A New Approach

[Jane]

Of course it is - if she'd tried to get him to turn himself in, she would have told the police that.

It's not your opinion I find unacceptable. It's your cast iron, immovable belief that you 'know' what Julie thought and felt, what her motives were, and what she WOULD have done.  Such an immutable and entrenched mindset as you're displaying is nothing short of aggressive, yet you apply the label to me.

[Adam]

So what was she talking to him about then? Why he did it? That was fairly obvious - for money. In fact, there was a lot of money at stake.

Read her WS.

[Kaldin]

It's not your opinion I find unacceptable. It's your cast iron, immovable belief that you 'know' what Julie thought and felt, what her motives were, and what she WOULD have done.  Such an immutable and entrenched mindset as you're displaying is nothing short of aggressive, yet you apply the label to me.

I thought you were ignoring my posts.

You are also immovable in your defence of her, and your view that she was a "victim".

[maggie]

That's rather a generalisation and how one reacts to a psychopath depends on individual differences. Also, Julie didn't live with Jeremy so she was able to break away on a regular basis.

I don't think any of us can say why she didn't report Jeremy straight away - fact is she didn't but she was instrumental in his conviction and that's the main thing.

Of course it's a generalisation however it is the way psychopaths operate. 
Either JB had Julie under his control or he did not.
If he did that would be a reason and an excuse for her behaviour imo.  I question the claim that he did because she was fully functioning getting through teaching practice as Steve tells us and generally living her own life.
She does not appear to have been obsessively addicted to JB, living in a bubble  at this time.

[Steve_uk]

Of course it's a generalisation however it is the way psychopaths operate. 
Either JB had Julie under his control or he did not.
If he did that would be a reason and an excuse for her behaviour imo.  I question the claim that he did because she was fully functioning getting through teaching practice as Steve tells us and generally living her own life.
She does not appear to have been obsessively addicted to JB, living in a bubble  at this time.

No but she might have been in love, for all we know..

[Steve_uk]

No but she might have been in love, for all we know..

..which reminds me of two Carpenters records, but I digress.

[Stephanie]

That's rather a generalisation and how one reacts to a psychopath depends on individual differences. Also, Julie didn't live with Jeremy so she was able to break away on a regular basis.

I don't think any of us can say why she didn't report Jeremy straight away - fact is she didn't but she was instrumental in his conviction and that's the main thing.

It also depends of the levels of psychopathy.

There are numerous reasons I firmly believe Jeremy Bamber to be a psychopath but more importantly if any of us go back and read his police interviews, evidence given in court etc - in other words his factual evidence; if he were telling the truth the facts would have remained the same. They haven't.

There are numerous factual inaccuracies that Jeremy Bamber has clearly manufactured in order to suit his end at that given moment.

And let's not forget, Jeremy Bamber has never publicly commented on Julie Mugfords wealth of evidence against him. Why not?

He's had 32 years to pull apart her witness statements but he's never done so.. He says he has been through his case files with a fine tooth comb and let's not forget he's had decades in which to so.

[Jane]

I thought you were ignoring my posts.

You are also immovable in your defence of her, and your view that she was a "victim".

But I'M not saying what she may have thought or felt, OR what he motives may have been because I'm not arrogant enough to think I know. All I can do is offer applicable possibilities. Surely the opposite of victim is perpetrator? Are you suggesting the crime was her idea? That she persuaded him to do it? OR are you suggesting that they were co criminals? Would that not make her...................WHAT would it make her? I guess the words which finish the sentence are;- guilty as him, aren't they?

[Caroline]

Of course it's a generalisation however it is the way psychopaths operate. 
Either JB had Julie under his control or he did not.
If he did that would be a reason and an excuse for her behaviour imo.  I question the claim that he did because she was fully functioning getting through teaching practice as Steve tells us and generally living her own life.
She does not appear to have been obsessively addicted to JB, living in a bubble  at this time.

It may be the way 'some' psychopaths operate, but not all. I think Jeremy liked the fact that he only saw Julie now and again as it gave him some freedom. I don't believe that Julie was under his control as such - to be honest, they were both pretty dysfunctional and seemed to enjoy living on the edge a little. I think Jeremy went too far and it knocked the stuffing out of her - she didn't know what to do.

If they had stayed together, she may never have told or she would have, we just can't know.

[maggie]

No but she might have been in love, for all we know..

Well yes she might have been. I know at 20 we can have strange ideas about what love is but it's very difficult to believe at any age that a murderer of two children and three adults is worth loving.
Imo I think the only understandable explanation is that the belief of the relatives etc. that he did it got to Julie and started her thinking and wondering if he had done it. She started talking to friends about it and it grew in her mind until she convinced herself it was true.
Once the police got hold of her she had no choice but to go along with them.
Any other explanation is hard to excuse and shows Julie in a very poor light imo.

[maggie]

It may be the way 'some' psychopaths operate, but not all. I think Jeremy liked the fact that he only saw Julie now and again as it gave him some freedom. I don't believe that Julie was under his control as such - to be honest, they were both pretty dysfunctional and seemed to enjoy living on the edge a little. I think Jeremy went too far and it knocked the stuffing out of her - she didn't know what to do.

If they had stayed together, she may never have told or she would have, we just can't know.

I don't disagree with that Caroline, it makes sense as a possibility.

[Kaldin]

Well yes she might have been. I know at 20 we can have strange ideas about what love is but it's very difficult to believe at any age that a murderer of two children and three adults is worth loving.
Imo I think the only understandable explanation is that the belief of the relatives etc. that he did it got to Julie and started her thinking and wondering if he had done it. She started talking to friends about it and it grew in her mind until she convinced herself it was true.
Once the police got hold of her she had no choice but to go along with them.
Any other explanation is hard to excuse and shows Julie in a very poor light imo.

I agree, but why would she have told the police that Jeremy had told her he was responsible on 7th August?

[Adam]

Well yes she might have been. I know at 20 we can have strange ideas about what love is but it's very difficult to believe at any age that a murderer of two children and three adults is worth loving.
Imo I think the only understandable explanation is that the belief of the relatives etc. that he did it got to Julie and started her thinking and wondering if he had done it. She started talking to friends about it and it grew in her mind until she convinced herself it was true.
Once the police got hold of her she had no choice but to go along with them.
Any other explanation is hard to excuse and shows Julie in a very poor light imo.

When did the relatives get to Julie during the 20 days after the massacre ? I thought she was partying with Bamber.

The police did get hold of her. After she told 5 people & contacted them.

[Steve_uk]

Posts #413 and #414 are very incisive.

[Steve_uk]

I agree, but why would she have told the police that Jeremy had told her he was responsible on 7th August?

Well he distanced himself somewhat by using proxy Matthew. No excuse I know..