Julie Mugford 'telling' Susan Battersby

[Holly Goodhead]

Because when you lie you don't tell falsifiable lies that would destroy your own credibility, so JM would not say she told SB unless she knew SB would back her up and the most likely reason why SB would back her up would be if she did tell SB.   Of course, if you are suggesting that SB, with nothing at all to gain, lied to help JM, well, fine but, if she did, she was taking an enormous risk.

If we had her trial evidence we would know whether Rivlin or Lawson cross examined her about when JM told her.   If they could tease it out of her that JM hadn't then that would undermine the credibility of the key prosecution witness.

I am not ignoring the rest of your post but have to read the material.   Anyway, I see you have Stan Jones conspiring with JM and SB to frame Bamber.   Fair dinkum.   The more the merrier as far as a good ole CT goes, eh?

SB also had charges against her for fraud dropped? 

Four female prosecution witnesses, aged circa 13 years, lied at Stefan Kizskos trial for a laugh.  Prosecution witnesses provide misleading witness testimony for a whole host of reasons. 

"Also that month, the four girls involved in the court trial admitted that the evidence they had given which had led to Kiszko's arrest and conviction was false, and that they had lied for "a laugh" and because "at the time it was funny".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed

The QC at Stefan Kiszko's trial was David Waddington who later became Home Secretary and yet he was unable to break the girls during cross-examination so what chance was there for JB with the "mild mannered" GR?

[anglolawyer]

SB also had charges against her for fraud dropped? 

Four female prosecution witnesses, aged circa 13 years, lied at Stefan Kizskos trial for a laugh.  Prosecution witnesses provide misleading witness testimony for a whole host of reasons. 

"Also that month, the four girls involved in the court trial admitted that the evidence they had given which had led to Kiszko's arrest and conviction was false, and that they had lied for "a laugh" and because "at the time it was funny".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed

The QC at Stefan Kiszko's trial was David Waddington who later became Home Secretary and yet he was unable to break the girls during cross-examination so what chance was there for JB with the "mild mannered" GR?

Good answer.   Still, there remains a problem in figuring out why JM's overall story took the shape it did if she was lying.   There was no need to implicate herself at all.   If lying, she could easily have left out all the stuff going back to 1984 about burning the house down and what not.   So this business with SB is a small part of a larger puzzle. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Good answer.   Still, there remains a problem in figuring out why JM's overall story took the shape it did if she was lying.   There was no need to implicate herself at all.   If lying, she could easily have left out all the stuff going back to 1984 about burning the house down and what not.   So this business with SB is a small part of a larger puzzle.

And if JB fessed up all this stuff why not keep her sweet and on side over the coming months and then dump her?

[anglolawyer]

And if JB fessed up all this stuff why not keep her sweet and on side over the coming months and then dump her?

I see you tend to answer questions with your own questions.   You highlight the classic problem.   There's the murder part and the getting away with it part and the second is not less complicated than the first, especially where you have collaborators.

I figure she was useful to Bamber and proved her worth in the Osea Road job as well as in fixing him up with temazapam and probably doing all kinds of things that did not surface.   She was a thief, burglar and fraudster who expected to marry him and get her share, but once her usefulness had been exhausted, thus dull, unattractive woman became a mill stone.   He had better offers, plenty of money, his ruse had been swallowed by the media and the cops so he thought no one would believe her.   I have no doubt he also threatened to take her down with him and that is why she thought so long and hard before taking the plunge, risking all as it were.   She called his bluff.   And even then he still nearly got off - a 10-2 majority with a biased summing up.   So even in the worst possible case he nearly made it.

[Holly Goodhead]

I see you tend to answer questions with your own questions.   You highlight the classic problem.   There's the murder part and the getting away with it part and the second is not less complicated than the first, especially where you have collaborators.

