UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: John on November 11, 2015, 01:43:46 PM
-
Was Julie Bamber given immunity for testifying against Jeremy Bamber?
The following quotes and posts have been uplifted from another thread to form this new subject. Given that posters are quoting from a multitude of different subjects in single posts there is no other way to split the topics.
Wiggy wrote:
"If the jury at the time of trial were made aware that she had been given immunity to be prosecuted in return for her testifying would they have been so inclined to believe her. If also they new that straight after the trial she got £25,000 for selling her story only on a guilty verdict."
A) Is it true she was given immunity in exchange for testifying? No Police had no crimes on her at all until she told police the story. If she was worried about being prosecuted that provided her with a reason not to tell police anything or at least not to tell them anything wrong she did. During the course of ratting out Jeremy she admitted to wrongdoing voluntarily. Before she testified police decided they had no basis to charge her. No immunity deal was arranged. This argument is nonsense and was thus rejected as nonsense by the judges.
B) Is it true that she likely made up the story so she could testify falsely at trial and then go sell her story? No one with half a brain would claim such so this argument is also nonsense.
Nothing at all has been put forth to establish to the courts that Julie Mugford was unreliable as a matter of law and no jury could convict on the basis of her testimony. The appeals court held the reverse- that as a matter of law a jury could believe her testimony and thus convict on such basis. Such was upheld in the initial appeal where the summing up was challenged. The judge had permitted the jury to say her testimony alone could establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jeremy supporters like wiggy say they personally don't believe her but can't articulate anything to establish to others why no reasonable person could believe her. Nonsense like the above that makes no sense fails miserably.
45
-
It is amusing how many people like wiggy keep misstating law and not a single person will correct the record.
"The law of the land is quite clear in jms situation.
If a crime takes place and you were aware of this crime before hand even if u say (didn't think he was serious) the fact the crime took place and you did not give info that could have helped prevent this crime it is a chargeable offence."
This is a blatant lie. There is no legal duty to voluntarily tell police you know someone else committed a crime. There is a moral duty but no legal duty. Only if a court issues a subpoena can one be forced to talk and even then they can refuse if they did something wrong and it will implicate them in a crime.
In order to be guilty as an accomplice one has to agree with others to carry out a crime. When you conspire together THEN there is legal culpability for the actions of others and the only way to withdraw from the criminal enterprise is to prevent the crime from happening either by get everyone else to abandon it or to go to the authorities and help them to prevent it.
If someone says they are going to blow someone away then does it and you don't rat them out you are neither an accomplice nor have any legal duty to go rat them out.
HOWEVER, if you help them avoid liability by helping them destroy evidence or lie for them by providing a false alibi or falsely implicating someone else then you are breaking the law.
Why do people let others get away with the stupid lie that we are like the Soviet Union where you had to inform on your friends and family if you knew of any wrongdoing of any kind or you would be punished yourself? It's not true at all you have to ACTIVELY do something in order to be punished. When people make this ridiculous claim challenge them to cite the exact criminal law that creates a legal duty to talk. They won't be able to because there isn't one.
-
snip
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, I would suggest that Mugford be advised that she will not be prosecuted in respect of these matters."
Where does it state she was being granted immunity in exchange for testimony? It doesn't. It explains that for the drug offense she could at most receive a police caution. That the bank would not prosecute her for the bank offense so she could not be tried for it and that at the caravan site all she did was make an unsuccessful attempt to get a key so there was little they could try to charge her with. This is why the Appeal Court totally rejected Terzeon's nonsense and why it fares no better when such distortions are made to rational members of the public.
One point in respect of the Midland Bank cheque fraud. It matter little whether the bank were prepared to support a prosecution as such is a matter entirely for the police and the CPS. What's more, since Mugford and Battersby admitted the fraud and made statements to that effect, the CPS would have had a watertight case against them.
I have no difficulty whatsoever coming to the conclusion that the prosecution of these two girls was traded off against them agreeing to testify in Bamber's murder trial. Had they refused to cooperate and give evidence they would both have been prosecuted for cheque fraud and bang would have went Mugfords career in education.
-
One point in respect of the Midland Bank cheque fraud. It matter little whether the bank were prepared to support a prosecution as such is a matter entirely for the police and the CPS. What's more, since Mugford and Battersby admitted the fraud and made statements to that effect, the CPS would have had a watertight case against them.
I have no difficulty whatsoever coming to the conclusion that the prosecution of these two girls was traded off against them agreeing to testify in Bamber's murder trial. Had they refused to cooperate and give evidence they would both have been prosecuted for cheque fraud and bang would have went Mugfords career in education.
1) It they chose not to tell the police about the check fraud it would not have been an issue at all. But for their admission no case could be made against them for it.
2) Police can only charge financial crimes such as that when the person suffering the loss wants charges pressed. Police can't force a victim to cooperate.
3) The decision not to prosecute was made prior to testifying and refusing to testify would not have had any impact on the lack of a prosecution.
4) Even if prosecuted the penalty would not have been much because the value was not substantial and it was a first time offense. She stood at most to face a low community order and fine though the normal course would be to just give a police caution.
So if we are going to be real let's not pretend that she was an amazing person and confessed to crimes that had the potential of her facing any appreciable jail-time or jail-time at all. It's not like someone who gets some serious crime off their conscience. That is why she had no problem admitting what she did.
Let's not pretend she rushed out to police either. Her friend betrayed her trust and told police and then police decided to interview her to ask about such. She told the truth rather than say her friend was a liar but she didn't go to them on her own so it's not like she was pious in this regard either. In the meantime part of why she was willing to be honest at this point was because she had broken up with Jeremy so the selfish motive of protecting him so that she could be with him no longer existed.
-
Have fun:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html
-
1) It they chose not to tell the police about the check fraud it would not have been an issue at all. But for their admission no case could be made against them for it.
2) Police can only charge financial crimes such as that when the person suffering the loss wants charges pressed. Police can't force a victim to cooperate.
3) The decision not to prosecute was made prior to testifying and refusing to testify would not have had any impact on the lack of a prosecution.
4) Even if prosecuted the penalty would not have been much because the value was not substantial and it was a first time offense. She stood at most to face a low community order and fine though the normal course would be to just give a police caution.
