An Alternative Theory Regarding Julie Mugford

[Erik Narramore]

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.

(xiii). Jeremy is put on a whole life order, despite not being a predatory killer or terrorist.  Admittedly, he is a mass murderer and double child killer, but there are comparable (even worse) offenders who are not subject to a whole life order.

[Erik Narramore]

In the context of a criminal trial, there are four major ways to lie, which I understand can form a basis for perjury:

1. Fabrication.
2. Misconstruction
3. Exaggeration.
4. Omission.

In putting Bamber's defence to Julie Mugford's evidence, Geoffrey Rivlin went for 1 and, if I understand correctly, did not emphasise any of the others.

That, at least to me, doesn't seem very smart, yet Rivlin was an experienced criminal barrister, with good experience as a prosecutor.  He would know what to do, which suggests that he was acting on Bamber's instructions: Bamber told him that Julie was simply making it all up.

Did Rivlin wonder to himself about that?

Perhaps Julie really was making it all up, but was it a 'smart' defence strategy to allege that?  Was it realistic?  In the heat of a trial, without the benefit that we have of time to read through statements and think and reflect on things, would a jury really conclude that Julie was just lying full stop?

Personally, I think not.  I think it more likely that a jury would conclude that Julie was misconstruing and exaggerating incidents and conversations that had actually taken place.  It follows that they would conclude that Jeremy was either a bit nutty or guilty, or both.  (I tentatively fall into the 'both' camp on Jeremy).

The question I ask is: Was there some sort of intelligent planning behind this?  Did Julie and Jeremy decide to put forward a fantastical story via Julie, and it all got out of hand?

[Erik Narramore]

When I suggest that Julie could have been an accomplice, I don't mean that she was there. 

[Erik Narramore]

Moving on, it seems to me that the Crown's case is that Julie Mugford was some sort of pseudo-accessory, before and after the fact.  It's difficult to pin it down in legalistic terms, and I note from the cross-examination of Julie that Rivlin cornered her right near the end in a muddled explanation for her thought processes and actions.

It leaves me confused and suspicious.  I'm sure the jury must have been perplexed.

The idea that she was an accomplice praesens, i.e. an abettor, can be reasonably discounted, but can we dismiss the idea of her as a constructive accomplice?

We have the 3 a.m. phone call.  We have her assisting Jeremy with the break-in at Osea Caravan Park, as it then was.  We have her admissions, on her own revised evidence, that she knew he had murder in mind and she also surmised he was the murderer after the fact; furthermore, she says he admitted it and she claims he made a confession to her in the form of relating a conversation with Matthew MacDonald, the supposed hitman.  The hitman story looks ridiculous and I can't help but wonder it is was just squid ink.  The Crown would say it was squid ink from Jeremy, but shouldn't Julie have realised it was an unrealistic account she was giving?

Then we have DS Jones suspicious of Jeremy from the off and Essex Police immediately convey Julie to the county, even though she has no locus standi in the matter.

I sense that in the police and DPP's treatment of Julie, they have taken the instrumental approach of over-sympathising with her and over-compensating for her actions as a way of cornering Jeremy.  As a result, possibly the trial itself was a whitewash of the truth.  This dichotomy was necessary for the Crown in order to have a hope of securing a conviction, due to the lack of direct forensic evidence and the weakness of the silencer as evidence.  The Manichean narrative also became necessary for Jeremy's defence, as it was decided he could not make any concessions to Julie's story.

Another possibility is that Julie and Jeremy were not accomplices, but Julie's story of the hitman was squid ink in an effort to save Jeremy.  She knew that if Jeremy was acquitted, she would not be prosecuted for perjury and she never believed Matthew MacDonald would be a threat to her.

[Erik Narramore]

Anyway, the more I consider it, the more I think the theory I outline above has facts and evidence to commend it.  You could accept one of the two variations: either 'Jerry' and Julie in cahoots, with Julie as a constructive accomplice of some sort; or, Jeremy as the killer and Julie covering her own back while also cleverly spouting a load of rubbish in an effort to save Jeremy.

Which is not to say any of this is what I think.  It's all moot.  Personally, I feel sorry for everybody caught up in this - including Jeremy.  I would not support the extradition of Julie Smerchanski back to Britain, even if cause was found for it.  But the questions still remain - at least, for me, it all doesn't add up.

Did the DPP and Essex Police enter into a Faustian pact with Julie Mugford of a kind that they would prefer to keep hidden under the spurious auspices of PII?  True or not, it is not far-fetched.  I do think the Manichean structure of Julie Mugford's evidence and the defence case strategy in hindsight seem quite naive.  Was she really fabricating everything?  Even if she was, could we realistically expect a jury in the heat of a trial, without the benefit of much opportunity to reflect, to go along with that?  More likely, I think, the jury came to the conclusion that both 'Jerry' and Julie were off their rockers, and maybe Jeremy did it, and if so, maybe Julie was caught up in it and they, the jury, were having the wool pulled over their eyes by both the Crown and the defence in what was, in effect, a sham trial.

[Erik Narramore]

Susan Battersby's conversation with Julie Mugford in Pizza Hut does not disprove this theory.

If anything, it could be regarded as reinforcement of the theory, if you stop and think about it.  Not that I'm saying the theory does have legs.  It's just an idea, really.  Perhaps it doesn't even rise to being a theory.  It comes out of trying to make sense of her actions.  It's all baffling to me.

One factor in this is that Julie would not be able to maintain the front.  She would eventually turn against Jeremy and the plan unravelled.  Alternatively, it could be that there is no 'plan' and they're not accomplices, it's more of a muddle in which Julie covers herself and also tries to save Jeremy with an overblown story that she starts circulating around, knowing that the net is drawing in on Jeremy, but then that goes wrong.

Can I point that, if we're going to start relying on Susan Battersby, then we'll also have to conclude that Julie may have been telling lies about her cannabis use.  See page 4 of the Battersby statement linked above.  She says Julie didn't approve of Jeremy's cannabis habit, but she also saw them using cannabis together.  It's at least inconsistent with what Julie has claimed.

[Erik Narramore]

Julie Mugford also identified the bodies in the mortuary.

I find it very strange.  If she knew he had done it, why would she do that?  And why would she continue to consort with him after?  It doesn't add up, does it.  Why was she silent about Jeremy's culpability with Essex Police when they were conveying her to Goldhanger?

We must believe that she spills the beans to her female friend in a Pizza Hut.  This is a quintuple murder, not a bit of idle gossip.

If she was worried about being implicated with Jeremy, does that mean she was implicated?  Or does it mean Jeremy had some sort of Svengali sway over her?  If he had a sway over her, does this explain why Essex Police had her holed up at their HQ rather in the manner of a cult victim under 'decompression'.

Her at the mortuary is also strange for a mundane reason, in that she had no formal link to the family.  There were plenty of family members who could have done it, and there was no need to separately identify the twins.  It's also strange in that she explained it at trial in reference to the paranormal, saying that she could communicate with dead people.  What did the victims tell her?  Did they say Jeremy did it?  I don't believe in that sort of thing at all, but I wonder whether Julie gives an account of this, since she claims to believe in it.

To be brutally honest, I think the jury were entitled to conclude the two of them were a couple of loonies.

Maybe the thing of greatest significance is that Ann Eaton was there as well.  What did Ann tell her about the investigation?  Is that the real reason she went?  Or is it the reverse: is it the reason Ann went along with Julie?  It is strange that Ann goes but then decides not to identify the bodies (assuming I have the story right).