Letter Trail - Wallet

[Jane]

I believe this will have been dealt with by Ngb but I would not expect Ngb to post anything confidential on an open forum. I have no reason to believe Ngb has changed his stance and each time he has advised me or discussed legal matters with me he has always been 100% right.

Interesting post

Are you able to say exactly what you believe there to be for Neil to involve himself in regarding Caroline's correspondence with Jeremy. Letters passing between two people, to the best of my knowledge, don't require input from a third (and/or legal) party. As Caroline and Jeremy didn't bring Neil, or his 'stance', into their conversations, I'm perfectly certain Neil would agree that there was nothing legal there for him to concern himself with. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no conversation -regarding this- between Caroline and Neil.

[David1819]

I have read the letters without the redacted parts.  Over the course of the letters, after having failed to answer Caroline's question/s about the wallet, Jeremy claims to not have had Caroline's letter with him, when he originally replied to her questions.

He claims that this is the case nine times out of ten, when replying to people's letters.  He either claims to have memorised Caroline's questions or to have provided his answers to her from memory (his actual remark on this is ambiguous). 

After answering some of Caroline's questions - he does express he will answer other questions when he gets back on the wing - but he doesn't clarify which questions he is referring to.

At one point he claims to have not remembered the wallet question when writing his original letter to Caroline -  but he notes having remembered the answer to wallet question as being either 'no or not important'.

He attempts to provide reasoning for this and some extenuating circs.  He makes reference to the volume of letters and cards he receives, especially after a TV program (presumably about the case). He claims that for the most part, it is only he himself who replies to people's letters / cards.

He claims to be totally convinced that he was framed by police and relatives and he expresses that (because of this) there are some questions in letters he receives that he personally feels are unimportant.  He attempts to apologise for having treated the wallet question in this manner, conceding that he was flippant about it, when from Caroline's point of view it was obviously an important question.

He claimes that DS Stan Jones and Ann Eaton made up hundreds of things that he (Jeremy) is supposed to have said.  He claims to have not known the exact amount in his dad's wallet - but he claims to have known that it was standard practice for his dad to carry a few hundred quid on him in his wallet.

So it is true that he did not answer Caroline's question or avoided her question (depending upon which way this is looked at).  He then goes on to try and provide some reasoning as to why this lack of response occurred.

xxxxxxxx Caroline only shows you what she wants you to see. Hence why whatever she has showed you, she won't be posting here.  And hence what she did post originally was taken down as soon as people got suspicious . 

[Steve_uk]

It's a fair point that Caroline makes though of course it cannot be proved either way. The temptation must have been for Jeremy to filch what was in the wallet after killing him and rifling through the trousers. It's a similar scenario with June's black eye, which to my mind was made when he discovered his mother had wandered to the door when all he wanted was her dead in bed, so he lashed out in frustration.

This is the kind of man we are dealing with here, and unless you garner material from all sources and are willing to accept the malice in Jeremy's heart it will be nigh on impossible to reconcile yourselves to the stark truth.

[susan]

[quote author=David1819 link=topic=8228.msg397467#msg397467 date=149418510
xxxxxxxx  Caroline only shows you what she wants you to see. Hence why whatever she has showed you, she won't be posting here.  And hence what she did post originally was taken down as soon as people got suspicious . 

It's a fair point that Caroline makes though of course it cannot be proved either way. The temptation must have been for Jeremy to filch what was in the wallet after killing him and rifling through the trousers. It's a similar scenario with June's black eye, which to my mind was made when he discovered his mother had wandered to the door when all he wanted was her dead in bed, so he lashed out in frustration.

This is the kind of man we are dealing with here, and unless you garner material from all sources and are willing to accept the malice in Jeremy's heart it will be nigh on impossible to reconcile yourselves to the stark truth.

Hello steve  have you any sources for your statements or is this pure conjecture regarding the black eye June had.

[Steve_uk]

Hello steve  have you any sources for your statements or is this pure conjecture regarding the black eye June had.

