Lest We Forget...................

[Steve_uk]

Risk-takers have no fear which in a child who's growing up is scrutinised by a psychologist and put on the list of suspected ADHD or Autism. We all have in-built fears of sorts but those who don't definitely have a problem with the amygdala ( which has been mentioned before ) set on either side of the brain, it dictates our perceptions, or not, of fear. In sociopaths this area is disordered the same as in psychopaths. Psychoanalysts are studying these effects in such fearless people as lack of emotion/empathy plays a huge part in the impaired amygdala.

Impaired meaning an accident/blow on the head or one of birth/ genetic. Wasn't Jeremy damaged on his head ?

Do you have proof that these clever people are/were psychopaths ? Proof that Jeremy was ?

As Jeremy himself once said---" it's for you to find out ", I refer to the psychiatric tests which were done over a period of time to which all came back as NAD, so no psychopathy there then. Not to my knowledge has Jeremy had treatment of any sort for any mental impairment.
These things can't be fully detected without an MRI scan anyway, but in 35 years there hasn't been one report in behaviour change of any kind.

I'm quite sure there's a lot in the shrunken amygdala theory. Of course we don't know with Jeremy Bamber because he has never undergone a brain scan. But there are quite "normal" people out there who will take risks: the teenager speeding on a Saturday night, the bursar housewife who gambles online and embezzles school funds, and the inheritance killer who calculates he will never get caught.

[guest29835]

Adam:

It's canon that she did not go to the police voluntarily.  Just read the statements.  Some, including me, suspect she was arrested and the fact has been concealed under P.I.I.

Also, you can't have this both ways: we keep being told her offences weren't all that serious, but now you say it would have affected her teaching career.  Isn't it more likely that there was an element of coercion in her co-operation with the police, and also in the mix was a realisation on her part that the game was up for Jeremy and her own misdeeds were going to be exposed, possibly even her involvement in murder?  That does not mean Jeremy or Julie were actually culpable in murder, only that she thought that Jeremy was in trouble and she could be dragged into it, due to her close association with him and evidence about those phone calls in the early hours of 7th. August 1985.

As ever, Adam, you only present us with a partial picture of things.  I'm interested in the full picture.  Whether it is good or bad for Jeremy is not my concern.  I want to get at the truth.  I do accept that Julie would not have lied about Jeremy to this extent just because she was a jilted lover, but there's a bit more to it than that.

[Adam]

It's not clear whether Julie was jilted. It seemed to be coming to a natural end prior to the massacre after 18 months.

They were both young & lived a long way from each other. Bamber's 10pm call to her was the first time they had spoken for 3 days.

Bamber whisked Julie over to WHF a few hours after the massacre night & kept a close eye on her for a month. He was not aware of the silencer evidence & after a month was comfortable he was home free & Julie was no threat. 

Julie felt uncomfortable knowing what she knew & had already told 5 people prior to approaching the police. It must have been a relief when they split.

[Steve_uk]

I didn't know that about them.  Obviously I knew it was a serious relationship, that's common ground, but I didn't realise they had progressed to a consideration of the formalities of marriage. 

We're told Jeremy was a psychopath, yet he was able to conduct a serious intimate relationship with a woman who, if you don't mind me making the observation, was a bit on the plain side in the looks department.  That said, I think there was an underlying psychological drive on Jeremy's part in the relationship: Julie was a facsimile of June and represented his attempt to appease his mother, who I am sure wanted him to settle down with a 'nice girl' - as all mothers do.

Haven't we all had that conversation with our mothers (and fathers too)?  "When are you going to find a nice girl, Chevalier, and settle down?"  And haven't we all nagged our own children in the same way, without even realising we're doing it?  Some of us can ignore or distance ourselves from the well-intended parental nagging, but Jeremy couldn't because of the situation he was in: he was tied to his parents economically. 

We may ask: was Julie a long-term calculation on Jeremy's part, or a genuine love?  Maybe the truth is that Jeremy did not understand fully his own motivations.  I think it must have been genuine in Jeremy's mind, but with June dead, the underlying psychological picture shifted radically and Jeremy suddenly knew the relationship was over.  Thus, the family funeral also marked the end of Jeremy and Julie as a serious relationship.  The fooling around in the funeral car perhaps signified this.  Instead of being a marriage prospect, Julie became 'just another girl' again.

Here I must disagree with you Jane.

Justice must be paramount and it must be applied to all cases.  The principles of a fair trial are fundamental because that's how we find out what happened.  If a trial has not been fair, then any conviction that resulted from it must be considered unsafe.  We can't pick and choose who the rules apply to and when, just because we're concerned or repulsed by what an individual is accused of.

