Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on October 05, 2021, 03:14:PM
-
From Roger Wilkes:
Arlidge moved on to the evidence of the soldier, James Richards, who shared digs with Julie Mugford and had given evidence about Jeremy saying he hated his parents.
Jeremy denied saying this, but agreed it was the sort of thing that young people might say when complaining about their parents.
Jeremy’s voice had now dropped to a whisper, and both the judge and Geoffrey Rivlin had to ask him to speak up so that the jury could hear.
The judge was particularly anxious to hear more from Jeremy on the subject. Why should James Richards come to court and swear that Jeremy had said, with vehemence, ‘I hate my f..king parents’? The judge’s intervention seemed to silence Jeremy Bamber. ‘He said that you said it two or three times,’ the judge reminded him. ‘That is what he said,’ Jeremy agreed. Mr Justice Drake was not satisfied. ‘Can you explain to the jury why you think that man should come along and give that evidence to this court if it is not true?’ Jeremy paused. ‘I can only surmise, my lord, that people’s recollections of such events have been changed because of the way I have been portrayed in the newspapers, because he is a friend of Julie’s, and he doesn’t know me that well. Really, I don’t know the reasons why people do this. I wish I did,’ he added. In fact, Jeremy agreed with Anthony Arlidge that everyone who had been asked about him had lied.
‘Arlidge picked up the point that, throughout his evidence, Jeremy had indicated that certain witnesses were lying about their conversations with him, or their recollections of those conversations. Speaking of his uncle, Robert Boutflour, Jeremy said it was ‘very dangerous’ to guess at why he might not be telling the truth. As for James Richards, and the conversation about hating his parents, he was simply mistaken. The conversation had happened long before, and Richards had been influenced by the charges against him and the adverse publicity. The judge tried to short-circuit the point. ‘You think that the allegations and publicity against you have affected them?’ ‘Well, I’m sure it has,’ Jeremy replied. The judge asked if he had any comment on the other witnesses. Jeremy said he thought there were only two people who were actually lying: Julie Mugford – who had just made up her story – and Robert Boutflour.
With that, Anthony Arlidge proceeded with his questions. At length he came to the night of the murders, and the episode in which Jeremy had taken the loaded .22 Anschutz to shoot some rabbits. On his return, and not having fired a shot, he left it in the kitchen.
A dangerous thing to do? suggested Arlidge.
Yes, Jeremy agreed, and he now wished he hadn’t done it.
‘Just think about it for a minute. How long do you think it would have taken you to carry that gun and that magazine and put them in the den and gone out the back door?’
‘Yes,’ Jeremy replied quietly, ‘I wish I had done it now.’
‘How long would it have taken you?’
‘Well, minutes really. Seconds. Not very long, minutes.’
‘Seconds?’ ‘Well.’
Arlidge sensed his quarry tiring. ‘Thirty seconds, you could have done it, couldn’t you?’ The answer was little more than a mumble.
‘Maybe I could have done it, yes.’ Then a pause. ‘I was being lackadaisical,’ he added, as if to himself.
‘Pardon?’ said Arlidge, ‘You were being lackadaisical?’ Silence. ‘You are whispering now,’ observed the judge.
“Sorry,’ murmured Jeremy Bamber.
‘Everything plays on . . . hangs on every word, my lord.’ ‘You were reducing your answer to a whisper,’ the judge repeated.
‘It was something to myself, my lord.’ Arlidge pressed home. ‘You said, “I was being lackadaisical,” didn’t you?’ No answer. ‘Didn’t you?’
‘That is what I said to myself, yes.’
But Jeremy’s original explanation for leaving the loaded gun lying around was that he was in a hurry to get back to the field for the combine. Jeremy agreed he was in a hurry, adding that he still should have put the weapon back in the gun cupboard.
‘But I didn’t know what was going to happen, did I?’
‘You are not telling the truth about it, are you?’
‘That,’ Jeremy Bamber replied softly, ‘is what you have got to try and establish.
-
'both the judge and Geoffrey Rivlin had to ask him to speak up so that the jury could hear.'
----------
Seems that Bamber had lost confidence in himself.
It's alright talking to a couple of policemen outside WHF & insinuating Sheila. Then being flippant in police interviews. However being confident in lies in a court room is another matter.
-
The books available on this case are useful in presenting a chronology, gathering facts and providing possible leads for further serious research, but what they say must never be relied on in its own right.