So if we are going to be real let's not pretend that she was an amazing person and confessed to crimes that had the potential of her facing any appreciable jail-time or jail-time at all. It's not like someone who gets some serious crime off their conscience. That is why she had no problem admitting what she did.
Let's not pretend she rushed out to police either. Her friend betrayed her trust and told police and then police decided to interview her to ask about such. She told the truth rather than say her friend was a liar but she didn't go to them on her own so it's not like she was pious in this regard either. In the meantime part of why she was willing to be honest at this point was because she had broken up with Jeremy so the selfish motive of protecting him so that she could be with him no longer existed.
You might be confusing US law with laws in the UK. In the UK the Crown can prosecute any alleged crime regardless of whether there was loss and regardless of any victim agreeing to it. Once an alleged crime is detected it is a requirement that police investigate it and if appropriate the CPS prosecute it.
-
1) It they chose not to tell the police about the check fraud it would not have been an issue at all. But for their admission no case could be made against them for it.
2) Police can only charge financial crimes such as that when the person suffering the loss wants charges pressed. Police can't force a victim to cooperate.
3) The decision not to prosecute was made prior to testifying and refusing to testify would not have had any impact on the lack of a prosecution.
4) Even if prosecuted the penalty would not have been much because the value was not substantial and it was a first time offense. She stood at most to face a low community order and fine though the normal course would be to just give a police caution.
So if we are going to be real let's not pretend that she was an amazing person and confessed to crimes that had the potential of her facing any appreciable jail-time or jail-time at all. It's not like someone who gets some serious crime off their conscience. That is why she had no problem admitting what she did.
Let's not pretend she rushed out to police either. Her friend betrayed her trust and told police and then police decided to interview her to ask about such. She told the truth rather than say her friend was a liar but she didn't go to them on her own so it's not like she was pious in this regard either. In the meantime part of why she was willing to be honest at this point was because she had broken up with Jeremy so the selfish motive of protecting him so that she could be with him no longer existed.
Surely you don't honestly believe that had Juile belatedly refused to cooperate and testify that she and Susan would not then be prosecuted?
-
1) It they chose not to tell the police about the check fraud it would not have been an issue at all. But for their admission no case could be made against them for it.
2) Police can only charge financial crimes such as that when the person suffering the loss wants charges pressed. Police can't force a victim to cooperate.
3) The decision not to prosecute was made prior to testifying and refusing to testify would not have had any impact on the lack of a prosecution.
4) Even if prosecuted the penalty would not have been much because the value was not substantial and it was a first time offense. She stood at most to face a low community order and fine though the normal course would be to just give a police caution.
So if we are going to be real let's not pretend that she was an amazing person and confessed to crimes that had the potential of her facing any appreciable jail-time or jail-time at all. It's not like someone who gets some serious crime off their conscience. That is why she had no problem admitting what she did.
Let's not pretend she rushed out to police either. Her friend betrayed her trust and told police and then police decided to interview her to ask about such. She told the truth rather than say her friend was a liar but she didn't go to them on her own so it's not like she was pious in this regard either. In the meantime part of why she was willing to be honest at this point was because she had broken up with Jeremy so the selfish motive of protecting him so that she could be with him no longer existed.
Back in 2004 a student found guilty of cheque fraud, drug dealing, theft and complicity to ellicit prescribed drugs for criminal purposes could very well have been jailed. She most certainly would have been kicked out of college and effectively lost what was to become a most lucrative teaching career given she rose to the upper echelons of the Winnipeg Education Department.
Julie Smerchanski (Mugford) undoubtedly saw this and took the lesser route thus protecting her future prospects.
-
1) It they chose not to tell the police about the check fraud it would not have been an issue at all. But for their admission no case could be made against them for it.
2) Police can only charge financial crimes such as that when the person suffering the loss wants charges pressed. Police can't force a victim to cooperate.
3) The decision not to prosecute was made prior to testifying and refusing to testify would not have had any impact on the lack of a prosecution.
4) Even if prosecuted the penalty would not have been much because the value was not substantial and it was a first time offense. She stood at most to face a low community order and fine though the normal course would be to just give a police caution.
So if we are going to be real let's not pretend that she was an amazing person and confessed to crimes that had the potential of her facing any appreciable jail-time or jail-time at all. It's not like someone who gets some serious crime off their conscience. That is why she had no problem admitting what she did.
Let's not pretend she rushed out to police either. Her friend betrayed her trust and told police and then police decided to interview her to ask about such. She told the truth rather than say her friend was a liar but she didn't go to them on her own so it's not like she was pious in this regard either. In the meantime part of why she was willing to be honest at this point was because she had broken up with Jeremy so the selfish motive of protecting him so that she could be with him no longer existed.
Agreed, had she not opened her mouth to her friend, events might not have overtaken her and Jeremy Bamber might not have spent the last thirty years in jail. As far as the truth was concerned, once she confided in her friend there was no going back, she had no choice but to spill all the beans at that stage or face the risk of going down with him.
-
Agreed, had she not opened her mouth to her friend, events might not have overtaken her and Jeremy Bamber might not have spent the last thirty years in jail. As far as the truth was concerned, once she confided in her friend there was no going back, she had no choice but to spill all the beans at that stage or face the risk of going down with him.
That was a very tough way of learning that the unspoken word is a slave, but the spoken word is master.
-
Scipio's right - basically they were saying "Miss Mugford won't be prosecuted. And she'll be called as a witness." NOT "Miss Mugford won't be prosecuted as a consequence of providing a witness statement against Bamber." Big difference.
I feel for Julie. She had ample opportunity to warn the family, but would they have listened? Ralph had his worries about Bamber, but he didn't act on them either. The whole situation was surreal.
Maybe people should remember how young Julie was at the time. I remember how silly I was at her age, how all things were possible yet impossible. How boyfriends would brag about how they'd conquer the world, travel, make a million. The difference is....Bamber was a pyschopath (I'm yet to see proof of his tests) and he still is. She had no way of realising that. And, because he's a pyschopath, he copes with prison life. That's why he hasn't cracked up. An innocent man after 30 years would be totally broken.
