Murders at White House Farm by Carol Ann Lee.

[Caroline]

So another one of your lies.  They come thick and fast.
You are looking stupider by the minute
A complete laughing stock
I suggest tomorrow you ask Ngb if Simon and Mark contacted me and then you can post an apology

You are renowned for making stuff up and you are stupider then a stupid thing at a stupid things convention! 

How would NBG know if you contacted them or if they contacted you? Seriously Jackie, no one cares!   

[Caroline]

Good old David
Is that the David that announced he had spent all the Bamber fortunes


FACT
Everyone grieves definately

Where did he announce that or did he contact you as well - through Twitter? 

[JackiePreece]

Where did he announce that or did he contact you as well - through Twitter? 

If you were more aware of this case you would know he announced on tv

[JackiePreece]

You are renowned for making stuff up and you are stupider then a stupid thing at a stupid things convention! 

How would NBG know if you contacted them or if they contacted you? Seriously Jackie, no one cares!   

You don't care because you are and never have been interested in the truth

Your credibility once and for all has gone right out of the window

Ngb knows everything, I tell him everything

I have every message Simon sent me and I have every message Mark sent me
 You will have egg in your face tomorrow

[Caroline]

If you were more aware of this case you would know he announced on tv

Are you sure he wasn't just a contestant on 'Family Fortunes'? 

On which TV prog did he admit this?

[Caroline]

You don't care because you are and never have been interested in the truth

Your credibility once and for all has gone right out of the window

Ngb knows everything, I tell him everything

I have every message Simon sent me and I have every message Mark sent me
 You will have egg in your face tomorrow

Only if I have an egg sandwich! 

Even if you do have messages from a Simon and a Mark - so  what? So two more people  think he's innocent - woop de doo!! 

[JackiePreece]

Poor old desperate Caroline has made herself look stupid again and trying to stir up trouble on the forum

Thank goodness buddy and Roch are back posting to challenge the numerous lies and misinformation

Gogglebox Caroline you really nead to get out more

[Caroline]

Poor old desperate Caroline has made herself look stupid again and trying to stir up trouble on the forum

Thank goodness buddy and Roch are back posting to challenge the numerous lies and misinformation

Gogglebox Caroline you really nead to get out more

Look I'm up late again! Watching 'Hatton Garden The Hiest' but I thought I would leave you a little note! Stupid how? For not believing anything you say? That's most of the forum Jackie - people just humour you!

You wouldn't know if something was a lie, misinformation or the truth because you haven't bothered to learn anything about the case. Why would anyone with any REAL information seek YOU out? Please - dream on!

Well, when Gogglebox was on (with the rather entertaining Raccoon), you were posting on the forum so we were both home. Kind of makes your point about getting out just a tad moot. However, I'm out all weekend as of tomorrow night so no need to worry about me! 

[Adam]

There was blatant physical evidence that Sheila slaughtered her children and parents during a violent frenzy.  There was no physical evidence regarding Jeremy (unless the finger print on the Anschutz is classed as such).

Was that the evidence that Ainsley concealed ? Although 'it's not you're job to say what motivates him'.

What evidence was concealed or was submitted that shows Sheila was the killer.

[guest1199]

Hmm. But in my opinion, Craig's WS dated Aug 7th '85 supercedes what CAL has to say. He gives Sheila as having a gunshot wound, AS he does with both Nicholas and Daniel and they each had more than two. He gives the times that he certifies their deaths.

There is this from CAL's sources: Ian Craig, notes for Essex Police, ‘A Review of the Bamber Killings’, November 1986. Unless indicated otherwise, all quotes from Ian Craig in this chapter are from this source. This is not the one brought to my attention, I would have to see that particular document if you have it. That's probably the one that CAL draws her conclusions from.

The one posted is also referred to in the book and does refer to the "wound" singular as it does with the other victims. I have absolutely no idea why he would write a report in that manner. since it is totally misleading.  It's not outright lying but it's certainly economy with the truth.  Is this the whole document?  The reason I'm asking is that I can see no signature where one is required. Why is the text crossed out? 

In terms of a pro-guilt argument I would say that this is a lucky document rather than a credible one.

