Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: guest29835 on December 20, 2021, 10:47:PM
-
Is Julie Mugford a murderer?
I refer to Julie Mugford, not Julie Smerchanski. In my mind, I split them into two different people. Julie Smerchanski is a respected education official and mother (probably grandmother) in western Canada. Julie Mugford is far, far behind her. Please understand that in what I am about to say, I mean no slight on Julie Smerchanski, a very different person. If offence is taken, by Mrs. Smerchanski herself (assuming she reads this) or by sensitive people who vicariously take offence on behalf of others, I cannot help that. The opening question must be asked.
A quasi-murderer, is what I mean. A murderer in the semi-formed sense that is in that twilight zone between law and impunity. A young lass, immature and suggestible, who got carried along in the excitement of her relationship with Jeremy Bamber. At least, that is the starting-point.
Admirably, Julie wanted to become a teacher from an early age, and she possessed some academic ability, but the headmistress of Julie’s secondary school reports she was an average student. Education is a fine and noble profession to enter, but it is not the most demanding course on a university campus and not known for attracting geniuses. I only say this to emphasise that we should keep Julie’s abilities in perspective. There is no shame in being an ‘average’ student, and Julie worked hard, but she was ordinary in ability. Only somewhat bright.
Jeremy was not ordinary, but nor was he extraordinary. In the autumn of 1983, at the age of 22, we find the principal heir to the Bamber-Speakman estates working at Sloppy Joe’s, a pizzeria in Colchester. Nothing wrong with that, and it does contradict somewhat the suggestions that Jeremy was not hardworking. Lazy people do not tend to take such evening jobs after a day working as a farm labourer-cum-supervisor. At Sloppy Joe’s, something important happens: he gets to know a waitress, one Julie Mugford, a plain girl but pursuing a professional career, as just mentioned. The relationship would reach its height during Julie's stay at Bourtree Cottage over the Christmas period of 1984, when Jeremy proposed to her.
Yet the engagement never had currency. Jeremy renounced it at a Mugford family get-together later in 1985, in the company of Brett Collins (who perhaps influenced things). We also know that throughout the 1983-85 period of their relationship, and especially during the first half of 1984, Jeremy was sleeping with other women and making no effort to hide it. Julie is plain-looking and lacks confidence. She was humiliated by Jeremy.
Yet she stayed with him. Why?
Explaining it first from Jeremy’s point-of-view, his relationship with Julie was important not for him, but for June and Nevill. There are signs that June did not take to Julie personally (rashly calling her a “harlot” and so on), but at the same time we can say that, broadly speaking, Julie was the type of person that Jeremy could have been expected to marry: a seemingly nice, unobtrusive, girl-next-door, who would bring stability to Jeremy. It may be that subconsciously Jeremy took to Julie in this vein, in that he wanted to appease June. In a sense, it could be argued that Julie was a facsimile of June. Suddenly Julie sees the opportunity to become a ‘Lady of the Manor’, a radical shift of gear for an ordinary middle-class girl from suburban Colchester, who aspired to a conventional career as a primary school teacher.
A major purpose of post-War mass higher education was not academic, but the socialisation of the middle-classes. It remains the case to an extent today that when young people attend university, an expectation is that they establish an initial network of social contacts who will become the basis of social, business and professional contacts in their future careers. Often graduates can boast that they met their future spouses at university. This did not happen in Julie's case. There was no steady relationship with a boring, middle-class physics undergraduate from Runcorn or some such place. Instead, she alights on Dallas: she meets Jeremy and dreams suddenly become real.
That nagging question comes up again. Was it Julie’s initiative all along? Was she the pursuer and the motive force in the relationship? Did she pick up on a vulnerability in Jeremy, something she noticed perhaps at Sloppy Joe’s? Or did Jeremy decide to leverage his “Rich Man In Waiting” spiel to secure a naïve, impressionable, suburban Colchester girl whom he knew would be more impressed by his yarns than the attractive farmers’ daughters and sundry other issue of the affluent and well-connecteds?
Dallas was not real. Nor were those Victorian lady and gentleman characters Julie must have read about in English literature classes at the creditable high school she attended. They were not really real in the time of the writers who created them. A bit like J.R. Ewing being an exaggeration of real Texans, the characters of Austen, Hardy and the Brontës were, similarly, skilfully- (and sometimes, subtly-) caricatured representations of English class tensions. Yet there must have been a touch of glamour to Jeremy and a sense of future promise that attracted Julie and touched on her own material aspirations. Aside from that, Jeremy was unconventional and offered her excitement, but he was not a Mr Darcy or a Colonel Fitzwilliam (nor was Julie an Elizabeth Bennett). Relying on the guilt camp, we would say Jeremy was more of a John Willoughby character, but there are aspects of the narrative that seem as unreal as a novel, almost as if Jeremy and Julie were playing out a fantastical script for a plot only they were aware of and kept to themselves. The Julie-Jeremy story is more like a dark fairy tale.
Consider:
Jeremy decides he wants to kill his family. This was not just Jeremy blowing off. He is serious about it, to the extent that in conversations with Julie, he works through the pros and cons of various plans in quite a sophisticated way – weighing up the insurance implications, for instance.
Jeremy tests Julie’s sleeping tablets on himself to see if they might work as tranquilisers on his family.
Julie knows that Jeremy practises strangling rats to give himself the necessary courage for the murders.
Julie tells nobody of these incidents, obliquely explaining to the police later that she thought it was a “charade” on Jeremy’s part and anyway she was “besotted” with him. Julie’s explanation here is obviously not credible. We know from her own admissions that it was not a “charade” (an odd, illiterate choice of wording anyway). We can allow that a young woman might be so ‘besotted’ with her man that she overlooks flaws, covers for him in situations, tells white lies, etc. But Jeremy was plotting in detail to kill five people. It’s too big. It’s not the equivalent of, say, the Maxine Carr situation, in which Ian Huntley had lied to Carr, and on that basis, Carr told her own lie to the police. It’s worse. Jeremy wasn’t even lying to her: quite the opposite, he was revealing the deepest darkest corners of his soul to her.
To further erode Julie’s credibility, we can point to her criminal admissions: she admits selling drugs for Jeremy; she admits that Jeremy, with Julie’s help, breaks into the site office at Osea Road, steals money, and they spend it. She also admits committing cheque fraud in her own right with Susan Battersby – nothing to do with Jeremy at all, but they both tried to blame him for it anyway. Later, she receives a handsome pay-out from a seedy tabloid after posing for racy pictures.
Under cross-examination at trial, Julie is asked why she volunteered to identify the bodies lying in the mortuary. Her answer for the jury was that she believed that the dead could communicate with the living, so she wanted to give it a try and see if they would talk to her. Yet there is no mention of these beliefs of Julie’s from anybody else who knew her, either before or after the incident. Perhaps Julie’s odd confession of faith was a bit of fancy that came out unintentionally in a nervous moment under the pressure of being questioned by an experienced barrister? This is plausible. I have experienced similar situations, and also been interviewed by the media, and I can say that public speaking is a very difficult skill to master, perhaps because it is so unnatural, and it is very easy to blurt out something that you don’t mean and even say the opposite thing to what you wanted to say. It’s also well-known within the legal profession that the most truthful witnesses are often the most nervous and difficult in court. But there is also a need sometimes for ordinary people of the Julie type to insert some colour into what may otherwise be a dour, unexciting life. This is common in a culture where the work ethic is paramount. In much the same vein as her attraction to Jeremy, maybe she was offering up something that might distinguish her from the otherwise rather dull person she knew deep down she really was?
We are all like this. Admit it. You are. You like to pretend, to ‘larp’, in the lingo of today’s disaffected teenager. To pretend that your life is more interesting than it is or that you are more interesting that your own life will allow. Maybe you told a little lie to that attractive woman who got your pulse racing at the café? Or you invented something minor on a CV? Or you have pretended to have a hobby that you only vaguely know anything about, just to seem more interesting? In the past, the young men and women of provincial England would seek out the city lights and, in a few cases, they would be ensnared by those lights and the dangerous but alluring life that the darkness of the city promised. Perhaps that was Sheila? Yet, whatever her motivation for the confabulated conjuring of a Spirit World at trial, Julie had not been living a pretentious existence with Jeremy, nor was she larping. The boring suburban Julie was, in fact, very much grounded and living in her own hyper-reality in 1984 and 1985. It was real, very real, but a living real-life exaggeration of the real. Secret murder plots, illicit drug dealing, country houses, foreign trips, farming families full of old Essex characters, and variegated Bonnie & Clyde antics - like something out of a novel in which she is one of the main characters, but not as exciting for the reader as the mainstay, ‘Jerry’ himself. Was she implicated more than she officially admits? The sleeping tablets, tales of euthanised rats, and discussing the finer points of home contents insurance, all seem at one remove, where she is more the passive agent than active collaborator, whereas the caravan robbery and drug peddling has her assisting Jeremy willingly. But is that all there is to it? Or was she directing Jeremy at times? During the Osea Road robbery, Jeremy goes back to the car to ask for her help to reach for a key left in a letter cage behind the door. That seems like an odd thing to do, as she would not be any more capable of such a feat than Jeremy; indeed, Jeremy manages it himself in the end. It’s as if Jeremy has returned to the car to tell her he can’t do it and they’d better go, and Julie decides instead to lend a hand, so to speak. She also seemed to have no objection when it came to spending the money taken from the site office. Had the earlier murder plots gone ahead, would Julie have accepted that money too and stepped effortlessly into her new role as feoffee of White House Farm?
Throughout the natural history of our species, violence - the threat and fear of it as much as the actuality of it – has been used as a means of constraint and control over individuals and general populations. Civilisation gradually pushed violence to the margins, and technological civilisation has made us observers of violence and subject only to the magisterial threat of violence through sovereign law rather than day-to-day threats of a tribal chief or thug. We are so used to living under a bourgeois social order that promises to assure peace under law that when, exceptionally, violence happens to us, it almost seems like a fissure in reality itself, rather than merely something outside the norm, as if we have caught a glimpse through a keyhole of a distantly primeval time. The more distant we are from actual violence, the more other-worldly real violence seems and the more important the second-hand and virtual portrayal of violence becomes to us. Media violence - news clips, Hollywood films, and the like – present us with a contrived and remote reality that we cannot experience but that reinforces the threat of, and instils in us a fear of, violence and other people and helps to ensure conformity.
The French philosopher, Jean Baudrillard, critiqued the passive experiences of Man in advanced civilisation, in which tools and technique have replaced natural experience and created a reality in which life is no longer a series of personal experiences but an emulation of experience, and everyday people are deprived of authentic experiences in their lives. This is a concept of hyper-reality that is slightly different to the fiction-come-alive-as-reality of Julie’s experiences with Jeremy, but Baudrillard’s hyper-reality is closely-related to it in that a world of emulation and simulation is vulnerable to fictive narratives that, instead of coming alive as reality, simply are superimposed on a remotely-observed reality through distortion and manipulation: a Hyper-Reality that is false, virtual or simulated, depending on the precise context. Here we arrive at a possible explanation for the propounding of organised, even system-wide, falsehoods that are not only condoned, but genuinely shared as truth and believed, and may not even represent an engineered reality, per se, rather could be lies that arise organically from mutually-reinforcing deceptions. Deprived of authentic situations, we invent a reality for ourselves that simulates experiences – that is to say, a hyper-reality, but of a somewhat fictive variety. This pseudo-reality becomes reinforcing and shared to the point that it is indistinguishable from ‘real’ reality – a post-reality, if you like, that drugs the liar and turns him into a truthteller, but a truthful teller of lies. The ‘truth-lie’ could be a murder, a political scandal, a sensational legal trial or even an entire war (one of Baudrillard’s books is called The Gulf War Did Not Take Place – I recommend it).
Let us also look through the Fourth Wall and consider reader observation, as literary theorists would call it. True crime could be considered a hyper-reality in that it is an exaggerated representation of reality, for literary purposes. We see it from the comfort of our computers. We don’t actually see or feel it. We don’t experience it, the blood, gore, tragedy, loss. It is an academic escape, entertainment and hobbyism. Maybe this helps explain why Julie had to ‘observe’ and ‘touch’, and visit the mortuary? This hyper-reality had to be really real for her. Perhaps, in her head, she then confused the Real Hyper-Reality of her varied escapades with Jeremy with a more fictive or wishful version in which the killer is Jeremy. Verbal suggestion and inference may also have entered the picture. Jeremy does hate his family and tells her 'this and that' about himself and his parents. That morning, he tells her, “I should have been an actor”, not because he is the killer, but because, under pressure, with lots of family and official people around him, he was expected to go through the motions emotionally and visibly mourn a family for whom he felt almost nothing. Yet Julie takes “I should have been an actor” and various other utterances as incipient admissions that he, Jeremy, is the killer. Two weeks later, she pursues the topic further and Jeremy kids her on that he paid Matthew McDonald a ridiculously derisory sum of money to kill his entire family of five, including two six year-old boys. Unexpectedly, Julie either interprets this as a confession by Jeremy of his involvement, or twists it into one when she later talks with the police.
