Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: smiffy on January 08, 2012, 02:03:PM
-
How did they know no one would come forward with a sighting of JB travelling between WHF and his home on the night of the incident at the relevant times?
They clearly knew something as they went to the lengths of devising plausible ways in which they think JB could have travelled between WHF and his home unseen.
How were they so sure that no one was ever going to come forward and claim a sighting?
Obviously if JB was totally innocent and therefore no one was ever going to claim a sighting this would be a good explanation.
However , how could the relatives be so sure and so sure so early....as in august.
This would even go beyond what police may have been able to tell them at the time ..unless the police knew better as they knew the police killed Sheila.
So it looks like somewhere along the line in august the relatives knew JB to be innocent and they knew key truths about who really killed Sheila to be able to exclude JB from being seen moving between WHF and his home.
They either knew from good information that the police killed Sheila or that they themselves were implicated in the murders and thus gained the information from guilty knowledge.
-
How did they know no one would come forward with a sighting of JB travelling between WHF and his home on the night of the incident at the relevant times?
They clearly knew something as they went to the lengths of devising plausible ways in which they think JB could have travelled between WHF and his home unseen.
How were they so sure that no one was ever going to come forward and claim a sighting?
Obviously if JB was totally innocent and therefore no one was ever going to claim a sighting this would be a good explanation.
However , how could the relatives be so sure and so sure so early....as in august.
This would even go beyond what police may have been able to tell them at the time ..unless the police knew better as they knew the police killed Sheila.
So it looks like somewhere along the line in august the relatives knew JB to be innocent and they knew key truths about who really killed Sheila to be able to exclude JB from being seen moving between WHF and his home.
They either knew from good information that the police killed Sheila or that they themselves were implicated in the murders and thus gained the information from guilty knowledge.
Since, it becomes clear that relatives were receiving inside information from police officers about what took place and what was found upon entry into the farmhouse, it remains possible that relatives got wind of the fact that Sheila did not die, until after firearms officers had got into the building...
-
How did they know no one would come forward with a sighting of JB travelling between WHF and his home on the night of the incident at the relevant times?
They clearly knew something as they went to the lengths of devising plausible ways in which they think JB could have travelled between WHF and his home unseen.
How were they so sure that no one was ever going to come forward and claim a sighting?
Obviously if JB was totally innocent and therefore no one was ever going to claim a sighting this would be a good explanation.
However , how could the relatives be so sure and so sure so early....as in august.
This would even go beyond what police may have been able to tell them at the time ..unless the police knew better as they knew the police killed Sheila.
So it looks like somewhere along the line in august the relatives knew JB to be innocent and they knew key truths about who really killed Sheila to be able to exclude JB from being seen moving between WHF and his home.
They either knew from good information that the police killed Sheila or that they themselves were implicated in the murders and thus gained the information from guilty knowledge.
Good thinking Batman!
-
and why looking for witneses who saw him going towards whf.
at the time he was supposed to have done it there must have been people driving down that way.
aand if he was on a biycle wearing a wetsuit i think there be some moterists who would have noticed him.
-
How did they know no one would come forward with a sighting of JB travelling between WHF and his home on the night of the incident at the relevant times?
They clearly knew something as they went to the lengths of devising plausible ways in which they think JB could have travelled between WHF and his home unseen.
How were they so sure that no one was ever going to come forward and claim a sighting?
Obviously if JB was totally innocent and therefore no one was ever going to claim a sighting this would be a good explanation.
However , how could the relatives be so sure and so sure so early....as in august.
This would even go beyond what police may have been able to tell them at the time ..unless the police knew better as they knew the police killed Sheila.
So it looks like somewhere along the line in august the relatives knew JB to be innocent and they knew key truths about who really killed Sheila to be able to exclude JB from being seen moving between WHF and his home.
They either knew from good information that the police killed Sheila or that they themselves were implicated in the murders and thus gained the information from guilty knowledge.
Im sorry,I cant buy the police killed SC theory. SC killing herself whilst in the prescence of Police would be much more embarresing I would of thought and much more difficult to explain I would think.
-
i dont ethere but smiffy does a good about the relatives knew this.
