A New Approach

[Caroline]

I was giving Julie the benefit of the doubt, otherwise imo she behaved really badly.  Maybe she didn't mix with the relatives but maybe she heard whispers from various sources which caused her to start to question and discuss her thoughts with friends.  I would think that would be quite natural behavour at that age.
The alternative is that she knew he was guilty as she told the police and chose to party and sleep with him, even going as far as to deceive Colin into believing she was supportive of him.  I understand all the arguments about her being under his spell, young, in love but for all that she seemed bereft of the natural boundaries which tell us where the line is drawn.

They didn't mix in the same circles to hear each others whispers, they didn't even live close. The only times that Julie saw the relatives is when she was with Jeremy.

I think she did the latter not because she was under any spell, but simply because she didn't know what else to do. The secret kept them bonded for a while but the Brett turned up.

[David1819]

They didn't mix in the same circles to hear each others whispers, they didn't even live close. The only times that Julie saw the relatives is when she was with Jeremy.

You don't have any evidence to support this. The circumstances surrounding her evidence points to the contrary. Unless you want to go with an absurd coincidence theory.

[Steve_uk]

You don't have any evidence to support this. The circumstances surrounding her evidence points to the contrary. Unless you want to go with an absurd coincidence theory.

Boutflour wasn't saying anything that many could have worked out.

[Jane]

I was giving Julie the benefit of the doubt, otherwise imo she behaved really badly.  Maybe she didn't mix with the relatives but maybe she heard whispers from various sources which caused her to start to question and discuss her thoughts with friends.  I would think that would be quite natural behavour at that age.
The alternative is that she knew he was guilty as she told the police and chose to party and sleep with him, even going as far as to deceive Colin into believing she was supportive of him.  I understand all the arguments about her being under his spell, young, in love but for all that she seemed bereft of the natural boundaries which tell us where the line is drawn.

Her behaviour. We talk about it regularly and frequently. I find myself wondering exactly what course her changed pattern of behaviour took and when it began. I can only assume that it would have changed somewhat from the time he first mentioned ridding himself of his family. Might there have been the odd -perhaps barely perceptible- moment when she became quiet as she thought about what he'd said. I wonder how she'd have coped with daily life as he became more vociferous? I find that I can identify with her thoughts in the snippet of her trial testimony that David posted. Surely I'm not the only one who can admit to having felt conflicted at some point?

Of course, it must all pale into insignificance, compared with how she coped POST murders. Were her friends all so tied up in their own worlds that NONE of them saw a change in her. Did no one notice that she may have appeared to have her mind somewhere other.  Did she laugh more loudly? Cry more readily? Did she distance herself from her friends, OR did she want to be with them more? Several here would have us believe that she acted as if nothing had happened. I find it hard to believe -as it was something which was out of her control- that such would have been possible.
 

[maggie]

Her behaviour. We talk about it regularly and frequently. I find myself wondering exactly what course her changed pattern of behaviour took and when it began. I can only assume that it would have changed somewhat from the time he first mentioned ridding himself of his family. Might there have been the odd -perhaps barely perceptible- moment when she became quiet as she thought about what he'd said. I wonder how she'd have coped with daily life as he became more vociferous? I find that I can identify with her thoughts in the snippet of her trial testimony that David posted. Surely I'm not the only one who can admit to having felt conflicted at some point?

Of course, it must all pale into insignificance, compared with how she coped POST murders. Were her friends all so tied up in their own worlds that NONE of them saw a change in her. Did no one notice that she may have appeared to have her mind somewhere other.  Did she laugh more loudly? Cry more readily? Did she distance herself from her friends, OR did she want to be with them more? Several here would have us believe that she acted as if nothing had happened. I find it hard to believe -as it was something which was out of her control- that such would have been possible.

I don't know Jane however I do agree that she could have been conflicted. I always thought Maxine Carr was treated harshly because she was a victim too.  I am aware that Julie may also have been a victim I cannot look at it as black or white as there are many possibilities.

[Jane]

I don't know Jane however I do agree that she could have been conflicted. I always thought Maxine Carr was treated harshly because she was a victim too.  I am aware that Julie may also have been a victim I cannot look at it as black or white as there are many possibilities.

I concur re Maxine Carr, but the difference between her and Julie is that, whilst Maxine, like Julie, prevented police from making an early arrest, she had nothing to 'barter' with, ie she hadn't been privy to Huntley's plan, whereas Julie had something very worthwhile as an exchange, albeit, it was a gamble.

[Stephanie]

Julie refers to being "very frightened" and "suicidal" hardly a young women without a care in the world; I'd suggest quite the opposite.

[Jane]

Julie refers to being "very frightened" and "suicidal" hardly a young women without a care in the world; I'd suggest quite the opposite.

I imagine I'd have been pulverized by fear and throwing up constantly. I could never have maintained whatever it was which passed for 'normal' behaviour. I'd have been too scared to do something and too scared to do anything.

[Kaldin]

   As you have reasonably pointed out , Kaldin, this is not even a debate about JB's guilt or innocence. If JB is guilty then JM's actions in the lead up to, during and in the aftermath of the killings defy explanation, other than that she was a willing accessory.
     Quite why this view is attacked by so many guilters is inexplicable. It makes no difference to JB's guilt or innocence but it should be apparent to all that if JB is guilty then it is self evident that Mugford was a willing accomplice.
     
   

Thank you gringo. As you say, we don't always have to discuss this with a view to deciding if Jeremy is guilty or not, we can discuss the whole situation generally.

[Kaldin]

Perhaps so, but only if JB is guilty.

How so? If he's not guilty, then she lied to the police. I don't know if she lied or not - her story was very detailed - too detailed maybe, but it could be true. The jury seemed to believe her.

[Kaldin]

  Which way do you lean on this, Kaldin, or are you genuinely ambivalent?

I'd like to know more about what she said to Susan on 27 August, and to other people, although I can't remember who else Adam said she told. I'll also say that the details of what Jeremy allegedly told her aren't really accurate in some ways.

On the one hand, it's quite a feat to come out with a story like that and stick to it if it's not true. On the other hand, her behaviour is a puzzle to me, and her story seems rather too detailed.

[Steve_uk]

How so? If he's not guilty, then she lied to the police. I don't know if she lied or not - her story was very detailed - too detailed maybe, but it could be true. The jury seemed to believe her.

But I'm not sure whether the judge did. The trial hinged on the silencer and that is the weakest link, not Julie.

[Steve_uk]

Julie refers to being "very frightened" and "suicidal" hardly a young women without a care in the world; I'd suggest quite the opposite.

Where is the suicidal bit mentioned?

[Kaldin]

But I'm not sure whether the judge did. The trial hinged on the silencer and that is the weakest link, not Julie.

Possibly. The jury never said what made them convict him. They might all have disbelieved her.

[Adam]

Disadvantages in Julie lying if Bamber was innocemt:

There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent. 

She had waited a month.

She would be charged by the police. When caught lying. 

Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career. 

To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ? 

Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ? 

There was no financial reward in approaching the police. 

It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber. 

She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims. 

Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed. 

She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world. 

It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed. 

She may quickly wilt under pressure.  This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ? 

It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed. 

It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed. 

It would show she was stupid. Once exposed. 

An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career. 

It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent. 

She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent. 

It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives. 

She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ? 

She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber. 

She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre. 

Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge. 

If an unsuccessful police approach  became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.