Getting the facts right about what Ralph told Jeremy during brief phone call...

[mike tesko]

Mike if we look at "She has the gun, She has gone mad" it also implies that Jeremy would immediately know of whom he spoke and begs the question of whether similar incidents MAY have previously occurred.

Hi April,

Yes, I can go along with that/ this...

[tyler]

There is evidence that relatives had been alerted to the fact that Sheila and her children were staying at the farm on evening, 6th August 1985, via the acknowledged telephone call that same evening, between June Bamber, Sheila and Pamela Boutflour - when it became clear that Sheila had been and was behaving strangely. In fact, June told Pamela that she intended to visit her on the following day (7th August) to speak to her about Sheila, etc...

It is therefore likely that Pamela discussed the detail of her conversation with June and Sheila over the phone, with other family members that same evening, thus alerting any participating third party to the killings of any would be plan to set in motion...

Mike,RWB admitted 'listening in' on the telephone conversation and DB also said he was present at his parents house during the telephone call between Pamela and June.

[campion]

Hi, Mike,-  Is it relevant in this Topic, to consider the matter of Jeremy's residence (Bourtree Cottage).
That is, per se, who resided there before Jeremy. Where they moved to (WHF Farm Cottages), when Jeremy made it into his home? What was, if any, the connections of the farm workers with the 'Relations'?
Where was Jeremy parked whilst the police were 'investigating' the SOC, after the initial reconnoitring with Bews and Myall?
What is known about the selling of said Bourtree Cottage in the 'Monies' Equation'? of the 'Bamber Estate'?





          "THE TRUTH NEVER SLEEPS, EVER" - Mandy Rice Davies.

[Jane]

Mike,RWB admitted 'listening in' on the telephone conversation and DB also said he was present at his parents house during the telephone call between Pamela and June.

It was however, a very late call, after 10pm I think. It would have taken an almost instant decision to be made about the next course of action but then of course, also to be considered is what I believe to be the background of an almost lifetime obsession of hatred for Jeremy.

[lookout]

Such as RWB denying all knowledge of the conversation that took place on the phone that night between June and Pamela,,,while he knew full well because he was listening in to the call. There's none so daft---------------

[mike tesko]

Whatever,or rather 'whoever' Nevill was referring to when he phoned Jeremy,he clearly stated his 'daughter' when he phoned the police himself.

This is a crucial point, because once you see what Jeremy says about the phone call in his 11th September 1985 police interview, it becomes more obvious by the moment, that even before Jeremy got around to calling the police at 3.36am, that police already had information to hand in the form of Ralph Bamber contacting the police himself (at 3.26am), telling police that his 'daughter has hot hold of one of his guns'...

We now know, that Sheila's fingerprints were found on a shotgun at the scene, along with Ralph Bambers fingerprints, and it remains a distinct possibility that the gun referred to by Ralph Bamber in his 3.26am call to police, was with reference to this shotgun, not the anshulz rifle, which has been described as the only firearm used in the tragedy...

perhaps the person taking Jeremy's call, paraphrased what Jeremy said his father had said, correctly or otherwise, altering "She has" into "Sheila has", which in one way or another, it allowed the police to present the argument at trial, that Jeremy had not received a telephone call at all from his father, and that he had introduced such a call, making mention of Sheila's name, to fool police into thinking that Sheila was solely responsible,when if the truth be known, what Jeremy had to say about it had not been recorded accurately...

[lookout]

Mike,RWB admitted 'listening in' on the telephone conversation and DB also said he was present at his parents house during the telephone call between Pamela and June.

Sorry,tyler,I hadn't realised you'd already said similar. Put it down to great minds,eh.

[mike tesko]

If Ralph never mentioned Sheila's name during the phone call he made to Jeremy, then it surely must have a bearing upon the fairness of a trial, whereby, it was being introduced in evidence that Jeremy had introduced Sheila's name into the equation, when he had not...

[mike tesko]

By couching what Ralph Bamber may have said, "Sheila has got the gun",instead of, "She has got the gun", it sets up for an argument to be put that Jeremy was / is the killer..

[mike tesko]

By couching what Ralph Bamber may have said, "Sheila has got the gun",instead of, "She has got the gun", it sets up for an argument to be put that Jeremy was / is the killer..

If it can be proven that Sheila did not kill herself...

[lookout]

If it can be proven that Sheila did not kill herself...

I'm hoping that's the outcome Mike,,as I believe she was shot both times by two different people.

[mike tesko]

I'm hoping that's the outcome Mike,,as I believe she was shot both times by two different people.

Hi Lookout,

This is where Jeremy and myself differ, since he keeps pursuing the argument in favour of Sheila having shot herself, whereas, I think she was killed by use of two separate weapons...

[mike tesko]

Hi Lookout,

This is where Jeremy and myself differ, since he keeps pursuing the argument in favour of Sheila having shot herself, whereas, I think she was killed by use of two separate weapons...

The thing to remember is, that in the case for Jeremy telling police that Ralph did say to police, that his father told him, "Sheila has got the gun", it might make a difference if she had not shot herself...

[mike tesko]

The thing to remember is, that in the case for Jeremy telling police that Ralph did say to police, that his father told him, "Sheila has got the gun", it might make a difference if she had not shot herself...

But equally, it might not have done - the jury would have been asked to decide this issue, one way or the other. But, if Jeremy made no mention of the name Sheila whilst reporting the circumstances  of his fathers call to him, it could not be used adversely against him, in the manner with which it was, to show his guilt, since he had not put the thought that Sheila was the killer into the minds of the police, and that she had taken her own life after shooting dead all of the others...

Until you read the transcript of Jeremy's police interview, dated, 11th September 1985, it becomes impossible to see how Jeremy has been shepherded into a corner and from which he appears to be penned in, with little opportunity to set the record straight....

[mike tesko]

Not to be overlooked, is the fact that despite being interviewed on 11th September 1985, about the phone matters, police released him on bail - so the police must have accepted Jeremy's explanation, as to why the details of his conversation with his father had become transformed, from "She has", into "Sheila has", with all the ramifications attached by the prosecution...