We must always remember that they are secondary source material and give us information through the lens of the author's interpretation. Even the simple reporting of facts can take on a dubious or questionable quality, because even non-fiction authors do make things up in the belief (probably justified) that hardly anybody will check and those that do will not be listened to.
-
Adam can you point me please to where the jury were shown the photograph of the carved inscription on the door in the twins bedroom saying “I hate this place”
-
Paul Osborne, who ran a Colchester snooker club called Qs, said in a written statement that he knew Jeremy as a pleasant, polite and straightforward person. Osborne added that he seemed to work hard, and enjoyed a good relationship with his family. Charles Lapridge, who sold the Bambers some machinery for the farm, described Jeremy as easy to deal with, and that Jeremy had got on well with his father. He’d never caught whiff of any troubles between Jeremy and the family when he visited the farm. The housekeeper at White House Farm, Jean Bouttell, had worked for the Bambers for twenty years and had never heard Jeremy say anything nasty about his family. A Colchester chartered surveyor, Richard Buck, said Jeremy was a straightforward sort of person. ‘Out of his family, I found it most easy to deal with him.’ The landlord of the Chequers in Goldhanger, described Jeremy as a model customer.
Did any of these people give evidence?
-
Paul Osborne, who ran a Colchester snooker club called Qs, said in a written statement that he knew Jeremy as a pleasant, polite and straightforward person. Osborne added that he seemed to work hard, and enjoyed a good relationship with his family. Charles Lapridge, who sold the Bambers some machinery for the farm, described Jeremy as easy to deal with, and that Jeremy had got on well with his father. He’d never caught whiff of any troubles between Jeremy and the family when he visited the farm. The housekeeper at White House Farm, Jean Bouttell, had worked for the Bambers for twenty years and had never heard Jeremy say anything nasty about his family. A Colchester chartered surveyor, Richard Buck, said Jeremy was a straightforward sort of person. ‘Out of his family, I found it most easy to deal with him.’ The landlord of the Chequers in Goldhanger, described Jeremy as a model customer.
Did any of these people give evidence?
Shocking Rob
-
Paul Osborne, who ran a Colchester snooker club called Qs, said in a written statement that he knew Jeremy as a pleasant, polite and straightforward person. Osborne added that he seemed to work hard, and enjoyed a good relationship with his family. Charles Lapridge, who sold the Bambers some machinery for the farm, described Jeremy as easy to deal with, and that Jeremy had got on well with his father. He’d never caught whiff of any troubles between Jeremy and the family when he visited the farm. The housekeeper at White House Farm, Jean Bouttell, had worked for the Bambers for twenty years and had never heard Jeremy say anything nasty about his family. A Colchester chartered surveyor, Richard Buck, said Jeremy was a straightforward sort of person. ‘Out of his family, I found it most easy to deal with him.’ The landlord of the Chequers in Goldhanger, described Jeremy as a model customer.
Did any of these people give evidence?
Paul Osborne did. Off-hand, I can't recall about the others.
The significant one is Jean Bouttell. Barbara Wilson was up close to the business matters of the family. Jeremy was still young and not yet in sync with the lifestyle of his parents and their aspirations for him. He was bound to cause tensions and Nevill had Barbara as a sounding board.
Jean saw things more at the personal end, and like Barbara, would have seen both the good and bad sides of Jeremy, but perhaps developed an attachment to him and a more balanced view, having seen him grow up.
-
Both guilters & supporters agree Bamber hated his parents.
Both supporters & guilters agree that doesn't make him an inheritance killer.
-
Both guilters & supporters agree Bamber hated his parents.
Both supporters & guilters agree that doesn't make him an inheritance killer.
Do they? If I said, "I hate my parents", does this mean I hate my parents? What people say should not always be taken literally.
I think the only real basis for believing Jeremy hated his parents is Julie Mugford's evidence, but supporters mostly reject her evidence entirely.
-
Do they? If I said, "I hate my parents", does this mean I hate my parents? What people say should not always be taken literally.
I think the only real basis for believing Jeremy hated his parents is Julie Mugford's evidence, but supporters mostly reject her evidence entirely.
Julie, Mary Mugford, James Richards, AE.
Bamber testified himself he didn't get on with June.
-
Both guilters & supporters agree Bamber hated his parents.
Both supporters & guilters agree that doesn't make him an inheritance killer.
You can make anyone look bad quoting the odd phase taken maybe out of context.
Was the photograph of "I hate this place" showed to the jury? You never answered Adam, I think it was quite relevant to the case.
