Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: guest29835 on December 19, 2021, 07:25:PM
-
With some hesitation, I offer you a podcast on the case from a YouTube channel called ‘I Could Murder A Podcast’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL1W9uvMpic
I don’t like this podcast and didn’t particularly enjoy it. Like many of these things, it may be a good watch for someone of average intelligence who is new to the case and is in need of a nice, easy introduction. At times, Tom and Ben are quite comical in a negative way in that they fall into very basic factual errors: just one example is that they declare early on that Sheila was born a Caffell, which comes as quite a revelation to me as I am sure it will for all of you.
These sorts of podcasts have appeared as the case has penetrated mainstream web culture in the wake of the 2020 dramatisation, which revived popular interest. Inevitably this in turn results in the dumbing-down and vulgarising of discussion. Tom and Ben mention about Jeremy growing weed. Tom and Ben look like the types who would grow weed themselves (not that I can talk given my adventures with magic mushrooms). They are like teenagers in their bedrooms. Mam and Dad are downstairs presumably. The two of them dress childishly, have squeaky, non-masculine voices, with the tattoos on display that are, I assume, intended to make them look masculine but instead make them look ridiculous. They are both wearing headphones and staring at screens from which they read and rely on totally for information. Look at them carefully. They have ‘screen eyes’ – very much they are creatures of the Information Society. A pair of robots with no real thoughts of their own. A Ones and Zeroes culture, a digital world in every refined sense; a world of dichotomies in which judgement ceases, facts are relegated in importance, and what matters is what you – yes, you! – think about it all. There is a long dialogue in which Tom and Ben go through the case chronology with music in the background and insistent voices, as if they need to hurry this bit along before they move to the important bit in which they tell us what they think. What I Think has taken over in importance from Facts. The result is psychotic screeching on public fora, and an ADHD generation that needs background music when anything requires attention or concentration.
None of this is new, though. Vulgarisation was a heavy feature of Victorian literary culture. Even the great English novelists, Charles Dickens and Wilkie Collins – the Shakespeares of the novel – were considered vulgar and cheap in their own time, though Collins self-consciously lampooned the vulgar culture and has one of his best characters go on a hysterical national tour regaling working-class audiences with her obscene adventures. Collins could have been writing of today. Dickens was a self-published ha’penny bit writer. The novel itself is, arguably, a signal of a vulgar and degenerate culture. At the same time, one aspect of the vulgarisation, the use of humour, is a very English thing. It is typical of English people to make light of the darkest things. We live on a small, dark, wet, windy island, now quite crowded, and successive generations of working-class English people have undergone appalling conditions of adversity, including industrialism, indentured servitude in the colonies, and before that, the impositions of feudalism I am told that, before the Normans, the Old English had some sort of golden age of liberty from which the famous English attachment to liberalism can be traced, but if so, then the Anglo-Saxons can’t have had a sense of humour. Humour comes out of darkness, misfortune and adversity, or it loses its force.
A different aspect of vulgarisation, more dignified, and that is presented as more respectable, is that served up to us by the established mainstream culture: on the terrestrial TV channels and radio, and their virtual offshoots. Morning TV shows presented by vapid dullards, sententious dramatisations, various documentaries, talks from Carol Ann Lee – all vulgarise the White House Farm tragedy to some extent. Colin Caffell gave his input to one or two morning TV shows with contested anecdotes about Jeremy’s dark humour and racy behaviour with Julie; however his own book, In Search of the Rainbow’s End, is a more considered examination of the case, albeit entwined with flights of fancy.
As the 2020 TV drama began - based on books by Carol Ann Lee and Colin Caffell respectively - it was strange seeing Colin congratulate Cressida Bonas, an actress, on her portrayal of Sheila. Here is the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUn9hIdNDVI
This was on a show called Lorraine. Lorraine wants us to see her as our friend. It’s Lorraine. Just call me Lorraine. Sheila was portrayed in that drama snorting coke up her nose and with serious mental health problems, and generally as a quite one-dimensional character. But Lorraine thinks the drama treats those tragic events with “real sensitivity” and Colin lathers the producers with praise. He “liked them and trusted them” and gushed to Cressida about her uncanny portrayal: “it is Sheila at that time”, Cressida “picked up the fragility of her character” and gave us a “wonderful heartfelt insight into that”. This is another hint towards Colin’s people-pleasing disingenuousness.
Lorraine complained about how Sheila’s reputation was “trashed” by the press back in 1985, but the drama Colin is praising trashed her and turned her into some cheap Wednesday night TV character. Cressida chimed in with the templated recitation, so popular now, that there is more understanding about mental illness these days. This brought the only flash of authenticity that came out of Colin when he expressed scepticism about this and said, “Everyone is wearing their hearts on their sleeves now”, implying that it might have all gone a bit too far. Lorraine quickly shot him down. Not very nice of you, Lorraine! But Colin meekly agreed. It’s Lorraine’s show, don’t forget. Don’t push it, Colin!
Why is it that in the hands of these dull people, all women are “fragile”? If Sheila really was as fragile as they say, what was Colin doing leaving the children with her? It’s not as if he needed hindsight. Why does he assume that her “fragility” could not motivate her to murder? Why would multiple fatal shootings committed at close range require a marksman? Why is it important to know whether Sheila could handle the gun? It was practically a toy gun. A child could handle one. How could a woman diagnosed with schizophrenia, who is acknowledged to still suffer symptoms despite medication, be permitted supervision of two six-year-old boys? That’s astonishing. Apart from that, how could Sheila have been allowed to continue on medication that affects basic functioning? And what is all this about her skipping down Pages Lane with her sons on the day before the shootings? Another thing: how did Sheila manage to keep herself clean and do her nails, etc., if her medication caused severe motor impediments? How does this, again, fit in with her being allowed custody of the boys? What caused her fragility? Was it anything to do with you, Colin? Colin may complain about the portrayal of Sheila by an open and free press, but they were reporting on a matter of public interest in which it was believed Sheila had shot her family. That’s what the press do. Exactly what should they have done differently? Colin denies Sheila was a drug addict and upbraids the press for suggesting it, but the drama itself shows her taking hard drugs. Closer to home, does he accept that in private his own treatment of her was less than stellar? Not just things that would be run-of-the-mill between married couples, but more serious behaviour such as sleeping with another woman during Sheila’s 21st. birthday party, possibly encouraging her to go into modelling, allowing her to abort at least one unborn child for non-medical reasons due to pressure from June, and leaving her while she was pregnant with the twins. Questions like these won’t be asked by Lorraine.
It sounds like Colin isn’t the questioning type either. He tells Lorraine:
“When it first happened, I didn’t want anything to disturb my original memories of the children. I didn’t want to see the bodies, I didn’t want to identify them, so I didn’t let anybody tell me anything, so I kind of accepted the story and was completed seduced by Jeremy.”
Didn’t want to identify the bodies? The father? This is nonsense. The father of two dead boys would demand to see his sons’ bodies at the mortuary forthwith and would be interrogating everybody in sight, questioning the family, Jeremy, and the police. Indeed, most fathers in that situation would be screaming blue murder. In an interview he gave for This Morning, Colin says that he began to become suspicious of Jeremy due to certain incidents in which he behaved obnoxiously or inappropriately:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afIXWrexiWk
The reality is that Colin accepted what he was told by everybody at every stage, both before and after suspicion fell on Jeremy, and fitted his understanding of the facts into whatever was the dominant view. That is Colin Caffell’s character: to fit in, to accommodate, to appease, to be intimidated (as he was by June), to say sensitive things at the right moment. He is a master of tone, not content. To believe the killer of his sons could not have been Sheila, he has to omit from consideration facts that indicate it could have been Sheila and he must disingenuously aver, as he did to Lorraine, that the killer needed to be a marksman.
The ’mmm’ing’ and ‘yessing’, from motherly Lorraine to indicate agreement helps round it all off, giving the occasion the feel of a women’s coffee morning at some executive detached home in placid middle-class suburbia. Indeed, the conversation – it’s not really an interview – takes place on a comfortable sofa against a faux-domestic backdrop similar to the kind you would expect in a bland, but well-appointed home. This soup is made for an audience, but it’s not about what the audience wants, it’s what Lorraine – their figurative Mother – insists is good for them: a feminine public environment, in which there is great pressure towards an emotionally-safe orthodoxy, and difficult and awkward questions, problems and issues are swept under the carpet. After all, we are all fragile.
True crime, then, is more than hobbyism and entertainment or business. It is a matter of political economy even. On the morning of the 7th. August 1985, a crack opened in the ordered reality of things and an explosion of violence wiped out a family and crushed a man’s dreams and hopes for his sons. The Lorraine format trivialises the horror, agony and awesome cruelty of this as much as Tom and Ben do. We are admonished not to ask questions, only to ‘feel’ and adopt the right tone and join in the tut-tut over vulgar minutiae. What would be the implications if the authorities have drawn the wrong solution? What would be the implications for individuals - Colin, the relatives - who have built their entire lives on the belief Jeremy Bamber is a mass murderer? Little wonder they implore us to accept what we have been told, though much of it makes nil sense. Moreover, Colin’s narrative of a fragile Sheila fits the Zeitgeist, in which women are good and men are bad, and Colin himself is a sort of janissarial man assigned to deliver this message. I don’t doubt that, in addition, they would not have Colin on if they did not think the backstory was titillating for their audience; the validation that Colin enjoys under the cloak of Manicheanism has a price, and there is a price for us in the lack of depth and seriousness.
-
There must be well over a dozen podcasts on this case now. I have only listened to two, both were made in 2015.
-
There must be well over a dozen podcasts on this case now. I have only listened to two, both were made in 2015.
This one wasn't half bad. They skipped over the trial but did come out with details, which made me think they had done a lot of research. They reached the right conclusion too.
-
Please don't hesitate: compared to you these two are high society. I'm glad you've got time to watch morning television: maybe it does dull the brain watching it habitually.
I do not watch morning television. I do not even own a television and have not had a TV for more than 20 years. The links are to videos on YouTube, which I found when researching Colin Caffell.
As for Colin, you just can't help yourself, can you? Have you heard of shock,
I have and I believe I have suffered from it.
do you know what contribution he has made to recidivism with the Elisabeth Kübler-Ross workshops, did you read the anger he felt (far from the passivity you claim) or the shame he felt periodically at his part in the breakdown of the marriage?