I figure she was useful to Bamber and proved her worth in the Osea Road job as well as in fixing him up with temazapam and probably doing all kinds of things that did not surface.   She was a thief, burglar and fraudster who expected to marry him and get her share, but once her usefulness had been exhausted, thus dull, unattractive woman became a mill stone.   He had better offers, plenty of money, his ruse had been swallowed by the media and the cops so he thought no one would believe her.   I have no doubt he also threatened to take her down with him and that is why she thought so long and hard before taking the plunge, risking all as it were.   She called his bluff.   And even then he still nearly got off - a 10-2 majority with a biased summing up.   So even in the worst possible case he nearly made it.

The "classic problem" is one that features widely in MoJs namely unreliable prosecution witnesses.

Anyhow this is weird EP effectively segregate JM by housing her at the police college after her friend, Liz Rimmington, phoned EP on her behalf.   JM states SB was unaware she was there and yet she bumped into SB on the premises
Although JM claims they were unable to communicate.   At this point JM claims she hadn't fessed up about the cheque book but she assumes SB was there as a result of the cheque book.  If this was the case why did SB fess up then and why would it be dealt with by EP when SB lived and worked in London where the crime was also committed?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=289.0;attach=1170

[anglolawyer]

The "classic problem" is one that features widely in MoJs namely unreliable prosecution witnesses.

Anyhow this is weird EP effectively segregate JM by housing her at the police college after her friend, Liz Rimmington, phoned EP on her behalf.   JM states SB was unaware she was there and yet she bumped into SB on the premises
Although JM claims they were unable to communicate.   At this point JM claims she hadn't fessed up about the cheque book but she assumes SB was there as a result of the cheque book.  If this was the case why did SB fess up then and why would it be dealt with by EP when SB lived and worked in London where the crime was also committed?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=289.0;attach=1170

I'm afraid I don't begin to understand your post.   I read your link too.   Aren't you supposed to be arguing that JM lied when she said she had confided in SB before the pie-throwing party?

[anglolawyer]

SB's first witness statement has the story of JM telling her on 26 or 27 Aug that JB was responsible for the murders.   See p.8 here:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=529.0

I would like to know why JM and SB would make up this particular part of their story.

[Holly Goodhead]

I'm afraid I don't begin to understand your post.   I read your link too.   Aren't you supposed to be arguing that JM lied when she said she had confided in SB before the pie-throwing party?

Try reading all of JM WS's from 2002 instead of just the one I posted above:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=289.msg4967#msg4967

The above relates to the pair fessing up about the cheque book. 

As far as I can see the WS's are littered with inconsistencies.  It's as though they were being coached by someone not too bright but sadly it appears bright enough to hoodwink JB's lazy and inept defence.  As you said pity we can't read the cross-examination transcripts.  JM and SB were undergraduates.

If DS Jones put pressure on JM to 'cooperate' a narrative had to start somewhere.  It had to fit to some degree with her WS of 8th Aug along with other known facts and what she had initially told others.  Very difficult thing to do without inconsistencies showing through which IMO they do. But it's all down to perceptions.  If you believe JB guilty then by definition you're likely to believe JM/SB.  If you read SB's WS she makes herself out to be a real goody two shoes eg objected strongly to JB and JM bringing cannabis into the house she shared with JM.  Fair enough.  Yet JM tells her JB paid a mercenary to kill his family and she doesn't seem to have the same qualms about JB then entering her home to attend JM's 21st birthday party.  In fact she even wants to fool around with him in a joking/playful way by squeezing dairy cream on his neck  &%+((£

[anglolawyer]

Try reading all of JM WS's from 2002 instead of just the one I posted above:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=289.msg4967#msg4967

The above relates to the pair fessing up about the cheque book. 

As far as I can see the WS's are littered with inconsistencies.  It's as though they were being coached by someone not too bright but sadly it appears bright enough to hoodwink JB's lazy and inept defence.  As you said pity we can't read the cross-examination transcripts.  JM and SB were undergraduates.

