Author Topic: Familiar Portrait?  (Read 19162 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: Familiar Portrait?
« Reply #315 on: May 22, 2015, 09:48:PM »
The reason why drugs seem like a good explanation is because it's so abhorrent that it's hard to believe anyone would do something so vile ........ and yet.

I am thinking about the things Brett was involved in and Julie too, not the murders. Drugs came to mind. That´s all, I am not defending Jeremy, how can that be seen as a defence? I am simply trying to see some logic in this.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Familiar Portrait?
« Reply #316 on: May 22, 2015, 09:52:PM »
I am thinking about the things Brett was involved in and Julie too, not the murders. Drugs came to mind. That´s all, I am not defending Jeremy, how can that be seen as a defence? I am simply trying to see some logic in this.
I know Brett was interviewed by the police when he retuned from his visit to Greece and was discounted.  Mike did post a copy of the interview but haven't been able to find it again.   :-\
We have no idea if Jeremy is still in touch with Brett unless anyone knows differently?

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Familiar Portrait?
« Reply #317 on: May 22, 2015, 10:00:PM »
I am thinking about the things Brett was involved in and Julie too, not the murders. Drugs came to mind. That´s all, I am not defending Jeremy, how can that be seen as a defence? I am simply trying to see some logic in this.

Perhaps there just isn't any other than Jeremy killed his family for the inheritance, but got caught because of his own stupidity and arrogance?
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Familiar Portrait?
« Reply #318 on: May 22, 2015, 10:05:PM »
 Fielder wrote a statement at the time of the photo debacle,but was never called to give evidence at trial.
I wonder where his statement is,does anyone know ?

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Familiar Portrait?
« Reply #319 on: May 22, 2015, 10:11:PM »
Fielder wrote a statement at the time of the photo debacle,but was never called to give evidence at trial.
I wonder where his statement is,does anyone know ?

Perhaps Mike has a copy?
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Familiar Portrait?
« Reply #320 on: May 22, 2015, 10:13:PM »
Perhaps Mike has a copy?
Might be worth asking him Lookout and about the Brett interview.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Familiar Portrait?
« Reply #321 on: May 22, 2015, 10:30:PM »
Quote," After his first arrest and release without charge, Jeremy was approached by the newspapers for his story. Naively he went to meet with one after his solicitor advised him against it.But Jeremy was tired of being vilified by the newspapers after his arrest and wanted to tell his story. Jeremy said that Brett Collins also advised that he should go and meet with the journalist. But the Sun journalist wasn't interested in Jeremy's account and continually asked questions about Sheila Caffell and requested any modelling pictures which might have been pornographic.Jeremy had told him there were none and that there might have been some topless ones but Colin Caffell would have those.
The journalist ran the story reporting that the newspaper had been offered these pictures and they also went to the police. The newspaper never obtained pictures of Sheila because they didn't exist.
Further proof that Jeremy Bamber had not intended to sell any pictures to the newspaper. Unquote".

Online Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21084
Re: Familiar Portrait?
« Reply #322 on: May 22, 2015, 10:45:PM »

One "truth" isn't necessarily the WHOLE truth. It's about cause and effect. We react to different stimuli in different ways, ie, when someone addresses us in a way in which we feel neither confronted nor attacked we are more likely to respond similarly.

Colin was saying it how he experienced it. A view which had to have been coloured by how he remembered the twins -clinging to him and pleading with him not to make them stay a WHF and his own guilt about having left them there. His words, regarding June, are undoubtedly angry, but given the tragedy, are they balanced?

It can't be denied that Sheila and Jeremy were probably -in secret- a disappointment to June. I feel qualified to say this because of the numerous times my mother told me I was a disappointment to her and wasn't AT ALL what she had wanted and planned for -not that my permission was ever sought, she assumed I owed her and would acquiesce out of gratitude. I think it reasonable to assume that June had planned for her children to be carbon copies of her and Neville, partly because that was her only frame of reference, partly because her breadth of vision was limited to how her sister's children were, and partly because her world moved silently from season to season and generation to generation with little change. It was safe. Or should have been!

