Did Julie Mugford Go To The Police Voluntarily?

[Erik Narramore]

One theory is that Julie was threatened with prosecution as an accessory and/or under joint enterprise doctrine (now known as secondary liability).

I am not convinced she was threatened in this way, but of course it is possible.  The tricky part for the police would have been the simple unequivocal fact that she wasn't present at the killings.  I realise that it is possible to charge somebody as an accomplice even though they are not present, but Stan Jones would not have had much to go on and to a large extent would have been reaching in the dark.  I think this is only plausible if we say either Jeremy actually was guilty and Julie let this slip, thus potentially incriminating herself, or Julie's stories were baseless and she let her mouth run away with her, thus backing herself into a corner in which it was either her and Jeremy or just Jeremy - and she chose Just Jeremy.

I started a thread about some ideas of my own close to this very topic and suggested that Julie Mugford could have been a 'constructive accomplice', as opposed to an accomplice praesens.  This idea was initially ridiculed by two or three posters here, which is strange because those same posters would - rightly - have no issue charging Jeremy with murder even if he had hired a hitman and not been present when the actual killing was being done.  Similarly, it is quite feasible that Julie encouraged or worked with Jeremy without being present at the killings, and this could explain the contact and conversations between them.  It may be that Julie then created a kind of 'prisoner's dilemma' between herself and Jeremy by turning against Jeremy and affecting to be an innocent party, leaving Jeremy with no alternative but to refute absolutely all of her evidence and denounce her as a liar.

I realise that's not what you are suggesting, as such.  I think your theory here is that Julie co-operated only because she was threatened by the police as a way of making her co-operate and come up with a story, and you are saying this is just as likely to have occurred with Jeremy innocent as Jeremy guilty.

There are lots of possible alternate permutations to this.  As I have previously explained, Julie could be lying while at the same time Jeremy is guilty.  Indeed, she may have decided to lie and invent a pseudo-confession by Jeremy in the conviction he really was guilty.  Equally, Julie could be telling the truth about her conversations with Jeremy but Jeremy could still be innocent, because he may have been kidding her on.  That's aside from the more conventional explanations, which have been covered ad nauseum.

[Erik Narramore]

It would be madness for Jeremy to tell Julie about his involvement in the killings, but Julie alleges that he did. 

I think all this hinges on whether Julie was also involved.  If Julie was an accessory, it is possible Julie would volunteer to do it or Jeremy himself would ask her to do it.  One reason for this is that Jeremy could have anticipated that he would be watched for his reactions and behaviour and he may have been nervous about putting on a performance and affecting to break down emotionally, whereas nobody would really question Julie's reactions one way or another as she was at one remove from the family.  Furthermore, if Julie was left alone with the bodies (she seemed to imply at trial that this was the case), there may have been an opportunity for her to check the bodies for certain things and report back to Jeremy, whereas Jeremy might have aroused suspicion doing so.

Of course, it could be that Jeremy is innocent and it was just decided that Julie and Ann would identify the bodies out of sensitivity towards Jeremy (not necessarily Julie's decision, as such, but something pressed on her).

One thing I find strange is Julie's claim at trial that, while in the mortuary, she tried to communicate with the spirits of the dead.  Did she ever discuss these beliefs with Jeremy or any of the family, or Colin even, prior to the shootings?

[Erik Narramore]

This is from page 114 of Wilkes' first edition:

Stan Jones was planning an evening out with his wife Helene when the telephone rang.  It was someone at Witham police station saying that Liz Rimington wanted to speak to him urgently.

'I bet this is Julie coming forward,', Jones murmured to his wife as he dialled the number.  'Guarantee it.' Te phone was answered almost at once.  The conversation was extremely brief.

'Liz? Stan Jones.'

While I don't trust Wilkes particularly (and, as an aside, also note: it is obvious that much of the research of Carol Ann Lee, whom I also mention below, consisted of cribbing from Wilkes), the above account of things from Wilkes suggests to me two possible interpretations because Liz Rimington did not ring Stan Jones direct, she rang a police station and asked for Stan Jones.

Many wonder how Liz Rimington knew to ask for Stan Jones, but a different question could be how Julie knew to tell Liz to ask after Stan Jones.  Given that Stan Jones was the family liaison officer, either possibility implies contact between Liz and/or Julie and the family as well as contact between Liz and/or Julie and Stan Jones.

Carol Ann Lee, on page 275:

Trying to marshal his thoughts into order, Malcolm [Malcolm Waters] decided that Julie was telling the truth.  He told her that she must go to the police.

