Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Caroline on October 11, 2019, 04:39:AM
-
C/O Myster
https://www.tvwise.co.uk/2019/10/its-official-itv-orders-jeremy-bamber-drama-white-house-farm-freddie-fox-mark-addy-more-to-star/
https://www.itv.com/presscentre/press-releases/itv-announces-details-new-factual-drama-white-house-farm
-
Hopefully there will be a realistic reconstruction of Jeremy committing the massacre. The evidence is available.
Previous ones on documentaries have been lazy.
-
If they are doing a 6 part drama, time can be spent on the massacre -
2 shots into the twins
9 shots into June & Neville
Kitchen fight - in detail.
4 shots into Nevill
2 shots into June
6 shots into the twins.
2 shots into Sheila.
---------
Reloads at appropriate times. The cycle ride, entrance, exit, back burns, coal scuttle lift & of course the silcencer removal should be included.
The programme makers have artistic licence on whether Sheila woke during the kitchen fight.
All not very pleasant, but assume it will go out after the watershed and their choice to create the series.
-
Is this the one which was started last year ? When is it supposed to get an airing ?
I haven't yet looked at the link so I suppose it'll answer my questions.
-
Just looked at the link to see it's the same producer and it begins early next year.
I also noticed that nobody committed themselves on who the killer was.
The only actor who I recognised is Stephen Graham ( my daughter has a selfie with him when he was filming Virtues, a brilliant series )
It all looks biased to me------again. Would JB's permission have to be granted ? Afterall, he is still alive !
-
I wonder if CC will include his remark about June ? I'll wonder about a lot of things which won't get a mention and it covers longer than a 6 part series. It's the lives of each individual which can't successfully be condensed without bias. The relatives for instance grannie's Will, the absence of DNA and forensic evidence, the backgrounds of all families. I'll be viewing with trepidation !
-
I wonder if CC will include his remark about June ? I'll wonder about a lot of things which won't get a mention and it covers longer than a 6 part series. It's the lives of each individual which can't successfully be condensed without bias. The relatives for instance grannie's Will, the absence of DNA and forensic evidence, the backgrounds of all families. I'll be viewing with trepidation !
If it was coming from the side of innocence you wouldn’t have mentioned bias ;D
-
My guess is that it will turn out to be a good drama, but based on very inadequate investigation that ignores or glosses over many areas of controversy, such as the details of Sheila's illness, and the loss or concealment of various original hand-written documents.
-
My guess is that it will turn out to be a good drama, but based on very inadequate investigation that ignores or glosses over many areas of controversy, such as the details of Sheila's illness, and the loss or concealment of various original hand-written documents.
You can always send in a nit picking letter to points of view!
-
My guess is that it will turn out to be a good drama, but based on very inadequate investigation that ignores or glosses over many areas of controversy, such as the details of Sheila's illness, and the loss or concealment of various original hand-written documents.
I can fully agree with you there Reader.
-
What I found interesting was that there was no actual/written admission of JB's guilt ? Why's that ?
It doesn't seem enough that it states he was " convicted and imprisoned ?"
Normally at the end of such a sequence you have the final admittance and charge.
-
What I found interesting was that there was no actual/written admission of JB's guilt ? Why's that ?
It doesn't seem enough that it states he was " convicted and imprisoned ?"
Normally at the end of such a sequence you have the final admittance and charge.
So someone is innocent if they don’t admit guilt? O.........k
-
So someone is innocent if they don’t admit guilt? O.........k
I didn't say that ! I was on about the events which were written about the drama.
-
The courtroom should be interesting ! JM pretending to cry so that she doesn't have to answer any questions but crave sympathy instead. Then the relatives being ushered out because of outbursts. JB was the only one who remained calm because he was telling the truth.
-
249.
We have considered the potential impact that Action 94 might have had on the jury. We think it is wholly unrealistic to suggest that the jury might have been persuaded by it that there had not been a violent struggle in the kitchen.
Even if one discounts the evidence of the overturned stools and chairs and the broken sugar bowl, there was sufficient other evidence to suggest a violent struggle.
Mr Bamber's body lay across an overturned chair that can have had nothing to do with the actions of the TFG, the light fitting was broken, there were the injuries apart from the shot wounds to Mr Bamber, there was the piece broken off the rifle stock, there were score marks under the mantelpiece where it had been struck by the sound moderator attached to the rifle, and there was Mr Bamber's watch lying damaged under a rug on the other side of the room.
---------
This is a good section from the COA, for those that claim there was no kitchen fight & the raid team knocked things over. There is also of course Nevill's horrific injuries which have been posted earlier today. Doubt the qualified raid team knocked anything over.
Obviously such a violent fight could have only been between Bamber & Nevill.
-
Bamber put Nevill's watch underneath a rug. To collect at a later date.
-
Injured or not, Nevill would have just used his body weight to fall onto Sheila. They wrestled for the rifle so he was close enough.
There would be nothing Sheila could do if a 15 stone man was on top of her.
But as previously said, Nevill would have shut down the issue before any shots were fired. He had an early start on the farm.
-
Bamber put Nevill's watch underneath a rug. To collect at a later date.
Oh dear.
-
Oh dear.
Who else put the watch under the rug after it fell off during the fight?
-
A lot of the kitchen events need to be shown as these issues were discussed at the trial & afterwards -
To show how the scratch marks occurred.
To show how the ceiling light was smashed. Which supports the scratch marks.
To show that Nevill could not simply fall onto his attacker & use his body weight.
To show the advantage the attacker had due to wearing shoes.
To show how hard Nevill had to be hit multiple times to obtain his injuries & for the stock to break & Nevill's watch to fall off. The attacker needing to be very strong.
To show how heavy Nevill was to lift onto a coal scuttle.
To show Nevill's strenght and how strongly he fought in the kitchen. Showing why he received 4 more shots after being knocked out.
To show why Nevill's back was burnt.
----------
Not relating to Nevill, is the exit out of the kitchen window. The sink tidy being moved.
-
Be good if a whole episode could be dedicated to the period from supper to the middle of the next day. Thirty minutes dedicated to the massacre alone.
If the series is being made as a 'who done it', it's doubtful anything will be shown of the massacre.
-
Who else put the watch under the rug after it fell off during the fight?
Well he didn't get it did he ? ::)
It would have inadvertently been kicked underneath the rug during a scuffle. Who would have been worried about a blooming watch at that juncture ?
-
Who got the watch anyway ?
-
Neville and June were milch cows to Jeremy, and that's all they were..
-
Neville and June were milch cows to Jeremy, and that's all they were..
Steve there's nothing unique in that as lots of parents are the same toward their children/teens/adults.
Do any of them appreciate it ??
-
I wonder if anyone spoke to JB about this forthcoming series ? Permission/consent ?
-
Neville and June were milch cows to Jeremy, and that's all they were..
Added to which, he may have believed, given how "hard" he had to work for it, that he was entitled to more.
-
I wonder if anyone spoke to JB about this forthcoming series ? Permission/consent ?
They don't need his permission or consent.
-
Added to which, he may have believed, given how "hard" he had to work for it, that he was entitled to more.
You meal 'all'?
-
He couldn't have worked that hard to have had the energy to kill 5 people after having done 17 hours ??
-
You meal 'all'?
Indeed so.
-
He couldn't have worked that hard to have had the energy to kill 5 people after having done 17 hours ??
He was skiving around the farmyard most of the evening and sloped off without completing the job. He had the energy, and a lot of that would have come from Adrenalin.
-
He was skiving around the farmyard most of the evening and sloped off without completing the job. He had the energy, and a lot of that would have come from Adrenalin.
And you know this ? How ? Who told you ?
-
And you know this ? How ? Who told you ?
How do I know? Read his statement! He was around the farmyard more than in the field on the eve of the murders and left Nevill to finish off. It's no secret!
-
How do I know? Read his statement! He was around the farmyard more than in the field on the eve of the murders and left Nevill to finish off. It's no secret!
I thought that was after the evening meal ?
-
He couldn't have worked that hard to have had the energy to kill 5 people after having done 17 hours ??
Total TWADDLE! Where lust for anything is concerned, tiredness takes a back seat.
-
Total TWADDLE! Where lust for anything is concerned, tiredness takes a back seat.
Do you really have to persist in using insulting words to something that doesn't fit YOUR way of thinking ?
-
That said, my TWADDLE is every bit as good as your TWADDLE ! It's the only way to answer those like you.
-
That said, my TWADDLE is every bit as good as your TWADDLE ! It's the only way to answer those like you.
Well, I fail to see that TWADDLE -foolish nonsense- is insulting, even in these PC days. I'd call it a pretty accurate description of a 24 year old who you claim would be too tired to commit murder for half a million pounds and his freedom.
-
My guess is that it will turn out to be a good drama, but based on very inadequate investigation that ignores or glosses over many areas of controversy, such as the details of Sheila's illness, and the loss or concealment of various original hand-written documents.
Since they are portraying real people by name. They have to be very careful. The only exemptions being Sheila, Stan Jones and RWB since they are dead. Then Jeremy as he has no reputation or character to defame.
-
Since they are portraying real people by name. They have to be very careful. The only exemptions being Sheila, Stan Jones and RWB since they are dead. Then Jeremy as he has no reputation or character to defame.
A lot of it is based on CAL's book, it was certainly used as a frame of reference.
-
A lot of it is based on CAL's book, it was certainly used as a frame of reference.
As well as CC's book which wouldn't surprise me if the producer has already met CC.
-
The only exemptions being Sheila, Stan Jones and RWB since they are dead.
Why would they be the only exemptions? You know perfectly well that various others related to the WHF killings are now dead as well.
-
Why would they be the only exemptions? You know perfectly well that various others related to the WHF killings are now dead as well.
I think this is reference to the key players! Who would you have added?
-
Both the grannies who left fortunes, one of them changing her Will rather sharpish.
-
Both the grannies who left fortunes, one of them changing her Will rather sharpish.
Well they wouldn't be suing anyone would they? They're dead!
-
Well they wouldn't be suing anyone would they? They're dead!
Their money isn't dead though so where did it go, there'll be no explanation ? I'm filling in gaps which won't be mentioned in the drama. I'll watch the series then voice my opinion to the writer/producer after.
PE and his fraudulent ways which he got away with " because of the trial ". Police officers can't multi-task.
-
Their money isn't dead though so where did it go, there'll be no explanation ? I'm filling in gaps which won't be mentioned in the drama. I'll watch the series then voice my opinion to the writer/producer after.
PE and his fraudulent ways which he got away with " because of the trial ". Police officers can't multi-task.
Pam would have inherited Her mother and June's money I imagine. The drama is about the murders, not the money squabbles later.
-
Pam would have inherited Her mother and June's money I imagine. The drama is about the murders, not the money squabbles later.
Pity, because it shows people in a different light if they think they're going to dip out.
-
I think this is reference to the key players! Who would you have added?
DCI "Taff" Jones, D.I. Bob Miller, ACC Peter Simpson, Chief Superintendent George Harris (died 6th April 2018, aged 85), and perhaps Barbara Wilson.
-
I wonder why it was that MM didn't sue anyone for being wrongly branded as a hitman ? I imagine that accusation would stay with you for a long time.
-
I wonder why it was that MM didn't sue anyone for being wrongly branded as a hitman ? I imagine that accusation would stay with you for a long time.
He went around telling people stories of that nature to impress people. He would have no such claim as he brought it on himself.
-
DCI "Taff" Jones, D.I. Bob Miller, ACC Peter Simpson, Chief Superintendent George Harris (died 6th April 2018, aged 85), and perhaps Barbara Wilson.
Earlier reports of BW death were incorrect.
-
He went around telling people stories of that nature to impress people. He would have no such claim as he brought it on himself.
Daft thing. Thick as two short planks.
-
Daft thing. Thick as two short planks.
I don't think that information is new. It seems to have been accepted that he created a persona for himself.
-
I don't think that information is new. It seems to have been accepted that he created a persona for himself.
It's not new.
-
The pictures of the ITV drama look promising. Bamber & Julie at the funeral look very similar to 1985.
Hopefully it is a straight forward A-B drama. Show the build up to & the reasons why Bamber thought he would get away with it. Followed by the massacre. Followed by the trial & a summary of the 33 years of appeals.
Making it into a 'who done it' will restrict the programme makers too much as there is so much incriminating evidence against Bsmber.
-
Nobody looks like anyone in that drama. No wonder line-ups/ identifications go wrong when people say they are " spitting images " ::)
-
The pictures of the ITV drama look promising. Bamber & Julie at the funeral look very similar to 1985.
Hopefully it is a straight forward A-B drama. Show the build up to & the reasons why Bamber thought he would get away with it. Followed by the massacre. Followed by the trial & a summary of the 33 years of appeals.
Making it into a 'who done it' will restrict the programme makers too much as there is so much incriminating evidence against Bsmber.
If people have got any sense, they'll be hard-pushed to find any evidence against JB. That's if the drama isn't hell-bent on being one-sided as a means of raking the money in like the media have been !
-
Nobody looks like anyone in that drama. No wonder line-ups/ identifications go wrong when people say they are " spitting images " ::)
Well the programme makers dressed Bamber & Julie in mirror image clothing at the funeral. Julie's hat even had a veil over it.
-
Well the programme makers dressed Bamber & Julie in mirror image clothing at the funeral. Julie's hat even had a veil over it.
Hats like that aren't hard to come by. If you dress a lot of women and add a hat like that they'd look like JM but that's not to say that the face will be the same. They're only dressed to look the same, it's their faces that matter most----to me anyway, or I'll just be sitting telling myself it looks nothing like her/him. I'm a stickler for getting things right.
-
Hats like that aren't hard to come by. If you dress a lot of women and add a hat like that they'd look like JM but that's not to say that the face will be the same. They're only dressed to look the same, it's their faces that matter most----to me anyway, or I'll just be sitting telling myself it looks nothing like her/him. I'm a stickler for getting things right.
Some of our best actors look NOTHING like the person they're portraying, but they get the mannerisms SO exact that they become that person.
-
Some of our best actors look NOTHING like the person they're portraying, but they get the mannerisms SO exact that they become that person.
Difficult if you've never seen/met them. A person " performing " in public doesn't necessarily portray them in real life.
-
The closest is Helen Mirren as the Queen.
-
Difficult if you've never seen/met them. A person " performing " in public doesn't necessarily portray them in real life.
VERY difficult if the performer has never seen the private person.
-
VERY difficult if the performer has never seen the private person.
Very few would get to meet a private person.
-
Just seen the trailer for this, starts in January - looks good!
-
Just seen the trailer for this, starts in January - looks good!
Whatever Stephen Graham's starring in is good. It's just a pity he's got such a short appearance. I'm a bit miffed about that.
-
I still think this is going to be one-sided with CAL having met, in person, police and possibly relatives who are naturally going to say, or tell her that he's guilty. I don't believe that she ever went to see Jeremy as many authors like to gather information while studying a person face to face, especially as it's now being televised.
I trust the relatives would had been foretold of this " intrusion " on their part ?
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166636/amp/Bamber-slaughtered-family-25-bullets-told-girlfriend-s-going-years-investigation-leading-author-tell-exactly-happened-night-White-House-Farm-massacre.html&ved=2ahUKEwiO9ov_tJTmAhWTTxUIHcr9BaU4ChAWMAl6BAgDEAE&usg=AOvVaw2Y-8WUeMN9Ct9jkY-hbe-b
CAL is saying Bamber left Nevill in the bedroom & went to shoot the twins before re loading. Nevill following him into the kitchen.
Don't agree with that. Unless he was sure Nevill was dead. Which he certainly was not.
Nevill may have been staggering & on his knees. Bamber believing he was immobilised & no threat. So left Nevill & June. Nevill later making a final huge effort to negate Bamber in the kitchen.
This is also going against Julie's WS, who said the twins were shot first.
-
I still think this is going to be one-sided with CAL having met, in person, police and possibly relatives who are naturally going to say, or tell her that he's guilty. I don't believe that she ever went to see Jeremy as many authors like to gather information while studying a person face to face, especially as it's now being televised.
I trust the relatives would had been foretold of this " intrusion " on their part ?
She makes it clear that she never went to see him, there was no need to see or speak to him. She has letters from the man himself which are better than any notes she could have took. Daisy met him personally on several occasions and you weren't happy with what she had to say either. CAL's book is as accurate as anyone could be, it equals Wilkes in facts but goes much further and is the best book available about the case. Jeremy knew CAL was writing a book and he had his contribution.
-
Whatever Stephen Graham's starring in is good. It's just a pity he's got such a short appearance. I'm a bit miffed about that.
How do you know he had a short appearance? He's one of the stars and Taff Jones had a major part to play during the initial investigation. However, a minor detail but perhaps Mark Addy should have played Taff Jones and Stephen Graham, Stan Jones? Stan was younger than Taff - although both are really good actors. It's a great cast and from the trailer - it looks amazing.
HBO have bought the US rights so it will be shown there ext year too.
https://deadline.com/2019/11/hbo-max-takes-u-s-rights-to-stephen-graham-fronted-itv-crime-drama-white-house-farm-1202797078/
https://deadline.com/2019/11/hbo-max-takes-u-s-rights-to-stephen-graham-fronted-itv-crime-drama-white-house-farm-1202797078/
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166636/amp/Bamber-slaughtered-family-25-bullets-told-girlfriend-s-going-years-investigation-leading-author-tell-exactly-happened-night-White-House-Farm-massacre.html&ved=2ahUKEwiO9ov_tJTmAhWTTxUIHcr9BaU4ChAWMAl6BAgDEAE&usg=AOvVaw2Y-8WUeMN9Ct9jkY-hbe-b
CAL is saying Bamber left Nevill in the bedroom & went to shoot the twins before re loading. Nevill following him into the kitchen.
Don't agree with that. Unless he was sure Nevill was dead. Which he certainly was not.
Nevill may have been staggering & on his knees. Bamber believing he was immobilised & no threat. So left Nevill & June. Nevill later making a final huge effort to negate Bamber in the kitchen.
This is also going against Julie's WS, who said the twins were shot first.
That is just her scenario at the end, we all have one of those. However, the book itself is a goos account of the facts and certainly the best on the market.
-
How do you know he had a short appearance? He's one of the stars and Taff Jones had a major part to play during the initial investigation. However, a minor detail but perhaps Mark Addy should have played Taff Jones and Stephen Graham, Stan Jones? Stan was younger than Taff - although both are really good actors. It's a great cast and from the trailer - it looks amazing.
HBO have bought the US rights so it will be shown there ext year too.
https://deadline.com/2019/11/hbo-max-takes-u-s-rights-to-stephen-graham-fronted-itv-crime-drama-white-house-farm-1202797078/
https://deadline.com/2019/11/hbo-max-takes-u-s-rights-to-stephen-graham-fronted-itv-crime-drama-white-house-farm-1202797078/
Because of " Taff's " sudden and untimely death he wasn't around to see or involve himself in any way, least of all at the most important part of the case, i.e. the trial.
-
I must admit to having very mixed feelings about the series. I don't know why but I feel uncomfortable about it.
-
I must admit to having very mixed feelings about the series. I don't know why but I feel uncomfortable about it.
I don’t think how it’s portrayed will have any effect either way Lookout, it’s a story that could be changed to suit, at the end of the day these directors will go for dramatising and organising the realisation of his/her version.
-
I don’t think how it’s portrayed will have any effect either way Lookout, it’s a story that could be changed to suit, at the end of the day these directors will go for dramatising and organising the realisation of his/her version.
Because I'm such a stickler for the truth and what you say about dramatization opens up an opportunity to skirt around certain areas which, in the background, get little or no mention and which is invariably part and parcel of the " plot " such as the thorough and individual investigation ( or lack of ) in all those concerned who had a vested interest.
The above couldn't possibly be written into just 6x1 hour episodes. A crime of this proportion can't be condensed without full knowledge of each individual.
-
Because I'm such a stickler for the truth and what you say about dramatization opens up an opportunity to skirt around certain areas which, in the background, get little or no mention and which is invariably part and parcel of the " plot " such as the thorough and individual investigation ( or lack of ) in all those concerned who had a vested interest.
The above couldn't possibly be written into just 6x1 hour episodes. A crime of this proportion can't be condensed without full knowledge of each individual.
This series is made purely for entertainment purposes.
The best way to make a drama about a case like this is to make both characters look culpable and not give it a proper ending and leave the conclusion to the imagination to the audience.
That's how I would direct it.
-
This series is made purely for entertainment purposes.
The best way to make a drama about a case like this is to make both characters look culpable and not give it a proper ending and leave the conclusion to the imagination to the audience.
That's how I would direct it.
I'd thought of that too but nobody likes to feel cheated do they ? I suppose it's all down to what we here know about the case and what we feel will be omitted.
-
That is just her scenario at the end, we all have one of those. However, the book itself is a goos account of the facts and certainly the best on the market.
Appreciate it is her scenario.
Don't believe Nevill would follow Bamber downstairs.
Firstly he is badly injured. If he was going to attack him, better to save energy & wait until he returns upstairs.
Bamber may also hear Nevill come downstairs & shoot him when or before he arrives.
Nevill may also try to wake Sheila & the twins while Bamber was in the kitchen. After seeing how badly injured June was.
-
Appreciate it is her scenario.
Don't believe Nevill would follow Bamber downstairs.
Firstly he is badly injured. If he was going to attack him, better to save energy & wait until he returns upstairs.
Bamber may also hear Nevill come downstairs & shoot him when or before he arrives.
Nevill may also try to wake Sheila & the twins while Bamber was in the kitchen. After seeing how badly injured June was.
save energy? That's laughable. This is a real life scenario. Nevill would have been going at Jeremy like the clappers. We're not playing grand theft auto.....
-
Because of " Taff's " sudden and untimely death he wasn't around to see or involve himself in any way, least of all at the most important part of the case, i.e. the trial.
His role was still a major one and maybe the series doesn't get as far as the trial. We'll have to see.
-
This series is made purely for entertainment purposes.
The best way to make a drama about a case like this is to make both characters look culpable and not give it a proper ending and leave the conclusion to the imagination to the audience.
That's how I would direct it.
That's not how this one is being played. Yes, it's main purpose is for entertainment but it's also based on both CAL and Colin's books. I think it will sticky much to the known facts.
-
Nevill would have disarmed Jeremy, injured or not, he'd served in the war so I'm sure he'd have been used to surprises and would also have landed him a punch or two----not forgetting that Nevill was a strong man.
Confronting a woman, his own daughter would have been a different scenario as I honestly don't think that Nevill would have realised that she'd carry out what she must have threatened beforehand as the shots were indiscriminate even at close quarters------the type of shots which weren't afforded to someone who was used to firing a rifle.
-
Nevill would have disarmed Jeremy, injured or not, he'd served in the war so I'm sure he'd have been used to surprises and would also have landed him a punch or two----not forgetting that Nevill was a strong man.
Confronting a woman, his own daughter would have been a different scenario as I honestly don't think that Nevill would have realised that she'd carry out what she must have threatened beforehand as the shots were indiscriminate even at close quarters------the type of shots which weren't afforded to someone who was used to firing a rifle.
That's just wishful thinking Lookout.
-
save energy? That's laughable. This is a real life scenario. Nevill would have been going at Jeremy like the clappers. We're not playing grand theft auto.....
Still waiting for your Sheila scenario.
Do you believe Nevill would have followed Bamber downstairs. After he had been shot 4 times?
-
Is anyone else getting a Service Unavailable error?
-
That's just wishful thinking Lookout.
Not really, it's my logic.
-
Is anyone else getting a Service Unavailable error?
Yes---503.
-
Yes---503.
Same here - seems to have been a server issue, lots of the photographs in the library are only showing a link and not the actual picture. I have informed the Host.
-
Same here - seems to have been a server issue, lots of the photographs in the library are only showing a link and not the actual picture. I have informed the Host.
Same here Caroline, I thought it was my internet?
-
Still waiting for your Sheila scenario.
Do you believe Nevill would have followed Bamber downstairs. After he had been shot 4 times?
do you believe he went to the bathroom and pressed triangle r1, r2 and circle then recharged...
-
I do hope they get the details right in this drama, and that they don't speculate too much. I watched a documentary where there were many inaccuracies, and that's just too annoying.
-
I agree Kaldin as I too can see sensationalisms with a capital S and it's anything but !! There's bound to be to hold the interest of the people and if so I hope someone has the guts to point things out, especially those at CT who profess to have more information than most.
-
I agree Kaldin as I too can see sensationalisms with a capital S and it's anything but !! There's bound to be to hold the interest of the people and if so I hope someone has the guts to point things out, especially those at CT who profess to have more information than most.
I'm sure that most people watching it won't notice inaccuracies and speculation because they're not that familiar with the case, but for us who have researched the smallest details it will be obvious.
-
I'm sure that most people watching it won't notice inaccuracies and speculation because they're not that familiar with the case, but for us who have researched the smallest details it will be obvious.
Thats going to be a big problem for posters, it’s impossible to put every detail in and please everyone, if I’m not mistaken it’s going to be more focused on the emotional side of events? Posters are not understanding the difference between Drama and Documentary I’m afraid.
-
Thats going to be a big problem for posters, it’s impossible to put every detail in and please everyone, if I’m not mistaken it’s going to be more focused on the emotional side of events? Posters are not understanding the difference between Drama and Documentary I’m afraid.
They don't need to put every detail in, but the details they do put in should be accurate, otherwise there might be some ranting on here. ;D
-
They don't need to put every detail in, but the details they do put in should be accurate, otherwise there might be some ranting on here. ;D
Hahahaha, there's bound to be ranting about something. I'll be scrutinising everything. These dramas are never 100% of how things happened because of elaborating here and there to stretch the series out as well as adding drama, although saying that as I've said before, they can't possibly cram everything into only 6x1 hour episodes so it'll be skimmed in parts and not as in-depth as it is in reality.
It could be that the " basics " will be played out where you're left with your own decision such as between the two siblings----of which I'll be quite happy about rather than a " he done-it " conclusion.
-
Hahahaha, there's bound to be ranting about something. I'll be scrutinising everything. These dramas are never 100% of how things happened because of elaborating here and there to stretch the series out as well as adding drama, although saying that as I've said before, they can't possibly cram everything into only 6x1 hour episodes so it'll be skimmed in parts and not as in-depth as it is in reality.
It could be that the " basics " will be played out where you're left with your own decision such as between the two siblings----of which I'll be quite happy about rather than a " he done-it " conclusion.
It'll probably be me ranting. ;D I was watching one the other day where it showed Jeremy leaving the gun on the kitchen table!
-
It'll probably be me ranting. ;D I was watching one the other day where it showed Jeremy leaving the gun on the kitchen table!
These are exactly the inaccuracies that you mentioned and it's not right or fair to do this as it sets off an agenda before the damn thing gets started. From that alone you can smell the bias immediately. Is it any wonder there are so many MOJ's and mistakes made when this sort of fabrication is present ?
-
These are exactly the inaccuracies that you mentioned and it's not right or fair to do this as it sets off an agenda before the damn thing gets started. From that alone you can smell the bias immediately. Is it any wonder there are so many MOJ's and mistakes made when this sort of fabrication is present ?
Ive got you down to play Julie in my production, with Adam as Jeremy Lookout 🙈🙈🙈. Maybe we should do a cast list from the forum. Obviously NGB would play Drake and me as the Star who rescues the plot Stan Jones Caroline and Jane would be my assistants 😂😂😂
-
These are exactly the inaccuracies that you mentioned and it's not right or fair to do this as it sets off an agenda before the damn thing gets started. From that alone you can smell the bias immediately. Is it any wonder there are so many MOJ's and mistakes made when this sort of fabrication is present ?
Yes. The Bible was also shown on the wrong side. There was a lot of speculation too about what time the family went to bed. It said they were in bed by 11. Nobody could possibly know that.
-
I agree Kaldin as I too can see sensationalisms with a capital S and it's anything but !! There's bound to be to hold the interest of the people and if so I hope someone has the guts to point things out, especially those at CT who profess to have more information than most.
They ought to let Anne help with production, she has got the finer detail, she has got it down to the second 😂😂😂
-
I do hope they get the details right in this drama, and that they don't speculate too much. I watched a documentary where there were many inaccuracies, and that's just too annoying.
Have you read Carol Ann Lee's book?
-
I agree Kaldin as I too can see sensationalisms with a capital S and it's anything but !! There's bound to be to hold the interest of the people and if so I hope someone has the guts to point things out, especially those at CT who profess to have more information than most.
The CT talk bollocks!
-
Hahahaha, there's bound to be ranting about something. I'll be scrutinising everything. These dramas are never 100% of how things happened because of elaborating here and there to stretch the series out as well as adding drama, although saying that as I've said before, they can't possibly cram everything into only 6x1 hour episodes so it'll be skimmed in parts and not as in-depth as it is in reality.
It could be that the " basics " will be played out where you're left with your own decision such as between the two siblings----of which I'll be quite happy about rather than a " he done-it " conclusion.
WOW! There is more elaborating and inaccuracies on here than on ANY TV programme that I have seen!
-
Yes. The Bible was also shown on the wrong side. There was a lot of speculation too about what time the family went to bed. It said they were in bed by 11. Nobody could possibly know that.
Perhaps that's because that was the time they generally went to bed.
-
Have you read Carol Ann Lee's book?
No I haven't.
-
Perhaps that's because that was the time they generally went to bed.
Who said so? Who knew what time Sheila went to bed?
-
WOW! There is more elaborating and inaccuracies on here than on ANY TV programme that I have seen!
It's because we haven't got the full "unadulterated" facts in front of us.
-
It's because we haven't got the full "unadulterated" facts in front of us.
We have enough.
-
We have enough.
But not the originals, eh ?
-
Who said so? Who knew what time Sheila went to bed?
She was going to bed when Pam called.
-
But not the originals, eh ?
Not that ole chestnut 😂
-
Not that ole chestnut 😂
I'm afraid so, though can you explain why we haven't seen them ?
-
I'm afraid so, though can you explain why we haven't seen them ?
We have.
-
We have.
Where ? Because something like that wouldn't escape me------not a lot does as a matter of fact.
-
Where ? Because something like that wouldn't escape me------not a lot does as a matter of fact.
Are you saying that all the documents on the forum are fake?
-
Are you saying that all the documents on the forum are fake?
I can't say until I've seen them can I ?
-
I can't say until I've seen them can I ?
That’s the point, you have seen them. What you haven’t seen is probably not worth seeing.
-
That’s the point, you have seen them. What you haven’t seen is probably not worth seeing.
When were the original documents on here when it was a murder/suicide ?
-
When were the original documents on here when it was a murder/suicide ?
Those won’t be release because their wS no trial and to even expect to see them is unreasonable.
-
Those won’t be release because their wS no trial and to even expect to see them is unreasonable.
Why didn't you say that instead of saying I had missed seeing them ? ( like I was losing it ) Wishful thinking on your part maybe.
Anyway, I don't think it's an unreasonable request to want to see them. I'm interested even if no-one else is.
-
Why didn't you say that instead of saying I had missed seeing them ? ( like I was losing it ) Wishful thinking on your part maybe.
Anyway, I don't think it's an unreasonable request to want to see them. I'm interested even if no-one else is.
We’ll try being specific in future :P. Why should you be allowed to see documents that pertain to a suspect who ended up being a victim?
-
We’ll try being specific in future :P. Why should you be allowed to see documents that pertain to a suspect who ended up being a victim?
C'mon, me be specific ?? Don't you ever think it might be you that isn't ? After 34 years I wouldn't have thought that documents were worth holding on to unless there was a hidden agenda to do so ?
-
C'mon, me be specific ?? Don't you ever think it might be you that isn't ? After 34 years I wouldn't have thought that documents were worth holding on to unless there was a hidden agenda to do so ?
I really do become frightfully confused about all these alleged hidden documents. IF they're hidden, how does anyone know what's in them, and if they KNOW what's in them there must have been a point at which they were public knowledge. Having said that, if they HAD been public knowledge what's the point of hiding them now? On the other hand IF there is anything incriminating, surely it stands to reason that such wouldn't be hidden. It simply would never have existed in the first place.
-
I really do become frightfully confused about all these alleged hidden documents. IF they're hidden, how does anyone know what's in them, and if they KNOW what's in them there must have been a point at which they were public knowledge. Having said that, if they HAD been public knowledge what's the point of hiding them now? On the other hand IF there is anything incriminating, surely it stands to reason that such wouldn't be hidden. It simply would never have existed in the first place.
How do we know what's in them ? That's easy. Did not " Taff "Jones make notes,etc at the beginning based on his findings ? If so, where are they ?
If there was anything incriminating towards JB they would have been received with glee by SJ, and that goes for everything else that's hidden from view. It IS in the interests of the public to see/know about this.
-
How do we know what's in them ? That's easy. Did not " Taff "Jones make notes,etc at the beginning based on his findings ? If so, where are they ?
If there was anything incriminating towards JB they would have been received with glee by SJ, and that goes for everything else that's hidden from view. It IS in the interests of the public to see/know about this.
I wonder why you believe it to be "in the interests of the public to see/know about this". "T"J made an error of judgement based on information passed on from others based on what they'd learned from Jeremy. Once they'd looked at another possibility, all previous information was erroneous and of no further use. These things happen. There was a time when it was believed that the earth was flat -some idiots still believe, and even post about it- but I'll guarantee that very little, if any, documentation exists regarding it.
-
I wonder why you believe it to be "in the interests of the public to see/know about this". "T"J made an error of judgement based on information passed on from others based on what they'd learned from Jeremy. Once they'd looked at another possibility, all previous information was erroneous and of no further use. These things happen. There was a time when it was believed that the earth was flat -some idiots still believe, and even post about it- but I'll guarantee that very little, if any, documentation exists regarding it.
Well it seems to be in the interests of the public to show a half-baked drama about the murders so what's the difference in something being out in the public arena and keeping documents of the same thing under lock and key ?
You and many others are HOPING that there are no more documents, you mean.
-
She was going to bed when Pam called.
Just after 10 then ...
-
" Error of judgement ?" After 30 years service and 10 commendations ?
-
C'mon, me be specific ?? Don't you ever think it might be you that isn't ? After 34 years I wouldn't have thought that documents were worth holding on to unless there was a hidden agenda to do so ?
You
It's because we haven't got the full "unadulterated" facts in front of us.
Me - "we have enough"
You
But not the originals, eh ?
So where were you specific about which documents you were referring to?
-
" Error of judgement ?" After 30 years service and 10 commendations ?
Very wrong to set people on a pedestal that high, Lookout. We're ALL capable of making errors of judgement.......................and yes, I'm including you in that ;D
-
Just after 10 then ...
Whatever
-
You
Me - "we have enough"
You
So where were you specific about which documents you were referring to?
There are times when you don't make yourself very clear at all ::)
-
There are times when you don't make yourself very clear at all ::)
Probably - but then I would deny it. There are times when I'm wrong too - but again, I wouldn't deny it.
-
Whatever
So it wasn't 11 ...
-
Probably - but then I would deny it. There are times when I'm wrong too - but again, I wouldn't deny it.
By talking in riddles is a form of denial.
-
So it wasn't 11 ...
It might have been - it was certainly around then for some of them!
-
By talking in riddles is a form of denial.
Then stop doing it!
-
It might have been - it was certainly around then for some of them!
How do you know that?
-
How do you know that?
Common sense!
-
Common sense!
So you don't actually know it then.
-
So you don't actually know it then.
Dear god! ::)
-
I'm getting to the stage now where I'm appalled by the fact that JB has been pleading to see for himself those documents that have remained hidden and would show further proof of his innocence, of that I'm 100% sure.
Too many MOJ's have happened because of " lost " / destroyed or withheld evidence. Surely after all this time it's JB's right to know. The longer EP hang on to them the more people are beginning to ask why.
I wonder if this drama will shed any light on them----if it's mentioned at all, or will it be something else that they're totally unaware of ?
-
First episode - ITV January 8th at 9pm.
-
I'm getting to the stage now where I'm appalled by the fact that JB has been pleading to see for himself those documents that have remained hidden and would show further proof of his innocence, of that I'm 100% sure.
Too many MOJ's have happened because of " lost " / destroyed or withheld evidence. Surely after all this time it's JB's right to know. The longer EP hang on to them the more people are beginning to ask why.
I wonder if this drama will shed any light on them----if it's mentioned at all, or will it be something else that they're totally unaware of ?
Doubt it very much Lookout, that’s more a DOCUmentary (sorry for the pun) 😂😂😂
-
I think this drama is going to be left for people to draw their own conclusions rather than blaming any one particular person. The producer can't do it any other way really.
-
I think this drama is going to be left for people to draw their own conclusions rather than blaming any one particular person. The producer can't do it any other way really.
Lookout, the drama is based on Carol Ann Lee's book - have you read it? Have you seen the trailer?
-
Lookout, the drama is based on Carol Ann Lee's book - have you read it? Have you seen the trailer?
I've only read snippets of the book but not overall as yet. No I haven't seen the trailer .
Is the author a detective too ?
-
I've only read snippets of the book but not overall as yet. No I haven't seen the trailer .
Is the author a detective too ?
You're acting like there was never an investigation, a trial and a conviction - how would any of that lead to the drama being 'open'? It was detectives that ran the investigation that lead to the conviction!
Are you a detective?
-
You're acting like there was never an investigation, a trial and a conviction - how would any of that lead to the drama being 'open'? It was detectives that ran the investigation that lead to the conviction!
Are you a detective?
I'm talking about the author and asked if she too was a detective.
Anyone can write a book after the event---the script/everything is already there but the truth is only as accurate as those who relayed it to her ? We don't know. We weren't there.We can only take a person's word for it when reading a book.
-
How many wrote books about Sutcliffe ? Dozens---and all different. Even the JB books are all different.
-
I'm talking about the author and asked if she too was a detective.
Anyone can write a book after the event---the script/everything is already there but the truth is only as accurate as those who relayed it to her ? We don't know. We weren't there.We can only take a person's word for it when reading a book.
I doubt that she relied simply on what she was told. People tend, if they're truthful, to call it as they see it. Rarely do people experience the same thing. As you so rightly say, anyone can write a book after the event. It's the best way to write one. If they wrote it before the event it would be a prophesy ;) :))
It's possible that the best crime writers become good at detecting. Patricia Cornwall spent a lot of time with a pathologist watching autopsies. Agatha Christie had an excellent knowledge of poisons. It may not be as easy as you think if the author wishes their work to be taken seriously.
-
I'm talking about the author and asked if she too was a detective.
Anyone can write a book after the event---the script/everything is already there but the truth is only as accurate as those who relayed it to her ? We don't know. We weren't there.We can only take a person's word for it when reading a book.
Yes and I treated the question as it should be treated!
Anyone can write a book? Crack on then! See if you manage to interest a TV network in an innocent Jeremy Bamber - Good luck!
-
How many wrote books about Sutcliffe ? Dozens---and all different. Even the JB books are all different.
All different? Does he manage to escape on a magic carpet in any of them? Does anyone find him innocent - is the verdict LEFT OPEN? ::)
-
I doubt that she relied simply on what she was told. People tend, if they're truthful, to call it as they see it. Rarely do people experience the same thing. As you so rightly say, anyone can write a book after the event. It's the best way to write one. If they wrote it before the event it would be a prophesy ;) :))
Might help if Lookout had read the book before commenting. Lots of references and interviews with key players - she had access to more than we have here.
-
Might help if Lookout had read the book before commenting. Lots of references and interviews with key players - she had access to more than we have here.
"Anyone can write a book after the event"? I think we can accept that this statement isn't entirely accurate, but it could be that it was thrown in as a way of undermining it's authenticity?
-
"Anyone can write a book after the event"? I think we can accept that this statement isn't entirely accurate, but it could be that it was thrown in as a way of undermining it's authenticity?
I don't think CAL has anything to worry about there ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Sheila's mental health was never discussed at length at the trial. Until we learn what the notes contained I don't call this a fair system/trial.
David Challen whose mother was imprisoned for killing her husband said to me today, I quote " Quite important to recognise mental health under diminished responsibility if we're to learn anything ", unquote.
So, is there anywhere in CAL's book where she's studied mental health ?
In Sally's case where she'd spent 9 years in prison for murder her appeal brought about a case of manslaughter after it had been found that she'd been suffering mental health at the time of the murder in 2010. Sally had been released this year after the CoA quashed her appeal in light of new evidence re. her mental health.
Psychological abuse or as Colin would have put it--a fkd-up brain which wasn't going to let happen to his children as he'd blamed June for the way Sheila was.
I wish Sally and her sons a happy and peaceful Christmas.x
-
Sheila's mental health was never discussed at length at the trial. Until we learn what the notes contained I don't call this a fair system/trial.
David Challen whose mother was imprisoned for killing her husband said to me today, I quote " Quite important to recognise mental health under diminished responsibility if we're to learn anything ", unquote.
So, is there anywhere in CAL's book where she's studied mental health ?
In Sally's case where she'd spent 9 years in prison for murder her appeal brought about a case of manslaughter after it had been found that she'd been suffering mental health at the time of the murder in 2010. Sally had been released this year after the CoA quashed her appeal in light of new evidence re. her mental health.
Psychological abuse or as Colin would have put it--a fkd-up brain which wasn't going to let happen to his children as he'd blamed June for the way Sheila was.
I wish Sally and her sons a happy and peaceful Christmas.x
No one had the right to go into Sheila's mental health. She was never accused of anything. It wasn't she who was on trial. It was Jeremy. Whatever Colin may have said, he's neither psychiatrist nor psychologist, so it only amounts to his opinion. If he'd stood up in court and given it, counsel would have said "Speculation".
-
No one had the right to go into Sheila's mental health. She was never accused of anything. It wasn't she who was on trial. It was Jeremy. Whatever Colin may have said, he's neither psychiatrist nor psychologist, so it only amounts to his opinion. If he'd stood up in court and given it, counsel would have said "Speculation".
People do have a right to see/read all that there is when it involves some innocent person spending a lifetime in prison. It's plain to see that the woman was positively unwell.
-
People do have a right to see/read all that there is when it involves some innocent person spending a lifetime in prison. It's plain to see that the woman was positively unwell.
I think I read where Bamber stopped the police from looking at his medical records Lookout, not sure though?
-
People do have a right to see/read all that there is when it involves some innocent person spending a lifetime in prison. It's plain to see that the woman was positively unwell.
Like I said. Sheila was never on trial. IF they'd decided that she'd been responsible, surely there'd only have been an inquest?
-
Sheila's mental health was never discussed at length at the trial. Until we learn what the notes contained I don't call this a fair system/trial.
David Challen whose mother was imprisoned for killing her husband said to me today, I quote " Quite important to recognise mental health under diminished responsibility if we're to learn anything ", unquote.
So, is there anywhere in CAL's book where she's studied mental health ?
In Sally's case where she'd spent 9 years in prison for murder her appeal brought about a case of manslaughter after it had been found that she'd been suffering mental health at the time of the murder in 2010. Sally had been released this year after the CoA quashed her appeal in light of new evidence re. her mental health.
Psychological abuse or as Colin would have put it--a fkd-up brain which wasn't going to let happen to his children as he'd blamed June for the way Sheila was.
I wish Sally and her sons a happy and peaceful Christmas.x
Since when did an author have to study mental health? Also Sheila wasn't on trial, she couldn't make it, someone shot her in the throat and tried to make it look like she killed her sons and her parents. I'm sure she'd have preferred to be there.
Pity you didn't have the same compassion for Sheila Caffell.
-
No one had the right to go into Sheila's mental health. She was never accused of anything. It wasn't she who was on trial. It was Jeremy. Whatever Colin may have said, he's neither psychiatrist nor psychologist, so it only amounts to his opinion. If he'd stood up in court and given it, counsel would have said "Speculation".
The defence had the right to go into it because their contention was that Sheila shot them all and herself.
-
I think I read where Bamber stopped the police from looking at his medical records Lookout, not sure though?
He did.
-
I think I read where Bamber stopped the police from looking at his medical records Lookout, not sure though?
I'm talking about Sheila's not his. Someone will have seen his anyway.
-
The defence had the right to go into it because their contention was that Sheila shot them all and herself.
Then they had the right to go through Bambers too!
-
I'm talking about Sheila's not his. Someone will have seen his anyway.
Which 'someone'?
-
I'm talking about Sheila's not his. Someone will have seen his anyway.
I thought he'd refused permission.
-
Then they had the right to go through Bambers too!
Who - the prosecution? They weren't claiming he was mentally ill though. They're hardly likely to claim that anyway.
-
I'm talking about Sheila's not his. Someone will have seen his anyway.
I thought he refused? Not sure but I don’t think they can, I could be wrong though.
-
Who - the prosecution? They weren't claiming he was mentally ill though. They're hardly likely to claim that anyway.
No his own psychiatrist did that
-
Then they had the right to go through Bambers too!
it would be a waste of time. Jeremy was of sound mind
-
Because someone refuses permission----in prison, what a laugh ! doesn't mean that someone wouldn't have a sneaky peek.
-
The defence had the right to go into it because their contention was that Sheila shot them all and herself.
If they had the right, then that's what they would have done.
-
If they had the right, then that's what they would have done.
Didn't they do that?
-
Someone would have to know if there were any allergies reported in case of illness and administering drugs/injections.
-
No his own psychiatrist did that
What psychiatrist, and what does that have to do with it?
-
Didn't they do that?
Her medical records were not released but they may have had access to part of them. Ask Lookout, she seems to thing there is a smoking gun hidden among them - pardon the pun!
-
What psychiatrist, and what does that have to do with it?
he has skim read CAL, " if there was ever a psychopath his name is Jeremy Bamber"
-
Her medical records were not released but they may have had access to part of them. Ask Lookout, she seems to thing there is a smoking gun hidden among them - pardon the pun!
Not released? But there are statements from Dr Ferguson. Didn't the defence have access to those?
-
he has skim read CAL, " if there was ever a psychopath his name is Jeremy Bamber"
It's questionable whether or not being a psychopath is a mental illness anyway. 8)
-
Not released? But there are statements from Dr Ferguson. Didn't the defence have access to those?
According to the CT and Lookout - records are still hidden.
-
Not released? But there are statements from Dr Ferguson. Didn't the defence have access to those?
Ahem " because it wasn't Sheila who was on trial ".
-
According to the CT and Lookout - records are still hidden.
And according to EP they are !! 3 court orders given so what are they hiding ?
-
Oh I see, this is some kind of game.
-
What psychiatrist, and what does that have to do with it?
What do you mean what has that got to do with it? You said the prosecution wasn’t claiming he was mentally ill, I said his own defence did though? Unless you meant something else?
-
What do you mean what has that got to do with it? You said the prosecution wasn’t claiming he was mentally ill, I said his own defence did though? Unless you meant something else?
Why would his defence claim he was mentally ill? His defence wasn't diminished responsibility.
-
Oh I see, this is some kind of game.
Not a game Kaldin. I'm serious and damned annoyed that Sheila's records were never shown to the jury.
-
What do you mean what has that got to do with it? You said the prosecution wasn’t claiming he was mentally ill, I said his own defence did though? Unless you meant something else?
Unless there's an underlying one, personality disorders per se, don't constitute mental illness.
-
Clearly, the defence would have referred to Sheila's mental health because their contention was that Sheila shot them in a psychotic state. She had no other motive.
-
Why would his defence claim he was mentally ill? His defence wasn't diminished responsibility.
I honestly don’t know Kaldin, it’s been put up numerous times on here, I’m in Essex at moment with family and only on my iPhone so I can’t put a link up for you to read, if someone could help? Some think it’s not real but Carol Ann Lee writes about it and several other, “if ever there was a psychopath it’s Jeremy Bamber”
-
Not a game Kaldin. I'm serious and damned annoyed that Sheila's records were never shown to the jury.
Why would they be? It was Jeremy who stood accused of murder.
-
I honestly don’t know Kaldin, it’s been put up numerous times on here, I’m in Essex at moment with family and only on my iPhone so I can’t put a link up for you to read, if someone could help? Some think it’s not real but Carol Ann Lee writes about it and several other, “if ever there was a psychopath it’s Jeremy Bamber”
bingo kaldin...
-
I honestly don’t know Kaldin, it’s been put up numerous times on here, I’m in Essex at moment with family and only on my iPhone so I can’t put a link up for you to read, if someone could help? Some think it’s not real but Carol Ann Lee writes about it and several other, “if ever there was a psychopath it’s Jeremy Bamber”
OK. Thanks.
-
Why would they be? It was Jeremy who stood accused of murder.
Because the defence was that Sheila had killed them and herself whilst in a psychotic state. Do you mean to say that this never came up?
-
Because the defence was that Sheila had killed them and herself whilst in a psychotic state. Do you mean to say that this never came up?
Did Dr Ferguson not give evidence?
-
I'm afraid " it was all about Jeremy " as if nobody else who'd existed was capable of killing. ::)
-
I'm afraid " it was all about Jeremy " as if nobody else who'd existed was capable of killing. ::)
Well, that's normally the case when only one person is charged with murder and they're not looking for anyone else.
-
Clearly, the defence would have referred to Sheila's mental health because their contention was that Sheila shot them in a psychotic state. She had no other motive.
They did.
-
But there wasn't enough information given. Like her state of health on the night of the murders, or even from her discharge from hospital that same year. Her mental health had deteriorated, it's been said.
-
But there wasn't enough information given. Like her state of health on the night of the murders, or even from her discharge from hospital that same year. Her mental health had deteriorated, it's been said.
So why did Ferguson give evidence? What is it that you and the CT claim is being withheld?
-
But there wasn't enough information given. Like her state of health on the night of the murders, or even from her discharge from hospital that same year. Her mental health had deteriorated, it's been said.
I believe her to have been depressed which would have robbed her of mental energy. Added to that, her meds were slowing her down physically.
-
So why did Ferguson give evidence? What is it that you and the CT claim is being withheld?
Ferguson hadn't been aware of everything that had gone on with Sheila. He knew nothing of the note which was found inside the Bible--" Love one Another " and its reference about the mass killings in Guyana or the fact that Sheila would lose the children 100% to Colin,
-
Ferguson hadn't been aware of everything that had gone on with Sheila. He knew nothing of the note which was found inside the Bible--" Love one Another " and its reference about the mass killings in Guyana or the fact that Sheila would lose the children 100% to Colin,
You insist that Sheila wrote it, but you have no proof. With all the fake stuff we've had thrown at us, there's actually no proof that it's real, and it's not a given that Colin would have gained any MORE care of the boys than he already had.
-
I believe her to have been depressed which would have robbed her of mental energy. Added to that, her meds were slowing her down physically.
but quite happy to travel to Essex to be with her family. From experience of people with mental illness, and on the medication Shelia was on they become withdrawn within themselves and don't want to be around people.
-
but quite happy to travel to Essex to be with her family. From experience of people with mental illness, and on the medication Shelia was on they become withdrawn within themselves and don't want to be around people.
You've clearly got different information than I. According to Colin, she sat in the car and barely a word passed between them on the entire journey. I believe you've just repeated what I've already said re her meds.
-
You insist that Sheila wrote it, but you have no proof. With all the fake stuff we've had thrown at us, there's actually no proof that it's real, and it's not a given that Colin would have gained any MORE care of the boys than he already had.
It must have been written by Sheila because EP destroyed it.
Didn't Colin write a letter to Nevill regarding 100% care of the boys ? Selective memory again ?
-
You've clearly got different information than I. According to Colin, she sat in the car and barely a word passed between them on the entire journey. I believe you've just repeated what I've already said re her meds.
not the point I was making, if she was as heavily medicated and " out of it " as it's claimed to be. She wouldn't have, at least on the probability scale not wanted to make the journey, or have contact with anyone. She would have withdrew into herself...
-
not the point I was making, if she was as heavily medicated and " out of it " as it's claimed to be. She wouldn't have, at least on the probability scale not wanted to make the journey, or have contact with anyone. She would have withdrew into herself...
If she was as out of it as you claim her to be, she'd have been led to the car without argument or resistance. Strangely, I don't think she did want to go to the farm. She preferred to be in London. Her parents, quite naturally, wanted to see the boys before Colin took them on holiday.
-
If she was as out of it as you claim her to be, she'd have been led to the car without argument or resistance. Strangely, I don't think she did want to go to the farm. She preferred to be in London. Her parents, quite naturally, wanted to see the boys before Colin took them on holiday.
do not cross words, your are claiming that Shelia couldn't commit the crime because she was too " out of it and lethargic" and in the next breath you are saying she had energy to travel to Essex etc, be around people for a family break...so which one is it??
-
Sheila had attended two parties before she went to stay at WHF !
-
not the point I was making, if she was as heavily medicated and " out of it " as it's claimed to be. She wouldn't have, at least on the probability scale not wanted to make the journey, or have contact with anyone. She would have withdrew into herself...
According to Colin, June, Pam several others and Jeremy himself, she was distant and not willing or able to engage in much conversation - she hardly spoke a word on the journey to WHF.
-
Not someone with severe depression would undertake.
-
Oh I see, this is some kind of game.
Is it? Lookout (and the CT) maintains that the medical records were not released - however, as you yourself have pointed out, Sheila's illness was discussed at trial.
-
Ferguson hadn't been aware of everything that had gone on with Sheila. He knew nothing of the note which was found inside the Bible--" Love one Another " and its reference about the mass killings in Guyana or the fact that Sheila would lose the children 100% to Colin,
The note inside the bible didn't mention anything of the sort. The note was given back to the family along with the bible. It said .....
‘Love one another. A determination always to act in the others’ best interest, whether we feel good or not, whether we like them or not. It is an act of will, commandment to obey. Be determined to be loving and kind to every person you meet whether you like them or not. Lord Jesus in Thy mercy, teach me to love for Thy name’s sake, help me to live and speak as a Christian, no matter what others may think.’
Source - Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 408).
The reason none of that was mentioned is because it's rubbish!
-
Sheila had attended two parties before she went to stay at WHF !
OMG! You know every well that the party the previous weekend was at Colin's house - she was withdrawn and had to be taken home!
-
do not cross words, your are claiming that Shelia couldn't commit the crime because she was too " out of it and lethargic" and in the next breath you are saying she had energy to travel to Essex etc, be around people for a family break...so which one is it??
She was driven there by Colin!
-
do not cross words, your are claiming that Shelia couldn't commit the crime because she was too " out of it and lethargic" and in the next breath you are saying she had energy to travel to Essex etc, be around people for a family break...so which one is it??
She wasn't required to do more than sit in a car. Colin would have packed for the boy's.sitting in a car takes no more energy than breathing. Actually I never claimed she had the energy to travel. I said she travelled. It's not a question of either/or. It's both.
-
OMG! You know every well that the party the previous weekend was at Colin's house - she was withdrawn and had to be taken home!
And we get accused of twisting things. Supporters twist the facts out of recognition!!!
-
I watched a video where Barbara Wilson said she heard raised voices(or something like that) when she was on the phone to Nevill. Does that not support the argument that there was indeed some kind of disagreement going on?
I also read somewhere that Sheila was a bit upset about her haircut. Did she have her hair cut when she was in Essex?
I hope nobody asks me for links, but I can probably find them if I need to.
-
Sheila had attended two parties before she went to stay at WHF !
How many times must you be told? How many witnesses to her lethargy will it take for you to take on board that whilst she may have been AT the party, she most definitely WASN'T partying.
-
Not someone with severe depression would undertake.
Why is that Lookout? Are you saying that someone with "severe depression" would kick and scream, chain themselves to furniture, throw things to prevent being taken somewhere. Are you suggesting that someone in the grip of "severe depression" has the mental capacity to make decisions? Well, that's not the sort of "severe depression" I have understanding of. Rather, what I know of it, it involves NO resistance of ANY description. All mental energy is sapped. There's no reaction to anything.
Forgive the observation, but I'd have expected more in depth knowledge and clearer understanding from someone who claims to have once nursed the mentally ill.
-
I watched a video where Barbara Wilson said she heard raised voices(or something like that) when she was on the phone to Nevill. Does that not support the argument that there was indeed some kind of disagreement going on?
I also read somewhere that Sheila was a bit upset about her haircut. Did she have her hair cut when she was in Essex?
I hope nobody asks me for links, but I can probably find them if I need to.
I thought witness statements were the only things you accepted as evidential? BW doesn't mention raised voices in hers, does she?
Re the haircut. Firstly, making journey's to get haircuts isn't something I'd expect of anyone with severe depression. Secondly, it appears that Sheila's every move, during her time at WHF, has been thoroughly documented. No mention has been made of her having a hair appointment. Given how isolated is WHF, she'd have needed transport to get 'there' which would have been either Tollesbury, Tiptree, Maldon, or Witham. I imagine that whoever had been responsible for it would have been only too ready to have come forward, hairdressers being excellent barometers of clients' moods.
-
I watched a video where Barbara Wilson said she heard raised voices(or something like that) when she was on the phone to Nevill. Does that not support the argument that there was indeed some kind of disagreement going on?
I also read somewhere that Sheila was a bit upset about her haircut. Did she have her hair cut when she was in Essex?
I hope nobody asks me for links, but I can probably find them if I need to.
I have never heard her say she heard raised voices, just that Nevill was short with her and that she suspected he'd had an argument with someone. No it doesn't support Jeremy's tale given that when June spoke to Pam, she was more concerned abut Sheila being withdrawn than anything else and Sheila couldn't even be bothered to talk.
-
I didn't say I only accepted witness statements. I saw Barbara Wilson speaking in a video - it wasn't hearsay. I'll see if I can locate the video.
I'm sure I read about a hair cut somewhere - I'll do some research.
-
I said that this drama was bad timing. Mark Newby has written to the producer about the case being "active " at present with the ongoing process of returning it to the COA.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpFfIUCgVok
21.30. I assume that's the real Barbara Wilson?
Sandra Elston who saw Sheila Caffell on 31 July 1985 said the deceased appeared well and her only concern was about a poor haircut she had recently had.
That's from the 2002 appeal document, so pretty reliable IMO. It seems the haircut was in July, so not done in Essex.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
I said that this drama was bad timing. Mark Newby has written to the producer about the case being "active " at present with the ongoing process of returning it to the COA.
JB had suggested that the drama be delayed pending the High Court case.
-
JB had suggested that the drama be delayed pending the High Court case.
WHAT High Court case?
-
WHAT High Court case?
Well obviously Mark Newby knows more than us ! Why shouldn't he ?
-
Well obviously Mark Newby knows more than us ! Why shouldn't he ?
Probably, but it doesn't mean to say that a High Court case is in the offing.
-
JB had suggested that the drama be delayed pending the High Court case.
Sounds like delay tactics to me. Rather hilarious that they have stated "such a drama series by its nature will place a fictitious narrative in the public domain which may be counter productive to the administration of justice in due course". It's OK to change the who argument about the timings though - guess the wind changed! ITV won't fall for this.
https://www.qualitysolicitors.com//jordans/news/2019/12/jeremy-bamber-itv-drama-statement
-
JB had suggested that the drama be delayed pending the High Court case.
Why does he say it’s going to high court
-
Sounds like delay tactics to me. Rather hilarious that they have stated "such a drama series by its nature will place a fictitious narrative in the public domain which may be counter productive to the administration of justice in due course". It's OK to change the who argument about the timings though - guess the wind changed! ITV won't fall for this.
https://www.qualitysolicitors.com//jordans/news/2019/12/jeremy-bamber-itv-drama-statement
Thanks Caroline just read it
-
Why does he say it’s going to high court
To try and get documents released.
-
TV guides full of the new drama series .....
-
It'll be lost in sensationalization.
-
It'll be lost in sensationalization.
You hope.
-
You hope.
On the contrary I'll be damned annoyed.
-
It'll be lost in sensationalization.
yes when they find out theres no further documents :)
-
yes when they find out theres no further documents :)
Then they'll be deceived won't they ?
-
On the contrary I'll be damned annoyed.
Go on with you! You know you'll be itching for something to criticize ;D ;D
-
It'll be lost in sensationalization.
Nothing more sensationalist than the claims made here!
-
Because of who is involved in the drama and the fact that legally jeremy is a guilty man , I think it will be pretty safe to say the drama will be based on just how the case “ turned” during the investigation. In the interests of debate it might be quite interesting on both sides to discuss anything the programme misses that has been seen on here from documents or statements either way innocent or guilty . After all none of us know 100% yet , and if we did why would we be posting on a forum still after all these years? I am still surprised Colin would want this programme to happen tbh . I thought his book was his closure and at the moment even though obviously there has been an application to the High court , things have not changed . Jeremy is guilty and Jeremy is in jail for life . So why would there be interest in the case now?
If there can be a sensible grown up discussion on here based on documents and statements After the programme then it could be interesting .
Did anyone catch the itv trailer where I think one of the members of the constabulary described the case as something like a scab that appears and needs picking ? I keep meaning to find it . Not very professional .
-
Go on with you! You know you'll be itching for something to criticize ;D ;D
Oh I'll criticise as will yourself be doing but I'll be more interested in what isn't said than what is.
-
Because of who is involved in the drama and the fact that legally jeremy is a guilty man , I think it will be pretty safe to say the drama will be based on just how the case “ turned” during the investigation. In the interests of debate it might be quite interesting on both sides to discuss anything the programme misses that has been seen on here from documents or statements either way innocent or guilty . After all none of us know 100% yet , and if we did why would we be posting on a forum still after all these years? I am still surprised Colin would want this programme to happen tbh . I thought his book was his closure and at the moment even though obviously there has been an application to the High court , things have not changed . Jeremy is guilty and Jeremy is in jail for life . So why would there be interest in the case now?
If there can be a sensible grown up discussion on here based on documents and statements After the programme then it could be interesting .
Did anyone catch the itv trailer where I think one of the members of the constabulary described the case as something like a scab that appears and needs picking ? I keep meaning to find it . Not very professional .
.
Well put Jan and no, they weren't very professional anyway and didn't exert their brains in any way
-
Oh I'll criticise as will yourself be doing but I'll be more interested in what isn't said than what is.
"More" is relative. I accept that they're not going to include every little nuance.
-
Because of who is involved in the drama and the fact that legally jeremy is a guilty man , I think it will be pretty safe to say the drama will be based on just how the case “ turned” during the investigation. In the interests of debate it might be quite interesting on both sides to discuss anything the programme misses that has been seen on here from documents or statements either way innocent or guilty . After all none of us know 100% yet , and if we did why would we be posting on a forum still after all these years? I am still surprised Colin would want this programme to happen tbh . I thought his book was his closure and at the moment even though obviously there has been an application to the High court , things have not changed . Jeremy is guilty and Jeremy is in jail for life . So why would there be interest in the case now?
If there can be a sensible grown up discussion on here based on documents and statements After the programme then it could be interesting .
Did anyone catch the itv trailer where I think one of the members of the constabulary described the case as something like a scab that appears and needs picking ? I keep meaning to find it . Not very professional .
It could make for a really interesting debate.
I didn't catch that part of the trailer. I'm not a regular ITV watcher. I agree the comment wasn't entirely professional. However, I'm willing to bet that it's gone down in the annals of policing as a "How Not To......" and if they get it wrong now, it's probably referred to as "having done a Bamber".
-
Because of who is involved in the drama and the fact that legally jeremy is a guilty man , I think it will be pretty safe to say the drama will be based on just how the case “ turned” during the investigation. In the interests of debate it might be quite interesting on both sides to discuss anything the programme misses that has been seen on here from documents or statements either way innocent or guilty . After all none of us know 100% yet , and if we did why would we be posting on a forum still after all these years? I am still surprised Colin would want this programme to happen tbh . I thought his book was his closure and at the moment even though obviously there has been an application to the High court , things have not changed . Jeremy is guilty and Jeremy is in jail for life . So why would there be interest in the case now?
If there can be a sensible grown up discussion on here based on documents and statements After the programme then it could be interesting .
Did anyone catch the itv trailer where I think one of the members of the constabulary described the case as something like a scab that appears and needs picking ? I keep meaning to find it . Not very professional .
which application are you talking about jan
-
Because of who is involved in the drama and the fact that legally jeremy is a guilty man , I think it will be pretty safe to say the drama will be based on just how the case “ turned” during the investigation. In the interests of debate it might be quite interesting on both sides to discuss anything the programme misses that has been seen on here from documents or statements either way innocent or guilty . After all none of us know 100% yet , and if we did why would we be posting on a forum still after all these years? I am still surprised Colin would want this programme to happen tbh . I thought his book was his closure and at the moment even though obviously there has been an application to the High court , things have not changed . Jeremy is guilty and Jeremy is in jail for life . So why would there be interest in the case now?
If there can be a sensible grown up discussion on here based on documents and statements After the programme then it could be interesting .
Did anyone catch the itv trailer where I think one of the members of the constabulary described the case as something like a scab that appears and needs picking ? I keep meaning to find it . Not very professional .
There are lots of people who don't even know who Jeremy Bamber is - that's why there is an interest and it is an interesting case and your I think you are correct in saying that the drama is about how the case turned from Sheila to Jeremy - there will be no whodunit type scenario. Yes, it would be nice if there could be an adult intelligent debate but that won't happen.
-
which application are you talking about jan
I think his lawyer has asked the high court about non disclosure evidence Sami?
-
which application are you talking about jan
Judicial review proceedings issued against DPP.
-
There are lots of people who don't even know who Jeremy Bamber is - that's why there is an interest and it is an interesting case and your I think you are correct in saying that the drama is about how the case turned from Sheila to Jeremy - there will be no whodunit type scenario. Yes, it would be nice if there could be an adult intelligent debate but that won't happen.
We could try . Any comments not based on a “ source” could be dismissed (:
Mind you some posters might have to be reminded what a valid source is.
-
We could try . Any comments not based on a “ source” could be dismissed (:
Mind you some posters might have to be reminded what a valid source is.
I'd be down for trying but wouldn't tolerate anything snide.
I agree about your point on sources ;D
-
I have just read what Colin said about the drama . And he accuses jeremy of accusing Sheila of all sorts of things . And he said the sad thing was that sheila was happy at the time of the murders and in a good place. However when you read his first statement he admits sheila had been violent in the past talks about her breakdowns and also his description of her the night before and on the drive to the farm does not portray her as being happy and in a good place.
Now I appreciate he must have been in shock at the time and I dont think any of us could appreciate what he went through with the press as well . It must have been horrendous . But in his first statement he does not seem to defend sheila at all . He seems to accept what the police have told him . Which you would do in the circumstances.
I have always said whatever the truth the whole case is a tragedy and of course he is free to try and put his side of the story . But I am surprised in a way because we have all heard about the appeals which seem to amount to nothing . I just wonder why now ?
-
I have just read what Colin said about the drama . And he accuses jeremy of accusing Sheila of all sorts of things . And he said the sad thing was that sheila was happy at the time of the murders and in a good place. However when you read his first statement he admits sheila had been violent in the past talks about her breakdowns and also his description of her the night before and on the drive to the farm does not portray her as being happy and in a good place.
Now I appreciate he must have been in shock at the time and I dont think any of us could appreciate what he went through with the press as well . It must have been horrendous . But in his first statement he does not seem to defend sheila at all . He seems to accept what the police have told him . Which you would do in the circumstances.
I have always said whatever the truth the whole case is a tragedy and of course he is free to try and put his side of the story . But I am surprised in a way because we have all heard about the appeals which seem to amount to nothing . I just wonder why now ?
why now,not sure what you mean
-
I have just read what Colin said about the drama . And he accuses jeremy of accusing Sheila of all sorts of things . And he said the sad thing was that sheila was happy at the time of the murders and in a good place. However when you read his first statement he admits sheila had been violent in the past talks about her breakdowns and also his description of her the night before and on the drive to the farm does not portray her as being happy and in a good place.
Now I appreciate he must have been in shock at the time and I dont think any of us could appreciate what he went through with the press as well . It must have been horrendous . But in his first statement he does not seem to defend sheila at all . He seems to accept what the police have told him . Which you would do in the circumstances.
I have always said whatever the truth the whole case is a tragedy and of course he is free to try and put his side of the story . But I am surprised in a way because we have all heard about the appeals which seem to amount to nothing . I just wonder why now ?
Sheila may well have felt better at that time, but if there was a conversation about the twins that could have set her right back. He did say that she didn't speak on the way to the farm.
-
I have just read what Colin said about the drama . And he accuses jeremy of accusing Sheila of all sorts of things . And he said the sad thing was that sheila was happy at the time of the murders and in a good place. However when you read his first statement he admits sheila had been violent in the past talks about her breakdowns and also his description of her the night before and on the drive to the farm does not portray her as being happy and in a good place.
Now I appreciate he must have been in shock at the time and I dont think any of us could appreciate what he went through with the press as well . It must have been horrendous . But in his first statement he does not seem to defend sheila at all . He seems to accept what the police have told him . Which you would do in the circumstances.
I have always said whatever the truth the whole case is a tragedy and of course he is free to try and put his side of the story . But I am surprised in a way because we have all heard about the appeals which seem to amount to nothing . I just wonder why now ?
Generally speaking, none of us are 100% anything 100% of the time. Whilst it may well be true that Sheila was in a better place than she'd previously been, he was also aware that WHF was one of her least favourite places to be. It's understandable then, that she may not have been looking forward to it. Colin also had, on his person, a letter he planned to give to Nevill, but changed his mind. He won't have given more than a basic outline in what he's said about the drama so naturally some -many- things are likely to have been left out.
-
Generally speaking, none of us are 100% anything 100% of the time. Whilst it may well be true that Sheila was in a better place than she'd previously been, he was also aware that WHF was one of her least favourite places to be. It's understandable then, that she may not have been looking forward to it. Colin also had, on his person, a letter he planned to give to Nevill, but changed his mind. He won't have given more than a basic outline in what he's said about the drama so naturally some -many- things are likely to have been left out.
Errrm ;D ;D
-
Generally speaking, none of us are 100% anything 100% of the time. Whilst it may well be true that Sheila was in a better place than she'd previously been, he was also aware that WHF was one of her least favourite places to be. It's understandable then, that she may not have been looking forward to it. Colin also had, on his person, a letter he planned to give to Nevill, but changed his mind. He won't have given more than a basic outline in what he's said about the drama so naturally some -many- things are likely to have been left out.
He is quite specific that he wants to portray the truth of what happened . So it will be interesting to see if he is portrayed as believing she was capable of the murders. After all it was the family and not him that were arguing with the police about their rushed conclusion. If I was him I would be furious with EP as he could have well not have been convicted. And I still say that today the silencer would not have been admitted as evidence for a start .
-
He is quite specific that he wants to portray the truth of what happened . So it will be interesting to see if he is portrayed as believing she was capable of the murders. After all it was the family and not him that were arguing with the police about their rushed conclusion. If I was him I would be furious with EP as he could have well not have been convicted. And I still say that today the silencer would not have been admitted as evidence for a start .
It will, indeed, be interesting. Also interesting to read will be interpretations of it from both sides. I have no doubts that, during their relationship, Sheila may have threatened suicide, not perhaps with the intention of carrying it out, but as a way of making him notice her and care for her. I get that he'd have believed what he first heard from police. He may even have thought she's done it to punish him for taking her to a place she didn't want to be.
-
I'd be down for trying but wouldn't tolerate anything snide.
I agree about your point on sources ;D
😂😂😂🙈🙈
-
He is quite specific that he wants to portray the truth of what happened . So it will be interesting to see if he is portrayed as believing she was capable of the murders. After all it was the family and not him that were arguing with the police about their rushed conclusion. If I was him I would be furious with EP as he could have well not have been convicted. And I still say that today the silencer would not have been admitted as evidence for a start .
It will be as his book dictates - it's based on extracts from his book. There won't be any surprises.
-
It will be as his book dictates - it's based on extracts from his book. There won't be any surprises.
I agree . It will be the truth as he sees it . And he had a horrific time from the press as far as I remember .
I hope he gets some peace from his involvement in the programme whatever the truth .
-
I agree . It will be the truth as he sees it . And he had a horrific time from the press as far as I remember .
I hope he gets some peace from his involvement in the programme whatever the truth .
Me too.
-
Me too.
It’s going to be hard as a drama though as it will still annoy me if there are basic errors in the plot.
-
I agree . It will be the truth as he sees it . And he had a horrific time from the press as far as I remember .
I hope he gets some peace from his involvement in the programme whatever the truth .
Me too Jan, I don’t think anyone can deny him that
-
It’s going to be hard as a drama though as it will still annoy me if there are basic errors in the plot.
Well, there are errors on this forum that keep getting regurgitated.
-
Well, there are errors on this forum that keep getting regurgitated.
Yep and the polls
It’s like groundhog day
-
Yep and the polls
It’s like groundhog day
What I meant was, there may be things that we accept here that are actually incorrect.
-
It’s going to be hard as a drama though as it will still annoy me if there are basic errors in the plot.
Me too! I'm looking forward to it, but if they get anything wrong I'll be shouting at the telly. I think I'll watch it on my own with no one else around. ;D
-
Me too! I'm looking forward to it, but if they get anything wrong I'll be shouting at the telly. I think I'll watch it on my own with no one else around. ;D
I'm wondering how many times I say " that's a lie ". :)) :)) :))
-
I'm wondering how many times I say " that's a lie ". :)) :)) :))
Bet it's not as often as I do on here!
-
Bet it's not as often as I do on here!
Well that's because of your own personal skewed views against suggestions of others. ;D
-
Well that's because of your own personal skewed views against suggestions of others. ;D
Suggestions I can cope with, they can be discussed. It's those hard and fast claims and sweeping statements which leave no manoeuvre room that I find difficult.
-
Suggestions I can cope with, they can be discussed. It's those hard and fast claims and sweeping statements which leave no manoeuvre room that I find difficult.
Because you're baffled, that's why.
-
Bet it's not as often as I do on here!
😂😂😂🙈🙈
-
Well that's because of your own personal skewed views against suggestions of others. ;D
No, if it smells like BS, it generally is.
-
There are many sweeping statements on here, and they're not all from Bamber defenders ...
-
Because you're baffled, that's why.
Certainly. I didn't think those who claim intelligence still believed in fairy tales.
-
Certainly. I didn't think those who claim intelligence still believed in fairy tales.
I don't even believe in your" truth" let alone fairy tales.
-
I don't even believe in your" truth" let alone fairy tales.
Or even 'the' truth.
-
No, if it smells like BS, it generally is.
::) If all else fails use some insults---typical.
-
::) If all else fails use some insults---typical.
Don't try and pretend you're not familiar with insults yourself Lookout. You've done the very same thig to Jane 'your' truth?
-
Don't try and pretend you're not familiar with insults yourself Lookout. You've done the very same thig to Jane 'your' truth?
Oh , go back to bed and stop being so tetchy.
-
Oh , go back to bed and stop being so tetchy.
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
He is quite specific that he wants to portray the truth of what happened . So it will be interesting to see if he is portrayed as believing she was capable of the murders. After all it was the family and not him that were arguing with the police about their rushed conclusion. If I was him I would be furious with EP as he could have well not have been convicted. And I still say that today the silencer would not have been admitted as evidence for a start .
i think over time he has been persuaded of jeremys guilt and in the shock had forgotten what he had actually said at the time. shiela certainly had issues that should be taken into consideration and not just dismissed because it suits the guilters argument. the fact is shiela was a poorly young woman, was supposedly odd on the telephone that evening, was vacant etc .
these things have to be take. into consideration as does jbs behaviour
-
i think over time he has been persuaded of jeremys guilt and in the shock had forgotten what he had actually said at the time. shiela certainly had issues that should be taken into consideration and not just dismissed because it suits the guilters argument. the fact is shiela was a poorly young woman, was supposedly odd on the telephone that evening, was vacant etc .
these things have to be take. into consideration as does jbs behaviour
I have take all of those things into consideration in the past - but sheila was on her meds and not showing any sign of psychosis around the time of the murders.
-
::) If all else fails use some insults---typical.
Back in your usual role of "poor me", Lookout?---Typical!! If you can't take it, don't give it!!!!
-
I have take all of those things into consideration in the past - but sheila was on her meds and not showing any sign of psychosis around the time of the murders.
the people around her were not medical experts were they though ? who is making this judgement that she was not showing any sign? and she was described and being vacant by CC . not participating in conversations by Jeremy .
When was the last time she saw her doctor ?
-
Back in your usual role of "poor me", Lookout?---Typical!! If you can't take it, don't give it!!!!
Cruisin' for a bruisin' are we ? How pathetic are you ? Get off the booze you silly woman !
-
I have take all of those things into consideration in the past - but sheila was on her meds and not showing any sign of psychosis around the time of the murders.
so what do you attribute her behaviour to then caroline. she clearly wasn’t right was she
-
Cruisin' for a bruisin' are we ? How pathetic are you ? Get off the booze you silly woman !
You're talking to the wrong person, Lookout. Jackie's not posting and you should put the top back on that whiskey. Me? I haven't had a drop.
-
You're talking to the wrong person, Lookout. Jackie's not posting and you should put the top back on that whiskey. Me? I haven't had a drop.
Teetotal here.
-
Teetotal here.
What about that dram of the good stuff you and Sami share a liking for?
-
What about that dram of the good stuff you and Sami share a liking for?
chivers regal ,jane :))
-
What about that dram of the good stuff you and Sami share a liking for?
That was a couple of years ago--Chivas Regal.
-
ive spelt it wrong,could do with a couple of drams tonight :))
-
chivers regal ,jane :))
Ooh! The REALLY good stuff, eh :)) :))
-
Ooh! The REALLY good stuff, eh :)) :))
yes gets one pissed real quick.(it does to me ) :)) :))
-
yes gets one pissed real quick.(it does to me ) :)) :))
I stick to white wine. I know my limits ;D ;D ;D
-
the people around her were not medical experts were they though ? who is making this judgement that she was not showing any sign? and she was described and being vacant by CC . not participating in conversations by Jeremy .
When was the last time she saw her doctor ?
Do you need to be an expert to know that someone you know is vacant? Colin knew her well and was best placed to know when she was vacant.
Who is making the judgement that she was psychotic? Members here do that regularly.
-
Do you need to be an expert to know that someone you know is vacant? Colin knew her well and was best placed to know when she was vacant.
Who is making the judgement that she was psychotic? Members here do that regularly.
You don't have to be psychotic to commit murder.
-
You don't have to be psychotic to commit murder.
good point jb is the proof of that
-
good point jb is the proof of that
Or a psychopath.
-
You don't have to be psychotic to commit murder.
Who said you did?
-
Who said you did?
Just sayin'. Can't I speak now ? ::)
-
Do you need to be an expert to know that someone you know is vacant? Colin knew her well and was best placed to know when she was vacant.
Who is making the judgement that she was psychotic? Members here do that regularly.
what I was saying was her dr said she could have regressed and had a psychotic episode . you said she was not psychotic at the time of the murders - I was asking what you were basing that on ?
-
what I was saying was her dr said she could have regressed and had a psychotic episode . you said she was not psychotic at the time of the murders - I was asking what you were basing that on ?
I tried to send you a PM but was unable. I can answer your question but not on the forum.
-
I tried to send you a PM but was unable. I can answer your question but not on the forum.
sorry not doing pm as was stung by that before .
-
Just like to say I have a feeling there will be a lot of new visitors finding this page after the "Drama " is aired . So it would be good if we kept the posts civil and not personal ? And like I said we can put errors right by using the documents in the library whatever your point of view is .
-
Should be interesting Jan. I rely a lot on my memory over certain things, those which stand out more. I'll just have to keep an eye on my anxiety levels. ;D-----when I know things aren't right.
-
Just like to say I have a feeling there will be a lot of new visitors finding this page after the "Drama " is aired . So it would be good if we kept the posts civil and not personal ? And like I said we can put errors right by using the documents in the library whatever your point of view is .
That's really not going to happen with Jackie - is it?
-
That's really not going to happen with Jackie - is it?
What ?? It's not going to happen with anyone, including myself because I happen to be honest.
-
What ?? It's not going to happen with anyone, including myself because I happen to be honest.
So you'll be as rude as her?
-
So you'll be as rude as her?
You bet, if it means keeping up with others and their snide remarks. I'm not one to sit back and neither are you.
-
You bet, if it means keeping up with others and their snide remarks. I'm not one to sit back and neither are you.
There you go Jan - on a losing battle.
-
Let's not be two-faced about this as everyone will put their six penn'orth in whether it offends or not.
-
I tried ):
cant you just ignore personal remarks and carry on with the discussion. Half the time its just distraction . No one is going to change other posters minds so its a waste of time really . Surely the point of the forum is to study documents /photos /statements for information .
-
I know full well it's a distraction----I've realised that for years Jan.
-
There you go Jan - on a losing battle.
::) You've even got the poster wrong------too much in a hurry to chide.
-
::) You've even got the poster wrong------too much in a hurry to chide.
No idea what you're talking about Lookout - no matter .....
Stephen Graham is on Graham Norton on New Years Eve - I'm sure he'll be talking about his role in WHF.
-
That's really not going to happen with Jackie - is it?
You mean with you and your explanation marks.
If you can’t answer a good question from Kaldin you put him on ignore
Pathetic
-
You mean with you and your explanation marks.
If you can’t answer a good question from Kaldin you put him on ignore
Pathetic
He's on ignore because he repeats himself - don't mind him as a person but we'll never agree.
What's an 'explanation mark'? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
No idea what you're talking about Lookout - no matter .....
Stephen Graham is on Graham Norton on New Years Eve - I'm sure he'll be talking about his role in WHF.
One of the best actors to come out of Liverpool.
-
He's on ignore because he repeats himself - don't mind him as a person but we'll never agree.
What's an 'explanation mark'? ;D ;D ;D ;D
He’s quite a nice chap actually Caroline
-
Most are nice on here and not given a chance if their views differ-----not fair to be so biased, it's a discussion forum not one that if you don't like a person's posts, they're ignored, that's mean and childish.
-
He’s quite a nice chap actually Caroline
I don't have a problem with him but we'll never agree so what's the point? I seem to wind him up ;D ;D ;D
-
Most are nice on here and not given a chance if their views differ-----not fair to be so biased, it's a discussion forum not one that if you don't like a person's posts, they're ignored, that's mean and childish.
The ignore button is there to prevent arguments - some would do better if they used it more! You are using this as an excuse to have a dig and that's OK, I don't really care but it does make you a hypocrite!
-
I don't have a problem with him but we'll never agree so what's the point? I seem to wind him up ;D ;D ;D
Why should you/he agree ? ::) Where's the logic ?
-
Why should you/he agree ? ::) Where's the logic ?
It end up in an argument, then you lot join in - to be honest, I can't be arsed.
-
Most are nice on here and not given a chance if their views differ-----not fair to be so biased, it's a discussion forum not one that if you don't like a person's posts, they're ignored, that's mean and childish.
I don't mind other members stating their views as long as they do not contain a host of expletives and call people by names other than how they have chosen to be known on this site. Some newcomers have broken both precepts.
-
It end up in an argument, then you lot join in - to be honest, I can't be arsed.
On the contrary Caroline----just stop and pause, take Jackie's posts for instance, she had every guilter doing her down, then Steve came along giving his two penn'orth. It's not " us lot " who's joining in is it ?
-
Most are nice on here and not given a chance if their views differ-----not fair to be so biased, it's a discussion forum not one that if you don't like a person's posts, they're ignored, that's mean and childish.
good point kaldin should know better
-
On the contrary Caroline----just stop and pause, take Jackie's posts for instance, she had every guilter doing her down, then Steve came along giving his two penn'orth. It's not " us lot " who's joining in is it ?
But lookout if those who believe Jeremy Bamber to be innocent come up with some credible arguments we would respond in kind.
-
Anyway I've decided not to watch the new drama next month. It will exculpate me from the charge of voyeurism and I've read all the literature on the case already. I suppose for the novices it will be a starting point.
-
Just calm yourself down, it's not a competition. There's only Jan and myself on the innocent side, I think, besides Jackie so I see no problem. There's you, Jane, Sami, RJ and Steve ( heavyweights so to speak ) but it doesn't bother me so why do 2 or 3 bother you ?
-
Just calm yourself down, it's not a competition. There's only Jan and myself on the innocent side, I think, besides Jackie so I see no problem. There's you, Jane, Sami, RJ and Steve ( heavyweights so to speak ) but it doesn't bother me so why do 2 or 3 bother you ?
You also have Mike (has he lost interest?) and David1819.
-
Anyway I've decided not to watch the new drama next month. It will exculpate me from the charge of voyeurism and I've read all the literature on the case already. I suppose for the novices it will be a starting point.
I can also take it or leave it. If something's advertised to death it usually turns out to be a flop.
-
I can also take it or leave it. If something's advertised to death it usually turns out to be a flop.
"
I don't think it will be a flop - but the fact that is a "drama" gives licence to change material facts if necessary .
It is definitely re-enforcing his guilt ( not that is necessary for obvious reasons ) because the actor was asked if he would talk to Jeremy to aid with the characterisation and he said no - because he is a different person now and he says he is innocent. So i do think it will just be about the twists and turns in the case .
It does not ultimately matter what the public think as i dont think there will ever be a re-trial as such and one would hope that any legal process would be run by professionals that would not be influenced by such a programme.
-
You also have Mike (has he lost interest?) and David1819.
may also add kaldin,notsure,reader,ilovebooze
-
You also have Mike (has he lost interest?) and David1819.
I can't really blame them for losing interest as it feels like a lost cause now----fighting a losing battle springs to mind.
-
I can't really blame them for losing interest as it feels like a lost cause now----fighting a losing battle springs to mind.
We've been trying to tell you this for years now, he isn’t coming home 👍
-
I can also take it or leave it. If something's advertised to death it usually turns out to be a flop.
We're not really a nation together as we used to be for various reasons. I could have seen this drama reaching 20 million viewers 30 years ago. Now I'd guess at 10 million.
-
We've been trying to tell you this for years now, he isn’t coming home 👍
so what is your interest in the case ?
-
so what is your interest in the case ?
To keep Bamber behind bars. To correct falsehoods.
-
To keep Bamber behind bars. To correct falsehoods.
Are you speaking for Realjustice now?
-
so what is your interest in the case ?
Clearly the opposite of your interest
-
Clearly the opposite of your interest
well observed .
luckily mine is just an interest - nothing more serious than that ,
-
so what is your interest in the case ?
He is a friend of the family and set me a pm telling me
-
He is a friend of the family and set me a pm telling me
You really do thrive on shit stirring, don't you. It's more necessary to your life than oxygen!
-
well observed .
luckily mine is just an interest - nothing more serious than that ,
Well done you 👍
-
He is a friend of the family and set me a pm telling me
nothing wrong with that .
Every one is entitled to an opinion . After all if we all know 100% what had happened we would not be on the forum in the first place .
None of us .
-
well observed .
luckily mine is just an interest - nothing more serious than that ,
Or sinister. That's clear.
-
Or sinister. That's clear.
I was going to say that but knew that someone would misinterpret it or turn it round as an insult .
-
I was going to say that but knew that someone would misinterpret it or turn it round as an insult .
I said it for you. I didn't and I haven't ;)
-
nothing wrong with that .
Every one is entitled to an opinion . After all if we all know 100% what had happened we would not be on the forum in the first place .
None of us .
Thanks Jan, yes I have met the family, not to talk about the case obviously through work and I will add I thought they were nice people not the monsters that some portray, Anne is very good at the job she does and has handed it down the family now. The park has moved forward really fast over the years and it’s credit to them. I would also add, I’m not in favour (it’s not just this family it’s all holiday park owners) how they treat their customers at times, RE caravan ownership, I touched on this with Jane before.
What also got me interested was (David will come in here he likes this) I met a psychiatrist and a chaplain that worked with Bamber at my Daughters wedding, she got married in York. This psychiatrist also worked with one of the Krays twins, I’m not prepared to say what she told me. She is retired now by the way.
There are other reasons why I’m here but I’m not prepared to say.
Hope that goes in some way of answering your Question Jan
-
He is a friend of the family and set me a pm telling me
oh so what if he is,you keep going on with the same rubbish.if he is (which i know he isnt) what of it can he not become a member of this forum
-
I wonder if they'll have JM holed-up in an hotel courtesy NOTW while awaiting the verdict ? During the time she couldn't remember signing anything with her solicitor, although remembering lots of other things like telling the prosecution that she hadn't made a deal with anyone-----the court let that one go without question.
-
I wonder if they'll have JM holed-up in an hotel courtesy NOTW while awaiting the verdict ? During the time she couldn't remember signing anything with her solicitor, although remembering lots of other things like telling the prosecution that she hadn't made a deal with anyone-----the court let that one go without question.
Can they bring it up again Lookout, they had chance before? Maybe NGB could tell us.
-
I wonder if they'll have JM holed-up in an hotel courtesy NOTW while awaiting the verdict ? During the time she couldn't remember signing anything with her solicitor, although remembering lots of other things like telling the prosecution that she hadn't made a deal with anyone-----the court let that one go without question.
Nothing -but NOTHING- which may, or not, have gone on between her and NOTW had any bearing on what the jury came back with.
-
Can they bring it up again Lookout, they had chance before? Maybe NGB could tell us.
It's a score that's never been settled, nor was it ever questioned. I rather think that NGB will prefer to say nothing.
-
It's a score that's never been settled, nor was it ever questioned. I rather think that NGB will prefer to say nothing.
Oh ok Lookout, I just thought how many times can they use the same argument, unless they have found something different that is?
-
Thanks Jan, yes I have met the family, not to talk about the case obviously through work and I will add I thought they were nice people not the monsters that some portray, Anne is very good at the job she does and has handed it down the family now. The park has moved forward really fast over the years and it’s credit to them. I would also add, I’m not in favour (it’s not just this family it’s all holiday park owners) how they treat their customers at times, RE caravan ownership, I touched on this with Jane before.
What also got me interested was (David will come in here he likes this) I met a psychiatrist and a chaplain that worked with Bamber at my Daughters wedding, she got married in York. This psychiatrist also worked with one of the Krays twins, I’m not prepared to say what she told me. She is retired now by the way.
There are other reasons why I’m here but I’m not prepared to say.
Hope that goes in some way of answering your Question Jan
Thank you
I have always been on here ( on and off for a long time ) because I was interested in the case .
And people always are passionate when they think rightly or wrongly they are pursuing the truth .
My only very remote connection is that i know someone that had met Jeremy on several occasions through the caravan site and also said he was a very quiet self effacing young man and nothing like he has been portrayed - so there you go.
-
Thank you
I have always been on here ( on and off for a long time ) because I was interested in the case .
And people always are passionate when they think rightly or wrongly they are pursuing the truth .
My only very remote connection is that i know someone that had met Jeremy on several occasions through the caravan site and also said he was a very quiet self effacing young man and nothing like he has been portrayed - so there you go.
Just an observation, but the "very quiet self effacing young man" may well have been concealing a long and deep held resentment. My lovely neighbour cried when he recalled how distressed -and embarrassed- Nevill had become after heated argument during which Jeremy had humiliated him. It MAY have been just after that event that someone you knew met the "very quiet self effacing young man"?
-
Just an observation, but the "very quiet self effacing young man" may well have been concealing a long and deep held resentment. My lovely neighbour cried when he recalled how distressed -and embarrassed- Nevill had become after heated argument during which Jeremy had humiliated him. It MAY have been just after that event that someone you knew met the "very quiet self effacing young man"?
No they met him on more than one occasion .several in fact . They knew him and the family and i have spoken to them a few times .
in the same conclusion you should not prejudge someones behaviour at a funeral . My OH was called a cold hard bastsard at a funeral recently . He actually was in shock plus did his greiving in private, Horses for courses and all that .
-
Can they bring it up again Lookout, they had chance before? Maybe NGB could tell us.
Yes they can because there is new evidence on this available now.
-
Nothing -but NOTHING- which may, or not, have gone on between her and NOTW had any bearing on what the jury came back with.
It was relevant in relation to her credibility as a witness.
-
Nothing -but NOTHING- which may, or not, have gone on between her and NOTW had any bearing on what the jury came back with.
Usual rubbish from you Jane
I hope your joking
-
Ah yes, I seem to remember you saying that not so long ago, NGB.
-
Usual rubbish from you Jane
I hope your joking
Usual crap from you Jackie
You ARE a joke!
-
It was relevant in relation to her credibility as a witness.
Obviously and to make it worse she tried to hide the date she signed for the £25,000 by saying she couldn’t remember
-
It was relevant in relation to her credibility as a witness.
