shiela atending a party.

[maggie]

Nice of you to pop up as usual. 

I am right about what, the case? Yeah, because I think that is backed up with evidence and I can post things to back up my opinion - which I think is important.

Having pops at the family is different than debating the case - the family are victims of this crime no matter how you look at it and if you think that Lookout posting what she posts about them is okay then it says a lot about you, Maggie.

It says nothing about me mat, Lookout hasn't said anything 'vile' as you called it in her posts today, you are just splitting hairs and I will 'pop up' as much as I want to especially when I think people are being bullied....  can't bear bullying.
As for being right, because you THINK it's backed up with evidence, I suppose Lookout feels exactly the same.  You obviously don't agree with her that's fair enough but don't make personal attacks.

[guest154]

It says nothing about me mat, Lookout hasn't said anything 'vile' as you called it in her posts today, you are just splitting hairs and I will 'pop up' as much as I want to especially when I think people are being bullied....  can't bear bullying.
As for being right, because you THINK it's backed up with evidence, I suppose Lookout feels exactly the same.  You obviously don't agree with her that's fair enough but don't make personal attacks.

Personal attack? Do you even know what a personal attack is. I attacked her post, I don't know anything about Lookout. I don't care to know anything about Lookout. She hasn't posted anything vile today? She has attacked the relatives in the couple of posts above.

Don't use the bully card, that's not true at all. It seems Lookout is free to post what she likes about the relatives because they are not here to defend themselves, nor should they have to defend themselves from someone attacking them on a constant basis on an internet forum - but when anyone takes offence of Lookouts post to the relatives, whether is is myself, Caroline, April, Petey Vid or Hartley ... YOU pop up with the bullying card. 

[Jane]

Sorry but I'm right. None of them came running to see if they could help in any way. June herself was ill and had been for a long time so you can't tell me that nobody would have known. Wasn't it June who'd helped her nephew with his drug habit ? It was only June and her sister who were the willing horses in the family and they were older than the others so what's your problem ?

I'm not quite sure what you mean Lookout. What do you mean by "seeing if they could help..........."? I feel perfectly certain, that even if they were aware of June being ill, given that any mental illness was seen as a weakness, it wouldn't have been mentioned. There was no need for Pam to know any more than Neville's nephew was staying for an indefinite period. It was never June's secret to tell.

I'm fully aware that there are families who keep secrets but they are no more or LESS dysfunctional than those families who can't **** without all the other members being aware.

[maggie]

Personal attack? Do you even know what a personal attack is. I attacked her post, I don't know anything about Lookout. I don't care to know anything about Lookout. She hasn't posted anything vile today? She has attacked the relatives in the couple of posts above.

Don't use the bully card, that's not true at all. It seems Lookout is free to post what she likes about the relatives because they are not here to defend themselves, nor should they have to defend themselves from someone attacking them on a constant basis on an internet forum - but when anyone takes offence of Lookouts post to the relatives, whether is is myself, Caroline, April, Petey Vid or Hartley ... YOU pop up with the bullying card. 

That is totally untrue, I do not 'pop up' with the bullying card but you have just attacked Lookout personally and I have just commented. It's not acceptable to make personal attacks on other posters whatever their opinion.
As far as attacks on the relatives obviously vile attacks are not tolerated but by the nature of the subject being discussed they are bound to be mentioned and there have been far worse attacks in the past than what was posted by Lookout today.   I find your comments that I accuse Caroline, April, petey, Vid or Hartley of bullying, ridiculous 

[lookout]

I'm not quite sure what you mean Lookout. What do you mean by "seeing if they could help..........."? I feel perfectly certain, that even if they were aware of June being ill, given that any mental illness was seen as a weakness, it wouldn't have been mentioned. There was no need for Pam to know any more than Neville's nephew was staying for an indefinite period. It was never June's secret to tell.

I'm fully aware that there are families who keep secrets but they are no more or LESS dysfunctional than those families who can't **** without all the other members being aware.

Apart from Pamela,it would have appeared that June was closer to her people of the church rather than the rest of the family.
I'd imagine Pam would have told RWB of the " illness problems " as he was actually listening in to the final call between the two sisters on the night of the tragedy,who in turn I'm sure would have told the others in the family.
AE knew because of the letter she'd received from Sheila from her hospital bed,but there didn't appear to have been an offer of help in replying to that letter.

[guest154]

That is totally untrue, I do not 'pop up' with the bullying card but you have just attacked Lookout personally and I have just commented. It's not acceptable to make personal attacks on other posters whatever their opinion.
As far as attacks on the relatives obviously vile attacks are not tolerated but by the nature of the subject being discussed they are bound to be mentioned and there have been far worse attacks in the past than what was posted by Lookout today.   I find your comments that I accuse Caroline, April, petey, Vid or Hartley of bullying, ridiculous 

I think you and Lookout are two peas in a pod when it comes to the relatives, so we are never going to agree on posts about them. I wasn't attacking Lookout PERSONALLY. I was attacking her post, the same way that others have in this topic. I take your modding as seriously as I take your posts on the case - so we're clearly never going to agree.

If I have attacked Lookout personally, rather than say her post is vile, which I think it is - I will discuss it with NGB or Lookout.

[guest154]

Apart from Pamela,it would have appeared that June was closer to her people of the church rather than the rest of the family.
I'd imagine Pam would have told RWB of the " illness problems " as he was actually listening in to the final call between the two sisters on the night of the tragedy,who in turn I'm sure would have told the others in the family.
AE knew because of the letter she'd received from Sheila from her hospital bed,but there didn't appear to have been an offer of help in replying to that letter.

