Jeremy Bamber Forum

JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on August 13, 2022, 03:36:PM

Title: 'Ignore the contents of this letter' at 'peril' ...
Post by: mike tesko on August 13, 2022, 03:36:PM
This 'page 2 extract, from 'Sheila Caffells' - 'biological birth mother' is one of the key pieces of evidence, which [if]  'taken in the right context' will guide you to what lays [ not lies] 'behind the tragedy which unfolded inside whf' during the early hours of '7th August 1985'...

'Ignore this evidence', at 'peril' of 'no-one finding out the truth' [ever]...


apologies for attaching wrong image 'in error' during my original post on this thread...

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11383.0;attach=59083;image

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11383.0;attach=59106;image

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11383.0;attach=59108;image

Title: Re: 'Ignore the contents of this letter' at 'peril' ...
Post by: ILB on August 13, 2022, 04:10:PM
In July and August 1986 Bamber would have been in prison on remand awaiting trial.
Title: Re: 'Ignore the contents of this letter' at 'peril' ...
Post by: mike tesko on August 13, 2022, 05:15:PM
In July and August 1986 Bamber would have been in prison on remand awaiting trial.


The 'international surveilance operation', imposed on 'the named targets'  listed 'below', refers to the 'state of affairs' inforce in 'July', 'August', and 'until the end of September 1985'...
Title: Re: 'Ignore the contents of this letter' at 'peril' ...
Post by: Steve_uk on August 13, 2022, 08:13:PM
This 'page 2 extract, from 'Sheila Caffells' - 'biological birth mother' is one of the key pieces of evidence, which [if]  'taken in the right context' will guide you to what lays [ not lies] 'behind the tragedy which unfolded inside whf' during the early hours of '7th August 1985'...

'Ignore this evidence', at 'peril' of 'no-one finding out the truth' [ever]...


apologies for attaching wrong image 'in error' during my original post on this thread...

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11383.0;attach=59083;image

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11383.0;attach=59106;image

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11383.0;attach=59108;image
Bridget Anne Noble, Phyllis Webb, Sheila Bamber, Sheila Caffell.
Title: Re: 'Ignore the contents of this letter' at 'peril' ...
Post by: lookout on August 14, 2022, 08:16:PM
I wonder if Christine told Sheila the identity of her father.?
Title: Re: 'Ignore the contents of this letter' at 'peril' ...
Post by: mike tesko on August 14, 2022, 09:22:PM
Bridget Anne Noble, Phyllis Webb, Sheila Bamber, Sheila Caffell.

