Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?

[Caroline]

I agree.

So do I.

[Steve_uk]

Is it not true that if Jeremy had taken on WHF the boutflours would have been indebted?

No they probably would have been granted a bank loan and worked the land hard as they had for generations, whilst Jeremy lived it up in London squandering his inheritance.

[David1819]

I don't 'know' but I think Buddy may have been thinking of Carbonnell's in Wix?

I think it was owned, or partially owned by Mabel Speakman, so there are some complicated inheritance scenarios that could have presented themselves I suppose.

This is all I have on it. 

[lookout]

No they probably would have been granted a bank loan and worked the land hard as they had for generations, whilst Jeremy lived it up in London squandering his inheritance.

He never had the chance to prove himself,did he ? They made sure of that.

[guest2181]

This is all I have on it. 

Yeah, but that piece of land wasn't associated with the WHF holdings, which as we know, are owned by a charity trust. So I'm not really sure where Buddy was going with it. 

[Steve_uk]

I am indebted to the late Campion and post this respectfully in tribute to him:


Posts: 1967
 
 
Re: Bamber Country
« Reply #32 on: February 22, 2012, 12:38:PM »

Quote
   Summer, This is where I think the problems arise, the adopted mothers side of the family. With granny
Speakman passing away so close to Jeremy's arrest, presumably she must have been in poor health
for sometime and her passing would be expected by all parties with a vested interest. Generally,
grandchildren have little specialist knowledge of how much there grandparents are worth in shares and
property. Their children do because they have openly discussed this delicate issue prior to the event,
particularly the farming fraternity, because it involves death duties, mainly inheritance tax. If they weren't in the loop, the consequences may affect there own properties that could be held in a family trust. The grandchildren just view that granparents are well off. This unpleasant scenario is the nature
of these situations, the children have to be well informed. In the unlikely event that an entire generation
is leapfrogged, then those with a vested interest are likely to become hostile to a junior, especially if they are not a direct blood relative. Can a family divide like that, would they push another family member
out and could they make sure that that person would never enter the scenario again, that is for people
to form their own judgement, my opinion is yes it can happen and it's much more common occurrence
than society is prepared to recognise. The Speakman family were seriously rich, because they were
very astute business people and they can only be congratulated for their success, it is what came next
and it's influences and possible motive ?

You can read the full thread here:   http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2282.0.html

[guest2181]

Yeah, but that piece of land wasn't associated with the WHF holdings, which as we know, are owned by a charity trust. So I'm not really sure where Buddy was going with it. 

See below.

The building was actually only listed in February 1987, the National Heritage listing reads as follows:

TOLLESHUNT D'ARCY PAGES LANE TL 91 SW(west side) 3/78White House Farmhouse GVII

TOLLESHUNT D'ARCY PAGES LANE TL 91 SW (west side) 3/78 White House Farmhouse GV II House. Late C18 and early C19. Red and gault brick in Flemish bond, roofed with slate. C18 range of red brick aligned N-S with 2 axial stacks. Early C19 crosswing of gault brick at S end, forming entrance front, with internal stacks at each side. C19 single-storey extension at N end. 2 storeys. Ground floor, 2 early C19 sashes of 16 lights, first floor, 2 similar sashes and one of 12 lights, all with flat brick arches. Central C20 half-glazed door in simple flat-roofed porch with 2 columns and 3 stone steps. Low-pitched hipped roof. Reported to have date 1820 inscribed on beam in roof. White House is shown on Chapman and Andre's map of 1777, then on another site approx. 400 metres to the west. Both were built by a charity established in 1626 by Henry Smith, salter and alderman of London, to which the farm still belongs at the time of survey, May 1985 (P. Morant, The History and Antiquities of Essex, 1768, I, 399).

[David1819]

Yeah, but that piece of land wasn't associated with the WHF holdings, which as we know, are owned by a charity trust. So I'm not really sure where Buddy was going with it. 

I think Buddy was referring to the inheritance as a whole when he said 'WHF'

The land may be owned by a charity trust under a long term lease, however the farming business "N & J Bamber LTD" was owned by Neville and June.

https://companycheck.co.uk/company/01327321/N--J-BAMBER-LIMITED/companies-house-data

[Steve_uk]

We seem now to have reached a most unsatisfactory state of affairs: indeed we are at an impasse as both innocent and guilty camps hold steadfastly to their views, and with no new evidence forthcoming. Those who insist on Jeremy's innocence point to bureaucratic inaccuracies and a cover-up unparalleled at the time, whilst the guilters insist that though there were minor irregularities the correct verdict was ultimately reached.

Where do we go from here? Are Colin's wishes paramount, that the man who deprived him of his two sons should spend the rest of his life behind bars, or is there still some smidgen of hope through the legal process that the sentence can be overturned? Do we begrudge Jeremy a badminton lesson or can rehabilitation only commence when an admission of guilt is made, possibly to Terry Waite or some other man of the cloth, engaging him in discourse to gently coax out the truth, though in a more intimate environment than a reception-room with screwed-down chairs set within the confines of a dank Victorian edifice, where the only outcome hitherto has been an entrenchment of Jeremy's story, buttressed as he is by an army of supporters, celebrities amongst them, who swear blindly that a miscarriage of justice has taken place.

[Steve_uk]

From Colin's book re: the silencer:

It was also pointed out to me later, by David Boutflour, that a small textured, washer-like attachment, normally fitted to the end of the gun barrel to protect the screw thread when the silencer is not attached, was found by police-officers on their second inspection of the gun cupboard in the box which had contained the silencer. Without that or the silencer attached, the thread on the end of the barrel would have been marked or damaged in much the same way that the end of the silencer was; however, it was clean and undamaged, further indicating that the silencer was attached throughout the five killings."

[lookout]

First of all,I doubt we'll hear anything regarding forensic testing results or the new evidence until 2017 now because of the long break ahead which normally lasts until about the 6th of January.

[Stephanie]

From Colin's book re: the silencer:

It was also pointed out to me later, by David Boutflour, that a small textured, washer-like attachment, normally fitted to the end of the gun barrel to protect the screw thread when the silencer is not attached, was found by police-officers on their second inspection of the gun cupboard in the box which had contained the silencer. Without that or the silencer attached, the thread on the end of the barrel would have been marked or damaged in much the same way that the end of the silencer was; however, it was clean and undamaged, further indicating that the silencer was attached throughout the five killings."

Steve, that's a cut and paste job. You'll be called out on your double standards if your not careful.

[David1819]

From Colin's book re: the silencer:

It was also pointed out to me later, by David Boutflour, that a small textured, washer-like attachment, normally fitted to the end of the gun barrel to protect the screw thread when the silencer is not attached, was found by police-officers on their second inspection of the gun cupboard in the box which had contained the silencer. Without that or the silencer attached, the thread on the end of the barrel would have been marked or damaged in much the same way that the end of the silencer was; however, it was clean and undamaged, further indicating that the silencer was attached throughout the five killings."

Ah yes. We can always rely on the word of those who got all the loot and who's reputations rest on sustaining Jeremy's conviction.

[Steve_uk]

Steve, that's a cut and paste job. You'll be called out on your double standards if your not careful.

Stephanie there's a difference between a smidgen of Colin's book and the Encyclopaedia Britannica..

[Steve_uk]

Ah yes. We can always rely on the word of those who got all the loot and who's reputations rest on sustaining Jeremy's conviction.

The Police didn't get any of the loot. I can't understand why they would go against their own boss of the time when all they probably thought that day was how much overtime they could claim.