Of course you didn't, because you live in in your own narrow, little world.
I am well aware of what he has done. I have read his book. Don't presume to tell me what I do and do not know.
I do not live in a "narrow, little world".
-
I do not watch morning television. I do not even own a television and have not had a TV for more than 20 years. The links are to videos on YouTube, which I found when researching Colin Caffell.
I have and I believe I have suffered from it.
I am well aware of what he has done. I have read his book. Don't presume to tell me what I do and do not know.
I do not live in a "narrow, little world".
So many contradictions in your character. You post the podcast but don't like it, you run down the participants and the audience it's directed at, you once again misunderstand Sheila, who was fragile (it's as good a word as any to describe her), you hint at Colin being responsible or exacerbating her mental illness after denying this a few days ago.
-
One amusing thing about Steve's latest tantrum is that he is insulting Colin. It was Colin's decision to appear on these trashy daytime TV shows. Is there something wrong with that Steve? You should take that up with Colin, I think.
So many contradictions in your character. You post the podcast but don't like it,
Because I am open-minded and listen to what people say. I consider both sides of things.
you run down the participants and the audience it's directed at,
As you do! In doing so, you insult Colin.
you once again misunderstand Sheila, who was fragile (it's as good a word as any to describe her),
I haven't denied she was fragile. You don't recognise the nuance in what I am saying. You haven't stopped to consider the other side of the argument.
you hint at Colin being responsible or exacerbating her mental illness after denying this a few days ago.
I have not said Colin caused her mental illness. I can't say that, because that's an impossible accusation to make. What I have mooted is the possibility that Colin was a contributing factor. Given that they were in a serious relationship and married, I am struggling to see how such a theory could be scandalous or how you can be confused by what I am saying.
-
I do not watch morning television. I do not even own a television and have not had a TV for more than 20 years. The links are to videos on YouTube, which I found when researching Colin Caffell.
I have and I believe I have suffered from it.
I am well aware of what he has done. I have read his book. Don't presume to tell me what I do and do not know.
I do not live in a "narrow, little world".
Thank you for posting those links especially the Lorraine one maybe you understand why I get so angry over Colin.
One things for sure Sheila was not well enough to have responsibly of the children and Colin should have. Without a shadow of a doubt he knew Sheila was suicidal. It’s heartbreaking. I cannot bear to think of the state Sheila was in. But never mind when it all goes wrong we can blame Uncle Jeremy
As for Lorraine I have thought forever she is the worst interviewer on tv
-
Thank you for posting those links especially the Lorraine one maybe you understand why I get so angry over Colin.
One things for sure Sheila was not well enough to have responsibly of the children and Colin should have. Without a shadow of a doubt he knew Sheila was suicidal. It’s heartbreaking. I cannot bear to think of the state Sheila was in. But never mind when it all goes wrong we can blame Uncle Jeremy
As for Lorraine I have thought forever she is the worst interviewer on tv
Yes, he admits that he knew she was suicidal. Another good point.
-
Thank you for posting those links especially the Lorraine one maybe you understand why I get so angry over Colin.
One things for sure Sheila was not well enough to have responsibly of the children and Colin should have. Without a shadow of a doubt he knew Sheila was suicidal. It’s heartbreaking. I cannot bear to think of the state Sheila was in. But never mind when it all goes wrong we can blame Uncle Jeremy
As for Lorraine I have thought forever she is the worst interviewer on tv
According to Sheila's psychiatrist she was not a risk to herself or others. Moreover he reiterated this to Colin.
-
Yes, he admits that he knew she was suicidal. Another good point.
Its not a good point at all. According to Sheila's psychiatrist she was not a risk to herself or others. Moreover he reiterated this to Colin.
-
Stop being so spiteful ! Can you do any better ?
Adam actually thinks his posts go unanswered because they are difficult? not due to the fact they are not worth answering and wasting time on? Bless his cotton socks :))
-
Adam actually thinks his posts go unanswered because they are difficult? not due to the fact they are not worth answering and wasting time on? Bless his cotton socks :))
Why would AE alert Julie/Bamber that she & her family were supicious & being pro active about it.
Perfectly reasonable question.
You are the one who has always made the claim AE passed information to Julie.
-
Same.
Unlike your employees I am not answerable to you.
With regard to the time of the day/night I visit the forum, the stats under my profile show I do not post during hours considered to be unsociable unlike yourself.
-
Adam actually thinks his posts go unanswered because they are difficult? not due to the fact they are not worth answering and wasting time on? Bless his cotton socks :))
You answered one recently which was incorrect. You said Julie would have seen the Meissen clock at the farmhouse when in fact, according to Bamber, it was kept in a suitcase.
-
The damn clock was the property of JB's in the run up to his trial. It had obviously gone through probate so what's the problem ?
-
You answered one recently which was incorrect. You said Julie would have seen the Meissen clock at the farmhouse when in fact, according to Bamber, it was kept in a suitcase.
Even it was on display, Julie would not know it was a Meissen Clock & it was valuable.
Bamber told her. Which is why it is in her WS.
-
CC clearly doesn’t understand the case because she has clearly forgotten what Colin said to the police when told about the murders
Who would leave precious little people in that situation.
But if it all goes wrong deflect and make money out of the tragedy
-
A number of posts have been removed from this thread. These were posts which added little or nothing to the debate but contained attacks on other members. It is difficult to know where to draw the line but it is necessary to exercise judgement and make decisions in what appears to be the best interests of the forum and its members. I ask all members for their cooperation in minimising future forum problems.
-
Its not a good point at all. According to Sheila's psychiatrist she was not a risk to herself or others. Moreover he reiterated this to Colin.
So where exactly did Colin get the idea that Sheila was suicidal???
-
Nice chap, wasn't he, deserting his wife when she needed him most ? Sick and in need of help. He was horrible to Sheila I thought.
-
So where exactly did Colin get the idea that Sheila was suicidal???
One can only assume that he'd heard from her, on several occasions words which intimated that she wished she were dead, or that if he did x.y, or z, she'd kill herself. Such words are often said out of frustration, ie, if one isn't being heard, or one's needs aren't being met. Sheila may have been fragile, but there's nothing to indicate that she was suicidal. She was admitted to hospital as psychotic, not suicidal. I don't believe her to have said anything about being so, to Dr Ferguson.
-
Nice chap, wasn't he, deserting his wife when she needed him most ? Sick and in need of help. He was horrible to Sheila I thought.
Lookout, we have to remember that she wasn't his wife and hadn't been so for nearly 6 years. She wasn't his responsibility. Divorce ended it. If he'd wanted the responsibility of her, he'd never have left her. Would you still have been expecting him to take responsibility for her had he remarried and had another family?
-
One can only assume that he'd heard from her, on several occasions words which intimated that she wished she were dead, or that if he did x.y, or z, she'd kill herself. Such words are often said out of frustration, ie, if one isn't being heard, or one's needs aren't being met. Sheila may have been fragile, but there's nothing to indicate that she was suicidal. She was admitted to hospital as psychotic, not suicidal. I don't believe her to have said anything about being so, to Dr Ferguson.
I’m not interested in your assumptions. It is a FACT that Colin believed Sheila was suicidal yet dropped her off at a place she hated with 2 small children.
Sheila had very serious mental health issues and had obviously made it clear to Colin she could not cope and carry on living
That is a dreadful state of affairs. Sheila must have been in such a desperate state
It’s about time the truth comes out about this case and people take responsibility for there actions
-
I’m not interested in your assumptions. It is a FACT that Colin believed Sheila was suicidal yet dropped her off at a place she hated with 2 small children.
Sheila had very serious mental health issues and had obviously made it clear to Colin she could not cope and carry on living
That is a dreadful state of affairs. Sheila must have been in such a desperate state
It’s about time the truth comes out about this case and people take responsibility for there actions
Okay, but, but you can't just throw it out there as 'FACT'. I guess we all require proof that she was suicidal.
IF she'd made it clear to Colin that she was unable to cope, and unable to go on living -and I don't recall reading such from anyone other than you, what would you have expected him to do? My first thought, HAD she said she was unable to cope, and unable to go on living, is that he'd have applied for full custody of the boys.
You speak of Sheila as if she had no mind of her own. She was mother to small boys whose grandparents wanted to see them prior to a holiday they were taking with their father. Had she so hated visiting her parents, surely it was up to her to say.
You seem to be rewriting Sheila's mental history to fit with how you want it to be.
-
I’m not interested in your assumptions. It is a FACT that Colin believed Sheila was suicidal yet dropped her off at a place she hated with 2 small children.
Sheila had very serious mental health issues and had obviously made it clear to Colin she could not cope and carry on living
That is a dreadful state of affairs. Sheila must have been in such a desperate state
It’s about time the truth comes out about this case and people take responsibility for there actions
I believe Colin has, already, taken responsibility. If you have not done so, I recommend you read his book - both editions, if you can. The notion that he should take further blame or responsibility is, in my view, obscene. In my own comments about him, I only suggest that he should be seen as responsible for what he did and did not do, and no more, and whatever consequences he may suffer for it have been suffered in the terrible loss of his sons, for which he deserves our unending sympathy and condolences.
I think it is OK to criticise Colin. He won't like it, and may be offended and protest, and I don't blame him, but it is what it is and what happened, happened. To comment on this case from the side-lines leads, inescapably, to the expression of judgement of the individuals caught up in it. We all have shortcomings.
-
Lookout, we have to remember that she wasn't his wife and hadn't been so for nearly 6 years. She wasn't his responsibility. Divorce ended it. If he'd wanted the responsibility of her, he'd never have left her. Would you still have been expecting him to take responsibility for her had he remarried and had another family?
He decided to go on the national tv news to let everyone know they were on the verge of getting back together
Those children were very much his responsibility
-
I believe Colin has, already, taken responsibility. If you have not done so, I recommend you read his book - both editions, if you can. The notion that he should take further blame or responsibility is, in my view, obscene. In my own comments about him, I only suggest that he should be seen as responsible for what he did and did not do, and no more, and whatever consequences he may suffer for it have been suffered in the terrible loss of his sons, for which he deserves our unending sympathy and condolences.
I think it is OK to criticise Colin. He won't like it, and may be offended and protest, and I don't blame him, but it is what it is and what happened, happened. To comment on this case from the side-lines leads, inescapably, to the expression of judgement of the individuals caught up in it. We all have shortcomings.