But makes no difference to the gun being in Jeremy's hand. However, I'm capable of seeing that it MIGHT make some doubtful which COULD be said to make the conviction unsafe but it doesn't make him innocent.
-
No they met him on more than one occasion .several in fact . They knew him and the family and i have spoken to them a few times .
in the same conclusion you should not prejudge someones behaviour at a funeral . My OH was called a cold hard bastsard at a funeral recently . He actually was in shock plus did his greiving in private, Horses for courses and all that .
I have met a guy called Warren Heslop who did the crop spraying for Neville for 3 years and knew Neville and Jeremy
I am trying to get him to post on here but he’s a bit reluctant at the moment but I think he will.
He can give an impartial impression of Neville and Jeremy’s relationship which is favourable.
-
It was relevant in relation to her credibility as a witness.
so if they could prove the date the deal was arranged then it would be admissible because up to now i think it was said the documents had been lost?
-
Usual rubbish from you Jane
I hope your joking
Tell me, from the position you favour, that of slagging off, twisting words, and lying, has there ever been a moment when you've contributed anything worthwhile or told the unadulterated truth? Mmm I thought not.
-
Yes they can because there is new evidence on this available now.
Thanks NGB
-
Nothing -but NOTHING- which may, or not, have gone on between her and NOTW had any bearing on what the jury came back with.
..and how desperate the Defence is to bring up this side issue.
-
..and how desperate the Defence is to bring up this side issue.
It is a valid appeal point.
-
It was relevant in relation to her credibility as a witness.
..and what about Jeremy's deal? Was that relevant in relation to his credibility in testifying in his own defence?
-
But makes no difference to the gun being in Jeremy's hand. However, I'm capable of seeing that it MIGHT make some doubtful which COULD be said to make the conviction unsafe but it doesn't make him innocent.
I think we all know that an " unsafe conviction " doesn't necessarily spell innocence but I imagine that the legal team will go beyond using the unsafe process and instead plump for a MOJ involving a re-trial.
-
I think we all know that an " unsafe conviction " doesn't necessarily spell innocence but I imagine that the legal team will go beyond using the unsafe process and instead plump for a MOJ involving a re-trial.
Which, no doubt, is your dream scenario. However, the race has only just started. The first hurdle hasn't been arrived at.
-
..and what about Jeremy's deal? Was that relevant in relation to his credibility in testifying in his own defence?
How would a promise of money influence his evidence? He was on trial for the murders ? What could be offered to him that would affect his testimony?
The law regarding inducements applies to those who appear as witnesses not the accused .
-
Which, no doubt, is your dream scenario. However, the race has only just started. The first hurdle hasn't been arrived at.
Well isn't it better to go through the whole process leaving no stone unturned ?
-
..and what about Jeremy's deal? Was that relevant in relation to his credibility in testifying in his own defence?
to be clear here is the law that applied at the time :
16. Witness payments in criminal trials:
(i) No payment or offer of payment to a witness or any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness ? should be made in any case once proceedings are active as defined by the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
(ii) Where proceedings are not yet active but are likely and foreseeable, editors must not make or offer payment to any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness unless the information concerned ought demonstrably to be published in the public interest and there is an over-riding need to make or promise payment for this to be done, and all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that no financial dealings influence the evidence those witnesses give.
(iii) Any payment or offer of payment made to persons later cited to give evidence in proceedings must be disclosed to the prosecution and defence. The witness must be advised of this requirement.?
Proceedings become active under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 with an arrest.
-
How would a promise of money influence his evidence? He was on trial for the murders ? What could be offered to him that would affect his testimony?
The law regarding inducements applies to those who appear as witnesses not the accused .
If the jury should have been informed about an alleged signing of a News of the World deal by Julie pre-trial then they should also have been made aware of a similar deal in place for Jeremy Bamber.
-
NOTW paid for JM's hotel accommodation too. EP paid JM for the 32 times she gave evidence on each of her attendances.
-
NOTW paid for JM's hotel accommodation too. EP paid JM for the 32 times she gave evidence on each of her attendances.
The same applied to Virginia Greaves waiting for Jeremy to greet her in a Chelmsford hotel. I won't drag up the relevant post.
-
The same applied to Virginia Greaves waiting for Jeremy to greet her in a Chelmsford hotel. I won't drag up the relevant post.
I bet she paid for that herself.
-
If Jeremy had gone to the press because he was found innocent I think he would have quite rightly had a lot to say .
But we will never know will we . Again all speculation .
-
NOTW paid for JM's hotel accommodation too. EP paid JM for the 32 times she gave evidence on each of her attendances.
I believe it's customary for police to provide cover for witnesses travel arrangements. Julie was a student for God's sake.
-
I believe it's customary for police to provide cover for witnesses travel arrangements. Julie was a student for God's sake.
expenses yes.
-
..and what about Jeremy's deal? Was that relevant in relation to his credibility in testifying in his own defence?
the law in this country is well established. Jeremy was on trial. He had nothing to prove. That was arlidges job
-
expenses yes.
THAT was the word I was looking for!!
-
..and what about Jeremy's deal? Was that relevant in relation to his credibility in testifying in his own defence?
Jeremy's deal was a completely different matter, for several reasons already explained here several times. First, there was nothing improper in Jeremy as a defendant entering into an agreement with a newspaper. It is frequently done and there can be no criticism of it. It was however totally improper for JM to enter into such a deal and she compounded that by lying about it when asked during the trial.
-
How would a promise of money influence his evidence? He was on trial for the murders ? What could be offered to him that would affect his testimony?
The law regarding inducements applies to those who appear as witnesses not the accused .
Quite right.
-
If the jury should have been informed about an alleged signing of a News of the World deal by Julie pre-trial then they should also have been made aware of a similar deal in place for Jeremy Bamber.
Utter nonsense.
-
The same applied to Virginia Greaves waiting for Jeremy to greet her in a Chelmsford hotel. I won't drag up the relevant post.
What is the relevance of that? It could have no bearing on the trial at all.
-
Utter nonsense.
Your whole campaign to release a mass murderer is utter nonsense.
-
Your whole campaign to release a mass murderer is utter nonsense.
You are as usual thoroughly offensive. I have never campaigned to release a mass murderer, as you know.
Your defence of the indefensible Julie Mugford is utter nonsense and irrational.
-
Jeremy's deal was a completely different matter, for several reasons already explained here several times. First, there was nothing improper in Jeremy as a defendant entering into an agreement with a newspaper. It is frequently done and there can be no criticism of it. It was however totally improper for JM to enter into such a deal and she compounded that by lying about it when asked during the trial.
I think NGB would agree with me, investigators have learnt their lesson now with appeals, they take their time investigating and have to have it case ready before CPS will look at it. It’s very frustrating for victims but from a case being reported to actually going to court could take 2 years now.
-
Your whole campaign to release a mass murderer is utter nonsense.
the campaign is to release a man many believe is innocent and your remark is very personal and untrue.
Why would anyone campaign if they thought he was guilty ?
-
I think NGB would agree with me, investigators have learnt their lesson now with appeals, they take their time investigating and have to have it case ready before CPS will look at it. It’s very frustrating for victims but from a case being reported to actually going to court could take 2 years now.
Yes that is quite right RJ.
-
Yes that is quite right RJ.
The CPS are very very reluctant to take cases that aren’t a high percentage possible conviction now days, I wish I could talk more NGB, not wise on here though 😂😂😂
-
The CPS are very very reluctant to take cases that aren’t a high percentage possible conviction now days, I wish I could talk more NGB, not wise on here though 😂😂😂
I agree RJ.
-
I agree RJ.
Would you agree there is a high bar set for Bamber now though NGB
-
Your whole campaign to release a mass murderer is utter nonsense.
Steve, I really can't say that I totally believe NGB to be either in, or running a campaign to get JB released. Thus far, I don't believe him to have done more that confirm points of law. Facts as opposed to beliefs. I believe he's keeping his cards close to his chest in attempt to keep both sides happy. At the moment, it appears, because of what's going on, that supporters have the edge. Things change.
I, too, look back on Julie's behaviour at the time, as being indefensible, however, as a 22 year old, I don't believe she was pulling the strings supporters accuse her of. I also wonder, for how long the obvious vendetta against her will run.
-
do you think if the CPS had been in place at the time of the murders that the silencer evidence would have been admitted?
taking into account it was removed from the crime scene , handled by several people , they did not photograph the alleged hair and blood , they took the silencer apart in uncontrolled conditions meaning the evidence could have been contaminated in the boot of the car , on the kitchen table or in the wardrobe where it may or may not have been put?
then when it was collected it was removed incorrectly ( that is not using gloves or the appropriate container ).
I don't think so .
-
It is a valid appeal point.
I agree but it would surely be a technicality? She had no paid incentive to go to the police in the first place
-
Steve, I really can't say that I totally believe NGB to be either in, or running a campaign to get JB released. Thus far, I don't believe him to have done more that confirm points of law. Facts as opposed to beliefs. I believe he's keeping his cards close to his chest in attempt to keep both sides happy. At the moment, it appears, because of what's going on, that supporters have the edge. Things change.
I, too, look back on Julie's behaviour at the time, as being indefensible, however, as a 22 year old, I don't believe she was pulling the strings supporters accuse her of. I also wonder, for how long the obvious vendetta against her will run.
I think she's an easy target, the weakest link in the chain, I suspect ulterior motives and I'd like ngb1066 to explain how he came to the conclusion that the claim Jeremy Bamber made that he received a telephone call from his father in the middle of the night was genuine.
-
Would you agree there is a high bar set for Bamber now though NGB
There is in practice now a high bar for JB to secure a fresh appeal. The CCRC are frankly fairly hostile to him now. Having referred the case once to the Court of Appeal and having seen some fairly strong comments in the Court of Appeal judgement they are very wary of sending the case back for a third appeal. They were not very helpful to JB in the run up to the last submissions in 2012. They have declined to use their powers to compel disclosure to the extent requested by the defence, for reasons I considered very weak.
I think that to persuade the CCRC to refer the case again will require very strong grounds based upon new evidence, not available at trial or at the earlier appeals. I am out of the loop now so I do not know how far JB's current legal have got.
-
do you think if the CPS had been in place at the time of the murders that the silencer evidence would have been admitted?
taking into account it was removed from the crime scene , handled by several people , they did not photograph the alleged hair and blood , they took the silencer apart in uncontrolled conditions meaning the evidence could have been contaminated in the boot of the car , on the kitchen table or in the wardrobe where it may or may not have been put?
then when it was collected it was removed incorrectly ( that is not using gloves or the appropriate container ).
I don't think so .
I don't think there's a single person here who would say it was a good investigation, but however bad it may have been, it still won't remove the gun from Jeremy's hand.
-
I agree but it would surely be a technicality? She had no paid incentive to go to the police in the first place
It could not stand as a sole ground of appeal. However taken with other material it could seriously undermine JM's credibility which would give additional weight to submissions that the convictions could no longer be regarded as safe. The Court of Appeal obviously considers the individual grounds of appeal and assesses them individually, then looks at the case overall in the round to decide whether the convictions are safe, in other words whether there must be at least a reasonable doubt about guilt.
-
I think she's an easy target, the weakest link in the chain, I suspect ulterior motives and I'd like ngb1066 to explain how he came to the conclusion that the claim Jeremy Bamber made that he received a telephone call from his father in the middle of the night was genuine.
tbh if you were innocent you would jump on anything that did not seem to add up and if there are documents /times/ changes to documents that are unclear of course you are going to try and use them .if he is innocent he has no idea who his father was trying to call when the phone was engaged .
you could look at it from another angle - if he was guilty he would know the second call did not exist so you would not be bringing such close attention to it .
-
I don't think there's a single person here who would say it was a good investigation, but however bad it may have been, it still won't remove the gun from Jeremy's hand.
Where's that new phrase come from ? I would say that judging by prints found on the shotgun ( Sheila's ) and prints from an unknown male that Jeremy wasn't the only one who handled guns.
-
tbh if you were innocent you would jump on anything that did not seem to add up and if there are documents /times/ changes to documents that are unclear of course you are going to try and use them .if he is innocent he has no idea who his father was trying to call when the phone was engaged .
you could look at it from another angle - if he was guilty he would know the second call did not exist so you would not be bringing such close attention to it .
sorry i thought you were talking about the second call that has been claimed . Not the first .
-
tbh if you were innocent you would jump on anything that did not seem to add up and if there are documents /times/ changes to documents that are unclear of course you are going to try and use them .if he is innocent he has no idea who his father was trying to call when the phone was engaged .
you could look at it from another angle - if he was guilty he would know the second call did not exist so you would not be bringing such close attention to it .
He won't explain because he can't. You would think that because it cannot be disproved is not a strong enough reason to campaign to have a mass murderer released.
-
Where's that new phrase come from ? I would say that judging by prints found on the shotgun ( Sheila's ) and prints from an unknown male that Jeremy wasn't the only one who handled guns.
Not in any way difficult to have got Sheila's prints on it. Unknown male?
-
I think she's an easy target, the weakest link in the chain, I suspect ulterior motives and I'd like ngb1066 to explain how he came to the conclusion that the claim Jeremy Bamber made that he received a telephone call from his father in the middle of the night was genuine.
JB has consistently stated that he received the telephone call from his father. There is no direct evidence to contradict this. In view of this it is not possible to analyse this further in isolation. If you take the view that the evidence overall is conclusive of JB's guilt then obviously you take the view that notwithstanding there being no direct evidence on the matter the call from NB cannot have taken place. It is somewhat a circular analysis. If on the other hand you take the view that the evidence overall does not establish JB's guilt there is no reason to disbelieve JB's account.
-
It could not stand as a sole ground of appeal. However taken with other material it could seriously undermine JM's credibility which would give additional weight to submissions that the convictions could no longer be regarded as safe. The Court of Appeal obviously considers the individual grounds of appeal and assesses them individually, then looks at the case overall in the round to decide whether the convictions are safe, in other words whether there must be at least a reasonable doubt about guilt.
Yes, I see that but as far as the rest of the stuff goes, it all seems very weak and that BS about what time he called the police is a laughing stock - especially as just a few years ago he argued the opposite. I can't say for sure, but I bet that was part of the stuff that SM refused to present.
-
JB has consistently stated that he received the telephone call from his father. There is no direct evidence to contradict this. In view of this it is not possible to analyse this further in isolation. If you take the view that the evidence overall is conclusive of JB's guilt then obviously you take the view that notwithstanding there being no direct evidence on the matter the call from NB cannot have taken place. It is somewhat a circular analysis. If on the other hand you take the view that the evidence overall does not establish JB's guilt there is no reason to disbelieve JB's account.
It's quite evident that you don't take this view, so you have dismissed all the evidence against Jeremy Bamber in your mind.
-
It's quite evident that you don't take this view, so you have dismissed all the evidence against Jeremy Bamber in your mind.
but what is the evidence against Jeremy ? Julie mugfords testimony ? Not the silencer surely ?
The rest is opinion and hearsay and assumption?
-
but what is the evidence against Jeremy ? Julie mugfords testimony ? Not the silencer surely ?
The rest is opinion and hearsay and assumption?
The whole scenario from the spotting of the rabbits to Jeremy Bamber's interrogation by Police. It's all a tissue of lies on his part.
-
The whole scenario from the spotting of the rabbits to Jeremy Bamber's interrogation by Police. It's all a tissue of lies on his part.
[/quote
at the moemnt as he is guilty in jail of course you can assume that to be the case .
Lets see what happens in the future.
if he is proven innocent all of a sudden it becomes true . thats the problem with scenarios
-
As we don't know why the jury convicted Jeremy, it could indeed be very relevant that Julie Mugford was paid for her story, on condition that there was a guilty verdict. This has surely been addressed by previous appeals though.
-
As we don't know why the jury convicted Jeremy, it could indeed be very relevant that Julie Mugford was paid for her story, on condition that there was a guilty verdict. This has surely been addressed by previous appeals though.
I don't think they could prove when the deal was made though .
the papers were "missing"
-
I don't think they could prove when the deal was made though .
the papers were "missing"
Hello Jan, good to see you back. 😀. Big surprise the papers were missing ::)
-
I don't think they could prove when the deal was made though .
the papers were "missing"
It was discussed before the trial though wasn't it? I would have thought that was enough.
-
Hello Jan, good to see you back. 😀. Big surprise the papers were missing ::)
Hi Maggie
hope all is ok with you .
I am back waiting for the reaction to the "drama " really and to see if sensible discussions were being had (:
-
It was discussed before the trial though wasn't it? I would have thought that was enough.
well with the law at the time if it had of been proved I think there would have been a prosecution - tbh recall the deal was discussed at the appeal but was dismissed - I think - sorry bit rusty as I have not been on here for a while
-
It was discussed before the trial though wasn't it? I would have thought that was enough.
sorry do you mean before the trial or the appeal .
I think that there was a warning not to speak to the press during the trial ? But not sure . I would have to check.
-
It was discussed before the trial though wasn't it? I would have thought that was enough.
I found this from a while ago :
he defence received information that Julie Mugford had concluded a deal with the NoW. Geoffrey Rivlin raised this in chambers with the judge. The judge ordered the prosecution to make enquiries, which they did. They reported back to the judge and the defence that Julie Mugford stated that she had concluded no agreement with any newspaper, and had no intention of doing so. As a result of that Julie Mugford was not cross examined on this, upon the basis that she would have repeated her denial and under the rules of evidence and professional conduct she could not have been accused of lying about this because the defence did not have any admissible evidence to contradict it.
-
There is in practice now a high bar for JB to secure a fresh appeal. The CCRC are frankly fairly hostile to him now. Having referred the case once to the Court of Appeal and having seen some fairly strong comments in the Court of Appeal judgement they are very wary of sending the case back for a third appeal. They were not very helpful to JB in the run up to the last submissions in 2012. They have declined to use their powers to compel disclosure to the extent requested by the defence, for reasons I considered very weak.
I think that to persuade the CCRC to refer the case again will require very strong grounds based upon new evidence, not available at trial or at the earlier appeals. I am out of the loop now so I do not know how far JB's current legal have got.
To be fair NGB I’m glad your out the loop and I really do mean that.
-
Here's Julie's statement about the deal.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1210.0.html
It all seems to have been dealt with in 2002 at least.
-
still no detail about when it was signed which is the most relevant bit .
-
Here's Julie's statement about the deal.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1210.0.html
It all seems to have been dealt with in 2002 at least.
"Money was never my drive: it was the consequence of the advice I was given.."
-
Thank you
I have always been on here ( on and off for a long time ) because I was interested in the case .
And people always are passionate when they think rightly or wrongly they are pursuing the truth .
My only very remote connection is that i know someone that had met Jeremy on several occasions through the caravan site and also said he was a very quiet self effacing young man and nothing like he has been portrayed - so there you go.
And your only other connection is you write to him? I don’t think that’s remote
-
still no detail about when it was signed which is the most relevant bit .
No but she does affirm that she would never lie on oath for financial benefit.
-
No but she does affirm that she would never lie on oath for financial benefit.
[/quote
does not make any difference - if she signd the agreement before the court case finished she and the NOTW broke the law and misled the trial judge and broke the law .
ignoramce of the law is no excuse and she did lie in her statements to the police so how do we know she did not keep up the pretence in court with the money as the incentive.
-
No but she does affirm that she would never lie on oath for financial benefit.
[/quote
does not make any difference - if she signd the agreement before the court case finished she and the NOTW broke the law and misled the trial judge and broke the law .
ignoramce of the law is no excuse and she did lie in her statements to the police so how do we know she did not keep up the pretence in court with the money as the incentive.
The Defence had ample opportunity to expose her and failed.
-
No but she does affirm that she would never lie on oath for financial benefit.
[/quote
does not make any difference - if she signd the agreement before the court case finished she and the NOTW broke the law and misled the trial judge and broke the law .
ignoramce of the law is no excuse and she did lie in her statements to the police so how do we know she did not keep up the pretence in court with the money as the incentive.
I find it hard to believe, given the importance which is being placed on it now, that this wasn't thoroughly checked out at the time.
-
I find it hard to believe, given the importance which is being placed on it now, that this wasn't thoroughly checked out at the time.
I don't see what difference it makes. Her testimony was her testimony whether she expected financial gain from it at the end or not.
-
but as far as I know the deal was only discussed in chambers and not in the court - so she would not have been questioned about it in court ?
And she was not going to admit it was she as she had been warned of the consequences .
She told the judge she had no intention of making a deal - but from her own statement she admitted that the discussion between her solicitor and the press and the reasons why had been going on for some time .
and then within days she did exactly what she said she was not going to do ?
-
but as far as I know the deal was only discussed in chambers and not in the court - so she would not have been questioned about it in court ?
And she was not going to admit it was she as she had been warned of the consequences .
She told the judge she had no intention of making a deal - but from her own statement she admitted that the discussion between her solicitor and the press and the reasons why had been going on for some time .
and then within days she did exactly what she said she was not going to do ?
But I don't think anything had been signed. The News of the World would not have been interested in her story had Jeremy Bamber got off.
-
But I don't think anything had been signed. The News of the World would not have been interested in her story had Jeremy Bamber got off.
we will see wont we .
the deal was signed in the event of him being convicted and a sum of money was agreed beforehand . That's what I think .All this losing of documents and no memory of the signing date makes no sense at all .
All she had to say was she did it at the time ruling came in ( even though she told the judge she would not ) but she never said that did she?
-
But I don't think anything had been signed. The News of the World would not have been interested in her story had Jeremy Bamber got off.
It had been signed. The agreement provided for payment only if JB was convicted.
-
The Defence had ample opportunity to expose her and failed.
The defence did not have ample opportunity to expose her. She lied about the NoW deal and the defence at that time had no way of getting access to the documents which exposed her lies. This was compounded by the deception about the circumstances in which the bank were persuaded not to press charges in relation to the cheque fraud. Had the jury had the full facts it is likely that they would have treated JM's evidence with considerably greater caution.
-
We also have to remember that money in those days was enough to buy her a flat . Which is what she did .
-
It's quite evident that you don't take this view, so you have dismissed all the evidence against Jeremy Bamber in your mind.
I have not dismissed any of the evidence in my mind. The approach I have adopted is of looking at all of the evidence, analysing it individually and then deciding how it fits in with the remainder of the evidence. It is a matter of looking at the evidence in the round and in context.
You on the other hand seem very blinkered in your approach.
-
I have not dismissed any of the evidence in my mind. The approach I have adopted is of looking at all of the evidence, analysing it individually and then deciding how it fits in with the remainder of the evidence. It is a matter of looking at the evidence in the round and in context.
You on the other hand seem very blinkered in our approach.
Not at all: I have analysed Jeremy Bamber's interactions with his adopted relatives since birth, as well as studying his acquaintances at the Frog and Beans and Julie's schoolfriends during the almost two years of his association with her.
-
Not at all: I have analysed Jeremy Bamber's interactions with his adopted relatives since birth, as well as studying his acquaintances at the Frog and Beans and Julie's schoolfriends during the almost two years of his association with her.
so your basis of his guilt is based on his home life and character analysis ?
-
we will see wont we .
the deal was signed in the event of him being convicted and a sum of money was agreed beforehand . That's what I think .All this losing of documents and no memory of the signing date makes no sense at all .
All she had to say was she did it at the time ruling came in ( even though she told the judge she would not ) but she never said that did she?
I was once in a similar position. I swore I'd never signed a document -I had no recall other than seeing it and refusing to sign. Some four years down the line I was shown the document. To my horror, my signature was on every spare space on it! I had, and still have no recall of doing it. My only defense was that I was in a very bad place at the time. Of course, it can justifiably be said that I lied. But such was never my intention.
-
was it never bought up in any of the appeals ,about julies past
-
I was once in a similar position. I swore I'd never signed a document -I had no recall other than seeing it and refusing to sign. Some four years down the line I was shown the document. To my horror, my signature was on every spare space on it! I had, and still have no recall of doing it. My only defense was that I was in a very bad place at the time. Of course, it can justifiably be said that I lied. But such was never my intention.
yes but if she was telling the truth in chambers ( which still does not add up with her later statement) she must have signed it in the hotel before the infamous article appeared - (and had the photo done ) so you think she would have remembered .
-
yes but if she was telling the truth in chambers ( which still does not add up with her later statement) she must have signed it in the hotel before the infamous article appeared - (and had the photo done ) so you think she would have remembered .
I can only say I can't imagine how I could have forgotten. I still have a sense of shame about the incident.
-
I can only say I can't imagine how I could have forgotten. I still have a sense of shame about the incident.
wonder where the pictures were taken ? in the hotel ? I am not sure what date the article was published .
typical NOW though .
-
wonder where the pictures were taken ? in the hotel ? I am not sure what date the article was published .
typical NOW though .
I kept it all for years but eventually, like the Charles and Diana wedding, and her death, it all became consigned to recycling!!
-
so your basis of his guilt is based on his home life and character analysis ?
It's based on the ever-vertiginous number of hoops I had to jump through to make Jeremy Bamber innocent. I was not prepared so to do.
-
We also have to remember that money in those days was enough to buy her a flat . Which is what she did .
Had she thrown it away gambling I'm sure she would have been censured for that too.
-
was it never bought up in any of the appeals ,about julies past
Nobody's past except Jeremy's and allegedly hers was quite chequered.
-
Had she thrown it away gambling I'm sure she would have been censured for that too.
she could have given it to any charity she had chosen though .
-
Not at all: I have analysed Jeremy Bamber's interactions with his adopted relatives since birth, as well as studying his acquaintances at the Frog and Beans and Julie's schoolfriends during the almost two years of his association with her.
(https://i0.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ricky-gervais-laughing.gif?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=540%2C359&ssl=1)
-
I kept it all for years but eventually, like the Charles and Diana wedding, and her death, it all became consigned to recycling!!
I did try and get other newspaper articles for the reporting on the case from archives but it was more difficult that I thought
-
Hello Jan did you ask your local library for help some years ago I was following the Neil Moss tragedy and my local library obtained copies of all the newspapers reporting at the time this happened March 1959 quite a few years before the Bamber case.
-
Hello Jan did you ask your local library for help some years ago I was following the Neil Moss tragedy and my local library obtained copies of all the newspapers reporting at the time this happened March 1959 quite a few years before the Bamber case.
Susan what got you involved in that case? http://www.thegranthams.co.uk/paul/graves/neilmoss.html
-
Hi steve it was quite by accident I saw something on the internet and that set me off. I found the case so interesting but so sad what a death for the young lad I spoke with cavers who were with him on that fateful day infact one of them had made the descent a week earlier just to test the way so to speak but he was a small guy Neil Moss was tall and this is one of the reasons he could not climb the rope ladder it seems neglect played a part as well. Steve you should read the whole case it is amazing the way in and out of the cave is awesome and even if they had got him out they could never have got a stretcher in there for him.He was left just as he died his parents did not want anyone to risk their life trying to bring him out.
-
I can only say I can't imagine how I could have forgotten. I still have a sense of shame about the incident.
jayne would you have said you didn’t sign it if you were being questioned by a judge in a murder trial though? i would you have not given it some further thought and decide to say you could t remember??
i think she had dug herself a hole so stuck with her story
-
jayne would you have said you didn’t sign it if you were being questioned by a judge in a murder trial though? i would you have not given it some further thought and decide to say you could t remember??
i think she had dug herself a hole so stuck with her story
..and who put her into the hole in the first place?
-
..and who put her into the hole in the first place?
haha i think she did that all by her lonesome
-
Stan Jones with his promise of a reward----she had to keep talking no matter what.
-
jayne would you have said you didn’t sign it if you were being questioned by a judge in a murder trial though? i would you have not given it some further thought and decide to say you could t remember??
i think she had dug herself a hole so stuck with her story
Notsure, you must know me well enough to know that I'd never say what I'd do, or not, in a situation, unless/until I was there. What I will say is, convinced as I was that I never signed I can only only believe that I'd have stuck to it, however, it's not impossible that, given the seriousness of the situation, I'd have decided to say I couldn't remember. It's very possible that you're correct re Julie.
-
Happy New Year steve hope you enjoy the fireworks
-
Happy New Year steve hope you enjoy the fireworks
Happy New Year to you and all. Yes there have been a few loud bangs close by.
-
Happy New Year to you and all. Yes there have been a few loud bangs close by.
Happy New Year Steve. x Keep on truckin'.
-
Happy New Year Jane
-
Hehehe lookout that is not fair two messages to steve unless I am seeing double bit early for that.,Happy New Year to all forum members hope we are all here next year Off to the party now night night xx
-
Hehehe lookout that is not fair two messages to steve unless I am seeing double bit early for that.,Happy New Year to all forum members hope we are all here next year Off to the party now night night xx
thanks susan,have a good one x
-
Hehehe lookout that is not fair two messages to steve unless I am seeing double bit early for that.,Happy New Year to all forum members hope we are all here next year Off to the party now night night xx
Enjoy, Susan. xx
-
I wish you ALL Good Evening
And a happy, bright New Year
May 2020 bring you ALL
Your dreams, good health and cheer.
May peaceful thoughts surround you
And the path you tread be kind
Before you take it, raise a glass
The largest you can find.
Wishing you all a WONDERFUL 2020............the year of perfect vision for everyone xx
-
That's lovely.
A Happy New Year to you Jane xx
-
That's lovely.
A Happy New Year to you Jane xx
And a Very Special one to you, Lookout xx
-
And a Very Special one to you, Lookout xx
That's so nice.xx Thankyou.
-
Wishing everybody a happy 2020. Me and the Mrs are watching Billy Elliott and enjoying a few glasses of wine. Slow cooker of spaghetti bolognese. ( I haven't contributed one iota I burn water) Best wishes
-
Wishing everybody a happy 2020. Me and the Mrs are watching Billy Elliott and enjoying a few glasses of wine. Slow cooker of spaghetti bolognese. ( I haven't contributed one iota I burn water) Best wishes
I'm watching Billy Elliott too. A Happy New Year to you and the Mrs.xx
-
I'm watching Billy Elliott too. A Happy New Year to you and the Mrs.xx
It was made in Easington - sadly the area is decimated now! Great film!
-
Back to the drama
So I will be looking out for the claims that have appeared on this forum and might appear ?
The widows were not checked correctly ( the police did not know what secured mean)
Jeremy going to the poppy field in order to induce vomiting
Jeremy completely guiding the police operation so they did not go in and establish the time of death
Jeremy faking his shock and upset when he was told that his family were dead . And the police completely being taken in.
How they portray Julie going to the mortuary to ID the twins when according to her later statements Jeremy had told her why they would be included in the murders
Will they cover granny Bambers will being changed before Jeremy was found guilty .
How will sheila be portrayed in the hours before the murders because there are a wide varying range of descriptions.
How will the drama cover evidence being destroyed on the instructions of the police ?
I have a feeling that EP might not be too happy with this “drama “
-
Back to the drama
So I will be looking out for the claims that have appeared on this forum and might appear ?
The widows were not checked correctly ( the police did not know what secured mean)
Jeremy going to the poppy field in order to induce vomiting
Jeremy completely guiding the police operation so they did not go in and establish the time of death
Jeremy faking his shock and upset when he was told that his family were dead . And the police completely being taken in.
How they portray Julie going to the mortuary to ID the twins when according to her later statements Jeremy had told her why they would be included in the murders
Will they cover granny Bambers will being changed before Jeremy was found guilty .
How will sheila be portrayed in the hours before the murders because there are a wide varying range of descriptions.
How will the drama cover evidence being destroyed on the instructions of the police ?
I have a feeling that EP might not be too happy with this “drama “
Why would there be anything in it taken from claims made by a forum? It's based on CAL's and Colin's books.
-
I'll soon let Stephen Graham know. ;) If anyone knows how the police work-or don't, he will. Strange he never took Stan Jones's part, then again, perhaps he hadn't wanted to ??
-
I'll soon let Stephen Graham know. ;) If anyone knows how the police work-or don't, he will. Strange he never took Stan Jones's part, then again, perhaps he hadn't wanted to ??
Or he wasn't offered it?
-
Back to the drama
So I will be looking out for the claims that have appeared on this forum and might appear ?
The widows were not checked correctly ( the police did not know what secured mean)
Jeremy going to the poppy field in order to induce vomiting
Jeremy completely guiding the police operation so they did not go in and establish the time of death
Jeremy faking his shock and upset when he was told that his family were dead . And the police completely being taken in.
How they portray Julie going to the mortuary to ID the twins when according to her later statements Jeremy had told her why they would be included in the murders
Will they cover granny Bambers will being changed before Jeremy was found guilty .
How will sheila be portrayed in the hours before the murders because there are a wide varying range of descriptions.
How will the drama cover evidence being destroyed on the instructions of the police ?
I have a feeling that EP might not be too happy with this “drama “
You mean June's mother, Mabel Speakman. Granny Bamber was Nevill's mother, who came to live at White House Farm for a brief period in 1981.
-
You mean June's mother, Mabel Speakman. Granny Bamber was Nevill's mother, who came to live at White House Farm for a brief period in 1981.
Which will was he named in ? and then the solicitor was called in to change the will before the verdict . ? Sorry I am rusty as have been away from the forum .
-
Or he wasn't offered it?
That, we don't know.
-
You mean June's mother, Mabel Speakman. Granny Bamber was Nevill's mother, who came to live at White House Farm for a brief period in 1981.
Sorry yes stand corrected Mabel speakman because he would have inherited because of his parents death .
-
Which will was he named in ? and then the solicitor was called in to change the will before the verdict . ? Sorry I am rusty as have been away from the forum .
The news of the tragedy was kept from Mabel Speakman for several days, the relatives believing the shock of learning of five deaths might kill her. Once Mabel Speakman, who at this stage in her life was confined to bed, learned of the truth, she wished to change her will leaving everything to her last surviving daughter, Pamela Boutflour. A solicitor was called and the will was amended, I presume so that Jeremy Bamber would not inherit his mother's portion by default.
-
Not forgetting that Granny Speakman was made to understand that they'd all perished before she put pen to paper on the Will.
-
Which will was he named in ? and then the solicitor was called in to change the will before the verdict . ? Sorry I am rusty as have been away from the forum .
I don't think that Jeremy was named in Mabel's Will, but if she had not changed it he would have inherited June's share (I think).
-
I don't think that Jeremy was named in Mabel's Will, but if she had not changed it he would have inherited June's share (I think).
Yes my error .i did correct myself in a later post .
-
Not at all: I have analysed Jeremy Bamber's interactions with his adopted relatives since birth, as well as studying his acquaintances at the Frog and Beans and Julie's schoolfriends during the almost two years of his association with her.
Have you had any experience of adoption or of adoptees? If not how can you have much idea of the loneliness and lack of belonging such a child might feel?
-
Have you had any experience of adoption or of adoptees? If not how can you have much idea of the loneliness and lack of belonging such a child might feel?
I'm not adopted Maggie but I can read books and make my own judgements. It's pretty clear to me that Jeremy was out of his depth at Gresham's and regarded it mentally as a further banishment after he had left his birth mother and been adopted by Nevill and June. His loneliness and lack of belonging were heightened the way his parents treated Suzette, which if there is any key to the Bamber enigma this is it. He blamed them for rejecting her, for outright threatening to disinherit him should the relationship continue, and castigated them in his mind for her miscarriages, which he believed were brought about by the stress she suffered as a result of this ostracism.
-
They certainly go for CAL in the blog, if only she had said that Bamber was innocent? I don’t know what she would have got if she had openly said he was guilty, credit due to CAL, she lets the reader decide yet they still have their claws into her.
The drama is apparently based on the rights to a book by Carol Ann Lee, who, with a vested interest in making money from misery, repeated lies in her book, refusing to accept the evidence, or even write about it. Using internet gossip forums as a source for research of a ‘factual’ book is farcical and is extremely poor practice
-
Colin's input too RJ.
-
Colin's input too RJ.
I wish they were all honest like you Lookout, the CT would get more respect. You have to admit, there’s stuff in there that’s false, I’ve nothing about campaigning, so long as it’s done properly.
-
They certainly go for CAL in the blog, if only she had said that Bamber was innocent? I don’t know what she would have got if she had openly said he was guilty, credit due to CAL, she lets the reader decide yet they still have their claws into her.
The drama is apparently based on the rights to a book by Carol Ann Lee, who, with a vested interest in making money from misery, repeated lies in her book, refusing to accept the evidence, or even write about it. Using internet gossip forums as a source for research of a ‘factual’ book is farcical and is extremely poor practice
Her book is well researched! Several times I have pointed out that they had stuff wrong on their website. They once wrote that Sheila's finger prints were on the bullet cases - BS! Don't think it's on there now?
-
They certainly go for CAL in the blog, if only she had said that Bamber was innocent? I don’t know what she would have got if she had openly said he was guilty, credit due to CAL, she lets the reader decide yet they still have their claws into her.
The drama is apparently based on the rights to a book by Carol Ann Lee, who, with a vested interest in making money from misery, repeated lies in her book, refusing to accept the evidence, or even write about it. Using internet gossip forums as a source for research of a ‘factual’ book is farcical and is extremely poor practice
I have to agree with other posts . Nearly every author and tv programme would be studying the case for money . But that post is a bit strong . Can’t comment if it’s true because I have to admit I only skimmed read the book as I found it a bit , dare I say it , boring .
But I do believe she listed her references so the statement seems unfair .
-
Her book is well researched! Several times I have pointed out that they had stuff wrong on their website. They once wrote that Sheila's finger prints were on the bullet cases - BS! Don't think it's on there now?
Its well documented he hated his parents, Brett Collins even testifies to this, yet they portray his love for them as butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth. Sites like that should be shut down if they can’t give proven facts! Do they mention Brett Collins on the site much Caroline, or is he pushed in the background?
-
Its well documented he hated his parents, Brett Collins even testifies to this, yet they portray his love for them as butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth. Sites like that should be shut down if they can’t give proven facts! Do they mention Brett Collins on the site much Caroline, or is he pushed in the background?
I just read Bretts statement . He said Jeremy got the watches in Australia not New Zealand . He also said he did not think jeremy was capable of murder . He did not have the guts . He said his relationship with his father wa not close , more like a business arrangement and he thought his mother was a bit strange for giving a lot of money away to the church when the farm needed the money .
So not quite Hating his parents . Just not close .
-
I have to agree with other posts . Nearly every author and tv programme would be studying the case for money . But that post is a bit strong . Can’t comment if it’s true because I have to admit I only skimmed read the book as I found it a bit , dare I say it , boring .
But I do believe she listed her references so the statement seems unfair .
Thanks Jan for your honest opinion, like I say, I’ve nothing whatsoever against campaigning, it back fires when people realise it’s false, they should stick to truth. They wanted some input in the series and they were rebuffed and this is their revenge. I don’t think any tv production company would run a series and hope to make a loss, it’s sad that it’s these type of programmes are what viewers want, it’s shows this is the case because an American channel have bought it, there’s a huge market for true crime stories, I think it stems from a fear of crime, a search for motifs that will challenges the brain and a feeling for the victims. We’re all detectives aren’t we 👍
-
I just read Bretts statement . He said Jeremy got the watches in Australia not New Zealand . He also said he did not think jeremy was capable of murder . He did not have the guts . He said his relationship with his father wa not close , more like a business arrangement and he thought his mother was a bit strange for giving a lot of money away to the church when the farm needed the money .
So not quite Hating his parents . Just not close .
If you read this Jan, I know were splitting hairs, he does say he hated his mother at times.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8969.0;attach=50192
-
The impression is she loved the church more than anything . And did not like his girlfriends or friends .
-
If you read this Jan, I know were splitting hairs, he does say he hated his mother at times.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8969.0;attach=50192
I'm sure he was never the first or last to have expressed himself in that way RJ.
-
Hi Lookout you are quite right JB saying that from time to time does not make him a murderer. Just read the post back and I addressed you as Lootout hehehe xx
-
Hi Lookout you are quite right JB saying that from time to time does not make him a murderer. Just read the post back and I addressed you as Lootout hehehe xx
Hahahaha, a slip of the " pen "xx. Thousands/millions must have said that throughout the years which means nothing really.
-
If you read this Jan, I know were splitting hairs, he does say he hated his mother at times.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8969.0;attach=50192
Im sure both he and Sheila did hate their mother most of the time however hard they tried not to. If all you have known your whole life is that you are not good enough and don’t come up to standard, if you have always been told you should be grateful for being adopted, maybe told your mother/family didn’t want you etc. It is a very tough call. Possibly she or both discussed their disappointment with their children, with family, friends and colleagues, no doubt June told people they were adopted to show what a Christian woman she was, just look what a wonderful thing they did and what an ungrateful pair they are. I think both Sheila and jeremy had every right to hate. Then as they grew they were still controlled, their partners weren’t good enough, they didn’t approve of them etc etc. How could either of them have a clue what a good relationship was, they probably both suffered from very low self esteem and lack of self awareness, no wonder they both took drugs. Just a huge tragedy for both of them imo.
-
The main player in this drama, Freddie Fox, is another who'll have splinters in his bum as he has no opinion about whether JB is guilty or not--------which doesn't make sense to me when he's playing the part of an alleged murderer. Will it not confuse the audience if he's not seen entering the farmhouse ? I wonder how they're going to get around this ?
-
Im sure both he and Sheila did hate their mother most of the time however hard they tried not to. If all you have known your whole life is that you are not good enough and don’t come up to standard, if you have always been told you should be grateful for being adopted, maybe told your mother/family didn’t want you etc. It is a very tough call. Possibly she or both discussed their disappointment with their children, with family, friends and colleagues, no doubt June told people they were adopted to show what a Christian woman she was, just look what a wonderful thing they did and what an ungrateful pair they are. I think both Sheila and jeremy had every right to hate. Then as they grew they were still controlled, their partners weren’t good enough, they didn’t approve of them etc etc. How could either of them have a clue what a good relationship was, they probably both suffered from very low self esteem and lack of self awareness, no wonder they both took drugs. Just a huge tragedy for both of them imo.
I think there’s a difference between self hating someone Maggie, to telling all and sundry, I understand now and again the odd comments, but it was a constant drip feed from Jeremy, hence the expression I think he suffered with a loose tongue.
-
The main player in this drama, Freddie Fox, is another who'll have splinters in his bum as he has no opinion about whether JB is guilty or not--------which doesn't make sense to me when he's playing the part of an alleged murderer. Will it not confuse the audience if he's not seen entering the farmhouse ? I wonder how they're going to get around this ?
Actors are actors Lookout, they get paid to entertain
-
The main player in this drama, Freddie Fox, is another who'll have splinters in his bum as he has no opinion about whether JB is guilty or not--------which doesn't make sense to me when he's playing the part of an alleged murderer. Will it not confuse the audience if he's not seen entering the farmhouse ? I wonder how they're going to get around this ?
Lookout, he's an 'ector' from a great family of 'ectors'! I'm totally confident that he'll make a convincing job of the role. Rather like going into the counselling room, when one steps onto the stage, all thoughts of self are left behind. "WE" no longer count. It's client and audience. Debriefing comes later.
-
Lookout, he's an 'ector' from a great family of 'ectors'! I'm totally confident that he'll make a convincing job of the role. Rather like going into the counselling room, when one steps onto the stage, all thoughts of self are left behind. "WE" no longer count. It's client and audience. Debriefing comes later.
It might have been better if he'd have actually met the man he was portraying rather than relying on different people to tell him what he was like. Wrong end of the stick springs to mind such as CAL's admittance of gossip to stretch it a bit.
-
Im sure both he and Sheila did hate their mother most of the time however hard they tried not to. If all you have known your whole life is that you are not good enough and don’t come up to standard, if you have always been told you should be grateful for being adopted, maybe told your mother/family didn’t want you etc. It is a very tough call. Possibly she or both discussed their disappointment with their children, with family, friends and colleagues, no doubt June told people they were adopted to show what a Christian woman she was, just look what a wonderful thing they did and what an ungrateful pair they are. I think both Sheila and jeremy had every right to hate. Then as they grew they were still controlled, their partners weren’t good enough, they didn’t approve of them etc etc. How could either of them have a clue what a good relationship was, they probably both suffered from very low self esteem and lack of self awareness, no wonder they both took drugs. Just a huge tragedy for both of them imo.
The big problem, Maggie, is to arrive at a place of murderous hate, the start point has to be adoring love. That would be the sort of unconditional love a child has for it's caregiver and expects to have it in return. When this love is withheld, the child takes the view that it must be 'bad' and tries even harder to obtain it. It will go on trying. Sadly, it's highly likely that the child will never find anyone who gives them that approval -it will be alien to them- what they've never experienced will take a long time for them to learn how to receive. I believe Sheila carried on trying. I suspect Jeremy built a protective wall around himself and stopped trying. Perhaps revenge was a sweeter dish?
-
It might have been better if he'd have actually met the man he was portraying rather than relying on different people to tell him what he was like. Wrong end of the stick springs to mind such as CAL's admittance of gossip to stretch it a bit.
Allegedly, he chose not to. I get it. He's aware of the part he has to play. I hope you're not stretching it a bit, making a banquet out of a crispbread by alluding to CAL's admission.
-
I think there’s a difference between self hating someone Maggie, to telling all and sundry, I understand now and again the odd comments, but it was a constant drip feed from Jeremy, hence the expression I think he suffered with a loose tongue.
Ex Army Officer named James Richards who took the stand, he remembered having a conversation with a Jeremy in the summer of 1985 when Jeremy Said “ I hate my Fucking Parents” he said it two or three times. So like I say, it’s constantly playing in his head, it’s not a spur of the moment, it’s like a disease with in him and it makes the Motif appear stronger.
-
Im sure both he and Sheila did hate their mother most of the time however hard they tried not to. If all you have known your whole life is that you are not good enough and don’t come up to standard, if you have always been told you should be grateful for being adopted, maybe told your mother/family didn’t want you etc. It is a very tough call. Possibly she or both discussed their disappointment with their children, with family, friends and colleagues, no doubt June told people they were adopted to show what a Christian woman she was, just look what a wonderful thing they did and what an ungrateful pair they are. I think both Sheila and jeremy had every right to hate. Then as they grew they were still controlled, their partners weren’t good enough, they didn’t approve of them etc etc. How could either of them have a clue what a good relationship was, they probably both suffered from very low self esteem and lack of self awareness, no wonder they both took drugs. Just a huge tragedy for both of them imo.
I try to understand the hurt caused to some who have been adopted or fostered, my wife was fostered, the rejection inside must be so hurtful and I’ve not got to lose track of that hurt, I’m fortunate that I’ve never had cause to come even close to saying I hate my parents.
-
I try to understand the hurt caused to some who have been adopted or fostered, my wife was fostered, the rejection inside must be so hurtful and I’ve not got to lose track of that hurt, I’m fortunate that I’ve never had cause to come even close to saying I hate my parents.
No worries, RJ, and it's good to know. Neither has the vast majority, both biological and adopted.
-
Allegedly, he chose not to. I get it. He's aware of the part he has to play. I hope you're not stretching it a bit, making a banquet out of a crispbread by alluding to CAL's admission.
I do think it's a bit " off " to use gossip though as gossip isn't always taken as the truth.
-
Admitting so is worse. She should have kept her trap shut, though I'm aware that many authors can't. :o
-
I do think it's a bit " off " to use gossip though as gossip isn't always taken as the truth.
I won't be looking for it, Lookout, and I imagine, if such is included, the majority won't recognize it, anyway.
-
Admitting so is worse. She should have kept her trap shut, though I'm aware that many authors can't. :o
I can hear you feel resentful of her, the book, and the series.
-
I can hear you feel resentful of her, the book, and the series.
Not really but I do feel that they can get away with a lot more than the ordinary man in the street, by their use of words for a start. This goes for many who are in the public eye. I would probably have followed the series in a better frame of mind if it had been written by the likes of Peter James who's written many crime books so knows more than just a hint of gossip to please his readers.
-
Not really but I do feel that they can get away with a lot more than the ordinary man in the street, by their use of words for a start. This goes for many who are in the public eye. I would probably have followed the series in a better frame of mind if it had been written by the likes of Peter James who's written many crime books so knows more than just a hint of gossip to please his readers.
Why don't you reserve judgement, Lookout. It maybe that even though you don't agree with it, it will be well presented.
-
Ex Army Officer named James Richards who took the stand, he remembered having a conversation with a Jeremy in the summer of 1985 when Jeremy Said “ I hate my Fucking Parents” he said it two or three times. So like I say, it’s constantly playing in his head, it’s not a spur of the moment, it’s like a disease with in him and it makes the Motif appear stronger.
what was his relationship to Jeremy and the family ?
also i have often wondered how many of the people who actually worked with him or lived very close by were actually called in to testify
I have neice who keeps telling her mother she wishes she would jump of a bridge so she can get at her money - i am not sure she accepts the consequence of a loose tongue. i might tell her to watch then programme .
-
that's confusing you say ex army officer - but in some places it says student ? Was he someone Jeremy know from the pub?
-
what was his relationship to Jeremy and the family ?
also i have often wondered how many of the people who actually worked with him or lived very close by were actually called in to testify
I have neice who keeps telling her mother she wishes she would jump of a bridge so she can get at her money - i am not sure she accepts the consequence of a loose tongue. i might tell her to watch then programme .
He was a friend of Julies Jan, I think he shared the flat with her? Jeremy admitted it was the sort of thing young people might say when complaining about their parents, although he denied saying it.
-
He was a friend of Julies Jan, I think he shared the flat with her? Jeremy admitted it was the sort of thing young people might say when complaining about their parents, although he denied saying it.
I seem to recall that there were a couple of military chaps living in the flat. The objected to grass being smoked? Perhaps the smell clung to their uniforms? I may be well off track with this.
-
he was a student at the time - who went on to be in the army . it just sounded as if he was an older army officer giving evidence . So I was confused .
an acquaintance then
-
It's usually those who remain silent are the ones to watch because you don't know what they're thinking. The ones with the loose tongues never worry me, though foolish. They're a bit like the " empty vessels"------
It just shows how utterly thick Jeremy was for speaking about his parents in this manner though as it could have given someone else carte-blanche to have carried out the murders leaving him to carry the can as it was he who'd said it in the first place ::) It's damned dangerous and JB should have known better. Walls have ears !!
-
that's confusing you say ex army officer - but in some places it says student ? Was he someone Jeremy know from the pub?
Hi Jan, yes it is a bit, but it just says an ex Army officer called James Richards who rented a room at her digs in Lewisham? It says the jury heard from a student friend of Julie’s? Average age of graduates from Sandhurst was 23 years old? Maybe he had been a cadet type at Sandhurst?
-
he was a student at the time - who went on to be in the army . it just sounded as if he was an older army officer giving evidence . So I was confused .
an acquaintance then
Yes they probably glammed him up a bit 🙈
-
Thanks Jan for your honest opinion, like I say, I’ve nothing whatsoever against campaigning, it back fires when people realise it’s false, they should stick to truth. They wanted some input in the series and they were rebuffed and this is their revenge. I don’t think any tv production company would run a series and hope to make a loss, it’s sad that it’s these type of programmes are what viewers want, it’s shows this is the case because an American channel have bought it, there’s a huge market for true crime stories, I think it stems from a fear of crime, a search for motifs that will challenges the brain and a feeling for the victims. We’re all detectives aren’t we 👍
As you like to quote all things bad about Jeremy why don’t you give an honest rundown on the Eaton’s and the running of the caravan park they only took control of because of the murders
An honest opinion of how they have treated people who had kept their caravans at the park for years
You have touched on it previously but I think you worked there and the Eaton’s behaviour shows a real greed for money and no integrity or loyalty towards existing caravan owners
-
As you like to quote all things bad about Jeremy why don’t you give an honest rundown on the Eaton’s and the running of the caravan park they only took control of because of the murders
An honest opinion of how they have treated people who had kept their caravans at the park for years
You have touched on it previously but I think you worked there and the Eaton’s behaviour shows a real greed for money and no integrity or loyalty towards existing caravan owners
I don’t know how they treat their people Jackie I never worked there, if you read my posts I knew of them from BHHP that’s an association of Holiday park owners, I used to go to meetings and the general feel and it’s my personal view, I would treat customers better, it wasn’t just that holiday park, it’s every Caravan park throughout England, they all sing from the same hymn sheet. My advice to anyone Don’t bloody buy a static unless your prepared to lose a lot of money when you leave. They have every angled covered (not just them) that’s why I’m not a millionaire, I wouldn’t make as much money.
-
that's a bit like blackening Jeremys character though - it does not make him a killer.
And I also heard that the family were not popular when they took over the park - but that does not make them liars either - maybe just running the business in a different way .
-
that's a bit like blackening Jeremys character though - it does not make him a killer.
And I also heard that the family were not popular when they took over the park - but that does not make them liars either - maybe just running the business in a different way .
Don't get you Jan, how am I Blackening his character with that post?
-
that's a bit like blackening Jeremys character though - it does not make him a killer.
And I also heard that the family were not popular when they took over the park - but that does not make them liars either - maybe just running the business in a different way .
How is it possible to blacken the character of a killer, because until such time as he's totally exonerated of any involvement, surely, that what he is, and that's what he remains.
-
Don't get you Jan, how am I Blackening his character with that post?
I meant in general on here
not you
-
I meant in general on here
not you
Oh sorry, I thought you were answering my post Jan, 🙈🙈🙈
-
How is it possible to blacken the character of a killer, because until such time as he's totally exonerated of any involvement, surely, that what he is, and that's what he remains.
Of course in the eyes of the law that is correct .
But it would have been harder to convict a person who had never stepped out of line would it not - so of course the police would use every trick in the book . they have admitted it themselves in other cases .
Like i said i have spoken to someone who knew him as well and as happens in many peoples circles there were obviously people who liked him and people who did not . A bit like a prime minister (:
But there are a lot of posters on here who revel in embellishing statements for their own purposes .
-
Of course in the eyes of the law that is correct .
But it would have been harder to convict a person who had never stepped out of line would it not - so of course the police would use every trick in the book . they have admitted it themselves in other cases .
Like i said i have spoken to someone who knew him as well and as happens in many peoples circles there were obviously people who liked him and people who did not . A bit like a prime minister (:
But there are a lot of posters on here who revel in embellishing statements for their own purposes .
From both sides may I add 👍
-
Of course in the eyes of the law that is correct .
But it would have been harder to convict a person who had never stepped out of line would it not - so of course the police would use every trick in the book . they have admitted it themselves in other cases .
Like i said i have spoken to someone who knew him as well and as happens in many peoples circles there were obviously people who liked him and people who did not . A bit like a prime minister (:
But there are a lot of posters on here who revel in embellishing statements for their own purposes .
I'd be more guilty of not reading them! However, I'm aware that there are those here who have a penchant for rearranging words to suit their own purposes.
-
Of course in the eyes of the law that is correct .
But it would have been harder to convict a person who had never stepped out of line would it not - so of course the police would use every trick in the book . they have admitted it themselves in other cases .
Like i said i have spoken to someone who knew him as well and as happens in many peoples circles there were obviously people who liked him and people who did not . A bit like a prime minister (:
But there are a lot of posters on here who revel in embellishing statements for their own purposes .
Your opening the Pandora’s box now Jan, behave 😂😂😂
-
As you like to quote all things bad about Jeremy why don’t you give an honest rundown on the Eaton’s and the running of the caravan park they only took control of because of the murders
An honest opinion of how they have treated people who had kept their caravans at the park for years
You have touched on it previously but I think you worked there and the Eaton’s behaviour shows a real greed for money and no integrity or loyalty towards existing caravan owners
iam a close friend on ann,s,she would be very sad to hear you say that
-
iam a close friend on ann,s,she would be very sad to hear you say that
It's clear that a response, discrediting Ann and the family business, is wanted from someone else.
-
It's clear that a response, discrediting Ann and the family business, is wanted from someone else.
yes i agree jane
-
Hi sami are you a good friend of Ann Eaton or are you having a larf xx
-
Hi sami are you a good friend of Ann Eaton or are you having a larf xx
hi susan yes,didnt really want to say it on the forum because of any future repercussions :)
-
Susan, keep your friends close and your enemies closer :) ;)
-
Jan I know of some posters on here who hate Jeremy Bamber with a passion. I always feel it is better to leave an area of doubt whatever stance you are on.
-
Lookout very good advice xx
-
Hi sami I do apologise for not taking your post seriously I am sure she is a very nice lady :)
-
Susan, keep your friends close and your enemies closer :) ;)
i hope iam not going to be regarded as an enemy now :)
-
i hope iam not going to be regarded as an enemy now :)
Well you can't choose your family, can you ?
-
I don’t know how they treat their people Jackie I never worked there, if you read my posts I knew of them from BHHP that’s an association of Holiday park owners, I used to go to meetings and the general feel and it’s my personal view, I would treat customers better, it wasn’t just that holiday park, it’s every Caravan park throughout England, they all sing from the same hymn sheet. My advice to anyone Don’t bloody buy a static unless your prepared to lose a lot of money when you leave. They have every angled covered (not just them) that’s why I’m not a millionaire, I wouldn’t make as much money.
Yes I know exactly what you mean I know a couple of people who had static caravans there
-
Lookout how could we think of sami as our enemy he is our lovely friend. Don't be worrying my friend we will protect you :))
-
Hi sami I do apologise for not taking your post seriously I am sure she is a very nice lady :)
she,s a very kind hearted person susan,theres lots i could say but i wont.xx
-
iam a close friend on ann,s,she would be very sad to hear you say that
It’s a fact, things changed when the bambers were not around anymore
But like RJ said the people who make lots of money out of caravan parks don’t have much integrity
A friend of Anne’s are you? Have you got a nursing background?
-
It’s a fact, things changed when the bambers were not around anymore
But like RJ said the people who make lots of money out of caravan parks don’t have much integrity
A friend of Anne’s are you? Have you got a nursing background?
thats exactly why ,i dint want to say stuff on the forum
-
Sami no harm in telling the truth about the lady but she may not like it so you are right not to say too much :)
-
Yes I know exactly what you mean I know a couple of people who had static caravans there
It’s not just there Jackie, it’s in general I’m afraid.
-
It’s not just there Jackie, it’s in general I’m afraid.
I know
-
It’s a fact, things changed when the bambers were not around anymore
But like RJ said the people who make lots of money out of caravan parks don’t have much integrity
A friend of Anne’s are you? Have you got a nursing background?
I don’t think the Bambers would have differed one bit Jackie, as I said before they all sang from the same hymn sheet, they all seemed to fall in line and copied each other, odd one or two maybe, but they still had their own cut throat way.
It’s a win win for them, they make on a sale, they make more on a return. 10% to 15% I would say pack in each year, this is a big earner for them, rents go up every year regardless.
-
Well that's gone down like a lead balloon hasn't it ? :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
-
Well that's gone down like a lead balloon hasn't it ? :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
Im being honest Lookout, I worked in the area, I knew how it worked I wouldn’t lie to you my friend 👍
-
Im being honest Lookout, I worked in the area, I knew how it worked I wouldn’t lie to you my friend 👍
It's not you RJ .
-
It's not you RJ .
Oh sorry Lookout, I’m getting posts confused I did one with Jan earlier 🙈🙈🙈
-
Well that's gone down like a lead balloon hasn't it ? :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
Well I don’t see what’s changed really, everyone thought I were part of the family 😂😂😂
-
Well I don’t see what’s changed really, everyone thought I were part of the family 😂😂😂
You never said you were though.
-
I try to understand the hurt caused to some who have been adopted or fostered, my wife was fostered, the rejection inside must be so hurtful and I’ve not got to lose track of that hurt, I’m fortunate that I’ve never had cause to come even close to saying I hate my parents.
If an adoptive mother doesn’t understand it is a lifetimes work then they are not really fit to be in such a privileged position imo. Vulnerable babies/children/adult adoptees deserve unconditional love and respect for their situation which allows them to build self esteem. I have seen the love/hate struggle by an adoptee trying to love her abusive mother but hating her at the same time. I can see how that could and has boiled over into violence, if she killed her mother it could be called a ‘crime of passion’. Not sure if cold blooded, premeditated murder would ever be considered in such a situation. I wonder if once the adoptive child gives up and stops trying to find that love within the mother would she care any more? Would she bother? Maybe if she wanted to be free once and for all. Not sure.
-
hi susan yes,didnt really want to say it on the forum because of any future repercussions :)
I would not worry about it too much .
I have learnt to understand that people who think Jeremys conviction is correct emphasise all his bad points and people who think he is innocent have to do the same to those that they think are responsible .
It took me a long time to learn not to believe "opinions" and try and stick to the documents.
however those documents keep throwing up lots of questions . Otherwise we would all still not be here.
For example Anne has been called Miss Marple for making all her notes and being suspicious . In retrospect I would also be that person . I saw a robbery happening once and I immediately made notes of everything I saw . Just for reference and because I was angry .
but I would love to know where her notes are about finding the silencer .
-
You never said you were though.
I know Lookout I thought Anne was Bambi at first 😂😂😂
-
I would not worry about it too much .
I have learnt to understand that people who think Jeremys conviction is correct emphasise all his bad points and people who think he is innocent have to do the same to those that they think are responsible .
It took me a long time to learn not to believe "opinions" and try and stick to the documents.
however those documents keep throwing up lots of questions . Otherwise we would all still not be here.
For example Anne has been called Miss Marple for making all her notes and being suspicious . In retrospect I would also be that person . I saw a robbery happening once and I immediately made notes of everything I saw . Just for reference and because I was angry .
but I would love to know where her notes are about finding the silencer .
she is very untrusting,unless you have known her for long time but than who could blame her
-
she is very untrusting,unless you have known her for long time but than who could blame her
In her position - who wouldn't be?
-
If an adoptive mother doesn’t understand it is a lifetimes work then they are not really fit to be in such a privileged position imo. Vulnerable babies/children/adult adoptees deserve unconditional love and respect for their situation which allows them to build self esteem. I have seen the love/hate struggle by an adoptee trying to love her abusive mother but hating her at the same time. I can see how that could and has boiled over into violence, if she killed her mother it could be called a ‘crime of passion’. Not sure if cold blooded, premeditated murder would ever be considered in such a situation. I wonder if once the adoptive child gives up and stops trying to find that love within the mother would she care any more? Would she bother? Maybe if she wanted to be free once and for all. Not sure.
Good post Maggie and some good points, I feel more inclined to feel this was a hatred and greed crime not just hatred Maggie 🙈
-
Good post Maggie and some good points, I feel more inclined to feel this was a hatred and greed crime not just hatred Maggie 🙈
I think mainly greed.
-
In her position - who wouldn't be?
exactly caroline,having known her for quite a while she has discussed the murders with me over the years in more detail
-
I think mainly greed.
Im not sure, these relationships are complicated.
-
Im not sure, these relationships are complicated.
Most are Maggie - in the grand scheme.
-
I would not worry about it too much .
I have learnt to understand that people who think Jeremys conviction is correct emphasise all his bad points and people who think he is innocent have to do the same to those that they think are responsible .
It took me a long time to learn not to believe "opinions" and try and stick to the documents.
however those documents keep throwing up lots of questions . Otherwise we would all still not be here.
For example Anne has been called Miss Marple for making all her notes and being suspicious . In retrospect I would also be that person . I saw a robbery happening once and I immediately made notes of everything I saw . Just for reference and because I was angry .
but I would love to know where her notes are about finding the silencer .
jan there was some talk of a sd card the original notes maybe long gone
-
They were running scared that an " outsider " was going to take over what they had down as theirs----horrible.
-
They were running scared that an " outsider " was going to take over what they had down as theirs----horrible.
I have to agree Lookout, but I do believe they were convinced that Sheila wasn’t to blame, I would think any family involved in any tragedy like this, would see things different with what they found unbelievable circumstances as the story unfolded.
-
They were running scared that an " outsider " was going to take over what they had down as theirs----horrible.
she may have said that she had a loving relationship with jb in the past before the murders
-
They were running scared that an " outsider " was going to take over what they had down as theirs----horrible.
I don’t think they were seeing pound signs at first Lookout, think how anyone would react if they were told the same story?
-
I don’t think they were seeing pound signs at first Lookout, think how anyone would react if they were told the same story?
quite true rj,one cant blame the family specially not poor ann
-
I have to agree Lookout, but I do believe they were convinced that Sheila wasn’t to blame, I would think any family involved in any tragedy like this, would see things different with what they found unbelievable circumstances as the story unfolded.
I'm more than aware that most would have pointed a finger at Jeremy in favour of his sister but those involved in the investigation were very wrong in pre-judging that " it must have been Jeremy " and come the trial which was so one-sided that Jeremy never stood a chance even his defence let him down when Rivlin could have done far more for him. The whole thing disgusts me from start to finish.
There's more than one way to skin a cat, in other words the whole family should have been interrogated, they'd have soon got to the truth of why they wanted Jeremy locked up for life.
-
I'm more than aware that most would have pointed a finger at Jeremy in favour of his sister but those involved in the investigation were very wrong in pre-judging that " it must have been Jeremy " and come the trial which was so one-sided that Jeremy never stood a chance even his defence let him down when Rivlin could have done far more for him. The whole thing disgusts me from start to finish.
There's more than one way to skin a cat, in other words the whole family should have been interrogated, they'd have soon got to the truth of why they wanted Jeremy locked up for life.
thats a bit harsh lookout,plus the pre judging you mention was started by taff
-
I'm more than aware that most would have pointed a finger at Jeremy in favour of his sister but those involved in the investigation were very wrong in pre-judging that " it must have been Jeremy " and come the trial which was so one-sided that Jeremy never stood a chance even his defence let him down when Rivlin could have done far more for him. The whole thing disgusts me from start to finish.
There's more than one way to skin a cat, in other words the whole family should have been interrogated, they'd have soon got to the truth of why they wanted Jeremy locked up for life.
The official police line was four murders and a suicide Lookout, the only mistake in pre judging was the wrong suspect.
-
thats a bit harsh lookout,plus the pre judging you mention was started by taff
No, " Taff " had known as soon as he entered the farmhouse that it was a murder/suicide he'd faced. There was no pre-judging there. It was straightforward. It was Stan Jones who did the pre-judging.
I'm learning quite a bit at the moment as I'm in contact with an investigative criminologist.
-
thats a bit harsh lookout,plus the pre judging you mention was started by taff
Against Sheila.
-
No, " Taff " had known as soon as he entered the farmhouse that it was a murder/suicide he'd faced. There was no pre-judging there. It was straightforward. It was Stan Jones who did the pre-judging.
I'm learning quite a bit at the moment as I'm in contact with an investigative criminologist.
He had a cursory glance around and took Bambers word for what happened - he prejudged without investigating.
-
No, " Taff " had known as soon as he entered the farmhouse that it was a murder/suicide he'd faced. There was no pre-judging there. It was straightforward. It was Stan Jones who did the pre-judging.
I'm learning quite a bit at the moment as I'm in contact with an investigative criminologist.
yes but 10 members of a jury thought taff was wrong,who are we to judge law abiding members of a jury with good character :)
-
He had a cursory glance around and took Bambers word for what happened - he prejudged without investigating.
It was Stan who was hands on, he was in the mix and I find it hard to believe he would try and turn an investigation this big through sheer spite or pressure
-
It was Stan who was hands on, he was in the mix and I find it hard to believe he would try and turn an investigation this big through sheer spite or pressure
Stan Jones disliked Jeremy from the outset, so that helped when others joined in with their grouses about JB then when JM came along, SJ must have thought all his Christmas's had come at once and so it continued.
-
Stan Jones disliked Jeremy from the outset, so that helped when others joined in with their grouses about JB then when JM came along, SJ must have thought all his Christmas's had come at once and so it continued.
He didn't like him because he knew there was something not right about him.
-
He had a cursory glance around and took Bambers word for what happened - he prejudged without investigating.
It was " something " he'd pre-judged, not " someone ".
-
It was " something " he'd pre-judged, not " someone ".
He prejudged Sheila as the killer.
-
He didn't like him because he knew there was something not right about him.
You believe him saying he knew there was something was not right about him.
But he didn’t know though did he
-
It was Stan who was hands on, he was in the mix and I find it hard to believe he would try and turn an investigation this big through sheer spite or pressure
The amount of corruption in Essex Police has always been bad. As if by mistake evidence was destroyed. That is by by far one of the biggest cover ups ever.
The biggest murder case in Essex Police history and evidence gets destroyed when the case is going to appeal
-
He didn't like him because he knew there was something not right about him.
It was because SJ was dealing with a smart arse and police don't like smart arse's, especially those like JB who are better educated. Police would rather handle the ones who don't answer back and go quietly.
Nothing to do with something not being right about him at all.
-
Stan Jones didn't like Bamber from the outset. Ask yourself this. Bamber is taking a big gamble isn't he. In for example telling his beloved of his plans not knowing how they'd react once In police vicinity. And also by leaving a silencer in a house that he knew would be ultimately searched at some point....
-
I'd have reacted in the same way if I'd thought I hadn't done anything while some mighty mouth was trying his best to trip me up.
-
yes but 10 members of a jury thought taff was wrong,who are we to judge law abiding members of a jury with good character :)
They were also told sheilas blood was on the silencer and that is by no means a 100% fact .
-
It was because SJ was dealing with a smart arse and police don't like smart arse's, especially those like JB who are better educated. Police would rather handle the ones who don't answer back and go quietly.
Nothing to do with something not being right about him at all.
Just the other day people were saying he wasn't educated. ::)
Jones thought there was something 'not right' about him.
-
I'd have reacted in the same way if I'd thought I hadn't done anything while some mighty mouth was trying his best to trip me up.
Me too Lookout
-
I'd have reacted in the same way if I'd thought I hadn't done anything while some mighty mouth was trying his best to trip me up.
How would you also react, if your mothers sister had been murdered and the only living family member is giving conflicting accounts of events? The first thing Anne was alerted to was the fact that Jeremy couldn’t make his mind up if he had shot at the rabbits or not? We wasn’t there Lookout to hear or see his facial expressions,we wasn’t there to witness what the family listened to, we never got the chance to look into his eyes and see his eye contact, we never listened to his stories that didn’t ring true. Jeremy backtracked on this story for a reason, it didn’t matter if he fired or he didn’t, but he obviously had second thoughts?
-
The amount of corruption in Essex Police has always been bad. As if by mistake evidence was destroyed. That is by by far one of the biggest cover ups ever.
The biggest murder case in Essex Police history and evidence gets destroyed when the case is going to appeal
i do know Essex police trust me, yes they have a reputation like lots of police forces I agree and I have spoke of this before, maybe it would have been so much different if “Taff” hadn’t read the carnage wrong from the start, it was only an Opinion of his that it was murder Suicide, His Opinion wasn’t based on what followed and opinion’s are not always right.
-
They were also told sheilas blood was on the silencer and that is by no means a 100% fact .
iam sure the defence mentioned that at trial,but iam also sure the jury members didnt find him guilty on that fact alone
-
iam sure the defence mentioned that at trial,but iam also sure the jury members didnt find him guilty on that fact alone
I agree Sami.
-
Nobody knows why the jury found him guilty (apart from two of them). This isn't the US where juries talk to the press afterwards.
-
You'd have thought that for a mass murder the result would have been unanimous beyond reasonable doubt ? But it wasn't as 2 people didn't believe him guilty.
-
You'd have thought that for a mass murder the result would have been unanimous beyond reasonable doubt ? But it wasn't as 2 people didn't believe him guilty.
I guess it's something for supporters to cling to.
-
I guess it's something for supporters to cling to.
Not only supporters but those guilters who've got a modicum of understanding of the case.
-
Nobody knows why the jury found him guilty (apart from two of them). This isn't the US where juries talk to the press afterwards.
This is a passage from CALs book.
"One former member of the investigation team who does not wish to be named asked the jury foreman afterwards if there had been a deciding factor. He was told: ‘It was all down to the judge’s summing up. He directed us to find Jeremy guilty and that’s why we did, in the end. If it hadn’t been for the judge telling us what we should do, he would have walked free.’"
-
Like sheep being led to the slaughter ::)
-
Like sheep being led to the slaughter ::)
I totally agree, Lookout. If you or I had been on that jury, for differing reasons, we'd still be sitting there. Despite what judges say, some jurors have minds of their own.
Re Jeremy as "lamb to the slaughter", I rather think it was he who did the leading. He's more than partly responsible for where he is now. A bit more sorrow and humility -had he felt any- may have seen him a free man.
-
I suppose" head held high and stick your neck out " when telling the truth didn't cut it for the local yokels as they must have read his message wrong. ???
-
I suppose" head held high and stick your neck out " when telling the truth didn't cut it for the local yokels as they must have read his message wrong. ???
Isn't it a little judgemental to refer to all jury members as being "local yokels". It would certainly have put my back up but I don't like rudeness. From how it sounds -and no, I wasn't there- he sneered.
-
This is a passage from CALs book.
"One former member of the investigation team who does not wish to be named asked the jury foreman afterwards if there had been a deciding factor. He was told: ‘It was all down to the judge’s summing up. He directed us to find Jeremy guilty and that’s why we did, in the end. If it hadn’t been for the judge telling us what we should do, he would have walked free.’"
to quote drake," on the evidence of the silencer alone you may find Bamber guilty"
-
Isn't it a little judgemental to refer to all jury members as being "local yokels". It would certainly have put my back up but I don't like rudeness. From how it sounds -and no, I wasn't there- he sneered.
he was arragont. It has cost him 35 years of his life almost
-
And with that as he was led to the cells his arrogance and stiff upper-lip gave way to a complete breakdown in floods of tears as he sat holding his head in disbelief.
-
to quote drake," on the evidence of the silencer alone you may find Bamber guilty"
And we all know about the reliability of the silencer evidence
-
I totally agree, Lookout. If you or I had been on that jury, for differing reasons, we'd still be sitting there. Despite what judges say, some jurors have minds of their own.
Re Jeremy as "lamb to the slaughter", I rather think it was he who did the leading. He's more than partly responsible for where he is now. A bit more sorrow and humility -had he felt any- may have seen him a free man.
Are you saying that the other evidence counted for nothing, and that he was convicted because of his manner?
-
to quote drake," on the evidence of the silencer alone you may find Bamber guilty"
Thanks . That’s what I was going to say . It was a very important factor.
-
Thanks . That’s what I was going to say . It was a very important factor.
lets get one thing clear the judge did not order them to find jb guilty as most would like to think and no he didnt make their minds up for them. judges are given a certain amount of leyway in a case where he may help the jury come to a verdict ,saying you MAY and saying YOU WILL.are two different things
-
They didn't have to be looking for it even. It should have been just simply discovered. Policing in the UK in reference to search teams may not have been advanced as today. But I can't imagine it was so lacklustre that it did not discover the moderator (silencer) as part of routine inquiry/search
-
Many people who are convinced of Jeremy Bambers guilt will simply claim in reply to this that they were just hanging onto every word he said. No no no, that is not how a crime scene is handled. Bamber was a member of the public. He was never dictating the police agenda
-
lets get one thing clear the judge did not order them to find jb guilty as most would like to think and no he didnt make their minds up for them. judges are given a certain amount of leyway in a case where he may help the jury come to a verdict ,saying you MAY and saying YOU WILL.are two different things
Of course.
-
everyones having the blame put on them the police,the judge,the jury.everone but jb :)) :))
-
Many people who are convinced of Jeremy Bambers guilt will simply claim in reply to this that they were just hanging onto every word he said. No no no, that is not how a crime scene is handled. Bamber was a member of the public. He was never dictating the police agenda
Thank you for that . I totally agree that his alleged influence over the police has been exaggerated. He had no way of knowing that they would not call back up immediately and enter the property and establish a time of death . Especially if they allegedly heard and saw nothing ? And he begged them to go in and save his family .
-
everyones having the blame put on them the police,the judge,the jury.everone but jb :)) :))
Same as it ever was :-\
-
Thank you for that . I totally agree that his alleged influence over the police has been exaggerated. He had no way of knowing that they would not call back up immediately and enter the property and establish a time of death . Especially if they allegedly heard and saw nothing ? And he begged them to go in and save his family .
if he was so desperate for them to go in than he should have kept his mouth shut,to say shes mad and shes fired every gun in the house is hardy going to make police eager to enter until they have no other choice. :)
-
if he was so desperate for them to go in than he should have kept his mouth shut,to say shes mad and shes fired every gun in the house is hardy going to make police eager to enter until they have no other choice. :)
Quite right Sami, he set his sister up, I would have said the opposite for fear her getting shot.
-
Quite right Sami, he set his sister up, I would have said the opposite for fear her getting shot.
Or, “don’t fetch the bloody firearms team, let me go and talk to her first, please let me try and talk to her and my parents”. Instead of hiding behind Bewes then laughing after that Bewes shit himself, the yellow back coward.
-
if he was so desperate for them to go in than he should have kept his mouth shut,to say shes mad and shes fired every gun in the house is hardy going to make police eager to enter until they have no other choice. :)
Absolutely, Sami. I don't care what's said about what police are told in training, when they're faced with the real thing, ie, a potential and imminent threat to their own lives, they're not going to be in a hurry to act if there's a possible alternative.
-
I cannot for the life of me fathom to this day, And I didn't take any interest in the case until I started to converse with Bamber in early 1994 when I was serving time and on the same wing at long lartin prison. Where I was serving 9 and half years imprisonment. The fact that a relative simply walked into a scullery and "discovered a silencer" that no member of Essex police couldn't, even if they just did a cursory glance...
Do you recall any of the conversations you had with Jeremy?
-
Or, “don’t fetch the bloody firearms team, let me go and talk to her first, please let me try and talk to her and my parents”. Instead of hiding behind Bewes then laughing after that Bewes shit himself, the yellow back coward.
Yes, where was all that love and compassion for his beautiful sister?
-
Absolutely, Sami. I don't care what's said about what police are told in training, when they're faced with the real thing, ie, a potential and imminent threat to their own lives, they're not going to be in a hurry to act if there's a possible alternative.
absolutely jane,and we are lucky our police are like that ,had it been america it would be a different matter,they are very gun ho
-
everyones having the blame put on them the police,the judge,the jury.everone but jb :)) :))
To be fair not just on this forum.
The press were very critical of the police . Plus I read that some of the legal profession were surprised at the judges summing up .
-
To be fair not just on this forum.
The press were very critical of the police . Plus I read that some of the legal profession were surprised at the judges summing up .
I'm certain you know the one about not being able to please all of the people all of the time...............
-
To be fair not just on this forum.
The press were very critical of the police . Plus I read that some of the legal profession were surprised at the judges summing up .
the press will jump on any thing that sells papers or gets large audiences,as for the legal profession there will always be some that show descent
-
it gives a strong reference when directing 12 members of the public. You dickhead
shut you fucking mug youre just a prat
-
shut you fucking mug youre just a prat
Don’t bite Sami your better than him mate
-
Don’t bite Sami your better than him mate
thanks mate :)
-
it gives a strong reference when directing 12 members of the public. You dickhead
your pissed again thats why your swearing ive met blokes like you as soon as the prison bus enters the gates mugs like you go straight to the block for protection mug
-
http://Maybe because you keep bringing it up?
::)
iloveboozeftp://
Senior Member
****
Posts: 795
View Profile Personal Message (Online)
Re: The ITV Drama
« Reply #633 on: Today at 09:03 PM »
Quote
You are ignoring this user.
I cannot for the life of me fathom to this day, And I didn't take any interest in the case until I started to converse with Bamber in early 1994 when I was serving time and on the same wing at long lartin prison. Where I was serving 9 and half years imprisonment. The fact that a relative simply walked into a scullery and "discovered a silencer" that no member of Essex police couldn't, even if they just did a cursory glance...
« Last Edit: Today at 09:06 PM by ilovebooze »
Report to moderator Logged
66
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: The Truth and the Documentary
« on: December 08, 2019, 08:59:PM »
Quote from: ilovebooze on December 08, 2019, 08:47:PM
long lartin prison Evesham late 93 to may 95
Long way to send you from South Yorkshire Ilovebooze, normally you get sent to prison
-
the usernames a moniker. (Google it) what's my time in prison got to do with this discussion eh redband?
your a grass mate and i seen what happens to you lot in the nick, straight to solitary
-
your stupid you idiot. Your a screws tea boy redband
sap you were the one that posted on the forum that you wore a red armband,grass
-
you have never been in prison have you, I can reference this by way you speak about Bamber you idiot
ive done more bird than you ,mug ,with real men not ones in the protection wing where you was,london nicks will eat saps for breakfast,mug
-
do you want to go on blue Peter for your accomplishment? Or do you want some crayons through the post? I'm not proud of my past. Hence why I know you never did time
youre on ignore,cause when you dont like someones opinion you fall out of your pram
-
https://www.radiotimes.com/news/2020-01-03/white-house-farm-review/?fbclid=IwAR2JnmN5_bqNRDuIkxegCOlOlTqGzBzqBD1aVHjBpkIs2nOKdbitHvoqRfk
-
https://www.radiotimes.com/news/2020-01-03/white-house-farm-review/?fbclid=IwAR2JnmN5_bqNRDuIkxegCOlOlTqGzBzqBD1aVHjBpkIs2nOKdbitHvoqRfk
nice caroline,cant wait the fella in the moustache cant remember his name he starred in the brad pit film snatch
-
nice caroline,cant wait the fella in the moustache cant remember his name he starred in the brad pit film snatch
That's Stephen Graham Sami.
-
That's Stephen Graham Sami.
he played a great role in snatch,who is he playing in the drama
-
he played a great role in snatch,who is he playing in the drama
Cant wait for it mate 👍👍
-
he played a great role in snatch,who is he playing in the drama
Taff Jones.
-
I am not making assumptions but from the trailers it is not even going to try and cover his possibly of innocence . Which is a shame really . Because it will make it less interesting . I am sure the acting will be amazing though.
-
I am not making assumptions but from the trailers it is not even going to try and cover his possibly of innocence . Which is a shame really . Because it will make it less interesting . I am sure the acting will be amazing though.
They aren't looking at any innocent aspect.
-
I am not making assumptions but from the trailers it is not even going to try and cover his possibly of innocence . Which is a shame really . Because it will make it less interesting . I am sure the acting will be amazing though.
They will probably show at first they thought him innocent I would think? Why move from the script after that for a few people’s assumptions?
-
I am not making assumptions but from the trailers it is not even going to try and cover his possibly of innocence . Which is a shame really . Because it will make it less interesting . I am sure the acting will be amazing though.
Jan it’s all good wait and see what’s following. Ask Jeremy
-
They aren't looking at any innocent aspect.
But if based on the book by CAL was not the point of her looking and investigating to research the case from all angles ?
-
But if based on the book by CAL was not the point of her looking and investigating to research the case from all angles ?
Have you read her book?
-
Have you read her book?
So is my summary wrong ? Can’t you just answer the question?
-
So is my summary wrong ? Can’t you just answer the question?
Yes, it's wrong.
-
Cant wait for it mate 👍👍
Me too, thousands maybe millions new people taking and interest in the case and wondering how the non disclosure was ever allowed to take place
De je vu
The Guildford Four
Do not show the signed NOTW deal to the defence👍👍👍
-
Me too, thousands maybe millions new people taking and interest in the case and wondering how the non disclosure was ever allowed to take place
De je vu
The Guildford Four
Do not show the signed NOTW deal to the defence👍👍👍
we should wait till hes free before comparing it to guildford 4
-
Me too, thousands maybe millions new people taking and interest in the case and wondering how the non disclosure was ever allowed to take place
De je vu
The Guildford Four
Do not show the signed NOTW deal to the defence👍👍👍
They won't be discussing non-disclosure.
-
I am not making assumptions but from the trailers it is not even going to try and cover his possibly of innocence . Which is a shame really . Because it will make it less interesting . I am sure the acting will be amazing though.
That's not what the actor said
"Freddie Fox has said that his performance as real-life White House Farm murderer Jeremy Bamber will be open to interpretation, leaving it up to audiences to decide whether or not Bamber is guilty."
https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2019-12-16/freddie-fox-viewers-can-decide-whether-white-house-farm-killer-jeremy-bamber-was-guilty/ (https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2019-12-16/freddie-fox-viewers-can-decide-whether-white-house-farm-killer-jeremy-bamber-was-guilty/)
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/meetings-jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-murderer/
-
That's not what the actor said
"Freddie Fox has said that his performance as real-life White House Farm murderer Jeremy Bamber will be open to interpretation, leaving it up to audiences to decide whether or not Bamber is guilty."
https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2019-12-16/freddie-fox-viewers-can-decide-whether-white-house-farm-killer-jeremy-bamber-was-guilty/ (https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2019-12-16/freddie-fox-viewers-can-decide-whether-white-house-farm-killer-jeremy-bamber-was-guilty/)
Think you should just watch it.
-
Comments from Roger Wilkes;
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/meetings-jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-murderer/
-
I'll watch it for Stephen Graham's acting as I only like Laurence Fox out of the family of them. He was once married to Billie Piper.
-
I'll watch it for Stephen Graham's acting as I only like Laurence Fox out of the family of them. He was once married to Billie Piper.
Yes, I like him too.
-
Think you should just watch it.
You won’t see Bamber shoot the family so that must be what Fox was talking about.
-
Comments from Roger Wilkes;
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/meetings-jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-murderer/
Wilkes's book is unbiased. Obviously it is impossible to believe Bamber is innocent after reading it.
Have not read CAL's book.
-
Wilkes's book is unbiased. Obviously it is impossible to believe Bamber is innocent after reading it.
Have not read CAL's book.
If it is impossible to believe innocence it snot that unbiased is it .
Why have you not read the book by CAL?
-
Jan I thought Adam would have read all the books available I have Cal's book but not read it all yet just could not get interested in it.
-
Wilkes's book is unbiased. Obviously it is impossible to believe Bamber is innocent after reading it.
Have not read CAL's book.
Wilkes is biased. You only have to compare Wilkes version of judges summing up to the actual summing up to work that out.
-
According to the Mythster on red, hybristophiliacs are into Bamber. Not sure how the chemistry is supposed to work if the guy insists vehemently he is innocent of any wrong doing. I would have thought that would be a right turn off for them.
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/237/face-with-tears-of-joy_1f602.png)
-
Hi David please forgive my ignorance but what does your post mean I am at a loss :-[ Sorry David.
-
does it mean people obsessed with bristol ;D
-
Hi David please forgive my ignorance but what does your post mean I am at a loss :-[ Sorry David.
google is your friend Susan.
-
Jan I am getting more confused than ever :))
-
they are saying we are people turned on by people who commit crimes . Hilarious . they must be getting bored.
-
FFS - Calm down ::)
-
I see Colin Caffell is re-releasing his book In Search of the Rainbow's End on 9th January...apparently he cooperated with the making of this new drama. It would be interesting to see what amendments, if any, he has made to the original. Sadly that was the one book I never managed to get a hold of.
-
Hello Janet so nice to see you posting again such a shame about Colin's book as I gave mine away last year to a poster on here you could have shared it between you :)
-
Caroline I removed my post cos I misread previous posts and realise this was meant more as a joke than a serious matter.
-
I see Colin Caffell is re-releasing his book In Search of the Rainbow's End on 9th January...apparently he cooperated with the making of this new drama. It would be interesting to see what amendments, if any, he has made to the original. Sadly that was the one book I never managed to get a hold of.
In the same format ?
-
I have the original in hardback----along with others which I'd bought, so a full set ,with one unopened/unread.
-
Wow Lookout you are such a good keeper of books I just give mine away but must admit certain books I will always keep Wuthering Heights is one of them :)) whenever I feel I want to be taken back to Yorkshire I read it :))
-
In the same format ?
The reissue is a paperback. If you look at this Amazon link you will see a preview of the new cover.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Search-Rainbows-End-Inside-Murders/dp/1529309166/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3LF1BP8Y5Z81M&keywords=in+search+of+the+rainbow%27s+end&qid=1578306310&sprefix=in+search+of+the+r%2Caps%2C388&sr=8-1 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Search-Rainbows-End-Inside-Murders/dp/1529309166/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3LF1BP8Y5Z81M&keywords=in+search+of+the+rainbow%27s+end&qid=1578306310&sprefix=in+search+of+the+r%2Caps%2C388&sr=8-1)
The book is mentioned in a Mail on Sunday article published yesterday:
"So it is perhaps a surprise that Colin agreed to act as consultant on White House Farm, an ITV drama starring Cressida Bonas, Prince Harry’s ex-girlfriend, as Sheila and Freddie Fox as Jeremy Bamber, as well as deciding to update and reissue the book he wrote about his experiences, called In Search Of The Rainbow’s End."
Below is the link to the full article
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7852251/Pain-murdered-twins-father-milk-teeth-collected-DNA-evidence.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7852251/Pain-murdered-twins-father-milk-teeth-collected-DNA-evidence.html)
-
Thanks for that Janet.I'll probably buy the paperback as I have the original hardback. I see CAL's front cover is different to the one I have.
-
Thanks for that Janet.I'll probably buy the paperback as I have the original hardback. I see CAL's front cover is different to the one I have.
You're welcome lookout. I have preordered the paperback. I would be interested to know if there are any differences between the reissue and the original.
-
You're welcome lookout. I have preordered the paperback. I would be interested to know if there are any differences between the reissue and the original.
Yes, this is what I'll be looking for. The memory changes over the years !
-
In the same format ?
Yes, but it has extra chapters I believe?
-
Yes, this is what I'll be looking for. The memory changes over the years !
He hasn't rewritten it, just extra chapters.
-
Yes, but it has extra chapters I believe?
I bet it does ::)
-
He hasn't rewritten it, just extra chapters.
So, rewritten then, edited. Embellished.
-
So, rewritten then, edited. Embellished.
No - how many years have passed Lookout? It will be just an update on his life. ::) Why anyone would be interested in trying to trip Colin up, is beyond me. I am uncomfortable with the way the conversation (cos it's not a debate) in respect to Colin has been handled. The man lost his two children aged six years - he deserves more respect than this!
-
No - how many years have passed Lookout? It will be just an update on his life. ::) Why anyone would be interested in trying to trip Colin up, is beyond me. I am uncomfortable with the way the conversation (cos it's not a debate) in respect to Colin has been handled. The man lost his two children aged six years - he deserves more respect than this!
Jeremy lost his whole family !! As well as his freedom for something he did not do.
-
Jeremy lost his whole family !! As well as his freedom for something he did not do.
That's down to what you believe - I believe he was responsible for killing them himself - either way, Colin deserves more respect than he's getting here. While you're comparing everything Colin said, try doing the same with Jeremy!
-
Jeremy has been battling for years, since he was jailed in fact and has never once let up about his injustice. Once there's even a hint that things might be moving forward for him you get all this------a bloomin' drama then Colin showing up after 34 years purposely done to mar any hope of giving Jeremy a chance to at least show himself as the person he is and not the monster he's been painted.
The more Colin puts himself in the spotlight the less respect I'll have for the man. His last words were that " he'd moved on " and that was years ago so what's all this about if it isn't to help film-makers and producers make even bigger bucks for putting on something that a few of us will know will be questionable in its storyline ? It's all done to keep Jeremy where he is for the sake of all those who got it wrong in the first place.
-
Jeremy has been battling for years, since he was jailed in fact and has never once let up about his injustice. Once there's even a hint that things might be moving forward for him you get all this------a bloomin' drama then Colin showing up after 34 years purposely done to mar any hope of giving Jeremy a chance to at least show himself as the person he is and not the monster he's been painted.
The more Colin puts himself in the spotlight the less respect I'll have for the man. His last words were that " he'd moved on " and that was years ago so what's all this about if it isn't to help film-makers and producers make even bigger bucks for putting on something that a few of us will know will be questionable in its storyline ? It's all done to keep Jeremy where he is for the sake of all those who got it wrong in the first place.
Maybe evidence of Nevill's call to Chelmsford police will see him released this year.
-
I suppose I could look at Colin's involvement with the drama another way and that's payback for an amount that he didn't receive like the others did by way of a financial " lift " after the deaths. Not a penny was he offered out of the fortune which had been gained so I suppose it's small consolation toward the fact that he too lost something from his life which it too has to be recognised.
-
I suppose I could look at Colin's involvement with the drama another way and that's payback for an amount that he didn't receive like the others did by way of a financial " lift " after the deaths. Not a penny was he offered out of the fortune which had been gained so I suppose it's small consolation toward the fact that he too lost something from his life which it too has to be recognised.
His involvement has nothing to do with money. He is successful in his own right - in spite of what happened, not because of.
