The Official Jeremy Bamber and White House Farm Podcast Series - Season 1

[guest29835]

He's just done it again. Reply 896.

I missed something in my criticism of you above.

You say something.  Then you deny you said it.  But I forgot to say why you behave like this.

It's because you sometimes overstep the mark and get things wrong.  Instead of admitting it, when you get caught out on something, you just brazenly deny it.

Just back from a deserved ban & already causing trouble.

To be fair it was up to Rob to quote my post. However you got involved.

It's not up to anybody to do anything.  This is a voluntary forum.  You know as well I do that you should have been dealt with by moderation long, long ago.  You're on a blag.  I for one will not play your games, but I will stop by now and then to call you out.

Calling a Forum member 'Mad Jackie.

----------

Just back from a deserved ban & up to your old tricks again. Choosing to ignore JackieD's earlier rude posts towards me.

JackieD has been known as 'Mad' Jackie on both Red & Blue for years. Not hard to see why.

I don't condone other members insulting you - if that is what happened - but let's be completely honest about this.

You, and a certain other screenhandle here, have been at this now for years.  Innumerable members have complained about you and expressed their frustrations at your attitude and behaviour and your posting style.  You know the score.  Let's not pretend.

[Adam]

So you are stating as fact  it was one cheque given fraudulently for one transaction of £700

Provide your source

The source is ground 5 of the COA.

Only one cheque book fraud is mentioned. The one with Susan Battersby.

[Adam]

I missed something in my criticism of you above.

You say something.  Then you deny you said it.  But I forgot to say why you behave like this.

It's because you sometimes overstep the mark and get things wrong.  Instead of admitting it, when you get caught out on something, you just brazenly deny it.

It's not up to anybody to do anything.  This is a voluntary forum.  You know as well I do that you should have been dealt with by moderation long, long ago.  You're on a blag.  I for one will not play your games, but I will stop by now and then to call you out.

I don't condone other members insulting you - if that is what happened - but let's be completely honest about this.

You, and a certain other screenhandle here, have been at this now for years.  Innumerable members have complained about you and expressed their frustrations at your attitude and behaviour and your posting style.  You know the score.  Let's not pretend.

Why don't you just discuss the case.

You got a deserved ban. Don't try to take it out on me.

[guest29835]

Why don't you just discuss the case.

You got a deserved ban. Don't try to take it out on me.

A discussion involves people listening to each other, and ideally, people should be seeking the truth.  I'm not sure you're here for that.  You have instead decided on what you think is the truth and that's what you want to discuss.  That's not the same as 'discussing the case'. 

A person who wants to discuss his own truth will bend facts to suit and will be reluctant to admit error.  It's rather like having a religion.

Of course, there are people on both sides who are like this.

You were the cause of the ban.  You started the trouble.  It's interesting that you and Steve have never been banned.  That prompts me to think that I need to be very careful on here, so I will leave it and let you have the last word - whatever that may be.

[Adam]

A discussion involves people listening to each other, and ideally, people should be seeking the truth.  I'm not sure you're here for that.  You have instead decided on what you think is the truth and that's what you want to discuss.  That's not the same as 'discussing the case'. 

A person who wants to discuss his own truth will bend facts to suit and will be reluctant to admit error.  It's rather like having a religion.

Of course, there are people on both sides who are like this.

You were the cause of the ban.  You started the trouble.  It's interesting that you and Steve have never been banned.  That prompts me to think that I need to be very careful on here, so I will leave it and let you have the last word - whatever that may be.

There you go again. Blaming other people for your deserved ban.

[JackieD]

The source is ground 5 of the COA.

Only one cheque book fraud is mentioned. The one with Susan Battersby.

I have asked to provide your source. I want the details. You have nothing else going on in your life

I await the details of the one transaction of cheque fraud

[ngb1066]

A discussion involves people listening to each other, and ideally, people should be seeking the truth.  I'm not sure you're here for that.  You have instead decided on what you think is the truth and that's what you want to discuss.  That's not the same as 'discussing the case'. 

A person who wants to discuss his own truth will bend facts to suit and will be reluctant to admit error.  It's rather like having a religion.

Of course, there are people on both sides who are like this.

You were the cause of the ban.  You started the trouble.  It's interesting that you and Steve have never been banned. That prompts me to think that I need to be very careful on here, so I will leave it and let you have the last word - whatever that may be.

Both have been banned in the past.

[JackieD]

He said the original trial had heard Julie Mugford and one of her flatmates at the time, Susan Battersby, had admitted acting together in spending

Miss Battersby's cheques


after reporting them stolen to the bank.


Cheques plural

[Adam]

I have asked to provide your source. I want the details. You have nothing else going on in your life

I await the details of the one transaction of cheque fraud

The source is in the COA. One minor joint fraud. The bank did not prosecute.

If it was multiple frauds Julie would not have been able to pay back everything. Which the judge said she had done. 

[Steve_uk]

He said the original trial had heard Julie Mugford and one of her flatmates at the time, Susan Battersby, had admitted acting together in spending

Miss Battersby's cheques


after reporting them stolen to the bank.


Cheques plural

Jackie it was a spur-of-the-moment one day white collar crime spree. Jeremy Bamber killed five.

[JackieD]

Jackie it was a spur-of-the-moment one day white collar crime spree. Jeremy Bamber killed five.

I am still waiting to see any evidence to show Jeremy was responsible

I am 99% sure there is t any

[Adam]

I am still waiting to see any evidence to show Jeremy was responsible

I am 99% sure there is t any

Bamber is the only alive possible suspect. All the evidence shows it was not Sheila.

Not sure what more can be supplied.

[guest29835]

Latest podcast is about the phones:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LefLvrfaWO0

[JackieD]

Bamber is the only alive possible suspect. All the evidence shows it was not Sheila.

Not sure what more can be supplied.

You haven’t shown any evidence. Big fat zero and you choose to believe the chief prosecution witness who is a pathological liar with clear mental health issues

You continue to post lies on this forum saying there was only one fraudulent cheque transaction of £700

Even you with your lack of intelligence seem unable to grasp that even Julie would not be stupid enough to write a fraudulent cheque for £700 (today’s value over £2000) which would have looked suspicious.

I am fed up with looking at your long ridiculous posts and normally skip them but I will react when you post absolute lies

£700 (today’s value £2000) is not a minor cheque fraud and was from a number of retail outlets

Stop the lies or don’t post

[Adam]

You haven’t shown any evidence. Big fat zero and you choose to believe the chief prosecution witness who is a pathological liar with clear mental health issues

You continue to post lies on this forum saying there was only one fraudulent cheque transaction of £700

Even you with your lack of intelligence seem unable to grasp that even Julie would not be stupid enough to write a fraudulent cheque for £700 (today’s value over £2000) which would have looked suspicious.

I am fed up with looking at your long ridiculous posts and normally skip them but I will react when you post absolute lies

£700 (today’s value £2000) is not a minor cheque fraud and was from a number of retail outlets

Stop the lies or don’t post

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 kitchen sink being moved on massacre night - 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 and Nevill's. Meaning the silencer was used. Not disputed. COA.


71:

Nevill having the oppportunity to restrain Sheila while fully fit prior to her firing shots. Not disputed. AGREED BY ALL PARTIES.