If you believe JB to be innocent then his actions to me seem obscene
Why go on Lorraine to mislead the public and make money out of a book
Why make out they were going to get back together
Why edit Jeremy’s letters to suit his narrative
He could have kept quite considering his behaviour ?????
-
He decided to go on the national tv news to let everyone know they were on the verge of getting back together
Those children were very much his responsibility
Are you really expecting the Forum to believe that, on national television, Colin made the claim that "Sheila and I were on the verge of getting back together" Get real. He left her because they were toxic together. Even Sheila admitted they were getting on better for being separated. Had it not been for the pregnancy, they probably would never have married.
-
Are you really expecting the Forum to believe that, on national television, Colin made the claim that "Sheila and I were on the verge of getting back together" Get real. He left her because they were toxic together. Even Sheila admitted they were getting on better for being separated. Had it not been for the pregnancy, they probably would never have married.
Ask you mate Caroline she posted the link and then you can apologise. I will post the link myself
-
If you believe JB to be innocent then his actions to me seem obscene
Why go on Lorraine to mislead the public and make money out of a book
Why make out they were going to get back together
Why edit Jeremy’s letters to suit his narrative
He could have kept quite considering his behaviour ?????
At what point did he mislead the public, other than in your version of what he said?
The book had already been written. It had been amended.
You seem to be the only one who nheard him say that he and Sheila were getting back together.
The letters, IN THEIR ENTIRITY, are, I'm told, available to read in the original book.
Why the hell should he have to keep quiet? he's guilty of nothing more than having married the wrong person...............from whom he was long divorced. Thinking about it, under the circumstances, she was lucky he was still willing to chauffeur her around.
-
Ask you mate Caroline she posted the link and then you can apologise. I will post the link myself
I will be more than happy to hear Colin say the exact words, without ambiguity, naturally, that he and Sheila were definitely going/planning to get back together.
-
A number of posts have been removed from this thread. These were posts which added little or nothing to the debate but contained attacks on other members. It is difficult to know where to draw the line but it is necessary to exercise judgement and make decisions in what appears to be the best interests of the forum and its members. I ask all members for their cooperation in minimising future forum problems.
Yet you allow Mr. Q C Chevalier to include in one thread a picture of David Gwillim in body armour, references to the heroicism of Henry V and a possible association with Jeremy Bamber's latent acting ability, when the latter is a convicted mass murderer of five including twin six-year-old boys. You already allowed him to contravene Forum rules in the most egregious way, so in my eyes the horse has already bolted and this Forum you purport to superintend has no shred of credibility left.
-
I believe Colin has, already, taken responsibility. If you have not done so, I recommend you read his book - both editions, if you can. The notion that he should take further blame or responsibility is, in my view, obscene. In my own comments about him, I only suggest that he should be seen as responsible for what he did and did not do, and no more, and whatever consequences he may suffer for it have been suffered in the terrible loss of his sons, for which he deserves our unending sympathy and condolences.
I think it is OK to criticise Colin. He won't like it, and may be offended and protest, and I don't blame him, but it is what it is and what happened, happened. To comment on this case from the side-lines leads, inescapably, to the expression of judgement of the individuals caught up in it. We all have shortcomings.
We don't need any advice emanating from you. If you have read the book (which I doubt) you have taken very few lessons from it.
-
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/minimal-entry-intvw-colin-caffell-sheils-ex-husband-news-footage/1131154434
-
Yet you allow Mr. Q C Chevalier to include in one thread a picture of David Gwillim in body armour, references to the heroicism of Henry V and a possible association with Jeremy Bamber's latent acting ability, when the latter is a convicted mass murderer of five including twin six-year-old boys. You already allowed him to contravene Forum rules in the most egregious way, so in my eyes the horse has already bolted and this Forum you purport to superintend has no shred of credibility left.
Why on earth do you feel the need to make this post, which is totally unhelpful? If those are your views why don't you leave the forum.
This is a thankless task at times. I am tempted to impose all the bans which I am urged to implement on almost a daily basis. We would have around three members left and we could talk to each other!
-
Why on earth do you feel the need to make this post, which is totally unhelpful? If those are your views why don't you leave the forum.
This is a thankless task at times. I am tempted to impose all the bans which I am urged to implement on almost a daily basis. We would have around three members left and we could talk to each other!
But you have started to prune posts which are not to your liking. How about redacting this thread so it's not glamorizing mass murder? https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10929.0.html
-
But you have started to prune posts which are not to your liking. How about redacting this thread so it's not glamorizing mass murder? https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10929.0.html
The opening post of the thread to which you refer was not in breach of forum rules, but clearly it was not to your liking. You therefore piled in and gave the benefit of your opinion of the post and its author. I have not censored posts on the thread. I really think you should back off from your attacks.
-
The opening post of the thread to which you refer was not in breach of forum rules, but clearly it was not to your liking. You therefore piled in and gave the benefit of your opinion of the post and its author. I have not censored posts on the thread. I really think you should back off from your attacks.
I really don't think you know what Mr. Q C Chevalier is doing. He's playing to the Jeremy-is-innocent gallery at every turn, associating him with public figures hoping that some of the kudos rubs off and therefore is minimizing and glamorizing the crimes of which he was convicted.
This is not the Mr Q C Chevalier Show but the Jeremy Bamber Case discussion. There should be no need to link the latter to David Gwillim, Laurence Olivier or other famous personages. The reality is the man was a complete failure at school, unpopular with his peers, snooty with work colleagues and associates, throwing everything his parents offered him whilst they were alive back in their faces, gambling on blaming five murders on a mentally-ill young woman who was incapable of using a rifle, let alone reloading twice.
If Mr Q C Chevalier continues to legitimize Jeremy Bamber in this way I will have no alternative but to quit the Forum and leave you to it.
-
I really don't think you know what Mr. Q C Chevalier is doing. He's playing to the Jeremy-is-innocent gallery at every turn, associating him with public figures hoping that some of the kudos rubs off and therefore is minimizing and glamorizing the crimes of which he was convicted.
This is not the Mr Q C Chevalier Show but the Jeremy Bamber Case discussion. There should be no need to link the latter to David Gwillim, Laurence Olivier or other famous personages. The reality is the man was a complete failure at school, unpopular with his peers, snooty with work colleagues and associates, throwing everything his parents offered him whilst they were alive back in their faces, gambling on blaming five murders on a mentally-ill young woman who was incapable of using a rifle, let alone reloading twice.
If Mr Q C Chevalier continues to legitimize Jeremy Bamber in this way I will have no alternative but to quit the Forum and leave you to it.
I have advanced none of the arguments or positions you ascribe to me.
There is the freedom to criticise, including - at times - the freedom to challenge the poster, where this may be relevant - but there is also the necessary freedom for posters to explore avenues and ideas without being subjected to constant, nagging attacks of a personal nature that have little or no relevance to matters under discussion.
In the context of an internet forum, these attacks can be quite disruptive and off-putting, and serve as a distraction. In the worst cases, as here, they harm the Forum itself and may deter free thought and discussion.
By all means, criticise. Criticise harshly, if your feelings are strong, but try to appreciate that, in any controversy, people in good faith may form different views to your own for perfectly valid reasons. Attacking the person does you no credit.
-
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/minimal-entry-intvw-colin-caffell-sheils-ex-husband-news-footage/1131154434
Thank-you for that, Jackie. Indeed, he does speak of there being "a lot of hope of getting something together again" so you may be forgiven for believing that they WERE getting back together. Several things cause me to think that it wasn't going to happen, however, and I think all thoughts of such only occurred to him after she'd been killed.
Two, I've already mentioned on another thread. The coldness of the journey to WHF and the lack of any psychical contact between them when Colin left -he never made mention of any loving, hopeful farewells- are decidedly NOT the actions of two people who'd been discussing the possibility of a future together, AND, perhaps the main drawback to them reconciling was his current girlfriend who he was still with. Remove ALL those obstacles, and we're still left with her mental fragility/illness which was probably one of the reasons he couldn't live with her. It was still there.
You talk about his guilt. You attempt to load him with guilt which isn't his to carry. However, he must have had thoughts of "What if?" Well, there are many "If only's" here. He may well have believed that "if only" JB hadn't taken them from me, everything would have been fine.
-
I have advanced none of the arguments or positions you ascribe to me.
There is the freedom to criticise, including - at times - the freedom to challenge the poster, where this may be relevant - but there is also the necessary freedom for posters to explore avenues and ideas without being subjected to constant, nagging attacks of a personal nature that have little or no relevance to matters under discussion.
In the context of an internet forum, these attacks can be quite disruptive and off-putting, and serve as a distraction. In the worst cases, as here, they harm the Forum itself and may deter free thought and discussion.
By all means, criticise. Criticise harshly, if your feelings are strong, but try to appreciate that, in any controversy, people in good faith may form different views to your own for perfectly valid reasons. Attacking the person does you no credit.
But your posts often have little or no relevance to the subject at hand. It's quite frankly obscene to speculate on Jeremy's latent acting ability and associate him either directly or indirectly with David Gwillam, Henry V and England's glory days.
-
I really don't think you know what Mr. Q C Chevalier is doing. He's playing to the Jeremy-is-innocent gallery at every turn, associating him with public figures hoping that some of the kudos rubs off and therefore is minimizing and glamorizing the crimes of which he was convicted.
This is not the Mr Q C Chevalier Show but the Jeremy Bamber Case discussion. There should be no need to link the latter to David Gwillim, Laurence Olivier or other famous personages. The reality is the man was a complete failure at school, unpopular with his peers, snooty with work colleagues and associates, throwing everything his parents offered him whilst they were alive back in their faces, gambling on blaming five murders on a mentally-ill young woman who was incapable of using a rifle, let alone reloading twice.
If Mr Q C Chevalier continues to legitimize Jeremy Bamber in this way I will have no alternative but to quit the Forum and leave you to it.
You really do have to come to terms with the fact that this is a discussion forum with members having widely differing views on the Bamber case. There are those who are convinced that Jeremy Bamber is innocent, and others who feel that he did not have a fair trial and that at the very least this is a potential major miscarriage of justice. Those members with those such obviously do not share your assessment of JB and your outrage when anyone says anything complimentary about him. They do not see themselves as "supporting a child murderer" and attacking them for that, which you have repeatedly done here, is not appropriate. QCC is free to "legitimise" JB if he sees fit to do so, and to express his views on any of the aspects of the case, including others involved in the tragic case.
