Julie Mugford 'telling' Susan Battersby

[sika]

Good Heavens!! I had no idea that I sounded charitable. It most certainly hadn't been my intention. Believe me, I hold no brief for Julie.One of my more polite adjectives, describing her, is conniving. I believe it not impossible that Julie had a clue as to what would occur after they'd taken Sheila home from the party at the weekend. I believe she was half expecting Jeremy's call.

Like you, I believe her aim was to be Mrs Bamber -for the reasons you give- flaunting the largest diamond she could find.I think that by getting her story in first, she was able to leave out anything which would reveal just how much she knew. I wonder if their fantasy was Bonny and Clyde.

Blimey! Do you write for 'The Sun' ?

[John]

I am less charitable toward her than you.   I can only interpret her behaviour as willingly complicit in the murders.   The call from Bamber to her at 3.00 a.m. (or thereabouts) had a purpose in providing some form of corroboration of the call from Nevill.   She made a point of going into SB's room to talk about it, I believe to make completely sure SB had heard the telephone too.   All their evidence would be useful in proving that Bamber's claim.   I see no point in the call otherwise, especially as it doesn't make a lot of sense to be wasting time when his entire family was in danger.   It even looks as though he called JM before he called the police - his story vacillated on that.   He needed something to cover the gap between Nevill's call to him and his call to the cops.   On his own timing that period started at 3.00 a.m. and ended (per the police) at 3.26 a.m.   26 minutes to explain away.   Wow.   He said 'ten minutes at the outside' to look up the nos. and get through.   That still leaves 16 minutes.   IMO the call to Julie was supposed to fill that up but that then created the problem that he was calling Julie first, which is suspicious, so he went all vague about it and, luckily, no one gave him a hard time.   I would dearly like to read his cross examination at trial on that part of the case because to me it's a key element.

Whatever, JM had a role to play and she played it well and to the full.   Including, comforting the grieving JB at the funerals of course, while knowing full well, on her own account, that he was a mass murderer guilty of the most heinous crimes.

I further believe her notice was not so much love as status and wealth.   As the new Mrs Bamber she would rise to far greater heights than she could ever hope for as a teacher.   She would be the lady of the manor, replacing June Bamber at the heart of a country community or living it up in the sun spots of Europe.   It was having that dream crushed that motivated her to destroy him and save herself (an equally powerful and compelling motive)

Jeremy could have potentially landed Julie in it at any time but the difficulty for him was and still is for that matter, that by doing so he would confirm his own guilt.  The question of what her involvement if any was, is indeed intriguing, was she in fact complicit?

[Holly Goodhead]

Let's look at that list of yours:
1. - Pressurised to 'cooperate' by EP and possibly others No.   She went to the police without any pressure from them.
2. Threat of perverting the course of justice - again, no.   She went to the police voluntarily.
3. - Threat of criminal record over cheque book fraud, OCP and cannabis dealing which was likely to impact on their teaching careers   Well, no.   She got away with the cheque book fraud.   No one was on her trail about that.   It only became a bargaining chip (if at all) because she confessed to it as part of her getting clear of her past.   Same with the burglary and the drugs.
4. - Angry over being dumped - very likely but an inadequate motive for condemning an innocent man to life imprisonment, risking a charge of perjury and much worse in the process
5. - 25k NoW deal - poppycock.   This deal was many months down the road when she committed herself by giving the cops a statement in Sep '85.

You have not properly grasped her situation at all since you include things which are irrelevant and exclude the one over-powering driver which accounts for the whole shebang - her own exposure to prosecution for murder and/or concealing.    And responses punctuated by emoticons don't compensate for argument.

Sure, why not?

1.  How do you know she went to the police without any pressure from them?

2.  How do you know she went to the police voluntarily?

3.  The DPP agreed with EP that JM should not be prosecuted for any offence.  Same for SB.  COLP declared that no evidence had been found that prosecution against immunity was granted in exchange for them acting as prosecution witnesses.  JM's WS's make it clear she was worried about the potential impact a criminal record would have on her teaching career.