When true crime buffs purport to ‘solve’ cold cases, it may fill them with a false sense of skill in that, very often, all the amateur detective has done is make sense of clues arranged in a certain way to fit a solution arising out of his or her own preconceptions or prejudices. Julie claimed to have solved the crime, having direct experience of Jeremy and relaying to the police his confession and various other suspicious incidents; but, was she telling the plain truth or lying? Or was she working in that grey area between truth and lies, rearranging a complex jigsaw to make the facts fit a solution that had been preconceived by her or imposed by the police, or a bit of both? She wasn’t on the payroll of Essex Police, she was an amateur, a witness of fact indeed; but, she was their standout detective.
Can we believe Julie?
There are five possibilities:
1. Julie is telling the absolute truth and Jeremy is guilty. This means she was immature and Jeremy was a deranged lunatic. Case closed.
2. Julie is telling the truth up to a point. Jeremy is guilty, but Julie was involved in the murder plot in some way and has created a ‘prisoners' dilemma’, knowing that Jeremy cannot point the finger at her without incriminating himself, and also knowing that as time goes on, the courts will give little credence to accusations from a future repentant Jeremy. An additional possibility is that the police were aware of Julie’s involvement and that was the basis of her co-operation, thus the 1986 trial was a sham (see one of my threads about this theory, here: https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10296.0.html).
3. Julie is misrepresenting or exaggerating actual conversations with Jeremy. In other words, Jeremy is lying, but he is innocent. He may have essentially said the things she claims, but she has taken it out of context. She may have done this for either innocent or malicious reasons. Jeremy may have joked with her, both before and after the incident, about killing his family. This sounds strange, but it would be consistent with Jeremy’s character, personality and teasing nature to do this.
4. Julie is lying, but Jeremy is guilty. She lied because she knew or rightly suspected he was guilty. This is still perjury, and her lies make the convictions unsafe. It is also possible she was put up to it by the police. A further possibility, which is a variation on the ‘prisoners' dilemma’ theory, is that Julie has lied in an effort to save Jeremy and herself, by deliberately making up an unlikely version of events involving Matthew McDonald, knowing that it can easily be disproved by the police. This plan has then backfired and Julie had no choice but to stand by her story.
5. Julie is lying and Jeremy is innocent. Her motives for lying may have been a variation on 3 above and the police may have assisted her in the genuine belief that Jeremy was guilty, or it may have been purely malice. Either way, the result is the same.
In deciding between these possibilities, we can note the following:
(i). Everything that Julie has said is uncorroborated. There are no witnesses who confirm overhearing Jeremy say the things Julie claims Jeremy told her. There are also no witnesses who confirm Julie was even speaking to Jeremy at the relevant times, with the exception of the conversation in the bedroom at Bourtree Cottage, as Stan Jones confirmed where they were at that point in time.
(ii). If Julie was going to invent a confession by Jeremy, would she include Matthew McDonald? Defenders of Julie say that she must be telling the truth, as a motivated liar would not self-negate her own narrative by picking out a random person in this way to include in a fictitious story. Admittedly, this is a strong point in Julie’s favour, but a response to this is that by including McDonald, it would seem more plausible than if she simply pointed the finger at Jeremy. Maybe she also hoped that the whole thing would be quickly dismissed when the police inevitably discovered McDonald had nothing to do with it. (Indeed, that is what initially happened: Taff Jones decided she was just a silly girl talking nonsense).
(iii). She admits she was besotted with Jeremy but there is evidence the relationship was weakening and Jeremy was sleeping with other women and making no secret of doing so. This would have humiliated Julie, who was plain and probably lacked confidence. Hence she had a motive to resent Jeremy and maybe, in an emotional outburst or an effort for attention, she could have made something up about him or exaggerated real conversations.
(iv). Her details of the crime could have been gleaned from (among other sources):
- an innocent Jeremy, who overheard or gathered the information from the police;
- relatives;
- friends and acquaintances of hers who had heard and read things;
- police officers;
- newspapers and TV.
(v). Julie had direct contact with the family and could have been influenced by them.
(vi). The farmhouse itself is a black box. This is a case with no single piece of evidence that is incriminating or exculpatory and it is not rationally possible to prove or disprove the guilt or innocence of either the two major suspects.
(vii). Julie’s interactions with the police are also a metaphorical black box: we don’t know what she discussed with the police. Normally, we wouldn’t care as it wouldn’t be relevant. A witness’ discussions with the police are not normally considered ‘material’ to a criminal case or subject to disclosure. The reason we care in this case is that Julie’s interactions with the police were so unusual, the entire case rests on her evidence together with the blood in the silencer, and she was involved in criminality herself, including assisting Jeremy in a burglary of the office at the Osea Road caravan park. It is also noted that she stayed at the police college during her initial co-operation with the police, which again is unusual.
(viii). The controversy over whether it was Julie who approached the police or someone else. It has been speculated that she was arrested. It is alleged that the police and CPS refuse to release more information on the basis that the material is immune from disclosure due to public interest.
(ix). The improbability of strangling or euthanising rats.
(x). The absence of any explanation of why the sleeping tablets were left at Bourtree Cottage.
(xi). The 3 a.m. (approx.) phone call and Julie giving police the wrong information about who answered.
(xii). Julie's claim at trial of a belief in spiritualism as a reason for why she wanted to identify the bodies.
(xiii). Julie's conduct after the trial – posing for racy pictures.
(xiv). Julie's post-facto rationalisation for not reporting Jeremy's murder plans: it was, she believed, a “charade” and she was “besotted” with him. Yet a discussion of the finer points of insurance suggests seriousness, not a charade.
(xv). Each of the two key pieces of evidence, the blood in the silencer and Julie’s evidence, is weak on its own. Each only takes on strength in conjunction with the other. Without the silencer, acceptance of Julie’s evidence requires a leap of faith, as it can only stand on her own account. There is no corroboration. In an effort to lend support to Julie’s evidence, friends of hers, and in one instance, Robert Boutflour, gave evidence claiming they had heard Jeremy say things that – even if he did actually say them - he may not have meant or that may have been taken out-of-context.
(xvi). Related to (xv) above, Julie fails to mention the silencer in her own statements, thus the two key pieces of evidence against Jeremy have no connection to each other. This is crucial as it means each piece of evidence can be viewed in isolation, ergo each piece of evidence can be dismissed in isolation to the other.
Decide for yourself. My conclusion from all this is that if Jeremy was involved in the killings, then so was Julie, and the 1986 trial was a sham. She is like an inescapable antithesis to him as they move through time together. Here, in this piece, I have attempted a synthesis. He cannot name her without implicating himself, thus he has to pretend that she is lying entirely.
If, on the other hand, Jeremy is innocent, then Julie Mugford is very probably lying rather than exaggerating real conversations.
Either way, Julie Mugford is wicked and while I appreciate it is possible to defend her on the basis that she did assist in the conviction of Jeremy Bamber, who is widely believed to be guilty, a more realistic appraisal of her must acknowledge and condemn her on the basis of her probable involvement in these crimes.
She got off lightly.
-
Is Julie Mugford a murderer?
I refer to Julie Mugford, not Julie Smerchanski. In my mind, I split them into two different people. Julie Smerchanski is a respected education official and mother (probably grandmother) in western Canada. Julie Mugford is far, far behind her. Please understand that in what I am about to say, I mean no slight on Julie Smerchanski, a very different person. If offence is taken, by Mrs. Smerchanski herself (assuming she reads this) or by sensitive people who vicariously take offence on behalf of others, I cannot help that. The opening question must be asked.
A quasi-murderer, is what I mean. A murderer in the semi-formed sense that is in that twilight zone between law and impunity. A young lass, immature and suggestible, who got carried along in the excitement of her relationship with Jeremy Bamber. At least, that is the starting-point.
Admirably, Julie wanted to become a teacher from an early age, and she possessed some academic ability, but the headmistress of Julie’s secondary school reports she was an average student. Education is a fine and noble profession to enter, but it is not the most demanding course on a university campus and not known for attracting geniuses. I only say this to emphasise that we should keep Julie’s abilities in perspective. There is no shame in being an ‘average’ student, and Julie worked hard, but she was ordinary in ability. Only somewhat bright.
Jeremy was not ordinary, but nor was he extraordinary. In the autumn of 1983, at the age of 22, we find the principal heir to the Bamber-Speakman estates working at Sloppy Joe’s, a pizzeria in Colchester. Nothing wrong with that, and it does contradict somewhat the suggestions that Jeremy was not hardworking. Lazy people do not tend to take such evening jobs after a day working as a farm labourer-cum-supervisor. At Sloppy Joe’s, something important happens: he gets to know a waitress, one Julie Mugford, a plain girl but pursuing a professional career, as just mentioned. The relationship would reach its height during Julie's stay at Bourtree Cottage over the Christmas period of 1984, when Jeremy proposed to her.
Yet the engagement never had currency. Jeremy renounced it at a Mugford family get-together later in 1985, in the company of Brett Collins (who perhaps influenced things). We also know that throughout the 1983-85 period of their relationship, and especially during the first half of 1984, Jeremy was sleeping with other women and making no effort to hide it. Julie is plain-looking and lacks confidence. She was humiliated by Jeremy.
Yet she stayed with him. Why?
Explaining it first from Jeremy’s point-of-view, his relationship with Julie was important not for him, but for June and Nevill. There are signs that June did not take to Julie personally (rashly calling her a “harlot” and so on), but at the same time we can say that, broadly speaking, Julie was the type of person that Jeremy could have been expected to marry: a seemingly nice, unobtrusive, girl-next-door, who would bring stability to Jeremy. It may be that subconsciously Jeremy took to Julie in this vein, in that he wanted to appease June. In a sense, it could be argued that Julie was a facsimile of June. Suddenly Julie sees the opportunity to become a ‘Lady of the Manor’, a radical shift of gear for an ordinary middle-class girl from suburban Colchester, who aspired to a conventional career as a primary school teacher.
A major purpose of post-War mass higher education was not academic, but the socialisation of the middle-classes. It remains the case to an extent today that when young people attend university, an expectation is that they establish an initial network of social contacts who will become the basis of social, business and professional contacts in their future careers. Often graduates can boast that they met their future spouses at university. This did not happen to Julie. There was no steady relationship with a boring, middle-class physics undergraduate from Runcorn or some such place. Instead, she alights on Dallas: she meets Jeremy and dreams suddenly become real.
That nagging question comes up again. Was it Julie’s initiative all along? Was she the pursuer and the motive force in the relationship? Did she pick up on a vulnerability in Jeremy, something she noticed perhaps at Sloppy Joe’s? Or did Jeremy decide to leverage his “Rich Man In Waiting” spiel to secure a naïve, impressionable, suburban Colchester girl whom he knew would be more impressed by his yarns than the attractive farmers’ daughters and sundry other issue of the affluent and well-connecteds?
Dallas was not real. Nor were those Victorian lady and gentleman characters Julie must have read about in English literature classes at the creditable high school she attended. They were not really real in the time of the writers who created them. A bit like J.R. Ewing being an exaggeration of real Texans, the characters of Austen, Hardy and the Brontës were, similarly, skilfully- (and sometimes, subtly-) caricatured representations of English class tensions. Yet there must have been a touch of glamour to Jeremy and a sense of future promise that attracted Julie and touched on her own material aspirations. Aside from that, Jeremy was unconventional and offered her excitement, but he was not a Mr Darcy or a Colonel Fitzwilliam (nor was Julie an Elizabeth Bennett). Relying on the guilt camp, we would say Jeremy was more of a John Willoughby character, but there are aspects of the narrative that seem as unreal as a novel, almost as if Jeremy and Julie were playing out a fantastical script for a plot only they were aware of and kept to themselves. The Julie-Jeremy story is more like a dark fairy tale.
Consider:
Jeremy decides he wants to kill his family. This was not just Jeremy blowing off. He is serious about it, to the extent that in conversations with her, he works through the pros and cons of various plans in quite a sophisticated way – weighing up the insurance implications, for instance.