I am truly sorry that you felt unsupported at school. It sounds as if you and your sister would have felt  isolated with your problem.
April what a powerful post. I think June did want to exercise control over her children even if she deceived herself that she was doing the right thing by trying to influence their choice of friends by believing it was ultimately for their own good. I was reminded of Obama's remark about country folk clinging to their "guns and religion" which offered some form of certainty and continuity in an ever-changing world. I think Colin blamed June for Sheila's illness with her remark about "always remembering God" and of course "the Devil's child" when the causes of schizophrenia are far more likely to be genetic. When June was stabilized herself at the end after her bouts of illness and left the heartfelt letter to be opened after her death she acknowledged her mistakes,which for her must have been a big deal as the Church must find it difficult to compromise on any morality without it leading to a slippery slope of debauchery and licentiousness.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Familiar Portrait?
« Reply #323 on: May 22, 2015, 10:48:PM »
April what a powerful post. I think June did want to exercise control over her children even if she deceived herself that she was doing the right thing by trying to influence their choice of friends by believing it was ultimately for their own good. I was reminded of Obama's remark about country folk clinging to their "guns and religion" which offered some form of certainty and continuity in an ever-changing world. I think Colin blamed June for Sheila's illness with her remark about "always remembering God" and of course "the Devil's child" when the causes of schizophrenia are far more likely to be genetic. When June was stabilized herself at the end after her bouts of illness and left the heartfelt letter to be opened after her death she acknowledged her mistakes,which for her must have been a big deal as the Church must find it difficult to compromise on any morality without it leading to a slippery slope of debauchery and licentiousness.
Also an excellent post Steve

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Familiar Portrait?
« Reply #324 on: May 22, 2015, 10:50:PM »
Quote," After his first arrest and release without charge, Jeremy was approached by the newspapers for his story. Naively he went to meet with one after his solicitor advised him against it.But Jeremy was tired of being vilified by the newspapers after his arrest and wanted to tell his story. Jeremy said that Brett Collins also advised that he should go and meet with the journalist. But the Sun journalist wasn't interested in Jeremy's account and continually asked questions about Sheila Caffell and requested any modelling pictures which might have been pornographic.Jeremy had told him there were none and that there might have been some topless ones but Colin Caffell would have those.
The journalist ran the story reporting that the newspaper had been offered these pictures and they also went to the police. The newspaper never obtained pictures of Sheila because they didn't exist.
Further proof that Jeremy Bamber had not intended to sell any pictures to the newspaper. Unquote".

Yeah right!  ;D ;D ;D ;D is that from CP again? What page? That's not what Colin or the journalist states, Jeremy has never said he didn't try to sell them and neither has Colin. That's Jeremy's twist!  ;)
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Familiar Portrait?
« Reply #325 on: May 22, 2015, 11:04:PM »
Yeah right!  ;D ;D ;D ;D is that from CP again? What page? That's not what Colin or the journalist states, Jeremy has never said he didn't try to sell them and neither has Colin. That's Jeremy's twist!  ;)






This was courtesy of Roch.But I don't know where it came from there's no reference to it or with it.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Familiar Portrait?
« Reply #326 on: May 23, 2015, 12:08:AM »





This was courtesy of Roch.But I don't know where it came from there's no reference to it or with it.

With respect to Roch, it's not even a proper reference.
Few people have the imagination for reality

guest154

  • Guest
Re: Familiar Portrait?
« Reply #327 on: May 23, 2015, 09:26:AM »
I can help you out with that, it came from the 'Official' JB website. See here:
jeremybamber.org/jeremy-bamber/

Say no more.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33771
Re: Familiar Portrait?
« Reply #328 on: May 23, 2015, 09:35:AM »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Familiar Portrait?
« Reply #329 on: May 23, 2015, 10:18:AM »
 ::) ::) ::) ::)-------------always shooting the messenger !!!