4.  I'm less inclined to see JB ending the relationship as a possible reason for her lying but imo she lied her head off.  I posted recently about the 4 teenage female prosecution witnesses who lied at Stefan Kiszko's trial for a laugh and because they thought it was funny at the time.  They had no real reason to lie and when they admitted to lying years later, when Stefan's conviction was quashed, they went unpunished.     

5.  Again I'm less inclined to see the NoW deal as a major influencing factor. 

How on earth could JM be prosecuted for murder?!  It is clear she had no direct involvement in the murders whatsoever.  When you say "concealing" I assume you mean perverting the course of justice?

Really 

Perhaps best summed up by journalist David Connett from The Independent who attended much of the trial:

"Personally, I couldn't understand how she could be relied upon as a witness, but others, particularly women, thought the contradictions in her evidence made her more compelling".

[Holly Goodhead]

Something which has always intrigued me is the question as to when Julie realised that Jeremy wasn't the man she thought he was.   Or to put it another way, when did she realise that he was indeed serious and very capable of murder and not murder by proxy as he had originally admitted to.

That for me was the moment she became afraid of him.

Well it doesn't appear to have been before the funerals as according to CAL's book/Anthony Pargeter JM was keen to stay at a house AP's in-laws owned on the party island of Ibiza with JB and two friends:

At the funeral of NB, June and SC on Friday 16th August:

"As  the afternoon wore on, he retreated into a corner with Brett and Julie, who approached Anthony Pargeter to ask if she and Jeremy could stay at his home in Ibiza with two friends.  Anthony explained that the house belonged to his in-laws, but he would make enquiries".  (P307)

At the funeral of DC and NC on Monday 19th August:

"The atmosphere at Maygrove Road was deeply subdued, a stark contrast to the bright colours everyone wore, Julie asked Anthony again about the house in Ibiza he assured her he would look into it".  (P337)

In a tv interview post trial JM claims she was never frightened of JB and then goes on to say JB became frightened of her as she told him she had to say something so she became frightened of him.   &%+((£

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

Yet according to SB's WS JM phoned her during 1984 and told SB she and JB rowed and she had been frightened:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=529.0;attach=1651

So we have JM saying she was never frightened of JB up until she told him she had to say something, which seems as though it must have been post the funerals of DC and NC on 19th August, and SB saying JM told her during 1984 she had been frightened of JB. 

The pair were/are totally unreliable prosecution witnesses imo.

JM claimed JB admitted to murder by proxy.  JB denied this.

[Holly Goodhead]

A good post describing exactly what occurred imo.  Once exposed, Julie and Susan had everything to lose by lying to police so both had no choice but cooperate.  They had no reason to lie after that.

I think its widely accepted that the police will put pressure on a suspect's partner as they believe he/she will normally be able to reveal something incriminating.  I think DS Jones was hot on JM's tail and probably told her, as he did JB in his interviews, that SC could not have shot herself twice (not true based on the pathological evidence); JB was going down and she could be implicated because of the circa 3am phone call.  If you have a 21 year old, probably somewhat immature and naïve, without any legal representation told by the police we know JB did it; the relatives think he did it; CC thinks he did it and you could find yourself facing a lengthy prison sentence, that potentially is a scary place.

We have no idea what contact went on between EP, the relatives, CC and JM.  I think I'm right in saying only taped evidence is now allowed to be used in court?   

[John]

I think its widely accepted that the police will put pressure on a suspect's partner as they believe he/she will normally be able to reveal something incriminating.  I think DS Jones was hot on JM's tail and probably told her, as he did JB in his interviews, that SC could not have shot herself twice (not true based on the pathological evidence); JB was going down and she could be implicated because of the circa 3am phone call.  If you have a 21 year old, probably somewhat immature and naïve, without any legal representation told by the police we know JB did it; the relatives think he did it; CC thinks he did it and you could find yourself facing a lengthy prison sentence, that potentially is a scary place.

