Misconceptions About Jeremys Upbringing

[susan]

Adam  why do you have the need to bring the word "adoptive" into your post Mabel Speakman I am told thought highly of Jeremy and he was originally in her will.

[No-Bits]

In 2003 he began a High Court action to recover £1.2m from the estate of his adoptive grandmother, Mabel Speakman, arguing that he should have inherited her home at Carbonnells Farm, Wix.  Source Wikipedia.

Wish I had inherited a home from either set of grandparents. I didn't.

Carbonnells Farm in Wix, was co-owned between Speakman and the Boutflours. The Boutflours lived there, Mabel Speakman lived at Vaulty Manor.

[No-Bits]

Adam  why do you have the need to bring the word "adoptive" into your post Mabel Speakman I am told thought highly of Jeremy and he was originally in her will.

Susan, I believe he copied and pasted the text from a news report, that's all.

Edit: In fact it is from Wikipedia (like he said it was).

[susan]

Harters thanks for that.  Sorry Adam.

[Adam]

If Jeremy was about to inherit a lot of money from his grandmother, why wasn't that brought up in court ?

It would negate the main motive straight away & put reasonable doubt in the juries minds.

[No-Bits]

If Jeremy was about to inherit a lot of money from his grandmother, why wasn't that brought up in court ?

It would negate the main motive straight away & put reasonable doubt in the juries minds.

He wasn't.

[Adam]

He wasn't.

 

[JackiePreece]

A testimony from someone who grew up with Jeremy



 L A Coles
I first knew Jeremy a long time ago, in fact many years before the tragedies at White House Farm. Jeremy is a kind person who helped me considerably during a period in my life that was very difficult. He always proved to be a shoulder to cry on all too often. I was shocked that he had been found guilty of murdering his family as this was not the man that I knew so well.

Over the years we drifted apart but managed to send the odd card or letter. But in later years we came into regular contact again and even my son and daughter, who are now fully grown write to Jeremy and have got to know him. I would trust Jeremy with my life and the lives of my children and grandchildren.
Our lives move on, all of us, but sadly Jeremy’s has not, he has been unlawfully denied the right to relationships and family that we all have with our liberty. This is why I urge everyone who reads this to campaign and fight for Jeremy.

I long to see my friend released to the freedom he so richly deserves. I often feel that I owe him something for his loyalty to me during those years when we should have both been young and carefree but the burdens of life sometimes take over us. I didn’t need to see any evidence of Jeremy’s innocence, I knew him well and I always knew he couldn’t kill or raise his hand to anyone in violence. Jeremy always was, and always will be the perfect gentleman and the warmest of my friends.

I had always known that something wasn’t right about the evidence in his conviction and having met his relatives I could see they were greedy, grasping creatures and so it comes as no surprise that the so called ‘evidence’ they found has turned out to be fabricated which Peter Sutherst outlines in his interviews. I urge the people who were involved in this wrongdoing to come forward to the police, hand yourself in and tell the truth because you will be facing a long jail term for this crime and the courts will view you more leniently if you make the approach to put matters right.

[JackiePreece]

Jeremy talking about his upbringing

In an emotional ­letter Bamber wrote: “It’s every little boy’s dream to have so many places to explore, build camps, ride on tractors, have lots of pets and feel completely safe... and that’s how it was for me.

“Mum was always home, ready with food and drinks and cuddles when I’d scraped or banged something, and from a young age I’d just tag along with Dad when I fancied.

“It’s just happy ­memories. The fact that I was adopted didn’t affect me in the slightest... my mum and dad are June and Nevill and they will always be so.

HAPPY

“I was always a ­mummy’s boy until I was seven or eight years old. We always had au pairs and a ­female housekeeper and Sheila so I was ­surrounded by women who ensured I got lots of love and ­attention.”

Bamber revealed he also had a close relationship with his father as he grew older.

“Mum taught me to cook and all sorts by the time I was nine and ­going to boarding school... from then on Dad took on a bigger role in my life and by 15 we were good mates as well as father and son,” he said.