-
Jeremy lost his whole family !! As well as his freedom for something he did not do.
to be fair that was not Colins fault - he did not put him there . In fact he did not think he had done it at all in the beginning .
-
to be fair that was not Colins fault - he did not put him there . In fact he did not think he had done it at all in the beginning .
And this is what annoys me Jan, he soon turned tail when others started, yet Colin must have had his doubts deep down but chose to go along with what others had said.
It's hard enough as it is to prove you're innocent when the world and its wife is against you.
-
Hi lookout I have just pre ordered Colin's book I like a paperback anyway hard back are too heavy to hold :)
-
Are they all paperback's Susan ?
-
And this is what annoys me Jan, he soon turned tail when others started, yet Colin must have had his doubts deep down but chose to go along with what others had said.
It's hard enough as it is to prove you're innocent when the world and its wife is against you.
Annoyed at a man who's children were murdered in their sleep? Seriously? Jan is right, Colin didn't put him in prison and whatever side you're on, if you can't see that Colin is a victim, then you seriouslt need to have a word with yourself!
-
Hi lookout not sure will look I see the old hardback like the one I gave away :)) is selling on Amazon for just over £194 your collection will be worth a few bob. Will look at the new version :))
-
Lookout just the old hardback at £194 and you have that one
-
Maybe evidence of Nevill's call to Chelmsford police will see him released this year.
yes good point adam,they will have to produce it first though
-
Maybe evidence of Nevill's call to Chelmsford police will see him released this year.
Lets hope no one is holding their breath.
-
Lets hope no one is holding their breath.
yes that would become rather awkward
-
Jeremy has been battling for years, since he was jailed in fact and has never once let up about his injustice. Once there's even a hint that things might be moving forward for him you get all this------a bloomin' drama then Colin showing up after 34 years purposely done to mar any hope of giving Jeremy a chance to at least show himself as the person he is and not the monster he's been painted.
The more Colin puts himself in the spotlight the less respect I'll have for the man. His last words were that " he'd moved on " and that was years ago so what's all this about if it isn't to help film-makers and producers make even bigger bucks for putting on something that a few of us will know will be questionable in its storyline ? It's all done to keep Jeremy where he is for the sake of all those who got it wrong in the first place.
I'd ask you to try -a HUGE ask, I know- to imagine how you might feel, if your children, precious more than toddlers, had been murdered by someone in the family who's pulled the wool over your eyes with lies in attempt to put the blame elsewhere? Would you really want that person released, despite their attempts to gain their freedom?
You appear utterly determined that you "know this production will be questionable". You appear to be denying and denigrating Colin's right to a voice, EVEN suggesting that he's doing it as a means of obtaining compensation!!! And if that wasn't bad enough you claim it's only being done to keep Jeremy in prison.
Colin's voice, more than ANYONE's, has a perfect right, after all these years of dignified silence, to be heard. If he's prepared to put his weight and support behind this production, I don't believe it will fly into realms of fantasy.
-
thats lookout for you jane,theres no way shes accepting jb is guilty come hell or high water
-
I'd ask you to try -a HUGE ask, I know- to imagine how you might feel, if your children, precious more than toddlers, had been murdered by someone in the family who's pulled the wool over your eyes with lies in attempt to put the blame elsewhere? Would you really want that person released, despite their attempts to gain their freedom?
You appear utterly determined that you "know this production will be questionable". You appear to be denying and denigrating Colin's right to a voice, EVEN suggesting that he's doing it as a means of obtaining compensation!!! And if that wasn't bad enough you claim it's only being done to keep Jeremy in prison.
Colin's voice, more than ANYONE's, has a perfect right, after all these years of dignified silence, to be heard. If he's prepared to put his weight and support behind this production, I don't believe it will fly into realms of fantasy.
It's already had glowing references and doesn't need the approval from what amounts to a handful of supporters in the grand scheme.
-
thats lookout for you jane,theres no way shes accepting jb is guilty come hell or high water
And, either by accident or design, vilifies the most innocent and least deserving of it. That person having suffered the cruelest loss possible.
-
It's already had glowing references and doesn't need the approval from what amounts to a handful of supporters in the grand scheme.
I agree. I've read nothing but positive reviews.
-
And, either by accident or design, vilifies the most innocent and least deserving of it. That person having suffered the cruelest loss possible.
totally agree,the poor man played NO part in this saga.yet still gets nasty things said about him
-
Lets hope no one is holding their breath.
Either that or David's 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough'.
-
Either that or David's 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough'.
ah yes adam that could be very interesting
-
No, I won't be brow-beaten into accepting something which to my mind is something which borders on emotional blackmail.
I've gone through the case, studied it and put myself in Jeremy's position of the accused and it's not a nice place to be in when your every word is doubted. Then the very organisation which you put your trust in, the justice system and all that it entails lets you down by not forwarding vital information which could very well be in your interest in tying up the loose ends of the case. It's like doing a jigsaw with pieces missing.
Many would say that the trial was unfair given that so much information had been omitted and because I'm the person that I am, and if this horrendous incident had happened to me everyone in the family would be on trial until I was satisfied that I had the right answer. It's too easy to point a finger as 9 times out of 10 it's usually the one that you'd least expect it to be. !!
-
No, I won't be brow-beaten into accepting something which to my mind is something which borders on emotional blackmail.
I've gone through the case, studied it and put myself in Jeremy's position of the accused and it's not a nice place to be in when your every word is doubted. Then the very organisation which you put your trust in, the justice system and all that it entails lets you down by not forwarding vital information which could very well be in your interest in tying up the loose ends of the case. It's like doing a jigsaw with pieces missing.
Many would say that the trial was unfair given that so much information had been omitted and because I'm the person that I am, and if this horrendous incident had happened to me everyone in the family would be on trial until I was satisfied that I had the right answer. It's too easy to point a finger as 9 times out of 10 it's usually the one that you'd least expect it to be. !!
we respect your opinions lookout,iam just the same only on the other side of the fence :)
-
It's already had glowing references and doesn't need the approval from what amounts to a handful of supporters in the grand scheme.
of course it can have glowing reviews for the acting ,the cinematography the representation of what the people involved actually felt because its easy to forget that.
But if it misses out vital facts then i think we should all be entitled to critisise .
Lets wait and see .
-
of course it can have glowing reviews for the acting ,the cinematography the representation of what the people involved actually felt because its easy to forget that.
But if it misses out vital facts then i think we should all be entitled to critisise .
Lets wait and see .
What we may see as being "vital facts" all these years on, is something other than representing only what happened in a short window of time in 1985, ie, they're unlikely to show anything prior to Jeremy's phone call to the police or the alleged conversation round the supper table.
-
What we may see as being "vital facts" all these years on, is something other than representing only what happened in a short window of time in 1985, ie, they're unlikely to show anything prior to Jeremy's phone call to the police or the alleged conversation round the supper table.
Well it is over 6 episodes so I would expect it to be quite comprehensive . And there were allegedly lots of statements studied so I would hope they would want to represent some family background . If its relevant of course.
-
Well it is over 6 episodes so I would expect it to be quite comprehensive . And there were allegedly lots of statements studied so I would hope they would want to represent some family background . If its relevant of course.
family background should start with the wonderful gesture of neville and june adopting jb and sc
-
Well it is over 6 episodes so I would expect it to be quite comprehensive . And there were allegedly lots of statements studied so I would hope they would want to represent some family background . If its relevant of course.
If they use only what was said by, or what was known of, the family at the time, combined with what is felt to be relevant, I can't see what there would be to criticize.
-
of course it can have glowing reviews for the acting ,the cinematography the representation of what the people involved actually felt because its easy to forget that.
But if it misses out vital facts then i think we should all be entitled to critisise .
Lets wait and see .
It's not for the acting, its for the sensitivity and handling of the issue and also for it's factual content. I have no doubt that there will be lots of criticism ............ here - but that won't be just because they get any facts wrong. They could be 100% correct and it wouldn't matter.
-
It'll be a " whodunnit ".
-
It'll be a " whodunnit ".
It's not.
-
Can't be anything else really, can it ?
-
Can't be anything else really, can it ?
How can it be a "whodunit" when the "who", for what they "dun", is serving a life sentence?
-
How can it be a "whodunit" when the "who", for what they "dun", is serving a life sentence?
Because it's looking very much like a MOJ according to many and I'm sure nobody will commit themselves by saying " they saw him do it ".
-
Because it's looking very much like a MOJ according to many and I'm sure nobody will commit themselves by saying " they saw him do it ".
Sadly, many of the "many" may have been guided by the CT and their erroneous claims, and a woman called Trudi who appeared to be the organizer of various embarrassingly dreadful public stunts. If guilty verdicts require the culprit to have been seen, there'd be very few convictions.
-
Because it's looking very much like a MOJ according to many and I'm sure nobody will commit themselves by saying " they saw him do it ".
There is be nothing in the drama that suggests a MOJ. You won't see Bamber commit the murders but you won't hear anything about withheld docs or calls from Nevill.
-
Sadly, many of the "many" may have been guided by the CT and their erroneous claims, and a woman called Trudi who appeared to be the organizer of various embarrassingly dreadful public stunts. If guilty verdicts require the culprit to have been seen, there'd be very few convictions.
Trudi appears to be a very nice inoffensive person and I'd much prefer to put my trust in her because she's open and honest, than I'd put in anyone who supports JB's guilt, who are spiteful at every opportunity if you are an innocent supporter.
Why should it make any difference to you people anyway ?
-
There's a saying "fire is a good servant but a bad master" and it's the same with the mass media. Fine when you want to put your point of view, but not so nice when you have to deal with the backlash. I don't wish to criticize Colin for helping with the drama (you know what it's like: pretty young woman telephones or knocks on the door-empathy-we're going to make the drama anyway etc) but I do wonder if he realizes what forces he has unleashed. I can't see it solving things one way or another anyway, as this thread has proved hitherto.
-
Trudi appears to be a very nice inoffensive person and I'd much prefer to put my trust in her because she's open and honest, than I'd put in anyone who supports JB's guilt, who are spiteful at every opportunity if you are an innocent supporter.
Why should it make any difference to you people anyway ?
Basically, you would support anyone that supports him - I already knew that Lookout. I don't believe someone is a good person because they believe Bamber is guilty nor vice versa - I speak as I find but I would also have to have some interaction with that person before making such a sweeping statement. Trudi is probably a very nice person but I have no real idea - I don't know her.
-
Trudi appears to be a very nice inoffensive person and I'd much prefer to put my trust in her because she's open and honest, than I'd put in anyone who supports JB's guilt, who are spiteful at every opportunity if you are an innocent supporter.
Why should it make any difference to you people anyway ?
But you're unforgivably spiteful towards poor Colin. I suppose that doesn't count? And if you didn't have a hand in it, you certainly applauded the idea of Julie's marriage being in trouble because her husband had allegedly learned the truth about her past. I'd call that being spiteful. I can't think of another word for it. Unless it's vengeful.
-
Trudi appears to be a very nice inoffensive person and I'd much prefer to put my trust in her because she's open and honest, than I'd put in anyone who supports JB's guilt, who are spiteful at every opportunity if you are an innocent supporter.
Why should it make any difference to you people anyway ?
I don’t call that good taste, reading bloody poems at the graves Lookout, she should show some respect, she knew the backlash, it was for publicity stupid women her, quite shocking.
-
Basically, you would support anyone that supports him - I already knew that Lookout. I don't believe someone is a good person because they believe Bamber is guilty nor vice versa - I speak as I find but I would also have to have some interaction with that person before making such a sweeping statement. Trudi is probably a very nice person but I have no real idea - I don't know her.
I've watched her video's, she's made herself known-----hasn't hidden behind a screen blasting off and isn't frightened to speak her views and above all has the courage of her convictions. On the face of it Trudi is a decent person and a truthful one at that.
-
I've watched her video's, she's made herself known-----hasn't hidden behind a screen blasting off and isn't frightened to speak her views and above all has the courage of her convictions. On the face of it Trudi is a decent person and a truthful one at that.
Well, other than making a name for herself, as an exercise it won't do her any harm to have it on her cv.
-
I couldn't imagine anyone from the guilty side putting themselves forward, though I do imagine what their attitude would be like-----full of attitude !
-
I couldn't imagine anyone from the guilty side putting themselves forward, though I do imagine what their attitude would be like-----full of attitude !
I'm not sure what cause you're suggesting we might put ourselves forward for.
-
I've watched her video's, she's made herself known-----hasn't hidden behind a screen blasting off and isn't frightened to speak her views and above all has the courage of her convictions. On the face of it Trudi is a decent person and a truthful one at that.
So when Colin or CAL come forward to reiterate their beliefs, the likes of Trudi and her pals in the CT have a right to criticise them - insinuating info was received from internet gossip? Absolute rubbish! The whole criticism of both Colin and CAL because of this drama is just sour grapes and childish BS! I don't know how they dare criticise anyone with their fairy story website, biased video's and complete JOKE of a Twitter page! Laughable. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I couldn't imagine anyone from the guilty side putting themselves forward, though I do imagine what their attitude would be like-----full of attitude !
What should we put ourselves forward for Lookout? But while we're on, what have you put yourself forward for?
-
I couldn't imagine anyone from the guilty side putting themselves forward, though I do imagine what their attitude would be like-----full of attitude !
I think the bake off and the grave visit didn’t do her any favours though Lookout?
-
I couldn't imagine anyone from the guilty side putting themselves forward, though I do imagine what their attitude would be like-----full of attitude !
And the last person to do that was exposed as a fraud.
-
I think the bake off and the grave visit didn’t do her any favours though Lookout?
Talk about BAD TASTE and lack of EMPATHY!
-
I've watched her video's, she's made herself known-----hasn't hidden behind a screen blasting off and isn't frightened to speak her views and above all has the courage of her convictions. On the face of it Trudi is a decent person and a truthful one at that.
She doesn't offer much of her own opinion though, does she? Is she posing the difficult questions to him?
-
I think the bake off and the grave visit didn’t do her any favours though Lookout?
The bake-off was a bit naff I agree but the graveside was no bad thing as it reminded people that nobody had ever tended it which I thought quite sad as it's not a million miles from those who benefited is it ?
-
The bake-off was a bit naff I agree but the graveside was no bad thing as it reminded people that nobody had ever tended it which I thought quite sad as it's not a million miles from those who benefited is it ?
Who said it hadn't been tended? The CT? ::)
-
Who said it hadn't been tended? The CT? ::)
They didn't need to have said anything as the first pic showed it as abandoned and forgotten.
-
They didn't need to have said anything as the first pic showed it as abandoned and forgotten.
Or did they pick any untended grave? C'mon. It was a publicity stunt.
-
Here
I suppose I could look at Colin's involvement with the drama another way and that's payback for an amount that he didn't receive like the others did by way of a financial " lift " after the deaths. Not a penny was he offered out of the fortune which had been gained so I suppose it's small consolation toward the fact that he too lost something from his life which it too has to be recognised.
And here
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10094.msg467059.html#msg467059
The post after my reply to Steve.
-
The unkempt grave? More BS! How is the grave unkempt?
-
family background should start with the wonderful gesture of neville and june adopting jb and sc
Adoption should never be a ‘wonderful gesture’! Do you also think the children should have been ‘grateful’ ? Adoption should be about unconditional love and respect for the child the parents have committed to. This is why these days there are so many checks on prospective adopters, it’s should never be about the parents but all about the security and care of the child. Unfortunately don’t think June and Nevill quite got that.
-
Or did they pick any untended grave? C'mon. It was a publicity stunt.
How can you say that about someone's grave ? Empathy ? Where is it ?
-
Adoption should never be a ‘wonderful gesture’! Do you also think the children should have been ‘grateful’ ? Adoption should be about unconditional love and respect for the child the parents have committed to. This is why these days there are so many checks on prospective adopters, it’s should never be about the parents but all about the security and care of the child. Unfortunately don’t think June and Nevill quite got that.
is it not a wonderful gesture, by adopting them they saved them from going in and out of homes and different foster parents,ive been there when 14 yrs old for a short spell so i know what its like,some had been in different homes most of their short lives others had been given to foster parents who grave them back after several years.NO way what so ever can june and neville be seen in a bad light because of jb,s actions no one forced him to kill the family it was his choice
-
Well that old wreath looks as though it's spent a few Christmas's there before it was replaced.
-
Adoption should never be a ‘wonderful gesture’! Do you also think the children should have been ‘grateful’ ? Adoption should be about unconditional love and respect for the child the parents have committed to. This is why these days there are so many checks on prospective adopters, it’s should never be about the parents but all about the security and care of the child. Unfortunately don’t think June and Nevill quite got that.
As I've said, previously, I believe June and Nevill, not unlike some other adoptive parents had certain expectations of their children which they were expected to fulfill -just as they'd have expected of their biological children to whom it may have come more easily. Because the adopted children may have have different views -needs- the rural, farming life not being innate in them, they'd have been criticized. As the saying goes, if you continually criticize your children, they won't stop loving you. They will stop loving themselves.
-
How can you say that about someone's grave ? Empathy ? Where is it ?
Get real, Lookout. Trudi had never met the Bambers. She could have picked ANY untended grave for this publicity stunt. There may have been some excuse had it been a private gesture but it wasn't. THAT'S not empathy.
-
As I've said, previously, I believe June and Nevill, not unlike some other adoptive parents had certain expectations of their children which they were expected to fulfill -just as they'd have expected of their biological children to whom it may have come more easily. Because the adopted children may have have different views -needs- the rural, farming life not being innate in them, they'd have been criticized. As the saying goes, if you continually criticize your children, they won't stop loving you. They will stop loving themselves.
i agree jane good post,i was beaten mercilessly as a child and them dumped in a care home for a year by my dad,but whatever ive done in life thats been bad i did it through my own free will,and have never used my violent childhood as an excuse for my bad behaviour
-
Get real, Lookout. Trudi had never met the Bambers. She could have picked ANY untended grave for this publicity stunt. There may have been some excuse had it been a private gesture but it wasn't. THAT'S not empathy.
But she didn't pick any untended grave did she ?
-
Well that old wreath looks as though it's spent a few Christmas's there before it was replaced.
No it doesn't.
-
i agree jane good post,i was beaten mercilessly as a child and them dumped in a care home for a year by my dad,but whatever ive done in life thats been bad i did it through my own free will,and have never used my violent childhood as an excuse for my bad behaviour
It was brave of you to take ownership of it, Sami. Sadly, sometimes the abuse doesn't leave marks which show and it takes some abused children a very long time before they take on board that they weren't responsible for the abuse. They never saw it as such. They saw it as punishment for getting it wrong. The affect of constant criticism.
-
But she didn't pick any untended grave did she ?
How do you know that? Were you with her? The Bambers aren't the only one's buried in that church yard.
-
But she didn't pick any untended grave did she ?
The gave isn't untended at all.
-
Well that old wreath looks as though it's spent a few Christmas's there before it was replaced.
It most certainly doesn't. The colours are far too fresh.
-
How do you know that? Were you with her? The Bambers aren't the only one's buried in that church yard.
Perhaps the clue was the name on the stone ?
-
The grave isn't unkempt - the accusation is bullsh*t.
-
Perhaps the clue was the name on the stone ?
If she's picked a random one which was overgrown, the name wouldn't have been visible.
-
If she's picked a random one which was overgrown, the name wouldn't have been visible.
Have you got proof she did that ? And don't ask me if I had proof that she didn't, as you usually would ::)
-
Have you got proof she did that ? And don't ask me if I had proof that she didn't, as you usually would ::)
It doesn't matter given that the Bambers isn't overgrown or unkempt.
-
i agree jane good post,i was beaten mercilessly as a child and them dumped in a care home for a yeardad,but whatever ive done in life thats been bad i did it through my own free will,and have never used my violent childhood as an excuse for my bad behaviour
I’m sorry Sami, no child deserves to be treated the way you were.
-
It doesn't matter given that the Bambers isn't overgrown or unkempt.
Not now it isn't.
-
Not now it isn't.
It wasn't then either or is Trudi claiming she took her secateurs with her? ;D ;D ;D
-
i agree jane good post,i was beaten mercilessly as a child and them dumped in a care home for a year by my dad,but whatever ive done in life thats been bad i did it through my own free will,and have never used my violent childhood as an excuse for my bad behaviour
Sorry to hear that Sami - Not a good start for you but you seem like a really nice guy and I hope the bad stuff has passed X
-
I’m sorry Sami, no child deserves to be treated the way you were.
thank you maggie,but i was you could say one of the lucky ones as only spent a year in care home there were 2 brothers there 7 and 13 they both had a chance to be fostered but to different house holds they refused so were sent to the care home,mum had died dad was a drinker.i felt real affection for the 7yr old as he looked up to me like his own brother,and me being 14 felt some sort of magic in my heart by his gestures it cant be explained by words.hope they found happiness in life :)
-
It wasn't then either or is Trudi claiming she took her secateurs with her? ;D ;D ;D
No, she got down on all fours and used her saw-edged teeth.
-
No, she got down on all fours and used her saw-edged teeth.
You said it ;D ;D ;D
-
Sami such a beautiful post from you. I am sure they will have found happiness and you will have brought some happiness to their life xx
-
You said it ;D ;D ;D
I can see the funny side in most things.
-
Sorry to hear that Sami - Not a good start for you but you seem like a really nice guy and I hope the bad stuff has passed X
thank you caroline ,i had a good wife,so can salute all women out there,except the ones whoes husbands say,(women ahhh cant live with em cant live without em :)) :))
-
thank you caroline ,i had a good wife,so can salute all women out there,except the ones whoes husbands say,(women ahhh cant live with em cant live without em :)) :))
You know what they say Sami - Behind every great man is a great woman ....... rolling her eyes ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You know what they say Sami - Behind every great man is a great woman ....... rolling her eyes ;D ;D ;D ;D
yes also the other way round caroline,i can still remember dennis thatcher standing there behind margret wearing his little white apron looking sheepish :)) :))
-
yes also the other way round caroline,i can still remember dennis thatcher standing there behind margret wearing his little white apron looking sheepish :)) :))
Not sure it can be argued that Thatcher was a actually a woman though Sami ;D ;D - Poor ole Dennis!
-
Not sure it can be argued that Thatcher was a actually a woman though Sami ;D ;D - Poor ole Dennis!
:)) :)) :))
-
thank you maggie,but i was you could say one of the lucky ones as only spent a year in care home there were 2 brothers there 7 and 13 they both had a chance to be fostered but to different house holds they refused so were sent to the care home,mum had died dad was a drinker.i felt real affection for the 7yr old as he looked up to me like his own brother,and me being 14 felt some sort of magic in my heart by his gestures it cant be explained by words.hope they found happiness in life :)
It was certainly tough to be in a Children’s Home, I worked for Children's Department years ago, also have a close friend who was fostered and also in a Children’s Home it was very tough and leaves scars.
-
It was certainly tough to be in a Children’s Home, I worked for Children's Department years ago, also have a close friend who was fostered and also in a Children’s Home it was very tough and leaves scars.
your absolutely right maggie,back then there was also a shortage of foster parents,but i can honestly say there was no child abuse in the home i was in ,not like the horror stories you know happened with jimmy saville and others pedofiles
-
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/10683033/jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-sheila-caffell/
-
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/10683033/jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-sheila-caffell/
nice story caroline will have some readers hissing steam from their ears.poor leo. trudi might scratch his eyes out when she reads it
-
jb is on his way to setting a record,longest serving prisoner in uk penal history.i will certainly be celebrating if iam still around and not pushing up daisies
-
nice story caroline will have some readers hissing steam from their ears.poor leo. trudi might scratch his eyes out when she reads it
Leo isn't keen is he?
-
jb is on his way to setting a record,longest serving prisoner in uk penal history.i will certainly be celebrating if iam still around and not pushing up daisies
I'm sure you'll still be here!
-
thank you caroline ,i had a good wife,so can salute all women out there,except the ones whoes husbands say,(women ahhh cant live with em cant live without em :)) :))
Thanks for sharing your experience with us Sami, your a credit to the forum mate, your knowledge inside and outside is of immense value mate.
-
Thanks for sharing your experience with us Sami, your a credit to the forum mate, your knowledge inside and outside is of immense value mate.
thats kind of you rj.thanks mate
-
We all have our cross to bear one way or the other.
-
We all have our cross to bear one way or the other.
that is so true lookout
-
that is so true lookout
I agree Sami, it’s a forum to voice opinions, it was set up for posters who think Bamber guilty and posters who think he’s innocent, it’s not like the CT site where no one can express their views and challenge the mistruths and propaganda paraded by them. Neil and Mike have always encouraged views from both sides Sami.
-
I agree Sami, it’s a forum to voice opinions, it was set up for posters who think Bamber guilty and posters who think he’s innocent, it’s not like the CT site where no one can express their views and challenge the mistruths and propaganda paraded by them. Neil and Mike have always encouraged views from both sides Sami.
they have done an excellent job rj
-
nice story caroline will have some readers hissing steam from their ears.poor leo. trudi might scratch his eyes out when she reads it
True detective magazine Feb have the opposite view.
Just goes to show.
-
Jan I think this is the norm with a murder case that is dramatised some will think one way and others the opposite.
-
If this drama does nothing else at least it'll highlight the case and keep it in the public arena for a while.
-
Lookout that is a good point posters from way back may come onto the forum again to debate some brilliant posters from both sides have gone missing.
-
lookout can you remember Tyler she was brilliant fabulous lady.
-
Yes Susan, Tyler was great as was Keira and a few others.
-
Do you recall any of the conversations you had with Jeremy?
I had many conversations with him. I did ask him if he was guilty. And he looked me a straight back in the eye and replied " no I did not kill my family" not that it amounts to anything either way. We had lots of conversations.
-
True detective magazine Feb have the opposite view.
Just goes to show.
your right jan just seen the front cover with jb on it,have you had a read of it
-
your right jan just seen the front cover with jb on it,have you had a read of it
Not yet . But I will .
-
An interesting item on the news this morning. An Asian mother and her two babies were in water. A group of 14 year old boys went to their assistance. The first thing they did, before making a chain to get them out, and do cpr on one of the children -they said "it was automatic. We didn't think about it"- was call 999.
-
We have done this the death Jane
Because Jeremy did not ring 999 does not make him a murderer
Unless you have been living under a rock they were a very private family
-
An interesting item on the news this morning. An Asian mother and her two babies were in water. A group of 14 year old boys went to their assistance. The first thing they did, before making a chain to get them out, and do cpr on one of the children -they said "it was automatic. We didn't think about it"- was call 999.
Its a natural instinct Jane, something you’ve been taught as a kid. To suggest they were a private family and wouldn’t involve police, yet proclaim Neville rang the police after all? 😂😂😂😂
-
We have done this the death Jane
Because Jeremy did not ring 999 does not make him a murderer
Unless you have been living under a rock they were a very private family
As it's alleged that Nevill phoned the police, it seems privacy took second place to safety.
-
Its a natural instinct Jane, something you’ve been taught as a kid. To suggest they were a private family and wouldn’t involve police, yet proclaim Neville rang the police after all? 😂😂😂😂
if Jeremy was planning this call as his alibi and trying to set up a siege situation this call was part of his very intricate master plan that had allegedly been going on for 12 months - so why as a guilty person would he NOT call 999 .
-
if Jeremy was planning this call as his alibi and trying to set up a siege situation this call was part of his very intricate master plan that had allegedly been going on for 12 months - so why as a guilty person would he NOT call 999 .
My point being, it’s a natural reaction to phone 999 in an emergency, Bamber chose not to for reasons only he truthfully knows, my other point being, supporters use the fact that they liked to keep things private and not involve authorities yet on the other hand proclaim Neville rang the police? They like to lay the bread crumbs in both directions.
-
if Jeremy was planning this call as his alibi and trying to set up a siege situation this call was part of his very intricate master plan that had allegedly been going on for 12 months - so why as a guilty person would he NOT call 999 .
Yes----a 999 call would have got him off the hook, wouldn't it ? ::)-sorry !
-
Yes----a 999 call would have got him off the hook, wouldn't it ? ::)-sorry !
Lookout, even if the alleged call had been about people trying to break into the house, a 999 call would have been the appropriate course of action.
-
Yes----a 999 call would have got him off the hook, wouldn't it ? ::)-sorry !
He wasn’t convicted because of the 999 call, not calling 999 would cause a discussion and questions like it would for anyone.
-
My point being, it’s a natural reaction to phone 999 in an emergency, Bamber chose not to for reasons only he truthfully knows, my other point being, supporters use the fact that they liked to keep things private and not involve authorities yet on the other hand proclaim Neville rang the police? They like to lay the bread crumbs in both directions.
If he is innocent we only have his statement about why he did not call 999 - and perhaps now IF he is innocent he may regret that . But he did not know any shots had been fired at all or anyone had been injured and he was half asleep .
However as I said as part of an evil master plan we can just as easily argue there would be no reason not to call 999.
-
We have done this the death Jane
Because Jeremy did not ring 999 does not make him a murderer
Unless you have been living under a rock they were a very private family
How does calling 999 stop them from being a private family (stupid excuse).
-
He wasn’t convicted because of the 999 call, not calling 999 would cause a discussion and questions like it would for anyone.
Scraping the barrel is never good when it comes to investigating a mass murder. It rather smacks of desperation in securing a conviction.
-
My point being, it’s a natural reaction to phone 999 in an emergency, Bamber chose not to for reasons only he truthfully knows, my other point being, supporters use the fact that they liked to keep things private and not involve authorities yet on the other hand proclaim Neville rang the police? They like to lay the bread crumbs in both directions.
For one, he knew it wasn't an emergency.
-
If he is innocent we only have his statement about why he did not call 999 - and perhaps now IF he is innocent he may regret that . But he did not know any shots had been fired at all or anyone had been injured and he was half asleep .
However as I said as part of an evil master plan we can just as easily argue there would be no reason not to call 999.
But if we go with "an evil master plan" we can argue that not calling 999 was something he considered as being worth while. What "we" consider is only our opinion. It isn't part of it.
-
If he is innocent we only have his statement about why he did not call 999 - and perhaps now IF he is innocent he may regret that . But he did not know any shots had been fired at all or anyone had been injured and he was half asleep .
However as I said as part of an evil master plan we can just as easily argue there would be no reason not to call 999.
Personally, I don't think he had a 'master plan' as you keep saying. I think he had an idea but no blue print.
-
For one, he knew it wasn't an emergency.
Exactly! He knew the words. The emotions behind them were absent.
-
He was probably sitting dithering about what his father would have done. Both siblings had never been taught to stand on their own two feet in any event and I find this quite sad. They still had their "bottoms wiped " by mum and dad !!
-
He was probably sitting dithering about what his father would have done. Both siblings had never been taught to stand on their own two feet in any event and I find this quite sad. They still had their "bottoms wiped " by mum and dad !!
::)
-
::)
Roll your eyes all you want but there are lots of young adults who rely on their parents to carry them along while the useless articles look for reassurance.
-
Roll your eyes all you want but there are lots of young adults who rely on their parents to carry them along while the useless articles look for reassurance.
It's not that Lookout, it's your constant referral to Jeremy as a mummy's boy. He wasn't.
-
It's not that Lookout, it's your constant referral to Jeremy as a mummy's boy. He wasn't.
Standing baking with his mum ? Other boys would be kicking a ball about.
-
Did he ever muck out on the farm ?
-
Did he ever muck out on the farm ?
No he was out robbing and growing drugs.
-
No he was out robbing and growing drugs.
House to house like Sheila was ? It's all in CAL's book. Whether he snorted like Sheila did is debateable.
-
Standing baking with his mum ? Other boys would be kicking a ball about.
Of course he was Lookout ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
He was probably sitting dithering about what his father would have done. Both siblings had never been taught to stand on their own two feet in any event and I find this quite sad. They still had their "bottoms wiped " by mum and dad !!
You really do have a very blinkered view of what their lives were. He didn't do much dithering when it came to selling family possessions in order to fund parties and holidays. They'd have learned from boarding schools how to stand on their own two feet, AND wipe their bottoms. There'd have been no one to do either for them there.
-
Standing baking with his mum ? Other boys would be kicking a ball about.
Something else 'cooked up' by the CT. Besides, it's rugby and cricket that get played at independent schools.
-
Roll your eyes all you want but there are lots of young adults who rely on their parents to carry them along while the useless articles look for reassurance.
Absolutely
-
You really do have a very blinkered view of what their lives were. He didn't do much dithering when it came to selling family possessions in order to fund parties and holidays. They'd have learned from boarding schools how to stand on their own two feet, AND wipe their bottoms. There'd have been no one to do either for them there.
If anyone's blinkered, it's you ! You haven't got a clue about life.
-
Absolutely
Bamber relied on his parents for one thing - MONEY!
-
Absolutely
Oh! So if some parents do, it must mean the Bambers do, too. I've not met many 'boarders' who can't stand on their own two feet. In fact, I don't think I've met any. ONE of the reasons they're sent to boarding schools is to make them independent.
-
Oh! So if some parents do, it must mean the Bambers do, too. I've not met many 'boarders' who can't stand on their own two feet. In fact, I don't think I've met any. ONE of the reasons they're sent to boarding schools is to make them independent.
Many leave-----Sheila did.
-
If anyone's blinkered, it's you ! You haven't got a clue about life.
That's a particularly weak response, Lookout, but I realize it's the only one you've got.
-
Many leave-----Sheila did.
We ALL leave school, Lookout. I guess like most of us, she'd have been 16? having been there since she was 9 or 10.
-
We ALL leave school, Lookout. I guess like most of us, she'd have been 16? having been there since she was 9 or 10.
No, she joined an ordinary mainstream school to finish off her schooling.
-
No, she joined an ordinary mainstream school to finish off her schooling.
Really? Where was that? In any case, learning to stand on her own two feet would certainly have been completed in 6/7 years and she certainly used that knowledge to good advantage when she absconded to a pop concert and hitched a lift back.
-
Really? Where was that? In any case, learning to stand on her own two feet would certainly have been completed in 6/7 years and she certainly used that knowledge to good advantage when she absconded to a pop concert and hitched a lift back.
No again, it was Jeremy who bunked school to go and watch a pop concert. Jeez, your memory is naff.
-
No again, it was Jeremy who bunked school to go and watch a pop concert. Jeez, your memory is naff.
I think you'll find it was Sheila and she managed to talk her way out of what could have been a nasty situation. But you still haven't said which state school she attended.
-
I think you'll find it was Sheila and she managed to talk her way out of what could have been a nasty situation. But you still haven't said which state school she attended.
It was Jeremy. He went to see Suzi Quatro.
-
It was Jeremy. He went to see Suzi Quatro.
Maybe they both did it? Rather spoils the notion that neither was capable of standing on their own two feet..............or wiping their own nether regions :)) :)) :))
-
Maybe they both did it? Rather spoils the notion that neither was capable of standing on their own two feet..............or wiping their own nether regions :)) :)) :))
No, you can't worm your way out of that one just because you won't admit your mistake.
-
if Jeremy was planning this call as his alibi and trying to set up a siege situation this call was part of his very intricate master plan that had allegedly been going on for 12 months - so why as a guilty person would he NOT call 999 .
Because he needed time to clean up before the disclosure.
-
https://youtu.be/raJWfQQRwNs
-
Because he needed time to clean up before the disclosure.
we have been through this .
just phone a bit later .
-
No, you can't worm your way out of that one just because you won't admit your mistake.
I'm still convinced that I read Sheila did it. If I didn't then I've made a mistake. However, it remains that Jeremy seemed to know how to stand on his own two feet.
-
I'm still convinced that I read Sheila did it. If I didn't then I've made a mistake. However, it remains that Jeremy seemed to know how to stand on his own two feet.
No--I beg to differ. It was Jeremy who escaped to watch Suzi Quatro in concert.
-
No--I beg to differ. It was Jeremy who escaped to watch Suzi Quatro in concert.
He did but Sheila also sneaked out of Old Hall School, Hethersett one evening. She became detached from a group of schoolfriends and hitchhiked a ride back, where she was lucky to escape the advances of the driver.
-
He did but Sheila also sneaked out of Old Hall School, Hethersett one evening. She became detached from a group of schoolfriends and hitchhiked a ride back, where she was lucky to escape the advances of the driver.
Aww! Thank-you SO much, Steve. The reasons for it make no difference. She was OUT. It furthers my belief that both were capable of standing on their own two feet. Illness eventually robbing Sheila of the capacity.
-
Aww! Thank-you SO much, Steve. The reasons for it make no difference. She was OUT. It furthers my belief that both were capable of standing on their own two feet. Illness eventually robbing Sheila of the capacity.
So running back home is the new way of standing on ones own feet ?? Get real !
-
So running back home is the new way of standing on ones own feet ?? Get real !
WHO was "running back home"? The lift took her back to school. Hethersett is about 90 miles from Essex.
-
WHO was "running back home"? The lift took her back to school. Hethersett is about 90 miles from Essex.
There was no lift, Sheila abandoned it..
-
There was no lift, Sheila abandoned it..
Then how did the driver make advances if she didn't get in? And it could have been a very long walk back to school. An even longer one to WHF. Perhaps she hitched a lift!
-
we have been through this .
just phone a bit later .
How could he phone later? If they had gone straight in, it would have been obvious they had been dead quite some time. Jeremy wanted to be at the scene in order to intervene, that's why he started to get edgy when he was on hold with the West phone call. House full of guns and she knows how to use all of them - they are hardly going to rush in unarmed - but to control that, he needed to be there. If he's called 999, they's have gotten there before him and his role would have been much less influential.
-
How could he phone later? If they had gone straight in, it would have been obvious they had been dead quite some time. Jeremy wanted to be at the scene in order to intervene, that's why he started to get edgy when he was on hold with the West phone call. House full of guns and she knows how to use all of them - they are hardly going to rush in unarmed - but to control that, he needed to be there. If he's called 999, they's have gotten there before him and his role would have been much less influential.
Thats why he wanted to be picked up so he could influence events, when they wouldn’t he let them pass him and arrive just after.
-
Thats why he wanted to be picked up so he could influence events, when they wouldn’t he let them pass him and arrive just after.
Exactly!
-
How could he phone later? If they had gone straight in, it would have been obvious they had been dead quite some time. Jeremy wanted to be at the scene in order to intervene, that's why he started to get edgy when he was on hold with the West phone call. House full of guns and she knows how to use all of them - they are hardly going to rush in unarmed - but to control that, he needed to be there. If he's called 999, they's have gotten there before him and his role would have been much less influential.
So saying his sister had got hold of a gun was not a serious call then . Sorry i just do not get your logic . He had no way of knowing how they would react to those words - and now you are saying because he did not call 999 they took him less seriously and yet before he was trying to create a seige situation .
It soulds like you are attributing him with more brains than he actually has - or the police with less.
-
So saying his sister had got hold of a gun was not a serious call then . Sorry i just do not get your logic . He had no way of knowing how they would react to those words - and now you are saying because he did not call 999 they took him less seriously and yet before he was trying to create a seige situation .
It soulds like you are attributing him with more brains than he actually has - or the police with less.
Call 999, it's treated like an emergency. THAT'S why it's called "an emergency service" coz in an emergency one calls them immediately. Call any old police station, ie a NON emergency call, and, despite a gun being mentioned, it's unlikely to be treated as an emergency. Why would it be? EVERYONE knows that, in an emergency, the number of choice is 999.
-
So saying his sister had got hold of a gun was not a serious call then . Sorry i just do not get your logic . He had no way of knowing how they would react to those words - and now you are saying because he did not call 999 they took him less seriously and yet before he was trying to create a seige situation .
It soulds like you are attributing him with more brains than he actually has - or the police with less.
Of course it wasn't-he'd already told Julie all was going well. Of course you have to believe Nevill telephoned Jeremy with an emergency situation for the latter to be innocent, but this is just the first, if not the biggest pitfall in his whole story.
-
Yes, the harvesting went very well after putting in 17hrs ! Which is what he spoke about, not the situation which he hadn't known of at WHF.
-
Yes, the harvesting went very well after putting in 17hrs ! Which is what he spoke about, not the situation which he hadn't known of at WHF.
He hadn't been working 17 hours. It's unlikely he'd been there 17 hours, either.
-
He hadn't been working 17 hours. It's unlikely he'd been there 17 hours, either.
6am start during harvesting, finishing at 9pm----15/15 & 1/2 hrs total.
-
6am start during harvesting, finishing at 9pm----15/15 & 1/2 hrs total.
We know he was there around 9 but is there recorded the time of his arrival?
-
We know he was there around 9 but is there recorded the time of his arrival?
Just what he said which was 07:30.
-
We know he was there around 9 but is there recorded the time of his arrival?
There will be somewhere. It's little things like that which are conveniently missed/forgotten .
-
Just what he said which was 07:30.
-
Just what he said which was 07:30.
I'd make that about 10.50 hours. Somewhat different from 17 hours.
-
Proof ?
-
Proof ?
Surely, Lookout, you can't be accusing Jewemy of telling porkies? :o :o :o
-
Proof ?
Errrrrrr - his statement? ::)
-
Surely, Lookout, you can't be accusing Jewemy of telling porkies? :o :o :o
Never ! He's as honest as I am-----to a fault !!
-
Never ! He's as honest as I am-----to a fault !!
Oh dear! :o :o
-
He woke at 7:00am. He was parked in the farm's kitchen yard at 7:30am, started work at 8:00am and left at 9:30pm.
-
He woke at 7:00am. He was parked in the farm's kitchen yard at 7:30am, started work at 8:00am and left at 9:30pm.
Hope you have proof of that Steve? ;)
-
Never ! He's as honest as I am-----to a fault !!
So what makes you think he did a 17 hour day?
-
Maybe they both did it? Rather spoils the notion that neither was capable of standing on their own two feet..............or wiping their own nether regions :)) :)) :))
i don’t think having your mortgage/rent paid by your parents is standing on your own two feet at all.
-
i don’t think having your mortgage/rent paid by your parents is standing on your own two feet at all.
Like I said, the only thing he wanted from his parents was money.
-
6am start during harvesting, finishing at 9pm----15/15 & 1/2 hrs total.
neville may have kept those hours ,but jb was far more flexible
-
i don’t think having your mortgage/rent paid by your parents is standing on your own two feet at all.
But he wasn't living WITH them which meant they weren't breathing down his neck 24/7. I'll bet he saw it as being free, at first.
-
Hope you have proof of that Steve? ;)
Well I didn't share Bamber's bed in Head Street, Goldhanger, but Carol Ann Lee's book is my trustworthy source.
-
i don’t think having your mortgage/rent paid by your parents is standing on your own two feet at all.
Nor do I.
-
Like I said, the only thing he wanted from his parents was money.
well i was talking about both of them so they were both unable to stand on their own two feet although JB did hold down a job one way or another so was able to pay his bills?
-
Well I didn't share Bamber's bed in Head Street, Goldhanger, but Carol Ann Lee's book is my trustworthy source.
Good enough for me - but I doubt Lookout will be happy with that. However, it's also in his statement.
-
well i was talking about both of them so they were both unable to stand on their own two feet although JB did hold down a job one way or another so was able to pay his bills?
The house he got was on condition of him working on the farm. Not sure if he paid his own bills - I know he got free petrol.
-
Well I didn't share Bamber's bed in Head Street, Goldhanger, but Carol Ann Lee's book is my trustworthy source.
I'm sure it is----after only having made contact by writing half a dozen times to him until she was told by the prison to give it a rest and stop contacting him.
-
But he wasn't living WITH them which meant they weren't breathing down his neck 24/7. I'll bet he saw it as being free, at first.
The Bambers always tried to equalize things between daughter and son: Sheila's secretarial course was paid for so Jeremy got a round the world trip, Sheila got a model portfolio so Jeremy got another trip, Sheila got the Maida Vale flat after the Hampstead flat developed rising damp so Jeremy got the rent-free Goldhanger property. But there was no demonstrable love apart from June's heartfelt letter to be opened after her death, a symbol of her inadequacies which she all to readily acknowledged, but which was too little too late, as Jeremy screwed it up contemptuously and stuffed it into the glove compartment, whilst Sheila never got the chance to read it at all.
-
I'm sure it is----after only having made contact by writing half a dozen times to him until she was told by the prison to give it a rest and stop contacting him.
Did he tell you that, or did the prison authorities?
-
The house he got was on condition of him working on the farm. Not sure if he paid his own bills - I know he got free petrol.
The problem was his expenditure. Even after flogging cannabis in bank bags by mail order he had to rely on June writing him personal cheques to make ends meet.
-
I'm sure it is----after only having made contact by writing half a dozen times to him until she was told by the prison to give it a rest and stop contacting him.
Who told you that? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The Bambers always tried to equalize things between daughter and son: Sheila's secretarial course was paid for so Jeremy got a round the world trip, Sheila got a portfolio so Jeremy got another trip, Sheila got the Maida Vale flat after the Hampstead flat developed rising damp so Jeremy got the rent-free Goldhanger property. But there was no demonstrable love apart from June's heartfelt letter to be opened after her death, a symbol of her inadequacies which she all to readily acknowledged, but which was too little too late, as Jeremy screwed it up contemptuously and stuffed it into the glove compartment, whilst Sheila never got the chance to read it at all.
in a nutshell.excellent post steve
-
How could he phone later? If they had gone straight in, it would have been obvious they had been dead quite some time. Jeremy wanted to be at the scene in order to intervene, that's why he started to get edgy when he was on hold with the West phone call. House full of guns and she knows how to use all of them - they are hardly going to rush in unarmed - but to control that, he needed to be there. If he's called 999, they's have gotten there before him and his role would have been much less influential.
How could they have got there before him? He was only three miles away. The police don't have emergency vehicles waiting on every corner.
-
neville may have kept those hours ,but jb was far more flexible
You have no idea and I have a very reliable source
-
jb could not have been absolutely sure where the police were or how fast they would get there
-
How could they have got there before him? He was only three miles away. The police don't have emergency vehicles waiting on every corner.
Because when you call the emergency services, the message goes out as the person is talking on the phone and the nearest car takes the job. There may have been one close - he wouldn't know that - would he?
-
You have no idea and I have a very reliable source
thank you :)
-
Because when you call the emergency services, the message goes out as the person is talking on the phone and the nearest car takes the job. There may have been one close - he wouldn't know that - would he?
The same goes for calling a police station too.
-
You have no idea and I have a very reliable source
Yes and I'm sure Warwick Hislop has cracked the case by now, so we can all slumber peacefully in our beds.
-
The same goes for calling a police station too.
Not the same amount of urgency otherwise there would be no point in having an emergency service. West stopped the call to pass on the message to the control room. All that took time. A 999 call doesn't waste that time because as I said, if there were no difference, there would be no point in having an emergency number.
-
Yes and I'm sure Warwick Hislop has cracked the case by now, so we can all slumber peacefully in our beds.
Don't tell me Warwick is on the case? :o :o :o :o ........................................... (who? ;D)
-
First comments
On the whole it was ok
However I personally thought it was really bad that they did not show a timeline of how long they were outside the house and how long before the raid team were called in
Secondly , correct me if necessary I did not think the excuse of the trick of light in the window and not movement was used until much later ?
The radio representation of what was said about the bodies in the kitchen was wrong .
Question . Did jeremy say about target shooting as that’s not what he said in his statement ? Which contemporary statement from whom said that ?
Did sheila ask Colin about getting her injections stopped ?
The comment about the sound from upstairs being another officer ? Not sure if that was at the time ? Or used as an explanation later ?
Jeremy did not say the rifle was loaded I think he said there could be some in the magazine but the magazine had been removed ?
Not criticism just a few comments and questions really .
-
I thought it was sensitively done. Cressida BC was exactly as I imagined Sheila to have been, delicate, wraith-like, troubled, frightened. The little boys were delightful. June was a shy and devout as her friends describe her. Nevill was the fun character his friends remember him as being. Even had I not known the story, I'd have been hooked. For the first time I understood what it must have felt like to be those two, unarmed policemen standing outside that farmhouse at dead of night with the possibility of a gun competent, deranged woman inside. However, I'm perfectly certain that supporter won't agree.
-
I agree to a certain extent , however the lack of expressing the time they were outside and why , to me was a major omission. It is very relevant . At least it showed jeremy begging them to go in.
-
First comments
On the whole it was ok
However I personally thought it was really bad that they did not show a timeline of how long they were outside the house and how long before the raid team were called in
Secondly , correct me if necessary I did not think the excuse of the trick of light in the window and not movement was used until much later ?
The radio representation of what was said about the bodies in the kitchen was wrong .
Question . Did jeremy say about target shooting as that’s not what he said in his statement ? Which contemporary statement from whom said that ?
Did sheila ask Colin about getting her injections stopped ?
The comment about the sound from upstairs being another officer ? Not sure if that was at the time ? Or used as an explanation later ?
Jeremy did not say the rifle was loaded I think he said there could be some in the magazine but the magazine had been removed ?
Not criticism just a few comments and questions really .
And he wasn’t wearing the same shoes as I thought he had on 😂😂😂😂
-
And he wasn’t wearing the same shoes as I thought he had on 😂😂😂😂
Little Jones appeared to be a nasty piece of work. Little man syndrome, possibly.
-
Did Stan Jones really look at Sheila's body like that, and was he told then that she was shot twice?
-
Did Stan Jones really look at Sheila's body like that, and was he told then that she was shot twice?
No.
-
I agree to a certain extent , however the lack of expressing the time they were outside and why , to me was a major omission. It is very relevant . At least it showed jeremy begging them to go in.
Maybe they will address these things later when they cover the trial?
-
Also noticed the time on the police station clock when Jeremy called was 3.26...this is bound to cause some discussion ;)
-
Maybe they will address these things later when they cover the trial?
Well said Janet, it’s impossible to fit everything in a hour.
-
Yes and I'm sure Warwick Hislop has cracked the case by now, so we can all slumber peacefully in our beds.
Were you born rude but your part of the gang so what else should I expect
1) where have I said Warwick would crack the case ?
Let’s recap
Warwick who I see in town three times a week used to spray the crops for 3 years from Bunting airstrip
Neville used to come up to see on his own and sometimes with Jeremy
They got on well
Grow up and stop being pathetic
I wonder if Julie was watching
Ouch
-
Maybe they will address these things later when they cover the trial?
How lovely to see you Janet
-
No.
they also did not cover the fact that the photographer said there were so many officers in the house he lost count .
-
Nor did Colin stay when he'd dropped Sheila and the twins off-----he certainly didn't have supper.
-
How lovely to see you Janet
Thank you Jackie. With the start of the new drama series and JB's legal team submitting a Judicial Review, I am afraid I am falling down the rabbit hole again! ;D
-
Nor did Colin stay when he'd dropped Sheila and the twins off-----he certainly didn't have supper.
I wasn't sure whether or not this had been taken from CC's book since I have never read it...Getting my copy delivered tomorrow.
-
Thank you Jackie. With the start of the new drama series and JB's legal team submitting a Judicial Review, I am afraid I am falling down the rabbit hole again! ;D
I know so many questions unanswered still. Hopefully if enough new people take an interest in this case it might force the authorities to release everything
-
Were you born rude but your part of the gang so what else should I expect
1) where have I said Warwick would crack the case ?
Let’s recap
Warwick who I see in town three times a week used to spray the crops for 3 years from Bunting airstrip
Neville used to come up to see on his own and sometimes with Jeremy
They got on well
Grow up and stop being pathetic
I wonder if Julie was watching
Ouch
oh dear
-
I answered my own question . Bewes and myal and saxby said Jeremy mentioned target shooting . I also never realised that bewes and myals statements were not done until the 16th August . And they are typed . Now I know they are at the same scene but the statements are actually mirror images with just their names changed . And yet they said the conversations were not noted they were doing it from memory . They must have been twins separated at birth ;D
-
And he wasn’t wearing the same shoes as I thought he had on 😂😂😂😂
;D ;D ;D
I thought it was great, OK, so some aspects differ from what we know, but they only have so much time and have to introduce the relevant characters. But actually, it was very fair to Jeremy, there were lost of things they could have added but chose to leave out. Perhaps that is simply to build suspense.
-
;D ;D ;D
I thought it was great, OK, so some aspects differ from what we know, but they only have so much time and have to introduce the relevant characters. But actually, it was very fair to Jeremy, there were lost of things they could have added but chose to leave out. Perhaps that is simply to build suspense.
Yes indeed Caroline. I think the set designers in particular did an incredible job recreating the inside of WHF. You can see this towards the end when DS Stan Jones does his walkthrough of the house (not the actual house I know but they do well with what they've got). Take a look at the close-up of the kitchen counter (they linger on it for a few seconds). The care taken to make this look as accurate and detailed as possible is amazing.
EDIT:
In fact at the end, I had to go and rewatch that part because I wasn't sure whether or not they had inserted tha actual crime scene photo!
-
Yes indeed Caroline. I think the set designers in particular did an incredible job recreating the inside of WHF. You can see this towards the end when DS Stan Jones does his walkthrough of the house (not the actual house I know but they do well with what they've got). Take a look at the close-up of the kitchen counter (they linger on it for a few seconds). The care taken to make this look as accurate and detailed as possible is amazing.
EDIT:
In fact at the end, I had to go and rewatch that part because I wasn't sure whether or not they had inserted tha actual crime scene photo!
Oh I agree Janet, the set was amazing and very eerie when they walked around the crime scene. The counter top with the telephone was exact and I am sure they even found the same crockery on the table. Can't wait for next episode.
-
Oh I agree Janet, the set was amazing and very eerie when they walked around the crime scene. The counter top with the telephone was exact and I am sure they even found the same crockery on the table. Can't wait for next episode.
It was hugely evocative taking a walk through the house and seeing the same dreadful green/gold fleur de lis,and flowered wall papers. I loved the little and immaculate recreations of the SOC pictures, ie family pictures, work top clutter, ect.
However, far and away, the most important aspect, to me -forget dotted "I"s and crossed "T"s- is how all the characters now have substance. They're flesh and blood. They've become real.
No longer will any of us talk about the twins without recalling that little blond dot who clung so heartbreakingly to his daddy because he didn't want him to go.
I hope, from now on, although, for numerous reasons, they didn't do a good job, people will have more respect for what they did that morning. Their shock was palpable. The guy who found the boys didn't know how to get the words out. It's exactly how I'd imagined it would have been for them. Totally beyond their comprehension. I hope it was noted that the guy corrected himself who'd believed he'd seen the body of a woman!
Of course we can -and undoubtedly will- pick holes in it, but over all, if it carries on in the same way, it will be an excellent production.
-
It was hugely evocative taking a walk through the house and seeing the same dreadful green/gold fleur de lis,and flowered wall papers. I loved the little and immaculate recreations of the SOC pictures, ie family pictures, work top clutter, ect.
However, far and away, the most important aspect, to me -forget dotted "I"s and crossed "T"s- is how all the characters now have substance. They're flesh and blood. They've become real.
No longer will any of us talk about the twins without recalling that little blond dot who clung so heartbreakingly to his daddy because he didn't want him to go.
I hope, from now on, although, for numerous reasons, they didn't do a good job, people will have more respect for what they did that morning. Their shock was palpable. The guy who found the boys didn't know how to get the words out. It's exactly how I'd imagined it would have been for them. Totally beyond their comprehension. I hope it was noted that the guy corrected himself who'd believed he'd seen the body of a woman!
Of course we can -and undoubtedly will- pick holes in it, but over all, if it carries on in the same way, it will be an excellent production.
Excellent post Jane, must admit it brought tears to my eyes seeing the bond Colin had with the twins. It gave a balanced opening first episode, exactly how the police seen it, I’m sure the twist will be even better, offering a glimpse of what’s to come with the science where Bamber is caught smiling in the arms of Julie.
-
I'm wondering if " Taff " Jones really did shout like his character did ? We'll never know will we, but it wasn't altogether professional and would naturally have caused a lot of unrest among the rest of the officers ?. It's not the way to be when leading a team. I'd have expected more reverence during that time.
When someone loses their temper and appears to belittle you because of their higher position it's never a good move and can/does create hostilities which in this case is exactly what happened.
-
I'm wondering if " Taff " Jones really did shout like his character did ? We'll never know will we, but it wasn't altogether professional and would naturally have caused a lot of unrest among the rest of the officers ?. It's not the way to be when leading a team. I'd have expected more reverence during that time.
When someone loses their temper and appears to belittle you because of their higher position it's never a good move and can/does create hostilities which in this case is exactly what happened.
But Lookout, you have to look at his psychology! Many men of "diminished stature" feel the need to exert authority. They have "attitude". The way the two Jones's have been cast is a perfect example of this. You have the larger, more placid, thinking character, balanced against the small, fiery, "I'm in charge" character. I suspect that now, MORE than then, there maybe more dialogue between ranks, hopefully leading to more comfortable working relationships.
-
But Lookout, you have to look at his psychology! Many men of "diminished stature" feel the need to exert authority. The way the two Jones's have been cast is a perfect example of this. You have the larger, more placid, thinking character, balanced against the small, fiery, "I'm in charge" character. I suspect that now, MORE than then, there maybe more dialogue between ranks, hopefully leading to more comfortable working relationships.
SJ was by no means the robust " giant-like " figure portrayed last night. The real thing, pictured with JM isn't much taller/bigger than she. " Taff " was no small figure either in his pic which was taken with other colleagues at some unction or other.
-
Anyone inclined to "get their own back "on a bossy individual will go to great lengths to achieve their goal, which is exactly what SJ did, though it mattered even less as time went on as " Taff " was dead anyway.
-
Anyone inclined to "get their own back "on a bossy individual will go to great lengths to achieve their goal, which is exactly what SJ did, though it mattered even less as time went on as " Taff " was dead anyway.
poor stan getting stick for doing his job and uncovering a mass murderer
-
poor stan getting stick for doing his job and uncovering a mass murderer
Albeit the wrong one.
-
Albeit the wrong one.
depends what side of the fence ones on,lookout,
-
depends what side of the fence ones on,lookout,
Of course it does.
-
poor stan getting stick for doing his job and uncovering a mass murderer
He deserves a lot of praise Sami.
-
poor stan getting stick for doing his job and uncovering a mass murderer
Stan didn't uncover anything. All he did was collect a silencer from the relatives and hand it to DI Cook. He then went on holiday for the rest of month. Then took Julies statement when he got back.
-
I won't watch it, precisely because it is a one-sided stitch-up. It's like when Hollywood tries to sell you their master's version of events: we are the good guys vs them are the bad guys. I think its commissioning will likely have been murky, at least somewhere along the line.
If you are a 'supporter' you have to just suck it up. It's what we're used to. Instead, we tend to prefer channelling our interest towards ballistics experts like Boyce or from the USA. We realise things sometimes get rejected because they're not up to scratch [pardon the pun re Sutherst and the mantlepiece]. But we also know they get rejected on technicalities.. because.. they have to be rejected. Otherwise, 'true story' dramas like this would never get made.
I've said for years public opinion is the key to overturning the conviction. It's quite obvious that the people behind this drama are accutely aware of this also.
-
I am a retred Police officer and after leaving the Met Police, I spent 10 years on Essex Police M.I.T. I have always believed that Jeremy is innocent and have had many heated discussions with Essex Police officers who point blank refuse to listen to reason. This is one of the U.K.'s worst cases of injustice and Essex Police should be made to cooperate fully.
ROY TYZACK, Brentwood, ENG, United Kingdom2 days ago
-
I won't watch it, precisely because it is a one-sided stitch-up. It's like when Hollywood tries to sell you their master's version of events: we are the good guys vs them are the bad guys. I think its commissioning will likely have been murky, at least somewhere along the line.
If you are a 'supporter' you have to just suck it up. It's what we're used to. Instead, we tend to prefer channelling our interest towards ballistics experts like Boyce or from the USA. We realise things sometimes get rejected because they're not up to scratch [pardon the pun re Sutherst and the mantlepiece]. But we also know they get rejected on technicalities.. because.. they have to be rejected. Otherwise, 'true story' dramas like this would never get made.
I've said for years public opinion is the key to overturning the conviction. It's quite obvious that the people behind this drama are accutely aware of this also.
I don’t know Roch, the opening episode left viewers with some doubt, I must admit sometimes it is hard watching and you know the outcome, but it’s still interesting and I’ve had very good feed back from neutrals.
-
I don’t know Roch, the opening episode left viewers with some doubt, I must admit sometimes it is hard watching and you know the outcome, but it’s still interesting and I’ve had very good feed back from neutrals.
Well RJ, I may change my mind and watch it. But I think as the episodes go on, it's got to look more like he did it. If this were not the case, and they wanted to be more neutral, they would have cooperated with the defence. I should add, I feel heartfelt sorry for Colin. He believes what he believes. But I think that while he already knew Jeremy was no angel, he has been sold a perpetrator by the police and relatives. If it was ever proven in a court of law that it could not have been JB, how will Colin cope?
-
I am a retred Police officer and after leaving the Met Police, I spent 10 years on Essex Police M.I.T. I have always believed that Jeremy is innocent and have had many heated discussions with Essex Police officers who point blank refuse to listen to reason. This is one of the U.K.'s worst cases of injustice and Essex Police should be made to cooperate fully.
ROY TYZACK, Brentwood, ENG, United Kingdom2 days ago
Fair play to him for writing that. Presumably, he wouldn't get on very well with the wives of some of the anonymous ex or deceased EP officers that we get told on here 'were convinced' ;D
-
Well RJ, I may change my mind and watch it. But I think as the episodes go on, it's got to look more like he did it. If this were not the case, and they wanted to be more neutral, they would have cooperated with the defence. I should add, I feel heartfelt sorry for Colin. He believes what he believes. But I think that while he already knew Jeremy was no angel, he has been sold a perpetrator by the police and relatives. If it was ever proven in a court of law that it could not have been JB, how will Colin cope?
Good post Roch and agree with you, I think it just goes along with what we know, not what we don’t? Posters have wanted a six part series now they’ve got one, Jackie wanted one just on Julie, I would have watched this as well or anything that can or show him innocent.
-
Good post Roch and agree with you, I think it just goes along with what we know, not what we don’t? Posters have wanted a six part series now they’ve got one, Jackie wanted one just on Julie, I would have watched this as well or anything that can or show him innocent.
.
Yes fair comment, I can see where you're coming from there.
-
Not overly impressed so far.
-
I am a retred Police officer and after leaving the Met Police, I spent 10 years on Essex Police M.I.T. I have always believed that Jeremy is innocent and have had many heated discussions with Essex Police officers who point blank refuse to listen to reason. This is one of the U.K.'s worst cases of injustice and Essex Police should be made to cooperate fully.
ROY TYZACK, Brentwood, ENG, United Kingdom2 days ago
This is the retired officer I tried to get in touch with yesterday to ask how he arrived at his conclusion of innocent. He'd served with the murder squad at EP latterly before his retirement. A good-living man with many on-going interests.
-
I don’t know Roch, the opening episode left viewers with some doubt, I must admit sometimes it is hard watching and you know the outcome, but it’s still interesting and I’ve had very good feed back from neutrals.
Personnally I think they were sewing the seeds of whats to come - the sobbing reported by the police came across as hysterical overacting
the muting of what Colin said at the door
The looks by Julie at Jeremy actually looked a bit like they were in on it together if you know what I mean- not that she was shocked he had done it .
the subtle trick of the light at the window quote .
And pointing out about Jeremy having dyed his hair like a film star
Subtle but indications of what to come I think .
-
Personnally I think they were sewing the seeds of whats to come - the sobbing reported by the police came across as hysterical overacting
the muting of what Colin said at the door
The looks by Julie at Jeremy actually looked a bit like they were in on it together if you know what I mean- not that she was shocked he had done it .
the subtle trick of the light at the window quote .
And pointing out about Jeremy having dyed his hair like a film star
Subtle but indications of what to come I think .
Have to agree, they take you one direction and have an art in leading you in another, they always use drama to good affect.
-
Perhaps someone can answer these questions for me ?
Is there a time line on here about the time between the police arriving - the raid team being called and them going in to the house ?
I was interested in the comment Jeremy was alleged to have said about target shooting ( does not relate to his statements) but it seems the first statements from the officers who met him see to be from 16th august ( although not signed ) . Because it was thought to be at the beginning murder suicide surely those officers would do statements immediately on 8th August ? And why did they say notes not made of conversations -statements done from memory ? That means they could say what they wanted really ? I just find it all a bit odd .
-
I'm wondering if " Taff " Jones really did shout like his character did ? We'll never know will we, but it wasn't altogether professional and would naturally have caused a lot of unrest among the rest of the officers ?. It's not the way to be when leading a team. I'd have expected more reverence during that time.
When someone loses their temper and appears to belittle you because of their higher position it's never a good move and can/does create hostilities which in this case is exactly what happened.
From all accounts, yes, he was bad tempered.
-
I am a retred Police officer and after leaving the Met Police, I spent 10 years on Essex Police M.I.T. I have always believed that Jeremy is innocent and have had many heated discussions with Essex Police officers who point blank refuse to listen to reason. This is one of the U.K.'s worst cases of injustice and Essex Police should be made to cooperate fully.
ROY TYZACK, Brentwood, ENG, United Kingdom2 days ago
My friend's husband, a retired police officer who spent his entire working life with EP. and was one of those present, said from the off, that he was guilty. One cancels out the other.
-
My friend's husband, a retired police officer who spent his entire working life with EP. and was one of those present, said from the off, that he was guilty. One cancels out the other.
He doesn't say he worked on the case or what his opinion is based on.
-
He doesn't say he worked on the case or what his opinion is based on.
He probably hasn't been asked. Tbf, neither does Jane's friend's husband. But 10 years in M.I.T. within the same force that prosecuted Bamber.. does make you wonder.
-
He doesn't say he worked on the case or what his opinion is based on.
He spoke with Jeremy, Caroline. His opinion/conclusion was based on body language, eye contact, the way questions were answered, and years of experience of being lied to.
-
He probably hasn't been asked. Tbf, neither does Jane's friend's husband. But 10 years in M.I.T. within the same force that prosecuted Bamber.. does make you wonder.
It says a lot that he gave his name
-
Personnally I think they were sewing the seeds of whats to come - the sobbing reported by the police came across as hysterical overacting
the muting of what Colin said at the door
The looks by Julie at Jeremy actually looked a bit like they were in on it together if you know what I mean- not that she was shocked he had done it .
the subtle trick of the light at the window quote .
And pointing out about Jeremy having dyed his hair like a film star
Subtle but indications of what to come I think .
I was waiting to see that part and it never happened even though it’s so relevant to the case
I hope we will hear about Sheila’s medical records referring to her conversations with her psychiatrist where she informs him she was afraid she would kill her children. Or will that be left out
-
Personnally I think they were sewing the seeds of whats to come - the sobbing reported by the police came across as hysterical overacting
the muting of what Colin said at the door
The looks by Julie at Jeremy actually looked a bit like they were in on it together if you know what I mean- not that she was shocked he had done it .
the subtle trick of the light at the window quote .
And pointing out about Jeremy having dyed his hair like a film star
Subtle but indications of what to come I think .
I heard what he said, he said (when told Sheila was dead) "She's finally done it" - then he was told about the twins and staggered backwards.
-
I heard what he said, he said (when told Sheila was dead) "She's finally done it" - then he was told about the twins and staggered backwards.
Yes I heard that Caroline
-
My friend's husband, a retired police officer who spent his entire working life with EP. and was one of those present, said from the off, that he was guilty. One cancels out the other.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/731634895ee79f6b8b63009db1dc8ea6/tenor.gif)
-
He probably hasn't been asked. Tbf, neither does Jane's friend's husband. But 10 years in M.I.T. within the same force that prosecuted Bamber.. does make you wonder.
What a coincidence he lives so close to me. He is very open about his background
I knew this drama would be so could for contacts.
-
I heard what he said, he said (when told Sheila was dead) "She's finally done it" - then he was told about the twins and staggered backwards.
It was very quiet and difficult to hear and faded away compared to other dialogue .which is why I said muted . He said the words but you could hardly hear it . Then they faded more when he was told about the boys .
-
My friend's husband, a retired police officer who spent his entire working life with EP. and was one of those present, said from the off, that he was guilty. One cancels out the other.
Do you think he could answer why the statements by the officers with Jeremy were not made immediately ? It was still a murder scene ? Why not until the 16 th of August ?
-
i thought shiela was exactly how Jb said she was the previous evening and to me looked like she was going to lose it at any second. other than that it’s quite a good drama so far but it isn’t going to make any difference to what’s happening legally at the moment or at least it shouldn’t .
-
It was very quiet and difficult to hear and faded away compared to other dialogue .which is why I said muted . He said the words but you could hardly hear it . Then they faded more when he was told about the boys .
But it was still audible.
-
i thought shiela was exactly how Jb said she was the previous evening and to me looked like she was going to lose it at any second. other than that it’s quite a good drama so far but it isn’t going to make any difference to what’s happening legally at the moment or at least it shouldn’t .
Of course it won't - if anything IS happening.
-
(https://media.tenor.com/images/731634895ee79f6b8b63009db1dc8ea6/tenor.gif)
If Jane's source is to be believed, an officer who worked on the case could sense that Jeremy was lying during interviews. This Tyzack fellow seems to be advocating almost the opposite, ie that Essex Police have been dishonest and obstructive (while claiming to have cooperated). Oh to have been a fly on the wall regarding internal arguments eh.
-
If Jane's source is to be believed, an officer who worked on the case could sense that Jeremy was lying during interviews. This Tyzack fellow seems to be advocating almost the opposite, ie that Essex Police have been dishonest and obstructive (whole claiming to have cooperated). Oh to have been a fly on the wall regarding internal arguments eh.
Jane's source worked on the case from day one - this other bloke didn't work on it at all.
-
I'd rather believe Roy Tyzack.
-
I'd rather believe Roy Tyzack.
This chap's pedigree is excellent ! I did try to get in touch with him yesterday as he's on Facebook and I've never been on Facebook-----but, it seemed that someone was trying to use my name ( surname too) as there was a security issue so I gave up on it.
-
I'd rather believe Roy Tyzack.
Roy Tyzack is very open about who he is. Unlike the ‘mystery man’ Jane alleges to know.
Facts again
There will be more to come out of this drama just like I predicted
Warwick Heslop is a real person as well who I will see on Saturday again
-
I will probably end up speaking to him or Mark Williams Thomas will
This chap's pedigree is excellent ! I did try to get in touch with him yesterday as he's on Facebook and I've never been on Facebook-----but, it seemed that someone was trying to use my name ( surname too) as there was a security issue so I gave up on it.
-
I hope so. The chap appears to be very open and honest.
-
(https://media.tenor.com/images/731634895ee79f6b8b63009db1dc8ea6/tenor.gif)
Moderators can you step in please.
David is goading and being abusive again. To another poster. Despite a recent ban.
Thank you.
-
David needs to decide on whether he is going to apologise to myself, Caroline and Jane J.
It's no secret he attempted a quiet stance change from hardcore guilter - (so much evidence it can only be police corruption) because he would not be allowed to goad & abuse supporters.
His two reasons for the huge stance change were pathetic and have been dismissed.
Hopefully he will be a man about it.
-
(https://media.tenor.com/images/731634895ee79f6b8b63009db1dc8ea6/tenor.gif)
why do you have to goad other members because you dont agree with their posts.most of your posts are BULLSHIT YOURE JUST A LITTLE KID
-
why do you have to goad other members because you dont agree with their posts.most of your posts are BULLSHIT YOURE JUST A LITTLE KID
Quite obvious his medication change for the new year isn’t working Sami?
-
why do you have to goad other members because you dont agree with their posts.most of your posts are BULLSHIT YOURE JUST A LITTLE KID
I thought it was funny, it not as bad as the bullying that goes on by you and your gang or being accused of doing something you haven’t done
-
I thought it was funny, it not as bad as the bullying that goes on by you and your gang or being accused of doing something you haven’t done
i thought you might reply for your other half ,both of you SHARE the same traits,goading and being rude to other members because you disagree with them CHILDISH :)) :))
-
Quite obvious his medication change for the new year isn’t working Sami?
he is just idiotic,goading jane ,for a perfectly reasonable post.
-
i thought you might reply for your other half ,both of you SHARE the same traits,goading and being rude to other members because you disagree with them CHILDISH :)) :))
It is pathetic, you cannot compare a mystery ? Policeman that probably doesn’t exist to a policeman that’s happy to put his name out there
I am sure Mark w Thomas will check to see if he is genuine
Facts you see Sami and Janes language to me on here was vile and she was not banned
-
he is just idiotic,goading jane ,for a perfectly reasonable post.
Yes they’re both the same, she had a go at NGB for nothing yesterday
-
Yes they’re both the same, she had a go at NGB for nothing yesterday
Ask him if it was nothing
I am sick to death of false accusations by trolls when this is meant to be a miscarriage of Justice sight
-
he is just idiotic,goading jane ,for a perfectly reasonable post.
Im telling NGB I’m leaving the forum, I’m fed up with her disruptive attitude Sami and I suggest everyone does the same. Let them debate amongst themselves.
-
Ask him if it was nothing
I am sick to death of false accusations by trolls when this is meant to be a miscarriage of Justice sight
Hope the press see it that way, your love letters may help him if they see them.
-
why do you have to goad other members because you dont agree with their posts.most of your posts are BULLSHIT YOURE JUST A LITTLE KID
Hopefully there will be some clarification today regarding image goaging/abuse. This was asked for a few weeks ago when David was doing the same thing. But there was no response.
-
Im telling NGB I’m leaving the forum, I’m fed up with her disruptive attitude Sami and I suggest everyone does the same. Let them debate amongst themselves.
It wouldn't be the same without you Real Justice. We all have something to contribute. The problem is the moderators have been too lax for a long time.
-
He's a real person at least, however misguided. https://www.facebook.com/roy.tyzack
-
It wouldn't be the same without you Real Justice. We all have something to contribute. The problem is the moderators have been too lax for a long time.
I thought you might stick your oar in again. An attack on the mod team again. As I have explained before if we intervene by removing posts we open ourselves to attack by those who say they have only posted annoying or attacking posts because they have been attacked first. Obviously we act very quickly to remove the worst posts, some of which have been horrific. However in relation to posts like the one Adam has complained of, I accept it is annoying and can be seen as goading, but there is a lot of other material, for example directed against Lookout, which would have to be removed if we are to be consistent. That would provoke a reaction from other posters. We try to moderate with a light touch which we think is in the best interests of the forum. There is one member here who is really pushing her luck however and much more in the same vein will result in a ban.
-
I thought you might stick your oar in again. An attack on the mod team again. As I have explained before if we intervene by removing posts we open ourselves to attack by those who say they have only posted annoying or attacking posts because they have been attacked first. Obviously we act very quickly to remove the worst posts, some of which have been horrific. However in relation to posts like the one Adam has complained of, I accept it is annoying and can be seen as goading, but there is a lot of other material, for example directed against Lookout, which would have to be removed if we are to be consistent. That would provoke a reaction from other posters. We try to moderate with a light touch which we think is in the best interests of the forum. There is one member here who is really pushing her luck however and much more in the same vein will result in a ban.
Im telling NGB I’m leaving the forum, I’m fed up with her disruptive attitude Sami and I suggest everyone does the same. Let them debate amongst themselves.
Unbelievable, your obviously throwing your toys out of the pram because someone has come forward in support of Jeremy. You SHOULD be saying it’s brilliant when anyone comes forward with any new facts
-
It is pathetic, you cannot compare a mystery ? Policeman that probably doesn’t exist to a policeman that’s happy to put his name out there
I am sure Mark w Thomas will check to see if he is genuine
Facts you see Sami and Janes language to me on here was vile and she was not banned
you and david dont have to reply with words like bullshit and pathetic if you disagree,why not just say i dont believe you or i dont agree with you.would be much easier and better for everyone
-
I was accused on this forum of giving out some personal details
It was absolutely untrue
It was a troll who was allowed to continue posting on this forum
Also this same troll threatened something bad was going to happen to me
Maggie can confirm this
This is meant to be a site to show miscarriage of justice cases
I have never had an apology so I have suffered more trolling on the site that any member
This is never going to be addressed and now I am being threatened with a ban because I dare to ask for an apology
-
I thought you might stick your oar in again. An attack on the mod team again. As I have explained before if we intervene by removing posts we open ourselves to attack by those who say they have only posted annoying or attacking posts because they have been attacked first. Obviously we act very quickly to remove the worst posts, some of which have been horrific. However in relation to posts like the one Adam has complained of, I accept it is annoying and can be seen as goading, but there is a lot of other material, for example directed against Lookout, which would have to be removed if we are to be consistent. That would provoke a reaction from other posters. We try to moderate with a light touch which we think is in the best interests of the forum. There is one member here who is really pushing her luck however and much more in the same vein will result in a ban.
I didn't even know you were a moderator, believe this or not. The posting of cartoon-type insults should be completely banned. The other rule which has been flagrantly flouted is not introducing oneself in the Foyer before proceeding to post.
I know now that you tried to get rid of me several years ago. You would have succeeded but for Caroline reinstating me. Now calm down and do your job properly.
-
I was accused on this forum of giving out some personal details
It was absolutely untrue
It was a troll who was allowed to continue posting on this forum
Also this same troll threatened something bad was going to happen to me
Maggie can confirm this
This is meant to be a site to show miscarriage of justice cases
I have never had an apology so I have suffered more trolling on the site that any member
This is never going to be addressed and now I am being threatened with a ban because I dare to ask for an apology
ive been called a fair few names myself but ive never asked anyone to apologise to me,as for the troll making threats than i agree as all members will threats should result in an automatic ban,we have gone off topic and the last 20 posts were all because of davids childish attitude,lets move on
-
Unbelievable, your obviously throwing your toys out of the pram because someone has come forward in support of Jeremy. You SHOULD be saying it’s brilliant when anyone comes forward with any new facts
But there are no new facts Jackie: that's the point. What new facts has Roy Tyzack brought to the debate?
-
But there are no new facts Jackie: that's the point. What new facts has Roy Tyzack brought to the debate?
perfectly sound question steve ,i to will be eager to hear the answer
-
I didn't even know you were a moderator, believe this or not. The posting of cartoon-type insults should be completely banned. The other rule which has been flagrantly flouted is not introducing oneself in the Foyer before proceeding to post.
I know now that you tried to get rid of me several years ago. You would have succeeded but for Caroline reinstating me. Now calm down and do your job properly.
Well he wasn’t banned even after making physical threats and now my passport has been sent to the mods and they didn’t tell me.
Nobody has a copy of my passport so I assume it was sent in by ‘a policeman’
I repeat nobody has a copy of my passport so how worrying is that
-
why do you have to goad other members because you dont agree with their posts.most of your posts are BULLSHIT YOURE JUST A LITTLE KID
The meter is detecting HIS bullshit - it must be draining the national grid! I know for a FACT that Jane knew a major player in the investigation - and if she doesn't want to say who it is, it means she respects the privacy of the person in question and their family - one of which is a very good friend of hers. Sucks for David that his goading (once again) shows him up to be an immature moron!
-
I thought it was funny, it not as bad as the bullying that goes on by you and your gang or being accused of doing something you haven’t done
It would have been if it was posted in response to your posts - accurate too!
-
Well he wasn’t banned even after making physical threats and now my passport has been sent to the mods and they didn’t tell me.
Nobody has a copy of my passport so I assume it was sent in by ‘a policeman’
I repeat nobody has a copy of my passport so how worrying is that
I obviously pose some kind of threat to someone for them to set up fake profiles on twitter and get hold of my passort
-
I didn't even know you were a moderator, believe this or not. The posting of cartoon-type insults should be completely banned. The other rule which has been flagrantly flouted is not introducing oneself in the Foyer before proceeding to post.
I know now that you tried to get rid of me several years ago. You would have succeeded but for Caroline reinstating me. Now calm down and do your job properly.
You should understand that berating the moderators of the forum in that kind of patronising tone is a red line. You ought to apologise but you won't.
-
It would have been if it was posted in response to your posts - accurate too!
Go and bully someone else you nasty women.
At least it’s been acknowledged Lookout gets bullied
It’s disgusting
-
It is pathetic, you cannot compare a mystery ? Policeman that probably doesn’t exist to a policeman that’s happy to put his name out there
I am sure Mark w Thomas will check to see if he is genuine
Facts you see Sami and Janes language to me on here was vile and she was not banned
Oh he exists - he played a MAJOR part unlike Warwick whatshisname and a copper who's only connection to the case, is that he once worked in Essex. ::)
-
You should understand that berating the moderators of the forum in that kind of patronising tone is a red line. You ought to apologise but you won't.
You also betray those who have spoken in confidence to you.
-
I didn't even know you were a moderator, believe this or not. The posting of cartoon-type insults should be completely banned. The other rule which has been flagrantly flouted is not introducing oneself in the Foyer before proceeding to post.
I know now that you tried to get rid of me several years ago. You would have succeeded but for Caroline reinstating me. Now calm down and do your job properly.
Steve, that's really not fair, I might have physically reinstated you but it would have been on the say so of NGB. David has been told many times about goading with childish cartoons etc. he takes no notice because he's an immature adult school boy who thinks he's still down with the kids. He's more to be ignored than anything else.
-
I was accused on this forum of giving out some personal details
It was absolutely untrue
It was a troll who was allowed to continue posting on this forum
Also this same troll threatened something bad was going to happen to me
Maggie can confirm this
This is meant to be a site to show miscarriage of justice cases
I have never had an apology so I have suffered more trolling on the site that any member
This is never going to be addressed and now I am being threatened with a ban because I dare to ask for an apology
AHHHHHHHHHHH SHADDAP!
-
I didn't even know you were a moderator, believe this or not. The posting of cartoon-type insults should be completely banned. The other rule which has been flagrantly flouted is not introducing oneself in the Foyer before proceeding to post.
I know now that you tried to get rid of me several years ago. You would have succeeded but for Caroline reinstating me. Now calm down and do your job properly.
I am an administrator, which includes all mod privileges. I lead the mod team.
Your statement is a lie as I am sure Caroline will confirm. If I had wanted to get rid of you I would have done so. Caroline did not reinstate you and she would not have done. I banned you once for 24 hours but lifted the ban early. You are within a whisker of getting a new ban now.
-
Hi Gringo I could not believe what I was reading with steve's posts to NGB does he not realise that NGB is totally in charge of this forum and I think steve is lucky to be still a member and he does owe NGB an apology and I would suggest he gives him one very quickly.
-
I am an administrator, which includes all mod privileges. I lead the mod team.
Your statement is a lie as I am sure Caroline will confirm. If I had wanted to get rid of you I would have done so. Caroline did not reinstate you and she would not have done. I banned you once for 24 hours but lifted the ban early. You are within a whisker of getting a new ban now.
I don't really know what to say. Mike, Lookout, Caroline, Jane and myself have contributed the most to this site. Am I supposed to grovel because my spade work has not been appreciated? I will not.
-
Hi Gringo I could not believe what I was reading with steve's posts to NGB does he not realise that NGB is totally in charge of this forum and I think steve is lucky to be still a member and he does owe NGB an apology and I would suggest he gives him one very quickly.
Susan I will not.
-
Go and bully someone else you nasty women.
At least it’s been acknowledged Lookout gets bullied
It’s disgusting
Lookout gives as good as she gets and she would be the first to admit it.
How YOU dare call anyone nasty is beyond belief - I have NEVER come across anyone quite like you with your attempt to intimidate at every opportunity; those people you seem to think are an enemy. You have simply met your match with me because I think you're a joke and you don't intimidate me one bit - you just make me laugh! ;D ;D ;D ;D - Opps! There's one of them there 'explanation' marks again! (and another ;D ;D)
-
Hi Gringo I could not believe what I was reading with steve's posts to NGB does he not realise that NGB is totally in charge of this forum and I think steve is lucky to be still a member and he does owe NGB an apology and I would suggest he gives him one very quickly.
I agree Susan. Steve has crossed a red line and should recognise that.
-
I don't really know what to say. Mike, Lookout, Caroline, Jane and myself have contributed the most to this site. Am I supposed to grovel because my spade work has not been appreciated? I will not.
What has this got to do with your spade work? I have called you out for a blatant lie you have posted about me. Have the decency to retract it and we can move on.
-
I am an administrator, which includes all mod privileges. I lead the mod team.
Your statement is a lie as I am sure Caroline will confirm. If I had wanted to get rid of you I would have done so. Caroline did not reinstate you and she would not have done. I banned you once for 24 hours but lifted the ban early. You are within a whisker of getting a new ban now.
Of course I confirm that - if we're talking about the recent ban - I have no hand in reinstating Steve.
Sorry Steve, you have this wrong. NGB is in charge not me, I couldn't reinstate without his say so.
-
I don't really know what to say. Mike, Lookout, Caroline, Jane and myself have contributed the most to this site. Am I supposed to grovel because my spade work has not been appreciated? I will not.
Arrogant as well.
-
I don't really know what to say. Mike, Lookout, Caroline, Jane and myself have contributed the most to this site. Am I supposed to grovel because my spade work has not been appreciated? I will not.
No one has said you should grovel - no one expects that. I think you some things confused that's all. I'm not sure why you have such a beef with NGB - I can only think you have confused something in the past?
-
AHHHHHHHHHHH SHADDAP!
Absolutely 100% true though
-
steve I have always found you to be a nice polite guy but sorry you are out of order with NGB, He is a fair nice gentleman who gives up his time for this forum and he deserves respect and he does earn it. Please be fair and offer a sincere apology.
-
Lookout gives as good as she gets and she would be the first to admit it.
How YOU dare call anyone nasty is beyond belief - I have NEVER come across anyone quite like you with your attempt to intimidate at every opportunity; those people you seem to think are an enemy. You have simply met your match with me because I think you're a joke and you don't intimidate me one bit - you just make me laugh! ;D ;D ;D ;D - Opps! There's one of them there 'explanation' marks again! (and another ;D ;D)
Met my match??? That was a joke ??? When you do as much behind the scenes as I do without living on a forum 24\7 I will look up to you
Unfortunately for you that’s never going to happen and no I don’t believe Janes secret policeman exists for obvious reasons
-
i think its gone far enough,david should be told any more cartoon goading or goading in general will result in a ban,lets move on with the topic
-
What has this got to do with your spade work? I have called you out for a blatant lie you have posted about me. Have the decency to retract it and we can move on.
Well if you didn't remove me I'm sorry. I thought you said you did remove me then reinstated me so where was the lie? I don't like this badgering and invective on the Forum as much as you.
-
i think its gone far enough,david should be told any more cartoon goading or goading in general will result in a ban,lets move on with the topic
I quite agree sami.
-
Met my match??? That was a joke ??? When you do as much behind the scenes as I do without living on a forum 24\7 I will look up to you
Unfortunately for you that’s never going to happen and no I don’t believe Janes secret policeman exists for obvious reasons
Ha, ha!!!!!!!!!!! As much as you with your Twitter account? Go and wool pull some place else!
Jane's policeman is VERY real - how Warwick? ;D ;D ;D ::) ::)
-
steve I have always found you to be a nice polite guy but sorry you are out of order with NGB, He is a fair nice gentleman who gives up his time for this forum and he deserves respect and he does earn it. Please be fair and offer a sincere apology.
I have apologized. Can we have one simple rule though: any new members henceforth introduce themselves in the Foyer.
-
Well if you didn't remove me I'm sorry. I thought you said you did remove me then reinstated me so where was the lie? I don't like this badgering and invective on the Forum as much as you.
I think he's referring to you saying I reinstated you - I didn't. Where did you get that from? I might have done in the past if you have been banned before but it would have been with the full approval of NGB - although I can't remember you being banned before.
NGB isn't your enemy Steve - I don't understand?
-
I think he's referring to you saying I reinstated you - I didn't. Where did you get that from? I might have done in the past if you have been banned before but it would have been with the full approval of NGB - although I can't remember you being banned before.
NGB isn't your enemy Steve - I don't understand?
He banned me in the past, his "impartial" legal advice is always detrimental to the Prosecution, he told me I didn't know one end of a silencer from another. Now let's move on.
-
I have apologized. Can we have one simple rule though: any new members henceforth introduce themselves in the Foyer.
quite correct ,when i joined i couldnt post until i introduced myself in the foyer
-
Hi steve I think that is expected of any new member maybe a rule I am not sure sometimes I am sure it gets overlooked but I have seen Maggie often asking new members to introduce themselves.
-
quite correct ,when i joined i couldnt post until i introduced myself in the foyer
I think the confusion is that someone who seemed like a recent member (because they had not previously posted) - had actually joined several years ago. They hadn't introduced themselves when they started posting - although they have now.
-
I think the confusion is that someone who seemed like a recent member (because they had not previously posted) - had actually joined several years ago. They hadn't introduced themselves when they started posting - although they have now.
oh i see,caroline
-
Hi steve I think that is expected of any new member maybe a rule I am not sure sometimes I am sure it gets overlooked but I have seen Maggie often asking new members to introduce themselves.
That is right susan and we will try to make sure new members are reminded more quickly in future.
-
I have apologized. Can we have one simple rule though: any new members henceforth introduce themselves in the Foyer.
You haven't apologised, certainly not sincerely. You don't then get to demand which rules are enforced and how vigorously. It is one thing having personal spats with other members but I am sure that every other member understands and agrees that personal attacks on the moderators are out of bounds.
You have yourself called for other members to be banned, including myself, previously for supposed insults to you. So you believe that banning members for hurting Steve's feelings is ok, but Steve should be allowed to personally insult the mods and criticise their work(given free of charge which allows this forum to exist).
I would still now not call for you to be banned, although it would be justified. Instead, you should reflect and apologise sincerely after realising, upon reflection, that you really ought to.
-
i think its gone far enough,david should be told any more cartoon goading or goading in general will result in a ban,lets move on with the topic
I have them both on ignore Sami, I held back from David, he told untruths about his rifle usage to NGB and Scipio but I never posted it.
-
You haven't apologised, certainly not sincerely. You don't then get to demand which rules are enforced and how vigorously. It is one thing having personal spats with other members but I am sure that every other member understands and agrees that personal attacks on the moderators are out of bounds.
You have yourself called for other members to be banned, including myself, previously for supposed insults to you. So you believe that banning members for hurting Steve's feelings is ok, but Steve should be allowed to personally insult the mods and criticise their work(given free of charge which allows this forum to exist).
I would still now not call for you to be banned, although it would be justified. Instead, you should reflect and apologise sincerely after realising, upon reflection, that you really ought to.
Your contribution to this site is negligible.
-
Your contribution to this site is negligible.
It's enough to have rattled your cage plenty of times but is beside the point. My contributions have never included personal criticism towards the mods and their work on the forum.
-
Jane's source worked on the case from day one - this other bloke didn't work on it at all.
Well, I'm not doubting Jane's claims on that. However, if this new ex officer is correct in his own claims, given where he's come from career-wise, it's a pretty damning endictment of EP on this case.
-
Well, I'm not doubting Jane's claims on that. However, if this new ex officer is correct in his own claims, given where he's come from career-wise, it's a pretty damning endictment of EP on this case.
Roch, I can understand how Jane feels, I had the privilege of talking to Bambers psychiatrist, NGB I know believes me because she is involved with something else in my life, I didn’t want to discuss names, but I was willing to share part what she said, because I came forward with this information, I just got goaded and ridiculed especially from David, I’ve learnt my lesson and I bet Jane has.
-
Well, I'm not doubting Jane's claims on that. However, if this new ex officer is correct in his own claims, given where he's come from career-wise, it's a pretty damning endictment of EP on this case.
It's just his opinion - he wasn't involved in the case and we don't know why he hold those thoughts.
-
Roch, I can understand how Jane feels, I had the privilege of talking to Bambers psychiatrist, NGB I know believes me because she is involved with something else in my life, I didn’t want to discuss names, but I was willing to share part what she said, because I came forward with this information, I just got goaded and ridiculed especially from David, I’ve learnt my lesson and I bet Jane has.
Why? He's the one that looks like the prize div! He's boasted about being in touch with various folk - why does he assume he is so special? Jane has lived in the area all her life. I know for a fact that she knows this person so David can swivel!
-
Met my match??? That was a joke ??? When you do as much behind the scenes as I do without living on a forum 24\7 I will look up to you
Unfortunately for you that’s never going to happen and no I don’t believe Janes secret policeman exists for obvious reasons
Believe me or not, you vicious troll. I'm NOT risking my friend's security by giving you the chance to stalk them. Frankly, I really don't give a toss, but the thought of you targeting innocent victims makes me sick. I'm perfectly certain that the decent posters on this forum will support my decision.
