Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on August 17, 2020, 02:24:PM
-
From what I recall. In no particular order -
Bamber didn't catch & physically attack Nevill on the stairs.
Sheila may have woken.
Sheila may have fought back.
Nevill did not dial 999.
Nevill's blood was not by the gun cupboard (no source).
Crispy may have barked.
Someone may have seen Bamber cycle to WHF.
Nevill's blood was not on the stairs (no source).
Nevill did not head for the guns in the wash room (no source any were there)
Bamber had no visible injuries.
There was no blood on Nevill's side of the bed.
----------
All these have been easily be explained away.
Bamber would not be worried about Sheila maybe waking & fighting back. Crispy was not a guard dog & needed his sleep, whereever he was.
-
Let me know if I forgotten anything & I will add.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10313.msg481453.html#msg481453
Scenario matching the evidence is in reply 10. No 'could haves'.
-
The straight-forward scenario is Sheila did it.
The more complex scenario involves Jeremy.
-
Bamber would be aware whether Crispy makes a big fuss when there is night noise inside WHF. Or whether he just slept. As well as where he slept.
He would not expect Sheila to wake prior to her shot. Espescially as he was not expecting the kitchen fight. He could easily control her anyway.
-
Bamber would be aware whether Crispy makes a big fuss when there is night noise inside WHF. Or whether he just slept. As well as where he slept.
He would not expect Sheila to wake prior to her shot. Espescially as he was not expecting the kitchen fight. He could easily control her anyway.
I thought Crispy was in on it and that's why he didn't bark. Oh well, back to the drawing board! Thanks Adam
-
I thought Crispy was in on it and that's why he didn't bark. Oh well, back to the drawing board! Thanks Adam
Would be good to see a source of where he usually slept.
WHF was big enough for him to have a kennal in a small room. Or he could have slept with June & Nevill.
Either way, he was behind closed doors.
-
From what I recall. In no particular order -
Bamber didn't catch & physically attack Nevill on the stairs.
Sheila may have woken.
Sheila may have fought back.
Nevill did not dial 999.
Nevill's blood was not by the gun cupboard (no source).
Crispy may have barked.
Someone may have seen Bamber cycle to WHF.
Nevill's blood was not on the stairs (no source).
Nevill did not head for the guns in the wash room (no source any were there)
Bamber had no visible injuries.
There was no blood on Nevill's side of the bed.
----------
All these have been easily be explained away.
Bamber would not be worried about Sheila maybe waking & fighting back. Crispy was not a guard dog & needed his sleep, whereever he was.
The only things that Bamber may have considered beforehand would be -
Maybe being seen cycling to/from WHF.
Crispy maybe barking.
Sheila maybe putting up minimal resistance when being moved a few feet.
-----------
These possibilities would not be enough to deter him.
The other things have been brought up by other people after the event.
-
The only things that Bamber may have considered beforehand would be -
Maybe being seen cycling to/from WHF.
Crispy maybe barking.
Sheila maybe putting up minimal resistance when being moved a few feet.
-----------
These possibilities would not be enough to deter him.
The other things have been brought up by other people after the event.
I agree that's no biggie. He could just say he's out taking exercise.
Thanks Adam.
-
I agree that's no biggie. He could just say he's out taking exercise.
Thanks Adam.
If he thinks he's been seen, he can simply not go ahead. Unless on the way back.
There was no chance of him being seen at that time of night on the footpaths. Espescially using June's bike to reduce the amount of travelling time.
-
If he thinks he's been seen, he can simply not go ahead. Unless on the way back.
There was no chance of him being seen at that time of night on the footpaths. Espescially using June's bike to reduce the amount of travelling time.
I suppose if he was seen on the way back, he could have just said that he was a cycling enthusiast and was training for the Tour de Yorkshire. I expect the court would have believed him.
One for the CCRC. Thanks Adam.
-
I suppose if he was seen on the way back, he could have just said that he was a cycling enthusiast and was training for the Tour de Yorkshire. I expect the court would have believed him.
One for the CCRC. Thanks Adam.
I don't believe he would do that. If he saw someone in the distance, he would try to hide. But no chance of seeing anyone in that location at that time.
Thanks QC.
-
I suppose if he was seen on the way back, he could have just said that he was a cycling enthusiast and was training for the Tour de Yorkshire. I expect the court would have believed him.
One for the CCRC. Thanks Adam.
Do you believe it is a coincidence that Bamber brought over June's bike just before the massacre?
-
I don't believe he would do that. If he saw someone in the distance, he would try to hide. But no chance of seeing anyone in that location at that time.
Thanks QC.
No problem, Adam, glad to be of help.
You've got to admire Jeremy's pluck. I mean, he's out there with no lights (can't be seen, remember) and he only has to run into one person or be seen just once, and his plan is blown. Mind you, my excuse of training for the Tour de Yorkshire probably would have stood him in good stead and impressed Geoffrey Rivlin, who was from Yorkshire. Jeremy thinks ahead.
Do you think the court would have believed it, Adam? Bear in mind here that Geoffrey had a Yorkshire accent too, so that would have made it sound more convincing.
Do you believe it is a coincidence that Bamber brought over June's bike just before the massacre?
You make a good point there, Adam. Borrowing June's bike is a sure sign of guilt. To be honest, I'm surprised he didn't just plead Guilty in the face of that compelling evidence.
Thanks Adam, you've cleared it all up for me. There won't be any back-pedalling from me, I can tell you!
-
No problem, Adam, glad to be of help.
You've got to admire Jeremy's pluck. I mean, he's out there with no lights (can't be seen, remember) and he only has to run into one person or be seen just once, and his plan is blown. Mind you, my excuse of training for the Tour de Yorkshire probably would have stood him in good stead and impressed Geoffrey Rivlin, who was from Yorkshire. Jeremy thinks ahead.
Do you think the court would have believed it, Adam? Bear in mind here that Geoffrey had a Yorkshire accent too, so that would have made it sound more convincing.
You make a good point there, Adam. Borrowing June's bike is a sure sign of guilt. To be honest, I'm surprised he didn't just plead Guilty in face of that compelling evidence.
Thanks Adam.
I asked you if you thought it was one of the 'curious coincidences' the judge mentioned.
Answer the questions.
-
No problem, Adam, glad to be of help.
You've got to admire Jeremy's pluck. I mean, he's out there with no lights (can't be seen, remember) and he only has to run into one person or be seen just once, and his plan is blown. Mind you, my excuse of training for the Tour de Yorkshire probably would have stood him in good stead and impressed Geoffrey Rivlin, who was from Yorkshire. Jeremy thinks ahead.
Do you think the court would have believed it, Adam? Bear in mind here that Geoffrey had a Yorkshire accent too, so that would have made it sound more convincing.
You make a good point there, Adam. Borrowing June's bike is a sure sign of guilt. To be honest, I'm surprised he didn't just plead Guilty in the face of that compelling evidence.
Thanks Adam, you've cleared it all up for me. There won't be any back-pedalling from me, I can tell you!
Bamber thought it was worth the risk. And was right as no one did see him. People do not go on country walks at 2am.
-
Bamber thought it was worth the risk. And was right as no one did see him. People do not go on country walks at 2am.
He didn't use the bike. It's too complicated and risky. He walked. And he didn't use paths or public highways, except in the immediate vicinity of Bourtree Cottage. The route he will have taken is over fields. He would have been intimately familiar with the area and that aspect of it would not have presented any special difficulty for him. He may even have gone about preparing a route beforehand, including clearing a makeshift path in certain parts. In all seriousness, he may have done that.
The issue for me is the potential for him to be seen around Goldhanger, both on the outward and return walks. If he is seen on the outward walk, that raises the issue of whether he can make another attempt in the future, knowing he has been seen out at that time. If he is seen on the return walk, he is in effect caught.
You could argue that he would disguise himself, but unless he wears a mask, that's of limited use and he still has to access a house that is overlooked with the risk of being seen. He has to return to Bourtree Cottage to be able to drive back in his Astra.
-
I'm sure he felt like walking, killing then walking back after already having spent 15-17 hours harvesting that day ::) Must be superman or superhuman, at 24 ?
-
I'm sure he felt like walking, killing then walking back after already having spent 15-17 hours harvesting that day ::) Must be superman or superhuman, at 24 ?
At about that age, I was cycling 60 miles a day to and from work, getting up at 4 a.m. in the morning and returning late at night, then doing it again the next day, five days a week. Young men are fit and can cope with a lot.
-
Why did he even bother going home ? His bedroom was still vacant at WHF.
-
Why did he even bother going home ? His bedroom was still vacant at WHF.
Because he needed an 'alibi', why else? He needed to be able to say he was elsewhere. So he made sure he was seen (or heard) leaving White House Farm and that his Astra was parked up outside Bourtree Cottage.
-
At about that age, I was cycling 60 miles a day to and from work, getting up at 4 a.m. in the morning and returning late at night, then doing it again the next day, five days a week. Young men are fit and can cope with a lot.
But in between you weren't hurtling around up and downstairs killing people as well were you ? Moving their bodies and generally staging them. Cleaning/clearing where you can, burning your clothes in the Aga, then showering afterwards in readiness to be up for a 3am call ?
-
But in between you weren't hurtling around up and downstairs killing people as well were you ? Moving their bodies and generally staging them. Cleaning/clearing where you can, burning your clothes in the Aga, then showering afterwards in readiness to be up for a 3am call ?
Yes, but I'm not Jeremy.
Jeremy may have had a motivation to do so.
-
Yes, but I'm not Jeremy.
Jeremy may have had a motivation to do so.
Such as ? Don't say money.
-
Such as ? Don't say money.
I have no idea. I said 'may'. Personally I'm sceptical about the inheritance motive theory. Motive is not dispositive anyway.
The point is that he could have walked to and from the farm, though it would have been risky as it involved leaving and returning to an overlooked cottage and its environs in Goldhanger, which means there was a realistic chance of being seen. He must have known this, which has to raise doubt. Would he really have risked it? Naturally from this, the question arises: Is there some way he could have done this and not returned to Bourtree Cottage? No, because he needed to be seen returning there as part of his cover story. So how did he do it? I just don't know. I can't figure it out.
