Police only option to get Julie to commit massive perjury:

[Adam]

Their only option would be to threaten to charge Julie of 'perverting the course of justice'.

This would be reliant that Bamber confessed & then said he had discussed the massacre with Julie. Both beforehand & afterwards.

Bamber has never confessed. 

If Bamber did confess, he may leave Julie out of his confession. If she had kept quiet for him.

[Adam]

Bamber not confessing but then getting convicted in court, would not have been enough to charge Julie. Providing she still denied any knowledge.

Bamber pleading innocence at trial & afterwards cannot say he discussed the massacre with Julie.

[Adam]

At best,  the police could say to Julie they are building a case against Bamber.

If he confesses & says he discussed the massacre with you, you could be charged with 'perverting the course of Justice'. If proven.

Doubtful that would be enough to scare Julie to compile such a comprehensive false WS & commit such serious perjury. Better to keep quiet. Espescially if Bamber really had not discussed it with her.



 

[Adam]

At best,  the police could say they are building a case against Bamber.

If he confesses & says he discussed the massacre with you, you could be charged with 'perverting the course of Justice'. If proven.

Doubtful that would be enough to compile such a comprehensive false WS & commit such serious perjury. Better to keep quiet. Espescially if Bamber really had not discussed it with her.

Of course, the police saying this to Julie, would just motivate her to tell the truth - her WS.

[Adam]

To charge Julie with 'perverting the course of justice' -

Bamber would have to confess.

Bamber would have to say he discussed the massacre with Julie. After the 6th August 1985.

Julie would have to confirm Bamber was telling the truth.

----------

Julie could deny any discussions took place. As it is her word against Bamber's, it is doubtful the police would get a successful prosecution.

The police also may not pursue Julie very rigorously. Their main objective was getting the right person for a 5x murder.

[Adam]

To charge Julie with 'perverting the course of justice' -

Bamber would have to confess.

Bamber would have to say he discussed the massacre with Julie. After the 6th August 1985.

----------

Julie could deny any discussions took place. As it is her word against Bamber's, it is doubtful the police would get a successful prosecution.

The police also may not pursue Julie. Their main objective was getting the right person for a 5x murder.

This relates to a scenario where Julie had kept silent in 1985.

Bamber confessing now would not result in any charges against Julie.

[Adam]

NGB what punishment would Julie have received in 1985 if the following had happened -

Bamber confesses.

Bamber says he discussed the massacre with Julie. After the 6th August 1985.

Julie confirms Bamber was telling the truth.

----------

This is the only thing the police could threaten Julie with, if trying to get a false WS & Julie to commit serious perjury.

[ngb1066]

NGB what punishment would Julie have received in 1985 if the following had happened -

Bamber confesses.

Bamber says he discussed the massacre with Julie. After the 6th August 1985.

Julie confirms Bamber was telling the truth.

----------

This is the only thing the police could threaten Julie with, if trying to get a false WS & Julie to commit serious perjury.

If JM's knowledge was only after the event and she did nothing to assist, e.g. by giving a false account to police of conversations with JB, she would probably have faced no sanction.  However on any view that is not the case.  If JM is to be believed (which I emphasise I do not believe) she had advance knowledge and assisted JB after the event by giving an incomplete/false account to the police.  It is my belief (based upon some clear pointers) that JM was leaned upon very heavily by the police after she was taken into custody (which she undoubtedly was) and that is why a large amount of material relating to interviews with her are still withheld under PII.

[Adam]

If JM's knowledge was only after the event and she did nothing to assist, e.g. by giving a false account to police of conversations with JB, she would probably have faced no sanction.  However on any view that is not the case.  If JM is to be believed (which I emphasise I do not believe) she had advance knowledge and assisted JB after the event by giving an incomplete/false account to the police.  It is my belief (based upon some clear pointers) that JM was leaned upon very heavily by the police after she was taken into custody (which she undoubtedly was) and that is why a large amount of material relating to interviews with her are still withheld under PII.

If Bamber confessed in 1985 & Julie did not dispute him saying he had discussed his involvement with her, what would her punishment have been?

It would be for 'perverting the course of justice' by withholding information after the 6th August.

[Adam]

Maxine Carr got 21 months in prison.

I believe she assisted Huntley in disposing the bodies and removing evidence. As well as refusing to admit to any involvement for a long time even after the police started questioning her.

[ngb1066]

If Bamber confessed in 1985 & Julie did not dispute him saying he had discussed his involvement with her, what would her punishment have been?

It would be for 'perverting the course of justice' by withholding information after the 6th August.

If convicted of perverting the course of justice a prison sentence would have been inevitable. 

[Adam]

Carr also gave Huntley a false alibi. Saying they were together when Holly & Jessica vanished.

[David1819]

If JM's knowledge was only after the event and she did nothing to assist, e.g. by giving a false account to police of conversations with JB, she would probably have faced no sanction.  However on any view that is not the case.  If JM is to be believed (which I emphasise I do not believe) she had advance knowledge and assisted JB after the event by giving an incomplete/false account to the police.  It is my belief (based upon some clear pointers) that JM was leaned upon very heavily by the police after she was taken into custody (which she undoubtedly was) and that is why a large amount of material relating to interviews with her are still withheld under PII.

Was she actually arrested instead of "coming forward"?

[ngb1066]

Was she actually arrested instead of "coming forward"?

After her friend contacted police to say she had been withholding information and Stan Jones collected her and took her back to the police station she was at some point (I do not no exactly when but it was at the police station) arrested and held in custody.  She was interviewed at length under caution and the notes of these interviews have never been released.   

[Adam]

Julie told 5 people before approaching the police. Her & Liz Rimmington deciding to ring Stan Jones.

It is likely Julie started singing like a canary straight away. If not the police could use friendly persuasion.

They had the persuasion option that she could be charged with 'perverting the course of justice'. If Bamber confessed & had compelling evidence he had confided in her. Doubtful the police did that as that eventuality was so far down the line.