Julie broke down again, asking Liz to make the call on her behalf.

Were Liz Rimington and Matthew McDonald previously in a relationship?  I can find nothing in the books about it and it may be that people are confusing Matthew McDonald with Malcolm Waters - which is an understandable mistake to make.  I'm also note sure it changes the essentials of that allegation, as Rimington undoubtedly knew of Matthew McDonald and may well have slept with him.

While I was re-reading Wilkes just now, I found another interesting piece of information on page 204 of the first edition:

A couple of nights after the murders, she [Julie] confided in Liz Rimington that she thought Jeremy was the Devil incarnate

.

One thing I am picking up very strongly from Wilkes, albeit reading between the lines, is that there was a definite disdain, bordering on animosity, towards Jeremy Bamber from Liz Rimington.  And Liz Rimington's boyfriend, Charles Marsden, was one of the Bloke In A Pub witnesses against Jeremy.

Carol Ann Lee's account of the alteration between Jeremy and Susan Batterby at Julie's 21st. birthday party includes Liz Rimington [p. 256]:

Julie recalled that the party was memorable for one reason: 'Jeremy threw my birthday cake at Susan Battersby's head'.

It was the first time Susan and Julie had met since Julie's revelations.  As the crowd gathered in the kitchen to watch him adding final touches to the birthday cake, Susan grabbed the aerosol of whipped cream 'and jokingly made a gesture to put some whipped cream on his neck'.

Jeremy picked up the cake and shoved it into her face.

'Why did you do that?', she gasped.

'You're such a child, Susan', he replied contemptuously.

'Sue fled upstairs in floods of tears', Liz Rimington remembers.  'I went upstairs after her to calm her down'.

...

...Liz confronted Jeremy: 'You make me so angry, the things you do are so awful and you are so evil'.

'Why, what have I done?', he said. 'What are you talking about?'

'Well, if you don't know!' Liz replied in disgust.

'What?' he asked, becoming agitated.  'What?'

Brett interjected: 'She means about the cake'.

Jeremy gave a laugh and shrugged, 'Oh, yeah'.

It is clear that Powell relied on Liz Rimington quite a lot for her research on Jeremy's character.  Here's the first passage that mentions Liz Rimington [pp.132-133]:

Then there was her [Julie's] own friend, Liz Rimington.  Bamber had not confided in Liz, but Julie had done so.  She had mentioned Jeremy's story about the hired mercenary to Liz and complained to her friend continuously about Jeremy's behaviour during the past month.  In fact Liz had even witnessed for herself some of the incidents Julie had described to the detective.

Liz had also been instrumental in urging Julie to go to the police.  She had argued persuasively that Jeremy was a dangerous psychopath who had to be caught before he killed again.  It was Liz who had suggested that the police should be contacted from somewhere other than Julie's home, in case Jeremy made an unexpected visit or tried to telephone.  Liz had ushered Julie away from her home to the house in Colchester where she was loyally providing coffee and cigarettes during her friend's debriefing.  Stan Jones asked her into the room and Liz did not hesitate.  She was perfectly willing to make a statement.

Powell again [pp. 140-143]:

Meanwhile, detectives began to question Liz Rimington about Jeremy and Julie.  The young woman, who was studying catering at a college in nearby Manningtree, provided good third-hand knowledge of the events.  She had no direct evidence, but there was sufficient corroboration to support some of Julie's claims.

'Julie wanted to tell somebody, but she couldn't bring herself to do it.  She was so in love with him.  I told Julie that she had to go to the police because he was a psychopath who could murder again and it would be forever on her conscience.  It was a big game for Jeremy.  He enjoyed it,' said Liz Rimington.

The words were salt to the wound for the inquiry team when they read the statement.  A good few people had clearly harboured suspicions that Jeremy Bamber was responsible for the massacre, but no one had thought to let the police into the secret.  Liz Rimington had an interesting story to tell.  She had known Jeremy for a number of years and had seen him become more and more frustrated with his family and his lifestyle.  'Jeremy had told me he hated his mother.  He'd say "She's such an old cow."  He would rage on about Sheila's twins, saying they were spoiled to death and could never do a thing wrong in his mother's eyes.  He gave me the impression he was incredibly jealous', recalled the young woman.

