June Bamber, did not attend bible class evening before she was killed...

[Jane]

That is because I think for Jeremy to have committed the murders, he would have had to have an accomplice who was there with him. That is hardly ever discussed, so I come across as pro most of the time.
Can´t see why it should irritate you - you´ve been one yourself!

It isn't one sided fence sitting which irritates. It's feeling I'm being challenged for the sake of it.

[Alias]

It isn't one sided fence sitting which irritates. It's feeling I'm being challenged for the sake of it.

I could say the same - this is a discussion board about a case with a lot of unknowns!

P.S. If I am here "for the sake of it" - what is your reason, which you obviously feel is more legitimate?

[Mr. Gee]

Which is very different from saying he was scared for his life which makes it sound as if he thought she was about to kill him or someone else.

Oh I think it means a great deal to say that you "fear for your safety". No one I should think expects their partner would kill them. But it doesn't mean that they won't harm them in some way?

[Jane]

I could say the same - this is a discussion board about a case with a lot of unknowns!

P.S. If I am here "for the sake of it" - what is your reason, which you obviously feel is more legitimate?

Condescension comes with the territory of being on opposite sides, as your PS confirms. Added to which, we'd ALL prefer to have the last word and none of us likes to be wrong.

[Alias]

Condescension comes with the territory of being on opposite sides, as your PS confirms. Added to which, we'd ALL prefer to have the last word and none of us likes to be wrong.

I don´t think you quite answered me. I am posting "just for the sake of it", and you are posting bacause .......?

[Jane]

Oh I think it means a great deal to say that you "fear for your safety". No one I should think expects their partner would kill them. But it doesn't mean that they won't harm them in some way?

And it doesn't mean that they will. Generally they don't.

[Steve_uk]

It's not a case of " me wanting Sheila to hit her mother "..
You know ( if you still believe so  ) as well as most,that Sheila was like a coiled spring,who DID have a violent streak because she used to land out at anyone who happened to be in her way,including her children.
Now give me a valid reason as to Junes' injury and her reason for not informing her Bible class, when again,we all knew that she was an honest,Godfearing woman ,the type who wouldn't have let her friends down and who wouldn't have been so ill-mannered as not to reply or answer them.

There is reference on Jeremy's own website to Sheila pushing Nicholas out of a taxi,when he would have been four years old. There's another incident mentioned where Sue Ford hears from Freddi Emani,Sheila's drug dealer,that she punched the twins in the face. It's difficult to know with this kind of evidence just what the truth is. Social services were involved but disjointedly,because Maida Vale fell under Westminster and Hampstead where Sheila lived with Colin was under Camden jurisdiction. I don't think there were any notes available to the Defence at trial about Sheila's case.http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/how-and-why-did-sheila-do-it

[Patti]

Sometimes its a long day on here trying to project your thoughts...only for your thoughts to be continually blasted away with the offer of no reasoning....being thoughtful to others does not come naturally to everyone, but a little reminder can't do any harm. 
 

[Jane]

I don´t think you quite answered me. I am posting "just for the sake of it", and you are posting bacause .......?

Currently I think you are CHALLENGING for the sake of it and I'm responding although I can 't ACTUALLY believe this conversation has descended to this ridiculous level

[Jane]

There is reference on Jeremy's own website to Sheila pushing Nicholas out of a taxi,when he would have been four years old. There's another incident mentioned where Sue Ford hears from Freddi Emani,Sheila's drug dealer,that she punched the twins in the face. It's difficult to know with this kind of evidence just what the truth is. Social services were involved but disjointedly,because Maida Vale fell under Westminster and Hampstead where Sheila lived with Colin was under Camden jurisdiction. I don't think there were any notes available to the Defence at trial about Sheila's case.http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/how-and-why-did-sheila-do-it

Steve as none of the above information ever found its' way in to anyone's WS's, I can only assume it to be hearsay.

[Jan]

Steve as none of the above information ever found its' way in to anyone's WS's, I can only assume it to be hearsay.

I heard it was in Sue Fords statement - but I have been unable to find it .

[Alias]

Currently I think you are CHALLENGING for the sake of it and I'm responding although I can 't ACTUALLY believe this conversation has descended to this ridiculous level

I agree, it is ridiculous that when I post, it is just for the sake of it and to challenge you, but when you post (and challenge - you do too, you know!), it is for some higher, worthier purpose.
Cannot help laughing a little bit about that, but I think we should let it rest for the greater good.

[Patti]

Steve I don't think it says she pushed him. She was not watching them. I forget which twin it was, but he did have to attend hospital. 

Sad to say that Sheila did not watch her children well, this is not because she did not love them, for she did. Sheila was else where at times and this is why Colin eventually looked after the children.  There was also a letter addressed to NBamber regarding school attendance.  It appears the wee souls had to get their own breakfast and was always late for school because Shelia could not wake up in time to take them. This could have been her medication of course dueled with her illness at the time. 

[Steve_uk]

Steve I don't think it says she pushed him. She was not watching them. I forget which twin it was, but he did have to attend hospital. 

Sad to say that Sheila did not watch her children well, this is not because she did not love them, for she did. Sheila was else where at times and this is why Colin eventually looked after the children.  There was also a letter addressed to NBamber regarding school attendance.  It appears the wee souls had to get their own breakfast and was always late for school because Shelia could not wake up in time to take them. This could have been her medication of course dueled with her illness at the time. 

Yes of course Patti,and I doubt the veracity of the statement because the twins would have told Colin. It's such a terrible situation when the mother becomes unfit to look after her children and this case through no fault of her own. I don't think there was any real damage done because Sheila was guilty of omission rather than wilful neglect,which Colin rectified those last months anyway. It may have been the excuse Jeremy needed in his own mind to do away with his sister and nephews as well as his parents,who in my opinion were the real target.

[Jane]

I agree, it is ridiculous that when I post, it is just for the sake of it and to challenge you, but when you post (and challenge - you do too, you know!), it is for some higher, worthier purpose.
Cannot help laughing a little bit about that, but I think we should let it rest for the greater good.

Alias, it's a joy to find we agree about something. I entirely concur and I think it's so much better to laugh. Here's to the greater good.........................whatever it may be :D :D :D :D