The 3.12 a.m. Phone Call To Julie

[Erik Narramore]

If Jeremy is guilty, then Julie answering the phone shows she was more involved in the massacre than she admits.

DS Stan Jones thought so.  It was one of the points he raised at the 'candid discussion' round the dinner table at White House Farm, in the presence of DCI Jones.

If Jeremy is guilty, isn't Julie guilty too?  Doesn't that follow logically and circumstantially?  That way, her story makes sense.  She betrays Jeremy and leaves him in a bind.  The police conceal evidence of the full depth of her involvement, revealed during her stay at Essex Police HQ, because they need a sympathetic and co-operative witness to point the finger at Jeremy.  If they had instead charged Julie with murder too, that would mean they had two accused but very little evidence.  This way, they focus on Jeremy and their case is stronger.

[Erik Narramore]

Julie's her whole evidence from start to finish is suspicious. It is all less than credible.

What more could Julie have done to make herself suspicious?  I don't know.  Ask Julie.  In a sense, she did attempt to give Jeremy an alibi, or Jeremy attempted to create an alibi around the police and Julie, using the phones.  It's not an alibi, though.  I have no further answer because the answer is in the question itself.  As I have stated before, it is suspicious that she answered the phone.  This suspicion in turn throws suspicion on Jeremy's claim of a phone call from Nevill.  Did that even happen?  It is suspicious that at first she said Dale Douglas answered and had to change her story later.  I know it's the early hours of the morning, but she would surely remember who had answered when.  Was she trying to confuse the police even at this early point?

However, none of this is proof.  It is only suspicion and both Julie and Jeremy could easily explain it.  Answering the phone in the early hours of the morning is not a crime.  Julie can say she happened to be the one who heard the phone and it happened to be Jeremy.  It looks suspicious, but nothing can be proved unless one of the housemates comes forward and adds information to suggest an irregularity.

[Erik Narramore]

You also have the phone calls, which anchor both the Crown and defence to Jeremy or Sheila as suspects.  People focus on Jeremy's claim of a call from Nevill, Jeremy's call to the police and supposition about a call from Nevill to the police or '999', but I think Jeremy's admission of a call to Julie at roughly this time is of at least equal significance, if not more.

Someone here may be able to quickly clear this up for me.  What I want to know is: How did Julie know to answer a communal phone in the middle of the night?  Never mind that it was 3 a.m. or 3.15 a.m. or whatever time, I want to know how she managed to answer the phone at all?  I can see why Jeremy might answer the phone at that time when he claims Nevill rang, because the phone ringing would almost act like an alarm clock.  It would wake you up, we just need to accept that Nevill may have been waiting for a while.

But which light sleeper answered the phone for Julie?  Or did Julie answer it herself?  And if she did, isn't that rather a striking coincidence?  And isn't it rather coincidental that key witnesses were also on hand to verify that she took that call and then argue over what time it was?

And then he calls her again at 5 40 a.m. from a public payphone.

[Erik Narramore]

I think it's her statement of 8th. September 1985 that is the relevant one.  She states that she was woken by a housemate, Douglas Dale, at roughly 3.15 a.m.  That partly explains what happened, but I'm still suspicious.  It just seems awfully convenient to be woken up in the early hours of the morning like that.  Does that happen often?

The precise issue I have here is that this whole business of the phone calls is extremely time-sensitive.  If you ring somebody at 3.15 a.m., or thereabouts, it's going to take a while for them to come to the phone, if they do so at all, and they'll be a whole fuss made by the person answering, this Mr Dale, about why you're calling at this hour and are you some sort of loony making a prank call, etc.?

It all seems a bit contrived to me.  It's all highly suspect.

On the other hand, in Jeremy and Julie's defence, there is no reason Jeremy would lie about making such a call, since his alibi is with the police.

I know why people who are emotionally-attached to Julie Mugford don't like this line of speculation.  I don't consider her evidence credible.  Nor, it seems, did the judge - ironically, it was the disruptive poster above who pointed this out to us!