'Every morning he would be at work on the farm.  During harvest time he'd work from six in the morning till eight at night.  He felt embittered that he wasn't getting the recognition and the reward.  Jeremy would get about £80.00 a week, but for his kind of lifestyle that wasn't enough.  Drinking champagne every night was his ideal.  He wanted to be out there getting in on the London scene.  He wanted a flat in London, he wanted to go out drinking, take people out to dinner, go abroad.  He hated having to run to his parents every time he wanted some extra cash.  I remember were were talking about money once and he said "It's important to have money when you're young."  I said: "You'll get your money eventually.'"

Liz Rimington was one of the party of friends who helped Jeremy and Julie at the funeral service.  Although she did not suspect him to be the murderer, Liz was outraged by Jeremy's behaviour and added more details and bizarre stories to those that Julie had already related to the detective.  She described his tasteless jokes after the ceremony and his attempts to upset the rest of his family.  'The relatives carried on as thought he was acting normally.  I was shocked.  Jeremy said, "The only reason they're being so bloody pleasant to me is because they're a pack of vultures, all waiting to see what they're going to get out of it." He laughed and said, "If they think they are going to get a bloody thing, they're joking."'

Liz also knew about the trip to Amsterdam that Bamber had made with Julie and Brett Collins.  The threesome had taken the short break after the Tolleshunt D'Arcy funerals and got back in time for Jeremy to attend the burial of little Nicholas and Daniel in London.  She explained why Jeremy had wanted to take the holiday so soon after the cremation of Sheila and his parents and before the children had even been buried.  'His purpose was to buy cannabis.  His supply had run out.  He took several toothpaste tubes, scooped out the contents and packed them with the cannabis he'd bought in a café.  Before he made the purchase he tried several brands for quality.  He was a great cannabis smoker and would grow marijuana plants on the farm', she claimed.

Liz was aware that the relationship between Julie Mugford and Jeremy was deteriorating and Julie frequently poured out her troubles to her friend.  But Julie never hinted at Jeremy's involvement in the murders until the day he finished their affair and a distraight Julie telephoned her best friend for consolation.  Julie broke into floods of tears as she described the end of her relationship to Liz and then added a shocking aside.  Jeremy's behaviour was completely callous, she told her sympathetic friend, but that wasn't all: he hired someone to kill his family for £2,000.00.  It was then that Liz decided enough was enough and persuaded an hysterical Julie that it was time to tell Stan Jones what she knew.

Note the sentence I have put in bold.  That has to be one of the weakest passages I have ever read.  She had no direct evidence of anything, but what she said supported some of Julie's claims.

Lomax on page 129 tells us this:

On the eve of her approaching the police her best friend, Liz Rimington, had informed Mugford that she herself had had sex with Bamber and that Mugford was better off without the 'two-timing bastard'.

Powell confirms on page 290:

Liz Rimington...knew Jeremy well and even had a brief affair with him...

It's all very tedious, but Liz Rimington comes across as quite judgemental, which may stem from her role as supervisor of Jeremy at Sloppy Joe's; the work dynamics that come out of that will have affected their personal relationship.

According to Carol Ann Lee (page 359), Liz Rimington backed up the claim that Jeremy was planning to buy a Porsche.

Running through all of this is Liz Rimington dripping poison on Jeremy.  Even if what she has said is absolutely true and correct in every particular, I am not sure she is the type of person I would want as a 'friend'.

Another thought occurred to me.  The scurrilous claims of the Miss Rimington of the early to mid 1980s bears a striking resemblance in tone and style to the ravings of a certain female poster on here who lied and invented information about Wilkes' invented anecdote about a psychiatrist.  I wonder where is Liz Rimington today?  Is she now Elizabeth Marsden, or is it some other name?  Does she still live in Essex?  Is she a member of this forum?

Liz Rimington's final word on Jeremy Bamber (from Powell, p. 290):

"Jeremy never believed murder was a crime.  He believed morality and social conscience were only for the weak.  He said morality was like religion, something for people to hang on to...I told Jeremy he was a psychopath without conscience.  He said, "I know I'm sick, I know I have such evil thoughts, I can't help it."

[Erik Narramore]

The position was that Julie was present or around when the call was made by Liz Rimmington to Witham Police Station, who then contacted Stan Jones, who then spoke to Liz.  Therefore, the call was made on Julie's behalf.

In contrast, the podcast seems to be saying that Julie didn't go to the police at all, in fact Malcolm Waters made the initial report to the police, and the CT have documentary proof.

I'm not trying to get into a debate or argument about it.  I merely report what I have heard and provide the link.