We have no idea what contact went on between EP, the relatives, CC and JM.  I think I'm right in saying only taped evidence is now allowed to be used in court?

When the robbery at Osea Road caravan park and the chequebook fraud were revealed to police it would be fair to say that Susan and Julie would be crapping themselves.  When it was put to Julie that she could be seen as complicit in the murders I have no doubt whatsoever that she told the police everything in exchange for not being pursued.  The only other proviso being that the bank was paid back everything which they stole from it.  Bottom line for Julie was that she couldn't afford to tell lies about Jeremy since the consequences for her would have been dire.

[anglolawyer]

Sure, why not?

1.  How do you know she went to the police without any pressure from them?

2.  How do you know she went to the police voluntarily?

3.  The DPP agreed with EP that JM should not be prosecuted for any offence.  Same for SB.  COLP declared that no evidence had been found that prosecution against immunity was granted in exchange for them acting as prosecution witnesses.  JM's WS's make it clear she was worried about the potential impact a criminal record would have on her teaching career.

4.  I'm less inclined to see JB ending the relationship as a possible reason for her lying but imo she lied her head off.  I posted recently about the 4 teenage female prosecution witnesses who lied at Stefan Kiszko's trial for a laugh and because they thought it was funny at the time.  They had no real reason to lie and when they admitted to lying years later, when Stefan's conviction was quashed, they went unpunished.     

5.  Again I'm less inclined to see the NoW deal as a major influencing factor. 

How on earth could JM be prosecuted for murder?!  It is clear she had no direct involvement in the murders whatsoever.  When you say "concealing" I assume you mean perverting the course of justice?

Really 

Perhaps best summed up by journalist David Connett from The Independent who attended much of the trial:

"Personally, I couldn't understand how she could be relied upon as a witness, but others, particularly women, thought the contradictions in her evidence made her more compelling".

1 and 2 - I don't know.   It's surmise on my part based on the fact that the police (meaning the senior detective DCI Jones) had accepted the murder-suicide theory and were not investigating.

3 I don't believe COLP and I find their use of language interesting - they 'found no evidence'?   What they should have said was 'the DPP denied that any deal was made'.

4 I agree she lied but not by making the whole thing up.   She stuck to the truth but left out the parts that incriminated herself.   That's why her account includes things that would not be there is she were lying (the hitman) and things she could not know unless there had been detailed discussion of murder with JB (the window catch, cordless phone idea)

5 the NoW is irrelevant.

Perverting the course of justice would not be the appropriate charge.   That involves fabricating evidencd, intimidating witnesses etc.   I should probably have referred to the offence of 'impeding' rather than 'concealing'.   Both are enacted in the Criminal Law Act 1967.   Section 4.   Google is your friend.

As for involvement in the murder, if she aided, abetted, counselled or procured the crimes she would be liable as a principal.   Participating in the telephone charade would amount to aiding and abetting.   

[Holly Goodhead]

1 and 2 - I don't know.   It's surmise on my part based on the fact that the police (meaning the senior detective DCI Jones) had accepted the murder-suicide theory and were not investigating.

3 I don't believe COLP and I find their use of language interesting - they 'found no evidence'?   What they should have said was 'the DPP denied that any deal was made'.

4 I agree she lied but not by making the whole thing up.   She stuck to the truth but left out the parts that incriminated herself.   That's why her account includes things that would not be there is she were lying (the hitman) and things she could not know unless there had been detailed discussion of murder with JB (the window catch, cordless phone idea)

5 the NoW is irrelevant.

6  Perverting the course of justice would not be the appropriate charge.   That involves fabricating evidencd, intimidating witnesses etc.   I should probably have referred to the offence of 'impeding' rather than 'concealing'.   Both are enacted in the Criminal Law Act 1967.   Section 4.   Google is your friend.