Yet it is possible she was more involved in this than she is letting on and that her whole story to the second police investigation may have been a smokescreen.

[Erik Narramore]

Did this Mr Dale say at 3 o'clock in the morning: "Oh not you again, Jeremy.  You're always ringing up at 3 in the morning.  Give it a rest?"

OK, in Jeremy's favour is the fact that it's a putative emergency.  (And maybe he would ring his girlfriend before the emergency services - I'm not too worried about the order of the calls, actually).

But then he rings her again at 5.40 a.m. from nearby the scene (this being in the days before widespread mobile phones).

I can see how the whole sequence can be reasonably explained, but to me, it's just got that intangible/unspoken 'something' about it.  It doesn't quite hang together.  There's that sense of something staged and contrived about the whole thing.

[Erik Narramore]

Going back to the issue I latterly raised, I think a core problem of the Crown's case is that it supposedly relies on Julie Mugford but at the same time seeks to deoderise her from close involvement.  To me, that's a paradox. This is difficult to explain, but it kind of gives me the sense of Julie straddling two camps.  We think of her as in the Crown's camp, but was she entirely?

If I'm wrong and Julie Mugford's evidence contains substantial truth, that raises the natural question of what the extent of her involvement was.  If she was more involved than she pretends, then that means I'm wrong for the right reasons: her evidence is a synecdoche and can't be relied as it is defective.  The alternatives are that she wasn't involved but Jeremy was, or she wasn't involved and nor was Jeremy.

The thought that is developing in my mind – I only moot this at the moment – is that Julie Mugford's evidence right up to the trial might have been a smokescreen for both her and Jeremy, especially the fanciful hitman story.  Maybe it all got out of hand?  Maybe they thought nobody would believe it?  I only moot this, though.

Here we have a phone call at 3.15 a.m., or thereabouts.  I don't doubt the call took place, but I'm quite surprised nobody probes further.  If you call somebody at that time of the morning, you will be waiting a while for it to be answered, you'll probably have to explain yourself at length to whoever answers, and you'll be asked what can be so important to be ringing at this time; then, you're maybe waiting a while more for the person you are seeking to be rusticated out of bed and come to the phone, if they bother at all.  Then you have to explain yourself to them and so on, and the script we have in the statements won't be the entirety of it.

Remember that this is a time-sensitive situation, and now I think about it more, I will have to go back on something I said: I am suddenly interested in the order of the calls, and I can see why the police were (though maybe their interest was for a slightly different reason to mine).  We're expected to believe also that shortly after this call, Jeremy was thumbing through the phone book or Yellow Pages for the police station.  Or did he ring them before?

Then at 5.40 a.m., we have Jeremy ringing Julie Mugford again on a public payphone.  Julie must have been an early riser, but the pertinent question is why did he ring her at 3.15 a.m. in the first place?  Why not wait until later to call, when he was apprised as to what was going on?

It all looks contrived. 

[Erik Narramore]

The distinction I'm making, and what I find suspicious, is that Julie was roused from bed at 3.15 a.m. in a shared house.  That's much more difficult, especially when you're also supposed to be making an emergency call and holding for several minutes while a police officer rings somebody else.

And we are led to believe her involvement in the whole thing was limited and, at most, passive.

At the kernel of this case is the paradox outlined above: if she really is a witness of truth, is she a witness of whole truth or partial truth?  Is her evidence a synecdoche, concealing her own deeper involvement?  If so, was this for her own purposes only or also for Jeremy's?

[Erik Narramore]

I've discovered that this Douglas Dale gave a statement to the police and also gave evidence at the trial, which means there must be a statement of truth from him somewhere.  I assume his witness statement was around the same time as Julie's.  Unless I'm purblind, I can't see anything in the Archives on here.

I would be very interested to see his various statements and evidence.

I also found this in the 2002 appeal judgment:

307. Douglas Dale was in the house at the time. He made a statement on 9 September saying that he had heard the phone at about 3 a.m. He also gave that evidence at trial. But when cross-examined he said that it could have been about 3.30 a.m. He said that he had never looked at the time and had probably been told the time the next morning by others.