-
You really do have to come to terms with the fact that this is a discussion forum with members having widely differing views on the Bamber case. There are those who are convinced that Jeremy Bamber is innocent, and others who feel that he did not have a fair trial and that at the very least this is a potential major miscarriage of justice. Those members with those such obviously do not share your assessment of JB and your outrage when anyone says anything complimentary about him. They do not see themselves as "supporting a child murderer" and attacking them for that, which you have repeatedly done here, is not appropriate. QCC is free to "legitimise" JB if he sees fit to do so, and to express his views on any of the aspects of the case, including others involved in the tragic case.
Just to make something absolutely clear: in no way am I attempting to legitimise murder or murderers, and nothing I have posted here could be reasonably construed as such, and in any event, that is certainly not my intention. I realise that NGB1066 is not implying such, but let me state that anyway.
If Jeremy is guilty, then I abhor his crimes and condemn him utterly, and he stands rightly punished. The reason I have not abundantly made that clear is that I assume that I am in the company of intelligent and reasonable adults and that certain obvious things don't have to be spelled out. Murder is obviously wrong. Mass murder is obviously quite a bit worse. Murder of blameless, innocent children is unforgivable - obviously.
-
You really do have to come to terms with the fact that this is a discussion forum with members having widely differing views on the Bamber case. There are those who are convinced that Jeremy Bamber is innocent, and others who feel that he did not have a fair trial and that at the very least this is a potential major miscarriage of justice. Those members with those such obviously do not share your assessment of JB and your outrage when anyone says anything complimentary about him. They do not see themselves as "supporting a child murderer" and attacking them for that, which you have repeatedly done here, is not appropriate. QCC is free to "legitimise" JB if he sees fit to do so, and to express his views on any of the aspects of the case, including others involved in the tragic case.
Steve, I think you need to take this on board. The points are well made. You are at your best when you refer to testimony that portrays Jeremy Bamber in a bad light. Even a JB supporter has to take some of that in to account when considering how JB may have come to be where he is, or even whether he may have had some involvement. Likewise, figures like Colin are not sacrosanct within the context of a JB innocent scenario. JB himself is obviously an extremely wronged man, in an innocent scenario. It might not be a context that you are willing to consider - but you should.
-
You really do have to come to terms with the fact that this is a discussion forum with members having widely differing views on the Bamber case. There are those who are convinced that Jeremy Bamber is innocent, and others who feel that he did not have a fair trial and that at the very least this is a potential major miscarriage of justice. Those members with those such obviously do not share your assessment of JB and your outrage when anyone says anything complimentary about him. They do not see themselves as "supporting a child murderer" and attacking them for that, which you have repeatedly done here, is not appropriate. QCC is free to "legitimise" JB if he sees fit to do so, and to express his views on any of the aspects of the case, including others involved in the tragic case.
Oh but Mr. Q C C hevalier believes Jeremy Bamber to be 96% guilty even on a bad day. I suggest to you that were I to post a picture of Peter Sutcliffe holding a hammer in a prison workshop, or Myra Hindley dancing the Loco-motion or deciding unilaterally that Dennis Nilsen might have played Prince Andrew in some television adaptation of the latter's life members might just have something to gripe about.
-
Steve, I think you need to take this on board. The points are well made. You are at your best when you refer to testimony that portrays Jeremy Bamber in a bad light. Even a JB supporter has to take some of that in to account when considering how JB may have come to be where he is, or even whether he may have had some involvement. Likewise, figures like Colin are not sacrosanct within the context of a JB innocent scenario. JB himself is obviously an extremely wronged man, in an innocent scenario. It might not be a context that you are willing to consider - but you should.
It's posting pictures which legitimize a convicted mass murderer by the back door. There is no justification whatsoever for a photograph of David Gwillam on a thread where Jeremy Bamber has boasted a few hours previously that he had just killed five.
-
Oh but Mr. Q C C hevalier believes Jeremy Bamber to be 96% guilty even on a bad day. I suggest to you that were I to post a picture of Peter Sutcliffe holding a hammer in a prison workshop, or Myra Hindley dancing the Loco-motion or deciding unilaterally that Dennis Nilsen might have played Prince Andrew in some television adaptation of the latter's life members might just have something to gripe about.
Likewise I believe Julie Mugford is a liar and made up the stories. She has lied on numerous previous occasions and there is no forensic evidence pointing to Jeremy being the killer
-
It's posting pictures which legitimize a convicted mass murderer by the back door. There is no justification whatsoever for a photograph of David Gwillam on a thread where Jeremy Bamber has boasted a few hours previously that he had just killed five.
I have not done this.
Oh but Mr. Q C C hevalier believes Jeremy Bamber to be 96% guilty even on a bad day. I suggest to you that were I to post a picture of Peter Sutcliffe holding a hammer in a prison workshop, or Myra Hindley dancing the Loco-motion or deciding unilaterally that Dennis Nilsen might have played Prince Andrew in some television adaptation of the latter's life members might just have something to gripe about.
I don't recall discussing any of the people you mention (other than Jeremy Bamber, obviously) and I wasn't suggesting that Jeremy Bamber should play a role in a TV adaptation or dance to the latest hit by Kylie Minogue. That is not even close to what I was driving at in my post. In fact, I was talking about a Jeremy Bamber that does not exist. I am disappointed that I have to explain this so explicitly. Again, as I said above, I like to assume I am among intelligence and reasonable adults.
With respect, your objections to what I post are not a reflection of anything that has been posted by myself or anybody else here. Rather, they reflect things going on in your own head, which I must respectfully suggest you seek out somebody you trust to discuss with.
I'm afraid I also don't agree with Roch's appeasement of you. I think the Forum has to decide on its direction in the coming year. Are we going to have a situation where, in order to appease Steve, people have to add append new posts and threads with numerous disclaimers and explanations to prevent misunderstandings, as well as reassurances for sensitive people who find other people's opinions and views on the case offensive?
It is becoming rather silly.
-
I have not done this.
I don't recall discussing any of the people you mention (other than Jeremy Bamber, obviously) and I wasn't suggesting that Jeremy Bamber should play a role in a TV adaptation or dance to the latest hit by Kylie Minogue. That is not even close to what I was driving at in my post. In fact, I was talking about a Jeremy Bamber that does not exist. I am disappointed that I have to explain this so explicitly. Again, as I said above, I like to assume I am among intelligence and reasonable adults.
With respect, your objections to what I post are not a reflection of anything that has been posted by myself or anybody else here. Rather, they reflect things going on in your own head, which I must respectfully suggest you seek out somebody you trust to discuss with.
I'm afraid I also don't agree with Roch's appeasement of you. I think the Forum has to decide on its direction in the coming year. Are we going to have a situation where, in order to appease Steve, people have to add append new posts and threads with numerous disclaimers and explanations to prevent misunderstandings, as well as reassurances for sensitive people who find other people's opinions and views on the case offensive?
It is becoming rather silly.
You were speculating on how a convicted mass murderer might have turned out had he been given acting lessons. I've already told you that fees at Gresham's are £12000 per annum. He had all the opportunities money could buy and made a complete mess of his life.
Stick to the Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion, or start a thread on another section of the site if you wish to discuss David Gwillam's acting prowess or the innocence of sub-postmasters.
-
I have not done this.
I don't recall discussing any of the people you mention (other than Jeremy Bamber, obviously) and I wasn't suggesting that Jeremy Bamber should play a role in a TV adaptation or dance to the latest hit by Kylie Minogue. That is not even close to what I was driving at in my post. In fact, I was talking about a Jeremy Bamber that does not exist. I am disappointed that I have to explain this so explicitly. Again, as I said above, I like to assume I am among intelligence and reasonable adults.
With respect, your objections to what I post are not a reflection of anything that has been posted by myself or anybody else here. Rather, they reflect things going on in your own head, which I must respectfully suggest you seek out somebody you trust to discuss with.
I'm afraid I also don't agree with Roch's appeasement of you. I think the Forum has to decide on its direction in the coming year. Are we going to have a situation where, in order to appease Steve, people have to add append new posts and threads with numerous disclaimers and explanations to prevent misunderstandings, as well as reassurances for sensitive people who find other people's opinions and views on the case offensive?
It is becoming rather silly.
Well, as I see it, we all have a choice, don't we. Either all those who have given offence could leave, or all those who claim offence has been given them could leave. 'Course, some of us do both. WE can eithr put up and shut up or make more use of the ignore button. Sadly, I fear such might mean we end up, as ngb said earlier, with only three people posting. Boring, eh?.............and rather silly.
-
Likewise I believe Julie Mugford is a liar and made up the stories. She has lied on numerous previous occasions and there is no forensic evidence pointing to Jeremy being the killer
Jackie at least I know where you and lookout stand and I expect most of what you're going to write. But how do you deal with someone who thinks Jeremy Bamber is 96% guilty on a bad day yet he's not a predator?
-
The damn clock was the property of JB's in the run up to his trial. It had obviously gone through probate so what's the problem ?
Damn clock being the operative words! Ghastly imo. If it doesn't fit the following it should be binned!
Scandinavian interior design is a minimalistic style using a blend of textures and soft hues to make sleek, modern décor feel warm and inviting. It emphasizes clean lines, utility, and simple furnishings that are functional, beautiful, and cozy.
-
Damn clock being the operative words! Ghastly imo. If it doesn't fit the following it should be binned!
Scandinavian interior design is a minimalistic style using a blend of textures and soft hues to make sleek, modern décor feel warm and inviting. It emphasizes clean lines, utility, and simple furnishings that are functional, beautiful, and cozy.
And don't collect dust!!!
-
And don't collect dust!!!
Exactly!!!
-
And don't collect dust!!!
Maybe that's why it was kept in a suitcase.
-
Maybe that's why it was kept in a suitcase.
Was once a time when I'd have loved a piece of Meissen, but the ornamental and delicate has now given way to the practical. I'm not surprised it was kept in a suitcase. Housekeepers can be notoriously clumsy, and little fingers endlessly inquisitive!!!
-
You were speculating on how a convicted mass murderer might have turned out had he been given acting lessons. I've already told you that fees at Gresham's are £12000 per annum. He had all the opportunities money could buy and made a complete mess of his life.
Stick to the Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion, or start a thread on another section of the site if you wish to discuss David Gwillam's acting prowess or the innocence of sub-postmasters.