Jeremy tests Julie’s sleeping tablets on himself to see if they might work as tranquilisers on his family.
Jeremy practises strangling rats to give himself the necessary courage for the murders.
Julie tells nobody of these incidents, obliquely explaining to the police later that she thought it was a “charade” on Jeremy’s part and anyway she was “besotted” with him. Julie’s explanation here is obviously not credible. We know from her own admissions that it was not a “charade” (an odd, illiterate choice of wording anyway). We can allow that a young woman might be so ‘besotted’ with her man that she overlooks flaws, covers for him in situations, tells white lies, etc. But Jeremy was plotting in detail to kill five people. It’s too big. It’s not the equivalent of, say, the Maxine Carr situation, in which Ian Huntley had lied to Carr, and on that basis, Carr told her own lie to the police. It’s worse. Jeremy wasn’t even lying to her: quite the opposite, he was revealing the deepest darkest corners of his soul to her.
To further erode Julie’s credibility, we can point to her criminal admissions: she admits selling drugs for Jeremy; she admits that Jeremy, with Julie’s help, breaks into the site office at Osea Road, steals money, and they spend it. She also admits committing cheque fraud in her own right with Susan Battersby – nothing to do with Jeremy at all, but they both tried to blame him for it anyway. Later, she receives a handsome pay-out from a seedy tabloid after posing for racy pictures.
Under cross-examination at trial, Julie is asked why she volunteered to identity the bodies lying in the mortuary. Her answer for the jury was that she believed that the dead could communicate with the living, so she wanted to give it a try and see if they would talk to her. Yet there is no mention of these beliefs of Julie’s from anybody else who knew her, either before or after the incident. Perhaps Julie’s odd confession of faith was a bit of fancy that came out unintentionally in a nervous moment under the pressure of being questioned by an experienced barrister? This is plausible. I have experienced similar situations, and also been interviewed by the media, and I can say that public speaking is a very difficult skill to master, perhaps because it is so unnatural, and it is very easy to blurt out something that you don’t mean and even say the opposite thing to what you wanted to say. It’s also well-known within the legal profession that the most truthful witnesses are often the most nervous and difficult in court. But there is also a need sometimes for ordinary people of the Julie type to insert some colour into what may otherwise be a dour, unexciting life. This is common in a culture where the work ethic is paramount. In much the same vein as her attraction to Jeremy, maybe she was offering up something that might distinguish her from the otherwise rather dull person she knew deep down she really was?
We are all like this. Admit it. You are. You like to pretend, to ‘larp’, in the lingo of today’s disaffected teenager. To pretend that your life is more interesting than it is or that you are more interesting that your own life will allow. Maybe you told a little lie to that attractive woman who got your pulse racing at the café? Or you invented something minor on a CV? Or you have pretended to have a hobby that you only vaguely know anything about, just to seem more interesting? In the past, the young men and women of provincial England would seek out the city lights and, in a few cases, they would be ensnared by those lights and the dangerous but alluring life that the darkness of the city promised. Perhaps that was Sheila? Yet, whatever her motivation for the confabulated conjuring of a Spirit World at trial, Julie had not been living a pretentious existence with Jeremy, nor was she larping. The boring suburban Julie was, in fact, very much grounded and living in her own hyper-reality in 1984 and 1985. It was real, very real, but a living real-life exaggeration of the real. Secret murder plots, illicit drug dealing, country houses, foreign trips, farming families full of old Essex characters, and variegated Bonnie & Clyde antics - like something out of a novel in which she is one of the main characters, but not as exciting for the reader as the mainstay, ‘Jerry’ himself. Was she implicated more than she officially admits? The sleeping tablets, tales of euthanised rats, and discussing the finer points of home contents insurance, all seem at one remove, where she is more the passive agent than active collaborator, whereas the caravan robbery and drug peddling has her assisting Jeremy willingly. But is that all there is to it? Or was she directing Jeremy at times? During the Osea Road robbery, Jeremy goes back to the car to ask for her help to reach for a key left in a letter cage behind the door. That seems like an odd thing to do, as she would not be any more capable of such a feat than Jeremy; indeed, Jeremy manages it himself in the end. It’s as if Jeremy has returned to the car to tell her he can’t do it and they’d better go, and Julie decides instead to lend a hand, so to speak. She also seemed to have no objection when it came to spending the money taken from the site office. Had the earlier murder plots gone ahead, would Julie have accepted that money too and stepped effortlessly into her new role as feoffee of White House Farm?
Throughout the natural history of our species, violence - the threat and fear of it as much as the actuality of it – has been used as a means of constraint and control over individuals and general populations. Civilisation gradually pushed violence to the margins, and technological civilisation has made us observers of violence and subject only to the magisterial threat of violence through sovereign law rather than day-to-day threats of a tribal chief or thug. We are so used to living under a bourgeois social order that promises to assure peace under law that when, exceptionally, violence happens to us, it almost seems like a fissure in reality itself, rather than merely something outside the norm, as if we have caught a glimpse through a keyhole of a distantly primeval time. The more distant we are from actual violence, the more other-worldly real violence seems and the more important the second-hand and virtual portrayal of violence becomes to us. Media violence - news clips, Hollywood films, and the like – present us with a contrived and remote reality that we cannot experience but that reinforces the threat of, and instils in us a fear of, violence and other people and helps to ensure conformity.
The French philosopher, Jean Baudrillard, critiqued the passive experiences of Man in advanced civilisation, in which tools and technique have replaced natural experience and created a reality in which life is no longer a series of personal experiences but an emulation of experience, and everyday people are deprived of authentic experiences in their lives. This is a concept of hyper-reality that is slightly different to the fiction-come-alive-as-reality of Julie’s experiences with Jeremy, but Baudrillard’s hyper-reality is closely-related to it in that a world of emulation and simulation is vulnerable to fictive narratives that, instead of coming alive as reality, simply are superimposed on a remotely-observed reality through distortion and manipulation: a Hyper-Reality that is false, virtual or simulated, depending on the precise context. Here we arrive at a possible explanation for the propounding of organised, even system-wide, falsehoods that are not only condoned, but genuinely shared as truth and believed, and may not even represent an engineered reality, per se, rather could be lies that arise organically from mutually-reinforcing deceptions. Deprived of authentic situations, we invent a reality for ourselves that simulates experiences – that is to say, a hyper-reality, but of a somewhat fictive variety. This pseudo-reality becomes reinforcing and shared to the point that it is indistinguishable from ‘real’ reality – a post-reality, if you like, that drugs the liar and turns him into a truthteller, but a truthful teller of lies. The ‘truth-lie’ could be a murder, a political scandal, a sensational legal trial or even an entire war (one of Baudrillard’s books is called The Gulf War Did Not Take Place – I recommend it).
Let us also look through the Fourth Wall and consider reader observation, as literary theorists would call it. True crime could be considered a hyper-reality in that it is an exaggerated representation of reality, for literary purposes. We see it from the comfort of our computers. We don’t actually see or feel it. We don’t experience it, the blood, gore, tragedy, loss. It is an academic escape, entertainment and hobbyism. Maybe this helps explain why Julie had to ‘observe’ and ‘touch’, and visit the mortuary? This hyper-reality had to be really real for her. Perhaps, in her head, she then confused the Real Hyper-Reality of her varied escapades with Jeremy with a more fictive or wishful version in which the killer is Jeremy. Verbal suggestion and inference may also have entered the picture. Jeremy does hate his family and tells her this and that about himself and his parents. That morning, he tells her, “I should have been an actor”, not because he is the killer, but because, under pressure, with lots of family and official people around him, he was expected to go through the motions emotionally and visibly mourn a family for whom he felt almost nothing. Yet Julie takes “I should have been an actor” and various other utterances as incipient admissions that he, Jeremy, is the killer. Two weeks later, she pursues the topic further and Jeremy kids her on that he paid Matthew McDonald a ridiculously derisory sum of money to kill his entire family of five, including two six year-old boys. Unexpectedly, Julie either interprets this as a confession by Jeremy of his involvement, or twists it into one when she later talks with the police.
When true crime buffs purport to ‘solve’ cold cases, it may fill them with a false sense of skill in that, very often, all the amateur detective has done is make sense of clues arranged in a certain way to fit a solution arising out of his or her own preconceptions or prejudices. Julie claimed to have solved the crime, having direct experience of Jeremy and relaying to the police his confession and various other suspicious incidents; but, was she telling the plain truth or lying? Or was she working in that grey area between truth and lies, rearranging a complex jigsaw to make the facts fit a solution that had been preconceived by her or imposed by the police, or a bit of both? She wasn’t on the payroll of Essex Police, she was an amateur, a witness of fact indeed; but, she was their standout detective.
Can we believe Julie?
There are five possibilities:
1. Julie is telling the absolute truth and Jeremy is guilty. This means she was immature and Jeremy was a deranged lunatic. Case closed.
2. Julie is telling the truth up to a point. Jeremy is guilty, but Julie was involved in the murder plot in some way and has created a ‘prisoners' dilemma’, knowing that Jeremy cannot point the finger at her without incriminating himself, and also knowing that as time goes on, the courts will give little credence to accusations from a future repentant Jeremy. An additional possibility is that the police were aware of Julie’s involvement and that was the basis of her co-operation, thus the 1986 trial was a sham (see one of my threads about this theory, here: https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10296.0.html).
3. Julie is misrepresenting or exaggerating actual conversations with Jeremy. In other words, Jeremy is lying, but he is innocent. He may have essentially said the things she claims, but she has taken it out of context. She may have done this for either innocent or malicious reasons. Jeremy may have joked with her, both before and after the incident, about killing his family. This sounds strange, but it would be consistent with Jeremy’s character, personality and teasing nature to do this.
4. Julie is lying, but Jeremy is guilty. She lied because she knew or rightly suspected he was guilty. This is still perjury, and her lies make the convictions unsafe. It is also possible she was put up to it by the police. A further possibility, which is a variation on the ‘prisoners' dilemma’ theory, is that Julie has lied in an effort to save Jeremy and herself, by deliberately making up an unlikely version of events involving Matthew McDonald, knowing that it can easily be disproved by the police. This plan has then backfired and Julie had no choice but to stand by her story.
5. Julie is lying and Jeremy is innocent. Her motives for lying may have been a variation on 3 above and the police may have assisted her in the genuine belief that Jeremy was guilty, or it may have been purely malice. Either way, the result is the same.
In deciding between these possibilities, we can note the following:
(i). Everything that Julie has said is uncorroborated. There are no witnesses who confirm overhearing Jeremy say the things Julie claims Jeremy told her. There are also no witnesses who confirm Julie was even speaking to Jeremy at the relevant times, with the exception of the conversation in the bedroom at Bourtree Cottage, as Stan Jones confirmed where they were at that point in time.
(ii). If Julie was going to invent a confession by Jeremy, would she include Matthew McDonald? Defenders of Julie say that she must be telling the truth, as a motivate liar would not self-negate her own narrative by picking out a random person in this way to include in a fictitious story. Admittedly, this is a strong point in Julie’s favour, but a response to this is that by including McDonald, it would seem more plausible than if she simply pointed the finger at Jeremy. Maybe she also hoped that the whole thing would be quickly dismissed when the police inevitably discovered McDonald had nothing to do with it. (Indeed, that is what initially happened: Taff Jones decided she was just a silly girl talking nonsense).
(iii). She admits she was besotted with Jeremy but there is evidence the relationship was weakening and Jeremy was sleeping with other women and making no secret of doing so. This would have humiliated Julie, who was plain and probably lacked confidence. Hence she had a motive to resent Jeremy and maybe, in an emotional outburst or an effort for attention, she could have made something up about him or exaggerated real conversations.
(iv). Her details of the crime could have been gleaned from (among other sources):
- an innocent Jeremy, who overheard or gathered the information from the police;
- relatives;
- friends and acquaintances of hers who had heard and read things;
- police officers;
- newspapers and TV.
(v). Julie had direct contact with the family and could have been influenced by them.
(vi). The farmhouse itself is a black box. This is a case with no single piece of evidence that is incriminating or exculpatory and it is not rationally possible to prove or disprove the guilt or innocence of either the two major suspects.
