Police V family

[Jane]

How can someone have an open mind about something that hasn't been revealed?

I posted letters here a short time ago that PROVES what I said about my attempt to find out how Jeremy knew what was in his fathers wallet. The evidence was there to read and yet STILL a few have used it to try and discredit me. An open mind? People are defending their stance NOT trying to get to the truth. If you are right, I would be the first to admit being wrong - I really don't care one way or the other.

And the raison d'etre for some is their desperation to have others believe that they had a more 'special' relationship with Jeremy, than did you.

[Roch]

How can someone have an open mind about something that hasn't been revealed?

I posted letters here a short time ago that PROVES what I said about my attempt to find out how Jeremy knew what was in his fathers wallet. The evidence was there to read and yet STILL a few have used it to try and discredit me. An open mind? People are defending their stance NOT trying to get to the truth. If you are right, I would be the first to admit being wrong - I really don't care one way or the other.

Then dont be neutral and carry on as you are.  It really makes no odds in the grand scheme of things.  When it comes down to it, you will either change your stance accordingly - or - your current entrenched stance will force you, to attempt to incorporate the evidence in to a Jeremy scenario.

I cannot really express things any different than I already have.  If the defence had been made aware of this evidence at the outset - the trial would never have come to fruition.  If it had come to light during trial - the case against Jeremy would have been dismissed.  That doesn't mean that RWB and Ann would have left satisfied. 

They were not interested in anything that pointed towards Sheila.  They had made a decision that they couldn't afford to be.  If you want to ally yourself with their kind of stance - nobody can stop you.

[Caroline]

Then dont be neutral and carry on as you are.  It really makes no odds in the grand scheme of things.  When it comes down to it, you will either change your stance accordingly - or - your current entrenched stance will force you, to attempt to incorporate the evidence in to a Jeremy scenario.

I cannot really express things any different than I already have.  If the defence had been made aware of this evidence at the outset - the trial would never have come to fruition.  If it had come to light during trial - the case against Jeremy would have been dismissed.  That doesn't mean that RWB and Ann would have left satisfied. 

They were not interested in anything that pointed towards Sheila.  They had made a decision that they couldn't afford to be.  If you want to ally yourself with their kind of stance - nobody can stop you.

You have your reasons to be 'entrenched' and I have mine.

[Jane]

Then dont be neutral and carry on as you are.  It really makes no odds in the grand scheme of things.  When it comes down to it, you will either change your stance accordingly - or - your current entrenched stance will force you, to attempt to incorporate the evidence in to a Jeremy scenario.

I cannot really express things any different than I already have.  If the defence had been made aware of this evidence at the outset - the trial would never have come to fruition.  If it had come to light during trial - the case against Jeremy would have been dismissed.  That doesn't mean that RWB and Ann would have left satisfied. 

They were not interested in anything that pointed towards Sheila.  They had made a decision that they couldn't afford to be.  If you want to ally yourself with their kind of stance - nobody can stop you.

Roch, I'm afraid, that in your current stance, you're in no position to label others as being "entrenched".

[Caroline]

And the raison d'etre for some is their desperation to have others believe that they had a more 'special' relationship with Jeremy, than did you.

I didn't have a 'special relationship' nor would I have wanted one. I asked him about the case - nothing more.

[Jane]

I didn't have a 'special relationship' nor would I have wanted one. I asked him about the case - nothing more.

Women scorned, Caroline. Women scorned

[Roch]

Roch, I'm afraid, that in your current stance, you're in no position to label others as being "entrenched".

Yes well that's a relatively recent development.  I think my time is almost done here for now. If I spend my time arguing on here from my current circs, I will never get off the forum to get anything done in life. 

[lookout]

Well I'm sure that I don't have any " special relationship " with the man,apart from me being a lot older and wiser like a few other of his CT supporters who've also had their own experiences in life and past work experiences,I just add to his support,nothing else.

[Jane]

Yes well that's a relatviely recent development.  I think my time is almost done here for now. If I spend my time arguing on here from my current circs, I will never get off the forum to get anything done in life.

You're probably right.

[guest7363]

Yes well that's a relatively recent development.  I think my time is almost done here for now. If I spend my time arguing on here from my current circs, I will never get off the forum to get anything done in life.

A break does you good Roch, put them headphones on and listen to music mate

[Roch]

A break does you good Roch, put them headphones on and listen to music mate

There are a few things I would like to look in to.  I never do, as I am either on here or playing Shogun Total War 2.

Reading the posts on here is fatal.  It just makes me want to dive in.   I think I might make a couple of final threads as a parting gesture 

[Jane]

There are a few things I would like to look in to.  I never do, as I am either on here or playing Shogun Total War 2.

Reading the posts on here is fatal.  It just makes me want to dive in.   I think I might make a couple of final threads as a parting gesture 

I just KNEW you wouldn't give up without a fight, Roch

[lookout]

Because I don't know for what reason a court order is issued,I certainly know that if you don't comply you'll be arrested and charged with contempt of court,that's the procedure if you don't happen to be in the police force.So what is it that makes them immune,or is it because there are all kinds of " Acts " at their disposal ?

[buddy]

There are a few things I would like to look in to.  I never do, as I am either on here or playing Shogun Total War 2.

Reading the posts on here is fatal.  It just makes me want to dive in.   I think I might make a couple of final threads as a parting gesture 

Speaking of threads Roch I have noticed some in the Relatives statements.
"I forget" " I do not recollect" " I can't remember" .

[Adam]

Speaking of threads Roch I have noticed some in the Relatives statements.
"I forget" " I do not recollect" " I can't remember" .

Bamber's police interviews -


Over 30 'No comments' & 'can't remembers'. Over 10 -don't knows' & 'can't say'.

Several one word answers as well as vague answers such as 'not really', 'I think so'  & 'less than 40 but more than 10 !'

The police had to often ask the same simple questions several times in order to get a straight answer. He initially said he phoned Julie before the police & could not remember what they spoke about at 3am. He eventually said Julie was phoned after the police phone call.

He even suggested the dog fired the second shot at Sheila and Nevill said 'She', not 'Sheila' !

These interviews were several weeks after the deaths. Bamber was recovering well & enjoying several jolly up's so could not use grief/shock as a reason for his poor evasiveness.