Author Topic: 2002 appeal judgement...  (Read 9480 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline killingeve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
Re: 2002 appeal judgement...
« Reply #60 on: May 09, 2013, 02:08:PM »
I haven't said anything of the sort. I think like most relationships theirs was complex, and like many difficult, but above all their relationship is largely incomprehensible to me because I didn't know either of them. You think Sheila hated June based on what you have read mostly in court documents and statements taken for an entirely different purpose. Maybe she did hate her sometimes, but at the same time love her, or maybe she even said that she hated her from time to time. Do you think that's all that their relationship boils down to? What do you think JB meant when he said "I fucking hate my parents"?

Miss Bridget

Ok I guess I must have got the context all wrong as per usual  ::)

Are most relationships complex and difficult? :-\  The jury didn't know either of them, or indeed others, but they had to make judgements about their relationships.  My view of the June/SC relationship is based primarily on Dr F's wit stat and Colin's book.  Surely we can rely on the psychiatrist that treated the pair and SC's former husband's account of his late wife's relationship with her adoptive mother? There's much evidence elsewhere to suggest a very toxic/dysfunctional relationship too and yes imo that is what it boiled down to.   Can you provide any evidence to the contrary?  JB may well have said "I hate my fucking parents" to some student friend of JM's but imo there's a world of difference between that and sitting down with a pscyhiatrist discussing disturbed thoughts about your adoptive mother.

Offline killingeve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
Re: 2002 appeal judgement...
« Reply #61 on: May 09, 2013, 02:20:PM »
Oh and btw something or nothing but I note that on SC's 21st birthday Colin threw a party to celebrate which NB and June did not attend.  On JB's 21st birthday he went out for a meal with NB and June and Suzette Ford  :)

Offline Bridget

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5065
Re: 2002 appeal judgement...
« Reply #62 on: May 09, 2013, 02:50:PM »
Miss Bridget

Ok I guess I must have got the context all wrong as per usual  ::)

Are most relationships complex and difficult? :-\  The jury didn't know either of them, or indeed others, but they had to make judgements about their relationships.  My view of the June/SC relationship is based primarily on Dr F's wit stat and Colin's book.  Surely we can rely on the psychiatrist that treated the pair and SC's former husband's account of his late wife's relationship with her adoptive mother? There's much evidence elsewhere to suggest a very toxic/dysfunctional relationship too and yes imo that is what it boiled down to.   Can you provide any evidence to the contrary?  JB may well have said "I hate my fucking parents" to some student friend of JM's but imo there's a world of difference between that and sitting down with a pscyhiatrist discussing disturbed thoughts about your adoptive mother.

I said most relationships are complex and many are difficult.

Do either Dr F or Colin say that Sheila hated her mother? Why should I provide evidence of anything, it's not me who claims to know what their relationship was. I very much doubt the relationship between June and Sheila was a deciding factor in the jury's determination of JBs guilt.
....just cos I eat worms...

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48661
Re: 2002 appeal judgement...
« Reply #63 on: May 09, 2013, 02:58:PM »
As well as the fact that Sheila had concerns,,and told the psychiatrist that her concerns were major in that her little children would have sex with her as well as carrying out violent actions towards her. Sheila self-harmed,and stated that she was capable of murdering her children.
What did the court think of this,,,or wasn't it mentioned.? Is this the mind of a loving parent.?

Offline killingeve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
Re: 2002 appeal judgement...
« Reply #64 on: May 09, 2013, 04:01:PM »
I said most relationships are complex and many are difficult.

Do either Dr F or Colin say that Sheila hated her mother? Why should I provide evidence of anything, it's not me who claims to know what their relationship was. I very much doubt the relationship between June and Sheila was a deciding factor in the jury's determination of JBs guilt.

Miss Bridget

Ok are most relationships complex and many difficult?

How would you define complex, difficult and normal, if indeed you think normal exists?

Imo the June/SC relationship was extremely toxic and dysfunctional so much that the pair at various times discussed it with their psychiatrist.  What % of mother/daughter relationships result in this sort of action?

You don't have to provide evidence of anythings just thought as you said SC might have sometimes hated June but at the same time loved her that you might have some evidence to support the latter that I may have missed?

I agree I don't think the June/SC relationship was the clincher at trial.  I think most would agree that it was the silencer that JB's defence failed to present to the jury as potentially contaminated.

Offline Bridget

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5065
Re: 2002 appeal judgement...
« Reply #65 on: May 09, 2013, 04:06:PM »
Miss Bridget

Ok are most relationships complex and many difficult?

How would you define complex, difficult and normal, if indeed you think normal exists?

Imo the June/SC relationship was extremely toxic and dysfunctional so much that the pair at various times discussed it with their psychiatrist.  What % of mother/daughter relationships result in this sort of action?

You don't have to provide evidence of anythings just thought as you said SC might have sometimes hated June but at the same time loved her that you might have some evidence to support the latter that I may have missed?