-
Im sorry,I cant buy the police killed SC theory. SC killing herself whilst in the prescence of Police would be much more embarresing I would of thought and much more difficult to explain I would think.
I believe something went wrong inside WHF after the police entered and whatever that was resulted in some form of cover up. I suspect the police involved went along with that cover up as they saw little or no harm resulting from it. As far as they were concerned it was an open and shut case of four murders and a suicide. Having engaged in a cover up, when the nature of the investigation changed it was too difficult for the police officers involved to turn back.
What went wrong can only be the subject of guess work unless one of the police officers comes forward. Possibly one of them has. As I have said before I do not believe that a police officer shot Sheila with a police firearm. However I am not able to rule out the possibility either of Sheila firing the second and fatal shot after the police had entered the house, or even of the second shot being fired accidentally as a police officer touched the rifle either to make it safe/remove it or to check Sheila for signs of life. I accept that there is no direct evidence for either of these alternatives but either are are consisent with the known facts.
I also believe that at some stage Sheila was on the bed and that photographs were taken of her in that position.
-
I believe something went wrong inside WHF after the police entered and whatever that was resulted in some form of cover up. I suspect the police involved went along with that cover up as they saw little or no harm resulting from it. As far as they were concerned it was an open and shut case of four murders and a suicide. Having engaged in a cover up, when the nature of the investigation changed it was too difficult for the police officers involved to turn back.
What went wrong can only be the subject of guess work unless one of the police officers comes forward. Possibly one of them has. As I have said before I do not believe that a police officer shot Sheila with a police firearm. However I am not able to rule out the possibility either of Sheila firing the second and fatal shot after the police had entered the house, or even of the second shot being fired accidentally as a police officer touched the rifle either to make it safe/remove it or to check Sheila for signs of life. I accept that there is no direct evidence for either of these alternatives but either are are consisent with the known facts.
I also believe that at some stage Sheila was on the bed and that photographs were taken of her in that position.
Your belief that the body of Sheila was on the bed at some stage is absolutely correct, and police for one reason or another moved her body to the floor...
-
Your belief that the body of Sheila was on the bed at some stage is absolutely correct, and police for one reason or another moved her body to the floor...
My theory on this Mike (and before anyone piles in I admit I do not have evidence to prove this) is that Sheila shot hereself lying on the bed. The police moved her onto the floor, possibly to attempt resuscitation (i.e. on a hard surface). Subsequently, possibly as part of the "informatives", they moved her back onto the bed. The photographs produced as part of the trial bundle only showed Sheila on the floor, which depicted the scene as the police had staged it.
-
My theory on this Mike (and before anyone piles in I admit I do not have evidence to prove this) is that Sheila shot hereself lying on the bed. The police moved her onto the floor, possibly to attempt resuscitation (i.e. on a hard surface). Subsequently, possibly as part of the "informatives", they moved her back onto the bed. The photographs produced as part of the trial bundle only showed Sheila on the floor, which depicted the scene as the police had staged it.
You are correct about Sheila's body being on the bed, and that it was subsequently moved to the floor, and that the only photographs produced as part of the case against Jeremy were some of those which were taken when Sheila's body was on the floor, not on the bed. It should also be said, that not all the photographs taken of Sheila's body on the floor were disclosed at the time of the trial, so the defence had no way of knowing the things we all now know...
It did not help matters, when a false photograhic record was produced by PC Bird (SOC), who produced the so called MASTER COPY ALBUM containing 223 pictures, whereas, there existed another top secret album containing 581 pictures which was known as THE SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM. If PC Bird had not contributed to this deception I think Jeremy's legal team would have been able to work it out back then at the trial in October 1986, that police had stage managed Sheila's body in the bedroom...
I think PC Bird got away with doing what he did because a large number of the other photographs which he did not include in hi8s MASTER COPY ALBUM (223) were taken by training officers involved in the stage managing of Sheila's body at the scene, involving Sheila's body being on the bed, and the fact that the second shot was not inflicted until after the police surgeon, Dr Craig, had confirmed Sheila to already be dead, by 8:44am...
-
certainly an eye witness to bamber coming from or going to whf would have made much more convincing evidence than a jilted girlfriend.
so why were neather the realatives or the police trying to find one.
