Brief summary of the split between Bamber & Julie:

[JackieD]

I beg your pardon..?..?..?

FFS he must have a screw loose. Steve see if you can see Jane’s doctor

[Adam]

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.

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

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 asked for her assistance, or inveigled 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.

We agree.

[Adam]

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.

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

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 asked for her assistance, or inveigled 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.

They were growing apart for 6 of the 18 months.

[Adam]

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.

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

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 asked for her assistance, or inveigled 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.

She approached the police. Completed a 24 page WS & testified.

[Adam]

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.

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

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 asked for her assistance, or inveigled 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.

Well it was Bamber who robbed the caravan site.

[Adam]

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.

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

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 asked for her assistance, or inveigled 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.

He had spent 18 months telling her everything. So had to keep her onside immediately after the massacre.

[Adam]

An even quicker summary is -

Julie didn't take much interest or believe in Bamber's rants & outlandish plans. Teenage girls have more important things to worry about.

She was unexpectedly escorted to WHF by a police car. Managing to escape Bamber around a month later. He now felt safe & preferred Brett anyway.

[Adam]

Appreciate QC will try to make more of it & muddy the waters. He is advocating reasonable doubt if a trial was held now.

[killingeve]

Just as a further note on this, and in direct response to Steve's comment, I also previously melded Julie's evidence to Jeremy's: I explained that Jeremy could have been teasing her and she took his words out of context.  Ironically, Steve himself lends support to this in one of his posts above, when he reminds us that Jeremy was regarded as a teaser when at Gresham's.

Bit of a coincidence then about the blood found deep within the silencer matching Sheila's groups. 

[Adam]

Jeremy could have been teasing her and she took his words out of context.

----------

As said QC muddying the waters.

[killingeve]

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.

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

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.

Was Julie able to get away with blaming Bamber about the cheque fraud at trial?  Seems to me the trial judge placed responsibility for it on her shoulders?

344. When the judge dealt with this aspect of the matter in his summing up (Transcript page 19C), he said:

"It is the defendant's case, of course, that Julie Mugford's evidence in this case is fabricated, and that she is a brazen, blatant liar, so Mr Rivlin introduced the matter of her previous cheque offences in order to suggest to you then that it was shown that she has been dishonest in the past and so that you can bear in mind that part of her character when assessing whether to believe her not on the evidence she has given in this trial. That is the degree to which that evidence is relevant. Of course, the fact that a person has committed some offence, or has at some time lied in the past, in no way proves that they can never again tell the truth and you might think particularly so, on oath in a murder trial. It does not prove that at all. It is merely there for you to have in mind when you come to weigh up her evidence.

What about Julie's involvement with Bamber supplying drugs which she sold around uni campus?

[killingeve]

Jeremy could have been teasing her and she took his words out of context.

----------

As said QC muddying the waters.

Yeah could have been like he did with all the other prosecution witnesses eg James Richard who appeared on the Sky doc and was adamant even some 36 years on that Bamber said "I hate my fcuking parents".  Apparently when asked at trial how he was able to recall he said because it was said with so much vehemence!

What reasons(s) would James Richard have to lie on oath during a high profile mass murder trial?

[David1819]

Yeah could have been like he did with all the other prosecution witnesses eg James Richard who appeared on the Sky doc and was adamant even some 36 years on that Bamber said "I hate my fcuking parents".  Apparently when asked at trial how he was able to recall he said because it was said with so much vehemence!

What reasons(s) would James Richard have to lie on oath during a high profile mass murder trial?

Hi Alcoholly 👋

[Jane]

Yeah could have been like he did with all the other prosecution witnesses eg James Richard who appeared on the Sky doc and was adamant even some 36 years on that Bamber said "I hate my fcuking parents".  Apparently when asked at trial how he was able to recall he said because it was said with so much vehemence!

What reasons(s) would James Richard have to lie on oath during a high profile mass murder trial?

Should we stop for a moment to consider the reasons each witness may have had to testify against JB, they would add up to -well, really too many to count, wouldn't they, each providing a different reason, because whilst they'd all have known JB, they wouldn't necessarily have known each other.

 So what might it have been about this, according to supporters, poor innocent boy, that engendered so much dislike in all these people, that they'd ALL, to a man/woman, be prepared to stand up in a court of law, and lie through their teeth to get him convicted? Might it have been his saintliness? His generosity, both spiritually and financially? Could it have been his natural empathy? Was he the immediate go to for some, if they had a problem?

 It's doubtful that any of them saw or experienced these qualities in him, but as none of them were there to witness the tragedy, it wouldn't have been possible for them to say, definitively, that he was guilty, but maybe there was something in him/something about him, that suggested to them all, that each, individually, had witnessed, that he was capable of committing such an act?

[killingeve]

Should we stop for a moment to consider the reasons each witness may have had to testify against JB, they would add up to -well, really too many to count, wouldn't they, each providing a different reason, because whilst they'd all have known JB, they wouldn't necessarily have known each other.

 So what might it have been about this, according to supporters, poor innocent boy, that engendered so much dislike in all these people, that they'd ALL, to a man/woman, be prepared to stand up in a court of law, and lie through their teeth to get him convicted? Might it have been his saintliness? His generosity, both spiritually and financially? Could it have been his natural empathy? Was he the immediate go to for some, if they had a problem?

 It's doubtful that any of them saw or experienced these qualities in him, but as none of them were there to witness the tragedy, it wouldn't have been possible for them to say, definitively, that he was guilty, but maybe there was something in him/something about him, that suggested to them all, that each, individually, had witnessed, that he was capable of committing such an act?

I think you might have hit the nail on the head!  It seems that 36 years later Brett Collins also saw something in Bamber being able to orchestrate a family annihilation even if indirectly via a third party.