I agree I don't think the June/SC relationship was the clincher at trial.  I think most would agree that it was the silencer that JB's defence failed to present to the jury as potentially contaminated.

I think complex and difficult are both words included in the dictionary :)

I'm obviously not making myself clear, I don't know in any detail what their relationship was and I don't believe anyone else who has never met them does either.
....just cos I eat worms...

Offline killingeve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
Re: 2002 appeal judgement...
« Reply #66 on: May 09, 2013, 04:16:PM »
I think complex and difficult are both words included in the dictionary :)

I'm obviously not making myself clear, I don't know in any detail what their relationship was and I don't believe anyone else who has never met them does either.

Miss Bridget

Dictionary of psychiatry or normal?  :D

No, no Miss Bridget don't be too harsh on yourself I don't blame your teaching skills on my lack of understanding  ;)  Seriously you don't believe anyone who ever met them had any understanding of their relationship? Not Dr F nor Colin?  Interesting take  :) 

Offline Bridget

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5065
Re: 2002 appeal judgement...
« Reply #67 on: May 09, 2013, 04:37:PM »
Miss Bridget

Dictionary of psychiatry or normal?  :D

No, no Miss Bridget don't be too harsh on yourself I don't blame your teaching skills on my lack of understanding  ;)  Seriously you don't believe anyone who ever met them had any understanding of their relationship? Not Dr F nor Colin?  Interesting take  :)

Jesus feckin H christ... I said, I do not believe anyone WHO HAS NEVER MET THEM knows their relationship etc...

Do you do this deliberately?
....just cos I eat worms...

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48661
Re: 2002 appeal judgement...
« Reply #68 on: May 09, 2013, 04:41:PM »
Language Timothy.  :o

Offline Bridget

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5065
Re: 2002 appeal judgement...
« Reply #69 on: May 09, 2013, 04:58:PM »
....just cos I eat worms...

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20877
Re: 2002 appeal judgement...
« Reply #70 on: May 09, 2013, 10:28:PM »
Yes and I understand why  ;)  But thanks anyway.

Well I thinks its obvious no one killed NB in the bedroom?  I really think SC's natural instinct as a mother would be to to check on her children and get them to safety not to tend to her adoptive mother that by all accounts she hated.  What of this struggle going on downstairs where the mantle was scratched by the silencer, the lampshade smashed, shots being fired, furniture and crockery flying?  All this why Sheila meekly sits nursing June and is oblivious to any potential danger to the twins and herself?  What did she think JB's next move might be a cup of cocoa before they all return to bed?
We don't know whether Jeremy gave any indication that it was indeed himself who had entered the premises that night. Julie said in her statement Jeremy had the idea of wearing a mask,and Ann Eaton said that first morning Jeremy had black hair and a dark tan. It's possible if faced by a masked intruder you comply with that person's requests as Sheila was led like a lamb to the slaughter to her death. Jeremy couldn't leave Sheila in her own room as forensics might have been able to prove that she never left it that Wednesday morning. He also wanted to inculcate the Police with the religious element to the murders and suicide,and the Bible was kept in the master bedroom.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48661
Re: 2002 appeal judgement...
« Reply #71 on: May 09, 2013, 10:31:PM »
Sheila was a wolf in sheeps clothing,Steve.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20877
Re: 2002 appeal judgement...
« Reply #72 on: May 09, 2013, 10:35:PM »
Miss Bridget

Ok I guess I must have got the context all wrong as per usual  ::)

Are most relationships complex and difficult? :-\  The jury didn't know either of them, or indeed others, but they had to make judgements about their relationships.  My view of the June/SC relationship is based primarily on Dr F's wit stat and Colin's book.  Surely we can rely on the psychiatrist that treated the pair and SC's former husband's account of his late wife's relationship with her adoptive mother? There's much evidence elsewhere to suggest a very toxic/dysfunctional relationship too and yes imo that is what it boiled down to.   Can you provide any evidence to the contrary?  JB may well have said "I hate my fucking parents" to some student friend of JM's but imo there's a world of difference between that and sitting down with a pscyhiatrist discussing disturbed thoughts about your adoptive mother.
But Jeremy denied ever having said many of these remarks discussed in this 2002 judgement. Had he said "Yes I loathed my parents but I knew which side my bread was buttered on" he would have had far more credibility.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48661
Re: 2002 appeal judgement...
« Reply #73 on: May 09, 2013, 10:38:PM »
He denied saying them simply because he didn't say them. Julie took everything in the wrong context anyway,,to suit.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20877
Re: 2002 appeal judgement...
« Reply #74 on: May 09, 2013, 11:08:PM »
He denied saying them simply because he didn't say them. Julie took everything in the wrong context anyway,,to suit.
But it wasn't just Julie:it was a long list of people I won't quote again for the sake of the regulars here.