[Source: http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html]

I see in Sheet 10 of her own statement of 8th. September 1985, Julie Mugford claims the following [the poor grammar, I assume, is down to the police]:

"I suppose I went to bed that night at about 11.15 p.m. time.

In the early hours of the morning, I have since found out from a friend of mine Susan BATTERSBY who lives with me that it was about 3.15 a.m.  I was woken by another housemate Douglas DALE who told me that Jerry was on the telephone.  I got out of bed and went to the phone on the landing and said 'Hello'.  I felt very dozy and I suppose I was only half awake."

Some brief observations on the above [this may be pedantry on my part]:

(i). In the actual statement (can be viewed in the Archives), there is a gap between the words 'housemate' and 'Douglas'.

(ii). I find it odd that she uses the word 'telephone' at one point.  Wouldn't she more naturally say: "...Jerry was on the phone..." or "it was Jerry"?

There are other points to make, but I don't have time right now.  The full statement is in the Archive.

Among the questions I would like to ask Douglas Dale, just to focus on him for the moment:

1. How was Julie dressed before she went to bed that night and what was she doing?

2. How would you assess Julie's manner and demeanour prior to her retiring to bed?

3. Why were you awake at 3.15 a.m. and what were you doing?

4. How were you dressed?

5. Were you aware at any point during the night of Julie also being awake?

6. In relation to you, where was the phone that you answered at roughly 3.15 a.m.?

7. Where was the same phone in relation to Julie's room?

8. What did you say to Jeremy and what did Jeremy say to you?

9. Did you know who Jeremy was?  Had you ever met him?  Did you recognise his voice?

10. If you knew Jeremy, did you like him?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

11. Had he ever rung in the middle of the night before?  Had he ever behaved in any other odd, strange or erratic way that you can recall?

12. Where was Julie at this point?

13. If she was in her room, what steps did you have to take to alert her to the phone call and what were her responses?

14. Roughly how long did it take for Julie to reach the phone from the point you first alerted her to the call?

15. Did you stay by the phone while waiting for Julie?  Did you speak to Jeremy again while waiting for Julie?  If so, what was said?

16. How was Julie dressed when she answered the phone?

17. Did you hear Julie on the phone?  If so, what did you hear?

18. What do you remember about what happened after the call finished?

[Erik Narramore]

I have now found another statement from this woman dated 23rd. September 1985, in which she admits that it wasn't Mr Dale who answered the call at roughly 3.15 a.m. [she now says 3 a.m.].  She now claims she answered it herself.  See Sheet 5 of that statement.

I knew I was right to be sceptical.

She says Mr Dale woke her for the 6 a.m. call.  (Minor point: I thought it was 5.40 a.m.?).

If I was investigating this, I would be very keen to speak to this Mr Dale.  I have some serious questions for him!

On the subject of cannabis, I suspect Julie Mugford lies outright in her statement of 18th. November 1985 when she claims she was not a cannabis user.  She does this because the police need her to be of entirely sober deportment whenever the Evil One is confessing.

This woman's entire evidence should have been excluded from the trial.

[Erik Narramore]

One possible explanation for Julie being alert to the call at 3 a.m. is that, she says, Jeremy rang her earlier.  This may have induced anticipation of another call.  But I thought she was supposed to be asleep?  The problem is that in her later corrective statement she doesn't re-elaborate on what she was doing when she takes the call.  Was she asleep or not?

This is where I am so far with it and then I'll probably leave it for now:

1. I take the view that he may not have planned it out.  There was a genuine call from the father, Nevill, and that catalysed a psychotic rage.  He's got a vague idea in his head about leaving a rifle by Sheila's body and he's then elaborated from there, and got 'lucky'.  He may also have blacked-out and genuinely believes himself to be innocent.