If DS Jones put pressure on JM to 'cooperate' a narrative had to start somewhere.  It had to fit to some degree with her WS of 8th Aug along with other known facts and what she had initially told others.  Very difficult thing to do without inconsistencies showing through which IMO they do. But it's all down to perceptions.  If you believe JB guilty then by definition you're likely to believe JM/SB.  If you read SB's WS she makes herself out to be a real goody two shoes eg objected strongly to JB and JM bringing cannabis into the house she shared with JM.  Fair enough.  Yet JM tells her JB paid a mercenary to kill his family and she doesn't seem to have the same qualms about JB then entering her home to attend JM's 21st birthday party.  In fact she even wants to fool around with him in a joking/playful way by squeezing dairy cream on his neck  &%+((£

I agree that the obvious questions arise: why didn't SB contact the cops right away and what was she doing horsing around with JB two days after finding out he was a mass murderer?   Those are great questions.   What you don't seem to appreciate is the even starker one: why, since those are so obvious, make that lie up?

I don't believe her (and JM) because I think Bamber is guilty.   I think he's guilty because I believe her and JM (albeit, I think JM's version is self-serving and designed to obscure her active role in the murders).

I think (per Lee's account) SB was spraying lots of folks with the cream so Im not sure it was a Bamber-specific thing.   Also JM was in fear of being murdered herself and/or being taken down with Bamber so she had every reason to act normally until she finally decided to tell all and, as her buddy, SB had to act normally too.   What was Bamber to think if SB suddenly went all frosty on him?

[anglolawyer]

Well, I have read the 2002 statement now and I do not share your take on it, Holly Goodhead.   I should mention I was practising criminal law at one of London's leading firms in the 80s and I maybe know a little more about these things than some.   The purpose of that statement is to address the suspicion that Mugford gave her evidence in return for immunity from prosecution for the cheque fraud.   There is absolutely nothing intrinsically improbable about it as far as it goes.   Had I been acting for her and/or Sue I am pretty confident the bank could have been persuaded not to press charges given the freely-made admissions and the offer of recompense.   Banks don't tend to see either every day and honesty, being thus rare, tends to be well received in these situations.

However, what is glaringly obvious to me is the much larger problem presented by JM's evidence.   In telling her story the way she did, she admits the offence of 'concealing' (see CJA 1967) murder.   That is extremely serious.   Far more than any cheque fraud.   She could have been imprisoned for many, many years for that offence, of which she was undoubtedly guilty.   Also, unless you were born yesterday, you cannot seriously believe that, on her own account (which she need never have contrived if she were making the whole thing up) she spent the best part of a year listening to Bamber planning to murder his parents, helping him commit one crime against his own family that we know about and supplying him with temazapam for the declared purpose of letting him to test its efficacy for use in a murder plot without having been involved in some degree.

Now, the police may be stupid but they aren't that stupid and even if they are, prosecuting counsel certainly are not.    The really big question is therefore not about how they got off the cheque book fraud but about the much more grave offences I have described.   It's not surprising this aspect has not come into focus.   The reason should be obvious.   The only person who could bring it up is Bamber but he can't do so without blowing the whole charade.

If the cops had conclusive evidence of his guilt such that they did not need her, she would have been in the dock with him (on the unrealistic assumption that she had confessed in the terms of her statements).

[Holly Goodhead]

I agree that the obvious questions arise: why didn't SB contact the cops right away and what was she doing horsing around with JB two days after finding out he was a mass murderer?   Those are great questions.   What you don't seem to appreciate is the even starker one: why, since those are so obvious, make that lie up?

I don't believe her (and JM) because I think Bamber is guilty.   I think he's guilty because I believe her and JM (albeit, I think JM's version is self-serving and designed to obscure her active role in the murders).

I think (per Lee's account) SB was spraying lots of folks with the cream so Im not sure it was a Bamber-specific thing.   Also JM was in fear of being murdered herself and/or being taken down with Bamber so she had every reason to act normally until she finally decided to tell all and, as her buddy, SB had to act normally too.   What was Bamber to think if SB suddenly went all frosty on him?

