.
Incidentally I think the word synecdoche has been misapplied:
a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa, as in England lost by six wickets (meaning ‘ the English cricket team’).
-
There is an explanation for the 3 a.m./3.15 a.m./3.30 a.m. phone call that incorporates Julie as innocent. That is, apart from Julie's own explanation. Possibly Jeremy rang her with a Machiavellian motive, trying to drag her into his criminal actions.
Yet:
(i). How does Julie come to answer the phone if it's not answered by Douglas Dale or somebody else?
(ii). In his original statements to the police, Jeremy makes no mention of the late-night call to Julie on the 6th., but Julie does mention this, even in her earliest statements. Were those statements of hers back-edited?
Another interesting thing I've noticed is that the police chauffeured her to Essex. That's nice of them.
She wasn't his wife. Why didn't the police just implicitly expect her to make her own way there? And she didn't seem to object when Jeremy, having only 10p in the payphone, insisted. Was this entirely at Jeremy's will or was there already a suspicion forming among some of the detectives that Julie and Jeremy were both culpable in all this and they decided to get them both together at Goldhanger and observe? Does this explain DS Jones' heightened detective senses per Jeremy's behaviour?
If I continue down this train of thought, I wonder if DS Stan Jones' evidence is going to unravel and reveal something rather murky?
Observations:
The official position of Julie Mugford was vague and tentative. It was one of those situations where she knew but she didn't know, he was going to and she knew it, but he might not have done and she didn't know what to do. She did commit cheque fraud, but somehow Jeremy was her Svengali and it was his fault.
This was a woman of majority age, yet it's as if the woman had no agency. If we believe her, then we must believe that her involvement wasn't deeper, yet we have this strange phone call, that she tried to explain by roping in Douglas Dale. Did he realise what she had done and object?
1. Jeremy had already tried to rope her in by using her sleeping pills to slip into Nevill's drink. It's not a great leap of imagination to surmise that this was another opportunity to tie her to the crime as an accessory.
2. At that stage Jeremy was seen as the victim, who had lost his closest family. Nothing more natural then to accede to his request to have Julie as comforter by his side.
3. The cheque fraud was her fault alone, or her and Susan Battersby's together. I don't accept that they did it wholly or partly because Jeremy called her a "goody two shoes".
4. The question here to my mind is: why telephone Julie at all at this stage? Only the cynics in my view would argue this was a pre-arranged signal to inform her that their joint enterprise had succeeded. It was evidently going to arouse suspicion at a later date anyway, so why have Douglas Dale and others as witnesses?
-
These are serious allegations,
I am not making allegations. Please do not try to make out I am doing something that I am not doing.
Incidentally I think the word synecdoche has been misapplied:
a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa, as in England lost by six wickets (meaning ‘ the English cricket team’).
Not that it really matters, but that is what I am describing. I am speculating that if her evidence is true, it represents only a partial picture. The rest of it would be her as a co-conspirator on some level, or something similar, and this having been concealed by Essex Police under PII rules.
In any case, whatever the correct language, as I have made clear, I am speculating about whether the whole case was a sham. Her evidence has never made sense on a motivational level, at least not to me.
Beyond those observations, I repeat that I would rather not be dragged into a thread discussion with you.
-
She did not receive a police caution. The Judge misled the jury on this. It is not clear whether he was misled by the prosecution or merely jumped to an incorrect conclusion.
I think I have now found the answer and it looks like you are correct.
The answer, or an answer, is found in the McKay and Hutchins reports among the Operation Stokenchurch papers.
These reports cover various matters of inquiry, among them the police and DPP's arrangements with Julie Mugford.
Hutchins spoke to the DPP office staff, McKay spoke to Ainsley.
Hutchins was given information covered by PII at that time. He confirms that three areas of offending by Mugford were considered:
(i). The drug offences.
(ii). The caravan park break-in.
(iii). The frauds.
In regard to (i), she was cautioned.
In regard to (ii), the charges were withdrawn.
In regard to (iii), no further action was taken.
Of course, without access to Julie Mugford's PNC records, we cannot know for sure whether she received a formal recordable caution for the drug offences or it was just a police warning; and it will be deleted now from the record anyway and she can deny everything. In any event, it does appear that the trial judge did mislead the jury.
Ainsley gets it completely wrong about Mugford. He says she was cautioned for everything, and implies that she was not given any formal immunity viz. court proceedings, it was all done verbally. But this is wrong, both on account of what Hutchins discovered, and also because we have since seen disclosure of the formal letter from the Assistant DPP John Walker, which refutes his claim that it was all informal and agreed 'on the nod' at a case conference. Furthermore, one has to suspect that there may be further material pertinent to Julie Mugford's dealings with the DPP and Essex Police that is being withheld under PII rules.
-
4. The question here to my mind is: why telephone Julie at all at this stage? Only the cynics in my view would argue this was a pre-arranged signal to inform her that their joint enterprise had succeeded. It was evidently going to arouse suspicion at a later date anyway, so why have Douglas Dale and others as witnesses?