-
You can make anyone look bad quoting the odd phase taken maybe out of context.
Was the photograph of "I hate this place" showed to the jury? You never answered Adam, I think it was quite relevant to the case.
Why don't you find out & inform the forum. Preferably with the source.
Not sure how it is relevant. Considering no one knows who wrote it or when.
-
Julie, Mary Mugford, James Richards, AE.
Bamber testified himself he didn't get on with June.
Also Robert Boutflour. Don't forget him! And I'm sure we've missed somebody. Maybe Barbara Wilson.
I don't take the evidence from Mary Mugford or James Richards seriously. It's joke evidence.
Barbara Wilson's evidence was useful for the last phone call at 9.30 p.m. approximately, but not for much else. Let us put in a word for fickle Barbara, though, as Orwell did for the Vicar of Bray: remember that Barbara was also willing to shop Peter Eaton for suspected fraud.
Ann Eaton and Robert Boutflour's evidence is only good for what they say about the search of the farmhouse. There may be one or two other things that have slipped my mind, but you can't seriously expect me to rely on them for Jeremy's feelings about his parents? You'll be trying to sell me cat basket insurance next.
Julie Mugford is where the action is at, and curiously it all rests on her word.
Did Colin Caffell mention anything about Jeremy saying he hates his parents or similar? The nearest I recall is that, apparently, according to Colin, a week or so before the killings, Jeremy tried to suggest that his parents were using Colin in some way, or so Colin claims. Not sure if that was entered in evidence, but Colin mentions it in his book.
While we're on that topic, why do you think Jeremy killed two six year-old-boys? Just for the money, was it? Would you accept that to kill them for the money, there would have to have been a strong underlying feeling of hatred towards them? The rationalisation Jeremy allegedly gave Julie that the twins were already mentally-damaged is surely not convincing, even if he really said it.
-
Both guilters & supporters agree Bamber hated his parents.
Both supporters & guilters agree that doesn't make him an inheritance killer.
"Both guilters & supporters agree Bamber hated his parents" don't include me Adam.
Nevil and June obviously trusted him to a high degree otherwise they would not allow him to walk around with a loaded gun.
-
"Both guilters & supporters agree Bamber hated his parents" don't include me Adam.
Nevil and June obviously trusted him to a high degree otherwise they would not allow him to walk around with a loaded gun.
I always get confused about this murder plot notion they sometimes come out with. Apparently, according to Colin, Barbara, David, Jimmy Savile, or Maggie Thatcher - I'm not sure who claims it, I always get mixed up - the Evil One, Jeremy, was plotting to murder Nevill. I'm not quite sure how the inheritance motive fits in with this, but for sure, according to the claim, Nevill was putting together a dossier on Jeremy for the police.
Of course, naturally in these circumstances, Nevill would let Jeremy walk round with a loaded gun and keep him working on the farm. That harvest needs bringing in!
-
Paul Osborne, who ran a Colchester snooker club called Qs, said in a written statement that he knew Jeremy as a pleasant, polite and straightforward person. Osborne added that he seemed to work hard, and enjoyed a good relationship with his family. Charles Lapridge, who sold the Bambers some machinery for the farm, described Jeremy as easy to deal with, and that Jeremy had got on well with his father. He’d never caught whiff of any troubles between Jeremy and the family when he visited the farm. The housekeeper at White House Farm, Jean Bouttell, had worked for the Bambers for twenty years and had never heard Jeremy say anything nasty about his family. A Colchester chartered surveyor, Richard Buck, said Jeremy was a straightforward sort of person. ‘Out of his family, I found it most easy to deal with him.’ The landlord of the Chequers in Goldhanger, described Jeremy as a model customer.
Did any of these people give evidence?
Sadly, testimonies such as these didn't reach the defence and wouldn't have got a mention anyway.
Many written testimonies didn't even get an airing in court. An utter disgrace.
-
Also Robert Boutflour. Don't forget him! And I'm sure we've missed somebody. Maybe Barbara Wilson.
I don't take the evidence from Mary Mugford or James Richards seriously. It's joke evidence.
Barbara Wilson's evidence was useful for the last phone call at 9.30 p.m. approximately, but not for much else. Let us put in a word for fickle Barbara, though, as Orwell did for the Vicar of Bray: remember that Barbara was also willing to shop Peter Eaton for suspected fraud.
Ann Eaton and Robert Boutflour's evidence is only good for what they say about the search of the farmhouse. There may be one or two other things that have slipped my mind, but you can't seriously expect me to rely on them for Jeremy's feelings about his parents? You'll be trying to sell me cat basket insurance next.