The access/egress to and from the house is not an issue. He could have accessed the house while leaving investigators with the impression it was locked from the inside, though it cannot be proved he did so that night, only that he had a means to do so and had done so on other occasions, which he admitted to police. There's also the fact that he left no blood traces of having been there. Why were there no blood prints on the windows or in the back hallway or the den or the gun cupboard where he is supposed to have left the silencer?
-
I have no idea. I said 'may'. Personally I'm sceptical about the inheritance motive theory. Motive is not dispositive anyway.
The point is that he could have walked to and from the farm, though it would have been risky as it involved leaving and returning to an overlooked cottage and its environs in Goldhanger, which means there was a realistic chance of being seen. He must have known this, which has to raise doubt. Would he really have risked it? Naturally from this, the question arises: Is there some way he could have done this and not returned to Bourtree Cottage? No, because he needed to be seen returning there as part of his cover story. So how did he do it? I just don't know. I can't figure it out.
The access/egress to and from the house is not an issue. He could have accessed the house while leaving investigators with the impression it was locked from the inside, though it cannot be proved he did so that night, only that he had a means to do so and had done so on other occasions, which he admitted to police. There's also the fact that he left no blood traces of having been there. Why were there no blood prints on the windows or in the back hallway or the den or the gun cupboard where he is supposed to have left the silencer?
The reason why you can't figure it out is because it wasn't him who committed the murders.
No fingerprints/blood/sweat/fibres/saliva . No forensic evidence whatsoever or any other evidence.
-
The reason why you can't figure it out is because it wasn't him who committed the murders.
No fingerprints/blood/sweat/fibres/saliva . No forensic evidence whatsoever or any other evidence.
You say.
He was certainly cooking up something with that 3 a.m. [3.15 a.m./3.30 a.m.*] phone call to Julie And Friends. Douglas answered. Then he didn't. It turns out it was Julie who answered after all. Jeremy, sorry Jerry, had told her 'tonight's the night' [did he like Rod Stewart?]. Helpfully, Julie was up later for that early hours of the morning phone call. Good of her.
Then Julie tells Susan that Jeremy did it, but Susan doesn't mind if Jeremy and Brett come along to her 21st. birthday party. Susan must be a very broad-minded gal. Personally, I would have been running to the nearest police station, and if I caught sight of Jeremy, I might have made a citizen's arrest.
But Susan's a modern, independent woman and mass murder is water off a duck's back.
Then we have our friend, Steve, who posts on here defending Julie as if his life depends on it, and he's touchy about Colin too. Touchy touchy. Mustn't upset Julie or Colin!
It's all very curious.
Anyway! Must dash...
-
He didn't use the bike. It's too complicated and risky. He walked. And he didn't use paths or public highways, except in the immediate vicinity of Bourtree Cottage. The route he will have taken is over fields. He would have been intimately familiar with the area and that aspect of it would not have presented any special difficulty for him. He may even have gone about preparing a route beforehand, including clearing a makeshift path in certain parts. In all seriousness, he may have done that.
The issue for me is the potential for him to be seen around Goldhanger, both on the outward and return walks. If he is seen on the outward walk, that raises the issue of whether he can make another attempt in the future, knowing he has been seen out at that time. If he is seen on the return walk, he is in effect caught.
You could argue that he would disguise himself, but unless he wears a mask, that's of limited use and he still has to access a house that is overlooked with the risk of being seen. He has to return to Bourtree Cottage to be able to drive back in his Astra.
Just as an addendum to this. One potential reason the bike had mud on it, and the reason he needed the bike, is that he could have been using it during the daytime and early evenings to scope out routes. He could have gone along the farm tracks and the sea wall path on it, but are there any eye witnesses to him on that bike, at all, ever? Did anybody see Julie on the bike?
-
Just as an addendum to this. One potential reason the bike had mud on it, and the reason he needed the bike, is that he could have been using it during the daytime and early evenings to scope out routes. He could have gone along the farm tracks and the sea wall path on it, but are there any eye witnesses to him on that bike, at all, ever? Did anybody see Julie on the bike?
Bamber had spent most of his life living at WHF & his cottage. So knew the various footpaths he could use. Which he could cycle down.
Using June's bike gives him lots of advantages -
He saves energy. It had been & was going to be a long day.
He can leave his cottage later. Meaning he is less likely to be seen.
He can leave WHF later. Meaning he can spend more time staging the scene.
He gets back to his cottage quicker. Meaning he has more time to change clothes.
He spends less time travelling. So less chance of being seen.
Massive difference in time & energy between cycling and walking around 3 miles.
He can do a trial run. Which I believe Julie said he did.
----------
Obviously it was not a coincidence that he took June's bike just before theassacre.
-
Bamber had spent most of his life living at WHF & his cottage. So knew the various footpaths he could use. Which he could cycle down.
Using June's bike gives him lots of advantages -
He saves energy. It was going to be a long day.
He can leave his cottage later. Meaning he is less likely to be seen.
He can leave WHF later. Meaning he can spend more time staging the scene.
He gets back to his cottage quicker. Meaning he has more time to change clothes.
He spends less time travelling. So less chance of being seen.
Massive difference in time & energy between cycling and walking around 3 miles.
He can do a trial run. Which I believe Julie said he did.
----------
Obviously it was not a coincidence that he took June's bike just before theassacre.
Which route did he take? Was it across fields?
-
Which route did he take? Was it across fields?
Believe there were 3 routes. These would be on footpaths. Not across fields.
-
Believe there were 3 routes. These would be on footpaths. Not across fields.
How does he see where he's going?
-
Believe there were 3 routes. These would be on footpaths. Not across fields.
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/bicycle
-
Interesting
Jeremy Bamber detailed television programmes that he watched before he went to sleep and these were accurate. Police checked his video tapes to see if he had recorded them and watched them later but there were no such recordings made by Jeremy Bamber and that’s because he watched the T.V programmes just as he said and went to sleep where he stayed until his father called him.
Personally I don’t think Jeremy had the brains to study what TV programmes had been on like putting the silencer back in the cupboard and handing the keys over of WHF
Master criminal he was not
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8605.msg411697.html#msg411697
Here is another diagram.
The gap between WHF & Head Street Bamber will be well aware of. Having lived & worked in the location most of his life. So will know the easiest route to cycle.
This may involve going off the footpaths. It depends if he could cycle on other terrain. Over the 3 mile diistance there must have been some other terrain he could use. Nothing wrong with short cuts. Or he may have decided to just keep on the footpaths.
-
Interestingly, Adam and other guilters seem mad keen on this bike.
If we start from the premise that Jeremy is guilty, to me it just seems so obvious that he walked there and back. A bike is too complicated and would cause too many problems. Walking is ideal.
Why are guilters not pursuing the line of least resistance? It's a golden rule that you 'keep it simple stupid'. I'm intrigued by this now. Is this just a case of mindlessly shoehorning all the evidence in to the case? Or is there some fundamental problem with him walking to and from the farmhouse that I have not surmised? It certainly would be risky and difficult as it is, and I'm perplexed as to why he would want to make it still more risky and difficult by going on a ladies' push bike.
-
Interestingly, Adam and other guilters seem mad keen on this bike.
If we start from the premise that Jeremy is guilty, to me it just seems so obvious that he walked there and back. A bike is too complicated and would cause too many problems. Walking is ideal.
Why are guilters not pursuing the line of least resistance? It's a golden rule that you 'keep it simple stupid'. I'm intrigued by this now. Is this just a case of mindlessly shoehorning all the evidence in to the case? Or is there some fundamental problem with him walking to and from the farmhouse that I have not surmised? It certainly would be risky and difficult as it is, and I'm perplexed as to why he would want to make it still more risky and difficult by going on a ladies' push bike.
Why is a bike complicated?
There are several advantages already mentioned.
Do you believe it was a 'curious coincidence' that he brought over June's bike just before the massacre?
-
Why is a bike complicated?
There are several advantages already mentioned.
Do you believe it was a 'curious coincidence' that he brought over June's bike just before the massacre?
The complications are very obvious and can be worked out by anybody with the barest common sense. A mere child could figure it out and see that it would be better for him to walk.
I'm really interested now in why you're keen on this bike. Either you're being dense or there's some factor here that I'm not aware of that would make walking greatly difficult.
-
The complications are very obvious and can be worked out by anybody with the barest common sense. A mere child could figure it out and see that it would be better for him to walk.
I'm really interested now in why you're keen on this bike. Either you're being dense or there's some factor here that I'm not aware of that would make walking greatly difficult.
What are the complications of Bamber cycling on footpaths or bike friendly terrain to/from WHF?
-
If JB had been insane and on a rampage he'd have achieved a swift bike-ride back to his home but as it happened he'd have been drained and ready for his bed after 10pm that night. A bit of TV to wind down and that was his days end-----it didn't include tearing around killing people.
-
What are the complications of Bamber cycling on footpaths or bike friendly terrain to/from WHF?
I'm not here to explain obvious things to do you Adam. It's very very obvious. I'm busy actually. Give your brain muscles some exercise and think it through yourself.
If you can't, and if you keep repeating your mantra, then I'm going to get suspicious. I'm already wondering why you're keen to shoehorn that bike into this.
Just off hand, I can straight-away think of about 20 problems that could arise if he goes by bike, whereas if he walks the only issue he has - as far as I can tell - is that, for forensic reasons, he probably needs to change clothes at the farmhouse and then change back again, then change again when he is back at Bourtree Cottage; but this would depend on if it's muddy in places. I assume he scouts a route and since it's summer, it'll be dry.
Maybe this is down to life experience. I won't go into my own experiences, but I can see immediately that if he is guilty he would have walked there and back.
You claim it's a coincidence that the bike was there, but it needn't be because - as I've explained above - he could have used the bike on scouting missions and it's already established that Julie used the bike.
Did Julie mention the bike in her statements in any incriminating context? I don't believe so, since she had Matthew Macdonald as the killer. Doesn't that suggest to you that possibly the bike wasn't used on the night and Julie had a genuine purpose for the bike?
-
As Mrs Foakes had said in her statement after having known the family, including Jeremy, for years, that he didn't have the gumption to have murdered anyone.
Where is that statement anyway ?
-
I'm not here to explain obvious things to do you Adam. It's very very obvious. I'm busy actually. Give your brain muscles some exercise and think it through yourself.
If you can't, and if you keep repeating your mantra, then I'm going to get suspicious. I'm already wondering why you're keen to shoehorn that bike into this.
