Brief summary of the split between Bamber & Julie:

[Adam]

The relationship before the massacre had been in decline for 6 months. Source, Bamber.

Bamber rings Julie 3 times on the massacre night/morning. Telling her to 'not go to work'. He wants her with him.

Bamber tells her he was involved

Bamber is very pro active & arranges several jolly ups. Julie always near him.

Julie & Bamber drift apart -

Bamber feels he is 'watertight' & does not need Julie.

Julie wants to break away after knowing Bamber was involved. She tells 5 people. Bamber not aware.

Still on speaking terms, Bamber helps Julie move. He asks another girl out in front of her.

Julie approaches the police.

All of this took around 1 month.

[Adam]

If Bamber was aware Julie was telling other people, he would have made another effort with her.

He certainly would not ask another girl out in front of her!

[Rob_]

If Bamber was aware Julie was telling other people, he would have made another effort with her.

He certainly would not ask another girl out in front of her!

I agree Adam the only explanation is he planned all along to get caught, if not then someone is lying.

[guest29835]

The relationship before the massacre had been in decline for 6 months. Source, Bamber.

I think it was Michael Deckers who also lent credence to this, saying that he was surprised Julie and Jeremy stayed together after the autumn of 1984.  Thus it's strange that Jeremy shared his deepest, darkest secret with her: that he had killed his entire family, including two six year-old boys.  Then again, I suppose he would have had to be unhinged to commit such a crime, therefore maybe he did tell her, despite their relationship being in decline.

Bamber rings Julie 3 times on the massacre night/morning. Telling her to 'not go to work'. He wants her with him.

I believe he rang her twice that morning and once the night before.

Bamber tells her he was involved

Yes.  Julie knew at the outset.

Bamber is very pro active & arranges several jolly ups. Julie always near him.

So your explanation for Jeremy's post-incident behaviour is that he is trying to keep Julie onboard?  In effect bribing her? How do you therefore reason Jeremy's confession to Julie at Bourtree Cottage in the aftermath?  Is it that Jeremy has been rash?  Yet you say he planned this meticulously, and you admit that the relationship was in decline, as stated by Jeremy you say (and I agree, corroborated by Michael Deckers).

Julie & Bamber drift apart -

Oh dear.  That's a bit of a bugger for Jeremy isn't it, when you consider that he has confessed a crime to Julie that could see him locked up for rather a long stretch, maybe for life. 

Bamber feels he is 'watertight' & does not need Julie.

If Jeremy did it, then that can be the only explanation.  It may also explain why he let family members in the house where the silencer still was.  He was clearly unhinged anyway.

Julie wants to break away after knowing Bamber was involved. She tells 5 people. Bamber not aware.

She wants to break away?  It's made to sound like Jeremy has done something comparatively mild, like fiddle his tax returns.  This is mass murder.  Don't you think she should have been speaking to the police quite quickly?  Was she too busy on these jolly-ups you mention?

Still on speaking terms, Bamber helps Julie move. He asks another girl out in front of her.

Still on speaking terms?  Still, it's nice of Evil Mass Murdering Child Killer Jeremy to help her move house.  You don't normally get that sort of assistance from those types. 

Julie approaches the police.

Finally!  Thanks Julie.  Phew!  That was a close one.  But strictly speaking, it's not clear that she did approach the police.  There is some controversy about that.  I've been told that it was someone else who rang the police and the police then spoke to Julie.

All of this took around 1 month.

Well, better late than never, I say.  I'm just glad she fitted it into her busy schedule, in between jolly-ups.

[guest29835]

Julie was an education student at Goldsmiths, University of London - i.e. she was studying for an undergraduate degree in education, with a view to a professional career as a primary school teacher.  As a prospective primary school teacher, Julie would be put in situations where she would interact with young children and be given experience of observing classroom teaching; and, the career she was committing herself to would eventually give her charge and influence over young children.

Before we even go into the incident itself, why would such a person stay in a serious relationship with somebody who had twice plotted to kill his parents and who talked on repeated occasions of wanting to murder his parents?  How does this square with her career choice?  One day she is discussing murder with the lunatic in Essex, the next she is doing finger-painting with little kids in class.