-
certainly an eye witness to bamber coming from or going to whf would have made much more convincing evidence than a jilted girlfriend.
so why were neather the realatives or the police trying to find one.
They did, but the information provided by the relatives was not confirmed to be true - a statement or a report exists about this in the file...
-
They did, but the information provided by the relatives was not confirmed to be true - a statement or a report exists about this in the file...
What does it say Mike? To help out a lazy turd like me from looking it up.
-
did the police appeal for witness themselves.
-
What does it say Mike? To help out a lazy turd like me from looking it up.
Relatives passed on information to the police that a lorry driver had seen Jeremy crouching in the side of the lane near to the farm, on evening of 6th August 1985...
-
did the police appeal for witness themselves.
Yes, they made very extensive enquiries, and checked everything out once the nature of the investigation changed from SC/688/85 to SC/786/85 (September 985)...
-
Relatives passed on information to the police that a lorry driver had seen Jeremy crouching in the side of the lane near to the farm, on evening of 6th August 1985...
Was this lorry driver ever called as a witness?
-
Was this lorry driver ever called as a witness?
He was spoken to by the police and denied ever saying to a person who put the information forward that he had said such a thing at all, to anybody...
Police traced a large number of vehicles that had been seen in the vicinity of whf and Pages lane on 6th and 7th August 1985, including the lorry driver in question, but no useful information came from such enquiries....
-
Relatives passed on information to the police that a lorry driver had seen Jeremy crouching in the side of the lane near to the farm, on evening of 6th August 1985...
I wonder if this is the kind of stuff being pm'd between guilty camp posters and waverers. I've had a theory about this for some time. I bet this is not the only relative inspired allegation doing the rounds on the quiet.
-
I wonder if this is the kind of stuff being pm'd between guilty camp posters and waverers. I've had a theory about this for some time. I bet this is not the only relative inspired allegation doing the rounds on the quiet.
The lorry driver in question was traced, as i say, he apparently spent the night of 6th August 1985, parked up somewhere along the Malden road, but saw nothing suspicious
-
I think that RWB influenced the rest of the family to turn against JB. I do not need to remind you of the reasons. As a prompt I will just say MONEY.
-
This is the first ive heard about a lorry driver seeing someone crouching behind a hedge or whatever.
-
This is the first ive heard about a lorry driver seeing someone crouching behind a hedge or whatever.
Probably a poacher having a dump Andrea. ;D
-
Probably a poacher having a dump Andrea. ;D
wonder what he wiped his arse on? ???
-
Relatives passed on information to the police that a lorry driver had seen Jeremy crouching in the side of the lane near to the farm, on evening of 6th August 1985...
Appears to be the relatives telling lies or hearing chinese whispers and reporting them etc.
Yet another huge question mark to further undermine their claims and another point in assessing the credibility and reliability of their evidence.
-
Relatives passed on information to the police that a lorry driver had seen Jeremy crouching in the side of the lane near to the farm, on evening of 6th August 1985...
Any evidence of this, or is it complete nonesense?
Judging from what information is contained in the various relatives statements, notes and diaries, I find it completely inconceivable that this happened but didn't get recorded.
Unless somebody can show me otherwise, I think I'm going to have to but this down to yet another Tesko Tall Story. ::)
-
Any evidence of this, or is it complete nonesense?
Judging from what information is contained in the various relatives statements, notes and diaries, I find it completely inconceivable that this happened but didn't get recorded.
Unless somebody can show me otherwise, I think I'm going to have to but this down to yet another Tesko Tall Story. ::)
If would be good to see where this information came from? I have already spoken about the growth of rumours in my post in the off topic thread.
-
Appears to be the relatives telling lies or hearing chinese whispers and reporting them etc.
Yet another huge question mark to further undermine their claims and another point in assessing the credibility and reliability of their evidence.
Or, it could just be complete bollocks.
-
Any evidence of this, or is it complete nonesense?
Judging from what information is contained in the various relatives statements, notes and diaries, I find it completely inconceivable that this happened but didn't get recorded.
Unless somebody can show me otherwise, I think I'm going to have to but this down to yet another Tesko Tall Story. ::)
Are you 100% certain that all relatives' notes and diaries were contemporaneous and not in any way concocted or altered after the fact? I only ask because three of the main prosecution witnesses all seem to have kept diaries / notes. When I look at Stan Jones, I do not feel overly comfortable with all this diary / notes stuff. There's a Rat away somewhere. Or perhaps a Haddock?