7  As for involvement in the murder, if she aided, abetted, counselled or procured the crimes she would be liable as a principal.   Participating in the telephone charade would amount to aiding and abetting.

1 & 2.  The investigation was very much ongoing especially as far as the relatives were concerned!

3.  Its never a good idea to have colleagues effectively investigating colleagues.

4.  How does the hit man show she wasn't lying?  I daresay DS Jones and the relatives were more than happy to brief JM on their investigations re the window catch, phones etc    DS Jones is on record as praying for something to turn up to nail JB and lo and behold all his Christmases came at once:  JM's testimony and the silencer, both of which he had more than helping hand in.  He collected the silencer from the Eatons  and JM's pal, Liz Rimmington, telephoned DS Jones on JM's behalf to blow the whistle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcTvqLk0MWU&feature=youtu.be&t=26m29s

5.  The NoW is probably irrelevant in terms of motivation to lie initially but it might not be irrelevant if it can be shown she signed the deal pre trial with the jury unaware.

6.  Perverting the course of justice includes withholding evidence and would be the appropriate charge.
 
7.  Again perverting the course of justice by withholding.  Btw I believe her witness statement of 8th August to be complete and truthful so no withholding of evidence but yes I believe she perverted the course of justice by fabricating her later testimony.


 

[anglolawyer]

1 & 2.  The investigation was very much ongoing especially as far as the relatives were concerned!

3.  Its never a good idea to have colleagues effectively investigating colleagues.

4.  How does the hit man show she wasn't lying?  I daresay DS Jones and the relatives were more than happy to brief JM on their investigations re the window catch, phones etc    DS Jones is on record as praying for something to turn up to nail JB and lo and behold all his Christmases came at once:  JM's testimony and the silencer, both of which he had more than helping hand in.  He collected the silencer from the Eatons  and JM's pal, Liz Rimmington, telephoned DS Jones on JM's behalf to blow the whistle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcTvqLk0MWU&feature=youtu.be&t=26m29s

5.  The NoW is probably irrelevant in terms of motivation to lie initially but it might not be irrelevant if it can be shown she signed the deal pre trial with the jury unaware.

6.  Perverting the course of justice includes withholding evidence and would be the appropriate charge.
 
7.  Again perverting the course of justice by withholding.  Btw I believe her witness statement of 8th August to be complete and truthful so no withholding of evidence but yes I believe she perverted the course of justice by fabricating her later testimony.

So you think Jones broke the case wide open by pressuring Mugford to lie then feeding her a story?   Awesome!   What did he use to persuade her?   He didn't know about her part in Osea Road or the cheque fraud.   The hitman had an alibi, a fairly obvious possibility.   I don't agree about withholding evidence amounting to PTCOJ.   The offence involves 'fabricating evidence'.   I suppose that might include plain old lying.   

I don't think you are getting the point about her liability.   If her 8th August is considered untruthful (as the cops who relied on her later evidence must have thought) it follows she committed a serious offence when she gave it, on their view.   Yet, she was not cautioned.   It's this aspect the defence could not open up because they could not do so without blowing up their own client.   Yet, an arrangement of some kind must have been made since her liability is so obvious.

[Holly Goodhead]

So you think Jones broke the case wide open by pressuring Mugford to lie then feeding her a story?   Awesome!   What did he use to persuade her?   He didn't know about her part in Osea Road or the cheque fraud.   The hitman had an alibi, a fairly obvious possibility.   I don't agree about withholding evidence amounting to PTCOJ.   The offence involves 'fabricating evidence'.   I suppose that might include plain old lying.   

I don't think you are getting the point about her liability.   If her 8th August is considered untruthful (as the cops who relied on her later evidence must have thought) it follows she committed a serious offence when she gave it, on their view.   Yet, she was not cautioned.   It's this aspect the defence could not open up because they could not do so without blowing up their own client.   Yet, an arrangement of some kind must have been made since her liability is so obvious.

