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

[maggie]

I agree that if people make unsubstantiated claims, they should expect to be called on it and if they don't like that, they really shouldn't make the claims in the first place. Expecting people to have blind faith in someone they don't know is a bit silly. Personally, I think at the heart of it, this is ALL CT propaganda.

I am not against people being questioned, the reason the posts were removed was because of the accusations.
I would always remove posts in that situation no matter which side of the argument or who they were.

[susan]

No one is supporting anyone for telling untruths justice.  You suggested BR was another poster using a different persona, maybe you were wrong about that?

I don't recall hell breaking loose I recall I may have commented that your accusations weren't acceptable, we can't have any poster accusing others of lying without proof therefore removing the post seemed the best option. 

It is fair enough that you are protective towards people you know and believe are being bad mouthed on the forum but that has always been the way it is on here.  I have removed the words from the post which made you so angry, I had missed this but if you had pmd me about it I would have edited the post.

I don't believe it's fair to expect me, one moderator on this forum to see everything on here.  I am always willing do my best to help and support posters.

Maggie you do a superb job and it is possible you may miss posts because you do have a life off the forum.  You will never please everybody Maggie but I think you are a fantastic Mod you are fair and have a lovely attitude which is so important as you would not know how to be offensive

[maggie]

Maggie you do a superb job and it is possible you may miss posts because you do have a life off the forum.  You will never please everybody Maggie but I think you are a fantastic Mod you are fair and have a lovely attitude which is so important as you would not know how to be offensive

That is kind of you Susan.  Much appreciated. 

[orb9999]

Well said indeed Susan. The trouble is that there are so many people on the forum these days arguing with each other, calling others liars, getting very personal with their comments that you have an impossible job. This is why I do not post anymore.

[Adam]

Hiw would you like your name branded about all the time on a forum saying you were responsible for something without proof, what about her children and grandchildren, just because Jackie says so without providing any evidence. If Anne came on here and called Jackie out she would get banned, it's a joke. I hope soon these people who make lives hard for others on Facebook, twitter, forums are brought to justice themselves.  I asked Bill for proof and called him untruthful with Roch and all hell let's loose, at least they have a chance to prove me wrong.  The forum is run now to promote untruths and you either swallow it or piss off, I don't want any further part in it, I'm really insensed by it notsure, I asked Jackie to be careful how she worded it and tried to help, i have given up, I hate liars and con merchants and I tried to protect posters from one, but it seems it's ok on here.

There are people commuting suicide through this sort of activity on internet, all I ask was being a bit more considerate, if you think it's ok then go ahead.

It is strange that the relatives get accused of framing Bamber. Then the accusers refuse to answer any questions on how they physically achieved this.

It's similar to saying Bamber is innocent just because Julie identified the twins.

No one disputes the relatives did not believe Sheila committed the massacre, or that Julie identified the twins. They put it in their own WS's. How that leaps to Bamber being innocent & the relatives framing him I don't know.

Evidence such as Sheila having to have changed & showered after killing herself, which was added to the library today,  is blanked out by supporters.

[guest7363]

No one is supporting anyone for telling untruths justice.  You suggested BR was another poster using a different persona, maybe you were wrong about that?

I don't recall hell breaking loose I recall I may have commented that your accusations weren't acceptable, we can't have any poster accusing others of lying without proof therefore removing the post seemed the best option. 

It is fair enough that you are protective towards people you know and believe are being bad mouthed on the forum but that has always been the way it is on here.  I have removed the words from the post which made you so angry, I had missed this but if you had pmd me about it I would have edited the post.

I don't believe it's fair to expect me, one moderator on this forum to see everything on here.  I am always willing do my best to help and support posters.

Thank you Maggie

[David1819]

It is strange that the relatives get accused of framing Bamber. Then the accusers refuse to answer any questions on how they physically achieved this.

Questions have been answered. Problem is you demand impossible proofs.

This is you to a T

"Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely."

"Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance."

http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html

[Adam]

Questions have been answered. Problem is you demand impossible proofs.

This is you to a T

"Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely."

"Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance."

http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html

Not asking for impossible proofs. Just reasonable answers. And no 1, 2 or 3 word answers which you usually do.  Enjoy.


Had the relatives ever been in trouble with the law before ?

Did the relatives know there was no other evidence which showed Sheila was the killer ?

Did the relatives know about back splatter ?

Did the relatives know there was no back splatter already on the rifle nozzle ?

Did the relatives know that one of Sheila's shots was a contact shot ?

Did the relatives know the rifle with the silencer on was too long for Sheila to shoot herself ?

Did the relatives know where to get Sheila's blood ?

If unable to get Sheila's blood, did the relatives know what blood type she was ?

Did the relatives know who in the family had Sheila's blood type ?

Did the relatives know how to expertly put Sheila's blood/blood type into the silencer. Creating the back splatter effect ?

Did the relatives know when WHF was empty so they could go back and scratch the aga ?

Did the relatives know how to scratch the aga to suggest a kitchen fight ?

Did the relatives know that the crime scene photos did not already include pictures of the aga without the scratch's ?

Did the relatives know where to get a strand of Nevill's hair ?

Did the relatives know the risks in attempting this frame and the punishment if found ?

Did the relatives know that each other could be completely trusted in a big crime committe ?

[maggie]

Thank you Maggie

No probs justice. 

[Steve_uk]

In reply to Lookout's post #197 on The Rifle in the Window thread:

From Colin's book In Search of the Rainbow's End:

On one of my first visits to the farm, Bambs was showing me some of her paintings and drawings, which her parents had kept from her school-days, when one caught my eye as particularly striking. It portrayed three girls wearing long dresses standing on a spiral staircase, another girl at the bottom, kneeling on the floor in dark clothes, looking down and away from the others. Its imagery was both powerful and disturbing-not unlike Edvard Munch's painting The Scream. When I asked Bambs about it, she told me she had painted it at Moira House when she was eleven years old. The three girls represented the older pupils who were always "really nasty" to her and always made out that they were "so superior and glamorous" and that she was always so "dowdy and pathetic". I told her I thought the painting very moving and advanced for the age at which she did it, and asked if she would let me have it."

A few things strike me here. Sheila is combining elements of her home life (the feeling of helplessness leading to her lack of self-worth, the way her mother may have controlled her attire, the reference to the spiral staircase at White House Farm) with the experience at her new school, which again is an alien environment to her as she is shunned as a newcomer, starting as she did mid-term. Colin turned the picture over and discovered:

"there was a sinister black and white face with bright red lips, which had been crossed out with two broad daubs of red paint. It is often the case that the aborted attempt at a picture can be even more significant than the one which is presented. The whole thing, which in its entirety is even more reminiscent of The Scream, now seems horribly symbolic."

Colin goes on to say that it was the same day that Sheila showed him a picture of Nevill's late sister Diana. Did Sheila have an inkling that she had been packed off to boarding school suddenly because of Nevill's bereavement and his retreat into his own world just as his wife had in the past with her breakdowns? What of the situation whereby two adopted children now resided in a place with two reticent parents, unable or unwilling to express their emotions readily? What impact did this have on both Sheila and Jeremy as they reached their naturally rebellious teenage years, though devoid of an outlet to express their problems and fears?

[Jane]

In reply to Lookout's post #197 on The Rifle in the Window thread:

From Colin's book In Search of the Rainbow's End:

On one of my first visits to the farm, Bambs was showing me some of her paintings and drawings, which her parents had kept from her school-days, when one caught my eye as particularly striking. It portrayed three girls wearing long dresses standing on a spiral staircase, another girl at the bottom, kneeling on the floor in dark clothes, looking down and away from the others. Its imagery was both powerful and disturbing-not unlike Edvard Munch's painting The Scream. When I asked Bambs about it, she told me she had painted it at Moira House when she was eleven years old. The three girls represented the older pupils who were always "really nasty" to her and always made out that they were "so superior and glamorous" and that she was always so "dowdy and pathetic". I told her I thought the painting very moving and advanced for the age at which she did it, and asked if she would let me have it."

