Did Jeremy have an answerphone?

[anglolawyer]

Ooops, sorry... well, in my case I was mesmerized by her come-to-bed eyes. 

Seriously though, the thought that she could just accept her boyfriend murdering them all so they could both live the high life doesn't sit easy with me. I'm with John, in that she believed it was all a fantasy for JB and never thought for a moment that he'd carry it out. Wasn't she supposed to have told him something like - "You'll get the money eventually, if you wait" and "If you don't like them running your life, why not just leave?".
 
Who knows, maybe you're both right... which is why she's kept silent for thirty years and JB is loathe to mention much about her, although he has asked her in the past to "play the white (wo)man", whatever that's supposed to mean, and also why his wrath has been directed more at "the relatives" and "corrupt" Essex police.

Of course!   Jeremy can never say 'she is guilty as me' can he?   Her story was swallowed by a grateful establishment which had monumentally screwed up the crime of the century (as far as Essex goes anyway) so neither she nor they have any reason to question it.

It seems highly possible that the documents buried behind PII certificates concern this aspect as they would otherwise offer a window on the world of behind-the-scenes dealings that we aren't supposed to know about, and I speak as a semi-insider.   The English do nothing as well as they do hypocrisy.   Thus, plea bargaining is not allowed - officially - so it happens behind closed doors and everyone pretends it doesn't exist.   That's the English way.   Simply in taking her statement without administering a caution the Essex police had already screwed up before anyone in authority cottoned on, assuming advice from on high was not sought at an early stage, which it probably was.

[APRIL]

Of course!   Jeremy can never say 'she is guilty as me' can he?   Her story was swallowed by a grateful establishment which had monumentally screwed up the crime of the century (as far as Essex goes anyway) so neither she nor they have any reason to question it.

It seems highly possible that the documents buried behind PII certificates concern this aspect as they would otherwise offer a window on the world of behind-the-scenes dealings that we aren't supposed to know about, and I speak as a semi-insider.   The English do nothing as well as they do hypocrisy.   Thus, plea bargaining is not allowed - officially - so it happens behind closed doors and everyone pretends it doesn't exist.   That's the English way.   Simply in taking her statement without administering a caution the Essex police had already screwed up before anyone in authority cottoned on, assuming advice from on high was not sought at an early stage, which it probably was.

It's also possible that "advice from on high" may have been delivered, before it was sought, to avoid a rerun of the cock-up perceived to have occurred re the Dr Jones case in near-by Coggeshall.

[anglolawyer]

It's also possible that "advice from on high" may have been delivered, before it was sought, to avoid a rerun of the cock-up perceived to have occurred re the Dr Jones case in near-by Coggeshall.

Very possible.   Indeed, likely.   I don't know about the Dr Jones case.   Aren't there too many people called Jones in this business already?

[Holly Goodhead]

The idea that JM was complicit in any shape or form has as much credibility as Paul Harrison's theory that SC was JB's accomplice. 

All the forensics will eventually show that EP's initial assessment was correct ie 4 murders and a suicide.

[Holly Goodhead]

I am in complete agreement with this.

The 'je ne sais quoi' is probably no more than a willingness to participate in his life of crime.   She was unattractive and not especially bright so she must have had something.   It has been suggested on another board that the whole thing may have been her idea.   I'm not sure I would go that far but I wouldn't rule it out either.   If Bamber is guilty (I am still willing to contemplate the other possibility) then the whole thing (her behaviour and his) makes much more sense if she was his accomplice than otherwise.

"...not especially bright..." I see a few of those around here  . What % of the population from developed countries born in 1964 obtained degrees?   

With regard to whether or not she was attractive I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  What has her physical appearance got to do with anything anyway?   

I'm not going to waste my time joining in these silly debates.

Most lawyers I know usually stick to the facts of a case  &%+((£

[anglolawyer]

"...not especially bright..." I see a few of those around here  . What % of the population from developed countries born in 1964 obtained degrees?   

With regard to whether or not she was attractive I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  What has her physical appearance got to do with anything anyway?   

I'm not going to waste my time joining in these silly debates.

Most lawyers I know usually stick to the facts of a case  &%+((£

I bet you don't know any lawyers, still less what they stick to.

I'm a man.  I can tell attractive from unattractive.   She was unattractive.   She was studying to be a teacher, not a rocket scientist.   I have seen her in recorded interview.   She is plain and uninteresting.   That is relevant because Bamber soon tired of her and was even willing to risk exposure to be shot of her.   That in turn better explains her conduct in turning him in than some agonising about ethics.   If she expected to be Mrs Bamber and to be rich (in her provincial terms, anyway) then it is not hard to imagine how she must have felt, especially having helped him commit the crime (as I believe) when he spurned her and tried to fob her off with a paid holiday.

By the way, despite being a straight man, I can also tell attractive men from unattractive ones and it has been my experience, to which there are of course exceptions, that attractive people tend to wind up with other attractive people while unattractive tend to pair with unattractive.   Colin and Sheila are examples of a couple of 9s.   Bamber is probably an 8 while Sheila is perhaps a 3.   While I would not put too much weight on it, I don't think it irrelevant to ask: what attracted him to her?   Its not as though he didn't have plenty of offers, many of which he seems to have taken advantage of.

[APRIL]

I bet you don't know any lawyers, still less what they stick to.

I'm a man.  I can tell attractive from unattractive.   She was unattractive.   She was studying to be a teacher, not a rocket scientist.   I have seen her in recorded interview.   She is plain and uninteresting.   That is relevant because Bamber soon tired of her and was even willing to risk exposure to be shot of her.   That in turn better explains her conduct in turning him in than some agonising about ethics.   If she expected to be Mrs Bamber and to be rich (in her provincial terms, anyway) then it is not hard to imagine how she must have felt, especially having helped him commit the crime (as I believe) when he spurned her and tried to fob her off with a paid holiday.

By the way, despite being a straight man, I can also tell attractive men from unattractive ones and it has been my experience, to which there are of course exceptions, that attractive people tend to wind up with other attractive people while unattractive tend to pair with unattractive.   Colin and Sheila are examples of a couple of 9s.   Bamber is probably an 8 while Sheila is perhaps a 3.   While I would not put too much weight on it, I don't think it irrelevant to ask: what attracted him to her?   Its not as though he didn't have plenty of offers, many of which he seems to have taken advantage of.

There is a theory that the moment we set eyes on the person who will become our "significant other" there is a level on which we "know" that we and they will know all the steps we/they dance to................whatever they may be.