JM makes ref in her post 8th Aug WS's that JB said we shouldn't talk about anything inside in case EP have bugged the property (Goldhanger).  IMO this came from EP:

a) I believe EP bugged (under surveillance) JB's cottage possibly the other properties he used too.  By JM adding to her WS JB said the property might be bugged and we shouldn't talk about it covers the fact it wasn't talked about not because JB thought the property was bugged but because there was nothing to talk about as he had no involvement.

b) EP can tell JM whatever they want eg we have him on phone admitting to someone he did it.

c) He took a female back to Goldhanger, which he did,  and various accounts exist from laying on his bed together to full sex.

d) Possibly discussed JM in unflattering terms with others especially BC and said he would be selling up, getting shot of JM and starting a new life elsewhere. 

They tell JM they know JB did it because all the windows and doors were secure and only JB knew of a way to enter and exit covertly.  Plus SC could not have shot herself twice. 

Just 21 yoa.  Put in a safe house and segregated.  No friends, family.  Not even her mother.  No legal representation.  They convince JM JB is responsible.  Let her know they have full support of rellies and CC.  Come down hard on circa 3am call to JM.  We know he phoned you to let you know he did it.  Do you want to be more reviled than Myra Hindley?  Who wants their children taught by the ex girlfriend of a monster?   Etc, etc.  WS's drafted up.  Sign here. May have floated the possibility of the NoW deal to get her side of story over.

Please stop telling me what I don't get. 

Withholding evidence comes under disposing/spoliation and is considered perverting the course of justice. 

Just because perverting the course of justice is an illegal act doesn't mean to say that everyone who commits it is charged.  Even when the authorities know about it and have the evidence.  Even when the perps admit to it.

[Holly Goodhead]

So you think Jones broke the case wide open by pressuring Mugford to lie then feeding her a story?   Awesome!   What did he use to persuade her?  He didn't know about her part in Osea Road or the cheque fraud.   The hitman had an alibi, a fairly obvious possibility.   I don't agree about withholding evidence amounting to PTCOJ.   The offence involves 'fabricating evidence'.   I suppose that might include plain old lying.   

I don't think you are getting the point about her liability.   If her 8th August is considered untruthful (as the cops who relied on her later evidence must have thought) it follows she committed a serious offence when she gave it, on their view.   Yet, she was not cautioned.   It's this aspect the defence could not open up because they could not do so without blowing up their own client.   Yet, an arrangement of some kind must have been made since her liability is so obvious.

How do you know what DS Jones knew and when he knew it?  If all properties were bugged/under surveillance including JB's, JM's and SC's, EP would be one step ahead eg JB no doubt discussed with BC and others he was going to end the relationship with JM so EP were ready to pounce.  JM no doubt discussed with others eg SB that she hoped the cheque fraud, OCP and cannabis would not come to light or some reference might have been made to these events with SB, JB and/or others. 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1114

[anglolawyer]

I had not thought about electronic surveillance.   Was anything disclosed (as would usually be the case) to the defence?   If not, you have to add another layer of activity to your conspiracy theory.   

[Holly Goodhead]

I had not thought about electronic surveillance.   Was anything disclosed (as would usually be the case) to the defence?   If not, you have to add another layer of activity to your conspiracy theory.

What are the other layer(s) of my 'conspiracy theory'?

I don't believe in conspiracies per se but I do believe in miscarriages of justice which often feature withholding information from the defence.

Make of this what you will:

277. Further complaint is made that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that having been released from custody on 13 September the appellant was continuously under surveillance until 1.30 a.m. on 16 September. It is said that there was no disclosure of this fact but we note from a Kingsley Napley attendance note of 3 September 1986 that the appellant "confirmed that he was under surveillance after his release from custody".