I believe the correct version should be, "Miss Mugford has been advised that she won't be prosecuted but warned that she will be required to testify against Jeremy Bamber."
I have no doubt whatsoever that Susan and Julie were let off because the latter was the Kingpin in the prosecution against Jeremy Bamber.
-
Agreed, had she not opened her mouth to her friend, events might not have overtaken her and Jeremy Bamber might not have spent the last thirty years in jail. As far as the truth was concerned, once she confided in her friend there was no going back, she had no choice but to spill all the beans at that stage or face the risk of going down with him.
Julie told five people before she approached the police.
-
Things like this only work in hindsight, In all situations once someone commits a horrific crime only then do people see the red flags looking back after they know what happened. A good example is the Colombine school shooting, Friends of Eric and Dylan remember them talking about shooting up the school but at the time just considered it Tongue-in-cheek,
Bamber's supporters refuse to believe the perfectly plausible explanation that Julie didn't believe Bamber pre massacre.
The only times alarm bells might have started ringing was when Bamber asked for her sleeping pills to see how effective they were. If he was actually taking the trouble to try out things, then he may really be serious. The other time was when she saw June's bike outside Bamber's cottage, just before the massacre. Bamber had told her of his plan to cycle to WHF.
Even so she still didn't believe him when he said 'tonights the night'.
-
This response is to David.
1) You say I should post proof of a negative but I have no need at all to prove a negative Wiggy and you have to prove a positive if you assert something. In this instance you both assert Julie was granted immunity which is flat out wrong.
Your supposed proof Julie was granted immunity is Paul Terezon alleging she was granted immunity. His allegation was not supported by any evidence and simply a mischaracterization. He is arguing that police had contact with the bank and were told that if she paid the money back the bank would not press charges and that this amounted to police granting her immunity. A grant of immunity is exactly as I said it being given immunity in exchange for testimony. She wasn't granted immunity.
His argument to the Court of Appeals failed miserably. The court described it in this fashion:
"I [Mr Dovey] had been asked today if the officer, either directly or indirectly, put me under any form of pressure to take a certain course of action e.g. not to prosecute. I can say quite happily that he did not. He did condense the girl's desires, and said words to the effect that the girls wanted to come in and tell the truth, wanted to pay the money back, not be branded thieves, and hopefully not to be prosecuted."
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.
In his statement, Mr Dovey recalls that at that stage the officer said that he would be back with "a typed statement" for him to sign in the next couple of weeks and that he too had then left.
He said that an officer, he believed that it was the same officer who had come before, came back with a prepared statement which he read and after satisfying himself of its contents signed. The statement, which is not typed but hand written, is dated 14 October, ten days after the visit to the bank.
Mr Dovey in his statement finally repeated that he had not been put under any pressure to reach a conclusion one way or the other"
The court also had serious doubts about his recollection of police involvement because when he testified at trial he had no such recollection and was able to use his notes. Those notes were destroyed so he didn't have access to them in 2002 and so much time passed that it seems he was confused not tha tit matters anyway because he admitted they put no pressure on him and he made a decision not to prosecute her. The claim she was granted immunity is patently false. You should try going to a credible source not simply posting an allegation from Jeremy's lawyer and claiming that amounts to evidence. It is evidence he made the allegation nothing more.
-
Your supposed proof Julie was granted immunity is Paul Terezon alleging she was granted immunity. His allegation was not supported by any evidence and simply a mischaracterization.
Not only did I provide a letter from Paul Terzeon I also provided a letter from the Crown Prosecutor saying that charges will be dropped so Julie could testify against Jeremy.
You ignored this why? For your own convenience due to that fact you cant put it under scrutiny.
Hilariously he said he wants to see the documents. Did he see any documents proving immunity was granted? No just an allegation by Jeremy's lawyer
Yes i have seen the documents from the CPS and Essex police, I have shown you these before yet you continue to ignore them as reading them would lead you to realise your wrong
-
Not only did I provide a letter from Paul Terzeon I also provided a letter from the Crown Prosecutor saying that charges will be dropped so Julie could testify against Jeremy.
You ignored this why? For your own convenience due to that fact you cant put it under scrutiny.
You didn't provide any letter from the prosecutor all you did was cite Terzeon's allegations that grossly mischaracterized things. If you are referring to the letter explaining to police that there was no basis to charge her for anything but that she would be needed to testify that clearly isn't a letter granting any immunity. Characterizing that letter as a grant of immunity is as much a mischaracterization as claiming that police notifying the bank that Julie was going to go there to pay the money back and inquiring whether the bank wanted to press charges amounted to them granting her immunity. That you ignore reality and choose to adopt Terzeon's rejected mischaracerizations makes you look quite foolish and pathetic. Such behavior on your part embarrasses yourself, it doesn't harm me in any way.
Here is the relevant text from that letter explaining to police why they decided not to try to charge Mugford:
"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's 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, I would suggest that Mugford be advised that she will not be prosecuted in respect of these matters."
Where does it state she was being granted immunity in exchange for testimony? It doesn't. It explains that for the drug offense she could at most receive a police caution. That the bank would not prosecute her for the bank offense so she could not be tried for it and that at the caravan site all she did was make an unsuccessful attempt to get a key so there was little they could try to charge her with. This is why the Appeal Court totally rejected Terzeon's nonsense and why it fares no better when such distortions are made to rational members of the public.
-
You didn't provide any letter from the prosecutor all you did was cite Terzeon's allegations that grossly mischaracterized things.
Well I did
(http://s18.postimg.org/t591cnlg9/mugforddcadams2.jpg)
That you ignore reality and choose to adopt Terzeon's rejected mischaracerizations makes you look quite foolish and pathetic.
Such behavior on your part embarrasses yourself, it doesn't harm me in any way.
I have 8 pages of correspondence from the CPS and Essex police. I have presented to you the relevent information.
Ignoring important sources of information and resorting to insults only degrades your reputation [ moderated ]
Where does it state she was being granted immunity in exchange for testimony?
Here
(http://s16.postimg.org/6tpk71nqd/mugforddcadams.jpg)
-
Well I did
(http://s18.postimg.org/t591cnlg9/mugforddcadams2.jpg)
I have 8 pages of correspondence from the CPS and Essex police. I have presented to you the relevent information.
