Disadvantages of Julie approaching the police if Bamber was innocent:

[adam]

There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.

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.

The one advantage may become a disadvantage. She would have to live a lie for the rest of her life and may feel extreme guilt while Bamber rots in jail.

She would not expect the police to go along with her lies, once exposed and frame Bamber.

She was being spontaneous and not thinking things through. It is human nature to be much more calculating and patient when extracting revenge.

[Holly Goodhead]

I think EP pursued JM and pounced when the relationship ended; EP were one step ahead as they were eavesdropping from listening devices planted in phones/properties.

The police obtained many forced confessions in the 70's/80's which resulted in wrongful convictions/high profile MOJ's.

They were unable to get a forced confession from JB and so obtained the next best thing false testimony from JM.  As far as I'm aware JM did not have a solicitor present when she was interviewed which was probably more akin to an interrogation meted out for potential terrorists.

EP lied to JB in his police interviews telling him SC was murdered.  This is not what the pathologist said.  There's no reason for them not to have done the same to JM.

A well known and widely accepted psychological experiment by Stanley Milgram shows how individuals will readily obey authority figures. 

IMO JM is a victim of police practices pertaining to that era.  I think her trial testimony is unreliable due to manipulation and pressure by the police and little or nothing to do with being a 'scorned woman', minor crimes, protecting her career and benefiting financially from NoW.

[adam]

The police had several options when Julie approached them -

Dismiss Julie's accusations straight away and tell Julie to go home. Neville had called the police and events outside WHF showed Sheila was the killer. 

Dismiss Julies accusations straight away. There were suspicions Bamber could be guilty, however Julie had just spilt up with Bamber. So was a woman scorned. 

Dismiss Julies accusations straight away as the evidence showed Neville called the police etc. However ask Julie to assist them in attempting to frame Bamber. 

Dismiss Julie's accusations straight away. Due to Neville's call to the police etc. However threaten to prosecute Julie for the caravan break in and for wasting police time, unless she assists them in framing Bamber. 

Dismiss Julie's accusations straight away, but pretend they believe her. The police had already decided to frame Bamber, and Julie would be useful. 

Spend several hours or days interviewing Julie. Assess what she is saying, while at the time assess forensic and circumstantial evidence which is still being processed. Before deciding whether she is being truthful. Then dismiss Julie from the equation, whether charging Bamber or not. 

Spend several hours or days interviewing Julie. Assess what she is saying, while at the same time assess forensic and circumstantial evidence which has been or is still being processed. Then decide Julie is a credible witness and Bamber should be charged. 


What one do you believe the police chose ?

[Holly Goodhead]

The police had several options when Julie approached them -

Dismiss Julie's accusations straight away and tell Julie to go home. Neville had called the police and events outside WHF showed Sheila was the killer.

Dismiss Julies accusations straight away. There were suspicions Bamber could be guilty, however Julie had just spilt up with Bamber. So was a woman scorned.

Dismiss Julies accusations straight away as the evidence showed Neville called the police etc. However ask Julie to assist them in attempting to frame Bamber.

Dismiss Julie's accusations straight away. Due to Neville's call to the police etc. However threaten to prosecute Julie for the caravan break in and for wasting police time, unless she assists them in framing Bamber.

Dismiss Julie's accusations straight away, but pretend they believe her. The police had already decided to frame Bamber, and Julie would be useful.

Spend several hours or days interviewing Julie. Assess what she is saying, while at the time assess forensic and circumstantial evidence which is still being processed. Before deciding whether she is being truthful. Then dismiss Julie from the equation, whether charging Bamber or not.

Spend several hours or days interviewing Julie. Assess what she is saying, while at the same time assess forensic and circumstantial evidence which has been or is still being processed. Then decide Julie is a credible witness and Bamber should be charged.

What one do you believe the police chose ?

None.  I've stated my beliefs above.

[adam]

Yes there are 27 disadvantages above, of Julie trying to convince the police and courts that an innocent Bamber was guilty. That doesn't explain why she approached them.

The police must have agreed in advance to frame Bamber, prior to Julies approach. Why the police had made this decision, I don't know.

In my view, it is too risky, the police going along with her lies in attempting to frame Bamber. She could retract at any time.  The police must have used brilliant coercion to persuade Julie to follow through her lies right through to conviction. Although at first they had nothing to threaten her with.

[scipio_usmc]

I think EP pursued JM and pounced when the relationship ended; EP were one step ahead as they were eavesdropping from listening devices planted in phones/properties.

The police obtained many forced confessions in the 70's/80's which resulted in wrongful convictions/high profile MOJ's.

They were unable to get a forced confession from JB and so obtained the next best thing false testimony from JM.  As far as I'm aware JM did not have a solicitor present when she was interviewed which was probably more akin to an interrogation meted out for potential terrorists.

EP lied to JB in his police interviews telling him SC was murdered.  This is not what the pathologist said.  There's no reason for them not to have done the same to JM.

A well known and widely accepted psychological experiment by Stanley Milgram shows how individuals will readily obey authority figures. 

IMO JM is a victim of police practices pertaining to that era.  I think her trial testimony is unreliable due to manipulation and pressure by the police and little or nothing to do with being a 'scorned woman', minor crimes, protecting her career and benefiting financially from NoW.

Julie told a friend who in turn went to police.  Police questioned her because of such.  Since she no longer was with Jeremy she no longer had a reason to lie to protect him.  Making up a very detailed account like she presented is not likely. Making up a hitman if trying to get back at Jeremy makes no sense at all let alone making up the name of someone who could easily be proven innocent and thus ruin the entire plan.

Given all the other evidence and Jeremy's various lies her testimony is very credible. Her account is the only one in which it makes sense for Jeremy to call her before police which clearly he did despite insisting he called police first.