Yes I'm quite sure thank you. I'm glad you accept my first three points, but sooner or later in your posts you do start to make excuses for a convicted mass murderer.
To me, this sentence sums up perfectly the way your mind works and how you think. In your narrow, tiny mind, you think that because I defend Jeremy on one point, even if on a factual or rational basis, that must mean I am also defending the very worst thing he could have done. You don't exactly phrase it like this. Instead, you put it more carefully: as me defending him on something, therefore I am defending a convicted mass murderer. The care with which you put it implies disingenuousness. It's like suggesting that if I point out that something factual put about concerning, say, Ian Huntley, is incorrect or could be misconceived, that means I am defending a convicted child killer.
That's how disingenuous you are. You can't say I am defending child killing or excusing a child killer, because you know I haven't done that and never would. Instead, you're dishonestly trying to associate me with the stain of a convicted mass murderer because I respect facts and fairness. It's scummy. It's the sort of thing you'd expect from a tabloid or housewives on Mail Online or Mumsnet, or from inferior IQ morons on something like Facebook.
As far as the funeral at St Nicholas' Parish Church is concerned it's true that there is no specific prohibition on cremation in either the Church of England or Roman Catholicism but it was June's wish to be buried, and her son failed to carry out that wish. I will leave members to speculate as I do whether there was a subterfuge in Bamber's actions: namely he was frightened his parents' bodies would be dug up at a future date for forensic analysis.
Essex Police recommended a verdict to the coroner, who then released the bodies to Jeremy. Sheila and the boys were buried, not cremated. In the case of Nevill and June, since you concede that my rationalisation of Jeremy's actions is plausible, we're left to speculate as to whether, as you say, there was some ulterior motive for it. I don't know.
The Bamberettes have to deny the accused attmepted to sell lewd photographs of his dead sister. It's quite clear not just from Fielder's evidence but corroborated by Colin that he attempted to do so. By the way: you have confused the photographs Bamber discovered of Sheila with the ones Colin took at White House Farm several years previously and which June confiscated, keeping them locked in her bureau in her mind for safe keeping.
I'm not denying that he attempted to sell such photographs. I am expressing scepticism about it. I do not believe the say-so of this Fielder can be relied on at all, and what Colin says has to be treated with caution. It is all the word of Fielder and Colin. There is no hard proof. One thing I have asked myself is why Fielder did not go ahead with the transaction in order to establish his newspaper's story. Instead, the entire story rests on Fielder's account of a meeting. And where are these photographs you (i.e. Carol Ann Lee) say were in the bureau? What happened to them? Is it likely that June would retain such photographs, given her conservative moral outlook?
One further point: the heirlooms weren't his until probate had been granted. As it turned out subsequently they weren't his then either.
This not true. In fact, possessions can be sold before probate is granted, and I note that Jeremy kept a record of the transactions, thus he was acting properly and correctly. This must be another of those 'erroneous' points you say I have made that actually turned out not to be erroneous; in fact the error is on your part.
