Julie Charged As An Accomplice To Murder?

[Zoso]

Roch has requested that Jane and I debate with HB on the above question - for some reason he thinks we won't?

So ..... HB -  how could Julie have been charged as an accomplice when she had an airtight alibi, witnesses and didn't lie for Bamber?

[Roch]

My point has always been that pressure could have been applied to her and I believe it was. This is partly why she became a malleable witness. In her case, the stick came before the carrot. The carrot was she got to have a career and she got a new life with her 25K. The stick came early days. She needed to realise her position was precarious. How can any of us say that she would have said a single thing, had Jeremy not dispensed with her. How do we know she wouldn't have enjoyed being quids in?

[Steve_uk]

My point has always been that pressure could have been applied to her and I believe it was. This is partly why she became a malleable witness. In her case, the stick came before the carrot. The carrot was she got to have a career and she got a new life with her 25K. The stick came early days. She needed to realise her position was precarious. How can any of us say that she would have said a single thing, had Jeremy not dispensed with her. How do we know she wouldn't have enjoyed being quids in?

We don't know for sure, but it was out of character for Julie to expect something for nothing. She turned down the offer of managing a wine bar in a fashionable area of London, she neither relinquished her university course nor got pregnant by him. Infatuation was the word, and as a 20-year-old she is surely to be granted clemency, however incomprehensible to the outsider her actions at the time may have seemed.

[Jane]

My point has always been that pressure could have been applied to her and I believe it was. This is partly why she became a malleable witness. In her case, the stick came before the carrot. The carrot was she got to have a career and she got a new life with her 25K. The stick came early days. She needed to realise her position was precarious. How can any of us say that she would have said a single thing, had Jeremy not dispensed with her. How do we know she wouldn't have enjoyed being quids in?

How can any of us know that -contrary to what the Booby has to say on the subject!- the most we can do is speculate, but since when was anyone convicted on what they may, or not, have done?

[ILB]

For me if Jeremy and Julie are complicit. Jeremy will never shop Julie for her involvement because it wouldn't bring Jeremy no benefit. It might put her away but his situation will not change. The man's ultimate goal is freedom. Shopping Julie will not alter that. His position would remain the same

[Jane]

For me if Jeremy and Julie are complicit. Jeremy will never shop Julie for her involvement because it wouldn't bring Jeremy no benefit. It might put her away but his situation will not change. The man's ultimate goal is freedom. Shopping Julie will not alter that. His position would remain the same

Makes much more sense than trying to encourage concurring posters to 'debate' the one topic on which they think differently.

[Zoso]

My point has always been that pressure could have been applied to her and I believe it was. This is partly why she became a malleable witness. In her case, the stick came before the carrot. The carrot was she got to have a career and she got a new life with her 25K. The stick came early days. She needed to realise her position was precarious. How can any of us say that she would have said a single thing, had Jeremy not dispensed with her. How do we know she wouldn't have enjoyed being quids in?

Pressure on what basis? How was her position precarious? She couldn't be linked to the murders, she had a rock solid alibi and unless Bamber said she was involved, the police had nothing. For Bamber to implicate her, he'd have to admit responsibility. There is also the fact that it was Liz Rimmington's boyfriend (Waters I think he's called), who contacted the police on her behalf. She had already reported what she knew before the £25,000.00 was offered, so that was never an incentive.

[Hardy Boy]

Roch has requested that Jane and I debate with HB on the above question - for some reason he thinks we won't?

So ..... HB -  how could Julie have been charged as an accomplice when she had an airtight alibi, witnesses and didn't lie for Bamber?

Hi Zoso, been camping last nigh not long nack, but here goes................Julie knew he had made plans to murder his family having already admited this, she knew he had  committed the murders and she knew the night before byu the 10.00 pm call tonights the night, and she realised he had done the murders with the 3=00 am call because she said so, now NGB might correct me but......An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being committed, will be committed, or has been committed. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way. The assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.

In My view she definatly concealed and was happy that Jeremy had told her MM had done it, this still does not excuse her, because he told her MM had done it, because she is still aware of Jeremy's involvement.

I stand by 100 per cent, she is a s guilty as him, she could have told the Police all about from day one, and i think she got off very very lightly and i don't think she would today.

[Steve_uk]

Hi Zoso, been camping last nigh not long nack, but here goes................Julie knew he had made plans to murder his family having already admited this, she knew he had  committed the murders and she knew the night before byu the 10.00 pm call tonights the night, and she realised he had done the murders with the 3=00 am call because she said so, now NGB might correct me but......An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being committed, will be committed, or has been committed. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way. The assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.