(vii). Julie’s interactions with the police are also a metaphorical black box: we don’t know what she discussed with the police. Normally, we wouldn’t care as it wouldn’t be relevant. A witness’ discussions with the police are not normally considered ‘material’ to a criminal case or subject to disclosure. The reason we care in this case is that Julie’s interactions with the police were so unusual, the entire case rests on her evidence together with the blood in the silencer, and she was involved in criminality herself, including assisting Jeremy in a burglary of the office at the Osea Road caravan park. It is also noted that she stayed at the police college during her initial co-operation with the police, which again is unusual.
(viii). The controversy over whether it was Julie who approached the police or someone else. It has been speculated that she was arrested. It is alleged that the police and CPS refuse to release more information on the basis that the material is immune from disclosure due to public interest.
(ix). The improbability of strangling or euthanising rats.
(x). The absence of any explanation of why the sleeping tablets were left at Bourtree Cottage.
(xi). The 3 a.m. (approx.) phone call and Julie giving police the wrong information about who answered.
(xii). Julie's claim at trial of a belief in spiritualism as a reason for why she wanted to identify the bodies.
(xiii). Julie's conduct after the trial – posing for racy pictures.
(xiv). Julie's post-facto rationalisation for not reporting Jeremy's murder plans: it was, she believed, a “charade” and she was “besotted” with him. Yet a discussion of the finer points of insurance suggests seriousness, not a charade.
(xv). Each of the two key pieces of evidence, the blood in the silencer and Julie’s evidence, is weak on its own. Each only takes on strength in conjunction with the other. Without the silencer, acceptance of Julie’s evidence requires a leap of faith, as it can only stand on her own account. There is no corroboration. In an effort to lend support to Julie’s evidence, friends of hers, and in one instance, Robert Boutflour, gave evidence claiming they had heard Jeremy say things that – even if he did actually say them - he may not have meant or that may have been taken out-of-context.
(xvi). Related to (xv) above, Julie fails to mention the silencer in her own statements, thus the two key pieces of evidence against Jeremy have no connection to each other. This is crucial as it means each piece of evidence can be viewed in isolation, ergo each piece of evidence can be dismissed in isolation to the other.
Decide for yourself. My conclusion from all this is that if Jeremy was involved in the killings, then so was Julie, and the 1986 trial was a sham. She is like an inescapable antithesis to him as they move through time together. Here, in this piece, I have attempted a synthesis. He cannot name her without implicating himself, thus he has to pretend that she is lying entirely.
If, on the other hand, Jeremy is innocent, then Julie Mugford is very probably lying rather than exaggerating real conversations.
Either way, Julie Mugford is wicked and while I appreciate it is possible to defend her on the basis that she did assist in the conviction of Jeremy Bamber, who is widely believed to be guilty, a more realistic appraisal of her must acknowledge and condemn her on the basis of her probable involvement in these crimes.
She got off lightly.
Its an interesting point, that often gets raised. Maxine Carr actually did assist an offender, Whereas Julie made up a story of assisting an offender. If you were to prosecute Julie, she would no longer stick to that story and in her own defense she would claim she made it up. When you consider all the factual inaccuracies in her statements, I cannot see how any jury would convict.
The CPS would not only have a very weak case against Julie, they would be jeopardizing their case against Jeremy also.
-
Thanks QC an interesting read, is your business in publishing by any chance!?
My take is that if JB was guilty and Julie was in on it then she was taking a huge risk in coming forward, although unlikely she could not be certain that JB if he was cornered would not confess and implicate her as well?
I think that at least initially Julie believed JB to be innocent, but she was worked on "Julie we know he did it but we need your help" etc. etc. Then to her horror after the trail the conviction looked far from safe.
People do say strange things, only this year someone said to me "I could gladly burry a axe in her f****** head" did he mean it? maybe, would he actually do it? definitely not!
To me whoever did the crime was totally mentally deranged, over the last 36 years or so has JB showed any signs of mental illness?
There is a much easier answer to all of this in my view and that is that it was a tragic suicide. Why did PV say Sheila must have been sedated? knowing that her children had been shot or were about to be, she is lying their so peaceful not a sign of a struggle. Paranoid's have a heightened sense of danger she would have fought back.
-
Did not read QC's long post. But know he would have tried to create an atmosphere.
Julie approached other people within 2 weeks, compiled a 24 WS & testified. She has not retracted a word.
There is no other reason she would do this, except that Bamber is guilty. He did not 'jilt her'. The police knew nothing about her minor cheque book fraud over a year earlier. Or of Bamber robbing his family.
At least 19 pieces of her WS she could only have got from Bamber.
Pre massacre Bamber complained about his parents & situation (what son hasn't?). He spoke of murder plans of which Julie rightly did not believe.
But appreciate supporters have to try to complicate things.
-
Just one of these huge disadvantages below would have stopped Julie approaching the police. There are 25! -
There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.
She would be charged by the police. When caught lying. Bamber was innocent.
Bamber had not jilted her. So she would not be getting revenge.
Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.
To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?
Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?
There was no financial reward in approaching the police.
It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.
She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims. Bamber was innocent.
Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.
She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.
It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.
She may quickly wilt under pressure. This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?
It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.
It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.
It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.
An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.
It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.
She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.
It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.
She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?
She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.
She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.
Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.
If an unsuccessful police approach became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.
-
Thanks QC an interesting read, is your business in publishing by any chance!?
No. Commercial renovation - mainly shops, sometimes bigger places. I'm a generalist craftsman on the side and make things like luminaires, chessboards, ceramics, rocking horses, children's swings, boxes, cabinets, seats, chairs, handmade books, and so on. Used to love to travel all over selling at markets, even the Continent, but not so much now.
I've almost-always worked with my hands and prefer it, but I do read a lot as well.
I'd like to write one or more books on either this case or the Birmingham Six, and if that happens, I will self-publish, and I know how to bind books.
My take is that if JB was guilty and Julie was in on it then she was taking a huge risk in coming forward, although unlikely she could not be certain that JB if he was cornered would not confess and implicate her as well?
Yes, but one possibility is that she knew the game was up, or she sensed the tide was turning. The crucial point may have been 12th. September 1985.
I think that at least initially Julie believed JB to be innocent, but she was worked on "Julie we know he did it but we need your help" etc. etc. Then to her horror after the trail the conviction looked far from safe.
Possibly, but to believe he was innocent, she would have to ignore what she claims he said: "I should have been an actor". What did he mean? Maybe it really was all larger-than-life for her and she couldn't quite take it that it was happening.
People do say strange things, only this year someone said to me "I could gladly burry a axe in her f****** head" did he mean it? maybe, would he actually do it? definitely not!
To me whoever did the crime was totally mentally deranged, over the last 36 years or so has JB showed any signs of mental illness?
I agree that whoever did this was deranged, but we don't know for sure what the prison have concluded about Jeremy's mental state. We have the Campaign Team to rely on for that information, and they in turn essentially rely on Jeremy's word. Mentally-ill people convicted of offences can be kept for many years in prisons rather than detained in secure psychiatric hospitals, even when they are known to be mentally-ill. If Jeremy is innocent (and maybe even if he isn't), his mental state must have been affected detrimentally by long-term incarceration. On the other hand, Jeremy was recommended for category 'B' status quite early in his prison term and not considered a risk. I would also expect that if something was seriously wrong with Jeremy mentally, it would have leaked and be all over the papers.
There is a much easier answer to all of this in my view and that is that it was a tragic suicide. Why did PV say Sheila must have been sedated? knowing that her children had been shot or were about to be, she is lying their so peaceful not a sign of a struggle. Paranoid's have a heightened sense of danger she would have fought back.
I, too, find it hard to believe Sheila would not have fought back or struggled or tried to run if faced with an assailant. Even Mike Ainsley admitted this was a flaw in the prosecution case in his report to the DPP. I believe the guilt case rests on the idea that Sheila would comply with a gun pointed at her, but that was not certain. Wouldn't she ask about the twins?
Adam explains it by Jeremy carrying Sheila while she is asleep, but I see too many holes and uncertainties in that. I went over this exhaustively with Adam last year (2020). Jeremy has to leave the weapon somewhere while he carries her. He has to move her into position, which means he will wake her up. He will give her the weapon to hold. Adam relies on the notion that Sheila was sedated, but there is no evidence that she was sedated at all.
Jeremy could have disguised himself as a way of inducing shock and compliance in Sheila, but I would maintain that if Jeremy disguised himself, Sheila and her parents would almost-certainly have recognised him.
He was counting on Sheila hearing nothing while he dealt with the others. He could have tied Sheila up, but I think that would have left marks and there would be a risk of Sheila injuring herself. He also had to get to Sheila and tie her up without being intercepted by Nevill or June.
Furthermore, the 'tie her up' theory in a sense is just a way of deferring the central question: how does Jeremy enforce Sheila's compliance? If he ties her up, he has to: (i). tie her up in the first place without her struggling, fighting and running, and without her shouting to alert her parents; (ii). carry her somewhere, probably while she struggles; and, (iii). untie her, which means she will struggle, fight and might get away.
A solution to (i) is to catch her asleep, but there's no certainty of that, and no evidence she was sedated in the first place. A solution to (iii) is that he shoots her while she is still tied up, but that possibility is immediately discounted by the blood patterns you see in photographs of her body.
Maybe he ungagged her to shoot her, but how does he know he needs to ungag her to shoot her? It's circular. Like with a lot of the prosecution case, it all falls apart on closer scrutiny.
It could also be that Sheila co-operated with Jeremy. Schizophrenia is a cruel illness. She was a troubled young woman and it is possible that when she realised Jeremy was going to kill her, she resigned herself to this fate and accepted it. I can't see that, though. She had two boys sleeping nearby.
There is one obvious solution and I think it is the only reasonable possibility. We cannot with certainty exclude the possibility that Sheila was drugged by Jeremy. The toxicology tests may not have picked this up. I will need to go back and double-check this. It could be that the tests were specific, in which case the theory of Jeremy drugging her cannot be ruled out, and could even be seen as a probability. But then, isn't Jeremy taking a risk that the drug would be detected in tests? I think that is a risk, but on the other hand, Jeremy, if he is the killer, was taking risks anyway and may have counted on the right tests not being done. This would mean he planned it all, and we don't know to what lengths he went in his planning. One reason I like the drugging idea is that Jeremy took an interest in the efficacy of sleeping tablets some months before.
Could it be that Julie knows more than she is letting on and even knows how Jeremy incapacitated Sheila but can't say because there is a paper trail that would then implicate her?
-
Did not read QC's long post. But know he would have tried to create an atmosphere.
I do try my best to establish just the right ambience for our readers.
A little bit of jazz for you, Adam, to help while you're reading:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW5-QMnF6PY
Mike's agreed to lay on the coffees and Danishes.
-
No. Commercial renovation - mainly shops, sometimes bigger places. I'm a generalist craftsman on the side and make things like luminaires, chessboards, ceramics, rocking horses, children's swings, boxes, cabinets, seats, chairs, handmade books, and so on. Used to love to travel all over selling at markets, even the Continent, but not so much now.
I've almost-always worked with my hands and prefer it, but I do read a lot as well.
I'd like to write one or more books on either this case or the Birmingham Six, and if that happens, I will self-publish, and I know how to bind books.
Yes, but one possibility is that she knew the game was up, or she sensed the tide was turning. The crucial point may have been 12th. September 1985.
Possibly, but to believe he was innocent, she would have to ignore what she claims he said: "I should have been an actor". What did he mean? Maybe it really was all larger-than-life for her and she couldn't quite take it that it was happening.
I agree that whoever did this was deranged, but we don't know for sure what the prison have concluded about Jeremy's mental state. We have the Campaign Team to rely on for that information, and they in turn essentially rely on Jeremy's word. Mentally-ill people convicted of offences can be kept for many years in prisons rather than detained in secure psychiatric hospitals, even when they are known to be mentally-ill. If Jeremy is innocent (and maybe even if he isn't), his mental state must have been affected detrimentally by long-term incarceration. On the other hand, Jeremy was recommended for category 'B' status quite early in his prison term and not considered a risk. I would also expect that if something was seriously wrong with Jeremy mentally, it would have leaked and be all over the papers.
I, too, find it hard to believe Sheila would not have fought back or struggled or tried to run if faced with an assailant. Even Mike Ainsley admitted this was a flaw in the prosecution case in his report to the DPP. I believe the guilt case rests on the idea that Sheila would comply with a gun pointed at her, but that was not certain. Wouldn't she ask about the twins?
Adam explains it by Jeremy carrying Sheila while she is asleep, but I see too many holes and uncertainties in that. I went over this exhaustively with Adam last year (2020). Jeremy has to leave the weapon somewhere while he carries her. He has to move her into position, which means he will wake her up. He will give her the weapon to hold. Adam relies on the notion that Sheila was sedated, but there is no evidence that she was sedated at all.