Julie says that she was prescribed sleeping tablets in October 1984, and that:

- she brought the tablets with her on a visit to Bourtree Cottage, where she was to stay;
- she showed the tablets to Jeremy;
- she left the tablets at the cottage (not explaining why she did this);
- Jeremy then rang her, and told her he was going to test the tablets on himself to see if they could viably be used as tranquilisers as part of a murder plot.

Jeremy is clearly a lunatic.  Julie ignores this because she is "besotted" with Jeremy and anyway she thinks it is all a "charade".  Then she claims that a week before the murders, loony Jeremy was strangling rats, again because he had murder in mind.  Like you do.

Julie in her statements relates how Jeremy discussed his murder plots with her with every indication that he was planning things carefully.  For instance, he'd decided not to burn the farmhouse down with the family in it because the home insurance was low and there were one or two high-value pieces among all the bric-a-brac.  How he came to this conclusion is not clear, but what is clear is that he was giving the whole enterprise some considerable thought.  Indeed, Julie says Jeremy had told her that killing his family required very careful planning indeed.  I'm sure it did. 

At no point has it occurred to Julie that she should alert somebody in authority or mention to a friend that she is consorting with a potential murderer.  She did not tell her mother, or anybody.  She just dismisses it all as a "charade" on Jeremy's part, but that's not the point.  Even if it were a charade, we are left with the question of why somebody like Julie would have anything to do with somebody like Jeremy.

Then on the morning of 7th. August at Bourtree Cottage, Jeremy confesses that he is the killer.  Julie continues to treat this as a charade of some sort, not quite believing the grotesque hyper-reality she has been thrust into.

[Steve_uk]

Julie was an education student at Goldsmiths, University of London - i.e. she was studying for an undergraduate degree in education, with a view to a professional career as a primary school teacher.  As a prospective primary school teacher, Julie would be put in situations where she would interact with young children and be given experience of observing classroom teaching; and, the career she was committing herself to would eventually give her charge and influence over young children.

Before we even go into the incident itself, why would such a person stay in a serious relationship with somebody who had twice plotted to kill his parents and who talked on repeated occasions of wanting to murder his parents?  How does this square with her career choice?  One day she is discussing murder with the lunatic in Essex, the next she is doing finger-painting with little kids in class.

Julie says that she was prescribed sleeping tablets in October 1984, and that:

- she brought the tablets with her on a visit to Bourtree Cottage, where she was to stay;
- she showed the tablets to Jeremy;
- she left the tablets at the cottage (not explaining why she did this);
- Jeremy then rang her, and told her he was going to test the tablets on himself to see if they could viably be used as tranquilisers as part of a murder plot.

Jeremy is clearly a lunatic.  Julie ignores this because she is "besotted" with Jeremy and anyway she thinks it is all a "charade".  Then she claims that a week before the murders, loony Jeremy was strangling rats, again because he had murder in mind.  Like you do.

Julie in her statements relates how Jeremy discussed his murder plots with her with every indication that he was planning things carefully.  For instance, he'd decided not to burn the farmhouse down with the family in it because the home insurance was low and there were one or two high-value pieces among all the bric-a-brac.  How he came to this conclusion is not clear, but what is clear is that he was given the whole enterprise some considerable thought.  Indeed, Julie says Jeremy had told her that killing his family required very careful planning indeed.  I'm sure it did. 

At no point has it occurred to Julie that she should alert somebody in authority or mention to a friend that she is consorting with a potential murderer.  She did not tell her mother, or anybody.  She just dismisses it all as a "charade" on Jeremy's part, but that's not the point.  Even if it were a charade, we are left with the question of why somebody like Julie would have anything to do with somebody like Jeremy.

Then on the morning of 7th. August at Bourtree Cottage, Jeremy confesses that he is the killer.  Julie continues to treat this as a charade of some sort, not quite believing the grotesque hyper-reality she has been thrust into.

We've all been told the story of the boy who cried wolf. He's described by the former Headmaster of Gresham's as "a prickly boy..a relentless tease" and in the Dickinson report as "not a popular boy at school..untrustworthy, not straightforward, unstable and a boaster." (Paragraph 29)

I'm glad you understand Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud and were familiar with these individuals at 19 years old. You yourself fell foul of the law and were given a second chance. What a pity that you have not afforded this second chance to others.

[Adam]

Seems like a natural process of splitting up. Passionate supporters say Julie  should have told the police as soon as she arrived at WHF. Which is crazy.

