Questions about the bible :

[lookout]

 I think the religion bit was used as a prop during certain times in Sheila's behaviour,particularly when she was being confronted or to get out of a situation. Whichever way you look at it,it was more a cry for help than the fact that she was,herself,religious.

[guest2181]

What I say IS true. There remains documentation on this very forum for all to see. If quoting in written text is not convincing enough for you. Below I have attached the relevant parts of Dr Ferguson's statements to Essex police one is from the 8th of August the other is from the 18th September 1985. Its not coming from me is since I am and quoting directing from Dr Ferguson its his words not mine.

Happy now? 

I'm not sure I am, you said:

I have read several times that Shelia began studying the bible with June at one time tho I cannot remember were.

Where have you read this several times?

The fact that YOU have read it, but YOU cannot remember where, isn't exactly compelling. 

[David1819]

I'm not sure I am, you said:

Where have you read this several times?

The fact that YOU have read it, but YOU cannot remember where, isn't exactly compelling. 

Colin's statements to police.

[Jane]

What I say IS true. There remains documentation on this very forum for all to see. If quoting in written text is not convincing enough for you. Below I have attached the relevant parts of Dr Ferguson's statements to Essex police one is from the 8th of August the other is from the 18th September 1985. Its not coming from me is since I am and quoting directing from Dr Ferguson its his words not mine.

Happy now? 

OK. So we have Dr Ferguson saying, Aug 8th, that Sheila and June suffered the same symptoms but for different reasons. Hardly difinitve, is it? In September he's describing how Sheila was when she was readmitted. One has to assume that, if she was still exhibiting the same symptoms -the reason for her admission- at the time of her release, he wouldn't have released her. He actually CAN'T say what she was like after she left the hospital because he never saw her again, ergo, no conclusions can be drawn about her relationship with God at the time of her death.

Colin, in this context, can't be said to be entirely reliable. A) He no longer lived with Sheila. B) He was an atheist so the very mention of "God" was probably anathema to him.

You still have not told us from where you received the knowledge that Sheilahad been studying the Bible with June.

[guest2181]

Colin's statements to police.

I've just read all of his statements which are available on this forum, including the hand written ones.
(see here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1560.msg47922.html#msg47922  )

I may be mistaken, but I didn't see any mention of Sheila and June studying the bible together.
Any ideas? 

[Caroline]

Colin's statements to police.

As you have proved to be incorrect about Colin saying that June and Sheila studied the bible together (which was what I was referring to) - I throw Ricky Palm Face - back in your face. All you have posted is that Colin said she found religion - most of the forum could have told you that. You did this with something else - I shall have to dig it up!

[Jane]

Colin's statements to police.

It's interesting that all Colin has to say is that "she mentioned (it) to me." It doesn't actually sound as if they had a conversation about it.

[David1819]

I've just read all of his statements which are available on this forum, including the hand written ones.
(see here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1560.msg47922.html#msg47922  )

I may be mistaken, but I didn't see any mention of Sheila and June studying the bible together.
Any ideas? 

Its most probable that I read such a statement from an author or journalist using such sources as Colins statements ect to put together that narrative. If I ever come across it again I will let you know.

However it only takes common sense and logic to work out that Shelia had read the bible at some stage. You have multiple sources confirming Shelia's religious beliefs in God and Jesus ect now there is only one source one can go to obtain such beliefs that is reading the Bible or being read testimony from the Bible. If someone believes in Jesus then the Bible is significant to them because that is the story of Jesus and the fabric of the faith itself.

[Caroline]

Its most probable that I read such a statement from an author or journalist using such sources as Colins statements ect to put together that narrative. If I ever come across it again I will let you know.

However it only takes common sense and logic to work out that Shelia had read the bible at some stage. You have multiple sources confirming Shelia's religious beliefs in God and Jesus ect now there is only one source one can go to obtain such beliefs that is reading the Bible or being read testimony from the Bible. If someone believes in Jesus then the Bible is significant to them because that is the story of Jesus and the fabric of the faith itself.

You're missing the point (and I think deliberately) NO ONE is suggesting that Sheila hadn't read from the bible but YOU said you have read that June and Sheila studied it TOGETHER and your back up for that is 'that you read it somewhere'. Perhaps you should take your own advice? 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7183.msg339368.html#msg339368

[Jane]

Its most probable that I read such a statement from an author or journalist using such sources as Colins statements ect to put together that narrative. If I ever come across it again I will let you know.

However it only takes common sense and logic to work out that Shelia had read the bible at some stage. You have multiple sources confirming Shelia's religious beliefs in God and Jesus ect now there is only one source one can go to obtain such beliefs that is reading the Bible or being read testimony from the Bible. If someone believes in Jesus then the Bible is significant to them because that is the story of Jesus and the fabric of the faith itself.

You appear to be trying to create something out of this which isn't there simply to prove your own point. many of us who'd been bought up with regular church/Sunday school/R.E. lessons in school, can probably quote those bible passages, as adults, that we had to learn by heart, as children. We CAN'T unlearn or unhappen them, whether, or not, we believe in Jesus. I very much doubt that Sheila was the potential Evangelist you're trying to present her as being.

