The John Kennedy Bradley, testimony at Bambers trial...

[mike tesko]

I know that this is / was true...

In the same way, I know that the case against Jeremy Bamber was a false one!

[Jane]

Ok, that being the case, why is it that you cannot bring yourself to accept that 'a dodgy case' has been brought against Jeremy Bamber, in the prosecution of him?

Victims of MOJ should be sympathetic to other cases involving other people who claim that they have been wrongly accused, prosecuted, and convicted of something, which they declare for whatever reason that they did not do, or were not involved in...

It's not a case of crying 'poor me', at all, its a case of giving someone the benefit of doubt, until you come up against evidence which can only lead to the inevitable conclusion that what this person has said, or what this person is saying, cannot possibly be true! In Jeremy Bambers case, based on my experiences with the criminal Justice system I have not yet come up against or been challenged by, any evidence which means that he did kill his family (including Sheila)! In fact, the contrary is true, everything points to 'Sheila having shot the other four victims', and the cops having involvement in her death, and the stage managing of her death scene, on the bedroom floor!

A) Because I no longer believe that Jeremy is innocent. That a "dodgy case" may have been bought against him is an entirely separate question which by no means makes him innocent.

B) I'm entirely sympathetic to those who have genuinely suffered MOJ's, but I remain aware that there are probably FAR more who continue to jump on the MOJ bandwagon. CLAIMS of innocence won't create innocence out of guilt.

C) If we give benefit of doubt to ALL those MOJ's claimed, there would, in all probability, be more guilty than innocent, released. In my opinion, nothing, other than Sheila's rather convenient illness, suggests that she murdered her family and then committed suicide. It's very possible that I MAY have gone on believing Jeremy innocent but for your own claims that the police were responsible for shooting Sheila and taking lurid pictures of her body, and that a phone call from Nevill had deliberately been withheld, both of which sound so far fetched that it smacks of saying anything to get Jeremy released. Nevertheless, I await, with interest, any further developments.

[Caroline]

Ok, that being the case, why is it that you cannot bring yourself to accept that 'a dodgy case' has been brought against Jeremy Bamber, in the prosecution of him?

Victims of MOJ should be sympathetic to other cases involving other people who claim that they have been wrongly accused, prosecuted, and convicted of something, which they declare for whatever reason that they did not do, or were not involved in...

It's not a case of crying 'poor me', at all, its a case of giving someone the benefit of doubt, until you come up against evidence which can only lead to the inevitable conclusion that what this person has said, or what this person is saying, cannot possibly be true! In Jeremy Bambers case, based on my experiences with the criminal Justice system I have not yet come up against or been challenged by, any evidence which means that he did kill his family (including Sheila)! In fact, the contrary is true, everything points to 'Sheila having shot the other four victims', and the cops having involvement in her death, and the stage managing of her death scene, on the bedroom floor!

Because there is no motivation for the police knowingly fitted up an innocent man.

[Adam]

It is good that you are committed to proving Jeremy's innocence Mike. Creating this forum & Youtube videos.

Lookout, David, Nugs, JackieD & Buddy have joined the forum & agree with you that Jeremy is innocent.
 

[Steve_uk]

You can take anything out of context. Pamela says in her statement 16 September 1985:

June did not confide in me her innermost feelings to do with Jeremy and Sheila.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8973.msg425518.html#msg425518

Could it be that June was rather envious of Pamela's domestic life as she and Nevill perceived how their children were turning out, how all the money in the world spent on the most expensive schools could not transform them into characters who could both make their own way in the world and be accepted by the local community? How love at a distance does not work, to which the heartfelt letter to be opened after her death does attest, a letter which Jeremy screwed up disdainfully and which Sheila never got to read?

[Jane]

You can take anything out of context. Pamela says in her statement 16 September 1985:

June did not confide in me her innermost feelings to do with Jeremy and Sheila.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8973.msg425518.html#msg425518

Could it be that June was rather envious of Pamela's domestic life as she and Nevill perceived how their children were turning out, how all the money in the world spent on the most expensive schools could not transform them into characters who could both make their own way in the world and be accepted by the local community? How love at a distance does not work, to which the heartfelt letter to be opened after her death does attest, a letter which Jeremy screwed up disdainfully and which Sheila never got to read?

Steve, I'm inclined to think we're ALL, when things aren't going as well for us as we believe we deserve them to, inclined to think that the same things are going perfectly for everyone else. I feel sure she saw -imagined- Pam to have a better relationship with Ann and David than she had with Sheila and Jeremy. It would never have occurred to her that perhaps Pam had a very different style of mothering, only that her children were more like the children she may have wished her own were.

