Motive for murders - Jeremy versus the relatives...

[Adam]

Morning april

hope you are feeling more positive about Jeremy Bamber today than last night he has a good Solicitor fighting for him who remember is not receiving payment he would not be doing this if he thought the case was hopeless.  None of us know if any new evidence has come to light but I feel something has happened when Jeremy said he was bursting to tell us something but was forbidden.  We will have to be patient and wait and see and hope.

Jeremy is always bursting to tell us something. He seems to be in a perpetual state of thinking he is just weeks away from release.

[mike tesko]

Jeremy v the relatives. Mmm.

Jeremy won the first match. However failed to win the second match against a new team.

Who will win the next match?

Outcome will pretty much depend on when the Bamber family owned silencer, that belonged to the anshulz rifle, was handed over to police by relatives? You have got two different handover dates to choose from, (1) - 12th August 1985, or (2) - 11th September 1985...

My monies on pony (2)...

[Jane]

There have been other books that had been researched. I posted the 5 star reviews for them. There were no reviews that were not five star.

Which means exactly WHAT, Adam? It's my understanding that those who bothered to write a review gave it five stars, however this in no way clarifies that the book(s) were the definitive truth, ONLY that the readers enjoyed reading them. Then we need to look at the readers. There is a particular type who like the "True Crime" genre and are likely to believe that every word is gospel truth without looking at the fact that this is the author's JOB. It's how they pay their mortgage. I'd be far more interested in learning how many thought the book(s) weren't worth the paper they were printed on.

[Adam]

Who will win the next match?

Outcome will pretty much depend on when the Bamber family owned silencer, that belonged to the anshulz rifle, was handed over to police by relatives? You have got two differebt handover dates to choose from, (1) - 12th August 1985, or (2) - 11th September 1985...

My monies on pony (2)...

Wilkes book said it was handed to Stan Jones prior to the 14th August 85.

[Adam]

Which means exactly WHAT, Adam? It's my understanding that those who bothered to write a review gave it five stars, however this in no way clarifies that the book(s) were the definitive truth, ONLY that the readers enjoyed reading them. Then we need to look at the readers. There is a particular type who like the "True Crime" genre and are likely to believe that every word is gospel truth without looking at the fact that this is the author's JOB. It's how they pay their mortgage. I'd be far more interested in learning how many thought the book(s) weren't worth the paper they were printed on.

Wilkes interviewed everyone connected to the crime. Except Julie but he did interview Jeremy.

The book is factually correct. Unless you can prove otherwise.

[Steve_uk]

So, the cousin phones the police up in September 1985, to tell them he has found a silencer for the gun.  His sister, lady Ann. Eaton hands over that silencer to police on 11th September 1985. By 12th September, police are at the scene taking photo's of the aga in the kitchen, which has now got what appears to be additional scratch marks on the red painted aga surround in the kitchen, that do not show up in photographs of the same aga surround taken on 7th August 1985...

Are we clear that the scratch marks were on the facade of the Aga and not the underside? Couldn't any falling red paint have been dispersed by Police trampling the area(we've been told ad nauseum what damage they caused upon entry). Why would the relatives risk criminal prosecution by fabricating evidence when Robert Boutflour had already written to ACC Simpson and the case against Jeremy had started to proceed?

[Jane]

A few thoughts on this thread: there's no doubt that Sheila was acting strangely those last few hours,which depending on your point of view was the portent to the murders and the suicide or the pretext Jeremy needed facilitating the "tonight's the night" telephone call. June did not ring Pamela-it was the other way round,making me wonder whether Pamela had just found out that Sheila might be staying,the telephone call being so late,especially for a working farm. In her statement Pamela says her sister put Sheila on the phone right away,suggesting to me that June was eager to have a second opinion so to speak as to Sheila's condition. Of course we don't know exactly what state Sheila was in: remember in Dr. Hugh Ferguson's statement he referred to her "laughing inappropriately",though this does not seem to be the case here,as Pamela just tells us Sheila handed the receiver back to June and did not appear to be rude in any way. It's pretty clear in any case there was no emergency at that time.

