Letter Trail - Wallet

[Jane]

Well I'm sure you've gathered,as it's said often enough,that emotion doesn't come into it as far as I'm concerned and it's certainly not in my nature to be so because of the seriousness of how the case itself was handled.

One feels or doesn't feel, Lookout. One doesn't choose to feel -or not- in certain situations. We have the feelings. We deal with them. Reconciling isn't always easy.

[Steve_uk]

It matters no a JOT what are others' opinions of him. It's about how he saw himself as being. Neither of his parents could have been described as being arrogant so perhaps here is another pointer to how he viewed himself. Again, you who talk about -lack of- good manners and respect in others, when it comes to Jeremy, you change tack and condone his rudeness and arrogance towards someone who was simply doing their job. Being tame by comparison is neither here nor there. Rudeness is rudeness whether one is 8 or 80 and anywhere inbetween. You may think it's alright for Jeremy to sling such rudeness at others but I doubt you'd take it laying down if anyone challenged you in such a way.

Nevill left the child-rearing to June, who in turn delegated it to nannies, village girls and anyone else she could get to leave her hands free for charity work. She took her eye off the ball during her children's adolescence and expected them to fall in with her wishes as they turned to adults and when Sheila fell pregnant at that stage June was still in charge and the abortion followed. She controlled Jeremy after Gresham's but as with Sheila only through money and not emotion. The vacuum was filled with hate and not love.

[JackiePreece]

Why didn't Barbara Wilson mention Jeremy's rudeness
Remind me Jane how Barbara described Jeremy's character after the murders???

[JackiePreece]

No, you're the joke. You should try thinking less, it's not your forte - please show where I have posted that if a jury finds someone guilty then they are definitely guilty?

It applies t Jerey because I believe he is guilty!

Numerous times you have stated Jeremy is guilty because a jury found him guilty

[JackiePreece]

Nevill left the child-rearing to June, who in turn delegated it to nannies, village girls and anyone else she could get to leave her hands free for charity work. She took her eye off the ball during her children's adolescence and expected them to fall in with her wishes as they turned to adults and when Sheila fell pregnant at that stage June was still in charge and the abortion followed. She controlled Jeremy after Gresham's but as with Sheila only through money and not emotion. The vacuum was filled with hate and not love.

Well Steve we see everything very differently
I believe there was a lot of love in that home
I really believe June's illness affected the family but obviously that was nobody's fault
I am sure that Neville and June loved those two children as if they were here own

[Caroline]

Numerous times you have stated Jeremy is guilty because a jury found him guilty

No, he's guilty because he murdered 5 people. Things are so confusing for you. You really shouldn't try to get the better of people - it's not something you excel in.

[Steve_uk]

Well Steve we see everything very differently
I believe there was a lot of love in that home
I really believe June's illness affected the family but obviously that was nobody's fault
I am sure that Neville and June loved those two children as if they were here own

I'm sure they did. But did they ever hug them, touch them, look into their eyes and told them they loved them, tucked them into bed, read them a bedtime story, made them feel secure? Or were they as Colin described porcelain dolls to be seen yet left on a shelf, never to be handled. No wonder they both had tantrums, initially not to receive material things but to provoke a reaction as a June in the grips of ECT could muster no facial expression, and a Nevill who was too spent at the end of a long day on a tractor only to have his shower, reach for the gin bottle and fall asleep on the settee with the television his one medium of entertainment and escapism as his children languished upstairs not knowing really who they were or why there were where they were.

[Roch]

David's discovery is just matching marks on Sheila's hand to the bible print. It doesn't point to Bamber being innocent. I'm 100% convinced that Jeremy carried out the killings - why would Jeremy be controlling a person experiencing a psychotic episode - Sheila was over sedated?