Well, as I see it, we all have a choice, don't we. Either all those who have given offence could leave, or all those who claim offence has been given them could leave. 'Course, some of us do both. WE can eithr put up and shut up or make more use of the ignore button. Sadly, I fear such might mean we end up, as ngb said earlier, with only three people posting. Boring, eh?.............and rather silly.
Jackie at least I know where you and lookout stand and I expect most of what you're going to write. But how do you deal with someone who thinks Jeremy Bamber is 96% guilty on a bad day yet he's not a predator?
Steve and Jane seem to think they should decide what should be posted about the case to the Forum and that anybody whose views about the case offend them or differ from theirs should be attacked and insulted without recourse, and have their posts removed and potentially be banned. If I protest about being insulted, then I am 'sensitive' and a 'cry baby', or whatever. According to Jane, I need to "put up or shut up" or something like that. No mention is made that the Forum Rules forbid all this.
Steve seems a bit puzzled by anybody who takes a view about the case that doesn't fit into a neat pre-conceived box. He demands that I declare my allegiance to one flag or the other and start screeching about how Jeremy is innocent as the pure driven snow, or an irredeemable monster.
I must admit, I am not entirely clear what point Steve and Jane really are making in these posts, or what their posts have to do with what I actually said in the opening post to the thread, or indeed what they are trying to achieve here, but the above seems to be - more or less - the effect of what they are saying and doing, albeit they do make exceptions now and then. Steve reassures JackieD that at least he knows where she stands, and although Lookout has harsher things than I to say about Colin, she doesn't receive the same treatment. He just doesn't like me - and I should put up with being attacked, insulted and abused, according to Jane.
Steve did also say earlier that if his demands about how the Forum should be run are not agreed to, he will leave the Forum. Unfortunately, I for one cannot agree to Steve's demands. I will decide what I post and what my posts contain, not Steve and Jane, and I will not accept being insulted and attacked simply because I have different views to Steve.
I hope all that is clear.
Thank you.
-
Steve and Jane seem to think they should decide what should be posted about the case to the Forum and that anybody whose views about the case offend them or differ from theirs should be attacked and insulted without recourse, and have their posts removed and potentially be banned. If I protest about being insulted, then I am 'sensitive' and a 'cry baby', or whatever. According to Jane, I need to "put up or shut up" or something like that. No mention is made that the Forum Rules forbid all this.
Steve seems a bit puzzled by anybody who takes a view about the case that doesn't fit into a neat pre-conceived box. He demands that I declare my allegiance to one flag or the other and start screeching about how Jeremy is innocent as the pure driven snow, or an irredeemable monster.
I must admit, I am not entirely clear what point Steve and Jane really are making in these posts, or what their posts have to do with what I actually said in the opening post to the thread, or indeed what they are trying to achieve here, but the above seems to be - more or less - the effect of what they are saying and doing, albeit they do make exceptions now and then. Steve reassures JackieD that at least he knows where she stands, and although Lookout has harsher things than I to say about Colin, she doesn't receive the same treatment. He just doesn't like me - and I should put up with being attacked, insulted and abused, according to Jane.
Steve did also say earlier that if his demands about how the Forum should be run are not agreed to, he will leave the Forum. Unfortunately, I for one cannot agree to Steve's demands. I will decide what I post and what my posts contain, not Steve and Jane, and I will not accept being insulted and attacked simply because I have different views to Steve.
I hope all that is clear.
Thank you.
You're adept at putting your own interpretation on what others say, as is Jackie, although I hesitate to place you in the same category. Where have I ever dictated what you 'should' say? I haven't. It's your perception. There's no should/shouldn't about it. Posters are perfectly free to say what they want -and Yes, that includes you- but all have to accept that there are consequences. No one here shouts more loudly, than you, regarding perceived insults, and no one dishes them out more freely, insisting they have the right. What about the 'rights' of others to respond to, what they perceive as insults from you?
-
CC clearly doesn’t understand the case because she has clearly forgotten what Colin said to the police when told about the murders
Who would leave precious little people in that situation.
But if it all goes wrong deflect and make money out of the tragedy
You have clearly overlooked that I'm a newbie!!!
-
So where exactly did Colin get the idea that Sheila was suicidal???
Page 21 of his book: 'Oh no, then she finally did it'! I said, almost thinking out loud. With Bamb's recent history of mental illness, the possibilty rang horribly true, but I didn't have a chance to think or ask questions.
Page 22: At first it seemed most obvious that it was her, but when they said about the twins, something didn't quite make sense.
It seems Colin got the idea that Sheila was suicidal based on her history of mental illness.
He claims he was told by Sheila's psychiatrist she was not a risk to herself or others. What reason would he have for doubting this?
-
You have clearly overlooked that I'm a newbie!!!
No your not
-
Page 21 of his book: 'Oh no, then she finally did it'! I said, almost thinking out loud. With Bamb's recent history of mental illness, the possibilty rang horribly true, but I didn't have a chance to think or ask questions.
Page 22: At first it seemed most obvious that it was her, but when they said about the twins, something didn't quite make sense.
It seems Colin got the idea that Sheila was suicidal based on her history of mental illness.
He claims he was told by Sheila's psychiatrist she was not a risk to herself or others. What reason would he have for doubting this?
Suicide is a major cause of death among patients with schizophrenia. Research indicates that at least 5–13% of schizophrenic patients die by suicide, and it is likely that the higher end of range is the most accurate estimate
If your ex partner has a history of severe mental illness you would definitely look into the suitability of the person in question was looking after small children.
The situation was most likely made worse by Colin leading Sheila on that there was going to be a reconciliation when he was with another partner
Why would you not see the danger and then continue to carry on selling your story forever
Poor poor delicate Sheila she never stood a chance for life did she
-
Suicide is a major cause of death among patients with schizophrenia. Research indicates that at least 5–13% of schizophrenic patients die by suicide, and it is likely that the higher end of range is the most accurate estimate
If your ex partner has a history of severe mental illness you would definitely look into the suitability of the person in question was looking after small children.
The situation was most likely made worse by Colin leading Sheila on that there was going to be a reconciliation when he was with another partner
Why would you not see the danger and then continue to carry on selling your story forever
Poor poor delicate Sheila she never stood a chance for life did she
Colin did look into Sheila's suitability to parent their children. This is the reason he spoke with Sheila's psychiatrist, the twins school teacher and wrote the letter to Mr Bamber. He was also the primary carer during the last months of their lives.
Did Sheila complain to anyone in her circle or psychiatrist about Colin? Did any of them make reference to the pair getting back together?
Seems to me you have a rather romantic view on matters. Perhaps too much Barbara Cartland!
-
Suicide is a major cause of death among patients with schizophrenia. Research indicates that at least 5–13% of schizophrenic patients die by suicide, and it is likely that the higher end of range is the most accurate estimate
If your ex partner has a history of severe mental illness you would definitely look into the suitability of the person in question was looking after small children.
The situation was most likely made worse by Colin leading Sheila on that there was going to be a reconciliation when he was with another partner
Why would you not see the danger and then continue to carry on selling your story forever
Poor poor delicate Sheila she never stood a chance for life did she
No, she didn't.
-
Colin did look into Sheila's suitability to parent their children. This is the reason he spoke with Sheila's psychiatrist, the twins school teacher and wrote the letter to Mr Bamber. He was also the primary carer during the last months of their lives.
Did Sheila complain to anyone in her circle or psychiatrist about Colin? Did any of them make reference to the pair getting back together?
Seems to me you have a rather romantic view on matters. Perhaps too much Barbara Cartland!
So remind me of the incident/accident with the taxi? Colin was aware of Sheila’s drug use and where are the details of these discussions and how recreational drugs affected Sheila
Sheila clearly wasn’t in the right place to be the care giver
The boys were Colin’s responsibility when Sheila was not capable
I would like to know if one person on this forum would leave there children with someone with Sheila’s problems
-
So remind me of the incident/accident with the taxi? Colin was aware of Sheila’s drug use and where are the details of these discussions and how recreational drugs affected Sheila
Sheila clearly wasn’t in the right place to be the care giver
The boys were Colin’s responsibility when Sheila was not capable
I would like to know if one person on this forum would leave there children with someone with Sheila’s problems
Social services clearly didn't have the benefit of your opinion on the subject, so had to rely on their combined wealth of experience. Subsequently, they came to the decision that with the combined support of Colin -who had joint custody- and her parents, Sheila was capable of looking after the boys on those occasions when she had them. She may have been somewhat slap-happy in her approach, but Colin never described her as being less than a loving mother.
-
Social services clearly didn't have the benefit of your opinion on the subject, so had to rely on their combined wealth of experience. Subsequently, they came to the decision that with the combined support of Colin -who had joint custody- and her parents, Sheila was capable of looking after the boys on those occasions when she had them. She may have been somewhat slap-happy in her approach, but Colin never described her as being less than a loving mother.
The difference here and what Jackie is referring to i believe? is that Sheila was not acting normal on the drive down to WHF, she never spoke a single word. Perhaps Colin thought with June and Nevil also at WHF the boys would be safe, personally I would have risked a huge row and taken them back home with me.
-
Colin probably knew more than anyone that Sheila's health had deteriorated and why he hadn't done more, divorced or not, I just can't get my head around.
Sheila was never under any supervision order as should have been arranged but I rather think it was Nevill who'd wished to cut ties with social services as in his mind he'd have thought them busy-bodies, with family able and capable in their intervention with Sheila and the twins.
In order to build a truer picture of Sheila's mental health it would have been more helpful to the case to have released all recent medical notes. We know that Sheila had talked of suicide to cousin Helen Grimster as in her statement because Helen had stated how fearful she'd been when Sheila was with her.
Sheila had virtually no support from any direction so far as I can understand and had been in despair.
-
Colin probably knew more than anyone that Sheila's health had deteriorated and why he hadn't done more, divorced or not, I just can't get my head around.
Sheila was never under any supervision order as should have been arranged but I rather think it was Nevill who'd wished to cut ties with social services as in his mind he'd have thought them busy-bodies, with family able and capable in their intervention with Sheila and the twins.
In order to build a truer picture of Sheila's mental health it would have been more helpful to the case to have released all recent medical notes. We know that Sheila had talked of suicide to cousin Helen Grimster as in her statement because Helen had stated how fearful she'd been when Sheila was with her.