Just off hand, I can straight-away think of about 20 problems that could arise if he goes by bike, whereas if he walks the only issue he has - as far as I can tell - is that, for forensic reasons, he probably needs to change clothes at the farmhouse and then change back again, then change again when he is back at Bourtree Cottage; but this would depend on if it's muddy in places. I assume he scouts a route and since it's summer, it'll be dry.
Maybe this is down to life experience. I won't go into my own experiences, but I can see immediately that if he is guilty he would have walked there and back.
You claim it's a coincidence that the bike was there, but it needn't be because - as I've explained above - he could have used the bike on scouting missions and it's already established that Julie used the bike.
Did Julie mention the bike in her statements in any incriminating context? I don't believe so, since she had Matthew Macdonald as the killer. Doesn't that suggest to you that possibly the bike wasn't used on the night and Julie had a genuine purpose for the bike?
What scouting missions?
So there are no complications. Just advantages which I have already listed in reply 28.
He may have walked if it was a 10 minute walk. But 45 minutes.
-
As Mrs Foakes had said in her statement after having known the family, including Jeremy, for years, that he didn't have the gumption to have murdered anyone.
Where is that statement anyway ?
He had to steel himself for the murders by practising on rats. It all fits in..
-
He had to steel himself for the murders by practising on rats. It all fits in..
Steve, I don't know about you but I see a vast difference in the size of a rat and a human being. In fact a whole difference.
-
What scouting missions?
So there are no complications. Just advantages which I have already listed in reply 28.
He may have walked if it was a 10 minute walk. But 45 minutes.
I think I know now why you need him to have used the bike. It's clicked in my head. He can't have done it by car, and you need him to have worked quickly. I think this could be another potential flaw in the prosecution case. I'll probably start a thread on this, but don't have time right now.
-
Interestingly, Adam and other guilters seem mad keen on this bike.
If we start from the premise that Jeremy is guilty, to me it just seems so obvious that he walked there and back. A bike is too complicated and would cause too many problems. Walking is ideal.
Why are guilters not pursuing the line of least resistance? It's a golden rule that you 'keep it simple stupid'. I'm intrigued by this now. Is this just a case of mindlessly shoehorning all the evidence in to the case? Or is there some fundamental problem with him walking to and from the farmhouse that I have not surmised? It certainly would be risky and difficult as it is, and I'm perplexed as to why he would want to make it still more risky and difficult by going on a ladies' push bike.
The lack of rigor mortis and livor mortis on Sheila's body when the crime scene photos were taken rules Jeremy out period. Even more so if you want to argue he walked home.
-
The lack of rigor mortis and livor mortis on Sheila's body when the crime scene photos were taken rules Jeremy out period. Even more so if you want to argue he walked home.
See above. I'm intrigued by Adam and other guilters' fascination with this bike. To me, a fit 24 year old man can run that distance in, say, 30 minutes. Bear in mind he knows the land, and maybe he planned it all out. I think I now know why they need him to have used the bike and I think there's another problem with the prosecution case.
-
See above. I'm intrigued by Adam and other guilters' fascination with this bike. To me, a fit 24 year old man can run that distance in, say, 30 minutes. Bear in mind he knows the land, and maybe he planned it all out. I think I now know why they need him to have used the bike and I think there's another problem with the prosecution case.
None of it really matters. When you consider Sheila's TOD. Its not possible for Jeremy to have done it.
-
None of it really matters. When you consider Sheila's TOD. Its not possible for Jeremy to have done it.
Well let me decide what I think matters. I think it does matter because if the timings and sequencing don't hang together, then it just reinforces why I have doubt.
-
I think I know now why you need him to have used the bike. It's clicked in my head. He can't have done it by car, and you need him to have worked quickly. I think this could be another potential flaw in the prosecution case. I'll probably start a thread on this, but don't have time right now.
You remind me of that Victoria Wood joke when she comes on stage with her coat on and announces to the audience: "I won't take my coat off..I'm not stopping.."
-
You remind me of that Victoria Wood joke when she comes on stage with her coat on and announces to the audience: "I won't take my coat off..I'm not stopping.."
I understand why you are getting shirty Steve because QC is challenging all the reasons he thought JB was guilty
Good job QC
Steve I will probably be posting some statements from Suzette Ford who knew Jeremy very well
An independent witness who was not after the Bamber money
-
None of it really matters. When you consider Sheila's TOD. Its not possible for Jeremy to have done it.
David, you're next on the list of ignoramus's, irrationals and pretenders ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I understand why you are getting shirty Steve because QC is challenging all the reasons he thought JB was guilty
Good job QC
Steve I will probably be posting some statements from Suzette Ford who knew Jeremy very well
An independent witness who was not after the Bamber money
Go ahead Jackie. We have nothing to fear, we give of our time freely and we back up our observations with sources if so required to do.
-
I think I know now why you need him to have used the bike. It's clicked in my head. He can't have done it by car, and you need him to have worked quickly. I think this could be another potential flaw in the prosecution case. I'll probably start a thread on this, but don't have time right now.
I think I know now why you need him to have used the bike. It's clicked in my head. He can't have done it by car, and you need him to have worked quickly. I think this could be another potential flaw in the prosecution case.
-
None of it really matters. When you consider Sheila's TOD. Its not possible for Jeremy to have done it.
Consider or establish? I wish someone could establish for once and all.
-
Go ahead Jackie. We have nothing to fear, we give of our time freely and we back up our observations with sources if so required to do.
You can’t get a better source than Suzy
He loved farming and his family
Fact
As far as I know Suzy never carried out any kind of fraud like your source. :) :) :)
-
You can’t get a better source than Suzy
He loved farming and his family
Fact
As far as I know Suzy never carried out any kind of fraud like your source. :) :) :)
No but Jeremy did, presenting her with a Cartier watch stolen from an Antipodean jeweller's.
-
No but Jeremy did, presenting her with a Cartier watch stolen from an Antipodean jeweller's.
I don't know how he ever got through customs without producing a receipt, then paying for the privilege.
-
I don't know how he ever got through customs without producing a receipt, then paying for the privilege.
Thanks Lookout
-
No but Jeremy did, presenting her with a Cartier watch stolen from an Antipodean jeweller's.
I never mentioned Jeremy we are talking about Suzy.
Did she ever take part in any fraud
Yes or No
Can you grasp that
-
I never mentioned Jeremy we are talking about Suzy.
Did she ever take part in any fraud
Yes or No
Can you grasp that
No because Jeremy was still in his chrysalis period, having fun and cocking a snook at June in his own way by embarking on the relationship with Suzette in the first place. It was only when the parents discovered the liaison that they issued him with their ultimatum, which started the process of the immersion in the death plan, culminating in the tragic events of 7 August 1985.
-
See above. I'm intrigued by Adam and other guilters' fascination with this bike. To me, a fit 24 year old man can run that distance in, say, 30 minutes. Bear in mind he knows the land, and maybe he planned it all out. I think I now know why they need him to have used the bike and I think there's another problem with the prosecution case.
I don't believe he used the bike.
-
No because Jeremy was still in his chrysalis period, having fun and cocking a snook at June in his own way by embarking on the relationship with Suzette in the first place. It was only when the parents discovered the liaison that they issued him with their ultimatum, which started the process of the immersion in the death plan, culminating in the tragic events of 7 August 1985.
I must admit Steve, you are a guilter par excellence, when it comes to theorising Jeremy's journey.
-
I must admit Steve, you are a guilter par excellence, when it comes to theorising Jeremy's journey.
You couldn't blame anyone for thinking he is self-satirizing.
-
You couldn't blame anyone for thinking he is self-satirizing.
You mean like your moving image of Tom Cruise, when you probably look like Arthur Mullard's son on Ritalin.
-
That's so funny. :)) :)) :))
-
That's so funny. :)) :)) :))
😂😂😂😂🙈
-
He doesn't read my posts so I suppose I can write what I like. He reminds me of a young man with Special Needs at my local church who keeps asking me to watch a film about a girl kidnapped by a snake charmer. I'm running out of excuses not to go.
-
He doesn't read my posts so I suppose I can write what I like. He reminds me of a young man with Special Needs at my local church who keeps asking me to watch a film about a girl kidnapped by a snake charmer. I'm running out of excuses not to go.
How sad. Tell the young man that you've had to have drops in your eyes and it's affecting your sight.
-
How sad. Tell the young man that you've had to have drops in your eyes and it's affecting your sight.
Oh that's a good one lookout.
-
He doesn't read my posts so I suppose I can write what I like. He reminds me of a young man with Special Needs at my local church who keeps asking me to watch a film about a girl kidnapped by a snake charmer. I'm running out of excuses not to go.
Talking of Churches Steve, I met an old friend who I hadn’t seen for about 45 years, he lived across the road in a mining village, we used to get up to all sorts of devilish tricks. He said he’d just passed out as a vicar and gets ordained next month, he had to pick me up off the floor 😂😂
-
Talking of Churches Steve, I met an old friend who I hadn’t seen for about 45 years, he lived across the road in a mining village, we used to get up to all sorts of devilish tricks. He said he’d just passed out as a vicar and gets ordained next month, he had to pick me up off the floor 😂😂
Some people do turn to the church as they get older. I don't mind as long as it's for the right motives.
-
Some people do turn to the church as they get older. I don't mind as long as it's for the right motives.
I think he said he’d been a Reader and studying since 2002? I don’t think he will get his own parish because of his age?
-
Some people do turn to the church as they get older. I don't mind as long as it's for the right motives.
Churches, like all organizations, are about the people, not the building. There are some who live their faith and it shines from them as if they're lit from within. Sadly, there are also the hypocrites who hide behind a pretence of faith.
-
Churches, like all organizations, are about the people, not the building. There are some who live their faith and it shines from them as if they're lit from within. Sadly, there are also the hypocrites who hide behind a pretence of faith.
Oh yes Jane, I hope the Lord is forgiving, I’m ok, I think he loves me as I am 😂😂😂
-
And someone's looking after me :)
-
And someone's looking after me :)
Yeeeehh! They surely are :))
-
And someone's looking after me :)
👍👍👍
-
You couldn't blame anyone for thinking he is self-satirizing.
I know he or she is completely bizarre but always wrong
He or she cannot bring himself to answer the question on Suzy
-
You mean like your moving image of Tom Cruise, when you probably look like Arthur Mullard's son on Ritalin.