If Jeremy made a deal with a newspaper, that doesn't matter to justice.  This was a contested trial and Jeremy can be expected to deny the allegations anyway.  Having a deal in place, which will pay out if indeed he is acquitted, makes no difference to his evidence.  Naturally he wants to be acquitted anyway. 

On the other hand, if Julie made a deal with a newspaper, that is a serious problem because it means her evidence is coloured by the knowledge she will be paid if a case she is influential in goes a certain way.  At the very least, the jury should have been told about this factor.  As it is, Julie misled the trial.  Why did she do this if, as you claim, it doesn't matter?

I should also add that, in English law, a contract can be verbal or oral as well as written, and informal understandings can be contractual in nature; and, even if it isn't contractual, such an arrangement may still be prejudicial to a criminal trial.  If Julie had a verbal understanding with a newspaper, then arguably there was a contract or a 'quasi-contractual' arrangement, but whatever the strict position in law, the bottom line is that she has not told the truth and it is material to her evidence. 

Let us say I am sitting as a juror in a criminal trial, and there is a key prosecution witness whose evidence is entirely uncorroborated - in other words, I am being asked to accept the witness' say-so that such-and-such thing happened, in conflict with the denials of the accused.  Let us say I then discover that this same witness is going to receive a substantial sum of money if a conviction is secured.  I am sorry, but I would disregard the evidence from that witness.  It's not safe evidence.  Allowing it pollutes the trial and renders the trial unfair and any resulting conviction would be unsafe.

I don't know where you got this from but it seems to me they didn't have so much in common, mainly due to the generation gap. June was from landed gentry, Julie was a working-class grammar school girl made good. June worried excessively about morality, and whilst Julie may have possessed her own moral code she allowed herself to be led astray in a way I could never envisage happening to June.

[Adam]

Bamber testified his relationship with Julie had been coming to a close over 6 months.

However he had said enough to her during this time & had to keep her with him directly after the massacre.

The split after a month was a combination of Bamber believing he was home free & Julie wanting to break away anyway, knowing what she knew.

Bamber asking another girl out in front of her may have been a final nudge in her going to the police soon afterwards. Rather than her just walking away quietly.

[guest29835]

I don't know where you got this from but it seems to me they didn't have so much in common, mainly due to the generation gap. June was from landed gentry, Julie was a working-class grammar school girl made good. June worried excessively about morality, and whilst Julie may have possessed her own moral code she allowed herself to be led astray in a way I could never envisage happening to June.

I know they were from different backgrounds, and I didn't say they were the same - though to be fair, that doesn't necessarily mean people won't see eye to eye and we don't really know for sure what the relationship between June and Julie was like.  If the shootings hadn't occurred, Julie would have matured, her subsequent life is testament to that, and it's not hard to imagine her slotting into a life alongside June.  Why not?

But back to my point.  As usual, we kind of misunderstand each other.  I proposed that Julie was a facsimile of June.  In other words, I think Julie was an (imperfect) reproduction of June by Jeremy in an effort to generally placate June.  I'm not saying Jeremy went about it purposefully, just that he may have had this vague notion floating around in his head or it was subconscious.  Julie does look plain and conservatively dressed.  She is a sharp contrast to, say, Anji Greaves, who even when she turned up at court, looked 'sexy'.  I'm generalising, though.  I don't have any greater insight than anybody else here, which is why as a rule I stay away from conversations like this.

[guest29835]

Bamber testified his relationship with Julie had been coming to a close over 6 months.

However he had said enough to her during this time & had to keep her with him directly after the massacre.

The split after a month was a combination of Bamber believing he was home free & Julie wanting to break away anyway, knowing what she knew.

Bamber asking another girl out in front of her may have been a final nudge in her going to the police soon afterwards. Rather than her just walking away quietly.

Thanks Adam.

[Jane]

I know they were from different backgrounds, and I didn't say they were the same - though to be fair, that doesn't necessarily mean people won't see eye to eye and we don't really know for sure what the relationship between June and Julie was like.  If the shootings hadn't occurred, Julie would have matured, her subsequent life is testament to that, and it's not hard to imagine her slotting into a life alongside June.  Why not?

But back to my point.  As usual, we kind of misunderstand each other.  I proposed that Julie was a facsimile of June.  In other words, I think Julie was an (imperfect) reproduction of June by Jeremy in an effort to generally placate June.  I'm not saying Jeremy went about it purposefully, just that he may have had this vague notion floating around in his head or it was subconscious.  Julie does look plain and conservatively dressed.  She is a sharp contrast to, say, Anji Greaves, who even when she turned up at court, looked 'sexy'.  I'm generalising, though.  I don't have any greater insight than anybody else here, which is why as a rule I stay away from conversations like this.

