Was Julie Bamber given immunity for testifying against Jeremy Bamber?

[scipio_usmc]

Please find attached below the series of documents which relate how Julie Mugford was not charged with fraud, burglary and drug dealing charges because,  "...at the time of the offences she was under the influence of Jeremy Bamber."

That'll be alright then!

She was not prosecuted for the bank fraud because the bank did not file charges against her and even if they had she would have only received a caution or at maximum a low community order. She was not charged for drug use etc because the only punishment she could receive would be a caution and the only evidence they had against her came from her admissions. The bottom line is that they did not prosecute because the only reason they found out about the crimes were because she admitted to them and had no independent evidence against her and even if they could manage to convict her successfully it wasn't worth their time given how insignificant they were and how insignificant the potential punishment would be. 

[scipio_usmc]

Please find attached below the series of documents which relate how Julie Mugford was not charged with fraud, burglary and drug dealing charges because,  "...at the time of the offences she was under the influence of Jeremy Bamber."

That'll be alright then!

All the documents indicate is that DPP made a decision not to prosecute and told the police that Julie would not be charged. 

DPP is the US equivalent of a District Attorney's office. 

In the UK DPP has a certian amount of time to make a decision whether or not to prosecute and must inform the suspect of the decision when it is reached.  The US is less formal there is no timetable a prosecutor can refuse to make a decision of whether to prosecute or not for years.

DPP made a decision not the prosecute and explained why.  A decision not to prosecute is not immunity. A grant of immunity is a formal legal agreement where the government decides it will prosecute the case but agrees to not prosecute in exchange for testimony and if the defendant fails to live up to the agreement then the person will be prosecuted.

The DPP decided not to prosecute because the limitations described in the decision.  The DPP didn't state that they decided to prosecute but would offer immunity and drop the charges if she testified.  Even if she subsequently refused to testify she would not be able to be charged.  They already dismissed the charges completely.

[John]

DPP letter 27/01/1986

"Miss Mugford is clearly the central witness in this case."

You can dress it up any way you like Scipio but the truth is that she and Battersby would have been prosecuted if their cooperation and evidence hadn't been crucial to Bamber's conviction.  For the cheque frauds they could both have faced custodial sentences.  Just to clarify, the decision to prosecute was not the banks, it was a matter for the CPS.

[John]

This part note by DC Adams, Branch Crown Prosecutor dated 19 /07/1991 would appear to confirm it.

[scipio_usmc]

This part note by DC Adams, Branch Crown Prosecutor dated 19 /07/1991 would appear to confirm it.

Adams was a cop not a prosecutor. DPP made the decision not to prosecute not Adams.  All Adams said is that part of the decision of whether to prosecute took into account among other things the fact they found out about the crimes because of her and her potential as a witness.  If you read the instructions of what to take into account you will find that whether people confessed and were sorry is part of the equation of whether to prosecute. What you postes says nothing about DPP notifying Adams that they were going to offer her immunity. You are misinterpreting a decision not to prosecute as a grant of immunity.  They are 2 distinct things legally. A grant of immunity is when there is a decision made that the person will not be prosecuted if they do what is asked but will be prosecuted if they refuse. A decision not to prosecute is a decision to drop charges regardless of what happens in the future.  There are 2 kinds of immunity transactional immunity AKA blanket immunity and use immunity. Transactional immunity covers the entire ball of wax. They can't be charged period for anything.  Use immunity simply prevents their testimony or anything derived from their testimony from being used against them. They can still be charged based on independent evidence. 

They had no need to grant her immunity of any kind. The refusal to grant her immunity and decision to charge her simply would mean that when called to testify at Jeremy's trial they could not force her to testify about the drugs crimes etc that she confessed to. She could refuse to ask questions about such. Those were not important to the prosecution anyway.

They could not make a case against her for the caravan burglary.  She knew Jeremy owned an interest and worked there and simply unsuccessfully tried to help him get inside. Attempting to help him get in would result in a caution if that and they only had her admission to try to use against her. Jeremy would not testify against her.  If they intended to try to charge her over such then in order to get her to talk about it at trial they would have to issue use immunity. That means her testimony could not be used to prosecute her and thus she had no legal right to remain silent about such.