He might be better looking than Tom Cruise
-
Churches, like all organizations, are about the people, not the building. There are some who live their faith and it shines from them as if they're lit from within. Sadly, there are also the hypocrites who hide behind a pretence of faith.
Yeah, lots of the latter (in my experience) - they think being part of the church allows them to judge others and tend to be less tolerant.
-
Yeah, lots of the latter (in my experience) - they think being part of the church allows them to judge others and tend to be less tolerant.
Holier than, and superior to, thou,............... and thou, too.
-
Holier than, and superior to, thou,............... and thou, too.
Thou shalt not (but it's OK for me ;D).
-
Arthur Mullard
Not to be confused with Arthur English.
-
I know he or she is completely bizarre but always wrong
He or she cannot bring himself to answer the question on Suzy
I highlighted your yes or no ultimatum in bold and answered the question.
-
I highlighted your yes or no ultimatum in bold and answered the question.
No you didn’t, I wanted a yes or no not your usual crap where you make stuff up. You must go to bed and think what shit can I post tomorrow to draw the attention away from your mortuary loving best friend Gypsy Rose Lee. Still it’s something any students she still has any contact with can have a good laugh at
The facts are
Jeremy liked farming and got on well with his father. So you can delete any hearsay false information you have posted about those two bits of knowledge
-
No you didn’t, I wanted a yes or no not your usual crap where you make stuff up. You must go to bed and think what shit can I post tomorrow to draw the attention away from your mortuary loving best friend Gypsy Rose Lee. Still it’s something any students she still has any contact with can have a good laugh at
The facts are
Jeremy liked farming and got on well with his father. So you can delete any hearsay false information you have posted about those two bits of knowledge
I answered the question in #61 and will let other members be the judge. As for your second statement which I have highlighted it's quite evident to me that Jeremy tried everything to escape the farming lifestyle which his parents had mapped out for him, including working at Little Chef and Sloppy Joe's, trying to get on a scuba diving course and embarking on two round the world trips. When the funds dried up he returned to White House Farm, got wind of the terms of his father's will and buckled down to farming for the last couple of years of five people's existence, before he snuffed them out. This was probably the period that your friend Warwick Hislop became acquainted with him. I would ask both him and yourself to read the statements of four independent witnesses: John Seward, Nevill's confidant, who reported that Jeremy drove his father to tears through his erratic behaviour, Len Foakes, to whom Jeremy confided that "if anything happened I would just pack it all in and sell up", Michael Deckers, to whom Jeremy stated in Autumn 1984 that "if the Farm burned down at Christmas everything would be mine" and James Richards, to whom he exclaimed: "I hate my f***ing parents."
-
From what I recall. In no particular order -
Bamber didn't catch & physically attack Nevill on the stairs.
Sheila may have woken.
Sheila may have fought back.
Nevill did not dial 999.
Nevill's blood was not by the gun cupboard (no source).
Crispy may have barked.
Someone may have seen Bamber cycle to WHF.
Nevill's blood was not on the stairs (no source).
Nevill did not head for the guns in the wash room (no source any were there)
Bamber had no visible injuries.
There was no blood on Nevill's side of the bed.
----------
All these have been easily be explained away.
Bamber would not be worried about Sheila maybe waking & fighting back. Crispy was not a guard dog & needed his sleep, whereever he was.
Going back to the thread post. No one has added to the list. So these are the main objections to the Bamber scenario, which matched the evidence.
I'll answer each one.
-
I answered the question in #61 and will let other members be the judge. As for your second statement which I have highlighted it's quite evident to me that Jeremy tried everything to escape the farming lifestyle which his parents had mapped out for him, including working at Little Chef and Sloppy Joe's, trying to get on a scuba diving course and embarking on two round the world trips. When the funds dried up he returned to White House Farm, got wind of the terms of his father's will and buckled down to farming for the last couple of years of five people's existence, before he snuffed them out. This was probably the period that your friend Warwick Hislop became acquainted with him. I would ask both him and yourself to read the statements of four independent witnesses: John Seward, Nevill's confidant, who reported that Jeremy drove his father to tears through his erratic behaviour, Len Foakes, to whom Jeremy confided that "if anything happened I would just pack it all in and sell up", Michael Deckers, to whom Jeremy stated in Autumn 1984 that "if the Farm burned down at Christmas everything would be mine" and James Richards, to whom he exclaimed: "I hate my f***ing parents."
You ignore the facts Suzy lived with so knew him inside out and she had no reason to lie about anything and she was not known for her dishonesty
Mugford did not live with Jeremy and was known to be a prolific liar
None of the other people you mention lived with Jeremy either and you ignore testimonials from people who knew Jeremy before the murders
So unfortunately you have made yourself look stupid again
As you mention Warwick again you are fully aware he worked alongside Neville and Jeremy
-
Bamber didn't catch & physically attack Nevill on the stairs:
Why would he? The stairs were steep and narrow.
----------
Sheila may have woken :
Very doubtful she did. But unable to change things if she did.
----------
Sheila may have fought back:
Again very doubtful. But still easily controllable for Bamber.
---------
Nevill did not dial 999:
No time to. Why would he? He had been shot 4 times.
----------
Nevill's blood was not by the gun cupboard (no source):
Very optimistic to expect Nevill to drip his blood onto Bamber & then Bamber to transfer it to the gun cupboard. As stated, no source.
----------
Crispy may have barked:
Bamber would know in advance whether he is likely to. And whether it would wake anyone.
---------
Someone may have seen Bamber cycle to WHF:
A 1% chance here. Certainly good enough odds for Bamber to take.
----------
Nevill's blood was not on the stairs (no source):
Why would it be? As stated no source.
----------
Nevill did not head for the guns in the wash room (no source any were there):
As stated, no source.
----------
Bamber had no visible injuries:
Two women & two 6 year olds would not inflict injuries. Nevill was shot 4 times before going into defence mode.
----------
There was no blood on Nevill's side of the bed:
No reason there should be . Thread recently created. Which was not disputed.
----------
-
Seems the fragile Sheila was on a mission against Neville, she probably realised Neville was the main threat?
Nevill, who was wearing his pyjamas, had been shot 8 times. There were 2 wounds to the right side and 2 to the top of the head. If not immediately fatal, the combined effect of these 4 injuries would have been immediate unconsciousness and incapacitation. There was a wound to the left side of the lip and another to the left part of the lower jaw. This injury caused severe fracturing of the jaw, of the teeth in that area and damaged soft tissue in the neck and larynx. These features of this particular injury and the resultant flow of blood into the mouth meant, in the pathologist’s opinion, that Nevill would have been unable to engage in purposeful talk. There were also gunshot wounds to the left shoulder and a grazing wound above the left elbow.
Nevill’s body also had black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back.
She controlled the situation and rifle like a professional, leaving two bullets in the rifle to shoot herself just in case one didn’t finish the job, also realising she had to push the trigger and not pull the trigger while holding the rifle Steady to her throat, even after the first shot she had it all to do again?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10313.msg481453.html#msg481453
The straight forward Bamber scenario still stands. Matching the evidence.
But it has only been 35 years.
-
Whatever happened to 'a tale of two guns'. The scenario of two guns, which I think the defence may have been conned out of considering early doors.
-
Whatever happened to 'a tale of two guns'. The scenario of two guns, which I think the defence may have been conned out of considering early doors.
Why would there be two guns? I don't think they were conned, just realised they wouldn't get anyhere with it.
-
Seems the fragile Sheila was on a mission against Neville, she probably realised Neville was the main threat?
Nevill, who was wearing his pyjamas, had been shot 8 times. There were 2 wounds to the right side and 2 to the top of the head. If not immediately fatal, the combined effect of these 4 injuries would have been immediate unconsciousness and incapacitation. There was a wound to the left side of the lip and another to the left part of the lower jaw. This injury caused severe fracturing of the jaw, of the teeth in that area and damaged soft tissue in the neck and larynx. These features of this particular injury and the resultant flow of blood into the mouth meant, in the pathologist’s opinion, that Nevill would have been unable to engage in purposeful talk. There were also gunshot wounds to the left shoulder and a grazing wound above the left elbow.
Nevill’s body also had black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back.
She controlled the situation and rifle like a professional, leaving two bullets in the rifle to shoot herself just in case one didn’t finish the job, also realising she had to push the trigger and not pull the trigger while holding the rifle Steady to her throat, even after the first shot she had it all to do again?
As usual you ignore the evidence, have you ever wondered why the case is always under review, it has been laid out clearly this is an unsafe conviction so carry on posting your stories that don’t add up and ignore Sheila’s illness. I am under no illusion why you are here.
One day try reading the facts of the case
-
Why would there be two guns? I don't think they were conned, just realised they wouldn't get anyhere with it.
I'd be interested in Mike's and ngb's thoughts on whether there may have been two guns involved. I find Pargeter's testimony a bit iffy.
-
Seems the fragile Sheila was on a mission against Neville, she probably realised Neville was the main threat?
Nevill, who was wearing his pyjamas, had been shot 8 times. There were 2 wounds to the right side and 2 to the top of the head. If not immediately fatal, the combined effect of these 4 injuries would have been immediate unconsciousness and incapacitation. There was a wound to the left side of the lip and another to the left part of the lower jaw. This injury caused severe fracturing of the jaw, of the teeth in that area and damaged soft tissue in the neck and larynx. These features of this particular injury and the resultant flow of blood into the mouth meant, in the pathologist’s opinion, that Nevill would have been unable to engage in purposeful talk. There were also gunshot wounds to the left shoulder and a grazing wound above the left elbow.
Nevill’s body also had black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back.
She controlled the situation and rifle like a professional, leaving two bullets in the rifle to shoot herself just in case one didn’t finish the job, also realising she had to push the trigger and not pull the trigger while holding the rifle Steady to her throat, even after the first shot she had it all to do again?
It seems some posters find this hard to believe, but this is the evidence, for Sheila to be the killer this is what happened. So finding it hard to believe, their only defence is to get personal and offer no evidence, if they dispute this someone else must be the killer!
-
Who exactly is they??
(Don’t forget your the one who contacted me by pm, I have never been your friend)
I might go through your nasty posts tonight and post all the personal attacks
Get a life and stop moaning because I don’t agree with you or your mates stories
I was such a good judge of character when you contacted me.
-
Seems the fragile Sheila was on a mission against Neville, she probably realised Neville was the main threat?