So that they could make it look like a spontaneous call. Yet she then changes her statement and claims that in fact she answered the phone herself.
-
(i). The drug offences.
(ii). The caravan park break-in.
(iii). The frauds.
In regard to (i), she was cautioned.
In regard to (ii), the charges were withdrawn.
In regard to (iii), no further action was taken.
----------
That sounds about right -
She wasn't smuggling a suitcase of heroin to Thailand.
She told the police about the caravan break in.
She paid back her part of the cheque book fraud back.
Assume it was Bamber who told the police about the cheque book fraud and drugs. After she had approached the police.
-
(i). The drug offences.
(ii). The caravan park break-in.
(iii). The frauds.
In regard to (i), she was cautioned.
In regard to (ii), the charges were withdrawn.
In regard to (iii), no further action was taken.
----------
That sounds about right -
She wasn't smuggling a suitcase of heroin to Thailand.
She told the police about the caravan break in.
She paid back her part of the cheque book fraud back.
Assume it was Bamber who told the police about the cheque book fraud and drugs. After she had approached the police.
The judge misled the jury and told them she had been cautioned for the cheque offences when she had not.
Thanks Adam.
-
The judge misled the jury and told them she had been cautioned for the cheque offences when she had not.
Thanks Adam.
Can you provide a source.
Anyway. So what?
-
Can you provide a source.
Anyway. So what?
Source is at the beginning of this thread.
The 'so what?' is that by telling the jury she had been cautioned, the judge may have added the impression that she came forward out of a sense of conscience.
-
Source is at the beginning of this thread.
The 'so what?' is that by telling the jury she had been cautioned, the judge may have added the impression that she came forward out of a sense of conscience.
In addition a police caution includes an admission of guilt and it gives a person cautioned a criminal record. That could have had serious consequences for JM in relation to her teaching prospects and her ability to emigrate to Canada. She was in fact let off scot free from several serious criminal offences, leaving aside the possibility of prosecution for perverting the course of justice or assisting an offender. Coupled with the lies about the NOW deal the jury were seriously misled and had they known the truth it is likely that they would have viewed her evidence at trial with far greater circumspection.
-
In addition a police caution includes an admission of guilt and it gives a person cautioned a criminal record. That could have had serious consequences for JM in relation to her teaching prospects and her ability to emigrate to Canada. She was in fact let off scot free from several serious criminal offences, leaving aside the possibility of prosecution for perverting the course of justice or assisting an offender. Coupled with the lies about the NOW deal the jury were seriously misled and had they known the truth it is likely that they would have viewed her evidence at trial with far greater circumspection.
Yes, and if I may add a further point that occurs to me on reading your post. This is something I think you are already implying, but it needs to be spelled out.
If I was of a cynical frame of mind, I might well conclude the following:
(i). To borrow from criminal parlance, the caution for drug offences could be regarded as the prosecution's 'convincer' in anticipation of the jury's concerns that this was just a 'dirty deal'.
(ii). The police and the DPP may have decided to caution here for the drug offences rather than the dishonesty offences so as to play down the dishonesty aspect of the criminal history of a key prosecution witness whose evidence contains no corroborating facts whatsoever and thus whose entire contribution to the case against Jeremy rests on her own say-so.
(iii). The police and the DPP may have issued the caution and other disposals listed above at or just before the point when questions were being asked about this witness at the trial.
Incidentally, regarding her admission to Canada, the caution will not have affected her much. It has long been settled law in Canada that, at least as far as UK citizens are concerned, Canadian immigration law aligns with the UK's 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. This means that, although she would still have had to declare the drug caution, is it quite likely the Canadian authorities simply disregarded it, and would have done the same for any other disposals and incidents such as arrests.
The name of the relevant Canadian case escapes me for the moment, but even if it was not current at the time of Jeremy's trial, I suspect Julie Mugford's treatment by Canadian immigration would have been something like what I have just outlined, especially given that her entry to Canada was against the background of marrying a Canadian citizen. In other words, I doubt there was some sort of 'back stairs' arrangement between the authorities of two friendly countries to re-settle this obscure person.
-
Source is at the beginning of this thread.
The 'so what?' is that by telling the jury she had been cautioned, the judge may have added the impression that she came forward out of a sense of conscience.
'She received a police caution'.
Where does it say she did not receive a police caution?
-
'She received a police caution'.
Where does it say she did not receive a police caution?
Read it again in context.
-
'she volunteered her past offences to the bank who had lost the money when she went to them about a month after she had made her statement to the police in this case, and volunteered to them that if they look back they would find frauds for which she was responsible. She told you that she went there voluntarily and re-paid the money that had obtained, and it seems, does it not, that without her voluntary revelation of her own part in those offences, she would never have been caught for them. They would have never come to light'
----------
Thought it was Bamber that told his lawyers about the cheque book fraud.