A few things strike me here. Sheila is combining elements of her home life (the feeling of helplessness leading to her lack of self-worth, the way her mother may have controlled her attire, the reference to the spiral staircase at White House Farm) with the experience at her new school, which again is an alien environment to her as she is shunned as a newcomer, starting as she did mid-term. Colin turned the picture over and discovered:

"there was a sinister black and white face with bright red lips, which had been crossed out with two broad daubs of red paint. It is often the case that the aborted attempt at a picture can be even more significant than the one which is presented. The whole thing, which in its entirety is even more reminiscent of The Scream, now seems horribly symbolic."

Colin goes on to say that it was the same day that Sheila showed him a picture of Nevill's late sister Diana. Did Sheila have an inkling that she had been packed off to boarding school suddenly because of Nevill's bereavement and his retreat into his own world just as his wife had in the past with her breakdowns? What of the situation whereby two adopted children now resided in a place with two reticent parents, unable or unwilling to express their emotions readily? What impact did this have on both Sheila and Jeremy as they reached their naturally rebellious teenage years, though devoid of an outlet to express their problems and fears?

The reason that Sheila is made out to be "shy, timid, incapable and ditsy" is, I imagine, because that exactly how she saw herself. No matter that she may have known that she was attractive. No matter that she may have know she could paint/draw. She never seems to have believed she was attractive/talented ENOUGH. She seems always to have measured herself against others and found herself wanting -it's possible that this is what June did to her as a way of moulding her into becoming a Bamber.

I'm skeptical about her alleged ability to write "prolifically". Colin certainly makes no mention of it in the above passage, concentrating, instead, on her ability to express herself well through the media of paint. Indeed, he makes a point of saying that Sheila had shown him paintings she'd kept from her school days. They must have had meaning to her. He makes no reference to "prolific" writings. The ability to put down feelings in words suggests a rather more academic? thoughtful? introspective? character than Sheila's. There would seem to be an immediacy about painting. A spontaneity. I feel Sheila may have lacked the concentration to write.

[Jan]

The reason that Sheila is made out to be "shy, timid, incapable and ditsy" is, I imagine, because that exactly how she saw herself. No matter that she may have known that she was attractive. No matter that she may have know she could paint/draw. She never seems to have believed she was attractive/talented ENOUGH. She seems always to have measured herself against others and found herself wanting -it's possible that this is what June did to her as a way of moulding her into becoming a Bamber.

I'm skeptical about her alleged ability to write "prolifically". Colin certainly makes no mention of it in the above passage, concentrating, instead, on her ability to express herself well through the media of paint. Indeed, he makes a point of saying that Sheila had shown him paintings she'd kept from her school days. They must have had meaning to her. He makes no reference to "prolific" writings. The ability to put down feelings in words suggests a rather more academic? thoughtful? introspective? character than Sheila's. There would seem to be an immediacy about painting. A spontaneity. I feel Sheila may have lacked the concentration to write.

well if we could see her diaries we would perhaps be able to comment on this in more detail.

[Steve_uk]

The reason that Sheila is made out to be "shy, timid, incapable and ditsy" is, I imagine, because that exactly how she saw herself. No matter that she may have known that she was attractive. No matter that she may have know she could paint/draw. She never seems to have believed she was attractive/talented ENOUGH. She seems always to have measured herself against others and found herself wanting -it's possible that this is what June did to her as a way of moulding her into becoming a Bamber.