“I was close to both mum and dad.”

Neville and June Bamber Killed: Dad Nevill and mum June were gunned down
 

Bamber, 51, was this week told that he can challenge his full-life tariff at the European Court of Human Rights.

And although that ruling affects only the length of his sentence, he still believes he will clear his name of the murders at the remote farmhouse in Tolleshunt D’Arcy, Essex, in 1985, despite his two failed ­appeals in 1989 and 2002.

He has always claimed that his schizophrenic sister Sheila, 28, murdered the ­family before turning the gun on herself.

His last attempt to overturn his conviction was thrown out earlier this year. He challenged key evidence about a ­silencer on the murder weapon, but was refused permission for a new appeal.

Despite his assertion that Sheila was the real killer Bamber says he only has happy memories of her.

“Sheila was always my big sister,” he wrote. “We were at our closest from my being 15 and her 18 or 19 until I was 19 and off to Australia.”

“Those four years were great for both of us and we had lots of good times ­together. She was so protective of me and really kind and sensitive.

“When Sheila had the twins I saw her almost every week, and I never understood her mental illness... I never took it seriously, but it never caused any rift in our relationship.”



Jeremy has spoken to me many times about how much he likes cooking

[Jane]

There are a lot of things I don't agree with on this forum. But I don't refute all of them. Yes I do think that some lied on oath, or at least were economical with the truth. Yes I do believe a mother may lie for her daughter in order to protect her from prosecution. Anf finally I don't think that everything was rosy in the family garden concerning the so called extended family. I believe there was discord and hatred among themselves. Some of this boiled over into the public eye eg: when John Eaton punched Ralph in the eye.

And yes I think it entirely possible that the truth can be stretched so far as to give a distorted view of Jeremy's relationship with his parents. He is also recorded in one of the books I believe that he loved to play with the children. It would have to be a very hard man to kill two children and I just don't see that hardness in Jeremy? You said yourself that he was a mummy's boy and Ralph apparently called him a nansy boy? I believe this crime was done by someone who was very disturbed in the mind. 5 lives for below £500,000. Nah! Not effeminate Jeremy. It just don't add up.

I suggested to scipio that he wrote to Jeremy and he could not see any purpose of that? The purpose in doing that is to get your own impression of him. Otherwise to put it in plain English you are only believing what others say about him in effect. Hearsay in other words. You have no way of knowing that these people are telling the truth or not. You can only trust they are.

Grahame, I don't always agree with you, but in this case, I agree with MOST of what you say. It occurs to me that it's not beyond the realms of possibility that those who gave Jeremy a less than glowing character reference could well have had things suggested to them, starting off with being told that he was guilty. It's not impossible that some of them knew each other and compared notes. It would only take one strong personality to sway previously held opinions.

[Adam]

How nice. Pity he called her a looney, nutter, psychotic depressive and said he did not like her on the massacre night.

Jeremy's supporters have often said he would not have committed the massacre due to inheriting from his grandmother. However I never seen any proof of this and it was never discussed at trial. Although Neville's will was, which Jeremy said he had read & agreed it tied him to the farm in order to inherit.

[scipio_usmc]

It would have to be a very hard man to kill two children and I just don't see that hardness in Jeremy? You said yourself that he was a mummy's boy and Ralph apparently called him a nansy boy? I believe this crime was done by someone who was very disturbed in the mind. 5 lives for below £500,000. Nah! Not effeminate Jeremy. It just don't add up.

So you again admit you are a Jeremy supporter. Maybe you will stop pretending to be sititng on the fence as an objective party finally?  When you write things liek this then profess you are objective and on the fence it doesn't wash.

You look at it ass backwards.  Instead of looking at the evidence you look at whethe ryou believe Jeremy would be able to kill and would do so for the amount of money at stake and you say he would not even though you personally did not know him and there is no way you could know what he is or is not capable of.  There are thousands of examples of peopel killing family over lesser amounts of money than he stood to gain some for even small insurance policies like $5-10,000.

Rational objective people follow the evidence where it leads and the evidence established Jeremy did it.

