Was Julie Bamber given immunity for testifying against Jeremy Bamber?

[John]

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.

[John]

You didn't provide any letter from the prosecutor all you did was cite Terzeon's allegations that grossly mischaracterized things.

Well I did

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

[John]

Well I did



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

[ 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:

[John]

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.

How you can read the above evidence and see it differently is testimony to [ moderated ]

[John]

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.

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 ]

[John]

[ 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?

[John]

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?

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.

[John]

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?

[John]

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.

[John]

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.

[John]

"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.

[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.

[John]

"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.

[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.

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.

[John]

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]