0 Members and 17 Guests are viewing this topic.
You have a terrible habit of reading into my posts things which I haven't actually said.
Hello Bridget that is because N/N is in a habit all the time
Miss BridgetTake is as a compliment that a) I actually read your posts and b) you sound so blood convincing What will you have with your humble pie?
No humble pie for me thanks...I said right from the start that I didn't know the answer, which is why I asked the question. All I have done since is humour you with debate.
Miss BridgetAwwww you always tell us that its the taking part that's important You said nothing she said in her 8th Aug stat was untrue and that it was simply an omission. That is not true and NGB has confirmed it as such.http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg173915.html#msg173915w
No he hasn't, he's confirmed that an omission can in some circumstances be a positive act, which is what is required for the offence.
Miss BridgetErrrr no...NGB confirms that she provided assistance. I am referring to the wit stats of 8th Aug and 8th/9th Aug where you said you could see no inconsistencies ie it was omission only. I said it was more than an omission and NGB has confirmed that it amounted to assistance.
I am sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your question. I will try to deal with the key points and then apply that to Julie Mugford's position.It is true that there the terms accessory before/after the fact are no longer used in English law (I say English rather than British or UK because I do not know if Scottish or Northern Irish law still uses the old terms). These terms were replaced with the crime of aiding and abetting the principal offender in the commission of the crime. Someone who aids and abets the principal is guilty of the same offence as the principal and is subject to the same penalties. Law students are still taught the old case law on accessories as it still applies to aiding and abetting. In addition to the possibilty of prosecution for the main offence, someone who aids and abets may be guilty of other specific crimes, such as perverting the course of justice or assisting an offender. Knowledge of an offence does not in itself amount to a criminal offence, nor does silence save in certain specific statutory cases, such as terrorism and money laundering. To be guilty there must be some positive assistance, whether that assistance was before the commission of the offence, during the commission of the offence or after.In the present case Julie Mugford was at severe risk of being prosecuted for several serious offences, apart from the ones she specically confessed to, namely the burglary at the Osea caravan park, the cheque frauds and the importation and supplying of drugs (for which she would have received a prison sentence and had her career as a teacher wrecked before it began). The more serious offences were murder, perverting the course of justice and assiting an offender. If she is to be believed (and she cannot have it both ways), by her own admission she not only knew of Jeremy's plans for a considerable period before the murders, but also she provided sleeping tablets to Jeremy in order that he could see whether drugging his family as part of the murder plot was a viable option. The fact that it was not viable does not make any difference. On the day itself she was made aware that the murders were to take place but did not so much as protest, let alone take any steps which might have thwarted the plan. If she is to be believed, Julie Mugford must have been in support of what was about to happen. Further assistance was provided after the murders by expressing calming words to Jeremy during the 3.00/3.30 am telephone call. When she arrived at WHF she provided comfort and encouragement to Jeremy in the knowledge of what he had done and this assisted Jeremy in his successful efforts to present himself to the police in a way which supported the proposition that Shela was responsible. When interviewed by the police she gave an account to the police which backed up Jeremy's account. Saying nothing is not an offence. However saying something which does not include accurate details (for example of her conversations with Jeremy over the previous 24 hours) was providing positive assistance to Jeremy.In case there is any misunderstanding I am not suggesting that I believe Julie Mugford's testimony. However, the police did and on that basis she was at extreme risk of being charged with a very serious offence in addition to the ones to which she confessed. The fear of that prosecution was in my view the major factor in persuading Julie Mugford to tell the police, eventually, what they wanted to hear. She was trapped. There was no turning back. If she did not cooperate she was faced with the prospect of standing trial alongside Jeremy, facing a substantial prison term. She did not come forward voluntarily. She was in fact arrested and held in custody for a period and subjected to intense pressure. The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions had to be obtained to take the exceptional course of granting her immunity from prosecution in relation to all offences (with not even a formal caution, contrary to what was suggested at trial, meaning she had no criminal record whatsoever), upon the basis of her agreeing to be a proscution witness. It is a very sorry story indeed.
Yes, thank you NGB, much appreciated. So what you are saying basically is that whilst there is no requirement to volunteer the information at all, to volunteer incomplete (although in itself accurate) and thereby misleading information could be seen as a positive act and may well be an offence, am I understanding that correctly?Did they actually grant her immunity, or was there a decision (however it was arrived at) that it wouldn't be in the public interest to prosecute?
And I'm not disagreeing with you, I was referring to the part where you claimed that her statement was untrue.
Miss Bridget I disagree.I was showing that it was more than an omission and you disagreed:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg173915.html#msg173915As far as I'm concerned I won and you're a very bad looser
You said nothing she said in her 8th Aug stat was untrue and that it was simply an omission. That is not true and NGB has confirmed it as such.