Sheila had virtually no support from any direction so far as I can understand and had been in despair.
That’s the word dispair
-
That’s the word dispair
A terrible plight to be in and usually played out involving violence.
-
The difference here and what Jackie is referring to i believe? is that Sheila was not acting normal on the drive down to WHF, she never spoke a single word. Perhaps Colin thought with June and Nevil also at WHF the boys would be safe, personally I would have risked a huge row and taken them back home with me.
Colin has said since, when referring to their silent journey, that Sheila's silence wasn't unusual. Possibly she was one of those people who lived their best lives in their heads? Maybe she was wondering how she was going to cope over the following few days? Whatever, silence would seem to have been part of what passed for 'normal' with Sheila.
-
With some hesitation, I offer you a podcast on the case from a YouTube channel called ‘I Could Murder A Podcast’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL1W9uvMpic
I don’t like this podcast and didn’t particularly enjoy it. Like many of these things, it may be a good watch for someone of average intelligence who is new to the case and is in need of a nice, easy introduction. At times, Tom and Ben are quite comical in a negative way in that they fall into very basic factual errors: just one example is that they declare early on that Sheila was born a Caffell, which comes as quite a revelation to me as I am sure it will for all of you.
These sorts of podcasts have appeared as the case has penetrated mainstream web culture in the wake of the 2020 dramatisation, which revived popular interest. Inevitably this in turn results in the dumbing-down and vulgarising of discussion. Tom and Ben mention about Jeremy growing weed. Tom and Ben look like the types who would grow weed themselves (not that I can talk given my adventures with magic mushrooms). They are like teenagers in their bedrooms. Mam and Dad are downstairs presumably. The two of them dress childishly, have squeaky, non-masculine voices, with the tattoos on display that are, I assume, intended to make them look masculine but instead make them look ridiculous. They are both wearing headphones and staring at screens from which they read and rely on totally for information. Look at them carefully. They have ‘screen eyes’ – very much they are creatures of the Information Society. A pair of robots with no real thoughts of their own. A Ones and Zeroes culture, a digital world in every refined sense; a world of dichotomies in which judgement ceases, facts are relegated in importance, and what matters is what you – yes, you! – think about it all. There is a long dialogue in which Tom and Ben go through the case chronology with music in the background and insistent voices, as if they need to hurry this bit along before they move to the important bit in which they tell us what they think. What I Think has taken over in importance from Facts. The result is psychotic screeching on public fora, and an ADHD generation that needs background music when anything requires attention or concentration.
None of this is new, though. Vulgarisation was a heavy feature of Victorian literary culture. Even the great English novelists, Charles Dickens and Wilkie Collins – the Shakespeares of the novel – were considered vulgar and cheap in their own time, though Collins self-consciously lampooned the vulgar culture and has one of his best characters go on a hysterical national tour regaling working-class audiences with her obscene adventures. Collins could have been writing of today. Dickens was a self-published ha’penny bit writer. The novel itself is, arguably, a signal of a vulgar and degenerate culture. At the same time, one aspect of the vulgarisation, the use of humour, is a very English thing. It is typical of English people to make light of the darkest things. We live on a small, dark, wet, windy island, now quite crowded, and successive generations of working-class English people have undergone appalling conditions of adversity, including industrialism, indentured servitude in the colonies, and before that, the impositions of feudalism I am told that, before the Normans, the Old English had some sort of golden age of liberty from which the famous English attachment to liberalism can be traced, but if so, then the Anglo-Saxons can’t have had a sense of humour. Humour comes out of darkness, misfortune and adversity, or it loses its force.
A different aspect of vulgarisation, more dignified, and that is presented as more respectable, is that served up to us by the established mainstream culture: on the terrestrial TV channels and radio, and their virtual offshoots. Morning TV shows presented by vapid dullards, sententious dramatisations, various documentaries, talks from Carol Ann Lee – all vulgarise the White House Farm tragedy to some extent. Colin Caffell gave his input to one or two morning TV shows with contested anecdotes about Jeremy’s dark humour and racy behaviour with Julie; however his own book, In Search of the Rainbow’s End, is a more considered examination of the case, albeit entwined with flights of fancy.
As the 2020 TV drama began - based on books by Carol Ann Lee and Colin Caffell respectively - it was strange seeing Colin congratulate Cressida Bonas, an actress, on her portrayal of Sheila. Here is the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUn9hIdNDVI
This was on a show called Lorraine. Lorraine wants us to see her as our friend. It’s Lorraine. Just call me Lorraine. Sheila was portrayed in that drama snorting coke up her nose and with serious mental health problems, and generally as a quite one-dimensional character. But Lorraine thinks the drama treats those tragic events with “real sensitivity” and Colin lathers the producers with praise. He “liked them and trusted them” and gushed to Cressida about her uncanny portrayal: “it is Sheila at that time”, Cressida “picked up the fragility of her character” and gave us a “wonderful heartfelt insight into that”. This is another hint towards Colin’s people-pleasing disingenuousness.
Lorraine complained about how Sheila’s reputation was “trashed” by the press back in 1985, but the drama Colin is praising trashed her and turned her into some cheap Wednesday night TV character. Cressida chimed in with the templated recitation, so popular now, that there is more understanding about mental illness these days. This brought the only flash of authenticity that came out of Colin when he expressed scepticism about this and said, “Everyone is wearing their hearts on their sleeves now”, implying that it might have all gone a bit too far. Lorraine quickly shot him down. Not very nice of you, Lorraine! But Colin meekly agreed. It’s Lorraine’s show, don’t forget. Don’t push it, Colin!
Why is it that in the hands of these dull people, all women are “fragile”? If Sheila really was as fragile as they say, what was Colin doing leaving the children with her? It’s not as if he needed hindsight. Why does he assume that her “fragility” could not motivate her to murder? Why would multiple fatal shootings committed at close range require a marksman? Why is it important to know whether Sheila could handle the gun? It was practically a toy gun. A child could handle one. How could a woman diagnosed with schizophrenia, who is acknowledged to still suffer symptoms despite medication, be permitted supervision of two six-year-old boys? That’s astonishing. Apart from that, how could Sheila have been allowed to continue on medication that affects basic functioning? And what is all this about her skipping down Pages Lane with her sons on the day before the shootings? Another thing: how did Sheila manage to keep herself clean and do her nails, etc., if her medication caused severe motor impediments? How does this, again, fit in with her being allowed custody of the boys? What caused her fragility? Was it anything to do with you, Colin? Colin may complain about the portrayal of Sheila by an open and free press, but they were reporting on a matter of public interest in which it was believed Sheila had shot her family. That’s what the press do. Exactly what should they have done differently? Colin denies Sheila was a drug addict and upbraids the press for suggesting it, but the drama itself shows her taking hard drugs. Closer to home, does he accept that in private his own treatment of her was less than stellar? Not just things that would be run-of-the-mill between married couples, but more serious behaviour such as sleeping with another woman during Sheila’s 21st. birthday party, possibly encouraging her to go into modelling, allowing her to abort at least one unborn child for non-medical reasons due to pressure from June, and leaving her while she was pregnant with the twins. Questions like these won’t be asked by Lorraine.
It sounds like Colin isn’t the questioning type either. He tells Lorraine:
“When it first happened, I didn’t want anything to disturb my original memories of the children. I didn’t want to see the bodies, I didn’t want to identify them, so I didn’t let anybody tell me anything, so I kind of accepted the story and was completed seduced by Jeremy.”
Didn’t want to identify the bodies? The father? This is nonsense. The father of two dead boys would demand to see his sons’ bodies at the mortuary forthwith and would be interrogating everybody in sight, questioning the family, Jeremy, and the police. Indeed, most fathers in that situation would be screaming blue murder. In an interview he gave for This Morning, Colin says that he began to become suspicious of Jeremy due to certain incidents in which he behaved obnoxiously or inappropriately:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afIXWrexiWk
The reality is that Colin accepted what he was told by everybody at every stage, both before and after suspicion fell on Jeremy, and fitted his understanding of the facts into whatever was the dominant view. That is Colin Caffell’s character: to fit in, to accommodate, to appease, to be intimidated (as he was by June), to say sensitive things at the right moment. He is a master of tone, not content. To believe the killer of his sons could not have been Sheila, he has to omit from consideration facts that indicate it could have been Sheila and he must disingenuously aver, as he did to Lorraine, that the killer needed to be a marksman.
The ’mmm’ing’ and ‘yessing’, from motherly Lorraine to indicate agreement helps round it all off, giving the occasion the feel of a women’s coffee morning at some executive detached home in placid middle-class suburbia. Indeed, the conversation – it’s not really an interview – takes place on a comfortable sofa against a faux-domestic backdrop similar to the kind you would expect in a bland, but well-appointed home. This soup is made for an audience, but it’s not about what the audience wants, it’s what Lorraine – their figurative Mother – insists is good for them: a feminine public environment, in which there is great pressure towards an emotionally-safe orthodoxy, and difficult and awkward questions, problems and issues are swept under the carpet. After all, we are all fragile.
True crime, then, is more than hobbyism and entertainment or business. It is a matter of political economy even. On the morning of the 7th. August 1985, a crack opened in the ordered reality of things and an explosion of violence wiped out a family and crushed a man’s dreams and hopes for his sons. The Lorraine format trivialises the horror, agony and awesome cruelty of this as much as Tom and Ben do. We are admonished not to ask questions, only to ‘feel’ and adopt the right tone and join in the tut-tut over vulgar minutiae. What would be the implications if the authorities have drawn the wrong solution? What would be the implications for individuals - Colin, the relatives - who have built their entire lives on the belief Jeremy Bamber is a mass murderer? Little wonder they implore us to accept what we have been told, though much of it makes nil sense. Moreover, Colin’s narrative of a fragile Sheila fits the Zeitgeist, in which women are good and men are bad, and Colin himself is a sort of janissarial man assigned to deliver this message. I don’t doubt that, in addition, they would not have Colin on if they did not think the backstory was titillating for their audience; the validation that Colin enjoys under the cloak of Manicheanism has a price, and there is a price for us in the lack of depth and seriousness.
Do you see yourself as some sort of intellectual giant? More like pseudo-intellectual imo.
-
Do you see yourself as some sort of intellectual giant? More like pseudo-intellectual imo.
It may be best, then, if you skip my posts and bother somebody else?
