Author Topic: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin  (Read 273 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 30002
Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
« Reply #30 on: October 01, 2020, 09:34:AM »
I'm no expert, and I knew that when you said Pam and June were sisters.   
So there was blood shared between then, well, who knows what secrets would be hidden behind the thickness of blood.
"So why would Pam have failed to mention an earlier phone call in which June expressed fears about Sheila's mental state."  Well that would take June to first see the fragility of 'Sheila's mental state'.

From the little bit I know about June is that she was a bit over the top, in her ways.  Was it her way or the no-way highway?


I had believed this discussion to be about what June and Pam may, or not, have discussed during the phone call Pam made to June, and the suggestion that there may have been an earlier call. Your own comment that it "would take June to first see the fragility of Sheila's mental state" rather rules out the  chances of her having made an earlier call, regarding such, to Pam. We can gather this from the tone of the conversation we KNOW they had.

Your assessment of June's personality is interesting. Perhaps there's a difference in our understanding of "over the top"? I see it as being flamboyant, which in no way describes June. I'm inclined to see her as being anxious, but keeping her feelings very much to herself. That being so, it follows that she may have relegated any fears she had about Sheila's mental state to "See what you think" when she mentioned them to Pam. As far as her child-rearing habits go, I suspect it may have been very much a case of" her way or no way".

Offline Robittybob1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
« Reply #31 on: October 01, 2020, 12:44:PM »

I had believed this discussion to be about what June and Pam may, or not, have discussed during the phone call Pam made to June, and the suggestion that there may have been an earlier call. Your own comment that it "would take June to first see the fragility of Sheila's mental state" rather rules out the  chances of her having made an earlier call, regarding such, to Pam. We can gather this from the tone of the conversation we KNOW they had.

Your assessment of June's personality is interesting. Perhaps there's a difference in our understanding of "over the top"? I see it as being flamboyant, which in no way describes June. I'm inclined to see her as being anxious, but keeping her feelings very much to herself. That being so, it follows that she may have relegated any fears she had about Sheila's mental state to "See what you think" when she mentioned them to Pam. As far as her child-rearing habits go, I suspect it may have been very much a case of" her way or no way".
It was June's insistence that the twins say their prayers at night, and that Colin was going to have words to her about it, was the reason I said she was a "bit over the top". 

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 30002
Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
« Reply #32 on: October 01, 2020, 01:02:PM »
It was June's insistence that the twins say their prayers at night, and that Colin was going to have words to her about it, was the reason I said she was a "bit over the top".


That would come under her child-rearing habits. Perhaps here, an element of having failed with her children, she sure as hell wasn't going to let the same thing happen with her grandchildren?

We can't know, of course, HOW insistent she was that the boys said prayers, but I think, as far as the boys were concerned, once would have been once too many times. I think we can understand, too, that Colin, who was never into established religion, would have taken their part.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49125
Re: CORRESPONDENCE- Nanny Pumpkin
« Reply #33 on: October 01, 2020, 02:23:PM »
From memory after reading through the Bamber case files in my possession, I seem to recall that there were a number of separate occasions in the build up to the time of the shootings where Sheila's behavior was called into question. These incidents occurred during two or three days on 4th, 5th and 6th August 1985. In addition, its highly probable that Sheila was involved in some sort of an argument at the last supper table, and apparently according to Jeremy this concerned Sheila Caffells inability to provide proper or adequate care for the twin boys, and the parents, either one or both, told Sheila that the best course of action was for her to receive help from social services. We have to remember also, that on the next day post the tragedy, that Sheila was returning back to her flat at Maide Vale, without knowing whether or not her boys would be returned to the care of their father (Colin Caffell)  who had got custody of them until Sheila and the boys visited the farmhouse. Sheila, ran from a nearby monastery screaming her head off and swearing, behaviour which almost scared a local man to death, and the experience frightened him so badly that he hid himself from view by hiding behind a tree trunk near the footpath. There had been another outburst from Sheila who challenged a meter reader, she was shouting at him to get off her land  An incident which June took control of and calmed the situation down, by explaining to the meter reader that Sheila wasn't very well and that she had not been taking her medication

On the day before the shootings June, and Sheila and the two boys went shopping locally. The Shopkeepers later commented on how quiet and withdrawn Sheila was behaving.

