The E = MC² of the case

[Erik Narramore]

This case is complex and the average public will struggle with it.  Unless it is simplified for them, they will simplify it on their own based on the emotional appeal of what they will see, and many of them will conclude as follows:

If Julie admitted to the police that she assisted Jeremy is an abortive murder plot, then she must be telling the truth because nobody would admit such a thing unless it is the truth.

That is a very simple-minded way of looking at it, but that is what they will think unless they receive a compelling narrative to the contrary.

You need simple equations.  This case needs its own E = MC².  Here's a suggested starting point:

(i). If Jeremy is guilty, then Julie's actions make no sense.

(ii). If Jeremy is innocent, then Julie's actions do make sense.

In regard to (i), consider: she knew he was going to do it; she assisted him in a previous plot; he admits to her at Bourtree Cottage that very morning that he wiped out his family; she views the bodies even though she knows he did it; she waits two-and-a-half weeks before telling a friend; she waits three weeks before telling the police and it is someone else who reports it; she contracts with the News of the World before the trial; her evidence consists of nothing that only the killer could have told her; she claims in cross-examination that she wanted to speak to the after-dead spirits of the corpses in the mortuary; after the guilty verdict, she poses for scantily clad pictures and gives a salacious interview and pockets thousands of pounds, enough to buy two flats in 1985 prices.

None of this makes sense, if Jeremy is guilty.

Option (ii) is much simpler.  She quite simply lied and either made it all up or (as I think is more likely) she embellished and exaggerated actual incidents and conversations.  Either way, she left Jeremy and his legal team with no option other than to refute her evidence in its entirety, leaving the jury with a stark choice and the looming question: Would someone really lie to that extent, even implicating herself in the process?  Can someone hate another human being that much or be wicked and deranged to that extent?

[Leslie Aalders]

This case is complex and the average public will struggle with it.  Unless it is simplified for them, they will simplify it on their own based on the emotional appeal of what they will see, and many of them will conclude as follows:

If Julie admitted to the police that she assisted Jeremy is an abortive murder plot, then she must be telling the truth because nobody would admit such a thing unless it is the truth.

That is a very simple-minded way of looking at it, but that is what they will think unless they receive a compelling narrative to the contrary.

You need simple equations.  This case needs its own E = MC².  Here's a suggested starting point:

(i). If Jeremy is guilty, then Julie's actions make no sense.

(ii). If Jeremy is innocent, then Julie's actions do make sense.

In regard to (i), consider: she knew he was going to do it; she assisted him in a previous plot; he admits to her at Bourtree Cottage that very morning that he wiped out his family; she views the bodies even though she knows he did it; she waits two-and-a-half weeks before telling a friend; she waits three weeks before telling the police and it is someone else who reports it; she contracts with the News of the World before the trial; her evidence consists of nothing that only the killer could have told her; she claims in cross-examination that she wanted to speak to the after-dead spirits of the corpses in the mortuary; after the guilty verdict, she poses for scantily clad pictures and gives a salacious interview and pockets thousands of pounds, enough to buy two flats in 1985 prices.

None of this makes sense, if Jeremy is guilty.

Option (ii) is much simpler.  She quite simply lied and either made it all up or (as I think is more likely) she embellished and exaggerated actual incidents and conversations.  Either way, she left Jeremy and his legal team with no option other than to refute her evidence in its entirety, leaving the jury with a stark choice and the looming question: Would someone really lie to that extent, even implicating herself in the process?  Can someone hate another human being that much or be wicked and deranged to that extent?

Talking for myself,your thoughts are always a level or two above mine Erik.This is another thought provoking post that doesn't really need an answer.

It seems to me that whether you realize it or not,your logic often points in the direction of an innocent Bamber.

As far as wicked and deranged goes,we have to take into account that Julie was between a rock and a hard place,either Bamber was going down or she was.

[Erik Narramore]

Talking for myself,your thoughts are always a level or two above mine Erik.This is another thought provoking post that doesn't really need an answer.

It seems to me that whether you realize it or not,your logic often points in the direction of an innocent Bamber.

As far as wicked and deranged goes,we have to take into account that Julie was between a rock and a hard place,either Bamber was going down or she was.

People will ask themselves: 'Would she lie to the extent of condemning an innocent man to life in prison?'

If she knows Jeremy is guilty, then it's an easy choice.

If she thinks Jeremy is guilty based on conversations they had, or persuades herself of this, again it's an easy choice.

If she thinks Jeremy is innocent or has no reason to wishfully reconstrue conversations into guilt, is it so easy then?