Nevill, who was wearing his pyjamas, had been shot 8 times. There were 2 wounds to the right side and 2 to the top of the head. If not immediately fatal, the combined effect of these 4 injuries would have been immediate unconsciousness and incapacitation. There was a wound to the left side of the lip and another to the left part of the lower jaw. This injury caused severe fracturing of the jaw, of the teeth in that area and damaged soft tissue in the neck and larynx. These features of this particular injury and the resultant flow of blood into the mouth meant, in the pathologist’s opinion, that Nevill would have been unable to engage in purposeful talk. There were also gunshot wounds to the left shoulder and a grazing wound above the left elbow.
Nevill’s body also had black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back.
She controlled the situation and rifle like a professional, leaving two bullets in the rifle to shoot herself just in case one didn’t finish the job, also realising she had to push the trigger and not pull the trigger while holding the rifle Steady to her throat, even after the first shot she had it all to do again?
I don't believe Sheila knew there were two bullets left in the gun. Had there been just one left she would have just died slower.
-
134. At one point during the interviews the appellant said that following the call from his father he had telephoned Julie Mugford before the police. It was pointed out to him that in his earlier witness statements he had said he rang the police immediately upon receipt of his father's call and only after calling the police had he rung Miss Mugford. He responded that he may be confused about the sequence of telephone calls. He could not explain why having received the call from his father he had not immediately telephoned 999.
The appellant said his sister had not previously fired the gun, although she had walked with him when he had been out shooting with his father.
So all the knowledge she gained on how to shoot, load and batter with a rifle, came when she was out walking?
135. He told the police that there were occasions when he gained entry to his parents' home by way of a number of the downstairs windows including those in the kitchen and the bathroom. He explained that he used a knife to move the catches in order that the window could be opened from the outside.
132. The appellant agreed that his mother's bicycle had been at his home during the week before the killings.
So Julie was telling the truth then?
A transcript of his cross-examination is available. In cross-examination the appellant said Sheila Caffell had frequent delusions and had spoken to him of suicide.
138. He admitted that the burglary at the caravan site had been motivated by greed and that by breaking a window and scattering papers around he had deliberately sought to give the impression it had been committed by somebody other than him. Again, Julie was telling the truth
-
I don't believe Sheila knew there were two bullets left in the gun. Had there been just one left she would have just died slower.
Maybe it was coincidental David.
-
I don't believe Sheila knew there were two bullets left in the gun. Had there been just one left she would have just died slower.
Leaving one was a risk, considering the amount needed to kill the other victims?
-
Leaving one was a risk, considering the amount needed to kill the other victims?
The excess shots to the others was a combination of poor aim and overkill. Not so much from a lack firepower
-
Maybe it was coincidental David.
A gun is either loaded or it isn't. No other variables.
-
He doesn't read my posts so I suppose I can write what I like. He reminds me of a young man with Special Needs at my local church who keeps asking me to watch a film about a girl kidnapped by a snake charmer. I'm running out of excuses not to go.
Another one for the archives. Thanks Comedian Steve.
-
You remind me of that Victoria Wood joke when she comes on stage with her coat on and announces to the audience: "I won't take my coat off..I'm not stopping.."
As I said, I might start a thread on it. But it will need to be a bit more than just "Well, it's rather unlikely that Jeremy went by bike because [it meant using paths and there's a chance he would have been seen/he would need to have lights on/more noise than going on foot/he might have got a flat tyre/oil on his hands/the chain might have come off/difficult to explain if caught, as there was no Tour de Yorkshire back then for him to train for]."
I do like to assume a certain level of intelligence among our readers - though in your case, perhaps we do need to spell things out, so please refer to the above. We are of course left with the difficulty that if it is unlikely he went by bike either there or back or both, then could he really have managed it on foot, allowing for the time sensitivity he was under and also the assumption he may have made that all phone calls could be time-logged by the phone company? That would have been a wrong assumption, but that's not the point. That's why I wanted to start a thread, though it may be a bit too technical for you.
I am, however, encouraged to hear that you are making contact with the special needs community, and I hope you make friends with people you like and with whom you have something in common. Good luck with it Steve and let us know how you get on!
-
He might be better looking than Tom Cruise
Here I am today (on 15mg of ritalin ::) ) Not quite better looking than the 1986 Tom Cruise. But 10 years ago when my eye brows where darker and my hair was brighter along with my juvenile hairline maybe. ;)
-
Here I am today (on 15mg of ritalin ::) ) Not quite better looking than the 1986 Tom Cruise. But 10 years ago when my eye brows where darker and my hair was brighter along with my juvenile hairline maybe. ;)
I think you should front the CT, David. You look incredibly telegenic.
-
Here I am today (on 15mg of ritalin ::) ) Not quite better looking than the 1986 Tom Cruise. But 10 years ago when my eye brows where darker and my hair was brighter along with my juvenile hairline maybe. ;)
I thought so
-
I think you should front the CT, David. You look incredibly telegenic.
:) :) :)
-
it meant using paths and there's a chance he would have been seen/he would need to have lights on/more noise than going on foot/he might have got a flat tyre/oil on his hands/the chain might have come off/difficult to explain if caught, as there was no Tour de Yorkshire back then for him to train for"
--------
That is what paths are for.
More chance of being seen if outside travelling for longer.
Flat tyre/chain coming off was possible but didn't happen. They were 15 minute journeys. He can carry the bike if he needs to.
Bikes make minimal noise.
-
it meant using paths and there's a chance he would have been seen/he would need to have lights on/more noise than going on foot/he might have got a flat tyre/oil on his hands/the chain might have come off/difficult to explain if caught, as there was no Tour de Yorkshire back then for him to train for"
--------
That is what paths are for.
More chance of being seen if outside travelling for longer.
Flat tyre/chain coming off was possible but didn't happen. They were 15 minute journeys. He can carry the bike if he needs to.
Bikes make minimal noise.
Thanks Adam. Lucky you're here to set me back on the right [bicycle] path, or bridleway, as the case may be.
-
Thanks Adam. Lucky you're here to set me back on the right [bicycle] path, or bridleway, as the case may be.
What is your opinion of this from the OS? -
'The bicycle belonged to Jeremy's mother, but it had been brought to Jeremy’s house for Julie Mugford to use, so that she could cycle from Goldhanger to Toleshunt D'arcy, leaving the bike at the Red Lion Pub. She would then get the Osbourne's bus which runs from Tollesbury to Colchester.'
-
You're a lovely young man David. To think I have grandchildren your age :o Look after yourself.
-
I think I know now why you need him to have used the bike. It's clicked in my head. He can't have done it by car, and you need him to have worked quickly. I think this could be another potential flaw in the prosecution case. I'll probably start a thread on this, but don't have time right now.
QC Could you give us some more information about the above flaw in the prosecution case
-
What is your opinion of this from the OS? -
'The bicycle belonged to Jeremy's mother, but it had been brought to Jeremy’s house for Julie Mugford to use, so that she could cycle from Goldhanger to Toleshunt D'arcy, leaving the bike at the Red Lion Pub. She would then get the Osbourne's bus which runs from Tollesbury to Colchester.'
My opinion of it is:
(i). Jeremy has provided a plausible reason for having the bike.
(ii). The reason for the bike involves Julie. Let us note that Julie makes no mention of the bike in relation to the incident. (I appreciate that Julie wouldn't do so because she said the killer was Malcolm Macdonald, but that being the case, where does that leave us with Julie? Doesn't that suggest she was indeed a constructive accomplice, as I have theorised?).
(iii). (Assuming Jeremy is guilty) obviously neither of us know for sure how he did this, but even if he did use the bike on the night, my point is that I don't find it very likely that he did use it. I find it more likely he went on foot (mixture of walking, jogging, running), so I'm going to say he went on foot. In other words, I'm applying the most simple and reasonable solution against the available evidence, rather than complicating things needlessly by shoehorning in an isolated piece of evidence just for the sake of it.
(iv). Notwithstanding what I have said above, the bike may well have been a factor in some other way. For example, if you take the view that Jeremy planned all this, then Jeremy may have used it to scout routes and he may have deliberately done this some months before. Jeremy may also have wanted the bike available either at Bourtree Cottage or White House Farm as a back-up and last resort, just in case he needed to move with greater haste some of the distance between the two locations.
I do intend to start a thread to look at this further, as I believe the topic ties in with the incident sequencing and phone calls. I think you know this yourself, Adam, and that's why you and lots of other guilters are keen on this bike.
Not all guilters agree with you. I'm a guilter myself and I disagree with you on this.
-
My opinion of it is:
(i). Jeremy has provided a plausible reason for having the bike.
(ii). The reason for the bike involves Julie. Let us note that Julie makes no mention of the bike in relation to the incident. (I appreciate that Julie wouldn't do so because she said the killer was Malcolm Macdonald, but that being the case, where does that leave us with Julie? Doesn't that suggest she was indeed a constructive accomplice, as I have theorised?).
(iii). (Assuming Jeremy is guilty) obviously neither of us know for sure how he did this, but even if he did use the bike on the night, my point is that I don't find it very likely that he did use it. I find it more likely he went on foot (mixture of walking, jogging, running), so I'm going to say he went on foot. In other words, I'm applying the most simple and reasonable solution against the available evidence, rather than complicating things needlessly by shoehorning in an isolated piece of evidence just for the sake of it.
(iv). Notwithstanding what I have said above, the bike may well have been a factor in some other way. For example, if you take the view that Jeremy planned all this, then Jeremy may have used it to scout routes and he may have deliberately done this some months before. Jeremy may also have wanted the bike available either at Bourtree Cottage or White House Farm as a back-up and last resort, just in case he needed to move with greater haste some of the distance between the two locations.
I do intend to start a thread to look at this further, as I believe the topic ties in with the incident sequencing and phone calls. I think you know this yourself, Adam, and that's why you and lots of other guilters are keen on this bike.
Not all guilters agree with you. I'm a guilter myself and I disagree with you on this.
It's on Sheet 5 here, idiot. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10043.0.html
-
My opinion of it is:
(i). Jeremy has provided a plausible reason for having the bike.
(ii). The reason for the bike involves Julie. Let us note that Julie makes no mention of the bike in relation to the incident. (I appreciate that Julie wouldn't do so because she said the killer was Malcolm Macdonald, but that being the case, where does that leave us with Julie? Doesn't that suggest she was indeed a constructive accomplice, as I have theorised?).
