Julie's WS the day after the massacre. Why wasn't Bamber accused ?

[Adam]

How do you know she isn't lying or that there was no reason for her to lie? You are making assumptions Adam.
Sorry I have added to the quote in the above post.

Why would she lie about not hearing from Bamber for three days. It can be checked when she went home. Bamber's never disputed it.

Bamber was working long hours, Julie was at college. It's no big deal that a young couple wouldn't speak for three days. However in this instance it shows they were not planning the massacre together until the last minute.

[Jane]

Adam the above post is complete assumption. You have no idea if she would have been 'scared' or 'cracked' these are you assumptions and not fact. We have no idea what Jeremy or Julie thought or felt at that time.

She wasn't too "scared" to organize a cheque fraud of sell drugs.

[Adam]

Adam the above post is complete assumption. You have no idea if she would have been 'scared' or 'cracked' these are you assumptions and not fact. We have no idea what Jeremy or Julie thought or felt at that time.

I am allowed to assume. Thanks.

I assume Julie would be scared of speaking out, and having Bamber trying to bring her down with him. Most people are scared of 25 years inside. I assume.

[Jane]

I am allowed to assume. Thanks.

I assume Julie would be scared of speaking out, and having Bamber trying to bring her down with him. Most people are scared of 25 years inside. I assume.

Only if the believe they'll be caught.

[Adam]

Julie would be taking a big risk in staying with him on the night.

Bamber may use her and then discard her when he feels he's clear. Julie couldn't go to the police as Bamber, if going down, will claim Julie helped him at WHF.

[maggie]

Julie would be taking a big risk in staying with him on the night.

Bamber may use her and then discard her when he feels he's clear. Julie couldn't go to the police as Bamber, if going down, will claim Julie helped him.

He can't say she helped him if he claims innocence.

[Jane]

He can't say she helped him if he claims innocence.

And it would hardly be a new thing for a fella to use someone until they're of no further use.

[Adam]

He can't say she helped him if he claims innocence.

Yes it would be messy.

Bamber could claim innocence. Not implicating Julie and claiming she is doing this because he 'jilted her'. Which would mean if he is charged and convicted, Julie would be free. Julie would be even more mad in attempting this revenge, as it is also potentially implicating herself in a murder charge. 

Or he could confess and claim Julie went with him. An eye for an eye.

[Jane]

Yes it would be messy.

Bamber could claim innocence. Not implicating Julie and claiming she is doing this because he 'jilted her'. Which would mean if he is charged and convicted, Julie would be free. Julie would be even more mad in attempting this revenge, as it is also implicating herself.

Or he could confess and claim Julie went with him. An eye for an eye.

But other than Jeremy being charged and convicted, it's entirely hypothetical.

[maggie]

Yes it would be messy.

Bamber could claim innocence. Not implicating Julie and claiming she is doing this because he 'jilted her'. Which would mean if he is charged and convicted, Julie would be free. Julie would be even more mad in attempting this revenge, as it is also implicating herself.

Or he could confess and claim Julie went with him. An eye for an eye.

He could have done various but he would have had to prove she was involved which would be very difficult if not impossible, so he claimed innocence and she went free. He probably decided on balance claiming innocence gives him some chance of getting out whereas accusing her of being involved will ensure he's banged up forever.

[Jan]

Yes it would be messy.

Bamber could claim innocence. Not implicating Julie and claiming she is doing this because he 'jilted her'. Which would mean if he is charged and convicted, Julie would be free. Julie would be even more mad in attempting this revenge, as it is also potentially implicating herself in a murder charge. 

Or he could confess and claim Julie went with him. An eye for an eye.

Well as even some of the guilters think he thinks and believes he is innocent because he is ill himself - so that's not going to happen is it?

[Caroline]

Well as even some of the guilters think he thinks and believes he is innocent because he is ill himself - so that's not going to happen is it?

(Just to clarify) - I don't think he's ill and think he knows exactly what he did.

[Jan]

(Just to clarify) - I don't think he's ill and think he knows exactly what he did.

yes I did say some

[guest154]

Well as even some of the guilters think he thinks and believes he is innocent because he is ill himself - so that's not going to happen is it?

Who thinks that? I suppose it is an interesting thought. I believe he tries to repress as much as possible, in order to act 'innocent' which is why his innocent act comes off so poorly, because he doesn't know HOW he should be feeling/speaking only how he THINKS he should be. But I think he knows damn well what he did, which is why he attempts to control the areas his supporters hammer away at, he knows where the police investigation didn't get his method perfectly.

[David1819]

Who thinks that? I suppose it is an interesting thought. I believe he tries to repress as much as possible, in order to act 'innocent' which is why his innocent act comes off so poorly, because he doesn't know HOW he should be feeling/speaking only how he THINKS he should be. But I think he knows damn well what he did, which is why he attempts to control the areas his supporters hammer away at, he knows where the police investigation didn't get his method perfectly.

Its called dissociative amnesia.