Why?  As I've already explained I believe JM and SB were coached by EP to come up with the testimony which was later used in court in part to convict JB so it should be obvious inconsistencies are an inenvitable outcome.  In other words EP, JM and SB didn't get their stories right.  If there are disadvantages to telling the truth and advantages to lying why tell the truth especially when a) you're not averse to a bit of dishonesty and b) you're being encouraged along a certain road by officialdom and possibly others? 

"I wasn't actually ever frightened of Jeremy.  I didn't think he'd actually do anything to hurt me":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo&feature=youtu.be&t=19m50s

You're right it wasn't a JB specific thing but as far as I'm aware SB hadn't recently been told that any of the other party goers had recently arranged for a mercenary to murder their immediate families!  Subtle difference 

[Holly Goodhead]

Well, I have read the 2002 statement now and I do not share your take on it, Holly Goodhead.   I should mention I was practising criminal law at one of London's leading firms in the 80s and I maybe know a little more about these things than some.   The purpose of that statement is to address the suspicion that Mugford gave her evidence in return for immunity from prosecution for the cheque fraud.   There is absolutely nothing intrinsically improbable about it as far as it goes.   Had I been acting for her and/or Sue I am pretty confident the bank could have been persuaded not to press charges given the freely-made admissions and the offer of recompense.   Banks don't tend to see either every day and honesty, being thus rare, tends to be well received in these situations.

However, what is glaringly obvious to me is the much larger problem presented by JM's evidence.   In telling her story the way she did, she admits the offence of 'concealing' (see CJA 1967) murder.   That is extremely serious.   Far more than any cheque fraud.   She could have been imprisoned for many, many years for that offence, of which she was undoubtedly guilty.   Also, unless you were born yesterday, you cannot seriously believe that, on her own account (which she need never have contrived if she were making the whole thing up) she spent the best part of a year listening to Bamber planning to murder his parents, helping him commit one crime against his own family that we know about and supplying him with temazapam for the declared purpose of letting him to test its efficacy for use in a murder plot without having been involved in some degree.

Now, the police may be stupid but they aren't that stupid and even if they are, prosecuting counsel certainly are not.    The really big question is therefore not about how they got off the cheque book fraud but about the much more grave offences I have described.   It's not surprising this aspect has not come into focus.   The reason should be obvious.   The only person who could bring it up is Bamber but he can't do so without blowing the whole charade.

If the cops had conclusive evidence of his guilt such that they did not need her, she would have been in the dock with him (on the unrealistic assumption that she had confessed in the terms of her statements).

Share my take on what anglolawyer?

[Holly Goodhead]

Or perhaps you aren't making yourself clear  &%+((£  Either way please keep your hair on  Coz DS Jones coached JM and SB with a story and timeline and they messed up.

Can you explain please why SB states in her WS of 10th September that she did not see JM or JB for a couple of weeks after the tragedy and then in her WS of 23rd September states JM and JB stayed overnight at the house she shared with JM whilst she was living there on 11th August?   She also states that when the police collected JM on 7th Aug she asked the police if JB's parents were dead and they confirmed yes.  Strange that the police would commit to divulging that sort of info to SB when its questionable whether the police surgeon had certified their deaths and the relatives were told the police were unable to comment at that time?

SB's WS states she didn't see JM or JB for a couple of weeks post tragedy:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=529.0;attach=1661

SB's WS states JM and JB spent the night of 11th Aug at her home whilst she was there

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=530.0;attach=1671

SB's WS confirms she asked the police to confirm JB's parents were dead and they confirmed yes

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=530.0;attach=1669
 
JM withheld the fact she claimed JB told her on 7th Aug he arranged for MM to carry out the murders which EP were unable to substantiate.

Why do you bet SB's account is true?  How would her trial evidence settle it?

Any views on the above contradictions in WS's anglolawyer?

[anglolawyer]

Share my take on what anglolawyer?

On the statement.   What else?

[Holly Goodhead]

On the statement.   What else?

Which aspects of the statement?