outlandish Theory's

[lookout]

So what you're saying is, this is hearsay. There is no proof that Jeremy found this check stub. No mention has ever been made of £40,000 going out of June's account -a vast amount NOW, a FORTUNE then-  and nothing to say if such an amount, IF it was missing, was drug related. If Sheila had managed to get through that amount, she'd undoubtedly have been an addict rather than a social user.

Like there's no proof that Jeremy carried out the murders,it was all hearsay in the form of circumstantial with plenty of character assassination thrown in to look the part.

Apparently it was pointed out by both parents that they didn't like the company that Sheila was keeping,latterly. Sheila may have obtained drugs " on tick " in order to sell them to get her out of the debt that she was in because she wasn't working. She'd done the " nude " photo's for the same reason,to get some sort of income. How she was surviving God only knows. Didn't one author write that she'd resorted to " thieving from houses ?" Or was that more written lies ??

[guest154]

So what you're saying is, this is hearsay. There is no proof that Jeremy found this check stub. No mention has ever been made of £40,000 going out of June's account -a vast amount NOW, a FORTUNE then-  and nothing to say if such an amount, IF it was missing, was drug related. If Sheila had managed to get through that amount, she'd undoubtedly have been an addict rather than a social user.

If Jeremy had found it then he would have mentioned it, 40k drug debt? What was Sheila doing with it all? Flushing it down the toilet? It's unsubstantiated and seems illogical, I don't for a second believe it.

[guest154]

Like there's no proof that Jeremy carried out the murders,it was all hearsay in the form of circumstantial with plenty of character assassination thrown in to look the part.

Apparently it was pointed out by both parents that they didn't like the company that Sheila was keeping,latterly. Sheila may have obtained drugs " on tick " in order to sell them to get her out of the debt that she was in because she wasn't working. She'd done the " nude " photo's for the same reason,to get some sort of income. How she was surviving God only knows. Didn't one author write that she'd resorted to " thieving from houses ?" Or was that more written lies ??

Drugs? Stealing from houses?  Sounds more like you're describing Jeremy who is proven to have done both of those things.

[lookout]

So what you're saying is, this is hearsay. There is no proof that Jeremy found this check stub. No mention has ever been made of £40,000 going out of June's account -a vast amount NOW, a FORTUNE then-  and nothing to say if such an amount, IF it was missing, was drug related. If Sheila had managed to get through that amount, she'd undoubtedly have been an addict rather than a social user.

Wilkes,pro-guilty and you don't believe what he's written ?

[guest154]

Wilkes,pro-guilty and you don't believe what he's written ?

Wilkes may believe it, he may have been told about it and believed his source.  Doesn't mean it's true. The fact he wrote it doesn't make it true and just because he believes in Bamber guilt doesn't mean those that also believe in his guilt will take all claims by Wilkes as truth.Do you believe everything a supporter writes? Wait.. don't answer that.. 

[lookout]

Ask yourselves how the press got hold of a story like that.

[lookout]

Because I don't remember Jeremy having gained financially from telling lies !! That was left to others.

[lookout]

The proof would have been in June's handbag so what happened to that ? Find out and there's your answer !

[guest154]

Because I don't remember Jeremy having gained financially from telling lies !! That was left to others.

He tried to though, with his deal with the newspaper. But thankfully he wasn't able to add to the money he'd already claimed  by killing his family and taking the inheritance because the police, courts and jury saw through him.

The proof would have been in June's handbag so what happened to that ? Find out and there's your answer !

In Junes handbag? I guess you're saying that's where the apparent cheque stub was - you said Jeremy found that so he must have had the handbag, that would be no surprise!!

[maggie]

Wilkes,pro-guilty and you don't believe what he's written ?

Whether Jeremy is guilty or not, it doesn't make Sheila a saint imo.
She had huge problems and is known to have smoked cannabis on a regular basis and various people who knew her have suggested she took harder drugs. It seems she had money problems hence the food delivered to her from June. Why did June take the food rather than send her money? Maybe because she knew money wouldn't go on food, I'm sure June had more to do than travel up to London each week but she did it to ensure sheila ate.
I am not attacking or bad mouthing Sheila but she did appear to be chaotic and out of control and many PS's use drugs because they believe it makes them better ie. They self medicate.
Did Sheila have a huge drug debt? She may have done, drugs are expensive and over years you could build up a huge bill. Where did £40,000 come from anyway, who first mentioned it?
Even if not so huge she may very well have had a debt, I have personal experience of someone regularly taking drugs, it's easy to build up a bill of £400 a month and easy enough to double that, maybe the debt was £4000 not £40,000?

[Jane]

Like there's no proof that Jeremy carried out the murders,it was all hearsay in the form of circumstantial with plenty of character assassination thrown in to look the part.

Apparently it was pointed out by both parents that they didn't like the company that Sheila was keeping,latterly. Sheila may have obtained drugs " on tick " in order to sell them to get her out of the debt that she was in because she wasn't working. She'd done the " nude " photo's for the same reason,to get some sort of income. How she was surviving God only knows. Didn't one author write that she'd resorted to " thieving from houses ?" Or was that more written lies ??

And the jury believed circumstantial to be enough. Frankly Lookout, the casuyal and churlish way in which he reacted to the ALLEGED call from his father would have probably gone more than 50% of the way to persuading me of his guilt.

So June and Nevill didn't like the company their adult daughter kept. Neither did mine. Big deal. Sheila probably did NOT get drugs "on tick". She'd have needed to be working all day and all night to have run up a debt that size. She didn't make money from the pictures although Jeremy tried to. I wonder from where the author acquired the information that she'd resorted to stealing from country houses. I looks like you jump from a great height on those you believe to be lying about Jeremy but you appear perfectly at ease with supporting lies about Sheila.

[Jane]

Wilkes,pro-guilty and you don't believe what he's written ?

I'M inclined not to believe -or at the cvery least, doubt- anything which can't be corroborated, be it pro or anti guilt.

[Jane]

Ask yourselves how the press got hold of a story like that.

Chinese Whispers and failure to double check?

[Jane]

Because I don't remember Jeremy having gained financially from telling lies !! That was left to others.

But he came within a whisper of collecting big time by so doing.

[Jane]

The proof would have been in June's handbag so what happened to that ? Find out and there's your answer !

Don't need to Lookout. HAD such been available, you can rest assured that Jeremy would have shown/told his defence and produced bank statements to back it up. He may have been lax enough to "lose/mislay" the cheque stub, but Sheila and June's banks wouldn't have been so.