-
'she volunteered her past offences to the bank who had lost the money when she went to them about a month after she had made her statement to the police in this case, and volunteered to them that if they look back they would find frauds for which she was responsible. She told you that she went there voluntarily and re-paid the money that had obtained, and it seems, does it not, that without her voluntary revelation of her own part in those offences, she would never have been caught for them. They would have never come to light'
----------
Thought it was Bamber that told his lawyers about the cheque book fraud.
No idea, but again, I am not sure if the judge is being completely straight with the jury there.
-
Yes, and if I may add a further point that occurs to me on reading your post. This is something I think you are already implying, but it needs to be spelled out.
If I was of a cynical frame of mind, I might well conclude the following:
(i). To borrow from criminal parlance, the caution for drug offences could be regarded as the prosecution's 'convincer' in anticipation of the jury's concerns that this was just a 'dirty deal'.
(ii). The police and the DPP may have decided to caution here for the drug offences rather than the dishonesty offences so as to play down the dishonesty aspect of the criminal history of a key prosecution witness whose evidence contains no corroborating facts whatsoever and thus whose entire contribution to the case against Jeremy rests on her own say-so.
(iii). The police and the DPP may have issued the caution and other disposals listed above at or just before the point when questions were being asked about this witness at the trial.
Incidentally, regarding her admission to Canada, the caution will not have affected her much. It has long been settled law in Canada that, at least as far as UK citizens are concerned, Canadian immigration law aligns with the UK's 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. This means that, although she would still have had to declare the drug caution, is it quite likely the Canadian authorities simply disregarded it, and would have done the same for any other disposals and incidents such as arrests.
The name of the relevant Canadian case escapes me for the moment, but even if it was not current at the time of Jeremy's trial, I suspect Julie Mugford's treatment by Canadian immigration would have been something like what I have just outlined, especially given that her entry to Canada was against the background of marrying a Canadian citizen. In other words, I doubt there was some sort of 'back stairs' arrangement between the authorities of two friendly countries to re-settle this obscure person.
I agree with what you say, but in fact she was not even cautioned for the drug offences. She escaped without any criminal conviction and with a £25,000 bonus. There are many documents relating to the police handling of JM and her mother, including numerous interviews and internal memoranda, which have been withheld under PII. The CCRC have consistently refused to order disclosure of these documents. I believe they are likely to contain significant material, casting light on the circumstances of her "coming forward" and confirming that was was under arrest and detained for a period, with considerable pressure placed upon her.
Although it did not happen, a caution just for the drugs offences, including supply and importation, would have had to be disclosed and would have been very damaging to her career prospects.
-
I agree with what you say, but in fact she was not even cautioned for the drug offences. She escaped without any criminal conviction and with a £25,000 bonus. There are many documents relating to the police handling of JM and her mother, including numerous interviews and internal memoranda, which have been withheld under PII. The CCRC have consistently refused to order disclosure of these documents. I believe they are likely to contain significant material, casting light on the circumstances of her "coming forward" and confirming that was was under arrest and detained for a period, with considerable pressure placed upon her.
Right, thanks. Are we saying, then, that the COLP inquiry was misled by the CPS (or whatever variation on that theme)? I suppose what you say is not necessarily inconsistent with what I have supposed above. I do strongly suspect the caution referred to by the judge was instantiated by Essex Police and the DPP at that moment, and if so, this would explain why the judge, and the jury in turn, were misled. It would be still more serious if it turns out that the caution was fictitious.
Although it did not happen, a caution just for the drugs offences, including supply and importation, would have had to be disclosed and would have been very damaging to her career prospects.
Oh definitely, and I think if it happened now, she would be barred from teaching in the UK - at least for some years, if not indefinitely. But back then, things were a bit more lenient than they are now. The significance of the point being that I'm minded to the view that her move to Canada was organic rather than contrived. I am not aware of any past links she may have had to Canada, though interestingly I do recall that a pro-Bamber blogger some years ago alleged that she had been caught importing drugs, coincidentally from Canada - which may suggest that she in fact did have some link above and beyond her husband-to-be. You yourself now say she was caught at importation. I didn't know that. I thought her drugs offences were minor - perhaps an erroneous assumption on my part.
-
'she volunteered her past offences to the bank who had lost the money when she went to them about a month after she had made her statement to the police in this case, and volunteered to them that if they look back they would find frauds for which she was responsible. She told you that she went there voluntarily and re-paid the money that had obtained, and it seems, does it not, that without her voluntary revelation of her own part in those offences, she would never have been caught for them. They would have never come to light'
----------
Thought it was Bamber that told his lawyers about the cheque book fraud.
Jeremy was the only one out of the lot of them that didn't use the " he said, she said " card. He was caught unawares with this crime for which he had nothing to do with, hence there was nothing he'd PLANNED to say about anyone.