Everyone listened/read what JM had to say and agreed-------openly accusing without impunity because in the eyes of the law she was a defenceless woman standing against a " subhuman " JB.
If the police 33 years later wouldn't believe that a woman could kill her family---what chance did JB ever have ?
Lookout, you seem to forget that, at the time it happened, I thought he was innocent. I don't, for a moment think "the law" regarded Julie as "a defenceless woman". Locally, most seemed to be against her. However, the jury believed her. It COULD have gone either way -wasn't it said that they could both have been consummate actors?- they MAY have taken the 'woman scorned' route.