Fight between Sheila and June

[Hardy Boy]

From Yvonne Hartley - plus documentation. Must be some kind of error then.

Can you post the documentation please Bill.

[Bill Robertson]

I no longer have it, I don’t have access to the files anymore.

[Hardy Boy]

I no longer have it, I don’t have access to the files anymore.

Thanks Bill, in other words we will take it as more none sense from yourself and the CT.

[Hardy Boy]

Where on earth did you get this claim from?

The only time this happens is when a plea bargain or insanity defence is being negotiated.

Bill Robertson talks out of his backside  (no pun intended)  as you well know, he also claims there were 35 cuts/gouges to Sheila that Vanezis denied exsisted under Oath. 

Now he goes on to make the claim, Rivlin  agreed a statement of fact with the prosecutor that JB killed his family so Vanezis was not likely to be challenged. Which is what happened in court.

Good job this forum has the likes of yourself, NGB and myself and others, who are prepared to challenge such lies and at least search for the truth.

[Bubo bubo]

Bill Robertson talks out of his backside  (no pun intended)  as you well know, he also claims there were 35 cuts/gouges to Sheila that Vanezis denied exsisted under Oath. 

Now he goes on to make the claim, Rivlin  agreed a statement of fact with the prosecutor that JB killed his family so Vanezis was not likely to be challenged. Which is what happened in court.

Good job this forum has the likes of yourself, NGB and myself and others, who are prepared to challenge such lies and at least search for the truth.

I think what they agreed pre trial was that the perpetrator could only be SC or JB.

They were ruling out a third party.

[Hardy Boy]

I think what they agreed pre trial was that the perpetrator could only be SC or JB.

They were ruling out a third party.

And, totally different to agree  a statement of fact with the prosecutor that JB killed his family

[David1819]

Bill Robertson talks out of his backside  (no pun intended)  as you well know, he also claims there were 35 cuts/gouges to Sheila that Vanezis denied exsisted under Oath. 

Now he goes on to make the claim, Rivlin  agreed a statement of fact with the prosecutor that JB killed his family so Vanezis was not likely to be challenged. Which is what happened in court.

Good job this forum has the likes of yourself, NGB and myself and others, who are prepared to challenge such lies and at least search for the truth.

That reminds me. Its 83 days till Christmas. I'm off to William Hill 👍

[BarefootDanC]

I no longer have it, I don’t have access to the files anymore.

Could it be that the defence agreed with the Crown that it was either Jeremy or Sheila?

The defence didn't agree that it was Jeremy - that must be a mistake.

[Hardy Boy]

That reminds me. Its 83 days till Christmas. I'm off to William Hill 👍

Put it on Elvis Presley being alive this year David at least give yourself a chance.  Over the years UK bookmakers William Hill have taken thousands of bets that Elvis will be found alive

[Hardy Boy]

Could it be that the defence agreed with the Crown that it was either Jeremy or Sheila?

The defence didn't agree that it was Jeremy - that must be a mistake.

The defence could never admit that Bamber killed his family in a statement of fact without Bamber’s permission any way.  The statement is understood to be given with the defendant's authority, and the solicitor cannot draft it without adequate, signed instructions from the client. 

[ILB]

I have always been intrigued by the pre trial psychiatrist who was inducted by the defence to assess Jeremy Bamber.

In one of the books it says the psychiatrist told the defence " if ever there was a psychopath his name is Jeremy Bamber"

Having met Jeremy years ago and having spent time in his company, and having met people who may " fit that type of view " loosely speaking. All I can say there was nothing about Jeremy Bamber that made me think " this guys a weirdo" a bit overbearing and assertive and confident, but no red flags.

Also Jeremy to this day is always giving the impression of " im just a normal bloke who is wronged" officially at least he comes across in his blogs interviews, people who see him to this day as a " normal bloke "

Back in 1986 when the psychiatrist did the interview, he was completley protesting his innocence, none of his friends describe him as being abnormal in any shape or form so I am interested in what behaviour he showed for the psychiatrist to come to that conclusion. You would think given his circumstances he would play the " im innocent and a normal bloke " spiel, even if he was guilty. Especially as such a positive report would go in his favour.

[snow66!]

