You seem not to have taken into account what the potential threat of losing her future career would have meant. You've pushed a picture on an innocent, naive, totally unstreet wise girl. I imagine that person would have been shaking in her shoes. I think the police knew how important her testimony would be and did a softly, softly act, whilst reminding her that it was possible that there may be a prosecution, which although out of their hands, they'd put a good word in for her. Clearly, the DPP must have known about the cheque book fraud. How else could the Director have "taken the decision 'NOT' to prosecute"?
Why would she lose her future career ? It was a first offence, joint minor cheque book fraud from over a year earlier. She would get a police caution or community charge. She paid back the money straight away, so the bank may decide not to prosecute anyway.
Well she was innocent, and naive in the situation she found herself in.
Agree the police realised how important her testimony was. I doubt they needed to persuade her to testify. She approached the police after telling five people. Then completed a WS. The police worked with her, Stan Jones being the main person. Whether he took a soft approach is up to him.
There were other things that would effect future employment. As Scipio said if she refused to testify she would be in contempt of court. She would be more worried about that, or perjury if exposed as lying in court. Or Bamber getting off and spending the next 30 years attacking her in public. Mind you he does that anyway.
