Well yes - allegedly. Like maggie, I could have understood Julie's actions a lot more if she claimed that he hadn't told her, and that she gradually realised that he was involved. However, that's not what she said, so therefore, I don't understand her actions.
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.
JM was a victim!
As stated elsewhere your double standards know no bounds.
No one is attacking this view, simple bringing some common sense to the debate. JM murdered no one nor indeed did she plot to murder anyone. She merely didn't believe Bamber would carry out his plans, nor could she comprehend it when he did; as per her evidence.
I could have understood Bambers claims to innocence if, as one example, he'd not given permission for evidence to have been destroyed from WHF not long after the murders.
Another example, as previously stated, he'd had a decade to request testing on the exhibits that were destroyed! Better still, if he were innocent, he could have asked for them to be tested during his trial. He did not!
Quite why supporters attack JM is what's inexplicable!