Even if they knew about it, we don't know what extent they knew about "illness problems". And a lot of people do not know how to act or how to help in that sort of situation and would fear making things worse by mentioning it or going on about it.

[maggie]

I think you and Lookout are two peas in a pod when it comes to the relatives, so we are never going to agree on posts about them. I wasn't attacking Lookout PERSONALLY. I was attacking her post, the same way that others have in this topic. I take your modding as seriously as I take your posts on the case - so we're clearly never going to agree.

If I have attacked Lookout personally, rather than say her post is vile, which I think it is - I will discuss it with NGB or Lookout.

Do please discuss it with ngb nothing would please me more

As for me attacking the relatives... are you serious?  When have I ever attacked the relatives?  I have always defended June rightly or wrongly I have always felt she has been attacked and abused in a way she doesn't deserve...  get your facts straight. 

You attack lookout personally over and over again and it's very unpleasant, you can disagree with a post without being so personal but you don't seem to even know when you are doing it. 

[notsure]

I dont think lookouts post was vile at all. Lokout was just posting her opinion and if anything i think matts response was very aggresive.

the family will be discussed and i have my own doubts about thier honesty in this case. In particular AE, however that is not a personal attack it is the way i view the discrepancies in her statements .

[guest154]

I dont think lookouts post was vile at all. Lokout was just posting her opinion and if anything i think matts response was very aggresive.

the family will be discussed and i have my own doubts about thier honesty in this case. In particular AE, however that is not a personal attack it is the way i view the discrepancies in her statements .

Perhaps if you viewed Bamber as guilty and the relatives as innocent you would see them being called heartless as derogatory.

[Jane]

Apart from Pamela,it would have appeared that June was closer to her people of the church rather than the rest of the family.
I'd imagine Pam would have told RWB of the " illness problems " as he was actually listening in to the final call between the two sisters on the night of the tragedy,who in turn I'm sure would have told the others in the family.
AE knew because of the letter she'd received from Sheila from her hospital bed,but there didn't appear to have been an offer of help in replying to that letter.

Do you not find it illogical that, given no one appeared to know that Sheila was staying at the farm, that RWB chose that particular night to earwig on his wife's telephone call? I don't know what you're implying Ann knew. There was nothing in the letter -the first she'd ever received from her- about Sheila coming to stay at the farm. It would have been totally impracticable for Ann -with her busy life-  to drop everything and high-tail it to London to look after a cousin she had nothing in common with.

[notsure]

Not really Matt, even if he were guilty i would still have the same opinion of them. I do Not agree with the way they conducted thier own investigation into this case and some of the things they did.

have you ever been in a group of company and some of them have certain views and the eloquent and convincing way they describe those views you find yourselves agreeing with them only to someti e later think to yoyrself ' actually i didnt really agree with what they were saying' . Only thing different in this case is that they were all going to benefit so wanted it all to be true.

[guest154]

Not really Matt, even if he were guilty i would still have the same opinion of them. I do Not agree with the way they conducted thier own investigation into this case and some of the things they did.

have you ever been in a group of company and some of them have certain views and the eloquent and convincing way they describe those views you find yourselves agreeing with them only to someti e later think to yoyrself ' actually i didnt really agree with what they were saying' . Only thing different in this case is that they were all going to benefit so wanted it all to be true.

I don't think that they did anything I or others wouldn't do in their situation. They didn't believe the story that was presented to them - they knew Sheila and knew Jeremy and didn't believe Sheila had killed the family, they thought Jeremy was acting strange and was involved. If I was in their situation you can bet I would do the same as they did and I wouldn't leave the police alone until I felt they had paid attention to me and taken me seriously.

It turned out that they were right, and the evidence showed Sheila hadn't killed herself. So who did? 

I think you're putting  too much emphasis on the money they were going to inherit - and ignoring that Jeremy was also bout to inherit.  The relatives had seemed fine and happy in their lives before it, and not money hungry. Jeremy had seemed money hungry and negative of his parents and sister.

[Jan]

Not really Matt, even if he were guilty i would still have the same opinion of them. I do Not agree with the way they conducted thier own investigation into this case and some of the things they did.

have you ever been in a group of company and some of them have certain views and the eloquent and convincing way they describe those views you find yourselves agreeing with them only to someti e later think to yoyrself ' actually i didnt really agree with what they were saying' . Only thing different in this case is that they were all going to benefit so wanted it all to be true.

I am not so sure they were thinking of the long term - I think they just did not want Jeremy to inherit and I do think they thought he was guilty so did everything they could to get him convicted by whatever influence they could. But as they were not there on the night then it does not mean they were correct. And Anne herself said she regretted not replying to sheilas letter ( an obvious cry for help) which she could have done so easily. To ignore a letter like that does seem rude if nothing else.

[Caroline]

Not really Matt, even if he were guilty i would still have the same opinion of them. I do Not agree with the way they conducted thier own investigation into this case and some of the things they did.

have you ever been in a group of company and some of them have certain views and the eloquent and convincing way they describe those views you find yourselves agreeing with them only to someti e later think to yoyrself ' actually i didnt really agree with what they were saying' . Only thing different in this case is that they were all going to benefit so wanted it all to be true.

I think we are in great danger here of thinking we know the people involved when we don't. Much has been written about the relatives and most of it negative. Ask yourself what you would do if you KNEW one of your relatives was responsible for a similar crime and they were about to get off with it. Would you want them around you? Would you want them having a stake in a business you had worked hard for? Would you not feel sick to the stomach at the thought of them getting away with killing 5 people including two six year old boys? I know I would and I would make sure I did ALL I could to get them locked up.