[David1819]

OK. So we have Dr Ferguson saying, Aug 8th, that Sheila and June suffered the same symptoms but for different reasons. Hardly difinitve, is it? In September he's describing how Sheila was when she was readmitted. One has to assume that, if she was still exhibiting the same symptoms -the reason for her admission- at the time of her release, he wouldn't have released her. He actually CAN'T say what she was like after she left the hospital because he never saw her again, ergo, no conclusions can be drawn about her relationship with God at the time of her death.

Colin, in this context, can't be said to be entirely reliable. A) He no longer lived with Sheila. B) He was an atheist so the very mention of "God" was probably anathema to him.

You still have not told us from where you received the knowledge that Sheilahad been studying the Bible with June.

You along with Caroline apply an unbalanced, non-objective and blatently preferential standards to the evidence. You argue that Jeremy is guilty because of what person A B C and D said and so
forth, but when presented with witness statements of equal if not more validity that seems to cast doubt on Jeremy's conviction you find excuses to ignore the evidence such as its not definitive or in-depth enough and come up with any rational to downplay its significance or at best you may GRUDGINGLY admit the evidence is more than adequate; Whereas you ENTHUSIASTICALLY point out (and often greatly exaggerate) not definitive, vague and even scarcely credible statements from people that seem to point to Jeremy being the guilty party.

Thus it is a clear double standard whereby for you the standards for evidence implicating Jeremy is lenient and accommodating but the standard for evidence in Jeremy's defence is strictly unharmonious rigid and convoluted.

[Caroline]

You along with Caroline apply an unbalanced, non-objective and blatently preferential standards to the evidence. You argue that Jeremy is guilty because of what person A B C and D said and so
forth, but when presented with witness statements of equal if not more validity that seems to cast doubt on Jeremy's conviction you find excuses to ignore the evidence such as its not definitive or in-depth enough and come up with any rational to downplay its significance or at best you may GRUDGINGLY admit the evidence is more than adequate; Whereas you ENTHUSIASTICALLY point out (and often greatly exaggerate) not definitive, vague and even scarcely credible statements from people that seem to point to Jeremy being the guilty party.

Thus it is a clear double standard whereby for you the standards for evidence implicating Jeremy is lenient and accommodating but the standard for evidence in Jeremy's defence is strictly unharmonious rigid and convoluted.

Clearly you just make things up! You're now deciding why YOU think WE think he's guilty. You've gone off on some weird tangent and are trying to downplay the fact that you can't back-up your own argument. Not sure how you think Sheila must be guilty beause she might have read the bible at some point?

[Jane]

You along with Caroline apply an unbalanced, non-objective and blatently preferential standards to the evidence. You argue that Jeremy is guilty because of what person A B C and D said and so
forth, but when presented with witness statements of equal if not more validity that seems to cast doubt on Jeremy's conviction you find excuses to ignore the evidence such as its not definitive or in-depth enough and come up with any rational to downplay its significance or at best you may GRUDGINGLY admit the evidence is more than adequate; Whereas you ENTHUSIASTICALLY point out (and often greatly exaggerate) not definitive, vague and even scarcely credible statements from people that seem to point to Jeremy being the guilty party.

Thus it is a clear double standard whereby for you the standards for evidence implicating Jeremy is lenient and accommodating but the standard for evidence in Jeremy's defence is strictly unharmonious rigid and convoluted.

I'd say exactly the same of you. You're cherry picking. Jeremy is guilty for no OTHER reason than than his guilt. The most I've done is a very local straw poll in which one out of five people -all of whom had connections to the family- believed Jeremy innocent and mused that it could be a microcosm of a wider viewpoint.

I can quite see why you might not want anyone to look too closely at those pieces of evidence which aren't definitive -I might say I did exactly the same when I thought Jeremy was innocent- and you seem to conveniently forget that I've argued with Adam from both sides.

[Caroline]

I'd say exactly the same of you. You're cherry picking. Jeremy is guilty for no OTHER reason than than his guilt. The most I've done is a very local straw poll in which one out of five people -all of whom had connections to the family- believed Jeremy innocent and mused that it could be a microcosm of a wider viewpoint.

I can quite see why you might not want anyone to look too closely at those pieces of evidence which aren't definitive -I might say I did exactly the same when I thought Jeremy was innocent- and you seem to conveniently forget that I've argued with Adam from both sides.

We have both argued the case from both sides but even when I thought him innocent, there were things I wasn't comfortable with. I am not comfortable about the silencer now that I believe he's guilty but regardless of whether there is any forensic evidence - there is too much circumstantial evidence for him to be innocent and Jeremy isn't good at answering difficult questions - an innocent man wouldn't have a problem.

[Jane]

We have both argued the case from both sides but even when I thought him innocent, there were things I wasn't comfortable with. I am not comfortable about the silencer now that I believe he's guilty but regardless of whether there is any forensic evidence - there is too much circumstantial evidence for him to be innocent and Jeremy isn't good at answering difficult questions - an innocent man wouldn't have a problem.

I'm not entirely convinced that David1819 -a fan of Queen Victoria, maybe?- believes Jeremy is innocent.