Julie Mugford is where the action is at, and curiously it all rests on her word.
Did Colin Caffell mention anything about Jeremy saying he hates his parents or similar? The nearest I recall is that, apparently, according to Colin, a week or so before the killings, Jeremy tried to suggest that his parents were using Colin in some way, or so Colin claims. Not sure if that was entered in evidence, but Colin mentions it in his book.
While we're on that topic, why do you think Jeremy killed two six year-old-boys? Just for the money, was it? Would you accept that to kill them for the money, there would have to have been a strong underlying feeling of hatred towards them? The rationalisation Jeremy allegedly gave Julie that the twins were already mentally-damaged is surely not convincing, even if he really said it.
So all the witnesses who testified that Bamber hated his parents were lying.
Bamber rarely saw the twins. He would have no feelings for them. As Julie said, he thought he was doing Colin a favour.
-
That's right Adam, make sure you by-pass Rob's post with your own like you ALWAYS do !
-
So all the witnesses who testified that Bamber hated his parents were lying.
Bamber rarely saw the twins. He would have no feelings for them. As Julie said, he thought he was doing Colin a favour.
I didn't say that. I am saying that we can't rely on what they say for the purpose of concluding that Jeremy hated his parents. It's unreasonable to do so because people say all sorts of random things that they don't mean but that could, in retrospect, be formed into an incriminating pattern.
As an aside, I have no idea if Jeremy's evidence was that witnesses such as James Richards were lying. Jeremy didn't need to refute him, and couldn't anyway as it was a report of an uncorroborated conversation. It's basically useless evidence.
Same for what Robert Boutflour said on the topic. Does Robert Boutflour claim in his evidence or diary that Jeremy had said such things about his parents for years and years? That it was a pattern? No. Instead, he mentions an isolated incident, just as James Richards does. James Richards doesn't claim that he met Jeremy on several occasions and Jeremy was always expressing hatred for his parents and was jokily boasting about a murder plot.
It's ridiculous to rely on such evidence. It certainly insults my intelligence and I would hope others on here would say the same for themselves.
-
That's right Adam, make sure you by-pass Rob's post with your own like you ALWAYS do !
I answered Rob's post. He can do something constructive for a change.
How many sources have you ever supplied? None.
-
Mary Mugford's testimony was very damning -
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'
-
I answered Rob's post. He can do something constructive for a change.
How many sources have you ever supplied? None.
Anything that goes in Jeremy's favour you don't want to know !
Sources ? Just see my many posts, doesn't that tell you something ? You're just quoting from books !
-
I always get confused about this murder plot notion they sometimes come out with. Apparently, according to Colin, Barbara, David, Jimmy Savile, or Maggie Thatcher - I'm not sure who claims it, I always get mixed up - the Evil One, Jeremy, was plotting to murder Nevill. I'm not quite sure how the inheritance motive fits in with this, but for sure, according to the claim, Nevill was putting together a dossier on Jeremy for the police.
Of course, naturally in these circumstances, Nevill would let Jeremy walk round with a loaded gun and keep him working on the farm. That harvest needs bringing in!
If Nevil really suspected JB QC I don't think he would be worried about a few rabbits running round the yard! The guilter's in this case expect us cranks to believe the impossible again and again.
-
I answered Rob's post. He can do something constructive for a change.
How many sources have you ever supplied? None.
Don't worry Adam I do know the answer, but I was interested in why the photo was not shown to the jury. I think they would have been very interested in seeing it don't you? So to me it's very relevant.
-
If Nevil really suspected JB QC I don't think he would be worried about a few rabbits running round the yard! The guilter's in this case expect us cranks to believe the impossible again and again.
If the idea of killing his entire family to inherit occurred to Jeremy, wouldn't it also have occurred to Nevill that Jeremy could do this? Yet Nevill has allowed the entire family to stay at the farmhouse. Why would Nevill think that Jeremy only wanted to kill him? What would be the point of that?
-
Don't worry Adam I do know the answer, but I was interested in why the photo was not shown to the jury. I think they would have been very interested in seeing it don't you? So to me it's very relevant.
Why do you believe the defence apparantly did not show it to the jury?
-
There are lots of " small but relevant " points like that QC but they don't seem to come to light very often, and never did during trial. It was all biased and one-sided which was so wrong.
-
There are lots of " small but relevant " points like that QC but they don't seem to come to light very often, and never did during trial. It was all biased and one-sided which was so wrong.
