Was Julie Bamber given immunity for testifying against Jeremy Bamber?

[John]

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

[scipio_usmc]

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.

[John]

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.

[scipio_usmc]

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.

[scipio_usmc]

Have fun:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html

[John]

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.

[John]

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?

[John]

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.

[John]

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.

[APRIL]

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.

[John]

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.

[adam]

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.

[adam]

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'.

[John]

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.

[John]

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