Julie As Jeremy's Accomplice

[Erik Narramore]

Julie could have been either what is called a 'constructive accomplice' or she could have been an accessory after the fact.  I have also thought of a third explanation, which I've mentioned on here before, and which I will call 'accessory after fiction'.

1. Constructive accomplice.

This is not an accomplice praesens.  Instead, the accomplice is 'constructively present'.  I gave an explanation of this in another thread and I will quote the relevant post here.

The theory is that once Jeremy splits up with Julie, she then realises all the upsides are with her going to the police, whereas if she says nothing, Jeremy could implicate her at any time.  Therefore, she turns on Jeremy knowing that if he confesses after she has pointed the finger at him, he goes down but she isn't necessarily implicated as she can say Jeremy is lying:

This is moot, and I don't even necessarily say I believe it, but I have an alternative theory regarding Julie Mugford.

In his closing speech for the accused, Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C., told the jury that they had to decide if Jeremy Bamber was an actor or Julie Mugford was an actress.

But why shouldn't it be both?

Why not Jeremy the actor and Julie the actress, operating in concert?

It can be explained this way:

1. Jeremy did it.
2. Julie was his accomplice to some extent.
3. Jeremy and Julie were in cahoots.
4. Jeremy and Julie recognised that the arrest of one or both of them was inevitable.
5. Julie gleaned this from her contact with the relatives, who tried to turn her against Jeremy.
6. Jeremy and Julie decided on a cunning scheme: Julie would be seen to co-operate with the police.
7. Her story would be deliberately exaggerated/over-blown and would involve a hitman.
8. The aim would be to discredit Julie's evidence, thereby nullifying any suspicion of Jeremy.
9. It got out of hand.  Julie realised she had to turn on Jeremy to save herself.
10. Jeremy is convicted.  The Crown use PII to protect Julie from exposure.
11. Julie relies on the comfort letter from the Assistant DPP, resting on estoppel, and whatever other assurances and comforts the authorities have provided to her in secret.
12. Jeremy could not - and cannot - expose her for obvious reasons.

Facts that potentially lend weight to this:

(i). The 9.50 p.m. phone call.

(ii).  Julie mentions the 9.50 p.m. phone call in her very first witness statement but Jeremy doesn't.  Initially, there is nothing suspicious about this, but then Jeremy is cagey about it and his account of it doesn't tally with Julie's, yet you would expect it to prior to her going to the police.

(iii). The 3 a.m. phone call.  I don't believe it can be explained.  It's even possible that the phone call never took place.

(iv). Jeremy's second call to Julie at 5.40 a.m.

(v). The decision of Essex Police to convey Julie from London to Goldhanger.

(vi). June's bicycle, lent to Julie.

(vii). Julie's lengthy and rather unusual sojourn at police headquarters, and her 31 statements, or whatever number it was.

(viii). The hitman allegation, which in retrospect is fantastical and laughable, and easily discredited.

(ix). The failure of the DPP to disclose to the defence the nature of Julie's arrangements with the Crown and all her evidence.

(x). The defence strategy at trial, which on reflection seems a bit Manichean.  Even if Julie was lying barefacedly, realistically I would expect the defence to accept some of Julie's story and argue that she was merely exaggerating and/or had misconstrued things; instead he denied it altogether and (in the words of Drake J.) painted Julie as a "brazen liar".

(xi). The continuing failure to disclose the matters in (ix) above, I assume some of it under the auspices Public Interest Immunity.  This is despite there being no hitman or organised crime element involved, despite Julie having had no serious or organised criminal associations, and despite the fact the prisoner is on a whole life tariff as a double child murderer with no active criminal associations.

(xii). Julie moves abroad.

2. Accessory after the fact.

This is close to the official explanation. In this scenario, Julie realises Jeremy is guilty and confronts him.  She agrees to help shield him from the law, or implies agreement to this through her actions, and viewing the bodies may have been part of this.  However, at some point she breaks down and has to go to the police.

3. Accessory after fiction.

This is a variation on 2 above, except that Jeremy is innocent but for whatever reason, Julie mistakenly concludes that Jeremy is guilty and her evidence traps him in much the way I mention above in that the defence strategy then has to be to completely refute everything Julie says and brand her a liar, even thought she may in fact be telling the truth yet Jeremy is innocence - a difficult paradox to wrap your head round.

It could be that Jeremy invented the story about the hitman just to show off or sexually arouse her or whatever, but he then has to deny ever telling her all that because otherwise it looks like he is guilty.

[Erik Narramore]

A fourth possibility outlined by the user known as 'Roch' on the Blue Forum:

4. Got at.  The weak link.  Lied to.

In this scenario, Julie is advised either directly or indirectly, that no phone call was made by Nevill to Jeremy (i.e. as if this was a fact, as opposed to being something unprovable either way).  Any prosecution witness hearing this, would instantly question Jeremy's innocence - as on the face of it, why would police lie about such a thing?  Julie is made to understand a harsh reality - that there are those who believe in guilt by association and that her own position is looking increasingly precarious. There is however another option.  Julie could be helped; could be saved.  However in order to find this assistance, she would need to grab the opportunity with both hands.  She needed to try and envisage her own future - a future that could only be preserved by her taking some pretty serious and unpleasant action now.  But not to worry too much - the police would be on hand to guide and support.  With relatives snarling on one side and police playing good cop / bad cop on the other, Julie could see that Jeremy was going to take a fall.. and it needed to be on his own.

I see this as a variation of 3 above.

I think in all scenarios, including the official one, the police have assisted Julie and covered up certain things - pretty much I take that as a given.  We already know the jury were misled about her criminal record.

In your scenario, Jeremy could be innocent or guilty, it doesn't necessarily matter which.  Julie just templates certain random incriminating incidents on to a narrative the police provide to her.

As you say, Julie could have been prompted to do this by something the police told her or it could be something Jeremy told her.  Maybe Jeremy was fooling around with her and made up a story about a hitman because he found it entertaining or whatever?

In any of these scenarios, the crucial point is that once Julie co-operates with the police, Jeremy is then boxed-in and his legal team have no choice but to run a defence that involves refutation of everything Julie says - hence Rivlin Q.C.'s line to the jury about them having to decide which is the actor, Jeremy or Julie.

Wouldn't a jury of ordinary people, who bear in mind were under time pressures and didn't have the benefit that we have of examining this case at leisure, just assume that Julie couldn't have been lying about everything?  They would then consider the fact that Jeremy was refuting everything, rather than more realistically admitting much of it but pointing to it being out of context or exaggerated, etc., and perhaps reach the conclusion that, on balance, it is more probable that Jeremy is lying.  That doesn't mean Julie's evidence swayed them.  They may have decided that they couldn't reach a verdict on that basis and had to look at other evidence instead.