Julie did not have to approach the police due to her minor cheque book fraud or Bambers caravan break in. The police were not aware of either.

Bamber can only say Julie committed massive perjury because 'he jilted her'. Which is what he has said. The trouble is......he didn't jilt her!

[Adam]

The relationship before the massacre had been in decline for 6 months. Source, Bamber.

Bamber rings Julie 3 times on the massacre night/morning. Telling her to 'not go to work'. He wants her with him.

Bamber tells her he was involved

Bamber is very pro active & arranges several jolly ups. Julie always near him.

Julie & Bamber drift apart -

Bamber feels he is 'watertight' & does not need Julie.

Julie wants to break away after knowing Bamber was involved. She tells 5 people. Bamber not aware.

Still on speaking terms, Bamber helps Julie move. He asks another girl out in front of her.

Julie approaches the police.

All of this took around 1 month.

All of this is fact & backed up by sources. It happened this way.

Julie when interviewed said Bamber told her she would not be believed. He must have believed he was free to go off with Brett.

[Adam]

Bamber asking another woman out in front of Julie was not the  reason she approached the police. Although it might have speedied up the process by a few days.

Julie could perhaps tell one person & get away with not going to the police. But not 5.

[Adam]

Although the relationship had been in decline for 6 months, Bamber still had to bring her straight on board after the massacre.

Why? Because of what he had told her over the previous 18 months.

An eventful month later with lots of jolly ups for Bamber & he now felt safe. Julie wanted out anyway.

[guest29835]

We've all been told the story of the boy who cried wolf. He's described by the former Headmaster of Gresham's as "a prickly boy..a relentless tease" and in the Dickinson report as "not a popular boy at school..untrustworthy, not straightforward, unstable and a boaster." (Paragraph 29)

I'm glad you understand Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud and were familiar with these individuals at 19 years old. You yourself fell foul of the law and were given a second chance. What a pity that you have not afforded this second chance to others.

Again, you must refrain from attacking me personally.  If other posters attack you, that is a matter between you and them and you can report it to the moderator.  You can't transfer the blame on to me.  I appreciate that my own personal experiences may come into my commentary on this case, but you are raising it to goad me.

Turning to the point you make, nowhere in what I say do I deny Julie Mugford a second chance.  I don't understand what you are getting at in that respect.

Jeremy had a teasing nature, which I have mentioned myself before, so you are not telling me anything about him I don't already know.  But plotting in detail to murder your family and weighing up the different methods by which this could be done is a little bit different.  He even discussed the insurance implications with her.  I am sorry, but I don't buy your excuses for Julie.

The excuse Julie herself gave police for not reporting the earlier abortive murder plots was that she was "besotted" with him and that it was a "charade".  Both terms imply seriousness.  She would not use those terms if she just thought Jeremy was being teasing or boastful or jokey, and that is not the underlying theme of her evidence.  She does mention that Jeremy did joke about the subject tangentially.  For instance, he would say that it would be a shame to burn down such a beautiful old house, but that was part of a more serious intent to kill his family.  Perhaps the intent was not fully formed, but it was there.

I believe your excuses for Julie fall down flat.  On the one hand you want to be able to say that Jeremy was telling everybody how he hated his family and sharing with Julie his plots to kill, these being a precursor for the main act.  On the other hand, you want to reassure us that Julie didn't take the prior plots seriously because she thought he was joking or teasing or boasting or fooling around.  Julie must have been a poor judge of character and rather purblind to Jeremy.  What a pity she didn't take him more seriously.

If Jeremy is guilty, I think it's more likely that Julie was involved in some way and when, on or around the 12th. September 1985, she realised the family were on to Jeremy and the game was up, she turned.   What we know of developments from there can be explained in that context.  Jeremy and Julie became trapped in a 'prisoner's dilemma' and Julie got her version of events in first, anticipating that if Jeremy confessed and implicated her, she could plausibly deny it.  I also think that Essex Police realised all this, hence the non-disclosure, and they decided that her evidence would be of value in prosecuting Jeremy but could be of less value if she was prosecuted alongside him or in collateral proceedings.  The reason for the stupid stories about rats and sleeping tablets is because she needed to make something up to conceal what had actually occurred between them.

[guest29835]

Seems like a natural process of splitting up. Passionate supporters say Julie  should have told the police as soon as she arrived at WHF. Which is crazy.