-
Are you 100% certain that all relatives' notes and diaries were contemporaneous and not in any way concocted or altered after the fact? I only ask because three of the main prosecution witnesses all seem to have kept diaries / notes. When I look at Stan Jones, I do not feel overly comfortable with all this diary / notes stuff. There's a Rat away somewhere. Or perhaps a Haddock?
That is a completely different subject to that which my post is addressing. My post is addressing that in my opinion, if any of the relatives had knowledge of Jeremy being seen crouched at the side of the road on the night of the murders then that information would have found its way into at least one of their witness statements, personal notes or diaries.
Whether you believe that the notes and/or diaries are contemporaneous records, or not, is irrelevant.
-
Are you 100% certain that all relatives' notes and diaries were contemporaneous and not in any way concocted or altered after the fact? I only ask because three of the main prosecution witnesses all seem to have kept diaries / notes. When I look at Stan Jones, I do not feel overly comfortable with all this diary / notes stuff. There's a Rat away somewhere. Or perhaps a Haddock?
Or Red Herrings - there's a good catch on here ;D
-
That is a completely different subject to that which my post is addressing. My post is addressing that in my opinion, if any of the relatives had knowledge of Jeremy being seen crouched at the side of the road on the night of the murders then that information would have found its way into at least one of their witness statements, personal notes or diaries.
Whether you believe that the notes and/or diaries are contemporaneous records, or not, is irrelevant.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree because I believe it may be potentially relevant. Since there may be a reason why it is omitted from such notes and diaries (i.e. other than the reason that it simply didn't happen).
-
Or Red Herrings - there's a good catch on here ;D
'The one that got away' :D
-
Then we'll have to agree to disagree because I believe it may be potentially relevant. Since there may be a reason why it is omitted from such notes and diaries (i.e. other than the reason that it simply didn't happen).
Sorry, but I think you are right, we will have to disagree. Basically (in my opinion) there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the relatives stated that Jeremy had been seen on the night of the murders crouching behind a hedge. Nothing, nilch, zero, zip, except for Mikes word, which quite frankly means very little to me either.
Bearing that in mind, I'm not going to enter into discussions about why something may not be recorded, when there is no evidence that the 'something' happened in the first place.
One final observation, if the relatives lied about a lorry driver witnessing Jeremy crouched behind a hedge, then how is it possible that the police managed to trace that lorry driver? I think if you substitute 'complete bollocks' instead of where it says red herring, you may be a little closer to reality. ::)
-
Sorry, but I think you are right, we will have to disagree. Basically (in my opinion) there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the relatives stated that Jeremy had been seen on the night of the murders crouching behind a hedge. Nothing, nilch, zero, zip, except for Mikes word, which quite frankly means very little to me either.
Bearing that in mind, I'm not going to enter into discussions about why something may not be recorded, when there is no evidence that the 'something' happened in the first place.
One final observation, if the relatives lied about a lorry driver witnessing Jeremy crouched behind a hedge, then how is it possible that the police managed to trace that lorry driver? I think if you substitute 'complete bollocks' instead of where it says red herring, you may be a little closer to reality. ::)
Erm. Hartley. Please don't think I'm trying to pick and argument here. It's probably the fact that I am slow in understanding. But first you seem to say that there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the relatives stated that Jeremy had been seen on the night of the murders. And then in the last paragraph you say that if the relatives lied about witnessing Jeremy crouching behind a hedge then how is it possible that they were able to trace the lorry driver?
So did they state that Jeremy had been seen, or didn't they say?
-
Shaw said ' he as left hole's for fool's to fall into ' or word's to that effect !!
-
Erm. Hartley. Please don't think I'm trying to pick and argument here. It's probably the fact that I am slow in understanding. But first you seem to say that there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the relatives stated that Jeremy had been seen on the night of the murders. And then in the last paragraph you say that if the relatives lied about witnessing Jeremy crouching behind a hedge then how is it possible that they were able to trace the lorry driver?
So did they state that Jeremy had been seen, or didn't they say?