2. But....that may well be wrong.  The whole phone call business bothers me.  It's not the call from Nevill to him that I'm worried about so much, it's the call from him to Julie.  Obviously when things don't make sense, we need to be careful that we're not reading into it that it's suspicious.  In reality, people do strange things and things don't make sense or add up.  Nevertheless, this phone call to Julie at 3.15 a.m. [or whatever time it was] looks suspect to me.  And she changed her story about it fundamentally.

3. If in fact that call was staged, then that upturns my whole viewpoint about Jeremy's motivations and mindset.  But it also upturns the 1986 trial.  It means that the trial itself was a sham and Julie Mugford's evidence was a synecdoche, the jury were misled, we've all been misled, and she has been protected by the police under Public Interest Immunity.

It's all moot, though.

[Erik Narramore]

There is an explanation for the 3 a.m./3.15 a.m./3.30 a.m. phone call that incorporates Julie as innocent. That is, apart from Julie's own explanation.  Possibly Jeremy rang her with a Machiavellian motive, trying to drag her into his criminal actions.

Yet:

(i). How does Julie come to answer the phone if it's not answered by Douglas Dale or somebody else?

(ii). In his original statements to the police, Jeremy makes no mention of the late-night call to Julie on the 6th., but Julie does mention this, even in her earliest statements.  Were those statements of hers back-edited?

Another interesting thing I've noticed is that the police chauffeured her to Essex.  That's nice of them.
She wasn't his wife.  Why didn't the police just implicitly expect her to make her own way there?  And she didn't seem to object when Jeremy, having only 10p in the payphone, insisted.  Was this entirely at Jeremy's will or was there already a suspicion forming among some of the detectives that Julie and Jeremy were both culpable in all this and they decided to get them both together at Goldhanger and observe?  Does this explain DS Jones' heightened detective senses per Jeremy's behaviour?

If I continue down this train of thought, I wonder if DS Stan Jones' evidence is going to unravel and reveal something rather murky?

Observations:

The official position of Julie Mugford was vague and tentative.  It was one of those situations where she knew but she didn't know, he was going to and she knew it, but he might not have done and she didn't know what to do.  She did commit cheque fraud, but somehow Jeremy was her Svengali and it was his fault.

This was a woman of majority age, yet it's as if the woman had no agency.  If we believe her, then we must believe that her involvement wasn't deeper, yet we have this strange phone call, that she tried to explain by roping in Douglas Dale.  Did he realise what she had done and object?

[Erik Narramore]

I think I have now found the answer and it looks like you are correct.

The answer, or an answer, is found in the McKay and Hutchins reports among the Operation Stokenchurch papers.

These reports cover various matters of inquiry, among them the police and DPP's arrangements with Julie Mugford.

Hutchins spoke to the DPP office staff, McKay spoke to Ainsley.

Hutchins was given information covered by PII at that time.  He confirms that three areas of offending by Mugford were considered:

(i). The drug offences.
(ii). The caravan park break-in.
(iii). The frauds.

In regard to (i), she was cautioned.

In regard to (ii), the charges were withdrawn.

In regard to (iii), no further action was taken.

Of course, without access to Julie Mugford's PNC records, we cannot know for sure whether she received a formal recordable caution for the drug offences or it was just a police warning; and it will be deleted now from the record anyway and she can deny everything.  In any event, it does appear that the trial judge did mislead the jury.

Ainsley gets it completely wrong about Mugford.  He says she was cautioned for everything, and implies that she was not given any formal immunity viz. court proceedings, it was all done verbally.  But this is wrong, both on account of what Hutchins discovered, and also because we have since seen disclosure of the formal letter from the Assistant DPP John Walker, which refutes his claim that it was all informal and agreed 'on the nod' at a case conference.  Furthermore, one has to suspect that there may be further material pertinent to Julie Mugford's dealings with the DPP and Essex Police that is being withheld under PII rules.

[Erik Narramore]

Julie and Jeremy wanted witnesses present so that they could make it look like a spontaneous call.  Yet she then changes her statement and claims that in fact she answered the phone herself.