Julie did not have to approach the police due to her minor cheque book fraud or Bambers caravan break in. The police were not aware of either.

Bamber can only say Julie committed massive perjury because 'he jilted her'. Which is what he has said. The trouble is......he didn't jilt her!

I don't dispute that they may have been gradually splitting-up anyway, but why does Jeremy tell her all about what he is doing if they are growing apart?

It was minor cheque book fraud, that is true, but despite this, she and Susan Battersby saw fit to then blame it all on Jeremy.  There is a theme running right up to her 2002 statement of Julie not taking responsibility for her own actions.  I accept what you say about her owning up to the cheque book fraud and the caravan park break-in, but she blamed all this on Jeremy, and if she was involved in the murder plot with Jeremy in some way, she may have been concerned to give her account of things more credibility by admitting past crimes, knowing that it could come out anyway if Jeremy confessed.

Bamber asking another woman out in front of Julie was not the  reason she approached the police. Although it might have speedied up the process by a few days.

Julie could perhaps tell one person & get away with not going to the police. But not 5.

That's a contradiction.  If it speeded up her co-operation with the police, then it is the reason she approached the police.

Although the relationship had been in decline for 6 months, Bamber still had to bring her straight on board after the massacre.

Why? Because of what he had told her over the previous 18 months.

An eventful month later with lots of jolly ups for Bamber & he now felt safe. Julie wanted out anyway.

It all seems curious. 

If their relationship is in decline, then why does Jeremy tell her anything?

Let's consider this:

Adam and Steve have no explanation.  They say it is because Jeremy wanted to.

There is, however, a rational explanation, which is that although the romantic side of the relationship was in decline, Jeremy might tell her he was plotting to kill his family and ask for her assistance, or inveigle her into his plot - as he did with the drugs - and this might have kept the relationship going. 

You could further interpret this one of two ways, either as:

(i). Jeremy and Julie as partners in crime. Julie might even have researched a murder plot for him and helped him plan what occurred that night.  Who was the junior partner of the two?  We chivalrously assume Jeremy was the dominant factor, but that assumption may be awry.  I see no reason why Julie could not have been the one who manipulated Jeremy.

(ii). Jeremy uses Julie as cover, manipulates her emotionally and exploits her immaturity.  This fits the dogma of the guilt camp better.  The 'Babe in the Wood' theory.  Essex Police then proceed to conceal Julie's culpability and help her construct a plausible cover story based on what she has already told her friends.

[Jane]

Again, you must refrain from attacking me personally.  If other posters attack you, that is a matter between you and them and you can report it to the moderator.  You can't transfer the blame on to me.  I appreciate that my own personal experiences may come into my commentary on this case, but you are raising it to goad me.

Turning to the point you make, nowhere in what I say do I deny Julie Mugford a second chance.  I don't understand what you are getting at in that respect.

Jeremy had a teasing nature, which I have mentioned myself before, so you are not telling me anything about him I don't already know.  But plotting in detail to murder your family and weighing up the different methods by which this could be done is a little bit different.  He even discussed the insurance implications with her.  I am sorry, but I don't buy your excuses for Julie.

The excuse Julie herself gave police for not reporting the earlier abortive murder plots was that she was "besotted" with him and that it was a "charade".  Both terms imply seriousness.  She would not use those terms if she just thought Jeremy was being teasing or boastful or jokey, and that is not the underlying theme of her evidence.  She does mention that Jeremy did joke about the subject tangentially.  For instance, he would say that it would be a shame to burn down such a beautiful old house, but that was part of a more serious intent to kill his family.  Perhaps the intent was not fully formed, but it was there.

I believe your excuses for Julie fall down flat.  On the one hand you want to be able to say that Jeremy was telling everybody how he hated his family and sharing with Julie his plots to kill, these being a precursor for the main act.  On the other hand, you want to reassure us that Julie didn't take the prior plots seriously because she thought he was joking or teasing or boasting or fooling around.  Julie must have been a poor judge of character and rather purblind to Jeremy.  What a pity she didn't take him more seriously.