-
Believe me or not, you vicious troll. I'm NOT risking my friend's security by giving you the chance to stalk them. Frankly, I really don't give a toss, but the thought of you targeting innocent victims makes me sick. I'm perfectly certain that the decent posters on this forum will support my decision.
totally agree jane,theres no reason for you to name names.they can take or leave it
-
Believe me or not, you vicious troll. I'm NOT risking my friend's security by giving you the chance to stalk them. Frankly, I really don't give a toss, but the thought of you targeting innocent victims makes me sick. I'm perfectly certain that the decent posters on this forum will support my decision.
Already have Jane and I KNOW you're telling the truth! ;)
-
Believe me or not, you vicious troll. I'm NOT risking my friend's security by giving you the chance to stalk them. Frankly, I really don't give a toss, but the thought of you targeting innocent victims makes me sick. I'm perfectly certain that the decent posters on this forum will support my decision.
I know your telling the truth my friend 👍
-
I think the confusion is that someone who seemed like a recent member (because they had not previously posted) - had actually joined several years ago. They hadn't introduced themselves when they started posting - although they have now.
Is this in reference to me?
-
Is this in reference to me?
No Janet - defo not you.
-
No Janet - defo not you.
Oh okay..thank you.
-
I did try to get in touch with him yesterday as he's on Facebook . . .
Roy has his own youtube channel, so he could hardly be easier to contact.
-
Nobody has a copy of my passport so I assume it was sent in by ‘a policeman’
I repeat nobody has a copy of my passport so how worrying is that?
You seem to be contradicting yourself. If nobody has a copy, what was sent in must be a forgery, and hence isn't your passport, and wouldn't have the correct passport number or issue date anyway.
-
My friend's husband, a retired police officer who spent his entire working life with EP. and was one of those present, said from the off, that he was guilty. One cancels out the other.
Hardly. Anyone that closely involved couldn't be expected to reveal anything useful to the defence.
By the way, I've seen the opening episode of the ITV drama, and noticed that while some things were reasonably accurate on detail, others, such as the control room at Chelmsford police station and the exterior and surrounds of WHF, were grossly inaccurate. Only two policemen seemed to have turned up at WHF initially, with no third officer remaining in the patrol car.
-
Roch, I can understand how Jane feels, I had the privilege of talking to Bambers psychiatrist, NGB I know believes me because she is involved with something else in my life, I didn’t want to discuss names, but I was willing to share part what she said, because I came forward with this information, I just got goaded and ridiculed especially from David, I’ve learnt my lesson and I bet Jane has.
-
As for my cartoons and gifs. How many guilters complained or criticised me over this one?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg456443.html#msg456443 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg456443.html#msg456443)
None! Strange that. ::)
-
As for my cartoons and gifs. How many guilters complained or criticised me over this one?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg456443.html#msg456443 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg456443.html#msg456443)
None! Strange that. ::)
Absolute BS! You have been told time and time again about posting the RG gif!
-
I have them both on ignore Sami, I held back from David, he told untruths about his rifle usage to NGB and Scipio but I never posted it.
I used a Lee–Enfield when I was in the airforce cadets at age 14.
-
If Jane's source is to be believed, an officer who worked on the case could sense that Jeremy was lying during interviews. This Tyzack fellow seems to be advocating almost the opposite, ie that Essex Police have been dishonest and obstructive (while claiming to have cooperated). Oh to have been a fly on the wall regarding internal arguments eh.
Jane has claimed all sorts of connections to the case. Connections that she oddly never seemed to mention while she believed Jeremy was not guilty of murders.
We are supposed to believe that Jane spent 28 years believing the guy was innocent despite being "surrounded" by local witnesses who have nothing good to say about the guy. Then only to start believing the guy is guilty because of someone 300 miles away up north?
Something doesn't seem quite right there. ;D
-
what would airforce cadets be doing firing rifles,they are only issued with a sidearm a revolverwhen they are up in the air.cant see a 14yr old firing live rounds
-
what makes people change their minds you would never know
-
lets see if you get banned for todays goading by cartoon
-
what would airforce cadets be doing firing rifles,they are only issued with a sidearm a revolverwhen they are up in the air.cant see a 14yr old firing live rounds
True Sami, he told Scipio he had used other firearms and used them at his Grandads, yet he told NGB he had only used this one, now he says he used it at cadets?
I've used several rifles myself belonging to my granddad all manual they are not rocket science to work out
-
what would airforce cadets be doing firing rifles,they are only issued with a sidearm a revolverwhen they are up in the air.cant see a 14yr old firing live rounds
Why make us learn to use a rifle designed 100 years ago? I found it so pointless.
For some reason you had to become good at the Lee-Enfield till they let you use SA80. I didn't stay long enough for that.
-
It's just his opinion - he wasn't involved in the case and we don't know why he hold those thoughts.
It's not nothing. It's someone with ten years as a detective working major crimes, in the same force. If anything it's quite embarrassing for EP and for the original officers involved the prosecution. We don't know his reasons. However, for him to be so openly critical, and to reveal he internally argued the case using reason, suggests he had sufficient awareness of case facts to warrant such actions. The fact he has referred to a stubbornness among EP to listen to reason, suggests the case is very sensitive for EP and they obviously have something to hide or lose.
-
It's not nothing. It's someone with ten years as a detective working major crimes, in the same force. If anything it's quite embarrassing for EP and for the original officers involved the prosecution. We don't know his reasons. However, for him to be so openly critical, and to reveal he internally argued the case using reason, suggests he had sufficient awareness of case facts to warrant such actions. The fact he has referred to a stubbornness among EP to listen to reason, suggests the case is very sensitive for EP and they obviously have something to hide or lose.
Who is this we are talking about?
-
Who is this we are talking about?
A retired detective (Met & EP) has left a comment on change.Org, claiming he has had heated discussions inside EP, with regards to the Bamber case being one of the worst cases of UK injustice. Name is Tyzack.
-
Ha, ha!!!!!!!!!!! As much as you with your Twitter account? Go and wool pull some place else!
Jane's policeman is VERY real - how Warwick? ;D ;D ;D ::) ::)
Talk about double standards
Jane comes up with a mystery policeman in reply to an actual policeman
Not only that she is calling me a troll which is a banning affence
I am the one that is being trolled and I have every email and proof fact
Now you are trolling by trying to make out that Warwick Heslop does not exist
I see him at least 3 times a week
That is a fact
You are making a mockery of this whole forum
-
Jane has claimed all sorts of connections to the case. Connections that she oddly never seemed to mention while she believed Jeremy was not guilty of murders.
We are supposed to believe that Jane spent 28 years believing the guy was innocent despite being "surrounded" by local witnesses who have nothing good to say about the guy. Then only to start believing the guy is guilty because of someone 300 miles away up north?
Something doesn't seem quite right there. ;D
Exactly David excellent post
-
lets see if you get banned for todays goading by cartoon
No Jane will be banned for calling me a troll
-
You seem to be contradicting yourself. If nobody has a copy, what was sent in must be a forgery, and hence isn't your passport, and wouldn't have the correct passport number or issue date anyway.
Ngb says he has a copy of my passport but he won’t tell me where he got it
-
Roch, I can understand how Jane feels, I had the privilege of talking to Bambers psychiatrist, NGB I know believes me because she is involved with something else in my life, I didn’t want to discuss names, but I was willing to share part what she said, because I came forward with this information, I just got goaded and ridiculed especially from David, I’ve learnt my lesson and I bet Jane has.
Yes I get where you're coming from.
It was Mark Williams Thomas who remarked to me that the case is divisive or the case divides people. There are certainly people involved with the prison service who believe him guilty. There are some prisoners who have thought he was stitched up but as a guilty person. And obviously there are some who believe his innocence.
-
Yes I get weher you're coming from.
It was Mark Williams Thomas who remarked to me that the case is divisive or the case divides people. There are certainly people involved with the prison service who believe him guilty. There are some prisoners who have thought he was stitched up but as a guilty person. And obviously there are some who believe his innocence.
You mention the prison service but if you remember his category was downgraded very quickly for someone who had ‘killed so many people’
Albeit it put back to original category after complaints by the relatives
What do the prison service know to downgrade Jeremy so quickly
In conversations and emails with Mark he is absolutely convinced Sheila is responsible
It’s good that he is now in regular contact with Jeremy as he was previously treated really badly by the campaign team
-
A retired detective (Met & EP) has left a comment on change.Org, claiming he has had heated discussions inside EP, with regards to the Bamber case being one of the worst cases of UK injustice. Name is Tyzack.
Roy Tyzack
-
You mention the prison service but if you remember his category was downgraded very quickly for someone who had ‘killed so many people’
Albeit it put back to original category after complaints by the relatives
What do the prison service know to downgrade Jeremy so quickly
In conversations and emails with Mark he is absolutely convinced Sheila is responsible
It’s good that he is now in regular contact with Jeremy as he was previously treated really badly by the campaign team
I keep meaning to contact him about whether he will ever revisit the case. From the sounds of it though, there is some kind of block on any program that could aid the defence. Shocking really. Makes you wonder what type of country we actually live in.
-
Yes I get where you're coming from.
It was Mark Williams Thomas who remarked to me that the case is divisive or the case divides people. There are certainly people involved with the prison service who believe him guilty. There are some prisoners who have thought he was stitched up but as a guilty person. And obviously there are some who believe his innocence.
Roch you have always been a respected poster and I do listen to you, we’ve had our arguments, but I respect you more than anything because you don’t bear grudge and move on, we’ve all been up and down and there isn’t any defining line and we all look at it different which is good for debate.
-
I keep meaning to contact him about whether he will ever revisit the case. From the sounds of it though, there is some kind of block on any program that could aid the defence. Shocking really. Makes you wonder what type of country we actually live in.
You need to contact him
Have you got his mobile number ?
-
You need to contact him
Have you got his mobile number ?
I have his number but I would have to check if I can pass it on or you could contact him through his pr company
-
Roch you have always been a respected poster and I do listen to you, we’ve had our arguments, but I respect you more than anything because you don’t bear grudge and move on, we’ve all been up and down and there isn’t any defining line and we all look at it different which is good for debate.
Thanks for your positive views there RJ. The feeling is mutual. Its difficult not to get caught up in biting on here. But whoever manages to restrain themselves deserves an award. I think Reader has been very successful at remaining calm over the years.
-
I have his number but I would have to check if I can pass it on or you could contact him through his pr company
I think I would just contact him via an email address. I used to have one for him.
-
DEFINITION OF TROLLING
Trolling is the act of creating discord by deliberately starting quarrels or upsetting people by posting inflammatory comments. Trolling is saying something to deliberately get a rise from others. Those who practice the act of trolling are trolls.
This may be a perfect description of JACKIE (whatever it is she's calling herself now), in fact, the author of it MAY have had her in mind when they wrote it.
I can't be the only one here who notices that debate flows comfortably and without any nastiness UNTIL you disrupt it. There may be something in your psychology that can't bear to see harmony and causes you to create discord. Only days ago you couldn't post without calling on NGB to back you up. and intimating to the forum how close you were to him. NOW, for reasons best known to yourself, the poor man, like many more of us, is being treated to you viper-like tongue and it's venom. Not for the life of me can I believe that he has your passport -unless you've sent it to him and I wouldn't put it past you- and I fail to see why you believe yourself to be of such worth that anyone else -other than perhaps the police?- would wish to see you picture, which, if anything like the way you present yourself as being here, would make look beautiful, Shakespeare's three ladies working at their cauldron.
I feel perfectly certain that revealing almost ANY of your past posts will see you out-troll any who went before, or any who will follow.
-
This is becoming hilarious!!! It's now become a 'fight' between Tyzack who wasn't there, and thinks he's innocent, and 'Bloggs' who was, and saw something very different from what Mike has claimed, and thinks he's guilty. Well, folks, as of this moment, 'Bloggs' is in the lead, Jeremy is in prison. However, I'd remind you that the decision to charge him was never down to 'Bloggs', he wasn't asked -although I can see that there are those torn between denying his existence and calling him a liar- it was down to those WAY above his pay grade.
-
DEFINITION OF TROLLING
Trolling is the act of creating discord by deliberately starting quarrels or upsetting people by posting inflammatory comments. Trolling is saying something to deliberately get a rise from others. Those who practice the act of trolling are trolls.
This may be a perfect description of JACKIE (whatever it is she's calling herself now), in fact, the author of it MAY have had her in mind when they wrote it.
I can't be the only one here who notices that debate flows comfortably and without any nastiness UNTIL you disrupt it. There may be something in your psychology that can't bear to see harmony and causes you to create discord. Only days ago you couldn't post without calling on NGB to back you up. and intimating to the forum how close you were to him. NOW, for reasons best known to yourself, the poor man, like many more of us, is being treated to you viper-like tongue and it's venom. Not for the life of me can I believe that he has your passport -unless you've sent it to him and I wouldn't put it past you- and I fail to see why you believe yourself to be of such worth that anyone else -other than perhaps the police?- would wish to see you picture, which, if anything like the way you present yourself as being here, would make look beautiful, Shakespeare's three ladies working at their cauldron.
I feel perfectly certain that revealing almost ANY of your past posts will see you out-troll any who went before, or any who will follow.
That is you looking in the mirror
I am not surprised of your hatred of me being ‘friends’ of the family
I am going to get a number of your trolling posts together and put them on the forum
And the slagging off of MWT
And saying I made up Warwick Heslop
You will have too eat your words
Plus your bad language
I will also show your posts being rude to David ILB and anyone who supports Jeremy
Let’s see the facts as written by you
We will
-
That is you looking in the mirror
I am not surprised of your hatred of me being ‘friends’ of the family
I am going to get a number of your trolling posts together and put them on the forum
And the slagging off of MWT
And saying I made up Warwick Heslop
You will have too eat your words
Plus your bad language
I will also show your posts being rude to David ILB and anyone who supports Jeremy
Let’s see the facts as written by you
We will
you and david are the trolls.all your and his posts today have been trolling ones,you only come on here to slag off members who thing jb is guilty.so what if your friends with jb,who would want a convicted mass murderer as a friends,people like you ,so very sad
-
DEFINITION OF TROLLING
Trolling is the act of creating discord by deliberately starting quarrels or upsetting people by posting inflammatory comments. Trolling is saying something to deliberately get a rise from others. Those who practice the act of trolling are trolls.
This may be a perfect description of JACKIE (whatever it is she's calling herself now), in fact, the author of it MAY have had her in mind when they wrote it.
I can't be the only one here who notices that debate flows comfortably and without any nastiness UNTIL you disrupt it. There may be something in your psychology that can't bear to see harmony and causes you to create discord. Only days ago you couldn't post without calling on NGB to back you up. and intimating to the forum how close you were to him. NOW, for reasons best known to yourself, the poor man, like many more of us, is being treated to you viper-like tongue and it's venom. Not for the life of me can I believe that he has your passport -unless you've sent it to him and I wouldn't put it past you- and I fail to see why you believe yourself to be of such worth that anyone else -other than perhaps the police?- would wish to see you picture, which, if anything like the way you present yourself as being here, would make look beautiful, Shakespeare's three ladies working at their cauldron.
I feel perfectly certain that revealing almost ANY of your past posts will see you out-troll any who went before, or any who will follow.
excellent post jane,quite true
-
Where have I said I am friends with JB
Fact Sami
Date and time or I will take it you are trolling and just trying to cause trouble again
And yes my blood pressure is fine
-
That is you looking in the mirror
I am not surprised of your hatred of me being ‘friends’ of the family
I am going to get a number of your trolling posts together and put them on the forum
And the slagging off of MWT
And saying I made up Warwick Heslop
You will have too eat your words
Plus your bad language
I will also show your posts being rude to David ILB and anyone who supports Jeremy
Let’s see the facts as written by you
We will
Is your psychiatrist pleased with your improvement or has given up?
-
Is your psychiatrist pleased with your improvement or has given up?
Trolling
-
Trolling
Reflecting the traits you're exhibiting.
-
The only important person at this time is Jeremy and proving he is innocent. He has made promises to me and I believe in him however much people would like to think we have fallen out or I don't do things which are in Jeremys interest.
If anyone is in any doubt of our friendship please feel free to write or email Jeremy today. I have never let him down and I never will
Jackiepreece. September 15, 2011, 11:15:AM »
-
The only important person at this time is Jeremy and proving he is innocent. He has made promises to me and I believe in him however much people would like to think we have fallen out or I don't do things which are in Jeremys interest.
If anyone is in any doubt of our friendship please feel free to write or email Jeremy today. I have never let him down and I never will
Jackiepreece. September 15, 2011, 11:15:AM »
So Sami isn’t trolling!
-
Well this is embarrassing. This stupid argument has been going on for pages now. There might be people reading who are actually interested in the case, but all they see is this nonsense.
-
The only important person at this time is Jeremy and proving he is innocent. He has made promises to me and I believe in him however much people would like to think we have fallen out or I don't do things which are in Jeremys interest.
If anyone is in any doubt of our friendship please feel free to write or email Jeremy today. I have never let him down and I never will
Jackiepreece. September 15, 2011, 11:15:AM »
RJ, thank-you. I understand, from a variety of those who have contacted Jeremy, that he's very practiced at avoiding those questions he'd rather not answer, and dumping those he has no further use for. From where he is, it's easy to make promises. There are many ways in which we can let each other down if our needs cease to gel.
-
well it wasnt started by anyone who thinks jb is guilty,jackie has come on this morning not to discuss topics but to slag people off for last nights posts,even though ive said lots of time ,lets move on she refuses to
-
Jane has claimed all sorts of connections to the case. Connections that she oddly never seemed to mention while she believed Jeremy was not guilty of murders.
We are supposed to believe that Jane spent 28 years believing the guy was innocent despite being "surrounded" by local witnesses who have nothing good to say about the guy. Then only to start believing the guy is guilty because of someone 300 miles away up north?
Something doesn't seem quite right there. ;D
You think repeating you be will make it true but the fact is, all it serves is to fuel the likes of the crazy element of which you now belong. You used to be a good poster David, now you’re just an immature idiot. No matter what rubbish you keep posting, you won’t alter the FACT that Jane knows someone who was involved in the case from day one and no one cares whether you believe it or not - you’re not relevant.
-
You think repeating you be will make it true but the fact is, all it serves is to fuel the likes of the crazy element of which you now belong. You used to be a good poster David, now you’re just an immature idiot. No matter what rubbish you keep posting, you won’t alter the FACT that Jane knows someone who was involved in the case from day one and no one cares whether you believe it or not - you’re not relevant.
It seems he and Jackie have joined forces with one aim in mind. Provocation for their own amusement, otherwise known as trolling. They're both wasting their time.
-
It seems he and Jackie have joined forces with one aim in mind. Provocation for their own amusement, otherwise known as trolling. They're both wasting their time.
just childish jane,spoils the excellent discussions both sides have on the topics
-
It seems he and Jackie have joined forces with one aim in mind. Provocation for their own amusement, otherwise known as trolling. They're both wasting their time.
They deserve each other.
-
I've said it before, but the tag-teaming between three or four people is what's causing the disruption.
-
You think repeating you be will make it true but the fact is, all it serves is to fuel the likes of the crazy element of which you now belong. You used to be a good poster David, now you’re just an immature idiot. No matter what rubbish you keep posting, you won’t alter the FACT that Jane knows someone who was involved in the case from day one and no one cares whether you believe it or not - you’re not relevant.
Geez.. take it easy on the projection.
-
I've said it before, but the tag-teaming between three or four people is what's causing the disruption.
So are you advocating those who think he's guilty sit back and allow themselves to be continuously ridiculed and attacked?
-
So are you advocating those who think he's guilty sit back and allow themselves to be continuously ridiculed and attacked?
There's no need for all the other "guilters" to join in and slag someone off to each other.
-
team tagging is going on because the trolls dont learn their lesson,try and be polite when answering each others posts .if you cant than expect other decent members to pull you up on your remarks,i dont follow anyone but will reply to any insult or goading done to a fellow member.thats the way i am,also makes goaders think twice before posting
-
There's no need for all the other "guilters" to join in and slag someone off to each other.
Oh! Right! So the one -the anti-Bamber- who's being attacked has to sit back and accept it?
-
There's no need for all the other "guilters" to join in and slag someone off to each other.
Agreed Kaldin, others should butt out when an argument/discussion is between just 2 people.
-
It solves nothing and only creates hostilities. Like Trump interfering in Iran !
-
There's no need for all the other "guilters" to join in and slag someone off to each other.
Sorry - I don’t see you criticisms of Jackie when she joins in - depends what side you’re on to what you find acceptable doesn’t it Kaldin? ::)
-
Agreed Kaldin, others should butt out when an argument/discussion is between just 2 people.
Lookout, are you saying it's FINE for two supporters to provoke one detractor, but no other detractors should lend their voice to it?
-
So Sami isn’t trolling!
2011 and anyone is quite welcome to write to him and ask about me
I am sure he will give a polite answer
I will always continue to support him
We have spoken many times on the phone and by letter but I have never asked to meet him
How funny RJ (friend of the relatives) that you have to go back to 2011 to bring up a post about Jeremy and I And yet I get attacked for bringing up the old ridiculous posts of Caroline attacking people when she thought he was guilty
Your posts continue not to be impartial and a joke
I will help you out and drag out a few posts from Caroline this afternoon
-
RJ, thank-you. I understand, from a variety of those who have contacted Jeremy, that he's very practiced at avoiding those questions he'd rather not answer, and dumping those he has no further use for. From where he is, it's easy to make promises. There are many ways in which we can let each other down if our needs cease to gel.
He has never dodged a single question from me and these questions have been taken off this forum Fact
-
Geez.. take it easy on the projection.
Look - David learned a new word from Steph and has done it to death ever since. You’re like a sponge soaking up the ideas of others and passing them off as your own. Do tell us again when you became knowledgeable about the case - aww sorry. I forgot, that depends on who your talking to. ::)
-
You think repeating you be will make it true but the fact is, all it serves is to fuel the likes of the crazy element of which you now belong. You used to be a good poster David, now you’re just an immature idiot. No matter what rubbish you keep posting, you won’t alter the FACT that Jane knows someone who was involved in the case from day one and no one cares whether you believe it or not - you’re not relevant.
Course she does
-
2011 and anyone is quite welcome to write to him and ask about me
I am sure he will give a polite answer
I will always continue to support him
We have spoken many times on the phone and by letter but I have never asked to meet him
How funny RJ (friend of the relatives) that you have to go back to 2011 to bring up a post about Jeremy and I And yet I get attacked for bringing up the old ridiculous posts of Caroline attacking people when she thought he was guilty
Your posts continue not to be impartial and a joke
I will help you out and drag out a few posts from Caroline this afternoon
I'll put money on your's being of way more interest. People in glass houses?
-
I've said it before, but the tag-teaming between three or four people is what's causing the disruption.
Thank you Kaldin it’s a gang
-
Lookout, are you saying it's FINE for two supporters to provoke one detractor, but no other detractors should lend their voice to it?
Look, I don't know what's gone on and don't much care either but the damn forum is becoming a battleground where you can't even post now without being in the crossfire of some argument or other.
Just walk away for God's sake and don't join in !!
-
2011 and anyone is quite welcome to write to him and ask about me
I am sure he will give a polite answer
I will always continue to support him
We have spoken many times on the phone and by letter but I have never asked to meet him
How funny RJ (friend of the relatives) that you have to go back to 2011 to bring up a post about Jeremy and I And yet I get attacked for bringing up the old ridiculous posts of Caroline attacking people when she thought he was guilty
Your posts continue not to be impartial and a joke
I will help you out and drag out a few posts from Caroline this afternoon
Anything to say about this Kaldin?
-
Course she does
'Course I do.
-
Look, I don't know what's gone on and don't much care either but the damn forum is becoming a battleground where you can't even post now without being in the crossfire of some argument or other.
Just walk away for God's sake and don't join in !!
Jane wasn’t even online when those two idiots decided to slag her off.
-
team tagging is going on because the trolls dont learn their lesson,try and be polite when answering each others posts .if you cant than expect other decent members to pull you up on your remarks,i dont follow anyone but will reply to any insult or goading done to a fellow member.thats the way i am,also makes goaders think twice before posting
You're not replying to goading half the time though, you're slating the "goader" to your mates. Three or four of you do it a lot - can't you see that?
-
Thank you Kaldin it’s a gang
And you’re an immature old troll.
-
Anything to say about this Kaldin?
RJ started in, I have made my position clear many times on Jeremy and now I am being attacked for being his ‘friend’
-
your a fine one to talk ,youre quiet as a mouse when the other side dish it out,
-
Look, I don't know what's gone on and don't much care either but the damn forum is becoming a battleground where you can't even post now without being in the crossfire of some argument or other.
Just walk away for God's sake and don't join in !!
And they'll STILL carry on doing it. That's what trolls do. Perhaps they'll listen to you, Lookout, as you're all supporters.
-
RJ started in, I have made my position clear many times on Jeremy and now I am being attacked for being his ‘friend’
rrrrr you poor thing is the boot on the other foot
-
Jane wasn’t even online when those two idiots decided to slag her off.
Any need for you to answer my post ?? ::) Like I said, I don't know what's gone on and I don't care either. I obviously wasn't posting when whatever it was had kicked off. I refuse to be drawn into something that doesn't concern me.
-
It solves nothing and only creates hostilities. Like Trump interfering in Iran !
(https://giant.gfycat.com/HelplessBaggyAmericanbittern.gif)
-
I was more interested in reading about all the discrepancies ( some of which I noticed ) in the programme.
-
RJ started in, I have made my position clear many times on Jeremy and now I am being attacked for being his ‘friend’
That's your perpetual "get out of jail free" card, isn't it? Your opener for beginning your attack is always that you're being attacked, OR that someone has said something -actually, they haven't but you don't let that stop you- it just gives you free rein to spit lies and venom. It's unhinged behaviour.
-
Walk away ::) Or do what I'm doing-----ordering Scott Lomax's latest book, a paperback @ £14.99.
-
Walk away ::) Or do what I'm doing-----ordering Scott Lomax's latest book, a paperback @ £14.99.
excellent choice lookout,ive not read it but others have said its good
-
RJ started in, I have made my position clear many times on Jeremy and now I am being attacked for being his ‘friend’
So you just thought you would drag me into it? No one cares about your passed friendship - I know I certainly don’t!
-
Walk away ::) Or do what I'm doing-----ordering Scott Lomax's latest book, a paperback @ £14.99.
What’s it about?
-
What’s it about?
i think its what the title is,walk away,help with self control book , i think
-
Hello lookout I got Colin's book yesterday not started reading it yet as I am half way thru a Barbara Erskine book must finish that first. Did not know SL had a new book out. Just ordered it I will be reading non stop now Lol
-
i think its what the title is,walk away,help with self control book , i think
Ok ta! :)
-
What’s it about?
It appears to be more up to date as a follow-up from his original book since more information became available. I gather he's in touch with the legal side of the CT team by his remark--- quote," Every aspect of the prosecution's case can be dismantled "unquote.
-
It appears to be more up to date as a follow-up from his original book since more information became available. I gather he's in touch with the legal side of the CT team by his remark--- quote," Every aspect of the prosecution's case can be dismantled "unquote.
OK - cheers Lookout.
-
Hi sami
glad to hear that as I have bought quite a few Bamber murder case books and could not get interested in any of them. Books ended up at the Charity shop probably still there as this case is not that well known in these parts x
-
I should have been cheeky and asked him if this one is signed like his other book was.
-
It appears to be more up to date as a follow-up from his original book since more information became available. I gather he's in touch with the legal side of the CT team by his remark--- quote," Every aspect of the prosecution's case can be dismantled "unquote.
Can anyone provide a link? I can't find it.
-
Can anyone provide a link? I can't find it.
His book is on Amazon, Roch.
-
His book is on Amazon, Roch.
Lookout, it doesn't say it's an updated version?
-
Hi lookout Caroline says it is not an updated version :) Thank you Caroline.
-
I'll judge for myself when it arrives Susan, too late to cancel it.
-
I'll judge for myself when it arrives Susan, too late to cancel it.
its never too late ,lookout :)
-
I'll judge for myself when it arrives Susan, too late to cancel it.
If it’s not up to standard Lookout, let me know I will take it round to his house and return it for you 👍
-
If it’s not up to standard Lookout, let me know I will take it round to his house and return it for you 👍
He's in Derbyshire I think ? Book will be with me on Wednesday-----I'm renowned for throwing my money away :o
-
He's in Derbyshire I think ? Book will be with me on Wednesday-----I'm renowned for throwing my money away :o
i hope you havnt wasted any by sending it to jb
-
He's in Derbyshire I think ? Book will be with me on Wednesday-----I'm renowned for throwing my money away :o
He lives, as the crow fly’s about 2 or 2.5 miles from me Lookout, unless he’s moved recently. He studied at Sheffield.
-
He lives, as the crow fly’s about 2 or 2.5 miles from me Lookout, unless he’s moved recently. He studied at Sheffield.
My late pa-in-law's family came from Sheffield.
-
Lookout don't worry you can send it back and get a full refund x
-
My late pa-in-law's family came from Sheffield.
Very nice Lookout, I’m about 10 mile from Sheffield, Meadowhall is nice for shopping and we’re right on the edge of the Peak District. Scott Lomax wrote a book on unsolved murders in Derbyshire, I wanted to read it so I might get it, I’m interested in one case he writes about, Barbara Mayo, some have linked her killing to the Bakewell killing Wendy Sewell ( Stephen Downing) but Scott Lomax doesn’t believe they are linked.
-
Jackie, these people are all petty. They just cannot take another opinion that differs to their own. Not one person has managed to overcome me in any shape or form since I've been posting on here. They can't offer sensible reply. They have to go down the route of personal insults. Rise above these lonely people
-
:)) :)) :))
-
:)) :)) :))
you can laugh rule 43, but it's true pal
-
:)) :)) :)) :))
-
Jackie, these people are all petty. They just cannot take another opinion that differs to their own. Not one person has managed to overcome me in any shape or form since I've been posting on here. They can't offer sensible reply. They have to go down the route of personal insults. Rise above these lonely people
Your conceit knows no bounds. You have offered NOTHING in your posts of evidential value during your brief time on this site.
-
Your conceit knows no bounds. You have offered NOTHING in your posts of evidential value during your brief time on this site.
It just shows, there has been no arguing and up pops someone from the innocent camp and tries to wind Sami up, well done Sami for not retaliation
-
It just shows, there has been no arguing and up pops someone from the innocent camp and tries to wind Sami up, well done Sami for not retaliation
thanks rj :)
-
It just shows, there has been no arguing and up pops someone from the innocent camp and tries to wind Sami up, well done Sami for not retaliation
Not surprised.
-
lets pray jackie does not see it ,cause if she does it will kick off again :)) :))
-
Your conceit knows no bounds. You have offered NOTHING in your posts of evidential value during your brief time on this site.
you have offered nothing to contradict me steph
-
Your conceit knows no bounds. You have offered NOTHING in your posts of evidential value during your brief time on this site.
what's the evidence against Bamber steph? What do I need to contradict?
-
hes pissed as usual,cant even pronounce the name right :)) :)) :))
-
what's the evidence against Bamber steph? What do I need to contradict?
Gossip in Pizza Hut and rumours from the Frog and Beans.
-
hes pissed as usual,cant even pronounce the name right :)) :)) :))
completely wrong.
-
oh shit hes woke up
-
oh well from the drama I don't like Jeremy or anne, both cocky little shits imo
-
oh well from the drama I don't like Jeremy or anne, both cocky little shits imo
Deffo don't like little Jones. Evil little shit.
-
A pity the second episode cut short Stan Jones upstairs at WHF. Trying to work out how Sheila could have done it.
Surely Taff was not as bad as being made out. However EP should have tried to do a detailed reconstruction of how Sheila committed the massacre. Based on the crime scene evidence. They would have realised Sheila could not have done it.
They should have also checked the windows in more detail. To see if any could be secured from outside. Which would not be unusual.
Nevill calling Jeremy is also totally daft.
-
Deffo don't like little Jones. Evil little shit.
:)) :)) :))bet the other one was like that in real life.god bless him .musnt talk badly of the dead
-
I don't much care for the slimy Stan either. See how he's getting AE on-side ? Right up his street.
-
I don't much care for the slimy Stan either. See how he's getting AE on-side ? Right up his street.
its the whisky lookout :)
-
I bet those that are watching it are all screaming at the tv 'it wasn't like that and I didn't say that; lol
-
its the whisky lookout :)
See his lack of respect/manners in the mortuary ? He was about to light a cigarette. Sheesh.
-
I don't much care for the slimy Stan either. See how he's getting AE on-side ? Right up his street.
He puts it across as a decent, thoughtful guy who looks beyond the obvious and didn't treat people like he knew best. Yeh. I can see why you wouldn't like him
-
See his lack of respect/manners in the mortuary ? He was about to light a cigarette. Sheesh.
There wasn't a universal smoking ban back then.
-
There wasn't a universal smoking ban back then.
There is in a mortuary because of chemicals.
-
There is in a mortuary because of chemicals.
iam sure he can be forgiven considering the situation.i know i would faint not long after the first incision :)) :)) :))
-
There is in a mortuary because of chemicals.
In which case he'd either never previously been in one or other pathologists never insisted.
-
In which case he'd either never previously been in one or other pathologists never insisted.
His own common sense should have told him.
-
His own common sense should have told him.
yes but that was tainted by the whisky :)
-
His own common sense should have told him.
Why? It may have been something he'd always done.
-
yes but that was tainted by the whisky :)
Yes, an addled brain.
-
Nothing should cloud the judgement in a job like that.
-
Nothing should cloud the judgement in a job like that.
especially a round of golf
-
Any comments on the wounds they portrayed on nevilles arms saying done with rifle butt ? They were gouges and there would have been blood and skin and flesh on the rifle , but there wasn’t ?
Also the burns ? They seemed to think they had been done at the time of the crime ? Not sure that was established ?
Bad portrayal of the window situation I think . Not what Barlow said when he went to test it. And it never would have come up in appeal if that was that simple.
-
Any comments on the wounds they portrayed on nevilles arms saying done with rifle butt ? They were gouges and there would have been blood and skin and flesh on the rifle , but there wasn’t ?
Also the burns ? They seemed to think they had been done at the time of the crime ? Not sure that was established ?
Bad portrayal of the window situation I think . Not what Barlow said when he went to test it. And it never would have come up in appeal if that was that simple.
i think it was shown that the marks were not fresh cause they showed signs of the healing process
-
Any comments on the wounds they portrayed on nevilles arms saying done with rifle butt ? They were gouges and there would have been blood and skin and flesh on the rifle , but there wasn’t ?
Also the burns ? They seemed to think they had been done at the time of the crime ? Not sure that was established ?
Bad portrayal of the window situation I think . Not what Barlow said when he went to test it. And it never would have come up in appeal if that was that simple.
42.
The examination of Nevill Bamber's body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head.
Linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back.
The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.
-
42.
The examination of Nevill Bamber's body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head.
Linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back.
The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.
Did you watch the programme?
-
Any comments on the wounds they portrayed on nevilles arms saying done with rifle butt ? They were gouges and there would have been blood and skin and flesh on the rifle , but there wasn’t ?
Also the burns ? They seemed to think they had been done at the time of the crime ? Not sure that was established ?
Bad portrayal of the window situation I think . Not what Barlow said when he went to test it. And it never would have come up in appeal if that was that simple.
That is how Venezis described the wounds.
As for the window, once again, you need to remember that it's a drama - it actually states that some scenes have been created.
-
AE & SJ mentioned Nevill's phone call.
Saw old news footage which says Nevill Bamber phoned his son. Would have thought most of the viewers would have said 'eh' ? A pity the police didn't.
-
The Telegraph is saying that the series is " oddly artificial "--------how right they are !. It's quite excruciating to watch at times and so very amateurish with yet more inaccuracies ( AE had suggested the dog going to the vet, not JB who stood around while the vet put it to sleep ! ! )
-
Well if last nights episode did nothing else, it stirred the minds of the animal rights airheads when Crispy was put to sleep ! What a disgusting lie that was but obviously done to add sensationalism to stop viewers from falling asleep !
-
Well if last nights episode did nothing else, it stirred the minds of the animal rights airheads when Crispy was put to sleep ! What a disgusting lie that was but obviously done to add sensationalism to stop viewers from falling asleep !
DID he not have Crispy put down? Wasn't there something about the dog and Jeremy's expensive electrical 'stuff'. Perhaps he was afraid the dog would pee on it?
-
DID he not have Crispy put down? Wasn't there something about the dog and Jeremy's expensive electrical 'stuff'. Perhaps he was afraid the dog would pee on it?
The vet appointment was suggested by AE. The dog was taken to the vet, not put down there and then for everyone's enjoyment !
-
The vet appointment was suggested by AE. The dog was taken to the vet, not put down there and then for everyone's enjoyment !
Your concept of enjoyment, and what you believe others enjoy, is vastly different from my own.
-
Your concept of enjoyment, and what you believe others enjoy, is vastly different from my own.
I actually thought that what was played out was an utter disgrace though purposely done for the benefit of all animal lovers-----the enjoyment would be with all the guilters who'd use that particular scene to your advantage.
-
I actually thought that what was played out was an utter disgrace though purposely done for the benefit of all animal lovers-----the enjoyment would be with all the guilters who'd use that particular scene to your advantage.
I perfectly certain it would have raised a sneer from your mouth. Personally, I found it heartbreaking.
-
I perfectly certain it would have raised a sneer from your mouth. Personally, I found it heartbreaking.
I turned my head if you must know and couldn't believe that the so-called film company would have the sick mentality to film something like that, albeit a barefaced lie to boot in order to make JB look like a monster. I' was appalled.
How dare you say I sneered----though I fully expect the likes of you to come out with something horrific.
-
I turned my head if you must know and couldn't believe that the so-called film company would have the sick mentality to film something like that, albeit a barefaced lie to boot in order to make JB look like a monster. I' was appalled.
How dare you say I sneered----though I fully expect the likes of you to come out with something horrific.
Oh! So NOW we're going into a contest to see who suffered most profoundly, are we. How bloody childish. Play on your own.
-
Oh! So NOW we're going into a contest to see who suffered most profoundly, are we. How bloody childish. Play on your own.
Oooooh, you don't like being told do you ? You started it, as per.
-
Oooooh, you don't like being told do you ? You started it, as per.
And you do??????!!!!!!!!!!!! Have you ever taken responsibility for getting it wrong or have you always blamed someone else?
-
And you do??????!!!!!!!!!!!! Have you ever taken responsibility for getting it wrong or have you always blamed someone else?
That's right, do what you do best------redirect the argument to something entirely different ::)
-
And you do??????!!!!!!!!!!!! Have you ever taken responsibility for getting it wrong or have you always blamed someone else?
That's right, do what you do best------redirect the argument to something entirely different ::)
You're doing it again. I repeat. HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY FOR GETTING IT WRONG OR HAVE YOU ALWAYS BLAMED SOMEONE ELSE? It seems to me that you've become so practiced that it's perfectly plausible that you may have caused the wrong people to be accused of your own misdeeds, perhaps even causing them to lose their jobs because of it?
-
The vet appointment was suggested by AE. The dog was taken to the vet, not put down there and then for everyone's enjoyment !
Is that a fact Lookout if it is I will take it up with the film company
-
Is that a fact Lookout if it is I will take it up with the film company
OMG. They must be shaking in in their shoes :)) :)) :))
-
You're doing it again. I repeat. HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY FOR GETTING IT WRONG OR HAVE YOU ALWAYS BLAMED SOMEONE ELSE? It seems to me that you've become so practiced that it's perfectly plausible that you may have caused the wrong people to be accused of your own misdeeds, perhaps even causing them to lose their jobs because of it?
Oooh, shouting now ::)
-
Is that a fact Lookout if it is I will take it up with the film company
Jackie, neither AE nor Jeremy wanted the dog so it was AE who'd suggested the vet. Jeremy didn't take it so presumably AE did.
-
If guilters had anything about them they'd have piped up with the right answer but as predicted, it wasn't mentioned along with other inaccuracies, unless it was in their favour.
The filming was obviously part of the " gossip " that CAL said she would add !
-
If guilters had anything about them they'd have piped up with the right answer but as predicted, it wasn't mentioned along with other inaccuracies, unless it was in their favour.
The filming was obviously part of the " gossip " that CAL said she would add !
As yet, I've not seen an "inaccuracy" which makes a hap'th of difference, other than to give supporters something to criticize.
-
Well if last nights episode did nothing else, it stirred the minds of the animal rights airheads when Crispy was put to sleep ! What a disgusting lie that was but obviously done to add sensationalism to stop viewers from falling asleep !
Regardless whether or not he was present, it was down to him that the dog was put down. Not pretty is it?
-
Regardless whether or not he was present, it was down to him that the dog was put down. Not pretty is it?
AE hadn't wanted it don't forget.
-
The Telegraph is saying that the series is " oddly artificial "--------how right they are !. It's quite excruciating to watch at times and so very amateurish with yet more inaccuracies ( AE had suggested the dog going to the vet, not JB who stood around while the vet put it to sleep ! ! )
Soak up the negativities Lookout. Of course it’s artificial - it’s a drama ::)
-
AE hadn't wanted it don't forget.
Crispy wasn’t Ann’s responsibility - he was Jeremy’s - his murdered mother’s pet!
-
Jackie, neither AE nor Jeremy wanted the dog so it was AE who'd suggested the vet. Jeremy didn't take it so presumably AE did.
His responsibility - not hers.
-
If guilters had anything about them they'd have piped up with the right answer but as predicted, it wasn't mentioned along with other inaccuracies, unless it was in their favour.
The filming was obviously part of the " gossip " that CAL said she would add !
Did the dog get put down Lookout? Was the dog Jeremy’s mother’s and therefore his responsibility? Where did CAL mention gossip?
-
His responsibility - not hers.
They are reacting on Twitter about poor Crispy being put down by Bamber 👍
Tonight, viewers were left saddened by another scene in particular this evening which saw the family dog put down.
They took to Twitter to express their feelings over the hard-to-watch moment.
One viewer shared: “On an unrelated note, i just started sobbing because the dog on #WhiteHouseFarm was pretending to be put down, how’s your Wednesday going."
-
Crispy wasn’t Ann’s responsibility - he was Jeremy’s - his murdered mother’s pet!
It would have appeared that everything else had been her responsibility so why not the dog ? I suppose her suggestion of having it put to sleep ( she didn't like the dog either ) could have been counted towards responsibility-----nothing wrong with the Labrador though who'd been re-homed.
-
They are reacting on Twitter about poor Crispy being put down by Bamber 👍
Tonight, viewers were left saddened by another scene in particular this evening which saw the family dog put down.
They took to Twitter to express their feelings over the hard-to-watch moment.
One viewer shared: “On an unrelated note, i just started sobbing because the dog on #WhiteHouseFarm was pretending to be put down, how’s your Wednesday going."
https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/WhiteHouseFarm?src=hashtag_click
The papers have been on about the free Jeremy loonies trying to influx twitter 😂😂😂
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/WhiteHouseFarm?src=hashtag_click
The papers have been on about the free Jeremy loonies trying to influx twitter 😂😂😂
Here’s a interesting one, Boozy probably knows him as well 🙈
w this thread
Max Hood
@godwontlikethis
·
8 Jan
#WhiteHouseFarm I know Bamber. I was on the same wing in Full Sutton. Bamber is guilty. Neville took a beating, fought for his life. There is no way a slightly built Sheila could have overpowered him or aimed a rifle with silencer in confined space
? 🌈
@Rufuss_19
·
16h
Kills his family... Aw that’s awful, such a shame 🤷🏼???
Kills the family dog ...NO! NO! NO! NO! YOU SICK BASTARD!! WHY
-
AE took the dog to the vet---it wasn't put to sleep as has been portrayed.
This was after police had taken the dog to JB's house and where both AE and JB had said they didn't want it.
-
AE took the dog to the vet---it wasn't put to sleep as has been portrayed.
This was after police had taken the dog to JB's house and where both AE and JB had said they didn't want it.
Proof
-
AE took the dog to the vet---it wasn't put to sleep as has been portrayed.
This was after police had taken the dog to JB's house and where both AE and JB had said they didn't want it.
Would the dog's death have have worked out different if it showed that cowardly Jeremy wasn't actually present? Or would the dog still be dead? Read the header at the beginning of the drama Lookout - some scenes have been changed! However, the outcome is the same - Crispy died because Jeremy coulldnt even look after his mothers pet - his responsibility - not Ann's.
-
Here’s a interesting one, Boozy probably knows him as well 🙈
w this thread
Max Hood
@godwontlikethis
·
8 Jan
#WhiteHouseFarm I know Bamber. I was on the same wing in Full Sutton. Bamber is guilty. Neville took a beating, fought for his life. There is no way a slightly built Sheila could have overpowered him or aimed a rifle with silencer in confined space
? 🌈
@Rufuss_19
·
16h
Kills his family... Aw that’s awful, such a shame 🤷🏼???
Kills the family dog ...NO! NO! NO! NO! YOU SICK BASTARD!! WHY
I doubt a silencer was used. Nevill's ability to defend himself would have been significantly reduced, by the amount of pain he felt after receiving the first shot.
-
Proof
You could begin by asking NGB if he can refresh his memory as to whether it was AE who took Crispy to the vet.
-
Jackie, neither AE nor Jeremy wanted the dog so it was AE who'd suggested the vet. Jeremy didn't take it so presumably AE did.
Typical so the programme continues to be a joke
-
You could begin by asking NGB if he can refresh his memory as to whether it was AE who took Crispy to the vet.
It was Ann but who do you think asked her?
-
Typical so the programme continues to be a joke
Factual drama ??? not
-
I doubt a silencer was used. Nevill's ability to defend himself would have been significantly reduced, by the amount of pain he felt after receiving the first shot.
Probably like Sheila’s ability to move after the first shot as well Roch?
-
It was Ann but who do you think asked her?
Was the dog put in the shed by Jeremy and shot by the vet
It’s a yes or no answer
-
It was Ann but who do you think asked her?
She is her own person. Perhaps she also thought it for the best, given the circs? Did she remonstrate with him?
-
It was Ann but who do you think asked her?
Both AE and JB agreed that they didn't want the dog so it was a joint agreement/ decision.
-
Not even June's sister volunteered.
-
Probably like Sheila’s ability to move after the first shot as well Roch?
I think the injuries Sheila sustained occurred in a struggle with June, prior to her receiving the first shot. Yes, if she was mobile at all after that first shot, I can't imagine her being very physical.
-
In the drama it clearly showed that it was made to look like JB's decision, purposely !
It didn't occur to these airheads that if JB had murdered his family that also shooting a dog was something he wasn't averse at doing too. ::)
-
by the sounds of things I am not missing much.
-
by the sounds of things I am not missing much.
I haven't watched it but its shocking they can get away with making and broadcasting it. Speaks volumes about the ethics and the control of our media.
-
I haven't watched it but its shocking they can get away with making and broadcasting it. Speaks volumes about the ethics and the control of our media.
Is there not a disclaimer at the beginning saying they have made stuff up?
-
There should have been a notice outside the trial court-----" only those who are prepared to lie may enter ".
Same applies to this " drama " !
-
Is there not a disclaimer at the beginning saying they have made stuff up?
There is even a Frankie ? Who's he ?
-
Is there not a disclaimer at the beginning saying they have made stuff up?
Ha ha maybe there should be. It should say 'adapted from such and such book'.
In a contentious case like this, viewers should be given a contrasting one-off documentary that explores current defence arguments (without hampering any proceedings). Then at least they have a comparison. But there seems to be a block on such programs being made. It's frightening when you consider the implications, re our media.
-
It's never been written anywhere where it states that JB was standing watching Crispy being put to sleep.
Disgusting !
-
Ha ha maybe there should be. It should say 'adapted from such and such book'.
In a contentious case like this, viewers should be given a contrasting one-off documentary that explores current defence arguments (without hampering any proceedings). Then at least they have a comparison. But there seems to be a block on such programs being made. It's frightening when you consider the implications, re our media.
The target audience for this type of drama will have forgotten all about it by summer.
-
Was the dog put in the shed by Jeremy and shot by the vet
It’s a yes or no answer
Silence from Caroline
-
AE took the dog to the vet---it wasn't put to sleep as has been portrayed.
This was after police had taken the dog to JB's house and where both AE and JB had said they didn't want it.
Again Lookout I go by Anne’s statement The Dog he had put down?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=497.0;attach=1559
The Bambertweets make no mention of the fact Anne was responsible, they make other comments
WhiteHouseFarm #ITV Drama - #JeremyBamber The decision to have June Bamber's dog put down with the vet's agreement was a difficult one, but the kindest thing to do. Crispy was very old and in a great deal of distress after the tragedy. www.jeremy-bamber.co…
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5816.0;attach=37807
-
Silence from Caroline
Re: Conflicting Statements
« Reply #959 on: January 09, 2020, 10:46:AM »
QuoteModifyRemove
Quote from: David1819 on January 09, 2020, 10:42:AM
"Jeremy and Julie returned to Bourtree Cottage shortly before a vet arrived to put Crispy to sleep. ‘I know that Jeremy had asked a number of his family if they would like the dog but none wanted it,’ Julie recalled. Jeremy told the vet that the dog had been very attached to his mother and had turned a bit nasty since the killings."
"After lunch, Jeremy and Julie collected Bruce the labrador and left him with the vet in Maldon, who had found him a new home on another farm."
That's the trivial matter sorted.
Thanks David, so he got rid of both dogs, not Anne
-
Ha ha maybe there should be. It should say 'adapted from such and such book'.
In a contentious case like this, viewers should be given a contrasting one-off documentary that explores current defence arguments (without hampering any proceedings). Then at least they have a comparison. But there seems to be a block on such programs being made. It's frightening when you consider the implications, re our media.
It states clearly that some scenes have been created. Never seen so many people getting their knickers in a twist when from the start, you all knew it was a drama. Yes, some scenes have been changed but other than a few things like Ann Eaton being at dinner the day Sheila arrived etc. stuff that makes no odds to the outcome - what actually didn't happen? I don't see any of you lot complaining when the CT post their BS - but then you wouldn't would you? (Not specifically aimed at you Roch).
-
Was the dog put in the shed by Jeremy and shot by the vet
It’s a yes or no answer
Shot?
-
Silence from Caroline
I posted earlier - are can't you read? Contrary to what you think, I have other stuff to do. Jeremy wouldn't have stood watching the dog get put down, he just arranged it and once again got someone else to do his dirty work.
-
Re: Conflicting Statements
« Reply #959 on: January 09, 2020, 10:46:AM »
QuoteModifyRemove
Quote from: David1819 on January 09, 2020, 10:42:AM
"Jeremy and Julie returned to Bourtree Cottage shortly before a vet arrived to put Crispy to sleep. ‘I know that Jeremy had asked a number of his family if they would like the dog but none wanted it,’ Julie recalled. Jeremy told the vet that the dog had been very attached to his mother and had turned a bit nasty since the killings."
"After lunch, Jeremy and Julie collected Bruce the labrador and left him with the vet in Maldon, who had found him a new home on another farm."
That's the trivial matter sorted.
Thanks David, so he got rid of both dogs, not Anne
So it wasn't Ann? See - you lot - half cocked again!
-
Was the dog put in the shed by Jeremy and shot by the vet
It’s a yes or no answer
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
;D ;D ;D ;D
He wanted both dogs put down, but the vet found a home for Bruce, hence he took the dog to the vets.
-
He wanted both dogs put down, but the vet found a home for Bruce, hence he took the dog to the vets.
It's always been said here that it was Ann - so it wasn't Ann at all. It was Jeremy - only difference is that he didn't stick around to see the poor thing breath it's last. The drama showed he had the dog put down and he did.
-
It's always been said here that it was Ann - so it wasn't Ann at all. It was Jeremy - only difference is that he didn't stick around to see the poor thing breath it's last. The drama showed he had the dog put down and he did.
It wasn’t shot in the series was it Caroline?
-
It wasn’t shot in the series was it Caroline?
No ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
No ;D ;D ;D ;D
Where ‘s Jackie got shot from then?
-
Where ‘s Jackie got shot from then?
God knows
-
I suppose we can agree one thing, this drama carry on hasn't half injected some new life in to the forum. A few old profile names popping up. Good to see. It won't last though. It seems interest is tied to brief mentions of the case in the media.
-
I suppose we can agree one thing, this drama carry on hasn't half injected some new life in to the forum. A few old profile names popping up. Good to see. It won't last though. It seems interest is tied to brief mentions of the case in the media.
It has certainly raised interest, Roch. Whitehouse Farm was trending on Twitter for a time last night and I think it has raised the profile of the case to many who were completely unaware of it. In these days of internet and social media it is easy to access lots of info quickly and this case particularly has a lot of information and discussion to delve deeper. We'll see but possibly there will be increased awareness of a possible miscarriage of justice amongst those younger than most of us on here.
-
He wanted both dogs put down, but the vet found a home for Bruce, hence he took the dog to the vets.
Where does it say he wanted both dogs put to sleep
-
Shot?
:)) :))
-
Where does it say he wanted both dogs put to sleep
That'll be in next weeks episode :o Just to add a bit more sensationalism.
-
It seems that some people are more upset about the dog than the twins . Life is very odd .
-
someone who can kill his whole family is hardly going to be concerned abouts pets
-
Again Lookout I go by Anne’s statement The Dog he had put down?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=497.0;attach=1559
The Bambertweets make no mention of the fact Anne was responsible, they make other comments
WhiteHouseFarm #ITV Drama - #JeremyBamber The decision to have June Bamber's dog put down with the vet's agreement was a difficult one, but the kindest thing to do. Crispy was very old and in a great deal of distress after the tragedy. www.jeremy-bamber.co…
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5816.0;attach=37807
anne didn’t want the dog !!! she wanted the jewellery 😂
-
It seems that some people are more upset about the dog than the twins . Life is very odd .
For viewers, they never saw the twins bodies, but the dog scene was for all to see, if it had shown the twins shot and one sucking their thumb maybe the reaction would be different? Lots of animal lovers out there who have a very strong affection for dogs.
-
anne didn’t want the dog !!! she wanted the jewellery 😂
Neither did Bamber - he wanted his inheritance - including the jewellery.
-
I didn't watch the scene re Crispy. I think that was a mistake, and it was presumably to show the viewer how callous Jeremy was. I should think that animal lovers will decide he's guilty by that scene alone - if they didn't think so before!
-
anne didn’t want the dog !!! she wanted the jewellery 😂
Hopefully she got it 🙈
-
Neither did Bamber - he wanted his inheritance - including the jewellery.
Much to your delight he got neither so what's your problem ?
-
Hi notsure I don't think Ann or JB wanted Crispy too old and grumpy but Ann wanted June's engagement ring but JB would not give it her I guess she may have it now.
-
I didn't watch the scene re Crispy. I think that was a mistake, and it was presumably to show the viewer how callous Jeremy was. I should think that animal lovers will decide he's guilty by that scene alone - if they didn't think so before!
He had the dog put down regardless of the scene and is no less callous for dropping it off at the vets. The dog wasn't ill and his mother loved it. The CT are droning on about how it was a 'kindness because the dog was traumatised' - well, Bamber cured it of that! Nothing kind in having a perfectly healthy dog euthanised - especially one that had witnessed 5 murders. I guess he couldn't look at it - if only it could have talked.
-
Much to your delight he got neither so what's your problem ?
No problem here Lookout - what's yours?
-
No problem here Lookout - what's yours?
Should there be ?
-
Should there be ?
Dunno Lookout, you're the one who brought up problems.
-
Hi Kaldin I was under the impression a Vet would not put a dog to sleep if it was well and healthy it would have been given to the RSPCA for them to try and find a home. Poor wee dog. :(
-
Neither did Bamber - he wanted his inheritance - including the jewellery.
and any antiques and other valuables in the house
-
Hi Kaldin I was under the impression a Vet would not put a dog to sleep if it was well and healthy it would have been given to the RSPCA for them to try and find a home. Poor wee dog. :(
I would hope they would refuse but they probably don't. :(
-
by the sounds of things I am not missing much.
I've had a sneak peek..https://youtu.be/zws4SWnl_Wo
-
Neither did Bamber - he wanted his inheritance - including the jewellery.
well they were his parents and he was entitled wasnt he. anne was left a small amount i seem to remember but i might be wrong.
-
well they were his parents and he was entitled wasnt he. anne was left a small amount i seem to remember but i might be wrong.
He could have given Pamela a few keepsakes. His whole demeanour post-murders betrayed his lack of concern for anybody but himself.
-
yes i agree but a cocky little lad that he was and the age he was he probably thought they were jett after what they could get. everyone comes out of the woodwork when there’s money involved! christ the poor people had t even been buried and they were asking for stuff and rifling through the house. no one now guilters or innocenters ( i know that’s not a word lol) can deny that was wrong
-
He could have given Pamela a few keepsakes. His whole demeanour post-murders betrayed his lack of concern for anybody but himself.
Hmmm . The programme shows that side when he is with anne but not with Colin. Because that is how those people portrayed it .
It is an interpretation of behaviour which varies from person to person .
-
Hmmm . The programme shows that side when he is with anne but not with Colin. Because that is how those people portrayed it .
It is an interpretation of behaviour which varies from person to person .
..and was it right for him to throw the twins' possessions at Maida Vale into a black plastic bag and put them out for the binmen?
-
Hi steve no it was not right for him to throw all the twins possessions in a black bin bag for Colin to collect. It was thoughtless,selfish and cold but this did not make him a killer I am not saying he is not a killer. It was not right for most of what he did i.e. with his parents clothes and the dogs but this does not make him a killer either we have to try and separate the two.
-
..and was it right for him to throw the twins' possessions at Maida Vale into a black plastic bag and put them out for the binmen?
thats shocking steve
-
Hmmm . The programme shows that side when he is with anne but not with Colin. Because that is how those people portrayed it .
It is an interpretation of behaviour which varies from person to person .
Or how he did.
-
..and was it right for him to throw the twins' possessions at Maida Vale into a black plastic bag and put them out for the binmen?
I am pretty sure JB did not put the boys belongings out for the bin men but rather gathered their belongings together in black bags. Well imo it does seem very insensitive toWards Colin but at the same time it seems stupid for him to behave like that if he was the murderer trying to appear caring and innocent. It’s yet another situation which can be interpreted in different ways. Would a childless 24 year old man regard the twins belongings in the same way his father, Colin or in fact any one who had children of their own might? I don’t know the answer to that particularly as there are manny degrees of empathy and would hazard a guess he was brought up being told boys don’t cry etc and maybe had no idea of how to express feelings of grief and loss.
-
..and was it right for him to throw the twins' possessions at Maida Vale into a black plastic bag and put them out for the binmen?
He did not put them out for the bin men .
-
Hi Jan that is correct I missed that part of steve's post I understand he put them in the hall in Sheila's flat
-
Hi sami this is not entirely true x
-
Well imo it does seem very insensitive to Colin but at the same time it seems stupid for him to behave like that if he was the murderer trying to appear caring. It’s yet another situation which can be interpreted in different ways. Would a childless 24 year old man regard the twins belongings in the same way his father, Colin or in fact any one who had children of their own might? I don’t know the answer to that particularly as there are manny degrees of empathy and would hazard a guess he was brought up being told boys don’t cry etc and maybe had no idea of how to express feelings of grief and loss.
That's right Maggie, he was a man, not a child - a man old enough to be a father himself. I think even at an age much younger than Bamber, I would have realised that dumping dead childrens toys in a bin bag was insensitive. If Jeremy is guilty, then his capacity to feel any empathy is redundant and wouldn't have thought twice about there being anything wrong in what he did. He probably thought he was doing Colin a favour. It's hard to express something you don't feel.
-
He did not put them out for the bin men .
I've been doing searches for that. Nothing found.
-
I've been doing searches for that. Nothing found.
It's in Colin's book
-
His mind was always working on the financial level, offering to pay for the boys' funeral. It was the raison d'etre he had been sent to Gresham's, the whole concept of the crimes being payback for how he perceived his parents had treated him.
-
On the whole I think the drama has been interesting if a bit slow . And obviously some artistic licence with the facts . As I said they are making it quite clear Colin does not suspect jeremy and in those scenes jeremy is coming across as upset , sympathetic etc. Where as the scenes with Anne he is portrayed very differently The one big critisim I had with last night was about the window . They showed just one latch apparently dropping down when there were in fact two including the horizontal bar at the bottom . Very misleading .
I totally agree with Maggies post. The reason I have not been on the forum for a while is because of a family bereavement and my relative was accused of similar lack of emotion and empathy . Which was very far from the truth . Also I know a lot of men who would not think maybe to go out and buy a suitcase or something similar to put the twins possessions in . But Steve saying they were put out for the bin men is just trying to add extra drama and hate to the situation.
Julie looks as if she is being portrayed as knowing and very much an accomplice rather than a frightened confused partner.
I think also considering how long we have all been involved in this you do easily forget how old jeremy and Julie were when this all happened . And of course there is a possibility that even if jeremy was innocent he may have been in a state of shock grief plus an unexpected realisation that he was A very rich young man and perhaps because he was adopted he did not have the same love and connection with his family .
-
It's in Colin's book
In the bin ?
-
In the bin ?
Recycle Lookout, think of the planet 👍
-
That's right Maggie, he was a man, not a child - a man old enough to be a father himself. I think even at an age much younger than Bamber, I would have realised that dumping dead childrens toys in a bin bag was insensitive. If Jeremy is guilty, then his capacity to feel any empathy is redundant and wouldn't have thought twice about there being anything wrong in what he did. He probably thought he was doing Colin a favour. It's hard to express something you don't feel.
How many people do that though when a family member dies ? Quite a lot I bet . Clear stuff for charity when they are ready and put it in bin bags . I know and auntie who did that with her husbands clothes . Some people like to keep things around them others don’t . I think people are trying to read too much into actions that are a perception rather than evidence and then everyone gets drawn in to prove a point .
-
That's right Maggie, he was a man, not a child - a man old enough to be a father himself. I think even at an age much younger than Bamber, I would have realised that dumping dead childrens toys in a bin bag was insensitive. If Jeremy is guilty, then his capacity to feel any empathy is redundant and wouldn't have thought twice about there being anything wrong in what he did. He probably thought he was doing Colin a favour. It's hard to express something you don't feel.
I do think a young man has different ways of recognising and dealing with emotions than a young woman, their brains are wired differently and they bury their feelings and cut off emotions in a way women cannot. Was told recently by a friend who is a hypnotherapist and counsellor that’s not only were male and female brains are wired differently but that they are anotomivally different when a cross section is compared.
-
On the whole I think the drama has been interesting if a bit slow . And obviously some artistic licence with the facts . As I said they are making it quite clear Colin does not suspect jeremy and in those scenes jeremy is coming across as upset , sympathetic etc. Where as the scenes with Anne he is portrayed very differently The one big critisim I had with last night was about the window . They showed just one latch apparently dropping down when there were in fact two including the horizontal bar at the bottom . Very misleading .
I totally agree with Maggies post. The reason I have not been on the forum for a while is because of a family bereavement and my relative was accused of similar lack of emotion and empathy . Which was very far from the truth . Also I know a lot of men who would not think maybe to go out and buy a suitcase or something similar to put the twins possessions in . But Steve saying they were put out for the bin men is just trying to add extra drama and hate to the situation.
Julie looks as if she is being portrayed as knowing and very much an accomplice rather than a frightened confused partner.
I think also considering how long we have all been involved in this you do easily forget how old jeremy and Julie were when this all happened . And of course there is a possibility that even if jeremy was innocent he may have been in a state of shock grief plus an unexpected realisation that he was A very rich young man and perhaps because he was adopted he did not have the same love and connection with his family .
Sorry for your loss.
I think Steve just made a mistake. I don't forget how old Jeremy was and it's old enough to be a father and husband. He doesn't come over as being in shock, he played that part for a few days and then it started selling stuff and enjoying himself.
-
On the whole I think the drama has been interesting if a bit slow . And obviously some artistic licence with the facts . As I said they are making it quite clear Colin does not suspect jeremy and in those scenes jeremy is coming across as upset , sympathetic etc. Where as the scenes with Anne he is portrayed very differently The one big critisim I had with last night was about the window . They showed just one latch apparently dropping down when there were in fact two including the horizontal bar at the bottom . Very misleading .
I totally agree with Maggies post. The reason I have not been on the forum for a while is because of a family bereavement and my relative was accused of similar lack of emotion and empathy . Which was very far from the truth . Also I know a lot of men who would not think maybe to go out and buy a suitcase or something similar to put the twins possessions in . But Steve saying they were put out for the bin men is just trying to add extra drama and hate to the situation.
Julie looks as if she is being portrayed as knowing and very much an accomplice rather than a frightened confused partner.
I think also considering how long we have all been involved in this you do easily forget how old jeremy and Julie were when this all happened . And of course there is a possibility that even if jeremy was innocent he may have been in a state of shock grief plus an unexpected realisation that he was A very rich young man and perhaps because he was adopted he did not have the same love and connection with his family .
I haven't even started. Don't forget the nude photographs in the flat, Jeremy's smutty remarks about them and his attempt to sell them to the Sun newspaper.
-
I do think a young man has different ways of recognising and dealing with emotions than a young woman, their brains are wired differently and they bury their feelings and cut off emotions in a way women cannot. Was told recently by a friend who is a hypnotherapist and counsellor that’s not only were male and female brains are wired differently but that they are anotomivally different when a cross section is compared.
Sorry Maggie, I completely disagree, my brother was far more sensitive than me - I think that's bit of a generalisation. You might find this interesting https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/feb/24/meet-the-neuroscientist-shattering-the-myth-of-the-gendered-brain-gina-rippon
-
Nobody can " play " at being shocked ! What a stupid comment. Where do you think PTSD comes from years later with the likes of service people or those who've been involved in a trauma ? You can only remain to be stoical for so long if you're kept occupied in some way such as Jeremy is in his quest for freedom then the nightmare appears when it's all over.
-
How many people do that though when a family member dies ? Quite a lot I bet . Clear stuff for charity when they are ready and put it in bin bags . I know and auntie who did that with her husbands clothes . Some people like to keep things around them others don’t . I think people are trying to read too much into actions that are a perception rather than evidence and then everyone gets drawn in to prove a point .
They might do that with their own stuff or stuff going to charity but NOT when it's the possessions of two dead children for their father to collect. Colin had said he wanted to collect their things himself but just found them all bagged up like trash and Jeremy bragging about explicit pictures of Sheila. Shock my eye!
-
Nobody can " play " at being shocked ! What a stupid comment. Where do you think PTSD comes from years later with the likes of service people or those who've been involved in a trauma ? You can only remain to be stoical for so long if you're kept occupied in some way such as Jeremy is in his quest for freedom then the nightmare appears when it's all over.
If you're looking for a stupid comment - look no further than yours above. I'm not talking about service men! Anyone can act shocked! Actors do so all of the time or do you think the director makes them suffer PTSD first? ::) ::)
-
If you're looking for a stupid comment - look no further than yours above. I'm not talking about service men! Anyone can act shocked! Actors do so all of the time or do you think the director makes them suffer PTSD first? ::) ::)
Yet another nonsensical reply ::)
-
Yet another nonsensical reply ::)
Yes, you just keep them coming!
-
It's an actors job to look shocked if the part he's playing dictates it ::) Sheesh.
I'm talking ordinary people who aren't actors.Get it ?
-
It's an actors job to look shocked if the part he's playing dictates it ::) Sheesh.
I'm talking ordinary people who aren't actors.Get it ?
Lookout ANYONE can act if they need to! GET IT?
-
Lookout ANYONE can act if they need to! GET IT?
JB hadn't needed to ! Why would he ?
-
He was being himself----well trying, as he had the world's press in his face half the time.
-
He was being himself----well trying, as he had the world's press in his face half the time.
Well he did need make up Lookout 🙈
-
Well he did need make up Lookout 🙈
Who doesn't ?
-
I haven't even started. Don't forget the nude photographs in the flat, Jeremy's smutty remarks about them and his attempt to sell them to the Sun newspaper.
Yes read the whole thread about the photos and the liar journalist. Thanks for reminding me .
-
Yes read the whole thread about the photos and the liar journalist. Thanks for reminding me .
How was he a liar?
-
Yes read the whole thread about the photos and the liar journalist. Thanks for reminding me .
You see the Jeremy supporters do themselves no favours by denying even the smallest details of the case. Why would Michael Fielder risk what was probably a six-figure income by lying about one of a thousand assignments he covered in the 1980s?
-
How was he a liar?
Exactly. It reminds me of Jeremy Bamber in the witness box: the whole world and his dog were lying whilst he was telling in monosyllables the Gospel truth.
-
You see the Jeremy supporters do themselves no favours by denying even the smallest details of the case. Why would Michael Fielder risk what was probably a six-figure income by lying about one of a thousand assignments he probably covered in the 1980s?
Why did he lie about other cases , serious cases , he was a chancer and scum reporter.
The press lie all the time for sensation and hope they get away with it . Why would a paper print those pictures of sheila ? Sexing up the murder of children ?
I think you know the answer really .
-
Why did he lie about other cases , serious cases , he was a chancer and scum reporter.
The press lie all the time for sensation and hope they get away with it . Why would a paper print those pictures of sheila ? Sexing up the murder of children ?
I think you know the answer really .
Don't be stupid. Accept what kind of a man Jeremy Bamber was and is.
-
Don't be stupid. Accept what kind of a man Jeremy Bamber was and is.
Showing your true colours now . Resorting to personal posts against me
Noted .
-
Showing your true colours now . Resorting to personal posts against me
Noted .
No it's just there are certain things that cannot be denied. The sentence in bold I highlighted in #1330 shows YOU made this thread personal.
-
Why did he lie about other cases , serious cases , he was a chancer and scum reporter.
The press lie all the time for sensation and hope they get away with it . Why would a paper print those pictures of sheila ? Sexing up the murder of children ?
I think you know the answer really .
Fielder reported the same words said to him as was said to Colin. Jeremy has also never denied trying to sell them.
-
Back to the thread .
I will accept it is a drama and all that involves and as I said I think the portrayal of the house and the crime scene does bring things home.
But I do hope they correct the misrepresentation on the kitchen window latch and also cover a bit more about all the police that were in that crime scene before the photographer even started.
But they do seem to be going backwards and forwards in time so let’s see.
-
No it's just there are certain things that cannot be denied. The sentence in bold I highlighted in #1330 shows YOU made this thread personal.
I agree, there is no doubt that he tried to sell the pictures.
-
It has certainly raised interest, Roch. Whitehouse Farm was trending on Twitter for a time last night and I think it has raised the profile of the case to many who were completely unaware of it. In these days of internet and social media it is easy to access lots of info quickly and this case particularly has a lot of information and discussion to delve deeper. We'll see but possibly there will be increased awareness of a possible miscarriage of justice amongst those younger than most of us on here.
.
Apparently my partner's mam watched it and has now said he is definitely guilty - because of Sheila's perfectly manicured nails and because of the window he exited etc. :))
-
Back to the thread .
I will accept it is a drama and all that involves and as I said I think the portrayal of the house and the crime scene does bring things home.
But I do hope they correct the misrepresentation on the kitchen window latch and also cover a bit more about all the police that were in that crime scene before the photographer even started.
But they do seem to be going backwards and forwards in time so let’s see.
It's already been mentioned about how the crime scene was compromised - several times. Again, that was down to Taff.
-
.
Apparently my partner's mam watched it and has now said he is definitely guilty - because of Sheila's perfectly manicured nails and because of the window he exited etc. :))
What did she think before?
-
You see the Jeremy supporters do themselves no favours by denying even the smallest details of the case. Why would Michael Fielder risk what was probably a six-figure income by lying about one of a thousand assignments he covered in the 1980s?
must also mention that if it were not true jb and his sidekicks would have started legal proceedings against him and the paper
-
must also mention that if it were not true jb and his sidekicks would have started legal proceedings against him and the paper
I asked him Sami, he didn't answer which speaks volumes.
-
I agree, there is no doubt that he tried to sell the pictures.
Or
For Jeremy Bamber, media intrusion continued and a tabloid journalist invited Jeremy to tell his story to the paper. Brett Collins had advised Jeremy to go along to meet with the journalist who was offering money. After a long period of being ‘guilty’ in the news even though no charges had been brought, Jeremy wanted to tell his story. He was angry and had every right to be, Sheila Caffell had murdered his family. He was a victim and like all victims of murder felt anger and desolation, but the feelings were complex as Sheila was his sister who he had grown up with and loved his whole life. The reporter continually asked Jeremy for any pornographic photographs of Sheila, which he believed existed, and Jeremy told him there were some topless ones but these were taken casually in the garden and in the possession of Colin Caffell".
Conclusions from this:
The meeting certainly happened.
There were certainly topless photos of Sheila.
The newspaper never saw the pictures, as confirmed by Fielding.
Brett Collins encouraged Bamber to engage. Fielding saying Brett rang them.
Bamber wanted to tell his own story for money. But did not. Apparently pestered for the photos by Fielding, who was just interested in these.
-
What did she think before?
I don't think she had an opinion. At least she has never volunteered one to me.
-
.
Apparently my partner's mam watched it and has now said he is definitely guilty - because of Sheila's perfectly manicured nails and because of the window he exited etc. :))
Hope it’s not caused any arguing Roch 🙈🙈🙈
-
Hope it’s not caused any arguing Roch 🙈🙈🙈
Nah. I just internally shake my head at people who say he's guilty :))
-
I asked him Sami, he didn't answer which speaks volumes.
yes caroline i remember you telling me,there was also a few other tricky questions he couldnt or wouldnt answer.he charms the women that write to him than gets his begging bowl out and they keep filling it up :)) :)) :))
-
Or
For Jeremy Bamber, media intrusion continued and a tabloid journalist invited Jeremy to tell his story to the paper. Brett Collins had advised Jeremy to go along to meet with the journalist who was offering money. After a long period of being ‘guilty’ in the news even though no charges had been brought, Jeremy wanted to tell his story. He was angry and had every right to be, Sheila Caffell had murdered his family. He was a victim and like all victims of murder felt anger and desolation, but the feelings were complex as Sheila was his sister who he had grown up with and loved his whole life. The reporter continually asked Jeremy for any pornographic photographs of Sheila, which he believed existed, and Jeremy told him there were some topless ones but these were taken casually in the garden and in the possession of Colin Caffell".
Conclusions from this:
The meeting certainly happened.
There were certainly topless photos of Sheila.
The newspaper never saw the pictures, as confirmed by Fielding.
Brett Collins encouraged Bamber to engage. Fielding saying Brett rang them.
Bamber wanted to tell his own story for money. But did not. Apparently pestered for the photos by Fielding, who was just interested in these.
Long period of being guilty in the press? :-\
What you have written is pure speculation and does not account for why Jeremy would tell 'Fielder' "you can see everything right down to the last detail" in respect to the photographs - if he was interested in telling HIS story. He used the same words to Colin.
-
I just read a post form a girl who said her friend at schools mum , used to go out with Jeremy ( he was much younger than the mum) so jeremy used to take her and her friend out with the mum for pizza and other trips . All terribly normal and he was a nice guy . So the drama has bought a lot of people out of the woodwork .
-
.
Apparently my partner's mam watched it and has now said he is definitely guilty - because of Sheila's perfectly manicured nails and because of the window he exited etc. :))
Someone else posted . I just changed a tyre on my car and not a single chip on my manicure.
-
Long period of being guilty in the press? :-\
What you have written is pure speculation and does not account for why Jeremy would tell 'Fielder' "you can see everything right down to the last detail" in respect to the photographs - if he was interested in telling HIS story. He used the same words to Colin.
Is there any possibility that Fielder could have been fed that?
-
I just read a post form a girl who said her friend at schools mum , used to go out with Jeremy ( he was much younger than the mum) so jeremy used to take her and her friend out with the mum for pizza and other trips . All terribly normal and he was a nice guy . So the drama has bought a lot of people out of the woodwork .
She can't be a girl now then?
Not sure what she would expect him to be like on a date?
-
I just read a post form a girl who said her friend at schools mum , used to go out with Jeremy ( he was much younger than the mum) so jeremy used to take her and her friend out with the mum for pizza and other trips . All terribly normal and he was a nice guy . So the drama has bought a lot of people out of the woodwork .
dont read too much when it comes posts like that,where theres no proof ;)
-
Is there any possibility that Fielder could have been fed that?
Hardly, it was said to Colin before Fielder. Why would Colin lie about something like that?
-
What about the fingernail that AE found in the bedroom ? Then a piece of toenail in the kitchen ?
-
What about the fingernail that AE found in the bedroom ? Then a piece of toenail in the kitchen ?
meaning what,lookout
-
She can't be a girl now then?
Not sure what she would expect him to be like on a date?
No she is a woman, when she was a girl her friends mum had a toyboy . That was jeremy .
She was not on a date with him . She just commented she knew him . And her impressions of him .
Just was saying the drama has reminded her of those days .
-
dont read too much when it comes posts like that,where theres no proof ;)
There is no proof of 80 % of what gets posted on here that’s for sure .
-
And he did go out with an older woman I remember that .
-
meaning what,lookout
Why haven't they featured ? Especially the fingernail when it was stated that her nails were perfect.
-
There is no proof of 80 % of what gets posted on here that’s for sure .
exactly :)
-
Hardly, it was said to Colin before Fielder. Why would Colin lie about something like that?
No, that's what I meant. i.e. it was said to Colin but not to Fielder. In other words, Fielder's in cahoots with the police and he gets tipped off about what to say. I am questioning Fielder's (and his employer's) integrity.
-
No she is a woman, when she was a girl her friends mum had a toyboy . That was jeremy .
She was not on a date with him . She just commented she knew him . And her impressions of him .
Just was saying the drama has reminded her of those days .
OK but I meant he's bound to act normal being on a date with the mother. It wasn't Suzette Ford was it?
-
Why haven't they featured ? Especially the fingernail when it was stated that her nails were perfect.
if thats what was stated than theres nothing sinister about it.is there a reference or a photo of it anywhere
-
No, that's what I meant. i.e. it was said to Colin but not to Fielder. In other words, Fielder's in cahoots with the police and he gets tipped off about what to say. I am questioning Fielder's (and his employer's) integrity.
So where would Fielder get it from? Colin didn't tell the police, he saw the article a few days after seeing Jeremy and saw that he had used the same words to him.
-
Nah. I just internally shake my head at people who say he's guilty :))
You must be at it all day then Roch 🙈🙈🙈. Only joking mate 👍
-
Nah. I just internally shake my head at people who say he's guilty :))
That must be some headache ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It has certainly raised interest, Roch. Whitehouse Farm was trending on Twitter for a time last night and I think it has raised the profile of the case to many who were completely unaware of it. In these days of internet and social media it is easy to access lots of info quickly and this case particularly has a lot of information and discussion to delve deeper. We'll see but possibly there will be increased awareness of a possible miscarriage of justice amongst those younger than most of us on here.
Let's hope the Forum gets some new members genuinely interested in the case.
-
So where would Fielder get it from? Colin didn't tell the police, he saw the article a few days after seeing Jeremy and saw that he had used the same words to him.
Well if that is an accurate account of what happened, then it's likely that he did say it.
-
Well if that is an accurate account of what happened, then it's likely that he did say it.
Thanks - you're the first innocent supporter to ever admit that.
-
You see the Jeremy supporters do themselves no favours by denying even the smallest details of the case. Why would Michael Fielder risk what was probably a six-figure income by lying about one of a thousand assignments he covered in the 1980s?
Why would Muggy risk her teaching career and freedom for a cheque fraud
-
Or
For Jeremy Bamber, media intrusion continued and a tabloid journalist invited Jeremy to tell his story to the paper. Brett Collins had advised Jeremy to go along to meet with the journalist who was offering money. After a long period of being ‘guilty’ in the news even though no charges had been brought, Jeremy wanted to tell his story. He was angry and had every right to be, Sheila Caffell had murdered his family. He was a victim and like all victims of murder felt anger and desolation, but the feelings were complex as Sheila was his sister who he had grown up with and loved his whole life. The reporter continually asked Jeremy for any pornographic photographs of Sheila, which he believed existed, and Jeremy told him there were some topless ones but these were taken casually in the garden and in the possession of Colin Caffell".
Conclusions from this:
The meeting certainly happened.
There were certainly topless photos of Sheila.
The newspaper never saw the pictures, as confirmed by Fielding.
Brett Collins encouraged Bamber to engage. Fielding saying Brett rang them.
Bamber wanted to tell his own story for money. But did not. Apparently pestered for the photos by Fielding, who was just interested in these.
"They show everything down to the last detail."
Now leaving aside the meeting at the Nag's Head in Chelmsford, isn't it strange that nobody has castigated Colin for taking these photographs in the first place? He was and remains an artist, the nude form holding a fascination for him as in Botticelli's Birth of Venus, not the smutty, vulgar Jeremy Bamber who made similar remarks to Colin about Julie at his parents' funeral.
-
"They show everything down to the last detail."
Now leaving aside the meeting at the Nag's Head in Chelmsford, isn't it strange that nobody has castigated Colin for taking these photographs in the first place? He was and remains an artist, the nude form holding a fascination for him as in Botticelli's Birth of Venus, not the smutty, vulgar Jeremy Bamber who made similar remarks to Colin about Julie at his parents' funeral.
He wasn't talking about the pictures Colin took Steve.
-
Thanks - you're the first innocent supporter to ever admit that.
I've always expressed that I suspect aspects of his character helped to get him convicted.
If the police thought they were fitting-up an arrogant, bisexual drug dealer and fraudster, who attempted to sell racy photos of his dead sister, then it was probably easier for them to quell any pangs of conscience.
-
Why would Muggy risk her teaching career and freedom for a cheque fraud
It was a spur of the moment decision. The Jeremy supporters would have more credibility if they accepted the nude photographs selling attempt but stated it didn't have a bearing on his innocence or guilt of the crimes, instead of panicking and attempting to brush every single negative detail about the man under the carpet.
-
Why would Muggy risk her teaching career and freedom for a cheque fraud
unlike fielder julie might have been hard up for cash,horses for courses
-
I agree, there is no doubt that he tried to sell the pictures.
As you believe this you obviously bought this up many times in your numerous letters to Jeremy???? And his response and your reason to keep writing to him ??
-
He wasn't talking about the pictures Colin took Steve.
No I know they were the ones a photographer took in a neighbour's back garden in London. Colin's photographs remained in the possession of June in the bureau at White House Farm, as a weapon to be used against her daughter should she at any time stray from the course her mother had mapped out for her.
-
As you believe this you obviously bought this up many times in your numerous letters to Jeremy???? And his response and your reason to keep writing to him ??
jealousy will get you no where :))
-
Or
For Jeremy Bamber, media intrusion continued and a tabloid journalist invited Jeremy to tell his story to the paper. Brett Collins had advised Jeremy to go along to meet with the journalist who was offering money. After a long period of being ‘guilty’ in the news even though no charges had been brought, Jeremy wanted to tell his story. He was angry and had every right to be, Sheila Caffell had murdered his family. He was a victim and like all victims of murder felt anger and desolation, but the feelings were complex as Sheila was his sister who he had grown up with and loved his whole life. The reporter continually asked Jeremy for any pornographic photographs of Sheila, which he believed existed, and Jeremy told him there were some topless ones but these were taken casually in the garden and in the possession of Colin Caffell".
Conclusions from this:
The meeting certainly happened.
There were certainly topless photos of Sheila.
The newspaper never saw the pictures, as confirmed by Fielding.
Brett Collins encouraged Bamber to engage. Fielding saying Brett rang them.
Bamber wanted to tell his own story for money. But did not. Apparently pestered for the photos by Fielding, who was just interested in these.
That sounds more likely to be the truth. Devious people trying to stitch a young man up
-
unlike fielder julie might have been hard up for cash,horses for courses
No it was a dare, a spur of the moment decision. They gave away most of the booty anyway, not that this makes it right.
-
I just read a post form a girl who said her friend at schools mum , used to go out with Jeremy ( he was much younger than the mum) so jeremy used to take her and her friend out with the mum for pizza and other trips . All terribly normal and he was a nice guy . So the drama has bought a lot of people out of the woodwork .
Good just what he needs
-
Someone else posted . I just changed a tyre on my car and not a single chip on my manicure.
Loving this
-
That sounds more likely to be the truth. Devious people trying to stitch a young man up
Accept it Jackie and move on. Jeremy Bamber tried to sell nude photographs of his dead sister for £20,000 but was turned down by the editor. This in itself does not make him guilty of five murders. All of the supporters would be far better to accept the incident took place as the guilters believe than to try and repudiate every allegation with arrant nonsense.
-
Hardly, it was said to Colin before Fielder. Why would Colin lie about something like that?
Colin is hardly famous for his integrity or honesty
-
As you believe this you obviously bought this up many times in your numerous letters to Jeremy???? And his response and your reason to keep writing to him ??
Yes I most certainly DID ask him, he didn't answer that particular question, he avoided it. My reason for keep writing was because I thought he was innocent at that point and wanted to clear the issue up - he didn't answer - which means he didn't deny it!
-
Someone else posted . I just changed a tyre on my car and not a single chip on my manicure.
..and did she have a fight with a 6ft 4ins bloke whilst discharging 25 rounds to boot?
-
Colin is hardly famous for his integrity or honesty
He's bathing in it compared to you. Bamber tried to sell explicit pictures of his dead sister - FACT - get used to it!
-
..and did she have a fight with a 6ft 4ins bloke whilst discharging 25 rounds to boot?
:)) :)) :)) :))
-
It was a spur of the moment decision. The Jeremy supporters would have more credibility if they accepted the nude photographs selling attempt but stated it didn't have a bearing on his innocence or guilt of the crimes, instead of panicking and attempting to brush every single negative detail about the man under the carpet.
She was an intelligent girl risking her career and freedom to deceive and rip people off
-
Someone else posted . I just changed a tyre on my car and not a single chip on my manicure.
You don't use your nails to change a tyre, the component parts are large so you use your hands. Although I don't necessarily believe that using the rifle would cause the varnish to chip, I'm less sure about filling the magazine.
-
Accept it Jackie and move on. Jeremy Bamber tried to sell nude photographs of his dead sister for £20,000 but was turned down by the editor. This in itself does not make him guilty of five murders. All of the supporters would be far better to accept the incident took place as the guilters believe than to try and repudiate every allegation with arrant nonsense.
I might be willing to accept that if you admit that if Julie had known Jeremy was responsible for the murders she would never have gone near the mortuary
-
So where would Fielder get it from? Colin didn't tell the police, he saw the article a few days after seeing Jeremy and saw that he had used the same words to him.
Weren't the pics around when JB was arrested ? If so, anyone, even the police themselves could have opened their mouths. Sleaze sells !
-
She was an intelligent girl risking her career and freedom to deceive and rip people off
I'm not sure cheque book fraud would necessarily bar a prospective teacher. I have known a male member of staff have sexual relations with a female pupil and be allowed to continue teaching in an all-boys school.
Of course I wouldn't be certain, not having committed any of these or indeed any criminal offence.
-
Weren't the pics around when JB was arrested ? If so, anyone, even the police themselves could have opened their mouths. Sleaze sells !
your absolutely right sleaze sells ,jb was well aware of that
-
Yes I most certainly DID ask him, he didn't answer that particular question, he avoided it. My reason for keep writing was because I thought he was innocent at that point and wanted to clear the issue up - he didn't answer - which means he didn't deny it!
I don’t believe you because I would have kept asking him. It was clearly no big deal to you at the time. So you obviously posted on here at the time he wouldn’t answer the question
Maybe you would like to repost what you had written before
L
-
I might be willing to accept that if you admit that if Julie had known Jeremy was responsible for the murders she would never have gone near the mortuary
I can't explain Julie's behaviour, except that she may have felt in her own mind it was better to stick with him, just as millions of Germans during the war inexplicably stuck with Adolf Hitler whilst their country went to rack and ruin.
-
Weren't the pics around when JB was arrested ? If so, anyone, even the police themselves could have opened their mouths. Sleaze sells !
Opened their mouths to who? Jeremy told Colin BEFORE it was in the paper and he sued the same words to describe then as he did to Fielder.
-
He's bathing in it compared to you. Bamber tried to sell explicit pictures of his dead sister - FACT - get used to it!
But you have failed to provide any proof again so unfortunately it’s not a fact
-
But you have failed to provide any proof again so unfortunately it’s not a fact
It's a fact!
-
It's a fact!
The problem is, you don't know what a fact is.
-
I can't explain Julie's behaviour, except that she may have felt in her own mind it was better to stick with him, just as millions of Germans during the war inexplicably stuck with Adolf Hitler whilst their country went to rack and ruin.
But your accepting what she said is true when you know for a fact she’s a liar
-
But your accepting what she said is true when you know for a fact she’s a liar
steady ,theres quite a few porkies been told by yourself :)
-
But your accepting what she said is true when you know for a fact she’s a liar
I'm not excusing Julie's behaviour at all. She told Colin that she still loved him, even though she had been threatened that she would be regarded as an accessory if ever she went to the police.
-
It's a fact!
It’s not a fact
I look forward to seeing your post when Jeremy refused to answer your question on the nude photos
It must have been a grave concern for you so you must have posted about it
-
I'm not excusing Julie's behaviour at all. She told Colin that she still loved him, even though she had been threatened that she would be regarded as an accessory if ever she went to the police.
You have no idea when Julie is telling the truth or telling lies do you?
-
You have no idea when Julie is telling the truth or telling lies do you?
I know Julie's statements from the September onwards were largely a full and complete account of her relationship with Jeremy Bamber for an almost two-year period.
-
By the way, have the Jeremy supporters read Mike's post from several days ago yet..
Posts: 48316
Re: Home Office have a recording of significant Bambers Comments made to me...
« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2020, 09:41:AM »
Quote
Quote from: mike tesko on January 02, 2020, 09:38:AM
He had a grin on his face and big unblinking eyes when I told him that his sisters accomplice, was none other than himself..
The remark he made following my disclosure appeared to me, to be very telling indeed - he said to me 'YOU FUCKING CLEVER BASTARD', and he continued to grin...
I sensed that he was acknowledging the simple truth of the matter.
His sister had not acted alone, she had an accomplice, and in my mind I was sure that he was that accomplice.
-
Why did he lie about other cases , serious cases , he was a chancer and scum reporter.
The press lie all the time for sensation and hope they get away with it . Why would a paper print those pictures of sheila ? Sexing up the murder of children ?
I think you know the answer really .
There is whole thread about Fielder and his dishonesty. He lied for money as shown in this thread:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6754.0.html.
As briefly as possible:
Whether you believe that Bamber attempted to sell nude pictures or not, the whole allegation rests on whether you believe Fielder. To say that Fielder is not a reliable witness understates his lack of credibility by magnitudes.
First of all he plied his trade in that most disreputable of rags, The Sun, whose stock in trade is lying and smearing. A sleazy story in the Sun shouldn't really be considered as evidence of anything by anyone with even an ounce of sense but despite this, those who believe in Bamber's guilt hold as an article of faith that this story is true.
The position of those who believe Fielder was that he himself had never been shown to lie and it was unfair to tar him by association. It was further posited that he had offered to testify in the trial(eventually not used as a witness) and this further supported the view that he was telling the truth. Why? it was asked, would he risk perjuring himself?
It seems scarcely credible anyway that Bamber would meet with a reporter of the Sun, a paper that had been printing negative stories about him all week and present to them the best negative story they could imagine. Attempting to sell nude pictures of your dead sister to a newspaper that have been smearing you all week would be "too good to be true" for a reporter in Fielder's position. Wouldn't it? And yet we are to believe that this is exactly what happened.
We then discover that Fielder had in fact previously lied. Not only had he lied, he had then gone on to commit perjury. Other newspapers were also sued but the judge singled out Fielder and the Sun as the most egregious offenders. The headline was the "Tart of Gib" where the Sun accused Carmen Proetta of being an anti British, escort agency owning former prostitute in order to discredit her testimony against British SAS members. All accusations were shown to be lies.
You would imagine that at this point even the most staunch believer must be beginning to have some doubts about the credibility of the only witness to this alleged event. Instead we are now supposed to believe that just because he lied and perjured once doesn't mean he is now.