(iii). (Assuming Jeremy is guilty) obviously neither of us know for sure how he did this, but even if he did use the bike on the night, my point is that I don't find it very likely that he did use it. I find it more likely he went on foot (mixture of walking, jogging, running), so I'm going to say he went on foot. In other words, I'm applying the most simple and reasonable solution against the available evidence, rather than complicating things needlessly by shoehorning in an isolated piece of evidence just for the sake of it.
(iv). Notwithstanding what I have said above, the bike may well have been a factor in some other way. For example, if you take the view that Jeremy planned all this, then Jeremy may have used it to scout routes and he may have deliberately done this some months before. Jeremy may also have wanted the bike available either at Bourtree Cottage or White House Farm as a back-up and last resort, just in case he needed to move with greater haste some of the distance between the two locations.
I do intend to start a thread to look at this further, as I believe the topic ties in with the incident sequencing and phone calls. I think you know this yourself, Adam, and that's why you and lots of other guilters are keen on this bike.
Not all guilters agree with you. I'm a guilter myself and I disagree with you on this.
Julie does mention the bike in her WS. Saying Bamber planned to do a trial run.
Plausible? Strangest thing I have heard a boyfriend expect his visiting girlfriend to do.
Believe he would know the routes already. But as Julie said, he planned to do a trial run, which is a form of scouting.
-
It's on Sheet 5 here, idiot. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10043.0.html
Sheet 9 mentions the trial run.
-
It's Julie who would have been doing the trial run as it was she who was going to use the bike between houses.
-
It's Julie who would have been doing the trial run as it was she who was going to use the bike between houses.
Why would she need to, Lookout? North Essex Growers was in entirely the opposite direction, as was the Queen's Head bus stop. Unless you're suggesting she did a reccie for Jeremy?
-
Why would she need to, Lookout? North Essex Growers was in entirely the opposite direction, as was the Queen's Head bus stop. Unless you're suggesting she did a reccie for Jeremy?
I understood that the reason Julie borrowed the bike was to go and see Jeremy while he was working at WHF when she stayed at Goldhanger ?
-
It's on Sheet 5 here, idiot. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10043.0.html
Another one for the archives. Thanks Special Steve.
I've looked again at her statement and the part about the bike. Then she is lying or (if she is telling the truth) she has misconstrued him, because he wouldn't use a bike for a trial run. He would go on foot. He would quickly realise that, just thinking about it for five seconds. He would use the bike to scout routes, if at all.
I'm not the idiot. You are. The fact she mentions the bike in that way just increases my suspicion. It's not realistic. It sounds like the bike is being shoehorned into this, by Julie and/or the police - for reasons I explore on another thread. It also conflicts with her evidence that Matthew Macdonald did this. Maybe Jeremy originally planned this himself but if so, why does he then tell her he used a hitman? That doesn't make sense. He'd already, according to Julie, gone on and on about how he was planning to kill his family, so why not just tell her he'd done it, if indeed he is guilty?
Apart from all that, what she says in that statement doesn't change my belief that if he did this, he must have gone on foot.
-
I understood that the reason Julie borrowed the bike was to go and see Jeremy while he was working at WHF when she stayed at Goldhanger ?
You may be right. I thought it was to get her to North Essex Growers where she had a holiday job, and the bus stop outside the Queen's Head where she could leave it when she went to Colchester. I guess one's as good as another in this case.
-
You may be right. I thought it was to get her to North Essex Growers where she had a holiday job, and the bus stop outside the Queen's Head where she could leave it when she went to Colchester. I guess one's as good as another in this case.
It was a means of transport to wherever she went as she didn't drive.
-
Julie does mention the bike in her WS. Saying Bamber planned to do a trial run.
Plausible? Strangest thing I have heard a boyfriend expect his visiting girlfriend to do.
Believe he would know the routes already. But as Julie said, he planned to do a trial run, which is a form of scouting.
By all means, you carry on thinking he went by bike. I won't say it's impossible, but it's rather odd that he would create difficulties for himself when a much simpler and less risky option was available.
Thanks.
-
The bike was tested for mud from the fields and other traces from whichever terrain was suspected. Blood too but nothing was found.
-
QC Could you give us some more information about the above flaw in the prosecution case
See: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10348.0.html
-
Another one for the archives. Thanks Special Steve.
I've looked again at her statement and the part about the bike. Then she is lying or (if she is telling the truth) she has misconstrued him, because he wouldn't use a bike for a trial run. He would go on foot. He would quickly realise that, just thinking about it for five seconds. He would use the bike to scout routes, if at all.
I'm not the idiot. You are. The fact she mentions the bike in that way just increases my suspicion. It's not realistic. It sounds like the bike is being shoehorned into this, by Julie and/or the police - for reasons I explore on another thread. It also conflicts with her evidence that Matthew Macdonald did this. Maybe Jeremy originally planned this himself but if so, why does he then tell her he used a hitman? That doesn't make sense. He'd already, according to Julie, gone on and on about how he was planning to kill his family, so why not just tell her he'd done it, if indeed he is guilty?
Apart from all that, what she says in that statement doesn't change my belief that if he did this, he must have gone on foot.
You said he would use the bike to scout routes. Now you are saying he would go on foot.
He would do a trial run on a bike if that was how he intended to get there on the night.
Bamber told her he planned to cycle. Then told her it MM. He's entitled to do both. Julie did not stay with him on the massacre night.
Julie is lucky she had a ready made piece of evidence arriving just before the massacre to lie about - June's bike.
-
You said he would use the bike to scout routes. Now you are saying he would go on foot.
He would do a trial run on a bike if that was how he intended to get there on the night.
Bamber told her he planned to cycle. Then told her it MM. He's entitled to do both. Julie did not stay with him on the massacre night.
Julie is lucky she had a ready made piece of evidence arriving just before the massacre to lie about - June's bike.
I have said both things from the start of this discussion. They are not in conflict.
He would go and return on foot, because that's the simplest and least risky way. He would not cross fields on a bike in the pitch dark - not unless he's stupid, as well as having a screw loose.
He may - I only say may - have scouted routes beforehand with the help of a bike (as well as scouting on foot, of course, and keeping an eye out when he is out in the fields working).
I'm not sure what about all that you don't understand, Adam?
I appreciate there is no necessary contradiction between June's mention of the bike and her later account of Matthew Macdonald, but it seems inconsistent because, if she is telling the truth, it means that he started by telling her he would do it, then he told her he got somebody else to do it, then it turns out (according to you) that he did it himself and he was lying about somebody else doing it. It's possible, of course, but it raises its own questions.
It does look to me like you, Julie and the police are shoehorning the bike into it, simply because it's there, especially as it wouldn't make sense for him to use a push bike in farmer's fields in the dark. There again, maybe he was training for the Tour de Yorkshire and that would have been his excuse for Stan? I suppose it fits in with the bacon breakfast, so it has that going for it. And you did say he might carry the bike too. Well it certainly takes the yellow jersey. Nice one. Thanks Adam.
-
By all means, you carry on thinking he went by bike. I won't say it's impossible, but it's rather odd that he would create difficulties for himself when a much simpler and less risky option was available.
Thanks.
The only difficulties was if Julie turned on him & remembered the bike. And AE turned on him after seeing the bike at his cottage. He didn't beleive these would happen.
On the night he didn't want to waste time & energy getting there & back. He was looking for 'the easy way', which is the main reason he committed the massacre.
-
The only difficulties was if Julie turned on him & remembered the bike. And AE turned on him after seeing the bike at his cottage. He didn't beleive these would happen.
On the night he didn't want to waste time & energy getting there & back. He was looking for 'the easy way', which is the main reason he committed the massacre.
I appreciate that, Adam, and of course it's a valid point as far as it goes, but you can't just consider the bike as a method in isolation, you have to compare its advantages and disadvantages with simply moving on foot. You also have to put yourself in the shoes of a criminal. That seems to be an easy task for me, which is not to my credit, but it means I can see straight-away that he very likely went on foot (I would say he must have done). There are lots and lots of reasons for this, all of them obvious.
I think, really, the difficulty for you here is that without the bike, you have him on foot under strict time conditions and it looks that bit less plausible (it looks difficult as it is, even far-fetched). As a result, you have to studiously ignore all the problems that a push bike would present in those circumstances.
-
I have said both things from the start of this discussion. They are not in conflict.
He would go and return on foot, because that's the simplest and least risky way. He would not cross fields on a bike in the pitch dark - not unless he's stupid, as well as having a screw loose.
He may - I only say may - have scouted routes beforehand with the help of a bike (as well as scouting on foot, of course, and keeping an eye out when he is out in the fields working).
I'm not sure what about all that you don't understand, Adam?
I appreciate there is no necessary contradiction between June's mention of the bike and her later account of Matthew Macdonald, but it seems inconsistent because, if she is telling the truth, it means that he started by telling her he would do it, then he told her he got somebody else to do it, then it turns out (according to you) that he did it himself and he was lying about somebody else doing it. It's possible, of course, but it raises its own questions.
It does look to me like you, Julie and the police are shoehorning the bike into it, simply because it's there, especially as it wouldn't make sense for him to use a push bike in farmer's fields in the dark. There again, maybe he was training for the Tour de Yorkshire and that would have been his excuse for Stan? I suppose it fits in with the bacon breakfast, so it has that going for it. And you did say he might carry the bike too. Well it certainly takes the yellow jersey. Nice one. Thanks Adam.
He would cycle on the footpaths. Which will take around 15 minutes. Maybe go across some fields if possible. Not a problem.
A bike was available. Free of charge. Which arrived at Bamber's cottage just before the massacre. Either to do scouting, cycling there on the night. Or both.
He could have walked as it would take 45 minutes (twice). But the bike arriving just beforehand is too much of a coincidence.
-
He would cycle on the footpaths. Which will take around 15 minutes. Maybe go across some fields if possible. Not a problem.
A bike was available. Free of charge. Which arrived at Bamber's cottage just before the massacre. Either to do scouting, cycling there on the night. Or both.
He could have walked as it would take 45 minutes (twice). But the bike arriving just beforehand is too much of a coincidence.
Steve called me an "idiot" because I said that Julie doesn't mention the bike in her statements. In fact, I was right. She doesn't. She is not referring to a specific bike. and I find it very suspicious that a bike comes up in her statement in that way in view of what you say about Jeremy borrowing a bike shortly before the tragedy.