I have always been intrigued by the pre trial psychiatrist who was inducted by the defence to assess Jeremy Bamber.

In one of the books it says the psychiatrist told the defence " if ever there was a psychopath his name is Jeremy Bamber"

Having met Jeremy years ago and having spent time in his company, and having met people who may " fit that type of view " loosely speaking. All I can say there was nothing about Jeremy Bamber that made me think " this guys a weirdo" a bit overbearing and assertive and confident, but no red flags.

Also Jeremy to this day is always giving the impression of " im just a normal bloke who is wronged" officially at least he comes across in his blogs interviews, people who see him to this day as a " normal bloke "

Back in 1986 when the psychiatrist did the interview, he was completley protesting his innocence, none of his friends describe him as being abnormal in any shape or form so I am interested in what behaviour he showed for the psychiatrist to come to that conclusion. You would think given his circumstances he would play the " im innocent and a normal bloke " spiel, even if he was guilty. Especially as such a positive report would go in his favour.

Good post ILB!

[Jane]

I have always been intrigued by the pre trial psychiatrist who was inducted by the defence to assess Jeremy Bamber.

In one of the books it says the psychiatrist told the defence " if ever there was a psychopath his name is Jeremy Bamber"

Having met Jeremy years ago and having spent time in his company, and having met people who may " fit that type of view " loosely speaking. All I can say there was nothing about Jeremy Bamber that made me think " this guys a weirdo" a bit overbearing and assertive and confident, but no red flags.

Also Jeremy to this day is always giving the impression of " im just a normal bloke who is wronged" officially at least he comes across in his blogs interviews, people who see him to this day as a " normal bloke "

Back in 1986 when the psychiatrist did the interview, he was completley protesting his innocence, none of his friends describe him as being abnormal in any shape or form so I am interested in what behaviour he showed for the psychiatrist to come to that conclusion. You would think given his circumstances he would play the " im innocent and a normal bloke " spiel, even if he was guilty. Especially as such a positive report would go in his favour.

It's very possible that none of those, believed by you, to "fit the bill" , in all probability, didn't. No psychopath/narcissist ever reveals their true selves. They all make wonderful work of mirroring the surrounding company so no one ever suspect's them.

[Steve_uk]

I have always been intrigued by the pre trial psychiatrist who was inducted by the defence to assess Jeremy Bamber.

In one of the books it says the psychiatrist told the defence " if ever there was a psychopath his name is Jeremy Bamber"

Having met Jeremy years ago and having spent time in his company, and having met people who may " fit that type of view " loosely speaking. All I can say there was nothing about Jeremy Bamber that made me think " this guys a weirdo" a bit overbearing and assertive and confident, but no red flags.

Also Jeremy to this day is always giving the impression of " im just a normal bloke who is wronged" officially at least he comes across in his blogs interviews, people who see him to this day as a " normal bloke "

Back in 1986 when the psychiatrist did the interview, he was completley protesting his innocence, none of his friends describe him as being abnormal in any shape or form so I am interested in what behaviour he showed for the psychiatrist to come to that conclusion. You would think given his circumstances he would play the " im innocent and a normal bloke " spiel, even if he was guilty. Especially as such a positive report would go in his favour.

He told Julie you could convince anyone of anything if you put your mind to it. He'd planned the massacre for over a year, he'd divulged his diablerie to Julie, he'd attempted to curry favour with Ann Eaton for months pre-murders, as he knew she wouldn't accept his version of events.

In the passage to which you refer (Chapter 26 of Blood Relations) the psychiatrist says Bamber convinced himself he was innocent of the crime, maybe because he saw himself as his sister's accomplice (that's my opinion), and with the passage of time the awfulness of what he had done he had blocked out his mind, then forgotten it all.

I don't know what psychiatric phenomenon the professional had in mind, but it's not a bad analysis.

[Steve_uk]

It's very possible that none of those, believed by you, to "fit the bill" , in all probability, didn't. No psychopath/narcissist ever reveals their true selves. They all make wonderful work of mirroring the surrounding company so no one ever suspect's them.

That's so true, Jane. Remember, Jeremy couldn't grieve. He had to be told to think of the dead dog, Brambles, then at the funeral Colin thought he discerned him mimicking him.