If Jeremy is guilty, I think it's more likely that Julie was involved in some way and when, on or around the 12th. September 1985, she realised the family were on to Jeremy and the game was up, she turned.   What we know of developments from there can be explained in that context.  Jeremy and Julie became trapped in a 'prisoner's dilemma' and Julie got her version of events in first, anticipating that if Jeremy confessed and implicated her, she could plausibly deny it.  I also think that Essex Police realised all this, hence the non-disclosure, and they decided that her evidence would be of value in prosecuting Jeremy but could be of less value if she was prosecuted alongside him or in collateral proceedings.  The reason for the stupid stories about rats and sleeping tablets is because she needed to make something up to conceal what had actually occurred between them.

With regard to your last paragraph. I concur. I have posted such. JB is alleged to have said that it's always best to tell as much of the truth as possible. I think Julie did exactly that to avoid further implication. I don't think Essex Police to have been the first to have 'manipulated' evidence in favour of a witness. As for the rats? There have been other stories about JB and rats. I'm also very inclined to agree with you about Julie's judgement of character. Certainly, it was poor, but at 19, I wonder how many of us would have had perfectly honed judgement such, unless we're blessed with sixth sense, generally comes from experience, and how many of us have found ourselves in the close up company of a potential killer.

Referencing your many complaints to the moderator, about Steve, and your 'requests' for him to be banned. From sitting here quietly and reading from a distance, I see little in what he says, that might cause you such disquiet. Especially so, as you're very liberal with your own deliveries of reprimands and sarcasms to all who cause you offence, and there have been numerous of us. In your latest complaints you sound victimized and helpless to rectify the situation. Actually, you're neither! You have a choice, and  one or two alternatives!! I'm sure you understand that it's not possible -unless by coercive means- to change/control others' behaviours. We have to change our approach to it, which means you, WE, are perfectly free to ignore Steve -or anyone else who offends- by either simply taking a deep breath before responding, not responding, or putting them on ignore. If none of those things work for us, there's another. We're free to walk away.

[guest29835]

With regard to your last paragraph. I concur. I have posted such. JB is alleged to have said that it's always best to tell as much of the truth as possible. I think Julie did exactly that to avoid further implication. I don't think Essex Police to have been the first to have 'manipulated' evidence in favour of a witness. As for the rats? There have been other stories about JB and rats. I'm also very inclined to agree with you about Julie's judgement of character. Certainly, it was poor, but at 19, I wonder how many of us would have had perfectly honed judgement such, unless we're blessed with sixth sense, generally comes from experience, and how many of us have found ourselves in the close up company of a potential killer.

Referencing your many complaints to the moderator, about Steve, and your 'requests' for him to be banned. From sitting here quietly and reading from a distance, I see little in what he says, that might cause you such disquiet. Especially so, as you're very liberal with your own deliveries of reprimands and sarcasms to all who cause you offence, and there have been numerous of us. In your latest complaints you sound victimized and helpless to rectify the situation. Actually, you're neither! You have a choice, and  one or two alternatives!! I'm sure you understand that it's not possible -unless by coercive means- to change/control others' behaviours. We have to change our approach to it, which means you, WE, are perfectly free to ignore Steve -or anyone else who offends- by either simply taking a deep breath before responding, not responding, or putting them on ignore. If none of those things work for us, there's another. We're free to walk away.

Do you recognise the contradiction in your second paragraph?

If I started coming on here and insulting and attacking you every time, would you "walk away" or would you raise the matter with moderators?

Finally, can you confirm you agree and will abide by the Forum Rules that say personal attacks on members are not allowed?  I ask because you seem to be implying you don't agree with it.

I have reported your post - to the moderator. 

I do wonder why you, again, intervene in a dispute that does not directly concern you, rather than just leave it at the first paragraph?  What is motivating you?

[Steve_uk]

Do you recognise the contradiction in your second paragraph?

If I started coming on here and insulting and attacking you every time, would you "walk away" or would you raise the matter with moderators?

Finally, can you confirm you agree and will abide by the Forum Rules that say personal attacks on members are not allowed?  I ask because you seem to be implying you don't agree with it.

I have reported your post - to the moderator. 

I do wonder why you, again, intervene in a dispute that does not directly concern you, rather than just leave it at the first paragraph?  What is motivating you?

The main reason I and others don't like you whining to the Moderator at every available opportunity is that you obscenely maligned him only a short while ago. You have therefore lost the status of independent moral arbiter on this site. A brief period of atonement from yourself would not go amiss.