The things important to the prosecution was her testimony of what Jeremy told her before and after the murders.  The things she confessed to were not of much significance with the exception of the caravan break-in which showed he was willing to steal from his parents.  That had some significance in terms of the case.  Her menial drug crimes offered nothing and were not worth prosecuting in their own right. The bank did not support a prosecution of her or Susan for the check fraud. It would be difficult to prosecute her for anything and even if successful there would be a slap on the wrist so it would not be worth wasting resources on a prosecution that is why she wasn't prosecuted.  If she confessed to selling tens of thousands of pounds of heroin for Jeremy then it would have been different.  That would be a very serious offense. They would have to either prosecute her and grant her use immunity for any testimony about such while trying Jeremy for such drug offenses or grant full immunity providing she testifies.  Full immunity is usually granted to try to bring down a network.

[John]

I will repeat this since you didn't get it the first time.  Mugford and Battersby would have both been prosecuted for the cheque fraud at the discretion of the CPS following a police investigation.  The Midland Bank had little say in what happened as this would have been a criminal prosecution.  The bank could have pursued them seperately in a civil action should they have felt it was worth their while.

The police and the CPS in this country are not in the habit of brushing cheque fraud under the table unless they have bigger fish to fry.  In this instance they did, they wanted to prosecute Jeremy Bamber for five murders, a little cheque fraud in such circumstances was of little consequence.  There is no doubt in my mind that had Julie not been the main witness for the prosecution she would have been prosecuted for her crimes as would Susan Battersby.

[adam]

Julie told the police straight away about the caravan break in. They prosecuted Bamber but not Julie. Why ? Because it was Bamber's idea, he did it and Julie told the police about it.

After this and helping Julie compile a WS, the police are hardly likely to prosecute her when the cheque book fraud was discovered. They have more important things to do. Like getting their main witness ready for a murder trial.

[david1819]

Julie told the police straight away about the caravan break in. They prosecuted Bamber but not Julie. Why ? Because it was Bamber's idea, he did it and Julie told the police about it.

After this and helping Julie compile a WS, the police are hardly likely to prosecute her when the cheque book fraud was discovered. They have more important things to do. Like getting their main witness ready for a murder trial.

One of the most damning things about Julies credibility is the fact she was never prosecuted as an accessory to murder. Her statements (if true) makes her an accessory both before and after the murders. Why was she never prosecuted? because police knew she was never an accessory to murder but a puppet witness of their own making.

[adam]

One of the most damning things about Julies credibility is the fact she was never prosecuted as an accessory to murder. Her statements (if true) makes her an accessory both before and after the murders. Why was she never prosecuted? because police knew she was never an accessory to murder but a puppet witness of their own making.

She was asleep in New Cross when the massacre happened. She said she didn't believe Bamber would do anything. Which makes sense as she was his girlfriend.

So was in no way an accessory.

[scipio_usmc]

I will repeat this since you didn't get it the first time.  Mugford and Battersby would have both been prosecuted for the cheque fraud at the discretion of the CPS following a police investigation.  The Midland Bank had little say in what happened as this would have been a criminal prosecution.  The bank could have pursued them seperately in a civil action should they have felt it was worth their while.

The police and the CPS in this country are not in the habit of brushing cheque fraud under the table unless they have bigger fish to fry.  In this instance they did, they wanted to prosecute Jeremy Bamber for five murders, a little cheque fraud in such circumstances was of little consequence.  There is no doubt in my mind that had Julie not been the main witness for the prosecution she would have been prosecuted for her crimes as would Susan Battersby.

You can say anything you like but that doesn't make you right.  What you just said doesn't amount to a grant of immunity.  Moreover, I researched the issue and the amount of a fraud determines the severity of the crime. The amount in question could at most result in a punishment of a low community order.  You seem to be going by your gut feelings as opposed to what happens in practice.

[scipio_usmc]

One of the most damning things about Julies credibility is the fact she was never prosecuted as an accessory to murder. Her statements (if true) makes her an accessory both before and after the murders. Why was she never prosecuted? because police knew she was never an accessory to murder but a puppet witness of their own making.

