Build up to 'That is what you have got to try and establish'.

[Steve_uk]

I'm appalled at your contributions to this thread tonight QCChevalier, which show a cavalier attitude to the court process, demonstrate an ignorance of the facts and are in thoroughly bad taste.

[Steve_uk]

Paul Osborne did.  Off-hand, I can't recall about the others.

The significant one is Jean Bouttell.  Barbara Wilson was up close to the business matters of the family.  Jeremy was still young and not yet in sync with the lifestyle of his parents and their aspirations for him.  He was bound to cause tensions and Nevill had Barbara as a sounding board.

Jean saw things more at the personal end, and like Barbara, would have seen both the good and bad sides of Jeremy, but perhaps developed an attachment to him and a more balanced view, having seen him grow up.

You've got some of this right but if Barbara is Nevill's confidante then she is by far the most important character of the two. Nevill confides in her that he has a premonition of his own demise. You couldn't get a more serious discussion.

[Steve_uk]

Do they?  If I said, "I hate my parents", does this mean I hate my parents?  What people say should not always be taken literally.

I think the only real basis for believing Jeremy hated his parents is Julie Mugford's evidence, but supporters mostly reject her evidence entirely.

James Richards made an affidavit, sworn in front of a solicitor. He then proceeded to the High Court, swore an oath of some kind to tell the truth and proceeded to give evidence.

[Adam]

Jean Bouttell testified that items around the kitchen window had been moved overnight.

These were usually items that stayed in the same place.  Such as a sink tidy.

[Steve_uk]

Also Robert Boutflour.  Don't forget him!  And I'm sure we've missed somebody.  Maybe Barbara Wilson. 

I don't take the evidence from Mary Mugford or James Richards seriously. It's joke evidence.

Barbara Wilson's evidence was useful for the last phone call at 9.30 p.m. approximately, but not for much else.  Let us put in a word for fickle Barbara, though, as Orwell did for the Vicar of Bray: remember that Barbara was also willing to shop Peter Eaton for suspected fraud.

Ann Eaton and Robert Boutflour's evidence is only good for what they say about the search of the farmhouse.  There may be one or two other things that have slipped my mind, but you can't seriously expect me to rely on them for Jeremy's feelings about his parents?  You'll be trying to sell me cat basket insurance next.

Julie Mugford is where the action is at, and curiously it all rests on her word.

Did Colin Caffell mention anything about Jeremy saying he hates his parents or similar?  The nearest I recall is that, apparently, according to Colin, a week or so before the killings, Jeremy tried to suggest that his parents were using Colin in some way, or so Colin claims.  Not sure if that was entered in evidence, but Colin mentions it in his book.

While we're on that topic, why do you think Jeremy killed two six year-old-boys?  Just for the money, was it?  Would you accept that to kill them for the money, there would have to have been a strong underlying feeling of hatred towards them? The rationalisation Jeremy allegedly gave Julie that the twins were already mentally-damaged is surely not convincing, even if he really said it.

Jeremy is given away at birth by Juliet. He is adopted by well-meaning but unexpressive parents. Both Sheila and Jeremy learn how to manipulate them for their own ends. Sheila is given a flat in London. Jeremy is told his life is mapped out toiling on the farm. He resents paying to furnish Bourtree Cottage, hence the Osea Road burglary. Sheila brings her sons down to the farm and the grandparents show affection in a way Jeremy never received when he was their age. Jeremy anticipates the boys sent away to public school, courtesy of his parents and lessening his inheritance. Under police interrogation he concedes the twins may be mentioned in the wills. Jeremy is tied to farming for the duration of his father's lifetime. He is worried June will leave a substantial sum to the Church.

[Steve_uk]

I always get confused about this murder plot notion they sometimes come out with.  Apparently, according to Colin, Barbara, David, Jimmy Savile, or Maggie Thatcher - I'm not sure who claims it, I always get mixed up - the Evil One, Jeremy, was plotting to murder Nevill.  I'm not quite sure how the inheritance motive fits in with this, but for sure, according to the claim, Nevill was putting together a dossier on Jeremy for the police.

Of course, naturally in these circumstances, Nevill would let Jeremy walk round with a loaded gun and keep him working on the farm.  That harvest needs bringing in!

No you wouldn't.

[Steve_uk]

I didn't say that.  I am saying that we can't rely on what they say for the purpose of concluding that Jeremy hated his parents.  It's unreasonable to do so because people say all sorts of random things that they don't mean but that could, in retrospect, be formed into an incriminating pattern.

As an aside, I have no idea if Jeremy's evidence was that witnesses such as James Richards were lying.  Jeremy didn't need to refute him, and couldn't anyway as it was a report of an uncorroborated conversation.  It's basically useless evidence. 

Same for what Robert Boutflour said on the topic.  Does Robert Boutflour claim in his evidence or diary that Jeremy had said such things about his parents for years and years?  That it was a pattern?  No.  Instead, he mentions an isolated incident, just as James Richards does.  James Richards doesn't claim that he met Jeremy on several occasions and Jeremy was always expressing hatred for his parents and was jokily boasting about a murder plot. 

It's ridiculous to rely on such evidence.  It certainly insults my intelligence and I would hope others on here would say the same for themselves.

People do, of course, but when there are five dead bodies lying around one might just be entitled to think back and recall some words which came out of a murder suspect's mouth.

[Adam]

There is no way Bamber was going to get through the next 10-20 years without being totally disinherited. He was never going to wait that long anyway.