In My view she definatly concealed and was happy that Jeremy had told her MM had done it, this still does not excuse her, because he told her MM had done it, because she is still aware of Jeremy's involvement.

I stand by 100 per cent, she is a s guilty as him, she could have told the Police all about from day one, and i think she got off very very lightly and i don't think she would today.

Do you mean an accessory after the fact? Maybe ngb1066 could clarify.

[Zoso]

Hi Zoso, been camping last nigh not long nack, but here goes................Julie knew he had made plans to murder his family having already admited this, she knew he had  committed the murders and she knew the night before byu the 10.00 pm call tonights the night, and she realised he had done the murders with the 3=00 am call because she said so, now NGB might correct me but......An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being committed, will be committed, or has been committed. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way. The assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.

In My view she definatly concealed and was happy that Jeremy had told her MM had done it, this still does not excuse her, because he told her MM had done it, because she is still aware of Jeremy's involvement.

I stand by 100 per cent, she is a s guilty as him, she could have told the Police all about from day one, and i think she got off very very lightly and i don't think she would today.

It isn't illegal to not report a crime, which is the only thing she could have been 'guilty' of. I do get what you are saying and there is every possibility that she did take a more supportive role previous to being dumped. But I thought Roch was saying that she was probably threatened in some way by Jones, that if she didn't help nail him, she would be prosecuted as an accessory. I fail to see how the police could have made that stick ...... stick? I suspect that the premise is that she wasn't a willing witness, she was forced into it. The is nothing to prove that and she has never indicated that this was the case. She could, if she wanted to now and even manage to come out of it a victim - but she has never once indicated that she believes Bamber is anything but guilty.

[Hardy Boy]

Do you mean an accessory after the fact? Maybe ngb1066 could clarify.

Yes Steve, she wasn't involved in the crime itself, but there isn't any doubt whatsoever she knew what he had done.  He even told her the twins shooting and his Dad put up a fight, no one can tell me she didn't know and she chose to conceal this from the Police.  I cannot excuse this woman and i think in today's world she would have got charged.

[Zoso]

Yes Steve, she wasn't involved in the crime itself, but there isn't any doubt whatsoever she knew what he had done.  He even told her the twins shooting and his Dad put up a fight, no one can tell me she didn't know and she chose to conceal this from the Police.  I cannot excuse this woman and i think in today's world she would have got charged.

Like I said, it isn't a crime to not report one. I agree that she knew, what I don't agree with is that EP threatened her and that's why she gave evidence against Bamber. I think it's more likely that she came forward because she was pissed off with him.

[Hardy Boy]

It isn't illegal to not report a crime, which is the only thing she could have been 'guilty' of. I do get what you are saying and there is every possibility that she did take a more supportive role previous to being dumped. But I thought Roch was saying that she was probably threatened in some way by Jones, that if she didn't help nail him, she would be prosecuted as an accessory. I fail to see how the police could have made that stick ...... stick? I suspect that the premise is that she wasn't a willing witness, she was forced into it. The is nothing to prove that and she has never indicated that this was the case. She could, if she wanted to now and even manage to come out of it a victim - but she has never once indicated that she believes Bamber is anything but guilty.

I don't think she was threatened by Jones, i think she was helped by Jones, with the Bank and she was needed as a witness, in them days it was more help if they had a witness like her and they would pull strings to make sure she wouldn't be prosecuted or she doen't look a good witness?

[Steve_uk]

I don't think she was threatened by Jones, i think she was helped by Jones, with the Bank and she was needed as a witness, in them days it was more help if they had a witness like her and they would pull strings to make sure she wouldn't be prosecuted or she doen't look a good witness?

DS Jones was suspicious of Bamber from the outset, as his colleagues had said: "We're not happy with this chap." Manoeuvring himself at the other side of a door he heard a cough or a chuckle, and his suspicions were confirmed.

[Jane]

Yes Steve, she wasn't involved in the crime itself, but there isn't any doubt whatsoever she knew what he had done.  He even told her the twins shooting and his Dad put up a fight, no one can tell me she didn't know and she chose to conceal this from the Police.  I cannot excuse this woman and i think in today's world she would have got charged.

I think there would have come a moment when the penny would have dropped, HB. Until then, the two ways of looking at it -from my perspective!- are A) she hadn't wanted to believe him capable, and B) she was secretly harbouring the fantasy that he was. The problem with B is that we're talking about an intelligent woman, here. I can't believe it hadn't been at the back of her mind every waking moment. Just an aside, but knowing how little regard police of 1985, had for women -especially the more intelligent types- I rather imagine anything she told them would have been filed in the waste paper basket. ................And I am more than willing to bet all knowledge of it would have been denied.