Ignoring important sources of information and resorting to insults only degrades your reputation [ moderated ]
Here
(http://s16.postimg.org/6tpk71nqd/mugforddcadams.jpg)
[ moderated ]
What you posted was from Terzeon. What you just posted now isn't the decision not to prosecute. I posted VERBATIM what the decision not to prosecute stated as its rationale. It didn't state she was being given immunity. Nor does what you just posted state she was being given immunity. All it says is she would be called to testify. The reasoning given for not prosecuted her was because they only knew about the crimes because she confessed and she would at most receive a caution. She wasn't given immunity. Since you don't believe my quote you can read it for yourself this is the actual document:
(http://s2.postimg.org/vygqd1uvd/juliedecsionnottoprosecute.jpg)
-
If it makes you feel better to see it that way fine, However the fact of the matter is harder for you to swallow. Over and over again you get things wrong and wont admit or realise it.
Mugford had her criminal charges dropped by the director of public prosecutions in exchange for being a prosecution witness against Jeremy.
(http://s16.postimg.org/6tpk71nqd/mugforddcadams.jpg)
How you can read the above evidence and see it differently is testimony to [ moderated ]
-
If it makes you feel better to see it that way fine, However the fact of the matter is harder for you to swallow. Over and over again you get things wrong and wont admit or realise it.
Mugford had her criminal charges dropped by the director of public prosecutions in exchange for being a prosecution witness against Jeremy.
(http://s16.postimg.org/6tpk71nqd/mugforddcadams.jpg)
How you can read the above evidence and see it differently is testimony to your delusions.
Again I repeat
What credentials do you have in biology, medical pathology or firearms? None
What qualifies you to be an expert witness to challenge the above claims? Nothing!
Not even the court of Bongo Bongo land would have you as an expert witness on such matters. Any arguments you make on these subjects carry no professional legitimacy and you are no authority on the subjects.
What does this mean? It means taking your word on such subjects would be irrational and a grossly inadequate use of reason, Expert credentials, qualification and experience indicate ones suitability to be taken seriously on such subjects. Hence your opinion on the relevant subjects mean little and carry no weight Period
[ moderated ] The courts and other rational people understand it means she was told of the decision not to prosecute because by law she had to be. I posted the exact analysis that went into the decision. She also was told they would be calling her to testify. There is nothing at all about immunity if she testifies and that she would be prosecuted if she refused. Terzeon's mischaracterizations which you and Wiggy are making were rejected long ago as nonsense. When one takes nonsense that was rejected and adopts it nonetherless he is either dishonest of a fool. [ removed moderated ]
-
[ moderated ] The courts and other rational people understand it means she was told of the decision not to prosecute because by law she had to be. I posted the exact analysis that went into the decision. She also was told they would be calling her to testify. There is nothing at all about immunity if she testifies and that she would be prosecuted if she refused. Terzeon's mischaracterizations which you and Wiggy are making were rejected long ago as nonsense. When one takes nonsense that was rejected and adopts it nonetherless he is either dishonest of a fool. [ removed moderated ]
No matter, the actual wording of the document reads "In these circumstances and WITH CONSIDERABLE HESITATION........................." It doesn't sound as if whoever wrote it was in entire sympathy with the decision arrived at, does it?
-
No matter, the actual wording of the document reads "In these circumstances and WITH CONSIDERABLE HESITATION........................." It doesn't sound as if whoever wrote it was in entire sympathy with the decision arrived at, does it?
(http://s16.postimg.org/6tpk71nqd/mugforddcadams.jpg)
I don't see how people can fail to understand the above. It means DPP decides that Mugford will not be prosecuted for drugs, burglary and check fraud but WILL BE REQUIRED as a prosecution witness against Jeremy.
What does this mean? Its most likely the result of Mugford expressing to them not wanting to testify in court and have to go through the drama of confronting Jeremy at trial. Likewise the DPP put her in a situation where she had no choice but to go ahead with it.
-
(http://s16.postimg.org/6tpk71nqd/mugforddcadams.jpg)
I don't see how people can fail to understand the above. It means DPP decides that Mugford will not be prosecuted for drugs, burglary and check fraud but WILL BE REQUIRED as a prosecution witness against Jeremy.
What does this mean? Its most likely the result of Mugford expressing to them not wanting to testify in court and have to go through the drama of confronting Jeremy at trial. Likewise the DPP put her in a situation where she had no choice but to go ahead with it.
Certainly the wording "WARNED she will be required....................." doesn't give the impression that she'd volunteered her services, does it?
-
(http://s16.postimg.org/6tpk71nqd/mugforddcadams.jpg)
I don't see how people can fail to understand the above. It means DPP decides that Mugford will not be prosecuted for drugs, burglary and check fraud but WILL BE REQUIRED as a prosecution witness against Jeremy.
What does this mean? Its most likely the result of Mugford expressing to them not wanting to testify in court and have to go through the drama of confronting Jeremy at trial. Likewise the DPP put her in a situation where she had no choice but to go ahead with it.
It means she was told that she would be called as a witness in the prosecution.
I incorrectly assumed that all lay people knew that they could be compelled to testify at civil and criminal trials where a court has personal jurisdiction over the witnesses and can be punished if they failed to appear. Do you think that it is some accident that people don't tell police they have witnessed a crime where they fear they will be harmed by those they rat out? Once the authorities KNOW what they know (by them admitting it) then so long as the evidence they have would be admissible then they can be compelled to testify or suffer contempt of court proceedings for failure to appear.
There are of course a few exceptions the primary ones being you can't be forced to testify against yourself and someone can't be forced to testify against their spouse though this has been relaxed and even eliminated in some jurisdictions.
Some people are willing to face contempt charges but most comply with orders. Sorry to have disabused your notion that testifying can't be compelled if you have relevant admissible evidence but with rare exception that is untrue.
The main reason a grant of immunity takes place is so that one can be compelled to testify. If someone is granted immunity they lose the ability to refuse to testify on the basis they will be incriminating themselves. This is why they give immunity to small fries to roll over on bigger fish such as a street level drug dealer to roll over on their boss or drug supplier. Normally they don't just grant immunity then say you must talk and that's it because the person can lie. So they offer a deal in exchange for something specific that the witness must testify to. blanket grants more often happen in situations where lawmakers are probing for information and want to prevent witnesses from asserting the right to remain silent.