Some may have already noted that this is something of a climb down from the original position
1) Working for a lying disreputable rag doesn't prove Fielder personally to be a liar and anyway he was willing to testify. Why would he commit perjury?
Later
2) Working for a lying disreputable rag and lying and perjuring personally in the Carmen Proetta case doesn't mean he's lying and willing to perjure himself this time as well even though the circumstances appear too good to be true.
At this point a new witness is introduced to back up the now utterly destroyed original only witness. We are told that by some tenuous stretch that Colin Caffell can and does back up Fielder's version of events.
Spoiler Alert: He can't and he doesn't.
It is claimed that Bamber used the same words to describe the photos to Colin as Fielder used in the article. Reading Colin's statements from the time though it is clear that this is in fact not true.
Back to Fielder however and his credibility problem. After displaying his true character in the "Tart of Gib" hack job he went on to cement his reputation as a smearer for power by lying about Colin Stagg, who was being wrongly accused of the Rachel Nickell murder. Also worth noting is that even those who believe Fielder agree that the Bamber article went on to make further claims of pornographic pictures involving dildos, amongst other claims, that are known to be false.
So where we are now is that we know of three articles that have been written by Fielder.
Two of them we know to be entirely fabricated (Proetta and Stagg)
The third we know to be largely fabricated and the only issue is whether a specific nine words are true.
So, of the hundreds of words we know to have been written by Fielder, we know for certain that all but nine are lies. Those nine may or may not be true, but our only evidence of their truth is the word of the person who wrote the hundreds that we know to be lies. Believe Fielder if you like, but know who he is.
Finally, there is a principle in law, Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. A witness who lies about one matter is not credible to testify in any matter. Fielder has lied about not one matter but every matter that we are aware of, therefore he is not credible.
Is there even an example of him reporting the truth?
-
Jeremy Bamber and Brett Collins admit to the attempt at selling the photographs. I hold no candle for Michael Fielder but I hope that the impartial observer and particularly any potential new members are not deceived by these smoke and mirror tactics.
-
Jeremy Bamber and Brett Collins admit to the attempt at selling the photographs. I hold no candle for Michael Fielder but I hope that the impartial observer and particularly any potential new members are not deceived by these smoke and mirror tactics.
They can but try Steve - we won't let them though ;)
-
Jeremy Bamber and Brett Collins admit to the attempt at selling the photographs. I hold no candle for Michael Fielder but I hope that the impartial observer and particularly any potential new members are not deceived by these smoke and mirror tactics.
When was this?
-
There are two versions neither can be proved to come direct from jeremy or Brett but a third party posted another version . It’s like the circle of doom . No proof . And an article written by a known liar . I rest my case 🙂
-
Hi steve I honestly don't know what happened about the nude pics I know Colin wanted them back but Jeremy refused to hand them over he said he was keeping them he might be able to use them. I believe they tried to sell them to the Sun but may I ask in the nicest possible way have we proof of this,
-
Hi steve I honestly don't know what happened about the nude pics I know Colin wanted them back but Jeremy refused to hand them over he said he was keeping them he might be able to use them. I believe they tried to sell them to the Sun but may I ask in the nicest possible way have we proof of this,
Colin's own statements refute this, Susan.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1560.0.html
-
Hi steve I honestly don't know what happened about the nude pics I know Colin wanted them back but Jeremy refused to hand them over he said he was keeping them he might be able to use them. I believe they tried to sell them to the Sun but may I ask in the nicest possible way have we proof of this,
The "proof" Susan is the word of a proven liar and perjurer. It all depends on whether you believe in the credibility of Fielder despite all that we know about him.
-
theres a clip on youtube where he tells his story in an interview on tv ,surely if it was not true jb,s camp would have sued but they never.i think that says it all
-
theres a clip on youtube where he tells his story in an interview on tv ,surely if it was not true jb,s camp would have sued but they never.i think that says it all
It has been previously discussed, Sami. The canard about not suing is a red herring. Apart from anything else it would be difficult to argue that this story damages JB's reputation and standing given that he is convicted murderer. It just being false is not sufficient on it's own to win a libel action.
-
Hi Gringo thanks for that I did think JB and Brett had confessed I don't believe anything Fielder says so really no proof proper then ???
-
Gringo many thanks again I seem to be getting it all wrong tonight I really appreciate your help. Thank you
-
Gringo many thanks again I seem to be getting it all wrong tonight I really appreciate your help. Thank you
Susan, none of us can know for certain what happened. If however the only evidence is Fielder's word, then it is fair to regard it as requiring evidence before it can possibly be considered as factual. You are as free to believe what you choose as I or anybody else. I choose not to believe Fielder on the not unreasonable grounds that I laid out earlier. He has lied previously, a lot.
-
There are two versions neither can be proved to come direct from jeremy or Brett but a third party posted another version . It’s like the circle of doom . No proof . And an article written by a known liar . I rest my case 🙂
Is one of these versions the supposed non denial bullshit from some Express hack? Gruder? or something like that. He has said that Bamber didn't deny the story but when you look at the details, it turns out he wasn't asked. There was nothing to deny. Had he denied it to this Gruder? then we would be told he protests too much, indicating guilt. It's all smoke and mirrors from the guilters on this one not the other way round. All to distract from the fact that it rests entirely on the credibility of Fielder and he has none.
-
Is one of these versions the supposed non denial bullshit from some Express hack? Gruder? or something like that. He has said that Bamber didn't deny the story but when you look at the details, it turns out he wasn't asked. There was nothing to deny. Had he denied it to this Gruder? then we would be told he protests too much, indicating guilt. It's all smoke and mirrors from the guilters on this one not the other way round. All to distract from the fact that it rests entirely on the credibility of Fielder and he has none.
Sound familiar?
https://world.time.com/2013/03/29/the-amanda-knox-haters-society-how-they-learned-to-hate-me-too/ (https://world.time.com/2013/03/29/the-amanda-knox-haters-society-how-they-learned-to-hate-me-too/)
-
Denial.
-
Sound familiar?
https://world.time.com/2013/03/29/the-amanda-knox-haters-society-how-they-learned-to-hate-me-too/ (https://world.time.com/2013/03/29/the-amanda-knox-haters-society-how-they-learned-to-hate-me-too/)
Same playbook. Most of the guilty arguments about JB revolve around some supposed fact questioning his character. These "facts" invariably come from dubious and interested parties and are often wild misrepresentations.
-
Same playbook. Most of the guilty arguments about JB revolve around some supposed fact questioning his character. These "facts" invariably come from dubious and interested parties and are often wild misrepresentations.
The claim about all her male supporters being “driven by lust” for her. Reminds me of Mythster’s recent comment about Bamber supports being hybristophiliacs.
-
Isn't Robert Boutflour in the drama? There's been no sign of him, and yet he was very much involved in the background.
-
Denial.
Oh dear so much for you pronouncing something as fact
Wrong again
-
By the way, have the Jeremy supporters read Mike's post from several days ago yet..
Posts: 48316
Re: Home Office have a recording of significant Bambers Comments made to me...
« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2020, 09:41:AM »
Quote
Quote from: mike tesko on January 02, 2020, 09:38:AM
He had a grin on his face and big unblinking eyes when I told him that his sisters accomplice, was none other than himself..
The remark he made following my disclosure appeared to me, to be very telling indeed - he said to me 'YOU FUCKING CLEVER BASTARD', and he continued to grin...
I sensed that he was acknowledging the simple truth of the matter.
His sister had not acted alone, she had an accomplice, and in my mind I was sure that he was that accomplice.
Yes, noted. I recently queried whether this was behind the 'source' in 'Deviant', for the alleged confession from Jeremy that he was his sister's accomplice. I also suggested that if prison authorities had passed this info on to relatives either directly or via EP, this would only serve to cement their assuredness that Jeremy was guilty full stop.
-
It has been previously discussed, Sami. The canard about not suing is a red herring. Apart from anything else it would be difficult to argue that this story damages JB's reputation and standing given that he is convicted murderer. It just being false is not sufficient on it's own to win a libel action.
i see thank you gringo,would it not be slander of jb,s character
-
Speaking of confessions did anyone read the ex-prisoner's comment /post after the drama episode the other night ? It was so full of F's and C's that I couldn't carry on reading it, but this sub-human reckoned that JB had told him he was guilty ::)
-
Speaking of confessions did anyone read the ex-prisoner's comment /post after the drama episode the other night ? It was so full of F's and C's that I couldn't carry on reading it, but this sub-human reckoned that JB had told him he was guilty ::)
Do you read Mike’s and Boozy’s posts Lookout? Both been in jail with him.
-
Do you read Mike’s and Boozy’s posts Lookout? Both been in jail with him.
Skim, really.
-
There is whole thread about Fielder and his dishonesty. He lied for money as shown in this thread:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6754.0.html.
As briefly as possible:
Whether you believe that Bamber attempted to sell nude pictures or not, the whole allegation rests on whether you believe Fielder. To say that Fielder is not a reliable witness understates his lack of credibility by magnitudes.
First of all he plied his trade in that most disreputable of rags, The Sun, whose stock in trade is lying and smearing. A sleazy story in the Sun shouldn't really be considered as evidence of anything by anyone with even an ounce of sense but despite this, those who believe in Bamber's guilt hold as an article of faith that this story is true.
The position of those who believe Fielder was that he himself had never been shown to lie and it was unfair to tar him by association. It was further posited that he had offered to testify in the trial(eventually not used as a witness) and this further supported the view that he was telling the truth. Why? it was asked, would he risk perjuring himself?
It seems scarcely credible anyway that Bamber would meet with a reporter of the Sun, a paper that had been printing negative stories about him all week and present to them the best negative story they could imagine. Attempting to sell nude pictures of your dead sister to a newspaper that have been smearing you all week would be "too good to be true" for a reporter in Fielder's position. Wouldn't it? And yet we are to believe that this is exactly what happened.
We then discover that Fielder had in fact previously lied. Not only had he lied, he had then gone on to commit perjury. Other newspapers were also sued but the judge singled out Fielder and the Sun as the most egregious offenders. The headline was the "Tart of Gib" where the Sun accused Carmen Proetta of being an anti British, escort agency owning former prostitute in order to discredit her testimony against British SAS members. All accusations were shown to be lies.
You would imagine that at this point even the most staunch believer must be beginning to have some doubts about the credibility of the only witness to this alleged event. Instead we are now supposed to believe that just because he lied and perjured once doesn't mean he is now.
Some may have already noted that this is something of a climb down from the original position
1) Working for a lying disreputable rag doesn't prove Fielder personally to be a liar and anyway he was willing to testify. Why would he commit perjury?
Later
2) Working for a lying disreputable rag and lying and perjuring personally in the Carmen Proetta case doesn't mean he's lying and willing to perjure himself this time as well even though the circumstances appear too good to be true.
At this point a new witness is introduced to back up the now utterly destroyed original only witness. We are told that by some tenuous stretch that Colin Caffell can and does back up Fielder's version of events.
Spoiler Alert: He can't and he doesn't.
It is claimed that Bamber used the same words to describe the photos to Colin as Fielder used in the article. Reading Colin's statements from the time though it is clear that this is in fact not true.
Back to Fielder however and his credibility problem. After displaying his true character in the "Tart of Gib" hack job he went on to cement his reputation as a smearer for power by lying about Colin Stagg, who was being wrongly accused of the Rachel Nickell murder. Also worth noting is that even those who believe Fielder agree that the Bamber article went on to make further claims of pornographic pictures involving dildos, amongst other claims, that are known to be false.
So where we are now is that we know of three articles that have been written by Fielder.
Two of them we know to be entirely fabricated (Proetta and Stagg)
The third we know to be largely fabricated and the only issue is whether a specific nine words are true.
So, of the hundreds of words we know to have been written by Fielder, we know for certain that all but nine are lies. Those nine may or may not be true, but our only evidence of their truth is the word of the person who wrote the hundreds that we know to be lies. Believe Fielder if you like, but know who he is.
Finally, there is a principle in law, Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. A witness who lies about one matter is not credible to testify in any matter. Fielder has lied about not one matter but every matter that we are aware of, therefore he is not credible.
Is there even an example of him reporting the truth?
Very good post gringo.
-
Speaking of confessions did anyone read the ex-prisoner's comment /post after the drama episode the other night ? It was so full of F's and C's that I couldn't carry on reading it, but this sub-human reckoned that JB had told him he was guilty ::)
neanderthal how dare he say jb is guilty ;)
-
Skim, really.
Yes but are they Subhuman? Or is it because he said Bamber was guilty 🙈
-
I'm not sure cheque book fraud would necessarily bar a prospective teacher. I have known a male member of staff have sexual relations with a female pupil and be allowed to continue teaching in an all-boys school.
Of course I wouldn't be certain, not having committed any of these or indeed any criminal offence.
Cheque book fraud, burglary, importation of drugs, supply of drugs all in totality would certainly have barred her from teaching.
-
Very good post gringo.
ngb while your here could you tell when pace was bought in.thanks
-
theres a clip on youtube where he tells his story in an interview on tv ,surely if it was not true jb,s camp would have sued but they never.i think that says it all
There is no way JB or his "camp" could sue for libel, even in the face of total lies. This spurious suggestion has been dealt with before.
-
Yes but are they Subhuman? Or is it because he said Bamber was guilty 🙈
Not at all, not that I'd take any notice of what scum like that has to say anyway but they're all tarred with the same brush-----the world owes them a living ", attitude and it doesn't wash with me.
-
Cheque book fraud, burglary, importation of drugs, supply of drugs all in totality would certainly have barred her from teaching.
was she convicted of the crimes above
-
It has been previously discussed, Sami. The canard about not suing is a red herring. Apart from anything else it would be difficult to argue that this story damages JB's reputation and standing given that he is convicted murderer. It just being false is not sufficient on it's own to win a libel action.
Absolutely correct gringo.
-
Nothing between their ears.
I can't help being " old school " .
-
Yes, noted. I recently queried whether this was behind the 'source' in 'Deviant', for the alleged confession from Jeremy that he was his sister's accomplice. I also suggested that if prison authorities had passed this info on to relatives either directly or via EP, this would only serve to cement their assuredness that Jeremy was guilty full stop.
I do not believe there was any "source" for the theory advanced in Deviant.
-
There is no way JB or his "camp" could sue for libel, even in the face of total lies. This spurious suggestion has been dealt with before.
why not.if its not not true than its slander of character is it not ,many people have had payouts by the tabloids for writing things that were not true
-
i see thank you gringo,would it not be slander of jb,s character
Yes but in law JB has no character to protect.
-
ngb while your here could you tell when pace was bought in.thanks
The Act itself was passed in 1984 but the codes were only implemented by Statutory Instrument a while later. The interviews in the Bamber case took place before the implementation.
-
The Act itself was passed in 1984 but the codes were only implemented by Statutory Instrument a while later. The interviews in the Bamber case took place before the implementation.
thank you ngb
-
why not.if its not not true than its slander of character is it not ,many people have had payouts by the tabloids for writing things that were not true
Yes, but not people convicted of murder (unless subsequently acquitted on appeal). If JB is eventually successful in overturning his convictions he would be in a position to sue for libel.
-
was she convicted of the crimes above
No because she was given immunity in return for agreeing to give evidence for the prosecution, which of course the jury were not aware of.
-
Yes, but not people convicted of murder (unless subsequently acquitted on appeal). If JB is eventually successful in overturning his convictions he would be in a position to sue for libel.
now i see, thanks ngb
-
Oh dear so much for you pronouncing something as fact
Wrong again
It is a fact, whether you lot except it or not, makes no odds.
-
It is a fact, whether you lot except it or not, makes no odds.
You are free to believe Fielder but you could not successfully argue that he is honest, reliable or even remotely credible as a witness to anything. He lied and fabricated for a living. It is who he was. A lying, corrupt hack lying and smearing for a lying corrupt rag. Having to consider Fielder a truthful witness to support an argument merely demonstrates the weakness of the allegation.
-
Very good post gringo.
Thanks NGB. I am amazed that this story is still believed by anyone. The whole premise is absurd and unbelievable in the first place. The only witness is so discredited that his evidence can be dismissed out of hand. How does it even gain traction?
-
You are free to believe Fielder but you could not successfully argue that he is honest, reliable or even remotely credible as a witness to anything. He lied and fabricated for a living. It is who he was. A lying, corrupt hack lying and smearing for a lying corrupt rag. Having to consider Fielder a truthful witness to support an argument merely demonstrates the weakness of the allegation.
What about the post-trial party with that other individual Kelvin McKenzie ( the S*n ) who'd allegedly said, about JB " that little shit didn't do it " but nevertheless joined in with the knees-up ? Anyone remember this ? Editors, police ? Cahoots ?
-
You are free to believe Fielder but you could not successfully argue that he is honest, reliable or even remotely credible as a witness to anything. He lied and fabricated for a living. It is who he was. A lying, corrupt hack lying and smearing for a lying corrupt rag. Having to consider Fielder a truthful witness to support an argument merely demonstrates the weakness of the allegation.
I'm not going by Fielder, I'm going by Colin.
-
What about the post-trial party with that other individual Kelvin McKenzie ( the S*n ) who'd allegedly said, about JB " that little shit didn't do it " but nevertheless joined in with the knees-up ? Anyone remember this ? Editors, police ? Cahoots ?
What about it? Is Kelvin McKenzie renowned for his honesty or do we only believe these hacks when it supports an innocent stance!
-
Thanks NGB. I am amazed that this story is still believed by anyone. The whole premise is absurd and unbelievable in the first place. The only witness is so discredited that his evidence can be dismissed out of hand. How does it even gain traction?
Fielder isn't the only witness, Bamber used the same words to Colin and Brett Collins has never denied it, neither has Bamber. I gave him the opportunity to comment when I asked him - that was another question he avoided.
-
What about it? Is Kelvin McKenzie renowned for his honesty or do we only believe these hacks when it supports an innocent stance!
He was neither one thing nor the other. Two-faced I'd have said.
-
He was neither one thing nor the other. Two-faced I'd have said.
Only two? ;D ;D
-
Only two? ;D ;D
Well as many as the town hall clock then.
-
I'm not going by Fielder, I'm going by Colin.
Colin doesn't and can't support the allegation. Colin never made the allegation nor is he witness to anything. His belief in Fielder's allegations rest entirely on Fielder's credibility.
Colin can only claim some similarity in words to support his belief in Fielder and this is so weak as to be laughable. His claim's about this incident are inconsistent between statements and his later book.
Saying that you believe Colin rather than Fielder makes no sense. Colin is not a witness. The only witness to the alleged event is Fielder. Colin believes Fielder. Believing Colin is believing Fielder by proxy.
So your belief still rests entirely on the word of Fielder no matter how hard you try to distance him from your belief.
-
Colin doesn't and can't support the allegation. Colin never made the allegation nor is he witness to anything. His belief in Fielder's allegations rest entirely on Fielder's credibility.
Colin can only claim some similarity in words to support his belief in Fielder and this is so weak as to be laughable. His claim's about this incident are inconsistent between statements and his later book.
Saying that you believe Colin rather than Fielder makes no sense. Colin is not a witness. The only witness to the alleged event is Fielder. Colin believes Fielder. Believing Colin is believing Fielder by proxy.
So your belief still rests entirely on the word of Fielder no matter how hard you try to distance him from your belief.
Colin CAN and DOES support the allegation. He is a witness to the words used by Jeremy, not similar words = the SAME! It's weak in YOUR eyes and adding words like 'laughable' to play the situation down, is a tactic you use frequently and that's laughable.
I never mentioned believing Colin rather than - that's your slant, I believe both but Colin supports the Fielder article and vice versa and I'm not trying to distance myself from it - far from it. It's not inconsistent with his statement at all - he was never asked about the pictures and therefore it's not included.
I hope we're not going to have one of your usual rants - similar to the PC Bird debacle - I seriously can't be arsed and it won't change the fact that Bamber tried to sell explicit photographs of his dead sister - he's never denied it, even when asked.
-
Yet nobody batted an eyelid when slack Alice appeared knickerless.
-
Fielder isn't the only witness, Bamber used the same words to Colin and Brett Collins has never denied it, neither has Bamber. I gave him the opportunity to comment when I asked him - that was another question he avoided.
Not a single word of that backs up your claims.
1) Fielder is definitely the only witness. This cannot even be argued. Who else has claimed to witness this probably invented scenario?
2) The claim that Bamber used the same words is made only years after the event in Colin's book. Colin's actual statements at the time do not support this version of events.
3) Bamber has denied the allegation and given an account of his meeting with Fielder.
4) Brett Collins hasn't been asked which is a generally accepted prerequisite if you wish to claim his non denial has any relevance.
5) The opportunity offered by you to Bamber to issue a denial amounts to nothing and the fact that it made your list of reasons shows the paucity of your argument.
-
Funny old world isn't it? What's good for one, isn't for another.
One didn't reach the press the other was full length.
-
Not a single word of that backs up your claims.
1) Fielder is definitely the only witness. This cannot even be argued. Who else has claimed to witness this probably invented scenario?
2) The claim that Bamber used the same words is made only years after the event in Colin's book. Colin's actual statements at the time do not support this version of events.
3) Bamber has denied the allegation and given an account of his meeting with Fielder.
4) Brett Collins hasn't been asked which is a generally accepted prerequisite if you wish to claim his non denial has any relevance.
5) The opportunity offered by you to Bamber to issue a denial amounts to nothing and the fact that it made your list of reasons shows the paucity of your argument.
It can be argued, I just did so!
It does support his version of events or are you suggesting he's a lair?
The denial is peddled by the CT along with other rubbish.
I have no idea if Collins has been asked or not - neither do you
In YOUR opinion it amounts to nothing
It tried to sell the pictures - get over it!
-
Fielder isn't the only witness, Bamber used the same words to Colin and Brett Collins has never denied it, neither has Bamber. I gave him the opportunity to comment when I asked him - that was another question he avoided.
Course he did that’s why you continued to support him ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
Course he did that’s why you continued to support him ;) ;) ;) ;)
I don't continue to support him and haven't for years so get back in your box!
-
Colin doesn't and can't support the allegation. Colin never made the allegation nor is he witness to anything. His belief in Fielder's allegations rest entirely on Fielder's credibility.
Colin can only claim some similarity in words to support his belief in Fielder and this is so weak as to be laughable. His claim's about this incident are inconsistent between statements and his later book.
Saying that you believe Colin rather than Fielder makes no sense. Colin is not a witness. The only witness to the alleged event is Fielder. Colin believes Fielder. Believing Colin is believing Fielder by proxy.
So your belief still rests entirely on the word of Fielder no matter how hard you try to distance him from your belief.
What date was photo scandal paper published? do you know"
-
What date was photo scandal paper published? do you know"
It's on the forum somewhere.
-
It's on the forum somewhere.
Tuesday 17th September
-
Of note also, but overlooked, is the question of Colin's self appointment as guardian of the nude photos of his now dead ex wife. His relationship with Sheila was over. From Colin's statements we discover that the existence of some of the photos were unknown to Colin. The others were definitely known to Colin because he took them when himself when Sheila was 17. We don't whose suggestion it was that Colin should take nude photos of the 17 year old Sheila but I think we could all guess correctly.
Anyway Jeremy agreed that Colin could take the photos in order to destroy them himself. Jeremy informed Colin that there were other slides and that Colin could arrange to collect those also in order to destroy them. That Jeremy informed Colin of the existence of the photos, agreed that Colin could collect them at some later date of his arranging and gave him the slides that were at Sheila's flat undermines somewhat the claim that days later Jeremy offered them to Fielder. Colin only knew of their existence because Jeremy told him.
It makes no sense that Jeremy would inform Colin of their existence only to offer to sell them to the Sun days later. Colin at this point still believed that Sheila was responsible and believed the relatives were plotting against him. This is all from Colin's statements.
The meeting with Fielder according to Bamber was set up by Collins. His version is that he wanted the opportunity to put his side of the story because of all the lurid and sensational headlines. He claims that Fielder only wanted to ask about photos of Sheila.
According to Fielder, Bamber set up the meeting and offered him nude photos of Sheila. Fielder has never seen the photos nor did Bamber bring any of the pictures that he allegedly set up the meeting for. So Fielder claims that Bamber set up a meeting to offer to sell him nude pictures of his now dead sister but neglected to bring even one example. Fielder then goes on to describe the photos that he hasn't seen and makes claims in that article about sex toys that are demonstrably false. This is not arguable either. Fielder has a track record of making false and lurid allegations. No tape recording, no pictures, just his word that Bamber set up a meeting to sell photos but brought none.
As it stands, it seems that the only people who wanted the nude photos were Colin and Fielder.
Doesn't pass the laugh test.
-
According to Collins September 24th Statement. The photo scandal was published on September 17th.
According to Fielder, they published the article the next day after Jeremy and Brett tried to sell them to him. So that would be the 16th of September.
Jeremy Bamber was not in the country around this time. He left for France on the 14th of September.
:-\
-
Of note also, but overlooked, is the question of Colin's self appointment as guardian of the nude photos of his now dead ex wife. His relationship with Sheila was over. From Colin's statements we discover that the existence of some of the photos were unknown to Colin. The others were definitely known to Colin because he took them when himself when Sheila was 17. We don't whose suggestion it was that Colin should take nude photos of the 17 year old Sheila but I think we could all guess correctly.
Anyway Jeremy agreed that Colin could take the photos in order to destroy them himself. Jeremy informed Colin that there were other slides and that Colin could arrange to collect those also in order to destroy them. That Jeremy informed Colin of the existence of the photos, agreed that Colin could collect them at some later date of his arranging and gave him the slides that were at Sheila's flat undermines somewhat the claim that days later Jeremy offered them to Fielder. Colin only knew of their existence because Jeremy told him.
It makes no sense that Jeremy would inform Colin of their existence only to offer to sell them to the Sun days later. Colin at this point still believed that Sheila was responsible and believed the relatives were plotting against him. This is all from Colin's statements.
The meeting with Fielder according to Bamber was set up by Collins. His version is that he wanted the opportunity to put his side of the story because of all the lurid and sensational headlines. He claims that Fielder only wanted to ask about photos of Sheila.
According to Fielder, Bamber set up the meeting and offered him nude photos of Sheila. Fielder has never seen the photos nor did Bamber bring any of the pictures that he allegedly set up the meeting for. So Fielder claims that Bamber set up a meeting to offer to sell him nude pictures of his now dead sister but neglected to bring even one example. Fielder then goes on to describe the photos that he hasn't seen and makes claims in that article about sex toys that are demonstrably false. This is not arguable either. Fielder has a track record of making false and lurid allegations. No tape recording, no pictures, just his word that Bamber set up a meeting to sell photos but brought none.
As it stands, it seems that the only people who wanted the nude photos were Colin and Fielder.
Doesn't pass the laugh test.
You've managed to totally misconstrue just about everything. It was Brett Collins who approached Michael Fielder in the first place as they had had previous contact when Jeremy was arrested on the Osea Road burglary charge. They wanted yet more cash for their forthcoming holiday in the South of France.
As for Colin's interest in the photographs it's possible he wished to destroy the ones made by the London photographer, which were of a pornographic nature. He was horrified when he discovered Jeremy had been trying to flog them. The others of Sheila as a 17 year-old may have been a mistake, though given Colin's artistic bent one should give him a little licence. He's certainly not the dirty old man in a mac personage you are at pains to depict.
-
There's reference to the photo's by the girl herself, Sheila. In her " scribblings " she mentions the sun newspaper and police.
What you could glean from that is that maybe Sheila had once tried to sell them to make a few bob and because the subject came up again not long later, Jeremy was dragged through the mud because of it.
-
According to Collins September 24th Statement. The photo scandal was published on September 17th.
According to Fielder, they published the article the next day after Jeremy and Brett tried to sell them to him. So that would be the 16th of September.
Jeremy Bamber was not in the country around this time. He left for France on the 14th of September.
:-\
This is wrong as well. The pub meeting with Fielder was Monday 16 September, the story about Jeremy and the photographs was run the following day with a follow-up article in the Evening Standard, after which Jeremy and Brett departed for France.
-
There's reference to the photo's by the girl herself, Sheila. In her " scribblings " she mentions the sun newspaper and police.
What you could glean from that is that maybe Sheila had once tried to sell them to make a few bob and because the subject came up again not long later, Jeremy was dragged through the mud because of it.
No Sheila was horrified at the photographs which is why she had them in her possession the first place. Colin realized she would not have liked them to have seen the light of day.
-
nice one steve you certainly sorted that lot out :)
-
nice one steve you certainly sorted that lot out :)
They'll be back.
-
No Sheila was horrified at the photographs which is why she had them in her possession the first place. Colin realized she would not have liked them to have seen the light of day.
June could have seen them and had a fit, we don't know.Some were at WHF.
-
Of note also, but overlooked, is the question of Colin's self appointment as guardian of the nude photos of his now dead ex wife. His relationship with Sheila was over. From Colin's statements we discover that the existence of some of the photos were unknown to Colin. The others were definitely known to Colin because he took them when himself when Sheila was 17. We don't whose suggestion it was that Colin should take nude photos of the 17 year old Sheila but I think we could all guess correctly.
Anyway Jeremy agreed that Colin could take the photos in order to destroy them himself. Jeremy informed Colin that there were other slides and that Colin could arrange to collect those also in order to destroy them. That Jeremy informed Colin of the existence of the photos, agreed that Colin could collect them at some later date of his arranging and gave him the slides that were at Sheila's flat undermines somewhat the claim that days later Jeremy offered them to Fielder. Colin only knew of their existence because Jeremy told him.
It makes no sense that Jeremy would inform Colin of their existence only to offer to sell them to the Sun days later. Colin at this point still believed that Sheila was responsible and believed the relatives were plotting against him. This is all from Colin's statements.
The meeting with Fielder according to Bamber was set up by Collins. His version is that he wanted the opportunity to put his side of the story because of all the lurid and sensational headlines. He claims that Fielder only wanted to ask about photos of Sheila.
According to Fielder, Bamber set up the meeting and offered him nude photos of Sheila. Fielder has never seen the photos nor did Bamber bring any of the pictures that he allegedly set up the meeting for. So Fielder claims that Bamber set up a meeting to offer to sell him nude pictures of his now dead sister but neglected to bring even one example. Fielder then goes on to describe the photos that he hasn't seen and makes claims in that article about sex toys that are demonstrably false. This is not arguable either. Fielder has a track record of making false and lurid allegations. No tape recording, no pictures, just his word that Bamber set up a meeting to sell photos but brought none.
As it stands, it seems that the only people who wanted the nude photos were Colin and Fielder.
Doesn't pass the laugh test.
Yes we do know who's idea it was to take the photo's, it was Colin's because he didn't want to leave them with Jeremy. He told Jeremy to get them together and he would call for them. He called Jeremy early the following morning but someone claiming to be a workman answered - Jeremy wasn't there. Colin called round, picked up the twins toys and some letters belonging to Sheila. Next thing he heard about the photographs was from Fielders article where the words 'you can see everything right down to the last detail' rang in his ears!
-
June could have seen them and had a fit, we don't know.Some were at WHF.
June kept them in the bureau at White House Farm.
-
There's reference to the photo's by the girl herself, Sheila. In her " scribblings " she mentions the sun newspaper and police.
What you could glean from that is that maybe Sheila had once tried to sell them to make a few bob and because the subject came up again not long later, Jeremy was dragged through the mud because of it.
Those scribbling have never been authenticated.
-
Yes we do know who's idea it was to take the photo's, it was Colin's because he didn't want to leave them with Jeremy. He told Jeremy to get them together and he would call for them. He called Jeremy early the following morning but someone claiming to be a workman answered - Jeremy wasn't there. Colin called round, picked up the twins toys and some letters belonging to Sheila. Next thing he heard about the photographs was from Fielders article where the words 'you can see everything right down to the last detail' rang in his ears!
I think he was beginning to have suspicions about Jeremy at this stage. He wrote to him expressing his dismay at the attempt to sell them to the highest bidder, then felt under threat and departed London to stay with friends in Somerset.
-
Those scribbling have never been authenticated.
Pity, because there's one missing---PII ? One which could well have been written on that fateful night !
-
Pity, because there's one missing---PII ? One which could well have been written on that fateful night !
how do you know it existed if its never been found
-
This is wrong as well. The pub meeting with Fielder was Monday 16 September, the story about Jeremy and the photographs was run the following day with a follow-up article in the Evening Standard, after which Jeremy and Brett departed for France.
My mistake. They went abroad on the 20th.
-
My mistake. They went abroad on the 20th.
:)) :)) :)) :))your peddling of facts got you caught :)) :)) :)) :))
-
According to Collins September 24th Statement. The photo scandal was published on September 17th.
According to Fielder, they published the article the next day after Jeremy and Brett tried to sell them to him. So that would be the 16th of September.
Jeremy Bamber was not in the country around this time. He left for France on the 14th of September.
:-\
Not so, Jeremy went to his solicitors on 16th also so he couldn't have left on 14th. The 16th was also the day he entered WHF through the bathroom window.
-
This is wrong as well. The pub meeting with Fielder was Monday 16 September, the story about Jeremy and the photographs was run the following day with a follow-up article in the Evening Standard, after which Jeremy and Brett departed for France.
Very well pointed out Steve 👍
-
Those scribbling have never been authenticated.
Correct . They are in Fact false. And not written by Sheila . Confirmed by Jeremy .
-
how do you know it existed if its never been found
Because of the continuation of the writings when you realise a page is missing.
-
Not so, Jeremy went to his solicitors on 16th also so he couldn't have left on 14th. The 16th was also the day he entered WHF through the bathroom window.
Do the Jeremy supporters have an explanation as to why Jeremy would enter the property via this method post-murders?
-
Correct . They are in Fact false. And not written by Sheila . Confirmed by Jeremy .
How do you know Jeremy is not mistaken?
-
Correct . They are in Fact false. And not written by Sheila . Confirmed by Jeremy .
I seem to remember this but then Jeremy had no idea of how ill his sister was so I disagree with him.
-
Because of the continuation of the writings when you realise a page is missing.
could they not sprinkle black powder on the remaining page to highlight the indentations cause by the writing to the page underneath
-
How do you know Jeremy is not mistaken?
I'm sure he's mistaken David.
-
Correct . They are in Fact false. And not written by Sheila . Confirmed by Jeremy .
God knows where they came from.
-
See how these things are cast aside ? It makes me so furious.Does the man want to get out of prison or not ? ::)
-
Do the Jeremy supporters have an explanation as to why Jeremy would enter the property via this method post-murders?
He needed to obtain travel documents for France. This is confirmed by the hacksaw marks being present on the window in early October but not present in late August.
-
Do the Jeremy supporters have an explanation as to why Jeremy would enter the property via this method post-murders?
He'd given the keys to AE.
-
He needed to obtain travel documents for France. This is confirmed by the hacksaw marks being present on the window in early October but not present in late August.
But why break in, or slip a catch..
-
But why break in, or slip a catch..
Old habits!
-
Plus, he had no idea he was going to be arrested for the murders. Would he have gone that way if he'd known, or even committed the murders ? You don't shit on your own doorstep.
-
I'm sure he's mistaken David.
So am I.
-
But why break in, or slip a catch..
Because no-one was in, and it was locked.
-
I seem to remember this but then Jeremy had no idea of how ill his sister was so I disagree with him.
He certainly told the police how ill she was 👍
-
I'm sure he's mistaken David.
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
He certainly told the police how ill she was 👍
But he hadn't a clue just how ill she was.Only her parents knew that and Colin of course.
-
But he hadn't a clue just how ill she was.Only her parents knew that and Colin of course.
Of course he knew.
-
But he hadn't a clue just how ill she was.Only her parents knew that and Colin of course.
shes a nutter clearly implies he knew how sick she was iam sorry
-
Of course he knew.
He didn't know she was psychotic. He had to read up about the illness when he was first put in prison.
-
He didn't know she was psychotic. He had to read up about the illness when he was first put in prison.
Of course he did.
-
shes a nutter clearly implies he knew how sick she was iam sorry
That was a commonly used word for someone who was a bit do-lally rather than insane.
-
That was a commonly used word for someone who was a bit do-lally rather than insane.
iam not sure sheila was insane
-
iam not sure sheila was insane
She wasn't, she had a mental illness that was being controlled by medication.
-
She wasn't, she had a mental illness that was being controlled by medication.
The medication didn't work did it ? What about the others she should have been taking ? Half a dose is no good to anyone.
-
The medication didn't work did it ? What about the others she should have been taking ? Half a dose is no good to anyone.
(Here we go again ::)) - yes it was working and 'the others' weren't to control her schizophrenia. The reduction was because she was over medicated and she still had a moderate dose in her system even though her meds were due again.
-
(Here we go again ::)) - yes it was working and 'the others' weren't to control her schizophrenia. The reduction was because she was over medicated and she still had a moderate dose in her system even though her meds were due again.
Half a dose isn't over-medicated.
-
She wasn't, she had a mental illness that was being controlled by medication.
BUT there isn’t a cure for it and people have relapses all the time don’t they? even when on medication
-
BUT there isn’t a cure for it and people have relapses all the time don’t they? even when on medication
Everything I have read about schizophrenics committing crimes has always been accompanied by a reference to them often not taking their medication.
-
Everything I have read about schizophrenics committing crimes has always been accompanied by a reference to them often not taking their medication.
quite true caroline ,it can be controlled especially the violent episodes,the trouble starts as you say when medication is not taken.thats why some have to go in and have their injection cant be trusted to take it themselves
-
quite true caroline ,it can be controlled especially the violent episodes,the trouble starts as you say when medication is not taken.thats why some have to go in and have their injection cant be trusted to take it themselves
Exactly.
-
quite true caroline ,it can be controlled especially the violent episodes,the trouble starts as you say when medication is not taken.thats why some have to go in and have their injection cant be trusted to take it themselves
wouldnt be worth taking medication if it wasn’t controlled Sami
-
wouldnt be worth taking medication if it wasn’t controlled Sami
quite true rj
-
wouldnt be worth taking medication if it wasn’t controlled Sami
I haven't heard any such story of this happening while on medication. *Bet someone is Googling like mad now! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't think anyone can assume schizophrenia can be controlled 100% merely by taking medication.
-
I don't think anyone can assume schizophrenia can be controlled 100% merely by taking medication.
well they dont do electric shock treatments to the brain anymore .so iam not sure what other method they use .but i think the opposite it can be successfull %100
-
I haven't heard any such story of this happening while on medication. *Bet someone is Googling like mad now! ;D ;D ;D ;D
well i’m not googling because i can’t b bothered. but from what i’ve read people do have relapses whilst on medication , otherwise it would be cured would t it?
-
Yes did not take long . Not taking medication is the main cause . Not the only cause
Take your medicines as your doctor suggests. Not taking medicine is the main cause of relapse.
Reduce stress in your life. This may result in fewer relapses. For more information on reducing stress, see the topic Stress Management.
Don't drink alcohol or use illegal drugs.
Go to your counselling sessions and classes even when you don't feel like it or when you think they are not helping you.
If your doctor recommends family therapy, be sure to have all family members attend each session.
Join a self-help or support group. Self-help and support groups are usually run by the members of the group, not health professionals.
Learn the first signs of relapse, and seek help early. Common signs of relapse include:
Staying away from or not being interested in other people.
Forgetting things.
Having problems concentrating.
Daydreaming.
Not paying attention to what is going on.
-
Interesting.............
Not taking medication regularly or as prescribed is by far the most common cause of schizophrenia relapse. Persistent use of drugs or alcohol and criticism from caregivers are next on the list. "Many people with schizophrenia abuse some type of drug, most commonly marijuana," Frangou says.
Stress is particularly problematic. "Stress may contribute to schizophrenia relapse, but symptoms of relapse can also increase stress," she says.
-
yes it’s interesting jan. it’s just not as cut and dried as saying she was medicated so she couldn’t have had a relapse. i think it was perfectly possible .
-
People with schizophrenia can relapse despite taking medication, and despite having been stable for a while. Sheila had cut her dose, and while the dose in her body was said to be "therapeutic", that doesn't necessarily mean it was working 100% for her.
-
This part of a very interesting article .
If Sheila had been involved in other drugs , even if not on the day the risk was increased . ...........
If you have schizophrenia then using street drugs will increase your risk of dangerous behaviour fifteen fold
If you have schizophrenia then using street drugs will increase your risk of dangerous behaviour fifteen fold (Image: Axente Vlad/Shutterstock)
However, one key aspect of this condition that the modern research does tend to agree on is what most health workers know to be true, that co-morbidity with substance abuse is a clear predictor to violent behaviour. When a person with schizophrenia abuses alcohol or street drugs their risk of engaging in dangerous behaviour increases fifteen fold.5
Whilst suicide is by far the larger component of the total mortality figure for schizophrenia, the other part is the very much smaller but equally as tragic figure for homicide. Each year in the UK about 30 murders are committed by people living with schizophrenia. However, it is important to note that the number of attacks carried out by people with schizophrenia is a small part of the total of about 600 murders in the UK each year. In terms of the total number of homicides there are other risk factors at work which are much more influential. The risk factors for murder in the general population are being young, being male and being drunk.
-
yes during her relapse and while in psychotic fit she managed to hit the the target 25 times
-
There are some warning signs of a relapse. These can include lack of energy and a lack of interest.
-
Hi sami that is staggering
-
Hi Kaldin I seem to recall after what I have read that Sheila was like that when she arrived at the farm with the twins.
-
yes during her relapse and while in psychotic fit she managed to hit the the target 25 times
Freddi said when she had her previous episode she was not recognising people she was hallucinating. So perhaps she thought she was shooting the devil or the people she thought were bugging her phone ? Remember the letter to Anne ?
It did not mean she could not aim at something ?
Why do people have to reply with such sarcasm. It’s supposed to be a discussion forum .
I am just saying that just people post a statement as fact it does not mean it can’t be challenged.
-
The guilters do not deny the many facets to this case, one of them being the parlous state of Sheila that final week and indeed years before. However she still was medicated at the time of the tragedy, albeit at a very low dose, and Doctor Ferguson stated he didn't think the recreational drugs she used would have had any affect in negating the prescription medication.
How the Jeremy supporters reconcile a drowsy, pathetic creature accomplishing what she theoretically must have done that morning beats me.
-
Freddi said when she had her previous episode she was not recognising people she was hallucinating. So perhaps she thought she was shooting the devil or the people she thought were bugging her phone ? Remember the letter to Anne ?
It did not mean she could not aim at something ?
Why do people have to reply with such sarcasm. It’s supposed to be a discussion forum .
I am just saying that just people post a statement as fact it does not mean it can’t be challenged.
But in this case you're just not capable of what has been ascribed to her. Statistically you're far more a danger to yourself.
-
Hi Kaldin I seem to recall after what I have read that Sheila was like that when she arrived at the farm with the twins.
Yes she was. It was put down to her being "overmedicated" but it could have been a warning sign that she was going to relapse.
-
Hi Jan I am having difficulty finding words but somebody in a rage could fire shots seemingly at random and hit the targets hope you can understand what I am trying to say :(
-
Freddi said when she had her previous episode she was not recognising people she was hallucinating. So perhaps she thought she was shooting the devil or the people she thought were bugging her phone ? Remember the letter to Anne ?
It did not mean she could not aim at something ?
Why do people have to reply with such sarcasm. It’s supposed to be a discussion forum .
I am just saying that just people post a statement as fact it does not mean it can’t be challenged.
sorry jan it wasnt meant to be sarcastic.but i find it hard that someone who as you say was hallucinating could only fire at real targets and not let some shots off at random ie mirror ,pictures,the clock many other things around the home
-
Freddi said when she had her previous episode she was not recognising people she was hallucinating. So perhaps she thought she was shooting the devil or the people she thought were bugging her phone ? Remember the letter to Anne ?
It did not mean she could not aim at something ?
Why do people have to reply with such sarcasm. It’s supposed to be a discussion forum .
I am just saying that just people post a statement as fact it does not mean it can’t be challenged.
Absolutely. I don't think that people having a psychotic episode are necessarily raging around. She had paranoid schizophrenia, so she had episodes where she thought people were trying to harm her, so might have felt the need to defend herself pre-emptively.
-
The guilters do not deny the many facets to this case, one of them being the parlous state of Sheila that final week and indeed years before. However she still was medicated at the time of the tragedy, albeit at a very low dose, and Doctor Ferguson stated he didn't think the recreational drugs she used would have had any affect in negating the prescription medication.
How the Jeremy supporters reconcile a drowsy, pathetic creature accomplishing what she theoretically must have done that morning beats me.
Well what I posted is from recent research . And the percentage of sufferers that commit suiciide is a very sad statistic.
And none of us our jumping to that conclusion.
Just pointing out that saying she was on medication meant she could not have relapsed is not true .
It’s like a giant puzzle , but even solving some areas does not Mean the whole picture is complete.
Everyone just just cool down a bit
-
There are some warning signs of a relapse. These can include lack of energy and a lack of interest.
But if you've a lack of energy you don't suddenly become energized with the power to discharge 25 shots, some with pinpoint accuracy designed to kill.
-
I'm not saying that she did have an episode, but so many people keep saying she was sedated or too tired to have done all that, or that she was medicated so she couldn't have had an episode, and I simply don't agree with that.
-
sorry jan it wasnt meant to be sarcastic.nut i find it hard that someone who as you say was hallucinating could only fire at real targets and not let some shots off at random ie mirror ,pictures,the clock many other things around the home
Good point Sami, rage and Hallucinations would have meant not thinking straight esp if Neville was moving?
-
But if you've a lack of energy you don't suddenly become energized with the power to discharge 25 shots, some with pinpoint accuracy designed to kill.
I think you can.
-
Yes did not take long . Not taking medication is the main cause . Not the only cause
Take your medicines as your doctor suggests. Not taking medicine is the main cause of relapse.
Reduce stress in your life. This may result in fewer relapses. For more information on reducing stress, see the topic Stress Management.
Don't drink alcohol or use illegal drugs.
Go to your counselling sessions and classes even when you don't feel like it or when you think they are not helping you.
If your doctor recommends family therapy, be sure to have all family members attend each session.
Join a self-help or support group. Self-help and support groups are usually run by the members of the group, not health professionals.
Learn the first signs of relapse, and seek help early. Common signs of relapse include:
Staying away from or not being interested in other people.
Forgetting things.
Having problems concentrating.
Daydreaming.
Not paying attention to what is going on.
I didn't say it was the only cause - it's the MAIN cause. I said I hadn't heard of a case where a schizophrenic killed in a psychotic attack while taking their medication. Such stories are usually followed by a reference to then not taking it.
-
I'm not saying that she did have an episode, but so many people keep saying she was sedated or too tired to have done all that, or that she was medicated so she couldn't have had an episode, and I simply don't agree with that.
Well you should read the statements of the painter and decorator and the shopkeeper to avail yourself more fully of the facts.
-
Well you should read the statements of the painter and decorator and the shopkeeper to avail yourself more fully of the facts.
They have nothing to do with it. It's an unpredictable disease.
-
Anyway, what painter and decorator?
-
I didn't say it was the only cause - it's the MAIN cause. I said I hadn't heard of a case where a schizophrenic killed in a psychotic attack while taking their medication. Such stories are usually followed by a reference to then not taking it.
Point taken . You have personally not heard of a case.
-
Well what I posted is from recent research . And the percentage of sufferers that commit suiciide is a very sad statistic.
And none of us our jumping to that conclusion.
Just pointing out that saying she was on medication meant she could not have relapsed is not true .
It’s like a giant puzzle , but even solving some areas does not Mean the whole picture is complete.
Everyone just just cool down a bit
Except I didn't say that
-
Point taken . You have personally not heard of a case.
Have you?
-
Good point Sami, rage and Hallucinations would have meant not thinking straight esp if Neville was moving?
thanks rj,also most hear voices while going for these episodes,so she hears devils voice behind her a proper mentally ill person would automatically turn round and shoot.but theres no stray shots
-
I'm not saying that she did have an episode, but so many people keep saying she was sedated or too tired to have done all that, or that she was medicated so she couldn't have had an episode, and I simply don't agree with that.
Whether you agree with it or not, she was medicated and still had a moderate dose in her system despite the next injection being due.
-
They have nothing to do with it. It's an unpredictable disease.
They saw her demeanour only hours before the tragedy, as did Jeremy.
-
thanks rj,also most hear voices while going for these episodes,so she hears devils voice behind her a proper mentally ill person would automatically turn round and shoot.but theres no stray shots
The shots were apparently mostly at close range so quite hard to miss .
-
They have nothing to do with it. It's an unpredictable disease.
Not as unpredictable while taking medication.
-
thanks rj,also most hear voices while going for these episodes,so she hears devils voice behind her a proper mentally ill person would automatically turn round and shoot.but theres no stray shots
Absolutely sami.
-
Whether you agree with it or not, she was medicated and still had a moderate dose in her system despite the next injection being due.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that the drug was effective enough to prevent an episode.
-
They saw her demeanour only hours before the tragedy, as did Jeremy.
I told you - there are warning signs, but that doesn't mean that demeanour won't change.
-
Yes, but that doesn't mean that the drug was effective enough to prevent an episode.
But is was effective, in fact too effective which is why her psychiatrist said she was over medicated and her dose reduced.
-
I told you - there are warning signs, but that doesn't mean that demeanour won't change.
What's your experience to claim this?
-
Not as unpredictable while taking medication.
But still unpredictable. We just discussed how patients can relapse even though they're on medication.
-
What's your experience to claim this?
Do you know what a warning sign is?
-
I think we can all admit on BOTH sides there are possibilities that should not be dismissed,
That’s the whole point .
Just because we discuss the possibilities it does not mean they did or did not happen which is why forensics and evidence at the scene is so important and assumptions are not .
-
But still unpredictable. We just discussed how patients can relapse even though they're on medication.
Did you also note that the main reasons was not taking medication? Plus, if it's that common, there must be thousands of similar stories where a schizophrenic has killed due to psychosis while on medication?
-
I told you - there are warning signs, but that doesn't mean that demeanour won't change.
But she had retired to bed. She was asleep. She was woken by Jeremy and marched a few feet to her death like a lamb to the slaughter. This explains how peaceful she looks in the photographs.
-
But is was effective, in fact too effective which is why her psychiatrist said she was over medicated and her dose reduced.
Perhaps he reduced it too much too quickly .
Also it was her own doctor who said she could have had a relapse . And did he not warn her about the risks of taking recreational drugs?
-
Perhaps he reduced it too much too quickly .
Also it was her own doctor who said she could have had a relapse . And did he not warn her about the risks of taking recreational drugs?
He said they would not have had an adverse effect.
-
Do you know what a warning sign is?
Of course I do - my brother had schizophrenia.
-
Did you also note that the main reasons was not taking medication? Plus, if it's that common, there must be thousands of similar stories where a schizophrenic has killed due to psychosis while on medication?
The main reason, not the only reason. I didn't say it was common, but it is possible and it does happen.
-
Perhaps he reduced it too much too quickly .
Also it was her own doctor who said she could have had a relapse . And did he not warn her about the risks of taking recreational drugs?
She still had a moderate dose in her system.
-
The main reason, not the only reason. I didn't say it was common, but it is possible and it does happen.
Then it should be easy to find an example?
-
But she had retired to bed. She was asleep. She was woken by Jeremy and marched a few feet to her death like a lamb to the slaughter. This explains how peaceful she looks in the photographs.
Pure speculation!
Why would Jeremy make her go to their parents' room?
-
Then it should be easy to find an example?
Of what? Someone having a relapse whilst on medication? Really - do some research.
-
She still had a moderate dose in her system.
That doesn't mean she couldn't have a relapse.
-
Of what? Someone having a relapse whilst on medication? Really - do some research.
No, going crazy and killing while on meds. It's not me that needs to prove it.
-
That doesn't mean she couldn't have a relapse.
No, it just makes it unlikely and no one saw any of those 'warning signs' you mentioned.
-
Pure speculation!
Why would Jeremy make her go to their parents' room?
Firstly because she had to have left her own bedroom to have committed the murders, secondly he couldn't risk taking her to see her dead children so it was the most convenient option.
-
That doesn't mean she couldn't have a relapse.
Even in relapse statistically schizophrenics are far more likely to harm themselves not others.
-
No, going crazy and killing while on meds. It's not me that needs to prove it.
She didn't necessarily "go crazy". I don't need to prove anything. However, there is no way IMO to say one way or another if she could have killed everyone or if Jeremy did it - other than the forensic evidence.
-
Even in relapse statistically schizophrenics are far more likely to harm themselves not others.
Well some schizophrenics had harmed others, haven't they?
-
She didn't necessarily "go crazy". I don't need to prove anything. However, there is no way IMO to say one way or another if she could have killed everyone or if Jeremy did it - other than the forensic evidence.
Do you think she could have reloaded the gun twice given the unexpected tussle with Nevill?
-
Well some schizophrenics had harmed others, haven't they?
Yes, but can you find one that was taking their medication?
-
Kaldin Sheila's bed did not look like she had slept in it just a slight indentation on the pillow I think she had laid down at some stage
-
Of course I do - my brother had schizophrenia.
sorry to hear that caroline
-
Interesting https://www.reuters.com/article/us-schizophrenia-strangers/people-with-schizophrenia-rarely-kill-strangers-idUSTRE59K4J620091021
-
sorry to hear that caroline
Thanks Sami - awful condition.
-
Thanks Sami - awful condition.
so sorry Caroline, I can remember you saying Caroline you knew all about the drugs as well x
-
sami it must be really hard when a family member suffers from schizophrenia :( x
-
e findings reported by the Hodgins group are consistent with evidence suggesting that violence among adults with schizophrenia may follow at least two distinct pathways: one associated with premorbid conditions, including antisocial conduct, and another associated with the acute psychopathology of schizophrenia. That evidence came from a reanalysis of data from the CATIE [64]. The prevalence of violence was higher among patients with a history of childhood conduct problems than among those without this history (28.2% versus 14.6%; ). In the conduct-problems group, violence was associated with current substance use at levels below diagnostic criteria. Positive psychotic symptoms were linked to violence only in the group without conduct problems. Adherence with antipsychotic medications was associated with significantly reduced violence only in the group without a history of conduct problems. In the conduct problems group, violence remained higher and did not significantly differ between patients who were adherent with medications and those who were not [64].
-
Sorry for your situation as well Caroline as my mothers employer had a daughter who suffered as well and he was attacked several times . It was very sad and she had to be removed from the family home in the end .
-
Jan that is so sad and very hard on family members :( x
-
Sorry for your situation as well Caroline as my mothers employer had a daughter who suffered as well and he was attacked several times . It was very sad and she had to be removed from the family home in the end .
Thanks. It certainly isn't easy for anyone. and made worse because there is still stigma associated with it - but there for the grace of god (as they say).
-
e findings reported by the Hodgins group are consistent with evidence suggesting that violence among adults with schizophrenia may follow at least two distinct pathways: one associated with premorbid conditions, including antisocial conduct, and another associated with the acute psychopathology of schizophrenia. That evidence came from a reanalysis of data from the CATIE [64]. The prevalence of violence was higher among patients with a history of childhood conduct problems than among those without this history (28.2% versus 14.6%; ). In the conduct-problems group, violence was associated with current substance use at levels below diagnostic criteria. Positive psychotic symptoms were linked to violence only in the group without conduct problems. Adherence with antipsychotic medications was associated with significantly reduced violence only in the group without a history of conduct problems. In the conduct problems group, violence remained higher and did not significantly differ between patients who were adherent with medications and those who were not [64].
The conduct problems is obviously separate to the schizophrenia and Sheila didn't have childhood conduct problems. However, I see no one has been able to find any case of a psychotic attack/murder where the attacker was taking their medication? I'm sure there must be one (at least) but the fact that it's difficult to find examples, proves how rare it is.
-
You've managed to totally misconstrue just about everything. It was Brett Collins who approached Michael Fielder in the first place as they had had previous contact when Jeremy was arrested on the Osea Road burglary charge. They wanted yet more cash for their forthcoming holiday in the South of France.
As for Colin's interest in the photographs it's possible he wished to destroy the ones made by the London photographer, which were of a pornographic nature. He was horrified when he discovered Jeremy had been trying to flog them. The others of Sheila as a 17 year-old may have been a mistake, though given Colin's artistic bent one should give him a little licence. He's certainly not the dirty old man in a mac personage you are at pains to depict.
It was Jeremy who informed Colin of the other photos. It is obvious from Colin's statements that he trusted Jeremy hence the lack of urgency in collecting the remaining slides. In fact Colin went on holiday after taking the photos and showed no urgency in arranging to collect the remaining slides. The actual events and statements of the time show that Colin had no concerns about Jeremy's plans. His claims since then that he was concerned are betrayed by his actions.
You also, by inference, believe that having had a conversation with Colin regarding the collection of pornographic pictures, in which Colin made no immediate arrangement to do so, that Jeremy then got Brett to arrange a meeting with a reporter from the Sun, who had been busy smearing him, in order to sell the, previously unknown to Colin, pictures. Jeremy, being smeared and accused with all sorts of lurid tabloid tales about his sexuality and drugs, tried to sell nude pictures to the worst offenders and it didn't occur to him that his selling of the pictures would be a bigger story than the pictures. And you believe that this is exactly what occurred.
Neglecting to take any of the photos with him to the meeting supposedly set up for this very purpose isn't a detail that troubles you either. It is pretty apparent that those who believe this lurid tale aren't troubled by detail much at all in fact. The descriptions given by Fielder are agreed by all to be fabricated by him.
It's almost as if Fielder just wanted to write a scandalous tale of murder, sex and drugs, much like the rest of his known output, and if necessary make it up. You believe because you want to, not because there is a solid case for doing so.
-
Found one case where a woman was on controllled medication and did kill .
It is very rare
But does happen .
But risk heightened with taking of illegal drugs and antidepressants.according to research.
-
It was Jeremy who informed Colin of the other photos. It is obvious from Colin's statements that he trusted Jeremy hence the lack of urgency in collecting the remaining slides. In fact Colin went on holiday after taking the photos and showed no urgency in arranging to collect the remaining slides. The actual events and statements of the time show that Colin had no concerns about Jeremy's plans. His claims since then that he was concerned are betrayed by his actions.
You also, by inference, believe that having had a conversation with Colin regarding the collection of pornographic pictures, in which Colin made no immediate arrangement to do so, that Jeremy then got Brett to arrange a meeting with a reporter from the Sun, who had been busy smearing him, in order to sell the, previously unknown to Colin, pictures. Jeremy, being smeared and accused with all sorts of lurid tabloid tales about his sexuality and drugs, tried to sell nude pictures to the worst offenders and it didn't occur to him that his selling of the pictures would be a bigger story than the pictures. And you believe that this is exactly what occurred.
Neglecting to take any of the photos with him to the meeting supposedly set up for this very purpose isn't a detail that troubles you either. It is pretty apparent that those who believe this lurid tale aren't troubled by detail much at all in fact. The descriptions given by Fielder are agreed by all to be fabricated by him.
It's almost as if Fielder just wanted to write a scandalous tale of murder, sex and drugs, much like the rest of his known output, and if necessary make it up. You believe because you want to, not because there is a solid case for doing so.
He described the photographs to both Colin and Fielder in exactly the same way. If he wanted to have a story written about himself, there was no reason for the pictures to be mentioned. He tried to sell then - no doubts.
-
Found one case where a woman was on controllled medication and did kill .
It is very rare
But does happen .
But risk heightened with taking of illegal drugs and antidepressants.according to research.
Like I said, I'm sure it does happen - but it is VERY RARE. Can you post a link to the case?
-
Found one case where a woman was on controllled medication and did kill .
It is very rare
But does happen .
But risk heightened with taking of illegal drugs and antidepressants.according to research.
only the one,so its not the norm
-
only the one,so its not the norm
Hens teeth Sami!
-
Found one case where a woman was on controllled medication and did kill .
It is very rare
But does happen .
But risk heightened with taking of illegal drugs and antidepressants.according to research.
A few cases here in more detail.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8439.msg401967.html#msg401967 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8439.msg401967.html#msg401967)
-
Hens teeth Sami!
you did predict it caroline,when you said they will all be searching google now :)) :))
-
you did predict it caroline,when you said they will all be searching google now :)) :))
;)
-
Firstly because she had to have left her own bedroom to have committed the murders, secondly he couldn't risk taking her to see her dead children so it was the most convenient option.
Great imagination Steve
-
please try and keep it civil
-
Hi sami who is not being civil? x
-
Hi sami who is not being civil? x
its a reference to the above post susan .just a reminder in case it turns sour
-
e findings reported by the Hodgins group are consistent with evidence suggesting that violence among adults with schizophrenia may follow at least two distinct pathways: one associated with premorbid conditions, including antisocial conduct, and another associated with the acute psychopathology of schizophrenia. That evidence came from a reanalysis of data from the CATIE [64]. The prevalence of violence was higher among patients with a history of childhood conduct problems than among those without this history (28.2% versus 14.6%; ). In the conduct-problems group, violence was associated with current substance use at levels below diagnostic criteria. Positive psychotic symptoms were linked to violence only in the group without conduct problems. Adherence with antipsychotic medications was associated with significantly reduced violence only in the group without a history of conduct problems. In the conduct problems group, violence remained higher and did not significantly differ between patients who were adherent with medications and those who were not [64].
Jan you are wasting you time, not one of the people on here who believes Jeremy is guilty will accept any proper research you post
Nobody knew exactly how much and what she took alongside her legal medication. It was a nightmare waiting to happen. Most people know cannabis or skunk causes severe paranoia. Nobody knows what state Sheila was in the night of the murders, one things for sure, life was unbearable for Sheila and probably couldn’t face another day.
If the trial was today Jeremy would never been convicted because we know so much more about the illness
-
Sami that is fine I was worried something had kicked off x
-
Jan you are wasting you time, not one of the people on here who believes Jeremy is guilty will accept any proper research you post
Nobody knew exactly how much and what she took alongside her legal medication. It was a nightmare waiting to happen. Most people know cannabis or skunk causes severe paranoia. Nobody knows what state Sheila was in the night of the murders, one things for sure, life was unbearable for Sheila and probably couldn’t face another day.
If the trial was today Jeremy would never been convicted because we know so much more about the illness
Not one of the people on here who believes Jeremy is innocent will accept any proper research.
Her doctor stated that the meds would not be compromised by cannabis and we know exactly what was in her system from the toxicology report. Some people think they know Sheila and how she was feeling, but they don't. If the trial was today the same mistakes wouldn't have been made and they would have caught him sooner.
-
Found one case where a woman was on controllled medication and did kill .
It is very rare
But does happen .
But risk heightened with taking of illegal drugs and antidepressants.according to research.
Can you please provide a link to this Jan?
-
Not one of the people on here who believes Jeremy is innocent will accept any proper research.
Her doctor stated that the meds would not be compromised by cannabis and we know exactly what was in her system from the toxicology report. Some people think they know Sheila and how she was feeling, but they don't. If the trial was today the same mistakes wouldn't have been made and they would have caught him sooner.
Wrong as per usual
You don’t know how Sheila was feeling and that a fact as usual
Once again another forum member has had to complain about bad behaviour. Jan is a brilliant poster and if anyone is trying get her to leave the forum I think you will be unlucky
I come on this forum because I like reading posts about undisclosed information and breakthroughs but you spend hours on here discussing someone who is locked up on a full life tariff
How sad, it very worrying Caroline and your anger levels are off the scale. You need a hobby
-
Wrong as per usual
You don’t know how Sheila was feeling and that a fact as usual
Once again another forum member has had to complain about bad behaviour. Jan is a brilliant poster and if anyone is trying get her to leave the forum I think you will be unlucky
I come on this forum because I like reading posts about undisclosed information and breakthroughs but you spend hours on here discussing someone who is locked up on a full life tariff
How sad, it very worrying Caroline and your anger levels are off the scale. You need a hobby
Seriously, you have a problem understanding the written word
I said "Some people think they know Sheila and how she was feeling, but they don't" That would include me!
Who complained about my behaviour? You on the other hand were worried about getting banned because you can't control yourself. You come here to read about undisclosed information and breakthroughs? Ha, ha!!!!! What an absolute joke you are! You can't help disrupting, everyone can see exactly what you're like - you're notorious both here and on the red forum for causing trouble. Wittering on and on about you're Twitter account and MWT - BORING!
Why would I want Jan to leave the forum? I have had a perfectly cordial discussion with Jan and I have no wish for her to leave at all - why do you always have to drag someone else's name into your pathetic rants? You're embarrassing yourself.
No temper here pet - with you around there's always something fresh to laugh at! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Can you please provide a link to this Jan?
No. If you don’t believe me that’s your perogative . I said it’s rare and it was a woman who was actually being medicated in a hospital but escaped and murdered . I am not interested in points scoring. I posed an up to date article that shows even cannabis can compromise the medication but you dismissed that as well even though it is more recent research .also antidepressants in some cases can compromise the medication. Perhaps as her medication was below what the doctor had recommended that had an affect , perhaps , maybe .
As I said before each individual thing does not prove guilt it’s only a piece of a puzzle and that works both ways .
-
I just read her doctor’s report again . Ferguson certainly changed the tone of his statements as he went along.and he said her medication had not been changed . But apparently he was just not aware that his recommendation had been actioned . But not correctly . They reduced the dose to lower than his recommendation. Also she was on anti depressants and other medication to counteract side affects of her main medication.
-
No. If you don’t believe me that’s your perogative . I said it’s rare and it was a woman who was actually being medicated in a hospital but escaped and murdered . I am not interested in points scoring. I posed an up to date article that shows even cannabis can compromise the medication but you dismissed that as well even though it is more recent research .also antidepressants in some cases can compromise the medication. Perhaps as her medication was below what the doctor had recommended that had an affect , perhaps , maybe .
As I said before each individual thing does not prove guilt it’s only a piece of a puzzle and that works both ways .
If I refused to post proof you'd be all over me and you have been critical of others in the past for not doing so. I very much doubt you would take my word for anything and I maintain that any cases of medicated schizophrenics are rare - so much so, that you found it difficult to produce one.
-
I just read her doctor’s report again . Ferguson certainly changed the tone of his statements as he went along.and he said her medication had not been changed . But apparently he was just not aware that his recommendation had been actioned . But not correctly . They reduced the dose to lower than his recommendation. Also she was on anti depressants and other medication to counteract side affects of her main medication.
She wasn't taking the anti-depressants - they weren't found in her system.
-
Like I said, I'm sure it does happen - but it is VERY RARE. Can you post a link to the case?
Of course it's less likely than someone who stopped taking their medication, but you have acknowledged that it can happen. Perhaps cases where someone stopped taking their medication are more likely to be reported because the focus of such a news item is often the failings of the health service or the difficulties of care in the community.
In any case, are you suggesting that those who relapse on medication have a different kind of psychosis or have a milder form of it so that they're less likely to become violent and/or defensive?
-
Paranoid schizophrenia differs from person to person. Some people can also tolerate the given medication whereas others can't. With mental health as with any other illness it's trial and error as regards treatment and never " a one size fits all " with any illness.
The old saying " one man's meat is another man's poison " springs to mind.
Whatever was going on with Sheila she'd needed careful monitoring----which she hadn't had as staff were taking her word on how she'd felt. Such as when she was discharged for the final time she was bound to have said she'd been alright just to get out, but clearly she hadn't been.
When Sheila had been admitted for her last stay it was Nevill who'd said that her condition had deteriorated and if anyone realised this it would have been the Bambers themselves being closer to Sheila. Patients like Sheila was are very adept at " pulling the wool " , I've seen it all before, yet psychiatrists are supposed to know this, the signs, actions and tone of the voice-----but they don't and take the patient's word for it.
Saying that, Dr Ferguson was none too happy about Sheila's early discharge in 1985, but he hadn't indicated why ? I've now concluded that Sheila could not have been sectioned or he wouldn't have allowed her to have left the hospital earlier than he'd have wished.
Other medications that Sheila should have taken which would have counteracted the side-effects of the Haldol she hadn't taken along with the reduction of the main injection hadn't had the therapeutic effect that it was meant to have on her illness.
-
Sheila requested a reduction of the dose of haliperidol, presumably because she was feeling tired, and that is one of the side effects. However, one symptom of schizophrenia itself is also tiredness. When she died, she had a "therapeutic dose" in her body, but it's unclear what that actually means. It could mean a generally acceptable therapeutic dose but not therapeutic for Sheila.
When Sheila was first discharged from the hospital, there is some confusion as to how often she had a haliperidol injection. In one statement Dr Ferguson said it was 200mg once a fortnight, and in another statement he said it was 200mg once a month, to be administered by Dr Angeloglou, Sheila's GP. Dr Ferguson further said that Dr Angeloglou wrote to him on 15th July asking to reduce the dose to 100mg a month. Dr Ferguson was under the impression that it wasn't reduced at that time.
Sheila had made an appointment with Dr Angeloglou on 11 July because she wanted to reduce the dose. However, Sheila didn't keep that appointment and instead she saw Dr Fiona Wilkinson later that day, who had been working there for only two days. Dr Wilkinson halved the dose to 100mg. Dr Angeloglou had recommended the dose be reduced to 150mg, but seemed happy that Dr Wilkinson gave Sheila 100mg.
-
Sheila requested a reduction of the dose of haliperidol, presumably because she was feeling tired, and that is one of the side effects. However, one symptom of schizophrenia itself is also tiredness. When she died, she had a "therapeutic dose" in her body, but it's unclear what that actually means. It could mean a generally acceptable therapeutic dose but not therapeutic for Sheila.
When Sheila was first discharged from the hospital, there is some confusion as to how often she had a haliperidol injection. In one statement Dr Ferguson said it was 200mg once a fortnight, and in another statement he said it was 200mg once a month, to be administered by Dr Angeloglou, Sheila's GP. Dr Ferguson further said that Dr Angeloglou wrote to him on 15th July asking to reduce the dose to 100mg a month. Dr Ferguson was under the impression that it wasn't reduced at that time.
Sheila had made an appointment with Dr Angeloglou on 11 July because she wanted to reduce the dose. However, Sheila didn't keep that appointment and instead she saw Dr Fiona Wilkinson later that day, who had been working there for only two days. Dr Wilkinson halved the dose to 100mg. Dr Angeloglou had recommended the dose be reduced to 150mg, but seemed happy that Dr Wilkinson gave Sheila 100mg.
the drug is strong,maybe they thought 100mg would be enough
-
the drug is strong,maybe they thought 100mg would be enough
I guess they did think that, and they'd be right, generally speaking. It's very difficult to get the right dose of any drug if it's being taken long term. It should be the lowest dose possible which controls the disease and avoids the worst side effects, but that can involve a lot of tweaking of the dose.
-
I guess they did think that, and they'd be right, generally speaking. It's very difficult to get the right dose of any drug if it's being taken long term. It should be the lowest dose possible which controls the disease and avoids the worst side effects, but that can involve a lot of tweaking of the dose.
yes agreed,too much and they become zombies too little and they become dangerous
-
yes agreed,too much and they become zombies too little and they become dangerous
Possibly, although that does depend on the individual and not everyone who has too little medication is dangerous. Not everyone gets side effects and others do get them - that's goes for any long-term drug. The therapeutic dose differs from patient to patient - the same for any drug.
Sheila hadn't been getting these injections for very long - maybe three or four months - so it would have been difficult to get the right dose in that short time.
-
the drug is strong,maybe they thought 100mg would be enough
For a month ?
-
Like I said, Paranoid Schizophrenia is individual.
-
One doesn't automatically become pregnant by having sex on the last day of the contraceptive pill cycle, ergo I don't believe that being close to receiving an antipsychotic top up makes a patient boarderline violent.
For a month ?
-
I didn't write/post that about "the pill ?"
-
I posted " one month " meaning an insufficient amount of 100mgs of Haloperidol for extreme schizophrenia.
-
I posted " one month " meaning an insufficient amount of 100mgs of Haloperidol for extreme schizophrenia.
The drug is accumulative.
Here is the drug information - 100mg is NOT a low dosage!
https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/968/smpc
-
The drug is accumulative.
Here is the drug information - 100mg is NOT a low dosage!
https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/968/smpc
Not having read the link, I'd say that 30 odd years on that this type of illness is well under control, far more than it ever was back then. It stands to reason that although still not enough is known about mental illnesses, were far more advanced in medicine.
-
Not having read the link, I'd say that 30 odd years on that this type of illness is well under control, far more than it ever was back then. It stands to reason that although still not enough is known about mental illnesses, were far more advanced in medicine.
100mg is the same as 100mg 30 years ago - lets see how many more excuses the innocent side can provide throughout the day. It would be nice if you could back up arguments with an independent source - I'm not in the business of taking peoples word for it - not from past experience on here!
-
100mg is the same as 100mg 30 years ago - lets see how many more excuses the innocent side can provide throughout the day. It would be nice if you could back up arguments with an independent source - I'm not in the business of taking peoples word for it - not from past experience on here!
Please yourself, but don't get snotty with me girl.
-
Please yourself, but don't get snotty with me girl.
I don’t know anything about this illness Lookout, best left to them that do 👍
-
I don’t know anything about this illness Lookout, best left to them that do 👍
yes rj,carolines brother had it so she probably knows what shes talking about
-
yes rj,carolines brother had it so she probably knows what shes talking about
A young man who lives near me has it too, very religious but well monitored too.
-
A young man who lives near me has it too, very religious but well monitored too.
monitoring is the key
-
:(
A young man who lives near me has it too, very religious but well monitored too.
Funny how you always seem to know someone isn't it. I believe it was a neighbours daughter last time that you alleged yourself to be the only one capable of handling. Oh by the way, do you still address your servants as "girl", I thought such offensive behaviour had long gone. Seems not.
-
Please yourself, but don't get snotty with me girl.
Do you still address your servants as "girl"? I'd thought. Such offensive forms of address had long gone. Seems not.
-
Funny how you always seem to know someone isn't it. I believe it was a neighbours daughter last time that you alleged yourself to be the only one capable of handling. Oh by the way, do you still address your servants as "girl", I thought such offensive behaviour had long gone. Seems not.
You also " know " someone or other, but they always have to be at the top of the social ladder don't they ?
My dear friend's daughter had to be hospitalised with paranoia, yes.
It is not offensive to address anyone by " girl ". Get your facts right before you sound off !
-
Please yourself, but don't get snotty with me girl.
The comment wasn't just aimed at you but that did make me laugh ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
monitoring is the key
I know this chap is visited by staff regularly as he's part of the " living in the community " project.
-
A young man who lives near me has it too, very religious but well monitored too.
It completely different when you live with it.
-
The comment wasn't just aimed at you but that did make me laugh ;D ;D ;D ;D
I'm glad it made someone laugh, pity about she of the pearl-clutcher brigade !
-
It completely different when you live with it.
No one doubts the your experience but surely this is not an illness with predictable symptoms / causes/ or progression ?
My mother has parkinsons and the symptoms between patients varies , hallucinations , depression , obsessions , physical and mental consequences . And as a result many patients react very differently to medication and it takes a long time to get them right , if ever at all unfortunately.
-
No one doubts the your experience but surely this is not an illness with predictable symptoms / causes/ or progression ?
My mother has parkinsons and the symptoms between patients varies , hallucinations , depression , obsessions , physical and mental consequences . And as a result many patients react very differently to medication and it takes a long time to get them right , if ever at all unfortunately.
sorry to hear that jan,must be heart breaking for you,my mates dad had it and he used to cry to me a couple of times says the person that brought me up with so much love no longer recognises who i am
-
sorry to hear that jan,must be heart breaking for you,my mates dad had it and he used to cry to me a couple of times says the person that brought me up with so much love no longer recognises who i am
Must be horrible Sami.
-
No one doubts the your experience but surely this is not an illness with predictable symptoms / causes/ or progression ?
My mother has parkinsons and the symptoms between patients varies , hallucinations , depression , obsessions , physical and mental consequences . And as a result many patients react very differently to medication and it takes a long time to get them right , if ever at all unfortunately.
Sorry to hear that Jan, Depression alone is terrible.
-
It is very hard she screams with the pain sometimes and the medication seems to make her worse . It is a horrible illness.
-
It is very hard she screams with the pain sometimes and the medication seems to make her worse . It is a horrible illness.
Is the hallucinations due to the medication Jan?
-
Jan it is so hard for you seeing your Mum with this illness :(
-
Is the hallucinations due to the medication Jan?
No it can be because of the illness. They describe if as taking your brain cells and just shaking them all up .
Symptoms come and go and it’s the pain my mother finds the hardest . Like neuropathic pain and then the drugs they prescribe have side affects she can’t tolerate.
She is not at a later stage yet but it does get progressively worse and my parents struggle on and are stubborn to the extreme and refuse to move .
But we all have problems in our life we just have to get on with it . No snowflakes in my family 😬
-
No it can be because of the illness. They describe if as taking your brain cells and just shaking them all up .
Symptoms come and go and it’s the pain my mother finds the hardest . Like neuropathic pain and then the drugs they prescribe have side affects she can’t tolerate.
She is not at a later stage yet but it does get progressively worse and my parents struggle on and are stubborn to the extreme and refuse to move .
But we all have problems in our life we just have to get on with it . No snowflakes in my family 😬
Bless, thanks Jan, you’ve hit it on the head we all have problems.
-
No one doubts the your experience but surely this is not an illness with predictable symptoms / causes/ or progression ?
My mother has parkinsons and the symptoms between patients varies , hallucinations , depression , obsessions , physical and mental consequences . And as a result many patients react very differently to medication and it takes a long time to get them right , if ever at all unfortunately.
Sorry to hear about your mum but I wasn't arguing with anyone? However, there have to be predictable symptoms for it to be diagnosed. Causes, I assume are varied and progression would depend on early or late intervention.
If anyone doubts my experience, that's really their problem.
-
In the Mirror this morning
Regarding the Factual Drama
” ITV insisted it did “meticulous research” for the drama
-
One thing this drama's done is to bring out the good and bad in people !! At least it's highlighted the case.
-
yes and got more people interested in poor jb,and the whole life sentence he must serve
-
Every dog has his day !
-
Every dog has his day !
thats so true lookout :)
-
Every dog has his day !
Cept for poor Crispy!
-
Cept for poor Crispy!
Yes could have saved himself a lot of trouble by shooting it in the house .
-
Yes could have saved himself a lot of trouble by shooting it in the house .
But he didn't - he dealt with him later.
-
But he didn't - he dealt with him later.
Yes so you keep,saying .
Obviously with the rats it proves he is guilty .
-
Yes could have saved himself a lot of trouble by shooting it in the house .
What trouble, is that how you see Crispy trouble?
-
What trouble, is that how you see Crispy trouble?
No trouble to Jeremy because the opinion is it proves his guilt .
-
No trouble to Jeremy because the opinion is it proves his guilt .
No, it exonerate’s AE because everyone says it was her who had the dog put down and refuse to believe Jeremy would do such an act.
-
No, it exonerate’s AE because everyone says it was her who had the dog put down and refuse to believe Jeremy would do such an act.
That is not what I heard anyway .
She was just asked if she would rehome the dog and she said no .
Who cares it’s all he said she said .
-
there’s been a lot in the papers about the 999 call etc. can someone remind me what evidence d they found referring to this thanks
-
there’s been a lot in the papers about the 999 call etc. can someone remind me what evidence d they found referring to this thanks
not much or else it would be broadcasted far and wide by the ct
-
there’s been a lot in the papers about the 999 call etc. can someone remind me what evidence d they found referring to this thanks
Due to the ITV series. The papers are now circulating crap with both guilt and innocence narratives. In order to generate revenue via their click bait ads. That's how online news works these days.
-
Due to the ITV series. The papers are now circulating crap with both guilt and innocence narratives. In order to generate revenue via their click bait ads. That's how online news works these days.
It's not just online.
-
Yes so you keep,saying .
Obviously with the rats it proves he is guilty .
No, but it does make him a thoroughly callous individual. His mum had just died in terrible circumstances and his killed the dog she loved. I believe for one moment that you could find that excusable?
-
Due to the ITV series. The papers are now circulating crap with both guilt and innocence narratives. In order to generate revenue via their click bait ads. That's how online news works these days.
apparently a 999 call was made at 6-09 am so who made it. what evidence do they have that this call was made.
-
apparently a 999 call was made at 6-09 am so who made it. what evidence do they have that this call was made.
-
apparently a 999 call was made at 6-09 am so who made it. what evidence do they have that this call was made.
There was no 999 call Notsure.
-
umm that tells me nothing about 6.09 ?
-
There was no 999 call Notsure.
ok so what are they referring too then.
-
there’s been a lot in the papers about the 999 call etc. can someone remind me what evidence d they found referring to this thanks
None, it another ruse.
-
That is not what I heard anyway .
She was just asked if she would rehome the dog and she said no .
Who cares it’s all he said she said .
Actually, it's a HE said the 'he' being - the vet.
-
None, it another ruse.
Prove otherwise.
-
ok so what are they referring too then.
The telephone operator connected the phone at WHF to the "999 system" so the police could listen in on the phone left off the hook.
-
quote author=Jan link=topic=10009.msg472795#msg472795 date=1579627922]
Yes so you keep,saying .
Obviously with the rats it proves he is guilty .
[/quote] ;D ;D ;D
-
The telephone operator connected the phone at WHF to the "999 system" so the police could listen in on the phone left off the hook.
oh so they weren't listening in before that/ and it wasn't an outgoing call from whf:? is there statement or something from the police to confirm this is what they did
-
Prove otherwise.
I don't need to - the evidence does. This has been dragged up previously and it's bollox.
-
quote author=Jan link=topic=10009.msg472795#msg472795 date=1579627922]
Yes so you keep,saying .
Obviously with the rats it proves he is guilty .
;D ;D ;D
I wonder if Julie’s glued to the TV for her main part in the drama
Fame again after all this time. She must be excited
-
I don't need to - the evidence does. This has been dragged up previously and it's bollox.
So it must be right then if you don't agree.
-
oh so they weren't listening in before that/ and it wasn't an outgoing call from whf:? is there statement or something from the police to confirm this is what they did
Yes. Here it is.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4994.0;attach=35076)
-
#WhiteHouseFarm #ITV Drama
FACT: 2 dogs not 1 dog
The Bamber's owned 2 dogs: the farm dog Bruce & elderly dog Crispy.
Both dogs were put into the care of the vet.
Bruce was re-homed to a farm.
The vet recommended Crispy be put to sleep as he was very elderly & distressed.
-
oh ok I hadn't realised this was also being discussed on another page. this linking up business is all rather confusing really.
-
iam not surprised crispy was distressed he had seen jb slaughter the family
-
#WhiteHouseFarm #ITV Drama
FACT: 2 dogs not 1 dog
The Bamber's owned 2 dogs: the farm dog Bruce & elderly dog Crispy.
Both dogs were put into the care of the vet.
Bruce was re-homed to a farm.
The vet recommended Crispy be put to sleep as he was very elderly & distressed.
No they weren't the vet attended the farm and put Crispy to sleep and Bamber stated he didn't want him rehomed. FACT!!
-
It's not a damn crime----just more mudslinging to throw at JB.
-
It's not a damn crime----just more mudslinging to throw at JB.
No, but it just goes to show how people will excuse anything that Bamber does/did.
-
No, but it just goes to show how people will excuse anything that Bamber does/did.
It's nothing to do with it being excused because it was JB it's the way the whole thing has been interpreted.
The dog wasn't a puppy as it wouldn't have been put down. Bruce wasn't put down was he ? Crispy had been a " one person " dog. That person was no longer alive. The dog was old and above all it had been traumatised so the kindest thing to do was to put it to sleep. Sadly the guilters and other airheads on twitter don't want to look at it logically.
-
It's nothing to do with it being excused because it was JB it's the way the whole thing has been interpreted.
The dog wasn't a puppy as it wouldn't have been put down. Bruce wasn't put down was he ? Crispy had been a " one person " dog. That person was no longer alive. The dog was old and above all it had been traumatised so the kindest thing to do was to put it to sleep. Sadly the guilters and other airheads on twitter don't want to look at it logically.
Like I said - excuses. ::)
-
I bet the vet was in agreeance !! We don't hear that though do we ?
As I've said, nobody else wanted it !
-
I bet the vet was in agreeance !! We don't hear that though do we ?
As I've said, nobody else wanted it !
Another excuse.
-
No they weren't the vet attended the farm and put Crispy to sleep and Bamber stated he didn't want him rehomed. FACT!!
Where did jeremy say he did not want him rehomed where is that from ? His mouth or a book ? I thought it was not fact unless he said it .?
-
Where did jeremy say he did not want him rehomed where is that from ? His mouth or a book ? I thought it was not fact unless he said it .?
I have already said I have read his statement.
-
Where did jeremy say he did not want him rehomed where is that from ? His mouth or a book ? I thought it was not fact unless he said it .?
mouth or a book ,you forgot one his arse jb does a lot of talking from there.only joking jan :)
-
So now all these serious dog lovers couldn't care less that Crispy was put down. Because he was old suddenly doesn't seem to.matter. The excuses for Jeremy keep right on coming. So much for serious animal lover, eh?
It's nothing to do with it being excused because it was JB it's the way the whole thing has been interpreted.
The dog wasn't a puppy as it wouldn't have been put down. Bruce wasn't put down was he ? Crispy had been a " one person " dog. That person was no longer alive. The dog was old and above all it had been traumatised so the kindest thing to do was to put it to sleep. Sadly the guilters and other airheads on twitter don't want to look at it logically.
-
mouth or a book ,you forgot one his arse jb does a lot of talking from there.only joking jan :)
We will see .
-
We will see .
dont keep your hopes high,others have done that twice before always ends in tears
-
dont keep your hopes high,others have done that twice before always ends in tears
Lot more than twice Sami, no where near the appeal court yet - they have to get passed the CCRC and dragging up this old rubbish that Simon McKay wouldn't entertain isn't going to get pass the threshold.
-
Lot more than twice Sami, no where near the appeal court yet - they have to get passed the CCRC and dragging up this old rubbish that Simon McKay wouldn't entertain isn't going to get pass the threshold.
the way the ct and some members talk you would think hes coming out sooooon :))
-
dont keep your hopes high,others have done that twice before always ends in tears
.
Not me I am not that invested . Just interested.
-
.
Not me I am not that invested . Just interested.
Really? :o
-
the way the ct and some members talk you would think hes coming out sooooon :))
Seems as though his lover makes his appearance tonight, Brett asks Jeremy how’s he’s been considering the tragedy Jeremy replies “ Better now your here”
-
Seems as though his lover makes his appearance tonight, Brett asks Jeremy how’s he’s been considering the tragedy Jeremy replies “ Better now your here”
What does that prove?
-
What does that prove?
How do you mean, I’m updating the tv drama for anyone who wants to know? Doesn’t prove anything on a topic entitled The TV Drama? It’s about the drama the drama won’t prove anything!
-
How do you mean, I’m updating the tv drama for anyone who wants to know? Doesn’t prove anything on a topic entitled The TV Drama? It’s about the drama the drama won’t prove anything!
To put it how it says, it says he flirts with Brett when they meet , read into it want you want?
-
To put it how it says, it says he flirts with Brett when they meet , read into it want you want?
MURDER? White House Farm preview sees Jeremy Bamber flirt with Brett Collins in unnerving scenes
In a preview of tonight’s third episode, Jeremy – played by Freddie Fox – is seen greeting his friend Brett (Alfie Allen) at a train station as his girlfriend Julie (Alexa Davies) watches on.
The two men hug and compliment each other profusely, with Jeremy holding Brett by the back of the head and around the waist and saying: “You look amazing.”
-
It's nothing to do with it being excused because it was JB it's the way the whole thing has been interpreted.
The dog wasn't a puppy as it wouldn't have been put down. Bruce wasn't put down was he ? Crispy had been a " one person " dog. That person was no longer alive. The dog was old and above all it had been traumatised so the kindest thing to do was to put it to sleep. Sadly the guilters and other airheads on twitter don't want to look at it logically.
Thank you Lookout
-
DISINGENUOUS | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
disingenuous definition: 1. (of a person or their behaviour) slightly dishonest, or not speaking the complete truth
I actually do not believe a word Colin says on that interview/video after the trial
There is NO indication he intended to get back with her so he lied to make himself look good and he did not want to have ANY blame put on him.
He had a girlfriend at the time of the murders.
He treated Sheila appallingly and I am sure his behaviour didn’t help Sheila’s illness
She was a young girl in a desperate state on that last trip to WHF and she had no one
Colin is about as truthful as Mugford so you cannot trust a word he says
-
Seems as though his lover makes his appearance tonight, Brett asks Jeremy how’s he’s been considering the tragedy Jeremy replies “ Better now your here”
The " puf " you mean---with one " f " as was spelt ? They'd be hung drawn and quartered if that word was used today, especially by a cop.
-
DISINGENUOUS | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
disingenuous definition: 1. (of a person or their behaviour) slightly dishonest, or not speaking the complete truth
I actually do not believe a word Colin says on that interview/video after the trial
There is NO indication he intended to get back with her so he lied to make himself look good and he did not want to have ANY blame put on him.
He had a girlfriend at the time of the murders.
He treated Sheila appallingly and I am sure his behaviour didn’t help Sheila’s illness
She was a young girl in a desperate state on that last trip to WHF and she had no one
Colin is about as truthful as Mugford so you cannot trust a word he says
I agree with you Jackie.
-
To put it how it says, it says he flirts with Brett when they meet , read into it want you want?
well you just have as you said they were lovers .
-
How do you mean, I’m updating the tv drama for anyone who wants to know? Doesn’t prove anything on a topic entitled The TV Drama? It’s about the drama the drama won’t prove anything!
I know it’s a drama and not the truth but all a bit misleading as no one knows if they had a relationship or not. Pity they have chosen to mislead rather than showing the true picture that JM suspected and showed jealousy that Jb spent more time with Brett but that nothing was proven. Pity they have portrayed a relationship between them because people will take it as fact.
-
Seems as though his lover makes his appearance tonight, Brett asks Jeremy how’s he’s been considering the tragedy Jeremy replies “ Better now your here”
So I guess you are now going to post the proof they were lovers. Don’t keep me waiting to long I’m going out tonight
-
I know it’s a drama and not the truth but all a bit misleading as no one knows if they had a relationship or not. Pity they have chosen to mislead rather than showing the true picture that JM suspected and showed jealousy that Jb spent more time with Brett but that nothing was proven. Pity they have portrayed a relationship between them because people will take it as fact.
??? It’s not finished yet, how do you know they don’t? Don’t understand your post we’ve only had two episodes. This is Brett’s first appearance give it time.
-
So I guess you are now going to post the proof they were lovers. Don’t keep me waiting to long I’m going out tonight
Nothing wrong if they was, Good on them.
-
I know it’s a drama and not the truth but all a bit misleading as no one knows if they had a relationship or not. Pity they have chosen to mislead rather than showing the true picture that JM suspected and showed jealousy that Jb spent more time with Brett but that nothing was proven. Pity they have portrayed a relationship between them because people will take it as fact.
they are just adding it to Julie implications in her statements and the family also appearing to be homophobic as well .
oh well that makes him a murderer as well its obvious
I can understand that at the time as everyone was allowed to be un politically correct but for the drama to run with it? Its pretty par for the course tbh
-
they are just adding it to Julie implications in her statements and the family also appearing to be homophobic as well .
oh well that makes him a murderer as well its obvious
I can understand that at the time as everyone was allowed to be un politically correct but for the drama to run with it? Its pretty par for the course tbh
It is Jan, have to admit the drama has not held my attention at all but find this angle cheap as it doesn’t add anything, would have thought it would have been enough to show Julie showing insecurity and suspicion. If they had an affair who cares but seems exaggerated for one real reaso.
-
It is Jan, have to admit the drama has not held my attention at all but find this angle cheap as it doesn’t add anything, would have thought it would have been enough to show Julie showing insecurity and suspicion. If they had an affair who cares but seems exaggerated for one real reaso.
How do you know, we’ve had two episodes and Brett hasn’t been in it yet?
-
How do you know, we’ve had two episodes and Brett hasn’t been in it yet?
Hiw do I know what? I was going by your posts.
-
Hiw do I know what? I was going by your posts.
