Another Freudian Slip?

[Adam]

All this has been discussed before.

Everyone knows Bamber's actions after the 'mysterious' call from Neville were extremely erratic and incriminating. Threads already created.

[Jane]

"None of his actions are consistent with receiving a phone call he claims to have received."


I don't see how this is factual. It is assumption on how a person will react to a call.

we are all different and will react differently .

He made the decision to call the police - probably hoping they would go with him and help calm the situation. He did what they asked and met them there . He was then under their instruction and did beg them to go in at one stage .  If you are going to use that argument then none of his actions are consistent with a man that had just a few hours before committed a bloody massacre and destroyed every bit of forensic evidence either.

"We are all different and will react differently" -I agree, but are you applying that JUST to Jeremy or every convicted prisoner. If it's the latter we surely, on those grounds, have to give the benefit of the doubt to the majority who are incarcerated.

Given how long he diddled at home he gave a remarkably good performance, at the scene, of being distraught.

[Jan]

"We are all different and will react differently" -I agree, but are you applying that JUST to Jeremy or every convicted prisoner. If it's the latter we surely, on those grounds, have to give the benefit of the doubt to the majority who are incarcerated.

Given how long he diddled at home he gave a remarkably good performance, at the scene, of being distraught.

No only those where there is no evidence linking them to the crime (:

[gringo]

We don't know the rest of the conversation or see what body language was given....Its difficult to access what and how it was said...The fact is nothing was ever made of it. 

  There is nothing to make of it, Patti. What we do know is that Ann Eaton was looking for evidence of Jeremy's guilt and she appears to read far too much into the answers to her leading questions. Her evident bias makes her an unreliable source of what Jeremy purportedly said, especially as this statement was given with the intent of incriminating Jeremy.
    Discussing why he made this "freudian slip" without context or corroboration from anyone other than AE is jumping the gun. We don't really know whether he said what is claimed, or if he did, in what context but others appear willing to accept that a conversation recalled one month later is a verbatim account and treat it as fact.
   

[Jan]

All this has been discussed before.

Everyone knows Bamber's actions after the 'mysterious' call from Neville were extremely erratic and incriminating. Threads already created.

No that is not true. It is interpretation of his behaviour based on statements - many of which were not made until a month later and covering up for the fact that "allegedly" the police had been duped good and proper and made a massive mistake.

Have you ever seen Jeremy actually questioned about how he felt or reacted on the night?

He definitely denied he said some of the things that the police attributed to him.

[scipio_usmc]

He was answering the questions that the police were asking - and they themselves said that they told Jeremy what they were doing and how they were going to approach the situation.

You are saying Jeremy should have rushed in to help - and yet it is ok for the police to spend hours outside without going in when they had all the experience and equipment. They also spent hours trying to speak to silence apparently.

Police act rationally not emotionally.  They feared there were hostages inside and that rushing in could result in the hostages being shot.  They were fed lies about there being an arsenal in the house which Sheila had used in the past. 

An emotional person would have gone over and went inside, especially since Sheila was not known to have any interest in guns and had not used them before.  Certainly an emotional person would want to at minimum look in the windows to try to see or hear something not to be too scared to even approach a window.

He was not acting emotionally he was aloof and there is a DISCONNECT because on one hand he claimed he was too scared to go over (and even feared some master plan by Sheila to sucker him there) and yet if that were the case he should have had enough concern to immediately dial 999 not to call Julie and then waste time looking up numbers in a phonebook.

While those in the tank for Jeremy are too blinded to see this Jeremy's lawyers were not and at trial he tried to explain his behavior by saying that he initially didn't think there was any emergency, Sheila had been delusional in the past without incident but after thinking about Nevill's words it suddenly hit him that there was a major problem and he had better call police. Then after that he claimed he called Julie because he was troubled.  But the evidence that he called Julie before police is strong and his whole construct falls apart under scrutiny.




   

[scipio_usmc]

"We are all different and will react differently" -I agree, but are you applying that JUST to Jeremy or every convicted prisoner. If it's the latter we surely, on those grounds, have to give the benefit of the doubt to the majority who are incarcerated.

Given how long he diddled at home he gave a remarkably good performance, at the scene, of being distraught.

Not so good a job at first according to the Appeal Decision:

"Having walked to the house from the lane there was further conversation. The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. Those who saw the appellant at the scene at that time described him as remarkably calm. At some stage during their conversations that morning PC Myall and the appellant spoke about motor cars. The appellant said that the Osea Road Caravan Site company, "would be able to stand him a Porsche" car at some point during the year."

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html

[scipio_usmc]

  There is nothing to make of it, Patti. What we do know is that Ann Eaton was looking for evidence of Jeremy's guilt and she appears to read far too much into the answers to her leading questions. Her evident bias makes her an unreliable source of what Jeremy purportedly said, especially as this statement was given with the intent of incriminating Jeremy.
    Discussing why he made this "freudian slip" without context or corroboration from anyone other than AE is jumping the gun. We don't really know whether he said what is claimed, or if he did, in what context but others appear willing to accept that a conversation recalled one month later is a verbatim account and treat it as fact.
   