In other situations plea deals are usually used not immunity. A plea deal is where it is agreed to charge a lesser crime or recommend a smaller punishment than the maximum in exchange for testimony. It is rare for someone to be busted then in exchange for total immunity for such crime they provide evidence about some unrelated crime they know about. This is usually handled with plea deals.
So without a grant of immunity Julie could not be compelled to say the specific things that incriminated her in criminal doing. But could be compelled to say the things that incriminated Jeremy without a problem. The only things she could have refused to talk about were the caravan robbery and selling of drugs for him. But since she already attested to such under oath there would be no real advantage in not talking about this at his trial. She obviously was willing to talk about everything including such at trial so there was no issue with trying to compel her to talk about such specific things.
She didn't have to worry about being charged if she refused to testify though they already made the decision not to prosecute. If she refused to testify it would have been contempt that she would have to have worried about.
-
It means she was told that she would be called as a witness in the prosecution.
I incorrectly assumed that all lay people knew that they could be compelled to testify at civil and criminal trials where a court has personal jurisdiction over the witnesses and can be punished if they failed to appear. Do you think that it is some accident that people don't tell police they have witnessed a crime where they fear they will be harmed by those they rat out? Once the authorities KNOW what they know (by them admitting it) then so long as the evidence they have would be admissible then they can be compelled to testify or suffer contempt of court proceedings for failure to appear.
There are of course a few exceptions the primary ones being you can't be forced to testify against yourself and someone can't be forced to testify against their spouse though this has been relaxed and even eliminated in some jurisdictions.
Some people are willing to face contempt charges but most comply with orders. Sorry to have disabused your notion that testifying can't be compelled if you have relevant admissible evidence but with rare exception that is untrue.
The main reason a grant of immunity takes place is so that one can be compelled to testify. If someone is granted immunity they lose the ability to refuse to testify on the basis they will be incriminating themselves. This is why they give immunity to small fries to roll over on bigger fish such as a street level drug dealer to roll over on their boss or drug supplier. Normally they don't just grant immunity then say you must talk and that's it because the person can lie. So they offer a deal in exchange for something specific that the witness must testify to. blanket grants more often happen in situations where lawmakers are probing for information and want to prevent witnesses from asserting the right to remain silent.
In other situations plea deals are usually used not immunity. A plea deal is where it is agreed to charge a lesser crime or recommend a smaller punishment than the maximum in exchange for testimony. It is rare for someone to be busted then in exchange for total immunity for such crime they provide evidence about some unrelated crime they know about. This is usually handled with plea deals.
So without a grant of immunity Julie could not be compelled to say the specific things that incriminated her in criminal doing. But could be compelled to say the things that incriminated Jeremy without a problem. The only things she could have refused to talk about were the caravan robbery and selling of drugs for him. But since she already attested to such under oath there would be no real advantage in not talking about this at his trial. She obviously was willing to talk about everything including such at trial so there was no issue with trying to compel her to talk about such specific things.
She didn't have to worry about being charged if she refused to testify though they already made the decision not to prosecute. If she refused to testify it would have been contempt that she would have to have worried about.
"WARNED she will be required" is self explanatory.
The details of what was discussed between Mugford and the CPS/PPS has never been revealed in public. so we can only speculate. However considering Mugford worked at a school such criminal charges would end her career and the authorities can and do use deception, They may have even verbally threatened to prosecute her for drugs and burglary and it was a mere bluff in order to get her to co operate. Secondly the authorities may have hinted to her that if she did not testify for the prosecution Bamber could walk free putting her at risk. All in all the Jury should have heard the background information and seen the discussions made.
Considering she said Jeremy paid £2000 to a hitman that had a solid alibi is enough for me to write her off anyway.
-
"WARNED she will be required" is self explanatory.
The details of what was discussed between Mugford and the CPS/PPS has never been revealed in public. so we can only speculate. However considering Mugford worked at a school such criminal charges would end her career and the authorities can and do use deception, They may have even verbally threatened to prosecute her for drugs and burglary and it was a mere bluff in order to get her to co operate. Secondly the authorities may have hinted to her that if she did not testify for the prosecution Bamber could walk free putting her at risk. All in all the Jury should have heard the background information and seen the discussions made.
Considering she said Jeremy paid £2000 to a hitman that had a solid alibi is enough for me to write her off anyway.
The decision not to prosecute was made by people who never spoke to Julie. We have the EXACT analysis of why she would not be prosecuted- I posted it. This decision was made and SUBSEQUENTLY she was told by someone ELSE of the decision not to prosecute. She was also told she would be called as a witness. You are trying anything you can to try to pretend that she was granted immunity though it is a big fat lie and thus Terzeon got his ass handed to him when he tried telling the COA she was granted immunity and they rejected his nonsense.
Jeremy lied to her about the hitman. That doesn't mean she lied is what would be necessary to write off her testimony. Jeremy could say he was just joking and lied about the rest of what he told her but it is too coincidental given all the other evidence and circumstances for it to simply be a coincidence. By claiming he received a call and thus establishing he had knowledge of the crimes that pretty much wrote off his ability to claim it was simply him blowing off steam and coincidence. His "brilliant" alibi of receiving a phone call actually tied him to the murders.
-
Scipio's right - basically they were saying "Miss Mugford won't be prosecuted. And she'll be called as a witness." NOT "Miss Mugford won't be prosecuted as a consequence of providing a witness statement against Bamber." Big difference.
I feel for Julie. She had ample opportunity to warn the family, but would they have listened? Ralph had his worries about Bamber, but he didn't act on them either. The whole situation was surreal.
Maybe people should remember how young Julie was at the time. I remember how silly I was at her age, how all things were possible yet impossible. How boyfriends would brag about how they'd conquer the world, travel, make a million. The difference is....Bamber was a pyschopath (I'm yet to see proof of his tests) and he still is. She had no way of realising that. And, because he's a pyschopath, he copes with prison life. That's why he hasn't cracked up. An innocent man after 30 years would be totally broken.
-
"WARNED she will be required" is self explanatory.