I'm skeptical about her alleged ability to write "prolifically". Colin certainly makes no mention of it in the above passage, concentrating, instead, on her ability to express herself well through the media of paint. Indeed, he makes a point of saying that Sheila had shown him paintings she'd kept from her school days. They must have had meaning to her. He makes no reference to "prolific" writings. The ability to put down feelings in words suggests a rather more academic? thoughtful? introspective? character than Sheila's. There would seem to be an immediacy about painting. A spontaneity. I feel Sheila may have lacked the concentration to write.

I agree that had Sheila been able to express herself more eloquently (the most rebellion growing up were tantrums it seems) her mental health would have been better and she could have seen through June more readily for what she was-namely a control freak who herself had issues to deal with. As it was she expressed her animosity to June by escaping the family environment as quickly as she could, though this in itself brought problems in its wake. With their concentration on Sheila the Bambers took their eyes off the ball with Jeremy and as you say attempted to mould them into something both of them could never possibly become.

[maggie]

I agree that had Sheila been able to express herself more eloquently (the most rebellion growing up were tantrums it seems) her mental health would have been better and she could have seen through June more readily for what she was-namely a control freak who herself had issues to deal with. As it was she expressed her animosity to June by escaping the family environment as quickly as she could, though this in itself brought problems in its wake. With their concentration on Sheila the Bambers took their eyes off the ball with Jeremy and as you say attempted to mould them into something both of them could never possibly become.

Although there is little doubt that June was a strong and possibly highly controlling person, I don't believe that is the complete cause for Sheila's apparent self doubt and lack of confidence.
Schizophrenia does not suddenly appear but is a gradual process. Pre schizophrenia tends to show in teenage years as low self esteem and self belief, chaotic thinking, anxiety, etc.  Obviously this often goes unnoticed and is dismissed as part of teenage development. It is possible as June had her own mental health problems she was ill equipped to recognise her daughter may have problems  other than being a difficult teenager or because of her own religious obsession that Sheila had 'bad blood' possibly because she was illegitimate. Sheila was away at boarding school, finishing school etc.  so there was also probably a lack of emotional involvement and support  for Sheila not unusual between children and parents who choose to send their children away at a young age.

[Samson]

In reply to Lookout's post #197 on The Rifle in the Window thread:

From Colin's book In Search of the Rainbow's End:

On one of my first visits to the farm, Bambs was showing me some of her paintings and drawings, which her parents had kept from her school-days, when one caught my eye as particularly striking. It portrayed three girls wearing long dresses standing on a spiral staircase, another girl at the bottom, kneeling on the floor in dark clothes, looking down and away from the others. Its imagery was both powerful and disturbing-not unlike Edvard Munch's painting The Scream. When I asked Bambs about it, she told me she had painted it at Moira House when she was eleven years old. The three girls represented the older pupils who were always "really nasty" to her and always made out that they were "so superior and glamorous" and that she was always so "dowdy and pathetic". I told her I thought the painting very moving and advanced for the age at which she did it, and asked if she would let me have it."

A few things strike me here. Sheila is combining elements of her home life (the feeling of helplessness leading to her lack of self-worth, the way her mother may have controlled her attire, the reference to the spiral staircase at White House Farm) with the experience at her new school, which again is an alien environment to her as she is shunned as a newcomer, starting as she did mid-term. Colin turned the picture over and discovered:

"there was a sinister black and white face with bright red lips, which had been crossed out with two broad daubs of red paint. It is often the case that the aborted attempt at a picture can be even more significant than the one which is presented. The whole thing, which in its entirety is even more reminiscent of The Scream, now seems horribly symbolic."

Colin goes on to say that it was the same day that Sheila showed him a picture of Nevill's late sister Diana. Did Sheila have an inkling that she had been packed off to boarding school suddenly because of Nevill's bereavement and his retreat into his own world just as his wife had in the past with her breakdowns? What of the situation whereby two adopted children now resided in a place with two reticent parents, unable or unwilling to express their emotions readily? What impact did this have on both Sheila and Jeremy as they reached their naturally rebellious teenage years, though devoid of an outlet to express their problems and fears?

Is there any chance of posting that eleven year old's painting Steve?