           

I meant that I personally am now so certain of events - it renders further debate (about who was responsible) as almost pointless.   Whether or not Sheila's actions could be professionally termed as a 'psychotic episode' - I am slightly less certain of.  Given her history (e.g. the Emani incident) and given the 'daughter gone berserk' introduction to police, it seems highly likely that the term is credible and relevant.  I personally feel that debate around sedation is a red herring.  The killings were carried out regardless of or despite any such sedation.                                                                           

[Steve_uk]

           

I meant that I personally am now so certain of events - it renders further debate (about who was responsible) as almost pointless.   Whether or not Sheila's actions could be professionally termed as a 'psychotic episode' - I am slightly less certain of.  Given her history (e.g. the Emani incident) and given the 'daughter gone berserk' introduction to police, it seems highly likely that the term is credible and relevant.  I personally feel that debate around sedation is a red herring.  The killings were carried out regardless of or despite any such sedation.                                                                           

Sheila was a product of her own upbringing and possible mental instability of her birth father, of whom we know nothing. The point about her rages was that they were directed against inanimate objects and were an expression of her impotence and inarticulateness rather than personal animosity to any other person. I'm quite sure that Jeremy caught wind of the remark about killing, when really I believe she wanted to rid the world of the evil perpetrated and not individuals themselves and he saw himself as her proxy killer, as indeed he confirmed to Mike his role briefly many years ago.

[lookout]

Just over 12 months prior to the tragedy,AE and PE had been on holiday and when they'd returned had found that their tenanted farm had been sold without consultation. This would obviously have caused panic so AE went to see Neville about what had occurred and put it to him that a piece of 50 acre land would be worth purchasing. Neville then visited the land agent and bought the said piece of land.

This alone would have sent shivers down the spines of the Eaton's to think that after losing land once,there's every possibility that if it was in Jeremy's hands,it could be sold again and they'd end up with nothing. This would have been the land that Jeremy,nor June knew about and all Neville got for his troubles was a black eye-------charming family,NOT !

No wonder they wanted Jeremy behind bars.

[Roch]

You're basing your conclusion on Sheila having a psychotic episode. There's nothing about her behaviours to suggest that was the case, and wouldn't it have been Sod's law if Jeremy had turned up to "do the deed" only to find Sheila in the grip of an episode.

Not sure what you mean about Jeremy but yes, in a way you are right, with regard to me basing my conclusion on Sheila having what could be termed a 'psychotic episode'.  This is simply because that is exactly what took place (whether it is termed a psychotic episode or termed 'daughter gone berserk').  Personally, it's a considerable relief to finally have confirmation that I have been on the right side all along (despite some wavering).

[Jane]

           

I meant that I personally am now so certain of events - it renders further debate (about who was responsible) as almost pointless.   Whether or not Sheila's actions could be professionally termed as a 'psychotic episode' - I am slightly less certain of.  Given her history (e.g. the Emani incident) and given the 'daughter gone berserk' introduction to police, it seems highly likely that the term is credible and relevant.  I personally feel that debate around sedation is a red herring.  The killings were carried out regardless of or despite any such sedation.                                                                           

The only listed times of her being violent, because of mental illness, she was unmedicated. On this occasion she was SO medicated that she was lethargic and listless. Re the Emani incident. At no point did she make any move to attack him -although he was scared, and I think it would have been scary to witness- she may not even have been aware of him being there. Here actions were all against herself. I don't believe Nevill called the police. If Sheila hadn't "gone berserk" why would he have to?

[Jane]

Not sure what you mean about Jeremy but yes, in a way you are right, with regard to me basing my conclusion on Sheila having what could be termed a 'psychotic episode'.  This is simply because that is exactly what took place (whether it is termed a psychotic episode or termed 'daughter gone berserk').  Personally, it's a considerable relief to finally have confirmation that I have been on the right side all along (despite some wavering).

On what evidence are you basing your conclusion that you've been right all along?

[Roch]

On what evidence are you basing your conclusion that you've been right all along?

It would be counter-productive to point to any aspects which are already in the public domain.  I wouldn't expect any fellow members on here to change their opinion purely because of some vain declaration on my part.  That's not how this forum works - I have no argument with that.

[Jane]

It would be counter-productive to point to any aspects which are already in the public domain.  I wouldn't expect any fellow members on here to change their opinion purely because of some vain declaration on my part.  That's not how this forum works - I have no argument with that.

Roch, it seems to me that such is EXACTLY how this forum works. Well meaning -or perhaps simply desperate to prove a point- posters, spout spurious, unsubstantiated 'facts' off the top of their heads, and certain members jump on them -having once been of their number, I believe I'm qualified to say- as being conclusive.
 NOW, you've stated that "a psychotic episode or termed daughter has gone berserk is exactly what took place" and I feel, on behalf of all those interested in the truth, this deserves some evidential back up. Unless you can, your declaration would, indeed, appear to be, like so many others, "vain".