The details of what was discussed between Mugford and the CPS/PPS has never been revealed in public. so we can only speculate. However considering Mugford worked at a school such criminal charges would end her career and the authorities can and do use deception, They may have even verbally threatened to prosecute her for drugs and burglary and it was a mere bluff in order to get her to co operate. Secondly the authorities may have hinted to her that if she did not testify for the prosecution Bamber could walk free putting her at risk. All in all the Jury should have heard the background information and seen the discussions made.
Considering she said Jeremy paid £2000 to a hitman that had a solid alibi is enough for me to write her off anyway.
It occurs to me that "WARNED her................" may be seen as being rather more emphatic that the more usual "ADVISED her............." Re the hit man, she was only repeating what (she alleged) Jeremy had said to her, so the lie can't be said to be hers.
-
Scipio's right - basically they were saying "Miss Mugford won't be prosecuted. And she'll be called as a witness." NOT "Miss Mugford won't be prosecuted as a consequence of providing a witness statement against Bamber." Big difference.
I feel for Julie. She had ample opportunity to warn the family, but would they have listened? Ralph had his worries about Bamber, but he didn't act on them either. The whole situation was surreal.
Maybe people should remember how young Julie was at the time. I remember how silly I was at her age, how all things were possible yet impossible. How boyfriends would brag about how they'd conquer the world, travel, make a million. The difference is....Bamber was a pyschopath (I'm yet to see proof of his tests) and he still is. She had no way of realising that. And, because he's a pyschopath, he copes with prison life. That's why he hasn't cracked up. An innocent man after 30 years would be totally broken.
Agree with that. Even a lot of guilters do not like her. Mind you several were former supporters.
She went to the police a month after the massacre. After telling five people. Then completed her WS prior to the police finding out about the 1984 minor cheque book fraud.
Bamber's only reason for Julie lying is because he apparently jilted her. But jilted women are just as likely to tell the truth.
-
Please find attached below the series of documents which relate how Julie Mugford was not charged with fraud, burglary and drug dealing charges because, "...at the time of the offences she was under the influence of Jeremy Bamber."
That'll be alright then!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Please find attached below the series of documents which relate how Julie Mugford was not charged with fraud, burglary and drug dealing charges because, "...at the time of the offences she was under the influence of Jeremy Bamber."
That'll be alright then!
She was not prosecuted for the bank fraud because the bank did not file charges against her and even if they had she would have only received a caution or at maximum a low community order. She was not charged for drug use etc because the only punishment she could receive would be a caution and the only evidence they had against her came from her admissions. The bottom line is that they did not prosecute because the only reason they found out about the crimes were because she admitted to them and had no independent evidence against her and even if they could manage to convict her successfully it wasn't worth their time given how insignificant they were and how insignificant the potential punishment would be.
-
Please find attached below the series of documents which relate how Julie Mugford was not charged with fraud, burglary and drug dealing charges because, "...at the time of the offences she was under the influence of Jeremy Bamber."
That'll be alright then!
All the documents indicate is that DPP made a decision not to prosecute and told the police that Julie would not be charged.
DPP is the US equivalent of a District Attorney's office.
In the UK DPP has a certian amount of time to make a decision whether or not to prosecute and must inform the suspect of the decision when it is reached. The US is less formal there is no timetable a prosecutor can refuse to make a decision of whether to prosecute or not for years.
DPP made a decision not the prosecute and explained why. A decision not to prosecute is not immunity. A grant of immunity is a formal legal agreement where the government decides it will prosecute the case but agrees to not prosecute in exchange for testimony and if the defendant fails to live up to the agreement then the person will be prosecuted.
The DPP decided not to prosecute because the limitations described in the decision. The DPP didn't state that they decided to prosecute but would offer immunity and drop the charges if she testified. Even if she subsequently refused to testify she would not be able to be charged. They already dismissed the charges completely.
-
DPP letter 27/01/1986
"Miss Mugford is clearly the central witness in this case."
You can dress it up any way you like Scipio but the truth is that she and Battersby would have been prosecuted if their cooperation and evidence hadn't been crucial to Bamber's conviction. For the cheque frauds they could both have faced custodial sentences. Just to clarify, the decision to prosecute was not the banks, it was a matter for the CPS.
-
This part note by DC Adams, Branch Crown Prosecutor dated 19 /07/1991 would appear to confirm it.
-
This part note by DC Adams, Branch Crown Prosecutor dated 19 /07/1991 would appear to confirm it.
Adams was a cop not a prosecutor. DPP made the decision not to prosecute not Adams. All Adams said is that part of the decision of whether to prosecute took into account among other things the fact they found out about the crimes because of her and her potential as a witness. If you read the instructions of what to take into account you will find that whether people confessed and were sorry is part of the equation of whether to prosecute. What you postes says nothing about DPP notifying Adams that they were going to offer her immunity. You are misinterpreting a decision not to prosecute as a grant of immunity. They are 2 distinct things legally. A grant of immunity is when there is a decision made that the person will not be prosecuted if they do what is asked but will be prosecuted if they refuse. A decision not to prosecute is a decision to drop charges regardless of what happens in the future. There are 2 kinds of immunity transactional immunity AKA blanket immunity and use immunity. Transactional immunity covers the entire ball of wax. They can't be charged period for anything. Use immunity simply prevents their testimony or anything derived from their testimony from being used against them. They can still be charged based on independent evidence.
They had no need to grant her immunity of any kind. The refusal to grant her immunity and decision to charge her simply would mean that when called to testify at Jeremy's trial they could not force her to testify about the drugs crimes etc that she confessed to. She could refuse to ask questions about such. Those were not important to the prosecution anyway.
They could not make a case against her for the caravan burglary. She knew Jeremy owned an interest and worked there and simply unsuccessfully tried to help him get inside. Attempting to help him get in would result in a caution if that and they only had her admission to try to use against her. Jeremy would not testify against her. If they intended to try to charge her over such then in order to get her to talk about it at trial they would have to issue use immunity. That means her testimony could not be used to prosecute her and thus she had no legal right to remain silent about such.