No worries Grahame. But that is precisely the point I am making.
Mike said that the relatives lied to the police that Jeremy was seen by a lorry driver.
I am saying this is in my opinion untrue and challenged Mike to prove it.
Mike then said that the lorry driver was found and questioned.
I am saying that if the relatives lied to the police then how could there be a lorry driver to trace?
--------------------------------------------------------
-
No worries Grahame. But that is precisely the point I am making.
Mike said that the relatives lied to the police that Jeremy was seen by a lorry driver.
I am saying this is in my opinion untrue and challenged Mike to prove it.
Mike then said that the lorry driver was found and questioned.
I am saying that if the relatives lied to the police then how could there be a lorry driver to trace?
--------------------------------------------------------
Oh right. You were quoting Mike? It all makes sense now. I'll just get another cup of cocoa. :)
-
If lorry driver denied saying such a thing, then relatives were lying when they told police that such a lorry driver existed...
-
If lorry driver denied saying such a thing, then relatives were lying when they told police that such a lorry driver existed...
You will work out your own contradiction eventually. :-\
-
Relatives lied when they told police a lorry driver saw Jeremy crouching down in the side of the road on evening of 6th August 1985, because lorry driver who was traced, denied that he had seen any such thing...
Some idiots would not know the truth if it hit them in the face...
-
If lorry driver denied saying such a thing, then relatives were lying when they told police that such a lorry driver existed...
Where can I find the original account of this Mike?
-
Relatives lied when they told police a lorry driver saw Jeremy crouching down in the side of the road on evening of 6th August 1985, because lorry driver who was traced, denied that he had seen any such thing...
Some idiots would not know the truth if it hit them in the face...
If they lied about a lorry driver, then surely there would not be a lorry driver to trace? ???
In any event it's all irrelevant because you can't prove to people that the relatives made such claims, nor is it relied on in any capacity in regards to the case against Jeremy Bamber.
-
If they lied about a lorry driver, then surely there would not be a lorry driver to trace? ???
In any event it's all irrelevant because you can't prove to people that the relatives made such claims, nor is it relied on in any capacity in regards to the case against Jeremy Bamber.
I believe it was a case of the relatives possibly speaking to a lorry driver and attributing claims to him that he never made in order to help make a false case against JB.
And it is relevant as it undermines the credibility and reliability of those relatives.
-
I believe it was a case of the relatives possibly speaking to a lorry driver and attributing claims to him that he never made in order to help make a false case against JB.
And it is relevant as it undermines the credibility and reliability of those relatives.
What allows you to come to that conclusion? Bearing in mind that there is no evidence of this whole incident in the first place?
Plus, which relative was it? They are often grouped together but they are individuals, so it would be interesting to hear who allegedly made the claim.
Another thing to contemplate is that does anybody really think it likely that one of them would claim something which could so easily be checked and found wanting?
I maintain, that it is in my opinion, untrue.
-
What allows you to come to that conclusion? Bearing in mind that there is no evidence of this whole incident in the first place?
Plus, which relative was it? They are often grouped together but they are individuals, so it would be interesting to hear who allegedly made the claim.
Another thing to contemplate is that does anybody really think it likely that one of them would claim something which could so easily be checked and found wanting?
I maintain, that it is in my opinion, untrue.
Just another of those rumours it appears? Jeremy was not seen by anyone that night.
-
so, just to be clear, the 'family', knowing full well that JB had worked on the farm all day and not needing to creep around in a ditch(!!!) MAY, seemingly because Mike says so, MAY have told the police that a lorry driver saw JB in a ditch, and because having traced lots of cars and trucks, and no lorry driver reported seeing JB, then this is absolute proof that the family told a lie? Nice to see them get such a fair hearing!!
-
so, just to be clear, the 'family', knowing full well that JB had worked on the farm all day and not needing to creep around in a ditch(!!!) MAY, seemingly because Mike says so, MAY have told the police that a lorry driver saw JB in a ditch, and because having traced lots of cars and trucks, and no lorry driver reported seeing JB, then this is absolute proof that the family told a lie? Nice to see them get such a fair hearing!!
It was my understanding that they hadn't had contact with the Bambers since Christmas. Is that correct?
