The family trying to show Jeremy in a bad light

[lookout]

Reading his book would be the deciding factor for me, in " who killed who " that night.
These anti-Bamber books give a lot away,unwittingly.

[scipio_usmc]

Quote from Colin´s book. I don´t quite understand him, how can he basically excuse Jeremy who allegedly killed his sons; but in any case, he is not as hateful as the relatives."So what else did I see of myself as I looked into those eyes - into the eyes of a cold-blooded murderer? Part of the key has to be in the fact that there had been many occasions I had also wished his sister dead - as I did the night of the killings - and times I had felt murderous towards his mother for the way in which she violated everybody, especially her daughter. Had June still been alive and continued the abuses to my children that I am now more aware of, I myself might have been tempted to kill her. In that respect, Jeremy had saved me the trouble and was standing trial for something I had also wished for.
How then could I stand as an accuser?"

He wrote the book to try to feel better and come to grips with what happened.  Trying to rationalize that things are for the best is a way to do that.  How he felt at the time of the murders is quite different I am sure.  It takes people a long time to try to convince yourself a tragedy was for the best and to move on.

To say that June hurt his kids by teaching them how to pray and say prayers at night makes you truly wonder about him.  He comes off as a complete idiot in many of the things he wrote in his book and it is obvious that their marriage didn't fail simply because of Sheila.

Aside from the few tidbits of factual information tossed in almost as an aside, his book is largely useless.  His warped view of things ovciously is not worth much.

[scipio_usmc]

Reading his book would be the deciding factor for me, in " who killed who " that night.
These anti-Bamber books give a lot away,unwittingly.

His book offers no evidence at all related to the murders.  A rational person would evaluate the evidence related to the murders.  Only a fool would decide an issue by ignoring the evidence and instead consisering the state of mind of a non-victim who was impacted by the losses and thus considered himself a victim. 

[Alias]

He wrote the book to try to feel better and come to grips with what happened.  Trying to rationalize that things are for the best is a way to do that.  How he felt at the time of the murders is quite different I am sure.  It takes people a long time to try to convince yourself a tragedy was for the best and to move on.

To say that June hurt his kids by teaching them how to pray and say prayers at night makes you truly wonder about him.  He comes off as a complete idiot in many of the things he wrote in his book and it is obvious that their marriage didn't fail simply because of Sheila.

Aside from the few tidbits of factual information tossed in almost as an aside, his book is largely useless.  His warped view of things ovciously is not worth much.

This quote is about how he felt at the time of the trial - you cannot make that go away.
He also wrote that the relatives were very friendly in the time leading up to the trial, but dropped him as a hot potato as soon as it was over: he was not one of them.
You cannot make that go away either.

[lookout]

 There's bags of evidence as far as I'm concerned,as I said,in who murdered who. It's you who wears blinkers and a gag----------------brains of a rocking horse.

[scipio_usmc]

This quote is about how he felt at the time of the trial - you cannot make that go away.
He also wrote that the relatives were very friendly in the time leading up to the trial, but dropped him as a hot potato as soon as it was over: he was not one of them.
You cannot make that go away either.

No he wrote this book many years later to try to make himself feel better.  How he felt at the time of the trial we don't really have any way to know.  The fact he tried to convince himself that things were for the best so he coudl move on without killing himself doesn't really mean squat in terms of the murders it jsut speaks to his own personal problems in dealing with the grief.

Other than the few dams of facts tossed in the book is of no use to the crimes and not even very interesting.

[lookout]

Excuses just roll off your tongue. You're pathetic !

[scipio_usmc]

Excuses just roll off your tongue. You're pathetic !

Excuses for what?  His oipinions have no bearing at all on the murders and are not evidence.  You are pathetic for claiming that the book helps establish Jeremy is innocent and doign anything you can to avoid facing the fact sna devidence of the case to try to pretend he is innocent.

[Jan]

Do you notice a pattern in some of the families statements , they use I think

a lot , so if they are proved wrong later they are off the hook .

I noticed that with comments about the original will as well.

[Alias]

Do you notice a pattern in some of the families statements , they use I think

a lot , so if they are proved wrong later they are off the hook .

I noticed that with comments about the original will as well.

Good observation.
Julie M uses "probably" a lot... same shit.

[Jan]

Good observation.
Julie M uses "probably" a lot... same shit.

another favourite , I noticed " to the best of my knowledge"  especially when talking about the guns at the house.

[Jane]

another favourite , I noticed " to the best of my knowledge"  especially when talking about the guns at the house.

I'm tempted to call them "Get out of jail free" cards OR perhaps that should be "I'm off the hook if I'm wrong" cards.

[scipio_usmc]

another favourite , I noticed " to the best of my knowledge"  especially when talking about the guns at the house.

That is what are always in statements.  People are being asked to remember things they might not fully remember.  It is why you onways see "on or about" in affidavits and papers filed in court.  Just in case a date ends up being wrong you put "on or about".

When people say they are certain they say they are certian but rarely are people fully certain of every date and time something happened. 

[Alias]

That is what are always in statements.  People are being asked to remember things they might not fully remember.  It is why you onways see "on or about" in affidavits and papers filed in court.  Just in case a date ends up being wrong you put "on or about".

When people say they are certain they say they are certian but rarely are people fully certain of every date and time something happened.

If it were Jeremy we were talking about, your stance would be opposite. It would be a sigh of him being deceptive.

[mertol22]

He wrote the book to try to feel better and come to grips with what happened.  Trying to rationalize that things are for the best is a way to do that.  How he felt at the time of the murders is quite different I am sure.  It takes people a long time to try to convince yourself a tragedy was for the best and to move on.

To say that June hurt his kids by teaching them how to pray and say prayers at night makes you truly wonder about him.  He comes off as a complete idiot in many of the things he wrote in his book and it is obvious that their marriage didn't fail simply because of Sheila.

Aside from the few tidbits of factual information tossed in almost as an aside, his book is largely useless.  His warped view of things ovciously is not worth much.

A book is nothing more than it is the reader must make their judgement upon reading it  there is one page in that book  that  pivots this whole case  lets see if you can locate it.