You said this
Pity they have chosen to mislead rather than showing the true picture that JM suspected and showed jealousy that Jb spent more time with Brett but that nothing was proven. Pity they have portrayed a relationship between them because people will take it as fact
How do you know they don’t show that Julie was jealous? We’re two episodes in Brett hasn’t been in it yet so give it time.
-
You said this
Pity they have chosen to mislead rather than showing the true picture that JM suspected and showed jealousy that Jb spent more time with Brett but that nothing was proven. Pity they have portrayed a relationship between them because people will take it as fact
How do you know they don’t show that Julie was jealous? We’re two episodes in Brett hasn’t been in it yet so give it time.
ah so you are doing your representation of the description by saying "his lover appears". So we have to wait and see . Very confusing .
-
oh well good news not long till the drama is on and we can get back to subject
-
oh well good news not long till the drama is on and we can get back to subject
True. I hope there are some flashbacks. Sheila and the Bambers weren't in it for very long otherwise.
-
oh well good news not long till the drama is on and we can get back to subject
Jan I think Colin’s got a lot to do with the topics at the moment
Truth re his change in statements
Truth about his real relationship with Sheila
Truth re the photos
-
True. I hope there are some flashbacks. Sheila and the Bambers weren't in it for very long otherwise.
Just been reading some old posts from Colin's book in which he wrote that June caused all the rifts in the household and was jealous if Nevill showed affection to his daughter. Even if the three of them went out, june would cause trouble and one day Sheila had said to Colin " why doesn't he leave her ?" So things weren't a bed of roses at WHF either were they ?
-
Jan I think Colin’s got a lot to do with the topics at the moment
Truth re his change in statements
Truth about his real relationship with Sheila
Truth re the photos
I know there are a lot of things that can be said about those things . But personally I would not to want to get into that . Posters can chose to believe who they want , and they will .
And I will continue to point out its just one persons word against another and unless there are independent unbiased witnesses it means diddly squat .
-
Just been reading some old posts from Colin's book in which he wrote that June caused all the rifts in the household and was jealous if Nevill showed affection to his daughter. Even if the three of them went out, june would cause trouble and one day Sheila had said to Colin " why doesn't he leave her ?" So things weren't a bed of roses at WHF either were they ?
Remember June had been ill and hospitalized twice. Was she trying to keep up appearances at all times and was this the reason she adopted in the first place and which contributed in part to her ubiquitous nervous disposition? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-51141219/mental-health-how-to-spot-if-you-are-suffering-burnout
-
Just been reading some old posts from Colin's book in which he wrote that June caused all the rifts in the household and was jealous if Nevill showed affection to his daughter. Even if the three of them went out, june would cause trouble and one day Sheila had said to Colin " why doesn't he leave her ?" So things weren't a bed of roses at WHF either were they ?
I think they all found june to be very difficult with her religion. didn't shiela say to Freddie that she hated her etc. it must have been very difficult for all of them to accept the way june was. it wasn't normal was it.
-
I think they all found june to be very difficult with her religion. didn't shiela say to Freddie that she hated her etc. it must have been very difficult for all of them to accept the way june was. it wasn't normal was it.
I don't think she ever went that far: their relationship was more complex. She did inscribe "I hate this place" into the wardrobe of her bedroom at White House Farm, but she was in my opinion always holding out for the demonstrable love she was never given, hence no showdown.
-
Remember June had been ill and hospitalized twice. Was she trying to keep up appearances at all times and was this the reason she adopted in the first place and which contributed in part to her ubiquitous nervous disposition? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-51141219/mental-health-how-to-spot-if-you-are-suffering-burnout
She also felt threatened didn't she ?
-
I think in those days there was no internet and no drama queens - and people liked to keep their business to themselves .
Not sure if that's a good or a bad thing .
but there were obviously family stresses .
-
She also felt threatened didn't she ?
I don't know lookout. Who was June frightened of?
-
I don't know lookout. Who was June frightened of?
Religion can be a comfort, but it can also make people afraid.
-
I think they all found june to be very difficult with her religion. didn't shiela say to Freddie that she hated her etc. it must have been very difficult for all of them to accept the way june was. it wasn't normal was it.
It wasn't a normal way to be. In fact it was a damned horrible way for the others to have to have put up with it. Imagine being jealous of your daughter ? Imagine making little 6 year olds pray all the time ?
It's no wonder there was ructions that night----everything must have come to a head.
-
I think they all found june to be very difficult with her religion. didn't shiela say to Freddie that she hated her etc. it must have been very difficult for all of them to accept the way june was. it wasn't normal was it.
I actually think it was between the 3 adults that night, taking everything into consideration.
-
Of course she can't join the debate - she doesn't know how.
The Cheerleaders are out in force tonight 😂😂😂
Peter tatchel He was quoted in the OutRage!'s press release as saying "Young people have a right to accept or reject sex, according to what they feel is appropriate for them".[96] Leo McKinstry, in The Sun, called the release "a perverts' charter".[97]
Our friend Leo has got the lot weighed up 😂😂👍
-
It wasn't a normal way to be. In fact it was a damned horrible way for the others to have to have put up with it. Imagine being jealous of your daughter ? Imagine making little 6 year olds pray all the time ?
It's no wonder there was ructions that night----everything must have come to a head.
I agree Lookout, Sheila certainly did hate her mother, Colin was quite clear on that and why should she have not hated her. The adopted child always told she wasn’t good enough, a disappointment, not one of them, the devil’s child. Mind you I’m sure Jeremy got similar treatment as well. Adopted children need unconditional love and protection to build feelings of safety and self esteem, sadly neither parent had a clue.
-
I agree Lookout, Sheila certainly did hate her mother, Colin was quite clear on that and why she have not hated her. The adopted child always told she wasn’t good enough, a disappointment, not one of the, the devil’s child. Mind you I’m sure Jeremy got his moneys worth as well. Adopted children need unconditional love and protection, sadly neither patent had a clue.
I don't get why Sheila was over there so often if she hated it.
-
I don't know lookout. Who was June frightened of?
Well reading Collin's book he stated that June was jealous of Sheila and disapproved of any affection shown from Nevill towards his daughter. She controlled the household and caused rifts most of the time. Junes insistence that the twins say prayers at every opportunity to which the children hadn't liked.
She sounded awful ! Sheila had asked Colin why her father didn't leave her. Happy families, eh ? My guess is that the 3 of them kicked off that night.
-
I don't get why Sheila was over there so often if she hated it.
She wasn't. She lived in London from the age of 16 and visited occasionally. She turned down June's offer of running an antiques shop in the locality.
-
I don't think she ever went that far: their relationship was more complex. She did inscribe "I hate this place" into the wardrobe of her bedroom at White House Farm, but she was in my opinion always holding out for the demonstrable love she was never given, hence no showdown.
well on the video recounting freddie’s statement he says she did say that. as far as i can see instead of june being the type of parent that could help her children she had too many troubles herself. if you think about it she really shouldn’t have adopted at all. it is all extremely sad, whichever way you look at it
-
I did reply and now you're arguing with me ME! ;D ;D ;D
I didn't slate you for slating Jackie though. You started arguing with me! :))
Let us move on. ;D
-
I am not sure if anyone interested but here is a link to some press pages of the time and reports - cant read all of them though
https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/real-story-jeremy-bamber-white-3739641?fbclid=IwAR10E5QBgP4xCGWy0ObSE2McCYCaMoX7wiEHg48yQWBgsbmaY-K8LU03PcU
-
I don't get why Sheila was over there so often if she hated it.
From what I know and this is second hand info, there is always hope, hope that this time it will be different, this time when they are supportive it will be real but always the rug is pulled away. It’s hard to be adopted at the best of times, however you look at it you have been abandoned by your natural mother, whatever the reason and if you aren’t treated with unconditional love the adoptive child becomes trapped in a pattern of push me pull me. If Sheila had a truly supportive relationship then she probably could have turned her back but sadly many people from such backgrounds choose bad relationships not knowing what a good loving relationship is and therefore continue the pattern they understand. Not just Sheila but Jetemy too however as a guy he would have been more likely to cut off from those feelings and bury them.
-
I am not sure if anyone interested but here is a link to some press pages of the time and reports - cant read all of them though
https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/real-story-jeremy-bamber-white-3739641?fbclid=IwAR10E5QBgP4xCGWy0ObSE2McCYCaMoX7wiEHg48yQWBgsbmaY-K8LU03PcU
best to be a bit wary of the press they like to spice it up abit
-
She wasn't. She lived in London from the age of 16 and visited occasionally. She turned down June's offer of running an antiques shop in the locality.
How often did she visit? She was there in June for that christening. Was she also there in July when Ann saw her at the caravan park?
I must say that Ann said she hadn't seen Sheila since the previous Christmas apart from a couple of minutes at the caravan park. She therefore wouldn't know anything about Sheila's recent co-ordination - something she talked about.
-
best to be a bit wary of the press they like to spice it up abit
I never commented about what they said in the articles I said they might be of interest to the posters on the forum .
Some of it is local press.
-
well on the video recounting freddie’s statement he says she did say that. as far as i can see instead of june being the type of parent that could help her children she had too many troubles herself. if you think about it she really shouldn’t have adopted at all. it is all extremely sad, whichever way you look at it
I think June struggled with her Christianity as many of us do. The irony was that at the time of the massacre she had turned a corner with Sheila, possibly due to chats with the local vicar and the beneficial effect the twins had on her. The same could not be said of Jeremy, who may have sensed this reconciliation, the allowance she was planning to draw up for Sheila and June's own refusal to write out any more personal cheques in his favour to supplement his extravagant lifestyle.
-
Well reading Collin's book he stated that June was jealous of Sheila and disapproved of any affection shown from Nevill towards his daughter. She controlled the household and caused rifts most of the time. Junes insistence that the twins say prayers at every opportunity to which the children hadn't liked.
She sounded awful ! Sheila had asked Colin why her father didn't leave her. Happy families, eh ? My guess is that the 3 of them kicked off that night.
i agree , it was also interesting that freddie said sheila was in a rage one minute then looking blankly into space combing her the next and her mood chat fed from being in a rage into complete calm. i don’t accept the argument that we was all quiet and lifeless on the night of the killings especially if this is anything to go by
-
How often did she visit? She was there in June for that christening. Was she also there in July when Ann saw her at the caravan park?
I must say that Ann said she hadn't seen Sheila since the previous Christmas apart from a couple of minutes at the caravan park. She therefore wouldn't know anything about Sheila's recent co-ordination - something she talked about.
But painter Michael Horsnell and shopkeeper Barry Parker noticed how precarious her demeanour was. It's so strange how the Jeremy supporters refuse to believe this feature of her illness and rush into the violent aspect where angels fear to tread.
-
i agree , it was also interesting that freddie said sheila was in a rage one minute then looking blankly into space combing her the next and her mood chat fed from being in a rage into complete calm. i don’t accept the argument that we was all quiet and lifeless on the night of the killings especially if this is anything to go by
He never said anything of the kind.
-
But painter Michael Horsnell and shopkeeper Barry Parker noticed how precarious her demeanour was. It's so strange how the Jeremy supporters refuse to believe this feature of her illness and rush into the violence where angels fear to tread.
Yes, but people have taken at face value Ann's assertion that Sheila couldn't pour a cup of tea or put beans on toast. That might have been true at some stage, but Ann hadn't seen her try to do either of things for a long time.
I don't think the shopkeeper commented on her co-ordination. I've never heard of Michael Horsnell.
-
He never said anything of the kind.
He did say something like that.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=159.0;attach=18938;image
-
But painter Michael Horsnell and shopkeeper Barry Parker noticed how precarious her demeanour was. It's so strange how the Jeremy supporters refuse to believe this feature of her illness and rush into the violent aspect where angels fear to tread.
I don't refuse to believe it. Demeanor at one point in time does not equate to that demeanour all the time. Ever heard of mood swings?
-
I think June struggled with her Christianity as many of us do. The irony was that at the time of the massacre she had turned a corner with Sheila, possibly due to chats with the local vicar and the beneficial effect the twins had on her. The same could not be said of Jeremy, who may have sensed this reconciliation, the allowance she was planning to draw up for Sheila and June's own refusal to write out any more personal cheques in his favour to supplement his extravagant lifestyle.
well i doubt shiela or the twins felt that way. by all accounts she was a nightmare. shiela probably visited out of duty and a need to have help
-
But painter Michael Horsnell and shopkeeper Barry Parker noticed how precarious her demeanour was. It's so strange how the Jeremy supporters refuse to believe this feature of her illness and rush into the violent aspect where angels fear to tread.
there no rush to accuse shiela of violence on my part as far as i’m concerned. BUT the fact of the matter is shiela had thought god was sitting next to her and she was the devil and she might hurt the twins and it goes on and on. just my opinion of course
-
Yes, but people have taken at face value Ann's assertion that Sheila couldn't pour a cup of tea or put beans on toast. That might have been true at some stage, but Ann hadn't seen her try to do either of things for a long time.
I don't think the shopkeeper commented on her co-ordination. I've never heard of Michael Horsnell.
Chapter 19: The Murders At White House Farm
Painting the exterior walls at Vaulty that afternoon, Michael Horsnell noticed that all wasn't well. At quarter past three he recognized June's silver Renault as it turned into the drive. He watched June, Sheila and the twins head into the garden: "Mrs Bamber was playing with the two boys, jumping over small hedges and running up and down the garden. Sheila was with them, but she was like a zombie. She walked very rigidly and the only part of her that moved was from the knees down. She didn't even turn her head from left to right. I did not hear Sheila speak at all. They went into the house.". June sought him out a short while later to discuss repairs: "I got the definite impression that she was upset about something. She was in a different mood from when she had been playing with the children. It was not anything she said, but just the way she looked and was speaking." When they left the house, "Sheila definitely did not look normal" and was again "walking stiffly, like a zombie from a horror movie."
-
I'd have been wary of the woman. Wasn't she visiting her GP regularly over a period of time right up to the murders ? And of course the only one covered in blood from head to toe----which I've never been comfortable with.
-
I can fully understand " Taff " when he said murder/suicide. They all killed each other.
-
I don't refuse to believe it. Demeanor at one point in time does not equate to that demeanour all the time. Ever heard of mood swings?
Not when you're exhausted, probably wishing to remain in bed that day and not traipse around following June's cronies or having to care for the twins full-time when you're just not up to it.
-
Chapter 19: The Murders At White House Farm
Painting the exterior walls at Vaulty that afternoon, Michael Horsnell noticed that all wasn't well. At quarter past three he recognized June's silver Renault as it turned into the drive. He watched June, Sheila and the twins head into the garden: "Mrs Bamber was playing with the two boys, jumping over small hedges and running up and down the garden. Sheila was with them, but she was like a zombie. She walked very rigidly and the only part of her that moved was from the knees down. She didn't even turn her head from left to right. I did not hear Sheila speak at all. They went into the house.". June sought him out a short while later to discuss repairs: "I got the definite impression that she was upset about something. She was in a different mood from when she had been playing with the children. It was not anything she said, but just the way she looked and was speaking." When they left the house, "Sheila definitely did not look normal" and was again "walking stiffly, like a zombie from a horror movie."
Thank you. There is nothing on here from him. The only Michael Horsnell I can find was a journalist who wrote about Jeremy Bamber sometimes.
-
He never said anything of the kind.
umm he did on the video the ct put out recently recanting his statement which was not read in court
-
He did say something like that.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=159.0;attach=18938;image
She was combing her hair and pummelling the wall, not a person.
-
umm he did on the video the ct put out recently recanting his statement which was not read in court
Why was she combing her hair? These people in psychosis are completely self-absorbed, they have no clue as to what they are doing and have no memory of the event once stabilized with medication.
-
who said anything about her pummelling a person
-
She was combing her hair and pummelling the wall, not a person.
So what? Notsure didn't say she was pummelling a person.
-
Why was she combing her hair? These people in psychosis are completely self-absorbed, they have no clue as to what they are doing and have no memory of the event once stabilized with medication.
[/quote
exactly! she was calmly combing her hair one minute and in a rage the next. didn’t remember previous breakdowns like this. poor thing
-
who said anything about her pummelling a person
Well violence was mentioned. It's the connotation the Jeremy supporters love to invoke.
-
Not when you're exhausted, probably wishing to remain in bed that day and not traipse around following June's cronies or having to care for the twins full-time when you're just not up to it.
She was seen skipping down Pages Lane with twins that very same day she was seen with this "precarious demeanor".
So now who is the one who is going to "refuse to believe"?
-
Well violence was mentioned. It's the connotation the Jeremy supporters love to invoke.
actually steve i don’t love to say that, i feel very sad for shiela and the whole family. it was a tragedy waiting to happen
-
She was seen skipping down Pages Lane with twins that very same day she was seen with this "precarious demeanor".
So now who is the one who is going to "refuse to believe"?
Maybe it was some bravado in front of the twins. The house painter incident was that afternoon. We also have Pamela's account of Sheila's demeanour at 10pm that night.
-
actually steve i don’t love to say that, i feel very sad for shiela and the whole family. it was a tragedy waiting to happen
It was a tragedy waiting to happen because Jeremy caused it to happen: a concatenation of incredibly sad, chance events which led to the whole diabolical affair.
-
I'm afraid Jeremy had nothing to do with it.
-
Maybe it was some bravado in front of the twins. The house painter incident was that afternoon. We also have Pamela's account of Sheila's demeanour at 10pm that night.
Yeah that things didn't sound right.
-
I'm afraid Jeremy had nothing to do with it.
yes we know that lookout,we are just exchanging opinions ;)
-
[Ann] therefore wouldn't know anything about Sheila's recent co-ordination - something she talked about.
Couldn't agree more. Ann's presumed expertise on Sheila's condition probably derived from an unfortunate combination of ignorance and necessity.
I don’t accept the argument that she was all quiet and lifeless on the night of the killings
Couldn't agree more. I see events in the farmhouse as comprising of an abject horror and sheer panic on the part of a startled, disorientated Nevill and June.
The quiet, dozy Sheila, unable to not spill beans, is as corny an image as.. 'the silencer made the rifle too long for Sheila to have committed suicide'... etc.
It's just prosecution sound-bites for the uninitiated.
-
Couldn't agree more. Ann's presumed expertise on Sheila's condition probably derived from an unfortunate combination of ignorance and necessity.
Couldn't agree more. I see events in the farmhouse as comprising of an abject horror and sheer panic on the part of a startled, disorientated Nevill and June.
The quiet, dozy Sheila, unable to not spill beans, is as corny an image as.. 'the silencer made the rifle too long for Sheila to have committed suicide'... etc.
It's just prosecution sound-bites for the uninitiated.
No it's based on informed opinion.
-
blimey
tonights episode - if it was Annes point of view according to her own statements it was very inaccurate .
no mention of the wallet
Basil and Robert not shown at the house when they found the silencer or Barbara Wilson
David spottting something on the silencer - according to Anne that did not happen at the house ( david to be fair was confused in his statements).
Jeremy according to Anne was not strutting into the house as was shown
missed the bit about DS jones drinking whisky with the family when picking up the silencer ( wonder what they chatted about ? very unprofessional)
Nothing about the changes in barbara wilsons statements
I know they cant cover everything but i do think it was very biased tonight .
Did not show Brett as Jeremys lover though .
-
So much for the CT's claim about 5 or 6 letters. Wonder if they will issue an apology? https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10789270/jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-prison-letters-guilt/
-
So much for the CT's claim about 5 or 6 letters. Wonder if they will issue an apology? https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10789270/jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-prison-letters-guilt/
😂😂😂.
-
So much for the CT's claim about 5 or 6 letters. Wonder if they will issue an apology? https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10789270/jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-prison-letters-guilt/
Theres actually a thread for that as well Caroline 🙈
-
Theres actually a thread for that as well Caroline 🙈
Which one RJ?
-
The letters shown were very likely all that were sent. The newspaper is dab-hand at lying/fabricating. Unless CAL herself can show/prove that amount that were sent.
Don't get too excited !
-
The letters shown were very likely all that were sent. The newspaper is dab-hand at lying/fabricating. Unless CAL herself can show/prove that amount that were sent.
Don't get too excited !
How many letters have you had Lookout?
-
The letters shown were very likely all that were sent. The newspaper is dab-hand at lying/fabricating. Unless CAL herself can show/prove that amount that were sent.
Don't get too excited !
500 guests Lookout
That’s great for Jeremy. More people will be interested in all the disclosure problems
-
How many letters have you had Lookout?
And cards---a few, why ?
-
And cards---a few, why ?
Cash in while it’s hot, I am 😂😂😂
-
blimey
tonights episode - if it was Annes point of view according to her own statements it was very inaccurate .
no mention of the wallet
Basil and Robert not shown at the house when they found the silencer or Barbara Wilson
David spottting something on the silencer - according to Anne that did not happen at the house ( david to be fair was confused in his statements).
Jeremy according to Anne was not strutting into the house as was shown
missed the bit about DS jones drinking whisky with the family when picking up the silencer ( wonder what they chatted about ? very unprofessional)
Nothing about the changes in barbara wilsons statements
I know they cant cover everything but i do think it was very biased tonight .
Did not show Brett as Jeremys lover though .
An ITV spokeswoman said: "ITV has a proud record of broadcasting award-winning factual dramas, based on or representing real events and people.
"The same sensitivity, care, consideration, meticulous research and high production values have been applied to White House Farm."
It’s quite amusing how they say meticulous planning when so much is wrong and they have obviously taken the word of a weird women obsessed with murderers
-
Freddy Fox is doing a good job. That black hair makes him look quite weird. ;D
-
And cards---a few, why ?
Well, you seem to be doubt what CAL has said, she wrote to him for 3 years acquiring hundreds of letters - the CT's claim is clearly wrong but I think it was deliberate. They really should issue and apology though, it would be the decent thing to do - which is why they won't.
-
CAL doesn't bother me Jackie, nor should it bother Jeremy or the legal team.
-
So was Carol Lee pretending to be Jeremy's friend when they were corresponding?
Oh not that old chestnut, no, she told him she was writing a book - he knew allllll about it.
-
An ITV spokeswoman said: "ITV has a proud record of broadcasting award-winning factual dramas, based on or representing real events and people.
"The same sensitivity, care, consideration, meticulous research and high production values have been applied to White House Farm."
It’s quite amusing how they say meticulous planning when so much is wrong and they have obviously taken the word of a weird women obsessed with murderers
..or maybe she genuinely felt grief-stricken at the loss and waste of five lives..http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3958.0.html
-
CAL doesn't bother me Jackie, nor should it bother Jeremy or the legal team.
yes just another nail in his coffin,as for late bob w he soon got to know the truth after first blowing the trumpet for jb ;)
-
Notice no one is wondering why the CT lied?
-
Well if her book is anything like the drama there's nothing to say who murdered anyone. There's not even a story attached to the drama. Where's the substance in it ?
I don't think Jeremy's got anything to worry about.
-
Well if her book is anything like the drama there's nothing to say who murdered anyone. There's not even a story attached to the drama. Where's the substance in it ?
I don't think Jeremy's got anything to worry about.
They're obviously going to play safe. ITV don't wish to be sued.
-
Any sour grapes is with the guilty team.
How?
-
Did Ann actually accuse Jeremy of killing them all, as was portrayed in the drama?
-
Ah! I thought you were a bloke - understand now ;D ;D ;D ;D
Were you disappointed the wallet issue was not mentioned ? you thought it was quite important ?
-
any other points from tonight ?
Not sure if Anne accused him outright like that - and it would take hours to read through her statements .
Not sure how they are portraying Julie - definitely not like some one who has known for over 12 months before the murders.
-
any other points from tonight ?
Not sure if Anne accused him outright like that - and it would take hours to read through her statements .
Not sure how they are portraying Julie - definitely not like some one who has known for over 12 months before the murders.
They're portraying her as a sort of hanger on. They'll need to make it believable that he would have discussed murdering his family with her.
-
Freddy Fox is doing a good job.
He's not good at looking shocked, upset, distressed or distraught. Perhaps that's why they sometimes don't show his face.
-
He's not good at looking shocked, upset, distressed or distraught. Perhaps that's why they sometimes don't show his face.
I have no idea if his portrayal of Jeremy is accurate, but he's certainly portraying someone who is charismatic, a bit callous, and fond of having a good time. He showed emotion when he was saying to Ann that June loved the dog more than him, and he was shocked when she accused him, but I don't know if that conversation ever happened.
The portrayal of Julie is quite odd. So far she's pretty silent most of the time, and expresses very little emotion about anything.
-
I have no idea if his portrayal of Jeremy is accurate, but he's certainly portraying someone who is charismatic, a bit callous, and fond of having a good time. He showed emotion when he was saying to Ann that June loved the dog more than him, and he was shocked when she accused him, but I don't know if that conversation ever happened.
The portrayal of Julie is quite odd. So far she's pretty silent most of the time, and expresses very little emotion about anything.
I do find it interesting that his demeanour with Colin comes across most of the time normal and sympathetic - but when he is with Anne the acting reflects her statements of his behaviour .
to me they are portraying Julie as if she knows perfectly well what is happening . Which only comes from her statements because I don't think many witnesses commented on her demeanour much at all ?
-
I have no idea if his portrayal of Jeremy is accurate, but he's certainly portraying someone who is charismatic, a bit callous, and fond of having a good time. He showed emotion when he was saying to Ann that June loved the dog more than him, and he was shocked when she accused him, but I don't know if that conversation ever happened.
The portrayal of Julie is quite odd. So far she's pretty silent most of the time, and expresses very little emotion about anything.
yes i agree kaldin
-
The Court room scenes for the tv trial is in the very next room to where the actual trial happened at Chelmsford.
-
It would have been held locally wouldn't it ? Not in the Crown courts in London.
-
It would have been held locally wouldn't it ? Not in the Crown courts in London.
these days lookout they are quite capable of staging a mock court room to represent the real thing.even number one court at the old bailey ,a mate of mine was in there charged with armed robbery and discharging a firearm during the crime,butterflies ,shaking legs all went away once he was handed down a 15 stretch
-
Is there any definite confirmation that Jeremy Bamber took valium in the aftermath of the WHF killings?
-
He's not good at looking shocked, upset, distressed or distraught. Perhaps that's why they sometimes don't show his face.
He’s playing Bamber well then, he didn’t show this as well 👍
-
Is there any definite confirmation that Jeremy Bamber took valium in the aftermath of the WHF killings?
He was prescribed valium tablets by the doctor, washing them down with alcohol.
-
He’s playing Bamber well then, he didn’t show this as well 👍
:)) :)) :))
-
Very interesting, I'm just starting the forth episode
-
He was prescribed valium tablets by the doctor, washing them down with alcohol.
Bad combination. Who said he'd been prescribed Valium ?
-
I'd like to know if he really took Valium too. Valium can calm you down very efficiently, and maybe that might appear to others that you are uncaring.
-
Don’t know how true it is?
Lee explains in her book how Bamber was prescribed valium by a doctor.
According to Lee, Bamber was given the tablets after Ann Eaton (Gemma Whelan) his cousin, accused him of killing his famiy.
She writes: “After Ann and Anthony arrived, something explosive passed between the group, although precise details have never emerged.
“Later, Ann would only say that they ‘must have accused Jeremy’ since ‘he showed the first sign of real emotion’ as they brought their simmering suspicions about him into the open.
“Whatever was said, he was in such a state that a doctor was called and prescribed him
-
Why was Bamber taking valium?
In White House Farm episode three, Jeremy Bamber told officers DCI Taff Jones (Stephen Graham) DS Stan Jones (Mark Addy) that he has been taking Valium.
Carol Ann Lee mentions this exact incident in her book The Murders at White House Farm, which the series is based on.
She writes: “As the three men [DCI Taff Jones, DS Stan Jones and Jeremy] went through to the dining room, Jeremy explained hat the had taken Valium ‘so if I appear to be drifting away, you’ll understand it’s the effect of the tablets’.”
-
He'd have been zonked out with such a mixture anyway which is probably the state that suited him at the time, who knows ?
-
I have no idea if his portrayal of Jeremy is accurate, but he's certainly portraying someone who is charismatic, a bit callous, and fond of having a good time. He showed emotion when he was saying to Ann that June loved the dog more than him, and he was shocked when she accused him, but I don't know if that conversation ever happened.
The portrayal of Julie is quite odd. So far she's pretty silent most of the time, and expresses very little emotion about anything.
They have to be careful what they depict, knowing some characters are still living. I suppose it also adds dramatic impact to those viewers unfamiliar with the story.
-
A lot of the drama will naturally be based on sensationalism to make for easier viewing.
-
Don’t know how true it is?
Lee explains in her book how Bamber was prescribed valium by a doctor.
According to Lee, Bamber was given the tablets after Ann Eaton (Gemma Whelan) his cousin, accused him of killing his famiy.
She writes: “After Ann and Anthony arrived, something explosive passed between the group, although precise details have never emerged.
“Later, Ann would only say that they ‘must have accused Jeremy’ since ‘he showed the first sign of real emotion’ as they brought their simmering suspicions about him into the open.
“Whatever was said, he was in such a state that a doctor was called and prescribed him
You know I was thinking today that although Jeremy expected ructions from Ann Eaton post-murders he never anticipated Julie's evidence, or he would have married her at the turn of the New Year.
-
You know I was thinking today that although Jeremy expected ructions from Ann Eaton post-murders he never anticipated Julie's evidence, or he would have married her at the turn of the New Year.
good point steve
-
He was prescribed valium tablets by the doctor, washing them down with alcohol.
On what date(s), and is there independent confirmation?
-
Don’t know how true it is?
Lee explains in her book how Bamber was prescribed valium by a doctor.
According to Lee, Bamber was given the tablets after Ann Eaton (Gemma Whelan) his cousin, accused him of killing his famiy.
She writes: “After Ann and Anthony arrived, something explosive passed between the group, although precise details have never emerged.
“Later, Ann would only say that they ‘must have accused Jeremy’ since ‘he showed the first sign of real emotion’ as they brought their simmering suspicions about him into the open.
“Whatever was said, he was in such a state that a doctor was called and prescribed him
Does AE (Gemma Whelan) directly accuse JB in person on the show?
-
I have no idea if his portrayal of Jeremy is accurate, but he's certainly portraying someone who is charismatic, a bit callous, and fond of having a good time. He showed emotion when he was saying to Ann that June loved the dog more than him, and he was shocked when she accused him, but I don't know if that conversation ever happened.
The portrayal of Julie is quite odd. So far she's pretty silent most of the time, and expresses very little emotion about anything.
the portrayal of anne is interesting isn’t it. because i’ve read stuff i think she’s a bloody gold digger and hated jeremy but i wonder what viewers think of her that don’t know as much. both my kids have been watching it and keep asking me questions but only because they know i’m interested in it, but i’ll ask them when it’s finished who they think did it and what thier friends think
-
Does AE (Gemma Whelan) directly accuse JB in person on the show?
Oh yes! At White House Farm in the kitchen. Both of them end up in a very distressed and emotional state. JB returns to Goldhanger and takes a valium. AE almost has a nervous breakdown in the car outise WHF with her daughter there. Very powerful scenes.
-
the portrayal of anne is interesting isn’t it. because i’ve read stuff i think she’s a bloody gold digger and hated jeremy but i wonder what viewers think of her that don’t know as much. both my kids have been watching it and keep asking me questions but only because they know i’m interested in it, but i’ll ask them when it’s finished who they think did it and what thier friends think
I've been reading a few blogs about it here and there and the remarks are pretty mixed. One poster asked " if we know who did it by the time it reaches the 36th episode ", others have said it was slow and some poor acting involved. Viewers don't seem to find it very bowelgripping, overall.
It can't be anything else but a "whodunnit " as opposed to an outright accusation.
-
the portrayal of anne is interesting isn’t it. because i’ve read stuff i think she’s a bloody gold digger and hated jeremy but i wonder what viewers think of her that don’t know as much. both my kids have been watching it and keep asking me questions but only because they know i’m interested in it, but i’ll ask them when it’s finished who they think did it and what thier friends think
Don't know as much or who have formed the same opinion as yourself?
-
Oh yes! At White House Farm in the kitchen. Both of them end up in a very distressed and emotional state. JB returns to Goldhanger and takes a valium. AE almost has a nervous breakdown in the car outise WHF with her daughter there. Very powerful scenes.
AE has said that they never revealed their suspicions to him.
Here is the statement that CAL got this information from. Relevant parts in red -
"I have been asked if any of us said to the police at
this meeting that we suspected Jeremy of the murders.
On reflection I cannot honestly recall if we pointed
the finger at Jeremy. We only stated our belief that
Sheila could not have killed Uncle Nevill, Aunt June
and the twins. However I have no doubt in my mind that
we had said enough to indicate what our thoughts were.
I'm not sure how long the meeting lasted.
I have been asked by the City Police to expand upon my
exhibit CAE/5.
On the side headed 'Questions*' the list is a series
of questions that I wanted to ask DCI Jones at the pre-
arranged meeting at Witham Police Station on Friday 9th
August 1985, that I have previously described. The last
two lines and then the black ink on the reverse were
written by me actually during that meeting, while the
blue ink at the top on the reverse was written again by
me but after the meeting, when I was putting my
thoughts together to make my witness statement to the
Essex Police.
On reflection we must have accused Jeremy because when
I was at Jeremy's cottage on Friday after the Witham
meeting Jeremy showed the first sign of real emotion."
My interpretation of this is - AE is saying she accused JB of being responsible to the police. Not directly to JB himself. AE is now assuming "on reflection" that the police told JB their suspicions and that's why he was upset.
-
no i will just be interested to know what others think that haven’t read about it. i’m wondering what i would think watching it if i hadn’t read about it. i’m not saying i know as much as many on here but i know what i have read about has made me feel as though he may be innocent. if i were to be watching the docu series and hadn’t read anything about it what would i think then?
-
AE has said that they never revealed their suspicions to him.
Here is the statement that CAL got this information from. Relevant parts in red -
"I have been asked if any of us said to the police at
this meeting that we suspected Jeremy of the murders.
On reflection I cannot honestly recall if we pointed
the finger at Jeremy. We only stated our belief that
Sheila could not have killed Uncle Nevill, Aunt June
and the twins. However I have no doubt in my mind that
we had said enough to indicate what our thoughts were.
I'm not sure how long the meeting lasted.
I have been asked by the City Police to expand upon my
exhibit CAE/5.
On the side headed 'Questions*' the list is a series
of questions that I wanted to ask DCI Jones at the pre-
arranged meeting at Witham Police Station on Friday 9th
August 1985, that I have previously described. The last
two lines and then the black ink on the reverse were
written by me actually during that meeting, while the
blue ink at the top on the reverse was written again by
me but after the meeting, when I was putting my
thoughts together to make my witness statement to the
Essex Police.
On reflection we must have accused Jeremy because when
I was at Jeremy's cottage on Friday after the Witham
meeting Jeremy showed the first sign of real emotion."
My interpretation of this is - AE is saying she accused JB of being responsible to the police. Not directly to JB himself. AE is now assuming "on reflection" that the police told JB their suspicions and that's why he was upset.
That is the way I understood it also. There have been a few scenes which I suspect never happened. Like Jeremy giving a speech to the press waiting outside the Coroner's Court after the verdict. I am pretty sure that never happened, although I haven't been able to find information it.
-
no i will just be interested to know what others think that haven’t read about it. i’m wondering what i would think watching it if i hadn’t read about it. i’m not saying i know as much as many on here but i know what i have read about has made me feel as though he may be innocent. if i were to be watching the docu series and hadn’t read anything about it what would i think then?
I would say it's shrewd management of the case by those interested in such management. It will create many new guilters, who previously had no opinion. It will also reinforce the view of existing guilters, who go by the usual touted line from the police in the case. Whoever is actually behind it being commissioned or has shaped it along the way (with a deliberate strategy of blanking the defence) is both brazen and shrewd. They're clearly aware of the value of public opinion, which I have long said is crucial in this case. It's hardly a level playing field either is it? Since no defence based program can progress past the embargo that's in place.
-
I would say it's shrewd management of the case by those interested in such management. It will create many new guilters, who previously had no opinion. It will also reinforce the view of existing guilters, who go by the usual touted line from the police in the case. Whoever is actually behind it being commissioned or has shaped it along the way (with a deliberate strategy of blanking the defence) is both brazen and shrewd. They're clearly aware of the value of public opinion, which I have long said is crucial in this case. It's hardly a level playing field either is it? Since no defence based program can progress past the embargo that's in place.
It’s scary that’s what it is
-
That is the way I understood it also. There have been a few scenes which I suspect never happened. Like Jeremy giving a speech to the press waiting outside the Coroner's Court after the verdict. I am pretty sure that never happened, although I haven't been able to find information it.
That's how I have understood it.
This is how CAL has put it on page 217 of her book.
"After Ann and Anthony arrived, something explosive passed between the group, although precise details have never emerged. Later, Ann would only say that they ‘must have accused Jeremy’ since he ‘showed the first sign of real emotion’ as they brought their simmering suspicions about him into the open."
What's interesting is that she does not actually cite the AE's 1991 COLP statement for this. But that is certainly were she got it from. Was it a sincere misinterpretation or a deliberate splicing of statements?
I will give her the benefit of the doubt.
-
I would say it's shrewd management of the case by those interested in such management. It will create many new guilters, who previously had no opinion. It will also reinforce the view of existing guilters, who go by the usual touted line from the police in the case. Whoever is actually behind it being commissioned or has shaped it along the way (with a deliberate strategy of blanking the defence) is both brazen and shrewd. They're clearly aware of the value of public opinion, which I have long said is crucial in this case. It's hardly a level playing field either is it? Since no defence based program can progress past the embargo that's in place.
Its being shaped by CALs "murder porn" book.
If the CT were not going on about Nevills 999 call or Sheila calling an ambulance at 6am they may not have been blanked. As its stands It would have been impossible to work them.
-
Nevill calling Jeremy. Nevill calling Chelmsford police. Sheila calling 999.
All go.
-
I would say it's shrewd management of the case by those interested in such management. It will create many new guilters, who previously had no opinion. It will also reinforce the view of existing guilters, who go by the usual touted line from the police in the case. Whoever is actually behind it being commissioned or has shaped it along the way (with a deliberate strategy of blanking the defence) is both brazen and shrewd. They're clearly aware of the value of public opinion, which I have long said is crucial in this case. It's hardly a level playing field either is it? Since no defence based program can progress past the embargo that's in place.
None has been put forward or do you know different?
-
Its being shaped by CALs "murder porn" book.
If the CT were not going on about Nevills 999 call or Sheila calling an ambulance at 6am they may not have been blanked. As its stands It would have been impossible to work them.
I have some empathy for this view but I believe there's more to it than just plain old pro-police CAL. And why would the defence want a drama produced anyway? Surely It would have to more of a docu that allows the police to counter? They may come out on top re the two things you mention but some other stuff is not do easily explained.
-
i can’t imagine why the police let CAL see it all but won’t let jb , not fair imo
-
i can’t imagine why the police let CAL see it all but won’t let jb , not fair imo
I don't think she saw any withheld files Notsure (if any exist).
-
I have some empathy for this view but I believe there's more to it than just plain old pro-police CAL. And why would the defence want a drama produced anyway? Surely It would have to more of a docu that allows the police to counter? They may come out on top re the two things you mention but some other stuff is not do easily explained.
Nevills 999 call and Shiela's ambulance call should never be in a true crime drama or documentary because they are proven false and just harms the defences credibility.
The authorities would not want anymore attention brought to this case. This show is not actually showing who was behind the trigger anyway.
Come to think of it. The format of this show has Sheila dead from the beginning. All they can do now is assassinate JBs character with hyperbole and half truths to imply to the audience that it was him. If they didn't do this then they wouldn't have a show or it would be a very boring one with bad reviews.
-
crickey I agree with you David
-
There are heaps of issues which have been omitted from that drama, which could have been condensed to give the viewer an overall idea of the much bigger picture than is presented.
-
None has been put forward or do you know different?
Wrong
-
I have some empathy for this view but I believe there's more to it than just plain old pro-police CAL. And why would the defence want a drama produced anyway? Surely It would have to more of a docu that allows the police to counter? They may come out on top re the two things you mention but some other stuff is not do easily explained.
I think there should be something on the case from a legal point of view. The legal discussion, a jury that could have been on the case and the biggest thing of disclosure
The general public would be horrified regarding this
There must be someone around with a legal background who would pitch the idea
-
Nevills 999 call and Shiela's ambulance call should never be in a true crime drama or documentary because they are proven false and just harms the defences credibility.
The authorities would not want anymore attention brought to this case. This show is not actually showing who was behind the trigger anyway.
Come to think of it. The format of this show has Sheila dead from the beginning. All they can do now is assassinate JBs character with hyperbole and half truths to imply to the audience that it was him. If they didn't do this then they wouldn't have a show or it would be a very boring one with bad reviews.
sour grapes come to mind,dear dear :)) :)) :))
-
since when have the authorities dictated to the program makers what they should and should not do in this case
-
since when have the authorities dictated to the program makers what they should and should not do in this case
They don’t.
-
They don’t.
exactly.the usual bs when its sour grapes time
-
since when have the authorities dictated to the program makers what they should and should not do in this case
They don’t.
Yes I'm sure we have an absolute open and free press and media.
-
Yes I'm sure we have an absolute open and free press and media.
did the tv series rough justice ever show interest in jb,s case
-
did the tv series rough justice ever show interest in jb,s case
I think the person behind it did a while back. May have been David Jessel.
-
Part 4 says June crawled across the bedroom to get to the bedroom phone. Makes sense.
It shows Bamber being quite dismissive of Julie. Unaware that the police were investigating.
-
I've found this whole episode incredibly moving. I've become so accustomed to supporters painting Ann and Julie as hard hearted monsters out to put Jeremy down, that I'd forgotten what it COULD have been like for them. I like the way they've depicted Julie as being mousy. I think it says a lot about why she stayed with Jeremy, that is until he pushed her to the limits. It certainly doesn't show him as caring for her, more treating her as if she didn't exist. As a couple, they didn't fit. Possibly how it had been. I understand Ann's grievances. I think the hierarchy within the police force must have made life very difficult for Big Jones. It certainly shows how opinion was divided. I found the funeral service particularly moving as many of my friends, now all around 90, some no longer with us, were there.
-
Did I miss anything?
-
Did I miss anything?
They missed out loads of stuff . Skimmed a lot . Julie is not shown enjoying the alleged high life with Jeremy , she is a quiet little nervous mouse , although it does show her being scorned and then going to the police . Hidden phone was mentioned and the family being accused of being more concerned with money than getting to the truth . Lots of assumptions about how neville was shot , they needed some of your more detailed analysis of hypothetical scenarios 😀
-
I've found this whole episode incredibly moving. I've become so accustomed to supporters painting Ann and Julie as hard hearted monsters out to put Jeremy down, that I'd forgotten what it COULD have been like for them. I like the way they've depicted Julie as being mousy. I think it says a lot about why she stayed with Jeremy, that is until he pushed her to the limits. It certainly doesn't show him as caring for her, more treating her as if she didn't exist. As a couple, they didn't fit. Possibly how it had been. I understand Ann's grievances. I think the hierarchy within the police force must have made life very difficult for Big Jones. It certainly shows how opinion was divided. I found the funeral service particularly moving as many of my friends, now all around 90, some no longer with us, were there.
Had a lot to put with both of them Jane 👍
-
It's impossible to condense such a huge case into 6 hours, ridiculous.
-
It's impossible to condense such a huge case into 6 hours, ridiculous.
Let’s hope we see a lot more detail about Julie as the main prosecution witness.
The way they portrayed Julie is completely wrong. You couldn’t imagine the person on the tv carrying out the cheque fraud
So wrong
-
Let’s hope we see a lot more detail about Julie as the main prosecution witness.
The way they portrayed Julie is completely wrong. You couldn’t imagine the person on the tv carrying out the cheque fraud
So wrong
Is this being shown in Canada?
-
It's impossible to condense such a huge case into 6 hours, ridiculous.
Netflix done something similiar to this about the OJ case. I found it entertaining.
That's what I suspect this is like.
-
Is this being shown in Canada?
I hope so
You treat Colin with no respect, give evidence when you know there is a prize at the end of it and then cut and run
-
I hope so
You treat Colin with no respect, give evidence when you know there is a prize at the end of it and then cut and run
Yes I do.
-
They missed out loads of stuff . Skimmed a lot . Julie is not shown enjoying the alleged high life with Jeremy , she is a quiet little nervous mouse , although it does show her being scorned and then going to the police . Hidden phone was mentioned and the family being accused of being more concerned with money than getting to the truth . Lots of assumptions about how neville was shot , they needed some of your more detailed analysis of hypothetical scenarios 😀
There is an old saying in hollywood. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
-
There is an old saying in hollywood. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
It’s difficult because I know some people will say things are not relevant , but they could be .
I will be interested how they are going to portray Jeremy including Julie in his plans for the 12 months before the murders .
-
It’s difficult because I know some people will say things are not relevant , but they could be .
I will be interested how they are going to portray Jeremy including Julie in his plans for the 12 months before the murders .
Will they though?
-
Yes I do.
I think she meant Julie. :P
-
It’s difficult because I know some people will say things are not relevant , but they could be .
I will be interested how they are going to portray Jeremy including Julie in his plans for the 12 months before the murders .
From the way it's portrayed thus far, Jeremy hasn't given any consideration to Julie. At best he's dismissive, at worst it's as if she's his chattel. Whilst not condoning any of it, I can quite see why she may have done certain things to elevate herself in his eyes.
-
I've said all along that Jeremy was a very immature 24 year old. Many of that age today are parents !
-
I've said all along that Jeremy was a very immature 24 year old. Many of that age today are parents !
yes but he was mature enough to live on his own and enjoy trips abroad by himself.but i agree mentally he was as you described
-
Part 4 says June crawled across the bedroom to get to the bedroom phone. Makes sense.
It shows Bamber being quite dismissive of Julie. Unaware that the police were investigating.
It seems that Jeremy disabled the phones upon entrance.
June crawled across the floor to reach the phone, but found a disabled line.
Jeremy wiped any blood from June off the phone, then plugged it in downstairs.
-
66.
There were normally four telephones at White House Farm (although there was only one telephone line).
A cream old-fashioned finger-dial telephone kept in the main bedroom (the bedroom telephone), a blue digital telephone in the first floor office (the office telephone), a cream cordless telephone kept in the kitchen but used around and outside the house (the cordless telephone) and a fawn digital telephone also kept in the kitchen (the kitchen telephone).
The only telephone with a memory recall feature was the cordless telephone but this had been faulty and was collected for repair on the morning of 5 August 1985.
67.
The telephone that had been found with the receiver off its cradle in the kitchen was in fact the bedroom telephone, which had been moved downstairs. The kitchen telephone had been hidden amongst a pile of magazines in the kitchen. The office telephone was in its normal place.
-
66.
There were normally four telephones at White House Farm (although there was only one telephone line).
A cream old-fashioned finger-dial telephone kept in the main bedroom (the bedroom telephone), a blue digital telephone in the first floor office (the office telephone), a cream cordless telephone kept in the kitchen but used around and outside the house (the cordless telephone) and a fawn digital telephone also kept in the kitchen (the kitchen telephone).
The only telephone with a memory recall feature was the cordless telephone but this had been faulty and was collected for repair on the morning of 5 August 1985.
67.
The telephone that had been found with the receiver off its cradle in the kitchen was in fact the bedroom telephone, which had been moved downstairs. The kitchen telephone had been hidden amongst a pile of magazines in the kitchen. The office telephone was in its normal place.
yes adam good points
-
66.
There were normally four telephones at White House Farm (although there was only one telephone line).
A cream old-fashioned finger-dial telephone kept in the main bedroom (the bedroom telephone), a blue digital telephone in the first floor office (the office telephone), a cream cordless telephone kept in the kitchen but used around and outside the house (the cordless telephone) and a fawn digital telephone also kept in the kitchen (the kitchen telephone).
The only telephone with a memory recall feature was the cordless telephone but this had been faulty and was collected for repair on the morning of 5 August 1985.
67.
The telephone that had been found with the receiver off its cradle in the kitchen was in fact the bedroom telephone, which had been moved downstairs. The kitchen telephone had been hidden amongst a pile of magazines in the kitchen. The office telephone was in its normal place.
The telephone that had been found with the receiver off its cradle was seen in Kitchen days before the murders. By Douglas Pike. See his witness statement.
-
Obviously if the memory redial was available, he could have called his cottage & waited for his answering machine to answer. He could then claim that was Nevill's call.
Wonder if he knew that this phone had been taken for repair just two days before. If he did, he still had to go ahead due to time constraints.
-
The telephone that had been found with the receiver off its cradle was seen in Kitchen days before the murders. By Douglas Pike. See his witness statement.
Obviously it had been put back.
The kitchen & office phones were in working order & June would not crawl to Nevill's side of the bed for no reason.
-
Obviously it had been put back.
The kitchen & office phones were in working order & June would not crawl to Nevill's side of the bed for no reason.
thatys the best explanation ive seen for why junes blood was on nevilles side of the bed
-
yes but he was mature enough to live on his own and enjoy trips abroad by himself.but i agree mentally he was as you described
He still relied on mum to feed him. All he had in his 'fridge on the day of the murders was a piece of curled up bacon.
-
thatys the best explanation ive seen for why junes blood was on nevilles side of the bed
June went there, then went back. The TV drama said it was because the phone was there. Makes sense.
-
Obviously it had been put back.
The kitchen & office phones were in working order & June would not crawl to Nevill's side of the bed for no reason.
The telephone was put among the magazines by Sheila as she was expecting a call from Christine and hadn't wanted June listening in. Sheila was paranoid about the phones being bugged, which is also a condition in those suffering from paranoia-----people listening or spying.
-
He still relied on mum to feed him. All he had in his 'fridge on the day of the murders was a piece of curled up bacon.
that is interesting makes you wonder if was having his meals at whf he may even been sleeping there at night while sheila and the twins were visiting
-
The telephone was put among the magazines by Sheila as she was expecting a call from Christine and hadn't wanted June listening in. Sheila was paranoid about the phones being bugged, which is also a condition in those suffering from paranoia-----people listening or spying.
if she was that worried about people listening in she wouldnt have used the phone at all
-
that is interesting makes you wonder if was having his meals at whf he may even been sleeping there at night while sheila and the twins were visiting
He was eating at WHF because he was working there, and was also heard driving home !
-
If his car was " souped-up " as a lot of boy-racers did do, then the noise would have wakened the dead.
-
He was eating at WHF because he was working there, and was also heard driving home !
yes but if he did leave his car at home and returned on bike or foot nobody would have heard or seen him ,depending on the route
-
yes but if he did leave his car at home and returned on bike or foot nobody would have heard or seen him ,depending on the route
Keep on believing that and see how far it'll get you.
-
that is interesting makes you wonder if was having his meals at whf he may even been sleeping there at night while sheila and the twins were visiting
Maybe Jeremy liked helping June with the supper & the washing up.
-
The telephone was put among the magazines by Sheila as she was expecting a call from Christine and hadn't wanted June listening in. Sheila was paranoid about the phones being bugged, which is also a condition in those suffering from paranoia-----people listening or spying.
Why have two phones in the kitchen for that?
Sheila could use the office or bedroom phone for privacy.
It seems the kitchen was always busy. Even Jeremy popped in for a bite.
-
Obviously it had been put back.
The kitchen & office phones were in working order & June would not crawl to Nevill's side of the bed for no reason.
Indeed. She was walking/crawing in that direction to get away from the person shooting her (as you do)
She tried to enter the box room. Once she realized the shooter had gone downstairs, she went back the other way.
-
Indeed. She was walking/crawing in that direction to get away from the person shooting her (as you do)
She tried to enter the box room. Once she realized the shooter had gone downstairs, she went back the other way.
She had been shot 5 times in bed.
Bamber & Nevill had been long gone downstairs by the time she started crawling to the phone.
-
She had been shot 5 times in bed.
Bamber & Nevill had been long gone downstairs by the time she started crawling to the phone.
The blood stains say otherwise. Had she been slow a lot more blood would have accumulated in one area.
Your version of events now has June being shot five times but taking a rest before she decides to escape or get help and Nevill containing his blood so he can spill it all outside the bedroom.
-
He still relied on mum to feed him. All he had in his 'fridge on the day of the murders was a piece of curled up bacon.
But he had an excellent pub within sight of his cottage. I hugely doubt that he relied on June to feed him.
-
The blood stains say otherwise. Had she been slow a lot more blood would have accumulated in one area.
Your version of events now has June being shot five times but taking a rest before she decides to escape or get help and Nevill containing his blood so he can spill it all outside the bedroom.
June didn't take a rest. She was sleeping when shot.
Then crawled towards the phone which was not useable. But if you believe she walked, fine.
This is what the drama said. Who engaged with CAL. Assume both are wrong again & June was going to the box room. Then changed her mind.
-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zV3WCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA410&lpg=PA410&dq=carol+ann+lee+reconstruction&source=bl&ots=jQHSMYAdtV&sig=ACfU3U0arqPCJwdZErZIth2T8OuKe2_3rA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRv4vd4avnAhUnRhUIHUwADkMQ6AEwBXoECAkQAQ
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166636/amp/Bamber-slaughtered-family-25-bullets-told-girlfriend-s-going-years-investigation-leading-author-tell-exactly-happened-night-White-House-Farm-massacre.html&ved=2ahUKEwiPmrOU46vnAhVcQRUIHcwqCB8QFjACegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2Y-8WUeMN9Ct9jkY-hbe-b&cf=1
CAL agrees with Bob Woffindon that Jeremy disabled the phones upon entrance. As well as that June was going to use the bedroom phone.
-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zV3WCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA410&lpg=PA410&dq=carol+ann+lee+reconstruction&source=bl&ots=jQHSMYAdtV&sig=ACfU3U0arqPCJwdZErZIth2T8OuKe2_3rA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRv4vd4avnAhUnRhUIHUwADkMQ6AEwBXoECAkQAQ
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166636/amp/Bamber-slaughtered-family-25-bullets-told-girlfriend-s-going-years-investigation-leading-author-tell-exactly-happened-night-White-House-Farm-massacre.html&ved=2ahUKEwiPmrOU46vnAhVcQRUIHcwqCB8QFjACegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2Y-8WUeMN9Ct9jkY-hbe-b&cf=1
CAL agrees with Bob Woffindon that Jeremy disabled the phones upon entrance. As well as that June was going to use the bedroom phone.
it makes sense adam.one phone off the hook disables all the other phones in the house
-
So why the need to remove them ?
-
So why the need to remove them ?
The bedroom phone was plugged into the kitchen socket because that is where Nevill was.
A phone in the bedroom will have people asking why Nevill or June did not use the bedroom phone.
The original plan would have been to have Nevill on the bedroom floor and bedroom phone in the bedroom, off the hook.
-
June didn't take a rest. She was sleeping when shot.
Then crawled towards the phone which was not useable. But if you believe she walked, fine.
This is what the drama said. Who engaged with CAL. Assume both are wrong again & June was going to the box room. Then changed her mind.
The drama is full of misrepresentations . And that’s putting it mildly .
-
It was Junes droplets of blood that were found beneath the box-room window.
-
Where is that stated?
-
Where is that stated?
In Lookouts gut feeling.
-
The drama is full of misrepresentations . And that’s putting it mildly .
The producers had that chance to put together a brilliant drama and they blew it
If they had put something today which represented the truth and highlighted the hearsay taken as evidence then that could have been a block buster in there hands
-
The producers had that chance to put together a brilliant drama and they blew it
If they had put something today which represented the truth and highlighted the hearsay taken as evidence then that could have been a block buster in there hands
They can't risk being sued though. The ITV drama is what it is, warts and all.
-
The bedroom phone was plugged into the kitchen socket because that is where Nevill was.
A phone in the bedroom will have people asking why Nevill or June did not use the bedroom phone.
The original plan would have been to have Nevill on the bedroom floor and bedroom phone in the bedroom, off the hook.
Adam. Read the statement. The bedroom phone was seen installed in the Kitchen on August 5th. It was already down there. And yes Bob Woffindon was a moron.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1107.0;attach=5608)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1107.msg34237.html#msg34237 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1107.msg34237.html#msg34237)
-
Adam. Read the statement. The bedroom phone was seen installed in the Kitchen on August 5th. It was already down there. And yes Bob Woffindon was a moron.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1107.0;attach=5608)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1107.msg34237.html#msg34237 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1107.msg34237.html#msg34237)
You said earlier David.
As said, obviously the bedroom phone was in the bedroom on the massacre night. The working kitchen phone in the kitchen.
Bamber disabled the phones upon entrance. As said by CAL & Bob Woffinden.
June was not able to use it & crawled back to where she was found. As said by CAL and the TV drama.
Bamber moved the bedroom phone back to the kitchen near Nevill.
-
Julie did know there was a 'last number dialled' phone at WHF.
Bamber must have mentioned this to her in general conversation.
-
Where is that stated?
I was wondering that myself.
-
The drama is full of misrepresentations . And that’s putting it mildly .
Because it's a drama and not a documentary. It states clearly at the beginning that some scenes have been changed. There is no way that a six week show could fit everything in and wasn't made with the likes of you and I in mind. All the main things are there and forum wise, it has brought a lot of new members who will be able to read more inaccurate claims here.
-
I was wondering that myself.
Lookout has made that claim before, I'm sure. I don't think she said from where she learned it.
-
Because it's a drama and not a documentary. It states clearly at the beginning that some scenes have been changed. There is no way that a six week show could fit everything in and wasn't made with the likes of you and I in mind. All the main things are there an forum wise, it has brought a lot of new members who will be able to read more inaccurate claims here.
It's a very sly act. It was made to win over public opinion regarding Bamber's guilt. It's doing this by omitting facts that would support his conviction being a sham. That is clever but sly nonetheless.
It's actually quite frightening with regards to upholding the truth in our country. People are being manipulated 'en masse', regardless of there being disclaimers in the credits etc.
I hear Mrs Perkins or whoever at the local shops talking about it and proclaiming evil Bamber guilty or whatever. People should be given facts - not brainwashing.
-
It's a very sly act. It was made to win over public opinion regarding Bamber's guilt. It's doing this by omitting facts that would support his conviction being a sham. That is clever but sly nonetheless.
It's actually quite frightening with regards to upholding the truth in our country. People are being manipulated 'en masse', regardless of there being disclaimers in the credits etc.
I hear Mrs Perkins or whoever at the local shops talking about it and proclaiming evil Bamber guilty or whatever. People should be given facts - not brainwashing.
Why sly, Roch? I'd feel more inclined to agree if we were in the pre-trial period. Certainly the series will bring the case to new people, but do you REALLY believe every one of them is a potential supporter? I'm guessing that if a poll was taken the ratio of the result would be roughly that which the jury bought back. There'll always be some who'll refuse to bring in a guilty verdict.
-
It's a very sly act. It was made to win over public opinion regarding Bamber's guilt. It's doing this by omitting facts that would support his conviction being a sham. That is clever but sly nonetheless.
It's actually quite frightening with regards to upholding the truth in our country. People are being manipulated 'en masse', regardless of there being disclaimers in the credits etc.
I hear Mrs Perkins or whoever at the local shops talking about it and proclaiming evil Bamber guilty or whatever. People should be given facts - not brainwashing.
No, it was made for entertainment purposes Roch and I'm with M's Perkins because Bamber being innocent, isn't a fact. A drama based on your version of events would annoy those of us who think he's guilty. I've stopped reading Twitter because the stuff being promoted is just laughable and the CT have been doing that for years.
-
Why sly, Roch? I'd feel more inclined to agree if we were in the pre-trial period. Certainly the series will bring the case to new people, but do you REALLY believe every one of them is a potential supporter? I'm guessing that if a poll was taken the ratio of the result would be roughly that which the jury bought back. There'll always be some who'll refuse to bring in a guilty verdict.
It's sly because they know exactly what they're doing.
(1) Allow a program to be commissioned.
(2) Shut out the defence entirely.
(3) Use the airing of the program by allowing McKinstry, CAL, The Sun etc. etc. etc. to piggyback on the production.
Public opinion is key in this case. The more dissenting voices, the worse for the authorities. The less dissenting voices, the better for the authorities. And as for the split, I would have said at best 60/40 in favour of guilt among the population who had any inkling of the case (prior to the drama).
-
No, it was made for entertainment purposes Roch and I'm with M's Perkins because Bamber being innocent, isn't a fact. A drama based on your version of events would annoy those of us who think he's guilty. I've stopped reading Twitter because the stuff being promoted is just laughable and the CT have been doing that for years.
For any drama from a guilter author to omit blatant police corruption in the second investigation, and blatant misleading of the jury as a result, is plain wrong. It is not giving people the truth.
My point is, this is a deliberate act. It hasn't happened purely by accident. It's been allowed, encouraged and piggy-backed because its a fantastic opportunity to win public opinion.
-
It's sly because they know exactly what they're doing.
(1) Allow a program to be commissioned.
(2) Shut out the defence entirely.
(3) Use the airing of the program by allowing McKinstry, CAL, The Sun etc. etc. etc. to piggyback on the production.
Public opinion is key in this case. The more dissenting voices, the worse for the authorities. The less dissenting voices, the better for the authorities. And as for the split, I would have said at best 60/40 in favour of guilt among the population who had any inkling of the case (prior to the drama).
Roch, you speak as if the production team has deliberately designed this series to be a personal slight against Jeremy's supporters. I don't believe public opinion has anything to do with it. What do you imagine the public can be incited to do, storm the prison gates? What if they do? He'll still have been convicted and found guilty.
-
Roch, you speak as if the production team has deliberately designed this series to be a personal slight against Jeremy's supporters. I don't believe public opinion has anything to do with it. What do you imagine the public can be incited to do, storm the prison gates?
Jane, as much as the authorities are not going to be amenable to a defenced-base program pointing towards police corruption in the case of a convicted multiple murderer, with two failed appeals, they are going to be amenable to a program from an author who is regarded as 'safe' because she believes in guilt.
Public opinion makes things either awkward or easy for the authorities. It can snowball. You don't want to be an official or a representative of Essex constabulary with microphone shoved in your face every other day from somebody asking awkward questions about a particular case.
-
For any drama from a guilter author to omit blatant police corruption in the second investigation, and blatant misleading of the jury as a result, is plain wrong. It is not giving people the truth.
My point is, this is a deliberate act. It hasn't happened purely by accident. It's been allowed, encouraged and piggy-backed because its a fantastic opportunity to win public opinion.
I don’t agree one little bit - you’re just widening the notion of a conspiracy. The makers wanted to make a drama based on the events that put Bamber away and that’s what they did. They don’t have any responsibility to those who think Bamber is innocent. There is always the option not to watch if you don’t like what you see. Commission someone to write a script that supports your own thoughts. This one isn’t about that.
-
I don’t agree one little bit - you’re just widening the notion of a conspiracy. The makers wanted to make a drama based on the events that put Bamber away and that’s what they did. They don’t have any responsibility to those who think Bamber is innocent. There is always the option not to watch if you don’t like what you see. Commission someone to write a script that supports your own thoughts. This one isn’t about that.
Sorry Caroline but in today's climate, I think this is naïve.
I'll give you your dues, they allowed the McKay docu, which was probably facilitated by way of MWT being sympathetic to the defence. But it was interfered with. So part of the time that would have been taken up by more arguments in favour of Jeremy's defence was stolen by those arguing for guilt.
Where is this portion for the other side in the drama?
Imagine Boyce, Terezon and whoever trying to get a program commissioned today? Wouldn't happen. Yet a so called drama masquerading as a genuine account of events is shown over several weeks with tonnes of publicity both before and during?
-
Jane, as much as the authorities are not going to be amenable to a defenced-base program pointing towards police corruption in the case of a convicted multiple murderer, with two failed appeals, they are going to be amenable to a program from an author who is regarded as 'safe' because she believes in guilt.
Public opinion makes things either awkward or easy for the authorities. It can snowball. You don't want to be an official or a representative of Essex constabulary with microphone shoved in your face every other day from somebody asking awkward questions about a particular case.
D'you know, this really, REALLY sounds as if you're resorting to blackmail here. HOPING to incite the public to make things awkward for the authorities. HOPING it can snowball. HOPING that officials and representatives of Essex constabulary will get microphones shoved in their faces. Have you not realized that many of those now serving EP weren't even born at the time of WHF! What right have the public to harass them? It's probably not so, but it's beginning to sound as if you're using the Bamber case to incite unrest.
-
D'you know, this really, REALLY sounds as if you're resorting to blackmail here. HOPING to incite the public to make things awkward for the authorities. HOPING it can snowball. HOPING that officials and representatives of Essex constabulary will get microphones shoved in their faces. Have you not realized that many of those now serving EP weren't even born at the time of WHF! What right have the public to harass them? It's probably not so, but it's beginning to sound as if you're using the Bamber case to incite unrest.
I hardly think repeated, pertinent and awkward questions are an incitement to civil unrest Jane.
My point is, the effect of the drama is to efectively pre-empt that from happening.
Think about it, when Jeremy's legal challenge gets rejected, a whole new army of guilters (by way of the drama) will say 'well he must be guilty then, otherwise the authorities wouldn't have rejected his legal challenge'. Like I say, I think it's clever.
-
I hardly think repeated, pertinent and awkward questions are an incitement to civil unrest Jane.
My point is, the effect of the drama is to efectively pre-empt that from happening.
Think about it, when Jeremy's legal challenge gets rejected, a whole new army of guilters (by way of the drama) will say 'well he must be guilty then, otherwise the authorities wouldn't have rejected his legal challenge'. Like I say, I think it's clever.
You will undoubtedly know it may be relied upon that "from little acorns great oaks will grow"?
Not for a moment do I believe that a drama would have been commissioned specifically to "effectively pre-empt", and thus prevent, civil unrest.
Should "a whole new army of guilters.............." pronounce their belief in his guilt, who will there be, other than a few supporters, to say they're wrong?
-
Sorry Caroline but in today's climate, I think this is naïve.
I'll give you your dues, they allowed the McKay docu, which was probably facilitated by way of MWT being sympathetic to the defence. But it was interfered with. So part of the time that would have been taken up by more arguments in favour of Jeremy's defence was stolen by those arguing for guilt.
Where is this portion for the other side in the drama?
Imagine Boyce, Terezon and whoever trying to get a program commissioned today? Wouldn't happen. Yet a so called drama masquerading as a genuine account of events is shown over several weeks with tonnes of publicity both before and during?
I think you're being naive Roch. You have no concrete evidence that any of what you say even occurred. When I have asked, you reply with things like researcher told you or you haven't seen the evidence yourself but ..... That's not enough to interest anyone to make a drama or doc or they could find themselves in a libel suit.
Much of the publicity has been drawn from Bamber and the CT so ......
-
You will undoubtedly know it may be relied upon that "from little acorns great oaks will grow"?
Not for a moment do I believe that a drama would have been commissioned specifically to "effectively pre-empt", and thus prevent, civil unrest.
Should "a whole new army of guilters.............." pronounce their belief in his guilt, who will there be, other than a few supporters, to say they're wrong?
Jane, you misunderstand me. It's got nothing to do with pre-empting civil unrest.
(1) Allow a program to be commissioned from pro-guilt author. Aim it at a mass audience.
(2) Shut out defence entirely.
(3) Pre-viewing promotion in media / press.
(4) Air the program.
(5) While the program is being dragged out over several weeks, pro-guilt articles and pro-police 'official version' articles are aired in press, to effectively back-up the 'JB guilty' message.
(6) You now have a new army of guilters… 'here's one I made earlier'.
(7) Reject anything from Bamber's legal team i.e. forensic reports; judicial reviews; CCRC applications etc. etc.
(8) The new army of guilters say 'well he must be guilty, otherwise the authorities would have allowed his appeal')
(9) Less awkward questions for the police.
-
I think you're being naive Roch. You have no concrete evidence that any of what you say even occurred. When I have asked, you reply with things like researcher told you or you haven't seen the evidence yourself but ..... That's not enough to interest anyone to make a drama or doc or they could find themselves in a libel suit.
Much of the publicity has been drawn from Bamber and the CT so ......
Well tbf, there's quite a bit on the thread I put on regarding Ainsley. What he did was wicked.
Evidence plain as day was put on here regarding Sheila's right hand. You couldn't see it and refused it existed. Others could see it. It's no good pretending something isn't there - just because it doesn't fit with your stance.
Look at CAL rejecting the (non-disclosed) Jeapes and Brown sightings out of hand. Does she deal with the implications? Does she understand the implications? Even if you go down the 'WHAT APPEARED to be a rifle' line, there are problems. As there are no rifle-like implements at any of the windows in crime scene photos. And if you go down the line of it actually having been a rifle, then you have major problems - which is why it wasn't disclosed in the first place.
Who is going to explain that in a drama?
-
Yes, I agree Roch. When you have one sighting of what " appears " to look like a rifle can easily be mistaken as something else is fair enough, but there were two officers who'd decided that it was a rifle makes it indeed highly possible coming from trained officers and therefore should not have been cast aside like it has been-------along with the " trick of the light ".
-
It's a very sly act. It was made to win over public opinion regarding Bamber's guilt. It's doing this by omitting facts that would support his conviction being a sham. That is clever but sly nonetheless.
It's actually quite frightening with regards to upholding the truth in our country. People are being manipulated 'en masse', regardless of there being disclaimers in the credits etc.
I hear Mrs Perkins or whoever at the local shops talking about it and proclaiming evil Bamber guilty or whatever. People should be given facts - not brainwashing.
Absolutely spot on Roch
-
people have had the so called facts for 30 yrs and they point to jb,s guilt
-
Well tbf, there's quite a bit on the thread I put on regarding Ainsley. What he did was wicked.
Evidence plain as day was put on here regarding Sheila's right hand. You couldn't see it and refused it existed. Others could see it. It's no good pretending something isn't there - just because it doesn't fit with your stance.
Look at CAL rejecting the (non-disclosed) Jeapes and Brown sightings out of hand. Does she deal with the implications? Does she understand the implications? Even if you go down the 'WHAT APPEARED to be a rifle' line, there are problems. As there are no rifle-like implements at any of the windows in crime scene photos. And if you go down the line of it actually having been a rifle, then you have major problems - which is why it wasn't disclosed in the first place.
Who is going to explain that in a drama?
I know you have written stuff on here and you may well be right, but you have no concrete evidence to go along side, hence no TV company would touch it.
The pictures that BR posted were odd, they were hazy and we have no idea where they came from. Even if I gave them the benefit of the doubt, Nevill had marks on his arms and he didn't kill anyone. Marks such as the ones being claimed could be defence marks but they weren't even mentioned in Vanezis's notes, written at the time of the autopsy's. He mentioned those on Nevill, no reason not to mention marks on Sheila, especially at that juncture. Remember that the man maintained that Sheila COULD have committed suicide, were he part of the conspiracy, he's have leaned heavily on the murder side. If marks are there, there was no reason not to mention them - even if you support a guilty Jeremy.
As far as there being a rifle spotted, the word 'appeared' is important. However, we haven't seen the CS photographs of either the box room or the twins room which is where she was indicating. I don't hold much store with that either.
-
Jane, you misunderstand me. It's got nothing to do with pre-empting civil unrest.
(1) Allow a program to be commissioned from pro-guilt author. Aim it at a mass audience.
(2) Shut out defence entirely.
(3) Pre-viewing promotion in media / press.
(4) Air the program.
(5) While the program is being dragged out over several weeks, pro-guilt articles and pro-police 'official version' articles are aired in press, to effectively back-up the 'JB guilty' message.
(6) You now have a new army of guilters… 'here's one I made earlier'.
(7) Reject anything from Bamber's legal team i.e. forensic reports; judicial reviews; CCRC applications etc. etc.
(8) The new army of guilters say 'well he must be guilty, otherwise the authorities would have allowed his appeal')
(9) Less awkward questions for the police.
This TV show is not a conspiracy Roch ::)
-
This TV show is not a conspiracy Roch ::)
If you think authorities have no influence on media, you're mistaken. Much of our press is owned by billionaires. Officials in TV at a suitable level will know what's allowed and what isn't allowed.
-
Jane, you misunderstand me. It's got nothing to do with pre-empting civil unrest.
(1) Allow a program to be commissioned from pro-guilt author. Aim it at a mass audience.
(2) Shut out defence entirely.
(3) Pre-viewing promotion in media / press.
(4) Air the program.
(5) While the program is being dragged out over several weeks, pro-guilt articles and pro-police 'official version' articles are aired in press, to effectively back-up the 'JB guilty' message.
(6) You now have a new army of guilters… 'here's one I made earlier'.
(7) Reject anything from Bamber's legal team i.e. forensic reports; judicial reviews; CCRC applications etc. etc.
(8) The new army of guilters say 'well he must be guilty, otherwise the authorities would have allowed his appeal')
(9) Less awkward questions for the police.
WAY too convoluted, Roch. I guess if one conspiracy theory doesn't work, 9 might, but it doesn't work for me.
-
WAY too convoluted, Roch. I guess if one conspiracy theory doesn't work, 9 might, but it doesn't work for me.
There's nothing new about authorities controlling the media on certain issues. It's happened since television began. There's no conspiracy, it's common practice.
-
I know you have written stuff on here and you may well be right, but you have no concrete evidence to go along side, hence no TV company would touch it.
The pictures that BR posted were odd, they were hazy and we have no idea where they came from. Even if I gave them the benefit of the doubt, Nevill had marks on his arms and he didn't kill anyone. Marks such as the ones being claimed could be defence marks but they weren't even mentioned in Vanezis's notes, written at the time of the autopsy's. He mentioned those on Nevill, no reason not to mention marks on Sheila, especially at that juncture. Remember that the man maintained that Sheila COULD have committed suicide, were he part of the conspiracy, he's have leaned heavily on the murder side. If marks are there, there was no reason not to mention them - even if you support a guilty Jeremy.
As far as there being a rifle spotted, the word 'appeared' is important. However, we haven't seen the CS photographs of either the box room or the twins room which is where she was indicating. I don't hold much store with that either.
I'll have to reply later on or tomorrow.
-
If you think authorities have no influence on media, you're mistaken. Much of our press is owned by billionaires. Officials in TV at a suitable level will know what's allowed and what isn't allowed.
It sounds as is you're suggesting "1984" should have been re-titled as "1985-2020"
-
There's nothing new about authorities controlling the media on certain issues. It's happened since television began. There's no conspiracy, it's common practice.
rough justice the tv series comes to mind.there was some trying to put pressure on the program makers,cant remember what it was about but it did happen
-
If you think authorities have no influence on media, you're mistaken. Much of our press is owned by billionaires. Officials in TV at a suitable level will know what's allowed and what isn't allowed.
Which is why in 2012 ITV made a documentary showing Philip Boyce, Simon Mckay and JB (on the phone). And CI-UK made a documentary showing Peter Suthurst insinuating the relatives created the scratch marks.
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/237/face-with-tears-of-joy_1f602.png) (https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/237/face-with-rolling-eyes_1f644.png)
-
Which is why in 2012 ITV made a documentary showing Philip Boyce, Simon Mckay and JB (on the phone). And CI-UK made a documentary showing Peter Suthurst insinuating the relatives created the scratch marks.
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/237/face-with-tears-of-joy_1f602.png) (https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/237/face-with-rolling-eyes_1f644.png)
Mentioned above, in my posts. Wouldn't happen now.
-
Mentioned above, in my posts. Wouldn't happen now.
Which is why only a few month ago, the press ran with this crap that bill posted?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg456440.html#msg456440 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg456440.html#msg456440)
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/237/face-with-rolling-eyes_1f644.png)(https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/237/face-with-rolling-eyes_1f644.png)(https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/237/face-with-rolling-eyes_1f644.png)
-
Mentioned above, in my posts. Wouldn't happen now.
If it happened then - why not now? I just think no one is interested in making such a programme. The fact that it happened in the past really puts a dampener on your claims of a conspiracy.
-
If it happened then - why not now? I just think no one is interested in making such a programme. The fact that it happened in the past really puts a dampener on your claims of a conspiracy.
As I explained above, I think it won't happen now because they have their act together. The portion given to the police and relatives in MWT docu - where is the equivalent portion given to defence in drama? It was forced on MWT. But CAL's program can just completely shut out the defence?
You and others should look up the term conspiracy. There's nothing wacky about it. Call it media manipulation of you like.
-
Which is why only a few month ago, the press ran with this crap that bill posted?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg456440.html#msg456440 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg456440.html#msg456440)
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/237/face-with-rolling-eyes_1f644.png)(https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/237/face-with-rolling-eyes_1f644.png)(https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/237/face-with-rolling-eyes_1f644.png)
If the defence run with something, then it will probably find its way in to the media. That's hardly a docu or program in depth on TV is it? McKay is about 2012. That is eight years ago.
-
As I explained above, I think it won't happen now because they have their act together. The portion given to the police and relatives in MWT docu - where is the equivalent portion given to defence in drama? It was forced on MWT. But CAL's program can just completely shut out the defence?
You and others should look up the term conspiracy. There's nothing wacky about it. Call it media manipulation of you like.
Conspiracies happen all the time. Individuals conspire to achieve personal ends. But you go into the realm of the crazy ones, that is to view institutions and groups as if they were people, with the motives of people.
"The conspiracy theorist will believe that institutions can be understood completely as the result of conscious design; and as to collectives, he usually ascribes to them a kind of group personality, treating them as conspiring agents, just as if they were individual men."
https://www3.canyons.edu/faculty/marianaj/Popper.pdf (https://www3.canyons.edu/faculty/marianaj/Popper.pdf)
-
If the defence run with something, then it will probably find its way in to the media. That's hardly a docu or program in depth on TV is it? McKay is about 2012. That is eight years ago.
The biggest irony here is that the press actually spread misinformation that favours Jeremy. People believe in Nevils call because it appears in newspapers. The compound the irony its not even true. ;D
-
Sorry Caroline but in today's climate, I think this is naïve.
I'll give you your dues, they allowed the McKay docu, which was probably facilitated by way of MWT being sympathetic to the defence. But it was interfered with. So part of the time that would have been taken up by more arguments in favour of Jeremy's defence was stolen by those arguing for guilt.
Where is this portion for the other side in the drama?
Imagine Boyce, Terezon and whoever trying to get a program commissioned today? Wouldn't happen. Yet a so called drama masquerading as a genuine account of events is shown over several weeks with tonnes of publicity both before and during?
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
It's where we are now, Roch.
-
Conspiracies happen all the time. Individuals conspire to achieve personal ends. But you go into the realm of the crazy ones, that is to view institutions and groups as if they were people, with the motives of people.
"The conspiracy theorist will believe that institutions can be understood completely as the result of conscious design; and as to collectives, he usually ascribes to them a kind of group personality, treating them as conspiring agents, just as if they were individual men."
https://www3.canyons.edu/faculty/marianaj/Popper.pdf (https://www3.canyons.edu/faculty/marianaj/Popper.pdf)
It is possible to deter programs from getting off the ground. People in high positions in broadcasting corporations are no different than top ranking civil servants. They are there to tow the line. A safe pair of hands.
-
It is possible to deter programs from getting off the ground. People in high positions in broadcasting corporations are no different than top ranking civil servants. They are there to tow the line. A safe pair of hands.
Possible yes. But that is beside the point. You are of the view that this TV series was a premeditated conspiracy. Which is not what you are saying above.
-
Possible yes. But that is beside the point. You are of the view that this TV series was a premeditated conspiracy. Which is not what you are saying above.
I think it would have been 'relatively' eased through (did you see what I did there?) from commissioning to production to airing. And 'they' are going to make the best use of it, with tag along articles espousing the official line. Average Joe will say 'guilty as sin'. What's not to like about that, if you're an EP old hand or one of the relatives?
-
It was the timing of this drama that was iffy. The production team obviously got the nod from somewhere.
-
As I explained above, I think it won't happen now because they have their act together. The portion given to the police and relatives in MWT docu - where is the equivalent portion given to defence in drama? It was forced on MWT. But CAL's program can just completely shut out the defence?
You and others should look up the term conspiracy. There's nothing wacky about it. Call it media manipulation of you like.
Hang on Roch, I never said or even implied it was 'wacky'?
They have their act together after 34 years? It took them that long? Nah, I just don't think anyone is interested in making such a programmer because the claims are too flaky.
BTW - it's not CAL's programme, the main story was just based on her book. If people have a problem with the drama, they should be focusing attention on ITV makers - although it does clearly state that it has created certain scenes and that it is BASED on both CAL's and Colin's books.
-
Hang on Roch, I never said or even implied it was 'wacky'?
They have their act together after 34 years? It took them that long? Nah, I just don't think anyone is interested in making such a programmer because the claims are too flaky.
BTW - it's not CAL's programme, the main story was just based on her book. If people have a problem with the drama, they should be focusing attention on ITV makers - although it does clearly state that it has created certain scenes and that it is BASED on both CAL's and Colin's books.
If it ain't including any of the stuff I put on the Ainsley thread, then you can call it what you like... But in reality it's a con. I can't see how Terezon's claims are flakey? Make a courtroom drama with captions, explaining what was done. But nobody will do that, because the case is too sensitive for the authorities and it would be exposing police corruption.
-
But he had an excellent pub within sight of his cottage. I hugely doubt that he relied on June to feed him.
i’ll put money on he did let his mum feed him. a) he was working there so was convenient and
b) men at that age aren’t that great at cooking so if it’s being offered by someone else they jump at the chance. nothing wrong with that imo
-
I think it would have been 'relatively' eased through (did you see what I did there?) from commissioning to production to airing. And 'they' are going to make the best use of it, with tag along articles espousing the official line. Average Joe will say 'guilty as sin'. What's not to like about that, if you're an EP old hand or one of the relatives?
Nobody is shown pulling the trigger. The shows leaves it for "Average Joe" to make his own mind up.
This show is only going to result in more public scrutiny in the long run.
-
As I explained above, I think it won't happen now because they have their act together. The portion given to the police and relatives in MWT docu - where is the equivalent portion given to defence in drama? It was forced on MWT. But CAL's program can just completely shut out the defence?
You and others should look up the term conspiracy. There's nothing wacky about it. Call it media manipulation of you like.
It is understood by all that there are two competing sides. Does anybody believe that those who have a vested interest in JB remaining behind bars just sit on their hands whilst those campaigning are busy uncovering anomalies? Of course they don't.
There have always been campaigners against JB's campaign. To ignore this glaring fact is to be wilfully blind and naive. They would be remiss if they were not working to counter those campaigning on Bamber's behalf.
Choosing to label those who recognise this obvious fact as "Conspiracy theorists" is to be blind to reality.
-
It is understood by all that there are two competing sides. Does anybody believe that those who have a vested interest in JB remaining behind bars just sit on their hands whilst those campaigning are busy uncovering anomalies? Of course they don't.
There have always been campaigners against JB's campaign. To ignore this glaring fact is to be wilfully blind and naive. They would be remiss if they were not working to counter those campaigning on Bamber's behalf.
Choosing to label those who recognise this obvious fact as "Conspiracy theorists" is to be blind to reality.
These campaigners against JB are mostly just emotionally invested imbeciles. Who think what they are doing is good.
I have spent a lot of time refuting and debunking claims made by those who think Steven Avery is innocent. In doing so I have been accused of being a paid shill, accused of being Ken Kratz (the prosecutor) Accused of making up the letters that Steven Avery wrote, you name it.
As you well know, I am not any of the above. I got involved because I know Steven Avery is guilty of murder and Netflix was spreading the most appauling disinformation about a total piece of sh*t.
Campaigners against JB feel the same way about JB as I do about Steven Avery. Only difference is I have my facts right about who I accuse, they do not.
-
i’ll put money on he did let his mum feed him. a) he was working there so was convenient and
b) men at that age aren’t that great at cooking so if it’s being offered by someone else they jump at the chance. nothing wrong with that imo
Mmm? Supper with Mummy or a get together with the lads at the local? I'm suggesting, given the -alleged- strained relationship between Jeremy and his parents, that The Chequers, yards from his door, would have been his restaurant of choice.
-
Mmm? Supper with Mummy or a get together with the lads at the local? I'm suggesting, given the -alleged- strained relationship between Jeremy and his parents, that The Chequers, yards from his door, would have been his restaurant of choice.
Why pay out when you can get a free meal cooked by mother ? Also too knackered to be bothered going anywhere after a day of harvesting.
-
Nobody is shown pulling the trigger. The shows leaves it for "Average Joe" to make his own mind up.
This show is only going to result in more public scrutiny in the long run.
I have seen a lot of people on social media taking interest in the case and I totally understand it is a drama but by saying it’s based on real life and factual scenes mixed with drama is confusing for the viewer . They are watching and not knowing which bits are true and which bits are based on dramatic interpretation. Apparently Essex police who by the authors account co-operated with her fully are NOT happy about how Taff jones has been portrayed. I said before I find it interesting on how jeremy is portrayed and we know he is a different character depending on whose statements you read , but again the viewer does not know that . Some things that may seem small or insignificant that are being missed actually might be quite important in the bigger picture. To be honest I would be happier if the question of guilt was just more open , nothing more than that . Just leaving the viewer questioning things more . But so far we have a bungling police force and a pantomime Jeremy and a shrinking violet Julie , and I think it has been going more that way as things have progressed.
-
I think the drama is being fair. They could have done it differently and actually shown Jeremy telling Julie he was going to kill his family, and then virtually admitting to it afterwards, but they didn't.
-
I think the drama is being fair. They could have done it differently and actually shown Jeremy telling Julie he was going to kill his family, and then virtually admitting to it afterwards, but they didn't.
Not yet , but they are surely going to have to tackle the fact that she allegedly knew for 12 months ? Next week will be interesting . If they go way off the mark of her statements it will be unfair .
-
Why pay out when you can get a free meal cooked by mother ? Also too knackered to be bothered going anywhere after a day of harvesting.
Actually, Lookout, he had to go past The Chequers on his way home. He could park right outside the door. I believe he used to provide them with potatoes so there was probably an 'arrangement'.
-
Not yet , but they are surely going to have to tackle the fact that she allegedly knew for 12 months ? Next week will be interesting . If they go way off the mark of her statements it will be unfair .
Yes, but it will still be Julie's word against his word in the drama.
-
Actually, Lookout, he had to go past The Chequers on his way home. He could park right outside the door. I believe he used to provide them with potatoes so there was probably an 'arrangement'.
Why bother when supper was put right under your nose ?
-
Why bother when supper was put right under your nose ?
supper yes but not the few pints that go after the meal.theres nothing like a few pints after a long days work ;)
-
Why bother when supper was put right under your nose ?
Because he was a 24 year old man who hadn't lived with Mummy for around 5 years and it would have been less bother to get in his car and drive off to be with the locals and have a laugh than to trek up to the farm house to waste valuable drinking time with June.
-
supper yes but not the few pints that go after the meal.theres nothing like a few pints after a long days work ;)
I do believe he had a beer or two in his house when he got in.
-
supper yes but not the few pints that go after the meal.theres nothing like a few pints after a long days work ;)
Absolutely, Sami. Mummy or 'mates'? At 24, no contest.
-
I do believe he had a beer or two in his house when he got in.
He'd probably have needed them! Supper with Mummy would hardly have been a fun time. Like many controlling mothers, June was probably keen to know all the ins and outs of his life. Not the best thing for a budding drugs baron.
-
Jeremy didn't actually have supper or whatever with the rest of the family that night did he? Didn't he say he had something standing up (a sandwich)?
-
I have seen a lot of people on social media taking interest in the case and I totally understand it is a drama but by saying it’s based on real life and factual scenes mixed with drama is confusing for the viewer . They are watching and not knowing which bits are true and which bits are based on dramatic interpretation. Apparently Essex police who by the authors account co-operated with her fully are NOT happy about how Taff jones has been portrayed. I said before I find it interesting on how jeremy is portrayed and we know he is a different character depending on whose statements you read , but again the viewer does not know that . Some things that may seem small or insignificant that are being missed actually might be quite important in the bigger picture. To be honest I would be happier if the question of guilt was just more open , nothing more than that . Just leaving the viewer questioning things more . But so far we have a bungling police force and a pantomime Jeremy and a shrinking violet Julie , and I think it has been going more that way as things have progressed.
The series is made, its done. It wont chance case evidence. Easier to just ignore it and move on. :)
-
Jeremy didn't actually have supper or whatever with the rest of the family that night did he? Didn't he say he had something standing up (a sandwich)?
Probably.
-
Probably.
he may have eaten when he returned after dropping the car at his cottage
-
These campaigners against JB are mostly just emotionally invested imbeciles. Who think what they are doing is good.
I have spent a lot of time refuting and debunking claims made by those who think Steven Avery is innocent. In doing so I have been accused of being a paid shill, accused of being Ken Kratz (the prosecutor) Accused of making up the letters that Steven Avery wrote, you name it.
As you well know, I am not any of the above. I got involved because I know Steven Avery is guilty of murder and Netflix was spreading the most appauling disinformation about a total piece of sh*t.
Campaigners against JB feel the same way about JB as I do about Steven Avery. Only difference is I have my facts right about who I accuse, they do not.
umm you don’t know anything for a fact. this is only your opinion on both cases. nothing more nothing less. get off your high horse. whoever do you think you are sherlock!
-
Jeremy didn't actually have supper or whatever with the rest of the family that night did he? Didn't he say he had something standing up (a sandwich)?
That's correct.
-
Because he was a 24 year old man who hadn't lived with Mummy for around 5 years and it would have been less bother to get in his car and drive off to be with the locals and have a laugh than to trek up to the farm house to waste valuable drinking time with June.
or just as easy to have supper with mum then go and have a couple of pints. although i doubt that happened as it was a very busy time on the farm at that time of year wasnt it
-
or just as easy to have supper with mum then go and have a couple of pints. although i doubt that happened as it was a very busy time on the farm at that time of year wasnt it
Are you arguing generally or about one night in particular? We know that on THAT night he stood up in the kitchen and ate a sandwich whilst the family sat round the table.
-
Are you arguing generally or about one night in particular? We know that on THAT night he stood up in the kitchen and ate a sandwich whilst the family sat round the table.
i think generally he would have had supper at his mums or at least ate one meal a day there. he worked long hours on the farm so probably wouldn’t have felt much like making dinner after work. have i confused things
-
umm you don’t know anything for a fact. this is only your opinion on both cases. nothing more nothing less. get off your high horse. whoever do you think you are sherlock!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9730.msg475953.html#msg475953 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9730.msg475953.html#msg475953)
-
Are you arguing generally or about one night in particular? We know that on THAT night he stood up in the kitchen and ate a sandwich whilst the family sat round the table.
Cheese & pickle?
-
i think generally he would have had supper at his mums or at least ate one meal a day there. he worked long hours on the farm so probably wouldn’t have felt much like making dinner after work. have i confused things
And I think -because he didn't get on with June. May even have seen her as prying, and according to Adam, they were on very poor speaking terms- it's likely he'd have been out of there like a bat out of hell. He wouldn't be the only young man who preferred the company in the local to the intolerance of a parent. The long hours you speak of would only have been at harvest time.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9730.msg475953.html#msg475953 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9730.msg475953.html#msg475953)
rubbish response 😂
-
And I think -because he didn't get on with June. May even have seen her as prying, and according to Adam, they were on very poor speaking terms- it's likely he'd have been out of there like a bat out of hell. He wouldn't be the only young man who preferred the company in the local to the intolerance of a parent. The long hours you speak of would only have been at harvest time.
it he did get on with his dad so maybe he ate with him. it really makes no odds but i don’t believe he would have eaten at the pub every night. it would have beeen an expensive thing to do too. we’ll just have to disagree on this one jane
-
I have seen a lot of people on social media taking interest in the case and I totally understand it is a drama but by saying it’s based on real life and factual scenes mixed with drama is confusing for the viewer . They are watching and not knowing which bits are true and which bits are based on dramatic interpretation. Apparently Essex police who by the authors account co-operated with her fully are NOT happy about how Taff jones has been portrayed. I said before I find it interesting on how jeremy is portrayed and we know he is a different character depending on whose statements you read , but again the viewer does not know that . Some things that may seem small or insignificant that are being missed actually might be quite important in the bigger picture. To be honest I would be happier if the question of guilt was just more open , nothing more than that . Just leaving the viewer questioning things more . But so far we have a bungling police force and a pantomime Jeremy and a shrinking violet Julie , and I think it has been going more that way as things have progressed.