How could she be prosecuted as an accessory? To be charged as an accessory before the fact one must assist in the planning, provide weapons or take some other step to help someone to carry out a crime.

To be charged after one has to drive a getaway vehicle, help dispose of a body or other evidence, hide someone on the run or do something of that sort.

Not telling police everything you know falls into neither of these.

If she made up an alibi for Jeremy to help him avoid liability then she would be an accessory potentially but the actual crime would be perverting the course of justice there is no such thing as a crime of accessory after the fact the various crimes are all spelled out and the terms accessory are more or less used just in a manner of speaking. Laws that are vague are considered invalid criminal laws have to be well articulated.

Failing to tell police that Jeremy told her he wanted to kill his family and that he said tonight is the night was not a crime. She was under no legal obligation to rat him out.  Failing to inform them of this is not perverting the course of justice. Morally it was wrong not to tell them about such. If she had actively gone out of her way to lie to help him such as making up things about Sheila to support his tale or saying she was with him when he received a distress call etc then it would be unlawful conduct meant to aid him in his criminal endeavor.

It is lawful not to tell police everything you know.  It is unlawful to tell police lies with the intention of misdirecting their investigation.

If Jeremy said that she had agreed with him that he should kill them and helped in the planning and that when he called her he told her he killed them and they are rich now then in that case there would be a basis to try her as an accessory. Naturally they would only do so it they believed him and felt a jury could potentially believe him. But he said no such thing and her own testimony was she didn't think he was serious she simply thought he was blowing off steam. Not telling such prior to the murders or even after is not a crime.

[Admin]

How could she be prosecuted as an accessory? To be charged as an accessory before the fact one must assist in the planning, provide weapons or take some other step to help someone to carry out a crime.

To be charged after one has to drive a getaway vehicle, help dispose of a body or other evidence, hide someone on the run or do something of that sort.

Not telling police everything you know falls into neither of these.

If she made up an alibi for Jeremy to help him avoid liability then she would be an accessory potentially but the actual crime would be perverting the course of justice there is no such thing as a crime of accessory after the fact the various crimes are all spelled out and the terms accessory are more or less used just in a manner of speaking. Laws that are vague are considered invalid criminal laws have to be well articulated.

Failing to tell police that Jeremy told her he wanted to kill his family and that he said tonight is the night was not a crime. She was under no legal obligation to rat him out.  Failing to inform them of this is not perverting the course of justice. Morally it was wrong not to tell them about such. If she had actively gone out of her way to lie to help him such as making up things about Sheila to support his tale or saying she was with him when he received a distress call etc then it would be unlawful conduct meant to aid him in his criminal endeavor.

It is lawful not to tell police everything you know.  It is unlawful to tell police lies with the intention of misdirecting their investigation.

If Jeremy said that she had agreed with him that he should kill them and helped in the planning and that when he called her he told her he killed them and they are rich now then in that case there would be a basis to try her as an accessory. Naturally they would only do so it they believed him and felt a jury could potentially believe him. But he said no such thing and her own testimony was she didn't think he was serious she simply thought he was blowing off steam. Not telling such prior to the murders or even after is not a crime.

I don't believe the question of Julie being an accessory has any basis.  She obviously didn't believe Bamber right up until the moment the police picked her up at the Dartford Tunnel.  My view is that she went along with his ramblings about his family for a quiet life but never in a million years thought he would ever go through with it.  She was most probably in shock from the off and that is why she went to view the bodies and speak to Sheila.

[scipio_usmc]

I don't believe the question of Julie being an accessory has any basis.  She obviously didn't believe Bamber right up until the moment the police picked her up at the Dartford Tunnel.  My view is that she went along with his ramblings about his family for a quiet life but never in a million years thought he would ever go through with it.  She was most probably in shock from the off and that is why she went to view the bodies and speak to Sheila.

There are 3 possibilities:

1) He didn't say enough things to put a reasonable person in her place on notice that he was seriously going to do it or

2) He did say enough that a reasonable person in her place would be on notice but she closed her eyes to it and convinced herself he was kidding because she didn't know what else to do or

3) She expected him to carry it out and felt she would profit as well from it and thus was happy about the idea.