She had no reason to make it up.  He had a history of lying in contrast and did indeed tell different things to different people.  Objective people will believe it. That of course leaves you out.  But how biased people choose to view everything in this case is meaningless what matters is how objective people including objective jurors and judges view things.

[Adam]

Jeremy's reason for calling Julie does not make sense.

He said 'no comment' when asked in his police interview.

However when testifying he said he 'wanted to hear a friendly voice'.

His father had just rang and said 'please come over, Sheila's gone crazy and she's got the gun'. Yet he was calm enough to decide be wanted to hear a friendly voice. After he had spoken to the police.

[lookout]

" Remarkably calm"---------------better than agitated ? Can you tell me how he was supposed to have been,given that we've ALL got our own individual ways of dealing with situations.?

[scipio_usmc]

No that is not true. It is interpretation of his behaviour based on statements - many of which were not made until a month later and covering up for the fact that "allegedly" the police had been duped good and proper and made a massive mistake.

Have you ever seen Jeremy actually questioned about how he felt or reacted on the night?

He definitely denied he said some of the things that the police attributed to him.

His denials are not credible though.  The chance of so many different officers making the same error or up the same stories is unlikely. They had no reason to make such things up and wrote the things early on. 

     

[Jan]

Police act rationally not emotionally.  They feared there were hostages inside and that rushing in could result in the hostages being shot.  They were fed lies about there being an arsenal in the house which Sheila had used in the past. 

An emotional person would have gone over and went inside, especially since Sheila was not known to have any interest in guns and had not used them before.  Certainly an emotional person would want to at minimum look in the windows to try to see or hear something not to be too scared to even approach a window.

He was not acting emotionally he was aloof and there is a DISCONNECT because on one hand he claimed he was too scared to go over (and even feared some master plan by Sheila to sucker him there) and yet if that were the case he should have had enough concern to immediately dial 999 not to call Julie and then waste time looking up numbers in a phonebook.

While those in the tank for Jeremy are too blinded to see this Jeremy's lawyers were not and at trial he tried to explain his behavior by saying that he initially didn't think there was any emergency, Sheila had been delusional in the past without incident but after thinking about Nevill's words it suddenly hit him that there was a major problem and he had better call police. Then after that he claimed he called Julie because he was troubled.  But the evidence that he called Julie before police is strong and his whole construct falls apart under scrutiny.




 

1) he gave a list of guns that were in the house - were any of those not in there? If not he was not telling lies. ( AP gun does not count because he contradicted himself)
2) He denied he told the police she had used everyone of the guns - and that comment only arrived as an accusation after he was suspected
3) you are basing your opinions with an assumption that british police never lie to get their man. Well there is plenty of evidence including their own admissions to prove that is definitely NOT a fact.

[nugnug]

Police act rationally not emotionally.  They feared there were hostages inside and that rushing in could result in the hostages being shot.  They were fed lies about there being an arsenal in the house which Sheila had used in the past. 

An emotional person would have gone over and went inside, especially since Sheila was not known to have any interest in guns and had not used them before.  Certainly an emotional person would want to at minimum look in the windows to try to see or hear something not to be too scared to even approach a window.

He was not acting emotionally he was aloof and there is a DISCONNECT because on one hand he claimed he was too scared to go over (and even feared some master plan by Sheila to sucker him there) and yet if that were the case he should have had enough concern to immediately dial 999 not to call Julie and then waste time looking up numbers in a phonebook.

While those in the tank for Jeremy are too blinded to see this Jeremy's lawyers were not and at trial he tried to explain his behavior by saying that he initially didn't think there was any emergency, Sheila had been delusional in the past without incident but after thinking about Nevill's words it suddenly hit him that there was a major problem and he had better call police. Then after that he claimed he called Julie because he was troubled.  But the evidence that he called Julie before police is strong and his whole construct falls apart under scrutiny.




 

police act rationaly have you actully ever met a policeman

[scipio_usmc]

" Remarkably calm"---------------better than agitated ? Can you tell me how he was supposed to have been,given that we've ALL got our own individual ways of dealing with situations.?

Someone actually concerned about the occupants would be demanding police go inside and trying to observe through windows and asking them to call the house to see if they could or go knock on the door/plead with police to knock on the door.  He waited  along time before finally putting on an act so that he could use that as an excuse to call Julie to tell her not to go to work so she could speak to police on his behalf after the bodies are finally discovered.

After they were found he didn't have survivor guilt.  Most people in his place would and that is before even taking into account his claim he is the one who left the bullets, loaded magazine and gun out that allegedly Sheila encountered and used because this weapon of opportunity was there.  This is one of the red flags to the family- that he never told them he blamed himself and regretted leaving the gun out and had survivor guilt.  He was an inconsistent actor.

[scipio_usmc]

police act rationaly have you actully ever met a policeman

This is a perfect example of your own biases that prevent you from being rational in any case we discuss.  Your attitude is all police are bad no one should ever be convicted...it basically renders your behavior trollish.