Jeremy could have disguised himself as a way of inducing shock and compliance in Sheila, but I would maintain that if Jeremy disguised himself, Sheila and her parents would almost-certainly have recognised him.
He was counting on Sheila hearing nothing while he dealt with the others. He could have tied Sheila up, but I think that would have left marks and there would be a risk of Sheila injuring herself. He also had to get to Sheila and tie her up without being intercepted by Nevill or June.
Furthermore, the 'tie her up' theory in a sense is just a way of deferring the central question: how does Jeremy enforce Sheila's compliance? If he ties her up, he has to: (i). tie her up in the first place without her struggling, fighting and running, and without her shouting to alert her parents; (ii). carry her somewhere, probably while she struggles; and, (iii). untie her, which means she will struggle, fight and might get away.
A solution to (i) is to catch her asleep, but there's no certainty of that, and no evidence she was sedated in the first place. A solution to (iii) is that he shoots her while she is still tied up, but that possibility is immediately discounted by the blood patterns you see in photographs of her body.
Maybe he ungagged her to shoot her, but how does he know he needs to ungag her to shoot her? It's circular. Like with a lot of the prosecution case, it all falls apart on closer scrutiny.
It could also be that Sheila co-operated with Jeremy. Schizophrenia is a cruel illness. She was a troubled young woman and it is possible that when she realised Jeremy was going to kill her, she resigned herself to this fate and accepted it. I can't see that, though. She had two boys sleeping nearby.
There is one obvious solution and I think it is the only reasonable possibility. We cannot with certainty exclude the possibility that Sheila was drugged by Jeremy. The toxicology tests may not have picked this up. I will need to go back and double-check this. It could be that the tests were specific, in which case the theory of Jeremy drugging her cannot be ruled out, and could even be seen as a probability. But then, isn't Jeremy taking a risk that the drug would be detected in tests? I think that is a risk, but on the other hand, Jeremy, if he is the killer, was taking risks anyway and may have counted on the right tests not being done. This would mean he planned it all, and we don't know to what lengths he went in his planning. One reason I like the drugging idea is that Jeremy took an interest in the efficacy of sleeping tablets some months before.
Could it be that Julie knows more than she is letting on and even knows how Jeremy incapacitated Sheila but can't say because there is a paper trail that would then implicate her?
Don't lie. I have said that is one possibility. As you have said.
My Bamber scenario does not have Bamber carrying Sheila.
-
Don't lie. I have said that is one possibility. As you have said.
My Bamber scenario does not have Bamber carrying Sheila.
If you've said it's one possibility, then how is what I have just said a lie?
-
No. Commercial renovation - mainly shops, sometimes bigger places. I'm a generalist craftsman on the side and make things like luminaires, chessboards, ceramics, rocking horses, children's swings, boxes, cabinets, seats, chairs, handmade books, and so on. Used to love to travel all over selling at markets, even the Continent, but not so much now.
I've almost-always worked with my hands and prefer it, but I do read a lot as well.
I'd like to write one or more books on either this case or the Birmingham Six, and if that happens, I will self-publish, and I know how to bind books.
Yes, but one possibility is that she knew the game was up, or she sensed the tide was turning. The crucial point may have been 12th. September 1985.
Possibly, but to believe he was innocent, she would have to ignore what she claims he said: "I should have been an actor". What did he mean? Maybe it really was all larger-than-life for her and she couldn't quite take it that it was happening.
I agree that whoever did this was deranged, but we don't know for sure what the prison have concluded about Jeremy's mental state. We have the Campaign Team to rely on for that information, and they in turn essentially rely on Jeremy's word. Mentally-ill people convicted of offences can be kept for many years in prisons rather than detained in secure psychiatric hospitals, even when they are known to be mentally-ill. If Jeremy is innocent (and maybe even if he isn't), his mental state must have been affected detrimentally by long-term incarceration. On the other hand, Jeremy was recommended for category 'B' status quite early in his prison term and not considered a risk. I would also expect that if something was seriously wrong with Jeremy mentally, it would have leaked and be all over the papers.
I, too, find it hard to believe Sheila would not have fought back or struggled or tried to run if faced with an assailant. Even Mike Ainsley admitted this was a flaw in the prosecution case in his report to the DPP. I believe the guilt case rests on the idea that Sheila would comply with a gun pointed at her, but that was not certain. Wouldn't she ask about the twins?
Adam explains it by Jeremy carrying Sheila while she is asleep, but I see too many holes and uncertainties in that. I went over this exhaustively with Adam last year (2020). Jeremy has to leave the weapon somewhere while he carries her. He has to move her into position, which means he will wake her up. He will give her the weapon to hold. Adam relies on the notion that Sheila was sedated, but there is no evidence that she was sedated at all.
Jeremy could have disguised himself as a way of inducing shock and compliance in Sheila, but I would maintain that if Jeremy disguised himself, Sheila and her parents would almost-certainly have recognised him.
He was counting on Sheila hearing nothing while he dealt with the others. He could have tied Sheila up, but I think that would have left marks and there would be a risk of Sheila injuring herself. He also had to get to Sheila and tie her up without being intercepted by Nevill or June.
Furthermore, the 'tie her up' theory in a sense is just a way of deferring the central question: how does Jeremy enforce Sheila's compliance? If he ties her up, he has to: (i). tie her up in the first place without her struggling, fighting and running, and without her shouting to alert her parents; (ii). carry her somewhere, probably while she struggles; and, (iii). untie her, which means she will struggle, fight and might get away.
A solution to (i) is to catch her asleep, but there's no certainty of that, and no evidence she was sedated in the first place. A solution to (iii) is that he shoots her while she is still tied up, but that possibility is immediately discounted by the blood patterns you see in photographs of her body.
Maybe he ungagged her to shoot her, but how does he know he needs to ungag her to shoot her? It's circular. Like with a lot of the prosecution case, it all falls apart on closer scrutiny.
It could also be that Sheila co-operated with Jeremy. Schizophrenia is a cruel illness. She was a troubled young woman and it is possible that when she realised Jeremy was going to kill her, she resigned herself to this fate and accepted it. I can't see that, though. She had two boys sleeping nearby.
There is one obvious solution and I think it is the only reasonable possibility. We cannot with certainty exclude the possibility that Sheila was drugged by Jeremy. The toxicology tests may not have picked this up. I will need to go back and double-check this. It could be that the tests were specific, in which case the theory of Jeremy drugging her cannot be ruled out, and could even be seen as a probability. But then, isn't Jeremy taking a risk that the drug would be detected in tests? I think that is a risk, but on the other hand, Jeremy, if he is the killer, was taking risks anyway and may have counted on the right tests not being done. This would mean he planned it all, and we don't know to what lengths he went in his planning. One reason I like the drugging idea is that Jeremy took an interest in the efficacy of sleeping tablets some months before.
Could it be that Julie knows more than she is letting on and even knows how Jeremy incapacitated Sheila but can't say because there is a paper trail that would then implicate her?
So what? Everyone else is dead.
-
No. Commercial renovation - mainly shops, sometimes bigger places. I'm a generalist craftsman on the side and make things like luminaires, chessboards, ceramics, rocking horses, children's swings, boxes, cabinets, seats, chairs, handmade books, and so on. Used to love to travel all over selling at markets, even the Continent, but not so much now.
I've almost-always worked with my hands and prefer it, but I do read a lot as well.
I'd like to write one or more books on either this case or the Birmingham Six, and if that happens, I will self-publish, and I know how to bind books.
Yes, but one possibility is that she knew the game was up, or she sensed the tide was turning. The crucial point may have been 12th. September 1985.
Possibly, but to believe he was innocent, she would have to ignore what she claims he said: "I should have been an actor". What did he mean? Maybe it really was all larger-than-life for her and she couldn't quite take it that it was happening.
I agree that whoever did this was deranged, but we don't know for sure what the prison have concluded about Jeremy's mental state. We have the Campaign Team to rely on for that information, and they in turn essentially rely on Jeremy's word. Mentally-ill people convicted of offences can be kept for many years in prisons rather than detained in secure psychiatric hospitals, even when they are known to be mentally-ill. If Jeremy is innocent (and maybe even if he isn't), his mental state must have been affected detrimentally by long-term incarceration. On the other hand, Jeremy was recommended for category 'B' status quite early in his prison term and not considered a risk. I would also expect that if something was seriously wrong with Jeremy mentally, it would have leaked and be all over the papers.
I, too, find it hard to believe Sheila would not have fought back or struggled or tried to run if faced with an assailant. Even Mike Ainsley admitted this was a flaw in the prosecution case in his report to the DPP. I believe the guilt case rests on the idea that Sheila would comply with a gun pointed at her, but that was not certain. Wouldn't she ask about the twins?
Adam explains it by Jeremy carrying Sheila while she is asleep, but I see too many holes and uncertainties in that. I went over this exhaustively with Adam last year (2020). Jeremy has to leave the weapon somewhere while he carries her. He has to move her into position, which means he will wake her up. He will give her the weapon to hold. Adam relies on the notion that Sheila was sedated, but there is no evidence that she was sedated at all.
Jeremy could have disguised himself as a way of inducing shock and compliance in Sheila, but I would maintain that if Jeremy disguised himself, Sheila and her parents would almost-certainly have recognised him.
He was counting on Sheila hearing nothing while he dealt with the others. He could have tied Sheila up, but I think that would have left marks and there would be a risk of Sheila injuring herself. He also had to get to Sheila and tie her up without being intercepted by Nevill or June.
Furthermore, the 'tie her up' theory in a sense is just a way of deferring the central question: how does Jeremy enforce Sheila's compliance? If he ties her up, he has to: (i). tie her up in the first place without her struggling, fighting and running, and without her shouting to alert her parents; (ii). carry her somewhere, probably while she struggles; and, (iii). untie her, which means she will struggle, fight and might get away.
A solution to (i) is to catch her asleep, but there's no certainty of that, and no evidence she was sedated in the first place. A solution to (iii) is that he shoots her while she is still tied up, but that possibility is immediately discounted by the blood patterns you see in photographs of her body.
Maybe he ungagged her to shoot her, but how does he know he needs to ungag her to shoot her? It's circular. Like with a lot of the prosecution case, it all falls apart on closer scrutiny.
It could also be that Sheila co-operated with Jeremy. Schizophrenia is a cruel illness. She was a troubled young woman and it is possible that when she realised Jeremy was going to kill her, she resigned herself to this fate and accepted it. I can't see that, though. She had two boys sleeping nearby.
There is one obvious solution and I think it is the only reasonable possibility. We cannot with certainty exclude the possibility that Sheila was drugged by Jeremy. The toxicology tests may not have picked this up. I will need to go back and double-check this. It could be that the tests were specific, in which case the theory of Jeremy drugging her cannot be ruled out, and could even be seen as a probability. But then, isn't Jeremy taking a risk that the drug would be detected in tests? I think that is a risk, but on the other hand, Jeremy, if he is the killer, was taking risks anyway and may have counted on the right tests not being done. This would mean he planned it all, and we don't know to what lengths he went in his planning. One reason I like the drugging idea is that Jeremy took an interest in the efficacy of sleeping tablets some months before.
Could it be that Julie knows more than she is letting on and even knows how Jeremy incapacitated Sheila but can't say because there is a paper trail that would then implicate her?
Not if he had shot her once first.
The COA says she was sedated. She was on Haloperiodal. Bamber had check on her a few hours earlier at his reconnaisance.
-
Agree Bamber would not tie Sheila up.
The evidence is he used a silencer.
Sheila was asleep, sedated & behind closed doors & thick walls. So would not hear anything prior to it being her turn.
-
If you've said it's one possibility, then how is what I have just said a lie?
Since you're still here, perhaps you could address this and have the courtesy to apologise and withdraw your accusation that I lied?
I have accused people of lying on here. That's because they lied. I haven't lied and I don't appreciate it being said that I have when I very clearly have not.
Don't expect me to reply to your other posts, but feel free to post what you like. Have a ball.
-
There is one obvious solution and I think it is the only reasonable possibility. We cannot with certainty exclude the possibility that Sheila was drugged by Jeremy. The toxicology tests may not have picked this up. I will need to go back and double-check this. It could be that the tests were specific, in which case the theory of Jeremy drugging her cannot be ruled out, and could even be seen as a probability. But then, isn't Jeremy taking a risk that the drug would be detected in tests? I think that is a risk, but on the other hand, Jeremy, if he is the killer, was taking risks anyway and may have counted on the right tests not being done. This would mean he planned it all, and we don't know to what lengths he went in his planning. One reason I like the drugging idea is that Jeremy took an interest in the efficacy of sleeping tablets some months before.