Lastly, when Neville Bamber telephoned Jeremy and he mentioned that Sheila had got the gun, and that she was going crazy. According to Jeremy, the phone call from his dad was only a very brief one, It appeared as if someone had tapped the phones cradle to end the call he was receiving. Oddly enough, Jeremy Bamber said that on one of the last attempts to reestablish contact with his dad that the telephone line had become mysteriously engaged, as though his dad was now talking to somebody else. We know that police have phone records, and that two calls were made to police in regards to the unfolding incident at the farmhouse. The one timed at 3.26am, and the other timed at 3.36am. It is also significant to mention that after his dad's aborted telephone call, that Jeremy telephoned Julie Mugford to inform her that there was something wrong back at whf, without him actually saying what if anything was wrong!

When Mugford originally spoke to police on 7th or 8th August 1985, she told them that she had received that mornings call from Jeremy at around 3.30am, which I ask you all to bear in mind, because its a very important event in the grand scheme of things. Another thing to keep in mind, is that Jeremy Bamber attempted to call the police. INITIALLY,  he had tried phoning Witham police station but couldn't get any response. This was because the uniformed officers who were manning that police station, were absent between the time Jeremy had tried to call them in relation to what his dad had managed to tell him, and 3.35am (which was the exacted time that the occupants of patrol car CA07 returned back to Witham police station. Jeremy's second attempt to call the police did not occur until 3.36am at which time he contacted Chelmsford police control. It was somewhere In between  Jeremy trying to establish contact to Witham police station, and failing to do so because police were out doing a tour of duty at some nearby Industrial site at the time. Jeremy could never be sure of the exact timings when he received the call from his dad, only the sequence with which those events happened. Well we know that the occupants of CA07 did not receive the message from Chelmsford control room, until after the uniformed officers had got back to Witham police station at 3.35am, and we know that the Witham officers did not receive the missed call from Jeremy some time earlier..

We now come back to the original timing regarding when Julie Mugford first mentioned the timing of Jeremy's call to her, and which she originally said occurred at 3.30am. However, since that time, the timing of the call from Jeremy has been rumoured and touted as having occurred at 3.15am, and 3.00am. What this tells us is that if the sequence of events as recollected by Jeremy is true, then the events must have occurred in the following sequence...

Sheila had control of the gun and live ammunition. She had gone crazy.

Neville Bamber alerted Jeremy by telephone call at around 3.25am, or thereabouts, and then cut the line, and Jeremy attempted to reestablish contact with his dad back at the farmhouse, but he only ended up getting an 'engaged signal'

Jeremy attempted to contact Witham police station, but got no response because the uniformed officers who were manning the police station went out on a tour of duty.

Jeremy then called Julie at 3.30am

The occupants of CA07 did not return to Witham
 police station until about 3.35am, and only then did they receive a message from police control room at that time.

Jeremy looked up the telephone number for Chelmsford police station,  and eventually spoke to somebody at 3.36am. Jeremy was kept on the phone for a maximum of 9 minutes (3.36am -  3.42am)...

Now., there's a possibility, that Jeremy could have been Sheila Caffells accomplice in the planning and execution of the other four murders. I now have constructed a timeline which allows Jeremy to make the 3.26am call from whf (or
in the vicinity of, or en route back to his cottage at 9 Head Street to Chelmsford police station)  with reliance upon a previously overlooked and unrelied upon piece of equipment, to which I shall respond in due course.

For now, it was a 7(9) minute journey to drive by car from the farm house (whf)  as checked by me the route captured on video footage. Let's start with the recorded time of the first telephone call to the police (3.26am), now add 7(9) minutes onto that time,

1 minute + = 3.26am, 1(2) minutes + = 3.27am, 1(3) minutes + = 3.28am, 1(4)+ = 3.29am, 1(5) minutes+ = 3.30am, 1(6) minutes+ = 3.31 minutes, 1(7) minutes + = 3.32am, 1(8) minutes+ = 3.33am, 1(9) minutes + = 3.34am.

1 minute + = 3.35am, 1(2) minutes + = 3.36am, 1(3) minutes + = 3.37am, 1(4) minutes + = 3.38am, 1(5) minutes + = 3.39am, 1(6) minutes + = 3.40am, and 1(7) minutes + = 3.41am.

1 minute + = 3.42am, 1(2) minutes + = 3.43am, 1(3) minutes + = 3.44am, 1(4) minutes + = 3.45am, 1(6) minutes + = 3.46am, 1(7) minutes + = 3.47am, 1(8) minutes + = 3.49am, 1(9) minutes + = 3.50am, 1(10) minutes + = 3.51am, 1(11) minutes + = 3.52am..


« Last Edit: October 01, 2020, 02:46:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...