The things important to the prosecution was her testimony of what Jeremy told her before and after the murders. The things she confessed to were not of much significance with the exception of the caravan break-in which showed he was willing to steal from his parents. That had some significance in terms of the case. Her menial drug crimes offered nothing and were not worth prosecuting in their own right. The bank did not support a prosecution of her or Susan for the check fraud. It would be difficult to prosecute her for anything and even if successful there would be a slap on the wrist so it would not be worth wasting resources on a prosecution that is why she wasn't prosecuted. If she confessed to selling tens of thousands of pounds of heroin for Jeremy then it would have been different. That would be a very serious offense. They would have to either prosecute her and grant her use immunity for any testimony about such while trying Jeremy for such drug offenses or grant full immunity providing she testifies. Full immunity is usually granted to try to bring down a network.
-
I will repeat this since you didn't get it the first time. Mugford and Battersby would have both been prosecuted for the cheque fraud at the discretion of the CPS following a police investigation. The Midland Bank had little say in what happened as this would have been a criminal prosecution. The bank could have pursued them seperately in a civil action should they have felt it was worth their while.
The police and the CPS in this country are not in the habit of brushing cheque fraud under the table unless they have bigger fish to fry. In this instance they did, they wanted to prosecute Jeremy Bamber for five murders, a little cheque fraud in such circumstances was of little consequence. There is no doubt in my mind that had Julie not been the main witness for the prosecution she would have been prosecuted for her crimes as would Susan Battersby.
-
Julie told the police straight away about the caravan break in. They prosecuted Bamber but not Julie. Why ? Because it was Bamber's idea, he did it and Julie told the police about it.
After this and helping Julie compile a WS, the police are hardly likely to prosecute her when the cheque book fraud was discovered. They have more important things to do. Like getting their main witness ready for a murder trial.
-
Julie told the police straight away about the caravan break in. They prosecuted Bamber but not Julie. Why ? Because it was Bamber's idea, he did it and Julie told the police about it.
After this and helping Julie compile a WS, the police are hardly likely to prosecute her when the cheque book fraud was discovered. They have more important things to do. Like getting their main witness ready for a murder trial.
One of the most damning things about Julies credibility is the fact she was never prosecuted as an accessory to murder. Her statements (if true) makes her an accessory both before and after the murders. Why was she never prosecuted? because police knew she was never an accessory to murder but a puppet witness of their own making.
-
One of the most damning things about Julies credibility is the fact she was never prosecuted as an accessory to murder. Her statements (if true) makes her an accessory both before and after the murders. Why was she never prosecuted? because police knew she was never an accessory to murder but a puppet witness of their own making.
She was asleep in New Cross when the massacre happened. She said she didn't believe Bamber would do anything. Which makes sense as she was his girlfriend.
So was in no way an accessory.
-
I will repeat this since you didn't get it the first time. Mugford and Battersby would have both been prosecuted for the cheque fraud at the discretion of the CPS following a police investigation. The Midland Bank had little say in what happened as this would have been a criminal prosecution. The bank could have pursued them seperately in a civil action should they have felt it was worth their while.
The police and the CPS in this country are not in the habit of brushing cheque fraud under the table unless they have bigger fish to fry. In this instance they did, they wanted to prosecute Jeremy Bamber for five murders, a little cheque fraud in such circumstances was of little consequence. There is no doubt in my mind that had Julie not been the main witness for the prosecution she would have been prosecuted for her crimes as would Susan Battersby.
You can say anything you like but that doesn't make you right. What you just said doesn't amount to a grant of immunity. Moreover, I researched the issue and the amount of a fraud determines the severity of the crime. The amount in question could at most result in a punishment of a low community order. You seem to be going by your gut feelings as opposed to what happens in practice.
-
One of the most damning things about Julies credibility is the fact she was never prosecuted as an accessory to murder. Her statements (if true) makes her an accessory both before and after the murders. Why was she never prosecuted? because police knew she was never an accessory to murder but a puppet witness of their own making.
How could she be prosecuted as an accessory? To be charged as an accessory before the fact one must assist in the planning, provide weapons or take some other step to help someone to carry out a crime.
To be charged after one has to drive a getaway vehicle, help dispose of a body or other evidence, hide someone on the run or do something of that sort.
Not telling police everything you know falls into neither of these.
If she made up an alibi for Jeremy to help him avoid liability then she would be an accessory potentially but the actual crime would be perverting the course of justice there is no such thing as a crime of accessory after the fact the various crimes are all spelled out and the terms accessory are more or less used just in a manner of speaking. Laws that are vague are considered invalid criminal laws have to be well articulated.
Failing to tell police that Jeremy told her he wanted to kill his family and that he said tonight is the night was not a crime. She was under no legal obligation to rat him out. Failing to inform them of this is not perverting the course of justice. Morally it was wrong not to tell them about such. If she had actively gone out of her way to lie to help him such as making up things about Sheila to support his tale or saying she was with him when he received a distress call etc then it would be unlawful conduct meant to aid him in his criminal endeavor.
It is lawful not to tell police everything you know. It is unlawful to tell police lies with the intention of misdirecting their investigation.
If Jeremy said that she had agreed with him that he should kill them and helped in the planning and that when he called her he told her he killed them and they are rich now then in that case there would be a basis to try her as an accessory. Naturally they would only do so it they believed him and felt a jury could potentially believe him. But he said no such thing and her own testimony was she didn't think he was serious she simply thought he was blowing off steam. Not telling such prior to the murders or even after is not a crime.
-
How could she be prosecuted as an accessory? To be charged as an accessory before the fact one must assist in the planning, provide weapons or take some other step to help someone to carry out a crime.
To be charged after one has to drive a getaway vehicle, help dispose of a body or other evidence, hide someone on the run or do something of that sort.
Not telling police everything you know falls into neither of these.
If she made up an alibi for Jeremy to help him avoid liability then she would be an accessory potentially but the actual crime would be perverting the course of justice there is no such thing as a crime of accessory after the fact the various crimes are all spelled out and the terms accessory are more or less used just in a manner of speaking. Laws that are vague are considered invalid criminal laws have to be well articulated.