'Your onto it' [well done] !!!
Title: Re: 'Ignore the contents of this letter' at 'peril' ...
Post by: mike tesko on August 14, 2022, 09:57:PM
I wonder if Christine told Sheila the identity of her father.?
'She would not have had access' to 'that privledged information' [in her role, of 'being the legal birth mother', of 'Sheila' when 'she was known' by a different 'birth name'. I believe that the 'only information imparted' from 'the legal birth mother', was that during 'contact' with 'Sheila' about 'one week' before 'the shootings took place' that 'Christine Jay' told 'Sheila' that she ['Christine Jay'] was 'not her natural biological birth mother', and that 'she did not know who was', or 'even the name of her biological father' [as 'intended by the protocols']of ['the adoption system']. My guess, is that [upon 'receiving this information'] that 'it' devasted 'Sheila', and that 'it contributed to a decline in her public health', one week or 'so', 'before the deaths' of the 'other four victims', and 'her own unintentional death', when 'police accidentally shot her' in 'the main bedroom', whilst 'performing a training exercise' [ informatives]...
Title: Re: 'Ignore the contents of this letter' at 'peril' ...
Post by: Steve_uk on August 15, 2022, 08:06:AM
'She would not have had access' to 'that privledged information' [in her role, of 'being the legal birth mother', of 'Sheila' when 'she was known' by a different 'birth name'. I believe that the 'only information imparted' from 'the legal birth mother', was that during 'contact' with 'Sheila' about 'one week' before 'the shootings took place' that 'Christine Jay' told 'Sheila' that she ['Christine Jay'] was 'not her natural biological birth mother', and that 'she did not know who was', or 'even the name of her biological father' [as 'intended by the protocols']of ['the adoption system']. My guess, is that [upon 'receiving this information'] that 'it' devasted 'Sheila', and that 'it contributed to a decline in her public health', one week or 'so', 'before the deaths' of the 'other four victims', and 'her own unintentional death', when 'police accidentally shot her' in 'the main bedroom', whilst 'performing a training exercise' [ informatives]...
The four main books discussing the case don't have this nugget of information. Claire Powell tells us Sheila was thrilled to meet Christine Jay at Heathrow Airport, the experience seeming to kindle a flame as she appreciated the physical similarities. It would be interesting to read the correspondence which they exchanged when the birth mother returned to Canada several days later.
Title: Re: 'Ignore the contents of this letter' at 'peril' ...
Post by: lookout on August 15, 2022, 10:04:AM
Wasn't a phone-call from Christine expected on the night of the murders ? Did it happen, if it's been alleged that no phone records were available then ? We don't know,do we ?
Title: Re: 'Ignore the contents of this letter' at 'peril' ...
Post by: mike tesko on August 15, 2022, 12:21:PM
The four main books discussing the case don't have this nugget of information. Claire Powell tells us Sheila was thrilled to meet Christine Jay at Heathrow Airport, the experience seeming to kindle a flame as she appreciated the physical similarities. It would be interesting to read the correspondence which they exchanged when the birth mother returned to Canada several days later.

'Christine Jay' isn't the 'biological birth mother' of 'Sheila', she was/is her 'legal birth mother'. 'Sheilas' natural (biological) birth mother' is /was 'Diane Elizabeth MOUGHTON' whilst 'June Bamber' is / was 'Sheila Caffells' 'adoptive birth mother'..
Title: Re: 'Ignore the contents of this letter' at 'peril' ...
Post by: Steve_uk on August 15, 2022, 12:50:PM
'Christine Jay' isn't the 'biological birth mother' of 'Sheila', she was/is her 'legal birth mother'. 'Sheilas' natural (biological) birth mother' is /was 'Diane Elizabeth MOUGHTON' whilst 'June Bamber' is / was 'Sheila Caffells' 'adoptive birth mother'..
Ms. Houghton may be mistaken; we have no way of knowing. Eric George Jay was a chaplain, which might explain his granddaughter's religiosity. It would also explain why he chose the Bambers, given his and Nevill's connection with the RAF in World War Two.
Title: Re: 'Ignore the contents of this letter' at 'peril' ...
Post by: mike tesko on August 15, 2022, 01:41:PM
Ms. Houghton may be mistaken; we have no way of knowing.

The 'existence of two versions of a birth certicate', each one 'containing different dates of birth', with 'around about a 3 months conflict' [ between both], fits 'the legal requirement' of 'adoption law involving young children'! A simple formula for determining 'which of the two date of birth references, relate to 'the identity of the real biological birth mother', and 'which one is playing the role' of the 'legal birth mother',  [within the legal system in operation] involves (a) the 'earliest recorded date of birth' recorded in 'the certificate', between both conflicting dates, and (b) that there is around a three month gap between the latest recorded date of birth, and the earliest..

I am afraid that 'Christine Jay' is or 'was not' the 'natural biological birth mother', of or, to 'Sheila Caffell'. 'She'  [in fact] was 'only playing the role' of her 'legal birth mother'.

BUT...

'Diane Moughton' was 'Sheilas' natural 'biological birth mother', as sure as 'night follows day', and  'day proceeds the night'!

I do not think I could in some way, be 'mistaken'!

'Somebody', or 'anybody' (for that matter)  who may be 'remotely interested' in 'establishing the stone cold truth', of this matter - [please] try and obtain 'a true copy of the child's birth certificate' which 'confirms' that 'Diane Moughton' gave birth to, and 'put her child up for adoption'. Simply, try and get 'That' birth certificate' from records!