-
With some hesitation, I offer you a podcast on the case from a YouTube channel called ‘I Could Murder A Podcast’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL1W9uvMpic
I don’t like this podcast and didn’t particularly enjoy it. Like many of these things, it may be a good watch for someone of average intelligence who is new to the case and is in need of a nice, easy introduction. At times, Tom and Ben are quite comical in a negative way in that they fall into very basic factual errors: just one example is that they declare early on that Sheila was born a Caffell, which comes as quite a revelation to me as I am sure it will for all of you.
These sorts of podcasts have appeared as the case has penetrated mainstream web culture in the wake of the 2020 dramatisation, which revived popular interest. Inevitably this in turn results in the dumbing-down and vulgarising of discussion. Tom and Ben mention about Jeremy growing weed. Tom and Ben look like the types who would grow weed themselves (not that I can talk given my adventures with magic mushrooms). They are like teenagers in their bedrooms. Mam and Dad are downstairs presumably. The two of them dress childishly, have squeaky, non-masculine voices, with the tattoos on display that are, I assume, intended to make them look masculine but instead make them look ridiculous. They are both wearing headphones and staring at screens from which they read and rely on totally for information. Look at them carefully. They have ‘screen eyes’ – very much they are creatures of the Information Society. A pair of robots with no real thoughts of their own. A Ones and Zeroes culture, a digital world in every refined sense; a world of dichotomies in which judgement ceases, facts are relegated in importance, and what matters is what you – yes, you! – think about it all. There is a long dialogue in which Tom and Ben go through the case chronology with music in the background and insistent voices, as if they need to hurry this bit along before they move to the important bit in which they tell us what they think. What I Think has taken over in importance from Facts. The result is psychotic screeching on public fora, and an ADHD generation that needs background music when anything requires attention or concentration.
None of this is new, though. Vulgarisation was a heavy feature of Victorian literary culture. Even the great English novelists, Charles Dickens and Wilkie Collins – the Shakespeares of the novel – were considered vulgar and cheap in their own time, though Collins self-consciously lampooned the vulgar culture and has one of his best characters go on a hysterical national tour regaling working-class audiences with her obscene adventures. Collins could have been writing of today. Dickens was a self-published ha’penny bit writer. The novel itself is, arguably, a signal of a vulgar and degenerate culture. At the same time, one aspect of the vulgarisation, the use of humour, is a very English thing. It is typical of English people to make light of the darkest things. We live on a small, dark, wet, windy island, now quite crowded, and successive generations of working-class English people have undergone appalling conditions of adversity, including industrialism, indentured servitude in the colonies, and before that, the impositions of feudalism I am told that, before the Normans, the Old English had some sort of golden age of liberty from which the famous English attachment to liberalism can be traced, but if so, then the Anglo-Saxons can’t have had a sense of humour. Humour comes out of darkness, misfortune and adversity, or it loses its force.
A different aspect of vulgarisation, more dignified, and that is presented as more respectable, is that served up to us by the established mainstream culture: on the terrestrial TV channels and radio, and their virtual offshoots. Morning TV shows presented by vapid dullards, sententious dramatisations, various documentaries, talks from Carol Ann Lee – all vulgarise the White House Farm tragedy to some extent. Colin Caffell gave his input to one or two morning TV shows with contested anecdotes about Jeremy’s dark humour and racy behaviour with Julie; however his own book, In Search of the Rainbow’s End, is a more considered examination of the case, albeit entwined with flights of fancy.
As the 2020 TV drama began - based on books by Carol Ann Lee and Colin Caffell respectively - it was strange seeing Colin congratulate Cressida Bonas, an actress, on her portrayal of Sheila. Here is the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUn9hIdNDVI
This was on a show called Lorraine. Lorraine wants us to see her as our friend. It’s Lorraine. Just call me Lorraine. Sheila was portrayed in that drama snorting coke up her nose and with serious mental health problems, and generally as a quite one-dimensional character. But Lorraine thinks the drama treats those tragic events with “real sensitivity” and Colin lathers the producers with praise. He “liked them and trusted them” and gushed to Cressida about her uncanny portrayal: “it is Sheila at that time”, Cressida “picked up the fragility of her character” and gave us a “wonderful heartfelt insight into that”. This is another hint towards Colin’s people-pleasing disingenuousness.
Lorraine complained about how Sheila’s reputation was “trashed” by the press back in 1985, but the drama Colin is praising trashed her and turned her into some cheap Wednesday night TV character. Cressida chimed in with the templated recitation, so popular now, that there is more understanding about mental illness these days. This brought the only flash of authenticity that came out of Colin when he expressed scepticism about this and said, “Everyone is wearing their hearts on their sleeves now”, implying that it might have all gone a bit too far. Lorraine quickly shot him down. Not very nice of you, Lorraine! But Colin meekly agreed. It’s Lorraine’s show, don’t forget. Don’t push it, Colin!
Why is it that in the hands of these dull people, all women are “fragile”? If Sheila really was as fragile as they say, what was Colin doing leaving the children with her? It’s not as if he needed hindsight. Why does he assume that her “fragility” could not motivate her to murder? Why would multiple fatal shootings committed at close range require a marksman? Why is it important to know whether Sheila could handle the gun? It was practically a toy gun. A child could handle one. How could a woman diagnosed with schizophrenia, who is acknowledged to still suffer symptoms despite medication, be permitted supervision of two six-year-old boys? That’s astonishing. Apart from that, how could Sheila have been allowed to continue on medication that affects basic functioning? And what is all this about her skipping down Pages Lane with her sons on the day before the shootings? Another thing: how did Sheila manage to keep herself clean and do her nails, etc., if her medication caused severe motor impediments? How does this, again, fit in with her being allowed custody of the boys? What caused her fragility? Was it anything to do with you, Colin? Colin may complain about the portrayal of Sheila by an open and free press, but they were reporting on a matter of public interest in which it was believed Sheila had shot her family. That’s what the press do. Exactly what should they have done differently? Colin denies Sheila was a drug addict and upbraids the press for suggesting it, but the drama itself shows her taking hard drugs. Closer to home, does he accept that in private his own treatment of her was less than stellar? Not just things that would be run-of-the-mill between married couples, but more serious behaviour such as sleeping with another woman during Sheila’s 21st. birthday party, possibly encouraging her to go into modelling, allowing her to abort at least one unborn child for non-medical reasons due to pressure from June, and leaving her while she was pregnant with the twins. Questions like these won’t be asked by Lorraine.
It sounds like Colin isn’t the questioning type either. He tells Lorraine:
“When it first happened, I didn’t want anything to disturb my original memories of the children. I didn’t want to see the bodies, I didn’t want to identify them, so I didn’t let anybody tell me anything, so I kind of accepted the story and was completed seduced by Jeremy.”
Didn’t want to identify the bodies? The father? This is nonsense. The father of two dead boys would demand to see his sons’ bodies at the mortuary forthwith and would be interrogating everybody in sight, questioning the family, Jeremy, and the police. Indeed, most fathers in that situation would be screaming blue murder. In an interview he gave for This Morning, Colin says that he began to become suspicious of Jeremy due to certain incidents in which he behaved obnoxiously or inappropriately:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afIXWrexiWk
The reality is that Colin accepted what he was told by everybody at every stage, both before and after suspicion fell on Jeremy, and fitted his understanding of the facts into whatever was the dominant view. That is Colin Caffell’s character: to fit in, to accommodate, to appease, to be intimidated (as he was by June), to say sensitive things at the right moment. He is a master of tone, not content. To believe the killer of his sons could not have been Sheila, he has to omit from consideration facts that indicate it could have been Sheila and he must disingenuously aver, as he did to Lorraine, that the killer needed to be a marksman.
The ’mmm’ing’ and ‘yessing’, from motherly Lorraine to indicate agreement helps round it all off, giving the occasion the feel of a women’s coffee morning at some executive detached home in placid middle-class suburbia. Indeed, the conversation – it’s not really an interview – takes place on a comfortable sofa against a faux-domestic backdrop similar to the kind you would expect in a bland, but well-appointed home. This soup is made for an audience, but it’s not about what the audience wants, it’s what Lorraine – their figurative Mother – insists is good for them: a feminine public environment, in which there is great pressure towards an emotionally-safe orthodoxy, and difficult and awkward questions, problems and issues are swept under the carpet. After all, we are all fragile.
True crime, then, is more than hobbyism and entertainment or business. It is a matter of political economy even. On the morning of the 7th. August 1985, a crack opened in the ordered reality of things and an explosion of violence wiped out a family and crushed a man’s dreams and hopes for his sons. The Lorraine format trivialises the horror, agony and awesome cruelty of this as much as Tom and Ben do. We are admonished not to ask questions, only to ‘feel’ and adopt the right tone and join in the tut-tut over vulgar minutiae. What would be the implications if the authorities have drawn the wrong solution? What would be the implications for individuals - Colin, the relatives - who have built their entire lives on the belief Jeremy Bamber is a mass murderer? Little wonder they implore us to accept what we have been told, though much of it makes nil sense. Moreover, Colin’s narrative of a fragile Sheila fits the Zeitgeist, in which women are good and men are bad, and Colin himself is a sort of janissarial man assigned to deliver this message. I don’t doubt that, in addition, they would not have Colin on if they did not think the backstory was titillating for their audience; the validation that Colin enjoys under the cloak of Manicheanism has a price, and there is a price for us in the lack of depth and seriousness.
There's so much that is factually wrong with the above I really can't be bothered to correct you save to say Sheila did not have custody of the boys post her breakdown March 1985.
-
It may be best, then, if you skip my posts and bother somebody else?
:)
-
It may be best, then, if you skip my posts and bother somebody else?
Subject to forum rules I decide whose posts to repond to. I will certainly not be taking any lectures from you.
-
Do you see yourself as some sort of intellectual giant? More like pseudo-intellectual imo.
Once again you are doing your best to be controversial
Have you heard of the word honesty
You posted for a long time on the red believing Jeremy was innocent
You were banned on here for bad behaviour but you used to abuse Lookout terribly from the safety of the red
You won’t answer the question have you changed stance
It’s absolutely ****ing pathetic. I can only put it down to your well publicised problem with drink
-
There's so much that is factually wrong with the above I really can't be bothered to correct you save to say Sheila did not have custody of the boys post her breakdown March 1985.