In your ass backwards way of looking at it you decide that he would never have done it and therefore that means the vast evidence against him is all faked.  You see it more liekly all the evidence was planted and everyone involved is lying except Jeremy because you woudl rather believe that they all lied and all the evidence planted than to believe Jeremy did it.

So no evidence would be strong enough in your eyes to prove Jeremy guilty, you refuse to believe he could have done it so all the evidence has to be lies and planted though you have not a shred of evidence to actually prove anyone lied or planted anything. 

Some of the evidence proving his guilt is beyond control of police though.  You still ignore that because you simply don't want to believe he did it end of story.

Anytime your true position is shown to be flawed and purely out of bias you lash out like a child, deny it and claim you are objective and rational and I am twisting and all sorts of BS.

I am not twising anything your SIMPLISTIC and CHILDISH rationale of why you believe Jeremy is innocent was typed with your own fingers and it was: "I believe this crime was done by someone who was very disturbed in the mind. 5 lives for below £500,000. Nah! Not effeminate Jeremy. It just don't add up."

It adds up to you that eveyrone planted/concealed evidence and lied as opposed to Jeremy killing anyone despite his proven lies and the fact his claims DO NOT ADD UP.  His claims make no sense and he repeatedly lied and changed his story.  Even the staged bullets int he kitchen don't add up there were too many.  His story doesn't add up and your childish rationale fails to acocunt for the most damning evidence that proves Sheila did nothing.

There is no way Sheila could have committed the murders without having minor injuries and getting blood /GSR on her clothing and had to wear gloves as well.  Ther eis no way for such gloves and clothing to have been been hid at WHF never to be found. Police were convinced the did it early on and searched for such evidence finding none.  She can't have killed herself because she was dragged flat after she was dead and the bible opened and closed in a pool of blood that formed after she was dead.  Police could not have done these things her blood was dry by the time they entered. 

You simply ignore Jeremy admitting he removed the scope and hid the phone replacing it with the bedroom phone and anything else he did that is highly suspicious.

Your claims don't add up anymore than Jeremy's.  Stop accusing those you call guilters of having blinders, it it you and Jeremy supporters wearing the blinders. 

[lookout]

How nice. Pity he called her a looney, nutter, psychotic depressive and said he did not like her on the massacre night.

Jeremy's supporters have often said he would not have committed the massacre due to inheriting from his grandmother. However I never seen any proof of this and it was never discussed at trial. Although Neville's will was, which Jeremy said he had read & agreed it tied him to the farm in order to inherit.

I don't know many 24 year olds who are the " my mum " type. They all act macho when they're together and talk about their mothers this way. Going back to when I was at school,a lads mum was at the school gate with her dog and just thought she'd wait for her teenage son as it was 4 o'clock,hometime. Did he greet her ? No ! He asked what she was doing outside the school showing him up,and stood arguing with her and giving her cheek,simply because he was embarrassed in front of his school friends.
Jeremy would be no different.He'd have loved his mum but like most lads/young men,wouldn't show it openly.
" Effeminate Jeremy ?" What,with a queue of floozies ready to bed him ?? Because that's how it was when he moved to Goldhanger,because when he lived at home,he had to be in at a certain time or his mother had words.

[Jan]

How nice. Pity he called her a looney, nutter, psychotic depressive and said he did not like her on the massacre night.

Jeremy's supporters have often said he would not have committed the massacre due to inheriting from his grandmother. However I never seen any proof of this and it was never discussed at trial. Although Neville's will was, which Jeremy said he had read & agreed it tied him to the farm in order to inherit.

we have been through this before - find those exact words in the original police statements or log books made the day after the event by the policemen that were actually with him and speaking to him . Not in September but the days afterwards.  The show me the document please.

[grahameb]

If Jeremy was about to inherit a lot of money from his grandmother, why wasn't that brought up in court ?

It would negate the main motive straight away & put reasonable doubt in the juries minds.

You are correct. Unfortunately it appears that a lot of things weren't brought up in court that should have been?