I would have preferred more flashbacks. There is something wrong with this drama. I can't quite put my finger on it..
-
Well it was common knowledge Jeremy hated June.
----------
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
-
Well it was common knowledge Jeremy hated June.
----------
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
You see very little of this has come out in the drama. One small if dramatic scene only.
-
I would have preferred more flashbacks. There is something wrong with this drama. I can't quite put my finger on it..
For me it's not showing the massacre. They have spent enough of the drama just outside & inside WHF, talking about it & even talking through re constructions of some parts.
But CC didn't want any shooting.
-
it he did get on with his dad so maybe he ate with him. it really makes no odds but i don’t believe he would have eaten at the pub every night. it would have beeen an expensive thing to do too. we’ll just have to disagree on this one jane
fair play notsure.youve shown how dabating should be done.when you dont agree with another member just say so and leave it at that,excellent example of how to debate
-
it he did get on with his dad so maybe he ate with him. it really makes no odds but i don’t believe he would have eaten at the pub every night. it would have beeen an expensive thing to do too. we’ll just have to disagree on this one jane
He didn't -although I think he probably disliked June more- Nevill despaired of him, although there had been some improvement. He probably didn't eat at the pub every night -I don't think cost would have come into it, he provided the pub with potatoes so I'm guessing no money changed hands- any more than he ate at WHF every night.
-
You see very little of this has come out in the drama. One small if dramatic scene only.
His motives will come out more in the trial.
A reconstruction of some of the police interviews would be good. The transcripts are online.
-
fair play notsure.youve shown how dabating should be done.when you dont agree with another member just say so and leave it at that,excellent example of how to debate
Yes, people could learn a lot from Notsure! That's FORSURE! ;) :)
-
A reconstruction of the police interviews would be very damaging.
Providing it stuck to the transcripts no one could complain.
-
For me it's not showing the massacre. They have spent enough of the drama just outside & inside WHF, talking about it & even talking through re constructions of some parts.
But CC didn't want any shooting.
I think the show wants to leave much to the imagination and questions unanswered. That's the impression I am getting anyway. That's the kind of stuff that gets people wanting to watch the next episode.
-
CONGRATULATIONS to caroline her thread has passed 2000 replies.and still a few episodes to go.well done caroline
-
For me it's not showing the massacre. They have spent enough of the drama just outside & inside WHF, talking about it & even talking through re constructions of some parts.
But CC didn't want any shooting.
I think they could have developed the characters more, going into their various backgrounds. I'm not a fan of gratuitous violence and often this kind of thing is better left to the viewer's imagination anyway. I haven't seen all episodes so I'll reserve final judgement for two weeks.
-
He didn't -although I think he probably disliked June more- Nevill despaired of him, although there had been some improvement. He probably didn't eat at the pub every night -I don't think cost would have come into it, he provided the pub with potatoes so I'm guessing no money changed hands- any more than he ate at WHF every night.
Sometimes it's an ordeal facing people after a hard day's work, plus given his nickname of Stinko I would imagine the first thing he'd wish to do is get into the shower.
-
I would have preferred more flashbacks. There is something wrong with this drama. I can't quite put my finger on it..
Me too. I'd like to see more of Sheila, Nevill, and June. We did see a fair bit of the twins early on, but barely anything of Nevill and June. Cressida Bonas gave a fine performance as Sheila, but it was very short.
-
For me it's not showing the massacre. They have spent enough of the drama just outside & inside WHF, talking about it & even talking through re constructions of some parts.
But CC didn't want any shooting.
Well considering this forum and the legal profession has been debating exactly what happened in the house for years without conclusion then I don’t see how they could ?
And I can’t quite understand where cc was coming from .
-
I would have liked more about the money - the wrangling afterwards, the changing of Mrs Speakman's Will, etc. I would also have liked to see more characters - Robert Boutlour, Pamela, Sue, etc. I think they wanted to keep it simple though, and if they included everything it would have been twice as long. That would have been fine for me. Each episode isn't really an hour, what with all those adverts.
Still, I am enjoying it, and I think Freddie Fox is doing a magnificant job - regardless of whether he's actually like Jeremy or not.
-
I would have liked more about the money - the wrangling afterwards, the changing of Mrs Speakman's Will, etc. I would also have liked to see more characters - Robert Boutlour, Pamela, Sue, etc. I think they wanted to keep it simple though, and if they included everything it would have been twice as long. That would have been fine for me. Each episode isn't really an hour, what with all those adverts.
Still, I am enjoying it, and I think Freddie Fox is doing a magnificant job - regardless of whether he's actually like Jeremy or not.
Did you ever see the money video?
-
Sometimes it' an ordeal facing people after a hard day's work, plus given his nickname of Stinko I would imagine the first thing he'd wish to do is get into the shower.
Steve, I'm smiling to myself. I wish you could see The Chequers. It's very old, long, low and dark. Beware the beams!! A one time smugglers' haunt. There's a large main bar which doubles as a restaurant, off which there are numerous 'snugs' where one can always find any number of locals -'mature' men chewing the fat and talking about the old days- for whom they're reserved. Go in at your peril!!! There's an excellent walled garden if the pub is full. The only people he was likely to have met were regulars who were also farm workers. Naturally, though, if he'd had a date, he'd have gone home to shower and change first.
-
CONGRATULATIONS to caroline her thread has passed 2000 replies.and still a few episodes to go.well done caroline
;D ;D
-
Did you ever see the money video?
Yes I did - it was fascinating.
-
Steve, I'm smiling to myself. I wish you could see The Chequers. It's very old, long, low and dark. Beware the beams!! A one time smugglers' haunt. There's a large main bar which doubles as a restaurant, off which there are numerous 'snugs' where one can always find any number of locals -'mature' men chewing the fat and talking about the old days- for whom they're reserved. Go in at your peril!!! There's an excellent walled garden if the pub is full. The only people he was likely to have met were regulars who were also farm workers. Naturally, though, if he'd had a date, he'd have gone home to shower and change first.
Doubt I'd have any issues ;D ;D
-
CONGRATULATIONS to caroline her thread has passed 2000 replies.and still a few episodes to go.well done caroline
And well done you for keeping count ;D ;D ;D
-
Well considering this forum and the legal profession has been debating exactly what happened in the house for years without conclusion then I don’t see how they could ?
And I can’t quite understand where cc was coming from .
The legal profession? What 'all' of them? :-\
-
Doubt I'd have any issues ;D ;D
Ha! You may be certain I do. The behind the bar floor is about 2 feet lower than floor in front. It means the paneling which surrounds the bar is low. Tall people have to duck when ordering drinks. Even 'tinies' get looked up to by bar staff.
-
Did you ever see the money video?
Yes but that works both ways because we know full well who was first in line of inheritance.
-
Steve, I'm smiling to myself. I wish you could see The Chequers. It's very old, long, low and dark. Beware the beams!! A one time smugglers' haunt. There's a large main bar which doubles as a restaurant, off which there are numerous 'snugs' where one can always find any number of locals -'mature' men chewing the fat and talking about the old days- for whom they're reserved. Go in at your peril!!! There's an excellent walled garden if the pub is full. The only people he was likely to have met were regulars who were also farm workers. Naturally, though, if he'd had a date, he'd have gone home to shower and change first.
It sounds ideal. About as far from a Yates Wine Lodge as you could possibly get.
-
It sounds ideal. About as far from a Yates Wine Lodge as you could possibly get.
It absolutely is, Steve. Excellent, locally sourced food and beers.
-
Well it was common knowledge Jeremy hated June.
----------
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
What absolute rubbish and hearsay
There’s a letter that proves that’s not true. I bet she doted on him.
-
I would have liked more about the money - the wrangling afterwards, the changing of Mrs Speakman's Will, etc. I would also have liked to see more characters - Robert Boutlour, Pamela, Sue, etc. I think they wanted to keep it simple though, and if they included everything it would have been twice as long. That would have been fine for me. Each episode isn't really an hour, what with all those adverts.
Still, I am enjoying it, and I think Freddie Fox is doing a magnificant job - regardless of whether he's actually like Jeremy or not.
They dare not show the wrangling about the money because more members of the public will come to the conclusion Jeremy was set up
-
Did you ever see the money video?
That was brilliant. Could you post it Rich because of all the new viewers here.
-
fair play notsure.youve shown how dabating should be done.when you dont agree with another member just say so and leave it at that,excellent example of how to debate
thanks sami
-
What absolute rubbish and hearsay
There’s a letter that proves that’s not true. I bet she doted on him.
This is the paradox of the Jeremy Bamber case. In public she maintained the stiff upper lip to the letter, probably modelling herself on the monarch, yet in private (I'm assuming you're referring to the letter to be opened after her death in your post) she was heartfelt and remorseful for her illness which I would assume produced this anomalous behaviour. It was only when she stopped writing out personal cheques in his favour to supplement his income along with her concern for the twins' welfare (in contrast to his upbringing) that Jeremy became resolved on vengeance.
-
This is the paradox of the Jeremy Bamber case. In public she maintained the stiff upper lip to the letter, probably modelling herself on the monarch, yet in private (I'm assuming you're referring to the letter to be opened after her death in your post) she was heartfelt and remorseful for her illness which I would assume produced this anomalous behaviour. It was only when she stopped writing out personal cheques in his favour to supplement his income along with her concern for the twins' welfare (in contrast to his upbringing) that Jeremy became resolved on vengeance.
yes thats a good point steve
-
Well it was common knowledge Jeremy hated June.
----------
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
This would have been very influential to the jury.
-
Together with this & testimonies from Charles Marsden.
118.
James Richards, another student from Goldsmiths College who had met the appellant through Julie Mugford, heard him talk of his parents in about February 1985. He claimed they kept him short of money and that his mother was a religious freak. He said, "I fucking hate my parents".
119.
In about March 1985, in the context of a discussion about the security at the Osea Road caravan site, the appellant told his uncle Robert Boutflour, "… I could kill anybody … I could easily kill my parents".
-
This is the paradox of the Jeremy Bamber case. In public she maintained the stiff upper lip to the letter, probably modelling herself on the monarch, yet in private (I'm assuming you're referring to the letter to be opened after her death in your post) she was heartfelt and remorseful for her illness which I would assume produced this anomalous behaviour. It was only when she stopped writing out personal cheques in his favour to supplement his income along with her concern for the twins' welfare (in contrast to his upbringing) that Jeremy became resolved on vengeance.
Jeremy's plan to murder for inheritance is not very impressive. Not only does he inform a partner who he then lets go of, he also tells the same partner's mam, that his own mam was thinking of changing her will etc.
He might as well have wore a sign saying 'IT WAS ME'.
-
AE was also damaging.
82.
According to Pamela Boutflour (June Bamber's sister), Sheila Caffell was not a violent person and she had never known her to use a gun and in the opinion of the witness she would not know how to use one.
The evidence of Ann Eaton (June Bamber's niece) was that she had never seen Mrs Caffell with a gun and that she "would not know one end of the barrel of a gun to another". The witness added that Sheila Caffell was not a practical person and had very bad hand-eye co-ordination. Other witnesses called during the trial also said they had never seen her with a gun, save for an occasion when she had been photographed carrying one as part of a modelling assignment.
-
would not know one end of the barrel of a gun to another
That's such a silly phrase. Of course anyone would know one end of the barrel of a gun to another.
-
Obviously this was a trial run 5 months beforehand. Julie again trusted enough to be included.
138.
He admitted that the burglary at the caravan site had been motivated by greed and that by breaking a window and scattering papers around he had deliberately sought to give the impression it had been committed by somebody other than him.
-
That's such a silly phrase. Of course anyone would know one end of the barrel of a gun to another.
yes even a 8yr old when given a toy rifle will hold it the right way round
-
This is supposed to be about the drama ...
-
Do people think there are enough characters in the drama? I like the standoff between Jones and Jones, but Ann Eaton is being portrayed as acting pretty much alone in her quest to accuse Jeremy.
What about Julie's friends in London? There's no sign of them.
-
I might binge watch it, to catch up. Feel like I'm missing out.
-
From the COA in case anyone claims Wilkes's book is wrong.
116.
Other evidence was given which supported the evidence of Miss Mugford that the appellant disliked his family. Mary Mugford (Julie's mother) said the appellant had often told her that he hated his adoptive mother and he described her as quite mad.
-
From the COA in case anyone claims Wilkes's book is wrong.
116.
Other evidence was given which supported the evidence of Miss Mugford that the appellant disliked his family. Mary Mugford (Julie's mother) said the appellant had often told her that he hated his adoptive mother and he described her as quite mad.
good find adam
-
Adam, you just keep posting the same stuff in the wrong threads.
-
I might binge watch it, to catch up. Feel like I'm missing out.
It's worth watching IMO. I can't imagine how they're going to fit everything in for the next two episodes. Some viewers have said they find it rather slow though. :))
-
From the COA in case anyone claims Wilkes's book is wrong.
116.
Other evidence was given which supported the evidence of Miss Mugford that the appellant disliked his family. Mary Mugford (Julie's mother) said the appellant had often told her that he hated his adoptive mother and he described her as quite mad.
Some of Julie's testimony.
97.
She said that after she met the appellant, it quickly became obvious to her that the appellant disliked his family. He resented his parents whom he claimed, "tried to run his life" and he said he did not get on with Sheila Caffell.
He was angry that she lived in an expensive flat in Maida Vale, which was maintained by his parents. Between July and October 1984, he said that his parents were getting him down and he said that he wished "he could get rid of them all". In evidence Miss Mugford said this included his sister and children because "if he was going to get rid of them it would have to be all of them".
The appellant explained to her that his "father was getting old, his mother was mad … Sheila was mad as well … and in respect of the way the twins had been brought up, … they were emotionally disturbed and unbalanced".
The appellant also told Julie Mugford he had seen copies of his parents' wills.
-
Jeremy confirmed he had seen the wills.
131.
He told the police that he had seen the draft wills his parents had made leaving their joint estate to be shared between him and his sister.
---------
There is a thread on the wills. Believe it was even worse than that for him.
-
Some of Julie's testimony.
97.
She said that after she met the appellant, it quickly became obvious to her that the appellant disliked his family. He resented his parents whom he claimed, "tried to run his life" and he said he did not get on with Sheila Caffell.
He was angry that she lived in an expensive flat in Maida Vale, which was maintained by his parents. Between July and October 1984, he said that his parents were getting him down and he said that he wished "he could get rid of them all". In evidence Miss Mugford said this included his sister and children because "if he was going to get rid of them it would have to be all of them".
The appellant explained to her that his "father was getting old, his mother was mad … Sheila was mad as well … and in respect of the way the twins had been brought up, … they were emotionally disturbed and unbalanced".
The appellant also told Julie Mugford he had seen copies of his parents' wills.
And ? She was being offered immunity to act as a prosecution witness ? What do you expect her to say ? And who would you expect the bambers to leave their money to ?
-
And ? She was being offered immunity to act as a prosecution witness ? What do you expect her to say ? And who would you expect the bambers to leave their money to ?
What do you think of the other testimonies?
Obviously very danaging for Jeremy.
-
And ? She was being offered immunity to act as a prosecution witness ? What do you expect her to say ? And who would you expect the bambers to leave their money to ?
I expected her to finally tell the truth, warts and all. June was considering changing her will to leave something to the twins, or the Church..
-
What do you think of the other testimonies?
Obviously very danaging for Jeremy.
Of course there was nothing he could counter with: just bluff it out..
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8363.msg398163.html#msg398163
This is a thread on the wills. It would have only got worse for him over the next 15 years.
-
What do you think of the other testimonies?
Obviously very danaging for Jeremy.
Which ones in particular? The ones who lied about their financial positions when asked by the jury ?
-
Which ones in particular? The ones who lied about their financial positions when asked by the jury ?
That was outrageous. Technically, Robert Boutflour was telling the truth, but it was very misleading.
-
That was outrageous. Technically, Robert Boutflour was telling the truth, but it was very misleading.
Actually when it all came out in 1991 I wonder why they decided to come clean ? I guess it was all in the records of ownership by then ?
The ironic thing was it seems jeremy was not even aware of the complexity of the asset ownership.
-
Actually when it all came out in 1991 I wonder why they decided to come clean ? I guess it was all in the records of ownership by then ?
The ironic thing was it seems jeremy was not even aware of the complexity of the asset ownership.
He was well up on the situation with the wills though, wasn't he?
-
I know you have written stuff on here and you may well be right, but you have no concrete evidence to go along side, hence no TV company would touch it.
The pictures that BR posted were odd, they were hazy and we have no idea where they came from. Even if I gave them the benefit of the doubt, Nevill had marks on his arms and he didn't kill anyone. Marks such as the ones being claimed could be defence marks but they weren't even mentioned in Vanezis's notes, written at the time of the autopsy's. He mentioned those on Nevill, no reason not to mention marks on Sheila, especially at that juncture. Remember that the man maintained that Sheila COULD have committed suicide, were he part of the conspiracy, he's have leaned heavily on the murder side. If marks are there, there was no reason not to mention them - even if you support a guilty Jeremy.
As far as there being a rifle spotted, the word 'appeared' is important. However, we haven't seen the CS photographs of either the box room or the twins room which is where she was indicating. I don't hold much store with that either.
OK I'll keep it short because my longer post got timed out and I lost it while trying to copy and paste >:(
Whatever was posted up, there was also a clearer image, better than anything in archive. It serves no purpose to add something to an image that isn't in the original negative (as the original negative can just be referred back to).
I would refute what you're saying re evidence and re TV companies. I am not a custodian of evidence. Where something is referenced, it could refer to material not on the forum or it could refer to material on the forum. I'm afraid that's out of my control - such is life. I think there is some kind of embargo on defence programs for this case. Nothing official.
If PV was supposed to note every single thing, all I can say is: either he hasn't done that (for reasons unknown) OR his notes were re-written to exclude certain things. This is not just SC related.
Re the sightings, I may write to JB for the first time ever, regarding whether images are being held back by the defence i.e. images that would explain the sightings.
-
OK I'll keep it short because my longer post got timed out and I lost it while trying to cop and paste >:(
Whatever was posted up, there was also a clearer image, better than anything in archive. It serves no purpose to add something to an image that isn't in the original negative (as the original negative can just be referred back to).
I would refute what you're saying re evidence and re TV companies. I am not a custodian of evidence. Where something is referenced, it could refer to material not on the forum or it could refer to material on the forum. I'm afraid that's out of my control - such is life. I think there is some kind of embargo on defenced programs for this case. Nothing official.
If PV was supposed to note every single thing, all I can say is: either he hasn't done that (for reasons unknown) OR his notes were re-written to exclude certain things. This is not just SC related.
Re the sightings, I may write to JB for the first time ever, regarding whether images are being held back by the defence i.e. images that would explain the sightings.
Write away Roch, I'm surprised you haven't yet - in fact, any supporter who hasn't - why not?
I thought you would say that about Venezis, were that the case, he's have corrected the issue of 'blood being present on her palms'.
-
Write away Roch, I'm surprised you haven't yet - in fact, any supporter who hasn't - why not?
I thought you would say that about Venezis, were that the case, he's have corrected the issue of 'blood being present on her palms'.
I thought about palms Caroline. I see your point. I can only think his notes were sketchy then.
-
OK I'll keep it short because my longer post got timed out and I lost it while trying to copy and paste >:(
Whatever was posted up, there was also a clearer image, better than anything in archive. It serves no purpose to add something to an image that isn't in the original negative (as the original negative can just be referred back to).
I would refute what you're saying re evidence and re TV companies. I am not a custodian of evidence. Where something is referenced, it could refer to material not on the forum or it could refer to material on the forum. I'm afraid that's out of my control - such is life. I think there is some kind of embargo on defence programs for this case. Nothing official.
If PV was supposed to note every single thing, all I can say is: either he hasn't done that (for reasons unknown) OR his notes were re-written to exclude certain things. This is not just SC related.
Re the sightings, I may write to JB for the first time ever, regarding whether images are being held back by the defence i.e. images that would explain the sightings.
Please do, it’s time
-
OK I'll keep it short because my longer post got timed out and I lost it while trying to copy and paste >:(
Whatever was posted up, there was also a clearer image, better than anything in archive. It serves no purpose to add something to an image that isn't in the original negative (as the original negative can just be referred back to).
I would refute what you're saying re evidence and re TV companies. I am not a custodian of evidence. Where something is referenced, it could refer to material not on the forum or it could refer to material on the forum. I'm afraid that's out of my control - such is life. I think there is some kind of embargo on defence programs for this case. Nothing official.
If PV was supposed to note every single thing, all I can say is: either he hasn't done that (for reasons unknown)his notes were re-written to exclude certain things. This is not just SC related.
Re the sightings, I may write to JB for the first time ever, regarding whether images are being held back by the defence i.e. images that would explain the sightings.
Re the embargo you refer to, it seems the newspapers can lie about the type of letters JB sent to CAL (this is bearing in mind all JB letters are read by the prison). Cal will happily go along with the lies if it helps sell a few more books)
She has days now to say the bombshell headlines are not true yet has failed to take any action. Yet when MWT is desperate to visit JB in prison to discuss further action on his case he is not allowed ?????
-
He was well up on the situation with the wills though, wasn't he?
I don’t understand your argument . My parents have given me a copy of their wills ? What is your point ? You would expect jeremy and sheila to inherit ?
-
I know there was some controversy about the hand swabs but do we know if under the nails were checked on any of the victims ?
-
Unless RWB had been told where the key to the safe was, he certainly found it ! They found everything didn't they ?
-
I don’t understand your argument . My parents have given me a copy of their wills ? What is your point ? You would expect jeremy and sheila to inherit ?
Well I'm surprised at this post. Not only was Jeremy tied to a job he yearned to be free from as long as his father lived he had the added bonus of becoming sole beneficiary should all five die in one go.
-
I know there was some controversy about the hand swabs but do we know if under the nails were checked on any of the victims ?
No---none were taken unfortunately as I think they'd have each had one another's blood/skin beneath them.
-
Conditional Wills are never a good idea IMO.
-
Conditional Wills are never a good idea IMO.
It's my understanding that whilst anyone can attach conditions to their wills, it's entirely up to the recipient whether or not they're carried out.
-
It's my understanding that whilst anyone can attach conditions to their wills, it's entirely up to the recipient whether or not they're carried out.
I realise that, but it's putting pressure on the recipient, and if they don't like the conditions they have to choose between the dosh and doing something they don't want to do.
I don't know if that was Nevill's intention. It might be that he thought Jeremy would need more money than Sheila if he was going to keep the farm running.
-
I realise that, but it's putting pressure on the recipient, and if they don't like the conditions they have to choose between the dosh and doing something they don't want to do.
I don't know if that was Nevill's intention. It might be that he thought Jeremy would need more money than Sheila if he was going to keep the farm running.
Or he thought it was a way to keep him there?
-
Or he thought it was a way to keep him there?
If Jeremy didn't keep farming, he would still get half of it.
Whatever the reason, it's never a good idea.
-
If Jeremy didn't keep farming, he would still get half of it.
Whatever the reason, it's never a good idea.
Half may not have been enough, though. I agree, it was an appalling idea to which only the most dutiful would have adhered to.
-
Half may not have been enough, though. I agree, it was an appalling idea to which only the most dutiful would have adhered to.
I'm talking about it from Nevill's point of view. If he hadn't died that night, Sheila might have thought his Will was unfair. It's not as if he cut Jeremy out if he didn't keep farming, he simply divided his assets between them, which is fairly normal.
-
I'm talking about it from Nevill's point of view. If he hadn't died that night, Sheila might have thought his Will was unfair. It's not as if he cut Jeremy out if he didn't keep farming, he simply divided his assets between them, which is fairly normal.
Actually he didn't: June got the money.
-
I'm talking about it from Nevill's point of view. If he hadn't died that night, Sheila might have thought his Will was unfair. It's not as if he cut Jeremy out if he didn't keep farming, he simply divided his assets between them, which is fairly normal.
According to some farming friends, a division between a son and daughter is usually 70/30 on the presumption that the son will be running the farm and eventually supporting a wife and family, whereas a daughter will have a husband to support her. Of course, this wasn't the case with Sheila, who, it seems, was always going to need financial support..................so, too, would her boys.
-
Actually he didn't: June got the money.
Not true.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3773.0;attach=28057;image
-
According to some farming friends, a division between a son and daughter is usually 70/30 on the presumption that the son will be running the farm and eventually supporting a wife and family, whereas a daughter will have a husband to support her. Of course, this wasn't the case with Sheila, who, it seems, was always going to need financial support..................so, too, would her boys.
As I said earlier ...
I don't know if that was Nevill's intention. It might be that he thought Jeremy would need more money than Sheila if he was going to keep the farm running.
-
Not true.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3773.0;attach=28057;image
The document is ambiguous Kaldin. If you look at Clause 4b (magnifying glasses out) it's quite clear that June gets the income from the Farm whilst she is living. It's only when both Nevill and June die that Jeremy inherits the Farm.
-
The document is ambiguous Kaldin. If you look at Clause 4b (magnifying glasses out) it's quite clear that June gets the income from the Farm whilst she is living. It's only when both Nevill and June die that Jeremy inherits the Farm.
Does that mean interest from the residue?
It's a very ambiguous and confusing Will.
-
Does that mean interest from the residue?
It's a very ambiguous and confusing Will.
I think Nevill expected to die before his wife and was leaving her with the mess to sort out. Maybe he was hoping that if they lived another twenty years Jeremy would have settled down by then (remember they gave the go-ahead for Jeremy to marry Julie around Christmas 1984).
-
I think Nevill expected to die before his wife and was leaving her with the mess to sort out. Maybe he was hoping that if they lived another twenty years Jeremy would have settled down by then (remember they gave the go-ahead for Jeremy to marry Julie around Christmas 1984).
Like Jeremy needed their permission. ;D
I don't know. The love of money can cause so many problems.
-
I've met Jeremy in person. Like I said met him in person. He was nothing like that. I'm not even championing the man's innocence
-
I've met Jeremy in person. Like I said met him in person. He was nothing like that. I'm not even championing the man's innocence
What was he like?
-
I've met Jeremy in person. Like I said met him in person. He was nothing like that. I'm not even championing the man's innocence
Oh for goodness' sake.
-
Like Jeremy needed their permission. ;D
I don't know. The love of money can cause so many problems.
They already forbade him to marry Suzette, hence the astounding decision they gave him the nod.
-
They already forbade him to marry Suzette, hence the astounding decision they gave him the nod.
Where did you get that from?
-
Where did you get that from?
Wasn't he threatened with being cut out of the will? That would have been a disaster. He had no qualifications and didn't care for hard work. Marriage with Suzette may not have been the idyll he's imagined.
-
Where did you get that from?
It's in the CAL book David. You see the background in this case is crucial, not that I'm excusing the murder of five for one moment.
-
Wasn't he threatened with being cut out of the will? That would have been a disaster. He had no qualifications and didn't care for hard work. Marriage with Suzette may not have been the idyll he's imagined.
I've never read that Nevill threatened to cut him out of his Will for that reason.
-
Well I'm surprised at this post. Not only was Jeremy tied to a job he yearned to be free from as long as his father lived he had the added bonus of becoming sole beneficiary should all five die in one go.
Are you saying everyone who could inherit more , and faster , would risk 5 live sentences ? Especially when they were quite well off anyway ?
-
If Jeremy didn't keep farming, he would still get half of it.
Whatever the reason, it's never a good idea.
If Julie bought a flat with 25000. If jeremy sold his shares he would still have enough for 3 flats in London already . He was not exactly poor .
-
If Julie bought a flat with 25000. If jeremy sold his shares he would still have enough for 3 flats in London already . He was not exactly poor .
I'm not sure how much his shares were worth. He had 20% of N&J Bamber and 8% of the caravan business.
-
I've never read that Nevill threatened to cut him out of his Will for that reason.
.
But as I said he could always sell his shares
-
I'm not sure how much his shares were worth. He had 20% of N&J Bamber and 8% of the caravan business.
It says on the video about how the businesses were run down that his shares were worth £75000
But he got a bill for winding up the businesses when the profits were wiped out of £16000
-
Are you saying everyone who could inherit more , and faster , would risk 5 live sentences ? Especially when they were quite well off anyway ?
"Quite well off" is entirely relative. It depends on the style one lives up to, or wants to achieve. It depends on whether or not one is content with one's lot. I suspect Jeremy wasn't. Was he risking 5 life sentences? probably, in his eyes, not. He'd have believed all the I's and T's were dotted and crossed or he wouldn't have done it.
-
Are you saying everyone who could inherit more , and faster , would risk 5 live sentences ? Especially when they were quite well off anyway ?
He wanted the lot.
-
I've never read that Nevill threatened to cut him out of his Will for that reason.
The Murders at White House Farm Chapter 8
Jeremy told his parents that he was staying with a friend in Colchester, but the truth caused uproar when it emerged. Sue believed the problem lay entirely with June, recalling that Jeremy got on well with his father, whom he referred to as "Matey", and was proud of his work as a magistrate. But Nevill objected to the affair almost as strongly as his wife. Confronting his son with uncharacteristic severity, he warned Jeremy that if he didn't end the relationship, he could expect to be disinherited.
-
If Julie bought a flat with 25000. If jeremy sold his shares he would still have enough for 3 flats in London already . He was not exactly poor .
I doubt in Maida Vale, even at 1984 prices.
-
The Murders at White House Farm Chapter 8
Jeremy told his parents that he was staying with a friend in Colchester, but the truth caused uproar when it emerged. Sue believed the problem lay entirely with June, recalling that Jeremy got on well with his father, whom he referred to as "Matey", and was proud of his work as a magistrate. But Nevill objected to the affair almost as strongly as his wife. Confronting his son with uncharacteristic severity, he warned Jeremy that if he didn't end the relationship, he could expect to be disinherited.
Carol Lee again?
-
He wanted the lot.
Can’t you just say you think he wanted the lot rather than posting it as a fact .
Well I think he must have spent 12 months very badly weighing up the risks then . How did he know he was going to be dealing with the keystone cops ?
-
Carol Lee again?
Yes I won't embellish if you don't mind.
-
I always think of the old grannie who didn't have long for this earth anyway at the time of the murders. It was only a matter of a year or so when no doubt JB would have had a mention in the Will because of him being her " favourite " grandson.
Why spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar ? He wasn't going to blot his copy-book for the sake of a year. I don't believe it at all.
-
I always think of the old grannie who didn't have long for this earth anyway at the time of the murders. It was only a matter of a year or so when no doubt JB would have had a mention in the Will because of him being her " favourite " grandson.
Why spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar ? He wasn't going to blot his copy-book for the sake of a year. I don't believe it at all.
He couldn't guarantee that she would change her Will and leave him anything though.
-
The Murders at White House Farm Chapter 8
Jeremy told his parents that he was staying with a friend in Colchester, but the truth caused uproar when it emerged. Sue believed the problem lay entirely with June, recalling that Jeremy got on well with his father, whom he referred to as "Matey", and was proud of his work as a magistrate. But Nevill objected to the affair almost as strongly as his wife. Confronting his son with uncharacteristic severity, he warned Jeremy that if he didn't end the relationship, he could expect to be disinherited.
Again, Steve, Thank-you :)
-
Did she get that from Jeremy or is it hearsay?
-
I doubt in Maida Vale, even at 1984 prices.
Julie said she bought a flat with her money from the news of the world
-
I always think of the old grannie who didn't have long for this earth anyway at the time of the murders. It was only a matter of a year or so when no doubt JB would have had a mention in the Will because of him being her " favourite " grandson.
Why spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar ? He wasn't going to blot his copy-book for the sake of a year. I don't believe it at all.
You have no idea how much he may have resented having to be chained to the farm. At his age, a year, trapped in something he may have grown to detest, would probably have seemed like a lifetime.
-
I doubt in Maida Vale, even at 1984 prices.
Many parts of London are much cheaper than Maida Vale.
-
His shares were worth about £230000 in today’s money . Not as much as I thought but still a fair amount
-
It's in the CAL book David. You see the background in this case is crucial, not that I'm excusing the murder of five for one moment.
It doesn’t actually say that. It just says his parents were “deeply troubled” troubled by it.
No source is given either.
-
You have no idea how much he may have resented having to be chained to the farm. At his age, a year, trapped in something he may have grown to detest, would probably have seemed like a lifetime.
Farming-office work-factory-retail- whatever job a 24 year old ends up with/in they don't like WORK !!
-
Can’t you just say you think he wanted the lot rather than posting it as a fact .
Well I think he must have spent 12 months very badly weighing up the risks then . How did he know he was going to be dealing with the keystone cops ?
Jan! You can't possibly be unaware that, whatever the crime that's being planned for, the criminal can't legislate against everything. The unknown can't be legislated for. That has to be the answer for every question you see fit to throw out there.
-
You have no idea how much he may have resented having to be chained to the farm. At his age, a year, trapped in something he may have grown to detest, would probably have seemed like a lifetime.
He did not have to be chained . Only if he wanted to inherit . He could have gone off got a job or something different ?
The shares were not conditional as far as I know . Enough to start his own business if he wanted .
-
Julie said she bought a flat with her money from the news of the world
Yes but not in upmarket Maida Vale.
-
Many parts of London are much cheaper than Maida Vale.
Of course they are, which is why you couldn't buy three flats there with Jeremy's money in 1984.
-
Jan! You can't possibly be unaware that, whatever the crime that's being planned for, the criminal can't legislate against everything. The unknown can't be legislated for. That has to be the answer for every question you see fit to throw out there.
But that’s exactly what I was saying ? Risk against outcome ? You are agreeing with me lol 😂
-
Farming-office work-factory-retail- whatever job a 24 year old ends up with/in they don't like WORK !!
But they're far more likely to enjoy something they have a vocation for, than something they've been coerced into and have no option about. As you've previously said, MANY 24 year olds have married and have the responsibility of a family. However much they may dislike what they do, it pays bills and puts food on tables. They're probably glad to be in work.
-
Can’t you just say you think he wanted the lot rather than posting it as a fact .
Well I think he must have spent 12 months very badly weighing up the risks then . How did he know he was going to be dealing with the keystone cops ?
Probably because Nevill had called them Dad's Army on a previous occasion. Really I think I must elucidate a little further on Jeremy's mindset before any more misunderstandings arise.
-
The Murders at White House Farm Chapter 8
Jeremy told his parents that he was staying with a friend in Colchester, but the truth caused uproar when it emerged. Sue believed the problem lay entirely with June, recalling that Jeremy got on well with his father, whom he referred to as "Matey", and was proud of his work as a magistrate. But Nevill objected to the affair almost as strongly as his wife. Confronting his son with uncharacteristic severity, he warned Jeremy that if he didn't end the relationship, he could expect to be disinherited.
CAL has cited an article in the Daily Mail for this 😂
That’s almost as bad as rumours circulating the frog and beans. 😂
-
Of course they are, which is why you couldn't buy three flats there with Jeremy's money in 1984.
Nobody suggested he could.
-
But that’s exactly what I was saying ? Risk against outcome ? You are agreeing with me lol 😂
If you're saying that, having weighed up all the risks, he decided it was worth a tiny(?) risk, then, yes, I am.
-
Nobody suggested he could.
I did but I corrected it . But Julie did say she bought a flat with 25000 . But I corrected my mistake .
Some of us are capable of doing that
-
I did but I corrected it . But Julie did say she bought a flat with 25000 . But I corrected my mistake .
Some of us are capable of doing that
OK. I didn't see you say that.
-
CAL has cited an article in the Daily Mail for this 😂
That’s almost as bad as rumours circulating the frog and beans. 😂
It’s quite strange on social media there are a few posters who are very vocal about “ the family “ framing jeremy who say they know them . But as jeremy apparently has no friends or family who actually liked him , it makes you wonder where their vitriol comes from ?
But I have learnt from here take everything with a pinch of salt . Especially the daily fail .
-
But they're far more likely to enjoy something they have a vocation for, than something they've been coerced into and have no option about. As you've previously said, MANY 24 year olds have married and have the responsibility of a family. However much they may dislike what they do, it pays bills and puts food on tables. They're probably glad to be in work.
JB soon realised that better the devil you know after his stint behind a bar which is why he knuckled under on the farm. He wasn't one to be coerced by anyone and no doubt soon learned that bar work was dead-end and without prospects.
-
JB soon realised that better the devil you know after his stint behind a bar which is why he knuckled under on the farm. He wasn't one to be coerced by anyone and no doubt soon learned that bar work was dead-end and without prospects.
To quote several others here. HEARSAY.
-
1) Jeremy is adopted in 1961, thus being deprived of his birth mother.
2) Jeremy is shunted off to boarding school aged 8, thus a second separation. He has bonded with neither parent.
3) Jeremy returns to White House Farm in the holidays for thirteen weeks a year. As every year passes he becomes more alienated.
4) He leaves Gresham's with few qualifications. He senses Nevill's disappointment.
5) June becomes ill in 1982 and is hospitalized in St. Andrew's, Northampton. Jeremy witnesses the hold religion has on her at first hand.
6) Sheila becomes ill in 1983 and is incarcerated in the above facility.
7) The love of Jeremy's life, Suzette Ford, is rejected by Nevill and June. Jeremy blames them for Suzette's three miscarriages.
Meanwhile Sheila's children are growing up, and have gained the affection of their grandparents. Jeremy resents the difference in treatment they receive from his childhood.
9) Sheila becomes ill again in March 1985 and is placed back in St. Andrew's. Jeremy sees the bills on Nevill's desk. There is talk of sending Nicholas and Daniel to boarding school. June's mental state is still precarious and Barbara Wilson states she may change her will in favour of the twins.
10) Sheila makes the "All people are bad and should be killed remark" in front of June and Barbara. Did Jeremy get wind of this?
11) Jeremy muses about his heretofore theoretical plan of murdering all five whilst under the same roof. He questions Colin as to when the twins are coming to stay.
12) 6 August 1985. Jeremy dithers on the telephone to Julie: "it's now or never".
13) Jeremy watches a television programme on miscarriages. Suddenly he recalls Suzette's loss and the die is cast. He embarks on the diabolical journey.
-
JB soon realised that better the devil you know after his stint behind a bar which is why he knuckled under on the farm. He wasn't one to be coerced by anyone and no doubt soon learned that bar work was dead-end and without prospects.
That's possible lookout but his heart wasn't in it. Barbara Wilson said he always had an ulterior motive.
-
1) Jeremy is adopted in 1961, thus being deprived of his birth mother.
2) Jeremy is shunted off to boarding school aged 8, thus a second separation. He has bonded with neither parent.
3) Jeremy returns to White House Farm in the holidays for thirteen weeks a year. As every year passes he becomes more alienated.
4) He leaves Gresham's with few qualifications. He senses Nevill's disappointment.
5) June becomes ill in 1982 and is hospitalized in St. Andrew's, Northampton. Jeremy witnesses the hold religion has on her at first hand.
6) Sheila becomes ill in 1983 and is incarcerated in the above facility.
7) The love of Jeremy's life, Suzette Ford, is rejected by Nevill and June. Jeremy blames them for Suzette's three miscarriages.
Meanwhile Sheila's children are growing up, and have gained the affection of their grandparents. Jeremy resents the difference in treatment they receive from his childhood.
9) Sheila becomes ill again in March 1985 and is placed back in St. Andrew's. Jeremy sees the bills on Nevill's desk. There is talk of sending Nicholas and Daniel to boarding school. June's mental state is still precarious and Barbara Wilson states she may change her will in favour of the twins.
10) Sheila makes the "All people are bad and should be killed remark" in front of June and Barbara. Did Jeremy get wind of this?
11) Jeremy muses about his heretofore theoretical plan of murdering all five whilst under the same roof. He questions Colin as to when the twins are coming to stay.
12) 6 August 1985. Jeremy dithers on the telephone to Julie: "it's now or never".
13) Jeremy watches a television programme on miscarriages. Suddenly he recalls Suzette's loss and the die is cast. He embarks on the diabolical journey.
Point 1 is irrelevant. Point 7 is unsubstantiated. Point 10 is true but with speculation at the end. and points 11 to 13 are fictional.
-
They already forbade him to marry Suzette, hence the astounding decision they gave him the nod.
they didn't forbade anything. He was a grown man no ball and chain scenario. They loved Jeremy. They would have relented if he wanted to marry whoever. Mr and Mrs bamber were known to be kind and loving people.
-
Just needs to put IMO. After some of the points , or in the opinion of writer xxxxxxxx
-
They were probably not happy with the shelia and Colin scenario, but they still attended the wedding in 77 didn't they. Its called unconditional parental love stephen
-
they didn't forbade anything. He was a grown man no ball and chain scenario. They loved Jeremy. They would have relented if he wanted to marry whoever. Mr and Mrs bamber were known to be kind and loving people.
Their friends would all agree with you. None of them has anything but good to say of them.............but they weren't their children and there were no expectations of their friends.
-
They were probably not happy with the shelia and Colin scenario, but they still attended the wedding in 77 didn't they. Its called unconditional parental love stephen
In a register office with a reception in an hotel, rather than their family church service attended by family, friends and workers, with a marquee on the lawn. June forbade the church wedding because of Sheila's pregnancy. I wouldn't call THAT unconditional love.
-
In a register office with a reception in an hotel, rather than their family church service attended by family, friends and workers, with a marquee on the lawn. June forbade the church wedding because of Sheila's pregnancy. I wouldn't call THAT unconditional love.
Do you know if Colin and Sheila actually wanted a church wedding ?
-
They were probably not happy with the shelia and Colin scenario, but they still attended the wedding in 77 didn't they. Its called unconditional parental love stephen
Maybe Nevill and June would have come round presented with a fait accompli. Jeremy relented on marriage, but kept seeing Suzette behind their and Julie's back.
-
Do you know if Colin and Sheila actually wanted a church wedding ?
They wouldn't have had any alternative but to accede to June's wishes. I doubt Colin would have been bothered either way.
-
they didn't forbade anything. He was a grown man no ball and chain scenario. They loved Jeremy. They would have relented if he wanted to marry whoever. Mr and Mrs bamber were known to be kind and loving people.
Actually this is a good point . I think by having to give jeremy a motive to kill , they have to make him hate his family , and subsequently are potraying extreme behaviours for the parents as well.. And having spoken to other people who knew him I am not convinced that’s true . They seem to have the normal ups and downs that any family had . I am not sure the extremes that have been portrayed were true representation. Perhaps if jeremy wanted to go out on his own they would have supported him , as they did sheila. They did their best . Just look at those old photos . They looked so happy . It’s all very sad .
-
There will be a thread soon about Malcolm Fletcher.
-
Actually this is a good point . I think by having to give jeremy a motive to kill , they have to make him hate his family , and subsequently are potraying extreme behaviours for the parents as well.. And having spoken to other people who knew him I am not convinced that’s true . They seem to have the normal ups and downs that any family had . I am not sure the extremes that have been portrayed were true representation. Perhaps if jeremy wanted to go out on his own they would have supported him , as they did sheila. They did their best . Just look at those old photos . They looked so happy . It’s all very sad .
You're forgetting James Richards' evidence, a student who later became an army officer. For the uninitiated let me repeat it with the asterisks included for modesty's sake: "I f***ing hate my parents."
-
You're forgetting James Richards' evidence, a student who later became an army officer. For the uninitiated let me repeat it with the asterisks included for modesty's sake: "I f***ing hate my parents."
Waste of time Steve ;D ;D
-
For the 44 guests who wish to receive an overview of the case please click on this link: http://betnod.com/threads/the-jeremy-bamber-case-still-beyond-reasonable-doubt.1338/
-
1) Jeremy is adopted in 1961, thus being deprived of his birth mother.
2) Jeremy is shunted off to boarding school aged 8, thus a second separation. He has bonded with neither parent.
3) Jeremy returns to White House Farm in the holidays for thirteen weeks a year. As every year passes he becomes more alienated.
4) He leaves Gresham's with few qualifications. He senses Nevill's disappointment.
5) June becomes ill in 1982 and is hospitalized in St. Andrew's, Northampton. Jeremy witnesses the hold religion has on her at first hand.
6) Sheila becomes ill in 1983 and is incarcerated in the above facility.
7) The love of Jeremy's life, Suzette Ford, is rejected by Nevill and June. Jeremy blames them for Suzette's three miscarriages.
Meanwhile Sheila's children are growing up, and have gained the affection of their grandparents. Jeremy resents the difference in treatment they receive from his childhood.
9) Sheila becomes ill again in March 1985 and is placed back in St. Andrew's. Jeremy sees the bills on Nevill's desk. There is talk of sending Nicholas and Daniel to boarding school. June's mental state is still precarious and Barbara Wilson states she may change her will in favour of the twins.
10) Sheila makes the "All people are bad and should be killed remark" in front of June and Barbara. Did Jeremy get wind of this?
11) Jeremy muses about his heretofore theoretical plan of murdering all five whilst under the same roof. He questions Colin as to when the twins are coming to stay.
12) 6 August 1985. Jeremy dithers on the telephone to Julie: "it's now or never".
13) Jeremy watches a television programme on miscarriages. Suddenly he recalls Suzette's loss and the die is cast. He embarks on the diabolical journey.
Barbara Death
-
Waste of time Steve ;D ;D
The guilters have no need to shovel anything under the carpet. Feel free to ask us why we hold steadfast to our convictions.
-
That's possible lookout but his heart wasn't in it. Barbara Wilson said he always had an ulterior motive.
Good old honest Barbara who likes to contradict herself
-
For the 44 guests who wish to receive an overview of the case please click on this link: http://betnod.com/threads/the-jeremy-bamber-case-still-beyond-reasonable-doubt.1338/
I seem to be banned from that particular establishment but don't let that hinder your perusal of the site.
-
That's possible lookout but his heart wasn't in it. Barbara Wilson said he always had an ulterior motive.
You have no idea what was in his heart ??
I would like to hear more from Ilovebooze about his character
Someone impartial
-
You have no idea what was in his heart ??
I would like to hear more from Ilovebooze about his character
Someone impartial
Wasn't there a link to him throwing his voice mimicking a character from The Exorcist..
-
There will be a thread soon about Malcolm Fletcher.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10102.msg468773.html#msg468773
David said he did not consider him an expert. But did not elaborate.
-
There will be a thread soon about Malcolm Fletcher.
That'll be interesting from Mr " Backspatter " himself. He who knows all about ballistics on account of him having a toy gun when he was a lad.
-
You're forgetting James Richards' evidence, a student who later became an army officer. For the uninitiated let me repeat it with the asterisks included for modesty's sake: "I f***ing hate my parents."
:)) :)) :))
-
Actually this is a good point . I think by having to give jeremy a motive to kill , they have to make him hate his family , and subsequently are potraying extreme behaviours for the parents as well.. And having spoken to other people who knew him I am not convinced that’s true . They seem to have the normal ups and downs that any family had . I am not sure the extremes that have been portrayed were true representation. Perhaps if jeremy wanted to go out on his own they would have supported him , as they did sheila. They did their best . Just look at those old photos . They looked so happy . It’s all very sad .
I agree it’s so sad especially for Sheila being such a beautiful girl and I don’t think she ever had a man in her life that adored her.
Maybe if she had everything would have been different
Listening to Barbara Death today she never said anything about Jeremy being different to her (like the owners son) she seemed genuinely fond of him
-
The guilters have no need to shovel anything under the carpet. Feel free to ask us why we hold steadfast to our convictions.
Julie Mugford pathological liar do I need to say any more
-
That'll be interesting from Mr " Backspatter " himself. He who knows all about ballistics on account of him having a toy gun when he was a lad.
yes and you would know better them him.maybe you should have turned up in court and argued against him.would have been fun :)
-
The guilters have no need to shovel anything under the carpet. Feel free to ask us why we hold steadfast to our convictions.
We certainly don't!
-
Good old honest Barbara who likes to contradict herself
There is only one statement in the archives , do you know the date of her first statement as I can’t seem to find it ?
-
They wouldn't have had any alternative but to accede to June's wishes. I doubt Colin would have been bothered either way.
They could have gone and got married anywhere ? Or were they too young ?
-
There is only one statement in the archives , do you know the date of her first statement as I can’t seem to find it ?
She made one 12 September 1985 and one on 5 October 1985.
-
She made one 12 September 1985 and one on 5 October 1985.
I've also found reference to one made on 16 December 1985. I think the rest of the quotes in CAL's book are from face to face interviews in 2014.
-
The guilters have no need to shovel anything under the carpet. Feel free to ask us why we hold steadfast to our convictions.
You seem to have brushed my last two posts under the carpet already.
-
They could have gone and got married anywhere ? Or were they too young ?
But you see Sheila was under June's thumb. To understand that is fundamental to understanding their relationship.
-
You seem to have brushed my last two posts under the carpet already.
Well the board moved so quickly I lost track. I can't comment on #2115 but I would assume that the Daily Mail could be sued for libel like any other publication. As for #2125 the adoption is relevant in that there was no maternal bond, I'm assuming CAL interviewed Nevill and June's friends to conclude that they didn't consider Suzette suitable marriage material and part of the last point Jeremy certainly did quiz Colin at the party on the Saturday before the murders whether the twins would be staying at White House Farm.
-
There is only one statement in the archives , do you know the date of her first statement as I can’t seem to find it ?
I will try and look in the morning
-
There is only one statement in the archives , do you know the date of her first statement as I can’t seem to find it ?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8980.msg425591.html#msg425591
-
Actually this is a good point . I think by having to give jeremy a motive to kill , they have to make him hate his family , and subsequently are potraying extreme behaviours for the parents as well.. And having spoken to other people who knew him I am not convinced that’s true . They seem to have the normal ups and downs that any family had . I am not sure the extremes that have been portrayed were true representation. Perhaps if jeremy wanted to go out on his own they would have supported him , as they did sheila. They did their best . Just look at those old photos . They looked so happy . It’s all very sad .
Ha Ha, Brett didn’t help then, “how did he get on with his Father”. “Didn’t seem to be any love between them, not close”. “What bout his mother” “Jeremy mentioned about giving her money away to church” “ Is it true he HATED his mother” “Yeah at times I would say so”. “Let’s move on to Sheila, what sort of relationship did Jeremy have with her” “ Not sort of brotherly” If someone who hardly knew Bamber like Brett and only through chance meetings and overseas visits became aware of his family relationship, what did others more close know?
-
Ha Ha, Brett didn’t help then, “how did he get on with his Father”. “Didn’t seem to be any love between them, not close”. “What bout his mother” “Jeremy mentioned about giving her money away to church” “ Is it true he HATED his mother” “Yeah at times I would say so”. “Let’s move on to Sheila, what sort of relationship did Jeremy have with her” “ Not sort of brotherly” If someone who hardly knew Bamber like Brett and only through chance meetings and overseas visits became aware of his family relationship, what did others more close know?
Also Sheila was said to struggle with her mother, June is quoted as calling her ‘the Devil’s child’ amongst other things. Anyone who has read Colin’s book is in no doubt how much Sheila hated her mother and also so did Colin particularly because of the way she had treated Sheila and for her general attitude and brhaviour. The particular needs of the child and particularly the adopted child seemed to have been completely ignored by June. While on the surface everything may have appeared normal enough there seemed to be massive dysfunction under the surface.
-
How many brothers and sisters get on anyway ? Also there must be many who talk about their parents in this way too. JB certainly wasn't and won't be the only one.
-
Also Sheila was said to struggle with her mother, June is quoted as calling her ‘the Devil’s child’ amongst other things. Anyone who has read Colin’s book is in no doubt how much Sheila hated her mother and also so did Colin particularly because of the way she had treated Sheila and for her general attitude and brhaviour. The particular needs of the child and particularly the adopted child seemed to have been completely ignored by June. While on the surface everything may have appeared normal enough there seemed to be massive dysfunction under the surface.
The post from Jan was on about Bamber and not Sheila, we all know of Sheila’s struggles and accept them, it’s posters who will not accept Bamber’s own hatred.
-
The post from Jan was on about Bamber and not Sheila, we all know of Sheila’s struggles and accept them, it’s posters who will not accept Bamber’s own hatred.
But RJ, they were both brought up in the same way in the same house. I don’t doubt JB hated her as much as Sheila did but being male dealt with it difgrtrntly. Oddibly he shut it down but it doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. My point is that they were probably both very damaged by their upbringing and therefore both possibly capable of murder because of hatred. If Sheila was a victim so was Jetemy.
-
But RJ, they were both brought up in the same way in the same house. I don’t doubt JB hated her as much as Sheila did but being male dealt with it difgrtrntly. Oddibly he shut it down but it doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. My point is that they were probably both very damaged by their upbringing and therefore both possibly capable of murder because of hatred. If Sheila was a victim so was Jetemy.
I accept what your saying, couple it with Jealousy and greed motifs and it’s a powerful combination.
-
But RJ, they were both brought up in the same way in the same house. I don’t doubt JB hated her as much as Sheila did but being male dealt with it difgrtrntly. Oddibly he shut it down but it doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. My point is that they were probably both very damaged by their upbringing and therefore both possibly capable of murder because of hatred. If Sheila was a victim so was Jetemy.
Absolutely, Maggie. Whilst Sheila seems to have dealt with it emotionally, Jeremy dealt with it in the ultimate practical way!
-
I accept what your saying, couple it with Jealousy and greed motifs and it’s a powerful combination.
Mmm. Jealousy + greed=revenge?
-
Mmm. Jealousy + greed=revenge?
Which also applies to both .
-
Which also applies to both .
Why? Sheila wasn't materialistic. Her needs were emotional. Financially, she was catered for. I'll bet the purse strings were never tightened when it came to her needs because of the boys and their needs.
-
Why? Sheila wasn't materialistic. Her needs were emotional. Financially, she was catered for. I'll bet the purse strings were never tightened when it came to her needs because of the boys and their needs.
Oh, c'mon, I took you to be more intelligent than you appear to be.
Sheila had been materialistic. Why a property in Maida Vale ? Wasn't a cottage in the same village as her family good enough ?
It seems that while living with Colin she wanted her own way or threw a strop along with pots and pans.
In her younger life her parents bent over backwards to find her and fund her the job which she wanted and even that didn't seem enough. Parents funded her trip to Japan which was a waste of time and money. In the end Sheila didn't have to work. Wouldn't we all have loved such a life ?
-
How many brothers and sisters get on anyway ? Also there must be many who talk about their parents in this way too. JB certainly wasn't and won't be the only one.
As a teenager growing up to maturity, Yes, this was regular theme by loose tongue Bamber, even into Adulthood, clearly expressed by Brett.
-
As a teenager growing up to maturity, Yes, this was regular theme by loose tongue Bamber, even into Adulthood, clearly expressed by Brett.
I would have said that those with " loose tongues " are less likely to commit crime against the deep-thinking quiet ones. Think about it.
-
Oh, c'mon, I took you to be more intelligent than you appear to be.
Sheila had been materialistic. Why a property in Maida Vale ? Wasn't a cottage in the same village as her family good enough ?
It seems that while living with Colin she wanted her own way or threw a strop along with pots and pans.
In her younger life her parents bent over backwards to find her and fund her the job which she wanted and even that didn't seem enough. Parents funded her trip to Japan which was a waste of time and money. In the end Sheila didn't have to work. Wouldn't we all have loved such a life ?
Brilliant post. Spot on
-
Oh, c'mon, I took you to be more intelligent than you appear to be.
Sheila had been materialistic. Why a property in Maida Vale ? Wasn't a cottage in the same village as her family good enough ?
It seems that while living with Colin she wanted her own way or threw a strop along with pots and pans.
In her younger life her parents bent over backwards to find her and fund her the job which she wanted and even that didn't seem enough. Parents funded her trip to Japan which was a waste of time and money. In the end Sheila didn't have to work. Wouldn't we all have loved such a life ?
now i can see the way jb thought is the same as you,the bitterness that his sister had a flat in london while he had to live near the farm because he worked
-
now i can see the way jb thought is the same as you,the bitterness that his sister had a flat in london while he had to live near the farm because he worked
Me, bitter ? Such a trait has never existed so far as I'm concerned. I wasn't talking about ME anyway !
I happened to have been talking about Sheila, but you can't help twisting things to suit can you ?
-
Me, bitter ? Such a trait has never existed so far as I'm concerned. I wasn't talking about ME anyway !
I happened to have been talking about Sheila, but you can't help twisting things to suit can you ?
wasnt a cottage in the same village (good enough)that sounds like your bitter to me.but your right ive not seen that trait in you
-
Oh, c'mon, I took you to be more intelligent than you appear to be.
Sheila had been materialistic. Why a property in Maida Vale ? Wasn't a cottage in the same village as her family good enough ?
It seems that while living with Colin she wanted her own way or threw a strop along with pots and pans.
In her younger life her parents bent over backwards to find her and fund her the job which she wanted and even that didn't seem enough. Parents funded her trip to Japan which was a waste of time and money. In the end Sheila didn't have to work. Wouldn't we all have loved such a life ?
Jeremy's trips were funded, his house was free, his car and fuel were free, he was paid a salary and he didn't have schizophrenia - wouldn't we have all loved such a life? I know which would choose.
-
Jeremy's trips were funded, his house was free, his car and fuel were free, he was paid a salary and he didn't have schizophrenia - wouldn't we have all loved such a life? I know which would choose.
That made two of them then, didn't it ? No good ever comes from those who don't have to graft for their pay !!
-
Oh, c'mon, I took you to be more intelligent than you appear to be.
Sheila had been materialistic. Why a property in Maida Vale ? Wasn't a cottage in the same village as her family good enough ?
It seems that while living with Colin she wanted her own way or threw a strop along with pots and pans.
In her younger life her parents bent over backwards to find her and fund her the job which she wanted and even that didn't seem enough. Parents funded her trip to Japan which was a waste of time and money. In the end Sheila didn't have to work. Wouldn't we all have loved such a life ?
Given that Nevill bought the flat, he was hardly going to buy somewhere in the 'wrong' address because it wouldn't have been somewhere he wanted Sheila to live, apart from which London, per se, was where her life was, an NO! absolutely NO! She most definitely didn't want to live near her parents.
Colin doesn't strike me as being the argumentative type, however, I believe there probably existed between them, a war of attrition. He'd walk away. Sheila would be determined to get his attention. Utensil got hurled. Why would you claim she wanted her own way?
I think you'll find that the Japanese job may have have been part and parcel of her modelling course. Had it been a success, it would have led to more assignments -I believe it was from Japan that she made a request to see a psychiatrist?- Certainly, like all her health care, it was funded by June and Nevill. As was the failed secretarial course, and the failed hairdressing apprenticeship. It's what parents do. She could hardly have been said to be living the high life when she ended up as a cleaner. NO! I wouldn't have like her life.
-
Jeremy's trips were funded, his house was free, his car and fuel were free, he was paid a salary and he didn't have schizophrenia - wouldn't we have all loved such a life? I know which would choose.
If you live in a nice area this is normal. Parents will always help there children with jobs and get on the property and work in the family company
This happens with thousands and millions of homes across the family
He lived a normal existence in a dysfunctional family and had savings in the bank at the time of the murders
-
That made two of them then, didn't it ? No good ever comes from those who don't have to graft for their pay !!
Lookout, there was nothing unusual about their life-styles. Their's was no different from most others in that social class.
-
Me, bitter ? Such a trait has never existed so far as I'm concerned. I wasn't talking about ME anyway !
I happened to have been talking about Sheila, but you can't help twisting things to suit can you ?
Mmm, and it comes over quite strongly, that you think Sheila did better than Jeremy. Jeremy had two Australasian trips funded, and he had a house given him. Still, I can see that he, like you, may have thought Sheila got the better deal.
-
Mmm, and it comes over quite strongly, that you think Sheila did better than Jeremy. Jeremy had two Australasian trips funded, and he had a house given him. Still, I can see that he, like you, may have thought Sheila got the better deal.
I did NOT say nor think that Sheila did better than Jeremy. These are simply your thoughts that enable you to contradict what I've said. They were both treated equally, except that you conveniently forget a few things while you're JB bashing.
-
I did NOT say nor think that Sheila did better than Jeremy. These are simply your thoughts that enable you to contradict what I've said. They were both treated equally, except that you conveniently forget a few things while you're JB bashing.
You didn't have to SAY, Lookout. It's how it comes over. I'd agree that, as far as was possible, unless the cost of an Australasian trip is compared with the cost of a London flat, or the cost of another failed career, the Bambers treated them both equally. HOWEVER, it's not about how WE see the situation, is it? It's about how Jeremy believed it to be. We MAY be a better judge of it than he because we weren't personally involved.
-
Errors tonight?
Jeremy was not at the flat when sheila had her last episode ?
Jeremy had been planning the murders for over a year according to Julie’s statements ? Not 20 weeks ?
She did not just walk into the police station?
I don’t believe even the journalist said he actually looked at the pornagraphic photos ( no need to debate this again)
Anne Eaton did not knock Colin’s door and tell him jeremy had been arrested .
Some of these things are actually quite important .
But if course it’s a drama based on facts , that covers a multitude of sins .
Taff looking quite the down trodden fiery tyrant now.
-
Errors tonight?
Jeremy was not at the flat when sheila had her last episode ?
Jeremy had been planning the murders for over a year according to Julie’s statements ? Not 20 weeks ?
She did not just walk into the police station?
I don’t believe even the journalist said he actually looked at the pornagraphic photos ( no need to debate this again)
Anne Eaton did not knock Colin’s door and tell him jeremy had been arrested .
Some of these things are actually quite important .
But if course it’s a drama based on facts , that covers a multitude of sins .
Taff looking quite the down trodden fiery tyrant now.
What was this episode all about?
-
What was this episode all about?
It was Julie going back in time explaining why she had not told the police what jeremy had done .
But one of the scenes showed her and Jeremy arriving at the flat while sheila had an episode and Jeremy leaving , not interested , and said he would call his father .
I don’t believe this happened .
Also the journalist handling the slides of sheila and Jeremy offering to sell them .
-
Errors tonight?
Jeremy was not at the flat when sheila had her last episode ?
Jeremy had been planning the murders for over a year according to Julie’s statements ? Not 20 weeks ?
She did not just walk into the police station?
I don’t believe even the journalist said he actually looked at the pornagraphic photos ( no need to debate this again)
Anne Eaton did not knock Colin’s door and tell him jeremy had been arrested .
Some of these things are actually quite important .
But if course it’s a drama based on facts , that covers a multitude of sins .
Taff looking quite the down trodden fiery tyrant now.
Good review Jan. it’s quite unbelievable that at the start of the drama they say this is a true story
No mention of the cheque book fraud so far showing how honest she was
-
Good review Jan. it’s quite unbelievable that at the start of the drama they say this is a true story
No mention of the cheque book fraud so far showing how honest she was
To be fair small bits were based on statements .
But some bits were well out of order IMO
-
Much of it is so unrecognisable it makes me wonder who did this, the production team or the author.
-
Well, let's hope there was enough Julie bashing in tonight's episode to satisfy the hatiest of Julie haters. She was portrayed, in turns, of being avaricious, supportive of Jeremy, jealous, uncertain, sexual, confused, a would-be murderess -although he didn't appear unduly panicked.
Colin appeared confused, guilty and angry at himself for being taken in by Jeremy. Very understandable.
It was good to be shown what was going on within the police force.
Great characterization of Sheila's breakdown, although perhaps, not quite as it happened. I can accept artistic licence.
-
Good review Jan. it’s quite unbelievable that at the start of the drama they say this is a true story
No mention of the cheque book fraud so far showing how honest she was
The fraud won't be mentioned as she was given immunity, so that'll be conveniently skipped when the court case starts next week.
-
Jeremy's trips were funded, his house was free, his car and fuel were free, he was paid a salary and he didn't have schizophrenia - wouldn't we have all loved such a life? I know which would choose.
So True.
-
So True.
Sheila hadn't done too badly either !
-
i think it would be so much more interesting if they had done a real whodunnit. instead this is a Jb guilty drama. such a shame! not at all factual tonight.
julie is being portrayed really weirdly imo. i don’t believe she was like this at all. it’s all really odd but with one goal JB is guilty!!! i’m glad the public won’t be looking into his appeal as he wouldn’t have a cats hells chance after this
-
Errors tonight?
Jeremy was not at the flat when sheila had her last episode ?
Jeremy had been planning the murders for over a year according to Julie’s statements ? Not 20 weeks ?
She did not just walk into the police station?
I don’t believe even the journalist said he actually looked at the pornagraphic photos ( no need to debate this again)
Anne Eaton did not knock Colin’s door and tell him jeremy had been arrested .
Some of these things are actually quite important .
But if course it’s a drama based on facts , that covers a multitude of sins .
Taff looking quite the down trodden fiery tyrant now.
How do any of those, frankly PETTY 'errors' make a scrap of difference?
LOVED Taff's comeuppance or should that be downputtance?
-
Sheila hadn't done too badly either !
That's exactly what Jeremy said. Funny that.
-
That's exactly what Jeremy said. Funny that.
That was in answer to what JB had also received---for nothing. Mollycoddled kids ::) Unable to stand on their own two feet.
-
That was in answer to what JB had also received---for nothing. Mollycoddled kids ::) Unable to stand on their own two feet.
Who do you think paid for his two trips to Australasia. Who was sending money out to him. It was Jeremy's perception that Sheila was getting more than he. As he said "It's my inheritance". It's called sibling rivalry. He took it to the extreme.
-
Who do you think paid for his two trips to Australasia. Who was sending money out to him. It was Jeremy's perception that Sheila was getting more than he. As he said "It's my inheritance". It's called sibling rivalry. He took it to the extreme.
Who funded Sheila's " wasted " trip to Japan ?
-
How do any of those, frankly PETTY 'errors' make a scrap of difference?
LOVED Taff's comeuppance or should that be downputtance?
They are not petty errors .
So in the big scheme of things they could have changed Julie’s words to say he had been planning it for a year , her words not mine . So why would they omit that ?
Jeremy did not witness that episode of sheilas and it did not show Freddy being scared for his life , his words , so why omit that ?
It was the family who called Colin by mistake as they were revelling in the fact that jeremy was going to be all over the papers the next day . And clumsily told Colin , what a way for him to find out . So why change that ?
None of the correct interpretations would have taken any more time whatsoever so the reasons are obvious.
I did also say that some of the scenes where quite accurate although MM was made to look very young and scared which I am not sure was correct .
If you have to condense parts then fair enough.But straight misinterpretation is another matter .
-
Who do you think paid for his two trips to Australasia. Who was sending money out to him. It was Jeremy's perception that Sheila was getting more than he. As he said "It's my inheritance". It's called sibling rivalry. He took it to the extreme.
In your opinion .
You could also say ,as he did , he was a well off young man and Sheila did not have share in a successful business did she ?
-
Who do you think paid for his two trips to Australasia. Who was sending money out to him. It was Jeremy's perception that Sheila was getting more than he. As he said "It's my inheritance". It's called sibling rivalry. He took it to the extreme.
Not so badly treated then was he ?
-
Who funded Sheila's " wasted " trip to Japan ?
Paid for in with the modelling school fees. It was her one guaranteed assignment.
-
Paid for in with the modelling school fees. It was her one guaranteed assignment.
So who paid for the modelling school ?
-
Not so badly treated then was he ?
Not by your standards, perhaps. However, wealth is relative -contentment is preferable- and you're not him.
-
i think it would be so much more interesting if they had done a real whodunnit. instead this is a Jb guilty drama. such a shame! not at all factual tonight.
julie is being portrayed really weirdly imo. i don’t believe she was like this at all. it’s all really odd but with one goal JB is guilty!!! i’m glad the public won’t be looking into his appeal as he wouldn’t have a cats hells chance after this
I Agree . She comes across as a shrinking violet one minute then a boyfriend smothering maniac the next .
-
They are not petty errors .
So in the big scheme of things they could have changed Julie’s words to say he had been planning it for a year , her words not mine . So why would they omit that ?
Jeremy did not witness that episode of sheilas and it did not show Freddy being scared for his life , his words , so why omit that ?
It was the family who called Colin by mistake as they were revelling in the fact that jeremy was going to be all over the papers the next day . And clumsily told Colin , what a way for him to find out . So why change that ?
None of the correct interpretations would have taken any more time whatsoever so the reasons are obvious.
I did also say that some of the scenes where quite accurate although MM was made to look very young and scared which I am not sure was correct .
If you have to condense parts then fair enough.But straight misinterpretation is another matter .
CAL did mention about getting " gossip " from online-----maybe she was looking on this forum for that !!
Quite sickening really.
-
Not by your standards, perhaps. However, wealth is relative -contentment is preferable- and you're not him.
I Have never claimed to be .
But there was always a risk element in his plan and nowhere. Has it shown him weighing that up .
-
So who paid for the modelling school ?
Her parents. Why would they not? It's what parents of their status did for their children. That's probably why Jeremy got, paid for, a total of nearly two years in Australasia, a free house, car, petrol.................
-
CAL did mention about getting " gossip " from online-----maybe she was looking on this forum for that !!
Quite sickening really.
Probably .
I have not been totally critical of the programme because I understand at times the complexity of the case can not be portrayed . However I was annoyed about tonight because I do think the misinformation was there for. Reason .
-
Probably .
I have not been totally critical of the programme because I understand at times the complexity of the case can not be portrayed . However I was annoyed about tonight because I do think the misinformation was there for. Reason .
The reason's there alright. I would say that CAL's had a helping hand, which was evident in tonight's episode.
-
The bit round the table with the police vote was quite amusing. No evidence guys , let’s go on a vote and then make sure we get our man .
Read into that what you will . I bet they wish they had not cooperated with the book now .
-
So I guess the next episode will concentrate on Ainsley . Might be interesting.
-
I am going to go away and read Julie’s later statements for any enlightenment.
-
The bit round the table with the police vote was quite amusing. No evidence guys , let’s go on a vote and then make sure we get our man .
Read into that what you will . I bet they wish they had not cooperated with the book now .
Perhaps Lookout's not the only one with gut feelings. Okay, there may not have been any physical/forensic evidence but that, alone doesn't indicate innocence. Without it, they'd start to take things like behaviours into consideration. As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.
-
Seems like Sheila wanted her best friend to go to White House Farm with her?
Best friend
Tora says: 'She went to some really dark places. I think it was the malevolent influences of June and Jeremy. She loved her adoptive father, Nevill. He was a lovely man but she couldn't see him without seeing them and it didn't do her any good. I know Bambi was very frightened of Jeremy. He was so arrogant, selfish and self-obsessed and he had a very quick temper.'
In fact, the last time Tora saw Sheila was just before the fateful weekend.
'She was so tired and pale and drawn,' Tora recalls. 'She had asked me to go with her [to Essex] but I had this strange sense of foreboding. There was something I just didn't feel comfortable about. Perhaps it was the fact I knew how much she struggled with seeing June and Jeremy and I didn't want to be a part of it.
'I told a little white lie about my son not being very well. She phoned again before she went and begged me to go. I didn't, though, and that knowledge has stayed with me ever since.'
Tora adds: 'The first and last time I met Jeremy was at Bambi's funeral and his performance was just so over the top you could tell it wasn't genuine. There was no malice in her. She was so sweet. She definitely did not kill anyone.'
She loved Neville more than anything it seems.
-
Sheila loved her father------up until he showed support towards his sick wife who'd been visiting her GP for weeks prior to the murders. Nevill had also supported the fact that June wasn't able to care for the boys and so foster care was being spoken of as well as the suggestion of Sheila being sent to convalesce.
There was to have been a " meeting " next day between the sisters June and Pamela to discuss further help for Sheila---hence the arrangement which was made the previous night by Pamela telephoning June.
-
Sheila loved her father------up until he showed support towards his sick wife who'd been visiting her GP for weeks prior to the murders. Nevill had also supported the fact that June wasn't able to care for the boys and so foster care was being spoken of as well as the suggestion of Sheila being sent to convalesce.
There was to have been a " meeting " next day between the sisters June and Pamela to discuss further help for Sheila---hence the arrangement which was made the previous night by Pamela telephoning June.
Everyone was happy when Bamber left, no arguments about caring for the boys, BUT you miss one very big point, the twins were Colin’s responsibility, he wouldn’t ever agree to this, they lived with Colin, Neville and June wouldn’t be able to sanction any foster care for them, so again your talking utter rubbish.
-
Everyone was happy when Bamber left, no arguments about caring for the boys, BUT you miss one very big point, the twins were Colin’s responsibility, he wouldn’t ever agree to this, they lived with Colin, Neville and June wouldn’t be able to sanction any foster care for them, so again your talking utter rubbish.
Don't tell me I'm talking rubbish when my posts are every bit as valid as your own !
-
The twins were Colin’s responsibility, he wouldn’t ever agree to this, they lived with Colin, Neville and June wouldn’t be able to sanction any foster care for them, so again your talking utter rubbish.
RJ, have you read 'Ainsley re the twins' foster care' towards the bottom of this post?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10160.0.html
Is extra help during the day sometimes labelled day car or day fostering? Sheila was suppose to be experiencing a range of symptoms, including vacant stare, unsteady hands etc. Is it not conceivable that her own parents may be concerned for the periods where she did have the twins?
-
RJ, have you read 'Ainsley re the twins' foster care' towards the bottom of this post?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10160.0.html
Is extra help during the day sometimes labelled day car or day fostering? Sheila was suppose to be experiencing a range of symptoms, including vacant stare, unsteady hands etc. Is it not conceivable that her own parents may be concerned for the periods where she did have the twins?
Colin was responsible for the boys at the end of the day Roch, Lookout says June could not longer look after the boys yet they were never at WHF and didn’t like going.
-
How many men of a non-violent disposition kill children while they're sleeping ?
How many of these non-violent men also tell their partner what their plans for murder are ?
How many non-violent men dump their partner before they carry out a murder ?
How many females then sleep with their non-violent partner knowing that they'd slaughtered children ?
All the time knowing that the non-violent man had a schizophrenic/psychotic sister ?
-
RJ, have you read 'Ainsley re the twins' foster care' towards the bottom of this post?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10160.0.html
Is extra help during the day sometimes labelled day car or day fostering? Sheila was suppose to be experiencing a range of symptoms, including vacant stare, unsteady hands etc. Is it not conceivable that her own parents may be concerned for the periods where she did have the twins?
Colin states between March to August 1985 he had the boys 95% of the time, only allowing Sheila odd times to have the boys and he didn’t like them going to Tollesbury, he gave his life up to look after the kids so to suggest that Neville and June would put them into foster care is rubbish, who the hell would take the kids off Colin their Dad and put them into foster care without his say so?
-
Colin states between March to August 1985 he had the boys 95% of the time, only allowing Sheila odd times to have the boys and he didn’t like them going to Tollesbury, he gave his life up to look after the kids so to suggest that Neville and June would put them into foster care is rubbish, who the hell would take the kids off Colin their Dad and put them into foster care without his say so?
My understanding is that that is not the type of fostering being referred to. It sounds like Nevill and June were trying to have a conversation with Sheila about additional help for when she had the twins, probably out of concern.
-
My understanding is that that is not the type of fostering being referred to. It sounds like Nevill and June were trying to have a conversation with Sheila about additional help for when she had the twins, probably out of concern.
Oh, so Nanny help for 5% of their time, Colin had them 95% taking them to School and fetching them home. No wonder Sheila was happy that night then, she would get Nanny help as well the short time she had them.
-
Oh, so Nanny help for 5% of their time, Colin had them 95% taking them to School and fetching them home. No wonder Sheila was happy that night then, she would get Nanny help as well the short time she had them.
That's not what I'm saying. We will never know the exact context of the conversation.
-
That's not what I'm saying. We will never know the exact context of the conversation.
And besides, if Jeremy knew the twins were with Colin 95% of the time, why would he then invent a story about 'fostering' in relation to Sheila, as a reason for Sheila to then carry out the killings?
He doesn't even describe her as being angry.
-
That's not what I'm saying. We will never know the exact context of the conversation.
Fostering is usually when the child hasn’t got a parent to look after them, they had Colin and didn’t like going to WHF and he didn’t like them going, Fostering would have taken them away from Colin, being for a short while or longer term, Colin makes it known he had custody of the children. It’s like my mother and father in law saying they’re going to put MY kids into foster care. Utter Rubbish, Nanny help Yes, not Fostering.
-
Fostering is usually when the child hasn’t got a parent to look after them, they had Colin and didn’t like going to WHF and he didn’t like them going, Fostering would have taken them away from Colin, being for a short while or longer term, Colin makes it known he had custody of the children. It’s like my mother and father in law saying they’re going to put MY kids into foster care. Utter Rubbish, Nanny help Yes, not Fostering.
It's unlikely that full time fostering was the inferred meaning of the term 'fostering'. She had previously received day care help. I envisage the most likely situation as one involving a suggestion of that type of scenario. We will never know exactly what the conversation was.
-
And besides, if Jeremy knew the twins were with Colin 95% of the time, why would he then invent a story about 'fostering' in relation to Sheila, as a reason for Sheila to then carry out the killings?
He doesn't even describe her as being angry.
Bamber could make up any story he wanted, he was the last person to see them, he would tell and deviate slightly depending on the audience, I bet he never said to Colin, Mum and Dad was going to Foster the twins to help Sheila?
-
Don't tell me I'm talking rubbish when my posts are every bit as valid as your own !
Then perhaps to dispel any INvalidity, you could furnish us with proof that a 'meeting' had been arranged between Pam and June to discuss Sheila, as opposed to the lunch to which Pam invited both Sheila and June.
-
It's unlikely that full time fostering was the inferred meaning of the term 'fostering'. She had previously received day care help. I envisage the most likely situation as one involving a suggestion of that type of scenario. We will never know exactly what the conversation was.
You're absolutely correct, Roch. Jeremy had TOTAL control of whatever conversation he chose to put forward as having occurred. There was a living soul who could dispute it.
-
That's not what I'm saying. We will never know the exact context of the conversation.
We don't even 'know' that any such conversation took place, do we?
-
If you look at the statements of the foster carers then perhaps that might give you the answer.
-
Of course Colin would have objected if foster care had been suggested . However it was obvious fro the letter he did not hand over that there was no love lost between him and June and perhaps the family did want to have more access to the children but felt sheila needed support ? It is perfectly possible a conversation took place . I think in one of Anne eatons statements she mentioned the children being fostered as well .perhaps it did not mean fostering in the way people are assuming ? More helping sheila so the family could see the boys more ? Just throwing some ideas out there .
“:
One of the most serious acts of deception by Ainsley was over the issue of foster-care for the twins. The fact was that Sheila had used foster care previously and it was being considered again. Ainsley had statements made by foster carers but these were only in a hand written form and were not typed up and not produced as evidence. None of the foster carers were called to give evidence at Trial in an attempt to undermine Jeremy and depict him as lying about the issue.
Statements from social workers were not disclosed to the DPP on the 25th September 1985 when Ainsley and colleagues pressed for murder charges to be brought against Jeremy. The Defence did not know at the time Jeremy was charged with murder that the DPP believed Jeremy had invented the story about hearing plans for fostering discussed on the evening prior to the killings. Det. Spt. Ainsley’s report to the DPP regarding fostering of the children states:
He goes on to state (his own capitals),
Ainsley knew with 100% certainty that Sheila had obtained help with the children in the past and had organised day foster care. Eight separate Actions were raised by Essex Police to obtain statements from ten distinct persons employed by Westminster and Camden Social services regarding the fact that Sheila had needed their help in the past. Ainsley also had the statement from Colin Caffell’s mother who stated that she and June had talked about foster care.
The police were always desperate to portray Jeremy as a liar. This is just one example of how Ainsley’s deliberate lies to the DPP were used to denigrate Jeremy at Court and in later appeal hearings.
-
Of course Colin would have objected if foster care had been suggested . However it was obvious fro the letter he did not hand over that there was no love lost between him and June and perhaps the family did want to have more access to the children but felt sheila needed support ? It is perfectly possible a conversation took place . I think in one of Anne eatons statements she mentioned the children being fostered as well .perhaps it did not mean fostering in the way people are assuming ? More helping sheila so the family could see the boys more ? Just throwing some ideas out there .
“:
One of the most serious acts of deception by Ainsley was over the issue of foster-care for the twins. The fact was that Sheila had used foster care previously and it was being considered again. Ainsley had statements made by foster carers but these were only in a hand written form and were not typed up and not produced as evidence. None of the foster carers were called to give evidence at Trial in an attempt to undermine Jeremy and depict him as lying about the issue.
Statements from social workers were not disclosed to the DPP on the 25th September 1985 when Ainsley and colleagues pressed for murder charges to be brought against Jeremy. The Defence did not know at the time Jeremy was charged with murder that the DPP believed Jeremy had invented the story about hearing plans for fostering discussed on the evening prior to the killings. Det. Spt. Ainsley’s report to the DPP regarding fostering of the children states:
He goes on to state (his own capitals),
Ainsley knew with 100% certainty that Sheila had obtained help with the children in the past and had organised day foster care. Eight separate Actions were raised by Essex Police to obtain statements from ten distinct persons employed by Westminster and Camden Social services regarding the fact that Sheila had needed their help in the past. Ainsley also had the statement from Colin Caffell’s mother who stated that she and June had talked about foster care.
The police were always desperate to portray Jeremy as a liar. This is just one example of how Ainsley’s deliberate lies to the DPP were used to denigrate Jeremy at Court and in later appeal hearings.
very good explanation Jan.
-
Ainsley was a great friend of RWB's. Enough said I think.
-
I wonder if the drama will show the golden handshake given to JM and the job for Ainsley( on retirement ) as a security officer at Osea caravan site, both on the promise of a guilty verdict----and whatever else was " up the sleeve " of those who had the brass-neck to make sure JB was out of the way.
-
It is pretty obvious why Bamber told Julie someone else - MM committed the massacre.
And pretty obvious Julie would not mention MM unless Bamber had told her he had paid him.
-
very good explanation Jan.
Not my research , can’t claim that 😀
-
It is pretty obvious why Bamber told Julie someone else - MM committed the massacre.
And pretty obvious Julie would not mention MM unless Bamber had told her he had paid him.
Why is it obvious ? Why say anything at all ?
-
Of course Colin would have objected if foster care had been suggested . However it was obvious fro the letter he did not hand over that there was no love lost between him and June and perhaps the family did want to have more access to the children but felt sheila needed support ? It is perfectly possible a conversation took place . I think in one of Anne eatons statements she mentioned the children being fostered as well .perhaps it did not mean fostering in the way people are assuming ? More helping sheila so the family could see the boys more ? Just throwing some ideas out there .
“:
One of the most serious acts of deception by Ainsley was over the issue of foster-care for the twins. The fact was that Sheila had used foster care previously and it was being considered again. Ainsley had statements made by foster carers but these were only in a hand written form and were not typed up and not produced as evidence. None of the foster carers were called to give evidence at Trial in an attempt to undermine Jeremy and depict him as lying about the issue.
Statements from social workers were not disclosed to the DPP on the 25th September 1985 when Ainsley and colleagues pressed for murder charges to be brought against Jeremy. The Defence did not know at the time Jeremy was charged with murder that the DPP believed Jeremy had invented the story about hearing plans for fostering discussed on the evening prior to the killings. Det. Spt. Ainsley’s report to the DPP regarding fostering of the children states:
He goes on to state (his own capitals),
Ainsley knew with 100% certainty that Sheila had obtained help with the children in the past and had organised day foster care. Eight separate Actions were raised by Essex Police to obtain statements from ten distinct persons employed by Westminster and Camden Social services regarding the fact that Sheila had needed their help in the past. Ainsley also had the statement from Colin Caffell’s mother who stated that she and June had talked about foster care.
The police were always desperate to portray Jeremy as a liar. This is just one example of how Ainsley’s deliberate lies to the DPP were used to denigrate Jeremy at Court and in later appeal hearings.
Why is this relevant to whether Jeremy Bamber killed five people or not?
-
I Agree . She comes across as a shrinking violet one minute then a boyfriend smothering maniac the next .
Maybe there's a smattering of truth in both depictions.
-
Good review Jan. it’s quite unbelievable that at the start of the drama they say this is a true story
No mention of the cheque book fraud so far showing how honest she was
No mention either of Jeremy telling Liz Rimington that he would like to break into a big house in Tolleshunt D'Arcy.
-
In your opinion .
You could also say ,as he did , he was a well off young man and Sheila did not have share in a successful business did she ?
No but she stood to inherit Osea Road, which I always thought Jeremy would have preferred instead of labouring at the Farm.
-
Sheila loved her father------up until he showed support towards his sick wife who'd been visiting her GP for weeks prior to the murders. Nevill had also supported the fact that June wasn't able to care for the boys and so foster care was being spoken of as well as the suggestion of Sheila being sent to convalesce.
There was to have been a " meeting " next day between the sisters June and Pamela to discuss further help for Sheila---hence the arrangement which was made the previous night by Pamela telephoning June.
All this is possible lookout but we just don't know. Julie said Jeremy told her he himself had instigated the subject of fostering and adoption that night as a way of unsettling Sheila. It's an indication to my mind that he (incredibly) still hadn't made up his mind one way or the other at that specific time whether to go ahead with the massacre.
-
All this is possible lookout but we just don't know. Julie said Jeremy told her he himself had instigated the subject of fostering and adoption that night as a way of unsettling Sheila. It's an indication to my mind that he (incredibly) still hadn't made up his mind one way or the other at that specific time whether to go ahead with the massacre.
Julie said ????
Julie said she was an honest person under oath in the witness box
Steve you must be a superhuman if you can tell when Julie Mugford was luring and when she was telling the truth
Julie had a massive motive to lie about Jeremy
You cannot keep quoting Julie said when you are trying to make a valid point??
This girl was the master of deception from the cheque book fraud to the trip to the movie to the witness box
Can you please explain why Julie stated under oath she was an honest person ?
-
Julie said ????
Julie said she was an honest person under oath in the witness box
Steve you must be a superhuman if you can tell when Julie Mugford was luring and when she was telling the truth
Julie had a massive motive to lie about Jeremy
You cannot keep quoting Julie said when you are trying to make a valid point??
This girl was the master of deception from the cheque book fraud to the trip to the movie to the witness box
Can you please explain why Julie stated under oath she was an honest person ?
Well she admitted at trial she wasn't "completely honest".
"I am not good at telling lies. I made one mistake. That was my biggest mistake. I've done my best to get over it. Just because I did that doesn't mean I lie about everything else, because I don't. As far as I'm concerned, I'm more honest than a lot of people. I know because I had the courage to admit that I'd done that. I didn't have to."
-
All this is possible lookout but we just don't know. Julie said Jeremy told her he himself had instigated the subject of fostering and adoption that night as a way of unsettling Sheila. It's an indication to my mind that he (incredibly) still hadn't made up his mind one way or the other at that specific time whether to go ahead with the massacre.
Fostering was spoken about that night because Dr Ferguson in his statement had said that it would " push her over the edge "-----so he obviously took JB's word for it or where else did the doctor get his information from ?
It wouldn't have been JB who'd instigated the conversation as he hadn't joined in around the table. There would only have been June, Nevill and Sheila.
-
Fostering was spoken about that night because Dr Ferguson in his statement had said that it would " push her over the edge "-----so he obviously took JB's word for it or where else did the doctor get his information from ?
It wouldn't have been JB who'd instigated the conversation as he hadn't joined in around the table. There would only have been June, Nevill and Sheila.
He probably read Julie's statements before making his own comment that Sheila would react unfavourably should the twins be forcibly removed from her. But as has been stated in previous posts it was Colin who was doing the lion's share of the caring with Sheila accommodating the twins at weekends. From all reports the boys guarded the time with their mother jealously and looked forward to these visits.
As for the supper conversation Jeremy would be eavesdropping as usual, even if he did not sit down to partake of the evening meal.
-
He probably read Julie's statements before making his own comment that Sheila would react unfavourably should the twins be forcibly removed from her. But as has been stated in previous posts it was Colin who was doing the lion's share of the caring with Sheila accommodating the twins at weekends. From all reports the boys guarded the time with their mother jealously and looked forward to these visits.
As for the supper conversation Jeremy would be eavesdropping as usual, even if he did not sit down to partake of the evening meal.
Yes but perhaps June and neville did not want Colin to have the twins so much . Perhaps they felt they were losing control ? All I am saying is that the conversation was a possibility , and did jeremy really know enough about sheilas illness to know the scenario would be accepted as a trigger to a relapse . That’s the problem , one minute he is portrayed as a selfish uncaring arrogant person . The next he is an expert on sheilas illness . The two portrayals don’t really add up .
-
Yes but perhaps June and neville did not want Colin to have the twins so much . Perhaps they felt they were losing control ? All I am saying is that the conversation was a possibility , and did jeremy really know enough about sheilas illness to know the scenario would be accepted as a trigger to a relapse . That’s the problem , one minute he is portrayed as a selfish uncaring arrogant person . The next he is an expert on sheilas illness . The two portrayals don’t really add up .
He had witnessed enough over those last few months from March 1985 to know that her Haloperidol injections had deleterious side-effects which made her physically impaired to the point he realized he could accomplish his diabolical mission. I agree that June especially was interfering in the life of the twins with the justification that she was improving their welfare in the long run and maybe she did have their best interests at heart, but this of course involved expenditure on a private education which Jeremy interpreted solely as a threat to his inheritance.
-
How can anyone accomplish something like a mass murder when they're not even violent or aggressive to start with ? Not even a sign of a bad temper. He was a pretty placid character.
It was those around him who'd displayed " behavioural " problems !!
-
He hated going on shoots because he didn't like seeing the pheasants being shot and took no part in it. So how on earth, if he couldn't bear shooting a bird, could he possibly contemplate shooting humans ?
-
The murders were a means to an end lookout. Didn't he practise on rats first to check his mettle?
-
The murders were a means to an end lookout. Didn't he practise on rats first to check his mettle?
Not that I've read, Steve.
-
Not that I've read, Steve.
It's in one of Julie's statements. Take that as you wish..
-
It's in one of Julie's statements. Take that as you wish..
One of his quips to make him look a man probably. He was like the original " Billy Liar ".
-
The scene where Sheila was having that breakdown was awful. Freddie was hoping for some help, the twins were cowering in another room, and Jeremy and Julie just walked out. I know it didn't happen, but it was still horrible. It didn't show Julie in a good light either.
-
Sheila wouldn't have been aware of anything like that Kaldin. They don't remember their outbursts.
-
Sheila wouldn't have been aware of anything like that Kaldin. They don't remember their outbursts.
I don't mean that, I mean the portrayal of Jeremy and Julie just leaving it all to Freddie. The poor man didn't know what to do. Julie saw the twins were traumatised but just left with Jeremy.
-
I don't mean that, I mean the portrayal of Jeremy and Julie just leaving it all to Freddie. The poor man didn't know what to do. Julie saw the twins were traumatised but just left with Jeremy.
Oh yes, the bit showing the twins was awful. I did keep thinking about that. Freddie was petrified just as he'd described in his statement and was at a loss what to do.
I reckon they'd have all been scared, even Julie and Jeremy.
-
The scene where Sheila was having that breakdown was awful. Freddie was hoping for some help, the twins were cowering in another room, and Jeremy and Julie just walked out. I know it didn't happen, but it was still horrible. It didn't show Julie in a good light either.
I agree . It was harrowing.
I think they put jeremy and Julie falsely at the scene to make it look like they had witnessed how bad she could be and had a full understanding of her breakdowns.
But that was not necessarily true.
-
I agree . It was harrowing.
I think they put jeremy and Julie falsely at the scene to make it look like they had witnessed how bad she could be and had a full understanding of her breakdowns.
But that was not necessarily true.
It wasn't true. Freddie called Colin's mother.
I think they wanted to show how callous Jeremy was. His sister was having a breakdown, and his nephews were terrified, but he just wanted to have a drink. As I said, it didn't show Julie in a good light either because she knew the boys were terrified and she just left them as well.
-
It wasn't true. Freddie called Colin's mother.
I think they wanted to show how callous Jeremy was. His sister was having a breakdown, and his nephews were terrified, but he just wanted to have a drink. As I said, it didn't show Julie in a good light either because she knew the boys were terrified and she just left them as well.
Sorry worded that badly.
I know the scene was falsified . I was angry watching it. What I meant was I am not sure jeremy necessarily had a full understanding or even interest in his sisters illness. I have not seen any evidence he actually saw her at the time of one of her sad relapses.