As for Sheila's roll in the hay I had always thought  that was with Colin and not David Boutflour,shocking as it must have been at the time for June. It would not have been classified as in-breeding as such because to coin a phrase neither Sheila nor Jeremy were blood relations.

Steve, good morning. What a well thought through and balanced post. For once we appear to be singing from the same hymn sheet. My only caveat would be that perhaps, if Sheila's hay roll partner had been  DB, it was what in-breeding may have resulted in which was shocking for June, but the act which caused the result.

[Steve_uk]

Steve, good morning. What a well thought through and balanced post. For once we appear to be singing from the same hymn sheet. My only caveat would be that perhaps, if Sheila's hay roll partner had been  DB, it was what in-breeding may have resulted in which was shocking for June, but the act which caused the result.

I  think June might have kept it "in house" had the culprit been DB,not wishing to rock the boat with her husband. Thinking about the inappropriate laughter remark made by Dr. Hugh Ferguson does disturb me and reminds me of something Patti said a while back that we're always coming across details in this case which don't seem to add up.

[susan]

Hello april  I agree that was a very well thought out post  by steve and very balanced.  Well done steve.  april I am just not sure who Sheila was with rolling in the hay and again we will never know.

[Jane]

Wilkes interviewed everyone connected to the crime. Except Julie but he did interview Jeremy.

The book is factually correct. Unless you can prove otherwise.

How would anyone know that what was told them by others, AFTER an event, was factually correct? Who, on the back of a trial where someone has been convicted is LIKELY to say that the outcome was wrong? It's all in the presentation Adam. You have the ability to, and do, FREQUENTLY bend what you read and present it to fit what you want it to be. Thankfully there are those here with enough experience to be aware of it.

[Adam]

Jeremy said he called Neville back straight away. But got the engaged tone. He then called the police straight away.

But the engaged tone would have lasted at least two minutes as the WHF phone did not hang up. So he could not call the police straight away. Jeremy did not know this.

He had called his cottage from WHF. When arriving back he picked up his phone & put it straight back down again. Knowing there was no one at the other end. He then cleaned up before ringing Julie & the police.

[mike tesko]

Wilkes interviewed everyone connected to the crime. Except Julie but he did interview Jeremy.

The book is factually correct. Unless you can prove otherwise.

I was the person authorized by Jeremy to provide Roger Wilkes with access to all the then available material for use in his book, we didn't have all the material at that time, that is available today. This was arranged as part of a package, where Roger Wilkes would pay for the cost of a provisional report from the New York ballistics and blood spatter expert, Herbert Leon McDonnell...

Nobody had any proof then, that additional silencers had been given to police by the relatives, if we didn't know, how could Wilkes have known - Wilkes book, is a factual historical account of what was known about, and could be proven at the time...

[Steve_uk]

Jeremy said he called Neville back straight away. But got the engaged tone. He then called the police straight away.

But the engaged tone would have lasted at least two minutes as the WHF phone did not hang up. So he could not call the police straight away. Jeremy did not know this.

He had called his cottage from WHF. When arriving back he picked up his phone & put it straight back down again. Knowing there was no one at the other end. He then cleaned up before ringing Julie & the police.

I'm not sure if you call a second number that your phone is tied to the first upon receiving an engaged  tone therefrom,but I agree that any delay by Jeremy ostensibly flicking through Yellow Pages is capable of terribly ambiguous interpretations..

[susan]

Hi Mike

thanks for that regarding the Wilkes book.  So much more evidence has come to light since then many of it thanks to you and your research.

[Adam]

Julie testified that she said 'Don't be so ridiculous' & 'yeah sure' (sarcastically) when Jeremy said 'it's now or never'.

Being treated with contempt by his own girlfriend. Was that the final motivation for Jeremy ?