Bamber's 1985 claim that Sheila committed child abuse:

[Adam]

On the massacre night, scene of crime officer and police surgeon, Dr Craig, testified he went for a walk with Bamber.

Bamber told him the previous night there had been discussions about fostering,  as Sheila had committed 'non accidental' injury to the twins. Dr Craig told the court this meant child abuse. This goes along with the other unflattering things Bamber was also saying about Sheila at the time.

Bamber told Dr Craig he had not reported Sheila's child abuse.  Nor, it seems had Neville and June.

Bamber has never accused Sheila of committing child abuse  since in the last 30 years. Although he has since discussed what was said at supper the night before. Partly because he had to when interviewed, compiling his WS and testifying.

Bamber testified Sheila was non responsive to the fostering conversation. This would be even more surprising if she had also been accused of child abuse. It seems the drugs she was taking really had made her very docile. As AE and CAL have said.  So it is a surprise she had the anger and strength to massacre her family a few hours later.

Other people testified Sheila was a loving mother, which contradicts her committing child abuse. There is no evidence showing Sheila committed child abuse.

Do other people believe Bamber lied about Sheila committing child abuse ? Why would he be so calculated to say such a terrible lie just minutes after finding out everyone was dead ?

[Adam]

Bamber's mind seemed quite focused and together after finding out about the massacre.

Telling the police to 'get rid'/'put down' Crispy because he 'hated the thing' and 'didn't want it messing up his stereo equipment'.

Then telling the police Sheila had committed child abuse on the twins.

Didn't he drive back to his cottage as well ? Telling the police he was 'starving' before making some breakfast.

Anyway, do people believe Bamber lied about Sheila committing child abuse ?

[lookout]

None of that is true.

[Adam]

None of that is true.

It must be my leg that's being pulled again.

[notsure]

I dont buy any of that Adam. Turn it round for a moment and put yourself in an innocent mans shoes. Your family is in the house and you have recieved a call from your dad saying your sisters gone nuts and has got the gun. ( now remember that you are a farming family and guns are always about) .so dont reply with ( why would she get the gun)

The doctor is with you and has been asked to stay with you because police need further information but are worried about your state of mind. He starts chatting to you and asking about your sister. ! Tell me Adam what would YOU have said to the doctor if you were in that position. Now remember, your sister is mentally unstable, has been in and out of hospital. You belueve shes hurt your nephews etc etc?

[Jane]

I dont buy any of that Adam. Turn it round for a moment and put yourself in an innocent mans shoes. Your family is in the house and you have recieved a call from your dad saying your sisters gone nuts and has got the gun. ( now remember that you are a farming family and guns are always about) .so dont reply with ( why would she get the gun)

The doctor is with you and has been asked to stay with you because police need further information but are worried about your state of mind. He starts chatting to you and asking about your sister. ! Tell me Adam what would YOU have said to the doctor if you were in that position. Now remember, your sister is mentally unstable, has been in and out of hospital. You belueve shes hurt your nephews etc etc?

America has Scipio. WE have Adam

[scipio_usmc]

I dont buy any of that Adam. Turn it round for a moment and put yourself in an innocent mans shoes. Your family is in the house and you have recieved a call from your dad saying your sisters gone nuts and has got the gun. ( now remember that you are a farming family and guns are always about) .so dont reply with ( why would she get the gun)

The doctor is with you and has been asked to stay with you because police need further information but are worried about your state of mind. He starts chatting to you and asking about your sister. ! Tell me Adam what would YOU have said to the doctor if you were in that position. Now remember, your sister is mentally unstable, has been in and out of hospital. You belueve shes hurt your nephews etc etc?

First of all if innocent he would tell the truth no exaggerate her illness and lie about her using the weapons in the house and having been trained how to use the murder weapon...

Jeremy lied because he was further trying to get police to blame her for it.

[notsure]

Im beginning to wonder which is worse Jane. There both balm cakes!

[scipio_usmc]

Im beginning to wonder which is worse Jane. There both balm cakes!

Says someone who baselessly supports Jeremy.  You attack people who post the official account which you have zero evidence to discount but irrationally choose to discount anyway.

My critics are simply conspiracy theorists who spout nonsense that the majority of the population laughs at. 

All such conspiracy theorists are Jeremy supporters or former Jeremy supporters who have changed their mind about Jeremy but to try to save face still suggest the case involved fabricated evidence.  Jane irrationally says Julie lied though she has no evidence to establish it.  Caroline irrationally says the moderator evidence was fabricated though she has nothing to support such.  That lack of support is what makes such beliefs irrational. 