Hoots!

[Adam]

There is this from CAL's sources: Ian Craig, notes for Essex Police, ‘A Review of the Bamber Killings’, November 1986. Unless indicated otherwise, all quotes from Ian Craig in this chapter are from this source. This is not the one brought to my attention, I would have to see that particular document if you have it. That's probably the one that CAL draws her conclusions from.

The one posted is also referred to in the book and does refer to the "wound" singular as it does with the other victims. I have absolutely no idea why he would write a report in that manner. since it is totally misleading.  It's not outright lying but it's certainly economy with the truth.  Is this the whole document?  The reason I'm asking is that I can see no signature where one is required. Why is the text crossed out? 

In terms of a pro-guilt argument I would say that this is a lucky document rather than a credible one.

Hoots!

Surely there is something better to discuss in  CAL's book. Either for or against Bamber. It is a long book.

[Jane]

There is this from CAL's sources: Ian Craig, notes for Essex Police, ‘A Review of the Bamber Killings’, November 1986. Unless indicated otherwise, all quotes from Ian Craig in this chapter are from this source. This is not the one brought to my attention, I would have to see that particular document if you have it. That's probably the one that CAL draws her conclusions from.

The one posted is also referred to in the book and does refer to the "wound" singular as it does with the other victims. I have absolutely no idea why he would write a report in that manner. since it is totally misleading.  It's not outright lying but it's certainly economy with the truth.  Is this the whole document?  The reason I'm asking is that I can see no signature where one is required. Why is the text crossed out? 

In terms of a pro-guilt argument I would say that this is a lucky document rather than a credible one.

Hoots!

So I'd guess that most of the above is about you thinking out loud. I can only guess at what the answers are, to the questions you ask and as I believe Jeremy is guilty, you won't want to hear them. You COULD contact CAL. She's the one most likely to give the answer......................though there's no guarantee you'll accept that either.

[guest1199]

I am not here to look for information for you. Instead of reading books which only have half the story and then jumping to massive conclusions, try reading the statements that are on this forum! Also when someone finds something for you, have the decency to say thanks! The next time, look yourself or stay ignorant! 

Hi Caroline.  First of all let me make it clear where I'm coming from in this particular debate.  I think JB was framed, however there is a considerable number of people who think that he massacred the family; therefore in order to accommodate this I have to be open to the pro-guilt point of view.  I thought the best way to do this was to read a pro-guilt book and discuss the contents here.  I chose Carol Ann Lee's book because it is certainly pro-guilt as far as JB is concerned and that you recommended it to me some months ago.  Can you complain that I now challenge you on it's contents?

This forum has no supporting web pages of any worth regarding the case, the existing archives are poor, there is no information Wiki either; therefore resourcing information is going to be difficult.  There is a great opportunity for supporting web pages on the basis of a for and against argument since this site is unique in accommodating both arguments; however it would be up to the more knowledgeable and dedicated posters, like yourself, to get together and make that work.  If you do that then I would find it a lot easier to source infomation myself without having to ask for it.

Now is that not a constructive comment?

Hoots

[guest1199]

So I'd guess that most of the above is about you thinking out loud. I can only guess at what the answers are, to the questions you ask and as I believe Jeremy is guilty, you won't want to hear them. You COULD contact CAL. She's the one most likely to give the answer......................though there's no guarantee you'll accept that either.

I can only refer you to the post I made upthread at 10.31 this morning.

Hoots!

[guest1199]

Surely there is something better to discuss in  CAL's book. Either for or against Bamber. It is a long book.

Well Ok. lets try another one.  There is this from the kindle location 4781 of CAL'S book referring to a conversation between JB and JM.

"‘I’ve had a wonderful day at work,’ she told him. ‘How was your day?’ ‘As best as can be expected,’ he replied, explaining that he had spent the entire day inside the tractor with the sun beating down. ‘You sound pissed off,’ she said. Jeremy told her, ‘I’ve been thinking on the tractor and the crime will have to be tonight or never.’" 

I've often wondered what was so special about the night of 6th to the 7th of August 1985.  Was it the last time that the family would all be together, would there never be another opportunity like that particular night to commit the crime?

Hoots!