June called Julie /referred to Julie as a harlot. She offered to buy her an apartment, presumably in the hope of keeping her away from Jeremy/to prevent neighbours knowing she was sharing his bed/to pretend to herself that she wasn't?

[guest29835]

June called Julie /referred to Julie as a harlot. She offered to buy her an apartment, presumably in the hope of keeping her away from Jeremy/to prevent neighbours knowing she was sharing his bed/to pretend to herself that she wasn't?

And?  How does that contradict me, Jane (assuming you are taking issue)?  She may have called Julie a harlot.  She may have called her all sorts of things.  But you also say she offered to buy her an apartment.  What are we supposed to conclude from this?

[Adam]

Julie accusing an innocent man of murdering his family is the daftest thing anyone would ever do.

Reply 31 shows there were over 20 massive disadvantages for her.  And no advantages.

Obviously Julie's WS & testimony is correct. This together with the vast amount of forensic evidence & one alive suspect with motives, opportunity & no alib has resulted in the conviction standing for 35 years. Despite Bamber's 24/7 attempts.

[Steve_uk]

I know they were from different backgrounds, and I didn't say they were the same - though to be fair, that doesn't necessarily mean people won't see eye to eye and we don't really know for sure what the relationship between June and Julie was like.  If the shootings hadn't occurred, Julie would have matured, her subsequent life is testament to that, and it's not hard to imagine her slotting into a life alongside June.  Why not?

But back to my point.  As usual, we kind of misunderstand each other.  I proposed that Julie was a facsimile of June.  In other words, I think Julie was an (imperfect) reproduction of June by Jeremy in an effort to generally placate June.  I'm not saying Jeremy went about it purposefully, just that he may have had this vague notion floating around in his head or it was subconscious.  Julie does look plain and conservatively dressed.  She is a sharp contrast to, say, Anji Greaves, who even when she turned up at court, looked 'sexy'.  I'm generalising, though.  I don't have any greater insight than anybody else here, which is why as a rule I stay away from conversations like this.

I suppose it's possible that Jeremy was attracted to Julie in that she was a smart woman whom he could relate to and who listened to him, though he was careful to keep her hidden away from his mother in the early stages (their affair was conducted at her halls of residence) but by the time he resided at Bourtree Cottage the mother and son relationship had irretrievably broken down.

[Steve_uk]

And?  How does that contradict me, Jane (assuming you are taking issue)?  She may have called Julie a harlot.  She may have called her all sorts of things.  But you also say she offered to buy her an apartment.  What are we supposed to conclude from this?

That the Bamber reputation in the village was paramount in June's life.

[guest29835]

Julie accusing an innocent man of murdering his family is the daftest thing anyone would ever do.

I agree, but that doesn't mean she didn't.

Also, Adam, have you considered the possibility that she accused Jeremy because she thought he was guilty?  It doesn't follow that Jeremy is guilty.

I think life experience affects how people look at something like this.  I admit I have quite  a lot in common with Jeremy in terms of personality, which is one reason why I harbour some doubt because I can see that there are possible innocent explanations for much of what Julie says.

For instance, if I recall correctly, I think she says Jeremy mooted at one point the idea of burning the house down with the family in it, but that could easily have been Jeremy's idea of a joke, or a flippancy, or a way of teasing Julie. 

I have no problem believing that, in the generality, Jeremy didn't like his parents, but one way of expressing this dislike could have been through dry humour and ad hoc flippant eruptions.  It's actually quite a common personality quirk among English men, and was especially at that time when maybe people were more relaxed in each other's private company and we didn't have the same intrusion of political correctness into society.  Dark humour was a sine qua non of manhood, mainly because it made women laugh, and if you can make women laugh, you know where that leads. 

Julie could have twisted all of this round into something it wasn't, or she may even have taken the view that Jeremy's 'jokes' had a serious undercurrent to them and revealed some sort of emergent criminal intent.  In other words, as often happens, she put 2 and 2 together and came up with 5.

[Adam]

Julie told 5 people what she knew prior to approaching the police - Liz Rimmington, Andy Bishop, Karen Bishop, Malcolm Walters and Susan Battersby.

These people encouraged her to go to the police. Which she did do. She obviously wanted some moral support prior to her approach.

[Jane]

And?  How does that contradict me, Jane (assuming you are taking issue)?  She may have called Julie a harlot.  She may have called her all sorts of things.  But you also say she offered to buy her an apartment.  What are we supposed to conclude from this?

And nothing, QC. I'm simply providing information! I believe it to be documented. Make of it what you will. What I make of it, rightly or wrongly, is that Julie didn't appear to be June's favourite person.