A Problem With Julie Mugford

[Erik Narramore]

A point I want to make is being lost among all the bickering and the slanted excuses for Julie Mugford, and, in one or two cases, the eulogising of her.

No doubt there will be more of it on this thread because guilters want to deter serious discussion.

The trial judge misled the jury when he claimed that Julie Mugford had been cautioned for the cheque offences.  I believe this is of some significance in and of itself, and here I will go into why.

I started considering this point in an earlier thread: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10294.0.html.

This post of mine from that same thread sums up what I believe to be the accurate position: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10294.msg480324.html#msg480324

Let me now summarise my concerns.  This is necessary because guilters want to ignore this, or in some cases, their bias and obtuseness is stopping them from thinking about it and considering another point-of-view.  Bear in mind that I am a guilter myself, but I am also concerned with ensuring Jeremy's convictions are safe.

The issue I have here is that it does seem that the prosecution left the jury with the impression that Julie Mugford's evidence was entirely voluntary and spontaneous and the organic outcome of her own conscience.  The misleading information given by the judge to the jury contributed to this impression because it suggested that offences of dishonesty were disposed of by the authorities in the usual manner.  I think this was done because it was realised by the police and the DPP/CPS that the kernel of Julie's evidence at trial was her own believability and the dishonesty offences damage her as a prosecution witness if it appears she has done a deal, especially if a deal has been done under police duress.

Now we fast-forward to the 2002 appeal and Jeremy's defence team are including in their Ground 5 the judge's misleading remarks to the jury about Julie's criminal record.  The appellate judges rejected this out of hand, even expressing scepticism to Jeremy's counsel, Michael Turner, Q.C., as to the relevancy of the point at all.

The reason - I think - that the 2002 appeal court didn't take this aspect of Ground 5 very seriously is because they took the view that the jury had already been given the worst case scenario regarding Julie Mugford's offending, a caution being the normal disposal for minor cheque offences, and since Julie Mugford's evidence depended on her believability, this meant that, in the view of the appellate judges, there was no prejudice to Jeremy Bamber.

I think they were wrong.  The point they overlooked is that there was a wider scope of considerations for the jury.  It was not just whether she had committed dishonest acts in the past, but also whether she was entering into a deal with the police in which she was pressured to give certain evidence in return for various matters being dropped.  When the judge misled the jury on this point, it was part of a narrative, which is continued by guilters here on this Forum, in which Julie Mugford's trial evidence is naively regarded as voluntary and spontaneous and the organic outcome of her own conscience, rather than something she was pressured into doing by Essex Police.