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

[Steve_uk]

To me, this sentence sums up perfectly the way your mind words 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.

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. 


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?

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.

You see this is you all over. You do strive for some impartiality but your credibility is torn to shreds in the process. Jeremy Bamber is not a predator, but even on a bad day you're 96% certain he's guilty. Don't try to wriggle out of it.

You did deny that Bamber attempted to sell photographs, because you put Michael Fielder and Jeremy Bamber on a par with each other. You always get round to skewing your posts in favour of a mass murderer somehow, don't you?

I'll leave you to do the spadework on the Sheila photographs. I'm sick and tired of figuratively wiping your bottom.

[Steve_uk]

Just more ridiculousness.  He is a personality on YouTube.  I am not giving him 'airtime'.  I am linking to a video that contains a discussion about the case, so is relevant to the Forum.

Moderator: Isn't there a point when this has to stop?  This is supposed to be a Forum for adult discussion of the case, not a day-care facility for childish people with mental and personality issues.

It adds nothing to our sum of knowledge on the case and is indicative of how your second-rate mind works.

[JackieD]

What are you talking about?  I posted the video in a thread called "A thread for Shaun Attwood podcasts".  I didn't post it because it had Matthew Steeples in it.  This was explained in the thread itself.  Do you actually even read what people say?

Furthermore, just because I post a video in which a particular person speaks, it doesn't follow that I endorse what that person says.  If that was your assumption, then I really don't know what to say.  The only thing I could say about it is something quite insulting about your intelligence, which would probably earn me another questionable ban.  Then again, since you spend most of your time on here insulting our intelligence, you could argue that there would be nothing in it.

You say that some of my posts are erroneous.  I'm sure they are, but whenever you try to correct me, you fail, so wherever these erroneous posts of mine are, they seem curiously difficult to find - which suggests at least some of them exist in your head.  I'm doing better than you anyway, because most of what you post on here is erroneous. 

We do not know what Jeremy planned to tell a newspaper, assuming he did have a deal with them.  That is true, isn't it.  Since what I say is self-evidently true, I'm not clear what your bone of contention is.
Thus, I'm also not clear why you're not sure what I mean when I say we don't know.  As usual, it's not clear what you're babbling about.  Unless you share Betty Shine's talent and you can channel to Jeremy through the fourth dimension and tell us?  If so, we're all on tenterhooks.   

You say that Douglas Pike's evidence confirms Jeremy's hatred of domestic harmony.  It does nothing of the kind.  That's arrant, illogical nonsense.  You simply do not know what you are talking about and I am having difficulty taking you seriously.  My interventions in these threads are for the purpose of correcting you, and I must say, given your arrogance and rudeness, I am taking great pleasure in ripping your posts to shreds.

And I’m enjoying reading your posts ripping Steve’s posts to shreads 🥰🥰🥰

[Steve_uk]

And I’m enjoying reading your posts ripping Steve’s posts to shreads 🥰🥰🥰

I'm glad you're entertained by an ex-con and a former drug dealer. In fact: two ex-cons.

[Steve_uk]

And you and your mate Mugford are pure evil. I bet you get off on the thought of Mugfords visit to the mortuary.
There are no words for people like you. I bet you were a pen pal of Myra Hindley too

You can see the truth but refuse to acknowledge it
Sad person

I can see that Maxine Carr and Julie Mugford were victims of persuasive conmen, both of whom turned to murder.

[guest29835]

It adds nothing to our sum of knowledge on the case and is indicative of how your second-rate mind works.

Who is this 'our'?  People who visit this Forum will have different levels of knowledge on the case, and there will be people here who are new to the case.  Goodness knows what they make of these threads and your arrogant and obnoxious attitude, but that aside, the interview of Steeples serves as an introduction from a pro-innocent point-of-view. 

I don't necessarily agree with the innocent point-of-view, but I am impartial enough to allow it and consider it.  Personally, I think Matthew Steeples' understanding of the case is quite basic, and I have made that clear several times now, including in the past on a different thread.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what else there is to say.  I still don't quite understand what point you're trying to get across to us here.

As an aside, if I ever come across a pro-guilt podcast or video or whatever that I think has not been posted here yet, I will post it up, and on several occasions I have already done so.

[JackieD]

I can see that Maxine Carr and Julie Mugford were victims of persuasive conmen, both of whom turned to murder.

The difference is Maxine Carr never made any requests to view Jessica or Hollies bodies

[Adam]

The difference is Maxine Carr never made any requests to view Jessica or Hollies bodies

Maxine Carr did not have that option.

Julie offerred. No one else did. She might as well try to do something helpful after Bamber told her 'don't go to work. A police car is coming to pick you up'.

[lookout]

JM didn't have to offer. Why did she anyway ? I never did see the logic in it.

[Adam]

JM didn't have to offer. Why did she anyway ? I never did see the logic in it.

Why not offer? No one else did. It's called 'trying to help".

[Adam]

The allegation that he attempted to sell lewd photographs of his sister is disputed by Jeremy and relies on the word of a particularly scummy tabloid journalist who was well-known for telling lies, making things up and exaggerating, and is now deceased.

----------

Have you got some examples?

It looks like I am not going to get a response from QC on this. Which is disappointing as would have been good to know.

[David1819]

It seems that according to Bill, the "evidence" that Sheila rang 999 is Stan Jones saying in 2002 he wouldn't want to use the kitchen phone due to the state of the kitchen.

Or maybe the "forces of darkness" are preventing him for revealing more?

The data uncovered is stunning and conclusive; won't be long to wait now. Can't say any more. The forces of darkness are watching.

[guest29835]

It looks like I am not going to get a response from QC on this. Which is disappointing as would have been good to know.

I'm still in a sulk Adam because you didn't recommend me for the CT. 

It's good that I'm still receiving your moral support via the PM system.  Appreciate this may require you to give me the 'hard word' now and then, plus the odd ban.  It's all character-building.

[lookout]

It seems that according to Bill, the "evidence" that Sheila rang 999 is Stan Jones saying in 2002 he wouldn't want to use the kitchen phone due to the state of the kitchen.

Or maybe the "forces of darkness" are preventing him for revealing more?

The phone was covered in blood  Until it was wiped for use.

[David1819]

The phone was covered in blood  Until it was wiped for use.

No, it wasn’t.