QC should have appeared on the 'docu'. And David, regarding Mugford. In fact' I think if David had have been let loose regarding Mugford's testimony, a lot of people would have come away with real doubt about the conviction.
-
If the idea of killing his entire family to inherit occurred to Jeremy, wouldn't it also have occurred to Nevill that Jeremy could do this? Yet Nevill has allowed the entire family to stay at the farmhouse. Why would Nevill think that Jeremy only wanted to kill him? What would be the point of that?
Looking at the wills and the way Nevil behaved, I don't think the thought of JB doing harm to anyone ever crossed his mind, he obviously trusted him and looking at the references above they got on well.
-
Why do you believe the defence apparantly did not show it to the jury?
Defence Adam? what defence, Micky Mouse could have got JB a not guilty verdict.
-
I'm appalled at your contributions to this thread tonight QCChevalier, which show a cavalier attitude to the court process, demonstrate an ignorance of the facts and are in thoroughly bad taste.
-
Paul Osborne did. Off-hand, I can't recall about the others.
The significant one is Jean Bouttell. Barbara Wilson was up close to the business matters of the family. Jeremy was still young and not yet in sync with the lifestyle of his parents and their aspirations for him. He was bound to cause tensions and Nevill had Barbara as a sounding board.
Jean saw things more at the personal end, and like Barbara, would have seen both the good and bad sides of Jeremy, but perhaps developed an attachment to him and a more balanced view, having seen him grow up.
You've got some of this right but if Barbara is Nevill's confidante then she is by far the most important character of the two. Nevill confides in her that he has a premonition of his own demise. You couldn't get a more serious discussion.
-
Do they? If I said, "I hate my parents", does this mean I hate my parents? What people say should not always be taken literally.
I think the only real basis for believing Jeremy hated his parents is Julie Mugford's evidence, but supporters mostly reject her evidence entirely.
James Richards made an affidavit, sworn in front of a solicitor. He then proceeded to the High Court, swore an oath of some kind to tell the truth and proceeded to give evidence.
-
Jean Bouttell testified that items around the kitchen window had been moved overnight.
These were usually items that stayed in the same place. Such as a sink tidy.
-
Also Robert Boutflour. Don't forget him! And I'm sure we've missed somebody. Maybe Barbara Wilson.
I don't take the evidence from Mary Mugford or James Richards seriously. It's joke evidence.
Barbara Wilson's evidence was useful for the last phone call at 9.30 p.m. approximately, but not for much else. Let us put in a word for fickle Barbara, though, as Orwell did for the Vicar of Bray: remember that Barbara was also willing to shop Peter Eaton for suspected fraud.
Ann Eaton and Robert Boutflour's evidence is only good for what they say about the search of the farmhouse. There may be one or two other things that have slipped my mind, but you can't seriously expect me to rely on them for Jeremy's feelings about his parents? You'll be trying to sell me cat basket insurance next.
Julie Mugford is where the action is at, and curiously it all rests on her word.
Did Colin Caffell mention anything about Jeremy saying he hates his parents or similar? The nearest I recall is that, apparently, according to Colin, a week or so before the killings, Jeremy tried to suggest that his parents were using Colin in some way, or so Colin claims. Not sure if that was entered in evidence, but Colin mentions it in his book.
While we're on that topic, why do you think Jeremy killed two six year-old-boys? Just for the money, was it? Would you accept that to kill them for the money, there would have to have been a strong underlying feeling of hatred towards them? The rationalisation Jeremy allegedly gave Julie that the twins were already mentally-damaged is surely not convincing, even if he really said it.
Jeremy is given away at birth by Juliet. He is adopted by well-meaning but unexpressive parents. Both Sheila and Jeremy learn how to manipulate them for their own ends. Sheila is given a flat in London. Jeremy is told his life is mapped out toiling on the farm. He resents paying to furnish Bourtree Cottage, hence the Osea Road burglary. Sheila brings her sons down to the farm and the grandparents show affection in a way Jeremy never received when he was their age. Jeremy anticipates the boys sent away to public school, courtesy of his parents and lessening his inheritance. Under police interrogation he concedes the twins may be mentioned in the wills. Jeremy is tied to farming for the duration of his father's lifetime. He is worried June will leave a substantial sum to the Church.