[David1819]

You can take anything out of context. Pamela says in her statement 16 September 1985:

June did not confide in me her innermost feelings to do with Jeremy and Sheila.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8973.msg425518.html#msg425518

Could it be that June was rather envious of Pamela's domestic life as she and Nevill perceived how their children were turning out, how all the money in the world spent on the most expensive schools could not transform them into characters who could both make their own way in the world and be accepted by the local community? How love at a distance does not work, to which the heartfelt letter to be opened after her death does attest, a letter which Jeremy screwed up disdainfully and which Sheila never got to read?

We can only speculate on the details. But one thing is certain, June was a rather unpleasant person.

Jeremy describes her a religious nut.
Sheila's friends/acquaintances claim she hated June.
Then Colin said he would have killed June himself.

For whatever reason we will never know the exact details.

[Jane]

We can only speculate on the details. But one thing is certain, June was a rather unpleasant person.

Jeremy describes her a religious nut.
Sheila's friends/acquaintances claim she hated June.
Then Colin said he would have killed June himself.

For whatever reason we will never know the exact details.

None of her friends, who I know, have described her as being the life and soul of the party, a good laugh when she'd had a few drinks, or liking bawdy jokes, however, none have described her as other than kind, serious. shy, lacking in humour, devout, gentle. I see nothing there which would label her as "unpleasant". I can quite see, though, that Jeremy would have called her "a religious nut". I think "hate" may have been far too strong a feeling for gentle Sheila to have held about her mother, but it would have been dependent on how much she loved her. Colin, as an atheist, certainly wouldn't have had time for June's faith, especially in the light of how she treated his boys. HOWEVER, I see NOTHING which makes her "unpleasant". She was a woman who tried, very hard, to do what she believed to be right. Much of which had probably been indoctrinated in her by an overbearing mother.

[Steve_uk]

We can only speculate on the details. But one thing is certain, June was a rather unpleasant person.

Jeremy describes her a religious nut.
Sheila's friends/acquaintances claim she hated June.
Then Colin said he would have killed June himself.

For whatever reason we will never know the exact details.

The irony was that it was June herself who tried and failed to live up to the high moral standard she set herself in pursuit of the holy grail, and it was her children who fell victim to these moral strictures as they matured: Jeremy was warned off Suzette at the risk of losing his inheritance and Sheila was labelled the Devil's child, then induced to marry with the gift of a London flat. Money became a means of control instead of a source of enjoyment, June being ill herself at critical points in the story couldn't see the dangers, and neither could Nevill, who had the disposition to brush it all off.

[David1819]

None of her friends, who I know, have described her as being the life and soul of the party, a good laugh when she'd had a few drinks, or liking bawdy jokes, however, none have described her as other than kind, serious. shy, lacking in humour, devout, gentle. I see nothing there which would label her as "unpleasant". I can quite see, though, that Jeremy would have called her "a religious nut". I think "hate" may have been far too strong a feeling for gentle Sheila to have held about her mother, but it would have been dependent on how much she loved her. Colin, as an atheist, certainly wouldn't have had time for June's faith, especially in the light of how she treated his boys. HOWEVER, I see NOTHING which makes her "unpleasant". She was a woman who tried, very hard, to do what she believed to be right. Much of which had probably been indoctrinated in her by an overbearing mother.

People dont act and behave the same way in a social setting than they do in the family home.

[Jane]

People dont act and behave the same way in a social setting than they do in the family home.

And their children will judge them very differently from the way in which their contemporaries do. The difference being that the former is a parent/child relationship, the latter, an adult/adult relationship.

[David1819]

And their children will judge them very differently from the way in which their contemporaries do. The difference being that the former is a parent/child relationship, the latter, an adult/adult relationship.

The difference being is that people who live under the same roof with someone for many years will get to know them a lot better.

That does not apply to Colin but he would undoubtedly have been told things from Sheila and possibly the twins.

[Jane]

The difference being is that people who live under the same roof with someone for many years will get to know them a lot better.

That does not apply to Colin but he would undoubtedly have been told things from Sheila and possibly the twins.

But children of controlling parents will never see their parent(s) on an adult to adult level. In fact, however adult the 'child' presents him/herself as being in society, the moment they visit the family home, they immediately return to being the child they'd been. Sheila will undoubtedly have given Colin her own perspective of June.

[mike tesko]

Because there is no motivation for the police knowingly fitted up an innocent man.

Lyes, there was motivation - its called saving their own lousy necks!

[Caroline]

Lyes, there was motivation - its called saving their own lousy necks!

Saving their own necks from what? Oh of course, they shot Sheila and now Nevile - sorry, don't buy any of that so there was no motivation.