They seem to be gloating about this on the other forum. Just because Julie didn't take part in the documentary, why should she have done? Assuming that she was telling the truth she must have gone through a pretty terrible ordeal so who could blame her for not wanting to have this brought up all the time? At the end of the day the judge advised the jury that it was a question of whom they believed-Jeremy or Julie. By a significant majority they decided Julie was a more credible witness. When she came back ready to give evidence in 2002 did she actually have to do this? If not it does not strike me that she is deliberately being evasive. That said I certainly think it is possible that she may have been a willing accomplice to the crime, perhaps even encouraging him?-though of course Bamber could never suggest this without admitting his guilt.
That is a difficult one and only Julie and jeremy know the answer to it. You are spot on though, if Julie was involved Bamber cannot say as this would drop him right in it as well.
From Julies perspective she says that she never believed that he would do it, rather she believed it to be some sort of hate against his family which she hoped he would tire of eventually.
I tend to go with the latter given all the events thus why Bamber never told her the truth as to who actually carried out the executions. If Julie had been lying she would not have introduced the hitman theory. I believe her completely when she says that Bamber told her about McDonald and the £2000. Bamber knew that if he confessed to having blood on his hands that Julie would do a runner.