Steve is the idiot. He doesn't engage his brain and think, and if anything, he makes Julie look more suspicious, not less.
As for you Adam, I have explained my position. I believe I am being reasonable. You are free to think what you like, but I find it hard to picture Jeremy on a bike in the middle of a pitch black night with no lights pedalling across fields, rough paths and bridleways, with all the inherent problems using a push bike involves. It's much easier to simply go by foot, as this allows him not to require the aid of a torch/light, he can take the most direct route and cross fields easily, it's less noisy, he doesn't run the risk of having to carry or abandon the bike somewhere, he doesn't leave cycle tracks, and he can explain himself if the worst happens and he is caught around Bourtree Cottage.
It's simple. Criminals who plan things like simple.
-
RWB went into the fields looking for cycle tracks but none were found.
-
RWB went into the fields looking for cycle tracks but none were found.
We must take into account that Jeremy was training for the Tour de Yorkshire, and as an elite cross-country cyclist, he would have stuck to the paths. It was all explained to Stan over breakfast the morning after.
-
The only difficulties was if Julie turned on him & remembered the bike. And AE turned on him after seeing the bike at his cottage. He didn't beleive these would happen.
On the night he didn't want to waste time & energy getting there & back. He was looking for 'the easy way', which is the main reason he committed the massacre.
FFS
-
FFS
My own theory is that Jeremy trained on his exercise bike at Bourtree Cottage. He needed to get himself into shape, Jackie.
The man was driven and obsessed by the Tour de France and his chance at the Tour de Yorkshire, and eventually this ill-starred ambition and greed - a tragic warping of the more traditional values of amateurism and sportmanship instilled at Gresham - overtook his better judgement and he started taking steroids to enhance his performance. Over time, the training costs mounted - elite cycle instructors don't come cheap, and there's tour fees to think about - so he had to think of a plan to get his hands on some big money.
Now, it was well known around Goldhanger that after long days in the fields, Jeremy trained by night and that's why he borrowed June's bike, to take things a step further as demanded by his French instructor, Jean-Pierre, who told him that his exercise bike didn't cut it anymore.
This meant Jeremy had the perfect excuse if he was caught. As it happened, he was. A secret memo from the COLP investigation shows that on the very morning of the murders, Stan and Taff grilled Jeremy over bacon and sausages and asked him why he had been seen out in the dark riding June's bike along local footpaths at around the time of the murders. Jeremy patiently explained that he was an elite cyclist and this sort of arduous training was essential for his proposed cycling career, an endeavour that had the full knowledge and approval of Nevill.
Taff was certainly satisfied with this explanation, and Stan was too. The problem for Stan was the bacon. Stan had been studying sports science in his spare time and had read the considered works of some of the elite Continental sports nutritionalists, and he just couldn't reconcile why Jeremy, an elite cross-country cyclist, would want to risk his waistline in that way. The suspicion in Stan grew, and although he accepted Jeremy's reason for being out in the dark on his bike, the bacon really was a step too far.
Unfortunately, Stan stepped over the line when he changed his pocketbook to say that Jeremy had enjoyed his bacon with ketchup rather than HP sauce.
Anyway, yellow jersey to Adam.
-
My own theory is that Jeremy trained on his exercise bike at Bourtree Cottage. He needed to get himself into shape, Jackie.
The man was driven and obsessed by the Tour de France and his chance at the Tour de Yorkshire, and eventually this ill-starred ambition and greed - a tragic warping of the more traditional values of amateurism and sportmanship instilled at Gresham - overtook his better judgement and he started taking steroids to enhance his performance. Over time, the training costs mounted - elite cycle instructors don't come cheap, and there's tour fees to think about - so he had to think of a plan to get his hands on some big money.
Now, it was well known around Goldhanger that after long days in the fields, Jeremy trained by night and that's why he borrowed June's bike, to take things a step further as demanded by his French instructor, Jean-Pierre, who told him that his exercise bike didn't cut it anymore.
This meant Jeremy had the perfect excuse if he was caught. As it happened, he was. A secret memo from the COLP investigation shows that on the very morning of the murders, Stan and Taff grilled Jeremy over bacon and sausages and asked him why he had been seen out in the dark riding June's bike along local footpaths at around the time of the murders. Jeremy patiently explained that he was an elite cyclist and this sort of arduous training was essential for his proposed cycling career, an endeavour that had the full knowledge and approval of Nevill.
Taff was certainly satisfied with this explanation, and Stan was too. The problem for Stan was the bacon. Stan had been studying sports science in his spare time and had read the considered works of some of the elite Continental sports nutritionalists, and he just couldn't reconcile why Jeremy, an elite cross-country cyclist, would want to risk his waistline in that way. The suspicion in Stan grew, and although he accepted Jeremy's reason for being out in the dark on his bike, the bacon really was a step too far.
Unfortunately, Stan stepped over the line when he changed his pocketbook to say that Jeremy had enjoyed his bacon with ketchup rather than HP sauce.
Anyway, yellow jersey to Adam.
A waste of a long post.
Anyway you have come up with new serious theories.
He brought the bike over to scout possible walking/running routes. He would not risk cycling in case he got a puncture or broken chain.
Both possible.
-
A waste of a long post.
Anyway you have come up with new serious theories.
He brought the bike over to scout possible walking/running routes. He would not risk cycling in case he got a puncture or broken chain.
Both possible.
I just like to insert some humour into things, just the way I am.
On a serious note, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea that he used the bike for scouting. In the process, he probably realised - if he'd not already - that using the bike on the night would be impracticable.
An interesting exercise would be for one of us to plan and go to and from the locations on foot, timing it in the process, to evaluate how realistic 'on foot' would be given the time constraints he was under.
-
My own theory is that Jeremy trained on his exercise bike at Bourtree Cottage. He needed to get himself into shape, Jackie.
The man was driven and obsessed by the Tour de France and his chance at the Tour de Yorkshire, and eventually this ill-starred ambition and greed - a tragic warping of the more traditional values of amateurism and sportmanship instilled at Gresham - overtook his better judgement and he started taking steroids to enhance his performance. Over time, the training costs mounted - elite cycle instructors don't come cheap, and there's tour fees to think about - so he had to think of a plan to get his hands on some big money.
Now, it was well known around Goldhanger that after long days in the fields, Jeremy trained by night and that's why he borrowed June's bike, to take things a step further as demanded by his French instructor, Jean-Pierre, who told him that his exercise bike didn't cut it anymore.
This meant Jeremy had the perfect excuse if he was caught. As it happened, he was. A secret memo from the COLP investigation shows that on the very morning of the murders, Stan and Taff grilled Jeremy over bacon and sausages and asked him why he had been seen out in the dark riding June's bike along local footpaths at around the time of the murders. Jeremy patiently explained that he was an elite cyclist and this sort of arduous training was essential for his proposed cycling career, an endeavour that had the full knowledge and approval of Nevill.
Taff was certainly satisfied with this explanation, and Stan was too. The problem for Stan was the bacon. Stan had been studying sports science in his spare time and had read the considered works of some of the elite Continental sports nutritionalists, and he just couldn't reconcile why Jeremy, an elite cross-country cyclist, would want to risk his waistline in that way. The suspicion in Stan grew, and although he accepted Jeremy's reason for being out in the dark on his bike, the bacon really was a step too far.
Unfortunately, Stan stepped over the line when he changed his pocketbook to say that Jeremy had enjoyed his bacon with ketchup rather than HP sauce.
Anyway, yellow jersey to Adam.
I’ve pre ordered the book before Netflix get hold of it
-
Another one for the archives. Thanks Special Steve.
I've looked again at her statement and the part about the bike. Then she is lying or (if she is telling the truth) she has misconstrued him, because he wouldn't use a bike for a trial run. He would go on foot. He would quickly realise that, just thinking about it for five seconds. He would use the bike to scout routes, if at all.
I'm not the idiot. You are. The fact she mentions the bike in that way just increases my suspicion. It's not realistic. It sounds like the bike is being shoehorned into this, by Julie and/or the police - for reasons I explore on another thread. It also conflicts with her evidence that Matthew Macdonald did this. Maybe Jeremy originally planned this himself but if so, why does he then tell her he used a hitman? That doesn't make sense. He'd already, according to Julie, gone on and on about how he was planning to kill his family, so why not just tell her he'd done it, if indeed he is guilty?
Apart from all that, what she says in that statement doesn't change my belief that if he did this, he must have gone on foot.
For goodness' sake. Jeremy is speculating about how he is going to commit mass murder. At this point it's all in his head, he's thinking out loud and Julie is the confidante. Why does he tell Julie the most intimate part of his thoughts? Because he's been adopted at birth, deprived of the maternal bond, then has June to contend with as a small child, where however much she wishes to express love she is quite incapable, for her own mental health reasons. There's also very little love shown by Nevill, who to outward appearances is a stuffed shirt and retreats into himself after the death of his sisters. We then have Jeremy packed off to Gresham's for eight years where he struggles both personally and academically to fit in. He rebels with Suzette as soon as he is able to lead a semi-autonomous life, but that again is broken up by his parents through threat of disinheritance. It may well be that Nevill and June brought the inheritance motive to the fore in their son's mind and the musings on murder started from there.
We then have the relationship with Julie, which lasted almost two years. She is the first truly academic female in his life who actually listens to him, who lets him talk. She endures the murder conversations amongst the social trivia because she has come under his spell, though does attempt to discourage such wicked talk. She herself is a busy, professional young woman, though spends what little free time she has in Jeremy's company, being his doormat. Jeremy thinks he can rely on her implicitly: in his words "I have entrusted my life in your hands.."
Once the deed is done (to quote Macbeth) he sees that Julie is unsettled, she is not the same doting individual she was, regarding Jeremy as intrinsically evil, ruthless in sweeping away five lives. She probes him for an explanation and Jeremy attempts to distance himself somewhat from the crime, hoping that the explanation on the hitman will satisfy her. It does not.
