Why did Jeremy tell Julie of his murderous intentions (if gulity)

[Adam]

In her situation, there were lots of disadvantages of Julie approaching the police after a month. If innocent - 

There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.

She would be charged by the police. When caught lying. Bamber was innocent.

Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.

To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?

Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?

There was no financial reward in approaching the police.

It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.

She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims. Bamber was innocent.

Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.

She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.

It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.

She may quickly wilt under pressure.  This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?

It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.

It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.

It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.

An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.

It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.

She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.

It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.

She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?

She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.

She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.

Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.

If an unsuccessful police approach  became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.

--------

These disadvantages really still applied if Bamber was guilty. If Bamber had covered his tracks.

[Rob_]

He rang her on the night and told her!

Was there something like 31 interviews? a lot anyway.

[ILB]

In her situation, there were lots of disadvantages of Julie approaching the police after a month. If innocent - 

There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.

She would be charged by the police. When caught lying. Bamber was innocent.

Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.

To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?

Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?

There was no financial reward in approaching the police.

It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.

She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims. Bamber was innocent.

Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.

She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.

It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.

She may quickly wilt under pressure.  This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?

It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.

It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.

It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.

An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.

It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.

She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.

It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.

She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?

She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.

She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.

Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.

If an unsuccessful police approach  became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.

--------

These disadvantages really still applied if Bamber was guilty. If Bamber had covered his tracks.

But it's argued she wasn't thinking rationally but she can still weigh up her career prospects being ruined.?,

The man has admitted to killing two children in cold blood along with other members of his family.......

[ILB]

Doubt there were any conversations in the police car. The driver had been told to pick her up & take her WHF. Neither aware what had happened.

There would have been the inevitable small talk break the ice scenario. I highly doubt the whole journey would have been mute.

[ILB]

Doubt there were any conversations in the police car. The driver had been told to pick her up & take her WHF. Neither aware what had happened.

that's laughable. Julie would have known what have happened. " I've been on the tractor thinking all day tonights the night"

[guest29835]

"Experience shows that it is not safe to assume that a thing cannot have been done because its commission would be an act of folly."
 

- Viscount Buckmaster, The Tovarisch, 38 Lloyds List Reports, p.142.

[Rob_]

It may not be safe to believe something won't be done because of a act of folly, but having committed the act of folly we are in this case expected to believe that someone with this knowledge will then withhold it in such a serious case?

Juries are instructed they can use their experience in reaching a decision?

[Adam]

that's laughable. Julie would have known what have happened. " I've been on the tractor thinking all day tonights the night"

Do you believe Julie should have started accusing Bamber on the way to WHF?

[Adam]

It may not be safe to believe something won't be done because of a act of folly, but having committed the act of folly we are in this case expected to believe that someone with this knowledge will then withhold it in such a serious case?

Juries are instructed they can use their experience in reaching a decision?

There is no possibility Julie would have gone to the police & created a 24 page WS if Bamber was innocent.

[ILB]

Do you believe July should have started accusing Bamber on the way to WHF?

What did she have to accuse him of exactly? She knew full well he was responsible.Bamber had relayed to her his intentions of what he was going to do.

[guest29835]

It may not be safe to believe something won't be done because of a act of folly, but having committed the act of folly we are in this case expected to believe that someone with this knowledge will then withhold it in such a serious case?

I don't follow what you are saying, sorry.  What knowledge did he withhold from her?

Juries are instructed they can use their experience in reaching a decision?

And jurors know that people do foolish things all the time, often for no apparent reason.

[Rob_]

I don't follow what you are saying, sorry.  What knowledge did he withhold from her?

And jurors know that people do foolish things all the time, often for no apparent reason.

Sorry I meant to say that once JB had implied to Julie what he was planning, and then on the night phoned her to say it was going well (act of folly etc.), Julie with this knowledge withheld it until she eventually came forward which I find hard to accept.

[Adam]

Sorry I meant to say that once JB had implied to Julie what he was planning, and then on the night phoned her to say it was going well (act of folly etc.), Julie with this knowledge withheld it until she eventually came forward which I find hard to accept.

When do you think she should/could have approached the police?

She told 5 people beforehand. So had probably decided to approach the police within around 2 weeks after the massacre.

[ILB]

She should have told the police at the earliest opportunity.

This was five counts of murder. Committed by Bamber. ByJulie's own admission. He had told her of her intentions. He had been going on about it for months. He has said to her its " tonight or never"

She was a 20 year old girl. It would have knocked her for six. Would you even want to be in the vicinity of Bamber?

[ILB]

It would be interesting if there was record noting of Julie's demeanour on the journey to WHF. From the officers who came to collect her. I for one would like to see how she was behaving and her general demeanour. Before seeing Jeremy.

I wonder if she was expressing immense concern for bamber on that journey. Or whether she was completely stoic