-
It was my understanding that they hadn't had contact with the Bambers since Christmas. Is that correct?
Lets see how vidvic anwers that.
I know your understanding to be wrong grahame as RWB had been to whf at least...and it seems to be only him from the paperwork available.
-
Lets see how vidvic anwers that.
I know your understanding to be wrong grahame as RWB had been to whf at least...and it seems to be only him from the paperwork available.
Peter Eaton and Nevill spoke or saw each other very regularly because of the farms. I wont say daily but many times a month. Peter often did business with Nevill. Pam and June saw each other very regularly, at least monthly. Ann was quite close to Sheila, they wrote to each other but didn't see each other that regularly as Sheila lived in London and Ann had her own children to bring up. Ann's children and the twins are similar ages so it was a good match up.
-
Peter Eaton and Nevill spoke or saw each other very regularly because of the farms. I wont say daily but many times a month. Peter often did business with Nevill. Pam and June saw each other very regularly, at least monthly. Ann was quite close to Sheila, they wrote to each other but didn't see each other that regularly as Sheila lived in London and Ann had her own children to bring up. Ann's children and the twins are similar ages so it was a good match up.
Thank you for clarifying that Vic. But didn't I read somewhere (it may have been in one of Ann's statements) I can't recall where for the moment? That she stated that she hadn't been to the Bamber's home since Christmas that last year? I was thinking rather of them making a song and dance over a scratch on the mantle piece which could have been made months earlier? I'm just wondering why they noticed a scratch, which personally I wouldn't think twice about in my house and I live here. It isn't as if the Bamber's house was that tidy so you'd notice such little things like a scratch? So why would Ann who said she hadn't been to the house since Christmas notice such a thing?
-
Also further information can be seen in the Anns 1991 COLP statement.
Link to whole document: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443
A composite extract highlighting the point is attached below.
-
Also further information can be seen in the Anns 1991 COLP statement.
Link to whole document: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443
A composite extract highlighting the point is attached below.
Yes it does appear to contradict what I said doesn't it? Although I'm sure I read it in someone's statement?
-
Yes it does appear to contradict what I said doesn't it? Although I'm sure I read it in someone's statement?
The only relative confirmed to have gone to whf was RWB it seems , Contact with the Bambers all taking place away from whf except for once it seems by RWB and one visit by Pargetter since xmas 1984.
-
The only relative confirmed to have gone to whf was RWB it seems , Contact with the Bambers all taking place away from whf except for once it seems by RWB and one visit by Pargetter since xmas 1984.
Have you got a reference for that smiffy? I can't find where I read it.
-
The only relative confirmed to have gone to whf was RWB it seems , Contact with the Bambers all taking place away from whf except for once it seems by RWB and one visit by Pargetter since xmas 1984.
I have no evidence to show that my mother and father visited here on Christmas day, well, nothing written down, but honestly, they did!! Nothing confirmed though........
-
Also further information can be seen in the Anns 1991 COLP statement.
Link to whole document: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443
A composite extract highlighting the point is attached below.
That is not what I would describe as a close family relationship. Her only regular monthly contact with NB was at the GM for the caravan park or advice about farming matters. That is more of a business relationship would you not say? She only remembers June Bamber because of her visits to her grandmother. I don't think she knew the goings on at WHF at all.
-
Peter Eaton and Nevill spoke or saw each other very regularly because of the farms. I wont say daily but many times a month. Peter often did business with Nevill. Pam and June saw each other very regularly, at least monthly. Ann was quite close to Sheila, they wrote to each other but didn't see each other that regularly as Sheila lived in London and Ann had her own children to bring up. Ann's children and the twins are similar ages so it was a good match up.
But Ann said she couldn´t go identify the bodies, because she couldn´t tell the twins apart. She couldn´t have known them that well.
-
That's because she had probably never seen them or only as babies maybe. Everything I read about this family who claim to be "close" proves that they were far from it. I do not think monthly (maybe longer) contact indicates a close family. Quite the opposite. Somebody on here, sorry I can't remember who, describe JB as the cuckoo in the nest and I could not have found a better analogy myself. An adopted boy who stood to inherit the family fortune- don't tell me that the Boutflours and Eatons weren't furious about that.
