Did JM ever really love Jeremy Bamber?

[vidvic]

vidvic why do you continually make things up you are making yourself look stupid again this is what you said

(2)  What was overheard being told to police
This is well documented.

(3)  By who
Ann, David, Bobby. Again, well documented.


so have you changed your story and are you now saying it was Mugford

Explain yourself when you make statements about the above

Jackie, you specifically mentioned the "I should have been an actor" quote from JB. This was in JM's statements.

AS I HAVE ANSWERED BEFORE, there were many things Jeremy said to Police and Relatives that alerted their suspicions. This is well documented. You will get the same answer however big you make your font.

[Hartley]

Thankyou Hartley I dont know the sea wall so I couldnt comment but Chochokeira knows the area well and she believes it was too dangerous for JB to have left the farm that way

We've done the sea wall and alternative routes to death, but that wasn't the point. The point was describing the bike as an old boneshaker where as it was a top notch model purchased just a few months earlier.

The point was berating people for posting inaccurate statements which are consistently coming from those in the guilty camp, however it seems to flow both ways.

[chochokeira]

Can you fill me in what I am supposed to have said about the bike because I have not please post details now

Yes I can. See below.

I just told that story to my friend but I was laughing so much it took me twenty minutes this is the most ridiculous situation I have ever experienced I don't think Essex police had a brain between them can you imagine it.  I haven't heard them do one single thing right in this case but Chocho won't it be brilliant when the person who said it wouldn't be a problem turns up for the reconstruction

Do you think  we could find a boneshaker from somewhere

Harters, 

You know the sea wall route, so you know that the sea wall path is part compacted earth (or mud when it rains), part gravel, part stones, part clumps of weeds and part clumps of grass. That's these days. In the 1980s, prior to the radical health and safety improvements carried out,  much of the path was crumbling away and there were clumps of grass the size of sleeping policemen. Anyone taking that route on June's bicycle would have felt were riding a bone shaker, wouldn't they?

[Hartley]

Harters, 

You know the sea wall route, so you know that the sea wall path is part compacted earth (or mud when it rains), part gravel, part stones, part clumps of weeds and part clumps of grass. That's these days. In the 1980s, prior to the radical health and safety improvements carried out,  much of the path was crumbling away and there were clumps of grass the size of sleeping policemen. Anyone taking that route on June's bicycle would have felt were riding a bone shaker, wouldn't they?

See my post below.

Maybe so, I understand your point, but I also don't think it is as implausable as what you have previously made out. I don't know if that's what happened or not, but I thinks it's a possibility and can't be dismissed out of hand so easily.

A good deal of the journey can be covered today between fields, not field margins with tyre puncturing spikes of harvest wheat, but via a network of farm tracks wide enough to get a tractor down.

What it was like 26 years ago I have no idea, but the scenario was rightly or wrongly accepted at the time.

[Jackiepreece]

Vidvic there wasnt anything was there or you would post it hearsay from everyone involved not one single shred of evidence. You can document hearsay all day long but thats all it is

Vidvic you are so sure that the police have got it right tell me why do you post on this forum because I couldnt be bothered if I was so sure

At this moment in time we have no actual proof that JB, Sheila or any of the relatives are responsible for the murders or this case would not be with the ccrc STILL

Unless you are unaware juries get it wrong

[chochokeira]

Can you fill me in what I am supposed to have said about the bike because I have not please post details now

Yes I can. See below.

I just told that story to my friend but I was laughing so much it took me twenty minutes this is the most ridiculous situation I have ever experienced I don't think Essex police had a brain between them can you imagine it.  I haven't heard them do one single thing right in this case but Chocho won't it be brilliant when the person who said it wouldn't be a problem turns up for the reconstruction

Do you think  we could find a boneshaker from somewhere

Harters, 

You know the sea wall route, so you know that the sea wall path is part compacted earth (or mud when it rains), part gravel, part stones, part clumps of weeds and part clumps of grass. That's these days. In the 1980s, prior to the radical health and safety improvements carried out,  much of the path was crumbling away and there were clumps of grass the size of sleeping policemen. Anyone taking that route on June's bicycle would have felt were riding a bone shaker, wouldn't they?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,614.30.htmlhttp://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,614.30.html

[bob]

Bob
What happens constantly on this forum is certain things are stated as fact when this is not true and this consitantly happens from the people who think JB is guilty and I just want to get to the bottom of why this keeps happening

Somehow we are led to believe JB hated his father because they had a shouting match once
it is just laughable I cannot believe what wickedness came out of Ann Eatons mouth she is even trying to make out what Granny Speakman thought of Jeremy.  I hope she reads this forum what a vile person what a nasty bunch of relatives to be adopted into

Jackie - this doesn't answer my question but I agree with the first part about people not stating as fact things that are not true. That is exactly why I discount the Shaw manuscript - as it has no sources to back up whether it is true or not. On what basis do you accept it as truth?

And back to my original question - does the Wilkes book quote detailed sources?