-
For goodness' sake. Jeremy is speculating about how he is going to commit mass murder. At this point it's all in his head, he's thinking out loud and Julie is the confidante. Why does he tell Julie the most intimate part of his thoughts? Because he's been adopted at birth, deprived of the maternal bond, then has June to contend with as a small child, where however much she wishes to express love she is quite incapable, for her own mental health reasons. There's also very little love shown by Nevill, who to outward appearances is a stuffed shirt and retreats into himself after the death of his sisters. We then have Jeremy packed off to Gresham's for eight years where he struggles both personally and academically to fit in. He rebels with Suzette as soon as he is able to lead a semi-autonomous life, but that again is broken up by his parents through threat of disinheritance. It may well be that Nevill and June brought the inheritance motive to the fore in their son's mind and the musings on murder started from there.
We then have the relationship with Julie, which lasted almost two years. She is the first truly academic female in his life who actually listens to him, who lets him talk. She endures the murder conversations amongst the social trivia because she has come under his spell, though does attempt to discourage such wicked talk. She herself is a busy, professional young woman, though spends what little free time she has in Jeremy's company, being his doormat. Jeremy thinks he can rely on her implicitly: in his words "I have entrusted my life in your hands.."
Once the deed is done (to quote Macbeth) he sees that Julie is unsettled, she is not the same doting individual she was, regarding Jeremy as intrinsically evil, ruthless in sweeping away five lives. She probes him for an explanation and Jeremy attempts to distance himself somewhat from the crime, hoping that the explanation on the hitman will satisfy her. It does not.
Thanks Mrs Smerchanski. I'm pleased you've made a successful life for yourself in Canada, but tell me, how do you find the time to post so much on this Forum?
-
Thanks Mrs Smerchanski. I'm pleased you've made a successful life for yourself in Canada, but tell me, how do you find the time to post so much on this Forum?
Stephanie Smerchanski ;D
-
Thanks Mrs Smerchanski. I'm pleased you've made a successful life for yourself in Canada, but tell me, how do you find the time to post so much on this Forum?
It's usually (and with tragic irony) my most fecund period, to which many members here will readily attest. Whilst we're about it you might wish to call attack dog David off and feed him some more of that brain candy he needs for low-level function.
-
Thanks Mrs Smerchanski. I'm pleased you've made a successful life for yourself in Canada, but tell me, how do you find the time to post so much on this Forum?
You'd be the first one to complain had she ended up a single mother on a Braintree council estate.
-
For goodness' sake. Jeremy is speculating about how he is going to commit mass murder. At this point it's all in his head, he's thinking out loud and Julie is the confidante. Why does he tell Julie the most intimate part of his thoughts? Because he's been adopted at birth, deprived of the maternal bond, then has June to contend with as a small child, where however much she wishes to express love she is quite incapable, for her own mental health reasons. There's also very little love shown by Nevill, who to outward appearances is a stuffed shirt and retreats into himself after the death of his sisters. We then have Jeremy packed off to Gresham's for eight years where he struggles both personally and academically to fit in. He rebels with Suzette as soon as he is able to lead a semi-autonomous life, but that again is broken up by his parents through threat of disinheritance. It may well be that Nevill and June brought the inheritance motive to the fore in their son's mind and the musings on murder started from there.
We then have the relationship with Julie, which lasted almost two years. She is the first truly academic female in his life who actually listens to him, who lets him talk. She endures the murder conversations amongst the social trivia because she has come under his spell, though does attempt to discourage such wicked talk. She herself is a busy, professional young woman, though spends what little free time she has in Jeremy's company, being his doormat. Jeremy thinks he can rely on her implicitly: in his words "I have entrusted my life in your hands.."
Once the deed is done (to quote Macbeth) he sees that Julie is unsettled, she is not the same doting individual she was, regarding Jeremy as intrinsically evil, ruthless in sweeping away five lives. She probes him for an explanation and Jeremy attempts to distance himself somewhat from the crime, hoping that the explanation on the hitman will satisfy her. It does not.
You really are one sick puppy, does anyone read this shite
-
You really are one sick puppy, does anyone read this shite
Yes so many..http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.0.html
-
Yes so many..http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.0.html
Thanks Jacob.
Maybe we should assign Dickens' characters to forum members? I suspect that Steve's got Bamber already penciled in for the role of Jacob Marley?
-
You'd be the first one to complain had she ended up a single mother on a Braintree council estate.
As I've said, I'm pleased she made a success of her life.
-
It's usually (and with tragic irony) my most fecund period, to which many members here will readily attest. Whilst we're about it you might wish to call attack dog David off and feed him some more of that brain candy he needs for low-level function.
Thanks Steve. Another one for the archives.
-
:) :) :)
-
The " scenario " wasn't about Bamber, Adam it was more to do with the slipshod investigation and phone cock-up involving Essex police, as well as the judge telling the jury to go by the only " 03.26 " phone-call which allegedly came from JB !
-
The " scenario " wasn't about Bamber, Adam it was more to do with the slipshod investigation and phone cock-up involving Essex police, as well as the judge telling the jury to go by the only " 03.26 " phone-call which allegedly came from JB !
The thread was about the main obstacles people have come up with over the last 35 years. To dispute the natural Bamber scenario matching the evidence.
All 11 obstacles are easily dismissed. Three of them have been brought up recently by QC. Which were weak and unsourced.
-
The thread was about the main obstacles people have come up with over the last 35 years. To dispute the natural Bamber scenario matching the evidence.
All 11 obstacles are easily dismissed. Three of them have been brought up recently by QC. Which were weak and unsourced.
Which three were those, Adam?
-
From what I recall. In no particular order -
Bamber didn't catch & physically attack Nevill on the stairs.
Sheila may have woken.
Sheila may have fought back.
Nevill did not dial 999.
Nevill's blood was not by the gun cupboard (no source).
Crispy may have barked.
Someone may have seen Bamber cycle to WHF.
Nevill's blood was not on the stairs (no source).
Nevill did not head for the guns in the wash room (no source any were there)
Bamber had no visible injuries.
There was no blood on Nevill's side of the bed.
----------
All these have been easily be explained away.
Bamber would not be worried about Sheila maybe waking & fighting back. Crispy was not a guard dog & needed his sleep, whereever he was.
1, 8 & 9.
-
You haven't been paying attention to anything Adam----or you're in denial which is as bad if not worse than me with my gut-feeling.
-
1, 8 & 9.
There is no blood or forensic evidence for any of those things. That's the basis of my conclusions, Adam. That's because it they had happened, there would be evidence and we'd be discussing it. This is no more than being rational.
-
There is no blood or forensic evidence for any of those things. That's the basis of my conclusions, Adam. That's because it they had happened, there would be evidence and we'd be discussing it. This is no more than being rational.
Sorry I forgot points 4 & 5 as well. Both first suggested by you.
-
Sorry I forgot points 4 & 5 as well. Both first suggested by you.
5 I have covered in my immediate last post above.
4 is Nevill not dialling 999. Are you saying he did?
-
The Colander Investigation is what I'd have named this case with its "merges and human errors".
-
Nevill did not head for the guns in the wash room (no source any were there)
There were guns in the wash room downstairs. It's in one of the statements, but frankly I can't be bothered to check which one. I believe it may be Anthony Pargeter's statement, and in fairness, it could also be that only Pargeter's guns were ever stored there, though I always thought some of Bamber's were there too.
-
There were guns in the wash room downstairs. It's in one of the statements, but frankly I can't be bothered to check which one. I believe it may be Anthony Pargeter's statement, and in fairness, it could also be that only Pargeter's guns were ever stored there, though I always thought some of Bamber's were there too.
You need to find the source. Which I have asked you for before.
-
You need to find the source. Which I have asked you for before.
I don't need to do anything for you, Adam. You're not my keeper. The point in fact has been mentioned and discussed a number of times on the forum anyway, including while you've been here.
Probably you'd be better advised to look for the source yourself, and when you find it, keep quiet about it as it's embarrassing that you don't know such a basic fact given that you've posted here 21,000 times over many years.
-
There's hope for Jeremy yet. A man,Ray Gilbert, was imprisoned in 1981 for the murder of John Suffield a bookmaker. The case itself was full of uncertainties as after 4 appeals and hoping for an acquittal, he was finally released after serving 36 years. This prisoner had originally made a confession but carried on fighting his innocence. Bruce Kent, a justice campaigner at the time had added that Gilbert had still retained his sanity after all that time----the same as Jeremy will because his mind has been focussed for so long.
-
I don't need to do anything for you, Adam. You're not my keeper. The point in fact has been mentioned and discussed a number of times on the forum anyway, including while you've been here.
Probably you'd be better advised to look for the source yourself, and when you find it, keep quiet about it as it's embarrassing that you don't know such a basic fact given that you've posted here 21,000 times over many years.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10300.msg480399.html#msg480399
I'll leave you to supply the source. As you first said it over a month ago.
-
You're a bit of a Devil's Advocate on the quiet, Adam. One of those that'll cheer either way when this case comes to a close and will no doubt utter the words " told you so " after having been quietly confused as to the ending.
-
You're a bit of a Devil's Advocate on the quiet, Adam. One of those that'll cheer either way when this case comes to a close and will no doubt utter the words " told you so " after having been quietly confused as to the ending.
Do you not think he puts both sides rather well? No pressure. One believes or not.
-
You're a bit of a Devil's Advocate on the quiet, Adam. One of those that'll cheer either way when this case comes to a close and will no doubt utter the words " told you so " after having been quietly confused as to the ending.
I don't think there is much chance of me getting away with posting 'told you so' on here if an Industrial frame is exposed.
Not that I would want to.
-
Do you not think he puts both sides rather well? No pressure. One believes or not.
Keeps his cards close to his chest I think but whatever fit takes him he errs on the most guilty side.
-
I don't think there is much chance of me getting away with posting 'told you so' on here if an Industrial frame is exposed.
Not that I would want to.
No, we'll have to sneak out of the door quietly and just hope the hinges don't squeak ;D ;D
-
No, we'll have to sneak out of the door quietly and just hope the hinges don't squeak ;D ;D
After telling David & Lookout they were right.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10300.msg480399.html#msg480399
I'll leave you to supply the source. As you first said it over a month ago.
Nah, can't be bothered. Not that important. It's been mentioned over and over and over again on the Forum, including in threads you have posted to and you've never questioned it.
-
Thanks Jacob.
I now think Steve's choice for Jeremy would be 'Monks' from Oliver Twist. A cad with a sense of entitlement.
-
Steve does like his Dickens characters ;D
-
Steve does like his Dickens characters ;D
And fiction in general.