'Good luck' to anyone taking me up on this exercise..
Title: Re: 'Ignore the contents of this letter' at 'peril' ...
Post by: mike tesko on August 15, 2022, 02:15:PM
In such cases as these, involving an 'adoption process' [identifying the biological birth father] cannot be defined in the original [recorded] birth certificate! Similarly, neither can the identity of the true biological  father also be entered into the second version of the 'legal birth mothers' version of the 2nd (issued) legal birth mothers  certificate!

It is with this in mind, that although it is accepted that both 'Jeremy' and 'Sheila' were 'officially adoptees', and the rather curious matter of the alleged 'identities of their biological birth parents'. These have been nominated as follows :-

In the case of the identity of 'Jeremy Bambers' natural 'biological birth parents', the 'mother' was 'a vicar's daughter, 'Juliet Dorothy Wheeler' and in the case of 'Jeremy Bambers' true 'biological birth father is:- army Sargeant, 'Major Leslie Brian Marsham'.
Title: Re: 'Ignore the contents of this letter' at 'peril' ...
Post by: mike tesko on August 15, 2022, 02:38:PM
It is a well known protocol of 'not naming' the 'biological birth father' if 'the young child' is adopted', only the identity of a female who takes on the role of being the child's 'legal birth mother' (as recorded in the 2nd issued birth certificate. With this in mind, how could the identity of both biological parents be recorded in the version of the child's 'legal birth mother' and 'father'? Since 'such a practice is forbidden in accepted protocols involving an adoptive child'...
Title: Re: 'Ignore the contents of this letter' at 'peril' ...
Post by: mike tesko on August 16, 2022, 12:47:PM
I wonder if Christine told Sheila the identity of her father.?

Hi Lookout,

'She' couldn't [have] 'because' of two factors, (1) 'Christine Jay' was not ['Sheila Caffells'] natural, 'biological', 'birth mother', and as such, 'she would never have known' the 'identity of the birth father', she only 'held the title' of being ['Sheilas'] her 'legal birth mother'. She was 'simply a participant' in 'the role' [that she played] of being  a 'legal birth mother' in a '[bizzarre] adoption practice' and 'required process' in 'a sex abuse scandal', which required 'specific' and 'necessary measures', if the 'abuse scandal'  was able 'to continue [unrecognised] 'behind the scene'...
Title: Re: 'Ignore the contents of this letter' at 'peril' ...
Post by: Steve_uk on August 16, 2022, 03:43:PM
Hi Lookout,

'She' couldn't [have] 'because' of two factors, (1) 'Christine Jay' was not ['Sheila Caffells'] natural, 'biological', 'birth mother', and as such, 'she would never have known' the [biolohical] 'identity of the birth father', she only 'held the title' of being ['Sheilas'] her 'legal birth mother'. She was 'simply a participant' in 'the role' [that she played] of being  a 'legal birth mother' in a '[bizzarre] adoption practice' and 'required process' in 'a sex abuse scandal', which required 'specific' and 'necessary measures', if the 'abuse scandal'  was able 'to continue [unrecognised] 'behind the scene'...

We don't know this for sure. Why would Crhristine Jay fly transatlantic on a wild goose chase anyway?
Title: Re: 'Ignore the contents of this letter' at 'peril' ...
Post by: mike tesko on August 16, 2022, 05:19:PM
We don't know this for sure. Why would Crhristine Jay fly transatlantic on a wild goose chase anyway?

She, 'did what she felt that she had to do', to see the extent 'that the lies about 'the true identity of the biological birth mother', rather than, 'herself', being 'that', despite 'the role she played out' in the 'sex scandal', of her being the 'legal birth mother' (only) to 'Sheila' [when 'it may never have been', or 'never able to be a proven fact' or [that] 'no such thing', 'had', or 'hadn't', been 'true' beyond belief'!!