Do you mean have I finally solved the Jeremy Bamber case after 32 years? No, but after I collated the information and drew the strands together the evidence was overwhelming.

[susan]

Do you mean have I finally solved the Jeremy Bamber case after 32 years? No, but after I collated the information and drew the strands together the evidence was overwhelming.

two members of the Jury would not agree with you

[Steve_uk]

two members of the Jury would not agree with you

..and don't forget the one who fell asleep.

[susan]

..and don't forget the one who fell asleep.

Hahaha Steve love it

[JackiePreece]

Are you able to say exactly what you believe there to be for Neil to involve himself in regarding Caroline's correspondence with Jeremy. Letters passing between two people, to the best of my knowledge, don't require input from a third (and/or legal) party. As Caroline and Jeremy didn't bring Neil, or his 'stance', into their conversations, I'm perfectly certain Neil would agree that there was nothing legal there for him to concern himself with. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no conversation -regarding this- between Caroline and Neil.

I would certainly never disclose on this forum any conversations I have had with Neil on any updates on this case.  Neil has helped Jeremy in the past and I am certain Neil would help Jeremy in the future if Jeremy asked for his help in the future.  I always let Neil know if I know of anything that might help Jeremy.
I have made it absolutely crystal clear in the past that I do not believe Neil would help Jeremy if he thought he was guilty.
If Roch changes his stance so be it. He says he is going to leave the forum anyway. Maybe he should stay and join Hartley and Co
I certainly have no intention of trying to change your mind.
You believe Mugford, Anne Eaton, David and Robert Boutflour.
I don't
Once again Jeremy answered every question I put to him immediately on the phone and I must have asked him a lot more than Caroline

[JackiePreece]

It's a fair point that Caroline makes though of course it cannot be proved either way. The temptation must have been for Jeremy to filch what was in the wallet after killing him and rifling through the trousers. It's a similar scenario with June's black eye, which to my mind was made when he discovered his mother had wandered to the door when all he wanted was her dead in bed, so he lashed out in frustration.

This is the kind of man we are dealing with here, and unless you garner material from all sources and are willing to accept the malice in Jeremy's heart it will be nigh on impossible to reconcile yourselves to the stark truth.

You keep fantasising Steve, your posts are amusing but I can't take them seriously
You sound like a wannabe author like PH

[JackiePreece]

Do you mean have I finally solved the Jeremy Bamber case after 32 years? No, but after I collated the information and drew the strands together the evidence was overwhelming.

Right :-))

[JackiePreece]

Do you mean have I finally solved the Jeremy Bamber case after 32 years? No, but after I collated the information and drew the strands together the evidence was overwhelming.

That's a no then

[Steve_uk]

That's a no then

Well I'll let you make up your own mind, but since the word "no" does appear that conclusion may well be drawn.

[Roch]

If Roch changes his stance so be it. He says he is going to leave the forum anyway. Maybe he should stay and join Hartley and Co

Not sure what you mean by this.  I am 100% that Sheila committed the killings.  Not a doubt in my mind.

[guest2181]

I would certainly never disclose on this forum any conversations I have had with Neil on any updates on this case.  Neil has helped Jeremy in the past and I am certain Neil would help Jeremy in the future if Jeremy asked for his help in the future.  I always let Neil know if I know of anything that might help Jeremy.
I have made it absolutely crystal clear in the past that I do not believe Neil would help Jeremy if he thought he was guilty.
If Roch changes his stance so be it. He says he is going to leave the forum anyway. Maybe he should stay and join Hartley and Co
I certainly have no intention of trying to change your mind.
You believe Mugford, Anne Eaton, David and Robert Boutflour.
I don't
Once again Jeremy answered every question I put to him immediately on the phone and I must have asked him a lot more than Caroline

I'm not a celebrity, there is no need to keep name dropping me. I hope I'm not the subject of your communications with JB, no, I doubt he even knows I exist.

Plus if Roch ever changes stance, I'll have to do the same, I think we both enjoy arguing with each other.