[Steve_uk]

If the idea of killing his entire family to inherit occurred to Jeremy, wouldn't it also have occurred to Nevill that Jeremy could do this?  Yet Nevill has allowed the entire family to stay at the farmhouse.  Why would Nevill think that Jeremy only wanted to kill him?  What would be the point of that?

Of course, and it did. It's why Nevill said to Barbara that the shooting season would soon be upon them and accidents do happen.

[guest29835]

I'm appalled at your contributions to this thread tonight QCChevalier, which show a cavalier attitude to the court process, demonstrate an ignorance of the facts and are in thoroughly bad taste.

Here is an example of what I meant on the other thread: people with personality issues/psychological maladjustments and who have a vested interest in the case (I think I now know who Steve is), coming on here and winding-up and goading people with over-wrought attacks. 

People like this are not my cup of tea, I'm afraid, and I am likely to react badly to it.  Personally, I just accept that people may not agree with me, and sometimes I will have heated disagreements with them, other times it will be very civil, but as long as no offence is given, none will be taken.  I don't, as a rule, make it personal or insult them just for disagreeing or go on and on and on about it, or try to turn it into some sort of trumped-up condemnation of somebody.

I have so far counted eight replies from Steve just to my posts on this one thread, all posted in less than 50 minutes.

Steve has issues.  He brings them to the Forum.  I take the view that all of us have the right to come on here and express an opinion without being nagged about it and condemned, psychoanalysed and moralised-at. 

[guest29835]

James Richards made an affidavit, sworn in front of a solicitor. He then proceeded to the High Court, swore an oath of some kind to tell the truth and proceeded to give evidence.

Just on this specific post of yours, could you tell us:

(i). your source for this claim that James Richards swore an affidavit to a solicitor;
(ii). which of the geographic High Courts James Richards attended to swear another oath and as part of what proceedings he gave this evidence.

I am only aware of him giving evidence at Chelmsford Crown Court in the 1986 trial.

[Steve_uk]

Here is an example of what I meant on the other thread: people with personality issues/psychological maladjustments and who have a vested interest in the case (I think I now know who Steve is), coming on here and winding-up and goading people with over-wrought attacks. 

People like this are not my cup of tea, I'm afraid, and I am likely to react badly to it.  Personally, I just accept that people may not agree with me, and sometimes I will have heated disagreements with them, other times it will be very civil, but as long as no offence is given, none will be taken.  I don't, as a rule, make it personal or insult them just for disagreeing or go on and on and on about it, or try to turn it into some sort of trumped-up condemnation of somebody.

I have so far counted eight replies from Steve just to my posts on this one thread, all posted in less than 50 minutes.

Steve has issues.  He brings them to the Forum.

I won't allow you to get away with your defective reasoning, your slanting and lack of knowledge. You say I have issues? I was ready to call a truce when you disclosed there was an issue with schizophrenia in your family. I am not going to endure your propaganda. There is nothing amiss with my mental or physical health, however much you wish this to be the case.

[Steve_uk]

Just on this specific post of yours, could you tell us:

(i). your source for this claim that James Richards swore an affidavit to a solicitor;
(ii). which of the geographic High Courts James Richards attended to swear another oath and as part of what proceedings he gave this evidence.

I am only aware of him giving evidence at Chelmsford Crown Court in the 1986 trial.

Everybody has to swear some kind of oath or affirmation, whether it's on the Bible, Koran or just a declaration that they will tell the truth. This is basic stuff and shows your lack of intelligence, which admittedly was not a new revelation to me.

[guest29835]

Everybody has to swear some kind of oath or affirmation, whether it's on the Bible, Koran or just a declaration that they will tell the truth. This is basic stuff and shows your lack of intelligence, which admittedly was not a new revelation to me.

Ordinarily, a witness in criminal proceedings does not swear an affidavit.  Normally, they give a statement of truth to the police, which is encapsulated in a witness statement - which is signed - and then they swear an oath when giving evidence at the Crown Court.

And it was a Crown Court, I believe, for James Richards, not the High Court, as you claim.

Of course, it could be that for some reason James Richards did also give an affidavit, and it may also be he appeared at a High Court in connection with this case.  You're the one making these claims, so I was merely asking you for your source and to explain.  Instead of answering, you insult me.  [Q. for Moderator: Is that allowed?]

It would appear you are telling us you have got your facts wrong because you don't know or understand the law, but instead of graciously admitting this, you throw insults at me and affect to pretend I am the ignorant and stupid one. 

I won't allow you to get away with your defective reasoning, your slanting and lack of knowledge. You say I have issues? I was ready to call a truce when you disclosed there was an issue with schizophrenia in your family. I am not going to endure your propaganda. There is nothing amiss with my mental or physical health, however much you wish this to be the case.

I did not say that there was an issue with schizophrenia in my family.  Please read the relevant post again.  This time, more carefully.

Moderator - This individual clearly has psychological issues.  Should this Forum be entertaining them, at the expense of other posters?  I only ask the question. I am not a punching bag for people with mental and emotional problems.

[Steve_uk]

There is no way Bamber was going to get through the next 10-20 years without being totally disinherited. He was never going to wait that long anyway.

I think he might have had the sense to continue in farming until his parents died a natural death, or at least any normal person would have. But Jeremy had a character defect, possibly exacerbated by his recreational drug use that obfuscated reality. He saw the chance to commit what he told Julie would be the "perfect crime" and justified to himself the loss of five lives thereby.