-
I always get confused about this murder plot notion they sometimes come out with. Apparently, according to Colin, Barbara, David, Jimmy Savile, or Maggie Thatcher - I'm not sure who claims it, I always get mixed up - the Evil One, Jeremy, was plotting to murder Nevill. I'm not quite sure how the inheritance motive fits in with this, but for sure, according to the claim, Nevill was putting together a dossier on Jeremy for the police.
Of course, naturally in these circumstances, Nevill would let Jeremy walk round with a loaded gun and keep him working on the farm. That harvest needs bringing in!
No you wouldn't.
-
I didn't say that. I am saying that we can't rely on what they say for the purpose of concluding that Jeremy hated his parents. It's unreasonable to do so because people say all sorts of random things that they don't mean but that could, in retrospect, be formed into an incriminating pattern.
As an aside, I have no idea if Jeremy's evidence was that witnesses such as James Richards were lying. Jeremy didn't need to refute him, and couldn't anyway as it was a report of an uncorroborated conversation. It's basically useless evidence.
Same for what Robert Boutflour said on the topic. Does Robert Boutflour claim in his evidence or diary that Jeremy had said such things about his parents for years and years? That it was a pattern? No. Instead, he mentions an isolated incident, just as James Richards does. James Richards doesn't claim that he met Jeremy on several occasions and Jeremy was always expressing hatred for his parents and was jokily boasting about a murder plot.
It's ridiculous to rely on such evidence. It certainly insults my intelligence and I would hope others on here would say the same for themselves.
People do, of course, but when there are five dead bodies lying around one might just be entitled to think back and recall some words which came out of a murder suspect's mouth.
-
There is no way Bamber was going to get through the next 10-20 years without being totally disinherited. He was never going to wait that long anyway.
-
If the idea of killing his entire family to inherit occurred to Jeremy, wouldn't it also have occurred to Nevill that Jeremy could do this? Yet Nevill has allowed the entire family to stay at the farmhouse. Why would Nevill think that Jeremy only wanted to kill him? What would be the point of that?
Of course, and it did. It's why Nevill said to Barbara that the shooting season would soon be upon them and accidents do happen.
-
I'm appalled at your contributions to this thread tonight QCChevalier, which show a cavalier attitude to the court process, demonstrate an ignorance of the facts and are in thoroughly bad taste.
Here is an example of what I meant on the other thread: people with personality issues/psychological maladjustments and who have a vested interest in the case (I think I now know who Steve is), coming on here and winding-up and goading people with over-wrought attacks.
People like this are not my cup of tea, I'm afraid, and I am likely to react badly to it. Personally, I just accept that people may not agree with me, and sometimes I will have heated disagreements with them, other times it will be very civil, but as long as no offence is given, none will be taken. I don't, as a rule, make it personal or insult them just for disagreeing or go on and on and on about it, or try to turn it into some sort of trumped-up condemnation of somebody.
I have so far counted eight replies from Steve just to my posts on this one thread, all posted in less than 50 minutes.
Steve has issues. He brings them to the Forum. I take the view that all of us have the right to come on here and express an opinion without being nagged about it and condemned, psychoanalysed and moralised-at.
-
James Richards made an affidavit, sworn in front of a solicitor. He then proceeded to the High Court, swore an oath of some kind to tell the truth and proceeded to give evidence.
Just on this specific post of yours, could you tell us:
(i). your source for this claim that James Richards swore an affidavit to a solicitor;
(ii). which of the geographic High Courts James Richards attended to swear another oath and as part of what proceedings he gave this evidence.
I am only aware of him giving evidence at Chelmsford Crown Court in the 1986 trial.
-
Here is an example of what I meant on the other thread: people with personality issues/psychological maladjustments and who have a vested interest in the case (I think I now know who Steve is), coming on here and winding-up and goading people with over-wrought attacks.
People like this are not my cup of tea, I'm afraid, and I am likely to react badly to it. Personally, I just accept that people may not agree with me, and sometimes I will have heated disagreements with them, other times it will be very civil, but as long as no offence is given, none will be taken. I don't, as a rule, make it personal or insult them just for disagreeing or go on and on and on about it, or try to turn it into some sort of trumped-up condemnation of somebody.
I have so far counted eight replies from Steve just to my posts on this one thread, all posted in less than 50 minutes.
Steve has issues. He brings them to the Forum.
I won't allow you to get away with your defective reasoning, your slanting and lack of knowledge. You say I have issues? I was ready to call a truce when you disclosed there was an issue with schizophrenia in your family. I am not going to endure your propaganda. There is nothing amiss with my mental or physical health, however much you wish this to be the case.