I did not say that she had. She was worried about losing access to the boys. You've taken a single word out of context to suggest that I think she had the boys all the time, which I know she did not. She had an arrangement with Colin. Strictly, both had 'custody', so what I said remains true and what you say is - as usual - a misunderstanding of facts and circumstances you claim to know well but don't.
-
Subject to forum rules I decide whose posts to repond to. I will certainly not be taking any lectures from you.
I'm not lecturing you. I'm suggesting that if you find my posts annoying or unhelpful, you should skip them, which would seem the sensible thing to do.
If instead you wish to continue responding to my posts, then I suggest that you re-read the Forum Rules.
-
Social services clearly didn't have the benefit of your opinion on the subject, so had to rely on their combined wealth of experience. Subsequently, they came to the decision that with the combined support of Colin -who had joint custody- and her parents, Sheila was capable of looking after the boys on those occasions when she had them. She may have been somewhat slap-happy in her approach, but Colin never described her as being less than a loving mother.
Social services clearly also didn't have the benefit of June's opinion on the subject, who - apparently - asked much the same questions that I now ask. Perhaps Nevill did too?
-
I did not say that she had. She was worried about losing access to the boys. You've taken a single word out of context to suggest that I think she had the boys all the time, which I know she did not. She had an arrangement with Colin. Strictly, both had 'custody', so what I said remains true and what you say is - as usual - a misunderstanding of facts and circumstances you claim to know well but don't.
On what basis was Sheila worried about losing access to the boys?
-
Once again you are doing your best to be controversial
Have you heard of the word honesty
You posted for a long time on the red believing Jeremy was innocent
You were banned on here for bad behaviour but you used to abuse Lookout terribly from the safety of the red
You won’t answer the question have you changed stance
It’s absolutely ****ing pathetic. I can only put it down to your well publicised problem with drink
I believe you have at various times been banned from both forums?
If I have a "well publicised problem with drink" perhaps you could publish such?
-
On what basis was Sheila worried about losing access to the boys?
Good question. I'm not sure exactly why, but it is common ground that she was. I would assume that it was just a general worry arising from her ongoing struggle with mental illness.
-
I believe you have at various times been banned from both forums?
If I have a "well publicised problem with drink" perhaps you could publish such?
Your numerous personal phone calls to me
-
Your numerous personal phone calls to me
Ooooh! Are you going to share with us how you take screen shots to use against posters at a later date?
-
Ooooh! Are you going to share with us how you take screen shots to use against posters at a later date?
More evidence that you have lost the plot. What a sad life you leave
You just keep getting egg on your face
-
More evidence that you have lost the plot. What a sad life you leave
You just keep getting egg on your face
Oh dear! I hope it's just a slip of your memory and not a sign of something more ominous. I certain there are others here who recall you threatening to reveal their past posts. And then there's the mention of personal phone calls which has a somewhat threatening tone to it. Surely I can't be the only one who's been so threatened? WHAT exactly are you implying by your use of the word "leave"!!!???
-
I think people should keep personal tiffs and arguments, such as those in the post above, in the PM system or take it off the Forum.
-
I think people should keep personal tiffs and arguments, such as those in the post above, in the PM system or take it off the Forum.
The trouble is Jane always gets personal. She has no life.
Shes sulking because I posted the proof Colin made out on National Tv he was getting back with Sheila
-
Oh dear! I hope it's just a slip of your memory and not a sign of something more ominous. I certain there are others here who recall you threatening to reveal their past posts. And then there's the mention of personal phone calls which has a somewhat threatening tone to it. Surely I can't be the only one who's been so threatened? WHAT exactly are you implying by your use of the word "leave"!!!???
You had better have proof of what you have just written above. You have been warned.
Most of the honest decent people on here have seen the threats I was sent by PM from your mate Mat.
Not only did your mate Mat threaten me physical violence he went on to set up a fake Twitter account to put out personal details about NGB
I have warned you and I will take further action if you tell lies on this forum.
As for posting old posts I will continue to do that where necessary
-
The trouble is Jane always gets personal. She has no life.
Shes sulking because I posted the proof Colin made out on National Tv he was getting back with Sheila
You may be right. I've been sulking because Adam dissects my scenarios (which is painful, but better than dissecting a kidney) and won't recommend me for the CT. But in all seriousness, can we move on now?
-
You had better have proof of what you have just written above. You have been warned.
Most of the honest decent people on here have seen the threats I was sent by PM from your mate Mat.
Not only did your mate Mat threaten me physical violence he went on to set up a fake Twitter account to put out personal details about NGB
I have warned you and I will take further action if you tell lies on this forum.
As for posting old posts I will continue to do that where necessary
Jackie, you ARE the proof. You're the one who does the threatening. You're doing it now. I have absolutely NO idea what may -or may NOT!!- have gone on between you and Matt. All I can say is that, from what I've been subjected to, from you, it's highly likely that you played a large part in him giving you back some of what you dish out.
-
You may be right. I've been sulking because Adam dissects my scenarios (which is painful, but better than dissecting a kidney) and won't recommend me for the CT. But in all seriousness, can we move on now?
I wish we could but I have had years of thus behaviour from people who are not impartial to the case. This crap is written on a daily basis just to disrupt the forum yet these people never come up with any real evidence to proof Jeremy was the killer
-
Jackie, you ARE the proof. You're the one who does the threatening. You're doing it now. I have absolutely NO idea what may -or may NOT!!- have gone on between you and Matt. All I can say is that, from what I've been subjected to, from you, it's highly likely that you played a large part in him giving you back some of what you dish out.
So now you are condoning physical violence towards women from trolls.
That says everything about you Jane
You really are a vile piece of work. How do you sleep at night
-
Your numerous personal phone calls to me
Same here. She once rang me asking me to email her John Haywards trial testimony. So she could "go over it with a bottle of wine".
-
I wish we could but I have had years of thus behaviour from people who are not impartial to the case. This crap is written on a daily basis just to disrupt the forum yet these people never come up with any real evidence to proof Jeremy was the killer
So how about giving us some evidence to prove he wasn't. I'm afraid that claiming he was standing outside with police won't exonerate him. Even more, how about giving some evidence to prove Sheila did it?
-
Same here. She once rang me asking me to email her John Haywards trial testimony. So she could "go over it with a bottle of wine".
You're lucky, David. The only calls I get are at 3 a.m. from Adam, offering moral support. I still haven't got over my crush on Jeremy and Adam not recommending me for the CT. I'm still sulking. That's two blows in one year! And as for Myster not letting me join in at Cluedo, let's not start on that. Even Steve's on my side there!
-
So now you are condoning physical violence towards women from trolls.
That says everything about you Jane
You really are a vile piece of work. How do you sleep at night
Tell me where I said that, eh. How do I even know you're a woman?
-
You're lucky, David. The only calls I get are at 3 a.m. from Adam, offering moral support. I still haven't got over my crush on Jeremy and Adam not recommending me for the CT. I'm still sulking. That's two blows in one year! And as for Myster not letting me join in at Cluedo, let's not start on that. Even Steve's on my side there!
Does Adam gish gallop over the phone?
-
Your numerous personal phone calls to me
Was this person drunk then when calling or what? Why did you accept the calls and not report them as "nuisance"?
-
Does Adam gish gallop over the phone?
David the grass & coward.
Couldn't even be open about a stance change.
-
Same here. She once rang me asking me to email her John Haywards trial testimony. So she could "go over it with a bottle of wine".
Maybe she wanted to carry out an experiment to see if the blood might have been red wine :-\
-
Maybe she wanted to carry out an experiment to see if the blood might have been red wine :-\
David is being a grass again.
-
David is being a grass again.
Think I've read somewhere he met with this Holly bird and shared his 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. If I'm supposed to be this person it begs the question why I haven't spilled the beans in retribution. And why is he so bothered what she thinks if, according to him, her mind is addled from booze?
-
Does Adam gish gallop over the phone?
He does a bit. In an effort to motivate me, he wanted to read out 76 Reasons Why QCChevalier Is On The Up. Even I had to ask him to stop on the third occasion.
-
Tell me where I said that, eh. How do I even know you're a woman?
In response to me getting a pm from Matt saying something will happen to me if I don’t step away from the case
From you
it's highly likely that you played a large part in him giving you back some of what you dish out.
Matt was a troll if you want proof
The threat came after my involvement in the case and introducing Simon McKay and Mark WT
-
Was this person drunk then when calling or what? Why did you accept the calls and not report them as "nuisance"?
I felt sorry for you I recognised you had a serious problem
-
I felt sorry for you I recognised you had a serious problem
Awww kudos. Did you take her gently under your wing and offer her kind words of support? Did you refer her to AA? That's Alcoholics Anonymous not Aunt Agatha ;D
-
In response to me getting a pm from Matt saying something will happen to me if I don’t step away from the case
From you
it's highly likely that you played a large part in him giving you back some of what you dish out.
Matt was a troll if you want proof
The threat came after my involvement in the case and introducing Simon McKay and Mark WT
Oh dear, Jackie. Your education is sadly lacking. You really should get to grips with the nuances of our beautiful language. Then, perhaps you'd stop trying to adulterate what I say. I said that "it's highly likely.........". Nowhere did I make the categoric claim that you did. Why would I?
What I can say, though, is this. IF you make the same mistakes about reading others' words in the same way you misread mine, there is very good reason to think that they didn't say what you claim them to have said?
-
I did not say that she had. She was worried about losing access to the boys. You've taken a single word out of context to suggest that I think she had the boys all the time, which I know she did not. She had an arrangement with Colin. Strictly, both had 'custody', so what I said remains true and what you say is - as usual - a misunderstanding of facts and circumstances you claim to know well but don't.
There's no evidence of this. The medication made her lethargic and drowsy, which is why she overslept in the morning and the boys were late for school. But there were no threats as far as I can see that she would be deprived of Nicholas and Daniel.
-
I think people should keep personal tiffs and arguments, such as those in the post above, in the PM system or take it off the Forum.
You mean like your outburst against NGB1066..
-
You mean like your outburst against NGB1066..
You're back and at it again.
When will this stop?
-
You're back and at it again.
When will this stop?
Don't lecture us on Forum Rules. I'd rather take lessons in policing from Wayne Couzens.
-
I've been out buying up M&S today ;D
-
Don't lecture us on Forum Rules. I'd rather take lessons in policing from Wayne Couzens.
What? I'm not lecturing you. What are talking about?