The tinfoil in the safe

[lookout]

I understand why the Defence wishes to highlight Sheila's illness and her plight because it's their strongest card. She was discharged from hospital in March 1985, some four months before the murders, after which time there are conflicting reports of her demeanour. I think by this stage she had become worn down by the vicissitudes of daily life and began for the first time to harbour resentment against other individuals, the "all people are bad and should be killed" remark just one example of this.

We will never fully know her state of mind those last few days, but the need to lash out, as exemplified in her marital relationship with Colin was symptomatic of a young woman who had gone through the motions of existence, her life planned out by others, with no real emotional security as she faced the harsh realities of employment in 1980s Britain, her talents overlooked, her intrinsic worth undervalued as she realized her financial dependence on the woman who disturbed her equilibrium the most: June. Impossible to fulfil her expectations she sank back in herself, condemned to a state of limbo as the world passed her by.

Personally,I've avoided highlighting Sheila's " illness " because she wasn't so sick that she never knew what she was doing.

[nugnug]

Who is Basil 'Cook'? I thought you were Mr Attention To Detail or can't you bring yourself to type 'Cock' - cuz that was his name!

For all people's theories of how and why the inheritance was worked out, Steve's post n which he quotes a passage from CAL's book is being totally disregarded as usual. Do you imagine she arrived at this explanation off the top of her head? They didn't take into consideration what Julie had said about the twins!

"With Jeremy disinherited due to his conviction, the courts eventually ruled that the estates should pass to Pamela, working on the principle that in the absence of contrary evidence, the five deceased were assumed to have died in order of seniority. The beneficiary would be the first victim’s next of kin."

Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 407). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

there is some sispute about weather he said that.

[Caroline]

I have just realised that Caroline has cropped the toes and nail varnish out from both feet before uploading this

Then crafty Caroline accuses me of being selective with what I post 

This is where David accuses me of cropping the picture and trying to make it look as though I was being underhanded - David had the original picture and as Hartley says .....

You could always post the original.

I cropped it to enlarge the spots on the bottom of the feet and as I make lots of posts, didn't remember cropping it - it wasn't important being as numb nuts had the original anyway, This was another of his sour grape posts because I pointed out that his big forensic breakthrough was ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL about the palm print .... Still waiting for an answer to the question of why you lied to NGB about your initial interests in the case - or was your first explanation a lie? They can't both be true David! 

[David1819]

Still waiting for an answer to the question of why you lied to NGB about your initial interests in the case - or was your first explanation a lie? They can't both be true David! 

Except they are not lies. I cannot answer the question for why I lied when I never did lie. However I can justify myself to someone who has misunderstood me.

I realised that myself a while ago having thoroughly read about the case.

At this point in time after a few month I had read a lot on the forums, read through the appeal ruling and was reading lomax book.  Being the first time I ever jumped down the rabbit hole on a subject like this. I did consider myself at that time to have thoroughly read about the case. On reflection with what I have learned since then I wouldn't describe that as thorough now. Nevertheless I said what I said back then in good faith. It was not a lie.

I once was fairly sure of Jeremy's guilt until two lawyers told me on separate occasions that if he was on trial today he would be found not guilty.

Since the man had been in prison for 30 years and I was (at the time) ignorant of both the case and how the Justice system and its appeals operated. It seemed to me (back then) that he must surely be guilty. 

Having taken up this subject as an interested of mine. I brought the subject up casually with friends. Two of those friends happen to be lawyers. One was a recent law graduate. The other was a lawyer who practised in Admiralty law (the sea).  I cannot remember exactly what they they told me, I can only paraphrase now. Basically they knew of the case to some extent from uni and said the trial was a farce and that it would not happen today. I did not pick their brains about it for very long.

I hope I've explained myself clearly now. Hopefully you will now amend your misguided claim of me lying for the suitable claim that I simply did not explain myself very well.

[Caroline]

Except they are not lies. I cannot answer the question for why I lied when I never did lie. However I can justify myself to someone who has misunderstood me.

At this point in time after a few month I had read a lot on the forums, read through the appeal ruling and was reading lomax book.  Being the first time I ever jumped down the rabbit hole on a subject like this. I did consider myself at that time to have thoroughly read about the case. On reflection with what I have learned since then I wouldn't describe that as thorough now. Nevertheless I said what I said back then in good faith. It was not a lie.

Since the man had been in prison for 30 years and I was (at the time) ignorant of both the case and how the Justice system and its appeals operated. It seemed to me (back then) that he must surely be guilty. 

Having taken up this subject as an interested of mine. I brought the subject up casually with friends. Two of those friends happen to be lawyers. One was a recent law graduate. The other was a lawyer who practised in Admiralty law (the sea).  I cannot remember exactly what they they told me, I can only paraphrase now. Basically they knew of the case to some extent from uni and said the trial was a farce and that it would not happen today. I did not pick their brains about it for very long.

I hope I've explained myself clearly now. Hopefully you will now amend your misguided claim of me lying for the suitable claim that I simply did not explain myself very well.

Seriously? Is that the BEST you can do?  At least you answered but I haven't misunderstood you and anyone with half a brain can see that the replies in both instances are in opposition.

The Series of issues you put forward are constructed with innumerable guesses and speculations on your part. Your portraying a prosecuting version of events rather than solid unbiased facts.

I appreciate the effort you make but at the end of the day not you or anyone else can solve the White House Farm murders I realised that myself a while ago having thoroughly read about the case being swayed one way or another by flimsy circumstantial evidence and opinion I soon realised you would have to have been there that night to be certain of what happened.

I once was fairly sure of Jeremy's guilt until two lawyers told me on separate occasions that if he was on trial today he would be found not guilty. That got me thinking and the more I looked into things the more cracks and holes I found in the prosecution. At the end of the day only Jeremy knows. So if he is innocent there will always be guesses rumors and doubt. If he is guilty he is only one that can effectively solve the case by providing a detailed confession.

The above portrays someone who has studied in depth but you needed to use that strategy to argue against Scipio. You used the Lawyer reference to add weight, omitting what you have just revealed above - how is that honest? I remember you mocking Justice when he told you he had spoken to a psychologist that had working in a prison housing Bamber - but it's OK for you to mock but others must take you at face value? Doesn't work like that David.

The following portrays quite the opposite - sounds like you're almost a victim of PH too -   

That article was one of the first things I ever read about the case after I watched a documentary on JB in late 2014. Still ignorant on the subject I just took it all at face value. I still remember joining this forum a few month later naively thinking you were Jeremy’s "protector". Looking back I cant help but laugh.

Poor little Naive David  Although I do agree - you are naive and don't understand people very well!