Could it be that Julie knows more than she is letting on and even knows how Jeremy incapacitated Sheila but can't say because there is a paper trail that would then implicate her?
If Sheila was sedated it would have to be given orally I believe, she would have been checked for needle marks?
So how does JB give it to her? her last meal was six hours or so before, if she falls asleep in the presence of June and Nevil they would call an ambulance. So it needed to be something that was slow acting but would evade toxicology tests?
Another problem is it looks like her bed was not slept in, so if she was sedated this does not make sense, if she was given something and she started feeling tired she would have gone to bed?
-
If Sheila was sedated it would have to be given orally I believe, she would have been checked for needle marks?
So how does JB give it to her? her last meal was six hours or so before, if she falls asleep in the presence of June and Nevil they would call an ambulance. So it needed to be something that was slow acting but would evade toxicology tests?
Another problem is it looks like her bed was not slept in, so if she was sedated this does not make sense, if she was given something and she started feeling tired she would have gone to bed?
Bamber didn't sedate her. She was on Haloperiodal.
-
If Sheila was sedated it would have to be given orally I believe, she would have been checked for needle marks?
So how does JB give it to her? her last meal was six hours or so before, if she falls asleep in the presence of June and Nevil they would call an ambulance. So it needed to be something that was slow acting but would evade toxicology tests?
Another problem is it looks like her bed was not slept in, so if she was sedated this does not make sense, if she was given something and she started feeling tired she would have gone to bed?
Impossible to tell.
The evidence was she was found in her nightdress & bare footed. In other words - her bed attire.
-
Impossible to tell.
The evidence was she was found in her nightdress & bare footed. In other words - her bed attire.
Yes I know she was in her nightdress Adam and bare footed, but the photographs I have seen seem to show her bed was not slept in? This does not fit with her being so sedated she would not fight for her life and those of her children.
-
Bamber didn't sedate her. She was on Haloperiodal.
PV said she must have been sedated, Haloperiodal would not do this.
-
If Sheila was sedated it would have to be given orally I believe, she would have been checked for needle marks?
So how does JB give it to her? her last meal was six hours or so before, if she falls asleep in the presence of June and Nevil they would call an ambulance. So it needed to be something that was slow acting but would evade toxicology tests?
Another problem is it looks like her bed was not slept in, so if she was sedated this does not make sense, if she was given something and she started feeling tired she would have gone to bed?
Good points.
-
A lack of psychotic medication and possibly withdrawal feelings from cannabis was a time-bomb.
-
A lack of psychotic medication and possibly withdrawal feelings from cannabis was a time-bomb.
Yes someone with Sheila's problems and also taking drugs would make the situation much worse, did Sheila's doctor prescribing her medication know she was taking drugs Lookout?
-
Yes someone with Sheila's problems and also taking drugs would make the situation much worse, did Sheila's doctor prescribing her medication know she was taking drugs Lookout?
Yes, Ferguson knew she was a heavy smoker of the waccy baccy.
-
Whether it was known about the snorting of cocaine at parties, I don't know but that would have added insult to injury too.
Sheila might even have been ranting about needing her " fix " if she'd already known about the" stuff" which was in the safe at WHF, since cousin Roland had stayed there. That would have driven her mad if her father wouldn't hand it over.
-
Yes I know she was in her nightdress Adam and bare footed, but the photographs I have seen seem to show her bed was not slept in? This does not fit with her being so sedated she would not fight for her life and those of her children.
Please post the photos. The only source of this I recall is from supporter Scott Lomax.
As said impossible to tell. It was summer. Sheila may have slept on top of the bed. I don't believe Bamber would make the bed as part of his staging.
-
A fully fit Nevill would have instantly negated Sheila. So the possibility she had put on her nightie & then stayed up (bare footed) until Nevill rang Bamber is a non starter.
Sheila's attire (and Nevill's) suggest she was asleep when Bamber converged.
-
If Sheila had woken & got up mid massacre, she may have put on footwear or a dressing gown. Or both. It was a big & messy house.
Sheila being found bare footed & in just a nightie, again suggests she slept through the massacre.
-
I do try my best to establish just the right ambience for our readers.
A little bit of jazz for you, Adam, to help while you're reading:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW5-QMnF6PY
Mike's agreed to lay on the coffees and Danishes.
That's lovely. I thought it was Jacques Loussier at first, but it isn't. I have a CD of him " playing Bach ".
-
I'm sure Julie Smerchanski can kick off her shoes after a hard day's work at the office and relax with your music choices. Let's unpick your post a little. You are at pains to separate the ingenue 19-year-old Julie Mugford from the woman she has now become: family-oriented, successful, a charity worker. Yet it seems behind the benevolence on this point there is still a thirst for vengeance to satisfy your clientele. Now which is it?
You also continue to use the word "charade" when discussing Julie's statements, and even put it in quotation marks, yet she never used that word. But don't let truth become a casualty of your long-winded, irrelevant and fanciful posts, even though I point things out which might deceive the rookie member.
You run down Julie in the personal and professional sphere. Don't tell me Julie wasn't pretty in her day, and don't tell me the teaching profession is for Mr. or Miss Average when you yourself achieved nothing of that level. You run down Julie again later in the thread by chastising her for not falling for a bespectacled Physics student, in the days when 1 in 10 made it to university, not the mass social institution you seem to imply.
So Jeremy was working at Sloppy Joe's in Colchester and Little Chef off the A12. The point you overlook is that he wished to do anything but farming: anything to get away from his parents' influence at White House Farm. Julie herself worked at Maldon Growers and also took other employment in France.
Yes Julie was humiliated by Jeremy. Finally you get it. Who is calling the shots in the relationship if Jeremy is womanizing under her nose, whilst she decorates Bourtree Cottage during her well-earned Easter break?
Again there is truth in your observation that Jeremy liked the label Rich Man in Waiting, or at least the first two words. The point was as he told PC Lay outside that charnel house which was White House Farm that August morning: he wanted a £38,000 Porsche to pull the birds, so five had to die, including two six-year-old twin boys, whose brains were left splattered on the bedhead behind.
-
I'm sure Julie Smerchanski can kick off her shoes after a hard day's work at the office and relax with your music choices. Let's unpick your post a little. You are at pains to separate the ingenue 19-year-old Julie Mugford from the woman she has now become: family-oriented, successful, a charity worker. Yet it seems behind the benevolence on this point there is still a thirst for vengeance to satisfy your clientele. Now which is it?
You also continue to use the word "charade" when discussing Julie's statements, and even put it in quotation marks, yet she never used that word. But don't let truth become a casualty of your long-winded, irrelevant and fanciful posts, even though I point things out which might deceive the rookie member.
You run down Julie in the personal and professional sphere. Don't tell me Julie wasn't pretty in her day, and don't tell me the teaching profession is for Mr. or Miss Average when you yourself achieved nothing of that level. You run down Julie again later in the thread by chastising her for not falling for a bespectacled Physics student, in the days when 1 in 10 made it to university, not the mass social institution you seem to imply.
So Jeremy was working at Sloppy Joe's in Colchester and Little Chef off the A12. The point you overlook is that he wished to do anything but farming: anything to get away from his parents' influence at White House Farm. Julie herself worked at Maldon Growers and also took other employment in France.
Yes Julie was humiliated by Jeremy. Finally you get it. Who is calling the shots in the relationship if Jeremy is womanizing under her nose, whilst she decorates Bourtree Cottage during her well-earned Easter break?
Again there is truth in your observation that Jeremy liked the label Rich Man in Waiting, or at least the first two words. The point was as he told PC Lay outside that charnel house which was White House Farm that August morning: he wanted a £38,000 Porsche to pull the birds, so five had to die, including two six-year-old twin boys, whose brains were left splattered on the bedhead behind.
Don't we all.
-
Please post the photos. The only source of this I recall is from supporter Scott Lomax.
As said impossible to tell. It was summer. Sheila may have slept on top of the bed. I don't believe Bamber would make the bed as part of his staging.
A newbie giving a hero member info Adam!
-
A newbie giving a hero member info Adam!
Thanks. Had not seen that before.
As said, impossible to tell. Don't believe it was discussed at trial. Certainly never an appeal ground.
-
Thanks. Had not seen that before.
As said, impossible to tell. Don't believe it was discussed at trial. Certainly never an appeal ground.
Now for once Adam as I went to the trouble of finding it for you, look at the picture and be honest and say has anyone slept under the covers?
-
Now for once Adam as I went to the trouble of finding it for you, look at the picture and be honest and say has anyone slept under the covers?
How would I know.
Do you believe Sheila was out of bed all night. Bare footed & in a nightie?
-
How would I know.
Do you believe Sheila was out of bed all night. Bare footed & in a nightie?
Well her bed has to my eyes anyway not been slept in, so my guess is she was walking round in turmoil getting more and more distressed.
-
You also continue to use the word "charade" when discussing Julie's statements, and even put it in quotation marks, yet she never used that word. But don't let truth become a casualty of your long-winded, irrelevant and fanciful posts, even though I point things out which might deceive the rookie member
She most certainly did use the word "charade". I hope you're not going to ask me to tell you the source and help me make you look an even bigger fool than you already are.
I also have not "run her down professionally" - quite the opposite, actually.
I could go on, but why bother? It's not as if you'd pay any notice.
-
Well her bed has to my eyes anyway not been slept in, so my guess is she was walking round in turmoil getting more and more distressed.
I don't think it can be dismissed so easily. If you compare beds, you can see that the frilled cover on Sheila's bed has been pulled down to allow access to the bed. The pillow appears to me, to have an indent where a head has been. We can't tell how crumpled the sheet and bed cover may have been because a garment has been placed over it.
-
Yes, Ferguson knew she was a heavy smoker of the waccy baccy.
Wrong as usual.
Dr Ferguson was aware Sheila smoked cocaine in a social context.
You might recall Bamber admitted during his interview with journalist David James Smith that he and Sheila used cocaine together.
Do you never feel the need to check the veracity of what it is your posting?
-
Well her bed has to my eyes anyway not been slept in, so my guess is she was walking round in turmoil getting more and more distressed.
Distressed about what?
What were Nevill, June, Daniel & Nicholas doing while Sheila was getting more distressed?
-
She most certainly did use the word "charade". I hope you're not going to ask me to tell you the source and help me make you look an even bigger fool than you already are.
I also have not "run her down professionally" - quite the opposite, actually.
I could go on, but why bother? It's not as if you'd pay any notice.
You run everyone down: Mr and Mrs Bamber, Gresham's, Sheila, Colin, Julie, Lorraine (Kelly), Tom and Ben (producers of a podcast).
-
You run everyone down: Mr and Mrs Bamber, Gresham's, Sheila, Colin, Julie, Lorraine (Kelly), Tom and Ben (producers of a podcast).
Everybody has strengths and faults. I have criticised all the people you mention (not 'run them down'), but also said good things about some of them. That's what happens in any honest discussion of people. Don't see what your point is.
What is it you are trying to say? Are you saying I should dish out unalloyed praise to everybody in the case all the time in discussions about them? You're not making any sense.
Tom and Ben, the producers of the podcast, come across to me as a bit light and juvenile, and that seems to be consistent with them, not just a bit of occasional fun and banter. Their podcasts appeal to frivolous, unserious people. I'm just being honest in my impressions.
Lorraine Kelly is clearly a very successful person, so she must at least be quite shrewd and talented, but her type of interviewing is not for me because it is not very honest. I prefer it when there is more honesty about things.
-
Everybody has strengths and faults. I have criticised all the people you mention (not 'run them down'), but also said good things about some of them. That's what happens in any honest discussion of people. Don't see what your point is.
What is it you are trying to say? Are you saying I should dish out unalloyed praise to everybody in the case all the time in discussions about them? You're not making any sense.
Tom and Ben, the producers of the podcast, come across to me as a bit light and juvenile, and that seems to be consistent with them, not just a bit of occasional fun and banter. Their podcasts appeal to frivolous, unserious people. I'm just being honest in my impressions.
Lorraine Kelly is clearly a very successful person, so she must at least be quite shrewd and talented, but her type of interviewing is not for me because it is not very honest. I prefer it when there is more honesty about things.