That is defining difference between a rational belief and irrational one- whether there is reliable evidence to support the belief.

[notsure]

You crack me up scipio.i try to explain that i just dont believe some parts of the version you believe. There doesnt have to be a big piece of evidence to support that its just some of it i just dont find credible.

for that you name call me and continue to argue like a child.

well you can continue on your own because this conversation is over.

[lookout]

Says someone who baselessly supports Jeremy.  You attack people who post the official account which you have zero evidence to discount but irrationally choose to discount anyway.

My critics are simply conspiracy theorists who spout nonsense that the majority of the population laughs at. 

All such conspiracy theorists are Jeremy supporters or former Jeremy supporters who have changed their mind about Jeremy but to try to save face still suggest the case involved fabricated evidence.  Jane irrationally says Julie lied though she has no evidence to establish it.  Caroline irrationally says the moderator evidence was fabricated though she has nothing to support such.  That lack of support is what makes such beliefs irrational. 

That is defining difference between a rational belief and irrational one- whether there is reliable evidence to support the belief.

You've got a big axe to grind over this case. Were you a cop who's hanging on by the skin of his teeth in the hope he'll get his pension before this lot blows up in your face ?

[scipio_usmc]

You've got a big axe to grind over this case. Were you a cop who's hanging on by the skin of his teeth in the hope he'll get his pension before this lot blows up in your face ?

I was a little kid in the US when the murders happened, I have no connection to the handling of the case at all.  Nor do I have any other vested interest.  I know no participants and don't even have any UK relatives despite all the emails I get saying they left me money in their will and I should send some Nigerian guy money so he can release my inheritance. I have no connection of any UK governmental body. 

My strongest connection to the UK is that our law was based on British Common Law in existence at the time of our founding and any such law that has not been altered by subsequent legislative enactments is still binding law here. It is rare to need to use a British case since most things have been altered but it has happened as far as mentioning the case as a starting point and then discussing the alterations made subsequently by legislative enactment.   That certainly provides me with no reason to support the UK government engaging in wrongdoing if it could be proven to have occurred.  But no one has provided any such evidence though.

Oh I have a few friends who are British citizens or former British citizens but that certainly gives me no bias either.  My interest is purely "academic".

 

[mike tesko]

I was a little kid in the US when the murders happened, I have no connection to the handling of the case at all.  Nor do I have any other vested interest.  I know no participants and don't even have any UK relatives despite all the emails I get saying they left me money in their will and I should send some Nigerian guy money so he can release my inheritance. I have no connection of any UK governmental body. 

My strongest connection to the UK is that our law was based on British Common Law in existence at the time of our founding and any such law that has not been altered by subsequent legislative enactments is still binding law here. It is rare to need to use a British case since most things have been altered but it has happened as far as mentioning the case as a starting point and then discussing the alterations made subsequently by legislative enactment.   That certainly provides me with no reason to support the UK government engaging in wrongdoing if it could be proven to have occurred.  But no one has provided any such evidence though.

Oh I have a few friends who are British citizens or former British citizens but that certainly gives me no bias either.  My interest is purely "academic".

Lets get the facts right, Social services, Social Workers, Foster Carers and Foster Parents did not get involved in the lives of Sheila Caffell and her two young Children, for nothing. She was ill, and probably abused her children through being unwell mentally. Essex police gathered an abundance of evidence in support of this matter, most of which, if not all of it was deliberately withheld until after the trial in October 1986...

[scipio_usmc]

Lets get the facts right, Social services, Social Workers, Foster Carers and Foster Parents did not get involved in the lives of Sheila Caffell and her two young Children, for nothing. She was ill, and probably abused her children through being unwell mentally. Essex police gathered an abundance of evidence in support of this matter, most of which, if not all of it was deliberately withheld until after the trial in October 1986...

That's as rational as saying that because they arrested MM he must be involved in the murders.  Like the investigation of him turned up nothing so too did the social services investigation of Sheila.

[mike tesko]

That's as rational as saying that because they arrested MM he must be involved in the murders.  Like the investigation of him turned up nothing so too did the social services investigation of Sheila. No, its not the same, MM was released and police never bothered him again, but in Sheila Caaffels case, Social services, Social Workers, Foster Carers and Foster Parents continued to be involved in the lives of Sheila and her two children for years afterwards, suggesting that there may well have been abuse of the children in this particular case...