-
Just on this specific post of yours, could you tell us:
(i). your source for this claim that James Richards swore an affidavit to a solicitor;
(ii). which of the geographic High Courts James Richards attended to swear another oath and as part of what proceedings he gave this evidence.
I am only aware of him giving evidence at Chelmsford Crown Court in the 1986 trial.
Everybody has to swear some kind of oath or affirmation, whether it's on the Bible, Koran or just a declaration that they will tell the truth. This is basic stuff and shows your lack of intelligence, which admittedly was not a new revelation to me.
-
Everybody has to swear some kind of oath or affirmation, whether it's on the Bible, Koran or just a declaration that they will tell the truth. This is basic stuff and shows your lack of intelligence, which admittedly was not a new revelation to me.
Ordinarily, a witness in criminal proceedings does not swear an affidavit. Normally, they give a statement of truth to the police, which is encapsulated in a witness statement - which is signed - and then they swear an oath when giving evidence at the Crown Court.
And it was a Crown Court, I believe, for James Richards, not the High Court, as you claim.
Of course, it could be that for some reason James Richards did also give an affidavit, and it may also be he appeared at a High Court in connection with this case. You're the one making these claims, so I was merely asking you for your source and to explain. Instead of answering, you insult me. [Q. for Moderator: Is that allowed?]
It would appear you are telling us you have got your facts wrong because you don't know or understand the law, but instead of graciously admitting this, you throw insults at me and affect to pretend I am the ignorant and stupid one.
I won't allow you to get away with your defective reasoning, your slanting and lack of knowledge. You say I have issues? I was ready to call a truce when you disclosed there was an issue with schizophrenia in your family. I am not going to endure your propaganda. There is nothing amiss with my mental or physical health, however much you wish this to be the case.
I did not say that there was an issue with schizophrenia in my family. Please read the relevant post again. This time, more carefully.
Moderator - This individual clearly has psychological issues. Should this Forum be entertaining them, at the expense of other posters? I only ask the question. I am not a punching bag for people with mental and emotional problems.
-
There is no way Bamber was going to get through the next 10-20 years without being totally disinherited. He was never going to wait that long anyway.
I think he might have had the sense to continue in farming until his parents died a natural death, or at least any normal person would have. But Jeremy had a character defect, possibly exacerbated by his recreational drug use that obfuscated reality. He saw the chance to commit what he told Julie would be the "perfect crime" and justified to himself the loss of five lives thereby.
-
QC should have appeared on the 'docu'. And David, regarding Mugford. In fact' I think if David had have been let loose regarding Mugford's testimony, a lot of people would have come away with real doubt about the conviction.
I'd personally have liked to have seen someone like QC grilling Mugford in between her dramas of snivelling as I'm sure he'd have continued and not given up like Rivlin did. I notice she didn't cry when Arlidge questioned her.
He was probably thinking about his bit of fluff who was 50 years younger than him----eeuuwwww !
-
Ordinarily, a witness in criminal proceedings does not swear an affidavit. Normally, they give a statement of truth to the police, which is encapsulated in a witness statement - which is signed - and then they swear an oath when giving evidence at the Crown Court.
And it was a Crown Court, I believe, for James Richards, not the High Court, as you claim.
Of course, it could be that for some reason James Richards did also give an affidavit, and it may also be he appeared at a High Court in connection with this case. You're the one making these claims, so I was merely asking you for your source and to explain. Instead of answering, you insult me. [Q. for Moderator: Is that allowed?]
It would appear you are telling us you have got your facts wrong because you don't know or understand the law, but instead of graciously admitting this, you throw insults at me and affect to pretend I am the ignorant and stupid one.
Yes it was Chelmsford Crown Court.
-
Yes it was Chelmsford Crown Court.
In fact, everything you have just been saying about James Richards is incorrect. You used the wrong terminology and caused confusion, while ironically telling me I am lacking in intelligence and knowledge about the law.
Of course, if James Richards has entered into an affidavit, you should tell us how you know that. I don't recall reading anything about that and it wouldn't be the usual procedure.
-
I'd personally have liked to have seen someone like QC grilling Mugford in between her dramas of snivelling as I'm sure he'd have continued and not given up like Rivlin did. I notice she didn't cry when Arlidge questioned her.
He was probably thinking about his bit of fluff who was 50 years younger than him----eeuuwwww !