-
The scene where Sheila was having that breakdown was awful. Freddie was hoping for some help, the twins were cowering in another room, and Jeremy and Julie just walked out. I know it didn't happen, but it was still horrible. It didn't show Julie in a good light either.
Disgraceful that. Someone should be sued for it. Obviously Bamber cannot do so, which means he is easy prey for stuff like that.
-
Sorry worded that badly.
I know the scene was falsified . I was angry watching it. What I meant was I am not sure jeremy necessarily had a full understanding or even interest in his sisters illness. I have not seen any evidence he actually saw her at the time of one of her sad relapses.
No, me neither. I don't know where he was when she had the two breakdowns, or if he visited her in hospital.
-
No, me neither. I don't know where he was when she had the two breakdowns, or if he visited her in hospital.
I think I remember JB saying he'd wished he'd visited Sheila in hospital and taken more interest in her illness.
-
Disgraceful that. Someone should be sued for it. Obviously Bamber cannot do so, which means he is easy prey for stuff like that.
As was the misrepresentation of how long and how much Julie allegedly knew of his plans . If they are going to portray her as the truth teller , they should at least make the portrayal true to her statements .
-
It was a lazy scene by the scriptwriters, false, serving one assumes the purpose succinctly showing the anguish of mental illness, the inability of people around it to deal with it and possibly handing Jeremy a warped justification for killing the twins in that he believed erroneously that they would grow up damaged raised in such a household, whereas what was depicted was far from the reality of their daily lives.
-
He had witnessed enough over those last few months from March 1985 to know that her Haloperidol injections had deleterious side-effects which made her physically impaired to the point he realized he could accomplish his diabolical mission. I agree that June especially was interfering in the life of the twins with the justification that she was improving their welfare in the long run and maybe she did have their best interests at heart, but this of course involved expenditure on a private education which Jeremy interpreted solely as a threat to his inheritance.
I totally agree Steve....I firmly believe JB disliked the twins from their birth because JB's inheritance would be spread to include the twins. I've looked back over JB's statements particularly his first one when he speaks of dates when he went to Australia aged 19 and the time Sheila left the farm at 17. I got the impression JB was jealous of the attention the twins were given by Neville and June...at one point Neville considered Shelia moved into JB''s Cottage. It's worth looking where JB was during Shelia's break up from her husband! Blaming his sister for the murders was convenient owing to her illness, after which JB wouldn't be drawn into any talk about the twins, saying it was up to Colin what happened after their deaths. Even when speaking to authors and members from this site JB would not talk about the twins! He also firstly refused to enter the twins bedroom with Ann Easton. Talk by the family early on the night of the murders was ( as told by Jeremy) about the twins welfare, I firmly believe this is what tipped JB over the edge.... Jealousy can turn one mind.
-
I totally agree Steve....I firmly believe JB disliked the twins from their birth because JB's inheritance would be spread to include the twins. I've looked back over JB's statements particularly his first one when he speaks of dates when he went to Australia aged 19 and the time Sheila left the farm at 17. I got the impression JB was jealous of the attention the twins were given by Neville and June...at one point Neville considered Shelia moved into JB''s Cottage. It's worth looking where JB was during Shelia's break up from her husband! Blaming his sister for the murders was convenient owing to her illness, after which JB wouldn't be drawn into any talk about the twins, saying it was up to Colin what happened after their deaths. Even when speaking to authors and members from this site JB would not talk about the twins! He also firstly refused to enter the twins bedroom with Ann Easton. Talk by the family early on the night of the murders was ( as told by Jeremy) about the twins welfare, I firmly believe this is what tipped JB over the edge.... Jealousy can turn one mind.
There's no doubt that June was making plans in her own head for the twins' future. Maybe Colin wrestled with his conscience about how much leverage he would allow June, given that at the time he was without means of his own, yet sensing that their grandmother was in some respects alien to them. They were reaching an age when Jeremy himself had been sent away to boarding school, and maybe this played a role in his thinking, along with Barbara Wilson's claim that June was considering making provision for them after her death.
-
Once I realised how much Jeremy disliked the twins, other things began to make sense. Will post again tomorrow....
-
Once I realised how much Jeremy disliked the twins, other things began to make sense. Will post again tomorrow....
How did you come to this realization? Has he ever explicitly expressed such a thing? Or is it supposition on your part?
-
How did you come to this realization? Has he ever explicitly expressed such a thing? Or is it supposition on your part?
He told Liz Rimington. If you were not moved by Wednesday's episode there's really no hope for you..
-
He told Liz Rimington. If you were not moved by Wednesday's episode there's really no hope for you..
Are we talking about the actual events of 1985 or the semi fictional drama?
-
as we know we all talk about scenarios and everyone is very willing to accept that sheila would just lay there and not try and resist , fight or defend herself . She and Jeremy had to get in exactly the right place to fake the suicide as he shot her . It’s been suggested that she gave up because she had lost everything as she knew jeremy had shot the twins .
However the other scenario is that she would have done anything to make sure jeremy did not get away with killing her precious boys and would have fought to the bitter end .
It’s an odd situation . And so many permutations.
It seems to me from recent posts it all boils down to the silencer and the “blood “ evidence . Solve that and the truth could be found .
-
I totally agree Steve....I firmly believe JB disliked the twins from their birth because JB's inheritance would be spread to include the twins. I've looked back over JB's statements particularly his first one when he speaks of dates when he went to Australia aged 19 and the time Sheila left the farm at 17. I got the impression JB was jealous of the attention the twins were given by Neville and June...at one point Neville considered Shelia moved into JB''s Cottage. It's worth looking where JB was during Shelia's break up from her husband! Blaming his sister for the murders was convenient owing to her illness, after which JB wouldn't be drawn into any talk about the twins, saying it was up to Colin what happened after their deaths. Even when speaking to authors and members from this site JB would not talk about the twins! He also firstly refused to enter the twins bedroom with Ann Easton. Talk by the family early on the night of the murders was ( as told by Jeremy) about the twins welfare, I firmly believe this is what tipped JB over the edge.... Jealousy can turn one mind.
This is one of his "twisted" letters to CAL
"I have no desire to see my name in print, I don’t even care that you might actually write a book that’s 100% championing my innocence – you’re not going to tell me something I don’t already know – so this is about my deceased family and setting the record straight for them, highlighting the difficulties society has with mental illness and sympathetically dealing with the issues around women who kill . . . Sheila doesn’t have a voice to explain why or what she was experiencing, or whether she even knew what she was doing. I won’t let anyone just prosecute her as some sort of evil lunatic – I’m all she has to rely on to speak for her . . . It’s also important that mum and dad are portrayed properly . . . no one has stood up for them, put them in a proper light, again it’s my duty to tell it as it was . . . As for the boys, the only person who should decide on how they are written about is their dad Colin . . . they are the ultimate innocents and the greatest tragedy of all this . . . I owe it to my family to speak for them. . . my relatives are keeping silent as they are scared they’d let the truth out and then have to give back all the money they have gorged on over the years that was never rightfully theirs."
Sounds reasonable to me.
-
as we know we all talk about scenarios and everyone is very willing to accept that sheila would just lay there and not try and resist , fight or defend herself . She and Jeremy had to get in exactly the right place to fake the suicide as he shot her . It’s been suggested that she gave up because she had lost everything as she knew jeremy had shot the twins .
However the other scenario is that she would have done anything to make sure jeremy did not get away with killing her precious boys and would have fought to the bitter end .
It’s an odd situation . And so many permutations.
It seems to me from recent posts it all boils down to the silencer and the “blood “ evidence . Solve that and the truth could be found .
The expression on Sheila's face does not resemble someone murdered. Contrary to June who looks terrified. These people did not die in same circumstances.
-
The expression on Sheila's face does not resemble someone murdered. Contrary to June who looks terrified. These people did not die in same circumstances.
Sheila was a schizophrenic..
-
Sheila was a schizophrenic..
Really? I never knew that. ::)
-
He told Liz Rimington. If you were not moved by Wednesday's episode there's really no hope for you..
You do know that Jeremy was not there when Sheila had the breakdown don't you? Freddie was there, and Colin's mother came over as well. The twins were picked up by Colin's father.
-
Disgraceful that. Someone should be sued for it. Obviously Bamber cannot do so, which means he is easy prey for stuff like that.
Utter disbelief when watching this weeks part of the drama.
There is going to be a massive fall out from what is happening
When you start watching the drama it says the is a true story. The next clip states about thorough research. It can be proved both those statements are false.
It doesn’t matter what type of programme is on TV from a reality programme to a drama the people responsible for something being broadcast are accountable not only to the public but very much to the advertisers who have paid millions over the 6 weeks the drama has been shown.
There are so many rules and regulations regarding broadcasting and advertising I look forward to what is going to happen when the advertisers realise they have not been sold a “true story”
They could sue the production company
Every single member of the public can also complain. No wonder Stephen Graham made the comments he did on Graham Norton.
As for Carol Ann Lee she could herself find herself in big trouble for what she has said in interviews and how she has portrayed JB
This could all end up in JB’s favour it becomes public knowledge the drama was not a true story
-
I totally agree Steve....I firmly believe JB disliked the twins from their birth because JB's inheritance would be spread to include the twins. I've looked back over JB's statements particularly his first one when he speaks of dates when he went to Australia aged 19 and the time Sheila left the farm at 17. I got the impression JB was jealous of the attention the twins were given by Neville and June...at one point Neville considered Shelia moved into JB''s Cottage. It's worth looking where JB was during Shelia's break up from her husband! Blaming his sister for the murders was convenient owing to her illness, after which JB wouldn't be drawn into any talk about the twins, saying it was up to Colin what happened after their deaths. Even when speaking to authors and members from this site JB would not talk about the twins! He also firstly refused to enter the twins bedroom with Ann Easton. Talk by the family early on the night of the murders was ( as told by Jeremy) about the twins welfare, I firmly believe this is what tipped JB over the edge.... Jealousy can turn one mind.
You firmly believe????
Is that make believe ???
The fact is you don’t know do you ? Were you there since the twins birth ? When you make sweeping statements like that make sure you have something in the locker to back it up
-
I do think the drama is good but we have to remember that these are actors portraying characters who they don't know, so we can't just assume that Jeremy was as cold as he appears in the drama. Julie appears to be almost devoid of emotion too, other than at the twins' funeral and when Jeremy was on the phone to another woman.
-
I haven't watched any of it. By the sound of things, I haven't missed much.
-
The drama is a bit slow. Probably because you know where each scene is heading.
Lots of irritating basic mistakes which they did not need to make. Bamber was in a white police van when he gave his smile. Not a white car. That won't bother casual viewers.
Bit strange that the massacre is not shown. They spent so much time inside WHF & the drama shows Bamber as the killer. They even had Julie's 10am & 3am phone calls. But CC said he did not want any shooting.
-
The drama is a bit slow. Probably because you know where each scene is heading.
Lots of irritating basic mistakes which they did not need to make. Bamber was in a white police van when he gave his smile. Not a white car. That won't bother casual viewers.
Bit strange that the massacre is not shown. They spent so much time inside WHF & the drama shows Bamber as the killer. They even had Julie's 10am & 3am phone calls. But CC said he did not want any shooting.
Some others have said it's a bit slow, but there's a lot to fit in the last episode.
Maybe there should be a sequel as there are lots of issues which haven't been dealt with.
-
The drama is a bit slow. Probably because you know where each scene is heading.
Lots of irritating basic mistakes which they did not need to make. Bamber was in a white police van when he gave his smile. Not a white car. That won't bother casual viewers.
Bit strange that the massacre is not shown. They spent so much time inside WHF & the drama shows Bamber as the killer. They even had Julie's 10am & 3am phone calls. But CC said he did not want any shooting.
" Bit strange that the massacre is not shown ? " For God's sake, what sort of a mind have you got ??
-
As a 6 part drama they covered the right period - massacre to conviction. That is where the drama is.
Having a long build up of Sheila & Bamber growing up pre massacre was not needed. People are aware why inheritance killers kill.
Spending a lot of time on the 35 years since conviction would also be duller.
-
I would like to see more about the money trail, the changing of the Will, Ann moving into the farm, Julie selling her story, what happened to Colin and Heather, the wrangling between relatives over who should get the money, etc.
I would have liked to see some missing characters - Robert Boutflour, Anthony Pargeter, Susan Battersby.
-
I would like to see more about the money trail, the changing of the Will, Ann moving into the farm, Julie selling her story, what happened to Colin and Heather, the wrangling between relatives over who should get the money, etc.
I would have liked to see some missing characters - Robert Boutflour, Anthony Pargeter, Susan Battersby.
Julie's & Bamber's NOTW deals may be in the final episode.
At the very end of episode 6, there may be written explanations of what has happened to the main characters.
-
The relatives have pretty well remained in the background----yet they were pivotal in securing a conviction.
AE tearing round writing/ taking notes at every opportunity, including buying black flowers for Sheila :(
None of them need the money now do they ??
-
Are we talking about the actual events of 1985 or the semi fictional drama?
He told Liz he thought the twins were spoiled. I agree that the drama should not have invented scenes, which is why it should never have been made in the first place, at least not until all major players were dead.
-
You do know that Jeremy was not there when Sheila had the breakdown don't you? Freddie was there, and Colin's mother came over as well. The twins were picked up by Colin's father.
Yes I really don't know why the scriptwriters included that particular scene.
-
The relatives have pretty well remained in the background----yet they were pivotal in securing a conviction.
AE tearing round writing/ taking notes at every opportunity, including buying black flowers for Sheila :(
None of them need the money now do they ??
That was quite strange when Ann suggested getting black flowers. If Jeremy had said that, I think everyone would have thought that was very odd.
-
I would like to see more about the money trail, the changing of the Will, Ann moving into the farm, Julie selling her story, what happened to Colin and Heather, the wrangling between relatives over who should get the money, etc.
I would have liked to see some missing characters - Robert Boutflour, Anthony Pargeter, Susan Battersby.
It's Murder at White House Farm, not The Forsyte Saga..
-
It's Murder at White House Farm, not The Forsyte Saga..
It was all part of it though.
I would also like to see more of Sheila played by Cressida Bonas - she did very well in the scenes she was in.
-
It was all part of it though.
I would also like to see more of Sheila played by Cressida Bonas - she did very well in the scenes she was in.
Yes I agree it was quite selective in what was shown. I suppose the television company's lawyers scrutinized everything to the detriment of speculation on the characters, and will stick rigidly to the trial testimony in the forthcoming episode.
-
It's Murder at White House Farm, not The Forsyte Saga..
Yes too much to fit in. Although the NOTW deals may be included. CC & Heather since the massacre is of no interest to me.
Extra information for newbies can be found online or in books.
-
I agree about all the pivotal people that are missing . And the fact is that all the anomaly’s and twists and turns is what has kept us in this forum fascinated ( some even having the same discussions on two forums simultaneously :)
They could have put so much more into the programme and it would have made it more interesting. There are things that are factual about the finances and money that could have been included .
It’s a shame because the way they have shown the house and the rooms etc has had good attention to detail and to be honest my other half who does not know much about the case has found it quite slow and boring .
-
Some of the scenes seemed to be out of sequence. At the start of the episode they showed Jeremy, Julie, and Sheila in a nightclub where Sheila had just come out of hospital. Then later they showed the breakdown in her flat. It should have been the other way round.
-
Yes too much to fit in. Although the NOTW deals may be included. CC & Heather since the massacre is of no interest to me.
Extra information for newbies can be found online or in books.
Yes but they can’t say much about the N.O.W deal can they ? as the date the deal was signed is very relevant and apparently all parties lost the paperwork .
-
Actually after watching the body in the pool programme the other night I found the journalists interviews very creepy . One in particular admitted the amount of money they paid to people at the party to be interviewed and said basically he knew the story was lies but did not care . They were there to get an exclusive at any cost and they did not care about the victim or family or the truth.
It made me understand what happened to all those involved in whf. A bit more . In fact this was very well covered in Colin’s book but hardly covered in the “drama” and yet it was relentless apparently . Hence why Colin went away as well as jeremy and Julie ( before you comment I know what you are going to say ) but I am commenting from a neutral point of view.
-
It was all part of it though.
I would also like to see more of Sheila played by Cressida Bonas - she did very well in the scenes she was in.
Especially when her father took her to the clinic for the final time and told her psychiatrist that her health had deteriorated, to which Ferguson had agreed.
-
You firmly believe???? Yes....would it be easier for you to understand if i say... in my Opinion I believe etc
Is that make believe ???...Oh yes very witty, but it's not me living in a make believe world.
The fact is you don’t know do you ? Were you there since the twins birth ? When you make sweeping statements like that make sure you have something in the locker to back it up
To reply sensibly, no, thankfully I wasn't there, and more to the point neither were YOU!
My believe has come about by Colin Caffell's statements where he tells of JB saying the twins were a milestone around his neck... his hatred of the twins mother... and before you shout HOW... through his jealousy over the attention Shelia was receiving owing to her illness and the money spent on her. (CAL's book) No we don't all believe your thoughts on Carol Ann Lee's book! JB's warped ideas of how an inheritance maybe spread out. (Colin Caffell's book) where if the twins died before maturity then their father wouldn't benefit in any way. Even JB's act not long after the killings of copying a photo of one of the twins with his hair covered in spikey shampoo... no-one in their right mind would dream of doing this !
-
To reply sensibly, no, thankfully I wasn't there, and more to the point neither were YOU!
My believe has come about by Colin Caffell's statements where he tells of JB saying the twins were a milestone around his neck... his hatred of the twins mother... and before you shout HOW... through his jealousy over the attention Shelia was receiving owing to her illness and the money spent on her. (CAL's book) No we don't all believe your thoughts on Carol Ann Lee's book! JB's warped ideas of how an inheritance maybe spread out. (Colin Caffell's book) where if the twins died before maturity then their father wouldn't benefit in any way. Even JB's act not long after the killings of copying a photo of one of the twins with his hair covered in spikey shampoo... no-one in their right mind would dream of doing this !
Did Jeremy actually do that, other than in the drama?
-
To reply sensibly, no, thankfully I wasn't there, and more to the point neither were YOU!
My believe has come about by Colin Caffell's statements where he tells of JB saying the twins were a milestone around his neck... his hatred of the twins mother... and before you shout HOW... through his jealousy over the attention Shelia was receiving owing to her illness and the money spent on her. (CAL's book) No we don't all believe your thoughts on Carol Ann Lee's book! JB's warped ideas of how an inheritance maybe spread out. (Colin Caffell's book) where if the twins died before maturity then their father wouldn't benefit in any way. Even JB's act not long after the killings of copying a photo of one of the twins with his hair covered in spikey shampoo... no-one in their right mind would dream of doing this !
WTF have you been smoking? ???
-
What part are you finding hard to understand David, perhaps you should read a bit more about the case and stop surmising what suits you.
-
What and whose attention was Sheila receiving during her illness ?
-
Did Jeremy actually do that, other than in the drama?
According to Colin he did: https://youtu.be/afIXWrexiWk
-
What part are you finding hard to understand David, perhaps you should read a bit more about the case and stop surmising what suits you.
I have read a lot more about the case than you believe me. Do you actually think all the scenes on the show happened?
-
What and whose attention was Sheila receiving during her illness ?
Shelia was receiving attention from her parents particularly as her illness worsened. Her parents also paid for her London Flats, whereas JB felt he had to work for money. Jeremy was ...in my opinion...a spoilt child who grew to think he should be given everything he wanted. This jealousy became worse when Shelia had the twins and needed more help.
-
According to Colin he did: https://youtu.be/afIXWrexiWk
Yes Jeremy did do that....thanks Steve
-
I have read a lot more about the case than you believe me. Do you actually think all the scenes on the show happened?
Not for one minute do I believe all of the scenes in the Drama happened as shown. I feel that as many of us have studying this case for years, nothing would come up to our expectations as far as content is concerned.
-
Shelia was receiving attention from her parents particularly as her illness worsened. Her parents also paid for her London Flats, whereas JB felt he had to work for money. Jeremy was ...in my opinion...a spoilt child who grew to think he should be given everything he wanted. This jealousy became worse when Shelia had the twins and needed more help.
Where do you get this jealousy from ?
Both siblings had done very well out of their parents, in fact it was because they were both over-indulged that they became as they were, so it wasn't just Jeremy.
Didn't Nevill tell Barbara Wilson that " you do your best for them ( meaning both ) and this is what you get ".
The one thing that was missing from that family was love and a close bond between parents and siblings.
-
According to Colin he did: https://youtu.be/afIXWrexiWk
I notice he omitted to say how he'd betrayed Sheila when he was married to her. Sheila was clinging on and he didn't want to know. How cruel is that ?
-
Where do you get this jealousy from ?
Both siblings had done very well out of their parents, in fact it was because they were both over-indulged that they became as they were, so it wasn't just Jeremy.
Didn't Nevill tell Barbara Wilson that " you do your best for them ( meaning both ) and this is what you get ".
The one thing that was missing from that family was love and a close bond between parents and siblings.
Absolutely Lookout, they did well materially but it does not replace unconditional love and bonding. I’m afraid June had no idea how to do that, adopted or not their children would have suffered but it is wven harder when you are adopted and told you are not good enough, grateful enough and are generally a huge disappointment however much you try.
-
I notice he omitted to say how he'd betrayed Sheila when he was married to her. Sheila was clinging on and he didn't want to know. How cruel is that ?
True, but this happens to many people in life, it doesn't make Colin an evil murderer.
-
Absolutely Lookout, they did well materially but it does not replace unconditional love and bonding. I’m afraid June had no idea how to do that, adopted or not their children would have suffered but it is wven harder when you are adopted and told you are not good enough, grateful enough and are generally a huge disappointment however much you try.
Maggie nothing replaces a loving family home, no amount of money would ever make up for that loss of warmth and security that a child gets from their parents, as you said, adopted or not. June was nothing short of cruel to Sheila when she drilled it into her about her being a " devil's child ". You don't speak to children/ teenagers in that way. This was when a young Sheila found herself pregnant.
Sadly June's ways rubbed off on Sheila when she herself had said that the twins were " children of the devil ". What else could anyone expect at being brought up like that ?
-
The trouble is...
JB's behaviour in the wake of the deaths may have been distasteful. It may have been irreverent. It may have been reaction to the shock. People react in some very strange ways sometimes.
Those behaviours and reactions alone are not enough to make him guilty.
When taken in a wider context, they do add something, but in isolation alone, they aren't enough.
It is only when Mugford tells her story, and we learn of him stealing money and 'disguising' a scene previously that we start to wonder.
Some of his interviews in the aftermath do not make for good reading either, but it is still very subjective.
For me, it is only when you revisit the entirety of events from the perspective of 'could JB have done it' that it becomes clearer that the weight of evidence points to him rather than Sheila.
Of course, not everybody shares my opinion, but my point being - nobody can convict him JUST for being arrogant, or aloof, or distant, or not grieving in a befitting manner etc.
-
True, but this happens to many people in life, it doesn't make Colin an evil murderer.
I didn't mention evil murderer !
Why does he have to try and justify himself 34 years later ? A bit late in the day, isn't it ?
-
Absolutely Lookout, they did well materially but it does not replace unconditional love and bonding. I’m afraid June had no idea how to do that, adopted or not their children would have suffered but it is wven harder when you are adopted and told you are not good enough, grateful enough and are generally a huge disappointment however much you try.
This is exactly what I mean! Both Shelia and Jeremy were raised given a materially wonderful childhood, but as you say Maggie not unconditional love and bonding. Shelia left WHF when she was 17 Jeremy when he was 19 to go to Australia. I think they both felt that being adopted was a stigma they felt they had to live with. As rightly stated JB felt he was a huge disappointment not wanting to farm the land with Neville. Both JB & SC were told they were adopted at an early age around 6 years old so grew up with this knowledge Jeremy felt it more than Shelia who was prepared to meet her real mother when given the opportunity by June. Jeremy however didn't want to trace his family preferring the wealthy family he'd grown up with. JB became obsessed with having a wealthy lifestyle himself having grown up within one. But sadly Shelia becoming ill meant the family's future finances would partly be used to look after Shelia and the twins. In my opinion this became a problem for the money loving JB.
-
Where do you get this jealousy from ?
Both siblings had done very well out of their parents, in fact it was because they were both over-indulged that they became as they were, so it wasn't just Jeremy.
Didn't Nevill tell Barbara Wilson that " you do your best for them ( meaning both ) and this is what you get ".
The one thing that was missing from that family was love and a close bond between parents and siblings.
Jealousy isn't necessarily a rational emotion.
We could all say JB was relatively well off for his age, but that doesn't mean he would be fully appreciative of that, especially in his early 20's. It doesn't take long for anybody mixing in circles where even more money or privilege exists for you to feel hard done by.
For a seemingly suave and flamboyant young man, a flat in London would be quite something. A modest home in Goldhanger less so.
'The grass is always greener' may well have been something JB believed regardless of his actual circumstances.
As for love and bonding with parents, that is so subjective and it's very easy to look back and find evidence to suggest June was difficult. There is also plenty to suggest she was a typical doting mother too.
I could just as easily look at aspects of my own parents that could be seen as highly judgmental, oppressive, old fashioned etc. But I could also demonstrate love and care in abundance too. I think many of us could say the same.
I know plenty of churchgoers who are committed Christians. They are normal people to me (just hold some irrational beliefs). To others they would be bigoted religious crackpots.
-
I didn't mention evil murderer ! No I did !
Why does he have to try and justify himself 34 years later ? A bit late in the day, isn't it ?
Actually his book was printed in 1994 7 years after the murders, not 34 years later.
-
June had been diagnosed with religious psychosis by Ferguson who'd previously treated her. A bit different from your run-of-the-mill churchgoer.
Neither sibling had anything to be jealous about as they'd been treated equally, financially and property-wise. I can't imagine either having been jealous. Jeremy would have accepted the fact that Sheila couldn't work because of her illness, though neither he nor his parents were aware or made aware of how debilitating her illness was.
Jeremy appeared happy being at Goldhanger. Less distance to travel to work and, much against his mother's wishes, a place that Julie could also crash out in when she was home during studies. I'd have said it suited him.
He knew he could also get his head down at Sheila's after partying in London, so he had the best of both worlds. It's not written anywhere that he'd been jealous nor envious of where Sheila was.
It was Sheila who hadn't wanted to live near her parents, she wanted to be close to the London scene.
-
Actually his book was printed in 1994 7 years after the murders, not 34 years later.
And ?
-
I didn't mention evil murderer ! No I did!
Why does he have to try and justify himself 34 years later ? A bit late in the day, isn't it ?
In reply to your post above.
Actually his book was printed in 1994 7 years after the murders, not 34 years later.
-
In reply to your post above.
Actually his book was printed in 1994 7 years after the murders, not 34 years later.
His book has been re-released in 2020 edition.
His sudden re-involvment could be down to being short of money. But who knows. If so cant blame him. :-\
-
June had been diagnosed with religious psychosis by Ferguson who'd previously treated her. A bit different from your run-of-the-mill churchgoer.
Neither sibling had anything to be jealous about as they'd been treated equally, financially and property-wise. I can't imagine either having been jealous. Jeremy would have accepted the fact that Sheila couldn't work because of her illness, though neither he nor his parents were aware or made aware of how debilitating her illness was.
Jeremy appeared happy being at Goldhanger. Less distance to travel to work and, much against his mother's wishes, a place that Julie could also crash out in when she was home during studies. I'd have said it suited him.
He knew he could also get his head down at Sheila's after partying in London, so he had the best of both worlds. It's not written anywhere that he'd been jealous nor envious of where Sheila was.
It was Sheila who hadn't wanted to live near her parents, she wanted to be close to the London scene.
Again, jealousy isn't rational. 24 year old men are often full of irrational hopes and aspirations.
Forget it was JB, it could have been any 24 year old. A mother who doesn't approve of his girlfriend 'carrying on with him' at his home - whilst his sister is posing for risque photos in London.
Siblings often have a combination of love and jealousy. It's fairly normal.
I think it's disingenuous to suggest he would have been any different.
The question then leads to a much more serious matter - what that enough to tip an abnormal personality into carrying out murderous acts? He would not have been the first or last.
And lest we forget. He still felt a need to steal money from his family business, regardless of him being relatively well off, and Mugford also felt a need to obtain good dishonestly. So the pair of them, aspired to things they could not afford, but rather than accept they couldn't afford them, they carried out criminal acts to get them...
-
Again, jealousy isn't rational. 24 year old men are often full of irrational hopes and aspirations.
Forget it was JB, it could have been any 24 year old. A mother who doesn't approve of his girlfriend 'carrying on with him' at his home - whilst his sister is posing for risque photos in London.
Siblings often have a combination of love and jealousy. It's fairly normal.
I think it's disingenuous to suggest he would have been any different.
The question then leads to a much more serious matter - what that enough to tip an abnormal personality into carrying out murderous acts? He would not have been the first or last.
And lest we forget. He still felt a need to steal money from his family business, regardless of him being relatively well off, and Mugford also felt a need to obtain good dishonestly. So the pair of them, aspired to things they could not afford, but rather than accept they couldn't afford them, they carried out criminal acts to get them...
It wasn't Jeremy who had the abnormal personality, but anyone with a personality problem can kill or use violence and they live with a quick temper usually.
Because JB stole money from his business doesn't make him a murderer, just a greedy blighter and there are a lot of those about.
-
Of course it doesn't make him a murderer. None of his behaviour makes him a murderer.
However, this case was unusual as it presented a logical conclusion that the killer could only be one of two people, either Sheila or Jeremy. That is quite unusual.
The initial evidence pointed to Sheila - it was a superficial 'first sighting' appearance. A very sound assumption to have made.
JB's behaviours didn't make him guilty, but they gave rise to suspicion, which then led to detectives pondering him as the killer. Once they pondered that scenario, the evidence started to fit him more than it did Sheila. Of course, that is a matter of opinion, but it is one that a jury shared.
Now we come to discussing possible motives for JB, and it's perfectly valid to suggest inheritance, discontent with his lot and jealousy might all have played a part. Regardless of if you think he is innocent or guilty, those are rational motives to put forward in the absence of the insanity defence.
-
Because in 1985 nobody would or could believe that a woman would/ could kill her children. Simple as that.
Sheila could also have had withdrawal symptoms from drugs, which also causes violence.
Compared to Sheila, Jeremy had no motive to kill and don't say money because that has to be the easiest and weakest conclusion that any fool can come up with particularly in this case where a wallet and handbags lay around untouched of their contents.
Sheila had been the one with huge problems that showed no sign of going away.
An ex-husband who she thought there'd be reconciliation----but no hope.
Twins who she would lose full control of---and would spend most of their time with Colin and his girlfriend.
On-going friction with her mother.
Losing full support of her father in favour of June who was also sick.
Little hope of employment.
A mental health problem which she was struggling with.
-
Because in 1985 nobody would or could believe that a woman would/ could kill her children. Simple as that.
Sheila could also have had withdrawal symptoms from drugs, which also causes violence.
Compared to Sheila, Jeremy had no motive to kill and don't say money because that has to be the easiest and weakest conclusion that any fool can come up with particularly in this case where a wallet and handbags lay around untouched of their contents.
Sheila had been the one with huge problems that showed no sign of going away.
An ex-husband who she thought there'd be reconciliation----but no hope.
Twins who she would lose full control of---and would spend most of their time with Colin and his girlfriend.
On-going friction with her mother.
Losing full support of her father in favour of June who was also sick.
Little hope of employment.
A mental health problem which she was struggling with.
On the surface much of that is true lookout. But Jeremy lived for the moment, for the thrill after eight stuffy years at Gresham's. Don't forget also June was in the process of arranging an allowance for Sheila which would also have eaten into his inheritance.
-
Because in 1985 nobody would or could believe that a woman would/ could kill her children. Simple as that.
Sheila could also have had withdrawal symptoms from drugs, which also causes violence.
Compared to Sheila, Jeremy had no motive to kill and don't say money because that has to be the easiest and weakest conclusion that any fool can come up with particularly in this case where a wallet and handbags lay around untouched of their contents.
Sheila had been the one with huge problems that showed no sign of going away.
An ex-husband who she thought there'd be reconciliation----but no hope.
Twins who she would lose full control of---and would spend most of their time with Colin and his girlfriend.
On-going friction with her mother.
Losing full support of her father in favour of June who was also sick.
Little hope of employment.
A mental health problem which she was struggling with.
But they did. The press did. The police did. The public did.
Nobody had difficulty believing it was true. They had the usual 'disbelief' at the horror of it, but it's not disbelief in it being true.
-
This is exactly what I mean! Both Shelia and Jeremy were raised given a materially wonderful childhood, but as you say Maggie not unconditional love and bonding. Shelia left WHF when she was 17 Jeremy when he was 19 to go to Australia. I think they both felt that being adopted was a stigma they felt they had to live with. As rightly stated JB felt he was a huge disappointment not wanting to farm the land with Neville. Both JB & SC were told they were adopted at an early age around 6 years old so grew up with this knowledge Jeremy felt it more than Shelia who was prepared to meet her real mother when given the opportunity by June. Jeremy however didn't want to trace his family preferring the wealthy family he'd grown up with. JB became obsessed with having a wealthy lifestyle himself having grown up within one. But sadly Shelia becoming ill meant the family's future finances would partly be used to look after Shelia and the twins. In my opinion this became a problem for the money loving JB.
I don't really see the family that way. Yes, they were wealthy by many people's standards, but they didn't have a lifestyle which reflected that. The farmhouse was large but it wasn't very posh, and they didn't spend all their time jetting off abroad for fancy holidays. It was all very much a working environment, what with the farm and the caravan site.
I don't think it's unusual for children to leave home at that age - not then anyway. Many children left home at 18 or so and went to college, or shared a house with friends, or whatever.
I've seen no evidence that being adopted made them feel stigmatised, apart from a bit of bullying of Jeremy at school.
-
I don't really see the family that way. Yes, they were wealthy by many people's standards, but they didn't have a lifestyle which reflected that. The farmhouse was large but it wasn't very posh, and they didn't spend all their time jetting off abroad for fancy holidays. It was all very much a working environment, what with the farm and the caravan site.
I don't think it's unusual for children to leave home at that age - not then anyway. Many children left home at 18 or so and went to college, or shared a house with friends, or whatever.
I've seen no evidence that being adopted made them feel stigmatised, apart from a bit of bullying of Jeremy at school.
I am adopted (by my grandparents) - it is quite easy to look for excuses and blame adoption. There is nothing you can do about that. We turn out the way we are for so many reasons, and Jeremy turned out his own way.
I expect knowledge of being adopted did shape him a little - but so would every teacher, ever playground fight, every serious girlfriend etc.
We will never know what made him, or Sheila the people they were any more than we will understand Peter Sutcliffe, or Ian Brady, or Mira Hindley or Ian Huntley etc.
One of them did it, and the true reasons why will never be known. In some ways, it's almost easier to understand Jeremy's motives than Sheila's. Sheila's (if she did it) was probably a random act of insanity.
Jeremy's motives, if he did it, were more cunning (fathomable, but cunning)
-
I am adopted (by my grandparents) - it is quite easy to look for excuses and blame adoption. There is nothing you can do about that. We turn out the way we are for so many reasons, and Jeremy turned out his own way.
I expect knowledge of being adopted did shape him a little - but so would every teacher, ever playground fight, every serious girlfriend etc.
We will never know what made him, or Sheila the people they were any more than we will understand Peter Sutcliffe, or Ian Brady, or Mira Hindley or Ian Huntley etc.
One of them did it, and the true reasons why will never be known. In some ways, it's almost easier to understand Jeremy's motives than Sheila's. Sheila's (if she did it) was probably a random act of insanity.
Jeremy's motives, if he did it, were more cunning (fathomable, but cunning)
I suppose I find it hard to believe that someone would shoot his whole family just for money. If he didn't really like his lifestyle there must have been others ways to pursuade his parents to help him to do something else. I'm really not sure how important it was to them that he farmed - presumably in the hope that he would take over one day.
-
It may not have been just for the money. I don't think we will ever know.
It could have been a mix of arrogance, greed, resentment...
We would struggle to fathom the motivation of most premeditated killing, because most of us are so strongly conditioned against it (some would argue it's an innate aversion)
It isn't the only case of children killing their family though.
-
I suppose I find it hard to believe that someone would shoot his whole family just for money. If he didn't really like his lifestyle there must have been others ways to pursuade his parents to help him to do something else. I'm really not sure how important it was to them that he farmed - presumably in the hope that he would take over one day.
It was this tunnel vision which was ultimately their downfall, not that I'm excusing Jeremy's actions for one moment.
-
It may not have been just for the money. I don't think we will ever know.
It could have been a mix of arrogance, greed, resentment...
We would struggle to fathom the motivation of most premeditated killing, because most of us are so strongly conditioned against it (some would argue it's an innate aversion)
It isn't the only case of children killing their family though.
As Adam has often said: this was an inheritance killing. I might add he gave himself a warped justification-Jeremy I mean, not Adam..
-
No body has ever proved a motive for Jeremy being the killer.
He had a nice lifestyle, he had an elderly grandmother who he was going to inherit from and eventually through inheritance he would be wealthy anyway
-
No body has ever proved a motive for Jeremy being the killer.
He had a nice lifestyle, he had an elderly grandmother who he was going to inherit from and eventually through inheritance he would be wealthy anyway
But his life was always about himself: how he had accepted for years his own inadequacy as Sheila herself struggled with her identity, how he failed academically at school, how he failed to make new friends, how he struggled to receive the slightest compliment from his parents, then suddenly a growth spurt and he began to get noticed-he the nonentity suddenly became popular with the opposite sex, how he bragged about his parents' wealth attracted girls, attracted Brett, how he spread the newspapers on the floor carpet of Bourtree Cottage because finally somebody was paying him attention, albeit in the most gruesome of circumstances.
Why did he kill? He took a calculated risk that he almost succeeded with: his parents' secrecy concerning Sheila's illness meant nobody really knew her, his aversion to sharing his inheritance, the dislike of the twins, and the realization that however rich his parents had become they weren't particularly in a position to enjoy their wealth: Nevill working all hours God sent had become haggard, whilst June concerned herself with charitable works without to the detriment of family, struggling with her own demons as she attempted to reconcile her own religious convictions with the hedonism of the modern age.
-
But his life was always about himself: how he had accepted for years his own inadequacy as Sheila herself struggled with her identity, how he failed academically at school, how he failed to make new friends, how he struggled to receive the slightest compliment from his parents, then suddenly a growth spurt and he began to get noticed-he the nonentity suddenly became popular with the opposite sex, how he bragged about his parents' wealth attracted girls, attracted Brett, how he spread the newspapers on the floor carpet of Bourtree Cottage because finally somebody was paying him attention, albeit in the most gruesome of circumstances.
Why did he kill? He took a calculated risk that he almost succeeded with: his parents' secrecy concerning Sheila's illness meant nobody really knew her, his aversion to sharing his inheritance, the dislike of the twins, and the realization that however rich his parents had become they weren't particularly in a position to enjoy their wealth: Nevill working all hours God sent had become haggard, whilst June concerned herself with charitable works without to the detriment of family, struggling with her own demons as she attempted to reconcile her own religious convictions with the hedonism of the modern age.
You need to listen to an impartial witness like Barbara death, she obviously saw him growing probably frequently during school holidays and gives a completely different description of Jeremy
-
You need to listen to an impartial witness like Barbara death, she obviously saw him growing probably frequently during school holidays and gives a completely different description of Jeremy
I think this can be explained by his Jekyll and Hyde personality:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bambers-best-pal-believed-21459285
-
No body has ever proved a motive for Jeremy being the killer.
He had a nice lifestyle, he had an elderly grandmother who he was going to inherit from and eventually through inheritance he would be wealthy anyway
He wasn't going to inherit directly from his grandmother though Jackie. Mrs Speakman divided her money between June and Pamela.
-
No body has ever proved a motive for Jeremy being the killer.
He had a nice lifestyle, he had an elderly grandmother who he was going to inherit from and eventually through inheritance he would be wealthy anyway
Some very well off people have stolen.
Some very privileged folks have wanted more privilege.
At 24, a further 10 years can feel like a very long time to wait and he might well be waiting 20+ years for his parents to pass away naturally. He didn't NEED to steal from his own family, and yet he did precisely that at the caravan park. So his want overruled his need on that occasion, why not again - except for a much larger reward.
Whether someone believes JB is innocent or guilty, it is folly to deny the inheritance as a possible motive. It's one of the prime motives in most murders - Emotional, sexual, financial.
-
It is folly to deny the inheritance as a possible motive. It's one of the prime motives in most murders - Emotional, sexual, financial.
I think there was a financial motive for framing him. I think it contributed to the relatives' mindset and drive, post killings.
-
JB wouldn't have stolen if he'd had a girlfriend who didn't also steal. She was complicit in the robbery.
-
I think it's fair to say that virtually everyone involved was fond of money, so Jeremy being fond of money isn't necessarily a motive to kill his entire family.
-
I think it's fair to say that virtually everyone involved was fond of money, so Jeremy being fond of money isn't necessarily a motive to kill his entire family.
I am fond of money too. Most of us are.
It is still a motive for killing. Just most of us don't resort to that.
-
I think there was a financial motive for framing him. I think it contributed to the relatives' mindset and drive, post killings.
The issue there is, they weren't implicated in the murder and he was.
So, in normal circumstances they would be grieving relatives who at short notice would have to collude and concoct a plan to frame him. That becomes a less likely scenario than JB just having done the deed.
I do not like the silencer find. But even without, I think the evidence points to JB, but that's just my opinion.
-
The issue there is, they weren't implicated in the murder and he was.
So, in normal circumstances they would be grieving relatives who at short notice would have to collude and concoct a plan to frame him. That becomes a less likely scenario than JB just having done the deed.
I do not like the silencer find. But even without, I think the evidence points to JB, but that's just my opinion.
Physical evidence rules the silencer out being used in the crime. What else do you have?
-
Physical evidence rules the silencer out being used in the crime. What else do you have?
Sheila's blood and the aga paint in the silencer shows it was used.
You are well aware there is a mountain of sourced forensic evidence. Most not opposed (or mentioned) by the CT.
I will post it again for TheBrilliantMistake.
-
1.
Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
2.
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
3.
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER'S DEFENCE.
4.
Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
5.
No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
6.
Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
7.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
8.
No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
9.
No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
10.
No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
11.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER, JUDGE.
12.
No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
13.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
14.
Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
15.
Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
16.
Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER.
17.
No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
18.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.
19.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
20.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
21.
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
22.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
23.
No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.
24.
Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries with no body or face protection - Not disputed - COA.
25.
Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
26.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
27.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
28.
Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.
29.
Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.
30.
Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
31.
Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
32.
Sheila's blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
33.
No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - COA.
34.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
35.
Blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
36.
A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - COA.
37.
Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - INTERNET ARTICLES, YOUTUBE, COA.
38.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
39.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE, COA.
40.
Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
41.
Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER, COA.
42.
Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed in 2017 but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - COA.
43.
No better massacre weapon options for Bamber - Not disputed - FORUM.
44.
Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.
45.
Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - COA.
46.
Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS, COA.
47.
June not waking or getting woken by Nevill - Not disputed - COA.
48.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER, TONIGHT PROGRAMME, COA.
49.
2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.
50.
The twins not waking - Not disputed - COA.
51.
Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - COA.
52.
Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COA.
53.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
54.
No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.
55.
Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - COA.
56.
Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER, COA.
57.
Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.
58.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - COA.
59.
Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.
60.
Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.
61.
Bamber's found hacksaw - Not disputed - COA.
62.
Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
63.
Only execution period available to Bamber, 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER
64.
Housekeeper evidence of items around the sink being moved - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK
65.
Only Sheila receiving a contact shot in a location that produces back splatter- Not disputed, COA.
66.
Bloodied plam print on Sheila's nightdress - Not disputed. COA.
67.
Nevill being lifted onto a coal scuttle - Not disputed. CRIME SCENE PICTURES, COA.
68.
Dried blood on Sheila - Not Disputed. PATHOLOGIST.
69.
Sheila having to load prior to first shots - Not disputed. COA.
-
1.
Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
2.
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
3.
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER'S DEFENCE.
4.
Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
5.
No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
6.
Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
7.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
8.
No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
9.
No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
10.
No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
11.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER.
12.
No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
13.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
14.
Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
15.
Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
16.
Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - BAMBER
17.
No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
18.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST.
19.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
20.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
21.
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
22.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
23.
No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST.
24.
Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries with no body or face protection - Not disputed - FORUM.
25.
Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - ACCEPTED FACT.
26.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
27.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
28.
Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
29.
Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
30.
Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES. .
31.
Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
32.
Blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
33.
No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
34.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
35.
Blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
36.
A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
37.
Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - INTERNET ARTICLES, YOUTUBE.
38.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
39.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE.
40.
Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
41.
Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER.
42.
Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed in 2017 but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - 20 SOURCES IN THE LIBRARY.
43.
No better massacre weapon options for Bamber - Not disputed - FORUM.
44.
Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.
45.
Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
46.
Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS.
47.
June not waking or getting woken by Nevill - Not disputed - COA.
48.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER, TONIGHT PROGRAMME.
49.
2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.
50.
The twins not waking - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
51.
Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
52.
Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COURT OF APPEAL.
53.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
54.
No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.
55.
Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - BAMBER.
56.
Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER.
57.
Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.
58.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - BAMBER.
59.
Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.
60.
Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.
61.
Bamber's found hacksaw - Not disputed - BAMBER.
62.
Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
63.
Only execution period available to Bamber, 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER
64.
Housekeeper evidence of items around the sink being moved - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK
65.
Only Sheila receiving a contact shot in a location that produces back splatter- Not disputed, COA.
66.
Bloodied plam print on Sheila's nightdress - Not disputed. COA.
67.
Nevill being lifted onto a coal scuttle - Not disputed. CRIME SCENE PICTURES.
68.
Dried blood on Sheila - PATHOLOGIST
69.
Sheila having to load prior to first shots.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort.
"The Gish Gallop should not be confused with the argumentum ad nauseam, in which the same point is repeated many times. In a Gish Gallop, many bullshit points are given all at once."
-
Sheila's blood and the aga paint in the silencer shows it was used.
You are well aware there is a mountain of sourced forensic evidence. Most not opposed (or mentioned) by the CT.
I will post it again for TheBrilliantMistake.
The muzzle imprints on Sheila's chin, the marks on Nevills back, the marks on Nevills arm, absence of bone, skin tissue or Nicholas in the silencer and the absence of debris under the AGA rule the moderator out. No matter how many gish gallops of BS you flood the forum with. ;D
-
Adam stretching things out to make it look a lot doesn't wash with me. I get bored halfway through.
-
Adam stretching things out to make it look a lot doesn't wash with me. I get bored halfway through.
I know you already know the COA document inside out Lookout.
-
I know you already know the COA document inside out Lookout.
Yes---my way Adam.
-
But the blood on the silencer was not proved to be sheilas .and adam that list proves nothing about who the murder was , so what was the point ?
-
But the blood on the silencer was not proved to be sheilas .and adam that list proves nothing about who the murder was , so what was the point ?
76.
Inside the moderator, on the four or five baffles nearest to the end from which the bullet would exit, there was a considerable amount of blood. At one point blood had pooled to form a flake when it dried, and this flake was subjected to group testing.
Results were obtained for four of the five tests performed. Mr Hayward, the forensic scientist said that they showed that the blood could have come from Sheila Caffell but not from any of the other individuals involved.
Mr. Hayward said that there was a possibility that the blood could be a mixture of blood from more than one person and if it was, a mixture of blood from Nevill Bamber and June Bamber could account for the findings in the grouping tests. However he judged that possibility to be a "remote" one.
-
But the blood on the silencer was not proved to be sheilas .and adam that list proves nothing about who the murder was , so what was the point ?
The forensic evidence shows it was not Sheila. Surely you do not agree with Mike that it could have been a hit man team.
-
76.
Inside the moderator, on the four or five baffles nearest to the end from which the bullet would exit, there was a considerable amount of blood. At one point blood had pooled to form a flake when it dried, and this flake was subjected to group testing.
Results were obtained for four of the five tests performed. Mr Hayward, the forensic scientist said that they showed that the blood could have come from Sheila Caffell but not from any of the other individuals involved.
Mr. Hayward said that there was a possibility that the blood could be a mixture of blood from more than one person and if it was, a mixture of blood from Nevill Bamber and June Bamber could account for the findings in the grouping tests. However he judged that possibility to be a "remote" one.
That’s not the document I was talking about .
-
The forensic evidence shows it was not Sheila. Surely you do not agree with Mike that it could have been a hit man team.
It does not show it was not sheila . Otherwise we would not all be here .
There is also no forensic evidence to connect Jeremy with the crime . As you well know .
-
The guilters aren't half forcing the issue of guilty !
-
Physical evidence rules the silencer out being used in the crime. What else do you have?
David, it isnt a game where we take sides then do our best to score points.
It is a matter of assessing evidence. Some of it falls against Jeremy, some against Sheila. 'What else do you have?' is such an antagonistic question, needlessly so.
As far as I am aware, the use of the silencer hasn't been proven or disproven, but that is not the argument. The argument here is the probability of family members colluding to either frame JB, or to add a little extra to the evidence, illegally, albeit with a genuine belief of JB's guilt.
-
Isn't it all a bit convenient that the silencer had blood and paint on it? Talk about "smoking gun".
-
Isn't it all a bit convenient that the silencer had blood and paint on it? Talk about "smoking gun".
Yes, I dont like the silencer find. I feel uneasy with it. But at the same time, had the police taken more photos, they may have been able to prove it wasn't there at the time if the murders. That said, I think all parties accept that the silencer did indeed exist... just what part it played is much more difficult to ascertain.
-
Besides there being a silencer there was also a metal cap ( exhibit 49 ) which was found in the gun cupboard which nobody knew anything about. Was it AP's or NB's ?
-
Physical evidence rules the silencer out being used in the crime. What else do you have?
What physical evidence? Some Irishman firing a rifle into pigskin?
-
I haven't read all the posts on the subject of this TV drama so forgive me if this quetion has already been asked. The actor who plays Jeremy never went to see Jeremy in prison when asked why no he replied that he thought they had all the material that they needed so speaking to Bamber himself seemed to be superfluous.
I wonder what your thoughts are concerning this? This man intended to play Bamber yet omits to speak to the chief witness to the murders. Whether you believe he is guilty or not don't you think that this is a rather big omission considering that Bamber is the only person still living who actually knows what went on that night?
-
Grahame---what can I say, except welcome and I hope you're alright.
I've mentioned this before about people not meeting others in order to form an overall opinion, instead of going by what others say/think.
The opportunity would have been there for the actor to meet Jeremy but was he told so many horror stories that he felt he wouldn't come out in one piece ?
The author of the book herself only lived minutes away but didn't bother to go and see him before/during writing her book.
How on earth can these people judge someone while either writing about them or acting their part ?
-
I haven't read all the posts on the subject of this TV drama so forgive me if this quetion has already been asked. The actor who plays Jeremy never went to see Jeremy in prison when asked why no he replied that he thought they had all the material that they needed so speaking to Bamber himself seemed to be superfluous.
I wonder what your thoughts are concerning this? This man intended to play Bamber yet omits to speak to the chief witness to the murders. Whether you believe he is guilty or not don't you think that this is a rather big omission considering that Bamber is the only person still living who actually knows what went on that night?
Welcome back Grahame.
-
I haven't read all the posts on the subject of this TV drama so forgive me if this quetion has already been asked. The actor who plays Jeremy never went to see Jeremy in prison when asked why no he replied that he thought they had all the material that they needed so speaking to Bamber himself seemed to be superfluous.
I wonder what your thoughts are concerning this? This man intended to play Bamber yet omits to speak to the chief witness to the murders. Whether you believe he is guilty or not don't you think that this is a rather big omission considering that Bamber is the only person still living who actually knows what went on that night?
Hello ! and welcome back
-
I haven't read all the posts on the subject of this TV drama so forgive me if this quetion has already been asked. The actor who plays Jeremy never went to see Jeremy in prison when asked why no he replied that he thought they had all the material that they needed so speaking to Bamber himself seemed to be superfluous.
I wonder what your thoughts are concerning this? This man intended to play Bamber yet omits to speak to the chief witness to the murders. Whether you believe he is guilty or not don't you think that this is a rather big omission considering that Bamber is the only person still living who actually knows what went on that night?
The producers did not consult anyone as far as i can see except colin . They had already decided the format of the drama so there was no need in their eyes .
-
Welcome back Grahame.
So happy to see you back
-
What physical evidence? Some Irishman firing a rifle into pigskin?
Muzzle imprints on Sheila's chin.
Absence of Bone, Skin, Blood or DNA from Nicholas Caffell.
Marks on Nevills back and arm.
Absence of debris under the mantle shelf.
Pathologists testimony precluding such altercation causing the scratch marks.
-
76.
Inside the moderator, on the four or five baffles nearest to the end from which the bullet would exit, there was a considerable amount of blood. At one point blood had pooled to form a flake when it dried, and this flake was subjected to group testing.
Results were obtained for four of the five tests performed. Mr Hayward, the forensic scientist said that they showed that the blood could have come from Sheila Caffell but not from any of the other individuals involved.
Mr. Hayward said that there was a possibility that the blood could be a mixture of blood from more than one person and if it was, a mixture of blood from Nevill Bamber and June Bamber could account for the findings in the grouping tests. However he judged that possibility to be a "remote" one.
eh i thought it was said it could have been shiela of bouflour ... letter from huntingdon science lab that wasn’t shown at trial?
-
'Remote' is a generous word.
The chance of back splatter coming from both June & Nevill from the shots they received is remote. Then both sets of blood mixing is even more remote.
-
eh i thought it was said it could have been shiela of bouflour ... letter from huntingdon science lab that wasn’t shown at trial?
Exactly . Something Adam chooses to ignore .
-
Thank goodness the series is over . Tonight was so sketchy and missed so much out . None of the families evidence at all . Nothing about the silencer , I could go on . ( because it’s annoying)
The only good scene was the last one where you could see a flicker of doubt across jones face when he realised Sheila was getting the pay off from the news of the world .
-
Thank goodness the series is over . Tonight was so sketchy and missed so much out . None of the families evidence at all . Nothing about the silencer , I could go on . ( because it’s annoying)
The only good scene was the last one where you could see a flicker of doubt across jones face when he realised Sheila was getting the pay off from the news of the world .
You mean Mugford
-
The last few moments of the drama really summed the whole tragedy up
-
Muzzle imprints on Sheila's chin.
Absence of Bone, Skin, Blood or DNA from Nicholas Caffell.
Marks on Nevills back and arm.
Absence of debris under the mantle shelf.
Pathologists testimony precluding such altercation causing the scratch marks.
Silencers can be screwed on and unscrewed. It's possible that the twins' hearts stopped before a contact shot. Your analysis of Nevill's marks are subjective.
-
I haven't read all the posts on the subject of this TV drama so forgive me if this quetion has already been asked. The actor who plays Jeremy never went to see Jeremy in prison when asked why no he replied that he thought they had all the material that they needed so speaking to Bamber himself seemed to be superfluous.
I wonder what your thoughts are concerning this? This man intended to play Bamber yet omits to speak to the chief witness to the murders. Whether you believe he is guilty or not don't you think that this is a rather big omission considering that Bamber is the only person still living who actually knows what went on that night?
Given that Jeremy Bamber is a master of deceit how would it help Freddie Fox to determine guilt or innocence?
-
Given that Jeremy Bamber is a master of deceit how would it help Freddie Fox to determine guilt or innocence?
Steve I think you are getting a bit muddled with your names you actually meant Julie was the master of deceit.
She certainly got a further 5 minutes of fame tonight.
How did you think she was portrayed?
-
Steve I think you are getting a bit muddled with your names you actually meant Julie was the master of deceit.
She certainly got a further 5 minutes of fame tonight.
How did you think she was portrayed?
I think the actress did a good job. It's left to the viewer's imagination of how they wish to judge her.
-
You mean Mugford
Sorry yes. Typed it when I was annoyed and not concentrating
-
Earlier reports of BW death were incorrect.
Thank you for that information. By the way, I believe DCI Kenneally passed away not long ago (2018).
-
The sene where Jones went to see Mugford was absolutely chilling. You could almost see the pound signs in her eyes. When she said that bit about deserving it after all she'd been through, the look of shock on Jones' face was amazing.
-
There is no way Julie would have so serioisly perjured herself, a month after the massacre. In a loan attempt to overturn a murder/suicide. Trying to incriminate an innocent man. Too many obstacles and disadvantages.
It would have been hard enough with Bamber being guilty as he would have spent a month putting the frighteners on her.
-
There is no way Julie would have so serioisly perjured herself, a month after the massacre. In a loan attempt to overturn a murder/suicide. Trying to incriminate an innocent man. Too many obstacles and disadvantages.
It would have been hard enough with Bamber being guilty as he would have spent a month putting the frighteners on her.
That wasn't my point. Regardless of whether or not Julie was telling the truth, this drama showed her making money from the tragedies quite shamelessly. I don't think that scene actually happened, but it was great drama. I do wonder what the real Stan Jones thought about it.
-
There is no way Julie would have so serioisly perjured herself, a month after the massacre. In a loan attempt to overturn a murder/suicide. Trying to incriminate an innocent man. Too many obstacles and disadvantages.
It would have been hard enough with Bamber being guilty as he would have spent a month putting the frighteners on her.
Together with no chance of success. As Bamber was innocent.
-
Thank goodness the series is over . Tonight was so sketchy and missed so much out . None of the families evidence at all . Nothing about the silencer , I could go on . ( because it’s annoying)
The only good scene was the last one where you could see a flicker of doubt across jones face when he realised Sheila was getting the pay off from the news of the world .
They made it sound like the silencer evidence was irrelevant, and that the whole conviction rested on Julie's evidence - ie, who did the jury believe?
-
Thank goodness the series is over . Tonight was so sketchy and missed so much out . None of the families evidence at all . Nothing about the silencer , I could go on . ( because it’s annoying)
The only good scene was the last one where you could see a flicker of doubt across jones face when he realised Sheila was getting the pay off from the news of the world .
I don’t know how on Earth you managed to watch it all. I’m so glad I didn’t bother.
-
The producers did not consult anyone as far as i can see except colin . They had already decided the format of the drama so there was no need in their eyes .
I believe that the series is based upon a book written by an author who is biased against Bamber? This in itself amounts to bad journalism. But to deliberately avoid the chief witness to the murders is in my opinion presumptuous to say the least.
-
I chose not to watch the drama as I knew from the start that it was just following the biased path of every other drama about the case that the msm habitually put on.
-
I believe that the series is based upon a book written by an author who is biased against Bamber? This in itself amounts to bad journalism. But to deliberately avoid the chief witness to the murders is in my opinion presumptuous to say the least.
yes it was - and that was quite clear.
the only good thing was seeing the house re-created - that was interesting .
But they missed out so much stuff . It was unbelievable .
-
Julie Mugfords lies again
-
Retrial
-
yes it was - and that was quite clear.
the only good thing was seeing the house re-created - that was interesting .
But they missed out so much stuff . It was unbelievable .
You'd have to consider budget restraints. :-\ More stuff means hiring more actors.
-
Jeremy who masterminded this crime chose not to have a solicitor ?????
If he was guilty
-
You'd have to consider budget restraints. :-\ More stuff means hiring more actors.
nothing about the jury querying the families testimony or whether they would gain financially
nothing about the family finding the silencer ( actors just shown sat watching )
about 3 minutes of Jeremys testimony
Nothing about the blood on the silencer ( could be an unknown actor playing the "expert" )
And so much more .
-
nothing about the jury querying the families testimony or whether they would gain financially
nothing about the family finding the silencer ( actors just shown sat watching )
about 3 minutes of Jeremys testimony
Nothing about the blood on the silencer ( could be an unknown actor playing the "expert" )
And so much more .
They had enough time for crispy being put down. But not enough time for the silencer?
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/237/face-with-tears-of-joy_1f602.png)
-
They had enough time for crispy being put down. But not enough time for the silencer?
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/237/face-with-tears-of-joy_1f602.png)
exactly - cheap animal labour
-
And now the vet's holding out on information ::)
-
GOOD Morning Britain viewers were furious this morning as they accused Kate Garraway of “ruining” the end of White House Farm ahead of tonight’s finale.
Despite the true story being widely reported in the news, some viewers who hadn’t followed the crime were upset at the daytime show for revealing the outcome.
While announcing what was coming up later in the show, Kate Garraway said: “The true story of how Jeremy Bamber killed his family to inherit their fortune.
“This morning his former best friend joins us live with a new revelation about what he thinks really happened.”
However, the murderer’s friend failed to appear.
It prompted one viewer to fume on Twitter: “@GMB thanks for confirming Jeremy was the killer in White house farm before the final TONIGHT 🤦???some of us didnt know what happened!!!!”
Another wrote: “Thanks @GMB for ruining what happens next in White House Farm when I still need to catch up 🙈😤😂.”
“A third raged: Thanks to @GMB for ruining the end of White House Farm for me… final isn’t till this evening but you just have away the ending ??🤬 #whitehousefarm #goodmorningbritian.”
-
I wonder why he didn’t appear.
I expect he has got a bigger money offer coming up
-
Where did the idea of Brett Collins appearing on ITV come from? Is it actually happening or not?
-
Where did the idea of Brett Collins appearing on ITV come from? Is it actually happening or not?
They announced it and he must have actually been in the studio and then didn’t appear
The mystery is why
-
nothing about the jury querying the families testimony or whether they would gain financially
nothing about the family finding the silencer ( actors just shown sat watching )
about 3 minutes of Jeremys testimony
Nothing about the blood on the silencer ( could be an unknown actor playing the "expert" )
And so much more .
Nothing about the land purchase by Nevill that nobody knew about. Nevill had complained that John Eaton had overcharged, so a fight broke out and John Eaton punched Nevill causing him a black eye.
The land was left by the Eaton's father to peter and John Eaton----who preferred the money at the time one would imagine, so now they've got the best of both worlds.
Were they " the two " who Nevill" wouldn't turn his back on ?"
-
Conscience ??
-
Nothing about the land purchase by Nevill that nobody knew about. Nevill had complained that John Eaton had overcharged, so a fight broke out and John Eaton punched Nevill causing him a black eye.
The land was left by the Eaton's father to peter and John Eaton----who preferred the money at the time one would imagine, so now they've got the best of both worlds.
Were they " the two " who Nevill" wouldn't turn his back on ?"
It wouldn’t surprise me. One punched him in the face and the other screwed over the farm later on.
-
They announced it and he must have actually been in the studio and then didn’t appear
The mystery is why
That’s odd. Maybe he had second thoughts at the last moment :-\
-
Nothing about the land purchase by Nevill that nobody knew about. Nevill had complained that John Eaton had overcharged, so a fight broke out and John Eaton punched Nevill causing him a black eye.
The land was left by the Eaton's father to peter and John Eaton----who preferred the money at the time one would imagine, so now they've got the best of both worlds.
Were they " the two " who Nevill" wouldn't turn his back on ?"
It was a TV drama. Only 20 minutes was in court. So they just had Bamber and Julie in the dock.
The prosecution relied on at least 60 pieces of forensic evidence, which is in the COA. Together with a vast amount of circumstantial evidence. But Julie's testimony will make the best TV.
-
It was a TV drama. Only 20 minutes was in court. So they just had Bamber and Julie in the dock.
The prosecution relied on at least 60 pieces of forensic evidence, which is in the COA. Together with a vast amount of circumstantial evidence. But Julie's testimony will make the best TV.
No the prosecution did not rely on 60 pieces of forensic evidence.
These alleged 60 pieces of forensic evidence are merely your flawed interpretations compiled into a hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies and repetitions.
-
No the prosecution did not rely on 60 pieces of forensic evidence.
These alleged 60 pieces of forensic evidence are merely your flawed interpretations compiled into a hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies and repetitions.
And dubious repeated sources.
There was no forensic evidence to link jeremy to the crime .
-
And dubious repeated sources.
There was no forensic evidence to link jeremy to the crime .
Ironically the entire trials exhibit list is 60 pieces. Maybe that's where he got the figure from. ;D
-
These would not be in the COA unless they were used by the prosecution to gain a conviction at trial -
1.
Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
2.
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
3.
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER'S DEFENCE.
4.
Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
5.
No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
6.
Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
7.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
8.
No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
9.
No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
10.
No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
11.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER, JUDGE.
12.
No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
13.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
14.
Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
15.
Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
16.
Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER.
17.
No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
18.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.
19.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
20.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
21.
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
22.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
23.
No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.
24.
Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries with no body or face protection - Not disputed - COA.
25.
Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
26.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
27.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
28.
Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.
29.
Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.
30.
Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
31.
Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
32.
Sheila's blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
33.
No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - COA.
34.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
35.
Blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
36.
A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - COA.
37.
Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - INTERNET ARTICLES, YOUTUBE, COA.
38.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
39.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE, COA.
40.
Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
41.
Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER, COA.
42.
Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed in 2017 but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - COA.
43.
No better massacre weapon options for Bamber - Not disputed - FORUM.
44.
Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.
45.
Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - COA.
46.
Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS, COA.
47.
June not waking or getting woken by Nevill - Not disputed - COA.
48.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER, TONIGHT PROGRAMME, COA.
49.
2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.
50.
The twins not waking - Not disputed - COA.
51.
Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - COA.
52.
Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COA.
53.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
54.
No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.
55.
Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - COA.
56.
Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER, COA.
57.
Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.
58.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - COA.
59.
Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.
60.
Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.
61.
Bamber's found hacksaw - Not disputed - COA.
62.
Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
63.
Only execution period available to Bamber, 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER
64.
Housekeeper evidence of items around the sink being moved - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK
65.
Only Sheila receiving a contact shot in a location that produces back splatter- Not disputed, COA.
66.
Bloodied plam print on Sheila's nightdress - Not disputed. COA.
67.
Nevill being lifted onto a coal scuttle - Not disputed. CRIME SCENE PICTURES, COA.
68.
Dried blood on Sheila - Not Disputed. PATHOLOGIST.
69.
Sheila having to load prior to first shots - Not disputed. COA
70.
Blood in silencer being Sheila's with remote possibility of being a mixture of June's & Nevill's - Not disputed, COA.
-
And dubious repeated sources.
There was no forensic evidence to link jeremy to the crime .
Do you not agree that if the forensic evidence shows it was not Sheila, it must be Jeremy?
-
These would not be in the COA unless they were used by the prosecution to gain a conviction at trial -
1.
Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
2.
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
3.
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER'S DEFENCE.
4.
Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
5.
No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
6.
Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
7.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
8.
No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
9.
No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
10.
No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
11.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER, JUDGE.
12.
No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
13.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
14.
Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
15.
Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
16.
Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER.
17.
No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
18.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.
19.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
20.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
21.
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
22.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
23.
No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST, COA.
24.
Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries with no body or face protection - Not disputed - COA.
25.
Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
26.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
27.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
28.
Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.
29.
Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - COA.
30.
Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
31.
Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
32.
Sheila's blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - COA.
33.
No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - COA.
34.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
35.
Blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
36.
A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - COA.
37.
Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - INTERNET ARTICLES, YOUTUBE, COA.
38.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
39.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE, COA.
40.
Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
41.
Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER, COA.
42.
Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed in 2017 but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - COA.
43.
No better massacre weapon options for Bamber - Not disputed - FORUM.
44.
Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.
45.
Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - COA.
46.
Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS, COA.
47.
June not waking or getting woken by Nevill - Not disputed - COA.
48.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER, TONIGHT PROGRAMME, COA.
49.
2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.
50.
The twins not waking - Not disputed - COA.
51.
Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - COA.
52.
Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COA.
53.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
54.
No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.
55.
Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - COA.
56.
Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER, COA.
57.
Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.
58.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - COA.
59.
Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.
60.
Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.
61.
Bamber's found hacksaw - Not disputed - COA.
62.
Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
63.
Only execution period available to Bamber, 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER
64.
Housekeeper evidence of items around the sink being moved - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK
65.
Only Sheila receiving a contact shot in a location that produces back splatter- Not disputed, COA.
66.
Bloodied plam print on Sheila's nightdress - Not disputed. COA.
67.
Nevill being lifted onto a coal scuttle - Not disputed. CRIME SCENE PICTURES, COA.
68.
Dried blood on Sheila - Not Disputed. PATHOLOGIST.
69.
Sheila having to load prior to first shots - Not disputed. COA
70.
Blood in silencer being Sheila's with remote possibility of being a mixture of June's & Nevill's - Not disputed, COA.
Like I said. A hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies and repetitions. That has now gone from 60 pieces to 70 pieces in a matter of hours. ;D
-
Like I said. A hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies and repetitions. That has now gone from 60 pieces to 70 pieces in a matter of hours. ;D
It is a list of sourced incriminating forensic evidence. Over 60 of the 70 pieces in the COA.
The COA is a 522 point published statement. Disrespectful to criticise it considering you would not even publish your one 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
-
It is a list of incriminating forensic evidence. Over 60 of the 70 pieces in the COA.
The COA is a 522 point published statement. Disrespectful to criticise ot considering you would not even your one 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
Your 60-70 point Gish Gallop and the 522 Point appeal statement are two separate things.
-
It is a list of sourced incriminating forensic evidence. Over 60 of the 70 pieces in the COA.
The COA is a 522 point published statement. Disrespectful to criticise it considering you would not even publish your one 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
Evidence that a crime was committed nothing more .
Not evidence of who was responsible so as usual a waste of a copy and pasted post .
-
There was a bit In the drama which looked a bit odd as if it had been added in . Jones said something like
The blood can not be determined as sheilas
The silencer will be discredited as the jury will say it’s been contaminated
No forensics
So this will all come down to Julie mugfords evidence
That was a bit weird when trying to show what actually happened in the court .
-
Evidence that a crime was committed nothing more .
Not evidence of who was responsible so as usual a waste of a copy and pasted post .
Everyone agrees a crime was committed Jan.
The COA sets out what the prosecution said. To show it was not Sheila. With Bamber as the only alternative, that is all they had to do.
-
There was a bit In the drama which looked a bit odd as if it had been added in . Jones said something like
The blood can not be determined as sheilas
The silencer will be discredited as the jury will say it’s been contaminated
No forensics
So this will all come down to Julie mugfords evidence
That was a bit weird when trying to show what actually happened in the court .
Shocking :-\
-
The actual lines in the drama didn't include "no forensics".
Cook: "But there's still the silencer, the evidence of human blood in it."
Another officer: "Well, no, we can't conclusively prove it was Sheila's blood, and the defence will say it's contaminated."
Stan Jones: "The trial will turn on witness testimony. That's what the jury will remember. That will be what gets them over the line."
Ainsley: "Jeremy can be very convincing, as you found."
Stan Jones: "It will come down to Julie Mugford. That's what will turn it - her word against his."
-
Then Stan Jones was made to act as though he hadn't known about the £25,000 when it was probably him who'd instigated it to get Julie as a prosecuting witness.
It wouldn't have been the same if he'd been all smiles while giving her a hug as it would have looked like the set-up that it was-------if you get my drift.
-
The OJ case had a mountain of forensic evidence, which included DNA.
However he was acquited partly on the strenght of one witness - Furman.
-
The actual lines in the drama didn't include "no forensics".
Cook: "But there's still the silencer, the evidence of human blood in it."
Another officer: "Well, no, we can't conclusively prove it was Sheila's blood, and the defence will say it's contaminated."
Stan Jones: "The trial will turn on witness testimony. That's what the jury will remember. That will be what gets them over the line."
Ainsley: "Jeremy can be very convincing, as you found."
Stan Jones: "It will come down to Julie Mugford. That's what will turn it - her word against his."
Thanks for the correction .
-
The actual lines in the drama didn't include "no forensics".
Cook: "But there's still the silencer, the evidence of human blood in it."
Another officer: "Well, no, we can't conclusively prove it was Sheila's blood, and the defence will say it's contaminated."
Stan Jones: "The trial will turn on witness testimony. That's what the jury will remember. That will be what gets them over the line."
Ainsley: "Jeremy can be very convincing, as you found."
Stan Jones: "It will come down to Julie Mugford. That's what will turn it - her word against his."
Still not true though was it . The jury were told that it was sheilas blood
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-35427/DNA-tests-Hanratty-guilty.html&ved=2ahUKEwjNiPPa4s_nAhUvXRUIHVxLB1Q4ChAWMAZ6BAgIEAE&usg=AOvVaw0iU5KIIbxV72VVmMEqdZA2
The COA ordered that Hanratty's body be exhumed for DNA tests. Obviously they looked at Bamber's appeals in great detail before the rejections. The last appeal hearing lasting 12 days.
-
Both Hanratty and Bamber were victims of miscarriages of justice.
-
Both Hanratty and Bamber were victims of miscarriages of justice.
As far as I know Hanratty was proven guilty by DNA.
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://netk.net.au/UK/HanrattyJudgment.asp&ved=2ahUKEwiRkO7Kz9LnAhWOQhUIHRtiCKQQFjABegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw3GbJO64CD7Lm7jJU2syinT
Hanratty's COA report.
DNA confirmed his guilt. The standard claim of contamination was then made by supporters.
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://netk.net.au/UK/HanrattyJudgment.asp&ved=2ahUKEwiRkO7Kz9LnAhWOQhUIHRtiCKQQFjABegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw3GbJO64CD7Lm7jJU2syinT
Hanratty's COA report.
DNA confirmed his guilt. The standard claim of contamination was then made by supporters.
If contamination was the case, then you would find both Hanrartty's DNA and the "real killers" DNA also. But they did not.
Steve_uk thinks they planted Hanratty's DNA after they dug him up. ;D
-
If contamination was the case, then you would find both Hanrartty's DNA and the "real killers" DNA also. But they did not.
Steve_uk thinks they planted Hanratty's DNA after they dug him up. ;D
I may have changed my mind since. A very difficult case to fathom.
-
I may have changed my mind since. A very difficult case to fathom.
Didn’t the victim identify Hanratty as the perpetrator?
-
Didn’t the victim identify Hanratty as the perpetrator?
Yes but only on the second identity parade. By that time Hanratty's photograph had appeared in the newspapers and he had bleached his hair, which turned out an orange colour. The implication was that Valerie Storie had been influenced by the newspapers. Her first comment after the attack was that he had light, fairish hair, but at trial for some reason she stated her attacker had brown hair. However two other witnesses, John Skillet and Edward Blackhall identified Hanratty driving the Morris Minor in London after the attack.
What changed my mind was that Hanratty had enquired about buying a gun, saying he wanted to be a "stick-up man". In this sense it was a huge escalation from his normal criminality, which is why initially, along with his alibi in Rhyl, I expressed doubts about the conviction.
-
Didn’t the victim identify Hanratty as the perpetrator?
Yes. Valerie Storie identified Hanratty as the perpetrator . The same guy who’s semen was found in her underwear after later DNA tests.
Only Steve_uk would find this a “difficult case to fathom” ;D
-
Yes. Valerie Storie identified Hanratty as the perpetrator . The same guy who’s semen was found in her underwear after later DNA tests.
Only Steve_uk would find this a “difficult case to fathom” ;D
It's a very difficult case to fathom, and an exception I made many years ago. I could discuss the case all night with you here if you wish. There would have to be a conspiracy against Hanratty, admittedly, but haven't we had enough of those in the past not to dismiss the idea out of hand? https://catholicherald.co.uk/magazine/a-reasonable-doubt/
-
Alphon made a confession that he retracted only some years later.
-
The internet is snail-pace slow tonight.
-
It seems unlike Julie Mugford, Valerie Storie told the truth. Also unlike Julie Mugford, Valerie Storie gave everything she earned from the crime to charity.
From wiki -
“ Valerie Storie was quoted as saying "I identified the guilty man. I looked in his eyes and he looked in mine. I knew who he was and he knew that I recognised him. I had found the guilty person."[43]
Following the DNA evidence in 2002, Storie earned over £40,000 for her participation in various TV and newspaper documentaries. All of this money was anonymously donated to Slough Mobility Transport for the purchase of two new vehicles, one of which was named 'Valerie'”
-
Alphon made a confession that he retracted only some years later.
Yes he did Reader. As I say I have changed my mind since, which should please David1819 and others, but not because of the DNA evidence. Peter Louis Alphon was the alternative perpetrator. I suggest that he may have been paid to carry out the murders or did them willingly to discourage the growing promiscuity of the period, that he was an inexperienced car driver, that he planted the spent cartridge cases at the Vienna Hotel but became remorseful after Hanratty's hanging. He was reported to have been in the same public house as Gregsten and Storie that same evening, but I can't remember if anyone confirmed this.
-
It seems unlike Julie Mugford, Valerie Storie told the truth. Also unlike Julie Mugford, Valerie Storie gave everything she earned from the crime to charity.
From wiki -
“ Valerie Storie was quoted as saying "I identified the guilty man. I looked in his eyes and he looked in mine. I knew who he was and he knew that I recognised him. I had found the guilty person."[43]
Following the DNA evidence in 2002, Storie earned over £40,000 for her participation in various TV and newspaper documentaries. All of this money was anonymously donated to Slough Mobility Transport for the purchase of two new vehicles, one of which was named 'Valerie'”
She told the truth as she saw it. The case is complicated so stop trying to make it a simple one.
-
Peter Louis Alphon was an attention seeker who admitted to many things he never actually done. Unlike Hanratty - He was not identified by victim. Nor was his DNA found on the gun or the victims underwear. ::)
-
Peter Louis Alphon was an attention seeker who admitted to many things he never actually done. Unlike Hanratty - He was not identified by victim. Nor was his DNA found on the gun or the victims underwear. ::)
Well as I say I have dismissed the DNA evidence as it could have been planted by the Establishment's security services. Alphon was a good suspect, he had a large sum of money in his bank account post-murders and had confessed to the crime.
However I reiterate that I have changed my mind now.
-
Murders? There was only one.
-
Murders? There was only one.
Yes sorry it was obviously one murder and one attempted murder.
-
I don't see how you can really argue with this.
"Mr Michael Sherrard apparently opened the defence at the trial by saying appositely that this was a case “sagging with coincidences”. Just let us consider some of the more striking coincidences in the light of the DNA evidence if Hanratty was not guilty. He was wrongly identified by 3 witnesses at identification parades; first as the person at the scene of the crime and secondly (by 2 witnesses) driving a vehicle close to where the vehicle in which the murder was committed was found; he had the same identifying manner of speech as the killer; he stayed in a room the night before the crime from which bullets that had been fired from the murder weapon were recovered; the murder weapon was recovered from a place on a bus which he regarded as a hiding place and the bus followed a route he could well have used; his DNA was found on a piece of material from Storie’s knickers where it would be expected to be if the appellant was guilty; it was also found on the handkerchief found with the gun. The number of alleged coincidences means that they are not coincidences but overwhelming proof of the safety of the conviction from an evidential perspective."
-
I don't see how you can really argue with this.
"Mr Michael Sherrard apparently opened the defence at the trial by saying appositely that this was a case “sagging with coincidences”. Just let us consider some of the more striking coincidences in the light of the DNA evidence if Hanratty was not guilty. He was wrongly identified by 3 witnesses at identification parades; first as the person at the scene of the crime and secondly (by 2 witnesses) driving a vehicle close to where the vehicle in which the murder was committed was found; he had the same identifying manner of speech as the killer; he stayed in a room the night before the crime from which bullets that had been fired from the murder weapon were recovered; the murder weapon was recovered from a place on a bus which he regarded as a hiding place and the bus followed a route he could well have used; his DNA was found on a piece of material from Storie’s knickers where it would be expected to be if the appellant was guilty; it was also found on the handkerchief found with the gun. The number of alleged coincidences means that they are not coincidences but overwhelming proof of the safety of the conviction from an evidential perspective."
You see if somebody paid Peter Louis Alphon to frame James Hanratty then of course the former is going to speak in a Cockney accent (which he was well capable of simulating), he was going to follow him into the Vienna Hotel and plant cartridges in his room (why did Hanratty leave them there?), nobody recognized Hanratty that day the gun was found on the bus, Hanratty had an alibi for the day in question, though suffered from changing it midway through the trial.
Hanratty was a professional, urban thief, not a cold-blooded murderer. I'm trying to find the name of the witness who told authorities Hanratty told him he wanted to become a "stick-up man", which began to turn my mind against him. Otherwise he was not a violent criminal, nor a rapist, neither is the motive clear at all.
As for the DNA evidence, once I read Peter Wright's book "Spycatcher" in 1987 it became clear to me that the secret services are beyond the reach of government ministers and therefore democratic accountability. It would therefore not surprise me if the DNA was tampered with to make it look like Hanratty was the killer. For me this is not the decisive factor in me changing my mind, just one contributory factor.
By the way, Alphon did confess to the crime, you know..
-
You see if somebody paid Peter Louis Alphon to frame James Hanratty then of course the former is going to speak in a Cockney accent (which he was well capable of simulating), he was going to follow him into the Vienna Hotel and plant cartridges in his room (why did Hanratty leave them there?), nobody recognized Hanratty that day the gun was found on the bus, Hanratty had an alibi for the day in question, though suffered from changing it midway through the trial.
Hanratty was a professional, urban thief, not a cold-blooded murderer. I'm trying to find the name of the witness who told authorities Hanratty told him he wanted to become a "stick-up man", which began to turn my mind against him. Otherwise he was not a violent criminal, nor a rapist, neither is the motive clear at all.
As for the DNA evidence, once I read Peter Wright's book "Spycatcher" in 1987 it became clear to me that the secret services are beyond the reach of government ministers and therefore democratic accountability. It would therefore not surprise me if the DNA was tampered with to make it look like Hanratty was the killer. For me this is not the decisive factor in me changing my mind, just one contributory factor.
By the way, Alphon did confess to the crime, you know..
Peter Louis Alphon was in the lineup. the victim did not choose Alphon, She chose Hanratty the same guy who's semen DNA is on her underwear from the night of the crime.
-
Peter Louis Alphon was in the lineup. the victim did not choose Alphon, She chose Hanratty the same guy who's semen DNA is on her underwear from the night of the crime.
The first identity parade Storie chose another man completely. But I agree there would have to be a massive conspiracy for Hanratty to be innocent.
-
yes it was - and that was quite clear.
the only good thing was seeing the house re-created - that was interesting .
But they missed out so much stuff . It was unbelievable .
Another objection to the Drama is that my daughter informs me that her friend is now convinced that Bamber is guilty, not through personal investigation but just by watching the TV drama which is distinctly biased. For example someon informed me that at one point Jeremy turned from his then girlfriend and "smirked". How was he known to have smirked if he was facing away from her?
little suggestions like that are smuggled in so as to work upon one's subconscious mind.
-
Another objection to the Drama is that my daughter informs me that her friend is now convinced that Bamber is guilty, not through personal investigation but just by watching the TV drama which is distinctly biased. For example someon informed me that at one point Jeremy turned from his then girlfriend and "smirked". How was he known to have smirked if he was facing away from her?
little suggestions like that are smuggled in so as to work upon one's subconscious mind.
I'm convinced Godzilla is real. I saw it on TV. ;)
-
I'm convinced Godzilla is real. I saw it on TV. ;)
He's right. The drama (and associated press articles / TV interviews) have created a new army of guilters. Public opinion in this case matters. If this was a sports match, I would say the score is: Authorities 20 Defence 2.
-
He's right. The drama (and associated press articles / TV interviews) have created a new army of guilters. Public opinion in this case matters. If this was a sports match, I would say the score is: Authorities 20 Defence 2.
Since the drama started the CT have gained over a thousand followers on twitter. The petition has gained over a thousand signatures. And the JB justice group has almost doubled its members.
More people have joined this forum in the last two months, than in the first four years of this forum combined.
-
And I've heard that there's a campaign on the go to " keep JB in prison ". Anyone else heard or is it just Merseyside ? I've looked online but can't find anything. It's to do with child killers.
One of the inmates at Wakefield has been prominent in my local paper of late so I don't know if this sparked anything. The name of the prisoner is Robert Maudsley and he's killed a child killer and other abusers of children. He's the most dangerous man alive. No doubt if he hadn't been segregated all these years there'd have been a few more on his list.
-
This " campaign " appears to have been formed since the drama on TV when people learned that JB was in the same prison as the above monster. Not so much that they know the full facts----it's all about the prison.
-
I always thought the commissioning of this drama was a mistake, whichever side you're on.
-
Since the drama started the CT have gained over a thousand followers on twitter. The petition has gained over a thousand signatures. And the JB justice group has almost doubled its members.
More people have joined this forum in the last two months, than in the first four years of this forum combined.
The figures you mention are paltry. Millions of people will have viewed the drama. Verdict: evil; guilty; inheritance killer; child killer.. Etc etc. Ask around. Whether it's a masterstroke or whether it's a Godsend, it's benefited the authorities in upholding the convictions.
-
The figures you mention are paltry. Millions of people will have viewed the drama. Verdict: evil; guilty; inheritance killer; child killer.. Etc etc. Ask around. Whether it's a masterstroke or whether it's a Godsend, it's benefited the authorities in upholding the convictions.
From what I have heard, they made the evidence at his trial look even more flimsy than it already was.
-
I always thought the commissioning of this drama was a mistake, whatever side you're on.
The whole point was to make profit. So not a mistake for ITV.
-
I wonder why JB was moved to Wakefield ?
-
Hi troops, first proper post, so be gentle!!
Episode 1 or 2 I think, Jeremy's car parked outside WHF, Vauxhall Astra, was it a GTE model he had or is it another of those artistic licence moments??
On another car note, on looking through the photo section one is of Nevills Citroen outside Goldhanger, was this the night/ day of the killings? If so was there a reason offered why it was there???
Cheers.
-
Nevill's car was fingerprinted outside Jeremy's house in Goldhanger but I've no idea why it was there.
-
There were spots of blood found in Nevill's Citroën. I don't think we ever found out why.
-
The blood was tested Steve but I haven't heard about results from it. I'm sure if it had anything to do with JB we'd have heard long before now. It could have been used to transport Sheila to hospital after she'd cut herself that time.
-
Some say that JB used the Citroen when driving to WHF, yet others say it was the Astra.?
-
Some say that JB used the Citroen when driving to WHF, yet others say it was the Astra.?
Bews, Myall and Saxby passed Jeremy's silver Vauxhall Astra on Tollesbury Road that morning, shortly before 3:48am.
-
Bews, Myall and Saxby passed Jeremy's silver Vauxhall Astra on Tollesbury Road that morning, shortly before 3:48am.
Any idea of the model Steve_uk?
Pure nosey-ness on my part
-
Any idea of the model Steve_uk?
Pure nosey-ness on my part
I don't know FMC, but somebody might, as there are a few locals on here.
-
The TVs drama had a GTE in the drive way, just wondering if it's that model he had, more the incredulous speed ( or lack there-of) of making his way to WHF, what better excuse to put his foot down than an alleged panic call to him, if it's the sporty model he did have!!
-
Could have been a MK1 or an Opel , in the 80's.
-
The figures you mention are paltry. Millions of people will have viewed the drama. Verdict: evil; guilty; inheritance killer; child killer.. Etc etc. Ask around. Whether it's a masterstroke or whether it's a Godsend, it's benefited the authorities in upholding the convictions.
I have been told that Jeremy has received an influx of letters since the series ended and is struggling to reply to them all.
Seems the dark forces at conspiracy HQ that commissioned the show have miscalculated. 👍
-
I can't really see much good has come out of this drama except maybe Colin has found the experience cathartic and received a small sum to supplement his pension pot, though foregoing his anonymity in the process. Carol Ann Lee's book has been somewhat eviscerated, though it may encourage the general public to read up on the case for themselves.
-
I have been told that Jeremy has received an influx of letters since the series ended and is struggling to reply to them all.
Seems the dark forces at conspiracy HQ that commissioned the show have miscalculated. 👍
I’m not surprised. Imagine the Jury or the relatives of members of the jury. Other documentary makers and producers from here and America.
I have always thought the publicity will get more important become involved.
Carol Ann Lee clearly misled the public to sell books
The whole thing was a farce
-
I have been told that Jeremy has received an influx of letters since the series ended and is struggling to reply to them all.
Seems the dark forces at conspiracy HQ that commissioned the show have miscalculated. 👍
I never used the phrase 'Dark forces'. I stand by my assertion that's it's either deliberate or opportunist media manipulation. For every new person who writes to Jeremy, a thousand other people will say 'guilty as sin'.
-
The TVs drama had a GTE in the drive way, just wondering if it's that model he had, more the incredulous speed ( or lack there-of) of making his way to WHF, what better excuse to put his foot down than an alleged panic call to him, if it's the sporty model he did have!!
Jeremy did indeed own a Vauxhall Astra 1984 GTE.
-
I have been told that Jeremy has received an influx of letters since the series ended and is struggling to reply to them all.
Seems the dark forces at conspiracy HQ that commissioned the show have miscalculated. 👍
Yes I have heard this as well . But also a lot of very nasty trolls on twitter .The worst sort who can’t just have a discussion but who are extremely personal and allegedly threatening those who believe he might be innocent.
-
I actually think the drama was badly directed. In particular the trial. It completely failed to build any drama and it just didn't convey the full horror of the crimes. Would've been much more dramatic and true to the real case if it had been done in a docu-drama style.
Think 'Jeremy' character was over acted. Disappointed and if it had not been a real life case I would have not bothered watching after the first part.
-
I actually think the drama was badly directed. In particular the trial. It completely failed to build any drama and it just didn't convey the full horror of the crimes. Would've been much more dramatic and true to the real case if it had been done in a docu-drama style.
Think 'Jeremy' character was over acted. Disappointed and if it had not been a real life case I would have not bothered watching after the first part.
Yes I know a few people actually found it quite slow a boring . Which sounds terrible . But they were confused.
I think they did not understand why jeremy was portrayed so differently in different scenarios l so when he ws with Anne his behaviour was based in her statements / interpretation. When he was with Colin it was based on his experience and by his own admission he saw noting odd or when he did put it down to shock or perhaps an opinion that everyone deals with grief differently. Colin was more upset about the “ family “ behaviour.
But the viewer did not understand that .
I watched crimes that shook Britain tonight and it was interesting that the local journalist who was reporting thought that Jeremy looked genuinely distraught at the funeral .
There was so much more they could have done with the drama and tbh I am very surprised that for the six episodes they missed so much . It was a bit like they had a point to make . Then they dumbed it down and then the actual court case was just rushed through with no evidence even from the eatons or boutflours or even the questions the jury had .
Like I said I still find it very odd . Why make a drama to prove that a Gulity man ( because legally he is ) is guilty ?
-
Why make a drama to prove that a Gulity man ( because legally he is ) is guilty ?
To create a larger public opinion base, who believe Bamber is a narcissist or psychopath etc, writing desparate letters from prison and 'clutching at straws'. Then if any further claims or submissions get stonewalled or rejected, there are lots more new guilters to cushion the authorities from anyone like me, David1819 and Mrs. change.org from protesting.
-
Jeremy did indeed own a Vauxhall Astra 1984 GTE.
Thanks for that Janet, seems even more puzzling to be dawdling along the road in a sports car at 3/4 in the morning
-
Thanks for that Janet, seems even more puzzling to be dawdling along the road in a sports car at 3/4 in the morning
I wouldn’t call above 30mph at night dawdling.
-
Thanks for that Janet, seems even more puzzling to be dawdling along the road in a sports car at 3/4 in the morning
He'd already been done for speeding so he wouldn't have risked overtaking the police, would he ?
-
He'd already been done for speeding so he wouldn't have risked overtaking the police, would he ?
Hi lookout, was he not in front of the police?? I'm sure the police would have other pressing matters to think about than to dish out a speeding ticket if he'd been motoring to WHF, on a road I assume he knew well
-
Hi lookout, was he not in front of the police?? I'm sure the police would have other pressing matters to think about than to dish out a speeding ticket if he'd been motoring to WHF, on a road I assume he knew well
I don't think I'd be in a great rush if I thought I could get shot at. It was with trepidation that Jeremy drove to WHF not knowing what to expect.
-
He'd already been done for speeding . . .
When? Any connection with when he wrote off his previous car?
-
I wouldn’t call above 30mph at night dawdling.
I am always doubtful about police statements even to the point of mocking them sometimes. They reported Jeremy as dawdling. I'm not sure about anyone else here but when I hear or see a police car behind me I always slowdown or pull over to let them pass. Quite frankly I am very surprised that this never actually entered their heads? But then as is often with the police the obvious never does.