278. Mr Turner complains that failure to disclose the exact details of the surveillance put the defendant as he then was at a disadvantage when drafting his proof of evidence. In particular it would have assisted him to recollect when he left the note in the office. Since the appellant knew he was under surveillance we need not consider whether there should have been disclosure of the fact but we note that the Attorney General's guidelines of December 1981 in force at the relevant time gave a discretion to withhold material where "it contains details which, if they became known might facilitate the commission of other offences or alert someone not in custody that he was a suspect, or it discloses some unusual form of surveillance or method of detecting crime".

279. In evidence the appellant stated that he had returned to the farm the night after his release or the night after that – i.e. on the 14 or 15 September. In evidence he said:

"After my arrest at Chelmsford I went to London, came back and had not got my key. I needed car documents kept in the office for a holiday and I got in the loo window. I left a note on B.Wilsons desk to ask her to pay my solicitors bills".

280. Had prosecuting counsel been informed that the appellant was in fact under surveillance and in London at the time a potentially devastating cross-examination followed by the calling of rebuttal evidence would have caused the defence much embarrassment. Mr Turner contends the matter could have been simply explained away as a mistake as to dates, the actual visit occurring on 16 or 17 September as in fact he had instructed his solicitors. We have seen his proof of evidence to that effect.

281. Since prosecuting counsel was not given this information, the appellant avoided this potential crisis and since the appellant knew of the surveillance no possible disadvantage accrued to him by reason of its non-disclosure.

[anglolawyer]

That's from the 2002 appeal isn't it?   You have a fair point I think.   I still don't buy your overall idea but I acknowledge there might be more going for it than I thought.   The surveillance the judge was referring to was post-Mugford coming forward.   I wonder who could have authorised surveillance over Taff Jones's head before then?

[Holly Goodhead]

That's from the 2002 appeal isn't it?   You have a fair point I think.   I still don't buy your overall idea but I acknowledge there might be more going for it than I thought.   The surveillance the judge was referring to was post-Mugford coming forward.   I wonder who could have authorised surveillance over Taff Jones's head before then?

Yes 02 appeal and surveillance referred to post JM.  I'm not sure who had overall responsibility for what and when in terms of the investigation.  DI Cook is on record as criticising the command structure and saying the investigation was like a ship without a rower (think he meant rudder).  If you look at the record logs of JM's interviews most of them were with DS Jones.  Plus he picked up the silencer from the Eatons.  It's as though the case was his baby.  Is this norm to have one officer assigned almost exclusively to a case?

When you say overall idea you mean re EP putting JM and JB under surveillance and seizing the opportunity when the relationship ended?  The idea isn't without its problems ie LR blowing the whistle.  Unless this was all part of the plan ie DS Jones creating a situation where someone other than JM blew the whistle but that sounds too complicated?   I just struggle with 99.9% of women condoning mass murder whether directly or indirectly.  I can't see JM hanging out with a guy for a month if she thought he was involved and then going to EP coz he dumped her. I can't see her sharing his life and bed for a month if she had any suspicion?  I can't buy into she was besotted, frightened, didn't want to believe it etc.  Or worse still she was happy to turn a blind eye as she relished the idea of sharing his inheritance and becoming Mrs Bamber.  Then I have to buy into SB being told but fooling around with JB at a party a couple of days later.  None of it makes sense to me anyway.  Plus there are too many inconsistencies in JM's WS:  NB shot 7 times consecutively (4 times upstairs, 4 times downstairs thought to be consecutively), SC found on bed (on floor), a glove falling off/fingerprints (said to account for lack of prints.  It appears firearms are difficult to lift prints from).

Why did DS Jones ask about their sex life?  Was this a genuine question to see if JB was weird/violent (Christian Grey just happened to be adopted!); got off on asking JM about it; attempt to get some bad PR in an era when homosexuality/bisexuality was frowned upon or was DS Jones a closet gay who hated JB for arousing his interest so to speak.  Or was he jealous of JB's perceived pulling power?