What could the Defence have done differently lookout re: Julie? As for Arlidge's bit of fluff, he had his mid-life crisis quite late on, didn't he..https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186493/Barrister-Anthony-Arlidge-QC-76-left-partner-25-year-old-Oxford-graduate-insists-mother-approves.html
-
I wonder what attracted a young girl to an old wizened millionaire ?
-
In fact, everything you have just been saying about James Richards is incorrect. You used the wrong terminology and caused confusion, while ironically telling me I am lacking in intelligence and knowledge about the law.
Of course, if James Richards has entered into an affidavit, you should tell us how you know that. I don't recall reading anything about that and it wouldn't be the usual procedure.
All potential witnesses have to give statements to Police and sign them. It may not have been a formal affidavit.
-
What could the Defence have done differently lookout re: Julie? As for Arlidge's bit of fluff, he had his mid-life crisis quite late on, didn't he..https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186493/Barrister-Anthony-Arlidge-QC-76-left-partner-25-year-old-Oxford-graduate-insists-mother-approves.html
Well I'm surprised that Rivlin never saw through the " tears ". Not much good in the observation department was he ?
-
Well I'm surprised that Rivlin never saw through the " tears ". Not much good in the observation department was he ?
There's not much you can do except offer the witness a glass of water or call for a recess.
-
There's not much you can do except offer the witness a glass of water or call for a recess.
Apparently he gave up altogether.
-
I think he might have had the sense to continue in farming until his parents died a natural death, or at least any normal person would have. But Jeremy had a character defect, possibly exacerbated by his recreational drug use that obfuscated reality. He saw the chance to commit what he told Julie would be the "perfect crime" and justified to himself the loss of five lives thereby.
It was Sheila's cocaine snorting that hadn't helped her mental state, I don't know about JB's odd smoke of cannabis. It wasn't the skunk that we have now or I could have understood if he'd had defects.
-
You've got some of this right but if Barbara is Nevill's confidante then she is by far the most important character of the two. Nevill confides in her that he has a premonition of his own demise. You couldn't get a more serious discussion.
Notice here the obscure way Steve expresses this. I have been led to believe that this was a suspected murder plot, the story being underpinned by Julie's admission that she supplied Jeremy with sedatives for an earlier abortive murder scheme.
Steve calls it a 'premonition'. This is over-articulation and suggests there is dissembling going on.
I cannot say for sure whether Barbara had such a conversation with Nevill on the terms she claims, but what is suspicious is that Nevill should believe that Jeremy would only kill him. Why would he do that? And reference is made to a dossier and I must wonder where this dossier is? The police and then the relatives and Barbara herself had custody of and access to Nevill's papers and effects during the relevant period.
Perhaps a guilter on here could clear all this up by starting a new thread outlining the full story for us, with the supporting evidence? Instead of telling us about 'premonitions', you can give us a precise account.
Back to Julie and the claim about sedatives. Did Julie ever clarify what sedatives were to be used and that she supplied to Jeremy? Were they prescription or over-the-counter? What brand?
-
Julie had sleeping pills. Bamber confirms in his police interviews he was aware of them.
Whether Bamber tried them himself is her word against his.
-
Julie had sleeping pills. Bamber confirms in his police interviews he was aware of them.
Whether Bamber tried them himself is her word against his.
From where?
She was his steady girlfriend, so in the ordinary course of affairs he would know she was taking sleeping pills.
-
From where?
She was his steady girlfriend, so in the ordinary course of affairs he would know she was taking sleeping pills.
She was taking sleeping pills. Bamber was aware of them.
What is the issue?
-
She was taking sleeping pills. Bamber was aware of them.
What is the issue?
Were they prescription or over-the-counter?
The issue is that I am suspicious of everybody and everything and I like checking things down to the nitty-gritty. You often find that things aren't what they seem. People tell lies quite a lot.
-
There'd have been enough sleeping pills to choke a goat at WHF as June took them for her sleeplessness and nightmares, so no need to have gone far to obtain them. Though I do remember reading somewhere that Julie had been to a chemist for them so she must have had a prescription from a GP in order to have them. Jeremy had a prescription for Valium after the tragedies too.
-
Can these conversations not be done via PM?
My inbox is too full Adam, thanks to your excellent moral support initiative.
-
I have cleaned up this thread by removing a number of posts not relevant to the discussion.
-
My inbox is too full Adam, thanks to your excellent moral support initiative.
You won't be needing your windsurfing gear for a few weeks now. 😏
-
I have cleaned up this thread by removing a number of posts not relevant to the discussion.
You turn your back for 30 mins and you miss all the action 😏.