I prefer strengths and weaknesses as opposed to faults. Anyway, not only were you running down the individuals but huge swathes of society by mocking 'suburbia'. As I said pseudo-intelligence.
The time for serious debate was 35 years ago. It was referred to as a trial and resulted in Bamber's conviction. Who do you think is going to get involved now? Emily Maitlis, Andrew Marr, Stephen Sakur, Jeremy Paxman wheeled out of retirement?
-
I prefer strengths and weaknesses as opposed to faults. Anyway, not only were you running down the individuals but huge swathes of society by mocking 'suburbia'. As I said pseudo-intelligence.
The time for serious debate was 35 years ago. It was referred to as a trial and resulted in Bamber's conviction. Who do you think is going to get involved now? Emily Maitlis, Andrew Marr, Stephen Sakur, Jeremy Paxman wheeled out of retirement?
I'm just being honest in what I think. I'm not attacking or insulting you, so I don't see what your issue is with me. Why do you take my posts so personally?
I once lived in suburbia. I'm not suggesting that everybody in a suburb is boring. That is not implied in what I say. It's called a generalisation, which is applied to one individual, based on impressions of her. If Mrs Smerchanski happens to be on the Forum and wishes to take issue with me, by all means she can. She's a public figure because she posed half-naked for a newspaper.
I'm still not clear what it is you're driving at here. If you just don't think my posts are up to much, you're free to criticise my posts without taking digs at me. The problem with taking digs at me is that it makes it very difficult for me not to respond in kind, since I'm only human, and then the whole Forum goes in to war mode (which is maybe what you want). It also creates bad feeling and makes me less sympathetic to anything you have to say.
In short, there are consequences and ramifications for this 'attitude' you bring here.
There seems to be lively discussion in some quarters about who you really are. I have discussed it with people in PMs, but at the end of the day, personally I don't care. I take posters as I find them and evaluate what you say on its merits. So far, it is difficult for me to do that, though, because you're still stuck in this feminine, childish mode in which you preoccupy yourself with point-scoring and taking personal digs at people.
-
I'm just being honest in what I think. I'm not attacking or insulting you, so I don't see what your issue is with me. Why do you take my posts so personally?
Not taking them personally at all. Just highlighting how ridiculous I think they are.
I once lived in suburbia. I'm not suggesting that everybody in a suburb is boring. That is not implied in what I say. It's called a generalisation, which is applied to one individual, based on impressions of her. If Mrs Smerchanski happens to be on the Forum and wishes to take issue with me, by all means she can. She's a public figure because she posed half-naked for a newspaper.
A public figure because she appeared in a tabloid some 35 years ago when she was 21 years old. Try telling that to a libel lawyer in 2021. She did actually produce an article in Good Housekeeping late 80's/early 90's.
I'm still not clear what it is you're driving at here. If you just don't think my posts are up to much, you're free to criticise my posts without taking digs at me. The problem with taking digs at me is that it makes it very difficult for me not to respond in kind, since I'm only human, and then the whole Forum goes in to war mode (which is maybe what you want). It also creates bad feeling and makes me less sympathetic to anything you have to say.
That's exactly what I'm doing criticising your posts.
In short, there are consequences and ramifications for this 'attitude' you bring here.
Is that a threat?
There seems to be lively discussion in some quarters about who you really are. I have discussed it with people in PMs, but at the end of the day, personally I don't care. I take posters as I find them and evaluate what you say on its merits. So far, it is difficult for me to do that, though, because you're still stuck in this feminine, childish mode in which you preoccupy yourself with point-scoring and taking personal digs at people.
Who I really am? I'm Cambridgecutie and you're QCCheavalier ::) We all discuss others and gossip in pm's and we're no exception. However, no one with any sense would divulge anything they wouldn't want repeated even if the pm's then extended to any other means of communication.
-
I prefer strengths and weaknesses as opposed to faults. Anyway, not only were you running down the individuals but huge swathes of society by mocking 'suburbia'. As I said pseudo-intelligence.
The time for serious debate was 35 years ago. It was referred to as a trial and resulted in Bamber's conviction. Who do you think is going to get involved now? Emily Maitlis, Andrew Marr, Stephen Sakur, Jeremy Paxman wheeled out of retirement?
The only time any of the above will be involved is in the very unikley event Bamber's conviction is quashed. I guess it would be fun to see Emily Maitlis interview the learned Justice Henriques and HJJ Rivlin. I don't think I've ever seen a judge interviewed about any failings in the justice system?
-
I'm not going to reply to you line-by-line and get sucked into your game. The issue I take with you is more a general pattern of behaviour in which you seem to want to personalise things and take digs at people. It's a bit off-putting. I think you and Steve need to move out of that mode and just stick to content. By all means, criticise, but try not to take offence and lash out just because somebody differs in their views from your own. Try giving somebody the benefit of the doubt first. Consider also that this is an internet forum, so we don't have the benefit of things like tone of voice, etc., so when you launch into these attacks and digs, it will come across in the worst way possible. It's unavoidable.
You could argue that the 'pseudo-intellectual' jibe is a comment on posting and style and so not strictly an insult, but something doesn't have to be strictly ad hominem to be personal. To me, the distinction between being personal and relevant comment is clear. Moreover, I'm not clear where all these personal digs are getting us, as opposed to discussing what people say. You think I'm a pseudo-intellectual. Marvellous, I'll make a note of that. Thanks. But where does it get us? I could say you're lots of things, but what does it achieve?
When I talk about ramifications and consequences, I'm not making threats, I'm simply saying what is right there in that post you just read. If you and Steve want to continue in this obnoxious mode of posting, then clearly it makes it difficult for me to sympathise with anything you have to say or treat you convivially as a fellow poster. I'm only human. This in turn will affect the atmosphere on the Forum. This is only to be expected.
You think my posts are ridiculous, but your attempt to pull me up on a fact ended with you flat on your face after I pointed out that your understanding of the facts is wrong. Your understanding of the case isn't as good as it needs to be for somebody who comes on here with all this swagger and attitude.
-
Distressed about what?
What were Nevill, June, Daniel & Nicholas doing while Sheila was getting more distressed?
I which you could be serious, you know what she was likely worrying about, as for the others it was the middle of the night so how about they were asleep?
-
I which you could be serious, you know what she was likely worrying about, as for the others it was the middle of the night so how about they were asleep?
Oh yes, the conversation about fostering. The only alive witness being Bamber. Who said she was non responsive.
So Sheila got dress for bed. But didn't go to bed. She spent several hours wandering around WHF getting more distressed.
Everyone else had already gone to bed & slept through it. Until something woke Nevill.
-
Oh yes, the conversation about fostering. The only alive witness being Bamber. Who said she was non responsive.
So Sheila got dress for bed. But didn't go to bed. She spent several hours wandering around WHF getting more distressed.
Everyone else had already gone to bed & slept through it. Until something woke Nevill.
It is true that Jeremy was the only witness to that conversation, and I agree that this is an important thing to take into account because he could have made the whole thing up.
But, he can't have made it up entirely because there were other witnesses in the case who vouched for the general theme of such a discussion/kitchen table meeting. Again, though, that could be what persuaded Jeremy in his own mind to invent the discussion, knowing others would back up its plausibility.
-
Oh yes, the conversation about fostering. The only alive witness being Bamber. Who said she was non responsive.
So Sheila got dress for bed. But didn't go to bed. She spent several hours wandering around WHF getting more distressed.
Everyone else had already gone to bed & slept through it. Until something woke Nevill.
You say your scenario fits the crime scene, you have seen the photo of Sheila's bedroom now. I think most people would say her bed has not been slept in so over to you?
-
It is true that Jeremy was the only witness to that conversation, and I agree that this is an important thing to take into account because he could have made the whole thing up.
But, he can't have made it up entirely because there were other witnesses in the case who vouched for the general theme of such a discussion/kitchen table meeting. Again, though, that could be what persuaded Jeremy in his own mind to invent the discussion, knowing others would back up its plausibility.
Who?
-
You say your scenario fits the crime scene, you have seen the photo of Sheila's bedroom now. I think most people would say her bed has not been slept in so over to you?
I've always thought that the question of what Sheila was doing over the night of 6th./7th. is a big hole in the prosecution case. It ties in with lots of different questions we have discussed on here.
Specifically in regard to your observation: schizophrenics are known to walk around aimlessly and stay up throughout the night, with irregular sleep patterns. For instance, they may walk around a house or walk out into the garden (or grounds of a large property).
The fact the bed looks unslept in does not mean she did not sleep in it that night, but it does imply either:
(i). she did not sleep at all;
(ii). she slept elsewhere; or,
(iii). if she did sleep in the bed that night, she left the bed and either she put the bed clothes right herself and went to some effort to do so, or, if the killer was Jeremy, he did.
Can we conclude anything? I'm not sure.
When I noticed this myself some years ago, it brought me to the hypothesis that an 'Ideal Killer' or 'Perfect Killer' would have shot her first in the bed, before anybody else, then left her to kill the others, then returned and taken the body to whatever place he wanted to stage her suicide, then tidied the bedroom and landing forensically and deposited or hid the blooded sheets somewhere, or even washed them there and then, or put them in the wash, or whatever. As JackieD once told me on here: "Too clever for Jeremy". She thinks Jeremy is of average cognitive ability and could not plan through all the threads of something like this.
-
It is true that Jeremy was the only witness to that conversation, and I agree that this is an important thing to take into account because he could have made the whole thing up.
But, he can't have made it up entirely because there were other witnesses in the case who vouched for the general theme of such a discussion/kitchen table meeting. Again, though, that could be what persuaded Jeremy in his own mind to invent the discussion, knowing others would back up its plausibility.
There is no other witness, but JB, for anything which happened at WHF after he went in for supper. The stage is his. He can say it how he wants it to be seen as playing out. From here, we can speculate over why he said whatever. We can say that "we'd" have said something other. But JB would have done what he thought would work. There were two phone calls. One from the farm secretary who said Nevill was short with her, and one from June's sister, who only noted that Sheila didn't say good night. I don't think JB mentioned either. He, effectively, narrated the whole thing.
-
There is no other witness, but JB, for anything which happened at WHF after he went in for supper. The stage is his. He can say it how he wants it to be seen as playing out. From here, we can speculate over why he said whatever. We can say that "we'd" have said something other. But JB would have done what he thought would work. There were two phone calls. One from the farm secretary who said Nevill was short with her, and one from June's sister, who only noted that Sheila didn't say good night. I don't think JB mentioned either. He, effectively, narrated the whole thing.
Unfortunately, I think that causes us all a problem and the evidence against Jeremy is not, in my personal opinion, quite strong enough to compensate - including Julie's claim of a confession. I'm just being honest in accepting that I don't know what happened, which is partly why I'm still here and not elsewhere discussing other things.
-
I've always thought that the question of what Sheila was doing over the night of 6th./7th. is a big hole in the prosecution case. It ties in with lots of different questions we have discussed on here.
Specifically in regard to your observation: schizophrenics are known to walk around aimlessly and stay up throughout the night, with irregular sleep patterns. For instance, they may walk around a house or walk out into the garden (or grounds of a large property).
The fact the bed looks unslept in does not mean she did not sleep in it that night, but it does imply either:
(i). she did not sleep at all;
(ii). she slept elsewhere; or,
(iii). if she did sleep in the bed that night, she left the bed and either she put the bed clothes right herself and went to some effort to do so, or, if the killer was Jeremy, he did.
Can we conclude anything? I'm not sure.
When I noticed this myself some years ago, it brought me to the hypothesis that an 'Ideal Killer' or 'Perfect Killer' would have shot her first in the bed, before anybody else, then taken the body to whatever place he wanted to stage her suicide, then tidied the bedroom and landing forensically and deposited or hid the blooded sheets somewhere, or even washed them there and then, or put them in the wash, or whatever. As JackieD once told me on here: "Too clever for Jeremy". She thinks Jeremy is of average cognitive ability and could not plan through all the threads of something like this.
Sheila being shot while asleep in bed looks to me to be the only way that JB could have done this, but how does he get the body to the main bedroom without it being obvious? The Police and PV would have known instantly. Also why take her to the main bedroom this seems strange to me?
-
I've always thought that the question of what Sheila was doing over the night of 6th./7th. is a big hole in the prosecution case. It ties in with lots of different questions we have discussed on here.
Specifically in regard to your observation: schizophrenics are known to walk around aimlessly and stay up throughout the night, with irregular sleep patterns. For instance, they may walk around a house or walk out into the garden (or grounds of a large property).