-
But Ann said she couldn´t go identify the bodies, because she couldn´t tell the twins apart. She couldn´t have known them that well.
Not a problem for mugford though was it not, a non family member , how on earth could the police allowed this i will never know.
-
Not a problem for mugford though was it not, a non family member , how on earth could the police allowed this i will never know.
Again, sorry but I think this might be a forum myth. I don't think that JM identified the twins. She identified NB, JB and SC but I believe that Colin Caffel identified the twins.
-
But Ann said she couldn´t go identify the bodies, because she couldn´t tell the twins apart. She couldn´t have known them that well.
Where did you get this info from? It's not what I was told happened.
-
Colin didnt identify the twins, he couldnt face it, who can blame him?
I think it was jm that identified all of them.
-
i think Anne was sat outside in a car waiting for julie, if i remember correctly.
-
Where did you get this info from? It's not what I was told happened.
Vic, you've left this late to challenge. It's been mentioned on here about 20 times. Hartley must have picked up on it, surely?
-
Colin didnt identify the twins, he couldnt face it, who can blame him?
I think it was jm that identified all of them.
Colin did not say goodbye to the twins at the funeral home, his book may point to he wished he had , only my view.
-
Again it just shows how dangerous these forums can be at perpetuating myths and untruths because I was under the impression that Colin had identified the twins by describing "distinctive marks" upon them, like birth marks maybe?
-
Colin did not say goodbye to the twins at the funeral home, his book may point to he wished he had , only my view.
thats correct, Colin never saw the twins after their deaths, the last time he saw the twins, they were alive.
-
Again it just shows how dangerous these forums can be at perpetuating myths and untruths because I was under the impression that Colin had identified the twins by describing "distinctive marks" upon them, like birth marks maybe?
I can recommend to you a book that will help very much, In search of the Rainbows end by colin caffell, you will have some answers in your reading, ive not finished reading the copy i have but i have shed tears and most likely shed some more, Colins Book is not easy to find but very moving when you read .
-
thats correct, Colin never saw the twins after their deaths, the last time he saw the twins, they were alive.
I think he said that he wanted to remember them as they were. But I can't be sure? It's a long time since I read his book.
-
I think thats what he said , i dont think in his heart he could see them together in one childs casket, he does say later he was in two minds after, i think it would have made him very ill Colin needed his strength still for the twins funerals .
-
I think thats what he said , i dont think in his heart he could see them together in one childs casket, he does say later he was in two minds after, i think it would have made him very ill Colin needed his strength still for the twins funerals .
I feel very sorry for Colin. I know that Jeremy has spent most of his adult life in prison for what I personally believe to be for a crime he did not commit. But Colin to my mind has suffered the greater loss.
-
Vic, you've left this late to challenge. It's been mentioned on here about 20 times. Hartley must have picked up on it, surely?
Hello Rochy, what can I do for you, you appear to have mentioned me again.
-
I feel very sorry for Colin. I know that Jeremy has spent most of his adult life in prison for what I personally believe to be for a crime he did not commit. But Colin to my mind has suffered the greater loss.
Colin has suffered the greater loss Grahame , but after all life hit him with he carried on and today is a gifted and well respected a truly unique and talented man Colin had to go on for the twins,for Jeremy there is still time for some kind of life again its very close .
-
Colin did not identify the twins bodies.He wanted to remember them as they were.Poor man,my heart goes out to him.
Julie offered to identify all the victims as neither Jeremy or the other family members did not wish to,which is perfectly understandable.
It has been stated,possibly in Wilkes book,that Ann had stated that she wouldnt be able to tell the twins apart anyway.
Ann sat outside in the police car whilst Mugford went in.
Mugford was described as being very composed whilst in the mortuary and also afterwards on the way home.It hadnt appeared to have affected her,which to me seems really odd if she really believed that her own boyfriend was responsible for these tragic loss of lives.
-
Most mortuaries have a viewing room usually its a window type view method you only see the deceased s face there is a purple or blue cover over the deceased, i still find it odd no family member did not identify the deceased,maybee nothing but i have concernes .
-
Hello Rochy, what can I do for you, you appear to have mentioned me again.
I cant even remember posting it Hartley. But I must have thought that if it was the wrong info, then you would have previously challenged it.