Failing to tell police that Jeremy told her he wanted to kill his family and that he said tonight is the night was not a crime. She was under no legal obligation to rat him out. Failing to inform them of this is not perverting the course of justice. Morally it was wrong not to tell them about such. If she had actively gone out of her way to lie to help him such as making up things about Sheila to support his tale or saying she was with him when he received a distress call etc then it would be unlawful conduct meant to aid him in his criminal endeavor.
It is lawful not to tell police everything you know. It is unlawful to tell police lies with the intention of misdirecting their investigation.
If Jeremy said that she had agreed with him that he should kill them and helped in the planning and that when he called her he told her he killed them and they are rich now then in that case there would be a basis to try her as an accessory. Naturally they would only do so it they believed him and felt a jury could potentially believe him. But he said no such thing and her own testimony was she didn't think he was serious she simply thought he was blowing off steam. Not telling such prior to the murders or even after is not a crime.
I don't believe the question of Julie being an accessory has any basis. She obviously didn't believe Bamber right up until the moment the police picked her up at the Dartford Tunnel. My view is that she went along with his ramblings about his family for a quiet life but never in a million years thought he would ever go through with it. She was most probably in shock from the off and that is why she went to view the bodies and speak to Sheila.
-
I don't believe the question of Julie being an accessory has any basis. She obviously didn't believe Bamber right up until the moment the police picked her up at the Dartford Tunnel. My view is that she went along with his ramblings about his family for a quiet life but never in a million years thought he would ever go through with it. She was most probably in shock from the off and that is why she went to view the bodies and speak to Sheila.
There are 3 possibilities:
1) He didn't say enough things to put a reasonable person in her place on notice that he was seriously going to do it or
2) He did say enough that a reasonable person in her place would be on notice but she closed her eyes to it and convinced herself he was kidding because she didn't know what else to do or
3) She expected him to carry it out and felt she would profit as well from it and thus was happy about the idea.
There is no evidence that the third one is the case. There are disagreements over whether she should have known he was serious or not. Since we don't know exactly what Jeremy said only what she remembers he said we can't really judge that well. It is certainly troubling that he told her about the windows and planning to use a bike etc. While she said she felt he was kidding the greater the level of detail in the planning the more likely the person is actually serious. With that said people have provided details to others and yet lacked the guts/malice to
actually carry out such plans. So it is hard to say for sure what crosses the line where it objectively becomes where a reasonable person should believe the plan is going to be carried out. If he asked for her help then obviously that would do it.
Some people don't care they live with thugs without any qualms. A girl in my college dorm dated a guy who used to steal, beat people (not in fair fights he would do things like smack you in the back with a pipe- anything dirty) and she didn't care at all. She didn't encourage him to go steal for her but when he stole something she would take it and not care (receiving stolen property is a crime not that she cared). In modern society traditional morals are under attack so unfortunately this kind of Amaral behavior is more and more prevalent.
It appears that Julie had a conscience though it took a bit to get it to kick into full gear. Whether to rat out loved ones who do wrong is quite the dilemma. There are some parents who immediately will turn their kids, some who will do it in time and yet others will help their kids hide bodies. The faster one does the right thing the stronger their moral compass or maybe the less strong the bond they have to the person they turn in. Sometimes people aid criminals out of selfishness. They don't want to be without the company of the loved one or fear their name will go down the toilet for a relative being busted. That could have been her initial reaction that she wanted to not lose him and was being selfish in trying to protect him.
-
DPP letter 27/01/1986
"Miss Mugford is clearly the central witness in this case."
You can dress it up any way you like Scipio but the truth is that she and Battersby would have been prosecuted if their cooperation and evidence hadn't been crucial to Bamber's conviction. For the cheque frauds they could both have faced custodial sentences. Just to clarify, the decision to prosecute was not the banks, it was a matter for the CPS.
That may be correct. If it is, it is not a problem.
The police had to look at the big picture. They didn't hide the cheque book fraud and the defence spent a long time bringing it up at trial.
-
There are 3 possibilities:
1) He didn't say enough things to put a reasonable person in her place on notice that he was seriously going to do it or
2) He did say enough that a reasonable person in her place would be on notice but she closed her eyes to it and convinced herself he was kidding because she didn't know what else to do or
3) She expected him to carry it out and felt she would profit as well from it and thus was happy about the idea.
There is no evidence that the third one is the case. There are disagreements over whether she should have known he was serious or not. Since we don't know exactly what Jeremy said only what she remembers he said we can't really judge that well. It is certainly troubling that he told her about the windows and planning to use a bike etc. While she said she felt he was kidding the greater the level of detail in the planning the more likely the person is actually serious. With that said people have provided details to others and yet lacked the guts/malice to
actually carry out such plans. So it is hard to say for sure what crosses the line where it objectively becomes where a reasonable person should believe the plan is going to be carried out. If he asked for her help then obviously that would do it.
Some people don't care they live with thugs without any qualms. A girl in my college dorm dated a guy who used to steal, beat people (not in fair fights he would do things like smack you in the back with a pipe- anything dirty) and she didn't care at all. She didn't encourage him to go steal for her but when he stole something she would take it and not care (receiving stolen property is a crime not that she cared). In modern society traditional morals are under attack so unfortunately this kind of Amaral behavior is more and more prevalent.
It appears that Julie had a conscience though it took a bit to get it to kick into full gear. Whether to rat out loved ones who do wrong is quite the dilemma. There are some parents who immediately will turn their kids, some who will do it in time and yet others will help their kids hide bodies. The faster one does the right thing the stronger their moral compass or maybe the less strong the bond they have to the person they turn in. Sometimes people aid criminals out of selfishness. They don't want to be without the company of the loved one or fear their name will go down the toilet for a relative being busted. That could have been her initial reaction that she wanted to not lose him and was being selfish in trying to protect him.
I imagine Julie experienced a gamut of emotions -regarding Jeremy's plans- from dismissal to anticipation to disbelief to acceptance to horror to fear, and not necessarily in that order or individually.
-
I imagine Julie experienced a gamut of emotions -regarding Jeremy's plans- from dismissal to anticipation to disbelief to acceptance to horror to fear, and not necessarily in that order or individually.
Very true, she probably thought too that she could go down with himvgiven her prior involvement.
-
Very true, she probably thought too that she could go down with himvgiven her prior involvement.
That's a perfectly valid point, there, John.