There is no evidence that the third one is the case. There are disagreements over whether she should have known he was serious or not. Since we don't know exactly what Jeremy said only what she remembers he said we can't really judge that well. It is certainly troubling that he told her about the windows and planning to use a bike etc.  While she said she felt he was kidding the greater the level of detail in the planning the more likely the person is actually serious. With that said people have provided details to others and yet lacked the guts/malice to
actually carry out such plans. So it is hard to say for sure what crosses the line where it objectively becomes where a reasonable person should believe the plan is going to be carried out.  If he asked for her help then obviously that would do it.

Some people don't care they live with thugs without any qualms. A girl in my college dorm dated a guy who used to steal, beat people (not in fair fights he would do things like smack you in the back with a pipe- anything dirty) and she didn't care at all.  She didn't encourage him to go steal for her but when he stole something she would take it and not care (receiving stolen property is a crime not that she cared). In modern society traditional morals are under attack so unfortunately this kind of Amaral behavior is more and more prevalent. 

It appears that Julie had a conscience though it took a bit to get it to kick into full gear. Whether to rat out loved ones who do wrong is quite the dilemma. There are some parents who immediately will turn their kids, some who will do it in time and yet others will help their kids hide bodies. The faster one does the right thing the stronger their moral compass or maybe the less strong the bond they have to the person they turn in. Sometimes people aid criminals out of selfishness. They don't want to be without the company of the loved one or fear their name will go down the toilet for a relative being busted. That could have been her initial reaction that she wanted to not lose him and was being selfish in trying to protect him.
 

[adam]

DPP letter 27/01/1986

"Miss Mugford is clearly the central witness in this case."

You can dress it up any way you like Scipio but the truth is that she and Battersby would have been prosecuted if their cooperation and evidence hadn't been crucial to Bamber's conviction.  For the cheque frauds they could both have faced custodial sentences.  Just to clarify, the decision to prosecute was not the banks, it was a matter for the CPS.

That may be correct. If it is, it is not a problem.

The police had to look at the big picture. They didn't hide the cheque book fraud and the defence spent a long time bringing it up at trial.

[APRIL]

There are 3 possibilities:

1) He didn't say enough things to put a reasonable person in her place on notice that he was seriously going to do it or

2) He did say enough that a reasonable person in her place would be on notice but she closed her eyes to it and convinced herself he was kidding because she didn't know what else to do or

3) She expected him to carry it out and felt she would profit as well from it and thus was happy about the idea.

There is no evidence that the third one is the case. There are disagreements over whether she should have known he was serious or not. Since we don't know exactly what Jeremy said only what she remembers he said we can't really judge that well. It is certainly troubling that he told her about the windows and planning to use a bike etc.  While she said she felt he was kidding the greater the level of detail in the planning the more likely the person is actually serious. With that said people have provided details to others and yet lacked the guts/malice to
actually carry out such plans. So it is hard to say for sure what crosses the line where it objectively becomes where a reasonable person should believe the plan is going to be carried out.  If he asked for her help then obviously that would do it.

Some people don't care they live with thugs without any qualms. A girl in my college dorm dated a guy who used to steal, beat people (not in fair fights he would do things like smack you in the back with a pipe- anything dirty) and she didn't care at all.  She didn't encourage him to go steal for her but when he stole something she would take it and not care (receiving stolen property is a crime not that she cared). In modern society traditional morals are under attack so unfortunately this kind of Amaral behavior is more and more prevalent. 

It appears that Julie had a conscience though it took a bit to get it to kick into full gear. Whether to rat out loved ones who do wrong is quite the dilemma. There are some parents who immediately will turn their kids, some who will do it in time and yet others will help their kids hide bodies. The faster one does the right thing the stronger their moral compass or maybe the less strong the bond they have to the person they turn in. Sometimes people aid criminals out of selfishness. They don't want to be without the company of the loved one or fear their name will go down the toilet for a relative being busted. That could have been her initial reaction that she wanted to not lose him and was being selfish in trying to protect him.

I imagine Julie experienced a gamut of emotions -regarding Jeremy's plans- from dismissal to anticipation to disbelief to acceptance to horror to fear, and not necessarily in that order or individually.