[vidvic]

Vidvic there wasnt anything was there or you would post it hearsay from everyone involved not one single shred of evidence. You can document hearsay all day long but thats all it is

Vidvic you are so sure that the police have got it right tell me why do you post on this forum because I couldnt be bothered if I was so sure

At this moment in time we have no actual proof that JB, Sheila or any of the relatives are responsible for the murders or this case would not be with the ccrc STILL

Unless you are unaware juries get it wrong

Jackie, I post on this forum to give a voice to the family against posts such as "I hope she reads this forum what a vile person what a nasty bunch of relatives to be adopted into"

[Jerry]

What happens constantly on this forum is certain things are stated as fact when this is not true and this consitantly happens from the people who think JB is guilty and I just want to get to the bottom of why this keeps happening

Get out of here Jackie, you and others kept on stating as fact that Ann took blood soaked clothes home to Oak Farm, you then used this as a tool to try and show Ann's behaviour as abnormal, I've since corrected you all on that score.

The same deal with describing Junes bike as a bone shaker.

Does Pot, kettle, black spring to mind?

I think this consistently  happens from the people who think JB is innocent as often (actually I think a lot more often).

..or should that be "if the cap fits"  Hartley?? 

[Jerry]

Vidvic there wasnt anything was there or you would post it hearsay from everyone involved not one single shred of evidence. You can document hearsay all day long but thats all it is

Vidvic you are so sure that the police have got it right tell me why do you post on this forum because I couldnt be bothered if I was so sure

At this moment in time we have no actual proof that JB, Sheila or any of the relatives are responsible for the murders or this case would not be with the ccrc STILL

Unless you are unaware juries get it wrong

Jackie, I post on this forum to give a voice to the family against posts such as "I hope she reads this forum what a vile person what a nasty bunch of relatives to be adopted into"

Quite agree Vidvic, what gives anyone the right to criticise individuals and a family they really know very little about?

[bob]

Vidvic there wasnt anything was there or you would post it hearsay from everyone involved not one single shred of evidence. You can document hearsay all day long but thats all it is

Vidvic you are so sure that the police have got it right tell me why do you post on this forum because I couldnt be bothered if I was so sure

At this moment in time we have no actual proof that JB, Sheila or any of the relatives are responsible for the murders or this case would not be with the ccrc STILL

Unless you are unaware juries get it wrong

Jackie, I post on this forum to give a voice to the family against posts such as "I hope she reads this forum what a vile person what a nasty bunch of relatives to be adopted into"

Quite agree Vidvic, what gives anyone the right to criticise individuals and a family they really know very little about?

+1 Vic & Jerry

[vidvic]

Bob
What happens constantly on this forum is certain things are stated as fact when this is not true and this consitantly happens from the people who think JB is guilty and I just want to get to the bottom of why this keeps happening

Somehow we are led to believe JB hated his father because they had a shouting match once
it is just laughable I cannot believe what wickedness came out of Ann Eatons mouth she is even trying to make out what Granny Speakman thought of Jeremy.  I hope she reads this forum what a vile person what a nasty bunch of relatives to be adopted into

Jackie - this doesn't answer my question but I agree with the first part about people not stating as fact things that are not true. That is exactly why I discount the Shaw manuscript - as it has no sources to back up whether it is true or not. On what basis do you accept it as truth?

And back to my original question - does the Wilkes book quote detailed sources?

Yes and No. For the most part yes and the interviews are across both sides of the fence, family, friends and legal teams. It's as unbiased account as I've seen, leaving the reader to make up your own mind. Had fantastic access to statements.

[curiousessex]

Bob
What happens constantly on this forum is certain things are stated as fact when this is not true and this consitantly happens from the people who think JB is guilty and I just want to get to the bottom of why this keeps happening

Somehow we are led to believe JB hated his father because they had a shouting match once
it is just laughable I cannot believe what wickedness came out of Ann Eatons mouth she is even trying to make out what Granny Speakman thought of Jeremy.  I hope she reads this forum what a vile person what a nasty bunch of relatives to be adopted into

Jackie - this doesn't answer my question but I agree with the first part about people not stating as fact things that are not true. That is exactly why I discount the Shaw manuscript - as it has no sources to back up whether it is true or not. On what basis do you accept it as truth?

And back to my original question - does the Wilkes book quote detailed sources?

As far as I am aware the Wilkes book was based on a number of sourrces, interviews with witnesses, references to evidence used in the trial, references to trial transcripts, reports commissioned some of which were specifically done at Jeremy's request (a report from Professor Herbert MacDonell in relation to blood / ballistics aspects of the shootings).

Page 3 of the book details -

'The book has been written with the help of Jeremy Bamber, but not at his bidding; indeed, it is manifestly not the one-sided book in support of his innocence that he might have hoped for. But he knows I never promised him that. Indeed I have taken into account, and reflected, several points of view, often bearing on the same point or turn of events. You, the reader, can judge for yourself, without my own prejudices or opinions getting in the way. In any case, on the known facts, likelihoods and suppositions, the dispassionate observer might feel that the question of who really did it is just too close to call.'

[bob]

Thanks Vic and CE - in that case it would appear to be a more reliable account than most. I'll have to give it a go...

[Jackiepreece]

Bob
I have never said the David Shaw manuscript is fact where have I said that