A Jeremy Scenario

[Adam]

No I do not.  That is not the scenario.

I have Nevill downstairs - not asleep - and Jeremy does not struggle with him.

Nevill is downstairs & awake at 2am. In pyjamas and bare footed.

Jeremy does not struggle with him. What did he do, make him a coffee?

[guest29835]

Nevill is downstairs & awake at 2am. In pyjamas and bare footed.

Jeremy does not struggle with him. What did he do, make him a coffee?

No.  Jeremy shot him.

And it's 1 a.m., not 2 a.m.

[Adam]

No.  Jeremy shot him.

And it's 1 a.m., not 2 a.m.

Have you not seen the evidence?

There is a violent fight in the kitchen. Nevill was brutally beaten & had horrific injuries.

Nevill was also shot 4 times in the main bedroom.

Sorry to put a dampner on your scenario with evidence.

[guest29835]

Have you not seen the evidence?

There is a violent fight in the kitchen. Nevill was brutally beaten & had horrific injuries.

Nevill was also shot 4 times in the main bedroom.

Sorry to put a dampner on your scenario with evidence.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting I have not seen the evidence?  I'm baffled as to why you would ask me such a fatuous question.

Has it occurred to you that the evidence you refer to is open to interpretation and that there may be more than one explanation for it?

For instance, if Jeremy is the culprit, he may have shot Nevill but also bludgeoned him.  He need not have 'struggled' with him.

[Munksa]

Scott Lomax is a terrible writer with little ability to be objective and paper thin skin in my opinion. There is/was a review of his book on amazon where someone has offered the opinion that his views come across as misogynistic and he makes a proper fool of himself by threatening to sue!  He deleted his twitter account around the time of the ITV drama because people kept pointing out all of the factual errors in his book.

There is an article online where he claims that NB didn't receive any injuries apart from gunshots and I think he was the origin of the rabbit's blood nonsense as well. With all these clowns,  JB appears to be running a circus.

I knew of  this case and heard the name Jeremy Bamber for the first time through Scott's book! I "like" a bit of conspiracy and I know Police can be/are corrupted. So this should have made me tilt towards Bamber's innocence and I was reading a pro-Bamber book. But Scott's book had too much speculations the sources were not clear, a hell of a lot of suppositions too, I know he was trying hard but the content did not convience me of Bamber's innocence at all. At the end I ended up with more questions than answers.

To be fair he said he did not have much experience and he was young 25 when he wrote that book.

[Armchair Detective]

I knew of  this case and heard the name Jeremy Bamber for the first time through Scott's book! I "like" a bit of conspiracy and I know Police can be/are corrupted. So this should have made me tilt towards Bamber's innocence and I was reading a pro-Bamber book. But Scott's book had too much speculations the sources were not clear, a hell of a lot of suppositions too, I know he was trying hard but the content did not convience me of Bamber's innocence at all. At the end I ended up with more questions than answers.

To be fair he said he did not have much experience and he was young 25 when he wrote that book.

It's years since I read it but someone pointed out that the first factual error is on page 1 where he writes that JB speaks to PC West shortly before 3.20 which there is zero evidence for but at the time it was written, JB still had an interest in minimising the time between NB's alleged call and finally putting down the phone book.

There are other factual errors and muddled, contradictory passages that people tore him a new one for while he was trying to promote it as the only truthful book. At one point he tried to claim it was outselling CAL and CC on amazon but he was actually 10,000 or so places below them both.  I felt a bit sorry for him really, we all like a bit of conspiracy and intrigue.

[Jane]

It's years since I read it but someone pointed out that the first factual error is on page 1 where he writes that JB speaks to PC West shortly before 3.20 which there is zero evidence for but at the time it was written, JB still had an interest in minimising the time between NB's alleged call and finally putting down the phone book.

There are other factual errors and muddled, contradictory passages that people tore him a new one for while he was trying to promote it as the only truthful book. At one point he tried to claim it was outselling CAL and CC on amazon but he was actually 10,000 or so places below them both.  I felt a bit sorry for him really, we all like a bit of conspiracy and intrigue.

Then there's Clare Powell, whose book, written years after the event, gives us details of a dialogue which passes between Sheila and June at the supper table, as if she was there and party to it!

[Armchair Detective]

Then there's Clare Powell, whose book, written years after the event, gives us details of a dialogue which passes between Sheila and June at the supper table, as if she was there and party to it!

Oh dear! I've never read that one. There must be a lot of pressure to come up with something new or a different angle when it's been written about extensively already. I thought CAL made a good effort by trying to show the personalities of everyone involved and of course, she upset the supporters by not concluding he was innocent but I'm not aware of her making anything up.

[Jane]

Oh dear! I've never read that one. There must be a lot of pressure to come up with something new or a different angle when it's been written about extensively already. I thought CAL made a good effort by trying to show the personalities of everyone involved and of course, she upset the supporters by not concluding he was innocent but I'm not aware of her making anything up.

Nor I. But I don't think she laboured pro guilt in a way she might have. I thought her White House history was evocative in setting the scene.

[Adam]

I'm sorry, are you suggesting I have not seen the evidence?  I'm baffled as to why you would ask me such a fatuous question.

Has it occurred to you that the evidence you refer to is open to interpretation and that there may be more than one explanation for it?

For instance, if Jeremy is the culprit, he may have shot Nevill but also bludgeoned him.  He need not have 'struggled' with him.

Well if he confronted Nevill upon entrance, he had 11 bullets he could fire in the kitchen.

Although the evidence is Nevill was shot 4 times in the kitchen.

[Adam]

The evidence is Bamber & Nevill struggled for the rifle. Scratched aga, smashed ceiling light, upturned furniture, sugar on the floor.

However it is correct Nevill was in defence mode after being shot 4 times upstairs. Together with being bare footed and in pyjamas.

This resulted in the damage to Nevill's eyes, nose, head, arms, torso and watch. Together with the rifle stock breaking.

[Rob_]

The evidence is Bamber & Nevill struggled for the rifle. Scratched aga, smashed ceiling light, upturned furniture, sugar on the floor.

However it is correct Nevill was in defence mode after being shot 4 times upstairs. Together with being bare footed and in pyjamas.

This resulted in the damage to Nevill's eyes, nose, head, arms, torso and watch. Together with the rifle stock breaking.

Sugar Adam? I thought the police accidentally spilled this during the raid?

[Adam]

242.

We take the statements of PC Collins and PC Delgado as clear statements that apart from moving two stools they moved no other furniture.

The statements from some 10 other TFG officers indicate that there was no other movement of furniture and certainly no spillage of sugar attributable to any officer.

[Armchair Detective]

Sugar Adam? I thought the police accidentally spilled this during the raid?

That's in Ann eaton's notes but no officer ever owned up to it so there is some uncertainty.

Come to think of it, was this brought up at trial or is this an actual piece of evidence that was withheld?

[Rob_]

That's in Ann eaton's notes but no officer ever owned up to it so there is some uncertainty.

Come to think of it, was this brought up at trial or is this an actual piece of evidence that was withheld?

I seem to be getting forgetful! I thought the police admitted spilling the sugar?

But if it was all over the floor, PV to my knowledge made no mention of sugar on Nevil's feet?