The fact the bed looks unslept in does not mean she did not sleep in it that night, but it does imply either:
(i). she did not sleep at all;
(ii). she slept elsewhere; or,
(iii). if she did sleep in the bed that night, she left the bed and either she put the bed clothes right herself and went to some effort to do so, or, if the killer was Jeremy, he did.
Can we conclude anything? I'm not sure.
When I noticed this myself some years ago, it brought me to the hypothesis that an 'Ideal Killer' or 'Perfect Killer' would have shot her first in the bed, before anybody else, then left her to kill the others, then returned and taken the body to whatever place he wanted to stage her suicide, then tidied the bedroom and landing forensically and deposited or hid the blooded sheets somewhere, or even washed them there and then, or put them in the wash, or whatever. As JackieD once told me on here: "Too clever for Jeremy". She thinks Jeremy is of average cognitive ability and could not plan through all the threads of something like this.
Source please.
-
I've always thought that the question of what Sheila was doing over the night of 6th./7th. is a big hole in the prosecution case. It ties in with lots of different questions we have discussed on here.
Specifically in regard to your observation: schizophrenics are known to walk around aimlessly and stay up throughout the night, with irregular sleep patterns. For instance, they may walk around a house or walk out into the garden (or grounds of a large property).
The fact the bed looks unslept in does not mean she did not sleep in it that night, but it does imply either:
(i). she did not sleep at all;
(ii). she slept elsewhere; or,
(iii). if she did sleep in the bed that night, she left the bed and either she put the bed clothes right herself and went to some effort to do so, or, if the killer was Jeremy, he did.
Can we conclude anything? I'm not sure.
When I noticed this myself some years ago, it brought me to the hypothesis that an 'Ideal Killer' or 'Perfect Killer' would have shot her first in the bed, before anybody else, then left her to kill the others, then returned and taken the body to whatever place he wanted to stage her suicide, then tidied the bedroom and landing forensically and deposited or hid the blooded sheets somewhere, or even washed them there and then, or put them in the wash, or whatever. As JackieD once told me on here: "Too clever for Jeremy". She thinks Jeremy is of average cognitive ability and could not plan through all the threads of something like this.
Impossible to tell.
-
Sheila being shot while asleep in bed looks to me to be the only way that JB could have done this, but how does he get the body to the main bedroom without it being obvious? The Police and PV would have know instantly. Also why take her to the main bedroom this seems strange to me?
Yes. How I came up with the theory is that I was convinced in my own head that Jeremy is factually guilty. To an extent, that default position is still with me now. I'm inclined to think he did do it. But I was sat there racking my brain trying to figure out how he did it.
The logistics of it - getting to and from the farmhouse.
Subduing Sheila and the risk of Sheila perambulating around.
There just seemed to be so many problems.
Together with this, I've always been intrigued by the photo of Sheila's bedroom and wondered if this was a 'dog that didn't bark' clue.
I then re-thought the whole thing and came up with a way that he could have done it, had he planned it through properly. I've not gone over how I think he could have gone to and from the farmhouse, but in regard to Sheila, ideally he would kill her first while she is still in bed, then he would leave her and kill the rest. Then he would return and clean up and move her.
The reason the detectives don't notice this is, quite simply, because he does an excellent job of cleaning-up the relevant area, which is why it looks so neat. No doubt he does leave small clues, but they are overlooked.
As for why he leaves her in the main bedroom, my explanation for that is simply that he knows he is leaving blood everywhere he goes and the main bedroom is nearest - it's just across the landing - so it's more practical to leave Sheila there than risk carrying her to the twins' bedroom. It also means any residual blood trail can be explained as spatter.
I don't believe this is how he did it, though.
-
Unfortunately, I think that causes us all a problem and the evidence against Jeremy is not, in my personal opinion, quite strong enough to compensate - including Julie's claim of a confession. I'm just being honest in accepting that I don't know what happened, which is partly why I'm still here and not elsewhere discussing other things.
None of us do. Yonks back there was a thread asking for posters to put forward what they believed happened. I think every poster said something different. Who knows, ONE of them may have been correct. As for the trial, he was convicted more on a balance of probabilities, than on one point in particular.
-
I've always thought that the question of what Sheila was doing over the night of 6th./7th. is a big hole in the prosecution case. It ties in with lots of different questions we have discussed on here.
Specifically in regard to your observation: schizophrenics are known to walk around aimlessly and stay up throughout the night, with irregular sleep patterns. For instance, they may walk around a house or walk out into the garden (or grounds of a large property).
The fact the bed looks unslept in does not mean she did not sleep in it that night, but it does imply either:
(i). she did not sleep at all;
(ii). she slept elsewhere; or,
(iii). if she did sleep in the bed that night, she left the bed and either she put the bed clothes right herself and went to some effort to do so, or, if the killer was Jeremy, he did.
Can we conclude anything? I'm not sure.
When I noticed this myself some years ago, it brought me to the hypothesis that an 'Ideal Killer' or 'Perfect Killer' would have shot her first in the bed, before anybody else, then left her to kill the others, then returned and taken the body to whatever place he wanted to stage her suicide, then tidied the bedroom and landing forensically and deposited or hid the blooded sheets somewhere, or even washed them there and then, or put them in the wash, or whatever. As JackieD once told me on here: "Too clever for Jeremy". She thinks Jeremy is of average cognitive ability and could not plan through all the threads of something like this.
Who said he did?
-
Sheila being shot while asleep in bed looks to me to be the only way that JB could have done this, but how does he get the body to the main bedroom without it being obvious? The Police and PV would have known instantly. Also why take her to the main bedroom this seems strange to me?
Feel free to vote for this in yesterdays poll. Although there are 7 other options.
Don't know people think it's such a big problem, Bamber getting Sheila 20 yards from her bed. Although as supporters have said, she may have already been up.
-
None of us do. Yonks back there was a thread asking for posters to put forward what they believed happened. I think every poster said something different. Who knows, ONE of them may have been correct. As for the trial, he was convicted more on a balance of probabilities, than on one point in particular.
Again, we appear to be in agreement. I don't know if you meant here 'balance of probabilities' as a term of art, but I do think the case was not proved to the criminal standard. I base that opinion on the evidence the jury would have seen in 1986, to the extent that is available to us. And the position has only worsened for the prosecution since. On the basis of the 1986 evidence, he would lose a civil case, and had he been acquitted in the criminal trial, there's a fair chance he would have lost much of the estates in an inheritance action by the relatives; but he should have been acquitted by the jury in the criminal trial itself.
-
Yes. How I came up with the theory is that I was convinced in my own head that Jeremy is factually guilty. To an extent, that default position is still with me now. I'm inclined to think he did do it. But I was sat there racking my brain trying to figure out how he did it.
The logistics of it - getting to and from the farmhouse.
Subduing Sheila and the risk of Sheila perambulating around.
There just seemed to be so many problems.
Together with this, I've always been intrigued by the photo of Sheila's bedroom and wondered if this was a 'dog that didn't bark' clue.
I then re-thought the whole thing and came up with a way that he could have done it, had he planned it through properly. I've not gone over how I think he could have gone to and from the farmhouse, but in regard to Sheila, ideally he would kill her first while she is still in bed, then he would leave her and kill the rest. Then he would return and clean up and move her.
The reason the detectives don't notice this is, quite simply, because he does an excellent job of cleaning-up the relevant area, which is why it looks so neat. No doubt he does leave small clues, but they are overlooked.
As for why he leaves her in the main bedroom, my explanation for that is simply that he knows he is leaving blood everywhere he goes and the main bedroom is nearest - it's just across the landing - so it's more practical to leave Sheila there than risk carrying her to the twins' bedroom. It also means any residual blood trail can be explained as spatter.
I don't believe this is how he did it, though.
I think it would be pretty obvious to the Police QC if this was done, the blood patterns would be all wrong?
If JB did do something like this it was well planned and thought out so why does he almost deliberately give himself away!
-
Supporters have also said an up & awake Sheila would have put up resistance (or froze). Not a problem for Bamber. He was several times stronger than her.
-
I think it would be pretty obvious to the Police OC if this was done, the blood patterns would be all wrong?
If JB did do something like this it was well planned and thought out so why does he almost deliberately give himself away!
Yes, the blood spatter is one issue with such a plan. The blood would be on her after she was shot in bed, but there was also what appears to be aspirated blood on the surrounding carpet. Whichever way you look at it, there's a flaw. We're left with the problem of how he incapacitates her in order to shoot her.
-
I'm not going to reply to you line-by-line and get sucked into your game. The issue I take with you is more a general pattern of behaviour in which you seem to want to personalise things and take digs at people. It's a bit off-putting. I think you and Steve need to move out of that mode and just stick to content. By all means, criticise, but try not to take offence and lash out just because somebody differs in their views from your own. Try giving somebody the benefit of the doubt first. Consider also that this is an internet forum, so we don't have the benefit of things like tone of voice, etc., so when you launch into these attacks and digs, it will come across in the worst way possible. It's unavoidable.
You could argue that the 'pseudo-intellectual' jibe is a comment on posting and style and so not strictly an insult, but something doesn't have to be strictly ad hominem to be personal. To me, the distinction between being personal and relevant comment is clear. Moreover, I'm not clear where all these personal digs are getting us, as opposed to discussing what people say. You think I'm a pseudo-intellectual. Marvellous, I'll make a note of that. Thanks. But where does it get us? I could say you're lots of things, but what does it achieve?
When I talk about ramifications and consequences, I'm not making threats, I'm simply saying what is right there in that post you just read. If you and Steve want to continue in this obnoxious mode of posting, then clearly it makes it difficult for me to sympathise with anything you have to say or treat you convivially as a fellow poster. I'm only human. This in turn will affect the atmosphere on the Forum. This is only to be expected.
You think my posts are ridiculous, but your attempt to pull me up on a fact ended with you flat on your face after I pointed out that your understanding of the facts is wrong. Your understanding of the case isn't as good as it needs to be for somebody who comes on here with all this swagger and attitude.
Its always others, never you. Have you forgotten your angry outburst whereby you told the moderator to go suck ****?
I can neither agree or disagree since I've no idea what you're talking about. I do know that you attempted to bluff your way on a thread about Irish politics and when I copied and pasted an excerpt showing such you took great offence to the point of TELLING me not to copy and paste!
You think I've got swagger and attitude and I think you're a massive windbag ;D
-
Yes, the blood spatter is one issue with such a plan. The blood would be on her after she was shot in bed, but there was also what appears to be aspirated blood on the surrounding carpet. Whichever way you look at it, there's a flaw. We're left with the problem of how he incapacitates her in order to shoot her.
Bamber is several times stronger than Sheila.
Sheila was very docile, half asleep & on medication. Bamber had checked on her during his supper reconnaisance.
Simple.
-
QC is always trying to find flaws in the straight forward Bamber scenario.
What did he do when I dissected his Sheila scenario? Cried to NGB.
-
QC is always trying to find flaws in the straight forward Bamber scenario.
What did he do when I dissected his Sheila scenario? Cried to NGB.
To be fair Rob was nearly as bad.
He created a Sheila. Then said 'a Sheila scenario is not important' when I posted 34 flaws.
-
To be fair Rob was nearly as bad.
He created a Sheila. Then said 'a Sheila scenario is not important' when I posted 34 flaws.
Well when we look at your JB scenario Adam and CC's there are such huge differences that to me suggest there is a major problem not just flaws in the guilters argument? Perhaps you and CC can get together and produce something that at least is plausible?
-
Well when we look at your JB scenario Adam and CC's there are such huge differences that to me suggest there is a major problem not just flaws in the guilters argument? Perhaps you and CC can get together and produce something that at least is plausible?
Yes, Sheila being tied up was a new one on me.
Mine & CAL's scenarios are similar.
-
QC is always trying to find flaws in the straight forward Bamber scenario.
What did he do when I dissected his Sheila scenario? Cried to NGB.
Thanks Adam. NGB1066 had to give me some tissues I was crying that much.
-
Its always others, never you. Have you forgotten your angry outburst whereby you told the moderator to go suck ****?
I can neither agree or disagree since I've no idea what you're talking about. I do know that you attempted to bluff your way on a thread about Irish politics and when I copied and pasted an excerpt showing such you took great offence to the point of TELLING me not to copy and paste!
You think I've got swagger and attitude and I think you're a massive windbag ;D
You're not taking it in.
-
Yes, Sheila being tied up was a new one on me.
Mine & CAL's scenarios are similar.
Don't think I have seen CAL's I will dig it out.