things I have learnt from CAL book.

[Jan]

DB , when he found out about Julie going to the police said she must have been a very good actress as he saw no sign of her knowing anything at all . He also said she had a perfect opportunity to tell him and then she could have gone to the police.  Do we think she carried out this ability in court?

Other things I did not know was that Colin told the family that it could be perceived they were fitting Jeremy up to get at the money ( that upset them) .

Also apparently the comment about black flowers for Sheila was made to wind Jeremy up to get him to confess? ( by Anne)

Apparently Jeremy was convinced he would get off because he was innocent and that is all that mattered.

The jury were influenced by the judges summing up because they really were in a quandary.

I learnt more about Junes character  and her actions during the war - and also more about her illness ( very sad as well)

I learnt about the latest tests on JB to prove if he suffered from any mental illness.

I learnt he does clasp at straws to prove his innocence and obviously there could be more that one reason for that.

Because of the list of sources I do think it is worth a read .

[notsure]

Thanks jan, so interesting. Im going to order the book.

are you of the opinion that cal has not decided on guilt or innocence but merely putting the story as been told out there.

[Caroline]

Thanks jan, so interesting. Im going to order the book.

are you of the opinion that cal has not decided on guilt or innocence but merely putting the story as been told out there.

She believes he is guilty.

[Jan]

Thanks jan, so interesting. Im going to order the book.

are you of the opinion that cal has not decided on guilt or innocence but merely putting the story as been told out there.

From the book - and I am nearly at the end - she has been reasonably fair at giving both sides of the story where it exists.

I cant comment on Carolines post until I have finished the book. When I read what was in the papers about the book I nearly did not read it because in one breath she was saying she wanted the reader to make up their minds - then it was indicating he was guilty. But up until the epilogue I think she has been quite careful not to influence the reader.

I have seen a couple of things that have been missed or are not 100% accurate but on the whole I think it is quite good.

And Also can I say I would be only too pleased for the book to make up my mind one way or another - it would be a relief .

However so far it has given me more questions - but has not changed my mind.

[Caroline]

From the book - and I am nearly at the end - she has been reasonably fair at giving both sides of the story where it exists.

I cant comment on Carolines post until I have finished the book. When I read what was in the papers about the book I nearly did not read it because in one breath she was saying she wanted the reader to make up their minds - then it was indicating he was guilty. But up until the epilogue I think she has been quite careful not to influence the reader.

I have seen a couple of things that have been missed or are not 100% accurate but on the whole I think it is quite good.

And Also can I say I would be only too pleased for the book to make up my mind one way or another - it would be a relief .

However so far it has given me more questions - but has not changed my mind.

She missed the wallet episode 

[Steve_uk]

Spoiler alert:

Don't click if you don't want to know Carol Ann Lee's conclusions: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166636/Bamber-slaughtered-family-25-bullets-told-girlfriend-s-going-years-investigation-leading-author-tell-exactly-happened-night-White-House-Farm-massacre.html

[Adam]

DB , when he found out about Julie going to the police said she must have been a very good actress as he saw no sign of her knowing anything at all . He also said she had a perfect opportunity to tell him and then she could have gone to the police.  Do we think she carried out this ability in court?

Other things I did not know was that Colin told the family that it could be perceived they were fitting Jeremy up to get at the money ( that upset them) .

Also apparently the comment about black flowers for Sheila was made to wind Jeremy up to get him to confess? ( by Anne)

Apparently Jeremy was convinced he would get off because he was innocent and that is all that mattered.

The jury were influenced by the judges summing up because they really were in a quandary.

I learnt more about Junes character  and her actions during the war - and also more about her illness ( very sad as well)

I learnt about the latest tests on JB to prove if he suffered from any mental illness.

I learnt he does clasp at straws to prove his innocence and obviously there could be more that one reason for that.

Because of the list of sources I do think it is worth a read .

Doesn't amount to much new or mind blowing.

How much time did DB spend with Julie post massacre ? She told five people. It's her choice who she tells.

I'm sure the family realised if they pushed the police to look at the case again, people can claim they were being greedy.

There is a thread on the judges summing up. It seems fair to me. It can sway towards guilt or innocence, depending on the evidence.

I know he clasps at straws.

[Adam]

I understand the book has a point by point account of how the police believe  Bamber committed the massacre.

That would be interesting. CAL's version has already been posted on here. Some I agreed with, some I didn't.

It's good that guilters can back up their stance in this way.

[Jan]

She missed the wallet episode 

she does mention the wallet.

[Jan]

Doesn't amount to much new or mind blowing.

How much time did DB spend with Julie post massacre ? She told five people. It's her choice who she tells.  where did I say it was ?

I'm sure the family realised if they pushed the police to look at the case again, people can claim they were being greedy. I was referring to a remark from Colin ( source colin ) who thought the family were trying to fit Jeremy up

There is a thread on the judges summing up. It seems fair to me. It can sway towards guilt or innocence, depending on the evidence. A judge should not really influence the jury that is not his role and he did misrepresent the blood evidence  but the added information was that from a juror

I know he clasps at straws.

[Jan]

Spoiler alert:

Don't click if you don't want to know Carol Ann Lee's conclusions: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166636/Bamber-slaughtered-family-25-bullets-told-girlfriend-s-going-years-investigation-leading-author-tell-exactly-happened-night-White-House-Farm-massacre.html

I said I did read the newspaper that's why I nearly did not read the book . If I change my mind after the epilogue I will be sure to let you know. 

[Jan]

I understand the book has a point by point account of how the police believe  Bamber committed the massacre.

That would be interesting. CAL's version has already been posted on here. Some I agreed with, some I didn't.

It's good that guilters can back up their stance in this way.

well of course it would ? How could the police even take the case to court if they did not have a"theory"?

what a strange comment. These are the same people who also had a point by point theory how Sheila did it 

[Jan]

Spoiler alert:

Don't click if you don't want to know Carol Ann Lee's conclusions: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166636/Bamber-slaughtered-family-25-bullets-told-girlfriend-s-going-years-investigation-leading-author-tell-exactly-happened-night-White-House-Farm-massacre.html

Personally I feel she lets herself down by changing her mind as to whether the reader should make up their mind - after all as everyone says he is in jail so technically he is guilty.


One thing I was disappointed in was she said she wrote to Jeremy a lot over a long period of time and he wrote back - but I don't feel much of that ( whether good or bad ) is reflected . Just the odd comment.

[Adam]

A judges summing up will influence a jury. He's an expert in trials and legal matters.

A judge is a respected person, so jurors will take into account what he said.

The judges summing up is the last thing a jury will hear.

The judge takes a lot of time preparing his speech, after going through the paperwork and trial. He then spends a long time summing up for the jury.

So I don't see how a judges summing up cannot influence the jury.

[Steve_uk]

Personally I feel she lets herself down by changing her mind as to whether the reader should make up their mind - after all as everyone says he is in jail so technically he is guilty.


One thing I was disappointed in was she said she wrote to Jeremy a lot over a long period of time and he wrote back - but I don't feel much of that ( whether good or bad ) is reflected . Just the odd comment.

No I found that strange too. No correspondence is quoted. I feel the same way about Doctor Ferguson's role. These are key questions and the reader is just left in the dark.